Serbian Literature: Report on Literature. Serbian literature

What is a definitive pronoun? Answer to asked question you will learn from the materials in this article. In addition, you will be presented with several examples of sentences and proverbs where this part of speech is used.

General information about pronouns

Before we talk about what attributive pronouns exist in the Russian language, we should give a complete definition of this part of speech.

So, a pronoun is an independent part of speech, which is very often used instead of a numeral, noun, or adverb. It should be especially noted that the pronoun can change in number, gender and cases.

What categories of pronouns exist?

Not everyone knows that the attributive pronoun is one of the categories of this part of speech. In general, there are the following:

Let's look at the last categories in more detail and give examples of how they are used in the Russian language.

Demonstrative pronoun

Such pronouns are sometimes called demonstratives. They indicate what kind of object this or that person has in mind, as well as its location relative to himself or the addressee (this, that, such, such, such, so much, such, this, that).

It should also be noted that demonstrative pronouns are capable of expressing additional information about an object (for example, its gender, animation, etc.).

In some cases, such a group is not identified separately. This is due to the fact that the corresponding value is not expressed in the form independent words, but with the help of demonstrative particles that are attached to the noun.

Examples of demonstrative pronouns

Some experts also classify words such as “both” and “both” as demonstrative pronouns. However, this is only if they are used in the meaning of “one and the other”, “both”.

Here's an example:

• Both students successfully passed the session. (Both students successfully passed the session.)
• Both boys received nice gifts. (Both boys received good gifts.)

Other examples of demonstrative pronouns:

• This man was very rude to me.
• He who does nothing never makes mistakes.
• I am what I am, and I will not become anyone else.
• He is so smart and handsome.
• Take as many nuts as you like.

As for outdated demonstrative pronouns, they are most often used in historical, religious and classical literature:

• I have never seen such an eccentric before.
• What a naughty guy (irony).
• To this day not a word has been heard from him.
• That day when I wanted to leave home.

Definitive pronoun

This category of pronouns indicates any one object among the others. All, himself, every, most, each, every, everyone, other, other, any - all these are attributive pronouns.

Examples: everyone can walk quickly; anyone can run; all dirty etc.

What features do attributive pronouns have?

We talked about what a definitive pronoun is. But what are their detailed instructions? Let's answer this question in more detail.

However, it should be noted that not everything is so simple. After all, attributive pronouns also have their own variations. For example, the word “any” is often used to mean “one to choose from” or “whatever.” “The most” in some cases indicates the main feature of an object or its limit (for example, at the very end of the year). In addition, such a pronoun is sometimes used to form a superlative adjective or to indicate the highest measure of some characteristic (for example, the greatest happiness comes when you don't expect it).

As for the attributive pronouns “other” and “different”, they are usually considered as antonyms for the words “this” and “that”.

Determinative pronouns: inflected by case, gender and number or not?

The morphological features of such pronouns include their ability to change in three forms, namely gender, case and number.

Here are some examples:

• the only thing and oneself - oneself, the whole - everything;
• genus: sam - sama (self), all - all (all), other - other (other);
• cases: other - different (to another), all - to everything (total), other - different (to another), etc.

However, this rule also has its exceptions. For example, something like “everyone” never changes by case. It can only be declined by number and gender.

Members of the sentence

Which part of the sentence are attributive pronouns? In writing or speaking this part speech most often acts as agreed upon definitions. For example: “After the years, more and more years come, and every day brings us happiness.” Also, together with nouns, pronouns can be one part of a sentence. For example: “Every hour she called me just like that” and “The boss himself called me and gave me orders.”

If the attributive pronoun turns into a noun pronoun, then it acts as the subject in the sentence. For example: “Everyone left, only I stayed at home.”

It should also be noted that this part of speech often acts as a particle or adverb. For example: “He still agreed to marry her” and “She is all in her worries.”

Where are attributive pronouns most often used?

This part of speech can be used in completely different sentences. By the way, proverbs with attributive pronouns are quite popular in the Russian language. Let's give a few examples.

The pronouns “any”, “every” and “most”, indicating one object from the others:

• The worst poverty is considered to be lack of intelligence. The worst morning is Monday morning. The most best friends- parents.
• Any work is good. Everyone chews, but not everyone lives. For a bad ship, any wind is in its stern.
• Everyone gets what is destined for them. Every cricket knows its nest. Everyone is sighted, but not every doctor.

The pronoun “every”, indicating any object from others:

• Every sandpiper only praises its own swamp.
• Not everyone will understand you like I do.
• Everyone seeks the truth, but not everyone can create it.
• Everyone goes crazy in their own way.
• Every spruce makes noise in its own forest.

The pronoun “whole” (“everything”, “everything”), defining an object as something inseparable:

• Everything is one: both pulp and bread.
• Everything has its time.
• We all walk under God.

Plan:

Introduction

• 1 Ancient literature
• 2 XVII-XVIII centuries
• 3 XIX century
• 4 XX century
Notes
Literature

Introduction

Serbian literature(Serb. Srpska kizhevnost) - literature in the Serbian language, or written by Serbian authors.

The history of Serbian literature is usually divided into three periods: ancient - until the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century, middle - until the end of the 18th century, and new (modern).

1. Ancient literature

Like Russian writing, Serbian writing also developed on soil, albeit related, but still non-Slavic, precisely thanks to books Holy Scripture and liturgical, translated from Greek into the ancient Church Slavonic language by Saints Cyril and Methodius and their disciples and transferred to Serbia from Bulgaria. These books, as a result of their correspondence by Serbian scribes, soon began to be replete with various features of Serbian living speech, and thus Serbian varieties (editions) of ancient Church Slavic manuscripts arose, just as Russian ones were formed in Russia. The main feature of the Serbian spelling of these monuments is the use b instead of ъ, at- instead of a big yus (as in Russian spelling), e- instead of small usa, sometimes A instead of b. The oldest examples of Serbian manuscripts include: “The Miroslav Gospel” - an excellently preserved aprakos of the 12th century, “The Vlkanovo Gospel” - beginning of XIII century, “St. Nicholas Gospel” - the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century. In addition to books of church and spiritual-moral content, the Serbs adopted almost the entire rest of the old Bulgarian writing, through which the then Slavs of the Eastern rite generally became acquainted with Byzantine literature.

Soon the Serbs became independent contributors to the pan-Slavic literature of the East. Among the Serbian scribes circulated the same edifying collections of spiritual and secular things, sometimes purely historical content(Palea, Zlatostruy, Prologue, etc.) or pseudoscientific (Physiologist, etc.), which were circulated in Bulgaria and Russia; the same can be said about works of a narrative nature, such as, for example, the stories about Alexander the Great, about Trojan War, about Devgeniy, about Varlaam and Joasaph, as well as about various apocrypha and books rejected by the church (works of the Bulgarian priest Jeremiah, books of the Bogomils or Patarens, etc.).

Much more than in all these books, we find traces of living Serbian speech in the wills of everyday writing and legal monuments. Of the first, especially important are the lives of Stefan Nemanja, compiled by his sons Stefan the First-Crown and St. Savva and the Hilandar monk Domentian, a disciple of St. Savva, who also wrote his life. Life of St. Savva also found a second compiler in the person of the monk Theodosius. The Bulgarian native Grigory Tsamblak, also known for his literary activities in Russia, owns the life of Stefan Dechansky, another biography of which is found in the 14th century collection of life stories “The Tsarstavnik”, or “Genealogy”.

In general, Serbian “everyday” writing not only did not differ in particular heights, but was even justly condemned by the latest researchers (especially A.F. Hilferding) for immoderate exaggerations in praise, hypocrisy, flattery and the inconsistency of the eloquent language with the sometimes terrible deeds of the glorified persons . Standing somewhat apart is the work of the Bulgarian native, “philosopher” Konstantin Kostenchsky, remarkable for its time - the life of the Serbian despot Stefan, the son of King Lazar, defeated by the Turks on the Kosovo Field, in its techniques more reminiscent of the works of modern historians than of ancient “everyday” writers, and distinguished by its fidelity historical messages; this is the most valuable work of all ancient Serbian everyday and historical writing. Monuments of law - treaty documents, etc. - are curious not only for their language, which is an example of the then living Serbian speech, but also for the details of everyday content; such are, for example, the agreement of Kulin, Ban of Bosnia, with Prince Korvash, the Dubrovnik envoy (1189), the “Vinodolsky Law” and especially the law of King Dusan, as well as various deeds of gift and other letters from both this king and other rulers, and the Photius nomocanon, that is, a collection of church decrees.

2. XVII-XVIII centuries

In the middle period of Serbian literature, researchers distinguish, on the one hand, its flourishing in Dubrovnik and, as some reflection of this phenomenon, the literary activity of writers in Slavonia and Bosnia, and on the other, its emergence in the 17th century. -XVIII centuries After Kosovo, the field of literature in Serbia itself and then among the Austrian Serbs froze: this is the so-called Slavic-Serbian school of writers, which tried to support the old literary tradition and defend book unity with Russia. Dubrovnik literature, which developed under the influence of early Italian Renaissance, presented whole line brilliant writers who brought the development of the Serbian language and poetry to a significant degree of strength and beauty (see Dubrovnik). Andrej Kacic-Miocic (1690-1760), as if ending Dubrovnik literature with his fruitful activity, served, perhaps, as a link connecting it with the new period of Serbian literature. Of the Bosnian writers, the most remarkable is Matija Divkovic (1563-1631), the author of the books “The Peasant Sciences”, “Beside svrhu (o) Evandelya Nedelnih”, “One Hundred Miracles”, a poetic legend about St. Katerina and others. Among the writers active in Slavonia, Matija Antun Relkovich (1732-1778) is more noticeable than others with his poetic work “Satyr or ti divičovik” (1761), which at one time made a deep impression on the Serbian reading world; its significance in the history of Serbian literature is almost equal to the significance of the “Conversation” of Kacic-Miocic, since it vividly reflected the spiritual appearance and material well-being of the Slavonian society contemporary to the author in images that were extremely natural and truthful, alien to the stiffness and tension of most of the then works of Serbian literature.

Dubrovnik literature should be classified both in terms of language and its historical destinies as one of historical periods Croatian literature. At first, just like the medieval Serbian language itself, it is more of a “writing” than a literature. The language of early Serbian writing is not Serbian folk, but “Slavic Serbian” - a mixture of Russian, Serbian folk and Church Slavonic languages. This literature was under strong Russian influence, since Serbian priests, almost the only literate people at this time, studied in Russia or had Russian teachers.

The Slavic-Serbian school of writers, the activity of Patriarch Paisius (17th century) associated with ancient Serbian writing, produced several serious figures, such as Hristofor Zhefarovich, Zacharie Orfelin, Joakim Vujic, Rakic, Terlajic and especially Rajic John (1726-1801), whose work “ The history of various Slavic peoples, especially the Bulgarians, Croats and Serbs,” representing a coherent and systematic, although without skillful critical processing, story about the events of South Slavic history, has long been the only more or less valuable source of information about the past of the Balkan Slavs. The remarkable literary and educational activity of Dosifej Obradović (1731-1811) on the one hand completes the Slavic-Serbian school, on the other hand, is the herald of those new principles that formed the basis of the entire transformative work of the famous pioneer of the new Serbian literature Vuk Karadzic, whose literary forerunner Obradović can to be named in preference. This is the type of eternal wanderer-teacher, for whom the interests of enlightenment and book learning are the most precious in the world. His book “Belly and Adventures,” which contains a description of his entire troubled life, is full of deep interest (see Radchenko, “Dosifei Obradović”). His other outstanding works: “Counsels of Common Reason,” published in Leipzig in 1784 - a kind of course of practical morality “for the Serbian people” - and “Collection of various moralizing things for benefit and amusement,” published in Vienna in 1793. His language contains, in comparison with previous writers, much more folk elements, although it is still far from free from Slavicisms; his worldview is largely rationalistic in nature (for example, on the issue of monasteries). Politically, he was a supporter of monarchism; Peter the Great was for him an example of a sovereign who cared about the people's welfare and enlightenment.

3. XIX century

Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787-1864) is perhaps the most remarkable personality of new Serbian not only literature, but even the history of his time, in terms of fortitude and originality. The main content of his entire long-term scientific and literary activity can be reduced to the following main points: a) the decisive use in the book of pure vernacular, instead of the previously dominant Serbo-Slavic-Russian; b) the approval in the book of a new spelling (vukovica), based almost exclusively on the sound principle and distinguishing the new Serbian book both from the old Serbian and from the Russian and Bulgarian, where the historical and etymological principle still dominates; c) requirement from literature for knowledge folk life and songs and greater correspondence of its images with reality; d) the message of Serbian artificial poetry of a tonic suitable for it poetic size, close to the folk one or even identical with it, instead of the previously dominant metric and syllabic sizes.

All of the indicated elements of Vuk's transformations had to withstand half a century of struggle before they received full recognition and then unlimited approval in literature and life. The most important of Karadzic's works: a huge collection folk songs(“Srpske narodne pjesme”), Serbian grammar (“Pismenica srbskoga jezika”), the famous Serbian dictionary (“riverman” with German and Latin translations of words - a whole treasury not only of the language, but also of folk life, its customs, legends, beliefs and etc.), several issues of the scientific and literary almanac "Danica" (Dennitsa), S. translation of the New Testament, "Narodne Srbsk proverb", "Ark for history, jezik and obichaje Srba" - a treasury of Serbian folklore, "Primjvri Srb-Slavic jezik " The activities of Karadzic were appreciated not only by the Serbs, but also by other Slavs; in Russia, for example, he was chosen as an honorary member of various scientific societies and institutions. Pan-European science also highly appreciated the remarkable work of this genius scientist; for example, the outstanding significance of his works was repeatedly recognized by Jacob Grimm. Thanks to Vuk’s activities, the very direction of literature among the Serbs changed: instead sentimental novels and the stories of Milovan Vidakovic (1780-1841) and the pseudo-classical works of the odopist Lušan Mušicki (1777-1837) and the epic Simeon Milutinović (1790-1847), whose “Serbian Woman” represents a curious, far from mediocre mixture of fresh folk-poetic principles with tasteless additions - a lively and vigorous romanticism appeared with Aleksey Brank Radichevich (1824-1853) at the head. Major works this little Serbian Pushkin belongs to the lyrical family; his poems are much weaker; he did not write dramas at all. The best in the collection of his works (“Pesme”) are recognized as “Dyachki Rastanak” (student parting) and “The Path.” The first work is full of deep lyricism and rich in luxurious descriptions of nature; his language is remarkable: it is “clean as a tear,” in the words of Brankov’s friend, the famous Serbian philologist Yuri Danichic (1825-1882), who soulfully appreciated the social and literary significance poetry of Radicevic.

The glory of the first Serbian poet is shared with Brank Radicevic by his contemporary Peter II Petrovic Njegosh (1814-1851), the last Montenegrin “ruler”, whose early death was almost the same loss for native literature as the even more untimely death of Brank. Njegos's largest work is usually recognized as "Gorski vjenac", a poem that in dramatic form depicts a historical event at the end of the 17th century - the beating of the Turchens by Montenegrins, that is, their brethren who converted to Mohammedanism. This poem is full of wonderfully artistic and popular scenes depicting thoughts and feelings people's soul(Russian poetic translation made by Mr. Lukyanovsky. The poetic heir of Branka Radicevic, Zmaj-Iovan Iovanovic (1833-1904), was one of the most prominent Ser poets of his time. This is also predominantly a lyricist, in epic works who is only a good translator of the Magyar poets Aranya and Petofi, as well as Pushkin, Lermontov and others. Of his lyrical collections, “Roses” (Dyulici), “Withered Roses” (Dyulici uveotsi), “Source (Eastern) Beads” deserve special attention (see "Dawn", Kyiv, 1893, "Slavic Muse", St. Petersburg). His children's songs and humorous poems are also good. Yuri Jakshich and Lazar Kostic shared fame with Zmaj Iovanovic. The Ilyich brothers are also known: the lyricist Voislav and the playwright Dragutin, as well as Kachyansky. The works of the Montenegrin prince Nicholas (drama “The Balkan Queen”, “Nova Koda”, etc.), who penned the Montenegrin anthem “Onamo, Onamo” (“There, there!”, Russian translation, which is so widespread throughout Serbia) are also widely known. V. Benediktova). Among the playwrights, Trifkovich is also famous. Among the works of fiction, stand out novels and stories by G. Atanackovich, S. Lubisha, P. Adamov, M. Shabchanin, M. Milicevic, I. Veselinovic, S. Matavul and especially Lazar Lazarevich, almost all of whose stories (for example, “School Icon” ", "At the Well", "Werther", etc.) have also been translated into Russian.

4. XX century

On the threshold of the 19th-20th centuries, Serbian literature rises to the highest level. Despite the fact that Serbian literature during this period did not produce works that were included in world literature, nevertheless, a number of Serbian writers did not lag behind the same writers of “local” significance from other countries.

In the twentieth century, many young and talented writers appeared in Serbian literature. One of them is Ivo Andrić, who for the book “Bridge on the Drina” (Serb. On Drini ћupriјa), published in 1945, received in 1961 Nobel Prize on literature.

With Andrić, Danilo Kiš is considered as one of the most famous Serbian authors, along with writers such as Miloš Crnjanski, Mesa Selimovic, Borislav Pekić, Milorad Pavic, David Albahari, Miodrag Bulatović, Dobrica Cosic, Zoran Zivkovic, Jelena Dimitrijevic, Isidora Sekulic and a lot others. Milorad Pavic is perhaps the most famous Serbian author today, primarily for his "Khazar Dictionary" (Serbian: Khazarski rechnik), which has been translated into 24 languages.

Serbian literature

A. Dobrovolsky

The first rudiments of S. l. date back to the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries. (the so-called “Gospel of Miroslav” and other monuments). This and almost all subsequent medieval S. l. is of an ecclesiastical nature. These are the gospels, missals, canons, lives of saints and apocrypha. Among these monuments - and there are about 2,000 of them - only the Code of Tsar Dushan (Dushan's Law) of the 14th century is slightly more widely known. as an important historical monument. Among these monuments there are also a number of medieval novels that are completely unoriginal, for example. novel about Alexander the Great. During the transition from the Middle to the New Ages, the Serbian state perishes, the Serbian ruling class (“the rulers”) goes over to Mohammedanism and is denationalized. Literary Affairs from the XV-XVIII centuries. cultivated only in monasteries and continues to serve exclusively the needs of the church. But on the other hand, folklore is developing enormously, especially epics glorifying the ancient Serbian kings (King Lazar, etc.), heroes (Kralevich Marko, Milos Obilic, etc.) and “haiduks”, the death of the Serbian state in the Battle of Kossovo, etc. Research has shown that most of these Serbian folk songs arose much later (200 years later) after the death of the Serbian state, when Turkish oppression began to unbearably intensify, so that the death of the national state began to be perceived as a loss of freedom in general, although serfdom existed among the Serbs even before the arrival of the Turks. The struggle of the Serbian peasants against the feudal oppression of the Turkish landowners and the Turkish authorities, glorified in the epic, has a religious and national overtones, but in it one can also find a number of moments where this struggle is clearly perceived as a class struggle (“Revolt against the Dahies” - “Buna na Dahie”, songs about the haiduk “Elder Vuyadina”). Artistic value Serbian epic is very high, although it was often exaggerated by comparison with the songs of the Iliad, etc. The collector of Serbian folklore was who lived in the first half of the 19th century. Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864).

S. l. in the proper sense arose only in the 18th century. among the Serbian bourgeoisie (main merchants), which developed under the conditions of emigration of Serbs who settled in southern Hungary. It grew stronger largely thanks to the patronage of the Austrian Emperor Joseph II. The earlier Dubrovnik literature should be attributed both in terms of language and in its historical destinies to one of the historical periods of Croatian literature. At first, just like the medieval Serbian language itself, it is more of a “writing” than a literature. The language of early Serbian writing is not Serbian folk, but the so-called. “Slavic Serbian” is a mixture of Russian, Serbian folk and Church Slavonic languages. This literature was under strong Russian influence, since Serbian priests, almost the only literate people at that time, studied in Russia or had Russian teachers. Even Peter I sent the Serbs the first literature teacher M. T. Suvorov - these were the first literary beginnings of the pan-Slavist policy of Tsarist Russia towards the Serbs, a policy that specifically appeared in in this case maneuver against Austria and Turkey. From literary monuments of the 18th century. we can mention the “Slavic-Serbian Chronicle” by Count Georgiy Brankovich (1645-1711) and the works of Zakhary Stefanovich-Orfelin (1726-1785) - “The Life of Peter the Great”, etc. By the end of the 18th century. (1791) the first Serbian gas appeared in Vienna. "Serbian Novini". By the end of the 18th century. In connection with the development of the Serbian bourgeois class and the desire to create a nationally independent state, the desire to organize the Serbian literary language is awakening. from elements of Serbian folk speech. Of course, this language was still very little developed and reflected the ideology of the class that was its main organizer - the class of the Serbian bourgeoisie of the era of the disintegration of feudalism and the maturation of capitalist relations in specific historical conditions fight against Turkish feudal oppression. The first writer in the vernacular Serbian language, although quite contaminated with “Slavic-Serbianism,” was Dosifej Obradović (1742–1811), a pioneer of the educational ideas that dominated the West at that time among the Serbs. His main works: “Belly and Adventures” (1783) and “Fables” (1788). The era of Obradovic is commonly called the “era of rationalism.” She was a literary harbinger and companion of the Serbian struggle against Turkish feudal oppression in early XIX V.

In the first half of the 19th century. in connection with some successes in this struggle, the partial liberation of Serbia from the Turks and further progress among the Serbian bourgeoisie within the capitalized Austria, the separation fiction from literature in general. A number of writers, poets and novelists appeared, writing partly in the folk, partly in the “Slavic-Serbian” language; but their works (for example, the poems of Lukijan Musicki (1777-1837) or the novels of Milovan Vidakovic (1780-1841)) have long been outdated and are of only historical interest. The exception is the Montenegrin bishop and head of state Petar Petrovich Njegosh, who lived at the same time (1813-1851), the author of the famous poem “Mountain Vijenac”, one of the best works of S. L., which describes the life and way of life of the Montenegrins. At the same time, the well-known reformer of the Serbian language and writing among Slavists, Vuk Stefanovich Karadzic, lived and worked. His largest literary undertaking was the collection of Serbian folk songs. The era of the revolution of 1848 and the elimination of the foundations of feudalism in Europe is the era when Karadzic's reform ideas in the field of language received universal recognition (around 1840-1860). Similar to similar phenomena at the dawn of capitalist development in Europe and in S. l. Poetry and prose are widely developed in the stylistic forms of romanticism, which responded to the demands of the craving for bourgeois degeneration of Serbian literary circles. The largest writers of this type were poets: Branko Radicevic (1824-1853) - a cheerful lyricist; Zmaj-Jovan Jovanovic (1833-1904) - the most educated writer of this time, very prolific, with a broad outlook, who managed to give wonderful songs for children, and political satire, and glorify ideals in the taste of a national-democratic worldview, and, most interesting of all, Paris Commune; Gyura Jakšić (1832-1878) - romanticist, poet of great strength (but very weak in prose); partly Laza Kostic (1841-1910) - poet and playwright; Jovan Ilic, etc. Of the prose writers, not one has achieved such universal recognition as the first three of the poets. Stefan Mitrov Lubisha (1824-1878) and M. G. Milicevic (1831-1898) stand out somewhat, providing interesting folkloristic and linguistic material in their works, as well as M. P. Shapchanin. K. Trifković (1848-1875) is famous as playwrights, and even more so is his predecessor Jovan Steria Popović, whose satire “Godolyubtsi”, exposing petty-bourgeois patriotism, is relevant to this day. In the era of romanticism in Siberian literature, in particular in poetry, the themes and artistic techniques of folklore are still strong, but Western influences also penetrate. However, the influence of Western literature is extremely weak compared to the folklore element. In the revolution of 1848, the Serbs, together with their writers, played a counter-revolutionary role, which also led to increased national isolation in literature. In the second half of the 19th century, on the contrary, due to the growth of the capitalist bourgeoisie and the development of broader ties with the foreign market, the general ideological attitudes in the Serbian literary process. In the 70-80s. XIX century Bourgeois-realist literature is widely developing, which no longer fences itself off from the “rotten West”, but joins it and learns from it. Serbia, which by this time had become a politically independent country, attracts cultural forces those parts of the Serbian people who lived in Austria-Hungary. If earlier, in the 18th and early 19th centuries. center S. l. was in a foreign land, in Vienna and Budapest, and in the middle of the 19th century. - to the mountains New Garden, in southern Hungary (“Serbian Athens”), now Serbia itself and Belgrade in particular are increasingly becoming such a center. Nevertheless, general cultural development and in particular the development of S. l. in Austria-Hungary it is not weakening, but strengthening. Here there is a closer rapprochement between the Serbs and Croats, but still the merger of S. l. does not happen with Croatian.

era bourgeois realism was marked by the restructuring of the “romantics”, like Zmaj-Jovan Jovanovic, in a “realistic way” and the emergence of a number of writers who introduced realistic techniques and social and political trends into literature. In general, until this time S. l. characterized by educational didactics, Slavophilism and most of all nationalism, but only a few writers were able to artistically express these tendencies. “The era of realism” also means a turning point in this regard, but in S. l. Elements of romanticism still live for a long time, because they are more consistent with the dominant nationalist tendency, sometimes turning into chauvinism.

The most typical writers for this era are the excellent stylist, short story writer “Serbian Turgenev” Laza Lazarevich (1851-1890), Milovan Glisic (1847-1908), the first realistic writer of everyday life of the Serbian village, a good translator from Russian (“War and Peace”), Sima Matavul (1852-1908), writer of everyday life of all bourgeois social classes on the territory of modern Yugoslavia, humorist-realist Stevan Sremac (1855-1906), poet Vojislav Ilyich (1862-1894), with whom modern Serbian poetry begins. This period also marks the beginning of the literary activity of the popular humorist and playwright Branislav Nušić (b. 1864) and subsequently the major poet Aleksi Šantić (1868-1924), who had big influence on Serbian nationalist youth until 1914. Along with the increasing influence of Western literature (French, etc.), in this era, a significant influence of Russian literature is also noticeable, since a significant part of the Serbian intelligentsia also studied in Russia. At this time, many translations of Russian classics were made: Gogol, Pushkin, Lermontov, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc. In the era of transition to realism, the activity of Svetozar Markovich (1846-1875), a student and follower of Chernyshevsky and Russian populists, developed, which laid the foundation for the interest towards socialism in Serbia and the Balkans. He did little actual literature, writing only two articles on the topic of poetry and realism, but they had a great influence and contributed to the establishment of literature in S.L. realism.

On the threshold of the 20th century and in the 20th century. bourgeois S. l. rises to the highest level. Despite the fact that S. l. and during this period did not produce works that were included in world literature, nevertheless, a number of Serbian writers did not lag behind the same writers of “local” significance from other countries, which was greatly facilitated by the establishment of a constitutional democratic regime in Serbia in 1903, which gave even more wide scope for the development of capitalism in Serbia. In 1901, the literary magazine “Srpski Kizhevni Glasnik” and a number of others appeared. literary criticism(Bogdan Popović, (b. 1863) - Jovan Skerlić (1877-1914)). The leading type of literature at this time, as in the 19th century, was poetry. The most prominent representatives of Serbian poetry at this time were Jovan Ducic (b. 1871), who was brought up under the strong influence of French bourgeois literature, Milon Rakic, one of the best masters Serbian poetry, Aleksa Santic, bard of Serbian nationalism, Stevan Lukovic, “decadents” S. Pandurovich and Vl. Petkovic-Dis (1880-1917), M. Koralia (b. 1886), etc. Bourgeois S. L., reflecting the corresponding processes in the social and political development of Serbian bourgeois society, identifies a number of ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie, the poor peasantry, who raise their voices against certain aspects of the bourgeois system. So, for example Among the prose writers, one should mention Petr Kočić (1877-1916) - the ideologist of the nationally and socially enslaved Serbian Bosnian peasantry (his satire “The Trial of the Badger” is remarkable), I. Ciniko - the whistleblower of the kulaks (the novel “Spiders”), Rad. Domanovic (1873-1908) - author of the satire “Kralevich Marko for the second time among the Serbs”, Bor. Stankovic - a writer of everyday life of collapsing patriarchal social relations in the Serbian southern province, Milutin Uskokovic - the first everyday writer of urban life in Serbia. At the same time, there were also recognized poetesses and writers, such as Donica Markovic (b. 1879), Isidora Sekulic (b. 1877). In dramaturgy, comedian Br. Nusic (b. 1864). It should be noted that the proletariat, which had just begun to develop in Serbia, managed at that time to nominate the talented but early deceased poet Kosta Abrashevich (1879-1898).

The era of wars for Serbia that began in 1912 (two Balkan and a world war), the realization as a result of these wars of the “centuries-old dreams” of the Serbian people and its complete unification in the newly created State of Yugoslavia did not produce corresponding results in the literature. This is explained by the fact that the national liberation moment in these wars played a completely minor role, as was noted at one time by Lenin. The freedom-loving national dreams that inspired Serbian poets and writers were crushed by the imperialist claims of the Great Serbian bourgeoisie. The unsightly reality of the war, which took almost a quarter of the entire Serbian people to the grave, and the state and social order established as a result of it led to great disappointment among petty-bourgeois writers and ideologists of that part of the bourgeoisie that was, to one degree or another, bypassed in the process of development of imperialist politics Yugoslavia. However, these social strata turned out to be too weak and were unable to identify bold critics of the existing system from among them. But on the other hand, not a single work that does not contain elements of denial of war and post-war reality enjoys mass success. It is perceived as a lie, officialdom, or best case scenario like a barren flower (for example, the novel See Krakow “Croz Buru”). And since there are few works that are at all free from such shortcomings - and even those usually contain only attempts at light “self-criticism” - then in the advanced strata of bourgeois society and in the working class, translated literature enjoys greater success than the original, and on the other hand, some Croatian ones are successful revolutionary writers, close in spirit to the proletarian movement (M. Krlezha (b. 1893), A. Tsesarets (b. 1896), etc.). In S. l. itself. We still see glimpses of revolutionary self-awareness in the works of some writers (D. Vasic, M. Bogdanovich, J. Popovic, B. Cosic). It should be noted that the Serbian bourgeoisie has a tradition of rewarding famous writers with sinecures and thus tying them to their interests, which also largely explains the official tone of many modern Serbian writers. Of the more or less well-known modern bourgeois Serbian writers, mention should be made of: M. Nastasievich, Zivadinovich, G. Bozovic, B. Efsic, the Nikolajevic brothers, V. Jankovic, etc., and the best modern playwright Joseph Kulundzic. Advanced petty-bourgeois criticism is represented by M. Bogdanovich and V. Gligoric. The works of Soviet writers enjoy great success. But since their publication is almost impossible due to censorship conditions, they are read either in the Russian original or in German and other translations. Quite a lot is translated from Western European languages. Leading publishers are Nolit (New Literature), Cosmos (a good edition of Marx's Capital) and Serene Highness.

The Serbian writers who emerged after the war sometimes surpass the older writers in the formal perfection of their works, but none acquired great fame or influence.

In the first years after the war, the years of the cult of formalism, the main trend in bourgeois socialist literature. there was expressionism (M. Crnyanski, S. Milicic, T. Manajovich, G. Petrovic, Aleksic, Topin, Vinaver, Dedinac). Empty and meaningless poetry of both this and other trends (“Zenitism” by Mitsich, etc.) often sought to declare their sympathy October revolution and the revolutionary proletariat, but already the era of partial stabilization of capitalism and especially the crisis and establishment of the military-fascist dictatorship in Yugoslavia brought a significant part of the writers of these trends into the ranks of fascism. However, a number of representatives from other groups, also formalist, in particular from the group of surrealists that has emerged in recent years (M. Ristic, K. Popovic, G. Jovanovic, etc.) strive to join the labor movement.

A characteristic phenomenon for post-war S. l. (and the related Croatian) was the appearance, starting in 1919, of a number of magazines with a more or less clearly expressed Marxist ideology, which had great distribution and influence, but all of them were sooner or later banned (“Struggle”, “New Literature”, “ Knizhevna Republic", "Stozher", "Danas", etc.).

List literature

Šafárik P. J., Geschichte des serbischen Schrifttums, Prag, 1865

Murko M., Geschichte d. ält. Südslavischen Literatur, Lpz., 1908

Skerlich I., Srpska kizhevnost in the 18th century, Beograd, 1909 (late edition 1923)

His, History of new srpske kizhevnost, Beograd, 1914 (later ed., 1921)

Prohaska D., Pregled from the time of the Hrvatsko-Srpske kizhevnost, Zagreb, 1921

Stanoyevich M. S., Early Jugoslav literature, 1000—1800, N. Y., 1922

Seifert J. L., Literaturgeschichte der Čechoslowaken Südslaven u. Bulgaren, Kempden-München, 1923

Gesemann G., Die serbo-kroatische Literatur, Wildpark - Postdam, 1930.

Switzerland
Canada · USA · Australia · Africa

Subethnic groups and related peoples
Bosnians · Bunjevci
Gorany · Krasovany
Macedonians · Torlats
Croatians Montenegrins Šokci Šopi
Yugoslavs · South Slavs

Serbian languages ​​and dialects
Serbian · Serbian-Hrvatian
Uzhitsky · Gypsy Serbian
Old Church Slavonic · Slavic Serbian
Shtokavian · Torlakian · tent

Persecution of Serbs
Serbophobia · Serbian genocide (1941-1945)
Jasenovac · Independent State of Croatia · Kragujevac October

The history of Serbian literature is usually divided into three periods: ancient - until the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century, middle - until the end of the 18th century, and new (modern).

Ancient literature

Like Russian writing, Serbian writing developed on a soil, albeit related, but still non-Slavic, precisely thanks to the books of Holy Scripture and liturgical books translated from Greek into the ancient Church Slavonic language by Saints Cyril and Methodius and their disciples and who moved to Serbia from Bulgaria. These books, as a result of their correspondence by Serbian scribes, soon began to be replete with various features of Serbian living speech, and thus Serbian varieties (editions) of ancient Church Slavic manuscripts arose, just as Russian ones were formed in Russia. The main feature of the Serbian spelling of these monuments is the use instead of , at- instead of a big yus (as in Russian spelling), - instead of small usa, sometimes instead of b. The oldest examples of Serbian manuscripts include: “The Miroslav Gospel” - an excellently preserved aprakos of the 12th century, “Vlkanovo Gospel” - the beginning of the 13th century, “St. Nicholas Gospel” - the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century. In addition to books of church and spiritual-moral content, the Serbs adopted almost the entire rest of the old Bulgarian writing, through which the then Slavs of the Eastern rite generally became acquainted with Byzantine literature.

Soon the Serbs became independent contributors to the pan-Slavic literature of the East. Among the Serbian scribes circulated the same edifying collections of spiritual and secular, sometimes purely historical content (Palea, Zlatostrui, Prologue, etc.) or pseudoscientific (Physiologist, etc.) that circulated in Bulgaria and Russia; the same can be said about works of a narrative nature, such as, for example, the stories about Alexander the Great, about the Trojan War, about Devgenius, about Barlaam and Joasaph, as well as about various apocrypha and books rejected by the church (works of the Bulgarian priest Jeremiah, books of the Bogomils or patarens, etc.).

Much more than in all these books, we find traces of living Serbian speech in the wills of everyday writing and legal monuments. Of the first, especially important are the lives of Stefan Nemanja, compiled by his sons Stefan the First-Crown and St. Savva and the Hilandar monk Domentian, a disciple of St. Savva, who also wrote his life. Life of St. Savva also found a second compiler in the person of the monk Theodosius. The Bulgarian native Grigory Tsamblak, also known for his literary activities in Russia, owns the life of Stefan Dechansky, another biography of which is found in the 14th century collection of life “The Tsarstavnik”, or “Genealogy”.

In general, Serbian “everyday” writing not only did not differ in particular heights, but was even justly condemned by the latest researchers (especially A.F. Hilferding) for immoderate exaggerations in praise, hypocrisy, flattery and the inconsistency of the eloquent language with the sometimes terrible deeds of the glorified persons . Standing somewhat apart is the work of the Bulgarian native, “philosopher” Konstantin Kostenchsky, remarkable for its time - the life of the Serbian despot Stefan, the son of King Lazar, defeated by the Turks on the Kosovo Field, in its techniques more reminiscent of the works of modern historians than of ancient “everyday” writers, and distinguished by its fidelity historical messages; this is the most valuable work of all ancient Serbian everyday and historical writing.

Monuments of law - treaty documents, etc. - are curious not only for their language, which is an example of the then living Serbian speech, but also for the details of everyday content; such are, for example, the agreement of Kulin, the Bosnian ban, with Prince Korvas, the Dubrovnik envoy (), the “Vinodolsky law” and especially the law of Tsar Stefan Dusan, as well as various deeds of gift and other letters from both this king and other rulers, and Photius’ nomocanon, that is, a collection of church decrees.

XVII-XVIII centuries

In the middle period of Serbian literature, researchers distinguish, on the one hand, its flourishing in Dubrovnik and, as some reflection of this phenomenon, the literary activity of writers in Slavonia and Bosnia, and on the other hand, the emergence in the 17th-18th centuries of a field of literature in its own that was frozen after Kosovo Serbia and then the Austrian Serbs: this is the so-called Slavic-Serbian school of writers, who tried to support the old literary tradition and defend book unity with Russia. Dubrovnik literature, developed under the influence of the early Italian Renaissance, presented a number of brilliant writers who brought the development of the Serbian language and verse to a significant degree of power and beauty (see Dubrovnik). Andrej Kacic-Miocic (-), as if ending his fruitful activity in Dubrovnik literature, served, perhaps, as a link connecting it with the new period of Serbian literature. Of the Bosnian writers, the most remarkable is Matija Divkovic (-), author of the books “Nauk Krestyanski”, “Beside svrhu (-o) Evandelya nedelnih”, “One Hundred Miracles”, a poetic legend about St. Katerina and others. Among the writers active in Slavonia, Matija Antun Relkovich (-) is more noticeable than others with his poetic work “Satyr or ti divičovik” (), which at one time made a deep impression on the Serbian reading world; its significance in the history of Serbian literature is almost equal to the significance of the “Conversation” of Kacic-Miocic, since it vividly reflected the spiritual appearance and material well-being of the Slavonian society contemporary to the author in images that were extremely natural and truthful, alien to the stiffness and tension of most of the then works of Serbian literature.

Dubrovnik literature should be classified both in terms of language and in its historical destinies as one of the historical periods of Croatian literature. At first she did the same? like the medieval Serbian proper, it is more of a “writing” than a literature. The language of early Serbian writing is not Serbian folk, but “Slavic Serbian” - a mixture of Russian, Serbian folk and Church Slavonic languages. This literature was under strong Russian influence, since Serbian priests, almost the only literate people at this time, studied in Russia or had Russian teachers.

The Slavic-Serbian school of writers, the activity of Patriarch Paisius (XVII century) associated with ancient Serbian writing, produced several serious figures, such as Hristofor Zhefarovich, Zacharie Orfelin, Joakim Vujic, Rakic, Terlaich and especially Rajic John (-), whose work “The History of Various Slavic peoples, especially Bulgarians, Croats and Serbs,” representing a coherent and systematic, although without skillful critical processing, story about the events of South Slavic history, for a long time was the only more or less valuable source of information about the past of the Balkan Slavs. The remarkable literary and educational activity of Dosifej Obradović (-) on the one hand completes the Slavic-Serbian school, on the other hand, is the herald of those new principles that formed the basis of the entire transformative work of the famous pioneer of the new Serbian literature Vuk Karadzic, whose literary forerunner Obradović can be called predominantly. This is the type of eternal wanderer-teacher, for whom the interests of enlightenment and book learning are the most precious in the world. His book “Belly and Adventures,” which contains a description of his entire troubled life, is full of deep interest (see Radchenko, “Dosifei Obradović”). His other outstanding works: “Counsels of Common Reason,” published in Leipzig in 1784 - a kind of course of practical morality “for the Serbian people” - and “Collection of various moralizing things for benefit and amusement,” published in Vienna in 1793. His language contains, in comparison with previous writers, much more folk elements, although it is still far from free from Slavicisms; his worldview is largely rationalistic in nature (for example, on the issue of monasteries). Politically, he was a supporter of monarchism; Peter the Great was for him an example of a sovereign who cared about the people's welfare and enlightenment.

19th century

XX century

On the threshold of the 19th-20th centuries, Serbian literature rises to the highest level. Despite the fact that Serbian literature during this period did not produce works that were included in world literature, nevertheless, a number of Serbian writers did not lag behind the same writers of “local” significance from other countries.

In the twentieth century, many young and talented writers appeared in Serbian literature. One of them is Ivo Andrić, who for the book “Bridge on the Drina” (Serb. On Drini ћupriјa), published in 1945, received the 1961 Nobel Prize in Literature.

With Andrić, Danilo Kiš is regarded as one of the most famous Serbian authors, along with writers such as Miloš Crnjanski, Meša Selimović, Borislav Pekić, Milorad Pavić, David Albahari, Miodrag Bulatović, Dobrica Čosić, Zoran Živković, Jelena Dimitrijević, Isidora Sekulić and a lot others. Milorad Pavic is perhaps the most famous Serbian author today, primarily for his "Khazar Dictionary" (Serbian: Khazarski rechnik), translated into 24 languages.

Write a review of the article "Serbian Literature"

Notes

Literature

• Pypin and Spasovich, “History of Slavic Literatures” (vol. I-II, St. Petersburg, - 81);
• A.I. Stepovich, “Essays on the history of Serbo-Croatian literature” (Kyiv, , 400 pp.).
• "History of Serbo-Croatian Literature" (; translation of Yagić's book by Petrovsky)
• Russian translation Novakovic's books, “History of Srbsk bookishness” ().
• - article from the Literary Encyclopedia 1929-1939
• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

An excerpt characterizing Serbian literature

The main action of the Battle of Borodino took place in the space of a thousand fathoms between Borodin and Bagration’s flushes. (Outside this space, on the one hand, the Russians made a demonstration by Uvarov's cavalry in mid-day; on the other hand, behind Utitsa, there was a clash between Poniatowski and Tuchkov; but these were two separate and weak actions in comparison with what happened in the middle of the battlefield. ) On the field between Borodin and the flushes, near the forest, in an area open and visible from both sides, the main action of the battle took place, in the most simple, ingenuous way.
The battle began with a cannonade from both sides from several hundred guns.
Then, when the smoke covered the entire field, in this smoke two divisions moved (from the French side) on the right, Dessay and Compana, on fléches, and on the left the regiments of the Viceroy to Borodino.
From the Shevardinsky redoubt, on which Napoleon stood, the flashes were at a distance of a mile, and Borodino was more than two miles away in a straight line, and therefore Napoleon could not see what was happening there, especially since the smoke, merging with the fog, hid all terrain. The soldiers of Dessay's division, aimed at the flushes, were visible only until they descended under the ravine that separated them from the flushes. As soon as they descended into the ravine, the smoke of cannon and rifle shots on the flashes became so thick that it covered the entire rise of that side of the ravine. Something black flashed through the smoke - probably people, and sometimes the shine of bayonets. But whether they were moving or standing, whether they were French or Russian, could not be seen from the Shevardinsky redoubt.
The sun rose brightly and slanted its rays straight into the face of Napoleon, who was looking from under his hand at the flushes. Smoke lay in front of the flashes, and sometimes it seemed that the smoke was moving, sometimes it seemed that the troops were moving. People's screams could sometimes be heard behind the shots, but it was impossible to know what they were doing there.
Napoleon, standing on the mound, looked into the chimney, and through the small circle of the chimney he saw smoke and people, sometimes his own, sometimes Russians; but where what he saw was, he did not know when he looked again with his simple eye.
He stepped off the mound and began to walk back and forth in front of him.
From time to time he stopped, listened to the shots and peered into the battlefield.
Not only from the place below where he stood, not only from the mound on which some of his generals now stood, but also from the very flashes on which were now together and alternately the Russians, the French, the dead, the wounded and the living, frightened or distraught soldiers, it was impossible to understand what was happening in this place. For several hours at this place, amid incessant shooting, rifle and cannon fire, first Russians, sometimes French, sometimes infantry, sometimes cavalry soldiers appeared; appeared, fell, shot, collided, not knowing what to do with each other, screamed and ran back.
From the battlefield, his sent adjutants and orderlies of his marshals constantly jumped to Napoleon with reports on the progress of the case; but all these reports were false: both because in the heat of battle it is impossible to say what is happening at a given moment, and because many adjutants did not reach the real place of the battle, but conveyed what they heard from others; and also because while the adjutant was driving through the two or three miles that separated him from Napoleon, circumstances changed and the news he was carrying was already becoming incorrect. So an adjutant galloped up from the Viceroy with the news that Borodino had been occupied and the bridge to Kolocha was in the hands of the French. The adjutant asked Napoleon if he would order the troops to move? Napoleon ordered to line up on the other side and wait; but not only while Napoleon was giving this order, but even when the adjutant had just left Borodin, the bridge had already been recaptured and burned by the Russians, in the very battle in which Pierre took part at the very beginning of the battle.
An adjutant who rode up from a flush with a pale, frightened face reported to Napoleon that the attack had been repulsed and that Compan was wounded and Davout was killed, and meanwhile the flushes were occupied by another part of the troops, while the adjutant was told that the French had been repulsed and Davout was alive and only slightly shell-shocked. Taking into account such necessarily false reports, Napoleon made his orders, which either had already been carried out before he made them, or could not and were not carried out.
Marshals and generals, who were at a closer distance from the battlefield, but just like Napoleon, did not participate in the battle itself and only occasionally drove into the fire of bullets, without asking Napoleon, made their orders and gave their orders about where and where to shoot, and where to gallop on horseback, and where to run to foot soldiers. But even their orders, just like Napoleon’s orders, were also carried out to the smallest extent and were rarely carried out. For the most part it turned out the opposite of that what they ordered. The soldiers, who were ordered to go forward, were hit by grapeshot and ran back; the soldiers, who were ordered to stand still, suddenly, seeing the Russians suddenly appearing opposite them, sometimes ran back, sometimes rushed forward, and the cavalry galloped without orders to catch up with the fleeing Russians. So, two regiments of cavalry galloped through the Semenovsky ravine and just drove up the mountain, turned around and galloped back at full speed. The infantry soldiers moved in the same way, sometimes running completely different from where they were told. All the orders about where and when to move the guns, when to send foot soldiers to shoot, when to send horse soldiers to trample Russian foot soldiers - all these orders were made by the closest unit commanders who were in the ranks, without even asking Ney, Davout and Murat, not only Napoleon. They were not afraid of punishment for failure to fulfill an order or for an unauthorized order, because in battle it concerns what is most dear to a person - his own life, and sometimes it seems that salvation lies in running back, sometimes in running forward, and these people acted in accordance with the mood of the moment who were in the heat of battle. In essence, all these movements back and forth did not facilitate or change the position of the troops. All their attacks and attacks on each other caused them almost no harm, but harm, death and injury were caused by cannonballs and bullets flying everywhere throughout the space through which these people rushed. As soon as these people left the space through which cannonballs and bullets were flying, their superiors standing behind them immediately formed them, subjected them to discipline and, under the influence of this discipline, brought them back into the area of ​​fire, in which they again (under the influence of the fear of death) lost discipline and rushed about according to the random mood of the crowd.

Napoleon's generals - Davout, Ney and Murat, who were in the vicinity of this area of ​​​​fire and even sometimes drove into it, several times brought slender and huge masses of troops into this area of ​​​​fire. But contrary to what had invariably happened in all previous battles, instead of the expected news of the enemy’s flight, orderly masses of troops returned from there in upset, frightened crowds. They arranged them again, but there were fewer and fewer people. At midday, Murat sent his adjutant to Napoleon demanding reinforcements.
Napoleon was sitting under the mound and drinking punch when Murat's adjutant galloped up to him with assurances that the Russians would be defeated if His Majesty gave another division.
- Reinforcements? - Napoleon said with stern surprise, as if not understanding his words and looking at the handsome boy adjutant with long, curled black hair (the same way Murat wore his hair). “Reinforcements! - thought Napoleon. “Why are they asking for reinforcements when they have half the army in their hands, aimed at the weak, unfortified wing of the Russians!”
“Dites au roi de Naples,” Napoleon said sternly, “qu"il n"est pas midi et que je ne vois pas encore clair sur mon echiquier. Allez... [Tell the Neapolitan king that it is not yet noon and that I do not yet see clearly on my chessboard. Go...]
Handsome adjutant boy with long hair, without letting go of his hat, sighing heavily, he galloped again to where people were being killed.
Napoleon stood up and, calling Caulaincourt and Berthier, began to talk with them about matters not related to the battle.
In the middle of the conversation, which was beginning to interest Napoleon, Berthier's eyes turned to the general and his retinue, who was galloping towards the mound on a sweaty horse. It was Belliard. He got off his horse, quickly walked up to the emperor and boldly, in a loud voice, began to prove the need for reinforcements. He swore on his honor that the Russians would die if the emperor gave another division.
Napoleon shrugged his shoulders and, without answering, continued his walk. Belliard began speaking loudly and animatedly to the generals of his retinue who surrounded him.
“You are very ardent, Beliard,” said Napoleon, again approaching the approaching general. “It’s easy to make a mistake in the heat of the fire.” Go and see, and then come to me.
Before Beliar had time to disappear from sight, a new messenger from the battlefield galloped up from the other side.
– Eh bien, qu"est ce qu"il y a? [Well, what else?] - said Napoleon in the tone of a man irritated by incessant interference.
“Sire, le prince... [Sovereign, Duke...],” the adjutant began.
- Requesting reinforcements? – Napoleon said with an angry gesture. The adjutant bowed his head affirmatively and began to report; but the emperor turned away from him, took two steps, stopped, returned back and called Berthier. “We need to give reserves,” he said, spreading his hands slightly. – Who do you think should be sent there? - he turned to Berthier, to this oison que j"ai fait aigle [the gosling that I made an eagle], as he later called him.
“Sir, should I send Claparède’s division?” - said Berthier, who memorized all the divisions, regiments and battalions.
Napoleon nodded his head affirmatively.
The adjutant galloped towards Claparede's division. And a few minutes later the young guard, standing behind the mound, moved from their place. Napoleon silently looked in this direction.
“No,” he suddenly turned to Berthier, “I cannot send Claparède.” Send Friant’s division,” he said.
Although there was no advantage in sending Friant’s division instead of Claparède, and there was even an obvious inconvenience and delay in stopping Claparède now and sending Friant, the order was carried out with precision. Napoleon did not see that in relation to his troops he was playing the role of a doctor who interferes with his medications - a role that he so correctly understood and condemned.
Friant's division, like the others, disappeared into the smoke of the battlefield. Adjutants continued to jump in from different directions, and everyone, as if by agreement, said the same thing. Everyone asked for reinforcements, everyone said that the Russians were holding their ground and producing un feu d'enfer [hellfire], from which the French army was melting.
Napoleon sat thoughtfully on a folding chair.
Hungry in the morning, Mr. de Beausset, who loved to travel, approached the emperor and dared to respectfully offer His Majesty breakfast.
“I hope that now I can congratulate Your Majesty on your victory,” he said.
Napoleon silently shook his head. Believing that negation referred to victory and not to breakfast, Mr. de Beausset allowed himself to playfully respectfully remark that there was no reason in the world that could prevent one from having breakfast when one could do it.
“Allez vous... [Get out to...],” Napoleon suddenly said gloomily and turned away. A blissful smile of regret, repentance and delight shone on Monsieur Bosse's face, and he walked with a floating step to the other generals.
Napoleon experienced a heavy feeling, similar to that experienced by an always happy gambler who madly threw his money away, always won and suddenly, just when he had calculated all the chances of the game, feeling that the more thoughtful his move was, the more likely he was to lose.
The troops were the same, the generals were the same, the preparations were the same, the disposition was the same, the same proclamation courte et energique [proclamation short and energetic], he himself was the same, he knew it, he knew that he was even much more experienced and now he was more skillful than he was before, even the enemy was the same as at Austerlitz and Friedland; but the terrible swing of the hand fell magically powerlessly.
All those previous methods were invariably crowned with success: the concentration of batteries at one point, and the attack of reserves to break through the line, and the attack of cavalry des hommes de fer [ iron men], - all these methods had already been used, and not only was there no victory, but the same news came from all sides about killed and wounded generals, about the need for reinforcements, about the impossibility of bringing down the Russians and about the disorder of the troops.
Previously, after two or three orders, two or three phrases, marshals and adjutants galloped with congratulations and cheerful faces, declaring the corps of prisoners, des faisceaux de drapeaux et d'aigles ennemis, [bunches of enemy eagles and banners,] and guns, and convoys, and Murat, as trophies he only asked for permission to send in cavalry to pick up convoys. This was the case at Lodi, Marengo, Arcole, Jena, Austerlitz, Wagram, and so on, and so on. Now something strange was happening to his troops.
Despite the news of the capture of flushes, Napoleon saw that it was not the same, not at all the same as in all his previous battles. He saw that the same feeling that he experienced was experienced by all the people around him who were experienced in battle. All faces were sad, all eyes avoided each other. Only Bosse could not understand the significance of what was happening. Napoleon, after his long experience of war, knew well what it meant for eight hours, after all the efforts expended, for the attacker to not win a battle. He knew that it was almost a lost battle and that the slightest chance could now - at that tense point of hesitation on which the battle stood - destroy him and his troops.
When he turned over in his imagination this whole strange Russian campaign, in which not a single battle was won, in which in two months neither banners, nor cannons, nor corps of troops were taken, when he looked at secretly sad faces those around him and listened to reports that the Russians were still standing - a terrible feeling, similar to the feeling experienced in dreams, covered him, and all the unfortunate events that could destroy him came to his mind. The Russians could attack his left wing, they could tear his middle apart, a stray cannonball could kill him. All this was possible. In his previous battles, he pondered only the accidents of success, but now countless unfortunate accidents presented themselves to him, and he expected them all. Yes, it was like in a dream, when a person imagines a villain attacking him, and the man in the dream swung and hit his villain with that terrible force that, he knows, should destroy him, and he feels that his hand, powerless and soft, falls like a rag, and the horror of irresistible death seizes the helpless man.
The news that the Russians were attacking the left flank of the French army aroused this horror in Napoleon. He sat silently under the mound on a folding chair, head down and elbows on his knees. Berthier approached him and offered to ride along the line to make sure what the situation was.
- What? What are you saying? - said Napoleon. - Yes, give me the horse.