Eugene Onegin Alexander Pushkin (e book reader for pc txt) 📖

of the Tsars. There are three hundred and seventy churches in Moscow. The Kremlin itself is however by far the most interesting object to the stranger. ↩

Napoleon on his arrival in Moscow on the 14th September took up his quarters in the Kremlin, but on the 16th had to remove to the Petrovski Palace or Castle on account of the conflagration which broke out in all quarters of the city. He however returned to the Kremlin on the 19th September. The Palace itself is placed in the midst of extensive grounds just outside the city, on the road to Tver, i.e. to the northwest. It is perhaps worthy of remark, as one amongst numerous circumstances proving how extensively the poet interwove his own life-experiences with the plot of this poem, that it was by this road that he himself must have been in the habit of approaching Moscow from his favourite country residence of Mikhailovskoe, in the province of Pskoff. ↩

The first line refers to the prevailing shape of the cast-iron handles which adorn the porte cochères. The Russians are fond of tame birds⁠—jackdaws, pigeons, starlings, etc., abound in Moscow and elsewhere. ↩

One of the obscure satirical allusions contained in this poem. Doubtless the joke was perfectly intelligible to the habitués of contemporary St. Petersburg society. Viazemski of course is the poet and prince, Pushkin’s friend. ↩

Many will consider this mode of bringing the canto to a conclusion of more than doubtful taste. The poet evidently aims a stroke at the pedantic and narrow-minded criticism to which original genius, emancipated from the strait-waistcoat of conventionality, is not unfrequently subjected. ↩

St. Petersburg, Boldino, Tsarskoe Selo, 1880⁠–⁠1881. ↩

This touching scene produced a lasting impression on Pushkin’s mind. It took place at a public examination at the Lyceum, on which occasion the boy poet produced a poem. The incident recalls the “Mon cher Tibulle” of Voltaire and the youthful Parny (see Note 49). Derjavine flourished during the reigns of Catherine the Second and Alexander the First. His poems are stiff and formal in style and are not much thought of by contemporary Russians. But a century back a very infinitesimal endowment of literary ability was sufficient to secure imperial reward and protection, owing to the backward state of the empire. Stanza II properly concludes with this line, the remainder having been expunged either by the author himself or the censors. I have filled up the void with lines from a fragment left by the author having reference to this canto. ↩

See Note 37, “Leonora,” a poem by Gottfried Augustus Burger, b. 1748, d. 1794. ↩

A romance by Maturin. ↩

The “Demon,” a short poem by Pushkin which at its first appearance created some excitement in Russian society. A more appropriate, or at any rate explanatory title, would have been the Tempter. It is descriptive of the first manifestation of doubt and cynicism in his youthful mind, allegorically as the visits of a “demon.” Russian society was moved to embody this imaginary demon in the person of a certain friend of Pushkin’s. This must not be confounded with Lermontoff’s poem bearing the same title upon which Rubinstein’s new opera, Il Demonio, is founded. ↩

Tchatzki, one of the principal characters in Griboyédoff’s celebrated comedy Woe from Wit (Gore ot Ouma). ↩

Shishkoff was a member of the literary school which cultivated the vernacular as opposed to the “Arzamass” or Gallic school, to which the poet himself and his uncle Vassili Pushkin belonged. He was admiral, author, and minister of education. ↩

On Palm Sunday the Russians carry branches, or used to do so. These branches were adorned with little painted pictures of cherubs with the ruddy complexions of tradition. Hence the comparison. ↩

Owing to the unstable nature of fame the names of some of the above literary worthies necessitate reference at this period in the nineteenth century.

Johann Gottfried von Herder, b. 1744, d. 1803, a German philosopher, philanthropist and author, was the personal friend of Goethe and held the poet of court chaplain at Weimar. His chief work is entitled, Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Mankind, in 4 vols.

Sebastien Roch Nicholas Chamfort, b. 1741, d. 1794, was a French novelist and dramatist of the Revolution, who contrary to his real wishes became entangled in its meshes. He exercised a considerable influence over certain of its leaders, notably Mirabeau and Sièyès. He is said to have originated the title of the celebrated tract from the pen of the latter. “What is the Tiers Etat? Nothing. What ought it to be? Everything.” He ultimately experienced the common destiny in those days, was thrown into prison and though shortly afterwards released, his incarceration had such an effect upon his mind that he committed suicide.

Marie François Xavier Bichat, b. 1771, d. 1802, a French anatomist and physiologist of eminence. His principal works are a Traité des Membranes, Anatomie générale appliquée à la Physiologie et à la Médecine, and Recherches Physiologiques sur la Vie et la Mort. He died at an early age from constant exposure to noxious exhalations during his researches.

Pierre François Tissot, b. 1768, d. 1864, a French writer of the Revolution and Empire. In 1812 he was appointed by Napoleon editor of the Gazette de France. He wrote histories of the Revolution, of Napoleon and of France. He was likewise a poet and author of a work entitled Les trois Irlandais Conjurés, ou l’ombre d’Emmet, and is believed to have edited Foy’s History of the Peninsular War.

The above catalogue by its heterogeneous composition gives a fair idea