Name: Poetics of Old Russian Literature.
The artistic specificity of ancient Russian literature is increasingly attracting the attention of literary medievalists. This is understandable: without fully identifying all artistic features Russian literature XI-XVII centuries. it is impossible to construct a history of Russian literature and an aesthetic assessment of the monuments of Russian literature of the first seven centuries of its existence.
Table of contents
BOUNDARIES OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES
CHRONOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES
1. POETICS OF LITERATURE AS A SYSTEM OF A WHOLE
OLD RUSSIAN LITERATURE IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE FINE ARTS
“NARRATORY SPACE” AS AN EXPRESSION OF “NARRATORY TIME” IN ANCIENT RUSSIAN FINE ART
RELATIONS OF LITERARY GENRES BETWEEN THEM
2. POETICS OF LITERARY GENERALIZATION
LITERARY ETIQUETTE
ABSTRACTING
ORNAMENTALITY
ELEMENTS OF REALITY
3. POETICS OF LITERARY DEVICES
METAPHORS-SYMBOLS
STYLISTIC SYMMETRY
COMPARISONS
NON-STYLIZED IMITATIONS
4. POETICS OF ARTISTIC TIME
ARTISTIC TIME OF A WORD WORK
ARTISTIC TIME IN FOLKLORE
CLOSED TIME OF A TALE
EPIC TIME OF EPICS
RITUAL TIME OF LAMENTATIONS
A FEW GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT ARTISTIC TIME IN FOLKLORE
ARTISTIC TIME IN ANCIENT RUSSIAN LITERATURE
CHRONICLES TIME
ASPECTS OF “ETERNITY” IN PREACHING LITERATURE
SPATIAL IMAGE OF TIME IN THE POWER BOOK
PRESENT TIME IN THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF THE XVI-XVII CENTURIES.
“RESURRECTION OF THE PAST” IN EARLY RUSSIAN DRAMATURGY
“TIME PERSPECTIVE” IN THE “LIFE” OF HAVAKKUM
THE FATE OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN ARTISTIC TIME IN THE NEW LITERATURE
MORAL DESCRIPTIVE TIME IN GONCHAROV
“CHONNICAL TIME” IN DOSTOEVSKY
“CHRNICAL TIME” BY SALTYKOV-SHCHEDRIN
OVERCOMING TIME IN FICTION
5. POETICS OF ARTISTIC SPACE
ARTISTIC SPACE OF A WORD WORK
ARTISTIC SPACE OF FAIRY TALES
ARTISTIC SPACE IN ANCIENT RUSSIAN LITERATURE.
Literary genre.
The category of literary genre is a historical category. Literary genres appear only at a certain stage in the development of the art of words and then constantly change and are replaced. The point is not only that some genres come to replace others and not a single genre is “eternal” for literature; the point is also that the very principles of identifying individual genres change, the types and nature of genres change, their functions in that or another era. Modern division into genres, based on purely literary features, appears relatively late.
For Russian literature purely literary principles the distinction of genres came into force mainly in the 17th century. Until that time literary genres to one degree or another, in addition to literary functions, they carry out extraliterary functions. Genres are determined by their use: in worship (in its different parts), in legal and diplomatic practice (article lists, chronicles, stories about princely crimes), in the atmosphere of princely life (solemn words, glory), etc.
We observe similar phenomena in folklore, where extra-folklore features of genres have very great importance, especially in ancient periods (in ritual folklore, in history, in fairy tales, etc.).
Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Poetics of Old Russian Literature - Likhachev D.S. - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.
Download zip
You can buy this book below best price at a discount with delivery throughout Russia.
The artistic specificity of ancient Russian literature is increasingly attracting the attention of literary medievalists. This is understandable: without fully identifying all the artistic features of Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries. it is impossible to construct a history of Russian literature and an aesthetic assessment of the monuments of Russian literature of the first seven centuries of its existence.
Separate observations on the artistic specifics of Old Russian literature were already available in the works of F. I. Buslaev, I. S. Nekrasov, N. S. Tikhonravov, V. O. Klyuchevsky and others. These individual observations are closely related to their general ideas about ancient Russian literature and with those historical and literary schools to which they belonged.
Only in last years Relatively small works have appeared, setting out the general views of their authors on artistic specificity and on the artistic methods of ancient Russian literature. I mean articles by A. S. Orlov, V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, I. P. Eremin, G. Raab and others.
(1) Orlov A. S. and Adrianova-Peretz V. P. Literary studies of the Russian Middle Ages // Izv. OLYA, 1945, No. 6; Orlov A. S. Thoughts on the state of work on the literature of the Russian Middle Ages // Izv. OLYA, 1947, No. 2; Adrianova-Peretz V.P.: 1) The main tasks of studying ancient Russian literature in studies of 1917-1947 // TODRL. T.VI. 1948; 2) Essays on poetic style Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1947; 3) Old Russian literature and folklore (to the formulation of the problem) If TODRL. T. VII. 1949; 4) Historical literature XI - early XV centuries. And folk poetry// TODRL. T. VIII. 1951; 5) Historical stories of the 17th century and oral folk art// TODRL. poetic stories of the 17th century and oral folk art // TODRL.T. IX. 1953; 6) About the basics artistic method Old Russian literature // Rus. Literature, 1958, No. 4; 7) On the question of the image “ inner man"in Russian literature of the 11th-14th centuries. // Issues in the study of Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries. M.; L., 1958; 8) On realistic trends in ancient Russian literature (XI-XV centuries) // TODRL. T. XVI. I960; Eremin I.P.: 1) The Kiev Chronicle as a monument of literature // TODRL. T. VII (see also: Eremin I. Literature of Ancient Rus'. M.; Leningrad, 1966. P. 98-131); 2) Latest research artistic; forms of ancient Russian literary works// TODRL. T. XII. 1956; 3) On the artistic specificity of ancient Russian literature // Rus. Literature, 1958, No. 1; 4) On the debate about the realism of ancient Russian literature // Rus. Literature, 1959, No. 4; Raab H.: 1) Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Realismus in der russischen Literatur // Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst Moritz Arnd-Universitat Greifswald. Gesellschaftsund sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe. 1958, Bd. 4; 2) On the question of the precursors of realism in Russian literature // Rus. literature, 1960, No. 3. Wed. also: Likhachev D.S.: 1) At the precursors of realism in Russian literature // Questions of literature, 1957, No. 1; 2) On the issue of origin literary trends in Russian literature // Rus. Literature, 1958, No. 2; 3) Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1958. Ed. 2nd. M., 1970; 4) Literary etiquette of Ancient Rus' (to the problem of studying) // TODRL. T. XVII. 1961; 5) About one feature of realism // Questions of literature. 1960, no. 3.
Is it possible to talk about ancient Russian literature as a certain unity from the point of view of historical poetics? Is there continuity in the development of Russian literature from ancient to new and what is the essence of the differences between ancient Russian literature and new? These questions should be answered throughout this book, but they can be posed in a preliminary form at the beginning of the book.
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES
It is customary to talk about the Europeanization of Russian literature in the 18th century. In what sense can ancient Russian literature be considered “non-European”? Usually, two supposedly inherent properties are meant: isolation, isolation of its development and its intermediate position between East and West. Did ancient Russian literature really develop in isolation?
Ancient Russian literature was not only not isolated from the literatures of neighboring Western and southern countries, in particular from Byzantium, but up to the 17th century. we can talk about the opposite - about the absence of clear national boundaries in it. We can with with good reason talk about the partial commonality of the development of the literatures of the Eastern and Southern Slavs. There was a single literature, a single written language and a single literary (Church Slavonic) language among Eastern Slavs(Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians), Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians. The main fund of church-literary monuments was common.
Liturgical, preaching, church-edifying, hagiographical, partly world-historical (chronographic), partly narrative literature was uniform for the entire Orthodox south and east of Europe. Common were such huge literary monuments as prologues, menaions, solemnities, triodions, partly chronicles, paleas different types, “Alexandria”, “The Tale of Barlaam and Joasaph”, “The Trojan History”, “The Tale of Akira the Wise”, “The Bee”, cosmographies, physiologists, six-day, apocrypha, individual lives, etc., etc.
Moreover: a commonality of literature existed not only between the eastern and southern Slavs, but for ancient period she captured and Western Slavs(Czechs and Slovaks, in relation to Poland - a controversial issue). Finally, this literature itself, common to the Orthodox Slavs and Romanians, was not isolated in the European world. And we are not talking about Byzantium alone here...
N. K. Gudziy, objecting to me on this matter in the article “Provisions that Cause Disputes,” argued that the ones I listed common monuments“almost entirely translated.” But there is no way to say that. I also include in my list monuments of Russian origin that were included in the fund of general South and East Slavic literature, but it would be possible to indicate no less number of monuments from Bulgarian, Serbian and even Czech, which became common to East and South Slavic literature without any translation due to the commonality of the Church Slavonic language. But the point is not whether the monuments common to all Orthodox Slavs were translated or original (both are presented in abundance), but that they were all common to all Eastern and South Slavic literature in a single text, on the same language and they all endured common destiny. In the literature of the Orthodox Slavs one can observe general changes in style, general mental trends, and a constant exchange of works and manuscripts. The monuments were understandable without translation, and there is no doubt about the presence of a common Church Slavonic language for all Orthodox Slavs (separate “national” versions of this language did not interfere with its understanding).
(1) The following people wrote about the common development and mutual influence of the literatures of the Eastern and Southern Slavs: Speransky M.N. On the history of the relationship between Russian and South Slavic literatures // Izv. ORYAS, 1923, vol. XXVI; republished in the book: Speransky M. N. From the history of Russian-Slavic literary connections. M., 1960; Gudziy N.K. Literature Kievan Rus and the most ancient non-Slavic literatures // IV International Congress of Slavists. Abstracts of reports. M., 1960; Likhachev D.S. Some problems of studying the second South Slavic influence in Russia And Ibid.; Moshin V. A. On the periodization of Russian-South Slavic Literary connections X-XV centuries, // TODRL. T. XIX. 1963.
(2) There are no generalizing large works on this topic. See the literature on the issue in the article by V. A. Moshin mentioned in the previous footnote.
(3) Literature issues. 1965, no. 7, p. 158.
(4) In the question of the Russian origin of the “Prologue” we will take into account the conclusions of the researchers of this very complex monument - A.I. Sobolevsky, B. Angelov (Sofia) and V. Moshin (Belgrade). The translation of the ancient edition of the Greek Synaxarion was completed in Rus', supplemented with Russian articles, received the name “Prologue” in Rus' and from here moved to the Balkans. Consequently, the “Prologue” is only partly a translated monument.
“The study of poetics,” writes D.S. Likhachev, “should be based on the study of the historical and literary process in all its complexity and in all its diverse connections with reality.” Therefore, the author examines the problems of historical poetics based on the material of ancient Russian literature and reveals its artistic specificity as a single whole.
The appeal to the “origins” of Russian literature is due to the fact that “without fully identifying all the artistic features of Russian literature of the 11th – 17th centuries. it is impossible to construct a history of Russian literature.” Moreover, Likhachev considers it important “the aesthetic study of monuments ancient art", because "in our time, the study of ancient Russian literature is becoming more and more necessary. We are gradually beginning to realize that the solution to many problems in the history of Russian literature of its classical period is impossible without involving the history of ancient Russian literature.”
M.M. Bakhtin noted: “Likhachev in “The Poetics of Old Russian Literature” did not “sever” literature from culture, he made an effort to “understand literary phenomenon in the differentiated unity of the entire culture of the era."
D.S. Likhachev consistently explores the poetics of ancient Russian literature as a system of the whole, the poetics of artistic generalization, the poetics literary means, poetics of artistic time, poetics of artistic space.
The author identified the structural differences of Old Russian literature as a result of its comparison with new literature:
the text is unstable and traditional;
genres are sharply delimited from each other, and works are delimited from each other weakly, maintaining their stability only in some cases;
the literary fate of works is heterogeneous: the text of some is carefully preserved, while others are easily changed by copyists;
there is a hierarchy of genres, just like a hierarchy of writers;
styles are extremely diverse, they differ in genres, but custom styles are generally not clearly expressed.”
D.S. Likhachev dwells on one of the categories of historical poetics - the category of genre. In ancient Russian literature there was a functional principle of genre formation: “genres are determined by their use: in worship, in legal and diplomatic practice, in the atmosphere of princely life, etc.”, in other words, genres differ in what they are intended for.
The identification of genres is subject to literary etiquette, which, together with the literary canon developed by it, is the most typical medieval conventionally normative connection between content and form. According to literary etiquette:
the subject about which we're talking about, determines the choice of expressions, the choice of “cliché formulas”: if we are talking about the sacred, everyday formulas are required; military formulas are required when talking about military events - regardless of whether in a military story or in a chronicle, in a sermon or in a life;
the language in which the author writes changes: “the requirements of literary etiquette give rise to the desire to distinguish between the use of the Church Slavonic language and Russian in all its varieties”: church subjects required church language, secular ones - Russian.
there are canons in constructing a plot, individual situations, character characters etc.
It is etiquette, being the form and essence of medieval idealization, that explains “borrowings from one work to another, the stability of formulas and situations, the methods of forming “common” editions of works, partly the interpretation of those facts that formed the basis of the works, and much more. etc." So, the writer strives to “introduce his work into the framework of literary canons, strives to write about everything “as it should be.”
In addition to genre, the researcher characterizes other important categories of historical poetics: artistic time and space.
Thus, “time for the ancient Russian author was not a phenomenon of human consciousness.<…>Narrative time slowed down or sped up depending on the needs of the narrative itself.” The researcher names a series specific features artistic time of ancient Russian literature: time is subordinated to the plot, therefore it seemed more objective and epic, less diverse and more connected with history.
In the field of artistic time, there was a law of image integrity, which boils down to the following:
in the presentation, only that which can be described in full is selected, and this selected “reduced” - schematized and condensed. Old Russian writers talk about historical fact only what they consider important, according to their didactic criteria and ideas about literary etiquette;
the event is told from its beginning to its end. The reader does not need to guess what happened outside the story. For example, if the life of a saint is told, then first it talks about his birth, then about his childhood, about the beginning of his piety, the most important events of his life are given, then he talks about death and posthumous miracles;
artistic time not only has its own end and beginning, but also a certain kind of closedness throughout its entire length;
the narrative never goes back or runs ahead, i.e. artistic time is unidirectional;
the development of the action slows down, giving it an epic calm in development. The speeches of the characters express in detail and fully their basic attitude to the events and reveal the meaning of these events.
Likhachev considers the following features of the artistic space of ancient Russian literature:
compactness of the image, its “condensation”. The writer, like the artist, sees the world in conditional relationships;
geographical and ethical ideas are connected with each other;
events in the chronicle, in the lives of saints, in historical stories are mainly movements in space; the plot of the story is very often “arrival” and “arrival”;
the chronicler often combines stories about various events in different places of the Russian land. He is constantly transferred from place to place. It costs him nothing, after briefly reporting an event in Kyiv, to talk about an event in Smolensk or Vladimir in the next sentence. There are no distances for him. In any case, distances do not interfere with his narration.
D.S. Likhachev combines Veselovsky’s methodological impartiality with a lively analysis of the “philosophy” of a particular artistic style and genre, with historical and hermeneutical excursions from the field of ancient Russian literature into later literary eras (digressions about Goncharov, Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin in “Poetics” ancient Russian literature).
Old Russian literature in its relation to the fine arts
Word and image were more closely connected in Ancient Rus' than in modern times. And this left its mark on both literature and the fine arts. Interpenetration is a fact of their internal structure. In literary criticism it should be considered not only from a historical and literary perspective, but also from a theoretical one.
The fine art of Ancient Rus' was action-packed, and this story-telling until the beginning of the 17th century, when significant structural changes took place in the fine arts, not only did not weaken, but steadily increased. The subjects of fine art were predominantly literary. Characters and individual scenes from the Old and New Testaments, saints and scenes from their lives, various Christian symbols were to one degree or another based on literature - church literature, of course, predominantly, but not only church literature. The subjects of the frescoes were the subjects of written sources. The contents of icons, especially icons with stamps, were associated with written sources. Miniatures illustrated the lives of saints, chronological pales, chronicles, chronographs, physiologists, cosmographies and hexadays, individual historical stories, legends, etc. The art of illustration was so high that even works of theological and theological-symbolic content could be illustrated. Paintings were created on the themes of church hymns (akathists, for example), psalms, theological works...
The artist was often a well-read erudite, combining information from various written sources in paintings and miniatures. Even the portrait images of saints, princes and sovereigns, ancient philosophers or Old Testament and New Testament characters were based not only on the pictorial tradition, but also on the literary one. Verbal portrait was no less important for the artist than the visual canon. The artist seemed to compensate in his works for the lack of clarity of ancient literature. He strove to see what ancient Russian authors of written works could not see under the terms of their artistic method. The word underlay many works of art and was its original “protograph” and “archetype”. That is why the evidence of fine art (especially face lists and hagiographical marks) is so important for establishing the history of the text of works, and the history of the text of works for dating images.
Illustrations and hagiographic icons (especially with inscriptions in stamps) can indicate the existence of certain editions and serve to establish their dating and discover texts that have not survived in manuscripts. Front manuscripts and marks of icons can help in the study of the Old Russian reader, his understanding of the text, especially translated works. The miniaturist as a reader of the text he illustrates – this research topic promises a lot. It will help us understand the Old Russian reader, the degree of his awareness, the accuracy of penetration into the text, the type of historicity of perception, and much more. This is especially important given the lack of criticism and literary criticism in Ancient Rus'.
The illustrations serve as a kind of commentary on the work, and a commentary that uses the entire arsenal of interpretations and explanations 1 .
Why study the poetics of ancient Russian literature? Instead of a conclusion
The history of culture stands out sharply in the general historical development of mankind. It constitutes a special, red thread in a retinue of many threads of world history. Unlike general movement“civil” history, the process of cultural history is not only a process of change, but also a process of preserving the past, a process of discovering new things in the old, accumulating cultural values. The best works of culture, and in particular the best works of literature, continue to participate in the life of humanity. The writers of the past, insofar as they continue to be read and continue to have an impact, are our contemporaries. And we need more of these good contemporaries of ours. In humanistic works, humane in the highest sense of the word, culture does not know aging.
Continuity cultural values- their most important property. As our historical knowledge develops and deepens, and our ability to appreciate the culture of the past, humanity gains the opportunity to rely on the entire cultural heritage. All forms of social consciousness, ultimately determined by the material basis of culture, at the same time directly depend on the mental material accumulated by previous generations and on the mutual influence of different cultures on each other.
That is why an objective study of the history of literature, painting, architecture, music is as important as the preservation of cultural monuments itself. At the same time, we should not suffer from myopia in the selection of “living” cultural monuments. Expanding our horizons, and in particular aesthetic ones, is the great task of cultural historians of various specialties. The more intelligent a person is, the more he is able to understand and assimilate, the broader his horizons and ability to understand and accept cultural values - past and present. The less broad a person’s cultural horizons are, the more intolerant he is of everything new and “too old,” the more he is at the mercy of his usual ideas, the more slanted, narrow and suspicious he is. One of the most important evidence of cultural progress is the development of understanding of the cultural values of the past and the cultures of other nationalities, the ability to preserve, accumulate, and perceive their aesthetic value. The entire history of the development of human culture is a history not only of the creation of new ones, but also of the discovery of old cultural values. And this development of understanding of other cultures to a certain extent merges with the history of humanism. This is the development of tolerance in the good sense of the word, peacefulness, respect for man and other peoples.
We find similar thoughts in the works of the famous philologist Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman 1.
Relying in his works on the theory and method of studying literary and linguistic evolution developed by V. V. Vinogradov, Yu. M. Lotman expanded the circle of readers to whom he addressed his articles and monographs. In addition to scientists and specialists in certain fields of science, he also includes students, literature teachers and even schoolchildren in this circle. The author does this deliberately, emphasizing the idea that the ultimate price of any study of literary and linguistic facts is to instill in people a love for native literature and language, teach them to understand a work of art, and introduce them to the high spiritual structure of genuine culture.
The scientist considers one of the most harmful theories rooted in our consciousness to be the idea of the “Chinese wall,” which supposedly fences off the “high,” “academic,” university science of literature from the study of literature at school. Proponents of this theory reduce all literature to a literature program, reading works to reading individual “passages,” analysis to answering questions for repetition, diligently fencing students off from everything “extra” that does not fit into the established patterns of school literature study. Such a stereotype can only create boredom, which completely kills any interest in the subject.
Yu. M. Lotman asserts in his works that there is and never is “excess” in culture, because you cannot be “too” cultured, just like you cannot be too smart or kind. Therefore, overcoming the fear of science is the most important step on the way to the school that time requires us to create.
The anthology contains several fragments from various articles, centered around the key issues of the school course on the history of Russian literature. early XIX V. The school should make people think, therefore, addressing his work to the philologist teacher, the scientist widely and freely operates with scientific concepts and special terms, easily and naturally weaving them into the verbal outline of his philosophical and analytical reasoning. The strict logic of the presentation of the material does not prevent the scientist from introducing into the texts of his research a large amount of specific material and various kinds of additional clarifications, digressions, and comments, which, however, in no way reduces the dynamic focus of the analysis of a work of art. At the same time, the author not only expresses and argues his point of view on a particular issue, but also enters into polemics with his opponents, leaving, however, the reader the opportunity to draw his own conclusions.
Philology today is developing rapidly, constantly enriching itself with new factual material, discovering new unconventional methods of analysis, and absorbing data from related sciences. And the task of scientists is, first of all, to bring all the discoveries and achievements of this science to the minds and hearts of their contemporaries, awakening in them a careful and respectful attitude towards spiritual heritage of his people.
Poetics of artistic generalization:
Literature and literary language of that time were subject to etiquette. Literary etiquette and the literary canons developed by it. The most typical medieval conditional normative connection between content and form.
There are formulas inherent, for example, in the description of a saint or formulas for military stories: the prince’s march on the campaign, certain moments of the battle, etc.
The language also changes: when philosophizing, the writer resorts to Church Slavonicisms, talking about everyday affairs, and Narodorussianisms.
Not only is a certain style of presentation built according to the canons, but the situations themselves are created exactly as required by etiquette requirements.
All these stencils and templates are used by readers - not at all mechanically, but exactly where they are required.
The traditional nature of DRL is a fact of a certain artistic system, closely related to many phenomena of ancient Russian. works.
(Abstracting is isolating one element from many others).
The desire for artistic abstraction of what is depicted runs through all medieval Russian literature. It was caused by attempts to see in everything “temporary” and “perishable” symbols and signs of the eternal, divine.
Typical phenomenon Old Russian prose – ornamentality, i.e. poetic speech.
One of the highest manifestations of poetic speech is ornamental prose, the heyday of which falls at the beginning of the 20th century. However, it appeared in Rus' quite early. (A Word about Law and Grace)
The style of weaving words belongs to one of the very first examples of ornamental prose.
Ornamental prose is close to verse in that it strives to create a kind of “super meaning”. In this case, the rhythmic organization of speech is not required.
In the style of weaving words, repetitions of words with the same root are often used, and key words for of this text+ realistic elements.
Poetics lit. Means:
Metaphors-symbols
In the Middle Ages, a poetics of symbols developed. Metaphors for the most part are also symbols. Symbolism received its clearest development in Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries. Starting from the end of the 14th century, the period of its breakdown began. A revival of interest in church symbolism was observed in the 16th century.
Stylistic symmetry is a poetic phenomenon that subsequently disappeared.
The essence: the same thing is said twice in a similar syntactic form.
From artistic parallelism stylistic symmetry is different in that it does not compare two elements, but says the same thing in different words. Steele. Symmetry is an archaic phenomenon; it is characteristic of artists. pre-feudal and feudal thinking.
Comparisons
In medieval literature there are few comparisons based on external similarity: there are many more comparisons emphasizing tactile, gustatory, and olfactory similarities. (A daughter-in-law is kind in the house, like honey on the lips).
Conventional comparisons primarily concern the inner essence of the objects being compared (Sergius of Radonezh is the most luminous luminary).
Unstylized imitations (14th-15th centuries)
Zadonshchina is a typical unstylized imitation of a monument from the era of Russian independence.
