Famous literary critics. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov

Criticism from the Greek “kritice” - to disassemble, to judge, appeared as a unique form of art back in antiquity, eventually becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an “applied” character, aimed at overall rating works that encourage or, conversely, condemn the author’s opinion, as well as recommend or not the book to other readers.

Over time, this literary trend developed and improved, beginning its rise in European Age Renaissance and reaching significant heights by the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism occurred in the mid-19th century, when it, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, began to play a role in public life a huge role at that time. In the works of eminent critics XIX century(V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.V. Druzhinin, N.N. Strakhov, M.A. Antonovich) not only a detailed review was concluded literary works other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion artistic principles and ideas, but also a vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, its moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and power of influence on the minds of the public and today are among the the most powerful tool impact on the spiritual life of society and its moral principles.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

At one time, A. S. Pushkin’s poem “Eugene Onegin” received many varied reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the brilliant innovative techniques of the author in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that the 8th and 9th critical articles of Belinsky’s “Works of Alexander Pushkin” were devoted to, who set himself the goal of revealing the relationship of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the actual picture of the life of Russian society in that era; Belinsky called it “an encyclopedia of Russian life”, and in highest degree folk and national work."

In the articles “A Hero of Our Time, the Work of M. Lermontov” and “Poems of M. Lermontov,” Belinsky saw in Lermontov’s work an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian literature and recognized the poet’s ability to “extract poetry from the prose of life and shake souls with its faithful depiction.” The works of the outstanding poet show the passion of poetic thought, which touches on all the most pressing problems modern society, the critic called Lermontov the successor of the great poet Pushkin, noting, however, the complete opposite of their poetic character: with Perov everything is permeated with optimism and is described in light colors, the second has the opposite - the writing style is characterized by gloom, pessimism and grief over lost opportunities.

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov

Famous critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. And Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” based on Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”, called him the most decisive work author, which touches on very important “sore issues” social problems of that time, namely the clash of the personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with the “dark kingdom” - representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy described in the play the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of tyrants and oppressors, and in the image main character the embodiment of the great people's idea of ​​liberation.

In the article “What is Oblomovism,” devoted to the analysis of Goncharov’s work “Oblomov,” Dobrolyubov considers the author to be a talented writer who in his work acts as an outside observer, inviting the reader to draw conclusions about its content. Main character Oblomov is compared with others " extra people of his time" Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him a "nonentity", angrily condemns his character traits (laziness, apathy towards life and reflection) and recognizes them as a problem not only of one specific person, and the entire Russian mentality in general.

Selected works:

Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev

The play “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky made a deep and enthusiastic impression on the poet, prose writer and critic A. A. Grigoriev, who in the article “After the “Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev” does not argue with Dobrolyubov’s opinion, but somehow corrects his judgments, for example, replacing the term tyranny with the concept of nationality, which, in his opinion, is inherent specifically in the Russian people.

Selected work:

D.I. Pisarev, the “third” outstanding Russian critic after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, also touched on the topic of Goncharov’s Oblomovism in his article “Oblomov” and believed that this concept very successfully characterizes a significant vice of Russian life that will always exist, highly appreciated this work and called it relevant for any era and for any nationality.

Selected work:

The famous critic A.V. Druzhinin, in his article “Oblomov,” a novel by I.A. Goncharov,” drew attention to the poetic side of the nature of the main character, landowner Oblomov, which evokes in him not a feeling of irritation and hostility, but even a certain sympathy. He considers the most important positive qualities Russian landowner's tenderness, purity and gentleness of soul, against the background of which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a certain form of protection from the influences of harmful activities " active life» other characters

Selected work:

One of famous works The outstanding classic of Russian literature I.S. Turgenev, which caused a stormy public response, was the novel “Fathers and Sons” written in 18620. In the critical articles “Bazarov” by D. I. Pisarev, “Fathers and Sons” by I. S. Turgenev” by N. N. Strakhov, as well as M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of Our Time,” a heated debate flared up over the question of who should be considered the main the hero of Bazarov's work - a jester or an ideal to follow.

N.N. Strakhov in his article “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev" saw the deep tragedy of Bazarov's image, his vitality and dramatic attitude to life and called him the living embodiment of one of the manifestations of the true Russian spirit.

Selected work:

Antonovich viewed this character as an evil caricature of the younger generation and accused Turgenev of turning his back on democratically minded youth and betraying his former views.

Selected work:

Pisarev saw in Bazarov a useful and real person, which is capable of destroying outdated dogmas and outdated authorities, and thus clearing the way for the formation of new advanced ideas.

Selected work:

The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and the fate of the work is decided by the readers, on whose perception the future fate of the work depends. It is literary criticism that helps the reader form his personal final opinion about this or that work. Critics also provide invaluable assistance to writers when they give them an idea of ​​how understandable their works are to the public, and how correctly the thoughts expressed by the author are perceived.

Literary criticism in the modern literary process occupies one of the central positions, largely determining the development Russian literature and traditionally being the link between the writer and the reader.

If in Soviet time Having become an instrument of ideological propaganda, criticism practically lost its influence on the readership, then since the late 1980s. there is its revival and return to the literary situation as a full-fledged phenomenon of modern society, free from political engagement. literary life. Young critics, such as P. Basinsky, N. Eliseev, N. Ivanova, A. Nemzer, S. Chuprini, K. Stepanyan, saw their task primarily in an objective examination of the diverse, multidimensional literature that came to the reader in the perestroika and post-Soviet years . At this time, criticism acutely felt the need to abandon outdated templates in the study of Russian literature, especially modern literature. Criticism was the first to sense the creation of a new aesthetic system, destroying previous myths and offering a new artistic language and, therefore, requiring the development of other criteria for evaluating and comprehending emerging works. Understanding the continuity of the literary process and constant dialogue modern literature with the literature of past eras has become one of the leading principles of a critical approach to literary text.

Modern criticism actively participates in the discussion of issues further development Russian literature. In the 1990s - early 2000s. a number of discussions took place on the pages of thick magazines that were fundamentally important for understanding general trends observed in modern domestic literature: “About mass literature, its readers and authors" (1998), "Criticism: The Last Call" (1999), "Modern Literature: Noah's Ark? (1999), “Russian poetry at the end of the century. Neoarchaists and neonovators" (2001). Critics and writers who participated in the discussion of the stated issues expressed very different opinions about the prospects for the development of literature, but the unifying point was the statement of the fact that the talk about the “death of Russian literature” that was popular in the early 1990s turned out to be completely groundless.

New criticism the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries is closely connected with literary everyday life. The critic informs the reader about emerging new works and gives a competent analysis artistic value literary text, therefore, his assessments, recommendations, and reflective attitude towards what he read are not only assumed, but also expected, not only by the readership, but also by writers. IN current situation The opinion of critics often contributes to the success, and not least the commercial success, or failure of a particular work. Sharp, often scandalous, critical articles often provoke interest in texts written in an unusual aesthetic manner, as was the case, for example, with Vic’s novels. Erofeeva, V. Pelevina, V. Sorokina. Aware of his dependence on critical assessment, the writer is forced to take into account the opinions of critics when working on a new work. At the same time, critical discussions on the pages of literary magazines and newspapers often open the way to readers for many talented authors. Thus, it was thanks to critical reviews and discussions that such writers as T. Tolstaya, L. Ulitskaya, D. Rubina, V. Pelevin, M. Shishkin gained fame among readers.

Modern critics are free to choose their function, their approach to a literary text and their tools. Literary criticism of the late 1990s - early 2000s. extremely diverse, as is the object of her interests. The following areas of activity of critics can be distinguished:

– traditional historical and literary approach, presented in articles by L. Anninsky, N. Ivanova, I. Rodnyanskaya, A. Latynina, M. Lipovetsky;

– reviews and reviews new literature, compiled by A. Nemzer, D. Bykov, L. Pirogov;

– critical essayism, occupying an intermediate position between criticism proper and fiction (A. Genis, P. Weil, V. Novikov);

– criticism of a provocative nature, updating attention to controversial literary phenomena (Vik. Erofeev, M. Zolotonosov, B. Paramonov);

– youth slang criticism of literary sites on the Internet and fashion magazines.

Another important component modern criticism is its openness in artistic creativity: many of the critics create own works(for example, O. Slavnikova, D. Bykov, V. Kuritsyn), and writers and poets, in turn, come up with critical articles and notes (Vik. Erofeev, S. Gandlevsky, T. Tolstaya, V. Shubinsky).

Thus literary criticism is important element modern literary process, without which it is impossible to form a holistic, full-fledged idea of ​​the development of Russian literature of the late 20th - early 21st centuries.

Main literature

Contemporary Russian literature (1990s - beginning of XXI c.) / S.I. Timina, V.E. Vasiliev, O.V. Voronina et al. St. Petersburg, 2005.

Russian literature of the 20th century in the mirror of criticism: Reader / Comp. S.I. Timina, M.A. Chernyak, N.N. Kyakshto. M., St. Petersburg, 2003.

additional literature

Ivanova N. Overcoming postmodernism // Znamya. 1998. No. 4.

Nemzer A. A wonderful decade: about Russian prose of the 90s // New world. 2000. № 1.

Criticism: last call: conference hall // Banner. 1999. No. 12.

Dubin B. Literary culture today // Banner. 2002. No. 12.

Seminar lesson plans

Seminar lesson № 1.

The problem of periodization of Russian literature. Patterns of development of modern literature

1. The concept of stadiality by M. Epstein. Cycles and phases of development of Russian literature. The criteria underlying this concept.

2. At what stage of development, according to M. Epstein, is the literature of the 1980s - 1990s?

3. Advantages and disadvantages of M. Epstein’s concept of stadiality. Possible ways to clarify and adjust it.

4. The essence of the theory of regularities and anti-regularities D.S. Likhacheva.

5. What works and writers of Russian literature of the 20th century confirm the correctness of D.S.’s judgments? Likhachev on the development of Russian literature?

Exercise:

Compile abstracts of the articles “After the Future. On the new consciousness in literature" by M. Epstein and "Regularities and anti-regularities in literature" by D.S. Likhachev, based on the proposed seminar lesson plan.

Literature

1. Epstein M. After the Future. On the new consciousness in literature // Znamya. 1991. No. 1. P. 217-230.

2. Likhachev D.S. Regularities and anti-regularities in literature // Russian literature. 1986. No. 3. P. 27-29.

3. Likhachev D.S. The structure of literature: towards posing the question // Russian literature. 1986. No. 3. P. 29-30.

4. Leiderman N., Lipovetsky M. Modern Russian literature: 1950-1990s. In 2 volumes. T. 2 1968-1990. M., 2007.

5. Nefagina G.L. Russian prose of the late 20th century. M., 2005.

6. Modern Russian literature (1990s - beginning of the 21st century) / S.I. Timina, V.E. Vasiliev, O.V. Voronina et al. St. Petersburg, 2005.

Seminar lesson No. 2.

“Each era of Russian literature had its own consciousness about itself, expressed in criticism,” wrote V. G. Belinsky. It is difficult to disagree with this judgment. Russian criticism is a phenomenon as bright and unique as Russian classic literature. It has been noted many times that criticism, being synthetic in nature, played a huge role in the social life of Russia. Critical articles by V. G. Belinsky, A. A. Grigoriev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and many others contained not only detailed analysis works, their images, ideas, artistic features; behind destinies literary heroes, behind artistic painting world critics sought to see the most important moral and social problems time, and not only see, but sometimes also offer their own ways to solve these problems.

The articles of Russian critics had and continue to have a significant impact on the spiritual and moral life society. It is no coincidence that they have long been included in the school education curriculum. However, for many decades, in literature classes, students were familiar mainly with criticism of a radical orientation - with articles by V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and a number of other authors. In this case, the critical article was most often perceived as a source of quotations with which schoolchildren generously “decorated” their essays.

This approach to the study of Russian classics formed stereotypes artistic perception, significantly simplified and impoverished the picture of the development of Russian literature, which was distinguished by fierce ideological and aesthetic disputes.

Only in recently thanks to the emergence of a number of serial publications and in-depth literary studies our vision of development paths Russian literature and criticism has become more voluminous and multifaceted. In the series “Library “For Lovers” Russian literature"", "History of aesthetics in monuments and documents", "Russian literary criticism" articles by N. M. Karamzin, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. V. Kireevsky, N. I. Nadezhdin were published , A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov and other outstanding Russian writers.The complex, dramatic quests of critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, different in their artistic and social beliefs, are recreated in the series “Library of Russian Criticism”. Modern Readers finally got the opportunity to get acquainted not only with the “peak” phenomena in the history of Russian criticism, but also with many other, no less striking phenomena. At the same time, our idea of ​​the “peaks”, of the scale of significance of many critics, has been significantly clarified.

It seems that practice school teaching should form a more comprehensive idea of ​​how the Russian literature XIX century in the mirror of domestic criticism. It is important that the young reader begins to perceive criticism as an organic part of Literature. After all, Literature in in a broad sense is the art of words, embodied both in a work of art and in a literary critical speech. A critic is always a bit of an artist and a publicist. A talented critical article necessarily contains a powerful fusion of the moral and philosophical thoughts of its author with subtle and deep observations of the literary text.

Studying critical article gives very little if its main provisions are perceived as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to emotionally and intellectually experience everything said by the critic, think about the logic of his thoughts, and determine the degree of evidence of the arguments put forward by him.

The critic offers his reading work of art, reveals his perception of the work of a particular writer. Often a critical article makes you rethink a work or artistic image. Some judgments and assessments in a talentedly written article can become a genuine discovery for the reader, while others may seem erroneous or controversial to him. The comparison is especially interesting different points opinions about the same work or the work of a particular writer. This always provides rich material for thought.

This anthology contains works by leading representatives of Russian literary-critical thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries, from N. M. Karamzin to V. V. Rozanov. Many publications from which the texts of articles are published have become bibliographic rarities.

The reader will allow you to look at Pushkin’s work through the eyes of I.V. Kireevsky and V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev and V.V. Rozanov, to get acquainted with how differently the poem was perceived" Dead Souls"Gogol's contemporaries - V. G. Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov, S. P. Shevyrev, how the heroes of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" were assessed by the second critic half of the 19th century century. Readers will be able to compare their perception of Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" with the way it was interpreted in the articles of D.I. Pisarev and D.S. Merezhkovsky, see in Ostrovsky's plays, thanks to the work of A.V. Druzhinin, not only " dark kingdom“with lonely light “rays” penetrating into it, but the multifaceted and multicolored world of Russian national life.

For many, the articles by L. Tolstoy’s contemporaries about his work will undoubtedly be a revelation. The main signs of L. Tolstoy’s talent are the ability to show the “dialectics of the soul” of his heroes, the “purity moral sense" - N. G. Chernyshevsky was one of the first to identify and reveal. As for N. N. Strakhov’s articles on “War and Peace,” we can rightfully say: in Russian literary criticism there are few works that can be placed next to them by the depth of penetration into L. Tolstoy's plan, by the accuracy and subtlety of his observations of the text. The critic believed that the writer “gave us a new Russian formula of heroic life”, for the first time after Pushkin he was able to reflect the Russian ideal - the ideal of “simplicity, goodness and truth.”

Of particular interest are the reflections of critics collected in the anthology on the fate of Russian poetry. The problems posed in the articles by K. N. Batyushkov and V. A. Zhukovsky, V. G. Belinsky and V. N. Maykov, V. P. Botkin and I. S. Aksakov, V. S. Solovyov and V. V. Rozanova. Here we will find original judgments about the genres of “light poetry” and the principles of translation that have not lost their significance, we will see the desire to penetrate into the “holy of holies” of poetry - into creative laboratory poet, understand the specifics of expressing thoughts and feelings in lyrical work. And how true, how clearly defined in these publications creative individuality Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Fet, Tyutchev and A.K. Tolstoy!

It is noteworthy that the result of difficult searches and often fierce disputes was the desire of critics of the early 20th century to “return” Russian culture to Pushkin, to Pushkin’s harmony and simplicity. Proclaiming the need for a “return to Pushkin,” V.V. Rozanov wrote: “I want him to become a friend in every Russian family... Pushkin’s mind protects him from everything stupid, his nobility protects him from everything vulgar, the versatility of his soul and the interests that occupied him protect against what could be called “early specialization of the soul.”

We hope that the anthology will become an indispensable guide to the works of outstanding Russian literary artists, will help to truly understand these works, compare various ways their interpretation, to discover in what was read what went unnoticed or initially seemed unimportant and secondary.

Literature is a whole Universe. Its “suns” and “planets” had their own satellites - literary critics who fell into the orbit of their inevitable attraction. And how we would like that we could call not only the classics of Russian literature, but also these critics our eternal companions.

Literary criticism

Literary criticism- region literary creativity the edge of art ( fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism).

Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems of social and spiritual life); identifies and affirms creative principles literary trends; has an active influence on literary process, as well as directly on the formation public consciousness; relies on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, aesthetics. It is often journalistic, political and topical in nature, intertwined with journalism. Closely connected with related sciences - history, political science, linguistics, textual criticism, bibliography.

Story

Already distinguished in antiquity in Greece and Rome, also in ancient india and China as a special professional occupation. But for a long time has only “applied” meaning. Its task is to give a general assessment of the work, to encourage or condemn the author, and to recommend the book to other readers.

Then, after a long break, it again develops like special kind literature and as an independent profession in Europe, from the 17th century to the first half of the 19th century (T. Carlyle, C. Sainte-Beuve, I. Taine, F. Brunetier, M. Arnold, G. Brandes).

History of Russian literary criticism

Until the 18th century

Elements of literary criticism appear already in written monuments XI century. Actually, as soon as someone expresses their opinion about a work, we are dealing with elements of literary criticism.

Works containing such elements include

• The word of a certain good old man about reading books (included in the Izbornik of 1076, sometimes mistakenly called the Izbornik of Svyatoslav);
• A Word on Law and Grace by Metropolitan Hilarion, where there is a consideration of the Bible as a literary text;
• The word about Igor’s Regiment, where at the beginning the intention is stated to sing in new words, and not in the usual “boyanov” - an element of discussion with “boyan”, a representative of the previous one literary tradition;
• Lives of a number of saints who were the authors of significant texts;
• Letters from Andrei Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible, where Kurbsky reproaches the Terrible for caring too much about the beauty of the word, about the weaving of words.

Significant names of this period are Maxim the Greek, Simeon of Polotsk, Avvakum Petrov (literary works), Melety Smotritsky.

XVIII century

For the first time in Russian literature, the word “critic” was used by Antioch Cantemir in 1739 in the satire “Education”. Also in French - critique. In Russian writing it will be included in frequent use mid-19th century

Literary criticism begins to develop with the advent of literary magazines. The first such magazine in Russia was “Monthly Works Serving for Benefit and Entertainment” (1755). The first Russian author to turn to a review is considered to be N.M. Karamzin, who preferred the genre of monographic reviews.

Character traits literary polemics 18th century:

• linguistic-stylistic approach to literary works(the main attention is paid to errors of language, mainly the first half of the century, especially characteristic of the speeches of Lomonosov and Sumarokov);
• normative principle (characteristic of the dominant classicism);
• taste principle (put forward at the very end of the century by sentimentalists).

19th century

The historical-critical process occurs mainly in the relevant sections of literary magazines and other periodicals, therefore closely related to the journalism of this period. In the first half of the century, criticism was dominated by such genres as remark, response, note, and later the problem article and review became the main ones. Present big interest reviews by A. S. Pushkin are short, elegantly and literaryly written, polemical works that testify to the rapid development of Russian literature. In the second half, the genre of a critical article or a series of articles, approaching a critical monograph, predominates.

Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, along with “annual reviews” and major problem articles, also wrote reviews. IN " Domestic notes“For several years, Belinsky ran the column “Russian Theater in St. Petersburg,” where he regularly gave reports on new performances.

Sections of criticism of the first half of the 19th century are formed on the basis of literary movements (classicism, sentimentalism, romanticism). In criticism of the second half of the century literary characteristics complemented by socio-political ones. A special section includes literary criticism, which is distinguished by great attention to the problems of artistic mastery.

On turn of the 19th century- Industry and culture are actively developing in the 20th century. Compared to the mid-19th century, censorship has weakened significantly and the level of literacy has increased. Thanks to this, many magazines, newspapers, and new books are published, and their circulation increases. Literary criticism is also flourishing. Among the critics a large number of writers and poets - Annensky, Merezhkovsky, Chukovsky. With the advent of silent films, film criticism was born. Before the 1917 revolution, several magazines with film reviews were published.

XX century

A new cultural surge occurs in the mid-1920s. Ended Civil War, and the young state gets the opportunity to engage in culture. These years saw the heyday of the Soviet avant-garde. Malevich, Mayakovsky, Rodchenko, Lissitzky create. Science is also developing. The largest tradition of Soviet literary criticism of the first half of the 20th century. - formal school- is born precisely in line with strict science. Its main representatives are considered to be Eikhenbaum, Tynyanov and Shklovsky.

Insisting on the autonomy of literature, the idea of ​​independence of its development from the development of society, rejecting the traditional functions of criticism - didactic, moral, socio-political - the formalists went against Marxist materialism. This led to the end of avant-garde formalism during the years of Stalinism, when the country began to turn into a totalitarian state.

In the subsequent years 1928–1934. principles are formulated socialist realism- official style of Soviet art. Criticism becomes a punitive tool. The magazine was closed in 1940 Literary critic", the criticism section of the Writers' Union was dissolved. Now criticism had to be directed and controlled directly by the party. Columns and criticism sections appear in all newspapers and magazines.

Famous Russian literary critics of the past