Literary events of the 20th century. Russian literature of the 20th century

In our minds today, M. Gorky (Alexey Maksimovich Peshkov, 16/28.III.1868, Nizhny Novgorod - 18.VI.1936, Gorki near Moscow, ashes buried in the Kremlin wall) is a difficult problem. Times, especially the current testing times, are dramatically changing many things in ideas about authorities. Previously, we knew Gorky - the “petrel” of the revolution, the “apostle” of socialism, the “greatest proletarian writer”, an unyielding supporter and exponent of the philosophy of optimism. But there is another side to Gorky that is still closed from us - his doubts, delusions and falls. Discovering and comprehending this real Gorky is the task of modern literary scholarship. Books and articles that have appeared in recent years - S.I. Sukhikh, L.A. Spiridonova, N.N. Primochkina, the collections “Unknown Gorky” are necessary steps in this direction.

In 1917-1918, Gorky, a publicist and editor of Novaya Zhizn, entered into a passionate polemic with the revolutionary government, decisively disagreeing with it in assessing what was happening in the country. This was expressed in his journalistic appearances on the pages of the journal “Chronicle” and the newspaper “New Life” (1917-1918), later collected in the books “Untimely Thoughts. Notes on revolution and culture" (Pg., 1918) and "Revolution and culture. Articles for 1917" (Berlin, 1918).

Regarding the “interclass struggle” as an inevitable, “albeit tragic moment of this period of history,” M. Gorky at the same time called on the people and the government to “refuse the grossest violence against man.” The issue of violence became central to his differences with the Bolshevik government in 1917-1918. With anger, the writer speaks out against violent - “Nechaev-Bakunin”, as he characterizes them, methods of struggle, against ideological maximalism, which is harmful to Russia, against the arrests by the government of “all dissenting thinkers,” in defense of the intelligentsia, “the brain of the country.” Warning about the danger of illusions - “dreams” of a world revolution, about the threat of the dogmatism of the leaders, those for whom “dogma is higher than man,” and incited by “Messrs. commissars" of hostility between different segments of the country's population, M. Gorky regards October as a premature and dangerous experiment for Russia, a cruel experience. Day after day, consistently, he acts as a defender of democracy and culture.

This kind of disagreement between M. Gorky and the Bolsheviks, and not just the need for treatment, was the reason for his emigration in 1921.

Even after leaving abroad, doubts did not disappear and sometimes flared up in Gorky with all the severity. So, in a letter to S.N. To Sergeev-Tsensky in June 1923, Alexey Maksimovich wrote: “And - a fruitless struggle begins between two irreconcilable attitudes towards Russia: either she is an unfortunate victim of history, given to the world for cruel experiments, like a dog to the wisest scientist Ivan Pavlov, or Rus' is teaching itself how to live..."

During Gorky’s stay abroad, when ties with Russia, although they were not interrupted, could not be comprehensive and direct, the writer’s worldview gradually changed towards strengthening “social idealism,” the idealization of a new, collective person,” increasing abstraction in the writer’s ideas about Russian ,Soviet reality.

What in general outline was M. Gorky’s worldview in the 20-30s? And what are the reasons that led the writer to reconciliation with the Stalinist regime?

His worldview, fundamentally oriented towards the socialist revolution, at the same time bears a pronounced imprint of views of the rationalist-enlightenment type, with an orientation toward the all-powerful human mind. to omnipotent knowledge. Such attitudes were adopted by Gorky from the tradition of Russian democracy of 1860-1870, which was unusually authoritative for him, and were later consolidated - in a corresponding transformation - by his Marxist orientation. Gorky’s rationalism, however, did not exclude the conflict between “instinct” and “intellect” that the writer experienced more than once, which he bitterly admitted more than once throughout his work, considering such a gap common property Russian intelligentsia.

Gorky's rationalism is also manifested in the fundamental non-cosmology of his worldview, when an omnipotent person asserts himself, as it were, in his independence from the cosmos, from the Universe itself, from nature as a whole. The world appears in his imagination only “as material,” “raw material for the production of utilities” (24, 290). here the opposition is “man, the enemy of nature” (24, 277), and “nature, main enemy”man, and the cosmic principle is something insignificant and distracting from the main thing (“cosmic catastrophes are not as significant as social ones” - 24, 267). From here, from such a deliberate separation of man from nature, from the cosmos, grew the hypertrophy of the social in Gorky’s views and, as a consequence of this, his exaggerated romantic idea of ​​​​the extent of human variability, of man’s ability to develop and an overestimation of the idea of ​​re-education.

Gorky’s social and “pedagogical” attitudes were especially persistent in the second half of the 20s and 30s, in his correspondence with Soviet writers, in criticism of their works, in instructions to young writers, when, based on his “saving” romantic faith in the new man, he strictly demanded optimistic, affirming pathos from literature and determined the value of a work of art solely by this measure.

The rationalist-romantic, even utopian tendency of thought is also found in Gorky’s special interpretation of artistic time, which, not without his influence, became established in Soviet literature 20-30s. Of the three time dimensions of reality, Gorky gives value priority entirely not to the present, especially not to the past, but to the future. In all cases, he prefers “wisdom of youth” to “wisdom of old age.” In the spirit of his era, which created a cult of the new, coming “tomorrow,” Gorky reduced the importance of the past, traditions, and roots in the life of the country, as well as the individual. He talked about “hatred of the past”, that. that “our most ruthless enemy is our past, that the Russian people are “a nation without traditions.”

Such convictions of the writer fueled his ideological (not only biographical - according to the conditions of his upbringing, urban childhood and circle of attachments), repulsion from the Russian peasantry, his persistent skepticism in relation to the peasant, to the village, “and this, in turn, determined a lot in his understanding of social -the political situation in the country in the 20-30s. years of growing totalitarianism. His judgment on the village was swift and wrong in the article “On the Russian Peasantry” (1922), in which the Russian peasant was convicted of cruelty and “blindness of reason”, in the fact that in the village material, consumer interests prevail over spiritual ones, unlike the city the “instinct of property” and “mystical” love for the land reign, which make the peasantry impervious to new things in life. Similar, although not so pronounced, assessments are contained in a number of Gorky’s judgments of a later time - in letters to peasant writers (I. Volnov, S. Podyachev, etc.).

Gorky’s position in relation to the peasantry is one of the most serious factors explaining the possibility of the writer’s “alliance” with Stalinism, voluntary and involuntary reconciliation with it in the late 20s - 30s. This was expressed in a chain of such facts as Gorky’s approval of Stalin’s collectivization policy, public support for the repressive trials of the early 30s, their objective ideological justification by the proclamation of the slogan “If the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed,” in the signature of Gorky, who confirmed with his authority the lie of the first books about the Gulag - collection "White Sea-Baltic Canal".

S.I. Sukhikh, the author of one of the best books about Gorky of recent times, as the internal prerequisites for Gorky’s “alliance” with Stalinism, in addition to the “peasant phobia” and rationalism of the writer, also notes his inherent “complex. Luke", i.e. an ambivalent attitude towards the truth, which sometimes grew to the point of...hatred of the truth,” allegedly “harmful to people.”

Such ideological blinders really explain a lot about Gorky’s position in the 20s and 30s. in his spiritual drama.

However, the most reliable judge of an artist remains his works. During these years, Gorky created the story “My Universities”, the novel “The Artamonov Case”, stories and memoirs, the epic “The Life of Klim Samgin”, the drama “Yegor Bulychev and Others”, etc.

Dreaming of the future, Gorky during these years writes mainly about the past. Memoirs and autobiographical works occupy a large place in his work.

The story “My Universities” (1923) - completion autobiographical trilogy Gorky (“Childhood” and “In People”). The genre uniqueness of this artistic autobiography is that. that the narrative about the hero’s childhood, “adolescence” and youth, in contrast to classical autobiographies, usually focused on characterizing the personality of the hero and those related to him, most often from a hierarchically high social circle, goes beyond these limits and plunges into a stream of motley, multi-layered (both characterologically and socially representative) of people's life, gives a certain panorama of the life of the country during a certain period of its history. This motley, but also holistic in a certain sense the words “mass” life and appears in the story as the main “educator” of the hero, Alyosha Peshkov, by his “universities”. From crowd scenes with their pathos of the heroic “music” of labor (the scene of loaders working on the Volga pier), from the depiction of bright individuals, such as weaver Nikita Rubtsov, smart, sharp, keenly curious about everything around him, mechanic Yakov Shaposhnikov, “guitarist”, “an expert on the Bible”, striking with his “fierce denial of God”, the most selfless soul Derenkov, the selfless revolutionary propagandist Mihaile Romas, the cheerful and independent-spirited student Guriy Pletnev - an image of a people is emerging in which the living juices of life have fermented - impatience, restlessness of the spirit and burning need in freedom. It is on this yeast that Alyosha Peshkov’s love of freedom and revolutionary spirit rises, his thirst to resist the “abominations” of reality.

In Gorky's trilogy, the features of the family novel are weakened. If they are present in its first two parts, especially in “Childhood,” then they are completely lost or discarded in the final story. In “My Universities”, the symbol of the hero’s loss of previous blood and family ties is the news that overtook him about the death of his grandmother. The last, departing light of this soul will flash in the story only once, on the first page. In the words of the grandmother to her grandson Alyosha, there is a prophetic assessment and a prophetic harbinger of his internal drama - the struggle of two principles in his soul: pity, love for the people who are in him - from his grandmother, and anger, “severity”, “evil” towards them - “from grandfather." “Whilst seeing me off, my grandmother advised:

You - don’t be angry with people, you’re always angry, you’ve become strict and arrogant! This is from your grandfather, but what is he, grandfather? He lived and lived and became a fool, a bitter old man.”

IN spiritual formation The hero’s vital problem for him is the question of the role of love in the existence of modern man (the story depicts the period of the 80s of the last century): “The question of the meaning of love and mercy in people’s lives is a terrible and complex issue- arose before me early, first in the form of a vague but acute feeling of discord in my soul, then in the clear form of definitely clear words: “What is the role of love?”

Meetings with people, thinking about their relationships, about life gave an ambiguous answer to this question, often pushing thought in a direction different from the traditional Christian point of view. The poisonous thought of “anger” arises in Peshkov’s mind more than once. The life of the Volga “loaders, tramps, swindlers” attracts him precisely for this reason: “I liked their anger at life, I liked their mocking hostility towards everything in the world and their carefree attitude towards themselves.”

People undergo a testing test in the hero's consciousness. who have taken on the mission of preachers of goodness and love. Significant and eloquent in the story is Peshkov’s meeting with the first Tolstoyan on his path, Klopsky. Gorky, a master in creating character portraits, builds the image of Tolstoy’s Klopsky, like many other episodic persons, on indirect identification - through everyday, portrait, speech details - the internal inconsistencies inherent in the character, the contradictions of preaching and behavior, doctrine and action, lofty words and trivial matters. The episode of Peshkov’s meeting with Klopsky in the house of the landowner girls who sheltered him begins with a detail that is dissonant with the appearance of the “homeless apostle”, which emphasizes with what pleasure this ascetic eats the fruits of the earth (“He scooped raspberries with milk from a plate with a silver spoon, swallowed deliciously, smacked his lips and, after each sip, he blew white droplets from the cat’s sparse whiskers”), and ends with a note of dull indifference to the worries of his young soul, sounded in Klopsky’s address to Alyosha (“And who are you?..” “What? I’m tired, forgive me.” !").

The formation of the central character's personality is largely a history of ideas that pull him "in all directions." This is a preaching of Tolstoy’s love, and Nietzschean ideas about the harm of pity, and Marx’s teaching about the struggle of class interests, and a reflection on an attempt to reconcile Nietzsche with Marx.” The figure of the Kazan philology student, making an attempt at such reconciliation, in the narrator’s recollection stands among the “great martyrs of the mind,” the memory of whom is “sacred” for him. Among the questions that concern Alyosha Peshkov, this Nietzschean one inevitably arises: “The question stood before me like a wall: how? If life is a continuous struggle for happiness on earth, should mercy and love only interfere with the success of the struggle?

And Gorky shows meetings with people who, not from books, but from life itself, brought out ideas similar to Nietzsche’s. Such is the meeting with Nikiforich, the Kazan policeman. Here are his speeches that sank into the hero’s soul: “There is a lot of pity in the gospel, and pity is a harmful thing... We need to help strong, healthy people. - Can you make the weak strong?.. There is a lot to change your mind. We must understand that life has long turned away from the gospel, it has its own course. So, you see, what did Pletnev disappear from? Out of pity. We give to the poor, but the students disappear. Where's the intelligence here, huh? The attitude of the autobiographical hero towards this “fisher of men”, smart, crafty and slippery, is ambivalent. He does not inspire confidence, but his thoughts leave a deep imprint on the soul: “His words about the dangers of pity excited me very much and were firmly ingrained in my memory. I felt some kind of truth in them, but it was annoying that the source of it was a policeman.” “Seven years later, while reading Nietzsche, I very vividly remembered the philosophy of the Kazan policeman.”

In search of the Archimedean lever - a revolutionary idea that turns over and renews the world, the moral dimension of such an idea is transferred over time from Gorky from one plane: good - evil, love - cruelty- to another: selflessness - selfishness. The spirit of unselfishness, together with the truth of reason, becomes the main sign of a free personality in the minds of Peshkov, as well as Gorky himself of this time. This criterion largely determines the individual and social likes and dislikes of the hero. Thus, the main hope of the hero becomes the “conspiratorial,” revolutionary-minded intelligentsia - the embodiment of selflessness in Gorky’s depiction of this period (1917-1922). and the main concern is the “self-interest” of the peasantry, shown in village paintings stories.

Gorky talks with admiration about intellectuals - unmercenary people in whom “there is no envy of anything”, living with the same idea of ​​​​people's liberation - these are the images of “people-worshippers” gathering in Derenkov’s shop. students of carefree and poor Marusovka. Communication with such people “straightens out” Alyosha Peshkov, who experienced a deep life crisis (with a suicide attempt). In this part of the work, along with the emergence of hope and the meaning of life for the central character, sunny colors appear in the narrative, the landscapes brighten, and pictures of blooming spring gardens and nightingale-like Volga nights are given. New figures are outlined - unusual men who became Romasya’s assistants: soft, poetic, generous with affection Izot, jack-of-all-trades Kukushkin, dreamer and “writer” Barinov, etc. The figures of these, according to Romasya, “best people” of the village do not so much represent characteristic of her way of life, how many evade it, are drawn somewhere to the side. It is not for nothing that all these peasants are not entirely typical: Izot is a fisherman, Kukushkin and Barinov are “careless” and careless owners. And the rest of the village masses in the story are in the background, in the shadows, at a distance, they make themselves known only in dull, for the time being, and then violent outbursts of hatred (the murder of Izot, the arson of Romas’s house, the brutal beating of Alyosha Peshkov).

The ending of My Universities is bittersweet and dramatic. This is a drama that worried all Russian writers. - the drama of the breakup between a peasant and an intellectual, for which Gorky, unlike his predecessors, places the blame more on the peasant than on the intellectual. However, the autobiographical hero ultimately carries within himself not only the bitterness of defeat, but also the conviction of the need to resist the circumstances of life, the “willful stubbornness” of the spirit.

WITH autobiographical stories Gorky is also associated with some of his stories of the 20s, stories-memoirs, in which there are no actual facts of autobiography, but undoubtedly reflect some of the author’s spiritual experience - the experience of the doubts, temptations, hopes and disappointments he experienced. One of the best among them is The Hermit (1923). The main character with great plastic power captures the type of comforter that has not ceased to excite the writer for many years, as evidenced by a whole chain of images in his works: Luke from the play “At the Bottom.” Seraphim from “The Artamonov Case”, reflections on the types of comforter in the article “On Plays” (1933), etc. The riddle of such a human type was connected with the question that tormented Gorky all his life. the essence of love, compassion and truth, about how they relate to each other and how they conflict. In the play “At the Bottom,” the idea of ​​consolation and pity is debunked, although not entirely consistently. In the story “The Hermit” (1923), in the image of a former sawyer and wanderer, now a hermit - grandfather Savel - the author depicts a comforter with an undisguised sense of admiration.

In Gorky’s portrayal and in this story, love does not always agree with the truth, which sounds like a reproach to the latter: Savely tells the truth to everyone, “who needs what,” and sometimes deceives “a little.” However, the author-storyteller, and with him the reader, undoubtedly succumbs to the charm of this soul, her nightingale song addressed to all living things in the world, the ability of old man Savely to unmistakably guess the pain in everyone’s heart and soften it with compassion and hope.

The story “My Universities” has something in common with essays and portraits that formed a rich, fertile layer in Gorky’s work in the 1920s. Among them are memoir essays “The Time of Korolenko” (1922). V.G.Korolenko" (1922). “About Mikhailovsky” (1922), included in the series “Notes from a Diary. Memories" (1923) - "A.A. Blok", "N.A. Bugrov", "Savva Morozov" etc., - "L.N. Tolstoy" (1924), "Sergei Yesenin" (1927), "Ivan Volnov" (1931), etc.

A tall and complex personality type attracted Gorky to Tolstoy (Lev Tolstoy, 1919). The essay arose on the basis of Gorky’s notes about his long-standing meetings with Tolstoy in Crimea in 1901-1902 and impressions associated with Tolstoy’s “departure” from Yasnaya Polyana and his death, which then, in 1910, resulted in an unsent letter to Korolenko. The principle of “fragmentary notes”, a changing fragment-frame, preserved in the composition of the essay is needed by the author in order to reproduce the impression of a living Tolstoy, to say what he thinks about him, “let it be bold and diverge far from the general attitude towards him.”

Looking at the general artistic logic of the essay, one can discern in it the principle of an unfolding “fan”, which allows one to discover more and more new facets in Tolstoy’s endlessly versatile spirit. “...This is infinitely diverse fairy-tale man" is the leading motive of the essay. We recognize in Tolstoy the traits of a “sage and an artist.” protector of the Russian peasant, martyr of conscience and great lover of life. tireless tester human souls and a God-seeker, a gambling hunter, a pagan and a stern “Christian”, we admire the mischief of a hero and the grace of an aristocrat.

The hero of the essay appears before us almost outside of home life, family relationships and connections. Tolstoy and his interlocutors, his thoughts and speeches; Tolstoy and nature (“He walks along the roads and paths with the quick, hasty gait of a tester of the earth”), finally, the plastic appearance of the artist, portrait details (his hands are “nervous”, “as if he were holding living birds in his fingers”, “the movement of the fingers that were always sculpting something out of thin air") - the main fields of manifestation of character and its figurative sketches in the essay.

In Tolstoy’s statements, which is quite remarkable, there are few passages; are occupied by judgments about literature. Gorky remarks on this matter:

“It always seemed to me - and I think I’m not mistaken - L.N. did not really like to talk about literature, but was keenly interested in the personality of the writer. Questions: “Do you know him? what is he like? where he was born?" - I heard very often. And almost always his judgments revealed a person from some special side.”

“About V.G. Korolenko he said thoughtfully:

I’m not a Great Russian, so I must see our life more accurately and better than we see ourselves.

About Chekhov, whom he loved affectionately and tenderly:

Medicine interferes with him; if he were not a doctor, he would write even better.”

Tolstoy said to Gorky: “You are a writer. All these Sledgehammers of yours are made up.” About him: “romantic”, embellishing life, “dubious socialist”.

The persistent motives for Tolstoy’s thoughts and conversations, according to Gorky’s observations, were questions “about God, man and woman.” The most important among them was anxiety about God, which became the running motif of the work. “The thought that, noticeably, more often than others sharpens his heart is the thought of God...” - with these words the essay begins, and ends with a conversation with Gorky about faith and the author’s exclamation: “This man is godlike!”

Tolstoy, who convinces Gorky that “faith is intensified love,” remains a mystery to the author of the essay in his attitude to faith and God to the end. His “strange aphorism” that amazed Gorky is mysterious: “God is my desire.” It can be assumed that behind these words there is a desire to comprehend God as the meaning of life, a “desire”, powerful and passionate, which tormented Tolstoy all his life, but so. according to the memoirist’s guesses, it was not fully fulfilled. In Tolstoy’s faith, according to Gorky’s observations, duality was evident more than once. Tolstoy combines the great pride of a “man of humanity,” the disobedience of the mind, “intense resistance to something that he feels above him,” and at the same time the desire to humble and curb himself in a Christian way. It is no coincidence that the mention in the essay of Lev Shestov’s book “Good in the Teaching of Count Tolstoy and Fr. Nietzsche" (1900), which caused Lev Nikolaevich, although ironic, but essentially not at all negative, and, perhaps, even secretly approving. It seems that the author of the essay himself is inclined to try on the Shestovian angle of view for his hero. And this angle of view is like this. Having experienced the boundaries of kindness and compassion, having experienced in my life moments of the powerlessness of love. Tolstoy hides such doubts from himself and moves from philosophy to preaching. Where philosophy falls silent, his “teaching” begins. The figure of Tolstoy in Gorky’s lighting is often, and not without reason, depicted in an aura of mysterious immersion in silence.

The thread connecting the fragments of the essay into a single artistic whole is the author’s thought not only about the endless diversity of Tolstoy’s spirit, but also about his exceptional inconsistency. In Tolstoy they face Avvakumovskaya. “fiery” inflexibility, devotion to his symbol of faith and Chaadaev’s skepticism, the pagan argues with the Christian teacher, the artist of “violent flesh” - with its hater, the seer of the secrets of the emotional human element - with the “cruel rationalist”. In the original artistic portrait Tolstoy, painted by Gorky, we see an aristocrat-democrat, a moralist-sensualist, a great proud man and a Protestant, in whom lives a preacher of God’s humble love and by no means Christian intransigence with death, this “unknown barracks of God” that equals everyone. Truly this is a “comprehensive” human spirit with echoes in it of a complex national choir of voices - from Buslaev and Avvakum to Chaadaev.

The author's attitude towards his hero is far from clear. The essay genre allows Gorky to freely and widely highlight the entire spectrum of his contradictory feelings towards Tolstoy: delight, admiration, and surprise. ts a feeling of pride in a person, and a feeling of peace on earth after his death, but also bewilderment, annoyance, sometimes hidden irritation and even a feeling “close to hatred.” Such heterogeneity of author's assessments is caused not only by the inconsistency of the chosen character, but is also rooted in the position of the author, in his subjectivity. A.M. Remizov, who wrote very interesting notes and memoirs about Gorky, owns one. in our opinion, a deep judgment about him. According to Remizov, Gorky was inclined to somehow eschew and shun complexity in art and life, hence his repulsion from such phenomena as Dostoevsky or Joyce. Proust. To confirm the correctness of Remizov’s assumption, it is necessary to point out the fact that in a number of Gorky’s works (the play “The Zykovs”, the image of Klim Samgin in “The Life of Klim Samgin”) the psychological complexity of character is regarded as a mask and causes a disapproving reaction from the author. And therefore it can be assumed that a similar, most likely unconscious, phenomenon of Gorky’s repulsion from the excessive complexity of character, from the complexity of Tolstoy - a personality “monstrously”, “exorbitantly expanded”, in the words of the author. - said in a certain way in the essay “Leo Tolstoy”.

Another type of personality was captured by Gorky in his essay about Lenin (“Vladimir Lenin”). Gorky was initially interested in the mystery of human integrity and in this regard was interested in the type of Russian revolutionary. In this type, he was struck by the monolithic character that was given by a person’s self-subordination to a single goal, a single idea. The inevitable narrowing of the personality seemed to the writer as a redemptive payment for the honed sharpness of an effective will, a gift so rare in Rus', according to Gorky.

Let us recall that the essay about Lenin in its original version (“Vladimir Lenin”, 1924) differed significantly from its later edition (“V.I. Lenin”, 1930). In Lenin’s appearance, external and internal, the motif of simplicity is highlighted (both in the first version and in the later edition), but here, in the essay of the twenty-fourth year, this is the simplicity that is fraught with a dangerous simplification of life and straightforwardness. “Perhaps Lenin understood the drama of existence somewhat simplified and considered it too easily eliminated...” The author’s assessment and the narrator’s position in relation to the hero are also ambiguous in the essay. Reading the essay, we more than once feel the tension of the dispute between Gorky and Lenin ndash; dispute, which is most often given not in a direct and two-way dialogue, but indirectly, in Lenin’s responses: “You say that I am simplifying life too much. That this simplification threatens the death of culture, huh?” Ironic, characteristic: “Hm-hm!” (236). As it becomes clear from the context, these are ongoing disputes and disagreements regarding violence, the brutality of the revolution and the role of the intelligentsia: “I disagree with the communists,” writes Gorky, “on the issue of assessing the intelligentsia in the Russian revolution, prepared precisely by this intelligentsia...” (235 ). Hidden or obvious duality in the depiction of Lenin can be traced at all levels of the image: in the portrait there is a crossing, usually dubious for Gorky, of the “Eastern” and “Western” in him (“Asian eyes” and “Socratic forehead”), in the character there is a combination of “non-Russian traits" - optimism - with undoubtedly Russian roots of this human type, generated by the life of Russia, its history: "I think that such people are possible only in Russia, the history and life of which always reminds me of Sodom and Gomorrah" (229). The same duality of the author’s attitude towards the hero is also noticeable in his speech characteristics, when, for example, the speaker’s conviction that he is right and then the unacceptability of his “truth” for the author-storyteller is noted.

From Gorky's point of view, much in Lenin is explained by the assumption he took upon himself fatal role, the role of politician and leader, unthinkable without tyranny: “A leader is impossible who, to one degree or another, would not be a tyrant” (230).

These were Gorky’s views and assessments in 1924. Removing such assessments in the essay “V.I. Lenin" 1930, Gorky subjected himself to forced and, one might think, painful self-censorship. However, it is necessary to answer the question of what really changed in Gorky’s views and what remained unchanged.

The need for an artistic understanding of the historical turning point taking place in Russia prompts the writer to expand the temporal and spatial framework of his works and to move from a “small” epic to a “larger” one - a novel (“The Artamonov Case”) and an epic (“The Life of Klim Samgin”).

In the mid-20s, Gorky carried out the idea of ​​an artistic history of generations that had long been ripening in him. Such a work was the novel “The Artamonov Case” (Berlin, 1925). Story merchant family Artamonov, its ascent and degeneration appears in the novel as a historical symptom - a sign of the fleeting fate of Russian capital and the way of life it brought. The narration is organized in the novel according to the family-historical and portrait-characterological principles. This is a nest, a group of characters located around a single, but changing center over time - the leading character, the head of the family - first Ilya the Elder, then Peter, and finally - in the future - Ilya the Younger and Yakov. The first person of the clan, its founder, is Ilya Artamonov, “yesterday’s man”, who broke free, filled with a passionate passion for life, a thirst for a job that he can handle. talented, strong and indomitable in everything - in love, in sins, in work - an unusually colorful type in the portrayal of Gorky (remember Ignat Gordeev, the elder Kozhemyakin, Yegor Bulychev, etc.). This is the type of “acquisitive-builder” (according to the author’s formulation), in which the creative, “constructive” principle is not yet suppressed by “acquisitiveness” and even prevails over it. In the second generation, Peter inherits the central place in the “business”. Occupying a middle position in the novel, he is also a middle, mediocre person, mechanical, by inertia, a servant of the “cause,” his master-prisoner. Already in the second generation, deviations from the path of their fathers are outlined in individual destinies, and in the third, deviations from the path of their fathers are fully determined: for the handsome and dandy Alexei, this is flirting with the aristocracy, the temptation of the nobility (which ended in his marriage to a noblewoman, an “alien” in the Artamonov family), the arts of his inherent artistry , games with life; for the hunchback Nikita it is withdrawal to a monastery, from the world, from business in general; finally, for Ilya the Younger, there is a complete renunciation of the “inheritance”, a break with the share of his fathers and the path to revolution. Aside from the owners is their servant, and essentially the judge is Tikhon Vyalov.

The integrity of the compositional structure in the novel is created by the movement of the characters through the general circles of life (from birth to death), through testing them in similar situations that create cross-cutting plot motifs of the narrative. The latter give the reader the opportunity to compare all the Artamonovs with each other, to compare different representatives of the family in its history, in time, in the movement of generations. Such cross-cutting plot motifs are the characters’ attitude to the “case,” to a woman, to crime and sin, to death.

The main thing in the novel, which is emphasized in its very title, is the motive of “deed”, which connects everything else together. It is revealed in the work in a wide variety of meanings and plans. Business is the meaning and justification of life, the “bridle” and support, the “railing of a person,” joy and salvation from the boredom of life. But business also reveals its fatal Dialectic: “People are not visible behind business,” “business is a master to a man.” However, it must be admitted that in the disclosure of such motifs in the novel, some self-repetition of the artist in relation to his previous works is noticeable (“Foma Gordeev”, “Vassa Zheleznova”, etc.).

In the movement of artistic time in the novel “The Artamonov Case”, in the characteristics of its heroes, the “eternal” motive of love is very important, in the depiction of which the fate weighing on the Artamonov family and its fall are exposed with particular expressiveness. If in Ilya the Elder we, together with the author, admire his hot, albeit sinful passion, in which all the recklessness of the hero is manifested, his fearlessness before human judgment and the ability to give people joy, then in his son Peter we see only sluggish, thin and unfulfilled feelings, and in the hunchback Nikita - the hopeless weakness and dumbness of love, the awareness of it as a terrible and destructive temptation.

Another eternal situation plays a very capacious and significant role in the work - the hero in relation to death, the scene of his death. And here, too, the degradation of generations is clearly revealed: it is worth comparing two deaths - Ilya’s death from passion for work, from uncalculated passion, from the desire to help people in a difficult matter and, perhaps, to boast about his brave strength - and the pathetic, insignificant catastrophe into which Yakov finds himself . dreaming only of peace and sweet life, but never managed to escape from the misfortunes of a turbulent time (eventually robbed by his mistress and thrown off the train at her instigation).

Between these two deaths is the third, which, however, has not yet happened, but has come very close and, perhaps, the most characteristic and terrible - the half-mad senile decline of Peter, a tragicomic farce of the end of one of the “powerful” of this world, with the motives of the feelings of resentment and aggression suffocating him and power - all the more pitiful because they come into complete contradiction with lost opportunities and new reality (the emergence of the voices of the revolution, new masters).

The cross-cutting plot motif of the novel is also the motive of human crime, generally one of the significant ones in Gorky’s work and consonant with the traditions of Russian classics, especially Dostoevsky. In the depiction of crimes committed by the characters in the novel. Their motives, circumstances and scale indicate the author’s idea, common to the entire artistic whole of the novel, about the reduction of characters, about the fatally growing depersonality of a person. Ilya Sr. kills in self-defense. Peter commits an accidental, involuntary, but terrible crime - he kills the boy Pavlushka, having lost his balance due to his irritated pride and resentment towards his son’s “dangerous” comrade, who encroached (the child) on the “good name” of the Artamonovs. We recognize in this plot, in a transformed form, echoes of Dostoevsky’s motive - the denial of a case involving the “tear” of a child. The motives of secret revenge are active and largely determine the fate of Alexei (arson of Barsky’s house).

Towards the end of the work, the notes of retribution - historical and ethical - are heard more and more audibly. Conscious judgment, as a silent and prophetic testimony, is expressed in the person of Tikhon Vyalov, the Artamonovs’ janitor. He is the only person in the novel who knows, having lived side by side with them for half a century, all the sins and hidden springs of the Artamonovs’ behavior, unlike themselves, who are far from aware of everything that is happening (Peter, for example, has no idea about Nikita’s love for his wife Natalia). According to Gorky’s plan, which he spoke about more than once in his letters, this image was supposed to become his interpretation of the Platon Karataev type from Tolstoy’s novel, a polemic with the philosophy of not doing, from the standpoint of which Tikhon judges all the Artamonovs. But it must be said that the Karataev type undergoes a very significant, even radical change in Gorky (Tolstoy would have cursed the author of “The Artamonov Case” for this image, Gorky believed). In fact, Tikhon is not “round”, not kind, not at all a comforter (let us remember his negative attitude towards the comforter Seraphim: he “fools” people), not pure from the very beginning (in his great long-ago sin - an attempt together with his brother on a person’s life, Ilya Artamonov, - Tikhon confesses to Peter in the final scene). The picture of Tolstoy's prototype in Gorky's novel becomes sharply more complicated and deliberately darkened. Sinner-judge-righteous-hermit - this is how Tikhon is portrayed, a Russian peasant, a recent serf, keeping a jealous and lifelong account of the sins of his new - from the peasant - masters. But Tikhon, like Karataev, has no revenge or direct resistance to them, there is only an expectation of retribution for everything through fate - an expectation that was justified in the finale, where the denouement of events makes clear the meaning of the symbol: “the wagon has lost its wheel.” The guilt of the Artamonovs’ “case,” in the author’s assessment - the case of the bourgeoisie in general, is the internal mechanism of human enmity that he launched, and therefore this mechanism must sooner or later be scrapped. This is the general conclusion of the novel. But it should be noted that the story of the degeneration of the family clan of entrepreneurs, interpreted in the novel as a harbinger of the inevitable historical end of the Russian bourgeois class, as a symbol and motivation for its fate, is still not free from a certain tendentiousness of the author’s thought. “The Artamonov Case” was completed after the revolution of 1917. And it is difficult for the reader to rid himself of the impression of some “adjustment” of the artistic logic of the work to already accomplished historical facts.

Gorky strives to understand what happened in the country through the past. Four decades from the history of Russia, from the life of its “brain,” the Russian intelligentsia, make up the content of the epic “The Life of Klim Samgin,” on which the writer worked from 1925 to 1936. Her first book was published in 1927, the second in 1928. , the third - in 1931, the fourth, unfinished, was published in 1933 (partially) and in 1937 (entirely). The idea was grandiose - to present the spiritual life of the Russian intelligentsia in the panorama of the life of all of Russia at the turning point of history, for forty years - from the 80s of the last century to 1917, from the moment of the assassination of Tsar Alexander II to the collapse of the last Russian monarchy in the revolution.

The usual interpretation and assessment of the work in our literary criticism are as follows: this is the pinnacle of Gorky’s work, an epic novel that embodies the artist’s rightful judgment on that part of the Russian intelligentsia that did not accept the socialist revolution, not understanding its historical inevitability and the liberation mission of the proletariat and the Bolsheviks. In close-up, this artistic negation is accomplished in the image of Samghin, the “empty soul,” who is the center of the narrative, the author’s main mediator in his relationships with all the other heroes of the novel and at the same time the main object of his “hidden” satire. But with this interpretation, we silently ignore the fact that the work was created over many years, from 1925 to 1936, when Gorky was not equal to himself. In the novel, the ends and beginnings of the author’s artistic consciousness seem to come together, often diverging and contradicting each other. Therefore, “The Life of Klim Samgin” confronts us with quite a mystery, and the time has come to re-evaluate it in many ways.

The novel raises questions traditional for Russian culture: the intelligentsia and the revolution, the people and the intelligentsia, personality and history, the revolution and the fate of Russia. The intelligentsia appears in the novel in many figures, various ideological, philosophical and political movements, in many points of view on life - in dialogue, polylogue, “chaos” of voices. And such an expanded, continuous dialogue primarily organizes its form, its main method of narration. In itself, such an artistic form, with some redundancy of dialogue, basically corresponds to the tone and spirit of the time depicted - increasing tension as the revolutionary climax of the era approaches. Before us are conservatives and revolutionaries, atheists, Nietzscheans and supporters of new Christianity, optimists and pessimists, decadents (Nekhaeva). populists (Klim's father Ivan Samgin, his brother, exiled Yakov, writer Katin and many others), social democrats, Marxists (Kutuzov, Elizaveta Spivak, Poyarkov, Gogin. Lyubasha Somova), such original individuals as an intelligent, sober and cynical intellectual - businessman Varavka, ironic and skeptical aristocrat Turoboev, “merchant son”, millionaire, sympathizer of Marxists, Lyutov, humanist, eternal defender of women, doctor Makarov, intellectual plebeian journalist Dronov, idealistic prophet Tomilin, thoroughly earthly, denying Christianity and believing in holiness Khlyst zeal Marina Zotova.

The extensive and multifaceted system of images in the novel is supported by the concentric form of the narrative, Samghin’s single point of view dominating it. and we never cease to feel that Klim looks at everything through gray, smoky glasses that discolor and distort the world. However, the point of view of the hero’s sharply “critically thinking personality” can also serve as a means of expressing the author’s assessment, despite the fact that the author and his “negative” hero in “The Life of Klim Samgin” are in many ways antipodes. That is why the problem of “author and hero” is the first and most difficult knot that must be untangled for the sake of a correct reading of the novel.

The root of Samghin's character - and this is a spiritual illness typical of the intelligentsia in Gorky's understanding - is hypertrophy of the “self,” extreme individualism. The author already points out this with the hero’s surname - Samgin - and the entire history of his life, starting from the moment Klim was born and the scene of coming up with his name: his parents are concerned about this. In order to immediately highlight the son, the name must be unusual and common (progressive). The desire to stand out from the environment at all costs, to distinguish himself, fueled since childhood in Klima by the family, the atmosphere at home, the entire environment, gradually forms in the character of the hero a divergence of form and essence (the role of an exceptional child, an early pose of solidity, smoky glasses so as not to resemble on peers, inventing oneself, false self-assessments, when, for example, Samghin, the author of boring, mediocre articles, mentally puts himself next to Pisarev or Chekhov). In order to establish a sense of superiority over people, Klim improves in the ability to find, and more often imagine, unsightly features in all faces known to him - stupidity, vanity, anger, etc. For him, to recognize a person means to incriminate, “to expose a person, to turn him inside out,” caught in some kind of falsehood. This quality of the hero, it must be admitted, is emphasized with excessive persistence, almost obsessively, in the novel. The meaning of the game of lowering values, which Samghin constantly plays, is accurately captured in Lyutov’s remark addressed to Klim (and the crossfire of the characters’ mutual assessments is one of the key techniques for characterizing them in the novel): “It’s easy, brother, to convince people that they are rubbish, they this is also easy to believe, God knows why! It is this faith of theirs that gives you and others like you the reputation of sages.”

This attitude of the hero leads him to an inevitable loss of spontaneity and naturalness, and cultivates the dryly rational in him. callous rationalistic attitude towards the world. “Boring”, “disgusting”, “stupid” - the main tone of his perception of real life, which also colors the tone of the narrative in the novel. Samghin's witheringly reflective, rational worldview reveals itself especially unequivocally in the plots of his love interests, in his relationship with a woman ("surveillance" of himself in fear - lest he seem funny and stupid) or in scenes of his communication with nature.

In Samghin’s relationships with people, with the world, the author emphasizes not only contemplation and lack of effectiveness, but also, in fact, stable indifference, when interest in a person (and Klim undoubtedly has it) does not go beyond the limits of cold, searching and ironic curiosity (remember, for example, episodes of the death of people close to Samghin - his wife Varvara, Marina Zotova, Lyutov, Turoboev).

Another important knot of internal contradictions in Samgin’s character is his attitude to truth and illusion, to reality and dreams about it - a cross-cutting motif not only in “The Life of Klim Samgin”, but in Gorky’s work as a whole, a dilemma at the forefront of which he tested many of his heroes as I experienced myself in life. Samghin's attitude towards the truth is twofold. On the one hand, in his own eyes he is a supporter of complete objectivity and sober truth, “not a romantic.” And this is already a kind of contradiction, a kind of even paradox: a person who “invents” himself, whose whole life is subordinated to the desire to “prove himself” (a sage, a revolutionary, an original, etc.), considers himself an advocate of the truth. But the mystery, it turns out, lies even deeper, not only in false self-esteem. Klim, in fact, more than once throughout the novel turns out to be a supporter of the truth. One of the key ones here is the scene of the consecration of the church bell, when Samghin and his friends - Lydia, Lyutov, Alina, Makarov - watch how a huge bell is raised to the bell tower. The feeling of the solemn moment, admiration for the wonderful strength of the people (the image of the heroic blacksmith) and the terrible growing tension are expressively conveyed. And at this moment, when all participants in the scene get the impression that people are rising, growing internally in a difficult common task (“straightening up,” “as if wanting to get off the ground,” “everyone is stretching, as if growing”), Samghin refutes this: “You’re lying,” thought Klim Samghin. And in some ways he turns out to be right, as if foreshadowing the misfortune that followed, when the rope broke and the young guy was crushed. Samghin here, as in other similar situations, acts as a truth-teller, similar to Bubnov from the play “At the Bottom,” whose truth-statement is essentially a denial of hope, a denial of the possibilities of development. This kind of Bubnovsky philosophy, as is known, was absolutely unacceptable for Gorky.

And at the same time, Samgin is often driven by a different principle. This is the desire to turn away from a reality that is displeasing to him, from the truth, as if to erase it in his mind, declaring it a deception, an illusion. This is ultimately the meaning of the symbolic leitmotif, which in many ways held together the figurative structure of the novel: “Was there a boy?” (the episode of the death of Boris Varavka, which Klim witnessed, is the episode that served as the source of the symbol of the non-existent “boy”). The hero tries to assure himself and us that there was no “boy”. which means that Klim was not at all guilty of it. The motive of the “boy”, going back to the famous Pushkin (the motive of the tragic guilt of the hero in “Boris Godunov”), which in Samghin turned into skeptical doubt, into a question (“Was there a boy?”), becomes a sign of the cardinal properties of his worldview - skepticism, desire declare facts and events that have passed before his eyes, but are displeasing to him, an illusion, a failed or unnecessary reality, thereby removing all responsibility for them from himself. It is precisely in this way that Samghin parted with the revolution of 1905, as with the historical illusion that deceived him.

Gorky reveals such internal inconsistency of Samghin with unique methods of psychological analysis, making extensive use of the rich tools of Russian realists, especially Dostoevsky. These are internal monologues in which the hero’s self-assessments diverge from the real state of affairs: assessments of the heroes’ behavior and his motives by other persons in the novel; a system of figures parodying him - “mirrors” (cf.: Samghin and Bezbedov, Samghin and Dronov, etc.), images of split consciousness, Samghin’s internal doubles (Klim’s dreams with the appearance of his double, who has lost his own shadow, visions of human beings without faces ), finally, to a large extent, Gorky’s art of compromising the character of everyday details.

As a result, in the central character we see a very sharp discrepancy between his role and essence, “appearance” and authenticity, which in one way or another affects all aspects of his being. A lawyer by profession, Samghin is an eternal prosecutor by passion; convicting everyone around him of lack of independence of thought, he himself in his thinking is nothing more than a “system of other people’s phrases”; “The obedient servant of the revolution”, he is essentially only its slave, and then an apostate. In depicting all this, Gorky unequivocally, although without the participation of a direct, evaluative word from the author, disagrees with Samgin, harshly judges him, illuminating his figure with the light of caustic irony and sarcasm.

However, in the figure of Samghin, in his plan and implementation, there is also another side secretly present. R. Rolland once noticed that Gorky did not like his heroes. This can be attributed to heroes like Samghin. The author of “The Life of Klim Samgin” really does not love his hero, but in the same way that they do not love an unpleasant creature with whom they feel some kind of family connection, even with their former self. In Samgin there is something that belongs to the author himself, his spiritual biography, and these are not only individual judgments and assessments, but also certain states, ideological attitudes, contradictions and doubts experienced by the artist himself, later overcome by him, discarded or left in his consciousness or other trace. Thus, in many of Samghin’s skeptical judgments about the Russian village (“a cunning village” that spares no one), in his distrust of the peasant (scenes of Samghin’s stay in the provinces during the war, his meetings with soldiers in the 4th part of the novel) one cannot help but hear echoes of the author’s own moods.

It is not difficult to guess the author’s voice in Samghin’s attitude towards decadence, towards what Klim calls “non-Khayevism”. Having experienced a fascination with the exoticism of decadence, an affair with Nekhaeva. Klim ultimately pronounces his merciless verdict on the latter: “Smertyashkina” (remember that Gorky himself more than once branded symbolist poets, for example F. Sologub, with this kind of assessment).

One can detect a certain closeness of the author to the hero on a philosophical plane. Samghin denies the significance of the natural-cosmic plan of human thought, speaks sarcastically on this subject more than once, poisonously and ironically perceives “cosmism” in the speeches of L. Andreev (scene in the writer’s apartment), believes that “cosmism” of worldview is convenient as a way to “deflect a person is far away from reality"; The “cosmological picture” of the Universe once appears as a nightmare to Klim in a dream.

All this confirms the idea that the distance between the author and the “negative” hero he debunked is not as great as it seems at first glance. And this must be remembered in order to fully understand and appreciate the author’s position in the work. Considering this circumstance. It is necessary to clarify the interpretation of the author’s ideological positions in the novel, which is customary in our literary criticism, and in particular the attitude towards Kutuzov, in whose image the type of Bolshevik, the main figure of the Russian revolution of 1905 and 1917, is embodied.

Stepan Kutuzov, whom we observe in the novel over a long period of time, is outlined in something significant differently than Pavel Vlasov and other Gorky heroes of this type. To create the impression of versatility of personality. Gorky first introduces the reader to Kutuzov, surrounded by a cheerful young company, in the role of a talented singer, and introduces the plot of his love interests (Marina Premirova). uses the technique of self-characterization of the hero through his letters.

Even in the prism of the perception of the bilious skeptic Samgin, Kutuzov is the only complete personality he met on the way, “a being completely exceptional in its completeness.” But this is the “completeness” of power: Kutuzov amazes those around him with his ability to subjugate them, his ability to “resist people.” And this force more than once reveals itself as a unilinear and cruel force. Kutuzov dismissively dismisses the “potion of humanism,” the “molasses of humanism,” and pity. when they tell him about the shooting of soldiers at unarmed people, about the death of a person he personally knew (the old Deacon), about the death of many workers in the Moscow uprising (“- Fewer than they die every day in the fight against capital,” Kutuzov answered quickly and as if casually.” ), just as Gogin, a like-minded person of Kutuzov, rejects the motives of conscience expressed by Lyubasha Somova (“cannot get rid of the populist leaven, Christian feelings”). In his merciless forecast of the revolution, Kutuzov even allows for the “death” of the majority: “... the majority - you have to think - will passively or actively resist the revolution and will die as a result.” The assessment of such a ruthless calculation belongs to Samghin: “this is cruel,” and this assessment is most likely shared by the author of the novel. Kutuzov's reflections on morality and humanity are distinguished by their ruthlessness and straightforwardness, essentially leading to their denial. “Man, that’s later.” All such judgments of Kutuzov add up to the characterization of his philosophy as “simplified”: “Kutuzovism greatly simplified life...” This evaluative motive is carried out in the novel, of course, on behalf of Samgin, but it varies many times and is also repeated on behalf of other characters and , reinforced by the character of Kutuzov, his mode of action, cannot be discarded in determining the author’s own assessment of the latter. And this is confirmed by the fact that a similar reproach for simplifying life was directly addressed by the author to the Bolsheviks in Gorky’s 1924 essay “Vladimir Lenin.”

The image of Lenin in “The Life of Klim Samgin” is given indirectly (his figure never appears on the pages of the novel), in a polylogue of points of view on him, in a variety of voices. This was done by the writer, probably intentionally, to enhance the impression of the complexity of time, spiritual state the Russian intelligentsia of the era of the revolution and the figure of Lenin himself. In the “chaos of voices” judging Lenin, the following can be heard: something Nechaevsky (an assessment shared by Gorky himself of the period of “untimely thoughts” of 1917-1918), “a guy for a fight,” Don Quixote, a mind that brilliantly combines irony and pathos, Habakkuk of the revolution, the hope of the workers. As we see, in the composition of the image of Lenin in this case, complexly refracted, different “floors” of the writer’s artistic consciousness, different moments of his spiritual path- from the positions of 1917-1918 to 1924 and. finally, the 30s, when the last part of the novel was written. The contradictions of the author's consciousness also affect the genre nature of the work. On the one hand, the canvas, enormous in its scope of time and space, develops according to the logic of the heroic-epic beginning, the epic narrative. This is a figurative “chronicle” of events national history pre-revolutionary era - paintings, mass scenes of the coronation of the Tsar and the terrible Khodynka, the Nizhny Novgorod fair, the ninth of January and the barricade battles of the Moscow uprising, the revolution of the fifth year. episodes expressing the public mood of the First World War and the eve of October. The pathos of the inevitability of the 1917 revolution dominates here; Russia’s attempts to “jump into the kingdom of freedom” from the scenes on Khodynskoye Field are traced. where people rush and die - “eggs”, to pictures of mass revolutionary demonstrations, like Bauman’s funeral, in which one can already discern a formidable, but organized internal system, the breath of a freedom-loving spirit that has spoken among the people. This is the pathos of hope.

At the same time, “The Life of Klim Samgin.” in the development of its main plot action one can notice a similar logic to them - a tragedy novel. The novel is oversaturated with images of death - murders, suicides. the death of the main characters in the novel (the murder of Turoboev, the suicide of Lyutov, the death of Tagilsky, the murder of Marina Zotova, the death of Lyubasha Somova, Varvara Antipova, Klim’s wife, and finally the death of Samgin). The ending of the novel (according to the author’s outlines and plans) is the tragic death of the central character of the work under the boot of a “man,” a soldier. A tragic motive sounds in the biblical legend about Abraham, who sacrificed his son Isaac for God. - in the myth, which becomes one of the cross-cutting symbols of the novel, begins and ends it. Symbol: the intelligentsia (Isaac) - a victim of history in the name of the people - is interpreted in the novel as a myth of populist consciousness, as well as a figment of fantasy out of fear of the history of the “wiser” descendant of the populists, Klim Samgin. This is on the surface of the novel, at the level of its direct words. But at the level of its subtext, something else can be recognized - an echo of the author’s own anxious doubts, questions that tormented him in the 20s: will the Russian intelligentsia become a victim of history, and Russia a country “given to the world for cruel experiments,” as Gorky wrote in 1923

Thus, in “The Life of Klim Samgin” converged, often inconsistent with each other, multidirectional moments of Gorky’s artistic consciousness, which included its evolution over the decade and a half when the novel was written - from doubts to the final affirmation in the aesthetics of Gorky in the 30s a fundamentally non-tragedy rationalistic worldview. Therefore, the tragic outline embedded in the novel is somewhat blurred, scattered, “overcome”, presented as a lie or delusion of intellectuals of the Samga type who have deviated from the laws of history.

The non-tragedy worldview of the late Gorky is most clearly embodied in the essay “V.I. Lenin" 1930, where the author openly admires the hatred of suffering, "hatred of the dramas and tragedies of life" with which the hero of the essay is endowed.

At first glance, the statement about the tragedy-free aesthetics of Gorky in the 1930s is contradicted by the fact that at this time, in the period from 1931 to 1936, he again became interested in drama, creating the plays “Somov and Others” (1933). “Egor Bulychev and others” (1932), “Dostigaev and others” (1933), “Vassa Zheleznova” (1936, second version).

The best of them are “Egor Bulychev” and “Vassa Zheleznova”. In these two plays, in new and very colorful individuals and in new situations, the type of merchant, businessman, owner of a large enterprise that is essentially familiar to us is presented: the mischievous, hot-tempered, indomitable, impartial Bulychev and the smart, firm, passionately determined and powerful Vassa. One, in the face of death, finds himself in a position of late insight, realizing that he lived on the wrong “street”, that he worshiped untrue values ​​and, possessing considerable wealth, he “acquired” very little - only two loving souls, and then contrary to the “law” (illegitimate daughter Shurka and mistress Glafira). Another, Zheleznova. stands guard over the interests of the “cause” in the role of its zealous guardian, no matter what the cost, and since the “cause” on bourgeois grounds is an eternal provocateur of evil, in Gorky’s understanding, then Vassa, in the name of the family, the honor of the family, willy-nilly, is involved in a crime , which ultimately leads to a dramatic contradiction with the family, everything alive and well in it, and with the maternal, human principle in Vassa herself. The dramas of the heroes in the plays “Yegor Bulychev” and “Vassa Zheleznova” are serious and significant, but they are not tragedies in the proper sense, despite the fact that an important role is played in them eternal motives classical tragedies - the motives of death and crime. This is explained by the fact that both central heroes of these dramas are, in Gorky’s understanding, on the other side of the true world, the world of revolution, they belong to the old world, as if already historically and existentially overcome, the “former” (the root of the hero’s surname is “bul” - “ was" - in Bulychev and the motif of the "iron", inanimate in Vassa - the playwright playing with exactly this meaning). This deprives the heroes of the right to the fullness of the audience's sympathy, and their conflicts have the quality of insolubility that is indispensable for tragedy.

So, Gorky’s path after 1917 was not an ascent to the top. Along this path, the writer experienced dramas of doubt, deviations from the truth and painful compromises. The time is still far away when Gorky in our minds will rise to his own stature - without traces of the past long-term idealization, today's hasty belittlement and vengeful rage that topples monuments. Then everything that was ambiguous and false in his views and social behavior will fade into the background, and the main thing will remain - his best artistic works. Gorky, an original writer of the 20th century, will retain his significance.

A contemporary of Gorky A.M. Remizov, far from him in his main artistic guidelines, perhaps. due to this very circumstance, as an honest and insightful witness, he said the right words: “The essence of Gorky’s charm lies precisely in the fact that in the circle of beasts, inhumanity and subhumanity, he spoke in a loud voice and in new images about what is most necessary for human life- about human dignity." He was the creator of the “myth about man”, about the new Icarus, “about human flight - about this “madness of the brave” - a myth “fatal”, but necessary for humanity.

“Our time is a bit difficult for the pen...” V.V. Mayakovsky “Not a single world literature of the 20th century, except Russian, knew such an extensive list of cultural masters who passed away untimely and early...” V.A. Chalmaev “The 20th century broke us all...” M.I. Tsvetaeva Literature of the 20th century

Historical situation in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century The last years of the 19th century became a turning point for Russian and Western cultures. Since the 1890s. and right up to the October Revolution of 1917, literally every aspect of Russian life changed, from economics, politics and science, to technology, culture and art. The new stage of historical and cultural development was incredibly dynamic and, at the same time, extremely dramatic. It can be said that Russia, at a turning point for it, was ahead of other countries in the pace and depth of changes, as well as in the enormity of internal conflicts.

I. Early 1890s - 1905 1892 Code of laws of the Russian Empire: “the obligation of complete obedience to the tsar,” whose power was declared “autocratic and unlimited.” Industrial production is developing rapidly. The social consciousness of a new class, the proletariat, is growing. The first political strike at the Orekhovo-Zuevskaya manufactory. The court recognized the workers' demands as fair. Emperor Nicholas II. The first political parties were formed: 1898 - Social Democrats, 1905 - Constitutional Democrats, 1901 - Social Revolutionaries

Revolutions Historical upheavals of the early 20th century February bourgeois-democratic revolution October socialist revolution First Russian revolution

Nikolai Berdyaev “This was the era of the awakening in Russia of independent philosophical thought, the flowering of poetry and the sharpening of aesthetic sensitivity, religious anxiety and quest, interest in mysticism and the occult.” “This was the era of the awakening of independent philosophical thought in Russia, the flowering of poetry and the sharpening of aesthetic sensitivity, religious anxiety and quest, interest in mysticism and the occult.”

Nineteenth century…. The fragments of superstition fell into the dust, Science turned the dream into truth: Into steam, into the telegraph, into the phonograph, into the telephone, Having learned the composition of stars and the life of bacteria. The ancient world led to eternal secrets; The new world gave the mind power over nature; Centuries of struggle crowned everyone with freedom. All that remains is to combine knowledge with mystery. We are nearing the end, and the new era cannot drown out the aspirations for a higher sphere. (V.Bryusov)

Russian literature at the turn of the century is called the Silver Age - 1920.

The beginning of the “Silver Age” of Russian poetry is considered to be D. Merezhkovsky’s article “Symbols”. The father of the “term” is the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, who called the “Silver Age” a reflection, a revival of the “Golden Age”. One of the most likely reasons is the crisis of the era, the tense historical situation.

The beginning of the era 1890 Nikolai Minsky “With the light of conscience” (1890) Dmitry Merezhkovsky “On the reasons for the decline of modern Russian literature"(1893) Valery Bryusov "Russian Symbolists" (1894) The end of an era 1921 the death of Alexander Blok and the death of Nikolai Gumilyov in 1921.

From French decadence; from medieval lat. decadentia decline. Mood of passivity, hopelessness, rejection of social life, desire to withdraw into the world of one’s own emotional experiences. Opposition to generally accepted “philistine” morality. The cult of beauty as a self-sufficient value. Nihilistic hostility to society, lack of faith and cynicism, a special “feeling of the abyss.” Decadence (late 19th early 20th centuries)

Decadent lyric A deserted ball in an empty desert, Like the Devil's thoughts... It hung forever, it hangs to this day... Madness! B madness! One moment froze - and lasts, Like eternal repentance... You can’t cry, you can’t pray... Despair! Oh despair! He frightens someone with torment, yes, then with salvation... There is no need for lies, nor truth... Oblivion! Forgetfulness! Close the empty eyes of the aphids and barks, dead man. There are no mornings, no days, there are only nights. End. Z. Gippius

Likewise, life is terrible with nothingness, And not even a struggle, not a silent torment, But only endless boredom And a quiet horror is full, That it seems I am not alive, And my heart has stopped to beat, And this is only in reality I still dream about the same thing. And if where I am, the Lord punishes me as here, then death will be like my life, and death will tell me nothing new. D. S. M Erezhkovsky

Critical realism (XIX century - early XX century) A truthful, objective reflection of reality in its historical development. Continuation of the traditions of Russian literature of the 19th century, critical understanding of what is happening. Human character is revealed in organic connection with social circumstances. Close attention to the inner world of a person. A.P. Chekhov L.N. Tolstoy A.I. Kuprin I.A. Bunin

Genre – story and short story. The storyline has been weakened. He is interested in the subconscious, and not in the “dialetics of the soul”, the dark, instinctive sides of the personality, spontaneous feelings that are not understood by the person himself. The image of the author comes to the fore, the task is to show his own, subjective perception of life. There is no direct author's position - everything goes into subtext (philosophical, ideological). The role of detail increases. Poetic techniques transform into prose. Realism (neorealism)

All modernist movements are very different, have different ideals, pursue different goals, but they agree on one thing: to work on the rhythm, the word, to bring the play of sounds to perfection. At this time, the realistic era of Russian culture was replaced by a modernist one. Modernism is the general name for various movements in art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which proclaimed a break with realism, a rejection of old forms and a search for new aesthetic principles.

Symbolism D. MerezhkovskyD. Merezhkovsky, Z. Gippius Z. Gippius, F. Sologub, F. Sologub, V. BryusovV. Bryusov, K. Balmont, K. Balmont A. BlokA. Blok, A. Bely, A. White e gg. From gr. symbolon - sign, symbol.

Symbolism originated in France in the years. XIX century.

The origins of Russian symbolism in France. Arthur Rimbaud Paul Verlaine Charles Baudelaire Stéphane Mallarmé Founder of symbolism - Charles Baudelaire

Literary manifestos 1893. Article by D. S. Merezhkovsky “On the causes of the decline and new trends in modern Russian literature.” Modernism receives theoretical justification. Three main elements of “new art”: – mystical content, – symbolization – “expansion of artistic impressionability” 1903. Article by Bryusov “The Keys of Secrets”. Literature should be close to music in its impact. Poetry is the expression of the poet’s soul, the secrets of the human spirit.

Symbolic landscape Sound recording. The music of the word is important. “Priest language”: complicated, metaphorical. Revival of the sonnet, rondo, terza... Peculiarity of poetics Antithesis of 2 worlds (two worlds): imperishable and real Color symbolism blue - disappointment, separation, surrounding, material world... white - ideal, femininity, love, dream... yellow - morbidity, madness, deviation... black - mystery, duality... red - blood, disaster...

The symbol is an image that has an unlimited number of meanings - “A symbol is true only when it is inexhaustible in its meaning” (Vyach. Ivanov) - “A symbol is a window to infinity” (F. Sologub) conveys not the objective essence of the phenomenon, but the poet’s individual idea of the world; an image that requires co-creation from the reader. “Symbols do not speak, but silently nod” (Vyach. Ivanov) M. Vrubel. Rose

Peculiarities of worldview The world is unknowable. It is possible to rationally comprehend only the lower forms of life, and not the “highest reality” (the area of ​​“absolute ideas”, “world soul”) V. Soloviev. Art is not an image of reality, but “comprehension of the world in other, non-rational ways” (V.Ya. Bryusov) - through the spiritual experience of a person and the creative intuition of the artist. K. Somov “Blue Bird”. 1918 The poet’s hypersensitive intuition is expressed through a symbol, which seeks to designate the elusive

Senior Symbolists 1903 Bryusov “Keys of Secrets”: The purpose of art is to express the “movement of the soul” of the poet, the secrets of the human spirit. The essence of the world is unknowable by reason, but cognizable by intuition. Art is the comprehension of the world in other, non-rational ways. The task of art is to capture moments of insight and inspiration. Creations of art are ajar doors to Eternity V. BryusovK. BalmontD. MerezhkovskyZ. GippiusF. Sologub

Young Symbolists 1900 - turn of the century Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov ... We approached - and the waters were blue, like two spilled walls. And now in the distance the tabernacle turns white, And the dim distances are visible... the divine unity of the Universe The soul of the world is the Eternal Femininity The society is built on spiritual principles V. IvanovA. BelyA. Block

II.1905 - 1911 1905 is one of the key years in the history of Russia. This year the revolution took place, which began with “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, the first tsarist manifesto was published, limiting the power of the monarchy in favor of its subjects, proclaiming the Duma the legislative body of power, approving civil freedom, the creation of a council of ministers headed by Witte, an armed uprising took place in Moscow, which was the peak of the revolution, an uprising in Sevastopol, etc.

Years. Russo-Japanese War

Peculiarities of poetics Subjectivity and clarity of images (“beautiful clarity”) Accuracy of details that create a specific picture Not “shaky words”, but words “with a more stable content” Genre-madrigal Cult of “beautiful clarity”: poetry should be understandable, images should be clear. Refusal of mystery, vagueness, ambiguity. Refusal of dual worlds and acceptance of reality in all its manifestations.

Worldview The world is material, objective; you need to look for values ​​in the world and capture them with the help of accurate and understandable images. Love is an earthly feeling, not an insight into other worlds K.M. Roerich “Overseas Guests” “Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, smells and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else” (S. Gorodetsky)

Representatives of the “Workshop of Poets” N. Gumilyov. AkhmatovaO. MandelstamS. Gorodets Acmeism stood out from symbolism. Criticizes the vagueness of the symbolist language. Liberation of poetry from symbolist impulses towards the “ideal”, from the polysemy of images. Return to the material world, an object, the exact meaning of a word

Crisis of symbolism year. Article by A. Blok “About current state Russian symbolism" 1911. The most radical direction appears, denying all previous culture, the avant-garde - futurism. In Khlebnikov, V. Mayakovsky, I. Severyanin. III – 1920s V KhlebnikovV. Mayakovsky I. Severyanin

Futurism (from Latin futurum - future) V. Mayakovsky V. Khlebnikov I. Severyanin years

Futurism originated in Italy in the 1920s.

The origins of Russian futurism Italy year F. Marinetti “Manifesto of Futurism”: rejection of traditional aesthetic values ​​and experience of all previous literature “Until now, literature has glorified thoughtful inaction, sensitivity and sleep, we proclaim aggressive action, feverish insomnia, gymnastic gait, dangerous jump, a slap and a punch." “A racing car... more beautiful than the Nike of Samothrace...” courage, audacity, rebellion “From now on, there is no beauty outside of struggle. There is no masterpiece if it does not have an aggressive spirit..." literary experiments

Literary manifestos Reject literary tradition We order to honor the rights of poets: To increase the vocabulary in its volume with arbitrary and derivative words (Word-innovation) year. “A slap in the face to public taste” “The past is cramped. The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs. Abandon Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc. from the Steamship of Modernity." Reinventing art

A slap in the face to public taste Reading our New First Unexpected. Only we are the face of our Time. The horn of time blows for us in the art of words. The past is tight. The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs. Abandon Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc. from the Steamship of Modernity. Whoever does not forget his first love will not know his last. Who, gullible, will turn his last Love to Balmont's perfume fornication? Is it a reflection of the courageous soul of today? Who, the coward, would be afraid to steal the paper armor from the black coat of the warrior Bryusov? Or are they the dawns of unknown beauties? Wash your hands that have touched the dirty slime of the books written by these countless Leonid Andreevs. To all these Maxim Gorkys, Kuprins, Bloks, Sollogubs, Remizovs, Averchenks, Chernys, Kuzmins, Bunins and so on. and so on. All you need is a dacha on the river. This is the reward that fate gives to tailors. From the heights of skyscrapers we look at their insignificance!...

We order that the rights of poets be respected: 1. To increase the vocabulary in its volume with arbitrary and derivative words (Word-innovation). 2. An insurmountable hatred of the language that existed before them. 3. With horror, remove from your proud brow the wreath of penny glory you made from the bath brooms. 4. Stand on the rock of the word “we” amid a sea of ​​whistles and indignation. And if the dirty marks of yours still remain in our lines common sense” and “good taste”, then nevertheless for the first time the Lightnings of the New Coming Beauty of the Self-Valuable (Self-Valuable) Word are already trembling on them. D. Burliuk, Alexander Kruchenykh, V. Mayakovsky, Viktor Khlebnikov Moscow December

Aesthetic principles of futurism 1. Attitude to previous and other cultures, eras and traditions: a declarative “break” with the previous tradition; revolutionary innovation in poetry; destruction of old norms. 2.Attitude to reality: revolutionary transformation. 3. A look at the vocation of a poet: poet-rebel, revolutionary, co-creator new reality. 4.Look at historical process: eternal progress, denial of the past in the name of the present and the present in the name of the future. 5. A related type of art: painting. 6. The problem of the relationship between “name” and “thing”: the collision of naming and showing a thing, metaphorization of reality.

Main features: Denial of the value of classical literature. The cult of technology and industrialization. Shocking behavior, shocking behavior, scandal as the main means of achieving popularity. The cult of word creation: “new” people need a “new”, “abstruse” language. Refusal of traditions. Destruction of the existing system of genres.

I. Severyanin Egofuturism Bunin I.A.: “What have we not done in recent years with our literature? And they reached the most flat hooliganism, called the absurd word “futurism”. Northerner remained the only ego-futurist to go down in the history of Russian poetry. His poems, for all their pretentiousness and often vulgarity, were distinguished by their unconditional melodiousness, sonority and lightness.

In a noisy dress of moire, in a noisy dress of moire Along the sun-lit alley you pass the sea... Your dress is exquisite, Your talma is azure. And the sandy path is patterned with leaves - Like spider legs, like jaguar fur. For a sophisticated woman, the night is always newlywed... The rapture of love is destined for you by fate... In a noisy moire dress, in a noisy moire dress -

Literary manifestos The theoretical works and poetic creativity of S.A. Yesenin, who was part of the backbone of the association, largely influenced the development of the movement. In the theoretical work “The Keys of Mary” (1920), Yesenin builds his poetics of the image: “The image from the flesh can be called a splash screen, the image from the spirit is a ship, and the third image from the mind is angelic.” Like other imagist declarations, “The Keys of Mary” is polemical: “Following Klyuev, stupid futurism broke its neck.” Folk mythology was one of the main sources of Yesenin’s imagery, and the mythological parallel “nature - man” became fundamental to his poetic worldview. The publishing house "Imaginists" published his collections "Treryaditsa", "Radunitsa", "Transfiguration" (all - 1921) and the dramatic poem "Pugachev" (1922).

Nikolai Alekseevich Klyuev Oreshin Pyotr Vasilievich Yesenin Sergey Alexandrovich We are the early morning clouds, the dawns of dewy spring N. Gumilyov Neo-peasant poets

Prof. Davydova T.T.

Plan of the discipline “HISTORY OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE XX CENTURY”. 2nd year, d/o. 34 hours of lectures, 34 – practical classes

1st week.

L-1. Introduction. General characteristics of symbolism. /5/, p.5-20; pp.231-311; p.271-305./2/, p.8-50.

Pz-1. The work of K.D. Balmont and Russian symbolism. /5/, p.231-237.

SRS /2.5 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from a textbook /2 hours/, /5/, pp. 5-20; pp.231-311; pp.271-305.

2nd week.

L-2. The work of the Young Symbolists and the poetry of A. Blok.

SRS /2 hours/ . Studying UM from a textbook /1 hour/, /5/, p.231-237; work on the text /1 hour/.

3rd week.

L-3. General characteristics of Acmeism. /5/, p. 312-337.

Pz-2. “Petersburg” by A. Bely as a novel-myth.

SRS /2.5 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from a textbook /2 hours/, /5/, 312-337.

4th week.

L-4. N. Gumilev and Acmeism

SRS /2 hours/ . Studying UM from a textbook /1 hour/, /5/, p. 323-325; work on the text /1 hour/.

5th week.

L-5. General characteristics of futurism. /5/, p.338-364.

Pz-3. Creative principles of Acmeism and the poetry of O. Mandelstam. /5/, p.323-325.

SRS /2 hours/ Working out the mind based on lecture notes /1 hour/; studying UM from a textbook /1 hour/, /5/, p. 338-364.

6th week.

L-6. Philosophical and mythological orientation of the early poetry of V. Mayakovsky.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from a textbook /1 hour/; work on the text /1 hour/, /4/, p.178-190.

Week 7

L-7. Ways of development of realism (I. Bunin, A. Kuprin, M. Gorky).

Pz-4. Poem by V.V. Mayakovsky “Cloud in Pants”. /4/, p.178-190.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /1 hour/; studying UM from a textbook /1 hour/, /5/, p. 26-163.

Week 8.

L-8. Ideological and artistic originality of the neorealist movement (E. Zamyatin, I. Shmelev, M. Prishvin, S. Sergeev-Tsensky). /5/, p.181-195; /6/, pp.57-90.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from the textbook /5/, pp. 379-398, /1 hour/; work on the text /1 hour/.

Week 9

L-9. Expressionistic tendency in Russian realism of the early twentieth century. (prose by L. Andreev). /5/, p.379-398.

Pz-5. Problems and images of heroes in the stories “The Duel” by A. Kuprin and “In the Middle East” by E. Zamyatin /5/, pp. 51-60; /7/, pp.90-106.

SRS /2.5 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from a textbook /2 hours/, /5/, p. 181-195.

Week 10

L-10. Basic patterns of development of literature of the 20s. The struggle of literary groups in the literature of the 20s. /1/, p.13-70

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from the textbook /5/, pp. 51-60; /6/, p.90-106 /0.5 hours/; work on the text /1.5 hours/.

Week 11

L-11. Ideological and artistic originality of prose of the first half. 20s Modernist traditions in B. Pilnyak’s novel “The Naked Year” and the cycle of short stories by I. Babel “Cavalry.”

Pz-6. The main motives, the image of the lyrical heroine in the poetry of M. Tsvetaeva.

SRS /2.5 hours/ Practicing UM using lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from educational literature /2 hours/, /1/, pp. 13-70; /2/, p.8-26.

Week 12.

L-12. Problems of happiness and freedom in the dystopian novel “We” by E. Zamyatin.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying minds from the textbook /2/, pp. 238-242. /1 hour/; work on the text /1 hour/.

Week 13.

L-13. The originality of prose of the second gender. 20s Problems, images of heroes, genre of the novel by M.A. Bulgakov “The White Guard”.

SRS /2.5 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from educational literature /2 hours/. /1/, p.13-70; /2/, p.367-401.

Week 14.

L-14. Satire in prose and drama of the 20s. (M. Zoshchenko, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, V. Mayakovsky, M. Bulgakov).

SRS /2 hours/ Study of UM from educational literature /2/, pp. 209-237 /1 hour/, work on the text /1 hour/.

Week 15.

L-15. Basic patterns of literature of the 30s. “Quiet Don” by M.A. Sholokhov as an epic novel. /1/, p.13-70; /2/, p.367-401.

Pz-8. The creative history of "The Master and Margarita" by M.A. Bulgakov. "The Master and Margarita" as a philosophical novel. /2/, p.261-268.

SRS /2 hours/ Practicing mind skills based on lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from educational literature /3/, book 1, pp. 12-60 /1.5 hours/.

Week 16

L-16. Features of the literary process of the 40-50s. /3/, book 1, pp. 12-60.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from the textbook /2/, pp. 310-314 /1 hour/, working on the text /1 hour/.

Week 17

L-17. Basic patterns of the modern literary process. /2/, p.402-478; /3/, book 3, p.74-150; /4/, p.340-388; /7/.

Pz-9. Genre-style originality and the image of the main character of the novel by B. L. Pasternak “Doctor Zhivago”. /2/, p.310-314.

SRS /2 hours/ Studying UM from lecture notes /0.5 hours/; studying UM from educational literature /2/, pp. 402-478 /1.5 hours/.

LITERATURE

1. LITERATURE

2. Golubkov M.M. Lost alternatives. M., 1992.

3. Golubkov M.M. History of Russian lit. critics of the twentieth century (1920-1990s). Educational allowance. M., 2008.

4. History of Russian literature of the twentieth century (20-90s). Basic names. Educational manual for philol. faculties of the univ. M., 1998.

5. History of Russian literature of the twentieth century (20-50s). Lit. process. Educational allowance. M., 2006.

6. Davydova T.T., Sushilina I.K. History of Russian literature: from symbolism to postmodernism. Tutorial. M., 2016. Paper and electronics. ed.

7. Kolobaeva L.A. Russian symbolism. M., 2000. Her same: Philosophy and literature. M., 2013 (articles about Gorky, Bunin, Pasternak).

8. Leiderman N.L., Lipovetsky M.N. Modern Russian literature: In 3 books. M., 2001.

9. Davydova T.T. Russian neorealism: textbook. M: Science, Flinta. M., 2016. - 4th ed., electronic.

10. Davydova T.T. The creative evolution of Evgeny Zamyatin in the context of Russian literature of the first third of the 20th century. M., 2000.

11. Skorospelova E.B. Russian prose of the 20th century: from A. Bely (“Petersburg”) to B. Pasternak (“Doctor Zhivago”). M., 2003.

12. Davydova T.T., Sushilina I.K. History of Russian literature of the 20th century: from symbolism to postmodernism. M., 2016.

13. Sokolov A.G. History of Russian literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. M., 1999. Ed. 4th.

14. Davydova T.T. Russian neorealism. M., 2005; 2011 el. edition.

15. Russian writers. 1800 - 1917. Biographical Dictionary / Ch. ed. P. A. Nikolaev. T. 1–5. M., 1989–2007 (edition in progress).

16. Russian writers of the 20th century: Biographer. dictionary. M., 2000.

17. Russian writers of the 20th century. Biographical Dictionary / Ed. AND ABOUT. Shaitanova. M., 2009.

History of Russian literature of the 20th century

Topic 1. The work of K.D. Balmont and Russian symbolism

1.What period of Russian symbolism is it associated with? creative activity K.D.Balmont?

2. What is the picture of the world in the poems “Testament of Being”, the cycle “Fleeting”, the poem “Here and There”?

3.How are the images of Don Juan and Lermontov revealed in the poem and lyrical cycle of the same name? How does Balmont interpret the theme of the poet and poetry?

4.What is the technical side of Balmont’s verse?

5. Describe the foreign period of the poet’s work.

6.Draw a conclusion about the genre composition of Balmont’s poetry and his place in Russian literature of the twentieth century.

Literature for class

Balmont K. D. Poems. L., 1969. (Large series “Poet’s Library”)

Balmont K.D. Poems. M., 1990.

Kolobaeva L.A. Russian symbolism. M., 2000.

Topic 2. 1) Symbolist prose (novel by F. Sologub "The Little Demon")

1.What are the traditions of Russian literature of the 19th century? are read in “The Little Demon” and what is unique about the writer’s interpretation of them?

2.What is the picture of the world and the concept of personality created in the work? What prevails here - determinism or indeterminism?

3.What methods of character development will the writer use (landscape, portrait, monologue, dialogue, etc.)?

4.What is behind the dramatic denouement of the novel?

5. How do you understand the storyline of Lyudmilochka Rutilova - Sasha Pylnikov? Is Sologub’s worldview expressed through her?

6. Which of the two critics, in your opinion, is right in assessing the love games of Lyudmila and Sasha: A. Blok, who saw in these innocent games “a spring of endless purity and charm... in everyday life” or V. Keldysh, who saw in the erotic line novel “pagan calls of the body - and a spicy scent of eroticism in provincial-decadent taste”?

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-04-03

Several periods can be distinguished in Russian literature of the 20th century. The first two decades were called the “Silver Age”: this was an era of rapid development of literary trends, the emergence of a whole galaxy of brilliant Masters of Words. The literature of this period exposed the deep contradictions that arose in the society of that time. Writers were no longer satisfied with the classical canons; the search for new forms and new ideas began. On foreground universal human ones come out, philosophical topics about the meaning of life, about morality, about spirituality. More and more religious themes began to appear.

Three main literary trends were clearly identified: realism, modernism and the Russian avant-garde. The principles of romanticism are also being revived, this is especially clearly represented in the works of V. Korolenko and A. Green.

In the 1930s, a “great turning point” emerged: thousands of members of the intelligentsia were subjected to repression, and the existence of severe censorship slowed down the development of literary processes.

With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, a new direction appeared in Russian literature - military. Initially, genres close to journalism were popular - features, essays, reports. Later, monumental paintings would appear that captured all the horrors of war and the fight against fascism. These are works by L. Andreev, F. Abramov, V. Astafiev, Yu. Bondarev, V. Bykov.

The second half of the 20th century is characterized by diversity and inconsistency. This is largely due to the fact that the development of literature was largely determined by the ruling structures. That is why there is such unevenness: now ideological dominance, now complete emancipation, now the commanding cry of censorship, now relaxation.

Russian writers of the 20th century

M. Gorky- one of the most significant writers and thinkers of the beginning of the century. Recognized as the founder of such a literary movement as socialist realism. His works became a “school of excellence” for writers of the new era. And Gorky’s work had a huge influence on the development of world culture. His novels and stories were translated into many languages ​​and became a bridge connecting the Russian revolution and world culture.

Selected works:

L.N.Andreev. The work of this writer is one of the first “swallows” of emigrant Russian literature. Andreev’s work harmoniously fits into the concept of critical realism, which exposed the tragedy of social injustice. But, having joined the ranks of the white emigration, Andreev was forgotten for a long time. Although the significance of his work had a great influence on the development of the concept of realistic art.

Selected work:

A.I. Kuprin. Name of this greatest writer undeservedly placed at a lower rank than the names of L. Tolstoy or M. Gorky. At the same time, Kuprin’s work is a vivid example original art, truly Russian, intelligent art. The main themes in his works: love, features of Russian capitalism, problems of the Russian army. Following Pushkin and Dostoevsky, A. Kuprin pays great attention to the theme of the “little man”. The writer also wrote many stories specifically for children.

Selected works:

K.G.Paustovsky- an amazing writer who managed to remain original, to remain true to himself. There is no revolutionary pathos, loud slogans or socialist ideas in his works. Paustovsky's main merit is that all his stories and novels seem to be standards of landscape, lyrical prose.

Selected works:

M.A. Sholokhov- a great Russian writer whose contribution to the development of world literature can hardly be overestimated. Sholokhov, following L. Tolstoy, creates amazing monumental canvases of Russian life at the most critical moments in history. Sholokhov also went down in the history of Russian literature as a singer native land- Using the example of life in the Don region, the writer was able to show the full depth of historical processes.

Biography:

Selected works:

A.T. Tvardovsky- the brightest representative of literature Soviet era, literature socialist realism. His work raised the most pressing problems: collectivization, repression, excesses of the idea of ​​socialism. As the editor-in-chief of the New World magazine, A. Tvardovsky revealed to the world the names of many “forbidden” writers. It was in his light hand that A. Solzhenitsyn began to be published.

A. Tvardovsky himself remained in the history of literature as the author of the most lyrical drama about the war - the poem "Vasily Terkin".

Selected work:

B.L.Pasternak is one of the few Russian writers to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature for his novel Doctor Zhivago. Also known as a poet and translator.

Selected work:

M.A. Bulgakov... In world literature, perhaps, there is no more discussed writer than M. A. Bulgakov. The brilliant prose writer and playwright left many mysteries for future generations. His work harmoniously intertwined the ideas of humanism and religion, ruthless satire and compassion for man, the tragedy of the Russian intelligentsia and unbridled patriotism.

Selected works:

V.P. Astafiev- Russian writer in whose work the main themes were two: war and the Russian village. Moreover, all his stories and novels are realism in its most vivid embodiment.

Selected work:

- one of the most massive figures in Russian Soviet literature, and, perhaps, the most famous Turkic-language writer. His works depict various periods of Soviet history. But Aitmatov’s main merit is that he, like no one else, was able to colorfully and vividly embody the beauty of his native land on the pages.

Selected work:

With the collapse of the USSR, Russian literature entered a completely new stage of its development. Strict censorship and ideological orientation have become a thing of the past. The newfound freedom of speech became the starting point for the emergence of a whole galaxy of writers of a new generation and new directions: postmodernism, magical realism, avant-garde and others.

Story

Imagism as a poetic movement arose in 1918, when the “Order of Imagists” was founded in Moscow. The founders of the “Order” were those who came from Penza Anatoly Mariengof, former Futurist Vadim Shershenevich and was previously part of the group of new peasant poets Sergey Yesenin. Features of a characteristic metaphorical style were also contained in the earlier works of Shershenevich and Yesenin, and Mariengof organized literary group Imagists back in hometown. The Imagist "Declaration" published January 30 1919 in the Voronezh magazine "Sirena" (and February 10 also in the newspaper “Soviet Country”, on whose editorial board Yesenin was included), in addition to them signed by the poet Rurik Ivnev and artists Boris Erdman And Georgy Yakulov. Poets also joined imagism Ivan Gruzinov , Matvey Roizman , Alexander Kusikov , Nikolay Erdman .

Organizationally, imagism actually collapsed to 1925: Alexander Kusikov emigrated in 1922, to 1924 Sergei Yesenin and Ivan Gruzinov announced the dissolution of the “Order”; other imagists moved away from poetry, turning to prose, drama, and cinema. The activities of the Order of Militant Imagists ceased in 1926, and in the summer of 1927 the liquidation of the Order of Imagists was announced. The relationships and actions of the Imagists were then described in detail in the memoirs of Mariengof, Shershenevich, and Roizman.

General characteristics of the literature of the beginning of the century (trends, publishing houses, problems of prose, motives in poetry).

Late XIX - early XX centuries. became a time of bright flourishing of Russian culture, its “silver age” (the “golden age” was called Pushkin's time). In science, literature, and art, new talents appeared one after another, bold innovations were born, and competitions different directions, groupings and styles. At the same time, the culture of the “Silver Age” was characterized by deep contradictions that were characteristic of all Russian life of that time.

Russia's rapid breakthrough in development and the clash of different ways of life and cultures changed the self-awareness of the creative intelligentsia. Many were no longer satisfied with the description and study of visible reality, or the analysis of social problems. I was attracted by deep, eternal questions - about the essence of life and death, good and evil, human nature. Interest in religion revived; The religious theme had a strong influence on the development of Russian culture at the beginning of the 20th century.

However, the turning point not only enriched literature and art: it constantly reminded writers, artists and poets of impending social explosions, of the fact that the entire familiar way of life, the entire old culture, could perish. Some awaited these changes with joy, others with melancholy and horror, which brought pessimism and anguish into their work.

On turn of the 19th century and 20th centuries literature developed under different historical conditions than before. If you look for a word that characterizes the most important features of the period under consideration, it will be the word “crisis”. Great scientific discoveries shook the classical ideas about the structure of the world and led to the paradoxical conclusion: “matter has disappeared.” A new vision of the world, thus, will determine the new face of realism of the 20th century, which will differ significantly from the classical realism of its predecessors. The crisis of faith also had devastating consequences for the human spirit (“God is dead!” exclaimed Nietzsche). This led to the fact that the person of the 20th century began to increasingly experience the influence of irreligious ideas. The cult of sensual pleasures, the apology for evil and death, the glorification of the self-will of the individual, the recognition of the right to violence, which turned into terror - all these features indicate a deep crisis of consciousness.

In Russian literature of the early 20th century, a crisis of old ideas about art and a feeling of exhaustion of past development will be felt, and a revaluation of values ​​will take shape.

The renewal of literature and its modernization will cause the emergence of new trends and schools. The rethinking of old means of expression and the revival of poetry will mark the advent of the “Silver Age” of Russian literature. This term is associated with the name of N. Berdyaev, who used it in one of his speeches in the salon of D. Merezhkovsky. Later art critic and the editor of Apollo, S. Makovsky, consolidated this phrase by calling his book about Russian culture at the turn of the century “On Parnassus of the Silver Age.” Several decades will pass and A. Akhmatova will write “...the silver month is bright / Cold over the silver age.”

The chronological framework of the period defined by this metaphor can be designated as follows: 1892 - exit from the era of timelessness, the beginning of social upsurge in the country, manifesto and collection "Symbols" by D. Merezhkovsky, the first stories of M. Gorky, etc.) - 1917. According to another point of view, the chronological end of this period can be considered 1921-1922 (the collapse of former illusions, the mass emigration of Russian cultural figures from Russia that began after the death of A. Blok and N. Gumilyov, the expulsion of a group of writers, philosophers and historians from the country).

Russian literature of the 20th century was represented by three main literary movements: realism, modernism, and the literary avant-garde.

Representatives of literary movements

Senior Symbolists: V. Ya. Bryusov, K. D. Balmont, D. S. Merezhkovsky, Z. N. Gippius, F. K. Sologub and others.

God-seeking mystics: D. S. Merezhkovsky, Z. N. Gippius, N. Minsky.

Decadent individualists: V. Ya. Bryusov, K. D. Balmont, F. K. Sologub.

Junior Symbolists: A. A. Blok, Andrey Bely (B. N. Bugaev), V. I. Ivanov and others.

Acmeism: N. S. Gumilev, A. A. Akhmatova, S. M. Gorodetsky, O. E. Mandelstam, M. A. Zenkevich, V. I. Narbut.

Cubo-futurists(poets of "Gilea"): D. D. Burlyuk, V. V. Khlebnikov, V. V. Kamensky, V. V. Mayakovsky, A. E. Kruchenykh.

Egofuturists: I. Severyanin, I. Ignatiev, K. Olimpov, V. Gnedov.

Group“Mezzanine of Poetry”: V. Shershenevich, Chrysanf, R. Ivnev and others.

Association "Centrifuge": B. L. Pasternak, N. N. Aseev, S. P. Bobrov and others.

One of the most interesting phenomena in the art of the first decades of the 20th century was the revival of romantic forms, largely forgotten since the beginning of the last century. One of these forms was proposed by V. G. Korolenko, whose work continues to develop at the end of the 19th and the first decades of the new century. Another expression of the romantic was the work of A. Green, whose works are unusual for their exoticism, flights of fancy, and ineradicable dreaminess. The third form of the romantic was the work of revolutionary worker poets (N. Nechaev, E. Tarasov, I. Privalov, A. Belozerov, F. Shkulev). Turning to marches, fables, calls, songs, these authors poeticize the heroic feat, use romantic images of glow, fire, crimson dawn, thunderstorm, sunset, limitlessly expand the range of revolutionary vocabulary, and resort to cosmic scales.

Writers such as Maxim Gorky and L.N. Andreev played a special role in the development of literature of the 20th century. The twenties are a difficult, but dynamic and creatively fruitful period in the development of literature. Although many figures of Russian culture were expelled from the country in 1922, and others went into voluntary emigration, artistic life in Russia does not freeze. On the contrary, many talented young writers appear, recent participants in the Civil War: L. Leonov, M. Sholokhov, A. Fadeev, Yu. Libedinsky, A. Vesely and others.

The thirties began with the “year of the great turning point,” when the foundations of the previous Russian way of life were sharply deformed, and the party began to actively intervene in the sphere of culture. P. Florensky, A. Losev, A. Voronsky and D. Kharms were arrested, repressions against the intelligentsia intensified, which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of cultural figures, two thousand writers died, in particular N. Klyuev, O. Mandelstam, I. Kataev, I. Babel, B. Pilnyak, P. Vasiliev, A. Voronsky, B. Kornilov. Under these conditions, the development of literature was extremely difficult, tense and ambiguous.

The work of such writers and poets as V.V. Mayakovsky, S.A. Yesenin, A.A. Akhmatova, A.N. Tolstoy, E.I. Zamyatin, M.M. Zoshchenko, M.A. deserves special consideration. Sholokhov, M. A. Bulgakov, A. P. Platonov, O. E. Mandelstam, M. I. Tsvetaeva.

The Holy War, which began in June 1941, put forward new tasks for literature, to which the country's writers immediately responded. Most of them ended up on the battlefields. More than a thousand poets and prose writers joined the ranks of the active army, becoming famous war correspondents (M. Sholokhov, A. Fadeev, N. Tikhonov, I. Erenburg, Vs. Vishnevsky, E. Petrov, A. Surkov, A. Platonov). Works of various kinds and genres joined the fight against fascism. First among them was poetry. Here it is necessary to highlight the patriotic lyrics of A. Akhmatova, K. Simonov, N. Tikhonov, A. Tvardovsky, V. Sayanov. Prose writers cultivated their most operative genres: journalistic essays, reports, pamphlets, stories.

Realistic publishing houses:

Knowledge (production of general education literature - Kuprin, Bunin, Andreev, Veresaev); collections; social Issues

Rosehip (St. Petersburg) collections and almaci

Slovo (Moscow) collections and almanacs

Gorky publishes the literary and political magazine “Chronicle” (Parus publishing house)

“World of Art” (modernist. Art; magazine of the same name) – Diaghilev founder

“New Path”, “Scorpio”, “Vulture” - symbolist.

“Satyricon”, “New Satyricon” - satire (Averchenko, S. Cherny)

*The most significant movement in Russian modernism was symbolism. It arose in the early 90s of the 19th century and existed for two decades. The artistic and journalistic organ of the Symbolists was the magazine “Scales” (1904-1909).

The senior symbolists (90s), who approved the name and principles of the new art, included V. Bryusov, D. Merezhkovsky, Z. Gippius, K. Balmont. The second generation of symbolists came to literature at the beginning of the 20th century - A. Blok, A. Bely, S. Solovyov, Ellis.

The ideologist and inspirer of the Symbolists was the poet and philosopher V. Solovyov (1853-1900). The symbolists were close to his idea of ​​the Soul of the World, Eternal Femininity, and the Spirit of Music. The younger generation of symbolists also focused on the position of I. Annensky
(1856-1909), his “torment of the ideal.”

At the heart of the world, the symbolists saw not a material, but an ideal essence. In the surrounding reality there are only signs, symbols of this essence. They found the origins of this perception in philosophy. Thus, Plato compared reality to a cave, into which only reflections and shadows of the true unreal world penetrate. A person can only guess from these shadow symbols about what happened outside the cave. I. Kant’s reasoning sounded in the same vein.

Existing in the everyday, real world, a person feels his connection with the existential, unreal world, tries to penetrate into it, to go beyond the “cave”. Let us emphasize in this position the recognition of the primary role of the spiritual world of man.

The concept of symbol requires clarification. We quite often encounter the symbolic meaning of images in the realistic literature of the past. Folklore is permeated with symbolism. Modernists put a new semantic connotation into this word. The symbol was opposed to allegory and allegory. The main thing in the symbol was its polysemy, the variety of associative connections, and the whole system of correspondences.

Symbolists saw music as the highest form of creativity and paid special attention to melody. The nature of the sound of the work was no less important than its meaning. And in comprehending the meaning, an attitude towards reticence is essential. The text had to remain a mystery, and the artist felt like a creator, a theurgist.

The work of the Symbolists was initially addressed to the elite, the initiated. The poet counted on the reader-co-author, not trying to be understood by everyone. In one of the lyrical poems of Z. Gippius, the refrain was recognition of the uncertainty of desires, the desire for something “that is not in the world.” This was a certain programmatic attitude, a refusal to pay attention to real, “real” life.

Refusing to depict the concrete world, the symbolists turned to the problems of existence. However, it was real life that made its own adjustments. Dissatisfaction with modernity gave rise to the motive of the end of the world and was the impetus for the poeticization of death.

In the works of literary scholars of past years, these motives, as already mentioned, were explained by confusion before the impending revolution. At the same time revolutionary events Many symbolists perceived 1905 as the beginning of renewal. While welcoming the destruction of the old world, the Symbolists did not fill their confessions with specific social content. “I will break with you, but not build!” - V. Bryusov stated in poetry. The element of revolution was accepted as a symbol of freedom; what followed seemed to be a limitation of it and was therefore rejected.*

Senior Symbolists:

Priority of spiritual idealistic values ​​(Merezhkovsky)

The spontaneous nature of creativity (Balmont)

Art as the most reliable form of knowledge (Bryusov)

Junior Symbolists:

The need to combine art and religion (White) – mystical and religious sentiments

- “trilogy of humanization” (Blok) – movement from the music of the beyond through the underworld of the material world and the whirlwind of the elements to the “elementary simplicity” of human experiences

The poetry of the Symbolists is poetry for the elite, for the aristocrats of the spirit. “While realist poets view the world naively, like simple observers, submitting to its material basis, symbolist poets, re-creating materiality with a complex impressionability, dominate the world and penetrate into its mysteries.”

Philosophy of symbolism:

The perception of dual worlds is given only to a select few

Sophia, femininity, conciliarity

New religion – neo-Christianity (union of the soul with God without the mediation of the church)

Features of the verse:

Solemnity, high style

Music of verse, emotional value of sounds

Complex abstract irrational metaphor

“Symbolism makes the very style, the most artistic substance of poetry spiritual, transparent, translucent through and through, like the thin walls of an alabaster amphora in which a flame is lit.”

From the 40s of the last century until the very end, realism dominated Russian literature. New qualities arose in active contact with tradition. The need for radical renewal prompted a broad summing up of what to accept and what to reject in the artistic past. His perception in the literature of that time was particularly intense.

The transformation of realism occurs at the turn of the century throughout Europe. But the role of traditions in this process was especially great in Russia, because here classical realism not only did not weaken by the end of the century, but became enriched. In the 90s, a young generation of realistic artists entered Russian literature. However, the beginning of the renewal of realism was laid by the greatest masters of older generations - those who directly connected the present century with the past century. This is the late L. Tolstoy and Chekhov.

By the end of the 19th century, the global significance of Tolstoy’s activities was fully realized abroad. The achievements of Chekhov's work, who, according to L. Tolstoy, created completely new forms of writing both in prose and drama, turned out to be of primary importance for the literary process.

The realistic literature of the transitional era as a whole did not rise to the level of its great predecessors. One of the explanations for this is the special difficulties of creative self-determination at a time of radical change in values ​​and guidelines in the country. But despite the contradictions and difficulties, the direction continued to develop intensively, giving rise to a special typological quality that arose on the basis of a renewed perception of the traditions of classical realism and the gradual overcoming of the concept of determinism in a naturalistic spirit. The actual artistic renewal of realism at the turn of the century is also fundamentally important: stylistic searches, expressed in decisive genre restructuring, in significant modifications of the poetic language.

(FROM THE TEXTBOOK)

Statements about the crisis of realism at the turn of the 20th century are a thing of the past. Arguments against such statements were the works of L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov and talented writers of the next generation who came up with realistic works (A. Kuprin, I. Bunin, etc.).

Obviously, when characterizing the literature of the beginning of the century, we must talk not about the crisis of realism, but about expanding the ways in which the crisis phenomena of life, the crisis of consciousness, are embodied in literature.

Researchers consider the work of A. Chekhov and the late L. Tolstoy as the highest stage in the development of classical realism. Both writers were not looking for an answer to the traditional questions “who is to blame?” and “what to do?”, but showed how modern life deviates from the norm. L. Tolstoy, in “Resurrection,” completed at the turn of the 20th century, gave an artistic depiction of those state institutions - the court, the church, the prison - which allowed him to reveal the hostility of the entire social system to man. Tolstoy solved a similar artistic problem in the drama “The Living Corpse” (1900). In the story “Hadji Murat” (1904), the tragic fate of the central hero - a strong, integral man - is revealed in confrontation with the same system, indifferent to man and his national mentality. Tolstoy gave the reader the opportunity to see and feel not the individual shortcomings and vices of specific people, but the foundations, the roots of false morality, corrupt politics, and a criminal state.

In Chekhov's works the reader was immersed in an everyday, philistine atmosphere. Showing everyday awkwardness, the writer recreated the complexity of life, in which evil is present dispersedly and silently, permeating everyday life. Chekhov is not engaged in a “moral investigation”, but in identifying the reasons for the mutual misunderstanding of people, distant and close.

The author led the characters and readers to abandon categorical judgments and to understand the complexity of each person. In Chekhov's stories and stories, it is important not only what happens, but also what never happens - Moscow remains in the dreams of the Prozorov sisters, the heroes of “The Lady with the Dog” do not take decisive steps, etc. Plot situations help to discover the degree of delusion of each of the characters. At the same time, Chekhov believed in a person’s ability to change his life, he even believed in such weak ones as Laevsky (“Duel”).

Researchers have emphasized the meaningful significance of the structure of Chekhov's works. Plots of “epiphany” - the hero discovers the meaning of his existence, the inner need to resist vulgarity (“A Boring Story”, “Literature Teacher”). The plots of “leaving” are the necessity and implementation of an act, a step into the unknown, a turn of fate (“My Life”, “The Bride”). The misunderstanding that separates the characters is recognized by readers not only as a confirmation of the disunity of people, but also as an impetus for the development of self-awareness.

The collision of concepts, ideas about man and the world with real life resulted in disappointment, but did not stop the search. The literature of the beginning of the century is characterized by various forms of expression of the author's position. The writers counted on a thinking reader, but also openly analyzed his perception. It is no coincidence that there are an abundance of questions that organize and push the development of the plot: “Why does life work this way?”; "Who am I?"; “What to do if that dream, like every dream, deceived you?”

HAJI MURAT, RETELLING

On a cold November evening in 1851, Hadji Murat, the famous Naib of Imam Shamil, enters the peaceful Chechen village of Makhket. The Chechen Sado receives a guest in his hut, despite Shamil’s recent order to detain or kill the rebellious naib,

On the same night, from the Russian fortress of Vozdvizhenskaya, fifteen versts from the village of Makhket, three soldiers with non-commissioned officer Panov go out to the front guard. One of them, the cheerful Avdeev, remembers how he once drank away his company money out of homesickness, and once again says that he became a soldier at the request of his mother, instead of his family brother.

The envoys of Hadji Murad go out on this guard. Accompanying the Chechens to the fortress, to Prince Vorontsov, the cheerful Avdeev asks about their wives and children and concludes: “And what kind of good guys are these, my brother?”

The regimental commander of the Kurinsky Regiment, the son of the commander-in-chief, adjutant outhouse Prince Vorontsov lives in one of the best houses in the fortress with his wife Marya Vasilievna, the famous St. Petersburg beauty, and her little son from her first marriage. Despite the fact that the prince’s life amazes the inhabitants of the small Caucasian fortress with its luxury, it seems to the Vorontsov spouses that they are suffering great hardships here. The news of Hadji Murad's exit finds them playing cards with the regimental officers.

That same night, the residents of the village of Makhket, in order to clear themselves before Shamil, try to detain Hadji Murad. Firing back, he breaks through with his murid Eldar into the forest, where the rest of the murids are waiting for him - the Avar Khanefi and the Chechen Gamzalo. Here Hadji Murat expects Prince Vorontsov to respond to his proposal to go out to the Russians and start fighting on their side against Shamil. He, as always, believes in his happiness and that this time everything is working out for him, as it always happened before. The returning envoy of Khan-Magom reports that the prince promised to receive Hadji Murad as a dear guest.

Early in the morning, two companies of the Kurinsky regiment go out to cut wood. Company officers over drinks discuss the recent death in battle of General Sleptsov. During this conversation, none of them sees the most important thing - the end of human life and its return to the source from which it came - but they see only the military valor of the young general. During Hadji Murad's exit, the Chechens pursuing him casually mortally wound the cheerful soldier Avdeev; he dies in the hospital, not having time to receive a letter from his mother saying that his wife had left home.

All Russians who see the “terrible mountaineer” for the first time are struck by his kind, almost childish smile, self-esteem and the attention, insight and calm with which he looks at those around him. The reception of Prince Vorontsov at the Vozdvizhenskaya fortress turns out to be better than Hadji Murat expected; but the less he trusts the prince. He demands to be sent to the commander-in-chief himself, old Prince Vorontsov, in Tiflis.

During the meeting in Tiflis, Vorontsov the father understands perfectly well that he should not believe a single word of Hadji Murad, because he will always remain an enemy of everything Russian, and now he is just submitting to circumstances. Hadji Murat, in turn, understands that the cunning prince sees right through him. At the same time, both tell each other exactly the opposite of their understanding - what is necessary for the success of the negotiations. Hadji Murat assures that he will faithfully serve the Russian Tsar in order to take revenge on Shamil, and guarantees that he will be able to raise all of Dagestan against the imam. But for this it is necessary that the Russians ransom Hadji Murad’s family from captivity, the Commander-in-Chief promises to think about it.

Hadji Murat lives in Tiflis, attends the theater and the ball, increasingly rejecting the Russian way of life in his soul. He tells Loris-Melikov, Vorontsov’s adjutant assigned to him, the story of his life and enmity with Shamil. The listener sees a series of brutal murders committed according to the law of blood feud and the right of the strong. Loris-Melikov also observes the murids of Hadji Murat. One of them, Gamzalo, continues to consider Shamil a saint and hates all Russians. Another, Khan Magoma, came out to the Russians only because he easily plays with his own and other people’s lives; he can just as easily return to Shamil at any time. Eldar and Hanefi obey Hadji Murat without reasoning.

While Hadji Murad was in Tiflis, by order of Emperor Nicholas I, in January 1852, a raid was launched into Chechnya. The young officer Butler, who recently transferred from the guard, also takes part in it. He left the guard because of a gambling loss and is now enjoying a good, brave life in the Caucasus, trying to preserve his poetic idea of ​​the war. During the raid, the village of Makhket was destroyed, a teenager was killed with a bayonet in the back, a mosque and a fountain were senselessly polluted. Seeing all this, the Chechens do not even feel hatred towards the Russians, but only disgust, bewilderment and a desire to exterminate them like rats or poisonous spiders. Residents of the village ask Shamil for help,

Hadji Murat moves to the Grozny fortress. Here he is allowed to have relations with the mountaineers through spies, but he cannot leave the fortress except with a convoy of Cossacks. His family is being held at this time in custody in the village of Vedeno, awaiting Shamil’s decision on their fate. Shamil demands that Hadji Murat come back to him before the Bayram holiday, otherwise he threatens to hand over his mother, the old woman Patimat, to the villages and blind his beloved son Yusuf.

For a week Hadji Murat lives in the fortress, in the house of Major Petrov. The major's partner, Marya Dmitrievna, develops respect for Hadji Murad, whose behavior differs markedly from the rudeness and drunkenness common among regimental officers. A friendship begins between officer Butler and Hadji Murat. Butler is embraced by the “poetry of a special, energetic mountain life”, palpable in the mountain songs that Hanefi sings. The Russian officer is especially struck by Hadji Murad's favorite song - about the inevitability of blood feud. Soon Butler witnesses how calmly Hadji Murat accepts the attempt at blood revenge on himself by the Kumyk prince Arslan Khan,

Negotiations for the ransom of the family, which Hadji Murat is conducting in Chechnya, are unsuccessful. He returns to Tiflis, then moves to the small town of Nukha, hoping to snatch his family away from Shamil by cunning or force. He is in the service of the Russian Tsar and receives five gold pieces a day. But now, when he sees that the Russians are in no hurry to free his family, Hadji Murat perceives his exit as a terrible turn in life. He increasingly remembers his childhood, his mother, grandfather and his son. Finally, he decides to flee to the mountains, break into Vedeno with loyal people in order to die or free his family.

During a horseback ride, Hadji Murat, together with his murids, mercilessly kills the Cossack escort. He hopes to cross the Alazan River and thus escape pursuit, but he fails to cross the rice field flooded with spring water on horseback. The chase overtakes him, and in an unequal battle Hadji Murat is mortally wounded.

The last memories of his family run through his imagination, no longer arousing any feeling; but he fights until his last breath.

Hadji Murad's head, cut off from his mutilated body, is carried around the fortresses. In Grozny, she is shown to Butler and Marya Dmitrievna, and they see that the blue lips of the death’s head retain a childish, kind expression. Marya Dmitrievna is especially shocked by the cruelty of the “life cutters” who killed her recent guest and did not interred his body.

The story of Hadji Murad, his inherent strength of life and inflexibility are recalled when looking at a burdock flower, in full bloom, crushed by people in the middle of a plowed field.

DUEL, RETELLING

In a town on the Black Sea coast, two friends are talking while swimming. Ivan Andreevich Laevsky, a young man of about twenty-eight, shares the secrets of his personal life with military doctor Samoilenko. Two years ago he got together with married woman, they fled from St. Petersburg to the Caucasus, telling themselves that they would start a new working life there. But the town turned out to be boring, the people were uninteresting, Laevsky did not know how and did not want to work hard on the land, and therefore from the first day he felt bankrupt. In his relationship with Nadezhda Fedorovna, he no longer sees anything but lies; living with her is now beyond his strength. He dreams of running back to the north. But it’s impossible to break up with her: she has no relatives, no money, and she doesn’t know how to work. There is one more difficulty: news has arrived about the death of her husband, which means for Laevsky and Nadezhda Fedorovna the opportunity to get married. Good Samoilenko advises his friend to do exactly this.

Everything that Nadezhda Fedorovna says and does seems to Laevsky to be a lie or similar to a lie. At breakfast, he can barely contain his irritation; even the way she swallows milk evokes heavy hatred in him. The desire to quickly sort things out and run away now does not let him go. Laevsky was accustomed to finding explanations and justifications for his life in someone’s theories, in literary types, compares himself with Onegin and Pechorin, with Anna Karenina, with Hamlet. He is ready either to blame himself for the lack of a guiding idea, to admit that he is a loser and an extra person, or to justify himself to himself. But just as he previously believed in salvation from the emptiness of life in the Caucasus, he now believes that as soon as he leaves Nadezhda Fedorovna and goes to St. Petersburg, he will live a cultured, intelligent, cheerful life.

Samoilenko keeps something like a table d'hôte; the young zoologist von Koren and Pobedov, who has just graduated from the seminary, dine with him. Over dinner the conversation turns to Laevsky. Von Koren says that Laevsky is as dangerous to society as the cholera germ. He corrupts the residents of the town by living openly with someone else’s wife, drinking and getting others drunk, playing cards, increasing debts, doing nothing, and, moreover, justifying himself with fashionable theories about heredity, degeneration, and so on. If people like him multiply, humanity and civilization are in serious danger. Therefore, for his own benefit, Laevsky should be neutralized. “In the name of saving humanity, we ourselves must take care of the destruction of the frail and worthless,” says the zoologist coldly.

The laughing deacon laughs, but the stunned Samoilenko can only say: “If you drown and hang people, then to hell with your civilization, to hell with humanity! To hell!"

On Sunday morning Nadezhda Fedorovna goes for a swim in the very festive mood. She likes herself, she is sure that all the men she meets admire her. She feels guilty before Laevsky. During these two years, she incurred debts in Achmianov’s shop for three hundred rubles and still did not intend to say about it. In addition, she has already hosted police bailiff Kirilin twice. But Nadezhda Fedorovna happily thinks that her soul did not participate in her betrayal, she continues to love Laevsky, and everything is already broken with Kirilin. In the bathhouse, she talks with the elderly lady Marya Konstantinovna Bityugova and learns that in the evening the local society is having a picnic on the bank of a mountain river. On the way to the picnic, von Koren tells the deacon about his plans to go on an expedition along the coast of the Pacific and Arctic oceans; Laevsky, riding in another carriage, scolds the Caucasian landscapes. He constantly feels von Koren's dislike for himself and regrets going on the picnic. The company stops at the mountain dukhan of the Tatar Kerbalai.

Nadezhda Fedorovna is in a playful mood, she wants to laugh, tease, flirt. But Kirilin’s persecution and young Achmianov’s advice to beware of him darken her joy. Laevsky, tired of the picnic and von Koren’s undisguised hatred, takes out his irritation on Nadezhda Fedorovna and calls her a cocotte. On way back von Koren admits to Samoilenko that his hand would not have wavered if the state or society had entrusted him with destroying Laevsky.

At home, after a picnic, Laevsky informs Nadezhda Fedorovna about the death of her husband and, feeling at home as if in prison, goes to Samoilenko. He begs his friend to help, to lend three hundred rubles, promises to arrange everything with Nadezhda Fedorovna, to make peace with his mother. Samoilenko offers to make peace with von Koren, but Laevsky says that this is impossible. Perhaps he would have extended his hand to him, but von Koren would have turned away with contempt. After all, this is a hard, despotic nature. And his ideals are despotic. People for him are puppies and nonentities, too small to be the goal of his life. He works, goes on an expedition, breaks his neck there, not in the name of love for his neighbor, but in the name of such abstractions as humanity, future generations, the ideal breed of people... He would order to shoot at anyone who steps outside the circle of our narrow conservative morality, and all this in the name of improving the human race... Despots have always been illusionists. With enthusiasm, Laevsky says that he clearly sees his shortcomings and is aware of them. This will help him resurrect and become a different person, and he passionately awaits this revival and renewal.

Three days after the picnic, an excited Marya Konstantinovna comes to Nadezhda Fedorovna and invites her to be her matchmaker. But a wedding with Laevsky, Nadezhda Fedorovna feels, is now impossible. She cannot tell Marya Konstantinov everything: how confused her relationship with Kirilin, with young Achmianov is. She develops a high fever from all the stress.

Laevsky feels guilty before Nadezhda Fedorovna. But the thoughts of leaving next Saturday took over him so much that he only asked Samoilenko, who came to visit the sick woman, whether he was able to get money. But there is no money yet. Samoilenko decides to ask von Koren for a hundred rubles. He, after an argument, agrees to give money for Laevsky, but only on the condition that he leaves not alone, but together with Nadezhda Fedorovna.

The next day, Thursday, visiting Marya Konstantinovna, Samoilenko tells Laevsky about the condition set by von Koren. The guests, including von Koren, play mail. Laevsky, automatically participating in the game, thinks about how much he has and will have to lie, what a mountain of lies prevents him from starting a new life. In order to jump over it at once, and not lie in parts, he needs to decide on some drastic measure, but he feels that this is impossible for him. The malicious note, apparently sent by von Koren, causes him to have a hysterical fit. Having come to his senses, in the evening, as usual, he goes off to play cards.

On the way from the guests to the house, Nadezhda Fedorovna is pursued by Kirilin. He threatens her with a scandal if she doesn’t give him a date today. Nadezhda Fedorovna is disgusted with him, she begs to let her go, but in the end she gives in. Young Achmianov is watching them, unnoticed.

The next day, Laevsky goes to Samoilenko to take money from him, since staying in the city after a hysteria is shameful and impossible. He finds only von Koren. A short conversation ensues; Laevsky understands that he knows about his plans. He acutely feels that the zoologist hates him, despises and mocks him, and that he is his most bitter and implacable enemy. When Samoilenko arrives, Laevsky, in a nervous fit, accuses him of not knowing how to keep other people's secrets and insults von Koren. Von Koren seemed to be waiting for this attack; he challenges Laevsky to a duel. Samoilenko unsuccessfully tries to reconcile them.

On the evening before the duel, Laevsky is first possessed by hatred of von Koren, then, over wine and cards, he becomes careless, then he is overcome by anxiety. When young Achmianov leads him to some house and there he sees Kirilin, and next to him Nadezhda Fedorovna, all feelings seem to disappear from his soul.

That evening, on the embankment, Von Koren talks with the deacon about different understandings of the teachings of Christ. What should love for one's neighbor consist of? In eliminating everything that in one way or another harms people and threatens them with danger in the present or future, the zoologist believes. Danger to humanity comes from the morally and physically abnormal, and they must be neutralized, that is, destroyed. But where are the criteria for differentiation, since mistakes are possible? - asks the deacon. There is no need to be afraid to get your feet wet when a flood threatens, answers the zoologist.

The night before the duel, Laevsky listens to the thunderstorm outside the window, goes over his past in his memory, sees only lies in it, feels guilty in the fall of Nadezhda Fedorovna and is ready to beg her for forgiveness. If it were possible to return the past, he would find God and justice, but this is as impossible as returning a sunset star to the sky again. Before going to the duel, he goes to Nadezhda Fedorovna’s bedroom. She looks at Laevsky with horror, but he, hugging her, understands that this unfortunate, vicious woman is the only close, dear and irreplaceable person for him. Getting into the carriage, he wants to return home alive.

The deacon, coming out early in the morning to see the duel, wonders why Laevsky and von Koren could hate each other and fight a duel? Wouldn't it be better for them to go down lower and direct their hatred and anger to where entire streets are groaning with gross ignorance, greed, reproaches, uncleanness... Sitting in a strip of corn, he sees how opponents and seconds have arrived. Two green rays stretch out from behind the mountains, the sun rises. No one knows exactly the rules of a duel; they recall descriptions of duels by Lermontov and Turgenev... Laevsky shoots first; fearing that the bullet might hit von Koren, he fires a shot into the air. Von Koren points the barrel of the pistol directly at Laevsky's face. "He'll kill him!" - the deacon’s desperate cry makes him miss.

Three months pass. On the day of his departure for the expedition, von Koren, accompanied by Samoilenko and the deacon, goes to the pier. Passing by Laevsky's house, they talk about the change that has happened to him. He married Nadezhda Fedorovna, works from morning to evening to pay off his debts... Deciding to enter the house, von Koren extends his hand to Laevsky. He has not changed his beliefs, but admits that he was mistaken about his former opponent. Nobody knows the real truth, he says. Yes, no one knows the truth, agrees Laevsky.

He watches the boat with von Koren overcome the waves and thinks: it’s the same in life... In search of the truth, people take two steps forward, one step back... And who knows? Perhaps they will reach the real truth...

(FROM THE TEXTBOOK)

The literature of the 20s is characterized not only by the difference in writers’ approaches to life problems, to the hero of the time, but also stylistic diversity. The artistic searches of writers from the beginning of the century continued. A realistic representation of reality seemed clearly insufficient. E. Zamyatin, a writer-theorist, speaking about new literature, introduced the term “synthetism”: the coexistence of “the microscope of realism with the telescopic glass of symbolism.”

The increased subjectivity of the artist’s perception made it possible to move away from life-likeness, present an “outline” picture of reality, highlight leitmotifs, and “shift” plans. As an example of such impressionistic prose of the 20s, M. Golubkov considers the works of B. Pilnyak in prose, and the poems of O. Mandelstam in poetry. The main thing in the work, the researcher emphasizes, is not the explanation of a person by circumstances or environment, but the peculiarities of the perception of reality by the writer and his characters. Of particular value in such a text is the moment, today, its significance, its uniqueness. Fiction coexists with everyday life, generalization with concreteness.

Another feature of the new prose was manifested in increased expressiveness, expressive form of phrases, rhythm, and in the deformation of the external world for the sake of comprehending the deep issues of existence. M. Golubkov classifies “We” by E. Zamyatin and “The Pit” by A. Platonov as works created on the basis of expressionistic aesthetics. The grotesque and fantasy of these works help writers to identify the illogicality and absurdity in their contemporary reality.

Many prose works of the 20s were built according to the laws of poetic speech. A significant layer of this prose was called “ornamental”. Metaphors, the rhythmic organization of the text, and the narrator’s spoken word—“skaz”—were used interestingly. These features are characteristic of the works of I. Babel.

A stream of colloquial words, dialectisms, neologisms, and speech structures with colloquial syntax and a variety of lively intonations poured into literature.

L. Leonov, for example, turned to the most ancient form of folklore - conspiracies, folk beliefs, fairy-tale and mythological images of Ancient Rus', and magic spells. “Don’t go into the midnight forests, girls, for berries, men, for firewood, rotten old women, for mushrooms: you will meet a diva, he is a lot of swagger, barks - you will become a stump...”

In the early 20s, there were many officially formed literary organizations and associations with their own press organs. The question of the difference between the intelligentsia and the people. Attempts to form are a failure. Proletkult, founded by Bogdanov. But it emphasizes the independence of literature from the state. Therefore, he conflicted with the authorities. In 1920, Proletkult was deprived of its independence and was included in the People's Commissariat for Education. One of the first groups of proletarian poets was “Forge” (until 1921). The peculiarity of their poetry is posterity and sloganism. Titles of the poems: “Close the ranks!”, “To arms!”, “Behind us!”. The genres also corresponded to the general mood of invocation and praise: hymns, marches, battle songs. The poems contained aphoristic orders, rally expressions, and political formulas. A. Gastev “Poetry of the worker’s blow.” Mechanization.

The poets who left the “Forge” - A. Bezymensky, A. Zharov, N. Kuznetsov - created the group “October” in 1922. The history of the most massive and radical group, RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers), begins with it. Goals: strengthening the communist line in proletarian literature, i.e., capable of influencing the psyche and consciousness of the working class and the working masses. A. Bezymensky and D. Bedny. Magazines "On duty". 1928 – the first congress of proletarian writers. L. Averbakh, G. Lelevich, V. Ermilov.

1921-1932 group of peasant writers. 1929 – first congress. Magazines “Trudovaya Niva”, “Zhernov”, “Soviet Land”. Klyuev, Oreshin, Yesenin teamed up with former symbolists Blok and Bely in the group “Scythians”. Peasant poets associated dreams of national identity and the creation of an agricultural paradise with the revolution. The revolution seemed to be a bridge between the past and the future, a “transformation.” Peasant poets polemicized with the slogans of technization, with those who idealized the machine and iron. In iron N. Klyuev saw only an evil force that brings death to man and nature. S. Yesenin also felt something similar. His thin-legged foal (“Sorokoust”) was perceived as a symbol of the unequal dispute between the living beauty of the village and the dead mechanical force of technical progress - the steam locomotive.

The ideas of revolutionary art, understood in their own way, were the main ones for the futurists. As before the revolution, V. Mayakovsky was associated with the futurists. In his “Letter on Futurism” in 1922, he formulated the following objectives:

1. To establish verbal art as the mastery of words, but not as aesthetic stylization.

2. Answer any task posed by modernity. The name of the futuristic magazine "LEF" (Left Front

Arts) is similar to the name of the group united around V. Mayakovsky and O. Brik. Since its members, in addition to poets, included artists, the goal was broadly defined - “to contribute to finding a communist path for all types of art.”

At the end of the 20s, the magazine began to be called “New LEF”, and in the name of the group “left” was replaced by “revolutionary” (REF). But the “front” remained a “front” - the attitude towards struggle remained. After Mayakovsky left this group in 1929, it disbanded.

Compared to the background of politically active organizations, the community of young writers who united in the St. Petersburg House of Arts in the group “Serapion Brothers” at the beginning of 1921 looked like a black sheep: V. Kaverin, M. Zoshchenko, L. Lunts, Vs. Ivanov, N. Nikitin, E. Polonskaya, M. Slonimsky, N. Tikhonov, K. Fedin. E. Zamyatin became their spiritual leader, and M. Gorky became their “patron”. The “Serapies” proclaimed the principle of independence of creativity from the political situation, the principle of the artist’s freedom. Their first joint performance took place in the “Petersburg Collection” (1922) in the almanac “Serapion’s Brothers”. The name was taken from Hoffmann. The alliance with the “hermit Serapion” emphasized the lack of connection with specific revolutionary reality. The main thing was not themes, but images, not revolutionary content, but valuable art in its own right.

Defending the artist’s rights to independence of views and judgments, the “Serapions” were assessed in the official press as “internal emigrants.” The group held on until 1927.

Among the literary groups of the 20s, in which the main attention was paid to artistic form, were the Imagists. The leader and author of the manifestos was the former futurist V. Shershenevich. This group included R. Ivnev, A. Mariengof, S. Yesenin. From the novels of A. Mariengof and the articles of S. Yesenin, the modern reader can get an idea of ​​the nature of the Imagists’ passion for images, the disputes among them, and the reasons for the departure of S. Yesenin.

The Pereval group arose under the Krasnaya Nov magazine in 1924 and existed, despite criticism, until 1932. Its organizer was the editor-in-chief of this first Soviet Russia thick magazine A. Voronsky; the group included I. Kataev, N. Zarudin, M. Prishvin, N. Ognev, M. Golodny, I. Kasatkin, D. Altauzen, D. Vetrov, D. Kedrin, A. Karavaeva. The task of “The Pass,” formulated by Voronsky, is to resist the “tendentious dullness in prose and the superficial whimsicalism in poetry” of proletarian authors.

This attitude did not contradict the unconditional devotion to the revolution. “The good of the revolution is above all, and I have no other postulates,” said A. Voronsky. He, as G. Belaya emphasizes in her book about “The Pass” (“Don Quixotes” of the 20s - M., 1989), protested against turning the theory of class struggle into “a butt with which nails are nailed right and left without any sense and analysis.” The “Perevaltsy” strove in their works to combine depictions of everyday life with fiction, realism with romanticism.

Rappovite critics blamed A. Voronsky for increased attention to “fellow travelers” and neglect of truly revolutionary authors. And he complained about the “revolutionary assurances of quick and quick people”; he said more than once that the distance from a good ideology to a good artistic embodiment of it is quite decent: “Honor and place for communist writers, proletarian writers, but to the extent of their talent. The measure of their creative abilities. A party card is a great thing, but it shouldn’t be waved around inappropriately.”

A fundamentally different understanding of the tasks of art between the Pereval residents and the ideologists of RAPP emerged during the discussion about the “social order”. A. Voronsky’s position was supported by B. Pilnyak: “From the moment when a writer begins to think about how to sew a story onto an idea in order to dress it up, there can be no story... The order for a writer of our era is first of all a social order, for the era extremely tense socially; but in no way is description and system development a mandate.”

A. Voronsky, like B. Pilnyak, was not forgiven for independence. The fight against the “Voronism”, against the “Pilnyakovism” ended with the physical destruction of these and many other writers close to their views in the 30s. And the dispute about the “social order” continued for decades, its echoes were manifested in attempts to connect the pointer of the “party” with the “dictations of the heart.”

A union of several poets in the late 20s was formed under the name OBERIU (Union of Real Art). It included D. Kharms, N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov, A. Vvedensky and others. Initially, they called themselves the “school of plane trees.” This was the last literary association in line with the Russian avant-garde, inheriting futurism. It was from the futurists that the Oberiuts borrowed destructive and shocking principles, a passion for phonetic and semantic “absurdity.” The basis of their artistic method was mockery of the generally accepted, ironic highlighting of the obvious absurdities of modernity.

The continuator of the Khlebnikov tradition of creating the “self-made word” was Konstantin Vaginov (Wagenheim, 1899-1934). He was a member of many little-known groups, the “Workshop of Poets” of the Acmeists. In the 20s, K. Vaginov published the collection “Journey into Chaos,” and in the early 30s, “Experiments in connecting words through rhythm.”

Proletarian and peasant authors were grouped based on class. Community creative principles united the “Serapions”, “Perevalets”. There were also groups focused on a specific genre. One of these associations of the 20s was the Red Selenites group, which included science fiction writers. The first Soviet fantastic work became A. Obolyaninov’s novel “Red Moon,” published in Berlin in 1920. At the beginning of 1921, A. Lezhnev came up with a program for a new association.

Literary scholars and linguists, participants in S. Vengerov’s university seminar, united into a group, and in 1923 they established the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OSPOYAZ). It included Y. Tynyanov, B. Tomashevsky, V. Shklovsky, B. Eikhenbaum. Members of the society published collections on the theory of poetic language. The method of studying literature that was born out of controversy was dubbed “formalism” by the ideologists of RAPP and for several years was denounced as “alien to Soviet literary science.”

The magazine “Print and Revolution” declared “a war of destruction on formalism.” There were, of course, mistakes and excesses among the Opoyazovites, but in the history of Russian literature the importance of the literary books of B. Eikhenbaum, the memoirs of V. Shklovsky, and the historical novels of Yu. Tynyanov is undeniable. Much of the theoretical research of the “formal school” has been adopted by modern scientists.

The October Revolution was perceived differently by cultural and artistic figures. For many it was the greatest event of the century. For others - and among them there was a significant part of the old intelligentsia - the Bolshevik coup was a tragedy leading to the death of Russia.

The poets were the first to respond. Proletarian poets performed hymns in honor of the revolution, assessing it as a holiday of emancipation (V. Kirillov). The concept of remaking the world justified cruelty. The pathos of remaking the world was internally close to the futurists, but the very content of the remaking was perceived by the mime in different ways (from the dream of harmony and universal brotherhood to the desire to destroy order in life and grammar). Peasant poets were the first to express concern about the attitude of the revolution towards people (N. Klyuev). Klychkov predicted the prospects of brutality. Mayakovsky tried to stay on the pathetic wave. In the poems of Akhmatova and Gippius, the theme of robbery and robbery sounded. The death of freedom. Blok saw in the revolution that lofty, sacrificial and pure thing that was close to him. He did not idealize the popular element, he saw its destructive power, but for now he accepted it. Voloshin saw the tragedy of the bloody revolution, the confrontation within the nation, and refused to choose between the whites and the reds.

Voluntary and forced emigrants blamed the Bolsheviks for the death of Russia. The break with the Motherland was perceived as a personal tragedy (A. Remizov)

Journalism often expressed intransigence towards cruelty, repression, and extrajudicial executions. “Untimely Thoughts” by Gorky, letters from Korolenko to Lunacharsky. The incompatibility of politics and morality, the bloody ways of fighting dissent.

Attempts to satirically depict the achievements of the revolutionary order (Zamiatin, Ehrenburg, Averchenko).

Features of the concept of personality, the idea of ​​the heroes of the time. Increasing the image of the masses, asserting collectivism. Refusal of I in favor of we. The hero was not in himself, but a representative. The lifelessness of the characters gave impetus to the promotion of the slogan “For a living person!” The heroes of early Soviet prose emphasized sacrifice and the ability to abandon the personal. Yu. Libedinsky “Week”. D. Furmanov “Chapaev” (the spontaneous, unbridled in Chapaev is increasingly subordinate to consciousness, idea). A reference work about the working class by F. Gladkov “Cement”. Excessive ideologization, although an attractive hero.

Hero-intellectual. Either he accepted the revolution, or he turned out to be a man of unfulfilled destiny. In “Cities and Years,” Fedin, with the help of Kurt Van, kills Andrei Startsov, because he is capable of betrayal. In Brothers, composer Nikita Karev writes revolutionary music at the end.

A. Fadeev fulfilled the order on time. Having overcome physical weakness, Levinson gains strength to serve the idea. The confrontation between Morozka and Mechik shows the superiority of the working man over the intellectual.

Intellectuals are most often the enemies of the new life. Anxiety about the new person’s attitude.

Among the prose of the 20s, the heroes of Zoshchenko and Romanov stand out. A lot of small people, poorly educated, uncultured. It was the little people who were enthusiastic about destroying the bad old and building the good new. They are immersed in everyday life.

Platonov saw a thoughtful, hidden person, trying to understand the meaning of life, work, death. Vsevolod Ivanov portrayed a man of the masses.

The nature of conflicts. The struggle between the old and new worlds. The NEP is a period of understanding the contradictions between the ideal and real life. Bagritsky, Aseev, Mayakovsky. It seemed to them that ordinary people were becoming masters of life. Zabolotsky (eating man in the street). Babel "Cavalry". Serafimovich’s “Iron Stream” is overcoming spontaneity in favor of conscious participation in the revolution.

Center literary emigration first came Berlin, Belgrade, then Paris; in the East - Harbin. Societies were organized; one of the largest is the “Union of Russian Writers and Journalists” in Paris, chaired by I. Bunin. Russian newspapers and magazines were published abroad: in the 1920s - 138 Russian newspapers; in 1924 - 665 books, magazines and collections. Historians of literature from abroad highlight the journal “Modern Notes” (Paris, 1920-1940) as the most significant. The 70 issues of this magazine feature works by I. Bunin and Z. Gippius, K. Balmont and M. Aldanov, A. Remizov and V. Khodasevich, M. Tsvetaeva and I. Shmelev.

The All-Emigrant Congress of Writers took place in 1928 in Belgrade.

In the absence of a wide readership, the main theme of emigrant literature was still Russia.

The historical novel, biographical and autobiographical genres were widely represented in emigration. A number of writers acted as critics.

Vladislav Khodasevich(1886-1939) was ready to accept the revolution. However, he very quickly became convinced that the artist was required to adapt to power, regardless of his beliefs. Defending his independence in 1922, Khodasevich left the country of the revolutionary experiment, remaining its citizen. Russia is the main theme of his book of poetry “Heavy Lyre” (1922). The last collection of poetry is “European Night” (1923). The poems conveyed a feeling of emptiness, reflecting the heavy consciousness of the reader's lack of demand. There was no one to write for.

After 1928, V. Khodasevich stopped writing poetry. He creates a book about Derzhavin. In its own way, it was autobiographical - in the fate of Derzhavin and his era, V. Khodasevich saw a lot of “his own”, “today’s”. The most significant thing created by V. Khodasevich in the last years of his life is the collection of articles “About Pushkin” (1937) and the book “Necropolis” (1939), which includes chapters about remarkable contemporary writers.

Igor Severyanin ( 1887-1942) was elected “King of Poets” in 1918. He was accompanied by the glory of a philistine idol. A. Blok and V. Mayakovsky wrote about I. Severyanin’s poems.

In his poetry, Russia became the main character.

During the years of exile, the northerner wrote ten thematic book-cycles and poetic memoirs.

Georgy Ivanov(1894-1958). In exile, G. Ivanov wrote about love and death, about Russia. A researcher of his poetry, V. Ermilova, notes the complexity of interpreting G. Ivanov’s lyrics, the poet’s refusal of any embellishment. Often his poems, written in exile, are perceived as “the last”, created “at the limit and even beyond the limit of despair.” The poet also refuses religious consolation.

Often, emigrant writers performed journalistic works. Diaries, notes, and memoirs reflected the last impressions received at home, recorded the process or moment of separation, accompanied by thoughts about the prospects of Russia and own destiny: “St. Petersburg Diaries” 3. Gippius, “Cursed Days” by I. Bunin, “The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land” by A. Remizov, “Sun of the Dead” by I. Shmelev.

Poets and prose writers wrote about lost Russia with sadness and tenderness. F. Stepun called this motif “the cult of the Russian birch tree.”

Boris Zaitsev(1884-1972). In the first years after the revolution, he not only witnessed the Red Terror, but also experienced the murder of loved ones. Despite this, he tried to work - he prepared a three-volume collection of his works for publication, translated, organized trade in the Moscow Bookstore, and participated in the activities of the famine relief committee. The latter was the reason for his arrest and imprisonment. After his release, B. Zaitsev left his homeland in 1922. Having lived in exile for half a century, he created a number of works of different genres. Among them are novels, the autobiographical tetralogy “The Journey of Gleb” (1937-1954), the hagiographic narrative “Reverend Sergius of Radonezh” (1925), and biographies of Russian classic writers - Zhukovsky, Turgenev, Chekhov. The main pathos of his books is the comprehension of spirituality.

The literary process of 1917-1929 can be divided into three stages. The first years after the October Revolution are a time of comprehension of the changes that have taken place, orientation in the new reality. This stage ends with the “great exodus” into emigration, and domestic literature turns out to be divided not only territorially. The further we go, the more we realize the loss of our homeland for those who left it and the lack of freedom for those who remained in the fatherland.

The next stage is the years of the NEP, the crisis nature of the perception of reality. At the same time, deepening the analysis and expanding the topic. Turning to history in search of analogies and correspondences. During these years, the first books about Russia in various genres were created in emigration, and the finality of the break with it was realized.

In the second half of the 20s, the attack on freedom of creative pursuits became more and more active. Any discrepancy with ideological principles is declared hostile to socialist ideals.

*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 in the white movement 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 (“Cursed Days”), Gippius “Petersburg Diaries”, Remizov “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land” wrote about Russia and the revolution. 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 of the 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. The main character of the book (K. Lyutov) occupied a seemingly contemplative position, but was endowed with the right to judge. Lyutov's overwhelming loneliness does not interfere with his sincere desire to 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 give additional light to the real world - an alarming, wary light.

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 style 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” he makes a deep analysis of the changes caused by the civil war in the spiritual world of the 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.