Controversy About the Ideological Orientation Around the Almanac "Mnemosyne"

Ospanova Evelina Post-graduate student of the Department of the History of Russian Literature at Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., p. 51, room 958 evelina20.06@mail.ru

In the 20s of the nineteenth century, Russian literature was "journalized" ^{[6, p. 13]}. A special role in this process was played by the publication of almanacs, which were widely distributed in the press. Their publication under the conditions of that time was easier than the issue of magazines. It was this form of publishing works of art that became the most popular, and in the period from 1825 to 1832, about two dozen almanacs were published every year ^{[17, p. 224]}. Thus, A. S. Pushkin in 1827 noted that "almanacs have become representatives of our literature. They will eventually be used to judge its movement and success" ^{[20, p. 1]}. Later, V. G. Belinsky characterized this era as an "almanac period": "The success of the Polar Star produced an almanac period in our literature that lasted more than ten years" ^{[9, p. 76]}.

V. K. Kuchelbecker intended to deal with the magazine, but there were certain difficulties in this matter. P. A. Vyazemsky wrote to V. A. Zhukovsky on August 27, 1823 about Kuchelbecker's intentions: "He is going to publish a magazine, but even here the trouble is: his name is probably banned from censorship... It will be necessary to help him, if he starts publishing, then we will undertake to raise his magazine. The plan of his magazine is good and European, he has enough materials of his own; he has knowledge. It seems that there may be some use in his enterprise" ^{[15, p. 190]}. A. S. Pushkin also learned about Kuchelbecker's plans. In a letter to P. A. Vyazemsky dated December 20 , 1823 , he asked: "What is the journal of Anacharsis-Klotz-Kuchelbecker?" ^{[17, p. 77]}.

Kuchelbecker listened to P. Pletnev's advice to "make friends with some of the Moscow journalists who already have a satisfied number of subscribers," and decided to involve the head of the society of Lovers of wisdom V. F. Odoevsky, who himself needed a separate publication, in the publication of Mnemosyne. It is noteworthy that Pushkin perceived the almanac as an edition of Kuchelbecker; he does not indicate Odoevsky, despite the fact that Odoevsky's name is first on the cover, only then Kuchelbecker ^{[23, p. 36]}.

In December 1823, V. K. Kuchelbecker and V. F. Odoevsky in the "Bulletin of Europe" reported on the release of their joint almanac "Mnemosyne": "This edition, in the kind of German almanacs, will have the main purpose — to satisfy the diverse tastes of all readers. Therefore, the composition of "Mnemosyne" will include: stories, anecdotes, characters, excerpts from comedies and tragedies, poems of all kinds and brief critical remarks" ^{[2, p. 316]}.

Kuchelbecker and Odoevsky intended to publish four parts of the almanac a year. Initially, the almanac had 157 subscribers, but at the same time "Mnemosyne" was not lost against the background of more well-known almanacs. Already after the publication of the first part of Mnemosyne, which was a resounding success, Kuchelbecker noticed in one of his letters that all expenses for this part were fully covered, and he intended "to print up to 600 more copies of the first part, and the remaining parts at once 1200." Before that, the case with such a large circulation was listed only at the Polar Star. The publication was published not only in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but also in the regions ^{[5, p. 153]}. In total, four books of "Mnemosyne" were published: three of them in 1824, and the last part in 1825 ^{[25, pp. 483-484]}. Kuchelbecker and Odoevsky planned to continue the further publication of the almanac, but this could not be done due to a number of reasons, among which was the arrest of Kuchelbecker.

Griboyedov, Pushkin, Denis Davydov, and Vyazemsky also actively participated in Mnemosyne, but the direction of the almanac was set by Kuchelbecker and Odoevsky ^{[17, p. 230]}. M. S. Akimova notes that V. K. Kuchelbecker was responsible for poetry and criticism, and V. F. Odoevsky was in charge of the field of philosophy, fiction and journalism, as well administrative and editorial activities were in his hands ^{[1, p. 5]}.

Over time, opinions about the future direction of the magazine differed more and more, and the relationship of publishers became more and more difficult. Odoevsky formed the fourth part of Mnemosyne without the help of Kuchelbecker, although the latter's works are also significant in this issue.

In a rather small, but at the same time active period of its publication, Mnemosyne received many positive reviews: not only its announcement in the Bulletin of Europe was loud, but also subsequent reviews from literary critics concerning both individual publications of the almanac and the entire issue as a whole. At the same time, it is also worth noting that "Mnemosyne" has been criticized more than once by contemporaries. The most ardent critic of the publication was F. V. Bulgarin. If at first Bulgarin was inclined to join Kuchelbecker and even followed his principles when writing the feuilleton "Literary Ghosts" ^{[11, p. 401]}, then after a sharp rebuke of the "romantic" to the Bulgarian review in the "Literary Leaflets", he turned into an ardent opponent of Kuchelbecker. Together with Odoevsky, Kuchelbecker was supported by Yevgeny Baratynsky, who called the critic's reasoning "indisputably fair" ^{[21, p. 377]}. On the other side of the poetic barricades were P. A. Vyazemsky and A. I. Turgenev: "Have you read the Kyukhelbekeriad in the second Mnemosyne? I say that this is a beer intoxication, heavy" ^{[18, p. 69]}.

"Mnemosyne" by Odoevsky and Kuchelbecker met the most irreconcilable opponent in the person of F. V. Bulgarin, who declared that "Mnemosyne" is an extract of "Greek, Roman, Jewish, Chaldean and German wisdom, and if a thoughtful thinker ... understood what he was writing about, and that the venerable publisher of "Mnemosyne" placed in this in a book, then maybe we would have learned something" ^{[24, p. 85]}. P. N. Sakulin also noted that "You. Ap. Ushakov acted as a subordinate Bulgarin" ^{[22, p. 276]}.

E. E. Vishnevskaya in her article "V. F. Odoevsky and the almanac "Mnemosyne" in the history of book culture of Russia of the XIX century" ^{[3, p. 68]} notes that V. F. Odoevsky described the mood of that time in one of his works as follows: "... literary abuse went beyond the boundaries of all decency", it was "the areal battle of areal jokes, ambiguities, the most malicious slander and offensive uses ..." ^{[11, p. 37]}.

Among the negative reviews on the almanac, it is also necessary to mention the comments of A. F. Voeikov. Since the mid-1820s, Voeykov led a literary polemic with V. K. Kuchelbecker and his almanac "Mnemosyne". It is worth noting, however, that initially Voeykov and Kuchelbecker had good friendly relations, which later deteriorated.

After the publication of the almanac, Voeykov, in a devastating review, was outraged that "Mnemosyne" "appeared in a purple wrapper, with two poorly lithographed pictures and a lot of typos. We do not know which category of books to classify Mnemosyne. If to the Calendars of the Muses; then the format, splint pictures and bad letters do not correspond to this name at all – and her elder sister, the Polar Star, is a beauty in front of her! According to her inner dignity, she belongs even less to them. If you call it a Magazine, then it does not contain anything modern, fresh; nothing like that, why it would be possible to guess that it was published in 1824. Elle ne palpate de l'inter?t du moment" ^{[13, p. 22]}.

This review by Voeikov provoked the reciprocal indignation of the publishers of the almanac. Thus, Kuchelbecker ironically recalled in his article "Military, scientific and political landmark events in the field of Russian literature of the past 1824" about Voeykov's words about the cover of the first part of Mnemosyne: "The severe criticism to which the wrapper of Mnemosyne is subjected by G. S., V. and Bulgarin" ^{[7, p. 499]}.

Later, in the second part of Mnemosyne, in the section "Special Articles", Odoevsky's "Letter to Moscow to V. K. Kuchelbecker" was printed, in which Voeykov was maliciously and wittily ridiculed, who signed a letter In a harsh review of the first part of the almanac ^{[10, pp. 165-185]}.

Also in this part of the almanac was published "A letter to Moscow to V. K. Kuchelbecker about the ideas of the "News of Literature" and "The Invalid" Voeikov" by V. F. Odoevsky, in which he speaks negatively about Voeikov's critical article. Odoevsky writes that "Mnemosyne is scolded without mercy only in two magazines: in the "News of Literature", published by A. F. Voeikov, and in the delightful "Ladies' Magazine", published by kn. Shalikov" ^{[10, pp. 165-185]}.

Prince Shalikov also actively engaged in polemics with the publishers of Mnemosyne. Shalikov published the magazines "The Moscow Spectator" (1806), "Aglaya" (1808-1812), "Ladies' Magazine" (1823-1833). In 1813-1838 he was the editor of the Moscow Gazette. Later, V. K. Kuchelbecker, who repeatedly noted the "magnificent nonsense" of the "bad scribbler" Sh., admitted that he could not read "The historical news about the stay of the French in Moscow" Sh. "without stirring in his heart." "These are also his news about the poor," wrote V. K. Kuchelbecker – "it is clear every time that he takes a sincere part in them" ^{[8, p. 128]}.

Also in the second part of Mnemosyne, Odoevsky, in his letter, "Something like a typo, or an answer to the Publisher of the Ladies' Magazine, ironically addresses the prince: "How to live in the world – I really don't understand. I sincerely thanked Prince Shalikov for praising Mnemosyne – and this upset him; I promised him to send a sensitive play for a Ladies' Magazine (see Son of No. 12), which is more tender? – and that upset him. Assuming the tone of offended innocence, which is so becoming to a Ladies' Magazine, he menacingly calls me wise – what's scarier than that?

Full-te G. Publisher Of The Ladies' Magazine! Why are you calling me by a name you hate so much? Why be upset? Bitterness upsets sensitive hearts. Pick up the book Revue Encyclop?dique, in which it is written that you even publish a Ladies' Magazine (and only!); cast a gentle, paternal glance at your collected works – and be comforted! What do you care about envious people?

You see, Mr. Publisher of a Ladies' Magazine – with what a tender soul I was born: You are angry with me, and I praise you! However, you are the reason for that; you are the reason for that, that it is no longer possible to be angry with you, that anger and Logic are silenced before you!

Anyway, my friends are extremely sorry about me: ”Why,” they say, ”did you choose such a terrible opponent? Why don't you attack them, who are like Literary growths; who for half a century have had nothing in their heads but violets and roses, and whose fame is united from ridicule, at their own expense, said?” - How do you think about this, Mr. Publisher of a Ladies' Magazine? – However, I have the honor to be, and so on.

P.S. The venerable Publisher of a Ladies' Magazine asks me how I want him to answer me? – Everything is the same, Mr. Publisher, everything is the same! Only for God's sake don't praise me" ^{[10, 189-190]}.

Prince Shalikov responds no less ironically to Odoevsky's letter: "I advise Mr. Odvsk., the author of the Typo (approx. author: The full title of the immortal creation: "Something like a typo (?!)" or the answer " (which, between us, is worse than any typo)"to the publisher of a Ladies' magazine." See the typos of the so-called Mnemosyne, Part II), look through the noon eyes of his companion in the publication of the so-called Mnemosyne (Part II, countries. 53) to what I said in a commendable Response to the sensitive gratitude of the great transcendentalist... Other advice would certainly be useful to the new Kant of the so–called Mnemosyne – or, better to say, truly Mnemosyne: les extr?mes se touchent" ^{[4, pp. 99-100]}. The prince constantly adds "the so-called Mnemosyne" when he talks about the almanac, emphasizing his negative attitude to what is happening.

In his subsequent "Reply of Prince Shalikov to the most sensitive gratitude of Mr. Odvsk.", published in the "Ladies' Magazine", Prince Shalikov reproaches Odoevsky for the previous letter: "If a person would rather listen to the voice of his own benefit, always faithful, and not to the cries of self-love, always treacherous; then the wise companion of the Publisher of the so-called Mnemosyne, instead of pathetic jokes and strained declamation, should thank me very sincerely for everything I have said – not about love of wisdom, which, contrary to Mr. Odvsk., I respect very much, but about the so-called Mnemosyne; but about the one who calls himself love of wisdom; but about the one who is in love of wisdom he annoyed me for so long and so terribly with days of vexation and annoys me so unbearably with his notes in the so–called "Mnemosyne": for everything I would say would be more useful for him than his own article, which he proved only his happy memory, counting on his fingers long forgotten, and which consists of questions - who what would you expect from a great transcendentalist? – similar to the guard 's questions in certain cases: "Who? How? For what?" ^{[16, pp. 198-199]}.

In the August issue of the Ladies' Magazine, a note was placed by N... Mgl... ("truth-loving writer," as Shalikov calls him in the note). In this article, the letter of Odoevsky, published in the "Son of the Fatherland" earlier, was analyzed in detail: "G. Odvsk. assumes in the title of his written work an expression of the most sensitive gratitude to the Publisher of the Ladies' Magazine, and G. The Publisher calls the Son of the Fatherland (even (!!)) gratitude to his critics.La raisom dit Virgile et la rime Quinault!

After reading the written expression of the most sensitive gratitude – it will also be criticism (!!) – we, to your surprise, did not find in it any expression of feelings of gratitude, nor true and useful criticism. If such works should enlighten the human mind; if the authors of them and publishers think to make a kind heart share feelings of gratitude: then we can say decisively that the mind will never come out of the darkness of ignorance, and the heart should close for participation... Flashing dapper epithets, dressed up (? la folie), does the Writer think to be known as a connoisseur of talents? To determine the dignity and errors of the essays? Show true taste and sound judgment?.. But we... we think that to say, for example, a long–forgotten journey, messages in verse, still unread, etc., is just as insufficient for good criticism and for a good critic (And for an excellent Magazine like S.O. - It is noticed that in that excellent Magazine the most decisive and best criticism is that to exclaim: "Poor Egor! Poor Roman. Poor reader!" S.O., No. 2, str. 238. Op.), as a schoolboy who hears French for the first time, it is impossible to understand Voltaire's verse:

Tout m’?tonne dans vous, mais aussi tout m’outrage.

And so, to what kind of writings should this written expression of the most sensitive gratitude, or critical gratitude (!!) be attached What was the motive for printing it? What purpose does it have?.. O times! O morals! – Pathetic gratitude! pathetic criticism!.. and strange to any reasonable reader.

G. The writer of the most sensitive gratitude was carried away by himself for the Publisher of the Son of the Fatherland, and forgetting the promise, with Arnada innocence (!!) said: "Allow me, Mr. Publisher D.J., to bring you the tenderest (!!) gratitude ..." - Where is the truth?

Allow me, dear sirs, what do these variations mean? We have forgotten what they are called in Mr. Merzlyakov's Rhetoric.

Further: The writer was "afraid of admiration." - "Well! I am lost!" he exclaims: "Kn. Shalikov will present me with a phrase similar to (!!) Mr. Boucher's bow (!!) ... or draw a delightful picture (?), or finally (!!) put (?) I'm on the same level as a buffoon and so on. – Here's another wise variation for you!.. Why does the Writer of the most indefinite – critical–sensitive gratitude think that after admiration they always give a phrase like a bow?After that, it is very natural for the Writer to think that in a Ladies' magazine everything somehow (!!) goes to the eversion.

It's hard to understand others when we don't understand ourselves!

From this we have concluded that a treatise, or a judicious study of the relations existing between a corset and a dressing (!!) dress, with epigraphs, madrigal – epigrams, callouts, references and citations (?), requires better clarity and accuracy in thoughts and syllable (See the Rhetoric of Mr. Merzlyakov. Op.); what we do not hope from the Writer and think that he will not take up his own.

Further, the city of Odvsk. he forgot himself to such an extent that he tells us to look at No. 7 D.J. on page 30. In his opinion, there "are (?) people who are going to (!!) take the stars from the horizon () and put them under the microscope without further circumlocution!" Tell him, dear sirs, that this is a dream; that we deliberately looked into No. 7 D.J. and did not find in it people who can exist only in the assumptions of Mnemosyne; what we see in it on page 30 in the note is a continuation of the praise of this beauty, so deserved by her!.." ^{[12, pp. 183-187]}.

It should be noted that "Mnemosyne" for a short but rather active period of publication acquired both ideological supporters who shared the views of the publishers and opponents who actively criticized the almanac, among whom were F. B. Bulgarin, A. F. Voeykov and Prince P. I. Shalikov. The controversy of the publishers of Mnemosyne with critics did not stop until the publication of the almanac was discontinued. These critical reviews caused a heated debate on a number of issues: starting from the appearance of "Mnemosyne", and ending with individual comments on the works of the almanac. These discussions not only did not spoil the reputation of Mnemosyne, but also helped to attract public attention to it.