Revolutionary democrats of the 19th century in literature. Democratization of literature at the end of the 19th century

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confidence in the vitality of the Russian people lies at the basis of all the activities of revolutionary democrats who have devoted themselves to defending the interests of the people. Having received the opportunity to write openly in exile, Herzen already in 1849 directly pointed to his “... blood connection with the people, in which he found so many reviews of bright and dark sides my soul, whose song and language are my life and my language.

At that time, setting as his goal the acquaintance of European democracy with genuine, people's Russia, he wrote with the pride of a true patriot: “Let it [Europe] know closer people, whose adolescent strength she appreciated in battle, where he remained the winner; we will tell her about this powerful and inscrutable people who secretly formed a state of sixty million, which grew so strongly and surprisingly without losing its communal principle, and was the first to carry it through the initial upheavals of state development; about a people who miraculously managed to preserve themselves under the yoke of the Mongol hordes and German bureaucrats, under the corporal's stick of barracks discipline and under the shameful Tatar whip, who retained stately features, a lively mind and a wide revelry of a rich nature under the yoke of serfdom and in response to The tsar's order to form was answered a hundred years later with the enormous appearance of Pushkin. Let the Europeans recognize their neighbor; they are only afraid of him, they need to know what they are afraid of.

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

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

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

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

... In it and only in it are concentrated all the threads of world history - this Gordian knot, which the Parisian Alexanders so bravely cut, knowing nothing but Europe, and so badly, and so cunningly confusing, imagining that they unraveled, the patient workers of Germany - these porcupines of European thought, with the shepherd's manners of dreamy seals.

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

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

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

Being genuine democrats and revolutionaries who realized their blood connection with the people and devoted themselves to protecting their interests, Belinsky, Herzen and their followers were the bearers of the most advanced ideology of their time. Not without reason, V. I. Lenin, justifying the idea of ​​the exceptionally great importance of correct theoretical views for the success of the revolutionary struggle, considered it necessary to mention both Herzen and Belinsky, starting with their names the list of “predecessors of Russian social democracy.” “... the role of an advanced fighter,” he wrote in 1902, “can be performed only by a party guided by an advanced theory. And in order to at least somewhat concretely imagine what this means, let the reader remember such predecessors of Russian social democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 70s ... ".

In another work of his, already dating back to 1920, speaking about the correctness of the revolutionary theory of Marxism alone, V. I. Lenin, as you know, highly appreciated the socio-political outlook of the revolutionary democrats of the 40s of the 19th century. The period of the search for the Marxist theory V. I. Lenin defined by the time “from the 40s to the 90s of the last century”: “Marxism, as the only correct revolutionary theory, Russia truly suffered through a half-century history of unheard-of torments and victims, unprecedented revolutionary heroism, incredible energy and selfless search, learning, testing in practice, disappointment, verification, comparison of European experience.

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

V. I. Lenin pointed out:

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

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

Interest in the theories of the utopian socialists was typical of many progressive people in Russia in the 1940s. The works of Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Louis Blanc and others, despite being banned by the censors, came to Russia in large quantities.

The relatively wide dissemination of the works of utopian socialists is confirmed by the results of searches of private individuals and bookstores in connection with the Petrashevists case. During the arrest of the first group of Petrashevites, agents of the III department were ordered to confiscate all the papers of the arrested and the forbidden books found in them. With the subsequent arrests of dozens of new people in this case, the order on books was no longer carried out. Prohibited writings were found in many persons, and their presence, as it turned out, could not serve as serious evidence for the prosecution, and samples of them were received in Count Orlov's institution in abundance already at the first arrests.

Searches of booksellers gave similar results. Thousands of volumes of this kind of literature were found in bookstores in St. Petersburg, Riga, Dorpat and other cities. It is characteristic, for example, that, having received a reply from the Moscow authorities that no such publications were found in Moscow, the head of the office of the III department, Gen. Dubelt imposed a resolution: "I do not believe." Somewhat later, Dubelt's skepticism was confirmed - it was accidentally established that in Moscow Gautier was selling banned books in his bookstore, who paid for this in 1849 with an administrative penalty.

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

Undoubtedly, not only revolutionary-democratic convictions, but also socialist views were characteristic of many representatives of the progressive Russian intelligentsia.

V. I. Lenin's indication that the advanced thought of the Russian revolutionary democrats already in the 40s of the XIX century. "eagerly searched for a correct revolutionary theory", following " last word” in this area, finds full confirmation in the penetration into serf Russia of that time of the first works of the founders of Marxism.

Some of the essential provisions of one of the early works of F. Engels (“Schelling and revelation”, Leipzig, 1842) became known to the readers of Otechestvennye Zapiski already at the very beginning of 1843. In the first issue of this journal, a small article by V. Botkin “German Literature” was published ”, About which Belinsky in a letter to the author responded with full approval: “I liked your article on German Literature in No. 1 extremely well - smart, efficient and deft.” In this article, Botkin literally quoted entire paragraphs from the introductory part of the mentioned Leipzig pamphlet by Engels, which, by the way, did not indicate the name of the author. Here is an example of parallel passages from these two works:

Botkin's article

“His philosophy of religion and philosophy of law would have taken on a different form if he had developed them from pure thought, not including in it the positive elements that lay in the civilization of his time; for it is precisely from this that the contradictions and incorrect conclusions that lie in his philosophy of religion and the philosophy of nature follow. The principles in them are always independent, free and true - the conclusions and conclusions are often short-sighted.

Brochure Engels

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

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

Engels' concise final assessment of Hegel's philosophy, translated verbatim along with other texts by Botkin for his article, was undoubtedly remembered by many contemporaries. Suffice it to point out that it was repeated almost verbatim again in the mid-1950s by N. G. Chernyshevsky in Essays Gogol period Russian Literature"

In the mid-1940s, however, other works of the founders of Marxism reached the Russian revolutionary democrats. We know from Belinsky's letters that as early as 1844 he read their articles in the German-French Yearbook. Namely, there were published brilliant work that laid the foundation great revolution in philosophy: K. Marx's article "On the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Law" and "Essays on the Critique of Political Economy" written by F. Engels.

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

Finally, the first mention of K. Marx and F. Engels in the Russian press dates back to the 1940s. In 1848, volume 11 of the Reference and Encyclopedic Dictionary was published, where in the article “Modern Philosophy” it was said: “Neither Marx, nor Engels, who, it seems, can be mistaken for the main preachers of the new German have not yet promulgated anything but the particular features of this doctrine.

Of course, there is no reason to believe that early work Marx and Engels were of decisive importance in shaping the social and political views of the progressive Russian people of the 1940s. In some cases, it is possible to establish a certain influence of the ideas of the founders of Marxism on the representatives of advanced thought in Russia at that time, but it was limited, and its degree should by no means be exaggerated.

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

But in historical conditions serf Russia in the 1940s, Belinsky, like Herzen, could not master dialectical materialism. Lenin's characterization of Herzen's socio-philosophical views can be fully applied to Belinsky as well. Being a deep, independent thinker, who managed to overcome the contemplative materialism on the positions of which Feuerbach stood, V. G. Belinsky came close to dialectical materialism and stopped before historical materialism.

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

In the second third of the XIX century. increased in Russia acute crisis feudal system of economy. The aggravated class contradictions gave rise to a popular movement, which further shook the obsolete feudal-serf system, which had also become obsolete in Russia.

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

Many Russian writers of the 19th century felt that Russia was placed before an abyss and was flying into the abyss.

ON THE. Berdyaev

Since the middle of the 19th century, Russian literature has become not only the number one art, but also the ruler of political ideas. In the absence of political freedoms, public opinion is formed by writers, and social themes predominate in the works. Sociality and publicity- distinctive features of the literature of the second half of the 19th century. It was in the middle of the century that two painful Russian questions were posed: "Who is guilty?" (title of a novel by Alexander Ivanovich Herzen, 1847) and "What to do?" (title of the novel by Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, 1863).

Russian literature refers to the analysis of social phenomena, so the action of most works is modern, that is, it takes place at the time when the work is being created. The life of the characters is depicted in the context of a broader social picture. Simply put, the heroes "fit" into the era, their characters and behavior are motivated by the peculiarities of the socio-historical atmosphere. That is why the leading literary direction and method the second half of the 19th century becomes critical realism, and leading genres- romance and drama. At the same time, in contrast to the first half of the century, prose prevailed in Russian literature, and poetry faded into the background.

sharpness social issues was also connected with the fact that in Russian society in the 1840-1860s. there was a polarization of opinions regarding the future of Russia, which was expressed in the emergence of Slavophilism and Westernism.

Slavophiles (the most famous among them are Alexei Khomyakov, Ivan Kireevsky, Yuri Samarin, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov) believed that Russia had its own, special path of development, destined for it by Orthodoxy. They resolutely opposed the Western model of political development in order to avoid the dehumanization of man and society. The Slavophiles demanded the abolition of serfdom, wished for general enlightenment and the liberation of the Russian people from state power. They saw the ideal in pre-Petrine Rus', where Orthodoxy and catholicity were the fundamental basis of people's existence (the term was introduced by A. Khomyakov as a designation of unity in Orthodox faith). The tribune of the Slavophiles was the literary magazine Moskvityanin.

Westerners (Pyotr Chaadaev, Alexander Herzen, Nikolai Ogaryov, Ivan Turgenev, Vissarion Belinsky, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, Vasily Botkin, Timofey Granovsky, and the anarchist theorist Mikhail Bakunin adjoined them) were sure that Russia should follow the same path in its development, like the countries of Western Europe. Westernism was not a single direction and was divided into liberal and revolutionary-democratic currents. Like the Slavophiles, the Westerners advocated the immediate abolition of serfdom, considering this as the main condition for the Europeanization of Russia, they demanded freedom of the press and the development of industry. In the field of literature, realism was supported, the founder of which was considered N.V. Gogol. The tribune of the Westerners was the magazines Sovremennik and Domestic notes"during the period of their editing by N.A. Nekrasov.

Slavophiles and Westernizers were not enemies, they only looked differently at the future of Russia. According to N.A. Berdyaev, the first saw a mother in Russia, the second - a child. For clarity, we offer a table compiled according to Wikipedia, where the positions of the Slavophiles and Westerners are compared.

They tried to overcome the polarity of opinions of Slavophiles and Westerners soil workers . This movement originated in the 1860s. in the circle of the intelligentsia, close to the magazine "Time" / "Epokha". The ideologists of pochvennichestvo were Fyodor Dostoevsky, Apollon Grigoriev, Nikolai Strakhov. The Pochvenniki rejected both the autocratic serf system and Western bourgeois democracy. Dostoevsky believed that representatives of the "enlightened society" should merge with the "people's soil", which would allow the tops and bottoms of Russian society to mutually enrich each other. In the Russian character, the Pochvenniks emphasized the religious and moral principle. They were negative about materialism and the idea of ​​revolution. Progress, in their opinion, is the union of the educated classes with the people. The soil people saw the personification of the ideal of the Russian spirit in A.S. Pushkin. Many ideas of Westerners were considered utopian.

Since the middle of the 19th century, the question of the nature and purpose of fiction. In Russian criticism, there are three views on this issue.

Alexander Vasilievich Druzhinin

Representatives "aesthetic criticism" (Alexander Druzhinin, Pavel Annenkov, Vasily Botkin) put forward the theory " pure art", the essence of which is that literature should address only eternal topics and not depend on political goals, on social conjuncture.

Apollon Alexandrovich Grigoriev

Apollon Grigoriev formulated the theory "organic criticism" , advocating the creation of works that would cover life in its entirety, integrity. At the same time, the emphasis in the literature is proposed to be done on moral values.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

Principles "real criticism" were proclaimed by Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Dobrolyubov. They viewed literature as a force capable of transforming the world and contributing to knowledge. Literature, in their opinion, should promote the dissemination of progressive political ideas, pose and solve primarily social problems.

Poetry also developed along different, diametrically opposed paths. The pathos of citizenship united the poets of the "Nekrasov school": Nikolai Nekrasov, Nikolai Ogaryov, Ivan Nikitin, Mikhail Mikhailov, Ivan Golts-Miller, Alexei Pleshcheev. Supporters of "pure art": Afanasy Fet, Apollo Maykov, Lev Mei, Yakov Polonsky, Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy - wrote poems mainly about love and nature.

Socio-political and literary-aesthetic disputes significantly influenced the development of the national journalism. Literary magazines played a huge role in shaping public opinion.

Cover of the Sovremennik magazine, 1847

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

This democratic literature includes "The Tale of Yersh Ershovich", "The Tale of Shemyakina Court", "The ABC of the Naked and Poor Man", "Message to the noble enemy", "The Tale of Luxurious Life and Joy", "The Tale of Thomas and Yerema" , "Service to a tavern", "Kalyazinskaya petition", "The Tale of Priest Savva", "The Tale of the Hen and the Fox", "The Tale of the Hawk Moth", "The Tale of the Peasant's Son", "The Tale of Karp Sutulov", "Healer for Foreigners ”, “Painting about the dowry”, “Word about jealous men”, “Poem about the life of the patriarchal singers” and, finally, such a significant work as “The Tale of Mount Misfortune”. In part, the autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum and the autobiography of Epiphanius adjoin the same circle.

This literature is distributed in common people: among artisans, small merchants, lower clergy, penetrates into the peasant environment, etc. It opposes official literature, the literature of the ruling class, partly continuing the old traditions.

Democratic literature is in opposition to the feudal class; it is literature that emphasizes the injustice that prevails in the world, reflecting dissatisfaction with reality, social orders. The union with the environment, so characteristic of the personality of the previous time, is destroyed in it. Dissatisfaction with one's fate, one's position, others - this is a feature of the new, not known to previous periods. Connected with this is the striving for satire and parody that prevails in democratic literature. It is these satirical and parodic genres that become the main ones in the democratic literature of the 17th century.

For democratic literature of the 17th century. the conflict of the individual with the environment is characteristic, the complaints of this individual about his lot, the challenge to social order, sometimes self-doubt, prayer, fear, fear of the world, a sense of his own defenselessness, faith in fate, in fate, the theme of death, suicide and the first attempts confront your fate, correct injustice.

In the democratic literature of the XVII century. a special style of portraying a person develops: a style that is sharply reduced, deliberately everyday, asserting the right of every person to public sympathy.

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at a person - as if inviting the authors of these works. Look how hard it is for him on this earth! He is lost among the poverty of some and the wealth of others. Today he is rich, tomorrow he is poor; today he made his money, tomorrow he lived. He's wandering between the yard”, eats alms from time to time, wallowed in drunkenness, plays dice. He is powerless to overcome himself, to go out on " saved way". And yet he deserves sympathy.

Particularly striking is the image of the unknown young man in The Tale of Mount Misfortune. Here, the sympathy of readers is enjoyed by a person who has violated the worldly morality of society, deprived of parental blessings, weak-willed, acutely aware of his fall, mired in drunkenness and gambling, who has made friends with tavern roosters and bonfires, wandering who knows where, contemplating suicide.

The human personality was emancipated in Russia not in the clothes of conquistadors and wealthy adventurers, not in the pompous confessions of the artistic gift of Renaissance artists, but in “ gunka tavern”, at the last step of the fall, in search of death as liberation from all suffering. And this was a great harbinger of the humanistic character of Russian literature XIX V. with her theme of the value of a small person, with her sympathy for everyone who suffers and who has not found his true place in life.

The new hero often appears in literature on his own behalf. Many of the works of this time are in the nature of "internal monologue". And in these speeches to his readers, the new hero is often ironic - he seems to be above his suffering, looks at them from the side and with a grin. At the lowest stage of his fall, he retains a sense of his right to a better position: And I want to live, like good people live»; « My mind was firm, but dashing in my heart I have a lot of every thought»; « I live, a kind and glorious man, but I have nothing to eat and no one gives»; « I would have washed Belenko, dressed up well, but nothing».

And some are now persecuting the burden-bearers.
God grants honor to Ovom, they redeem the barn,
Ovii laboring, Ovii entering into their labor.
Ovi jump, Ovi cry.
Ini having fun, ini always tearing up.
Why write a lot that they don’t like anyone from the poor.
It is better to love whom money beats.
What to take from the wretched - order him to shackle
*{{ABC about a naked and poor man. S. 30.}}.

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

In The Tale of Mount Misfortune, this influence of the surrounding world was personified in the form of friends-advisers and in the form of unusual bright image Woe. At first, well done in "The Tale of Mount Misfortune" and " small and stupid, not in full mind and imperfect in mind". He doesn't listen to his parents. But then he listens, although not completely, to his random friends, asking them for advice himself. Finally, Grief itself appears. The advice of Grief is unkind: it is the embodiment of pessimism engendered by bad reality.

Originally Woe" dreamed"Well done in a dream to disturb him with terrible suspicions:

Refuse you, well done, to your beloved bride -
be spoiled for you by the bride,
you still have to be strangled by that wife,
from gold and silver to be killed!

Grief advises the young man to go to the king's tavern", drink your wealth, put on yourself" gunka tavern"- For the naked, Grief is not a chaser, but no one will bind to the naked.

The good fellow did not believe his dream, and Woe appears to him for the second time in a dream:

Ali you, well done, unknown
nakedness and barefoot immeasurable,
lightness, great bezprotoritsa?
What to buy for yourself, then it will break through,
and you, well done, and so you live.
Yes, they don’t beat, don’t torture the naked, barefoot,
and naked barefoot will not be kicked out of paradise,
and with that the world will not come out here,
no one will be attached to him
and barefoot to make noise with a row.

With amazing force, the story unfolds a picture of the spiritual drama of the young man, gradually growing, accelerating in pace, acquiring fantastic forms.

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

You stand, did not leave, good fellow!
Not for an hour, I am attached to you, ill-fated grief,
I'll torment myself with you until death.
I am not alone, Woe, still relatives,
and all our relatives are kind;
we are all smooth, sweet,
and who will join us in the seed,
otherwise he will be tormented between us,
such is our fate and lutchaya.
Although I throw myself at the birds of the air,
although you will go into the blue sea as a fish,
and I will go with you arm in arm under the right.

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

Such a separation of the author's point of view from the moralizing presented in the work, the justification of a person who, from the church point of view, could not but be considered a "sinner", was a remarkable phenomenon in the literature of the 17th century. It meant the death of the medieval normative ideal and the gradual exit of literature onto a new path of inductive artistic generalization - a generalization based on reality, and not on a normative ideal.

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

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

The value of feeling, immediacy, the inner, spiritual life of a person was proclaimed by Avvakum with exceptional passion. Sympathy or anger, scolding or affection - everything is in a hurry to pour out from under his pen. " Strike the soul before god» *{{ Hereinafter quoted from the publication: The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself // Monuments of the history of the Old Believers of the 17th century. Book. I. Pg., 1916 (italics mine.- D. L.). )) - that's the only thing he aspires to. No compositional harmony, no shadow " convolutions of words"in the depiction of a person, nor the usual in ancient Russian educational literature" red verbs”- nothing that would constrain his exorbitantly ardent feeling in everything that concerns a person and his inner life. Church rhetoric, which is not uncommon in the work of Avvakum, did not touch the image of a person. None of the writers of the Russian Middle Ages wrote as much about his feelings as Avvakum. He grieves, mourns, cries, is afraid, regrets, marvels, etc. In his speech, there are constant remarks about the moods he is experiencing: “ oh, woe to me!», « much sad», « I'm sorry..."And he himself, and those about whom he writes, now and then sigh and cry:" ... pretty little ones cry, looking at us, and we at them»; « for a smart person to look, but it’s better to cry, looking at them»; « weepingly rushed to my karbas»; « and everyone cries and bows". Avvakum notes in detail all the external manifestations of feelings: “ my heart was cold and my legs were trembling". He also describes bows, gestures, and prayers in detail: beats himself and groans, but he himself says»; « and he, bowing low to me, and he himself says: "God save"».

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

One must not think that this justification of man concerns only Habakkuk himself. Even enemies, even his personal tormentors, are portrayed by him with sympathy for their human suffering. Read only in wonderful picture the suffering of Avvakum on the Sparrow Hills: Then the tsar sent a half-head with archers, and they took me to the Sparrow Hills; right there - the priest Lazarus and the elder Epiphanius, cursed and shorn, as I was before. They put us in different yards; relentlessly 20 people of archers, yes half a head, and a centurion stood over us - they took care, complained, and at night they sat with a fire, and escorted them to the yard. Have mercy on them Christ! straight good archers those people and children will not be tormented there, with fiddling with us; the need is what happens, and it’s different, cute, happy... Onet the goryuny drink until drunk, but swearing swearing, otherwise they would be equal with the martyrs ». « The devil is dashing before me, and people are all good before me,” Avvakum says elsewhere.

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

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

In contrast to all these works, Habakkuk's commitment to everyday life reaches a completely exceptional force. Outside of everyday life, he does not imagine his characters at all. He clothes in everyday forms quite general and abstract ideas.

Avvakum's artistic thinking is all permeated with everyday life. Like the Flemish artists, who transferred biblical events to their native environment, Avvakum even depicts the relationship between the characters of church history in the social categories of his time: “ I am like a beggar, walking the streets of the city and begging through the windows. Having finished that day and having nourished his household, in the morning he dragged again. Taco and az, dragging all day long, I also take it to you, church nurseries, I suggest: let us have fun and live. At rich man I will beg Christ from the gospel for a loaf of bread, from Paul the Apostle, from rich guest, and from the messengers of his bread I will beg, from Chrysostom, from trading man, I will receive a piece of his words, from David the king and from Isaiah the prophets, from townspeople, asked for a quarter of bread; having collected a purse, yes, and I give you residents in the house of my God».

It is clear that life here is heroized. And it is remarkable that in the works of Avvakum the personality is again elevated, full of special pathos. She is heroic in a new way, and this time life serves her glorification. Medieval idealization elevated the individual above everyday life, above reality - Avvakum, on the other hand, forces himself to fight this reality and heroizes himself as a fighter with it in all the little things of everyday life, even when he, " like a dog in a straw', lying when his back ' rot" And " there were a lot of fleas and lice when he ate all filth».

« It’s not for us to go to Persis the martyr- says Avvakum, - and then the houses of Babylon have amassed". In other words: you can become a martyr, a hero in the most everyday, homely environment.

Identity conflict with surrounding reality, so characteristic of democratic literature, reaches terrible force in his Life. Avvakum seeks to subdue reality, to master it, to populate it with his ideas. That is why it seems to Avvakum in a dream that his body is growing and filling the whole Universe with itself.

He dreams about this, but in reality he continues to fight. He does not agree to withdraw into himself, in his personal sorrows. He considers all the questions of the world order to be his own, and he is not excluded from any of them. He is painfully hurt by the ugliness of life, its sinfulness. Hence the passionate need for preaching. His "Life", like all his other works, is a continuous sermon, a sermon, sometimes reaching a frenzied cry. The preaching pathos is revived in a new way, in new forms in the works of Avvakum, along with it monumentality is revived in the depiction of a person, but the monumentality is completely different, devoid of the former impressiveness and former abstraction. This is the monumentality of the struggle, the titanic struggle, until death, martyrdom, but quite concrete and everyday. That is why life itself acquires some special shade of pathos in the works of Avvakum. The chains, the earthen prison, the hardships of poverty are the same as in other democratic works, but they are sanctified by his struggle, his martyrdom. The cabbage soup that Avvakum eats in the basement of the Andronikov Monastery is the same as in any peasant family that time, but an angel gives them to him. The same black hen, which he got himself in Siberia, but she carries Avvakum two eggs a day. And this is interpreted by Habakkuk as a miracle. Everything is sanctified by the halo of martyrdom for the faith. His whole literary position is consecrated by him.

In the face of martyrdom and death, he is a stranger to lies, pretense, cunning. " Hey, that's good!», « I don't lie!”- his writings are full of such passionate assurances of the veracity of his words. He " living Dead», « earthen user"- he should not cherish the external form of his works:" ... after all, God does not listen to the words of the Reds, but wants our deeds". That is why it is necessary to write without sophistication and embellishment: “ ... tell me, I suppose, keep your conscience strong».

Avvakum wrote his compositions at a time when the halo of martyrdom was already flickering over him, both in his own eyes and in the eyes of his adherents. That is why both his vernacular and his "bytovism" in describing his own life had a special, heroic character. The same heroism is felt in the image he created as a martyr for the faith.

All his writings, all literary details are permeated with the pathos of struggle: from the earthen pit and the gallows to the titanic landscape of Dauria with its high mountains and stone cliffs. He enters into an argument with Christ himself: “... why did you, Son of God, let me kill him so painfully? I have become a widow for your widows! Who will judge between me and You? When I stole, and You didn't insult me ​​like that; but now we do not know that we have sinned! »

In the works of Avvakum, in the special style developed by him, which could be called the style of the pathetic simplification of man, literature Ancient Rus' again rose to the monumentalism of the old art, to universal and "world" themes, but on a completely different basis. The power of the individual in itself, outside of any official position, the power of a person deprived of everything, plunged into an earthen pit, a person whose tongue has been cut out, takes away the ability to write and communicate with the outside world, whose body is rotting, who is seized by lice, who is threatened the most terrible tortures and death at the stake - this power appeared in the works of Avvakum with tremendous force and completely overshadowed the external power of the official position of the feudal lord, which was followed with such fidelity in many cases by Russian historical works of the 11th-16th centuries.

The discovery of the value of the human person in itself concerned in literature not only the style of depicting a person. It was also a discovery of the value of the author's personality. Hence the emergence of a new type of professional writer, the realization of the value of the author's text, the emergence of the concept of copyright, which does not allow a simple borrowing of the text from predecessors, and the abolition of compilability as a principle of creativity. From here, from this discovery of the value of the human person, comes the characteristic of the 17th century. interest in autobiographies (Avvakum, Epiphanius, Eleazar Anzersky, etc.), as well as personal notes about events (Andrey Matveev about the Streltsy rebellion).

In the visual arts, the discovery of the value of the human personality manifests itself in a very diverse way: parsunas (portraits) appear, a linear perspective develops, providing for a single individual point of view on the image, illustrations appear for works of democratic literature depicting an “average” person, splint is born.

The formation and development of the revolutionary-democratic ideology in Russia is associated with the names V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. I. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, as well as with the names of M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and M. A. Speshnev. The revolutionary democrats fought for the abolition of the autocracy and serfdom, and were supporters of the socialist transformation of the country. Their socialism was called utopian, since it was believed that the transition to socialism through the transformation of the peasant community, bypassing capitalism, was not feasible by peaceful means. They created a philosophical and sociological doctrine, which, in terms of theoretical richness, in breadth and depth of posing and solving problems, surpasses much of what was done in philosophy by other representatives of this trend.

Revolutionary democrats mastered German classical philosophy and adopted its dialectics and Feuerbach's materialism, got acquainted with the ideas of the utopian socialists and French materialists, as well as with the economic theories of A. Smith and D. Ricardo. AI Herzen was familiar with the views of K. Marx and F. Engels.

The revolutionary democrats were united in understanding ways to transform Russia. This path was associated with the building of socialism in Russia on the basis of communal, collective ownership of the means of production. At the same time, the construction of socialism by V. G. Belinsky was conceived as a path of revolutionary transformations and the expropriation of landowners' lands and possessions, Herzen was a supporter of calm revolutionary transformations without violence and civil war.

Democratic revolutionaries exaggerated the specifics of Russia believing that it will not follow the capitalist path of development.

Peasant reform of the 60s. 19th century put an end to the originality of the Russian countryside, and it began to develop along the path of establishing bourgeois relations in it.

The greatest thinker representing democracy in Russia was Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870), who left an indelible mark on Russian philosophy.

Herzen was born in Moscow on March 25, 1812. In 1834, a year after graduating from Moscow University, he was arrested and then exiled to Vyatka for organizing a circle, which included his friend N. P. Ogarev. He ended his exile in Vladimir. After the exile, he lived in St. Petersburg for one year. A sharp review in a letter to his father about the police was followed by a new exile to Novgorod for one year. After serving this exile, Herzen took up theoretical work. It is believed that "a characteristic feature of the ideological development of Herzen in 1833-1839 was the desire, following some Saint-Simonists, but under the decisive influence of the conditions of Russian life, to consider socialism as new religion humanity". However, "at the turn of the 30-40s. A. I. Herzen's religious views are changing." In 1842, he came to materialism. In 1844-1845, he created his main philosophical work, Letters on the Study of Nature. In the 40s, he took shape as a revolutionary democrat. He went abroad in 1847. A. I. Herzen died in 1870. “Going abroad, Herzen was full of faith in democratic Europe, which, having carried out a socialist revolution, would give impetus to the Russian revolution. He met the beginning of the revolution in France in 1848 with enthusiasm, but it ended with the victory of the bourgeoisie and the execution of the workers. The illusion about the advent of the "social kingdom" collapsed, and Herzen, shocked by the tragic events that took place before his eyes, fell into deep pessimism for a while - he spoke about the decrepitude of old Europe, about its inability to further historical progress. "V. I. Lenin wrote: "The spiritual collapse of Herzen, his deep skepticism and pessimism after 1848 was the collapse of bourgeois illusions in socialism. The spiritual drama of Herzen was the product and reflection of that world-historical epoch when the revolutionary spirit of bourgeois democracy was already dying (in Europe) and the revolutionary spirit of the socialist proletariat had not yet matured.

"Starting from the 50s, Herzen associated all his hopes for a happy future of mankind with Russia. In a number of works - "From the Other Shore", " old world and Russia", "Russian people and socialism" and in many others - he develops his theory of "Russian socialism", based on the conviction that feudal-serf Russia will come to socialism, bypassing capitalism. This conviction was based on the idea that The rural community that remains in Russia contains the germs of the future socialist society in the form of the right of everyone to land, communal land use, artel labor and secular government. It seemed to Herzen that in this way Russia would avoid capitalism and the conflicts it engendered. Russia's path to socialism appears to him as the path of the abolition of serfdom and the development of social principles in economic life, combined with the establishment of a republic. Predicting the triumph of socialism in the future, the thinker wrote: “Socialism will develop in all its phases to extreme consequences, to absurdities. Then the cry of denial will again break out from the titanic heap of the revolutionary minority, and the mortal struggle will begin again, in which socialism will take the place of the current conservatism and will be defeated by the coming a revolution unknown to us." Regarding this prophecy of Herzen, Plekhanov noted, firstly, that Herzen's argument is deductive and therefore unconvincing; secondly, that if in the future a "denial of socialism" arises, this will not mean a return to pre-socialist forms of life, but will be a continuation and development of the achievements of socialism.

After the peasant reform of 1861 Herzen comes to the understanding that Russia will not be able to bypass capitalism, but does not give up the idea that Russia will make the transition to socialism differently than other peoples. He believed that there could not be one general formula for the realization of the socialist ideal. One of the essential features of Herzenian socialism was that he preferred a socialist revolution that would not allow bloody means. However, he understood that a violent coup could also be inevitable, and yet he believed that it was better not to allow preparation for violence, not to provoke it. He was against Bakunin's setting for an immediate revolt, and advocated the preservation of the state.

Reflecting on the historical paths of development of Western Europe, Herzen warned that if it turns out to be possible "to achieve for all the well-being of small shopkeepers and poor owners," then Western Europe can calm down in "philistinism," i.e., capitalism.

The socio-political searches of Herzen are intertwined with philosophical and natural sciences.

He considered philosophy as the science of the universal laws of being. In his opinion, this science should have a practical orientation. Herzen's materialistic views were expressed by him in his Letters on the Study of Nature. main idea stated in this work is that philosophy should be in alliance with natural science. He argued: "Philosophy without natural science is just as impossible as natural science without philosophy." For the union of philosophy and natural science, a correct solution of the question of the relationship between thinking and being is necessary. At the same time, he believed that the key to solving this issue was the idea of ​​the development of nature, as well as the recognition of its primacy in relation to thinking.

Herzen expressed deep, close to perfect understanding ideas about motion, matter.

He defended the idea of ​​the knowability of the world, insisting on the unity of experience and speculation in cognition, that is, the unity of the sensory and rational stages of cognition.

Herzen made an enormous contribution to the development of the problem of the dialectical method. As its main advantages, he singled out the requirements to consider phenomena in development, in integrity.

Mastering Hegel's dialectic, Herzen did a lot to comprehend the connections of philosophical categories (essence and phenomenon, content and form).

Herzen interpreted dialectics as the algebra of revolution, that is, he considered it necessary to use dialectics both to comprehend reality and to organize activities to transform it.

He criticized the views of the vulgar materialists Vogt and Büchner, who regarded thought as a "secretion" of the brain.

Herzen made a significant contribution to ethics. His whole philosophy is imbued with high respect for man. He strove for such a change in life that would allow a person to be more free, developed, moral.

He opposed asceticism and insisted on the human right to happiness, and was also against the opposition of duty and inclination. Morality, dominant in the bourgeois world, he considered as a means to protect the authorities and property. Herzen was not only a revolutionary, a philosopher, but also an outstanding writer, to be convinced of this, it is enough to get acquainted with his work "The Past and Thoughts".

Another representative of revolutionary democracy in Russia was Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky (1811 - 1848), entered the history of socio-political " philosophical thought of our country as an outstanding literary critic, a fighter against serfdom, an adherent of socialism. Unlike Herzen, Belinsky considered capitalism to be a natural stage of social development. He combined socialism with the class struggle."

Belinsky is revered by aestheticians as one of the founders of materialistic aesthetics in our country. He "did not write a single specially philosophical work. His philosophical views - materialism and dialectics - he outlined briefly and fragmentarily. His true element was literary criticism and aesthetics."

The aesthetic theory of Belinsky became one of the achievements of the Russian culture XIX V. She, on the one hand, summarized the successes of advanced domestic art, which had firmly embarked on the path of realism, and, on the other, established the norms of the realistic (then called natural) school, determining its development for a long time.

Aesthetics of Belinsky is diverse. He did not leave a consolidated, logically coherent presentation of his views. Nevertheless, it is possible to single out some key points, the main principles, and group Belinsky's thoughts around them.

"The first, important principle can be indicated by the position: Art is a product of society, it reflects and reveals the development of society."

The second principle can be expressed as follows: what is depicted in art must correspond to life.

However, art does not copy life, but reflects the typical in it.

"The third principle of Belinsky's aesthetics can be formulated as follows: art is of great social importance, it educates people and serves as a weapon in the social struggle."

"The fourth principle of his aesthetics was that realistic art is, in its content and meaning, folk art."

"The fifth principle of Belinsky's aesthetics was the demand for the ideological nature of art and the correspondence between the content and form of a work of art."

So, relying on materialism and dialectics, Belinsky was able to express positions that remain unshakable throughout the subsequent development of aesthetic thought. The guidance on the part of the artists by the principles developed by Belinsky turned art into a means of serving the idea, into a means of affirming the ideals of revolutionary democracy.

In philosophy, Belinsky stood on the positions of materialism. He recognized the primacy of the material in relation to the spiritual, considered matter, space and time to exist objectively, recognized the infinity of the world in space and time. Social development, according to Belinsky, like everything else in the world, goes in a spiral. The world is dominated not by blind chance, but by necessity. Necessity works its way through the chain of negations.

He considers man as a product of society. Belinsky, like Herzen, sought, having mastered Hegel's dialectic, to apply it to explain the world. However, Herzen in sociology as in the theory of knowledge was able to do this more successfully than Belinsky. However, it must be admitted that Belinsky's moralizing criticism, through criticism of literary works, of Russian reality did a lot to awaken in young people of various ranks an awareness of the need to change the then existing order.

In the 60s. 19th century Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) was the head of the revolutionary-democratic camp. In his works he developed questions of political economy, philosophy, ethics and aesthetics.

Chernyshevsky was born into the family of a Saratov priest. He studied at the theological seminary, but did not finish it. Entered St. Petersburg University. After graduating in 1851, Chernyshevsky taught for 2 years at the Saratov Gymnasium, and then moved on to teach at the St. Petersburg Cadet Corps.

Chernyshevsky realized that a deep economic and political crisis was growing in Russia, which should end with a revolutionary break in the existing regime. Back in 1852, he stated that "the displeasure of the people against the government, taxes, officials, landlords is growing. Only one spark is needed to set fire to all this. At the same time, the number of people from an educated circle, hostile to the real order of things, is growing" . Chernyshevsky believed in the proximity of the Russian revolution and intended to take part in it. "I'm not satisfied," he said, "neither dirt, nor drunken men with clubs, nor massacres."

All subsequent activities of Chernyshevsky were devoted to the ideological and practical preparation of the peasant revolution. Comparing Chernyshevsky with Herzen, V. I. Lenin wrote: "Chernyshevsky was a much more consistent and militant democrat. The spirit of class struggle emanates from his writings."

Chernyshevsky believed that the peasant reform of 1861 could not save the autocracy.

To the question in what way Russia will go After the revolution, Chernyshevsky gave the following answer: it will follow the non-capitalist path of development towards socialism, relying on the rural community. He considered socialism to be the highest this moment stage of human development. However, it must be replaced over time. social order which he called communism. According to Chernyshevsky, socialism and communism differ in terms of the principle of distribution. Whereas under socialism the means of production and land are socialized, under communism distribution is also socialized, and people receive products according to their needs.

Chernyshevsky's activities attracted the attention of the government, he was arrested on July 7, 1862 and sentenced to 14 years of hard labor. The king cut the term in half. He spent 21 years in prison and then in exile. In 1883 he was allowed to settle in Astrakhan, and in 1888 in Saratov. In 1889 he died. While in the Peter and Paul Fortress, Chernyshevsky wrote the novel What Is to Be Done?

The main philosophical work of Chernyshevsky is "The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy". In it, he, like no one before him, substantiated the principle of partisan philosophy.

Chernyshevsky deepened the substantiation of the material unity of the world.

He contributed to the further development of the materialistic theory of knowledge, deepened the understanding of philosophical categories.

One of the most prominent associates of Chernyshevsky was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861). He was major publicist, critic and theorist of revolutionary democracy.

Dobrolyubov considered it his duty to prepare society for revolution by criticizing social institutions and ideas that contributed to the preservation of the old system.

Dobrolyubov presented the content of history as a process in which the "reasonable" or "natural" order of things is subjected to an "artificial" distortion, for example, by introducing "unnatural" serf relations. The meaning of history consists in the movement of mankind towards "reasonable" ("natural") principles, from which it has deviated. Distortions do not stem from human nature, they are the result of abnormal relationships in which a person is placed, therefore, first of all, unreasonable social relations are subject to correction. As a revolutionary democrat, Dobrolyubov promoted the idea of ​​the need for radical transformations of the entire public life. He rejected the possibility of restructuring society on the initiative from above, under the cover of the rule of law.

"Natural" social relations, according to Dobrolyubov, are based on labor; the degree of respect for work is determined true value given stage of civilization; the whole history is the struggle of "working people" with "parasites". He included the feudal lords, the capitalists, and all those who oppress the working people into the latter.

The life of people should, in his opinion, be based on reasonable egoism and consciousness. The aesthetic ideal of Dobrolyubov is in the fusion of science and art, science and poetry.

Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev (1840-1868) was an outstanding revolutionary democrat. On the whole, he did not share the views of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. His views were peculiar, he was a thinker who prepared the transition from revolutionary democracy to populism. Assuming that the revolution could be carried out through violence, he considered more acceptable the way of enlightening the people, preparing them for revolutionary transformations. After graduating from St. Petersburg University, he began to collaborate in the Russian Word magazine.

For a pamphlet directed against the reigning house, he was imprisoned in Peter and Paul Fortress, where he spent 4.5 years in solitary confinement (1862 - 1866). He strove in the articles of 1863-1866. to comprehend the history of society more deeply, to base their conclusions on the natural sciences.

In 1863, one of his most significant articles, Essays from the History of Labor, was written, later entitled The Origin of Culture. The central idea of ​​this work is that capitalism will inevitably be followed by socialism based on public property, private property will be eliminated. Socialism is achieved in a revolutionary way, but the revolution is a matter of the future.

He called his views idealism. In the revolution he staked on the thinking proletariat, that is, on the intelligentsia.

On philosophy, Pisarev wrote little, but in his articles he declared himself a materialist, but he treated dialectics with distrust. He fought against idealism and mysticism.

Narrow party, group consciousness is good for destruction; it is not always suitable for consolidating the forces of society.

Revolutionary democratic ideology was developed by raznochintsy, with the exception of Herzen and Pisarev. The moralizing criticism of society by natives of the people, such as V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, was fueled by the conviction that they, as popular thinkers, know better where Russia should go. At the same time, the revolution did not frighten them, since those strata from which they came, as it seemed to them, would gain more than they would lose, and most importantly, the people for whom they considered themselves to suffer would receive enormous benefits. They thought that Russia might well make the leap into the realm of freedom. However, as practice has shown, Russia in the XIX century. wasn't ready for it. Freedom is not achieved by a single action, stained with the blood and suffering of millions. This is just the beginning of the road to freedom. It is achieved at the cost of a lot of work, at the cost of many years of concerted efforts by all members of society, no matter what strata and nations they belong to. When in a society one class, stratum, or one nation strives to settle down at the expense of another, then such a society does not move forward, but either marks time, or goes back, and possibly moves towards its death.

Summing up the consideration of the ideas of revolutionary democrats in Russia in the 40-70s. XIX century., It should be noted that not only their findings and achievements are instructive, but also their delusions and illusions.

In their appearance on the historical arena, the Raznochinsk movement put forward remarkable leaders - the great Russian revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) and N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), who were able to express with great force and depth the aspirations and interests of the working Russian people and exerted a powerful influence on the entire development of advanced social thought and the revolutionary movement. Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were the successors of the revolutionary-democratic cause of Belinsky, this brilliant predecessor of the raznochintsy democrats. They were also great revolutionary enlighteners. Lenin saw character traits"enlightenment" in hot hostility "to serfdom and all its products in the economic, social and legal field", in the hot defense of "enlightenment, self-government, freedom, European forms of life", finally, in defending "the interests of the masses, mainly peasants ... ". These traits found their most vivid and complete expression in the activities of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. They declared a mortal war on the autocratic-feudal regime and all the old way of life connected with it in the name of the good of the many millions of Russian peasants.

The leaders of revolutionary democracy, the active fighters of the revolutionary movement, understood that only the revolutionary force of the insurgent people could break the fetters of the old feudal serf system, which hindered the development of their beloved homeland. Fighting for the victory of the peasant revolution in Russia, N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov subordinated all their diverse activities to this great goal. They left their works in philosophy, history, political economy, literary criticism and literary criticism; along with this, they were the authors of outstanding poems (Dobrolyubov) and fiction (Chernyshevsky), filled with the passion of the revolutionary struggle and lofty advanced ideas. They posed and theoretically developed precisely those questions in the fields of philosophy, history, political economy, literary criticism and literary criticism, the solution of which theoretically raised the social movement in Russia to a higher level, questions; the solution of which accelerated and facilitated the preparation of the revolution in Russia. At the same time, they were also outstanding revolutionary conspirators and organizers of the revolutionary movement.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky belonged to the raznochintsy and came from a spiritual milieu (the son of a priest). In Saratov, where he spent his childhood and the first years of his youth, he could widely observe feudal reality, the cruel oppression of the peasantry, the rudeness and ignorance of the bureaucracy, the arbitrariness of the tsarist administration. Studying in the theological seminary aroused in him hatred for the scholastic, dead "science". Chernyshevsky longed to get a university education and devote himself to social activities. He managed to enter St. Petersburg University. Advanced Russian social thought, Belinsky, Herzen and all progressive Russian literature had a strong influence on him. “Gogol and Lermontov seem [to me] inaccessible, great, for whom I am ready to give my life…” wrote student Chernyshevsky. The circle of Petrashevites, with whom the young Chernyshevsky had close ties, also influenced him; together with its participants, Chernyshevsky discussed the issue of the approaching revolution in Russia. Revolutionary events in the West - the revolution of 1848 in France, subsequent revolutionary events in Germany, Austria, Hungary - captured the attention of Chernyshevsky; he studied them deeply, following them day by day. The intervention of Nicholas 1 in revolutionary Hungary aroused Chernyshevsky's passionate protest; he called himself a "friend of the Hungarians" and desired the defeat of the tsarist army. The formation of Chernyshevsky's revolutionary worldview proceeded with amazing speed: already in 1848, as a twenty-year-old student, he wrote in his diary that "more and more" was affirmed "in the rules of the socialists"; being a republican by conviction, at the same time he rightly believes that the point is not at all in the word "republic", but "in delivering the lower class from its slavery not before the law, but before the necessity of things" - the whole point is "so that one class does not suck the blood of another." All power must pass into the hands of the lower classes ("farmers-day laborers"). He matures the conviction of the need for active participation in the revolutionary struggle on the side of the insurgent people. “We will soon have a riot, and if it happens, I will certainly participate in it ... Neither dirt, nor drunken men with oak, nor massacre will frighten me ...” After working as a teacher in Saratov for some time and fearlessly devoting lessons to propaganda revolutionary ideas, Chernyshevsky moved to St. Petersburg, where he devoted himself to literary activity, which provided the greatest opportunities for revolutionary propaganda in the difficult Nikolaev time. In 1855, Chernyshevsky brilliantly defended his dissertation "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality" in an auditorium crowded with enthusiastic listeners, where he developed materialistic views and proved that art is an instrument of social struggle and should serve life. The defense of the dissertation aroused the wrath of the reactionary professors. It was a great social event. Chernyshevsky substantiated the doctrine of materialistic aesthetics. His dissertation had the significance of a theoretical manifesto of the raznochinno-democratic movement. Subsequently, Chernyshevsky's activity was concentrated in the Sovremennik magazine, the militant organ of revolutionary democracy. Chernyshevsky was a man of deep and comprehensive knowledge, a great scientist and at the same time a wonderful militant publicist, sensitive to the progressive, new, insightful literary critic, merciless to the supporters of serfdom. He was a flamboyant and extremely idiosyncratic fiction writer: his novel What Is To Be Done? (1863) had a tremendous impact on his contemporaries. Chernyshevsky was a man of steel will, a courageous revolutionary, the inspirer of the most important revolutionary undertakings of his time. But above all, Chernyshevsky is a fiery democratic revolutionary, and each of the aspects of his many-sided activity served a single goal - the preparation of a revolution in Russia, the creation of a revolutionary theory.

To prepare for the revolution, it was important to crush the positions of idealism, which hindered the revolutionary education of revolutionary cadres, and Chernyshevsky made an enormous contribution to the cause of materialist philosophy.

Chernyshevsky's activity as a philosopher is milestone in the development of Russian materialistic philosophy. He went forward along the path that had been laid in the Russian classical philosophy in the 1940s by Belinsky and Herzen. Chernyshevsky took into account, critically reworking them, the best achievements of Western European philosophical thought of the pre-Marx period and moved on; he highly valued the materialistic philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, but he himself went further than him. True, Chernyshevsky “could not, due to the backwardness of Russian life, rise to the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels,” however, without rising to dialectical materialism, he nevertheless, unlike Feuerbach, invariably emphasized the importance of the dialectical method. On the other hand, the great democratic revolutionary strongly condemned Hegel for the narrowness and conservative nature of his conclusions. Chernyshevsky enthusiastically promoted dialectics and made extensive use of it in his own writings ( great attention deserves, for example, his dialectical argumentation in the work "Critique of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Ownership"). Chernyshevsky, like the founders of scientific socialism, remained alien to "religious and ethical layers" in Feuerbach's views. The contemplative character of Feuerbach's materialism was alien to him. Chernyshevsky's philosophy was profoundly effective; all his philosophical creativity, his philosophical propaganda were in the most organic interaction with revolutionary aspirations, reinforced, supported and substantiated the latter.

Until the end of his days, Chernyshevsky remained unshakably faithful to the philosophical principles developed by him in the heyday of his activity. In defense of materialism and a specially materialistic theory of knowledge, he again appeared in print in the 80s, after his return from a long-term exile. Lenin wrote on this occasion: “Chernyshevsky is the only truly great Russian writer who, from the 1950s until 1988, managed to remain at the level of integral philosophical materialism and to reject the pitiful nonsense of the neo-Kantians, positivists, Machists and other muddleheads.”

A consistent materialist in his general philosophical views, Chernyshevsky still remained largely under the influence of idealistic views on the socio-historical process. But his thought developed in the direction of a materialistic understanding of history. Chernyshevsky many times expressed deep materialistic conjectures in explaining historical phenomena. He succeeded with great acuteness and force in revealing the mechanics of class relations and the class struggle. Chernyshevsky's solution of one of the fundamental questions of the science of society, the question of the role of the masses in history, followed from the materialist tendencies of Chernyshevsky's sociological views. “No matter how one argues, only those aspirations are strong, only those institutions are durable that are supported by the masses of the people,” this is the main conclusion, which, being constantly reinforced by concrete examples in Chernyshevsky’s articles, armed the raznochintsy movement in the struggle to prepare for the revolution.

Criticism of bourgeois political economy was extremely important in the course of the revolutionary struggle, as it showed the need to abolish the exploitation of the masses and exposed the apologists for the bourgeois mode of production. Therefore, Chernyshevsky's activity as a scientist-economist was of great importance. In additions and notes to Mill's Foundations of Political Economy (1860-1861), in the article Capital and Labor (1860), and in other works, Chernyshevsky built his political and economic "theory of the working people." Marx, noting the utopian nature of many of Chernyshevsky's propositions, at the same time saw in him the only truly original thinker among contemporary European economists. He spoke of Chernyshevsky as a "great Russian scientist and critic" who masterfully brought to light the bankruptcy of bourgeois political economy. Lenin also pointed out that Chernyshevsky "was a remarkably profound critic of capitalism in spite of his utopian socialism."

The utopian side of Chernyshevsky's views consisted primarily in his assessment of the Russian rural community. He, like Herzen and later the Narodniks, erroneously considered it a means to prevent the proletarianization of the peasantry, a bridge for Russia's transition to socialism. Chernyshevsky, however, was alien to such an idealization of the community, which is characteristic of Herzen. Chernyshevsky emphasized that the community does not constitute a “special inborn feature” of Russia and is a remnant of antiquity that one does not have to be “proud of”, because he only speaks of “the slowness and lethargy of historical development.”

Chernyshevsky attached significant importance to the preservation of the community only on the condition that the peasants were adequately allocated land and that they were actually freed from all fetters of serfdom. He tirelessly and passionately defended the people's right to land and true freedom. This is precisely what constitutes a particularly important feature of his propaganda on the peasant question. Expecting nothing from the noble committees and government commissions preparing the reform, he placed all his hopes on the revolutionary initiative of the masses. “Chernyshevsky,” writes Lenin, “was a utopian socialist who dreamed of the transition to socialism through the old, semi-feudal, peasant community… But Chernyshevsky was not only a utopian socialist. He was also a revolutionary democrat, he knew how to influence all the political events of his era in a revolutionary spirit, passing - through the obstacles and slingshots of censorship - the idea of ​​​​a peasant revolution, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe struggle of the masses to overthrow all the old authorities.

Chernyshevsky's orientation toward the people as an active figure in history, who himself must liberate himself from economic and political oppression, Chernyshevsky's conviction that peaceful ways to the liberation of the working people are impossible, his stake on revolution speak of his superiority over the majority of Western utopians with their hopes for good will. the propertied classes and governments. Even in his student years, Chernyshevsky wrote: “I know that without convulsions there is never a single step forward in history. It is foolish to think that mankind can go straight and level when it has never been before.” Such was Chernyshevsky's view of the course of human history in general, such was his view on the path of development of his homeland. Of all the utopian socialists, Chernyshevsky came closest to scientific socialism.

Love for the Russian people and native Russian land inspired Chernyshevsky in all his activities. “The historical significance of every great Russian man,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “is measured by his merits to his homeland, his human dignity by the strength of his patriotism.” Chernyshevsky owns the words: To contribute not to the transient, but to the eternal glory of one's fatherland and the good of mankind - what can be higher and more desirable than this? Chernyshevsky understood patriotism in its true and sublime meaning and content, completely identifying service to the motherland with selfless service to its working people, linking the effective struggle for the victory of the new in one's own fatherland with a living striving for the good of all working people.

Chernyshevsky spoke indignantly about those renegades who renounce native word, despise native culture and literature. Proud of the achievements of Russian thought, he pointed out that the progressive people of Russia go "along with the thinkers of Europe, and not in the retinue of their students," that representatives of "our mental movement" do not submit to "any foreign authority." The most honorable place in the construction of national Russian culture belongs to Chernyshevsky himself. Not without reason Lenin, speaking of democratic, advanced Russian culture, characterized it by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov.

Chernyshevsky naturally and necessarily intertwined love for his homeland, for his people, with hatred for their enemies. He hated serfdom and autocracy, which blocked the Russian people's road to freedom and progress.

Chernyshevsky did not separate the question of the abolition of serfdom from the question of the abolition of the autocratic system. “Everything is nonsense in the face of the general character of the national system,” Chernyshevsky wrote, referring to the serf system and tsarism that headed it.

Carefully studying the political reality of both Russia and Western Europe, Chernyshevsky showed a deep interest in the problem of the state. He saw that " public policy The contemporary era is actually an expression of the interests of the ruling classes.

Chernyshevsky regarded the absolutist autocratic state as an organ of domination by the nobility. He considered the “representative” form of government of the states of the capitalist countries of the West as an organ of the domination of the new privileged class- the bourgeoisie. Chernyshevsky pointed out that the takhkhoy state provides the people with only formal “freedom” and formal “right”, without providing material opportunities for the use of this freedom and this right. Therefore, Chernyshevsky, although he preferred the political structure of bourgeois European states over the autocracy that dominated Russia, however, being a defender of the interests of the working people, he criticized and denounced not only absolutist, but also bourgeois parliamentary forms of government, wishing to win such a system through revolutionary struggle, where "political power", "education" and "material well-being" of the masses would be implemented in an inseparable combination . The peasant revolution in Russia, the overthrow of the autocracy, the transfer of the land to the people, the strengthening and improvement of the community, according to Chernyshevsky, should have opened the way to achieving this ideal in his homeland. In a more distant perspective, after a person "completely subjugates external nature", "remakes everything on earth in accordance with his needs", after the elimination of "the disproportion between human needs and the means of satisfying them", Chernyshevsky conceived the disappearance of coercive laws in society, the disappearance states.

In the midst of a revolutionary situation, Chernyshevsky launched an agitation for a revolutionary solution to the peasant question. He strove to enlist in the active support of the cause of the people all those social elements capable of standing on the ground of the struggle for the interests of the masses. At the same time, he tirelessly exposed the cowardice and self-interest of the liberals, who betrayed the interests of the people, sought collusion, deals with tsarism, and sowed harmful monarchist illusions among the intelligentsia. The campaign which Chernyshevsky carried out daily against liberalism was a very important element in his struggle for the ideological preparation of the revolution.

All aspects of Chernyshevsky's multifaceted activities were reflected in his legal articles in Sovremennik, both on the eve of the reform and after it. But Chernyshevsky was not limited to legal journalistic activity. He attached great importance to secret work and the creation of a revolutionary organization, he was going to use a secret printing press to directly address the revolutionary appeal to the broad peasant masses. This is confirmed by the actions of Chernyshevek during 1861 and 1862, up to the day of his arrest by the tsarist government. The great writer-thinker was organically combined in Chernyshevsky with a fearless revolutionary leader.

Liberal-bourgeois historiography tried with all its might to present Chernyshevsky as a person who was very far from the revolution, a compromiser of the liberal type (Denisyuk and others). This gross falsification of the appearance of a great revolutionary was based on an obvious juggling of facts, distorted the true knowledge of Chernyshevsky for its own class purposes. The first serious research work on Chernyshevsky was the great work of G. V. Plekhanov “N. G. Chernyshevsky”, dedicated to the analysis of his ideology. But the revolutionary-democratic essence of Chernyshevsky's outlook and activity, his unshakable devotion to the idea of ​​a peasant revolution, is obscured in this work. Giving a largely correct coverage of the general theoretical views of Chernyshevsky, Plekhanov, as Lenin pointed out, “because of the theoretical difference between the idealist] and materialist] views on history ... overlooked

Practically to the political and class difference between the liberal and the democrat! A complete misunderstanding of the real political meaning of Chernyshevsky's activities was also discovered by M.N. Pokrovsky when he called him "the founder of the Menshevik tactics", who allegedly called for maintaining calm and gradually, "slowly and gently", relying on the "educated classes", to seek concessions from the tsar. This false assessment distorted the face brilliant writer, one of the best representatives of the Russian people, who devoted all his strength to the preparation of a democratic revolution. Later, other erroneous concepts were put forward in historiography, for example, the incorrect opinion was expressed that Chernyshevsky was allegedly the founder of Marxism in Russia; the general appearance of Chernyshevsky was drawn as the appearance of a Bolshevik. The great revolutionary democrat needs no embellishment of this kind; such conceptions are ahistorical and devoid of scientific foundation.

A comrade and associate, a student and like-minded person of Chernyshevsky, the great revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov entered literature three years later than him (Chernyshevsky's first works were published in 1853, Dobrolyubov's in 1856). WITH youthful years Dobrolyubov was absorbed in the thought of the great future of Russia, for which he sought to "work tirelessly, disinterestedly and fervently." The ardent patriot Dobrolyubov wrote that “in a decent person, patriotism is nothing more than a desire to work for the benefit of one’s country, and comes from nothing else but the desire to do good, as much as possible more and as much as possible better.”

future greatness home country Dobrolyubov associated with the revolution, democracy and socialism. While still a student, Dobrolyubov published in 1855 the underground handwritten newspaper Rumors, where he expressed the conviction that “it is necessary to break the rotten building of the current administration”, and for this it is necessary to act on the “lower class of the people”, “open his eyes to the present state of affairs ", to excite his dormant forces, to instill in him the concept of the dignity of man, of "true good and evil." Dobrolyubov remained invariably faithful to this view throughout his short, but unusually bright and fruitful activity as a democratic revolutionary, publicist, philosopher, critic, head of the critical department in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, hated serfdom and autocracy with all his heart, was an enemy of the oppressors of the working people, a supporter of socialism. He proclaimed the struggle for "man and his happiness" as the guiding principle of his activity. Recognizing, together with Chernyshevsky, the superiority of the socio-political structure of the more advanced capitalist countries over the autocracy, Dobrolyubov, like him, was alien to any idealization of the bourgeois order. He pointed to the discontent brewing in the West in the "working classes", and emphasized that "the proletarian understands his position much better than many fine-hearted scientists who rely on the generosity of older brothers in relation to the smaller." Thus, Dobrolyubov, although not freed from the influence of utopian socialism, did not believe in the possibility of inducing the ruling classes to voluntarily go towards the working masses. He expected the solution of the "social question" both in the West and in Russia from the awakening of consciousness and activity in the struggle of the masses themselves. “Modern confusion cannot be resolved otherwise than by the original influence of people's life,” he wrote at the beginning of 1860. By such “influence” he meant a popular uprising, a peasant revolution in Russia.

Dobrolyubov was an implacable opponent of the liberals, he sharply exposed them for their inability to engage in a serious public cause, for supporting the tsarist government, and revealed the extreme narrowness and limitations of their reformist plans. Dobrolyubov opposed the people to the liberal society with its "ringing phrases", scanty, "almost obscene" claims for reforms. “Among the masses of our people,” he said, “there is efficiency, seriousness, there is a capacity for sacrifice ... The masses of the people do not know how to speak eloquently. Their word is never idle; it is said by them as a call to action.” Exposing the liberal manilovs, people of phrase, supporters of a compromise with the monarchy and serfdom at the expense of the people, Dobrolyubov put forward his positive ideal, the ideal of a revolutionary who knows no discord between word and deed, embraced by one idea of ​​​​struggle for the happiness of the people, ready "or to bring triumph to this idea, or die."

In all his articles, written at least in pure literary themes, Dobrolyubov acted as an ardent and courageous political fighter. He knew how to use them to denounce the feudal system and propagate his revolutionary democratic views. His famous articles dark realm”, “What is Oblomovism?”, “When will the real day come?” - examples of brilliant literary critical analysis and, at the same time, remarkable works of revolutionary journalism.

Dobrolyubov is a writer who "passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the "internal Turks" - against the autocratic government."

Chernyshevsky called Dobrolyubov the best defender of the interests of the Russian people.

Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, was highly valued by Marx and Engels. Marx put Dobrolyubov on a par with Lessing and Diderot, Engels called Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov "two socialist Lessings."

Scientists-fighters, scientists-revolutionaries who rallied around themselves like-minded people who worked in the name of the great task of preparing the revolution - this is who N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov first of all appear before us.

The activities of the revolutionary democrats were of tremendous historical significance - they were the direct forerunners of social democracy in Russia. They sought to develop a revolutionary theory. V. I. Lenin emphasized that Russia suffered Marxism at the cost of half a century passionate search revolutionary theory. In this quest, the revolutionary democrats were the forerunners of Russian social democracy.

The revolutionary democrats considered the people the creator of history, the main driving force historical development. They were the first to turn with a revolutionary sermon to the people, and such an appeal does not disappear, even if whole decades separate the sowing from the harvest.

The revolutionary democrats gave a merciless criticism of tsarism, serfdom and liberalism, which retained its significance for long years. In this, too, they were the forerunners of social democracy, in contrast to the Narodniks, who themselves slipped into liberalism.

Entire generations of revolutionaries were brought up on the works of revolutionary democrats. V. I. Lenin emphasized that his revolutionary outlook was formed under the influence of these works.

The ideological legacy of the revolutionary democrats was of tremendous importance for the education of subsequent generations of revolutionaries in other countries as well. Thus, G. Dimitrov said that Chernyshevsky's novel "What Is to Be Done?" played an enormous role in shaping his revolutionary views. Rakhmetov was for him a model of a revolutionary.

The revolutionary democrats were also the forerunners of the Social Democracy in deeply patriotic, selfless service to their people, in the struggle for their revolutionary liberation.

The Sovremennik magazine is the ideological center of revolutionary democracy. The ideological center of revolutionary democracy was the Sovremennik magazine, the best and most popular magazine of the era. The editor of the magazine was the great poet of Russian revolutionary democracy - N. A. Nekrasov, an active participant in the revolutionary struggle of those years.

The revolutionary democrats, headed by Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, made the journal a propaganda organ for revolutionary democratic ideas. "Sovremennik" at the time of the leadership of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov played an absolutely exceptional role in the life of advanced Russian society, especially the young people of Raznochinsk. He enjoyed, according to the true testimony of N. Mikhailovsky, such a prestige, "which had not been equal before in the entire history of Russian journalism."

"The mighty sermon of Chernyshevsky, who knew how to educate real revolutionaries with censored articles," sounded from the pages of Sovremennik.

Realizing all the narrowness, all the squalor and the feudal nature of the peasant reform being prepared, the editors of Sovremennik, headed by Chernyshevsky, tirelessly exposed the tsarist reform and defended the interests of the oppressed peasantry.

At the same time, Chernyshevsky deeply understood the class nature of liberalism and mercilessly exposed in the pages of Sovremennik the line of betrayals of liberalism.

A group of like-minded people close-knit around Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, consisting of M. L. Mikhailov, N. V. Shelgunov, N. A. Serno-Solovyevich, V. A. Obruchev, M. A. Antonovich, G. Z. Eliseev, and others. in her articles published in Sovremennik, she also promoted the idea of ​​preparing a peasant revolution, developed serious theoretical questions, and covered lively, topical topics put forward by Russian life.

Sovremennik, as the ideological center of revolutionary democracy, played an enormous role in the organizational rallying of the revolutionary forces. It was from this ideological center that the threads stretched to other leading journals, to circles of "Chernyshevites" in the student and military environment, to underground organizations youth, to the "Bell" of Herzen and Ogaryov. It was precisely around Sovremennik that the galaxy of associates of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov gathered, which was the core of the “party” of revolutionaries of 1861 that was being created in the era of the revolutionary situation.