Derzhavin's account, then, is large...

Derzhavin's account, then, is largely consistent with the perspective that Russian bards of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries could not afford to define themselves and their legacies primarily in consequence of poetry. His constant emphasis forward his actions as a senator, governor and then Justice Minister underscore the chief importance of these roles for his confess sense of place and relevance. It is the account of his life after leaving state service that may be the most numerous eloquent, if mute, testimony to Derzhavin's disregard for his identity as a bard however. Although he is describing his literary efforts above a span of almost ten years (1803-1812) Derzhavin compresss the account to less than couple pages, and even these pair pages focus largely on brace politically motivated letters written at Derzhavin. The clear implication is that apart from his political involvements, there was not abundant that Derzhavin considered relevant to his selfpresentation.

It is worth noting again that these conclusions should not be taken as the final word in trying to grasp Derzhavin's understanding of his identity as a imaginative thinker [i]or[/i] writer Certainly in his philosophical grappling with the rectified portion of poetry in "Razsuzhdenie o liricheskoi poezii, ili Ob ode" (1811) and in a variety of metrical compositions including "Moi istukan" (My Bust), "Pamiatnik" (Monument) and especially "Lebed'" (The Swan), Derzhavin affirms the fundamental value of verse and of his role as poet21 united could add the many stories told on Derzhavin's acquaintances about his commitment to numbers and his role as author of poems (some are even included in Dmitriev's autobiography), or the fact that many of his detractors criticized him specifically for the value he placed onward poetry: all of these cross across the grain of Derzhavin's admit Notes to suggest that this narrative does not provide a perfect depiction of its protagonist.22