Family archive. Bibliography of L's works

(mp3)
collection contents:
Mikhail Osipovich Gershenzon - “Preface”
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev - “Philosophical truth and intellectual truth”
Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov - “Heroism and Asceticism”
Mikhail Osipovich Gershenzon - “Creative self-consciousness”
Alexander Samoilovich Izgoev - “About intelligent youth”
Bogdan Aleksandrovich Kistyakovsky - “In Defense of the Right”
Pyotr Berngardovich Struve - “Intellectuals and Revolution”
Semyon Ludwigovich Frank - “The Ethics of Nihilism”
Bykov about why the Russian intelligentsia was hated. And why hasn’t anything changed in a hundred years? Collection "Milestones". 1909 In the tenth edition of the “One Hundred Lectures” project, Dmitry Bykov talks about the most noisy book of 1909, and perhaps of the entire Silver Age - a collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia “Vekhi”. Why the irreconcilable Lenin and Merezhkovsky agreed in hatred of this book, for which, despite all the attacks on the intelligentsia, we can thank the creators of the collection, why “the fate of Russian citizenship was in question,” why criticism of the intelligentsia has not changed at all in a hundred years, and much more.
Dmitry Bykov’s project “One Hundred Lectures” on Dozhd. The entire history of the 20th century in a hundred literary masterpieces. One year - one book. And one lecture.
transcripts of all lectures on one page
- Hello, dear friends! We are now going to talk to you as part of the “100 years - 100 books” project about the most noisy book of 1909. I think, by and large, that this is also the most noisy journalistic and philosophical book of the entire Russian Silver Age, and, perhaps, of all Russian journalism of the 20th century. We are talking about the collection “Milestones”, which was written for the most part in 1908, was published in the spring of 1909 and became so famous that the main Russian cadet Miliukov traveled to many cities in Russia with a series of lectures on “Vekhi”, and, according to the recollections of most participants in the collection, he had no shortage of listeners and polemicists.
I refer those who wish to trace the history of this context to Sapov’s rather interesting article “Around “Vekhi” (Controversy of 1909–1910)”, a link to which, by the way, is also on Wikipedia. This collection received critical attack from two irreconcilable and, perhaps, the most influential thinkers of this era: Lenin and Merezhkovsky, who found it very difficult to agree on anything. But they agreed on their hatred of Vekhi. Lenin called “Vekhi” “a brilliant example of liberal revisionism,” but for Merezhkovsky it is also, in general, a renegade book.
This collection of articles about the intelligentsia is very explainable typologically. In Russia, after every major revolution, there is always a collection of renegade articles. This is “Milestones”, this is “Change of Milestones”, when after the Russian revolution several Eurasianists, thinkers who see Russia primarily as an empire, led by Ustryalov, published a collection saying: “Yes, a revolution took place in Russia, but our duty is submit to Stalin as the Red Tsar.” These are the collections “From the Depths” and, in particular, “From Under the Blocks,” a 1972 collection in which Solzhenitsyn’s famous article “Humility and Self-Restraint as Categories of National Life” already appeared. You see, the intelligentsia needs to humble itself and limit itself, and not at all arrange global changes.

In fact, many, including Sergei Frank, one of the participants in the collection, recall that initially the idea of ​​the collection was different. Gershenzon, to whom the idea belonged, was going to criticize the intelligentsia from the position of its excessive complexity and distance from the people. As a result, the rest began to attack her for her excessive simplicity, lack of education, and narrowness. Berdyaev attacks because the intelligentsia does not know philosophy and history. His article is called “Philosophical truth and intellectual truth,” that is, it shows all the pettiness of intellectual truths.

Gershenzon in his article added to what he later had to repeatedly disavow. This quote accompanies him throughout his life. Oddly enough, the main event and accomplishment of Gershenzon in his biography was not the wonderful book “The Wisdom of Pushkin,” in which the main Pushkin themes were traced for the first time, but this notorious quote, which says:

“As we are, we not only cannot dream of merging with the people, we must fear them more than all the machinations of power and bless this power, which alone, with its bayonets and prisons, still protects us from the wrath of the people.”

Although it would be necessary, of course, to follow this simple routing, because it is quite obvious that the government is blocking with one hand and inciting with the other, doing everything for the people’s fury and setting these very people against the intelligentsia, although nothing like this would have happened before.

“Vekhi” is good for one thing - it comprehends the very phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia, which before, in general, had not received any comprehension. Gershenzon quite rightly points out in his article that the revolution was mainly not popular. The revolution was an intellectual one. It was Peter I, the father of the Russian intelligentsia and the beginning of its incarnation, who cut a window into Europe from which, as Bulgakov writes in his article, “either poisonous or life-giving air” comes to us. Why it is poisonous is a separate article that deserves special consideration.

The immediate reason for the discussion about the intelligentsia is indicated by the same Bulgakov in the article “Heroism and Asceticism,” as he writes, in reflections on the religious nature of the Russian intelligentsia:

“Russia has gone through a revolution. This revolution did not deliver what was expected of it. The positive gains of the liberation movement still remain, in the opinion of many, to this day at least problematic. Russian society", exhausted by previous stress and failures, is in some kind of numbness, apathy, spiritual confusion, despondency." It seems like everything was written just like yesterday. “Russian statehood does not yet show signs of renewal and strengthening, which are so necessary for it, and, as if in a sleepy kingdom, everything in it has again frozen, shackled by an irresistible slumber. Russian citizenship, marred by capital punishment, an extraordinary increase in crime and a general coarsening of morals, has gone positively backward. Russian literature is flooded with a muddy wave of pornography and sensational products.” Holy truth, and in relation to the present moment too. “There is something to become despondent about and fall into deep doubt about the future of Russia. And, in any case, now, after everything we have experienced, both the naive, somewhat beautiful-hearted Slavophile faith and the rosy utopias of the old Westernism are no longer possible. The revolution called into question the very viability of Russian citizenship and statehood.”

As for statehood, of course, there is no question; it is quite viable, fat and plump, but the fate of Russian citizenship is really in question.

What do they accuse the Russian intelligentsia of? First of all, the Russian intelligentsia has become detached from the life of the people and from its roots, it is terribly far away, “it rushed forward,” as the same Gershenzon writes, but in this breakthrough it became detached. She does not feel, does not understand the roots, does not realize the main thing in Russian life. What is the most important thing in Russian life? It turns out that it is religiosity. This religiosity, humility, deepest moral principle- this is, one might say, beautiful-hearted, but in fact very prudent, skillfully integrated into the flow of populism. It turns out that now we need to learn humility, patience and morality from the people.

This is what Gershenzon, a man far from the stupidest in his generation and, what can I say, probably not the most naive, advises the Russian intellectual in his article “Creative Self-Consciousness”:

“What has our intellectual thought been doing for the last half century? - I’m talking, of course, about the intellectual masses. - A bunch of revolutionaries went from house to house and knocked on every door: “Everyone go outside! It’s a shame to sit at home!” - and all the consciousnesses poured out into the square, lame, blind, armless: not a single one remained at home. For half a century they have been milling about in the square, shouting and quarreling. At home there is dirt, poverty, disorder, but the owner has no time for that. He is in public, he saves people - and it is easier and more entertaining than menial work at home.

No one lived - everyone did (or pretended to do) a public matter. They didn’t even live selfishly, they didn’t rejoice in life, they didn’t freely enjoy its pleasures, but they grabbed pieces in fits and starts and swallowed them almost without chewing, ashamed and at the same time lustful, like a mischievous dog. It was some kind of strange asceticism, not a renunciation of personal sensual life, but a renunciation of its leadership. She walked by herself, through the stump, gloomily and convulsively. Then suddenly the consciousness comes to its senses - then cruel fanaticism flares up at one point: a friend begins to scold him for drinking a bottle of champagne, a circle appears with some ascetic purpose. But in general, the life of the intelligentsia is terrible, a true abomination of desolation: not the slightest discipline, not the slightest consistency even in the external; the day goes by who knows what, today it’s like this, and tomorrow, by inspiration, everything is upside down; idleness, sloppiness, Homeric sloppiness in personal life, naive dishonesty in work, in public affairs, an unbridled tendency towards despotism and a complete lack of respect for someone else’s personality, before the authorities - either a proud challenge, or compliance - not collective, I’m not talking about it - but personal."

It feels like it was written by some collective Ulyana Skoybeda. Really, what is it? Intellectuals are coming to teach the people! You put your house in order, wipe off the dust, cook something, put things in order in your personal life, otherwise you’re killing your cohabitants like sheep! Look at you! What is this, who and what are you teaching?! And our government spends all day protecting you from the wrath of the people and tirelessly providing you with oil and gas!

All of the current level of argumentation has already been absolutely predicted in Vekhi. The intelligentsia is to blame for the fact that its education is inconsistent and narrow, it does not know how to restore order at home, it does not know philosophy and does not want to know it. She has cut herself off from the people and, most importantly, is terribly intolerant of strangers. Intolerance! It is necessary in this creative consciousness... we say: why are you such despots in relation to other people's opinions? This is being written in Russia, where the Stolypin reaction is already flourishing with all its might, and the reaction, in Merezhkovsky’s exact words, is not superficial, not temporary. This is our flesh and bone. This word is not applicable to us in its proper sense. A reaction always reacts to something, and with us reaction is the basis state life. Only during it does something happen and is done.

And so in 1909, when death sentences were already coming in batches, when Korolenko’s article “Everyday Phenomenon” was written, telling that the death sentence was imposed on absent, on completely insignificant grounds, on any simple slander, moreover, all political cases had already walk through the tribunal without the slightest adherence to formalities. At this very time they call for humility, education and bringing order to home life.

Naturally, when this book appeared, it did not arrive exactly at the time it was intended. At least a year passed, as always happens in Russia, between the first plan to publish articles about the intelligentsia and the publication of the book itself. For this delta, for this difference, public indignation managed to thicken so much and into such apathy, on the one hand, and into such indignation, on the other, those who could still figure something out came, that the book, naturally, gave the impression that it was not torn a bomb, but a bomb that splashed into a swamp. The swamp made a rather noticeable sound.

The problem is that the authors of this book had the best intentions. Generally speaking, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, who called “Vekhi” the main achievement of Russian social thought and he imitated them very often, he said: ““Milestones” come to us as if from the future. We haven’t matured enough for this book yet.” I don’t know whether they have matured or not, but, in general, it is obvious that the intentions of Gershenzon, an honest man, Sergius Bulgakov, a profound philosopher, and even Nikolai Berdyaev, what can I say, sometimes a rather superficial person and terribly verbose, but together with sometimes a very deep thinker - their intentions were good. This was an attempt to reorient the intelligentsia from a political struggle to, if you like, an anthropological one.

It was clear that the revolution was not taking place in political sphere. It is clear that a real revolution must take place in the sphere of spirit and morality. The intelligentsia really needs, before demanding political freedoms, to somehow come to their senses, maybe educate themselves, think about what they actually want. Because when political revolutions took place twice in 1917, it turned out that the country was completely unprepared for any freedom. The proletarian does not need freedom, but a new bureaucracy, which he began to engage in with pleasure. Total Sharikovism, almost universal, also sits in our heads, and great amount the intellectuals turned out to be Shvonders, by and large. This is the tragedy that “Vekhi” called for absolutely healthy things, it would seem, but they called for them at the wrong time! Probably, the main addressee of this appeal should not have been the intelligentsia. The tragedy of the Russian revolution must have occurred to a huge extent due to the fault of the authorities, because it was the authorities who made it inevitable. The authorities have done everything to ensure that people have no patience left, so that they only have a monstrous burning desire to change something immediately, at any cost. This, in fact, is the main tragedy of “Vekhi”. In fact, everything seems to be correct, but in terms of execution, atmosphere and addressee, unfortunately, everything only discredits this glorious idea.

The list of authors is quite well known, and all these authors are quite distinguished people. It is only interesting that, for example, Pyotr Berngardovich Struve, the author of the wonderful article “Intellectuals and Revolution”, the title of which Blok used 9 years later, was a former Marxist. Of course, he was one of the legal, cautious Marxists, but, of course, he also believed in the same social transformations. All these authors, even Sergei Bulgakov, even Izgoev (Lande), the author of the article “On Intelligent Youth” - they all had completely revolutionary illusions for quite a long time. The horror is that “Vekhi” was not caused by a noble desire to slow down the intelligentsia and think about its nature. They are, unfortunately, caused by natural and banal capitulation. It didn't work once, let's never do it again. And exactly the same feelings aroused Solzhenitsyn’s article after the catastrophe of the Russian Thaw of the 60s, “Humility and self-restraint as categories of national life.” For mercy, what kind of humility is he calling for a country that has completely humbled itself, where there is not a single voice against? No, we need humility, the intelligentsia has forgotten, dreamed!

It must be said that the intelligentsia is denigrated so much because it is essentially the only really active person in Russia historical process. There is no one else to turn to. What, to the proletariat? To the peasantry? What is their role in what is happening? Berdyaev and Gershenzon are absolutely right, it was an intellectual revolution. Who else could do it? Some examples of conscious proletarians who very quickly began to be slaughtered in exile, hard labor and police stations? Yes, a small number of these proletarians who had not yet died out from tuberculosis tried to do something, to organize somehow. But basically the Russian revolution, what can I say, was made by the intelligentsia. What did not the intelligentsia do in Russia, may I ask? And why do we have to always say that the intelligentsia has become divorced from the people? “Vekhi”, “Change of Milestones”, and “From Under the Blocks” are built on this. She broke away from him simply due to the fact that she is his best part. In our country they always say: an excellent student, a nerd, an arrogant person, he has broken away from the bulk of the class. Of course, he pulled away because he had A's and he had C's, but should we blame him for this gap? Why is it necessary to forever blame the intelligentsia, the best, smartest, fastest part of society, for their lack of humility? Look, our country is full of this humility! And this was especially noticeable in 1909, of course.

Other authors of this collection, please. Kistyakovsky, the author of perhaps the only balanced article “In Defense of Law,” which says that the Russian intelligentsia has no sense of justice. Excuse me, what kind of legal consciousness can she have when it is absent from power, when power ignores absolutely any rule of law and spreads rot on its opponents? Certainly, major disaster here, as already mentioned, this is Gershenzon’s article “Creative Self-Consciousness,” which plainly said that Russia has not yet matured to creative self-consciousness. It’s scary to say how far she has actually grown. Before long-suffering, before a symphony with power. And that is why, strictly speaking, the fate of most of the authors of the collection was so tragic. Some left Russia on the Philosophical Ship, some ended up in exile, but all of them, in one way or another, ended up victims of Bolshevism. Why? Is it only because Lenin hated this collection? Yes, partly for this reason, but mainly because preaching humility in a rotting society is a disaster. And when before your eyes all the best that this society has is being trampled into the dirt, it is no good to take the side of the state revolutionaries. It is no good to call for self-restraint, self-education and religious humility where all humanity is being trampled underfoot before your eyes. If in Russia the failed, wretched, largely self-confident revolution of 1905 had ended with real changes, and not with that pocket Duma on which so many hopes were pinned, the nightmares of 1917 simply would not have happened, as well as the nightmares of the terror that followed. There is no need to bring it to the last minute. Unfortunately, the authors of the collection “Milestones” did not yet understand this.

There was a question here,

— was there a similar book after 1917?

- It was, and I said about it. This is “Change of Milestones”, in which there were no longer seven, but six authors, published in Prague in 1921. It is still unclear to what extent it was inspired by the Bolsheviks, and to what extent Ustryalov acted independently. By the way, he returned to the Soviet Union, this head of the Smenovekhites, and was shot here, like another Eurasian, I think, the best Russian literary critic of the 20th century, Svyatopolk-Mirsky, whose famous quote about typicality was subsequently appropriated by Malenkov. The author himself was shot, but quotes were used. Mirsky was a brilliant critic. It must be said that all the Smenovekhists and Eurasians, who were close to Sergei Efron, ideologically Tsvetaeva and Alexei Tolstoy, were not mediocre people, they were quite deep people. They were the first to admit that the coup d'état that took place in Russia was a turn not towards freedom, but towards empire. These are very precise words. The question is: should we welcome this turn? It is necessary, of course, that the imperial form is organic for Russia; Stalin is the Red Tsar. This is where Russian Eurasianism came from. The intelligentsia, of course, demands freedom, but it does not understand anything, and we need to reorient the intelligentsia towards the imperial idea. Eurasianism is now very fashionable; by the way, Ilyin, whom Russian officials so often quote today, was very close to Eurasianism ideologically (not organizationally). Lunacharsky wrote that “the intelligentsia gradually came to terms with the obviously inevitable disaster that such an inconvenient revolution represented for its majority. Unfortunately, she didn’t really figure it out, and no subsequent manifestations and sins of the intellectual Sodom are atoned for by the intelligentsia’s righteous people.” By righteous people he understands Smenovekhites. It seems to him that these are the real patriots. They recognize any homeland.

It must be said that Smenovekhov’s collection was one of Lenin’s reference books. Until 1922, when Lenin was still reading, he repeatedly turned to this book, in general, there are quite approving notes from him. Another thing is that Lenin, of course, did not share the imperial orientation of the Smenovekhites, but the fact that one must be with the majority, with the homeland, no matter what they do - he really liked this.

— Why is the border between the people and the intelligentsia, and not between the bearers of values, as in Akunin? Conditionally strong state and humanistic values.

- This is absolutely obvious. Subjectively, you see, the border can be between different intellectuals, relatively speaking, between intellectuals for whom Westernist ideals are above all, and those for whom Slavophile ideals are close. Many, by the way, are trying to draw the border here (now Zakhar Prilepin is doing this, for example). “You understand that Dostoevsky is ours, he is with us! And Pushkin is ours, because he wrote “Slanderers of Russia”! And even Herzen is ours, because he was a Slavophile! And only Akunin and Irtenyev are with you.” May be, good attitude he doesn’t allow him to add me there yet.

Of course, the border is not here. The line is drawn between people with convictions and people with opportunism, and this is precisely the problem. And no matter how terrible it sounds, the people who spoke in “Vekhi”, perhaps, no matter how sincere they were, there was a moment of conjuncture in the publication of this collection, because they sang in one voice with the preachers of the whip and autocracy. They sang in unison with the preachers of surrender. Your personal sincerity does not cancel your desire to sing along with the state at the moment when it tramples the ideals of freedom with its forged boot. I am absolutely convinced that the release of Vekhi was motivated by the desire to become ideologists of the new government. Why do you need any of your police officers? We, we want to become your ideologists! We will teach you how to beautifully justify your reaction! Unfortunately, this moment of conjuncture was there. And Solzhenitsyn - after all, he also always wanted to do more than just fight the authorities. At some point, he wanted to be the ideologist of this government, so he wrote a “Letter to the Leaders Soviet Union" Sakharov probably did not write “Letters to the Leaders of the Soviet Union” because he was separate from them, and Solzhenitsyn was not just in opposition. He wanted to be one of the leaders of the Soviet Union, no matter how terrible it sounds. That is why the collection “Vekhi” seems to me, first of all, an immoral phenomenon. We can argue about ideology later.

And next time we will talk about a phenomenon that is far more rosy - about Nadezhda Buchinskaya, better known as Teffi.

Current page: 1 (book has 5 pages in total)

Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia

Introductory article by Ph.D. A. A. Tesli

© Teslya A. A., introductory article, 2017

© Publishing, design. LLC Group of Companies "RIPOL Classic", 2017

* * *

Andrey Teslya
Intellectuals about the intelligentsia

This collection greatly confused me, for the first time I felt that our century was really coming to an end, that “Vekhi” outlines the slogans of the future, gradually they are now becoming dominant and are protected by science; natural science moves to a metaphysical worldview.

I.V. Hesse. In two centuries. – Berlin, 1937, p. 266

“Vekhi” is one of the most famous texts in Russian intellectual history. And this is one of the difficulties of its perception and interpretation. First of all, it is necessary to highlight two equally false lines of understanding: one part of the public accepted “Vekhi” as a single text, without highlighting individual voices in it, while some of the book’s authors persistently emphasized that it was a collection of articles. Izgoev’s article (due to a delay in submitting the manuscript for publication in the 1st edition, published at the end of the book; in subsequent editions, the arrangement of articles was brought into line with the original plan, in alphabetical order) was perceived by many as a kind of “appendix”, a special opinion, which, in contrast, emphasized the unity of the rest; in one of the first publications dedicated to the new collection, “Moliere’s Doctors” by D. Levin 1
“Speech”, 1909, March 25 and 29.

The main direction of the attack was the contradictions that the critic found between the positions of different authors, then a similar judgment was repeated by the socialist publicist A. Peshekhonov 2
“Russian wealth”, 1909, No. 4.

Mockingly comparing the divergent definitions of “intelligentsia” given by the authors and the accusations they make against them.

Responding to these and similar reproaches, the authors of “Vekhi” (we note that in the public controversy that unfolded after the publication of the collection, mainly P.B. Struve, S.L. Frank and, in to a lesser extent, A.S. Izgoev) actively emphasized that we are talking about a “collection”. The most famous (and long accepted as reliable evidence) was the phrase of P.B. Struve from his article in the Slovo newspaper dated April 25, 1909:

“It should be noted that the collection “Vekhi” was not “edited” by anyone, and I and some of its other participants became acquainted with articles by other authors only after the publication of the book.” 3
Struve P.B. About “Milestones” // “Milestones”: pro et contra / Comp., intro. Art. and comment. V.V. Sapova. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGI, 1998. P. 91.

V.B. Struve wrote to his brother in response to this article: “I cannot help but make a decisive reproach to you. By disavowing Gershenzon’s terrible phrase, you betrayed yourself, that is, for the first time, as far as I know, you became insincere. There was no need to allow this phrase in the collection if you believed that for “tactical” reasons you would have to disavow it. You understand perfectly well that this phrase cannot be put in the same bracket with the whole mass of other deviations in the worldview of the authors. It required either a censor’s pencil, or it was necessary to consistently and courageously reveal its entire “terrible” meaning, its entire “terrible” truth. And no matter what you write, no matter what you say, I cannot give up the inner conviction that you understand both this meaning and this truth. Having told the truth, there was no need to be “embarrassed” and apologize. You Not They told another truth - I don’t know, intentionally or unintentionally: that our intelligentsia was raised on copper pennies, which is why their price is corresponding. In Izgoev’s article one feels that this is unsaid. If you dared to say this, then the “indignation” would know no bounds. We really don’t like unpleasant facts, because of which it is impossible to hold the authorities directly responsible.” 4
Quote By: Sapov V.V. Around “Vekhi” (Controversy of 1909 – 1910) // “Vekhi”: pro et contra... pp. 11 – 12.

“Gershenzon’s terrible phrase,” which P.B. disowned. Struve, is, of course, famous words from the article “Creative Identity”, which was mentioned by almost everyone who spoke or wrote about “Vekhi”:

“As we are, we not only cannot dream of merging with the people, we must fear them more than all the executions of the government and bless this government, which alone, with its bayonets and prisons, still protects us from the wrath of the people.” 5
Here and below, all references to the collection “Vekhi” are given in the text, indicating pages for the currently best edition: Vekhi. From the depths / Comp. and preparation text by A.A. Yakovleva; approx. M.A. Kolerova, N.S. Plotnikova, A. Kelly. – M.: Pravda, 1991.

(p. 90).

S.L. Frank recalled: “The idea and initiative of “Vekhi” belonged to the Moscow critic and literary historian M.O. Gershenzon. Gershenzon, an extremely talented and original person, was quite far from P.B. in his ideological views. [Struve] and I, as well as most of the other members of Vekhi" 6
Frank S.L. Memories of P.B. Struve // Frank S.L. Unread... Article, letters, memories / Comp. and preface A.A. Gaponenkova, Yu.P. Senokosova. – M.: Moscow School of Political Research, 2001. P. 454.

Indeed, in the eyes of a significant part of the criticism, the collection was perceived primarily as associated with the name of Struve and his circle - those Russian intellectuals who made the transition “from Marxism to idealism.” The name of Gershenzon seemed quite random - as M.A. Kolerov notes: “it was considered difficult to explain that it was Gershenzon’s idea that brought to life the fruits of self-analysis and self-criticism of the intelligentsia that had been ripening for several years.” However, as the same researcher who made a decisive contribution to the study of the history of the collection continues, “the common fate of all the authors of “Vekhi” - the movement through Marxism, the “Union of Liberation”, the “idealistic trend”, the revolution of 1905, the “religious community” - became the basis to which Gershenzon’s plan addressed" 7
Kolerov M.A. Not peace, but a sword. Russian religious and philosophical press from “Problems of Idealism” to “Vekhi”. 1902 – 1909. – St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1996. – (series: “Research on the history of Russian thought.” Vol. I). P. 292.

Back in 1902, he wrote to Struve, explaining the plan of his “Letter from the Shores of Lake Geneva,” published in the emigrant magazine Liberation, edited by the latter, around which in 1902–1904. the consolidation of the future constitutional democratic party took place:

“With my letter I wanted to say: there is no longer any need to educate the Russian public in the spirit of specific politics; we must return to the source of politics, dissolve it again in morality" 8
Letter dated August 26, 1902 Quoted. By: Kolerov M.A. Decree. op. P. 292.

Collections of ideas have become a characteristic feature of the time 9
Cm.: Kolerov M.A. Decree. op.; He's the same. Russian “ideological” collections – publications in the yearbook “Studies on the History of Russian Thought” for different years.

- so, the controversy caused by “Vekhi”, in turn, gave rise, in addition to discussion in newspapers, magazines and public meetings, to similar collections: the cadet “Intelligentsia in Russia” (1910) and the Socialist Revolutionary ““Vekhi” as a sign of the times” (1910 ). Therefore, when a correspondence began between Frank and Gershenzon, who attracted the former to collaborate in the “Critical Review” he edited, regarding the opportunity to speak out on fundamental issues related to the intelligentsia, and Frank, in turn, attracted S.N. Bulgakov, then soon Gershenzon had the idea of ​​publishing a collection. The process of compiling the collection itself took very little time: according to the research of M.A. Kolerov, the idea for the collection appeared in September - the first half of October 1908; in mid-October, Gershenzon sketched out a rough plan for the collection about the intelligentsia, defining its generally preserved structure in “Vekhi”, when each of the articles was supposed to reveal one of the aspects intelligentsia (“intelligentsia and...”): “Among possible authors he [i.e. e. Gershenzon in a letter to Frank] called R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik […], author of the Struvean magazine Polar Z[star] L.E. Gabrilovich (pseud. Galich, 1879–1953), Frank, Bulgakov and Kistyakovsky. In addition, Gershenzon apparently consulted with Frank regarding Berdyaev’s participation in the collection.” 10
Right there. P. 287.

For his part, having rejected the candidacies of Ivanov-Razumnik and Gabrilovich (Socialist Revolutionary Party and Social Democratic Party, respectively), Frank proposed A.S. Izgoev to develop the theme of intellectual life and Yu.I. Aikhenvald or A.G. Gornfeld to work on the topic “intelligentsia and aesthetics” 11
Right there. P. 288.

(article on last topic not in the collection); Bulgakov offered to take part in the collection of N.O. Lossky, but he turned out to be 12
Right there. P. 291. Struve changed the topic of his article - initially it was planned to write about “the intelligentsia and the national economy”, as a result the topic became the attitude of the intelligentsia to politics.

The articles, as usual, did not arrive quite on time - for example, Frank, who promised to send his article by the New Year, sent it only on February 19, Struve, who set himself a deadline of “early February,” sent the article to Gershenzon on March 2. Incoming articles were immediately sent to the typesetting, and when the publication of the collection was already very close, the question arose about the title. Among the options discussed were: (1) Struve: “Intellectuals about the intelligentsia”, “To the mountain!”, (2) Frank: “At the crossroads”, (3) Moscow authors - St. Petersburg suggested: “Moscow Dumas” (by analogy with Slavophile “Moscow collections” of the 1840–1850s), “Boundaries and Milestones”; (4) Kistyakovsky suggested that instead of “To the Russian Youth,” the collection should be titled “To the Russian Society,” Bulgakov agreed with him, offering the options: “To the Russian Intelligentsia” or “To the Russian Society.” Frank spoke in favor of the “Boundaries and Milestones” option; on March 11, Struve agreed with him, sending a telegram to Gershenzon: “Boundaries and Milestones is very successful.” 13
Right there. pp. 293 – 294.

- in the end, Gershenzon made a decision and on March 16 the collection was already published in the printing house of V.M. Sablin under the title “Milestones”, with a circulation of 3000 copies.

Thus, returning to Struve’s statement that “the collection was not edited by anyone,” we must admit that it is not entirely true - and at the same time he had reasons to say so. Although Frank claimed in his memoirs that “there was […] no prior editorial agreement or exchange of opinions” 14
Frank S.L. Memories... P. 455.

However, there were exchanges of opinions and meetings, but due to the territorial dispersion of the participants there was no general meeting 15
Kolerov M.A. Decree. op. pp. 288–291.

As Frank wrote, “despite the fact that their concept belonged to Gershenzon […], “Vekhi” expressed a spiritual and social tendency, the first herald of which was Struve. This tendency was composed of a combination of two main motives - on the one hand, the need for religious-metaphysical foundations of the worldview was asserted against the prevailing positivism and materialism […]; and on the other hand, they contained a sharp, principled criticism of the revolutionary maximalist aspirations of the Russian radical intelligentsia.” 16
Frank S.L. Memories... P. 456.

Now it is necessary to dwell on those who became the authors of “Vekhi”. The initiator of the publication and editor of the collection was Mikhail Osipovich Gershenzon (1(13).VII.1869, Chisinau - 19.II.1925, Moscow) - a graduate of Moscow University, a student of the outstanding Russian medievalist P.G. Vinogradov, who in his youth was a close friend of V.A. Maklakov, who later became a prominent political figure, leader of the right wing of the Kadet Party, a prominent lawyer and parliamentary speaker. Not being an Orthodox Jew, he, however, did not consider it possible for himself to change his religion for everyday reasons, which is why he was unable to stay at the university and continue his academic career 17
The principled refusal to choose a faith, submitting to police considerations, meant a lot in privacy Gershenzon - for this reason, for several years, until the abolition of a significant part of religious restrictions, he could not marry Maria Borisovna Goldenweiser (who was the sister of the famous Russian pianist Alexander Goldenweiser, the author of famous notes on the last years of Leo Tolstoy’s life), who belonged to Orthodox Church. Their marriage was legalized only after 1905, when Maria Borisovna was able to convert to Lutheranism and, already belonging to this confession, marry Gershenzon.

In his first post-university years, earning his living from translations (orders for which were delivered to him primarily by P.G. Vinogradov) and various literary day jobs, from the early 1900s Gershenzon quickly became known as a historian of Russian literature and Russian society of the 19th century, working on the archives of N.P. Ogarev, Krivtsovs, etc. His success was greatly facilitated by his rapprochement with E.N. Orlova 18
See about her: Gershenzon-Chegodaeva N.M. First steps life path(memoirs of the daughter of Mikhail Gershenzon). – M.: Zakharov, 2000. P. 84 et seq.

In whose house he would live with his family until his death - she was the granddaughter of the famous Decembrist M.F. Orlova and, on the mother’s side, P.I. Krivtsov, brother of the Decembrist: his acquaintance and then many years of friendship with her gave him not only access to a unique family archive from which it grew whole line publications and research, but also created the conditions from which the “Veh” project arose - it was Orlova who financed the publication of “Critical Review”, in which Gershenzon attracted Frank, and the journal itself was edited by him together with B.A. Kistyakovsky and P.P. Hansel. The framework of brief critical notes turned out to be unsuitable for discussing the issues that worried the authors, but E.N. again took part in the publication of “Vekhi”. Orlova, who financed it.

The most prominent figure among the participants at the time of the publication of the collection was, perhaps, Pyotr Berngardovich Struve (26.I (7.II).1870, Perm - 26.II.1944, Paris), the grandson of the famous astronomer and son of the governor, founder of “legal Marxism”, which began a journalistic struggle against populism in the mid-1890s, author of the “Manifesto of the RSDLP” (1898) - by that time he had already largely distanced himself from social democracy and in the first years of the new century had switched to the position of political liberalism, becoming in voluntary emigration, editor of the magazine “Osvobozhdenie”, one of the leaders of the constitutionalist movement. Richard Pipes, author of the seminal biography of Struve 19
Pipes R. Struve. Biography. In 2 vols. / Transl. from English A. Zakharova, A. Tsukanova. – M.: Moscow School of Political Studies, 2001.

Divided his political and intellectual life into two halves: left (before 1905) and right (after 1905) liberal. The watershed for Struve was the reaction of the Russian intelligentsia to the manifesto of October 17, 1905 - in “Vekhi” he wrote that “with the act of October 17, the revolution should have essentially and formally ended. The unbearable state of affairs in the national and state sense before October 17 was that the life of the people and the development of the state were absolutely confined by the autocracy to pre-established boundaries” (p. 158): the manifesto of October 17 removed these boundaries: it deprived the “renegadeness” of the intelligentsia of justification in objective conditions of its existence, if earlier the blame for the situation could be laid on the authorities, then from now on it lies with the intelligentsia itself. He was elected as a deputy to the Second State Duma, tried to prevent its dispersal on July 3, trying to achieve cooperation between the government and the representative body of power. Although Struve formally retained membership in the Cadet Party until 1915, after 1908 he withdrew from party activities, and from 1906 he was the editor of one of the leading domestic magazines- “Russian Thought”. In exile, Struve would take an even more right-wing liberal position, in 1925–1927. will edit the newspaper "Vozrozhdenie".

Semyon Ludwigovich Frank (16(28).I.1877, Moscow - 10.XII.1950, near London) was Struve’s close friend throughout almost his entire life and, in the 2nd half of the 1900s, the closest of all authors collection who communicated with M.O. Gershenzon. Like all the other participants in the collection, with the exception of Gershenzon, he went through a period of active social democratic, Marxist interests and political struggle - in his last year at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University (1899) he was arrested for connections with a social democratic organization, expelled from the university and exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. Then he studied at the University of Berlin, passed exams in Kazan as an external student in 1901, and a year earlier he published his first book: “Marx’s Theory of Value and Its Significance,” which testified to his departure from Marxism. From 1903 he took an active part in the liberation movement, in 1905 he participated in the First Founding Congress of the Constitutional Democratic Party. Since 1907 he has edited the philosophical section of Russian Thought, by which time his interests were increasingly associated with philosophical creativity– before his deportation from Russia in 1922, two of his key works in this area would be published: “The Subject of Knowledge” (1915) and “The Soul of Man” (1917).

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (6(18).III.1874, Kiev - 24.III.1948, Clamart, France) and Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (16(28).VI.1871, Livny, Oryol province - 12.VII.1944 , Paris) are the most famous participants in the collection to today's reader. Both started out as Marxists: the first book that brought Berdyaev fame, “Subjectivism and Individualism in Social Philosophy” (1901), was directed against the leader of the populist trend of Russian thought, N.K. Mikhailovsky, came out with an extensive preface by Struve, who organized its publication; The first book of Bulgakov, who began as a promising specialist in political economy, was the study “On Markets in Capitalist Production” (1897). If Frank had yet to immerse himself in religious and philosophical thought, then for Berdyaev and Bulgakov this happened a long time ago, when from 1902–1903. they became active characters in the history of the Russian “religious public”, while Berdyaev, since 1907, has held specific primacy in criticizing the Russian intelligentsia from the positions that will receive further development in "Vekhi".

The two remaining authors of the collection also belonged to Struve’s circle: Bogdan (Fedor) Aleksandrovich Kistyakovsky (4(16).XI.1868, Kiev - 16(29).IV, 1920, Ekaterinodar) and Alexander (Aaron) Solomonovich Izgoev (real name : Lande, 10(22).1872, Irbit, Perm province - 11.VII.1935, Haapsalu, Estonia). Kistyakovsky, son of the famous Russian criminologist, professor at the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv A.F. Kistyakovsky, from his student years belonged to the socialist direction of the Ukrainian movement, was familiar with M.P. Drahomanov, later was co-editor of collections of his political articles and texts (the 2nd volume of the “Parisian” edition of 1906, and the 1st volume of the Russian edition of 1908, which remained the only one), together with Berdyaev and Bulgakov he participated in the Kyiv group of the Union of Liberation. Active political activity to a certain extent prevented him scientific activity, his consolidated work in the field social theory(“Social Sciences and Law”) he published only in 1916. By this time he had already managed to radically diverge from Struve, the reason for which was the controversy on the Ukrainian issue in 1915.

Alexander Izgoev began as a Marxist publicist, but by 1904 he had already broken with Social Democracy and joined the Odessa group of the Union of Liberation; from the end of 1905, after the Odessa pogrom, he moved to St. Petersburg, at the second congress of the Kadet party he was elected to its The central committee, of which he remained a member until 1918, headed a department in the leading cadet newspaper Rech and in the journal Russian Thought edited by Struve. In exile, where he ended up after being expelled from Russia in 1922, he again collaborated with Struve; Later their paths diverged, since the latter’s monarchical orientation turned out to be unacceptable to Izgoyev (including for reasons of at least a tolerant attitude towards anti-Semitism in the overwhelming majority of monarchist circles and organizations).

Five of the seven participants of “Vekhi” took part in the milestone collection “Problems of Idealism” 20
See modern scientific publication: Problems of idealism. Collection of articles / Ed. M.A. Kolerov, articles by N.S. Plotnikova, M.A. Kolerova, prepared by text by N.V. Samover. – M.: Modest Kolerov and “Three Squares”, 2002. – (series: “Research on the history of Russian thought.” Vol. VIII).

(1902: Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Kistyakovsky, Struve, Frank) - the new collection was perceived in many ways as a continuation of the first (responding to it, Miliukov specifically focused on Novgorodtsev’s book “The Crisis of Modern Legal Consciousness”, published in the same year, in “Vekhi” participation of those who did not take part, evaluating it as another, deeper and truer answer to the questions posed by the collection 21
Milyukov P.N. Intelligentsia and historical tradition(1910) // Intelligentsia in Russia // Anti-Vekhi / Intro. art., comp. and note. V.V. Sapova. – M.: Astrel, 2007. P. 139, 159–161.

), as well as later, in 1918, its continuation in the new historical situation would be “From the Depths,” initiated by Struve. Thus, if at the stage of discussing the composition and circle of participants various candidates were discussed, then in the end “Vekhi” formed around a quite strictly defined circle of like-minded people - it is no coincidence that Struve was so easily able to dissociate himself from Gershenzon, with whom he had relatively little in common. It should be noted that not only in the eyes of his contemporaries, but also in the eyes of the authors themselves, it was primarily a political statement - in this regard, the complaint of some of the subsequent researchers that the political reaction obscured the philosophical one was not entirely justified: it was a question of how he wrote about it , in particular, Frank, on criticism of the revolutionary sentiments of the Russian intelligentsia, not only socialist, but also in its non-socialist part, unstable in the face of socialist views 22
However, in a situation of public controversy, Frank, for example, sought to block reproaches about the authors’ movement “to the right”, responding to D.S. Merezhkovsky: “[...] we are, perhaps, “traitors” to a much greater extent than people believe, hypnotized, like a rooster by a chalk line, by the direction from left to right; for we have completely abandoned this old path, we are looking for a way out not to the right or to the left, but only forward and upward, and right and left ceased to exist for us primary criteria. Let them argue with us on our own grounds, let them show us that our path is not forward and upward, but backward and downward; but all objections from the point of view of a worldview that is limited to one dimension - a line from right to left - cannot not only refute, but even offend us" [ Frank S.L. Merezhkovsky about “Milestones” (1909 [Slovo, 1909, No. 779, April 28/May 11]) // “Milestones”: pro et contra... P. 113].

As the authors who united in the response collection “Intelligentsia in Russia” noted, the question was posed about the reasons for the defeat of the revolution - and Miliukov’s answer, in particular, sounded in the sense that the revolution was not defeated, the reaction is a normal phenomenon and should not be, paying attention only on immediate, short-term phenomena, making them the basis for large-scale conclusions 23
Cm.: Milyukov P.N. Decree. op., ch. VII–VIII.

Critics and authors agreed on something else - that “Vekhi” is primarily criticism, “indictment”, “exposure”. If the authors did not agree with such an exceptional assessment, they recognized that the positive content was only briefly outlined, and among the participants in the collection themselves, as noted in the preface, there is agreement in this regard only on the most basic things 24
Bubbayer F. S. L. Frank: Life and work of a Russian philosopher. 1877–1950 / Trans. from English L.Yu. Pantina. – M.: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2001. P. 87–88.

The publishing success of the collection, which went through five editions in a year and was read by all of educated Russia, combined with criticism 25
Gershenzon and Izgoev immediately began to collect responses to the collection: a bibliography of reviews was attached to both the 3rd and 5th editions, the 5th edition numbering 217 titles (for the period from March 23, 1909 to January 15, 1910) . The main responses have been republished: “Milestones”: pro et contra...

And in the spring of 1910, according to his memoirs, “we [with P.B. Struve] the idea was born to find out and develop in collective work positive the content of those ideas that were expressed in “Vekhi” in negative form critics of the intelligentsia's worldview" 27
Frank S.L. Memories... P. 460.

Neither this nor several other projects that arose at this time were destined to come true - also because, we believe, that the attempt to turn consent in what is condemned/rejected into a positive affirmation turned out to be a task of unbearable complexity and at the same time politically inexpedient, since it would only produce new dissenters without increasing the number of supporters.

As we have already noted, the editor himself did not take part in the controversy surrounding “Vekhi”, limiting himself to only adding a note to his now scandalous phrase in the 2nd edition, where he tried to explain himself to the public: ““Must” in my phrase means ““ “doomed”: with our own hands, without realizing it, we have woven this connection between ourselves and the authorities, this is the horror, and this is what I am pointing out” (p. 90, note). However, this does not mean that he was silent - for example, in a letter to fellow Pushkin scholar N.O. Lerner, writing from Odessa in the summer of 1909: “if you knew what kind of bastard buys and praises the book! In my presence, a gendarmerie officer bought it in the “New Time” store and, turning to the clerk, said: “A wonderful book, now the intelligentsia have come to their senses” ...” 28
Gershenzon M.O."To know and to love." From correspondence of 1893–1925. – M.; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives, 2016. P. 111 (letter dated August 3, 1909, Odessa).

Gershenzon stated, formulating the view from which he created the collection:

“To be honest, I’m very glad that the gendarmerie officer bought “Vekhi”: maybe he’ll read it. This is exactly as necessary as for a socialist-r[revolutionary] to read Vekhi.” 29
Right there. P. 112 (letter dated August 10, 1909, Sillamägi).

Bibliography:

Bibliography of literature about N.A. Nekrasov. 1917-1952 / Comp. L.M. Dobrovolsky, B.V. Lavrov. M.; L.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. 207 p.

Dulneva K.P., Rudyakov G.M., L.P. Novikova. Bibliography of literature about Nekrasov for 1953-1958 // Nekrasov collection / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute rus. lit. ( Pushkin House). M.-L., 1960. Issue. III. pp. 367-386.

Dulneva K.D. Bibliography of literature about Nekrasov for 1859 - 1869 // N.A. Nekrasov and Russian literature. 1821-1971. M., 1971. S. 477-504.

Mostovskaya N.N. Bibliography of literature about Nekrasov, 1970-1974 // Nekrasov collection / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House). L., 1978. Issue. VI. pp. 179-201.

Mostovskaya N.N. Bibliography of literature about Nekrasov, 1975 - early 1986 // Nekrasov collection. L., 1988. Issue. IX. pp. 175-202.

Mostovskaya N.N. Bibliography of literature about Nekrasov, 1987 - early 2000 // Nekrasov collection. St. Petersburg, 2001. Issue. XIII. pp. 245-270.

ON THE. Nekrasov and Yaroslavl region: Decree. lit. Yaroslavl, 1959. 76 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov and Yaroslavl region: Decree. lit. for 1986 - 1995 (compiled by M.V. Bekke) // Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl, 1997. Vol. 3. pp. 353-365.

Memories of the poet:

Butkevich A.A. From diaries and memories // Literary heritage. M., 1946. T. 49-50. pp. 170-184.

Former employee of Otechestvennye Zapiski. Memories of N.A. Nekrasov // World Herald. 1903. No. 1. pp. 124-138.

Gamazov M.K. To “Memoirs” by A.Ya. Golovacheva // East. messenger 1889. No. 4. pp. 34-55; No. 5. P. 276 - 304; No. 6. P. 531 - 561.

A hot word of conviction: (“Sovremennik” by Nekrasov - Chernyshevsky): Memoirs, diaries, magazine advertisements, letters, “Bell” about “Sovremennik”, government camp about “Sovremennik”. M.: Sovremennik, 1989. 543 p.

Grigorovich D.V. Literary Memoirs. L.: Academia, 1928. 515 p.

Live pages: N.A. Nekrasov in his memoirs, letters, diaries, autobiographical works and documents. M., 1974. 448 p.

E.L. Memories of N. D. Nekrasov // Scientific review. 1903. No. 4. (April).

pp. 131-141.

Krivenko S.N. From Nekrasov’s stories // Literary heritage. M., 1946. T. 49-50. pp. 207-210.

ON THE. Nekrasov in memoirs and documents / Ed. SOUTH. Oksman. L.: Academia, 1930. 300 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M.: Artist. lit., 1971. 598 p. (Serial lit. memoirs).

Nekrasova N.P. My memories // Nekrasov: To the 50th anniversary of his death. L., 1928. P. 9-23.

Nekrasova-Rümling E. A. N. A. Nekrasov at home // Bulletin of literature. 1920. No. 2 (14). pp. 4-6.

Ivanova (Focht-Rümling) E.A. Memoirs of the poet's sister / [publ. O.A. Zamarenova // Karabikha. Yaroslavl, 1997. Vol. 3. pp. 208-221.

Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I. My meetings with Nekrasov // Literary heritage. M., 1946. T. 49-50. pp. 591-599.

Panaev V.A. Memoirs // Literary heritage. M., 1946. T. 49-50. pp. 196-200.

Panaev I.A. SHE. Nekrasov // Literary heritage. M., 1946. T. 49-50. pp. 535-548.

Panaev I.I. Literary Memoirs. M., 1988. 480 p.

Panaeva A.Ya. Memories. M., 1986. 512 p.

Ponomarev S.I. A penny candle in memory of Nekrasov // Otechestvennye zapiski. 1878. No. 3. pp. 100-110.

Potanin G.N. Memories of N.A. Nekrasov // East. messenger 1905. No. 2. pp. 458-489.

Pypin A.N. ON THE. Nekrasov. St. Petersburg, 1905. 323 p.

Pypin A.N. ON THE. Nekrasov. A few memories // Bulletin of Europe. 1903. No. 11. P. 64-117; No. 12. P. 567-644.

Skabichevsky A.M. Literary Memoirs. M.: Agraf, 2001. 432 p.

Sixties. M.A. Antonovich. Memories. G.Z. Eliseeva. Memories / [intro. Art., comment. and ed. V. Evgenieva-Maksimova and G.F. Tiesenhausen]. M.; L.: Academia, 1933. 580 p. (Russian memoirs, letters and materials).

Stackenschneider E.A. Diary and notes (1854-1886). M.-L., 1934. 586 p.

Critical-biographical literature:

Ashukin N. Chronicle of the life and work of N.A. Nekrasova. M.; L.: Academia, 1935. 569 p. (Lit. benefits).

Ashukin N. How Nekrasov worked. M.: Mir, 1933. 95 p. (“How the classics worked”).

Basina M Liteiny 36. Leningrad: Children's literature, 1971. 256 p.

Besedina T.A. The epic of folk life ("Who lives well in Rus' by N.A. Nekrasova): [Text] / T.A. Besedina. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2001. 216 p. Bryusov V.Ya. N.A. Nekrasov as a poet cities // Selected works: In 2 vols. M., 1955. P. 231-236.

Bukhshtab B.N.A. Nekrasov. Articles and research. L.: Sov. writer, 1989. 352 p.

Gin M. From fact to image and plot. About the poetry of N.A. Nekrasova. M.: Sov. writer, 1971. 303 p.

Gin M., Uspensky V.S. Nekrasov is a playwright and theater critic. M.; L.: Art, 1958. 147 p.

Gin M.M., Evgeniev-Maksimov V.E. Seminar on Nekrasov. L.: Leningrad State University, 1955. 228 p.

Grigoriev A.D., Ivanova I.N. The language of lyric poetry of the 19th century. Pushkin. Nekrasov. M.: Nauka, 1981. 340 p.

Danilova M.D. The main approaches to memorialization of the estate of N.A. Nekrasov “Karabikha” and the creation of the exhibition // Museums of the Upper Volga: problems, research, publications / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl, 1997. pp. 14 - 40.

Danilova M.D. Karabikha // Famous estate museums of Russia. M.: AST-PRESS. 2010. pp. 197-219.

Evgeniev-Maksimov V. Life and work of N.A. Nekrasova: In 3 volumes. M.-L.: Khudozh. lit., 1947 - 1952. T. 1-3.

Evgeniev - Maksimov V.E. Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov. Yaroslavl, 1946. 260 p.

Evgeniev-Maksimov V.E. Nekrasov and the theater. M.; L.: Art, 1948. 282 p.

Evgeniev-Maksimov V. Nekrasov and St. Petersburg. L., 1947. 247 p.

Evgeniev-Maksimov V.E. Creative path of N.A. Nekrasova / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House). M.; L, 1953. 282 p.

Egolin A.M. ON THE. Nekrasov. M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. 78 p.

Emelyanov N.P. "Domestic Notes" N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (1868-1884). L.: Artist. lit., 1986. 336 p.

Zhdanov V. Life of Nekrasov. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. 239 p.

Zhdanov V. Nekrasov. M.: Young Guard, 1971. 494 p.: ill. (Life is remarkable. People).

Zontikov N.A. Nekrasov and Kostroma region: pages of history / Comp. and ed. ON THE. Zontikova. Kostroma: DiAr, 2008. 384 pp. Ivanov G.K. ON THE. Nekrasov in music. M.: Sov. composer, 1972. 52 p.

Corman B.O. Lyrics N.A. Nekrasova. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House. Univ., 1964. 390 p.

Krasilnikov G.V. Yaroslavl literary environment of N.A. Nekrasova: [author's abstract. ...dis. Ph.D. philological Sciences] / Ivanovsk. state univ. Ivanovo, 2006. 20 p.

Krasnov G.V. ON THE. Nekrasov among his contemporaries / Kolomen. state ped. int. Kolomna, 2002. 216 p.

Lebedev Yu.V. ON THE. Nekrasov and Russian poem of 1840-1850. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1971. 136 p.

Chronicle of the life and work of N.A. Nekrasova: In 3 volumes. T.1: 1821-1855 / Rep. ed. B.V. Melgunov; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House) RAS. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2006. 581 p.

Chronicle of the life and work of N.A. Nekrasova: In 3 vols. T.2: 1856-1866 / Rep. ed. B.V. Melgunov; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House) RAS. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007. 555 p.

Chronicle of the life and work of N.A. Nekrasov: In 3 volumes. T.3: 1867-1877 / Rep. ed. B.V. Melgunov; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House) RAS. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2009. 705 p.

Literary heritage / USSR Academy of Sciences. M.: Nauka, 1931-

T.49-50: N.A. Nekrasov. Book 1. M., 1949. 655 p.

T.51-52: N.A. Nekrasov. Book 2. M., 1949. 671 p.

T.53-54: N.A. Nekrasov. Book 3. M., 1949. 639 p.

Loman O.V. Nekrasov in St. Petersburg. L.: Lenizdat, 1985. 247 pp.: ill. (Outstanding figures of science and culture in St. Petersburg - Petrograd - Leningrad).

Loman O.V. Nekrasov and public education. Yaroslavl, 1957. 68 p.

Makeev M.S. Nikolai Nekrasov: poet and entrepreneur. M.: Max Press, 2009. 236 p.

Makeev M. Literature for the people: patronage against speculation (to the history of Nekrasov’s “red books”) // New Literary Review. 2013. No. 6. P.130-147.

Melgunov V.V. “It all starts here...”: (Nekrasov and Yaroslavl). Yaroslavl: Upper Volga, 1997. 240 p.

Melgunov B.V. Nekrasov is a journalist. (Little studied aspects of the problem) / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House). L.: Nauka, 1989. 280 p.

Melshin L. (Yakubovich P.F.). ON THE. Nekrasov: His life and literary activity: Critical-biography. feature article. St. Petersburg, 1907. 96 p.

Merezhkovsky D.S. Two secrets of Russian poetry: Nekrasov and Tyutchev // Merezhkovsky D.S. In the still waters: Articles and studies from different years. M.: Sov. writer, 1991. pp. 416-482.

In memory of Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov. St. Petersburg, 1878. 147 p.

Nekrasov Nikolai Alekseevich: Proc. pos.: CD / Yarosl. state University named after P.G. Demidova; Scientific and technological humanist park "Yaroslavia"; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov Karabikha"; Memorial Museum-Apartment of N.A. Nekrasov; Literary Museum IRLI RAS. Yaroslavl, 2004.

ON THE. Nekrasov: Biography, critical. poetry review. Collection poems dedicated to the memory of the poet. Collection of articles about N.A. Nekrasov since 1840 / Comp. A. Golubev. St. Petersburg, 1878. 154 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov and Russian literature. 1821 - 1971. M.: Nauka, 1971. 511 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov and modernity: Sat. articles and materials / Comp. L.A. Rozanova. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1984. 191 p.

[Nekrasov] // Reader on literary criticism for schoolchildren and applicants / Comp. and comment. L.A. Sugai. M., 1998. pp. 464-491.

Nekrasov and Yaroslavl region. Yaroslavl: Yarosl. book publishing house, 1953. 195 p.

Nekrasov N.K. “In my native land”: Nekrasov places in Russia. M.: Sov. Russia, 1984. 194 p.

Nekrasov N.K. Nekrasov places in Russia / Engravings by A. Mishchenko. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1971. 176 p.

Nekrasov N.K. “Oh Volga! ... my cradle!”: Essay for Wednesdays. and senior age. 2nd ed., revised. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1991. 144 p.: ill.

Nekrasov N.K. In their footsteps, along their roads. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1975. 304 p.: ill.

Nekrasov N. In the footsteps of Nekrasov’s heroes. M.: Sov. Russia, 1970. 173 p.: ill.

Nekrasov N.K. Sow reasonable...: Essays on the life and work of N.A. Nekrasova. M.: Sov. Russia, 1989. 320 p.

Nekrasov collection: to the 100th anniversary of the poet’s birth / ed. prof. V.N. Bochkareva. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl Publishing House of the Yaroslavl Agricultural and Handicraft Union of Cooperatives, 1922. 119, p.

Nekrasov collection [Text] / Academician. Sciences of the USSR; Institute of Russian Lit. (Pushkin House). M.; L.: Nauka, 1951 -

T.1: M.; L.: Nauka, 1951. 276 p.

T.2: M.; L.: Nauka, 1956. 516 p.

T.3: M.; L.: Nauka, 1960. 396 p.

T.4: L.: Nauka, 1967. 296 p.

T.5: L.: Nauka, 1973. 332 p.

T.6: L.: Nauka, 1978. 208 p.

T.7: L.: Nauka, 1980. 240 p.

T.8: L.: Nauka, 1983. 214 p.

T.9: L.: Nauka, 1988. 210 p.

T.10: L.: Nauka, 1988. 224 p.

Nekrasov collection / Ros. acad. Sciences, Institute of Rus. lit. (Cannon house). St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1998 -

T.11-12: St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1998.

T.13: St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2001. 286 p.

T.14: St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2008. 284 p.

About Nekrasov // Andreevsky S.A. A book about death / [ed. prepared I.I. Podolskaya]. M.: Nauka, 2005. pp. 342-361.

Paykov N. The Nekrasov Phenomenon: (Selected articles on the personality and work of the poet) / Yarosl. state ped. University named after K.D. Ushinsky. Yaroslavl, 2000. 120 p.

Paykov N.N. Nekrasovsky places of Yaroslavl. Yaroslavl, 2004. 16 p.

Priyma F.Ya. Nekrasov and Russian literature / USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House). L.: Nauka, 1987. 264 p.

Rozanova L.A. About the work of N.A. Nekrasova: Book. for the teacher. M.: Education, 1988. 239 p.

Rozanova L.A. Poem by N.A. Nekrasov “Who Lives Well in Rus'”: Commentary. L.: Education, 1970. 320 p.

Saburova T.G. Last photo Nekrasova // State. ist. museum. Proceedings. M., 1991. Issue. 79. pp. 164-169.

Saburova T. Photograph of the artist Tulinov // Photography. 1992. No. 7-8. pp. 32-33.

Skabichevsky A.M. Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov: (His life and poetry) // Otech. notes. 1878. No. 5-6.

Skatov N.N. Nekrasov. M.: Young Guard, 1994. 411 p. (Life is remarkable. People).

Skatov N.N. Nekrasov: Contemporaries and successors: Essays. M.: Sov. Russia, 1986. 336 p.

Skatov N.N. “I dedicated the lyre to my people...”: About the work of N.A. Nekrasova: Book. for the teacher. M.: Education, 1985. 174 p.

Skatov N.N. Works: In 4 volumes. T.3: Nekrasov. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2001. 536 p.

Smirnov S.V. Autobiographies of Nekrasov. Novgorod, 1998. 210 p.

Smirnov S.V. “And here they are again, familiar places...” (literary and local history aspects of studying Nekrasov): [monograph] / NNOU Institute of Management (Arkhangelsk). Yaroslavl: YaF MIU, 2007. 160 p.

Stepina M.Yu. ON THE. Nekrasov in Russian criticism 1838-1848: [abstract. dis. ...cand. philology] / RAS; Institute rus. lit (Pushkin House). St. Petersburg, 2013. 26 p.

Tarasov A.F. Nekrasov in Karabikha. 3rd ed., add. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1989. 224 pp.: ill.

Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetic forms of Nekrasov // Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. P. 18-27.

Filippovsky G.Yu. Depths of Nekrasov’s text: monograph. Yaroslavl: Chancellor Publishing House, 2010. 150 p.

Chukovsky K. Gogol and Nekrasov. M.: Khud. lit., 1952. 86 p.

Chukovsky K. Nekrasov: Articles and materials. L.: Kubuch, 1926. 395 p.

Chukovsky K. Nekrasov's mastery. M.: Khud. lit., 1971. 711 p.

Chukovsky K. Collection. cit.: In 15 vols. T. 10: Nekrasov’s mastery. Articles (1960-1969) / Preface. and comment. B. Melgunov and E. Chukovskaya. M.: TERRA-Book Club, 2005. 236 p.

Shashkova E.V. Stable images in the poetry of N.A. Nekrasova (home and foreign land): monograph / E.V. Shashkova; Novgorod Museum-Reserve. Velikiy Novgorod, 2010. 127 p.

Shpilevaya G.A. Dynamics of prose N.A. Nekrasova: [text] / G.A. Spire; Voronezh state univ. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House. state ped. Univ., 2006. 272 ​​p.

Yakovlev V.I. Fathers' Nest: (Estates and trials of the Nekrasov nobles in the second half of the 1730s - early 1860s). Yaroslavl: LIYA, 1996. 144 p.

Yakushin N.I. Path to Nekrasov: Documentary-art. book about the life and work of N.A. Nekrasova. M.: Det. lit., 1987. 303 p.: ill.

Museum guides:

Exhibition in memory of Nekrasov (1878 - 1828): Krat. guide. L., 1928. 15 p.

Glevenko E. Liteiny, 36: Memorial Museum-Apartment of N.A. Nekrasova: Guide. St. Petersburg: Silver Rows, 2001. 63 p.: ill.

Karabikha: Palaces and estates: [Weekly publication]. M., 2012. Issue. 54. 32 p.

Karabikha. Museum-estate N.A. Nekrasova / Auth.-comp. A.F. Tarasov. M.: Sov. Russia, 1974. 36 p.

Loman O.V. Museum-apartment N.A. Nekrasova. L.: Lenizdat, 1971. 69 p.

Museum-estate N.A. Nekrasova in Karabikha / Author. A. Tarasov. M.: Sov. Russia, 1967. 14 p.: ill.

Hunting lodge N.A. Nekrasova in Chudov: Album / Comp. and ed. text by A.A. Ermolaeva. L.: Lenizdat, 1987. 32 p.

Suslov A. Karabikha. Yaroslavl estate N.A. Nekrasova: Guide / edited by. ed. Vl. Bonch-Bruevich. M.: GLM, 1948. 94 p. ( Literary monuments and corners of the USSR).

Tarasov A.F. Karabikha. Museum-Estate of N.A. Nekrasov: Guide. Yaroslavl, 1959. -110 p.

Tarasov A.F. Karabikha: Museum-estate of N.A. Nekrasov: Guide. Yaroslavl, 1961. -124 p.

Tarasov A.F. Karabikha: museum-estate of N.A. Nekrasova: Guide. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1972. 80 p.

Tarasov A.F. Karabikha: Museum-Estate of N.A. Nekrasova: Guide. 2nd ed. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzhsk. book publishing house, 1980. 80 p.

Tyurin V.V. Nekrasov in Chudov. L.: Lenizdat, 1983. 86 p.: ill.

Estate N.A. Nekrasova Chudovskaya Luka / Author. I.V. Smirnova, T.G. Grigorieva; Novgorod. state United Museum-Reserve, Chudovsky branch. B/m., b/d. 16 p.

Yaroslavsky memorial museum ON THE. Nekrasova (Museum Guide) / Comp. S.I. Velikanova; Yarosl. Memorial Museum N.A. Nekrasova (village of Karabikha, Yarosl region). Yaroslavl: Yarosl. region state publishing house, 1952. 48 p.

Collections and materials published by GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"

About Nekrasov: Sat. articles / Comp. A.F. Tarasov. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1958. Issue. 1. 270 p.

About Nekrasov: Articles and materials / Comp. A.F. Tarasov. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1968. Issue. 2. 336 p.

About Nekrasov: Articles and materials / Comp. A.F. Tarasov. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1971. Issue. 3. 336 pp.

About Nekrasov: Articles and materials / Comp. A.F. Tarasov. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1975. Issue. 4. 320 s.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov; State literary-memorial Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Issue 1. Yaroslavl: Verkh.-Volzh. book publishing house, 1991. 244 p.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov; State literary-memorial. Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Issue 2. Yaroslavl, 1993. 355 pp.: ill.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov; State literary-memorial Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Issue 3. Yaroslavl: LIYA TOO, 1997. 368 pp.: ill. Yaroslavl, 1997. Issue 3. 368 pp.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl, 1993. Issue 4. 342 pp.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / Comp. B.V. Melgunov, N.N. Paykov, E.V. Yanovskaya; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Issue 5: Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman Publishing House, 2006.

Karabikha: historical-lit. Sat. / Edited by N.N. Paykova; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Issue 6: Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman Publishing House, 2009. 415 p.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl, 2011. Issue 7. 368 pp.

Karabikha: Ist.-lit. Sat. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Vol. 8. Yaroslavl, 2013. 240 p.

Collection of estate photographs (1860-1940s) in the collection of the museum N.A. Nekrasova: Catalog / Comp. E.A. Kokorina. Rybinsk: Rybinsk Compound, 1997. 100 pp.: ill.

Nekrasov Nikolay Alekseevich: CD / Yarosl. state University named after P.G. Demidova; Scientific and technological humanist park "Yaroslavia"; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov Karabikha"; Memorial Museum-Apartment of N.A. Nekrasov; Literary Museum of the Institute of Literary Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Yaroslavl, 2004.

Nekrasov and the search for national identity: ("Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture"): Proceedings of the conf. / Ed. N.N. Paykov, E.V. Yanovskaya; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2003. 96 p.

Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture: materials of the conference. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; ed.-comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2006. 104 p.

Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture: scientific materials. conf. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; Yarosl. region. Center for Nekrasological Research at the Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after. K.D. Ushinsky; ed.-comp. N.N. Paykov, E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2008. 120 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture: Scientific materials. conference dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the poet’s birth (Yaroslavl, June 30 - July 1, 2011) / Department of Culture of the Yaroslavl Region; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; ed.-comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: IPK "Conversion", 2011. 72 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture: Scientific materials. conf. (Yaroslavl, July 4 - 5, 2013) / Department of Culture of the Yaroslavl Region; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; ed.-comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: Publishing bureau "VND", 2013. 128 p.

ON THE. Nekrasov in the context of Russian culture: Scientific materials. conf. (Yaroslavl, July 2-3, 2015) / Department of Culture of the Yaroslavl Region; GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; ed.-comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: IPK “Conversion”, 2015. 116 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 20th centuries: problems of research, restoration and museumification. Semiotics of space: Abstracts of reports / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasova "Karabikha", 2000. 52 p.

Estate libraries - history and modernity: (Russian estate XVII-beginning XIX centuries Problems of study, restoration and museumification): materials of a scientific conference / State. literary - memorial. Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha", Yarosl. region scientific beep them ON THE. Nekrasova. Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2002. 76 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 20th centuries: problems of research, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha". Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2004. 68 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 20th centuries. Problems of study, restoration and museumification: Proceedings of the conference. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; ed. - comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2005. 88 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 21st centuries: problems of research, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. / Department of Culture and Tourism Adm. Yarosl. region, State lit.- memorial Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; [Comp. E.V. Yanovskaya]. Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman, 2007. 88 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 21st centuries. Problems of study, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. / Department of Culture and Tourism Adm. Yarosl. region, State lit.- memorial Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; [Comp. E.V. Yanovskaya]. Yaroslavl, 2009. 126 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 21st centuries: problems of research, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. / Department of Culture and Tourism Adm. Yarosl. region, State lit.- memorial Museum-Reserve N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; [Comp. E.V. Yanovskaya]. Yaroslavl, 2010. 96 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 21st centuries. Problems of study, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl, 2012. 88 p.

Russian estate of the 18th - early 21st centuries. Problems of study, restoration and museumification: Scientific materials. conf. (Yaroslavl, July 3-4, 2014) / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; comp. E.V. Yanovskaya. Yaroslavl, 2014. 128 p.

"Holidays of Joy": A series of museum cultural and educational programs: [methodological. materials for teachers and parents] / GLMMZ N.A. Nekrasov "Karabikha"; [auth.-comp. N.I. Ignasheva, T.A. Polezhaeva]; [art. N.N. Butusova]. Karabikha, 2007. 44 p.

In her work on the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” Lyudmila Anatolyevna Rozanova strives to give a holistic impression of poetic world Nekrasov, analyzes the properties of his creative style, shows a new type of poet. Also discussed here are issues of Nekrasov’s innovation, the artist’s openness to the world, his desire to work, free manifestations of talent, and a sense of responsibility for the fate of his homeland. In my analysis of Rozanova’s work, I would like to draw attention to Nekrasov’s depiction of the people’s world. The main character of the work is the people, moving in history, in time, across the expanses of their homeland, with their ever-increasing will to action. The people, their condition and movement are constantly assessed by individual peasants, groups of peasants, and peasant crowds. There are some things that people know more and perceive more broadly. The people are influenced by their masters and exploiters, trying to subjugate them. Such a study of the people, carried out in different directions, leads to an objective narration, obliging the writer to accurately reproduce the people's world. That is why the volume of Nekrasov’s preliminary collecting work was enormous. Hoping to create a people's book, he intended to rely on all experience, all information about the people, accumulated from word to word. There is no doubt that the fundamental properties of the Russian soul were correctly understood and reflected by the author peasant poem. This was highly valued by the writer’s contemporaries and his first researchers. It was possible to study the state of the Russian soul only from Nekrasov alone.
New approaches were expected from works of literary art of Nekrasov’s time that would make it possible to unconventionally comprehend turning points in the life of society and the state. Nekrasov himself was the pioneer in this regard. He created a work about Rus', a work with the broadest pictures of people's life at one of the most significant historical moments. The poem shows not an individual hero, but a “collective” hero. The intonation of the poem captivates with its confidence. The verse seems to be uncomplicated, extremely natural, similar to colloquial speech, but rich in its possibilities. Nekrasov took care to bring the high closer to different categories of readers and make it accessible to them. The poet conceived the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” as a folk book, that is, useful, understandable to the people and truthful. Depicting the world, labor, and the life of the peasantry as a social existence, Nekrasov, through the inclusion of images that ordinary people could understand, brought the conceptual sphere of his seemingly easy work closer to them.
For Nekrasov the artist, it was important to show all of Rus', to depict the people in their characteristic life situations, surrounded by friends and enemies. The alternation of peasant work and rest, the change of seasons, the sequence of holidays of the folk calendar, the rhythm of disputes, and the search for happiness are absolutely accurately revealed and conveyed. But the text of the poem gives the right to say that the author chose the entire course of peasant life as the basis of the work.
The poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” develops the theme and image of the “heart of the people”, as well as the theme of the “soul of the people” or “peasant soul”. Here, the images of the soul and heart are included in a certain series: Rus' - people - heart - soul - song as its expression - time in general - “new time” - “people's soul” - conscience - soil - peace - work - life - freedom - an honest path ... The writer saw his duty in the study of the “people's soul” as part of the people's world. The general artistic structure of the work is also subject to this study. If the people's world folk Rus'- a whole, then the “soul of the people” for the poet and his readers is an essential part of this whole. Nekrasov introduces different time layers into the poem, while finding a single semantic and aesthetic center - the heart. The creation of such a high-quality image - the “heart of the people” and its correlation with the past, present and future - strengthened the conceptual principle in “Who Lives Well in Rus'” and brought the work closer to millions of working readers.
The theme and image of the road-path are in one way or another connected with various characters, groups of characters, and with the collective hero of the work. In the world of the poem, concepts and images such as the path - the crowd - the people - the old and new worlds - labor - the world - were illuminated and, as it were, linked together. Expanding the life impressions of male debaters, growing their consciousness, changing their views on happiness, deepening moral concepts, social insight - all this is also connected with the motive of the road. And those seven men who walk along the road are searching so hard because they believe in the possibility of finding it. Faith means a lot to the people in general and to the various characters in the poem. The sympathies of the workers are given to those who can be called ascetics of the faith.
There is now a lot of documentary evidence of the interest of mass audiences in the poet. Nekrasov's work opened the way to an unusual, but desirable category of readers - readers from the people. The people listened to him, read him, not only hoping to find specific answers to exciting questions, but also because in Nekrasov’s work a peasant worldview was correlated with a more complex writer’s, expressed in familiar, accessible images, but, nevertheless, raising the working man above the worries of every day.

NEKRASOVSKY COLLECTION. XIII ST. PETERSBURG, "SCIENCE", 2001

L. A. Rozanova

LIFE LINE
(FROM LETTERS OF V. E. EVGENIEV-MAKSIMOV AND MEMORIES OF HIM)

My personal acquaintance with the famous scientist Vladislav Evgenievich Evgeniev-Maksimov took place in the late autumn of 1947. In addition to my scientific aspirations, two authoritative people contributed to this. When I became a graduate student in the department of Russian literature at the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen, my supervisor, Professor Vasily Alekseevich Desnitsky, having learned about my love for Nekrasov and the desire to engage with his work, said: “Find Evgeniev-Maksimov, tell him that I sent you: he will give you, if you don’t betray Nekrasov, more than I will.” Another adviser was the younger brother of a venerable scientist, also a philologist, with whom fate brought me together back in student years, -- Dmitry Evgenievich Maksimov. “You definitely need to meet your brother, he gathers all the Nekrasovites,” recommended Dmitry Evgenievich. “I’ll tell him about you.” I myself knew something about Vladislav Evgenievich even before these conversations: from some of the published works about Nekrasov, from personal impressions. From the very first days of graduate school, in order to gain my wits, I began to go to open meetings (there were many of them then) at Leningrad University and the Pushkin House. Among others, I heard several speeches by Evgeniev-Maksimov. They captured the power of conviction in greatness and significance native literature, love for the writer’s word, rich argumentation, some special manner of communicating with the audience. Attracted and appearance: beautiful voice, sounding like a piano, excellent diction, straight powerful figure, white mustache and beard, white head. D. E. Maksimov wrote about this impression: “My older brother often and successfully performed before large audiences as a lecturer. Suffice it to say that in the hospitals in front of the wounded during the Second World War, while remaining in besieged Leningrad, he gave almost 1000 lectures. His lectures were very colorful, bright and emotional. It seemed to the listeners as if some gray-haired, maned employee of Sovremennik or Otechestvennye Zapiski was entering the lecture hall with him." ( Makashov D. E. About Me. (Autobiographical note) // Fact, speculation, fiction in literature. Interuniversity Sat. scientific tr. Ivanovo, 1987. P. 167.) And then one day, during a break in some meeting, plucking up courage, I approached this man in the lobby of the Pushkin House and introduced myself. He looked at me carefully, with lively interest, questioned me, then stroked my head with a gentle, warm hand and thoughtfully said: “Well, let’s begin...”. From that day on, his concern for me as a young researcher was constant. V. E. Maksimov invited me to participate in the work of his Nekrasov seminar, he hurried me to create a prospectus for the planned PhD thesis(“Historical-revolutionary poems by N. A. Nekrasov - “Grandfather”, “Russian Women””). The prospectus was approved at the department of V. A. Desnitsky, at the Herzen Institute, and Vladislav Evgenievich was its first reader and critic. On his advice, I read fragments of the dissertation twice in his seminar and made a report at the Nekrasov Museum on Liteiny. And although I had an intelligent, knowledgeable, demanding leader, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov voluntarily considered himself responsible for the result of my studies. The seminar was of a mixed nature: senior students, graduate students, young scientists, employees of the Nekrasov museums that had begun to organize. Now that fate has given me the opportunity to direct my Nekrasov seminar for about forty-five years, I understand the fruitfulness of such a mixture. In the person of Vladislav Evgenievich, an unshakable pinnacle appeared before us. We saw colleagues and, to some extent, rivals walking nearby. They knew about the younger ones who supported us. In this creative laboratory, a process of growth was carried out, forces were gathered for the upcoming Nekrasov conferences, and for work on the twelve-volume collected works of Nekrasov, and for future monographs. In those years, the head of the seminar was Tatyana Frolova, a senior student, who had a beneficial influence on her with her commitment, foresight and gentleness. different aspects our relationships. All our meetings took place in Vladislav Evgenievich’s apartment on Vasilyevsky Island. Not limited by time, they walked for a long time and, most importantly, with concentration, without distractions. After the obligatory report of one of the participants and its discussion, they talked about the progress of someone’s work (some of the “seminarists” were already preparing for publication Nekrasov’s texts and comments on them for the Complete Works and Letters, someone reported for what they had done as a co-author of Evgeniev- Maksimov by general book), shared plans. Manuscripts were handed over - in preparation for the next lesson - and meetings were set up. And in this second part of our meetings, as, of course, in the first, Vladislav Evgenievich remained an experienced pilot. He intervened in something, clarified something, supplemented it, showed something, and read poetry to someone again and again. “Again” because he opened the lesson with poetry, the poems turned out to be important point when analyzing reports, he greeted latecomers with poetry (the latter often fell to the lot of Zara Mints, later a famous researcher of the work of A. A. Blok). In Nekrasov’s texts, which Vladislav Evgenievich, it seems to me, knew everything by heart, he instantly looked for aphorisms and judgments that were somehow internally connected with our specific situations. The range of what was spoken was very wide, starting with the little-known aphorism “And in that only there is no hope again, In whom the blood has frozen forever” (from the poem " New Year") and including the statement, beloved by different generations of readers, “Love while you love, Be patient while you endure, Goodbye while you say goodbye...” (from the poem “Green Noise”). And each time he pronounced the selected lines so that they sounded new. The open, spiritual face of our leader was even more enlivened when Olga Vladimirovna Loman, the creator and for several decades the keeper of the Nekrasov hearth in the house on Liteiny, came to class, dressed in black, strictly reserved. the answers to the questions were not only remembered and disciplined the listeners, but evoked a desire to immediately, regardless of the time of year, go to Liteiny, stand in front of the front door, in front of which many of the famous writers took a breath, felt excitement, climb the stairs with trepidation and experience anywhere memorial apartment has an incomparable feeling of touching home world, its secrets, greatness... At the special seminar, we began to get acquainted with Moisei Mikhailovich Gin and Alexander Mironovich Garkavi, who often spoke at the classes, who just a few years later had a chance to say their word, to define their niche in the study of Nekrasov’s work. I constantly remember how Vladislav Evgenievich persistently recommended that I get closer to A. M. Garkavi, look at and think about the artistic and literary-critical performances of Nekrasov that he discovered. Alexander Mironovich entrusted me with all his then handwritten materials, and spent the meeting talking about how and why he wrote the initial version of his dissertation in the first year of graduate school, and is now engaged in its improvement and more important long-term research. We were all captivated by M. Gin’s scientific thoroughness. Not so much during classes, but when returning from them (we then went mainly on foot), he outlined to us, in fact, entire chapters of his future books. The controversy about the periodization of the poet’s work that was once provoked by my speech left me and Gin at different poles. And Vladislav Evgenievich, it seemed to me, was still adding fuel to the fire and smiling encouragingly at those arguing. Only years later did I understand why: there was a serious question about whether Nekrasov knew creative crises. And everyone wanted to find the truth. (The difference in the positions of the disputants on this issue has become their “eternal” companion. See, for example, the articles by L. A. Rozanova " Historical views N. A. Nekrasov, their reflection in creativity" (About Nekrasov. Yaroslavl, 1958. Issue 1. P. 7--61) and M. M. Gin "On the periodization of Nekrasov's creativity" (Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Serial lit. and language 1971. T. XXX. Issue 5. P. 434-435).) Gin easily navigated the sea of ​​facts, easily compiled convincing evidence from them. No one doubted his superiority over us, but we also wanted to know more. In In connection with his speeches, our mentor more than once used - as praise - the phrase that has now become commonplace, but then seemed like a revelation: “Facts are the air of a scientist.” Moreover, it corresponded to the main core of his own scientific work: no one had discovered such a thing number of Nekrasov texts, facts of life, circumstances literary struggle, life like him, Evgeniev-Maksimov. At Vladislav Evgenievich’s I also met Anatoly Fedorovich Tarasov, a silent, desperately brave, young man who managed to go through the war, who undertook to raise the dilapidated Karabikha (Nekrasov’s estate near Yaroslavl) and devoted more than forty years of his life to the construction of this living monument to the glory of the poet and national culture. He was so purposeful in this service, in this work, that the shyness in front of him that arose in my youth did not leave me until last meeting in Karabikha, in the early 90s, when Anatoly Fedorovich had already retired. I was at his house, in an apartment in one of the estate wings... Without naming the names of other participants in the seminar of those years, I will only say that from the generous mind and soul of the Big Man, a whole generation of non-krasologists grew up, who gave their compatriots the basic, in addition to works pioneers, books about Nekrasov, from which many philology students learned and formed millions of fans of the great poet and great poetry. Vladislav Evgenievich himself unconditionally belongs to the pioneers and initiators. The result of his difficult scientific search, the main thoughts and feelings are expressed in his published works. Their ideas are directly or indirectly accepted by the overwhelming majority of researchers of Russian democratic literature. Here I would like to talk about something else that remained beyond the boundaries of the books, namely, about the integrity of his nature and the fact that in his relations with us, with his family, in everyday life, his true democracy, his loyalty to Nekrasov’s ideals of Good and Love were manifested. I remember how they celebrated one of his birthdays. It was a normal workday. Alisa Mikhailovna (wife of Vladislav Evgenievich) asked me to come early the day before to help. In the morning, in the room that served as the dining room, they moved the already large rectangular table apart and covered only part of it with a tablecloth: “If a lot of people come at the same time, we’ll cover the whole thing.” They put a herring sprinkled with onion rings in one of the herring containers. Pickled cucumbers were placed on the other. In the bread box - pieces of rye bread. They put “sweet vodka” in an old bottle. The damask was surrounded by faceted piles, similar to those I had seen at my grandmother’s a long time ago. The plates were placed on the edge and the forks were placed. The first to come, obviously, was morning classes, university professor Grigory Abramovich Byaly. Having congratulated the birthday boy and loudly, without clumping up his sentences, uttering his wishes, he rubbed his frozen hands, raised his eyebrows, drank a glass of vodka and took a piece of bread and cucumber without using the plate, apparently appreciating the originality of the feast. He stayed for about half an hour and left in clearly good spirits. The whole reception went in this spirit. There were a lot of congratulators, but they came one after another, as if they had allocated their time in advance. I don't know if it has always been like this. However, that birthday made the most favorable impression on me: there was emotional communication between the birthday boy and those congratulating him, when they could sincerely express their most intimate things; The ritual of the holiday was observed, but did not exhaust anyone with either noise or abundance of food. In addition, Vladislav Evgenievich, who was far from healthy, was not allowed even the most modest treats. Sometimes, tired, he went out for a few minutes - then Alisa Mikhailovna or I became the guest’s interlocutors, gratefully receiving literary news, information about affairs at the university and the city. The day was “closed” by a noisy flock of seminarians. After a chorus of toasts, they talked about a funny picture in the wall newspaper of the philology department. It depicted Vladislav Evgenievich rolling a whole train of baby carriages in front of him and sadly asking: “When will this end?” The fact is that several of his graduate students had babies. Congratulating young mothers, he gave them strollers - and was sad because, unfortunately, during this important event for every family, the deadlines for completing the dissertation research were violated. Around six in the evening, Alisa Mikhailovna said with satisfaction: “Perhaps that’s it. And Vladislav Evgenievich, in my opinion, is satisfied.” We, its eyewitnesses and participants, were also pleased with this special day, who perceived it both as a fact and as a kind of lesson... In everyday matters, Vladislav Evgenievich was often childishly spontaneous and, at the same time, very unpretentious. I remember Touching story, which happened in Pribytkovo, near Leningrad, where Evgeniev-Maksimov spent his summer vacation in the post-war years. During the years of war and devastation, everything became shabby. He, who worked with people, needed a good new suit. And so black cloth appeared in the Pribytkovsky general store for 120 rubles per meter (in Gostiny Ryad at the same time tights for men's suits began to be sold at 400 rubles per meter, but Vladislav Evgenievich considered purchasing it an unaffordable luxury for himself). The cloth was purchased (“without a queue,” Vladislav Evgenievich clarified with satisfaction, telling the story of the costume), and delivered to a local tailor. And in the fall, rejoicing at his good fortune, this ultra-modest man sported a new thing. Our seminar classes took place in our home office. This scientist’s office was modest, where everything was determined by the opportunity to work intently. Large, with a high ceiling, with muted greenish walls, it always seemed dark. In the five years that I was there (graduate years and after), nothing changed in it. We sat on chairs arranged in a semicircle. Each of us found ourselves with our back or side to the door. Vladislav Evgenievich most often sat at a spacious desk. Sometimes he walked out into a semicircle. But even in this case, a considerable distance remained between him and us. There were no paper Himalayas on the table: apparently, everything was stored either in the drawers of the table or in the double-leaf tall oak cabinets that stood at the corner along two walls. Their glass doors looking at us were covered from the inside with some kind of dark matter. After the death of Vladislav Evgenievich, some of these cabinets (five or six) “moved” into his apartment younger brother . From him I heard more than once that their first owner was his father, Evgeniy Dmitrievich, a “large-scale public figure”, a participant in “going to the people”, at one time a rural teacher, in the last years of his life - a professor at the Leningrad Institute of National Economy. (Information taken from D. E. Maksimov’s essay “About Myself,” pp. 166--167.) For a long time, another living creature, unknown to us, was a participant in the classes - a dog. At first she showed no signs of her presence. We found out about it by chance when Vladislav Evgenievich asked to see what Kado was doing. Behind the screen, where I had to look, there was an iron bed with curved backs (this was done at the beginning of the 20th century). And on a gray-brown flannel blanket, with its muzzle and paws stretched out towards the pillow covered with the same blanket, a dissatisfied Kado was reclining. Even now I remember how I, who grew up in a family of hunters where dogs were kept in kennels on the street, was surprised by this freedom. But it immediately occurred to me that Kado was Nekrasov’s favorite dog, that he was allowed to stay in the best rooms - and everything became clear. True, this Cado was most likely a mongrel: small and ugly, smooth-haired, dark fawn, sometimes light, golden brown. A sudden illness prevented me from submitting my dissertation on time. I left Leningrad without protection. It took place at the very end of 1952. V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov was the first opponent: “Could it have been otherwise?” - he reasoned. However, his unconditional intention was accompanied by a number of conditions on the part of Alisa Mikhailovna. How can he, who suffers from chronic diseases, be delivered to a place of protection so as not to catch a cold? Taxis were excluded for fear of infection. How to get to the fourth floor, where the audience was allocated for protection? The first floor of the building was occupied by utility rooms, the second by laboratories, and the third was already high. Etc. At the defense, as soon as he began to speak, Vladislav Evgenievich forgot about his ailments, first stood at the makeshift pulpit, and then went to the front stage, majestically handsome, solemnly pronounced an ode in honor of Nekrasov the artist and man, in honor of his feat in the formation of several generations of compatriots. Only then did he purposefully and carefully analyze my work. You should have seen how the crowded audience listened to him! Some even had to stand along the walls and in the aisles. Most of the people came here, of course, not for me, the interpreter. The current minute-by-minute and calculated protection regulations were not yet observed. Vladislav Evgenievich spoke for a long time, convincingly, beautifully - and the audience did not move. The second opponent, quite polemical both in relation to me and to Vladislav Evgenievich, was Alexander Ivanovich Gruzdev, who had recently begun to head the department of Russian literature at the Herzen Institute. When I answered him, defending my opinion and disagreeing with a number of his comments, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov nodded his head at me with satisfaction. From the speeches of unofficial opponents, I remember the detailed speech that was delivered in approval and agreement with my judgments by Evgenieva-Maksimova’s graduate student Inna Aleksandrovna Bityugova, who was studying the poem “Russian Women.” V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov, one might assume, shared his impressions (or some part of them) from reading my work with his brother. He also came to the defense and modestly sat down near the door to the classroom. However, even among the multitude of those present it was impossible not to notice him: he was as big, standing straight as Vladislav Evgenievich, listening attentively. After the defense, he not only congratulated, but approvingly expressed several promising judgments, for example, about the need for greater attention of researchers to the conscious focus of Nekrasov the poet on depicting the moral heights of fighters and ascetics, on reflecting the wealth of the Russian world in the images of characters. The cult of Nekrasov, the cult of true democracy, that existed in the parental family affected the moods and activities of the Maximov brothers for many years. long years, lived with them. In one of the letters (dated May 20, 1972), Dmitry Evgenievich wrote: “I am also glad that you often refer to my brother. He and I have different paths in “science,” but I am sad when he is ignored: after all, Our origins have something in common: belated and, perhaps, fantastic tears about Nekrasov and his whole world. And besides, in the appearance and writings of his brother there was that human element that is not often manifested in other sharper philologists and their works." For Vladislav Evgenievich, this cult of Nekrasov multiplied and expanded in the conscious formation of the Nekrasov “brotherhood” from people of subsequent generations. If we return to the dissertation, we can say that for several years after the defense, I kept that typewritten copy of it, where Vladislav Evgenievich left his “talking” notes infrequently, but sweepingly, in the margins, either with simple or colored pencils. Years later, during one of my meetings with A.I. Gruzdev, I told him about this specimen. He expressed a desire to look at the notes. Naturally, I brought this copy. Together we leafed through the text of the manuscript with these “talking” notes, discussed them, marveled at the subtlety of the venerable scientist’s penetration into the result of the first tests, into someone else’s and, of course, far from perfect plan. Seeing Alexander Ivanovich’s sincere and deep interest in litters, I gave him this copy. Endowed with a collecting passion, the results of which were directed not towards himself, but towards the glory of Russian literature, V. E. Evgeniev-Maksimov did not “lose” me in the multi-layered flow of affairs, worries, and illnesses. Moreover, he decided to introduce me to the circle of active non-krasologists, and therefore took the painstaking supervision of the work on my first scientific article. It was called "On Some Genres and compositional features forms of Nekrasov's historical-revolutionary poems "Grandfather", "Russian Women". and four letters from Vladislav Evgenievich, which I have kept for more than forty years, are connected. They were kept because they contain the personality of the scientist, his selfless love for Nekrasov and his uncontrollable desire to increase the clan of Nekrasovites. And they also contain an excellent school for anyone starting my path in science. They also capture reflections of the links in my life; they are evaluated by a wise person who discovers the good and the bad in my thoughts and actions. I re-read these letters many times “for myself”, re-read them to students and graduate students. From their contents , starting with the letter dated February 18 (1952), it is clear that there were others (I left Leningrad at the end of August 1950). But others, alas, did not survive. If I was slow to respond to those now lost letters, he was looking for me through his younger brother: there is mention of this in Dmitry Evgenievich’s letters addressed to me. So, we offer letters from Vladislav Evgenievich. Dear L.A.! I do not and cannot have any disfavor towards you. Although sometimes it is annoying that you are delaying your dissertation so much. The collection I wrote to you about is volume II of the “Nekrasov Collection” of the Institute of Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences. If you are not familiar with Volume I, then get acquainted!.. I am old and sick (are you taking this into account enough?), and besides, I am overburdened with business. I won’t be able to read your dissertation soon, but I will need an article for the collection soon. Offer several topics to choose from. After all, it’s not difficult for you to do this. I just have to warn you that we have already been offered (not at all by my graduate student, who has nothing ready yet...(What is in italics here and below is underlined in the original.) ) article "Historical and revolutionary poems of Nekrasov". I suggested that the author rework it. I think that, taking into account the size (2-2.5 printed l.), he will stop at “Princess Volkonskaya”. (In issues 2-3 of the Nekrasov collection, no article about “Prince Volkonskaya” appeared.) I think you could write about “Grandfather” or “Prince Trubetskoy”. Otherwise, stop on some other topic related to this range of issues, but the topic is no longer of a monographic nature. You know better. I ask only one thing - hurry up! Write to the address: Lgrad, Vo, Tuchkova embankment, 2, Irli Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Olga Vladimirovna Loman (editorial secretary).

Your devoted V. Evg. M-v.

Dear Lyudmila Anatolyevna! I congratulate you on “adding your family” - a joyful event. At the same time, I remind you of the Nekrasov Collection (vol. II). I was expecting a message from you big articles for him, but for some reason (maybe due to the birth of a child?) you are in no hurry. The deadline for submitting the collection to the publishing house has been pushed back somewhat. You have one more month left. Develop several chapters into a stand-alone article. Don't be lazy to write to me. Will my long-standing and sincere sympathy for you remain without any response? You once wrote me letters imbued with sincere friendliness. Is all this, without a trace, a thing of the past?! It wouldn’t hurt to write something about yourself and your personal life. Your very old, alas, forgotten friend

Vl. Evg. Maksimov

Dear Lyudmila Anatolievna! What an unfortunate word you used to address me - “you are becoming poor”! You are very young, and therefore psychology is organically alien to you a very old and very sick man. Otherwise, you wouldn’t accuse me of being “poor.” However, this is true, by the way. A The main thing in a different. Your article was just forwarded to me. Even fugitive(for now) viewing was enough to make sure that the article was good and would be suitable for Nekr Sat. (Referring to L. A. Rozanova’s article as a group of historical and literary ones, the scientist wrote to N. F. Belchikov, then head of the Institute of Russian Literature: “... they, in my opinion, do not raise doubts” (Letters from N. F. Belchikov to Evgeniev-Maksimov. Publication by Z. F. Belchikova and L. A. Rozanova. Nekrasov collection. L., 1988. Issue. Kh. S. 213).) Of course, I am not the only one who decides the issue of acceptance and rejection of articles, but I think that the article will not raise doubts among other members of the editorial board. However, let's wait to see what the reviewers say. And on my own behalf I can only thank you. In January 1953, we will host the 4th All-Union Conference of Nekrasologists. It would be highly desirable for you to prepare a report for it. If it is (which I have no doubt) as successful as the submitted article, we will publish it in Volume III of the Nekrasov Collection. When will you defend your dissertation? Hurry up! According to my information, besides yours, two dissertations on “Russian Women” are already being completed. I send greetings to Pavel Vyacheslavovich. (Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kupriyanovsky - since 1949, head of the department of literature and dean of the philological faculty at the Ivanovo State Pedagogical Institute. He completed graduate school at Leningrad State University under the guidance of first S. D. Balukhaty, then D. E. Maksimov, and studied the history of the magazine " Northern Messenger". Perhaps his interest in journalism, and perhaps his passion for books, became one of the reasons for his rapprochement with Evgeniev-Maksimov.) Is it true that he has become very important? I wish all the best to you and your family. With respect, V. Evg. Maksimov.

Dear Lyudmila Anatolievna! I feel a little better (for God’s sake, don’t think that by talking about my illness, I’m being “poor” again!), and I looked at your article again, this time more carefully. The impression is the same: the article is sensible, and should, in my opinion, be included in the Collection (these issues are ultimately decided by the editorial board with the participation of reviewers - do not forget this!). Still, before I receive the reviewer’s feedback, I think it would be useful to make a few (not too significant) comments. 1). To page 2: I do not agree that Nekrasov “deviates from historical truth in his assessment of the uprising,” trying to “show the Decembrists as close to the masses.” The scene of the uprising speaks not of the closeness of the people, but of the people’s lack of understanding of what was happening - “hardly the hundredth understood...”. According to Nekrasov, the Decembrists became close to the people already in exile (this remark is significant). 2). To page 5: the definition of the genre of the poem is too general; it is desirable to develop and clarify. 3). To page 6: Do you really like this expression: “Synthesis of a socially significant and personally significant event”? 4). On pp. 12--13--14--15--16 and on pp. 25--26 retellings take up too much space. They should be reduced! 5). To pp. 41-42: you don’t take into account the fact that the image of a “lyrical hero” is visible both in the tone of the narrative and in the fact that the author sometimes clearly joins the opinions of his heroes, for example: “Thank you, Russian people. .." This should be noted. Of these comments, only the 4th, it seems, should entail some reworking; the rest can be easily implemented by inserting, deleting, or altering 2-3 phrases. Make these corrections without waiting for reviewer feedback. Now about something else! It is completely incomprehensible to me why the Herzen Institute is delaying its response. Come to Leningrad as soon as possible, and we will quickly settle this matter! After all, you can, in addition to Herzen, defend at Pokrovsky or at the University. Both here and here I will help you if anything happens. Dmit Evg, I am convinced, for his part will do everything in his power<...>. (The defense took place at the A.I. Herzen Pedagogical Institute.) I am already collecting material for Volume III. Collection. Send another article.

Devoted to you
V. Evg. Maksimov.