What determines the national identity of Russian literature? National literature

Literary monuments are an important element in the culture of any civilized people. Literature reflects not only a certain historical situation, but also social consciousness and mood characteristic of this period. In addition, literature reproduces the very portrait of the people. Literature that expresses the spirit of the people is usually called "folk". However, in literary works, folk literature is often identified with national literature. But this different concepts: the first category includes the work of writers different nationalities that cover topics folk life, raise the problems of the people (which are multinational). National literature is the literature of a certain nation, which also touches on folk themes, but with an emphasis on the peculiarities of mentality.

There is also another literary gradation. The territory of any state consists of several regions that differ from each other in relief, climate, way of life, social environment etc. Works created in one area and reflecting its uniqueness belong to regional literature.

Works on the study of national and regional literature in national science appeared relatively recently (in the last quarter XX century). At the same time, the regional aspect has been studied less theoretically than the national one. However, in the work of many writers these aspects are found, consciously or not, included in the works. The term “national literature” is broader than regional literature. Following works literary scholars(identifying “folk” and “national” literature), we will define the main features of this concept.

The main component of national literature is its reflection of the characteristics of the mentality of any ethnic group. Psychological picture nations, moral standards, connections with nature - all this, one way or another, is present in works about the people as a single whole.

The historical component is also important. In the literature of any country, one can trace the attitude of society to its past directly through works of art, in particular, through the example of artistic texts.

Russian national literature has always been distinguished by humanity, philanthropy, and the victory of good over evil. Works about the people are often based on Orthodox canons. Events most often occur against the backdrop of a specific historical situation. The characters are endowed with both negative (laziness, slowness) and positive (responsiveness, generosity) traits characteristic of the Russian mentality.

National literature includes regional literature. There are several opinions regarding the last term. For example, A.N. Vlasov includes in regional literature works “created by local authors and in demand by local readers.” IN“The Literary Encyclopedia of Terms and Concepts” (2001) understands regional literature as a set of “works of writers who concentrate their attention on depicting a certain area (usually rural) and the people inhabiting it.”

In addition, literary scholars offer synonymous concepts with the term “regional literature”. So, in “Literary encyclopedic dictionary"(1987) the concept of “local color” (from the French. couleur locale ) as “the reproduction in fiction of the features of national life, landscape, language, characteristic of a particularly specific locality or region.” The same publication provides a reference to the everyday descriptive tendency of Costumbrism (from Spanish with ostumbrismo, costumbre - character, custom), which captures “the desire for the most accurate descriptions of nature, the characteristics of national life, often with the idealization of patriarchal morals and customs.” Verism (from Italian. vero - truthful). Verists, when describing the life of low-income social strata, are known to have widely used the folk language and its dialectal manifestations, which was a necessary means of illustrating the naturalistic proximity of the described phenomena and events to the realities of true human nature, not embellished by artistic means. In addition, there are the concepts of “regionalism”, “veritism”, “zonal literature”, etc.

Despite the obvious differences, these definitions form a synonymous series of regional literature, where the common feature is the geographical and social description of a particular area.

The embodiment of the national and regional aspect can be traced through the example of the book by A.P. Chekhov (1860-1904) “Sakhalin Island” (1895). Known not only in Russia, but also abroad, this work revealed to the world the Russian soul, compassionate and sympathetic. Compassion, the ability to see the pain of another - Russians national traits. In “Sakhalin Island” these qualities are shown through the author’s feelings. From the writer’s first impressions of the island and throughout the entire work, one can grasp the experiences of A.P. Chekhov about convicts, free settlers, about the island as a part of Russia, as well as about Russia itself.

The book “Sakhalin Island” reflects, first of all, the hard life of convicts and settlers, who “feel the absence of something important.” The convicts “lack a past, traditions,” they “have no customs,” “and most importantly, no homeland.” This mood is promoted by climatic conditions (“Good weather is very rare here”) and terrain features (“the coast is completely steep, with dark gorges and coal seams... a gloomy coast!”). Almost everyone who arrives on Sakhalin is guided by the phrase: “It’s better here in Russia.” This comparison creates an even greater gap between the mainland and the island, separating Sakhalin from Russia.

In Chekhov's book there is often a hidden opposition between “Russian and non-Russian”, a kind of antithesis between “Russia and Sakhalin”. This artistic technique stated on the first pages of the work during A.P.’s visit. Chekhov Nikolaevsk. Due to the lack of a hotel in the city, the writer dined at the meeting, where he became an involuntary witness to the conversations of the visitors there. “If you listen carefully and for a long time,” A.P. concludes. Chekhov, - then, my God, how far life here is from Russia!<…>in everything you feel something of your own, not Russian <…>not to mention the original one, not Russian nature, it always seemed to me that the way of our Russian life was completely alien to the native Amurians<…>and we, visitors from Russia, seem foreigners"even" the morality here is somehow special, not ours"(Italics are ours. - T.P.) A.P. Chekhov, like other residents of central Russia, does not associate the island with the mainland as part of Russian state. For him, Sakhalin is an unknown, different land.

A.P. Chekhov often uses the combinations “in our Russian arshin”, “in our Russian villages”, “ Russian field", "Russian Tsar", etc., drawing a parallel between Russia And non-Russian, big and small land.

However, on the island the writer also sees what makes him in common with the Russian state - faith, thanks to which people do not allow themselves to sink, overcome inhuman torment, and, having overcome them, begin to live again. Churches have been built for believers on Sakhalin. And A.P. Chekhov often mentions them: “There are several houses and a church on the shore”; "six miles from Douai<…>in the neighborhood, little by little, a residence began to grow: premises for officials and offices, a church<…>" ; “the main essence of the post is its official part: the church, the house of the head of the island, his office”; "gray wooden church"; “the church is white, old, simple and therefore beautiful architecture”, etc. As can be seen from the examples, the description of any settlement, post of A.P. Chekhov often begins by pointing out the presence or absence of a church, which indicates the importance of faith in the spiritual life of people. Let us note that representatives of various confessions and religions lived on Sakhalin (the island was and remains multinational), who, however, peacefully coexisted with each other. This is how A.P. writes about it. Chekhov: “Catholics complained to me that the priest comes very rarely, children remain unbaptized for a long time, and many parents, so that the child does not die without baptism, turn to Orthodox priest <…>When a Catholic dies, in the absence of one of his own, they invite a Russian priest to sing “Holy God.”

Touching upon religious theme, one cannot help but mention such a feature of Sakhalin as its multinationality (which is the reason for the large number of religions on the island). Rich ethnic composition Sakhalin is due to the fact that they were sentenced to exile regardless of nationality. “The local residents,” describes A.P. Chekhov one of the villages is a disorderly rabble Russians, Poles, Finns, Georgians <…>". On the one hand, such mixing did not interfere with maintaining human relations, but, on the contrary, contributed to the assimilation of cultures; on the other hand, people did not strive to settle this land, since for everyone it was a stranger, a temporary place of residence, as people believed. “The rural residents here do not yet form societies. There are still no adult natives of Sakhalin for whom the island would be their homeland, there are very few old-timers, the majority are newcomers; the population changes every year; some arrive, others leave; and in many villages, as I have already said, the inhabitants give the impression not of a rural society, but of a random rabble. They call themselves brothers because they suffered together, but they still have little in common and are alien to each other. They do not believe the same and speak different languages. The old people despise this diversity and laughingly say that what kind of society can there be if Russians, crests, Tatars, Poles, Jews, Chukhons, Kyrgyz, Georgians, Gypsies live in the same village?...".

On Sakhalin, which A.P. saw Chekhov, there was no specific way of life, each of the settlers and convicts lived in their own way. An example of this is the description of A.P. Chekhov of Sakhalin life: “On Sakhalin you come across huts of all kinds, depending on who built it - a Siberian, a crest or a Chukhonian, but most often it is a small log house<…>without any external decoration, thatched<…>There is usually no yard. Not a single tree nearby.<…>If there are dogs, then they are lethargic, not angry.<…>And for some reason these quiet, harmless dogs are on a leash. If there is a pig, then with a block on the neck. The rooster is also tied by the leg.

Why are your dog and rooster tied? - I ask the owner.

“Everything is on a chain here on Sakhalin,” he jokes in response. “The earth is just like that.”

“Such” means different, different, alien. The reluctance of people to recognize the island as part of Russia can be explained by its purpose. Sakhalin as a place of exile at the border XIX - XX caused centuries among the Russians negative emotions, fear, instilled horror. Heavy impressions contributed to the writer’s similar perception of Sakhalin nature. “From a high bank,” writes A.P. Chekhov, - stunted, diseased trees looked down; here in the open, each of them alone wages a fierce struggle with frost and cold winds, and each of them has to sway restlessly from side to side in the fall and winter, on long terrible nights, bend to the ground, creak pitifully - and no one hears these complaints." Just as natural complaints remain unanswered, so the groans of people, punished by the law and the surrounding reality, do not reach high authorities. But Chekhov’s Sakhalin residents, like trees, defend their right to life, and sometimes even to existence. The entire “Sakhalin Island” is permeated with such a depressing mood, because A.P. Sakhalin felt this way. Chekhov.

Thus, in the travel notes of A.P. Chekhov's "Sakhalin Island" can be roughly distinguished "big"(Russia) and "small"(Sakhalin) worlds, “central” and “regional” concepts, which are embodied in the following features:

1) features of the Russian mentality. A.P.’s first impressions of a different, “non-Russian” life from Nikolaevsk change. Chekhov as we learn about the real situation on Sakhalin. A.P. Chekhov sees thieves, murderers who have fallen in moral and physical sense of people. But, at the same time, a religious, tolerant convict is revealed to him, loving Russia. The writer sees on the island a unique model of the Russian state, where important role the church plays and where representatives of different ethnic groups live peacefully. This reveals such traits of the Russian person as conciliarity and tolerance;

2) historical authenticity. A.P. Chekhov in writing recorded the history of hard labor in its most active period. The book made a revolution in public consciousness, as it was created by an eyewitness to those events;

Significant changes in the content and forms of Russian fiction, which marked her transition to a new stage historical development, occurred already in the 1840s. The country was dominated by an atmosphere of heavy government reaction. Literature and journalism were under unbearable censorship. But the profound changes that have emerged in the depths of Russian society have intensified social thought and aroused new ideological interests. By the mid-1840s, a certain social upsurge was again emerging in the country, and literary life was reviving.

Much more clearly and sharply than in the 1830s, two camps opposed each other in literature and criticism: progressive and conservative. In each of them, young writers and critics appeared who sought to express new social ideas. Both sides put forward new views on the tasks and essence of artistic creativity. New literary trends were clearly taking shape in Russian literature.

A progressive literary movement that gradually united whole group new, young talented writers, continued the traditions of Russian realism of 1820-1830. – traditions of realistic creativity of Pushkin, Lermontov and especially Gogol. Back in the 1830s, Gogol’s work was highly appreciated by Belinsky, who even then saw in Gogol the “head” of Russian literature, a writer who took the place left by Pushkin.

At the beginning of the 1840s, Belinsky entered a new period of ideological development. He sought to influence new progressive writers with his articles, demanding from their work “fidelity to reality,” to the traditions of Gogol’s realism. Soon Belinsky began to call them the “Gogol school” in Russian literature, and then also the “natural school”.

The most important aspect of the creativity of the writers of this school was the sharply increased interest in the moral and everyday relations of the life of urban, democratic strata of the population to the inner world of their representatives, the desire to show and protect their moral dignity. By the mid-1840s in the work of nipples new school image of disadvantaged people in his Everyday life has become one of the important tasks of fiction. Writers portrayed the urban poor doomed to an abnormal existence, and contrasted their deprivation with the brilliant and prosperous life of the privileged strata of society. Of the writers of the older generation, Gogol came closest to such an understanding of life in “The Overcoat,” published just three years before the “natural school” took shape. And Dostoevsky had every reason to subsequently say about himself and other representatives of this school: “We all came out of Gogol’s “The Overcoat.”

Soon, progressive literature of the 1840s began to depict the serf peasantry from the same positions. This topic was not new in Russian literature. But a realistic depiction of everyday life and inner world There was essentially no peasantry before the 1840s.

Writers of the new school showed the life of the people in the irreconcilable social contradictions. At the same time, they revealed not only the suffering of the peasants under the rule of the landowners, but also those internal riches, those inclinations human development, which lurked in people doomed by serfdom to downtroddenness and underdevelopment.

Advanced writers of the 1840s followed Gogol in the very principles of depicting life. One of Gogol’s most important aesthetic achievements was the awareness of life in its social and everyday characteristics and the use of many portrait, everyday and speech details as a means of typifying characters. Thus, the progressive literature of the 1840s made a significant step forward in expanding and deepening the problems of realistic depiction of life. At the same time, she also possessed significant aesthetic principles. Belinsky supported the realistic quests of young writers. So, in the 1840s, the struggle between sharply defined literary trends intensified again. In them, new trends in social thought that were just emerging at that time found their creative and theoretical expression.

Therefore, it is very important to find out the main features public views the most significant writers and critics of this time. Social and literary views Belinsky.

(No Ratings Yet)

National identity Russian literature. Literary movements of the 1840s

Editor's Afterword

Ready for publication material by M.A. Barabanova, I, naturally, carefully looked through the textbook discussed in the article. When I met him, one of his features caught my eye, which Marina Anatolyevna practically does not talk about, but which can be very significant for a teacher who has decided, for whatever reason, to choose S.A.’s manual. Zinina, V.I. Sakharova, V.A. Chalmaeva.

This is the language in which the textbook is written.

The language of a book models its reader. You can say the other way around: how you imagine the reader is how you write. I am forced to note (as a literature teacher who annually teaches grades 8–11) that the authors of the textbook have a very vague idea of a real ninth-grader. They don’t talk to him like this, for example: “What determines the national identity of Russian literature and makes it unique? Redefining the artistic experience European literatures, it has retained a special sound associated with the tireless creation of spiritual values that define the “Russian picture of the world”... The main guidelines for them(writers. - S.V.)there has always remained faith in the spiritual powers of the people, in the inviolability of man’s internal connection with the “soil” on which he grew up and became spiritually strong... Spiritual asceticism constitutes a unique “ genetic code"Russian classics that radiate a special life-giving energy. Try to feel it by touching the living pages of immortal books. Read with your soul!”(p. 4). They don’t talk, especially about literature.

Why? Yes, because these words do not mean anything specific for the child. Because before us is a string of metaphors that have long been gutted from frequent use and mean nothing, however, they are now very much complained about at the state level. Because bunny ears of false pathos stick out everywhere.

The authors of the textbook apparently believe that if they say the word “spiritual” four times in the space of one paragraph, then the problem of educating the younger generation will be solved. It's exactly the opposite. Such words are dead husks that can kill the “life-giving energy” of Russian classics.

What can a teacher do with such words in the classroom? Are you serious about pronouncing them? Impossible. In a report from a high podium, from a TV screen, in a sermon - please. In class, eye to eye is not allowed. How can you, for example, lie? But maybe they should be read ironically - and turn the textbook into an object of ridicule? It’s unlikely that the authors wanted this. Maybe you should just skip these words? Or warn students: “Here, on page such and such, do not read.” I'm afraid that there will be too many pages to name then. I'm afraid that the only thing that can be done with such pages is... tear them out, as the hero of the famous film "Dead Poets Society", literature teacher John Keating, did, forcing his students to throw the introduction to anthologies.

There are plenty of examples of such words in the textbook. . Let's open it almost at random: “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign is not just a unique literary monument, but one of the peaks of Russian poetry, the brightest manifestation of national genius.”(p. 25). Stamps - they are stamps because they readily, effortlessly pop out of your mouth. The only problem is if the person producing such literary products does not hear himself.

But on the next page there is a question masquerading as scientific: “What characterizes the style of the poem - an epic, monumental beginning or the author’s lyricism, which gives the “Word ...” a unique emotional sound?”(p. 24). Real scientificity does not consist in saying things incomprehensibly and “smartly.” Real scientific language, by the way, could be gleaned from A. Zaliznyak’s book “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: A Linguist’s View,” which brilliantly proves the authenticity of the SPI text (we wrote about it in No. 10, 2007). However, a modern ninth-grader will learn nothing about this book, as well as about the entire dramatic history of the study of “The Word...” - only rituals on the topic of “the unfading significance of the amazing creation of a nameless Russian genius” and statements in the spirit of Soviet protective literary criticism await him on the pages of the textbook: “Later attempts to refute the antiquity and authenticity of the “Lay” (the works of the French scientists L. Léger and A. Mazon) could not shake...” In the “List of Recommended Literature” for the chapter, he will see books and articles published in 1960–1979... Comments are unnecessary. Except, perhaps, for one thing: recommended books can be found (if you really want to) only in libraries. And there, we note, there are much more serious catalogs and lists. Why, then, is there a strange, incomplete list, largely not designed for a ninth-grader, in the textbook? Because the genre demands it? Then you can simply write: “You should look for literature for abstracts and reports on the topic in libraries and the Internet.” It would save space...

But we agreed to discuss the language of the textbook. Let's return to it. “The literature of the 18th century inherited the best traditions ancient Russian literature - its patriotic orientation, deep connection with folk artistic consciousness, humanism and a pronounced social resonance”(p. 28); “In their poetry, the lyrical “I”, which previously among the romantics testified only to an extremely sharp, unique state of individual consciousness, not only expanded the horizons of lyricism, often acquiring boundless “lyrical audacity” (L.N. Tolstoy’s words about Fet), but also psychological the complexity of lyrical intuitions and associations, the condensation of experiences in time”(Part II, p. 193). Test it on ninth graders, just ask them: would they like to read a textbook written like this? I think the answer is obvious. And it is natural, because the authors do not feel - alas! - their responsibility for the words they pronounce and replicate.

Sometimes authors, however, come to their senses and try to brighten up a series of dull cliches with as if fresh beauty. The result is a monstrous cacophony, obscuring the essence of the matter even further: “The author of “Felitsa” turned young poetry, carried away by odes, tragedies and epics, from uniform “statehood” to its main cause and image of creative thought - lyricism, managed to fit the life of his restless, simple-minded heart into the worked out official forms of classicism, and sometimes these forms and completely discarded"(p. 60).

It is believed that a textbook is needed in school, in particular, so that you can “go through” the material without a teacher (for example, if a child is sick). For me, it’s better not to “go through” anything than to “go through” something like what was just quoted. I can imagine a sick student left alone with such a text about Derzhavin. Or with this: “As a result, Russian romanticism, having absorbed the motifs and images of Western romantics, acquired its own original sound, due, in addition to historical factors, to the originality of the literary process itself: rapidly catching up with Europe, Russian literature underwent a combination, layering of various art schools and styles.”(p. 85). It’s physically difficult to get through this non-union sentence with turns in each part, with homogeneous members and clarifications - where is the meaning to be grasped? My respects to the editor of the textbook.

And here is how it is told about Zhukovsky: “The originality of Zhukovsky’s romantic lyrics lies not only in its autobiography (all romantic poets from Denis Davydov to Benediktov had this to one degree or another), but also in some deliberate vagueness, generalization of the lyrical “I”, its constant correlation with universally significant experience feelings of the readers of that time"(p. 91). This poet also had his share of monstrous paragraph-sized constructions with a string of cases: “The special, mysterious and mystical flavor of the ballad is achieved by the picture of the horse race(with any check of part C of the Unified State Exam, this fragment would be classified as a speech error. - S.V.)in a gloomy forest, a father and a little son and a sudden terrible phenomenon to the frozen, sick child of a powerful and formidable forest king, captivated by the beauty of the boy and promising him gold and pearls, the joy of life in the forest and the games of his beautiful daughters.”(p. 99). Let me remind you that I am quoting a textbook for 13-14 year olds.

It is unclear why these teenagers need brief analyzes - one or two (!) pages each - “Oblomov”, “Fathers and Sons”, “War and Peace”, “Crime and Punishment”, “The Cherry Orchard”, “At the Bottom”, “ Twelve" - and further, to "Quiet Don" and "The Master and Margarita"? Or rather, not even analyzes, but these conclusions: “This is perhaps the deepest and most “intimate” layer in Bazarov’s multi-component spiritual world. Again a rebellion, though so sad, alien to any posturing. The inevitability of the end, the brevity of daring and joy, the fragility and fragility of the human “I” in the ocean of space.”(Part II, p. 185); “And even the fact that the “philosopher and naughty man” Pierre Bezukhov, with his complex spiritual wanderings, with his discovery of the ideal man Karataev, suddenly became one of the confidants of history in the novel, did not diminish the historicism of the work.”(Part II, p. 188). Tell the truth, those who work in 9th grade: are you going to read all these works with your children? During the allotted hours? Yes, Gogol barely fits into the program, and then at a gallop across Europe. This means that the entire chapter on subsequent literature (which is as much as thirty pages) can be safely thrown out of the second part of the manual - it is not for ninth-graders. Well, of course, we understand: without her, the textbook would not have been approved, because the standard requires so. This means that in order to be published, you need to start lying - that’s all. That's what the authors do. “Quite elegantly,” as M. Barabanova notes.

The lies embedded inside a good deed corrode it from the inside. Therefore, you somehow don’t pay attention to the errors and inaccuracies found in the textbook. G.A. Gukovsky on p. 83 turned into Chukovsky, and Turgenev’s Kukshina into Kukushkina (Part II, p. 184); hero of Derzhavin's ode on p. 65 “tormented by the desire for parts,” whereas in the original we are talking about “honors” (honors); us. 89 it is proposed to work with the final stanza of Batyushkov’s poem “There is pleasure in the wildness of the forests...”, which is not published in the anthology (p. 245) (this poem has two editions, for some reason one is reproduced in the anthology, and the task is directed to the other ).

Let's not talk about these little things. Sapienti sat.

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

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

First of all, it should be noted that the category of national, being not actually aesthetic category, requires consideration in different planes. It is important to focus on those that can be directly related to the work of art. The subject of my consideration is not so much the national as such, but the national in a literary and artistic work.

The question of the national in literature should also be considered taking into account the specifics of the aesthetic as a form public consciousness. The national in itself is not a form of social (and therefore individual) consciousness. National is a certain property of the psyche and consciousness, a property that “colors” all forms of social consciousness. The very presence of a person’s psyche and consciousness is, naturally, non-national. The ability for imaginative and scientific thinking is also non-national. However, the artistic world created by imaginative thinking can have pronounced national features. Why?

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

Through the figurative concept of personality. Personality, being an individual manifestation of universal human spirituality, largely acquires individuality as a national characteristic. National identity, not being a form of social consciousness, is a predominantly psychological, adaptive, adaptive phenomenon. This is a way and tool for a person’s adaptation to nature, the individual’s adaptation to society. Since this is so, the most adequate form of reproduction of the national has become an image, a figurative concept of personality. The nature of the image and the nature of the national seemed to resonate: both are perceived primarily sensually and are integral entities. Moreover: the existence of the national is possible precisely - and exclusively - in figurative form. Concepts do not need national identity.

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

Material for sculpting the “spirit,” i.e., an arsenal of poetic figurative means, borrowed by man from his environment. In order to “register” in the world, to humanize it, it became necessary, with the help of mythology, to populate it with gods, often anthropomorphic creatures. At the same time, the material of mythology - depending on the type of civilization being formed: agricultural, pastoral, coastal, etc. - was different. The image could only be copied from the surrounding reality (flora, fauna, as well as inanimate nature). Man was surrounded by the moon, sun, water, bears, snakes, birches, etc. In primordial mythological thinking, all images were overgrown with specific symbolic plans, saying infinitely many things to one ethnic group and almost devoid of information content for the other.

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

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

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

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

The image grows from the depths of unconscious psychological depths (I will not touch on the most complex problems of the psychology of creativity). Therefore, it requires an appropriate “apparatus” of perception, appeals to the “depths of the soul,” to the unconscious layers in the human psyche. Moreover, not to the personal unconscious, but to the collective. Jung strictly distinguishes between these two spheres of the unconscious in man. The basis of the collective unconscious is the prototype or “archetype”. It underlies typical situations, actions, ideals, and mythological figures. An archetype is a certain invariant of experiences that is realized in specific options. An archetype is a canvas, a matrix, a general pattern of experiences repeated by an endless series of ancestors. Therefore, we easily respond to the archetypes we experience; the voice of the race, the voice of all humanity, awakens in us. And this voice, which includes us in the collective paradigm, gives enormous confidence to the artist and the reader. The speaker with archetypes speaks “as if with a thousand voices” (Jung). Ultimately, the archetype represents the individual appearance of universal human experiences. It is quite natural that the collective unconscious in the masterpieces of literature in its resonance goes far beyond national boundaries. Such works become in tune with the spirit of an entire era.

This is another - psychological - side of the impact of art on society. Perhaps it would be appropriate here to quote from Jung, which shows how an archetype can be connected with the national. “And what is “Faust”? “Faust” is (...) an expression of the originally vital, active principle in the German soul, the birth of which Goethe was destined to contribute. Is it conceivable that “Faust” or “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” was written by a non-German Both clearly hint at the same thing—that which vibrates in the German soul, the “elementary image,” as Jacob Burckhardt once put it—the figure of the healer and teacher on the one hand, and the sinister sorcerer on the other; the archetype of the sage, helper and savior, on the one hand, and the magician, swindler, seducer and devil - on the other. This image has been buried in the unconscious for centuries, where it sleeps until favorable or unfavorable circumstances of the era awaken it: this happens when the great error leads the people astray from the true path."57

U developed nations, possessing a developed literature and culture, the arsenal of figurative means is infinitely enriched, sophisticated, internationalized, while maintaining recognizable national codes (mainly of sensory-psychological origin). It is easy to multiply examples. In Russian literature of the 19th century, one of the main archetypes is the figure of the “superfluous” person, the contemplator, who sees no way out of the contradictions of the era. Another example: genesis literary heroes Brothers Karamazov roots go back to folk tales. Another example: the concept of L.N. Tolstoy in “War and Peace” is actually a folk concept of defensive war, embodied in Russian military stories of the 13th-19th centuries. And the figure of Napoleon is a typical figure of an invader for these stories.

Let me generalize: the basis of almost any character in literature - not only individual, but also national character - is a moral and social type (mean, hypocritical, etc.) and even a mask, which is the basis of the type. Behind the most complex, original combination of psychological properties there is always a national version of the universal human type. Therefore, it is not surprising that the simplest mythological or fairy tale motifs can “come back to haunt” the most complex artistic and philosophical paintings of modern times.

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

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

On the other hand, national mentality can be expressed in different languages. Finally, there are works, for example, by Nabokov, which are generally difficult to identify as national, since they are devoid of any tangible national ideology. (I'll allow myself small retreat. The independence of material and language can have very interesting aspects. Any original, or even unique, national material is fraught with artistic potential. Moreover, there is a different potential. Due to the fact that individual expressiveness is important for an image, original material is always valuable in itself, that is, in a certain sense, it is valuable in itself. Therefore, as the basis for a future type of artistry, different national materials are unequal: taking into account different artistic tasks, the material, so to speak, is more or less advantageous. The richness of national life, history, from natural speech, from my unconstrained, rich, infinitely obedient Russian syllable for the sake of a secondary grade in English, devoid in my case of all that equipment - the tricky mirror, the black velvet backdrop, the implied associations and traditions - which a native magician with flying coattails can so magically use to overcome in his own way the heritage of his fathers." ("About the book entitled "Lolita". )

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

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

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

Industrial society and the development of urban culture have marked a trend towards leveling national

differences in culture in general and literature in particular.

The bottom of the trends in the development of literature is characterized by the fact that works are beginning to be created that are increasingly supranational, non-national, cosmopolitan (but by no means more artistic). This direction has its own achievements that cannot be ignored - just mention the name of Nabokov. The “nature” of the artistry of such literature, its material and means of expression are completely different.

In principle, the non-national trend in the development of literature has its own logic. Human spirituality cannot be demarcated by focusing only on certain national cultural patterns. However, spirituality cannot be expressed in general, outside of a specific literary language. And in this case, it is language that becomes the criterion for classifying writers as one or another national literature.

nature. IN highest degree It is characteristic that when Nabokov was still Sirin and wrote in Russian, he was considered a Russian writer (although he did not join the Russian spiritual tradition). When he left for the USA and began to write in English, he began American writer(although the American spiritual and literary traditions were alien to him).

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

Finally, let us touch upon the issue of the national as a factor in the artistic value of a work. The national in itself is a property of imagery, but not its essence. Therefore, art can be both “more” and “less” national - this does not make it cease to be art. At the same time, the question of the quality of literature is closely related to the question of the degree of nationality in it.

In conclusion, I would like to note the following. The national in literature can be revealed in its entirety only in the esthetional; it is a property of imagery, but not its essence. Therefore, art can be both “more” and “less” national - this does not make it cease to be art. At the same time, the question of the quality of literature is closely related to the question of the degree of nationality in it.

A “wasteful” denial of the national at the lower levels of consciousness can hardly benefit art, just like an exaggerated national one. To deny the national means to deny individual expressiveness, singularity, and uniqueness of the image. To absolutize the national means to deny the generalizing (ideological and mental) function of the image. Both are detrimental to the figurative nature of art.

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

Neither one nor the other in itself can be artistic merit. National picture peace can be a form of solving universal human problems. At the same time, the national-individual can only more clearly identify universal human problems. Nationally colored aesthetic consciousness, “working” at the philosophical level (or gravitating towards this level), seems to remove its national limitations, because it is fully aware of itself as a form of the universal. The closer the national consciousness is to the ideological and psychological level, the more inexpressible, “unfolding the soul,” the more “reserved” national.

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

The national relates to the universal as a phenomenon to an essence. The national is good to the extent that it allows the universal to manifest itself. Any bias towards phenomenology, exaltation of a phenomenon as such without correlating it with the essence that it is intended to express, turns the national into “information noise”, obscuring the essence and preventing it from being perceived.

This is the dialectic of the national and the universal. It is important not to go to the vulgar extreme and not raise the question of a verified “dosage” of the national. This is as meaningless as the absolutization of the national or its denial. It's about about the proportions of the rational and the sensory-emotional (and the national represents one of the sides of the latter). The “golden section point”, indicating proportionality close to harmony, is always guessed by the artist, felt, but not calculated. I am in no way advocating the “rationalization” of the creative act.

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

It is not surprising that at every step there is a substitution of artistic criteria for national ones, or, in any case, a failure to differentiate between them. There is no doubt: great artists become symbols of the nation - and this convincingly demonstrates the inextricable connection between the national and the artistically significant. However, great works become national treasure not so much because they express the national mentality, but because this mentality is expressed highly artistically. In itself, the presence (or absence) of a national element in a work does not yet indicate artistic merit and is not a direct criterion of artistry. The same can be said about ideological, moral, etc. criteria. I think it is impossible to discard these judgments without falling into the hermeneutic extreme in assessing a work, again forgetting about its fundamental feature - integrity.

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

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

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

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

Registration of the collective unconscious, its rationalization, translation into the language of concepts is a task that has not yet been solved. Meanwhile, one of the secrets of art lies in the effectiveness of its impact on society. And yet this is not what makes art a form of human spiritual activity. The spiritual core in a person is forced to reckon with the collective unconscious, but the latter does not fatally limit human freedom. Spirituality in its highest form is rational; it rather opposes the element of the unconscious, although it does not deny it.

Global significance and national identity of Russian literature of the 19th century century. Your opinion about the works known to you on this issue. When studying which school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?

In Russia in the 19th century there is an unprecedented rise in literature and is included on equal terms in cultural process. This era is usually characterized as the “golden age”, the time of the heyday of creativity and the emergence of philosophical thought, the formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin. Literarycentrism - important feature. From the works of writers of that time, we learn humanity, patriotism, and study our history. More than one generation of people - Humans - has grown up on this “classic”. Romanticism takes over artistic method, although at the end of the 30s of the XIX century leading place Realism will take over in literature.

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

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

3).National atmosphere in literature, development of Russian national character
4).Condemnation by writers of the isolation of the intelligentsia from the people, as isolation from their roots. 5).ideal of personality - the relationship of one person with the existence of the entire people (lack of egocentrism, self-will)
6) the writer’s attention to psychological and social analysis. You can also refer to Belinsky’s work on the Russian liter. At school, this question can be used in introductory Russian lessons of the 19th century. For example, maybe such a topic as thin liters as an art form

What determines the national identity of Russian literature? National literature

Other essays on the topic:

Editor's Afterword

Global significance and national identity of Russian literature of the 19th century century. Your opinion about the works known to you on this issue. When studying which school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?