Slavophil criticism. Social program and literary-critical activity of the Pochvenniks V

The word “Slavophiles” was coined by Konstantin Batyushkov at the beginning of the 19th century, applying it to the so-called archaists - members of the “Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word” circle, to Admiral A. S. Shishkov and his associates, who sought to preserve the fundamental significance of Church Slavonic speech for the emerging Russian literary language. Subsequently, in the 1830s and 40s, they began to call this - somewhat mockingly - a circle that included brothers Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, brothers Pyotr and Ivan Kireevsky, Alexey Khomyakov, Yuri Samarin. They are also called early Slavophiles. It's interesting that they didn't call themselves that. Konstantin Aksakov was perplexed about this: you can call some Frenchman or German, a lover (phile) of the Slavs, a Slavophile, but how can you call a Slav a Slavophile?

They themselves preferred other names: “Russian direction”, “Moscow direction”, i.e. in the name itself you guess the orientation not towards Europeanized St. Petersburg, but towards the original Moscow, the Moscow (pre-Petrine) period of Russian history. They also called themselves a “Slavic-Christian” movement, thereby pointing to the religious foundations of their teaching; they called themselves “originalists,” pointing to the desire to create non-borrowed forms of social life, including art. But all these names did not catch on; historically the nickname “Slavophiles” was assigned to them.

The main problem they posed was the problem nationalities, national origin, construction of national culture.

In the 18th century, the problem of national self-identification arose either in the sphere of philology (Lomonosov, Trediakovsky) or history (Boltin). In literature and journalism, Knyazhnin, Fonvizin, and Catherine II occasionally turned to thinking about national specifics. The latter responded to Fonvizin’s public question: “What is the Russian national character?” answered royally: “In a keen and quick understanding of everything, in exemplary obedience, in the root of all virtues.” The problem became aggravated at the beginning of the 19th century, in the philological disputes between the Shishkovists and the Karamzinists. Then, already in aesthetic terms, the romantics put folk art at the forefront. The Romantics introduced the very word “nationality” into the Russian language: Prince Vyazemsky made a tracing paper from French. Thus, the ground was prepared, Pushkin and Gogol thought about these problems, not only as writers, but also in their critical works. For example, Gogol in his article “A few words about Pushkin” (1835) finds a solution to this problem in Pushkin’s work; he throws out the famous phrase: “Nation is not in the description of the sundress, but in the very spirit of the people.” This phrase was later discussed in different ways by Russian critics, in particular Belinsky, a Westernizer and enemy of the Slavophiles. The stumbling block was how to understand this very “spirit of the people.”

Slavophil criticism went in the direction set by the romantics (art is the embodiment of the national spirit), especially the wise men. Their head, Vladimir Odoevsky, was the first to express a bold hypothesis: “The 19th century belongs to Russia.” It is far from accidental that such a Slavophile thinker emerged from the circle of wise men as Ivan Vasilievich Kireevsky (1806 − 1856). In 1828, the critic published his first article in Moskovsky Vestnik “Something about the character of Pushkin’s poetry”, written in the analytical spirit that was instilled in Russian criticism by the wise. For the first time, Pushkin's work was examined in its own development, presented as a movement towards originality. The critic divides Pushkin's work into three periods. In the first, the poet goes through the “Italian-French” school (the influence of Ariosto and Guys in “Ruslan and Lyudmila”), in the second, the “echo of Byron’s lyre” predominates (from “Prisoner of the Caucasus” to “Gypsies” and partly to “Eugene Onegin”). The critic calls the third period “Russian-Pushkin”, when the poet finally creates original national characters and images: “Lensky, Tatyana, Olga, Petersburg, village, dream, winter, letter” (these, as you understand, are strictly divorced from Byronism Russian elements of "Eugene Onegin"), scene with the chronicler from "Boris Godunov". In this article, Kireyevsky ventured to give a brief but succinct definition of the main trait of national character that manifested itself in the genius of Pushkin; he called it: “the ability to forget oneself in surrounding objects and in the current moment.” In other words - contemplation, a quality, we note, not entirely suitable for the needs of practical life, but without it there would be neither sciences nor arts.

In the article "Review of Russian literature of 1829"(1830) Kireevsky already raises the question of the originality of all Russian literature of the 19th century. And he also divides it into three periods, designated by the names of Karamzin (French influence), Zhukovsky (German influence) and Pushkin, who, following the European enlightenment, followed the path from “Byronian skepticism” to “respect for reality.” Russian literature seems to critics to be the younger sister of European literatures; it is forced to catch up and learn from them, but this contains a unique advantage: Europe is beginning to age, and the future belongs to young peoples (besides Russia, Kireevsky so far includes the United American States among them). The key to this future was seen by the critic as “the flexibility and adaptability of the character of our people.”

As we see, in his early work Kireevsky can sometimes be called a Westerner, as evidenced by the title of the magazine he created in 1832 - "European" . These two directions, Westerners and Slavophiles, had not yet fenced themselves off from each other with a blank wall. Let us also emphasize that the Slavophiles, European educated people, did not reject Western civilization as such, but, having discovered the symptoms of its crisis, turned to their own roots for permission.

“The European” was banned in the third issue for the editor’s own article “The Nineteenth Century” (in Kireyevsky’s terms, “enlightenment” and “the activity of the mind” seemed to Nicholas I to be revolutionary encryption). Soon the fruits of European enlightenment cease to tempt even the critic himself. Travel to Europe, communication with leading Western thinkers (Hegel, Schelling, Schleiermacher...), and on the other hand, rapprochement with the elder Macarius of Optina and the revealed depth of religious thought (patristic literature, Fenelon, Pascal, Paisius Velichkovsky...) led Kireevsky to a spiritual revolution. Having discovered the limitations of rationalistic philosophy, he turned to "whole knowledge" given by faith. The former “Westerner,” having reached the highest limit of European education, turned into an “Easternist.” At the same time, subjectively and objectively, Kireyevsky remained a European, since European thought (represented by the same Schelling and Schleiermacher) itself at that time came to the need to reconcile reason with faith. Everything that Western philosophy had groped for with such effort, Kireyevsky unexpectedly found ready-made in Isaac the Syrian and other Eastern Fathers of the Church. The stone that the builders had neglected for so long turned out to be the cornerstone. The path of returning to faith, to the Church for Kireevsky was important in an existential sense: on this path the personality found support in ontological, extrapersonal values. Along this path, the problem of Russia’s relations with Europe was resolved as the complementarity of the “impersonal” East and the “personal” West.

The beginning of the formation of Slavophilism as an ideological trend should be attributed to the 30s of the 19th century. In 1839, Alexey Khomyakov wrote his famous, controversial note “On the Old and the New”; it was discussed in circles and salons, and Ivan Kireevsky wrote another note, already of a programmatic nature - “In response to Khomyakov.” The history of Slavophilism as a historiosophical doctrine begins with these journalistic statements. Although, of course, the circle of Slavophiles was formed earlier, it was just a friendly circle; it did not yet have a distinct program. Now she has finally appeared. Here it is necessary to note one fact that contributed to the awakening of national reflection - this is the speech of P. Ya. Chaadaev in 1836, his so-called first “Philosophical Letter”. It was published in the Telescope magazine, for which the magazine was closed. The editor of the magazine, N.I. Nadezhdin, was expelled from the capital, and Chaadaev himself was declared crazy. Chaadaev in this letter raised the question of the meaning of the existence of Russia, the Slavs, he tried to see how Berdyaev would later say: not how we, but how God looks at Russia. The Westerner Chaadaev then came to a very sad conclusion, the opposite of the one to which Kireyevsky came. He concluded that Russia is moving along the wrong path of development. It has deviated far from Europe, from the very nature of European education, and this path for Russia is a wrong path. All Russian history is just an experiment that teaches humanity how not to live. Why did Chaadaev come to this conclusion? The basis on which his concept is based is of a religious nature. He is primarily a religious thinker, and he comes from a consideration of two denominations of Christianity: Catholic and Orthodox. He believes that the social program of Christianity was formed in Catholicism. Catholicism is aimed at actively restructuring the earthly world according to the laws of Christ, while Orthodoxy refused to influence the social sphere and withdrew from the world. These views caused long controversy.

The answer to Chaadaev was the Slavophiles. It was they who focused on the question “why did God create Russia,” but tried to solve it differently than Chaadaev. They also went by comparing Europe and Russia, in particular, Christianity and Catholicism. Alexey Khomyakov especially did a lot of this. Khomyakov, in essence, exchanged Chaadaev’s pros for cons: the fact that Catholicism is immersed in worldly concerns is a minus for him. The Church, he believes, should be the exclusive spiritual authority, and only the Orthodox Church is such. Slavophiles considered the beginning of conciliarity to be the foundation of Orthodoxy, i.e. voluntary, free consent of believers. The unity of the nation as a love principle, according to the Slavophiles, was based on such a religious conciliar principle.

In the works of Western historians, the so-called concept of conquest was formed, which argued that the main nations in Europe were formed as a result of the conquest of one people by another. When Mikhail Pogodin (a historian close to the Slavophiles) tried this concept on in Russian history, he noticed that it did not work here, “we” did not have conquests, starting from the semi-legendary fact of the voluntary calling of the Varangians to Rus'. (However, not all Slavophiles agreed with Pogodin; the same Kireyevsky opposed the collision of European and Russian history). Khomyakov followed a slightly different path in his historical research. He proceeded from the fact that the Slavs are a tribe of farmers, and not nomads (conquerors). Land for them is the main value, a source of stability and “household” well-being. One way or another, it turns out that it is not enmity, legitimized and limited by the forms of social agreement, and love and voluntary consent predetermined the laws of social life emerging in the Slavs. Concept consent for the Slavophiles it was central, and they looked for corresponding forms of statehood in the ancient Russian republics. As for the forms of social and everyday life, the Slavophiles saw this beginning in the peasant community, in the unification of people (mip), where all issues are resolved by agreement, at a general meeting.

The Slavophiles wanted to see the state not as a bureaucratic machine (which it was), but as a large family, where they did not submit to force, but agreed with the authority of the elder. The idea of family among Slavophiles is universal. When they write about literature, they again seek the beginning of love agreement, expressed primarily through the family; they painfully perceive the withering away of the patriarchal family and the “emancipation of the flesh” that comes in its place (see, for example, “Letter to the publisher T. I. Filippov” by A. S. Khomyakov 1856 about the play by A. N. Ostrovsky “Don’t live the way you want”).

The main ideas of the Slavophiles were embodied in their aesthetic practice. True, it must be said that among the Slavophiles there were no “pure” critics, i.e. people who were professionally engaged only in criticism, like, say, Belinsky or Dobrolyubov. Slavophiles were all involved in criticism a little; their critical works often intersected with philology, history, and theology. They gave a powerful impetus to the development of Russian philosophical criticism.

Slavophile journalism (the magazine “Russian Conversation”, the newspapers “Molva”, “Den”, “Moscow”, “Rus”...) was formed as an opposition to the growing Westernization trends. At first, the Slavophiles opposed the “Petersburg collection” of 1846 (the stronghold of the natural school) with their own publication, which they called "Moscow collection" (1846, 1847, 1852). If there is “Petersburg”, then here, accordingly, “Moskovsky”. The main idea of the Slavophiles in the field of criticism is the idea of the Russian art school, the idea of originality. Its deepest interpreter was Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804–1860). His article in the Moscow Collection of 1847 is called: “On the Possibility of a Russian Art School”. In this article he states that true art cannot but be folk. “The artist does not create with his own strength: the spiritual power of the people creates in the artist.” It turns out that creativity belongs to the people, this is, first of all, expressed in language. Language is the most important creation of a nation, it is its philosophy; one language can emphasize phenomena that are not noticeable to others (this is the Russian word “vulgarity”). So, the creative principle belongs to the people, and the artist is a kind of guide; he simply sees, hears and expresses this creative principle of the nation better than others. From Khomyakov’s point of view, the ideal forms of art are precisely collective forms, where the artist is the people themselves.

For this reason, Slavophiles are very involved in folklore, and the collector of folk songs Pyotr Kireyevsky did especially a lot for Russian folklore studies. Slavophiles are not only collectors, but also theorists of folklore, so Konstantin Aksakov wrote an important article about epics “Bogatyrs of the times of Grand Duke Vladimir according to Russian songs” (1856). In them he discovers a “festive, full of fun image of the Russian community” (the motif of a “brotherly feast”), the “rays of Christ’s faith” and “the beginning of the family, the basis of all good things on earth” permeating national life. Folklore (song, legend, fairy tale) for Slavophiles is the primary form of verbal art, reflecting the nature of artistic creativity as a collective, collective (conciliar). Two other phenomena in which aesthetic conciliarity was initially expressed were icon painting and church music. Here’s how Alexey Khomyakov writes about it: “An icon is not a religious picture, just like church music is not religious music; the icon and church chanting stand incomparably higher. The works of one person, they do not serve as his expression; they express all people living by one spiritual principle: this is art in its highest meaning.” That is, the icon and church music expressed a collective, cathedral idea of truth and beauty. It is clear that this is no longer folklore, there is authorship here, there is a specific icon painter or composer, but in this case there is an inseparable unity of the individual and the group of believers (the church). Unity and loving harmony have a religious basis here.

Modern forms of art, as Khomyakov believes, are only approaching the ideal, because the modern artist has lost the sense of collectivity and strives to express his own individuality; the individual is increasingly separated from the choir and declares his independence. This, of course, is an inevitable historical process of isolation of the individual from patriarchal unity, but, says Khomyakov, at some historical stage a synthesis must occur, a return to the ideal at a new level, that is, the artist’s personality must return to its roots, to the choral beginning, and this is already happening. Khomyakov finds two artists who have taken this path. This is the composer Glinka and the painter Alexander Ivanov, who devoted his entire life to one painting - “The Appearance of Christ to the People.” It is interesting that Khomyakov’s ideas were consonant with both Ivanov and Glinka. Glinka owns the famous phrase “music is created by the people, and we, composers, arrange it.”

Turning to Russian literature, the Slavophiles put Gogol above all. Even earlier, the Westerner Belinsky did this, but unlike him, the Slavophiles heard in the author of “Dead Souls” the “choral principles” of national culture they were looking for. As for Pushkin, the path of Slavophil criticism to him turned out to be very tortuous. At first, I.V. Kireevsky, as already mentioned, wrote one of the most remarkable articles about Pushkin at that time, but subsequently cooled down on him. So, in 1845, opening the bibliographic department of the magazine "Moskvitian" , Kireevsky recognized the “greatness of Krylov’s talent”, expressed in the “beauty of the nationality” of his fables, and he appoints Krylov’s heir... no, not Pushkin, but immediately Gogol. Only Gogol is seen by critics as “a representative of that new, great force that has not yet appeared in a clear form.” < ...> which is called the power of the Russian people" Pushkin is omitted here, of course, not by accident. For a long time, Slavophiles spoke very cautiously and coldly about Pushkin. They accepted some works, for example, “The Prophet” was very close to their ideas about what true poetry should be, but Pushkin could not resist “The Prophet”. He later wrote “A Vain Gift, an Accidental Gift”, “Demons” - this is the poetry of doubt and loss of an integral perception of the world, and the Slavophiles did not encourage this in art. Pushkin still remained a stranger to them, Lermontov even more so. As people sensitive to language, they understood that the poetry of Pushkin and Lermontov had deeply national roots, but it seemed to them that both of these poets had followed the wrong path of a purely individual and therefore divorced art from the life of the people. Khomyakov, in a letter to I. Aksakov (1860), even threw out the following phrase: Pushkin “lacked the ability for bass chords.” But why does everyone have to sing in a bass voice? In relation to Pushkin, the armchair abstraction of Slavophil theorizing affected. To be fair, it should be noted that for four decades the sin of misunderstanding Pushkin was shared with the Slavophiles by real criticism, which is much more authoritative for the majority of Russian readers.

In the second third of the 19th century, Russian literature followed a difficult path towards true nationality, but Slavophiles, through the magnifying glass of their theory, saw in it primarily the imitation of post-Petrine culture. That is why for a long time they could not appreciate not only in Pushkin and Lermontov, but also in Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy the full depth of the creation of national culture already taking place before their eyes. The work of these and other writers, especially those who came from the natural school, seemed to them to be a departure from the original (according to their ideas) forms of folk art. It turned out according to the proverb “you don’t know your own”: the Slavophiles did not see the real embodiment of the nationality, which in artistic practice was not realized exactly according to their recipes.

At the same time, in our judgments about Slavophil criticism (like any other), we should not lose sight of the “forest” of achievements behind the “trees” of errors.

The orientation of Slavophile criticism towards Gogol was expressed by Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov (1817 – 1860), who wrote the acclaimed pamphlet “A few words about Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls”” ( 1842). He characterizes the poem as a national epic in the spirit of the Iliad, and in this he differs from Belinsky. Two critics entered into a fierce argument with each other. Belinsky looked at this work as a continuation of the traditions of the European novel, primarily Walter Scott. In fact, “Dead Souls” embodies a synthesis of different traditions, and Aksakov noticed something that Belinsky did not notice. He felt that a beginning was being formed in Russian literature, approaching the ancient epic. For Aksakov, epic is an ideal form that expresses the unity of the nation (Hegel also wrote about this). That is, the epic expresses the spirit of the nation most fully and voluminously. By placing Gogol on the same level as Homer, Aksakov provoked a hail of ridicule: how is it possible that “Dead Souls” is a Homeric epic when there are such funny heroes? Belinsky says that in Gogol humor is more important, and the whole strength of the writer is in laughter, and Aksakov talks about some ideal principles.

I think that Aksakov was right on two points, which later really came true. The first is the creative and spiritual evolution of Gogol himself. The universal (including positive) principle lay in the plot’s concept (“all of Rus' will appear in it”), and Aksakov figured it out. The second is Aksakov’s genre forecast. Belinsky believed that the epic could no longer be revived; the novel was the main form of time. Meanwhile, Russian literature led to the revival of the epic genre: remember War and Peace.

Thus, Konstantin Aksakov cannot be denied critical insight. He saw in “Dead Souls” not a satire on Russian life, but precisely a poem - a high creation of the national spirit, manifested especially in the power of Russian speech. It is language that is the living form of the national spirit; “Dead Souls” in this sense was a paradoxical act of reviving national self-awareness. Aksakov focused on what Belinsky nevertheless passed by without noticing - on the “positive” pathos of the affirmation of national values.

Belinsky clearly saw what was so dear to him: criticism of Russian reality, hatred of national and social carrion. Gogol has this, and the power of his laughter is truly striking. But Gogol also has what K. Aksakov saw. “Dead Souls” is a great synthesis, a manifestation of the national spirit with its affirming and (at the same time!) denying power. As Herzen wisely said about this dispute: “The dignity of a work of art is great when it can elude any one-sided glance. To see apotheosis is funny, to see only anathema is unfair.” Herzen himself, being a Westerner, was inclined to read Belinsky, although he rejected his negative assessment of Gogol’s lyrical digressions as “praises of a blissful national self-consciousness.” Herzen, as is typical for him, highlighted the tragic beginning of Gogol’s epic: “Moving from the Sobakevichs to the Plyushkins, you are overcome with horror, with every step you get stuck, drowning deeper. The lyrical place suddenly revives, illuminates and is now replaced again by a picture that reminds even more clearly what a ditch of hell we are in...” The dispute about “Dead Souls” ultimately resulted in a contrast between various images of Russia, read by critics from Gogol’s poem.

An ardent and unbiased response to Western interpretations was the letter of the Slavophile Yu. F. Samarin to K. S. Aksakov in 1842, distributed in numerous lists. Regarding those who see in “Dead Souls” only “a series of pitiful, funny disgusting phenomena” that exhaustively characterize the current state of Russia, Samarin notes: “Their words express sincere, respectable love for their own, dear ones, but love is too close and therefore easily turning into despair. Little believers! You don’t love Russia, but what you personally like about its life; You love yourself in her, not her!”

The Slavophiles waged a decisive struggle against the natural school, which seemed to them a pathetic imitation of Gogol (these are the speeches of K. Aksakov "Physiology of St. Petersburg" 1845 and "Three Critical Articles of Mr. Imrek" 1847) If in Gogol, behind the image of vulgar reality, one feels acute pain and compassion for fallen man, then among the “naturalists” Slavophiles see only an indifferent copying of the abominations of life, thereby turning into slander against it. It seems that there was still a grain of truth in this view, especially at the relatively early, “physiological” stage of the formation of the natural school.

Copyism, caricature and other shortcomings of simplified mimetism were overcome by the best of the “naturalists” (Goncharov, Turgenev, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky) quite quickly, and harsh Slavophile criticism may have played some role in this. However, the Slavophiles - following the inertia of the literary struggle - did not quickly notice this elimination, the rapid maturation of their opponents and the transformation of the “school” into a “university”. Only later did they try to overcome the “party” deafness. A. S. Khomyakov played a particularly significant role in this, in 1858 he recreated the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at Moscow University and, as its chairman, managed (before his death in 1860) to deliver a number of brilliant speeches that expanded the literary platform of Slavophile criticism. Thus, he enthusiastically welcomed the appearance of L.N. Tolstoy in literature.

One of the most fundamental and profound phenomena of Slavophil criticism was the article Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819 – 1876)“On the historical and literary opinions of Sovremennik”, published in 1847 in the magazine “Moskvityanin”. As can be seen from the title, the author attacks the citadel of the natural school - the Sovremennik magazine. Samarin largely clarifies the positions of Slavophil criticism, freeing them from excessive dogmatism. In particular, he finds many points of contact with his main opponent, V.G. Belinsky, although in general he evaluates his activities very impartially. Samarin has much more flexibility and subtlety of thought than, say, the “advanced fighter of Slavophilism” K. Aksakov; he rather followed Khomyakov. The article testifies to the possibilities for the development of the Slavophil concept (which will later be used soil scientists). Thus, he wisely and dialectically brought together the concepts of “national” (“folk”) and “universal”: “What is nationality, if not a universal principle, the development of which falls to one tribe preferentially over others, due to the special sympathy between this principle and natural properties of the people." Samarin, following Khomyakov, calls love and its derivative humility (in the Christian meaning) such a universal human principle, towards which the Slavic tribe showed a predominant inclination.

Samarin sees the misfortune of modern literature (that is, the same natural school) in voluntary or involuntary disrespect for one’s own people, in disbelief in their spiritual strength. This was reflected in the legacy of Peter’s reforms, which separated the higher (“educated”) and lower classes. “We don’t understand the people, and that’s why we trust them little. Ignorance is the source of our delusions. We must get to know the people, and in order to know them, and before we know them, we must love them.” There are undoubtedly reasons for this, Samarin assures. Contempt for the ignorant peasant makes it difficult to see and, even more so, to learn from the life of the people its values, for example, the fact that the people “have access to the meaning of suffering and the gift of self-sacrifice.”

The idea of uniting the disintegrated halves of the nation is a program hatched by the Slavophiles. It turned out to be in tune with the highest achievements of Russian literature of the 19th century.

The article played a significant role in the development of the fundamental foundations of Slavophil criticism I. V. Kireevsky , published by him in 1845 in Moskvityanin under the title "Review of the current state of literature". As a matter of fact, this was the beginning of a large study of the spiritual crisis of Western civilization and ways out of it in the reflection of modern literature, European and Russian. The research remained unfinished, just as the project of restructuring the journal “Moskvityanin” into an organ of renewed Slavophilism was not realized (for the next attempt at its reorganization, which in some ways is very similar, see the section on pochvennik criticism). A whole series of ideas thrown out here by Kireevsky were developed in Russian criticism. Having designated the new stage of literary development in Europe and Russia as “magazine,” he explained what this “preponderance of journalism in literature” actually means: “the need for modern education enjoy And know gives in to needs judge, ...be aware." In other words, the age of criticism as self-analysis of literature was coming, without which even the process of artistic creativity and knowledge itself could not move forward. Kireevsky's forecast, in general terms, coincided with Belinsky's observations.

For the subsequent development of Slavophil criticism proper, two ideas of Kireevsky were of particular importance. 1) He warned against the extremes of both “unaccountable worship of the West” and “unaccountable worship of the past forms of our antiquity.” The latter, he believed, led the Slavophiles to “stifling provincialism.” Kireevsky, like Samarin, saw the way out of it in the dialectical balance of national and “ universal"(later F. M. Dostoevsky would build his concept of the nationality of Russian literature on this word). 2) In all any remarkable phenomena of literature, the critic suggests seeing two trends: negative And positive. The first is aimed at “refuting the systems and opinions that preceded the stated belief,” and the second is “a living, whole view of the world and man,” without which a true poet is unthinkable.

Out of balance denial And statements In favor of the first, Slavophile critics saw the main flaw of post-Gogol literature. Restoring this balance was a running theme in the magazine's critical section. "Russian conversation" (1856 - 1860), in which all the leading critics of the Slavophile camp participated. Philosopher, theologian and journalist Nikita Petrovich Gilyarov-Platonov (1824 – 1887) published the article “Family Chronicle and Memoirs of S. Aksakov” in the first issue of the new magazine. It was a review of a book with the same title, which the Slavophiles considered as a new, after Gogol, breakthrough in the desired “positive” direction. The review turned into a detailed presentation of the aesthetic credo of the critic and the magazine. Gilyarov-Platonov considers S. T. Aksakov’s “Family Chronicle” as a work of art despite its obvious memoir nature. He is not so much interested in the colorful pictures of landowner life, which N.A. Dobrolyubov put at the forefront, in full accordance with the principles of real criticism, assessing the objectivity of the depiction of serfdom reality. Critic of “Russian Conversation”, the main thing is aesthetic! – the value of Aksakov’s chronicle is found in the subjective sphere of the author’s vision of the world. For him, the highest measure of the nationality of the work under consideration is the deeply Christian attitude of the author towards the events and characters described. Only such a worldview allows, according to the critic’s conviction, to discover and artistically convincingly present that “positively beautiful” that exists in Russian life, and that has so far been beyond the capabilities of Russian artists. “Our art has hitherto been limited to negation alone,” but the time has come, says Gilyarov-Platonov, to “find positive content” in reality itself, without embellishing it at all.

As we know, Russian literature soon moved precisely in this direction (the positive heroes of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Leskov), confirming the projective analysis of Slavophile criticism.

Based on the pacifying principles of Aksakov’s prose, N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov launched a decisive attack on the triumphant accusatory literature: “art should calm, and not irritate our feelings.” One extreme was opposed to the other on the principle of “knocks out a wedge with a wedge.” However, Gilyarov-Platonov’s statement determined not so much the tactical as the strategic direction of Slavophile criticism, its deep understanding of beauty (in this case bringing it closer to aesthetic criticism) as wise humility before the highest laws of existence. As F. I. Tyutchev, who was close to the Slavophiles, said about poetry: “And on the rebellious sea / The conciliatory oil pours.”

Gilyarov-Platonov found remarkable material confirming the spiritual and aesthetic superiority of the Christian view of the world in a book for which he wrote an equally detailed, analytical review: “The Tale of the Wandering and Journey through Russia, Moldova, Turkey and the Holy Land... of the Monk Parthenius” (1856). The book by a schismatic monk who converted to Orthodoxy caused a universal enthusiastic reception, capturing with its charm even critics and writers who were very far from the church. “Near us, among us,” wrote Gilyarov-Platonov, “we discover a whole life, a very special one, unknown to us.” M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, who was also struck by the very existence of people capable of spiritual feats, tried to dismiss it with the dismissive label “asceticism.” Gilyarov-Platonov, in the simple-minded narrative of the monk Parthenius, reveals that characteristic Russian type of unshouting and gentle heroism, outlines of which were given in Russian literature by Lermontov (Maxim Maksimovich), S. Aksakov (Alexei Stepanovich). Now it has opened in its fullest development: “in this book you will meet people with precisely that non-existent integrity of life for us, for whom service to the truth is their whole existence.” The discovery of a different system of life in Parthenia’s book contributes a lot, as Gilyarov-Platonov convincingly shows, which is amazing for the secularized Russian reader live Church Slavonic speech.

“The Tale of the Wanderings of ... the Monk Parthenius” played a certain role in the return of Russian literature to Christian values. This process was timely and accurately recorded by Slavophile criticism in the person of N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov, and then A.A. Grigoriev, who followed in his footsteps.

Another phenomenon that was once a milestone, but has now fallen into the shadows - a story close to Slavophilism by N. Kokhanovskaya - received a deep aesthetic interpretation in the article by Gilyarov-Platonov “On the new story of Mrs. Kokhanovskaya “From the Provincial Gallery of Portraits”” ( 1859). The critic sees in the beginning, but already mature writer, a worthy continuation of the traditions of S. T. Aksakov with his “impartial attitude towards reality and especially the integrity, the complacency in which the depicted persons appear.” It is interesting that a little later the progressive Saltykov-Shchedrin drew attention to Kokhanovskaya’s talent (article “Kokhanovskaya’s Tale in the magazine Sovremennik” in 1863), and if he also supported the writer’s objectivity, then her “complacency”, preference for “humility” over “ protest" attributed to retrograde bias. The conservative Gilyarov-Platonov, on the contrary, interprets Kokhanovskaya’s “humble” endings as artistically convincing to the highest degree. As the critic of “Russian Conversation” notes, the new talent draws its strength from the linguistic element of Russian songs. Philological argumentation, analysis of the word as the prototype of a work of art, generally speaking, constitutes a fundamental feature of the Slavophiles, sharply distinguishing them from the background of contemporary literary criticism. This was most clearly manifested in the work of K. S. Aksakov (author of the book “Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language”, 1846 and other works on philology), and the same Gilyarov-Platonov, who compiled the thoughtful “Excursions to Russian Grammar” ( 1884), where he expressed a remarkable idea about the presence in language of “creative etymology” and even “conscience”.

The epilogue of Slavophil criticism was destined to be written Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov (1823 – 1886), poet, publicist and public figure. His “Speech about A. S. Pushkin” (1880), delivered at the opening ceremony of a monument to the poet in Moscow immediately after Dostoevsky’s epoch-making speech, can be regarded as a reassessment of values in Slavophile criticism, which finally recognized the “first truly Russian poet”, the “people's in the highest sense of the word" (although not without some reservations). In parallel with Aksakov, Slavophile prejudices (including his own) were subjected to a decisive revision in the article by N. P. Gilyarov-Platonov “A. S. Pushkin. Opening of the Monument" (1880) in the newspaper "Modern Izvestia" he published (in the same place, back in 1871, Gilyarov-Platonov wrote about Pushkin as the "creator of the Russian language").

The most significant historical and literary work of I. S. Aksakov is the book “Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev. Biographical sketch" (1874), still valuable for its holistic analysis of the personality, worldview and creativity of the great poet in their dialectical unity. Tyutchev appears here as the last bright star of the Pushkin period of Russian poetry, but the period itself seems to the critic to have already exhausted itself. It was a period of “sincerity,” simple-minded “faith in art,” but “not all the strings of the people’s soul were heard,” since “our most poetic form was and is borrowed.” In place of the syllabic tonic, which is too smooth for the Russian ear, Aksakov sees the arrival of a “new, hitherto unknown, unique, more folk form.” These “fortune-telling” of the critic will not seem groundless if we recall the rhythmic innovations of the poets of the 20th century.

Speaking about Tyutchev, the poet and publicist, “the engine of our Russian, national self-consciousness,” Aksakov also sums up some of the results of the Slavophile movement. It “as a doctrine, was never popular, and was never formulated,” but the influence of the Slavophiles on the Russian intelligentsia “was irresistible, albeit quickly.” It was not a “teaching” that was in effect (Aksakov is ready to admit the fallacy of “extreme hobbies”), but over time a “direction that liberated Russian thought from spiritual slavery to the West” that emerged. The appearance of great, therefore original, Russian literature, which expressed the spiritual quests of both the East and the West, fully justified the Slavophile “dreams”.

Soil science- a current of Russian social thought, akin to Slavophilism, opposite to Westernism. Originated in the 1860s. Adherents are called pochvenniks.

The Pochvenniki recognized the salvation of all humanity as the special mission of the Russian people, and preached the idea of bringing the “educated society” closer to the people (“national soil”) on a religious and ethical basis.

The term “Soilism” arose on the basis of the journalism of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky with its characteristic calls to return to “one’s own soil”, to popular, national principles. Genetically, Pochvennichestvo goes back to the direction of the “young editorial staff” of the magazine “Moskvityanin”, which existed in 1850-1856, and was ideologically related to the Slavophiles (including their moral orientation towards the Russian peasantry); At the same time, representatives of this trend recognized the positive principles in Westernism. Pochvennichestvo opposed the feudal nobility and bureaucracy, called for “the merging of education and its representatives with the people” and saw this as the key to progress in Russia. The soil workers spoke out for the development of industry, trade, and freedom of the individual and press. Accepting “European culture,” they simultaneously denounced the “rotten West” - its bourgeoisness and lack of spirituality, rejected revolutionary, socialist ideas and materialism, contrasting them with Christian ideals; polemicized with the Sovremennik magazine.

In the 1870s, the features of pochvennichestvo appeared in the philosophical works of Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky and the “Diary of a Writer” by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

In the second half of the twentieth century, it was revived in “village prose” and publications on historical and patriotic topics. An article by Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, then head of the department, was directed against them in 1972. The ideological department of the CPSU Central Committee, with crushing criticism from the standpoint of orthodox Marxism-Leninism.

F. Dostoevsky “A series of articles on Russian literature”

N. Strakhov “A few belated words”

20. Neo-Slavophile criticism of K. Leontiev.

One of the first Russian critics for whom religious issues turned out to be the main criterion in assessing literary phenomena was Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontyev. The writer, who almost single-handedly defended the priority of “pure” aesthetics in articles of the early 1860s, in the 1870s-1880s devoted himself almost entirely to philosophical and religious journalism, defending an extremely conservative, “protective” point of view not only on social conflicts, but also on Orthodox Christianity.

In two works included in the brochure “Our New Christians,” Leontyev questioned the socio-religious validity of the teachings of Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy: in his opinion, Dostoevsky’s Pushkin speech and L. Tolstoy’s story “How People Live” demonstrate the imperfection of religious thinking and superficial acquaintance with the teachings of the church fathers of two famous Russian writers, despite the preaching religious pathos of their speeches. Unlike most “neo-Slavophiles,” Leontyev did not accept Tolstoy’s “religion of love,” which, in his opinion, distorts the essence of true Christianity.

However, the critic declared Tolstoy’s works of art, his novels “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina,” to be the greatest creations of world literature “over the last 40-50 years.” In the article “Two Counts: Alexey Vronsky and Leo Tolstoy,” which was included in the “Notes of a Hermit” series, Leontyev called “Gogolism” the main prophet of Russian literature - i.e. “Humiliation” in the artistic creativity of Russian reality. For Leontyev, such an attitude towards Russian life is all the more blasphemous because in the matter of educating “Russian youths” “literature is much stronger than both school and family.” And only Tolstoy, in his main works, was able to break the Gogol tradition, depicting “high Russian society finally in a human way, that is, impartially, and in places with obvious love.” This was confirmed for Leontyev by the image of Vronsky, whom the critic perceives from a patriotic perspective, interpreting the “military heroes” of Russian literature.

Leontiev proposed a deeper and more detailed coverage of L. Tolstoy’s work in his voluminous work “Analysis, Style and Trend. About the novels of gr. L.N. Tolstoy,” which combined two, almost opposite, tendencies in the literary-critical activity of a religious thinker: a distinct political bias and the desire for a purely “philological,” formal, subtly analytical study of literary texts. It should be noted the methodological innovation of Leontyev, who tried to find a multi-valued refraction and artistic embodiment of the ideological concept in the writer’s style.

K. Leontiev “Our new Christians”

21. Literary-critical topics of journalism of writers of the 1870-90s.

Famous Russian writers of the 2nd half of the 19th century themselves often became subjects of the literary critical process, publicly expressing their opinions about the principles of artistic creativity and about many specific literary phenomena. And the fact that Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy were only occasionally noted in the press with articles on literature did not prevent increased attention to their works from the public, who were attracted by the importance and breadth of the issues being addressed, as well as the authority of the writers' names themselves. Even in their appeals to the past of Russian and world literature, in theoretical and aesthetic reflections, famous literary artists sought to demonstrate an unexpected and insightful 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 like a detached historical and literary study - in fact, this “external” property of the article turns out to be a kind of genre “trap”, which with even greater acuteness directs readers to the perception of current social problems. Obvious allusions and associations connect the two fundamentally dissimilar human types discovered by the writer, Hamlet and Don Quixote, with famous names of public and literary figures of the 1860s and, more importantly, with the widespread mentality of the era. The pathos of Turgenev’s public speech was the affirmation of the equivalence of the socio-psychological type of the intelligent and subtle reflective skeptic Hamlet, who, resisting the lies surrounding him, is unable to believe in the possibility of modern truth, and the type of the funny in his naivety “enthusiast, servant of the idea” Don Quixote, who, on the contrary, for the sake of a ghostly, illusory ideal, he is ready for the most uncompromising actions. From the point of view of Turgenev, who masterfully “allows” the internal logic of the text to “reveal itself” to the reader, the position of the intelligent egoist Hamlet is much less in demand by modern times than the unbridled altruism of Don Quixote. The key in characterizing the characters becomes for the writer their impact on others: if Hamlet unwittingly sows lies, deceit and death around himself, then Don Quixote infects with his positive enthusiasm such sincere and strong personalities as Sancho Panza, who with crazy ideas can bring a lot of kindness and benefits. Turgenev's article, in which generalized reasoning was combined with specific historical issues, anticipated Merezhkovsky's future historical and cultural oppositions.

A. Goncharov “A Million Torments”: Chatsky becomes an eternal socio-psychological type, especially characteristic of Russian society, in this “critical study.” Agreeing with his predecessors that the immortal significance of Griboyedov’s comedy is given by the brilliant depiction of the mores of Moscow society, and the creation of bright, historically and psychologically reliable types, and apt aphoristic language, Goncharov still considers the image of Chatsky to be Griboyedov’s main achievement. According to Goncharov, the main character of "Woe from Wit", unlike Onegin and Pechorin, overcomes the historical isolation of his time, becomes the hero of a new era, therefore his image is saturated with numerous potential meanings that are revealed upon later reading. And it is no coincidence that the writer’s thoughts about the “positive”, i.e. Chatsky’s effective mind, his sincere passion, the desire of Griboyedov’s hero to disrupt the indifferent inertia and reassuring hypocrisy of the surrounding society are full of obvious and hidden associations connecting Chatsky with the personality of Herzen, with the activities of the leaders of social thought of the 1870s.

It is characteristic that Turgenev, Goncharov, Herzen, and Dostoevsky energetically resisted the perception of their speeches on literary topics in line with traditional literary critical creativity, willingly demonstrating their genre and content specificity.

22. "Other criticism" in criticism of the 1890-1910s. On the themes and problems of the literary process.

To one degree or another, the heralds of the “new criticism” were writers who fundamentally did not fit into a certain literary movement or direction. Their activities were openly independent. Even when drawn into aesthetic disputes with their contemporaries, they remained “lone” critics. Each of them had a special opinion on every important, aesthetic and ethical issue.

The literary and critical performances of Annensky, Aikhenvald, and Rozanov did not depend on established views, but at the same time they were the focus of close attention of everyone who was related to the artistic culture of the Silver Age. The “Independents” could proclaim their own research methodology, they built the foundation of new philosophical teachings, and saw in their own way the paths of literary development in Russia.

A “mansion” figure in the history of Russian criticism at the turn of the century – Innokenty Fedorovich Annensky, who occupies a special place in Russian literature of this period as a poet, translator, playwright and teacher. He published reviews of works on Russian, Slavic and classical philology in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education.

In the development of Annensky's critical prose, two stages can be clearly distinguished.

The first is associated with critical and pedagogical articles published in the late 1880s-1890s in the magazines “Education and Training” and “Russian School”, dedicated to the works of A. Tolstoy, Gogol, Lermontov, Goncharov, Ap. Maykova. In these works, a system of views was gradually built and formed, which led in the early 1900s to the creation of a special new method of literary critical analysis. Annensky often used the ideas of discursive criticism (i.e., rational criticism, justified by previous judgments). In addition, the pedagogical task forced the critic to bring thoughts to the logical limit, while avoiding associative and metaphorical images that could complicate reader perception.

The second stage of Annensky’s literary-critical creativity is associated with the beginning of the 20th century. In 1906, a collection of literary critical articles, “Books of Reflections,” was published, not appreciated by contemporaries, but marking a completely new and original page in the history of Russian literary critical life. Turning in his critical studies to the works of Gogol, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Pisemsky, L. Tolstoy, M. Gorky, Chekhov, Balmont, Annensky spoke about the inexhaustible ambiguity of works of art, about their eternal renewal and evolution in time, in accordance with this - about their interpretation, about reading as a creative process.

His critical articles are delicately executed, subtly associative and dynamic philological observations, permeated with the author's lyricism, benevolent intonation, and semantic versatility.

“Impressionistic” or “immanent” criticism played a significant role in the formation of the principles of “new criticism” Yulia Isaevich Aikhenvald. The methodological foundations of Aikhenwald’s literary critical activity were significantly influenced by the idealistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. The tasks of impressionistic criticism were to convey the impression made by the author on the insightful reader. Aikhenwald proceeded from the fact that art is something absolutely self-sufficient and therefore consciously refused to study the writer in connection with the specific conditions of place and time, and did not perceive impressionism as “aestheticism.” Recognizing the educational significance of art, he rejected the “ulitarian” requirements for it, considering them alien to the irrational nature of poetry. Aikhenwald denied the very possibility of constructing the history of literature on any single methodological basis. Speaking about the right of a critic to subjectively interpret a work, he assigned him the role of a kind of priest, an intermediary between the artist and the reader, the first and best of the readers. Aikhenvald’s views on art were especially clearly manifested in the revaluation of Belinsky’s creative heritage and criticism of the 60s, which he reproached for excessive journalisticism, insufficient artistic taste and inconsistency of literary assessments.

Y. Aikhenvald “Silhouettes of Russian Writers”

In the history of Russian culture of the late 19th - early 20th centuries Vasily Vasilievich Rozanov– a most controversial personality and at the same time undeniably talented, original and lively-minded. Like no other prominent writer of the turn of the century, he was openly rejected by his contemporaries. Russian journalism attacked him with particular zeal both on the left and on the right, rewarding him with many negative characteristics, among which were the following: “dirty man”, “rubbish”, “naked Rozanov”, “rotten soul”, “Great Vashlyak of Russian Literature” . He preferred truth to any ideological “trends.” Filled with counterfeelings, Rozanov’s manner of thinking and writing is paradoxical and dialogical, alone with his own conscience and the conscience of a wise, sighted reader, open to honest dialogue, capable of hearing, but not obeying, maintaining his own dignity and independence of concepts about life. With his entire system of judgment, Rozanov deliberately provoked internal irritated disagreement with himself. Hence the external fragmentation, mosaic, kaleidoscopicity and apparent disorder of his thoughts and style. Rozanov wrote a huge number of articles, essays, anniversary words, reviews and notes about Pushkin, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Strakhov, Leontiev, Merezhkovsky. He repeatedly turned to the analysis of the works of Gogol, Nekrasov, Goncharov, Chekhov, M. Gorky, Vl. Solovyova, Berdyaeva.

In the works of criticism on literature and philosophy, the fruitful concept of a value-based approach to the verbal, artistic and ethical-aesthetic heritage of Russian culture was clearly expressed.

The original “music” of Rozanov’s word was clearly stated in his early book by the “deepest analyst of the soul” Dostoevsky, “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor F. M. Dostoevsky”: it touches on many side, parallel and very important topics dear to him.

A special place in Rozanov’s creative heritage is occupied by original, genre-unusual memoir-necrological works (“In Memory of Vl. Solovyov”, “In Memory of I. I. Kablits”).

V. Rozanov “Three moments in the development of Russian criticism”

23.Modernist criticism (symbolism and acmeism). Stylistic, genre features, polemical and self-characterizing orientation.

In the 1890s, with the establishment of symbolism as a fundamentally new poetic direction, the formation of modernist tendencies in literary criticism began. The emergence of each new literary movement - be it symbolism, acmeism, futurism, imagism in various and whimsical combinations and modifications - brought to life not only theoretical treatises proclaiming and explaining the essence of creative quests inherent in one or another aesthetic platform, but also a rapid flow of literary -critical publications. A new artistic expression, new poetic rhythms, new poetic ideas required urgent assessments, controversial revelations, and polemical statements.

A feature of the literary era was the participation in critical debates of almost all writers without exception. It is difficult to name the name of at least one prose writer or poet who would not write a critical article, review, or preface to a new book. In an era that will be called the Silver Age, many literary critics turn out to be outstanding poets, and poets turn out to be talented critics. V. Solovyov and Merezhkovsky, Annensky and Rozanov, Blok and A. Bely, Akhmatova and Mandelstam turned out to be exceptionally talented both in writing and in critical analysis.

At the beginning of the century, new organizational forms appeared for the expression of literary assessments: these were poetry clubs and literary cafes, which contributed to the birth of free critical thought. Controversy has taken over all literature. Literary criticism of modernist movements was formed and developed in parallel with socially oriented democratic, mass criticism. Both populist criticism, feuilleton newspaper and magazine speeches, and Marxist literary journalism were aimed at the vast masses of readers. The literary-critical studies of the modernists appeared with the expectation of a small circle of “insider” people, initiates, involved in a certain literary movement. The modernists created art for a sophisticated audience, for a sophisticated reader capable of perceiving and appreciating not the “ideological essence” of a work, but its poetic poignancy and filigree of form. That is why, with the widest genre-thematic range and stylistic richness, the critical prose of the modernists was focused on the phenomenon of artistic integrity.

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

Into the history of Russian culture Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov entered as a great idealist philosopher. However, he did not study “pure” philosophy for quite a long time. His rich literary heritage widely includes poetry, literary criticism, and journalism. In literary criticism, Soloviev primarily appears as a discerning “judge,” unusually sensitive to both the artist’s place in the world of ideas and his individual pathos. Philosophical and critical articles devoted to Russian poetry had a unique introduction. They were 2 fundamental works on aesthetics for Solovyov - “Beauty in Nature” and “The General Meaning of Art”. In the first article, beauty was revealed as “the transformation of the mother through the embodiment in her of another, supermaterial principle” and was considered as an expression of ideal content, as the embodiment of an idea. The second article characterized the goals and objectives of art, and a work of art was defined as “a tangible image of any object or phenomenon from the point of view of its final state or in the light of the future world.” The artist, according to Solovyov, is a prophet. What becomes significant in Solovyov’s views on art is that truth and goodness must be embodied in beauty. According to Solovyov, beauty cuts off light from darkness, “only it illuminates and tames the evil darkness of this world.”

It was Solovyov who discovered Fet’s legacy for such poets as Blok and A. Bely, and oriented the young poetic generation towards the principles that Fet professed. It was Fet’s poetry that was the subject of Solovyov’s first literary-critical article, “On Lyric Poetry.” The article also embodied some of the favorite themes of Solovyov’s philosophical and aesthetic works: about the subject of lyric poetry, about the role of objective reality in poetry, about the meaning of beauty in the world and its embodiment in lyrics, about “the true background of all lyrics,” about love and its embodiment in lyrics, about the lyrics of nature. Here the idea was put forward that Fet’s poetry is the most noticeable phenomenon in the general flow of “ulitarian” Russian literature.

Solovyov’s undoubted creative achievement was the philosophical essay “The Poetry of F. I. Tyutchev.” It was a landmark in the understanding and interpretation of Tyutchev’s poetry and had a great influence on the early symbolists, who counted the great lyricist among their predecessors. Solovyov tried to reveal to the reader the countless treasures of philosophical lyrics, to look into the secrets of his artistic poetic world.

Soloviev is not only the luminary of Russian philosophical criticism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, but also its true founder. Soloviev argued that philosophical analysis does not subordinate a work of art to a scheme within which it is doomed to serve as an illustration of a thesis, but goes back to its objective semantic basis.

Since 1895, Soloviev has been writing encyclopedic articles for the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary, in which the spirit of his “philosophical criticism” is fully preserved. This is not only the article “Beauty”, but also works dedicated to Maikov, Polonsky, A. M. Zhemchuzhnikov, Kozma Prutkov and K. Leontyev.

In research works, Solovyov’s literary-critical activity is most often considered as a harbinger of Russian symbolism. Solovyov’s influence on the “younger” symbolists (Blok, A. Bely, S. Solovyov), on their creation of the historical and literary concept of the poet-prophet, is undeniable.

Solovyov’s ideas about the integrity of the writer’s creative path, about the “holiness” of artistic activity, about the highest responsibility of the artist to humanity, about the great and inescapable duty of genius had a huge impact on the ethics and aesthetics of the 20th century, on Russian culture as a whole.

24.Literary-critical aspect of the work of religious thinkers of the early 20th century.

The literary life of the early 20th century cannot be fully perceived if we do not take into account the creative participation of Russian religious philosophers in it. The works of N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, filled with allusions and reminiscences from Russian classical and modern literature, devoted to the problems of creative self-awareness, the role of the intelligentsia in critical eras, one way or another found themselves in the midst of literary criticism discussions. It often happened that philosophers and critics came to the same painful points of Russian reality, relying on the Russian intelligentsia, capable of an educational mission, and Russian literature as the highest form of manifestation of Russian consciousness.

In the famous collection “Vekhi” (1909), philosophers, publicists and critics began an alarming, prophetic conversation about the upcoming tragic events in Russia. An acute premonition of impending disaster permeates N.A.’s articles. Berdyaev “Philosophical truth and intellectual truth”, S. N. Bulgakov “Heroism and asceticism”, M. O. Gershenzon “Creative self-consciousness”, P. B. Struve “Intelligentsia and revolution”, S. L. Frank “Ethics of nihilism” .

More than 60 years later, another Russian thinker, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, will write that the ideas set out in “Vekhi” were “indignantly rejected by the entire intelligentsia, all party directions from the Cadets to the Bolsheviks. The prophetic depth of “Vekhi” did not find the sympathy of reading Russia and did not influence the development of the Russian situation.” The timeless, universal - that which now constitutes a veritable treasury of literary assessments, opinions, and fulfilled forecasts - receives recognition from readers only after many decades.

Russian philosophers warned Russia against the invasion of lack of culture and called for religious humanism. And in this respect, they turned out to be methodologically consonant with the various movements of the so-called “new criticism”.

N. Berdyaev “The Crisis of Art”

V. Rozanov “The Legend of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor”

S. Bulgakov

Another socio-literary movement of the mid-60s, which removed the extremes of Westerners and Slavophiles, was the so-called “soilism”. Its spiritual leader was F. M. Dostoevsky, who published two magazines during these years - “Time” (1861-1863) and “Epoch” (1864-1865). Dostoevsky's associates in these magazines were literary critics Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev and Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov. The Pochvenniki to some extent inherited the view of the Russian national character expressed by Belinsky in 1846. Belinsky wrote: “Russia has nothing to compare with the old states of Europe, whose history went diametrically opposite to ours and has long since given flower and fruit... It is known that the French, English, and Germans are so national, each in their own way, that they are not able to understand each other , while the sociality of a Frenchman, the practical activity of an Englishman, and the vague philosophy of a German are equally accessible to a Russian.”

The Pochvenniks spoke of “all-humanity” as a characteristic feature of the Russian national consciousness, which was most deeply inherited in our literature by A. S. Pushkin. “This thought was expressed by Pushkin not only as an indication, teaching or theory, not as a dream or prophecy, but fulfilled in reality, contained forever in his brilliant creations and proven by him,” wrote Dostoevsky. “He is a man of ancient times.” world, he is a German, he is an Englishman, deeply aware of his genius, the melancholy of his aspiration ("A Feast During the Plague"), he is also a poet of the East. He told and declared to all these peoples that the Russian genius knows them, understood them, touched with them as a native, that he can be reincarnated in them in its entirety, that only the Russian spirit has been given universality, given the purpose in the future to comprehend and unite all the diversity of nationalities and remove all their contradictions."

Like the Slavophiles, the pochvenniki believed that “Russian society must unite with the people’s soil and absorb the people’s element.” But, unlike the Slavophiles, (*10) they did not deny the positive role of the reforms of Peter I and the “Europeanized” Russian intelligentsia, called upon to bring enlightenment and culture to the people, but only on the basis of popular moral ideals. A. S. Pushkin was precisely such a Russian European in the eyes of the soil people.

According to A. Grigoriev, Pushkin is “the first and full representative” of “our social and moral sympathies.” “In Pushkin, for a long time, if not forever, our entire spiritual process, our “volume and measure,” was completed, outlined in a broad outline: all subsequent development of Russian literature is a deepening and artistic understanding of those elements that were reflected in Pushkin. The most organic expression of Pushkin's principles in modern literature was A. N. Ostrovsky. "Ostrovsky's new word is the oldest word - nationality." “Ostrovsky is as little an accuser as he is a little idealizer. Let us leave him to be what he is - a great folk poet, the first and only exponent of the people’s essence in its diverse manifestations...”

N. N. Strakhov was the only deep interpreter of L. N. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” in the history of Russian criticism of the second half of the 19th century. It is no coincidence that he called his work “a critical poem in four songs.” Leo Tolstoy himself, who considered Strakhov his friend, said: “One of the blessings for which I am grateful to fate is that there is N.N. Strakhov.”

The Pochvenniki to some extent inherited the view of the Russian national character expressed by Belinsky in 1846. Belinsky wrote: “Russia has nothing to compare with the old states of Europe, whose history went diametrically opposite to ours and has long since given flower and fruit... It is known that the French, English, and Germans are so national, each in their own way, that they are not able to understand each other , while the sociality of a Frenchman, the practical activity of an Englishman, and the vague philosophy of a German are equally accessible to a Russian.”

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

(Literature lesson in 10th grade)

Lesson type - lesson-lecture

Slide 1

Our turbulent, fast-paced times, which have radically liberated spiritual thought and social life, require the active awakening in a person of a sense of history, personal, thoughtful and creative participation in it. We should not be “Ivans 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 on television and video screens there is a dominance of Western culture, sometimes meaningless and vulgar, when bourgeois values are imposed on us and we are all wandering along the foreign side, forgetting our own language, we must remember that the names of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov are incredibly revered in the West, that Tolstoy alone became the founder of an entire creed, Ostrovsky alone created the national theater, that Dostoevsky spoke out against future rebellions if even one child’s tear was shed in them.

Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century was the ruler of thoughts. From the question “Who is to blame?” she moves on to solving the question “What to do?” Writers will solve this question differently due to their social and philosophical views.

According to Chernyshevsky, our literature was elevated to the dignity of a national cause; the most viable forces of Russian society came here.

Literature is not a game, not fun, not entertainment. Russian writers treated their creativity in a special way: for them it was not a profession, but service in the highest sense of the word, service to God, the people, the Fatherland, art, the sublime. Starting with Pushkin, Russian writers understood themselves as prophets who came to this world “to burn the hearts of people with the verb.”

The word was perceived not as an empty sound, but as a deed. Gogol also harbored this belief in the miraculous power of the word, dreaming of creating a book that itself, by the power of the only and indisputably true thoughts expressed in it, would transform Russia.

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

Slide 2

The socio-political life of the second half of the 19th century can be divided into stages.

*Cm. slide 2-3

Slide 4

What parties existed on the political horizon of that time and what were they?(Teacher voices slide 4, animated)

Slide 5

As the slide is demonstrated, the teacher gives definitions, and students write them down in their notebooks.

Vocabulary work

Conservative (reactionary)- a person who defends stagnant political views, shuns everything new and advanced

Liberal - a person who adheres to middle positions in his political views. He talks about the need for change, but in a liberal way

Revolutionary - a person who actively calls for change, who does not pursue it peacefully, who advocates a radical change in the system

Slide 6

This slide organizes the follow-up work. Students draw the table in their notebook to fill it out as the lecture progresses.

Russian liberals of the 60s advocated reforms without revolutions and pinned their hopes on social changes “from above.” Liberals were divided into Westerners and Slavophiles. Why? The fact is that Russia is a Eurasian country. She absorbed both eastern and western information. This identity acquired symbolic meaning. Some believed that this uniqueness contributed to Russia's lag, others believed that this was its strength. The former began to be called “Westerners”, the latter – “Slavophiles”. Both directions were born on the same day.

Slide 7

In 1836, the article “Philosophical Letters” appeared in the Telescope. Its author was Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. After this article he was declared crazy. Why? The fact is that Chaadaev expressed in the article an extremely bleak view of Russia, the historical fate of which seemed to him “a gap in the order of understanding.”

Russia, according to Chaadaev, was deprived of organic growth and cultural continuity, in contrast to the Catholic West. She had no “legend”, no historical past. Its present is extremely mediocre, and its future depends on whether it will join the cultural family of Europe, abandoning historical independence.

Slide 8

Westerners included such writers and critics as Belinsky, Herzen, Turgenev, Botkin, Annensky, Granovsky.

Slide 9

The Westerners' press organs were the magazines Sovremennik, Otechestvennye zapiski, and Library for Reading. In their journals, Westerners defended the traditions of “pure art.” What does "pure" mean? Pure - devoid of teaching or any ideological views. They strive to portray people as they see them, like, for example, Druzhinin.

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slavophilism is an ideological and political movement of the mid-19th century, whose representatives contrasted the historical path of development of Russia with the development of Western European countries and idealized the patriarchal features of Russian life and culture.

The founders of Slavophile ideas were Peter and Ivan Kireyevsky, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov and Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov.

In the circle of Slavophiles there was often talk about the fate of the Slavic tribe. The role of the Slavs, according to Khomyakov, was belittled by German historians and philosophers. And this is all the more surprising since it was the Germans who most organically assimilated the Slavic elements of spiritual culture. However, insisting on the original historical development of Russia, the Slavophiles spoke disparagingly about the successes of European culture. It turned out that Russian people had nothing to console themselves with in the West, that Peter 1, who opened a window to Europe, distracted it from its original path.

Slide 12

The magazines “Moskvityanin”, “Russian Conversation”, and the newspaper “Northern Bee” became the mouthpieces of the ideas of Slavophilism. The literary-critical program of the Slavophiles was associated with their views. They did not accept social-analytical principles in Russian prose and poetry; refined psychologism was alien to them. They paid much attention to CNTs.

Slide 13

The critics in these magazines were Shevyrev, Pogodin, Ostrovsky, Apollon Grigoriev.

Slide 14

The literary activity of Russian writers has always been connected 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, the “natural school” dominated in literature. This school fought against romanticism. Belinsky believed that “it is necessary to crush romanticism with the scourge of humor.” Herzen called romanticism “spiritual scrofula.” Romanticism was contrasted with an analysis of reality itself. Critics of the time believed that “literature should follow the path paved by Gogol.” Belinsky called Gogol “the father of the natural school.”

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

In the 40s, writers such as Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, and Goncharov came to literature.

Slide 15

Where did the term “natural school” come from? This is what Belinsky called this current in 1846. This school is condemned for “mudophilia”, because the writers of this school paint details of the lives of poor people, humiliated and insulted. Samarin, an opponent of the “natural school,” divided the heroes of these books into those who were beaten and those who beat, those who were scolded and those who scolded.

The main question that the writers of the “natural school” pose to themselves is “Who is to blame?”, circumstances or the person himself in his wretched life. Before the 40s, the literature believed that circumstances were to blame; after the 40s, they believed that the person himself was to blame.

The expression “the environment is stuck” is very characteristic of the natural school, that is, much of a person’s plight was attributed to the environment.

The “Natural School” took a step towards the democratization of literature, putting forward the most important problem - the individual. Since the person begins to come to the fore of the image, the work becomes saturated with psychological content. The school comes to the traditions of Lermontov, strives to show a person from the inside. The “Natural School” in the history of Russian literature was necessary as a transition from romanticism to realism.

Slide 16

How does realism differ from romanticism?

The main thing in realism is the depiction of types. Belinsky wrote: “It’s a matter of types. Types are representatives of the environment. Typical faces need to be looked for in different classes. It was necessary to pay all attention to the crowd, to the masses.”
The subject of the image was not heroes, but typical faces in typical circumstances.
Since the subject of the image is an ordinary, prosaic person, then prose genres are suitable: novels, stories. During this period, Russian literature moves from romantic poems and poems to realistic stories and novels. This period affected the genres of such works as Pushkin’s novel in verse “Eugene Onegin” and Gogol’s prose poem “Dead Souls”. A novel and a story make it possible to imagine a person in public life; a novel allows for the whole and the details, and is convenient for combining fiction and the truth of life.
The hero of works of the realistic method is not an individual hero, but a small person like Gogol’s Akaki Akakievich or Pushkin’s Samson Vyrin. A little man is a person of low social status, depressed by circumstances, meek, most often an official.

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

Slide 17

In the early 60s, a rise in socio-political struggle was planned. As I said earlier, the question “who is to blame?” is replaced by the question “what to do?” “New people” are entering literature and social activity, no longer contemplators and talkers, but doers. These are revolutionary democrats.

The rise of the socio-political struggle was associated with the inglorious end of the Crimean War, with the amnesties of the Decembrists after the death of Nicholas 1. Alexander 2 carried out 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 Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov. They are moving from a shaky alliance with the liberals to an uncompromising fight against them.

Dobrolyubov heads the satirical department of the Sovremennik magazine and publishes the Whistle magazine.

Democratic revolutionaries are pursuing the idea of a peasant revolution. Dobrolyubov becomes the founder of the critical method and creates his own “real criticism.” Democratic revolutionaries unite in the Sovremennik magazine. These are Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, Pisarev.

Slide 19

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

Slide 20

In the 60s, the “superfluous person” was condemned. The “superfluous people” include Evgeny Onegin and Pechorin. Nekrasov writes: “People like him roam the earth, looking for gigantic things to do.” They can’t do the job and don’t want to. These are people “thought at a crossroads.” These are reflective people, that is, people who subject themselves to self-analysis, constantly analyzing themselves and their actions, as well as the actions and thoughts of other people. The first reflective person in literature was Hamlet with his question “To be or not to be?” The “superfluous man” is being replaced by a “new man” - a nihilist, revolutionary, democrat, coming from a mixed class background (no longer a nobleman). These are people of action, they want to actively change lives, they fight for the emancipation of women.

Slide 21

After the manifesto that freed the peasants in 1861, contradictions intensified. After 1861, government reaction occurs again:*Cm. slide

A dispute broke out between Sovremennik and Russkie Slovo over the peasantry. The activist of the “Russian Word” Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev saw the revolutionary force in the proletariat, the commoner revolutionaries, bringing natural science knowledge to the people. He condemned the figures of Sovremennik Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov for embellishing the Russian peasant.

Slide 22

The 70s were characterized by the activities of revolutionary populists. The populists preached “going to the people” in order to teach, heal, and enlighten the people. The leaders of this movement are Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, Tkachev. Their organization “Land and Freedom” split, and the terrorist “People’s Will” emerged from it. Populist terrorists make many attempts on the life of Alexander 2, who is eventually killed, after which a government reaction occurs.

Slide 23

In parallel with the Narodnaya Volya, the Narodniks, another thought is operating - religious and philosophical. The founder of this movement was Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov.

He believes that God is the creator of the universe. But why is the world imperfect? Because man has made his contribution to the deterioration of the world. Fedorov correctly believed that a person wastes his energy on the negative. We have forgotten that we are brothers and perceive the other person as a competitor. Hence the decline of human morality. He believes that the salvation of humanity lies in unification, conciliarity, and Russia contains the makings of a future unification, as in Russia.*See further slide

Slide 24

Homework:

Learn the lecture, prepare for the test

Prepare for the test on the following questions:

Liberal-Western Party. Views, figures, criticism, magazines.
Liberal Slavophile Party. Views, criticism, magazines.
Social program and critical activities of the soil workers
Literary-critical activity of revolutionary democrats
Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word. Conservative ideology of the 80s.
Russian liberal populism. Religious and philosophical thought of the 80-90s.