Alexander I (novel)

Work on the novel began in the summer of 1909 on the estate of Sementsovo, Novgorod province, and was completed in France in 1910-1911. In March 1911, despite the threat of arrest (for "contact with terrorists"), the writer returned to Russia and gave the first chapters of the novel to the journal Russian Thought , which from May began to print it in every issue until the end of 1912.

A separate publication, “Alexander I,” was published in 1913 and was reprinted in Berlin in 1925 . ^[2]

The main theme of the novel, which, against a broad historical background, explored the background of the Decembrist uprising of 1825 , was the theme of “a fatal mutual personal misunderstanding, which Russian public and political figures are doomed to strive to organize the life of the country on humane, reasonable and expedient grounds” ^[2] . In this work were critically examined - as a conspiracy of the Decembrists in many of its aspects, the Russian autocracy ; the latter was actually declared a "demonic", "anti-christian" force. ^[3]

If in the action-packed play “Paul I” the emperor himself was the main character, around whom the ring of the plot was compressed, then the novel “Alexander I” was built differently: this is a complex, multifaceted work. The plot's center of gravity is dispersed over several characters: the “freethinker” Prince Valerian Golitsyn , Emperor Alexander, the latter’s illegitimate daughter Sofya Naryshkina (beloved Golitsyna), the wife of Tsar Elizaveta Alekseevna .

The heroes of the novel act on a broad historical background (the secular society of St. Petersburg, the main centers of the noble conspiracy, Masonic lodges and religious sects, the rivalry of the temporary workers - Arakcheev and Metropolitan Photius with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince Golitsyn, uncle of the protagonist). ^[four]

The critic Oleg Mikhailov noted that in the image of the figure of Alexander I Merezhkovsky followed the characteristics of A. S. Pushkin ("The ruler is weak and crafty ..."). The writer restored this character, abandoning romantic temptations (like the version of the emperor’s departure to the monastery), since he himself was convinced that his hero was not capable of moral asceticism ^[4] .

Regarding the question of Alexander’s responsibility for the death of his father, Merezhkovsky adhered to the opinion of most historians: the heir to the throne knew the details of the conspiracy, did nothing to prevent it, on the contrary, agreed to the actions of the attackers, turning a blind eye to the probability of a tragic outcome. ^[four]

"Alexander I" was a great reading success. “<This>> is perhaps the first Russian novel where historical persons close to us in time and spirit are depicted not in conventional, censored permits, positions and poses, but in their private and family life, with many secret details not yet available print ” ^[2] , - wrote the critic B. A. Sadovsky .

Many of his contemporaries, however, considered that "the Alexander era <was in the novel> developed superficially, and the Decembrist movement - frivolous"; that, trying to find the Decembrists “human, the author deliberately obscured the heroic in them” ^[5] . The same Sadovsky wrote about the novel:

Regardless of the historical and everyday conditions, Mr. Merezhkovsky strictly and biasedly judges our famous dead ... ‹...› The ingenious Krylov is depicted as some kind of a fool and a buffoon pea; Karamzin is credited with serfdom; Zhukovsky - court sneak, etc. ‹...› And the Decembrists? The recklessly frivolous Ryleyev , the vulgar Bestuzhev , the restricted Pestel , the wild Kakhovsky - all of them are such that they make one involuntarily think: of course, the December riot could not end successfully if such leaders were at the head of it. ^[2]

B. Sadovskaya (in the article with the characteristic headline “Slanderous Shadows”) “caught” the writer in historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, and he interpreted the general idea of ​​the novel in a straightforward and simplified way: “The idea of“ Alexander I “is still the same, well-known: this is his development < Merezhkovsky> teachings about the Antichrist. " The critic explained the failure of the novelist as rationalism and “bookishness”, as well as the alienness of Russia (“Merezhkovsky looks at the deepest phenomena of Russian life, at the mystery of her spirit through the eyes of an intelligent and observant foreigner”) ^[6] .

Newspaper and magazine reviews of the novel were controversial; their assessments (as the contemporary researcher A.Mikhin notes) depended on the critic's attitude to the writer's religious concept and to his artistic techniques. Thus, a critic of the newspaper Rech , F. Batyushkov, noting that Merezhkovsky returned the status of a high “type of literature” to the historical novel, believed that the author of “Alexander”, setting himself the task of “presenting us with a“ living soul ”of historical figures, shows to us from the purely human side of these heroes <...>. He exposes them as people with possible flaws and weaknesses ” ^[6] .

A critic of the journal Vestnik Znaniya VG Golikov, paying tribute to the artistic merits of the novel, focused on the “God-seeking” tendency in him (“In the Decembrist movement, Merezhkovsky is looking for a“ religious soul, ”as he sought it in the modern liberation movement ...” Merezhkovsky’s intention is to show that Russia has always been, is and will be religious, even in its atheism ”). Assuming that Merezhkovsky “modernizes” the Alexander era, Golikov blamed him for subjectivity in interpreting the characters of historical persons and for “deliberate artistic techniques that are too reminiscent of Dostoevsky” ^[6] .

N. Abramovich in the magazine “New Life” highly appreciated the role of Merezhkovsky in the literary life of Russia of those years, calling him “one of the pillars ... of literary modernity”, but he called the novel “sluggish” and “lifeless”, bearing the stamp of “fatigue” the author. N. Abramovich, pointing out that Merezhkovsky in the novel sought to “impress the reader that everything was gray, like the Arakcheev settlements”, “bleed” and deprive the era of “lyricism”, “heroic tension” in general (as A. Mikhin noted) he repeated the methodological error of pre-revolutionary critics who evaluate the characters of modernist prose from the standpoint of realistic art ^[6] .