Russian literary and critical and philosophical thought of the second half of the XIX century. Slavophilic Criticism Literary Critical Program of Slavophiles

Slavophiles in their literary tastes and constructions were conservative romantics and convinced opponents of critical realism. New opponents of realism passed the claims of German philosophy, and it was not easy to argue with them. They fought, we can say, the same weapon as the adherents of realism.
Among the Slavophiles should be distinguished by two generations. To the older, founding the very doctrine, are I. V. Kireevsky, his brother P. V. Kireevsky, A. S. Khomyakov. To the younger generation, brave doctrine is not safe, K. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin. Later, speaking I. S. Aksakov, in fact, was not a literary critic.
Initially, Slavophiles collaborated in the magazine of Pogodin and Shevyreva "Moskvatik" (1841-1845). In 1845, they independently released edited by I. Kireevsky the first three rooms of this magazine, and then limited only by the role of employees. This circumstance prevented the readers to allocate special Slavophilic criticism in their consciousness: she merged into some kind of uniform "Moskvatian". In 1846 and 1847, for the purpose of the Separation, Slavophiles released the two "Moscow literary and scientists of the collection", which, however, did not meet their hope for success. In 1852, a similar compilation was banned by a censorship due to a sympathetic article about Gogol; The censored persecutions of Slavophiles began. In the preformal era, Slavophiles managed to achieve some of the freights for themselves: from 1856 to 1860, with great breaks, they published the Russian conversation under the editors of A. I. Kosheleva - the main body. But the "Russian conversation" did not have success, its direction was parted with the public climb. "Contemporary" led a decisive struggle with the "Russian conversation." From 1861 to 1865, I. Aksakov published the "Day" newspaper, who attacked nihilists, materialists, preaching antipolsk, Panxlavist ideas that merged with the chauvinism of the "Russian Bulletin" and "Moscow Vedomosti" Katkova.
The ideas of Slavophilov could not create artistic valuable literature. Only individual poems of Homyakov, K. Aksakova, I. Aksakov are allocated. The trump card in competition with progressive realistic literature they had S. T. Aksakov (Father Constantine and Ivan Aksakov). But S. T. Aksakov was not actually Slavophil, but as a realist writer even confronted them. He was a friend of Gogol, appreciated him as the author of the "auditor" and "dead souls" and picked up "selected places from correspondence with friends." The name of Gogol Slavophiles clearly speculated using his friendly relationship with the Aksakov home. Later, Slavophiles were gladly trying to attract the Ostrovsky as a historical station to themselves. They tried to adapt to the "black earthly truth" of the letter, especially since the writer himself shied away from advanced ideas and how to meet such desires. They tried in their "folk" spirit to interpret and "Hunter's Notes" Turgenev. But all these writers did not go with Slavophiles.
Eating not so much own positive literary experiences, how much fear of the realistic exposures of Russian reality, contributing to the coup, Slavophiles developed a special system of historical and aesthetic views, which can be qualified with a methodological side as conservative romanticism. The essence of the Slavophilical doctrine was the idea of \u200b\u200bthe national unity of all Russian people in the village of the Christian Church without the difference in classes and classes, in the preaching of humility and submission to the authorities. All this had a reactive romantic, utopian character. The preaching of the ideas of the "Russian People-God-Russian", designed to save the world from death, unite all the Slavs around themselves, coincided with the official Panselslavist Doctrine of Moscow as the Third Rome.
But Slavophiles had the mood of dissatisfaction with existing orders. The royal power, in turn, could not tolerate the attempt on its foundations even in the foggy arguments of Slavophiles on the need for advisory sodovators, especially in the statements about the need for the personal liberation of peasants, in the motivations of the wrong trial, the abuse of officialhood, alien to True Christian morality. Slavophiles were representatives of the liberal nobility, faithfully began to look for an exit from a dead end to avoid revolutionary explosions in Russia in Russia.
The oppositionality of Slavophiles was limited. Writers-Realistic and genuine democrats who endowed the major gravity of the fight against autocracy, criticized them for false nationality, refined the protection of the foundations of the existing system.
Slavophiles tried to raise their prestige due to the fact that after 1848, Western, surviving disappointment in the bourgeois utopian socialism, began to develop the ideas of "Russian community socialism". An emigrant example was an emigrant Herzen. Slavophiles have long repeatedly stated that in the peasant community the spirit of genuine nationality, the unity of class interests has been preserved. With superficial glance, it turned out that the Westerners came to bow to Slavophilas. It is known that later theorists who were Chernyshevsky and populists who developed the ideas of the same peasant "community socialism" were located, were referred to Slavophilas. But the similarity is only apparent.
For Slavophiles, a community is a means of preserving patriarchalness, a stronghold against revolutionary fermentation, the means of holding the peasant masses in the obedience of the landowners, education in their humility. And for revolutionary democrats and populists, the community is a form of transition to socialism, a model of future socialist labor and a hostel. Let this doctrine be utopian, but still the essence of the community and its purpose was interpreted by revolutionary democrats in the sense of the sense of revolutionary democrats in comparison with the Slavophilus.
Slavophiles loved to produce themselves for genuine representatives of Russian identity, nation. They collected folklore as the echo idealizing the past in the life of the people. They claimed to create special extracurricular Russian art instead of Russian realism, which already existed. All these were reactionary utopian-romantic abstractions. Slavophiles rejoiced by any manifestations of contradictions in the life of the West and tried to issue Russia for the stronghold of moral began, allegedly having a completely different story, not fraught with revolutionary shocks.
Kireevsky is one of the founders of Ivan Vasilyevich Slavophilics. From 1828 to 1834, he acted as a progressive thinker who was looking for a wide philosophical basis for Russian criticism. He published the magazine "European" (1832), which in the second issue was closed by the government because of the articles of the publisher of the nineteenth century and "grief from the mind" on the Moscow stage. " In the first article, Kireevsky claimed that the old forms of philosophy, civil identity, the Western Europe had already exhausted, Russia had to develop their new forms using the experience of the West. At the end of the article, Kireevsky rhetorically suggested the readers to "draw conclusions" regarding the nature of the enlightenment in Russia. This was enough for the king to suspect the Kireevsky in the preaching of the need for the Constitution. "European" was banned, and Kireevsky was taken under surveillance.
Kireevsky in his youth wrote a few wonderful critical articles: "Something about the nature of Pushkin's poetry" ("Moscow Bulletin", 1828), "Review of Russian Literature for 1829" ("Dennica", 1830), already mentioned "Woe from Wit" on Moscow Scene "and" nineteenth century ", as well as" with% about ~ z "Rinni? Russian literature for 1831" ("European", 1832), "On the poems of language" ("Telescope", 1834).
The articles showed an outstanding critical talent of Kireevsky. Pushkin was pleased with his meaningful judgments. Belinsky borrowed several important wording from him: about romanticism, about Pushkin as a "poet of reality".
Thoughtful, calm tone of his articles highly appreciated Chernyshevsky. The correct of its principle, Kireevsky killed Russian criticism to look for "common color, one stamp" in the work of a disassembled poet. And he himself, masterfully found him at Pushkin, Venerevitinova, Baratynsky, Delivogo, Podolinsky, Langua.
Kireevsky set the periodization of the development of Pushkin's creativity. The first period is characterized by the influence of the "Italian-French School" and Bairon. Then the "Bayronic" period came. Household scenes in Onegin, Images of Tatiana, Olga, a description of St. Petersburg, villages, seasons in conjunction with the scene published then in the miracle monastery from Boris Godunova, according to Kireevsky, make up the third, special, Russian-Pushkin period of poetry. Pushkin appeared in front of readers as a "great" phenomenon, the basic quality of which is correspondence with time, "the living sense of modernity. The rationale of the merits of this very substantive period in the works of Pushkin Kireevsky still deepened in the article "Review of Russian Literature for 1831."
In the review of Russian literature for 1829, Kireevsky has already planned the main periods of Russian literature: Lomonosovsky, Karamzinsky, Pushkinsky. Pushkin period is characterized by "respect for reality", the desire to "embody poetry in reality."
This concept, permeated by the recognition of the growing elements of the artistic truthfulness, was part of the Kireevsky in the capacious concept of the "nineteenth century", the characteristics of which he devoted a special article.
But already in these articles, reasoning was mixed, of which the Slavophilical doctrine of Kireevsky rose later. Here he began to think "absolutely", alternatively, mutually exclusive categories.
The foundations of Western civilization, Kireevsky spoke, was determined by three conditions: Christianity, the conquests of barbarians and classical traditions. Russia perceived Christianity from the hands of Orthodox Byzantium, and not from the hands of the Depraved, Heretical Rome; Tatars did not destroy Russia and did not attracted her morals, and the lack of classical traditions was replenished by Peter I.
Kireevsky has so far talked about the differences of Russian civilization from Western European, but later he will consider them advantages. He already talked about the "Chinese wall" that divides Russia and Western Europe, about the importance of us "the concepts that we have about the relation of Russian education for the enlightenment of the rest of Europe."
The Slavophile Theory itself was born in the dispute I. Kireevsky with Homyakov in 1839. Homyakov orally read their article "About the Old and New" in the salons, in which he set the question to the edge: was the former, Dopurerovskaya Rus is better than Russia to Russia? If it was, then you should return to the previous orders. Kireevsky in a special "response A. S. Khomyakov" challenged the categorical of such a formulation: "If the old one was better than the present, it should not be better from this that it is better now." Kireevsky has a more subtle issue of the issue. But still he was leaning toward the old one.
Articles "Answer A. S. Khomyakov", "Review of the current state of literature" ("Moskvatik", 1845), "Public lectures prof. Shevyreva about the history of Russian literature "(ibid., 1846) form the Slavophilic period of the activity of Kireevsky. Here more clearly marked the features of his programmatic Slavic film and sharply - dislike for realistic direction, "Genuine School" and Belinsky. In theoretical and historical and literary attitude, this period is lower than the previous one. Thus about philosophical criticism, the unity and latitude of literary concepts almost lost their meaning in Kireevsky, because all these concepts now obtained a narrow, utilitarian, anti-solicist orientation.
Kireevsky declared uninteresting in advance, although historically inevitable all the part of Russian literature, which one way or another was a "repetition" of Western European. It is important only for us, students, and not for world community consciousness. The negative rationalistic direction, i.e., critical realism came to us from the West. It is much more important to figure out the "positive" direction. Here, Russia can really be the original, do not imitate anyone and seem in all its height. All this reminded the Shevyrevsky division of literature on the "black" and "light". Cireevsky's sympathies were well defined in favor of their Russian. The West gives only the formal development of mind, and only in this sense can be used in the development of the original content.
Kireevsky seemed to be fighting in Russia for two fronts. He does not accept Western Rationalism, "Domestic Notes", Criticizing Belinsky, "Natural School" and "Positive" Kazenno-official patriotism of the Lighthouse magazine. Against the background of such contrasts, Slavophiles were beneficial. If the "lighthouse" vulgarly all praises, then "domestic notes" undeservedly "seek to humiliate all our fame, trying to reduce the literary reputation of Derzhavin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Baratynsky, Language, Homyakov ...". Who did Belinsky put on their place? It turns out: I. Turgenev, A. Maikova and Lermontov. But after all, no mistake Belinsky would have committed, if he didn't even go. Yes, and Derzhavina, Karamzin, Zhukovsky, he just at this time, in the "Pushkin articles", appreciated high and right. Language and Khomyakova Belinsky before the criticized as militant Glashatayev Slavophils. But this is a completely different question.
To the last years of activity of Kireevsky-Slavophila include articles: "On the nature of Europe's education and its attitude towards Russia's enlightenment" ("Moscow literary and scientist for 1852"), "On the need and opportunities for new ones for philosophy" ("Russian conversation ", 1856). In these articles, the concepts of "enlightenment", "Russian", "French", "German" were still responded. The total of categories in Kireevsky, their "romanticism" gives themselves to know themselves at every step. Again, he recalls three elements of civilization: barbarism, Christianity and classical heritage, but somewhat varies their "triad", it is now important: a special form, through which Christianity penetrated into Russia, a special appearance in which the ancient occurrence of anclassical inheritance has suffered, and finally , special forms of statehood. The latter, obviously "loyal" element earlier in the "Triad" was not. Russian Earth allegedly did not know the conquerors and conquered, the violence of power, all classes of the population were imbued with one spirit, there were no shye advantages and "dreamy equality" (about which the socialists cotton. - V. K.). Only in the West there was a class and hierarchical pyramid, and in Russia everything is based on communal spirit, beliefs and opinions, and not on the right and laws. But those painted by Kireevsky idyll only confirmed the generally accepted opinion on the domination in the Tsarist Russia lawlessness, the absence of any guarantees for the person, full of power. Belinsky wrote about this in the famous letter to Gogol.
In the last article - "On the new principles of philosophy" - Kireevsky frankly signed in commitment to the teachings of the fathers of the church, no longer believing in any of the philosophical systems. "A pathetic work is to compose a faith," Kireevsky said, but he still composed her. Slavophiles voluntarily walked in the Lono of the Church, humbled with the authorities, losing all the battles with their opponents.
Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860). Homyakov stood farther from literary criticism than I. Kireevsky. Homyakov wrote poems, plays, occasionally critical feedback, but his main works concerned the philosophical issues, and raising relations in Russia, the problems of reform, interslavyan solidarity, the Slavophilical teachings about the original ways of Russia.
In the article "On Old and New" (1839), hamsters in the sharpest form expressed the foundations of his teaching. Not at all hiding in the backwardness of Russia, the author believed that the reason for this is the Petrov reforms, who revealed Russia from her past, who changed its original development path. Now it's time to remember this, since the Western paths of Homyakov considers the West on the eve of the catastrophe.
Housing to Russian self-esteem and on the Western arrogance, two articles of Khomyakov are permeated: "The opinion of foreigners about Russia" ("Moskvatik, 1845) and" Russian opinion on foreigners "(" Moscow Collection for 1846 "). An exemplary country that can keep patriarchalness was for him England ("letter of England", 1848). Homyakov visited England in 1847, and she fell in love with his "Toria" spirit: "There are tops here, but here they are roots." Khomyakov also finds the similarity between Moscow and London: "In both people's historical life is still ahead." However, hamsters came too far: he believed that the word "British" itself comes from the Slavic "Uglichna".
In the program preface to the first number of "Russian conversation" in 1856, without having learned from the experience of defeat in the Crimean War, Khomyakov again and again called for "to revise all those provisions, all those conclusions made by the Western Nauchief, which we believed so unconditionally."
Many times, for different reasons, Homyakov returned to the evaluation of the German philosophy from Kant to Feyerbach and came to the same conclusions as I. Kireevsky: it is an extreme expression of Western "rationalism" and "analysis", "reasonable" school, which has shown in a dead end. One of the crime was announced that Hegel himself prepared the transition to philosophical materialism, i.e., according to Homyakov, in general, to the elimination of philosophy. Homyakov can be noted by several valid tensioners in Hegel: his "unlimited arbitrariness of a scientist systematics", when "the fact formula is recognized for its cause." But the thing is that hamsters do not accept Hegel's teachings about causality and necessity. Shelling himself, to which he clearly experienced sympathies as to the "reconstituator of a holistic spirit", which came to the "Philosophy of Faith," rushes reproach that he, shelling, is too reasonable philosopher. Slavophiles reproached Hegel and materialists, in particular Feyerbach, in liquidation of philosophy, but they themselves really eliminated it, for the faith begins, there are all confidence in the human mind, to philosophy. Philosophy becomes the servant of theology. Homyakov said this: "... there is an opportunity to be more complete and deep philosophy, which the roots lie in the knowledge of the faith of Orthodoxy."
As a literary critic of Homyakov, he always performed with one "eternal" topic: Is the Russian art school possible? The question itself arose as it were in the heat of controversy with a "genuine school". One school wanted to oppose another school. But where was it to take "your" school? "Natural School" Homyakov denied as the result of Western influence.
In a special article "On the possibility of the Russian Art School" ("Moscow Collection for 1847"), Khomyakov said that no Russian school could be, while "the life began was lost by us" because of the "vaccination false half-kingdom". About the "Russian School" in general, about the "mind" at all, about the "life start" in general, about the "nation" generally spoke hamsters in this article.
But he sought, after Shevyrev, at least in pieces, the price of stretching to collect a certain similarity of the emerging Russian school in art. This is seen from its tendency and only places of equitable analysis of works of various types of arts: Glinka Opera "Life for the king" ("Ivan Susanin"), paintings by A. Ivanova "The phenomenon of Christ to the people", reviews about Gogol, Venevitinov, S. Aksakov, L . Tolstoy. With Paphos, Homyakov argued that for truly Russian artists, it is necessary to be "quite Russian" and "live quite Russian life." Khomyakova sends the Potetic Finale of Glinka's Opera, "Copper Bells from forty-forties" the nice unity of the Russian Earth, as the evils of the future all-life fraternity. The far plan on which Ivanov has a figure of Christ, is the manifestation of purely Byzantine-Russian flat iconopysis, avoiding the bulk sensuality of Catholic art. "Never a real image," says Homyakov about the picture of Ivanov, "did not enjoy the secret of the thought of Christian ..." contemplate the picture of Ivanov - not only pleasure, "this is an incident in life."
Naturally, Homyakov did not agree with the theory of "pure art", he stood for a tendentious art in the spirit of Slavophilov and therefore executed the Drama of the letter "bitter judine" in his spirit, rejected the traditional praise of Critikov S. T. Aksakov for "Objectivity "His creativity. The essence of this writer, explained hamsters, not at all in objectivity, in general, "inaccessible person." The essence of Aksakovsky creativity is that "he first of our writers looked at our life with a positive, and not from a negative point of view." Positacity, in hamster, is characterized by the lack of satire. This is the essence of the "Russian" school in art. Homyakov recognized the right of art for social impairment, but limited him only to satira on the "types of defects", and not on "private individuals". In this sense, he praised the accusatory spirit of the story of L. Tolstoy "Three deaths".
A healthy idea about the "Russian school" in art was distorted by Homyakov to the absurdity and died, not finding his progressive justification. But the school in reality was - the school of realism, but she caused hostility from Homyakov.
Konstantin Aksakov in fairness was considered the "advanced fighter of Slavophilism" (S. A. Hungry). I remember the contemporaries of his youth friendship with Belinsky in the mug of Stankevich and then a sharp gap with him. A particularly fierce clash between them occurred in 1842 on the "dead souls".
K. Aksakov wrote a brochure of "a few words about the poem Gogol" Chichikov's poem, or dead souls "- (1842). Belinsky, also responded (in the "domestic notes") on the work of Gogol, then wrote full bewilderment to the review of the Aksakov brochure. Aksakov answered Belinsky in the article. "An explanation for the poem Gogol" Chichikov's adventure, or dead souls "(" Moskvatik "). Belinsky, in turn, wrote a merciless disclaiming Aksakov's answer in an article called "An explanation for an explanation about the poem Gogol" Chichikov's adherents, or dead souls. " Blooming the importance of realism and satire in the work of Gogol, Aksakov focused on the subtext of the work, its genre designation as "poems", on prophetic wisen wisels to portray the pleasant paintings of Russian life. Aksakov built a whole concept in which, in essence, Gogol was declared a Homer of the Russian Society, and Paphos his work was examined not in the denying of the existing reality, but in its approval. Aksakov clearly wanted to adapt Gogol to the Slavophile Doctrine, that is, to turn it into a singer "positive began", the "light side" of reality.
The Homer Epos in the subsequent history of European literatures has lost its important features and raised, "descended to the novels and, finally, to the extreme degree of his humiliation, to the French story." And suddenly, the Aksakov continues, Epos arises with all the depth and simple greatness, like an ancient, is the "poem" of Gogol. The same deep-moving and all-looking epic eyes, the same comprehensive epic contemplation. In vain then in the controversy, Aksakov argued that he had no directly approach Gogol Homer. It is, and it is very natural for Slavophiles. No wonder they were advertised in the 40s, the translation of the Zhukovsky "Odyssey" of Homer, allegedly having the meaning of a healthy counterweight of modern, mired in the criticism of "Genuine School".
Aksakov pointed to the internal property of the talent of Gogol himself, aspiring to bind into slim harmonic paintings all the impressions of Russian life. We know that such a subjective desire to Gogol was and, abruptly speaking, the Slavophilical criticism correctly indicated. But this observation immediately devalued them well, since such a "unity" or such "epic harmony" of Gogol's talent was called in their eyes to destroy Gogol-Realist. Epicity was killed in Gogol Satirika - the accuser of life. Aksakov is ready to search for "human movements" in a box, Manilov, Sobevich, and thereby make them aligning them as temporarily missed people. The carriers of the Russian substance turned out to be primitive fortress people, Selifan and Parsley.
Belinsky ridiculed all these stretchs and desire to like the heroes of the "dead souls" heroes of Homer. According to the Aksakov logic itself, Belinsky, with sarcasm, conducted suggesting parallels between the heroes: "If so, then, of course, why Chichikov does not be ahille of Russian" Iliad ", a Sobevich - Ajax Fury (especially during lunch), Manilov - Alexander Paris, Plushhina - Nestor, Selifana - AvtoTone, police officer, father and benefactor of the city, - Agamemnon, and a quarterly with a pleasant Rumyanta and in lacquered boots - Hermes? .. ".
Slavophiles have always claimed special, as it seemed to them, the deepest understanding of Gogol. They emphasized that he knew Gogol "From the inside," they see for the mask of humorist and satiki of the "second" Gogol, who eludes the look of the uninitiated and is true. Belinsky, who saw in Gogol, that is, a realist, indeed, before the release of the "dead souls" and even, more precisely, before the controversy with K. Aksakov did not ask the question of the "duality" of Gogol and left the preaching "Spasy" writer in the shadows. True, already "Rome", as his letter shows to Gogol dated April 20, 1842, that is, a month before the release of the "dead souls", Belinsky was alarmed - he wanted to the writer "soul clarity". We will also add that only Chernyshevsky later, relying on the published letters and the second volume of the "dead souls", deeply figured out in contradictions of Gogol. But Slavophiles have nothing to do with it, they immediately missed the main thing - denied the social importance and the realism of Gogol's creativity. They attached crucial importance to the inner desire to take the "unpretentious wealth" of the Spirit of Russian, which Gogol was.
So that the comparison of Gogol with Homer looks not too odious, Aksakov invented the similarity between them yet "on the act of creation". At the same time, he put on an equal foot with them and Shakespeare. But what is the "act of creation", "act of creativity"? This is a contrived, purely a priori category, whose purpose is to confuse the question. Who and how to measure this act? Belinsky offered to return to the content category: it is, content, and should be the starting material when comparing one poet with another. But it has already been proven that Gogol has nothing to do with Homer in the field of content.
At the midst of a new round of the controversy of Slavophiles with a "genuine school" in 1847, Aksakov made the "three critical articles" in the "Moscow literary and scientist" under the pseudonym "Impened".
Aksakov subjected to the critical analysis of the "Petersburg Collection", published by Nekrasov. The bias of opinions through Aksakov in every paragraph. The Roman Dostoevsky "Poor People" is named with the work as imperative towards Gogol, "not artistic", "deprived of sincerity", spoiled philanthropic trend. The impression of the novel "Poor people," says Aksakov, "heavy", Dostoevsky "Not an artist will not be."
Aksakov began to seek cracking from the "Genuine School". Maybe, according to personal Moscow salon sympathies, without having ever understood in the true spirit of his thoughts, Aksakov quite friendly responded to Iskander (Herzen), the author of "whims and pondays". Yes, and this thing itself has not yet issued quite antislavyatfilms of Herzen. The destroyed for the "landlord" of Turgenev was also asked by Aksakov in a special note in which he responded to the appearance of the story of the story "Khorior and Kalinic" in the "contemporary". "That's what it means to touch the Earth and to the people! "I exclaimed in my own content with this story of Aksakov," the force is given in the moment! .. God gave Turgenev to continue on this road. " Aksakov wanted closer to closer Turgenev's folk stories to Slavophilism.
About the article Belinsky "Thought and notes on Russian literature", placed in the Petersburg Collection, Aksakov responded dislikes, but was afraid to enter the unfolded controversy. He noted only the controversy at Belinsky: before the critic was talked about the undeignability of the extremely original Gogol style into foreign languages, and now he was happy that Gogol was transferred to France. Ankasakova was pleased with the other statement of Belinsky - that in the future Russia, except for the "victorious sword", will put on the scales of European life and "Russian thought". But this statement in Belinsky had a completely different meaning than Slavophilic hope for a special mission of Russia, their sense of "Russian thought", "Russian science". Belinsky spoke about something else: the ability of Russia to contribute to the spiritual treasury of mankind. In the critical method of Aksakov, traces of the study of dialectics were felt; He, like Early Belinsky, first displayed the phenomenon "Abstract", and then "appreciated" the theory to the facts. Unlike I. Kireevsky, who loved the moment of peace, Aksakov loved the moment of movement, he believed that "one-sidedness there is a history lever", i.e., as Belinsky, "the idea of \u200b\u200bdenial", "the struggle of the opposites" is a lever stories. Such an Aksakov method applied in his monograph "M. V. Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and Russian language, "defended in 1847 as a master's thesis. Here, the method entered further in contradiction with the doctrine. After all, according to Slavophilas, Peter I reforms distorted Russian nationality. Consequently, Lomonosov, who introduced a new session in Russia in the German sample in Russia, began to write the court-affairs, sent Russian literature on a false path. But Aksakov tries to first build a dialectical "Triad" and in its light to assess the role of Lomonosov. According to this Triad, Peter I reform, with all their one-sidedness, were the historically "necessary moment" of the development of Russia. And "the phenomenon of Lomonosov in our literature is also the necessary moment."
Subsequent critical performances of Kshakov- "Experience of synonyms. The public is the people "(" Molva ", 1851) and others - were loworiginal. In the "Ferris of Modern Literature" ("Russian Talk", 1857), "Review of Modern Journals" ("Molva", 1857), the article "Our literature" ("Day", 1861) he praised the "Provinarian Essays" Shchedrin, feeling In them, some kind of family "Russian Spirit", then cursed them when he saw that Shchedrin was not the writer at all, for whom he acted him. In recent years, K. Aksakov promoted the "positive" direction of creativity by the Malotarist writer N. S. Kokhanovskaya (Saintsky). All this was done from the desire at any cost to support the authority of Slavophilia.
The political meaning of the positions of Slavophilism was quite revealed in the "note on the inner state of Russia", represented by K. Aksakov Emperor Alexander II in 1855 and published only in 1881 (in the newspaper "Rus"). K. Aksakov paid the attention of the new king to the "oppressive system" in Russia, bribery, arbitrariness. The inner disorder, covered by the "shameless lie" of the government and the "tops", separated them from the "people", as a result of which the people have no "trust" to the government. We must "understand Russia, called the Aksakov of the young king, and return to the Russian basics." Russia has only one danger - "if it ceases to be Russia."
Samarin was younger than the founders of Slavophilia and impressed by a person's free handling with their doctrines. From the numerous works to the history of criticism include, in fact, only two articles: a review of the story of V. A. Sologub Tarantas ("Moscow Collection for 1846") and "On the opinions of the" contemporary ", historical and literary" ("Moskvatikan ", 1847, № 2). Both signed by letters "M. Z.K. ".
Samarin tried to confine that Slavophiles do not at all demand a return to Dopingrovskaya Rus, they do not deny the development of the principle of person at all. And with Alexei Mikhailovic there were already Western influences, and Ilya Muromets, and Churila Plenkovich - than not deal and not "personality". But these stretch of Samarina could not convince anyone.
In the revocation of Tarantas, Sologuba, he showed the refinement of judgments, which forced Belinsky, before also writing about Tarantas, to call his article by "smart content and mastering" ("look at Russian literature 1846"). In the article, Samarina Belinsky could like the fact that the author did not try to raise the Slavophile virtues not one nor the other of the heroes of Tarantas. And the steppe landowner Vasily Ivanovich - a too simplified copy of the original Russians began, and the Slavophilical Ivan Vasilyevich, who visited Europe during the journey, was too unreliable, almost parody propagandist of the Slavophilical teaching. All this could seem to Belinsky look like a cartoon, a close to his own interpretation of the Slogubovsky Tarantas; After all, Belinsky hinted transparently that the hero Ivan Vasilyevich is Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky ... But Samarin did not think to look for a parody in Tarantas, he just seriously reproached the heroes of the story in a dense effect, and the author - in superficial terms to serious issues.
No illusions regarding the position of Samarin in the article "On the opinions of the" contemporary ", historical and literary" Belinsky no longer had. Samarin performed an open opponent of "Natural School" and tried, unlike Homyakov, to interpret not about her inability, but about the internal contradictions between its "prophets", about the contradictions between Gogol and his students. Samarina's lunge was all the more insidious that he seemed to be built on the facts and pursued the goal to rehabilitate Gogol after the book "selected places from correspondence with friends". Belinsky parried Samarin's lunge in the article "The answer" Moskvatian ". In a letter to K. D. Cavelin on November 22, 1847, Belinsky explained the sharp tone of his "Answer" Moskvatian ":" Believe me that in my eyes, Samarin is not better than Bulgarin, according to his attitude to a natural school ... "
What is the essence of samarin's lounge? In the updated "contemporary", which from January 1847 began to go under the unlaspped version of N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panayev, the main forces of "Natural School" were now concentrated, and Belinsky also collaborated. But censorship did not allow Nekrasov and Panayev to publish a "contemporary" under his own names. Then the editorial board had to compromise: she invited as the responsible editor of Professor of St. Petersburg University A. V. Nikitenko, not alien literary interests and at the same time served in the censorship committee. Nikitenko was known for his liberalism: he allowed it to publish the "dead souls" of Gogol with some alterations. Nekrasov and Panayev intended to use Nikitenko as shirma.
In the first issue of the "contemporary" for 1847, two software articles were placed: the article of Belinsky "A look at Russian literature of 1846" and the article Nikitenko "On the modern direction of Russian literature." Articles not only in quality, but in some plants, one another contradicted. Samarin it immediately noticed and tried to use in the fight against the "genuine school". By the way, Belinsky only from tactical purposes in the "Answer" Moskvatian "tried to cover his discrepancies with Nikitenko, take under his defense of the responsible editor of the contemporary. But in the editor, the contradiction was already brewing, and Nikitenko was soon forced to leave the "contemporary".
Samarin noted not satisfaction noted that Nikitenko is a very ambiguous supporter of "Natural School", although nominally and heads the "contemporary". Indeed, Nikitenko only repeated after Belinsky, that the literature should have a certain direction and that in modern Russian literature, although there are no talents equal to Gogol, they still were "defended and easier for further development and activity." But Nikitenko expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the "Natural School" is unilaterally depicts Russian reality, violates "Eternal laws of art." In absolutely in the spirit of the Scriptures, Nikitenko itself claimed: "If we and the nostrils and the owners and chikhikov have, then there are landlords next to them, officials expressing their beautiful hereditary qualities of their people with the concepts of the educated world themselves. . ".
Using the reproaches of the "Natural School" in one-sidedness, Samarin made some thoughts of Nikitenko from him by choosing a lot of hidden and explicit attacks against the "genuine school" from his article.
Note along the way, that it was Samarin that he turned the designation of the "Natural School" method into the term "naturalism", while Belinsky has not yet used this term in such a editorial, although he did not see the maliciously distortion of the very concept of "natural image of life." However, the term "naturalism" could not resist in the then criticism and arose later, already in another connection.
The main sin of "Natural School" Samarin saw that she took over Gogol only his one-sidedness, one content. It is based on "double imitation": takes content not from life, but from Gogol, and then not quite.
Since Slavophiles have repeatedly come across Belinsky on the basis of the formula expressed by him: "... it is necessary to reject everything national, in which there is no human", then Samarin decided to fight here. He asked: Who will explain to us, in fact, is this human? For one it is in one, for the other in the other. "With a question: what is universal and how to distinguish it from a national dispute just started." But Samarin did not answer the questioned question, he only scared his difficulties to decide, and in fact signed in sympathy for old Russia, which was no longer new. There was an essence of the long-term camps around this question that they were given different answers to him. History showed who was right. Under the humanity and truth of relations, Slavophiles implied patriarchalness, backward social forms, humility of the people and subordination to prejudices, the idealization of the church and power. This consisted of their reaction.
Belinsky under humanity meant indigenous social changes in Russia, the essence of which OP speaks in all its articles and in the letter to N. V. Gogol. In the speeches against the realistic direction, the conservatism of Slavophilism was fully revealed.

Popular articles of the site from the section "Dreams and Magic"

Another social and literary course of the mid-60s, who shot the extremes of Westerners and Slavophiles was the so-called "compassion". The spiritual leader was F. M. Dostoevsky, who issued two magazines in these years - "time" (1861-1863) and "Epoch" (1864-1865). Supporters of Dostoevsky in these magazines were the literary critics Apollo Alexandrovich Grigoriev and Nikolai Nikolayevich of fears.

Summates to some extent inherited a look into Russian national character, expressed by Belinsky in 1846. Belinsky wrote: "Russia has nothing to compare with the old states of Europe, which the story was diametrically oppositely and for a long time already gave color and fruit ... It is known that the French, the British, the Germans are so national one in their own way that is unable to understand each other , while Russian is equally available to the sociality of the Frenchman, and the practical activity of the Englishman, and the Misty Philosophy of the German. "

The fuels talked about "all-intensity" as a characteristic feature of the Russian national consciousness, which A. S. Pushkin in our literature was most deeply in our literature. "This thought is expressed by Pushkin not as an alternation, teaching or a theory, not as dreaming or prophecy, but was also executed, it was entered in the brilliant creatures and proven him," he wrote Dostoevsky. "He wrote an ancient The world, he and German, he and the Englishman, deeply conscious of the genius, longing his aspiration ("Pier during the plague"), he and the poet of the East. He said to all these nations and stated that the Russian genius knows them, understood them, got in touch with them as a native that he may be with me in their entirety, that only one only by the Russian spirit is given to the world, given the appointment in the future to comprehend and combine all the diversity of nationalities and remove All contradictions them. "

Like Slavophila, the fuels believed that "Russian society should be connected with the people's soil and take the folk element." But, unlike the Slavophiles, (* 10), they did not deny the positive role of Peter I reforms and the "Europeanized" Russian intelligentsia, designed to bear the people of Education and culture, but only on the basis of popular moral ideals. It was such a Russian european in the eyes of the solarders A. S. Pushkin.

According to A. Grigoriev, Pushkin "The first and full representative" of public and moral sympathies. " "In Pushkin, for a long time, if not forever, ended, obsessed with a wide essay, all our mental process," our "volume and measure": all the subsequent development of Russian literature is a deepening and artistic understanding of those elements that affected Pushkin. The most organically expressed Pushkin starts in modern literature A. N. Ostrovsky. "The new word island is the oldest word - nation." "Ostrovsky is just as little as he is a little idealizer. Let's leave it to be the fact that he is - the great folk poet, the first and only expressive of the folk essence in her diverse manifestations ..."

N. N. Frakhov was the only one in the history of Russian criticism of the second half of the XIX century a deep interpreter of "War and Peace" L. N. Tolstoy. He did not accidentally call his job as a "critical poem in four songs." Lion Tolstoy himself, who considered insurance with his friend, said: "One of the happiness, for which I am grateful to fate is what is N. N. Strakhov."

Russian literary and critical and philosophical thought of the second half of the 19th century

(Literature lesson in grade 10)

Type of lesson - lecture

Slide 1.

Our stormy, rapid time, steeply fully fostering spiritual thought and social life, requires active awakening in the person a sense of history, personal and thoughtful and creative participation in it. We should not be "Ivanov who do not remember kinship", we should not forget that our national culture is based on such a colossus as Russian literature of the 19th century.

Now, when the Western Culture is the vision of Western culture, sometimes unwashed and vulgar, when we are imposed on the bureaucratic values \u200b\u200band we all delight on the side of someone else's, forgetting our own language, we must remember that the names of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov are incredibly revered In the West, that one Tolstoy became the ancestor of a whole creed, one Ostrovsky created the domestic theater that Dostoevsky opposed future rebellions, if the tears will be shed at least one child.

Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century was the ruler of the Dum. From the question "Who is to blame?" She proceeds to solving the issue "What to do?" This question writers will decide differently by virtue of their public and philosophical views.

According to Chernyshevsky, our literature was erected into the dignity of national affairs, the most viable forces of Russian society went here.

Literature is not a game, not fun, not entertainment. Russian writers treated their creativity in a special way: it was not a profession for them, but to the ministry in the highest understanding of this word, the service of God, the people, the Fatherland, the art, high. Starting from Pushkin, Russian writers realized themselves to the prophets who came to this world to burn the hearts of people.

The word was not perceived as the sound empty, but how it is. This faith in the miraculous power of the word of the word in itself and Gogol, dreaming of creating such a book that herself, by force only expressed in it, the only and indisputably loyal thoughts should transform Russia.

Russian literature in the second half of the 19th century is closely connected with the public life of the country and even politicized. Literature was a horn of ideas. Therefore, we need to get acquainted with the socio-political life of the second half of the 19th century.

Slide 2.

The social and political life of the second half of the 19th century can be divided into steps.

*Cm. Slide 2-3.

Slide 4.

What parties existed on the political chaise of the pore and what they were represented?(Teacher voiced Slide 4, Animated)

Slide 5.

In the course of the demonstration of the slide, the teacher gives definition, students write them in a notebook

Wordwork

Conservative (reactionary)- A man defending stagnant political views, alien to all new and advanced

Liberal - A person who adheres to its political views is an average position. He talks about the need for change, but liberal

Revolutionary - a person actively calling for change, going to them not peaceful way, defending the root break

Slide 6.

This slide organizes the subsequent work. Students overcame the table in the notebook so that they fill it in the course of the lecture.

The Russian liberals of the 60s tasty for reforms without revolutions and associate their hopes with public transformations "from above." Liberals were divided into Westerns and Slavophiles. Why? The fact is that Russia is the Eurasian country. She imagined both oriental and western information. This originality has acquired a symbolic value. Some believed that this identity contributes to the backlog of Russia, others believed that it was her strength. The first began to be called "Wessengers", the second - "Slavophiles". Both directions were born in one day.

Slide 7.

In 1836, an article "Philosophical Letters" appears in the Telescope. Her author was Peter Yakovlevich Chaadaev. After this article, he was announced crazy. Why? The thing is Wt that Chayadaev expressed an extremely urgent look at Russia in the article, whose historical fate was represented by him "a gate in order of understanding."

Russia, according to Chaadaev, was devoid of organic growth, cultural continuity, unlike the Catholic West. She had no "legend," there was no historical past. Its present is extremely incredible, and the future depends on whether it will enter the cultural seven of Europe, refusing historical independence.

Slide 8.

Wessengers treated such writers and critics as Belinsky, Herzen, Turgenev, Botkin, Annensky, Granovsky.

Slide 9.

Westerian prints were the magazines "Contemporary", "Domestic Notes", "Reading Library". In their magazines, the Westeries defended the tradition of "pure art". What does "clean" mean? Pure - devoid of teachings, any ideological views. They seek to portray people as they see them, like, for example, a friend.

Slide 10.

Slide 11.

Slavophilism is the ideological and political course of the mid-19th century, whose representatives opposed the historical path of Russia's development to the development of Western European countries and idealized patriarchal features of Russian life and culture.

The founders of Slavophilic ideas were Peter and Ivan Kireevsky, Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov and Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov.

In the circle of Slavophiles often came about the fate of the Slavic tribe. The role of Slavs, according to Homyakov, was imputed by German historians and philosophers. And this is all the more surprising that it is the Germans most organically learned the Slavic elements of spiritual culture. However, insisting on the original historical development of Russia, Slavophiles disseminately spoke about the successes of European culture. It turned out that a Russian person did not meet in the West in the West, that Peter 1, who burned the window to Europe, distracted it from the original path.

Slide 12.

The magazines "Moskvatikan", the Russian conversation, and the newspaper "Northern Bee" became hornpores of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Slavophilics. The literary-critical program of Slavophilov was associated with their views. They did not take in Russian prose and socio-analytical poetry began, they were alien sophisticated psychologism. They paid a lot of attention to CNT.

Slide 13.

Critics in these magazines were Shevyov, Pogodin, Ostrovsky, Apollo Grigoriev.

Slide 14.

The literary activity of Russian writers has always been associated with the socio-political situation in the country, and the second half of the 19th century is no exception.

In the 40s of the 19th century in the literature, the Division of "Natural School". This school fought with romanticism. Belinsky believed that "you need to crush romanticism by the scourge of humor." Herzen called romanticism "spiritual gold". Romanticism was opposed to an analysis of the reality itself. Critics of the time believe that "literature should follow the path laid by Gogol." Belinsky called Gogol "Father of the Natural School."

By the beginning of the 40s, Pushkin and Lermontov died, romanticism went with them.

In the 40s, such writers like Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Goncharov come to literature.

Slide 15.

Where did the term "Natural School" come from? So called this flow Belinsky in 1846. This school is condemned for "dirt film", for the fact that the writers of this school draw the details of the life of poor people, humiliated and offended. Samarin, an opponent of "Natural School", shared the heroes of these books on batters and driving, scolded and swelling.

The main question that is put by the Writers of the "Genuine School" is "who is to blame?", The circumstances or the person himself in his wretched life. Until the 40s, the literature believed that the circumstances were to blame, after the 40s they believe that the person himself is to blame.

Very characteristic of the natural school. "The expression" Wednesday ", that is, much in the plight of a person was written off on Wednesday.

The "Natural School" took a step towards the democratization of literature, putting forward the most important problem - personality. Since the person begins to advance the image, the work is saturated with psychological content. The school comes to the traditions of Lermontov, seeks to show a person from the inside. "Natural School" in the history of Russian literature was necessary as a transition from romanticism to realism.

Slide 16.

What is realism different from romanticism?

1. The main thing in realism is a type of type. Belinsky wrote: "There is a case in types. Types are representatives of the environment. Typical faces need to be sought in different estates. It was necessary to pay all attention to the crowd, for mass. "
2. The subject of the image was not heroes, but typical faces in typical circumstances.
3. Since the object of the image is ordinary, prosaic person, then the genres, therefore, approach prosaic: novels, stories. In this period, Russian literature moves from romantic poems and poems to realistic stories and novels. This period affected the genres of such works as Roman Pushkin in verses "Eugene Onegin" and the poem in the prose of Gogol "Dead Souls". The novel and the story makes it possible to present a person in public life, the novel admits the whole and details, it is convenient for combining the fiction and truth of life.
4. The hero of the works of the realistic method becomes not the hero of the personality, but a small man of the type of Gogol Akakia Akakievich or Pushkin Samson Pushkin. A small person is a man of a low public position, depressed circumstances, meek, most often an official.

So, the literary method of the second half of the 19th century becomes realism.

Slide 17.

In the early 60s, it is planned to rise a socio-political struggle. As I said earlier, the question "Who is to blame?" Replaced with the question "What to do?" In literature and social activities include "new people", no more contemplates and chatters, and figures. These are revolutionaries-democrats.

The rise of the socio-political struggle was associated with the ingunny end of the Crimean War, with the amnesties of the Decembrists after the death of Nicolas 1. Alexander 2 holds many reforms, including the peasant reform of 1861.

Slide 18.

Late Belinsky developed socialist ideas in his articles. They were picked up by Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. They move from a shaky union with liberals to an uncompromising fight against them.

Dobrolyubov heads a satirical department of the contemporary magazine and produces the journal of the whistle.

Democratic revolutionaries hold the idea of \u200b\u200bthe peasant revolution. Dobrolyubov becomes the founder of the critical method, creates its "real criticism". Democratic revolutionaries are united in the magazine "Contemporary". This is Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, Pisarev.

Slide 19.

In the 60s, realism is the only method in Russian literature - divided into several currents.

Slide 20.

In the 60s, "extra person" is condemned. Evgeny Onegin and Pechorina can be attributed to "excess people". Nekrasov writes: "Such as he, on the ground, are crying, the work is looking for a giant." They can't do business and do not want. These are people, "conceived at the crossroads." These are reflecting people, that is, people who are subject to self-analysis, constantly analyzing themselves and their actions, as well as the acts and thoughts of other people. The first reflective person in the literature was Hamlet with his question "to be il not to be?" A "new person" comes to a change "New Man" - a nihist, revolutionary, democrat, a leaving from a distinguished environment (no longer nobleman). These are people of the case, they want to actively change their lives, fight for the emancipation of women.

Slide 21.

After the manifesto, freed the peasants in 1861, the contradictions are sharpened. After 1861, a government response comes again:*Cm. slide

The dispute broke out between the "contemporary" and "Russian Word" about the peasantry. The Russian Wordist Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev saw revolutionary strength in the proletariate, the revolutionaries-all-strokes who carry natural scientific knowledge. He condemned the figures of the "contemporary" Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov for the embellishment of the Russian man.

Slide 22.

The 70s are characterized by the activities of revolutionary populists. The populists preached "walking in the people" to teach, treat, enlighten the people. The leaders of this movement of Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, Tkachev. Their organization "Earth and Volya" split out, the terrorist "folk will" came out of her. Popper terrorists make many attempts on Alexander 2, which in the end killed, after which the government response comes.

Slide 23.

In parallel with the people, the populists have another thought - religious philosophical. Nikolai Fyodorovich Fedorov became the attitude of this flow.

He believes that God is the Creator of the Universe. But why the world is imperfect? Because a person has made his contribution to the afflication of the world. Fedorov faithfully believed that a person spends his strength to negative. We forgot that we are brothers, and perceive another person as a competitor. Hence the decline of human morality. He believes that the salvation of mankind in the union, coat, and Russia contains the chambers of the future association, since in Russia.* Next, see Slide

Slide 24.

Homework:

Learn a lecture to prepare for verification work

Prepare for verification work on:

1. Liberal-Western Party. Views, figures, criticism, magazines.
2. Liberal Slavic Filly Party. Views, criticism, magazines.
3. Public Program and Critical Activities
4. Literary and critical activities of revolutionaries-Democrats
5. Disputes between the "contemporary" and "Russian Word." Conservative ideology of the 80s.
6. Russian liberal population. Religious and philosophical thought of the 80-90s.

Solarness- The course of Russian public thought, relatives of Slavophilia, opposite to Westernity. It originated in the 1860s. Adherents are called compass.

The fourtes were recognized as a special mission of the Russian people, the salvation of all mankind, preached the idea of \u200b\u200brapprochement of the "educated society" with the people ("National Soil") on a religious-ethical basis.

The term "compassionism" arose based on the journalism of Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky with the calls for her to return to the "its soil", to the people, national origins. Genetically, the solarness dates back to the direction of the "young editorial board" of the magazine "Moskvatikan", which existed in 1850-1856, and ideologically related Slavophilas (including their moral orientation to the Russian peasantry); At the same time, representatives of this area recognized positive principles and in Westernity. The compassion was opposed to a serfdom and bureaucracy, called for the "merchandise of the formation and its representatives with the beginning of the people" and saw the key to progress in Russia. The fuels were expressed for the development of industry, trade, for the freedom of identity and press. Taking the "European Culture", they simultaneously denounced "Rotina West" - his bourgeoisity and confusion, rejected revolutionary, socialist ideas and materialism, opposing Christian ideals to them; Paulized with the magazine "Contemporary".

In the 1870s, the definition features were manifested in the philosophical writings of Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky and the "writer's diary" of Fedor Dostoevsky.

In the second half of the twentieth century, it was revived in the "rustic prose" and publications on historical and patriotic topics. The article was directed against them in 1972 by Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovleva, while the head. The ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, with crushing criticism from the standpoint of orthodox Marxism-Leninism.

F. Dostoevsky "A number of articles about Russian literature"

N. Strakhov "Several late words"

20. Unlightening Filly Critica K. Leontiev.

One of the first Russian critics for which religious issues turns out to be the main measure in the assessment of literary phenomena, has become Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev. The writer, who in the articles of the beginning of the 1860s, hardly alone defended the priority of "clean" aesthetics, in 1870-1880 almost completely devoted himself to philosophical religious journalism, defending the extremely conservative, "protective" point of view not only Public collisions, but also to Orthodox Christianity.

In two works included in the brochure "Our New Christians", Leontyev questioned the social and religious consistency of the teachings of Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy: In his opinion, Pushkin's speech of Dostoevsky and the story of L. Tolstoy "What people are alive" demonstrate the imperfection of religious thinking and superficial Acquaintance with the teachings of the fathers of the Church of the two famous Russian writers, despite the preaching religious pathos of their performances. Unlike the majority of "neoslavnophiles", Leontyev did not accept the Tolstovskaya "Religion of Love", which, in the Egrination, distorts the essence of true Christianity.

However, the artworks of Tolstoy, his novels "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina", critic declared the greatest creations of world literature "over the past 40-50 years." The article "Two Counts: Alexey Vronsky and Lion Tolstoy", which entered the cycle "Hermit Notes", Leontyev called the main prophet of Russian literature "Gogolevshchina" - i.e. "Humiliation" in the artistic work of Russian reality. For Leontiev, such an attitude towards Russian life is the more wicked, that in the education of the "Russian boys" "Literature is much stronger than school, and families." And only the Tolstoy in their main works was able to break the Gogol tradition, by portraying "Higher Russian society is finally humanly, that is, impartially, and in places and with obvious love." Confirmation of this for Leontiev served as the image of the Vronsky, whom the critic perceives in the patriotic perspective, comprehending the "military heroes" of Russian literature.

Deeper and detailed coverage of creativity L. Tolstoy Leontyev proposed in the surround work "Analysis, style and a trend. About novels gr. L. N. Tolstoy, "which combined two, almost opposite, trends in the literary and critical activities of the religious thinker: a distinct political tendency and the desire to a purely" philological ", formal, fine-analytical study of artistic texts. It should be noted the methodological innovation of Leontyev, who attempted in the style of the writer to find a multi-valued refraction, the artistic embodiment of ideological design.

K. Leontiev "Our New Christians"

21. Literary and critical topics of journalists of writers 1870-90-Hg.

Famous Russian writers of the 2nd half of the 19th century themselves often became the subjects of the literary and critical process, publicly expressing their judgments about the principles of artistic creativity, about many specific literary phenomena. And the fact that Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy, only episodically noted in pressing articles on literature, did not prevent increased attention to their works by the public, which was attracted by the importance and extensiveness of the issues solved, as well as the authority of the writer names themselves. Even in appeals to the past of Russian and world literature, in theoretical and aesthetic reflections, famous artists of the Words sought to demonstrate an unexpected and projected vision of the deep literary and social processes of our time.

I. Turgenev "Hamlet and Don Quixote":the article only at first glance may seem to the removed historical and literary study - in fact, this "external" property of the article turns out to be a genre "trap", which, with even greater sharpness, aims to readers to the perception of relevant social problems. Obvious allocations and associations associate two writer found fundamentally unrestricted human types, Hamlet and Don Quixote, with the famous names of public and literary figures of the 1860s and, more importantly, with common mentality of the era. Paphos of the public speech of Turgenev was the approval of the equivalence of the socio-psychological type of smart and thin reflective skeptics of Hamlet, who, resisting the surrounding lies, is not able to believe in the possibility of modern truth, and the like that is funny in its naiveness of the "enthusiast, servant of the idea" Don Quixote On the contrary, for the sake of a ghostly, illusory ideal is ready for the most uncompromising actions. From the point of view of Turgenev, which masterks "allows" the internal logic of the text "most" to disclose the reader, the position of the smart egoist of Hamlet is much less in demand by modernity than the unrestrained altruism of Don Quixote. The key in the characteristic of the characters becomes for the writer their impact on others: if the Hamlet involuntarily sows around himself a lie, deception and death, the Don Quixote infects his positive enthusiasm of such sincere and strong personalities as Sancho Pansa, who are insane ideas, can bring quite a good kindness and benefit. Article Turgenev, in which generalized reasoning has been connected with specific historical issues, anticipate the future historical and cultural oppositions of Merezhkovsky.

A. Goncharov "Millon Torzania":an eternal socio-psychological type, especially inherent in Russian society, becomes Chatsky in this "critical etude". Agreeing with its predecessors that the immortal importance of the Comedy Griboedov gives the brilliant image of the morals of the Moscow society, and the creation of bright, historically and psychologically reliable types, and the Maxi Aphorous language, Goncharov still considers the magnitude of Griboedov the image of Chatsky. According to Goncharov, the main character "grief from the mind", unlike Onegin and Pechorin, overcomes the historical closure of his time, becomes the hero of the new era, so its image is saturated with numerous potential meanings, which are revealed at the later reading. And it is not by chance that the writer thinking about "positive", i.e. Effective, Chatsky's mind, about his sincere passion, about the desire of the Griboedovsky hero to disrupt indifferent inertia and the sedative hypocrisy of the surrounding society are full of explicit and hidden associations, connecting Chatsky with the personality of Herzen, with the activities of the leaders of the public thought of the 1870s.

It is characteristic that both Turgenevs and Goncharov, and Herzen, and Dostoevsky vigorously opposed the perception of their speeches on literary topics in the course of traditional literary and critical creativity, willingly demonstrate their genre and meaningful specificity.

22. "Other criticism" in criticism of 1890-1910-Gg. On the subject and problematics of the literary process.

In one way or another, the writers of "new criticism" were writers, fundamentally not fit into a certain literary flow or direction. Their activity was frankly independent. Even pulling into aesthetic disputes with contemporaries, they remained critics - "single". Each of them had a special opinion on Wet, deserving, aesthetic and ethical occasion.

The literary and critical performances of Annensky, Ayhenwald, Rozanov did not depend on the established views, but at the same time turned out to be at the center of close attention of all who had a relation to the artistic culture of the Silver Age. "Independent" could proclaim their own research methodology, they built the foundation of new philosophical exercises, in their own way they saw the path of the literary development of Russia.

"Mansion" figure in the history of the domestic criticism of the stroke of ages - Innokentiy Fedorovich Annenskywhich in Russian literature of this period takes a separate place as a poet, translator, playwright and teacher. He published reviews on the compositions of Russian, Slavic and classical philology in the "journal of the Ministry of Folk Enlightenment".

In the formation of the critical prose, Annensky can clearly distinguish the 2 stages.

The first is associated with critical-pedagogical articles printed in the late 1880s-1890s in the magazines "Education and Training" and "Russian School", dedicated to the work of A. Tolstoy, Gogol, Lermontov, Goncharov, AP. Maikova. In these works, gradually arranged, the system of views was formed, which led in the early 1900s to the creation of a special new way of literary and critical analysis. Annensky often used the ideas of discursive criticism (that is, the reasonable, informed preceding judgments). In addition, the pedagogical task forced the criticism to bring the thought to a logical limit, while avoiding associative and metaphorical images that could make the reader's perception.

The second stage of the Literary Critical Creativity of Annensky is associated with the beginning of the 20th century. In 1906, a collection of literary and critical articles "Books of Reflections" was published, not assessed by contemporaries, but identifying a completely new and original page in the history of Russian literary and critical life. Addressing in his critical etudes to the work of Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Pisemsky, L. Tolstoy, M. Gorky, Chekhov, Balmont, Annensky spoke of an inexhaustible multigid of works of art, about their eternal updates and evolution in time, in accordance with this - their interpretation, about reading as a creative process.

Its critical articles are filigiously performed, finely associative and dynamic philological observations, permeated by copyrism, the benevolence of intonation, semantic multiplexing.

A significant role in the formation of the principles of "new criticism" was played by "impressionistic" or.2Mimentant "criticism Yulia Isaevich Ayhenwalda. The ideological philosophy of Schopenhauer had a significant impact on the methodological foundations of literary and critical activities of Ayhenwald. The tasks of impressionistic criticism were to transmit the impression produced by the author to the heartfelt reader. Ayhenwald proceeded from the fact that art is something absolutely self-sufficient and therefore deliberately refused to study the writer in connection with the specific conditions of the place and time, and impressionism did not perceive as "aestheticism". Recognizing the educational value of art, he rejected the "street" requirements for him, considering their alien irrational nature of poetry. Ayhenwald denied the possibility of building the history of literature on a single methodological basis. Speaking about the right of criticism on the subjective interpretation of the work, he assigned him the role of a kind of priest, an intermediary between the artist and the reader, the first and better of the readers. Ayhenwald's views on art were especially brightly manifested in the revaluation of the creative heritage of Belinsky and criticism of the 60s, which he reproached in excessive journalism, in the insufficiency of the artistic taste and inconsistency of literary assessments.

Yu. Aychenwald "Silhouettes of Russian Writers"

In the history of Russian culture of the late 19th - early 20th century Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov- The personality is the most controversial and at the same time indisputably talented, originally and vividly thinking. Like no other from the prominent writers of the turn of the century, he was frankly reconciled with his contemporaries. Russian journalism with special zeal pounced on it and left, and on the right, awarding with many negative characteristics, among which were also: "Paktozhnik", "Dryan", "Naked Rozanov", "Radia Soul", "Great Plug of Russian Literature" . He preferred to truth with any ideological "directions." The Rosanovskaya manner of thinking and writing - a paradoxical-dialogic, alone with his own conscience and the conscience of the wise, the greasy reader, who is open to an honest dialogue that can hear, but not obey, maintain their own dignity and independence of concepts about life. All the construction of the judgments of Rozanov deliberately provoked to the inner irritated disagreement with him. Hence the external ability, mosaic, kaleidoscopy and the apparent mess of his thoughts and a syllable. Rozanov is written a huge number of articles, essays, anniversary words, reviews and notes about Pushkin, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstom, Turgenev, Strahov, Leontyev, Meriazhkovsky. He repeatedly turned to the analysis of Gogol's creativity, Nekrasov, Goncharova, Chekhov, M. Gorky, Vl. Solovyov, Berdyaev.

In the works, criticism of literature and philosophy received a vivid expression fruitful concept of a value approach to the verbal-artistic and etio-aesthetic heritage of domestic culture.

The original "music" of the Rozanovsky word was clearly declared in his early book of the "deepest analyst of the soul" Dostoevsky "Legend about the Great Inquisitor F. M. Dostoevsky": it affects many side, parallel and very important, expensive for him.

The original place in the creative heritage of Rosanov is occupied by the original, unusual memoir-necrological works in the genre plan ("Memory of Vl. Solovyov", "Memory I. I. Caible").

V. Rozanov "Three Moments in the Development of Russian Critics"

23. Modern criticism (symbolism and acmeism). Stylistic, genre features, polemical and auto-functioning orientation.

In the 1890s, with the statement of symbolism as a fundamentally new poetic direction, the formation of modernist trends in literary criticism begins. The emergence of each new literary direction - whether symbolism, acmeism, futurism, imagineism in a variety of and whimsical combinations and modifications - caused not only theoretical treatises, proclaiming and explaining the essence of creative quests, characteristic of a particular aesthetic platform, but also a stormy flow literary - Critical publications. New artistic word, new poetic rhythms, new poetic ideas demanded urgent estimates, discussion revelations, polemical statements.

A feature of the literary era was to participate in critical disputes of almost all without exception of writers. It is difficult to name the name of at least one prose or poet who would not make a critical article, a review, preface to a new book. In the era, which will be called the Silver Age, many literary critics are outstanding poets, and poets are talented critics. V. Solovyov and Merezhkovsky, Annensky and Rozanov, Block and A. White, Akhmatova and Mandelstam were exclusively talented and in writing, and in critical disclaimers.

At the beginning of the century, new organizational forms appeared to express literary assessments: these were poetic clubs and literary cafes, which contributed to the birth of free critical thought. The controversy captured all the literature. The literary criticism of modernist currents was formed and developed in parallel with a socially oriented democratic, mass criticism. Both the criticism of the people's, and feuilonic newspaper and magazine performances, and Marxist literary journalism were oriented on the boundless readers. The literary-critical stages of modernists appeared on a small circle of people "their", devoted to those introduced to a certain literary direction. The modernists created art for the exquisite public, for a sophisticated reader who could perceive and evaluate the "ideological essence" of the work, and its poetic pranedom and filigree form. That is why with the widest genre-thematic range and stylistic wealth, the critical prose of modernists was concentrated on the phenomenon of artistic integrity.

Probably, the poetic highways of the Silver Age would have developed, if not the creativity of V. S. Solovyov, determined and the fate of symbolism and the role of literary criticism during the active emergence of new artistic concepts.

In the history of Russian culture Vladimir Sergeevich Solovievhe entered as a great philosopher idealist. However, he was not long for the "clean" philosophy. Poetry, and literary criticism, and journalism are widely represented in his richest literary heritage. In the literary-critical work of Solovyov, first of all, appears as an insightful "judgment", unusually sensitive and to the place of the artist in the world of ideas, and to his individual pathos. Philosophical critical articles dedicated to Russian poetry had a kind of introduction. They became 2 fundamental work for the Solovyov work on aesthetics - "Beauty in Nature" and "Total Mission of Art." In the first article, beauty was revealed as "the transformation of the mother through the embodiment of another, supermasterial principle in it" and considered as an expression of the ideal content, as an embodiment of the idea. In the second article, the objectives and objectives of art were characterized, and the artistic work was determined as "a tangible image of any subject and phenomenon in terms of its final state or in the light of the future." The artist, by Solovyov, is a prophet. Significant in the views on art from Solovyov becomes the fact that the truth and good should be embodied in beauty. According to Solovyov, beauty is cutting off the light from darkness, "only it is enlightened and the unlimiting darkness of this world is energized."

It was Soloviev who opened the feet's heritage for such poets as a block and A. White, and focused on the young poetic generation on those principles that Fet confessed. It was Feta's poetry that the first actual literary and critical article of Solovyov "On Lyrical Poetry" was devoted. The article found an embodiment and some favorite topics of the philosophical and aesthetic works of Solovyov: about the subject of lyrical poetry, about the role of objective reality in poetry, about the meaning of beauty in the world and its incarnation in lyrics, about the "true background of all lyrics", about love and its incarnation In lyrics, about the lyrics of nature. There was also a thought that feta poetry is the most noticeable phenomenon in the total stream of "street" Russian literature.

The uncompaired creative achievement of Solovyov became the philosophical essay "Poetry F. I. Tyutchev". It was staged in the understanding and interpretation of Tyutchev's poetry and had a great influence on early symbols that rank great lyrics for their predecessors. Solovyov tried to reveal the reader with reasonable treasures of philosophical lyrics, look at the secrets of his artistic poetic world.

Solovyov is not only a cornea of \u200b\u200bthe Russian philosophical criticism of the border of 19-20 centuries, but also its genuine founder. Solovyov argued that the philosophical analysis does not obey the artistic work of the scheme within which it is doomed to serve as an illustration of any thesis, but goes back to his objective semantic basis.

Since 1895, Solovyov writes encyclopedic articles for the vocabulary of Brockhaus and Efron, in which the spirit of his "philosophical criticism" is fully preserved. This is not only the article "Beauty", but also work dedicated to Mikikov, Polonsky, A. M. Pearzhzhnikov, Kozma Prukov and K. Leontiev.

In research works, the literary-critical activities of Solovyov are most often considered as the foresight of Russian symbolism. The influence of Solovyov on the "younger" symbolists (Block, A. White, S. Solovyov), to create the historical and literary concept of the poet-prophet, is indisputable.

Solovyov's representations about the integrity of the creative path of the writer, about the "holiness" of artistic activities, about the highest responsibility of the artist to humanity, about the great and inecilious debt of the genius had a huge impact on the ethics and aesthetics of the 20th century, to Russian culture as a whole.

24.Literary and critical aspect of creativity of religious thinkers of the beginning of the 20th century.

The literary life of the beginning of the 20th century cannot be fully perceived if we do not take into account the conventional participation in it of Russian religious philosophers. Truda N. A. Berdyaeva, S.N. Bulgakova, S. L. Franc, filled with alluzia and remniscovers from Russian classical and modern literature devoted to the problems of creative identity, the role of intelligentsia in turning era, one way or another turned out to be in the thick of literary and critical Discussions. It was often happening that philosophers and critics went to the same painful points of the Russian reality, which ordered to the Russian intelligentsia, capable of an educational mission, and Russian literature as the highest form of manifestation of domestic consciousness.

In the famous collection "Milestones" (1909), philosophers, publicists and critics led the alarming prophetic conversation about the future tragic events in Russia. Acute premonition of the impending misfortune permeates Article N.A. Berdyaeva "Philosophical Truth and Intelligent Pravda", S. N. Bulgakova "Heroism and Moving", M. O. Gershonon "Creative Summunication", P. B. Struve "Intelligentsia and Revolution", S. L. Frank "Ethic Nihilism" .

After 60 years, another Russian thinker - A. I. Solzhenitsyn - will write that the ideas set forth in the "milestones" were "indignantly rejected by the intelligentsia, all party destinations from cadets to the Bolsheviks. The prophetic depth of "VEKH" did not find sympathy of the reading Russia, did not affect the development of the Russian situation. " Vnerative, universal - what is now a genuine treasury of literary assessments, opinions that have completed forecasts - receives recognition of readers only through many decades.

Russian philosophers warned Russia from the invasion of Blessuria, called to religious humanism. And in this respect, they turned out to be methodologically consonant with a variety of current trends of the so-called "new criticism".

N. Berdyaev "Crisis of Art"

V. Rozanov "Legend about the great Inquisitor of Dostoevsky"

S. Bulgakov

Yu.V. Lebedev

On the originality of Russian literary criticism.

"While the alive and healthy is our poetry, until the reason for doubt the deep health of the Russian people," wrote the critic N. N. Strakhov, and his like-minded Apollo Grigoriev considered Russian literature "the only focus of all of our higher interests." V. G. Belinsky, visited his friends to put him in the coffin the issue of the journal "Domestic notes", and the classic of the Russian satire M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, in a farewell letter to his son, said: "There is a lot of families and the title of a writer in a farewell letter and the title of a writer will prefer any other" .

According to N. G. Chernyshevsky, our literature was erected into the dignity of a nationwide case, which united the most viable forces of Russian society. In the consciousness of the reader of the XIX century, literature was not only a "elegant literature", but also the basis of the spiritual being of the nation. The Russian writer belonged to his work in a special way: it was not a profession for him, but the ministry. "The textbook of life" called the literature Chernyshevsky, and Lion Tolstoy was subsequently surprised that these words belong not to him, but his ideological opponent.

The artistic development of life in Russian classical literature has never turned into a purely aesthetic occupation, it has always pursued a living spiritual and practical purpose. "The word was perceived not as the sound of empty, but how it was - almost as" religiously ", like an ancient Karelian singer Weinenen, who" made a boat's singing ". This faith in the miraculous power of the word was in itself and Gogol, dreaming of creating such A book that herself, by force only expressed in it, the only and indisputable loyal thoughts should transform Russia, "the modern literary critic G. D. Gachev notes.

Belief in an effective, transforming world of the artistic word strength determined the features of Russian literary criticism. With literary problems, she always rose to public problems, having direct from - (* 4) wearing the destiny of the country, the people, the nation. Russian critic did not limit himself to the reasoning about artistic form, about the skill of the writer. Analyzing the literary work, he went to the issues that his life posed before the writer and the reader. The orientation of criticism on the wide circles of readers did it very popular: the authority of criticism in Russia was great and his articles were perceived as original works that are successful on a par with literature.

Russian criticism of the second half of the XIX century develops more dramatic. The country's social life at this time is extremely more complicated, many political areas emerged, which argued with each other. The picture of the literary process was motley and multi-layered. Therefore, the criticism has become more disconnected compared to the age of 30-40s, when the variety of critical assessments was covered with an authoritative word Belinsky. Like Pushkin in the literature, Belinsky in criticism was a kind of universal: he combined the assessment of the work and sociological, and aesthetic, and stylistic approaches, covering the literary movement as a whole.

In the second half of the XIX century, Belinsky's critical universalism turned out to be unique. Critical thought specialized in separate areas and schools. Even Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, critics are the most versatile, who possessed a latitude of public opinion, could no longer claim not only to cover the literary movement in its entirety, but also on the holistic interpretation of a separate work. Sociological approaches prevailed in their work. The literary development as a whole and the place in it of a separate work has now revealed the entire set of critical areas and schools. Apollo Grigoriev, for example, arguing with Dobrolyubovsky estimates A. N. Ostrovsky, noticed in the work of playwright such faces that elude Dobrolyubov. Critical understanding of the creativity of Turgenev or Lion Tolstoy cannot be reduced to the estimates of Dobrolyubov or Chernyshevsky. The works of N. N. Insurance about "fathers and children" and "war and the world" will significantly deepen and clarify them. The depth of understanding Roman I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is not exhausted by the classic article Dobrolyubov "What is a breakdown?": A. V. Druzhinin contributes to the understanding of the nature of Oblomov significant clarifications.

The main stages of the social struggle of the 60s.

A variety of literary-critical assessments in the second half of the XIX century was associated with increasing public struggle. Since 1855, in public life, they are revealed, and by 1859, two historical forces are entering uncompromising struggle - revolutionary democracy and liberalism. The voice of "Menietic Democrats", which takes force on the pages of the Nekrasovsky magazine "Contemporary", begins to determine public opinion in the country.

The social movement of the 60s takes place in its development three stages: from 1855 to 1858; from 1859 to 1861; From 1862 to 1869. At the first stage, the public strength occurs, in the second - a tense struggle between them, and on the third - a sharp decline in the movement ending with the onset of a government reaction.

Liberal-Western Party. The Russian liberals of the 60s are taking advantage of the art of "reforms without revolution" and associate their hopes with public transformations "from above". But in their circles there are disagreements between Wessengers and Slavophiles about the paths of the planning reforms. Westerners start counting of historical development with Peter I transformations, which else Belinsky called the "Father of Russia New". To the Dopurerov History, they relate skeptically. But, refusing Russia in the right to the "Dopenrovsky" historical tradition, Westerners are withdrawn from this fact a paradoxical thought about the great advantage: a Russian man free from the cargo of historical traditions may be "progressive" of any European due to its "presentation". The land that does not melting any own seeds can be praised and deep and deep, and with failures, according to Slavophila, A. S. Khomyakova, "soothe conscience thoughts that you can't do anything worse." "Why worse?" Westerns objected. "" The young nation can easily borrow the last and most advanced in the science and practice of Western Europe and transplanting it to Russian soil, make a dizzying jump forward. "

Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov on the pages of the Russian Bulletin founded in Moscow in 1856 in Moscow, the liberal routes of social and economic reforms are promoted: the liberation of peasants with land when redeeming it from the government, providing the nobility of the rights of local and public administration following the example of English Lords.

Liberal Slavic Filly Party. Slavophiles, too, denied "the score-free worship of the past forms (* 6) of our old." But they were considered possible only when they were taken to the distinctive historical root. If the Westerners argued that the difference between the enlightenment of Europe and Russia exists only to the degree, and not in the nature, the Slavophiles believed that Russia was already in the first centuries of its history, with the adoption of Christianity, was formed no less than the West, but "Spirit and the main principle "Russian education differed significantly from Western European.

Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky in the article "On the nature of the Enlightenment of Europe and about his attitude to Enlighten Russia" allocated three essential signs of these differences: 1) Russia and the West learned various types of ancient culture, 2) Orthodoxy had pronounced original features, who distinguished him from Catholicism, 3) There were different historical conditions in which Western European and Russian statehood developed.

Western Europe inherited ancient Roman educational, distinguished from the ancient Greek formal rationality, the adoption of the book of legal law and disregard for the traditions of "ordinary law", which was not at external legal decrees, but on legends and habits.

Roman culture imposed his imprint and on Western European Christianity. The West sought to subjugate faith with logical arguments of reason. The predominance in Christianity of Obligas began led by the Catholic Church first to the Reformation, and then to the full celebration of the mind of the mind. This exemption of the mind from faith was completed in German classical philosophy and led to the creation of atheistic exercises.

Finally, the statehood of Western Europe arose as a result of the wins by the German tribes of indigenous people of the former Roman Empire. Began violence, European states had to develop periodic revolutionary coups.

In Russia, much was different. She received a cultural vaccination of not formal-rational, Roman, but more harmonious and whole Greek education. Fathers of the Eastern Church never fell into dysfunctionality and took care of the "correctness of the inner state of thinking spirit". In the foreground, they were not the mind, not the mind, but the highest unity of the believer spirit.

Slavophiles considered peculiar and Russian statehood. Since Russia did not exist in two warring tribes - conquerors and defeated, public relations were based not only on legislative and legal acts that make folk gods indifferent to the internal content of human ties. The laws had rather internal than the appearance. The "holiness of tradition" was preferred by legal formula, morality - external benefits.

The church never tried to assign power secular power, to replace the state, as it happened more than once in Papal Rome. The basis of the original Russian organization was a communal device, the grain of which was the peasant world: small rural communities merged into wider regional associations, of which the consent of the whole Russian land led to the Grand Duke arose.

Petrovskaya reform, subordinated to the Church by the state, broke the natural course of Russian history.

In the Europeanization of Russia, Slavophiles seen the threat of the very essence of Russian national being. Therefore, they negatively belonged to Petrovsky transformations and government bureaucracy, were active opponents of serfdom. They ratified for freedom of speech, for the decision of state issues on the Zemsky Cathedral, consisting of representatives of all estates of Russian society. They objected to the introduction of forms of bourgeois parliamentary democracy in Russia, considering it necessary to preserve the autocracy reformed in the spirit of the ideals of the Russian "Council." The autocracy should stand on the path of a voluntary community with "earth", and in his decisions to rely on the opinion of the people, periodically convening the Zemsky Cathedral. The sovereign is intended to listen to the point of view of all classes, but to make the final decision sole, in accordance with the Christian spirit of good and truth. Not democracy with her vote and the mechanical victory of most over a minority, but agreement leading to the unanimous, "cathedral" submission of the main will, which should be free from the estate limitity and serve as higher Christian values.

The literary-critical program of Slavophilov was organically related to their public glances. This program proclaimed the Russian conversation published by them in Moscow: "The highest subject and the task of a folk word is not to say that there is a bad famous people than he is sick and what he does not have, but in the poet - (* 8 ) Caeshing recreation of what is given to him the best for his historical destination. "

Slavophiles did not take in Russian prose and poetry of socio-analytical began, they were alien to the sophisticated psychologism, in which they saw the disease of the modern personality, "Europeanized", who broke away from the folk soil, from the traditions of national culture. It is such a painful manner with "Schegolnery unnecessary details" finds K. S. Aksakov in the early works of L. N. Tolstoy with his "Dialectics of the Soul", in the possessions of I. S. Turgenev about the "unnecessary person."

Literary and critical activities of Westerns.

Unlike the Slavophiles spoken by the social content of art in the spirit of their "Russian views", Liberals-Westerners in the face of P. V. Annenkov and A. V. Druzhinina defend the traditions of "pure art", facing the "eternal" issues alien to the Evil day and faithful "absolute laws of artistic".

Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin in the article "Criticism of the Gogolian period of Russian literature and our relationship" formulated two theoretical ideas about art: he called "didactic", and the other "artistic". Didactic poets "wish to act directly act on modern life, modern morals and a modern man. They want to sing, going, and often achieve their goal, but the song of them, winning in instruptant, cannot not lose much of the eternal art."

Genuine art has nothing to do with a teaching. "Firmly believing that the interests of the minute are breeding that humanity, changing incessantly, does not change only in some ideas of eternal beauty, good and truth,", poet artist "in disinterested ministry sees his eternal anchor ... He depicts people what They sees them, not prescribing to them to correct, he does not give lessons to society, or if it gives them, it gives unconsciously. He lives among his sublime world and goes to earth, as the Olympians once went on it, firmly remember that he had His house on high Olympus. "

The indisputable advantage of liberal-western criticism was close attention to the specifics of the literature, to the distinguishing of its artistic language from the language of science, journalism, critics. It is also characteristic of the interest in the incredit and eternal in the works of classical Russian literature, to what determines their unfavorable (* 9) life in time. But at the same time, the attempts to distract the writer from "everyday unrest" of modernity, muffled the author's subjectivity, distrust of works with a pronounced social orientation testified to the liberal moderation and the limited public attitudes of these critics.

Public program and literary-critical activities of the fuels.

Another social and literary course of the mid-60s, who shot the extremes of Westerners and Slavophiles was the so-called "compassion". The spiritual leader was F. M. Dostoevsky, who issued two magazines in these years - "time" (1861-1863) and "Epoch" (1864-1865). Supporters of Dostoevsky in these magazines were the literary critics Apollo Alexandrovich Grigoriev and Nikolai Nikolayevich of fears.

Summates to some extent inherited a look into Russian national character, expressed by Belinsky in 1846. Belinsky wrote: "Russia has nothing to compare with the old states of Europe, which the story was diametrically oppositely and for a long time already gave color and fruit ... It is known that the French, the British, the Germans are so national one in their own way that is unable to understand each other , while Russian is equally available to the sociality of the Frenchman, and the practical activity of the Englishman, and the Misty Philosophy of the German. "

The fuels talked about "all-intensity" as a characteristic feature of the Russian national consciousness, which A. S. Pushkin in our literature was most deeply in our literature. "This thought is expressed by Pushkin not as an alternation, teaching or a theory, not as dreaming or prophecy, but was also executed, it was entered in the brilliant creatures and proven him," he wrote Dostoevsky. "He wrote an ancient The world, he and German, he and the Englishman, deeply conscious of the genius, longing his aspiration ("Pier during the plague"), he and the poet of the East. He said to all these nations and stated that the Russian genius knows them, understood them, got in touch with them as a native that he may be with me in their entirety, that only one only by the Russian spirit is given to the world, given the appointment in the future to comprehend and combine all the diversity of nationalities and remove All contradictions them. "

Like Slavophila, the fuels believed that "Russian society should be connected with the people's soil and take the folk element." But, unlike the Slavophiles, (* 10), they did not deny the positive role of Peter I reforms and the "Europeanized" Russian intelligentsia, designed to bear the people of Education and culture, but only on the basis of popular moral ideals. It was such a Russian european in the eyes of the solarders A. S. Pushkin.

According to A. Grigoriev, Pushkin "The first and full representative" of public and moral sympathies. " "In Pushkin, for a long time, if not forever, ended, obsessed with a wide essay, all our mental process," our "volume and measure": all the subsequent development of Russian literature is a deepening and artistic understanding of those elements that affected Pushkin. The most organically expressed Pushkin starts in modern literature A. N. Ostrovsky. "The new word island is the oldest word - nation." "Ostrovsky is just as little as he is a little idealizer. Let's leave it to be the fact that he is - the great folk poet, the first and only expressive of the folk essence in her diverse manifestations ..."

N. N. Frakhov was the only one in the history of Russian criticism of the second half of the XIX century a deep interpreter of "War and Peace" L. N. Tolstoy. He did not accidentally call his job as a "critical poem in four songs." Lion Tolstoy himself, who considered insurance with his friend, said: "One of the happiness, for which I am grateful to fate is what is N. N. Strakhov."

Literary and critical activities of revolutionaries-Democrats

Public, socio-critical pathos of Late Belinsky articles with his socialist convictions picked up and developed in the sixties revolutionary-democratic critics Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolay Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov.

By 1859, when the government program and the views of the liberal parties turned out when it became obvious that the reform "from above" in any options would be half of the way, revolutionaries-Democrats from a shaky union with liberalism moved to the rupture of relations and uncompromising combating it. On this, the second stage of the social movement of the 60s falls the literary and critical activities of N. A. Dobrolyubov. He dedicates the special satirical department of the magazine "Contemporary" called "whistle". Here, Dobrolyubov acts not only as a critic, but also as a satirical poet.

The criticism of liberalism was alarmed by A. I. Herzen, (* 11) which, being in emigration, unlike Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, continued to hope for the reforms "top" and overestimated the radicalism of the liberals until 1863.

However, Herzen's warnings did not stop the contemporary revolutionaries. Since 1859, they began to spend the idea of \u200b\u200bthe peasant revolution in their articles. The core of the future socialist world order, they considered the peasant community. Unlike Slavophiles, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov believed that the community ownership of the land was not held on Christian, but on the revolutionary-liberation, socialist instincts of the Russian man.

Dobrolyubov became the founder of the original critical method. He saw that most Russian writers do not share a revolutionary-democratic way of thinking, do not pronounce sentencing over life from such radical positions. The task of his criticism of Dobrolyubov saw in his own way to complete the work started by the writer and formulate this sentence, based on real events and artistic images of the work. His method of understanding the creativity of the writer Dobrolyubov called "real criticism."

Real criticism "disassembles, is it possible and really such a person; they are really true, it is true, she moves to its own reasons about the reasons that spawned it, etc. If in the work of the author's disassembled author, these reasons are specified, the criticism uses them And thanks the author; if not, he does not stick to him with a knife to the throat - how, they say, he dare to bring such a person without explaining the causes of his existence? " The critic takes in this case the initiative into his own hands: explains the reasons that have given in this or that phenomenon from revolutionary-democratic positions and then sentenced over it.

Dobrolyubov ratings positively, for example, the Roman Goncharov "Oblomov", although the author does not give and, apparently, does not want to give any conclusions. " It is enough that he "represents you a lively image and swore only for the similarity of it with reality." For Dobrolyubov, such author's objectivity is quite acceptable and even desirable, since the explanation and sentence he takes over himself.

Real criticism often led Dobrolyubov to a peculiar interpretation of artistic images of a writer on a revolutionary democratic way. It turned out that the analysis of the work, which was converted to understanding the acute problems of modernity, led Dobrolyubov to such radical conclusions that the author himself had no way. On this basis, as we will see next, there was a decisive gap of Turgenev with the magazine "Contemporary" when the article Dobrolyubov about the novel "On the eve" saw in it.

The articles of Dobrolyubov comes to life, a young, strong nature of a talented criticism, sincerely believing in the people, in which he sees the embodiment of all his higher moral ideals, with whom he connects the only hope for the revival of society. "The passion of his deep and stubborn, and the obstacles are not afraid of him when they need to overcome to achieve passionately desirable and deeply conceived," writes Dobrolyov about the Russian peasant in the article "features for the characteristics of Russian common people." All the activities of Criticism were aimed at combating the creation of the "Party of the People in Literature". He dedicated to this struggle four years of emergency labor, writing for such a short time nine volume volumes. Dobrolyubov literally burned herself at the mobility magazine who undermined his health. He died at the age of 25 November 17, 1861. On the premature death of a young friend, Nekrasov said heartlessly:

But you hit your hour too early

And the thing of the feather fell.

What a lamp of the mind is ugas!

What heart beat stopped!

Recession of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between the "contemporary" and "Russian word".

At the order of the 60s in Russian public life and critical thought, dramatic changes are performed. Manifesto on February 19, 1861 on the liberation of peasants not only did not soften, but even more aggravated the contradictions. In response to the rise of the revolutionary-democratic movement, the government passed to an open attack on the forefall: Chernyshevsky and D. I. Pisarev were arrested, for eight months a publication of the magazine "Contemporary" was suspended.

The situation is exacerbated by a split inside the revolutionary-democratic movement, the main reason for which differences were in assessing the revolutionary and socialist opportunities of the peasantry. The figures "Russian Word" Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev and Bartholomew Alexandrovich Zaitsev made a sharp criticism of the "contemporary" for (* 13) His alleged idealization of the peasantry, for an exaggerated idea of \u200b\u200bthe revolutionary instincts of the Russian man.

Unlike Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, Pisarev argued that the Russian peasant is not ready for the conscious struggle for the freedom, that in the mass of his own, he is dark and clogged. The revolutionary force of modernity Pisarev considered the "mental proletariat", the revolutionaries, the allocating people carrying natural scientific knowledge. These knowledge not only destroy the basics of official ideology (Orthodoxy, autocracy, nation), but also open the people of the eye to the natural needs of human nature, which is based on the instinct of "social solidarity". Therefore, the enlightenment of the people natural sciences can not only be revolutionary ("mechanical"), but also an evolutionary ("chemical") by bringing society to socialism.

In order for this "chemical" transition faster and more efficiently, Pisarev offered Russian democracy to be guided by the "Principle of Saving Forces". The "mental proletariat" must focus all the energy on the destruction of the spiritual foundations of the existing society by propaganda in the people of natural sciences. In the name of the "spiritual liberation" of Pisarev, like the Turgenev Hero, Evgeny Bazarov, offered to abandon art. He really believed that "a decent chemist is more useful than a poet for twenty times," and recognized art only to the extent that it participates in the propaganda of natural science knowledge and destroys the foundations of an existing building.

In the article "Bazarov" he recalled the triumphant Nihilist, and in the article "The motives of the Russian drama" "crushed" the Dara Kladolovsky "Thunderstorm" of Katerina Kabanov "Katerina Kabanov. Destroying the idols of the "old" society, Pisarev published the scandalous famous anti-Pushkin articles and the work of the "destruction of aesthetics". The fundamental differences, determined during the controversy between the "contemporary" and "Russian Word", weakened the revolutionary camp and were a symptom of a downturn of the social movement.

Public lift of the 70s.

By the beginning of the 70s, the first signs of a new public lift associated with the activities of revolutionary populists have emerged in Russia. The second generation of revolutionaries-Democrats who carried out the heroic attempt to raise the peasants on the (* 14) revolution "walking in the people" were their ideologues, in the new historical conditions, developing the ideas of Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. "Vera in a special way, in a community building of Russian life; from here - faith in the possibility of the peasant socialist revolution, - that's what an onset of them, tens and hundreds of people on the heroic struggle with the government," wrote about the populists-seventies V. I. Lenin . This belief in one degree or another perched all the works of leaders and mentors of the new movement - P. L. Lavrova, N. K. Mikhailovsky, M. A. Bakunina, P. N. Tkacheva.

Mass "walking in the people" ended in 1874 by arrest of several thousand people and followed by the processes of 193s and 50. In 1879, at the congress in Voronezh, the People's Organization "Earth and Will" broke: "Politicians", separated by Tkachev's ideas, organized their party "Folk Volya", proclaiming the main goal of the movement of political coup and terrorist forms of combating the government. In the summer of 1880, the disruptions organize an explosion in the Winter Palace, and Alexander II miracle saves death. This event causes shock and confusion in the government: it decides to concessions to the appointment of Liberal Loris-Melikov to the authorized ruler and appealing to the liberal community of the country for their support. In response, the sovereign receives notes from Russian liberals, in which it is proposed to immediately convene an independent meeting from land representatives to participate in the country management "in order to produce guarantees and personal rights, freedom of thought and words." It seemed that Russia was standing on the threshold of the parliamentary form of government. But on March 1, 1881, an irreparable mistake is committed. People after multiple attempts kill Alexander II, and after this, a government response comes in the country.

Conservative ideology of the 80s.

These years in the history of the Russian public are characterized by the flourishing of conservative ideology. She defended it, in particular, Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev in the books "East, Russia and Slavs" and "Our" New Christians "F. M. Dostoevsky and Count Lev Tolstoy." Leontyev believes that the culture of each civilization takes three stages of development: 1) primary simplicity, 2) blooming complexity, 3) secondary mixing simplification. The main sign of decline and entry into the third stage of Leontyev considers the spread of liberal and socialist ideas with their cult (* 15) equality and universal benefits. Liberalism and Socialism Leontyev contrasted "Byzanthism" - strong monarchical power and strict church.

Leontyev subjected to a decisive criticism of the religious and ethical views of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. He argued that both writers were influenced by the ideas of socialism, that they turn Christianity into a spiritual phenomenon derived from the earthly human senses of fraternity and love. Genuine Christianity, on Leontiev, mystical, tragedy and scary for a person, for it stands on the other side of the earthly life and assesses it as life, full of suffering and flour.

Leontyev is a consistent and principal opponent of the very idea of \u200b\u200bprogress, which, according to his teaching, brings one or another people to mixing simplification and death. Stop, delay progress and hardening Russia - this idea of \u200b\u200bLeontiev came to the court of conservative politics Alexander III.

Russian liberal population of the 80-90s.

In the era of the 80s, revolutionary population is experiencing a deep crisis. The "theory of small cases" comes to replace the revolutionary idea, which in the 1990s will take shape in the program of "State Socialism". Government transition to the side of peasant interests can peacefully bring people to socialism. The peasant community and artel, handicrafts in the patronage of the substrates, the active cultural assistance of the intelligentsia and the government may resist the Natius of capitalism. At the dawn of the XX century, "the theory of small cases" quite successfully develops into a powerful cooperative movement.

Religious and philosophical thought of the 80-90s. The time of deep disappointment in political and revolutionary forms of combating public evil made an extremely relevant Tolstovsky preaching of moral self-improvement. It was during this period that the religious and ethical program of renewal of life in the work of the Great Writer and the Treaty becomes one of the popular public currents.

In the 1980s --90s, the teaching of the religious thinker Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorova is beginning to gain fame. The basis of his "philosophy of a common cause" is a grand idea of \u200b\u200bthe great vocation of a person to fully master the mysters of life, defeat death and achieve god-like power and power over the blind forces of nature. Humanity, in Fedorov, its own (* 16) efforts can carry out the transformation of the entire bodily composition of a person, making it an immortal, resurrect all the dead and at the same time to achieve the management of "sunny and other star systems." "Generated by a tiny earthy, the viewer of the immense space, the viewer of the worlds of this space should become their inhabitant and the ruler."

In the 80s, along with the democratic ideology of the "common cause", along with the "readings about the God of God" and "justifying good" V. S. Solovyov, the first sprouts of philosophy and aesthetics of the future Russian decadence appear. The book N. M. Minsk "in the light of conscience" is published, in which the author preaches extreme individualism. The influence of Nietzshean ideas increases, extracted from oblivion and becomes almost idol Max Styrner with his book "the only and his property", in which Alfoy and Omegoic modernity proclaimed frank egoism ...

Questions and tasks: What is explained by the diversity of directions in the Russian criticism of the second half of the XIX century? What are the features of Russian criticism and how are they related to the specifics of our literature? What did the Wester and Slavophiles and the Benefits of Russian Historical Development see? What are you, in your opinion, the strengths and weaknesses of public programs of Westerners and Slavophiles? What is the program of the fumes differs from Western and Slavophile? How did the wigners determined the meaning of Pushkin in the history of new Russian literature? Describe the principles of "real criticism" Dobrolyubov. What is the originality of public and literary and critical views by D. I. Pisarev? Give the characteristic of the public and mental movement in Russia of the 80s - 90s

Artist. In such a complete coincidence with its time in his "adequate implementation", evidence of the scale and strength of the repincial talent (see: Sarakyanov D. V. Repin and Russian painting of the second half of the XIX century // From the history of Russian art of the second half of the XIX, the XX century. Sat. Articles of NIII. M., 1978. P. 10-16). In the walls of the Academy, from the moment of its foundation, the most important genre of historical, under which ...

People fighting the elements, sea battles; A.O. Orlovsky. The theoretical foundations of romanticism formed - F. and A. Schlegeli and F. Shelling. Painting the era of "Movements". The influence of the public environment and the trend of the creativity of Russian artists the second half of the XIX century. The conscious turn of the new Russian painting to the democratic realism, nationality, modernity was designated in ...