Maykov Leonid Nikolaevich (March 28, 1839-April 7, 1900), literary historian, bibliographer, ethnographer. From 1891 - Academician, from 1893 - Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences. The son of the academician of painting I. A. Maikov, brother of A. N. Maikov. In 1860 Maykov graduated from the historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University. He began to publish in 1857. In 1863 Maykov presented his master's thesis "On the epics of the Vladimir cycle", in which he defended the theory of the historical origin of the epics. Maykov's membership in the Geographical Society (1864) contributed to the intensification of his studies in Russian folklore and ethnography; in the "Notes" of the society, he publishes the work "Great Russian Spells" (1869). In 1885-87 Maikov, together with V.I. Saitov, published a 3-volume collection of works by K.N. contains 75 biographies of Russian writers of the pre-Pushkin era (35 of them belong to Maikov). This work was awarded the full Pushkin Prize of the Academy of Sciences (1888). In studies on ancient Russian literature and literature of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Maykov spoke from the standpoint of the cultural-historical school.

Used materials from the site Great Encyclopedia of the Russian people - http://www.rusinst.ru

Maikov, Leonid Nikolaevich - a prominent researcher in the history of Russian literature (1839 - 1900), the younger brother of Apollon Maikov, studied at the boarding school of Count Suzor and the 2nd St. Petersburg gymnasium, graduated from the course of St. Petersburg University as a candidate of the Faculty of History and Philology. In 1863 he defended his thesis for a master's degree in Russian literature: "On the epics of the Vladimir cycle." In it Maikov showed considerable scientific independence. In an era of almost undivided dominance of the mythological explanation of folk poetry, he put forward a historical point of view on the origin of Russian epics, with which researchers of this dark issue are still considered. In his opinion, the Russian epic is a true echo of Russian historical life and, in particular, the epic of the Vladimir cycle - the Kyiv specific period. Service began in the Ministry of Finance; in 1864 he moved to the Central Statistical Committee and took an active part in its work, as well as in international statistical congresses, until 1882, when he was appointed assistant director of the Public Library. In 1889 he was elected an academician, in 1893 he was appointed vice-president of the Academy of Sciences. In 1872 - 86 he was chairman of the ethnographic department of the Geographical Society and edited 5 volumes of his "Notes on the Department of Ethnography"; in 1868 - 82 he was an assistant editor, in 1882 - 90 - editor of the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. He published a long series of historical and literary articles and reviews in Otechestvennye Zapiski, Zarya, Russkiy Vestnik, Ancient and New Russia, Russian Antiquity, Russian Archive, Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, Historical Bulletin" and others. The most important of them are devoted to Simeon Polotsky, Lomonosov, Vasily Maikov, Sumarokov, Krylov, the history of Russian journalism, an old Russian story, the history of Russian superstitions, and are collected under the title. "Essays from the history of Russian literature of the 17th and 18th centuries." (St. Petersburg, 1895). Articles about Pushkin and his friends made up the valuable book "Pushkin" (St. Petersburg, 1899). "Materials and studies on ancient Russian literature" (1890 - 91) were also published separately. In 1887, Maikov (with the assistance of V.I. Saitov) excellently published the collected works of Batyushkov; the biography of the poet attached to it is, at the same time, a general overview of the literary life of the Alexander era (separate edition, St. Petersburg, 1887 and 1896). In 1891 L.N. Maykov edited and provided a characterization of the collected works of his brother Valerian. From the end of the 1880s, Maikov worked on an academic edition of Pushkin's works, but he managed to publish only Volume I (St. Petersburg, 1899 and 1900). This volume is excellent in its historical and literary notes, but the wording of the text is not always exemplary. Some of what was prepared for further volumes was published by V.I. Saitov ("Materials for the Academic Edition of Pushkin's Works", St. Petersburg, 1902). - Wed. collection "In Memory of L.N. Maikov" (St. Petersburg, 1902); Vengerov "Sources" (Volume IV); Bryusov "Lyceum Poems of Pushkin" (Moscow, 1907).

Materials of the site "Russian Biographical Dictionary" www.rulex.ru

Maikov, Leonid Nikolaevich - Russian literary historian, bibliographer, ethnographer. Since 1891 - Academician, since 1893 - Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences. The son of the academician of painting N.A. Maikov, brother A.N. and V.N. Maikov. In 1860 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. He began to print in 1857. In 1863, M. presented his master's thesis "On the epics of the Vladimir cycle", in which he defended the theory of the historical origin of the epics. M.'s entry into the members of the Geographical Society (1864) contributed to the strengthening of his studies in Russian folklore and ethnography; in the "Notes" of the society, he publishes the work "Great Russian Spells" (1869). In 1885-1887, M., together with V.I. Saitov, published a 3-volume collection of works by K.N. , which contain 75 biographies of Russian writers of the pre-Pushkin era (35 of them belong to M.). This work was awarded the full Pushkin Prize of the Academy of Sciences (1888). In studies of ancient Russian literature and the literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, M. spoke from the standpoint of the cultural-historical school. Work M. “Pushkin. Biographical Materials and Historical and Literary Essays (1899), compiled from unpublished notes and memoirs of the poet's contemporaries, provided with valuable explanations by M., was a significant contribution to Pushkin's studies. In the same year, the publication of the Academy of Sciences published the 1st volume of Pushkin's works, edited and with notes by M. The method of establishing the text, which he adopted when publishing Pushkin's lyceum poems, met with serious critical objections in the press.

Brief literary encyclopedia in 9 volumes. State scientific publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia", v.4, M., 1967.

Compositions:

Essays on the history of Russian literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, St. Petersburg, 1889;

Materials and research on ancient Russian literature, vol. 1-2, St. Petersburg, 1890-1891;

BATYUSHKOV'S ARRIVAL IN PETERSBURG

Batyushkov's arrival in St. Petersburg and entry into the service. - Rapprochement with I.I. Dmitriev, A.I. Turgenev, D.N. Bludov and D.V. Dashkov. - Correspondence with Zhukovsky. - Free Society of Lovers of Literature. - Beginning of the Patriotic War. - Batyushkov's trip to Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod. - Muscovites in Nizhny. Karamzin, I.M. Muraviev-Apostol and S.N. Glinka. - Impressions of the war on Batyushkov. - His departure from Nizhny to St. Petersburg.

Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, Batyushkov's first concern was to clarify the question of the possibility of deciding on a service. But even in this case, success was not easy. In the middle of February, having already lived in St. Petersburg for about a month, he told his sister not entirely comforting news about entering the service: “As for the place, I still don’t know anything.

Everyone is busy in the Library (do you remember the village fables and my words?), and all hope is on Alexei Nikolaevich, who is very affectionate to me "(Soch., vol. III, p. 173.). And indeed, this time there is no hope deceived the poet: met at the Olenins with the same friendliness with which he had been received before, Konstantin Nikolayevich had the opportunity to enter under the direct command of his longtime patron. was the acquisition of precious Latin and French manuscripts, taken out of Paris at the beginning of the French Revolution, left the post of keeper of the manuscripts, he was replaced by his former assistant A. I. Ermolaev, and in place of this latter was appointed lieutenant Batyushkov, a retired guard (Report of the Imperial Public Libraries for 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811 and 1812. St. Petersburg, 1813, p. 57; Works, vol. III, pp. 175, 180.) Thus, a new connection sealed him with the Oleninsky circle, in which Alexei Nikolaevich's colleagues and subordinates, for the most part chosen by him, always played a prominent role. The same spirit of benevolence, the same love for education, for the sciences and the arts, which distinguished the Oleninsky salon, extended to the composition of the employees in the Library; joining him. Batyushkov became a colleague of Uvarov, Krylov, Ermolaev, people for the most part well known to him and sincerely respected by them; to share his service work with them was, of course, just as pleasant for him as it was to be in mental communion with them; moreover, one must think that the duties of an assistant curator of manuscripts were not burdensome at that time, especially with such an industrious and learned librarian of the department of manuscripts as the passionate paleographer Yermolaev was. On Gnedich's duty in the evenings, his friends gathered in the Library and spent time in friendly conversation; here Konstantin Nikolayevich met with M.V. Milonov, P.A. Nikolsky, M.E. Lobanov, P.S. Yakovlev and N.I. Grech (Newspaper notes of Hermion (N.I. Grech) in "Northern Bee", 1857, No 157.).

In general, Batyushkov's life settled down in St. Petersburg quite pleasantly: his health was satisfactory, and he did not lose that bright and calm mood with which he arrived. He was upset only by the disturbing news about family and economic affairs, the burden of which more and more fell on Alexandra Nikolaevna, who gave herself unrequitedly to them. Her letters conveyed little consolation; she knew the whimsical instability of her brother's character, and she could not believe that Konstantin Nikolayevich could consolidate his position in Petersburg; in view of the disorder in their condition, in view of the new expenses that her brother's stay in the capital entailed, she was ready to desire his return to cheap living in the country. Such considerations, of course, did not agree with the hopes and intentions of Konstantin Nikolayevich. “Sometimes I really envy you,” he wrote to the sisters, “and I wish to be at least for a day in the country ... true, for a day, no more. For God’s sake, don’t distract me from Petersburg: this may be harmful to my enterprises regarding service and pocket. Give me at least a year to live in one place "(Soch., vol. III, p. 181.). He tried to the best of his ability to help his relatives with his troubles in Petersburg and harbored the conviction that his stay here might not be useless for family affairs. Encouraged by the attention he received here, he felt even more determined to pursue his intended goal, if not out of ambition or material gain, then perhaps out of the need for an intelligent life, the lack of which was so painful for him in the rural wilderness. Undoubtedly, Batyushkov's prudent determination to finally take up the service testified that he was parting with dreams of a youth of a carefree, free life, dedicated to pleasure alone.

Having settled down in St. Petersburg, Batyushkov did not forget about his Moscow friends: he maintained an active correspondence with Prince Vyazemsky and sometimes wrote to Zhukovsky, who then lived in Belev. In addition, he became close to friends of his Moscow friends who moved to St. Petersburg to serve, and in their company, as it were, continued the thread of that Moscow life, the period of which he called his happiest time. In acquaintance with I.I. Dmitriev, who then held the post of Minister of Justice and willingly surrounded himself with gifted young people with literary inclinations, Batyushkov found, as it were, a reflection of Karamzin's pleasant and instructive conversations; relations with A.I. Turgenev, D.N. Bludov; D.P. Severin and D.V. Dashkov reminded him of Zhukovsky and Vyazemsky. Batyushkov had known Turgenev for a long time, from his early youth, when he met him at M.N. Muravyov, but only now, having got to know him better, did he appreciate his enlightened mind, courtesy and infinitely kind heart. For his part, Turgenev, having learned about the friendship of Konstantin Nikolayevich with Zhukovsky, now more readily expressed his disposition towards the "sweet and beautiful poet" (See: Turgenev's letter to Zhukovsky dated February 9, 1812 in the Rus. Archive, 1864.). “With Bludov,” wrote Batyushkov to Vasily Andreevich, “I met very briefly, and no wonder: he loves you like a brother, like a mistress, and you, my dear eccentric, said a lot of good things about me, and Dmitry Nikolaevich was already ready to love me It's a lot of fun with him. He's smart" (Soch., vol. III, p. 171.). Dashkov attracted Batyushkov to himself with the subtlety of his mind, education and the energy that he showed in literary disputes with Shishkov's supporters.

At the time when Batyushkov moved to St. Petersburg, the local friends of Zhukovsky decided to attract him to the northern capital and attach him to the service. Konstantin Nikolayevich was pleased with the opportunity to see a friend, and he also wrote him a letter with ardent convictions to come "to the banks of the Neva", although they are "much more boring than our Moscow ones." Attached to the letter was a letter to the Penates, in which our poet repeated his former confession of Epicureanism and, among other things, spoke of momentary raptures of voluptuousness. Zhukovsky did not give up then at the invitation of friends: all immersed in his love for M.A. Protasova, he was carried away by the dream of creating family happiness for himself in the silence of rural solitude; the obstacles that he met on the part of the mother of the girl he loved, he still did not consider then insurmountable. Zhukovsky also responded to Batyushkov’s letter and poetry with prose and verse: in a letter, he advised our poet to carefully finish his works (Zhukovsky’s letters to Konstantin Nikolayevich, including this one, have not been preserved; but the content of Zhukovsky’s letter in question is partly clarified from Batyushkov’s answer (Soch., vol. III, p. 187).), and in a poetic message he revealed to him the high ideal of happiness, based on pure love. "Love, - said Zhukovsky, -

Love is a holy guardian

Ile formidable fighter

Spiritual purity.

Reject voluptuousness

Deadly dreams

And not delight - happiness

Look for love in a straight line;

Rapture frenzy

Momentary oblivion.

Throw them away, tear them apart

Lais insidious bonds;

The friends of the bashful are the muses;

To their sacred temple

Notebook Charmers

The crowd is afraid to enter..." 1

1 Op. Zhukovsky, 7th ed., vol. I, p. 240.

Zhukovsky’s response message reached Batyushkov only at the end of 1812 (Soch., vol. III, p. 215.), but our poet objected to his friend’s letter with jokes: he refused to process his poems, preferring to devote his time to a cheerful conversation with friends . Batyushkov felt, however, that this answer could not satisfy Zhukovsky; therefore, to his letter, he added a new message to Zhukovsky, in which he also spoke about his spiritual mood:

You have only joy

I am given sorrow!

Like a dream, youth passes

And the happiness of the old days!

Everything changed my heart

health lightwing

And friend of my soul! one

1 Ibid., p. 189; This passage is given here according to the original wording of the message found in Batyushkov's letter to Zhukovsky dated June 1812.

Zhukovsky could hardly have fully understood the hint contained in the last of the verses quoted, and Batyushkov, in turn, did not yet know then that his love promises more than joy to a friend; it seemed to him that Zhukovsky was too blinded by his feelings, and therefore:

For two treacherous eyes

Under the banner of Cyprus

This new Don Quixote

Spends a century with dreams

Lives with chimeras

Conversations with spirits

And make the world laugh!

A share of irony is heard in these lines, addressed, of course, not to Zhukovsky himself, but to one of his mutual friends (Message to A.I. Turgenev, 1812 (Soch., vol. I, p. 148)); but it should not be concluded from this that Batiushkov was light on the feelings of others. He could love differently than Zhukovsky, but did he not know the mighty power of passion? Even in his early youth, Konstantin Nikolayevich experienced her passionate impulse, met with complete reciprocity, and this love left a deep imprint on his soul; two years of separation after meeting Madame Mugel did not change his feelings. True, later, the scattered life in Moscow, and perhaps the rumors that reached the poet that he was forgotten by the girl he loved, cooled his youthful impulse, and since then he has developed a skeptical view of the strength of female feelings (Coll., vol. III, p. 149.), a look which, like the search for momentary passions, served him in part as a consolation in his disappointment. Perhaps Konstantin Nikolaevich was not entirely right in the particular reason for his skepticism, but the doubt that crept into his soul brought into the life of his heart that bitterness from which he could never free himself: he was no longer able to believe in that the possibility of happiness in love, the dream of which was full of Zhukovsky's soul. A different but equally sad path was prepared by the future for both poets in their heart life, and then they were better able to understand each other in this respect.

While the exchange of thoughts between Batyushkov and Zhukovsky touched on the deepest aspects of their inner life, the correspondence between Konstantin Nikolayevich and Prince Vyazemsky revolved around lighter subjects. They exchanged literary news and news of mutual friends. In the life of those who were in St. Petersburg, literary interests occupied no less place than in the circle of Moscow Karamzinists, and their activities, insofar as they participated in literature, had a direction, of course, hostile to Beseda and Shishkov's party in general. Little by little, Bludov, Dashkov, and Severin became members of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts, the only organized institution in St. Petersburg, where, although not very boldly, Karamzin’s literary merits were recognized and, in general, sympathy for new aspirations in literature was found. . Dashkov came up with the idea to revive the activity of this almost dormant Society and contrast it with the noisy bustle of the members of the Conversation (N.I. Grech. In memory of A.Kh. Vostokov. St. Petersburg, 1864, p. 7.). At the beginning of 1812, the Society, which was then chaired by A.E. Izmailov, undertook the publication of the journal "St. Petersburg Bulletin", in which criticism was given a prominent place. Now Batiushkov also became a member of the Free Society and began to publish his poems in its journal, while Dashkov published useful critical articles there. In the views of the members of the Free Society, however, there was no complete solidarity, and soon a disunity was revealed in it. There were persons in its composition who, for election as honorary members, proposed a mediocre metroman, Count D.I. Khvostov. Dashkov was against this; but the majority decided the choice. Then Dashkov asked permission to make a welcoming speech to Khvostov, for which he received permission. The speech was delivered at a meeting on March 14, 1812, and under the guise of praise contained such irony that it embarrassed many of those present. In his speech, Dashkov suggested to the members that they analyze Khvostov's works and "show all their dignity." Members were obliged to express themselves on the content of this proposal. At a meeting on March 18, members Severin, Batyushkov, Lobanov, Bludov and Zhikharev proposed "to demand an explanation from both Mr. Dashkov about his intentions, and from Count D.I. Khvostov about what seems insulting to him in this proposal, and in the whether in fact he is offended by them. The authors of this proposal evidently expected that Khvostov would not recognize Dashkov's speech as offensive to himself and that the matter would thus be hushed up. But the other members openly stated that Dashkov's praises, in their ambiguity, looked like reproach to Khvostov, and that therefore Dashkov, as an insulter, should be excluded. The majority of the members strongly agreed with this opinion, then the persons who made the first proposal did not want to insist on demanding an explanation from Dashkov and, no doubt, by agreement with him, presented such a statement drawn up by Batyushkov: "If Count Dmitry Ivanovich is really offended by the proposal of Mr. Dashkov In this case, we regret to agree to the exclusion of Mr. Dashkov, who has been useful to the Society for a long time." Bludov's signature was not under this last statement.

Thus, Dashkov was forced to leave the Society, which his friends left after him. In May 1812, Batyushkov wrote the following to Vyazemsky in Moscow on this occasion: “When you see Severin (he was visiting Moscow at that time), then ... with all possible caution inspired by friendship, tell him - is it full, is it to speak? - tell to him that he is expelled from our Society; add as a consolation that Bludov and I, a sinner, have submitted requests for resignation. The Society will almost collapse. So everything comes, everything disappears! On the ruins of literature, one pillar will remain - Khvostov, and Izmailov from the womb of his will give birth to new philologists who will write and print again! (Coll., vol. III, pp. 184-185.)

A little over a month and a half had passed since these joking lines were written, and the content of Batyushkov's letters to his Moscow friend had completely changed. “What has happened to you?” he wrote to the prince on July 1. “Are you healthy? Or are you so busy with political circumstances, the Neman, the Dvina, the position to the right, the position to the left, the advance army, the rear stores, hunger, pestilence and all the projectile of death that you forgot little Batyushkov?" (Ibid., pp. 192-193.) In these words, through the former playful tone, a new note of anxiety is already heard. The historical Twelfth Year came fully armed with horror and glory, and the thoughts of the Russian people turned to the terrible events that the hand of fate unfolded before them.

At the beginning of the war in Russian society, however, they did not imagine to what enormous proportions this struggle would grow. The great army of Napoleon had already entered the Russian borders, our troops were already converging on the designated points, and in St. Petersburg they did not yet think that the enemy invasion would spread beyond the line of the Western Dvina and the Dnieper; no one thought of the possibility of occupying Moscow by the French either on the banks of the Neva or in the most ancient capital. A fair amount of frivolity was noticed in public talk: some demanded offensive actions as the best means for a quick victory; others did not believe in the possibility of defeating Napoleon and therefore recognized it as prudent to prevent the rout by concessions. Nevertheless, after the appeal of Emperor Alexander, who announced that he would not lay down arms until not a single enemy soldier remained in the Russian kingdom, public enthusiasm increased very much. True, the Russian people had no reason for the hatred that united the upper class in all the states of Western Europe against the brilliant "rogue"; this aristocratic aversion to the despot who emerged from the depths of the revolution could only be instilled by royalist emigrants in a small part of our upper metropolitan society; but the harsh despotism of Napoleon's policy, which had also prevailed over Russia since the alliance at Tilsit, after the failure of the first two wars with the great commander, touched the nerves of Russian popular pride. As long as our government was not at odds with the new ally, this secret irritation in Russian society was covered up by the persecution of gallomania: the old controversy about the dangers of foreign influence on Russian education was resumed, and under this plausible pretext, blind inertia and ingenuous ignorance led literature to attack indigenous peoples. foundations of education; naturally, such an onslaught met with a hot rebuff from the more educated representatives of literature, who, however, knew how to love the fatherland no worse than their opponents. We have already noted before some of the manifestations of this struggle and indicated which side the sympathy of our poet leaned. But when, instead of a domestic dispute over an abstract question, public attention turned to international politics, when the course of events put the task of state independence in the first place, then the theoretical bickering fell silent and Russian society unanimously rose to the defense of its native country.

“If it weren’t for the damned fever,” Batyushkov wrote to Vyazemsky in the first half of July, “I would have flown into the army. Now it’s a shame to sit over a book, I can’t get used to war. Yes, it seems that duty tells us to defend the fatherland and the sovereign , young people "(Collection, vol. III, p. 194.). Konstantin Nikolaevich looked at his friends with envy. Vyazemsky has already entered military service. Severin was going to do the same; about Zhukovsky, one could assume that he would follow their example (Ibid., pp. 194, 195, 207.). Illness and lack of money kept our poet from the same decision, which, moreover, was opposed by his relatives; Batyushkov reassured his sister about this, and at the same time hoped to slip away from Petersburg at the first opportunity and join the army (Ibid., pp. 200-202.). Meanwhile, events took on a more and more unsettling course. The movement of the enemy inland turned the military storm into a personal disaster for everyone. Konstantin Nikolaevich could not be calm either for his sister or for his peasants.

Alexandra Nikolaevna was at that time in Khantonovo, far away even from her relatives in Vologda; her brother advised her to move to Vologda and not part with her loved ones. “I am truly grieved, comparing your situation with mine,” he wrote to her on August 9. “I am calm here, I have no need for anything, and you, my friend, are in need and busy, and for us all in grief. God you will be rewarded for this, my dear and only friend! For God's sake, live more amicably among yourselves! Is it now such a time to have at least one rosy thought?" (Soch., vol. III, p. 197.) Condolences for the peasants were caused by the severity of the sets; Konstantin Nikolaevich left his serfs to arrange the supply of recruits at their own discretion and then thanked the elders for their serviceability in this matter (Ibid., pp. 197,202.). Finally, another important concern was on his heart - the situation of E. F. Muravyova. Shortly before the war, she sold her house and now lived in a dacha near Moscow; the proximity of hostilities made her think about leaving for some other city; in view of this, she called Konstantin Nikolaevich to her for help: "Katerina Fedorovna," he reasoned, "sick, without protection, without friends, is waiting for me in Moscow: how can I leave her? This is the only opportunity to be useful to her!" (Ibid., p. 197.) These considerations were enough to determine the decision: Batyushkov hurried to Moscow (From the files of the archive of the Imperial Public Library, it is clear that the vacation was given to him on August 14.).

He arrived there a few days before the battle of Borodino and learned with sadness that Vyazemsky was no longer in the capital: he was in the army of Kutuzov; but here Konstantin Nikolaevich was delighted with a letter from his other friend, Petin, written from the field of Borodino on the eve of the battle. “We were,” he later said, “in inexplicable fear in Moscow, and I was surprised at the peace of mind that appeared in every line of the letter inscribed on the drum at the fateful moment” (Soch., vol. II, p. 197.). The news of the outcome of the battle still found Batyushkov in the capital, and at the same time he learned that of the two sons of Olenin who were in the battle, one, Nikolai, was killed, and the other, Peter, was seriously wounded. The unfortunate man was brought to Moscow and then sent to Nizhny Novgorod for treatment. Batyushkov had the opportunity at the same time to inform his parents of comforting news about the state of his son's health (Ibid., vol. III, p. 203.). Meanwhile, Muravieva and her family also decided to go to Nizhny, and Batiushkov saw himself in the need to accompany her. On the way, in Vladimir, he found Petin, also wounded, and, as he later said, "looked with envy at his venerable wound" (Ibid., p. 197.).

Around September 10, the fugitives arrived on the banks of the Volga. In the three rooms that they managed to hire, Muravyova fit with three children, two foreigners who were with them, Konstantin Nikolayevich, I.M. Muraviev-Apostol, P.M. Druzhinin and the Englishman Evsns, who served at Moscow University. Now, when patriotic enthusiasm reached its highest limit, when everyone saw around him and actually experienced the horrors of war, our poet, more than ever, was fascinated by the idea of ​​entering military service; but bound by family responsibilities, he had to delay the fulfillment of this intention for the time being (Ibid., pp. 202-205, 208.).

After the return of Moscow to the French, Nizhny Novgorod became a real corner of the ancient capital. Many Muscovites gathered there, and among them there were many acquaintances of Batyushkov. He found the Eve family here. P. Arkharova, whose eldest daughter was married to the famous theater-goer F.F. Kokoshkin, found Karamzin with his wife and children, S.S. Apraksina, A.F. Malinovsky, V.L. and A.M. Pushkin, the wife of the latter and many other persons. The confluence of visitors gave the city a great revival, in which the excitement of the danger that had broken out over the fatherland, and the sorrow for the ruin, were peculiarly mixed with a wide revelry. Muscovites transferred to the banks of the Volga their habits of a noisy, scattered life: instead of their favorite festivities - beautiful Moscow boulevards - they crowded in the city square, among road carriages and peasant carts; having sheltered as God sent, they organized noisy gatherings, “balls and masquerade parties, where,” Batyushkov later recalled, “our beauties, showering themselves with diamonds and pearls, jumped until the first faint in French quadrilles, in French dresses, chatting in French God knows how and cursed our enemies" (Soch., vol. III, p. 268.).

A big game was in full swing in many houses. "There are enough of us Moscow here," Karamzin wrote from Nizhny.

This, however, is said about people who are calmer; the hotter indulged in gambling; A.M. Pushkin, also one of the ruined, in a short time acquired up to eight thousand cards (Rus. Archive, 1866, p. 242.). Ivan Petrovich Arkharov, this - in the words of Prince Vyazemsky (Collection of Prince Vyazemsky, vol. VIII, p. 370.) - "the last burgrave of Moscow nobility and hospitality, burned down together with Moscow in 1812", opened wide the doors of his rich house ; at Arkharovsky dinners, says our poet, - from dog hunting to the exploits of Kutuzov, everything breathed love for the fatherland; here, for the most part, all of Moscow converged, or, better, all the poor: some without a home, some without a piece of bread, “and I,” the narrator adds, “I go to them to learn physiognomy and patience. Everywhere I hear sighs, I see tears and everywhere - stupidity. Everyone complains and scolds the French in French, and patriotism lies in the words: point de paix! (Soch., vol. III, p. 206; compare p. 268.) Often they also gathered at the Nizhny Novgorod vice-governor A.S. Kryukov, and at his dinners V.L. Pushkin, who had already managed to compose a poetic patriotic greeting to the people of Nizhny Novgorod, according to the old custom, entertained the guests by reading his fables and French puns.

No matter how much Batyushkov loved public life, no matter how capable he was, by his artistic nature, to be carried away by the picturesque variegation of this Moscow camp on the banks of the Volga, the frivolity of people who did not know how to settle down in difficult moments of a nationwide disaster, tired him and painfully echoed in his heart. The great events that took place before his eyes set him up sternly and sublimely and forced him to seek conversations with serious people. At Karamzin's house, he heard restrained but deeply felt lamentations about the slow and uncertain course of affairs. As you know, both before the war and at the beginning of it, Karamzin was not for the fight against Napoleon, for which, he thought, we were insufficiently prepared (Collections of Prince Vyazemsky, vol. VII, p. 181.).

The entire first period of hostilities - the retreat into the interior of the country, a series of bloody but indecisive battles, and, finally, the cleansing of Moscow - seemed to him to justify his opinion. For a long time he could not reconcile with the thought of the loss of the ancient capital and severely condemned Kutuzov for this (Letters from Karamzin to Dmitriev, pp. 165, 168.); all the new sacrifices required from the population also aroused in him a bitter feeling, and it increased even more at the thought that he personally was cut off from his beloved work and, perhaps, would never be able to return to it. If inwardly Karamzin did not lose hope for the final triumph of Russia, then for a long time he feared a great shame - a premature conclusion of peace - and only in the second half of October, after the news of Napoleon's departure from Moscow reached Nizhny Novgorod, did he begin to express confidence that God has not yet completely left Russia (Correspondence of Karamzin with his brother - "Atenya", 1858, part III, p. 532.).

This view of events, not alien to pessimism, perhaps did not fully satisfy our poet. His enthusiastic nature was more akin to the hot, unabashed patriotic fervor of people like I.M. Muraviev-Apostol or S.N. Glinka. By his own admission, Muravyov, just like Karamzin, experienced on the banks of the Volga, under the pressure of events, a number of very diverse feelings - first respect and awe, then hope and finally triumph; and he suffered in his soul at the thought of a national disaster (Letters from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod; letters 1 and 2.), but most of all, his impressionability was struck by the lack of Russian self-consciousness, which the Napoleonic pogrom found in our society. From his long life among the peoples of the West, from his acquaintance with their languages ​​and literatures, Muravyov brought out an understanding of the idea of ​​nationality, rare in those days, and he was deeply offended by the exceptional admiration for French culture, which was so sharply manifested in our high society. “What to imitate!” he said. “The heart of this people dried up long ago: no longer able to produce Racines, they are now proud of the Condorsets, the cold philosophy of calculus, which kills the imagination and with it the taste for the elegant, that is, the striving for virtue .. France has never prospered so much as under the power of Louis XIV, or, rather, under the ministry of Colbert ... Soon after him you see that the muses give way to sophists (philosophers have not been in France for a long time) ... The light of true enlightenment is dimming, talents are used as an instrument of debauchery, and for half a century the most dangerous of the sophists, the false sage Ferney, strains all the powers of his extraordinary mind to shower flowers on the cup of poison prepared by him for the departure of future generations ... Unbelief raises its head and clearly preaches godlessness ... The chronicle of the revolution, inscribed with human blood, is revealed before you ... And now it still continues in France, and without it, Bon would not have been chieftain apart! The lights of the fury are not so terrible for him as the flame of enlightenment, and for this he uses all the measures of tyranny to thicken the darkness of ignorance over his slaves and, if possible, spread it throughout the earth, for he knows that slavery and enlightenment are incompatible " (Letters to Nizhny Novgorod from Moscow, p. VI. - "Son of the Fatherland", 1813, part X, No 48, pp. 101-103. These letters were written by Muravyov already in 1813, after leaving Nizhny, but, obviously contain thoughts developed in the author under the impression of the events of 1812. and earlier.).

At the gatherings in Nizhny Novgorod, disputes about the dangers of French influence on Russian society repeatedly took place, and here Muravyov-Apostol acted as an ardent opponent of V.L. Pushkin (Coll., vol. III, p. 268.).

And that terrible picture of the people's ruin, which Batyushkov saw in the vicinity of Moscow, and those rumors and rumors that Moscow fugitives exchanged amid the anxious idleness of Nizhny Novgorod life, made a strong impression on our poet. “I feel too vividly the wounds inflicted on our dear fatherland,” he wrote to Gnedich in October 1812, “to be calm for a minute. The terrible deeds of the vandals or the French in Moscow and its environs, deeds unprecedented in history itself, completely upset my little philosophy and quarreled me with mankind. Ah, my dear, amiable friend, why do we not live in the happiest of times! Why have we not outlived ourselves before the common destruction!" (Ibid., p. 209.) How the horrors of the French Revolution once shook the humanitarian convictions of the youth Karamzin and made him exclaim: "The age of enlightenment, I don't recognize you, I don't recognize you in blood and flame, I don't recognize you amid murder and destruction!" (Letters from Melodorus to Philaletus (1794).) - so now Batiushkov retreated from his former sympathies and ideals. That same French education, under the influence of which he grew up and was brought up, seemed to him hateful now: “Barbarians, vandals! And this people of monsters dared to talk about freedom, about philosophy, about philanthropy! And we were so blinded that we imitated them, how monkeys! Well, they paid us too! One can die of annoyance at one story about their frantic deeds "(Soch., vol. III, p. 210.). And not only to Gnedich, he repeated the same to Vyazemsky, the same one with whom, first of all, he was more closely connected by the similarity of views and the warehouse of education: “There is no Moscow! "Such are the fruits of enlightenment, or, rather, the depravity of the most witty people who prided themselves on the names of Henry and Fenelon. How much evil! When will it end? On what can hope be founded? What can one enjoy? And life without hope, without enjoyment, is not life, but torment!" " (Soch., vol. III, pp. 205-206.) In his new passion, Konstantin Nikolayevich now gave justice to Olenin, with whom he had previously disagreed in his opinion about modern Frenchmen: “Aleksei Nikolayevich,” he wrote to Gnedich, “is absolutely right; he said three years ago that there is no people, there are no people like these freaks, that all their books are worthy of a fire, and I will add: their heads are guillotines" (Ibid., p. 210-211.). Similarly, the fiery sermon of S.N. Glinka against gallomania and in defense of Russian identity received, under the impression of the struggle with Napoleon, a new meaning and significance in the eyes of Batyushkov. In the old days, he ridiculed the publisher of the "Russian Messenger" in his satirical poems and letters; but when, while still in St. Petersburg, Batyushkov learned about Glinka's noble patriotic activities among the Moscow population and about the award of the Vladimir Cross to him "for love for the fatherland, proved by writings and deeds," he wished to greet him with receiving this high distinction (Ibid., p. 200.). Then Batyushkov met with Sergei Nikolaevich in Nizhny Novgorod and, apologizing to him for his previous jokes, told him: "Circumstances justified you and your publication." A most disinterested person, Glinka completely forgot himself and his private needs for the common patriotic cause; he left Moscow on the day the French entered there, and after various wanderings, not knowing where his family was, finally came to Nizhny Novgorod without money, without the most necessary things, with only a shirt. Upon learning of this, Konstantin Nikolayevich hurried to him with all possible help: on behalf of the unknown Glinka, a supply of linen was delivered (Notes on 1812 by S. Glinka. St. Petersburg, 1836, p. 98.).

Caught up in the maelstrom of events, Konstantin Nikolayevich could not return to Petersburg from the short vacation given to him by Olenin; he, however, could be sure that, in view of the extraordinary circumstances, the delay would not be blamed on him. So, he stayed in Nizhny Novgorod, and here he finally decided to decide on military service (Soch., vol. III, p. 211.). Perhaps, at first, he intended, like Karamzin, to join the militia, which, as they thought then, would move from Nizhny to Moscow to rescue it from the enemy (Letters from Karamzin to Dmitriev, pp. 165, 166.); but the captivity of Moscow ended, and this thought was abandoned. Then, however, another opportunity presented itself: General A.N. Bakhmetev, wounded near Borodino; the venerable warrior, who remained here for treatment, expressed his readiness to take Batyushkov into his adjutant (Poln. sobr. op. Vyazemsky, vol. II, p. 416.). However, before Batyushkov put on a military dress, a lot of trouble fell to his lot: twice, in October and November, he traveled from Nizhny to Vologda, to meet with his relatives and Vyazemsky living there, and both times returned to Nizhny through devastated Moscow (Rus Archive, 1866, pp. 231, 235; Works, vol. III, pp. 213, 214). These trips introduced him to the spectacle of the people's war, which marked the second period of our heroic struggle against Napoleon.

Meanwhile, the terrible war finally took a favorable turn for us, the defeated remnants of the great army left Russia at the end of December; public anxiety subsided and gave way to the triumph of victory. At the same time, Muscovites began to leave Nizhny Novgorod. But E.F. Muravyova was in no hurry to leave, fearing a winter cold (Soch., vol. III, p. 216.), Both this circumstance and the slow recovery of Bakhmetev kept our poet on the banks of the Volga; he was still there at the end of January, and only a month later, after various obstacles, set off for Petersburg. Once more on this journey he visited the ancient capital; as if by involuntary force it attracted him to its ruins, the sight of which did not leave his head (Ibid., p. 219.); with pain of heart, he later recalled these visits in the first poem that poured out of his pen after the terrible thunderstorm of the Twelfth year:

Three times with horror then

Wandered in devastated Moscow,

Among the ruins and graves,

Thrice the ashes of her sacred

Wet with tears of sorrow

And where the buildings are majestic

And towers of ancient kings,

Witnesses of the past glory

And the new glory of our days,

And where they rested in peace

The remains of the monks of the saints,

And past the eyelids flowed

Shrines without touching them,

And where luxury is at hand,

Days of peace and labor fruits,

Before golden-domed Moscow

Temples and gardens were erected, -

Only coals, dust and stones of the mountain,

Only piles of bodies around the river,

Only beggars pale shelves

Everywhere my eyes met. (*)

(* Message to D.V. Dashkov (Coll., vol. I, pp. 151, 152).)

In anxiety motley and barren
Great light and courtyard

Pushkin had to spend the last years of his life after his marriage. But a bright flame of creativity and lofty thought constantly burned in him. Distracted by secular duties, he especially cherished those happy moments when he could freely devote himself to artistic or mental work, or, finally, to a lively conversation with people who were able to rise to deep contemplation of his thought. He was looking for these people not only among old friends, whose circle was already beginning to thin and disperse, but also among new acquaintances with whom his circumstances brought him together. Among the new faces who became close to him during these years was, by the way, Vladimir Ivanovich. Dahl was thirty years old at the time. He was not yet famous in the literary world, but his mental salary was already quite determined; he did not seek the patronage of Pushkin, as many beginning writers did, but he was glad to find moral support in him for those pursuits to which he devoted his leisure time from an early age, and which little by little became the dominant interest of his life.

A Dane by birth, but Russian by upbringing, first a cadet of the naval corps and midshipman of the fleet, and then a student at the University of Dorpat and as a military doctor, a participant in the Turkish and Polish campaigns, Dahl, in his many wanderings in different parts of Russia, acquired a passionate desire to observe folk language and way of life. This matter, still completely new for us at that time, had long occupied Pushkin, who himself, during his involuntary village life, recorded songs and fairy tales from the lips of the people, listened to the popular dialect, and even, to the considerable embarrassment of his critics, introduced into their works, the fruits of their observations are living features of the folk language and way of life. I came to a conscious conviction in the usefulness and necessity of these studies quite independently and before many scientists. The same conviction, and also not from books, but from living experience, was developed by Dahl, and he enthusiastically devoted himself to the pursuits of the people. In 1830, he published in the "Moscow Telegraph" a short story "Gypsy", an entertaining, simply and warmly written story from the life of Moldavians and Moldavian gypsies. By the abundance of ethnographic features, this story revealed in the author an attentive and subtle observer of folk customs, mores and types, but it passed unnoticed in literature, and only the publisher of the Telegraph himself called it "excellent", giving readers a report on his journal for 1830. In 1832, Dahl decided to make the first use of his acquaintance with Russian folk speech, publishing a short essay entitled: “Russian fairy tales, transposed from oral tradition into civil literacy, adapted to everyday life and decorated with walking sayings by the Cossack Lugansky. Five first." The appearance of this book gave rise to Dahl's rapprochement with Pushkin on the basis of a case that interested them both.

Shortly after the publication of Russian Tales, Dahl left Petersburg, but in 1833, when Pushkin made a trip to eastern Russia to inspect the areas where the Pugachev rebellion took place, Dahl met the poet in Orenburg, traveled around with him and spent several days in friendly conversations. . Finally, just before Pushkin's death, Dahl happened to come to St. Petersburg and witness the last days of the poet.

So, Dahl's relationship with Pushkin was short-lived, not even particularly short, but Dahl retained a grateful memory of them and, seven years after his death, wrote a story about his acquaintance with him. He rightly considered this matter the duty of all who closely knew the great poet, and for his part he fulfilled it as best he could. Unfortunately, Pushkin's other friends did not do the same, and therefore, instead of a whole image drawn by a friendly hand, we have only fragmentary stories about Pushkin. Thanks to Dahl's subtle powers of observation and his deep respect for Pushkin, and also due to the fact that Pushkin showed up in conversations with him by the most essential features of his personality, Dahl, despite his brevity, should take a prominent place in a series of materials for the biography of the greatest representative of Russian literature. Dahl handed over the manuscript of his memoirs to P.V. Annenkov when the latter began to collect materials for Pushkin's biography. But Annenkov did not have to use this source, and Dahl's manuscript remained in his papers until now, unpublished. Only Dahl's note about Pushkin's death, published in the Moscow Medical Newspaper of 1860, is known in the press. We had the opportunity to use Dahl's unpublished memoirs thanks to the courtesy of Glafira Alexandrovna and Pavel Pavlovich Annenkov, to whom we consider it our duty to express our deep gratitude. We print Dahl's story in its entirety, and after it we place a few remarks and additions to which he gives a reason.

L. "Pushkin and Dal", a fragment from the publication "Historical and literary essays. Krylov, Batyushkov, Pushkin, Pletnev, Pogodin, Fet" L: MAIKOV. S. PETERSBURG. Published by L. F. Panteleev. 1895

Download:

(1.7 MiB, 638 hits)

About Maikov Leonid Nikolaevich

MAIKOV Leonid Nikolaevich is a historian of Russian literature, the younger brother of Apollo and Valeryan Maykov. After graduating from St. Petersburg University and defending his thesis "On the epics of the Vladimir cycle" M. worked for a long time not in his specialty. In 1891, M. was elected an academician, and from 1893 until his death he was vice-president of the Academy of Sciences. M.'s literary position was defined in his only methodological article, The History of Literature as a Science and as a Subject of Teaching (Notes of the Fatherland, 1864, vol. CLV). Considering that, ideally, "the history of literature is the history of creativity in the word and should follow the course of the people's worldview ... and keep in mind not only the authors, but also their readers, since only this comparison determines the national meaning of the work", M., however, believed that "the history of Russian literature is still going through the first period of its critical development and has not yet reached the desired maturity." In accordance with this, Maykov's entire scientific activity was devoted to detailed bio-bibliographic research on Russian writers of the 17th-19th centuries and the publication of texts. Maykov became famous as an editor and commentator on the works of K. N. Batyushkov (1885-1887, 3 vols.; 1887 and 1889, vol. I) and Pushkin (academic edition, vol. I, 1899; ed. 2nd, 1900). However, the editorial techniques of M. in the academic edition of Pushkin caused serious objections, forcing the evaluation of the "classic" edition of Batyushkov to be reconsidered. The main drawback of the “academic” Pushkin released by M. I, which consisted in the “amateurish” principle of reading manuscripts, led to the fact that, as a result of a number of reviews (listed in V. V. Sipovsky’s Pushkin Jubilee Literature, 2nd edition , St. Petersburg, 1902, pp. 293-294) Maikov was forced to republish this volume with many corrections. V. Bryusov, who dedicated a special study to Pushkin's volume (“Pushkin's Lyceum Poems”, Moscow, 1907), counted about 300 errors in it; Continuing the search after the publication of the book, Bryusov came to the conclusion that “M. in the 1st volume of the academic edition, he literally failed to reproduce a single manuscript correctly ”(“ Print and Revolution ”, 1922, No. 6, p. 8). The history of literature was developed by Maykov as an "academic science" hostile - consciously or unconsciously - to various sociological forms of the study of literature.

Bibliography: I. Batyushkov, his life and works, St. Petersburg, 1887 (2nd ed., 1896); Essays from the history of Russian literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, St. Petersburg, 1889; Historical and literary essays. Krylov, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Pushkin, Pletnev, Pogodin, Fet, St. Petersburg, 1895; Pushkin, St. Petersburg, 1899; ed. Maykov (anonymously) published by "P. V. Annenkov and his friends, St. Petersburg, 1892.

II. In memory of Leonid Nikolaevich Maykov, St. Petersburg, 1904 (list of works and index of biographical materials, compiled by E. K. Simoni); Bryusov V., Lyceum poems of Pushkin, M., 1907; Vengerov S. A., Sources of the dictionary of Russian writers, vol. IV, P., 1917; Materials for the biographical dictionary d. Acad. Sciences, part 2, P., 1917.

MAIKOV Leonid Nikolaevich (1839-1900) - historian of Russian literature, younger brother of Apollo and Valeryan Maykov. After graduating from St. Petersburg University and defending his thesis "On the epics of the Vladimir cycle" (1863), M. worked for a long time not in his specialty. In 1891, M. was elected an academician, and from 1893 until his death he was vice-president of the Academy of Sciences. M.’s literary position was determined in his only methodological article, “The History of Literature as a Science and as a Subject of Teaching” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1864, volume CLV). Considering that, ideally, “the history of literature is the history of creativity in the word and should follow the progress popular worldview ... and keep in mind not only the authors, but also their readers, since only this comparison determines the national significance of the work, ”M., however, believed that“ the history of Russian literature is still going through the first period of its critical development and has not yet reached the desired maturity. In accordance with this, Maykov's entire scientific activity was devoted to detailed bio-bibliographic research on Russian writers of the 17th-19th centuries and the publication of texts. Maykov became famous as an editor and commentator on the works of K. N. Batyushkov (1885-1887, 3 vols.; 1887 and 1889, vol. I) and Pushkin (academic edition, vol. I, 1899; ed. 2nd, 1900). However, the editorial techniques of M. in the academic edition of Pushkin caused serious objections, forcing the evaluation of the "classic" edition of Batyushkov to be reconsidered. The main drawback of the “academic” Pushkin released by M. I, which consisted in the “amateurish” principle of reading manuscripts, led to the fact that, as a result of a number of reviews (listed in V. V. Sipovsky’s Pushkin Jubilee Literature, 2nd edition , St. Petersburg, 1902, pp. 293-294) Maikov was forced to republish this volume with many corrections. V. Bryusov, who dedicated a special study to Pushkin's volume (“Pushkin's Lyceum Poems”, Moscow, 1907), counted about 300 errors in it; Continuing the search after the publication of the book, Bryusov came to the conclusion that “M. in the 1st volume of the academic edition, he literally failed to reproduce a single manuscript correctly ”(“ Print and Revolution ”, 1922, No. 6, p. 8). The history of literature was developed by Maykov as an "academic science" hostile - consciously or unconsciously - to various sociological forms of the study of literature. Bibliography:

I. Batyushkov, his life and works, St. Petersburg, 1887 (2nd ed., 1896); Essays from the history of Russian literature of the 17th and 18th centuries, St. Petersburg, 1889; Historical and literary essays. Krylov, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Pushkin, Pletnev, Pogodin, Fet, St. Petersburg, 1895; Pushkin, St. Petersburg, 1899; Under the editorship of Maikov (anonymously) published "P. V. Annenkov and his friends, St. Petersburg, 1892.

II. In memory of Leonid Nikolaevich Maykov, St. Petersburg, 1904 (list of works and index of biographical materials, compiled by E. K. Simoni); Bryusov V., Lyceum poems of Pushkin, M., 1907; Vengerov S. A., Sources of the dictionary of Russian writers, vol. IV, P., 1917; Materials for the biographical dictionary d. Acad. Sciences, part 2, P., 1917.

Employees of the National Library of Russia - workers of science and culture

Biographical dictionary, vols. 1-4

(03/28/1839, St. Petersburg - 04/07/1900, ibid.), ethnographer, folklorist, Russian historian. lit., acad., pom. dir. PB in 1882-93.

Born in a "family of talents": father N. A. Maikov - Izv. painter, member Acad. arts, mother - writer, Art. brother Apollo - izv. Russian poet, other brother, Valerian, - lit. critic and publicist, third brother, Vladimir, - ed.-ed. ped. and children. jury. He came from an old Yaroslavl noble family. M. studied at the 2nd St. Petersburg. gymnasium, in 1860 he graduated from the ist.-philol. fak. Petersburg. university After graduating from the university, for some time he was Rev. Gymnasium of the Humanitarian Island. From Jan. 1861 began serving as an official in St. Petersburg. customs. In 1863 he received a master's degree in Russian. literature for dis. "About epics of Vladimir's cycle". In the same year, he was assigned to Dep. foreign trade. March 1864 to Jan. 1885 was first pom. secret Center, stat. to-ta, then member. and clerk Stat. advice. In 1868 he took part in Komis. for the analysis of the Synodal arch. In the next year, he participated in the census of the inhabitants of the capital, went in 1871 to the Volga provinces. for stat. surveys for the upcoming sinks, polytechnic. exhibition, participated in the international stat. congress in St. Petersburg (1872).

From 1863 to 1882 was pom. ed. "ZhMNP", and in 1882-90 - his editor. Managed to create from the magazine. center. organ for scientific works ist., philol. and ist.-lit. character.

In 1876 he was elected a member. Archaeological comis., in 1885-91 was the ruler of its affairs, and in 1889 it was appointed chairman.

As a contemporary testified, M. "without books did not understand life and books occupied three-quarters of [his] interests." According to the then dir. PB A. F. Bychkov "known for his works on bibliography, ethnography and the history of Russian literature" M. was appointed from 20 September. 1882 pom. dir. PB. As a reminder dir. he headed the household. to-t B-ki, the functions of which included comp. yearly expenditure and revenue estimates, discussion of repair plans and builds, works and acquisitions decomp. materials, production of tenders and discussion of various households. questions. He took an active part in the preparation and ed. "Reports", took care of the acquisition, headed the special. comis. from the b-ray according to the preparation. state change proposals. Replaced dir. in his absence. In dealing with subordinates, he was unusually soft, simple and accessible. Showed concern and concern for junior staff. Possessing an amazing memory and erudition, M. was a living bibliographer. right, according to the history of the Fatherland. lit. He was happy to share his knowledge with everyone who approached him. Together with the then "free laborers" pom. head Rus. Department of V. I. Saitov, he organized, in his words, a "seminary" of young scientists-readers of B-ki, while M. himself advised and helped on wood, literature, Sites - on new lit. According to the one of the "seminarians", "Public Library Departments and the offices of Maikov and Saitov could be likened to an auditorium, with the only difference from the auditoriums of higher educational institutions that there were no unloved professors ... it represented a closely knit circle of young people devoted to your business..." P. K. Simoni, N. K. Kulman, A. M. Lovyagin, A. E. Presnyakov, V. I. Sreznevsky, G. A. Ilyinsky, V. N. Peretz, X. M. L oparev, A. I. Malein, N. K-Kozmin, B. L. Modzalevsky, V. V. Sipovsky, V. F. Botsyanovsky, P. N. Sheffer, etc.

Service in the PB was the most consistent with the inclinations of M. and at the same time gave him access to a rich scientific. material. The period of service in it was the time of naib, fruitful teaching. his activities. Not without hesitation and grief, he parted ways with B. in 1893, when he was appointed Vice President of the Academy of Sciences. In his position, he also presided over a special committee that assigned allowances to scientists, writers and publicists.

Uch.-lit. tr. M. are also various, as well as its practical. activity. Along with the work of stat. character M. studied archeology and, especially, ethnography, subsequently dominated by the work of the East. and ist.-lit. Ch. his life's work was the study of poetry. Russian creativity. people in different eras. His work has been eaten. V. K. Trediakovsky, A. P. Sumarokov, M. V. Lomonosov, G. R. Derzhavin, D. I. Fonvizin, V. I. Maikov, N. M. Karamzin, V. A. Zhukovsky, K. N. Batyushkov, A. S. Pushkin, A. S. Griboedov, A. F. Voeikov, V. I. Dahl, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. A. Krylov, A. Kh. Vostokov, M. P. Pogodin, P. A. Pletnev, K. S. Aksakov, A. A. Fet and others.

First printed article. M. "Corrections to the Smirdinsky edition of the works of D. V. Davydov" was published in 1857 in the studio. univ. Sat. In the same place, he published three poems by A. S. Pushkin. Published in a magazine. "Bibliogr. zap.", "Rus. arch.", "ZhMNP", "Izv. RGS", "Zap. RGS in the department of ethnography", "Russian antiquity", "Ancient and new. Russia", "Historical Vest.", "Monuments of Trees, Literature and Art", "Russian Philol. Vest.", "Bibliographer", "Vest. Evropy", "Sb. ORYAS", "Zap. AN", etc.

Since 1864 - member. Russian Geographical Society, in 1871-86 - before, ethnogr. Department of the Island. Under his editorship. published 5 vols. "Notes" O-va and capit. Sat. Great Russian, spells and Nar. conspiracies. A lot of work has been put into the composition. ethnogr. European maps. Russia, participated in the ed. "Geographical and statistical dictionary" P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, was one of the initiators and the first ed. Sat. RGS "Living antiquity", which played a significant role in the development of Russian. ethnography.

Member East islands, OLDP, Islands of zealots of education in Russia in memory of Alexander III, Pravoslav. Palestine. Islands, Mosk. archeol. islands. In 1899 he participated in the preparation. statute of Rus. bibliol. island, was elected its predecessor, but refused this post, believing that the young island needed energetic people, which he no longer felt at that time. Was one of the chief organizers of the Russian Geographical Society on Moscow. anthropopol. exhibition (1878). One of the active honor, member. the first congress of figures on the printing business (1894).

In 1884 he was elected Corresponding Member. Academy of Sciences, in 1891 - acad. The Ministry of Education of France awarded M. the title of "Officier de l" Instruction publique" in 1885. In the same year he received the Uvarov gold medal for compiling, on behalf of the Academy of Sciences, a review on the publication of E. V. Barsov "Lamentations of the Northern Territory "(Issue 2).

In 1887 he published his chapter. tr. - works of K. N. Batyushkov in 3 vols. and monograph. about the life and work of the poet. Comment. and approx. compiled with the assistance of V. I. Saitov. For this work in 1889 he received the full Pushkin Prize. In 1889, the Academy of Sciences instructed M. critical. ed. op. A. S. Pushkin. The result of this work was "Pushkin. Biographical materials and historical and literary essays" (St. Petersburg, 1899); "Pushkin. Lyric Poems" (T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1899). In 1891, M. was sent by the Academy of Sciences to Moscow. lips. to study stored in the book. P. P. Vyazemsky and gr. S. D. Sheremetev's manuscript. materials for publishing op. A. S. Pushkin. In 1890-91, 2 issues were published. "Materials and research on ancient Russian literature". In 1891 he edited and provided a description of the collection. critical experiments of his brother, Valerian Nikolaevich.

He was awarded the orders of Vladimir 3rd and 4th degree, Anna 1st and 2nd degree, Stanislav 1st degree. He had the rank of comrade owls.

Buried in the cemetery. Novodevichy Convent in Petersburg.

After the death of M. collaborator. PB on meeting. money ordered the photographer L. Levitsky "a large enlarged portrait on platinum-matte paper", which in December. 1900 was placed above the entrance doors in the 18th hall of Rus. department. The widow M. in 1904 brought a rich collection as a gift to the Academy of Sciences. Pushkin's manuscripts, which belonged to her husband. With the manuscript. otd. BAN was formed a special Pushkin department. them. L. N. Maykov, which is based on this gift, which was replenished in 1910 by B. M., also given by his widow. In 1910, the Academy of Sciences for the first time awarded the newly established. prize to them. L. N. Maykova A. S. Orlov for research. "Domostroy according to the Konshinsky list and the like."

Op.: On the life and writings of Vasily Ivanovich Maikov (St. Petersburg, 1867); Great Russian spells (St. Petersburg, 1869); Batyushkov, his life and works (St. Petersburg, 1887; 2nd ed. 1889); Essays from the history of Russian literature of the 17th and 18th centuries (St. Petersburg, 1889); The first steps of I. A. Krylov in the literary field (St. Petersburg, 1889); Valerian Nikolaevich Maykov: Materials for his biogr. or T. characteristics // Maykov V. Critical experiments (1845-1847). SPb., 1891; Historical and literary essays (St. Petersburg, 1895); To the biography of A. Kh. Vostokov (St. Petersburg, 1896); Pushkin: Biogr. materials and ist.-lit. essays (St. Petersburg, 1899); On the scientific activity of A. F. Bychkov (St. Petersburg, 1900).

Bibliography: Veselovsky A.N. Note on the scientific corpses of Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov // Sat. ORAS. 1890, Vol. 46; Zap. AN. 1890. Vol. 55, 60; Rudakov V. E. Chronological index of the literary works of Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov // ZhMNP. 1900. Ch. 331; Simoni PK Bibliographic list of scientists and literary works and publications of the ordinary academician imp. Acad. Sciences L. N. Maykova //Report on the activities of the imp. Acad. sciences in fiz.-mat. and ist.-fil. otd-niyam for 1900 St. Petersburg, 1900; His own. Bibliographic list of scientists and literary works of LN Maikov (born March 28, 1839, died April 7, 1900). I. Articles and notes about LN Maikov and obituaries... II. List of scientists and literary works of L. N. Maikov (1857-1900). SPb., 1900.

Ref.: TSB; Berezin; Brockhaus; Vengerov. Sources; Pomegranate; Mezhov. Story; Materials for the bibliographic dictionary of actions, part. imp. Academy of Sciences. Pg., 1917; NES; Toll.

Lit.: Bykov P. V. L. N. Maikov // Niva. 1889. No. I; Pypin A.N. History of Russian ethnography. T. 2. General overview of studies of nationality and ethnography Velikorusskaya. SPb., 1891; Ikonnikov; L. N. Maikov // Niva. 1893. No. 47; Anniversary of L. N. Maykov // St. Petersburg. sheet. 1896. Jan 6; IV. T. 63, Feb.; Zhdanov I.N. Academic literary activity of L.N. 1900. Ch. 331; Korsakov D. A. From the memoirs of Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov // IV. 1900. Vol. 8, May; His own. Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov. Kazan, 1900; Kubasov I. On the grave of Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov //PC. 1900. Vol. 104, Oct.; Yagich I. V. History of Slavic Philology. St. Petersburg, 1900; Lyashchenko A. A few words in memory of L. N. Maykov // Lit. West. 1901. Vol. 1, book. one; Giltebrand P. A. Memoirs about L. N. Maikov // Chronicle of the Archeogr. comis. for 1900, St. Petersburg, 1901. Issue. 13; In memory of Leonid Nikolaevich Maikov // FZ. 1901. Issue. 1/2; Chechulin N.D. In memory of teachers: K-N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. V. G. Vasilevsky. L. N. Maikov. SPb., 1901; Batyushkov F.D. Critical essays and notes about contemporaries. SPb., 1902. Part 2; In memory of L. N. Maykov: Sat. St. Petersburg, 1902; Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin. SPb., 1910; Moscow archeol. about; Khotyakov (1).

100th anniversary. pp. 441-43.

Necr.: Petersburg. gas. 1900. 8 Apr.; CO. Apr 8; BVed. Apr 9; MVed. and Apr.; HB. Apr 8; Sev. courier. Apr 8; News. Apr 12; Ethnogr. review. No. 2, book. 45, Art. 6; ZhS. No. 4; Readings in East. the island of Nestor the Chronicler. Book. 14, No. 2, dep. 5; IV. T. 80, May; B.E. No. 5.

Arch.: Arch. RNB. F. 1, op. 1, 1882, No. 46; OR RNB. F. 456; RGALI. F. 1257; OR IRLI. F. 166.

Iconography: IN AND. 1887. Vol. 38, No. 25; Rus. ist. about; Arch. RNB. F. 13, p/m-144.

O. D. Golubeva