Библиографическое описание:Радищев, Карамзин, Рылеев: поэтика«консервативной» и «радикальной» версий образа Ермака(эпика vs. трагика) : научное издание / К. В. Анисимов. - Текст : непосредственный // Вестник Томского государственного университета. - 2023. - №497. - С. 5-15. - Исследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда № 23-2800275, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00275/. - ISSN 1561-7793. - ISSN 1561-803X, DOI 10.17223/15617793/497/1.
Аннотация:Рассмотрены жанровые преломления различных идеологических версий похода Ермака в Сибирь - восходящих, соответственно, к трудам А.Н. Радищева и Н.М. Карамзина. В центре внимания находится теоретическая проблема художественной доминанты (в данном случае - эпического или трагического начала), на которую влияет исходная политическая установка. «Освободительная» версия, прообраз которой предложен Радищевым, далее подхвачена К.Ф. Рылеевым, размышлявшим о Ермаке скорее в перспективе балладной трагики. В сюжетном отношении, однако, поэт отталкивался от IX тома карамзинской «Истории», видоизменяя его эпическую природу. Продемонстрированы конкретные приемы, с помощью которых достигался такой результат, а также влиятельность этой художественной стратегии в перспективе литературно-идеологических дебатов второй половины XIX в. Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
As main sources for this article, the History of the Russian State by Karamzin, “An Abriged Narrative on the Acquisition of Siberia” by Radishchev and the “duma” “The Death of Yermak” by Ryleyev have been drawn on. All the three texts are considered here as cornerstones for the whole tradition of literary representations of Yermak in 19th-century Russian literature. In the theoretical aspect, the article focuses on the problem of the artistic dominant (in this case - the correlation of epic/tragic elements) which is seen as affected by the initial political orientation of the given author. The “liberating” version, whose prefiguration was introduced by Radishchev, was later taken up by Ryleyev who tended to muse on Yermak rather in aesthetic terms of tragic ballad-writing. However, in the perspective of plot motifs it was Karamzin’s History of the Russian State that served as a starting point for the younger poet. And by the latter the History’s epic artistic nature was vigorously transformed. The prime aim of the article is the study of receptive alterations of the historical fabula of Yermak’s campaign, i.e., how initial facts provided by the Stroganov chronicle and Semyon Remezov (main sources, respectively, for Karamzin and Gerhard Friedrich Muller - the latter was used by Radishchev as a deliverer of basic facts) have been modified - over the range from rude manipulating by the documentary data up to experiments on the borderline between epic and tragic. The analysis demonstrated how complex the interaction was between the “ideological structure” (as early Lotman put it) of Ryleyev’s “duma” with the narrative of Karamzin’s History on which Ryleyev’s poem was completely dependent in terms of the plot. And as Karamzin was pushing his Ivan the Terrible to the pole of the tragic, transforming czar into a Russian version of Shakespeare’s Richard Ш, tending, on the contrary, to see Yermak and his Cossacks in the lens of epic heroism, Ryleyev drastically changed this view of his precursor. Ryleyev’s Yermak is tragically separated from his retinue (in the History all Cossacks including their leader are shown in deep slumber whereas in Ryleyev’s “duma” Yermak stays awake) and juxtaposed to the czar not characterologically as it was in Karamzin’s text but turned into Ivan IV’s direct victim. Here Ryleev’s vision inherits the programmatic notions on the conquest of Siberia provided by Radishchev. In the present work the approaches taken by Radishchev and Karamzin were compared: as key-motifs, the possible attempts to set up a separate statehood on the conquered land and matrimonial contacts between Cossacks and local natives were scrutinized. It was demonstrated that both the authors created their literary and ideological styles of thinking upon principally different typological bases. Karamzin’s strategy of imagining Yermak is closer to what Lotman defined as “entrusting of self” whereas Radishchev’s approach within this framework is more likely to be a “contract”. Highlighting possible future research in this field, the author has paid attention to the article by the Siberian regionalist Yadrintsev published in 1881. Inheriting radical “liberating” versions elaborated by Radishchev and Ryleyev, Yadrintsev imagines his hero not on the edge of a conflict with the state bureaucracy but in line with the idea of formation and dissemination of statehood from within the very Cossacks’ retinue, with no regular looking back at the capital. The result, as Yadrintsev saw it, was the popular colonization that “created Siberia and later strengthened the civic life here”. This new approach distanced from the hero’s image either a revolutionary theme or a motif of ruler’s omnipotence, finally turning Yermak into a metonymic substitution of the “Russian people as a whole”. The author declares no conflicts of interests.
