Did Gogol meet with Zagoskin m. Literary and everyday memories Gogol (Zhukovsky, Krylov, Lermontov, Zagoskin). Anniversary premieres: "Taras Bulba"

Gogol

(Zhukovsky, Krylov, Lermontov, Zagoskin)

The late Mikhail Semyonovich Shchepkin brought me to Gogol. I remember the day of our visit: October 20, 1851. Gogol then lived in Moscow, on Nikitskaya, in the house of Talyzin, with Count Tolstoy. We arrived at one o'clock in the afternoon; he received us immediately. His room was near the entrance to the right. We entered it - and I saw Gogol standing in front of the desk with a pen in his hand. He was wearing a dark coat, a green velvet waistcoat, and brown trousers. A week before that day I had seen him at the theater, at a performance of The Government Inspector; he was sitting in the mezzanine box, near the door itself - and, with his head thrown out, looked with nervous anxiety at the stage, over the shoulders of two hefty ladies, who served him as a protection from the curiosity of the public. F, who was sitting next to me, pointed him out to me. I quickly turned around to look at him; he probably noticed this movement and moved a little back into the corner. I was struck by the change that had taken place in him since the age of 41. I met him a couple of times then at Avdotya Petrovna E-naya's. At that time he looked like a squat and stocky Little Russian; now he seemed to be a thin and exhausted man, whom life had already managed to beat up on orders. A kind of hidden pain and anxiety, a kind of sad unease, mingled with the constantly shrewd expression of his face.

Seeing us with Shchepkin, he went to meet us with a cheerful look and, shaking my hand, said: "We should have known each other for a long time." We sat down. I am next to him on a wide sofa; Mikhail Semyonitch on the armchairs beside him. I took a closer look at his features. His blond hair, which fell straight from the temples, as is usual with the Cossacks, still retained the color of youth, but had already noticeably thinned; from his sloping, smooth, white forehead, as before, it wafted with intelligence. In the small brown eyes sparkled at times with gaiety - precisely gaiety, and not mockery; but in general their eyes seemed tired. A long, pointed nose gave Gogol's physiognomy something cunning, fox-like; his puffy, soft lips under a cropped mustache also made an unfavorable impression; in their indefinite outlines were expressed - so, at least, it seemed to me - the dark sides of his character: when he spoke, they uncomfortably opened and showed a row of bad teeth; a small chin sank into a wide black velvet cravat. In Gogol's posture, in his body movements, there was something not professorial, but teacher's - something reminiscent of teachers in provincial institutes and gymnasiums. “What a smart, and strange, and sick creature you are!” - involuntarily thought, looking at him. I remember that Mikhail Semyonovich and I went to see him as to an extraordinary, brilliant person who had something in his head ... all of Moscow had such an opinion about him. Mikhail Semyonovich warned me that one should not talk to him about the continuation of Dead Souls, about this second part, on which he worked so long and so hard and which, as you know, he burned before his death; that he does not like this conversation. I myself would not mention Correspondence with Friends, since I could not say anything good about it. However, I did not prepare for any conversation - but simply longed to see a man whose creations I almost knew by heart. It is even difficult for today's young people to interpret the charm that surrounded his name then; now there is no one on whom general attention could be focused.

Shchepkin announced to me beforehand that Gogol was not talkative; in reality it turned out differently. Gogol talked a lot, with animation, measuredly pushing away and rapping out every word - which not only did not seem unnatural, but, on the contrary, gave his speech some pleasant gravity and impressionability. He spoke in 6, I did not notice any other less pleasant features of the Little Russian dialect for the Russian ear. Everything came out well, smoothly, tasty and well-aimed. The impression of weariness, morbid, nervous restlessness which he had at first made upon me has vanished. He talked about the meaning of literature, about the vocation of a writer, about how one should treat one's own works; made several subtle and correct remarks about the very process of work, about the very, if I may say so, the physiology of writing; and all this - in figurative, original language - and, as far as I could see, not at all prepared in advance, as is often the case with "celebrities". Only when he started talking about censorship, almost glorifying it, almost approving it as a means of developing skill in a writer, the ability to protect his offspring, patience and many other Christian and secular virtues, only then it seemed to me that he draws from a ready-made arsenal. Moreover, to prove in this way the necessity of censorship - did it not mean to recommend and almost praise the cunning and cunning of slavery? I can still admit the verse of the Italian poet: “Si, servi siam; ma servi ognor fre-menti ”(We are slaves ... yes; but slaves, eternally indignant); but the self-satisfied humility and knavery of slavery... no! better not to talk about it. In such fabrications and reasonings of Gogol, the influence of those persons of the highest flight, to whom most of the "Correspondence" is devoted, was too clearly shown; from there came this musty and insipid spirit. In general, I soon felt that between Gogol's world outlook and mine lay a whole abyss. Not the same thing we hated, not the same thing we loved; but at that moment - in my eyes, none of that mattered. A great poet, a great artist was in front of me, and I looked at him, listened to him with reverence, even when I did not agree with him.

Gogol probably knew my relationship with Belinsky, with Iskander; about the first of them, about his letter to him - he did not hint: this name would have burned his lips. But at that time, Iskander's article had just appeared - in a foreign publication - in which, regarding the notorious "Correspondence", he reproached Gogol for apostasy from his former convictions. Gogol himself spoke about this article. From his letters printed after his death (oh, what a service the publisher would have rendered him if he had thrown out of them the whole two-thirds, or at least all those written to society ladies ... a more disgusting mixture of pride and search, hypocrisy and vanity, a prophetic and hanger-on tone - does not exist in literature!) - from Gogol's letters we know what an incurable wound in his heart was the complete fiasco of his "Correspondence" - this is a fiasco in which one of the few consoling manifestations of the then public opinion must be welcomed . And the late MS Shchepkin and I were witnesses - on the day of our visit - to what extent this wound became sore. Gogol began to assure us - in a suddenly changed, hurried voice - that he could not understand why in his previous writings some people find some kind of opposition, something that he later changed; that he always adhered to the same religious and protective principles - and, as proof of this, he is ready to point out to us some places in one of his books, already published a long time ago ... Having uttered these words, Gogol jumped up from the sofa with almost youthful vivacity and ran to adjacent room. Mikhail Semenych only raised his eyebrows in grief - and raised his index finger ... "I never saw him like that," he whispered to me.

Gogol returned with a volume of "Arabesques" in his hands and began to read for excerpt some passages from one of those childishly pompous and tiresomely empty articles with which this collection is filled. I remember that it was about the need for strict order, unconditional obedience to the authorities, etc. “You see,” Gogol repeated, “I always thought the same thing before, expressed exactly the same convictions as now! .. Why on earth? reproach me for treason, for apostasy… Me?” - And this was said by the author of The Inspector General, one of the most negative comedies that ever appeared on the stage! Shchepkin and I were silent. Gogol finally threw the book on the table and spoke again about art, about the theatre; announced that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the actors in The Inspector General, that they "lost their tone" and that he was ready to read the whole play to them from beginning to end. Shchepkin seized on this word and immediately arranged where and when to read. Some old lady came to Gogol; she brought him a prosphora with a particle taken out. We left.

Two days later, the reading of The Inspector General took place in one of the halls of the house where Gogol lived. I requested permission to attend this reading. The late Professor Shevyrev was also among the students and, if I am not mistaken, Pogodin. To my great surprise, not all the actors who participated in The Government Inspector came to Gogol's invitation; it seemed insulting to them that they seemed to want to teach them! Not a single actress came either. As far as I could see, Gogol was upset by this reluctant and weak response to his proposal ... It is known to what extent he skimped on such favors. His face assumed a sullen and cold expression; eyes were suspicious. That day he looked like a sick man. He began to read - and gradually perked up. Her cheeks were covered with a light color, her eyes widened and brightened. Gogol read excellently ... I listened to him then for the first - and for the last time. Dickens, also an excellent reader, can be said to act out his novels, his reading is dramatic, almost theatrical; in one of his faces there are several first-class actors who make you laugh or cry; Gogol, on the contrary, struck me with the extreme simplicity and restraint of his manner, with a kind of important and at the same time naive sincerity, which, as it were, does not care whether there are listeners here and what they think. It seemed that Gogol's only concern was how to delve into a subject that was new to him and how to more accurately convey his own impression. The effect was extraordinary - especially in comic, humorous places; it was impossible not to laugh - a good, healthy laugh; and the originator of all this fun continued, not embarrassed by the general gaiety and as if inwardly marveling at it, more and more immersed in the matter itself - and only occasionally, on the lips and near the eyes, the craftsman's sly smile trembled almost noticeably. With what bewilderment, with what amazement, Gogol uttered Gorodnichiy's famous phrase about two rats (at the very beginning of the play): "Come, sniff and go away!" - He even looked at us slowly, as if asking for an explanation for such an amazing occurrence. It was only then that I realized how completely wrong, superficially, with what desire to make you laugh as soon as possible, The Inspector General is usually played on the stage. I sat immersed in joyful emotion: it was for me a real feast and holiday. Unfortunately, it didn't last long. Gogol had not yet had time to read half of the first act, when suddenly the door was noisily opened and, hastily smiling and nodding his head, rushed across the whole room one still very young, but already unusually importunate writer - and, without saying a word to anyone, hurried to take a place in the corner . Gogol stopped; He struck the bell with his hand with a flourish and remarked heartily to the valet who entered: “After all, I ordered you not to let anyone in!” The young man of letters moved slightly in his chair, but he was not in the least embarrassed. Gogol drank some water - and again began to read; but that wasn't it at all. He began to hurry, muttering under his breath, not finishing his words; sometimes he skipped entire sentences and only waved his hand. The unexpected appearance of the writer upset him: his nerves, obviously, could not withstand the slightest shock. Only in the well-known scene where Khlestakov lies lies, Gogol again cheered up and raised his voice: he wanted to show the actor who played the role of Ivan Alexandrovich how this really difficult place should be conveyed. In reading Gogol, it seemed natural and plausible to me. Khlestakov is fascinated by the strangeness of his position, his environment, and his own frivolous briskness; he knows that he is lying - and he believes his lies: this is something like ecstasy, inspiration, creative delight - this is not a simple lie, not a simple boast. He himself was "caught up". “The petitioners in the hall are buzzing, 35 thousand relay races are jumping - and the foolish one, they say, is listening, hanging his ears, and what a lively, playful, secular young man I am!” This is the impression that Khlestakov's monologue made in Gogol's mouth. But, generally speaking, reading The Inspector General that day was - as Gogol himself put it - nothing more than a hint, a sketch; and all at the mercy of the uninvited writer, who extended his unceremoniousness to the point that he stayed after everyone else at the pale, tired Gogol and rubbed himself into his office after him. In the hallway I parted from him and never saw him again; but his personality was still destined to have a significant influence on my life.

In the last days of February of the following month, 1852, I was at one morning meeting of the Society for Visiting the Poor that soon died - in the hall of the Nobility Assembly - and suddenly I noticed I. I. Panaev, who with convulsive haste ran from one person to another, obviously informing everyone of them unexpected and sad news, for each face immediately expressed surprise and sadness. Panaev finally ran up to me - and with a slight smile, in an indifferent tone, he said: “Do you know, Gogol died in Moscow. How, how ... I burned all the papers - and died, ”I rushed further. There is no doubt that, as a writer, Panaev inwardly mourned over such a loss - moreover, he had a good heart - but the pleasure of being the first person to tell another upsetting news (an indifferent tone was used for greater force) - this is a pleasure, this joy was drowned out in him any other feeling. For several days dark rumors had been circulating in Petersburg about Gogol's illness; but no one expected such an outcome. Under the first impression of the news communicated to me, I wrote the following short article:

Letter from Petersburg

Gogol is dead! What Russian soul will not be shaken by these two words? He died. Our loss is so cruel, so sudden, that we still do not want to believe it. At the very time when we could all hope that he would finally break his long silence, that he would please, surpass our impatient expectations, this fateful news came! Yes, he died, this man whom we now have the right, the bitter right given to us by death, to call great; a man who, with his name, marked an era in the history of our literature; a person whom we are proud of as one of our glory. He died, stricken in the prime of his life, in the midst of his strength, without finishing the work he had begun, like the noblest of his predecessors ... His loss renews grief for those unforgettable losses, just as a new wound excites the pain of ancient ulcers. Now is not the time or place to talk about his merits - this is a matter for future criticism; one must hope that she will understand her task and appreciate him with that impartial, but full of respect and love court, by which people like him are judged in the face of posterity; we are not up to it now: we only want to be one of the echoes of that great sorrow that we feel spilled all around us; we do not want to appreciate it, but to cry; we are now unable to speak calmly about Gogol ... the most beloved, most familiar image is unclear to eyes watered with tears ... On the day when Moscow buries him, we want to stretch out our hand to her from here - to unite with her in one feeling of common sadness. We could not take one last look at his lifeless face; but we send him our farewell greetings from afar - and with a reverent feeling we commemorate our sorrow and our love on his fresh grave, into which we failed, like the Muscovites, to throw a handful of our native land! The thought that his ashes will rest in Moscow fills us with some kind of woeful satisfaction. Yes, let him rest there, in this heart of Russia, which he knew so deeply and loved so much, loved so passionately that only frivolous or short-sighted people do not feel the presence of this love flame in every word he said! But it would be inexpressibly hard for us to think that the last, most mature fruits of his genius have perished for us irrevocably, and we listen with horror to cruel rumors about their extermination ...

It is hardly necessary to speak of those few people to whom our words will seem exaggerated or even completely inappropriate ... Death has a cleansing and reconciling power; slander and envy, enmity and misunderstandings - everything falls silent before the most ordinary grave: they will not speak over Gogol's grave. Whatever the final place that history leaves behind him, we are sure that no one will refuse to repeat right now after us:

Peace be upon him, eternal memory of his life, eternal glory to his name!

I forwarded this article to one of the St. Petersburg journals; but it was precisely at that time that censorship strictness began to increase greatly for some time ... Similar "crescendo" occurred quite often and - for an outside viewer - just as unreasonable as, for example, an increase in mortality in epidemics. My article did not appear on any of the following days. Meeting the publisher on the street, I asked him what it meant? “See what the weather is,” he answered me in an allegorical speech, “and there’s nothing to think about.” “But the article is the most innocent,” I remarked. “Is it innocent, is it not,” the publisher objected, “that’s not the point; in general, the name of Gogol is not ordered to be mentioned. Zakrevsky was present at the funeral in the St. Andrew's ribbon: they cannot digest this here. Soon afterwards I received a letter from a Moscow friend filled with reproaches: “How! - he exclaimed, - Gogol is dead, and at least one magazine in St. Petersburg would respond! This silence is shameful!” In my answer, I explained - I confess, in rather harsh terms - to my friend the reason for this silence and, as a proof, I attached my forbidden article as a document. He immediately submitted it to the then trustee of the Moscow District - General Nazimov - and received permission from him to publish it in Moskovskie Vedomosti. This happened in the middle of March, and on April 16, for disobedience and violation of censorship rules, I was put under arrest for a month in the unit (I spent the first twenty-four hours in Siberia and talked with an exquisitely polite and educated police non-commissioned officer who told me about his walk in the Summer Garden and about the "scent of birds"), and then sent to live in the village. I have no intention of blaming the then government; the trustee of the St. Petersburg District, the now deceased Musin-Pushkin, presented - from a species unknown to me - the whole matter as a clear disobedience on my part; he did not hesitate to assure the higher authorities that he called me personally, and personally conveyed to me the prohibition of the censorship committee to print my article(one censor's prohibition could not prevent me - by virtue of existing regulations - from submitting my article to the court of another censor), but I never saw Mr. Musin-Pushkin and had no explanation with him. It was impossible for the government to suspect a dignitary, a confidant, of such a distortion of the truth! But it's all for the best; being under arrest, and then in the countryside, brought me undoubted benefits: it brought me closer to such aspects of Russian life that, in the ordinary course of things, would probably have escaped my attention.

Already finishing the previous line, I remembered that my first meeting with Gogol took place much earlier than I said at the beginning. Namely: I was one of his students in 1835, when he taught (!) history at St. Petersburg University. This teaching, to tell the truth, took place in an original way. Firstly, Gogol certainly missed two out of three lectures; secondly, even when he appeared on the pulpit, he did not speak, but whispered something very incoherent, showed us small engravings on steel depicting views of Palestine and other Eastern countries, and all the time he was terribly embarrassed. We were all convinced (and we were hardly mistaken) that he knew nothing about history - and that Mr. Gogol-Yanovsky, our professor (as he was called in the lecture schedule), has nothing in common with the writer Gogol, already known to us as the author of Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka. At the final exam from his subject, he sat, tied with a handkerchief, allegedly from a toothache - with a completely dead physiognomy - and did not open his mouth. Professor I.P. Shulgin asked the students for him. As I now see his thin, long-nosed figure with two ends sticking high - in the form of ears - the ends of a black silk scarf. There is no doubt that he himself was well aware of all the comedy and all the awkwardness of his position: he resigned the same year. This did not prevent him, however, from exclaiming: “Unrecognized, I ascended the pulpit - and unrecognized, I descend from it!” He was born to be a mentor to his contemporaries; but not from the pulpit.

In the previous (first) passage I mentioned my meeting with Pushkin; By the way, I will say a few words about other, now deceased, literary celebrities that I managed to see. I'll start with Zhukovsky. Living - shortly after the twelfth year - in his village in Belevsky district, he several times visited my mother, then still a girl, in her Mtsensk estate; there is even a legend that he played the role of a magician in one home performance, and I almost saw his very cap with gold stars in the pantry of his parents' house. But many years have passed since then - and, probably, the very memory of the village young lady, whom he met by chance and in passing, has been erased from his memory. In the year our family moved to St. Petersburg - I was then 16 years old - my mother took it into her head to remind Vasily Andreevich of herself. She embroidered a beautiful velvet pillow for his name day and sent me with it to his place in the Winter Palace. I had to identify myself, explain whose son I was, and present a gift. But when I found myself in a huge palace, until then unfamiliar to me; when I had to make my way along long stone corridors, climb stone stairs, now and then bumping into motionless, as if also made of stone, sentries; when I finally found Zhukovsky’s apartment and found myself in front of a three-foot red footman with galloons on all seams and eagles on the galloons, I was seized with such trepidation, I felt such timidity that, having appeared in the office where the red footman had invited me and where, because of the long the poet's own face looked at me thoughtfully and friendly, but important and somewhat astounded; with tears in his eyes, stopped as if rooted to the door and only held out and supported with both hands - like a baby at baptism - an unfortunate pillow, on which, as I now remember, was a depiction of a girl in a medieval costume, with a parrot on her shoulder. My embarrassment probably aroused a feeling of pity in Zhukovsky's good soul; he came up to me, quietly took the pillow from me, asked me to sit down, and condescendingly spoke to me. I finally explained to him what was the matter - and, as soon as I could, I rushed to run.

Even then, Zhukovsky, as a poet, lost his former significance in my eyes; but all the same, I rejoiced at our, albeit unsuccessful, meeting, and, having come home, I recalled with a special feeling his smile, the gentle sound of his voice, his slow and pleasant movements. Zhukovsky's portraits are almost all very similar; his physiognomy was not one of those that are difficult to catch, which often change. Of course, in 1834 there was no trace of that sickly young man in him, as the "Singer in the camp of Russian soldiers" seemed to the imagination of our fathers; he became a portly, almost corpulent man. His face, slightly swollen, milky, without wrinkles, breathed calmness; he held his head at an angle, as if listening and meditating; thin, thin hair rose in pigtails over a completely almost bald skull; quiet benevolence shone in the deep gaze of his dark, Chinese-style raised eyes, and on his rather large, but correctly contoured lips, there was constantly a barely noticeable, but sincere smile of benevolence and greetings. His semi-eastern origin (his mother was, as you know, a Turkish woman) was reflected in his whole appearance.

A few weeks later I was again brought to him by an old friend of our family, Voin Ivanovich Gubarev, a remarkable, typical person. A poor landowner of the Kromsky district, Oryol province, during his early youth he was in the closest connection with Zhukovsky, Bludov, Uvarov; in their circle he was a representative of French philosophy, a skeptical, encyclopedic element, rationalism, in a word, of the 18th century. Gubarev spoke excellent French, he knew Voltaire by heart and put him above everything in the world; he hardly read other writers; his mentality was purely French, pre-revolutionary, I hasten to add. I still remember his almost constant, loud and cold laugh, his cheeky, slightly cynical judgments and antics. His appearance alone condemned him to a solitary and independent life; he was a very ugly man, fat, with a huge head and mountain ash all over his face. A long stay in the provinces finally left its mark on him; but he remained a "type" to the end, and to the end, under the poor Cossack of a petty nobleman who wears oiled boots at home, he retained freedom and even elegance of manners. I do not know the reason why he did not go uphill, did not make a career for himself, like his comrades. Probably, he did not have the proper perseverance, there was no ambition: it does not get along well with that half-indifferent, half-mocking Epicureanism, which he borrowed from his model - Voltaire; but he did not recognize literary talent in himself; Fortune did not smile at him - he just faded away, died out, became a bean. But it would be interesting to trace how this inveterate Voltairian in his youth treated his friend, the future "ballade player" and Schiller's translator! A greater contradiction cannot be imagined; but life itself is nothing but a contradiction constantly conquered.

Zhukovsky - in St. Petersburg - remembered an old friend and did not forget what could please him: he gave him a new, beautifully bound collection of the complete works of Voltaire. They say that shortly before his death - and Gubarev lived for a long time - the neighbors saw him in his dilapidated hut, sitting at a wretched table, on which lay a gift from his famous friend. He carefully turned over the gold-edged sheets of his favorite book - and in the wilderness of the steppe outback, sincerely, as in the days of his youth, he amused himself with witticisms that Frederick the Great once amused himself in Sanssouci and Catherine II in Tsarskoye Selo. There was no other mind, no other poetry, no other philosophy for him. This, of course, did not prevent him from wearing a whole bunch of images and incense around his neck - and being under the command of an illiterate housekeeper ... The logic of contradictions!

I never met Zhukovsky again.

I saw Krylov only once - at the evening with one bureaucratic, but weak Petersburg writer. He sat for more than three hours motionless between two windows - and at least uttered a word! He wore a loose, shabby tailcoat and a white neckerchief; tasseled boots draped his stout legs. He leaned with both hands on his knees - and did not even turn his colossal, heavy and majestic head; only his eyes moved from time to time under the overhanging brows. It was impossible to understand what he was listening to and shaking his mustache or just So sits and "exists"? No drowsiness, no attention on this vast, straight Russian face - but only the mind chamber, but mature laziness, and at times something crafty seems to want to come out and cannot - or does not want - to break through all this senile fat ... The owner at last asked him to come to dinner. "A horseradish pig is prepared for you, Ivan Andreevich," he remarked troublesomely and as if fulfilling an inevitable duty. Krylov looked at him, half affably, half mockingly ... "So, surely a piglet?" - he seemed to utter inwardly - he stood up heavily and, shuffling heavily with his feet, went to take his place at the table.

I also saw Lermontov only twice: in the house of a noble St. Petersburg lady, Princess Sh ... oh, and a few days later, at a masquerade in the Noble Assembly on the eve of the new year, 1840. At Princess Sh ... oh, I, a very rare and unusual visitor to secular evenings, only from a distance, from the corner where I huddled, watched the poet who quickly became famous. He sat on a low stool in front of a sofa, on which, dressed in a black dress, sat one of the beauties of the capital at that time, the fair-haired Countess M.P. - an early dead, really lovely creature. Lermontov was wearing the uniform of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment; he took off neither his saber nor his gloves, and, hunched over and frowning, looked sullenly at the countess. She spoke little to him and more often turned to Count III, who was sitting next to him, also a hussar. There was something sinister and tragic in Lermontov's appearance; some kind of gloomy and unkind force, thoughtful contempt and passion emanated from his swarthy face, from his large and motionless dark eyes. Their heavy gaze strangely disagreed with the expression of almost childishly tender and protruding lips. His whole figure, squat, bow-legged, with a large head on stooped broad shoulders, aroused an unpleasant sensation; but everyone was immediately aware of the inherent power. It is known that he to some extent portrayed himself in Pechorin. The words: "His eyes did not laugh when he laughed," etc., were indeed applied to him. I remember that Count Sh. and his interlocutor suddenly laughed at something and laughed for a long time; Lermontov also laughed, but at the same time looked at both of them with some kind of offensive surprise. Despite this, it still seemed to me that he loved Count Sh ... as a comrade, and had a friendly feeling towards the countess. There was no doubt that, following the fashion of the time, he had indulged in a certain kind of Byronian genre, with an admixture of other, even worse whims and eccentricities. And he paid dearly for them! Internally, Lermontov must have been deeply bored; he was suffocating in the tight sphere into which fate had pushed him. At the ball of the Assembly of the Nobility, they did not give him rest, they constantly pestered him, took him by the hands; one mask was replaced by another, but he hardly moved from his place and silently listened to their squeak, turning his gloomy eyes on them in turn. It seemed to me at the same time that I caught on his face a beautiful expression of poetic creativity. Perhaps these verses came to his mind:

When my cold hands touch
With the careless boldness of urban beauties
For a long time untrembling hands ... etc.

By the way, I’ll say a few words about one more deceased writer, although he belongs to the “diis minorum gentium” and can no longer become along with those named above - namely, M. N. Zagoskin. He was a short friend of my father and in the thirties, during our stay in Moscow, almost daily visited our house. His "Yuri Miloslavsky" was the first strong literary impression of my life. I was in the boarding house of a certain Mr. Weidenhammer, when the famous novel appeared, the teacher of the Russian language - he is also a class warden - told my comrades and me its contents during the hours of recreation. With what devouring attention we listened to the adventures of Kirsha, the servant of Miloslavsky, Alexei, the robber Omlyash! But strange thing! "Yuri Miloslavsky" seemed to me a miracle of perfection, but I looked rather indifferently at its author, at M. N. Zagoskin. It is not far to go for an explanation of this fact: the impression made by Mikhail Nikolayevich not only failed to strengthen those feelings of worship and delight that his novel aroused, but, on the contrary, it should have weakened them. In Zagoskin there was nothing majestic, nothing fatal, nothing that affects the youthful imagination; to tell the truth, he was even rather comical, and his rare good nature could not be properly appreciated by me: This quality is irrelevant in the eyes of frivolous youth. The very figure of Zagoskin, his strange, as if flattened head, quadrangular face, bulging eyes under eternal glasses, a short-sighted and dull look, unusual movements of his eyebrows, lips, nose, when he was surprised or then simply spoke, sudden exclamations, waving his hands, a deep depression, dividing his short chin in two - everything about him seemed to me eccentric, clumsy, amusing. In addition, he had three, also rather comical, weaknesses: he imagined himself an unusual strong man; he was sure that no woman could resist him; and finally (and this was especially surprising in such a zealous patriot), he had an unfortunate weakness for the French language, which mangled without mercy, constantly mixing numbers and genders, so that he further received the nickname in our house: "Monsieur l\" article " .

With all that, it was impossible not to love Mikhail Nikolaevich for his heart of gold, for that artless frankness of character, which strikes in his writings.

My last meeting with him was sad. I visited him many years later - in Moscow, shortly before his death. He no longer left his office and complained of constant pain and aching in all members. He had not lost weight, but a deathly pallor covered his still full cheeks, giving them an all the more despondent look. The raising of the eyebrows and the goggling of the eyes remained the same; the involuntary comicality of these movements only aggravated the feeling of pity that aroused the whole figure of the poor writer, who was clearly leaning towards destruction. I talked to him about his literary activity, about the fact that in St. Petersburg circles they again began to appreciate his merits, to do him justice; mentioned the significance of "Yuri Miloslavsky" as a folk book ... Mikhail Nikolayevich's face brightened. “Well, thank you, thank you,” he said to me, “and I already thought that I was forgotten, that today's youth trampled me into the mud and covered me with a log.” (Mikhail Nikolaevich did not speak French to me, and in Russian conversation he liked to use energetic expressions.) “Thank you,” he repeated, not without emotion and feelingly shaking my hand, as if I were the reason that he was not forgotten. . I remember that rather bitter thoughts about so-called literary fame came into my head then. Inwardly, I almost reproached Zagoskin for cowardice. What, I thought, makes a man happy? But why shouldn't he rejoice? He heard from me that he had not completely died ... and after all, there is nothing worse than death for a person. Other, literary fame can, perhaps, live to the point that even this insignificant joy does not recognize. The period of frivolous praise will be followed by a period of just as little meaningful battle, and then - silent oblivion ... And who among us has the right not to be forgotten - the right to burden the memory of descendants with his name, who have their own needs, their own concerns, their own aspirations?

And yet I am glad that, quite by accident, I gave good Mikhail Nikolaevich, before the end of his life, at least instant pleasure.

Notes

TEXT SOURCES

Draft autograph, 17 sheets. and "Letter from Petersburg" - clerk's copy, 2 sheets. Stored in the Department of Manuscripts Bibl Nat, Slave 75; description see: mason, p. 76-77: photocopy - IRLI, R. I, op. 29, no. 331.

Typeset manuscript, 10 sheets. Stored in gim, f. 440, no. 1265, l. 148-157.

"Letter from Petersburg". White autograph, 2 sheets. Dated February 24, 1852. Kept in CSAOR, f. 109, op. 1852, unit ridge 92, l. 13-14.

"N. V. Gogol ”(original title“ Letters from Petersburg ”). proofreading SPb Ved. Dated February 24, 1852. Kept in CSAOR, f. 109, op. 1852, unit ridge 92, l. 16.

"Letter from Petersburg". Publication in Moscow Ved, 1852, No. 32, March 13. Dated February 24, 1852 Signed "T...... b"

T, Soch, 1869, part 1, p. LXIX-LXXXIX.

T, Soch, 1874, h. 1, p. 70-90.

T, Soch, 1880, vol. 1, p. 63-83.

Printed by text T, Soch, 1880 with the elimination of obvious typographical errors not noticed by Turgenev, as well as with the following corrections according to all other sources:

Page 63, line 18:"actor who performed" instead of "performed".

Page 70, line 19:"beautifully intertwined" instead of "beautifully intertwined".

Page 71, line 20:"rare and unusual" instead of "rare, unusual".

Page 71, line 25:"blond" instead of "white-haired".

The essay "Gogol" was conceived in 1868, which is clear from the plan written on fol. 1 draft autograph of the essay “Instead of an introduction” (see above, p. 322). However, the first, and then indirect, mention of the work on the essay is contained in a letter to P. V. Annenkov dated May 24 (June 5), 1869: “I need a copy of my letter on the occasion of Gogol’s death.” Based on this letter, it can be assumed that work on a rough autograph in the twentieth of May 1869 had already begun. It is difficult to say exactly when the essay was completed: neither the draft autotraffic nor the typesetting manuscript is dated. There is also no mention of this work in Turgenev's correspondence. But since the essay appeared in the first part of the Works, published in November 1869, it remains to be assumed that work on it was most likely completed in July-August, especially since on September 20 (October 2) Turgenev had already sent Salaev the last excerpt from " Literary and Worldly Memoirs" - an essay "About" Fathers and Sons "".

Draft autograph 1* has a large number of inserts made in the margins, crossed out phrases or parts of phrases, as well as individual words that are crossed out more than once, sometimes replaced by others. Turgenev made especially large edits in the sections devoted to Zhukovsky and Zagoskin. On the other hand, some lines included in the final text appeared at later stages of the work. So, the words “this musty and insipid spirit came from there,” said about the influence on Gogol of “persons of the highest flight”, are not in the draft autograph. There are no words “He himself was “caught up””, characterizing Khlestakov’s lies. There are also no lines in the draft autograph that refer to Turgenev's stay under arrest.

However, the differences between the draft autograph and the final text are mostly not in the absence of certain phrases, but in what the first layer of the autograph contains. In this regard, the first section of the essay, dedicated to Gogol, is of considerable interest. So, in a draft autograph, instead of the words: “his sloping, smooth, white forehead still blew with the mind,” it was originally written: “the sloping white forehead was still beautiful and even wrinkles were not noticed on it.” And then the words closer to the final text appeared: “the sloping white forehead still shone with the mind” ( T, PSS and P, Works, vol. XIV, variant to p. 65, lines 7-8). Recalling his first trip to Gogol, Turgenev initially wrote in a draft autograph “as to a patient”, and then, in the same draft, he corrected these words to “as to an extraordinary, brilliant person who had something in his head” (there same, variant to p. 65, lines 25-27), which significantly changed the meaning of the whole phrase. Initially, Turgenev expressed his attitude towards censorship and Gogol's position on this issue with greater sharpness (ibid., variant to p. 66, lines 25-28).

The text of the typesetting manuscript differs from the final one in minor discrepancies.

The surviving proofreading of the obituary article “N. V. Gogol ”(original title“ Letters from Petersburg ”), typed for SPb Ved, as well as a white autograph entitled "Letter from Petersburg", intended by Turgenev already for Moscow Ved, somewhat different from the final text.

The most significant difference in proofreading SPb Ved from the final text - the presence of a footnote in it: “They say that Gogol, eleven days before his death, when he did not seem to be sick yet, began to say that he would die soon, and burned all his papers at night, so that now after him there is not a single unprinted line left" and the phrase (also available in a white autograph): "If such people are found, we feel sorry for them, sorry for their misfortune" 2 * after the word "inappropriate".

In this essay, Turgenev recalls literary meetings different years. And not only with Gogol - they were, of course, the most significant. He also talks about his acquaintance with M. N. Zagoskin during his childhood and about his meeting with this writer shortly before his death: about his acquaintance with Zhukovsky upon arrival in St. Petersburg to enter the capital's university; about the only brief meeting with Krylov. Finally, we are talking about two meetings with Lermontov, which, unfortunately, did not lead to a personal acquaintance of Turgenev with his great contemporary.

Turgenev considered himself a student and follower of Gogol. In his literary-critical articles, as well as in works of art, he constantly spoke out in favor of the development of the Gogol trend, considering it to be the leading one in Russian literature. Exiled from St. Petersburg to Spasskoe-Lutovinovo for an obituary article about Gogol, Turgenev read and reread his works during a year and a half of forced seclusion (see letter to S. T., I. S. and K. S. Aksakov dated 6 (18) June 1852) 3*.

In 1855, Turgenev argued with representatives of "pure art", who opposed Pushkin's direction in Russian literature to Gogol's.

There is no doubt that Gogol also appreciated Turgenev as a writer. As early as September 7, 1847, after the first essays appeared in Sovremennik, which later compiled the book The Hunter’s Notes, Gogol wrote to P.V. as a writer, I partly know him: as far as I can judge from what I have read, talent is in him wonderful and promises great activity in the future" ( Gogol, vol. 13, p. 385). This is also evidenced by S. P. Shevyrev in a letter to M. P. Pogodin in 1858: “I have written evidence about Turgenev from Gogol<...>He loved him very much and hoped for him. Barsukov, Pogodin, book. 16, p. 239-240).

Zhukovsky's poetry played a significant role in Turgenev's literary development during his childhood and early youth. In V. P. Turgeneva's letters to her son, Zhukovsky's name is frequently encountered with quotations from his works. During the years of his stay in the Moscow boarding school, Turgenev intensively read Zhukovsky, knew by heart many lines from his messages and ballads. This is known, in particular, from his letters to his uncle, N. N. Turgenev, relating to March - April 1831 (see: present ed., Letters, vol. 1, pp. 119-130).

Lermontov was one of Turgenev's favorite poets. His poetry had an impact on Turgenev's early work - poems and poems. "Hero of Our Time" great importance for the formation of Turgenev's prose of the 1840s 6*.

Turgenev's preface to the French translation of the poem "Mtsyri" dates back to 1865 (present ed., vol. 10, p. 341).

In 1875, Turgenev wrote a review of the English translation of The Demon by A. Stephen (present ed., vol. 10, p. 271).

In the reviews that appeared in the press on part 1 of Turgenev's Works, the essay "Gogol" was not given much attention. D. Sviyazhsky (D. D. Minaev), speaking sharply ironically about Literary Memoirs in general, reproached Turgenev, in particular, for his attention to detail (description of Gogol's costume). In conclusion, he noted, however, that "the chapter on Gogol is still the most curious in the memoirs of Mr. Turgenev" (Delo, 1869, No. 12, p. 49). An essay in the journal Bibliographer was severely assessed, which stated: “... where Mr. Turgenev describes a person in one external way, there this person is in front of the reader, as if alive; where he goes into discussions about this person, there are only phrases like: “A great poet, a great artist was in front of me, and I looked at him, listened to him with reverence - even when I did not agree with him” ”(Bibliographer, 1869, No. 3, December, p. 14).

Page 57. brought me together~Shchepkin. — Mikhail Semenovich Shchepkin (1788-1863) - famous actor, friend of Gogol; was closely acquainted with Turgenev. M. A. Shchepkin, according to M. S. Shchepkin, reports: “... at three o'clock, Ivan Sergeevich and I came to Gogol. He received us very cordially; when Ivan Sergeevich told Gogol that some of his works, translated by him, Turgenev, into French and read in Paris, made a great impression, Nikolai Vasilyevich was noticeably pleased and, for his part, said a few courtesies to Turgenev ”(Shchepkin M. A. M S. Shchepkin, 1788-1863, His Notes, Letters, Stories, Materials for Biography and Genealogy, St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 374).

... in Moscow, on Nikitskaya~with Count Tolstoy.- On Nikitsky Boulevard (now 7 on Suvorovsky Boulevard). - Count Alexander Petrovich Tolstoy (1801-1873) was one of the most reactionary acquaintances of Gogol. Correspondence and conversations with him, which had an impact on Gogol, affected a number of articles in the book Selected passages from correspondence with friends.

... stretching out his head~from public curiosity.- L. I. Arnoldi in the essay “My Acquaintance with Gogol” points to the same fact: “Many in the stalls noticed Gogol, and the lorgnettes began to address our box. - Gogol, apparently, was afraid of some kind of demonstration from the public, and, perhaps, challenges ... "( Rus Vestn, 1862, No. 1, p. 92).

F.- Evgeny Mikhailovich Feoktistov (1829-1898) - writer, journalist and historian, who in the 1850s collaborated in Moskovskie Vedomosti, Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski; later head of the Main Directorate for the Press (see about him: T, PSS and P, Letters, vol. II, index of names, p. 694).

I met him twice then~E-noy.- This refers to Avdotya Petrovna Elagina (1789-1877), by her first husband Kireevskaya, niece of V. A. Zhukovsky, mother of P. V. and I. V. Kireevsky, with whom Turgenev was well acquainted (the Kireevsky estate was located not far from Belev ). Elagina's literary salon was widely known in Moscow in the 1830s and 1840s.

Page 58. I myself would not mention Correspondence with Friends, since I could not say anything good about it.- Gogol's book "Selected passages from correspondence with friends" was published in 1847. A number of Turgenev's letters contain indirect, but always negative reviews about it. In particular, on April 21 (May 3), 1853, Turgenev wrote to Annenkov, referring to the second volume of Dead Souls, that in it Gogol sought to mitigate those "cruelties" that were inherent in the first volume of the poem, and wanted to "make amends for them in the sense of "Correspondence".

Page 59. "Si servi ~ frementi"... - It has not been established which of the Italian poets the above verse belongs to.

... persons of the highest flight, to whom most of the "Correspondence" is devoted ...- This refers to Count A.P. Tolstoy (see note to p. 57), Countess Louise Karlovna Vielgorskaya, wife of Mikh. Yu. Vielgorsky, Alexandra Osipovna Smirnova, born. Rosset (1809-1882) - the wife of the Kaluga, then St. Petersburg governor N. M. Smirnov. Turgenev had a very negative attitude towards A. O. Smirnova (see letter to P. V. Annenkov dated October 6 (18), 1853). In chapter XXV of "Fathers and Sons", recalling A. O. Smirnova, the writer put the following words into Bazarov's mouth: "Since I've been here, I feel nasty, as if I had read Gogol's letters to the Kaluga governor" (present. ed., vol. 7, p. 161).

... foreign edition ~ in apostasy from former beliefs.- This refers to the article by A. I. Herzen "On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia", which was published as a separate pamphlet in French in 1851 in Paris. Arguing with the Slavophiles, Herzen wrote about Gogol: “He began to defend what he had previously destroyed, to justify serfdom, and in the end threw himself at the feet of the representative of“ goodwill and love ”. Let the Slavophils think about the fall of Gogol<...>From Orthodox humility, from self-denial, which dissolved the personality of a person in the personality of a prince, to the adoration of an autocrat is only a step. Herzen, vol. 7, p. 248). Gogol, who was painfully experiencing the fiasco of Selected passages from correspondence with friends, was very hurt by Herzen's recall.

... the publisher would give him if he threw it away ... ~ those that are written to secular ladies ...- We are talking, in particular, about letters to Princess V. N. Repnina, N. N. Sheremetyeva and A. O. Smirnova, first published in vols. 5 and 6 Works and letters of N. V. Gogol, ed. P. A. Kulish, St. Petersburg, 1857.

Page 60. ... it was about the need to obey the authorities, etc. - Probably, Gogol's article "On the Teaching of World History" (1832) is meant.

Two days later, the reading of The Inspector General took place ...- G.P. Danilevsky in the essay “Acquaintance with Gogol” indicates that this reading took place later, on November 5, 1851, seeing an inaccuracy in Turgenev ( IV, 1886, No. 12, p. 484).

Page 62. ... not all the actors who participated in the "Inspector General" came to the invitation ~ Not a single actress came either.- According to G. P. Danilevsky, S. T. and I. S. Aksakovs, S. P. Shevyrev, I. S. Turgenev, N. V. Berg, M. S. Shchepkin, P. M. Sadovsky, S. V. Shumsky (ibid.).

Page 63. ... a very young, but already unusually importunate writer ...- We are talking about Grigory Petrovich Danilevsky (1829-1890) - a novelist, whose work met with a negative attitude from Turgenev (see his review of Danilevsky's "Slobozhan" - present ed., vol. 4, pp. 523, 677) and progressive criticism of the 1850s and 1860s.

... where Khlestakov is lying ...- "Inspector", the third act, yavl. VI.

... at the mercy of an uninvited writer ~ rubbed himself into his office after him. Turgenev was wrong. Danilevsky wrote to V. P. Gaevsky: Gogol “invited me, Turgenev and some actors to the evening on the third day and read us his The Inspector General, and then, when everyone left, he read with me a new Zaporizhzhya Duma, written here by me (in rhymes), corrected it himself, and until three o'clock in the morning spoke with me about literature and about many, many things" ( GPB, f. 171, archive of V.P. Gaevsky, No. 102, l. 11-11 about. - said E. V. Sviyasov). Later, in 1872, Ya. P. Polonsky wrote to Turgenev that G. P. Danilevsky was going “sooner or later<...>take revenge<...>for slander (that is, for Gogol's story)" ( links, vol. 8, p. 168).

Page 64. ... noticed I. I. Panaev ...- Ivan Ivanovich Panaev (1812-1862) - novelist, feuilletonist, satirical poet, co-editor of the Sovremennik magazine, memoirist.

He died, smitten in the prime of his life...- Gogol died before reaching the age of 43.

Page 65. ... the most mature fruits of his genius~ rumors of their extermination...- On March 4, 1852, Turgenev wrote to P. Viardot: “Ten days before his death, he<Гоголь — ed.> betrayed everything to burning, and, having committed this moral suicide, took to his bed, so as not to get up again" ( T, nouv corr ined, t. 1, p. 64; Zilberstein I. Turgenev. finds recent years. - Literary newspaper, 1972, No. 17, April 26).

Page 66. I forwarded this article to one of the St. Petersburg magazines...- It's about S. Petersburg Vedomosti” (see letter to E. M. Feoktistov dated February 26 (March 9), 1852), in which Turgenev’s article about Gogol did not appear, as it was banned by St. Petersburg censorship.

Zakrevsky ~ attended ...- Arseny Andreevich Zakrevsky (1783-1865) - Moscow military governor-general from 1848 to 1859. E. M. Feoktistov informed Turgenev on February 25 (March 8), 1852: “All Moscow was decisively at the funeral<...>Zakrevsky and others were in full uniforms ... "( Lit Nasl, v. 58, p. 743). The appearance of Zakrevsky was not, however, a sign of respect for the memory of Gogol, since, according to a contemporary, he never read it ( Barsukov, Pogodin, book. 11, p. 538).

... from Moscow~ a letter full of accusations...- In the letters of E. M. Feoktistov and V. P. Botkin that have come down to us, with whom Turgenev shared his feelings and thoughts caused by Gogol's death, there are no appeals to Turgenev with a request to write an article about Gogol.

... buddy~ banned article.- On February 26 (March 9), 1852, Turgenev wrote to E. M. Feoktistov that his “a few words” about Gogol’s death, written by him for “S. Petersburg Vedomosti”, he sends him to Moscow “with this letter, in the unknown whether they will be missed and whether the censorship will distort them.”

... trustee of the Moscow district - General Nazimov ...- Vladimir Ivanovich Nazimov (1802-1874) was also the chairman of the Moscow Censorship Committee (1849-1855).

... was planted~in part...- Turgenev was arrested and imprisoned "on the congress 2nd Admiralteyskaya part", located near Theater Square, at the corner of Officerskaya Street and Mariinsky Lane; the house has not been preserved, it stood on the site now occupied by houses 30 and 28 along Dekabristov Street (see: Literary memorable places of Leningrad. L., 1976, p. 356).

... sent to live in the village.- Turgenev was released from arrest on May 16 (28) and went into exile in Spasskoe-Lutovinovo (via Moscow) on May 18 (30), 1852.

... the late Musin-Pushkin~and had no explanation for it.- Mikhail Nikolayevich Musin-Pushkin (1795-1862) - Chairman of the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee and Trustee of the St. Petersburg Educational District. In his diary, the censor A. V. Nikitenko on March 20, Art. Art. 1852 noted that even before the submission of Turgenev's article to censorship, “the chairman of the censorship committee announced that he would not let go of articles in praise of Gogol, the ‘lackey writer’. He also forbade the “S. P<етербургских>Vedomosti" article, but without any formalities, so this prohibition could not be considered official. Turgenev, seeing this as simply a whim of the chairman, sent his article to Moscow, where it appeared in print. The order says that “despite the prohibition announced to the landowner Turgenev, he dared,” etc. This announcement was not made. Turgenev was not asked for any explanation; no one interrogated him, but directly punished him. They say that Bulgarin, by his influence on the chairman of the censorship committee and by his suggestions to him, is most guilty of all ... "( Nikitenko, vol. 1, p. 351).

Page 67. ... he taught (!) history at St. Petersburg University.- Gogol was invited to teach history, ancient and medieval, in 1834.

... that he does not understand anything in history .... - This opinion of Turgenev is unfair. Gogol knew and loved history, but did not have the gift of a teacher and lecturer. In addition, it should be borne in mind that his lectures met with organized opposition from the reactionary professors (see: Mordovchenko N. I. Gogol at St. No. 46, pp. 355-359, Aizenshtok I. Ya. V. A., Stepanov A. N. Gogol in Petersburg, L., 1961, pp. 128-139).

Professor I.P. Shulgin asked the students for him.- Ivan Petrovich Shulgin (1795-1869) - professor at St. Petersburg University, author teaching aids on general and Russian history. N. M. Kolmakov, who studied with Turgenev, recalled: “Gogol’s departure and the abandonment of his lectures were unexpected and affected us very unfavorably. Professor Shulgin at the exam asked us such questions that were not at all included in the program of Gogol's lectures<...>Shulgin did not like Turgenev's answer<...>he began to ask Turgenev other questions about chronology and, of course,<...>achieved his goal: Turgenev made a mistake and received a disapproving mark. Therefore, his candidacy smiled "( Rus St, 1891, No. 5, p. 461-462). It was from Shulgin that Turgenev then received “verbal permission” to attend lectures again (see his petition to the rector of St. Petersburg University dated May 11 (23), 1837 - present ed., Letters, vol. 1, p. 342). For more on this, see: V. A. Gromov, Gogol and Turgenev. 1. Turgenev - listener of Gogol's lectures on history. — T sat, issue 5, p. 354-356.

"Unrecognized, I ascended the pulpit - and unrecognized I descend from it!" — Inaccurate quote from Gogol's letter. Gogol wrote to M.P. Pogodin on December 6 (18), 1835, that he “spoiled with the university”, emphasizing: “Unrecognized I ascended the department and unrecognized I leave it” (Works and letters of N.V. Gogol Published by P. A. Kulish, St. Petersburg, 1857, vol. 5, p. 246).

Page 68. I'll start with Zhukovsky. Living - shortly after the twelfth year~ in Belevsky district~ my mother ~ in her Mtsensk estate ... - V. A. Zhukovsky’s visits to V. P. Turgeneva in Spassky-Lutovinovo could, apparently, be in the summer and autumn of 1814. At that time, the poet lived in Muratov (May - June), the estate of E. A. Protasova, 30 versts -ti from Spassky, then (from September until the end of the year) - At A.P. Kireevskaya in Dolbin, 40 miles from the estate of Turgenev's mother (see: Chernov Nikolai. Chapter from childhood. - Literary newspaper, 1970, No. 29 , July 25).

... to him in the Winter Palace.- V. A. Zhukovsky lived in the Winter Palace from the end of the 1820s as the educator of the heir, the future Alexander II.

Page 69. ... seemed to the imagination of our fathers "A singer in the camp of Russian soldiers" ...- Zhukovsky wrote this poem in 1812, that is, when he was 29 years old.

... an old friend of our family ~ Gubarev~ in the closest connection with Zhukovsky ...- V. I. Gubarev and his sister A. I. Lagriva (Lagrivaya) (see this volume, p. 476) were close acquaintances of V. P. Turgeneva. Probably, it was V. I. Gubarev who brought Zhukovsky to Spasskoye, who once studied with the poet and brothers A. I. and N. I. Turgenev at the Moscow University Noble Boarding School (see: Diaries of V. A. Zhukovsky. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 350). Later, like his father, I. A. Gubarev, he was on friendly terms with famous figure freemasonry I. V. Lopukhin. Voltairianism, perhaps, coexisted in V. I. Gubarev with sympathy for Freemasonry. According to a modern researcher, in 1875 Turgenev endowed one of his heroes of the story "The Hours" with the features of the internal and external appearance of V.I. Gubarev - Uncle Yegor, an exiled Voltairian (in the original version of the Freemason). - See: Chernov N. Chapter from childhood).

Page 70. Zhukovsky~ gave him a new ~ collection of the complete works of Voltaire.- On July 4, 1835, Gubarev wrote to Zhukovsky: “I thank you very much for<...>Voltaire's gift; - I alone in this world will keep feelings of true respect for you until the grave "( IRLI, 28024 / SS1b. 70).

... once Frederick the Great in Sanssouci...- Frederick II (1712-1786) - King of Prussia since 1740. Sans-Souci (Sans-Souci) - a palace and park in Potsdam, near Berlin, the permanent residence of Frederick II.

... from one bureaucratic, but weak St. Petersburg writer.- Perhaps we are talking about V. I. Karlgof (see note on p. 334).

... didn't even turn~ under drooping eyebrows.- Turgenev created a similar, but more detailed, verbal portrait of Krylov with more details a little later, in 1871, in the preface to the translation of his fables into English language carried out by V. R. Ralston (present ed., vol. 10, p. 266).

Page 71. At Princess Sh... oh...- We are talking about Princess Sofia Alekseevna Shakhovskaya, born. Countess Musina-Pushkina (1790-1878). With her husband, Prince Ivan Leontievich Shakhovsky, general, participant Patriotic War 1812, she lived in two-story house on Panteleymonovskaya street (now 11 on Pestelya street; the 3rd and 4th floors were built on in the 1860s 8*). The Shakhovskys are the neighbors of the Turgenevs; their estate - Bolshoe Skuratovo, Chernsky district - was located not far from Spassky-Lutovinov (see: Puzin N. P. Turgenev and N. N. Tolstoy. - T sat, issue 5, p. 423). In one of the letters (to M.N. and V.P. Tolstoy dated February 14 (24), 1855), Turgenev mentioned the name of S. A. Shakhovskaya’s husband: “our neighbor Prince I. L. Shakhovskaya” ( T, PSS and P, Letters, vol. II, p. 261-262).

... at a masquerade in the Noble Assembly on the eve of the new year, 1840.- On the night of December 31, 1839 to January 1, 1840, there was no ball or masquerade at all in the Nobility Assembly. It remains to be assumed that Turgenev “saw Lermontov at a masquerade in December 1839, as he writes, but on some other day and in another place” (Gershtein E. The fate of Lermontov. M., 1964, pp. 77, 78).

... Countess M. P. ...- Countess Emilia Karlovna Musina-Pushkina, born. Shernval (1810-1846), to whom Lermontov's poem "Countess Emilia - whiter than a lily" (1839) is dedicated; wife of Count V. A. Musin-Pushkin, brother of S. A. Shakhovskaya. Both of them (Shakhovskaya and Musina-Pushkina), like Turgenev, were on the steamer "Nikolai I", making cruise, tragically ended on May 18, 1838 (see: SPb Ved, 1838, No. 84, April 19; Turgenev in Heidelberg in the summer of 1838. From the diary of E. V. Sukhovo-Kobylina. Publication by L. M. Dolotova. — Lit Nasl, v. 76, p. 338-339). Turgenev described this trip in the essay “Fire at Sea” (this volume, p. 293).

... to Count Sh ... who was sitting next to him ...- This refers to Andrei Pavlovich Shuvalov (1816-1876), count, Lermontov's comrade in the Life Guards Hussars and in the "circle of sixteen."

There was something sinister and tragic in Lermontov's appearance. ~ childishly tender and protruding lips ~ everyone was immediately aware of the inherent power.– This wonderful verbal portrait of Lermontov probably reflected not only Turgenev’s personal impressions, but also the opinions of many contemporaries (oral and printed), who often noted the complexity of the poet’s nature with its contrasts and opposites; “connection of the unconnected” in it (Udodov B. T. “Consonance of the words of the living.” - In the book: Lermontov M. Yu. Selected. Voronezh, 1981, p. 17).

Page 72. When my cold hands touch...- Turgenev quotes lines 8-10 from Lermontov's poem “How often! surrounded by a motley crowd" (1840).

He was a short buddy~ visited our house.- See also Turgenev's letter to S. T. Aksakov dated January 22 (February 3), 1853, which is repeated almost verbatim in this essay.

His "Yuri Miloslavsky"~ strong literary impression... The novel by M. N. Zagoskin (1789-1852) “Yuri Miloslavsky, or the Russians in 1612” was published in 1829 in three volumes. On January 22 (February 3), 1853, Turgenev wrote to S. T. Aksakov: “... as for Miloslavsky, I knew it by heart; I remember I was in a boarding house in Moscow<...>and in the evenings our overseer told us the contents of "Yu<рия>M<илославского>“. It is impossible to portray to you the absorbing and absorbed attention with which we all listened. Turgenev told L.N. Maikov about the same on March 4, 1880 ( Rus St, 1883, No. 10, p. 204).

I was in the boarding house of a certain Mr. Weidenhammer when the famous novel appeared...- Turgenev was placed in this boarding school in the autumn or winter of 1827/28 and stayed there, apparently, until the late summer of 1830 (see this volume, p. 442).

Page 73. In addition, he was followed by three~ comic weakness...- Turgenev told L. N. Maikov about these same “weaknesses” of M. N. Zagoskin on March 4, 1880 ( Rus St, 1883, No. 10, p. 205).

. Moscow News, 1852, March 13th, No. 5 32, pp. 328 and 329.

With regard to this article (about it at the same time someone quite rightly said that there is no rich merchant whose death the magazines would not have responded with great fervor) I recall the following: one very high-ranking lady - in St. I was subjected to for this article, it was undeserved - and in any case too severely, cruelly ... In a word, she passionately interceded for me. “But you don’t know,” someone reported to her, “in his article he calls Gogol a great man!” - "Can't be!" - "Trust me". - "A! in that case I say nothing: je regrette, mais je comprends qu\"on ait du sevir.<я сожалею, но я понимаю, что следовало строго наказать (fr.) >

. "A Hero of Our Time", p. 280. Lermontov's Works, ed. 1860

junior god ( lat.)

The legend of his strength even spread abroad. At one public reading in Germany, to my surprise, I heard a ballad in which it was described how Hercules Rappo arrived in the capital of Muscovy and, giving performances at the theater, challenged everyone and defeated everyone; how suddenly, among the spectators, unable to bear the disgrace of his compatriots, der russische Dichter rose up; Stehet auf der Zagoskin! (Russian writer; Zagoskin gets up!) (German) (with emphasis on kin) - how he fought Rappo and, having defeated him, retired modestly and with dignity.

1* For a set of options for draft and white autographs, see: T, PSS and P, Works, vol. XIV, p. 332-342.

2* In the copy of the "Letter from Petersburg", kept in TsGIA(f. 777, op. 2, 1852, l. 3), in correspondence between the St. Petersburg and Moscow censorship departments, - "unfortunate" (see: Garkavi A. M. To the text of Turgenev's letter about Gogol. - Uch. Journal of Leningrad State University, 1955, No. 200. Series of philological sciences, issue 25, p. 233).

3* See also: Nazarova LN Turgenev about Gogol. - Russian Literature, 1959, No. 3, p. 155-158.

4 * Zhitova, With. 27; Malysheva I. Mother of I. S. Turgenev and his work. According to unpublished letters of V.P. Turgeneva to her son. — Russian thought, 1915, book. 6, p. 105, 107.

5* See: I. N. Rozanov, Echoes of Lermontov. - In the book: Wreath to Lermontov. Anniversary collection. M.; Pg., 1914, p. 269; Orlovsky S. Lyrics of young Turgenev. Prague, 1926, p. 171; Gabel M. O. The image of a contemporary in the early work of I. S. Turgenev (poem "Conversation"). - Ucheni notes of Kharkiv Derzh. Library Institute, no. 4. Nutrition of literature. Kharkiv, 1959, p. 46-48. For a list of references, see also: Lermontov Encyclopedia. M., 1981, p. 584.

6* See: Nazarova L. Turgenev and Lermontov. — Yezik and literature. Sofia, 1964, No. 6, p. 31-36; her own: On Lermontov's traditions in the prose of I. S. Turgenev. — Problems of the theory and history of literature. Collection of articles dedicated to the memory of Professor A. N. Sokolov. M., 1971, p. 261-269.

7* See also: Rabkina N. I. S. Turgenev in Elagina's salon. - Questions of Literature, 1979, No. 1, p. 314-316.

8 Reported by B. A. Razodeev.

In 1832, it seems like in the spring, when we lived in Sleptsov's house on Sivtsev Vrazhek, Pogodin brought to me, for the first time and quite unexpectedly, Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" were read long ago, and we all admired them. However, I read "Dikanka" by accident: I got it from a bookstore, along with other books, to read aloud to my wife, on the occasion of her illness. One can imagine our joy at such a surprise. We did not suddenly find out the real name of the writer; but Pogodin went to Petersburg for some reason, found out there who Rudy Panko was, got to know him and brought us the news that Gogol-Yanovsky had written Dikanka. So this name was already known to us and precious.

On Saturdays they constantly dined with us and spent my short evenings
buddies. On one of these evenings, in my study, located on the mezzanine,
I played cards in a quadruple boston, and three people who did not play were sitting around
table. The room was hot, and some, including myself, sat without
tailcoats. Suddenly Pogodin, without any prior notice, entered the room with
unknown to me, a very young man, came straight up to me and said:
"Here's Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol!" The effect was strong. I am very
became embarrassed, rushed to put on his frock coat, muttering empty words of vulgar
recommendations. At any other time I would not have met Gogol in this way. All mine
guests (there were P. G. Frolov, M. M. Pinsky and P. S. Shchepkin 52 -
I don’t remember the others) were also somehow puzzled and silent. The reception was not
cold but awkward. The game stopped for a while; but Gogol and Pogodin
they begged me to continue the game, because there was no one to replace me. Soon,
however, Konstantin 53 ran up, rushed to Gogol and spoke to
him with great feeling and fervor. I was very happy and distracted
continued the game, listening with one ear to the words of Gogol, but he spoke
quiet and I didn't hear anything.
Gogol's outward appearance was then completely different and disadvantageous for him:
crest on the head, smoothly trimmed temples, shaved mustache and chin,
large and heavily starched collars gave a completely different
the physiognomy of his face: it seemed to us that there was something khokhlatsky and
roguish. In Gogol's dress, there was a noticeable pretension to panache. I have
I remember that he was wearing a motley light waistcoat with a large chain.
We still have portraits depicting him in his then form, donated
subsequently to Konstantin by Gogol himself 54.
Unfortunately, I do not remember at all my conversations with Gogol in the first
our date; but I remember that I often spoke to him. An hour later he left
saying that he would visit me one of these days, some early in the morning, and ask
take him to Zagoskin, whom he really wanted to meet and
who lived very close to me. Konstantin also does not remember his conversations
with him, more than what Gogol said about himself, that he was formerly a fat man, and
now sick; but he remembers that he behaved unfriendly, carelessly and somehow
condescendingly, which, of course, was not, but it might seem so. He doesn't
I liked the manners of Gogol, who made everyone, without exception,
unfavorable, unsympathetic impression. There was no way to pay a visit to Gogol
opportunities, because they did not know where he left off: Gogol did not want this
say.
In a few days, during which I have already warned
Zagoskin that Gogol wants to meet him and that I will bring him to him,
Nikolai Vasilyevich came to me quite early. I contacted him with
sincere praise of his "Dikanka"; but, apparently, my words seemed to him
ordinary compliments, and he took them very dryly. In general, it had
something repulsive, which did not allow me to be sincerely infatuated and
outpourings of which I am capable to excess. At his request, we soon went
walk to Zagoskin. On the way, he surprised me by complaining about his
illness (I did not know then that he had spoken to Konstantin about this) and even said,
that is terminally ill. Looking at him with astonished and incredulous eyes,
because he seemed to be healthy, I asked him, "But why are you sick?" He
answered vaguely and said that the cause of his illness was in the intestines.
Dear conversation was about Zagoskin. Gogol praised him for his gaiety, but said,
that he does not write what he should, especially for the theatre. I'm flippant
objected that we have nothing to write about, that in the world everything is so monotonous,
smooth, decent and empty that

Even nonsense is funny
You will not meet in you, empty light 55, -

But Gogol looked at me somehow significantly and said that "this
it is not true that the comic is hidden everywhere, that, living in the midst of it, we do not see it;
but what if the artist transfers it to art, to the stage, then we ourselves are above
we will wallow with laughter and marvel that we did not notice him before."
Maybe he didn't put it exactly like that, but the idea was exactly the same. I
was puzzled by it, especially because he did not expect to hear it from Gogol.
From the words that followed, I noticed that Russian comedy greatly interested him and that
he has his own original view of her 56. I must say,
that Zagoskin, who had also read "Dikanka" long ago and praised it, at the same
did not fully appreciate the time; and in the descriptions of Ukrainian nature I found
unnaturalness, pomposity, enthusiasm of the young writer; he found
everywhere there is an incorrectness of the language, even illiteracy. The last one was very
funny, because Zagoskin could not be accused of great literacy. He
was even offended by our superfluous, exaggerated, in his opinion,
praise. But in his good nature and in his human pride he is pleased
it was that Gogol, praised by all, hastened to come to him. He accepted it
with open arms, with cries and praises; taken several times
kiss Gogol, then rushed to hug me, hit me in the back with his fist, called
hamster, gopher, etc., etc.; in a word, he was quite amiable in his own way.
Zagoskin talked incessantly about himself: about his many occupations, about
countless books he read, about his archaeological works,
about his stay in foreign lands (he was not further than Danzig), that he traveled
up and down the whole of Rus', etc., etc. Everyone knows that this is complete nonsense and
that only Zagoskin sincerely believed him. Gogol understood this at once and spoke with
the owner, as if he had lived with him for a century, completely at the right time and in moderation. He turned
to the bookcases... Then a new story began, but for me it's already an old story:
Zagoskin began to show off and show off books, then snuffboxes and,
finally, boxes. I sat silently and amused myself at this scene. But to Gogol she
got bored pretty soon: he suddenly took out his watch and said that it was time for him to go,
promised to run again somehow and left.
"Well," I asked Zagoskin, "how did you like Gogol?" -
"Oh, how cute," shouted Zagoskin, "cute, modest, yes,
brother, smart girl!"... and so on and so forth; but Gogol said nothing, except for the most
everyday, vulgar words.
On this passage of Gogol from Poltava to Petersburg, our acquaintance did not
became close. I don’t remember how long Gogol was in Moscow again
passing through, for the shortest time 57; was with us and again asked
me to go with him to Zagoskin, to which I readily agreed. We were at
Zagoskin also in the morning; he still received Gogol very cordially and
gracious in his own way; and Gogol also behaved in his own way, that is, he spoke
about perfect trifles and not a word about literature, although the owner spoke about
her more than once. Nothing remarkable happened, except that
Zagoskin, showing Gogol his folding armchairs, pinched both my hands in such a way
springs that I screamed; but Zagoskin was taken aback and did not suddenly release me from
my plight, in which I looked like I was stretched out for torture
person. From this fun, my hands hurt for a long time. Gogol didn't even smile.
but subsequently he often recalled this incident and, without laughing himself, so skillfully
he told me that he made everyone laugh to tears. Generally in his jokes
there were a lot of original techniques, expressions, warehouse and that special
humor, which is the exclusive property of Little Russians; hand over
them impossible. Subsequently, by countless experiments, I was convinced that
repetition of Gogol's words, from which the listeners wallowed with laughter when he
I said them myself, - did not produce the slightest effect when I said them
or someone else.
And during this visit, our acquaintance with Gogol did not move forward: but,
it seems that he met Olga Semyonovna and Vera 58. In 1835
In the year 1959 we lived at the Hay Market, in the house of Stürmer. Gogol between
those already managed to issue "Mirgorod" and "Arabesques". His great talent turned out to be
full strength. Fresh, charming, fragrant, artistic were the stories in
"Dikanka", but in the "Old-world landowners", in "Taras Bulba" he already appeared
a great artist with deep and important meaning. Konstantin and I, my family
and all people capable of feeling art were completely delighted with
Gogol. It must be told the truth that in addition to sworn lovers of literature in
all walks of life, young people appreciated Gogol better and sooner. Moscow
students all came from him in admiration and were the first to distribute in Moscow
a loud rumor about a new great talent.
One evening we were sitting in the box of the Bolshoi Theatre; suddenly dissolved
door, Gogol came in, and with a cheerful, friendly air, such as we never
saw, held out his hand to me with the words: "Hello!" Nothing to say how we
were amazed and delighted. Konstantin, who almost understood more than anyone else
the meaning of Gogol, forgot where he was, and shouted loudly, which drew attention
neighboring lodges. It was during intermission. Following Gogol, he entered our
Alexander Pavlovich Efremov lay down, and Konstantin whispered in his ear: “Do you know
who do we have? This is Gogol. "Efremov, bulging his eyes also with amazement and joy,
ran into an armchair and told the news to the late Stankevich and someone else from
our acquaintances. In one minute, several tubes and binoculars turned on our
I lay down, and the words "Gogol. Gogol" reverberated through the armchairs. I don't know if he noticed
this movement, only after saying a few words that he was again in Moscow for
a short time, Gogol left.
Despite the brevity of the meeting, we all noticed that in relation to us
Gogol became a completely different person, while there were no
reasons that, during his absence, could bring us closer. The very parish
him in the box already showed confidence that we would be delighted with him. We rejoiced and
surprised at this change. Subsequently, from conversations with Pogodin, I
concluded (I think the same now) that his stories about us, about our high
opinion about Gogol's talent, about our ardent love for his works
this is an appeal. After such conversations with Pogodin, Gogol immediately went to
us, did not find us at home, found out that we were in the theater, and appeared in our box.
Gogol took with him to Petersburg a comedy, now known to everyone under
the name "Marriage"; then it was called "Grooms". He volunteered to read
her aloud in Pogodin's house for all the acquaintances of the owner 60. Pogodin
took advantage of this permission and named so many guests that it was enough
the large room was literally packed. And what a shame, I fell ill and
could not hear this wonderful, unique reading. Besides, it happened
on Saturday, my day, and my guests were not invited to read to Pogodin.
Of course, my Konstantin was there. Gogol was already a master at reading or,
better to say, he played his own play, that many people who understand this matter, before
still say that on stage, despite good game actors, especially
Mr. Sadovsky in the role of Podkolesin, this comedy is not so complete, whole and
not nearly as funny as in the author's own reading. I totally agree with this.
opinion, because later I got to know the inimitable art of Gogol
in reading everything comic. The listeners laughed so hard that some
became almost ill; but, alas, the comedy was not understood! Most of
said that the play was an unnatural farce, but that Gogol read it terribly funny
61.
Gogol regretted that I was not at Pogodin's; appointed a day on which
wanted to come and dine with us and read a comedy to me and my whole family.
On the appointed day, I invited to my place exactly those guests who did not manage to
hear Gogol's comedy. Among other guests were Stankevich and Belinsky
62. Gogol was very late for dinner, which later often happened to him
happened. I was annoyed that my guests had been starving for so long, and at 5 o’clock I
ordered to serve to eat; but at that very moment we saw Gogol walking
walk across Sennaya Square to our house. But, alas, our expectations are not
came true: Gogol said that he could not read a comedy to us today, and
That's why I didn't bring it with me. All this was unpleasant to me, and probably
as a result, even during this visit of Gogol to Moscow there was no such
rapprochement between us, which I desired, and in Lately and hoped. I
saw him one more time in the morning at Pogodin's for the shortest possible time and
learned that Gogol was going to Petersburg the next day.
In 1835, rumors reached us from St. Petersburg that Gogol had written
comedy "The Government Inspector", that in this play his talent as a writer appeared
dramatic, in a new and deep meaning. They said that this play is no
censorship would not have missed, but that the sovereign ordered it to be printed and given to
theater. On stage, the comedy was a huge success, but at the same time a lot of
made enemies for Gogol. The most malicious rumors were heard in the highest
circle of officials and even in the ears of the sovereign himself. Nothing compares
our impatience to read The Inspector General, which somehow for a long time was not sent to
Moscow. I read it for the first time in the most original way. One day,
having played late in an English club, I left it with
Velikopolsky. At this time, the porter handed me a note from home: I
informed that some passing colonel brought F. N. Glinka a printed
a copy of The Inspector General and left it with him until six o'clock in the morning; that Glinka
sent a copy to us and that everyone is expecting me to listen to "The Examiner".
In the heat of the moment, I told Wielkopolsky about this and could no longer refuse him
permission to hear the "Inspector", and we galloped home. I lived then in the Old
Basmannaya, in Kurakin's house. It was already about one o'clock after midnight. Nobody slept
everyone sat waiting for me in my study, even m-lle Potot, who lived with us
with Mother. I couldn't read The Government Inspector correctly the first time; but of course,
no one had ever read it with such a fascination shared by
listeners. "Inspector" was sold to the St. Petersburg directorate by Gogol himself for 2
500 rubles assign., and therefore immediately began to put it in Moscow
63. Gogol was well acquainted with Mikh. Sem. Shchepkin and instructed him
written production of "The Government Inspector", supplying, moreover, many, for the most part
very good instructions. At the same time we learned that Gogol himself,
greatly upset and upset by something in Petersburg, he sold with a concession
all remaining copies of The Inspector General and his other works and collected
go abroad immediately. This upset me and many of his admirers.
Suddenly Shchepkin comes to me and says that it is very embarrassing for him to play
"Inspector", that the comrades are somehow offended by this, do not pay any
attention to his remarks and that the play will be badly staged from this; What
it would be much better if the play were staged without any supervision, so
by itself, according to the general arbitrariness of the actors; what if he complains
repertory member or director, then things will go even worse: for the director and
repertory members do not understand anything and never do such things; A
gentlemen artists, to spite him, Shchepkin, completely drop the play. Shchepkin cried from
his predicament and from the thought that he would perform so badly
Gogol's order. He added that the only salvation is to
I took over the production of the play because the actors respect and love me and
the whole management consists of my short buddies; what will he write about it
Gogol, who will gladly pass this order on to me. I agreed to the same
for a minute he himself wrote an ardent letter to Gogol in Petersburg, explaining why
It is inconvenient for Shchepkin to stage a play and why it will be convenient for me, adding that,
in essence, Shchepkin will dispose of everything, only through me. It was
my first letter to Gogol, and his reply was his first letter to me. Here
it:
“I received your letter, pleasant for me. Your participation touched me.
It is pleasant to think that among the crowded unfavorable crowd there is a close
a circle of the elect, verifying our creations with a true inner feeling and
taste; it is even more pleasant when his eyes turn to their creator with that
the love that breathes in your letter. - I don't know how to be thankful for
your willingness to take on the burden and troubles of my play. I instructed her
already Shchepkin and wrote a letter about this to Zagoskin. If he doesn't really
the opportunity to get along with the management himself, and if he has not given letters yet, then
notify me, I will prepare a new letter to Zagoskin at the same moment. myself
in no way can I come to you, because I am busy preparing for
my departure, which will be, if not May 30, then June 6 without fail. But on
returning from foreign lands, I am a permanent resident of the ancient capital.
Once again offering you my most sensitive gratitude, I remain
forever
Your most obedient servant
N. Gogol".
On envelope: May 15, 1836
His nobility *
To the Gracious Sovereign Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov from Gogol.
How strange it is that the letter is so simple, sincere did not like
everyone and even me.
From here begins a long and difficult story of incomplete understanding
Gogol by the people closest to him, who sincerely and passionately loved him,
called his friends! Unlimited, unconditional power of attorney in your
Gogol did not have sincerity until his death. It cannot be assumed that we all
were guilty of this without any reason; it was in appearance
conversion and inexplicable oddities of his spirit. This matter is long and,
in order to throw some light on it, I will only say in advance that subsequently
I often used to say to calm Shevyrev and especially Pogodin: “Gentlemen, well
how can we judge Gogol by ourselves? Maybe he has ten times all the nerves
thinner than ours and somehow arranged upside down!" To which Pogodin laughed
replied: "Is that so!"
As a result of Gogol's letter to me, Shchepkin wrote to him that the letter to
Zagoskin was given a long time ago, about which he notified him; but it seems that Gogol is not
received this letter because he did not answer it and left immediately for
border.
So, "Inspector" was staged without my participation. However, this play
played and is now played quite well in Moscow, except for Khlestakov, the role
which is the hardest of all. Gogol always complained to me that he did not find an actor
for this role 64, which is why the play loses its meaning and should rather
be called "Gorodnichiy" than "Inspector" **.
* I was then a titular adviser; but Gogol, according to my figure,
imagined that I must certainly be a state councillor.
** Shortly before his death, he transferred this role to Mr. Shuisky and himself
put on a play. I didn’t go to the theater then, but all the audience admired
Shumsky; Gogol himself saw him from our box in the course of two acts and
was pleased with them.

There are no small roles in the theater, poems grow from rubbish, and only ashes know what it means to burn to the ground.

The metaphorical logic of belittling, staring, unreasonable love for everything that loses in comparison, works in relation to the situation in the Moscow imperial theaters of the 1830s. Traditionally, it is made up of the textbook definition “Theater of Mochalov and Shchepkin” with the addition of the names of V. I. Zhivokini, A. O. Bantyshev, N. V. Lavrov, M. D. Lvova-Sinetskaya, N. V. Repina. The one-dimensional image is supplemented by the mention of several premieres: "Woe from Wit", "The Government Inspector", "Hamlet". In this series, the name of M. N. Zagoskin is lost and fades. A theatrical official who served as the director of the Moscow imperial theaters from 1831 to 1842, a novelist, a playwright, a personality thoroughly forgotten in our time.

At the end of the 20th century, N. V. Gogol remained the most consistent popularizer of Mikhail Nikolayevich Zagoskin:

Anna Andreevna. So, right, and "Yuri Miloslavsky" is your composition?

Khlestakov. Yes, this is my essay.

Anna Andreevna. I guessed now.

Maria Antonovna. Oh, mother, it says there that this is Mr. Zagoskin's work.

Anna Andreevna. Well, I knew that even here you would argue.

Khlestakov. Oh yes, it's true: it's definitely Zagoskin; but there is another "Yuri Miloslavsky", so that one is mine.

Anna Andreevna. Okay, I read yours. How well written!

A funny trick, as a result of which Zagoskin became almost an artifact of writing. A person who really lived in the first half of the 19th century shied away from the motley crowd of characters in The Inspector General. The once famous writer was lost in a series of Khlestakov's inventions, somewhere between "brother" Pushkin and a watermelon "seven hundred rubles", having completely lost any physical equivalent in the modern reader's mind. Like a labardan.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol was a brilliant hoaxer. With his light hand and with the prompting of Anna Andreevna, Khlestakov tries to impersonate Zagoskin, or rather, the writer of Yuri Miloslavsky. But Marya Antonovna reveals an accidental deception. Is the incident over? If! On May 25, 1836, Mikhail Nikolaevich, who was watching the premiere of The Inspector General from the director's box, could experience jubilation. Praise for his novel - there was no other "Yuri Miloslavsky", of course - sounded from the stage of the Maly Theater with a large gathering of the most brilliant audience as the apotheosis of reader recognition.

The acquaintance of N.V. Gogol and M.N. Zagoskin took place in October 1832. Aksakov depicts this meeting in colors. According to the memoirist, Zagoskin spoke mainly, and all “incessantly about himself”, especially a lot “about his stay in foreign lands (he was not further than Danzig (modern Gdansk - O. T.)), that he traveled along and across all Rus', etc., etc. ”*. Apparently, Zagoskin liked to lie, dream up. That is why Aksakov, concluding the episode about the meeting of two writers, summarizes: "Everyone knows that this is complete nonsense and that only Zagoskin sincerely believed him." It would be unreasonable to assert that Khlestakov was created by a playwright with an eye on Mikhail Nikolaevich Zagoskin. This is much more obvious with another hero of Gogol - Semyon Semyonovich, "a man also of considerable light, but in his own way", from "Decoupling of the Inspector General". By the way, the author gave Semyon Semenovich the following text:<…>At least I don’t find anything in myself in common with the people bred in The Inspector General.” The statement is polemical in relation to the opinion of the playwright, who believed that "everyone, even for a minute, if not for several minutes, has been or is being done by Khlestakov, but naturally, he just does not want to admit it" **.

* Aksakov S. T. The story of my acquaintance with Gogol // Aksakov S. T. Sobr. cit.: In 4 vols. M.: Fiction, 1956. Vol. 3. S. 154.

** Gogol N.V. An excerpt from a letter written by the author shortly after the first presentation of The Inspector General to a writer // Gogol N.V. Complete collection. cit.: V 13 t. M.: AN SSSR, 1954. V. 4. S. 101.

The mechanism of Gogol's comedy worked in Zagoskin's literary career. In 1836, the year of the premiere for The Inspector General, V. G. Belinsky wrote in his article “Nothing about Nothing ...”: “Can Mr. Zagoskin's story be mediocre or bad? After all, Mr. Zagoskin is the author of Miloslavsky and Roslavlev, and no one in the provinces can imagine that these novels, for all their merits, are no longer what they were, or at least what they once seemed to be. *. In Gogol's play, the hero turns out to be not what he "seemed once." Mikhail Nikolaevich, without suspecting it, played the role of Khlestakov from literature.

* Belinsky V. G. Nothing about nothing, or the Answer to Mr. Publisher of the "Telescope" for the last six months (1835) of Russian literature // Belinsky V. G. Complete collection. cit.: In 13 t. M .: AN SSSR, 1953. T. 2. P. 21.

In the early 1930s, no one expected such a turn. Zagoskin was known in the widest circles primarily as a writer. Its popularity should not be underestimated. The novel Yuri Miloslavsky, or the Russians in 1612, which appeared in 1829, created a stir without any exaggeration. V. A. Zhukovsky responded with a letter to the appearance of the novel, “all three volumes” of which he “read in one sitting, without leaving the book until late at night” *. Meanwhile, in the first edition, the three volumes of the novel had a volume of 665 pages. Zagoskin's work was proclaimed the first historical novel to have a "people's physiognomy"**. Already in 1847, V. N. Maikov did not recognize "Yuri Miloslavsky", his "favorite literary work", which by that time had gone through seven editions. The critic rhetorically asked: “Did the author of his historical novel, for which seventeen years ago he was promoted to the Russian Walter Scotts, make a fairy tale out of an arbitrarily taken time for the pleasure of the public?<…>?” *** Doesn't this bewildered question-exclamation remind of a much less restrained one: “I mistook an icicle, a rag for an important person!”

* Zhukovsky V. A. Letter to M. N. Zagoskin dated January 12, 1830 // Zhukovsky V. A. Aesthetics and criticism. M.: Art, 1985. S. 371.

** Aksakov S. T. “Yuri Miloslavsky, or Russians in 1612” // Aksakov S. T. Sobr. cit.: In 4 volumes. T. 3. S. 496.

*** Maikov V.N. Novels of Walter Scott. "Yuri Miloslavsky, or Russians in 1612". Op. M. N. Zagoskina // Maykov V. N. Literary criticism. M.: Fiction, 1985. S. 237.

Yuri Miloslavsky and Roslavlev, which came out two years later, are interesting in connection with Zagoskin's activities as director of the Moscow imperial theaters. There was a widespread opinion that it was for these novels that the writer, personally known to the sovereign, was made director of the Moscow imperial theaters by the Highest Decree of April 25, 1831. The appointment did not go unnoticed. Molva, expressing the opinion of "all true lovers of the dramatic art," associated "pleasant hopes" with Zagoskin's directorship. Such a benevolent response from the newspaper is explained by the fact that for the public of that time, Mikhail Nikolayevich was, first of all, “respectable and beloved by all.<…>novelist and experienced, distinguished dramatic writer" *. The reason for Zagoskin's popularity is not his exceptional writing talent. The inner pathos of his novels, and a specific look at Russian history, came at the right time. The completely disinterested "pleasing to the people's pride"** could not but evoke a lively and admiring response from the Russian public, which had not yet forgotten the war of 1812. The priority of "Russian, national" affected her unconditionally.

* [B. P.]. Theater // Rumor. 1831. [B. etc.]. No. 17.

** Polevoy N. A. Roslavlev, or Russians in 1812 // Polevoy N. A., Polevoy K. A. Literary criticism. L .: Fiction, 1990. S. 93.

Perhaps only Moscow could take the Slavophilizing Zagoskin, who spoke bad French and lacked secular manners, for "the last playwright"*. It was Moscow, in which everything "speaks with the soul" in contrast to "prim St. Petersburg" **, was the city of Zagoskin. Ten years of experience in the Directorate of the Imperial Theaters came to the place. Zagoskin turned out to be both in time and in the situation. His directorship, indicated in detail from documents of the era, letters, memos, makes it clear what theater is outside of aesthetic and ethical categories, not a pulpit, not a mirror, theater as a craft, a daily duty. But what was the theater for Zagoskin - a place for a successful career, a means to maintain the material wealth of the family, or the only way for a not very talented playwright to realize ambitious plans? After all, the plays he created after moving to Moscow were performed mainly on the Moscow stage. Who was Zagoskin first of all - an official or a writer? The decree of 1825, which defined the duties of the director of theaters, pointed to the impossibility of being engaged in “another service”, the need to “devote all your time and ability to a single position that requires great activity, incessant studies and vigilant observation of the complex composition and continuous operation of theaters” *** . Literally following these rules, obviously, would imply almost round-the-clock service. Zagoskin, according to the memoirs of his son Sergei Mikhailovich, was in the office every day from 12 to 2 o’clock and spent the evenings in the theater, “mostly in his box, watching the actors play” ****.

* Letter from Zagoskin to M.E. Lobanov dated 1820. Cit. Quoted from: Krugly A. O. M. N. Zagoskin // Russian Biographical Dictionary: V 25 vol. Pg., 1916. T. 6. P. 154.

** Rastopchina E. A. Letter to M. N. Zagoskin [end. 1820s] // RO RNB. F. 291, op. 1, unit ridge 132. [B. etc.]. L. 1.

*** The highest approved regulations and rules for the internal management of the Imperial Theater Directorate // Complete collection. laws of the Russian Empire since 1649. Collection I. T. 40. St. Petersburg, 1830. No. 30 335. S. 220.

**** Zagoskin S. M. Memoirs // Historical Bulletin. 1900. No. 1. S. 68.

The situation in the Moscow theater was not easy. His "wretched condition"* was too conspicuous. Zagoskin himself, in correspondence with N.I. Gnedich, spoke out on this issue many times over the course of the 1920s. Service since 1823 at the Directorate revealed to Mikhail Nikolaevich the "beggarly and disastrous" position of the theater, which has "no money, no wardrobe, no scenery - in a word, nothing but debts, unrest and contempt, which they managed to arouse in the public for the Russian theater, making it out of him some kind of dog comedy **. Zagoskin even found that “it’s bad at the theater in St. Petersburg, -<…>Moscow is no better. In Petersburg, hands are tied, but here both hands and feet are tied.

* [B. n.] French theater // Rumor. 1831. [B. etc.]. No. 9.

** Zagoskin M. N. Letter to N. I. Gnedich dated June 14, 1822 // Zagoskin M. N. Works: In 2 vols. M .: Fiction, 1978.T. 2. S. 711.

*** Zagoskin M.N. Letter to M.E. Lobanov dated May 29, 1825. Cit. Quoted from: Krugly A. O. M. E. Lobanov and his attitude towards Gnedich and Zagoskin // Historical Bulletin. 1880. Vol. 2. S. 695.

In 1836, the reviewer of "Molva" opened a theatrical chronicle rhetorical question: “Is our theater worth bothering about it, directing a formidable trumpet of criticism at it, writing long, eloquent reviews about it, wasting ink and paper, vouching for the patience of readers? This is a question that seems very natural to the reviewer, especially after five years of observation, experiment, useless noise and unsuccessful impulses! (N. Theatrical chronicle // Rumor. 1836. [B. d.]. No. 1).

Specifically, the Moscow "disorder" in the theater was already set at the legislative level. How could the rigmarole with the accession and separation of the Moscow theater directorate from the St. Petersburg one could turn into order. Until 1823, Moscow theaters were under the jurisdiction of the St. Petersburg directorate. In 1823 there was a separation. The Moscow theater came under the control of the Governor-General Count D. V. Golitsyn. But already in 1827, the Ministry of the Imperial Court was established, and the theaters were transferred to its department. The autonomy of Moscow theaters never really existed, the management of Moscow theaters was subordinate to one or the other administrative body. Only the designation of the theatrical bureaucratic apparatus changed: management or directorate, respectively, at the head of it - the manager or director. The terms of reference did not actually change. The rules for managing the Moscow theaters proper are set out in the law of December 28, 1809. These rules, which are too general, do not reflect the specifics of the situation in Moscow theatres. The specifics are as follows: chronic lack of money with an obvious dependence on public tastes, which the Directorate had to take into account in order to attract the public to the theater. Difficulties were also added by special relations with the local press (for example, a five-year, from 1831 to 1836, dialogue with Molva) *, almost domestic, personal, obliging to a lot, which turned into disappointment in the very possibility of improvement in the theater.

* The highest approved staff of the theater directorate from 28 Dec. 1809. Cit. Quoted from: Pogozhev V.P. Centenary of the organization of the Imperial Moscow theaters. In 3 books. SPb., 1908. Book. 1. S. 114.

Zagoskin as an official was let down by an indispensable desire to please everyone - the authorities, the public, actors, which is so obvious from letters to I.F. Sitnikov, V.I. Panaev, and a complete inability to deal with circumstances, indicating a weakness of character. Formally, Zagoskin's activity as director of the Moscow imperial theaters confirms that he was a law-abiding servant and, throughout his directorship, tried to follow every point of the rules of 1809. But reality offered quite different rules. Perhaps the most unpredictable and least subject to any regulations was the area of ​​directorial activity, which was “supervision of actors, dancers, musicians and all persons included in the Moscow Theater”*. To understand the state of the Moscow theater troupes (i.e., ballet, opera, drama, excluding the French drama troupe), it is not enough to simply list high-profile names. Yes, by 1831 the troupe included N. V. Repina, M. D. Lvova-Sinetskaya, E. M. Kavalerova, P. S. Mochalov, M. S. Shchepkin, V. I. Zhivokini, A. O. Bantyshev, N. V. Lavrov. But Zagoskin, in his “Brief Note on the Present Situation of Some Parts of the Moscow Imperial Theatre…” stated** that on the Moscow stage “some comedies, almost all vaudevilles and small operas can be played with success”***. He seemed to forget about the brilliant dramatic artists when he added: "Of all the troupes of the Moscow theater, the ballet troupe satisfies more than others the demand of the public" ****. The author of an article in "Molva" described the performing style of the Russian troupe's artists as farcical and "constantly rising to the tricks"*****. Finally, in 1832, the Moscow Telegraph reviewer categorically remarked: “... Not a single remarkable talent was added to the orphaned talents of Mochalov and Shchepkin; no improvement in the distribution of roles; no improvement in the generality of the game ... "******.

* A short note about the current state of some parts of the Moscow Imperial Theater and about the changes needed to improve them. See: About the staff of the Ballet, Drama and Opera troupe of the Imperial Moscow Theater, as well as the orchestra // RGIA. F. 472, op. 13, units ridge 53. 1831-1832. L. 7-26.

** Ibid. L. 9.

*** There. L. 10.

**** See: [B. n.] French theater // Rumor. 1831. [B. etc.]. No. 9.

***** Field N. Russian theater. Roslavlev // Moscow Telegraph. 1832. Ch. 46. No. 13. S. 118-119.

****** On the Staff of the Ballet, Drama and Opera Troupes of the Imperial Moscow Theatre, as well as the orchestra // RGIA. F. 472, op. 13, units ridge 53. 1831-1832. L. 8.

Zagoskin got it from the artists, who often sought to demand an increase in salaries that exceeded their capabilities. The increase in salary (the senior salary was 4 thousand rubles) was made under the guise of apartment, wardrobe, crew money. The directorate was not protected in any way from such requests - the salary was not precisely determined, at least by 1831. The actors skillfully used this and, wanting to force the Directorate to agree to their demands, threatened to resign. The position of the Directorate became difficult - they had to choose between two extremes: “either to lose a useful actor and arouse the indignation of the public against oneself, or to petition for increases not commensurate with the methods of the Directorate”*. At the same time, Zagoskin understood that “the loss of an essential artist may sometimes not be more profitable than even the most immoderate salary increase for one actor, which usually encourages other artists to similar demands” **. Zagoskin's fears were not unfounded. Back in 1831, in secret and with a request to tear up the letter after reading, M. S. Shchepkin shared with I. I. Sosnitsky his intention to move to St. Petersburg ***. A. O. Bantyshev went further and in 1839 submitted a letter of resignation, being sure that he would be accepted into the St. Petersburg theater. Mikhail Nikolaevich asked for help from the Minister of the Imperial Court, Prince P. M. Volkonsky. Almost despair sounds in the lines: “if my best artists are accepted by their whims into the St. Petersburg Directorate, then no director will be able to manage the local theaters, and I myself will have to ask for dismissal from the service” ****.

* About the staff of the Ballet, Drama and Opera troupe of the Imperial Moscow Theater, as well as the orchestra // RGIA. F. 472, op. 13, units ridge 53. 1831-1832. L. 9.

** Shchepkin M.S. Letter to I.I. Sosnitsky dated February 6, 1831 // M.S. Shchepkin. Life and work: In 2 vols. M.: Art, 1984. Vol. 1. S. 154.

*** According to the letter of the director of the Moscow theater about the ban on the transition of the singer Bantyshev from the Moscow theater to the local theaters // RGIA. F. 472, op. 13, units hr.1665. 1838. L. 1.

**** Zagoskin M.N. Letter to I.F. Sitnikov dated June 8, 1831. // RGIA. F. 472, op. 13, units ridge 49. 1831. L. 4.

It is impossible not to take into account the attitude of artists to the Directorate. It was not very respectful if Zagoskin decided to write in 1831: “Our artists are accustomed to submit without grumbling to the will of the highest authorities, but they look at the Directorate in a completely different way” *. Mikhail Nikolayevich himself, until the last, acted as an intercessor for his actors before the minister of the imperial court. It is difficult to decide what guided him when he hid from P. M. Volkonsky the faults of the artists, for which they could be fired without a pension. This intercession caused the displeasure of the prince (according to the memoirs of S. M. Zagoskin).

* See about this: Grits T. M. M. S. Shchepkin. Chronicle of life and creativity. M.: AN SSSR, 1966. S. 68.

However, the relationship between the director and the artists can be described as cloudless. There are all grounds for this. It was Zagoskin, who, seeing Shchepkin in Tula at the fair, confirmed the enthusiastic assessments of P. N. Golovin with an expressive phrase: “the actor is a miracle Yudo” *. Mikhail Semyonovich expressed gratitude to Zagoskin for the goodwill that the forwarder from the Theater Department of the artist surrounded during his short stay in Moscow in 1822 **. By the way, Shchepkin's debut on the Moscow stage - September 20, 1822 was the role of Bogatonov in Zagoskin's play "Mr. Bogatonov, or Provincial in the Capital." P. S. Mochalov confessed in a letter to S. T. Aksakov: “... M. N.’s disposition towards me calms me ...” ***. Finally, the Ryazan tradesman P. M. Sadovsky was also accepted onto the Moscow stage by Zagoskin. The director of the Moscow imperial theaters himself appears as a victim from the lines addressed to M. S. Shchepkin: “It must be so, that any favor on my part does not mean anything, and a small damage or an idle change becomes some kind of terrible oppression - both funny and pitiful. This Zagoskin somehow does not look like what he wrote in 1826: “The theater is sometimes called the temple of the muses; but for me, it is the temple of w ... x, singing, dancing, talking, who quarrel, intrigue, make noise, squeak. On the one who put the words into the mouth of the hero of the comedy "Noble Theater":

There is no end to intrigue, ridicule, gossip, flattery.
And absurd quarrels cannot be counted,
... And in a word, the whole troupe, it must be confessed,
A comic plot ***** can be beautiful.

* Shchepkin M.S. Letter to M.N. Zagoskin dated November 4, 1822 // M.S. Shchepkin. Life and art. T.1. S. 129.

** Mochalov P. S. Letter to S. T. Aksakov [B. etc.]. Cit. Quoted from: Dmitriev Yu. New materials about P. S. Mochalov // Theatre. 1940. No. 1. S. 143.

*** Zagoskin M. N. Letter to M. S. Shchepkin [B. D.] // M. S. Shchepkin. Life and art. T. 1. S. 319. In the book, the letter is dated 1843, but M. N. was director until 1842.

**** Zagoskin M. N. Letter to N. I. Gnedich dated November 6, 1826 // Zagoskin M. N. Works. T. 2. S. 719.

***** Replica of Chestonov. The text of the play, cit. according to the edition: Zagoskin M. N. Works. T.2. S. 149.

The nature of writing and acting is inherently similar. At least by right and need, even by the desire or anxiety of a person to fulfill himself. For his craving for writing, Zagoskin found the following comparison: "the passion to write comedies is no better than drunkenness - you will never leave it behind"*. Mochalov felt the vocation, he felt that "it knocks in his chest and asks for the stage" **. "It" is not the most precise definition the phenomenon of creativity, the ideal substance of which, in the biography of M. N. Zagoskin, slipped away behind everyday life, behind the need to patch up holes in the meager theatrical budget: It is impossible to please everyone - the dissatisfied will come to St. Petersburg, they will begin to complain - how long it will take for the Minister to write about the activities of the Director - a secret matter - [not parsing.] - but apparently God has determined me to serve always in half with grief "***.

* Zagoskin M.N. Letter to M.E. Lobanov dated 7 October. 1820 cit. Quoted from: Krugly A. O. M. E. Lobanov and his attitude towards Gnedich and Zagoskin // Historical Bulletin. 1880. Vol. 2. S. 687.

** Mochalov P.S. Letter to I.V. Samarin [B. etc.]. Cit. Quoted from: Dmitriev Yu. New materials about Mochalov // Theatre. 1940. No. 1. S. 142.

*** Draft letter of M. N. Zagoskin // RO RNB. F.291, op.1, item ridge 1. [B. etc.]. L. 2.

small brown eyes sparkled at times with gaiety - precisely gaiety, and not mockery; but in general their eyes seemed tired. A long, pointed nose gave Gogol's physiognomy something cunning, fox-like; his puffy, soft lips under a cropped mustache also made an unfavorable impression; in their indefinite outlines were expressed - so at least it seemed to me - the dark sides of his character: when he spoke, they uncomfortably opened and showed a row of bad teeth; a small chin sank into a wide black velvet cravat. In Gogol's posture, in his body movements, there was something not professorial, but teacher's - something reminiscent of teachers in provincial institutes and gymnasiums. “What a smart, and strange, and sick creature you are!” - involuntarily thought, looking at him. I remember that Mikhail Semyonovich and I went to see him as to an extraordinary, brilliant person who had something in his head ... all of Moscow had such an opinion about him. Mikhail Semyonovich warned me that one should not talk to him about the continuation of Dead Souls, about this second part, on which he worked so long and so hard and which, as you know, he burned before his death; that he does not like this conversation. I myself would not mention Correspondence with Friends, since I could not say anything good about it. However, I did not prepare for any conversation - but simply longed to see a man whose creations I almost knew by heart. It is even difficult for today's young people to interpret the charm that surrounded his name then; now there is no one on whom general attention could be focused.

Shchepkin announced to me beforehand that Gogol was not talkative; in reality it turned out differently. Gogol talked a lot with animation, measuredly pushing away and rapping out every word - which not only did not seem unnatural, but, on the contrary, gave his speech some pleasant gravity and impressionability. He spoke in oʹ, I did not notice any other less pleasant features of the Little Russian dialect for the Russian ear. Everything came out well, smoothly, tasty and well-aimed. The impression of weariness, morbid, nervous restlessness which he had at first made upon me has vanished. He talked about

the meaning of literature, the vocation of the writer, how one should treat one's own works; made several subtle and correct remarks about the very process of work, about the very, if I may say so, the physiology of writing; and all this - in a figurative, original language - and, as far as I could see, not at all prepared in advance, as is often the case with "celebrities". Only when he started talking about censorship, almost glorifying it, almost approving it as a means of developing skill in a writer, the ability to protect his offspring, patience and many other Christian and secular virtues, only then it seemed to me that he draws from a ready-made arsenal. Moreover, to prove in this way the necessity of censorship - did it not mean to recommend and almost praise the cunning and cunning of slavery? I can still admit the verse of the Italian poet: “Si, servi siam; ma servi ognor frementi" *; but the self-satisfied humility and knavery of slavery... no! better not to talk about it. In such fabrications and reasonings of Gogol, the influence of those persons of the highest flight, to whom most of the "Correspondence" is devoted, was too clearly shown; from there came this musty and insipid spirit. In general, I soon felt that between Gogol's world outlook and mine lay a whole abyss. Not the same thing we hated, not the same thing we loved; but at that moment - in my eyes, none of that mattered. A great poet, a great artist was in front of me, and I looked at him, listened to him with reverence, even when I did not agree with him.

Gogol probably knew my relationship with Belinsky, with Iskander; about the first of them, about his letter to him - he did not hint: this name would have burned his lips. But at that time it had just appeared - in one. Gogol himself spoke about this article. From his letters printed after his death (oh, what a service the publisher would have rendered him if he had thrown out of them two-thirds, or at least all those written to ladies of the world ... a more disgusting mixture of pride and search, hypocrisy and

* We are slaves... yes; but slaves, ever indignant.

vanity, prophetic and hangover tone - does not exist in literature!), - from Gogol's letters we know what an incurable wound lay in his heart the complete fiasco of his "Correspondence" - this is a fiasco in which one cannot but welcome one of the few consoling manifestations of the then public opinions. And the late MS Shchepkin and I were witnesses - on the day of our visit - to what extent this wound became sore. Gogol began to assure us - in a suddenly changed, hurried voice - that he could not understand why in his previous writings some people find some kind of opposition, something that he later changed; that he always adhered to the same religious and protective principles - and, as proof of this, he is ready to point out to us some places in one of his books, already published long ago ... Having uttered these words, Gogol jumped up from the sofa with almost youthful vivacity and ran into the next room. Mikhail Semenych only raised his eyebrows in grief - and raised his index finger ... "I never saw him like that," he whispered to me ...

Gogol returned with a volume of "Arabesques" in his hands and began to read for restraint some parts of one of those childishly pompous and tiresomely empty articles with which this collection is filled. I remember that it was about the need for strict order, unconditional obedience to the authorities, etc. “You see,” Gogol repeated, “I always thought the same thing before, expressed exactly the same convictions as now! .. Why on earth? reproach me for treason, for apostasy... Me?” - And this was said by the author of The Inspector General, one of the most negative comedies that ever appeared on the stage! Shchepkin and I were silent. Gogol finally threw the book on the table and spoke again about art, about the theatre; announced that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the actors in The Inspector General, that they "lost their tone" and that he was ready to read the whole play to them from beginning to end. Shchepkin seized on this word and immediately arranged where and when to read. Some old lady came to Gogol; she brought him a prosphora with a particle taken out. We left.

I do not say: je regrette, mais je comprends qu'on ait dû sévir.<я сожалею, но я понимаю, что следовало строго наказать (French)>

only his eyes moved from time to time under the overhanging eyebrows. It was impossible to understand: what was he, whether he was listening and shaking his mustache, or simply So sits and "exists"? No drowsiness, no attention on this vast, downright Russian face - but only the mind chamber, but mature laziness, and at times something crafty seems to want to come out and cannot - or does not want - to break through all this senile fat ... The owner finally asked him to come to dinner. "A horseradish pig is prepared for you, Ivan Andreevich," he remarked troublesomely and as if fulfilling an inevitable duty. Krylov looked at him, half affably, half mockingly... - he seemed to utter inwardly - he stood up heavily and, shuffling heavily with his feet, went to take his place at the table.

I also saw Lermontov only twice: in the house of a noble St. Petersburg lady, Princess Sh ... oh, and a few days later, at a masquerade in the Noble Assembly for the new year, 1840. At Princess Sh ... oh, I, a very rare and unusual visitor to secular evenings, only from a distance, from the corner where I huddled, watched the poet who quickly became famous. He sat on a low stool in front of a sofa, on which, dressed in a black dress, sat one of the beauties of the capital at that time, the fair-haired Countess M.P. - an early dead, really lovely creature. Lermontov was wearing the uniform of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment; he took off neither his saber nor his gloves, and, hunched over and frowning, looked sullenly at the countess. She spoke little to him and more often turned to Count Sh ... y, who was sitting next to him, also a hussar. There was something sinister and tragic in Lermontov's appearance; some kind of gloomy and unkind force, thoughtful contempt and passion emanated from his swarthy face, from his large and motionless dark eyes. Their heavy gaze strangely disagreed with the expression of almost childishly tender and protruding lips. His whole figure, squat, bow-legged, with a large head on stooped broad shoulders, aroused an unpleasant sensation; but everyone was immediately aware of the inherent power. It is known that he to some extent portrayed himself in Pechorin.

The words: "His eyes did not laugh when he laughed," * etc. - indeed, were applied to him. I remember that Count Sh. and his interlocutor suddenly laughed at something and laughed for a long time; Lermontov also laughed, but at the same time looked at both of them with some kind of offensive surprise. Despite this, it still seemed to me that he loved Count Sh as a comrade, and had a friendly feeling towards the Countess. There was no doubt that, following the fashion of the time, he had indulged in a certain kind of Byronian genre, with an admixture of other, even worse whims and eccentricities. And he paid dearly for them! Internally, Lermontov must have been deeply bored; he was suffocating in the tight sphere into which fate had pushed him. At the ball of the Assembly of the Nobility, they did not give him rest, they constantly pestered him, took him by the hands; one mask was replaced by another, but he hardly moved from his place and silently listened to their squeak, turning his gloomy eyes on them in turn. It seemed to me at the same time that I caught on his face a beautiful expression of poetic creativity. Perhaps these verses came to his mind:

By the way, I will say a few words about one more dead writer, although he belongs to the "diis minorum gentium" 1 and can no longer be along with those named above - namely, M. N. Zagoskin. He was a short friend of my father and in the thirties, during our stay in Moscow, almost daily visited our house. His "Yuri Miloslavsky" was the first strong literary impression of my life. I was in the boarding house of a certain Mr. Weidenhammer when the famous novel appeared; the teacher of the Russian language - he is also a class supervisor - told my comrades and me its contents during the hours of recreation. With what devouring attention we listened to the adventures of Kirsha, the servant of Miloslavsky, Alexei,

* "A Hero of Our Time", p. 280. Lermontov's Works, ed. 1860

1 minor gods (lat.).

robber Omlyash! But strange thing! "Yuri Miloslavsky" seemed to me a miracle of perfection, but I looked rather indifferently at its author, at M. N. Zagoskin. It is not far to go for an explanation of this fact: the impression made by Mikhail Nikolayevich, not only could not strengthen those feelings of worship and delight that his novel aroused, but, on the contrary, it should have weakened them. In Zagoskin there was nothing majestic, nothing fatal, nothing that affects the youthful imagination; to tell the truth, he was even rather comical, and his rare good nature could not be properly appreciated by me: This quality is irrelevant in the eyes of frivolous youth. The very figure of Zagoskin, his strange, as if flattened head, quadrangular face, bulging eyes under eternal glasses, a short-sighted and dull look, extraordinary movements of his eyebrows, lips, nose, when he was surprised or even just spoke, sudden exclamations, waving his hands, a deep depression, dividing his short chin in two—everything about him seemed to me eccentric, clumsy, amusing. In addition, he had three, also rather comical, weaknesses: he imagined himself to be an unusual strong man; * he was sure that no woman could resist him; and finally (and this was especially surprising in such a zealous patriot), he had an unfortunate weakness for the French language, which mangled without mercy, constantly mixing numbers and genders, so that he even received the nickname in our house: "Monsieur I'article". With all that, it was impossible not to love Mikhail Nikolaevich for his heart of gold, for that artless frankness of character, which strikes in his writings.

My last meeting with him was sad. I visited him many years later - in Moscow, shortly

* The legend of his strength even spread abroad. At one public reading in Germany, to my surprise, I heard a ballad in which it was described how Hercules Rappo arrived in the capital of Muscovy and, giving performances at the theater, challenged everyone and defeated everyone; how suddenly, among the spectators, unable to bear the disgrace of his compatriots, der russische Dichter rose up; Stehet auf der Zagoskin! 1 (with emphasis on kin) - how he fought Rappo and, having defeated him, retired modestly and with dignity.

1 Russian writer; Get up Zagoskin! (German).

before his death. He no longer left his office and complained of constant pain and aching in all members. He had not lost weight, but a deathly pallor covered his still full cheeks, giving them an all the more despondent look. The raising of the eyebrows and the goggling of the eyes remained the same; the involuntary comicality of these movements only aggravated the feeling of pity that aroused the whole figure of the poor writer, who was clearly leaning towards destruction. I talked to him about his literary activity, about the fact that in St. Petersburg circles they again began to appreciate his merits, to do him justice; mentioned the significance of "Yuri Miloslavsky" as a folk book ... Mikhail Nikolayevich's face brightened. “Well, thank you, thank you,” he said to me, “and I already thought that I was forgotten, that today's youth trampled me into the mud and covered me with a log.” (Mikhail Nikolaevich did not speak French to me, and in Russian conversation he liked to use energetic expressions.) “Thank you,” he repeated, not without emotion and feelingly shaking my hand, as if I were the reason that he was not forgotten. . I remember that rather bitter thoughts about so-called literary fame came into my head then. Inwardly, I almost reproached Zagoskin for cowardice. What, I thought, makes a man happy? But why shouldn't he rejoice? He heard from me that he was not completely dead... and there is nothing worse than death for a person. Other literary fame may, perhaps, live to the point that even this insignificant joy will not be recognized. The period of frivolous praise will be followed by a period of just as little meaningful battle, and then - silent oblivion ... And who among us has the right not to be forgotten - the right to burden the memory of descendants with his name, who have their own needs, their own concerns, their own aspirations?

And yet I am glad that, quite by accident, I gave good Mikhail Nikolaevich, before the end of his life, at least instant pleasure.

I.S. Turgenev. Gogol (Zhukovsky, Krylov, Lermontov, Zagoskin) // Turgenev I.S. complete collection essays and letters in thirty volumes. M.: Nauka, 1982. T. 11. S. 57-74.

CONCLUSION

Creative and biographical parallels in the life and artistic activity of Gogol and Zagoskin demonstrate the unity of the laws of artistic creativity, equally applicable to the truly high, eternal and transient, temporary in art. Despite the short duration of Zagoskin's literary fame, his literary innovations and acquisitions turned out to be in tune with Gogol's aspirations. Zagoskin's ideas about the era, his narrative gift, his creative work contributed to the accumulation in Russian literature of that rich artistic experience, the crown of which was Gogol's writings.

When two artistic worlds are compared, especially when comparing the works of writers of unequal scale, there is a temptation to shift all priorities that influence dominants in favor of authors more significant for the historical and cultural process. This study is intended to show not the direct dependence of one prose writer on another, but the objective coincidence of the creative manner of writers when referring to similar literary themes in a single romantic atmosphere of the era, the embodiment of the effect of their mutual presence / feedback / in a common concrete literary time.

The problems identified by us were covered in the dissertation with varying degrees of completeness. This is due to the chosen topic, but, despite the fact that some of them did not receive a systematic presentation within the framework of this essay, their very formulation, in our opinion, can give some positive effect due to the necessary rethinking of the experience and analysis of the problems that was given in other studies and publications.

We saw as one of our tasks the consideration of the period "of the 1830s, as the most indicative for identifying parallels of an artistic and creative nature and recreating a more complete and objective history of the relationship /" life, creative / Gogol and Zagoskin, its features and dynamics, determining the impact that the artistic experience of an older contemporary had on Gogol and vice versa.

This paper presents an attempt at a more careful reading of Gogol's texts in their correlation with the works of Zagoskin, with his personality, his artistic positions and views. Based on the developed ideas about the prototypes of Gogol's heroes, we put forward a number of versions associated with the name of Zagoskin. We tried to take into account the cultural and historical realities of the 1830s, the artistic trends of the time and the patterns of development of the literary process.

Comparative analysis, as well as the definition of a number of creative and biographical parallels, undertaken in this work, make it possible to more broadly highlight the problem of influencing creativity

Gogol of his contemporaries, present a more voluminous picture of development / - ■ 1 "1

S Little Russian and fantastic themes in Russian literature of the 1830s. Secret and visible reminiscences, which appear in the considered works of Gogol, are the result of both the mastery of the general speech context of the era by the prose writer, and the consequence of the “ironic position of the narrator,” as LI points out. Eremin, representing “an open and explicit parody of image techniques alien to him”1. In the style of Gogol's and Zagoskin's prose, one can trace not only features that reflect the literary narrative norms that had developed in Russian literature by the 1830s, but also subtly noticed, sensitively caught by them from each other, innovative methods of poetics,

Eremina JI.II. About the language of artistic prose N.V. Gogol: the art of storytelling. Mz Science. 1987, p. 173, developed in the artistic practice of writers.

Consideration of thematically related historical works by prose writers that appeared in 1829-1835 shows that the internal connections of literary works are manifested not only in the interaction of general trends and particular narrative techniques, but also at the level of interpretations of artistic content. "Yuri Miloslavsky" and "Taras Bulba" are examples of different, polemically oriented artistic comprehension by two contemporaries of the historical past of Little Russia.

This study has a broad perspective. So, in fact, the problem of the relationship between the dramatic views and principles of Gogol and Zagoskin remains outside the scope of literary criticism. It remains to be seen how Gogol, who treated Zagoskin, the playwright, with reverence, assimilated his experience in his artistic practice. To what extent the appearance of The Inspector General influenced the work of Zagoskin, a comedian, "and other writers of this level, is a question that also remains open to this day. The experience of an older contemporary who held the post of director of Moscow theaters for a long time and, therefore, was life of Russia, deserves special consideration.The whole range of problems associated with the theatrical activities of Zagoskin and Gogol is so voluminous that its study should form a separate page in the history of their relationship.In this work, only those aspects of the issue that were necessary to disclose the given topic were touched upon. ,

Of great interest is the journal activity of writers and its reflection in artistic creativity. Special attention is paid to the peculiarities of Zagoskin and Gogol's understanding of Christian and patriotic motives and their refraction in the creative practice of prose writers.

This dissertation is only one part of the volumetric sphere formed by the legacy of Zagoskin and Gogol, in all the variety of connections, influences, coincidences and intersections that are inevitable and always present in a single artistic space of literature. It brings us to the need for a concrete historical study of Gogol's biographical and creative parallels. and his other "minor" contemporaries. Obviously, in literature and art, the laws of feedback operate irrevocably, characterizing the complex dynamics of the coexistence of "top" and "bottom" / in terms of M.M. Bakhtin's primary and "passing", which is an enduring artistic revelation and, apparently, secondary, classics and fiction. Available works on this issue, considering the features of the creative and life interaction of Gogol and M, II, Pogodin. \

Kirpichnikov A. MP, Pogodin N.V. Gogol. /1832-1852/ // "Russian garrison". 1903 T. SU* January. pp. 79-96.

1--h G »"1 -"G JL - ^ V. "f -im? "NI \ -" a. 1. Narezhny, i, F. yuvitki -isnovyanezho, S.1. Aksakov, outline a wide range of problems related to the process of creative mutual influence of artistic worlds in the field of literature and requiring in-depth research. Special attention in a comparative aspect deserves the experience of Zagoskin and Gogol's appeals to the origins of folk poetry, to folklore genres (primarily to the genres of folk songs, fairy tales, legends, etc.).

One of the main lessons of the work is that, without succumbing to the temptations of superficial, as it were, obvious “rapprochements” and “similarity” / about which A. Bushmin wrote sarcastically in his time4 /, at the same time, not to abandon the study of conchet patolleles. coincidences and convergence of creative

X.3. - "^ A character, but carefully and scrupulously examine in the maximum conceivable volumes all the material that testifies to the creative dependence of writers on each other different levels talents.

Mikhed PV, On the Origins of Gogol's Artistic World: Gogol and Narezhny. »Gogol and modernity: Sat. Art. Kyiv, 1983. S. 12-31.

Eizenstock J. To the question of literary influences. / G.F. Kvitka and N.V. Gogol /. //Izvestiya otd, russ, yaz. and literature of the Academy of Sciences. T. XXFi, "! 1 C"^"" "">"2 ? 1 u.H, .1, 1Y£, £,. U ¿J"

Maykov V.N. N.V. Gogol n S, T. Aksakov: On the history of literary influences. SPb.

Deushmin A.C. Continuity in the development of literature. IL, 1978, p. 117.

This connection in a truly complex and large-scale way can be understood and evaluated only in the process of close, “slow” and painstaking study of all possible, consciously discovered and deep, subconsciously realized literary paraples. We tried in this work to solve such a problem and we hope that the work we have undertaken will not go unnoticed by those who will follow us,

List of scientific literature Korotkova, Svetlana Leonidovna, dissertation on the topic "Russian literature"

1. Gogol I, V. Full arr. op.; In 14 tons, / Ed. N,F, Belchikov, B.V. Tomashevsky. Ml Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1937 - 1952.

2. Gogol N.V. Full ed., op.: In 9 volumes / Comp. and comment.

3. V. A. Voropaeva, I. A. Vinogradova. Ml Russian book, 1994.

4. Zhukova M.S. Evenings on Karpovka: Tales. M.: Sov. Russia, 1 by / L Ol . i ybu. - oo i C,

5. Zagoskin M.N. Full coll. cit.: BIO vol. St. Petersburg. -M., 1898.

6. Zagoskin M.N. Cit.: In 2 volumes / Comp. and comment. S. Panova and A. Peskov. Ml Khudozh, lit., 1988.

7. Lazhechnikov I.I. Cit.: In 2 volumes / Here. Art. H.H. Petrunina, approx. Ilinskoy M., 1986.

8. literary tale Pushkin's time. / Comp., in mortars. Art. and comm. H.A. Tarkhova; Il. N,G. Goltz. Ml Pravda, 1988. 480 s,

9. Narezhny V.T. Slavonic evenings, Zaporozhets; Bursak; Garkusha, Little Russian robber, Ml Pravda, 1990, - 600 p.

10. Odoevsky V.F. Novels and stories, Ml Khudozh. lit., 1988. -382 p. (Classics and more modern. Light brown, klaooich, literature).

11. Odoevsky V.F. Russian Nights, L; Science, Leningrad. department, 1975. -317 p.

12. Odin VN, Stories at the station. Ml Art. lit., 1988, 275 p.

13. Pogorelsky A. Double, or My Evenings in Little Russia. Ml Book, 1987. 363 p.

14. Russian romantic short story / Comp., prepared. text, in mortars, article and notes. A. Nemzer; Hood. B. Tremetsky. M.: Artist. lit., 1989, - 384 o., ill. (Classics and contemporaries. Russian classical literature)

15. Russian and Soviet science fiction / Compiled, introductory article. and com.

16. V.N., Grekova; Il. and of. A. I. Dobritsina. .Ml Pravda, 1989. “640 o., ill.

17. Somov O.M. There were also untruths. Ml Sov, Russia, 184. 365 s.p.

18. Abramovich G.L. Folk thought in N.V. Gogol // Uch. app. Moscow region ped. in-taim. N.K. Krupskaya. Proceedings of the Department of Russian Literature. 1949. TLZ. Issue. 1. S. 3-53.

19. Aikhenvald Yu. N.V. Gogol // Aikhenwald Yu, Silhouettes of Russian Writers. Ml Respublika, 1994. 591 p.

20. Aksakov S.T. Sobr. cit.: In 3 volumes. M.: Khudozh. lit., 1986.

21. Annenkov P.V. Literary Memories. Ml Pravda, 1989, 683 p.

22. Annenkova E.I. Gogol and the Decembrists: (The work of N.V. Gogol in the context of the literary movement of 30-40 years, year, XIX century) Ml Prometheus, 1989. -172 p.

23. Annensky I.F. On the forms of the fantastic in Gogol // Russian school. X 1890, C, 104.

24. Antonets I.I. Gogol's stories "Taras Bulba" and oral folk art // Uch. app. Zaporozhye ped. in-ta, 1957. V. 4. S. 32 » 44.

25. Baovbash Yu.Ya. "Cossack Chronicles" of the 18th century and Gogol's Baroque // Philological Sciences. 1992. Ke 4. S, 13 24.

26. Barabash Yu.Ya. Soil and fate. Gogol and Ukrainian Literature: At the Origins / RAS, Institute of World Literature. them.

27. A.M. Gorky. Ml Heritage, 1995. 223 p.

28. Bely A. Gogol's Mastery. Study. M. Ll GIHL, type, "Comintern" in Lgr. 1934. - 322 p.

29. Blagoy D. D. Gogol, heir to Pushkin. // Blagoy D.D. Literature and reality. Questions of theory and history of literature. Ml Gostlitizdat, 1959., - 515 p.

30. Weiskopf M,A. Gogol's plot: Mythology. Ideology, Context Ml LLP "Radiks", B.G., 1993, 588 p.

31. Wreath N.V. Gogol; Gogol and time Collection / Comp. B.N. Levin. Kharkov: Prapor. 1984, 151 p.

32. Veresaev V. Gogol in life. A systematic collection of authentic testimonies of contemporaries. M. La "Academy". 1933. - 527 s,

33. Veselovsky A.II. Sketches and characteristics. M., 1907. S. 687698.

34. Vinogradov V.V. Gogol and the natural school. Leningrad: Obrazovanie, 1925. 76 p.

35. Vinogradov V,V. From the history of the styles of the Russian historical novel // Questions of Literature. 1958. No. 12, S. 120 149,

36. Vinogradov V.V. The evolution of Russian naturalism. Gogol and Dostoevsky. La Academy, 1929. 389 o.

37. Vinogradov V.V. Sketches about the style of Gogol. L.: Academy, 1926. -228 p.

38. Vishnevskaya I.L., Gogol and his comedies, Mch Nauka, 1976. 256 e.

39. Voitolovskaya E.L. Comedy NV Gogol's "Inspector". Comment, L.; Enlightenment, Leningrad. department, 1971. 270 p.

40. Voitolovskaya E.L. S.T. Aksakov in the Circle of Classical Writers: Documentary Essays. La Uchpedgiz, 1983. 239 o.

41. Voitolovskaya E.L., Stepanov A.N. N.V., Gogol: Seminary.-L.: Uchpedgiz, Leningrad. Department, 1962. 288 p.

42. Gippius V.V. "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka" N.V. Gogol // Proceedings of the Department of New Russian Literature of the Institute of Rus. literature of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Pushkin House). 1948. No. 1. S. 9 38.

43. Gippius V,V. N.V. Gogol St. Petersburg: Logos, 1994. 341 o,

44. Gippius VV, Notes on Gogol //Uch. app. Leningrad, un. Series of Philological Sciences. 1941. T. 76. Issue. I. S. 9 12,

45. Gippius V.V. Gogol's literary views / "/ Literary studies. 1936. No. 11, p. 5 12.

46. ​​Gippius VV, Literary communication between Gogol and Pushkin // Uch. app. Perm. university 1931. Issue. I. S. 4-21.

47. Hippiue V, V, From Pushkin to Blok. M.-L.: Science. 1966, -347 s,

48. Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries. Ml GIHL, 1952.715 o,

49. Gogol and world literature: Co, Art. / Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of World Lighting named after A.M. Gorky; Rep. ed., Yu.V., Mann, M: Nauka, 1988, -318 s,

50. Gogol: history and modernity: (To the 175th anniversary of his birth), Collection / Comp. V.V., Kozhinov and others; Votup, Art.

51. V.V. Kozhinov. M: Sov. Russia, 1985, 493 p.

52. Gogol and the theater / Collection, On the centenary of death. Comp. and comment. M, B, Zagorsky, Ml Art, 1952. 568 s,

53. Gogol and modernity: The creative heritage of the writer in the movement of epochs. So, from, / Redkoll G, V, Samoylenko (responsible editor), etc. Kyiv: Vishcha, school, publishing house at Kiev, un-te, 1983. 150 e.

54. Gogol, Materials and research / Ed., VV, Gippius. M, -Ll Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1936. T. 1 2,

55. Gogol. Materials and research / RAS, Institute of world liters named after, A, M, Gorky: Ed. ed. Mann Yu.V. Ml Heritage, 1995, -225 s,

56. Gramzina T. Types of the fantastic in Gogol's work // Uch. zap, phil, department of the Kyrgyz state, un-ta. 1958, Issue. 5. C, 125 132,

57. Grekov V.N. Introductory article / "Russian and Soviet Science Fiction", M.-JL, 1989, p. 3 21.

58. Gubarev I.M., Themes of the writer and the creative process in the aesthetic views of Gogol in the 40s of the XIX century, 7 Questions of Russian Literature, 1987, Issue, 1. C, 61-68,

59. Gukovsky G, A, "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka" Gogol / "Bulletin of Leningrad, State University. 1948, No. 3, S. 98 117,

60. Gukovsky G.A. Gogol's realism. M. L.; Goslitizdat, Leningrad, department., 1959. - 531 p.

61. Gulyaev R.A., Kartashova I.V. On the evolution of Gogol's creative method //Rus. lit. 1974. No. 2. pp. 98-108.

62. Gus M.S. Gogol and Nikolaev Russia. M: Art. lit., 1957.375 s,

63. Gus M.S. Living Russia and Dead Souls". M: Sov. writer, 1981. -336 s,

64. Danilov V., The influence of the everyday and literary environment on the "Evening farm near Dikanka" N.V. Gogol. Odessa: Technician, 1909. -22 s,

65. Danilov S,S. Gogol and theater. L .: Gostlitizdat, 1936, 335 o,

66. Danilov S.S. Russian drama theater of the 19th century. Textbook for theater universities. L,; Ml Art, 1957. 350 p.

67. Dokuoov A.M., Marantsman V.G. Comedy NV Gogol "The Inspector General" in school studies. A guide for the teacher. Ll Enlightenment, 1975, 190 s,

68. Ermakov I. Essays on the analysis of Gogol's works. M., 1922.

69. Ermakova M.Ya., The epic basis of Gogol's "Taras Bulba" //Uch. app. Gorky. ped. in-ta. Issue. 37. 1961, p. 155 198.

70. Ermilov VV. Genius Gogol. Ml Sov, Russia, 1959. 408 p.

71. Zolotoussky I.P. Trembling of the Heart: Selected Works. Ml Sovremennik, 1986, 542 p.

72. Zolotoussky I.P. H, V, Gogol, Ml Molod, Guards, 1984, -527 e.

73. Zolotoussky I.II. Prose poetry: Articles about Gogol. Ml Sov. writer. 1987. 238 o.

74. Zolotoussky I. IL Confession of Zoil: Articles, studies, pamphlets. Ml Sov. Russia, 1989. ™ 512 p.

75. Kazarin V.P. Gogol's story "Taras Bulba": Issues of creative history. Kyiv-Odessa: Vshtsa shkola, 1986. 125 p.

76. Kallash V.V. N.V. Gogol in the memoirs of contemporaries and correspondence. M, 1909. -263 p.

77. Kamanin I. Scientific and literary works N.V. Gogol on the history of Little Russia. Kyiv. 1902. - 56 about.

78. Kanunova F.Z. Some features of N.V. Gogol. (On the relationship between realistic and romantic beginnings in the aesthetics and work of the writer). Tomok: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 1962.-G35 s,

79. Karabanov P.A. Observations in the field of composition of the works of N.V., Gogol // Uch. app. Chernivtsi. university Humanities Series. 1961. T. 49. Issue. 9. S. 3.41.

80. Karpenko A.I., Folk origins of the epic style of historical stories N.V. Gogol. (To the special course "Style

81. N.V. Gogol") Chernivtsi, 1961.80 p.

82. Kartashova I.V. Gogol and romanticism: Special course. Kalinin: KGU, 1975.-125 p.

83. Kirpichnikov A.M.P. Pogodin and N.V. Gogol. / 1832 1852 /, "Russian antiquity", 1901. T. SU, January, S. 79 ~ 96,

84. Kotlyarevsky H.A. N.V. Gogol. 1829- 1842. Essay on the history of Russian story and drama. SPb., 1911. 580 o.88, Krestova L.V. Commentary on Gogol's comedy "The Government Inspector". M.:

85. Coop. Mir publishing house, 1933. 135 o. o9 Krivonos BI1L Gogol's "Dead Souls" and the Formation of New Russian Prose: Narrative Problems. Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1985. - 159 about,

86. Krivonos V, III The reader's problem in Gogol's work, Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House, University, 1981. 167 p.

87. Krutikova N.E. HB, Gogol, Research and materials \ Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, In-t lit. them. T.G. Shevchenko. Kyiv: Nauk, Dumka, 1992.312 o.

88. Lotman Yu, M. In the school of poetic tin: Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Ml Enlightenment, 1988, ~ 348 s,

89. Lotmen Yu.M. Jz observations on the structural principles of the early work of HB, Gogol / UUch.zap. Tartu University. 1970, Issue. 251, Proceedings in Russian and. Slavic.philology. 15. S. 17 45.

90. Makagonenko G.P. Gogol and Pushkin. L .: Soviet writer, Leningrad, department, 1985. -351 p.

91. Mandelstam I.E. On the nature of Gogol's style. Chapter from the history of the Russian literary language. St. Petersburg,; Gelsinfors, 1902, - 406 p.

92. Mann Yu.V. Poetics of Gogol. 2nd ed., add. Ml Art. lit., 1988, 412 s,

93. Mann Yu.V. Courage of invention: Features of the artistic world of Gogol, For from, age., 3rd ed. Ml Det, lit., 1985, -142 p.

94. Mann Yu.V. The evolution of Gogol's fiction // On the history of Russian romanticism, M., 1973, C, 213 258,

95. Markovich V, M, Comedy "N.V. Gogol" Inspector // Analysis of dramatic works, La Publishing House of Leningrad. University, 1988, C, 31 58,

96. Mashinsky S.I., N.V., Gogol and revolutionary democrats. Ma Goslitizdat, 1953, 224 s,

97. Mashinsky S.I. Historical story of Gogol. M,; Soviet writer, 1940. 248 p.

98. Mashinsky S, I, Gogol's Artistic World. Ma Enlightenment, 1971. -512 p.

99. Melnichenko O.G. Gogol and the literary movement of the 30s of the 19th century // "Izvestia Voronezh, Ped. Institute. 1956. T. 1. S, 27 59.

100. Merezhkovsky D.S. N.V. Gogol: Creativity, life and religion, St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Pantheon", 1909, 231 p.

101. Mikhed P.V. On the Origins of Gogol's Artistic World: Gogol and Narezhny // Gogol and Modernity: The Writer's Creative Heritage in the Movement of Epochs. Kyiv: Vishcha school, Publishing house at Kyiv, unte, 1983.- 150 p.

102. Mochulsky K.V. Gogol. Solovyov, Dostoevsky. Ma Republic, 1995. 607p.

103. Mochulsky K.V. Little Russian and St. Petersburg novels by N.V. Gogol. To the history of artistic creativity. Odessa, 1902. 20 p.

104. Nabokov V. Nikolai Gogol: Dokum. story. / Translated from English by E. Golysheva // New World. 1987. M 4. S. 18-21.

105. H.B, Gogol in Russian criticism. Ml Detgnz, 1952. 367 s,

106. IIB, Gogol i. Russian literature of the 19th century: Interuniversity, sb.nauch. Proceedings: Dedicated to the 180th anniversary of birth N, V, Gogol, L: LTOI, 1989, 131 p.

107. Nemzer A.C. On the titles of Gogol's stories // Rus, speech. 1979, No. 2, C, 33 37,

108. Oveyaniko-Kulikovsovsky D.N., N.V., Gogol, St. Petersburg: Societies, Benefits, 1907. -231 o.

109. Pavlovich S.E. Features of Gogol's artistic manner in the story "The Night Before Christmas" // Uch. app. Chita ped, inta. 1954, Higher. 4. C, 241 »258.

110. Pereverzev F, V, Gogol. Dostoevsky, Research /Introduction, from, M, Polyakov. Moscow: Owls, writer, 1982, - 511 s,

111. Peretz V. Gogol and the Little Russian Literary Tradition, St. Petersburg, 1902. 9 p.,

112. Pshssanov N.K. On the classics: Sat. articles. Pushkin, Gogol,

113. Turgenev. Saltykov, Chernyshevsky, Korolenko, Chekhov, Gorky, Ml Mook, t in writers, 1933, - 416 p.

114. Pokusaev E.I. Articles of different years. Saratov: Privolzh. book. publishing house, 1989. S. 8 27,

115. Poltoratsky A.I. Gogol in Petersburg, Moscow: Sov, writer, 1962, 278 s,

116. Pospelov PN, Creativity NV, Gogol. ml. Uchpedgiz, 1953.280 o,

117. Prozorov VV. The nature of the dramatic conflict in Gogol's The Inspector General and The Marriage: O Volga, 1995. No. 2 ~ 3, C, 152 163,

118. Prozorov VV, Gogol's "Inspector General", a comedy in five acts. Saratov: IC "Dobrodeya" State Enterprise "Saratovtelefilm", 1996, 80 p.

119. Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. Articles and materials. Ml Publishing House of Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1952. 1055 s,

120. Pypin O.N. Works by N.V. Gogol: Critical analysis. SPb., 1900, 13 p.

121. Samyshkina A.B. Fshyusofoco-historical origins of the creative method of N.V. Gogol // Rus. lit., 1976. No. 2, p. 38-58.,

122. Smirnova-Chikina E.S. Sources of the plot of "Taras Bulba" / 7 Questions of History, 1968, No. 7, C, 206 210,

123. Smirnova-Chikina E.S. Poem N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls": Commentary. 2nd ed., rev. L., 1974.

124. Stepanov N.L. N.V. Gogol. creative way. Moscow: Goslitizdat, 1954. 607 p.

125. Stepanov N.L. The Romantic World of Gogol /7 On the History of Russian Romanticism. M: 1973. S, 55 120.

126. Terts A. In the shadow of Gogol / 7 Terts A. Sobr. cit.: In 2 vols. M: SP "Start", 1992, T, 2, 653 p.

127. Turbin V.N. Pushkin, Gogol. Lermontov. On the study of literary genres. Ml Enlightenment, 1978, 239 p.

128. Turbine V,N, Heroes of Gogol; Book for students. Ml Enlightenment, 1983. 127 p.

129. Fridlender G.M., Questions of realism in the work of Gogol in the 30s // Problems of realism in Russian literature of the 19th century. M. L.: Acad. Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad. department, 1961. - 410 about,

130. Frmdlender G.M. From the history of Gogol's early work // N.V., Gogol: Articles and materials. L, 1954, S, 124 136,

131. Friedlander G.M., Pushkin and Gogol in 1831. 1836 //

132. Pushkin, Research and materials. L, 1960. T, 4, S, 197 228.

133. Khrapchenko M.B. Gogol. Literary path, the greatness of the writer, Ml Sovremennik, 1984. -653 p.

134. Khrapchenko M, B, Humor and satire in the works of Gogol // Literary studies. 1936. No. 1. S. 71 91.

135. Cherehshin L, V, Historical views of Gogol / 7 Questions of history. 1964 Kol. pp. 75 77,

136. Chicherin A.B. Problems of the style of Gogol's prose /7 Rus, lit., 1975, NH. C, 47-61,

137. Shambinago S, Trilogy of Romanticism / N, V. Gogol /, M., 1.911, -159 s,

138. Aksakov S.T. Memories of Mikhail Nikolaevich Zagoskin

139. I. Aksakov S.T. Sobr. cit.: In 3 volumes. M.: Khudozh. lit., 1986, Vol. 3,

140. G * "JQ1 1 Q 2 T.", 30 1 - „1ÖJ,

141. Belinsky V, G. Poly. coll. op. M., 1953. T. 2. S. 550 565. -Retz, on the novel: Zagoskin M.N. Yuri Mshyusiaavsky, or Russians in 1612.

142. Belousov M. The secret of the family seal: 200 years since the birth of M.N. Zagoskina // Trud. 1989. 25 July. S. 4.146. .Vasin N.M.N. Zagoskin. Biographical sketch. M., 1902. 16 p.

143. Wreath to Mikhail Zagoskin: Sat. Art. / Rev. ed. I.P. Shcheblykin. Penza, 1990, 211 p.

144. Vigel F, F, Notes. T. 4, Moscow: Russian archive, 1892. 184 p.

145. LG-i T~b.„.*£. TT K, O<">-G 1 LOO T o -YuO l

146. Dmitriev M. A. Chapters from the memories of my life: C) the literary life of Moscow in the 1820s / U Novoe lit, review, 1992. Sh 1, C, 19! -231.

147. Dobrokhotov A.N. Veretovsky. Life, theatrical activity, operatic creativity. Mkh L: Muzgiz, 1949, 125 p.

148. Zagoskin S.M. Memories // East, Bulletin. 1900. T. 79. S. 3 -437.1 56, Zamotin I, I, Romanticism of the 20s of the XIX century in Russian literature. SPb., 1913. T. 2. S. 283 313, 344 - 379.

149. Ilyinskaya N. Is it worth it to “resurrect” Zagoskin? // Neva, 1957. No. 1. C, 203-204.

150. History of Russian literature. Mkh L .: Publishing House of the An USSR, 1953, T. 5. S. 551 555.

151. Konopleva I.A. Catalog of the M.N. Zagoskin. L., 1960. -18 p.

152. Kravtsov N. Portrait in Pushkin's prose /U Uch. app. Tambov, ped. in-ta. 1941. Issue. 1.s. 99-101,115-117.

153. Muravyov V. The first Russian historical novel: Afterword // Zagoskin M.N. Yuri Miloslavoky, or Russians in 1612, M., 1981. S. 161 175.

154. Neiman B.V., Roman M.N., Zagoskina "Yuri Miloslavsky": Introductory article // Zagoskin M.N. Yuri Miloslavsky, or Russians in 1612. M. : GIHL, 1956. S 3 11.

155. Shcheblykin I.P. With the soul of a patriot, 7 Literature at school. 1990, Koz, p. 3-15. 1 75. Yazykov D.D.M.N. Zagoskin. Biographical sketch. M., 1902, 93 p.1. D* "¿4> lL"

156. Alyshuller M.G. The Age of Walter Scott in Russia: A Historical Novel of the 1830s. St. Petersburg: Humanit, project, 1996.

157. Bakhtin M, M, Word in the novel // Questions of literature. 1965. M 8. S. 84.90,

158. Bakhtin M.M. The work of Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Ml Khudozh, lit., 1965. - 541 p.,

159. Bakhtin M.M. Forms of time and chronotope in the novel. Essays on historical poetics // Questions of Literature and Aesthetics. ML Art. 1975, C, 234 487,

160. Belinsky V.G., Poly, coll. considered In 13 tons, Ml Publishing house. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1953 1959,

161. Berkovsky N.Ya. On Russian Literature. L, 1985. S. 5 35.

162. Blagoy D. D. History of Russian literature. Ml GULI, 1960. -582 s,

163. Blagoy D, D, The main lines of development of Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century, l t., 1959.1 th "

164. Bushmin A.C. Science of Literature: Problems. Judgments. Disputes. M.: Sovremennik, 1980, 334 o,

165. Butmiv A.C. Continuity in the development of literature, 2nd ed., add. D.: Artist. lit., Leningrad. otd., 1978, 223 s,

166. Vengerov S, A. Essays on the history of Russian literature, St. Petersburg, 1907, 520 p.

167. Veoyaovskny A.N., Historical poetics. Ml Highest. shkh., 1989, - 404 o. (KLN: Classics of literary science).

168. Vinogradov V.V. From the history of the styles of the Russian historical novel // Questions of Literature, 1958. Kb 12. P, 120 - 149.

170. About a literary hero. Ll Sov. writer, 1979.224 s,

171. Gurevich A.M. Romanticism in Russian Literature. Ml Enlightenment, 1.980, 104 p.

172. Danilevsky R.Yu. Ludwig Tieck and Russian Romanticism / 7th Epoch of Romanticism. L., 1975. S. 68 - 114.

173. Dobrolyubov H.A. About the Russian historical novel l Dobrolyubov H.A. Sobr. op. M., 1961. T. 1. S. 89 98,

174. Dobin E. Life material and artistic plot. Ll. Owls, writer, 1958, - 333 s,

175. Eleonsky S.F. From the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations in Russian literature of the 17th first half of the 19th century // Uch, zap. Moscow mountains, ped, in-ta, department of rus, lit., 1955, Vol. 5, T, XI USh, S. 47 - 80.

176. The history of romanticism in Russian literature: Romanticism in Russian literature in the 20-30s of the XIX century / 1 825-1840 /. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 328 p.

177. History of Russian literature: V 4. L .: Nauka, 1980. T. 2. - 635 e.

178. Kanunova F.Z., Aesthetics of the Russian romantic story (A.A. Bestuzhev-Maplinsky and romantic fiction writers of the 20-30s of the 20th century). Tomok: Publishing house of Tomsk, un-ta, 1973. -307 s,

179. To the history of Russian romanticism: Sat. articles / Ed. Kol, Yu.V. Mann et al. Ml Nauka, 1973. 551 p.

180. Kozhinov V. On the methodology of the history of Russian literature / On the realism of the 30s of the XIX century / // Questions of literature. 1968, Sh 5. S. 60 82,

181. Korovin I. Fantastic world of romantic prose // Sylphide: Novels and stories. M., 1988,

182. Literary views and creativity of the Slavophiles: 1830-1850, g. Ml Nauka, 1978, -502 s, "

183. Literary criticism. 1800 1820s, Young Artist. lit., 1980, -343 about,

184. Lotman Yu.M. Fav. Articles: In 3 vols. Vol. 2 Articles on the history of Russian literature in the 18th first half of the 19th century. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992, - 480 p.,

185. Lotman Yu.M. On the content and structure of the concept, "fiction" // Lotman Yu.M, Izbr. Articles: In 3 vols. Vol. 1, Articles on semiotics and typology of culture. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992, pp. 208-215.

186. Lunacharsky A.B. Classics of Russian literature. M., 1937. -262 O,

188. Makagonenko G.P. Fav. works: About Pushkin, his predecessors and heirs. L: Artist. lit., 1987= 640 p.

189. Mann Yu.V. Poetics of Russian romanticism. Ma Nauka, 1976. -372 s,

190. Mann Yu.V. The Dynamics of Russian Romanticism: A Handbook for Teachers of Literature, Students of Philology and Rev. gum:anit. universities, Ma Aspect-Press, 1995, 380 p.

191. The skill of the writer and the problems of the genre, Tomsk, 1985.

192. Meilach B,S. Russian novels of the 19th century 20-30s, T.1, Md L., 1950. -698 p.

193. Motyashov I. Life truth and fiction,

194. M,; Art, 1960, 79 p.

195. Petrov S.M. Historical novel by A.C. Pushkin, Md. Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1953, 160 s,

196. Petrov S.M. Historical novel in Russian literature, Md Uchpedgiz. 1961. 224 o.21 6, Petrov S.M., Russian historical novel of the 19th century, Md Khudozh. lit., 1964. 440.

197. Petrunina H.H. Prose of the second half of the 1820s-1830s; / History of Russian Literature: In 4 volumes, Ld Nauka, 1981, Vol. 2, Ch. 20.

198. Pokusaev S.I., Articles of different years. Saratov: Prkvolzh. book. publishing house, 1989.-340 s, 2! 9. Field PN. History of Russian Literature: In 3 volumes. St. Petersburg: A.F. Marx, 1900. Vol. 3. 870 s,

199. Polyakov M, Questions of poetics and artistic semantics. Mz Owl. writer, 1978. 448 p.221, Pospelov G.N. Problems of the historical development of literature, Mz Enlightenment, 1972, 270 p., 222, Problems of Romanticism: Sat.st. M., 1967. Issue. 1; M., 1971. Issue. 2,

200. Pypin A. Characteristics of literary opinions from the 20s to the 50s. SPb., 1907.224, The development of realism in Russian literature: VZ "t, Mz Nauka, 1972, Vol. 1, -348 p.

201. Revyakin A.I. History of Russian literature of the 19th century: The first half. M.: Enlightenment, 1981 542 s,

202. Reizov B.G. Walter Scott and the problem of the historical novel in the first third of the 19th century // Lit, study. 1935, f 4, p. 49 68.

203. Russian, story of the XIX century. History and problems of the genre / Ed. B,S. Meilakh. L., 1973,

204. Russian romanticism, Textbook for students of philology, Ml Higher school, 1974. 359 s,

205. Serova IT .Ya. Was the 'centenary twilight' me? Reflections on the historical novel / At Lit-ra at school. 1990. Mi 3. C, 38~50.

206. Skabichevsky A.M. Our historical novel in its past and present /./ Skabichevsky A.M., Works. Critical studies, journalistic essays., Literary characteristics: In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg,. 190.3, T, 2, -934 s,

207. Sipovsky VV, Essays from the history of the Russian novel. T. 1. Issue. 1, 2, St. Petersburg, 1904 -1910,

208. Skaftymov A.N. Moral searches of Russian writers, Articles and researches about Russian classics. Ml Art. lit., 1972. -542 p.

209. Smirnovsky N.V., History of Russian literature of the 19th century. SPb., 1903. Issue. 7. KSU.

210. Sokolov A.N. history of Russian literature of the 19th century. Mx Izdvo Mosk. un-ta, 1965. Vol. 1. 836 s,

211. Troitsky V.Yu., Artistic discoveries of Russian romantic prose of the 20-30s of the XIX century, M .: Nauka, 1985, 279 p.

212. Friedlender G.M. Literature in the movement of time, Moscow: Sovremennik, 1983. 300 s,

213. Khrapchenko M.V. Horizons of the artistic image. Ml Art. lit., 1982, 334 s,

214. Khrapchenko M.B. The creative individuality of the writer and the development of literature. Ed. 4th. Ml Khudozh, lit., 1977. - 446 p.

215. Chernyshevsky N.G. Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature. Ml Enlightenment, 1953. 360 p.

216. Chernysheva T.A. The nature of fantasy. Irkutsk, 1984. 64 p.

217. Chumakov V.M., On the varieties of fantasy in literature "/ Literary trends and styles. Ml Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1976.1. P. 365 370,242. that. Philology, 1974, No. 2, S. 68 74.

218. Sharoeva T. Russian story of the 20s. 30s, g. XIX century before the appearance of Gogol's St. Petersburg stories // Reports of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, SSR. 1958, T. 14. M 2. S, 183 - 188,

219. Shklovsky V.B. Notes on the prose of Russian classics, Moscow: Sov, writer, 1953. 324 p.

220. Shcheblykin N.P. Russian historical novel of the 30s of the 19th century / 7 Problems of genre development in Russian literature of the 19th century. Ryazan: Ryazan. ped. in-t, 1972. S. 3 233.

221. Eikhenbaum B.M. About prose. Digest of articles. L.: Artist. lit., Leningrad. department, 1964.

222. Elsberg J. The main stages in the development of Russian realism, Ml Khudozh. lit., 1961. 173 p. A248, Aizenshtok I. To the question of literary influences

223. Dima A. Principles of Comparative Literature. M, 1977, 223 p.

224. Dmitrieva NL, Tatyana and Polina (Pushkin and Zagoskin) Russian literary critic, journal. M. 1996. Sh 8. S. 77 84.

225. Dyurshin D. The theory of comparative study of literature. M,;1. Progress, 1979, -312 p.

226. Zhirmunsky VM, Problems of Comparative Historical Study of Literature / 7 Relationships and interaction of national literatures. M, 1961.

227. Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative literature. East and West; Selected works / USSR Academy of Sciences, department, literature, and language, L : Nauka, 1979. -493 p.

228. Kuleshov V.I., Literary ties between Russia and Western Europe in ХХХВ.М., 1965. 764 p.

229. Maykov V.N. N.V. Gogol and S. T. Aksakov: On the history of literary influences. St. Petersburg, 1892, 24 s,

230. Mikhed P.V. On the Origins of Gogol's Artistic World: Gogol and Narezhny // Gogol and Modernity: The Writer's Creative Heritage in the Movement of Epochs. Kyiv; Vshtsa school, 1983. S. 12 31,