One of the brightest Decembrist poets of the younger generation was Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev. His creative life did not last long - from his first student experiences in 1817–1819. before last poem(beginning 1826), written in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Wide fame came to Ryleev after the publication of the ode-satire “To a Temporary Worker” (1820), which was written in a completely traditional spirit, but was distinguished by its bold content. Initially, in Ryleev’s poetry, poems of different genres and styles coexist in parallel - odes and elegies. The “rules” of the then literature weigh heavily on Ryleev. Civil and personal themes do not yet mix, although the ode, for example, takes on a new structure. Its theme is not the glorification of the monarch, not military valor, as was the case in the lyric poetry of the 18th century, but ordinary civil service.

The peculiarity of Ryleev’s lyrics lies in the fact that he not only inherits the traditions of civil poetry of the last century, but also assimilates the achievements of the new, romantic poetry of Zhukovsky and Batyushkov, in particular the poetic style of Zhukovsky, using the same stable verse formulas.

Gradually, however, the civil and intimate streams in the poet’s lyrics begin to intersect: elegies and messages include civic motives, and ode and satire are imbued with personal sentiments. Genres and styles begin to mix. In other words, in the civil, or social, current of Russian romanticism, the same processes occur as in the psychological current. The hero of elegies and messages (genres that were traditionally devoted to the description of intimate experiences) is enriched with the traits of a public person (“V.N. Stolypina”, “On the Death of Beiron”). Civil passions receive the dignity of living personal emotions. This is how genre barriers collapse, and genre thinking suffers significant damage. This tendency is characteristic of the entire civil branch of Russian romanticism.

Typical, for example, is Ryleev’s poem “Will I be at the fatal time...”. On the one hand, it has obvious features of ode and satire - high vocabulary (“fatal time”, “citizen san”), iconic references to the names of heroes of ancient and modern times (Brutus, Riego), contemptuous and accusatory expressions (“pampered tribe”) , oratorical, declamatory intonation, designed for oral pronunciation, for public speech addressed to the audience; on the other hand, an elegiac reflection imbued with sadness about the fact that the younger generation is not entering the civilian field.

Duma

Since 1821, a new genre for Russian literature began to take shape in Ryleev’s work - duma, a lyric epic work similar to a ballad, based on real historical events and legends, however, devoid of fantasy. Ryleev especially drew the attention of his readers to the fact that the Duma is an invention Slavic poetry, that as a folklore genre it existed for a long time in Ukraine and Poland. In the preface to his collection “Dumas,” he wrote: “The Duma is an ancient heritage from our southern brothers, our Russian, native invention. The Poles took it from us. Even to this day, Ukrainians sing thoughts about their heroes: Doroshenko, Nechai, Sagaidachny, Paleya, and Mazepa himself is credited with composing one of them.” At the beginning of the 19th century. this genre folk poetry became widespread in the literature. It was introduced into literature by the Polish poet Nemtsevich, to whom Ryleev referred in the same preface. However, not only folklore became the only tradition that influenced the literary genre of the Duma. In the Duma one can distinguish the signs of meditative and historical (epic) elegy, ode, hymn, etc.

The poet published his first duma - “Kurbsky” (1821) with the subtitle “elegy”, and only starting with “Artemon Matveev” a new genre definition appeared - duma. Many of his contemporaries saw similarities with elegy in Ryleev’s works. Thus, Belinsky wrote that “a thought is a funeral service for a historical event or simply a song of historical content. Duma is almost the same as an epic elegy." Critic P.A. Pletnev defined the new genre as “a lyrical story of some event.” Historical events are interpreted in Ryleev’s thoughts in a lyrical way: the poet is focused on expressing the internal state of a historical figure, as a rule, at some culminating moment in life.

Compositionally, the thought is divided into two parts - a biography in moral lesson which follows from this biography. The Duma combines two principles - epic and lyrical, hagiographic and agitational. Of these, the main one is lyrical, propaganda, and biography (hagiography) plays a subordinate role.

Almost all thoughts, as Pushkin noted, are built according to the same plan: first, a landscape is given, local or historical, which prepares the appearance of the hero; then, with the help of a portrait, the hero is brought out and immediately makes a speech; from it the background of the hero and his current state of mind become known; What follows is a summary lesson. Since the composition of almost all thoughts is the same, Pushkin called Ryleev a “planner,” meaning the rationality and weakness of artistic invention. According to Pushkin, all thoughts come from the German word dumm (stupid).

Ryleev’s task was to give a broad panorama of historical life and create monumental images historical heroes, but the poet solved it in a subjective-psychological, lyrical sense. Its goal is to arouse the patriotism and love of freedom of his contemporaries through a high heroic example. A reliable depiction of the history and life of the heroes faded into the background.

In order to talk about the hero’s life, Ryleev turned to the sublime language of civil poetry of the XVIII - early XIX century, and to convey the hero’s feelings - to the poetic style of Zhukovsky (see, for example, in the Duma “Natalya Dolgorukaya”: “Fate gave me joy In my exile sad...""And in the soul, compressed by melancholy, involuntarily shed sweetness").

The psychological state of the heroes, especially in a portrait, is almost always the same: the hero is depicted as nothing other than with a thought on his forehead, he has the same postures and gestures. Ryleev's heroes most often sit, and even when they are brought to execution, they immediately sit down. The setting in which the hero is located is a dungeon or dungeon.

Since in his thoughts the poet depicted historical figures, then he was faced with the problem of embodying a national-historical character - one of the central ones both in romanticism and in the literature of that time in general. Subjectively, Ryleev had no intention of encroaching on the accuracy of historical facts and “correcting” the spirit of history. Moreover, he strove to respect historical truth and relied on Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State.” For historical credibility, he attracted the historian P.M. Stroev, who wrote most of the prefaces and comments to the thoughts. And yet this did not save Ryleev from a too free view of history, from a peculiar, albeit unintentional, romantic-Decembrist anti-historicism.

Poem "Voinarovsky"

The poem is one of the most popular genres of romanticism, including civil or social. The Decembrist poem was a milestone in the history of the genre and was perceived against the backdrop of Pushkin’s southern romantic poems. The historical theme most readily developed in the Decembrist poem was presented by Katenin (“Song about the first battle of the Russians with the Tatars on the Kalka River under the leadership of Galitsky Mstislav Mstislavovich the Brave”), F. Glinka (“Karelia”), Kuchelbecker (“Yuri and Ksenia”), A. Bestuzhev (“Andrey, Prince Pereyaslavsky”), A. Odoevsky (“Vasilko”). Ryleev’s poem “Voinarovsky” also stands in this row.

Ryleev's poem "Voinarovsky" (1825) was written in the spirit of the romantic poems of Byron and Pushkin. The romantic poem is based on the parallelism of pictures of nature, stormy or peaceful, and the experiences of an exiled hero, whose exclusivity is emphasized by his loneliness. The poem developed through a chain of episodes and monologue speeches of the hero. The role of female characters is always weakened compared to the hero.

Contemporaries noted that the characteristics of the characters and some episodes were similar to the characteristics of the characters and scenes from Byron’s poems “The Giaour”, “Mazepa”, “The Corsair” and “Parisina”. There is also no doubt that Ryleev took into account Pushkin’s poems “Prisoner of the Caucasus” and “Bakhchisarai Fountain”, written much earlier.

Ryleev's poem became one of the brightest pages in the development of the genre. This is explained by several circumstances.

Firstly, the love plot, so important for a romantic poem, is relegated to the background and noticeably muted. There is no love conflict in the poem: there are no conflicts between the hero and his beloved. Voinarovsky's wife voluntarily follows her husband into exile.

Secondly, the poem was distinguished by its accurate and detailed reproduction of pictures of the Siberian landscape and Siberian life, revealing to the Russian reader a largely unknown natural and everyday way of life. Ryleev consulted with the Decembrist V.I. Steingel about the objectivity of painted paintings. At the same time, the harsh Siberian nature and life are not alien to the exile: they corresponded to his rebellious spirit (“The noise of the forests was a joy to me, the bad weather was a joy to me, and the howling of the storm and the splashing of the shafts”). The hero was directly correlated with the natural element related to his moods and entered into complex relationships with it.

Thirdly, and this is the most important thing: the originality of Ryleev’s poem lies in the unusual motivation for exile. IN romantic poem The motivation for the hero's alienation, as a rule, remains ambiguous, not entirely clear or mysterious. Voinarovsky ended up in Siberia not of his own free will, not as a result of disappointment and not in the role of an adventurer. He is a political exile, and his stay in Siberia is forced, determined by the circumstances of his tragic life. In accurately indicating the reasons for the expulsion, Ryleev’s innovation is evident. This both specified and narrowed the motivation for romantic alienation.

Finally, fourthly, the plot of the poem is connected with historical events. The poet intended to emphasize the scale and drama of the personal destinies of the heroes - Mazepa, Voinarovsky and his wife, their love of freedom and patriotism. As a romantic hero, Voinarovsky is dual: he is depicted as a tyrant fighter, thirsting for national independence, and a captive of fate (“Cruel fate promised me so”).

This is where Voinarovsky’s hesitation in assessing Mazepa, the most romantic person in the poem, stems.

On the one hand, Voinarovsky served Mazepa faithfully:

We honored the head of the people in him,

We adored his father in him,

We loved our fatherland in him.

On the other hand, the motives that forced Mazepa to oppose Peter are unknown or not fully known to Voinarovsky:

I don't know if he wanted

Save the people of Ukraine from troubles,

This contradiction is realized in character - civic passion, aimed at very specific actions, is combined with recognition of power outside of personal circumstances, which ultimately turn out to be decisive.

Remaining a tyrant fighter to the end, Voinarovsky feels that he is subject to some fatal forces that are unclear to him. The specification of the motivation for expulsion thus acquires a broader and more comprehensive meaning.

Voinarovsky's personality in the poem is significantly idealized and emotionally elevated. From a historical point of view, Voinarovsky is a traitor. He, like Mazepa, wanted to separate Ukraine from Russia, went over to the enemies of Peter I and received ranks and awards either from the Polish magnates or from the Swedish king Charles XII.

Katenin was sincerely surprised by Ryleev’s interpretation of Voinarovsky, the attempt to make him “some kind of Cato.” Historical truth was not on the side of Mazepa and Voinarovsky, but on the side of Peter I. Pushkin in “Poltava” restored poetic and historical justice. In Ryleev’s poem, Voinarovsky is a republican and a tyrant fighter. He says about himself: “I have been accustomed to honoring Brutus since childhood.”

Ryleev’s creative plan was initially contradictory: if the poet had remained on historical soil, then Voinarovsky could not have become a great hero, because his character and actions excluded idealization, and the romantically elevated image of the traitor inevitably led, in turn, to a distortion of history. The poet was obviously aware of the difficulty facing him and tried to overcome it.

Ryleev’s image of Voinarovsky is split in two: on the one hand, Voinarovsky is depicted as personally honest and not privy to Mazepa’s plans. He cannot be held responsible for the secret intentions of the traitor, since they are unknown to him. On the other hand, Ryleev connects Voinarovsky with a historically unjust social movement, and the hero in exile thinks about the real content of his activities, trying to understand whether he was a toy in the hands of Mazepa or an associate of the hetman. This allows the poet to preserve the high image of the hero and at the same time show Voinarovsky at a spiritual crossroads. Unlike the heroes of thought languishing in prison or in exile, who remain integral individuals, do not at all doubt the correctness of their cause and the respect of posterity, the exiled Voinarovsky is no longer completely convinced of his justice, and he dies without any hope of popular memory, lost and forgotten.

There is no discrepancy between Voinarovsky’s freedom-loving tirades and his actions - he served an idea, a passion, but the true meaning of the insurrectionary movement to which he joined is inaccessible to him. Political exile is the natural destiny of a hero who has linked his life with the traitor Mazepa.

Toning down the love plot, Ryleev brings to the fore the social motives of the hero’s behavior and his civic feelings. The drama of the poem lies in the fact that the hero-tyrant fighter, whose sincere and convinced love of freedom the author does not doubt, is placed in circumstances that force him to evaluate the life he has lived. Thus, Ryleev’s poem includes a friend of freedom and a sufferer, courageously bearing his cross, an ardent fighter against autocracy and a reflective martyr, analyzing his actions. Voinarovsky does not reproach himself for his feelings. And in exile he adheres to the same convictions as in freedom. He is a strong, courageous man who prefers torture to suicide. His whole soul is still turned to his native land. He dreams of the freedom of his homeland and longs to see it happy. However, hesitations and doubts constantly break into Voinarovsky’s thoughts. They relate primarily to the enmity of Mazepa and Peter, the activities of the hetman and the Russian Tsar. Until his last hour, Voinarovsky does not know who his homeland found in Petra - an enemy or a friend, just as he does not understand Mazepa’s secret intentions. But this means that Voinarovsky is not clear about the meaning of his own life: if Mazepa was driven by vanity, personal gain, if he wanted to “erect a throne,” then, consequently, Voinarovsky became a participant in an unjust cause, but if Mazepa is a hero, then Voinarovsky’s life was not in vain .

Remembering his past, telling the historian Miller about it (most of the poem is Voinarovsky’s monologue), he vividly draws pictures, events, episodes, meetings, the purpose of which is to justify himself to himself and the future, to explain his actions, his state of mind, to affirm the purity of his thoughts and devotion to the public good. But the same pictures and events prompt Ryleev to illuminate the hero differently and make convincing amendments to his declarations.

The poet does not hide Voinarovsky's weaknesses. Civic passion filled the hero's entire soul, but he is forced to admit that he did not understand much about historical events, although he was their direct and active participant. Voinarovsky speaks several times about his blindness and delusions:

I surrendered blindly to Mazepa...<…>

Oh, maybe I was mistaken

Seething jealousy of grief, -

But I'm in blind fury

He considered the king a tyrant...

Perhaps carried away by passion,

I couldn't give him a price

And he attributed it to autocracy,

What the light carried to his mind.

Voinarovsky calls his conversation with Mazepa “fatal” and considers it the beginning of the troubles that befell him, and the “temper” of the “leader” himself is “cunning.” Even now, in exile, he is perplexed about the true motives for the betrayal of Mazepa, who was a hero for him:

We honored the head of the people in him,

We adored his father in him,

We loved our fatherland in him.

I don't know if he wanted

Save the people of Ukraine from troubles

Or erect a throne for yourself in it, -

The hetman did not reveal this secret to me.

To the right of the cunning leader

At the age of ten I managed to get used to it;

But I'm never able

There were plans to penetrate him.

He was hidden from his youth,

And, wanderer, I repeat: I don’t know,

What's in the depths of your soul

He cooked for his native land.

Meanwhile, the expressive pictures that emerge in Voinarovsky’s memory confirm his doubts, although the truth constantly eludes the hero. The people, whose welfare Voinarovsky puts above all else, stigmatize Mazepa.

The captive Baturinsky boldly throws in the face of the traitor:

Peter's people blessed

And, rejoicing in the glorious victory,

He feasted noisily on the haystacks;

You, Mazepa, are like Judas,

Ukrainians curse everywhere;

Your palace, taken on a spear,

He was handed over to us for plunder,

And your glorious name

Now - both abuse and reproach!

Drawing the last days of Mazepa, Voinarovsky recalls the remorse of the hetman’s bad conscience, before whose eyes the shadows of the unfortunate victims appeared: Kochubey, his wife, daughter, Iskra. He sees the executioner, trembles “with fear,” and “horror” enters his soul. And Voinarovsky himself is often immersed in “vague thoughts”; he is also characterized by a “struggle of the soul.” So Ryleev, contrary to Voinarovsky’s stories, partially restores the historical truth. The poet sympathizes with the rebellious tyrant-fighting hero and patriot, but he understands that the civic feelings overwhelming Voinarovsky did not save him from defeat. Ryleev, thus, gives the hero some weaknesses. He acknowledges the possibility of Voinarovsky's personal error.

However, Ryleev’s actual artistic assignment was at odds with this conclusion. The poet's main goal was to create a heroic character. Selflessness and personal honesty in the eyes of the poet justified Voinarovsky, who remained an irreconcilable fighter against tyranny. The hero was cleared of historical and personal guilt. Ryleev shifted responsibility from Voinarovsky to the variability, vicissitudes of fate, to its inexplicable laws. In his poem, as in his thoughts, the content of history was the struggle of tyrant fighters and patriots against autocracy. Therefore, Peter, Mazepa and Voinarovsky were portrayed one-sidedly. Peter in Ryleev’s poem is only a tyrant, and Mazepa and Voinarovsky are freedom-lovers who oppose despotism. Meanwhile, the content of the real, historical conflict was immeasurably more complex. Mazepa and Voinarovsky acted quite consciously and did not personify civic valor. The poeticization of the hero, to whom the love of freedom, patriotism, and demonic traits are attributed in the poem, giving him significance and elevating him, came into conflict with his historically truthful portrayal.

The Decembrist romantic poem was distinguished by the severity of the conflict - psychological and civil, which inevitably led to disaster. This characterized the reality in which noble, pure-spirited heroes perished without finding happiness.

In the process of evolution, the poem revealed a tendency towards the epic, towards the genre of the story in verse, as evidenced by the strengthening of the narrative style in the poem “Voinarovsky”.

Pushkin noticed and approved him, especially praising Ryleev for his “sweeping style.” Pushkin saw in this Ryleev’s departure from the subjective lyrical style of writing. In a romantic poem, as a rule, a single lyrical tone dominated; events were colored by the author’s lyrics and were not of independent interest to the author. Ryleev broke this tradition and thereby contributed to the creation of verse and stylistic forms for objective depiction. His poetic quests responded to the thoughts of Pushkin and the needs of the development of Russian literature.

Related information.

The 1820s, especially the beginning, are an important stage in the historical life of Europe and Russia. The murder of the heir to the French throne, the Duke of Berry, by the artisan Louvel, revolutionary uprisings in Portugal and Spain; in Russia - the growth of peasant unrest, a riot in the Semenovsky regiment. All this had an impact on the mood of the leading people.

1820 decisively changed the personal and creative life of K.F. Ryleeva. He moves to the Northern capital. The student period of his work is over (he publishes his early works under the pseudonym “K.R-v”, considering them imitative and insignificant).

Ryleev finds his calling - in civil lyrics, in freedom-loving poems, and he irrevocably embarks on this path. The beginning was the satire “To the Temporary Man,” published in “Nevsky Spectator” (1820, No. 10) under the full signature of the poet. Satire aimed at the all-powerful Arakcheev. “Everyone thought that punishment would strike, destroy both the daring poet and those who listened to him,” wrote N. Bestuzhev, “but the image was too true, very close for the offended nobleman to dare to recognize himself in satire. He was ashamed to admit openly... this was the first blow dealt by Ryleev to autocracy...” The poet's political career began with this poem. He attracted everyone's attention.

The subtitle of the satire points to one of many sources - the satire of M.V. Milonov “To Rubellius” (1810), which has the subtitle “From Persia”. Milonov's poem is not a translation, but a free imitation. The Roman poet Persia (34 - 62) does not have such satire. Ryleev's denunciations of the temporary worker sounded incomparably sharper than Milonov's. Ryleev’s work seems to reproduce the satire of the 18th century (they are brought together poetic language, exclamations, questions, “archaic” vocabulary are abundantly used; civil and patriotic themes led to the odic mood and rhetorical construction). In Ryleev’s satire there are also words-“symbols”. As it was rightly noted, in the military poetry of 1812 a special lexical layer was formed, which passed almost unchanged into the lyrics of the 1820s. These words are “signals”, “a system of stubborn symbolic concepts” - “tyranny”, “slavery”, “chains”, “scourges” - as if they form the semantic field of the “enemy”; “high” words of the civil language: “fatherland”, “fatherland” (this word was generally forbidden to be used by the decree of Paul I), “freedom” (“sacred freedom”), “sons”, “deeds”, “husbands” - are attached to the theme of the national liberation struggle.

The temporary worker in Ryleev’s satire is “tyrant”, “furious”, “mean”, “insidious”, “cunning”, “ungrateful” - all these figurative epithets have a bright negative connotation. The author’s negative attitude towards the “arrogant temporary worker” reaches its full culmination (emotionally expressive epithets of the opposite evaluative meaning are used):

I don’t value your attention, scoundrel,

From your mouth blasphemy is a crown worthy of praise!

Mentioned in the satire, Sejanus, Cassius, Brutus, Cato are Roman statesmen who conspired against the tyrants - in Ryleev’s view, they are a symbol of love for a free fatherland.

Addressing the “furious tyrant”, without fear of his “furious anger”, the author invites him to choose a different path:

Oh! It’s better to hide yourself in simple obscurity,

Than with low passions and a vile soul

Himself, for the stern gaze of my fellow citizens,

Put them on trial as if for shame!

Here is a clear allusion to those criminals who, for punishment, were exposed in the squares to human judgment, to universal ridicule. The judgment of man, the retribution of the people will be terrible:

The people are terribly enraged by tyranny!

In Ryleev's poetry of the early 1820s. (like many Russian poets) civil and elegiac themes, civil and elegiac styles existed separately and did not merge. This limitation was preserved in such works by Ryleev as the message “A.P. Ermolov" (1821) and the ode "Civil Courage" (1823), addressed to N.S. Mordvinov. Both heroes - Mordvinov and Ermolov - are the complete opposite of the temporary worker Arakcheev. They are worthy of emulation for their personal courage and independence of judgment. In Ryleev’s understanding, this is an ideal; they are bearers of political and moral valor. Ermolov - “favorite of glory”, “confidant of Mars and Pallas! // Hope of fellow citizens, a faithful son of Russia,” “genius of the northern squads.” Mordvinov - “delights with civic courage”, “He preserves the freedom of the sublime soul // in councils and in court.”

Although the named works of Ryleev are addressed to real historical figures, his heroes are shown quite abstractly (“Oh, young knight!” - the poet addresses 44-year-old Ermolov), they are devoid of individual traits, they are like ancient heroes who do not know hesitation and doubt.

Ryleev's odic style is a source of pathetic intonations. He seems to continue the direction of development of the ode in Russian poetry, which was started by Radishchev. Ryleev’s odes “Civil Courage” and “Vision” (1823) became a legal opportunity for him to promote his political ideals. In “Vision” the author expresses hope and faith in an enlightened monarch (it is addressed to a five-year-old boy, the future Alexander II). This is a kind of message from the enlightened monarch, Catherine II, to her great-grandson. The empress, wise from experience, pronounces those words that are close to the author, literally suffered by him:

Enough laurels and victories,

Enough thunderous fame...

Other things await you...

The age of stormy struggles will come

Untruths with holy truth.

The spirit of freedom has already risen

Against violent authorities;

Look - the people are in excitement,

Look - a host of kings are in motion.

Concern for the good of the fatherland and people's happiness are priorities in the education of the future emperor:

Love the people, honor the rule of law,

Learn in advance to be a king.

Love the voice of free truth,

For the benefit of your own love,

And the ignoble spirit of slavery -

Destroy injustice.

The rule of law, freedom of conscience, the abolition of serfdom - the ideals for which Ryleev fought. But they are also defended by the empress, who reigned for 34 years (a long time for Russia):

Give enlightened regulations,

Freedom in thoughts and words,

Purify morals with science

And establish faith in your hearts.

In all of the listed works, Ryleev uses his favorite techniques: colorful epithets, rhetorical questions, repetitions of words, archaic vocabulary - all this enhances the emotional picture.

Poetry by K.F. Ryleeva

One of the brightest Decembrist poets of the younger generation was Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev. His creative life did not last long - from his first student experiences in 1817-1819. until the last poem (beginning 1826), written in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Wide fame came to Ryleev after the publication of the ode-satire “To the Temporary Worker” (1820), which was written in a completely traditional spirit, but was distinguished by its bold content. Initially, in Ryleev’s poetry, poems of different genres and styles coexist in parallel - odes and elegies. The “rules” of the then literature weigh heavily on Ryleev. Civil and personal themes do not yet mix, although the ode, for example, takes on a new structure. Its theme is not the glorification of the monarch, not military valor, as was the case in the lyric poetry of the 18th century, but ordinary civil service.
The peculiarity of Ryleev’s lyrics lies in the fact that he not only inherits the traditions of civil poetry of the last century, but also assimilates the achievements of the new, romantic poetry of Zhukovsky and Batyushkov, in particular the poetic style of Zhukovsky, using the same stable verse formulas.
Gradually, however, the civil and intimate streams in the poet’s lyrics begin to intersect: elegies and messages include civic motives, and ode and satire are imbued with personal sentiments. Genres and styles begin to mix. In other words, in the civil, or social, current of Russian romanticism, the same processes occur as in the psychological current. The hero of elegies and messages (genres that were traditionally devoted to the description of intimate experiences) is enriched with the features of a public person (“V.N. Stolypina”, “On the Death of Beiron”). Civil passions receive the dignity of living personal emotions. This is how genre barriers collapse, and genre thinking suffers significant damage. This tendency is characteristic of the entire civil branch of Russian romanticism.
Typical, for example, is Ryleev’s poem “Will I be at the fatal time...”. On the one hand, it has obvious features of ode and satire - high vocabulary (“fatal time”, “citizen san”), iconic references to the names of heroes of ancient and modern times (Brutus, Riego), contemptuous and accusatory expressions (“pampered tribe”) , oratorical, declamatory intonation, designed for oral pronunciation, for public speech addressed to the audience; on the other hand, an elegiac reflection imbued with sadness about the fact that the younger generation is not entering the civilian field.

History of Russian literature of the 19th century. Part 1. 1795-1830 Skibin Sergey Mikhailovich

Poetry by K.F. Ryleeva

Poetry by K.F. Ryleeva

One of the brightest Decembrist poets of the younger generation was Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev. His creative life did not last long - from his first student experiences in 1817–1819. until the last poem (beginning 1826), written in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Wide fame came to Ryleev after the publication of the ode-satire “To a Temporary Worker” (1820), which was written in a completely traditional spirit, but was distinguished by its bold content. Initially, in Ryleev’s poetry, poems of different genres and styles coexist in parallel - odes and elegies. The “rules” of the then literature weigh heavily on Ryleev. Civil and personal themes do not yet mix, although the ode, for example, takes on a new structure. Its theme is not the glorification of the monarch, not military valor, as was the case in the lyric poetry of the 18th century, but ordinary civil service.

The peculiarity of Ryleev’s lyrics lies in the fact that he not only inherits the traditions of civil poetry of the last century, but also assimilates the achievements of the new, romantic poetry of Zhukovsky and Batyushkov, in particular the poetic style of Zhukovsky, using the same stable verse formulas.

Gradually, however, the civil and intimate streams in the poet’s lyrics begin to intersect: elegies and messages include civic motives, and ode and satire are imbued with personal sentiments. Genres and styles begin to mix. In other words, in the civil, or social, current of Russian romanticism, the same processes occur as in the psychological current. The hero of elegies and messages (genres that were traditionally devoted to the description of intimate experiences) is enriched with the traits of a public person (“V.N. Stolypina”, “On the Death of Beiron”). Civil passions receive the dignity of living personal emotions. This is how genre barriers collapse, and genre thinking suffers significant damage. This tendency is characteristic of the entire civil branch of Russian romanticism.

Typical, for example, is Ryleev’s poem “Will I be at the fatal time...”. On the one hand, it has obvious features of ode and satire - high vocabulary (“fatal time”, “citizen san”), iconic references to the names of heroes of ancient and modern times (Brutus, Riego), contemptuous and accusatory expressions (“pampered tribe”) , oratorical, declamatory intonation, designed for oral pronunciation, for public speech addressed to the audience; on the other hand, an elegiac reflection imbued with sadness about the fact that the younger generation is not entering the civilian field.

1. Poetry a) epic and lyric poetry In the post-classical period of Greek literature, which is called the Hellenistic period and the beginning of which is usually associated with the date of the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC), eroticism plays an even greater role than in so

c) farce, kinedoe poetry, mimes, bucolic poetry, mimiambas Almost nothing has survived from the pure lyrics of this period. Alexander Aetol, born in Aetolia on the eve of the 3rd century. BC BC, in his elegy entitled "Apollo", brought out a prophet-god telling stories about

1. Poetry Period from approximately 150 BC. e. before 100 AD e. in the history of Greek literature is called the transition period to classicism, and naturally we begin our review of this short period, which is characterized by increasing Eastern influence, with

1. Poetry If we talk about poetry, we can at least mention a fragment of the epithalamus preserved on papyrus. That attendance at theatrical performances of mime and pantomime gradually came to be considered indecent and was eventually prohibited for students of the Roman