Russian literary criticism of the 19th century. Foreword

Criticism from the Greek "kritice" - to disassemble, judge, appeared as a kind of art form back in antiquity, over time becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an "applied" character, aimed at a general assessment of the work, encouraging or vice versa condemning the author's opinion, as well as recommending or not the book to other readers.

Over time, this literary trend developed and improved, starting its rise in the European Renaissance and reaching significant heights by the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism falls on the middle of the 19th century, when, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, it began to play a huge role in the public life of that time. In the works of prominent critics of the 19th century (V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. N. Strakhov, M. A. Antonovich) only detailed overview literary works of other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion of artistic principles and ideas, as well as vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, his moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and the power of influencing the minds of the public, and today they are among the most powerful tools for influencing the spiritual life of society and its moral foundations.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

At one time, A. S. Pushkin's poem "Eugene Onegin" received a wide variety of reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the author's brilliant innovative methods in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that was devoted to 8 and 9 critical articles of Belinsky's "Works of Alexander Pushkin", who set himself the goal of revealing the attitude of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the real picture of the life of Russian society in that era, Belinsky called it "an encyclopedia of Russian life", and an extremely popular and national work.

In the articles “A Hero of Our Time, M. Lermontov’s Work” and “M. Lermontov’s Poems,” Belinsky saw in Lermontov’s work an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian literature and recognized the poet’s ability to “extract poetry from the prose of life and shock souls with its true image.” In works outstanding poet the passion of poetic thought is noted, in which all the most pressing problems are affected modern society, the critic called Lermontov the successor of the great poet Pushkin, noticing, however, the exact opposite of their poetic nature: the first one is permeated with optimism and is described in light colors, in the second, on the contrary, the writing style is distinguished by gloominess, pessimism and grief for lost opportunities.

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandro-vich Dobrolyubov

Well-known critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. A Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" based on Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" called him the most decisive work The author, which touches upon very important "painful" social problems of that time, namely the clash of the personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with the "dark kingdom" - representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy, which is described in the play, the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of petty tyrants and oppressors, and in the image main character embodiment of the great popular idea of ​​liberation.

In the article “What is Oblomovism”, dedicated to the analysis of Goncharov’s work “Oblomov”, Dobrolyubov considers the author to be a talented writer who acts as an outside observer in his work, inviting the reader to draw conclusions about its content. Main character Oblomov is compared with others " superfluous people of his time" by Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him "insignificance", angrily condemns his qualities of character (laziness, apathy for life and reflection) and recognizes them as a problem not only specific person, but the entire Russian mentality as a whole.

Selected works:

Apollo Alek-sand-ro-wich Grigoriev

A deep and enthusiastic impression was made by Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" on the poet, prose writer and critic A. A. Grigoriev, who in the article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "does not argue with Dobrolyubov's opinion, but somehow corrects his judgments, for example, replacing the term tyranny with the concept of nationality, which, in his opinion, is inherent specifically for a Russian person.

Selected work:

D. I. Pisarev, the “third” outstanding Russian critic after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, also touched on the topic of Goncharov’s Oblomovism in his article “Oblomov” and believed that this concept very well characterizes the essential vice of Russian life, which will always exist, highly appreciated this work and called it relevant for any era and for any nationality.

Selected work:

The well-known critic A. V. Druzhinin in the article “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov drew attention to the poetic side of the nature of the protagonist of the landowner Oblomov, which causes him not a feeling of irritation and hostility, but even some sympathy. He considers the main positive qualities the Russian landowner's tenderness, purity and gentleness of the soul, against which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a kind of protection from the influences of pernicious activity " active life» other characters

Selected work:

One of famous works outstanding classic of Russian literature I.S. Turgenev, which caused a stormy public outcry, was the novel “Fathers and Sons” written in 18620. In the critical articles "Bazarov" by D. I. Pisarev, "Fathers and Sons" by I. S. Turgenev by N. N. Strakhov, and also by M. A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of Our Time", a sharp controversy erupted over the question of who should be considered the main the hero of the work of Bazarov - a jester or an ideal to follow.

N.N. Strakhov in his article “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev" saw the deep tragedy of the image of Bazarov, his vitality and dramatic attitude to life and called him a living embodiment of one of the manifestations of the real Russian spirit.

Selected work:

Antonovich considered this character as an evil caricature of the younger generation and accused Turgenev of turning his back on the democratically minded youth and betraying his former views.

Selected work:

Pisarev saw in Bazarov useful and real person, which is able to destroy outdated dogmas and old authorities, and thus clear the ground for the formation of new advanced ideas.

Selected work:

The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and it is the readers who decide the fate of the work, on the perception of which the future fate of the work depends. It is literary criticism that helps the reader to form his personal final opinion about a particular work. Critics also provide invaluable assistance to writers when they give them an idea of ​​how clear their works are to the public, and how correctly the thoughts expressed by the author are perceived.

Story

It stands out already in the era of antiquity in Greece and Rome, also in ancient india and China as a special professional occupation. But for a long time has only "applied" value. Its task is to give a general assessment of the work, to encourage or condemn the author, to recommend the book to other readers.

Then, after a long break, it again develops as special kind literature and as an independent profession in Europe, from the 17th century to the first half of the 19th century (T. Carlyle, C. Sainte-Beuve, I. Ten, F. Brunetier, M. Arnold, G. Brandes).

History of Russian literary criticism

Until the 18th century

Elements of literary criticism appear already in written monuments of the 11th century. Actually, as soon as someone expresses his opinion about any work, we are dealing with elements of literary criticism.

Works containing such elements include

• The word of a kind old man about reading books (included in the Izbornik of 1076, sometimes erroneously called Svyatoslav's Izbornik);
• Metropolitan Hilarion's Sermon on Law and Grace, where there is an examination of the Bible as a literary text;
• A word about Igor's regiment, where at the beginning the intention is declared to sing with new words, and not as usual "boyanov" - an element of discussion with "boyan", a representative of the previous literary tradition;
• Lives of a number of saints who were the authors of significant texts;
• Letters from Andrei Kurbsky to Ivan the Terrible, where Kurbsky reproaches the Terrible with too much concern for the beauty of the word, for the weaving of words.

Significant names of this period are Maxim the Greek, Simeon Polotsky, Avvakum Petrov (literary works), Melety Smotrytsky.

18th century

For the first time in Russian literature, the word "critic" was used by Antioch Kantemir in 1739 in the satire "On Education". Also in French - critique. In Russian spelling, it will go into frequent use in the middle of the XIX century.

Literary criticism begins to develop along with the advent of literary journals. The first such magazine in Russia was Monthly Works for the Benefit and Amusement of Employees (1755). N. M. Karamzin, who preferred the genre of monographic reviews, is considered the first Russian author who turned to reviews.

Character traits literary controversy XVIII century:

• linguo-stylistic approach to literary works (the main attention is paid to the errors of the language, mainly the first half of the century, especially characteristic of the speeches of Lomonosov and Sumarokov);
• normative principle (characteristic of the dominant classicism);
• taste principle (put forward at the very end of the century by sentimentalists).

19th century

The historical-critical process takes place mainly in the relevant sections of literary magazines and other periodicals, therefore it is closely connected with the journalism of this period. In the first half of the century, criticism was dominated by such genres as replica, response, note, later the problematic article and review became the main ones. Of great interest are the reviews of A. S. Pushkin - these are short, elegantly and literary, polemical works that testify to the rapid development of Russian literature. The second half is dominated by the genre of a critical article or a series of articles approaching a critical monograph.

Belinsky and Dobrolyubov, along with "annual reviews" and major problematic articles, also wrote reviews. IN " Domestic notes» Belinsky for several years led the column "Russian Theater in St. Petersburg", where he regularly gave reports on new performances.

Sections of criticism of the first half of XIX centuries are formed on the basis of literary trends (classicism, sentimentalism, romanticism). In criticism of the second half of the century, literary characteristics are complemented by socio-political ones. In a special section, one can single out writer's criticism, which is distinguished by great attention to the problems of artistic mastery.

At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, industry and culture were actively developing. Compared with the middle of the 19th century, censorship is significantly weakened, and the level of literacy is growing. Thanks to this, a lot of magazines, newspapers, new books are being published, their circulation is increasing. Literary criticism is also flourishing. Among the critics are a large number of writers and poets - Annensky, Merezhkovsky, Chukovsky. With the advent of silent cinema, film criticism was born. Before the revolution of 1917, several magazines with film reviews were published.

20th century

A new cultural surge occurs in the mid-1920s. The civil war is over, and the young state gets the opportunity to engage in culture. These years saw the heyday of the Soviet avant-garde. They create Malevich, Mayakovsky, Rodchenko, Lissitzky. Science is also developing. Biggest Tradition Soviet literary criticism of the first half of the 20th century. - formal school - is born precisely in line with rigorous science. Eikhenbaum, Tynyanov and Shklovsky are considered its main representatives.

Insisting on the autonomy of literature, the idea of ​​independence of its development from the development of society, rejecting the traditional functions of criticism - didactic, moral, socio-political - the formalists went against Marxist materialism. This led to the end of avant-garde formalism during the years of Stalinism, when the country began to turn into a totalitarian state.

In the subsequent 1928-1934. formulated the principles of socialist realism - the official style Soviet art. Criticism becomes a punitive tool. In 1940, the Literary Critic magazine was closed, and the section of criticism in the Writers' Union was disbanded. Now criticism had to be directed and controlled directly by the party. Columns and sections of criticism appear in all newspapers and magazines.

Famous Russian literary critics of the past

• Belinsky, Vissarion Grigorievich (-)
• Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov (, according to other sources -)
• Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (-)
• Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (-)
• Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (-)
• Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (-)
• Govorukho - Otrok, Yuri Nikolaevich (-)

Genres of literary criticism

• critical article about a particular work,
• review, problem article,
• critical monograph on contemporary literary process.

Schools of literary criticism

• The Chicago School, also known as the "Neo-Aristotelian".
• Yale School of Deconstructivist Criticism.

Notes

Literature

• Krupchanov L. M. History of Russian literary criticism of the XIX century: Proc. allowance. - M.: "Higher school", 2005.
• History of Russian literary criticism: Soviet and post-Soviet eras / Ed. E. Dobrenko and G. Tikhanova. M.: New Literary Review, 2011

Links

• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Literary criticism" is in other dictionaries:

The field of literary creativity is on the verge of art (fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism). Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Engaged in the evaluation of individual works of literature. Dictionary foreign words included in the Russian language. Pavlenkov F., 1907 ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

literary criticism- (from the Greek kritike the art of evaluating, judging) the field of literary creativity on the verge of art and the science of literature (literary criticism). Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of art from the point of view of the interests of modern ... ... Terminological dictionary-thesaurus in Literary Studies

The field of literary creativity is on the verge of art (fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism). Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Evaluation and interpretation of a work of art, identification and approval of the creative principles of a particular literary direction; one of the types of literary creativity. L. to. proceeds from the general methodology of the science of literature (see ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

"Each era of Russian literature had its own consciousness of itself, expressed in criticism," wrote V. G. Belinsky. It is difficult to disagree with this judgment. Russian criticism is a phenomenon as bright and unique as Russian classic literature. It has been repeatedly noted that criticism, being synthetic in nature, played an enormous role in the social life of Russia. Critical articles by V. G. Belinsky, A. A. Grigoriev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and many others contained not only detailed analysis works, their images, ideas, artistic features; Behind the fate of literary heroes, behind the artistic picture of the world, critics sought to see the most important moral and social problems of the time, and not only see, but sometimes even offer their own ways to solve these problems.

The articles of Russian critics had and continue to have a significant impact on the spiritual and moral life society. It is no coincidence that they have long been included in the school curriculum. However, for many decades, in literature lessons, students mainly got acquainted with radical criticism - with articles by V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev and a number of other authors. At the same time, a critical article was most often perceived as a source of quotations, with which schoolchildren generously "decorated" their essays.

A similar approach to the study of Russian classics formed stereotypes artistic perception, greatly simplified and impoverished the picture of development domestic literature, distinguished by fierce ideological and aesthetic disputes.

Only recently, thanks to the emergence of a number of serial publications and in-depth literary studies, our vision of development paths Russian literature and criticism has become more voluminous and multifaceted. In the series "Library" For Lovers Russian literature””, “The History of Aesthetics in Monuments and Documents”, “Russian Literary Criticism” published articles by N. M. Karamzin, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. V. Kireevsky, N. I. Nadezhdin , A. A. Grigoriev, N. N. Strakhov and other outstanding Russian writers. The complex, dramatic searches of critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, different in their artistic and social convictions, are recreated in the series "Library of Russian Criticism". Modern readers have finally got the opportunity to get acquainted not only with the "top" phenomena in the history of Russian criticism, but also with many other, no less striking phenomena.At the same time, our understanding of the "tops", of the scale of significance of many critics, has been significantly refined.

It seems that the practice of school teaching should also form a more voluminous idea of ​​how Russian literature of the 19th century was reflected in the mirror of domestic criticism. It is important that the young reader begin to perceive criticism as an organic part of Literature. After all, Literature in the broadest sense is the art of the word, embodied both in a work of art and in literary criticism. A critic is always a bit both an artist and a publicist. A talented critical article necessarily contains a powerful fusion of the moral and philosophical reflections of its author with subtle and deep observations on the literary text.

The study of a critical article yields very little if its main points are taken as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to emotionally and intellectually experience everything said by the critic, to think about the logic of his thought, to determine the measure of evidence of the arguments put forward by him.

The critic offers his own reading of a work of art, reveals his perception of the work of a particular writer. Often a critical article makes you rethink a work or artistic image. Some judgments and assessments in a talentedly written article can become a real discovery for the reader, and something may seem erroneous or controversial to him. Especially fascinating is the comparison of different points of view about the same work or work of a particular writer. This always provides rich material for thought.

This anthology contains the works of the leading representatives of Russian literary-critical thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries, from N. M. Karamzin to V. V. Rozanov. Many editions, according to which the texts of articles are printed, have become a bibliographic rarity.

The reading book will allow you to look at Pushkin's work through the eyes of I. V. Kireevsky and V. G. Belinsky, A. A. Grigoriev and V. V. Rozanov, to get acquainted with how the poem "Dead Souls" was perceived differently by Gogol's contemporaries - V. G. Belinsky, K. S. Aksakov, S. P. Shevyrev, how the characters of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" were assessed by the critics of the second half of the 19th century. Readers will be able to compare their perception of Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" with the way it was interpreted in the articles by D. I. Pisarev and D. S. Merezhkovsky, see in Ostrovsky's plays, thanks to the work of A. V. Druzhinin, not only " dark kingdom"with lonely light "rays" penetrating into it, but the many-sided and multi-colored world of Russian national life.

For many, the articles of L. Tolstoy's contemporaries about his work will undoubtedly become a discovery. The main signs of L. Tolstoy's talent - the ability to show the "dialectics of the soul" of his heroes, the "purity of moral feeling" - were one of the first to identify and reveal N. G. Chernyshevsky. As for N. N. Strakhov's articles on "War and Peace", it can be rightfully asserted that in domestic literary criticism there are few works that can be placed next to them in terms of the depth of penetration into L. Tolstoy's intention, in terms of accuracy and subtlety of observations. above the text. The critic believed that the writer "gave us a new Russian formula for the heroic life", for the first time after Pushkin he was able to display the Russian ideal - the ideal of "simplicity, goodness and truth."

Of particular interest are the reflections of critics on the fate of Russian poetry collected in the anthology. The problems posed in the articles by K. N. Batyushkov and V. A. Zhukovsky, V. G. Belinsky and V. N. Maikov, V. P. Botkin and I. S. Aksakov, V. S. Solovyov and V. V. Rozanova. Here we will find original judgments about the genres of "light poetry" and the principles of translation that have not lost their significance, we will see the desire to penetrate into the "holy of holies" of poetry - into the poet's creative laboratory, to understand the lyrical work. And how true, how vividly the creative individuality of Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Fet, Tyutchev and A. K. Tolstoy is defined in these publications!

It is noteworthy that the result of difficult searches and often fierce disputes was the desire of critics of the early 20th century to "return" Russian culture to Pushkin, to Pushkin's harmony and simplicity. Proclaiming the need for a "return to Pushkin", V.V. Rozanov wrote: "I would like him to become a friend in every Russian family ... Pushkin's mind protects from everything stupid, his nobility protects from everything vulgar, the versatility of his soul and interests that occupied him guard against what might be called "an early specialization of the soul."

We hope that the reader will become an indispensable guide to the works of outstanding Russian artists of the word, will help to truly understand these works, to compare various ways their interpretations, to discover in the read what went unnoticed or initially seemed unimportant and secondary.

Literature is the whole universe. Her "suns" and "planets" had their own satellites - caught in the orbit of their inevitable attraction literary critics. And how we would like that not only the classics of Russian literature, but also these critics, we could call our eternal companions.

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

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

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

Tasks of a literary critic

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

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

The professional critic invariably influences society by broadcasting his own beliefs. That is why professional reviews are often distinguished by irony and a sharp presentation of the material.

The most famous literary critics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development of literary criticism in Russia

Perhaps the most interesting situation literary criticism developed in Russia after 1917. No industry has ever been as politicized as it was in this era, and literature is no exception. Writers and critics have become an instrument of power, exerting a powerful influence on society. We can say that criticism no longer served lofty goals, but only solved the problems of power:

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

Alas, from a cultural point of view, this was a “black” period in national literature, since any dissent was severely persecuted, and truly talented authors had no chance to create. That is why it is not at all surprising that representatives of the authorities acted as literary critics, among them - D.I. Bukharin, L.N. Trotsky, V.I. Lenin. Political figures had their own opinion about the most famous works of literature. Their critical articles were published in huge editions and were considered not only the primary source, but also the final authority in literary criticism.

For several decades Soviet history the profession of literary criticism became almost meaningless, and there were very few of its representatives still due to mass repressions and executions.

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

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

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

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

Literary criticism is a highly specialized field these days. Professional evaluation of literature is in demand only in scientific circles, and is really interesting to a small circle of connoisseurs of literature. Public opinion about a particular writer is formed by a whole range of marketing and social instruments unrelated to professional criticism. And this state of affairs is only one of the inalienable attributes of our time.

Introduction

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

Modern correlation of criticism with literary disciplines. Classification of literary criticism and criticism according to the features of methodology and methodology, according to the volume and subject of research, according to its goals, aspects and genres.

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

Literary criticism as an expression of the self-consciousness of society and literature in their evolution. Criticism's comprehension of Russian literature after 1917, direct influence on it.

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

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

The problem of periodization of Russian literary criticism after 1917. Chronological boundaries of major stages of its existence: from 1917 to the mid-1950s. - the time of gradual strengthening and consolidation of totalitarian social attitudes, the nationalization of all spheres of life, including literature and criticism; from the second half of the 50s to the second half of the 80s - the time of a gradual, contradictory, with retreats, the elimination of the totalitarian consciousness, its all-round crisis; since the second half of the 80s - the time of the collapse of totalitarian socialism, a sharp struggle between supporters of different ways of developing Russia, the search for a place for literature and literary criticism in the new social situation and the beginning of their existence completely independent of state institutions.

Allocation within the framework of large historical stages of significantly different periods. The time of the civil war - a split in society and literature, a division of critics according to their attitude towards the revolution: into those who accepted it, those who did not accept it, and those who were emphatically apolitical. Multiple reduction of publishing opportunities. First half of the 20s. - the relative balance of opposing tendencies in criticism, the relatively wide contacts of Russian writers with Russian literary abroad (the phenomenon of Russian Berlin). The second half of the 20s - the beginning of the 30s. - the accelerated formation of the monistic concept of Soviet literature and the criticism corresponding to it, the displacement of independently thinking authors, including those of a Marxist orientation. 30s - consolidation of totalitarian attitudes in the attempts of the best critics and some magazines to save their face; the maximum weakening of criticism during the mass repressions against the intelligentsia. The years of the Great Patriotic War are a relative, partial emancipation of literary thought, with the practical impossibility of restoring the former potential of criticism. The second half of the 40s - the beginning of the 50s. - the ultimate decline of literature and criticism, the all-encompassing dogmatization and mythologization of public consciousness, only partly shaken in 1954.

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

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

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

Special Conditions for the Existence of Literary Criticism in the Post-October Period. The process of "statization" of literature and attempts to turn criticism into a method of organizing literary "business". The gradual nature of this process, its acceleration by the end of the 20s. The clash of the intentions of the authorities with an extremely numerous and varied composition of participants in critical battles - people with different levels of aesthetic culture and a multi-colored spectrum of both moral orientations (from traditional readiness to serve society to a passionate desire for power) and socio-political ones (from rejection of the revolution to romantic illusions) on her account). Influence on the development of literary criticism in the 20s. such a fact as the existence of literary associations and groups. Their characteristic.

Speeches by VI Lenin, LD Trotsky, GE Zinoviev, LB Kamenev, NI Bukharin, and other Bolshevik leaders on issues of literature and cultural policy. The influence of Trotsky's book "Literature and Revolution" (1923) on ideas about post-revolutionary literature and on the terminology of criticism. The introduction of such concepts as "proletarian writer", "peasant writer", "fellow traveler". They are widely distributed, including in the party press and official documents. The use of these concepts for the purpose of group struggle. The influence of the methodological guidelines of sociologism, which is vulgar in the broad sense, both on the interpretation of concepts and on the attitude towards creative possibilities writer. “Prorabotochnaya” tone of “Napostovskaya” and Rappovskaya criticism (B. Volin, L. Sosnovsky, G. Lelevich, L. Averbakhi, etc.).

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

Resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of June 18, 1925 "On the policy of the party in the field of fiction" and its impact on the situation in criticism. The growth of crisis phenomena in literary life. Gradual displacement of independent criticism. Termination of the publication of a number of journals - "Russian Contemporary", "Russia" ("New Russia") and p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edition of "Letters on Russian Poetry" (1923) N. S. Gumilyov. Their significance for the development of poetic culture in the 20s. Short reviews in the almanacs "Workshop of poets", articles by M. A. Kuzmin in the early 20s. - samples of taste aesthetic criticism.

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

Leading critics of the 20s and early 30s.

Educational and propaganda criticism of A. V. Lunacharsky (1875-1933). The proclamation of "proletarian culture" as the successor of world culture. Faith in the grandeur of the artistic achievements of the future and recognition of the importance of classical traditions. Relative tolerance and breadth in the approach of Lunacharsky as a statesman to various trends in art. Support for realism, criticism of the most "left" and formalist phenomena in literature. Articles about the majority of prominent Soviet writers. Emphasis on the creativity of M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, M. Sholokhov. Development of problems of the theory of modern Soviet literature. The article "Lenin and Literary Studies" (1932) is the first attempt to systematically substantiate Leninism as a new methodology for studying culture and party influence on it. The publicistic nature of Lunacharsky's criticism. Elements of simplified sociologism in the starting points of many articles.

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

the concept of "new realism", the thesis about the need for historicism. A sharp controversy with “nalitpostovstvo” and “nalitpostovstvo”, the desire to protect and preserve everything of artistic value. Literary portrait as a preferred genre of concrete criticism by Voronsky. A tribute to the prejudices of the time in the assessments of some aspects of S. Yesenin's work, Evg. Zamyatin. Forced departure of Voronsky from criticism and journalism.

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

A. Lezhnev (pseudonym A. 3. Gorelik, 1893-1938) - the leading theorist and critic of the Pass. The idea of ​​"socialism with human face»" - the initial position for A. Lezhnev in assessing trends contemporary art as a specific way of artistic and figurative re-creation of reality, protection of the role of intuition in the creative process, the idea of ​​"organic" creativity. Struggle for realism against everyday life. Promotion and justification of the creative principles of the "Pass" ("new humanism", "sincerity", "Mozartianism", "aesthetic culture"); their use in evaluating works of contemporary literature. The category of personality, in particular the personality of the transitional era, in the aesthetics of Lezhnev; the problem of creative individuality and the genre of literary portrait in Lezhnev (articles devoted to B. Pasternak, V. Mayakovsky, L. Seifullina).

The notion of criticism as a living participant in the literary process, which "not only studies, but also builds." The fight against opportunism, against "Salierism". Contrasting "craft", "work", "reception" - "creativity", "intuition", "inspiration". Rigid assessment of Mayakovsky's evolution in the second half of the 1920s. Creativity of Pasternak and his evolution in the interpretation of A. Lezhnev. "Portrait" of "left" art in the interpretation of the critic. The category of "social order" and the problem of freedom of the artist. Controversy with the dehumanization of art, with rationalization and utilitarianism in the speeches of Rapp's critics. A. Lezhnev's rejection of vulgar sociologism, adjacent to his own aspirations to find a "sociological equivalent" of creativity. Creation of the first essay on the history of the development of post-October literature: "Literature of the Revolutionary Decade (1917-1927)" (together with D. Gorbov). A. Lezhnev's departure to literary criticism; literary works of the 1930s how development

aesthetic concepts 1920s

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

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

process. The image of Galatea is a symbol of the artist's inner freedom. The promotion of "organic creativity" as a criterion of artistry. D. Gorbov’s speeches in defense of the controversial works of the 1920s: “Envy” by Y. Olesha, “The Thief” by L. Leonov and others. creative way L. Leonov, M. Gorky). The first (and only) attempt in the history of Soviet criticism to consider emigre literature as part of the general literary process of the 1920s, including its review in the book Literature of the Revolutionary Decade (In Our Country and Abroad). Gorbov's theory of the "single stream" as an attempt to oppose the idea of ​​consolidating literature to the slogan of exacerbating the class struggle. An early realization by the critic of the impossibility to continue literary activity.

Criticism of the 20s in her interpretations of the work of the most "prominent" participants in the literary process and its influence on their creative appearance and fate.

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

Literary criticism of the 30s

The role of criticism in the 30s. in the establishment of new forms of relations between literature and power, in the development of normative criteria for evaluating a work, in the creation of a “non-alternative” model of literature.

Literary-critical departments of journals and their lack of any brightly expressed face. The emergence of special literary-critical publications: Literaturnaya Gazeta (since 1929), Literature and Marxism (1928-1931), Book and Proletarian Revolution (1932-1940), Literary Education (1930-1941) , "Literary Critic" (1933-1940) and an appendix to it - "Literary Review" (1936-1941).

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

Critical discussion as passed over from the situation of the 1920s and early 1930s. a form of development of critical thought, which has become a form of its suffocation. The emergence of a new form of discussion - "discussion" with a predetermined solution.

The discussion about "Westernizers" and "Soilists" and the problem of "realism and formalism in literature". Speeches by V. Shklovsky, Sun. Vishnevsky and others. Disputes around the figures of Dos Passos, Joyce and Proust and their influence on modern literature. "Westernism" and the problems of modernism and "formalism". The position of M. Gorky (“About Prose”, “About the Point and the Bump”) and the “pass-over” I. Kataev (“Art on the Threshold of Socialism”). An attempt by A. Lunacharsky to resist the danger of simplification, leveling of art that arose in the process of fighting "formalism" ("Thoughts about the Master", 1933). The role of discussion in creative experiments in literature and the creation of aesthetic "mono-phony" (Evg. Zamyatin).

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

The clash of "innovators" (Vs. Vishnevsky, N. Pogodin) and "conservatives" (V. Kirshon, A. Afinogenov) among playwrights. Opposition of the psychological and journalistic interpretation of modernity and its influence on the fate of the psychological drama.

Discussion about the principles of generalization in the literature. A new wave of peculiarly understood rapprochement with reality during the years of the first five-year plan, an abundance of documentary forms, in particular essays, and an attempt to generalize this way of mastering reality after theory of "literature fact." artificial displacement of conditional forms.

1934 discussion about historical novel and the beginning of the "rehabilitation" of historical themes in literature.

Debate 1932-1934 about the language of fiction. The position of F. Panferov and A. Serafimovich (“About the writers “licked” and “unlicked”, “Answer to M. Gorky”). Protest against naturalistic and artificial stylization trends in the field artistic speech in the speeches of M. Gorky (“ Open letter A. S. Serafimovich”, “On Language”) and A. Tolstoy (“Is Peasant Strength Necessary?”). The negative result of good intentions: the leveling of artistic speech in literature, starting from the second half of the 30s.

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

The variety of forms of critical and journalistic activity of M. Gorky and his role in the formation and development of literary and artistic criticism. The writer's speeches against formalistic and crudely sociological approaches in criticism. The fight against "groupism" and its influence on the assessment of a particular creative phenomenon. Gorky about the essence of socialist realism, related mainly to the future tense, and about its successive connection with the classical heritage, about historicism, about romance in Soviet literature, about the truth of reality and fiction. Gorky assessments of the work of S. Yesenin, M. Prishvin, L. Leonov, Vs. Ivanova, F. Gladkov and others. Unfair condemnation of A. Bely, B. Pilnyak, a significant part of pre-revolutionary writers. Too generous advances of literary youth and Gorky's unrevealed understanding of the crisis of Soviet literature in the last two years of his life.

Criticism and its development in the post-Congress period. New names. "Specialization" among representatives of aesthetic thought: the redistribution of forces in favor of the theory and history of literature, the impoverishment of the literary-critical sections of "thick" journals.

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

Approval of tendencies of normativism in criticism, their influence on the evaluation of works that touch upon the deep contradictions of reality. The predominance of critical pathos when discussing the works of I. Ehrenburg ("Second Day"), L. Leonov ("Skutarevsky" and "Road to the Ocean"), M. Sholokhov ("Quiet Flows the Don"), A. Platonov. Deformation of ideas about artistic truth, the role of the tragic, the right to depict privacy. Originated in the late 1930s concepts of non-conflict in the literature.

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

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

Attempts to criticize the 30s. to summarize the experience of the development of post-revolutionary literature. A. Selivanovskiy's book "Essays on the History of Russian Soviet Poetry" (1936), articles by V. Pertsov "People of Two Five-Year Plans" (1935), "Personality and a New Discipline" (1936) and others. included in the USSR. Unfinished experience of creating a chronicle of Soviet literature for twenty years in Literary Criticism (1937).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The weakening of the publishing base of criticism with the outbreak of war, the closure of a number of magazines. Lack of deep analytical and generalizing works. Coming to the forefront of journalistic literary criticism. The simplification of the approach and interpretations in criticism, designed for the most massive audience, aimed at achieving an immediate agitation and propaganda result. Objective-historical explainability of such a situation during the war.

Opinions on the relationship between criticism proper, journalism and literary criticism, the unanimous demand from them that they are topical and topical (article by A. Surkov “To Comrades for Critics”, 1942; speech by A. Fadeev “The Tasks of Art Criticism in Our Days”, 1942; editorial article of the newspaper “Literature and Art” dated June 18, 1942 “To inspire victory by all means of art”; B. Eikhenbaum’s article “Let’s Talk About Our Craft”, 1943), the general recognition of the great shortcomings of criticism without an objective explanation of their causes (articles of “Literature and Art”: “ Higher level of artistic skill”, “On Art Criticism”, 1943).

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

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

Distribution of the principle of classification of works of the period of the war by themes. Articles by A. Fadeev “Patriotic War and Soviet Literature”, V. Kozhevnikov “Main Theme”, editorial articles “Literature and Art” - “The Theme of Art”, “Literary Gazette” - “Marine Theme in Literature”, “Heroism of Labor”, discussion “The image of a Soviet officer in fiction 1944" and others; a statement of the weak disclosure in the literature of the theme of the rear, contained in the speeches of A. Fadeev, A. Surkov, N. Tikhonov, participants in the discussion about the book by M. Shaginyan "The theme of military life" (1944). Reviews national literatures, magazines, front-line press in the newspaper "Literature and Art" (1943-1944). Support for a number of weak works due to the relevance of the topic. Some expansion of the subject of criticism: articles by V. Yan “The Problem of the Historical Novel”, S. Marshak “About Our Satire”, S. Mikhalkov “A Book for Children. Review of children's literature on the theme of the war.

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

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

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

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

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

Condemnation of the works of some writers (L. Kassil, K. Paustovsky, V. Kaverin, B. Lavrenev) for far-fetchedness or "prettyness" in depicting the war. The return to criticism from the end of 1943 of working methods, behind-the-scenes intervention of Stalin in the fate of a number of works and their authors. Campaign against M. Zoshchenko about the psychological story "Before Sunrise", accusing him of "self-digging" and lack of civic feelings. Defamation of the unpublished works of A. Dovzhenko ("Victory", "Ukraine on Fire"), who dared to speak about the real reasons for the defeats of the Red Army. Condemnation of the anti-totalitarian play-tale by E. Schwartz "The Dragon", the truthful memoirs of K. Fedin about the "Sera-peony brothers" - "Bitter Among Us" (1944), some poems, including O. Bergholz and V. Inber - for " pessimism" and "admiring suffering".

Activation of literary thought on the wave of moral upsurge after the Victory, the interest of the general literary community in it. Speeches in Literaturnaya Gazeta in the autumn of 1945 by G. A. Gukovsky, B. M. Eikhenbaum, B. S. Meilakh, A. I. Beletsky with calls to develop a system of literary theory and create a history of Russian literature in its positive content. Real advances in the theory and history of literature. Propaganda by V. O. Pertsov and V. N. Orlov (1945-1946) of the poetry of Yesenin and Blok as achievements of modern culture. Support by criticism of young poets - participants in the Great Patriotic War, interest in the work of V. Panova, recognition of the importance of the previously underestimated "Vasily Terkin" by A. Tvardovsky.

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

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

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

reworking the novel under her pressure. Sugary idealization by critics of actual reality, their smoothing out of the tragedy and contradictions of life. Rejection of truthful, deep works: V. Yermilov’s article “The slanderous story of A. Platonov” in the “Literaturnaya Gazeta” dated January 4, 1947 about the story “Ivanov’s Family”, the accusation of M. Isakovsky’s criticism of pessimism for the poem “Enemies burned their own hut. ..”, suppression of the poem by A. Tvardovsky “House by the Road”, etc.

The complete unpredictability of this or that ostracism from a literary and often even political point of view. Loud condemnation of such different works as E. Kazakevich's story "Two in the Steppe", stories by Y. Yanovsky, V. Kataev's serial novel "For the Power of the Soviets!", V. Grossman's comedy "According to the Pythagoreans" and his novel "For a Just Cause ”, a poem by V. Sosyura “Love Ukraine” and a cycle of poems by K. Simonov “With you and without you” (accusation of Simonov by A. Tarasenkov in rude erotica for the line “Weaned men from women's caresses”). A wary attitude towards V. Nekrasov's story "In the trenches of Stalingrad", which opens a new trend in military prose; the exceptional fact of criticism of the story after the award of the Stalin Prize for it (1946). The exaltation of weak, lacquering, anti-historical works, often awarded Stalin Prizes.

Campaign against "cosmopolitanism" and "bourgeois nationalism", in particular against the "anti-patriotic group" of theater critics at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s.

The exclusion from literature and art of not only many historical themes, but also the themes of the Great Patriotic War (until the mid-1950s) as a result of the propaganda of "majestic" modernity. Schematization of the current literary process, the use of the same cliches when characterizing modern prose writers and poets, a "list" approach to them. The opportunistic position of many critics, unwillingness to speak out about the work before its official assessment, the rapid change in assessments to the opposite. The outflow of a large part of the critics in literary criticism.

Establishment of the concept of "two streams" in the history of Russian literature. Modernization of the consciousness of classical writers, "pulling up" them to to the Decembrists and especially to the revolutionary democrats, which is also treated in many works in a schematic and non-historical way, i.e., the transformation of literary science into a bad kind of criticism. Dominance in literary criticism of the genre of a descriptive monograph without analyzing the worldview of writers, explaining the work of Gorky and other artists as illustrating political ideas. Unscientific, sharply negative assessments of the heritage of A. N. Veselovsky and a number of works by modern philologists: V. M. Zhirmunsky, V. Ya. Propp, etc. The fall in the level of literary criticism with inevitable corresponding consequences for criticism.

A purely scholastic discussion in the press of the second half of the 40s and early 50s, including the party, methodological and theoretical problems of criticism and literary criticism: the belonging of art to the superstructure, the method of socialist realism, its essence and time of occurrence, typical. Normativity of most works of this kind. 1948 discussion on drama theory. Criticism of the "conflict-free theory", its contradictions. Three interpretations of non-conflict: accurate, literal, rejecting primitive lacquer works; attribution to the number of conflict-free works on topics of a personal and universal nature; the demand for an indispensable display of the victorious struggle of the “new, progressive” with the backward, with the “rotten people”, which maintained an atmosphere of suspicion and intolerance in society.

Declarations coming from above in the early 1950s. about the need for Soviet satire. Statements in criticism about the "ideal hero", "holiday" literature and other statements of semi-official optimism

chesky character; correspondence to them in the existing ideas about modern "romanticism".

Attempts to comprehend and rethink the literary process in 1952-1954, before the Second Congress of Soviet Writers. Recognition by critics of L. Leonov's "Russian Forest", the works of V. Ovechkin and V. Tendryakov about the village. V. Pomerantsev's article "On Sincerity in Literature" (1953), which condemned the bulk of modern literature, was rejected by critics and most writers as "Perevalskaya" and anti-party. Ironic exposure of all varnish literature about the village in principle article F. Abramova "People collective farm village in post-war prose" (1954) and its rejection at the time.

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

Discussions about the poet's self-expression as a worthy one to make his inner world an object of art, about the so-called "Tvardovsky school" ("village"), which was considered to claim dominance in poetry. Collection of articles "Conversation before the Congress" (1954), which includes articles by representatives of the disputing, opposing sides.

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

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

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

Literary and critical work of M. A. Shcheglov (1925-1956) - articles 1953-1956. A subtle analysis of the works, which at that time created the impression of heightened aesthetic criticism. The depth of theoretical and critical considerations of M. Shcheglov. Features of his historicism, the unity of ethical and aesthetic approaches, anticipating the methodology of the "New World" criticism of the 60s. The thematic and genre variety of Shcheglov's articles, the revival of the essayistic principle in criticism ("Alexander Grin's Ships", 1956), a lively, uninhibited style.

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

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

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

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

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

Literature of the mid and late 50s in the mirror of criticism: universal or wide official approval of "The Fate of a Man" and the second book of "Virgin Soil Upturned" by M. Sholokhov, A. Tvardovsky's poem "Beyond the Distance - Distance", G. Nikolaeva's novels "The Battle on the Road" ”, Sun. Kochetov "The Brothers Ershov", V. Kozhevnikov "Toward the Dawn", A. Chakovsky's story "Year of Life"; condemnation of the “Sentimental Novel” in Panova, the story “Span of the Earth” by G. Baklanov, the plays by A. Volodin “Five Evenings” and L. Zorin “Guests” for seeming excessive intimacy of tone or insufficient citizenship and optimism. Opposite statements about the story of V. Nekrasov "In his native city".

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

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

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

The Unity and Diversity of Multinational Soviet Literature in the Discussions of the Second Half of the 1950s and Early 1960s Book G Lomidze "Unity and Diversity" (1957). The formula "unity in diversity", proposed by L. Novichenko in the report "On the diversity of art forms in the literature of socialist realism" (1959). Speculative use by a number of critics of the thesis of diversity in polemics with V. Nekrasov's article "The words 'great' into 'simple'" (Iskusstvo kino. 1959. No. 5-6), directed against pathos in art. Numerous objections to the classification Literature XIX-XX centuries from the point of view of the scale of depicting facts and events (Sarnov B. "Globe" and "double-layout map" / / Literary newspaper. 1959. July 9).

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

(1958) - warnings against "hobbies", which slowed down the development of the history of literature of the 20th century, but prevented a possible purely negative reaction of officialdom. A more complete and deeper assimilation by society of the spiritual and aesthetic experience of Russian classics, the inclusion of F. M. Dostoevsky in a number of its full representatives. Revision of the attitude to the scientific heritage of A. N. Veselovsky. Introducing readers to foreign literature of the 20th century, breaking through the "Iron Curtain" and the impact of this fact on the consciousness of the younger generation. Positive judgments in criticism of foreign literature of the XX century.

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

The heterogeneity of the spiritual life of society and cultural policy in the 60s. Their relative liberalization in the first half of the decade and curtailment of the consequences of the "thaw" in the second. Preservation in the literary process of the tendencies generated by the criticism of the "cult of personality", until 1970, mainly due to the position of the "New World" edited by A. Tvardovsky. An increased tendency to think on a large historical scale in connection with utopian hopes for an early social (communist) and scientific and technological transformation of everything peace. Debate in the late 1950s "What is modernity?" (collection of the same name, 1960). The appearance of the definition of "sixties" in the article Art. Rassadin “The Sixties. Books about a young contemporary ”(Youth. 1960. No. 12). Disputes about the generations of Soviet writers, primarily about the "fourth generation" (the definition of A. Makarov and F. Kuznetsov) - "young prose" and poetry. The fears of older critics about the gap and opposition of generations, excessive, in their opinion, enthusiasm for modernism and the "Silver Age" of Russian literature, orientation towards the literature of the West. N. S. Khrushchev’s support for criticism of the “boys”. A. N. Makarov’s special position: real help from talented young people close to the general reader (the works “Strict Life”, “In Five Years”, “Victor Astafiev”, etc.), and objections to uncritical faith in “written”, ignorance of life , hasty unambiguous conclusions (internal review of the book by L. Anninsky "The Kernel of a Nut"). The influx of a large young recruit into criticism: I. Zolotussky, F. Kuznetsov, A. Marchenko, D. Nikolaev, St. Rassadin, V. Kozhinov, A. Urban, O. Mikhailov and others. Publication in 1962 of a collection of articles by young critics “Towards the Future”.

Polarization of literary-critical forces after a new, more resolute criticism of Stalin's personality cult at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961). Novy Mir is the most consistent literary organ in pursuing this line. Particular attention of readers to the critical section of the journal. Authors of the department V. Lakshin, I. Vinogradov, V. Kardin, St. Rassadin, Yu-Burtin, I. Dedkov, F. Svetov, N. Ilyina and others;

senior "Novomir": A. Dementiev, I. Sats, A. Kondratovich. The opening of the magazine creativity A. Solzhenitsyn; the acceptance by official critics of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich caused by opportunistic considerations (V. Yermilov's article in Pravda, combining Solzhenitsyn's story and V. Kozhevnikov's illustrative and propagandistic story Meet Baluev); the subsequent increase in claims against Solzhenitsyn, V. Lakshin's polemic with the "enemies" of "Ivan Denisovich". Nomination by Novy Mir of works by A. Solzhenitsyn and S. Zalygin (On the Irtysh) for the Lenin Prize; the failure of this attempt by the nomenklatura with the assistance of L. I. Brezhnev. Criticism of other stories of Solzhenitsyn. Discussions in the Writers' Union at closed doors his unpublished major works.

Other works that were not accepted by semi-official criticism of the 60s: stories and travel essays by V. Nekrasov, memoirs by I. Ehrenburg, V. Aksenov's "Star Ticket", "Be healthy, schoolboy!" B. Okudzhava and the collection Tarusa Pages, Alive by B. Mozhaev, Seven in One House by V. Semin, military stories by V. Bykov, etc. The 1963 campaign against E. Yevtushenko. Caustic criticism in the "New World" of many illustrative-declarative, normative works in prose and verse; along with this, a fundamental, sometimes captious analysis of the shortcomings of even authors objectively close to the journal. The predominance of scathingly critical reviews in Novy Mir. Constant polemics with semi-official criticism, especially with the authors of the magazine "October" ( Chief Editor Sun. Kochetov), ​​more conservative and loyal to Stalinist dogmas, but also more direct than the ideological leaders of the country. Posture of impartiality in the article "Pravda" dated January 27, 1967 "When they are behind the times", allegedly directed equally against the "New World" and "October".

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

Mature works of A. N. Makarov (1912-1967). The critic's path from a pamphlet on varnishing novels by S. Babaevsky (1951), not devoid of the opportunistic "Conversation about" to detailed and objective studies of the 60s. His main interests are poetry, military prose, the work of the young. The “centrist” position of the critic, speeches from the point of view of the multi-million readership. Weighted, detailed justified estimates. The manner of a thoughtful, unhurried conversation with the reader. Commitment to analytical commentary retelling of literary texts, attention to detail and words. Discovery of new names of writers, interest in their future destinies - Genre of internal review in Makarov's legacy Influence of criticism's advice on the authors of works. Separate dogmatic judgments of Makarov are a tribute to the prevailing historical and literary ideas.

The transformation of the "New World" into an organ of the legal opposition after the change of the political leadership of the country (1964) and the departure of new leaders from the line of the XX-XXII Party Congresses. Confirmation of loyalty to the previous course in the article by A. Tvardovsky "On the occasion of the anniversary" (1965. No. 1). The controversy about the novel by M. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita", which had a modern connotation. An article by I. Vinogradov (1968) about V. Nekrasov's old story "In the trenches of Stalingrad", designed to protect artistic principles modern military ("lieutenant") prose. Novy Mir's Appeals to Readers' Opinions, V. Lakshin's Commenting on Their Letters. Clashes around the works of A. Solzhenitsyn "Matrenin Dvor" and V. Semin "Seven in one house". The main problems of discussions between journals of opposite directions: “the truth of the century” and “the truth of the fact”, “trench truth”;

a modern hero - a "simple person" or a "hero with a wormhole" (accusations addressed to the "Novomirites" of "deheroization" of Soviet literature, of rejection of a socially active position); citizenship slogan. The close interweaving of the ethical and the aesthetic in the articles of Novy Mir. Their lively, free style without stylization for colloquialism and vernacular.

The emergence of illegal opposition to the regime in literary circles. The first fact of prosecution for literary works- "case" of A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel (1966). Diametrically opposed reactions to it by many cultural figures. Created by A. Sinyavsky in the conclusion of the essay "Walks with Pushkin".

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

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

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

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

Criticism and literary criticism of the 60s. Outstanding successes in literary criticism compared to criticism: the works of M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, V. M. Zhirmunsky, N. I. Konrad, Yu. M. Lotman, S. G. Bocharov and others. criticism, authors working both in science and in criticism. Wide recognition of scientific and artistic historicism. Attempts to pose big theoretical problems in articles addressed to a wide range of readers, in particular, the problems of the existence of varieties of literature with incomparable requirements for the depth and seriousness of works (I. Rodnyanskaya “On Fiction and“ Strict “Art”, 1962; V. Kozhinov “ Light and Serious Poetry", 1965. Discussion about the language of modern works, directed mainly against jargon in "young prose". Criticism of V. Turbin's defiantly original and unconventional book "Comrade Time and Comrade Art" (1961) due to the positive opinion of the author about non-realistic forms and the thesis about the outdatedness of psychologism.

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

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

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

Raising the educational level of society and the rapid development of humanitarian interests along with stagnation in social psychology. "Book Boom" The general growth of artistic quality in the literature of the 70s and early 80s, which took on the healthy impulse of the 60s. The dominance of moral issues in serious literature and criticism, their desire for philosophy in the 70-80s. as a consequence of the unfulfillment of many socio-political potentials. An objective need for increased interpretative activity, for significant changes in the state of criticism, and the impossibility of fully satisfying this need in an atmosphere of stagnation.

Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On Literary and Artistic Criticism" (1972) and organizational measures for its implementation: an increase in the stable "area" for critical articles in specialized and mass magazines and newspapers, the publication of "Literary Review" and "In the World of Books", many collections of articles, the use of technical media to promote literature, the creation of conditions for the training of professional critics in the Writers' Union and the Literary Institute, the holding of meetings and seminars on literary criticism, the inclusion in the curricula of universities of the course "History of Russian Soviet Criticism", Scientific research in this area (in parallel with the systematic study of the history of Russian literary criticism due to the increased “self-awareness” of science), new series devoted to criticism in publishing houses, a much wider review and annotation of critical works, awarding prizes for them (according to the ideological principle). Decree "On work with creative youth" (1976). Resumed since 1978, the issue of the journal "Literary Education" is the only body in which criticism of the works of novice authors is constantly given simultaneously with their publication. Ignoring the work of the young by "venerable" critics and as a counterbalance - holding seminars for young critics, publishing collections "Young about the Young". Exaggerated hopes for the discovery of new names. Disputes about the "generation of forty" in the early 80s. (V. Bondarenko, Vl. Gusev - - on the one hand, I. Dedkov - on the other).

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

Estimates of the general level of current literature. The abundance of articles devoted to the literary results of the 70s. A. Bocharov's thesis about the "fatigue" of "village" and military prose. Forecasts of the future of literature (Yu. Andreev, Y. Kuzmenko, participants in the 1977 discussion on poetry). Recognition by critics of the early 80s. complex, potentially very controversial for the ideologized monistic consciousness of new works: novels by Ch. Aitmatov, S. Zalygin, etc.

The main discussions in the criticism of the 70s - 80s: about synthesis in literature, about the world literary process of the 20th century, about "village prose" (the sharpest judgment about it in A. Prokhanov's speech), about the state and prospects of poetry , about new phenomena in the dramaturgy and lyrics of the 80s, about nationality and mass character, etc. The artificiality and forced nature of many discussions, the absence of a genuine dialogue in them, and often a fundamental dispute, the closure of headings not as a result of solving problems, but depending on the natural "exhalation" of the discussion. Lack of coordination between critics and uneven peer review of literary production.

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

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

preferential attention to methodology, general and theoretical problems in some; the desire to combine these problems with more detailed analysis from others; concentration on the analysis of works of one or another literary kind in the third. Different methodological solidity and depth of analysis among critics, even close in interests and directions.

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

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

The transition of the official-dogmatic attitudes of Kochetov's "October" to the magazines "Young Guard" under the leadership of an. Ivanov and "Spark" edited by A. Sofronov. The combination of these attitudes with the tendencies of the "peasant" nationality. Direct support for illustrative and declarative (B. Leonov, G. Gots, A. Baigushev);

non-analytical, emotional and journalistic assessments of poets close in worldview (Yu. Prokushev, P. Vykhodtsev and others). The critical department of "Our Contemporary", the heir to the "Young Guard" A. Nikonov, the most debatable journal of the 70-80s. His sharply polemical defense of a peasant or national nationality, the rejection of the provisions of "two cultures" in each national culture. Consistent protection and promotion of the values ​​of the Russian national cult

passion. Mutual biased attacks by critics in the almost complete absence of negative reviews of literary works, praising artistically helpless books, including those written by literary "officials".

Continued development of literary criticism, closely related to journalism (S. Zalygin, V. Shukshin, Yu. Trifonov, Yu. Bondarev and others). Shocking "revelations" of authorities in the speeches of Yu. Kuznetsov, St. Kunyaev. Appeals to readers' opinions, publication of letters and collections of letters from readers. Meetings of writers and critics with collectives of enterprises and other readerships as a means of bringing literature closer to life in a literal sense.

The requirements of ideological activation of criticism on the eve of the collapse of the communist regime, in the face of the complication of the political situation at the turn of the 70-80s. Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On the further improvement of ideological, political and educational work" (1979), restless notes in the materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU concerning art and literature (1981). Attempts to achieve the effectiveness of ideological work and documents of the CPSU devoid of practical significance in the first half of the 80s. Appeals to strengthen the "offensive" nature of the communist ideology, including in literary criticism.

Statements in party documents, party press and literary criticism about deviations from the Marxist-Leninist methodology, about "ahistorical", non-class tendencies in literature and criticism, about elements of God-seeking, idealization of patriarchalism, allegedly incorrect interpretation of certain periods of Russian and Soviet history and phenomena of literature, as well as critical classics, about the need to overcome the "infantility" and "ideological illegibility", characteristic of a number of writers. An undifferentiated approach to subjective, methodologically helpless articles and original, extraordinary, civilly courageous speeches. The Combination of Strengths and Weaknesses in Critical Campaign Works: Statement of the Critical Problem national identity history and culture of Russia - and the smoothing out of real social contradictions, the categorical assessment of the European peoples in the article by V. Kozhinov "And every language that exists in it will call me ..." (1981), condemnation of the revolutionary split of the people, forced collectivization - and distrust of everything coming from the West, a non-historical comparison of disparate events and facts in M. Lobanov's article "Liberation" (1982), etc.

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

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

Appeal, sometimes forced, of literary critics to popular literary criticism (I. Vinogradov, St. Rassadin, V. Nepomnyashchiy, A. Marchenko, L. Anninsky and others). The denial or belittling of the critical orientation in Russian classical literature of the 19th century, persistently pursued in articles and books by V. Kozhinov, M. Lobanov, I. Zolotussky, Yu. Loshchits, Yu. Seleznev, M. Lyubomudrov and others. content of the classics and tendentious interpretation of classical images with polemical overtones. Disputes around the ZhZL books, their support by N. Skatov, Vs. Sakharov, A. Lanshchikov and criticism by A. Dementiev, F. Kuznetsov, P. Nikolaev, V. Kuleshov, G. Berdnikov, in an editorial article of the Kommunist magazine (1979. No. 15); articles by B. Bialik, M. Khrapchenko.

Increasing the interest of critics in the creative individuality of representatives of their workshop. Creation in the 80s. their critical "portraits".

Increased attention to the poetics of critical works. Fictionization of their style, a tendency to create an "image of the author". The development of the genre composition of criticism. Significantly increased number of reviews with coverage of only 10-12% of book novelties. Differentiation of reviews and micro-reviews ("Panorama" in "Literary Review"). Consolidation of the genre of critical remark, usually polemical. Activation of the problematic article and creative portrait. The spread of collective genres: discussion "from different points of view", "round tables" and wide, extended problematic (or pseudo-problematic) discussions. Strengthened claims of author's collections of articles and reviews for monographic character. Different nature of assessments depending on the genre of criticism: often arbitrary and almost entirely positive in reviews, more strict and balanced in reviews and problematic articles, analysis of both the achievements of literature and its shortcomings in large critical genres, including collective ones. The use of "decorative" forms (dialogue, letter, diary, poetic inserts).

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

"Perestroika" as an attempt to establish "socialism with a human face" from above. The beginning of publicity. The first changes in cultural life, which manifested themselves mainly since the end of 1986.

An increase in the number of publications about literature in periodicals, an increase in their problematic and sharpness. Creation of new public organizations of cultural workers, discussion of their role and goals.

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

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

Requirements for raising the criteria for evaluating literary works. Discussing the issue of prizes for them. Statements of a general nature about the dominance of dullness. A noticeable reduction in the number of praises in honor of the owners of literary "posts". The inertia of their nameless criticism (in general terms or in the form of hints) and the appearance of the first judgments with specifically named addressees since the beginning of 1988.

A huge number of publications about V. Vysotsky in 1986-1988. The appearance of articles about A. Galich, Yu. Vizbor and other creators of the "author's song". Disputes about young poets - "meta-metaphorists". New writers' names noticed by the critics: S. Kaledin, V. Pietsukh. T. Tolstaya, E. Popov, Valery Popov and others.

Restoration of the undeservedly "excluded." from Russian and Soviet culture names and works, some polemical extremes when commenting on them in mass publications. The most passionate discussion by criticism, including readership, of publications of works previously unknown to a wide audience. The rapid increase in the attention of the public and literature to the "blank spots" of Soviet history since the autumn of 1986. The rejection by many writers of P. Proskurin's statements about "necrophilism" in modern literature and art. "Antikultovsky" 1987. The initial differentiation of writers into the categories of "Stalinists" and "anti-Stalinists". The noisy, but short-lived success of A. Rybakov's novel "Children of the Arbat", support in the criticism of a number of works, primarily on the thematic principle.

Methodological positions and problems in criticism. Departure from vigorous activity in criticism of the fighters for the “only true” methodology (F. Kuznetsov, Yu. Surovtsev, P. Nikolaev, etc.). Unconditional dominance of the journalistic aspect of criticism. Great resonance to Syubov's principles of "real" criticism on the model of the "Novomir" articles of the 60s. (New World. 1987. No. 6). Cool attitude towards this proposal L. Anninsky, I. Vinogradov, who spoke out for absolute, free methodological pluralism, and other critics. The comparison of the Stalinist and Brezhnev periods of history, which was first heard in Y. Burtin's article "To you, from another generation ..." (October. 1987, No. 8), is a step towards the negation of the entire social system.

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

The spread of the genre of "polemical notes". Mutual recriminations of writers in the press, often of a personal nature, disputes over particulars with insufficient validity of the starting positions. Calls of I. Vinogradov, A. Latynina, D. Urnov for greater conceptuality of literary-critical speeches. Diametrically opposed assessments of the works of Ch. Aitmatov, A. Bitov, V. Bykov, D. Granin, A. Beck, A. Rybakov, Yu. Trifonov, Yu. works of a number of poets and publicists in various periodicals.

The literal revival and strengthening of the former "New World" principles (V. Lakshin, V. Kardin, B. Sarnov, S. Rassadin, N. Ivanova, T. Ivanova). More balanced, although less catchy and noticeable in comparison with the criticism of the “Ogonkovo” type of speech by A. Bocharov, E. Sidorov, Al. Mikhailov, G. Belaya, V. Piskunov, E. Starikova. The activation of the creative activity of the "forty-year-old" critics S. Chuprinin and Vl. Novikov.

Rapprochement of the positions of the magazines "Our Contemporary" and "Young Guard". Critics of the "Young Guard": A. Ovcharenko, V. Bushin, A. Baigushev, V. Khatyushin and others. The proximity of their positions to the official guidelines of the previous period, but with a focus on Russian national patriotism. The desire of the most serious authors of the magazine "Our Contemporary" (V. Kozhinov, A. Lanshchikov) to understand the social causes historical events that determined the fate of the people, and from this point of view to assess the works about the "blank spots" of Soviet history. The tendentiousness of a number of practical conclusions, the speeches of the "Young Guard", "Our Contemporary" and "Moscow" against many works published during the "perestroika" period. Disputes around "Doctor Zhivago" by B. Pasternak, works of writers of Russian abroad (the third wave of emigration).

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

either recognition of Russia's exclusively distinctive historical path and the advantage of transpersonal values ​​(folk in Our Contemporary, state in Young Guard) over individual personal values, or the democratic principle of the priority of the individual and recognition of the main common path of mankind, which Russia should also follow . Superposition on the main ideological, socio-political divergence of everyday and psychological predilections, sympathies and antipathies.

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

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

Revision of the main values ​​of Russian literature of the XX century. Severe assessment of the path of Soviet literature in the articles by M. Chudakova, V. Vozdvizhensky, E. Dobrenko and others. and other unconditionally revered earlier writers. A refutation of this kind of statements in the articles by V. Baranov, Ad. Mikhailova, S. Borovikova, and others. Periodic appearance of new highly revealing articles with relatively little reader interest in them.

Increased attention to the genres of criticism. Increasing importance of the problematic article genre. Selective reviews of magazine production by months. Annual reviews of the literature, questionnaires on the status of journals, contemporary criticism and journalism, sociological data on the success of readers of certain works and periodicals.

Criticism after 1991

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

The general cultural orientation of many periodicals, the spread of facilitated popularization. Transferring the attention of the mass reader from the magazine to the newspaper. Activity in the field of criticism of some non-specialized newspapers, primarily Nezavisimaya Gazeta (since 1991), responses to the "stream" - numerous new works - without serious attempts to identify trends in the development of literature as a whole, including the actual appeal to the elite reader in uninhibited form, characteristic of mass publications (A. Nemzer, A. Arkhangelsky and others).

Loss of the leading position by the former critics - "six-forties" (except for L. Anninsky). Condemnation of the "sixties" by a number of young critics.

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

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

Distribution of small-circulation publications such as almanacs without consistent periodicity, often being the organs of literary circles, including emphatically anti-traditionalist ones. A very free, "debunking" attitude to classical Russian literature in the publications of D. Galkovsky, A. Ageev, E. Lyamport, I. Solonevich and others. DeideologistZnamya. 1996. No. 3).

"Returned" criticism (Russian abroad)

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

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

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

An interested attitude towards both emigre and Soviet literature, the constantly arising question about the advantages and prospects of one or the other, resolved in an anti-Soviet, "pro-Soviet" or, less often, conciliatory spirit, taking into account the predominance of the artistic factor itself. The most irreconcilable positions in relation to Soviet literature are I. A. Bunin, Anton Krainy (3. N. Gippius), V. Nabokov. The idea of ​​a special mission of the Russian emigration as the guardian of national culture. One of the early manifestations of the opposite position is D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky's article "Russian Literature after 1917" (1922). M. L. Slonim’s controversy with Anton Krainim in the article “Living Literature and Dead Critics” (1924), declaring Paris “not the capital, but the district of Russian literature”, emphasizing the continuity of early post-revolutionary literature in Russia from pre-revolutionary (“Ten years of Russian literature ”), the book “Portraits of Soviet Writers” (Paris, 1933) with essays on the work of S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky, B. Pasternak, E. Zamyatin, Vs. Ivanov, P. Romanov, A. Tolstoy, M. Zoshchenko, I. Ehrenburg, K. Fedin, B. Pilnyak, I. Babel, L. Leonov, with Pasternak's preference for the rest of the surviving poets.

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

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

Eurasianism and the spread of recognition of the USSR in the emigrant environment, which gave rise in the 40s. "Soviet patriotism". The most striking critic among the Eurasians is Prince D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. His articles filled with sympathy for Soviet literature and the USSR. His repatriation in 1932 and his transformation into the Soviet critic D. Mirsky. Articles on poetry, participation in the discussion about the historical novel (1934). Disappointment in the prospects of Soviet literature, a speech against "The Last of the Udege" by A. Fadeev (1935) and an attack on D. Mirsky by critical officialdom. Arrest and death in the camp.

A strong impression made on émigré criticism by Fadeev's novel "The Rout". V. Khodasevich's support of M. Zoshchenko's creativity as exposing the Soviet society. Articles by M. Tsvetaeva "Epos and lyrics of modern Russia" (1933), "Poets with history and poets without history" (1934). "Discovery" by G. Adamovich of A. Platonov as a writer and critic. Reviews of Soviet journals in foreign criticism, reviews of new works by Soviet writers and poets. The ardent sympathy of many emigrants for the USSR during the Second World War and the high appreciation by I. Bunin of "Vasily Terkin" by A. Tvardovsky. The collapse of the hopes of emigrants for a warming of the atmosphere in the USSR in the post-war years.

Estimates of creativity of writers and poets of Russian abroad. I. Bunin and D. Merezhkovsky as two contenders for the Nobel Prize;

awarding the prize to Bunin in 1933. The popularity of I. Shmelev and M. Aldanov in various circles of emigration. Shmelev's accusations of being reactionary on the part of radical writers. An exceptionally high evaluation of Shmelev's work by the most characteristic representative of religious and philosophical criticism, the Orthodox Orthodox I. A. Ilyin. His accusation of Merezhkovsky, and in many respects of all non-orthodox Orthodox humanitarian thought, of the moral preparation of Bolshevism. Research by I. Ilyin “On Darkness and Enlightenment. Book of Artistic Criticism. Bunin. Remizov. Shmelev” (Munich, 1959; M., 1991). Positive characteristics of senior Russian emigrant writers by G. Adamovich with a skeptical attitude towards the authenticity of Shmelev's depiction of "holy Rus'". Isolation of M. Tsvetaeva in exile. Recognition by critics as the first poet of the Russian abroad V. Khodasevich, and after his death - G. Ivanov.

The closeness of the majority of older writers in their circle, insufficient attention to the work of the young, explained by the initial hopes for a speedy return to Russia after the collapse of the Bolsheviks and the restoration of normal continuity in life (G. Adamovich). The merits of V. Khodasevich, who, in contrast to many others, supported the work of Sirin (V. Nabokov) and - with reservations - some young poets. An element of subjectivity in Khodasevich's interpretation of Sirin's novels, seeing in them the hero-"artist" without fail. Mostly benevolent criticism of the works of G. Gazdanov (with an exaggeration of the "Proustian" beginning in them) and B. Poplavsky. Controversy about "young literature": speeches by M. Aldanov, G. Gazdanov, M. Osorgin, M. Tsetlin, Y. Terapiano;

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

Awareness of the advantages of emigration by critics: the absence of political pressure, the preservation of a prepared readership, the continuity of tradition, contact with European literature (F. Stepun, G. Adamovich, V. Weidle).

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

Essay writing: M. Osorgin, G. Gazdanov, V. Nabokov (written by D. S. Mirsky, V. Nabokov).

"What is socialist realism" (1957) by Abram Tertz (Andrey Sinyavsky) - the first speech of the Soviet dissident writer in the Western press during the "thaw". Emigration in the 60s Ark. Belinkov, the author of books about Y. Tynyanov and Y. Olesha with moral claims to these writers, and his rejection of Western liberalism.

The third wave of emigration and the preservation in it of traces of the literary situation that has developed in the USSR since the second half of the 60s. Confrontation of Western and "soil" tendencies, their expression in the opposition of the magazines "Syntax" by M. Rozanova and "Continent" by V. Maksimov. The absence among emigrants of the third wave of critics as such, a new convergence of criticism and literary criticism, often politicized.

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

The disappearance of fundamental differences between the Russian and émigré press after 1991. Publications by Russian critics in Western Russian-language publications and by émigrés in Russian. The new ("Moscow") edition of the "Continent" headed by an Orthodox liberal, a former "Novomir" member of the sixties I. Vinogradov. Permanent (from the 78th issue) heading "Bibliographic Service" Continent "". Publication in Russia of the collection of articles by N. Struve "Orthodoxy and Culture" (1992).

The loss of the majority of emigre magazines of their face in the absence of the usual image of the enemy. Repetition by former "Sovietologists" in the West of what was passed by Soviet criticism during the years of "perestroika". The most actively published in "perestroika" and "post-perestroika" Russia are emigrant critics: P. Weil and A. Genis, B. Groys, G. Pomerants, B. Paramonov and others. Foreigners - "Sovietologists" and Russianists in the Russian press : V. Strada, K. Clark, A. Flaxser, etc. Availability of emigrant publications to the Russian reader and the lack of wide interest in them due to the new state of public and literary consciousness in Russia.