Revolutionary Democrats. Democratization of literature at the end of the 19th century

Throughout the history of Russia, both as a tsarist state and during the empire, there were both adherents of the ruler’s policy and its opponents. The 18th century was the peak of passions and growing discontent among the population. Mass terror, inhumane treatment of peasants, enslaving serfdom, arrogance and unpunished cruelty of landowners - all this went unchecked for a long time.

In Europe, the population's dissatisfaction with the insignificant attitude of the ruling class towards the lower strata of society also increased. The imperfection of the state system led to uprisings, revolutions and turning points in European countries. Russia did not escape the same fate. The revolutions took place with the help active work domestic fighters for freedom and equality, in defiance of state statutes.

Who are they?

The ideologists and pioneers of the revolutionary democratic movement were French activists, in particular Robespierre and Pétion. They criticized the relationship between society and the government, advocated the development of democracy and the suppression of the monarchy.

Their like-minded people, Marat and Danton, actively took advantage of the situation that had developed in the country as a result of the Great french revolution to achieve your goals. The main ones are related to the achievement of people's autocracy. Step by step they sought to achieve their goal through dictatorship.

Russian activists picked up and adapted this idea to their own political system. In addition to French, they mastered German treatises and their views on political principles. In their vision, the active force capable of resisting imperial terror was the unity of the peasants. Their liberation from serfdom was an integral part of the program of domestic revolutionary democrats.

Prerequisites for development

The revolutionary movement began its development among admirers of democracy and freedom of the peasants. There were quite a few of them. This social stratum appears among the democratic revolutionaries as the main revolutionary force. The imperfection of the state system and the low standard of living contributed to the formation of such a movement.

The main reasons for starting journalistic activity:

• serfdom;
• differences between segments of the population;
• the country's backwardness from leading European countries.

The real criticism of the democratic revolutionaries was directed at the autocracy of the emperor. This became the basis for the development of new trends:

The movements belonged to the bourgeois class and had specific problems with infringement of rights or a difficult existence. But the close relationship with the exploited part of the population developed in the revolutionary democrats a clear antipathy towards the state system. They did not deviate from their ideas, despite persecution, attempted arrests and similar expressions of discontent from the government.

Publicists began to publish their works with contemptuous discontent and disparagement of bureaucratic activity. Thematic clubs appeared among students. The obvious ignorance of the problems and low standard of living of the ordinary population openly outraged everyone large quantity of people. Unrest and the desire to resist the enslavers united the hearts and thoughts of activists and forced them to move from words to actions. It was under such conditions that the revolutionary democratic movement began to take shape.

Formation

The main ideologists and representatives of revolutionary democrats were V. G. Belinsky, N. P. Ogarev, N. G. Chernyshevsky.

They were ardent opponents of serfdom and tsarist autocracy. It all started with a small circle with a philosophical bent under the leadership of Stankevich. Soon Belinsky left the circle, organizing his own movement. Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky joined him. They headed the organization, representing the interests of peasants and advocating the abolition of serfdom.

Herzen and his associates also acted separately, conducting journalistic activities in exile. The difference in the ideology of Russian activists was in their attitude towards the people. Here the peasantry, in the views of revolutionary democrats, acts as the basis of the struggle against tsarism, inequality and their rights. Western utopians actively criticized the proposed innovations in the legal system.

Activist ideas

Domestic activists based their ideology on the teachings of Westernized democratic revolutionaries. A series of uprisings against feudalism and materialism broke out in European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. Most of their works are based on the idea of ​​fighting serfdom. They actively opposed the political views of liberals, since they were not at all interested in the life of the people.

There were attempts to organize revolutionary protests against the autocracy and the liberation of the peasants. These events occurred in 1861. This is the year when serfdom was abolished. But the democratic revolutionaries did not support such a reform. They immediately revealed the pitfalls that were hidden under the guise of the abolition of serfdom. In fact, it did not give freedom to the peasants. To fully ensure freedom, it was necessary not just to abolish on paper the enslaving rules in relation to the peasants, but to deprive the landowners of their land and all rights. The program of the revolutionary democrats called on the people to break and move towards socialism. These were supposed to be the first steps towards class equality.

and his activities

He went down in history as an outstanding publicist and one of the pioneers of political emigration. He grew up in the house of his landowner father. Being an illegitimate child, he received a surname that his father simply made up. But such a turn of fate did not prevent the boy from receiving a decent upbringing and education at the noble level.

Books from his father’s library shaped the child’s worldview even in his teenage years. The Decembrist uprising of 1825 made a strong impression on him. During his student years, Alexander became friends with Ogarev and was an active participant in a youth circle against the government. For his activities, he was exiled to Perm along with like-minded people. Thanks to his connections, he was transferred to Vyatka, where he got a job in the office. Later he ended up in Vladimir as an advisor to the board, where he met his wife.

The exile only further inflamed Alexander’s personal hostility towards the government, in particular towards the political system as a whole. Since childhood, he observed the life of peasants, their suffering and their pain. The struggle for the existence of this class became one of the goals of the activist Herzen. Since 1836 he has been publishing his journalistic works. In 1840, Alexander saw Moscow again. But due to unrestrained statements about the police, a year later he was exiled again. This time the link did not last long. Already in 1842, the publicist returned to the capital.

The turning point in his life was his move to France. Here he maintained relations with French revolutionaries and European emigrants. Democratic revolutionaries of the 19th century share their views on the development of an ideal society and how to achieve it. After living there for only 2 years, Alexander loses his wife and moves to London. In Russia at this time he receives the status of an exile for refusing to return to his homeland. Together with his friends Ogarev and Chernyshevsky, he begins to publish newspapers of a revolutionary nature with calls for a complete reconstruction of the state and the overthrow of the monarchy. He lives out his last days in France, where he was buried.

The formation of Chernyshevsky’s views

Nikolai is the son of the clergyman Gabriel Chernyshevsky. They expected him to follow in his father's footsteps, but the young man did not live up to the expectations of his relatives. He completely rejected religion and entered St. Petersburg University in the department of history and philology. Most attention the student devoted to Russian literature. He was also interested in the works of French historians and German philosophers. After training, Chernyshevsky taught for almost 3 years and instilled a revolutionary spirit in his students.

In 1853 he married. The young wife supported her husband in all his endeavors, participated in his creative life. This year was marked by another event - a move to St. Petersburg. It was here that he began his journalistic career in the Sovremennik magazine. Democratic revolutionaries expressed their experiences and thoughts about the fate of the country in literature.

Initially his articles concerned works of art. But here, too, the influence of ordinary peasants was visible. The opportunity to freely discuss the plight of serfs was ensured by the easing of censorship during the reign of Alexander II. Gradually, Nikolai Gavrilovich begins to turn to modern political topics, expressing his thoughts in his works.

He had his own idea of ​​the rights of peasants and the conditions for their liberation. Chernyshevsky and his like-minded people were confident in the strength of the common people, who must unite and follow them into a bright future, armed with an uprising. For his activities, Chernyshov was sentenced to lifelong exile in Siberia. While imprisoned in the fortress, he wrote his famous work"What to do?" Even after going through hard labor, during his exile he continued his work, but it no longer had any influence on political events.

Ogarev's life path

Landowner Platon Ogarev did not even suspect that his growing, inquisitive son Nikolai was a future Russian revolutionary-democrat. The boy's mother died when Ogarev was not even two years old. Initially, he was educated at home and entered the Faculty of Mathematics of Moscow University. There he became friends with Herzen. He was exiled with him to Penza to his father’s estate.

After returning home he began to commit trips abroad. I enjoyed visiting the University of Berlin. Suffering from epilepsy since childhood, he was treated in Pyatigorsk in 1838. Here I met the Decembrists in exile. This acquaintance played an important role in the development of Ogarev as a publicist and fighter for class equality.

After the death of his father, he received rights to the estate and began the process of liberating his peasants, speaking out as an opponent of serfdom. Having spent 5 years traveling around the countries of Western Europe, he met European reformers. Returning to his homeland, he will try to implement the idea of ​​industrialization among the peasants.

On the territory of his lands he opens schools, hospitals, launches cloth factories, distilleries and sugar factories. Having broken off relations with his first wife, who did not support her husband’s views, he formalized his relationship with N.A. Pankova. Together with her, Ogarev moves to A. Herzen in London.

A year later, Pankova leaves Nikolai and goes to Alexander. Despite this, Ogarev and Herzen actively publish newspapers and magazines. Democratic revolutionaries distribute publications criticizing government policies among the Russian population.

To achieve his goals, he and Herzen go to Switzerland and try to establish relations with Russian emigrants. In particular, with the anarchist Bakunin and the conspirator Nechaev. In 1875 he was expelled from the country and returned to London. Here he died of an epileptic attack.

Philosophy of publicists

The ideas of the revolutionary democrats are undoubtedly dedicated to the peasants. Herzen often touches on the topic of the problem of personality in interaction with society. The imperfection of society and problems in relations between different layers lead society to complete degradation and destruction. Which is very dangerous.

He notes the problems of relations between the individual in particular and society as a whole: the individual is formed on the basis of social norms, but, at the same time, the individual influences the development and level of the society in which he lives.

The imperfection of the social system is also touched upon in the works of his associates - Chernyshevsky and Ogarev. This dangerous and open criticism of the revolutionary democrats against tsarism provoked outbreaks of popular unrest in different regions of the country. Their ideas showed a desire to achieve socialism, bypassing capitalism.

Chernyshevsky, in turn, shared the philosophy of materialism. Through the prism of scientific evidence and personal views, man in his works appears as one with nature, amenable to physiological needs. In contrast to Herzen, he does not separate the individual from nature and does not elevate man above society. For Nikolai Gavrilovich, man and the world around him are a single whole, complementary to each other. The more positivity and philanthropy prevail in society, the more fruitful and high-quality the social environment will be.

Pedagogical views

Pedagogy was given an equally important role. The real criticism of the revolutionary democrats is aimed at educating the younger generation with the makings of a free, full-fledged member of society. No wonder Chernyshevsky had teaching experience. In his opinion, love of freedom and self-will are laid down from the very beginning. The personality must be comprehensively developed, constantly ready to sacrifice for the sake of common goals. The problem of education is also a problem of the reality of that time.

The level of science was very low, and the teaching methods were backward and ineffective. In addition, he was a supporter of equal rights for men and women. female education. Man is the crown of creation, and attitudes towards him must be appropriate. Our society consists of such individuals, and their level of education affects the quality of society as a whole.

He believed that all problems in society do not depend on belonging to a particular class and, especially, financial status. This is a problem of low level of upbringing and low-quality education. Such backwardness leads to the death of social norms and the decay of society. Changes in society are a direct path to change in general and the individual in particular.

His associate Herzen was a supporter of folk pedagogy. Democratic revolutionaries in literature expressed the problems of the imperfect position of children in society. The essence of his “folk pedagogy” was that knowledge should be drawn not from books, but from the environment. It is the people who are the bearers of valuable information that is necessary for the younger generation.

First of all, children should be instilled with a love for work and for their homeland. The main goal is education free person which puts the interests of the people above all else and is disgusted by idleness. Children should develop freely surrounded by ordinary people, without limiting their knowledge to book sciences. The child must feel respected by the teacher. This is the principle of patient love.

To raise a full-fledged personality, it is necessary to develop thinking, self-expression and independence from childhood, as well as oratory abilities and respect for one’s people. According to Herzen, for a full-fledged upbringing, a balance is necessary between the children’s free will and the observance of discipline. It is these components that contribute to the development of a full-fledged individual serving his society.

Legal views

The activities of revolutionary democrats affect all aspects public life. The European utopian socialists were an example for Russian revolutionaries. Their admiration was aimed at attempts to build a new social system, by freeing workers from harsh exploitative working conditions. At the same time, the utopians reduced the role of the people. For democratic revolutionaries, peasants were part of an active driving force capable of overthrowing the monarchy through united efforts.

Representatives of the active movement put up imperfections for public discussion legal system states. The problem of serfdom was the impunity of landowners. The oppression and exploitation of peasants further aggravated class contradictions. This contributed to the disintegration of mass discontent until the proclamation of the abolition of serfdom in 1861.

But, in addition to the rights of the peasants, the real criticism of the democratic revolutionaries (briefly) also concerned the rest of the population. At the core of their works, publicists touched on the topic of crime through the prism of the views of the exploiting masses. What does it mean? According to state laws, any action aimed at the ruling classes was considered criminal.

Democratic revolutionaries proposed to classify criminal acts. Divide them into those that were dangerous and aimed at the ruling classes, and those that infringed on the rights of the exploited. It was important to create a system of equal punishment, regardless of social status.

Personally, Herzen wrote articles about the role of bribery and embezzlement, comparing the problems of his fatherland and France. In his opinion, such criminal acts degraded the humanity and dignity of the entire society. He identifies duels as a separate category. In his opinion, such acts are contrary to the norms of a civilizational society.

The journalistic works and active actions of revolutionary democrats are firmly entrenched in history Russian state. Their activities did not disappear without a trace, but live in the subconscious of each subsequent generation. It is our responsibility to preserve it in the future.

Above, in the chapter devoted to the fictitious name of a literary hero, I already touched on democratic literature XVII V. For a long time in its main part, which did not attract much attention, it was then discovered by the careful research and publications of V. P. Adrianova-Peretz *(( I will only mention the main works of V. P. Adrianova-Peretz: Essays on the history of Russian satirical literature of the 17th century. M.; L., 1937; Russian democratic satire of the 17th century; 2nd ed., add. M., 1977.)) and immediately took its rightful place in the historical and literary studies of Soviet literary scholars.

This democratic literature includes “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, “The Tale of Shemyakina’s Court”, “The ABC of a Naked and Poor Man”, “A Noble Message to an Enemy”, “The Tale of a Luxurious Life and Joy”, “The Tale of Thomas and Erem” , “Service to the Tavern”, “Kalyazin Petition”, “The Tale of Priest Savva”, “The Tale of the Chicken and the Fox”, “The Tale of the Hawk Moth”, “The Tale of the Peasant Son”, “The Tale of Karp Sutulov”, “A Treatment Book for Foreigners” ”, “Painting about the dowry”, “A Tale about jealous men”, “A poem about the life of the patriarchal singers” and, finally, such a significant work as “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”. Partly in the same circle is the autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum and the autobiography of Epiphanius.

This literature is distributed among the common people: among artisans, small traders, the lower clergy, penetrates into the peasant environment, etc. It is opposed to official literature, the literature of the ruling class, which partly continues old traditions.

Democratic literature is in opposition to the feudal class; This is literature that emphasizes the injustice that prevails in the world, reflecting dissatisfaction with reality and social orders. The union with the environment, so characteristic of the personality of the previous time, is destroyed in it. Dissatisfaction with one's fate, one's position, those around one is a new feature, unknown to previous periods. Connected with this is the dominant desire in democratic literature for satire and parody. It is these satirical and parodic genres that become the main ones in the democratic literature of the 17th century.

For democratic literature of the 17th century. characterized by a conflict between the individual and the environment, complaints of this individual about his lot, a challenge to social order, sometimes - self-doubt, prayer, fear, fear of the world, a feeling of one’s own defenselessness, belief in fate, in fate, the theme of death, suicide and first attempts confront your fate, correct injustice.

In the democratic literature of the 17th century. A special style of depicting a person develops: a sharply reduced, deliberately everyday style, asserting the right of every person to public sympathy.

The conflict with the environment, with the rich and noble, with their “pure” literature, demanded emphasized simplicity, lack of literary quality, and deliberate vulgarity. The stylistic “arrangement” of the image of reality is destroyed by numerous parodies. Everything is parodied - even church services. Democratic literature strives for complete exposure and exposure of all the ulcers of reality. In this she is helped by rudeness - rudeness in everything: the rudeness of the new literary language, half colloquial, half taken from business writing, the rudeness of the depicted life, the rudeness of eroticism, corrosive irony in relation to everything in the world, including oneself. On this basis, a new stylistic unity is created, a unity that at first glance seems to be the absence of unity.

The person depicted in works of democratic literature does not occupy any official position, or his position is very low and “trivial”. This is simply a suffering person, suffering from hunger, cold, social injustice, from the fact that he has nowhere to lay his head. At the same time, the new hero is surrounded by the warm sympathy of the author and readers. His position is the same as that of any of his readers. He does not rise above the readers either by his official position, or by any role in historical events, or by his moral height. He is deprived of everything that distinguished and elevated the characters in the previous literary development. This man is by no means idealized. Against!

If in all previous medieval styles of depicting a person, this latter was certainly somehow superior to his readers, was to a certain extent an abstract character, hovering in some kind of his own, special space, where the reader, in essence, did not penetrate, now the character appears completely equal to him, and sometimes even humiliated, demanding not admiration, but pity and condescension.

This new character is devoid of any pose, any halo. This is a simplification of the hero, taken to the limits of the possible: he is naked, and if he is dressed, then in “ gunka tavern» *{{ The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune. Ed. prepared D. S. Likhachev and E. I. Vaneeva. L., 1984. P. 8.)) V " feriza ragozhennye"with urinary ties*(( “The ABC of a Naked and Poor Man”: Adrianova-Peretz V.P. Russian democratic satire of the 17th century. P. 31.}}.

He is hungry, he has nothing to eat, and “ no one gives", no one invites him to their place. He is not recognized by his family and is expelled from his friends. He is depicted in the most unattractive positions. Even complaints about disgusting diseases, about a dirty toilet *(( Likhachev D.S. Poem about the life of the patriarchal singers. // TODRL. T. XIV. 1958. P. 425.)), reported in the first person, do not confuse the author. This is a simplification of the hero, taken to the limits of the possible. Naturalistic details make this personality completely fallen, " low", almost ugly. A man wanders unknown where on earth - as it is, without any embellishment. But it is remarkable that it is precisely in this method of depicting a person that the consciousness of the value of the human person in itself most clearly appears: naked, hungry, barefoot, sinful, without any hopes for the future, without any signs of any position in society.

“Look at the man,” the authors of these works seem to invite. Look how hard it is for him on this earth! He is lost among the poverty of some and the wealth of others. Today he is rich, tomorrow he is poor; Today he made money for himself, he will live tomorrow. He wanders " between the yard", feeds on alms from time to time, is mired in drunkenness, plays dice. He is powerless to overcome himself, to reach “ saved way" And yet he is worthy of sympathy.

The image of the unknown young man in “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” is especially striking. Here, the sympathy of the readers is enjoyed by a person who has violated the everyday morality of society, deprived of parental blessing, weak-willed, acutely aware of his fall, mired in drunkenness and gambling, who has made friends with tavern roosters and fire pits, wandering to God knows where, thinking about suicide.

The human personality was emancipated in Russia not in the clothes of conquistadors and rich adventurers, not in the magnificent recognition of the artistic gift of Renaissance artists, but in “ Gunka Kabatskaya", at the last stage of the fall, in search of death as liberation from all suffering. And this was a great foreshadowing of the humanistic character of Russian literature of the 19th century. with its theme of value little man, with her sympathy for everyone who suffers and who has not found their true place in life.

A new hero often appears in literature on his own behalf. Many of the works of this time are of the nature of “ inner monologue" And in these speeches to readers, the new hero is often ironic - he seems to be above his suffering, looking at it from the side and with a grin. At the lowest stage of his fall, he retains a sense of his right to a better position: “ And I want to live, just like good people live»; « My mind was strong, but my heart was full of all sorts of thoughts.»; « I live as a kind and nice person, but I have nothing to eat and no one gives me»; « I would wash myself white, dress up nicely, but nothing».

And some are now persecuting those who bear burdens.
To whom God grants honor, the barn is redeemed,
Ovii labored, Ovii entered into their labor.
The Ovii jump, and the Ovii cry.
Some are having fun, others are always teary.
There is a lot to write about how the poor don’t like anyone.
It is better to love the one who is beaten by money.
What to take from the wretched man - order him to be shackled
*{{The ABC is about a naked and poor man. P. 30.}}.

It is remarkable that in the works of democratic literature of the 17th century. there is a teaching voice, but it is not the voice of a self-confident preacher, as in the works of a previous time. This is the voice of an author offended by life or the voice of life itself. Characters perceive the lessons of reality, under their influence they change and make decisions. This was not only an extremely important psychological discovery, but also a literary and plot discovery. The conflict with reality, the impact of reality on the hero, made it possible to construct the narrative differently than it had been constructed before. The hero made decisions not under the influence of the influx of Christian feelings or the instructions and norms of feudal behavior, but as a result of the blows of life, the blows of fate.

In “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” this influence of the surrounding world was personified in the form of friends-advisers and in the form of an unusually vivid image of Grief. First, well done in “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” and “ small and stupid, not fully intelligent and imperfect in mind" He doesn't listen to his parents. But then he listens, although not completely, to his casual friends, asking them for advice. Finally, Grief itself appears. Grief's advice is unkind: this is the embodiment of pessimism generated by bad reality.

Originally Woe " I imagined it"to a young man in a dream in order to disturb him with terrible suspicions:

Well done, refuse your beloved bride -
to be taken away from your bride,
you may yet be strangled by that wife,
of gold and silver to be killed!

Grief advises the young man to go " to the Tsarev tavern", drink away your wealth, put on " gunka tavern“- Grief is not a chaser of the naked, and no one is tied to the naked.

The young man did not believe his dream, and Grief appears to him a second time in his dream:

Ali, well done, unknown to you
nakedness and barefootness immeasurable,
ease, great lack of precedence?
What to buy for yourself will be beaten,
and you, a brave fellow, live like this.
Let them not beat or torture the naked and barefoot,
and the naked and barefoot will not be kicked out of paradise,
but they won’t leave here for the world,
no one will get attached to him,
and the naked and barefoot make a noise of robberies.

With astonishing force, the story unfolds a picture of the young man’s spiritual drama, gradually growing, accelerating in pace, taking on fantastic forms.

Generated by nightmares, Grief soon appears to the young man in reality, at the moment when the young man, driven to despair by poverty and hunger, tries to drown himself in the river. It requires the young man to bow down to “ damp earth“and from that moment on relentlessly follows the young man. Well done, he wants to return to his parents, but grief " it went ahead, I met a young man in an open field", croaks over him, " that the evil crow is over the falcon»:

Stop, don’t leave, good fellow!
Not for an hour, I became attached to you, unfortunate grief,
I’ll suffer with you until I die.
I’m not alone, Grief, there are also relatives,
and all our relatives are kind;
we are all smooth, sweet,
and whoever joins our family,
otherwise he will suffer between us,
Such is our fate and the best.
Although I throw myself into the birds of the air,
although you go into the blue sea as a fish,
and I will go with you arm in arm on the right.

It is clear that the author of “The Tale of Misfortune” is not on the side of these “life lessons”, not on the side of Grief with its distrust of people and deep pessimism. In the dramatic conflict between the young man and Grief, who embodies the evil reality, the author of the “Tale” is on the side of the young man. He sympathizes with him deeply.

This separation of the author’s point of view from the moral teachings presented in the work, the justification of a person who, from a church point of view, could not help but be considered a “sinner”, was a remarkable phenomenon in the literature of the 17th century. It meant the death of the medieval normative ideal and the gradual emergence of literature onto a new path of inductive artistic generalization - a generalization based on reality, and not on the normative ideal.

The entire work of Avvakum is in close connection with the general tendencies of justification of the human personality, so characteristic of democratic literature. The only difference is that in the work of Avvakum this justification of the individual is felt with greater force and is carried out with incomparable subtlety.

The justification of man is combined in the work of Avvakum, as in all democratic literature, with a simplification of the artistic form, a desire for vernacular language, and a rejection of traditional ways of idealizing a person.

The value of feeling, spontaneity, the inner, spiritual life of a person was proclaimed by Avvakum with exceptional passion. Sympathy or anger, scolding or affection - everything is in a hurry to pour out from his pen. " Strike the soul before god» *{{ Hereinafter quoted from the publication: Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself // Monuments of the history of the Old Believers of the 17th century. Book I. Pg., 1916 (italics mine.- D.L.). )) - that’s the only thing he strives for. No compositional harmony, no shadow " convolutions of words"in the depiction of a person, neither familiar in ancient Russian teaching literature" red words“- nothing that would constrain his excessively ardent feeling in everything that concerns a person and his inner life. Church rhetoric, which is not uncommon in Avvakum’s work, did not touch the image of a person. None of the writers of the Russian Middle Ages wrote as much about their feelings as Avvakum. He grieves, grieves, cries, is afraid, regrets, wonders, etc. In his speech there are constant comments about the moods he experiences: “ oh, woe is me!», « much sad», « I'm sorry..."Both he himself and those about whom he writes sigh and cry every now and then: " ...the little ones cry, looking at us, and we at them»; « a smart person should look at them, and even cry looking at them»; « cried and threw himself into my carbass»; « and everyone cries and bows" Avvakum notes in detail all external manifestations of feelings: “ my heart went cold and my legs trembled" He also describes in detail bows, gestures, and prayers: “ hits himself and groans, and he speaks»; « and he bowed low to me, and he himself said: “God save me”».

He strives to arouse the sympathy of readers, complains about his suffering and sorrows, asks for forgiveness for his sins, describes all his weaknesses, including the most everyday ones.

One cannot think that this justification of man concerns only Habakkuk himself. Even his enemies, even his personal tormentors, are portrayed by him with sympathy for their human suffering. Just read the wonderful picture of Avvakum’s suffering on the Sparrow Hills: “ Then the king sent the half-head with the archers, and they took me to the Sparrow Hills; right there - the priest Lazarus and the elder Epiphanius, they were cursed and shorn, just as I was before. They put us in different yards; relentlessly 20 people of archers, and a half-head, and a centurion stood over us - they took care of us, favored us, and at night they sat with fire, and escorted us out to the yard. Christ have mercy on them! straight good archers are those people and children will not be like that, suffer there, with fiddling with us; whatever need happens, and all sorts of things, dear ones, they make you happy... One the mourners drink until they are drunk, and the swearers curse, otherwise they would be equal to the martyrs ». « The devil is wicked before me, but people are all kind to me“says Habakkuk in another place.

Sympathy for one's tormentors was completely incompatible with medieval techniques for depicting a person in the 11th-16th centuries. This sympathy became possible thanks to the writer’s penetration into the psychology of the persons depicted. For Avvakum, each person is not an abstract character, but a living one, closely familiar to him. Habakkuk knows well those about whom he writes. They are surrounded by a very concrete way of life. He knows that his tormentors are only performing their archery service, and therefore is not angry with them.

We have already seen that the image of a person is inserted into the everyday frame in other works of Russian literature of the 17th century - in “The Life of Uliana Osorina”, in “The Tale of Martha and Mary”. In democratic literature, the everyday environment is clearly felt in “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, in “The Tale of Shemyakina’s Court”, in “Service to the Tavern”, in “The Tale of Priest Sava”, in “The Tale of a Peasant Son”, in “Poem about Life” patriarchal singers”, etc. In all these works, everyday life serves as a means of simplifying man, destroying his medieval idealization.

In contrast to all these works, Avvakum’s commitment to everyday life reaches absolutely exceptional strength. Outside of everyday life, he does not imagine his characters at all. He puts completely general and abstract ideas into everyday forms.

Avvakum’s artistic thinking is all permeated with everyday life. Like the Flemish artists who transferred biblical events to their native setting, Habakkuk even depicts the relationships between characters in church history in the social categories of his time: “ I am like a beggar, walking the streets of the city and asking for alms through the windows. Having finished that day and fed his household, he dragged himself away again in the morning. So, I, dragging myself all day, collect and I suggest to you, the church nurseries: let us have fun and live. U Bogatova man I will ask Christ from the Gospel for a loaf of bread, from Paul the Apostle, from bogatova guest, and from his messages I will ask for bread from Chrysostom, from trading person, I will receive a piece of his words from King David and Isaiah the prophets, from townspeople, I begged for a quarter of the bread; I have collected a purse, and I give it to you also to the inhabitants of the house of my God».

It is clear that life here is glorified. And it is remarkable that in the works of Avvakum the personality is again elevated, full of special pathos. She is heroic in a new way, and this time everyday life serves to heroize her. Medieval idealization elevated the personality above everyday life, above reality - Avvakum forces himself to fight this reality and heroizes himself as a fighter against it in all the little things of everyday life, even when he, “ like a dog in a straw", lay when his back " rotten" And " there were a lot of fleas and lice"when he was eating" all kinds of filth».

« It's not for us to go to Persida tormentor, says Habakkuk, otherwise they made money at home Babylon" In other words: you can become a martyr, a hero in the most everyday, home environment.

The conflict of the individual with the surrounding reality, so characteristic of democratic literature, reaches terrible strength in his “Life”. Avvakum strives to subjugate reality, master it, and populate it with his ideas. That is why it seems to Habakkuk in a dream that his body is growing and filling the entire Universe.

He dreams about this in a dream, but in reality he continues to fight. He does not agree to withdraw into himself, in his personal sorrows. He considers all issues of the world order to be his own; he does not shy away from any of them. He is painfully wounded by the ugliness of life, its sinfulness. Hence the passionate need for preaching. His “Life,” like all his other works, is a continuous sermon, a sermon that sometimes reaches the point of frantic screaming. Preaching pathos is revived in a new way, in new forms in the works of Avvakum, along with it the monumentality in the depiction of a person is revived, but the monumentality is completely different, devoid of the former impressiveness and the former abstraction. This is the monumentality of the struggle, a titanic struggle, until death, martyrdom, but quite concrete and everyday. That is why everyday life itself acquires some special shade of pathos in Avvakum’s works. The chains, the earthen prison, the hardships of poverty are the same as in other democratic works, but they are consecrated by his struggle, his martyrdom. The cabbage soup that Avvakum eats in the basement of the Andronikov Monastery is the same as in any peasant family of that time, but it is served to him by an angel. The same black hen that he got for himself in Siberia, but she lays two eggs a day for Avvakum. And this is interpreted by Habakkuk as a miracle. Everything is sanctified by the aura of martyrdom for the faith. His entire literary position was also sanctified by him.

In the face of martyrdom and death, he is alien to lies, pretense, and deceit. " Hey, that's good!», « I'm not lying!“- his writings are full of such passionate assurances of the veracity of his words. He " living Dead», « earthen soldier“- he should not value the external form of his works: “ ...God no longer listens to the words of the Reds, but He wants our deeds" That’s why you need to write without any subtlety or embellishment: “ ...tell me, I suppose, hold your conscience tightly».

Habakkuk wrote his works at a time when the aura of martyrdom was already flickering over him, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his followers. That is why both his vernacular and his “everydayism” in the description own life had a special, heroic character. The same heroism is felt in the image of a martyr for the faith he created.

The pathos of struggle permeates all his works, all literary details: from the earthen pit and the gallows to the titanic landscape of Dauria with its high mountains and stone cliffs. He enters into an argument with Christ himself: “...why did You, Son of God, allow him to kill me in such a painful way? I became a veterinarian for Your widows! Who will judge between me and You? When I stole, you didn’t insult me ​​like that; but now we do not know that we have sinned! »

In the works of Avvakum, in the special style he developed, which could be called the style of pathetic simplification of man, the literature of Ancient Rus' again rose to the monumentalism of previous art, to universal human and “world” themes, but on a completely different basis. The power of the individual in itself, outside of any official position, the power of a person deprived of everything, plunged into earthen pit, a person whose tongue has been cut out is deprived of the opportunity to write and communicate with outside world whose body is rotting, who is eaten by lice, who is threatened with the most terrible tortures and death at the stake - this power appeared in the works of Avvakum with stunning force and completely eclipsed the external power of the official position of the feudal lord, whom the Russians followed with such fidelity in many cases historical works XI-XVI centuries

The discovery of the value of the human personality in itself concerned not only the style of depicting a person in literature. This was also a discovery of the value of the author's personality. Hence the emergence of a new type of professional writer, awareness of the value of the author's text, the emergence of the concept of author's property, which does not allow the simple borrowing of text from predecessors, and the abolition of compilation as a principle of creativity. From here, from this discovery of the value of the human person, comes the characteristic of the 17th century. interest in autobiographies (Abakkuk, Epiphany, Eleazar of Anzersky, etc.), as well as personal notes about events (Andrei Matveev about the Streletsky revolt).

IN fine arts the discovery of the value of the human personality manifests itself in a very diverse way: parsuns (portraits) appear, linear perspective develops, providing for a single individual point of view on the image, illustrations appear for works of democratic literature depicting the “average” person, popular prints are born.

The nature of the social movement of the 70s and the course of the entire post-reform development determined the further intensive process of the comprehensive democratization of literature. It found expression in the desire of realist writers for a broad and comprehensive study and coverage of social changes in the lives of the masses, in the determination to penetrate into the ideology and psychology of the worker, into his way of life, culture, and beliefs. Intensive work on the study of folk life, done in the 60s, brought results.

Understanding the people's view of the world, assessing what is happening from the point of view of people's interests, comprehending moral principles folk worldview, insight into the features of aesthetics folk art, mastering the riches of folk thought and language, the desire to create literature necessary for the people - these are the most important aspects of the process of democratization of literature of this time. It covered the work of a wide range of writers of different talents and directions.

Undoubtedly, the largest and central figure in democratic literature in this period was Nekrasov. His influence on the development of literature, as is now obvious, is not limited to poetry. His creativity and organizational activities cover all literature, including various aspects aesthetic perception reality.

This is precisely where the reasons for the enthusiastic reception of Nekrasov’s poetry both by revolutionary populist circles, and even by such ideological opponents of revolutionary change in the world as Dostoevsky, are rooted. “How much,” he exclaimed, “Nekrasov, as a poet<...>occupied places in my life!

Nekrasov’s influence on democratic literature of the 70s was multifaceted and deeply fruitful. The creation of the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” opened up truly boundless prospects for literature on the path of realism and nationalism.

Nekrasov, like none of his contemporaries, imagined ways of comprehensive democratization of literature not only theoretically, but also, with his creativity, practically solved these problems. For him, the aesthetics of folk art and literature addressed to the people were not abstract concepts.

Together with Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin walked in the same direction, but on his own creative paths, for whom the people's point of view on the world became the basis for his sharp and uncompromising criticism of the existing order. “The only fertile soil for satire,” he declared, “is the soil of the people.”<...>The further the satirist penetrates into the depths of this life, the more weighty his word becomes, the clearer his task is depicted, the more undeniable the meaning of his activity comes to light.”

Undoubtedly, this declaration in its essence was a program for literature as a whole. For the work of the satirist himself in the 70s. characterized by an increase in “heartache” for the people and those who lay down their “living souls” for their vital interests.

Other major realist writers were also deeply aware of the extreme importance of the problems of people's life for the development of literature. This awareness was not only speculative, but also a spiritual experience, a creative impulse in practical literary activity. For Dostoevsky, due to his life experience, the folk theme did not become the subject of widespread creative development.

But as an ideologist, he well understood the central importance of the problems associated with the situation of the people. “The question of the people,” he wrote in “The Diary of a Writer” in 1876, “now we have the most important question, which lies in our entire future, even, so to speak, our most practical question now.”

In the novels “Teenager” and “The Brothers Karamazov”, the social problems of people’s life and the people’s worldview occupied an important place and became key to characterizing the ideological and spiritual searches of the main characters. However, the understanding of the role of the people by the writer himself, especially the historical destinies of the Russian people, was very complex and contradictory.

The 70s were a milestone for L. Tolstoy in understanding the issues of people's life and at the same time in understanding the meaning of his activities. Awareness of duty to the people has always distinguished the writer; it was essentially decisive in his ideological and creative path. The work on the “ABC” in the 70s, the creation of books to educate the people, for the public reader are in undoubted connection with the phenomena that took place in literature and in public life.

Tolstoy closely follows the political trials of revolutionaries; the fate of the defendants worries the writer. Occupy him and artistic designs related to the life of the people. Social tragedy of the working masses during the famine in the Volga region in 1873-1874. deeply struck the writer’s heart. All this inevitably led Tolstoy to that spiritual crisis, to that ideological restructuring that took place in the late 70s and early 80s. and found its expression in “Confession” and other works of a journalistic and religious-philosophical nature.

The 70s were significant in the ideological and creative path for Leskov and Pisemsky. P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky is also close to them. We can say that it was precisely the problems of folk life, a versatile study of the fundamental foundations of Russian reality that “led” these original realist artists away from the camp of ideological and political reaction, which had such a detrimental effect on their work in the 60s.

In the subsequent period, they emerged from an ideological and creative impasse and, despite the complexity of their ideological positions, were able to create large, realistic canvases of the life of multi-class Russia. These are “The Soborians”, “The Tale of Lefty”, “Little Things in the Bishop’s Life” by Leskov, the novel “The Bourgeois”, the drama “Baal”, “Financial Genius” by Pisemsky, the novels “In the Forests” and “On the Mountains” by Melnikov-Pechersky.

Issues of national life were closely intertwined in the works of writers of different ideological orientations with the problem of historical activity, activity in order to change reality, with the question of positive hero in the setting of the 70s.

In solving this problem, the attitude of the authors of certain works to the modern social movement in general, to the revolutionary struggle of the populists in particular, was determined with the greatest “frankness” and severity. In solving this problem, the evolution of a number of writers during this period was most clearly defined - from “Demons” to “The Brothers Karamazov” by Dostoevsky, from “Smoke” to “Novi” by Turgenev, as well as a departure from anti-nihilistic themes by Leskov and Pisemsky.

The aforementioned political trials of participants in the revolutionary populist movement, starting from the trials of the Nechaevites and Dolgushins and ending with the trials of the second half of the 70s, played an important role in the growth of self-awareness of Russian society. (over V.I. Zasulich, in the case of 50, 193, etc.).

The court materials, despite all the police and censorship restrictions, revealed to society the drama and dedication of the revolutionaries’ struggle, showed - contrary to the intentions of the organizers of the trials - courage, heroism, the height of their spiritual and moral character. Of course, writers followed these processes with intense attention. A sympathetic attitude towards the “nihilists” was reflected in a number of works by Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gl. Uspensky, Osipovich-Novodvorsky and others.

It would be an exaggeration to consider that all these events dealt a blow to anti-nihilistic literature - she interpreted this material in her own way. However, undoubtedly, for those writers and readers who at a certain stage were sincerely mistaken about the life image of the “nihilists,” the materials of the trials contributed to the elimination of erroneous and one-sided ideas.

An important feature of the literary and social life of the 70s. is the expansion of ideological, literary and artistic ties between Russia and the social life and literature of Western Europe. The development of bourgeois relations in the West, the growth of the revolutionary movement of the working masses, new trends in philosophical and scientific thought found a lively and effective response in the advanced democratic circles of Russia. The events of the Paris Commune deeply agitated the revolutionary youth, capturing literature as well.

Increasingly, messages about the works of Marx and Engels are penetrating the pages of the Russian press and into radical circles. This is also facilitated by the wide personal connections of the founders of Marxism with the leaders of the Russian revolutionary movement.

True, during this period, Marxism often reached Russia in a populist interpretation, nevertheless, this expanded the ideas of Russian society about the progressive thought of the West. At the same time, the ideologists of populism contributed greatly to the spread of the ideas of positivism, which also captured the field of aesthetics. This could not but have a negative impact on the level of Russian aesthetic and critical thought of the 70s.

Of significant importance for Russian society was wide familiarization with the latest literature foreign countries. On the pages of the largest printed publications (in Otechestvennye zapiski, Delo, Vestnik Evropy, etc.), the reader found many translated novels, stories, essays, and poems by both famous and sometimes very minor writers and poets.

French literature was especially popular (V. Hugo, Erkmann-Chatrian, E. Zola, A. Daudet, E. and J. Goncourt), F. Spielhagen, K. Gutzkow, W. Thackeray, D. Elliott, G. Longfellow, M. Twain, etc. In the late 70s - early 80s. works of writers are increasingly appearing in Russian translation Slavic countries, especially Poland (G. Sienkiewicz, B. Prus, E. Orzeszko, L. Kondratovich, etc.).

The artistic quests of Western European writers were actively discussed on the pages of Russian literary magazines. The experience and aesthetic declarations of E. Zola were of particular interest.

His novels were translated extensively throughout the 70s and 80s. If the research experiments of Zola the novelist could not help but attract attention, then the aesthetic manifestos of naturalism in the heyday of Russian realistic literature did not find any significant sympathy; on the contrary, they were subjected to varied criticism.

Along with the growth of literary communication, recognition of the global significance of Russian literature is becoming wider. The works of Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, as well as most important works other realist writers become an important factor in the development of world literature.

Complexity, richness, diversity and at the same time often contradictory general picture of literary life of the 70s, closely connected with the political struggle of that time, with contradictory theories of transformation human society, determined the tension and intensity of ideological and aesthetic quests in artistic creativity and in the development of realism.

Not only literary critics, but also literary creators - poets, writers, playwrights - make aesthetic declarations, theoretical reflections on the ways of development of literature, and various assessments of specific works. These speeches themselves take the form of not only articles and reviews, but are often included in the pages of works of art.

Such, for example, are Saltykov-Shchedrin’s reflections on the development of the social novel in the essays “Gentlemen of Tashkent,” Dostoevsky’s reflections on the Russian novelist in “The Teenager,” not to mention his “Diary of a Writer.” The problems of democratization of literature and its ideological and artistic restructuring occupied L. Tolstoy. While working on the ABC, he reflects on the further development of Russian literature and predicts its new revival among the people. Ch. wrote more than once about the development of democratic literature in his essays. Uspensky.

Literary criticism did not play such an effective, active role in the literary process as revolutionary-democratic criticism played in the 60s. The most significant in its place in the literary and social struggle of the 70s. there was populist criticism (N.K. Mikhailovsky, P.N. Tkachev, A.M. Skabichevsky, etc.). She played a significant role in supporting and promoting democratic literature and in the fight against reaction.

The critical departments of Otechestvennye zapiski and Delo paid much attention to polemics on issues of modern literary and social life. At the same time, populist critics were unable to appreciate and reveal the deep progressive ideological and aesthetic meaning of a number of the largest achievements of modern literature, including such works as Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Turgenev’s Nov, and Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy and etc.

Populist criticism was prevented from doing this by undoubted deviations from the principles of revolutionary-democratic criticism and aesthetics of the 60s. towards positivism, a mechanistic approach to the problems of artistic creativity.

Other trends (conservative-idealistic, as well as reactionary-protective in nature) in the criticism of the 70s. did not put forward any significant concepts for understanding literature. Only the birth of Marxist literary criticism in the subsequent period, it advanced the development of the theoretical foundations of literature and the understanding of the deep connections of artistic creativity with reality.

Meanwhile, the literature of the 70s, which in many ways did not satisfy contemporaries, not only due to the difference in the ideological positions of the writers, but also in its aesthetic, artistic features, represented, as it became clearly clear from a historical perspective, a picture of extraordinary artistic wealth, diversity of aesthetic values, creative directions, fruitful searches for something new, deeply promising for the further development of the artistic word.

These achievements, searches, discoveries are in direct connection with the best traditions of realism in Russian and world literature, at the same time they are generated by the ideological demands of the time, the severity and drama of the unfolding social struggle, the high intellectual level of the participants in this struggle, the awareness of its deep national origins in social, spiritual and material life of the Russian people.

The development of the creative method of realism in literature, as well as in art in general, has proven at this stage its fruitfulness and inexhaustibility in renewal. artistic means knowledge and reflection of reality.

The need for a radical restructuring of the existing society necessarily led writers with democratic aspirations to a comprehensive analysis of the social aspects of life of the most diverse strata of society, the broad working masses in particular. It was during this period that an “artistic” study of the life of the peasant masses and the post-reform village unfolded, unprecedented in scope.

In connection with this study, one should consider the enormous significance of the works of Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gleb Uspensky and the entire galaxy of writers of populist, democratic orientation, which consisted in the fact that in new historical conditions they were able to advance the development of existing genres - poems, novels, essays.

This led to the renewal and enrichment of the artistic possibilities of these genres - such is the uniqueness of the epic “Who Lives Well in Rus'” created by Nekrasov, such are the “social” novels and cycles of essays by Saltykov-Shchedrin filled with a sharp social analysis of reality, cycles of peasant essays that are epic in their breadth of coverage of folk life Gleb Uspensky.

It is noteworthy that it was the novel and the essay that experienced the most intense changes during this period, and in their development there was a clear desire for both demarcation (such, for example, the decisive rejection of the form of the novel by G. Uspensky), and synthesis (such, for example, the “essay” origin of the populist novel).

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.

Democratic writers have given enormous
material for knowledge of economics
everyday life... psychological characteristics
people... depicted their morals, customs,
his moods and desires.
M. Gorky

In the 60s of the 19th century, the emergence of realism as a complex and diverse phenomenon was associated with the deepening of literature into the coverage of peasant life, into the inner world of the individual, into the spiritual life of the people. The literary process of realism is an expression of various facets of life and at the same time the desire for a new harmonic synthesis, merging with the poetic element of folk art. Art world Russia with its original, highly spiritual, primordial national art folk poetry has constantly aroused the keen interest of literature. Writers turned to the artistic understanding of folk moral and poetic culture, the aesthetic essence and poetics of folk art, as well as folklore as an integral folk worldview.

It was the folk principles that were the exceptional factor that determined, to some extent, the development of Russian literature in the second half of the 19th century and especially Russian democratic prose. Folklore and ethnography in the literary process of time become the phenomenon that determines aesthetic character many works of the 1840-1860s.

The theme of the peasantry permeates all Russian literature of the 19th century. Literature goes deeper into the coverage of peasant life, into the inner world and national character people. In the works of V.I. Dalia, D.V. Grigorovich, in “Notes of a Hunter” by I.S. Turgenev, in “Essays from Peasant Life” by A.F. Pisemsky, in the stories of P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, N.S. Leskov, early L.N. Tolstoy, P.I. Yakushkina, S.V. Maksimov, in Russian democratic prose of the 60s and in general in Russian realism of the second half of the 19th century, the desire to recreate pictures of people's life was imprinted.

Already in the 1830-1840s, the first works on the actual ethnographic study of the Russian people appeared: collections of songs, fairy tales, proverbs, legends, descriptions of the morals and customs of antiquity, folk art. A lot of song and other folklore and ethnographic material appears in magazines. At this time, ethnographic research, as noted by the famous literary scholar and critic of the 19th century A.N. Pypin, proceed from the conscious intention to study the true character of the people in its true expressions in the content of folk life and ancient legends.

The collection of ethnographic materials in the subsequent 50s “took on truly grandiose proportions.” This was facilitated by the influence of the Russian Geographical Society, the Moscow Society of History and Antiquities, a number of scientific, including literary, expeditions of the 50s, as well as a new body of folk studies that arose in the 60s - the Moscow Society of Lovers of Natural History, Anthropology and Ethnography.

The great role of the outstanding folklorist-collector P.V. Kireevsky. Already in the 30s of the 19th century, he managed to create a kind of collecting center and involve his outstanding contemporaries in the study and collection of folklore - up to A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol inclusive. The songs, epics and spiritual poems published by Kireyevsky were the first monumental collection of Russian folklore.

In a collection of songs, Kireyevsky wrote: “Whoever has not heard a Russian song even above his cradle and who has not been accompanied by its sounds in all the transitions of life, of course, his heart will not flutter at its sounds: it is not like those sounds on which his soul has grown up, or she will be incomprehensible to him as an echo of the rude mob, with whom he feels nothing in common; or, if she has a special musical talent, he will be curious about her as something original and strange...” 1 . His attitude towards folk song, which embodied both personal inclinations and ideological convictions, led to his turning to practical work over collecting Russian songs.

The love for Russian song will subsequently unite the members of the “young editorial staff” of the Moskvityanin magazine, and S.V. will write about it. Maksimov, P.I. Yakushkin, F.D. Nefedov, the song genre of folk poetry will organically enter their literary work.

“Moskvityanin” published songs, fairy tales, descriptions of individual rituals, correspondence, articles about folklore and folk life.

M.P. Pogodin, magazine editor, writer and prominent public figure, with exceptional persistence put forward the task of collecting monuments of folk art and folk life, intensively recruited collectors from different strata of society, and attracted them to participate in the magazine. He also contributed to the first steps in this field of P.I. Yakushkina.

A special role in the development of ethnographic interests of writers was played by the “young editorial staff” of the magazine “Moskvityanin”, headed by A.N. Ostrovsky. At different times, the “young editorial staff” included: A.A. Grigoriev, E. Endelson, B. Almazov, M. Stakhovich, T. Filippov, A.F. Pisemsky and P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky.

Already in the 40s and early 50s, Russian literature turned more deeply to the peasant theme. In the literary process of time, the natural school occupies a leading place 2.

NATURAL SCHOOL - designation of a species that existed in the 40-50s of the 19th century Russian realism(as defined by Yu.V. Mann), continuously associated with the work of N.V. Gogol and those who developed him artistic principles. The natural school includes the early works of I.A. Goncharova, N.A. Nekrasova, I.S. Turgeneva, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.I. Herzen, D.V. Grigorovich, V.I. Dalia, A.N. Ostrovsky, I.I. Panaeva, Ya.P. Butkova and others. The main ideologist of the natural school was V.G. Belinsky, its development theoretical principles V.N. also contributed Maikov, A.N. Pleshcheev and others. Representatives were grouped around the magazines “Otechestvennye zapiski” and later “Sovremennik”. The collections “Physiology of St. Petersburg” (parts 1-2, 1845) and “Petersburg Collection” (1846) became the program for the natural school. In connection with the latest edition, the name itself arose.

F.V. Bulgarin (“Northern Bee”, 1846, No. 22) used it to discredit writers of the new direction; Belinsky, Maikov and others took this definition, filling it with positive content. The novelty of the artistic principles of the natural school was most clearly expressed in “physiological essays” - works that aim to extremely accurately record certain social types (“physiology” of a landowner, peasant, official), their specific differences (“physiology” of a St. Petersburg official, Moscow official), social, professional and everyday characteristics, habits, attractions, etc. By striving for documentation, for precise detail, using statistical and ethnographic data, and sometimes introducing biological accents into the typology of characters, the “physiological sketch” expressed the tendency of a certain convergence of figurative and scientific consciousness at this time and... contributed to the expansion of the positions of realism. At the same time, it is unlawful to reduce the natural school to “physiologies”, because other genres rose above them - novel, story 3 .

Writers of the natural school - N.A. Nekrasov, N.V. Gogol, I.S. Turgenev, A.I. Herzen, F.M. Dostoevsky - known to students. However, speaking about this literary phenomenon, we should also consider writers who remain outside the literary education of schoolchildren, such as V.I. Dahl, D.V. Grigorovich, A.F. Pisemsky, P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, with whose work students are not familiar, but their works develop peasant theme, being the beginning of literature from peasant life, continued and developed by the fiction writers of the sixties. Familiarity with the work of these writers seems necessary and deepens students’ knowledge of the literary process.

In the 1860s, the peasant element most widely penetrated the cultural process of the era. The literature affirms the “folk direction” (term by A.N. Pypin). Peasant types and folk image lives are fully included in Russian literature.

Russian democratic prose, represented in the literary process by the works of N.G., made its special contribution to the depiction of people’s life. Pomyalovsky 4, V.A. Sleptsova, N.V. Uspensky, A.I. Levitova, F.M. Reshetnikova, P.I. Yakushkina, S.V. Maksimova. Having entered the literary process during the revolutionary situation in Russia and in the post-reform era, it reflected a new approach to depicting the people, highlighted real pictures of their life, and became "sign of the times", recreated the peasant world in Russian literature at a turning point in history, capturing various trends in the development of realism 5 .

The emergence of democratic prose was caused by changing historical and social circumstances, the socio-political conditions of life in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, and the arrival of writers in literature for whom “the study of people’s life became a necessity” (A.N. Pypin) 6 . Democratic writers uniquely reflected the spirit of the era, its aspirations and hopes. They, as A.M. wrote. Gorky, “gave enormous material for understanding the economic life, psychological characteristics of the people... depicted their morals, customs, their mood and desires” 7 .

The people of the sixties drew their impressions from the depths of people's life, from direct communication with Russian peasants. The peasantry as the main social force in Russia, defining the concept of the people at that time, became the main theme of their work. Democratic writers created a generalized image of people's Russia in their essays and stories. They created in Russian literature their own special social world, their own epic of folk life. “The whole of hungry and downtrodden Russia, sedentary and wandering, devastated by feudal predation and ruined by bourgeois, post-reform predation, was reflected, as in a mirror, in the democratic essay literature of the 60s...” 8 .

The works of the sixties are characterized by a range of related themes and problems, a commonality of genres and structural and compositional unity. At the same time, each of them is a creative individual, each of them has their own special style. Gorky called them “diversely and widely talented people.”

Democratic writers, in essays and stories, recreated the artistic epic of the life of peasant Rus', drawing closer and individually apart in their work in depicting the folk theme.

Their works reflected the very essence of the most important processes that formed the content of Russian life in the 60s. It is known that the measure of the historical progressiveness of each writer is measured by the degree of his conscious or spontaneous approach to democratic ideology, reflecting the interests of the Russian people. However, democratic fiction reflects not only the ideological and social phenomena of the era; it definitely and widely goes beyond ideological trends. The prose of the sixties is included in the literary process of the time, continuing the traditions of the natural school, correlating with the artistic experience of Turgenev, Grigorovich, which reflected the peculiar artistic coverage of democratic writers people's world, including an ethnographically accurate description of life.

Democratic fiction with its ethnographic orientation, standing out from the general flow of development of Russian prose, took a certain place in the process of formation of Russian realism. She enriched him with a number of artistic discoveries and confirmed the need for the writer to use new aesthetic principles in selection and lighting life phenomena in the conditions of the revolutionary situation of the 1860s, which posed the problem of the people in literature in a new way.

The description of people's life with reliable accuracy of an ethnographic nature was noticed by revolutionary-democratic criticism and was expressed in the requirements for literature to write about the people “the truth without any embellishment,” as well as “in the correct transmission of actual facts,” “in paying attention to all aspects of the life of the lower classes " Realistic everyday life writing was closely connected with elements of ethnography. Literature took a new look at the life of peasants and their existing living conditions. According to N.A. Dobrolyubov, the explanation of this matter has become no longer a toy, not a literary whim, but an urgent need of the time. The writers of the sixties uniquely reflected the spirit of the era, its aspirations and hopes. Their work clearly documented changes in Russian prose, its democratic character, ethnographic orientation, ideological and artistic originality and genre expression.

In the works of the sixties, a common range of related themes and problems, a commonality of genres and structural and compositional unity are distinguished. At the same time, each of them is a creative individual, each of them has their own individual style. N.V. Uspensky, V.A. Sleptsov, A.I. Levitov, F.M. Reshetnikov, G.I. Uspensky brought their understanding of peasant life into literature, each capturing folk paintings in their own way.

The people of the sixties showed deep interest in folk studies. Democratic literature strove for ethnography and folklorism, for the development of people's life, merged with it, penetrated into popular consciousness. The works of the sixties were an expression of everyday life personal experience studying Russia and the life of the people. They created in Russian literature their own special social world, their own epic of folk life. The life of Russian society in the pre-reform and post-reform eras and, above all, in the peasant world - main topic their creativity.

In the 60s, the search for new principles continued artistic image people. Democratic prose provided examples of the ultimate truth in reflection of life for art, and confirmed the need for new aesthetic principles in the selection and illumination of life phenomena. The harsh, “idealless” depiction of everyday life entailed a change in the nature of prose, its ideological and artistic originality and genre expression 9 .

Democratic writers were artist-researchers, writers of everyday life; in their work, fiction came into close contact with economics, ethnography, and folk studies 10 in the broad sense of the word, operated with facts and figures, was strictly documentary, gravitated toward everyday life, while remaining at the same time time for the artistic study of Russia. The fiction writers of the sixties were not only observers and recorders of facts, they tried to understand and reflect the social reasons that gave rise to them. The writing of everyday life brought tangible concreteness, vitality, and authenticity to their works.

Naturally, democratic writers were guided by folk culture, on the traditions of folklore. In their work there was an enrichment and deepening of Russian realism. Democratic themes expanded, literature was enriched with new facts, new observations, features of everyday life and customs of people's life, mainly peasant life. The writers, with all the brightness of their creative individualities, were close in expressing their ideological and artistic tendencies; they were united by ideological affinity, artistic principles, the search for new themes and heroes, the development of new genres, and common typological features.

The sixties created their own artistic forms - genres. Their prose was predominantly narrative and sketch. Essays and stories by writers appeared as a result of their observation and study of the life of the people, their social status, way of life and morals. Numerous meetings at inns, taverns, at post stations, in train cars, on the road, on the steppe road also determined the peculiar specificity of the style of their works: the predominance of dialogue over description, the abundance of skillfully conveyed folk speech, contact between the narrator and the reader, concreteness and factuality, ethnographic accuracy, appeal to the aesthetics of oral folk art, the introduction of abundant folklore inclusions. IN artistic system The sixties showed a penchant for everyday life, concreteness of life, strict documentaryism, objective recording of sketches and observations, originality of composition (the breakdown of the plot into individual episodes, scenes, sketches), journalisticism, orientation towards folk culture and folklore traditions.

Narrative-essay democratic prose was a natural phenomenon in the literary process of the 60s. According to M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, the sixties did not pretend to create holistic, artistically complete paintings. They were limited to “excerpts, essays, sketches, sometimes remaining at the level of facts, but they prepared the way for new literary forms, more widely covering the diversity of surrounding life” 11. At the same time, democratic fiction itself already outlined holistic pictures of peasant life, achieved by the idea of ​​​​an artistic connection of essays, the desire for epic cycles (“Steppe essays” by A. Levitov, cycles by F. Reshetnikov “ Good people”, “Forgotten People”, “From Travel Memoirs”, etc., the contours of the novel from folk life were revealed (F.M. Reshetnikov), the ideological and artistic concept of the people was formed.

The narrative-essay democratic prose of the sixties organically merged into the literary process. The very trend of depicting folk life turned out to be very promising. The traditions of the sixties were developed domestic literature subsequent periods: populist fiction, essays and stories by D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak, V.G. Korolenko, A.M. Gorky.

The socio-political views of the Russian revolutionary democrats who spoke in the 40s of the 19th century were completely different, fundamentally different. Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky, Alexander Ivanovich Herzen and their like-minded people were the most consistent opponents of the feudal-serf system and at the same time came out with sharp criticism of bourgeois social relations. Revolutionary democrats were the ideologists of the exploited masses of pre-reform Russia. They equally rejected both the inhuman oppression of the peasantry by serfs and the cruelty of capitalist exploitation. Between them and the ideologists of the feudal landowners, as well as the ideologists of the growing bourgeoisie, there lay a clear line of irreconcilable class contradictions.

Belinsky, Herzen and their followers were democrats and revolutionaries. They considered it their calling to fight for the interests of the broad masses. “Sociality... is my motto,” Belinsky wrote to Botkin in September 1841. “...What does it matter to me that there is bliss for the elite, when the majority do not even suspect its possibility? Away from me is bliss, if it belongs to me alone out of thousands! I don’t want it if I don’t have it in common with my lesser brothers!

Belinsky's true democracy made him a consistent and ardent opponent of serfdom. An anti-serfdom orientation is characteristic of all his literary activities. It is clearly visible already in Belinsky’s youthful work - in the drama “Dmitry Kalinin”, the author of which was only 20 years old. It permeated all the articles of the great critic in subsequent years, including the famous “Letter to Gogol” (1847), which, as V.I. Lenin wrote, summed up Belinsky’s literary activity and was “...one of the best works of the uncensored democratic press... "

Belinsky constantly felt his blood connection with the people. Emphasizing this in one of his later articles (“A Look at Russian Literature of 1846”), he expressed deep faith in the creative powers of his people and their glorious future: “We Russians have nothing to doubt about our political and state significance: of all the Slavic tribes only we have formed into a strong and powerful state, and both before Peter the Great and after him, until now, we have withstood with honor more than one severe test of fate, but once we were on the verge of death, and always managed to escape from it and then appear in new and greater strength and strength. In a people alien to internal development, there cannot be this fortress, this strength. Yes, we have national life, we are called to tell the world our word, our thought, but what kind of word, what kind of thought - it’s too early for us to worry about that . Our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will recognize this without any effort of intense unraveling, because this word, this thought will be said by them...”

On this firm conviction of vitality Russian people was founded by a sincere and deep patriotism Belinsky. Back at the end of 1839, in conditions of complete lack of rights for the enslaved peasantry, he confidently wrote about the coming flowering of truly folk Russian culture:

“We envy our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who are destined to see Russia in 1940 - standing at the head of the educated world, giving laws to both science and art, and receiving reverent tribute from all enlightened humanity.”

Genuine patriotism is a characteristic feature that determined the entire worldview of revolutionary democrats in the 40s of the 19th century. It flowed from ardent love and respect for his people, alien to representatives of the ruling classes. Suffice it to recall that the above

Belinsky’s words were written only three years after the publication of the famous “philosophical letter” of P. Ya. Chaadaev, imbued with a pessimistic assessment of not only his contemporary reality, but also the future of Russia, in the spirit of typical bourgeois cosmopolitanism. Sharply condemning the “pouchless vagabonds in humanity” - “humanistic cosmopolitans” from among Westerners, Belinsky directly declared his ideological and political independence in this matter: “But, fortunately, I hope to remain in my place, without going over to anyone” 1 .

Confidence in the vitality of the Russian people underlies all the activities of revolutionary democrats who devoted themselves to protecting the people's interests. Having received the opportunity to write openly in emigration, Herzen already in 1849 directly pointed out his “...blood connection with the people, in whom he found so many responses to the bright and dark sides my soul, whose song and language are my life and my language."

At this time, setting as its goal the familiarization of European democracy with genuine, people's Russia, he wrote with the pride of a true patriot: “Let it [Europe] get to know better the people whose youthful strength she appreciated in the battle where he remained victorious; Let's tell her about this powerful and mysterious people who quietly formed a state of sixty million, who grew so strongly and amazingly without losing the communal principle, and were the first to carry it through the initial upheavals of state development; about a people who somehow miraculously managed to preserve themselves under the yoke of the Mongol hordes and German bureaucrats, under the corporal's baton of barracks discipline and under the shameful Tatar whip, who retained majestic features, a lively mind and wide revelry rich nature under the yoke of serfdom and in response to the tsar's order to form, he responded a hundred years later with the enormous appearance of Pushkin. Let the Europeans recognize their neighbor; they are only afraid of him, they need to know what they are afraid of.”

Like Belinsky and Herzen, the same kind of convictions were also characteristic of their like-minded people from among the most advanced intelligentsia of that time. In this regard, typical were, for example, the thoughts of a number of Petrashevites, on the formation of whose worldview, by their own admission, Belinsky had a decisive influence. The most striking examples of the connection between the activities of these followers of Belinsky and the interests of the masses can be found in the investigation materials in the case of the Petrashevites, relating to Butashevich-Petrashevsky himself and to Balasoglo.

In his testimony to the investigative commission, Butashevich-Petrashevsky persistently emphasized that he sought to alleviate the plight of the masses, and repeatedly called himself a Russian patriot. Already in a lengthy testimony on May 19-26, 1849, he wrote: “You will hear from [me] opinions that have never been discovered - about important subjects in our public life - the word of a true patriot... Sometimes behind this matter... you will see, as if in perspective, a thousand victims, innocently ruined, thousands of lies that destroy the strength of the Russian people...” He spoke out just as definitely in his testimony given around June 20 of the same year: “Now let me speak, as a Russian and a patriot, for others and for myself.”

Deep confidence in the strength and great future of the Russian people was especially clearly reflected in the note of the Petrashevite A.P. Balasoglo “Project for the establishment of a book warehouse with a library and a printing house,” discovered during a search. Many pages of this wonderful document are imbued with a feeling of genuine pride in our people. Here are just two excerpts from this “project”:

“... In Russia there is and should be everything... There should be people in it - nowhere else but in it. And they were, starting from Peter to the second Russian Lomonosov, the poet-philosopher Koltsov, who died in the prime of his life before our eyes. In Russia there is only no faith in Russia, and rather there is no community, humanity, and not people...

...In her and only in her are all the threads concentrated world history“This Gordian knot, which the Parisian Alexanders so bravely cut, knowing nothing but Europe, and so poorly and so cunningly confuse, imagining that they have unraveled, the patient workers of Germany - these porcupines of European thought, with the pastoral morals of dreamy seals.”

Deep folk character patriotism of revolutionary democrats of the 40s of the XIX century. was determined by the consistent revolutionary nature of their worldview. They saw the irreconcilability of the internal contradictions of the feudal-serf system and considered it inevitable to break it through revolutionary means. They, of course, could not touch on this topic in the conditions of the censored press under Nicholas I. But in personal communication and in correspondence, they directly expressed thoughts about the need for a revolutionary coup in Russia.

It can be pointed out, for example, that this topic was touched upon more than once in Belinsky’s letters. Noting in one of his letters from the mid-40s his belief in “sociality” (“there is nothing higher and nobler than to contribute to its development and progress”), he, clearly polemicizing with the liberal reformist views of Westerners, wrote: “But it’s funny and to think that this can happen by itself, with time, without violent coups, without blood... What would blood be worth a thousand in comparison with the humiliation and suffering of millions?” .

Elsewhere, touching on the same issue, Belinsky spoke even more definitely: “There is nothing to explain here - it is clear that Robespierre is not a limited person, not interesting, not a villain, not a rhetorician, and that the thousand-year kingdom of God will be established on earth not with sweets and the enthusiastic phrases of the ideal and beautiful Gironde, and the terrorists - the double-edged sword of the words and deeds of the Robespierres and Saint-Justs.”

Being true democrats and revolutionaries who realized their blood connection with the people and devoted themselves to protecting their interests, Belinsky, Herzen and their followers were the bearers of the most advanced ideology of their time. No wonder V.I. Lenin, justifying the idea of ​​exclusively great importance For the success of the revolutionary struggle of correct theoretical views, he considered it necessary to mention both Herzen and Belinsky, starting with their names the list of “predecessors of Russian Social Democracy.” “...the role of an advanced fighter,” he wrote in 1902, “can only be fulfilled by a party guided by an advanced theory. And in order to at least somewhat concretely imagine what this means, let the reader remember such predecessors of Russian Social Democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 70s...”

In another of his works dating back to 1920, speaking about the correctness of the revolutionary theory of Marxism alone, V.I. Lenin, as is known, highly appreciated the socio-political worldview of the revolutionary democrats of the 40s of the 19th century. V.I. Lenin defined the period of searches for Marxist theory as “from the 40s to the 90s of the last century”: “Marxism, as the only correct revolutionary theory, Russia has truly suffered through a half-century history of unheard-of torment and sacrifices, unprecedented revolutionary heroism, incredible energy and selflessness of quest, learning, testing in practice, disappointment, testing, comparison of European experience.”

Belinsky, Herzen and other progressive people of the 40s of the 19th century. were revolutionary democrats and socialists. Characterizing Herzen at the time of his departure abroad in 1847,

V.I. Lenin pointed out:

“He was then a democrat, a revolutionary, a socialist.” Belinsky wrote to Botkin on September 8, 1841: “So, I am now in a new extreme - this is the idea of ​​socialism, which has become for me the idea of ​​ideas, the being of being, the question of questions, the alpha and omega of faith and knowledge. Everything is from her, for her and to her.

She is the question and the solution to the question. It (for me) absorbed history, religion, and philosophy. And therefore, with it I now explain my life, yours, and everyone I met along the path of life.”

Interest in the theories of utopian socialists was typical of many progressive people in Russia in the 40s. The works of Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Louis Blanc and others, despite their prohibition by censorship, came to Russia in significant quantities.

The relatively wide distribution of the works of the utopian socialists is confirmed by the results of searches of private individuals and bookstores in connection with the Petrashevites case. When the first group of Petrashevites were arrested, agents of the III Department were ordered to confiscate all the papers of the arrested and the prohibited books found in their possession. With the subsequent arrests of dozens of new people in this case, the order on the books was no longer carried out. Prohibited works were found in the possession of many people, and their presence could not, as it turned out, serve as serious evidence for the prosecution, and samples of them arrived at Count Orlov’s office in abundance already during the first arrests.

Searches of booksellers also yielded similar results. Thousands of volumes of this kind of literature were discovered in bookstores in St. Petersburg, Riga, Dorpat and other cities. It is characteristic, for example, that, having received a reply from the Moscow authorities that no such publications had been found in Moscow, the head of the office of the III department, General. Dubelt imposed a resolution: “I don’t believe it.” Somewhat later, Dubelt’s skepticism was confirmed - it was accidentally discovered that in Moscow Gaultier was selling banned books in his bookstore, and paid for this in 1849 with an administrative penalty.

Not only that: responding to the growing demands of their readers, Russian newspapers and magazines in the 40s of the last century began to systematically mention the appearance abroad of new works of utopian socialists and sometimes annotate them, sometimes in a very favorable light for the authors. And in 1847, in the first four books of Otechestvennye Zapiski, an extensive work (168 large format pages) by V. Milyutin, “Proletarians and Pauperism in England and France,” was published, which systematically presented the teachings of the utopian socialists in a fairly complete and relatively accurate manner.

There is no doubt that not only revolutionary democratic convictions, but also socialist views were characteristic of many representatives of the advanced Russian intelligentsia.

V.I. Lenin’s instruction that the progressive thought of Russian revolutionary democrats already in the 40s of the 19th century. “greedily searched for the correct revolutionary theory,” following the “last word” in this area, finds full confirmation in the penetration of the first works of the founders of Marxism into serf Russia of that time.

Some essential provisions of one of the early works of F. Engels (“Schelling and Revelation”, Leipzig, 1842) became known to readers of Otechestvennye Zapiski already at the very beginning of 1843. In the first issue of this magazine a short article by V. Botkin “German Literature” was published ", which Belinsky responded with full approval in a letter to the author: "Your article is about " German literature“I liked it extremely in No. 1 - smart, efficient and deft.” In this article, Botkin literally quoted in entire paragraphs the text from the introductory part of Engels’s mentioned Leipzig pamphlet, which, by the way, was published without indicating the author’s last name. Here is an example of parallel passages from these two works:

Botkin's article

“His philosophy of religion and philosophy of law would have taken on a different form if he had developed them from pure thought, without including in it the positive elements that lay in the civilization of his time; for this is precisely where the contradictions and incorrect conclusions contained in his philosophy of religion and philosophy of morals flow. The principles in them are always independent, free and true; conclusions and conclusions are often short-sighted.”

Engels's brochure

“... his philosophy of religion and his philosophy of law would certainly have taken a completely different direction if he had abstracted more from those positive elements that permeated the spiritual atmosphere of his era, but had drawn more conclusions from pure ideas. This fundamental sin can explain all the inconsistencies, all the contradictions in Hegel... The principles always bear the stamp of independence and free-thinking, but the conclusions - no one denies this - are often moderate, even conservative.”

As we see, ironically, the role of the first popularizer of Engels’s early works in the Russian press was the typical Westerner V. P. Botkin!

Engels's condensed summary assessment of Hegel's philosophy, translated verbatim along with other texts by Botkin for his article, was undoubtedly remembered by many contemporaries. It is enough to point out that it was repeated almost verbatim again in the mid-50s by N. G. Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature”

In the mid-40s, other works of the founders of Marxism reached Russian revolutionary democrats. From Belinsky's letters we know that back in 1844 he read their articles in the German-French Yearbook. Namely, it was there that the brilliant works that marked the beginning of the great revolution in philosophy were published: the article by K. Marx “On the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law” and “Essays on the Criticism of Political Economy” written by F. Engels.

The Belinsky-Herzen group was undoubtedly aware of Marx's attitude to Proudhon's works: after all, Marx gave an assessment of Proudhon's teachings on December 28, 1846 in a letter to Annenkov. Marx's answer was, of course, reported to Belinsky, with whom Annenkov met abroad in 1847. The early works of Marx and Engels were also known to the Petrashevites. In particular, N. Speshnev could not help but hear about their works during his stay from 1842 to 1846 in Western Europe, where he met Weitling. We also know that the library of the Butashevich-Petrashevsky circle had a Brussels edition (1847) of “The Poverty of Philosophy” by K. Marx. In the list of books intended by the Petrashevites for export from abroad, the book by F. Engels “The Condition of the Working Class in England”, published in 1845 in Leipzig, was mentioned.

Finally, the first mention of K. Marx and F. Engels in the Russian press dates back to the 40s. In 1848, volume 11 of the “Reference Encyclopedic Dictionary” was published, where in the article “Modern Philosophy” it was said: “Neither Marx nor Engels, who, it seems, can be taken as the main preachers of the new German materialism, nor others have not yet made public anything other than the particular features of this teaching.”

Of course, there is no reason to believe that early works Marx and Engels were of decisive importance in the formation of the socio-political views of Russian progressive people of the 40s. In some cases, it is possible to establish a certain influence of the ideas of the founders of Marxism on representatives of progressive thought in Russia at that time, but it was limited, and its degree should not be exaggerated.

The early works of Marx and Engels could have had a certain influence on Belinsky, who was disillusioned at the end of his life with the teachings of the utopian socialists, and, perhaps, under their influence, in some of his last works, when analyzing social relations, he even discovered the rudiments of a materialist understanding of historical phenomena.

But in the historical conditions of serf Russia of the 40s, Belinsky, like Herzen, could not master dialectical materialism. Lenin's characterization of Herzen's social and philosophical views can be fully applied to Belinsky. Being a deep, independent thinker who managed to overcome the contemplative materialism on which Feuerbach stood, V. G. Belinsky came close to dialectical materialism and stopped before historical materialism.

As we see, pre-reform Russia was by no means such a reliable support for the “old order” in Europe as it was during the years of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. Nicholas I supported the thrones of Western European feudal monarchies, while the bourgeois revolution was approaching in Russia itself.

In the second third of the 19th century. in Russia was growing acute crisis feudal economic system. Intensifying class contradictions gave rise to a popular movement, which further undermined the outdated feudal-serf system in Russia.

The inevitability of the collapse of the “old regime” in Russia was understood by a significant part of the progressive people of that time, and in connection with this they were keenly interested in the socio-political life of the bourgeois countries of Western Europe.