E. F. Rosen in Pushkin's Sovremennik

Kuts Nikolai Viktorovich Postgraduate student, Department of the History of Russian Literature, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1 nikolaikuts@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Among the staff of A. S. Pushkin's magazine Sovremennik, one can find not only writers of the first magnitude, but also "minor" writers. One of them, Baron Egor Fedorovich Rosen, the historical playwright and librettist of M. I. Glinka's opera "Life for the Tsar", was quite close to Pushkin and his inner circle throughout the 1830s ^{[3, p. 342]}. He probably met Pushkin between February 24 and 27, 1829, after which he entered the circle of A. A. Delvig and began to take an active part in the Literary Gazette and the almanac "Northern Flowers" ^{[4, pp. 123-137]}. In the struggle of the "literary aristocrats" with the "trade direction in literature", Rosen took the position of the Pushkin circle.

In this article we will try to take a closer look at the background and nature of Rosen's collaboration in Sovremennik, paying special attention to the relationship between Rosen and Pushkin.

In the first half of the 1830s, after the termination of the Literary Gazette, the Pushkin circle needed its own printing organ. The political and literary newspaper "Diary" conceived by Pushkin, for which permission was obtained in 1832, did not take place ^[13]. During the years 1832-1833 . Pushkin, Zhukovsky and Vyazemsky presented draft magazines to the government, but their attempts were unsuccessful ^{[6, p. 3]}.

When in the autumn of 1831 it became known about I. V. Kireevsky's plan to publish a magazine called "The European", the news was received with enthusiasm in the Pushkin environment. The young editor wanted to "rally writers of the Pushkin circle around the magazine, to make a new printing organ the banner of the Pushkin trend in literature and journalism" ^{[23, p. 419]}. Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Yazykov, Baratynsky, A. I. Turgenev, V. F. responded to the exit of the "European". Odoevsky, O. M. Somov ^{[2, p. 119]}. At the beginning of 1832, the first two issues were published.

Pushkin wrote to Kireevsky on February 4, sending him an excerpt from the story "The House in Kolomna": "God grant many summers to your magazine! If you guess by the first two numbers, then the “European" will be long-lived. Until now, our magazines have been dry and insignificant or practical and dry; it seems that the "European" will be the first to combine efficiency with enticement" ^{[17, p. 9]}.

A similar thought was expressed by Rosen in a letter dated February 1. He warmly welcomed the publication of the magazine and remarked: "Your literary enterprise has attracted the attention of well—meaning people who want the good of our poor literature; but especially we, the writing brethren, rejoice at your "European"! Until then, there was not a single magazine whose opinion we could cherish: it was always either stupid praise or a stupid personality! Now we are waiting for good reviews from you, or — if our creations are not worth it yet — at least friendly comments. We do not need praise, we only need the truth" ^{[19, l. 1]}.

"Efficiency" is one of the main advantages of the new magazine for Pushkin and Rosen. Zhukovsky, having blessed Kireevsky for the publication, also remarked: "I am sure in my heart that he can be a good writer and that he will have a job" ^{[23, p. 418]}.

Rosen, along with the letter, sent Kireevsky "Bayader" — a translation of Goethe's poem "Der Gott und die Bajadere" ("God and Bayadera", 1797). Initially, the baron intended to publish it in his almanac "Alcyone" for 1832, but the poem was not censored. The St. Petersburg Censorship Committee noted that in translation "the Indian chief god "Magade", the ruler of the earth, below called omniscient, descended from heaven to test people, spends the night with a dissolute bayadere, which ignites the purest love, which produces a terrible confusion of concepts of deity and debauchery" ^{[9, p. 923]}. Rosen hoped that the Moscow censorship would skip the poem, but just in case he wrote to Kireevsky that if the translation "does not work", he would deliver something else to the editor. But Rosen never saw the printed "Bayadera" — on the third issue, the "European" was banned for Kireevsky's article "The Nineteenth Century".

The "European", on which great hopes were pinned, was closed, but in the Pushkin circle they continued to think about a "good" publication that could unite writers close in spirit. In December of the same year , 1832 . Rosen called his friend S. P. Shevyrev from Moscow to St. Petersburg, saying: "We would have started some kind of practical magazine, which is a common desire" ^{[8, p. 48]}.

Pushkin's Sovremennik became such a magazine three years later. The poet conceived it as a quarterly publication, like the "English three-month Reviews" ^{[18, p. 69]}. In the first issue, the writers closest to Pushkin at that time were published: Zhukovsky, Gogol, Vyazemsky, Pletnev, A. I. Turgenev. Rosen is with them.

Rosen sent to Sovremennik an article "On Rhyme", original both in tone and in the main idea. This is a witty "fervent invective" against rhyme in defense of white verse. It was not by chance that Pushkin placed before her the "little tragedy" "The Miserly Knight", written in rhymeless verse ^{[6, p. 25]}. Obviously, the great poet agreed with the main provisions of the article, despite some paradoxical Rosen's judgments.

Delving into historical and literary research, Rosen reviews the history of rhyme from antiquity to the present. He notes that the rhyme originated with the Arabs. "The poetry of Jews, Hindus, Greeks, Romans and ancient Scandinavians did not know rhyme" ^{[22, p. 138]}. The Russian people have long known and loved rhyme in their proverbs and sayings, but in their folklore lyrical songs rhyme can rarely be found. Rosen asks the question: why Russians familiar with the rhyme did not use it in songs, and answers: "Because they considered it a joke, but did not think to joke with their song, i.e. the sacred truth of spiritual outpourings. Russian Russian balalaika and tambourines get along only with Russian merriment, and the rhyme is consistent only with the red word of the Russian balagura" ^{[22, p. 139]}. Rosen calls the rhyme a "hollow-sounding toy" characteristic of the childhood of peoples, and comes to the conclusion that sooner or later white verse will dominate in Russian poetry.

Among other things, in Rosen's article there is a cross-cutting theme of Peter the Great for the "Contemporary". "We were talking about our folk poetry," Rosen writes, "now let's talk about the poetry of our enlightened society in relation to rhyme. Russian Russian society, rejected by the mighty genius of Peter from the national way of life and dedicated to European education, dropped a lot of Russian along the rapid path of innovations, including the correct Russian assessment of rhyme. She sneaked into Moscow from Poland. Cantemir, who is not Russian by birth, instilled it in our poetry. Lomonosov, this Peter of our literature, performed a gigantic feat by establishing true versification instead of false. Could he have committed more under the circumstances in which he was? Marburg and the German literature of that time could not lead him to what he most likely could have learned from a Russian commoner" ^{[22, pp. 148-149]}. Thus, according to Rosen, the appearance of rhyme in high poetry was caused by borrowing from the European literary tradition, mainly Polish, and later German, while with the natural development of Russian literature, rhymeless verse would prevail in this kind, as in folk songs and epics.

M. I. Hillelson rightly noted: "Probably, rhyme and white verse have been the subject of heated debates in the Pushkin circle more than once" ^{[6, p. 25]}. Rosen's article was thus a response to these conversations. The fact that Rosen's reflections echoed the thoughts of the great poet is evidenced by Pushkin's article "Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg" (1833-1834), in which the poet wrote about rhyme: "I think that over time we will turn to the white verse. There are too few rhymes in the Russian language. One causes the other. The flame inevitably drags the stone behind it. Because of the feeling, art certainly looks out. Who is not tired of love and blood, difficult and wonderful, faithful and hypocritical, etc." ^{[15, p. 263]}.

In 1836 Rosen communicates a lot and fruitfully with Pushkin, as evidenced by his letters and memoirs. The poets visit Zhukovsky's "Saturdays" together, where Gogol reads "The Inspector". In the memoir article "Link to the Dead", Rosen eloquently describes how he sincerely did not understand the comic nature of Gogol's play and did not laugh when everyone present at the readings laughed. Gogol's work, especially his satirical side, meets with persistent rejection from Rosen. When Pushkin placed the novella "Nose" in the third volume of Sovremennik with an encouraging publishing note, Rosen protested: how could a great poet like this "most empty, incomprehensible farce" ^{[21, p. 286]}? One Saturday, returning home, Rosen openly talks with Pushkin about Gogol and the "Inspector General": "I confessed," he writes in his memoirs, "to all the heavy impressions that drove me to horror from this comedy" ^{[21, p. 285]}. Rosen does not convey Pushkin's opinion expressed in response, since the poet asked to keep it a secret.

In the first half of 1836 Rosen is full of enthusiasm for the release of Pushkin's magazine. Twice, on February 4 and April 19, he sends his poems along with letters to Pushkin, but they do not appear in the strict "Contemporary" to poetry — apparently Pushkin politely rejects them. The article conceived by Rosen with "an analysis of the criticism of our modern critics placed in the Son of the Fatherland" ^{[18, p. 382]} was not published either. Realizing that Pushkin sought to avoid acutely polemical articles — the format of Sovremennik itself was not suitable for prolonged magazine polemics, especially since a large article criticizing the direction of modern magazines ("On the Movement of magazine Literature" by Gogol) had already been published in the magazine — Rosen at the end of the February letter emphasizes: "I respect your magazine too much to make it an outlet for my indignation"^{[18, p. 382]}.

Another critical article that Rosen is going to send to Sovremennik is an article about N. V. Kukolnik. On February 4, the baron informs Pushkin that he intends to write it in order to "prove to the aforementioned author that everything he has written is not worth much and that he has not mastered even the technique of dramatic action; to attack the ill-fated genre he has chosen mercilessly, taking into account that he has a talent that, being perfected, could, perhaps, rise above his pale mediocrity of the present day" ^{[18, p. 382]}. In the same letter, Rosen notes that he and Pushkin "hold almost the same opinions" about the Puppeteer ^{[18, p. 382]}, and therefore he sees no obstacle to the publication of the article. Pushkin's ironic assessment of the Puppeteer is well known: "And what, because the Puppeteer has good poems? They say that he also has thoughts" ^{[11, p. 178]}. Rosen certainly knew this opinion. Nevertheless, Pushkin also rejects the Baron's proposal.

It is worth noting that over time, Rosen's attitude towards the Puppeteer, his main rival in the dramatic field, changed — it ranged from almost enthusiastic to pejorative. The puppeteer made his debut in the Rosenov almanac: his first completed play "Tartini" was published in "Alcyone" ^{[12, pp. 212-215]}. Back in June 1833 Rosen, in a letter to Pushkin, wrote about the Puppeteer, with whom he then maintained acquaintance: "Have you read the Puppeteer's Tass? This is not a dramatic work, but an essay very remarkable for the richness and beauty of thoughts. These days he will read me another play of his composition! ("Julio Mosti")" ^{[17, p. 317]}. In the 1850s. Rosen, in a letter to Bulgarin, calls the Puppeteer no other than "the goldsmith of the matter of low works."

Of all the things proposed by Rosen to Pushkin, in addition to the article "On Rhyme", an excerpt from his tragedy "The Daughter of John III" falls into the "Contemporary". April 19 , 1836 Rosen sends it to Pushkin. In the letter, he says: "I am planning an article as strange as the article about rhyme; I will not tell you anything about it; I will write it, bring it to you — and we will laugh at it together" ^{[17, p. 388]}.

A month later, on May 19, Rosen sent a letter to V. F. Odoevsky, who was acting editor while Pushkin was in Moscow, some article for the second book of Sovremennik ("If it's good, print it! if not, then drop it!" ^{[10, p. 128]}). The commentators of this letter in the Literary Heritage suggested that Rosen sent Odoevsky an excerpt from The Daughter of John III, which was actually printed in the second volume of Sovremennik. It seems to us that we are talking about some other material (an excerpt from the tragedy has already been sent to Pushkin), which also remained unpublished - perhaps about that very "strange article".

Placed in the second issue of Sovremennik, an excerpt from The Daughter of John III, a tragedy that Rosen considered his best work, is a dialogue between Grand Duke John III and the Italian architect Aristotle Fioravanti. They talk about politics: John III is interested in why Italy, with the flourishing of sciences and arts in it, remains fragmented into small principalities:

You Italians have nothing to say,

Gifted with great intelligence

In all worldly matters; but why

You can 't arrange your land

Into a single state structure? ^{[20, pp. 194-195]}

 Fioravanti explains this by the fact that Italy is a country of artists and scientists: "The artist is the king // In the magical realm of feelings and thoughts, // But in the zemstvo business a small man" ^{[20, p. 195]}. He says that Italy can no longer become great, as it was during the Roman Empire: the "core of the state power" has split and shines in the Iverni (fragments). John argues: "Russia was // a strong state under Yaroslav, // And just as the core was torn // Into the Iverni, into many destinies" ^{[20, p. 197]}. He recalls the invasion of the Mongols and the "internecine strife", after which only a few centuries later it was possible to "pour out the sovereign image of the state." Fioravanti responds:

Under Yaroslav , it was only flaunted

The infancy of your people.

Harsh fate stopped

Further development of fresh forces,

And Russia is under it, like winter under the snows,

The safe one lay in a long sleep.

Folk identity was hidden

In the holy gifts of the cross — and your people

He did not mix with the stingy Horde.

State life in Russia

In the womb of troubles and internecine evils

Invisibly and secretly conceived ^{[20, p. 197]}.

Fioravanti mentions both "Moscow — the third Rome" and the later legend about the blood relationship of the Moscow grand dukes with the Roman Emperor Augustus. In response, John utters a monologue, vaguely reminiscent of Boris Godunov's monologue from Pushkin's tragedy ("I have reached the highest power ..."):

I have laid on eternal foundations

The holy building of my kingdom —

And my people will be great and eternal,

But my people are worth a lot to me!..

My heart was attracted to people in my younger days

And I wanted to share my life with them fraternally.

Having understood the master 's secret,

I pierced my heart with a royal scepter,

He retreated into cold grandeur,

In the relentlessness of the soul chained,

He deified the person of the crown - bearer,

With heavenly thunder the gaze armed,

I put fear and awe around me —

And He created Russia... and with firmness for

He also sacrificed his brothers and relatives…

How hard it is to be in great men! ^{[20, p. 199]}

(Cf. elsewhere in Pushkin: "You are heavy, Monomakh's hat!" ^{[14, p. 49]}).

Pushkin, apparently, highly appreciated this fragment with reflections on the historical rise of Russia and the nature of state power, which is why he published it in Sovremennik. Not the least role in this was played by the noticeable roll calls of the new Rosen tragedy with "Boris Godunov".

Pushkin's interest in Rosen's dramaturgy is confirmed by the poet's diary entry made on April 2, 1834: "Cook <olnik> writes Lyapunov. Hamsters too. Neither one nor the other will write a good tragedy. Baron Rosen has more talent" ^{[16, p. 323]}. Although there is an assumption by G. A. Gukovsky that Rosen's name is mentioned here in a satirical way ("even Baron Rosen has more talent") ^{[7, p. 74]}, we have no reason to consider Pushkin's testimony ambiguous. For example, it is known that the Pushkin library kept a copy of the tragedy "Russia and Batory" donated by Rosen, and Pushkin made notes in it. So, he crossed out in the margins Ivan the Terrible's story about Kurbsky's betrayal ^{[5, pp. 247-248]}. In the tragedy "Peter Basmanov", also presented to Pushkin by the writer, the great poet was keenly interested in the "defeated difficulty": Rosen wrote a tragedy about the Time of Troubles, having dispensed with the figure of False Dmitry in the list of actors ^{[21, pp. 279-281]}. Rosen was undoubtedly interested in Pushkin as an original historical playwright who addressed the era of the gathering of a single Russian state ("Russia and Batory", "The Daughter of John III") and the history of the Troubles ("Peter Basmanov"). It is possible that Pushkin could treat Rosen's dramas inspired by Boris Godunov in the same way as some of his lyrical experiences: perceive them as "a distant draft of his own future creations" ^{[1, p. 164]}.

In a letter to Pushkin dated December 13 , 1836 Rosen mentions two poems about which he had a conversation with Pushkin. Probably, they were also intended for Sovremennik, but they were never printed in it. The nature of Rosen's relationship with the great poet at this moment suggests that the baron's active collaboration in Sovremennik would have continued the following year, but the sudden duel and Pushkin's death ended the friendly relationship. Together with her, almost all of Rosen's connections in the Pushkin circle were cut off. In Sovremennik, published by Pushkin's friends, Rosen's materials were not published.