Public lectures by Professor Shevyrev

About the history of Russian literature, mainly ancient. Last winter, when I lived in the village almost completely separated from the entire surrounding world, I remember what an impression your lively stories about the brilliant lectures of Prof. made on me. Granovsky, about the strong effect that his eloquence, full of soul and taste, vivid thoughts, lively descriptions, telling pictures and fascinating heartfelt sympathies had on a selected circle of listeners for everything that was or was hidden in the beautiful, noble and generous in the past life of Western long-suffering Europe. The general participation aroused by his readings seemed to me a comforting sign that literary interests were still alive in Moscow, and that they had not been expressed until now solely because no worthy opportunity had presented itself. Now I hasten to share with you the impression that Professor Shevyrev’s lectures make on us. Having not heard Granovsky, I cannot compare the two teachers. I will only say that before Shevyrev’s readings began, many of his listeners did not believe their possibility, although they did not doubt the professor’s talent. The subject of the lecture - the history of Russian literature, mainly ancient, turned out to be ungrateful, dry, partly already well-known, partly too learned and not interesting for everyone. Submitting to the general prejudice that still exists among us, they thought that reading about ancient literature could have only one interest - philological, important almost exclusively for people who devoted themselves especially to the study of the Russian language, or to the study of Russian antiquity. A few monuments, they said, do not yet constitute literature; our literature began with Lomonosov; What can be said that is generally curious about the literature of former times? research or reasoning is not history; history needs content - and where will the professor find it when talking about the times before Peter the Great? Based on this concept of the insignificance of our ancient literature, many went to Shevyrev’s lectures almost only to listen to the gift of teaching, sincerely regretting the insignificance of the subject. Imagine their surprise when, after the very first readings, they were convinced that the lectures on ancient Russian literature had a lively and universal interest, which lies not in new phrases, but in new things, in their rich, little-known and significant content. Of course, there is no doubt that this wealth of content of our ancient literature could have arisen from little-known monuments into one living picture only from the art of the teacher. Only with his vision could the various fragments of our half-forgotten antiquity, the scattered remains of our written literature, spiritual and secular, literary and state, together with the surviving unwritten traditions of the people, preserved in their fairy tales, beliefs, sayings and songs, be able to come together and grow into one harmonious building. Meanwhile, it is also certain that no art could create content unless it actually existed and, although scattered, did not survive in monuments. In this regard, Shevyrev's lectures are of particular significance. This news of content, this revival of the forgotten, the recreation of the destroyed, is, one might say, the opening of a new world of our old literature 1 . Here even the literary merit of the presentation, no matter how remarkable it may be, becomes secondary, almost insignificant, in comparison with another, most important relation. For from under the lava of age-old prejudices he reveals a new building, the rich kingdom of our ancient word; in an imaginary familiar sphere, he discovers a new side of life, and thus introduces a new element into the field of human knowledge. I say: a new element, because in fact the history of ancient Russian literature did not exist until now as a science; only now, after Shevyrev’s readings, should she receive the right of citizenship among other stories of world-significant literature. For, if it is true that with a different way of thinking one can disagree with one or another of his opinions, if with another system one can argue even with his main view, then, at least, with no way of thinking, with any system, one can no longer, after listening to him, reject the reality of science, which until now not only did not exist in this form, but the very possibility of which was subject to doubt. From this point of view, Shevyrev’s lectures no longer seem to us to be a literary phenomenon, more or less tempting, but a new event of our historical self-knowledge. And in this sense, by creating a new side of science, they no longer belong to just one circle of his listeners, but they receive a general significance, one can say without exaggeration, a European significance. Another quality of Shevyrev’s readings, which serves as the basis and, as it were, a necessary condition for all their dignity, is the reliability of his presentation. He spent many years of constant work studying his subject - scientific, honest, one might say religiously conscientious work. Every fact cited by him has been studied with all possible completeness; often one phrase, barely noticeable in the midst of the rapid flow of speech, is the obvious fruit of long-term research, complex comparisons and tireless work; sometimes one word, sometimes one shade of a word, perhaps not noticed by everyone, reflects the study of multi-volume tomes, completed with patient and conscientious thoroughness. As for Shevyrev’s teaching itself, its peculiarity lies as much in his deep knowledge of his subject as in the deep concept that he has about literature in general, as a living expression of the inner life and education of the people. This concept, directly opposed to the previous, so-called classical theories destroyed by the Schlegels, also differs from their view in that although they saw in literature the expression of people's life, they limited this life, reflected in the written word, to almost one sphere of mental and artistic education, while in Shevyrev's concepts literature reflects the entire conscious and unconscious fullness of people's life, as it is revealed in the most diverse spheres - mental and civil, artistic and industrial, family and state, tribal and accidental personal, original and borrowed. This concept of Shevyrev about literature can be deduced from his presentation, but it was deduced by us, the listeners; and he himself has no time to indulge in theories and definitions. In his living representation of an object, thought is always a fact, and the fact is always meaningful, as he himself puts it, speaking about the revelation of the internal meaning of an external event. As a result of this view, from the animated monuments of our ancient literature the entire ancient history of our fatherland is resurrected - not that history that consists in the chain of wars and treaties, in random events and high-profile personalities, but that internal history from which, as from an invisible source, flows all the intelligence of external movements. However, it goes without saying that the history of ancient education in Russia is not in the foreground of his presentation: it, in his own words, is only the necessary ground for his picture. Meanwhile, presenting in this way the history of literature and enlightenment of ancient Russian, the professor, in order to more clearly indicate their peculiarity, constantly compares their significance with the corresponding phenomena in the West of Europe - not in order to praise one at the expense of the other; but in order to compare more clearly their differences. This parallel characteristic especially clearly expresses the deeply significant meaning of the ancient Russian enlightenment, which it received from the free influence of the Christian faith on our people, not shackled in pagan Greco-Roman education, not conquered by another tribe; but in an original, peaceful, without violence and Christian way, growing from the depths of spiritual convictions into the improvement of external life - while Providence was pleased, by the invasion of foreign influences, to stop this growth, perhaps premature in the general economy of all human existence, - premature for the externally educated West, not yet ripe for participation in purely Christian development, - perhaps premature for Russia itself, which has not yet accepted into the elements of Western education to bring them under the influence of one higher principle. The editors of Moskvityanin hoped to publish Shevyrev’s first lecture in the 1st issue of their magazine; but, it seems, due to our lack of stenographers, it was not completely written down by the listeners and therefore is unlikely to ever appear except in fragments. Meanwhile, while various passages, already written down from memory, will be compared and brought together, I am sending you one excerpt from which you will get an idea of ​​​​the two thoughts of the course; about how the professor understands the relationship of the people to humanity, and about how he looks at literature in general. The effect that Shevyrev’s lectures produce is very strong and varied: some admire them to the point of delight, others judge them strictly, with the opposite bias; but almost no one remains indifferent; others see in them a struggle between Russian enlightenment and Western enlightenment, and in this they are mistaken. The professor's goal is not at all to humiliate one part of human education over another. He expresses their features, compares them for clarification, tries to define them with impartiality and apparently seeks to avoid any exclusivity. His love for Russia is a conscious love, and not a blind delight expressed in meaningless exclamations. Those who want to see the opposite probably pay more attention to their own prejudices than to the professor’s presentation. It is noticeable that the overall participation in the lectures is constantly increasing, as well as the number of listeners. At first there were about one and a half hundred of them; now there are more than three hundred of them. His last lecture was interrupted five times by applause, with which he was greeted and seen off almost every time. Until now, you have written almost nothing remarkable about this, except for the books of M. A. Maksimovich. You might be interested in: