Russian literary criticism of the 20th century. Literary criticism

Literary criticism arose simultaneously with literature itself, since the processes of creating a work of art and its professional evaluation are closely interrelated. For centuries literary critics belonged to the cultural elite, because they had to have an exceptional education, serious analytical skills and impressive experience.

Despite the fact that literary criticism appeared in antiquity, it only took shape as an independent profession in the 15th and 16th centuries. Then the critic was considered an impartial “judge” who had to consider the literary value of the work, its compliance with genre canons, and the author’s verbal and dramatic skill. However, gradually literary criticism began to reach a new level, since literary criticism itself developed at a rapid pace and was closely intertwined with other sciences of the humanities cycle.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, literary critics were, without exaggeration, “arbiters of destinies,” since the career of a particular writer often depended on their opinions. If today public opinion is formed in slightly different ways, then in those days it was criticism that had a primary influence on the cultural environment.

The tasks of a literary critic

It was possible to become a literary critic only by understanding literature as deeply as possible. Nowadays, a review of piece of art A journalist, or even an author generally far from philology, can write. However, during the heyday of literary criticism, this function could only be performed by a literary scholar who was no less well versed in philosophy, political science, sociology, and history. The critic's minimum tasks were as follows:

1. Interpretation and literary analysis a work of art;
2. Evaluation of the author from a social, political and historical point of view;
3. Revealing the deep meaning of the book, determining its place in world literature through comparison with other works.

A professional critic invariably influences society by broadcasting his own beliefs. That is why professional reviews are often characterized by irony and harsh presentation of material.

The most famous literary critics

In the West, the strongest literary critics were initially philosophers, among them G. Lessing, D. Diderot, G. Heine. Often reviews of new and popular authors Venerable contemporary writers, for example V. Hugo and E. Zola, also gave.

In North America, literary criticism as a distinct cultural sphere- for historical reasons - it developed much later, so its heyday was already at the beginning of the 20th century. During this period, the key persons were considered V.V. Brooks and W.L. Parrington: it was they who had the greatest influence on the development of American literature.

The golden age of Russian literature was famous for its strongest critics, the most influential of which:

• DI. Pisarev,
• N.G. Chernyshevsky,
• ON THE. Dobrolyubov
• A.V. Druzhinin,
• V.G. Belinsky.

Their works are still included in school and university curricula, along with the masterpieces of literature themselves, to which these reviews were devoted.

For example, Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky, who was unable to finish either the gymnasium or the university, became one of the most influential figures in literary criticism of the 19th century. He has written hundreds of reviews and dozens of monographs on the works of the most famous Russian authors from Pushkin and Lermontov to Derzhavin and Maykov. In his works, Belinsky not only considered the artistic value of the work, but also determined its place in the socio-cultural paradigm of that era. The position of the legendary critic was sometimes very harsh, destroying stereotypes, but his authority is still at a high level to this day.

Development of literary criticism in Russia

Perhaps the most interesting situation with literary criticism arose in Russia after 1917. Never before has any industry been politicized as in this era, and literature was no exception. Writers and critics have become instruments of power, exerting a powerful influence on society. We can say that criticism no longer served high goals, but only solved the problems of power:

• strict screening of authors who did not fit into the political paradigm of the country;
• the formation of a “perverted” perception of literature;
• promotion of a galaxy of authors who created “correct” examples of Soviet literature;
• maintaining the patriotism of the people.

Alas, from a cultural point of view, this was a “black” period in national literature, since any dissent was harshly persecuted, and truly talented authors did not have a chance to create. That is why it is not at all surprising that government officials, including D.I., acted as literary critics. Bukharin, L.N. Trotsky, V.I. Lenin. Politicians had their own opinions about the most famous works of literature. Their critical articles were published in huge editions and were considered not only the primary source, but also the final authority in literary criticism.

For several decades Soviet history The profession of literary critic has become almost meaningless, and there are very few of its representatives left due to mass repressions and executions.

In such “painful” conditions, it was inevitable that opposition-minded writers would appear, who at the same time acted as critics. Of course, their work was classified as prohibited, so many authors (E. Zamyatin, M. Bulgakov) were forced to work in immigration. However, it is their works that reflect the real picture in the literature of that time.

A new era in literary criticism began during the Khrushchev “thaw”. The gradual debunking of the cult of personality and a relative return to freedom of expression of thought revived Russian literature.

Of course, restrictions and politicization of literature have not gone away, however, articles by A. Kron, I. Ehrenburg, V. Kaverin and many others began to appear in philological periodicals, who were not afraid to express their opinions and turned the minds of readers upside down.

A real surge in literary criticism occurred only in the early nineties. Enormous upheavals for the people were accompanied by an impressive pool of “free” authors who could finally be read without threat to life. The works of V. Astafiev, V. Vysotsky, A. Solzhenitsyn, Ch. Aitmatov and dozens of other talented wordsmiths were vigorously discussed both in professional circles and by ordinary readers. One-sided criticism was replaced by controversy, when everyone could express their opinion about the book.

These days, literary criticism is a highly specialized field. Professional evaluation of literature is in demand only in scientific circles, but is truly interesting to a small circle of literature connoisseurs. Public opinion about a particular writer is formed by a whole range of marketing and social tools that have nothing to do with professional criticism. And this state of affairs is only one of the integral attributes of our time.

: “I read Dostoevsky as if I were my own, like my own...” And it’s not so much a matter of complete acceptance of the broadcast thoughts, but rather an underlying irrational feeling of something verified, real - something that you immediately give the right to life, to which you can then devote time to logically complete the construction and “find out” - and, no matter how strangely, the stubborn mind always subsequently confirms the correctness of the first spontaneous feeling.

Despite the apparent unusualness of the assessments or judgments, despite the numerous statements about the “controversial” or “erroneous” views of the critic, we will not find a single place in his book that would be subject to disqualification for juggling facts or calling “black” “white.” Encyclopedic accuracy, speed of reaction, lack of descriptiveness, courage, rare gift of calling a spade a spade - without concealment or subtext - these are the characteristics of the “literary portrait” of Yu. Pavlov himself. It would not be superfluous to add that some of the mentioned features are considered bad manners today. So, before us is a real critic - sober-minded, lively, caring, sensitive to the phenomena of our time, thoughtfully analyzing the facts of a passing reality.

The merit of Yu. Pavlov is that many of the articles in his book tell about current writers - and it is always difficult to write “about the living”, about those who are still creating today and looking you in the eye - ready to refute a careless word or an incorrect assessment, who I haven’t yet put a dot on who is actively developing.

The book opens with an interesting and unconventional reflection on Vasily Rozanov, without whom, in the words of Yu. Pavlov, “any serious conversation about literature, history, and Russia is unthinkable.” In connection with the name of the philosopher, the names of F. Dostoevsky, K. Leontiev, N. Strakhov are heard. The semantic points that set the line of life and creative path of the author of “Fallen Leaves” are religious and church culture, the perception of the individual through God, through the “cults” of the family, home, people, and Motherland.

Adding your own touches to the portrait V. Kozhinova , Yu. Pavlov mentions V. Rozanov and M. Bakhtina as thinkers who determined the creative destiny of Vadim Valerianovich - thus, the logic of the arrangement of articles in the book becomes clear. Despite the fact that the article about V. Kozhinov, according to Yu. Pavlov, is based on a “patchwork quilt” of articles and sketches from previous years, we find a holistic research layer. Noteworthy are the details that reproduce the situation of hushing up the 60th anniversary of V. Kozhinov. Based on them, we can confidently say that the author of the book was one of those who already in the 80s appreciated the scale of V. Kozhinov’s personality, and moreover, he confirmed this with action, even then writing the first article about him. Considering the stages of development of V. Kozhinov as a thinker, Yu. Pavlov tries to approach the facts of the critic’s biography with an impartial mind, touching on “forbidden” topics, for example, the issue of Russian-Jewish relations. Against the background of the portrait of the main character - V. Kozhinov - assessments and characteristics are given to many phenomena of literature, history and philosophy.

The article about Mikhail Lobanov overthrows the opinion that in modern criticism there are no genuine heroes, people whose words and deeds coincide. The leading ideologist of the “Russian party,” M. Lobanov, through his personal creative destiny, carried a sense of participation in the fate of the people, a religious and spiritual perception of the world. This is clearly visible in comparisons with contemporaries. For example, the living conditions of many Russian critics left much to be desired - in the case of V. Kozhinov and M. Lobanov, these were apartments in which 13-15 people lived. And it is no coincidence that parallels arise with the famous essay “A Room and a Half”, with the historical facts of the “conquest of Moscow” in the 20s and 30s, including the settlement in Arbat apartments of those who would later complain of unfair oppression. The spiritual autobiography of M. Lobanov is also placed in the context of the memoirs of the “sixties”, for example, Art. Seedling. Let’s not get ahead of the curve and let future readers of this book see for themselves the “otherness” of the opinions, judgments and way of existence of people who lived in the same era, but seemingly in different dimensions. The measure by which events, people, one’s own life are measured M. Lobanov and St. Rassadin, is different, and for everyone it determines their personal destiny to one degree or another. This is easy to verify. The principle of “writing with love” was embodied in all the works of M. Lobanov, who “did not leave the forefront” of Russian literature - it is no coincidence that Yu. Pavlov’s article continues this principle, only in relation to M. Lobanov himself.

An example of a principled approach to the facts of literature is an article by Yu. Pavlov, analyzing the thoughts of one “aesthetic intellectual” about V. Mayakovsky. Those very Rozanov “little things” that make up the whole allow the reader to form “a general idea of ​​time, Mayakovsky, many, many things.” Yu. Pavlov contrasts Khlestakov’s approach to assessments of Russian literature, the “Sarnovo “noodles””, with the works of V. Dyadichev and other honest and unbiased researchers.

Tracing the creative path of “one of the best critics of the second half of the 20th century,” I. Zolotussky, Yu. Pavlov simultaneously touches on the problems of the essence of criticism, its varieties, freedom and independence of thought. Noting the colossal efficiency and significant contribution of I. Zolotussky to the history of Russian criticism, Yu. Pavlov verifies the work of the thinker with time, noting the undoubted merits of the author of the book about N. Gogol, his bold, accurate statements about literature in numerous articles, but also cites some of the critic’s judgments about political and cultural figures of the 20th century, causing fundamental disagreement. To the questions posed, Yu. Pavlov gives his own reasoned answers, foreseeing, however, that they will cause disagreement from both I. Zolotussky and many others.

Through the conversation about the 20th century in the book, voices from the 19th century emerge: K. Aksakov, A. Khomyakov, N. Strakhov and others, whose “hearing” Yu. Pavlov seeks to strengthen. So, for example, V. Lakshin’s judgments about will and bondage, in relation to “camp prose”, are “tested” by the thoughts of K. Aksakov, set out in the article “Slavery and Freedom”, and in general the work of A. Tvardovsky’s potential successor as chief editor of "New World" - attitude towards the people, Russian literature and history. Unlike those for whom V. Lakshin remained eternally “leftist,” Yu. Pavlov was able to see evidence of the critic’s “recovery” on the edge of earthly life. It is interesting to compare V. Lakshin’s creative path with the line of development of V. Belinsky’s worldview, whom his Westerner friends, before his death, reproached for “secret Slavophilism.” Such sensitivity to your work is a rare gift that not every literary critic receives. In connection with the above, I would like to cite one of the confessions of the author of the book: “For 20 years I have been writing mainly “on the table” ...” Will Yu. Pavlov, a critic and literary critic, so attentive to other people’s books, be read?

The personality of the “Kostroma critic” I. Dedkov emerges against the background of the oppositions “Moscow – province”, “individual – mass”, “family – childlessness”, “statehood – hostility to the state”, built by Yu. Pavlov. “Disciplined” (according to V. Bondarenko) I. Dedkov receives many characteristics at once - Russian, Soviet, liberal. The critic himself divided literary activity into the “bottom line” - what was written - and what does not count: “the struggle for positions, vanity, speeches, meetings.” Yu. Pavlov draws attention to something else: the facts of I. Dedkov’s biography, his attitude towards his father, his wife, children, the province, corruption, betrayal and, analyzing the path traveled by the critic, he comes to a conclusion that may sound unexpected for many: “...And . I see Dedkov as a father and husband as a much more significant person than I. Dedkov the critic. In the first capacity, he is completely a “provincial”, a “moral conservative”, a Russian person.”

In an article about Yu. Seleznev, one of the most notable critics of the 70s and 80s. XX century, - Yu. Pavlov highlights the “inconspicuous” or distorted pages of his creative biography, firstly, emphasizing that even during his years of study at the historical and philological faculty of the Krasnodar Pedagogical Institute, Yuri Ivanovich “stood out among students for his extensive and versatile knowledge, polemical gift"; secondly, noting that all subsequent literary activity could arise only on “Krasnodar soil”; thirdly, denoting the great positive role of V. Kozhinov in the fate of the critic; fourthly (and in terms of semantic content - firstly), rightly asserting that in critical articles, books, as editor of the ZhZL series, on the path to understanding F. Dostoevsky and all Russian literature, Yu. Seleznev was a real ascetic, a man of fundamental honesty and tremendous efficiency. Considering the attitude towards Yu. Seleznev, expressed in memoirs and articles of contemporaries, Yu. Pavlov highlights the statements of Yu. Loschits, A. Kazintsev, who accurately captured the essence of this “knight, Russian defender, intercessor” and points out factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies of A. Razumikhin and S. Vikulova.

When creating literary-critical portraits, Yu. Pavlov always turns to the “origins” of the individual - he reveals the hidden or obvious reasons that forced the critic to take this or that path. The image of the “drummer of critical labor” V. Bondarenko was created using the same principle. The critic, beaten by his own and others for the breadth of his views, for turning to seditious names from the “alien” camp, was shrewdly called a “healer of love” for his attempts to find kindred spirits and a craving for light in those who had long been classified as “literary trolls.” And even though Yuri Pavlov speaks with irony about the need for literary “flogging”, “smearing”, “killing” - in reality he does the opposite: he revives, defends and whitewashes what has been undeservedly denigrated.

The literary portrait of A. Kazintsev reflects numerous facets of the inner world of this extraordinary thinker, who called criticism “the art of understanding,” and is not only a response to A. Nemzer, S. Chuprinin and others “fundamentally inadequate” in A. Kazintsev’s assessment, but also another accurate a touch in the study of the literary process, affirming artistry, not clouded by sociality, not distorted by a bias towards formalism. Comprehending the various arguments of A. Kazintsev about certain authors, Yu. Pavlov identifies a single logical criterion applicable to Russian literature - the “Russian matrix”. Outside of it are the national egocentrism of V. Grossman, who sees in the history of the first half of the 20th century, overflowing with the tragedies of different peoples, an exclusively Jewish tragedy; “Bell game” and the artificiality of V. Makanin’s creativity in recent decades; “new mythology” of A. Voznesensky, E. Evtushenko, A. Rybakov, V. Voinovich, V. Aksenov, I. Brodsky, A. Dementiev and others. A return to the fold of criticism of today’s publicist A. Kazintsev is the hope of Yu. Pavlov, which , perhaps, the hero of his article will not ignore.

The portrait of Sergei Kunyaev, who dedicated his literary destiny to restoring the true history of Russian literature of the 20th century, will be imbued with respect for his talent and dedication to the Russian cause. Serious work in the archives formed the basis of unique materials that overturn the clichéd versions of the events of the 1920s–30s. Discovery of the names of Pavel Vasiliev, Alexey Ganin, Pimen Karpov, Vasily Nasedkin and others, the story of the life and death of S. Yesenin as close to reality as possible, accurate assessments of the work of N. Tryapkin, V. Krupin, L. Borodin, V. Galaktionova, immediate responses on the phenomena of our time - this and much more, coming from the pen of Sergei Kunyaev, was contained in the pages of “Our Contemporary” and other publications. The figure of S. Kunyaev rises before us as a faithful servant of Russian literature, the “Russian cause” with “rare for our time faith in the Word and Man.” And the inevitability of changes caused by his ascetic activity becomes obvious.

Yu. Pavlov speaks about the catastrophic situation of modern Yesenin studies, ideological distortions, negligence and deliberate distortions of the creative path of one of the most beloved Russian poets in the article “Yesenin studies today.” Despite all the absurdity of the parodic and derogatory Gippius formula “I drank, fought - got bored - hanged myself”, numerous “memoirs” and literary delights reproduce precisely this mocking scheme, multiplying the legacy of the Russian genius by zero. Considering the mystery of S. Yesenin's death, the poet's attitude to Russia, politics, and the existing government, the critic gives examples of a different - philosophical-metaphysical, Orthodox approach, implemented in the works of Art. and S. Kunyaev, Y. Mamleev, M. Nikyo, Y. Sokhryakov, N. Zuev, A. Gulin and others, who can serve as an example of the best traditions of Russian thought.

The article “Dmitry Bykov: Chichikov and Korobochka in one bottle” emphasizes the “sixties” of the author of the book about Pasternak. Yu. Pavlov gives exhaustively accurate characteristics of both the “mirrors” of Boris Pasternak - M. Tsvetaeva, A. Blok, V. Mayakovsky, A. Voznesensky, and his heroes - Yuri Zhivago, first of all.

Using examples of numerous factual, logical and other errors, Yu. Pavlov reveals the “fantasy basis” of Dmitry Bykov’s judgments and his “vocational school level” of knowledge of literature. The critic defends “one of the most worthy statesmen” from Bykov’s comments Russia XIX century" - Konstantin Pobedonostsev, recalling that during his reign the number of church schools in Russia increased from 73 to 43,696, and the number of students in them increased 136 times; Yu. Pavlov points out what is forgotten today, namely: the fact that the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod already at one time precisely defined the essence of liberal democracy.

It must be said that, unlike other critics who received in the book “Criticism of the XX–XXI centuries.” According to one literary portrait, the award-winning “workaholic” Dmitry Bykov, probably in accordance with the volume of “building blocks” he wrote in a fairly short period dedicated to the idols of the intelligentsia - B. Pasternak and B. Okudzhava, finds himself in the center of two articles by Yu. Pavlov. It is not difficult to understand that the impetus for the creation of these works was the indignant “I cannot remain silent” as a reaction to the distortion of the values ​​of Russian literature, to the distortion of the facts of Russian history.

In the article “Discussion “Classics and Us”: Thirty Years Later,” Yu. Pavlov calls for seeing in the classics not “critical-criticizing” realism, but “spiritual reality,” recalling M. Lobanov’s behest to comprehend literature through the highest aspirations of the soul, to seek “ not denunciation, but (...) the depth of spiritual and moral quest, thirst for truth and eternal values.” Using eloquent examples of the works of E. Bagritsky, V. Mayakovsky, Vs. Meyerhold, D. Samoilov, the author of the article holds the idea that more than thirty years later, the statements of Art. Kunyaeva, M. Lobanov, S. Lominadze, I. Rodnyanskaya; that having formally ended on December 21, 1977, the discussion about the classics and Russian literature continues and cannot be ended, since peace between the “conquerors”, “marquitants” and defenders of the spiritual heritage of Russian culture is impossible.

The triple personality of A. Tvardovsky grows through the prism of the realities of that time, in the refraction of the memories of V.A. and O.A. Tvardovskikh, articles by V. Ogryzko - Y. Pavlov comments on the discrepancies and gives answers to controversial questions that arise when referring to the figure of the former editor of Novy Mir. The author of “The Country of Ant”, placed on a par with the creators of “Pogorelshchina”, “The Pit”, “The Story of a Fool”, noticeably loses in the courage that V.A. insists on. and O.A. Tvardovsky, and in objectivity, as evidenced by A.T. himself at the end of his life. Tvardovsky. Other layers of rouge, “lofty tongue twisters” addressed to the editor of the Novomir region, are also removed. The “Workbooks” of A. Tvardovsky and the testimonies of contemporaries, verified from various sources, come to the rescue with this.

Yu. Pavlov’s response to V. Pietsukh’s book “Russian Theme” is subtitled “A Collection of Vile Anecdotes.” The book is seen by critics as just another link in the discussion about the classics that has flared up again in the last decade, another salvo discrediting the best representatives of Russian literature. The pathos of Y. Pavlov's review of V. Pietsukh is reminiscent of the pathos of I. Ilyin, who defends A. Pushkin from those who want to see his “smallness and abomination” and reduce the life of a genius to a series of anecdotes. And I also remember R. Gul’s response to A. Sinyavsky, “Walking a boor with Pushkin” - the same word of protest to those in whom there is an indomitable desire to see in Russian life not poetry, but ugliness, an object for ridicule, “Egyptian darkness.” In a sense, Pietsukh’s book is “a boor’s walk through the gardens of Russian literature,” a boor trying to plant myths about the universal dislike of Dostoevsky, about Yesenin’s passion for suicide, about the underground anti-Soviet “kolobok” Prishvin. And again, as in the cases of B. Sarnov, D. Bykov, Yu. Pavlov revealed predictable Russophobic schemes, blatant inaccuracies, free interpretations, presented “stupidly, dishonestly, unprofessionally”, without any serious appeal to literary texts. Not without irony, the critic notes that the difference between the conventional “poor”, playing, pretending to be Pietsukh in a mask and Pietsukh, the “enlightened” author, is not felt at all.

The series of “anti-heroes” from the book “Criticism of the XX-XXI Centuries” is closed by A. Razumikhin, who published a memoir article dedicated to contemporaries known to him personally. Yu. Pavlov draws attention to the fact that A. Razumikhin’s work features a fictional, but very colorfully described car by M. Lobanov, fictional characteristics of Kabanikha and Katerina, which never existed and could not exist in the book “Ostrovsky” (ZhZL), fictional “lack of demand” by D. Asanov, V. Korobov, V. Kalugin, fictitious criteria for assessing creative destinies, fictitious situations that are impossible if we proceed from the chronology of events, from published and unpublished facts; the fictional, absurd language constructs of a former professional editor. The critic considers such an “eclipse of the mind and conscience” of the “literary alien” A. Razumikhin to be nothing more than a self-exposure of a person who considers himself to be among the “Russian patriots.”

A controversial attitude towards M. Golubkov’s textbook “The History of Russian Literary Criticism of the 20th Century” was expressed by Yu. Pavlov in a review with the subtitle “A Successful Failure.” Voicing the only relative success of this unsuccessful book, Pavlov makes an attempt to “straighten out” the literary process of the 1960–1970s recreated by M. Golubkov, adding missing strokes and lines, missing names, eliminating factual errors, obvious illogicalities, and refuses further detailed analysis of the textbook due to its inconsistency either with the declared branch of literary criticism (given the differences between the history of criticism and the history of literature), or with the necessary scientific standards.

The characters of the book, “living” in different articles, seem to be connected by invisible threads. Here and there V. Rozanov, V. Kozhinov, Art. Kunyaev, S. Kunyaev, M. Lobanov, V. Bondarenko and others in connection with this or that phenomenon, with this or that figure. This speaks of the integrity of the literary layer of Russian criticism, taken by Yu. Pavlov and placed under one cover. In fact, he himself is one of those who define the literary process today. Using links to various articles, books, and other sources cited by Yu. Pavlov as illustrations of various topics, you can study not only the history of criticism, but also the history of Russian literature of the 20th century. This reading fills with energy, gives a spiritual charge, enlightens the soul and puts thoughts in order, teaches the culture of literary critical thinking and inspires one to practice criticism.

Each article by Yu. Pavlov is a miniature dissertation, a substantiated and fact-intensive full-fledged study, in a condensed form representing the result of a lot of work - a deep and serious penetration into the topic. Nowadays, such systematic and high-quality research is not found in all dissertations. Such a book is a verdict on those critics who base their evidence on one quote and catching “verbal fleas” in the texts of their colleagues. If we use I. Zolotussky’s classification, then Y. Pavlov’s metacriticism can be classified as philosophical. Those who talk about criticism as secondary manifestations emanating from failed writers can present the book “Criticism of the 20th–21st centuries,” which contains genuine philosophy, genuine literature, answers to the most important questions and demands of modern Russian life.

V. Kozhinov and A. Tvardovsky, mentioned in the book, considered the critical gift to be rarer than the literary one. And today, when the share of books devoted to Russian criticism in relation to the colossal flow of prose is incredibly small, we celebrate the publication of Yu. Pavlov’s book “Criticism of the 20th – 21st centuries: Literary portraits, articles, reviews” as a significant milestone in the modern literary process. This book is the answer to the question: what will happen if you are a professional critic and, in applying your principles, are guided not by half measures and considerations of momentary convenience, not by fear of misunderstanding or habitual stereotypes, but by being honest and consistent to the end, remaining yourself.

Any conversation about the heyday of Russian culture at the beginning of the 20th century in one way or another rests on the “Silver Age” of Russian culture, everything that goes beyond its boundaries ends up in the shadows. This is partly true, symbolism, acmeism and futurism played a huge role in the development of art in the just-ended century, and since conversations on this topic were banned in the Soviet years, literary scholars and critics are rushing to give them what they deserve.

Paying tribute to the literature of the “Silver Age”, we must not forget that even in its heyday, this literature always remained a chamber phenomenon with a small readership, which is easy to see by comparing statistical information on readership demand for symbolist magazines with the demand for magazines other directions. The reports of the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg indicate that the first places in popularity were shared by the liberal "Bulletin of Europe" and the populist "Russian Wealth", but the magazine "New Way" associated with the Symbolists took 13th place, the magazine "Scales" - 30th , and the World of Art magazine was not included in these statistics at all, since it included magazines that were requested more than 100 times. The circulation of Symbolist publications also differed significantly: if in 1900 the circulation of Vestnik Evropy was 7 thousand, then the circulation of the Symbolist magazine Libra fluctuated between one and a half and two thousand. And the Symbolist collections were even more unable to keep up with the circulation of Gorky’s almanacs “Knowledge” - there the ratio would be almost one to twenty, of course, not in favor of the Symbolists.

So, the literature of the “Silver Age” was a small island, surrounded by “other literature”, convinced that it continued “the best traditions of Russian literature”, adhered to the “honest humane direction”, personified by the shadows of Belinsky, Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky. It had its own authorities, its own idols, here the star of Maxim Gorky, Leonid Andreev, Alexander Kuprin rose, not to mention the established authorities of Chekhov and Tolstoy. Literature of the early 20th century as a whole continued to develop according to the inertia gained in previous decades, and had its own unwritten laws.

Since the 60s of the 19th century, the main unifying center of social and political life became the so-called “thick magazine,” a monthly that had extensive political and social sections, which, like a locomotive, pulled poetry and prose with it. Magazines almost completely replaced literary salons, which played a much more important role important role in previous eras. By the 90s of the 19th century, literary salons occupied a clearly subordinate position; they either existed at magazines, as one of the forms of weekly meetings of writers close to the editorial office, or remained a form of association of poets - the “Fridays” of Ya. Polonsky and the “Fridays” of K. that continued them. Sluchevsky. The significance of these poetry collections was determined not least by the fact that “thick magazines”, as a rule, did not attach importance to poems; they were printed, as they called them, “as a stopgap.”

Criticism, which played a fairly prominent role here, felt completely different on the pages of the thick magazine. In its meaning, it came immediately after journalism, and sometimes merged with it, as was the case in magazines that developed the traditions of the sixties, such as “Russian Wealth”: its leader N.K. Mikhailovsky often wrote articles on literary topics. But precisely because such great importance was attached to criticism, it was subordinated to the general position of the publication. The journalistic sections set the “general line”, determined the position of the magazine on fundamental social issues, this line was picked up and developed by reviews of the Russian and foreign press, internal review, but the critical sections of the publication were no less intended to enhance the resonance. L.D. Trotsky aptly called “thick magazines” “laboratories in which ideological trends were developed.”

Indeed, it was the magazines of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that primarily supported the division of social thought into two warring camps, dating back to the same 60s - liberal (otherwise called progressive) and conservative (respectively, reactionary). The unspoken code of the era forced representatives of warring parties to express opposing opinions on all issues of any fundamental nature, not only of a political, but also of a literary nature.

“Russian monthly,” wrote V.G. Korolenko in the obituary of N.K. Mikhailovsky, is not just a collection of articles, not a repository of sometimes completely opposite opinions, not a review in the French sense. Whatever direction he belongs to, he strives to provide some unified whole, reflecting a single system of views, unified and harmonious.” N.K. himself Mikhailovsky spoke out even more decisively on this matter. “In literary affairs, autocracy is necessary. Discord must not be allowed,” this is how the memoirist conveyed his position. As a result, the critic on the pages of a thick magazine more often turned out to be a choir member and a singer; he more often “kept the note” than set the tone; as a rule, publicists were in the position of soloists.

In the 90s, a newspaper became a rival to the thick magazine, which had a wider readership compared to magazines, which helped the critic quickly make a name, and therefore constant collaboration in the newspaper was a cherished dream for many writers. The only thing in which newspaper criticism differed fundamentally from magazine criticism was its forced brevity. The thick magazine taught me to write without regard to the length of the article, slowly and thoroughly, with quotes and paraphrases. Not like a newspaper - it required a concise and prompt response. Famous aphorism Vlas Doroshevich: “darling, they don’t read long things,” became a kind of motto for the younger generation of critics, who began to act as critics on the pages of newspapers, such as Korney Chukovsky and Pyotr Pilsky, and partly A. Izmailov.

Otherwise, the newspaper in a compressed form copied all the components of the “thick magazine”. “Direction” was characteristic of them to the same extent as of magazines; freedom of criticism within the framework of any publication was relative character, and was more of a form of “conscious necessity.” Having completely subjugated literature, the “direction” fettered its development, turning it into a kind of department. In an article by journalist P. Pankratyev, writers and officials were compared as representatives of related professions: “Listening to the reading of any article with your eyes closed, without knowing the paper format, cover, or font, you can easily guess in which edition it was printed. When moving to another editorial office, often in a completely different direction, writers begin to think and feel in accordance with the circumstances of the new situation... Currently, a special class of official-writers has formed and is rapidly growing... publishing in timely publications and in separate issues explanations of the boss’s projects, with the motives of the desires of this department "

This process of “bureaucratization” of literature captured and withered the development of literature; the publisher of the almanac “Russian Symbolists”, Valery Bryusov, who suffered a lot from criticism, wrote in one of the rough drafts: “Our literary critics live separately: each has his own castle - a magazine or newspaper; They fight each other mercilessly, but they all keep a keen eye on the caravans passing by. Trouble for the brave travelers who have not secured someone’s powerful patronage; disaster for the group of young writers who want to go their own way! They are expected, they are watched for, ambushes are set up against them, their death is predetermined in advance.”

Bryusov’s comrade in symbolism, Zinaida Gippius, assessed the situation in a similar way: “Literature, journalism, writers - we are carefully divided in two and tied into two bags, on one it is written: “conservatives”, on the other - “liberals.” As soon as a journalist opens his mouth, he will certainly end up in some bag. There are also those who freely climb into the bag and feel great and calm there. Those who are slow are encouraged with pushes. For now, they leave the decadents free, considering them harmless - for them, they say, the law is not written.”

The Symbolists or Decadents, as critics called them, were the first to break into literature without the support of literary parties, and to do so consciously. And it must be said that the struggle against literary barriers launched by the Symbolists had consequences for all criticism and literature of the early 20th century, which took place under the sign of liberation from the dictatorship of literary parties and movements. The generation of critics who began their creative career in the 900s sought to escape from obligatory opinions, which is why the appearance of several, unrelated to each other, critics of a new type was a kind of sign of the times.

Leaving the beaten path was not always done demonstratively; sometimes it was framed with various kinds of conciliatory formulas and accompanied by roundabout maneuvers. How it was possible to combine the “behaviors of the fathers” with new aesthetic quests can be traced in the fate of two critics, each of whom was associated with populism in his own way - Arkady Gornfeld (1867-1941) and Ivanov-Razumnik (pseudonym of Razumnik Vasilyevich Ivanov, 1878-1946 ). Arkady Gornfeld can rightfully be called one of the most talented, but almost unnoticed critics of the 900s. Notoriety came to him already in Soviet times - in connection with the noisy scandal surrounding the translation of the novel by Charles de Coster “Till Eulenspiegel”.

In the Soviet years, Gornfeld could no longer engage in criticism, too many other boys sang other songs, but before the revolution, more precisely until the closure of the magazine “Russian Wealth” in 1918, he was a permanent employee here, and systematically published critical articles and reviews on its pages for new books and bibliographic notes, most often, as was customary in this journal, without a signature. This anonymity, as well as the lack of a publicist’s temperament, desire for noisy speeches and heated polemics, made his presence on the pages of the magazine hardly noticeable. Few people imagined his position as a critic, although, if you look closely at it, it largely ran counter to the programmatic aesthetic guidelines of the publication. Gornfeld was initially quite skeptical of revolutionary-democratic criticism. “Not only did I deal with Pisarevism back in the gymnasium, but Chernyshevsky’s aesthetics seemed to me then to be a theoretical misunderstanding.” However, Gornfeld did not seek to identify these differences and disapproved of the series of articles by Akim Volynsky, which later comprised his book “Russian Critics” (St. Petersburg, 1896); This is what made it possible for him to join the populist journal, where he soon became one of the leading employees, and in the 900s, one of the leaders of Russian Wealth.

Gornfeld called himself “an eighty-year-old who did not abandon the legacy of the sixties and sought only some of its modifications,” and “a reasonable individualist.” Therefore, he preferred not to speak out on a number of programmatic issues for the magazine, one might say, avoiding discussing the “testaments of the fathers” and focusing on a fairly neutral topic - poetics and literary theory, popularization of Western European thought and culture, etc.

In this area, he was given freedom of judgment due to the fact that they were not among the principles of the journal; where Gornfeld himself did not share the editorial guidelines, he consistently avoided polemics. “It’s no secret for you,” he admitted to N.K. Mikhailovsky in 1896 - that I do not agree with the editors on theoretical issues of my specialty - poetics. But people are most important to me..." “Quiet heresy” combined with personal respect for the leaders of “Russian Wealth” made long-term collaboration in this magazine possible, but this did not contribute to complete self-realization. As a critic, he showed himself in collections of articles, such as “In the West” (St. Petersburg, 1910), “On Russian Writers” (St. Petersburg, 1912), “Ways of Creativity” (P., 1922), “Combat responses to peaceful topics” (L., 1924), “The Torment of the Word” (M.-L., 1927), etc.

Gornfeld called the outstanding linguist A.A. his teacher. Potebnya, whose lectures on the theory of literature, listened to at Kharkov University, became the beginning of “ life's turn"and prompted Gornfeld to leave the law faculty and study philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, and ultimately choose literature as the main field of life; Gornfeld left wonderful memories of his teacher. As is known, A. Potebnya occupied an honorable place among those whom some Symbolist poets called their teachers, primarily Andrei Bely and Vyach. Ivanov, who were influenced by Potebnya’s teaching on the internal form of the word. But Gornfeld did not look for allies in them, the poetic culture of symbolism turned out to be alien to him, he made the only exception for Fyodor Sologub, but he did not value him for his new attitude to the word.

In its defining features, the methodology of his approach to literature laid the foundation not so much for criticism as for literary criticism, even literary theory. By nature he was a theoretical scientist, by genre he was a critic. In his judgments about writers, in the foreground was an interest in poetics, in the structure of a literary work. But in those days, the history and theory of literature, poetics were not conceptualized as independent areas of knowledge about literature, which Gornfeld himself was aware of, calling one of the sections of his collection of articles “Towards a future theory of literature.”

Gornfeld's pathos was also not always the pathos of a critic - he sought precisely to convince, prove, explain, and not to inspire. At the same time, the genre of “conversations about” was alien to him, when works of literature allow the critic to reduce the conversation to the circle of the critic’s favorite topics. Purely essayistic aspirations were no less alien to him; his articles are simple-minded in their structure; as a rule, they are an honest report and reflections on what he read. In an address to the reader opening Gornfeld’s collection of articles “Books and People,” he asked the readers exactly this - “that what is important for them is not his conclusions, but his arguments, not his final assessments, but the movement of thought in which these assessments matured.” .

For Gornfeld, each writer is the creator of a special art world, the structure and composition of which, as well as its connection with other creative worlds, he, as a critic, tries to understand and describe. At the same time, the writer’s affiliation with one direction or another was almost irrelevant for Gornfeld: he wrote one of the best articles about the Slavophile S.T. Aksakov, and an equally wonderful article about the decadent Fyodor Sologub. Two such opposing writers could find in him a subtle interpreter due to the fact that by nature he was primarily an analyst; it was more important for him to understand a writer than to evaluate, pass judgment, etc.

Gornfeld highly valued Fet, whom the sixties knew more from the parodies of D. Minaev. Much of Gornfeld’s critical activity was a deviation from the “general line,” but they lacked polemical fervor and the pathos of revaluation. In his sympathies, Gornfeld was guided exclusively by personal aesthetic taste; all incidental moments were alien to him. That is why Gornfeld the critic evoked a sympathetic response from Valery Bryusov, who noted his freedom “from preconceived opinions,” from Innokenty Annensky and many other contemporaries.

Ivanov-Razumnik, who belonged to the same young generation of populist criticism as Gornfeld, was in many respects his antipode. First of all, Ivanov-Razumnik had a completely different temperament, the temperament of a publicist and polemicist, and sought to get involved in all polemics of any kind.

In the field of ideology, Ivanov-Razumnik sought to emphasize that he relied on populism, which he called “a huge and powerful current of Russian social thought” from Herzen to Mikhailovsky. Ivanov-Razumnik was one of the authoritative popularizers of the legacy of A.I. Herzen, researcher and publisher of the works of V.G. Belinsky, and after the revolution - a researcher of creativity and publisher of the works of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Ivanov-Razumnik separated his own position from classical populism, calling it “new populism” and emphasizing his desire to bring a fresh stream to populist criticism, to combine it with the flow of new aesthetic ideas. Ivanov-Razumnik’s “new populism” claimed to be “a step beyond the line drawn by the ‘previously born’.” He did not renounce the inheritance, but tried to supplement it, to pour new wine into his old wineskins. “The main nerve of Ivanov-Razumnik’s aesthetic searches was the desire to achieve a synthesis of “preaching and teaching” of old Russian literature, on the one hand, and the creative movements of the 20th century, on the other,” M.G. characterizes this neo-populism. Petrova.

So, populist “preaching and teaching,” according to Ivanov-Razumnik, should not “exclude creativity and quest,” the ethical pathos of literature, its struggle for moral values ​​can coexist with aesthetic innovation.

True, the reader can easily be convinced that there was more “preaching and teaching” in Ivanov-Razumnik’s critical articles than understanding of the new aesthetics. Despite the fact that in his critical reviews he invariably paid attention to the newly published works of the Symbolists, in the pre-revolutionary period he often argued with them, and later rather monotonously praised them. In his works of the Soviet period, he even declared symbolism to be the main achievement of Russian literature of the 20th century, and combined his articles on Andrei Bely and Alexander Blok into a collection called “Peaks.”

However, there is no need to talk about his deep understanding of symbolism; he did not accept too much: the mystical quest of the symbolists, as well as the religious and philosophical movement of the early 20th century, were completely alien to him. His articles on religious philosophy did not rise above the level of Marxist polemics with it, since he did not accept the axioms of the idealistic worldview, which he wrote about with some pride. And in general, having good literary taste and the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in literature, he wrote about it quite monotonously. Possessing artistic vigilance and sensitivity V.V. Rozanov remarked about his “two incredibly large feuilletons”: “Ivanov-Razumnik was destined by birth: 1) to be a writer, 2) very reasonable, almost smart, and 3) not to have a drop of poetic feeling. What to do: fate, name.”

The “lack of poetic feeling” did not consist in the fact that Ivanov-Razumnik was deprived of a sense of authenticity in art, but in the fact that literature for him remained primarily an exponent of certain ideas, that is, an ideology, and he himself was more a teacher of life than a critic . It was precisely because of this that he could not collaborate in “Russian Wealth”, where the corresponding niches of teachers and ideologists were occupied in the last century. M.G. Petrova, a very authoritative researcher of the work of Ivanov-Razumnik, believes that the role of an ideologist “was clearly beyond his strength,” but in fairness it must be admitted that he successfully fulfilled this role in almost all newly emerging publications of the Socialist Revolutionary-Populist orientation in which he was one of the heads of literary departments - in the magazine “Testaments” (1912-1914), in the Socialist Revolutionary newspapers “Delo Naroda” and “Znamya Truda” (1917-1918), in the collections “Scythians” (1916-1918), etc. along with the role leading critic.

To date, there is nothing original in the journalism of Ivanov-Razumnik, except for abstract revolutionary slogans, but this journalism had a magical effect on his contemporaries; the best literary forces invariably gathered around him. On the pages of “Testaments” he managed to gather around himself many young writers who then became particularly famous - M. Prishvin, Sergeev-Tsensky, B.K. Zaitseva, E.A. Zamyatina and others.

During the revolution and the first post-revolutionary years, such famous poets as Andrei Bely, Sergei Yesenin, Nikolai Klyuev, Sergei Klychkov, writer Alexei Remizov, artist K.S. united around the declarations of Ivanov-Razumnik on the pages of the anthology “Scythians”. Petrov-Vodkin and others; Alexander Blok, who also experienced the strong influence of Ivanov-Razumnik, intended to join them. The writer E.G., who was associated with the “Scythians” Lundberg wrote about his undoubted leadership: “In the evenings at Ivanov-Razumnik’s, literature is not only served, it is created - especially on long nights, when one of the guests remains face to face with the owner”; For Andrei Bely, Ivanov-Razumnik remained one of the main confidants for many years. Thus, his role as a critic was not limited to articles.

Ivanov-Razumnik called his approach to modern literature “philosophical-ethical criticism,” “the goal of which is not psychological or aesthetic analysis (this is only an incidental means), but the disclosure of what constitutes the “living soul” of each work, the definition of the “philosophy” of the author, "pathos" of his work..." He persistently emphasized the philosophical nature of his own criticism: “There is all kinds of criticism - aesthetic, psychological, social, sociological, ethical; and each of them is very necessary in the process of the critic's work. There are works to which it is sufficient to apply only one of these criteria; but try limiting yourself to aesthetic or psychological criticism while studying King Lear or Faust! That is why philosophical criticism, in the broad sense, alone can be considered a fairly general point of view.” Indeed, his best articles, which made up the collection “On the Meaning of Life,” dedicated to the works of Fyodor Sologub, Leonid Andreev and Lev Shestov, writers for whom “the question of the meaning of life is the basis of the entire understanding of the world,” put at the center of discussion exactly how one answers each of these writers on a key philosophical question human existence.

In “The History of Russian Social Thought” he called his own system of views “philosophical-historical individualism”, and in the book “On the Meaning of Life” he came up with a new term for it - “immanent subjectivism”. This immanent subjectivism put forward its own idea of ​​the purpose of human life, according to which human existence “has no objective purpose in the future, the purpose is in the present...”. The goal of life was life itself. Ivanov-Razumnik developed this not very rich idea, gleaned from Herzen, over many pages with fervor and pathos, which found a great response among readers. There was no other philosophy in the articles of Ivanov-Razumnik than the praise of man, faith in his strength and power, which did not rise above Gorky’s declarations in the spirit: “man sounds proudly!” Nevertheless, his critical articles, which were a long and endless monologue about certain literary works, filled with rhetorical exclamations, were popular, and at the beginning of the 20th century he was an influential and authoritative critic.

Criticism by Ivanov-Razumnik played an important role in popularizing the work of a number of writers, and it was of particular importance for the Symbolists, since it promoted them on the pages of those publications where they were not published, thereby helping them open the narrow readership circle of their own magazines, and interested new people in their work. reading circles.

However, both Ivanov-Razumnik and Arkady Gornfeld, as critics, did not organizationally strive to go beyond the established tradition; they rather sought to push this framework. Among the critics who began in the 900s, there were those who, having every reason to take an honorable place in the new literary movement, preferred to maintain an independent position in the literary process. Such critics included Julius Aikhenvald (1872-1928), who had every opportunity to become the author of symbolist publications. Aikhenvald had many things in common with the Symbolists - he was a Westerner in his views, an excellent connoisseur of Western European literature, and had a serious philosophical education. Aikhenwald the critic had a negative attitude towards revolutionary-democratic criticism, highly valued the poets of the circle of Afanasy Fet - Apollo Maykov, Yakov Polonsky, the work of Alexei Tolstoy and other poets, one might say, whose importance was first appreciated by the Symbolists. Aikhenvald’s criticism “fit” in genre with the essayism of the Symbolists, and it was not for nothing that he was often put on a par with the Symbolist critic Innokenty Annensky.

However, Aikhenwald himself did not seek to conclude this tactically advantageous alliance, preferring to pave his own path into literature. His self-determination as a critic ended in 1906, when the first issue of the book “Silhouettes of Russian Writers” was published; by 1910, two more issues of “Silhouettes” were published, at the same time “Studies on Western Writers” appeared; after their release, contemporaries began to write about Aikhenwald as an impressionist critic. The genre of “silhouettes” or “studies” he chose, which offered readers not so much a portrait as a sketch, strokes to a portrait, could not have been more consistent with the tasks of impressionistic criticism. “On the impressionist, literature affects not only its purely aesthetic side,” he wrote about his method, “but the comprehensive fullness of its characteristics, as a moral, intellectual phenomenon, as a vital whole.” When creating his silhouettes, Aikhenwald used a wide variety of information - biographical, psychological, observations of artistic creativity. As a critic, he shunned scientism and classifications and was a consistent opponent of a unified approach to works of art.

Another name that Aikhenwald used to denote his credo is the immanent method, “when the researcher organically participates in an artistic creation and always keeps himself inside and not outside it. The method of immanent criticism (as far as one can even talk about a method where, as we have seen, there is no scientific character at all) - this method takes from the writer what the writer gives and judges him, as Pushkin wanted, according to his own laws, remains in his own power."

Recognizing social role art, the presence of moral content in it, Aikhenvald refused to recognize the utilitarian, applied nature of works of art, refused to evaluate it from the point of view of social or any other benefit.

Aikhenwald separated his method from the so-called “pure art”, from aestheticism, which considers artistic creativity and evaluates it from the point of view of purely artistic criteria. His approach to literature in today's language can be called "slow reading" or "close reading", as the term invented by the American school of new criticism is translated into Russian. Only Aikhenwald did not consider his “slow reading” as a method, it was a way of “community with literature,” to use his term, and he himself acted in his articles not as a scientist, but as a qualified reader, as a mediator developing and continuing the literary text.

Aikhenvald’s articles are extremely easy to read, since their author does not separate himself from the reader in any way, they are not overloaded with links, all the facts are presented in them as if they were known to literally everyone since childhood. However, as soon as his opponents attacked his “silhouette” of Belinsky, he answered each of them in detail and with references, revealing such a thorough knowledge of the texts and biography of the Russian critic, which surpassed almost all those who objected to him, despite the fact that among them there were patented specialists and publishers of Belinsky's works. Thus, the apparent ease of his writing was the result of painstaking study of the material.

In general, the foundation on which this impressionism grew was of a very special nature. In the first two editions of Silhouettes, Aikhenwald did not try to formulate the features of his own approach to literature; the theoretical introduction appeared only in the third edition, and it can quite puzzle the reader. First of all, because, in contrast to the “silhouettes” and “sketches,” the introduction contained lengthy discussions about various schools and the methodology of studying literature, references to the authorities of Western European scientists, the very style of this introduction seemed to belong to another person. Here, for the first time, what lay behind the lightness of his “silhouettes” came to the surface—his enormous philosophical erudition: before becoming a critic, Aikhenwald was a translator of Schopenhauer’s works and his biography, a contributor to the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology,” and secretary of the Moscow Philosophical Circle . Perhaps this is why his impressionistic criticism moved so freely in the waves of literature because it was only the visible part of the iceberg, supported by a huge erudition that did not come to the surface?

The key moment in Aikhenvald’s activity as a critic was the publication in the 1913 edition of Belinsky’s “silhouette,” where an attempt, unprecedented for its time, was made to look at the legacy of the founder of revolutionary democratic criticism not through the layers and myths about his enduring significance, but with a fresh look. Aikhenvald did not seem to set any special tasks to crush authority or re-evaluate it. It was a “slow reading” of the works of the founder of revolutionary democratic criticism, a comparison of assessments and judgments, a search for their sources, most of which came from Belinsky’s friendly circle. The result was amazing: the critic’s authority was shattered right before our eyes. The essay begins like this: “Belinsky is a legend. The idea that you get about him from other people’s glorifying lips is largely destroyed when you approach his books directly. Sometimes the thrill of searching breathes in them, the fire of conviction burns, a beautiful and clever phrase shines, but all this helplessly drowns in the waters of depressing verbosity, offensive lack of thought and incessant contradictions...” and so on in that spirit.

But precisely because the essay presented mainly conclusions and opinions, that is, the results of “slow reading”, and not the basis on which they were obtained, Belinsky’s supporters, accustomed to swearing by the shadow and kneeling before the name of the teacher, attacked Aikhenvald's equally unfounded abuse. The nature of the objections is clearly illustrated by the titles of the articles: “Belinsky is a myth” (Pavel Sakulin), “Truth or falsehood?” (Ivanov-Razumnik), “Has Belinsky been debunked?” (N.L. Brodsky), “Mr. Aikhenvald near Belinsky” (Evg. Lyatsky).

A huge number of similar attacks were carried out orally. “My wife and I,” recalled the writer Boris Zaitsev, “were once present at his battle over Belinsky (in Moscow, at the teachers’ club). Gymnasium teachers attacked him in endless chains. He sat silently, somewhat pale. How will Yuliy Isaevich answer? - we asked each other in a whisper. He stood up and, perfectly controlling the excitement that was heating up inside him, shot them all point-blank, one after another. He literally swept away his enemies with precise, clear arguments, without any rudeness or malice...” With exactly the same precise arguments, Aikhenwald swept away those who objected to him in writing in his book “The Dispute about Belinsky.”

It would seem that this was not the first attempt to debunk Belinsky; back in the mid-90s, a series of articles by Akim Volynsky appeared on the pages of Severny Vestnik, which later compiled his book “Russian Critics” (St. Petersburg, 1896). But Volynsky criticized revolutionary democrats from a very definite position - for the lack of a philosophical foundation, solid criteria, etc. in their criticism, he tried to bring Russian criticism to new road, called for the development of solid concepts and criteria. Aikhenwald followed a completely different path: he suggested that instead of assimilating ready-made opinions, simply read what these opinions are about.

In his critical activity, Aikhenwald was not tied exclusively to modernity; he did not erect a barrier between criticism and the history of literature. A significant part of his silhouettes are dedicated to writers of the 19th century - from Batyushkov to Garshin, so that in a holistic reading, the three issues of silhouettes reflect his idea of ​​​​the development of Russian literature over almost a century. Not everything in these essays is of equal value - but they are devoid of banalities and commonplaces; Aikhenvald himself, along with Innokenty Annensky, can be called one of the most prominent essayists of the early 20th century.

Moving on to the critics who began their career on the pages of newspapers, I would like to emphasize once again that magazine critics, in comparison with them, were a kind of aristocracy who had the opportunity to think about their articles for quite a long time, even work on them. Those who wrote for newspapers were deprived of such luxury; their work developed in the tight grip of deadlines and volumes.

Alexander Izmailov (1873-1921), along with Pyotr Pilsky (1979-1941) and Korney Chukovsky (1882-1969), can be called the most prominent among those who debuted in the 900s and who owe their fame primarily to them.

For a long time, it was customary to reject this criticism indiscriminately; of course, Marxist criticism existed, with its proven criteria that were not afraid of eternity. “A characteristic feature of the bourgeois press of the 900s,” wrote G.M. Friedlander in “The History of Russian Criticism,” was that /.../ a type of feuilletonist critic appears in it, closely associated with the newspaper, working with conscious consideration of the “spite of the day” and the interests of the general public, writing his articles in a biting, witty manner /…/. Among such critics and feuilletonists was A.A. Izmailov, as well as young K.I. Chukovsky /…/ Often the activities of feuilletonist critics were frankly boulevard in nature (P. Pilsky). /…/ Izmailov himself very aptly characterized the usual genre of his critical speeches, giving one of his essays the subtitle “fictional reporting.” Due to the fact that A. Izmailov published one of his essays with the subtitle “fictional reportage”, in Soviet times he was treated as a semi-tabloid critic, although the terms “feuilleton”, “reportage”, “fiction” then had a different meaning, and not excluded serious conversation about literature.

The only thing Izmailov could be reproached for was his somewhat scattered nature. literary activity- he tried himself not only as a critic, but also as a poet, as a fiction writer, as a playwright and biographer of A.P. Chekhov. Although later Korney Chukovsky will even surpass Izmailov in the abundance and variety of literary genres, this will happen after the revolution, and will be partly forced. And with Izmailov, the problem is not so much the diversity of literary genres, but the fact that they somehow did not agree with each other. Possessing a critical flair and taste, he wrote and published very weak prose and completely formulaic poetry, a caustic and sharp parodist, as a critic he preferred glorifying articles. True, sometimes in his newspaper reviews he, like Viktor Burenin, combined critical assessments with inserted parodies, everyday sketches, even anecdotes, but these critical cocktails never possessed Burenin’s sharpness.

The main advantage of Izmailov’s articles, which are mosaic in their approach to literature, is the abundance in them of subtle and accurate observations within the literary range that was available to him. Unfortunately, too much in the literature of the 20th century turned out to be beyond its borders - almost all the works of the Symbolists, among which he made an exception for Valery Bryusov, but even then his novel “The Fiery Angel” included among the deathly fakes of “Melmont the Wanderer” by Mathurin and "Elixir of Satan" by Hoffmann. But in the conditions of a transitional era, which undoubtedly was the pre-revolutionary period of literature of the 20th century, his criticism contributed to the rooting of new literary concepts.

Izmailov himself was aware of the special importance that criticism acquired at the beginning of the 20th century: “A critic has almost nothing to do when conquered concepts reign supreme in literature /.../ But there are times of revolutions and rebellion, storms and shipwrecks, times of turning points and crises, when everything dominant literary concepts are being revised, the very foundations are shaking, forms are changing, the new claims to completely overthrow what was yesterday. In such eras of unsteadiness of minds, the value of criticism rises to the value of creativity.”

To provide assistance to new literary trends, to promote the establishment of new concepts - this is how Alexander Izmailov understood his tasks as a critic. He was proud that in his judgments he did not rely either on party platforms or on authorities: “To people of the party mind, who are accustomed to invariably inquire about the parish to which the critic belongs, I would like to answer - I am one of them. My views on literature, my coverage of authors, are not dictated by Social Democratic, Cadet, or any other political ideas. I absolutely do not understand how this area can come into contact with the area of ​​free critical judgment. Literature is literature and politics is politics, and now, fortunately, this no longer needs to be proven, as recently.”

Needless to say, Izmailov’s declarations were not very rich in aesthetic ideas, but the criticism based on them was closer to literature and its tasks than criticism that looked for social background and class interests, than criticism that turned literature into the handmaiden of journalism. This criticism provided writers with an invaluable service, it helped them find a common language with the reader, it, as they say, “sowed the reasonable, the good, the eternal.” And most importantly, it fostered respect for literature as such, free from debts to ideology.

The names of two other newspaper critics, Pyotr Pilsky and Korney Chukovsky, were often pronounced together, since in the 1910s both of them were among those who not so much created and discovered literary names as crushed established authorities, or at least were able inflict quite sensitive blows on them. But despite the fact that before the revolution, the paths of Chukovsky and Pilsky often crossed on the pages of certain publications, they were more antipodes than twins.

About the beginning of the literary path of Pyotr Pilsky, one can say in the words of Gogol, “the origins of my hero are dark and modest.” He was one of those literary wanderers whose movements in space and transitions from publication to publication neither biographers nor bibliographers bothered to record. The name of Pilsky first appeared in the 90s in the literary environment of Valery Bryusov, in the era when he was preparing for his debut as a “Russian symbolist.” Pilsky did not in any way connect his name with the beginning of symbolism, but he considered himself involved in the innovative quests of that era. In a memoir essay about Bryusov, published already in exile, Pilsky defined the starting point of his credo as a critic: “It was as if we were all preparing to become literary prosecutors. Still would! In the bench of those condemned by us sat all the latest literature of that time, all journalism, all the monthlies of that quiet, that terrible time! And criticism! Yes! Yes! It seemed to us, innovators, we, young paladins - and not without reason! - that the first enemy to be defeated must fall in a critical bastille. “Nothing indiscriminate! - we shouted. - We demand evidence! Let criticism be like one long chain of theorems! Let its text come with proof. Let each of them close with a victorious: “What was required to be proven”! We demand mathematical precision! We demand geometric proof! This is how we formulated our task.”

Behind this chain of exclamation marks and a not entirely serious tone lies in fact one of the most important problems that novice critics were solving: the search for a new argument, a new system of evidence and persuasion of the reader. Criticism based on the “testaments of the fathers”, in addition to these testaments, received a system of measures and weights, sanctified by tradition, and therefore did not need re-examination. Rejecting these precepts, it was necessary to create this system anew and prove its ability to serve as a measure of literary phenomena.

However, it cannot be said that the currently known part of Pilsky's critical activity was strongly centered around the problem of evidence. As a critic, Peter Pilsky loved to utter rather than convince. In terms of persuasion, his sharp style helped him more than argumentation. But the public was happy with it. It suited the writers too; almost all of them resorted to the epithet “brilliant” in their reviews of Pilsky’s articles. In his rhymed autobiographical essay “Royal Leandra”, written in “Onegin stanza”, Igor Severyanin left one example of such a review:

Pilsky is already shining,
And the average person in Rylsk squints
Eyes reading an evil pamphlet
More brilliant than an epaulet...

Here, not only the style of Pilsky’s critical speeches is characterized, but also the main circle of readers who admired him, among whom the “everyman in Rylsk” occupied an honorable place. The critic himself took his role as a legislator of literary morals seriously, and that is why so often in Pilsky’s articles he worries about preventing writers from deviating from liberal values ​​and not falling into reactionism (an article about Viktor Burenin) - this was a manifestation of responsibility for culture.

An indispensable component of Pilsky’s articles were phrases like “I remember we were sitting (name of the rivers...)”, “we were traveling...”, “we met...”. This seemed to hint at Khlestakov’s “being on friendly terms with Pushkin,” but there was something else in it—interest in the writer’s personality, a desire to understand creativity as a manifestation of this personality. We can say that Pilsky was interested in writers no less than books.

And in emigration, when he first began to lead a “sedentary” lifestyle, from the early 20s until the end of his life, publishing almost exclusively in the Riga newspaper Segodnya, memories of pre-revolutionary literature and writers became one of the main themes of almost all of his essays . Starting with memoir inclusions in the texts of articles, Pyotr Pilsky then prepared the book “The Foggy World”, in a review of which Mark Aldanov wrote: “Features of his talent, an extraordinary memory that has preserved everything, from the slightest features of the appearance of long-gone people to jokes told many years ago ago make his book extremely interesting."

Pilski's lifestyle contributed a lot to helping me remember a lot - he was, one might say, always in the thick of it literary life. “He had the manners and habits of a bohemian,” recalled Mark Slonim, “he spent his days and nights in cafes and restaurants, loved conversations until the morning in some “literary and artistic club,” loved the excitement of wine, the atmosphere of friendship, disputes and quarrels , the crossfire of jokes and epigrams, the game of flirting and falling in love, the chaos and crowd of random parties and casual revels. He had a restless, vagabond nature, and he could not sit in one place for long. Pilsky constantly changed cities and publications... And what a huge number of varied impressions he collected over many years of wanderings. He liked to say to himself: “I am an experienced person, but I have unprecedented experience...”. And recently, Riga literary historian Yuri Abyzov collected all of Pilsky’s memoir-related feuilletons and, as it were, prepared for the author a book of memoirs about cultural figures of the 20th century, full of vivid and meaningful characteristics and details.

Criticism like Pilsky's not only did not have a literary tradition behind it, it did not create one, but it played an important role in the literary process, introducing the writer to the general public and turning the critic into a kind of literary barker and bouncer at the same time.
If you try to outline the appearance and biography of Chukovsky the critic against the backdrop of Pilsky, then it will be built on oppositions, and at every step more and more new bewilderments will be born - how could it have occurred to contemporaries to combine the names of people so different in their aspirations. But we must immediately understand that what was serious in Pilsky’s creative activity did not find expression in the memories of him, and we simply do not have biographical sources, archives, correspondence - they died partly during the period of flight from Russia and wanderings around the world, partly during the arrest of the archive during the period when Soviet troops entered Riga. But this was certainly serious in Pilsky’s biography, otherwise he would have remained the literary Khlestakov.

In the case of Chukovsky, we have such biographical sources in abundance, and therefore everything serious that fed his critical activity and shaped him creative look, can be traced from beginning to end, and the end of his activity as a critic was the events of October 1917 - after the revolution, he was unable to “reforge” and become one of the Soviet critics, literary mores changed too sharply then.

Chukovsky began his career as a critic on the pages of Odessa News, and the conditions for his debut here were extremely favorable: he almost immediately got the opportunity to publish serious articles on literary themes. But this successful start later turned out to be a serious barrier when he became a critic of the capital’s newspapers: almost ten years later, Leonid Andreev reproached Chukovsky for “the swagger of Odessa reporters.” We find similar reproaches in a letter from D.V. Filosofov in 1912: “I thought that Chukovsky had already shed his “provincial habits”.” So the role of Odessa News in his fate was like a double-edged sword: having created the conditions for a bright debut, it hindered his further advancement into the ranks of serious literature.

Provincial origin was not the only reason for prejudice against Chukovsky the critic; a frivolous attitude towards him also strengthened his chosen role. As a critic, he was a master of the devastating feuilleton, a negative reviewer by vocation, and all his best articles were “universal grease.” In addition, Chukovsky chose writers as victims from among the public’s momentary favorites, about whom “everyone is talking,” and therefore his speeches gave the impression of a bomb exploding. Chukovsky wrote laudatory articles rarely and reluctantly, and most often about classic writers - A.P. Chekhov, N.A. Nekrasov, T.G. Shevchenko, therefore the reproach for nihilism, for the lack of positive ideals, has become a kind of commonplace in relation to him.

Chukovsky the critic's favorite genre was literary portrait, the creation of which he usually timed to coincide with the moment when the writer found himself at the center of discussion and when his reputation was more or less determined. It was then that Chukovsky appeared with his sketches, the method of creation of which was very accurately captured by Valery Bryusov: “Portraits of Mr. Chukovsky are, in essence, caricatures. What does a cartoonist do? He takes one feature in a given person and increases it immensely.” Indeed, having identified a certain dominant in the writer’s creative image, Chukovsky built his portrait on its enlargement, organizing examples in such a way that it obscured all the others.

Many reproached Chukovsky for his one-sided assessments. Indeed, his portraits very often simplified the writer’s appearance, but at the same time they deepened the insight into his creative laboratory and brought him closer to the essence. “Every writer for me,” he wrote in the preface to the book “From Chekhov to the Present Day,” “is kind of crazy. Every writer has a special point of insanity, and the task of criticism is to find this point. It is necessary to track down in every writer that cherished and most important thing that makes up the very core of his soul, and put this core on display. You won't see it right away. An artist, like any crazy person, usually hides his obsession from others. He behaves like a normal person and judges things sensibly. But this is a sham." Hence his approach to the writer: “Pinkerton must be a critic.” Chukovsky used all his skill to track down something in the writer that he himself did not suspect.

Chukovsky the critic loved and knew how to go against popular opinions and with his articles he often proved that he was a warrior alone in the field. His articles about the idols of youth - Lydia Charskaya, Anastasia Verbitskaya forced many fans of these writers to look at them with new eyes. The brightest side of Chukovsky’s critical activity was the overthrow of false authorities.

Representing the new generation of critics who came to literature at the beginning of the 20th century, in this anthology we sought to show how its representatives, having escaped from the clutches of authorities and covenants, attached less and less importance to the barriers between directions, did not want to cope with public merits and track records , returned literature to its own tasks, and criticism to the role of a thoughtful mediator between creative personality and the reading public.

Evgenia Ivanova

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

History of Russian literary criticism of the twentieth century

TOPIC 1. General characteristics of the course “IRLK of the 20th century”

Increased attention to the problems of the theory and history of LC is one of the characteristic features of modern literature. process. This is explained by the role that literature plays at the present stage, and the importance assigned to criticism in the fate of literature and the cultural and historical life of society as a whole. The specificity of LC lies in the fact that a critic must simultaneously combine a scientist, politician, artist, ethics, and aesthetics.

LK is an independent genre that comprehends the current moment in literature. This is one of the types of lit. creativity, evaluation and interpretation of art. works and life phenomena reflected in it. LK strives to understand and explain the art. work.

Criticism (from Greek - judgment) has always corresponded to the phenomena that it judges, therefore it is a creation of reality, it is a mirror of social life. LK either comes close to literature (the critic, as it were, recreates what the artist has written anew, rethinking it in accordance with what is given by the author and comparing it with reality; criticism serves as a means of understanding life and influencing it), then with science (when it is argued that criticism is characterized by historicism , theoretical thoroughness, general aesthetic criteria).

LC studies current literature and must see in it both the roots of the past and the shoots of the future. The critic not only interprets art. works, but also corrects the hindrances of creativity and directs the artist’s attention to one side or another, depending on historical conditions. It helps the reader understand the artist’s collected experience. The artist creates a work, and the critic includes this work in the literary system, where it acquires its modern meaning and begins to play its social role.

Criticism is intended for both the reader and the writer. A. Lunacharsky noted: “Striving to become a useful teacher of a writer, a critic must also be a teacher of the reader.” In order for a critic to have the right to criticize a writer, it is necessary that he be more talented than him, know the history and life of the country better than the writer knows, and be intellectually superior to the writer.

The goals of LC are twofold. On the one hand, the critic is called upon to help readers correctly understand and appreciate the works he examines;

on the other hand, the responsibility of the critic is to promote the further creative growth of the writers themselves. Pointing out the positive and negative aspects of certain literatures. works, the critic helps writers consolidate what is valuable and overcome what is erroneous.

Criticism inevitably arises and exists wherever there is literature. In the interrelationship of “thin. literature - lit. “criticism” is always primary literature, since it is literature that considers, comprehends, and analyzes it. criticism. Lit. the critic is a pioneer. He is one of the first to seek to determine the value parameters of the text.

Types of lit. criticism: professional, writer, reader.

Professional LC is the science of discovering the beauties and shortcomings of works of literature. PLC is unthinkable outside the atmosphere of lit. disputes and polemical discussions. Traditional genres of PLC - critical articles, reviews, reviews, essays, bibliographic notes, annotations.

Writer's LC implies literary-critical and critical-journalistic performances of writers. The literary-critical position of the writer is expressed in notes, diary-like reflections, epistolary confessions, and judgments about modern literature.

Reader's LK - various reasoned reactions to modern art. literature belonging to people not professionally associated with literature. business. CHLK is imbued with the spirit of confession. Each reader is his own critic, for he thinks and judges what he reads. The most common genre of CLKs are letters addressed to writers and professional critics. CHLK is reflections on modern literature. life.

LC actively participates in the implementation of the main functions of the press - propaganda, agitation, and organization.

The propaganda function is carried out primarily through the publication of problematic articles that pose promising questions and, through this analysis, contribute to the education of readers, the rise of their culture, and the ability to independently understand the phenomena of art.

The propaganda function is aimed at forming value guidelines of public consciousness through assessment and analysis specific facts current lit.-art. life.

The organizational function is most clearly revealed in the fact that journalistically identifying and outlining certain trends in the arts. process, LC thereby organizes their development, helps to unite and concentrate creative forces around them.

Literature is impossible without criticism. The march of literature is always accompanied by critical thought. A writer who gives a new book to millions of readers tremblingly awaits fame or infamy. It is the critic who leads him to glory or throws him into ignominy. The critic contributes to the success or failure of a new work, the creation or collapse of literature. authorities, lit. glory.

TOPIC 2. Genres of literary criticism

The division of critical genres into groups is carried out primarily according to the object of study: work - author - process. In accordance with this, we can talk about three supporting genres - review, creative portrait, article.

Analysis and evaluation of the work is carried out by a review (with Latin language- consideration, examination). Any completed work is subject to review, but a review of works of literature has special qualities. In reviewing works, a huge place is occupied by descriptions and presentation of the essence of discoveries and inventions.

A review is a review, critical analysis and evaluation of thin. or scientific work. A review can be close to an abstract, but extensive articles are also possible, where the author puts forward a number of social, scientific, and aesthetic problems. The aesthetic fundamental principle of reviewer activity is the correct reading of a work from the point of view of how holistic it is, unified in its content and form. The art of a reviewer is not only to read the work accurately and with inspiration, to grasp the author’s intention, but also to independently interpret the complex set of all elements of the work, their connection and meaning. The reviewer's task is to give an objective assessment of the work.

The individuality of the artist and his creative image are expressed in the main genre - the creative portrait, in the monographic portrait description of the artist. writer's activities. In the system of varieties of this genre, the widest range is possible - from a focus primarily on creative problems to information about creative plans and biographical facts. In a creative portrait there may be a predominant interest in the facts of the artist’s biography, his art. the world, to the connection of biography and creativity with reality.

Genres of creative portrait: biographical portrait, critical-biographical essay, essay of creativity.

The task of a critical article is to reveal, analyze, and evaluate the essential aspects of literary art. process., interpret, generalize, evaluate facts, events, phenomena. At the center of a critical article is always a topical, moral, aesthetic problem. Scientificity is an indispensable property of an article.

There are a number of types of article genre. Their distinction is based on two features: function and style intonation.

The theoretical article is devoted to ideological and theoretical issues of literature. Its function is to raise theoretical questions. Style is the language of scientific speech. The anniversary article is related to any significant date, is functionally focused on articulating the artist's positive contributions to culture. The essay is distinguished by a greater revelation of the personal lyrical principle, the author's desire for stylistic and compositional grace. The function of an essay is to find a logical and emotional response in the reader to any life questions, affected by them.

Polemical article. The means of speech in this type of article are subject to polemics; irony and rhetorical questions are usually widely used. The general tone of a polemical article is almost always elevated. The creative concern of a true critic-polemicist is to write in such a way that it is not “boring”, but at the same time convey to the reader a convincing analysis of those phenomena that provoke the critic to debate.

TOPIC 3. Analysis of the work

The beginning of the work of the critic - analysis of art. works. This is the most important part of critical work, since without a deep, thorough, creative analysis of the work, subsequent theoretical generalizations, observations, and conclusions are impossible. The critic’s thinking process can be divided into 4 phases:

1. Perception of thinness. works.

The process of analysis begins not after the work has been perceived in full, but already during familiarization with it, when the most important impressions are deposited in the mind, hypotheses arise that require final verification.

2. Reflect on what you read. The critic thinks:

1) what the work (topic) is about,

2) what is his main thought (idea),

3) what are his heroes (types, characters),

4) how they are related to each other (plot),

5) in what time sequence the events are composed by the author (composition),

6) as the heroes speak (language),

Reflections on the “components” are covered by a single thought of the critic: in the name of what the author addresses the reader with his work, what new and significant he was able to tell them and how much he spiritually enriched his contemporaries.

3. The critic internally builds the framework of his article.

4. Writing an article, review.

Some practical techniques for critical craft.

First of all, a critical work must have internal compositional unity, an internal logic of the movement of thought. And this logic is revealed from the very first line. The critic, like the writer, faces the problem of beginning. The critic's task is to start in an interesting and exciting way. The beginning of an article can immediately form the author’s main idea, it can contain a general thought or description, it can represent a quotation from a work that is noteworthy for its content or the artist’s stylistic manner.

Thus, the beginning of an article or review is unique for each critic. The first phrases captivate, introducing you to the essence of the matter.

The beginning, the exposition is only one of the elements of the compositional structure of a critical speech. The compositional components of an article can include detailed reasoning during the analysis process and a relatively large number of quotations from the text.

The most important form of embodiment of critical individuality is the style of presentation. The critic strives by the very everyday style to maintain a confidential level of communication with the reader.

TOPIC 4. Literary criticism of the 1920s - early 1930s

This period of criticism is characterized by an intense search for ways to do better. images of reality. These searches drew into their orbit different ideological and aesthetic convictions and art. experience of writers, determined the problems and severity of criticism and ended with the approval of the social method in Soviet literature. realism.

The LC of the 20s is a multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon. In the 20s, there was no consensus on what LC should be, how it relates to thin. literature and what its purposes are. The difficulties in the development of LC are explained by the complexity of the circumstances of the development of literature in the first years of the revolution. Group biases often led to the refusal of analysis, to the expression of only emotional impressions, when objectivity and provability were lost in the heat of controversy.

The high quality, thoroughness, and effectiveness of LC are becoming an object of concern for literary scholars; in the 20s they tried to raise the authority of LC. When they wrote about the purpose of LC in the 20s, they identified several aspects on which it should conduct its research:

1. ideological orientation of art. works,

2. degree and quality of thin. embodiment of the writer's idea,

3. the nature of the impact on the reader.

The vector of criticism in the 20s was aimed at both writers and readers. The critic most often found himself in the role of a mediator, an observer in the polemical dialogue between the writer and the reader. The critic took upon himself the development of a model of the writer’s literary behavior, methods of his contact with the reader, and writing techniques. At the same time, the critic suggested to the reader what his rights were in the new social literature. situation, what can be demanded from the writer. The critic was the one who demonstrated knowledge of everything.

Number of lit. It is difficult to even take into account the groupings of the first years of the revolution. Many of them appeared and disappeared with extraordinary speed, leaving no trace behind. In Moscow alone in 1920 there were more than 30 litas. groups. The largest lit. The groups of those years that cultivated predominantly poetic genres were futurists, imagists, and proletkultists.

Futurists (from Latin - future) united around such poets as V. Mayakovsky, I. Severyanin, V. Khlebnikov. These were artists with a complex worldview. In their collections “The Rye Word” and “A Slap in the Face of Public Taste,” the futurists declared themselves adherents of a new art in literature; they asserted themselves as transformers of art.

The futurists wanted to rebuild Russian literature, destroy syntax and grammar for the sake of freedom of the inventor, and create an “abstruse” language.

Futurists denied all previous experience and called for admiring the word, regardless of its meaning. They opposed the mass character and accessibility of literary works. For the futurists, there was no art as a special form of reflection of reality.

By the beginning of the 20s, the group of futurists broke up, but as its continuation in 1922, the group “LEF” arose (from the name of the magazine “Left Front”, which was published by V. Mayakovsky). They denied everything. genres, only the essay, report, and slogan were recognized. They declared human feelings, the ideals of goodness, love, happiness - weaknesses; the criteria of beauty became strength, energy, speed.

Prominent theorist and lit. Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky (1893-1984) became a critic of LEF. Shklovsky's literary critical works were dedicated to A. Akhmatova, E. Zamyatin, A. Tolstoy, K. Fedin, L. Leonov, M. Zoshchenko. Reviewing what he read, Shklovsky sought to identify the specifics of art. a technique that ensures the writer’s creative discoveries.

A group of imagists (Shershenevich, S. Yesenin, R. Ivnev) declared themselves adherents of the new reality, although they could not comprehend its features. Imagists sought to replace the word with an image. They expel the verb, free themselves from grammar, against prepositions. They tried to deprive poetry of its vital content and ideological orientation. The theme and content are not the main thing in a work, the Imagists believed.

Shershenevich: “We are happy, we have no philosophy. We do not build logic of thoughts. The logic of certainty is strongest.” The image was understood by the Imagists as a certain component of lit. product - a term that can be repeatedly replaced by others. S. Yesenin, convinced of the futility of the basic principles of the Imagists, left this group, which soon ceased to exist.

In the period between February and October revolutions 1917 one of the most popular literary arts is created. organizations - Proletkult, which played a decisive role in the development of literature and LC in the 20s.

Proletkult became the most massive organization in those years, the closest to revolutionary tasks. He united large group writers and poets who came mainly from working-class backgrounds.

In the period from 1917 to 1920, Proletkult formed its branches in almost all cities of the country, publishing about 20 litas. magazines. Among them, the magazines “Gryadushchee”, “Gorn”, “Gudki”, “Create!” became the most famous. The main proletcult ideas are presented in the magazines “Proletarskaya Kultura” and “Zori”.

Proletkult initially had serious support in the Soviet government, since the People's Commissar of Education, whose jurisdiction also included issues of art, A.V. Lunacharsky himself willingly published his writing experiences in proletkult publications.

The publications of Proletkult not only gave clear instructions on how to work, but also on what literary and critical production should be new era. Proletkult set creative and mass educational goals. The combative orientation of the poetry of proletkult poets (M. Gerasimov, V. Aleksandrovsky, V. Kirillov), the expression of the thoughts, feelings, and moods of the working class, the glorification of Russia - all this gave it the features of a new, aesthetic phenomenon. The themes of suffering and sorrow, forced labor, characteristic of pre-October labor poetry, are replaced by motifs of light and truth. Hence the images of the sun, sky, rainbow, endless ocean, acting as an allegory of the globe freed from the chains of slavery.

But for all its merits, Proletkult could not become a true exponent and organizer of revolutionary literature. One of the main reasons for this was his erroneous theoretical platform. One of the first leaders of Proletkult was Alexander Bogdanov (Malinovsky) (1873-1928) - a medical scientist, philosopher, participant in Bolshevik publications at the beginning of the century.

Proletkultists contrasted proletarian literature and culture with all that preceded it. “A working writer should not study, but create,” they believed. A serious drawback in the activities of Proletkult was caste (isolation). Setting themselves the goal of attracting and educating writers from the working class, the Proletkultists isolated them from other strata of society - the peasantry, the intelligentsia. They looked arrogantly at everyone who was “not from the machine.”

Bogdanov was removed from the activities of Proletkult, after which he completely concentrated on scientific work. Bogdanov organized the world's first scientific institute of blood transfusion. Having become the director of the institute, Bogdanov performed a number of dangerous medical procedures on himself. experiments, one of which ended in the death of the scientist.

On December 1, 2020, the Pravda newspaper published a letter from the RCP(b) “On Proletkults,” which criticized their activities and pointed out serious mistakes made by Proletkult. The organization gradually began to lose its activity and in 1932. ceased to exist.

Proletkult is being replaced by RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers). Despite the fact that Proletkult will be dissolved only in 1932, the Proletkult members actually lose power much earlier, with the consolidation of the power of RAPP - an organization that emphasizes its ideological and aesthetic connection with Proletkult.

Rapp’s publications (“At the literary post”) demanded a tone that should determine the reader’s attitude towards the writer. Readers' appeals, written in a cheeky manner that reached the point of outright rudeness, were readily published. Writers were constantly explained that they were indebted to the reader, and the reader felt like the master of the situation in literature. The reader was confident that literature is only part of the “general proletarian cause,” and it exists and develops according to the laws of life and development of any proletarian branch. Newspapers and magazines were full of headlines: “Social. agreement between writers and schoolchildren of Donbass”, “Under the control of the masses”, “Report of writers to the masses”, “Listen, comrade writers!” All these slogan headlines were introduced into mass consciousness the idea of ​​the subordination of writers to the people, the control of literature. life.

Voronsky Alexander Konstantinovich (1884-1943) - writer and lit. critic, Bolshevik. In 1921, at the suggestion of Lenin, he organized and headed the first Soviet thick literary-artist. "Krasnaya Nov" magazine. Voronsky saw his mission in the consolidation of writers professing different aesthetic principles. He creates lit.-art. group “Pereval” and an almanac with this name, publishes in its publications the works of writers who are members of various creative associations.

The main criterion to which Voronsky submits when selecting lit. texts, there was a criterion for artistry. Defending the writer’s right to his own path in literature, Voronsky created a number of brilliant articles in the literary genre. portrait - “E. Zamyatin", V. Korolenko", "A. Tolstoy", "S. Yesenin."

Polonsky Vyacheslav Pavlovich (1886-1932) - journalist, lit. critic.

He began his active work as editor of the first Soviet critical and bibliographic journal “Print and Revolution” (until 1926) and literary art. magazine "New World" (1926-1929) Polonsky's main interest was associated with the figurative system of lit. works. In lit. portraits dedicated to M. Gorky, B. Pilnyak, Yu. Olesha, Polonsky sought to outline the art. the uniqueness of the writer, to delve into the poetics of his works, to understand the peculiarities of his stylistic manner. IN modern works the critic discovered their romantic character, seeing bad things in romance. the conquest of new literature.

By the end of the 20s, Polonsky was experiencing strong pressure from Rapp’s criticism. He talks about the connection between the political and aesthetic revolution. The critic creates a “contagion theory” and writes that the reader, perceiving a work, becomes infected with its ideas, but the socially savvy reader has the appropriate immunity, and therefore cannot become infected with harmful ideas.

In 1929, V. Polonsky was removed from editing magazines. In 1929-1932. he was the director of the Museum of Fine Arts.

Conclusions: Lit. critics of the 20s often showed limited knowledge of art history; they were dogmatic, but for the most part they sincerely believed in their own rightness, in the party mandate, in the speedy degeneration of public consciousness. They were replaced by a new galaxy of litas. critics. Later researchers would call them people with totalitarian thinking. They not only fit into the new system of literary and social relations, but also supported and promoted it in every possible way. At the same time, fear for one’s own reputation imperceptibly grew into fear for one’s own life and the life of one’s loved ones. LK dramatically changed the line of her destiny.

TOPIC 5. Literary criticism of the 30s

By the beginning of the 1930s, social and literary life in the country was changing significantly. In the history of lit. critics The 30s were a time of old mistakes and misconceptions. If in the 20s lit. the situation was formed and determined by the LC, then, starting from 1929, lit. life, like life in the country as a whole, took place within the strict framework of Stalinist ideology. With the acceleration and brutalization of totalitarianism, literature constantly found itself in the area of ​​close attention of the party leadership.

What was unique about the 1930s was that the theory of socialism came to the fore. realism. Social realism is the main method of art. literature and LC, which requires the writer to provide a truthful, historically specific depiction of reality in its revolutionary development. Social realism provided art. creativity an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate creative initiative, choose a variety of styles and genres.

In the pre-congress period (1933-1934), about 60 articles and reviews devoted to Soviet literature were published in the journal “LK” alone. The breadth of coverage was evidenced by the range of names: articles about Gorky, Gladkov, Sholokhov, Zoshchenko.

In 1934, M. Gorky managed to fulfill the social function assigned to him by the leader, managed to “reunite” Soviet writers included in different groups and associations. This is how the plan for creating the Union of Soviet Writers was implemented. Many Soviet writers were enthusiastic about the idea of ​​the Union, as there was an urgent need to consolidate writers in a single organization on a common ideological and creative basis.

On April 23, 1932, a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted “On the restructuring of literary art. organizations”, which was the result of a mature process of transformation of the organizational foundations of lit. affairs. This decree dissolved all existing organizations, and the Union of Soviet Writers was created.

6.08.34 The All-Union Conference of Critics was held. The main topics of the speakers' presentations are questions of Sov. Critics, the role of criticism in connection with the development of poetry, prose, drama.

The 1st Congress of Writers opened on August 17, 1934 and lasted 2 weeks. The congress was held as a great all-Union holiday, the main character of which was M. Gorky. He opened the congress and made a report on it “On Social. realism”, concluded the work of the congress. V. Shklovsky, L. Leonov, B. Pasternak gave bright speeches.

The 1st congress demonstrated the unity of word artists. In his report, Gorky emphasized that Soviet literature is based on art. traditions of Russian and world literature, folk art. From the rostrum of the congress, Soviet writers spoke about their duty to the people, about their desire to devote all their strength and ability to creating works worthy of their time. The congress gave impetus to the development and mutual enrichment of the national. literature Leading themes in literature: national-patriotic, internationalism, friendship of peoples. At the congress, issues of national development were discussed. Literature of the peoples of the USSR of world significance Sov. liters.

On September 2, 1934, the 1st plenum of the board of the Union of Soviets took place. writers. M. Gorky was elected chairman of the board. Until the death of the writer in 1936, lit. life in the country passed under the sign of Gorky, who did a lot to increase the authority of the owls. literature in the world.

After the writers unite into a single union, after uniting them around a common aesthetic methodology, literature begins. an era in which writers were well aware that they must submit to a program of creative and human behavior. Not entering the Union or leaving it, being expelled from the Writers' Union meant losing the right to publish one's works. If in the 20s a “guilty” critic could lose the trust of his party comrades, then in the 30s he lost his life.

Ermilov Vladimir Vladimirovich (1904-1965) - literary critic and lit. critic, active participant in all literary party discussions of different decades. In 1926-1929 he edited the magazine “Young Guard”, in 1932-1938 he headed the editorial office of “Krasnaya Novi”, in 1946-1950 “Lit. newspaper". In the 30s, V. Ermilov focused on monographic studies of the works of M. Koltsov, M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky.

Fadeev Alexander Alexandrovich (1901-1956) - until the last days of his life he combined lit. activity with a lot of organizational, critical work. Fadeev's literary and social activities throughout his life were intense and varied: he was the organizer of the Sov. liters, heading the Union of Soviets after Gorky. writers, prominent public figure, editor, peace activist, mentor to young owls. writers.

1939-1944 - Secretary of the Presidium of the Union of Sov. writers, 1946-1953 - General Secretary of the Union. Their lit.-crit. He dedicated his speeches to connections between literature and Soviets. reality. This was dictated by the needs of the Stalin era: it was necessary to write and talk about public role liters. Problems of the classical heritage, internationalism of the Soviet Union. literature, social realism, the creative individuality of the writer - all these issues that were covered in Fadeev’s articles make it possible to evaluate his contribution to the theory of owls. liters.

From Fadeev’s article “Social. realism is the main method of the Soviets. liters" (1934):

“Social realism presupposes the scope of creative quests, expansion of thematic horizons, and the development of various forms, genres, and styles. The idea of ​​social realism should be the essence of the work, embodied in images. The cause of the working class must become the personal cause of the writer. To rejoice, love, suffer, hate together with the working class - this will give deep sincerity, emotion. saturation thin creativity and will increase the strength of his thin. impact on the reader."

From Fadeev’s article “My personal experience- to the beginning author" (1932):

“To accurately express everything that lives in your mind, you need to work a lot on the word: the Russian language is rich, and there are many words to express certain concepts. One must be able to use those words that would most accurately express the thoughts that concern the artist. This requires a lot of persistent work on the word.”

In the 1930s and subsequent years, Stalin met with writers, giving guidance and evaluating new literature; he filled his speech with quotes and images from Russian and world classics. Stalin, in the role of literary critic and critic, takes on the functions of literature. courts of last resort.

In 1934-1935, articles appeared that explored the innovative features of the historical novel and the relationship between the historical novel and real history. In 1936-1937, the problem of nationality became especially acute. An attempt was made to explore the interaction of the writer with the people. The development of the LC in the mid-30s was under the sign of the ideas of nationality and realism. During these years they were written historical works A. Tolstoy “Peter 1”, “Walking through torment”, M. Gorky “The Life of Klim Samgin”. N. Ostrovsky “How the steel was tempered.”

A generation of poets who were direct participants in social life is becoming active in poetry. transformations as essayists, rural correspondents, propagandists (A. Tvardovsky, M. Isakovsky, A. Surkov, A. Prokofiev). Soviet literature began to take a more thorough approach to the truthful reproduction of people's life, but its development had serious difficulties due to the peculiarities of the class struggle, the complexity of the domestic and international situation, and Stalin's personality cult had a negative impact on the development of literature.

One of the first discussions of great importance was the discussion “On Language” (1934). In M. Gorky’s article “On Language” there was advice: “Take care of the language, read epics, fairy tales - in them you will find beauty and hear the folk language.” In Gorky's article, he touched upon the problem of language, its development and enrichment. The writer fought for purity, clarity, and clarity of language. works. The discussion “On Language” was of great importance for the definition of ideological principles. tasks of owls liters. During that period, it was especially necessary to wage a fight against far-fetched word creation, against the abuse of various local dialects and jargons. It was a fight against clogging the language and reducing its role.

M. Gorky focused the attention of writers on the experience of the classics of Russian literature, emphasizing that from them comes the tradition of language mastery, the selection of the simplest and most meaningful words. Gorky: “The classics teach us that the simpler, clearer the semantic and figurative content of a word, the more strong, truthful and stable the image of the landscape and its influence on a person, the image of a person’s character and his attitude towards people.”

Discussion “On Formalism” (1936). General features of formalism: opposition of art and reality, separation of art. forms from ideological content. Formalists believed that there is no connection between form and content. This is not true. Content is the internal meaning of the form, since the formal nature is: style, speech, genre, composition, and the content is the theme, idea, plot, conflict.

Discussion “On vulgar sociologism” (1936). The main features of the VS-ma: the establishment of a direct dependence of lit. creativity from economic decisions, the class nature of the writer, the desire to explain the world by economic factors. Not only before the dissolution of RAPP, but also after the formation of the Union of Sov. writers used the following concepts in their articles: “kulak literature.” “peasant literature”, “literature of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia”. There was no feeling of a single owl. liters. This fragmentation of literature was due to supporters of vulgar sociologism.

Never before has scientific and public interest in Russian and world classics intensified as much as in the 30s. The creative experience of the classics was actively used in critical discussions: “On dramaturgy”, “On the language of art. Literary", "About the Historical Novel". These discussions helped to understand the innovative nature of owls. liters. Periodicals of those years made their contribution to the development of LC. In addition to the aforementioned magazine “LK”, the magazine “Lit. study" and "Lit. newspaper”, which began publishing in 1929.

TOPIC 6. Periodical literary critical publications of the 20-30s

“Print and Revolution” is a magazine of criticism that published articles on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, politics, music, and reviews.

"Soviet Art" - a newspaper that covered theatrical and music life country, attention was paid to art, cinema, and architecture. The newspaper held discussions on current issues of Soviet art.

"Soviet Theater" - a magazine on theater and drama. The magazine paid main attention to issues of current theatrical life.

“Our Achievements” - the magazine was founded by M. Gorky, it was designed to show the achievements of our country, it published the best essays about different sides life and activities of the Soviet people.

“Reader and Writer” is a weekly newspaper that provides information about the output of Gosizdat and contains articles of an educational nature about historical events, public and state. figures, writers. For speeches by representatives of various lit. groupings, the newspaper devoted a “writer’s page”, where these representatives stated their positions and responded to the events of the lit. life.

“30 days” - the magazine was popular among readers. It published short essays and stories, and provided various information about production achievements and new products in the field of culture, art and sports.

“Lit. critic" - the magazine examines the problems of: nationality and class, the relationship between realism and romanticism in the creative method of Sov. literature, traditions and innovation, the struggle for the purity of literature. language. All this found a lively response in the magazine. Discussion of these problems was expressed in the form of heated discussions in which other lit. took part. publications of the country. Since 1936, the journal “LK” began publishing an appendix - “Lit. review”, where the works of Sov. literature of various genres.

“Lit. study" - the magazine was founded by Gorky. The main theme of the magazine was working with creative youth. The articles analyzed the work of novice writers.

“Young Guard” is a youth magazine, an organ for the ideological and aesthetic education of owls. youth. It published materials on a variety of topics from the fields of politics, science, history, and morality.

"New World" - lit-hood. and a socio-political magazine that played the role of a unifier of owls. writers. Classic works of owls appeared on its pages. literature “The Life of Klim Samgin”, “Virgin Soil Upturned”, “ Quiet Don", "Peter 1".

TOPIC 7. Literary-critical activity of A.V. Lunacharsky

A. Lunacharsky (1875-1933) - critic, theorist, literary historian, party and government official. activist, a brilliant expert on history, philosophy, painting, theater. From 1917 to 1929, Lunacharsky was the People's Commissar of Education, whose functions included supervising all areas of art, including literature.

Possessing the gift of an extraordinary improviser and speaker, Lunacharsky constantly gave lectures in the first post-October years. He is an excellent polemicist. With the active participation of Lunacharsky, the first editions of Russian classics were published, whose work he knew perfectly, and could quote Nekrasov and L. Tolstoy on pages.

He played a huge role in the theoretical struggle for the methodological foundations of owls. liters. He was especially attentive to modern disputes, groups, entered into polemics, analyzed various directions in poetry, prose, drama in the articles: “Issues of literature and drama,” “Ways of modern literature,” “On modern trends in Russian literature.” In articles about the classics of Russian and world literature, Lunacharsky defended such important qualities of owls. literature, such as ideology, realism, nationality, humanism. Lunacharsky called for a deep assimilation of the classical heritage in the articles: “Read the classics”, “On the heritage of the classics”, “On the assimilation of the classics”.

In every possible way supporting the sprouts of new literature (articles about Furmanov, Leonov), promoting the owls. classics (articles about Gorky, Mayakovsky), Lunacharsky was concerned about the fate of literature as a whole. His critical and theoretical articles were a significant page in the history of the struggle for social services. realism.

The assessment of V. Mayakovsky’s activities was complex and contradictory. In articles by other critics, Mayakovsky's work was considered in connection with the aesthetic platform of the LEF group. Although critics noted Mayakovsky's talent, the negative attitude towards LEF extended to his work. Lunacharsky wrote about Mayakovsky like this: “We must talk about Mayakovsky from the point of view of a huge social and literary. the value of his work by carefully studying it.” His articles about Mayakovsky: “Life and Death”, “Poet of the Revolution”, “V. Mayakovsky is an innovator."

Lunacharsky: “The people are the creators of history, the proletariat, coming to master its great mission and its right to happiness. Hood. the image of a positive hero must be alive.” Lunacharsky found confirmation of his thoughts in the works of M. Gorky. In his works, critics were attracted by his proud challenge to society. He called Gorky’s epic “The Life of Klim Samgin” the driving force, the panorama of the era, in the article “Samghin”.

In 1929, A. Lunacharsky was removed from his post as People's Commissar, after which he became director of the Pushkin House. Soon he became seriously ill and went abroad for treatment. There he learned Spanish (the seventh language), as he was going to become a plenipotentiary in Spain, but he dies during the trip. The ashes of A. Lunacharsky were buried near the Kremlin wall in Moscow.

Makarov Alexander Nikolaevich (1912-1967) - deputy editor of “Lit. newspaper" and the magazine "Young Guard". As lit. critic, Makarov had a wide creative range. He wrote about M. Sholokhov, D. Bedny, E. Bagritsky, M. Isakovsky, V. Shukshin, K. Simonov. Gentleness and goodwill distinguish Makarov's critical style. In the little-known Siberian author V. Astafiev, Makarov saw genuine talent and predicted his path to “big literature.”

The critic never tried to “destroy” the author of an unsuccessful work, to offend him with an offensive word. He was more interested in predicting the development of literary creativity and, from the shortcomings of the work under review, “deducing” further routes that the author might seek to take.

Makarov: “Criticism is part of literature, its subject is man and his social life.”

TOPIC 8. Literary-critical activity of M. Gorky

Gorky (1868-1936): “The better we know the past, the easier, more deeply and joyfully we will understand the great significance of the present we are creating.” These words contain a deep meaning about the connection between literature and folk art, about mutual influence and mutual enrichment.

Nationality in literature is not reduced to depicting the life and situation of the masses. A truly popular writer in a class society is one who approaches the depiction of reality from the point of view of the working people and their ideals. A work is popular only when it truthfully and comprehensively reflects life and meets the urgent aspirations of the people.

Gorky viewed literature as a powerful means of understanding reality. Understanding reality, literature should make the reader feel and think. He considered the main condition for the implementation of this task to be a close study of life. Gorky in his articles raised the question of the relationship between literature and life, about the active invasion of literature into the life of the people, about the influence of art. creativity for raising owls. person.

By observing, the writer must study, compare, and understand the development of life in all its complexity and inconsistency. A writer must consider a person in the process of his formation, portray him in his works not only as he is today, but also as he should be and will be tomorrow. Gorky: “A book should make the reader become closer to life and think seriously about it.”

M. Gorky pointed out to writers the important role played by the writer’s ability to see, to imagine a person in his imagination, and warned against getting carried away by little things that interfere with a clear, distinct perception of him as a bright, living image. Little things often load the image, but at the same time they are necessary. From them it is necessary to select those characteristic things that express the essence of a person. A writer must look at his heroes as living people - and they will be alive when he finds, notes and emphasizes in any of them a characteristic feature of speech, gesture, face, smile.. By noting all this, the writer helps the reader to see better and hear what the writer depicts. A man-doer, a transformer of the world, should be the center of attention of literature.

An indissoluble connection with life, the depth of penetration into literature. process, truthful representation of lit. phenomena has passed, the aesthetic education of the people, the struggle for the quality of art. works, for the creation of worthy books that faithfully serve the cause of educating the working people - these are the features of the LC method.

The idea of ​​proletarian internationalism was central to Gorky’s creative ties with writers from many countries. His enormous role as a unifier of the progressive intelligentsia is generally recognized.

In Gorky's journalism during the revolutionary years, the theme of creation arises.

His articles: “The Path to Happiness”, “Conversations about Labor”, “On Knowledge”, “The Fight against Illiteracy” raised pressing issues related to the revival of Russia. Gorky: “Social. realism is creativity, the goal of which is the continuous development of individual human abilities.”

The scientific depth of Gorky’s judgments about the method of new art was manifested in his articles: “On social. realism”, “About literature”, “About prose”, “About language”, “About plays”, “Reader’s notes”, “Conversations with young people”.

The writer paid great attention to the problem of personality formation and the creation of conditions that ensure its growth. In the wide range of creative problems posed by M. Gorky, one of the important ones was the problem of traditions - the relationship to classical literature. heritage and folklore. “Folk art is the source of national culture. thin culture."

Gorky becomes the initiator of the publication and editor of the magazine “Our Achievements”. He also publishes the magazine Lit. study”, designed to provide basic consultations for newly minted writers. Gorky gave important children's literature and published the magazine "Children's Literature", where literary critical articles are published, discussions arise about the books of A. Gaidar, S. Marshak, K. Chukovsky.

Gorky's principle of active participation in literature. life of the country and the widespread use of artistic means. criticism in the construction of a new culture has become the law of activity of many owls. writers. Reflecting on the features of the new art. method, about the place of literature in the life of the people, about the relationship between reader and writer, they turned to the experience of literature, to the work of their contemporaries, and often to the lessons of their own work. They appeared in print with articles, reviews, and notes in which they assessed the literature. phenomena posed pressing issues of writing. Thus, A. Fadeev, D. Furmanov, V. Mayakovsky, S. Yesenin, A. Serafimovich, A. Makarenko, A. Tolstoy, A. Tvardovsky, M. Sholokhov, K. Fedin, L. Leonov, K Simonov, S. Marshak.

TOPIC 9. Literary criticism of the 40s

In strengthening the efficiency of literature during the war years, considerable merit belongs to the central and front-line press. Almost every newspaper issue published articles, essays, and stories. The following works were published on the pages of the newspaper “Pravda”: N. Tikhonov “Kirov is with us”, A. Tvardovsky “Vasily Terkin”, Korneychuk “Front”, B. Gorbatov “The Unconquered”, M. Sholokhov “They Fought for the Motherland”. Writers of the war years mastered all types of literature. “weapons”: epic, lyric, drama.

Nevertheless, the first word was spoken by lyric poets and publicists. Spiritual closeness with the people is the most remarkable feature of the lyrics of the war years. Homeland, war, death, hatred of the enemy, the dream of victory, military camaraderie, thoughts about the fate of the people - these are the main motives around which poetic thought beats. The poets sought in their personal experiences to express national feelings and faith in victory. This feeling is conveyed with great force in A. Akhmatova’s poem “Courage,” written during the most difficult war winter - in February 1942.

During the war years, poems were written in which the man and his feat were glorified. The authors strive to reveal the character of the hero, correlating the narrative with military events. The feat in the name of the Motherland was glorified as a national fact. meanings (Aliger “Zoe”).

Journalism had a huge influence on all genres of literature during the war years, and above all on the essay. The essayists tried to keep up with military events and played the role of lit. "scouts". From them the world first learned about the feat of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, about the feat of Panfilov’s men, about the heroism of the Young Guard.

The study of Russian literature did not stop during the war years. The focus of critics was on literature from the war period. The main goal of the LC of the 40s was patriotic service to the people. Although these were very difficult years, LK more or less lived actively and fulfilled her mission. And this is very important - while remaining generally principled, she did not make allowances for the circumstances of the war. Much work remains to be done to collect factual information relevant to criticism of the war years. At that time, part of the lit. magazines were published irregularly and lit. life has largely moved to the pages of newspapers. Characteristic of this period is the expansion of the rights and influence of the LC on the pages of newspapers.

In the 40s, the moral and educational functions of the LC intensified, its attention to issues of humanism, patriotism, and nationalism increased. traditions, which were considered in the light of the demands made by war.

Soviet critics made a great contribution to the study and understanding of the processes that took place during the war.

Report by A. Tolstoy “A Quarter of a Century of the Soviet Union.” literature" (1942). It establishes a periodization of the history of Russian literature, characterizes the features of each period, emphasizes innovation, humanistic, ideological, and moral foundations of Soviet literature.

Article by A. Fadeev “The Patriotic War and the Soviet Union. literature" (1942). This article is interesting for understanding the processes that took place during the war in literature. Fadeev emphasizes the peculiarities of Russian literature during the war years, speaks of the responsibility of the artist, who, in the days of great trials, thinks and feels together with his people.

Report by N. Tikhonov at the 9th Plenum of the Soviet Union. writers (1944) “Soviet literature in the days of the Second World War” was dedicated to the problem of the hero of the tragic era of the Soviet Union. liters.

TOPIC 10. Literary criticism of the 50s

At the first congress of the Sov. writers in 1934, it was decided to hold writers' congresses every 4 years. However, the 2nd Congress took place only in December 1954. At the congress, it should be noted the report of Boris Sergeevich Rurikov (1909-1969) “On the main problems of the Soviet Union. criticism”, in which he focused on issues that had been forgotten by the Soviets. lit-roy. He opposed the calm, fearless tone characteristic of criticism recent years, and said that criticism should be born in a free struggle of opinions. At the same time, it is necessary to connect literary-critical assessments with historical era when the work was created.

Rurikov emphasized the importance of the categories of aesthetics for literary criticism. work. He insisted on the need to explore the art. form lit. works. From 1953 to 1955 B. Rurikov was the editor-in-chief of Lit. newspapers", and from 1963 to 1969. editor of the magazine "Foreign Literature". Soon after the writers' congress, magazines began to be published: “Moscow”, “Neva”, “Don”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Russian Literature”, “Questions of Literature”.

In May 1956, A. Fadeev committed suicide. The suicide letter said: “I see no way to live further, since the art to which I gave my life was ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party. The best cadres of literature were physically exterminated, the best people of literature died at a premature age thanks to the criminal connivance of those in power.” This letter was not published in those years.

Lit. life in the 50s was varied and difficult to imagine as a chain of sequential events. The main quality of literature and politics in general became inconsistency and unpredictability. This was largely due to the controversial figure of N.S. Khrushchev, leader of the government party until October 1964. Like his predecessors, party leaders, Khrushchev paid close attention to literature and art. He was convinced that the party and the state have the right to interfere in cultural issues and therefore often spoke to writers and the creative intelligentsia. Khrushchev spoke out for the simplicity and accessibility of art. works. Own lit. he presented tastes as a standard and scolded writers, filmmakers and artists for elements of abstractionism in their works. Evaluation lit. works should be given by the party, N. Khrushchev believed.

In October 1958, B.L. was expelled from the Writers' Union. Parsnip. The reason for this was the publication of the novel “Doctor Zhivago” in the Milan publishing house (in Italy). The party leadership began a campaign of condemnation. In factories, collective farms, universities, and writers' organizations, people who had not read the novel supported the methods of persecution, which ultimately led to the illness and death of the author in 1960. He was sentenced at a meeting of writers: “Pasternak was always an internal emigrant, he finally exposed himself as an enemy of the people and literature."

After the 2nd Writers' Congress, the work of the Writers' Union is improving, and congresses are held regularly. Each of them talks about the status and tasks of the LC. Since 1958, Congresses of Writers of the RSFSR will be added to the union congresses (the first one took place in 1958).

Lit. life was enlivened by the publication of regional literary and artistic works. magazines: “Rise”, “Sever”, “Volga”. The writer's LC has become more active. In the speeches of M. Sholokhov, M. Isakovsky, it was said about the need for a close connection between literature and life and national tasks, about the need for a constant struggle for the nationality of literature and high art. skill.

In the new conditions of social life, the LC received ample opportunities for further development. The increased level of LC is evidenced by the controversy surrounding the novels of Granin, Dudintsev, Simonov, and the poetry of Yevtushenko and Voznesensky. Among the most important discussions of this time, which played a significant role in the development of LC, lit. process as a whole, we can highlight: 1) “What is modernity?” (1958)

2) “The working class in modern Soviet Union.” lit-re" (1956)

3) “About different styles in social literature. realism" (1958)

Based on modern lit. process, these discussions revealed the main trends in the development of owls. liters, raised important theoretical problems. Participants in the discussions Andreev and Shaginyan raised a number of questions about the moral character of modern man, about the relationship between historicism and modernity. Problems were widely discussed: the writer and life, the character of owls. human, modern life and owls. Liter.

Similar documents

The origins of Russian literary criticism and discussions around its nature. Trends in modern literary process and criticism. The evolution of V. Pustova’s creative path as a literary critic of modern times, the traditionalism and innovation of her views.

thesis, added 06/02/2017


Periods of development of Russian literary criticism, its main representatives. Method and criteria of normative genre criticism. Literary and aesthetic ideas of Russian sentimentalism. The essence of romantic and philosophical criticism, the work of V. Belinsky.

course of lectures, added 12/14/2011


On the uniqueness of Russian literary criticism. Literary-critical activity of revolutionary democrats. The decline of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word. The social upsurge of the 70s. Pisarev. Turgenev. Chernyshev

course work, added 11/30/2002


The state of Russian criticism of the 19th century: directions, place in Russian literature; major critics, magazines. Meaning of S.P. Shevyrev as a critic for journalism of the 19th century during the transition of Russian aesthetics from the romanticism of the 20s to critical realism 40s.

test, added 09/26/2012


Classicist criticism until the end of the 1760s. N.I. Novikov and bibliographic criticism. N.M. Karamzin and the beginning of aesthetic criticism in Russia. A.F. Merzlyakov on guard of classicism. V.A. Zhukovsky between aesthetic and religious-philosophical criticism.

course of lectures, added 11/03/2011


Poetics N.S. Leskova (specifics of style and combination of stories). Translations and literary critical publications about N.S. Leskov in English-language literary criticism. Reception of Russian literature based on the story of N.S. Leskova "Lefty" in English-language criticism.

thesis, added 06/21/2010


Biography of the politician, critic, philosopher and writer A.V. Lunacharsky. Determining the significance of A.V.’s activities Lunacharsky for Soviet and Russian literature and criticism. Analysis of Lunacharsky's critical works and his assessment of M. Gorky's creativity.

abstract, added 07/06/2014


Russian literature XVIII century. Liberation of Russian literature from religious ideology. Feofan Prokopovich, Antioch Cantemir. Classicism in Russian literature. VC. Trediakovsky, M.V. Lomonosov, A. Sumarokov. Moral researches of writers of the 18th century.

abstract, added 12/19/2008


A study of the work of Apollon Grigoriev - critic, poet and prose writer. The role of literary criticism in the work of A. Grigoriev. Analysis of the theme of national identity of Russian culture. The Grigoriev phenomenon is in the inextricable connection between the works and the personality of the author.

test, added 05/12/2014


Definition literary fairy tale. The difference between a literary fairy tale and science fiction. Features of the literary process in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. Tales of Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky. Fairy tale for children Yu.K. Olesha "Three Fat Men". Analysis of children's fairy tales by E.L. Schwartz.

Tickets for the exam. Philological Faculty of Moscow State University. Lecturer S.I. Kormilov. Modern ideas about the essence and functions of literary criticism. The relationship between criticism and literary criticism. Disciplines of modern literary criticism. Disciplines of modern literary criticism and their analogues in criticism.
Varieties of literary criticism in the first post-revolutionary years (1917-1921).
Literary critical articles by A. Blok and V. Bryusov: problematics and poetics.
“Writer’s” criticism of the 20s (E. Zamyatin, M. Kuzmin, O. Mandelstam).
Theoretical and organizational guidelines of Proletkult and its literary-critical practice. Associations of proletarian writers and their platforms. RAPP and Rapp criticism.
The relationship of art to reality in the platforms of literary groups.
Formalism in literary criticism and its influence on criticism. Literary critical works by Yu. Tynyanov, B. Eikhenbaum, V. Shklovsky.
Futurism and Lef. The theory of “life-building art” and the concept of social order. "Formalist Sociologists".
Platforms of the Imagists, Constructivists and the Serapion Brothers. Their evolution.
“Vulgar sociologism” in literary criticism and criticism. Its varieties. Speeches against vulgar sociologism in the 20-30s.
Party and state policy in the field fiction in 1917-1932. Speeches by V. Lenin, L. Trotsky, N. Bukharin, I. Stalin on issues of literature and culture.
A. Lunacharsky is a critic and methodologist in the field of literary studies and criticism.
Vyach. Polonsky as a journalist and critic.
Theoretical views and literary critical practice of A. Voronsky.
"Pereval" platform. Literary critical works by A. Lezhnev and D. Gorbov. Attitude to “The Pass” in criticism of the 20s - early 30s.
The concept of personality and the concept of realism in Soviet criticism of the 20s and early 30s.
The role of M. Gorky in Russian culture of the 20-30s. His critical and journalistic speeches.
The main problems discussed at the First Congress of Soviet Writers. Characteristic features of the congress and its role in the history of literature.
The problem of the “face” of Soviet periodicals of the 30s. The magazine "Literary Critic" and its supplement - "Literary Review".
A. Platonov the critic.
Main trends in Soviet criticism of the 30s (methodology, themes, assessments, nature of argumentation, typical phraseology). The evolution of the Literary Newspaper in the 30s.
Discussions of the 30s about method and worldview, about language and about “formalism” in literature.
The concept of personality in a totalitarian culture and the problem of the hero in Soviet criticism of the 30s.
Prose writers and poets of the “first wave” of emigration as literary critics.
Literary criticism by V. Khodasevich.
Professional literary and philosophical criticism in Russia abroad (20-30s).
Methodological principles, themes, problems, genres and authorial composition of literary criticism during the Great Patriotic War.
Post-war cultural policy and its impact on criticism. Theoretical principles in criticism of 1946-1955 and its “exposing” activities.
Criticism of criticism and literary criticism in the first post-war decade. Second Congress of Soviet Writers on Criticism and Literary Studies.
The first attempts at adogmatic judgments about literature in the 50s. The second congress of writers on the results and prospects of Soviet literature.
Articles by M. Shcheglov.
The impact of exposing the “cult of personality” on literary criticism. Conflicting processes in criticism of the second half of the 50s. N. Khrushchev's policy in the field of culture.
Creativity of A. Makarov.
Literary struggle and the emergence of trends in criticism in the 60s. Official line. Conservative-official direction. "Sixties". The emergence of the “national-soil” trend.
“Novomirskaya” criticism of the 60s. Polemics of the “Novomirtsy” with their ideological and literary opponents.
Theoretical problems in criticism of the 60s - the first half of the 80s. 27. Organizational measures of the 70s in relation to literary and artistic criticism and the main trends in its evolution during the period of “stagnation”.
Genres, composition and style of critical works. The evolution of the genre structure of Soviet criticism in the 70s
Russian classical literature and literary criticism XIX V. in the interpretations of criticism and “popular literary criticism” of the 70-90s.
Assessments of the level of current literature and attempts to predict its development in criticism of the 70s - the first half of the 80s.
Directions in criticism of the 70s - the first half of the 80s. Methodological orientations and the nature of the polemics of those years.
tical and axiological preferences of famous critics of the 70-90s. Genres and styles of their literary critical works.
Stages of development of literary criticism during the period of “perestroika”. Features of literary-critical polemics of the second half
x years.
Criticism of democratic orientation during the period of “perestroika”.
Criticism of the “national-soil” orientation during the period of “perestroika”. The problem of literary-critical “centrism”.
Positions of literary and artistic publications in the 90s and the main features of “post-perestroika” criticism in Russia.
Theoretical and literary problems in criticism of the second half of the 80s and 90s.
Late literary critical works of emigrants of the “first wave” (40-70s).
Writers of the “third wave” of emigration as critics and their polemics
between themselves.
Strengths and weaknesses of existing manuals and research
on the history of Russian criticism of the 20th century. (after 1917).
Worldview and evolution of literary critical creativity of D.P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky.
Literary criticism by Georgy Adamovich.
M. Lobanov and V. Kozhinov as critics and publicists.
Main features of Russian literary criticism in the 2000s.