Antioch Cantemir: biography. Works of Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir was born on September 10 (21), 1708 in Constantinople. By birth, he was a prince, a widely and diversified person, a Russian satirist poet, writer, translator, an outstanding diplomat of his time, a famous figure in the early Russian Enlightenment. The most prominent Russian poet of the syllabic era (before the Trediakovsky-Lomonosov reform).

The youngest son of the Moldavian ruler, a famous encyclopedist, writer and historian, author of the famous “Ottoman Empire”, Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich Cantemir and Cassandra Cantacuzene. On his mother's side, he is a descendant of Byzantine emperors.

Unlike his father, Prince Constantine, Antiochus's father, Prince Dmitry, devoted himself entirely to peaceful activities, not justifying his warlike surname (Kantemir means either a relative of Timur - Kantemir's ancestors recognized Tamerlane himself as their ancestor - or blood-iron; in In any case, the Tatar origin of the name Kantemir is undoubtedly).

The writer's father, Dmitry Konstantinovich, during the war between Russia and Turkey, entered into an alliance with Peter I, seeking to free his country from the Turkish yoke. But the Prut campaign of 1711 was unsuccessful, as a result of which the family left sunny Moldova forever and moved to Russia. At first after moving to Russia, the Kantemir family lived in Kharkov, and then in the Kursk and Ukrainian estates granted to D. Kantemir by Peter I. In 1713, the old prince moved with his family to Moscow. In 1719, at the invitation of the Tsar, Dmitry Kantemir moved to St. Petersburg, and soon his whole family moved there after him.

In an effort to involve Cantemir the father in government activities, Peter I gave him all sorts of assignments, and in 1721 he appointed him a member of the Senate. Both in his father's house and outside the house, young Antioch Cantemir becomes an involuntary observer of court life. The images of dignitaries, favorites and temporary workers, who would later appear in Cantemir’s satires, were living impressions of his youth. Antioch Cantemir received an excellent, comprehensive education at home. Biographers of Antioch Dmitrievich mention that he studied at the Zaikonospassky School, making the reservation that neither the date of admission nor the period of A. Kantemir’s stay there are unknown. His systematic training at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy can be questioned, but his close ties with the academy, its mentors and students are quite real. It is known, for example, that in 1718, at the age of ten, Antiochus Cantemir publicly spoke at the said academy with a word of praise to Demetrius of Thessaloniki, which he pronounced in Greek; and at the age of 18 he was elected to the Academy of Sciences.

In 1722, Dmitry Cantemir, a great expert on the life and way of life of eastern peoples and eastern languages, accompanies Peter I on the famous Persian campaign. 14-year-old Antioch Cantemir also took part in this campaign with them.

Echoes of impressions from the Persian campaign, which lasted about a year, can be found in a number of works by A. Cantemir (the first edition of the third satire, written in French and dedicated to Madame d'Aiguillon madrigal and others).

In August 1723, on the way back from the Persian campaign, Dmitry Cantemir died, and soon after that his entire family moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow.

The father, in his spiritual will, gave up all his property to one of his sons who would show the greatest disposition towards scientific pursuits, and he meant Antiochus, “the best in intelligence and science.” Of the four sons of D. Cantemir, the youngest, Antiochus, was distinguished by the greatest aspirations and abilities for education. Antioch Dmitrievich knew ancient and modern foreign languages well (Italian, Greek, Latin, English and French); ancient, Italian, French, English and Spanish literature. His extensive knowledge amazed his contemporaries. Cantemir's versatility was manifested in his interest not only in the humanities, art, music, but also in the natural sciences. In a petition written on May 25, 1724, addressed to Peter I, 16-year-old Antioch Cantemir listed the sciences for which he “had a great desire” (ancient and modern history, geography, jurisprudence, disciplines related to the “political state,” mathematical sciences and painting), and to study them he asked to be released to the “neighboring states.” This youthful statement of Antiochus fully reflected the strength of his character, his irresistible desire for education.

In connection with the implementation of the initial measures of Peter I to organize the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Kantemir has the opportunity to improve his education without traveling abroad. He spends a short period of study in St. Petersburg (1724-1725). He takes lessons in mathematics from Professor Bernoulli, physics from Bilfinger, history from Bayer, and moral philosophy from Gross.

Even before completing his studies at the Academy of Sciences, Antioch Cantemir entered military service, in the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment. For three years he served in the rank of lower rank and only in 1728 received the first officer rank - lieutenant.

At the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, which opened in 1725, Kantemir attended lectures on mathematics and physics. His passion for philosophy was reflected in his translation into Russian of the popular science treatise by the French writer and scientist Fontenelle, “Conversations on the Many Worlds,” “a godless atheistic little book,” as the clergy called it, in which the heliocentric theory was defended. The translation was made in 1730 and handed over by Cantemir before going abroad to the Academy of Sciences, but it was published only in 1740, and in 1756 it was banned by the Synod. Cantemir's philosophical interests also manifested themselves in a later period, when in 1742 he wrote an original philosophical treatise, Letters on Nature and Man. Plekhanov, reviewing this treatise in the “History of Russian Social Thought,” recognizes Kantemir’s merits in raising questions that will “occupy Russian enlighteners up to and including Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.”

The beginning of Cantemir’s literary activity dates back to the second half of the 20s: at this time he composed love songs that have not reached us, which were very popular. Later, Cantemir spoke disapprovingly of his early experiences, believing that his calling was to write satirical rather than love poems.

The beginning of the literary activity of Antioch Cantemir takes place under the direct leadership of Ivan Ilyinsky. The first printed “work” of Antioch Dmitrievich “Symphony on the Psalter”, about which the author’s preface says that it “was composed as if by itself as a frequent exercise in sacred psalmody,” is a set of verses from the psalms of David, arranged in alphabetical thematic order . The “Symphony on the Psalter,” written in 1726 and published in 1727, is directly related to Cantemir’s poetic work, since for its time the Psalter was not only “God-inspired,” but also a poetic book. “Symphony on the Psalter” is the first printed work of Antiochus Cantemir, but not his first literary work in general, which is confirmed by the authorized manuscript of a little-known translation of Antiochus Cantemir entitled “Mr. Philosopher Constantine Manassis Synopsis Historical,” dated 1725. Kantemir translated the Chronicle of Manasseh from the Latin text and only subsequently, turning to the Greek original, made minor corrections to his translation. The language of this translation is called “Slavic-Russian” by Cantemir, and the morphological and syntactic norms of the Church Slavonic language really dominate in the translation, which cannot be said about any of Cantemir’s other works.

The work of A. Cantemir on the translation into Russian of Boileau’s four satires and the writing of the original poems “On a Quiet Life” and “On Zoila” should also be attributed to the years 1726-1728.

A. Cantemir's early translations and his love lyrics were only a preparatory stage in the poet's work, the first test of strength, the development of language and style, manner of presentation, his own way of seeing the world.

In 1729, the period of the poet's creative maturity began, when he quite consciously focused his attention almost exclusively on satire and subordinated his literary work to educational tasks. “Everything that I write, I write as a citizen, discouraging everything that could be harmful to my fellow citizens,” he declared. The awareness of writing as a high, civil-patriotic matter has become, starting with Cantemir, a tradition in Russia, prepared by the history of the previous ancient Russian culture and writing. The process of dying out of the old medieval scholastic tradition was reflected in Cantemir’s personality and creativity.

In his work, Kantemir recognizes himself as a poet-citizen. As an active politician, writer and educator, he cannot stand aside, seeing the shortcomings and vices of society:

In a word, I want to grow old in satires,

But I can’t not write: I can’t stand it.

(IV satire, I ed.)

Kantemir’s first satire “On those who blaspheme the teachings. To Your Mind” was written in 1729 and, distributed in lists, received warm support from Feofan Prokopovich.

Kantemir took part in the events that led to the accession of Empress Anna Ioannovna. But supporters of Peter’s reforms soon became disillusioned with her rule: Peter’s work progressed slowly, and the Bironovism regime reigned in the country.

When the topic of granting political rights to the nobility came up, Cantemir strongly spoke out in favor of preserving the political system established by Peter the Great. After the death of Peter I, the reaction tried to prevent Russia from moving along the path of progress and enlightenment. Wanting to actively stand up for Peter’s cause, Antioch Cantemir joins the “scientific squad” created by Feofan Prokopovich. Together with Peter’s associates, he opposes the “ploy of the supreme leaders” who seek to limit the power of Empress Anna Ioannovna in their own interests. Friendship with Feofan Prokopovich, his knowledge, intelligence and experience had a great influence on the political and literary development of Cantemir. Feofan Prokopovich monitors the development of Kantemir’s creativity, encourages him, advises him to be persistent and continue to castigate “those who do not love the scientific squad.” In literary terms, the influence of Feofan Prokopovich was reflected in the improvement of the technique of syllabic verse, in the emphasized influence on rhyme, which was immediately reflected in Cantemir’s satires. In court circles they were suspicious of Antiochus Cantemir. He was denied the opportunity to receive the post of president of the Academy of Sciences in 1731, although it was difficult to find a more suitable candidate. Obviously, it was the literary activity of Kantemir the satirist that did not suit the court. Kantemir wrote more than once about the difficulty of his chosen path:

There is something to write about, if only there was a desire for it,

If only someone could work, there would be endless work!

And it’s better not to write for a century than to write satire,

Which makes the whole world hate me!

This is what he wrote in the satire “On the danger of satirical writings. To his muse" (the fourth satire), which was a kind of aesthetic code of the author. There he asks Muse if it’s time for them to stop writing satires? Muzo! Isn’t it time to cancel your rude style and stop writing satire? Many people don’t like them, and more than one grumbles that where I have no business, I get in the way and show myself to be too bold. Cantemir's further reasoning leads him to the idea that he must write satires, despite the troubles awaiting him, for this necessity is suggested to him by life itself and the high consciousness of the writer's moral duty: I cannot in any way praise what is worthy of blasphemy - I give to everyone the name that I don’t know what to have in my mouth or in my heart: A pig is a pig, but I simply call a lion a lion.

Even though my muse always annoys everyone, Rich, poor, cheerful, sorrowful - I will weave poetry. Cantemir concludes this satire with the fact that only bad people and fools, who have nothing to look at, may not like satires: Our satire can be disgusting to such people; Yes, there is nothing to spare them, and their love is not marvelous to Me, just as their anger is little scary to me. I don’t want to ask them, it’s not appropriate to deal with them, so as not to turn black when touching the soot; They cannot harm me while I am in strong guard of the right Mother of the Fatherland.

Demanding from literature a rapprochement with life in the sense of the verisimilitude of literary works, the satirist put forward at the same time the demand for truthfulness, expression in literature of moral truth, social justice, understood in the spirit of the educational ideology of the 18th century.

Cantemir's enemies decided to get rid of the brave satirist and suggested that the empress “reward” him by sending him as a resident of the embassy to London. On January 1, 1732, Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir left Russia and on March 30 of the same year arrived in London. Cantemir's diplomatic service, which began from that time, lasted over 12 years and was interrupted only with his death.

The main features of the foreign policy pursued by Russia throughout the 18th century were outlined by Peter I. Even during the life of Peter I, a coalition of powers hostile to Russia emerged in Western Europe, which included France, England and Prussia. During the years of diplomatic service of Antioch Cantemir, the anti-Russian policy of these powers, and especially France, was particularly active. France made strenuous efforts to create an anti-Russian bloc from the states bordering Russia: Sweden, Poland and Turkey. In the current international situation, Russian diplomacy was required to have special foresight and flexibility, and the ability to use the contradictions that existed between the Western powers. Cantemir, as a diplomat, fully possessed these qualities.

Cantemir makes a lot of efforts to establish normal diplomatic relations between England and Russia; he takes, although unsuccessfully, a number of steps to achieve an alliance between both countries during the struggle for the Polish throne in 1734; persistently strives for the recognition by the English government of the imperial title of Anna Ioannovna, rightly considering these efforts as a struggle to maintain the international prestige of the Russian state. In 1735, the Russian government informed its resident in London about the reprehensible behavior towards Russia of the English ambassador in Constantinople, Lord Kinul, and thanks to the energetic intervention in this matter of Antioch Cantemir, the English government was forced to condemn the behavior of its ambassador and recall him from his diplomatic post.

Great efforts were required from Antioch Cantemir to refute various hostile and even simply slanderous information about Russia, which was systematically disseminated by the foreign press, as well as by various kinds of international adventurers who were in the service of Russia’s political enemies.

Antioch Dmitrievich's official duties were not limited to purely diplomatic activities. On behalf of the Russian government, he had to look for various specialists abroad, carry out various assignments from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, take care of Russian people sent abroad on various matters and left there without any funds or attention from the Russian government, carry out individual assignments Russian dignitaries, etc.

Despite the huge number of official affairs, A. Cantemir does not stop his literary activity at this time. In London, Cantemir is working hard on translating Anacreon's Songs; he is also engaged there in translating Justin’s History, considering it as “an occasion to enrich our people with translations of ancient writers, Greek and Latin, which can best arouse in us a desire for science”; 1 Kantemir also works there on a translation that has not reached us the popular science essay “Conversations about Light” by the Italian writer Francesco Algarotti; reworks satires written in Russia, and in 1738 creates a new, VI satire.

During his stay in London, Antioch Cantemir mastered the English language and became well acquainted with English philosophical and social thought and literature. Cantemir's library contained a large number of books with the works of T. More, Newton, Locke, Hobbes, Milton, Pope, Swift, Addison, Style and other outstanding English philosophers, scientists and writers.2

The acquaintance of Antiochus Cantemir with the English historian N. Tyndale, who translated into English and in 1734 published in London “The History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir, indicates that Cantemir also had direct personal connections with English scientists and writers.

In mid-1737, Cantemir received from his government an offer to enter into negotiations with the French ambassador in London, Cambyses, with the aim of restoring diplomatic relations between Russia and France, interrupted due to the Polish War. As a result of the successful completion of these negotiations, Antioch Cantemir was granted the title of chamberlain by the Russian government and, with the degree of minister plenipotentiary, was appointed Russian envoy in Paris, where he arrived in September 1738.

In addition to difficulties of a foreign policy nature, the diplomatic activities of A. Cantemir also encountered a number of difficulties created by the Russian government and the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. A. I. Osterman, who was in charge of the affairs of the said board under Anna Ioannovna, denied A. Kantemir the most minimal means required by the Russian embassy in Paris to familiarize himself with the political state of Europe, to combat hostile information about Russia, etc. A.’s difficult financial situation. Kantemir did not change even after, with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, Prince A. M. Cherkassky began to be in charge of the affairs of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, nor after the death of the latter (1742), when management of the Collegium passed into the hands of A. Bestuzhev.

But even under these conditions, Cantemir’s diplomatic activities were extremely effective. His subtle mind, excellent knowledge of international politics and good knowledge of the peculiarities of French life often ensured the success of his diplomatic activities aimed at strengthening the international prestige of Russia.

Antioch Cantemir had deep respect for the best achievements of the French genius in the field of culture and literature. Long before his departure abroad, he studied French classics, practiced translations from French, and followed the development of French literature.

In London, and then in Paris, where negotiations with the French government led him, which contributed to the restoration of relations between Russia and France, Cantemir proved himself to be a brilliant diplomat, far-sighted and proactive, rendering considerable services to Russia both through his activities and his personality. European education, diplomatic insight, combined with straightforwardness, nobility of appearance and depth of nature - everything attracted him. Cantemir was seen as a representative of the noble intelligentsia of the new Russia, and this could not but contribute to the recognition of “Young Russia”. Cantemir served as envoy in Paris from 1738 to 1744, never being able to return to his homeland. In Paris, Cantemir became closely acquainted with the philosopher-educator B. Fontenelle, playwright Nivel de Lachausse, mathematician Maupertuis, Montesquieu (he translated Montesquieu’s famous satire “Persian Letters”). Cantemir also corresponded with Voltaire. Antioch Cantemir's stay in France had a strong impact on the development of the Russian theme in French literature. In this regard, the connections of the Russian writer-enlightenment with the French playwright Pierre Morand, Diderot, Mercier and Retief de la Breton are indicative.

Despite his deep connections with world culture and his long stay outside his homeland, A. Cantemir, as a writer and educator, did not dissolve in the foreign cultural element. A. Cantemir devoted almost all his leisure time and free time to the study of Russian literature, in which he saw his civic duty. He persistently sought the publication of his works in Russia, but his intention did not meet with support in official spheres. As a precaution, the writer was forced to repeatedly declare that he was “only allowed to spend extra hours on literary work.” The tragedy of a writer forcibly deprived of communication with his readers, which Cantemir experienced, found vivid expression in his poem “To His Poems” (1743). In order to continue his poetic work even in such difficult conditions, it was necessary not only to feel an inextricable connection with Russian culture, but also to have an unshakable faith in its great destiny.

Devoting all his free time to poetry abroad, Cantemir was the first to translate into Russian the odes of Anacreon, the messages of Horace, printed in 1744, which Cantemir provided with detailed notes. Kantemir is characterized by a philological breadth of interests. He also provides commentary on his original works, explaining terms, providing a lot of information from history, philosophy, mythology, geography, etc., and throughout his literary career he shows a serious interest in versification and the language of his satires. Before 1732, Cantemir also wrote several fables, “Fire and the Wax Dummy,” “The Camel and the Fox,” and others, criticizing modern social evil. But Kantemir’s main literary heritage is the nine satires he wrote, in which one of the main national features of Russian classicism was revealed - a satirical-accusatory tendency, picked up and continued by subsequent Russian enlightenment writers Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Novikov, Krylov.

The first five satires (“On those who blaspheme the teachings. To their minds”, “On the envy and pride of malicious nobles. Filaret and Eugene”, “On the broken passions of men. To the Archbishop of Novgorod”, “On the danger of satirical writings. To their muse”, “ On human evils in general. Satyr and Pernerg") were written by Cantemir before leaving abroad in 1729 - 1732. and were subsequently repeatedly subjected to literary processing. Three satires (“On true bliss”, “On education. To Prince Nikita Yuryevich Trubetskoy”, “On shameless impudence”) - written in 1738 - 1739. Kantemir owns another satire, which is designated ninth in his collected works. It is called “On the State of this World. To the sun". The time of its creation, according to the note to it by Cantemir himself, dates back to July 1738.

All Cantemir's satires have a double title. The second title reveals the main intention of the author and determines the composition of the satires. All his satires are built on the same principle. Satire begins with an appeal (to one’s mind, to the muse, to the sun, to Philaret, etc.), which is quite abstract, but it gives the satire the character of a casual conversation. This is followed by the main part - satirical portraits, which reveal the essence of the title and the main intention of the author - to give a satirical image of “those who blaspheme the teaching” (in the first satire), “evil nobles” (in the second), etc. The final part of the satire is the author's reasoning, which sets out the author's positive views.

Cantemir learned how to construct satires from Boileau, but he took satirical portraits from Russian life, and this is the social significance of Cantemir’s satires. One of the strengths of Cantemir's satires is the language in which they are written. Kantemir worked hard on the word, subjecting his works to repeated revisions, creating new literary editions, and strove to ensure that the word was simple, clear, and consistent with the content. There are few Slavicisms in the language of Cantemir's satires; he often turns to vernacular, to proverbs and sayings. The first satire “On those who blaspheme the teaching...” had a pronounced anti-clerical character and was directed against the party of churchmen Stefan Yavorsky and Grigory Dashkov, who sought to re-establish the patriarchate and the pre-Petrine order. She also sharply denounced the reactionary nobility. Kantemir spoke in defense of science, enlightenment, and although his reasoning was of a general, somewhat abstract nature, nevertheless, they were caused by Russian reality and addressed to it. He believed that state progress and the correction of morals depended on the development of education. He writes about the difficult path of a satirical writer. In addressing his mind, he advises not to engage in literary work, for this path, which was blazed by the muses (9 barefoot sisters), has become unpleasant and difficult. Cantemir bitterly complains about the plight of science at the moment: Pride, laziness, wealth - wisdom has prevailed, Ignorance has already taken root; It is proud under a miter, it walks in an embroidered dress, It judges the red cloth, it runs the shelves. Science is torn, trimmed in rags, From all the noblest houses knocked down with a curse;

They don’t want to get to know her, her friendships flee, Like those who suffered at sea during ship service. Kantemir draws portraits of opponents of enlightenment with sharp satirical features. The prude Crito is the first detractor. He is a typical representative of the ignorant and greedy clergy. Not only moral, but above all economic motives prompt him to be dissatisfied with the spread of science, as a result of which they began to believe that the clergy “estates and estates are not at all suitable.” The portrait of the bishop was also copied from life, the “original” for which was the implacable enemy of the “scientific squad” Georgy Dashkov. In many of Cantemir's satires, self-interested and ignorant churchmen are portrayed as dangerous enemies of enlightenment.

If you want to be a bishop, put your cassock on,

On top of that, the body is proudly striped

Let him cover it; hang a chain around your neck from gold,

Cover your head with a hood, your belly with a beard,

They led the stick magnificently - to carry it in front of you;

In the carriage, bloated, when the heart is angry

It bursts, bless everyone left and right.

Everyone in this world must know you as an archpastor

Signs to reverently call him father.

What's in science? What good will it do to the church?

Some people, while writing a sermon, will forget the transcript,

Why is it harmful to income? and the churches are right in them

The best are founded, and the whole church is glory.

It is characteristic that in the notes to the first satire, Cantemir himself pointed to the prototype of the bishop, which was the head of the church reaction, Georgy Dashkov.

The stupid, ignorant nobleman Silvan also appears in the portrait gallery. And he blasphemes science, believing that it is indecent for a nobleman to engage in science, there is no material benefit in it, why “work in something that suddenly doesn’t make your pocket fatter.”

Silvan finds another fault for the sciences.

“Teaching,” he says, “makes us hungry;

We lived like this before, not knowing Latin,

Much more abundantly than we live now;

Much more bread was harvested in ignorance;

Having adopted a foreign language, they lost their bread.

If my speech is weak, if there is no rank in it,

No contact - should a nobleman bother about this?

The idle reveler Luka, the foppish and dandy Medor consider science a hindrance:

Crashing over a book and damaging your eyes?

Isn't it better to walk your days and nights with a cup?

Kantemir includes in the list of “not friends” of science both clergy, and judges who only know how to “enforce sentences,” and ignorant military men. Already in the first satire, Cantemir fights the superficial, external imitation of Western European culture: the adoption of European manners, the pursuit of fashion, external gloss.

The names of Crito, Silvan, and Medor are conventional, but the abstract and generalized images created by Cantemir bear the features of the satirist’s true contemporaries. This reality, which Kantemir refers to, made it possible for Belinsky to write that he was the first of the Russian writers “by some happy instinct to bring poetry to life.” But although Cantemir “brought poetry to life,” he still did not change the rationalistic nature of poetry and judged life based on abstract concepts of virtue and morality.

It should be noted that the first satire, like all five first satires, was subsequently rewritten by the author. After 13 years, the author, matured, more responsible and restrained, removes “especially sharp corners.” Now, the author considers his previous very severe reproaches unacceptable. Both versions of what was written have survived to this day, and the reader can compare them.

For example, in a later edition you cannot see such lines: Teaching is disgusting, the creator is not kind to tea, When I read a book to someone, he says: I miss you! No, in the new edition of these lines: Under the guise of humility, envy is deep, Let the hunt for power bloom in the heart, cruel. Young Cantemir wrote his satire more surrendering to feeling, impulse, he wrote from specific prototypes, without fear of consequences. The wiser Cantemir edited his work more with his mind than with his heart. He became more circumspect, more careful in his statements. He made his characters more conventional. Because of this, in my opinion, the edited satire lost some of its sincerity. I think the original version is more successful. Two months after the satire “On those who blaspheme the teaching...”, Cantemir’s second satire, “On the envy and pride of the evil nobles,” was written, with the subtitle “Filaret and Eugene.” In this satire, the idea of the natural equality of people was first expressed, an idea characteristic of the Enlightenment.

The satire “Filaret and Eugene” was also directed against the enemies of Peter’s reforms, against representatives of the family aristocracy, dissatisfied with the rise in modern times of humble but capable people.

This satire is important because of its social content. Kantemir was the first in Russian poetry to raise the later famous question of the nobility of birth and the nobility of merit. A noble must justify his origin by merit. The satirist comes to this conclusion, defending Peter’s point of view on the nobility. Peter I wanted to force the sons of nobles and boyars to work for the benefit of Russia by example and coercion. This was supposed to be served by one of Peter’s important measures - the establishment of the “Table of Ranks”, abolishing noble and boyar privileges and rewarding deserts to the state, regardless of class. The satire is built in the form of a dialogue between Filaret (who loves virtue) and Eugene (the noble). Eugene will list the merits of his ancestors, believing that they give him the right to occupy the main positions in the state.

My ancestors were already noble in Olga's kingdom

And from those times until now they haven’t sat in the corner -

The states had the best ranks.

Consider the armorials, charters, types of raenas,

A genealogy book, order notes:

From my great-grandfather's great-grandfather, to start closer,

No one was lower than Dumny, the governor;

Skilled in peace, wise and courageous in war

They did it with a gun, but not with their minds.

Look at the spacious walls of our sala -

You will see how the formation was torn, how the ramparts were broken.

Their hands are clean in court: the petitioner remembers

Their mercy, and the offender remembers the coolness of evil.

Adam did not give birth to nobles, but one child from two

His garden was digging, another was tending a bleating flock;

Noah in the ark with him saved all his equals

Simple farmers with only glorious morals;

We all completely left them, one earlier

Leaving the pipe, the plow, the other one later.

Thus, the tribal aristocrat Cantemir defended and asserted the natural equality of people and the rights of reason and personal dignity of a person. Cantemir defends smart and capable people regardless of their social background. Kantemir’s sharp criticism of the cruelty of the feudal landowners is also socially accusatory:

...Stone soul,

You beat the slave until he bleeds, who waved his hand

Instead of the right, the left (only suitable for animals)

Blood lust; the flesh in your servant is one-person.

Cantemir, of course, is far from the idea of liberating the peasants, but this sharp criticism of the cruel landowners, voiced for the first time, testifies to the deep humanism of the writer and confirms the truth of the words of Belinsky, who in 1845, in an article about Cantemir, wrote that our literature, even at the very beginning, she was a herald for society of all noble feelings, all high concepts. The demand for a humane attitude of the landowner towards the serfs is also heard in Cantemir’s fifth satire (original edition), which depicts a peasant dreaming of becoming a soldier in the hope of getting rid of serfdom. However, the life of a peasant as a soldier is so difficult that he remembers with pleasure his former life, idealizing it. And in this satire, Kantemir acts as an educator, sympathizing with the peasant lot, but he is far from encroaching on the very institution of serfdom.

Cantemir’s satires also feature ideal images of statesmen. In the satire “Filaret and Eugene”, he lists the properties that such a figure should possess: an insightful mind, sophisticated in science, selflessness, he should be “the father of an innocent people.” In a number of satires, the appearance of the satirist himself appears - a noble man, filled with the progressive ideological aspirations of his time.

However, Cantemir's ideals are far from what he finds in a noble-bureaucratic society. “I laugh in poetry, but in my heart I cry for the evil ones.” In these words of Cantemir is that laughter through tears that was the forerunner of Gogol’s laughter. It is not without reason that this continuity of satire was also felt by Gogol, who in his 1846 article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry and what is its peculiarity” emphasized the importance of Cantemir’s satirical activity in Russian literature.

Cantemir is a master of satirical portraiture. The portraits he created are distinguished by the accuracy of speech characteristics and the skillful use of bright, memorable details. Before us pass: the ignorant and greedy clergy, the vicious nobility, the selfish and thieving merchants; the satirist exposes the bribery of judges, the foppery and idleness of the nobles.

Connection with Russian reality, the creation of generalized images, which, however, are of an abstract nature, but generated by real Russian life - this is the great merit of Kantemir the satirist. In literary terms, Cantemir's satires are related to the satires of Horace, Juvenal, and Boileau. Kantemir himself has repeatedly pointed out this connection.

Of Cantemir’s satires written abroad, the seventh satire, “On Education,” was of great interest, which Belinsky praised in his article. In this satire, Cantemir expressed deeply humane thoughts about raising children and the importance of the moral example of parents.

It would be in vain for me to become hoarse, arguing

That the mind in people does not grow month and year;

That although temptation gives support to reason,

And the temptation can only be obtained at a late time,

However, like the time of one who does not notice

He does not know the reasons for things to be done by those who are skilled,

So diligence is strong enough to give temptation in small years.

My words will be despicable without response,

And the world, almost all stubborn, will always believe,

That the old man will pull the minds of three young people.

Kantemir was familiar with Locke's advanced pedagogical ideas. Believing, like Locke, that education must begin from infancy, Cantemir argues with him about the need to use fear as a method of education. “Tenderness will correct children more in one hour than severity in a whole year.” And he claims that “the example of instruction is stronger than anyone.”

The satire expresses so many sound and humane concepts that it “would be worth even now to be printed in gold letters, and it would not be bad if those who were getting married first learned it by heart,” Belinsky wrote more than a hundred years later.

One of the strengths of Cantemir's satires is the language in which they are written. Kantemir worked hard on the word, subjecting his works to repeated revisions, creating new literary editions. N strove to ensure that the word was simple, clear, and consistent with the content. There are few Slavicisms in the language of Cantemir's satires; he often turns to vernacular, to proverbs and sayings.

The civic pathos of Kantemir's satires, the desire for the “naked truth”, for simplicity and clarity of language, and his awareness of the educational role of the word made it possible for Belinsky to highly appreciate the work of the satirist. Belinsky wrote: “Kantemir’s satires say what was before everyone’s eyes, and they say it not only in the Russian language, but also in the Russian mind.”

Speaking about the literary form of Cantemir’s satires, it should be noted the complexity of the syntax, characterized by an abundance of hyphenation and inversions, the legitimacy of which, contrary to Boileau’s poetics, was defended by Cantemir, who considered hyphenation as a means of “decorating” the verse. However, the transference borrowed from Latin satirists, as well as frequent inversions, made it difficult to understand the meaning and required additional clarification. Cantemir's satire verse also remained archaic and did not correspond to the new content. Only fragmentary news about Russian literary life reached Kantemir. Probably, while still in London, he received and read “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems,” published in 1735 in St. Petersburg, by V.K. Trediakovsky, who represented the first attempt to introduce the tonic system into Russian versification. The “new way” was not appreciated by Cantemir. The position taken by A. Cantemir in relation to Trediakovsky’s “Treatise” was partly explained by Cantemir’s isolation from the Russian literary environment and life. Russian responses to the reform of versification proposed by Trediakovsky, including a bold speech in defense of Lomonosov's tonic versification, in all likelihood remained unknown to Kantemir.

The reform of Russian versification proposed by Trediakovsky, rejected by Kantemir as a whole, however, raised before him the question of ordering his own verse. Cantemir's poems, written by him abroad, are constructed according to a new principle. Cantemir considered it such an important acquisition that he decided to rework all previously written satires in accordance with it.

In his “Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend,” which was a response to Trediakovsky’s “New Method,” Kantemir revealed great knowledge and great interest in issues of the theory of poetry. Kantemir acts in his reasoning as a supporter of the simplicity and clarity of the poetic word, thereby decisively breaking with the traditions of Russian syllabic versification of the 17th century. Cantemir attached great importance both in theory and in poetic practice to the sound side of verse, and it is no coincidence that in VIII satire he expressed his disgust at the “sterile sound” in verse, which obscures “the matter.”

Between the first and second (foreign) editions of Cantemir’s first five satires, there were also intermediate editions, testifying to the exceptional persistence that the author showed in improving the said satires. The revision pursued the goals of not only rhythmically ordering the satires, but also enhancing their artistic merits. Cantemir achieved this improvement by eliminating direct borrowings from Horace and Boileau and weakening the elements of imitation. By reworking the satires, Kantemir sought to give them a completely national Russian character.

Reworking his early satires in order to prepare them for publication, Cantemir in some cases removed rather sharp allusions to prominent dignitaries and clergy of the 30s, since these allusions, which had socio-political relevance for their time, in the 40s of the 18th century have lost their former meaning. Cantemir's first satires in their original edition were designed for their semi-legal, handwritten distribution, while the second edition of the satires assumed their publication and the associated inevitable passage through the “censorship” of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.

Being an adherent of the cause of Peter and a propagandist of his ideas, Cantemir makes Peter the hero of his poem “Petrida, or a poetic description of the death of Peter the Great,” but he wrote only one song. The poem remained unfinished. Cantemir himself realized that he was a born satirist, and never returned to the genre of poems.

The historical and literary significance of Kantemir primarily lies in the fact that he was the founder of the real-satirical movement in Russian literature. Realizing the significance of Kantemir’s activities, Belinsky begins the history of secular Russian literature of the 18th century with him: “...Russian poetry at its very beginning flowed, so to speak, in two channels parallel to each other, which the further, the more often they merged into one stream, diverging then again into two until in our time they formed one whole, a natural school.” And further: “In the person of Kantemir, Russian poetry discovered a desire for reality, life as it is, based its strength on fidelity to nature. In the person of Lomonosov, she discovered a desire for the ideal, understood herself as the oracle of a higher, loftier life, as a herald of everything high and great.”

Recognizing the legitimacy of the existence of both directions, Belinsky speaks out in favor of the movement led by Cantemir: “The manner in which Cantemir took up the matter affirms the advantage of truth and reality for the first direction.”

V.A. addressed the work of Kantemir before Belinsky. Zhukovsky, who published the article “On satire and satires of Cantemir” in the “Bulletin of Europe” in 1810, K.N. Batyushkov, who dedicated the article “Evening at Kantemir’s” to him, which reveals the deeply humane appearance of the writer, filled with faith in the future of Russia and the Russian people.

At the beginning of 1743, Antioch Cantemir made a new and final attempt to publish his satires. The manuscript he carefully prepared for this purpose included eight satires (five early ones, in revised form, and three written abroad). It is characteristic that the “ninth satire” was not included in the manuscript prepared for publication by Cantemir himself. It was first published by N. S. Tikhonravov in 1858.

In March 1743, taking advantage of the arrival in Paris of Efimovsky, who was associated with the Russian court, Cantemir sent through him M.L. Vorontsov received the manuscript of his satires, as well as manuscripts with translations of Anacreon's Songs and Justin's History. Kantemir had little confidence in the successful outcome of his plan and therefore, in a letter to Vorontsov dated March 24 (April 4), 1743, declaring his desire to see the satires published at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, he prudently asked in case of delay in publication “to allow Prince Nikita Yuryevich Trubetskoy to rewrite the book of my satires.” The writer pinned his last hope on Trubetskoy's friendly participation - hope for the handwritten distribution of his works.

Extreme circumstances forced Kantemir to make a clearly unrealistic attempt to publish satires in St. Petersburg. The stomach disease, which the writer began to suffer from in 1740, progressed, and the advice of the best Parisian doctors did not help matters. Every day, more and more losing hope for recovery, the writer was in a hurry to sum up the results of his literary activity.

Of the works of A. Cantemir, only the above-mentioned “Symphony on the Psalter” and the translation of “Conversations on the Many Worlds” by Fontenelle were published during his lifetime. Combined into one book, “A Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend on the Composition of Russian Poems” and a translation of the first ten “Epistle” of Horace were published by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1744, however, after the death of Kantemir and without his name on the book.

At the very beginning of 1744, on the advice of doctors, he tried to make a trip to Italy for the purpose of “a change of air” and in connection with this he addressed the Russian court with a corresponding petition. The permission came only on February 14, 1744. By the time he received it, the patient was so weak that he could not use it, especially since he was denied the funds necessary for his trip to Italy. But, even struck down by a fatal illness, Cantemir did not interrupt his scientific and literary studies. With the help of Guasco, he translates his satires into Italian and, contrary to the advice of doctors, intensively reads. During his lifetime, Cantemir never saw his satires published. He repeatedly made attempts to publish them in Russia, dreaming of seeing them printed in his homeland. But all his efforts were in vain.

Cantemir's satires were first published in 1749 in London. A prose translation into French was made by Cantemir's friend and first biographer, Abbé Guasco. In 1750 the publication was repeated, and in 1752 a translation into German was made from the London edition, and the satires were published in Berlin.

In his homeland, Cantemir’s satires were known in manuscripts (the first satire was especially widespread), and publication was undertaken only in 1762, 18 years after Cantemir’s death, as a result of the weakening of the church reaction that occurred after the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. It is characteristic that the republication of Cantemir’s satires encountered difficulties in the 19th century. The next publication of satires after 1762 was undertaken in 1836, and in 1851, the publication of Cantemir’s works required the permission of the king himself, who made the following decision: “In my opinion, there is no benefit in reprinting Cantemir’s works in any respect.”

The first scientific edition of the works, letters and selected translations of A.D. Kantemir, which included a number of previously unknown works by the writer, was prepared by P.A. Efremov and V.Ya. Stoyunin and published in two volumes in 1867-1868.

The satires of A. Cantemir contributed to the formation of realistic and satirical elements of the poetry of G.R. Derzhavina. Derzhavin expressed his attitude towards the work of the first Russian satirist poet in 1777 in the following inscription to his portrait:

The ancient style will not detract from its merits. Vice! don’t come closer: this gaze will sting you.

In Kantemir’s work, Derzhavin inherited not only his accusatory pathos, but also his “funny style”, the ability to combine satirical anger with humor turning into irony and a smile.

The legitimate successor to the best traditions of Cantemir's satire was Fonvizin. In denouncing the serf-like morals of the Russian nobility and in artistic generalization of Russian reality, Fonvizin made a significant step forward compared to Kantemir. Nevertheless, Fonvizin’s best works - the comedies “The Brigadier” and “The Minor” - are close to the work of Kantemir in general and in particular to his satire “On Education” both in its theme and problematics, and in its depiction techniques and features of its language.

Despite the lack of documentary data, there is reason to assume that in the formation of the worldview of the most outstanding representative of Russian revolutionary social thought of the 18th century, A. N. Radishchev, the work of Kantemir also played a significant role.

Cantemir’s satires did not lose their significance for the literary movement of the early 19th century. This is evidenced by reviews of V.A. Kantemir. Zhukovsky, K.F. Ryleeva, A.A. Bestuzheva, KN. Batyushkova, N.I. Gnedich and other writers.

The work of A. Kantemir was of great importance for the development of not only Russian poetry, but also prose. Magazines N.I. Novikova and Russian satirical journalism in general owed their development largely to the satire of A.D. Cantemira. We see admiring reviews of Cantemir from M.H. Muravyova, I.I. Dmitrieva, V.V. Kapnista, H.M. Karamzin and many other figures of Russian literature of the 18th century.

Kantemir's witty satire was appreciated by Griboyedov. In his depiction of the morals and life of old patriarchal Moscow, on the one hand, and in Chatsky’s accusatory speeches, on the other, Griboedov followed the traditions of Kantemir, who was the first to depict and expose the barbaric, mentally torpid, stubborn Moscow antiquity.

Cantemir's work attracted Pushkin's attention. In the article “On the insignificance of Russian literature” (1834), the great poet respectfully mentioned the name of the “son of the Moldavian ruler” A.D. Kantemir next to the name of the “son of the Kholmogory fisherman” M. V. Lomonosov.

Of all the Russian writers of the 19th century, perhaps the most attentive reader of Cantemir was Gogol. In 1836, he welcomed the publication of Cantemir’s works undertaken by D. Tolstoy, Esipov and Yazykov; in 1846, in the article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry,” Gogol emphasized the important role of Cantemir in the development of the satirical trend in Russian literature.

Studying the biography of A.D. Cantemir found himself in a situation even sadder than the publication of his works. Numerous materials characterizing the activities of A. Kantemir over the last 12 years of his life were in foreign archives that were inaccessible to researchers. Many materials of the same kind ended up in a variety of domestic archives and in the hands of private individuals. For many decades, the only source of information about the life of A.D. Cantemir had a biography of him, published in 1749 as an introduction to the publication of a French translation of Cantemir's satires and written by a close friend of the writer, Octavian Guasco. Scientific study of the biography of A.D. Cantemir arose only at the end of the last century (works by V.Ya. Stoyunin, I.I. Shimko, L.N. Maykov and V.N. Aleksandrenko).

Cantemir's satires have not lost their interest to this day. In each of them one can see the personality of Kantemir, a humane, intelligent man who captured in his works the morals and people of his time, a publicist and educator who fought through the power of a negative example for the enlightenment of Russia and for its future. And Belinsky was right, who in 1845 wrote that “from time to time, turning around old Cantemir and reading one of his satires is true bliss.”

On March 21 (April 1), Kantemir drew up a spiritual will, in which he disposed of his property and bequeathed to bury himself “in the Greek monastery in Moscow without any ceremony at night.”

An ardent patriot of his homeland, Kantemir died in Paris at the age of 35 and a half, having managed to fulfill only a small part of his life and literary plans, and was buried, according to his will, in the Moscow St. Nicholas Greek Monastery. After long delays, only in September 1745, through the efforts of his relatives and at their expense, the remains of Prince Cantemir were delivered to St. Petersburg and then to Moscow. Nowadays his burial place does not exist, since in the 30s of the 20th century the monastery was blown up, and no one bought his ashes (unlike the ashes of his father, Dimitri Cantemir, who was bought by the Romanian government in 1936).

During the time separating us from Cantemir, Russian literature has gone through a huge and rich path of development, producing a significant number of brilliant authors and outstanding talents who have received worldwide recognition and fame. Having played its historical role, the work of A. Kantemir, the writer who “was the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life,” lost over time the importance of a factor that directly shapes aesthetic tastes and literary consciousness. And, nevertheless, anyone who is interested in the history of the best traditions of Russian literature cannot pass by Cantemir’s work indifferently.

On February 13, 2004 in St. Petersburg, in the courtyard of the building of the Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, a bust of Cantemir, one of the nine first students of the Academic University, was unveiled as a gift to the city from Moldova. The words of V.G. were confirmed. Belinsky: Cantemir “with his poems erected a small, modest, but, nevertheless, immortal monument to himself.”

Antioch Cantemir is one of the heroes of the historical novel “Word and Deed” by Valentin Pikul.

In 2008, the following were released in Moldova:

Silver coin of Moldova with a minted portrait of Antioch Cantemir;

Postage stamp of Moldova with a portrait of Antioch Cantemir

cantemir literary satire diplomatic

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Belinsky V.G. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. (Series: V.G. Belinsky. Complete works), vol. 8, 1953.
2. Gershkovich Z.I. To the biography of A.D. Cantemira. XVIII century. Collection. Issue 3. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. M.; L., 1958.
3. Kantemir A.D. Collection of poems. Introductory article by F.Ya. Priymy. Preparation of text and notes by Z.I. Gershkovich./Poet's Library/. Second edition. L., "Soviet Writer", 1956
4. Lebedeva O.B. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. M.; "Higher School", 2003
5. Mineralov Yu.I. History of Russian literature of the 18th century. Higher school, 2007
6. Pigarev K.V., G.M. Friedlander. Cantemir. (History of world literature. - T. 5. - M., 1988.
7. Russian writers and poets. Brief biographical dictionary. Moscow, 2000.
8. Sementkovsky R.I. Antioch Cantemir. His life and literary activity. Biographical sketch of R.I. Sementkovsky. (ZhZL. Biographical Library of F. Pavlenkov) http// www.likebook.ru
9. Sukhareva O.V. Who was who in Russia from Peter I to Paul I, Moscow, 2005
10. Shikman A.P. Figures of Russian history. Biographical reference book. In 2 books. Moscow, Publishing house "AST-LTD" 1997
11. Electronic publications of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS

Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

The liberation of Russian culture from the tutelage and intervention of the church was one of the most important results of the transformative activities of Peter I. At the beginning of the 18th century, the names of writers began to appear in Russian literature one after another, neither by affiliation nor by their way of thinking connected with the clergy or the authority of the church. This list opens with the name of Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir, whose literary activity, in terms of its purposefulness and social significance, can be safely called a feat.

Antioch Cantemir acted as a convinced supporter and defender of the system of state life that was created by the transformations of Peter I, which brought the country out of centuries-old backwardness and, despite all their social limitations, had a deeply progressive character. The socio-political consciousness of A. Cantemir, sensitive to the contradictions of life, reflected the best acquisitions of social and political thought of the 18th century.

A.D. Kantemir lived in an era when the first foundations of the modern Russian literary language were just being laid; his satires were written according to the syllabic system of versification, which was already outlived at that time, and nevertheless the name of Cantemir, in the words of Belinsky, “has already outlived many ephemeral celebrities, both classical and romantic, and will still outlive many thousands of them,” as Cantemir “ the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life." (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 8. M., 1955, pp. 614 and 624.)

Antioch Cantemir was born on September 10, 1708 in the family of Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich Cantemir (1663-1723), who belonged to the highest Moldavian nobility: at the end of the 17th century, Antioch's grandfather, Constantin Cantemir, received Moldavia with the title of ruler from the Turkish Sultan.

Constantine's son, Dmitry Cantemir, the writer's father, spent his youth and early adulthood in Constantinople as a hostage; There he also received a brilliant education for his time: he spoke many European and Oriental languages, had extraordinary knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, architecture and music, had a penchant for scientific studies and left behind a number of scientific works in Latin, Moldavian (Romanian) and Russian languages.

The relations between the population of Moldova and the Russian and Ukrainian peoples have been friendly for centuries. Russian sympathies in Moldova were extremely strong not only among the common people, but also among the Moldavian nobility. These sympathies were reflected in the state activities of Prince Dmitry Cantemir, who received the title of Ruler of Moldavia in 1710, shortly after the death of his father. D. Cantemir, taking advantage of the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey, sought to free his country from the Turkish yoke and, pursuing this goal, entered into secret relations with Peter I; in 1711, as a result of the unsuccessful Prut campaign, D. Cantemir, together with his family, consisting of his wife and six children, was forced to permanently move to Russia.

At first, after moving to Russia, the Kantemir family lived in Kharkov, and then in the Kursk and Ukrainian estates granted to D. Kantemir by Peter I. In 1713, the old prince moved with his family to Moscow.

Of the four sons of D. Cantemir, the youngest, Antiochus, was distinguished by the greatest aspirations and abilities for education. An important role in the mental development of A.D. Kantemir belonged to the mentors of his childhood: Anastasius (Afanasy) Kondoidi and Ivan Ilyinsky.

Anastasius Kondoidi, despite his priestly rank, was a man of a secular lifestyle and interests. He taught the children of D. Cantemir ancient Greek, Latin, Italian languages and history. In 1719, by order of Peter I, Kondoidi was taken from the Kantemirov family to serve in the Theological College.

Much more important for the mental development of Antiochus Cantemir was Ivan Ilyinsky, who was educated at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. He was a good Latinist, as well as an expert in ancient Russian writing and language. In N. I. Novikov’s “Experience of a Dictionary of Russian Writers” it is also said that Ilyinsky “wrote many poems with different contents.” Ilyinsky taught young A. Kantemir the Russian language and writing. Biographers of Antioch Cantemir mention that he studied at the Zaikonospassky School, stipulating that neither the date of admission nor the length of A. Cantemir’s stay there are unknown. The systematic training of A. Cantemir at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy can be questioned, but his close ties with the academy, its mentors and students are quite real. It is known, for example, that in 1718, at the age of ten, Antiochus Cantemir publicly spoke at the said academy with a word of praise to Demetrius of Thessaloniki, which he pronounced in Greek. Antioch Cantemir probably also owed his connections to the Moscow Academy to Ivan Ilyinsky.

Moscow life at the beginning of the 18th century was full of the most striking contrasts and bright colors, the most bizarre combinations of obsolete forms of life with new ones. In the old capital one could often meet all kinds of zealots of long-lasting antiquity. The impressions of Moscow life left an indelible mark on the consciousness and creativity of A. Kantemir.

In 1719, at the invitation of the Tsar, D. Kantemir moved to St. Petersburg, and his whole family soon moved there after him.

In 1722, Dmitry Cantemir, a great expert on the life and way of life of eastern peoples and eastern languages, accompanies Peter I on the famous Persian campaign. Together with D. Cantemir, 14-year-old Antioch Cantemir also took part in this campaign.

Echoes of impressions from the Persian campaign, which lasted about a year, can be found in a number of works by A. Cantemir (the first edition of the III satire, written in French and dedicated to Madame d'Aiguillon madrigal and others).

In August 1723, on the way back from the Persian campaign, D. Cantemir died, and soon after that his entire family moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Antioch Cantemir, who was already drawing up plans for a different, completely independent life that corresponded to the ideal that had developed in his mind, also lived in Moscow and on his father’s estate near Moscow, Chernye Gryazi. In a petition written on May 25, 1724 addressed to Peter I, 16-year-old Antioch Cantemir listed the sciences for which he “had a great desire” (ancient and modern history, geography, jurisprudence, disciplines related to the “political state,” mathematical sciences and painting), and to study them he asked to be released to the “neighboring states.” This youthful statement of Antioch Cantemir fully reflected the strength of his character, his irresistible desire for education.

In connection with the implementation of the initial measures of Peter I to organize the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, Kantemir, however, has the opportunity to improve his education without traveling abroad. Antioch Cantemir studied with St. Petersburg academicians for a short period of time in 1724-1725. He takes mathematics lessons from Professor Bernoulli, physics from Bilfinger, history from Bayer, and history from Chr. Gross - moral philosophy.

Even before completing his studies at the Academy of Sciences, Antioch Cantemir entered military service, in the Preobrazhensky Life Guards Regiment. For three years, Cantemir served in the rank of lower rank and only in 1728 received the first officer rank - lieutenant.

The beginning of the literary activity of Antioch Cantemir also dates back to this period, which at first took place under the direct leadership of Ivan Ilyinsky. The first printed “work” of Antiochus Cantemir, “Symphony on the Psalter,” about which the author’s preface says that it “was composed as if by itself as a frequent exercise in sacred psalmody,” is a set of verses from the psalms of David, arranged in alphabetical thematic order . The “Symphony on the Psalter,” written in 1726 and published in 1727, is directly related to Cantemir’s poetic work, since for its time the Psalter was not only “God-inspired,” but also a poetic book.

"Symphony on the Psalter" is the first printed work of A. Cantemir, but not his first literary work in general, which is confirmed by the authorized manuscript of a little-known translation by Antiochus Cantemir entitled "Mr. Philosopher Constantine Manassis Synopsis Historical", dated 1725. (State Public Library named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Department of Manuscripts. Q. IV. 25.) Kantemir translated the Chronicle of Manasseh from the Latin text and only subsequently, turning to the Greek original, made minor corrections to his translation. The language of this translation is called by Cantemir “Slavic-Russian”, and the morphological and syntactic norms of the Church Slavonic language really dominate in the translation, which cannot be said about any of Cantemir’s other works. At the same time, even in this translation, elements of vernacular language, borrowings from foreign languages and neologisms are presented very widely, especially if we take into account the translations made by Cantemir in the margins of the manuscript of individual Slavicisms and foreign words found in the text. (For example, we give several such explanations made by L. D. Kantemir: treasure keeper - treasurer, elephants - elephants, ramo - shoulder, fabula - skask, trivun - leader, passage - journey, spectator - the one who looks, Navta is a navigator or sailor, Victoria is victory, a poor man is a potter, a tyrant is a torturer.)

In the “Translation of a Certain Italian Letter,” made by A. Cantemir only one year later (1726), the vernacular is no longer present in the form of random elements, but as the dominant norm, although the language of this translation was called by Cantemir, out of habit, “famous -Russian".

The rapid transition from Church Slavonic vocabulary, morphology and syntax to vernacular as the norm of literary speech, which can be traced in the earliest works of A. Cantemir, reflected the evolution of not only his individual language and style, but also the development of the linguistic consciousness of the era and the formation of Russian literary language as a whole.

The years 1726-1728 should include the work of A. Cantemir on poems on a love theme that have not reached us, about which he later wrote with some regret in the second edition of the IV satire.

During this period, Antioch Cantemir showed an increased interest in French literature, which is confirmed by the above-mentioned “Translation of a Certain Italian Letter” (The original of this translation was the following anonymous publication in French: Lettre d'un Silicien a un de ses amis. Contenant une agreable Critique de Paris et de Francois. Traduite de l "Italien. A. Chamberi, chez Pierre Maubal, Marchand Libraire prХs la Place. 1714.) and Cantemir’s notes in his 1728 calendar, from which we learn about the young writer’s acquaintance with French satirical magazines of the English type like "Le Mentor moderne", as well as with the work of Moliere ("The Misanthrope") and the comedies of Marivaux. (Two volumes of the edition "Le Spectateur francois" (nouvelle edition, vol. I--II), which Cantemir read in 1728, consisted exclusively of the works of Marivaux. They were printed there: L "avis de l" Imprimeur, L "indigent philosophe ou L" homme sans soucis, L"isle de la Raison ou Les petits hommes and other comedies by this author.)

In 1729, the poet began a period of creative maturity, when he quite consciously focused his attention almost exclusively on satire:

In a word, I want to grow old in satires,
But I can’t not write: I can’t stand it.
(IV satire, I ed.)

A new stage in the literary activity of Antioch Cantemir was prepared by the long and complex development of not only the aesthetic, but also the social consciousness of the poet. Kantemir’s acquaintance with the head of the “scientific squad” Feofan Prokopovich played a significant role in this development.

The heyday of Feofan Prokopovich’s preaching and journalistic activities, as well as his career (from a teacher of rhetoric at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy to the position of leading member of the Synod) coincides with the second half of the reign of Peter I. As an active associate of the tsar in the reform of the Russian church and, in particular, As the author of the “Spiritual Regulations”, which abolished the patriarchate, Feofan Prokopovich created a lot of enemies for himself in the circles of the clergy and reactionary nobility who clung to the old days. Manifested in hidden forms during the life of Peter I, hatred of the author of the “Spiritual Regulations” became almost open during the reign of Catherine I and Peter II, when, as a result of the onset of political reaction, Theophylact Lopatinsky, Georgy Dashkov and other persons began to rise in the church hierarchy and in the Synod. ready to settle their old scores with Feofan.

When Anna Ioannovna ascended the throne (1730), as the head of the “learned squad,” Feofan took an active part in the struggle against the leaders who sought to limit the autocratic power of the empress with the so-called “conditions.” Together with Theophanes, young Antioch Cantemir also took part in this struggle. With the accession of Anna Ioannovna, the threat of disgrace was removed from Feofan, but not completely destroyed. Numerous enemies continued to oppose Theophanes through denunciations and intrigues until his death.

Feofan Prokopovich also acted as an irreconcilable opponent of antiquity in his literary work. Among the literary and artistic works of Feofan are known: the tragic-comedy “Vladimir”, several “Conversations” written in the style of Lucian’s “Dialogues”, and many odes and small lyrical poems written in Russian, Latin and Polish.

A. Kantemir's personal acquaintance with Feofan dates back, apparently, to the beginning of 1730. Antioch Cantemir discovered excellent knowledge not only of the general tasks facing the “learned squad”, but also of the forces and individuals with whom it fought, already in his first satire. The positions put forward by the young satirist and their argumentation largely repeated the arguments and argumentation of Feofan’s speeches and sermons.

Cantemir's first satire, "On those who blaspheme the teaching" ("To your mind"), was a work of great political resonance, since it was directed against ignorance as a specific social and political force, and not an abstract vice; against ignorance “in an embroidered dress”, opposing the reforms of Peter I and the Enlightenment, against the teachings of Copernicus and printing; ignorance militant and triumphant; vested with the authority of state and church authorities.

Pride, laziness, wealth - wisdom has overcome,
Ignorance and knowledge have already taken root;
He is proud under his miter, he walks in an embroidered dress,
It judges the red cloth, manages the shelves.
Science is torn, trimmed in rags,
Of all the noblest houses, knocked down with a curse.

In his first satire, Cantemir attacks with particular strength and courage the representatives of the church reaction, since the latter tried to lead the struggle of the reactionary forces against the reforms of Peter I.

Contrary to the preface to the satire, in which the author tried to assure the reader that everything in it was “written for fun” and that he, the author, “did not imagine anyone as a particular person,” Cantemir’s first satire was directed against well-defined and “particular” individuals , - these were enemies of the cause of Peter and the “learned squad”. “The character of the bishop,” Kantemir wrote in one of the notes to the satire, “although described by an unknown person by the author, has many similarities with D***, who in external ceremonies appointed the entire high priesthood.” Making fun of a clergyman in satire, whose entire education is limited to mastering the “Stone of Faith” by Stefan Yavorsky, Cantemir unambiguously pointed to his own ideological position - a supporter of the “learned squad”. The images of churchmen created by Cantemir corresponded to very real prototypes, and yet these were generalization images, they excited minds, reactionary churchmen of new generations continued to recognize themselves in them, when the name of Antioch Cantemir became part of history and when the names of Georgy Dashkov and his associates were betrayed complete oblivion.

I Cantemir's satire immediately after its appearance became widespread in lists. There was no question of publishing it at that time, its content was so bold and politically acute. The spread of Cantemir's satire aroused the furious fury of the churchmen. So, for example, it is known that when V.K. Trediakovsky, who returned from abroad, read Cantemir’s first satire in a small circle of people, this was followed by a lengthy complaint to the Synod, written by Archimandrite Platon Malinovsky. (See I. Chistovich. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 384.) The reputation of a freethinker and an atheist that developed for the young V.K. Trediakovsky was largely determined, undoubtedly, by his enthusiastic attitude to Cantemir’s first satire. (See A. Malein. New data for the biography of V.K. Trediakovsky. Collection of articles in honor of Academician A.I. Sobolevsky. L., 1928, pp. 430--432.)

Russian satire arose long before A. Cantemir. A large number of satirical works were created by the poetic creativity of the Russian people. It was widespread in the writing of the Russian Middle Ages, especially in the literature of the democratic movement. Elements of satire, including satirical images of monks, can also be found in the works of Simeon of Polotsk and Feofan Prokopovich. Satire even penetrated into church moralizing literature.

Antioch Cantemir was certainly familiar with the satirical tradition of previous Russian literature, and it could not help but manifest itself in his own work. And at the same time, in the development of this tradition, A. Cantemir acted as a true innovator. Cantemir’s innovation was manifested both in the fact that he was the first to transfer to Russian soil the genre of poetic satire, which arose in ancient literature and from there, adopted by the literature of Western Europe, as a special type of didactic poetry, and in the fact that, relying on the experience and traditions of Russian literature, Cantemir raised it to a new level, made it a form of expression of the advanced ideas of its time.

Cantemir's second satire, “On the envy and pride of the evil nobles,” appeared around the beginning of 1730. Written in the form of a dialogue between Aretophilos, the exponent of the author’s ideas, and the Nobleman, who represented the views of the old noble reaction, this satire, according to Cantemir himself, aimed to “expose those nobles who, being deprived of all good morals, boast of nobility alone, and also envy everyone well-being in people who come from meanness through their labors." Peter I’s “Table of Ranks,” which infringed on the privileges of ancient boyar families and opened access to the nobility for people from other classes, was based on the recognition and affirmation of the right of personal merit. Cantemir also appears as a defender of the right of personal merit in satire II, but the content of his satire is not limited to this. With astonishing courage for his time, he rises above the concepts of genealogical honor and criticizes the “nobility” of origin from the point of view of the Enlightenment theory of “natural law.”

The nobleman of Cantemir's second satire is a powdered and dressed up metropolitan dandy, a descendant of an aristocratic family. A subtle connoisseur of court etiquette and at the same time a lover of card games and overseas wines, empty and arrogant, he demands for himself awards and honors for the antiquity of his family, for the withered parchment, and for which the merits of his ancestors are calculated.

In the words and in the questions that Aretophilos poses to the arrogant nobleman, the latter’s internal inconsistency is revealed.

Did you defeat your enemies? benefited the people?
Did Neptune's actions frighten the power - water?
Have you multiplied the royal treasures?
Having despised peace, did he himself take up the labors of war?

Aretophilos does not deny the usefulness of the noble class in general (“A noble breed is not an empty matter”), nevertheless, he acts as a convinced champion of the noble idea of the value of a person beyond the class.

Adam begat no princes, but only one child
His garden was being dug, another was herding a herd across the fields.

Cantemir foresaw the discontent that his satire was supposed to cause in the circles of the nobility, and also foresaw the question addressed to him about who allowed him to act as such a strict judge of the nobility. “To their last question,” Kantemir answered in the preface to the satire, “who made me a judge, I answer: that everything that I write, I write in the capacity of a citizen, discouraging everything that could be harmful to my fellow citizens.” . Before Kantemir, no one in Russian literature had expressed such bold judgments. This gave Belinsky the right, when analyzing the writer’s second satire, to declare that it expressed “sacred truths about human dignity.” (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 8 M., 1955, p. 624.)

In the events associated with the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna at the beginning of 1730, the “learned squad” acts as a political organization. The “conditions” proposed to the new autocrat on behalf of the leaders were signed by her in Mitau, before arriving in Moscow. However, by the time of this arrival, a fairly powerful opposition to the leaders had formed among the nobility, headed by Prince. A. M. Cherkassky. Behind the leaders stood the old aristocratic nobility, which opposed Peter’s reforms, while the opposition represented the interests of the new nobility.

The “scientific squad” also joined this opposition. On behalf of the nobility, A. Kantemir drew up a petition addressed to the empress. The petition was covered with numerous signatures of the nobility. As a lieutenant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, A. Kantemir took an active part in collecting signatures for a petition among guard officers. February 25, 1730, headed by Prince. By A. M. Cherkassky, the nobility appeared at a meeting of the Supreme Privy Council, where the petition drawn up by L. Kantemir was already read to the empress, after which the latter “deigned” to accept the “conditions” offered to her by the supreme leaders.<...>tear it up" and accept autocracy.

“The first sign of gratitude,” writes O. Guasco, “received by Prince Cantemir from the empress, was the grant of a thousand peasant households. She awarded this gift not only to A. Cantemir personally, but also his two brothers and sister, who had a very insignificant part of his father's inheritance. This manifestation of royal favor frightened the courtiers and especially Prince Golitsyn, father-in-law of Konstantin, the elder brother of Antiochus; Prince Golitsyn feared that the latter would take advantage of the Empress's favor to him in order to return the estates unjustly alienated from him. (In 1729 year, Konstantin Cantemir, taking advantage of the patronage of his father-in-law, Prince D. M. Golitsyn, received, contrary to the will of Prince D. K. Cantemir, almost his entire inheritance. - Ed.) They convinced the empress to send him to some foreign court as envoy. Looking only for a reason to reward A. Cantemir, she believed that this proposal came from pure motives. However, the extreme youth of Prince Cantemir was the reason for a certain indecisiveness on her part." (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XLI--XLIII.) The Empress finally agreed with the proposal to send A. Cantemir to London only after it received strong support from Biron.

So, unlike other persons who participated in the installation of Anna Ioannovna on the throne, Antioch Cantemir did not receive any personal awards from the new government. For almost two years since the accession of Anna Ioannovna, A. Cantemir continued to remain in the rank of lieutenant, which he received during the reign of Peter II, in 1728. A. Cantemir's claim dating back to 1731 to receive the post of president of the Academy of Sciences also remained unsatisfied. Some reasons hidden from the eyes of researchers prevented A. Kantemir from taking the social and official position that would correspond to his talents and education. The reason that gave rise to a suspicious attitude towards A. Cantemir in court circles could be his literary activity. This assumption is confirmed by the break in the writer’s satirical work that began in 1731 and lasted six years.

This assumption is also supported by the testimony of N.I. Novikov, who in “Trutn” for 1769 stated that in Rus' there were satirists stronger than him, “but even then they broke off their horns.” (See "Satirical magazines of N. I. Novikov. Editorial, introductory article and comments by P. N. Berkov. M. -L., 1951, pp. 71 and 527.)

In the last two years of his stay in Russia (1730-1731), despite personal failures, Antioch Cantemir devoted himself with great enthusiasm to scientific pursuits and literary creativity.

In 1730, he completed work on a translation of Fontenelle's Conversations on the Many Worlds, which was a popular exposition of Copernicus' heliocentric system.

The manuscript translation of Fontenelle's "Conversations on the Many Worlds" was submitted by A. Cantemir to the Academy of Sciences for printing in 1730. However, only 10 years later, in 1740, the book was published. (The significance that this book acquired in the development of Russian scientific and social thought of the 18th century can be judged by the case brought against it in 1756 by the clergyman M. P. Abramov, as against an atheistic “ungodly book” sowing “satanic deceit.” At the same time By decision of the Synod, Cantemir's translation was confiscated. In 1761, as a result of the weakening of the church reaction that occurred after the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Fontenelle's book, translated by A. Cantemir, was published a second time, and in 1802 a new, third edition followed.)

Among the poetic works during 1730-1731, not counting small poems, A. Cantemir wrote: the first (and only) song of the poem “Petrida”, as well as III, IV and V satires.

A special place among these satires belongs to satire IV (“To His Muse”); it is devoted to the presentation of the author’s aesthetic program and contains a number of autobiographical confessions. In terms of simplicity and naturalness of construction, clarity of language and sincerity of tone, this is one of Cantemir’s best satires. Satire is a kind of dialogue between the author and his muse. The author introduces the muse to a number of people who are dissatisfied with his satire: one of them accuses the satirist of atheism, another writes a denunciation against him for defamation of the clergy, the third is preparing to bring the satirist to justice for the fact that with his poems against drunkenness he allegedly belittles “circular incomes” . The author's position is hopeless:

And it’s better not to write for a century than to write satire,
Even she hates me, the creator, and repairs the world.

However, the satirist’s attempt to write odes and eclogues also does not lead to success, and it is followed by recognition of the author;

I can’t tidy up the rhymes, how I want to praise;
No matter how much I bite my nails and rub my sweaty forehead,
It’s hard to weave two verses, and even those are unripe...

Although my muse is a constant nuisance to everyone,
Rich, poor, cheerful, sorrowful - I will weave poetry.

The author is led to such a decision not so much by his natural inclination towards the comic, but by his firm conviction that art should depict real and not fictitious events. He refuses to write an eclogue dedicated to Iris, because Iris is not in life:

And wouldn’t I be funny if I didn’t know love?
I would like to look like Iris, sighing,
And Iris is fictitious - I haven’t seen it in my life;
However, it either burns or drowns in water,
And constantly say that I’m dying,
Even though I sleep, I eat a lot and drink a bucket a day.

I can’t praise in any way what is worthy of blasphemy, -
I give everyone a name that is appropriate;
Whether in the mouth or in the heart, I don’t know:
A pig is a pig, but I simply call a lion a lion.

Satire III "On the difference in human passions" and V ("On a person", later called "On human evils in general"), both in topic and content, have a number of similar features. If in satires I and II the vices of certain classes or social groups were ridiculed, then in satires III and V vices and passions as such, as passions in general, are ridiculed. For example, in Satire III there is a gallery of portraits dedicated to the depiction of people obsessed with various vices or passions: stinginess, extravagance, bigotry, etc.

Satires III and V, to a greater extent than other satires by A. Cantemir, reflected the influence of the rationalistic aesthetics of classicism with its division of people into good and bad, with its tendency to depict a person and his actions in their static state. However, something else is indicative: even here, following the examples of Boileau and La Bruyère, Cantemir strives to fill the borrowed compositional scheme with new content. For example, the image of the “war lover” from Satire V is deeply original.

The author's deep interest in the surrounding life and the “spite of the day” gives many of the images of the above-mentioned satires a very definite social and national content. This is the image of the loquacious landowner Grunnius in the III satire, and this is even more so the image of the serf complaining about his fate in the V satire.

The plowman, carrying the plow or counting the rent,
More than once he sighs, wiping away tears:
“Why didn’t the creator make me a soldier?
I wouldn’t wear a gray coat, but a rich dress,
If only he knew his gun and his corporal,
My foot would not stand on the right,
For me, my pig would just start pigging out,
I'd like milk from a cow, I'd run around smoking;
Otherwise everything goes to the clerk, the solicitor, the princess
Bring it to your respects, and fatten yourself on the chaff."
The exaction came, the plowman was registered as a soldier -
More than once he will remember the smoky chambers,
He curses his life in a green caftan,
Ten a day he will cry for a gray zhupan.

In the image of a peasant soldier, Cantemir’s creative individuality manifested itself with exceptional strength.

The above passage, both in content and in the manner of presentation, is not only the best place in the V satire, but also one of the best achievements in Cantemir’s work in general. The image of a serf peasant who became a soldier created by the writer opens up the peasant theme in Russian literature.

Kantemir was the first Russian writer to give a truthful and sympathetic portrayal of a serf peasant complaining about his difficult fate - and this is the writer’s unforgettable merit to Russian literature.

The appointment of Antiochus Cantemir to the post of Russian diplomatic representative ("resident") in London took place in November 1731.

On January 1, 1732, A. Cantemir left Russia and on March 30 of the same year arrived in London. Cantemir's diplomatic service, which began from that time, lasted over 12 years and was interrupted only with his death.

The main features of the foreign policy pursued by Russia throughout the 18th century were outlined by Peter I. Even during the life of Peter I, a coalition of powers hostile to Russia emerged in Western Europe, which included France, England and Prussia. During the years of A. Cantemir's diplomatic service, the anti-Russian policy of these powers, and especially France, was particularly active. France made strenuous efforts to create an anti-Russian bloc from the states bordering Russia: Sweden, Poland and Turkey. In the current international situation, Russian diplomacy was required to have special foresight and flexibility, and the ability to use the contradictions that existed between the Western powers. A. Cantemir, as a diplomat, fully possessed these qualities.

Cantemir makes a lot of efforts to establish normal diplomatic relations between England and Russia; he takes, although unsuccessfully, a number of steps to achieve an alliance between both countries during the struggle for the Polish throne in 1734; persistently strives for the recognition by the English government of the imperial title of Anna Ioannovna, rightly considering these efforts as a struggle to maintain the international prestige of the Russian state. In 1735, the Russian government informed its resident in London about the reprehensible behavior towards Russia of the English ambassador in Constantinople, Lord Kinul, and thanks to the energetic intervention of A. Cantemir in this matter, the English government was forced to condemn the behavior of its ambassador and recall him from his diplomatic post.

Great efforts were required from A. Cantemir by the need to refute various hostile and even simply slanderous information about Russia, which was systematically disseminated by the foreign press, as well as by various kinds of international adventurers who were in the service of Russia’s political enemies.

A. Cantemir's official duties were not limited to purely diplomatic activities. On behalf of the Russian government, he had to look for various specialists abroad, carry out various instructions from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, take care of Russian people sent abroad on various matters and left there without any funds or attention from the Russian government, carry out certain instructions from Russian dignitaries, etc.

Despite the huge number of official affairs, A. Cantemir does not stop his literary activity at this time. In London, Cantemir is working hard on translating Anacreon's Songs; he is also engaged there in translating Justin’s History, considering it as “an occasion to enrich our people with translations of ancient writers, Greek and Latin, who can best arouse in us a desire for science”; (See V. Druzhinin. Three unknown works of Prince Antiochus Cantemir. - "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1887, December, p. 4.) Cantemir also works there and on a translation of the popular scientific work "Conversations about light" by Italian writer Francesco Algarotti; reworks satires written in Russia, and in 1738 creates a new, VI satire.

During his stay in London, A. Cantemir mastered the English language and became well acquainted with English philosophical and social thought and literature. A. Cantemir's library contained a large number of books with the works of T. More, Newton, Locke, Hobbes, Milton, Pope, Swift, Addison, Style and other outstanding English philosophers, scientists and writers. (See V.N. Aleksandrenko. On the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. Warsaw, 1896, pp. 14-46.)

A. Cantemir’s acquaintance with the English historian N. Tyndale, who translated into English and in 1734 published in London “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir, indicates that A. Cantemir also had direct personal relationships with English scientists and writers connections that, unfortunately, have not yet been examined by our science.

In mid-1737, A. Cantemir received from his government an offer to enter into negotiations with the French ambassador in London Cambyses in order to restore diplomatic relations between Russia and France, interrupted due to the Polish War. As a result of the successful completion of these negotiations, A. Cantemir was granted the title of chamberlain by the Russian government and, with the degree of minister plenipotentiary, was appointed Russian envoy in Paris.

Cantemir arrived in Paris in September 1738. Even before assuming the post of Minister Plenipotentiary, Cantemir received instructions from the Russian court, in which he was instructed to “show special respect” to Cardinal de Fleury. A protege of the highest clergy, Cardinal de Fleury was the head of government under Louis XV and had much more power than the king himself. The growing influence of Russia on the politics of the northern countries was a cause of serious concern and fear for the all-powerful Cardinal de Fleury. The French government, through its envoy Marquis de Chétardy, played a diplomatic game with Princess Elizabeth Petrovna in St. Petersburg, hoping that with her accession French influence at the Russian court would increase; it openly intrigued against Russia in Sweden; supervised the secret negotiations of Sweden with Turkey, etc. And the reports and correspondence of A. Cantemir, in which a lot of space is given to Cardinal de Fleury and his right hand, Secretary of State Amelo, convince us that the Russian envoy in Paris was extremely The complexity and responsibility of his mission are clear, as well as the true cost of the courtesies of the cardinal and his “less than simple ministers.” Even on his walks through the streets of Paris, according to reports from French police agents, Cantemir often took with him a servant, who walked behind him and often looked back. (V.N. Aleksandrenko. Russian diplomatic agents in London in the 18th century, vol. 1. Warsaw, 1897, p. 371.)

In addition to difficulties of a foreign policy nature, the diplomatic activities of A. Cantemir also encountered a number of difficulties created by the Russian government and the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. A. I. Osterman, who was in charge of the affairs of the said board under Anna Ioannovna, denied A. Kantemir the most minimal means required by the Russian embassy in Paris to familiarize himself with the political state of Europe, to combat hostile information about Russia, etc. A.’s difficult financial situation. Kantemir did not change even after, with the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, Prince became in charge of the affairs of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. A. M. Cherkassky, nor after the death of the latter (1742), when management of the collegium passed into the hands of A. Bestuzhev.

A. Cantemir had deep respect for the best achievements of the French genius in the field of culture and literature. Long before his departure abroad, he studied French classics, practiced translations from French, and followed the development of French literature. “Upon arrival in Paris,” says Guasco, “he did not neglect anything that could bring him closer to the literary environment of the country.” (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), p. XC1.)

Cantemir had very close ties with the representative of the early French enlightenment Montesquieu, whose name was known to French readers at that time from his “Persian Letters,” a literary work that satirically depicted feudal-class France. It should be said that at the same time A. Kantemir made a translation of this work into Russian that has not reached us. Cantemir’s acquaintance with Montesquieu coincides with the period of work of the French thinker and writer on his famous treatise on jurisprudence “The Spirit of Laws,” published only in 1748, when A. Cantemir was no longer alive. A. Cantemir's close ties with Montesquieu are confirmed by a number of documents, including the direct participation of the great French educator in the posthumous publication of Cantemir's satires in French translation, carried out in 1749 in Paris by a group of French friends of the Russian writer. (See M.P. Alekseev. Montesquieu and Cantemir. - "Bulletin of Leningrad University", 1955, No. 6, pp. 55-78.)

In his communication with French scientists and writers, A. Kantemir not only listened to their opinions and adopted their experience, but also acted as an expert on the life, everyday life and history of Russia, a writer and propagandist of the best achievements of the culture of the Russian people. And it is no coincidence that Guasco called him “a zealous propagandist of the institutions of Peter the Great.” “We Russians,” Cantemir wrote about Peter I to Madame Montconsel, a French acquaintance of his, “having the happiness of being his subjects even for a short time, are incapable of doing anything less than honoring his memory for the fact that he rescued you from the shameful darkness and led him onto the path of glory." (L.N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 71.) Kantemir used his acquaintance with the Parisian artists Subeyran and Willem A. to make an engraved portrait of Peter I, so that it “to be multiplied in foreign lands to the surprise of nations.” (See Archive of Prince Vorontsov, vol. 1. M., 1870, p. 385. and also: V. Stasov. Gallery of Peter the Great in the Imperial Public Library. St. Petersburg, 1903, § 241. p. 227.)

To familiarize the Western European public with Russia and the growing Russian culture, Antioch Cantemir spared neither effort nor money. Among the activities that pursued this goal should also be included the publication of the French translation of the “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir. The plan for this publication, as can be seen from the correspondence of A. Cantemir, arose from him already in 1736, during his first trip to Paris. "History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir was published in French in Jonquière's translation only in 1743. (See Histoire de l'Empire Othoman, ou se voyent les causes de son aggrandissment et de sa decadence avec les notes tres instructives. Par S. a. S. Demetrius Cantemir, prince de Moldavie. Traduite en Francois par M. de Joncquieres A Paris, 1743, vls. I--II.) A. Cantemir was not only the initiator of the publication of this book, but also the author of the biography of D. Cantemir attached to it, and also, probably, in many cases, the author of its comments, far exceeding the commentary of the English edition of the book. "History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir in French translation went through two editions and became widespread in French academic circles of the 18th century. Suffice it to say that Denis Diderot's "Encyclopedia", recommending to its readers only two works on history Turkey, named “History of the Ottoman Empire” by D. Cantemir as one of them.

"History of the Ottoman Empire" by D. Cantemir was well known to Voltaire. In 1751, in the preface to the second edition of the History of Charles XII, speaking disparagingly about the Greek and “Latin” historians who created a false image of Mohammed II, Voltaire wrote: “Hundreds of historians repeat their pitiful fables; European dictionaries repeat them. Turn to the deserving trust the Turkish chronicles collected by Prince Cantemir, and you will see how ridiculous all these fictions are." (Oeuvres completes de Voltaire. Nouvelle edition... Paris, Garnier-freres, 1880, t. 16, p. 127.) Voltaire quotes D. Cantemir’s work on the Ottoman Empire three times, also in “Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations.” It is also curious that Voltaire’s initial interest in the said book by D. Cantemir arose in 1739, i.e. at a time when there was no French translation yet. Voltaire's letter to Antiochus Cantemir dated March 13, 1739, as well as a number of other data convince us that D. Cantemir's "History of the Ottoman Empire" was used by Voltaire when he wrote the tragedy "Mohammed" in 1739.

Antioch Cantemir's stay in France had a strong impact on the development of the Russian theme in French literature. In this regard, the connections of the Russian writer-educator with the French playwright Pierre Morand (1701-1757), the author of the tragedy "Menshikov", are indicative.

The history of the creation of this tragedy is revealed in a letter from P. Moran to A. Cantemir dated January 13, 1739. (State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Collection of autographs of P.P. Dubrovsky, vol. 139, pp. 159--160.) The tragedy "Menshikov" was written, staged on the stage of one of the Parisian theaters and published in 1739 in The Hague with the direct participation of A. Cantemir.

"Menshikov" marked the beginning of the heroic interpretation of the image of Peter I in French literature and drama. Under the strong influence of this play, the tragedy “Amilka, or Peter the Great” by Dora and a number of other works of French literature of the 18th century were written in 1767, inheriting from P. Moran’s play the interpretation of Peter I as an “enlightened monarch.”

In a letter from P. Moran to A. Cantemir dated January 13, 1739, Luigi Riccoboni is mentioned as a person well known to the addressee.

The famous Italian artist Luigi Riccoboni (1677-1753) headed the Italian Comedy Theater in Paris for many years (1716-1729). Brought up in the traditions of the national "commedia dell'arte", L. Riccoboni's troupe upon arrival in Paris became close to the life of the French theater and over time began to play in French. The Riccoboni theater contrasted the French classic tragedy with a special acting technique based on the art of gesture and facial expressions and a new repertoire that represented the everyday life of the middle classes of society.Riccoboni's troupe created, in particular, wide popularity for Marivaux's comedies, which prepared the ground for the emergence of educational drama.

In the 30s of the 18th century, Luigi Riccoboni created a number of works on the history of theater ("Historical and critical discussions on various theaters in Europe", "History of the Italian theater", etc.), which became widely known and had, in particular, a noticeable impact on aesthetic the views of young Lessing. In 1742, Riccoboni completed work on a new book, On the Reform of the Theater, which was published in French in Paris in 1743. The author decided to dedicate this work, apparently on the advice of A. Cantemir, to the Russian Empress. The dedication written by L. Riccoboni was sent by A. Cantemir on June 20 (July 1), 1742 through Lestock to the Russian court. (L. N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A. D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 176.)

The dedication was a project for establishing a theater in Russia on the principles outlined in the book. It is natural to assume, therefore, that A. Cantemir, who took part in the publication of Riccoboni’s book and so persistently sought the consent of the Russian Empress to print this dedication project, largely shared the theatrical views of Luigi Riccoboni.

L. Riccoboni's project of theatrical reform anticipated the famous "Letter to d'Alembert on Spectacles" (1758) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as the dramatic theories of Diderot, Mercier and Retief de la Breton. The project contained a bold criticism of the French aristocratic theater with positions of the third estate, which opposed the effete and immoral art of the nobility. “The theater,” Riccoboni proclaimed, “should instill an aversion to vice and develop a taste for virtue in those people who do not go to any other school than the theater, and who, without the instructions they received there, throughout their entire life they would not have known about their shortcomings and would not have thought at all about eradicating them." (Louis Riccoboni. De la Reformation du theater. Paris, 1743, p. 100.)

Antioch Cantemir also had friendly relations with the French playwright Pierre-Claude Nivelle de la Chausse (1692-1754). (See M.P. Alekseev. Montesquieu and Cantemir. - "Bulletin of Leningrad University", 1955, No. 6, p. 74.) It is important to note that the founder of the French "tearful" comedy Nivelle de la Chausse, also like L. Riccoboni, he paved the way for a new, third-class theater.

The role of mediator in relations between the St. Petersburg and Paris Academies of Sciences, which Antioch Cantemir voluntarily took upon himself, contributed to the emergence of his connections with the Parisian scientific community. Cantemir's ties were especially close with the French mathematician and naturalist Pierre-Louis Maupertuis. Kantemir also had acquaintances in Parisian aristocratic circles. However, the culture of salons, high society and the court, as Cantemir’s correspondence shows, not only did not attract him, but even burdened him.

His official position obliged A. Cantemir to participate in secular and court life, but he felt real inner affection only for a small circle of his Parisian friends who thought the same way as him or perceived art in the same way.

Despite his deep connections with world culture and his long stay outside his homeland, A. Cantemir, as a writer and educator, did not dissolve in the foreign cultural element. A. Cantemir devoted almost all his leisure time and free time to the study of Russian literature, in which he saw his civic duty. From a satirist's letter to Chr. Gross dated May 1 (12), 1740 shows how persistently Cantemir sought the publication of his works in Russia, but his intention did not meet with support in the official spheres. As a precaution, the writer was forced to repeatedly declare that he was “only allowed to spend extra hours on literary work.” The tragedy of a writer forcibly deprived of communication with his readers, which Cantemir experienced, found vivid expression in his poem “To His Poems” (1743). In order to continue his poetic work even in such difficult conditions, it was necessary not only to feel an inextricable connection with Russian culture, but also to have an unshakable faith in its great destiny.

Only fragmentary news about Russian literary life reached Kantemir. Probably, while still in London, he received and read “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems” by V. K. Trediakovsky, published in 1735 in St. Petersburg, which represented the first attempt to introduce the tonic system into Russian versification. The “new method” was not appreciated and accepted by Kantemir, and this was explained primarily by the fact that Trediakovsky’s attempt was theoretically contradictory and inconsistent, and in practical terms, cumbersome and helpless. Trediakovsky extended the correct alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables only to “long” poems, written only in trochees. The author of “The New Method” himself could not appreciate all the advantages of the new system of versification, and for many years after its discovery, he continued to use the rules of syllabic versification in his own poetic practice. The position taken by A. Cantemir in relation to Trediakovsky’s “Treatise” was partly explained by Cantemir’s isolation from the Russian literary environment and life. Russian responses to the reform of versification proposed by Trediakovsky, including a bold speech in defense of Lomonosov's tonic versification, in all likelihood remained unknown to Kantemir.

The reform of Russian versification proposed by Trediakovsky, rejected by Kantemir as a whole, however, raised before him the question of ordering his own verse. Agreeing with Trediakovsky that the organizing role in versification belongs to stress. Cantemir introduces into his thirteen-syllable syllabic verse with stress on the penultimate syllable a new obligatory stress, which falls on the seventh or fifth syllable. The introduction of this principle really imparted a certain elasticity and rhythmicity to the sluggish thirteen-syllable syllabic verse. Cantemir's poems, written abroad, are built on this principle. Cantemir considered it such an important acquisition that he decided to rework all previously written satires in accordance with it. The extent to which the writer managed to tone up the syllabic verse can be seen at least by the example of the first and second editions of the initial verses of satire II (cf. pp. 89 and 378). (Both page references here and below refer to this edition.)

If verses of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 9th editions of the first edition had only one stress on the penultimate syllable, then in the second edition, like verses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, they receive the second stress is in the first hemistich (on the 5th and 7th syllables), and as a result the entire passage received a rather harmonious rhythmic structure of a thirteen-syllable syllabic verse with an obligatory caesura after the seventh syllable.

In his “Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend,” which was a response to Trediakovsky’s “New Method,” Kantemir revealed great knowledge and great interest in questions of the theory of poetry. His theoretical thought was by no means limited to the recognition of thirteen-syllable syllabic verse as the only possible one and allowed for 14 different verse meters. Kantemir acts in his reasoning as a supporter of the simplicity and clarity of the poetic word, thereby decisively breaking with the traditions of Russian syllabic versification of the 17th century. He defends the transfer of the verse to the next line, rightly seeing in the latter a means of counteracting the “unpleasant monotony” of a long syllabic thirteen syllable. Cantemir attached great importance both in theory and in poetic practice to the sound side of verse, and it is no coincidence that in VIII satire he expressed his disgust at the “sterile sound” in verse, which obscures the “deed.” The recognition of the importance of the rhythmic ordering of syllabic verse contained in the “Letter of Khariton Mackentin” was a significant step forward in comparison with the previous poetic work of Cantemir, but it, of course, could not be a step forward in the history of Russian versification, enriched by that time with the theoretical works and poetic experiments of Trediakovsky and Lomonosov.

Between the first and second (foreign) editions of Kantemir’s first five satires, there were also intermediate editions (See about this the article by T. M. Glagoleva “Materials for the complete works of Prince A. D. Kantemir.” (News of the Department of Russian Language and literature of the Academy of Sciences", 1906, vol. 11, book I, pp. 177-217). The point of view of T. M. Glagoleva was developed and clarified by Z. I. Gershkovich.) testifying to the exceptional tenacity that the author showed in improving the said satires. The revision pursued the goals of not only the rhythmic ordering of the satires, but also increasing their artistic merits. Kantemir achieved this improvement by eliminating direct borrowings from Horace and Boileau and weakening the elements of imitation. By processing the satires, Kantemir sought to give them a completely national Russian character. Thus , for example, the figure of Cato, atypical for Russian life, who publishes books not for the general benefit, but for his own glorification, is not included in the revision of the third satire into its second edition; at the same time, in the second edition of the third satire, an unusually colorful figure of Archimandrite Varlaam appears, a saint and sensualist, to whom

When at a party, at the table - and the meat is disgusting,
And he doesn’t want to drink wine; Yes, it’s not surprising:
At home I ate a whole capon, and for fat and lard
It became necessary to wash down bottles of Hungarian.
He feels sorry for the people who perished in lusts,
But he eagerly stares from under his forehead at round breasts,
And I would order my wife to meet with him.
Besperech advises anger to leave
And forget the annoyances, but seek to erase them into dust
A secret enemy will not give you peace even after death.

The portrait of Varlaam, in which Kantemir created an image of great generalizing power and at the same time depicted a real person (the confessor of Empress Anna Ioannovna), as well as a number of other portraits, allusions and author’s declarations contained in the second edition of Kantemir’s first five satires, give us the right to strongly object to the assertion that during the Parisian period of Cantemir’s life “there was an undoubted decline in the level of his political thought.” (L. V. Pumpyansky. Kantemir ("History of Russian Literature", published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 3. M--L., 1941).) While processing his early satires in order to prepare them for publication, Kantemir in some cases filmed rather sharp allusions to prominent dignitaries and clergy of the 30s, since these allusions, which had socio-political relevance for their time, lost their former meaning in the 40s of the 18th century. In some very rare cases, Kantemir had to introduce similar changes for censorship reasons. Cantemir's first satires in their original edition were designed for their semi-legal, handwritten distribution, while the second edition of the satires assumed their publication and the associated inevitable passage through the “censorship” of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.

To characterize the relationship between the first edition of Cantemir's early satires and their second edition, the satire V ("On a Person"), which underwent the first revision in 1737, a year before Cantemir's departure from London to Paris, is indicative. In 1742, the satire underwent additional revision, and thus, we have the right to call its second edition the edition of 1737-1742.

In the second edition, the satire increased by 284 verses, that is, more than one and a half times. From the original text of the satire, no more than 200 verses were included in the second edition, the rest were replaced. In the second edition, satire received a dialogical form and a new name (“Satyr and Perierg”). In the first edition of V, the satire was mostly imitative and consisted of character portraits, many of which were very distantly related to Russian life. At first glance, the beginning of the fifth satire and in the second edition, consisting of a dialogue between Satyr and Perierge, dedicated to the educational praise of patriarchal morals and criticism of urban civilization, is abstract in nature; however, the main content of the satire is painted in a purely Russian, national flavor. The image of a triumphant rogue-kisser, a bigot and a hypocrite, deceiving the people and surrounded by a crowd of bribe-takers from the administration, and a city whose population, celebrating the day of “St. Nicholas”, indulges in general drunkenness, is perceived as a political pamphlet on the Russian reality of that time. The same kind of pamphlet is the description of two ignorant and power-hungry royal dignitaries, Chiron and Xenon.

The image of the temporary worker - the “moron” Makar, towering above the other, minor characters of the satire, is also thoroughly lampooned. Being “fit only to chop wood or carry water,” he instantly ascended to the royal throne and just as instantly “slipped on slippery ice” and was forced to live out the rest of his life “between the sables,” that is, in Siberian exile. The image of a temporary idiot is worth many of the political hints of the first satire, since the author sought to give this image a general meaning: the temporary worker Makar is no exception to the rule, for his predecessor was the same fool and scoundrel, who “made the whole people angry”; Those who hasten to seize his place are no better than him.

The paintings and characters listed above are absent in the first edition of the V satire. The second edition of the said satire surpasses its initial edition both ideologically and artistically. True, even in the second edition of the satire, Kantemir failed to rise to the level of criticism of the foundations of the socio-political system of the then Russia. The disgusting figure of the idiot temporary worker, on the one hand, and the sympathetically drawn image of the peasant plowman wandering behind the plow, on the other, are not given in their mutual social conditioning, although they noticeably rise above the level of Russian everyday satire of the 18th century.

Already in Cantemir’s V satire we find a contrast between raging human passions and the “silence” of life. (In its rudimentary form, the glorification of “silence” and life spent surrounded by “dead friends” - books, is found in Cantemir already in the first edition of the first satire (verses 111-114).) The sixth satire is almost entirely devoted to the praise of this “silence”. writer "On True Bliss" (1738). The ideal of “contentment with little” depicted in this satire by Kantemir, limiting one’s desires and retreating into the field of ancient culture and modern science, bourgeois-liberal critics of the last century A.D. Galakhov and S.S. Dudyshkin explained the writer’s social indifference, his reluctance to respond to requests Russian life. (“Domestic Notes”, 1848, No. 11, department V, pp. 1-40, and “Contemporary”, 1848, No. 11, department III, pp. 1-40.) This false opinion about Cantemir received since then it has been most widely used in the literature. Meanwhile, it was during the Parisian period of his life that A. Cantemir worked with particular persistence to familiarize French public opinion with Russia and the Russian people, together with L. Riccoboni he showed interest in the establishment of a democratic theater in Russia, and was engaged in translation activities for educational purposes (translations of “Persian letters" of Montesquieu, "Epistle" of Horace, "Moral Teachings" of Epictetus), is compiling a Russian-French dictionary, preparing to write an essay on the history of Russia, etc. Thus, the immersion of Antiochus Cantemir into "silence" was accompanied by an intensification of his social activities. At the same time, the poetic declaration of satire VI is quite logical, since sentiments consonant with it also appear in the second edition of satire I and in other works of the writer, indicating some real change in his socio-political views. The “silence” and “golden moderation” proclaimed by the writer-enlightenment were for Kantemir only a unique form of protest against the oppressive conditions of Russian life, the only, in the writer’s opinion, a means of getting rid of the Ostermans and Cherkasskys, from personal involvement in the intrigues and politics of the Russian court.

The desire for “silence” and solitude expressed in satire VI and other works of Cantemir can be correctly understood if we also consider it in relation to the social and aesthetic ideas of representatives of the Western European Enlightenment. The theory of curbing passions as a means to achieve the common good and the idealization of patriarchal social relations and the life of a private person free from state interference - in one form or another we find in Locke and Shaftesbury, in Voltaire and Rousseau and, in particular, in L. Riccoboni and Nivelles de la Chausse.

In satire VI, Cantemir not only dreams of “silence,” but at the same time criticizes aristocratic morality, the world of wealth and rank, court intrigue and groveling. Cantemir here depicts a dignitary close to the royal person, exhausted from honors and wealth. The dignitary dies from intrigues portrayed as an integral part of court life.

We also find criticism of aristocratic morality in satire VII (On Education, 1739), which echoes the advanced pedagogical ideas of the time, and especially Locke’s treatise on education.

The main thing of education is that
So that the heart, having driven out passions, matures
To establish good morals so that through this it will be useful
Your son was kind to his fatherland and kind to people
And it is always desirable - that’s why all sciences
Everyone must give their hands to the end and art.

The satire “On Education” was a response to the fundamental needs of Russian reality: about the pedagogical ideas presented in the satire, even a hundred years after its creation, Belinsky wrote that they were “rather new than old.”

Cantemir's VIII satire (1739) also contains elements of social criticism, although, in comparison with I, II, III, V and VII satires, its coverage of Russian reality is much narrower. VIII satire is called “On shameless impudence,” but it does not ridicule vices in general, but “impudence” that harms society, manifested in the abuse of power and acquisitiveness. Like satires IV and VI, VIII, the satire is also of interest for the characterization it contains of Cantemir’s own moods and views. (In addition to the eight satires mentioned above, there is also the so-called “ninth satire” by Cantemir. Historians of Russian literature know only three lists of the “ninth satire”. It is characteristic that in the book of satires prepared in 1743 for publication by Cantemir himself, the “ninth satire "was not included. It was first published by N. S. Tikhonravov in 1858.)

So, the social activity of Antioch Cantemir did not weaken during the period of his life abroad. Not only did he not weaken or decline, but his seeking educational thought was also enriched by new life experience and communication with the advanced ideas of Western Europe.

At the beginning of 1743, Antioch Cantemir made a new and final attempt to publish his satires. The manuscript he carefully prepared for this purpose included eight satires (five early ones, in revised form, and three written abroad). In March 1743, taking advantage of the arrival in Paris of Efimovsky, who was associated with the Russian court, Kantemir sent through him to M. L. Vorontsov the manuscript of his satires, as well as manuscripts with translations of Anacreon's Songs and Justin's History. Kantemir had little confidence in the successful outcome of his plan and therefore, in a letter to Vorontsov dated March 24 (April 4), 1743, declaring his desire to see the satires published at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, he prudently asked in case of delay in publication “to allow the prince Nikita Yuryevich Trubetskoy to rewrite the book of my satires." (Archive of Prince Vorontsov, vol. 1. M., 1870, p. 359.) The writer pinned his last hope on Trubetskoy’s friendly participation - hope for the handwritten distribution of his works.

At the very beginning of 1744, on the advice of doctors, he tried to make a trip to Italy for the purpose of “a change of air” and, in connection with this, addressed a corresponding petition to the Russian court. The permission came only on February 14, 1744. By the time he received it, the patient was so weak that he could not use it, especially since he was denied the funds necessary for his trip to Italy. But, even struck down by a fatal illness, Cantemir did not interrupt his scientific and literary studies. With the help of Guasco, he translates his satires into Italian and, contrary to the advice of doctors, intensively reads. On March 21 (April 1), Kantemir drew up a spiritual will, in which he disposed of his property and bequeathed to bury himself “in the Greek monastery in Moscow without any ceremony at night.”

Antioch Cantemir died on March 31 (April 11), 1744 at the age of 35 and a half years, having managed to implement only a small part of his life and literary plans.

A. Cantemir's satires were first published in London in 1749 in a prose translation into French by O. Guasco. Only in 1762, 18 years after the death of Kantemir, as a result of the weakening of the church reaction that followed the death of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, did a Russian edition of Kantemir’s satires appear; from then on they were not reprinted until 1836. Even in the 19th century, almost every attempt to reprint Cantemir’s satires met stubborn resistance from the tsarist censorship. (For example, in 1851, representatives of the censorship drew the attention of the highest authorities to the “sarcasms against the clergy” contained in Kantemir’s satires, and the question of the publication of the works of the first Russian satirist, undertaken that year by the heirs of A. Smirdin, was referred to the consideration of the tsar himself, who issued the following decision: “In my opinion, there is no benefit in reprinting Cantemir’s works in any respect” (TsGIAL, File of the Main Directorate of Censorship for 1851, No. 2647 (14896) l. 60).)

The first scientific edition of the works, letters and selected translations of A. D. Kantemir, which included a number of previously unknown works by the writer, was prepared by P. A. Efremov and V. Ya. Stoyunin and published in two volumes in 1867-1868.

Studying the biography of A. D. Kantemir turned out to be in an even sadder situation than bringing his works to light. Numerous materials characterizing the activities of A. Kantemir over the last 12 years of his life were in foreign archives that were inaccessible to researchers. Many materials of the same kind ended up in a variety of domestic archives and in the hands of private individuals. For many decades, the only source of information about the life of A.D. Cantemir was his biography, published in 1749 as an introduction to the publication of the French translation of Cantemir’s satires and written by the writer’s close acquaintance Octavian Guasco. The scientific study of the biography of A. D. Kantemir arose only at the end of the last century (works by V. Ya. Stoyunin, I. I. Shimko, L. N. Maykov and V. N. Aleksandrenko).

Poor documentation of the life of A.D. Kantemir still constitutes a serious obstacle in studying the main problems of the writer’s worldview and creativity, in clarifying his philosophical and socio-political views in particular. Even the best work devoted to elucidating these problems - the chapter on Cantemir in G. V. Plekhanov's History of Russian Social Thought - is not free from serious errors. So, for example, Plekhanov did not find anything significant in the philosophical views of A. Cantemir, and in his “Letters on Nature and Man” (1742) he saw only “an attempt to defend religious beliefs, which then began to fluctuate greatly in the West under the influence of Enlightenment philosophy.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M--L., 1925, p. 83.) Meanwhile, religious beliefs did not occupy in the minds of A. Cantemir the place and role that Octavian Guasco attributed to them, and after behind him are many other researchers of the satirical writer. In fact, the named philosophical treatise by Cantemir was an expression of precisely the philosophy that undermined religious beliefs. The views expressed by Cantemir in “Letters on Nature and Man” had much in common with Cartesian rationalism and deism, which tried to reconcile religion with science. It is also important to note that, recognizing God as the root cause of the world, Cantemir in his proofs appealed to the authority of Virgil and Cicero, and not the Holy Scriptures, and, as a supporter of rationalism, recognized the existence of an objective world and scientific methods of knowing it. The philosophy of deism, of which Antioch Cantemir was a supporter, under the dominance of the feudal-church worldview, according to K. Marx’s definition, was one of the forms of “getting rid of religion.” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, second edition, vol. 2. M, 1955, p. 144.)

In Letters on Nature and Man, Antiochus Cantemir argued against the atomistic theory of Epicurus, and yet it can be argued that Cantemir's attitude towards Epicurus and other representatives of philosophical materialism was very contradictory. This is evidenced by Cantemir’s increased attention to Lucretius, whose treatise “On the Nature of Things” is presented in A. Cantemir’s library in three different editions. Having received news from his friend Madame Montconsel that Cardinal Polignac was working on the composition of his Anti-Lucretius, Cantemir wrote to her on May 25, 1738 from London: “... as far as I can judge, Anti-Lucretius is a work as much learned as it is attractive, just like the book it criticizes.” (L. N. Maikov. Materials for the biography of Prince A. D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 105.)

In Satire III, Cantemir placed a portrait of the “damned atheist” Klites. It is important to note that when reworking this satire in 1742-1743, the writer threw out both the named portrait and the note relating to it.

It is possible that the passages in the first edition of the III satire directed against Epicurus and the “atheists” were dictated by Cantemir for tactical reasons. Cantemir’s first satire, as is known, brought upon him suspicion of atheism, and therefore, dedicating the third satire to Feofan Prokopovich, who was also suspected of unbelief, Cantemir was forced, out of precaution, to dissociate himself from the “blasphemers of the faith.” Antiochus Cantemir, already in his first satires, acted as an opponent of clericalism and religious dogmatism and continued to remain so until the end of his life. Two months before his death, having learned from a letter from Sister Maria about her desire to become a nun, Cantemir wrote to her: “I diligently ask you to never mention the monastery and your tonsure, I greatly abhor the Chernetsov and will never tolerate you have entered into such a vile rank, or if you do something contrary to my will, then I will never see you again.” (I. I. Shimko. New data on the biography of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir and his closest relatives. St. Petersburg, 1891, p. 130.)

In the promotion of the heliocentric system of Copernicus and the protection of positive sciences from the interference and encroachments of clergy, in Cantemir’s desire to study the “reasons of actions and things” (see satire VI), materialistic elements appeared in the philosophical consciousness of A. Cantemir, the development of which, conditioned by the historical situation and circumstances The personal life of the writer-thinker did not, however, go beyond the boundaries of Enlightenment deism.

We cannot agree with G.V. Plekhanov that “the Western enlightenment dear to Kantemir did not cast a shadow of doubt in his soul regarding the legality of the serfdom of the peasants. This dependence seemed to him something completely natural.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M. -L., 1925, p. 80.)

The problem of “nobility” and “meanness”, those in power and the people worried Cantemir from the very beginning of his literary activity. Already in the first satire (1st ed., verses 75-76) Kantemir contrasts the “vile” with the “noble”, and his sympathy is on the side of the former... (The words vile, meanness, which arose in the Russian language in the 16th century, were used at first to contrast the words noble, nobility, and did not at that time have the abusive meaning that they received later. Cantemir also uses this word in this ancient meaning. So, for example, in the notes to satire II, the satirist writes about “people who, through their labors they come from meanness to a noble degree" (p. 77). Both in this and in many other cases, the words vile and meanness in Cantemir’s work denoted purely social, and not moral categories and concepts.)

In satire II, “benefit to the people” is regarded as the highest dignity of a statesman (1st ed., verses 123–126) and, conversely, a nobleman who indifferently looks at the “misfortunes of the people” is ridiculed (1st ed., verses 167–168 ). In the same satire, the author glorifies the “plow” as the origin of all ranks and all classes (1st edition, verses 300-309). The notes to the same satire mention the works of Puffendorf, which contain, according to Cantemir, “the foundation of natural law.”

In the third satire, the actions of Cato and Narcisus are condemned because they are not committed “for the benefit of the people” (1st ed., verses 211-212 and 225-228). The satirist also recalls the people in the portrait of the clerk, who “strives even from the bare skin” (1st ed., verse 342).

In satire V, Cantemir not only mentions the people (portrait of a “war-lover” exterminating peoples, 1st ed., verses 133-140, the image of a “poor barefoot”, 1st ed., verse 236), but also shows the people in the image of a plowman and soldier

Satire V also gives a description, amazing in its expressiveness and brevity, of the anti-people essence of feudal legal proceedings:

How many orphans have died, how many widows are melting away
While the solicitors and the clerk are compiling the extract.
(1st ed., verses 183--184)

The theme of the people, posed at the very beginning of Cantemir’s literary activity, receives its further development in his subsequent work. In the early satires of the writer, the people are often either an abstract concept devoid of concrete outlines, or a concept perceived through the prism of ancient Russian moralizing literature (“the poor,” “the poor,” etc.). In the second edition of early satires and in satires written abroad, the concept of people is filled with more specific social content.

In the first edition of the first satire on "natural law" there was a timid remark in the footnote. In the second edition of this satire, Cantemir publicly declares the existence of “civil statutes,” “natural law,” and “people’s rights” in the very text of the satire (verses 151-152).

The socio-political provisions of the second satire also receive greater clarity in the second edition.

Same thing in free
And the blood flows in the slaves, the same flesh, the same bones.
The letters attached to our names are anger
Ours can't cover...
(verses 108--111)

Plowman and nobleman
Equal in court, and truth alone is superior...
(verses 272--273)

Stone soul,
You beat a slave until he bleeds...
(verses 289--290)

The term "slave", meaning serf, was absent in the first edition of the second satire. In the first edition of II there was no satire and such angry invective as this:

It doesn’t do much good to call you the king’s son,
If you are in morals with the vile, you will not differ from the hounds.
(verses 101--102)

Talking about his meeting with Cantemir on the day France entered the War of the Austrian Succession (1741), Guasco reports: “I met him returning from the theater, where he had seen several ministers.” “I don’t understand,” he said in connection with this “How can you calmly go to the theater after signing a decision on the death of hundreds of thousands of people.” (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XCVI1I-XCIX.) As this shows memory, the problem of the position and well-being of the people, “hundreds of thousands of people,” was one of the most important problems in the socio-political consciousness of Antioch Cantemir.

Antioch Cantemir lived in the West during a period when the contradictions of the feudal system, manifesting themselves in all areas of life, gave rise to the ideology of the unprivileged classes, the Enlightenment movement. The issues that the progressive thought of Europe was working to resolve could not fail to attract the attention of Antioch Cantemir. Kantemir had to observe in the West more developed forms of social struggle than in Russia. Kantemir’s stay in the West could not but affect the writer’s understanding of the problem of the people and mass popular movements. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the library of A. Cantemir contains a significant number of books devoted to the English revolution of 1648, the struggle of the Netherlands for independence, as well as various kinds of uprisings and coups, from the Cola di Rienzi conspiracy to palace coups in Hungary and Persia. It is also curious that in Cantemir’s library, from the books of his beloved poet John Milton, there were not only his works of art, but also the famous “Defense of the English People” (1651), which proclaimed the people the only legitimate bearer of sovereign power.

During his stay in France, Cantemir repeatedly observed manifestations of dissatisfaction of the popular masses with the regime of French absolutism. So, for example, in a dispatch to the Russian court dated June 18 (29), 1741, Cantemir reported that “in Lunéville at the end of last week there was confusion among the people, who, feeling a lack of bread, ran to the royal court, threatening to set it on fire.” that King Stanislav Leszczynski, who owned the Duchy of Lorraine and chose Lunéville as his residence, despite the fact that the unrest that arose was soon suppressed, was forced to hastily leave the city. (State Public Library named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Archive of V. Ya. Stoyunin, No. 33, sheet 20 vol.)

Impressions of this kind shaped Cantemir’s public consciousness. Commenting in his translation of Horace’s “Epistle” on the passage in which the Roman author depicted a crowd excited by a theatrical spectacle and ready to engage in a fight, Cantemir wrote: “The people do not tolerate resistance: when they demand a bear, you need to show them the bear, otherwise you yourself will become a bear, forgetting all respect for the highest" (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 534). (Works, letters and selected translations of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir, edited by P. A. Efremov, volumes 1 and 2. St. Petersburg, 1867--1868. Hereinafter abbreviated: “ed. Efremov.”)

In his understanding of “natural law,” the Russian writer did not reach the idea of universal equality. This extreme conclusion from the theory of “natural law,” however, was not made by that time by the overwhelming majority of Western European enlighteners. The loud voice that was raised by Cantemir in defense of the slave who was being beaten to the point of blood was a kind of call for “mercy for the fallen,” and not an expression of anti-serfdom ideology. But this voice of Kantemir, like his work in general, prepared the social thought of Russia for the perception of anti-serfdom ideas.

It is also impossible to agree with the statement of G.V. Plekhanov that A. Cantemir was a convinced supporter of an unlimited monarchy and that “in his correspondence, sympathy for freedom is completely invisible.” (G.V. Plekhanov. Works, vol. 21. M. - L., 1925, pp. 97 and 99.)

Indeed, in the correspondence and works of both early and late Cantemir we encounter an idealization of the personality of Peter I. However, this king, from the point of view of the writer, was an exceptional phenomenon and corresponding to the image of an “enlightened” monarch, an attempt to depict which we find in the fable of the young Cantemira "Queen Bee and Snake" (1730). In the activities of Peter I, Kantemir saw an expression not of narrow class or noble interests, but of national and popular interests.

Faith in the “enlightened” monarch should also explain the active participation that A. Cantemir took in 1730 in establishing the absolutism of Anna Ioannovna. Nevertheless, even in this period, along with faith in the “enlightened” monarch, one can find in Cantemir an understanding of the dangers that the monarchical form of government posed for the common good. So, for example, one of Cantemir’s notes to satire I in its first edition (1729), filled with irony, sounds like a clear attack against absolutism: “The French king, instead of all the arguments, ends his decrees like this: Nous voulons et nous ordonnons, car tel est notre plaisir , i.e.: we want and command, because it pleases us" (p. 504).

Having observed the despotism and arbitrariness of Peter I's mediocre successors for a number of years, having witnessed firsthand the anti-people policy of French absolutism and having thoroughly studied the Enlightenment theories of government, Antiochus Cantemir subsequently could not have the same confidence in the theory of "enlightened" absolutism. At the same time, his assessment of the events of 1730, in which he participated on the side of the nobility, also changed. “Prince Cantemir,” says Octavian Guasco, “was one of the supporters of the party that resolutely opposed Dolgoruky’s plans; this does not mean that he was a supporter of despotism: “he had great respect for the precious remnants of freedom among people not to know the advantages of the proposed state's system; but he believed that in the current situation it was necessary to maintain the established order. Nourse. MDCCL), pp. XXXII--XXXIII.)

Guasco enclosed the words in italics in this quotation in quotation marks as belonging to Antiochus Cantemir. The expression “remains of freedom among people” sheds some light on the Enlightenment theory of the origin and role of the state in general, shared by Cantemir.

In his “Letters on Russia,” Francesco Algarotti reported that Cantemir called freedom “a heavenly goddess who ... makes the deserts and rocks of those countries where she deigns to dwell pleasant and smiling.” (Opere del conte Algarotti. In Livorno, 1764, t. V (Viaggi in Russia), p. 48.)

The given examples allow us to say that the political views of A. Cantemir did not remain unchanged; they reflected both the process of internal development of the writer-thinker and the movement of advanced social thought of the era.

Contrary to Plekhanov’s assertion, Antioch Cantemir condemned despotism and dreamed of political freedom, but the underdevelopment of economic, cultural and political conditions of Russian life prevented the freedom-loving dreams of the enlightenment writer from forming into a coherent system of political views.

Disappointment with the idea of "enlightened absolutism" was the real reason for Cantemir's desire to leave the diplomatic service. Acting as a private individual who put forward various educational plans, such as the project for organizing a folk theater in Russia, developed in 1742 together with L. Riccoboni, or repeated attempts to publish his own works and translations, “the most loyal slave Antiochus Cantemir” was forced to turn to the empress for assistance , since in such cooperation with the autocracy he saw the only opportunity to be useful to his homeland and his people. But even with all its contradictions, inconsistency and incompleteness, the political views of A. Cantemir stood on the same level with the best examples of socio-political thought of Western European enlighteners.

The founder of Russian secular literature, Antioch Cantemir was at the same time the first representative of classicism in Russian literature. Being an excellent expert and connoisseur of ancient classics, the satirist attached great importance to translating them into Russian in order to enrich the latter. Cantemir was also well acquainted with the works of French classicism of the 18th century; at the beginning of his literary activity, the young writer, following the poetics of classicism, tries to create works not only in the low (satire), but in the high (poem, ode) genre.

Cantemir could not help but experience the strong influence of classicism as the dominant style of the era. Many significant aspects of the work of the Russian satirist go back to the aesthetics of classicism. The very genre of poetic satire, so valued and extolled by Cantemir, was formed and acquired broad rights in literature during the period of undivided dominance of the aesthetics of classicism in it. Emerging under the conditions of the transformations of Peter I, Russian classicism acquired a number of specific features, a clearly expressed social orientation and journalistic character. The largest representatives of Russian classicism of the 18th century (Kantemir, Lomonosov, Sumarokov, Derzhavin) paid tribute to aesthetic dogmatism to a much lesser extent than their Western European counterparts. Thus, the civic pathos and educational tendencies of Kantemir’s work reflected not only the personal characteristics of the satirist’s talent, but also the national characteristics of Russian classicism as a whole. At the same time, even within the framework of Russian classicism, the work of Antioch Cantemir is a uniquely original phenomenon. Among the representatives of Russian classicism it is difficult to find such indifference, or even just a negative-skeptical attitude towards the class regulation of forms and genres developed by the aesthetics of classicism, which we find in Kantemir.

It is no coincidence that Kantemir’s attempt at creativity in a high genre did not yield positive results. The work he began on the poem “Petrida”, which he began in 1730, was interrupted at the very beginning; conceived in an odic plan, his “Speech to the Empress Anna” (1740), as well as a similar poem “To Elizabeth I, Autocrat of All Russia” (1742), turned into a kind of reasoning that the genre of ode is completely alien to the inclinations and capabilities of the author; Let us note by the way that Kantemir dwelled on this feature of his talent in detail already in the first edition of the IV satire. Kantemir also expressed his negative attitude towards high genres in the notes to the translation of Horace’s “Epistle” (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 417), where he compares tragedies, the style of which is “pompous and inflated,” with “a bubble, that we blow up straw in the water." In “Letter from Khariton Mackentin to a Friend,” Cantemir considered it necessary to point out that the style of tragedy, just like the style of satire and fable, should “approach a simple conversation.” Cantemir’s negative attitude towards high, “aristocratic” genres is also evidenced by his participation in the publication of the book “On the Reform of the Theater” by L. Riccoboni.

Brought to life by the era of Peter I, the work of Antioch Cantemir reflected the struggle of new beginnings with barbaric antiquity, its prejudices and superstitions. Being innovative in its content, it was at the same time organically connected with the centuries-old culture of the Russian people, inheriting in it the most healthy elements, free from scholasticism and clericalism. The traditions of previous Russian literature were well known to A. Kantemir. He was familiar not only with ancient Russian lexicons, chroniclers and hagiographic literature, but also with various types of Russian handwritten stories. Kantemir knew, as proven in recent works, such genres of Russian literature as school drama, interlude and interlude (D. D. Blagoy. Antioch Kantemir. “Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences.” Department of Literature and Language. 1944, vol. 3 , issue 4, pp. 121--131.) with their timid attempts to plausibly depict Russian life and Russian types: sneaky clerk, merchant, schismatic, etc. Kantemir was also familiar with the work of such his predecessors and contemporaries as Dimitry Rostovsky, Simeon Polotsky, Feofan Prokopovich and others.

Of particular interest to us is A. Kantemir’s acquaintance with Russian folk poetry. We learn about this acquaintance from Kantemir himself from his note to the translation of the First Epistle of Horace, where the translator cited a rather large excerpt of a folk historical song about the marriage of Ivan the Terrible to Maria Temryukovna, as well as from the poem “To His Poems” (1743), in which Cantemir mentions a handwritten translated story about Bova the Prince, written under the strong influence of Russian folk tales, and a handwritten satirical story about Ersha Ershovich, the son of Shchetinnikov. The theme of the last tale - judicial chicanery and bribery - also occupies a prominent place in the work of Cantemir himself.

A. Kantemir was also aware of Ukrainian folk poetry. Blind bandura players often performed Ukrainian folk songs in the prince’s house. D.K. Kantemir in St. Petersburg. Berchholtz talks about the performance of one of these blind bandura players in 1721 in the house of D.K. Cantemir in his memoirs. (Diary of a chamber cadet F.V. Berkhgolts. Translation by I.F. Ammon. Part 1. M., 1902, p. 70.)

A. Kantemir was inclined to view the folk song about Ivan the Terrible as “an invention of our common people,” as the fruit of the “naked movement of nature” in the peasants (p. 496), and the stories about Bova and Ruff as “contemptuous handwritten stories” (p. 220). But how accurately do these definitions reflect A. Cantemir’s true attitude towards folk poetry?

Both the old church-book tradition and the new secular literature treated the creativity of the people with contempt, and A. Cantemir had to pay tribute to this traditional attitude towards folk poetry. And yet, the writer felt the closeness of his own creativity to the poetic creativity of the people. Cantemir wrote in the preface to his satires that satire originates from “rude and almost rustic jokes” (p. 442). In the notes to the translation of Horace Cantemir’s “Epistle,” he also pointed out that comedy at the beginning of its development “was as rude and vile as the essence of our village games” and that it originated from the “free and stingy” Fesceninian verses” (ed. Efremova, vol. 1, p. 529). But Kantemir recognized for the named “village games” not only their, so to speak, historical significance, but also their objective value. “Although those poems,” Kantemir continued his reasoning, “were They were rude and abusive, but they only spoke for fun and did not annoy them, and for this reason Horace says that the Fesceninian liberty joked pleasantly between them.”

So, Cantemir condemned the “village games” for their rudeness and at the same time understood that there was a family connection between them, on the one hand, and comedy and satire, including his own satire, on the other. Kantemir therefore had reason in his “Speech to Empress Anna” to call the satirist’s “rank” “vile” and his own style “vilest” (p. 268).

Thus, Kantemir’s true attitude towards folk poetry cannot be deduced from individual remarks of the writer, which reflected the generally accepted point of view. If Cantemir’s attitude towards folklore was deliberately negative, then the writer would not take credit for the fact that he “always wrote in a simple and almost folk style” (p. 269). Kantemir remembered the historical folk song about Ivan the Terrible, heard in his youth, all his life and called it “quite noticeable,” and in the poem “To His Poems,” he expressed confidence that the folk stories about Bova and Ersha would be “in one bundle of retinue” with his own satires. These confessions indicate a much more complex attitude towards folk poetry than its simple denial. The world of folk poetry was familiar to Kantemir, although the extent of this familiarity is not well known to us. Willingly or unwittingly, Kantemir sometimes had to measure literary phenomena by the criteria of folk poetry and poetics. In this regard, one of Cantemir’s notes to his translation of Anacreon’s Songs is characteristic. Commenting on the expression “Atrides to sing,” Kantemir writes: “In Greek it is: “To say Atrides, which among the Greeks and Latins means the same as to sing Atrides, since they use the word in a high syllable for singing” (ed. Efremov, vol. 1, p. 343). The fact that Kantemir selects the word say as an equivalent for the word sing indicates the writer’s familiarity with the use of this word in its special meaning, to express a solemn, fabulous manner of speech. But Kantemir probably was familiar not only with the special "folklore" meaning of the word say, but also with various types of folk tales. It is also characteristic that in the translation of Anacreon's poem "I want to sing the Atrides" Kantemir translates the word "heroes" with the word "bogatyri", although in the Russian language of that time the word "heroes" already existed. This word was applied by Anacreon to the heroes of the Homeric epic, and the fact that in his translation Cantemir selects a word associated with the Russian folk epic speaks of the translator's high appreciation of the latter.

From the very beginning, Cantemir's literary activity is characterized by close proximity to the living sources of the folk word. Kantemir’s focus on vernacular language was quite conscious. The fact that he “expelled” Church Slavonicisms and foreign words from the Russian literary language, thereby proving that the Russian language is “rich enough in itself,” says Octavian Guasco, who certainly borrowed this judgment from Cantemir himself. (O. Gouasso. Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir (Satyres du Prince Cantemir. Traduites du Russe en Francois, avec l "histoire de sa vie. A. Londres, chez Jean Nourse. MDCCL), pp. LVI--LVII.) Latitude The democratization of the Russian literary language, outlined by Kantemir, was unparalleled: it opened access to the literary language to almost all words and expressions of common speech, starting with such words as inde, vish, in, nanedni, trozhdi, okolesnaya and ending with vulgarisms (“from the mouth stinks of a bitch ", "diarrhea cut", "stolenchak", etc.).

Kantemir boldly drew from the spoken folk language the simplest types of folk art, apt words and expressions, proverbs and sayings. Cantemir's library contained a book of Italian proverbs published in 1611 in Venice, a fact indicating the writer's conscious use of proverbs as a means of enhancing the expressiveness of speech. In the notes to the second satire, it is no coincidence that Kantemir calls the proverb “Arrogance only belongs to horses” “a smart Russian proverb.”

Kantemir gives particular preference to the satirical proverb and ironic saying: “Like a pig, the bridle does not stick” (p. 76); “helps like a censer for the devil” (p. 374); “to sculpt peas into the wall” (p. 58); “sew up your throat” (p. 96), etc.

Kantemir also borrows from the vernacular proverbs that reflect the moral concepts of the people: “Whoever has the impudence to beat everyone often lives beaten” (p. 110); “If everything is true, then you will carry around with your bag” (p. 389), etc.

The apt expressions and words directed against the clergy, generously scattered in Cantemir’s satires, are also borrowed from popular speech: “Cover your head with a hood, cover your belly with a beard” (p. 60); “Cassocks alone do not make a monk” (p. 110); “Like a priest from a funeral to a fat dinner” (p. 113); “A spacious table that is difficult for a priest’s family to eat” (p. 129); “Prayers that the priest grumbles, rushing madly” (p. 126), etc. It is possible that some of the proverbs of this group were borrowed by Cantemir from folk tales about priests.

Cantemir’s creative talent was manifested with great force in the mastery of portrait characteristics, in the relief and visual palpability of the depicted. Images of a “pot-bellied clerk on single-track roads,” a priest “muttering extravagantly,” an archbishop in a carriage, bloated with obesity and conceit, belching Luke, a “new inhabitant of the world” - a baby who stares at everything with a sensitive ear, a keen eye, and many , many others are shown with great power of artistic expressiveness, in all the originality of their individual characteristics.

Cantemir appears in his satires as a master of vivid typical detail. The image of old people

Who remember the pestilence in Moscow and, like this year,
Chigirinsky's deeds will tell the story of the campaign,

the author devotes only four verses in satire VII and they contain an exceptionally rich characterization of the image. Just as sparingly and expressively, through detail illuminating the essence of what is depicted, are given the portrait of a dressed and pomaded dandy, opening his snuff-box with special tenderness, in the first satire, and the portrait of the servant Cleitus in the second satire, which

He did not spare his back, bowing to the flies,
Who is allowed access to temporary workers' ears.

Portrait of an official-petitioner in satire VI, who willingly took upon himself the responsibility of pleasing his “virtue” in every possible way and constantly flattering him

And in the middle of winter, see him off, without a hat, in a sleigh,

the image of Trophimus (satire III), sitting at Titus’s table at dinner, “licking his fingers”, the image of the miser (satire III), whose “sheets are rotting on his bed”, the image of the insolent Irkan, who, finding himself in the crowd,

It will push everyone away, like a sailing ship cuts through the water,

just like many other images also gain the power of their expressiveness through the use of the technique of characteristic detail.

A master of precise detail and vivid portraiture, Cantemir does not display the same strength of skill in depicting the inner world of his heroes and their interaction with the social environment. The realistic elements of Cantemir’s satire, due to the conditions of the time, could not rise to realism as a system of artistic thinking, as a method of artistic creativity, and at the same time, not limiting themselves to mere external resemblance to nature, they moved towards this method. “The power of naked truth” (p. 216), which the satirist admired, acted as a kind of call to fight against social vices and evil. Kantemir's educational desire to “reach the root of the truth” (ed. Efremov, vol. 2, p. 25) contributed to the reflection of the objective laws of life in his work. Despite all the historical limitations and imperfections of his artistic method, Antiochus Cantemir, even within the one genre he chose, managed to depict Russian life with such a breadth of coverage and with such a power of generalization of its individual aspects that the Russian literature that preceded the writer did not know. The long gallery of portraits, created by Cantemir as a result of a deep study of life, served for subsequent Russian writers as a vivid and instructive example of social satire. Kantemir’s work marked the beginning of an accusatory trend in Russian literature. This meaning of the satirist was well understood by Belinsky, who believed that only “the monotony of his chosen genre,” the lack of development of the Russian language at the beginning of the 18th century and the obsolescence of syllabic verse “prevented Kantemir from being a model and legislator in Russian poetry.” (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 10. M. 1956, p. 289.)

The first edition of Cantemir's satires in Russian was preceded by more than thirty years of their handwritten existence. During this time, they became widespread among readers and, especially, writers in Russia. M. V. Lomonosov stated back in 1748 that “the satires of Prince Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir were accepted with general approval among the Russian people.” (P. Pekarsky. History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1873, p. 133.) There are good reasons to believe that Lomonosov took a prominent part in the publication of Kantemir’s satires in 1762. In this regard, it will be useful to point out that the order for the publication of Cantemir’s satires, sent on February 27, 1762 from the academic office to the printing house, was signed by M. Lomonosov and Y. Shtelin. (Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Fund 3, inventory 1, No. 473, l. 38.)

The obsolescence of Kantemir's versification did not prevent Lomonosov from seeing a living and necessary literary heritage in his satires. Love for the homeland and faith in its great future, defense of the reforms of Peter I, the pathos of scientific creativity and discoveries, educational plans aimed at the “common good”, the fight against bigotry and clericalism - all these features and properties of A. Cantemir’s personality and creativity were are in tune with Lomonosov. Lomonosov's satirical creativity was influenced by Cantemir's satires.

Kantemir had a powerful influence on Russian literature of the 18th century and especially on its accusatory direction, of which he was the founder. Even in the work of Sumarokov, who called Kantemir’s satires “verses that no one can read,” we find traces of their influence. When Sumarokov in his “Epistole on Poetry” called on the satirical writer to portray a soulless clerk and ignorant judge, a frivolous dandy and gambler, proud and stingy, etc., then in this entire list of names, not excluding the Latin scholar, there was not a single name , which would be absent from the repertoire of satirical types of Antiochus Cantemir.

The satires of A. Kantemir contributed to the formation of realistic and satirical elements of the poetry of G. R. Derzhavin. Derzhavin expressed his attitude towards the work of the first Russian satirist poet in 1777 in the following inscription to his portrait:

The ancient style will not detract from its merits.
Vice! don’t come closer: this gaze will sting you.

In Kantemir’s work, Derzhavin inherited not only his accusatory pathos, but also his “funny style”, the ability to combine satirical anger with humor turning into irony and a smile.

The work of A. Kantemir was of great importance for the development of not only Russian poetry, but also prose. The magazines of N. I. Novikov and Russian satirical journalism in general owed their development largely to the satire of A. D. Kantemir. We find admiring reviews of Cantemir from M. N. Muravyov, I. I. Dmitriev, V. V. Kapnist, N. M. Karamzin and many other figures of Russian literature of the 18th century.

The legitimate successor to the best traditions of Cantemir's satire was Fonvizin. In denouncing the serf-like morals of the Russian nobility and in artistic generalization of Russian reality, Fonvizin made a significant step forward compared to Kantemir. Nevertheless, Fonvizin's best works - the comedies "The Brigadier" and "The Minor" - are close to the work of Kantemir in general and in particular to his satire "On Education" both in its theme and problematics, and in its depiction techniques and features of its language.

The significance of the literary heritage of A. D. Kantemir for Russian progressive social thought and the liberation movement of the 18th century is clearly confirmed by the example of the activities of F. V. Krechetov, a political freethinker and prisoner of the Shlisselburg fortress. In the magazine “Not everything and not anything” (1786, sheet six), F. V. Krechetov brought out a satirical writer who, in a dispute with Satan, expressing the author’s thoughts, referred to the worthy example of Antioch Cantemir: “And in Rossy there is satire, which began with Prince Cantemir to this day." (New edition “Not everything and nothing.” Magazine 1786. Text with a foreword by E. A. Lyatsky. Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University for 1898.) Despite the lack of documentary data, there is reason to assume that in the formation of the worldview of the most outstanding representative of Russian revolutionary social thought of the 18th century, A. N. Radishchev, Kantemir’s creativity also played a significant role.

Cantemir’s satires did not lose their significance for the literary movement of the early 19th century. This is evidenced by reviews of Cantemir by V. A. Zhukovsky, K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, K. N. Batyushkov, N. I. Gnedich and other writers.

Cantemir's work attracted Pushkin's attention. In the article “On the insignificance of Russian literature” (1834), the great poet respectfully mentioned the name of the “son of the Moldavian ruler” A.D. Cantemir next to the name of the “son of the Kholmogory fisherman” M.V. Lomonosov.

Of all the Russian writers of the 19th century, perhaps the most attentive reader of Cantemir was Gogol. In 1836, he welcomed the publication of Cantemir’s works undertaken by D. Tolstoy, Esipov and Yazykov; In 1846, in the article “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry,” Gogol emphasized the important role of Cantemir in the development of the satirical trend in Russian literature. (N.V. Gogol. Complete works, vol. 8. M., 1952, pp. 198-199 and 395.)

Literary historians have already noted that Gogol’s “visible laughter through tears invisible to the world” is close in nature to Cantemir’s laughter, the essence of which was defined by him in the following words: “I laugh in poetry, but in my heart I cry for the evil ones.” Belinsky saw the threads of continuity running from Cantemir through the 18th century to Russian literature of the 19th century and, in particular, to Gogol. The great critic wrote about the first Russian satirist as a distant predecessor of Gogol and the natural school in his 1847 article “Response to the Moskvitian.” In the last years of his life, in the midst of the struggle for a real direction in Russian literature, the critic repeatedly returned to the name and example of Kantemir. In the article “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847,” written a few months before his death, Belinsky emphasized with particular force the vitality of the line outlined in Russian literature by Kantemir. (V. G. Belinsky. Complete works, vol. 10. M., 1956, pp. 289--290.)

During the time separating us from Cantemir, Russian literature has gone through a rich path of development, producing a significant number of brilliant creators and outstanding talents who have created artistic values of lasting significance and received worldwide recognition and fame. Having fulfilled its historical role, the work of A. Kantemir, the writer who “was the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life,” lost over time the importance of a factor that directly shapes aesthetic tastes and literary consciousness. And yet, the inquisitive and thoughtful reader of our days will find in the work of the first Russian satirist, even in rudimentary and imperfect forms, the expression of many noble feelings, ideas and concepts that excited and inspired all the outstanding Russian writers of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Anyone interested in the history of the best traditions of Russian literature cannot pass by Cantemir’s work indifferently. To the builders of a new, socialist culture, the name of Antioch Cantemir, a tireless seeker of the “root of the very truth,” a citizen writer and educator who made a huge contribution to the development of Russian literature and laid the first foundations for the international fame of the Russian literary word, is near and dear to us.

Antioch Cantemir and the development of the Russian literary language Veselitsky Vladimir Vladimirovich

Diplomat - scientist - writer

Kantemir's views were formed under the strong influence of transformations in the state, social and cultural life of Russia in Peter's time. And the writer’s biography is closely connected with this era. Cantemir lived a short (less than 35 years), but bright and meaningful life; he left a significant literary legacy. The writer's grandfather Konstantin Cantemir was a famous military leader who later became the ruler (“sovereign”) of Moldavia, which was under Turkish rule. Father - Dmitry Cantemir (1674–1723) also took the post of ruler in 1710. In an effort to free his homeland from the oppression of the sultans, Dmitry entered into an agreement with Peter I during the Russian-Turkish War of 1711. However, the Russian army near the Prut River then found itself in a difficult situation and was forced to retreat. Dmitry Cantemir left with her along with his family and a large number of followers. In Russia, Cantemir was well received, appointed senator, Peter I used his advice. In 1722–1723 Kantemir accompanied the king on the Persian campaign and died on the way back from the campaign. In Peter’s notebook there is a review: “This ruler is a very intelligent man and capable of giving advice.”

Antiochus's father was not only a statesman, but also the author of a number of works on history, philosophy, and art. He spoke many languages and was a member of the then famous Berlin Academy . His large work, “The Book of Sistima, or the State of the Muhammadan Religion,” was published in Russian (translated from Latin by I. Ilyinsky) during his lifetime (1722), another, “Historical, Geographical and Political Description of Moldavia,” was published by N. Novikova (1789). The writer's mother, Cassandra Cantacuzene, was also distinguished by her education. Antiochus was born on September 10, 1709 in Constantinople, but his first impressions were connected with his real homeland - Russia.

Parents, especially the father, paid great attention to the upbringing and education of their children. It is known that Dmitry Cantemir in his will asked not to appoint any of them as heir, “until they have been tested in the sciences and in other instructions.” Even then, he singled out Antiochus: “in intelligence and science, my youngest son is the best of all.” Cantemir's home tutor was Anastasius Kondoidi, known for his scholarship, who arrived with Dmitry Cantemir and was later appointed by Peter I to prominent positions. He taught Antiochus languages and history. Another home teacher, Ivan Ilyinsky, later a translator at the Academy of Sciences, had a great influence on the future writer. Having written poetry himself, Ilyinsky taught Antiochus the syllabus and the Church Slavonic language, instilling in him a taste for literature. Antiochus' friendship and correspondence with his teachers continued uninterrupted until the end of his life. For some time, Kantemir studied at the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (“Spassk schools” - he recalls them in satires), which then provided a fairly broad education; its graduates were V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, V.K. Trediakovsky and others.

Cantemir’s youthful interests are evidenced by his appeal to Peter I (1724), where he pointed out “an inclination in himself ... to acquire science” and named ancient and modern history, geography, jurisprudence and “what belongs to political status,” mathematics and “ miniatures" (painting). After the opening of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Kantemir was (1726–1727) one of the first students of the academic university (St. Petersburg University arose later). He listened to lectures (in Latin and other languages) by prominent academicians (professors, as they were called) - D. Bernoulli, F.-H. Mayer in mathematics, G.-B. Bilfinger in physics, G.-Z. Bayer on history, Chronicle-F. Gross on moral philosophy.

The latter discipline meant a lot for Kantemir, since Gross presented advanced and new for that time questions about civil rights, social order, etc. Later, Kantemir had correspondence with another St. Petersburg academician - the greatest mathematician and physicist L. Euler. One should not be surprised by the wide range of sciences studied by Cantemir. Encyclopedicism of interests and knowledge was common among educated people of the 18th century. We will see this using the example of Cantemir’s works. But the history of Russia in the 18th century. knows other encyclopedist scientists - first of all, Lomonosov, who was a philologist, writer and natural scientist. Artistic works from the pen of figures of the 18th century. quite often they coexisted with philosophical and scientific-journalistic ones.

In the Cantemirs’ house they spoke Russian, but other speech was also heard - the writer’s mother was Greek, many Moldovans came with Dmitry Cantemir, the children were taught European languages.

Biographers and researchers have always been amazed by the fact how Antiochus, in such an environment, could so organically perceive the Russian language - not only master it, but also capture in his works vivid examples of literary, bookish and colloquial speech of the 18th century. And this despite the writer’s 12-year stay abroad on diplomatic work. Russian has always remained the writer’s native language. Not to mention the fact that all of his works (including scientific and philosophical) are written in Russian, this is also evidenced, in particular, by his correspondence with his sister. They exchanged letters in Modern Greek and (mainly for exercise) in Italian, but in difficult moments and on particularly serious issues, Cantemir turned to his native Russian language. Here is the beginning of one of his last letters (1744): “Being very weak, and especially today, I am not able to write much, so I answer in Russian.”

We must not forget that during the decisive period of his life, Cantemir was in the thick of Russian society. His early childhood was spent near Kharkov. Since 1713, the family moved to Moscow, and the father often took Antioch to the Kursk and Oryol villages. Even then, Russian life, living, simple speech firmly entered the consciousness of the future writer. The authors of biographies also cite the following symbolic episode relating to the childhood of Antiochus. When he was a student of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (in 1718 or 1719), he performed there on the day of Dmitry of Thessalonica reading poetry (“Panegyric Word”) in the presence of Peter I. Respect for Peter was unchanged in the Kantemirov family and left a deep imprint in the works of Antiochus.

D.K. KANTEMIR. From a portrait of the 18th century.

In 1719, after the father’s second marriage (to Nastasia Ivanovna Trubetskoy), the family moved to St. Petersburg; from that time on, her life obviously changes, and she comes into closer contact with the “higher” and bureaucratic society - various representatives of it pass before the eyes of Antiochus. Together with his father, he makes the Persian campaign, crossing the country from north to south (to Astrakhan); His studies were not interrupted during this time. According to custom, from an early age he was in military service. But the service is limited to guard duty, and, judging by the entries in Antiochus’s diary, at this time he was entirely occupied with reading books and literary work.

Since 1728, Antioch was again in Moscow, where he spent the next four years of his life. Here he finds himself at the center of important state events related to the accession to the throne of Anna Ioannovna. By this time, Cantemir was known as the author of satires and other works. He enters into correspondence and meets Feofan Prokopovich and the “scientific squad” - enlightened figures, supporters of Peter’s reforms. At the end of 1731, Cantemir was appointed ambassador to London, and from 1738 to Paris.

On January 1, 1732, he leaves Moscow and goes through St. Petersburg to “foreign lands,” from where he later tried so hard to escape.

The appointment of 22-year-old Cantemir as ambassador to a major European power was, of course, recognition of his abilities. However, all researchers are unanimous that Cantemir’s departure should be considered as the removal of a figure and writer who was gaining fame. In fact, Cantemir remained relatively poor. Although the father, as we have seen, pointed to Antiochus as the most likely heir (according to the law, there could only be one person), the entire estate went to his brother Konstantin, who was married to the daughter of the influential nobleman D. M. Golitsyn.

Antioch Cantemir's creative work begins early. The first works include “Historical Synopsis” - a chronicle of the Byzantine historian of the 12th century. K. Manasseh, translated by Cantemir from Latin into “Slavic Russian” in 1725 (this manuscript has recently been published); “Symphony on the Psalter” - a concordance, or an alphabetical set of verses from the psalms, the book was published in 1727; “A Certain Italian Letter” - translation from French, ridicules the morals of the noble-bourgeois strata of Paris (1726). Undoubtedly, the original “love” (lyric) poems of the young Cantemir that have not reached us are interesting; they were copied by hand and were popular. Antiochus himself later wrote that he “composed many songs that are still sung in Russia,” but compared to satyrs he valued them less: “It is love to write songs, I tea, Those are the work of which the mind has not sung as many as the body is weak” ( satire IV).

A. D. KANTEMIR. Engraving by P. F. Borel

In 1729, Cantemir’s first satire “On those who blaspheme the teaching” was written, where the writer attacks the vice and ignorance reigning among the propertied part of society. This satire brought Cantemir fame. Feofan Prokopovich responded to her in verse: “I don’t know who you are, the horned prophet, I know how worthy you are of glory,” the author “with a bold pen” castigates “those who do not love the learned squad.” Prokopovich's support meant a lot to Kantemir, giving him confidence in his abilities. Cantemir also wrote satires: II–V (1730–1731), VI and IX (1738), VII–VIII (1739). All of them have a specific (author's) numbering. Among them, the so-called ninth was found later and has the last serial number, although chronologically it follows the sixth.

Kantemir did not stop working on satires all his life. Already in diplomatic work, he not only wrote new satires (VI–IX), but also revised the previous ones. The first five satires are known in at least two editions that do not coincide with each other. The last (one can consider it the second main) edition dates back to 1743, when the writer made his last, as previously unsuccessful, attempt to publish satires; the first collection of five satires in the original edition was compiled back in 1731. The satires were published only 18 years after the author’s death; before that they were distributed in numerous copies. Back in 1755, Trediakovsky stated that Kantemirov’s satires “are only written.”

Kantemir owns a number of other poetic works. This is the unfinished poem “Petrida” about the last year of the life of Peter I; philosophical “Songs” (odes) I–IV, here the author glorifies the mind, “open to understanding,” stigmatizes “evil superstition”; easy syllable translations from ancient Greek from Anacreon. Cantemir’s largest poetic translation is the “Letters” (epistles, epistles) of the Roman poet Horace. The work dates back to 1742; The first ten messages were published in the year of Cantemir's death, the rest - a little later.

In the history of literature, Cantemir is considered almost exclusively as a "satirist". Meanwhile, Belinsky emphasized the importance of Cantemir’s “poetic as well as prose works.” The writer's beautiful prose was no less known to his contemporaries. In 1730, his translation (from French) of “Conversations on the Many Worlds” by the famous naturalist, secretary of the French Academy B. Fontenelle, was prepared and ten years later published. This popular work radically undermined the scheme of the universe accepted by the church. The scientific and philosophical “Letters on Nature and Man” (I–XI) date back to 1742, the textual history of which has not yet been fully elucidated. Cantemir's diplomatic reports (reports) are of literary and historical interest.

It was here that the writer was faced with the need to give names to many new special and abstract concepts coming into use. Kantemir used different sources for this purpose - existing Russian words, created new ones, and introduced Old Slavonicisms and borrowings when necessary. At the same time, the writer’s own language resources were in the foreground. The needs of social development required additional means of expression, and in this regard, the writer was dealing, according to Belinsky, with linguistic material still “unprocessed,” and therefore it is not an exaggeration to say that “the honor of the effort is to find expressions in Russian for ideas, concepts and objects of a completely new sphere... belongs most directly to Cantemir.”

The building of the Kunstkamera and the Academy of Sciences and Arts. Engraving based on a drawing by M. I. Makhaev from the 1753 edition.

The writer himself evaluates the meaning of his literary and linguistic activity in the preface to “Conversations”: “My work was not unimportant, as anyone can admit, considering how difficult it is to introduce a new work. We are still insufficient in philosophical books, and therefore in speeches that are required to explain those sciences.” At the same time, Cantemir demanded that the new formations correspond to the nature of the native language: “I have so much more hope that the new words and sayings I introduced do not oppose the affinity of the Russian language” (preface to the “Letters of Horace”). The writer sensitively grasped the direction of development of the vocabulary of the language. In speech then there were words very different in origin and stylistic properties. One (special) concept, as a rule, had different ways of naming it, proposed by one or another author. Only as a result of the correlation and selection of these names did stable norms of word usage characteristic of the national literary language develop. A major role in this was played by the intense and focused activity of outstanding writers, scientists and public figures of the 18th century, including Cantemir.

Belinsky, writing in the Literaturnaya Gazeta in 1845, “an essay on Russian literature in persons,” begins it with an article about Cantemir - the above statements are taken from it. It is from the time of Cantemir that our literature finally breaks out of the shackles of church themes and rhetoric and directly addresses modern social reality and the surrounding world. Belinsky valued this citizenship (“secularism”) most of all in Cantemir, pointing out that he was “the first in Rus' to bring poetry to life”; he was “a publicist who writes about morals with energy and wit”; his works speak “of a living reality that has historically existed.”

Of course, for his time, Cantemir was first and foremost an educator. But in his concerns for the good of society, in the fight against ignorance and vices, he showed true selflessness and humanity. “For me,” exclaimed Belinsky, “there is no price for these clumsy poems by the smart, honest and kind Cantemir.” A characteristic inscription from 1777 to the portrait of Kantemir, made by G. R. Derzhavin, has been preserved: “The ancient style will not detract from his merits. Vice! don’t come closer: this gaze will sting you.”

Old biographers constantly emphasize Cantemir’s “meek” character, his “virtuous life,” and his penchant for armchair studies. In his first biography (back in the 18th century) it says so: “he spent his time mostly as a philosopher, or, better said, in a hermit’s way.” In Kantemir’s poems, indeed, the dream of “silence”, “small house”, etc. is expressed more than once. However, this in no way fits with the writer’s biography, his participation in public and state life, and the militant tone of his entire work. Cantemir's humanism was offensive, and his unquenchable thirst for knowledge and creative activity really turned him away from the bustle of the court.

The building of the Zemsky Prikaz, where in 1755–1785. Moscow University was located

Among Cantemir's works there are many translated works. Literature of the 18th century in general abounds in such “translations”; at this time they constitute a kind of genre, a form of creativity. Despite the great accuracy of the translation, the original often served only as material for its independent linguistic presentation. Especially frequent in the 18th century. translations of works of scientific and educational content. Under the pen of the best writers and scientists, translated texts acquired all the qualities that allowed them to be classified as exemplary monuments of the Russian literary language of their time. The question of authorship in relation to translations was acute throughout the 18th century. “The translator just differs in name from the creator,” Trediakovsky categorically asserted. Kantemir at one time also had to repel unfair attacks on this matter. For example, in the poem “To My Poems” he sharply remarks: “Envy, stirring you [poems], will find that I have stolen the new and ancient creators and that I am lying in Russian What has long been said in Roman and French more beautiful".

Cantemir was at the level of education of his time. He maintained relationships with outstanding thinkers, writers, scientists - the author of the French “Encyclopedia” Montesquieu (translated his “Persian Letters”, which satirically depicted feudal France), Voltaire (corresponded with him, providing more accurate information on the history and modern state of Russia), mathematician P. Maupertuis, the famous artist G. Amiconi (he painted an oil portrait of Cantemir in 1738).

Cantemir's satires were translated in 1749 and 1750. prose into French (with the appendix of a biography compiled by his friend, member of the French Academy of Inscriptions Octavian Guasco) and in 1752 into German. Until the end of his life, Kantemir maintained scientific ties with the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and its members; The Academy published his works.

It would be wrong to see Cantemir as a lonely figure, a pioneer. The history of a literary language is made up of the efforts of many authors, including those represented by “small” genres - lesser-known works, translations, articles, lexicons, etc. These authors often remained unknown, yet their linguistic techniques are very revealing. Lacking the skill and literary talent of the luminaries, they at the same time directly respond to the needs of linguistic communication. Only by summing up and comparing data from different sources - large and small - can one obtain a real picture of the state and movement of the literary language of a particular era.

Cantemir himself studied contemporary and previous literature and took into account the linguistic experience of other authors. It is impossible, for example, not to mention at least the following works that were probably familiar to him (we will also refer to them in the future) - “The Book of the Worldview” Chr. Huygens translated by Peter I's associate J. Bruce (2nd ed., 1724); the first collection of scientific abstracts of the Academy of Sciences “A Brief Description of the Commentaries of the Academy of Sciences” (1728), on which staff translators V. Adodurov, M. Satarov, I. Gorlitsky, I. Ilyinsky, S. Korovin worked. During the time of Peter the Great and later, the work of S. Pufendorf “On the position of man and citizen according to natural law,” translated by G. Buzhinsky (1726), was widespread; “The Trilingual Lexicon” by F. Polikarpov (1703) and his translation of “General Geography” by B. Vareniya (1718); course “Mathematical abbreviation” (this included arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, astronomy, geography) by St. Petersburg academicians J. Herman and O. Delisle, translated by Gorlitsky (1728). As we will see, the word usage of Cantemir and other figures of that time is organically connected.

Not everything written by Cantemir has reached us. The Russian-French dictionary he started, materials on Russian history, a manual on algebra, translations of historical and philosophical works of the ancients - Justin, Cornelius Nepos, Epictetus, modern scientists and writers of Fr. Algarotti, Montesquieu, etc. A satisfactory edition of Cantemir’s works did not immediately appear. The collection “Satires and other poetic works” by A. Kantemir, prepared by I. Barkov (St. Petersburg, 1762), contained textual distortions. The unfinished publication in the series “Russian Classics” (St. Petersburg, 1836) also failed. Subsequent editions were guided by texts published in 1762. The first scientific and still the most complete collection consists of “Works, letters and selected translations” in two volumes edited by P. A. Efremov, with a biographical sketch of V. Ya. Stoyunin (St. Petersburg ., 1867–1868). Additions and clarifications to this edition were made during the preparation of the modern “Collected Poems” (L., 1956) with a critical-biographical article and a detailed historical and literary commentary.

For a long time, the mentioned essay by Guasco served as a source of biographical information about Cantemir. It is abbreviated in the edition of 1762 and almost completely “introduced” into the book by G. Z. Bayer (Beer) “The History of the Life and Affairs of the Moldavian Gospodar Prince Constantin Cantemir” (M., 1783), published by N. Novikov’s publishing house in translation (Bayer wrote in Latin) by N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky. Later, more advanced biographies of Cantemir appeared, but works of the 18th century. have not lost their meaning to this day. After all, Guasco cited some data from personal impressions and from the words of Antiochus himself. Bayer (he died in 1738) had the papers and manuscripts of Dmitry Cantemir and showed his text to Antiochus. In the book published by Novikov, a number of authentic documents were published for the first time - the agreement of Dm. Cantemir with Peter I, his will, the will of Antiochus, etc. Later, A. Cantemir’s correspondence was published - business and with relatives. Materials about Cantemir and his writings were collected gradually (the best list of satires and some other works is considered to be a 1755 manuscript found in the mid-19th century). This work continues today, often requiring scientific research and research. Even now, there are discrepancies in the dating and interpretation of individual works of Cantemir (even the year of birth of the writer is not precisely indicated - 1708 and 1709).

Cantemir's work has always attracted attention. Lomonosov highly appreciated Kantemir's satires. Trediakovsky, who corresponded with Kantemir, spoke of him as follows in the treatise “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems” (1735): “Without a doubt, the most important and skillful Russian poet” and later: “only glorious in the sciences, in Russian poetry” ( 1755). N. M. Karamzin opened his “Pantheon of Russian Authors” (1802) with a chapter about Cantemir and here, giving a periodization of the history of the Russian literary language, he believed: “the first [epoch] should begin with Cantemir.” He also noted the perfection of Cantemir’s language for his time and its role: “He wrote in a fairly pure language and could rightly serve as a model for his contemporaries.” Karamzinist P. Makarov expressed similar thoughts: “Kantemirov’s works were the first dawn of our literature” (Moscow Mercury magazine, 1803, December). N.I. Novikov dedicated an article to Kantemir in his “Experience of a Historical Dictionary on Russian Writers” (1772), where he aptly described him: “A zealous disseminator of the institutions of Peter the Great.” As an example of literary language, the famous adherent of the Russian syllable A. S. Shishkov cited excerpts from Kantemir’s satires in his “Discourse on the new and old syllable of the Russian language” (St. Petersburg, 1803). The poet and critic K. N. Batyushkov, in the article “Evening at Cantemir’s,” introduced the writer talking with his friends Guasco and Montesquieu (“Experiments in Poems and Prose,” Part I. St. Petersburg, 1817). Writer V. A. Zhukovsky devoted a large article to Cantemir’s satires in the journal “Bulletin of Europe” (1810, part 49, no. 3–6).

Some images of Kantemir directly echo the works of Griboyedov. For example, in Satire VII, Old Testament old men are depicted, “who remember the pestilence in Moscow and, like this year, Chigirinsky’s affairs tell the story of the campaign.” The same characters are in “Woe from Wit”: “News is drawn from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea.” Gogol’s famous expression “visible laughter through tears invisible to the world” reminds Cantemir: “I laugh in poetry, but in my heart I cry for the evil ones.” A. S. Pushkin, K. F. Ryleev, G. V. Plekhanov and others addressed Cantemir. There is extensive and growing research literature about Cantemir; see, for example, in the materials of the anniversary meeting dedicated to the writer (collection “Problems of Russian Enlightenment in the Literature of the 18th Century.” M.-L., 1961), a bibliography of works on Antiochus and Dm. Cantemirah for 1917–1959

Cantemir died on March 31 (April 11), 1744 in Paris after a serious illness. In his will, the writer expressed the hope that his body, as usual, would be transported “to the fatherland” at public expense. Empress Elizaveta Petrovna refused to do this, and only a year and a half later (in October 1745), through the efforts of sister Maria and brothers, the writer’s remains were transported by sea to St. Petersburg, and then to Moscow. Here Cantemir was buried at his request in the lower (winter) church (St. Nicholas) of the Nikolaev Greek monastery. In paragraph 30 of his will, he indicated this exact place: “In the Greek monastery in Moscow without any ceremony at night” - next to his father Dmitry Konstantinovich Kantemir (he was the donor of the monastery) and his mother (1713). Even at the end of the last century, they complained that Kantemirov’s cast-iron gravestones with inscriptions were “very difficult” to find. Subsequently, the monastery buildings were partially demolished and partially rebuilt. The writer’s farewell, his literary testament, are the last lines of the poem “To His Poems” (1743):

In speeches you admit

My last love for you is mine. Farewell!

From the book Moscow underground author Burlak Vadim Nikolaevich

Warrior and diplomat Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky died when he was twenty-three years and five months old. If he had accepted the royal crown and lived longer, how much more he would have done for the country... But it is known: history does not like the subjunctive mood. What I managed to accomplish is a lot.

From the book of Molotov. Semi-power overlord author Chuev Felix Ivanovich

“I’m not a real diplomat” - After Stalin, I was returned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the first year they decided to prepare a proposal to end the Korean War. It was getting to the point that we didn't need her. It was imposed on us by the Koreans themselves. Stalin said that we could not bypass

From the book Hitler by Collie Rupert

Hitler - a diplomat Having come to power, Hitler immediately did everything possible to unilaterally break the Treaty of Versailles. The payment of reparations by that time had already been reduced to a minimum, but the remaining terms of the agreement remained in force. Four days after

From the book New Anti-Suvorov author Veselov Vladimir

Chapter 22 PARACHUTE DIPLOMAT What could Churchill dream of in 1940 in strategic terms? Only about turning the war for Germany from a war on one front into a war on two fronts. V. Suvorov. “Icebreaker” 1 There were significantly fewer paratroopers in Germany than in the USSR.

author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

Peter I as a diplomat. Peter firmly held in his hands all the threads of Russian diplomacy. He personally participated in all negotiations, performing the functions of both ambassador and foreign minister. He traveled abroad twice for diplomatic purposes and personally concluded such important

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

Napoleon as a diplomat. The man who received dictatorial power over France after the 18th Brumaire and held these powers in his hands for 15 years was considered by many contemporaries to be as great a diplomat as he was a commander. Already in the first campaigns, in Italy in 1796 - 1797

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

Napoleon III as a diplomat. Starting from December 10, 1848, when Louis Napoleon was elected president of the republic, and up to and including the coup of December 2, 1851, all of monarchical Europe followed the development of his domestic and foreign policies with great sympathy. Already

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

A.M. Gonchakov as a diplomat. After the Peace of Paris, Napoleon III seemed for some time to be the super-arbiter of Europe. That’s what he was called then not only by court flatterers, but also by many authoritative bourgeois publicists abroad. In the first two or three years it seemed that

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

3. BISMARCK AS DIPLOMAT “Providence itself destined me to be a diplomat: after all, I was even born on the first of April,” Bismarck himself joked when he was in a good mood. His sharp mind suggested to him the necessary, most expedient decisions, and his ultimate goals were

From the book St. George's Knights under the St. Andrew's Flag. Russian admirals - holders of the Order of St. George, I and II degrees author Skritsky Nikolay Vladimirovich

Warrior and Diplomat On the Danube, de Ribas established himself as a capable flotilla commander, so Potemkin left the general in this position. On December 16, 1790, the prince sent an order to the Black Sea Admiralty Board: “Part of the Black Sea forces entrusted from me to

From the book Crowned Spouses. Between love and power. Secrets of great alliances author Solnon Jean-Francois

Queen, Commander-in-Chief and Diplomat So, Isabella was declared Queen of Castile, the Treaty of Segovia was signed, everything else remained to be decided. Supporters of rival Isabella Beltraneja have not given up hope for revenge. There was a split among the grandees not so much in connection

From the book Russian Istanbul author Komandorova Natalya Ivanovna

M.I. Kutuzov - diplomat Famous historian E.V. Tarle wrote about Mikhail Illarionovich: “An analysis of the enormous, very complex historical figure of Kutuzov sometimes drowns in the motley mass of facts depicting the war of 1812 as a whole. At the same time, the figure of Kutuzov, if not hidden at all, is

From the book The Birth of a New Russia author Mavrodin Vladimir Vasilievich

Peter I as a diplomat Peter began his diplomatic activities early. When foreign ambassadors entered the Kremlin Palace and the long and boring ceremony of introducing them to Tsars Ivan and Peter began, the elder brother Ivan listened indifferently to the ornate speeches of the guests and answers

From the book History of the Russian Prosecutor's Office. 1722–2012 author Zvyagintsev Alexander Grigorievich

author Gavlin Mikhail Lvovich

From the book Russian Entrepreneurs and Philanthropists author Gavlin Mikhail Lvovich

Diplomat and factory owner In 1823, Sergei Akimovich Maltsev, the owner of the Gusev Crystal Factory, died, not much outliving his wife and leaving his son Ivan Sergeevich as heir to a large fortune. Another son, Sergei, future privat-docent of Dorpat (Tartu)

Vladimir Veselitsky

Antioch Cantemir and the development of the Russian literary language

Kantemir began the history of secular Russian literature.

...[in Cantemir's satires] there is so much originality, so much intelligence and wit, such bright and true pictures of the society of that time, the personality of the author is reflected in them so beautifully, so humanly, that occasionally turning around old Cantemir and reading one of his satires is true pleasure.

V. G. Belinsky

Writer of the first half of the 18th century. Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir stood at the origins of new Russian literature and the Russian national literary language. In both directions he had to follow untrodden paths. Kantemir’s creative activity is inextricably linked with the work to improve the Russian literary language. There are many words that are currently in use and their meanings ( citizen, people, satellite, critic, character, taste etc.) appeared precisely at that time. They reflected the views and needs of society, at the same time they show the direction of the linguistic searches of writers of the 18th century.

The role of Cantemir in the history of the literary language is great. He takes a decisive step towards updating and democratizing the old book language, strives to bring the written language closer to the spoken language, to write simply. He draws the themes and images of his works, primarily satire, from contemporary reality, depicting it so sharply and directly that now, as in the time of Belinsky, despite some inevitable obsolescence of language and style, his works can still be “expanded” instructive and interesting.

Diplomat - scientist - writer

In the Cantemirs’ house they spoke Russian, but other speech was also heard - the writer’s mother was Greek, many Moldovans came with Dmitry Cantemir, the children were taught European languages.

We must not forget that during the decisive period of his life, Cantemir was in the thick of Russian society. His early childhood was spent near Kharkov. Since 1713, the family moved to Moscow, and the father often took Antioch to the Kursk and Oryol villages. Even then, Russian life, living, simple speech firmly entered the consciousness of the future writer. The authors of biographies also cite the following symbolic episode relating to the childhood of Antiochus. While a student at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (in 1718 or 1719), he performed there on the day of Dmitry of Thessaloniki, reading poetry (“Panegyric Word”) in the presence of Peter I. Respect for Peter was constant in the Kantemirov family and left a deep mark on the work of Antiochus.

KANTEMIR Antioch Dmitrievich, His Serene Highness Prince, Russian statesman, diplomat, Privy Councilor (1741), poet, translator. From the Kantemirov family. Son of D.K. Cantemir. He received a home education that was brilliant for his time. He studied history, ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, French and Russian. Kantemir's teachers were his father, as well as the Greek A. Kondoidi, the German I. G. Fokkerodt and a graduate of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy I. Yu. Ilyinsky. Under the influence of the latter, in 1725 Cantemir translated from Latin the work of the 12th century Byzantine scholar Q. Manasseh, “Historical Synopsis,” and also compiled his first work, “Symphony on the Psalter” (an alphabetical index to verses from the psalms; 1727). From 1722 he served in the Life Guards Preobrazhensky Regiment. Together with his father he took part in the Persian campaign of 1722-23. In 1724 he studied at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. In 1726-27 he took courses in philosophy and mathematics from professors H. F. Gross and F. H. Mayer, as well as algebra and astronomy from G. Huyssen at the Academic University of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Translated from French: “A Certain Italian Letter Containing a Description of Paris and the French” (1726), “Table of Kebik the Philosopher” (1729), etc. Sharing the ideas of Peter’s reforms, he became close to Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich and joined the so-called scientific squad.

The mood of the “squad” was reflected in the first poetic satires of Cantemir, written in Russian according to the classical models of Horace and N. Boileau. Of Cantemir's 8 satires, the first 5 were written in Russia in 1729-31 and later heavily revised, the 6th-8th - in Paris in 1738-39 (first published in Russian in 1762, before that they were published in French translation in 1749, in German - in 1752). The 9th satire attributed to Cantemir (published in 1858) does not belong to him. The first two satires (“On those who blaspheme the teachings” and “On the envy and pride of evil nobles”) are distinguished by an abundance of topical political allusions, an anti-clerical orientation, and sharp criticism of pre-Petrine antiquity. In them, the author condemned the actions of those representatives of church and secular circles who tried, after the death of Emperor Peter I, to hinder the spread of scientific knowledge in Russia. Considering Peter's Table of Ranks of 1722, Cantemir defended the idea of the physical equality of people and the extra-class value of a person. The 3rd satire (“On the difference in human passions”), practically devoid of political overtones, in the spirit of Theophrastus and J. de La Bruyère, presents a picture of morals, unfolded in a series of characters personifying universal human vices. The satires written by Cantemir in Paris (“On True Bliss,” “On Education,” “On Shameless Insolence”) are predominantly moral and philosophical discussions in which the optimistic views of the early Enlightenmentists on human nature (J. Locke and others) corrected by the pessimistic moral philosophy of ancient stoicism. The complex, sometimes Latinized syntax and free mixture of Church Slavonic and vernacular vocabulary inherent in the style of satire are the result of Kantemir’s desire to create a special poetic language, equally opposed to the language of church bookishness and actual living speech (Kantemir’s literary and theoretical views are set out in his “Letter of Khariton Mackentin to a friend about Composition of Russian Poems", 1742, published in 1744). In 1730, Cantemir translated from French B. Fontenelle’s treatise “Conversations on the Many Worlds” (published in 1740), in which the heliocentric system of the world was defended in a popular form. The translation of the book and notes to it, many of which were included in the work “On Nature and Man” (1743), were of no small importance for the development of Russian scientific terminology. In the early 1730s, Cantemir worked on the poem “Petrida, or a poetic description of the death of Peter the Great” (not finished; published in 1859). A special place in Cantemir’s creative activity was occupied by the publication of the scientific heritage of his father. At his own expense, Cantemir published in London his father’s fundamental work, “The History of the Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Porte” (volumes 1-2; published in English in London in 1734-35, in French in Paris in 1743, in German in Hamburg in 1755). Cantemir was a supporter of natural law and shared the ideals of the Enlightenment. He defended the idea of equality of people before the law and the court. He believed that all people are born equal, that a person’s character does not depend on nature, it is shaped by upbringing.

After the death of Emperor Peter II (1730), Cantemir acted as an opponent of the “venture” of the supreme leaders and a supporter of autocratic power. He contributed to the accession to the throne of Empress Anna Ivanovna (participated in the drafting and editing of the text of the nobility's appeal to Anna Ivanovna on the restoration of autocracy).

In 1731-33, resident, then minister plenipotentiary (until 1738) in London; negotiated the recognition by the English court of the imperial title of Anna Ivanovna and the appointment of an English ambassador in St. Petersburg. During the struggle for the Polish Succession (1733-35), he contributed to the election of Augustus III to the royal throne. Through the mediation of Cantemir, a trade agreement was signed in 1734 between Russia and Great Britain. In addition to the diplomatic service, Kantemir, on instructions from the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, acquired books, mathematical, physical and astronomical instruments, and invited European scientists to work at the Academy of Sciences.

Minister Plenipotentiary (1738), Ambassador Extraordinary (1739-44) in Paris. There he met S. L. Montesquieu and translated his “Persian Letters” into Russian (the translation has not survived). He was in correspondence with Voltaire and other philosophers and writers of the French Enlightenment. Kantemir took upon himself the organization of contacts between the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and the French Academy. He purchased and sent books by French authors, geographical and nautical maps, plans of European cities and fortresses to St. Petersburg. Contributed to the publication in The Hague of P. Moran's tragedy "Menshikov" (1739). He translated into Russian 22 messages of Horace (partially published in 1744; complete edition - 1867) and 55 poems of Anacreon (1736, published in 1867), prepared his own works for publication, providing them with commentaries (published with a foreword by I. S. Barkov).

He was buried in Paris, in 1745, at the expense of his sister M.D. Cantemir, was reburied in the family tomb in the Church of Saints Constantine and Helena of the Nikolaev Greek Monastery in Moscow (in 1935 the monastery along with the tomb was destroyed).

Works: Works, letters and selected translations. St. Petersburg, 1867-1868. T. 1-2; Collection of poems. L., 1957.

Lit.: Sementkovsky R.I.A.D. Cantemir, his life and literary activity. St. Petersburg, 1893; Alexandrenko V. N. To the biography of Prince A. D. Kantemir. Warsaw, 1896; Maikov L.N. Materials for the biography of Prince A.D. Kantemir. St. Petersburg, 1903; Ehrhard M. Le prince Cantemir à Paris. 1738-1744. R., 1938; Padovsky M. I. A. Kantemir and St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. M.; L., 1959; Graßhoff N. A. D. Kantemir und Westeuropa. V., 1966; Veselitsky V.V.A. Kantemir and the development of the Russian literary language. M., 1974; Bobyne G. E. Philosophical views of A. Kantemir. Kish., 1981; Nikolaev S.I. Difficult Cantemir: (stylistic structure and criticism of the text) // XVIII century. St. Petersburg, 1995. Sat. 19; Bobână Gh. A. Cantemir. Poet, gânditor şi om politic. Chişinău, 2006.

V. L. Korovin, V. I. Tsvirkun.

Antioch Cantemir: biography. Works of Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

Diplomat - scientist - writer

Transferring salaries to an employee’s card Is it possible to transfer salaries?

Who are the company's counterparties?

Traditional Hungarian Dobos cake: homemade recipe

Categories

Latest articles

Pork kebab in vinegar: marinating recipes

Step-by-step recipe for making pumpkin marmalade at home Pumpkin marmalade recipe

Description of dreams. Big dream book online

Celtic Cross – Tarot divination online

Fortune telling Celtic cross for the near future

Evaluation criteria for the English Unified State Examination letter

The most famous Chinese political figures of the 20th century

Distance courses Expert Program Unified State Exam 79

Rutskoi said: “Go with the white flag

Advertising

Antioch Cantemir: biography. Works of Antioch Dmitrievich Kantemir

Diplomat - scientist - writer

You might be interested:

Categories

Latest articles

Advertising