What is the national identity of Russian literature. National originality and nationality of literaturenational originality of literaturenationality of literature

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

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

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

1. World significance and national identity of Russian literature of the XIX century. Your opinion about the works known to you on this issue. When studying what school topics can you use the methodology for solving the above problem?

In Russia in the 19th century, an unprecedented rise in literature takes place and is included on an equal footing in the cultural process. This era is usually characterized as the "golden age", the time of the flourishing of creativity and the birth of philosophical thought, the formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin. Literary centrism is an important feature. On the works of writers of that time, we learn humanity, patriotism, we study our history. More than one generation of people - Humans - has grown up on this "classic". Romanticism becomes the leading artistic method, although at the end of the 30s of the 19th century, realism will take the leading place in literature.

Russian literature is distinguished by its humaneness, purposefulness and humanity, which seeks to express its opinion. In Russia, philosophy is individual. One of the main problems is the problem of morality; each author has his own solutions to this problem. Moral issues became the main one and almost all Russian writings converged in the 1st formation of high ideals. High in Russia is the overcoming of egoism and individualism. And the high active heroic those for Russian writers are the most demanding attitude. In Russia it has never been possible to live a separate destiny. Russian society is always collective. Russ liter is characterized by the choice of morals for oneself and for the whole world. Russ the author showed life in communion with the whole world. This is connected with the epic thinking of Russian heroes, the heroes of Gogol Tolstoy always communicate with the nation. This soil was favorable for the development of novels. Russ novels have had a major impact on the west. The heroes were colossal, they were not familiar to the reader, the Russians knew how to deal with the question of being. But the essence and the reverse moment when the authors penetrated into the national. In order to consider this issue in more detail, one can refer to the work of Kasyanova “Russian national character” in the book, she says that a Russian person is characterized by a value orientation, for example, the ability to achieve a goal. Russia and the West have different goals in life. The idea of ​​cultivating high feelings and ideals is high, and high is selfishness.

The world significance of literature is closely connected with national identity: romantics turn to national events, since the 19th century is the century of epoch-making events on a global scale (the war of 1812), these are changes in public consciousness, a pronounced spirit of patriotism. The reforms of 1861 lead to a polarization of social consciousness and a sense of personality finds its expression in the images of literature. For example, the era of Decembrism gives rise to the ideal of a free person, thus the theme of a free person becomes central. The activities of writers were not limited to their subjective spiritual world: they actively showed interest in social life, folklore works and interacted with foreign writers. Therefore, the literature of the 19th century carries a global coverage of the entire socio-political life of that time and reflects the worldview of its era. National identity is reflected in the typology of portraits of people, the generalization of their vices and pronounced personality traits: 1) In the center of the liter. 19 in the problem of growing a sense of personality: the image of a young man does not satisfy the modern way of life 2). A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol identified the main artistic types that would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is the artistic type of the “superfluous person”, an example of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called type of "little man", which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story "The Overcoat", as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story "The Stationmaster".

3).National atmosphere in literature, the development of the Russian national character

4). Condemnation by the writers of the isolation of the intelligentsia from the people, as isolation from their roots. 5). the ideal of personality - the ratio of one personality to the existence of the whole people (lack of egocentrism, self-will)

6) the writer's attention to psychological and social analysis. You can also refer to the work of Belinsky's view of the Russian liter. At school, this question can be used in introductory Russian lessons of the 19th century. For example, maybe such a topic as thin liters as an art form

2. Problems of periodization of Russian literature of the 19th century. What starting point do you prefer to take as the basis for the periodization of the work of writers studied in the 9th grade?

The purpose of periodization is not the creation of a rigid scheme, but the designation of a number of main landmarks at each stage of the literary movement.

The 19th century began with the formation of romanticism. The ideological prerequisites of romanticism are disappointment in the Great French Revolution in bourgeois civilization in general (in its vulgarity, prosaic, lack of spirituality). The mood of hopelessness, despair, "world sorrow" is the disease of the century, inherent in the heroes of Chateaubriand, Byron, Musset. At the same time, they are characterized by a sense of hidden wealth and boundless possibilities of being. Poetry works by poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykov. Creativity F.I. Tyutchev ". However, the central figure of this time was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin - Russian poetry of the 19th century was closely connected with the public political life countries. Poets tried to comprehend the idea of ​​their special purpose. The poet in Russia was considered a conductor of divine truth, a prophet. Youth determines the subsequent paths of development of the character of a mature person - this is the significance of this age for human life as a historical whole. 2nd period. In the 2nd half of the 10s, a new revolutionary-romantic trend was born in RL, the cat reaches a rise in the 1st half of the 20s in the TV-ve of Pushkin and the Decembrist poets. The ideological and TV originality of the revolution of romanticism is associated with historical events (a revolution that developed the ideals of freedom, brotherhood and equality)

Since the middle of the 19th century, the formation of Russian realistic literature has been taking place, which has been created against the background of the tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. There is a need to create a realistic literature that is sharply responsive to the socio-political situation in the country. Literary critic V.G. Belinsky marks a new realistic trend in literature. His position is being developed by N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky. A dispute arises between Westernizers and Slavophiles about the paths of Russia's historical development. Writers turn to the socio-political problems of Russian reality. The genre of the realistic novel is developing. Their works are created by I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov. The socio-political prevails philosophical problems. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism.

Second half of the 19th century and was the heyday of Russian critical realism. In the mid-1950s, Russia experienced an unusually powerful social upsurge. The tsarist government was forced to start preparing a peasant reform, around which an ideological, political and literary struggle unfolded.

The critical activity of Chernyshevsky and his closest collaborator Dobrolyubov contributed to the penetration of progressive, emancipatory ideas into literature and the further development of realism. In an atmosphere of public enthusiasm, intense ideological struggle, Russian realist writers created an unprecedented number of outstanding works of art. In these works, in the full sense of the word, classical, the characteristic features of Russian literature were most clearly woven: high civic feelings, the breadth of the depiction of life, and the deep disclosure of its contradictions. Mercilessly exposing the oppressors of the people - landowners, bourgeois businessmen, high-ranking officials, Russian writers contrasted them with working people in whom something did not kill the best human qualities: diligence and selflessness, sincerity and spiritual purity.

The literary process of the late 19th century discovered the names of N.S. Leskova, A.N. Ostrovsky A.P. Chekhov. The latter proved to be a master of the small literary genre- story, and also an excellent playwright. Competitor A.P. Chekhov was Maxim Gorky. The end of the 19th century was marked by the formation of pre-revolutionary sentiments. The realist tradition was beginning to fade. It was replaced by the so-called decadent literature

3. Features of the literary life of the 1810s

In the 1810s - eclicism - a mixture of literature. current: sentimentalism, classicism, romanticism. Zhukovsky as the founder of psychological romanticism. An important factor influencing the work of romanticists in the 1810s was the creation by Karamzin of a reform on the Russian word, where the writer sought to add plasticity and sophistication to the Russian language, introducing foreign borrowings into everyday life, replacing Church Slavonic vocabulary. Poetic works of poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, Byron, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykov. Creativity F.I. Tyutchev's "Golden Age" of Russian poetry was completed.

The main event of this period is the development of romanticism. The first third of the 19th century is called the "golden age" of Russian culture. Its beginning coincided with the era of classicism in Russian literature and art. In the first decades of the century, poetry was the leading genre in Russian literature. A.S. Pushkin became a symbol of his era. Rapid ascent to cultural development Russia. The rise of general life causes the rapid growth of journalism. There are many new magazines. There are literary circles that contributed to the aesthetic. self-determination. There is an ideological struggle going on. There are no masterpieces, but letters and memoirs of poets say that it was a turbulent era. The mass lit-ra is developing especially

4. I.A. Krylov the fabulist. The people of Krylov's fables

Next to romanticism, the educational stream in Russian literature continued to live and develop, represented by Krylov's fables. The author was interested not so much in the personal experiences of a person as in the social and social organism that caused these experiences. Man was considered by him as a social, not a private individual. Krylov dared to make the people's consciousness the highest value in his artistic system: he has the common sense of the people - the subject of artistic expression, the supreme judge, who makes a wise, sparklingly cheerful or destroying sentence of reality. a kind of field that emotionally affects the consciousness of the protagonist)

In the note “On the Preface to the Translation of Krylov’s Fables,” Pushkin pointed to “the cheerful slyness of the mind, mockery and picturesque way of expressing himself” as “a distinctive feature in our morals” and it was in this sense that he considered Krylov “representative of the spirit” of the Russian people. Indeed, the ironic intonation of the narrative is one of key features his fables.

The problem of the people put forward before the Russian writers the task of overcoming the class limitations of their worldview and moving to the position of "people's opinion".

Most consistently and impressively, the nationality of Krylov’s creativity manifested itself in fables dedicated to the Patriotic War of 1812 (“Crow and Chicken”, “Wolf in the kennel”, “Pike and Cat”, “Section”, “Convoy”, “Cat and Cook”) . Krylov, long before L. Tolstoy, opposed the official version of the victories over Napoleon with his interpretation of them from the standpoint of folk morality. It is no coincidence that in the fable "Chizh and the Hedgehog" (1814), with sly simplicity, he refused to "sing" the merits of Alexander I in the victory over the invasion, glorifying Kutuzov as a people's commander.

The uniqueness of fables in their very idea is only to slightly push a person to independently analyze and think carefully about what the essence is, who is right and wrong, and why it actually happened. The typicality of the images created by Krylov, the versatility of satire, the author's observation ability, the ability to convey the stable features of the human character, the true nationality made his fables immortal. From the fact that Krylov's works are completely devoid of high philosophy and are more like fairy tales, the meaning of the fables concerns the most ordinary situations in our life. This quality of stories makes them so useful for reflection: after all, it is only through "everyday" simple examples that one can see something deeper.

The consciousness of a Russian person was illuminated by Krylov not from the height of the "theories" of learned sages, but by the moral experience of the people, that is, the experience of everyone, without distinction of estates and titles, for any person is part of the past, present and future history. Reading Krylov's fables, people willingly learned to understand themselves. The fables of Ivan Krylov are really written in an accessible way vernacular which, however, does not deprive them of the richness of artistic and expressive means, with the help of which the beauty of the literary Russian language is revealed. Krylov entered their homes and hearts. From a writer famous literary circles, he immediately, suddenly became "his own" throughout Russia. Thanks to the light comical language, Krylov's stories are accessible to everyone and are positively assimilated by the public. Probably, this is due to the special benevolent proximity to the people and the absence of unnecessary intricate storylines.

5. The controversy between "archaists" and "innovators" on the issue of the Russian literary language at the beginning of the 19th century

Karamzin's prose and poetry had a decisive influence on the development of the Russian literary language. Karamzin deliberately refused to use Church Slavonic vocabulary and grammar, bringing the language of his works to the everyday language of his era and using French grammar and syntax as a model. Karamzin introduced many new words into the Russian language - as neologisms ("charity", "love", "freethinking", "attraction", "responsibility", "suspicion", "industry", "refinement", "first-class", " humane"), and barbarisms ("sidewalk", "coachman"). He was also one of the first to use the letter Y. Possessing an extraordinary stylistic flair, he introduced the Russian language into such barbarisms (direct borrowings of foreign words) that organically took root in it: civilization, era, moment, catastrophe, serious, aesthetic, moral, pavement and etc.;

The changes in the language proposed by Karamzin caused a heated controversy in the 1810s. The writer A. S. Shishkov, with the assistance of Derzhavin, founded in 1811 the society “Conversation of the Lovers of the Russian Word”, the purpose of which was to promote the “old” language, as well as to criticize Karamzin, Zhukovsky and their followers. In response, in 1815, the literary society "Arzamas" was formed, which sneered at the authors of "Conversations" and parodied their works. Many poets of the new generation became members of the society, including Batyushkov, Vyazemsky, Davydov, Zhukovsky, Pushkin. The literary victory of "Arzamas" over "Conversation" strengthened the victory of the language changes introduced by Karamzin.

Sometimes Shishkov's criticism of him was apt and precise. Shishkov was outraged by the evasiveness and aesthetic covetousness in the speeches of Karamzin and the "Karamzinists": he believed that instead of the expression "when travel became a need of my soul," one could simply say: "when I fell in love with traveling"; In defiance of Karamzinskaya, Shishkov proposed his own reform of the Russian language: he believed that the concepts and feelings missing in our everyday life should be denoted by new words formed from the roots not of French, but of Russian and Old Slavonic languages. An Old Believer, an admirer of the language of Lomonosov, He advocated the return of literature to oral folk art, to folk vernacular, to Orthodox Church Slavonic literature. He reproached the "Karamzinists" for having succumbed to the temptation of European revolutionary false teachings. He considered the style of the language a sign of the author's ideological affiliation.

It seemed to Shishkov that Karamzin's language reform was unpatriotic and even anti-religious.

Where there is no faith in the hearts, there is no piety in the tongue. Where there is no love for the fatherland, there the language does not express domestic feelings. And since Karamzin reacted negatively to the abundance of Church Slavonic words in the Russian language, Shishkov argued that Karamzin's innovations distorted his noble majestic simplicity. Shishkov reproached Karamzin for the immoderate use of barbarisms (epoch, harmony, enthusiasm, catastrophe), neologisms disgusted him, artificial words cut his ear: present, future, well-read.

6. The ideological and artistic originality of the work of the Radishchev poets, their contribution to the development of Russian classicism. Analysis of one poem (at the student's choice).

The classicists saw the goal of art in the knowledge of truth, which acts as an ideal of beauty. They put forward a method to achieve it, based on the three central categories of their aesthetics: reason, pattern, taste. All these categories were considered objective criteria of artistry. From the point of view of the classicists, great works are not the fruit of talent, not inspiration, not artistic imagination, but stubbornly following the dictates of reason, studying the classical works of antiquity and knowing the rules of taste. Thus they bring together artistic activity from scientific. That is why the rationalistic method of the French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), which became the basis of artistic knowledge in classicism, turned out to be acceptable for them. Descartes argued that the human mind has innate ideas, the truth of which is not in doubt. Thus, the mind becomes the central concept of the philosophy of rationalism, and then the art of classicism. The weak side of this idea was the absence of a dialectical view. The world was considered motionless, consciousness and the ideal are unchanged.

Character. In the art of classicism, attention is paid not to the particular, individual, random, but to the general, typical. Therefore, the character of the hero in literature does not have individual features, acting as a generalization of a whole type of people. Main conflict. The category of reason turns out to be central in the formation of a new type of artistic conflict discovered by classicism: the conflict between reason, duty to the state - and feeling, personal needs, passions. No matter how this conflict is resolved - by the victory of reason and duty (as in Corneille) or the victory of passions (as in Racine), only a citizen who puts his duty to the state above private life is the ideal of the classicists.

The rights of the human person, political and social freedom, the nation, nationality - all these great ideas, reflecting the changes in historical reality on the pass from feudalism to capitalism and outlined in the literature of the 18th century, have now become its main content. They demanded for themselves and new forms artistic expression. In 1801, after the return of A.N. Radishchev from exile, a circle of young like-minded people formed around him - “The Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” - I.P. Pnin, V.V. Popugaev, I.M. Born, A.Kh. Vostokov and others. They entered the history of literature under the name of Radishchev poets. They had their own magazine "Northern Messenger" and an almanac "Scroll of the Muses". At various times, N.I. collaborated with the Free Society ... Gnedich, K.N. Batyushkov and other writers. The outlook and activities of the Radishchev poets were of an educational nature. They were staunch followers and heirs of both the French and Russian Enlightenment of the 18th century. Members of the "Free Society ..." stood up for respect for the human person, for strict observance of the laws, for a fair trial. The citizen, in their opinion, had the right to think freely and fearlessly affirm Truth and Virtue.

In their creative activity, the Radishchev poets were committed to the traditions of classicism. Their favorite poetic genres were an ode, a message, an epigram. literature of the XVIII in. and with the poetics of classicism.

Hence, in Pnin's philosophical lyrics, its wide, universal frame, cosmism and allegorism of its images; from classicism in the poetics of the Radishchevites and the solemn flow of verse, measured pathos of poetic syntax, high abstract vocabulary. Pnin's philosophical ode ("Man") is, as it were, a majestic oratorio,

Classicism as a style is a system of figurative and expressive means that typify reality through the prism of antique samples, perceived as an ideal of harmony, simplicity, unambiguity, and ordered symmetry. Thus, this style reproduces only a rationalistically ordered outer shell. ancient culture without conveying its pagan, complex and indivisible essence. Not in the antique dress, but in the expression of the view of the world of a man of the absolutist era lies the essence of the style of classicism. It is distinguished by clarity, monumentality, the desire to remove all unnecessary, to create a single and integral impression.

7. The emergence and development of Russian romanticism. Its aesthetic essence and main currents. Which of the works that ambiguously resolve the issue of the genesis and essence of romanticism is close to you?

“In the 1820s. romanticism became the main event of literary life, struggle, the center of revival and noisy journal-critical controversy in Russia. Romanticism in Russia was formed before the country was to enter the period of bourgeois transformations. It reflected the disappointment of the Russian people in the existing order. It expressed the social forces that began to awaken, the desire for the growth of public self-awareness, ”Gurevich says about the emergence of romanticism in Russia in his book“ Romanticism in Russian Literature ”.

Maimin in his book “On Russian Romanticism” says that Russian romanticism was part of European romanticism, therefore, in Russian romanticism there are signs of European romanticism, but Russian romanticism also has its own origins. Namely, the war of 1812, its consequences for Russian life and self-awareness. “She showed,” Maimin writes, “the strength and greatness of the common people.” This was the basis for dissatisfaction with the slave way of life of the common people, and, as a result, for romantic and Decembrist moods.

The first who tried to make out what romanticism was were Pushkin and Ryleev, later the treatise of Georgievsky and Galich appears. In the works of Veselovsky, romanticism is seen as a manifestation of liberalism. Zamotin believes that romanticism is a manifestation, an expression of the idealistic in literature. Sipovsky defines romanticism as the individualism of the era. Sokurin says that this is irrealism. In 1957 there was a discussion on the problems of realism. On this soil appeared. collections and monographs on romanticism. One of the works is Sokolov's article "On the debate about romanticism", in which the author gives different points of view on romanticism and draws a not unimportant conclusion: each of the definitions contains a grain of truth, but not one of them "does not constitute a feeling of complete satisfaction" , because they are trying to define romanticism "by one of its characteristics." Meanwhile, “all attempts to cover romanticism with some single formula will inevitably give an impoverished, one-sided, and therefore incorrect idea of ​​this literary phenomenon. It is necessary to reveal the system of signs of romanticism and to determine the phenomenon under study according to this system. And here, in turn, Mann makes his remark: the insufficiency of any differentiated approach to romanticism, the need to “reveal the system of signs” are correctly noted by Sokolov, but at the same time he does not explain the concept of systemicity as such. The idea of ​​romanticism, at the same time, will not become truer if we judge it "not on one basis", but on a number of grounds. There is no obligation in their enumeration: it can be interrupted and resumed at any time. Each new feature is on the same plane as all the previous ones, while the binding nature of their connection would be achieved only if we could penetrate "through them" into the very organization of the artistic phenomenon. Here it is impossible not to note Volkov's introductory article to the book "History of Russian Romanticism", in which the author sets himself the task of clarifying the concept of "romanticism" and "romance" taking into account various national literatures, referring to various works on romanticism, including Sokolov's article cited above. The ambiguity and contradictory nature of the theory and history of romanticism, he relates "more to the history of this problem than to the current state of its scientific solution." He says that many terms of romanticism have already disappeared, lost their significance, and, brushing aside them, he comes to the conclusion that in modern literary criticism there are only two meanings of the term "romanticism". One of them is "the concept of romanticism as the 'transformative' side of any truly artistic creation." This concept is most consistently and fully set out in the textbook by L.I. Timofeev "Fundamentals of the theory of literature". Volkov, in turn, says that although Timofeev's theory of realism-romanticism affirms the unity of objective and subjective content in art, the cognitive and transformative functions of artistic creativity, the choice of the term "romanticism" to designate the transformative side of artistic creativity is clearly arbitrary. He explains this by the fact that the transforming side can be called sentimentalism, and expressionism and intellectualism, - after all, these terms, no less than romanticism, indicate precisely the subjective side of artistic creativity, and then the entire diversity of artistic creativity can be replaced by one of its specific historical forms. And then, within the framework of this theory, the term “romance” is more suitable (along with tragedy, satire, etc.). “One thing remains, the generally accepted meaning of the term “romanticism,” continues Sokolov, “that refers to the artistic system generated at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, and which in the first third of the 19th century constituted an entire era in the artistic development of mankind. The disputes that are going on at the present time about romanticism relate mainly to this, proper romantic art, and to the question of the possibility and existence of such art in subsequent times and in our days. Gurevich in his book “Romanticism in Russian Literature” writes: “Romanticism is a revolution in art. The era of romanticism itself is revolutionary, it is a time of great disappointments and expectations, a time of decisive changes in people's minds. Then he continues: “ Feature romanticism - dissatisfaction with reality, sometimes deep disappointment in it, deep doubt that life can be built on the principles of goodness, reason, justice. From here arises the dream of the reorganization of the world and man, the passionate desire for sublime idealization. “The unprecedented sharpness of the real and the ideal gives rise to a tense, tragic experience. This dual world is a defining feature of Romantic art.” Maimin also believes that romanticism is based on disappointment in reality. He considers the opposition of dreams and reality, of what is possible and what is, to be the deep primal point of romanticism. Gulyaev believes that romanticism and realism are two facets of the process of the subject (rum) and the object (real). P - the phenomenon of a cat occurs in a certain era, passes a certain stage and its time can be accurately determined. The time of occurrence is the 10s, the end is 30. Burevich believes that Russian romanticism arises by the 30s, i.e. Zhukovsky, Batyushkov, Ryleev, Yazykov, Pushkin, and others are not romantics. There is a problem with currents.

Maimin in his monograph "On Russian Romanticism" writes that romanticism is a phenomenon that is understood and interpreted by the romantics themselves in different ways. Here we can see an explanation of why there are various trends in Russian romanticism. Gukovsky can see several areas of romanticism. The first is represented by Zhukovsky and Batyushkov. They, as Guuovsky said, are the founders of Russian romanticism. Although the romanticism of both Zhukovsky and Batyushkov is quite different, their works have one, not unimportant feature: they do not carry any revolutionary ideas that encourage a change in the world. Both poets create their own, truly romantic world, and prefer to live in it without trying to bring their ideal into reality. This is a significant difference from Decembrist or civil, revolutionary romanticism, which, on the contrary, while creating the image of an ideal world, wanted to embody it in reality, from where revolutionary ideas and appeals came from. Outstanding representatives of this trend are Ryleev, Küchelbeker, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky and others. The tragedy of December 25, 1825 on Senate Square shattered the Decembrist ideas about life and changed their work as such. The work of Pushkin the romanticist can be defined as a separate trend in romanticism, because, despite the fact that at the beginning of his career, “Pushkin was a supporter of revolutionary upheaval,” he, nevertheless, was not a Decembrist. “Pushkin,” as Gukovsky writes in his book “Pushkin and the Problems of Realistic Style,” “began his journey as a collector and unifier of contradictions and various currents of Russian romanticism.” And, going forward in his evolution, Pushkin quite quickly moves from romanticism to realism. He makes this transition much earlier than his "brothers in the pen." Turning to the fourth and last direction of romanticism, we should return to the catastrophe of December 25, 1825, which, as mentioned above, destroyed the Decembrists' ideas about life. The search begins new concept reality, painful thoughts. The work of this trend is characterized by a complex relationship of romanticism and realism in the work of writers. The peaks of this direction are Lermontov, Gogol's prose, Tyutchev's lyrics.

Since Oermontov Gogol, Tyutchev cover different things in life, they have different paths, different ideas about ideals, then this is one whole direction, it can be divided into several more sub-directions so that confusion and misconceptions are not created. Maimin proposes a different, but still somewhat similar to the previous, classification of the directions of romanticism: 1) Zhukovsky's romanticism, characteristic of the early stage of Russian romanticism, is defined as contemplative; 2) the civil, revolutionary romanticism of the Decembrists, in particular Ryleev, Kochelbeker, Merlinsky-Bestuzhev; 4) Lermontov's romanticism is also synthetic, but differently from Pushkin's. Lermontov develops the tragic nature of the second and third directions and the rebellious romanticism of Byron; 5) philosophical romanticism. Represented by Vezevitov, Totchev, prose philosophical works of Vl. Odoevsky. Another classification of the directions of romanticism is presented by Focht: 1) abstract psychological (Zhukovsky and Kozlov); 2) hedonic (Batyushkov); 3) civil (Pushkin, Ryleev); 4) philosophical (Venivitov, Varatynsky, Vl. Odoevsky); 5) synthetic romanticism - the pinnacle of Russian romanticism (Lermontov); 6) epigones of psychological romanticism (Benedictov, for example); 7) “false romantics” (Kukolnik, late Polevoy, Zagoskin). Maimin considers this classification not very convenient due to excessive fragmentation.

Thus, having considered the main points of view on the emergence of romanticism, its essence and main currents, one can come to the conclusion that there is a very controversial opinion about romanticism. Of the works that ambiguously resolve the issue of the genesis and essence of romanticism, Gurevich's work "Romanticism in Russian Literature" is closest to me.

8. Historical and literary significance of V.A. Zhukovsky. Genre and style originality of his lyrics

Criticism about Zhukovsky.

In Russian science there was a dispute about historical assessment works of Zhukovsky. Was he an innovator progressively moving Russian literature forward? (Zhukovsky is a romantic). Was he a conservative in his poetry, even a reactionary, dragging Russian literature into the yesterday of sentimentalism of the 18th century? Belinsky speaks about this in his work. Our contemporaries agree with his opinion. Firstly, Zhukovsky is a romantic, even the founder, the head of Russian romanticism. Secondly, Pushkin's predecessor, necessary and positive in his historical role. Pushkin considered Zhukovsky his teacher.

Although Zhukovsky's romanticism was devoid of activity, the preaching of liberalism and the struggle against reaction, it was by no means a reactionary phenomenon in its essence. The world of Zhukovsky's poetry is dreamy. It is to this dreamy world that Zhukovsky strives to fly away with his soul from the despicable world of reality. He is a poet of his visions, not a poet of reality. It was in this that Pushkin saw something acceptable for progressive poetry.

Stylistic originality of the lyrics.

The essence and idea of ​​Zhukovsky's style, his poetry is the idea of ​​a romantic personality. Zhukovsky opened the human soul to Russian poetry, continuing Karamzin's psychological searches in prose and resolutely deepening them. The psychological romanticism of Zhukovsky perceives the whole world through the problems of introspection. He sees in the individual soul not even a reflection of the whole world, but the whole world, the whole reality in itself.

The personality in Zhukovsky's poetry is either alone, or finds understanding among the few who share her feelings. Loneliness does not turn her away from the whole world. The soul of the poet is immense, and it contains the whole universe. Zhukovsky accepts life even with its sufferings and sorrows, because they contribute to the moral exaltation of a person. He believes that the beautiful and sublime in man will win. Their triumph will come beyond the limits of earthly existence, in that eternal life where the Kingdom of Heaven is located. In Zhukovsky's system, lyrical truth is the highest and even the only truth. And the objective world is only an ephemeral appearance and the logic of judgments about it is a lie. Being here, the soul is torn to the beautiful there. Such a bifurcation into the otherworldly, afterlife, ideal and imperfect, vain, transient, bifurcation, characteristic not only of Zhukovsky, but of all romanticism, is called romantic duality. This means that the soul of a romantic simultaneously resides in two worlds - the real and the unreal.

A person in Zhukovsky's poetry thinks of himself separately from the state, because he does not fully accept and even denies the concepts that have developed in the state. Zhukovsky is convinced that the goal of mankind is to improve its nature, and the meaning of human life is to educate oneself sincere, sensitive and sensitive to other people's suffering, troubles and misfortunes.

The happiness of a person, and therefore the meaning of his life, according to Zhukovsky, is not in external interest, but in himself, in the strength of his soul, in the wealth of thoughts and feelings. The more human the person and the more such people, the happier the state. It is necessary not to suppress or subdue passions, but to improve your spiritual world. For Zhukovsky, a person is not a means to achieve some goals that are extraneous to him, even the most necessary, useful and noble ones, but he himself is the goal of the historical process. Not a person for the state, but the state for a person - this is the motto of Zhukovsky.

The unity of the lyrical hero in Zhukovsky's work entailed the unity of style. Zhukovsky's works are united by referring them to the personality of the author, who at the same time is the hero of the work. This also applies to ballads, where there is no lyrical "I", where the characters are different, but where the true hero is still the poet himself, who tells the legend, whose dream and mood is the content of the ballad.

Contemporaries considered Zhukovsky a master of landscape poetry. His landscape is subjective. Zhukovsky's depiction of nature is a "landscape of the soul". Zhukovsky draws a soul that perceives nature; his landscape is associated with a specific psychological state. The poet merges the landscape and his experience. A strong connection arises between them, but not abstractly logical, but concretely psychological.

It uses a special semantic content of the word, which begins to mean much more than it means terminologically, other meanings, other sounds appear. Thus, the impression was created that the meaning of a verse is born not in words, but, as it were, between words, that is, not in the text itself, but in the mind of the reader - a phenomenon of suggestive poetry.

Genre originality of lyrics.

Elegy, romance song, and friendly message are the main genres of Zhukovsky's poetry. On the material of the elegy, Zhukovsky developed the Russian poetic language. The elegy especially attracted him with its theme, fixed by the all-European tradition: immersion in the inner world, dreamy and - later - mystical perception of nature. Zhukovsky is the first Russian poet who managed not only to embody in verse the real colors, sounds and smells of nature - everything that makes up its “material beauty”, but to endow nature with a feeling and thought, perceiving a person, this is how the elegy “Evening” is built - a masterpiece of early lyrics by Zhukovsky. “The past” is one of J.'s favorite “verbal” themes. He always turns to the past, but such a conditional and almost banal theme of poetry acquires a deep emotional meaning for him. Zh.'s songs and romances have an amazing musical organization. Full accord, melodic transitions of percussive sounds dominate. The poet devotes a great place in his songs to the development of intonation. Interrogative intonations are characteristic of this genre. It should be noted a purely song system of exclamations and appeals. Such elegies as "Evening", "Rural Cemetery", "Sea", etc. are famous.

In the second half of the 18th and 19th centuries, the ballad genre, which goes back to the folk poetic tradition, becomes very widespread. The ballad was distinguished by its predilection for miracles, the terrible - that which is beyond the control of logic and reason - the predominance of the emotional beginning over the rational, the focus on the disclosure of feelings. For Zhukovsky, this genre becomes one of the main ones. Almost all of Zhukovsky's 39 ballads are translations. Zhukovsky was rightly called a translation genius. Zhukovsky's translated ballads give the impression of the original. Zhukovsky has 5 original ballads. All Zhukovsky's ballads are a single whole, they can be called an artistic cycle, they are united not only by genre, but also by semantic unity. They are sharply opposed to good and evil. Their source is always the human heart itself and the mysterious otherworldly forces that control the hearts. The romantic dual world appears in the ballads in the images of the devilish and divine principles. The idea of ​​dual worlds is imbued with elegies, ballads, and Zh.’s songs. Such ballads as “Lyudmila”, “Svetlana”, “Aeolian harp”, and others are famous.

Historical and literary significance of creativity.

Zhukovsky is one of the creators of the new Russian poetry. A poet with his own specific theme and intonation. In the artistic manner of Zhukovsky, lyricism, images of mental states predominate.

He played an exceptional role in developing the language of Russian poetry. Zhukovsky and his school gave the word many additional sounds and psychological colors. It is important that stylistic innovations entered Russian poetry and literature and remained its property.

Zhukovsky did not want and could not be a teacher in poetry. He was a lyricist who revealed his soul and did not claim the universal validity of his self-disclosures. Zhukovsky does not strive for everyone to be like him. Morality lies in the very right of the soul to self-disclosure, the primacy of feelings and moods, as the highest values ​​of freedom.

lyrics poetry romanticism fable

9. The origins of the cult of nature among the romantics. Analysis of the poem by V.A. Zhukovsky "Sea"

Like other romantics, Zhuk-go's landscape is always associated with the world of the lofty, unusual, sublime. The poet loves the elemental and mysterious in nature (night, sea, thunderstorm). In the sea, he is attracted by the enchanting silence and the abyss. The landscape in poetry, in literature in general, is always especially closely connected with the interior. the world and the unique image of the poet. Tolstoy is inseparable from the landscape of Jasn. glades, Dostoevsky-Petersburg (foggy, gloomy), Pushkin-landscape of Mikhailovsky and Trigorsky. Zhukovsky - Pavlovsk. Analysis. “I am enchanted” - LG is delighted with the sea, there is even a certain touch of magic here. The sea attracts him with its int. obscurity, unpredictability. A description that gives grounds for what kind of sea this is, no. Epithets and verbs personify the sea: “silent”, “azure”; “caress”, “beat”, “howl”, “lift”. The poet sees the sea as an emotional, spiritual element. The impression depends on the state of the soul. Vyazemsky said: “Zhuk has everything for the soul, everything for the soul.” The world is the soul. But here is presented not an image of the world, but an image of world experience. The beetle is fascinated by its own soul. If, for example, Lermontov's "abyss" is a direct meaning, then Zhukovsky's is a symbol. Many questions are always an attempt to understand the thinking. Being is devoid of breadth and space. The soul lives by striving to break out into a free existence. There is a kind of dual world, hesitation, uncertainty - this is far from all that is inside the author. The sea is a constant contact with the ideal. The presence of light is the life of the soul. The soul that fights for the ideal of life is in constant fear of losing this ideal. Everything is built on solid symbols. There are two melodies - the symphonic principle of organization. “A word can influence a person” Zhuk-y.

10. Development by V.A. Zhukovsky principles of suggestive poetics. Analysis of the poem "Unspeakable"

What is our earthly language before wondrous nature?

With what careless and easy freedom

She scattered beauty everywhere

And diversity agreed with unity!

But where, what brush depicted it?

Barely one of her traits

With effort, you can catch inspiration ...

But is it possible to transfer to the dead living?

Who could recreate creation in words?

Is the inexpressible subject to expression?

Holy sacraments, only the heart knows you.

Is it not often in the majestic hour

Evening land of transfiguration,

When the soul is full of confusion

Prophecy of the great vision

And carried away into the infinite,

A painful feeling in the chest

We want to keep the beautiful in flight,

We want to give a name to the unnamed -

And exhaustedly silent art?

What is visible to the eyes is this flame of clouds,

Flying across the quiet sky

This trembling of the shining waters,

These pictures of the shores

In the fire of a magnificent sunset -

These are such bright features -

They are easily caught by the winged thought,

And there are words for their brilliant beauty.

But what is merged with this brilliant beauty -

This is so vague, exciting us,

This listener with one soul

enticing voice,

This is a distant aspiration,

This past hello

(Like a sudden whiff of air

From the meadow of the motherland, where there was once a flower,

Holy youth, where hope lived),

This whispered memory

About sweet joyful and mournful antiquity,

This holy thing descending from on high,

This presence of the creator in creation --

What is their language?.. The soul flies with grief,

All the immensity in a single breath are crowded,

And only silence speaks clearly.

11. Reflection of the theory of duality in the poems of V.A. Zhukovsky "To Turgenev in response to his letter", "Spring feeling"

Belinsky also saw 2 trends in romanticism: 1 - “medieval. romanticism”, and, according to Bel-go, this is literature: “the world splits into two worlds - the despised here and the indefinite, mysterious there.” “There” is an ideal world, but it is unattainable: it is either in the past, or appears only in a dream, in fantasy, in dreams. The despised "here" is a modern reality where evil and injustice triumph. For such romanticism, the main interest is the description of the "inner world of the heart." Such was Zhukovsky's romanticism. 2world in Zh. is presented as a concept of 2 worlds, presented in the form of oppositions: earth and sky, here and there. The earth in the lyrics F is a vale of suffering and people on earth are doomed to suffering. In heaven, life is like an opportunity for the realization of happiness. And the purpose of life is to prepare for eternal happiness. The world is connected with the idea of ​​the immortality of the soul. The philosophic dual world is expressed in many verses by J. They are united by the fact that true bliss is revealed only after the death of the body. Romanticism declares the earthly world a world of genuine suffering, and on earth, at some moments, the veil of heavenly life that awaits him ahead is slightly opened. This is the "wonderful moment". So, in the message “To Turgenev, in response to his letter”, Zhukovsky, recalling the era of the Friendly Literary Society, when friends full of bright hopes “shared life in the bosom of Freedom”, states the collapse of the “charming fantasy world”, collided with life. The sharply condemning voice of the poet is heard in the words about the "vile light."

Also, the message "Turgenev in response ..." this appeal to a friend - Alexander Turgenev - includes memories of the past, grief from the irreplaceable losses (the death of Andrei Turgenev, the loss of hope, freedom). In the poem “Spring Feeling”, the theory of duality is revealed by the fact that the main character (in this case, the author himself) is trying to find out from the wind the questions of interest to him, namely, what is there beyond the distant lands? Also, the author is trying to find out if he can get to this place? from this we can conclude that the protagonist is dissatisfied with his former place, because he would not look for the so desired Enchanted there.

12. Comparative analysis of "Bacchae" by S. Batyushkov and "Songs" (1811) by V.A. Zhukovsky. (On the question of the creative individuality of poets belonging to the same direction)

Zhuk-iy considered Karamzin, the head of Russian sentime-zma, to be his teacher in poetry. The essence of Zhuk-go's romanticism is very accurately described by Belinsky, who said that he became "the singer of the heart of the morning." By nature, Zhuk-y was not a fighter, his "complaints" never developed into an open protest. He moved away from the current question, idealized it, thought about it with sadness. Zhukovsky's "Song" is clear, musical, performed by a poet-imnast and deep sadness about the old days. Main the theme is the depiction of not visible phenomena, but the expression of elusive experiences. LG Beetle-go-person-to deep feelings of sorrowful, gone from action into his inner. world, into your memories and dreams. He constantly goes into the past: “The charm of the past days, Why did you resurrect again?” The poet is dissolved in nature and does not oppose the world, does not realize life as a whole as something hostile to his soul. Beetle, having looked into the world of mystery, hastens to recognize the charm of real life. The exclamation about a possible imminent death, which concludes the verse, does not threaten with melancholy. Dissolution, merging turns out to be the general law of the universe. As the rays of the sun melt in the evening twilight, merging with the fading nature, so a person fades away, and yet remains to live in memories. In the lyrics of Zhuk-go, we almost do not find the depiction of the physical features of the poet's beloved; in general, “shadows” often act here, devoid of “flesh” and symbolizing the spiritual union “beyond the grave”. But Bat-ov, on the contrary, first of all, wants to reproduce the external attractiveness of his “goddesses of beauty”, the captivatingness of their feminine charm, so in the poem “Volkhonka” the image of a young nymph, full of irresistible charm, arises. The lyrics of Bat-va became an expression of a concrete experience of a personality in its complexity, in its versatility, in its shades. V. G. Belinsky remarked: “The feeling that animates Batyushkov is always organically vital.” Bat-wa's poetry was an expression of the new. Defending the right of a person to the joys of life, to earthly happiness, Bat-in the Beetle came closer in his poetry to reality. This affected his artistic style. Belinsky compares Bat-va's poetry with the claim of sculpture: "There is a lot of plasticity in his poems, a lot of sculpture, so to speak." The verse "Bacchae" confirms this. In the artistic language of Bat-va, the world of real action, reflected by poetic consciousness, and the world created by the imagination of a romantic interact. The Bat-wa style lacks that direct correlation of the word with the subject and that closeness to living colloquial speech, which distinguish the realistic style. So, in the verse and "Bacchante" Bat-v does not avoid the metaphorical expressions characteristic of the Romantic style: "... the flaming cheeks of the rose are bright crimson." The romantically poeticized image of the Bacchante encourages the author to use traditional Slavonicisms. Main the theme of the verse-and-theme of love - "ardent delights" and "rapture" of earthly passion; this shows that he is still a life-loving poet.

13. The main stages and motives of K.N. Batyushkov. Analysis of the poet's poem (at the student's choice)

Batyushkov took shape as a poet in the first decade of the 19th century. During these years, the disintegration of the feudal-serf economy and the development of progressive bourgeois relations took place. The pathos of enlightenment brightly colored the philosophical and social views of the pre-war Batyushkov.

Batyushkov was brought up on the poetry of the predecessors of Karamzinism. He gave high marks to poets who expressed the inner world of the individual in their work. But he did not accept sugary and tearful sentimentality. Thus, directly opposite influences crossed in the subsoil of Batyushkov's poetry, which determined the inconsistency of Batyushkov's lyrics.

Konstantin Nikolaevich Batyushkov, together with Zhukovsky, was referred to as representatives of the "New School" in Russian poetry (according to the article "Experiments" by Uvarov).

Two periods can be distinguished in the poet's work: the 1st period 1802-1812 (pre-war), the 2nd period 1812-1821 (post-war).

1) The first period.

The most important feature of B.'s pre-war poetry was love for the "earthly world," "for worldly pleasures," for the visible and resonant beauty of life. There is an image of a carefree poet-lover of life, a poet of joy.

The central image of B.'s lyrics arose on the basis of the poet's acute conflict with reality and against the views that prevailed at the top of Alexander's Russia. Batyushkov does not agree with the idea that a wealthy person should be respected by everyone. Most often he is an indifferent member of society.

B. characterized his lyrics as a diary, reflecting the "external" and "internal" biography of the poet. "The eccentric poet" - the lyrical hero of Batyushkov. He refuses to chase the "ghosts of glory", rejects wealth. One of his essential features is the ability to dream. The dream for B. is "a direct part of happiness", a sorceress, "bringing her priceless gifts." The cult of dreams is one of the well-established motives of B.'s lyrics, anticipating aesthetic theory romantics.

The theme of friendship occupies a prominent place in B.'s lyrics. The lyrical hero - a cheerful and carefree poet - sees in his friends witnesses of the facts of his biography, listeners of the story of his life, about his joys and sorrows.

Poetry of love. B. interprets love as a passion that captures and subjugates the whole person. ("Bacchante").

2) The second period.

The beginning of the Patriotic War of 1812 became the frontier that opened the second period of B.

...

Similar Documents

Start of hostilities. "War Song" S.F. Glinka, lyrics by A. Vostokov and M. Milonov. Poetry V.A. Zhukovsky. "Hymn lyrical epic" G.R. Derzhavin. Fables I.A. Krylov. Poetry F.N. Glinka, N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov.

term paper, added 02/09/2004


Brief biography of the most prominent poets and writers of the 19th century - N.V. Gogol, A.S. Griboedova, V.A. Zhukovsky, I.A. Krylova, M.Yu. Lermontov, N.A. Nekrasov, A.S. Pushkin, F.I. Tyutchev. High achievements of Russian culture and literature of the XIX century.

presentation, added 04/09/2013


The 19th century is the "Golden Age" of Russian poetry, the century of Russian literature on a global scale. The heyday of sentimentalism - dominants human nature. The rise of romanticism. Poetry of Lermontov, Pushkin, Tyutchev. critical realism as literary direction.

report, added 02.12.2010


The poetic chronicle of the Patriotic War of 1812 as a milestone in the history of Russian literature: contempt for the enemy, faith in victory in the poetry of F. Glinka, V. Zhukovsky; modern realities in the fables of I. Krylov; prophetic comprehension of events in the work of A. Pushkin.

term paper, added 01/12/2011


Zhukovsky's path to romanticism. The difference between Russian romanticism and Western. Contemplation of the romanticism of creativity, eclecticism of the early works of the poet. Philosophical origin in the poet's lyrics, genre originality of ballads, significance for Russian literature.

term paper, added 03.10.2009


Childhood of Konstantin Nikolayevich Batyushkov. Participation in hostilities in Prussia. Participation in the war with Sweden. The value of Batyushkov's poetry in the history of Russian literature. Distinctive features of Batyushkov's prose. Purity, brilliance and imagery of Batyushkov's language.

presentation, added 10/30/2014


Humanism as the main source of the artistic power of Russian classical literature. The main features of literary trends and stages in the development of Russian literature. The life and creative path of writers and poets, the world significance of Russian literature of the 19th century.

abstract, added 06/12/2011


A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov - two types of worldview. Influence Caucasian theme on the work of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov. Concepts of Lermontov's creativity, artistic originality of his works about the Caucasus. Analysis of Pushkin's works about the Caucasus.

term paper, added 05/15/2014


Biography and creative path of Konstantin Nikolayevich Batyushkov. Elegy as a genre of new romantic literature. The value of Batyushkov's poetry in the history of Russian literature. Literary tastes, distinctive features of prose, purity, brilliance and imagery of language.

presentation, added 01/31/2015


The sound organization of a poem as one of the most ancient research topics in literary criticism. The role of the sound of poetic texts in the era of romanticism. The specificity of the organization and implementation of sound images in the elegies of V.A. Zhukovsky and lyrics by M.Yu. Lermontov.

National

the specificity of literature is an anachronism

or inherent quality?

In the era of romanticism, the presence of national traditions, the national identity of each of the literatures that made up world literature, was not questioned. And even later - it was hardly possible, say, to confuse the English literature of the times of Dickens or Galsworthy, the French of the times of Balzac or Zola and the Russian of the times of Dostoevsky or Chekhov. But in the outgoing 20th century, the processes of globalization of the world were on the rise. They touched, no doubt, both culture in general and literature. Already in the middle of the century, the process of mutual influence had a tangible effect even in the work of major authors. Nowadays, the question of the national specifics of literature, it seems, can only cause a smile. Many believe that the world literary stream is now absolutely homogeneous, and its beacons and landmarks - the works of Umberto Eco, Milorad Pavic, Kingsley Amis, Joseph Michael Coetzee and others - have only qualitative, not national differences. Moreover, if in the middle of the century, with all the tangible influence that, say, Faulkner's or Hemingway's prose had on domestic authors, the realities described by them still remained different and at least contributed to the originality, now the everyday realities of our life are becoming more and more similar to global...

And yet, at the risk of seeming “outdated,” we propose to reflect on whether the national originality of literature has survived to this day and will it continue in the next century? It is clear that we are mainly interested in domestic literature, its present position and prospects. In this case, we are certainly not talking about external attributes; as the classic said, nationality is not in the cut of a sundress, but in the spirit of the people ...

With such a proposal, the editors turned to several domestic writers, critics, and translators.

Lev Anninsky

Global and national: whose take?

Goethe did not know the word "globalization". However, as far as I know, he was the first to use the phrase “world literature”. So it's tempting to assume that's when it started. Even though it started earlier. Always, at all times there was a correlation of parts of human culture - with all the irregularity of direct contacts and roll calls; we now, compiling and studying the history of “world literature”, quite logically “read” this general history from unimaginably distant texts: something is laid down, something is hidden, something universal is present in the idea of ​​​​humanity, and there is just as much, how much human culture itself.

You will say that it is precisely and only now that direct contacts and continuous calls have tangibly led to the “worldwide process”, to the “mainstream”, to the “common stream”, against the background of which the floundering of individual national organisms can only make an expert smile.

I will answer that the smiles will be mutual, because any strengthening of integral tendencies in culture is accompanied by an increase in local resistance to them under any flags. Mutual support of opposing factors is inevitable, otherwise - a systemic collapse.

You say: what about the Internet?! Is it possible to compare the speed of a postal nag that two hundred years ago dragged a cartload of mutual translation, and the current electronic-synchronous lightning, delivering right before my eyes everything that is being written on the other side of the Atlantic at that moment?

I agree that electronics, of course, is capable of delivering in a matter of moments everything that is composed on the shores of the world's literary ocean, before my eyes, but my eyes cannot contain it. Communication is limited not by technical capabilities, but by the potentialities of the human body, which still lives not ten, but one life.

You will say: but the scale and growth of verbal self-expression at the turn of the third millennium of the Christian era is unprecedented, and this is a fact.

I note that for every stubborn fact there is another stubborn fact, and for every growth there is a stopper that will turn off the energy with a fatal preponderance of literary centrism. All this literal edge will take and break away, and sail into the darkness of the archives, that is, people will simply stop reading. Which, by the way, is happening now.

I am able to perceive as much as I am able to process, master, appropriate. Of course, reading Umberto Eco or Milorad Pavić, I can isolate what they have in common and what goes to the level of “globalism”, just like I can catch where is Italian and where is Yugoslav. So what? And the fact that I will truly delve into this experience not when I correlate it with certain intelligible entities, but only when I experience it - as my own. That is, when it becomes my - Russian experience. When I bring it into the context of my culture.

Which one is "mine"? National, finally?

Only "finally", not before. And endlessly clarifying this term.

National, local, local, specific, soil, direct, grassroots are accumulated - always. And always trying to embrace it - the integral. When there is something that can be connected together, there is a unifying thrust. Empires are attempts to combine motley into one. All great cultures are created, if not on the soil of empires, then within the framework of empires.

What is framed?

And the same, local, that rises “from below” and seeks context, in the last limit - the context of the universal.

The question is how to “mark” this particular and particular as it enters the general flow and resists the flow. Meta is already a sign of fate, a trace of circumstances, a stigma of an event, a technology of history, a notch of God. Marked confessional. Marked socially. Marked state. It was marked anti-state, that is, party: according to interests.

Now tagging - nationally.

Arguing with this is like arguing with rain. National marking is just as transient, inevitable, real and ephemeral as everything before it. People try to define “their own”, but it slips away.

Of course, nature can help: blacken the skin of some, stretch out the noses of others. But in order for the noses to work, the spirit must give them meaning. And it is the spirit that must make the color of the skin a “sign”. And if the spirit does not care, then the nose will not hurt anyone. Who cares that the artillery commander of Peter the Great was a black man: he served Russia, which means he was Russian.

Then why are these marks so tenacious?

Because there are no other “signs” of faith. The color of the skin, the shape of the nose and the pedigree of grandparents - this is so own, natural, inalienable, automatically obtained, without effort!

So, in the end, it is for the spirit and indifferent that it is received without effort! Because the “national” does not fit into the “generic”, does not coincide with it, because they are trying to give a material answer to a spiritual question.

It is foolish to argue and ridiculous to struggle with the fact that now it is the “nation” that is the meta of everything concrete that opposes globalism soaring in virtual heights. The struggle takes place at a different level - at the level of interpretation of the "nation" itself. There, the Ukrainian brothers both separated and are struggling with the question of who they are: either blood brothers, or fellow citizens, the backbone of a single state, regardless of what roots and tribes they come from. The nation is the indisputable favorite in the current spiritual litigation between “top” and “bottom”. But the struggle between the ethnic and cultural within the nation is a real and not yet solved problem.

Ethnic can become national only at the level of culture, if it turns out to be associated with all other values: state, public, world ... The password here is not the voice of blood and not the composition of genes, but the cultural code. That is, a behavioral code that has found a language for itself.

Simply put, the language is the password. This is the banner under which these communities gather. Language is a means of communication, a concentrate of spiritual experience, a guarantee that this experience will not be forgotten or wasted.

The example of Israel, promoted from Hebrew letters before the eyes of mankind, is unique and generally significant. By the purity of the experiment. And on the persuasiveness of the result.

Just do not rely on this experience as a speculative-volitional task. The nation is realized only when the force accumulates, and the thirst increases, and the energy seeks an outlet.

You cannot create any special national culture and literature. And no special global. Nothing but stardust can be shaken out of this patented globalism. But you can’t squeeze the national out of the ethnic, even if you write the word “Russian” through two “r” and three “s”.

We must live by what is in reality and in spirit. History will decide where to write it: in society, in a nation, in space, in an ethnic group...

Unless, of course, there will be WHAT to enter.

Georgy Gachev

Will national literatures survive in the future?

This question contains more sub-questions: what is meant by literature? what is the fate of national worlds? in what future: near, distant?

But in general: why did the general question? Obviously, from the involvement of countries and peoples and their cultures in the process of a single world history and civilization that bind everyone: mutually nourish, level, but also diversify. Everyone began to read everyone: the Japanese - the Mexicans - and influence. But for what? On the authors, their individual manners: who is closer to Proust, to whom - Marquez, to whom - Solzhenitsyn ... So, despite the fact that the single field of each national literature is blurred, unified with world literature, writers, creative individuals are diversified in it.

But this is the result when already produced works enter the world literature market. But where do they come from? From springs, not otherwise. Like the waters of the great rivers - the Volga or the Amazons of national literatures, and then the ocean of the world, where everything and everyone is mixed - from the keys of beating, pulsating hearts.

BUT genus-nick on genus-otherwise, it suggests: place, root and vertical Earth - Sky, transiting through the heart - "I" of the creative vessel. And here the native language, like a mother's womb, is archetypal in a person's statement (at first); and then a writer. Muttersprache = “mother language”, “mother language” - this is how the native language is called in German. He is the natural, or natural, Logos (God the Word, as spirit and mind), in contrast to the education acquired through labor, artificial, “created” (because it is “created”, “not born”) the Logos of world civilization. The latter - comes, flies from the horizontal of the Earth's surface, where there are different cardinal points, and countries, societies, societies.

And now a person who resorts to the Word, a “writer”, immediately finds himself in the field of superpersonal energies: the Earth-Sky vertical, Mother (I) - Spirit (Father, male), passing as an axis through the “I”, my soul. In this aspect, man = plant. The horizontal of world civilization and world literature, where the Spirit, as a “free son of ether”, flies and “breathes where it wants”. And - Shar, the integrity of this country and its history, culture, destiny. Life flows here, and man is an animal, a self-moving being. And all these three (at least) forces-trends pull in their own directions: they stretch, but also nourish and form the individuality of the creator.

Why do they write? "Writer" - that's what they'll call you later. And first, you start to wail, like a bird at dawn - morning or evening (memoirs in old age suddenly a person begins to write, how to confess the day before ...). Pour out your soul. The word to that is the nearest material, instrument: the voice-logos.

11.7.2000. The word, the language - is not the property of fiction, but all-pervasive. Everyday speech, philosophy, science, religion, and politics hustle on its territory... In the space of the Russian language, besides Russians, there are the Kirghiz Aitmatov, the Kazakh Suleimenov, the Chukchi Rytkheu... What kind of literature do they write: Kyrgyz? Kazakh? Chukchi? .. They expressed the life, soul and fate of the people of the Kirghiz, Chukchi ... - but nourished Russian literature, enriched it, and their relatives - belittled, they emaciated because of the flight of their talents into a foreign language.

Or now - in Israel, emigrants from Russia write in Russian: Igor Guberman, Dina Rubina and a lot ... So what do they write? Jewish literature in Russian?.. Or - universal literature in Russian? For, as individuals, individual “I” resort to the Russian Word-Logos as native to them, natural, although you can’t say about them that “with mother’s milk” entered them, because the blood and flesh in them are non-Russian ...

In such authors there is a dialogue between the Logos and Ethnos, and in the force field of tension between them - and there is creativity, plots, problems, originality is formed - and a unique contribution to world literature. To its market-bazaar... They bring personal versions of the Logos there, for books are written individually. But just as individually, they are consummated: the reader alone with his own eyes, as he eats with his mouth. As an individual within the human race, Kyrgyz, Jewish... Vertical-radius inside the ball... At the level of personalities, "I", there is a meeting between the writer and the reader. Tet-a-tet... T

to te-a-t to te.

Here - as in a complex sentence: a word, each turnover-element is subordinated to different levels: the voice as a Personality, as the voice of the People, as the Logos of Humanity. Both that, and another is heard in it, is expressed.

So, will the national paint disappear in the painting of future literature? - that is the question. With the dynamism of modern civilization, with accelerating communication and travel, everything is so mixed up, a kind of universal lubrication is formed both in souls and in speeches.

A fast life entails a speeding up speech. Listen to how quickly, quickly, the radio and TV informants try to pronounce the words! Like machine-gun bursts or cursive typists or on a computer. The word is a means of information, and not thoughts and feelings - more and more. And if this is possible without a word, then it’s better: a direct image or a number-formula ... The lexicon is simplified ...

The virtual style of modern civilization: cinema, television, all sorts of “videos”... - detract from the space and time for reading: there is less and less need for it ... an image is poured into you directly, even the characters of literature (in film adaptations): Pierre Bezukhov, Prince Myshkin - without you having the inner work of your productive imagination - generated them, imagined them from yourself, as it is when reading, when you first have to understand the meanings of words with your mind, then compose these spiritual castles in the air in the Logos, God the Word. That is, by exercising this divine substance in oneself ... The visual style of the message atrophies it, replacing it with “lust of the eyes”, flattening a person, hammering in him inner man, volume of the soul. Collapse inside.

So the fate of literature is connected with the fate of the personality in man, with the inner life of his "I". For the Americanized individual, in the race for success, to indulge in the inner life is a waste of time, which = money. And this type of person is the leader in modern civilization, which leads to unification and entropy-equalization - and people, and souls, and languages, and countries-peoples.

Therefore, for the sake of its self-preservation, fiction is interested in ensuring that nations and languages, motherlands, traditions and special destinies, histories, paths, and souls of countries do not melt away. So that a person stops, thinks, stays in silence and meditation, appreciates the time devoted to this. And this is all in the past style of being of mankind. Therefore, it is natural for us writers to be conservatives - now. And two supports for us - Nature and Personality, its need for inner life, to go directly to God the Word. And the “words, words, words” of national literatures are intermediaries and accomplices to this. Like spirits with the Spirit. Angels-“messengers” with God-Spirit. But demons are also spirits...

So the problem remains. After all, just as those who understand (friends and spouses) communicate with their souls without words, so the holy silencers - bypassing “words, words, words”, dwell in the Word.

Fiction, it turns out, is an intermediate state-view in the Word-Logos. Both religion and modern civilization are arrogant towards it, they grind it down from different sides, abolish it. Just as high religions abolish peoples (“there is no Hellene and Jew” in Christ, or as it is understood in Doctor Zhivago: with Christianity, peoples ceased to be significant, but only individuals), so modern industrial civilization has a vector to abolish Nature, to replace artificial products of Labor, and with that peoples, words are signs, ideograms. The word is too bodily, carnal, material: it sounds, sensual, rolls in the throat, you can taste it, enjoy it, pronouncing it with your lips, copulating with it with your tongue, caressing the sound ... And God as a pure Spirit, and an abstract mind-mind Science and Technology - meet in the Noo-sphere, bypassing the "words, words, words" of fiction, leaving it somewhere below, like a rudiment and pluperfect.

So - what will happen, “what will come true in my life?” - God knows.

However, there is still hope - the Incarnation: that "the Word was flesh." That God-Spirit needed to incarnate into matter in order for Life to take place in the fullness of Being. Sensuality (it is also nationality) of the word of fiction - on the same rights as the God-man, the unity of Spirit and Nature, art and nature.

Viktor Golyshev

The question is about erasing national boundaries in literature? I think it's premature. Such generalizations are best done from a distance. It is too early to talk about the erasure of borders in an age marked by outbreaks of nationalism - National Socialism, attempts to exterminate entire peoples, national liberation struggles, and the collapse of empires. It seems to me that such a legacy cannot be quickly forgotten. But I would prefer to get by with examples.

social experience in different countries was so diverse that even first-class writers did not cross national borders. Platonov did not become a world writer, not because he cannot be translated, but because his civic experience is incomprehensible to Westerners (and, probably, to Southeasterners). Artem Vesely, whose talent was definitely not inferior to Dos Passos, is known, it seems, only to the Slavists.

On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn, an active and world famous writer. The Swiss could not write his books. He owes his world fame, of course, to his talent and the scale of the task - but also to the fact that there was the Soviet Union, and our horror and our strength became clearer to mankind after the war. That is, the borders are again present - and, as it was called, "bristled".

They say that the realities are unified. Consumer goods are being unified (as it has always been), including politics. The main realities - the history of the country, way of life, children's fairy tales, topography - are not unified.

Moreover, the "melting pot" of the United States is moving towards "multiculturalism", and the results of this process must still be awaited. I can only guess what is happening in our former units.

As for the literary flow, although this is rather a subject of sociology, here too, avoiding generalizations, I would manage with two or three examples. Our postmodernists, having filled their works with socialist realism with the opposite sign and, in general, with domestic used artistic material, guaranteed themselves from the wide-open eyes of foreign countries. In the second rate American literature I noticed a tendency to name things not by their purpose - shirt, pen, table - but by brand: induced fetishism. Like: "I ate Mikoyan's sausage" - I imagine how an honest colleague-translator is looking for cannibalistic background. So many meaningful shades are lost.

On the other hand, there are writers who work for export, let's say, due to the calculation of their genius, the smallness of their native audience and, consequently, royalties expectations. Their all-humanity is banal, their language is flat. Of course, there are transnational writers like Pavic and Eko - there are always enough hunters to kill a literary goat among readers.

Another case, separate from the previous ones. Pelevin, who understands technology and has a good command of the English language, is considered by many critics to be among such globalized pop writers. But in none of the foreign authors I have met precisely such a special melancholy, which is imbued with his books. And here with these borders is ambiguity.

In short, I don't see the whole picture. You can see something else. The first half of the century (a little more) produced writers who overstepped the bounds. In Hamsun, only the (external) temperament betrays the Scandinavian. Who is Kafka - German, Jew, Czech? Lonely unfortunate soul - belonging to more than one Austria-Hungary. What interested us more in Faulkner - cotton, mules, or what he thinks about the human condition? Now there are no rulers of thoughts, and Faulkner, by the way, the farther, the less he says to today's Americans. Doesn't it have to do with the retreat of literature to visual matters, lower order symbolism, sprint thinking? This topic seems to me more important.

Yuri Kublanovskiy

Despite all the globalization of the world in the 1960s and 1990s, I can’t say at all - using the example of Russian literature - that I see a sharp increase in the “mutual influence” of literatures. There is no need to say how the Anglo-Saxons and continental Europeans influenced our writers from the golden age - the silver age: all our literature is saturated through and through with them - the French, the British, the Germans, and later the Scandinavians. Our writers freely drew from there everything that they needed, everything that appealed to them and was dear - and at the same time organically preserved their national physiognomy. Our literature as Akhmatov's “real tenderness cannot be confused with anything”, and thank God.

What about overseas literature? What an original power, its own epic, dramaturgy, its great style, its own national psychology, with the unconditional influence of both Europeans and Russians. Literature “interpenetrated”, preserving originality; any high-level creative world is ambivalent: in its final perfection it is a child of both the national spirit and humanity as a whole, because culture is unity in diversity. It cannot but be national, if only because of the language and its secrets, which are not rented out to foreigners. This is especially true in relation to poetry, where the language is fully involved, without a trace, not only linguistically, but also spiritually. The fact that we now have poets who seem to directly orient their text to the interlinear is more evidence of their weakness and careerism than of a serious cultural trend. Language, on the other hand, is not an autonomous and completely amenable to development area, but a derivative of the national spirit and history. Accordingly, poetry cannot but be national.

Here they will bring me - in objection - Nabokov and Brodsky. I can't help myself: I don't like Nabokov's novels written in English. The exception is “Lolita”, but the writer, as you know, translated this book himself and thereby warmed it with the warmth of his Russian skill. And his giant charade novels in English should be read by those who are interested.

Brodsky cannot be called a Russian poetic genius, although he is obviously the largest Russian poet of the post-war period. Patriotic - without the Fatherland. But for me, this is the exception that proves the rule. His creative psychology is largely a product of our non-conformist cultural aspirations of the 1950s and 1960s, which over the swamp of socialist realism tried - and, as we now see, not without success - to return to civilization. In general, in Brodsky, judging by his interviews and essays, real “idolatry” of the language coexisted bizarrely with “cosmopolitanism”; at the same time, to be honest, I don’t quite understand what he actually meant by “language”, deifying and secularizing it at once.

But - nevertheless, the "globalization" of literature is really evident. Like piranha fish, gifted authors procreate in the world, writing “internationally” - a sure evidence of the cultural entropy of civilization. In its own way, this literature is very ideological. No less ideological than was socialist realism. It gives food to the mind and heart of the consumer of a market civilization, averaging the demands of his spirit and dulling his ideological vigilance. Ultimately, such literature is the tip of a giant iceberg of mass culture and show business, the cultural commercial industry. There are more and more writers who can live anywhere and write about anything, and it’s better to immediately write in English. But in the good old days, even nomadic writers, like Gogol, living in a foreign land, creatively and “sacredly” remained at home.

Russian classical literature, for example, is not just an aesthetic phenomenon, but also a reason for mobilizing the cultural and moral capabilities of the reader, in this sense - this is how it was basically understood, after all, by its creators - it is a good “reason” to think about main, step towards him. Russian writers - passing through all the horrors of existence and non-existence, through Svidrigailov's bathhouses with spiders or the Gulag archipelagos - worked on the Creator, obliging the reader to the best, understanding, according to Baratynsky, his gift as a task over. The work of our great prose writers and poets - with all the diversity of ideas and styles - did not allow ambiguity and "ontological" damage.

Today's globalist writers work with the consumer in mind. And, it seems, they are seriously convinced that the future is theirs. Is it so? I'm not convinced. A costly civilization, part of the ideological support of which, I repeat, is the work of globalists, a transient thing, rooted in exploitation natural resources and the biosphere. Sooner or later, but very soon, life on earth will either completely degrade and die - or the market ideology will have to “re-profile” from stimulating consumption to self-restraint.

This cannot be done without the support of talented and highly qualified people; humanity will need new moral and spiritual resources to survive. (Writers are globalists - with an external gloss - as a rule, a kind of arithmetic average of the middle peasants, completely tied to the current cultural and everyday situation.) A qualitatively new and conscientious cultural resource will also be in demand. But the new is the well-forgotten old. Thus, traditional values ​​will regain their meaning; the national originality of literature is one of them.

I am especially anxious for our poetry. Under the communists, it seemed to all of us - both Soviet poets and self-publishers - that nothing threatens poetry here in Russia, somewhere, somewhere, but here you just tear off the totalitarian muzzle - and a hundred flowers will bloom. Now we understand that poetry is a fragile, aristocratic thing, easily washed out of the civilizational cultural thickness ... Poetic ear is first innate, and then developed. And it turns out that there are catastrophically few people with such an innate poetic ear. Russian verse, at the same time simple and mysterious, perfect and raw, has a rather subtle “spiritual organization” - it cannot be allowed to be captured by stylizers and jokers, alien to domestic precepts, stupefying everything and everyone.

And fiction as a whole should not go to the final plunder of globalist marauders, but remain the same as it was in its heyday: a spiritual and aesthetic school that nourishes a person. Needless to say, this should not be an external, albeit the most noble, “task”: given literature is inferior literature. But - grow organically in the soul and creative world Russian writer. One would dream that our literature would not breed demons, but would help expel them as soon as possible - from the body of Russia, exhausted to the limit.

Understand correctly: this, I repeat, is by no means an ideological set task. This is the task of artistry as such.

Valentin Kurbatov

In your own words

Apparently, everything, as it usually happens with us, depends on which foot to stand on and where to think about the proposed subject. Within the walls of the Library of Foreign Literature or in the editorial office in the middle of Moscow, certain names will seem unconditional, and in a rural corner of a distant Russian province, completely different ones. And, thank God, both of them will be right in their truth.

Of course, the metropolitan ones are louder and more inventive in their means, and therefore it can be imagined that the national literature is really over. They are in magazines more circulation, and on the Internet not on last place, and the markets are more visible. Even if you take not street stalls, which you can’t even look at without dizziness and shame, but elite bookstores, where the “literary process” is reflected in high mirrors of deliberate thought.

There will be many excellent Russian books of the literary heritage, there the classics of Russian literature will appear in succession, there religious thought will shame with its height not assimilated by us, there will be room for good editions of current Russian poetry and prose of strong traditional leaven, but they will already be equalized, and then they are pushed aside by the great world and European philosophical thought, classical and modern Western literature, to which the literature of the current emigration and the last books of the local legislators - V. Pelevin, L. Petrushevskaya, S. Gandlevsky, A. Kim, A. Slapovsky will cling to , D. Prigov, V. Sorokina.

"House of Oblonsky"...

What kind of “national literature” is there! Everything is fluid, fused, everything looks back at each other and authoritatively affirms “all-unity and all-humanity” - alas, not at all of a Dostoevsky quality. Even if we take only this literature of today's talkative emigration, which we equally, if not without subservience, introduce into everyday life of the local literary process. Involuntarily, you will wonder whether it is deliberately introduced into this everyday life, whether with a well-thought-out intent to dissolve the “interfering” boundaries of the spiritual Fatherland, make them indistinct, finally bring the Russian person into the expanses of “just a person”.

Maybe it is. In addition, a Russian person sometimes likes to have a complex that he is “falling behind”, and a writer, especially from Moscow-St. it seems deceptively that our ecos, kunders, paviches or borges are not inferior to the originals in depth, in play, in freedom. So, maybe it’s true, well, her, this “nationality”.

Yes, but that's not the whole truth. Of course, we will no longer have a new “village literature”, which was the last holistic national phenomenon (which is why it was read by intellectuals and “simple” with the same feeling of love and unity), but it’s too early to close the curtain. It is enough to look at the provincial magazines of Russia - “Russian Province”, “Gornitsa”, “North”, “Kulikovo Field”, “Rise”, “Volga”, “ Gostiny Dvor”, “Siberia”, to see that everything goes on as usual and the native muse does not forget her children and is not in a hurry for a fashion magazine. It even seems to be the opposite - we are just beginning to listen to our tradition and comprehend it, peering into the past, into the history of noble and peasant families, into our native past with the passion of not at all abstract intellectual curiosity.

It is enough to look at the all-Russian heights - the novels of D. Balashov, V. Lichutin, V. Bahrevsky, L. Borodin, but they do not appear in an open field, but on the living soil of general interest in their cradle.

And is it just historical novels? And, for example, “Dictionary of the expansion of the Russian language” by A.I. Solzhenitsyn - what is it? And this is a sign of surprise at what Russian literature has accumulated in the last decades of its most seemingly dead existence, because words are most often taken from books of this unfortunate time.

And the bitter and at the same time calmly confident prose of B. Ekimov, A. Varlamov, P. Krasnov, and the returning Orthodox branch of our culture, seizing on the fading Leskov or Shmelev tradition - in the stories of N. Konyaev and father Yaroslav Shipov, in the stunning verses of his father Vyacheslav Shaposhnikov?

No, you can't take names here. Not all of them are in sight, but, like small Russian rivers, they flow to their native forests and dales and collect villages and small towns along the way and there is no exhaustion for them. Only earlier the rivers of both literatures flowed into a single sea, but now they run in different directions and their waters do not mix.

Sorry for the wrong parallel. Before the Second Vatican Council, the papal see was confident in the universality of Catholicism and its inevitable victory, and after the Council, having heard life-giving truth and equivalent depth in the Orthodox Liturgy and exiled Russian religious thought, it spoke of “light from the East” and “unity in diversity”, arguing that in the Lord's Garden the Copts are beautiful precisely as Copts, Orthodox as Orthodox, Protestants as Protestants, and in this difference they are shades of the one Christ's truth. It turned out that the universality of a single faith in a forced understanding is not only not necessary, but it is also undesirable, because then there will be no garden, but a collective farm field.

So in literature, I think we will soon guess that global trends to globalization is the destruction in oneself of the Lord's Face, a living individual national response to universal questions, and we will hear the old, but all youthfully fresh and life-giving truth for a long time to come - unity in diversity, if only the face of the Lord really was the basis of this unity, and with pride we will give the best forces to his own which will be a sign of love and memory of universal.

Pskov

Alexander Ebanoidze

About national identity - with a smile

The question of the national specifics of literature makes me smile, but it seems not at all the one that is implied in the preamble of our discussion in absentia.

I still remember the overwhelmingly strong and fresh impression from my first acquaintance with epics and fairy tales of different peoples: for me, Georgian fairy tales smelled of an old oak winepress littered with corn straw, while in Russians a cool, lily-of-the-valley freshness flickered and the Easter bells spread somewhere far away. In folklore, national specificity is expressed with impeccable taste - with minimal means, but so strongly that it impresses even in translations. For the rest of my life, the expanses of the Kyrgyz highlands, blown by the May poppy wind, and the felt closeness of Manas remained mine; an excess of sun in the bazaars of Baghdad and Damascus with hot sand on the teeth and in the folds of clothes; wet cobblestones of the Bremen pavement under rough-hewn shoes and the strained creak of the old windmill, crushing flour and mice ...

All this could be explained by childish impressionability, if not for the discovery made decades later: when I found myself in countries that I had read about in adapted editions of the Thousand and One Nights or in the Brothers Grimm, I was surprised to find that I knew them, I knew for a long time and, I would say, intimately - the rhythm and pace of life, voices and sounds, smells and tastes, and that subtly common thing that scientists call mentality.

The same property (enriching the life experience of the reader, multiplying it tenfold not only morally and aesthetically, but also in the sense of physical knowledge) is possessed by works of fiction. This time, instead of my impressions, I will refer to Hemingway and Henry James, who spoke about Tolstoy's "Cossacks" and Turgenev's prose. Thank God, there are many examples, including chronologically close ones, and each of us has our own.

Even in the memory of the previous generation, the world was great and diverse, and in its development, recognition, literature played by no means the last role. The function of revealing national originality and presenting it to the world subconsciously entered the task of the writer, accompanied it, was the most organic property of literature. In a transformed form, I think, it will forever remain inherent in it, since literature is inseparable from language. There is no national literature outside national language, in a certain sense, it is a product of the language, its profoundly wise child, and as such carries the genetic code, symbols and signs of national ancestral memory. Therefore, even in the most abstract, sophisticated and “advanced” compositions of the latest “rulers of thoughts”, one cannot help but have an effect (at least in the general “sound” or intonation) Italian temperament Umberto Eco, the Slavic sweeping of Milorad Pavic, the English sarcasm of Kingsley Amis. (Isn't this the same K. Amis who made his debut with Lucky Jim in the early 60s? If, in connection with with him the question of national specifics arose, which means that over the past years it has changed a lot.)

Here it is appropriate to recall famous cycle parables by Erlom Akhvlediani “Vano and Niko”, written in the late 50s and far ahead of their time. These parables (“the miracle of stylelessness”, in the words of A. Bitov) “are inexpressibly, elusively, but deeply national, like a line in an ornament.” Strong reinforcement of my thought: it turns out that even the miracle of stylelessness can be deeply national!

However, one cannot fail to recognize what was stated in the preamble of the discussion in our conference hall: the processes of globalization are developing incrementally, they have affected not only literature, but also its foundation - language. Gradually and steadily, the boundaries are blurred, national identity is leveled. Remaining in the same physical parameters, the world has become smaller due to the increase in speeds - the speed of movement, the transfer of information, its absorption, etc. Globalization is a fait accompli; the process, as they say, has gone on and on full swing. Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss not the causes of globalization, but to think about its consequences.

First of all, is it a positive process?

Far from everything. For literature, it can even turn out to be disastrous due to the selectivity, isolation, slowness inherent in our cause.

“The idea of ​​speed was united with the idea of ​​progress without any grounds for that ... One should ask oneself whether progress, so understood, is evidence that our era is lower than the centuries of ignorance that left us imperishable monuments of their patience, from which reason and knowledge were born?” This statement of Guillaume Apollinaire almost a century ago is a hundred times more relevant today. I will illustrate it with an example from urban planning: the beautiful difference between Samarkand, Ravenna and Suzdal is the product of slow “ages of ignorance”, without which we would see solid Chicago around.

If the cause of globalization, so to speak, its “material base” was technical progress, then the form of its manifestation in literature turned out to be its growing complexity and sophistication, the exposure of “frameworks”, the strengthening of conventionality and the game element. Many people call it intellectualization. I don't think the term is accurate, since it's unlikely that the best-selling authors named in the editorial introduction are more intelligent than Stendhal, Dostoyevsky, and Mann. Rather, their books reflect some compensatory efforts caused by the drying up of the roots, separation from the soil.

It should also be noted here that Western literature, where the element of conventionality and intellectual play has always been strong (“ The Divine Comedy”, “Don Quixote”, “Faust”), it is easier to get used to a new psychological climate era. That is why it is from the West that impulses of renewal and fashionable fads come. But with all the similarities, worldwide affinity and globalization, differences remain: if in the West a remarkable writer has long been defined as a “virtuoso of the pen”, then in Russia they are looking for and appreciating completely different qualities and properties:

When the feeling dictates the line

It sends a slave onto the stage.

And this is where the art ends.

And the soil and fate breathe.

Needless to say, the dictate of feeling almost excludes intellectualization, and where the soil “breathes”, there is certainly a national specificity.

I will make a reservation: the perception of the new situation, or rather, the new trend, both in Russia and in other literatures, is twofold; writing is such a piece, individual thing that everyone solves the dilemma on his own, at his desk. (Now, it seems, you should say - at your computer). There are centuries that do not feel the breath, there are those caught up by the craze and even running ahead of it, but there are carefully instilling tendencies to national traditions. If we think about it and remember, we will see that the latter are the most significant and productive. An example is the South American and South Slavic rootstock in world literature. As for me, I would gladly refer to Georgian - Otar Chkheidze, Chabua Amirejibi, Otar Chiladze, Guram Dochanashvili. In Russian, however, two small things seem to be a brilliant success in this sense - an old poem by Erofeev and a recent story by Vladislav Otroshenko “The Yard of Great-Grandfather Grisha”. However, it may be that what I called a successful rootstock, the fruit of grafting, would be more accurately defined as the product of resistance to strong national tradition the process of globalization. But this is a big topic short sentence unless you label it.

On the whole, one gets the impression that literature intuitively guesses the danger lurking for it in the process of globalization and is looking for a strategy of confrontation. A confrontation as obligatory and inevitable as, apparently, hopeless.

It remains to be hoped that the evening dawn of literature will be as beautiful as its dawn and blooming noon were.

Without a variety of colors, elusive, but deeply national, such beauty is unthinkable.

Mikhail Epshtein

About the future of the language

The national features of literature will disappear - and return already at the level of meta-: play, nostalgia, irony, irrevocable and irresistible. National identity will become a matter of taste, style, aesthetic choice. What style do you work in? - “Metal-Russian”, “virtual-Russian”, “metareal-Russian”, “Indo-European-Russian”, etc. Americans, preoccupied with the search for identity, add to their self-name the nationalities of their distant ancestors: “Italian-American”, “German-American”, “Irish-American”, etc. Perhaps, over time, a proud “Russian-Russian” will appear along with “Tatar-Russian”, “Euro-Russian” ... The fate of literature depends on the fate of the language: whether it remains Russian or, after several centuries, becomes latin alphabetically, or in terms of vocabulary, or even grammar, it will merge into the world language, compiled, most likely, on the basis of English and Spanish. The romanization of the Russian alphabet is a prospect, albeit frightening, but quite tangible by the end of our new century, at least for non-fiction literature. Written communication standards, intelligibility standards are set by electronic means communication, and the Cyrillic alphabet is not only a small island in the sea of ​​electro-writing, it has also fragmented itself into several encodings, which is why many Russians correspond in the Latin alphabet. This period of “new feudal” fragmentation is unlikely to pass without serious consequences for the Cyrillic alphabet: the Latin alphabet is beginning to displace it even among Russian speakers. Even the Serbs, who have special reasons not to like the Latin alphabet, are gradually switching to it. So, perhaps, in a hundred years, the Cyrillic alphabet will remain precisely the alphabet of artistic writing, a distinctive aesthetic feature, although at the same time there will also be works created in the “live”, colloquial and business Latin (as Dante moved from literary Latin to living, albeit “vulgar” , Italian and became one of the founders of new European literatures). The Latin version of Russian will begin to be aestheticized, there will be an additional opportunity for a polysemantic game with the words of other languages ​​... I say this with horror, but I imagine the inevitability of such a turn of things.

Another way of developing the Russian language is also possible - not through borrowing (alphabet, vocabulary), but through the development of the Indo-European root system, which Slavic languages ​​share with Romance and Germanic. Perhaps, on the basis of Russian, such a language will be built, in relation to which modern Russian will be only a special case. Of the 500 words for “lyub”, which will be in the language, in the current Russian there is only one tenth. This is not just filling in the gaps, but recreating that linguistic volume, the verbal space that will cover both Russian and other Indo-European languages. Reconciliation-recreation of the Indo-European basis of modern languages, but no longer as an ancestral basis, but as a conceivable and “recommended” future - this is one of the possibilities for the “progressive return” of Russian to the world language family. It seems to me that the future world language should not be pan-English or pan-Spanish, but new-Indo-European, - it should restore those forms of root, lexical, grammatical commonality that all Indo-European languages ​​had at the source of their development and differentiation. Perhaps, before the transition from living languages ​​to machine languages, the time has come for the need to develop to the end, to project the “root-crown” system of the Russian language in all conceivable directions, to cover the language development tree as a whole, from the now visible branches - not only to Indo- European roots, but also to those crowns over which artificial intelligence will soon fly, completely breaking away from the national historical soil of linguistics.

I am trying to participate in this process with my project “Gift of the Word”, which proposes alternative, expansive models of word formation: the most ancient Indo-European roots begin to toss and turn in the soil of the Russian language, grow and branch anew, and thereby intertwine with other languages ​​​​of the Indo-European family.

Who am I in terms of my cultural roots? Yes, the same as in terms of language: Indo-European. Not a Westerner or an Easterner, not a Russian, not an American, not a Jew - these are more and more particular characteristics that are necessary, but not sufficient. All these cultures have a common Indo-European heritage, which has been preserved primarily - and almost exclusively - in languages ​​(partly in myths, archetypes). And so, as humanity unites and develops a common language, Indo-European roots will begin to be exposed anew in the converging perspective of different languages. Now, perhaps, a grandiose reform of the Russian language is brewing: not a horizontal entry into modernity, through borrowing, imitation - but vertically: not anglicization, not Europeanization, but Indo-Europeanization, i.e. ascent to the original roots, and through them - to generally understandable derivatives, with clear Indo-European roots and branches. For us, Russian speakers, scattered all over the world: Russians, Americans, Israelis, Australians, Canadians, Germans, language is the only common heritage. It is useless to look for commonalities on some political platforms or in cultural programs - here we are separated by age, upbringing, place of residence, tastes, etc. But the language, the sign system that shaped our thinking, the cultural gene pool, we have one, and, therefore, the first concern and point of convergence is not to let the language die out and fade away.

The current Russian "withers in the bud." The most alarming thing is that the roots of the Russian language in the 20th century slowed down and even stopped growing, and many branches were cut down. A general look at the state of the language brings a sad picture: several scattered branches stick out from the deep, primordial roots, and not only does no further branching occur, but, on the contrary, the branches fall, the word forest becomes bald. Dahl has about 150 words in the root nest “-love-”, from “loving” to “generous”, from “loving” to “fornication” (this does not include prefixes). In the four-volume Academic Dictionary of 1982 - 41 words. It turns out that the root “love” for a hundred years not only did not give growth, new branches, but, on the contrary, began to fade sharply and lose its crown. Dalevsky words cannot be restored in the language, because many are associated with a circle of obsolete, local meanings, Church Slavonicisms, etc.; but in a living language, the roots must grow, branch, bring new words. It is significant that Solzhenitsyn, who is trying to expand the modern Russian language by introducing words from the Dalevsky dictionary, was forced to thin out in his selection not only the composition of words, but also to shorten their interpretations, to narrow their meanings (see my article “The Word as a Work. On the Genre of One Word” , Novy Mir, No. 9, 2000). In all dictionaries of the Russian language of the Soviet era in total 125 thousand words are given - this is very little for a developed language, especially with a huge literary past and potential. Moreover, a significant part of this fund is made up of monotonous and little-used suffix formations such as “fate, back, feather, child, kalinushka, valley, bylinushka ...”. Almost 300 only feminine words with the suffix “ushk” were included by the compilers in the seventeen-volume Great Academic Dictionary (1960s) to represent the development and richness of the language; meanwhile, many meaningful offshoots from really prolific, meaningful roots have fallen out of the language.

The same thing happens with the language as with the population. The population of Russia is almost three times less than what it should have been according to demographic estimates at the beginning of the 20th century. And the point is not only in population decline, but also in crop shortages. 60 or 70 million died as a result of historical experiments and catastrophes, but twice as many of those who could, demographically should have been born, were not born, their social environment did not accept them from those genetic depths from which they rushed to birth. This is how it is in the Russian language: not only is there a decline, but it is also undernourished. Dead words can hardly be fully resurrected, although Solzhenitsyn's attempt deserves great respect - it is rather necessary to give birth to new words, not from scratch, but to grow them from ancient roots in accordance with the semantic need.

I said almost nothing about literature - but now it is clearer than ever that literature in the narrow sense of the word - not writing in general, but fiction - is only one of the ways and even one of the stages in the life of the language. As much as the language will be national, literature will be just as national.

The Great French Revolution also affected Russia. Russia. The abolition or restriction of autocratic power: the abolition of feudal economic institutions, and above all serfdom; the establishment of firm legality, excluding arbitrariness and corruption; protection of the human person; finally, the fight against ignorance, prejudice, social and nationalist prejudices; enlightenment of the broadest sections of the people - this is the force field of ideas in which classical Russian literature developed. There are a number of clear signs that distinguish the literary development of the first half of XIX century from the second. The literature of the first half of the 19th century is distinguished by the extraordinary capacity and universality of the works it created. artistic images. At this time, the foundations of Russian literary classics are being laid, its living cells, carrying a unique "genetic code". This is a literature of short, but promising in its further development of artistic formulas, containing a powerful figurative energy, still compressed in them, not yet unfolded. It is no coincidence that many of them will become proverbs, become a fact of our everyday language, part of our spiritual experience: almost all of Krylov's fables, many verses from Woe from Wit and Eugene Onegin, Nozdrevshchina, Manilovshchina, Chichikovshchina Gogol, “repetilovshchina”, “silence” of Griboedov, etc. In Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century, the problem of artistic form, brevity and accuracy of the linguistic design of the poetic image occupies a large place. There is a process of formation of the literary language. Hence the tense and lively disputes about the fate of the Russian language between the “Shishkovists” and the “Karamzinists”. Hence the genre universalism of Russian writers in the first half of the 19th century. The works of Russian writers of the first half of the 19th century are small in volume, but significant in terms of the figurative power that they contain.

periodization	The most important historical events in Europe and in Russia	General characteristics of the period	Main genres
1. 1795--1815	The Great French Revolution (1789-1793) Opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Patriotic War of 1812. The emergence of Decembrist organizations	secular nature of literature. Development of the European cultural heritage. Increased attention to Russian folklore and folk legends. The decline of classicism and its transformation in the work of Derzhavin. The specifics of Russian sentimentalism and emerging romanticism. The rise of journalism. Literary societies and circles	Journey, novel (educational novel, novel in letters). elegy, message, idyll
2. 1816-1825	The growth of revolutionary and national liberation movements in Europe. The emergence of secret societies in Russia (1821-1822). The death of Napoleon and the death of Byron. Decembrist uprising (1825)	The dominant trend is romanticism. Literature of the Decembrists. Edition of almanacs. The principle of historicism put forward by Karamzin. Romantic aspirations in the works of Pushkin 1812-1824	Ode, tragedy, "high comedy", civil or patriotic poem, elegy, epistle "modernized" by the Decembrists. "Psychological Tale", ballad
3 . 1826 - the first half of the 50s.	Defeat of the Decembrist uprising. "The new censorship charter". Russian victories in the wars with Persia and Turkey (1826-1829). July Revolution in France (1830). Suppression of the Polish uprising (1831). Persecution of freethinking in Russia. Deepening crisis of serfdom, public reaction. Strengthening democratic tendencies. Development of the ideas of revolution and utopian socialism. Reactionary protective measures of the government in connection with the revolutions in Europe	Loyalty to the ideas of Decembrism and realism in the works of Pushkin (1826-1837). The rise of Lermontov's romanticism. Gogol's transition to realism and social satire. Realism acquires leading importance, although most writers work within the framework of romanticism. The emergence of new romantic genres. Replacing poetry with prose. The 1830s are the heyday of the story. Realistic aesthetics of Belinsky. Publication of the first volume of "Dead Souls" (1842). The growing influence of advanced journalism on public life. The struggle of progressive and democratic forces in journalism. The ideological struggle between Slavophiles and Westernizers. "Natural School". The priority of social issues. Development of the "little man" theme. The confrontation between the literature of the "Gogol school" and poets-lyricists of a romantic plan	Romantic ballad, poem, historical novel. Secular, historical, romantic, everyday story. Literary-critical article. The main genres of the "natural school": social tale, socio-psychological novel, poem. Landscape, love-aesthetic and philosophical lyrics of romantic poets

Literary and social movement (activities of literary societies and circles) of the first third of the 19th century. The main trends in Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century.

A specific feature of social life at the beginning of the 19th century was the organization of literary societies, which was an indicator of the relative maturity of literature and the desire to give it the character of a public affair. The earliest of these was the "Friendly Literary Society", which grew out of a student circle of pupils of Moscow University and the University Noble boarding school - brothers Andrei and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, S.G. Rodzyanka. How a circle of young like-minded people opens in St. Petersburg on July 15, 1801 "Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts". His interests were not limited to literature alone. The society included sculptors (I. I. Terebenev, I. I. Galberg), artists (A. I. Ivanov), archaeologists, historians, physicians (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. Languages, etc.). “Society has chosen literature, science and art as the subject of its exercises,” wrote V.V. Popugaev, with the aim of “mutually improving itself in these three branches of human abilities” and “to advance according to one’s strength to the improvement of these three branches.” But the leading position in society was occupied, of course, by writers. Unlike the "Friendly Literary Society", they were alien to the Karamzin trend, adhered to educational traditions and developed a civil theme in their work. Among them were people of different social origins: people from petty bureaucracy, the clergy, and merchants. In 1811 at Moscow University was organized "Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" that existed for over 100 years. It included in its ranks teachers, writers and just lovers of belles-lettres. The chairman of the society at first was Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich Antonsky. A preparatory committee of six active members was organized at the society, which prepared regular open meetings: selected works for oral reading, discussion or publication in the proceedings of the society. The meetings were opened, as a rule, with the reading of an ode, and ended with the reading of a fable. In between, other genres of literature in verse and prose were discussed, scientific articles were read. "Conversation of lovers of the Russian word" (1811 1816) and opposed to it "Arzamas" found themselves in the center of the literary social struggle of the first quarter of the 19th century. With the closure of "Conversations ..." and the termination of the literary dispute with her, a crisis sets in in the activities of "Arzamas" (1815 1818). In 1817, members of secret Decembrist organizations - N. M. Muravyov, M. F. Orlov, N. I. Turgenev - joined it. Dissatisfied with the fact that society is busy discussing literary issues, the Decembrists are trying to give it a political character. The free structure of society does not satisfy their serious intentions. They are trying to adopt strict "laws" of society at the meeting, they insist on the publication of a special journal. There comes a split, and in 1818 the activity of the society ceases. Founded in 1818 1819, the "Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature" and the "Green Lamp" became branches ("administrations") of secret Decembrist organizations. Members of the Union of Welfare, in accordance with the charter, were obliged to infiltrate legal literary societies and exercise control over their activities. The meetings of the "Green Lamp" were held in the house of N. Vsevolozhsky, in a hall illuminated by a lamp with a green shade. It was not registered in government circles literary association with a radical political orientation. This included young oppositionists, among whom were people with republican convictions. The meetings of the Green Lamp were attended by poets (F. Glinka, N. Gnedich, A. Delvig, A. Pushkin), theater critics (D. Barkov, Ya. Tolstoy), publicist A. Ulybyshev, secular dandies seething with freethinking (P. Kavelin, M. Shcherbinin). In 1816, with the permission of the government, the Free Society of Competitors of Education and Charity was founded, which in 1818 received the highest approval under the name of the Free Society of Lovers Russian literature”, with the right to publish its own magazine “Competitor of Education and Charity. Proceedings of the Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. The entire benefit from the publication was assigned to "those who, being engaged in sciences and arts, require support and charity." The Decembrists (F. Glinka, brothers N. and A. Bestuzhev, K. Ryleev, A. Kornilovich, V. Küchelbecker, O. Somov), having become members of this society, began a decisive struggle against its well-intentioned wing (N. Tsertelev, B Fedorov, D. Khvostov, V. Karazin). The struggle was crowned with success, and since 1821 the society has become a legal branch of the Decembrist movement. Regular meetings began to be held to discuss the most pressing problems of the humanities, literature and art. Members of the society support with their works the magazines “Son of the Fatherland”, “Nevsky Spectator”, which are close to them in their convictions, and later the almanac “Polar Star” created by Ryleev and Bestuzhev. The issue of its own journal "Competitor of Enlightenment and Charity" becomes permanent. Thus, in the early 1820s, the “Free Society of Russian Literature Lovers” “became the most influential and most significant of all organizations of this type” (R. V. Iezuitova). The activities of the society were terminated at the end of 1825 in connection with the uprising of the Decembrists and the investigation of their case. In 1823 in Moscow, with the participation of V.F. Odoevsky, D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky, S.P. Shevyrev and M.P. not to socio-literary and political, but to philosophical and aesthetic problems, which gained particular popularity and significance already in the post-Decembrist era.

Briefly in the table:

Years of activity	Literary societies, circles and salons			Literary direction
	Name/status	Printed organ (magazine)	Members	Fading, leading, emerging literary movement
	"Friendly Literary Society"	Published Morning dawn, Vestnik Evropy	grown out of a student circle of pupils of Moscow University and the University Noble boarding school - the brothers Andrey and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, S.G. Rodzyanka.	began his literary career as a convinced "Karamzinist". Soon disagreements arose between members of the society in relation to Karamzin. Radical-minded Andrei Turgenev and A. S. Kaisarov, under the influence of Schiller, began to assert the romantic idea of ​​nationality and high citizenship of literature.
	"Free society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts"	“Scroll of the Muses” (1802 1803), then the journal “Periodical publication of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” (only one issue of the journal was published in 1804), and also collaborate in other time-based publications. Adjoining the direction of the society were the journals Severny Vestnik (1804–1805) and Lyceum (1806), published by I. I. Martynov, Journal of Russian Literature (1805) by N. P. Brusilova, Flower Garden (1809–1810) A E. Izmailov and A. P. Benitsky, "St. Petersburg Bulletin" (1812), created by decision of the society. From 1804 1805 poets K. N. Batyushkov, A. F. Merzlyakov, S. S. Bobrov, N. I. Gnedich were accepted as members of the society. The activities of the society revived and in many respects changed their direction with the arrival of the writers "Karamzinists" - D.N. Bludov, V.L. Pushkin and especially D.V. Dashkov, who in 1811 was elected president of the society and tried to give it a fighting character directed against Shishkov's "Conversations ...". These include K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, V. K. Kyuchelbeker, A. F. Raevsky (brother of V. F. Raevsky), O. M. Somov and other prominent writers are Decembrists.	sculptors (I. I. Terebenev, I. I. Galberg), artists (A. I. Ivanov), archaeologists, historians, physicians (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. Yazykov and others .). Vostokov. poet G. P. Kamenev, I. M. Born and V. V. Popugaev, I. P. Pnin, N. A. Radishchev	They gravitated towards classicism, later developed.
In 1811	Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature"		It included in its ranks teachers, writers and just lovers of belles-lettres. At first, the chairman of the society was Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich Antonsky
	"Conversation of lovers of the Russian word"		G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. S. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, D. I. Khvostov, A. A. Shakhovskoy, I. S. Zakharov and others also belonged to him. The "Conversation" also included N.I. Gnedich and I.A. Krylov
	"Arzamas" Arzamas society of unknown people.		writers (V. A. Zhukovsky, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, A. A. Pleshcheev, V. L. Pushkin, A. S. Pushkin, A. A. Perovsky, S. P. Zhikharev, A. F. Voeikov, F. F. Vigel, D. V. Davydov, D. A. Kavelin), as well as persons known more for their social activities (brothers A. I. and N. I. Turgenev, S. S. Uvarov, D. N. Bludov, D. V. Dashkov, M. F. Orlov, D. P. Severin, P. I. Poletika and others).
	"Green Lamp"		Decembrists S. P. Trubetskoy, F. N. Glinka, Ya. N. Tolstoy, A. A. Tokarev, P. P. Kaverin, as well as A. S. Pushkin and A. A. Delvig. The meetings were attended by N. I. Gnedich, A. D. Ulybyshev, D. N. Barkov, D. I. Dolgorukov, A. G. Rodzianko, F. F. Yuryev, I. E. Zhadovsky, P. B. Mansurov , V. V. Engelhardt (1785-1837).
	Society of Philosophy	"Mnemosyne"	Vladimir Odoevsky (chairman), Dmitry VenevItinov (secretary), I. V. Kireevsky, N. M. Rozhalin, A. I. Koshelev, V. P. Titov, S. P. Shevyryov, N. A. Melgunov. Sometimes the meetings were attended by some other Moscow writers.	Interested in German philosophy (idealistic)

In the first half of the 19th century, neither classicism, nor sentimentalism, nor pure romanticism existed. By the beginning of the XIX century. Russian literature has already survived (but not outlived!) the artistic movement of a pan-European scale - classicism. However, it is no coincidence that the first phase of the classical period of Russian literature coincided with the formation and flourishing in it of another pan-European movement - sentimentalism. Awareness of the value of the human personality, conditioned, and sometimes constrained, regulated by public relations; interest in the "life of the heart", in feeling, in sensitivity - this is the soil on which Russian sentimentalism developed and which then served as the starting point for further literary evolution. At the same time, the formation of sentimentalism, and the emergence of all subsequent trends and schools, turned out to be possible only because the Karamzin reform and the movement it caused gave literature a new language - the language of subtle emotional experiences, overflows of feelings, fluctuations and changes in mood, deep heartfelt inclination, languor, melancholy - in a word, the language of the "inner man". Thus, the main stream of Russian literary evolution in the first half of the century was the same as in the West: sentimentalism, romanticism and realism. But the appearance of each of these stages was extremely peculiar, and the originality was determined both by the close interweaving and merging of already known elements, and by the advancement of new ones - those that Western European literature did not know or almost did not know. It can be argued that at the beginning of the century in sentimentalism and partly in romanticism, the picture was determined by the merging of elements, and in subsequent directions (realism) - by the advancement of still unknown, new ones.

The essence of romanticism as an artistic method. The originality of Russian romanticism, its varieties.

Romanticism in Europe arose earlier and Russian romanticism borrows a lot. Romanticism is born on the basis of disappointment with reality, it is a kind of reaction to the Great French Revolution. Romanticism has two homelands Germany (in the circle of writers and philosophers of the Jena school (W. G. Wackenroder, Ludwig Tieck, Novalis, brothers F. and A. Schlegel). The philosophy of romanticism was systematized in the works of F. Schlegel and F. Schelling. Later The development of German romanticism is distinguished by an interest in fairy-tale and mythological motifs, which was especially clearly expressed in the work of the brothers Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, Hoffmann Heine, starting his work within the framework of romanticism, later subjected it to a critical revision) and England (the first representatives are the poets of the Lake School ", Wordsworth and Coleridge. They established the theoretical foundations of their direction, having become acquainted during a trip to Germany with Schelling's philosophy and the views of the first German romantics. English romanticism is characterized by an interest in social problems: they oppose modern bourgeois society with old, pre-bourgeois relations, the glorification of nature, simple, natural feelings A prominent representative of the English novel tym is Byron). In the center of the picture of the world of romantics is the personality. Its essence is not in the mind, or feelings, but the main essence of the personality in the freedom of the spirit. And the goal of every personality is “in the strength and desire to become like God and always have the infinite before your eyes.” A characteristic feature of a romantic hero is exclusivity. The desire of the individual for absolute freedom. But she meets obstacles: 1) society (runs away from the world or is expelled by it), 2) nature (unity / conflict with nature), 3) fate (rock). Romantics believe that a person does not know the world, but he experiences it. Contemplation is a special vision that allows one to penetrate from the external into the internal. The favorite motif of romantics is mystical. Also, romanticism is characterized by "two worlds" - a romantic person is in two worlds (real and his own). Genres: short story, short story, ellegy, ode (civil romanticism), excerpt (the embodiment of genre freedom), lyrical poem, dramatic poems (in dialogue), ballad - a favorite genre of romantics, with the poetics of the terrible at the core. It is usually believed that in Russia romanticism appears in the poetry of V. A. Zhukovsky (although some Russian poetic works of the 1790-1800s are often attributed to the pre-romantic movement that developed from sentimentalism). In Russian romanticism, freedom from classical conventions appears, a ballad, a romantic drama, is created. A new idea of ​​the essence and meaning of poetry is affirmed, which is recognized as an independent sphere of life, an expression of the highest, ideal aspirations of man; the old view, according to which poetry was an empty pastime, something completely serviceable, is no longer possible. Stages of development of Russian romanticism:

1810s - the emergence and formation of a psychological trend in romanticism. Zhukovsky, Batyushkov.

The end of the 1810s - 1820s - the emergence of a civil movement in romanticism. Ryleev, Küchelbecker, Glinka.

1820 - the maturity of the psychological trend. Pushkin, Baratynsky, Vyazemsky, Yazykov.

1830 - the emergence of a philosophical trend. Baratynsky, lyubomudry poets, Tyutchev, Odoevsky's prose, Lermontov, Benediktov's lyrics. Penetration of Romanticism into Prose.

1840 - the decline of romanticism. It becomes the object of the image. The novel "A Hero of Our Time".

Psychological course: the development of ideas of self-knowledge, self-improvement of the individual as the most correct way of transforming a person is characteristic.

Civil: a person is a part of society, which means that he is destined for civil activity.

Philosophical: man, his fate, his place in the world are destined and depend on the general laws of the universe, are subordinate to fate.

Lyrics by V. Zhukovsky. The originality of the creative method. Themes and images.

Zhukovsky is considered the first Russian romantic. He was a deeply religious person, in his opinion the world is divided into the earthly world and the posthumous world. In poetry, the features of pantheism (God is in everything) can be traced. Man must strive to transform earthly life. Work begins with the translation of Thomas Gray's elegy "Rural Cemetery". The elegy opens with a description of the coming evening, when the “malice of the day” does not prevail over a solitary person, when the vain cares of a noisy day leave him. In the mysterious silence, feelings are sharpened, inner vision awakens, the soul responds to the fundamental, age-old questions of being. At the village cemetery, the young poet is faced with the question of the meaning of life. The first original elegy "Evening". The moment of transition from one state to another. The poet-singer recognizes himself as a friend of the villages and an opponent of the urban form of civilization, he bitterly regrets the disintegrated circle of friends, the death of one of his closest friends. He fears that “honor seeking” and “the vain honor of being pleasant in the world” can drown out the memory of friendship and love. By the end of the poem, he predicts a special fate for the poet, which contains a hint of his chosen role as a romantic:

Rock judged me: wander along an unknown path,

To be a friend of peaceful villages, to love the beauties of Nature,

Breathe under the dusk oak silence

And, looking down at the foam of water,

To sing the Creator, friends, love and happiness.

O songs, pure fruit of the innocence of the heart!

Zhukovsky sings of a peaceful life, devoid of external conflicts. In the landscape he created, there is, as it were, a character who perceives its beauty, extremely sensitively and subtly responding to the most diverse manifestations of the natural landscape. It is this natural world, which evokes whimsical and changeable experiences and moods in the lyrical “I”, which constitutes the actual content of the elegy. "Evening" - in comparison with the sentimentalist elegy - is a new type of romantic text both in method and in the methods of psychological drawing: successive memories, thoughts, moods and feelings are called upon to express a new spiritual experience that is unique in its inner content, especially reliable in reflections on the transience of youth, on losses in life path person. In contrast to the poets of the XVIII century. Zhukovsky's task is primarily to convey the reactions of the lyrical "I" in their especially refined, individually unique form:

How incense sleeps with the coolness of plants!

How sweet in the silence at the shore of the jets splashing!

How quiet is the wind of marshmallows on the waters

And flexible willow flutter!

In the elegy "The Unspeakable" (1819), the poet expressed regret about the impossibility of holding a moment of beauty, capturing and capturing in a word the play of light, the play of shadows and sunspots, the reflection of shining clouds in the water - all the diversity of living, constantly changing nature.

What is our earthly language before wondrous nature?

With what careless and easy freedom

She scattered beauty everywhere.

And yet, in his poetry, he set himself this task: to give a visible, sounding, figurative embodiment of the inexpressible - that which flickers in the depths of human consciousness, which emerges in bright splashes for a moment from the recesses of the subconscious and almost never lends itself to definition in logical terms. And very often Zhukovsky managed to solve it brilliantly. So here, in The Unspeakable, he found words that evoked in the reader the idea of ​​a fire of colors in the blue of the sky and in the reflection of clouds in the blue of water, evoked the illusion of our participation in that beauty in nature that arose in unsteady, almost elusive glimpses and what echoed in the human soul. After all, it is for the perception of beauty!

One of the most famous is the elegy "The Sea". It reveals the classical image of the sea, the poet personifies the elements. The sea is a huge soul. There is also an image of the sky. There is earthly bondage and heaven. The sea reflects the light of the sky. In the final - the calm of the sea. In this poem, the poet draws the sea in three scenes: in a calm state, in a storm and after it. The calm sea surface reflects both the azure of the sky and the "golden clouds" and the sparkle of the stars. In a storm, the sea beats, raises waves. It does not immediately calm down and after it, despite external calmness, in its depths, as the lyrical hero says, it hides confusion. It is easy to see that Zhukovsky does not simply describe the seascape. The poet is talking about something intimate, dear to him. The sea appears to the lyrical hero as a living, thinking and feeling being, fraught with a "deep secret". The author through the description of nature shows us his experiences. The mood of the lyrical hero is merged with the mood of the sea.

Literature is the art of the word, therefore, the features of the national language in which it is written are a direct expression of its national identity. The lexical richness of the national language affects the nature of the author's speech and the speech characteristics of the characters, the syntax of the national language determines the intonational moves of prose and verse, phonetically

This structure creates the uniqueness of the sound of the work.

Since there are now more than two and a half thousand languages ​​in the world, it can be assumed that there is the same number of national literatures. However, the latter is much less.

Despite the differences in language, some peoples who have not yet formed into a nation often have a common literary tradition, primarily a single folk epic. From this point of view, the example of the peoples of the North Caucasus and Abkhazia, which are represented by more than fifty languages, but have a common epic cycle - "Narts", is very indicative. The epic heroes of the Ramayana are the same for the peoples of India who speak different languages, and even for many peoples of Southeast Asia. Such a commonality arises because, although individual peoples live in remote places, often closed, cut off from the outside world, which is why differences in language arise, their living conditions are nonetheless close to each other. They have to overcome the same difficulties in dealing with nature, they have the same level of economic and social development. Many similarities often occur in their historical destinies. Therefore, these nationalities are united by a commonality of ideas about life and the dignity of a person, and hence, in literature, the imagination is carried away by the images of the same epic heroes.

Writers can also use the same language, and their work represents different national literatures. Arabic, for example, is written by Egyptian, Syrian, and Algerian writers. French is used not only by French, but also by some Belgian and Canadian writers. Both the English and the Americans write in English, but the works they create bear a vivid imprint of various features of national life. Many African writers, using the language of the former colonialists, create works that are completely original in their national essence.

It is also characteristic that, with a good translation into another language, fiction may well retain the stamp of national identity. “It would be ideal if every work of every nationality included in the Union was translated into the languages ​​of all other nationalities of the Union,” M. Gorky dreamed. - In this case

we would more and more quickly learn to understand each other's national-cultural properties and characteristics, and this understanding, of course, would greatly speed up the process of creating ... a single socialist culture. (49, 365-366). Consequently, although the language of literature is the most important indicator of its national identity, it does not exhaust its national identity.

A very important role in the formation of the national identity of artistic creativity is played by the commonality of the territory, because in the early stages of the development of society, certain natural conditions often give rise to common tasks in the struggle of man with nature, the commonality of labor processes and skills, and hence customs, way of life, world outlook. Therefore, for example, in the mythology that developed during the tribal system among the ancient Chinese, the hero is Gong, who managed to stop the flood of the river (a frequent occurrence in China) and saved the people from the flood, taking out a piece of "living land", and among the ancient Greeks - Prometheus, who mined sky fire. In addition, impressions from the surrounding nature affect the properties of the narrative, the features of metaphors, comparisons and other artistic means. The northern peoples rejoice in the warmth, the sun, so they most often compare the beauty with the clear sun, and the southern peoples prefer the comparison With moon, because the night brings coolness, saving from the heat of the sun. In Russian songs and fairy tales, a woman's gait is compared with the smooth gait of a swan, and in India - with "the wondrous gait of royal elephants."

Territorial community often leads to common paths economic development, creates a common historical life of the people. This affects the themes of literature, gives rise to differences in artistic images. Thus, the Armenian epic "David of Sasun" tells about the life of gardeners and farmers, about the construction of irrigation canals; the Kyrgyz "Manas" captured the nomadic life of pastoralists, the search for new pastures, life in the saddle; in the epic of the German people, the Nibelungenlied, the search for ore, the work of blacksmiths, etc. are depicted.

As a nation is formed from the nationality and the community of the spiritual make-up of the people crystallizes, the national originality of literature is already manifested not only in labor and everyday customs and ideas, features of the perception of nature, but also in

the perils of social life. The development of class society, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another: from slave-owning to feudal and from feudal to bourgeois, proceeds among different peoples at different times, under different conditions. The external and internal political activity of the nation state develops differently, which has an impact on the organization and strengthening of property and legal relations, on the emergence of certain moral norms, and hence on the formation of ideological (including religious) ideas and traditions. All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of the life of society. From childhood, people are brought up under the influence of a complex system of relationships and ideas of the national society, and this leaves an imprint on their behavior. This is how the characters of people of different nations are historically formed - national characters.

Literature has a place of honor in revealing the peculiarities of the national character. The versatility of this phenomenon, its connection with the main subject of artistic knowledge - man in his social characteristics give the artist advantages over the scientist. “The images of fiction,” writes I. Kon, “embrace national-typical features deeper and more multifaceted than scientific formulas. Fiction shows both the diversity of national types, and their concrete class nature, and their historical development. (63, 228).

It is often believed that the national character is determined by some one, dominant psychological trait, inherent in only one nation, exclusively only to it. But common features can appear among representatives of different nations. The originality of the national character lies in a certain correlation of these features and in the tendencies of their development. Literary characters perfectly show how one and the same property of character, in unity with others, takes on various national incarnations. Thus, for example, Balzac depicts the stinginess of Gobsek, but in its psychological manifestation it is in no way similar to the stinginess of Gogol's Plyushkin. Both characters, striving for the accumulation of wealth, have ceased to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary in it, and in both it senselessly rots under vigilant supervision.

miser's rum. However, these common features are shaped in different ways - by bourgeois society in one and by feudal-serf society in another. Critical realism plays the most important role in reflecting national character traits in literature. Critical realists, to a much greater extent than the romantics, and even more so the classicists, had the opportunity to reveal in their works all the contradictory complexity of the national characters of their characters, who belonged to different strata of society. An artist who has mastered the art of the finest realistic detail conveys both the social determinism of a certain character trait or manifestation of feeling, and his national identity.

With the formation of critical realism in literature, an important quality of national identity is revealed. Since a realistic work bears the imprint of the writer's personality, his individuality, and the writer himself acts as the bearer of a national character, national originality becomes an organic property of creativity itself. The characters of people in their national characteristics not only act as an object of artistic knowledge, but are also depicted from the point of view of the writer, who also carries the spirit of his people, his nation. Pushkin is the first profound exponent of the national Russian character in literature. Belinsky repeatedly wrote about this, Gogol expressed it especially aptly: “Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit: this is the Russian man in his development, in which he, perhaps, will appear in two hundred years. In it, Russian nature, the Russian soul, the Russian language, the Russian character are reflected in the same purity, in such purified beauty, in which the landscape is reflected on the convex surface of optical glass. (46, 33).

The imprint of national identity is borne not only by those works in which the characters and events of national reality or history are directly depicted (Eugene Onegin and Poltava by Pushkin, War and Peace or Resurrection by L. Tolstoy), but also those , which reflect the life of other peoples (for example, "Lucerne" or "Hadji Murat"), but comprehend and evaluate its contradictions from the point of view of a person shaped by Russian reality.

At the same time, national identity is not limited

only by depicting individual characters, it covers the creative process so deeply that it manifests itself in the plots and themes of the works. Thus, in Russian literature, the theme of the “superfluous person” - a nobleman, a person of progressive views, who is in conflict with the surrounding reality, but unable to realize his dissatisfaction with the existing order, has become widespread. For French literature, the conflict of a man who is making his way in the bourgeois world turned out to be typical. As a result, certain genres were predominantly developed in national literature (the novel of education, for example, in German and English literature).

Thus, the literature of critical realism, which developed in Europe in the 19th century, contains the most complete, deepest expression of national identity.

National character plays an important role in determining the national identity of literature, however, in the analysis it is necessary to take into account that this is not only a psychological, but also a socio-historical category, because the formation of character is determined by the socio-historical conditions prevailing in society. Therefore, the national character cannot be regarded as given once and for all. The development of historical life can change the national character.

Some writers and critics, superficially approaching the problem of national identity, idealize the patriarchal way of life with its stability and even inertia. They do not try to understand the national identity in the life of those sections of society that have joined the achievements of international culture. As a result, a falsely meaningful love for their nation leads them to misunderstanding the progressive phenomena of national life. Exceptional interest only in what distinguishes one nation from others, faith in the chosenness of one's nation, in the advantage of its primordial customs, rituals and everyday habits, leads not only to conservatism, but also to nationalism. Then the national feeling of the people is used by the exploiting classes in their own interests. Therefore, the concept of national identity must be considered in relation to the concept of nationality.

NATIONALITY OF LITERATURE

The concepts of nationality and nationality of artistic creativity did not differ for a long time. When national literatures began to take shape, the German scientist I. Herder came up with a theory of national identity based on the study of folk traditions and oral folk art. In 1778-1779. he published collections of folk poetry called "Voices of the peoples in songs." According to Herder, folk poetry was "the flower of the unity of the people, their language and their antiquity, their pursuits and judgments, their passions and unfulfilled desires" (62, 213). Thus, the German thinker found the expression of the national spirit, the national “substance”, primarily in the psychological make-up of the working people, and he had to endure a lot of ridicule for turning to the poetry of the “plebeians”.

Interest in folk art in connection with the problem of national identity was both natural and progressive for the 18th century. In the feudal era, national identity was most clearly manifested in folklore and in works that were influenced by this creativity (The Tale of Igor's Campaign in Russia, The Song of Roland in France, etc.). The ruling class, trying to oppose itself to the working masses, to emphasize the exclusivity of his position, he was drawn to a cosmopolitan culture, often even using a language foreign to the people. AT late XVIII and the beginning of the 19th century. progressive figures - enlighteners and romantics - turned to folk poetry.

This was especially pronounced in Russia. For the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists, who in their way of life were far from the people, the working masses, acquaintance with folk art became one of the ways of knowing their people, familiarizing them with their interests. Sometimes in their works they managed to penetrate the spirit of folk art. So, Ryleev created the thought "Death of Yermak", accepted by the masses as a folk song.

In Russia, the poetry of the Decembrists and writers close to them in spirit, led by Pushkin, expressed with great force the interests of the progressive, revolutionary movement. Their poetry was national in character and popular and democratic in its meaning. But they themselves and the critics of subsequent decades did not yet see the difference between these concepts. Yes, Belinsky

he constantly called Pushkin and Gogol "folk poets", meaning by this the high national identity of their work, and only towards the end of his career did he gradually come to understand the people themselves.

In the 30s of the XIX century. the ruling circles of autocratic Russia created the nationalist theory of the "official nationality". By “people” they understood devotion to autocracy and Orthodoxy; Literature was required to depict the primordially Russian life, permeated with religious prejudices, historical paintings glorifying the love of a Russian person for the Tsar. Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky did a lot to show the limitations of the authors (Zagoskin, Kukolnik and some others) who spoke in line with the nationalistically understood "people".

A decisive turning point in the understanding of nationality in literature was made by Dobrolyubov's article "On the Degree of Participation of Nationality in the Development of Russian Literature" (1858). The critic showed that nationality is determined not by the range of topics of interest to the writer, but by the expression in literature of the "point of view" of the working people, the masses of the people, who form the basis of national life. Moreover, assessing the nationality of the writer's work, the critic demanded that the interests of the oppressed masses be elevated to the height of the interests of general civil, national development. Therefore, he reproached even Koltsov for being narrow-minded (55, 263). The expression of the progressive ideas of its time, which in one way or another meet the interests of the masses, is a condition for achieving genuine nationality in literature.

Revolutionary-democratic writers, following Dobrolyubov, consciously strove for nationality in their artistic work, but nationality can also be unconscious. So, Dobrolyubov, for example, wrote about Gogol: “We see that Gogol, although in your best creations came very close to popular point of view, but approached unconsciously, simply by artistic groping” (55, 271; italics ours. - S. K.). At the same time, the nationality of works can be assessed only historically, by raising the question of what works, how and to what extent this or that writer could express the interests of the masses in his era of national development.

The most important are the works

Folk in their meaning can also be such works that depict the best representatives of the ruling class, dissatisfied with the senselessness of the existence of the environment to which they belong by birth and upbringing, looking for ways to work and to other forms of human relations. Such are “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, the best novels of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, “Foma Gordeev” and “Egor Bulychev” by Gorky, etc. V. I. Lenin attached great importance to the work of L. Tolstoy, primarily because he found

in his works, an expression of popular protest in the era of "preparation for a revolution in one of the countries crushed by the feudal lords ..." (14, 19).

And lyrical works that reproduce the inner world, reflecting the variety of emotional responses of the poet to the surrounding reality, can also be popular in their meaning, if they differ in the depth and truthfulness of their ideological orientation. Such are the sonnets of Petrarch and Shakespeare, the lyrics of Byron and Shelley, Pushkin and Lermontov, Heine, Blok, Yesenin, Mayakovsky. They enrich the moral, emotional and aesthetic experience of the nation and of all mankind.

To create works of national importance, the most important role is played by the progressive outlook of the writer, his ideals. But folk works in their meaning can also be created by writers with a contradictory worldview. Then the measure of their nationality is determined by the depth of the critical problems of their work. This can be judged by the work of A. Ostrovsky or Dickens. The spontaneous-democratic worldview gave them the opportunity to create the brightest pictures that expose the world of profit. But writers who are progressive only in the critical side of their work are usually unstable in their positions. Along with sharp revealing images, they have implausible idyllic pictures of patriarchal life. The researcher must be able to uncover such contradictions of a writer whose national significance is recognized by the history of literature. It is in this approach to understanding artistic creativity that the methodological meaning of Lenin’s assessment of L. Tolstoy, whose ideals reflected the “immaturity of dreaminess” of the patriarchal peasantry, but at the same time led the writer to a realistic tearing off of “all and sundry masks” (13, 212, 209).

According to its significance, popular literature arms the advanced forces of the nation, its progressive social movements, which serve to emancipate the working masses and establish new forms of social life. It raises the civic activity of the social rank and file, freeing the working people from authoritarian ideas, from their dependence on those in power. The words of V. I. Lenin, retold by K. Zetkin, correspond to the modern understanding of nationality: “Art belongs

people. It must have its deepest roots in the very depths of the broad working masses. It must be understood by these masses and loved by them. It must unite the feeling, thought and will of these masses, raise them. (16, 657).

To fulfill this function, art must be accessible to the people. Dobrolyubov saw one of the main reasons for the absence of nationality in the long centuries of the development of Russian literature in the fact that literature remained far from the masses due to the illiteracy of the latter. The critic was extremely keenly worried about the narrowness of Russian readership: “... the greatness of it (literature. - S.K.) meaning is weakened in this case only by the smallness of the circle in which it acts. This is the last such circumstance, which it is impossible to recall without contrition and which chills us every time we are carried away by dreams of the great significance of literature and of beneficial effect it on humanity” (55, 226-226).

Contemporary writers of Latin America and many countries of Asia and Africa write about the same tragic separation of the bulk of the people from the national culture. Such a barrier can only be overcome by social transformations of society. An example is the transformation in our country after the Great October Socialist Revolution, when cultural achievements ceased to be the property of the "top ten thousand".

The nationality of art is determined not only by the merits of its content, but also by the perfection of its form. The folk writer achieves capacity and expressiveness of each word, artistic detail, plot twist. Sometimes it is given to him with great difficulty. Reading in L. Tolstoy's "Resurrection" a simple, at first glance, phrase: "Katyusha, beaming with a smile and eyes as black as wet currants, flew towards him," the reader imagines a charming girl in young defenselessness. But he does not even guess how long the artist worked on these words until he found the only necessary comparison (the initial comparison of Katyusha's eyes with cherries destroyed the artistic effect).

The simplicity and accessibility of an artistic form in this sense are determined by the creative demands of the writer, his aesthetic sense, the measure of his talent. In order to convey to the reader the ideological richness of their

works, the artist must give them high perfection artistic form and style.

Genuine folk literature most fully expresses national interests, therefore it also has a pronounced national identity. It is the work of such artists as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov, L. Leonov, Tvardovsky that determines our idea of ​​the nationality of art and its national identity.

However, the process of development never occurs in isolation in one national culture. It is very important to understand the interaction not only between the folk and national meanings of literature, but also their connection with its universal meaning. It follows from the role that the nation, which has created its own literature, plays in the development of mankind. For this, it is necessary that the writer, in the national identity of the processes taking place in the life of his people, reveal the features of the progressive development of all mankind.

Thus, thanks to their national identity, Homer's poems reflected with special perfection, according to K. Marx, that early stage in the development of all peoples, which can be called the childhood of "human society" 1 . Italian poetry (Dante, Petrarch, etc.), as well as English dramaturgy (Shakespeare) had a similar world significance for the Renaissance; for the era of absolutism - the dramaturgy of French classicism; for the era of bourgeois revolutions - the romantic poetry of Byron; for the era of development of bourgeois society - realistic literature France (Balzac, Flaubert), England (Dickens), Russia (Pushkin, Gogol, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

The fusion of the popular, the national, and the universal is manifested most clearly in the literature of socialist realism. The processes of formation of the human personality in the struggle to build a new, classless society are important for all mankind. The writers of socialist realism are armed with a scientific understanding of the objective laws of historical development,

1 See: Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12. S. 737.

they consciously defend the interests of the people. The words about Soviet culture that were voiced in the Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVII Party Congress fully apply to Soviet multinational literature: “Incorporating the richness of national forms and colors, it becomes a unique phenomenon in world culture” (17, 53).

The best works of fiction, in which artists capture the present of the people in its connection with the past, and thereby reflect the general movement from the present to the future, retain enduring national, and often world-historical significance. They live for centuries in the consciousness of society, being monuments to the natural stages of development of both individual peoples and all mankind. They are rethought by the public of different peoples at new stages of their historical development in different aspects of their content, each time acquiring a new ideological and aesthetic relevance.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Marks K. Introduction (From economic manuscripts 1857-
1858)// Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12.

2. Marks K. Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, April 19, 1859//
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 29.

3. Engels F. Anti-Dühring // Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed.
T. 20.

4. Engels F. Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, May 18, 1859//
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 29.

5. Engels F. Letter to Minna Kautskaya, November 26, 1885 //
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 36.

6. Engels F. Letter from Margaret Harkness, early April 1888//
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 37.

7. Lenin V.I. The economic content of populism and criticism
him in the book of Mr. Struve // ​​Fields. coll. op. T. 1.

8. Lenin V.I. What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against
Social Democrats // Poly. coll. op. T. 1.

9. Lenin V.I. What legacy are we giving up? // poly,
coll. op. T. 2.

10. Lenin V.I. Party organization and party literature //
Poly. coll. op. T. 12.

11. Lenin V.I. Socialist Party and Non-Party Revolution
tionality // Poli. coll. op. T. 12.

12. Lenin V.I. The agrarian program of the Social Democracy in the first
Russian Revolution 1905-1907 // Poly. coll. op. T. 16.

13. Lenin V.I. Leo Tolstoy as a Mirror of the Russian Revolution //
Poly. coll. op. T. 17.

14. Lenin V.I. L. N. Tolstoy // Poly. coll. op. T. 20.

15. Lenin V.I. Critical notes on the national question //
Poly. coll. op. T. 24.

16. Lenin V.I. About literature and art. 7th ed. M., 1986.

17. Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. M., 1986.

19. Gorbachev M.S. Selected speeches and articles. M., 1985.

20. Aristotle. On the art of poetry. M., 1957.

21. Bakhtin M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. M., 1972.

22. Bakhtin M. Issues of Literature and Aesthetics: Studies of Times
years. M., 1975.

23. Belinsky V. G. About the Russian story and about the stories of Mr. Gogol
("Arabesques" and "Mirgorod") // Poli. coll. cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1953.
T. 1.

24. Belinsky V. G. Woe from the mind. Composition by A. S. Griboyedov //
Poly. coll. cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1953. Vol. 3.

25. Belinsky V. G. The division of poetry into genera and types / / Full.
coll. cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1954. V. 5.

26. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin//Full. coll.
cit., [In 13 volumes] M., 1955. V. 7.

27. Belinsky V. G. Russian literature in 1843//Full. coll.
cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1955. V. 8.

28. Belinsky V. G. Ivan Andreevich Krylov // Poly. coll. op.:
[In 13 volumes] M., 1955. V. 8.

29. Belinsky V. G. A look at Russian literature in 1847 //
Poly. coll. cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1956. V. 10.

30. White A. Let's look for melodies [foreword to Sat. "After
separation"] //Bely A. Poems and poems. M.; L., 1966.

31. Becher I. My love, poetry. M h 1965.

32. Block A. Retribution [foreword! // Collection. cit.: [In 8 volumes] M.,
1960. Vol. 3.

33. Brecht b. Additions to the "Small Organon" // Brecht b. Theatre:
[In 5 volumes] M., 1965. V. 5. Part 2.

34. Bualo N. Poetic art. M., 1957.

35. Bucher K. Work and rhythm. M., 1923.

36. Veseloevsky A. N. Historical poetics. L., 1940.

37. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of artistic prose. M., 1980.

38. Vinokur G. O."Woe from Wit" as a monument of Russian art
vein speech // Vinokur G. O. Fav. work on the Russian language. M.,
1959.

39. Vinokur G. O. Language of "Boris Godunov" // Vinokur G. O. Fav.
work on the Russian language. M., 1959.

40. Vinokurov E. Poetry and thought. M., 1966.

41. Hegel. Logic//Coll. M.; L., 1929. T. 1.

42. Hegel. Lectures on aesthetics. Soch., M., 1938-1958. T. 12-14.

43. Hegel G. W. F. Aesthetics: [In 4 volumes] M., 1968-1973.

44. Goethe I.V. About art. M., 1976.

45. Gogol N.V. Theatrical tour after the presentation of a new
comedies // Fields. coll. cit.: [In 15 volumes] M., 1949. V. 5.

46. Gogol N.V. A few words about Pushkin // Full. coll. op.:
[In 15 vol.] M., 1953. T. 6.

47. Gorky M. About how I learned to write // Sobr. cit.: In 30 volumes.
M., 1953. T. 24.

48. Gorky M. Conversation with the young // Sobr. cit.: In 30 t. M., 1953.
T. 27.

49. Gorky M. Letter to G. Mammadli, November 19, 1934 // Collection.
cit.: V 30 t. M., 1956. T. 30.

50. Gorky M. About literature. M., 1953.

51. Hugo W. Preface to "Cromwell" // Selected. cit.: In 2 vols. M.,
1952. Vol. 2.

52. Didro D. The paradox about the actor//Coll. cit.: In 10 tons. M.; L., l
1936. Vol. 5. *

53. Didro D. About dramatic poetry//Sobr. cit.: In 10 tons. M.;
L., 1936. T. 5.

54. Didro D. Scattered thoughts / / Collected. cit.: In 10 t. M.. 1946.
T. 6.

55. Dobrolyubov N. A. On the degree of participation of the nationality in the development
Russian literature //Coll. cit.: In 9 t. M., 1962. T. 2.

56. Dobrolyubov N. A. Dark Kingdom // Collected. Op.: In 9 t. M.,
1962. Vol. 5.

57. Dobrolyubov N. A. When will the real day come? // Collection.
cit.: In 9 t. M., 1963. T. 6.

58. Dostoevsky F. M. Letter to M. M. Dostoevsky, February 1
1846 / / Dostoevsky F. M. Letters. M.; L., 1928. T. 1.

59. Zalygin S. O artistic language and artistic image//Vopr. literature. 1969. No. 6.

60. Zeldovich M. G. Questions of the theory of realism. Kharkov, 1957.

61. Zola E. Naturalism in the theater // Sobr. cit.: In 26 t. M, 1966
T. 24.

62. History German literature. M., 1963. T. 2.

63. Kon I. National character - myth or reality? //
Foreign literature. 1968. No. 9.

64. Lessing G. E. Laocoön, or On the Limits of Painting and Poetry. M.,
1957.

65. Lomonosov M.V. Foreword on the benefits of church books in Russia
Siysk language // Lomonosov M.V. Poems. M., 1935.

66. Lomonosov M.V. Letter on the rules of the Russian Poetry
wa //Lomonosov M.V. Poems. M., 1935.

67. Lunacharsky A. A. Silhouettes. M., 1965.

68. Lyubimov N. M. Cervantes is the master of the word: Observations
vodchika // Cervantes and world literature. M., 1969.

69. Mann T. Experience about the theater//Sobr. cit.: In 10 t. M., 1960. T. 9.

70. Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I. Letter to A. M. Gorky, February 4
1936 / / Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I. Fav. letters: In 2 vol. M., 1979.
T. 2.

71. Olesha Yu. Not a day without a line. M., 1965.

73. Pavlovsky A. On psychological analysis in Soviet literature
tour (In the historiographical aspect) // Problems of psychologism in co
vet literature. L., 1970.

74. Plekhanov G.V. Letters without an address // Plekhanov G.V. Literature
and aesthetics. M., 1958. T. 1.

75. Plekhanov G.V. Art and social life //Plekha
new G.V. Literature and aesthetics. M., 1958. T. 1.

76. Pospelov G. N. Problems of historical development of literature.
M., 1972.

77. Pospelov G. N. Questions of methodology and poetics: Sat. articles. M.,
1983.

78. Prishvin M. Forget-me-nots. M., 1969.

79. Pushkin A. S. About classical tragedy//Sobr. cit.: In 10 t. M.,
1962. Vol. 6.

80. Pushkin A. S. TaYe-Ta1k//Coll. cit.: In 10 t. M., 1962. T. 7.

81. Pushkin the critic. M.; L., 1934.

82. Russian writers about literary work (XVIII-XX centuries): In 4 volumes.
L., 1954-1956.

83. Russian writers about language (XVIII-XIX centuries). L., 1954.

84. Sergeenko P. Tolstoy and his contemporaries. M., 1911.

85. Stanislavsky K.S. My life in art//Sobr. cit.: In 8 vols.
M., 1954. T. 1.

86. Talma. About stage art. M., 1888.

87. Theory of literature. The main problems in the historical background
scheniya. Types and genres of literature. M., 1964; Style. Work.
literary development. M., 1965.

88. Tolstoy L.N. What is art? // Full. coll. cit.: [In 90 volumes]
M., 1951. T. 30.

89. Tolstoy L.N. About Shakespeare and his drama // Full. coll. op.:
[In 90 volumes] M., 1950. T. 35.

90. Tolstoy L.N. Letter to A. A. Fet, November 17, 1870//Full.
coll. cit.: [In 90 volumes] M., 1953. T. 61.

91. Tolstoy L.N. Letter to S. A. Rachinsky, January 27, 1878
// Full. coll. cit.: [In 90 volumes] M., 1953. T. 62.

92. LN Tolstoy on Literature. M., 1955.

93. Tomashevsky B. Theory of Literature. Poetics. M.; L., 1930.

94. Turgenev I. S. Preface to the 7th volume of the collection. op. 1869//
Sobr. cit.: In 12 t. M., 1956. T. 9.

95. Tynyanov Yu. N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M.,
1977.

96. Fadeev A. Rout//Coll. cit.: V 5 t. M., 1959. T. 1.

97. Fadeev A. For thirty years. M., 1959.

98. Hemingway E. Fav. works. M., 1959. T. 2.

99. Reader on the history of the Western European theater: In 2 volumes /
Comp. and trans. S. Mokulsky. 2nd ed. M.; L., 1953. T. 1.

100. Chernyshevsky N. G. The aesthetic relationship of art to action
Vitality//Full. coll. cit.: V 15 t. M., 1949. T. 2.

101. Chernyshevsky N. G. About poetry. Aristotle's writing//
Full coll. cit.: V 15 t. M., 1949. T. 2.

102. Chernyshevsky N. G. Childhood and adolescence. Count's writings
L. N. Tolstoy. Military stories of Count L. N. Tolstoy//Full. coll.
cit.: V 15 t. M., 1947. T. 3.

103. Chernyshevsky N. G. Notes on magazines (June 1869)//
Full coll. cit.: V 15 t. M., 1947. T. 3.

104. Chernyshevsky N. G. Works and letters of N. V. Gogol / / Full.
coll. cit.: V 15 t. M., 1948. T. 4.

105. Shelling F. Philosophy of art. M., 1966.

106. Schiller F. Criminal due to lost honor//Sobr. op.:
In 7 t. M., 1956. T. 3.

107. Schiller F. About tragic art//Sobr. Op.: In 7 t. M.,
1957. Vol. 6.

108. Schiller F. Articles on aesthetics. M, 1935.

109. Show B. On drama and theatre. M., 1963.

^ NATIONAL INDIVIDUALITY AND NATIONALITY OF LITERATURE

A work that appears at a particular stage of literary development always has a national identity. As an integral part of the national culture, literature is the bearer of the features that characterize the nation, the expression of common national properties that arise historically, formed by the peculiarities of the natural conditions of the territory on which the people live, the economic relations of their life, the political system, the traditions of ideological and, in particular, literary life. . From all this follows the national originality of literature.

The national originality of literature cannot be considered outside of it. public interest. “There are two national cultures in every national culture,” wrote V. I. Lenin. - There is the Great Russian culture of the Purishkeviches, the Guchkovs and the Struves, but there is also the Great Russian culture characterized by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There is such same two culture in Ukraine, as well as in Germany, France, England, among the Jews, etc.” (15, 129). Therefore, the meaning of the idea of ​​national identity in literature is dialectically connected with the concepts of nationality and nationality.

^ NATIONAL ORIGINALITY OF LITERATURE

Literature is the art of the word, therefore, the features of the national language in which it is written are a direct expression of its national identity. The lexical richness of the national language affects the nature of the author's speech and the speech characteristics of the characters, the syntax of the national language determines the intonational moves of prose and verse, phonetically

This structure creates the uniqueness of the sound of the work.

Since there are now more than two and a half thousand languages ​​in the world, it can be assumed that there is the same number of national literatures. However, the latter is much less.

Despite the differences in language, some peoples who have not yet formed into a nation often have a common literary tradition, primarily a single folk epic. From this point of view, the example of the peoples of the North Caucasus and Abkhazia, which are represented by more than fifty languages, but have a common epic cycle - "Narts", is very indicative. The epic heroes of the Ramayana are the same for the peoples of India, who speak different languages, and even for many peoples of Southeast Asia. Such a commonality arises because, although individual peoples live in remote places, often closed, cut off from the outside world, which is why differences in language arise, their living conditions are nonetheless close to each other. They have to overcome the same difficulties in dealing with nature, they have the same level of economic and social development. Many similarities often occur in their historical destinies. Therefore, these nationalities are united by a commonality of ideas about life and the dignity of a person, and hence, in literature, the imagination is carried away by the images of the same epic heroes.

Writers can also use the same language, and their work represents different national literatures. Arabic, for example, is written by Egyptian, Syrian, and Algerian writers. French is used not only by French, but also by some Belgian and Canadian writers. Both the English and the Americans write in English, but the works they create bear a vivid imprint of various features of national life. Many African writers, using the language of the former colonialists, create works that are completely original in their national essence.

It is also characteristic that, with a good translation into another language, fiction may well retain the stamp of national identity. “It would be ideal if every work of every nationality included in the Union was translated into the languages ​​of all other nationalities of the Union,” M. Gorky dreamed. - In this case

We would more and more quickly learn to understand each other's national-cultural properties and characteristics, and this understanding, of course, would greatly speed up the process of creating ... a single socialist culture. (49, 365-366). Consequently, although the language of literature is the most important indicator of its national identity, it does not exhaust its national identity.

A very important role in the formation of the national identity of artistic creativity is played by the commonality of the territory, because in the early stages of the development of society, certain natural conditions often give rise to common tasks in the struggle of man with nature, the commonality of labor processes and skills, and hence customs, way of life, world outlook. Therefore, for example, in the mythology that developed during the tribal system among the ancient Chinese, the hero is Gong, who managed to stop the flood of the river (a frequent occurrence in China) and saved the people from the flood, taking out a piece of "living land", and among the ancient Greeks - Prometheus, who mined sky fire. In addition, impressions from the surrounding nature affect the properties of the narrative, the features of metaphors, comparisons and other artistic means. The northern peoples rejoice in the warmth, the sun, so they most often compare the beauty with the clear sun, and the southern peoples prefer the comparison With moon, because the night brings coolness, saving from the heat of the sun. In Russian songs and fairy tales, a woman's gait is compared with the smooth gait of a swan, and in India - with "the wondrous gait of royal elephants."

Territorial community often leads to common paths of economic development, creates a common historical life of the people. This affects the themes of literature, gives rise to differences in artistic images. Thus, the Armenian epic "David of Sasun" tells about the life of gardeners and farmers, about the construction of irrigation canals; the Kyrgyz "Manas" captured the nomadic life of pastoralists, the search for new pastures, life in the saddle; in the epic of the German people, the Nibelungenlied, the search for ore, the work of blacksmiths, etc. are depicted.

As a nation is formed from the nationality and the community of the spiritual make-up of the people crystallizes, the national originality of literature is already manifested not only in labor and everyday customs and ideas, features of the perception of nature, but also in

Benefits of social life. The development of class society, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another: from slave-owning to feudal and from feudal to bourgeois, proceeds among different peoples at different times, under different conditions. The external and internal political activity of the nation state develops differently, which has an impact on the organization and strengthening of property and legal relations, on the emergence of certain moral norms, and hence on the formation of ideological (including religious) ideas and traditions. All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of the life of society. From childhood, people are brought up under the influence of a complex system of relationships and ideas of the national society, and this leaves an imprint on their behavior. This is how the characters of people of different nations are historically formed - national characters.

Literature has a place of honor in revealing the peculiarities of the national character. The versatility of this phenomenon, its connection with the main subject of artistic knowledge - man in his social characteristics give the artist advantages over the scientist. “The images of fiction,” writes I. Kon, “embrace national-typical features deeper and more multifaceted than scientific formulas. Fiction shows both the diversity of national types, and their concrete class nature, and their historical development. (63, 228).

It is often believed that the national character is determined by some one, dominant psychological trait, inherent in only one nation, exclusively only to it. But common features can appear among representatives of different nations. The originality of the national character lies in a certain correlation of these features and in the tendencies of their development. Literary characters perfectly show how one and the same property of character, in unity with others, takes on various national incarnations. Thus, for example, Balzac depicts the stinginess of Gobsek, but in its psychological manifestation it is in no way similar to the stinginess of Gogol's Plyushkin. Both characters, striving for the accumulation of wealth, have ceased to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary in it, and in both it senselessly rots under vigilant supervision.

Rum miser. However, these common features are shaped in different ways - by bourgeois society in one and by feudal-serf society in another. Critical realism plays the most important role in reflecting national character traits in literature. Critical realists, to a much greater extent than the romantics, and even more so the classicists, had the opportunity to reveal in their works all the contradictory complexity of the national characters of their characters, who belonged to different strata of society. An artist who has mastered the art of the finest realistic detail conveys both the social determinism of a certain character trait or manifestation of feeling, and his national identity.

With the formation of critical realism in literature, an important quality of national identity is revealed. Since a realistic work bears the imprint of the writer's personality, his individuality, and the writer himself acts as the bearer of a national character, national originality becomes an organic property of creativity itself. The characters of people in their national characteristics not only act as an object of artistic knowledge, but are also depicted from the point of view of the writer, who also carries the spirit of his people, his nation. Pushkin is the first profound exponent of the national Russian character in literature. Belinsky repeatedly wrote about this, Gogol expressed it especially aptly: “Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit: this is the Russian man in his development, in which he, perhaps, will appear in two hundred years. In it, Russian nature, the Russian soul, the Russian language, the Russian character are reflected in the same purity, in such purified beauty, in which the landscape is reflected on the convex surface of optical glass. (46, 33).

The imprint of national identity is borne not only by those works in which the characters and events of national reality or history are directly depicted (Eugene Onegin and Poltava by Pushkin, War and Peace or Resurrection by L. Tolstoy), but also those , which reflect the life of other peoples (for example, "Lucerne" or "Hadji Murat"), but comprehend and evaluate its contradictions from the point of view of a person shaped by Russian reality.

At the same time, national identity is not limited

Only by depicting individual characters, it covers the creative process so deeply that it manifests itself in the plots and themes of the works. Thus, in Russian literature, the theme of the “superfluous person” - a nobleman, a person of progressive views, who is in conflict with the surrounding reality, but unable to realize his dissatisfaction with the existing order, has become widespread. For French literature, the conflict of a man who is making his way in the bourgeois world turned out to be typical. As a result, certain genres were predominantly developed in national literature (the novel of education, for example, in German and English literature).

Thus, the literature of critical realism, which developed in Europe in the 19th century, contains the most complete, deepest expression of national identity.

National character plays an important role in determining the national identity of literature, however, in the analysis it is necessary to take into account that this is not only a psychological, but also a socio-historical category, because the formation of character is determined by the socio-historical conditions prevailing in society. Therefore, the national character cannot be regarded as given once and for all. The development of historical life can change the national character.

Some writers and critics, superficially approaching the problem of national identity, idealize the patriarchal way of life with its stability and even inertia. They do not try to understand the national identity in the life of those sections of society that have joined the achievements of international culture. As a result, a falsely meaningful love for their nation leads them to misunderstanding the progressive phenomena of national life. Exceptional interest only in what distinguishes one nation from others, faith in the chosenness of one's nation, in the advantage of its primordial customs, rituals and everyday habits, leads not only to conservatism, but also to nationalism. Then the national feeling of the people is used by the exploiting classes in their own interests. Therefore, the concept of national identity must be considered in relation to the concept of nationality.

^ NATIONALITY OF LITERATURE

The concepts of nationality and nationality of artistic creativity did not differ for a long time. When national literatures began to take shape, the German scientist I. Herder came up with a theory of national identity based on the study of folk traditions and oral folk art. In 1778-1779. he published collections of folk poetry called "Voices of the peoples in songs." According to Herder, folk poetry was "the flower of the unity of the people, their language and their antiquity, their pursuits and judgments, their passions and unfulfilled desires" (62, 213). Thus, the German thinker found the expression of the national spirit, the national “substance”, primarily in the psychological make-up of the working people, and he had to endure a lot of ridicule for turning to the poetry of the “plebeians”.

Interest in folk art in connection with the problem of national identity was both natural and progressive for the 18th century. In the feudal era, national identity was most clearly manifested in folklore and in works that were influenced by this creativity (The Tale of Igor's Campaign in Russia, The Song of Roland in France, etc.). The ruling class, trying to oppose itself to the working masses, to emphasize the exclusivity of his position, he was drawn to a cosmopolitan culture, often even using a language foreign to the people. At the end of the XVIII and beginning of the XIX century. progressive figures - enlighteners and romantics - turned to folk poetry.

This was especially pronounced in Russia. For the noble revolutionaries-Decembrists, who in their way of life were far from the people, the working masses, acquaintance with folk art became one of the ways of knowing their people, familiarizing them with their interests. Sometimes in their works they managed to penetrate the spirit of folk art. So, Ryleev created the thought "Death of Yermak", accepted by the masses as a folk song.

In Russia, the poetry of the Decembrists and writers close to them in spirit, led by Pushkin, expressed with great force the interests of the advanced, revolutionary movement. Their poetry was national in character and popular and democratic in its meaning. But they themselves and the critics of subsequent decades did not yet see the difference between these concepts. Yes, Belinsky

He constantly called Pushkin and Gogol "folk poets", meaning by this the high national identity of their work, and only towards the end of his career did he gradually come to understand the people themselves.

In the 30s of the XIX century. the ruling circles of autocratic Russia created the nationalist theory of the "official nationality". By “people” they understood devotion to autocracy and Orthodoxy; Literature was required to depict the primordially Russian life, permeated with religious prejudices, historical paintings glorifying the love of a Russian person for the Tsar. Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky did a lot to show the limitations of the authors (Zagoskin, Kukolnik and some others) who spoke in line with the nationalistically understood "people".

A decisive turning point in the understanding of nationality in literature was made by Dobrolyubov's article "On the Degree of Participation of Nationality in the Development of Russian Literature" (1858). The critic showed that nationality is determined not by the range of topics of interest to the writer, but by the expression in literature of the "point of view" of the working people, the masses of the people, who form the basis of national life. Moreover, assessing the nationality of the writer's work, the critic demanded that the interests of the oppressed masses be elevated to the height of the interests of general civil, national development. Therefore, he reproached even Koltsov for being narrow-minded (55, 263). The expression of the progressive ideas of its time, which in one way or another meet the interests of the masses, is a condition for achieving genuine nationality in literature.

Revolutionary-democratic writers, following Dobrolyubov, consciously strove for nationality in their artistic work, but nationality can also be unconscious. So, Dobrolyubov, for example, wrote about Gogol: “We see that Gogol, although in your best creations came very close to popular point of view, but approached unconsciously, simply by artistic groping” (55, 271; italics ours. - S. K.). At the same time, the nationality of works can be assessed only historically, by raising the question of what works, how and to what extent this or that writer could express the interests of the masses in his era of national development.

The most important are the works

Folk in their meaning can also be such works that depict the best representatives of the ruling class, dissatisfied with the senselessness of the existence of the environment to which they belong by birth and upbringing, looking for ways to work and to other forms of human relations. Such are “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, the best novels of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, “Foma Gordeev” and “Egor Bulychev” by Gorky, etc. V. I. Lenin attached great importance to the work of L. Tolstoy, primarily because he found

In his works, the expression of popular protest in the era of "preparation for a revolution in one of the countries crushed by the feudal lords ..." (14, 19).

And lyrical works that reproduce the inner world, reflecting the variety of emotional responses of the poet to the surrounding reality, can also be popular in their meaning, if they differ in the depth and truthfulness of their ideological orientation. Such are the sonnets of Petrarch and Shakespeare, the lyrics of Byron and Shelley, Pushkin and Lermontov, Heine, Blok, Yesenin, Mayakovsky. They enrich the moral, emotional and aesthetic experience of the nation and of all mankind.

To create works of national importance, the most important role is played by the progressive outlook of the writer, his ideals. But folk works in their meaning can also be created by writers with a contradictory worldview. Then the measure of their nationality is determined by the depth of the critical problems of their work. This can be judged by the work of A. Ostrovsky or Dickens. The spontaneous-democratic world outlook gave them the opportunity to create the brightest pictures, exposing the world of profit. But writers who are progressive only in the critical side of their work are usually unstable in their positions. Along with sharp revealing images, they have implausible idyllic pictures of patriarchal life. The researcher must be able to uncover such contradictions of a writer whose national significance is recognized by the history of literature. It is in this approach to understanding artistic creativity that the methodological meaning of Lenin’s assessment of L. Tolstoy, whose ideals reflected the “immaturity of dreaminess” of the patriarchal peasantry, but at the same time led the writer to a realistic tearing off of “all and sundry masks” (13, 212, 209).

According to its significance, popular literature arms the advanced forces of the nation, its progressive social movements, which serve to emancipate the working masses and establish new forms of social life. It raises the civic activity of the social rank and file, freeing the working people from authoritarian ideas, from their dependence on those in power. The words of V. I. Lenin, retold by K. Zetkin, correspond to the modern understanding of nationality: “Art belongs

To the people. It must have its deepest roots in the very depths of the broad working masses. It must be understood by these masses and loved by them. It must unite the feeling, thought and will of these masses, raise them. (16, 657).

To fulfill this function, art must be accessible to the people. Dobrolyubov saw one of the main reasons for the absence of nationality in the long centuries of the development of Russian literature in the fact that literature remained far from the masses due to the illiteracy of the latter. The critic was extremely keenly worried about the narrowness of Russian readership: “... the greatness of it (literature. - S.K.) meaning is weakened in this case only by the smallness of the circle in which it acts. This is the last such circumstance, which is impossible to remember without contrition and which chills us every time we are carried away by dreams of the great significance of literature and its beneficial influence on humanity” (55, 226-226).

Contemporary writers of Latin America and many countries of Asia and Africa write about the same tragic separation of the bulk of the people from the national culture. Such a barrier can only be overcome by social transformations of society. An example is the transformation in our country after the Great October Socialist Revolution, when cultural achievements ceased to be the property of the "top ten thousand".

The nationality of art is determined not only by the merits of its content, but also by the perfection of its form. The folk writer achieves capacity and expressiveness of each word, artistic detail, plot twist. Sometimes it is given to him with great difficulty. Reading in L. Tolstoy's "Resurrection" a simple, at first glance, phrase: "Katyusha, beaming with a smile and eyes as black as wet currants, flew towards him," the reader imagines a charming girl in young defenselessness. But he does not even guess how long the artist worked on these words until he found the only necessary comparison (the initial comparison of Katyusha's eyes with cherries destroyed the artistic effect).

The simplicity and accessibility of an artistic form in this sense are determined by the creative demands of the writer, his aesthetic sense, the measure of his talent. In order to convey to the reader the ideological richness of their

Artworks, the artist must give them a high perfection of artistic form and style.

Genuine folk literature most fully expresses national interests, therefore it also has a pronounced national identity. It is the work of such artists as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov, L. Leonov, Tvardovsky that determines our idea of ​​the nationality of art and its national identity.

However, the process of development never occurs in isolation in one national culture. It is very important to understand the interaction not only between the folk and national meanings of literature, but also their connection with its universal meaning. It follows from the role that the nation, which has created its own literature, plays in the development of mankind. For this, it is necessary that the writer, in the national identity of the processes taking place in the life of his people, reveal the features of the progressive development of all mankind.

Thus, thanks to their national identity, Homer's poems reflected with special perfection, according to K. Marx, that early stage in the development of all peoples, which can be called the childhood of "human society" 1 . Italian poetry (Dante, Petrarch, etc.), as well as English dramaturgy (Shakespeare) had a similar world significance for the Renaissance; for the era of absolutism - the dramaturgy of French classicism; for the era of bourgeois revolutions - the romantic poetry of Byron; for the era of the development of bourgeois society - the realistic literature of France (Balzac, Flaubert), England (Dickens), Russia (Pushkin, Gogol, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

The fusion of the popular, the national, and the universal is manifested most clearly in the literature of socialist realism. The processes of formation of the human personality in the struggle to build a new, classless society are important for all mankind. The writers of socialist realism are armed with a scientific understanding of the objective laws of historical development,

1 See: Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12. S. 737.