Wojnar's analysis. Analysis of Ryleev’s poem “Voinarovsky”

Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev is an outstanding Russian poet, participant in the Decembrist movement and public figure. This man was distinguished by exceptional honesty, sincerity and selflessness, not allowing anyone to tarnish the title of a revolutionary. The poet's decency and high level of morality are reflected in the images of the heroes of his own creations. Among them, it is worth noting Ryleev’s work “Voinarovsky”.

Biography and revolutionary activities

In the life of the outstanding poet, there were many difficult situations and tragic moments, which, most likely, forced him to grow up early. The works of Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev, who was born at the end of the 18th century - September 18, 1795 in the village of Batovo, St. Petersburg province, are thoroughly imbued with a militant spirit and the struggle for justice.

The worldview views of young Kondraty were formed during his studies in the St. Petersburg cadet corps from 1801 to 1814. The boy's father, an army officer, sent him to this educational institution. By the way, little Kondraty’s parent could hardly be called exemplary: Fyodor Ryleev was famous for his craving for alcohol, careless squandering, addiction to gambling and riotous lifestyle. During his studies, the first works of Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev appeared.

The cadet did his military service abroad, in France. Returning to his homeland in 1818, the young man decided to devote himself to creativity. Two years later, Ryleev finished work on the famous ode “To the Temporary Worker.” In the same year, Kondraty Fedorovich married Natalya Tevyasheva, the daughter of wealthy Ukrainian landowners. Despite the impoverished position of the groom, Natalya's parents did not interfere with the marriage and accepted their son-in-law, turning a blind eye to his unenviable financial situation.

A year later, Ryleev had to enter the public service. His place of work in 1821 was first the criminal chamber of St. Petersburg, and three years later - the Russian-American company, where he held the position of ruler of the chancellery. Ryleev did not intend to give up creativity and stop working on creating another poem, so he joined the “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, and for two years (1823-1824) he published the magazine “Polar Star” together with Alexander Bestuzhev. During the same period, Kondraty Fedorovich joined the ranks of the Northern Decembrist Society, which radically changed his political views and played a fatal role in his later life.

If earlier Ryleev was a staunch supporter of the constitutional-monarchical system, then from the moment he entered the ranks of society he began to adhere to other principles of government - republican ones. The poet was blinded by revolutionary ideas, which naturally led to fatal consequences. Ryleev became one of the leaders of the uprising, shortly before which he participated in a duel as a second, where both duelists died. Perhaps what happened served as a kind of sign of fate, a warning signal. However, Ryleev did not doubt that he was right, and therefore was not going to retreat.

A completely natural outcome of the suppressed revolutionary uprising was the imprisonment of all the instigators and other involved persons. In prison, Ryleev behaved courageously and with dignity, trying to justify his comrades. Kondraty Fedorovich hoped for imperial mercy, but the sentence was harsh. In July 1826, the rebels, including Kondraty Ryleev's comrades P. Pestel, A. A. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, M. Kakhovsky and N. Muravyov, were sentenced to hanging. During the execution, the rope broke and Ryleev fell. The second attempt at strangulation carried out the death sentence. There is still no official information about the exact location of the burial place of Ryleev’s remains.

Parents spent a long time wondering what to name their newborn boy. The church minister advised giving the child the same name as the first person he met. That's what they did: on the way they met a retired military man. This man later became the godfather of Kondraty Fedorovich.

The boy was the fifth child in the family, but was the only one who did not die in infancy. Once in childhood, according to his mother, Ryleev became very ill. Only parental prayers helped the child recover. According to family legend, little Kondraty was visited by an angel who healed the baby, but predicted his tragic death at a young age.

From early childhood, Ryleev spent all his free time with a book in his hands. My father believed that spending money on buying reading material did not make sense, so the books with which the future poet became truly interested in literature appeared during his studies in the cadet corps. Ryleev's first work, imbued with fiery patriotism, was written in 1813, while studying in St. Petersburg. An ode dedicated to the death of Kutuzov topped his personal list of compositions.

Kondraty Ryleev had two children: a son, who died before he was a year old, and a daughter, Anastasia. Subsequently, it was thanks to Anastasia that the world learned about her father’s creative talent.

What is the poem “Voinarovsky” written about?

K. F. Ryleev in 1823 completed work on the thought “The Death of Ermak”, and after this work he began writing the next one. This time, according to the author's idea, the plot was based on the story of one of the participants in the conspiracy against Peter I - Andrei Voinarovsky, the nephew of Hetman Mazepa.

The author was prompted to create the poem by an event related to the travel of the historiographer Miller through Eastern Siberia in the 40s of the 18th century. Allegedly, then the historian met with Voinarovsky, who talked about how he trusted the insidious and hypocritical hetman. Mazepa deceived his nephew Andrei, disguised his evil thoughts as intentions to carry out “good” deeds for the benefit of his homeland.

Kondraty Fedorovich introduces the main character of the poem “Voinarovsky” to the readership as a fighter for human freedoms and an opponent of any manifestations of autocracy. At the same time, Ryleev is not interested in the true reasons that served as the impetus for Mazepa’s betrayal. The poet tries to convey to readers historical truthfulness, attaching great importance to details, to the smallest details. In his poem, Ryleev described the Siberian region, customs and nature, and accurately reproduced the ethnographic, folklore and everyday nuances of that time.

This event, which Ryleev put into the storyline, was not chosen by chance. In addition, the author here deliberately separated himself from the hero, as he tried to emphasize the scale and drama of the personal fate of the characters. A deep analysis of Ryleev’s “Voinarovsky” makes it possible to understand how successfully the author managed to demonstrate a hero with an extraordinary, purposeful and strong-willed personality against the backdrop of vivid historical battles.

In comparison with the thoughts of the poet’s works preceding “Voinarovsky,” the poem is of a romantic nature. In addition, the narrative element is strengthened. Despite the fact that the main character here is separated from Ryleev, it is Mazepa’s nephew who presents the author’s ideas to readers. Many literary critics believe that Voinarovsky’s personality in the poem is too idealized. If we consider the actions of the hero in the plane of real history, it would be wrong to consider him anything other than a traitor. He supported Mazepa, wanted the separation of Ukraine from Russia and went over to the side of the enemies of Emperor Peter I.

general description

The storyline of the work boils down to the story of how the freedom-loving and rebellious spirit of Andrei Voinarovsky led him to political exile. Being far from his native land, he begins to analyze his life, doubting the correctness of his previous actions, which leads the main character to complete bewilderment. The drama of the poem “Voinarovsky” lies in the fact that Mazepa’s associate was never able to fully understand himself and understand whose interests he actually served.

Even when viewing the summary of Ryleev’s Voinarovsky, it becomes clear that the main character, wanting to overthrow the tyrant from the throne, obeyed Mazepa’s ideas in everything. But over time, as he eventually admitted, he acted thoughtlessly, not anticipating the consequences and not knowing the hetman’s true intentions. Andrei could not discern the real motives of Mazepa, who deliberately committed outright betrayal. There was no malicious intent in Voinarovsky’s motives, but the reckless execution of the hetman’s orders made him a traitor in the eyes of his own people. The main character never managed to comprehend the real motives of the treacherous act of the Ukrainian hetman.

Thus, the patriotically minded Voinarovsky became a hostage to his own mistakes. Mazepa's defection, known from the history of that period, prevented Ryleev from finishing the work with a fair, logical ending - punishment for betrayal.

The image of the main character

Ryleev presents Voinarovsky to readers in different ways. On the one hand, the main character is portrayed as honest, unaware of Mazepa’s vile plans. Andrei cannot be responsible for the hetman's secret intentions, since they were not known to him. But on the other hand, Voinarovsky is a participant in an unjust social movement who betrayed the people and the emperor, and only after being exiled was he able to think about the real state of affairs. Only in conclusion did the hetman’s comrade-in-arms realize that he was just a toy in Mazepa’s hands, and not his associate and comrade.

The double image helps the reader understand that the exile is at a spiritual crossroads. In this sense, a comparison with the heroes of Ryleev’s thoughts would be appropriate. Voinarovsky, unlike them, languishing in prison, was unable to maintain the integrity of his personality, since he doubted the correctness of the once just cause and was not convinced of justice. By the way, the main character died, being lost and forgotten, having no hope of popular memory and respect.

The freedom-loving verses of the poem “Voinarovsky” carry the direct idea of the work. Andrei was completely faithful to the idea, the passion, but at the same time he did not know about the true meaning of the insurrectionary movement of which he was a participant. Political exile became a completely logical and natural fate for a person who connected his life with the traitor hetman.

Despite the fact that literary scholars classify Voinarovsky as a romantic work, the love plot here is muted. Ryleev creates a poetic image of Andrei’s wife, who went through all of Siberia to find her husband. Many lines in the poem are devoted to the sincerity and dedication of the beloved woman. But still, Ryleev brought to the fore socio-political motives and the civic position of the heroes.

What is the drama of the poem?

The hero of this work is a fighter against autocracy and tyranny, but at the same time there is no doubt about his genuine love of freedom. Difficult life circumstances forced the man to evaluate the entire journey of his life. That is why the conflict in the poem “Voinarovsky” lies in the combination of two incompatible images - a freedom-loving fighter carrying his cross with his head held high, and a martyr reflecting and analyzing his misdeeds. Andrei accepts his suffering, adhering to the same beliefs in exile as in freedom. Voinarovsky is a strong, unbroken person who considers suicide a weakness. His choice is to bear responsibility to the end, no matter how unbearable it may be.

Voinarovsky's soul cries for his native land. He is devoted to dreams of the well-being of the fatherland, his native people, and wants to see them happy. One of the features of Ryleev’s poem “Voinarovsky” is that the doubts and hesitations of the main character practically permeate all parts of the work. First of all, they affect Mazepa’s hostile attitude towards the Russian Tsar. Until his last breath, Andrei thinks about who the people found in Peter I - a hostile ruler or a friend? The main character suffers from his own misunderstanding of the hetman’s secret intentions and the meaning of his life. On the one hand, if Mazepa’s actions were driven only by vanity, self-interest and the desire for power, then, based on this, Voinarovsky made a mistake and is a traitor. On the other hand, if the hetman is still a hero, then Voinarovsky’s sacrifice was not in vain, which means that the life of his associate was not in vain.

Monologues of Andrei Voinarovsky

The main character shares all his memories of the past and reasoning about the correctness of past actions with the historian Miller. That is why the predominant part of Ryleev’s poem “Voinarovsky” consists of monologues of the main character. He describes pictures, events, individual episodes, meetings with only one goal - to justify himself, find an explanation for his actions, evaluate his true state of mind and his own experiences.

In attempts to affirm selflessness and purity of thoughts, to prove comradely loyalty and devotion to society, Ryleev contrasts the image of the hero with doubts about Mazepa’s wrongness. This also prompts the author to reveal Andrei’s personality in a different light, without remaining silent about his weaknesses and the civic passion that filled his soul. The paradox lies in Voinarovsky’s lack of understanding of the essence of those historical events of which he was a direct participant. In his monologues, he repeats the error more than once and calls himself “blind.”

When conveying a brief summary of the poem “Voinarovsky,” it is necessary to mention Andrei’s conversation with Hetman Mazepa. The main character himself calls this conversation “fatal,” because it was after it that troubles befell Voinarovsky. Andrei is perplexed by the revealed disposition, meanness and cunning of the “leader,” but at the same time, as already mentioned, he remains unknown to the real motives for Mazepa’s betrayal. Ryleev decided not to make any assumptions about this. The only thing that is emphasized is the description of vivid episodes that emerge in Andrei’s memory, confirming his doubts in every possible way. And although Voinarovsky never learned the truth, he finally realized that he was not acting for the good of the people.

Devoting lines to the last days of Mazepa’s life, Andrei recalls how the hetman was tormented by remorse. Until the last seconds, images of the victims who died through his fault - Kochubey, Iskra - appeared before his eyes. Mazepa admitted that on the day of the execution of the innocent, when he saw the executioner, he trembled with fear, his soul was filled with horror. Voinarovsky, plunging into memories, which he himself called “vague thoughts,” struggled with a lack of understanding of what had happened.

Contrary to the monologues of the main character, Ryleev managed not to distort historical facts. Although the poet shows hidden sympathy for the rebel and patriot, the poem is not devoid of a sober view: a strong civic position and unquestioning submission to the hetman led to defeat.

What did the author want to convey?

It is quite possible that by creating “Voinarovsky” Ryleev wanted to warn about the true meaning of social activity, thereby saying that the welfare of citizens depends not only on the desire of the leader, his activity and willingness, if necessary, to sacrifice himself to a just cause, but also on the true meaning and understanding the motives of social movements. The paradox is that soon the author of the poem himself will have to face a real situation in life, which will provide an opportunity to reflect on personal misconceptions and understand whether his subjective aspirations and goals coincided with the declared meaning of the revolutionary movement to which he joined.

At the same time, the artistic assignment contradicts the content of the poem “Voinarovsky” and the above conclusion. Ryleev’s main goal was to create an image that would remove the burden of historical responsibility and personal guilt from the hero’s shoulders. Kondraty Fedorovich managed to achieve this by endowing Voinarovsky with selflessness and personal honesty. In the eyes of the reader, Andrei still remains an irreconcilable fighter against tyranny.

But if Voinarovsky is not guilty, as the author intended, who then bears responsibility for the betrayal? Ryleev shifted the blame to the vicissitudes of fate, its unforeseen and sometimes unfair laws. Analysis of the poem “Voinarovsky” literally reveals the essence of the content: this is the struggle of patriotic people against the tyranny of power and autocracy. It is for this reason that Tsar Peter I, Ukrainian Hetman Mazepa and his nephew Voinarovsky were portrayed biasedly and one-sidedly. The emperor in Ryleev's poem played exclusively the role of a tyrant, and the traitor Mazepa and Voinarovsky played the role of freedom lovers opposing despotism. At the same time, the essence of the actual conflict, known from history, was immeasurably more complex. Hetman and Voinarovsky acted consciously and were not actually guided by civic valor.

According to many historians, in the work “Voinarovsky” the main character is undeservedly attributed with elevating qualities that have nothing to do with him: patriotism, the fight for truth and justice. Given the romantic nature of the poem, this discrepancy remained unresolved.

Analysis of the genre of “Voinarovsky”

Ryleev showed a certain independence in constructing his poem. The composition and composition of “Voinarovsky”, external techniques have imprints of a romantic style of presentation. Despite the fact that the work was created in the form of a confession, nothing prevented Ryleev from building a unique compositional basis for the work, which was originally planned to be written in the epic genre. It is not surprising that in the poem “Voinarovsky” the breaks in the plot line characteristic of a romantic work are not visible.

The setting of the work, according to modern literary critics, is propaganda. A simple perception of the poem is facilitated by the narrative style of presentation, the predominant simple sentences that do not contain colorful metaphors, or verbose phrases. Ryleev successfully moved away from a depressed mood to the revelation of life's truth. It was possible to revive the poem with the help of elements of folklore, a detailed description of Siberian life, the way of life of the people, natural conditions - all this made the poem popular among a wide range of readers.

A. S. Pushkin gave his assessment of Ryleev’s “Voinarovsky” in a short message to A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky. The great Russian writer noted that this poem surpassed previous creations (dumas). Pushkin liked Ryleev’s style - he called him “mature” and “full of life.”

What role did the poem play in Russian literature?

Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev is one of the authors who are convinced that the poet’s calling is to actively intervene in life, improve it and fight for equality and justice. Ryleev's revolutionary-civil pathos found its continuation in the lyrical poems of Lermontov, Polezhaev and Ogarev, in the revolutionary ideas of Nekrasov. In simple words, Kondraty Fedorovich managed to create a positive image for a negative hero, endowing Voinarovsky with exemplary patriotism, courage, and love of freedom.

Ryleev's literary personality is attractive to many poetry admirers. He perceived his creative talent as serving civil society for the common good. During his lifetime, Ryleev’s works were popular, but after his tragic death, the poet’s name was erased from literature for several decades to come. The revolutionary's poems saw the light again in 1872 thanks to the efforts of his daughter Anastasia.

Ryleev has always been distinguished by exceptional honesty and selflessness. He kept the title of revolutionary pure. Ryleev poeticized these noble moral qualities in the heroes of his works. The central image of the poem “Voinarovsky” belonged to them. In it, Ryleev strove for historical truthfulness and psychological specificity. He attached serious importance to descriptions of the Siberian region, achieving ethnographic, geographical and everyday accuracy. Ryleev introduced into the poem many real details concerning the nature, customs and life of the harsh region.
Ryleev based the poem on a real historical event, intending to emphasize the scale and drama of the personal destinies of the heroes - Voinarovsky, his wife and Mazepa. The author in the poem is deliberately separated from the hero. Thanks to the broad historical background against which a real historical hero appears - an extraordinary, strong-willed, purposeful personality, in “Voinarovsky” the narrative element is strengthened compared to thoughts. However, Ryleev's poem remained romantic. Although the hero separated from the author, he acted as the bearer of the author's ideas. Voinarovsky's personality was idealized and emotionally elevated in the poem. From a historical point of view, Voinarovsky is a traitor. He, like Mazepa, wanted to separate Ukraine from Russia, went over to the enemies of Peter I and received ranks and awards either from the Polish magnates or from the Swedish king Charles XII. In Ryleev’s poem, Voinarovsky is a republican and a tyrant. He says about himself: “I have been accustomed to honoring Brutus since childhood.”
Ryleev’s image of Voinarovsky is split in two: on the one hand, Voinarovsky is depicted as personally honest and not privy to Mazepa’s plans. He cannot be held responsible for the secret intentions of the traitor, since they are unknown to him. On the other hand, Ryleev connects Voinarovsky with a historically unjust social movement, and the hero in exile thinks about the real content of his activities, trying to understand whether he was a toy in the hands of Mazepa or an associate of the hetman. This allows the poet to preserve the high image of the hero and at the same time show Voinarovsky at a spiritual crossroads. Unlike the heroes of thought languishing in prison or exile, who remain integral individuals, do not at all doubt the rightness of their cause and the respect of posterity, the exiled Voinarovsky is no longer completely convinced of his justice, and he dies without any hope of popular memory, lost and forgotten.
There is no discrepancy between Voinarovsky’s freedom-loving tirades and his actions: he served an idea, a passion, but the true meaning of the insurrectionary movement to which he joined was inaccessible to him. Ultimately, political exile is the natural fate of a hero who has linked his life with the traitor Mazepa.
Toning down the love plot, Ryleev brings to the fore the social motives of the hero’s behavior and his civic feelings. The drama of the poem lies in the fact that the hero-tyrant fighter, whose sincere and convinced love of freedom the author does not doubt, is placed in circumstances that force him to evaluate the life he has lived. So Ryleev’s poem includes freedom and a sufferer, courageously bearing his cross, a fiery fighter against autocracy and a reflective, analyzing his actions, a martyr. Voinarovsky does not reproach himself for his feelings. And in exile he adheres to the same convictions as in freedom. He is a strong, courageous man who prefers torture to suicide. His whole soul is still turned to his native land. He dreams of the freedom of his homeland and longs to see it happy. However, hesitations and doubts constantly break into Voinarovsky’s thoughts. They relate primarily to the enmity of Mazepa and Peter, the activities of the hetman and the Russian Tsar. Until his last hour, Voinarovsky does not know who his homeland found in Petra - an enemy or a friend, just as he does not understand Mazepa’s secret intentions, but this means that Voinarovsky is not clear about the meaning of his own life: if Mazepa was driven by vanity, personal gain, if he wanted “to erect a throne,” then, consequently, Voinarovsky became a participant in an unjust cause, but if Mazepa is a hero, then Voinarovsky’s life was not in vain.
Remembering his past, telling the historian Miller about it (most of the poem is Voinarovsky’s monologue), he vividly draws pictures, events, episodes, meetings, the purpose of which is to justify himself to himself and the future, to explain his actions, his state of mind, to affirm the purity of his thoughts and devotion to the public good. But the same pictures and events prompt Ryleev to illuminate the hero differently and make convincing amendments to his declarations.
The poet does not hide Voinarovsky's weaknesses. Civic passion filled the hero's entire soul, but he is forced to admit that he did not understand much about historical events, although he was a direct and active participant in them. Voinarovsky speaks several times about his blindness and delusions:

“I surrendered blindly to Mazepa...
Oh, maybe I was mistaken
Seething jealousy of grief, -
But I'm in blind fury
He considered the king a tyrant...
Perhaps carried away by passion,
I couldn't give him a price
And he attributed it to autocracy,
What the light carried to his mind.”

Voinarovsky calls his conversation with Mazepa “fatal” and considers it the beginning of the troubles that befell him, and the “temper” of the “leader” himself is “cunning.” Even now, in exile, he is perplexed about the real motives for the betrayal of Mazepa, who was a hero for him:

“In him we honored the head of the people,
We adored his father in him,
We loved our fatherland in him.
I don't know if he wanted
Save the people of Ukraine from troubles
Or erect a throne for yourself in it, -
The hetman did not reveal this secret to me.
To the liking of the cunning leader
At the age of ten I managed to get used to it;
But I'm never able
There were plans to penetrate him.
He was hidden from his youth,
And, wanderer, I repeat: I don’t know,
What's in the depths of your soul
He cooked for his native land.”

Meanwhile, expressive pictures that emerge in Voinarovsky’s memory confirm his doubts, although the truth constantly eludes the hero. The people, whose welfare Voinarovsky puts above all else, stigmatize Mazepa.
The captive Baturinsky boldly throws in the face of the traitor:

"Peter's people blessed
And, rejoicing in the glorious victory,
He feasted noisily on the haystacks;
You, Mazepa, are like Judas,
Ukrainians curse everywhere;
Your palace, taken on a spear,
He was handed over to us for plunder,
And your glorious name
Now - both abuse and reproach!

When in 1823 Ryleev finished work on his “thoughts,” he conceived poem "Voinarovsky". This poem is dedicated to Andrei Voinarovsky, Mazepa’s nephew, a participant in the hetman’s conspiracy against Peter I.

Historian Miller, traveling in 1736-1737. in Eastern Siberia, met Voinarovsky there. This fact formed the basis of the poem. In the poem, Voinarovsky sincerely believed Mazepa (“a great hypocrite who hides his evil intentions under the desire for good for his homeland” - that’s what Ryleev himself would later say about him). Voinarovsky is a fighter for “human freedom” and his “free rights” against the “heavy yoke of autocracy” (the author is not interested in the real reasons that forced Mazepa to oppose Peter).

In terms of its genre, “Voinarovsky” is a romantic poem, but its attitude is the same - agitation and propaganda. Believing the words of Mazepa:

I don't like cold hearts:

They are enemies of their native country,

Enemies of sacred antiquity...

Voinarovsky takes his side. Gradually, cruel doubt replaces the former worship of the hetman:

...Don't know,

What's in the depths of your soul

He cooked for his native land.

But I know that, hidden

Love, kinship and the voice of nature,

I would be the first to defeat him,

If only he had become an enemy of freedom.

The conspiracy led to fatal consequences:

The fields were smoking with blood,

Bodies scattered rotten,

They were killed by dogs and wolves;

The whole earth seemed like a corpse!

The fatal hour of battle has arrived -

And we destroyed our homeland!

Ryleev creates in the poem a very poetic image of Voinarovsky’s wife, who went through all of Siberia to find her husband and make his difficult life easier:

She could, she could

To be a citizen and a wife.

And the heat for the goodness of a beautiful soul,

In reproach to autocratic fate,

Narrative style of presentation, predominantly simple sentences (no fluffy periphrases and flowery metaphors), a departure from romantic conventions towards the truth of life, interest in folklore (Ukrainian folk songs), poetic descriptions of Siberian life (folk life, images, nature) - all this brought the poem great popularity. “Ryleev’s “Voinarovsky” is incomparably better than all his “thoughts”, its style has matured and becomes truly narrative, which we almost don’t yet have,” writes A.S. Pushkin A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky January 12, 1824 “I make peace with Ryleev - “Voinarovsky” is full of life” (Pushkin to his brother, January 1824).

The dedication to A. Bestuzhev, which opens the poem, is also characteristic: “I am not a poet, but a citizen.” Without civil service there is no Poet. Only that which contributes to the happiness of the fatherland can become the subject of poetic inspiration - these ideas formed the basis of Ryleev’s lyrical poems and his unfinished poem “Nalivaiko” (1824 - 1825), in which he wanted to show a national hero, a fighter for independence against tyranny, who led the struggle of Ukrainian peasants against Polish rule.

Ryleev was one of those Russian poets who were convinced that the purpose of literature is to actively intervene in life, improve it and fight for justice.

Ryleev's civic pathos found its continuation in the lyrics of Lermontov, the poems of Ogarev and Polezhaev, and the revolutionary poetry of Nekrasov. Ryleev created his own image of a positive hero - his ideal, an example of patriotism, courage, and love of freedom. Ryleev is the most integral and consistent representative of revolutionary poetry. He is also responsible for the fundamental assertion of the primacy of social content over form.

The outstanding role of Ryleev lies in the charm of his personality. He viewed his literary activity as a civic service, the goal of which should be the “public good.” “I didn’t know another person who had such attractive power,” wrote A.V. Nikitenko.

Although Ryleev was popular as a poet, after his tragic death his name disappeared from literature for a long time. Only in 1872 were his poems published in Russia, and his name again entered the literary environment.

Much to preserve the literary name of K.F. Ryleev was made A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev, having published in “Polar Star” (1856, 1860 and 1861) some poems of the Decembrist poet, both unknown and previously published. It is curious that they also named their London magazine “Polar Star” - this seemed to show continuity with the revolutionary position of the Decembrist poets.

Questions about the works of K.F. Ryleeva

In what genres did Ryleev’s work develop?
What new did he bring to the doom genre?
Which “thought” of Ryleev entered the folk song repertoire?
Why did Ryleev consider civic interests to be the most important property of the soul?
Why did he say about himself: “I am not a poet, but a citizen”?
What are the main themes of Ryleev's poetry?
Why is he, like other Decembrist poets, attracted to historical themes?
What new did he bring to the image of the Poet?
How is the uniqueness of Ryleev’s poetic language expressed?
Is it possible to agree with the point of view that Ryleev’s poems are propaganda monologues?
What new did Ryleev bring to the image of a positive hero?
What task of literature did Ryleev consider the most important?

June 21 2011

Ryleev based the poem on a real historical event, intending to emphasize the scale and drama of the personal destinies of the heroes - Voinarovsky, his wife and Mazepa. in the poem is deliberately separated from. Thanks to the broad historical background against which a real historical hero appears - extraordinary, strong-willed, purposeful, in "Voinarovsky" the narrative element is strengthened compared to thoughts. However, Ryleev's poem remained romantic. Although the hero separated from the author, he acted as the bearer of the author's ideas. Voinarovsky's personality was idealized and emotionally elevated in the poem. From a historical point of view, Voinarovsky is a traitor. He, like Mazepa, wanted to separate Ukraine from Russia, went over to the enemies of Peter I and received ranks and awards either from the Polish magnates or from the Swedish king Charles XII. In Ryleev’s poem, Voinarovsky is a republican and a tyrant. He says about himself: “I have been accustomed to honoring Brutus since childhood.”

Ryleev’s image of Voinarovsky is split in two: on the one hand, Voinarovsky is depicted as personally honest and not privy to Mazepa’s plans. He cannot be held responsible for the secret intentions of the traitor, since they are unknown to him. On the other hand, Ryleev connects Voinarovsky with a historically unjust social movement, and the hero in exile thinks about the real content of his activities, trying to understand whether he was a toy in the hands of Mazepa or an associate of the hetman. This allows the poet to preserve the high image of the hero and at the same time show Voinarovsky at a spiritual crossroads. Unlike the heroes of thought languishing in prison or exile, who remain integral individuals, do not at all doubt the rightness of their cause and the respect of posterity, the exiled Voinarovsky is no longer completely convinced of his justice, and he dies without any hope of popular memory, lost and forgotten.

There is no discrepancy between Voinarovsky’s freedom-loving tirades and his actions: he served an idea, a passion, but the true meaning of the insurrectionary movement to which he joined was inaccessible to him. Ultimately, political exile is the natural fate of the hero, who connected his with the traitor Mazepa.

Toning down the love plot, Ryleev brings to the fore the social motives of the hero’s behavior, his civic feelings. The drama of the poem lies in the fact that the hero-tyrant fighter, whose sincere and convinced love of freedom the author does not doubt, is placed in circumstances that force him to evaluate the life he has lived. So Ryleev’s poem includes freedom and a sufferer, courageously bearing his cross, a fiery fighter against autocracy and a reflective, analyzing his actions, a martyr. Voinarovsky does not reproach himself for his feelings. And in exile he adheres to the same convictions as in freedom. He is strong, courageous, and prefers torture to suicide. His whole soul is still turned to his native land. He dreams of the freedom of his homeland and longs to see it happy. However, hesitations and doubts constantly break into Voinarovsky’s thoughts. They relate primarily to the enmity of Mazepa and Peter, the activities of the hetman and the Russian Tsar. Until his last hour, Voinarovsky does not know who his homeland found in Petra - an enemy or

Friend, just as he does not understand Mazepa’s secret intentions, but this means that Voinarovsky is not clear about the meaning of his own life: if Mazepa was driven by vanity, personal gain, if he wanted to “erect a throne,” then, consequently, Voinarovsky became a participant in an unjust cause, if Mazepa is a hero, then Voinarovsky’s life was not in vain.

Remembering his past, telling the historian Miller about it (most of the poem is Voinarovsky’s monologue), he vividly draws pictures, events, episodes, meetings, the purpose of which is to justify himself to himself and the future, to explain his actions, his state of mind, to affirm the purity of his thoughts and devotion to the public good. But the same pictures and events prompt Ryleev to illuminate the hero differently and make convincing amendments to his declarations.

Doesn't hide Voinarovsky's weaknesses. Civic passion filled the hero's entire soul, but he is forced to admit that he did not understand much about historical events, although he was a direct and active participant in them. Voinarovsky speaks several times about his blindness and delusions:

“I surrendered blindly to Mazepa...

Oh, maybe I was mistaken

Seething jealousy of grief, -

But I'm in blind fury

He considered the king a tyrant...

Perhaps carried away by passion,

I couldn't give him a price

And he attributed it to autocracy,

What the light carried to his mind.”

“In him we honored the head of the people,

We adored his father in him,

We loved our fatherland in him.

I don't know if he wanted

Save the people of Ukraine from troubles

To erect a throne for yourself in it, -

The hetman did not reveal this secret to me.

To the liking of the cunning leader

At the age of ten I managed to get used to it;

But I'm never able

There were plans to penetrate him.

He was hidden from his youth,

And, wanderer, I repeat: I don’t know,

What's in the depths of your soul

He cooked for his native land.”

The captive Baturinsky boldly throws in the face of the traitor:

"Peter's people blessed

And, rejoicing in the glorious victory,

He feasted noisily on the haystacks;

You, Mazepa, are like Judas,

Ukrainians curse everywhere;

Your palace, taken on a spear,

He was handed over to us for plunder,

And your glorious name

Now - both abuse and reproach!

Drawing the last days of Mazepa, Voinarovsky recalls the remorse of the hetman’s bad conscience, before whose eyes the shadows of the unfortunate victims appeared: Kochubey, his wife, daughter, Iskra. He sees the executioner, trembles “with fear,” and “horror” enters his soul. And Voinarovsky himself is often immersed in “vague thoughts”; he is also characterized by a “struggle of the soul.” So Ryleev, contrary to Voinarovsky’s stories, partially restores the historical truth. The poet sympathizes with the rebellious tyrant-fighting hero and patriot, but he understands that the civic feelings overwhelming Voinarovsky did not save him from defeat.

Ryleev's poem seemed to warn that the true meaning of civic activity depends not only on the desire of the individual, on his activity and willingness to sacrifice himself to the common good, but also on the essence of the social movement.

However, Ryleev’s actual artistic assignment was at odds with this conclusion. The poet's main goal was to create a heroic character. Selflessness and personal honesty in the eyes of the poet justified Voinarovsky, who remained an irreconcilable fighter against tyranny. It was as if historical and personal guilt was removed from the hero. Ryleev shifted responsibility from Voinarovsky to the variability, vicissitudes of fate, to its inexplicable laws. In his poem, as in his thoughts, the content of history was the struggle of tyrant fighters and patriots against autocracy. Therefore, Peter, Mazepa and Voinarovsky were portrayed one-sidedly. Peter in Ryleev’s poem is only a tyrant, and Mazepa and Voinarovsky are freedom-lovers who oppose despotism. Meanwhile, the content of the real, historical conflict was immeasurably more complex. Mazepa and Voinarovsky acted quite consciously and did not personify civic valor. Poeticization of the hero, to whom the love of freedom, patriotism, and demonic traits are attributed in the poem, giving him significance and elevating

Him, came into conflict with the historically truthful image of him.

On the basis of romanticism, this contradiction remained unresolved.

In the poem “Voinarovsky,” Ryleev came face to face with a life situation that would interest him in the future. Wojnarowski acknowledges the possibility of personal error. His subjective intentions diverged from the objective meaning of the social movement to which he joined.

And the life of a harsh region.
Ryleev based the poem on a real historical event, intending to emphasize the scale and drama of the personal destinies of the heroes - Voinarovsky, his wife and Mazepa. The author in the poem is deliberately separated from the hero. Thanks to the broad historical background against which a real historical hero appears - an extraordinary, strong-willed, purposeful personality, the narrative element in “Voinarovsky” is strengthened compared to thoughts. However, Ryleev's poem remained romantic. Although the hero separated from the author, he acted as the bearer of the author's ideas. Voinarovsky's personality was idealized and emotionally elevated in the poem. From a historical point of view, Voinarovsky is a traitor. He, like Mazepa, wanted to separate Ukraine from Russia, went over to the enemies of Peter I and received ranks and awards either from the Polish magnates or from the Swedish king Charles XII. In Ryleev’s poem, Voinarovsky is a republican and a tyrant. He says about himself: “I have been accustomed to honoring Brutus since childhood.”
Ryleev’s image of Voinarovsky is split in two: on the one hand, Voinarovsky is depicted as personally honest and not privy to Mazepa’s plans. He cannot be held responsible for the secret intentions of the traitor, since they are unknown to him. On the other hand, Ryleev connects Voinarovsky with a historically unjust social movement, and the hero in exile thinks about the real content of his activities, trying to understand whether he was a toy in the hands of Mazepa or an associate of the hetman. This allows the poet to preserve the high image of the hero and at the same time show Voinarovsky at a spiritual crossroads. Unlike the heroes of thought languishing in prison or exile, who remain integral individuals, do not at all doubt the rightness of their cause and the respect of posterity, the exiled Voinarovsky is no longer completely convinced of his justice, and he dies without any hope of popular memory, lost and forgotten.
There is no discrepancy between Voinarovsky’s freedom-loving tirades and his actions: he served an idea, a passion, but the true meaning of the insurrectionary movement to which he joined was inaccessible to him. Ultimately, political exile is the natural fate of a hero who has linked his life with the traitor Mazepa.
Toning down the love plot, Ryleev brings to the fore the social motives of the hero’s behavior and his civic feelings. The drama of the poem lies in the fact that the hero-tyrant fighter, whose sincere and convinced love of freedom the author does not doubt, is placed in circumstances that force him to evaluate the life he has lived. So Ryleev’s poem includes freedom and a sufferer, courageously bearing his cross, a fiery fighter against autocracy and a reflective, analyzing his actions, a martyr. Voinarovsky does not reproach himself for his feelings. And in exile he adheres to the same convictions as in freedom. He is a strong, courageous man who prefers torture to suicide. His whole soul is still turned to his native land. He dreams of the freedom of his homeland and longs to see it happy. However, hesitations and doubts constantly break into Voinarovsky’s thoughts. They relate primarily to the enmity of Mazepa and Peter, the activities of the hetman and the Russian Tsar. Until his last hour, Voinarovsky does not know who his homeland found in Petra - an enemy or a friend, just as he does not understand Mazepa’s secret intentions, but this means that Voinarovsky is not clear about the meaning of his own life: if Mazepa was driven by vanity, personal gain, if he wanted “to erect a throne,” then, consequently, Voinarovsky became a participant in an unjust cause, but if Mazepa is a hero, then Voinarovsky’s life was not in vain.
Remembering his past, telling the historian Miller about it (most of the poem is Voinarovsky’s monologue), he vividly draws pictures, events, episodes, meetings, the purpose of which is to justify himself to himself and the future, to explain his actions, his state of mind, to affirm the purity of his thoughts and devotion to the public good. But the same pictures and events prompt Ryleev to illuminate the hero differently and make convincing amendments to his declarations.
The poet does not hide Voinarovsky's weaknesses. Civic passion filled the hero's entire soul, but he is forced to admit that he did not understand much about historical events, although he was a direct and active participant in them. Voinarovsky speaks several times about his blindness and delusions:
“I surrendered blindly to Mazepa...
Oh, maybe I was mistaken
Seething jealousy of grief, -
But I'm in blind fury
He considered the king a tyrant...
Perhaps carried away by passion,
I couldn't give him a price
And he attributed it to autocracy,
What the light carried to his mind.”
Voinarovsky calls his conversation with Mazepa “fatal” and considers it the beginning of the troubles that befell him, and the “temper” of the “leader” himself is “cunning.” Even now, in exile, he is perplexed about the real motives for the betrayal of Mazepa, who was a hero for him:
“In him we honored the head of the people,
We adored his father in him,
We loved our fatherland in him.
I don't know if he wanted
Save the people of Ukraine from troubles
Or erect a throne for yourself in it, -
The hetman did not reveal this secret to me.
To the liking of the cunning leader
At the age of ten I managed to get used to it;
But I'm never able
There were plans to penetrate him.
He was hidden from his youth,
And, wanderer, I repeat: I don’t know,
What's in the depths of your soul
He cooked for his native land.”
Meanwhile, expressive pictures that emerge in Voinarovsky’s memory confirm his doubts, although the truth constantly eludes the hero. The people, whose welfare Voinarovsky puts above all else, stigmatize Mazepa.
The captive Baturinsky boldly throws in the face of the traitor:
"Peter's people blessed
And, rejoicing in the glorious victory,
He feasted noisily on the haystacks;
You, Mazepa, are like Judas,
Ukrainians curse everywhere;
Your palace, taken on a spear,
He was handed over to us for plunder,
And your glorious name
Now - both abuse and reproach!
Drawing the last days of Mazepa, Voinarovsky recalls the remorse of the hetman’s bad conscience, before whose eyes the shadows of the unfortunate victims appeared: Kochubey, his wife, daughter, Iskra. He sees the executioner, trembles “with fear,” and “horror” enters his soul. And Voinarovsky himself is often immersed in “vague thoughts”; he is also characterized by a “struggle of the soul.” So Ryleev, contrary to Voinarovsky’s stories, partially restores the historical truth. The poet sympathizes with the rebellious tyrant-fighting hero and patriot, but he understands that the civic feelings overwhelming Voinarovsky did not save him from defeat.
Ryleev's poem seemed to warn that the true meaning of civic activity depends not only on the desire of the individual, on his activity and willingness to sacrifice himself to the common good, but also on the essence of the social movement.
However, Ryleev’s actual artistic assignment was at odds with this conclusion. The poet's main goal was to create a heroic character. Selflessness and personal honesty in the eyes of the poet justified Voinarovsky, who remained an irreconcilable fighter against tyranny. It was as if historical and personal guilt was removed from the hero. Ryleev shifted responsibility from Voinarovsky to the variability, vicissitudes of fate, to its inexplicable laws. In his poem, as in his thoughts, the content of history was the struggle of tyrant fighters and patriots against autocracy. Therefore, Peter, Mazepa and Voinarovsky were portrayed one-sidedly. Peter in Ryleev’s poem is only a tyrant, and Mazepa and Voinarovsky are freedom-lovers who oppose despotism. Meanwhile, the content of the real, historical conflict was immeasurably more complex. Mazepa and Voinarovsky acted quite consciously and did not personify civic valor. The poeticization of the hero, to whom the love of freedom, patriotism, and demonic traits are attributed in the poem, giving him significance and elevating him, came into conflict with his historically truthful portrayal.
On the basis of romanticism, this contradiction remained unresolved.
In the poem “Voinarovsky,” Ryleev came face to face with a life situation that would interest him in the future. Wojnarowski acknowledges the possibility of personal error. His subjective intentions diverged from the objective meaning of the social movement to which he joined.

Kondraty Fedorovich Ryleev, Russian Decembrist poet. From a small noble family...
In the literary movement of the 10-20s of the 19th century, an important place is occupied by the work of the Decembrist poets - Ryleev, Odoevsky, Kuchelbecker, Raevsky and many others...
In the poem “Will I be at a fateful time...”, the poet exposed a different social conflict. What we are talking about here is that “young men”...
In the poem “To N.N.” (You wanted to visit, my friend...) he is fascinated by the woman he loves. The intimate theme of a love letter is supported by melodic...
At the end of 1612, young Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, the last branch of the Rurik dynasty, was hiding in the Kostroma region. At that time Moscow...
There are two roads in front of the hero of the poem. One is work, hard and monotonous. The other is the love of a beautiful woman, the peace and charm of a nightingale...
The poem “Gypsies” is the completion of the dispute with Byron, which emerged in Pushkin’s first southern poem “Prisoner of the Caucasus.” Without going beyond...
The poem The Bronze Horseman, authored by A. S. Pushkin, is written in poetic form. The poem essentially has two main characters:...
Mayakovsky's poetry raises deep moral questions, which touch on the problems of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, earthly and sublime, momentary...
My head plows with my ears, Like the wings of a bird. Her legs on her neck are no longer bearable. S. A. Yesenin. Black man "Black...
Gippius called A. A. Blok “a lost child,” thereby emphasizing the tragic figure of the poet in our national history. Indeed, Blok is tragic...
M. Yu. Lermontov’s poem “Mtsyri” completes the development of romanticism in the poet’s work, and at the same time the era of romanticism in...
“The Twelve” is a piercing thing, it seems to be the only significant thing that appeared in the field of poetry during the revolution. S. N. Bulgakov Poem...
Anna Andreevna Akhmatova is a great Russian poetess, a talented woman who faced difficult trials. She had to go through a lot. Scary...
In the city of NN there were two kinds of men: fat and thin. The thin ones hovered more around the ladies and occupied not very important...
The meaning of the title of N. V. Gogol’s poem can be approached from different angles. The direct meaning of the phrase “dead souls” is numerable only...
“Dead Souls” by N.V. Gogol was the main work of his life. While working on the work, Gogol wrote: “If I accomplish this...
The poem “Anna Snegina” plays a special role in the poet’s work. It reflected both Yesenin’s personal experiences and his thoughts...
The landowner was ruddy, dignified, stocky, sixty years old; The mustache is gray and long, the grips are brave... Mistaking the wanderers for robbers, the landowner snatches a pistol. Having found out...
N.V. Gogol worked on one of the main works of his life, the poem “Dead Souls,” at first without much enthusiasm. Maybe it's just...
Perhaps Byron's most famous work was the poem "Child Harold's Pilgrimage", the creation of which lasted for many years (1809-1818). This is a lyrical diary, in...
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, who gave Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol the plot of “Dead Souls,” advised the young writer to put together all the vices and absurdities of the then...
N.V. Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls” is one of the greatest works in world literature. V. G. Belinsky wrote: “Dead Souls”... Gogol’s novel “Dead Souls” tells the story of a certain Pavel Chichikov, whose resourcefulness and dexterity in his affairs formed the basis of the entire narrative. Wonderful... “Mtsyri” is a lyrical poem. It primarily depicts the complex experiences of the hero, rather than external events. Lermontov chooses a form...
At the end of September 1819, Ryleev, who arrived with his wife at his mother’s estate, visited the capital, where he began to get acquainted with St. Petersburg writers....