1828 Друзья́м – To My Friends Pushkin’s poem to Tsar Nicholas of (“Стансы”) was first published in January , and it was immediately attacked as being disingenuous. Pushkin responded with the present poem, in which he defends himself against such criticisms , insisting that his statements were motivated not by flattery, but by conviction . The friends in the title included Katenin (see commentary to “Ответ Катенину”) and probably Prince Viazemskii (see Nemirovskii, –). It has been argued that this poem (like “Стансы”) is in fact more complex politically than it may seem. According to such a view, the praise is only superficial and the two “hypothetical” stanzas (about the flatterer) should be taken as a subtle critique of present conditions. Such an interpretation is appealing, but unlikely. It is more probable that Pushkin was attempting to influence Tsar Nicholas insofar as he could by highlighting the aspects of his policies that seemed to be taking a new and decisive course (see Proskurin , ). If the poem was truly meant to be a critique, then the authorities failed to detect it. When Pushkin submitted the poem to censorship , he received the reply (from the tsar, via Benkendorff) that it could circulate but not be published. Presumably Nicholas wanted the sentiments known, but felt that an “official” imprimatur would lessen its effect. The poem is written in iambic tetrameter quatrains in either ring rhymes (stanzas , , ) or alternating rhymes (, –). Except for the fifth stanza, the opening rhyme of each stanza is masculine. Не́т, я не льсте́ц – No, I am not a flatterer. Note the way the stress is placed on the first and fourth syllables, a striking rhythmical means of drawing attention to the first word. Cf. similar sentiments in the closing passage of Derzhavin’s “Видение мурзы” (“The Murza’s Vision”): “Что я не из числа льстецов” and “Не лесть я пел и не мечты.” Derzhavin’s broader subject is relevant to Pushkin’s poem: whether a panegyric is written out of conviction or out of sycophancy. Язы́ком сердца – in the language of the heart. The stress in modern Russian would be “языко́м.” Войно́й, наде́ждами, труда́ми – by means of a war, of hopes, and of works. Russia was at war with Persia from to and had a brief skirmish with Turkey in . юность в нём кипи́т – youth seethes in him. Nicholas was born in , three years before Pushkin. – Тому́, кого́ кара́ет явно, / Он втайне милости твори́т. Whomever he punishes publicly, he secretly treats well. It is mysterious whom Pushkin has in mind here; perhaps it expresses his hopes about the Decembrists (cf. line ). “Милость” can mean a pardon or any type of benefaction. Irina Reyfman has suggested to me that the use of “милость” in this poem may be meant to recall Karamzin’s poem “К Милости,” addressed to Catherine the Great in an attempt to inspire her to pardon the recently arrested Novikov. почти́л – respected Освободи́л он мысль мою́ – He freed my thought. This is a reference to the “special” arrangement Nicholas created for Pushkin, whereby the tsar himself was to serve as censor. It was to prove disastrous, but at this point Pushkin was optimistic. K. Ospovat notes () that Pushkin borrows the sentiment (and the words) from Derzhavin’s poem in praise of Catherine “Изображение Фелицы” (“The Depiction of Felitsa”): “Я вам даю свободу мыслить.” (“I give you the freedom to think.”) Он горе на царя́ накли́чет – He will bring grief to the tsar – Он из его́ держа́вных прав / Одну́ лишь милость ограни́чит – Of all his (the tsar’s) autocratic rights / He (the flatterer) will limit only forgiveness. In other words, the flatterer feels that the tsar’s ability to show mercy should be curtailed. For Pushkin, of course, mercy is the highest virtue, the right that the tsar should exercise most freely. Pushkin (obliquely) urges Nicholas to display this royal prerogative and pardon the Decembrists. Blagoi (, ) claims that the line is a direct reference to a report by the Supreme Court (Верховный суд) that warned the tsar against showing excessive kindness to the Decembrists. Al’tshuller (–) sees this as a reference to A. A. Arakcheev ’s relationship to Tsar Alexander. просвеще́нья плод – the fruit of enlightenment. This demonization of enlightenment does appear to be polemical, though it would have gone unnoticed to Pushkin’s readers. In “О народном воспитании” (“Оn National Education ”), an internal memo that Pushkin was “asked” (i.e., obliged) to write for the tsar in , he had stressed the value of true enlightenment, noting that the Decembrist revolt was a result of a “недостаток просвещения” (“deficiency of enlightenment”). In response to this memo Benkendorff had informed Pushkin that, according to the tsar, “принятое Вами правило, будто бы просвещение и гений служат исключительным основанием совершенству, есть правило опасное для общего спокойствия, завлекшее вас самих на край пропасти и повергшее в оную толикое число молодых людей. Нравственность, прилежное служение, усердие предпочесть должно просвещению неопытному, безнравственному и бесполезному.” (“The principle that you have argued for – that enlightenment and genius supposedly serve exclusively as the basis for perfection – is a principle dangerous for the general tranquility; it led you yourself to the edge of a precipice and cast a considerable number of young people into it. Morality, diligent service, and zeal are to be preferred to inexperienced, immoral...