National originality and nationality of literature; national originality of literature; nationality of literature. Literature questions

23.04.2019

Gabriel Garcia Marquez What language did Marquez write in?

An essay on the topic: Pechorin is a fatalist (based on the novel by M

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

1. World significance and the national identity of Russian literature of the XIX century. Your opinion on the works known to you on this issue. When studying which school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?

In Russia in the 19th century, an unprecedented rise of literature takes place and is included in the cultural process on an equal footing. It is customary to characterize this era as the "golden age", the time of the heyday of creativity and the birth of philosophical thought, the formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin. Literary centrism is an important feature. On the works of the writers of that time, we learn humanity, patriotism, we study our history. On this "classic" more than one generation of people - Humans - has grown up. Romanticism is becoming the leading artistic method, although at the end of the 1830s, realism will take the leading place in literature.

Russian literature is distinguished by its humanity, purposefulness and humanity, striving to express its opinion. In Russia, philosophy is individual. One of the main problems is the problem of morality; each author has his own solutions to this problem. Moral problems became the main one and almost all Russian writers converged on the formation of high ideals. High in Russia is overcoming selfishness and individualism. And the high, active, heroic ones for Russian writers are the most demanding attitude. In Russia it has never been possible to live a separate destiny. The Russian community is always collective. Russ liter is characterized by the moral choice for oneself and for the whole world. Russ the author showed life in the community with the whole world. This is connected with the epic thinking of Russ heroes always communicate with the nation heroes of Gogol Tolstoy. This soil was very good. favorable for the development of novels. Russ novels have had a great influence in the west. The heroes were colossal, they were not familiar to the reader, the Russians knew how to go out to the question of being. But the essence and the opposite moment when the authors penetrated into the national. In order to consider this issue in more detail, you can refer to the work of Kasyanova "Russian national character" in the book, she says that a Russian person is characterized by a value attitude, such as the ability to achieve a goal. Russia and the West have different goals in life. The idea of raising high feelings and ideals is high and high is selfishness.

The world significance of literature is closely related to national identity: romantics turn to national events, since the 19th century is a century of epoch-making events on a global scale (the war of 1812), it is a change in public consciousness, an expressed spirit of patriotism. The reforms of 1861 lead to the polarization of social consciousness and the sense of personality finds its expression in the images of literature. For example, the era of Decembrism gives rise to the ideal of a free personality, thus the theme of a free personality becomes central. The writers' activities were not limited to their subjective spiritual world: they actively showed interest in public life, folklore works and interacted with foreign writers. Therefore, the literature of the 19th century carries a global coverage of the entire social and political life of that time and reflects the attitude of its era. National identity is reflected in the typology of portraits of people, generalization of their vices and pronounced personality traits: 1) In the center is a liter. 19 in the problem of the growth of a sense of personality: the image of a young person does not satisfy the modern way of life 2). A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol outlined the main artistic types that would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is an art type " extra person”, A model of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called type of "little man", which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story "The Overcoat", as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story "The Stationmaster".

3). The national atmosphere in literature, the development of the Russian national character

4). Writers condemn the isolation of the intelligentsia from the people, as isolation from their roots. 5). The ideal of personality - the relationship of one personality with the being of the whole people (lack of egocentrism, self-will)

6) the writer's attention to psychological and social analysis. You can also refer to the work of Belinsky look at the Russian liter. In school, this question can be used neither in the introductory Russian lessons of the 19th century. For example, maybe such a topic as thin liters as an art form

2. Problems of periodization of Russian literature of the XIX century. What point of reference do you prefer to take as the basis for the periodization of the writers' creativity studied in the 9th grade?

The purpose of periodization is not to create a rigid scheme, but to designate a number of main landmarks at each stage of the literary movement.

The 19th century began with the formation of romanticism. The ideological prerequisites for romanticism are disappointment in the Great French Revolution in bourgeois civilization in general (in its vulgarity, prosaicity, lack of spirituality). The mood of hopelessness, despair, "world sorrow" is the disease of the century, inherent in the heroes of Chateaubriand, Byron, Musset. At the same time, they are characterized by a feeling of hidden wealth and boundless possibilities of being. The poetic works of poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykov. The work of F.I. Tyutchev ". Nevertheless, the central figure of this time was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin - Russian poetry of the 19th century was closely connected with the social and political life of the country. Poets tried to comprehend the idea of their special destiny. The poet in Russia was considered a conductor of divine truth, a prophet. Adolescence determines the subsequent paths of development of the character of a mature person - this is the significance of this age for human life as a historical whole. 2nd period. In the 2nd half of the 10s, a new revolutionary-romantic trend is emerging in the RL, the cat reaches its rise in the 1st half of the 20s in the TV-ve of Pushkin and the Decembrists. Ideological-TV originality of the revolution of romanticism is associated with historical events (the revolution, which developed the ideals of freedom of brotherhood and equality)

Since the middle of the 19th century, the formation of Russian realistic literature has been taking place, which is created against the background of the tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. There is a need to create a realistic literature that sharply reacts to the socio-political situation in the country. Literary critic V.G. Belinsky denotes a new realistic trend in literature. His position is being developed by N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky. A dispute arises between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles about the paths of the historical development of Russia. Writers turn to the socio-political problems of Russian reality. The genre of the realistic novel is developing. I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov. Socio-political and philosophical issues prevail. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism.

Second half of the 19th century and was the heyday of Russian critical realism. In the mid-1950s, Russia experienced an unusually powerful social upsurge. The tsarist government was forced to begin preparations for a peasant reform, around which an ideological, political and literary struggle unfolded.

The critical activities of Chernyshevsky and his closest collaborator Dobrolyubov contributed to the penetration of advanced, liberating ideas into literature, and the further and development of realism. In an atmosphere of social upsurge and intense ideological struggle, Russian realist writers have created an unprecedented number of outstanding works of art. In these works, in the full sense of the classic word, the characteristic features of Russian literature were most vividly intertwined: high civic feelings, the breadth of the image of life, the deep disclosure of its contradictions. Mercilessly exposing the oppressors of the people - landlords, bourgeois businessmen, high-ranking officials, Russian writers opposed them to working people in whom something did not kill the best human qualities: hard work and dedication, sincerity and spiritual purity.

The literary process of the late 19th century discovered the names of N.S. Leskova, A.N. Ostrovsky A.P. Chekhov. The latter proved to be a master of small literary genre- a story, as well as an excellent playwright. Competitor A.P. Chekhov was Maxim Gorky. The end of the 19th century was marked by the formation of pre-revolutionary sentiments. The realistic tradition was beginning to fade. She was replaced by the so-called decadent literature

3. Features of the literary life of the 1810s

In the 1810s - eclecticism - mixing of literature. current: sentimentalism, classicism, romanticism. Zhukovsky as the founder of psychological romanticism. An important factor influencing the work of the Romanticists of 1810 was the creation of a reform on the Russian word by Karamzin, where the writer sought to add plasticity and sophistication to the Russian language, introducing foreign borrowings into everyday life, replacing Church Slavonic vocabulary. The poetic works of poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, Byron, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykov. The work of F.I. Tyutchev's "Golden Age" of Russian poetry was completed.

The main event of this period is the development of romanticism. The first third of the 19th century is called the “golden age” of Russian culture. Its beginning coincided with the era of classicism in Russian literature and art. In the first decades of the century, poetry was the leading genre in Russian literature. A.S. Pushkin became a symbol of his era. A meteoric rise in the cultural development of Russia. The rise of common life is causing the rapid growth of journalism. Many new magazines are springing up. Literary circles appear, which contributed to the aesthetics. self-determination. An ideological struggle is being waged. There are no masterpieces, but the letters and memoirs of the poets say that it was a turbulent era. Mass literature is especially developing

4. I.A. Krylov the fabulist. The people of Krylov's fables

Alongside romanticism, the educational stream in Russian literature, represented by Krylov's fables, continued to live and develop. The author was interested not so much in a person's personal experiences as in the socio-social organism that caused these experiences. He viewed a person as a social, not a private individual. Krylov dared to make the people's consciousness the highest value in his artistic system: he has the common sense of the people - the subject of artistic expression, the supreme judge, who makes a wise, sparklingly cheerful or destroying verdict of reality. a kind of emotionally affecting the mind of the protagonist field)

In the note "On the Preface to the Translation of Krylov's Fables" Pushkin pointed to the "cheerful cunning of the mind, mockery and the picturesque way of expressing himself" as "a distinctive feature in our morals" and it was in this sense that he considered Krylov a "representative of the spirit" of the Russian people. Indeed, the ironic intonation of the story is one of the most important features of his fables.

The problem of nationality put forward before Russian writers the task of overcoming the class limitations of their world outlook and transition to the position of "popular opinion".

Most consistently and impressively, the nationality of Krylov's work was manifested in the fables dedicated to the Patriotic War of 1812 ("The Crow and the Hen", "The Wolf in the Kennel", "Pike and the Cat", "Section", "Wagon Train", "The Cat and the Cook") ... Long before L. Tolstoy, Krylov opposed the official version of victories over Napoleon with his interpretation of them from the standpoint of popular morality. It is no coincidence that in the fable "Siskin and the Hedgehog" (1814), he with sly simplicity refused to "sing" the merits of Alexander I in the victory over the invasion, glorifying Kutuzov as a people's commander.

The uniqueness of fables is in their very idea - just slightly push a person to independently analyze and think carefully about what is the point, who is right and wrong, and why it actually happened. The typicality of the images created by Krylov, the versatility of satire, the author's observation, the ability to convey stable features human character, the true nationality made his fables immortal. From the fact that Krylov's works are completely devoid of high philosophy and rather resemble fairy tales, the meaning of fables concerns the most common situations in our life. This quality of stories makes them so useful for thinking: after all, it is only through "everyday" simple examples that you can see something deeper.

The consciousness of the Russian person was illuminated by Krylov not from the height of the "theories" of learned sages, but by the moral experience of the people, that is, the experience of everyone, without distinction of estates and titles, for any person is a part of the past, present and future history... Reading Krylov's fables, people eagerly learned to understand themselves. The fables of Ivan Krylov are indeed written in an accessible folk language, which, however, does not deprive them of a wealth of artistic and expressive means, with the help of which the beauty of the literary Russian language is revealed. Krylov entered their homes and hearts. From a writer known to literary circles, he immediately, suddenly became "his" all of Russia. Thanks to the light comic language, Krylov's stories are accessible to everyone and positively assimilated by the public. Probably, this is due to the special benevolent proximity to the people and the absence of unnecessary intricate plot lines.

5. The polemics of "archaists" and "innovators" on the issue of the Russian literary language in early XIX century

The prose and poetry of Karamzin had a decisive influence on the development of the Russian literary language. Karamzin purposefully abandoned the use of Church Slavonic vocabulary and grammar, bringing the language of his works to the everyday language of his era and using the grammar and syntax of the French language as a model. Karamzin introduced many new words into the Russian language - as neologisms ("charity", "falling in love", "free-thinking", "attraction", "responsibility", "suspicion", "industry", "sophistication", "first-class", " human ") and barbarism (" sidewalk "," coachman "). He was also one of the first to use the letter E. having an extraordinary stylistic flair, he also introduced the Russian language such barbarisms (direct borrowing foreign words), which organically took root in it: civilization, era, moment, catastrophe, serious, aesthetic, moral, sidewalk, etc .;

The changes in the language proposed by Karamzin caused a violent controversy in the 1810s. Writer A.S.Shishkov, with the assistance of Derzhavin, founded in 1811 the Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word society, whose purpose was to promote the "old" language, as well as criticize Karamzin. Zhukovsky and their followers. In response, in 1815, the literary society "Arzamas" was formed, which mocked the authors of "Conversation" and parodied their works. Many poets of the new generation have become members of the society, including Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, Davydov, Zhukovsky, Pushkin. The literary victory of "Arzamas" over "Beseda" consolidated the victory of the language changes introduced by Karamzin.

Sometimes Shishkov's criticism of him was accurate and accurate. Shishkov was outraged by the evasiveness and aesthetic cutesiness in the speech of Karamzin and the “Karamzinists”: he believed that instead of the expression “when travel became a need of my soul”, one can simply say: “when I loved to travel”; In opposition to Karamzin, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language: he believed that the concepts and feelings that were missing in our everyday life should be denoted with new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Slavonic languages. The Old Believer, an admirer of Lomonosov's language, He advocated the return of literature to oral folk art, to folk vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic books. He reproached the "Karamzinists" for succumbing to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings. He considered the style of the language to be a sign of the author's ideological affiliation.

It seemed to Shishkov that Karamzin's language reform was unpatriotic and even anti-religious.

Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no godliness in the language. Where there is no love for the fatherland, the language does not express native feelings. " And since Karamzin reacted negatively to the abundance of Church Slavonic words in Russian, Shishkov argued that Karamzin's innovations distorted his noble majestic simplicity. Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the immoderate use of barbarisms (era, harmony, enthusiasm, disaster), neologisms hated him, artificial words cut his ear: reality, future, erudition.

6. Ideological and artistic originality of creativity of "poets-Radishchevites", their contribution to the development of Russian classicism. Analysis of one poem (at the student's choice).

The classicists saw the goal of art in the knowledge of truth, serving as the ideal of beauty. They put forward a method for achieving it, based on three central categories of their aesthetics: reason, pattern, taste. All of these categories were considered objective criteria for artistry. From the point of view of the classicists, great works are not the fruit of talent, inspiration, or artistic imagination, but stubborn adherence to the dictates of reason, the study of classical works of antiquity and knowledge of the rules of taste. Thus, they bring together artistic activity with scientific. That is why the rationalistic method of the French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), which became the basis of artistic knowledge in classicism, turned out to be acceptable for them. Descartes argued that the human mind has innate ideas, the truth of which is beyond doubt. Thus, reason becomes the central concept of the philosophy of rationalism, and then of the art of classicism. The weak side of such a view was the lack of a dialectical view. The world was considered immovable, consciousness and the ideal were immutable.

Character. In the art of classicism, attention is paid not to the particular, individual, accidental, but to the general, typical. Therefore, the character of the hero in literature has no individual traits, acting as a generalization of a whole type of people. The main conflict. The category of reason turns out to be central also in the formation of a new type of artistic conflict opened by classicism: the conflict between reason, duty to the state - and feelings, personal needs, passions. No matter how this conflict is resolved - by the victory of reason and duty (as in Corneille) or the victory of passions (as in Racine), only a man-citizen who puts his duty to the state above private life is the ideal of the classicists.

Human rights, political and social freedom, nation, nationality - all these great ideas, reflecting the changes in historical reality at the pass from feudalism to capitalism and outlined in the literature of the 18th century, have now become its main content. They also demanded new forms of artistic expression for themselves. In 1801, after the return of A.N. Radishchev from exile, a circle of young like-minded people formed around him - “ Free Society lovers of literature, sciences and arts "- I.P. Pnin, V.V. Popugaev, I.M. Born, A.H. Vostokov and others. They entered the history of literature under the name of poets-Radishchevites. They had their own magazine "Northern Herald" and the almanac "Scroll of the Muses". At various times, N.I. Gnedich, K.N. Batyushkov and other writers. The outlook and activities of the Radishchev poets were of an educational nature. They were staunch followers and heirs of both French and Russian. Enlightenment XVIII century. Members of the "Free Society ..." stood up for respect for the human person, for strict observance of laws, for a fair trial. A citizen, in their opinion, had the right to think freely and fearlessly affirm Truth and Virtue.

In its creative activity poets-Radishchevites were committed to the traditions of classicism. Their beloved poetic genres became an ode, a message, an epigram .. The rationalistic pathos of the general, the non-differentiation of the individual principle from the whole, the abstractness in the understanding of man - all this also connected the poetry of the Radishchevites and the civic poetry of Decembrism with the literature of the 18th century. and with the poetics of classicism.

Hence, in Pnin's philosophical lyrics, her wide, universal frame, cosmism and allegorism of her images; from classicism in the poetics of the Radishchevites and the solemn flow of verse, measured pathos of poetic syntax, high abstract vocabulary. the philosophical ode to Pnin ("Man") is, as it were, a majestic oratorio,

Classicism as a style is a system of pictorial and expressive means that typify reality through the prism of antique samples, perceived as the ideal of harmony, simplicity, uniqueness, and ordered symmetry. Thus, this style reproduces only the rationalistically ordered outer shell of ancient culture, without transferring its pagan, complex and indivisible essence. The essence of the style of classicism lies not in the antique dress, but in the expression of the view of the world of the person of the absolutist era. It is distinguished by clarity, monumentality, the desire to remove all unnecessary, to create a single and integral impression.

7. The emergence and development of Russian romanticism. Its aesthetic essence and mainstreams. Which of the works, ambiguously solving the question of the genesis and essence of romanticism, is close to you?

“In the 1820s. romanticism became the main event of literary life, struggle, the center of revival and noisy journalistic-critical polemics in Russia. Romanticism in Russia was formed before the country was to enter a period of bourgeois transformations. It reflected the disillusionment of the Russian people with the existing order. It expressed the social forces that began to awaken, the desire for the growth of social consciousness "- this is how Gurevich says about the emergence of romanticism in Russia in his book" Romanticism in Russian Literature. "

Maimin in his book "On Russian Romanticism" says that Russian romanticism was part of European romanticism, therefore in Russian romanticism there are signs of European romanticism, but Russian romanticism also has its origins. Namely, the war of 1812, its consequences for Russian life and self-awareness. "She showed," writes Maimin, "the strength and greatness of the common people." This was the basis for dissatisfaction with the slavish way of life of the common people, and, as a result, for romantic and Decembrist sentiments.

The first who tried to make out what romanticism was were Pushkin and Ryleev, later a treatise by Georgievsky and Galich appears. In the works of Veselovsky, romanticism is seen as a manifestation of liberalism. Zamotin believes that romanticism is a manifestation, an expression of the idealistic in literature. Sipovsky defines romanticism as the individualism of the era. Sokurin says that this is surrealism. In 1957, there was a discussion on the problems of realiasm. On this basis, appeared. collections and monographs about romanticism. One of the works is Sokolov's article "On the debate about romanticism", in which the author gives different points of view on romanticism and makes an important conclusion: each of the definitions contains a grain of truth, but not one of them "does not constitute a feeling of complete satisfaction." because they are trying to define romanticism "by one of its attributes." Meanwhile, “all attempts to embrace romanticism in some single formula will inevitably give an impoverished, one-sided and therefore incorrect idea of this literary phenomenon. It is necessary to reveal the system of signs of romanticism and to define the studied phenomenon by this system ”. And here, in turn, Mann makes his remark: the inadequacy of any differentiated approach to romanticism, the need to "reveal the system of signs" are correctly noted by Sokolov, but at the same time he does not clarify the concept of systemicity as such. At the same time, the concept of romanticism will not become truer if we judge it "not by one attribute," but by a number of attributes. There is no obligation to list them: it can be interrupted and resumed at any time. Each new trait is on the same plane as all the previous ones, while the obligation of their connection would be achieved only if we could penetrate "through them" into the very organization of the artistic phenomenon. Immediately, one cannot fail to note Volkov's introductory article to the book "History of Russian Romanticism", in which the author sets himself the task of clarifying the concept of "romanticism" and "romance" taking into account different national literatures, referring to various works on romanticism, including article by Sokolov, named above. He attributes the ambiguity and inconsistency of the theory and history of romanticism "more to the history of this problem than to the current state of its scientific solution." He says that many of the terms of romanticism have already disappeared, have lost their significance, and, brushing them aside, he comes to the conclusion that in modern literary criticism there are only two meanings of the term "romanticism". One of them is “the concept of romanticism as a“ transforming ”side of everyone is truly artistic creation ". This concept is most consistently and fully described in the textbook by L.I. Timofeeva "Foundations of the theory of literature." Volkov, in turn, says that although Timofeev's theory of realism-romanticism affirms the unity of objective and subjective content in art, the cognitive and transformative functions of artistic creativity, the choice of the term "romanticism" to denote the transformative side of artistic creativity is clearly arbitrary. He explains this by the fact that the transformative side can be called both sentimentalism and expressionism and intellectualism - after all, these terms, no less than romanticism, indicate precisely the subjective side of artistic creativity, and then the entire diversity of artistic creativity can be replaced by one of its specific historical forms. And then, within the framework of this theory, the term "romance" is more suitable (along with tragedy, satire, etc.). “There remains one generally accepted meaning of the term“ romanticism ”, - continues Sokolov, - that refers to the artistic system, generated at the turn of the 18-19th centuries, and which constituted an entire era in the artistic development of mankind in the first third of the 19th century. The disputes that are currently going on about romanticism relate mainly to this, in fact, romantic art and to the question of the possibility and availability of such art in later times and today. " Gurevich in his book "Romanticism in Russian Literature" writes: "Romanticism is a revolution in art. The era of romanticism itself is revolutionary, it is a time of great disappointments and expectations, a time of decisive changes in the minds of people ”. Then he continues: “A characteristic feature of romanticism is dissatisfaction with reality, sometimes deep disappointment in it, deep doubt that life can be built on the principles of goodness, reason, and justice. Hence the dream of the reorganization of the world and of man, a passionate desire for sublime idealization appears. " “The unprecedented acuteness of the real and the ideal gives rise to a tense, tragic experience. This duality is a defining feature of romantic art. " Maimin also believes that romanticism is based on disappointment in reality. He considers the opposition of dreams and reality, what is possible and what is, to be the deepest phos of romanticism. Gulyaev believes that romanticism and realism are two facets of the process, subject (rum) and object (real). P - the phenomenon of a cat arises in a certain era, passes a certain stage and its time can be accurately determined. The time of the emergence of the 10s, the end of the 30s. Burevich believes that Russian romanticism arises by the 30s, ie Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Ryleev, Yazykov, Pushkin and others are not romantics. The problem of currents arises.

Maimin in his multi-story "On Russian Romanticism" writes that romanticism is a phenomenon that is understood and interpreted by romantics themselves in different ways. Here we can see an explanation of why there are various directions in Russian romanticism. In Gukovsky, you can see several directions of romanticism. The first is presented by Zhukovsky and Batyushkov. They, as Guuovsky said, are the ancestors of Russian romanticism. Although the romanticism of both Zhukovsky and Batyushkov is quite different, their works have one, not unimportant feature: they do not carry any revolutionary ideas that induce a change in the world. Both poets create their own truly romantic world, and prefer to live in it, not trying to bring their ideal into reality. This is a significant difference from the romanticism of the Decembrist or civil, revolutionary, which, on the contrary, creating the image of an ideal world, wanted to embody it in reality, from where the revolutionary ideas and appeals came from. Outstanding representatives of this trend are Ryleev, Kuchelbecker, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky and others. The tragedy on December 25, 1825, on Senate Square, smashed the Decembrist ideas about life and changed their work as such. The creativity of Pushkin the Romantic can be defined as a separate direction in romanticism, because, despite the fact that at the beginning of his career "Pushkin was a supporter of the revolutionary upheaval," he was still not a Decembrist. "Pushkin," as Gukovsky writes in his book "Pushkin and the Problems of the Realistic Style," "began his journey as a collector and unifier of the contradictions and various currents of Russian romanticism." And, moving forward in his evolution, Pushkin quickly passes from romanticism to realism. This transition he makes much earlier than his "fellow-pen". Moving on to the fourth and last direction of romanticism, one should return to the catastrophe of December 25, 1825, which, as already mentioned above, destroyed the Decembrists' ideas about life. The search for a new concept of reality begins, painful thoughts. The creativity of this trend is characterized by a complex relationship between romanticism and realism in the work of writers. The peaks of this trend are Lermontov, Gogol's prose, Tyutchev's lyrics.

Since Oermontov Gogol and Tyutchev illuminate different things in life, they have different paths, different ideas about ideals, this is one whole direction, it can be divided into several more subdirections so that confusion and misconceptions are not created. A different, but still somewhat similar to the previous one, classification of directions of romanticism is proposed by Maimin: 1) Zhukovsky's romanticism, characteristic of the early stage of Russian romanticism, is defined as contemplative; 2) the civil, revolutionary romanticism of the Decembrists, in particular Ryleev, Kokhelbecker, Merlinsky-Bestuzhev: 3) the romanticism of Pushkin, which has a synthetic character and combines the merits of the first and second directions and includes something special, uniquely high; 4) Lermontov's romanticism is the same synthetic, but differently from that of Pushkin. Lermontov develops the tragedy of the second and third trends and the rebellious romanticism of Byron; 5) philosophical romanticism. Presented by Vesevitov, Totchev, prosaic philosophical works Vl. Odoevsky. Another classification of the directions of romanticism is presented by Focht: 1) the abstract psychological (Zhukovsky and Kozlov); 2) hedonic (Batyushkov); 3) civil (Pushkin, Ryleev); 4) philosophical (Venivitov, Varatynsky, Vl. Odoevsky); 5) sentimental romanticism - the pinnacle of Russian romanticism (Lermontov); 6) epigones of psychological romanticism (Benediktov, for example); 7) "pseudo-romanticism" (Kukolnik, late Polevoy, Zagoskin). Maimin considers this classification not very convenient due to excessive granularity.

Thus, having considered the main points of view on the emergence of romanticism, its essence and main currents, one can come to the conclusion that there is a very controversial opinion about romanticism. Of the works that ambiguously resolve the question of the genesis and essence of romanticism, the work of Gurevich "Romanticism in Russian Literature" is closest to me.

8. Historical and literary significance of V.А. Zhukovsky. Genre and stylistic originality of his lyrics

Criticism about Zhukovsky.

In Russian science, there was a dispute about historical assessment creativity Zhukovsky. Was he an innovator, progressively moving Russian literature forward? (Zhukovsky is a romantic). Was in his poetry a conservative, even a reactionary, who pulled Russian literature into the yesterday of sentimentalism of the 18th century? Belinsky speaks about this in his work. Our contemporaries agree with his opinion. First, Zhukovsky is a romantic, even the founder, the head of Russian romanticism. Secondly, a necessary and positive predecessor of Pushkin in his historical role. Pushkin considered Zhukovsky to be his teacher.

Although Zhukovsky's romanticism was devoid of activity, the preaching of liberalism and the fight against reaction, it was not at all in its essence a reactionary phenomenon. The world of Zhukovsky's poetry is dreamy. It is into this dreamy world that Zhukovsky seeks to fly away with his soul from the despicable world of reality. He is the poet of his visions, not the poet of reality. It was in this that Pushkin saw something acceptable for progressive poetry.

The stylistic originality of the lyrics.

The essence and idea of Zhukovsky's style, his poetry is the idea of a romantic personality. Zhukovsky opened the human soul to Russian poetry, continuing Karamzin's psychological searches in prose and decisively deepening them. The psychological romanticism of Zhukovsky perceives the whole world through the problem of introspection. He sees in the individual soul not even a reflection of the whole world, but the whole world, all reality in itself.

The personality in Zhukovsky's poetry is either lonely, or finds understanding among the few who share her feelings. Loneliness does not turn her away from the whole world. The poet's soul is immense, and it contains the entire universe. Zhukovsky accepts life even with its sufferings and sorrows, because they contribute to the moral elevation of a person. He believes that the beautiful and the sublime in man will prevail. Their triumph will come outside of earthly existence, in that eternal life where the kingdom of heaven is. In Zhukovsky's system, lyrical truth is the highest and even the only truth. And the objective world is only an ephemeral appearance and the logic of judgments about it is a lie. Being here, the soul is striving for beauty there. Such a bifurcation into the otherworldly, beyond the grave, ideal and imperfect, vain, transitory, bifurcation, characteristic not only of Zhukovsky, but also of all romanticism, is called romantic duality. This means that the soul of a romantic is simultaneously in two worlds - real and unreal.

A person in Zhukovsky's poetry thinks of himself separately from the state, because he does not fully accept and even deny the concepts that have developed in the state. Zhukovsky is convinced that the goal of humanity is to improve its nature, and the meaning of human life is to educate oneself to be spiritual, sensitive and sensitive to other people's sufferings, troubles and misfortunes.

The happiness of a person, and therefore the meaning of his life, according to Zhukovsky, is not in external interest, but in himself, in the strength of his soul, in the wealth of thoughts and feelings. The more humane the person and the more such people, the happier the state. We must not suppress or subdue passions, but improve our spiritual world. For Zhukovsky, a person is not a means to achieve some goals that are extraneous to him, even the most necessary, useful and noble ones, but he himself is the goal of the historical process. Not a person for the state, but the state for a person - that is Zhukovsky's motto.

The unity of the lyrical hero in Zhukovsky's work entailed a unity of style. Zhukovsky's works are united by referring them to the personality of the author, who at the same time is the hero of the work. This also applies to ballads, where there is no lyrical "I", where the characters are different, but where the true hero is still the poet himself, telling the legend, whose dream and mood is the content of the ballad.

Contemporaries considered Zhukovsky a master of landscape poetry. His landscape is subjective. Zhukovsky's depiction of nature is a “landscape of the soul”. Zhukovsky draws a soul that perceives nature, his landscape is associated with a specific psychological state... The poet merges the landscape and his experience. A strong connection arises between them, but not an abstract logical, but a concrete psychological one.

Uses a special semantic content of a word that begins to mean much more than it means terminologically, different meanings, different sounds appear. Thus, the impression was created that the meaning of the verse is born not in words, but as if between words, that is, not in the text itself, but in the mind of the reader - the phenomenon of suggestive poetry.

Genre originality of the lyrics.

Elegy, song-romance, and a friendly message are the main genres of Zhukovsky's poetry. On the basis of the elegy, Zhukovsky developed the Russian poetic language. The elegy especially attracted him for its theme, enshrined in the common European tradition: immersion in the inner world, dreamy and - later - mystical perception of nature. Zhukovsky is the first Russian poet who managed not only to embody in verse the real colors, sounds and smells of nature - everything that we make up its “material beauty”, but to endow nature with the feeling and thought of the person who perceives it. lyrics by Zhukovsky. “The past” is one of J.'s favorite “verbal” themes. He always turns to the past, but such a conventional and almost banal theme of poetry takes on a deep emotional meaning for him. There is an amazing musical organization in the songs and romances of J. Full accord, melodic transitions of percussion sounds dominate. The poet pays great attention to the development of intonation in his songs. Interrogative intonations are characteristic of this genre. It should be noted the purely song system of exclamations and addresses. Such elegies as "Evening", "Rural cemetery", "Sea", etc. are famous.

In the second half of the 18-19th centuries, the ballad genre, which goes back to the folk-poetic tradition, became widespread. The ballad was distinguished by an addiction to miracles, terrible things that are beyond the control of logic and reason, the predominance of the emotional principle over the rational, concentration over the disclosure of feelings. With Zhukovsky, this genre becomes one of the main ones. Almost all of Zhukovsky's 39 ballads are translations. Zhukovsky was rightly called the genius of translation. Zhukovsky's translated ballads give the impression of being the original. Original ballads by Zhukovsky 5. All of Zhukovsky's ballads are a single whole, they can be called an artistic cycle, they are united not only by genre, but also by semantic unity. Good and evil are sharply opposed in them. Their source is always the human heart itself and the mysterious otherworldly forces governing hearts. The romantic dual world appears in ballads in the images of the devil and divine principle. The idea of a double world is imbued with both the eligibility, and the ballads, and the songs of J. are famous for such ballads as "Lyudmila", "Svetlana", "Aeolian Harp", and others.

Historical and literary significance of creativity.

Zhukovsky is one of the founders of the new Russian poetry. A poet with his own specific theme and intonation. Lyricism, depictions of states of mind prevail in Zhukovsky's artistic manner.

He played an exceptional role in the development of the language of Russian poetry. Zhukovsky and his school gave the word many additional sounds and psychological colors. It is important that stylistic innovations entered Russian poetry and literature and remained its property.

Zhukovsky did not want and could not be a teacher in poetry. He was a lyricist who revealed his soul and did not claim the general significance of his self-disclosure. Zhukovsky does not strive for everyone to be like him. Morality consists in the very right of the soul to self-disclosure, the primacy of feelings and moods, as the highest values of freedom.

lyrics poetry romanticism fable

9. The origins of the cult of nature among romantics. Analysis of the poem by V.A. Zhukovsky "Sea"

Like other romantics, Zhuk-go's landscape is always associated with the world of the lofty, unusual, sublime. The poet loves the spontaneous and mysterious in nature (night, sea, thunderstorm). In the sea, he is attracted by the enchanting silence and abyss. Landscape in poetry, in literature in general, is always especially closely associated with the internal. peace and unique appearance of the poet. Tolstoy is inseparable from the landscape of Yasn. glades, Dostoevsky-Petersburg (foggy, gloomy), Pushkin-landscape of Mikhailovsky and Trigorsky. Zhukovsky - Pavlovsk. Analysis. “I'm standing enchanted” - LG is delighted with the sea, there is even a certain shade of magic here. The sea attracts him with its inner. ambiguity, unpredictability. The description that gives the basis for what kind of sea it is, no. Epithets and verbs represent the sea: "silent", "azure"; "Caress", "beat", "howl", "lift". The poet sees the sea as an emotional, spiritual element. The impression depends on the state of mind. Vyazemsky said: "Zhuk-go has everything for the soul, everything for the soul." The world is the soul. But here is presented not the image of the world, but the image of the world experience. The beetle is charmed by its own soul. If, for example, in Lermontov's "abyss" is a direct meaning, then in Zhukovsky it is a symbol. Many questions are always an attempt to understand the reflections. Being is devoid of breadth and space. The soul lives by striving to escape to free existence. There is a kind of double world, hesitation, uncertainty - this is not all that the author has inside. The sea is a constant contact with the ideal. The presence of light is the life of the soul. The soul that fights for the ideal of life is a constant fear of losing this ideal. Everything is built on solid symbols. There are two melodies - the symphonic principle of organization. “A person can be influenced by a word” Beetle.

10. Development of V.А. Zhukovsky of the principles of suggestive poetics. Analysis of the poem "Ineffable"

What is our earthly language in front of wondrous nature?

With what careless and easy freedom

She scattered beauty all over the place

And the variety agreed with the unity!

But where, which brush painted her?

Barely one line of it

With an effort to catch it will be possible with inspiration ...

But is it possible to transfer to the dead alive?

Who could recreate the creation in words?

The inexpressible is subject to expression? ..

Holy sacraments, only the heart knows you.

Is it not often, in the majestic hour

Evening land of transformation,

When the confused soul is full

The prophecy of a great vision

And carried away into the boundless, -

A painful feeling coils in my chest

We want to keep the beauty in flight,

We want to give a name to the undescribed -

And art is powerlessly silent?

What is visible to the eyes - this flame of clouds,

Flying in the quiet sky

This tremor of glittering waters,

These pictures of the shores

In the fire of a lush sunset -

These are such bright features -

The winged thought easily catches them,

And there are words for their brilliant beauty.

But what is merged with this brilliant beauty -

This is so vague, exciting us,

This one who is heedless by one soul

Enchanting voice

This is for a distant striving,

This past hello

(Like a sudden breeze

From the meadow of the homeland, where once was the color,

Holy youth, where hope lived),

This memory whispered to the soul

About sweet, joyful and sorrowful old times,

This shrine descending from above,

This is the presence of the creator in creation -

What language is for them? .. The soul flies with sorrow,

Everything immense is crowded into a single sigh,

And only silence speaks clearly.

11. Reflection of the theory of double world in the poems of V.А. Zhukovsky "Turgenev in response to his letter", "Spring Feeling"

Belinsky also saw 2 tendencies in romanticism: 1- “medieval. romanticism ", and, in Bely's opinion, this is a literary world:" the world splits into two worlds - the despised here and the indefinite, mysterious there. " “There” is an ideal world, but it is unattainable: it is either in the past, or appears only in a dream, in fantasy, in dreams. The despised “here” is a modern act, where evil and injustice triumph. For such romanticism, the main interest is the description of the "inner world of the heart." Such was Zhukovsky's romanticism. The world of J. is presented in the form of the concept of two worlds, presented in the form of oppositions: earth and sky, here and there. Land in the lyrics Zh-vale of suffering and people on earth are doomed to suffer. In heaven, however, life is an opportunity for the realization of happiness. And the purpose of life is preparation for eternal happiness. The world is associated with the idea of the immortality of the soul. Philosophy. Duality is expressed in many verses of J. They are united by the fact that true bliss was revealed to the ch-ku only after the death of the body. Romanticism declares the earthly world to be a world of genuine suffering, and on earth at some moments the curtain of heavenly life, which awaits him ahead, is slightly opened on earth. This is the “wonderful moment”. Thus, in his message to Turgenev, in response to his letter, Zhukovsky, recalling the era of the Friendly Literary Society, when friends, full of bright hopes, “shared their lives in the bosom of Svoboda,” states the collapse of the “beautiful fantasy world” that faced life. The poet's harshly condemning voice is heard in the words about the "vile light."

Also, the message "To Turgenev in response ..." is an appeal to a friend - Alexander Turgenev - includes memories of the past, grief from irreparable losses (death of Andrei Turgenev, loss of hopes, freedom). In the poem "Spring Feelings" the theory of double world is revealed by the fact that the main character(in this case, the author himself) is trying to find out from the wind the questions that interest him, namely, what is there beyond the distant lands? Also, the author is trying to find out if he can get to this place? from this we can conclude that the main character is dissatisfied with his former place, for he would not seek such a desirable Enchanted there.

12. Comparative analysis"Bacchantes" by S. Batyushkov and "Songs" (1811) by V.A. Zhukovsky. (On the question of the creative individuality of poets belonging to the same direction)

Zhuk-i considered Karamzin, the head of the Russian sentime, to be his teacher in poetry. The essence of romanticism Zhuk-go is very accurately described by Belinsky, who said that he became "a singer of the hearty morning." By nature, the Beetle was not a fighter, his "complaints" never grew into an open protest. He left the present question, idealized him, thought about him with sadness. Zhukovsky's "song" is clear, musical, performed by the poet-master and deep sadness about the bygone days. Main the theme is the image of not visible phenomena, but the expression of elusive experiences. LH Beetle-go-man-to deep sorrowful feelings, departed from action into his internal. the world, into your memories and dreams. He constantly recedes into the past: "The charm of the past days, Why did you rise again?" The poet is dissolved in nature and does not oppose the world, does not realize life as a whole as something hostile to his soul. Beetle-th, looking into the world of mystery, in a hurry to recognize the charm real life... The exclamation about a possible imminent death, concluding the verse, does not threaten with melancholy. Dissolution, fusion turns out general law universe. As the rays of the sun melt in the evening twilight, merging with the dying nature, so the person fades away, and yet remains to live in memories. In the lyrics of Zhuk-go, we almost do not find an image of the physical features of the poet's beloved; in general, “shadows”, devoid of “flesh” and symbolizing the spiritual connection “behind the grave”, often act here. And Bat-ov, on the contrary, first of all, wants to reproduce the external attractiveness of his "goddesses of beauty", the captivating nature of their female charm, so in the poem "Volkhonka" there appears the image of a young nymph, full of irresistible charm. The lyrics of Bat-va became an expression of the concrete experience of the personality in its complexity, in its versatility, in its shades. VG Belinsky noted: "The feeling that animates Batyushkov is always organically vital." Bat-va's poetry was an expression of something new. Defending the right of the person to the joys of life, to earthly happiness, Bat-v came closer to the real reality in his poetry. This affected his artistic manner. Belinsky compares the poetry of Bat-va with the claim of sculpture: "There is a lot of plasticity in his poetry, a lot of sculpturality, so to speak." The verse "Bacchante" confirms this. In the artistic language of Bat-va, the world of real action, reflected by the poetic consciousness, and the world created by the imagination of the romantic interact. The style of Bat-va lacks that direct correlation of the word with the object and that closeness to lively colloquial speech that distinguish the realistic style. Thus, in the verse “Bacchante”, Bat-v does not avoid the metaphorical expressions characteristic of the romantic style: “... the roses are flaming with a bright crimson”. The romantically poeticized image of the Bacchante disposes of the author to use traditional Slavisms. Main theme verse-ia-theme of love - "ardent raptures" and "intoxication" of earthly passion; this shows that he is still a resilient poet.

13. The main stages and motives of the poetry of K.N. Batyushkov. Analysis of the poet's poem (at the student's choice)

Batyushkov emerged as a poet in the first decade of the 19th century. During these years, the disintegration of the feudal-serf economy and the development of progressive bourgeois relations took place. The pathos of enlightenment brightly colored the philosophical and social views of the pre-war Batyushkov.

Batyushkov was brought up on the poetry of the predecessors of Karamzinism. He gave high marks to the poets who expressed the inner world of the individual in their work. But he did not accept the sugary and tearful sentimentality. Thus, directly opposite influences crossed in the subsoil of Batyushkov's poetry, which determined the inconsistency of Batyushkov's lyrics.

Konstantin Nikolaevich Batyushkov, together with Zhukovsky, was classified as a representative of the "New School" in Russian poetry (under the article "Experiments" by Uvarov).

Two periods can be distinguished in the poet's work: the 1st period 1802-1812 (pre-war), the 2nd period 1812-1821 (post-war).

1) The first period.

The most important feature of B.'s pre-war poetry was love for the "earthly world," "for worldly pleasures," for the visible and resonant beauty of life. The image of a carefree poet-life-lover, a poet of joy, arises.

The central image of Bolshevik's lyrics arose on the basis of the poet's acute conflict with reality and against the views that dominated the upper echelons of Alexander's Russia. Batyushkov does not agree with the idea that a wealthy person should be respected by everyone. Most often, he is an indifferent member of society.

B. characterized his lyrics as a diary, reflecting the "external" and "internal" biography of the poet. "The Weird Poet" is the lyrical hero of Batyushkov. He renounces the pursuit of the "ghosts of glory", rejects wealth. One of its essential features is the ability to dream. Dream for B. - "a direct part of happiness", a sorceress "bringing her priceless gifts." The cult of the dream is one of the well-established motifs of B.'s lyrics, which anticipates the aesthetic theory of the romantics.

The theme of friendship occupies a prominent place in B.'s lyrics. The lyrical hero - a cheerful and carefree poet - sees his friends as witnesses to the facts of his biography, listeners to the story of his life, about his joys and sorrows.

Poetry of love. B. interprets love as a passion that captures and subdues the whole person. ("Bacchante").

2) Second period.

The beginning of the Patriotic War of 1812 became the borderline that opened the second period of B.

...

World significance and national identity of Russian literature of the XIX century. Your opinion on the works known to you on this issue. When studying what school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?

The world significance of literature is closely related to national identity: romantics turn to national events, since the 19th century is a century of epoch-making events on a global scale (the war of 1812), it is a change in public consciousness, an expressed spirit of patriotism. The reforms of 1861 lead to the polarization of social consciousness and the sense of personality finds its expression in the images of literature. For example, the era of Decembrism gives rise to the ideal of a free personality, thus the theme of a free personality becomes central. The writers' activities were not limited to their subjective spiritual world: they actively showed interest in public life, folklore works and interacted with foreign writers. Therefore, the literature of the 19th century carries a global coverage of the entire social and political life of that time and reflects the attitude of its era. National identity is reflected in the typology of portraits of people, generalization of their vices and pronounced personality traits: 1) In the center is a liter. 19 in the problem of the growth of a sense of personality: the image of a young person does not satisfy the modern way of life 2). A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol outlined the main artistic types that would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is an artistic type of "superfluous person", an example of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called type of "little man", which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story "The Overcoat", as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story "The Stationmaster".

3). The national atmosphere in literature, the development of the Russian national character
4). Writers condemn the isolation of the intelligentsia from the people, as isolation from their roots. 5). The ideal of personality - the relationship of one personality with the being of the whole people (lack of egocentrism, self-will)
6) the writer's attention to psychological and social analysis. You can also refer to the work of Belinsky look at the Russian liter. In school, this question can be used neither in the introductory Russian lessons of the 19th century. For example, maybe such a topic as thin liters as an art form

In order to highlight the national, its functions and methods of expression in a literary and artistic work, it is necessary to determine, firstly, what should be meant by national, and, secondly, how to understand the work, what is its nature.

Enough has been said about the latter to enable us to move on to the former. -

First of all, it should be noted that the category of the national, being not an aesthetic category proper, requires consideration in various planes. It is important to focus on those that may be of direct relevance to the artwork. The subject of my consideration is not so much the national as such, but the national in a literary and artistic work.

The question of the national in literature should also be considered taking into account the specifics of the aesthetic as a form of social consciousness. The national in itself is not a form of social (hence, individual) consciousness. The national is a certain property of the psyche and consciousness, a property that "colors" all forms of social consciousness. In itself, the presence of a person's psyche and consciousness is naturally extra-national. The ability for imaginative and scientific thinking is also extra-national. However, the artistic world, created by imaginative thinking, can have pronounced national traits... Why?

National identity consists of sociocultural and moral and psychological characteristics (commonality of labor processes and skills, customs and, further, public life in all its forms: aesthetic, moral and religious, political, legal, etc.), which are formed on the basis of natural and climatic and biological factors (community of territory, natural conditions, ethnic characteristics, etc.). All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of people's life, to the emergence of a national mentality (an integral complex of natural, genetic and spiritual properties). National characters are historically formed (also, I note, integral formations). How are they reproduced in literature?

Through a figurative concept of personality. Personality, being an individual manifestation of universal human spirituality, to a large extent acquires individuality as a national characteristic. National identity, not being a form of social consciousness, is a phenomenon, primarily, psychological, adaptive, adaptive. It is a method and instrument of human adaptation to nature, personality to society. Since this is so, the most adequate form of reproduction of the national has become the image, the figurative concept of the personality. The nature of the image and the nature of the national, as it were, resonated: both are perceived primarily sensually and are integral formations. Moreover, the existence of the national is possible precisely - and exclusively - in a figurative form. Concepts do not need national identity.

What exactly in the structure of the literary image is the content and material carrier of the elusive national spirit? Or: what are national meanings, and what are the ways of their transmission?

The material for sculpting "spirit", that is, an arsenal of poetic figurative means, was borrowed by man from his environment. In order to "register" in the world, to humanize it, it became necessary to populate it with gods, often anthropomorphic creatures, with the help of mythology. At the same time, the material of mythology - depending on the type of the emerging civilization: agricultural, cattle-breeding, seaside, etc. - was different. The image could only be copied from the surrounding reality (flora, fauna, as well as inanimate nature). The man was surrounded by the moon, the sun, water, bears, snakes, birches, etc. In the primordial mythological thinking, all the images were overgrown with specific symbolic plans, endlessly speaking to one ethnic group and almost devoid of information for another.

This is how the national picture of the world, the national vision system was formed. The integral unity of the principles of organizing national material based on any dominants characteristic of national life can be called the national artistic style of thinking. The development of this style was accompanied by crystallization literary traditions... Subsequently, when the aesthetic consciousness acquired highly developed forms, the national mentality for its reproduction in the verbal and artistic form demanded specific means of depiction and expressiveness: a range of themes, heroes, genres, plots, chronotope, culture of detail, linguistic means, etc.

However, the specificity of the figurative fabric cannot yet be considered the basis of national content. The national, which is also inherent in individual consciousness, is nothing more than a form of the "collective unconscious" (CG Jung).

I believe that Jung in his concept of the "collective unconscious" and its "archetypes" came as close as possible to what can help to understand the problem of national meaning in a work of art. Quoting Hauptmann's words: "to be a poet means to allow the word to be heard behind the words," Jung writes: "Translated into the language of psychology, our first question should accordingly be: to what prototype of the collective unconscious can the image deployed in a given work of art be built?" 56

If we, literary scholars, are interested in the national in a work, our question will obviously be formulated identically, but with one indispensable addition: what is the aesthetic structure of this image? Moreover, our addition shifts the emphasis: we are not so much interested in the meaning of the collective unconscious as in the artistically expressed meaning. We are interested in the connection between the type of artistry and the meaning hidden in the collective unconscious.

The image grows out of the depths of unconscious psychological depths (I will not touch upon the most complex problems of the psychology of creativity). This is why it requires a corresponding "apparatus" of perception, appeals to the "depths of the soul", to the unconscious layers in the human psyche. Moreover, not to the personal unconscious, but to the collective. Jung strictly distinguishes between these two spheres of the unconscious in man. The basis of the collective unconscious is the prototype or "archetype". It underlies typical situations, actions, ideals, mythological figures. An archetype is a kind of invariant of experiences that is realized in specific versions. An archetype is a canvas, a matrix, a general pattern of experiences that are repeated in an infinite number of ancestors. Therefore, we easily respond to the experienced archetypes, the voice of the race awakens in us, the voice of all mankind. And this voice, which includes us in the collective paradigm, gives tremendous confidence to the artist and the reader. The archetypal speaker speaks "like a thousand voices" (Jung). Ultimately, the archetype is the individual image of universal human experiences. It is quite natural that the collective unconscious in the masterpieces of literature goes far beyond the national framework in its resonance. Such works become consonant with the spirit of an entire era.

This is another - psychological - side of the impact of art on society. Perhaps it would be appropriate to cite here a quote from Jung, which shows how the archetype can be associated with the national. "And what is" Faust "?" Faust "is (...) an expression of the originally vital active principle in the German soul, the birth of which Goethe was destined to contribute. Is it conceivable that" Faust "or" Thus Spoke Zarathustra "was written not by a German ? Both clearly hint at the same thing — that which vibrates in the German soul, the "elementary image," as Jacob Burckhardt once put it, the figure of a healer and teacher, on the one hand, and a sinister sorcerer, on the other; the archetype of a sage, helper and savior, on the one hand, and a magician, a swindler, a seducer and a devil, on the other.This image has been buried in the unconscious for centuries, where it sleeps, until favorable or unfavorable circumstances of the era awaken it: this happens when the great delusion leads the people astray "57.

Among developed peoples with developed literature and culture, the arsenal of figurative means is infinitely enriched, refined, internationalized, while preserving recognizable national codes (mainly of sensory and psychological origin). Examples are easy to multiply. In Russian literature of the 19th century, one of the main archetypes is the figure of a "superfluous" person, a contemplator who sees no way out of the contradictions of the era. Another example: the genesis of the literary heroes of the brothers Karamazov goes back to folk tales... Another example: the concept of L. N. Tolstoy in "War and Peace" is in fact a popular concept of a defensive war, embodied in the Russian military stories of the 13th-19th centuries. And the figure of Napoleon is the figure of an invader typical of these stories.

To summarize: the basis of almost any character in literature - not only an individual character, but also a national character - is a moral and social type (stingy, a hypocrite, etc.) and even a mask, which is the basis of the type. Behind the most complex, original combination of psychological properties, there is always a national version of a common human type. Therefore, it is not surprising that the simplest mythological or fairy-tale motifs can "backfire" in the most complex artistic and philosophical canvases of modern times.

Now let us consider the topical issue of the national identification of works. Mentality, and the imagery that embodies it (internal form), and the language that embodies images (external form) can be relatively independent in a work. (By the way, the principle of literary translation is based on this thesis.) The autonomy of the mentality in relation to the figurative fabric is palpable, for example, in Tolstoy's "Hadji Murat". The mentality, as we can see, can be expressed not only through the "native" material, but also through the appropriate interpretation of the foreign material. This is possible because exotic material is conveyed through details that are selected, assembled and evaluated by the subject of the story from their national point of view and in their national language.

However, such cases are quite rare. Much more often the mentality and images are inseparably fused. In their unity, they can "exfoliate" from the language, demonstrating relative independence. It's hard to argue with that. There are English-speaking, Spanish-speaking and other literatures - literatures of different peoples and nations in one language.

On the other hand, the national mentality can be expressed in different languages. Finally, there are works, for example, by Nabokov, which are generally difficult to identify nationally, since they lack any tangible national ideology. (I will allow myself a small digression. The independence of the material and language can have very interesting aspects. Any original, or even unique, national material is fraught with artistic potential. Moreover, a different potential. Due to the fact that individual expressiveness is important for an image, an original material is always valuable in itself, that is, in a sense - self-valuable.Therefore, as the basis of the future type of artistry, different national material is unequal: taking into account different artistic tasks, the material, so to speak, is more or less advantageous. , from natural speech, from my unrestrained, rich, endlessly obedient to me Russian syllable for the sake of a secondary sort of English, deprived in my case of all that equipment - a tricky mirror, a black velvet backdrop, implied associations and traditions - which a native magician with fluttering folds can so magically taking advantage of to overcome in our own way the legacy of the fathers. " ("About the book entitled" Lolita ".)

Aitmatov made a Russian and, more broadly, a European "graft" on the Kyrgyz mentality. In a creative sense, it is a unique and fruitful symbiosis. Approximately the same can be said about the Polish-language, Latin-language literature of Belarus. The dispute about how to make the national identification of literature: by language or by mentality - seems to me scholastic, speculative. And mentality, and imagery, and the artistic word are different sides of the "collective unconscious". Consequently, when mentality organically lives in a non-native word, one collective unconscious is superimposed on another. A new organic whole, a nationally ambivalent symbiosis, is emerging. How, in this case, to solve the question of the nationality of symbiosis? Looking for where there is more of the collective unconscious - in language or in images?

Such a formulation of the question provokes an inadequate approach to the problem. All of this is reminiscent of the famous chicken-and-egg dilemma. After all, it is obvious that the factor of language, being not the main one in the transfer of national identity, is decisive in the sense of referring a work to one or another national literature (the concept of national literature in this case can be supplemented by the concept of English-, German-language literature, etc.). Literature in one national language, expressing different mentalities (including cosmopolitan ones), has a greater organic integrity than the literature of "one mentality" in different languages.

Literature, according to Nabokov, is a "phenomenon of language." This, of course, is not entirely true, but this is not an empty declaration either. Perhaps, language, like nothing else, draws into the cultural space, creates it, and in this sense is the conditional border of the national in literature. Since a literary work always exists in the national language, it can be argued that the national, in a sense, is an immanent property of a work of art.

Industrial society, the development of urban culture indicated a tendency for the leveling of national

differences in culture in general and in literature in particular.

The bottom of the directions in the development of literature is characterized by the fact that more and more supranational, non-national, cosmopolitan (but by no means more artistic) works are being created. This direction has its own achievements, which cannot be ignored - it is enough to mention the name of the same Nabokov. The "nature" of the artistry of such literature, its material and means of expressiveness are completely different.

In principle, there is a logic in the nonnational tendency in the development of literature. The spirituality of a person cannot be demarcated by an orientation only towards certain national samples of culture. However, spirituality cannot be expressed at all, outside of a specific literary language. And in this case, it is the language that becomes the criterion for attributing writers to this or that national literature.

ature. It is highly characteristic that when Nabokov was still Sirin and wrote in Russian, he was considered a Russian writer (although he did not adhere to the Russian spiritual tradition). When he left for the United States and began to write in English, he became an American writer (although the American spiritual and literary traditions were alien to him).

As you can see, literature can be national, international, and non-national. Of course, I am far from thinking of giving a prescription schematization for all occasions. I just outlined the patterns that can manifest themselves in different ways in different cultural and linguistic contexts. The "degree of national participation in literature" depends on many factors. The formation of Belarusian self-awareness in Polish has its own characteristics. Perhaps the origins of some Belarusian literary and artistic traditions (heroes, themes, plots, etc.) originated precisely in Polish literature. In this case, factors of both linguistic and cultural affinity play a role. And if, say, a highly qualified Pushkin scholar must know the French language and French literature of the corresponding period, then it is quite possible, in order to fully perceive the work of some Belarusian writers you need to know Polish. The latter are becoming a factor in Belarusian literature. To consider the works of Polish writers as Belarusian literature seems to me an obvious stretch.

Finally, let us touch on the question of the national as a factor in the artistic value of a work. The national itself is a property of imagery, but not its essence. That is why art can be both "more" and "less" national - from this it still does not cease to be art. At the same time, the issue of the quality of literature is closely related to the issue of the measure of the national in it.

In conclusion, I would like to note the following. The national in literature in its entirety can be revealed only in the esthetical is a property of imagery, but not its essence. That is why art can be both "more" and "less" national - from this it still does not cease to be art. At the same time, the issue of the quality of literature is closely related to the issue of the measure of the national in it.

The "wasted" denial of the national at the lower levels of consciousness can hardly benefit art, just like the hypertrophied national. To deny the national means to deny the individual expressiveness, singularity, and uniqueness of the image. To make the national absolute means to deny the generalizing (ideological and mental) function of the image. Both are destructive for the figurative nature of art.

The national by its nature gravitates towards the pole of the psyche, it consists mainly of a system of psychological codes. Scientific knowledge is much less national than religious, ethical or aesthetic consciousness. Literature, therefore, can be located in the national spectrum: between the cosmopolitan pole (as a rule, with the predominance of the rational over the sensory-psychological, but not necessarily) and the nationally conservative (respectively, vice versa).

Neither one nor the other in itself can be an artistic merit. The national picture of the world can be a form of solving common human problems. At the same time, the national-individual can only brighten up the problems of common mankind. Nationally colored aesthetic consciousness, "working" at the philosophical level (or gravitating towards this level), as it were, removes its national limitations, because it is fully aware of itself as a form of universal humanity. The closer the national consciousness is to the ideological and psychological level, the more inexpressible, "unfolding the soul," the more "reserved" national.

Therefore, very often "very national" writers are difficult to translate. In Russian literature, these include Leskov, Shmelev, Remizov, Platonov, and others to varying degrees.

The national refers to the universal as a phenomenon to the essence. The national is good insofar as it allows the universal to be manifested. Any lurch into phenomenology, the exaltation of a phenomenon as such without correlating it with the essence that it is intended to express, turns the national into "information noise" that obscures the essence and interferes with its perception.

This is the dialectic of the national and the universal. It is important not to go to a vulgar extreme and not raise the question of a verified "dosage" of the national. This is as meaningless as absolutizing the national or denying it. We are talking about the proportions of the rational and the sensory-emotional (and the national is one of the sides of the latter). The "point of the golden section", testifying to proportionality close to harmony, is always guessed by the artist, felt, but not miscalculated. I am in no way advocating the "rationalization" of the creative act.

Aesthetic perception is indivisible. It is impossible to assess the "beauty" of an artistic creation, abstracting from the national specifics. The perception of "beauty" as a component includes the moment of national self-actualization. It is impossible to remove national material and leave "something" created according to the laws of beauty. Artistic value becomes a property of the national material (this also reveals the integrity of the work).

It is not surprising that at every step there is a substitution of artistic criteria with national ones, or, in any case, a nondiscrimination of them. Undoubtedly: great artists become symbols of the nation - and this convincingly testifies to the inextricable connection between the national and the artistically significant. However, great works become a national treasure not so much because they express the national mentality, but because this mentality is expressed in a highly artistic way. In itself, the presence (or absence) of a national element in a work does not yet testify to artistic merit and is not a direct criterion of artistry. The same can be said about the criteria of ideological, moral, etc. I think it is impossible to discard these judgments and not fall into the hermeneutic extreme in assessing the work, once again forgetting about its fundamental feature - integrity.

I would like to emphasize that national problems and poetics in the art of realism have become especially relevant. And this is no coincidence. First of all, this is due to the fact that, say, the "classicists" or "romantics", due to the peculiarities of the method and poetics, did not have the opportunity to reveal in their works the contradictory complexity of the national characters of their characters belonging to different strata of society, professing different ideals ...

In conclusion, I would like to note the following. The national in literature in its entirety can be revealed only in aesthetic experiences. Scientific analysis of artistic integrity does not allow to adequately perceive the "national potential" of a work.

The irrational, psychological comprehension of the national code of a work is the most difficult problem of the sociology of literature. The actualization of the collective unconscious itself plays a huge role in the life of nations. True, it can serve both as a means of productive self-identification and "work" for a complex of national superiority.

Ultimately, the question of the national in literature is the question of the connection between language, psychology, and consciousness; it is a question about the collective unconscious and its archetypes; it is a question about the strength of their influence, about the impossibility of man to do without them, etc. These questions, perhaps, are among the most unclear in science.

Registering the collective unconscious, rationalizing it, translating it into the language of concepts is still an unsolved problem. Meanwhile, one of the secrets of art lies in the effectiveness of influencing society. And yet this is not what makes art a form of human spiritual activity. The spiritual core in a person is forced to reckon with the collective unconscious, but the latter does not fatally restrict a person's freedom. Spirituality in its highest form is rational, it rather opposes the elements of the unconscious, although it does not deny it.

^ NATIONAL IDENTITY AND THE PEOPLE OF LITERATURE

A work that appears at one stage or another of literary development always has a national identity. As an integral part national culture literature is the bearer of the features that characterize the nation, the expression of common national properties that arise historically, formed by the peculiarities of the natural conditions of the territory in which the people live, the economic relations of their life, the political system, the traditions of ideological and, in particular, literary life. From all this follows the national originality of literature.

The national originality of literature cannot be considered outside of its social significance. “There are two national cultures in every national culture,” wrote V. I. Lenin. - There is the Great Russian culture of the Purishkevichs, Guchkovs and Struves, but there is also the Great Russian culture, characterized by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There is such the same two culture in Ukraine, as well as in Germany, France, England, Jews, etc. " (15, 129). Therefore, the meaning of the idea of national identity in literature is dialectically connected with the concepts of nationality and nationality.

^ NATIONAL SELF-EDUCATION OF LITERATURE

Literature is the art of words, therefore, the peculiarities of the national language in which it is written are the direct expression of its national identity. The lexical wealth of the national language affects the nature of the author's speech and speech characteristics of the characters, the syntax of the national language determines the intonation moves of prose and verse, phonetic

Which structure creates the uniqueness of the sound of the work.

Since there are now more than two and a half thousand languages in the world, it can be assumed that there are the same number of national literatures. However, the number of the latter turns out to be much smaller.

Despite the differences in language, some peoples that have not yet developed into a nation often have a common literary tradition, first of all, a single folk epic. From this point of view, the example of the peoples of the North Caucasus and Abkhazia, which are represented by more than fifty languages, but have a common epic cycle - "Narts", is very indicative. The epic heroes of the Ramayana are the same for the peoples of India, speaking different languages, and even for many peoples of Southeast Asia. Such a community arises because, although individual nationalities live in remote places, often closed, isolated from the surrounding world, which is why differences in language arise, their living conditions are nevertheless close to each other. They have to overcome the same difficulties in a collision with nature, they have the same level of economic and social development. Much similarity often happens in their historical destinies. Therefore, these nationalities are united by a common understanding of human life and dignity, and hence in literature the imagination is carried away by the images of the same epic heroes.

Writers can also use the same language, and their work is represented by different national literatures. Egyptian, Syrian, and Algerian writers, for example, write in Arabic. French is used not only by French, but partly by Belgian and Canadian writers. Both the British and the Americans write in English, but the works created by them bear a vivid imprint of various features of national life. Many African writers, using the language of the former colonialists, create works that are completely original in their national essence.

It is also characteristic that with a good translation into another language, fiction may well preserve the stamp of national identity. “It would be ideal if every work of every nationality included in the Union was translated into the languages of all other nationalities of the Union,” M. Gorky dreamed. - In this case

We would quickly learn to understand the national and cultural properties and characteristics of each other, and this understanding, of course, would greatly speed up the process of creating ... a single socialist culture. " (49, 365-366). Consequently, although the language of literature is the most important indicator of its national identity, it does not exhaust its national identity.

The commonality of the territory plays a very important role in the formation of the national identity of artistic creativity, because in the early stages of the development of society, certain natural conditions often give rise to common tasks in the struggle between man and nature, a commonality of labor processes and skills, and hence - customs, everyday life, world outlook. Therefore, for example, in the ancient Chinese mythology, the hero is Gong, who managed to stop the flooding of the river (a frequent occurrence in China) and saved the people from flooding by taking out a piece of "living land", and from the ancient Greeks - Prometheus, who extracted from the fire of the sky. In addition, the impressions of the surrounding nature affect the properties of the narrative, the characteristics of metaphors, similes and other artistic means. Northern peoples rejoice in the warmth, the sun, so they often compare the beauty with the clear sun, and southern peoples prefer comparison with the moon, because the night brings coolness, saving from the heat of the sun. In Russian songs and fairy tales, the gait of a woman is compared with the smooth movement of a swan, and in India - with the "gait of the wondrous royal elephants."

Territorial community often leads to common paths of economic development, creates a community of historical life of the people. This influences the themes of literature, gives rise to differences in artistic images. Thus, the Armenian epic "David of Sasun" tells about the life of gardeners and farmers, about the construction of irrigation canals; the Kyrgyz "Manas" captured the nomadic life of pastoralists, the search for new pastures, life in the saddle; the epic of the German people, "The Song of the Nibelungs", depicts the search for ore, the work of blacksmiths, etc.

As a nation is formed from a nationality and a community of the spiritual make-up of the people crystallizes, the national originality of literature is already manifested not only in labor and household customs and ideas, peculiarities of the perception of nature, but also in

Bennachy of public life. The development of a class society, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another: from slaveholding to feudal and from feudal to bourgeois — takes place among different peoples at different times, in different conditions. The external and internal political activity of the national state develops in different ways, which affects the organization and strengthening of property and legal relations, the emergence of certain moral norms, and hence the formation of ideological (including religious) ideas and traditions. All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of the life of society. People from childhood are brought up under the influence of a complex system of relationships and perceptions of the national society, and this leaves an imprint on their behavior. This is how the characters of people of different nations - national characters - are formed historically.

Literature has an honorable place in the criticism of the peculiarities of the national character. The versatility of this phenomenon, its connection with the main subject of artistic knowledge - a person in his social characteristic - gives the artist an advantage over the scientist. “Images of fiction,” writes I. Kon, “embrace typical national features deeper and more multifaceted than scientific formulas. Fiction Shows Diversity And national types, and their concrete-class nature, and their historical development " (63, 228).

It is often believed that the national character is determined by some one, dominant psychological trait inherent in only one nation, exclusively only to it. But common features can manifest itself in representatives of different nations. The originality of the national character lies in a certain ratio of these features and in the tendencies of their development. Literary characters perfectly show how one and the same character trait in unity with others takes on different national incarnations. So, for example, Balzac portrays the stinginess of Gobsek, but it is not at all similar in its psychological manifestation to the stinginess of Gogol's Plyushkin. Both characters, striving for the accumulation of wealth, have ceased to distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary, and in both of them it is pointlessly rotting under vigilant surveillance.

Rum of the miser. However, these common features are formed in different ways - by bourgeois society in one and feudal-serf society in the other. The most important role in the reflection of national character traits in literature belongs to critical realism. Critical realists, to a much greater extent than romantics or even more so classicists, had the opportunity to reveal in their works all the contradictory complexity of the national characters of their characters who belonged to different strata of society. An artist who has mastered the art of the finest realistic detailing conveys both the social determinism of a certain character trait or manifestation of feeling, and his national originality.

With the rise of critical realism, an important quality of national identity is revealed in literature. Since a realistic work bears the imprint of the personality of the writer, his individuality, and the writer himself acts as the bearer of a national character, national originality becomes an organic property of creativity itself. The characters of people in their national characteristics are not only the object of artistic knowledge, but are also portrayed from the point of view of a writer who also carries the spirit of his people, his nation. The first deep expression of the national Russian character in literature is Pushkin. Belinsky wrote about this more than once, Gogol expressed it especially aptly: “Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit: this is a Russian person in his development, in which he, perhaps, will appear in two hundred years. In it, Russian nature, Russian soul, Russian language, Russian character are reflected in the same purity, in such purified beauty, in which the landscape is reflected on the convex surface of optical glass. " (46, 33).

The imprint of national originality is borne not only by those works in which the characters and events of national reality or history are directly depicted (Eugene Onegin and Poltava by Pushkin, War and Peace or Resurrection by L. Tolstoy), but also those , which reflect the life of other peoples (for example, "Lucerne" or "Hadji Murat"), but interpret and evaluate its contradictions from the point of view of a person formed by Russian reality.

At the same time, national identity is not limited to

Only by depicting individual characters, it embraces the creative process so deeply that it manifests itself in the plots and themes of the works. So, in Russian literature, the theme of the "superfluous person" has become widespread - a nobleman, a person of progressive views, who is in conflict with the surrounding reality, but is unable to realize his dissatisfaction with the existing order. For French literature it turned out to be a typical conflict of a man making his way in the bourgeois world. As a result, certain genres were predominantly developed in national literature (the novel of education, for example, in German and English literature).

Thus, the literature of critical realism, developing in Europe in the 19th century, contains the most complete, deepest expression of national identity.

National character plays an important role in determining the national identity of literature, but when analyzing it must be borne in mind that this is not only a psychological, but also a socio-historical category, because the formation of character is determined by the socio-historical conditions prevailing in society. Therefore, the national character cannot be regarded as given once and for all. Development historical life can change the national character.

Some writers and critics, superficially approaching the problem of national identity, idealize patriarchal life with its stability and even inertia. They do not try to understand the national identity in the life of those strata of society that have joined the achievements of international culture. As a result, a falsely meaningful love for their nation leads them to a misunderstanding of the progressive phenomena of national life. Exceptional interest only in what distinguishes one nation from others, belief in the chosenness of one's nation, in the advantage of its primordial customs, rituals and everyday habits, leads not only to conservatism, but also to nationalism. Then the national sentiment of the people is used by the exploiting classes in their own interests. Therefore, the concept of national identity must be considered in relation to the concept of nationality.

^ THE PEOPLE OF LITERATURE

The concepts of nationality and nationality of artistic creativity did not differ for a long time. When national literatures began to form, the German scientist I. Herder came up with a theory of national originality based on the study of folk legends and oral folk art. In 1778-1779. he published collections of folk poetry entitled Voices of Peoples in Songs. According to Herder, folk poetry was "the flower of the unity of the people, its language and its antiquity, its occupations and judgments, its passions and unfulfilled desires" (62, 213). Thus, the German thinker found expression of the people's spirit, national "substance" primarily in the psychological makeup of the working people, and he had to endure a lot of ridicule for turning to the poetry of the "plebeians".

Interest in folk art in connection with the problem of national identity was both natural and progressive for the 18th century. In the feudal era, national originality was most clearly manifested in oral folk art and in works that were influenced by this creativity ("The Lay of Igor's Campaign" in Russia, "The Song of Roland" in France, etc.) The dominant class, trying to oppose itself the working masses, to emphasize the exclusiveness of their position, were drawn to a cosmopolitan culture, often using even a language that is foreign to the people. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. progressive figures - educators and romantics - turned to folk poetry.

This was especially pronounced in Russia. For the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists, who in their way of life were far from the popular, working masses, acquaintance with folk art became one of the ways to get to know their people, to familiarize themselves with their interests. Sometimes in their works they managed to penetrate into the spirit of folk art. So, Ryleev created the thought "Death of Ermak", which was accepted by the masses as a folk song.

In Russia, the poetry of the Decembrists and writers close to them in spirit, led by Pushkin, expressed with great force the interests of the progressive, revolutionary movement. Their poetry was national in character and internationally, and democratic in meaning. But they themselves and the critics of subsequent decades have not yet seen the difference between these concepts. So, Belinsky

He constantly called Pushkin and Gogol "folk poets", meaning by this the high national originality of their work, and only towards the end of his career did he gradually come to an understanding of the nationality proper.

In the 30s of the XIX century. the ruling circles of autocratic Russia created a nationalist theory of "official nationality". By "nationality" they understood devotion to autocracy and Orthodoxy; literature was required to depict the primordially Russian way of life, permeated with religious prejudices, historical paintings, glorifying the love of the Russian people for the tsar. Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky did a lot to show the limitations of the authors (Zagoskin, Kukolnik and some others), who acted in line with the nationalistically understood "nationality".

A decisive change in the understanding of nationality in literature was made by Dobrolyubov's article "On the Degree of Participation of Nationality in the Development of Russian Literature" (1858). The critic showed that nationality is determined not by the range of topics of interest to the writer, but by the expression in literature of the "point of view" of the working people, the masses, which constitute the basis of national life. Moreover, assessing the nationality of the writer's work, the critic demanded that the interests of the oppressed popular masses be raised to the height of the interests of general civil, national development. Therefore, he reproached even Koltsov for his limitations (55, 263). The expression of the progressive ideas of their time, which in one way or another meet the interests of the masses, is a condition for the achievement of a genuine nationality by literature.

The revolutionary-democratic writers, following Dobrolyubov, deliberately strove for the nationality in their artistic work, but the nationality may also be unconscious. So, Dobrolyubov, for example, wrote about Gogol: “We see that Gogol, although in his best creations came very close to popular point of view, but approached unconsciously, simply with an artistic touch ”(55, 271; our italics. - S.K.). At the same time, it is possible to assess the nationality of works only historically, raising the question of what works, how and to what extent this or that writer could express the interests of the masses in his era of national development.

Of the greatest importance in this case are the works

Popular in their meaning can also be such works in which the best representatives of the ruling class are depicted, dissatisfied with the meaninglessness of the existence of the environment to which they belong by birth and upbringing, looking for ways to activity and to other forms of human relations. Such are "Eugene Onegin" by Pushkin, the best novels by Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, "Foma Gordeev" and "Egor Bulychev" by Gorky, etc. V. I. Lenin attached great importance to the work of L. Tolstoy primarily because he found

In his works, the expression of popular protest in the era of "preparation for the revolution in one of the countries, crushed by the feudalists ..." (14, 19).

AND lyric works that reproduce the inner world, reflecting the diversity of the poet's emotional responses to the surrounding reality, can also be popular in their meaning if they differ in the depth and truthfulness of their ideological orientation. Such are the sonnets of Petrarch and Shakespeare, the lyrics of Byron and Shelley, Pushkin and Lermontov, Heine, Blok, Yesenin, Mayakovsky. They enrich the moral, emotional and aesthetic experience of the nation and all of humanity.

For the creation of works of national importance, the progressiveness of the writer's worldview and his ideals play a crucial role. But works of nationality in their meaning can also be created by writers with a contradictory worldview. Then the measure of their nationality is determined by the depth of the critical problematics of their work. This can be judged by the works of A. Ostrovsky or Dickens. The spontaneous democratic outlook gave them the opportunity to create the brightest pictures exposing the world of profit. But writers who are progressive only on the critical side of their work are usually unstable in their positions. Along with the sharp revelatory images, they have implausible idyllic pictures of patriarchal life. The researcher must be able to reveal such contradictions of the writer, whose national significance is recognized by the history of literature. It is precisely in this approach to understanding artistic creativity that the methodological meaning of Lenin's assessment of L. Tolstoy, whose ideals reflected the "immaturity of dreaminess" of the patriarchal peasantry, but at the same time led the writer to realistic tearing of "all and all kinds of masks" (13, 212, 209).

Popular literature in its meaning arms the advanced forces of the nation, its progressive social movements, which serve to emancipate the working masses and establish new forms of social life. It raises the civic activity of the social lower classes, freeing workers from authoritarian ideas, from their dependence on those in power. The words of V. I. Lenin, retold by K. Zetkin, correspond to the modern understanding of nationality: “Art belongs

To the people. It must have its deepest roots in the very thick of the broad working masses. It must be understood by these masses and loved by them. It should unite the feeling, thought and will of these masses, raise them " (16, 657).

To fulfill this function, art must be accessible to the people. One of the main reasons Dobrolyubov saw the absence of nationality in the long centuries of development of Russian literature in the fact that literature remained far from the masses because of the latter's illiteracy. The critic was extremely acutely worried about the narrowness of Russian reading circles: “... the greatness of her (literature. - S.K.) value is weakened in this case only by the smallness of the circle in which it acts. This is the last such circumstance, about which it is impossible to remember without contrition and which chills us every time we are carried away by dreams of the great significance of literature and its beneficial influence on humanity ”(55, 226-226).

Contemporary writers of Latin America and many countries of Asia and Africa write about the same tragic separation of the bulk of the people from the national culture. Such a barrier can only be overcome by social transformations of society. An example is the transformations in our country after the Great October Socialist Revolution, when the achievements of culture ceased to be the property of the “upper ten thousand”.

The nationality of art is determined not only by the merits of its content, but also by the perfection of its form. People's writer achieves the capacity and expressiveness of each word, artistic detail, plot twist. Sometimes this is given to him with great difficulty. Reading in "Resurrection" L. Tolstoy simple, at first glance, the phrase: "Katyusha, beaming with a smile and black, like wet currant eyes, flew towards him" - the reader imagines a charming girl in youth defenselessness. But he doesn't even guess how long the artist worked on these words until he found the only necessary comparison (the initial comparison of Katyusha's eyes with cherries ruined the artistic effect).

Simplicity and availability art form in this sense are determined by the creative exactingness of the writer, his aesthetic instinct, the measure of his talent. To convey to the reader the ideological wealth of their

Works, the artist must give them a high perfection of artistic form and style.

Truly folk literature expresses the most fully national interests, therefore it also possesses a pronounced national identity. It is the creativity of such artists as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov, L. Leonov, Tvardovsky that determines our idea of the nationality of art and its national identity.

However, the development process never occurs in isolation in one national culture. It is very important to understand the interaction not only between the folk and national meanings of literature, but also their connection with its universal human meaning. It follows from the role that the nation, which created its literature, plays in human development. For this, it is necessary that the writer, in the national identity of the processes taking place in the life of his people, reveal the features of the progressive development of all mankind.

So, thanks to their national originality, Homer's poems reflected with particular perfection, according to K. Marx, that early stage of development of all peoples, which can be called the childhood of "human society" 1. Italian poetry (Dante, Petrarch, etc.), as well as English drama (Shakespeare), had a similar world significance for the Renaissance; for the era of absolutism - the drama of French classicism; for the era of bourgeois revolutions - the romantic poetry of Byron; for the era of development of bourgeois society - the realistic literature of France (Balzac, Flaubert), England (Dickens), Russia (Pushkin, Gogol, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

The fusion of the popular, the national and the universal is most clearly manifested in the literature of socialist realism. The processes of the formation of the human personality in the struggle to build a new, classless society are important for all mankind. Writers of socialist realism are armed with a scientific understanding of the objective laws of historical development,

1 See: Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. Vol. 12, p. 737.

National

specificity of literature - anachronism

or an inherent quality?

In the era of romanticism, the presence of national traditions, national originality of each of the literatures that made up world literature was not questioned. And later - hardly, say, could be confused English literature the times of Dickens or Galsworthy, the French of the times of Balzac or Zola, and the Russian of the times of Dostoevsky or Chekhov. But in the outgoing twentieth century, the processes of globalization of the world developed on an increasing basis. They undoubtedly touched upon culture in general and literature. Already in the middle of the century, the process of mutual influence was tangibly reflected even in the works of major authors. Nowadays, the question of the national specifics of literature, it seems, can only bring a smile. Many believe that the world literary stream is now absolutely homogeneous, and its beacons and landmarks - the works of Umberto Eco, Milorad Pavic, Kingsley Amis, Joseph Michael Coetzee and others - have only qualitative, and not national differences. Moreover, if in the middle of the century, with all the tangible influence that, say, the prose of Faulkner or Hemingway had on domestic authors, the realities they describe still remained different and at least this contributed to the originality, now the everyday realities of our life are becoming more and more similar to worldwide ...

And yet, at the risk of sounding "out of date", we propose to reflect on whether the national identity of the literatures has survived to this day and whether it will remain in the next century? It is clear that we are mainly interested in domestic literature, her current position and prospects. In this case, we are certainly not talking about external attributes; as the classic said, nationality is not in the cut of a sundress, but in the spirit of the people ...

With such a proposal, the editors turned to several Russian writers, critics, and translators.

Lev Anninsky

Global and national: who will take it?

Goethe did not know the word globalization. However, as far as I know, the first to use the phrase "world literature." So it is tempting to assume that it was then that it began. Although it started earlier. Always, at all times, there was a correlation between parts of human culture - with all the irregularity of direct contacts and roll calls; we now, composing and studying the history of “world literature”, this common history is quite logically “read” from unimaginably distant texts: something is laid down, something is hidden, something universal is present in the idea of humanity, and there are as many, how much human culture itself.

You will say that it is and only now that direct contacts and continuous roll calls have tangibly led to a “world process”, to a “mainstream”, to a “general stream” against which the floundering of individual national organisms can only bring a smile to the connoisseur.

I will answer that smiles will be mutual, because any strengthening of integral tendencies in culture is accompanied by an increase in local resistance to them under any flags. Mutual confusion of opposing factors is inevitable, otherwise - a systemic collapse.

You say: what about the Internet ?! Is it possible to compare the speed of a postal nag, two hundred years ago, dragging a cart of mutual translation - and the current electronic synchronous lightning, delivering directly to my eyes everything that is being written on the other side of the Atlantic at that moment?

I agree that electronics, of course, is capable of delivering everything that is composed on the shores of the world's literary ocean in a matter of moments before my eyes, but my eyes will not contain it. Communication is not limited by technical capabilities, but by the potencies of the human body, which still lives not ten, but one life.

You will say: but the scale and growth of verbal expression at the turn of the third millennium of the Christian era is unprecedented, and this is a fact.

I will note that for every stubborn fact there is another stubborn fact, and for every growth there is a cork that will cut off the energy with the fatal preponderance of literary centrism. All this literal edge will take and break away, and sail into the darkness of archives, that is, people will simply stop reading. What is happening now, by the way.

I am able to perceive as much as I am able to process, master, appropriate. Of course, when reading Umberto Eco or Milorad Pavic, I can isolate what they have in common and what goes to the level of “globality”, just as I can grasp where there is Italian and where is Yugoslavian. So what? And the fact that I will really get into this experience not when I correlate it with certain intelligible entities, but only when I experience it as my own. That is, when it becomes my - Russian experience. When I put it in the context of my culture.

Which one is “mine”? National finally?

Only "finally", not earlier. And endlessly refining this term.

The national, local, local, concrete, soil, direct, grassroots - always accumulate. And he always tries to embrace it - the integral. When there is something that can be put together, a unifying thrust arises. Empires are attempts to combine the motley into a single one. All great cultures are created, if not on the basis of empires, then within the framework of empires.

What is framed?

And that same, local, that rises “from below” and seeks context, in the last limit - the context of the universal.

The question is how to “mark” this particular and particular when it enters the general flow and resists the flow. Meta is already a sign of fate, a trace of circumstances, a stigma of an event, a technology of history, a notch of God. It was labeled confessionally. It was tagged socially. It was marked by the state. It was tagged anti-state, that is, partisan: according to interests.

Now tagging - nationally.

Arguing with this is like arguing with the rain. National markings are as transitory, inevitable, real and ephemeral as everything before it. People try hard to define "their own", but it slips away.

Of course, nature can help: some will blacken the skin, others will stretch their noses. But for the noses to work, the spirit must give them meaning. And it is the spirit that should make the color of the skin a “sign”. And if it doesn't matter to the spirit, it won't hurt anyone's nose. Who cares that Peter the Great had an artillery commander: he served Russia, which means he was Russian.

Then why are these hallmarks so tenacious?

Because there are no other “signs” of faith. Skin color, nose shape and ancestry of grandfathers and grandmothers - this is something of your own, natural, inalienable, automatically obtained, without effort!

So, in the end, it is indifferent for the spirit, because it is received without effort! Because the "national" does not fit into the "generic", does not coincide with it, which is spiritual question trying to give a material answer.

It is foolish to argue and it is ridiculous to struggle with the fact that now it is the “nation” that is the meta of everything concrete that opposes the globalism soaring in the virtual heights. The struggle takes place at a different level - at the level of the interpretation of the "nation" itself. There, the Ukrainian brothers have both separated and are struggling over the question of who they are: either brothers by blood, or fellow citizens, the support of a single state, regardless of which roots and tribes. The nation is the undisputed favorite in the current spiritual battle between “top” and “bottom”. But the struggle between ethnic and cultural within the nation is a real and not yet resolved problem.

Ethnicity can become national only at the cultural level if it turns out to be associated with all other values: state, public, world ... The password here is not the voice of blood and not the composition of genes, but a cultural code. That is, a behavioral code that has found a language for itself.

Simply put, language is the password. This is the banner under which these communities gather. Language is a means of communication, a concentrate of spiritual experience, a guarantee that this experience will not be forgotten or wasted.

The example of Israel, untwisted from Hebrew letters before the eyes of mankind, is uniquely valid. For the purity of the experiment. And the persuasiveness of the result.

Just don't rely on this experience as a speculative-volitional task. A nation is realized only when the power builds up and the thirst intensifies and the energy seeks a way out.

You cannot create any specially national culture and literature. And no specifically global one. You can't shake anything out of this patented globalism but stardust. But you cannot squeeze the national out of the ethnic, even if you write the word "Russian" after two "r" and three "s".

We must live with what is in reality and in spirit. History will decide where to put it: into society, into a nation, into space, into an ethnos ...

If, of course, there will be WHAT to enter.

Georgy Gachev

Will national literatures be preserved in the future?

This question also contains sub-questions: what is meant by literature? what is the fate national worlds? in what future: near, distant?

But in general: why did the general question itself arise? Obviously, from the involvement of countries and peoples and their cultures in the process of a single world history and civilization, which bind everyone: mutually nourish, equalize, but also diversify. Everyone began to read everyone: the Japanese - the Mexicans - and to influence. But what for? On the authors, their individual manners: who is closer to Proust, to whom - Marquez, to whom - Solzhenitsyn ... So, despite the fact that the single field of each national literature is being eroded, unified with world literature, writers and creative individuals are diversifying in it.

But this is the result, when already prepared works arrive on the world literature market. But where do they come from? From springs, not otherwise. As well as the waters of the great rivers - the Volga or the Amazons of national literatures, and then the world ocean, where everything and everyone is mixed - from the keys of beating, pulsating hearts.

BUT genus-nick on genus- no, it is suggested by: place, root and vertical Earth - Heaven, passing in transit through the heart - "I" of the creative vessel. And here the native language, like the mother's womb, is the prototype in the utterance of a person (at first); and then - the writer. Muttersprache = "mother tongue", "mother tongue" - this is how the mother tongue is called in German. He is a natural, or natural, Logos (God the Word, as spirit and mind), in contrast to the education acquired through labor, artificial, “created” (for “created”, “not born”) the Logos of world civilization. The latter - goes, flies from the horizontal surface of the Earth, where there are different directions of the world, and countries, societies, societies.

And now a person who resorts to the Word, a “writer”, finds himself immediately in a field of super-personal energies: the Earth-Sky Vertical, Mother (I) - Spirit (Father, male), passing as an axis through “I”, my soul. In this aspect, man = plant. The horizontal of world civilization and world literature, where the Spirit, like a “free son of the ether,” flies and “breathes wherever it wants”. And - Shar, the integrity of a given country and its history, culture, destiny. Here life goes on, and man is an animal, a self-propelled being. And all these three (at least) forces-tendencies pull in their directions: they spread it out, but also nourish and shape the individuality of the creator.

Why do they write? "Writer" - then you will be called that. And first, you start wailing like a bird at dawn - morning or evening (a person suddenly begins to write memoirs in old age, how to confess the day before ...). To pour out the soul. The word to that is the nearest material, instrument: voice-logos.

11.7.2000. Word, Language - this is not the property of fiction, but everyone. Everyday speech, philosophy, science, religion, politics are pushed on its territory ... In the space of the Russian language, apart from Russians, there are Kirghiz Aitmatov, Kazakh Suleimenov, Chukchi Rytkheu ... What kind of literature do they write: Kyrgyz? Kazakh? Chukchi? .. They expressed the life, soul and destiny of the Kyrgyz, Chukchi people ... - but they nourished Russian literature, enriched it, and their relatives diminished it, they became emaciated because of the flight of their talents into a foreign language.

Or now - in Israel emigrants from Russia write in Russian: Igor Guberman, Dina Rubina and many ... So what do they write? Jewish literature in Russian? .. Or - general human literature in Russian? For as individuals, individual “I” resort to the Russian Word-Logos as native to them, natural, although you cannot say about them that “with mother’s milk” entered them, for the blood and flesh in them is not Russian ...

In such authors - the dialogue of the Logos and Ethnos, and in the force field of tensions between them - and there is creativity, plots, problems, originality is formed - and a unique contribution to world literature. To her market-bazaar ... They carry personal versions of the Logos there, for books are written individually. But they are also consumed individually: the reader is alone with his own eyes, as he eats with his mouth. As an individual inside a human, Kyrgyz, Jewish nation ... The vertical-radius inside the sphere ... At the level of personalities, “I,” there is a meeting between the writer and the reader. Tete-a-tete ... T
to te-a -t to te.
Here - as in a complex sentence: a word, each turnover-element is subordinated to different levels: the voice as a Personality, as the voice of the People, as the Logos of Humanity. Both are heard in him, expressed.

So: will the national paint disappear from the painting of the future literature? - that is the question. With the dynamism of modern civilization, with accelerating communication and travel, everything is so mixed up, a kind of universal grease is formed both in souls and in speech.

Speedy life also entails accelerating speech. Listen to how quickly the informers try to pronounce words on the radio and on TV! Like machine-gun bursts or typist cursive or on a computer. The word is a means of information, not thoughts and feelings - more and more. And if for this it is possible without a word, then it is better: a direct image or a number-formula ... The lexicon is simplified ...

The virtual style of modern civilization: cinema, television, all sorts of "video" ... - detract from space and time for reading: there is less and less need for it ... an image ready even for the characters of literature (in film adaptations) flows directly into you: Pierre Bezukhov, Prince Myshkin - without the inner workings of productive imagination - giving birth to them, as it is when reading, when you must first understand the meanings of words with your mind, then build these air-spiritual castles from them in the Logos, God-Word. That is, exercising this divine substance in oneself ... The visual style of the message atrophies it, replacing it with “lust for the hair,” flattening a person, hammering in him the inner man, the volume of the soul. Collapse of the gut.

So the fate of literature is linked with the fate of the personality in man, with the inner life of his “I”. For an Americanized individual in the pursuit of success to indulge in inner life is a waste of time, which = money. And this type of person is a leader in modern civilization, which leads to unification and entropy, equal to people, and souls, and languages, and countries-peoples.

Therefore, for the sake of self-preservation of its own, fiction is interested in not melting nations and languages, mothers-motherlands, traditions and special destinies, histories, ways, souls of countries. For a person to stop, to think, to stay in silence and meditation, to appreciate the time given to this. And this is all - in the past style of life of mankind. Therefore, it is natural for us, writers, to be conservatives - now. And there are two supports for us - Nature and Personality, her need for inner life, to go directly to God the Word. And the “words, words, words” of national literatures are mediators and companions of this. Like spirits with the Spirit. Angels are “messengers” with God the Spirit. But demons are also spirits ...

So the problem remains. After all, as those who understand (friends and spouses) communicate with souls without words, so the holy silent people - bypassing “words, words, words,” dwell in the Word.

Fiction, it turns out, is an intermediate state-form in the Word-Logos. Both religion and modern civilization are arrogant towards it, they grind it from different sides, abolish it. Just as high religions abolish peoples (“there is no Hellene and a Jew” in Christ ”, or as in“ Doctor Zhivago ”it is understood: with Christianity, peoples have ceased to be significant, but only individuals), so modern industrial civilization has a vector to abolish Pri-Roda, replace artificial products of Labor, and therefore peoples, words - signs, ideograms. The word is too bodily, fleshly, material: it sounds, sensual, rolls in the throat, you can taste it, enjoy it, pronouncing it - with your lips, with your tongue, copulating with it, caressing the sound ... And God is like a pure Spirit, and an abstract mind-mind Sciences and Techniques - meet in the Noo-sphere, bypassing the “words, words, words” of fiction, leaving it somewhere below, like a rudiment and pluperfect.

So - what will happen, "what will come true in my life?" - God knows.

However, there is still hope - the Incarnation: that “the Word became flesh”. That God-Spirit needed to be incarnated in matter in order for Life to take place in the fullness of Being. Sensuality (it is also - nationality) of the word of fiction - on the same rights as God-man, the unity of Spirit and Nature, art and nature.

Victor Golyshev

The question is about the erasure of national boundaries in literature? In my opinion, it is premature. These generalizations are best done from a distance. It is too early to talk about the erasure of borders in an age marked by outbreaks of nationalism - national socialism, attempts to exterminate entire peoples, the national liberation struggle, the collapse of empires. It seems to me that such a legacy cannot be quickly forgotten. But I would prefer to get by with examples.

Social experience in different countries was so varied that even first-class writers did not cross national borders. Platonov did not become a world writer, not because he cannot be translated, but because his civic experience is incomprehensible to Westerners (and, probably, to Southeasterns). Artem Vesely, whose talent was definitely not inferior to Dos Passos, is known, it seems, only to Slavists.

On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn, an active and world famous writer. The Swiss could not write his books. He owes his world fame, of course, to the talent and scale of the task - but also to the fact that the Soviet Union was, and our horror and our strength became clearer to humanity after the war. That is, the boundaries are again present - and, as it was called, “bristling”.

They say that realities are unified. Consumer goods are being unified (this has always been the case), including politics. The main realities - the history of the country, way of life, children's fairy tales, topography - are not unified.

Moreover, the “melting pot” of the United States is moving towards “multiculturalism,” and the results of this process must still be waited for. I can only guess what is happening in our former units.

As for the literary stream, although this is more a subject of sociology, then here too, avoiding generalizations, I would manage with two or three examples. Our postmodernists, having stuffed their works with socialist realism with the opposite sign and, in general, domestic art material used, guaranteed themselves from the wide-open eyes of foreign countries. Second-class American literature I've noticed a tendency to name things not by their intended purpose - shirt, pen, table - but by brand: induced fetishism. Like: “I ate Mikoyan's sausage” - I can imagine how an honest colleague-translator is looking for a cannibalistic background. This is how many meaningful shades are lost.

On the other hand, there are writers who work for export, for example, due to the size of their genius, the smallness of their native audience, and, consequently, royalties. Their all-humanity is banal, their language is flat. There are, of course, transnational writers like Pavich and Eco - there are always enough readers among readers who are willing to kill a literary goat.

Another case, separate from the previous ones. Pelevin, who understands technology and has a good feel for the English language, is considered by many critics to be such a globalized pop writer. But none of the foreign authors have I met with just such a special melancholy that permeates his books. And here there is confusion with these boundaries.

In short, I can't see the whole picture. Another thing is visible. The first half of the century (a little more) gave writers who crossed the border. In Hamsun, only the (external) temperament betrays a Scandinavian. Who is Kafka - German, Jew, Czech? A lonely unfortunate soul is not one belonging to Austria-Hungary. What interested us more in Faulkner - cotton, mules, or what he thinks about human destiny? Now there are no masters of thought, and Faulkner, by the way, the further, the less he says to today's Americans. Is this not related to the retreat of literature to visual matters, lower-order symbolism, sprint thinking? This topic seems to me more important.

Yuri Kublanovsky

Despite all the globalization of the world in the 60s and 90s, I can’t say - using the example of Russian literature - that I see a sharp increase in the “mutual influence” of literatures. How the Anglo-Saxons and Continental Europeans influenced our writers from the golden age to the silver one, needless to say: all our literature is saturated with them through and through - the French, the English, the Germans, and later the Scandinavians. Our writers freely drew from there everything that they needed, everything that impressed them and was dear - and at the same time organically preserved their national physiognomy. Our literature as Akhmatov's “real tenderness cannot be confused with anything,” and thank God.

And overseas literature? What an original power, your epic, drama, your great style, your national psychology, with the unconditional influence of both Europeans and Russians. Literatures "interpenetrated", preserving their originality; any high-level creative world is ambivalent: in its ultimate perfection it is a child of both the national spirit and humanity as a whole, because culture is unity in diversity. It cannot but be national, if only because of the language and its secrets, which are not given to foreigners for rent. This is especially true of poetry, where language is involved completely, without a trace, not only linguistically, but also spiritually. The fact that we now have poets, as if directly orienting their text to the interlinear translation, rather testifies to their weakness and career than to a serious cultural trend. Language, on the other hand, is not an autonomous and completely amenable to development area, but a derivative of the national spirit and history. Accordingly, poetry cannot but be national.

Here they will bring me - in objection - Nabokov and Brodsky. I can’t help myself: I don’t like Nabokov’s novels written in English. The exception is Lolita, but the writer, as you know, translated this book himself and thus warmed it with the warmth of his Russian skill. And let those who are interested in reading his giant charade novels in English.

Brodsky is not a Russian poetic genius, although he is, obviously, the greatest Russian poet of the post-war period. Domestic - without the Fatherland. But here for me is just the exception that proves the rule. His creative psychology is to a large extent a product of our non-conformist cultural aspiration of the 50-60s, which over the swamp of socialist realism tried - and, as we now see, not unsuccessfully - to return to civilization. In general, in Brodsky, judging by his interviews and essays, real “idolatry” before the language was bizarrely coexisting with “cosmopolitanism”; at the same time, frankly speaking, I do not quite understand what he meant by “language” proper, deifying and secularizing it at once.

But - nevertheless, the "globalization" of literature is really there. Talented authors who write “internationally” breed like piranha fish in the world - a true testimony to the cultural entropy of civilization. In its own way, this literature is very ideological. No less ideological than socialist realism was. It gives food to the mind and heart of the consumer of a market civilization, averaging out the demands of his spirit and dulling his ideological vigilance. Ultimately, such literature is the tip of a giant iceberg of mass culture and show business, a cultural commercial industry. There are more and more writers who can live anywhere and write about anything, and it’s better just in English. But in the good old days, even nomadic writers like Gogol, living in a foreign land, creatively and “sacredly” remained in their homeland.

Russian classic literature, for example, the essence is not just an aesthetic phenomenon, but also a reason for mobilizing the cultural and moral capabilities of the reader, in this sense - this is how it was generally understood, in the end, its creators - it is a good "reason" to think about the main, step towards it. Russian writers - leading through all the horrors of being and non-being, through the Svidrigailov bathhouses with spiders or the archipelagos of the Gulag - worked on the Creator, obliging the reader for the better, understanding, according to Baratynsky, his gift as a task over... The creativity of our great prose writers and poets - with all the diversity of ideas and styles - did not allow ambiguity and "ontological" corruption.

Today's globalist writers work with the consumer in mind. And, it seems, they are seriously convinced that the future belongs to them. Is it so? I'm not convinced of this. A costly civilization, part of the ideological support of which, I repeat, is the creativity of globalists, a transitory thing rooted in the exploitation of natural resources and the biosphere. Sooner or later, but very soon, life on earth either completely degrades and perishes - or the market ideology will have to “re-profile” from stimulating consumption to self-restraint.

This cannot be done without the support of talented and highly qualified people; humanity will need new moral and spiritual resources to survive. (Writers, however, are globalists - with an external gloss - as a rule, a kind of arithmetic mean, completely tied to the current cultural and everyday situation.) A qualitatively new and conscientious cultural resource will also be in demand. But the new is the well-forgotten old. This is how traditional values will regain their meaning; the national originality of literature is one of them.

I am especially worried about our poetry. Under the communists, it seemed to all of us - both Soviet poets and self-publishers - that in Russia, poetry was not in danger, somewhere, but here you just rip off the totalitarian muzzle and a hundred flowers would bloom. Now we understand that poetry is a fragile, aristocratic thing, easily washed out of the civilizing cultural mass ... Poetic ear is first innate, and then - developed. And people with such an innate poetic ear, it turns out, are catastrophically few. Russian verse, at once simple and mysterious, perfect and damp, has a rather subtle “mental organization” - you cannot be allowed to be seized by stylists and khokhmachs, alien to the Russian covenants, who stupid everything and everyone.

And fiction as a whole should not fall for the final plunder by marauders-globalists, but remain the same as it was at the time of its heyday: a spiritual and aesthetic school that nourishes people. Needless to say, this should not be an external, albeit the most noble "task": the given literature is incomplete literature. But - organically grow in the soul and creative world of the Russian writer. It would be dreamed that our literature would not produce demons, but would promote their speedy expulsion from the body of Russia, exhausted to the limit.

Understand correctly: this, I repeat, is by no means an ideological setting task. This is the task of artistry as such.

Valentin Kurbatov

In my own words

Apparently, everything, as it usually happens with us, depends on which foot to stand on and where to think about the proposed subject. Within the walls of the Library for Foreign Literature or in an editorial office in the middle of Moscow, some names will seem unconditional, but in a village corner of a distant Russian province - completely different ones. And, thank God, both of them will be right in their truth.

Of course, those in the capital are louder and more inventive in terms of means, and this is why they can be accustomed to the fact that the national literature is really over. They are more popular in magazines, and not in last place on the Internet, and in more visible markets. Even if you take not street stalls, which you cannot look at without dizziness and shame, but elite bookstores where the “literary process” is reflected in the tall mirrors of deliberate thought.

There will be many wonderful Russian books of literary heritage, there will be a succession of classics of Russian literature, there religious thought will be ashamed of its height that we have not yet mastered, there will also be a place for good editions of today's Russian poetry and prose of strong traditional leaven, but they will already be equalized, and then they are supplanted by the great world and European philosophical thought, classical and modern Western literature, to which the literature of the present emigration, disdainful of the house, and the last books of local legislators - V. Pelevin, L. Petrushevskaya, S. Gandlevsky, A. Kim, A. Slapovsky will be molded , D. Prigova, V. Sorokin.

"The Oblonskys' House" ...

What kind of "national literature" is there! Everything is fluid, fused, everything looks back at each other and authoritatively asserts “all-unity and all-mankind” - alas, not at all of a Dostoevian quality. Even if we take only this literature of today's talkative emigration, which we, with equal rights, and even not without servility, are introducing into the everyday life of the local literary process. One wonders whether it is deliberately introduced into this everyday life, not with a well-thought-out intent to dissolve the “interfering” boundaries of the spiritual Fatherland, make them indistinct, and finally bring the Russian person out into the open spaces of “just a man”.

Maybe it is. In addition, a Russian person sometimes loves to complex that he has “lagged behind,” and a writer, especially from Moscow-Petersburg young people, to hurry up, start “mowing” under a European with a form and a dandy abstraction of thought - since the Russian language is internally mobile and unlimited in possibilities, which is why sometimes it seems deceptively that our eco, kundera, pavichi or borges are not inferior to the originals in depth, in play, in freedom. So, maybe it's really her, this "nationality".

But this is not the whole truth. Of course, we will no longer have a new “village literature”, which was the last integral national phenomenon (which is why it was read by intellectuals and “simple people” with the same feeling of love and unity), but it is too early to close the curtain. It is enough to look at the provincial magazines of Russia - "Russian Province", "Gornitsa", "North", "Kulikovo Pole", "Rise", "Volga", "Gostiny Dvor", "Siberia" to see that everything is going on as usual and dear muse does not forget her children and does not rush to get a fashion magazine. Even, it seems, on the contrary, we are just beginning to listen to our tradition and comprehend it, peering into the past, in the history of noble and peasant families, in our native past with the passion of not at all abstract intellectual curiosity.

It is enough to look at the all-Russian peaks - the novels of D. Balashov, V. Lichutin, V. Bahrevsky, L. Borodin, but they are not in an open field, but on the living soil of universal interest in their cradle.

And are they alone historical novels? And, for example, "Dictionary of the Expansion of the Russian Language" by A.I. Solzhenitsyn - what is this? And this is a sign of surprise that Russian literature has developed its own seemingly dead existence in the last decades, because words are most often taken from the books of this unfortunate time.

And the bitter and at the same time calmly confident prose of B. Yekimov, A. Varlamov, P. Krasnov, and the returning Orthodox branch of our culture, seizing on the faded Leskov or Shmelev tradition - in the stories of N. Konyaev and father Yaroslav Shipov, in the stunning verses of his father Vyacheslav Shaposhnikov?

No, you can't take names here. Not all of them are in plain sight, but, like small Russian rivers, they flow into their native forests and valleys and collect villages and small towns along the way and they do not deplete. Only before the rivers of one and the other literature flowed into a single sea, but now in different directions and their waters do not mix.

Sorry for the incorrect parallel. Before the Second Vatican Council, the papal See was convinced of the universality of Catholicism and its inevitable victory, and after the Council, which had heard life-giving truth and equal depth in the Orthodox Liturgy and exiled Russian religious thought, it spoke of “light from the East” and “unity in diversity”, arguing that in the Lord's garden Copts are beautiful precisely as Copts, Orthodox as Orthodox, Protestants as Protestants, and in this difference they are shades of the one Truth of Christ. It turned out that the universality of a single faith in a compulsory understanding is not only not necessary, but it is also undesirable, because then there will be no garden, but a collective farm field.

So in the literature, I think, we will soon guess that the worldwide tendencies towards globalization is the destruction of the Lord's Face in oneself, a living single national response to general questions, and we will hear the old, but all youthfully fresh and life-giving truth for a long time ahead - unity in diversity, if only the basis of this unity was really the Lord's Face, and we will proudly give best forces his own, which will be a sign of love and memory of universal.

Pskov

Alexander Ebanoidze

About national identity - with a smile

The question of the national specifics of literature makes me smile, but, it seems, is not at all the one implied in the preamble of our discussion in absentia.

I still remember the overwhelmingly strong and fresh impression of the first acquaintance with the epics and fairy tales of different peoples: for me, Georgian fairy tales smelled like an old oak press, piled high with corn straw, and in the Russians a cool lily of the valley freshness flickered and the Easter message was spreading somewhere far away. In folklore, national specificity is expressed with impeccable taste - with minimal means, but so strongly that it is impressive even in translations. For all my life, the expanses of the Kyrgyz highlands, blown by the May poppy wind, and the felt stuffiness of “Manas” remained mine; excess sun in the bazaars of Baghdad and Damascus with hot sand on the teeth and in the folds of clothes; wet cobblestones of the Bremen pavement under roughly lined shoes and the strained creak of an old windmill, smashing with flour and mice ...

All this could be explained by childish impressionability, if not for the discovery made dozens of years later: when I found myself in the countries that had been read about in the adapted editions of The Thousand and One Nights or at the brothers Grimm, I was surprised to find that I knew them, I knew for a long time and, I would say, intimately - the rhythm and pace of life, voices and sounds, smells and tastes, and that elusively common thing that scientists call mentality.

The same property (to enrich the life experience of the reader, to multiply it tenfold not only morally and aesthetically, but also in the sense of physical knowledge) is possessed by works of fiction. This time, instead of my own impressions, I will refer to Hemingway and Henry James, who spoke about Tolstoy's "Cossacks" and Turgenev's prose. Thank God, there are many examples, including chronologically close ones, and each of us has our own.

Even in the memory of the previous generation, the world was large and diverse, and literature played an important role in its development and recognition. The function of revealing national identity and presenting it to the world was subconsciously included in the task of the writer, accompanied it, was the most organic property of literature. In a transformed form, it seems, it will forever remain inherent in it, since literature is inseparable from language. There is no national literature outside the national language, in a certain sense she is a product of language, its profoundly wise child, and as such bears the genetic code, symbols and signs of national ancestral memory. Therefore, even in the most abstract, sophisticated and “advanced” works of the newest “masters of thought” the Italian temperament of Umberto Eco, the Slavic sweepingness of Milorad Pavic, the English sarcasm of Kingsley Amis cannot but affect (at least in the general “sound” or intonation). (Isn't this the same K. Amis who debuted Lucky Jim in the early 60s? with him the question arose about national specifics, which means that over the past years it has changed a lot.)

Here it is appropriate to recall the famous cycle of parables by Erlom Akhvlediani "Vano and Niko", written in the late 50s and far ahead of their time. These parables ("the miracle of lack of style", in the words of A. Bitov) "are inexpressible, elusive, but deeply national, like a line in an ornament." Strong reinforcement of my thought: it turns out that even the miracle of lack of style can be deeply national!

However, one cannot but admit what is stated in the preamble of the discussion in our conference hall: the processes of globalization are developing on an increasing scale, they have touched not only literature, but also its foundation - language. Gradually and steadily, the boundaries are blurring, the national identity is leveled. Remaining in the same physical parameters, the world has become smaller due to the increase in speeds - the speed of movement, transmission of information, its absorption, etc. Globalization is a fait accompli; the process, as they say, went and goes complete progress. Therefore, it is appropriate not to discuss the causes of globalization, but to think about its consequences.

First of all, is this a positive process?

Not at all. For literature, it may even turn out to be disastrous due to the selectivity, isolation, and unhurriedness that is organically inherent in our work.

“The idea of speed merged with the idea of progress without any reason ... One should ask ourselves, is not the progress so understood as evidence that our era is lower than the centuries of ignorance, which left us imperishable monuments of their patience, from which reason and knowledge were born?” This statement of Guillaume Apollinaire almost a century ago is a hundred times more relevant today. I will illustrate it with an example from urban planning: the wonderful difference between Samarkand, Ravenna and Suzdal is the product of slow “centuries of ignorance”, without which we would see a solid Chicago around.

If the cause of globalization, so to speak, its “material base” was technical progress, then the form of its manifestation in literature turned out to be its growing complexity and sophistication, the exposure of “frameworks,” the strengthening of conventionality and the game element. Many people call it intellectualization. I don’t think the term is accurate, since the bestselling authors named in the editorial introduction are hardly more intellectual than Stendhal, Dostoevsky and Mann. Rather, their books reflect some kind of compensatory efforts caused by drying out of roots, detachment from the soil.

It should also be noted that Western literature, where the element of convention and intellectual play has always been strong (Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, Faust), finds it easier to get used to the new psychological climate of the era. That is why it is from the West that the impulses of renewal and fashionable fads come from the West. But for all the similarities, worldwide affinity and globalization, differences persist: if in the West a long-time remarkable writer has been defined as a “virtuoso of the pen”, in Russia they look for and value completely different qualities and properties:

When a line is dictated by a feeling

It sends a slave to the stage.

And then art ends

And the soil and fate breathe.

Needless to say, the dictates of feelings almost exclude intellectualization, and where the “soil breathes”, national specificity is certainly present.

I will make a reservation: the perception of a new situation, or rather a new tendency, both in Russia and in other literatures, is twofold; writing is such a piece, individual business that everyone solves the dilemma on their own, at their desk. (Nowadays, it seems, you should talk - at your computer). There are centuries that do not feel the breath, there are those caught by the wind and even those running ahead of it, and there are tendencies that are carefully instilling in national traditions. If we think about it and remember, we will see that the latter are the most significant and productive. An example is the South American and South Slavic stock in world literature. As for me, I would gladly refer to Georgian - Otar Chkheidze, Chabua Amirejibi, Otar Chiladze, Guram Dochanashvili. In Russian, however, brilliant success in this sense appears to be two small things - an old poem by Erofeev and a recent story by Vladislav Otroshenko "The Yard of Great-grandfather Grisha." However, perhaps what I called a successful rootstock, the fruit of grafting, would be more accurate to define as a product of resistance to a strong national tradition the process of globalization. But this is a big topic, in a short statement you can only designate it.

On the whole, it seems that literature intuitively guesses the danger lurking for it in the process of globalization, and is looking for a strategy of confrontation. The confrontation is as obligatory and inevitable as, apparently, and hopeless.

One can only hope that the evening dawn of literature will be as beautiful as its dawn and blooming midday.

Without a variety of colors, elusive, but deeply national, such beauty is unthinkable.

Mikhail Epstein

About the future of language

National peculiarities of literature will disappear - and return already at the level of meta: play, nostalgia, irony, irrevocability and irrevocability. Nationality will become a matter of taste, style, and aesthetic choice. What style do you work in? - “Metallic-Russian”, “virtual-Russian”, “metareal-Russian”, “Indo-European-Russian”, etc. Americans, preoccupied with the search for identity, add to their self-designation the nationalities of their distant ancestors: "Italian-American", "German-American", "Irish-American", etc. Perhaps, over time, a proud “Russian-Russian” will appear along with the “Tatar-Russian”, “Euro-Russian” ... The fate of literature depends on the fate of the language: will it remain Russian or, after several centuries, will it be Latin alphabetically, or in vocabulary, or even in grammar, it will merge into the world language, most likely composed on the basis of English and Spanish. The romanization of the Russian alphabet is a frightening prospect, but quite tangible by the end of our new century, at least for non-fiction literature. The standards of written communication, the norms of intelligibility are set by electronic means of communication, and the Cyrillic alphabet is not only a small island in the sea of electronic writing, but it has also split itself into several encodings, which is why many Russians are rewritten in Latin. This period of "new feudal" fragmentation is unlikely to pass without dire consequences for the Cyrillic alphabet: the Latin alphabet is beginning to supplant it even among the Russian speakers. Even Serbs, who have special reasons not to like the Latin alphabet, are gradually switching to it. So, perhaps, in a hundred years, the Cyrillic alphabet will remain precisely the alphabet of artistic writing, a distinctive aesthetic feature, although at the same time there will appear works created in “living”, colloquial and business Latin (as Dante passed from literary Latin to living, albeit “vulgar” , Italian and became one of the founders of modern European literature). The Latin version of Russian will begin to become aestheticized, there will be an additional opportunity for a polysemantic game with words of other languages ... I say this with horror, but I imagine the inevitability of such a turn of things.

Another way of developing the Russian language is also possible - not through borrowing (alphabet, vocabulary), but through the development of the Indo-European system of roots, which the Slavic languages share with the Romance and Germanic languages. Perhaps, on the basis of Russian, a language will be built, in relation to which modern Russian will be only a special case. Of the 500 words for "any" that will be in the language, in today's Russian there is only one tenth. This is not just filling gaps, but recreating that linguistic volume, word-of-mouth space that will cover both Russian and others. Indo-European languages... Reconsciousness-recreation of the Indo-European basis of modern languages, but not as a primordial basis, but as a conceivable and “recommanded” future - this is one of the possibilities of the “progressive return” of Russian to the world language family... It seems to me that the future world language should not be Pan-English or Panispanic, but new-Indo-European - should restore those forms of root, lexical, grammatical commonality that all Indo-European languages had at the source of their development and differentiation. Perhaps, before the transition from living languages to machine languages, the time has come and the need to develop to the end, to project in all conceivable directions the “root-crown” system of the Russian language, to embrace the tree of development of the language as a whole, from now visible branches - not only to Indo- European roots, but also to those crowns, over which artificial intelligence will soon fly, completely breaking away from the national-historical soil of linguistics.

I am trying to participate in this process with my project “The Gift of the Word”, which offers alternative, expansive models of word formation: the oldest Indo-European roots begin to toss and turn in the soil of the Russian language, germinate and branch again, and thereby intertwine with other languages of the Indo-European family.

Who am I by my cultural roots? Yes, the same as in language: Indo-European. Not a Westerner or an Orientalist, not a Russian, not an American, not a Jew - these are more and more particular characteristics that are necessary but not sufficient. All these cultures have a common Indo-European heritage, which was preserved first of all - and almost exclusively - in languages (partly in myths, archetypes). And this means that as humanity unites and a common language is developed, Indo-European roots will begin to be re-exposed in the converging perspective of different languages. Now, perhaps, a grandiose reform of the Russian language is brewing: not a horizontal entry into modernity, through borrowing, imitation - but vertically: not Anglicization, not Europeanization, but Indo-Europeanization, i.e. the ascent to the original roots, and through them - to generally understood derivatives, with clear Indo-European roots and branches. We, Russian speakers, who have spread all over the world: Russians, Americans, Israelis, Australians, Canadians, Germans, have the only common heritage. It is in vain to look for commonality on some political platforms or in cultural programs - here we are divided by age, upbringing, place of residence, tastes, etc. But the language, the sign system that formed our thinking, the cultural gene pool, we have one, and, therefore, the first concern and the point of convergence is not to let the language die out and fade away.

The current Russian is “fading at the root”. The most alarming thing is that the roots of the Russian language in the 20th century slowed down and even stopped growing, and many branches were cut down. A general look at the state of the tongue brings a sad picture: several scattered branches stick out from the deep, primordial roots, and not only does no further branching occur, but, on the contrary, the branches fall, the wordwood becomes bald. In Dahl's root nest “-love-”, there are about 150 words, from “love” to “generous”, from “love” to “fornication” (this does not include prefixes yet). The 1982 four-volume Academic Dictionary contains 41 words. It turns out that the root "lyub" for a hundred years not only did not give growth, new branches, but, on the contrary, began to wither sharply and lose its crown. Dalew words in the language cannot be restored, because many are associated with a circle of outdated, local meanings, Church Slavicism, etc .; but in a living language, roots must grow, branch out, and bring new words. It is significant that Solzhenitsyn, who is trying to expand the modern Russian language by introducing words from the Dalev dictionary, was forced to thin out in his selection not only the composition of words, but also to reduce their interpretations, to narrow the meanings (see my article "Word as a work. On the genre of one word" , “New World”, No. 9, 2000). In all the dictionaries of the Russian language of the Soviet era, a total of 125 thousand words are given - this is very little for a developed language, especially with a huge literary past and potential. Moreover, a significant part of this fund is made up of monotonous and little-used suffixal formations of the type “fate, back, perinushka, baby, kalynushka, dolinushka, bylin ...”. Almost 300 words only female with the suffix "ushk" the compilers added it to the seventeen-volume Great Academic Dictionary (1960s) to represent the development and richness of the language; and meanwhile many fully meaningful offshoots from truly fertile, meaningful roots fell out of the language.

The same thing happens with the language as with the population. The population of Russia is almost three times less than what it should have been according to demographic estimates at the beginning of the 20th century. And it is not only a matter of population decline, but also of crop failure. 60 or 70 million died as a result of historical experiments and catastrophes, but twice as many of those that could have demographically had to be born - were not born, their social environment did not accept from those genetic depths from which they were eager to be born. This is the case in the Russian language: not only has there been a decline, but also crop failure. Dead words can hardly be fully resurrected, although Solzhenitsyn's attempt deserves great respect - rather, new words need to be created, not from scratch, but to grow from ancient roots in accordance with a semantic need.

I said almost nothing about literature - but now it is more than ever clear that literature in the narrow sense of the word is not writing in general, but fiction- there is only one of the ways and even one of the stages in the life of the language. As much as the national language will be, the literature will also be national.

National originality and nationality of literature; national originality of literature; nationality of literature. Literature questions

Read also

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

World significance and national identity of Russian literature of the XIX century. Your opinion on the works known to you on this issue. When studying what school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?