Why did the unveiling of the Pushkin monument in 1880 become a literary event?

The monument to Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin in Moscow was unveiled on 6 June 1880 according to the Old Style calendar (18 June New Style). The unveiling near the entrance to Tverskoy Boulevard was followed by public readings and meetings at which writers debated the poet’s significance. Dostoevsky delivered his speech on Pushkin on 8 June Old Style, two days after the ceremony.

The unveiling of Pushkin’s monument in Moscow was the culmination of two decades of preparation: former pupils of the Lyceum proposed it, then a committee organised fundraising, the choice of site and a design competition. Letters from participants help reconstruct the sequence of events without mistaking one speaker’s enthusiastic account for the unanimous view of everyone present.

Why was the monument to Pushkin erected only in 1880?

Creating the monument required official permission, a public subscription and a design competition. In 1860, former pupils of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum proposed erecting it in the Lyceum garden. Progress was slow after permission to collect donations was granted; in 1870, the former pupils elected a new committee. It had to raise funds, choose a site and decide what the future sculpture would look like.

An article by Alexei Mitrofanov quotes part of an 1861 circular from the Ministry of Public Education explaining to educational authorities how to forward contributions towards the monument. For this project, the subscription was both a practical means of funding and a public affirmation that the poet’s memory extended beyond his circle of acquaintances. Permission to collect contributions did not, by itself, mean that the money would be raised quickly or that the sculpture could be commissioned at once.

The scholar Yakov Grot played an important role on the committee. According to a Moscow account of the monument, donations gathered pace after an appeal in the newspapers and exceeded 100,000 roubles. The sum conveys the scale of the undertaking, but says little about its artistic outcome: the sculptor and the design still had to be chosen through a competition.

The project had an earlier history that is easily obscured by the date of the unveiling. A virtual exhibition by the Russian Museum shows that, soon after Pushkin’s death, sculptors made small portraits and statuettes of the poet; among the works from 1837, the museum names pieces by Ivan Vitali and Alexander Terebenev. These helped preserve an impression of his appearance, but they did not yet meet the challenge of creating a public monument in an urban setting. The scale of the proposed monument called for a different approach: an authorised collection of donations, a committee and a competition open to different sculptors.

The Russian Museum also describes an intermediate stage: the Lyceum initiative of 1860 had already prompted designs for a multi-figure monument by Nikolai Laveretsky and Ludwig Bachmann, followed by proposals from Ivan Schroeder and Nikolai Pimenov. By 1870 none of the early designs had been accepted, and the funds raised were insufficient. The later series of competitions therefore did not begin from scratch: the organisers returned to an unresolved task after earlier designs had failed and the subscription had fallen short. The new committee continued collecting donations and brought more structure to the project’s preparation. A study by Olga Zakharova uses newspaper reports to trace the growth of the subscription in roubles. In the first ten years, it raised 17,114 roubles; by 1873, the total had reached 60,000. By the third competition in 1875, it stood at 106,575 roubles and 10 kopecks; 86,761 roubles and 53 kopecks were spent on the monument. The remaining funds were used to establish the Pushkin Prize and publish the ‘Cheap Pushkin Library’.

Why did they decide to erect the monument in Moscow?

The committee chose Moscow, where Pushkin was born, over the Lyceum garden in Tsarskoye Selo. An academic commentary on A Writer’s Diary credits the proposal to Fyodor Matyushkin, Pushkin’s fellow pupil at the Lyceum: a monument in the poet’s home city would be accessible to everyone. In 1871, the Moscow participants selected a site for the future monument, before the decisive stage of choosing its design began. The sculptor’s name became known only after the third competition in 1875: Alexander Opekushin won.

Strastnaya Square, at the entrance to Tverskoy Boulevard, was chosen as the site. This was the monument’s original location in 1880, distinct from where it stands today. In publishing a contemporary’s letter about preparations for the celebrations, the State Archive of Oryol Oblast notes that the monument was moved to the opposite side of the square in 1950. The sculpture itself remained the same, but its original relationship to the boulevard entrance can now be seen only in old images and plans of the site.

Moscow mattered to the project for more than its place in Pushkin’s biography. The unveiling was accompanied by meetings of a literary society, gatherings of delegations, a university assembly and evenings of readings. The programme shows that the organisers expected a range of institutions and writers to take part, rather than simply staging a brief unveiling with a single speech.

Choosing Moscow also changed who would own the monument. Its construction had been funded by public subscription, and at the unveiling the committee read aloud the deed transferring the completed monument to the city. This episode is described by the eyewitness Nikolai Strakhov, who took part in the three-day celebrations; an academic commentary on Dostoevsky’s correspondence confirms that the deed was read during the ceremony. The subscription and the transfer turned private donations into a public monument belonging to the city. It was no longer a symbol belonging solely to the Lyceum community that had first proposed it.

How did three competitions shape the sculpture?

Alexander Opekushin’s victory was decided only in 1875, after the third round of designs. The first competition was announced in 1873 and the next took place in 1874, but neither produced a final decision. Opekushin entered all three. This sequence matters: the familiar figure of Pushkin emerged from several attempts to agree on an artistic vision, rather than being approved when the subscription was first proposed.

The committee favoured a calm, relaxed pose. Rather than giving the poet an orator’s gesture, the sculptor depicted him walking: his head slightly lowered, one hand tucked inside his coat and his hat held behind his back. A description of the sculpture interprets this pose as one of contemplation. That is an interpretation of the artistic image, rather than documentary evidence of how Pushkin carried himself on any particular Moscow street.

Opekushin created the bronze figure, while Ivan Bogomolov designed the monument’s architectural elements. His design was used for the granite pedestal, the bronze posts at its base and four cast-iron lamps. Distinguishing their contributions helps us see the monument more clearly: the poet’s silhouette and the space around it were not the work of one person. Lines from the poem ‘The Monument’ were placed on the sides of the pedestal, making literary text part of the city monument itself.

The A. S. Pushkin National Museum lists Pimenov, Pyotr Zabello, Schroeder and Mark Antokolsky among the competition entrants. Opekushin had already worked on the Millennium of Russia monument in Veliky Novgorod and the monument to Catherine II in St Petersburg. Yet experience with a large ensemble did not spare him the task of finding the right form for a single figure of the poet. He proposed several versions in different rounds and made numerous drawings; the surviving competition models show that this work involved choosing among different solutions, rather than producing a single finished image.

The State Museum of Urban Sculpture in St Petersburg says that Opekushin’s statue erected there in 1884 was based on a design he had presented for Moscow in 1873 and 1875. Ostafyevo clarifies the distinction: model No. 7 was chosen for the Moscow monument, while model No. 11, submitted in 1875, was used for the St Petersburg statue. Nikolai Benois designed the latter’s pedestal with the assistance of Alexander Lytkin. Opekushin’s search thus produced two different city monuments: the 1884 statue cannot be regarded as a copy of the Moscow one.

Why was the unveiling postponed?

The unveiling was delayed first by a problem during installation, then by a period of state mourning. The celebration had been planned for 1879, but a corner granite block was damaged during installation and had to be replaced. The next date chosen was 26 May 1880 Old Style, Pushkin’s birthday according to the calendar used by his contemporaries. The programme was postponed after the death of Empress Maria Alexandrovna.

A letter from the nobleman Alexei Khvostov to his son, dated 30 April 1880 and published with its archive reference by the State Archive of Oryol Oblast, records the expectation of a celebration in May. Khvostov writes of a gathering of writers and artists being prepared in Moscow over several days. This account is especially valuable because it was written before the postponement: the letter confirms the organisers’ intentions, but not the date on which the unveiling actually took place.

In the final schedule, the ceremony took place on 6 June 1880 Old Style, or 18 June New Style. Today, Pushkin Day is observed on 6 June according to the modern calendar; the matching day number conceals the difference from the Julian dates in documents from 1880. The chronology of the letters and speeches here therefore follows the Old Style calendar; converting those dates to New Style requires adding twelve days.

How was the literary programme prepared?

Even before the monument was unveiled, the organisers were coordinating separate morning meetings and evening readings. In a letter to Anna Dostoevskaya dated 4 June, Fyodor Dostoevsky describes a meeting of the committee of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. He names Turgenev, Grot and Yuryev among those present. The letter offers a rare glimpse of the celebrations while the schedule was still being settled: decisions about who would read and when were being made only days before the ceremony.

Dostoevsky already knew that he was to read Pimen’s scene from Boris Godunov on the evening of 6 June, and deliver his own speech on Pushkin at the society’s morning meeting on 8 June. The same letter mentions appearances by other writers and a closing performance of Pushkin’s ‘The Prophet’. This was a full programme in which Pushkin’s works were heard alongside writers’ reflections on them, rather than a single lecture added to the unveiling.

Dostoevsky’s letter of 5 June reveals another side of the preparations. On the eve of the unveiling, he briefly lists the expected order of the day: the ceremony at the monument, a university assembly, a dinner and an evening performance. He had heard a rumour of another postponement, which was later disproved. A private letter cannot account for every minute of the official programme, but it clearly shows how demanding and changeable the schedule seemed to a participant.

Several organisations were involved in the celebrations, which partly explains why they lasted so long. The monument committee oversaw events at the square; the university prepared a ceremonial session; the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature brought writers together for lectures and readings; and the city council hosted a reception. Dostoevsky’s letter of 4 June shows that the participants discussed not only what would be said, but also the order of the speeches. Each institution had its own way of honouring Pushkin: the formal handover of the sculpture, scholarly discussion, literary interpretation, and public readings of his works.

What happened at the monument on 6 June and after the ceremony?

The monument was unveiled on Strastnaya Square on 6 June, according to the old calendar; that evening, the literary programme continued at the Assembly of the Nobility. An archival record and a letter Dostoevsky wrote the following day confirm the unveiling: in the letter, he describes the ceremony as having taken place the day before. He also mentions the luncheon that followed and his reading of Pimen’s scene at the evening celebration. This private letter gives a participant’s account, written for his wife.

The scholarly commentary on Dostoevsky’s letter allows us to reconstruct the schedule for 6 June more precisely than the later phrase ‘speeches followed the unveiling’ suggests. A service began at Strastnoy Monastery at ten in the morning; at noon, the monument was unveiled in the square, where an orchestra conducted by Nikolai Rubinstein played. A university gathering took place at two o’clock, followed by a luncheon hosted by the city council. By nine that evening, participants had arrived at the Assembly of the Nobility for a programme of literature and music. Dostoevsky’s speech on 8 June cannot be placed at the noon ceremony in this chronology: he delivered it at a separate meeting.

Nikolai Strakhov, who said he attended all three days, described the procession from the monastery to the square. Once the covering was removed, participants laid wreaths at the foot of the statue; a committee representative then read the document transferring the monument to the city of Moscow. Strakhov distinguishes the church service from the secular ceremony at the monument. His account traces a change of place and purpose: a solemn commemoration gave way to the public acceptance of a new city monument.

At the university, other voices were heard than those in the square. Vasily Klyuchevsky spoke about Pushkin as a historian, treating the poet’s works as evidence of their era and its social types. In his speech, Klyuchevsky linked Eugene Onegin to the history of educated Russian society, and The Captain’s Daughter to Pushkin’s interest in the past. This was a distinct way of reading Pushkin, different from Dostoevsky’s. That same day, the university honoured Turgenev by electing him an honorary member; Strakhov recalled particularly loud applause from the students when the result was announced.

That evening, the poet’s works returned to the programme as literature read aloud. The scholarly commentary lists Dostoevsky’s reading of Pimen’s monologue, Turgenev’s recitations of the poems ‘Once More I Visited…’ and ‘The Cloud’, and the participation of Alexander Ostrovsky, Alexei Pisemsky and Dmitry Grigorovich. The list matters for more than the number of celebrated names: it shows that the first day did not end with the unveiling of the statue. Even before the two major speeches on Pushkin’s significance, the audience heard his work in the voices of writers from the next generation.

Museum objects add to the eyewitness accounts. In its description of an archival exhibition about Dostoevsky’s speech, the V. I. Dal State Museum of the History of Russian Literature lists the writer’s ticket to the university gathering, his diploma from the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, the menu for the luncheon on 4 June, and a tricolour ribbon he wore as a participant in the celebrations. The exhibition gives the date of the unveiling as the 7th (19th); this conflicts with the Moscow city portal, the scholarly commentary and Strakhov’s recollection, which give the 6th (18th). The Russian State Library catalogue records an 1880 publication whose title itself dates the ceremony to 6 June. The chronology here follows the date supported by those independent accounts. The objects themselves show the different venues of the celebration and material traces of its organisation, but they do not tell us who felt what at the monument.

Why is Turgenev’s speech on 7 June important to the history of the celebrations?

Ivan Turgenev spoke at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature on 7 June, according to the old calendar, a day before Dostoevsky. His speech is a reminder that no single speaker had the last word on Pushkin’s significance. A publisher’s description says that Turgenev became involved in the preparations that spring and discussed ways of distributing his text with the organisers.

In a letter to his wife dated 7 June, Dostoevsky sharply criticised Turgenev’s speech and even suspected some of his supporters of arranging applause in advance. This suspicion remains the opinion of a participant with a stake in the debate: the available sources do not confirm that the audience’s response was staged. The difference between Turgenev’s published speech and Dostoevsky’s reaction does, however, help explain why the next day of the literary celebrations promised to be tense.

The surviving text of Turgenev’s speech and Strakhov’s recollections clarify the point of disagreement. Turgenev acknowledged Pushkin’s artistic originality but was cautious about calling him a national poet and a poet of worldwide significance. Strakhov, who sympathised with Dostoevsky, says it was precisely this caution that prompted discussion among members of the society. The dispute turned on a question of judgement: was artistic achievement enough to support a broader claim about the poet’s place in world literature? Neither position diminished respect for Pushkin’s works.

Strakhov noted that Turgenev drew a lively response on 7 June and that discussion of his arguments continued between meetings. His account cannot be treated as a count of supporters. The memoirist himself had expected the celebrations to produce a substantial debate and later regarded Dostoevsky’s speech as its high point; his own assessment shapes the narrative. That is why Turgenev’s published text matters alongside the memoirs: it preserves the author’s wording, while the recollection conveys one participant’s perception.

Strakhov reports that Ivan Aksakov was due to speak before Dostoevsky, but the organisers moved his address to the second half of the meeting. The significance of this change became clear after Dostoevsky spoke: Aksakov first announced that he would not read his prepared text, but then, at the audience’s request, delivered a substantial part of it. His initial refusal should therefore not be taken to mean that Aksakov’s speech never took place.

The full text of Turgenev’s speech clarifies the nature of his caution. He explicitly credits Pushkin with creating the Russian poetic and literary language. What he leaves open is a narrower question, though a more demanding one by his own standards: whether Pushkin’s national significance could already be compared with that of Homer, Shakespeare and Goethe. Turgenev explains his reservation by noting that Pushkin had to create both a literature and its language, and that his life ended early. Dostoevsky later wrote as though his opponent had denied Pushkin the title of national poet. A comparison of the published texts shows that this was a polemical exaggeration, rather than his rival’s actual formulation.

What did Dostoevsky say on 8 June?

On 8 June, according to the Old Style calendar, Dostoevsky offered his own interpretation of Pushkin at a meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. He gave the date himself in the preface to the speech published in A Writer’s Diary. In the speech, he examined Pushkin’s characters, particularly Aleko, Onegin and Tatyana, and drew from their portrayals an account of the poet’s ability to understand different cultures.

It is important to distinguish the claims made in the speech from historical fact. Dostoevsky asserted the exceptional nature of Pushkin’s gift and drew broad conclusions about the Russian people and their future from his literary analysis. These were the speaker’s own arguments, not a verifiable account of a single view held throughout Russian literature. The event is easier to understand if the speech is seen as a bold interpretation delivered at a public gathering, rather than a final resolution of the debate about Pushkin.

Dostoevsky’s letter of 8 June records his impressions of the speech: he writes of repeated applause, a laurel wreath and his election as an honorary member of the society. These public honours show the recognition he received, but his assessment of the audience’s response remains the speaker’s personal account. In the letter, he calls the speech his greatest success; he later published it in a separate issue of A Writer’s Diary, with an explanatory preface.

In the published speech, Dostoevsky began by asking about Pushkin’s artistic independence. He then described Aleko in The Gypsies as a man who seeks freedom outside his familiar surroundings but carries his old conflicts with him. Dostoevsky applied the same character type to Onegin. This was his own interpretation in 1880, not a description Pushkin himself gave of all his characters. For an account of the celebrations, what matters is the effect of this reading: Dostoevsky offered his audience a shared image of a protagonist through which they could debate contemporary society.

To Tatyana Dostoevsky assigned a different role. In the published text, he challenges the idea that her rejection of Onegin was due solely to her attachment to her social position, seeing her decision instead as fidelity to a moral obligation. This reading turned the novel’s ending into an argument about values the speaker considered enduring. Readers need not agree with his assessment of Tatyana to understand the event: what matters is that the audience heard a sustained analysis of a familiar novel, not just a ceremonial tribute to the poet whose monument they were unveiling.

Dostoevsky then moved from individual characters to the claim that Pushkin could imaginatively enter the worlds of different peoples and eras. The scope of his argument widened sharply: from an observation about Pushkin’s art, he moved towards a vision of the destiny of Russian culture. The text of the speech allows us to distinguish his comparisons between works from the broader historical and philosophical conclusion he drew. A single speech cannot establish that claim, but it lies at the heart of Dostoevsky’s answer to the disputed question of Pushkin’s significance beyond Russian literature.

The history of the publication of Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech involves several versions. The scholarly commentary on A Writer’s Diary establishes that on 13 June 1880 Moskovskie Vedomosti printed it from the manuscript prepared for typesetting, without authorial proofreading; Dostoevsky himself omitted some of the prepared material when he delivered the speech. Other publications subsequently reprinted the newspaper version. A passage in the August printed edition therefore cannot automatically be treated as words spoken verbatim on 8 June. When assessing the audience’s response, letters and memoirs help establish the circumstances, while the printed text chiefly records the author’s argument.

Did the speech reconcile those attending the celebrations?

Dostoevsky’s letter conveys a sense of reconciliation in the hall, but it does not prove that literary disagreements disappeared after 8 June. He writes that Turgenev approached him after the speech and that Ivan Aksakov called it an event. These episodes help evoke the atmosphere of the meeting. A conclusion that all their contemporaries agreed would require independent accounts and an examination of the subsequent debate.

The idea of a complete and lasting reconciliation becomes less convincing when different kinds of source are compared. Dostoevsky’s private letter of 8 June was written on the day of his success and naturally conveys his sense of triumph. Several years later, Strakhov shaped his account as a literary contest that likewise culminated in his friend’s speech. Both are valuable accounts, but neither is disinterested. Turgenev’s text and Klyuchevsky’s speech offer distinct ways of discussing Pushkin; they cannot be subsumed under a later claim of unanimity.

The evening’s finale, too, is recorded from different perspectives. Strakhov writes that Dostoevsky read Pushkin’s ‘The Prophet’ twice and then, at Turgenev’s invitation, laid a wreath on a bust of the poet standing on the stage. This tribute to Pushkin should be distinguished from the award presented to the speaker himself after his daytime address. The memoirist sees the gesture as a sign of reconciliation between the two writers; the invitation is reported by a witness, but its meaning as an act of reconciliation remains his interpretation.

The journey from newspaper publication to a separate issue shows how the celebrations continued in print. In letters written in mid-June, Dostoevsky planned to publish an issue of A Writer’s Diary by early July, but the work took longer. It appeared in August: the author placed an explanatory note before the speech and a response to Professor Alexander Gradovsky after it. Gradovsky’s article ‘Dream and Reality’, published in Golos on 25 June 1880, challenged Dostoevsky’s account of the ‘Russian wanderer’ and public morality. The August issue thus recorded the debate that continued after the celebrations; the polemical texts cannot stand in for accounts of the audience’s reaction during the meeting.

In the June issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski, Uspensky praised the address in his essay ‘The Pushkin Celebration (A Letter from Moscow)’, but warned that the speech might make a different impression in print. After reading it in Moskovskie Vedomosti, he added a postscript to the essay, disputing Dostoevsky’s interpretation of the ‘Russian wanderer’ and the moral example he found in Tatyana’s decision. Scholarly commentary notes that Turgenev, too, later took a critical view of the speech’s content.

What can we see in the monument today in light of this history?

The present monument retains Opekushin’s figure and the design associated with Bogomolov’s project, but it no longer stands where it did in 1880. An archival record dates its relocation to 1950. Without bearing this in mind, someone picturing the unveiling in today’s square might mistakenly place the participants in the celebrations at the monument’s present site.

A scholarly publication by the Pushkin House on Moscow gives further details of the monument’s relocation: it was moved on the night of 13–14 August 1950. According to the newspaper reports cited there, the statue and pedestal, weighing about 70 tonnes in total, were raised on metal beams and transported on trolleys; moving and turning them took around six hours. Writers of the time linked the decision to changes in the buildings around the entrance to the boulevard. This later reason belongs to the square’s twentieth-century history and should not be confused with the committee’s reasons for choosing the site in the 1870s.

Why did the unveiling become a literary event?

The unveiling of the Pushkin Monument became a literary event because years of public effort culminated not only in the installation of a sculpture, but also in several days of public readings and debate. The ceremony took place on 6 June 1880, Old Style; Turgenev spoke on 7 June; and Dostoevsky delivered his speech on 8 June. Keeping these three dates in sequence matters: otherwise, it is easy to place the best-known speech on the day of the unveiling itself.

A public subscription and three competitions led to the installation of the sculpture, while the university and the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature prepared a programme lasting several days. Turgenev discussed Pushkin’s artistic and national significance; Dostoevsky offered his own reading of Aleko, Onegin and Tatyana. Letters and the subsequent debate do not support the legend of a lasting reconciliation after his speech.

The route tours of places associated with Pushkin begins at the monument on Pushkin Square, follows Tverskoy Boulevard and leads to the memorial apartment on Arbat Street. At the monument, visitors can compare the setting of the 1880 celebration with the sculpture’s present position following its move in 1950.

Sources

1. State Archive of Oryol Oblast: a letter from A. N. Khvostov and a report on the unveiling of the monument
2. The monument to A. S. Pushkin: description and history of its creation
3. F. M. Dostoevsky: letter to A. G. Dostoevskaya dated 4 June 1880
4. F. M. Dostoevsky: letter to A. G. Dostoevskaya dated 5 June 1880
5. F. M. Dostoevsky: letter to A. G. Dostoevskaya dated 7 June 1880
6. F. M. Dostoevsky: letter to A. G. Dostoevskaya, 8 June 1880
7. F. M. Dostoevsky: explanatory note to his speech on Pushkin in A Writer’s Diary
8. I. S. Turgenev’s speech on the unveiling of the monument to A. S. Pushkin: text and commentary
9. G. M. Fridlender: commentary on Dostoevsky’s Pushkin Speech
10. Alexander Sergeyevich’s Moscow: tour route description
11. The Russian Museum: Pushkin, his era and its heroes, and the history of his sculptural image and the competitions
12. The All-Russian Pushkin Museum: Two Competitions. Pushkin in Monumental Art
13. N. N. Strakhov: The Pushkin Celebration, an Eyewitness’s Recollection
14. A. M. Berezkin: commentary on Dostoevsky’s letter of 7 June 1880
15. V. O. Klyuchevsky: speech at Moscow University on 6 June 1880
16. F. M. Dostoevsky: the text of the Pushkin Speech in A Writer's Diary
17. State Museum of the History of Russian Literature: The Prophetic Word, exhibition archive
18. State Museum of Urban Sculpture: the monument to Pushkin on Pushkinskaya Street
19. E. M. Khmelevskaya: Moscow, Pushkin: Studies and Materials, 1958
20. Russian State Library: The ceremonial unveiling of the Pushkin monument in Moscow on 6 June 1880
21. Alexei Mitrofanov: the history of the public subscription and an excerpt from the 1861 circular
22. I. S. Turgenev: speech on the occasion of the unveiling of the monument to A. S. Pushkin
23. Ostafyevo Museum-Reserve: Opekushin’s competition models for Moscow and St Petersburg
24. Presidential Library: the unveiling of the Pushkin monument on 6 (18) June 1880 and Pushkin Day
25. O. V. Zakharova: Who Erected the Monument to the Poet? The Pushkin Competition in The Citizen’s Reviews (1872–1874), 2024