Проводится сопоставительный анализ поэтологических данностей романа М.Н. Загоскина «Рославлев, или Русские в 1812 году» (1831) и наброска романа А.С. Пушкина «Рославлев» (1831). Авторы данной работы предпринимают попытку, вслед за авторитетными предшественниками, объяснить некоторые аспекты художественного мышления писателей, создающих исторический роман. Рассматриваются стиль, жанровые особенности, фабульно-сюжетные отношения, субъектные сферы, а также системы персонажей произведений - беллетристического (загоскинского) и «классического» (пушкинского).

This article aims to review works created in 1831 (similar in genre, character system and plot). The material was the novel Ro-slavlev, or the Russians in 1812 by M.N. Zagoskin and A.S.Pushkin's sketch for the novel Roslavlev. Certainly, Pushkin's literary "act" (which continues to evoke great research interest) is in the spotlight, and the indicated aim is achieved by answering the following questions: Can a fragment be seen as parody? What is the author's conception of the historical novel genre? What is the fundamental difference between classical works and "light reading"? The main research method was the comparative one. Two unequal works were compared: their style, genre features, narrative manners, ways of plot development, creation of character systems. The two novels provide a voluminous intertext, so the authors of the article used cultural and historical methods, as well as methods of literary hermeneutics and an integral analysis of a fictional text. When reading the two texts, the reader, first of all, draws attention to their style: an entertaining, full of details novel by Zagoskin is replete with bright tropes fully lacking subtext; Pushkin's sketch, on the contrary, is concise, and the information is contained namely in the subtext which represents "substantial" (if we refer to Hegel's terminology) existential entities. This observation is yet another proof that the text of classical works is inexhaustible. Both writers chose the genre of the historical novel very popular in the era of the Russian prose formation. Zagoskin's novel presented a variety of interesting experiences (a kind of "historical anecdotes") based on a common theme. Pushkin's fragment depicts historical events along with man's destiny, his "private" life. Taking into consideration discoveries and W. Scott's experience in novels, Pushkin creates a multi-dimensional "historical text" in a small passage, where a human life is ready to appear in a stereoscopic fullness. Such a situation mostly occurs due to the special subject organisation of the fragment. In Zagoskin's novel, information is delivered by a "neutral narrator", whose strategies are simple to predict, while in Pushkin's text the relations between the interlocutors are extremely intricate. The author's ideas are evidently embedded in the characters' views. Moreover, rich intertext extends the borders of the narration. The fundamental differences in the story and plot relations of the "classical" fragment and the novel of the "second row" are obvious. In Zagoskin's (belletristic) work the plot and the story are inseparable; the external gesture does not depend on the internal one; the events unfold due to simple cause-and-effect relations. In Pushkin's fragment the external events can hardly be deduced. It is psychological motives and the characters' inner turmoil that are brought to the forefront. The system of characters in both Ro-slavlevs appears to be of a particular interest. Both novels under study are inspired by a common motive: the love of a prisoner and a woman from the "hostile camp". In the belletristic novel the author just limits himself by stating the fact (with insignificant variations, e.g., insert stories) whereas Pushkin's fragment contains numerous cultural codes: references to Karamzin, Chateaubriand, Sumarokov, Byron; historical figures: Napoleon, Minin and Pozharsky; toponymical notes on Moscow, France, England, Germany, Kuznetsky Bridge, Presnya Ponds, Palais Royale, etc. The mentioned facts correspond in the text to the main character's (Polina's) changing mood. Polina admires Mme de Stael, Charlotte Corday, Marfa Posadnitsa and Countess Dashkova, thinking of her own destiny: "Where am I inferior to them?" Here we should remember her determination to kill Napoleon. The unity of naturally depicted characters' feelings and true external (historic and social) realities is so organic that the reader cannot doubt the naturalness of the plot movement. This method seems to shape Pushkin's view and provides insight into his conception of the historical novel. In the course of the research the authors come to the following conclusions. It is not a parody that Pushkin created but his own concept of the historical novel in the form of a "literary competition", a dialogue, in which a person enters into complicated relationship with the laws of society and history. The nature of Pushkin's characters (unlike Zagoskin's) is depicted in their psychological, moral and spiritual development. Employing traditional storylines and well-known plots, belletrists and classical writers pursue different purposes (the former entertain readers, soften their hearts and improve morals while the latter depict a world of intricate feelings and everyday problems).