Literary criticism of the 20th century. Evgeniya Ivanovaliterary criticism in newspapers and magazines of the early twentieth century

Introduction

Ideas about the essence of literary and artistic criticism in modern theoretical concepts (B. I. Bursov, V. I. Kuleshov, V. V. Kozhinov, A. S. Kurilov, G. N. Pospelov, V. E. Khalizev, Yu. I. Surovtsev, A. G. Bocharov, V. P. Muromsky). Scientific, journalistic and artistic aspects in criticism, the possibility of their different relationships. The evaluative side of criticism, focused on the current literary process with its current tasks.

Modern relationship between criticism and literary disciplines. Classification of literary studies and criticism according to the criteria of methodology and technique, according to the volume and subject of research, according to its goals, aspects and genres.

The need to study the history of criticism to understand the conditions of existence of literature and its development.

Literary criticism as an expression of the self-awareness of society and literature in their evolution. Critical understanding of Russian literature after 1917, direct impact on it.

The subject of study in the course is the social and literary platforms of writers' associations and critics, their formulation of methodological and theoretical-critical problems, the principles of evaluating works of literature; the work of the most brilliant or indicative authors of their time; genres, composition and style of critical works, as well as facts of the history of literary criticism, depending on the degree of influence of academic literary criticism on current literary criticism in a given historical period, on their more or less active interaction.

The fundamental difference between the situation in life and literature after 1917 and the situation at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Criticism as an integral part of the literary process, depending on social conditions to a greater extent than literature.

The problem of periodization of literary criticism in Russia after 1917. Chronological boundaries of the major stages of its existence: from 1917 to the mid-50s. - a time of gradual strengthening and consolidation of totalitarian social attitudes, nationalization of all spheres of life, including literature and criticism; from the second half of the 50s to the second half of the 80s - a time of gradual contradictory, with retreats, elimination of totalitarian consciousness, its all-round crisis; from the second half of the 80s - the time of the collapse of totalitarian socialism, an acute struggle between supporters of different paths of development of Russia, the search for the place of literature and literary criticism in the new social situation and the beginning of their existence completely independent of state institutions.

Identification of periods that differed significantly from each other within large historical stages. The time of the civil war - a split in both society and literature, a division of critics according to their attitude towards the revolution: into those who accepted it, those who did not accept it and those who were emphatically apolitical. Multiple reductions in publication opportunities. First half of the 20s. - relative balance of opposing trends in criticism, relatively broad contacts of Russian writers with Russian literary abroad (the phenomenon of Russian Berlin). Second half of the 20s - early 30s. - the forced formation of a monistic concept of Soviet literature and corresponding criticism, the displacement of independent-minded authors, including those of Marxist orientation. 30s - consolidation of totalitarian attitudes while the best critics and some magazines try to save their face; maximum weakening of criticism during mass repressions against the intelligentsia. The years of the Great Patriotic War are a relative, partial emancipation of literary thought with the practical impossibility of restoring the former potential of criticism. Second half of the 40s - early 50s. - the extreme decline of literature and criticism, the all-encompassing dogmatization and mythologization of public consciousness, only partially shaken in 1954.

Second half of the 50s. - the time of the first, quickly stopped rise of public consciousness, its manifestations in literature and criticism, the time of the beginning of the gradual overcoming by many writers of a number of totalitarian attitudes. 60s - the years of the emergence of trends in literary criticism, the active resistance of not only individual writers to outdated dogmas, a noticeable increase in the professionalism of criticism and especially literary criticism. 70s - first half of 80s. - social stagnation, suppression of dissent and at the same time a significant increase in the level of literature, which received more cautious and balanced criticism than before. 1986-1987 - the beginning of “glasnost”, the revival of the newly permitted “anti-Stalinism”; 1988-1989 - the removal of basic censorship restrictions, a more complex differentiation of public consciousness, the beginning of its “deleninization”, the consolidation of a wide pluralism of opinions and the reflection of this process in criticism, the “return” of the Russian diaspora; after 1991 - a time of social reforms - a weakening of polemics in literary criticism (as opposed to politics), its attempts to find its specific subject and its reader without the previous ideological “struggle” for it.

The course involves studying not only the best in the history of criticism, but also the most characteristic, which had an impact (including a very negative one) on the literary process or became its adequate manifestation. Whenever possible, the degree of accessibility of different publications to students is taken into account.

Literary criticism from 1917 to the beginning of the 30s.

Special conditions for the existence of literary criticism in the post-October period. The process of “nationalization” of literature and attempts to transform criticism into a way of organizing literary “business.” The gradual nature of this process, its acceleration by the end of the 20s. The clash of the intentions of the authorities with an extremely numerous and motley composition of participants in critical battles - people with different levels of aesthetic culture and a multi-colored spectrum of both moral orientations (from traditional readiness to serve society to a passionate desire for power) and socio-political (from rejection of revolution to romantic illusions at her expense). Influence on the development of literary criticism in the 20s. such a fact as the existence of literary associations and groups. Their characteristics.

Speeches by V. I. Lenin, L. D. Trotsky, G. E. Zinoviev, L. B. Kamenev, N. I. Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders on issues of literature and cultural policy. The influence of Trotsky’s book “Literature and Revolution” (1923) on ideas about post-revolutionary literature and on the terminology of criticism. Introduction of such concepts as “proletarian writer”, “peasant writer”, “fellow traveler”. They are widely distributed, including in the party press and official documents. Using these concepts for the purposes of group struggle. The influence of the methodological guidelines of vulgar sociologism in a broad sense both on the interpretation of concepts and on the attitude towards the creative capabilities of the writer. The “elaborative” tone of “Napostovsky” and Rappovsky criticism (B. Volin, L. Sosnovsky, G. Lelevich, L. Averbakhi, etc.).

Attempts to counteract the dictatorship of power and defend the independence of art. Opposition to the Bolshevik government, egofuturist V. R. Khovin and his independent magazine “Book Corner”. “Heretical” articles by E. I. Zamyatin (1884-1937), his condemnation of dogmatism, defense of the idea of ​​​​infinity of development (the image of a revolution that does not know the “last number”), rejection of opportunism. “I'm Afraid” (1921) - a forecast about the possible degradation of Russian literature if it loses its spiritual independence. The concept of “neorealism” as an art that synthesizes the achievements of the Silver Age with the traditions of classical literature. Defense of conventional forms in art and criticism of naturalistic tendencies. Reviews of current literature. Problems of poetics in Zamyatin's articles. His forced departure from criticism. Speeches by L. N. Lunts (1901-1924) and his defense of the aesthetic intrinsic value and autonomy of art; problems of plot composition in Luntz's articles. Illness, departure to the West, early death. Defense of the aesthetic autonomy of art and the demand to bring the aesthetic analysis of form to the center of attention of researchers (B. M. Eikhenbaum, Yu. N. Tynyanov, V. B. Shklovsky). Affirmation of the artist’s spiritual freedom in the critical speeches of the members of the “Pereval” group (second half of the 1920s).

Resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of June 18, 1925 “On the party’s policy in the field of fiction” and its impact on the situation in criticism. The growth of crisis phenomena in literary life. Gradual displacement of independent criticism. Cessation of publication of a number of magazines - “Russian Contemporary”, “Russia” (“New Russia”), etc.

The critical campaign of 1929 launched by RAPP against Evg. Zamyatin, B. Pilnyak, M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, I. Kataev, Artem Vesely and others. The decline of the formal school in an atmosphere of general politicization of life. “Monument to a Scientific Error” by V. Shklovsky (1930). The trial of "The Pass" at the Communist Academy (1930). The fate of V. Pereverzev’s methodology: the defeat of his school at the turn of the 20-30s;

denial of not only “vulgar” (abstract-class) sociologism, but also the positive aspects of Pereverzev’s system (search for artistic specificity of both the form and content of a work, the desire for a holistic analysis, rejection of illustrativeness in literature and the replacement of artistry with “relevance”).

Approval of political criteria when assessing a work of art. The idea of ​​intensifying the class struggle in literature, proclaimed by critics of RAPP, and the fate of Mayakovsky. Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (1932) and the dissolution of RAPP. Unfulfilled hopes of the writing community for the improvement of the literary atmosphere. Creation of a literary “ministry” - a single Union of Soviet Writers.

Literary criticism: the most important “centers” of critical speeches, issues, the most important representatives, genres and forms. “Syncretism” of critical thought: the combination in the activities of critics speaking at this moment of the functions of the actual critical ones with the solution of methodological, theoretical and historical-literary problems.

The role of the literary critical departments of magazines (“Krasnaya Nov”, “Lef”, “New World”, “Young Guard”, “October”, “Russian Contemporary”) and special socio-political and literary magazines (“Print and Revolution”, “On duty”, “On a literary post”) in the development of the methodology of criticism and solving the most important theoretical problems in the development of literature, in assessing the current literary process and the creativity of its individual participants. Literary portrait, problem article, review as the dominant literary genres in magazines. Examination of the current literary process in review articles. Problem-thematic perspective of analysis. Articles by A. V. Lunacharsky (“October Revolution and Literature,” 1925; “Stages of the Growth of Soviet Literature,” 1927), A. K. Voronsky (“From Modern Literary Moods,” 1922; “Prose Writers and Poets of the Forge” ", 1924), V. P. Polonsky. The first attempts at a historical and literary review of new literature for ten years of its existence (Vyach. Polonsky, A. Lezhnev).

Publishing a book of critical articles as a widespread form of holistic expression of the critic’s aesthetic position. Books by A. Voronsky, D. Gorbov, A. Lezhnev, L. Averbakh, A. Lunacharsky, V. Shklovsky and others.

Discussion as a form of development of critical thought of a given period and the possibility of its influence on the development of literature. The range of problems discussed: the problem of differentiation of the literary process and assessment of the writer’s place in modern literature; the relationship of art to reality and the question of the purpose of art.

The relationship between the rational and the irrational in the creative process, conditional and life-like forms of generalization; the problem of personality and the principles of depicting a person; the problem of the hero of time;

understanding the thematic and problematic orientation of modern literature; problems of genre and style; attempts to characterize the new method of Soviet literature. Significant contribution to the criticism of poets and prose writers.

Critical speeches of representatives of pre-October poetic schools as a link between two eras of literary development. Critical prose of A. A. Blok (1880-1921). Culturological concept of history. The figurative and conceptual principle of interpretation of literary phenomena. Affirmations of the prophetic possibilities of tragic art. The problem of “benefit” and freedom of the artist.

Literary critical activity of V. Ya. Bryusov (1873-1924). Statement of the problem of a new type of culture. Interpretation of symbolism, futurism and the expected poems of proletarian poets as “yesterday, today and tomorrow of Russian poetry.” Negative attitude towards poetic formalism, towards the pure image-making of the Imagists. Forecast about the merger of all literary movements into one stream with new content and form. Abstract historicism of Bryusov's critical method.

Edition of “Letters about Russian Poetry” (1923) by N. S. Gumilyov. Their significance for the development of poetic culture in the 20s. Short reviews in the almanacs of the “Workshop of Poets”, articles by M. A. Kuzmin in the early 20s. - samples of taste and aesthetics critics.

The critical prose of O. E. Mandelstam (1891-1938) is an artistic attempt to comprehend the cataclysms of his century in the global cultural and historical context and at the same time in the aspect of philology. Declaration of the end of the “centrifugal” European novel. Thesis on revolutionary "classicism". The paradoxical nature of Mandelstam’s critical manner (book “On Poetry”, 1928).

Leading critics of the 20s and early 30s.

Educational and propaganda criticism of A. V. Lunacharsky (1875-1933). Proclamation of “proletarian culture” as the heir to world culture. Belief in the grandeur of artistic achievements of the future and recognition of the importance of classical traditions. Relative tolerance and breadth in Lunacharsky’s approach as a statesman to various movements in art. Support for realism, criticism of the most “leftist” and formalistic phenomena in literature. Articles about most prominent Soviet writers. Bringing to the fore the works of M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, M. Sholokhov. Development of problems in the theory of modern Soviet literature. The article “Lenin and Literary Studies” (1932) is the first attempt at a systematic substantiation of Leninism as a new methodology for the study of culture and party influence on it. The journalistic nature of Lunacharsky's criticism. Elements of simplified sociologism in the starting points of many articles.

A.K. Voronsky (1884-1937) - editor of the first Soviet “thick” magazine “Krasnaya Nov” (1921-1927). Theoretical and literary views of Voronsky and the position of critics of the “Pereval” group. Recognition of art as a special form of cognition and creative exploration of reality. The theory of “immediate impressions”, rejection of didactics and illustrativeness in literature. Voronsky's high aesthetic taste. Protection of the classical heritage. The critic’s preference for the work of “fellow travelers” as the most talented writers of a given time; defense of realistic principles in literature;

the concept of “new realism”, the thesis about the need for historicism. A sharp polemic with “Napostovism” and “Nalitpostovism”, the desire to protect and preserve everything artistically valuable. Literary portrait as Voronsky’s preferred genre of concrete criticism. A tribute to the prejudices of the time in assessments of some aspects of S. Yesenin’s work, Evg. Zamyatina. Voronsky's forced departure from criticism and journalism.

V. P. Polonsky (1886-1932) - editor of the critical-bibliographic publication “Print and Revolution” (1921-1929) and “New World” (1926-1931) - the most popular magazine of the second half of the 20s. Attracting talented writers to the “New World” - from different groups and “wild” (independent), dedicated them Polonsky's articles. The critic’s mechanical division of “artistry” and “ideology” between “fellow travelers” and proletarian writers, overcome in practice. Consistent striving for objectivity in ideological and aesthetic assessments. Close attention to the language and imagery of works, the analytical and systematizing gift of a critic. Polemics with the theories of “napostovstvo” and “lefs”. Thesis on "romantic realism". Article “Artistic creativity and social classes. On the theory of social order" (1929). Refutation of intuitionism in the study “Consciousness and Creativity” (1934).

A. Lezhnev (pseudonym of A. Z. Gorelik, 1893-1938) - leading theorist and critic of “The Pass”. The idea of ​​“socialism with a human face” is the starting position for A. Lezhnev in assessing the trends of modern art as a specific way of artistic and imaginative re-creation of reality, defense of the role of intuition in the creative process, the idea of ​​“organic” creativity. The struggle for realism against everydayism. Advancement and justification of the creative principles of “Pereval” (“new humanism”, “sincerity”, “Mozartianism”, “aesthetic culture”); their use in evaluating works of modern literature. The category of personality, in particular the personality of the transitional era, in Lezhnev’s aesthetics; the problem of creative individuality and the genre of literary portrait by Lezhnev (articles dedicated to B. Pasternak, V. Mayakovsky, L. Seifullina).

The idea of ​​criticism as a living participant in the literary process, who “not only studies, but also builds.” The fight against opportunism, against “salierism.” Contrast with “craft”, “work”, “technique” - “creativity”, “intuition”, “inspiration”. A harsh assessment of Mayakovsky's evolution in the second half of the 20s. The work of Pasternak and its evolution in the interpretation of A. Lezhnev. “Portrait” of “leftist” art as interpreted by a critic. The category of “social order” and the problem of artist freedom. Polemics with the dehumanization of art, with rationalization and utilitarianism in the speeches of Rapp’s critics. A. Lezhnev’s rejection of vulgar sociologism, adjacent to his own aspirations to find a “sociological equivalent” of creativity. Creation of the first essay on the history of the development of post-October literature: “Literature of the revolutionary decade (1917-1927)” (together with D. Gorbov). A. Lezhnev's departure into literary criticism; literary works of the 1930s. as development

aesthetic concepts 1920s

D. A. Gorbov (1894-1967) - theorist and critic of the Pereval group, a constant opponent of LEF and RAPP. Traditions of “organic criticism” Al. Grigoriev in the works of D. Gorbov. Defense of the laws of “organic creativity” in polemics with rationalist theories of art as a theoretical justification for the possibility of its “organization.” The fight against the view of art as “second-class journalism”, “the handmaiden of politics”. Approval of the specifics of creativity

"Conventionally, a much later image-term is used, which spread after the “Prague Spring” of 1968.

sky process. The image of Galatea is a symbol of the artist’s inner freedom. Promotion of “organic creativity” as a criterion of artistry. Speeches by D. Gorbov in defense of controversial works of the 1920s: “Envy” by Y. Olesha, “The Thief” by L. Leonov, etc. Gravitation towards works that combine critical and historical-literary approaches (articles about the creative path of L. Leonov, M. Gorky). The first (and only) attempt in the history of Soviet criticism to consider emigrant literature as part of the general literary process of the 1920s, including a review of it in the book “Literature of the Revolutionary Decade” (“At Home and Abroad”). Gorbov’s theory of the “single stream” as an attempt to counter the idea of ​​literary consolidation to the slogan of exacerbation of the class struggle. The critic realized early on the impossibility of continuing his literary activity.

Criticism of the 20s in her interpretations of the creativity of the most “prominent” participants in the literary process and her influence on their creative appearance and destinies.

Criticism of the 20s in her attempts to assess the main trends in literary development. The impact of criticism on the literary process.

Literary criticism of the 30s

The role of criticism in the 30s. in establishing new forms of relations between literature and power, in developing normative criteria for evaluating a work, in creating a “no alternative” model of literature.

Literary-critical departments of magazines and their lack of any bright expressed face. The emergence of special literary critical publications: “Literary Newspaper” (since 1929), “Literature and Marxism” (1928-1931), “Book and Proletarian Revolution” (1932-1940), “Literary Study” (1930-1941) , “Literary Critic” (1933-1940) and its appendix - “Literary Review” (1936-1941).

Change of persons acting in the arena of literary and artistic criticism.

Critical discussion as a transition from the situation of the 20s and early 30s. a form of development of critical thought that has become a form of its strangulation. The emergence of a new form of discussion - “discussion” with a predetermined solution.

Discussion about “Westerners” and “Soilers” and the problem of “realism and formalism in literature.” Speeches by V. Shklovsky, Sun. Vishnevsky and others. Disputes around the figures of Dos Passos, Joyce and Proust and their influence on modern literature. “Westernism” and the problems of modernism and “formalism”. The position of M. Gorky (“About prose”, “About a point and a hummock”) and the “passer” I. Kataev (“Art on the threshold of socialism”). An attempt by A. Lunacharsky to counter the danger of simplification and leveling of art that arose in the process of fighting “formalism” (“Thoughts on the Master”, 1933). The role of discussion in creative experiments in literature and the creation of aesthetic “monophony” (Evg. Zamyatin).

Discussion 1933-1934 about trends in Soviet literature. A. Fadeev’s denial of the possibility of the existence of different creative directions in it. Defense of the principle of diversity of directions in the speeches of V. Kirshon. Approval in the course of the development of the literary process of the idea of ​​the unity of Soviet literature.

The clash of “innovators” (Vs. Vishnevsky, N. Pogodin) and “conservatives” (V. Kirshon, A. Afinogenov) among playwrights. The contrast between psychological and journalistic interpretations of modernity and its influence on the fate of psychological drama.

Discussion about the principles of generalization in literature. A new wave of a uniquely understood rapprochement with reality during the years of the first five-year plan, an abundance of documentary forms, in particular essays, and an attempt to generalize this path of mastering reality subsequently the theory of "literature" fact." Artificial repression of conventional forms.

The 1934 discussion about the historical novel and the beginning of the “rehabilitation” of historical themes in literature.

Discussion 1932-1934 about the language of fiction. Position of F. Panferov and A. Serafimovich (“About the writers “licked” and “unlicked””, “Response to M. Gorky”). Protest against naturalistic and artificially stylized tendencies in the sphere of artistic speech in the speeches of M. Gorky (“Open Letter to A.S. Serafimovich,” “On Language”) and A. Tolstoy (“Is Muzhik Strength Necessary?”). Negative result of good intentions: leveling of artistic speech in literature, starting from the second half of the 30s.

The significance of the First Congress of Soviet Writers (1934) for literary criticism. Issues of artistic creativity in the report of M. Gorky. Utopian hopes of the congress participants for the flourishing of literature, underestimation of its previous period.

The variety of forms of critical and journalistic activity of M. Gorky and his role in the formation and development of literary and artistic criticism. The writer's speeches against formalistic and crudely sociological approaches in criticism. The fight against “groupism” and its influence on the assessment of a particular creative phenomenon. Gorky about the essence of socialist realism, which relates mainly to the future, and about its continuity with the classical heritage, about historicism, about romance in Soviet literature, about the truth of reality and artistic fiction. Gorky assessments of the creativity of S. Yesenin, M. Prishvin, L. Leonov, Vs. Ivanov, F. Gladkov and others. Unfair condemnation of A. Bely, B. Pilnyak, and a significant part of pre-revolutionary writers. Too generous advances to literary youth and Gorky’s not fully disclosed understanding of the crisis of Soviet literature in the last two years of his life.

Criticism and its development in the post-congress period. New names. “Specialization” among representatives of aesthetic thought: redistribution of forces in favor of theory and history of literature, impoverishment of literary critical departments of “thick” magazines.

The resumption of the discussion about “formalism” in literature in 1936 in the form of categorical studies of many writers and artists and their “repentance”. Doubts about the legitimacy of the existence of different artistic forms and styles; an attempt to establish a view of Soviet art as the art of everyday verisimilitude; the final displacement of conventional forms of image. A side productive tendency in the interpretation of formalism is the thesis about formalism as the subordination of life to “formulas” that simplify it and open the way varnishing and conflict-free(I. Kataev “Art socialist people").

Confirmation of normativism tendencies in criticism, their influence on the evaluation of works that touch on the deep contradictions of reality. The predominance of critical pathos when discussing the works of I. Ehrenburg (“The Second Day”), L. Leonov (“Skutarevsky” and “The Road to the Ocean”), M. Sholokhov (“Quiet Don”), A. Platonov. Deformation of ideas about artistic truth, the role of the tragic, the right to depict private life. Appeared in the late 30s. concepts of conflict-freeness in literature.

The role of the magazine “Literary Critic” (1933-1940) in understanding the literary life of our time. Critics of the magazine: V. Aleksandrov, Yu. Yuzovsky, K. Zelinsky, A. Gurvich, V. Goffenschefer, E. Usievich and others. The structure of the magazine, its direction (the fight against vulgar sociologism, the proclamation of the principle of “concrete criticism” based on the specifics work of art) and internal inconsistency in the implementation of the proclaimed guidelines (“accusatory” tone, peremptory verdicts). Criticism of illustrativeness, declarativeness and schematism in literary works. Actual recognition on the pages of the magazine of the crisis state of Soviet literature. Controversy surrounding the magazine, exaggeration of the mistakes it made (speeches by V. Ermilov, M. Serebryansky, V. Kirpotin), interpretation of the merits of the “Literary Critic” (honest, professional analyzes) as unacceptable deviations from ideological purity, accusations against the “group” Lu-kacha - Lifshits (active authors of the journal, its theorists). An article in the Literary Gazette dated August 10, 1939 and an editorial in the Krasnaya Nov magazine under the same title - “On the harmful views of the Literary Critic” (1940) - and the closure of the magazine.

A.P. Platonov (1899-1951) - the largest writer-critic of the 30s, who declared in his articles about the benefits of socialism, the greatness of Lenin (but not Stalin) and at the same time was consistently guided by universal moral, and not sociological criteria for evaluating any literary material, the work of any writers from Pushkin to N. Ostrovsky. Preference for the affirmative principle in literature of the 19th century. critical. The paradoxical convergence of distant spheres of literature and life in Platonov’s articles. A natural combination for him is the thought of the people and the thought of a creative personality, actively creating both spiritual and material values.

Attempts to criticize the 30s. summarize the experience of the development of post-revolutionary literature. A. Selivanovsky’s book “Essays on the History of Russian Soviet Poetry” (1936), V. Pertsov’s articles “People of the Two Five-Year Plans” (1935), “Personality and the New Discipline” (1936), etc. Calls to create a history of Soviet literature, a history of the literatures of the republics included in the USSR. The unfinished experience of creating a chronicle of Soviet literature over twenty years in “Literary Criticism” (1937).

Criticism of the 30s and the creation of a normative system for evaluating a work of art (the model of the work in the context of the model of literature of socialist realism).

Criticism of the 30s in assessing the creativity of the most prominent participants in the literary process. Formation of a “clip” of “classics” of Soviet literature.

Criticism of the 30s in the interpretation of the literary process. Her responsibility for the distortions and deformations of literary development:

tendency to simplify art; development of ideas about the affirmative nature of socialist realism and support for “varnished” works, opposition to artistic truth; fear of complex, ambiguous characters.

The death of many literary critics as a result of mass repressions.

Criticism of the 40s-first half of the 50s

The years of the Patriotic War and the first post-war decade (1946-1955) were an exceptionally unfavorable time for literary and artistic criticism. The weakening of criticism in the 40s, the reduction in its personnel as a result of development campaigns and repressions in the second half of the 30s, conscription into the army and losses in the war. The absence of a serious, living methodological search, the dominance of Stalinist dogmas, which was overcome until the death of Stalin (1953) only in some literary statements of a general nature and individual examples of “concrete” criticism. Self-aggrandizement of official society and literature, opposition of everything Russian and Soviet (“socialist”) to everything foreign (“bourgeois”).

The weakening of the publishing base of criticism with the beginning of the war, the closure of a number of magazines. Lack of deep analytical and generalizing works. Coming to the forefront of journalistic literary criticism. Simplification of approach and interpretation in criticism, designed for the largest audience, aimed at achieving immediate propaganda results. Objective-historical explainability of this situation during the war.

Opinions about the relationship between criticism proper, journalism and literary criticism, a unanimous demand from them to be relevant and topical (article by A. Surkov “To Comrade Critics”, 1942; speech by A. Fadeev “Tasks of Art Criticism in Our Days”, 1942; editorial article of the newspaper “Literature and art" dated June 18, 1942. "Inspire to victory by all means of art"; article by B. Eikhenbaum "Let's talk about our craft", 1943), general recognition of the great shortcomings of criticism without an objective explanation of their reasons (articles "Literature and Art": " A higher level of artistic skill”, “On artistic criticism”, 1943).

The main motives of literary criticism during the Great Patriotic War are patriotism, heroism, and the moral fortitude of literary heroes as the embodiment of the main thing in the Soviet man and the primordial features of the Russian national character. Transformation of these qualities into the main criteria for evaluating literary works. Positive results of the change in sociological criteria of the 20-30s. national-patriotic: vital-practical - strengthening the cohesion of society in the face of enormous danger, establishing an optimistic attitude in it - and ethical-aesthetic - actual recognition on the verge of life and death of universal human values ​​(home, family, loyalty, friendship, selflessness, memory, simple , purely personal feelings, responsibility to comrades, compatriots, to the entire people); the motive of shame from retreat and defeat, severe suffering and experiences; problems of artistic truth and humanism raised by A. Surkov, A. Fadeev, L. Leonov, M. Sholokhov.

Attempts by the leadership of the Writers' Union to comprehend the literature of the war years as a whole. Articles, speeches, reports, reports by A. Fadeev, A. Surkov, N. Tikhonov 1942-1944; articles by L. Timofeev “Soviet Literature and War” (1942), L. Leonov “Voice of the Motherland” (1943). “Creative-critical meeting” on literature about the Patriotic War (1943).

Extension of the principle of classifying works of the war period by theme. Articles by A. Fadeev “Patriotic War and Soviet Literature”, V. Kozhevnikov “Main Topic”, editorials of “Literature and Art” - “Theme of Art”, “Literary Gazette” - “Maritime Theme in Literature”, “Heroics of Labor”, discussion “The image of the Soviet officer in fiction of 1944”, etc.; a statement of the poor coverage of the home front theme in literature, contained in the speeches of A. Fadeev, A. Surkov, N. Tikhonov, and participants in the discussion about the book by M. Shaginyan “The Theme of Military Life” (1944). Reviews of national literatures, magazines, front-line press in the newspaper “Literature and Art” (1943-1944). Support for a number of weak works due to the relevance of the topic. Some expansion of the subject of criticism: articles by V. Yan “The Problem of the Historical Novel”, S. Marshak “On Our Satire”, S. Mikhalkov “A Book for Children. Review of children's literature on the topic of war."

Works that generated the greatest interest and the widest press: “Front” by A. Korneychuk, “Russian People”, “Days and Nights”, poems by K. Simonov, “Invasion” by L. Leonov, “Volokolamsk Highway” by A. Beck, “People immortal" by V. Grossman, "Zoya" by M. Aliger. Emphasizing the successes of poetry and journalism (A. Tolstoy, I. Ehrenburg, etc.). Recognition of the patriotic lyrics of A. Akhmatova, the war stories of A. Platonov. Article by K. Fedin about the performance based on M. Bulgakov’s play “The Last Days (Pushkin)” (1943).

Intensification of professional criticism in 1944-1945. Increase in the number of problematic articles and discussions. The dominance of small genres of criticism throughout the war, the impossibility of creating large literary critical monographs. Literary critical articles in mass newspapers: “Pravda”, “Izvestia”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, “Krasnaya Zvezda”, military publications.

Questions of the past and present of Russian literature in the speeches of writers and critics. Report by A. N. Tolstoy “A Quarter of a Century of Soviet Literature” (1942) with an attempt to determine the specific features of Soviet multinational literature as a fundamentally new artistic phenomenon, with a periodization of its development over 25 years. Characteristics in the report of the experience of Soviet literature. a statement of its close connection with the life of the people, the emergence of a new hero. Article by P. Pavlenko “Ten Years” (1944) for the anniversary of the First Congress of Writers - a definition of the positive contribution of the 30-40s. into literature and its unrealized potential. Articles of 1943 in the newspaper “Literature and Art”: editorial - “On Russian national pride”, V. Ermilov “On the traditions of national pride in Russian literature” and “The image of the Motherland in the work of Soviet poets” - with a positive characterization as V. Mayakovsky , N. Tikhonov, A. Tvardovsky, and S. Yesenin - changing some estimates based on the previous “single-flow” methodology.

High marks in criticism of the period of the Patriotic War of the artistic heritage, especially the work of Russian writers of the 19th century, including F. M. Dostoevsky, A. F. Pisemsky, N. S. Leskov.

Literary critics and literary scholars who spoke in the criticism of this time: V. Alexandrov, N. Vengrov, A. Gurvich, V. Ermilov, E. Knipovich, V. Pertsov, L. Polyak, L. Timofeev, V. Shcherbina and others. Absence undisputed leaders of the literary process from among professional critics.

Condemnation of the works of some writers (L. Kassil, K. Paustovsky, V. Kaverin, B. Lavrenev) for being artificial or “beautiful” in their depiction of war. The return of elaborative techniques to criticism since the end of 1943, Stalin’s behind-the-scenes intervention in the fate of a number of works and their authors. Campaign against M. Zoshchenko regarding the psychological story “Before Sunrise”, accusing him of “self-digging” and lack of civic feelings. Defamation of the unpublished works of A. Dovzhenko (“Victory”, “Ukraine on Fire”), who dared to talk about the real reasons for the defeats of the Red Army. Condemnation of the anti-totalitarian play-fairy tale “Dragon” by E. Schwartz, the truthful memoirs of K. Fedin about the “Sera-Pion brothers” - “Gorky among us” (1944), some poems, including O. Berggolts and V. Inber - for “ pessimism" and "admiration of suffering."

Activation of literary thought on the wave of moral upsurge after the Victory, interest in it among the wider literary community. Speeches in the Literary Gazette in the fall of 1945 by G. A. Gukovsky, B. M. Eikhenbaum, B. S. Meilakh, A. I. Beletsky with calls to develop a system of literary theory and create a history of Russian literature in its positive content. Real successes in the theory and history of literature. Propaganda by V. O. Pertsov and V. N. Orlov (1945-1946) of the poetry of Yesenin and Blok as achievements of modern culture. Critical support for young poets who participated in the Great Patriotic War, interest in the work of V. Panova, recognition of the importance of the previously underrated “Vasily Terkin” by A. Tvardovsky.

Complications of the political situation and a sharp increase in the ideological, primarily revealing nature of criticism during the outbreak of the Cold War, after the respite of the first year of peace. The dependence of the fate of writers on the personal tastes, predilections and suspiciousness of the Kremlin dictator. Resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1946-1952. on issues of literature, art and publishing, report by A. A. Zhdanov on the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” (1946). The demagogic slogans of these documents and their pogrom nature.

The return of crude sociologism, which actually led official criticism to the proclamation of ideas of both social and national superiority of the USSR and Russia over other countries and peoples. Condemnation of the “hobby” of writers and artists for historical themes, a call to reflect modernity. Explanation of real and imaginary shortcomings and omissions in the literature by exclusively subjective reasons.

A sharp increase in dogmatism in criticism, a purely political criterion of “lack of ideas” (excommunication from literature of M. Zoshchenko and A. Akhmatova, reproaches against B. Pasternak, I. Selvinsky, etc.). A new wave of “elaborations”, a departure from some positive assessments of the war period and the first post-war months, a continuation of the campaign against previously criticized writers. Instructive criticism in the party press of the first version of Fadeev’s “Young Guard”;

reworking the novel under her pressure. The critics’ sweet idealization of existing reality, their smoothing over of the tragedy and contradictions of life. Rejection of truthful, profound works: V. Ermilov’s article “The Slanderous Story of A. Platonov” in the “Literary Gazette” dated January 4, 1947 about the story “Ivanov’s Family”, criticism of M. Isakovsky accusing him of pessimism for the poem “Enemies burned their home. ..”, suppression of A. Tvardovsky’s poem “House by the Road”, etc.

The complete unpredictability of this or that ostracism from a literary and often even political point of view. Loud condemnation of such different works as E. Kazakevich’s story “Two in the Steppe”, the stories of Yu. Yanovsky, V. Kataev’s serial novel “For the Power of the Soviets!”, V. Grossman’s comedy “If you believe the Pythagoreans” and his novel “For a Just Cause” ”, the poem by V. Sosyura “Love Ukraine” and the cycle of poems by K. Simonov “With you and without you” (A. Tarasenkov accused Simonov of crude eroticism for the line “Men are weaned from women’s caresses”). A wary attitude towards V. Nekrasov’s story “In the Trenches of Stalingrad,” which opens a new trend in military prose; an exceptional fact of criticism of the story after the Stalin Prize was awarded for it (1946). Exaltation of weak, varnished, ahistorical works, often awarded Stalin Prizes.

The campaign against “cosmopolitanism” and “bourgeois nationalism”, in particular against the “anti-patriotic group” of theater critics at the turn of the 40s and 50s.

The displacement from literature and art not only of many historical themes, but also of the Great Patriotic War (until the mid-50s) due to the propaganda of “majestic” modernity. Schematization of the current literary process, the use of the same cliches when characterizing modern prose writers and poets, a “list” approach to them. The opportunistic position of many critics, the reluctance to speak out about a work before its official assessment, the rapid change in assessments to the opposite. The outflow of a large part of critics into literary criticism.

Establishing the idea of ​​“two streams” in the history of Russian literature. Modernization of the consciousness of classic writers, “pulling up” them to Decembrists and especially revolutionary democrats, interpreted in many works also schematically and ahistorically, that is, the transformation of literary science into a bad kind of criticism. The dominance in literary criticism of the genre of descriptive monographs without analysis of the worldview of writers, the explanation of the work of Gorky and other artists as illustrating political ideas. Unscientific, sharply negative assessments of the legacy of A. N. Veselovsky and a number of works of modern philologists: V. M. Zhirmunsky, V. Ya. Propp and others. A decline in the level of literary criticism with inevitable corresponding consequences for criticism.

A purely scholastic discussion in the press of the second half of the 40s and early 50s, including the party, methodological and theoretical problems of criticism and literary criticism: the belonging of art to the superstructure, the method of socialist realism, its essence and time of emergence, typical. The normativity of most works of this kind. 1948 debate on drama theory. Criticism of the “no-conflict theory”, its contradictions. Three interpretations of conflict-freeness: precise, literal, rejecting primitive varnished works; classification as conflict-free works on topics of a personal and universal nature; the requirement for an indispensable demonstration of the victorious struggle of the “new, advanced” against the backward, with “rotten people”, which maintained an atmosphere of suspicion and intolerance in society.

Declarations coming from above in the early 50s. about the need for Soviet satire. Statements in criticism about the “ideal hero”, “holiday” literature and other statements of official optimism

of a logical nature; correspondence to them in existing ideas about modern “romanticism”.

Attempts to comprehend and rethink the literary process in 1952-1954, before the Second Congress of Soviet Writers. Critical recognition of “Russian Forest” by L. Leonov, works by V. Ovechkin and V. Tendryakov about the village. Condemning the bulk of modern literature, V. Pomerantsev’s article “On Sincerity in Literature” (1953), rejected by critics and most writers as “Perevalsky” and anti-Party. The ironic exposure of all the varnished literature about the village in the fundamental article by F. Abramov “People of the collective farm village in post-war prose” (1954) and its rejection at that time.

The first, “soft” removal of A. Tvardovsky from the post of editor-in-chief of “New World” for the publication of non-standard, sharp articles by V. Pomerantsev, F. Abramov, M. Lifshits and M. Shcheglov (1954). The negative and wary attitude of critics towards “The Thaw” by I. Ehrenburg and “The Seasons” by V. Panova, other manifestations of inertia of thought.

Discussions about the self-expression of the poet as worthy of making his inner world an object of art, about the so-called “Tvardovsky school” (“village school”), which was considered to claim dominance in poetry. Collection of articles “Conversation before the Congress” (1954), including articles by representatives of the disputing, opposite sides.

Summing up the results of the 20-year development of Soviet literature and some concern about its current state in the report of A. Surkov at the Second Congress of Writers of the USSR. Special report on criticism and literary criticism (B. Rurikov). A series of bold speeches at the Second Congress, their anti-varnishing and anti-working orientation. Recognition of the great shortcomings of criticism and the need to jointly answer for them. Retention of some unfair provisions and assessments, including regarding the “Pass”.

The tragically contradictory role of A. Fadeev, the head of the Writers' Union until 1953: sincere sympathy for the best poets and writers and the implementation of Stalinist-Zhdanov guidelines in literature. Articles and reports by K. Simonov - both pogrom and official, and defending writers and poets who were attacked, challenging the most odious dogmas. The merit of A. Fadeev and K. Simonov is to remove the most opportunistic and unprincipled of the leading critics of the 40s from active literary critical activity. - V. Ermilova (1950).

Other critics of the 40s - the first half of the 50s: A. Tarasenkov, A. Makarov, T. Trifonova, T. Motyleva, A. Belik, B. Platonov, G. Brovman, G. Lenoble, B. Kostelyanets, E. Surkov, V. Ozerov, B. Solovyov, L. Skorino, B. Rurikov, V. Smirnova, B. Runin.

Literary and critical creativity of M. A. Shcheglov (1925-1956) - articles 1953-1956. A subtle analysis of works, which at that time created the impression of heightened aesthetic criticism. The depth of theoretical-critical considerations by M. Shcheglov. The features of his historicism, the unity of ethical and aesthetic approaches, anticipating the methodology of the “New World” criticism of the 60s. The thematic and genre diversity of Shcheglov’s articles, the revival of the essayistic principle in criticism (“Ships of Alexander Green”, 1956), lively, uninhibited style.

Criticism of the second half of the 50s-60s

N. S. Khrushchev’s closed report on Stalin’s “cult of personality” at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the huge public resonance of this event. Continued throughout the second half of the 50s and 60s. a contradictory, with ups and downs, process of struggle between supporters of democratization, the emancipation of human consciousness and the guardians of totalitarian foundations and dogmas. This process takes place mainly within the framework of communist ideology. Focusing the attention of the literary community on the big problems of the socio-political and spiritual life of the people and at the same time sharply increasing attention to human individuality. The continuation of the partially weakened confrontation with the West and its influence on the attitude towards a number of new phenomena in literature and criticism, and the confrontation between various social and literary trends.

Increasing manifestations of innovative, unconventional thinking in relation to the past in 1956 - early 1957. Deepening and expanding resistance to the one-sided and ceremonial depiction of life in literature. Articles by A. Kron in the collection “Literary Moscow” (1956), B. Nazarov and O. Gridneva in “ Questions of Philosophy" (1956. No. 5) against the bureaucratic management of literature. “Literary Notes” by the editor-in-chief of “New World” (1956. No. 12) K. Simonov and the first printed polemic in them with articles in the party press of the late 40s. about A. Fadeev’s “Young Guard” and about the “anti-patriotic group” of theater critics; Simonov’s “safety net” article “On Socialist Realism” (New World. 1957. No. 3). Anti-dogmatic, critical attitude in the articles and oral speeches of V. Tendryakov, V. Cardin, A. Karaganov, I. Erenburg, V. Ketlinskaya, V. Kaverin, T. Trifonova, L. Chukovskaya, M. Aliger and others. Counteraction to them side G. Nikolaeva, Sun. Kochetov, N. Gribachev, D. Eremin, K. Zelinsky, M. Alekseev and others.

The inconsistency of the relative democratization of society after the 20th Congress of the CPSU and its reflection in literary life. Preservation of many attitudes of the previous cultural policy, total party leadership of literature. Suspicious attitude towards everything that aroused interest in the West. Massive sharp criticism of the novel “Not by Bread Alone” by V. Dudintsev, the stories “Levers” by A. Yashin and “Own Opinion” by D. Granin, the poem “Seven Days of the Week” by S. Kirsanov, published by the magazine “New World”, the collection “Literary Moscow" (book 2). Incriminating writers with an independent position of striving for “critical realism.” Suppression of the first wave of attempts to democratize literary life with the help of the party press, including articles in the magazine “Communist” (1957. No. 3, 10) “The Party and Issues of the Development of Soviet Literature and Art” and “For the Leninist Principles of Literature and Art.” N. S. Khrushchev’s personal participation in the struggle “against the revisionists who tried to attack the party line” (speech at the Third Congress of USSR Writers, 1959). Official explanations of questions about typification, about Lenin’s understanding of culture, about party membership and freedom of creativity, talent and worldview, national characteristics of art in the magazine “Communist” in 1955-1957. The limitations of criticism of the historical past in the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee of June 30, 1956 “On overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences” and articles in the party press.

Events of opposite nature and significance in the cultural life of the late 50s: the resolution “On correcting errors in the evaluation of the operas “The Great Friendship”, “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” and “With All the Heart””, the return of A. Tvardovsky to the “New World” (1958), the election of the “liberal”-minded K. Fedin as the first secretary of the board of the Union of Writers of the USSR (1959) and the excommunication of B. Pasternak from literature with numerous and noisy exposures of him as a “traitor” in speeches by people who had not read the novel “Doctor Zhivago” ( 1958), the decree “On the book “New about Mayakovsky,” which prevents a truly scientific study of the poet’s life and work (1959), the arrest of V. Grossman’s novel “Life and Fate” (1960), etc. The emergence of new magazines and almanacs. “Youth” and the restored “Young Guard”, edited by V. Kataev and A. Makarov. The publication since 1957 of the literary-critical and literary body - “Questions of Literature”, a declaration against labeling and elaboration in its first issue. Establishment of the Writers' Union of the RSFSR. Raising the question of criticism, of reviewing literary novelties in the report of L. Sobolev at his first congress (1959). Recognition of the continuing “lag” of criticism and discussion about it in the magazine “October”; article by K. Zelinsky “The Paradox of Criticism” (1959-1960). Discussion about the state of criticism in the newspaper “Literary Russia” (January 1964).

Literature of the mid- and late 50s in the mirror of criticism: general or widespread official approval of “The Fate of Man” and the second book of “Virgin Soil Upturned” by M. Sholokhov, A. Tvardovsky’s poem “Beyond the Distance”, G. Nikolaeva’s novels “The Battle on the Way” ", Sun. Kochetov’s “The Ershov Brothers”, V. Kozhevnikov’s “Towards the Dawn”, A. Chakovsky’s story “A Year of Life”; condemnation of the “Sentimental Novel” by V. Panova, the story “An Inch of Earth” by G. Baklanov, the plays by A. Volodin “Five Evenings” and L. Zorin’s “Guests” for what seemed to be an excessively intimate tone or insufficient citizenship and optimism. Opposite statements about V. Nekrasov’s story “In My Hometown.”

The development of scientific aesthetic thought and the gradual strengthening of aesthetic requirements in literary criticism. Criticism and theory:

publication in the general press of materials from the scientific discussion “Problems of Realism in World Literature”, which marked the beginning of a concrete historical approach to the concepts of “method” and “realism”

(1957); generally routine ideas about socialist realism (works by B. Bursov, V. Ozerov, etc.).

Unity and diversity of multinational Soviet literature in discussions of the second half of the 50s and early 60s. Book by G. Lomidze “Unity and Diversity” (1957). The formula “unity in diversity”, proposed by L. Novichenko in the report “On the diversity of artistic forms in the literature of socialist realism” (1959). The speculative use by a number of critics of the thesis of diversity in polemics with V. Nekrasov’s article “Words “great” into “simple”” (The Art of Cinema. 1959. No. 5-6), directed against pathos in art. Numerous objections to the classification of literature of the 19th-20th centuries from the point of view of the scale of depiction of facts and events (Sarnov B. “Globe” and “two-layout map” // Literary newspaper. 1959. July 9).

Updating issues of the history of Soviet literature in criticism of the second half of the 50s. Emphasized opposition of historicism to dogmatism. Rethinking traditions. Restoration in the history of literature and inclusion of previously forbidden names in the current literary process. Their opposition to official authorities and the reaction to this in a “liberal-conservative” spirit: articles by A. Metchenko “Historicism and Dogma” (1956), A. Makarov “Conversation about”

(1958) - warnings against “hobbies” that slowed down the development of the history of literature of the 20th century, but prevented a possible purely negative reaction from the officialdom. More complete and profound assimilation by society of the spiritual and aesthetic experience of Russian classics, the inclusion of F. M. Dostoevsky among its full representatives. Reconsidering the attitude towards the scientific heritage of A. N. Veselovsky. Introducing readers to foreign literature of the 20th century, breaking through the “Iron Curtain” and the influence of this fact on the consciousness of the younger generation. Positive judgments in criticism about foreign literature of the 20th century.

Reissue in the 50s and 60s. works by A. Lunacharsky, A. Voronsky, V. Polonsky, I. Bespalov, A. Selivanovsky. The first studies of the history of Soviet criticism.

Heterogeneity of the spiritual life of society and cultural policy in the 60s. Their relative liberalization in the first half of the decade and the reduction of the consequences of the “thaw” in the second. The preservation in the literary process of the trends generated by the criticism of the “cult of personality” until 1970, thanks mainly to the position of the “New World”, edited by A. Tvardovsky. An increasing tendency to think on a large historical scale in connection with utopian hopes for a quick social (communist) and scientific and technological transformation of everything peace. Discussion of the late 50s. “What is modernity?” (collection of the same name, 1960). The appearance of the definition of “sixties” in the article Art. Rasadina “Sixties. Books about a young contemporary" (Youth. 1960. No. 12). Disputes about generations of Soviet writers, primarily about the “fourth generation” (definition by A. Makarov and F. Kuznetsov) - “young prose” and poetry. Fears of older critics regarding the gap and opposition between generations, excessive, in their opinion, passion for modernism and the “Silver Age” of Russian literature, orientation towards Western literature. N. S. Khrushchev’s support for criticism of the “boys”. The special position of A. N. Makarov: real help to talented youth, close to the general reader (works “A Strict Life”, “In Five Years”, “Viktor Astafiev”, etc.), and objections to uncritical faith in what is “written”, ignorance of life , hasty unambiguous conclusions (internal review of the book by L. Anninsky “The Nut Kernel”). The influx of large young replenishment into criticism: I. Zolotussky, F. Kuznetsov, A. Marchenko, D. Nikolaev, St. Rassadin, V. Kozhinov, A. Urban, O. Mikhailov and others. Publication in 1962 of a collection of articles by young critics “Towards the Future.”

Polarization of literary critical forces after a new, more decisive criticism of Stalin’s personality cult at the XXII Congress of the CPSU (1961). “New World” is the most consistent literary organ in pursuing this line. Particular attention of readers to the critical section of the magazine. Authors of the department: V. Lakshin, I. Vinogradov, V. Kardin, St. Rassadin, Yu-Burtin, I. Dedkov, F. Svetov, N. Ilyina and others;

senior “new world residents”: A. Dementyev, I. Sats, A. Kondratovich. Opening of the work of A. Solzhenitsyn by the magazine; the acceptance of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by official criticism caused by opportunistic considerations (an article by V. Ermilov in Pravda, combining Solzhenitsyn’s story and the illustrative and propaganda story by V. Kozhevnikov “Meet Baluev”); the subsequent increase in claims against Solzhenitsyn, V. Lakshin’s polemics with the “enemies” of “Ivan Denisovich”. Nomination by the New World of the works of A. Solzhenitsyn and S. Zalygin (“On the Irtysh”) for the Lenin Prize; the failure of this attempt by the nomenklatura with the assistance of L. I. Brezhnev. Criticism of other stories by Solzhenitsyn. Discussions in the Writers' Union behind closed doors of his unpublished major works.

Other works that were not accepted by official criticism in the 60s: stories and travel essays by V. Nekrasov, memoirs of I. Ehrenburg, “Star Ticket” by V. Aksenov, “Be healthy, schoolboy!” B. Okudzhava and the collection “Tarussa Pages”, “Alive” by B. Mozhaev, “Seven in One House” by V. Semin, war stories by V. Bykov, etc. The 1963 campaign against E. Yevtushenko. Caustic criticism in the “New World” of many illustrative, declarative, normative works in prose and poetry; Along with this, a principled, sometimes meticulous analysis of the shortcomings of even authors who are objectively close to the journal. The predominance of caustic and critical reviews in the New World. Constant polemics with official criticism, especially with the authors of the magazine “October” (editor-in-chief Vs. Kochetov), ​​who are more conservative and loyal to Stalinist dogmas, but also more direct than the country’s ideological leaders. The pose of impartiality in the Pravda article of January 27, 1967, “When one is behind the times,” allegedly directed equally against the “New World” and “October.”

Increasing the professionalism and objectivity of literary criticism in general. Happy literary fate of Ch. Aitmatov (Lenin Prize 1963). The attention of criticism, although not only with positive assessments, to the beginners V. Belov, V. Rasputin. General recognition of works previously considered debatable (the works of V. Panova).

Mature works of A. N. Makarov (1912-1967). The critic’s path from a brochure about S. Babaevsky’s varnish novels (1951), not without opportunistic “Conversation on the occasion,” to detailed and objective research of the 60s. His main interests: poetry, military prose, creativity of the young. The “centrist” position of the critic, speaking from the point of view of a multimillion-dollar readership. Weighted, detailed assessments. A manner of thoughtful, leisurely conversation with the reader. Commitment to analytical commentary retelling of literary texts, attention to detail and words. The discovery of new names of writers, interest in their future destinies - The genre of internal review in Makarov's legacy The influence of the critic's advice on the authors of works. Some of Makarov's dogmatic judgments are a tribute to the prevailing historical and literary ideas.

The transformation of the “New World” into a body of legal opposition after the change of the country’s political leadership (1964) and the departure of new leaders from the line of the XX-XXII Party Congresses. Confirmation of loyalty to the previous course in the article by A. Tvardovsky “On the occasion of the anniversary” (1965. No. 1). Controversy about M. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”, which had modern overtones. Article by I. Vinogradov (1968) about the old story by V. Nekrasov “In the Trenches of Stalingrad”, designed to defend the artistic principles of modern military (“lieutenant”) prose. Appeals of the New World to the opinions of readers, commentary on their letters by V. Lakshin. Clashes around the works of A. Solzhenitsyn “Matrenin’s Dvor” and V. Semin “Seven in One House”. The main problems of discussions between magazines of opposite directions: “truth of the century” and “truth of fact”, “trench truth”;

a modern hero is a “simple man” or a “hero with a wormhole” (accusations addressed to the “New Worlders” of “deheroization” of Soviet literature, of rejection of a socially active position); citizenship slogan. The close interweaving of the ethical and aesthetic in the articles of the New World. Their lively, free style is not stylized as colloquial or vernacular.

The emergence of illegal opposition to the regime in literary circles. The first fact of prosecution for literary works is the “case” of A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel (1966). The reactions of many cultural figures to him are diametrically opposed. Creation by A. Sinyavsky at the conclusion of the essay “Walking with Pushkin.”

Spread of dissidence. Disappeared since the late 60s. from criticism and literary history of the names of exiled and emigrated writers.

Attempts by Soviet criticism to combine the class approach to life and literature with the universal approach, understood as spiritual and moral (F. Kuznetsov). The spread of the criterion of “spirituality” by the beginning of the 70s.

The position of the magazine “Young Guard” since the mid-60s. (editor-in-chief A. Nikonov) - a clear preference for stable national spiritual values ​​over class and social ones. Anticipation of this position in earlier criticism (D. Starikov’s article “From Reflections at the Spring,” 1963), literary criticism (M. Gus’s book “Ideas and Images of Dostoevsky,” 1963; criticism of it in the manuscript by A. Makarov), journalism (“Dialogue "V. Soloukhin, 1964; dispute with him by B. Mozhaev and A. Borshchagovsky). Discussion about "grass" and "asphalt". Speeches by V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov against “pop” poetry. Activation of the methodology of neo-soil people in the “Young Guard”:

scientifically vulnerable, insufficiently historical, but truly debatable and original articles by M. Lobanov and V. Chalmaev of the late 60s. Criticism of them from official positions during the discussion about nationality. Paradoxical, connected with the difficult situation of the “New World”, its participation in this campaign along with “October” is the article by A. Dementyev “On Traditions and Nationality” (1969. No. 4). A. Solzhenitsyn’s opinion on the 1969 debate (“A calf butted an oak tree”). The use of the literary and political officialdom of the facts of this discussion: the pre-bearing “letter of the 11” in Ogonyok against the New World, the study of A. Dementyev, as well as the critics of the Young Guard, V. Ivanov in Kommunist (1970 No. 17). Dispersal of the editorial board of “New World” and Tvardovsky’s departure from it (1970).

Criticism and literary criticism of the 60s. Outstanding achievements of literary criticism in comparison with criticism: the works of M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, V. M. Zhirmunsky, N. I. Konrad, Yu. M. Lotman, S. G. Bocharov and others. The influence of literary criticism on criticism, authors working in both science and criticism. Wide acceptance of scientific and artistic historicism. Attempts to pose large theoretical problems in articles addressed to a wide range of readers, in particular, the problem of the existence of varieties of literature with incomparable requirements for the depth and seriousness of works (I. Rodnyanskaya “On fiction and “strict” art”, 1962; V. Kozhinov “ Poetry is light and serious", 1965). Discussion about the language of modern works, directed mainly against jargon in "young prose". Criticism of V. Turbin's demonstratively original and unconventional book "Comrade Time and Comrade Art" (1961) because the author’s positive opinion about non-realistic forms and the thesis about the non-modernity of psychologism.

Interpretation of traditions as continuity through the heads of “fathers” - from “grandfathers” to “grandsons” (A. Voznesensky). Constant wariness towards modernism and its traditions in the works of A. Metchenko and other critics. Defending realism (without “definition”) in the “New World”. Accusations by opponents of the magazine of writers close to it of naturalism. Heated discussion in the late 60s. the concept of “socialist romanticism” proposed by A. Ovcharenko. Statement of the uniqueness of the method of Soviet literature in the works of Yu. Barabash, B. Byalik and others. The proposals of L. Egorova, G. Pospelov and M. Khrapchenko, which remained without consequences, to recognize some pluralism of the methods of Soviet literature in its historical development.

Criticism of the 70s-first half of the 80s

Strengthening regulation in the field of literature: a ban on certain topics, especially from Soviet history, the canonization of official ideas about it, increasing the ceremonial tone in propaganda and criticism of the second half of the 60-70s. Almost complete disappearance in the 70s. negative reviews, standardization of this genre. Inattention of many press organs to literary criticism.

Increasing the educational level of society and the rapid development of humanitarian interests along with stagnation in social psychology. "Book boom" A general increase in artistic quality in the literature of the 70s and early 80s, which took on the healthy impulse of the 60s. The dominance of moral issues in serious literature and criticism, their desire for philosophy in the 70-80s. as a consequence of the unrealization of many socio-political potentials. An objective need for strengthening interpretive activity, for significant changes in the state of criticism and the inability to fully satisfy this need in an atmosphere of stagnation.

Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” (1972) and organizational measures for its implementation: increasing the stable “area” for critical articles in specialized and mass magazines and newspapers, publishing “Literary Review” and “In the World of Books”, many collections of articles, the use of technical media to promote literature, the creation of conditions for the training of professional critics at the Writers' Union and the Literary Institute, holding meetings and seminars on literary criticism, including the course “History of Russian Soviet Criticism” in university curricula, scientific research in in this area (in parallel with the systematic study of the history of Russian literary criticism due to the increased “self-awareness” of science), new series dedicated to criticism in publishing houses, much wider reviewing and annotation of critical works, and the awarding of prizes for them (on an ideological basis). Resolution “On work with creative youth” (1976). The publication of the magazine “Literary Studies”, resumed in 1978, is the only organ that constantly criticizes the works of beginning authors simultaneously with their publication. Ignoring the creativity of young people by “venerable” critics and, as a counterbalance, holding seminars for young critics and publishing collections “Young about the Young.” Exaggerated hopes for the discovery of new names. Disputes about the “generation of forty-year-olds” in the early 80s. (V. Bondarenko, Vl. Gusev - - on the one hand, I. Dedkov - on the other).

The appearance of literary critical monographs about most famous writers. Insufficient attention of critics to the works of A. Vampilov, V. Shukshin, Yu. Trifonov, compensated mainly after their deaths. V. Kozhinov’s popularization of the poetry of N. Rubtsov, A. Prasolov and other representatives of “quiet lyricism” (“term” by L. Lavlinsky). The calm and benevolent attitude of criticism towards the work of writers and poets that have previously raised doubts and fears has become familiar: the works of V. Semin, the new stories of V. Bykov and “lieutenant” prose in general; awarding high prizes for works of military and “village” prose; mutual steps towards each other by the authorities and representatives of “loud”, “pop” poetry; partial official recognition since 1981 of the work of V. Vysotsky. Relatively moderate relapses of reinsurance criticism with the appearance of “The White Steamer” by Ch. Aitmatov (1970), novels by S. Zalygin “South American Option” (1973), Y. Bondarev “The Shore” (1975), F. Abramov “Home” (1978), V. Rasputin’s story “Farewell to Matera” (1976), an unnoticed reissue of V. Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone.” At the same time, the almost complete suppression of the dissident literary movement, a slander campaign against A. Solzhenitsyn and his expulsion from the country (1974).

Assess the overall level of the current literature. An abundance of articles devoted to the literary results of the 70s. A. Bocharov's thesis about the “fatigue” of “village” and military prose. Forecasts for the future of literature (Yu. Andreev, Yu. Kuzmenko, participants in the 1977 discussion about poetry). Critical recognition in the early 80s. complex, potentially very controversial new works for the ideologized monistic consciousness: novels by Ch. Aitmatov, S. Zalygin, etc.

The main discussions in criticism of the 70s - 80s: about synthesis in literature, about the world literary process of the 20th century, about “village prose” (the harshest judgment about it in A. Prokhanov’s speech), about the state and prospects of poetry , about new phenomena in drama and poetry of the 80s, about nationality and mass character, etc. The artificiality and tortured nature of many discussions, the lack of genuine dialogue in them, and often a principled dispute, the closure of sections not as a result of solving problems, but depending on the natural “exhalation” of the discussion. Lack of coordination between critics and uneven review of literary products.

Associated with propaganda and counter-propaganda is a sharp increase in attention to methodology within the framework of ideological monism. The actual separation of literary criticism and literary criticism methodology as an independent discipline from the original syncretism with literary theory. Close interest in the theory of criticism. A purposeful struggle against “bourgeois methodology,” the idea of ​​which extended to almost all Western criticism and literary criticism. Acquaintance with the literary thought of socialist countries using examples of “secretary” criticism.

Problem-thematic preferences of critics of the 70-80s:

primary attention to methodology, general and theoretical problems for some; the desire to combine these problems with more detailed analysis from others; concentration on the analysis of works of one or another literary type among others. Critics, even those close in interests and areas, have different methodological thoroughness and depth of analysis.

Methodological orientations of the 70s - the first half of the 80s. The official line of the leadership of the Writers' Union is acceptance of the current situation as a whole, methodological “empiricism”. Consideration in one row of genuine artists and illustrative writers, sometimes preference for the latter (V. Ozerov, A. Ovcharenko, I. Kozlov, V. Chalmaev, etc.). A more consistent preference for talented writers and poets in the works of E. Sidorov, I. Zolotussky, L. Anninsky, Al. Mikhailova and others. The actual statement of social stagnation as dynamic development, the theory of displacement of problems of “daily bread” by problems of “spiritual bread” in the articles and books of F. Kuznetsov.

Attempts to explain the specifics of modern literature on a global scale of time and culture (A. Metchenko. V. Kovsky, Yu. Andreev). A combination of methodological “empiricism” with greater dissatisfaction with what has been achieved in the literature (A. Bocharov, G. Belaya, V. Piskunov); echoes of the traditions of “New World” criticism of the 60s. with her exactingness (I. Dedkov, A. Turkov, A. Latynina, N. Ivanova). The significant silence of some former “New Worlders”, the inability for them to directly express their views on the material of modern literature. Implicit for readers is the coming to Christianity of I. Vinogradov, F. Svetov. The generally Christian position of I. Zolotussky, veiled under “spirituality”, and his intransigence towards pretentious dullness. Subjective-associative, “artistic-journalistic” and “artistic-scientific” techniques in criticism (L. Anninsky, G. Gachev, V. Turbin).

The transition of the official-dogmatic attitudes of Kochetov’s “October” to the “Young Guard” magazines under the leadership of An. Ivanov and “Ogonyok”, edited by A. Sofronov. The combination of these attitudes with the tendencies of the “peasant” people. Direct support for illustrativeness and declarativeness (B. Leonov, G. Gots, A. Baigushev);

non-analytical, emotional and journalistic assessments of poets close in their worldview (Yu. Prokushev, P. Vykhodtsev, etc.). Critical department of “Our Contemporary”, the heir of A. Nikonov’s “Young Guard”, the most controversial magazine of the 70-80s. His sharply polemical defense of peasant or national nationality, rejection of the provisions on “two cultures” in each national culture. Consistent protection and promotion of the values ​​of Russian national culture

and passion. Mutual biased attacks from critics with an almost complete absence of negative reviews of literary works, praise of artistically helpless books, including those written by literary “officials.”

Continuation of the development of literary criticism, closely related to journalism (S. Zalygin, V. Shukshin, Y. Trifonov, Y. Bondarev, etc.). Shocking “revelations” of authorities in the speeches of Yu. Kuznetsov, Art. Kunyaeva. Appeals to reader opinions, publication of letters and collections of letters from readers. Meetings of writers and critics with enterprise teams and other reading populations as a means of literally bringing literature closer to life.

Requirements for the ideological activation of criticism on the eve of the collapse of the communist regime, in the context of the complicated political situation at the turn of the 70-80s. Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On further improvement of ideological, political and educational work” (1979), disturbing notes in the materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU concerning art and literature (1981). Attempts to achieve the effectiveness of ideological work and CPSU documents devoid of practical significance in the first half of the 80s. Calls to strengthen the “offensive” nature of communist ideology, including in literary criticism.

Statements in party documents, party press and literary criticism about deviations from Marxist-Leninist methodology, about “nahistorical”, non-class tendencies in literature and criticism, about elements of God-seeking, idealization of patriarchy, allegedly incorrect interpretation of certain periods of Russian and Soviet history and literary phenomena, as well as critical classics, about the need to overcome the “infantility” and “worldview illegibility” characteristic of a number of writers. An undifferentiated approach to subjective, methodologically helpless articles and original, extraordinary, civically courageous speeches. The combination of strengths and weaknesses in the works that caused critical campaigns: posing the most important problem of the national uniqueness of the history and culture of Russia - and smoothing out real-life social contradictions, a categorical assessment of the European peoples in V. Kozhinov’s article “And every language in it will call me... "(1981), condemnation of the revolutionary split of the people, forced collectivization - and distrust of everything coming from the West, ahistorical comparison of disparate events and facts in M. Lobanov's article "Liberation" (1982), etc.

Articles by Yu. Surovtsev, Yu. Lukin, F. Kuznetsov, P. Nikolaev, G. Belaya, V. Oskotsky, S. Chuprinin against certain debatable speeches - both their weak and some of their strong sides. The lack of evidence manifested in polemics on ideological grounds in a number of works (Yu. Lukin, Yu. Surovtsev), simplification and partial distortion of the positions of the opposing side (V. Oskotsky), idealization of the state of society at the moment and avoidance of a detailed discussion of difficult issues of Soviet history, dogmatic ideas about the nature of modern literature, misunderstanding of the specifics of art (A. Jesuitov), ​​the revival of the principle of “two streams” in the history of literature and its transfer to modern times, the vulgarization of the concept of “class” (F. Kuznetsov, Yu. Surovtsev).

Theoretical problems raised by critics in the 70-80s: socialist realism and socialist literature, the limits of the “openness” of socialist realism as a method (anti-dogmatic for motives, but naive theory of the constant renewal of socialist realism and, consequently, its eternal preservation in the future , and in the present - “connection with all truthful art”), modern “romanticism”, the relationship between the universal, historical and specifically social in art, the aesthetic ideal, the artistic theme, the modern hero and his correlation with the hero of literature 20-30- XX years, conflict, plot, style, individual genres and genre varieties (historical, philosophical, political novel), national traditions and cases of their dogmatization, specifically artistic unity of multinational Soviet literature and national identity, the relationship of experience and values ​​of the past with values and searches for the present, the impact of scientific and technological revolution on literature, etc. Ignoring special concepts and terms by many critics.

The appeal, sometimes forced, of literary critics to popular literary criticism (I. Vinogradov, St. Rassadin, V. Nepomnyashchy, A. Marchenko, L. Anninsky, etc.). Denial or belittlement of the critical orientation in Russian classical literature of the 19th century, persistently carried out in the articles and books of V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov, I. Zolotussky, Y. Loschits, Y. Seleznev, M. Lyubomudrov and others. The objective need to emphasize the positive the content of the classics and tendentious interpretation of classical images with polemical overtones. Disputes around the books “ZhZL”, their support by N. Skatov, Sun. Sakharov, A. Lanshchikov and criticism by A. Dementiev, F. Kuznetsov, P. Nikolaev, V. Kuleshov, G. Berdnikov, in an editorial article in the magazine “Communist” (1979. No. 15); articles by B. Bialik, M. Khrapchenko.

Increasing the interest of critics in the creative individualities of representatives of their workshop. Creation in the 80s. their critical “portraits”.

Increased attention to the poetics of critical works. Fictionalization of their style, a tendency to create an “image of the author.” Development of the genre composition of criticism. A significantly increased number of reviews while covering only 10-12% of new book releases. Differentiation between review and micro-review (“Panorama” in “Literary Review”). Strengthening the genre of critical remark, usually polemical. Activation of a problematic article and a creative portrait. The spread of collective genres: discussion “from different points of view”, “round tables” and wide, lengthy problem (or pseudo-problem) discussions. Increased claims of author's collections of articles and reviews for monographic nature. The different nature of assessments depending on the genre of criticism: often arbitrary and almost entirely positive in reviews, more strict and balanced in reviews and problem articles, analysis of both the achievements of literature and its shortcomings in large critical genres, including collective ones. The use of “decorating” forms (dialogue, letter, diary, poetic inserts).

Criticism of the second half of the 80s - early 90s

“Perestroika” as an attempt to establish “socialism with a human face” from above. The beginning of glasnost. The first changes in cultural life, which appeared mainly since the end of 1986.

Increasing the number of publications about literature in periodicals, increasing their problem™ and severity. Creation of new public organizations of cultural figures, discussion of their role and goals.

Changes in the leadership of the Writers' Union and its local organizations, the Council for Criticism and Literary Studies, chief editors and editorial boards of a number of literary and artistic publications, the intensification of their activities, the rapid growth of circulation of many of them in the late 80s.

Approval in the press of the highly critical orientation of the first works of the period of “perestroika” - V. Rasputin, V. Astafiev, Ch. Aitmatov. Recognition of the artistic weaknesses of “hot” works by some critics and writers, ignoring them by others.

Demands to increase the criteria for evaluating literary works. Discussion of the issue of bonuses for them. General statements about the dominance of grayness. A noticeable reduction in the number of praises in honor of holders of literary “posts”. The inertia of their nameless criticism (in general terms or in the form of hints) and the appearance of the first judgments with specifically named addressees since the beginning of 1988.

A huge number of publications about V. Vysotsky in 1986-1988. The appearance of articles about A. Galich, Yu. Vizbor and other creators of the “art song”. Disputes about young poets - “meta-metaphorists”. New names of writers noticed by critics: S. Kaledin, V. Pietsukh. T. Tolstaya, E. Popov, Valery Popov and others.

Restoring the undeservedly “excluded.” from Russian and Soviet culture of names and works, some polemical extremes when commenting on them in mass publications. The most passionate discussion by criticism, including reader criticism, of the publication of works previously unknown to a wide audience. The rapid increase in public and literary attention to the “blank spots” of Soviet history since the fall of 1986. The rejection by many writers of P. Proskurin’s statements about “necrophilia” in modern literature and art. “Anti-cult” 1987. Initial differentiation of writers into the categories of “Stalinists” and “anti-Stalinists.” The noisy but short-lived success of A. Rybakov’s novel “Children of the Arbat”, support in the criticism of a number of works, primarily on a thematic principle.

Methodological positions and problems in criticism. Departure from active work in criticism of fighters for the “only true” methodology (F. Kuznetsov, Yu. Surovtsev, P. Nikolaev, etc.). The unconditional dominance of the journalistic aspect of criticism. There is great resonance with Syubov’s principles of “real” criticism, modeled on the “Novomir” articles of the 60s. (New World. 1987. No. 6). The cool attitude towards this proposal by L. Anninsky, I. Vinogradov, who spoke out for absolute, free methodological pluralism, and other critics. The comparison of the Stalin and Brezhnev periods of history, first heard in Yu. Burtin’s article “To you, from another generation...” (October 1987. No. 8), is a step towards the negation of the entire social system.

Speeches by writers: V. Astafiev, V. Belov, V. Rasputin, Y. Bondarev, S. Zalygin, Ch. Aitmatov, A. Adamovich and others. Systematic publication of letters from readers in a variety of publications.

Distribution of the genre of “polemical notes”. Mutual reproaches of writers in the press, often of a personal nature, disputes over particulars with insufficient validity of the initial positions. Calls by I. Vinogradov, A. Latynina, D. Urnov for greater conceptualization of literary critical speeches. Diametrically opposed assessments of the works of Ch. Aitmatov, A. Bitov, V. Bykov, D. Granin, A. Bek, A. Rybakov, Y. Trifonov, Y. Bondarev, the novel by V. Belov “Everything is Ahead”, the plays of M. Shatrov, creativity of a number of poets and publicists in various periodicals.

The literal revival and strengthening of the former “new world” principles (V. Lakshin, V. Cardin, B. Sarnov, S. Rassadin, N. Ivanova, T. Ivanova). More balanced, although less flashy and noticeable compared to the criticism of the “Ogonykovsky” type, the speeches of A. Bocharov, E. Sidorov, Al. Mikhailov, G. Belaya, V. Piskunov, E. Starikova. Activation of the creative activity of the “forty-year-old” critics S. Chuprinin and Vl. Novikova.

The rapprochement of the positions of the magazines “Our Contemporary” and “Young Guard”. Critics of the “Young Guard”: A. Ovcharenko, V. Bushin, A. Bai-gushev, V. Khatyushin and others. The proximity of their positions to the official guidelines of the previous period, but with an orientation towards Russian national patriotism. The desire of the most serious authors of the magazine “Our Contemporary” (V. Kozhinov, A. Lanshchikov) to understand the social causes of historical events that determined the fate of the people, and from this point of view to evaluate works about the “blank spots” of Soviet history. The bias of a number of practical conclusions, the speeches of “Young Guard”, “Our Contemporary” and “Moscow” against many works published during the period of “perestroika”. Disputes surrounding “Doctor Zhivago” by B. Pasternak, works of writers from Russian diaspora (the third wave of emigration).

Attempts by L. Lavlinsky, D. Urnov, A. Latynina to take a “centrist” position in literary and journalistic clashes. A. Latynina’s proposal to return to the ideology and politics of classical liberalism (New World. 1988. No. 8), more radical than defending “socialism with a human face,” but not understood and not appreciated in the heat of controversy. The role of the works of V. Grossman and A. Solzhenitsyn published in Russia in 1989 for overcoming society’s illusions regarding the nature of the socialist system. An objectively occurring, but not recognized by anyone, convergence of the positions of the democratic “Banner” and the patriotic “Our Contemporary” (bodies representing opposite tendencies in criticism) on such a significant issue - the attitude towards the past of a collapsing social system. Awareness by the main opposing directions at the turn of the last decades of the century of the essence of their socio-political differences:

either recognition of the exclusively unique historical path of Russia and the advantage of transpersonal values ​​(folk in “Our Contemporary”, state in “Young Guard”) over individual-personal ones, or the democratic principle of the priority of the individual and recognition of the fundamentally single path of humanity, which Russia should follow . Overlaying the basic ideological, socio-political divergence with everyday and psychological preferences, likes and dislikes.

A decrease in criticism of the number of disputes directly about literary novelties and at the same time an increase, primarily in “October” and “Znamya”, of aesthetic and philosophical criticism itself, and not just politicized journalistic criticism.

Distrust in criticism of the turn of the 80-90s. to abstract theorizing. Emotional solution to the problems of artistic method in criticism of the second half of the 80s.

Revision of the basic values ​​of Russian literature of the 20th century. A harsh assessment of the path of Soviet literature in the articles of M. Chudakova, V. Vozdvizhensky, E. Dobrenko and others. Unhistorical extremes, overly emotional, definitely harsh attacks, especially in unprofessional criticism, against M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, M. Sholokhov and other previously unconditionally revered writers. A refutation of this kind of speech in the articles of V. Baranov, Ad. Mikhailova, S. Borovikova, etc. The periodic appearance of new, purely revealing articles with relatively little interest from readers in them.

Increased attention to genres of criticism. The increasing importance of the problem article genre. Selected reviews of magazine products by month. Annual literature reviews, questionnaires on the state of magazines, contemporary criticism and journalism, sociological data on the success of certain works and periodicals among readers.

Criticism after 1991

The disappearance of the traditional “literary process” for Russia in the post-Soviet period. A sharp weakening in society of interest in literature and criticism, caused by reasons of both material and intellectual-spiritual nature. The loss of literary-centrism by the public consciousness in the conditions of the liberation of humanitarian thought and the practical difficulty of its self-realization, the absence of literary and social “events” that would attract increased attention from the general reader. Fall by the second half of the 90s. 50-60 times the circulation of the magazines “New World”, “Znamya”, etc., while maintaining all the main literary and artistic publications of the Soviet era and even their archaic ideologized names. The almost complete disappearance of books by critics about modern writers, reviews in a number of magazines. The creation of new specifically literary journals (in 1992 - “New Literary Review” without any reviews of current literature), the predominance of literary criticism itself in “Questions of Literature” and “Literary Review” (created in the 70s as a purely literary -critical), other signs of the convergence of criticism and literary criticism are similar to the situation in the West.

General cultural orientation of many periodicals, distribution of lightweight popularization. Shifting the attention of the mass reader from a magazine to a newspaper. Activity in the field of criticism of some non-specialized newspapers, primarily Nezavisimaya Gazeta (since 1991), responses to the “stream” - numerous new works - without serious attempts to identify trends in the development of literature as a whole, including the actual appeal to the elite reader in uninhibited form characteristic of mass publications (A. Nemzer, A. Arkhangelsky, etc.).

Loss of a leading position by former critics of the “sixties” (except for L. Anninsky). Condemnation of the “sixties” by a number of young critics.

Demarcation in the early 90s. traditional publications “with a direction” (“New World”, “Znamya”, “Our Contemporary”, “Izvestia”, “Continent”, New York “New Journal”, etc.) and publications with an openly relativistic position (“ Nezavisimaya Gazeta", "Moskovsky Komsomolets", "Syntax", etc.), based on a playful, extremely relaxed attitude towards any social and literary positions (article by S. Chuprinin "Firstborns of Freedom", 1992).

The split of the Writers' Union and the isolated existence of two new unions. The final abandonment of democratic publications from polemics with magazines such as “Young Guard” (which took the Stalinist positions of the first post-war years), attempts to master national issues in published articles without nationalism (articles by N. Ivanova, A. Panchenko in “Znamya” for 1992) and along with this, the affirmation of purely Western values ​​(literature as a private matter, man and the hero of literature as a private person - “The Death of a Hero” by P. Weil). The unsuccessful experience of the “Banner” critics finding a new enemy - “national liberalism” in the person of S. Zalygin’s “New World”, the distinction between N. Ivanova and Vl. Novikov of the “magazine parties” of Sakharov (with the predominance of the idea of ​​human rights) and Solzhenitsyn (with the predominance of the supra-personal, statist idea). Speech by N. Ivanova in “New World” in 1996 (No. 1).

Distribution of small-circulation publications such as almanacs without consistent periodicity, which are often the organs of literary circles, including those that are emphatically anti-traditionalist. A very free, “debunking” attitude towards classical Russian literature in the publications of D. Galkovsky, A. Ageev, E. Lamport, I. Solonevich and others. DeideologistZnamya. 1996. No. 3).

“Returned” criticism (Russian diaspora)

The section does not attempt to trace a coherent history of literary criticism of the Russian diaspora: the possibilities for students to study it are limited by the incompleteness and relative randomness of reprints of emigrant critical works in “perestroika” and “post-perestroika” Russia (this is especially true for criticism of recent decades). The main differences between emigrant criticism and Soviet criticism (not only ideological) and some trends in its evolution are noted, and individual her representatives.

Practical difficulties for the existence of criticism in emigration: limited funds and readership. Rare opportunities for the publication of literary critical books and even the publication of large journal articles, the predominance in criticism of the first wave of emigration of newspaper articles, generally small forms with a breadth of topics (problem articles, creative portraits in small critical forms), the desire of reviewers to go beyond the evaluation of one work ( genre of short review article). The synthetic nature of emigrant criticism: less differentiation between criticism and literary criticism than in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR, as well as professional, philosophical (religious-philosophical) and artistic (writing) criticism, journalism and memoirs (a clear expression of the personal-autobiographical principle in many articles and books), turning poets into critics par excellence:

V. F. Khodasevich, G. V. Adamovich are the most famous and authoritative critics of the Russian diaspora. The absence of a distinct change of periods in the work of a number of critics, their work in this field - unlike most prominent Soviet critics - has lasted for many decades (G. Adamovich, V. Veidle, N. Otsup, F. Stepun, etc.). Lack of polemics on general methodological and theoretical-literary problems with greater political and ideological differentiation of critics than in Soviet Russia.

An interested attitude towards both emigrant and Soviet literature, a constantly arising question about the advantages and prospects of one or the other, resolved in an anti-Soviet, “pro-Soviet” or, less often, conciliatory spirit, taking into account the predominance of the artistic factor itself. The most irreconcilable positions regarding Soviet literature are those of I. A. Bunin, Anton Krainiy (Z. N. Gippius), V. Nabokov. The idea of ​​a special mission of Russian emigration as the guardian of national culture. One of the early manifestations of the opposite position is the article by D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky “Russian Literature after 1917” (1922). M. L. Slonim’s polemic with Anton Krainy in the article “Living Literature and Dead Critics” (1924), his declaration of Paris “not the capital, but the district of Russian literature,” emphasizing the continuity of early post-revolutionary literature in Russia from pre-revolutionary literature (“Ten Years of Russian Literature "), the book "Portraits of Soviet Writers" (Paris, 1933) with essays on the works of S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky, B. Pasternak, E. Zamyatin, Vs. Ivanov, P. Romanov, A. Tolstoy, M. Zoshchenko, I. Ehrenburg, K. Fedin, B. Pilnyak, I. Babel, L. Leonov, with Pasternak preferred to the other surviving poets.

V. Khodasevich’s bitter reflections on the fate of Russian literature in general (“Bloody Food”) and in the 20th century in particular, recognition of the inevitability of the enormous and long work to restore Russian culture after ten years of Bolshevik power (article “1917-1927”), difficult the consequences of the division of national literature into two branches for both of them (“Literature in Exile”, 1933). G. Adamovich about the difference between Russian emigration and any other, about the death of Russia - the whole “mainland”; polemic with Khodasevich on the issue of specifically emigrant literature (book “Loneliness and Freedom”, 1954). Literary criticism book by Gleb Struve “Russian Literature in Exile” (New York, 1956; 2nd ed. Paris, 1984) with features of literary critical reviews; the conclusion about the significant advantage of emigrant literature over Soviet literature and the author’s hope for their future merger.

The Russian emigration transferred the definition of “Silver Age” from the poetry of the second half of the 19th century. on the literature and culture of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries (N. Otsup, D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, N. Berdyaev). Understanding the tragic destinies of S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky, A. Bely, M. Tsvetaeva, B. Pasternak in connection with the fate of Russia and Russian literature: articles by R. Yakobson “On the generation that wasted its poets” (1931), F. Stepun "B. L. Pasternak" (1959), etc. Nikita Struve's conclusion about the end with the death of A. Akhmatova (1966) of the great Russian literature that has existed since the time of Pushkin for a century and a half.

Eurasianism and the spread of recognition of the USSR among emigrants, which gave birth in the 40s. "Soviet patriotism". The most prominent critic among the Eurasians is Prince D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. His articles are full of sympathy for Soviet literature and the USSR. His repatriation in 1932 and his transformation into the Soviet critic D. Mirsky. Articles about poetry, participation in a discussion about the historical novel (1934). Disappointment in the prospects of Soviet literature, opposition to “The Last of the Udege” by A. Fadeev (1935) and attacks on D. Mirsky by critical officialdom. Arrest and death in the camp.

Fadeev’s novel “Destruction” made a strong impression on emigrant critics. V. Khodasevich’s support for the work of M. Zoshchenko as exposing Soviet society. Articles by M. Tsvetaeva “Epic and Lyrics of Modern Russia” (1933), “Poets with History and Poets without History” (1934). “Discovery” of A. Platonov as a writer and critic by G. Adamovich. Reviews of Soviet magazines in criticism of foreign countries, reviews of new works of Soviet writers and poets. The ardent sympathy of many emigrants for the USSR during the Second World War and I. Bunin’s high assessment of “Vasily Terkin” by A. Tvardovsky. The collapse of emigrants' hopes for atmospheric warming in the USSR in the post-war years.

Assessments of the creativity of writers and poets of Russian diaspora. I. Bunin and D. Merezhkovsky as two candidates for the Nobel Prize;

awarding the Bunin Prize in 1933. The popularity of I. Shmelev and M. Aldanov in various emigration circles. Shmelev's accusations of reactionary behavior on the part of radical writers. The exceptionally high appreciation of Shmelev’s work was given by the most characteristic representative of religious and philosophical criticism, the Orthodox orthodox I. A. Ilyin. He accuses Merezhkovsky, and in many ways all non-Orthodox humanitarian thought, of the moral preparation of Bolshevism. Research by I. Ilyin “On Darkness and Enlightenment. Book of art criticism. Bunin. Remizov. Shmelev" (Munich, 1959; M., 1991). Positive characteristics of older Russian emigrant writers by G. Adamovich with a skeptical attitude towards the authenticity of the image of “Holy Rus'” by Shmelev. Isolation of M. Tsvetaeva in exile. Critical recognition of V. Khodasevich as the first poet of the Russian diaspora, and after his death - G. Ivanov.

The isolation of most senior writers in their circle, insufficient attention to the creativity of young people, explained by initial hopes for a quick return to Russia after the collapse of the Bolsheviks and the restoration of normal continuity in life (G. Adamovich). The merits of V. Khodasevich, who, in contrast to many others, supported the work of Sirin (V. Nabokov) and - with reservations - some young poets. There is an element of subjectivity in Khodasevich’s interpretation of Sirin’s novels, seeing in them a hero-“artist.” Mostly friendly reviews from critics about the works of G. Gazdanov (with an exaggeration of the “Proustian” beginning in them) and B. Poplavsky. Controversy about “young literature”: speeches by M. Aldanov, G. Gazdanov, M. Osorgin, M. Tsetlin, Y. Terapiano;

book by V. Varshavsky “The Unnoticed Generation” (New York, 1956).

Criticism's awareness of the advantages of emigration: lack of political pressure, preservation of a prepared readership, continuity of tradition, contact with European literature (F. Stepun, G. Adamovich, V. Veidle).

Theoretical, literary and cultural issues in the articles of major critics of the Russian diaspora. V. Khodasevich about the inseparability of life and art in symbolism, about cinema as an expression of the onset of anticulture, about the originality of memoir literature, historical novel, artistic and philosophical literature, “stupid” poetry, etc. G. Adamovich about the need to move away from the “attributes of artistic conventions”, from literaryism, formal tricks (condemnation of “formism”) for the sake of spontaneity and simplicity; approval of the intimate diary form of the verse. Criticism of neoclassical trends in young poetry, proclamation of the path from Pushkin to Lermontov, to reflect the crisis state of the individual and the world. Poets of the “Parisian note” and the program of G. Adamovich; V. Veidle about the “Parisian note” and “Montparnasse sorrow.” The polemic between Adamovich and Khodasevich about “humanity” and “skill,” “sincerity” and poetic discipline.

Writer's essays: M. Osorgin, G. Gazdanov, V. Nabokov (written by D. S. Mirsky, V. Nabokov).

“What is Socialist Realism” (1957) by Abram Tertz (Andrei Sinyavsky) is the first speech by a Soviet dissident writer in the Western press during the “Thaw”. Emigration in the 60s. Arc. Belinkov, the author of books about Yu. Tynyanov and Yu. Olesha with moral claims to these writers, and his rejection of Western liberalism.

The third wave of emigration and the preservation in it of traces of the literary situation that developed in the USSR starting from the second half of the 60s. The confrontation between Westernizing and “soil” tendencies, their expression in the confrontation between the magazines “Syntax” by M. Rozanova and “Continent” by V. Maksimov. The absence of critics as such among the third wave of emigrants, a new convergence of criticism and literary criticism, often politicized.

The first statements of Soviet critics (1987) about the desirability of returning to Soviet literature some of the works “excluded” from it, created by emigrants of the third wave. Giving them a voice in No. 1 of the journal “Foreign Literature” for 1988 and subsequently the rapid elimination of boundaries between Soviet and emigrant literature. Heated debates surrounding “Walks with Pushkin” by A. Sinyavsky, and A. Solzhenitsyn’s participation in them. Works on Solzhenitsyn's work published in Russia in the late 80s - early 90s: Russians A. Latynina, P. Palamarchuk, V. Chalmaev, descendant of emigrants N. Struve, Swiss Georges Niva.

The disappearance of fundamental differences between the Russian and emigrant press after 1991. Publications of Russian critics in Western Russian-language publications and emigrants in Russian ones. The new (“Moscow”) edition of “Continent” is headed by the Orthodox liberal, former “Novomirets” from the sixties I. Vinogradov. Permanent (from the 78th issue) column “Bibliographic Service of the Continent.” Publication in Russia of a collection of articles by N. Struve “Orthodoxy and Culture” (1992).

The majority of emigrant magazines have lost their identity in the absence of the usual image of the enemy. Repetition by former “Sovietologists” in the West of what Soviet criticism went through during the years of “perestroika.” The most actively published critics-emigrants in “perestroika” and “post-perestroika” Russia: P. Weil and A. Genis, B. Groys, G. Pomerants, B. Paramonov and others. Foreigners - “Sovietologists” and Russian scholars in the Russian press : V. Strada, K. Clark, A. Flak-ser and others. Availability of emigrant publications to the Russian reader and the lack of widespread interest in them in connection with the new state of social and literary consciousness in Russia.

Newspapers:"Bulletin of Europe" - liberal

« Russian wealth" - populist.

"New Way" - Symbolists.

- Symbolists have a smaller circulation.

The main “thick magazine” is a monthly. Criticism occupied an important position after journalism. Trinity. Thick magazines contain ideas. Magazines: liberal and conservative. Mikhailovsky. The newspaper becomes popular, which means the critic can make a name for himself.

- newspaper criticism is brief (condensed prompt response).

-Chukovsky, Pilsky.

- criticism is subject to infringement by the authorities.

-class of literary officials.

The bureaucratization of literature hampered its development. Zinaida Gippius. Fight against critics of conservatives and liberals.

-the desire of critics to avoid binding opinions. Gronfeld.

- the critic tried to understand and describe.

- understanding a writer is more important than evaluating or passing judgment.

-Gronfeld: own aesthetic taste.

The End: New Ideas for Revisiting Criticism.

Voronsky is a literary critic.

Voronsky was expelled from the theological seminary.

He believed that the re-creation of real reality into aesthetic reality.

Reliance on the values ​​of classical literature is the foundation of a new approach to art.

Class struggle does not contribute to the development of humanity.

He defended the old canons of literature.

Explored the birth of an art form and how it relates to reality. The central theme of his articles.

He relied on the works of Plekhanov (the dominance of everydayism, the craving for realism, naturalism, the power of artistic generalization: place, setting).

He called writers to the kind of realism that could combine everyday life with fiction.

His position was under attack.

His materials were aggressive.

Was for the writers of fellow travelers.

He raised the question of the problem of objective truth contained in an artistic image.

He offered to write the truth.

Developed the idea of ​​real criticism. He argued that there is no proletarian literature. Almost expelled from the party. He advocated the involvement of the intelligentsia in Soviet literature. He was a Bolshevik. Editor of the first thick Soviet magazine "Krasnaya Nov". He defended realistic principles in literature.

Literary criticism of the Soviet period.

In Soviet criticism, the party orientation of critical speeches, the thoroughness of the Marxist-Leninist preparation of the critic, guided in his activities by the method of socialist realism (See Socialist realism) - the main creative method of all Soviet literature - acquires particular importance. The resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” (1972) stated that it is the duty of criticism, by deeply analyzing the patterns of the modern artistic process, to contribute in every possible way to strengthening the Leninist principles of party membership and nationality, to fight for the high ideological and aesthetic level of Soviet art, and to consistently oppose the bourgeois ideology

Soviet literary culture, in alliance with the literary culture of other countries of the socialist commonwealth and the Marxist literary culture of capitalist countries, actively participates in the international ideological struggle, opposes bourgeois aesthetic, formalistic concepts that try to exclude literature from public life and cultivate elite art for the few; against the revisionist concepts of “realism without shores” (R. Garaudy, E. Fischer), calling for peaceful ideological coexistence, that is, for the capitulation of realistic movements to bourgeois modernism; against left-nihilistic attempts to “liquidate” cultural heritage and erase the educational value of realistic literature. In the 2nd half of the 20th century. In the progressive press of different countries, the study of V. I. Lenin’s views on literature intensified.

One of the pressing issues of modern literary criticism is the attitude towards the literature of socialist realism. This method has both defenders and irreconcilable enemies in foreign criticism. The speeches of the “Sovietologists” (G. Struve, G. Ermolaev, M. Hayward, J. Rühle, etc.) regarding the literature of socialist realism are directed not only against the artistic method, but in essence - against those social relations and ideas that determined its emergence and development.

M. Gorky, A. Fadeev and other writers at one time substantiated and defended the principles of socialist realism in Soviet criticism. Soviet literary criticism is actively fighting for the establishment of socialist realism in literature, which is called upon to combine the accuracy of ideological assessments and the depth of social analysis with aesthetic discernment, respect for talent, and fruitful creative searches. Evidence-based and convincing literary criticism has the opportunity to influence the course of development of literature, the course of the literary process as a whole, consistently supporting advanced trends and rejecting alien trends. Marxist criticism, based on scientific methods of objective research and lively public interest, is opposed to impressionistic, subjectivist criticism, which considers itself free from consistent concepts, a holistic view of things, and a conscious point of view.

Soviet literary criticism is fighting against dogmatic criticism, which proceeds from preconceived, a priori judgments about art and therefore cannot comprehend the very essence of art, its poetic thought, characters, and conflicts. In the fight against subjectivism and dogmatism, criticism is gaining authority - social in nature, scientific and creative in method, analytical in research techniques, associated with a wide readership.

In connection with the responsible role of criticism in the literary process, in the fate of the book and the author, the question of its moral responsibilities becomes of great importance. The profession imposes significant moral obligations on the critic and presupposes fundamental honesty of argumentation, understanding and tact towards the writer. All kinds of exaggerations, arbitrary quotation, hanging of “labels,” unsubstantiated conclusions are incompatible with the very essence of literary criticism. Directness and harshness in judgments about craft literature are a quality inherent in advanced Russian criticism since the time of Belinsky. In criticism there should be no place, as stated in the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee “On Literary and Artistic Criticism,” for a conciliatory attitude towards ideological and artistic marriage, subjectivism, friendly and group biases. The situation is intolerable when articles or reviews “... are one-sided in nature, contain unfounded compliments, are reduced to a cursory retelling of the content of the work, and do not give an idea of ​​​​its real meaning and value” (“Pravda”, 1972, January 25, p. 1 ).

Scientific persuasiveness of argumentation, combined with party definiteness of judgment, ideological adherence to principles, and impeccable artistic taste, is the basis of the moral authority of Soviet literary criticism and its influence on literature.

For literary studies in individual countries, see the sections Literature and Literary Studies in articles about these countries.

- October Revolution.

- the process of nationalization of literature.

- proletarian writer, peasant writer, fellow traveler (group struggle).

- crowding out independent criticism.

- substitution of artistry in literature. (relevance).

- desire for a holistic analysis.

- approval of political criteria when evaluating a book.

- creation of a literary ministry.

- predominance of genres: lit. Portrait, problematic article, review.

- first attempts at historical and literary review.

- publication of a book of critical articles.

- discussion - as a form of influence of critical thought.

- the problem of the hero of time. (the problem of personality and the principles of depicting a person).

Voronsky's struggle for free criticism. Mandelstam, Bryusov.

The period of thaw and post-thaw in literary criticism.

Thaw period.

The period after Stalin's death.

The weakening of totalitarian power

Relative freedom of speech

Condemnation of the cult of personality

Censorship has weakened

Mandelstam and Balmont

Blok and Yesenin began to be published relatively

Magazine "New World" Tvardovsky

Officer's prose - the truth about the war.

The end of the Thaw, Brezhnev's rise to power.

Reality lock

All forms of art are experiencing a renaissance

The critic has the right to make mistakes, and he justifies his right to make mistakes.

Khrushchev (simplicity of critical judgment)

The party must evaluate the works.

Critical strategy: identifying deficiencies in the text, ways to correct it. Forecast of the author's future path

Hacky texts

· An invention of complete well-being (showing life through dumplings)

· Non-depiction of the shortcomings of modern reality

· Random selection of facts of modern reality

Different magazine positions:

Writers and readers disagree

Post-thaw period.

- atmosphere of pessimism

- alcoholism problem

- restorative trend

- image of Stalin

- censorship is strengthening

- the concept of conversations in the kitchen appears

- lack of scientific development of the theory of criticism

- the bulk of the criticism is official

Style: the criticism is not political, the assessments are vague, the genre of laudatory reviews dominates. Kozhekov is a critic and ideologist. Read national and cultural consistency into the text. Critic-expert: there is no arguing about tastes. The judgment cannot be final. Astafiev.

16. Literary criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st century.

The emergence of metacriticism

Liberal thick magazines

Identity crisis in criticism

Declining circulation of thick magazines

The critic asks the question: who am I?

Metacriticism (negative)

Independent thinking (propaganda)

Analytical criticism: the image of authority, the all-knowing critic is rejected. The task of the critic is to analyze the components of the literary process.

The reader as a co-researcher.

Kostyrko: criticism depends on literature.

Rodnyanskaya: a critic must proceed from his convictions.

3 strategies: restoration, corrective, analytical.

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.

Starting from 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 have almost completely replaced literary salons, which played a much more 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 literature, 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. The well-known aphorism of 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; the freedom of a critic within the framework of any publication was of a relative nature, and was rather 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 publication 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 a “turn in life” 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 artistic world, the structure and composition of which, as well as the 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 Alexey 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 of 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 an 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 the social role of art and the presence of moral content in it, Aikhenwald refused to recognize the utilitarian, applied nature of works of art, and refused to evaluate them 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. This 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 the revolutionary democrats from a very specific position - for the lack of a philosophical foundation, solid criteria, etc. in their criticism, he tried to take Russian criticism to a new path, 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 that could be reproached for Izmailov was the somewhat scattered nature of his 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 proof! 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."

Pilsky's lifestyle contributed a lot to remembering a lot - he was, one might say, always in the thick of 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 fueled his critical activity and shaped his creative image 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 himself” and become one of the Soviet critics; literary mores changed too sharply at that time.

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 had the opportunity to publish serious articles on literary topics. 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's favorite genre as a critic was the 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 the creative person and the reading public.

Evgenia Ivanova

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 of 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 of the 19th century. 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.

Chapter I. Formation and development of domestic art criticism at the beginning of the 20th century.P.

1. G. Russian art criticism of the 1900-1910s and its main art criticism dominants.S.

1.2. Literary and artistic magazines - the creative and textual basis of domestic art criticism of the 1900-1910s. S.

1.3. Artists of the first wave of the Russian avant-garde as art theorists and critics. WITH.

Chapter II. Art criticism of the 1920s is the historical and cultural basis for the formation of a new stage in Russian art criticism.S.

2.1. The main artistic and ideological trends and their manifestations in the development of domestic art criticism in the 1920s. WITH.

2.2. Magazine art criticism of the 1920s in the process of forming.new art.S.

2.3. Criticism of the 1920s during fundamental changes in the art education system.S.

2.4. Creative activity of the largest representatives of Russian art criticism of the 1920s.G.

Chapter III. Art criticism in the context of Soviet * art of the 1930-50s S.G.

3.1. Soviet art criticism in the conditions of ideological struggle of the 1930-50s.S.

3.2. Reflection of genre problems of fine art in art criticism of the first half of the 20th century.S.

3.3. Art criticism in academic art history education in the 1930s-50s.S.

Chapter IV. Formation of a new art criticism paradigm and domestic art criticism of the second half of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries. WITH.

4.1.0features of Soviet art history of the second half of the twentieth century. and its influence on art criticism.S.

4.2. Art criticism in the system of modern Russian art education.S.

4.3. The current state of Russian art magazine criticismpp.

4.4.0national criticism in the artistic space at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries. WITH.

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Domestic art criticism of the 20th century: issues of theory, history, education”

Similar dissertations in the specialty "Theory and History of Art", 17.00.09 code VAK

• The art of book graphics in the context of Russian culture of the 20s of the XX century 2007, candidate of art history Kuzin, Vladimir Vladimirovich

• The cosmos of nature in the works of P. Kuznetsov and M. Saryan: aesthetic and ideological aspects 2010, candidate of art history Voskresenskaya, Victoria Vladimirovna

• The problem of the curator as the author of an artistic and aesthetic concept in Western art of the 1970s. Harald Szeemann and Kassel Documenta5 2008, candidate of art history Biryukova, Marina Valerievna

• Art design in foreign furniture design of the XX - early XXI centuries. 2008, candidate of art history Morozova, Margarita Alekseevna

• Author's jewelry art of Leningrad-St. Petersburg of the second half of the 20th century: Origins and evolution 2002, candidate of art history Gabriel, Galina Nikolaevna

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Theory and History of Art”, Gracheva, Svetlana Mikhailovna

List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Art History Gracheva, Svetlana Mikhailovna, 2010

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.