Sergey Zenkin. Literary life

At various times, researchers have noted that it is impossible to understand Chekhov’s work outside the literary environment of the “small press” and the “physiognomy” of mass literature publications, where Chekhov the writer began. “Every writer writes in a certain environment and for a certain environment, and therefore it is necessary to study him in his natural environment,” wrote L.M. Myshkovskaya back in 1929, when domestic literary criticism began to show interest in the problem of literary life as a theoretical problem.

The very genealogy of innovations of Chekhov the writer, especially in the early period, appears much more clearly in comparison with the works of the literary series closest to Chekhov - the “small press”, the texts and life of which were built according to their own laws. At the same time, the texts of authors of various creative talents and fates turn out to be interesting. Only in such a context can one try to understand under what conditions and against what background the formation of Chekhov as a writer took place at an early stage, due to which his texts stand out from this series almost from the very beginning. But all this is extremely important for understanding the literary situation of the late 19th century - changes in the literary hierarchy and interdependence, interpenetration of different layers of literature, and therefore the relationship between writer and reader.

It is also necessary to study the literary background because inattention to it leads to inaccuracies that sometimes border on historical and literary ones.

D) misconceptions,” noted A.P. Chudakov. Today it is quite obvious that it is important to study not only the literary background, but also literary and everyday material as a whole, which incorporates both the literary background and the literary environment, without which it is difficult to hope to historically correctly assess Chekhov’s innovation. Many processes in the literature of previous eras do not stop with the transition to another era, but tend to repeat themselves.

1 Myshkovskaya L. Chekhov and humorous magazines of the 80s. M.: Moscow worker, 1929. P.27.

2 Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's world: emergence and approval. M.: Nauka, 1986. P. 7.

The introduction of the concept of “literary life” allows us to go beyond just the literary environment, the literary background, since it turns out to be broader. The classical definition of the concept was given by Yu.M. Lotman in the dictionary entry of the “Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary”: “Literary life is the special forms of life, human relations and behavior generated by the literary process and constituting one of its historical contexts.<.>L.6., without being a determining factor in literary evolution, can play a very significant role in the dynamics of the literary process”3. This article highlights the significant connections between literature and behavior, literature and everyday context for the concept of “literary life”, and gives a definition to the concept of “literary fact”, introduced into scientific use by Yu.N. Tynyanov.

Currently, in dictionaries of literary terms, as a rule, the article “literary life” is absent altogether, or the concept is given a definition divorced from its functional application within the framework of the history or sociology of literature.

Speaking today about literary life, we can consider it as a kind of behavioral text (in a broad sense), which can determine the style of the writer or significantly influence him, sometimes simply forcing him to write and live according to already created cliche templates (both behavioral and literary) or, on the contrary (as in the case of Chekhov), it can become a point of “repulsion”, stimulating the development of a writer and a person through the negation and parody of established clichés, encouraging their destruction and abandonment. However, according to D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, no templates and clichés (genre, language, behavior) are afraid of real talent, since “the psychological conditions of artistic work are such that, contrary to all templates, they bring forward the writer’s individuality: if it

3 Lotman Yu.M. Literary life//Literary encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1987. P. 194.

4 Compare, for example, the definition given to the concept of “literary life” by Yu.B. Borev: “...life circumstances and details (down to the smallest) of the author’s daily life in his environment (primarily the literary environment); general features and specific details of the everyday life of writers" (Borey Yu.B. Aesthetics. Theory of Literature: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Terms. M., 2003. P. 224). If she is strong and original, she is not afraid of any template; if it is weak and colorless, then, anyway, even without a template it will not create anything original and significant” 5.

The conditions of newspaper and magazine work within the framework of the “small press” of Chekhov’s time were such that templates and clichés at different levels were perceived as a kind of norm, a standard for newly arriving writers and “day laborers” with experience. Going beyond the boundaries of ideas about a behavioral or literary standard caused, as Chekhov admitted, rejection: “You need to follow a routine and a template, strictly adhere to officialdom, and as soon as a magazine or a writer allows himself to show his freedom even on a trifle, barking starts” (P. , 3, 64).

In order not to lose face and somehow break out of the networks of the template, the “real talent” who found himself in this environment was simply forced to look for his own path, his own forms, his own language (both literary and behavioral). And the writer’s innovation in this case is very often associated precisely with the destruction of established literary forms and clichés, as well as stereotypes associated with a certain position of the writer on the hierarchical ladder. So, V.V. Bilibin, in a letter dated March 7, 1887, convinced Chekhov: “You need to immediately write something big in order to get out of the role that is not appropriate for you, “showing great promise” (my italics - E.O.). Such a role should not last long for a truly talented person, which I consider you to be.” b.

An attempt to reach a different level in the literary hierarchy among writers around Chekhov can be considered the experiments of the same V.V. Bilibin in the field of drama (he mainly wrote farces, vaudevilles and one-act plays), as well as the experiments of H.A. Leikin in the novel genre. The question is, is writing a “big thing” always, in itself, capable of influencing the author’s position in the literary hierarchy? It appears that

5 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. History of the Russian intelligentsia T.9. 4.3. St. Petersburg, 1911. P.53.

6 OR RSL. F. 331. K. 36. El. hr. 75-6. L. 12. not always. In the specific historical situation at the turn of the 70-80s of the 19th century, when Chekhov and many of his peers began, it was already significant in which magazines (i.e. in what environment) new authors debuted and established themselves. During these same years, a special hierarchy of publications within the “small press” was formed, and the author’s cooperation with one or another publication often played a large role in creating his reputation.

“Literary life” should also be understood as a system of behavioral stereotypes in the relationships of writers among themselves, in the relationships of writers and authorities, writers and readers, the very forms of existence of writers (in the 1880-1900s - this was mainly the form of life of current literature taking place in editorial offices newspapers and magazines, less often literary dinners and evenings, clubs and salons as a form of unique communication), as well as the creative behavior of the writer.

For the first time, the problem of “literary life” and the need to study it within the framework of the history of literature was addressed in 1927 by B.M. Eikhenbaum in the article “Literature and Literary Life”: “Literary science is faced with a new theoretical problem - the problem of the relationship between the facts of literary evolution and the facts of literary life. This problem was not part of the construction of the previous historical-literary system, simply because the very state of literature did not bring forward these facts. Now their scientific coverage is next in line, because otherwise the process itself, as it takes place before our eyes, cannot be understood.”

L.Ya. Ginzburg, a student of Eikhenbaum, recalled how the teacher’s very interest in the phenomena of “literary everyday life” arose: “... it turned out that the historical, evolutionary problems that were on the line could not be solved by the immanent method. Thus began the school crisis.<.>For Eikhenbaum, the initial way out of an immanence that had ceased to satisfy was the way out into

7 Eikhenbaum B.M. Literature and literary life // Eikhenbaum B.M. My temporary one. Route to immortality. M.: Agraf, 2001.P.52. theory of literary life, he begins to develop it in the mid-20s."

In 1928, compiled by V.A. Fader book “A.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials”9, perhaps as a response to the theoretical task posed by Eikhenbaum (but also as a simultaneously arisen need for Czech studies, which is already developing into an independent literary direction).

In the preface to the publication by V.A. Feyder writes about the principle of selection of material, but does not define the concept of “literary life”. However, from the text of the preface it can be understood that for Feyder this is, first of all, “the material and moral situation surrounding the writer and determining<ющая>the nature of his creativity and his literary ideas”, as well as “the external process of writing” 11.

Fader’s book is made in the genre of “montage” of memories and letters, which became after the works of N.S. Ashukin and V.V. Veresaev about Pushkin, according to S. Reiser, “an unusually popular and marketable form.” It selectively presents and thematically selects epistolary and memoir material. This “montage” is not provided with practically any commentary - the facts should speak for themselves.

The selection of facts available to Feyder (“testimony of authors about themselves and their contemporaries, correspondence, memoirs, diaries, notebooks, etc.” 12) was made strictly, as she reports in the preface: “Everything dubious, apocryphal and anecdotal, unverifiable,

8 Ginzburg L.L. Notes. Memories. M., 2003. P.44I -442.

9 Since the 1930s and until the end of the 1980s. book “A.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials” (L., 1928) and its author were removed from scientific use. When they remembered the book, they didn’t even know who its author was - a man or a woman. (See: Kuzicheva A.P. Chekhov about himself and contemporaries about Chekhov (Is it easy to be a biographer of Chekhov?) // Chekhoviana. Chekhov and his entourage. M.: Nauka, 1996. P.23; Among the great: Literary meetings / Compiled, preface commentary by M. M. Odesskaya, Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, 2001, p. 7).

10 It should be noted that at the same time the museums of A.P. appeared. Chekhov, material is being collected on the history of Chekhov’s literary era, and in the same 1929 the work of I.F. Masanova "Chekhoviana. Issue 1. Systematic index of literature about Chekhov and his work."

11 A.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials. / Comp. Shaft. Fader. L.: Academia, 1928. C.V1I.

12 Ibid. C.VI. we reject it as unnecessary ballast, and if we admit it, then only with an appropriate reservation. But even from the biographical archive cleared in this way, we make a new selection, putting aside what is not organically connected with Chekhov’s literary activity” 13.

From the standpoint of modern knowledge, it can be noted that the criteria for selecting materials in the book are questionable. And the genre itself of such a rational and strictly limited “montage” cannot fully reflect the picture of literary life of any time, any era.

The principle of presentation of literary and biographical material adopted by Fader was criticized already in 1929 by Cesar Volpe, who, in the article “The Theory of Literary Life,” assessed Fader’s work as follows: “... the reader, having montage, does not turn to the document, maintaining, however, the illusion of ownership document. So, for example<имер>, from Chekhov, compiled by V. Feyder, the reader will take away the completely false conviction of his acquaintance with Chekhov. Meanwhile, he only “met V. Feyder in Chekhov’s shoes.”14 It seems that this is not entirely true.

The task of V.A. Fader was not so much to describe the life and work of Chekhov, to “introduce” the reader to Chekhov in everyday life (this function is largely performed by books in a different genre - biography, besides, by 1929 several biographies of Chekhov had been written - F.G. Muskatblit, A.A. Izmailov and biographical notes of M.P. Chekhov), but to try to present a general picture of the literary life in which Chekhov existed, to give the opportunity to see his characteristic features. This is exactly what V.A. is about. Fader wrote in the foreword to the book: “We will resist the temptation to “embrace the immensity” and will not write the physiology of creativity. Our task is only to introduce the reader to this interesting topic and outline one of the paths to possible generalizations in the field of literary creativity. To this end, we will try to trace how our writers worked, how, under the influence of external circumstances

13 A.P. Chekhov, Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials. C.VII.

14 Volpe Ts. Theory of literary life // For Marxist literary criticism. L.: Academia, 1930. P. 149. activities and their interaction with the mental world of the artist, TS or other “creative combinations” were created"

Uncommented memories, fragments of letters, documents cannot give a complete objective picture of literary life. Fader’s book could not be complete for a number of reasons: many of the now known materials were then simply inaccessible to its author (partly because some materials still belonged to Chekhov’s contemporaries, others had not been found, and many memoirs had not yet been written at all). However, Feyder was the first researcher to undertake such a publication on material from the Chekhov era. Thanks to this work, firstly, materials from memoirs that appeared in periodicals of the 1910s and then were never republished * became available to a certain extent; secondly, the thematically selected material made it possible to to some extent assess the influence of “external circumstances” on Chekhov’s creative evolution, i.e. newspaper and magazine literary life, and to see, at least as a first approximation, what the nature of dependence on it is in different periods of the writer’s life and work. But it is precisely this influence that is one of the aspects of the study of literary life.

The criticism of C. Wolpe seems very valuable: he notes both the shortcomings and the advantages of the theory of “literary life”, and helps to understand many of the provisions of this theory, reveals its origins and discovers parallels. Thus, Wolpe analyzes in detail L. Schücking’s theory on the role of social order in literature, supplementing it with important remarks. It is not analyzed by chance, but due to the fact that “V.M. Zhirmunsky and N.Ya. Berkovsky is contrasted with the “literary life” of B.M. Eikhenbaum, from their point of view, a coherent system of Schücking sociology" 16.

15 L.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials. S. V-VI.

The book “L.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials” was published in a circulation of 5,000 copies.

16 Volpe Ts. Decree. Op. P. 150.

In 1928 N.Ya. Berkovsky translated a number of articles by Leipzig University professor Ludwig Schücking from the 1910s-1920s. and the book “The Sociology of Literary Taste” (“Die Soziologie der literarischen Geschmacksbildung”), dedicated to the Anglo-Saxon epic and drama of the Shakespearean era, and V.M. Zhirmunsky wrote a preface to it. In it, Zhirmunsky outlined the main features of Schücking’s theory: “The author proceeds from the fact of the evolution of artistic tastes, which is usually explained by the “spirit of the era.” Subjecting this concept to sociological criticism, Schücking establishes the presence for each era of sociologically differentiated reading groups, different in their artistic sympathies and tastes. The change in taste is due to

11 struggle between these social groups." V.M. Zhirmunsky, correlating Schücking’s theory and the theory of “literary life,” notes that “Schücking’s range of sociological interests is much wider, and the choice of the subject of research is determined by a strictly thought-out and justified methodological system: issues of the professional life of writers (“literary life”), from this point vision, are only one of the elements of social life, which for Schücking determines the evolution of artistic taste in sociologically differentiated reading groups" 18.

It is clear that the dynamics of the literary process depend not only on the nature of the “reader-writer” connection and the social order or “literary taste” of this reader. (Although the study of this problem is necessary precisely within the framework of literary life, it was not set by B.M. Eikhenbaum as the main task). C. Volpe rightly notes: “Of course, literary tastes influence the development of literature, but here the question is only about the role of the reader. Literature, in turn, builds the taste of society<. .>. Therefore, there is only interaction” 19.

17 Zhirmunsky V.M. Preface // Schücking L. Sociology of literary taste. L.: Academia, 1928. P.8.

18 Ibid. P. 11.

19 Volpe Ts. Decree. Op. P. 150.

Volpe sees the overcoming of the “theory of literary life” (and in fact, the further development and expansion of the problem by introducing a clear historical or historical-sociological coordinate, the importance of which was confirmed after many decades) “in the consideration of the facts studied by this theory, among all those conditions and phenomena that form a historical environment contemporary with the literary fact being studied" 20.

It is important that in his article C. Volpe also notes the uncertainty of the concept of “literary life” proposed by Eikhenbaum, “for the fuzzy

This 21 term unites essentially different phenomena.” Probably, in the 1920s the definition had not yet been formed.

Literary life is the forms of literary work and literary, in particular, magazine) struggle and the forms of the writer’s professional life.

This is the question: "How to be a writer?" In this form, Eikhenbaum initially

00 the meaning of “various historical connections and relationships” was revealed,” recalled L.Ya. Ginsburg.

Given that for each literary era, even for each layer of literature, there is its own literary life, its own system of codes and clichés, it is possible to give some general definition of literary life as a way of structuring the life of writers, in which certain criteria and requirements are created, observed or not in life.

Literary life<.>- this is the everyday existential reality within which the ongoing process of creating literature as a reflected reality takes place.<.>The text of life, passed through the text of literary everyday life, turns into a text of literature, which in turn can be “reflected”, i.e. enriched with new meanings, once again become a text of life,” writes modern researcher O.R. Demidova. She further notes: “Processes of this kind become

20 Volpe Ts. Decree. Op. P. 168.

21 Ibid. P. 157.

22 Ginzburg L.Ya. Decree. Op. P. 441. especially active in a situation of increased “density” and semantic load of literary life, which, as a rule, is the result of social and/or cultural shifts, turning points, disasters” 23.

What if not a cultural breakdown, a shift in Russian society - the period of the 1870-1880s (i.e., the beginning of the creative path of Chekhov and many of his peers)? It was during these years that a change in sociocultural paradigms occurred, the perception of literature and literary activity, the attitude towards literature and its functions in different strata of society changed. Newspaper and magazine literature and, consequently, the life of this environment come to a prominent place.

The peculiarity of the 1870-1880s was that it was during these decades that the process of interpenetration at different levels of different social groups and strata, life and literary texts, different layers of literature intensified, which could not but affect the participants in the literary process themselves, the texts of this eras that accepted the rules of the game of the space of activity in which they found themselves included, and then which turned out to be a consequence of such and not other conditions. In the 1870-1880s, the system of social and literary ideas and criteria changed. “What is a literary fact in one era will be a common everyday phenomenon in another, and vice versa, depending on the entire literary system in which this fact is addressed” 24, wrote Yu.N. Tynyanov.

During these years, the so-called “small press” acquired special importance, attracting a new - mass, democratic in status - reader and forming a new type of writer who served this reader group. Literary life, as the necessary primary structuring of the life of this literary layer, also determined the appearance of a certain type of text, with its own language, with its own imagery.

23 Demidova O.P. Metamorphoses in exile: Literary life of the Russian diaspora. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 13, 14-15.

24 Tynyanov Yu.N. On literary evolution // Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. P. 273.

It is interesting to study both general patterns, mechanisms of mutual influence of literary life and literature, and processes specific to Chekhov’s era (primarily within the framework of the “small press”) and associated with the changed status of the writer, with the special role of competition and envy as forms of writer’s life, as well as with the mutual influence and interpenetration of texts from the “small press” and “big” literature at the actual literary and literary-everyday levels.

As V.B. writes Kataev, “Chekhov, like Pushkin, lived and developed as a writer in an era when literary art was making a sharp turn. The search for new characters, plots, genres, and a new way of speaking with the reader was reflected in the work of an entire literary generation. In the 80s, much of what later constituted the most characteristic features of Russian literature of the 20th century was born and formalized (my italics - E.O.)" ~ . Particularly significant is the social and functional heterogeneity of the literary generation of the 1870-80s, which even quantitatively created such a hierarchy that could not be ignored or ignored in everyday literary life, and then in the history of this period.

It seems very important for the history of literature to study the mutual influence of literary life and text - life writing and the “textualization” of life. O.A. Proskurin in his book “Literary scandals of the Pushkin era” poses a similar problem even more broadly - not only in the context of literature, but culture in general, which is relevant for posing a similar topic in relation to

Chekhov: “Study of literary life<.>outlines prospects for demystifying literature, not for reducing it to the point of intersection of opposing social forces, but for exploring ways of “textualization” of culture - a phenomenon whose comprehension is an urgent task

26 humanitarian disciplines".

25 Chekhov’s Companions / Collection of texts, articles, comments by V.B. Kataeva. M., 1982. P. 7.

26 Proskurin O.A. Literary scandals of the Pushkin era. M., 2000. P. 16.

The problem of the relationship between literature and the literary life of a certain era today is becoming especially relevant in historical and literary terms. Many processes that took place in literature and in the literary life of different eras do not stop with the transition to another era, but tend to repeat themselves. Just as the texture and style of clothing changes, so do the forms of literary life, but the action of the mechanisms that determine their repetition and functioning, as well as the general patterns and matrices of human relations, remain practically unchanged.

So, each literary era is characterized by its own texts and, accordingly, its own behavioral arsenal. It is important to note that the literature of the late 19th century belonged, for various (primarily social) reasons, to three cultural layers that served different social groups of readers and different tastes. Accordingly, the language, texts and literary life of these three layers of literature - “big”, “middle” (fiction) and “low” (mass literature) differed.

What is the specificity of literary life in Chekhov's era? What elements make up literary and everyday relations in the 1880-1890s?

These are special relationships, chains of micro-connections “reader - writer (author of humorous publications)”, “editor - reader” (editorial policy), “writer - editor, publisher”, relationships between writers (problems of competition and struggle for a certain niche, etc.). etc.), and the chain of relationships “writer, editor - government (censorship)” that determined a lot.

According to the prevailing stereotype, the concept of literary life is certainly associated with the Pushkin era, with circles and salons of the 1820-1830s. In Chekhov's time, literary evenings, societies, dinners, circles and salons continued to exist as similar forms of literary life - with the same necessity. In this way, the need, psychological and social, for communication between people of the same circle, of the same type of activity was realized. But among the authors of humorous publications in the 1880s, they were largely a formal element of literary life with its focus on such meetings, evenings, and salons of authors of “great” literature, from where they took the main models for structuring their own lives. Often, the tasks facing members of the salons of authors of “big” literature, such as the selection and discussion of literary novelties, polemics on issues of literature and art, were not paramount for participants in the “small press” circles. Of course, “Tuesdays” V.A. Goltsev 1880-1890s, for which P.D. gathered. Boborykin, V.I. Vernadsky, I.F. Gorbunov, N.H. Zlatovratsky, A.A. Manuilov, P.N. Miliukov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, G.I. Uspensky, N.V. Shelgunov, differed significantly in content from the “table tops” of V.A. Gilyarovsky, where JI.H. Andreev, V.Ya. Bryusov, I.A. Bunin, V.G. Korolenko, A.I. Kuprin, A.S. Suvorin, V.M. Doroshevich, N.M. Ezhov, A.S. Lazarev (Gruzinsky), I.I. Baryshev (Myasnitsky), A.M. Pazukhin, N.D. Teleshov, and took place in the same years. And this difference was related both to the composition of the participants and to the nature and purposes of these meetings. Judging by the large number of different circles, societies, etc., there was a considerable need for such meetings, in general for the unification of writers along craft lines ~ . However, the authors of the “small press” (unlike the authors of “big” literature) did not face the problem of qualitative selection of published material; their attitude towards creativity as a craft and the predominance of the quantity of literary production over quality largely determined the difference in the understanding of the tasks of writers’ associations by the authors of mass and "serious" literature.

27 A.R. Kugel, for example, wrote: “The mutual attraction between literary figures, and especially completely homeless newspaper workers, however, made itself felt. Necessity of k.-l. solidarity of interests, professional communication - phenomena so ineradicable that even the Tolstoy-Pobedonostsev autocratic spirit could not do anything about it.” (Kugel A.R. Literary memoirs (1882-1896). Pg.; M., 1923. P. 136).

But even the circles of authors of “great” literature at the end of the 19th century could not perform the functions of the circles, salons and societies of the 1820s-1830s. Attempts to restore the former importance of circles and salons were made especially actively in the 1890-1900s. Even the naming of the fiction writers’ dinners “Arzamas” (with an obvious allusion to the famous society of Pushkin’s time), according to I.N. Potapenko was “pinned” and “not justified by anything.” Evenings, according to the recollections of contemporaries, were, as a rule, limited to conversations of a literary nature, and occasionally a discussion of literary novelties, i.e. “everyday” as much as possible. Poet I.A. Belousov describes meetings with D.I. Tikhomirov (secretary of Children's Reading, since 1894 - editor-publisher) like this: “There were no readings or reports at the Saturdays, but simply a conversation over dinner on topics about the literary and pedagogical life of Moscow. V. A. Goltsev, V. M. Lavrov, lp attended “Saturdays”

N.D. Teleshov, Barantsevich, Albov, Mamin-Sibiryak." Tikhomirov's "Saturdays" existed from the 1870s to the mid-1900s in Moscow. V.A. Gilyarovsky spoke of these evenings as "boring, but crowded" 29 .

You can also remember the events that took place in the 1890s. pm H.A. Leikin, which A.P. also attended. Chekhov, described by L.A. Avilova: “The Leikins were very hospitable. There were literary meetings, i.e. evenings when writers gathered, and then they ate a lot, drank a lot and praised each other even more.”

There were often conversations “about literature”, but in the form of special, special “salon” literature, i.e. texts created within the framework of these circles, evenings no longer existed in the 1880-1890s in meetings and evenings of authors of the “small press”. One of the few exceptions is the Lunch Album

28 Belousov I.A. Literary environment. Memoirs 1880-1928. M„ 1928. P. 84.

29 Shruba M. Literary associations of Moscow and St. Petersburg 1890-1917: Dictionary. M., 2004. P. 241.

30 Avilova L.A. Stories. Memories. M., 1984. P. 235. nonsense of Russian fiction writers”, which retained many of the features characteristic of the “album” genre back in the 1820-1830s.

However, the absence of a special role for such forms of literary life as salons, dinners, etc. was quite natural. The authors serving the “small press” were too different - different both in social origin and in the nature of what they wrote, interests and beliefs. Literature was not considered (not manifested) by most of them as a means for solving social problems; it was a means of subsistence, a side income. Many authors were busy working in the main service (V.V. Bilibin, who served from 1886 until the end of his life in the Main Directorate of Posts and Telegraphs, A.S. Lazarev, who until 1891 combined teaching with literary work, N.M. Ezhov, also teacher, etc.), family matters, and also had to manage to submit the material on time. There was often no time for regular meetings, so the composition of clubs and dinners was not constant. Or, even worse, such evenings, organized by the editor or publisher, turned into a compulsory activity. For example, A.R. Kugel in his “Literary Memoirs” described the “Saturdays” of the Khudekovs, which “Chekhov also attended twice”: “The employees considered these Saturdays a rather unpleasant obligatory service and strove to come, whoever could, at about 12 o’clock, for dinner, which was magnificent and delicately served.<.>Despite the splendor of the receptions, the excellent food and the large number of people at these meetings, it was sad, or rather cold, because the main thing was missing: internal interest. There was no political platform that united the circle of invitees, no artistic or literary temperament, no intellectual demands” 32.

In addition, there was also a political aspect to the organization of circles and salons in the 1880s - the government traditionally treated them with distrust and caution. With Leikin in January - February 1884, Chekhov discussed

31 OR RNB. F. 494. Storage unit. 1.

32 Kugel A.R. Literary memoirs (1882 - 1896). Pg.; M., 1923. P. 73. question (however, not so much of his own free will, but on the advice of L.I. Palmin) about his entry into the Pushkin circle, organized by the poet Sadovnikov: “I had one once (a month ago ) L.I. Palmin. We drank, of course. After drinking, he became moved and suddenly came to the conclusion that I definitely needed to run for the Pushkin Circle. In the end, he promised to write to you about my candidacy and the next day he sent me the charter of the circle. I don’t know if he wrote to you about this? I would consider, like every mere mortal, a great honor for myself to be a member of a literary circle. I'm ambitious. But I live not in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow, where, until there is a branch of the circle, I will have to pay ten rubles for the honorary title of member alone - this is not expensive, but pointless. Being a member of the Pushkin circle in Moscow is not useful either for yourself or for your neighbors. This is the first thing. Secondly, I’m afraid, a sinful person, that I won’t be given a ride on a black horse. I have been working recently (5 years), I am unknown, and therefore it will not be possible to blame these crows for the lack of logic.<.>Don't write to Liodor Ivanovich. I, as it should be, completely agreed with him and now it’s awkward to go opposite. If, beyond your aspirations, the question of opening a branch of the circle in Moscow arises, then support our poor Moscow. Then I will most convincingly ask you to nominate me for membership and will agree not only to a ten-ruble contribution, but even a thirty-ruble contribution. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to propagate this secession for our Moscow brethren. The brethren themselves will not lift a finger if the above question is raised. She drinks vodka, breaks her hat in front of Pastukhov and doesn’t want to know anything (my italics - E.O.)” (P., 1, 99-100).

On February 19, Leikin replied: “By the way, about the Pushkin circle. You wrote to me that you would like to be a member, but you are afraid that you will not be chosen. Nothing. They will elect if we offer, but the fact is that now it is no longer worth running, the meeting season ends on May 1st. It would be better next year, from September.

You write: is it possible to open a section of the Pushkin circle in Moscow? They won't allow it for anything. Now all literary societies are in lockdown. And they wanted to cover us up, but thanks to the mayor, our co-member editor of “Russian Antiquity” and comrade of the St. Petersburg mayor M.I. Semevsky". However, Leikin’s “Pushkin Circle” did not last long34.

Thus, meetings, circles and salons, which arose by analogy with the forms of professional life of the authors of “great” literature as certain cliché forms of professional communication, were not forms of literary life that determined the literary process in Chekhov’s era, and did not become a form of productive professional communication. More significant here were the chains of micro-connections, such as: writer-reader, writer-editor (publisher), writer-authority (censorship), relationships between writers. At the heart of all these differences lay the difference in the attitude of the authors of the “small press” and “big” literature to their own work. Or rather, the differences were determined by this difference.

When turning to literary and everyday material, it becomes possible to more correctly and substantively interpret this or that literary work, which was created in this environment, on this soil, fed by its conceptual language, norms, and stereotypes. This literature itself, in its mass distribution, was a set of stereotypes. And you can almost always see how and why such a work was created, what determined its form and content. How did reader demand and editorial policy, as well as modern authoritative examples of periodicals preceding this work, influence the genre (and form in general), content and language of texts created in this era and by this era. How significant was the influence of the literary life of a particular era on the nature of the texts created, their poetics? These questions turn out to be important when studying texts (in

33 OR RSL. F.331. K.50. Storage unit 1-6. L. 5.

34 See, for example: Kugep A.R. Literary Memoirs. P. 135. in the broad sense) of the “small press” of Chekhov’s era to understand how, due to what patterns or their violation, the poetics of A.P.’s works is formed (first of all). Chekhov.

In relation to<.>to his modernity, the writer, as M. Aronson noted, is the result of the interweaving of some complex unities; a writer’s individuality ultimately comes down to a certain correlation between the objective literary, literary, everyday and social forces that participated in its creation” 35. * *

It is obvious that the literary life of Chekhov's era is heterogeneous and complex. It is necessary to talk about three levels of its functioning: the elite life of “big” literature, the literary life of fiction (if we understand fiction as the middle layer of literature) and the literary life of the “small press”. A.P. During his creative career, Chekhov had the opportunity to comprehend the laws of literary life at all three levels of functioning of the literature of those years. This is partly why his work and biography are the most interesting and noteworthy for studying the literary life of the 1880-1900s, that is, an entire era.

This work examines in detail only the literary life of the “small press”, i.e. “inner life” of the newspaper and magazine environment with which A.P. Chekhov met at the beginning of his creative journey. * *

The concept of “small press”, placed in the title of this dissertation, is quite often used by Czech scholars and borrowed primarily from the letters of A.P. Chekhov, and in modern language has already received a different shade of meaning *, also needs some definition. It is noteworthy that it has not received any recognition in the research literature.

35 Aronson M. Circles and salons // Aronson M., Reiser S. Literary circles and salons. L., 1929. P. 16-17.

In modern Russian, the phrase “small press” is most often used to refer to regional or youth periodicals. necessary definition. None of the works in the previous decades even attempted to define the boundaries of the “small press” (or to identify the problem of their permeability) in relation to the Chekhov era. It is necessary to do this in this study, if only in order to indicate the boundaries of the analyzed material. The “small press” in the workplace is understood as a number of weekly publications (“thin” magazines and newspapers) with a relatively small circulation, designed mainly for the grassroots reader, the urban man in the street, not only humorous, but also literary and political, etc. It is important that this all those publications where A.P. collaborated Chekhov before his “transition” to the newspaper “New Time”, which can be presented in the form of a closed list: “Dragonfly”, “Alarm Clock”, “Spectator”, “Entertainment”, “Light and Shadows”, “Worldly Talk”, “Wave” ", "Moscow", "Fragments", "Petersburg newspaper", "News of the day", "Moscow leaf".

Already Chekhov's contemporaries addressed the question of the influence of the “small press” on his work, of which he was an employee at the beginning of his literary work. And since the perception of the “small press” was generally quite negative, its role in the development of Chekhov the writer seemed insignificant, if not negative.

A.M. Skabichevsky, for example, in a review of Chekhov’s “Motley Stories” wrote about the destructiveness of newspaper and magazine work and the transformation of writers into “lightweight drummers”36. Similarly, in the article “About Everything”, JI.E. Obolensky noted that the reason for the death of many talents was

37 humor with its “hasty, daily scribbling”.

In 1905, critic V.V. Kallash in “Russian Thought” assessed the “small press” in a similar way: “The impenetrable vulgarity of our humorous journalism has long been a proverb.<.>If sometimes, by chance, a talented word appeared on the pages of these magazines, indeed

36 Quoted. by: Fader Val. A.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials. P. 63.

37 Quoted. by: Shatalov S.E. Two talents (Antosha Chekhonte and Viktor Bilibin) // Chekhov and his time. M., 1977. P. 26. witty antics, they somehow hurt the eye due to their unusualness and randomness among a whole sea of ​​vulgarity and mediocrity. Such oases, bright flashes of young, infectious laughter on the generally miserable pages of our humorous publications of the 80s were Chekhonte’s essays and sketches. He knew what he was laughing at, took him deep into the very thick of all-Russian vulgarity, and the “funny pictures” of the humorist’s splashing laughter, even then often imbued with sadness, turned into significant

->about documents of our social life.”

These are the origins of the ideological model that was firmly entrenched in Czech studies for decades: the “small press” - a bad phenomenon, primarily due to the lack of a clear social position and ideals - could not have a positive impact on the worldview of the young Chekhov. Almost at the same time, an idealized image of the writer Chekhov was created.

Any science (and literary criticism is no exception) tends to create certain models of perception, assessment of certain phenomena, convenient for constructing concepts, but at odds with the facts of reality. The principle of forming such models is simple: they are based on only some features, features, facts of the phenomenon being described, while others, in order not to disturb the clarity of the constructions, have to be neglected.

This happened with the image of the “small press” and the assessment of its role in relation to Chekhov’s work.

In most of the works of researchers of Chekhov’s work, the “small press” of Chekhov’s time (and this stereotypical perception can be found in scientific literature to this day) is presented as a kind of unity that has the same set of features and characteristics.

And there were many reasons for this in previous decades: insufficient knowledge of materials, changing socio-political

18 Kallash V.V. Literary debuts of A.P. Chekhov (Critical-bibliographic review) N Russian thought. Kn.Z M., 1905. P. 121. conditions that often provoke researchers to create generalized and simplified models of mutual influence of the “small press” and A.P. Chekhov, etc.

In 1929 JI.M. Myshkovskaya in her book “Chekhov and Humorous Magazines of the 80s” gives a list of frequency genres of humorous magazines, describes in detail the themes of some of them, characterizes Chekhov’s relationship with the editors of these publications (most of all with N.A. Leikin) and employees of the “small press”, indicates dependence the form and nature of published texts from the reader, place of reading, etc.

However, the humorous magazines considered in the work (their topics, the set of genres used, etc.) appear as identical phenomena that do not have any differences among themselves (and they, as will be shown later in this work, existed, although there were both seasonal themes and stereotyped types, clichéd perception of many life phenomena).

In the chapter “Humor magazines of the 80s, their direction,” L.M. Myshkovskaya, dwelling on only two publications - “Shards” and “Alarm Clock”, almost characterizes the entire humor of the 1880s as a whole: “The direction of humor magazines of the 80s, which consisted of two streams: nationalistic-chauvinistic , which was very close to official patriotism, and democratic-liberal. Both of these principles were on par, and this circumstance in itself indicates that the leaders of the magazines did not have any clear, firm principles and a distinct socio-political worldview.”<.>“The unprincipled magazine environment, in which there were no clear social principles and no social worldview, could not but have a detrimental effect on the young Chekhov and his work.”<.>“The small press, which raised Chekhov and which reflected the socio-political amorphousness of broad strata of the mixed philistine intelligentsia of the transitional period of the 80s, could not develop in him a stable worldview, but on the contrary, cultivated in him social neutrality, passivity and apoliticality.”<.>“It should be added that in addition to the influence of the magazine environment, Chekhov himself, who came from the urban philistinism and lived in it for a long time, experienced the influence of this environment to a sufficient extent. Along with his enormous knowledge of her life, he also took away from her negative traits that he, an intellectual writer, subsequently had to overcome

The stereotypical idea of ​​the “small press” of the 1880s and its authors as unprincipled, passive and apolitical took root at the end of the 19th century and remained relevant even after the October Revolution, because. it is based solely on the ideological aspect. In fact, and this is confirmed when getting acquainted with the texts of the “small press” and with the biography of the authors, the reader’s “order” and, in the terminology of receptive aesthetics, the “horizon of expectations” of the reader were indeed taken into account constantly, but both the readers and the authors of humor were different ( including by social origin and requests). Humor as part of the “small press” was not limited to good-natured laughter; there were also elements of satire, but, what is especially important, the “small press” performed a very important educational function (including in relation to the lower classes of society), which again was not limited to only to instill practical literacy.

However, the role of the “small press” in the development of Chekhov as a writer is not shown by the researcher as clearly negative. Chekhov’s versatile literary activity, as noted by L.M. Myshkovskaya, “developed in him the flexibility, almost virtuosity of an artist who early mastered all kinds of literary techniques. Subsequently, when his talent developed widely, this ability was very useful to him - absolutely everything turned out to be within his power - an extensive journalistic work about Sakhalin, and perfect miniature stories of two or three pages, and large stories, and

39 Myshkovskaya L. Chekhov and humorous magazines of the 80s. pp. 43^14, 48, 50. dramas, and vaudeville" 40. However, in mastering (due to necessity, the requirements put forward by humorous publications) the technique of brevity of presentation of the material and at the same time its semantic richness, one cannot see the origins of the genre diversity of Chekhov’s work of the end of 1880 -1900s, as L.M. does. Myshkovskaya. Although attempts to realize their creative potential in different genres and select some of them as productive, of course, began precisely during the years of Chekhov’s collaboration in the “small press,” which A.P. wrote about decades later. Chudakov.

The researcher sees the task of all fiction of the 1880s as the need to “give a vivid artistic reflection to the newly emerging urban social groups”, “to create a new theme and pour it into new forms.” Despite the narrowness of the presented problem, one cannot but agree with this statement. However, the following statement seems somewhat dubious: “Humor journalism began this work, but did it weakly and clumsily. Chekhov grew out of her midst. He took this matter into his own hands and with the creative power of an innovative artist brought it to the pinnacle of perfection” 41.

Indeed, the task of literature in those years was to record changes in social character, the hierarchy of society, describe emerging types and classes, and their behavioral characteristics. But this was done by both the authors of the “small press” and the “big” literature. It was not only Chekhov who “brought to<.>perfection" implementation indicated by L.M. Myshkovsky problem (the same can be said with confidence, for example, about M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, about P.D. Boborykin and many other writers, in different ways

40 Myshkovskaya L. Decree. Op. P.50.

41 Ibid. P. 100. solving the problem of fixing new phenomena in society, which arose as a need of the time).

In 1929, an article by A.B. appeared in the Chekhov Collection. Derman “Early Work of Chekhov”, which he included without significant changes in the book “Creative Portrait of A.P. Chekhov" (1929). The “small press” is formed by the researcher into a “sum of unfavorable conditions” that retard the development of Chekhov the writer. The influence of the “small press” on Chekhov comes down in Derman’s work mainly to the problem of “much writing”: “. With such machine activity, not only was purely literary finishing of the form and care for it impossible, but even more or less serious work of the inner consciousness, concentration, and work of thought was impossible. Further, such work excluded any respect for it on the part of the writer himself; moreover, it was possible only if there was disrespect for this type of literature. Finally, the nature of this work itself determined the literary environment in which Chekhov was destined to spend the first years of his activity.”42 However, in the above quotation, the researcher expressed an idea that, unfortunately, did not receive further development either in his works or in the works of subsequent researchers: Chekhov’s lack of a messianic attitude towards literature was developed through collaboration in the “small press” (my italics - E.O.).

In the work published a decade later by A.B. Korotaev “Chekhov and the small press of the 80s”, the question of the magazine environment of the young Chekhov, his influence on the writer is considered in much more detail.

For the first time, Korotaev’s article gave social portraits of some publishers and editors of newspapers in which Chekhov collaborated, which gave the author of the article grounds to draw the following conclusion: “All these publishers<в статье идёт речь о JI.H Уткиной, Г. Корнфелъде, Н.И. Пастухове, А.Я. Липскерове -

42 Derman A.B. Chekhov's early work//Chekhov's collection. M., 1929. S. 159, 150.

43 Korotaev A.B. Chekhov and the small press of the 80s. // Scientific notes of Leningrad State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen. T. XXIV. L., 1939. P. 87-137. approx. E.O.> appear before us primarily as typical. entrepreneurs who looked at the magazine and newspaper business as a commercial enterprise. There could be no question of their having any kind of integrity or height of literary taste.”44 By limiting the number of publishers and publisher-editors considered, the author arrived at the generalization he needed, but did not show the true state of affairs. With all the desire to make publishing a newspaper or magazine a commercially profitable enterprise, the same N.I. Pastukhov, for example, was forced to think and think about the educational role of his publication. The stereotype of the perception of “Moscow List” and its editor-publisher, created during Pastukhov’s lifetime, has proven to be tenacious in the research literature to this day. Following the author’s logic, both publishers and editors (A.B. Korotaev does not distinguish between these two types of activities) were exclusively businessmen who had only “two constant and only concerns - to secure subscribers and insure the publication from censorship pogrom.” These two conditions, moreover, according to the researcher, “basically determined the content of humorous magazines of the 80s” 45. It is obvious, however, that the publisher and editor, as participants in the literary process, performed different functions (even if they were performed by one person ), and their concerns often went beyond the boundaries outlined by the researcher.

However, unlike the works of his predecessors, in the article by A.B. Korotaev distinguishes the publications of the “small press”, but only based on a specific reader: “The circumstance at which social strata of the urban population the magazine or newspaper was oriented determined their physiognomy. Hence the distinctive properties of each of the organs of the small press”46. However, the factors that determined the differences between publications were significantly

44 Korotaev A.B. Decree. Op. P. 92.

45 Ibid. P. 93.

45 Ibid. more, which is obvious when comparing the materials given in the introduction below.

It is important to note A.B. Korotaev of those features in which Chekhov’s departure from the poetics of the “small press” was manifested (although the author does not use the term “poetics” itself):

1) Chekhov’s awareness of the “cliché nature of calendar themes” and parody of certain types of them.

2) Chekhov’s use of calendar, seasonal themes only as a “background”, “as a kind of cover”, “right of entry”, thanks to which the story could get into a humorous magazine or newspaper, while the story itself was filled with “significant social and everyday content” 47 .

The role of the “small press” in the development of Chekhov the writer is presented in the conclusion of the article as ambiguous, but rather positive, although not all aspects of the influence of the “small press” on Chekhov’s work are considered by its author and not everyone can agree with everything equally: “ Chekhov's six-year collaboration in the small press, along with the negative aspects (forced humor, the need to write to order, a lot and quickly, the inability to be sufficiently critical of one's work), also contained positive aspects. A humorous magazine reflecting various phenomena of everyday life and the topic of the day, gave it a variety of topics and characters<как будто этого не давала сама жизнь - прим. Э. 0.>. The obligation to write by a certain deadline and on topics that are repeated annually in magazines developed in Chekhov ingenuity in developing a seemingly formulaic theme, the ability to interpret a hackneyed plot in his own way, to look at a familiar phenomenon from a side from which no one looked at it. » 48.

Subsequent remarks by A.B. Korotaev about the influence of the “small press” on Chekhov the writer, its demands and features in many respects

47 Korotaev A.B. Op. op. P. 130.

48 Ibid. P. 134. For a modern vision of the role of multi-writing, see the first chapter of this work. are fair: “The small size of a newspaper and magazine story forced Chekhov to look for the most expressive means to fulfill his artistic tasks that he set for himself.<.>From here came his work on the expressiveness of the dialogue, which had to be structured so that the reader directly from it, without needing the author’s remark, would get an idea of ​​the character and psychology of the characters.<.>“Without creating a new genre in the small press, Chekhov raised the miniature story to great literature and thereby acted as an innovator in it” 49.

Work by A.B. Korotaev, with all its shortcomings, remained relevant to this day; all subsequent researchers, when addressing the problem of “Chekhov and the “small press” of his time,” either relied on this work (such as M.JI. Semanova50), or took into account its main provisions in their research.

Attempts to shed new light on the literary connections between Chekhov and humor of the 1880s were made in E. Broide’s dissertation work “Chekhov and humorous literature of the 80s”51. One of her goals was to show the humor of the 1880s not in isolation, but as an organic part of the historical and literary process and in the context of “big problems of Russian literature and socio-political life of Russia” 52.

In Broide's study, the image of the “small press” is presented completely differently than in the works of the 20-50s. Here, humor no longer appears as an unprincipled homogeneous mass, but is endowed by the author with a special socio-political function: “In the specific conditions of the “restoration of order,” humor of the 80s was called upon to play a special role. Under the guise of "innocent speeches", puns, anecdotes, humorous skits, "aphorisms"<.>- advanced intelligentsia expressed their attitude towards

49 Korotaev A.B. Decree. Op. pp. 135, 136.

50 See, for example, Semanova M.L. Chekhov at school. L., 1954.

51 Broide E. Chekhov and humorous literature of the 80s. Diss. . Ph.D. M., 1970

52 Ibid. C.4. the existing “order” of things 53. Thus, the stereotype of the perception of humor in the 1880s as a phenomenon that had a negative impact on Chekhov’s work, created, in particular, by critics (A.M. Skabichsky and N.K. Mikhailovsky), whom the author cites, was radically revised in 1970 year, but the new look gave rise to just another stereotype. The denial of one extreme led to the other extreme. “The humor of the 80s,” writes E. Broide, “was precisely what was accused of being concerned with trifles “not worthy of attention.” The art of humorists was distinguished by their high skill in creating character - based on external manifestations: intonation, gait, signs of everyday life, things, food. Thus, all manifestations of life were taken into account, the phrases and self-characteristics of the “heroes” ceased to be decisive.”54 And again, humor is viewed as a single stream, as if absolutely all the texts and characters in it were sewn according to the same pattern, as if the authors also represented a homogeneous a lot - everyone has reached heights in portraying character, etc. Indeed, the development of characterizing details was one of the most important merits of the “small press”, but at the same time, the authors’ orientation towards “big” literature must be taken into account.

What is valuable in Broide’s dissertation is the indication of the need to analyze the texts of the “small press” and Chekhov’s, which contain the “self-esteem” of the authors of humorous publications touching on literary issues: “The situation of Russian humor in the 80s has repeatedly become the subject of depiction in the works of the humorists themselves of that time . Given the possibility of the presence of subjective elements, it should be emphasized that “self-assessments” are of utmost importance for the analysis of this kind. Of particular importance is the artistic form of expressing self-esteem, which allows one to more clearly observe the methods and techniques of humor”55.

53 Broide E. Decree. Op. S.5.

54 Ibid. P. 36.

55 Ibid. P. 209.

It is strange that the texts necessary for analysis in connection with the topic “Chekhov and the humor of the 80s”, containing rich literary and everyday material, which are essentially self-descriptions, are presented in Broide’s work only by texts describing the “situation of Russian humor.” He analyzed only a few poems and stories (including “The Christmas Tree” (1884) by A.P. Chekhov).

Of particular interest in the work of E. Broide is an attempt to determine the significance of the “small press” for Chekhov’s subsequent work, to determine the “depth” of Chekhov’s innovation in relation to its texts.

Humor of the 1880s undoubtedly contributed to the study of reality. Young Chekhov, in his masterpieces of humor, went even further, revealing the stable qualities of petty-bourgeois ideology, the laws and physiology of state life.”<.>“The innovative essence of Chekhov’s humor lies in a broad approach to “everyday” problems.”<.>“Chekhov’s long-term communication with representatives of “minor” literature, firstly, contributed to the development of the independence of Chekhov’s spiritual world, his independence from the “venerable” ones,<"классиков">.

Secondly, communicating with the “little ones of this world,” the young writer had an excellent school of everyday life, so lacking in previous classics. Friendship with “insignificant” humorists had a meaning rather than “professional”, but educational, it made it possible to penetrate into the depths of the psyche and existence of “ordinary people” - which became the leading innovation of Chekhov, an artist and thinker” 56.

The cause-and-effect relationships in the above statements by E. Broide are completely incorrect. The feeling of independence from “venerable” authors was relative, but even if we accept this fact, it should not be considered as a consequence of long-term communication with representatives of the “small press”.

56 Broide E. Decree. Op. pp. 153, 139, 140.

“The School of Life” and knowledge of life to a greater extent, Chekhov went through not so much due to communication with comedians, but due to his work as a doctor, social status and origin.

The study shows one-sidedly and incorrectly the connection between the “small press” and “big” literature: “In the humor of the 80s. Chekhov deepened the tendency towards a peculiar revision of the templates of “great” literature. What was lofty there, sanctified by “suffering,” in Chekhov’s humorous works acquires a farcical sound, testifying to the obsolescence of many dogmas that do not correspond to living life.”57 Thus, E. Broide draws the reader’s attention to only one of the many aspects of this relationship, this mutual influence , completely forgetting for some reason about the parody that took place in the work of early Chekhov in relation to the texts of the “small press” itself and not taking into account the fact that such parody of style, language, plot, composition and other features of “big” literature was a characteristic feature of a large amount of texts of the “small press”, both prosaic and poetic.

E. Broide’s research as a whole turned out to be quite superficial (despite the introduction of the texts of the “small press” into scientific circulation and the formulation of problems that had not been studied before), which did not even reveal, even to a first approximation, those multilateral and diverse connections that can be found between the works Chekhov and the authors of humor of the 1880s.

In the comments to the “Complete Works and Letters” of A.P. Chekhov in 30 volumes (primarily in volumes 1 and 2 of works published in 1974 and 1975), probably due to the specifics of the genre, it is difficult to discern the difference between the publications in which Chekhov collaborated in the early 1880s . However, some facts of the “interaction” between Chekhov’s creativity and the “small press” are discussed in this commentary. In particular, one can find indications of the use by Chekhov’s followers in the “small press” of his plots

57 Broide E. Decree. Op. P. 146. works and their processing, as well as Chekhov’s use of common (especially in humor) clichés (both at the level of vocabulary and at the level of form). However, especially in volume 1, one interesting trend can be traced: the literary connections of Chekhov M.P. Gromov (the author of the commentary) are often questioned, and in the foreground are life circumstances and real events that could serve as the basis for Chekhov’s texts. So, for example, the researcher denies the obvious parody of such stories as “The Wives of Artists” or “The Sinner from Toledo”**. And even the “Alarm Clock Calendar for 1882”*** with its focus on the calendar form common in the “small press” is, in the author’s opinion, primarily a kind of “ciphering” of real events.

Only years later in the works of V.B. Kataeva, S.B. Bookchina, A.P. Chudakov and I.N. Sukhikh showed the role of the “small press” in Chekhov’s work differently. A kind of response to M.P. Gromov received an article by V.B. Kataev “Leikin’s version (from the history of Russian humor of the 19th century)” 58, which was then included (in a modified form) in his book “Chekhov’s Literary Connections” (M., 1989) as one of the chapters. In addition to the “rehabilitation” of the literary reputation of H.A. Leikin and part of his work (as well as the “small press” in general) in the minds of readers, the author of the article finds many points of contact (in the field of poetics), which allow us to talk about the genetic connection of Leikin’s sketch and Chekhov’s stories and skits. At the same time, Chekhov’s innovation and his difference from Leikin are shown by V.B. Kataev also quite clearly: “Unlike Leikin’s humor, the basis of Chekhov’s humor is not just

It is generally accepted that “The Wives of Artists” is a literary parody of A. Daudet<.>. The story, apparently, is not so much a literary parody as a humorous narrative in the “Russian style” about the unsettled life of young artists, writers and students, such as A.P. himself in 1880. Chekhov, his older brothers, his friends<курсив мой - Э.О>"(S., I, 566).

The Sinner from Toledo" is perceived as a style parody, "a pastiche that uses exotic Spanish material to reveal a novella with an unexpected ending"<.>. Meanwhile, the content of the story (murders and executions in the name of Christ and for the sake of fulfilling an abstract “duty”) clearly echoes the events of the early 80s, a time of sharp intensification of reaction in Russia<курсив мой - Э.О.>"(S., I, 571). “Among the “calendar” humoresques, which are very common in the small press (for example, “Bruce’s Calendar” - a feuilleton review of current events in “Dragonfly”), Chekhov’s humorous journalism stood out for its thematic topicality, the sharpness of satirical details and hints, encrypted in the peculiar form of a parody “calendar” "<курсив мой - Э.О.>"(S., 1, 578).

58 Kataev V.B. Leikinsky version (from the history of Russian humor of the 19th century) // Bulletin of Moscow State University - No. I. - M., 1981. observation, accuracy of detail, liveliness of language, etc., and a certain concept of life<,.>. Everywhere the complexity and meaning of what is depicted is several orders of magnitude higher than in Leikin’s scenes.

The use of individual features of the poetics of the scene, individual “scene” plots and characters was accompanied by Chekhov’s gradual internal break with this genre, going beyond the limits of its tasks and capabilities.<.>Under Chekhov's pen, a picture from life, the comedy of which is contained in the vocabulary of the characters, increasingly turned into a story, a short story - an everyday incident, sometimes an anecdote, the deep essence of which was revealed by means of art: contrasting juxtaposition, compositional play and an unexpected ending. From a superficial mockery of life, Chekhov moved towards studying it.”59

A significant date in the study of connections between Chekhov and the “small press” was 1982, when two publications were published at once - “Writers of Chekhov’s Era” 60 and “Chekhov’s Companions” 61 as a response to the need to “recreate the most complete history of Russian literature, restore its lost links" 62.

In the introductory articles to the collections of V.B. Kataev and S.B. Bookchin point out the connections between the texts of Chekhov and his “companions.” And if C.B. Bookchin, establishing these parallels, focuses on the difference in the ideological level of the works of Chekhov and the “writers of his time,” then V.B. Kataev consistently characterizes the features that make it possible to see more clearly the difference between Chekhov’s texts and the texts of the authors of the “small press”. A comparison of plot-wise and thematically similar stories allowed researchers to approach the identification of the features of Chekhov’s poetics against the background of the works of his contemporaries.

Kataev V.B. Chekhov's literary connections. M., 1989. P. 25,23.

60 Writers of Chekhov's time: In 2 volumes / Introduction, comments, compilation by S.B. Bookchina. M., 1982.

61 Chekhov's Companions / Collection of texts, articles and comments by V.B. Kataeva. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1982.

62 Writers of Chekhov's time. T.1. P. 7.

A.P. paid a lot of attention to the problems of the poetics of the “small press” in his works. Chudakov (largely in the book “Chekhov’s World: Emergence and Affirmation” (M., 1986), partly in the biographical study “Anton Pavlovich Chekhov” (M., 1987), as well as in the article “Humorism of the 1880s and Poetics Chekhov"6""). The problem of the interaction of Chekhov’s creativity with the works of the “small press” is not considered in the books of A.P. Chudakov specifically, and among the units that influenced the creation of Chekhov’s artistic world. The researcher’s field of view includes the plot and plot of Chekhov’s works, their hero, the hero’s inner world and the objective world surrounding him. However, the entire second chapter (“The Origins of New Plot and Compositional Principles”) in the book “Chekhov’s World” is devoted to the study of “on what literary background, when and in what genres those new plot principles that Chekhov inherited arose, and how he , processing and transforming what was inherited, created that “Chekhovian” plot, which was one of the most important components of a new type of literary thinking, a new artistic vision of the world discovered by him” 64. At the same time, it is important, of course, to note that as the “sources” of the poetological system The author considers Chekhov both the closest literary series - the “small press”, and the works of literary predecessors and contemporaries - representatives of the “big” literature. The connection between the “small press” and “big” literature A.P. He finds eccentrics also in terms of genre. The fact that young Chekhov assimilates genre and compositional patterns through the “small press” is obvious, but the researcher allows us to see “big” literature as a source of genres and compositional techniques (in a reduced and transformed form) for the “small press” - this is how the hypothesis about that the “small press” was probably “the material carrier of the “memory of the genre”, which M.M. spoke about in general terms. Bakhtin, is a carrier with significant constancy and inertia, less susceptible

63 Chudakov A.P. Humor of the 1880s and Chekhov's poetics // Questions of literature - No. 8 - M., 1986.

61 Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's world: emergence and approval. P. 69. literary revolutions than great literature.” “Mass literature is a kind of panopticon, or a refrigerator of literary forms: having ceased to be alive in great literature, in mass literature in a “frozen” form and how

65/-hour wax copies can last a surprisingly long time." They were preserved in humor, as A.P. noted. Chudakov, and the style features of such literary movements as sentimentalism, romanticism - there are quite a lot of examples of this in the texts of the “small press” of those years. And these features are not always presented only as an object of parody (which, by the way, is typical for Chekhov’s humoresques), but as independently significant.

In the humor of previous decades (“Spark”, “Beep”, “Veselchak”, “Entertainment”) A.P. Chudakov finds many parallels with the genres of the “small press” (and especially with those used at an early stage, in the early 1880s, by Chekhov). However, as the author notes, despite the fact that parallels are found in large numbers for all the main genres of Chekhov’s humoresques, “the influence of such works on his later poetics hardly went beyond a few private techniques” 66.

In addition to humoresques (by which the author means short genres of humor, such as aphorisms, sayings, announcements, etc., that is, those that the authors of the “small press” often also called “little things”) A.P. Chudakov considered the genres of essays, comic short stories and sketches. The object of description in this case is not only their content and compositional originality, but also their genesis.

But still, the main question for the author when studying the features and peculiarities of the poetics of the “small press” used by Chekhov is the question of the difference between Chekhov’s texts and the texts, primarily, of the humor of his time. How do the stories and skits of “Chekhov’s companions” differ from Chekhov’s own? The texts themselves suggest that the simplicity and “artlessness” of Chekhov’s story, its incompleteness, are only apparent, while for

65 Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's world: emergence and approval. pp. 73, 79.

66 Ibid. P. 79. texts of the “small press”, for the most part, these features turn out to be significant and existing. Meeting the formal requirements of the “small press”, such as topicality, brevity, humor, and the obligatory depiction of everyday things, Chekhov does not leave the compositional techniques of the same sketch or story unchanged; Following his artistic needs and goals, he fills the genres known before him with new content and creates a new artistic language. But Chekhov's innovation in this area would have been impossible without relying on the previous literary tradition, including the experiences of the “small press”.

Large section of the book “Problems of Chekhov’s Poetics” (JL, 1987; 2nd ed., additional M., 2007) I.N. Sukhikh dedicated it specifically to the literary connections between Chekhov and the “small press.”

In this work, for the first time, the idea was expressed that the movement “from Chekhonte to Chekhov,” from entertainment and lack of ideas to “seriousness” is a research myth, as, indeed, are attempts to “see in almost every Chekhov trifle” of the 80s Turgenev's psychological depths or

67 Shchedrinsky satirical pathos". The path to the “solution to Chekhov” is seen by the researcher as the development of “dragonfly-fragmentation” material, a huge layer of early Chekhov’s texts. And the main task of this chapter seems to the author to identify the features of Chekhov’s author’s individuality, “which are already visible in the stories of Antosha Chekhonte - not what has changed, but what

68 which, having appeared, remained largely unchanged."

A significant part of the section is occupied by a description of the “rules of the literary environment” into which Chekhov found himself when he began his creative journey. Unfortunately, the author very often resorts to generalizations, speaking about such elements of “mass literature” as plot, theme, composition and language of works, without distinguishing between different publications, summing them up under one denominator: “Indeed, the entire content of the “fragmentation”<здесь - всех юмористических

67 Cyxitx H.H. Problems of Chekhov's poetics. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 58.

68 Likewise. P. 59. magazines in general - approx. E.O.> products are built into a certain annual cycle associated with the lifestyle of the urban man in the street: the average intellectual, a competent merchant, a student, a doctor, an official”69. In these judgments one can see obvious parallels with the work of L.M. Myshkovskaya.

However, it was rightly noted further that “the late Chekhov principles of brevity and simplicity of language, the continuous “plot” of life, the special position of the reader in the world of the work, i.e. attitude to the word and attitude to the world can be considered as a transformation, functional rethinking and use of some properties of mass literature, within the framework of which

70 begins Antosha Chekhonte."

Chekhov’s violation of the characteristic genre features of the “small press,” as noted by I.N. Dry food, indeed, was impossible without their development and assimilation. Thus, the genetic connections and relationships of Chekhov’s creativity with the existing genres of captions to drawings (and for the first time, by the way, the problem of the relationship between drawing and text), short story, sketch and story have been particularly carefully analyzed.

However, again in this work the poetics of the “small press” in its relationship with Chekhov’s poetics does not become the subject of special study. The features of the “small press” and its characteristic features are given in a simplified, often generalized form, since they are not directly related to the tasks that the researcher sets for himself.

Subject of study. The dissertation examines both the general features of the “small press” and the specific features of those publications in which A.P. collaborated. Chekhov, literary and literary-everyday relations that influenced Chekhov’s work in the 1880s.

69 CyxiLx I.N. Problems of Chekhov's poetics. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 67.

70 Ibid. pp. 68-69.

The research material was the works of A.P. Chekhov of the first half of the 1880s and texts by the authors of the “small press”, published in the same publications where A.P. collaborated. Chekhov.

This work involves partially published or unpublished handwritten sources (correspondence, memoirs, etc.), as well as scientific works and memoirs, often undeservedly forgotten by researchers of modern times.

For example, the dissertation makes extensive use of the memoirs of A.S. Lazarev (Gruzinsky). (A.B. Amphiteatrov advised Lazarev: “Would you write the Moscow literary years of the 80-90s? After all, you know them much better than me!”) 71 Of these memoirs, only the chapter “Chekhov” was published, although a lot of material about Chekhov can be found in others chapters of the manuscript. It is impossible to ignore the rest of the material also because it contains many facts about the life and daily literary work of not only Chekhov, but also the writers of his circle. According to the poet I.A. Belousov (whose memories are also used in the work), without Lazarev’s memoirs “the life and customs of the pen workers of the 80s - 90s. forgotten, lost,

U-) and this would be a big gap in the history of Russian literature"

Also, a large amount of the only partially published correspondence of Chekhov with writers and publishers of the late 19th century was used. It makes it possible to present the picture of the literary life of the era under study most fully, to display unknown facts of the biography of writers of the 1880s, to understand some of the features and trends in the development of the literary process of this time.

The relevance of the study is determined by the attention of sociologists and literary historians to the literary life of different eras. In the context of modern sociology of literature, which is gaining strength and is a form

71 Lazarev (Gruzinsky) A.S. Autobiography. RGALI. F.549. Op.1. D. No. 329. L. 13.

12 Quoted. by: Gitovich I.E. Lazarev (Gruzinsky) Alexander Semenovich // Russian writers. 1800-1917: biobibliographic dictionary. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1989-1999. T.3. P. 280. way out of the poststructuralist impasse and crisis of methodology, the study of what is called B.M. Eikhenbaum’s “literary life” becomes especially relevant and significant. Mass reading, the special role of the reader and the marginal writer - all this is the object of study in the sociology of literature. However, the actual everyday element, the literary life of the editorial offices of newspapers and magazines, the system of relationships between writers and the connection of these triggering mechanisms in the creation of certain samples of texts required by the time and fulfilling certain tasks of primary socialization and aestheticization of the reader, are, as a rule, not taken into account by the theory of literary sociology. Although often it is these elements of literary life that are important when correlating the environment and the text and should be included in historical and literary studies.

The problem of the relationship between literature and the literary life of a certain era today is becoming especially relevant in historical and literary terms. Many processes that took place in literature and in the literary life of different eras do not stop with the transition to another era, but tend to repeat themselves. Just as the texture and style of clothing changes, the forms of literary life also change, but the action of the mechanisms that determine their repetition and functioning, as well as the general patterns, matrices of human relations, remain practically unchanged.

The scientific novelty of the work is primarily due to the fact that the literary life of Chekhov’s era has not yet been the object of special scientific research. In this dissertation, for the first time, an attempt has been made to describe and systematize the facts of literary life of the 1880s in their relation to the texts created in this era, and also poses in a new way the problem of the relationship and mutual influence of literary and literary-everyday texts of the “small press” and the early Chekhov.

The theoretical basis of the work is the work of B.M. Eikhenbaum, Yu.N. Tynyanov, who first addressed the problems of the relationship between literary life and text, articles by Yu.M. Lotmaia, as well as studies of modern times - O.A. Proskurina and O.P. Demidova, - directly related to the theory of literary life.

Also, the theoretical basis of this study was the works devoted to Chekhov’s connections with the humor of the 1880s, the poetics of Chekhov and the “small press”, the problems of the reader of Chekhov’s era, which to some extent affect literary and everyday issues, but do not use the concept of “literary everyday life." Among these works, the following particularly significant works should be noted: L.M. Myshkovskaya “Chekhov and humorous magazines of the 80s.” M., 1929; A.P. Chudakov “Chekhov’s Poetics” M., 1971; “Chekhov’s Companions” (edited by V.B. Kataev). M., 1982; “Writers of Chekhov’s time” (introduction, commentary, compilation by S.B. Bookchin). M., 1982; A.P. Chudakov "Chekhov's World: emergence and approval." M., 1987; I.N. Sukhikh "Problems of A.P. Chekhov's poetics." L., 1987; St. Petersburg, 2007; V.B. Kataev “Chekhov’s Literary Connections.” M., 1989; V.B. Kataev "Chekhov plus." M., 2004.

The ultimate goal of the study is to identify the relationship between the environment (the odds of literary life - its organization, its collisions) and the text, that is, the formation of some general models (clichés) of behavior and style within the magazine and newspaper environment. And what is equally important is to describe the mechanism for reflecting the literary life of the era in the texts of the “small press” of this time and, conversely, reflecting the forms of behavior given by literature in everyday life.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1) description and analysis of the features of the literary life of the “small press” of the 1880s using the example of some, mainly humorous, publications in which A.P. collaborated. Chekhov, description of the nature of published materials (depending on external reasons);

2) determining the relationship between the texts of the “small press” and the work of A.P. Chekhov in the 1880s;

3) identifying innovative features in Chekhov’s poetics based on his prose of the first half of the 1880s and identifying the origins of this innovation.

The research method is historical-functional.

The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the materials, provisions and conclusions of the study in general lecture courses on the history of Russian literature, as well as special courses on literary life, the literary environment and connections of Chekhov and others.

Approbation of work. Presentations on the topic of the dissertation were made at International scientific conferences:

1) “Young Chekhov: problems of biography, creativity, reception, study” (Taganrog, September 2003).

2) Chekhov readings in Yalta (Yalta, April 2004).

3) XII International Conference of Students, Postgraduate Students and Young Scientists “Lomonosov” (Moscow, Moscow State University, April 2005).

4) Young researchers of Chekhov - V (Moscow, May 2005).

5) XIII International Conference of Students, Postgraduate Students and Young Scientists “Lomonosov” (Moscow, Moscow State University, April 2006).

6) XIV International Conference of Students, Postgraduate Students and Young Scientists “Lomonosov” (Moscow, Moscow State University, April 2007).

7) XV International Conference “Lomonosov Readings” (Moscow, Moscow State University, April 2008).

8) Young researchers of Chekhov - VI (Moscow - Melikhovo, May 2008).

Work structure. The work consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography (including more than 100 titles of printed works and periodicals, 27 titles of handwritten sources), as well as text and illustrative appendices.

CONCLUSION

The peculiarity of the 1870-1880s was that it was during these decades that the process of interpenetration at different levels intensified: different layers of society, literature and life, different layers of literature, which could not but affect all participants in the literary process, on the texts of this era. In the 1870-1880s, the system of ideas and criteria changed.

Small Press" played a significant role in the formation and development of literature, which attracted a new - mass - reader, and formed a new type of writer. Literary life as a certain structuring of the life of this literary layer determined the appearance of a certain type of texts, with its own language, with its own imagery.

Small press,” contrary to the research stereotype, did not represent a single stream; it was nevertheless diverse and designed for different readers (as A.B. Korotaev wrote about), and it was created by authors of different origins and degrees of talent. And only based on the knowledge that the publications of the “small press” were not homogeneous, but each of them differed in the set of headings, genres, and in the nature and volume of published texts, having traced which works of Chekhov appeared in which publications, in which To the extent that he adapted to the demands put forward by the editors of these newspapers and magazines, one can largely understand what the influence of the “small press” was on Chekhov the writer.

It is noteworthy that these different publications did not always force Chekhov to follow the principles and traditions established in them, but, perhaps, they often unintentionally provided the opportunity to try himself in different genres. Thus, in the magazine “Light and Shadows”, published by N.L. Pushkarev, Chekhov does not appear in the semi-humorous section “Rubbish”, but publishes large (by the standards of the “small press”) works, which may indicate his need (which existed initially, and did not come over the years) for texts of different content and form, which purely humorous magazines could not satisfy. “Light and Shadows” and “Worldly Talk” (also published by Pushkarev) made it possible to realize this writing need. In "Worldly Talk" Chekhov published two stories - "Living Goods" and "Belated Flowers", as well as several stories, most of them exceeding the usual volume of "fragmentary" production (100-150 lines).

The internal desire for self-development, the desire to search for new artistic means and forms of understanding reality from the very beginning led Chekhov to deny not only the templates and clichés of the “small press”, but also to deny the very attitude of his senior comrades in humor to the literary process, such as H.A. Leikin and V.V. Bilibin, a lot of evidence of which can be found in their correspondence of the mid-1880s.

Literary life and texts of the “small press” are of historical and literary interest in terms of their correlation with the norms of literary life and texts of fiction and “big” literature. At the same time, it is important to establish what features of “big” literature attracted the authors of the “small press”, and what from the “small press” became the source and material for a high layer of literature (such as the poetics of the detective story, and the genre itself, which came to the “big” » literature from popular literature). Of particular interest is also the correlation of literary and everyday models of “big” literature and “small press”, which are largely different, but also have similarities.

Poetics A.P. Chekhov, the nature of his work owes a lot to the “small press”, its laws, its poetics, since it was through assimilation (at the beginning of creativity) and simultaneous repulsion from them that Chekhov became a writer. The literary life of the publications in which Chekhov began to write, to a greater extent than it previously seemed, determined the nature of his texts.

Many researchers have noted that the principle of brevity of works

Chekhov accepted precisely during the years of cooperation in the “small press”. To some extent this is true. But shouldn’t we also see in this desire for brevity the influence of Chekhov’s medical school, in particular, the experience of compiling a medical history? Back in 1894 V.A. Goltsev noted in “Literary Essays”:

When depicting certain phenomena, Chekhov acts like a talented and conscientious zemstvo doctor. He does not dwell on it in detail, but, having diagnosed one phenomenon, moves on to another. This is largely

188 degrees and explains the brevity of the stories"

The problem of the influence of the “small press” on Chekhov’s work is much more complex than those models proposed by most researchers of the past and present. Ideas about the “small press” of Chekhov’s era should also be corrected, at least on the basis of available facts and materials, the study of which in full, of course, is a difficult and time-consuming process. But only in this case can one imagine a real picture of the relationship between Chekhov’s texts and the authors of the “small press” and - more - the mutual influence of these texts, and the problem itself should be included in the broad context of the study of Chekhov’s poetics as one of the components of Chekhov’s artistic system.

The study of literary life and texts of the “small press” also makes it possible to explain the role played by the writer - the author of mass literature, starting from the late 1870s, which is reflected in the stories of A.P. Chekhov and his contemporaries.

The problem of the literary life of the “small press”, the structure of periodicals of the Chekhov era, is relevant precisely at the present moment, when modern mass literature is developing, following formal characteristics, inheriting many processes characteristic of the literary life of periodicals of the 80s of the 19th century. In the article “Literary life”

388 Quoted. by: Lyskov I.P. On the tenth anniversary of the death of A.P. Chekhov. Collection. M., 1914. P.50.

B.M. Eikhenbaum noted that “the facts of the past are distinguished by us as significant facts and enter the system, invariably and inevitably, under the sign of modern problems. History in this sense is a special method of studying the present with

389 help of facts of the past". In this regard, I recall the words of Yu.M. Lotman: “History does not predict the future well, but it explains well

390 present"

389 Eikhenbaum B.M. Literary life // Eikhenbaum B.M. My temporary one. Route to immortality. M.: Agraf, 2001. P. 49.

390 Lotman Yu.M. Introduction: life and culture Plotman Yu.M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries). St. Petersburg: Art - St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 12.

1. Dictionaries, reference books, bibliographic indexes:

2. Grabelnikov A.A., Minaeva O.D. History of Russian periodicals 1703-2003): Bibliographic reference book. M., 2004.

3. Lisovsky N.M. Bibliography of Russian periodicals 1703-1900.1. St. Petersburg, 1915.

4. Literary encyclopedia of terms and concepts / Ed. A.N. Nikolyukina. M., 2001.

5. Literary encyclopedic dictionary. (Under the general editorship of V.M. Kozhevnikov, P.A. Nikolaev). M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987.

6. Masonov I. F. Chekhovian. M., 1929.

7. Masanov I.F. Dictionary of pseudonyms of Russian writers, scientists and public figures. T. I-IV. M., 1957-1960.

8. Mashkova M.V., Sokurova M.V. General bibliographies of Russian periodicals of 1703-1954. and materials on statistics of Russian periodicals. Annotated index, Leningrad, 1956.

9. Russian writers (vols. 1-5). M., 1989-2007.

10. Russian writers: In 2 vols. / Ed. P.A. Nikolaev. M., 1990.

11. Shruba M. Literary associations of Moscow and St. Petersburg 1890-1917: Dictionary. M., 2004.

12. Sources of texts of works and letters:

13. Chekhov A.P. Complete works and letters: In 30 volumes. Letters: In 12 vols. Works: In 18 vols. M., 1974-1983.

14. A.P. Chekhov about literature. M., 1955.

15. Baryshev (Myasnitsky) I.I. Our field of berries. M., 1894.

16. Bilibin V.V. Virtuous devil. M., 1890.

17. I. Grek. (Bilibin V.V.) Love and laughter. St. Petersburg, 1882.

18. I. Grek (Bilibin V.V.) Humorous patterns. St. Petersburg, 1898.

19. V. Kholostov (Bilibin V.V.) Plays in the 1st act. St. Petersburg, 1902.

20. Vasilevsky I.F. Our morals. St. Petersburg, 1884.

21. Leikin N.A., Bilibin V.V. In an aristocratic manner. Play. St. Petersburg, 1901.

22. Leikin N.A. Funny stories. St. Petersburg, 1874.

23. Leikin H.A. Our funny guys. St. Petersburg, 1879.

24. Leikin H.A. Apraxic. St. Petersburg, 1886.

25. Leikin N.A. Medal. St. Petersburg, 1891.

26. Librovich S.F. On the book post: Memories. Notes. Documentation. Pg.; M., 1916.

27. Lyskov I.P. On the tenth anniversary of the death of A.P. Chekhov. Collection. M., 1914.

28. Mshnevich V.O. Our friends. Feuilleton Dictionary of Contemporaries. St. Petersburg, 1884.

29. Nadson S.Ya. Literary essays (1883-1886). St. Petersburg, 1887.

30. Correspondence of A.P. Chekhov in three volumes. M., 1996.

31. Writers of Chekhov’s time: In 2 volumes / Introduction, comments, compilation by S. Bookchin. M., 1982.

32. Letters from Al.P. Chekhov to his brother Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. M., 1939.

33. Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Collection cit.: In 20 volumes. M., 1965-1977. Tt. 9, 13.

34. Memoirs and biographical materials:

35. A.P. Chekhov. Literary life and creativity based on memoir materials / Compiled by Val. Fader. L., 1928.

36. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. His life and writings. Collection of historical and literary articles / Compiled by V.<И.>Pokrovsky. M., 1907.

37. Avilova L.A. Stories. Memories. M., 1984.

38. Amphitheaters A.B. Kurgans. St. Petersburg, 1905.

39. Amphitheaters A.B. The Glorious Dead / Collected Works. T. 14. St. Petersburg, 1912.

40. Amphitheaters A.B. The life of a person who is inconvenient for himself and for many / Entry. article, comp., prepared. text and comment. A.I. Reitblat. T. 1-2. M., 2004.

41. Belousov I. A. Literary environment. Memoirs 1880-1928. M., 1928.

42. Gilyarovsky V.A. Favorites: In 3 vols. T.2. M., 1960.

44. Kugel A.R. Leaves from a tree. Memories. L., 1926.

45. Kugel A.R. (Homo novus). Literary Memoirs. 1882-1896. Pg.-M., 1923.

46. ​​Chronicle of the life and work of A.P. Chekhov. T.1. M., 2000; T.2. M., 2004.

47.H.A. Leikin in his memoirs and correspondence. St. Petersburg, 1907.

48. Malyugin L.A., Gitovich I.E. Chekhov. Chronicle story. M., 1983.

49. First literary steps. Autobiographies of modern Russian writers /Collected by F.F. Fiedler. M., 1911.1. Research and articles:

50. Alexandrov B.I. On the genres of Chekhov's prose of the 80s // Scientific notes of the Gorky State University. ped. in-ta. Vol. 37. About the work of Russian writers of the 19th century. Gorky, 1961. P. 3-80.

51. Aronson M., Reiser S. Literary circles and salons / Ed. and prev.

52. B.M. Eikhenbaum. M., 2001.

53. Arsenev K.K Fiction writers of recent times // Bulletin of Europe. Book 12. M., 1887. P.766-775

54. Balukhaty SD Early Chekhov // Literary Museum A.P. Chekhov. A.P. Chekhov. Collection of articles and materials. R/n Don, 1959. P. 7 94.

55. Belyaeva L.I. Motives for reading and criteria for evaluating works of fiction among various categories of readers // Artistic perception. Sat. I. L., 1971. S. 162-176.

56. Bukchii S.B. Chekhov's "artel" // Writers of Chekhov's era. M., 1982. P. 5-27.

57. Buishin A.S. Saltykov-Shchedrin: The Art of Satire. M., 1976.

58. Volpe Ts. Theory of literary life // For Marxist literary criticism.1. L., 1930. P. 143-168.

59. Gitovich I.E. “The incredibly early maturity” of the young Chekhov: biography and language // Taganrog Bulletin. Vol. 2. Materials of the International Scientific Conference “Young Chekhov: problems of biography, creativity, reception, study.” Taganrog, 2004. pp. 23-41.

60. Gitovich I.E. “The Freest Genre” // Canadian American Slavic Studies, 42, Nos. 1-2 (Spring-Summer 2008), 27 49.

61. Goryacheva M. O. On the personality and literary reputation of Chekhov in the small press of the late 1880s and early 1900s (Based on materials from the newspaper "News of the Day") // Chekhoviana: Chekhov and his circle. M., 1996. pp. 115-144.

62. Gromov L.P. Chekhov and the “artel” of the eighties // Literary Museum of A.P. Chekhov. A.P. Chekhov. Collection of articles and materials. R/n Don, 1959. P. 95-158.

63. Gromov M.P. A book about Chekhov. M., 1989.

64. Gudkov L., Dubin B., Strada V. Mass literature as a social phenomenon // Literature and society: an introduction to the sociology of literature. M., 1998. pp. 48-56.

65. Gurvich I.A. Fiction in Russian literature of the 19th century. Uch. allowance. M., 1991.

66. Demidova O.P. Metamorphoses in exile. Literary life of Russian diaspora. St. Petersburg, 2003.

67. Derman A.B. Chekhov's early work // Chekhov collection. M., 1929. S. 131-171.

68. Derlshn A. B. Moscow in the life and work of A.P. Chekhov. M., 1948.

69. Dmitriev V.G. Hiding their name. M., 1977.

70. Dubin B.V. Literature is classical and popular. // The word letter is literature: essays on the sociology of modern culture. M., 2001. S. 312-325.

71. Esin A.B. Chekhov the journalist. M., 1977.

72. History of Russian literature of the 19th century. 70-90s M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2001.

73. Kallash V.V. Literary debuts of A.P. Chekhov (Critical-bibliographic review) // Russian Thought. Book III. M., 1905. S. 121-126; Russian thought. Kh.VI. M., 1905. S. 73-89; Russian thought. Kh.VII. M., 1905. C.l 62-172.

74. Kataev V.B. Chekhov and his literary environment (80s of the 19th century) // Chekhov’s Companions. M., 1982. P. 3-47.

75. Kataev V.B. Chekhov's literary connections. M., 1989.

76. Kataev V.B. Chekhov plus. Predecessors, contemporaries, successors. M., 2004.

77. Curtis J. Boris Eikhenbaum: his country, family and Russian literature. / Per. from English D. Baskin. St. Petersburg, 2004.

78. Korotaev A.B. Chekhov and the small press of the 80s // Leningrad State. ped. Institute named after A.I. Herzen. Scientific notes. T.24. L., 1939. P.87-136.

79. Krzhizhanovsky S. Chekhonte and Chekhov / Literary studies. M., 1940. - No. 10-S. 68-78.

80. Literary heritage. T.68 (Chekhov). M., 1960.

81. Lotman Yu.M. On the content and structure of the concept of “fiction” // Problems of poetics and history of literature. Saransk, 1973. pp. 20-36.

82. Lotman Yu.M. Mass literature as a historical and cultural problem // Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 volumes. Tallinn, 1993. T.Z. - pp. 380-389.

83. Lotman Yu.M. Literary biography in the historical and cultural context (Toward the typological relationship between the text and the personality of the author) // Lotman Yu.M. About Russian literature. St. Petersburg, 1997.

84. Lotman Yu.M. Introduction: life and culture Plotman Yu.M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries). St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 5-15.

85. Melnikov N.G. The concept of “mass literature” in modern literary criticism // Literary studies on the threshold of the 21st century. M., 1998. pp. 229-224.

86. Melnikov N.G. Mass literature // Introduction to literary studies. M., 1999. pp. 177-191.

87. Mustangova E. Formalists at a new stage // For Marxist literary studies. L., 1930. pp. 138-142.

88. Myshkovskaya L. Chekhov and humorous magazines of the 80s. M., 1929.

89. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. History of the Russian intelligentsia. Part III. St. Petersburg, 1911.

90. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. A.P. Chekhov // Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. Questions of the psychology of creativity: Pushkin. Heine. Goethe. Chekhov. On the psychology of thought and creativity. Ed. 2nd. M., 2008. pp. 206-234.

91. Prozorov V.V. The reader and the literary process. Saratov, 1975.

92. Reitblat A.I. From Bova to Balmont. Essays on the history of reading in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. M., 1992.

93. Rosenberg Vl. Journalists of timelessness. M., 1917.

94. Rubakin N. A. Sketches about the Russian reading public. St. Petersburg, 1895.

95. Chekhov’s Companions / Collection of texts, articles and comments by V.B. Kataeva. M., 1982.

96. Stepanov A D. Problems of communication in Chekhov. M., 2005.

97. Sukhikh H.H. Problems of poetics A.P. Chekhov. L., 1987; St. Petersburg, 2007 (2nd ed., additional).

98. Sukhikh I.N. Chekhov's writers and writer Chekhov // Literary Review. No. 11-12. 1994. pp. 3-6.

99. Tynyanov Yu.N. On literary evolution // Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. S. 270-281.

100. Tynyanov Yu.N. Literary fact // Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. S. 255-270.

101. Tynyanov Yu.N. The problem of poetic language. 4th edition. M., 2007.

102. Tynyanov Yu.N. Nekrasov’s verse forms // Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. P. 18-27.

103. Chekhov in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 1960, 1986.

104. Chekhov and his time. M., 1977.

105. Chekhoviana: Chekhov and his entourage. M., 1996.

106. Chekhov M.P. Around Chekhov. Memories. M., 1989.

107. Chudakov A.P. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. M., 1987.

108. Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's world: emergence and approval. M., 1986.

109. Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's poetics. M., 1971.

110. Shatalov S.E., Belotserkovskaya N.I. Russian humor and entertainment-accusatory direction of the 1870-1880s // Literary directions and styles. M., 1976. S. 287-297.

111. Schücking L. Sociology of literary taste. L., 1928.

112. Engelhardt N. Essay on the history of Russian censorship in connection with the development of the press (1703-1903). St. Petersburg, 1904

113. Eikhenbaum B.M. Literary life // Eikhenbaum B.M. My temporary one.

114. Route to immortality. M., 2001. P.49 59.

115. Eikhenbaum B.M. Literature and writer // Eikhenbaum B.M. My temporary one. Route to immortality. M., 2001. P. 59-83.

116. Eikhenbaum B.M. Literary domesticity // Eikhenbaum B.M. My temporary one. Route to immortality. M., 2001. P. 83 87.

117. Eikhenbaum B.M. About prose. L., 1969.

118. Eikhenbaum B.M. The writer's appearance of M. Gorky // About literature. M., 1987. P.437.

119. Yasinsky I.I. The novel of my life. L., 1926.

121. Belog (Erkovskaya N.I. A.P. Chekhov in the journal “Fragments”. Abstract of thesis. Ph.D. M., 1974.

122. Broide E. Chekhov and humorous literature of the 80s. Diss. . Ph.D. M., 1970.

123. Vukolov L.I. The role of parodies and stylizations in the formation of aesthetic views and artistic style of A.P. Chekhov. Author's abstract. diss. . Ph.D. M., 1970.

124. Ovcharova P.I. The reader and reader's perception in the creative consciousness of A.P. Chekhov. Diss. . Ph.D. M., 1982.

125. Prozorov B.B. The problem of the reader and the literary process in Russia in the 19th century. Author's abstract. diss. . Doctor of Philology JL, 1979.

126. Shgtovskikh I.S. Genre originality of prose and dramaturgy of H.A. Leikina. Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1999.1. Manuscript sources:

127. Lazarev (Gruzinsky) A.S. Anton Chekhov and literary Moscow of the 1880-1890s (manuscript). RGALI. F. 549. Op.1. Case No. 329.

128. Lazarev (Gruzinsky) A.S. Autobiography (manuscript). RGALI. F. 549. Op.1. Case No. 329. Ll. 2-4.

129. Letters from A.S. Lazarev (Gruzinsky) to N.M. Ezhov. RGALI. F. 189. Op.1. Unit hr. 7.

130. Letters from A.S. Lazarev (Gruzinsky) to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F.331. K. 49. Unit. hr. 12.

131. Letters to H.A. Leikin to A.P. Chekhov. RGALI. F. 549. Op.1. Case No. 303.

132. Letters to H.A. Leikin to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 50. Unit. hr. 1.

133. Letters from the editors of the magazine “Alarm Clock”, RGALI. F. 549. Op.1. Case No. 301.

134. Letters to V.A. Gilyarovsky to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 40. Unit. hr. 26.

135. Letters to N.M. Ezhova to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 43. Unit. hr. eleven.

136. Letters from the editors of the magazine “Dragonfly” to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 44. Unit. hr. 35.

137. Letters to V.V. Bilibina to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 36. Unit. hr. 75.

138. Letters from L.I. Palmina to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 55. Unit. hr. 8.

139. Letters from N.P. Kicheeva to A.P. Chekhov OR RSL. F. 331. K. 47. Unit. file 52.

140. Letters from I.L. Leontyev (Shcheglova) to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K. 50.1. Unit hr. 6.

141. Letters from S.N. Khudekova to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K.61. Unit hr. 72.

142. Letters to F.O. Shekhtel to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F.331. K.63. Unit hr. 25-a.

143. Letters to V.A. Popyrnikova to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K.56. Unit file 32.

144. Letters to K.S. Barantsevich to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K.36, units. hr. 20.

145. Letters from L.N. Trefoleva to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F. 331. K.60. Unit hr.50.

146. Letters to V.I. Zembulatova to A.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F.331. K.45. Unit hr. 22-a.

147. Letters from L.I. Palmina V.V. Bilibin. OR RNB. F. 115. Storage unit. 50.

148. Letters from L.I. Palmina H.A. Leikin. OR RNB. F. 115. Storage unit. 51.

149. Letters from Al.P. Chekhov to H.A. Leikin. OR RNB. F. 427. Op. No. 1. Storage unit 65.

150. Letters from Al.P. Chekhov to M.P. Chekhov. OR RSL. F.331. K.73. Storage unit 4

151. Letters to V.V. Bilibin to H.A. Leikin OR RNB. F.427. Op.1. Storage unit 7.

152. Letters to N.M. Ezhova N.A. Leikin. OR RNB. F. 248. Storage unit. 183.