"А как быть с Пушкиным?", или неосуществившаяся попытка Бориса Поршнева стать пушкинистом

The article elucidates a lesser-known facet of the eminent Soviet historian Boris Fedorovich Porshnev, whose acclaim stemmed from the publication of a study on popular movements in France before the Fronde in 1948. Choosing the path to science, B. F. Porshnev, as it turns out, tried to interpret Pushkin’s legacy on the eve of the centennial anniversary of the poet's death (1937). Upon scrutinizing Boris Porshnev’s handwritten records in the context of his life, it was ascertained that the historian had laid the groundwork, amassed copious material, and had clearly intended to pen and publish an extensive treatise on the oeuvre of A.S. Pushkin. . He had outlined a prospective publication in eleven overarching principles, which he intended to expound upon. Boris Porshnev was looking for a connection between the artistic side and the socio-political views of the poet. B. F. Porshnev was interested in the “historical foundations” of Pushkin’s work and its main themes. It seems that in formulating his 11 theses and answering the question “what about Pushkin?”, he followed the already officially declared stereotypical image, the rapidly emerging canon. The authorities envisaged leveraging the cultural capital of yore, and the historian appeared to cautiously navigate this nascent trajectory. The fundamental tenets of B. F. Porshnev’s depiction of Pushkin are as follows. Pushkin is not just a contemporary figure, but also aligned with socialism. He enjoys popularity and possesses international appeal. Examination of his works is imperative. Previous interpretations of the poet were incorrect. Two themes predominate in Pushkin’s work: the people as the creator of history and revolution. Pushkin is an implacable enemy of autocracy. The romantic idealization of revolution (rebellion), designed to subvert autocracy, is supplanted by disenchantment and the conviction that a triumphant revolution is viable in the West, where it was executed by the bourgeoisie, but impossible (“reckless”) in Russia. Pushkin ascribed the failure of the Russian revolution to the resilience of autocracy and the incapacity of the fading nobility to foment a revolution. This explication of the reasons for the revolution’s failure is deemed inaccurate. The actual cause, unbeknownst to the poet, is the absence of a proletariat in Russia.