The Civil War through the eyes of 20th century writers. The theme of the civil war in Russian literature of the 20th century based on one or more works - abstract
"THE CASE OF THE PETRASHEVTS"
publication of investigations materials covering the most means. documents and testimony of 30 persons involved in the Petrashevites trial in Russia. Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 3 vols., 1st volume (M.-L., 1937) contains the files of M. V. Petrashevsky, N. A. Mombelli, F. N. Lvov, R. A. Chernosvitov, participants in meetings about organizations secret society and about the prospects of the cross. uprisings 2nd volume (M.-L., 1941) - files of visitors to the Petrashvsky circle - A. P. Balasoglo, F. G. Tolya, I. L. Yastrzhembsky and others. 3rd volume (M.-L. , 1951) - cases of participants in parallel circles N.S. Kashkin and S.F. Durov, the group of P.G. Shaposhnikov, A.D. Tolstov and others, as well as reports of agent P. Antonelli.
The case of the Petrashians
The revival of public sentiment and the spread of the ideas of socialism in Russia found expression and organizational form in circles that were named after the founder of one of them, M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. He came from a poor noble family and studied at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. After graduating from St. Petersburg University, he served as a translator at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1844, he began to gather friends at his place on Fridays to discuss various topical issues of Russian life. Petrashevsky’s “Fridays” became very famous in the capital; several hundred people attended them: officers, officials, teachers... Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Maikov and others were there. At first these were friendly parties, then elements of an organizational meeting appeared: a chairman, a bell, reading prepared abstracts. Visitors to “Fridays”, leaving for work in the provinces, collected the same mugs there.
Petrashevsky consciously regarded his activities as propaganda of revolutionary ideas, calling himself “the oldest propagator of socialism.” He also developed a concept for preparing a revolution: first propaganda, then the creation of a secret society and finally an uprising. All links of the state apparatus, the entire system, were criticized by the Petrashevites: “The word official is almost the same as a swindler or a robber, an officially recognized thief.” On legislation: “The laws are confusing, stupid, contradictory.” The political ideal of the Petrashevites was a republican system with a unicameral parliament at the head of the legislative branch and election to all government positions. They spoke out for a federal structure of the future Russia, in which the peoples would be given broad autonomy: “Internal governance should be based on the laws, customs and morals of the people.”
All Petrashevites strongly condemned serfdom, and the liberation of the peasants was considered the most important task.
At an evening dedicated to the memory of the French utopian socialist Fourier, Petrashevsky, expressing the opinion of the majority of those gathered, declared: “We have condemned real social life to death, we must carry out our sentence!”
How did you see the execution of the sentence? Unlike their predecessors, the Petrashevites did not think about a military uprising, but about a “general explosion.” They said: “In Russia, revolution is possible only as a popular, peasant uprising and the reason for it will be serfdom.”
But when Petrashevsky proclaimed his toast, condemning the serfdom to death, he did not suspect that police agent Antonelli was sitting next to him and that he himself, Petrashevsky, had come to the attention of the leaders of the III Division and the Ministry of Internal Affairs five years ago. He also did not know that, besides Antonelli, two more police agents regularly report to the police about “Fridays”, about the composition of the gathering circle members and their speeches. Rumors and gossip about the “Fridays” of the Petrashevites circulated throughout St. Petersburg. Even among the janitors there was talk that “on Fridays Petrashevsky writes new laws.”
The police began by providing two agents with horses and droshky, and they, like cab drivers, stopped every Friday evening not far from Petrashevsky’s house at the Church of the Intercession so that guests could hire them first. The calculation was based on the fact that Petrashevsky’s friends, excited by the arguments at the “Fridays,” would continue their conversations in the droshky. It's also easy to find out their names and addresses.
From time to time, various young people from petty officials, more than anything else in the world ashamed of their poverty, fell into the nets spread by the police. It was among them that they were looking for an agent. After a long search, we settled on Peter Antonelli, a philology student. He graduated from high school with difficulty, entered university only at the insistence of his father, and studied reluctantly. He was attracted to have a fun life, but there was no money. Antonelli was well read and had a good memory. His appearance was unattractive: “Blonde, short, with a rather large nose, with light eyes, not exactly slanted, but avoiding meeting, in a red vest.” He parted with the university without regret and, after being recruited as a police agent, was registered as a clerical official in the Department of Foreign Affairs, where Petrashevsky served. If one person (Petrashevsky) is looking for like-minded people, and another wants to meet the seeker, then their meeting is inevitable. The acquaintance soon took place, and the agent managed to win over Petrashevsky so much that he instructs him to translate the French “Political Dictionary”. Police officials, wanting to make a career for themselves in the case of Petrashevsky, decide to provoke Petrashevsky, to encourage him to take some real actions. For now it's just talk. And so Antonelli must convince Petrashevsky that he has close ties among the peoples of the Caucasus, recently conquered and very dissatisfied with this. The agent creates a group of “dissatisfied Circassians” from among the palace guards, supposedly temporarily visiting him, and introduces Petrashevsky to them. The conversation is conducted through an interpreter - Antonelli - and convinces Petrashevsky that the highlanders are “hot material,” although they clearly lack education. Therefore, he immediately invites his young friend to engage in propaganda among the southerners. He is confident that a revolution will definitely take place in the Caucasus and the Circassians will create self-government. On Count Orlov’s report about the Petrashevites, Nicholas I wrote: “I read everything, the matter is important, because if there was only one lie, then that too highest degree criminal and intolerant. It is definitely better to proceed with the arrest, as you think, if only there will be no disclosure from such a large number of people necessary for this... With God! His will be done!”
Petrashevsky’s members were arrested according to a list compiled by Antonelli on “Fridays” in Petrashevsky’s house. There were 36 names on the list. The investigation lasted five months, then the emperor ordered “the designated persons to be handed over to the court, forming a mixed Military Judicial Commission...”. The latter considered the case of the Petrashevites for a month and a half and issued a verdict against 23 people, according to which “for a criminal plan to overthrow the existing state structure in Russia,” 15 people were sentenced to death, the rest to hard labor and exile. From the commission, the case was sent to the Auditor General (the highest military court), which changed the verdict and sentenced 21 people to death, including Dostoevsky, who was accused mainly of reading “Belinsky’s Letters to Gogol” at a meeting of the Petrashevites. The condemned were brought to Semenovsky Parade Ground in St. Petersburg, where a re-enactment of the death penalty was staged, after which the convicts were informed of their pardon. A new sentence was read out: Petrashevsky - hard labor without a term, the rest from 15 to two years of hard labor, some to be sent as soldiers in the active army in the Caucasus. The government explained such a harsh sentence as follows: “The destructive teachings that gave rise to unrest and rebellion throughout Western Europe and threatening to overthrow all order and well-being of peoples, have, unfortunately, echoed to some extent in our fatherland. But in Russia, where the holy faith, love for the monarch and devotion to the throne are based on the natural properties of the people and are still preserved unshakably in the heart of everyone, only a handful of people, completely insignificant, mostly young and immoral, dreamed of the opportunity to trample on the rights of religion, law and property "
Literature
The first Russian socialists. Memoirs of participants in Petrashevsky circles in St. Petersburg. - L., 1984.
The case of the Petrashevites. M., 1937.
Dulov A. A. Petrashevtsy in Siberia. Irkutsk, 1966.
Egorov B.F. Petrashevtsy. L., 1988.
After the massacre of the Decembrists, the entire public life of Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state, which was carried out by the forces of the 3rd department, its extensive network of agents and informers. This was the reason for the decline of the social movement.
A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists. In 1827, at Moscow University, the brothers P., V. and M. Kritsky organized a secret circle, the goals of which were the destruction royal family and constitutional reforms in Russia.
In 1831, the tsarist secret police discovered and destroyed the circle of N.P. Sungurov, whose members were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow. In 1832, the “Literary Society of Number 11” operated at Moscow University, of which V.G. Belinsky was a member. In 1834, the circle of A.I. Herzen was opened.
In the 30-40s. Three ideological and political directions emerged: reactionary-protective, liberal, revolutionary-democratic.
The principles of the reactionary-protective direction were expressed in his theory by the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov. Autocracy, serfdom, and Orthodoxy were declared the most important foundations and a guarantee against shocks and unrest in Russia. The proponents of this theory were Moscow University professors M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev.
The liberal opposition movement was represented by the social movements of Westerners and Slavophiles.
The central idea in the concept of the Slavophiles is the belief in a unique path of development for Russia. Thanks to Orthodoxy, harmony has developed in the country between different layers of society. Slavophiles called for a return to pre-Petrine patriarchy and the true Orthodox faith. They particularly criticized the reforms of Peter I.
Slavophiles left numerous works on philosophy and history (I.V. and P.V. Kirievsky, I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev), in theology (A.S. Khomyakov), in sociology , economics and politics (Yu.F. Samarin). They published their ideas in the magazines “Moskovityanin” and “Russkaya Pravda”.
Westernism arose in the 30-40s. 19th century among representatives of the nobility and various intelligentsia. The main idea is the concept of the common historical development of Europe and Russia. Liberal Westerners advocated a constitutional monarchy with guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, a public court and democracy (T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, E.F. Korsh, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). They considered the reform activities of Peter I the beginning of the renewal of old Russia and proposed to continue it by carrying out bourgeois reforms.
The literary circle of M.V. Petrashevsky gained enormous popularity in the early 40s, which over the four years of its existence was visited by leading representatives of society (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Pleshcheev, A.N. .Maikov, P.A.Fedotov, M.I.Glinka, P.P.Semenov, A.G.Rubinshtein, N.G.Chernyshevsky, L.N.Tolstoy).
Since the winter of 1846, the circle became radicalized; its most moderate members left, forming the left revolutionary wing led by N.A. Speshnev. Its members advocated a revolutionary transformation of society, the elimination of the autocracy, and the liberation of the peasants.
The father of the “theory of Russian socialism” was A.I. Herzen, who combined Slavophilism with socialist doctrine. He considered the peasant community to be the main unit of the future society, with the help of which one can reach socialism, bypassing capitalism.
In 1852, Herzen went to London, where he opened the Free Russian Printing House. Bypassing censorship, he laid the foundation for the Russian foreign press.
The founder of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia is V.G. Belinsky. He published his views and ideas in “Notes of the Fatherland” and in “Letter to Gogol,” where he sharply criticized Russian tsarism and proposed the path of democratic reforms.
Petrashevtsy history of creation, their views, leaders
Emergence
In the middle of the 19th century in Russia, progressive thought began to be under the control of commoners. These were representatives of merchants, townspeople, clergy, retired soldiers, minor officials and rich peasants.
These people didn't pass civil service, so it was difficult for them to enter social system Russian Empire.
They earned their living mainly by mental labor. The raznochintsy became a new socio-cultural group with progressive ideologies - liberal, socialist, revolutionary, anarchist.
The backbone of the revolutionary movement was the intelligentsia. And if the representatives of the Decembrists were mainly nobles, then their successors were already commoners. One of the earliest circles of common ranks were considered to be the Petrashevites, named after M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. The Petrashevites were split based on their methods of struggle. Among them there were reformers, who made up the majority, and revolutionaries.
Every Friday, reports on the organization’s activities were read out in Petrashevsky’s house. Their ideology and methods of struggle were influenced by the worldviews of Herzen and Belinsky. The circle did not have time to take shape organizationally and ideologically: in 1849, when it was close to this, it was covered up by the tsarist government.
Occupation and ideology
The ideas and goals of the Petrashevites were the same as those of any Russian progressives mid-19th century. The main goal of the circle was, of course, the abolition of serfdom. Other goals of the Petrashevites included judicial reform, freedom of the press, and a number of Petrashevites were inclined to revolt. Many Petrashevites had a negative attitude towards religion, denied the existence of God and considered themselves outspoken materialists.
Religion, in the opinion of many members of the circle, coarsened and suppressed a person. Religion, according to Petrashevites, is expressed in God, who indulges the strong and the winners. Like any progressives, the Petrashevites were champions of science and education. They contrasted them with superstition, mysticism and religion. The Petrashevites were critical of the idealists from Germany, considering their views to be divorced from reality.
Petrashevites supported utopian socialism as an alternative to the evils of the feudal and capitalist systems. Their ideas were influenced by the views of Charles Fourier. They opposed the patriarchal family and supported the egalitarian family due to the fact that the egalitarian model does not oppress women. Personal egoism, according to Petrashevites, should be absorbed by group egoism. Thus, this circle advocated the transformation of society through natural nature person.
The socialism of the Petrashevites was far from socialist in nature. But in Russia everything revolutionary movements of that time were called socialist. If many liberals advocated only for the rights of the Russian serf peasantry and were reformists in general, then almost all socialists advocated a scientific worldview, against religion and superstition, for freedom of the individual and society, and fought against feudalism and capitalism.
Famous leaders
Of course, the most famous figure organization was considered Butashevich-Petrashevsky, a St. Petersburg nobleman, creator of the “Pocket Dictionary” foreign words"After his arrest, he spent the rest of his life in Siberia, where he died in 1866 (in the Yenisei province).
A well-known member of the Petrashevsky circle was also one of the 20 arrested in 1849. Unlike many members of the circle, he had a positive attitude towards religion and adhered to the positions of Christian socialism, which was already influential in a number of European countries. Fyodor Mikhailovich put atheistic socialism on a par with bourgeoisism, and many Petrashevists contrasted these concepts. Dostoevsky also managed to visit the more radical communities of Durov and Speshnev.
Sergei Fedorovich Durov was more apolitical; the circles he organized were literary character. And Nikolai Ivanovich Speshnev in Dostoevsky's novel "" became the prototype of Stavrogin. He is one of the first to call himself a communist. In exile, with the support of the East Siberian governor N.N. Muravyov-Amursky returns to public service.
The 40s saw the formation of new revolutionary organizations, among which we must highlight the society that developed around M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. Its activities began in 1845; Every week, Petrashevsky’s “Fridays” brought together writers, teachers, students, minor officials, officers - these were young people from poor nobles and commoners who shared the advanced bourgeois-democratic ideas of that time. The society existed until 1849, when it was destroyed by the government. At meetings with Petrashevsky, pressing social and political issues were hotly discussed, philosophical foundations worldviews and made action plans. Here the hated serfdom was openly exposed - the blatant evil of the class system and the royal court. The ideas of utopian socialism aroused widespread sympathy and recruited more and more new supporters. Outstanding members of the society were N. A. Speshnev, D. D. Akhsharumov, N. A. Mombelli, N. S. Kashkin. The presence of officers indicates the penetration of advanced social ideas into the army. Among the visitors to Petrashevsky were aspiring writers M. E. Saltykov, F. M. Dostoevsky, poets A. N. Pleshcheev and A. N. Maikov, geographer P. P. Semenov, pianist A. G. Rubinstein. Members of the society sought practical activities. In April 1845, the “Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words Included in the Russian Language” began to be published, published by the very well-intentioned Guards Colonel N. Kirillov and even dedicated to Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, the Tsar’s brother. The colonel had no idea that he was editing a revolutionary publication. In 1846, the second edition of the dictionary was published. Petrashevsky and some of his comrades took direct part in the compilation of the dictionary, “under the chief editorship of himself.” The dictionary reflected the ideology of the new emerging revolutionary organization, explaining various terms - “Ovenism”, “organization of production”, “ normal condition“- Petrashevsky propagated the ideas of utopian socialism. The dictionary was published and sold out, but soon attracted the attention of the government and was withdrawn from sale for “impermissible and harmful thoughts.” Before its destruction, it managed to sell 1 thousand copies. Belinsky welcomed its appearance in a sympathetic review, where he advised this dictionary to “stock up on everyone! (compiled intelligently, with knowledge of the matter, the dictionary is excellent).”
The circle of Petrashevites gradually gained revolutionary-democratic positions. “What do we see in Russia?” Petrashevite Mombelli wrote in his notes on civilization. - Tens of millions suffer, are burdened by life, deprived of human rights either because of their plebeian origin, or because of their insignificance social status their own, or due to lack of means of subsistence, but at the same time, a small caste of privileged lucky people, impudently laughing at the misfortunes of their neighbors, is exhausted in the invention of luxurious manifestations of petty vanity and low debauchery, covered with refined luxury.” Hating the autocratic system, the Petrashevites called the tsar “Bogdykhan”, and instead of the word “fool” they said “actual state councilor”. They were ardent Russian patriots; During the investigation, Petrashevsky spoke “like a Russian - on behalf of Russia and in the name of its future needs.”
The revolutionary events of 1848 met with the warmest sympathy of Petrashevsky and his comrades. Up to 50 people began to attend meetings. An active core of regular visitors emerged, and an ideological struggle between more revolutionary members and more moderate members emerged. Fighting and passionate notes sounded in speeches and reports. The circle participants were thinking about projects for active revolutionary activities. Supporters of utopian socialism came to the fore, which, according to Engels, “mercilessly reveals all the material and moral poverty of the bourgeois world.” In addition to Petrashevsky himself, the ideas of utopian socialism were shared by N. A. Speshnev, D. D. Akhsharumov, N. S. Kashkin, A. V. Khanykov and other visitors to “Fridays”. Speshnev stood at the head of the revolutionary wing of society and was a particularly outstanding participant. The community had many sympathizers.
On April 7, 1849, on Fourier’s birthday, the Petrashevites organized a friendly dinner, at which speeches devoted to criticism were made modern system and the glorification of the coming socialism. Ardent patriots, Petrashevites were indignant at the policy of the tsarist autocracy and the existence of serfdom: “My fatherland is in chains, my fatherland is in slavery, religion, ignorance - the companions of despotism - have drowned out your natural desires,” Khanykov said in his dinner speech on April 7.
Many society participants pinned their hopes on the coming of the people's revolution, believed necessary training mass uprising, designed a secret printing house, wrote propaganda essays for distribution among the people and in tsarist army. Speshnev drafted the charter of the secret society. The Petrashevsky Society played a role in shaping the worldview of the greatest Russian revolutionary democrat, N. G. Chernyshevsky. Not being a participant in the meetings, Chernyshevsky was connected with the Petrashevites through his close comrades (Lobodovsky, Khanykov). Participants in Petrashevsky's society, many of whom were commoners, expected a decisive rise in the peasant movement and the onset of the peasant revolution. But they did not have time to formalize their battle plans and create an effective revolutionary organization: tsarist agents tracked down Petrashevsky’s “Fridays” and established secret surveillance over them. On Petrashevsky’s “Fridays,” a secret police agent slipped in, listened carefully to all the speeches and compiled detailed reports. On April 22, 1849, Nicholas ordered the arrest of the most active members of the circle. That same night, 39 people were captured, including Petrashevsky, Speshnev, Mombelli, and Dostoevsky. A secret commission of inquiry was appointed; tsarist officials came to the conclusion that they had uncovered a “conspiracy of ideas” that had “corrupted” minds, but had not yet gone into active action. From the point of view of Nicholas I, sympathy for communist and republican ideas was tantamount to a grave state crime. The Auditor General (the highest judicial body) found that 21 defendants were worthy for their actions death penalty; however, recognizing “mitigating” circumstances, he proposed to some to replace the death penalty with eternal and fixed-term hard labor, to others - to prison companies, to others - to exile to a settlement.
Nikolai agreed with this opinion, but as a “edification” to the defendants, he decided to force them to endure the horror of imminent death. On December 22, 1849, the convicts were taken out of the fortress casemates and taken in cabs to Semenovskaya Square. They saw in front of them a high scaffold covered with black mourning cloth, pillars of troops dug into the ground, closed in a square, and a blackening crowd of people. The official read them a confirmation of the death penalty, the soldiers threw white robes over the convicts, and the priest called them to dying repentance. Three people- Petrashevsky and officers Mombelli and Grigoriev were tied to posts and covered their faces with white caps; the command “clack” was heard, the soldiers took aim at their guns, and the beating of drums was heard. The Petrashevites, indeed, experienced the feeling of impending death, but at that moment the adjutant arrived with the highest order of “pardon.” Petrashevsky was put in shackles right here on the square and, having been put in a prison wagon, was sent to Siberian penal servitude. A few days later they began transporting the rest of the Petrashevites. Among those convicted was the writer F. M. Dostoevsky, who had to serve four years of hard labor in the Omsk prison castle and six years to serve in Semipalatinsk in a line battalion.
100 RUR bonus for first order
Select job type Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem Solving Business Plan Answers to Questions Creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text PhD thesis Laboratory work Online help
Find out the price
*Now there is an opportunity to look at those events from different perspectives. Books about the civil war: stories by M. Sholokhov, stories by A. Malyshkin, A. Serafimovich, novel by Fadeev. Belonging to one camp or another determined the author’s approach to events. Participants white movement They created their books about Russia while in exile. In the 20s, the series “Revolution and Civil War in Descriptions of the White Guards” was published. Among them are “Essays on Russian Troubles” by Denikin, “From the Double-Headed Eagle to the Red Banner” by Krasnov. Thoughts about the fate of Russia.
Bunin wrote about Russia and the revolution (“ Damn days"), Gippius "Petersburg Diaries", Remizov "The Word about the Destruction of the Russian Land". Sarcastic irony was interspersed with a feeling of shame and bitterness. Thoughts of repentance and faith in higher justice helped to overcome apocalyptic moods.
In 1923, V. Zazubrin wrote the story “Sliver”. Its hero Srubov is a man with strong convictions, who considers himself a “scavenger of history.” The subtitle of “Slivers” is “The Tale of Her and Her.” “She” is the heroine of the soul. Revolution. She is a powerful stream carrying splinter people. “Let the taiga be scorched, let the steppes be trampled... After all, only on cement and on iron will the iron brotherhood be built - the union of all people.”
Srubov's willingness to do anything for the sake of an idea turns him into an executioner. This readiness is emphasized by the attitude towards the father. The son did not hear his warnings: “Bolshevism is a temporary, painful phenomenon, a fit of rage into which the majority of the Russian people have fallen.” The endings of “Two Worlds” and “Slivers” have something in common. The first ended with a fire in the church, started by fanatics revolutionary idea. The events of the second take place during Easter. “It seems to Srubov that he is floating along a bloody river. Just not on the raft. He has broken away and is swinging on the waves like a lonely sliver.”
Y. Libedinsky (“Week”, 1923), and A. Tarasov-Rodionov (“Chocolate”, 1922) included the motive of doubt and delirium in the story about the uncompromising firmness of adherents of the revolutionary idea.
In a number of works of the early 20s, the hero was the new army itself - the revolutionary crowd, the “multitudes,” heroically minded, striving for victory. The fact that this path was bloody and involved the death of thousands of people was relegated to the background
A. Malyshkin was not an ordinary participant in the fighting in the Crimea region, but a member of the Headquarters. Accordingly, he knew about the losses on both sides, he knew about the mass execution of white officers who were promised life if they surrendered their weapons. But “The Fall of Dire” (1921) is “not about that.” This is a romantic book, stylized as ancient historical stories. “And in the black night, ahead, they saw - not their eyes, but something else - a raised massif, dark from centuries, fierce and prickly, and behind it the wonderful Dair - the blue mists of the valleys, flowering cities, the starry sea.”
In “Cavalry” by I. Babel (1923-1925) they were faced with the reality of the revolutionary dream. Main character books (K. Lyutov) took a seemingly contemplative position, but was endowed with the right to judge. Lyutov's unresolved loneliness does not bother him sincere desire understand, if not justify, then try to explain the unpredictable actions of the cavalrymen. Murder is perceived as a punishment coming from all of Russia.
For many writers, both those who accepted the revolution and its opponents, the main motive was the unjustification of the shed rivers of blood.
B. Pilnyak portrayed a man connected with the revolution with ideas and actions, his own and others’ blood. In 1926, The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon was published in Novy Mir and immediately banned. The non-hunching man personifying totalitarian power sent the army commander to his death. Gavrilov, dying on the operating table, also bore the guilt for the shed blood of people. The icy light of the moon illuminated the city.
And at night the moon will emerge. She was not devoured by dogs: She was only not visible because of the bloody fight of people.
These poems by S. Yesenin were written in 1924. The moon appeared in many works of the Techlet; not a single science fiction book could do without it. B. Pilnyak’s unextinguished moon seemed to provide additional light real world- the light is disturbing, alarming.
A historian and observer of the revolution, B. Pilnyak was not delighted with the scale of destruction, but made one feel the threat to all living things, especially to the individual, from the new state machine
Genre diversity and stylistic originality. Memoirs and diaries, chronicles and confessions, novels and stories. Some authors strived for maximum objectivity. Others are characterized by increased subjectivity, emphasized imagery, and expressiveness.*
B. Pasternak philosophically comprehended the essence of events in Russia at the beginning of the century in the novel “Doctor Zhivago.” The hero of the novel finds himself hostage to history, which mercilessly interferes with his life and destroys it. The fate of Zhivago is the fate of the Russian intelligentsia in the 20th century.
Fadeev’s heroes are “ordinary”. Most strong impression in “Destruction” makes an in-depth analysis of the changes caused by the civil war in spiritual world ordinary person. The image of Morozka clearly demonstrates this. Ivan Morozka was a second generation miner. His grandfather plowed the land, and his father mined coal. From the age of twenty, Ivan rolled trolleys, swore, and drank vodka. He did not look for new paths, he followed the old ones: he bought a satin shirt, chrome boots, played the accordion, fought, walked, stole vegetables for mischief. He was in prison during the strike, but did not extradite any of the instigators. He was at the front in the cavalry, received six wounds and two shell shocks. He is married, but a bad family man, he does everything thoughtlessly, and life seems simple and uncomplicated to him. Morozka did not like clean people; they seemed unreal to him. He believed that they could not be trusted. He himself strove for easy, monotonous work, which is why he did not remain an orderly with Levinson. His comrades sometimes call him “stupid”, “fool”, “sweating devil”, but he is not offended, the matter is most important to him. Morozka knows how to think: she thinks that life is becoming “cunning” and that she must choose the path herself. Having done some mischief in the melon fields, he cowardly ran away, but later he repents and is very worried. Goncharenko defended Morozka at the meeting, called him a “fighting guy” and vouched for him. Morozka swore that he would give his blood, one vein at a time, for each of the miners, that he was ready for any punishment. He was forgiven. When Morozka manages to calm people down at the crossing, he felt like a responsible person. He was able to organize the men, and this pleased him. In the miner's detachment, Morozka was a serviceable soldier and was considered good, the right person. He even tries to fight the terrible desire to drink, he understands that there is external beauty, and there is genuine, spiritual beauty. And when I thought about it, I realized that he had been deceived in his previous life. Party and work, blood and sweat, and nothing good was visible ahead, and it seemed to him that all his life he had been trying to get out on a straight, clear and correct road, but he did not notice the enemy who sat within himself. People like Morozka are reliable, they can make their own decisions and are capable of repentance. And although they weak will, they will never commit meanness. They will be able to find a way out of any, even the most hopeless situation. Only before Morozka’s heroic death did he realize that Mechik was a bastard, a cowardly bastard, a traitor who thought only of himself, and a memory of his loved ones, dear people who were driving behind him, forced him to make self-sacrifice. In works about the civil war, the important idea is that the winner is often not the one who is more conscientious, softer, more sympathetic, but the one who is more fanatical, who is more insensitive to suffering, who is more susceptible to his own doctrine. These works raise the theme of humanism, which is inextricably linked with a sense of civic duty. Commander Levinson took the only pig from a poor Korean man, using weapons, forced the red-haired guy to go into the water for fish, and gave the go-ahead for Frolov’s forced death. All this for the sake of saving the common cause. People suppressed personal interests, subordinating them to duty. This debt crippled many, making them tools in the hands of the party. As a result, people became callous and crossed the line of what was permitted. The “selection of human material” is carried out by the war itself. More often the best die in battle - Metelitsa, Baklanov, Morozka, who managed to realize the importance of the team and suppress his selfish aspirations, and those who remain are Chizh, Pika and the traitor Mechik.
“MEDAL” GRADUATE ESSAY
Subject civil war in Russian literature of the twentieth century. (For one or more works.)
And I stand alone between them
In roaring flames and smoke
And with all our might
I pray for both.
M. Voloshin
“We are all ours, we are all people, we are all baptized, we are all Russian. And why are we fighting, God knows. They invented some reds and whites and are fighting,” expresses a hidden thought from the hero of one of the first novels about the civil war, written by a former political worker of the Red Army V. Zazubrin, the novel “Two Worlds” (1921).
Civil war... Russian kills Russian, and it doesn’t matter for what idea, and many without any idea at all. V. Zazubrin painted terrible pictures of the atrocities of the Kolchakites in the novel “Two Worlds”, and in the story “Sliver”, written in 1923, but published in 1989, he will show a terrible death machine - the gubchek cell.
Civil War. We already know a lot: the collapse of the state, speculation, famine, epidemics, chaos... Brutalized people, the collapse of the army. A boor and a criminal, an anarchist and a sailor are rampant on the streets. Debauchery, murder, robbery, permissiveness... The intelligentsia is fleeing Russia. Scary picture. The leaders promised the people a bright future. And a fierce struggle began... People are drowning in blood.
“Will anyone pay for blood? No. Nobody... Nobody,” emphasizes one of the most important moral problems of the era of M. Bulgakov in the novel “ White Guard" But the writer himself, like other authors, shows that retribution inevitably comes, first of all, as pangs of conscience, internal breakdown, as a thirst for atonement for a person who has transgressed the Christian commandment - do not kill! - and could not “lift” this heaviest burden.
The pages of works about the civil war are full of scenes of battles, massacres, violence, manifestations of cruelty and mercilessness on both sides. It seems to me that from the point of view of the life of a particular person, it is not so important whether the white or red terror preceded each other - terror was the reality of the civil war. It was literature that shaped the idea of the civil war not just as one of the stages of our history, but as a tragedy, a common misfortune of the nation. We draw this conclusion modern readers. as a consequence, the devaluation of human life speaks for itself.
White Guard. What do I know about her? Unfortunately, very little. There were real heroes in its ranks - Kolchak, Denikin, Kutepov - the most talented and highly educated commanders, brave warriors enormous moral strength and will, noble people who retained in themselves that understanding of duty and honor, which for centuries was the basis of noble culture. People of words, deeds, generous and tough in a military way, capable of shooting a coward for desertion. They are intellectuals who, by the will of fate, are faced with the need to choose: with whom to go? With the people? But the people hate the nobles. Against the people? But this is meaningless, because the Bolsheviks threw slogans at the agitated Russia, whose strength is explained by the centuries-old dream of the peasantry about the land.
There were also monsters: executioners and sadists. They made desperate attempts to stop the “red disease” by any means. “To achieve the goal, any means are good” - this was their commandment, the meaning of life. Emigrant R. Gul in his autobiographical notes “Ice March” (with Kornilov), being a participant in these events, described the scene of the massacre of unarmed prisoners by the “knights of the white idea”: “People fell on each other, and from ten steps, tightly pressed into rifles and legs spread, they shot at them, hastily clicking the bolts. Everyone fell. The moans stopped. The shots stopped. Some of the shooters retreated. Some finished off those still alive with bayonets and rifle butts.” The style of dispassionate objective narration is interrupted by the author’s comment: “Here it is, the civil war; the fact that we walked in a chain across the field, cheerful and joyful about something, is not “war”... This is the real civil war.”
Like every Russian artist of the twentieth century, M. Bulgakov had to answer the main question of the time: what did the civil war mean for Russia? For a long time the answer to this question was not given with the clarity with which it was formulated by the writer back in 1919 in a short article “Future Prospects.” Even today it amazes us, modern readers, with the maturity of its judgments, the accuracy of its formulations, the originality and laconicism of its conclusions.
Let's start with the fact that M. Bulgakov considered the Russian revolution to be the result of the tragedy that began with the First World War. Russia entered it together with European countries, which were quickly sobered by blood, human losses, and destruction. Russia, from a world war, was drawn into a civil war, into even more terrible and profound destruction. The “Great Social Revolution” (this formulation is enclosed by Bulgakov in quotation marks as something foreign to his text) plunged Russia to the very bottom of the pit of “shame and disaster.” As M. Chudakova, a researcher of M. Bulgakov’s work, noted, the article is dominated by two concepts - “madness” and “payment.” The state of Russia today and in the recent past is determined first; the “payment” will be made by the future generation.
Madness marked the years that led Russia to civil war. From the point of view of M. Bulgakov, both Denikin’s volunteers, tearing “Russian land from Trotsky’s hands inch by inch,” and the new masters of Russia, “the madmen fooled by him (Trotsky),” and even those “who are now huddled along the rear roads of the south, in the bitter delusion of believing that the matter of saving the country will be accomplished without them.”
This article was written in Grozny (a dilapidated city, as it is now!), under the rule of the Volunteer Army, and as can be seen from it, then M. Bulgakov allowed its victory: “The British, remembering how we covered the fields with bloody dew, beat Germany, dragging it away from Paris, they will lend us more overcoats and boots so that we can get to Moscow as quickly as possible. And we will get there. Scoundrels and madmen will be expelled, scattered, destroyed.” However, it is easy to notice that the article is dominated not by the traditional pathos of the triumph of an idea for speeches of this kind, but by enormous fatigue, disappointment, and an absolutely sober assessment of events. It was already clear to the writer that there would be no easy victory, that even the long-awaited end of the civil war would not bring not only a feeling of victory, but also much-needed rest and peace.
“It will be necessary to pay for the past with incredible labor, the harsh poverty of life. Pay both figuratively and literally. To pay for the madness of the March days, for the madness of the October days, for independent traitors, for the corruption of the workers, for Brest, for the insane use of money printing machines...” (“Future Prospects”).
M. Bulgakov’s prediction came true with only one minor amendment: it was not the whites who had to pay, but the whole country, the generation that allowed the national madness called the “social revolution.” The writer’s attitude towards the civil war does not have the confrontational, political character that is familiar to us - “for the whites or for the reds?” To this question, M. Bulgakov, I think, could answer: “For Russia.” Of course, whites are closer to him by birth, culture and way of life, however, they are also to blame for what happened. This idea runs like a red thread through the image of the hero of the novel “The White Guard” by Thalberg. The political games of people like him led, in the writer’s opinion, not only to another “operetta”, but also to direct betrayal.
“The White Guard” by M. Bulgakov. The beginning of the civil war. Moscow is described as terrible and mysterious, throwing crowds of refugees into the City. Once here, refugees lose their former appearance and dignity: “Grey-haired bankers fled with their wives, talented businessmen fled (...) Journalists, from Moscow and St. Petersburg, fled, corrupt, greedy, cowardly. Cocottes. Honest ladies from aristocratic families. Their tender daughters, pale St. Petersburg libertines with carmine-painted lips. Secretaries of department directors, young passive pederasts, fled. Princes and altynniks, poets and moneylenders, gendarmes and actresses of the imperial theaters fled.” The overall picture is complemented by the collapse of the army. Officers appear in the City “with etched eyes, lousy and unshaven, without shoulder straps.” Deprived of the opportunity to carry out their direct task - to defend their homeland, they begin to “adapt in order to eat and live.”
In a collapsed state, not only public relations collapse, private human life collapses. Many of the officers were unable to adapt. And the title of the novel against such a background sounds more bitterly ironic than proud. Death, hatred, and violence begin to dominate the City. All the deaths depicted in the novel - from the heroic Nai-Tours to accidental death Jews from Petliura's saber - happen on the streets of the City, the very center of which - “the enormous Vladimir on Vladimirskaya Gorka” - becomes a refuge for robbers. The electric white cross in Vladimir’s hands, which used to be a guiding sign, turns into a “punishing sword.” The city begins to live according to the laws of death and destruction, and the Apocalypse reigns in it. The book of Revelations of John the Theologian, quoted at the beginning of the novel, becomes the semantic key of the novel, the characters of which are at the beginning of the path of retribution for “madness”: “The third angel poured out his cup into the rivers and springs of water; and there was blood." And as John the Theologian testifies, the seven bowls of God’s wrath must be poured out on the earth. It is no coincidence that the writer at the end of the novel, as I think, forces us, the readers, to return again to the figures of Nai-Turs and Zhilin, who are seen by the guard of the armored train “Proletary” almost freezing on guard. The hot coals in the womb of the locomotive evoke the underworld, from which “a wide muzzle in a blind muzzle was aimed twelve miles into the heights, black and blue, and straight at the midnight cross.”
M. Bulgakov returns us to the idea of a single, common guilt of people who allowed the earth to turn into hell. On this “brutalized” earth, only destructive values remain: the firmament, “all red, sparkling and all dressed with Mars in their living sparkle.” The “shepherd star Venus”, which together with Mars opened the novel, has been forgotten. Hopes for privacy, on her at least relative well-being, the writer believes at the end of the novel, turn out to be untenable.
And yet it cannot be said that the novel “The White Guard” is only evidence of the author’s complete disappointment. Its finale represents not only the Turbins and their friends, separated by night and snow, their own doubts, not only the sentry at the armored train “Proletary,” but also Petka Shcheglov, whose boyhood life goes past all wars and revolutions. Therefore, Petka’s dream is childishly happy, harmonious, and brings him joy from communicating with the world.
Returning to the article “Future Prospects,” one cannot help but notice that the appearance of a hero living in harmony with the world is not accidental in the novel “The White Guard.” It is precisely those like Petka, who have nothing to do with the general madness either by birth or socially, who, perhaps, will be granted a normal human life. Let us remember the ending of the article: “And we, representatives of the unsuccessful generation, dying in the rank of miserable bankrupts, will be forced to tell our children:
Pay, pay honestly and always remember the social revolution!”
Of course, the solution proposed by M. Bulgakov is devoid of the usual scope and heroism. Higher human value he declares family, and not discord, peace in the house, and not war and ruin, measured, settled, human life, undisturbed life. These are the values that were ridiculed in Russian Soviet literature of the 20-30s, with which the writer could not agree. He defended his hero’s right to a private life, devoid of external noise and bustle; he knew that the wisdom of decisions comes only in the peace of an established way of life. And finally, with his novel “The White Guard,” M. Bulgakov defended the value of every human person, its right to forgiveness and understanding. And this is one of the wonderful traditions of Russian literature, its “golden” 19th century...
What do I think about civil wars? This is a senseless slaughter, a massacre “contrary to human nature.” In the name of what does a son kill his father, and a father kill his son, and a brother kill his brother? Who needs it? For what? For what? For the interests of the Motherland or someone’s corporate ambitions? Why do children of one mother - Russia - kill each other? Why? Why? Why?! It's difficult to answer these questions.
Chechnya is an unhealed wound of modern Russia, a distant echo of the civil war. Market included in daily life delays in payment of salaries, pensions, benefits. Again, in unstable times, we live with you now, but we have no right to allow this terrible tragedy- the civil war happened again. I just want to exclaim: “Russians, compatriots, come to your senses, come to your senses, before it’s too late, before it’s too late!!!” And I believe in this, because reason and reason must triumph!
Civil war in Russia reasons, stages, results
Abstract >> HistoryThe lives of our society. Subject civil wars occupies a special place in historical and artistic literature, brochures, articles... L.G. Workbook By history of Russia. XX century. Vol. 1. M., 1998. Dolutsky I.I. Domestic story. XX century. M., 1994. History...
Russian culture at the turn of the 19th century XX centuries
Abstract >> Culture and artSubject 23. Russian culture at the turn X!X-XX centuries Features of the “silver” culture century""Joint centuries" ... works about the approaching " century ... By ... century” there is extensive literature- a lot has been written about her and domestic ... civil ... one or some ... – war And...
Civil war and foreign intervention prerequisites, stages, consequences
Abstract >> History... century - civil war in Russia - attracts the attention of scientists, politicians, writers and By ... civil war in Russia, when it began and when it ended. On this subject in extensive literature
