Russian literature at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. Educational portal Message literature at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries

General characteristics of the era

The first question that arises when addressing the topic “Russian literature of the 20th century” is from when to count the 20th century. According to the calendar, from 1900 – 1901? But it is obvious that a purely chronological boundary, although significant in itself, gives almost nothing in the sense of delimiting eras. The first milestone of the new century is the revolution of 1905. But the revolution passed, and there was some calm - until the First World War. Akhmatova recalled this time in “Poem without a Hero”:

And along the legendary embankment
It was not the calendar day that was approaching,
The real twentieth century...

The “real twentieth century” began with the First World War and two revolutions of 1917, with Russia’s transition to a new phase of its existence. But the cataclysm was preceded by the “turn of the century” - a most complex, turning point period that largely predetermined subsequent history, but was itself the result and resolution of many contradictions that had been brewing in Russian society long before it. In Soviet times, it was customary to talk about the inevitability of a revolution, which liberated the creative powers of the people and opened the way for them to a new life. At the end of this “new life” period, a reassessment of values ​​began. The temptation arose to find a new and simple solution to the problem: simply change the signs to the opposite, declare everything that was considered white black, and vice versa. However, time shows the haste and immaturity of such reassessments. It is clear that it is impossible for a person who did not live through it to judge this era, and one should judge it with great caution.
After a century, the Russian turn of the 19th - 20th centuries seems to be a time of prosperity - in all areas. Literature, art, architecture, music - but not only that. Sciences, both positive and humanitarian (history, philology, philosophy, theology), are rapidly developing. The pace of industrial growth is no less rapid; factories, factories, and railways are being built. And yet Russia remains an agricultural country. Capitalist relations penetrate into the life of the village, on the surface - the stratification of the former community, the ruin of noble estates, the impoverishment of the peasants, hunger - however, right up to the First World War, Russia fed the whole of Europe with bread.

But what Tsvetaeva wrote about, addressing children of emigration raised in a nostalgic spirit is also true:

You, in orphan capes
Clothed from birth
Stop holding funerals
Through Eden, in which you
There was no... ("Poems to my son")

What seems like a heyday now seemed like a decline to contemporaries. Not only descendants, but also eyewitnesses of all subsequent events themselves will only be surprised to what extent they did not notice the bright sides of the reality around them. “Chekhov’s dull twilight”, in which there is an acute shortage of the bright, bold, strong - this is the feeling that preceded the first Russian revolution. But this is a view inherent primarily in the intelligentsia. In the mass of the population back in the 80-90s. there was confidence in the inviolability of the foundations and fortress of “Holy Rus'”.

Bunin in “The Life of Arsenyev” draws attention to the mentality of the tradesman Rostovtsev, whose high school student Alyosha Arsenyev, Bunin’s “lyrical hero,” lives as a “freeloader” - a mentality very characteristic of the era of Alexander III: “Pride in Rostovtsev’s words sounded quite often. Pride what? Because, of course, we, the Rostovtsevs, are Russians, genuine Russians, that we live that very special, simple, seemingly modest life, which is real Russian life and which there is no better and cannot be, because it is modest. it is only in appearance, but in reality it is abundant like nowhere else, it is a legitimate product of the primordial spirit of Russia, and Russia is richer, stronger, more righteous and more glorious than all the countries in the world. And was this pride inherent in Rostovtsev alone? Subsequently I saw that it was very much so. and to very many, but now I see something else: the fact that it was then even a kind of sign of the times was felt especially at that time and not only in our city. Where did it go later, when Russia was dying? How did we not defend all that? What did we so proudly call Russian, of the power and truth of which we seemed to be so confident? Be that as it may, I know for sure that I grew up in times of greatest Russian power and enormous consciousness of it." Further, Arsenyev - or Bunin - recalls how Rostovtsev listened to the reading of Nikitin's famous "Rus" "And when I reached the proud and joyful end , before the resolution of this description: “This is you, my sovereign Rus', my Orthodox homeland” - Rostovtsev clenched his jaw and turned pale." (Bunin I.A. Collected works in 9 volumes. M., 1967. T. 6., P. 62).

The famous spiritual writer, Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) (1880 - 1961), recalls approximately the same mood in his memoirs: “As for social views, they were also based essentially on religion. It was the humble upbringing that the Christian Church gave us that taught us about power, that it is from God, and it must not only be recognized, obeyed, but also loved and revered. The king is a person especially blessed by God, anointed by God at the coronation to serve the state. , as its owner, authorized manager. We were brought up with him and his family not only in fear and obedience, but also in deep love and reverent veneration, as sacred, inviolable persons, truly “highest”, “autocratic”, “great”; all this was not subject to any doubt among our parents and among the people. This is how it was in my childhood" (Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Metropolitan. At the turn of two eras. M., 1994, p. 95). Metropolitan Benjamin recalls the sincere grief among the people on the occasion of the death of Emperor Alexander III. With the emperor in his last days, the revered shepherd throughout Russia, the holy righteous John of Kronstadt, was inseparable from him. “It was the death of a saint,” the heir to the crown prince, the future Emperor Nicholas II, writes in his diary (Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. 1890 - 1906. M., 1991, p. 87).
What happened next? What demons possessed the Russian “God-bearing” people that they went to destroy their own shrines? Another temptation: to find a specific culprit, to explain the fall by someone’s pernicious external influence. Someone invaded us from outside and ruined our lives - foreigners? Gentiles? But such a solution to the issue is not a solution. Berdyaev once wrote in “The Philosophy of Freedom”: a slave always looks for someone to blame, a free person is responsible for his actions. The contradictions of Russian life have been noticed for a long time - at least what Nekrasov wrote about:

You are also poor, you are also abundant,
You are both powerful and you are powerless,
Mother Rus'.

Some of the contradictions are rooted in Peter’s reforms: the split of the nation into an elite striving for Europe and a mass of people alien to Europeanization. If the cultural level of some of the privileged layers of society has reached the highest European standards, then among the common people it has undoubtedly become lower than before, in the era of the Moscow state - in any case, literacy has sharply decreased. The antinomies of Russian reality are also reflected in the famous comic poem by V.A. Gilyarovsky:
There are two misfortunes in Russia
Below is the power of darkness,
And above is the darkness of power.

European influence, which gradually penetrated deeper and deeper into Russian life, sometimes itself was transformed and refracted in the most unexpected way. The ideas of the liberation movement became a kind of new religion for the emerging Russian intelligentsia. ON THE. Berdyaev subtly noticed the parallel between her and the schismatics of the 17th century. “So the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia of the 19th century will be schismatic and will think that an evil force is in power. Both in the Russian people and in the Russian intelligentsia there will be a search for a kingdom based on truth” (Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M ., 1990, p. 11). The Russian revolutionary movement had its martyrs and “saints” who were ready to sacrifice their lives for the idea. The revolutionary “religion” was a kind of near-Christian heresy: while denying the Church, it itself borrowed a lot from the moral teachings of Christ - just remember Nekrasov’s poem “N.G. Chernyshevsky”:

He hasn't been crucified yet,
But the hour will come - he will be on the cross;
He was sent by the God of Wrath and Sorrow
Remind the kings of the earth of Christ.

Zinaida Gippius wrote about the peculiar religiosity of Russian democrats in her memoirs: “Only a thin film of unconsciousness separated them from true religiosity. Therefore, they were, in most cases, bearers of high morality.”<...>Therefore, at that time people of amazing spiritual strength (Chernyshevsky) could appear, capable of feat and sacrifice. True materialism extinguishes the spirit of chivalry." (Gippius Z.N. Memoirs. M. 2001. P. 200.)

It should be noted that the actions of the authorities were not always reasonable and their consequences often turned out to be the opposite of those expected. Over time, the archaic and clumsy bureaucratic apparatus met less and less the urgent needs of governing a gigantic country. The scattered population and multinationality of the Russian Empire presented additional difficulties. The intelligentsia was also irritated by the excessive police zeal, although the rights of opposition-minded public figures to express their civic position were incomparably wider than in the future “free” Soviet Union.

A kind of milestone on the path to the revolution was the Khodynka disaster, which happened on May 18, 1896, during the celebrations of the coronation of the new emperor, Nicholas II. Due to the negligence of the administration, a stampede occurred during a public festival on Khodynskoye Field in Moscow. According to official data, about 2,000 people died. The sovereign was advised to cancel the celebrations, but he did not agree: “This catastrophe is the greatest misfortune, but a misfortune that should not overshadow the coronation holiday. The Khodynka catastrophe should be ignored in this sense” (Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. 1890 - 1906. M., 1991 ., p. 129). This attitude outraged many; many thought it was a bad omen.

Metropolitan Benjamin recalled the impact that “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, 1905 had on the people. “The first revolution of 1905 began for me with the famous uprising of workers in St. Petersburg on January 9. Under the leadership of Father Gapon, thousands of workers, with crosses and banners, moved from behind the Neva Gate to the royal palace with a request, as they said then. I was a student at that time academy. The people walked with sincere faith in the tsar, the defender of truth and the offended. But the tsar did not accept him, instead there was an execution. I do not know the behind-the-scenes history of the events and therefore I am not included in their assessment. not yet shot) faith in the tsar. I, a man of monarchical sentiments, not only did not rejoice at this victory of the government, but felt a wound in my heart: the father of the people could not help but accept his children, no matter what happened later...” (Veniamin (Fedchenkov) , Metropolitan. At the turn of two eras. M., 1994, P. 122) And the emperor wrote in his diary that day: “A difficult day! There were serious riots in St. Petersburg due to the desire of the workers to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot at different people. places in the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and difficult!" (Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. 1890 - 1906. M., 1991, p. 209). But it is clear that he had no intention of accepting anyone. It is difficult to talk about this event to say: it is only clear that this is a tragedy of mutual misunderstanding of the authorities and the people. The one who was labeled “Nicholas the Bloody”, who was considered a nonentity and a tyrant of his country, was in fact a man of high moral qualities, faithful to his duty, ready to give his life for it. Russia - which he later proved by the feat of a passion-bearer, while many of the “freedom fighters” who condemned him saved themselves by compromising with an alien power or fleeing outside the country. It is impossible to condemn anyone, but this fact should be stated.
Metropolitan Benjamin does not deny the responsibility of the Church for everything that happened to Russia: “I must admit that the influence of the Church on the masses of the people was weakening and weakening, the authority of the clergy was falling. There are many reasons. One of them is in ourselves: we have ceased to be “salt salt.” “and therefore they could not salt others” (Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Metropolitan. At the turn of two eras. M., 1994, P. 122). Remembering his student years at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, over the years he wonders why they, future theologians, never thought of going to Kronstadt to see Fr. John. “Our religious appearance continued to be still brilliant, but the spirit weakened. And the “spiritual” became worldly.<...>General student life went past religious interests. There is absolutely no need to think that theological schools were nurseries for apostates, atheists, and renegades. There were also only a few of these.<...>But much more dangerous was the internal enemy: religious indifference<...>How embarrassing now! And now we cry from our poverty and from petrified insensibility. No, not all was well in the Church. We became those about whom it is said in the Apocalypse: “Since you are neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth...” The times soon came and we, many, were vomited even from the Motherland... We did not value its shrines. What they sowed, they also reaped" (Veniamin (Fedchenkov), Metropolitan of God's people. My spiritual meetings. M., 1997, pp. 197 - 199). Nevertheless, the very ability to such repentance testifies that the Church was alive and soon proved its viability.

All these aggravated contradictions were reflected in literature in one way or another. According to an already established tradition, the “turn of the century” covers the last decade of the 19th century and the period before the 1917 revolution. But the 1890s are also the 19th century, the time of Tolstoy and Chekhov in prose, Fet, Maykov and Polonsky in poetry. It is impossible to separate the outgoing 19th century from the emerging 20th century; there is no strict boundary. Authors of the nineteenth century and authors of the twentieth century are people of the same circle, they know each other, meet in literary circles and editorial offices of magazines. There is both mutual attraction and repulsion between them, the eternal conflict of “fathers and sons.”

The generation of writers born in the 60s and 70s. XIX century and made an outstanding contribution to Russian culture, in its aspirations it was somewhat different from the still dominant “sixties” and seventies. More precisely, it split, and the event that they experienced in childhood or early youth, but which perhaps had a decisive influence on it, was the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881. For some, it awakened the idea of ​​​​the fragility of autocracy (the murder of “God’s anointed” happened, but the world did not collapse) and the desire to more actively continue the work of the revolutionary intelligentsia (these were people like Lenin and Gorky), others made them shudder at the cruelty of the “fighters for the people’s happiness” and think more carefully about eternal questions - from these came mystics, religious philosophers, poets, alien to social themes. But the traditional Orthodox church, in which many were raised, seemed to them too mundane, ingrained in everyday life and not in keeping with the spirit of their ideal aspirations. They were looking for spirituality, but they were often looking along roundabout and dead-end paths. Some eventually returned to the Church, some remained in eternal opposition to it.

The name “Silver Age” was established for the literature of the turn of the century. For some, this concept has a negative connotation. What does it include? Approaching the pan-European tradition - and to some extent neglecting the national one, “opening new horizons” in the field of form - and narrowing the content, attempts at intuitive insights and moral blindness, the search for beauty - and a certain morbidity, damage, the spirit of hidden danger and the sweetness of sin. Bunin characterized his contemporaries this way: “At the end of the nineties it had not yet arrived, but a “great wind from the desert” was already felt.<...>The new people of this new literature were already emerging in the forefront of it and were surprisingly different from the previous, still so recent “rulers of thoughts and feelings,” as they put it then. Some of the old ones still ruled, but the number of their adherents was decreasing, and the glory of the new ones was growing.<...>And almost all of those new ones who were at the head of the new, from Gorky to Sologub, were naturally gifted people, endowed with rare energy, great strength and great abilities. But here is what is extremely significant for those days when the “wind from the desert” was already approaching: the strengths and abilities of almost all innovators were of rather low quality, vicious by nature, mixed with the vulgar, deceitful, speculative, with servility to the street, with a shameless thirst for success, scandals..." (Bunin. Collected works. vol. 9. P. 309).
The temptation for educators is to ban this literature, to prevent the poisonous spirit of the Silver Age from “poisoning” the younger generation. It was this impulse that was followed in the Soviet period, when the pernicious “Silver Age” was contrasted with the “life-affirming romanticism” of Gorky and Mayakovsky. Meanwhile, Gorky and Mayakovsky are typical representatives of the same Silver Age (which is confirmed by Bunin). Forbidden fruit attracts, official recognition repels. That is why, during the Soviet period, many people, while reading, did not read Gorky and Mayakovsky, but absorbed the forbidden Symbolists and Acmeists with all their souls - and in some way, they were indeed morally damaged, losing the sense of the boundary between good and evil. A ban on reading is not a way to protect morality. You need to read the literature of the Silver Age, but you need to read it with reasoning. “Everything is possible for me, but not everything is for my benefit,” said the Apostle Paul.

In the 19th century, Russian literature performed a function in society that was close to religious and prophetic: Russian writers considered it their duty to awaken conscience in a person. The literature of the 20th century partly continues this tradition, partly protests against it; continuing, protesting, and protesting, still continues. Starting from his fathers, he tries to return to his grandfathers and great-grandfathers. B.K. Zaitsev, a witness and chronicler of the Silver Age of Russian literature, comparing it with the previous, Golden Age, pronounces the following verdict on his time: “The Golden Age of our literature was the century of the Christian spirit, goodness, pity, compassion, conscience and repentance - this is what gave it life.<...>Our Golden Age is a harvest of genius. Silver – harvest of talents.<...>This is what there was little in this literature: love and faith in the Truth" (Zaitsev B.K. The Silver Age. - Collected works in 11 vols. vol. 4., p. 478). But still, such a judgment cannot be accepted definitely.

General characteristics of the period The last years of the 19th century became a turning point for Russian and Western cultures. Since the 1890s. and right up to the October Revolution of 1917, literally every aspect of Russian life changed, from economics, politics and science, to technology, culture and art. The new stage of historical and cultural development was incredibly dynamic and, at the same time, extremely dramatic. It can be said that Russia, at a turning point for it, was ahead of other countries in the pace and depth of changes, as well as in the enormity of internal conflicts.

What were the most important historical events that took place in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century? Russia has experienced three revolutions: -1905; -February and October 1917, -Russian-Japanese War of 1904 -1905. -First World War 1914-1918. , -Civil War

The internal political situation in Russia The end of the 19th century revealed the deepest crisis phenomena in the economy of the Russian Empire. -Confrontation of three forces: defenders of monarchism, supporters of bourgeois reforms, ideologists of the proletarian revolution. Various ways of perestroika were put forward: “from above”, by legal means, “from below” - through revolution.

Scientific discoveries of the early 20th century The beginning of the 20th century was a time of global natural scientific discoveries, especially in the field of physics and mathematics. The most important of them were the invention of wireless communication, the discovery of X-rays, the determination of the mass of the electron, and the study of the phenomenon of radiation. The worldview of mankind was revolutionized by the creation of quantum theory (1900), special (1905) and general (1916–1917) theories of relativity. Previous ideas about the structure of the world were completely shaken. The idea of ​​the knowability of the world, which was previously an infallible truth, was questioned.

The tragic history of literature of the early 20th century From the beginning of the 30s, the process of physical destruction of writers began: N. Klyuev, I. Babel, O. Mandelstam and many others were shot or died in the camps.

The tragic history of literature of the 20th century In the 20s, writers who were the flower of Russian literature left or were expelled: I. Bunin, A. Kuprin, I. Shmelev and others. The impact of censorship on literature: 1926, the magazine “New World” with “The Tale” was confiscated unextinguished moon" by B. Pilnyak. In the 30s, the writer was shot. (E. Zamyatin, M. Bulgakov, etc.) I. A. Bunin

The tragic history of literature of the early 20th century Since the beginning of the 30s, there has been a tendency to bring literature to a single socialist method of realism. One of the representatives was M. Gorky.

In other words, almost all creative people of the 20th century were in conflict with the state, which, being a totalitarian system, sought to suppress the creative potential of the individual.

Literature book 19 - n. 20 centuries At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, Russian literature became aesthetically multi-layered. Realism at the turn of the century remained a large-scale and influential literary movement. So, Tolstoy and Chekhov lived and worked in this era. (reflection of reality, life truth) A.P. Chekhov. Yalta. 1903

“Silver Age” The transition from the era of classical Russian literature to the new literary time was accompanied by an unusually rapid one. Russian poetry, unlike previous examples, has again come to the forefront of the country's general cultural life. Thus began a new poetic era, called the “poetic renaissance” or “silver age.”

The Silver Age is part of the artistic culture of Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, associated with symbolism, acmeism, “neo-peasant” literature and partly futurism.

New trends in the literature of Russia at the turn of the century In the period from 1890 to 1917, three literary movements, symbolism, acmeism and futurism, which formed the basis of modernism as a literary movement, especially clearly declared themselves.

SYMBOLISM March 1894 - a collection entitled “Russian Symbolists” was published. After some time, two more issues with the same name appeared. The author of all three collections was the young poet Valery Bryusov, who used different pseudonyms in order to create the impression of the existence of an entire poetic movement.

SYMBOLISM Symbolism is the first and largest of the modernist movements that arose in Russia. The theoretical foundation of Russian symbolism was laid in 1892 by D. S. Merezhkovsky’s lecture “On the causes of the decline and new trends in modern Russian literature.” The title of the lecture contained an assessment of the state of the literature. The author pinned his hope for its revival on “new trends.” Dmitry Sergeevich Merezhkovsky

The main provisions of the movement Andrey Bely Symbol is the central aesthetic category of the new movement. The idea of ​​a symbol is that it is perceived as an allegory. The chain of symbols resembles a set of hieroglyphs, a kind of cipher for the “initiates”. Thus, the symbol turns out to be one of the varieties of tropes.

The main provisions of the movement The symbol is polysemantic: it contains an unlimited variety of meanings. “The symbol is a window to infinity,” said Fyodor Sologub.

The main provisions of the movement The relationship between the poet and his audience was built in a new way in symbolism. The symbolist poet did not strive to be universally understandable. He did not appeal to everyone, but only to the “initiated”, not to the consumer reader, but to the creator reader, co-author reader. Symbolist lyrics awakened the “sixth sense” in a person, sharpened and refined his perception. To achieve this, the symbolists sought to make maximum use of the associative capabilities of the word and turned to the motifs and images of different cultures.

Acmeism The literary movement of Acmeism arose in the early 1910s. (from the Greek acme - the highest degree of something, flowering, peak, edge). From the wide range of participants in the "Workshop", a narrower and more aesthetically more united group of acmeists stood out - N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, S. Gorodetsky, O. Mandelstam, M. Zenkevich and V. Narbut.

The main provisions of the flow of rhythms are created New by A. Akhmatova by skipping syllables and rearranging the stress The intrinsic value of each phenomenon “Words that are unknowable in their meaning cannot be known”

Creative individuality of the Symbolists Clasped her hands under a dark veil. . . “Why are you pale today?” - Because I got him drunk with tart sadness. How can I forget? He came out staggering, his mouth twisted painfully. . . I ran away without touching the railing, I ran after him to the gate. Gasping, I shouted: “It’s all a joke. If you leave, I’ll die.” He smiled calmly and terribly and told me: “Don’t stand in the wind.” A. A. Akhmatova January 8, 1911

Futurism (from Latin futurum future). He first announced himself in Italy. The birth of Russian futurism is considered to be 1910, when the first futurist collection “Zadok Judges” (its authors were D. Burliuk, V. Khlebnikov and V. Kamensky) was published. Together with V. Mayakovsky and A. Kruchenykh, these poets soon formed a group of Cubo-Futurists, or “Gilea” poets (Gilea is the ancient Greek name for the part of the Tauride province, where D. Burliuk’s father managed the estate and where the poets of the new association came in 1911). Futurism

The main provisions of the movement As an artistic program, the futurists put forward a utopian dream of the birth of super-art capable of turning the world upside down. The artist V. Tatlin seriously designed wings for humans, K. Malevich developed projects for satellite cities cruising in the earth's orbit, V. Khlebnikov tried to offer humanity a new universal language and discover the “laws of time.”

Futurism has developed a kind of shocking repertoire. Bitter names were used: “Chukuryuk” - for the picture; "Dead Moon" - for a collection of works; "Go to hell!" - for a literary manifesto.

A slap in the face to public taste Abandon Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and so on. , etc. from the Steamship of Modernity. . To all these Maxim Gorkys, Kuprins, Bloks, Sologubs, Remizovs, Averchenks, Chernys, Kuzmins, Bunins and so on. All you need is a dacha on the river. This is the reward that fate gives to tailors. . . From the heights of skyscrapers we look at their insignificance! . We order that the rights of poets be respected: 1. To increase the vocabulary in its volume with arbitrary and derivative words (Word Innovation). 2. An insurmountable hatred of the language that existed before them. 3. With horror, remove from your proud brow the wreath of penny glory you made from the bath brooms. 4. Stand on the rock of the word “we” amidst whistling and indignation. And if the dirty marks of your “Common Sense” and “Good Taste” still remain in our lines, then for the first time the Lightnings of the New Coming Beauty of the Self-Valuable (Self-Valuable) Word are already trembling on them. D. Burliuk, Alexey Kruchenykh, V. Mayakovsky, Velimir Khlebnikov Moscow, 1912 December

Creative individualities of futurism In the poems of David Burliuk, “the stars are worms, drunk with fog,” “poetry is a worn-out girl, and beauty is blasphemous rubbish.” In his provocative texts, degrading images are used to the maximum extent possible: I like a pregnant man How handsome he is at the Pushkin monument Dressed in a gray jacket Picking the plaster with his finger<. .="">

Creative individuals of futurism Oh, laugh, laughers! Oh, laugh, you laughers! That they laugh with laughter, that they laugh with laughter. Oh, laugh merrily! Oh, the laughter of the laughing ones - the laughter of the clever laughing ones! Oh, laugh with laughter, the laughter of the laughing ones! Smeyevo, laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh. Oh, laugh, you laughers! Oh, laugh, you laughers! Velimir Khlebnikov 1910

Let's summarize: What historical events is Russia experiencing during this period? How did literature develop at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries? Formulate the main principles of symbolism, acmeism, futurism. How do these currents differ from each other? Name the creative individuals of each of the literary movements.

Let's draw conclusions At the turn of the century, Russian literature experienced a heyday comparable in brightness and diversity of talents to the brilliant beginning of the 19th century. This is a period of intensive development of philosophical thought, fine arts, and stagecraft. Various directions are being developed in the literature. In the period from 1890 to 1917, three literary movements especially clearly manifested themselves - symbolism, acmeism and futurism, which formed the basis of modernism as a literary movement. The literature of the Silver Age revealed a brilliant constellation of bright poetic individuals, each of which represented a huge creative layer that enriched not only Russian, but also world poetry of the 20th century.

Let's draw conclusions The last years of the 19th century became a turning point for Russian and Western cultures. Since the 1890s. and right up to the October Revolution of 1917, literally every aspect of Russian life changed, from economics, politics and science, to technology, culture and art. The new stage of historical and cultural development was incredibly dynamic and, at the same time, extremely dramatic. It can be said that Russia, at a turning point for it, was ahead of other countries in the pace and depth of changes, as well as in the enormity of internal conflicts.

“By the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had become the focal point of the contradictions of the entire system of imperialism, its weakest link,” the first Russian revolution was “prepared by the entire course of the country’s socio-economic and political development.”

Its global significance was quickly understood. On January 25, Jean Jaurès wrote in the newspaper L'Humanité that the Russian people are fighting not only for themselves, but also for the cause of the international proletariat, and after the All-Russian October Strike, Anatole France spoke at a rally in Paris with the words: “Whatever the outcome This great and terrible struggle, Russian revolutionaries had a decisive influence on the fate of their country and on the fate of the whole world. The Russian revolution is a world revolution." The Russian proletariat entered the historical arena, becoming the vanguard of the world socialist movement.

The revolution was suppressed, but the heroism of the fighting of the Russian people not only attracted the attention of the international community, but also had a great influence on the revival of the political struggle in Europe and the awakening of the social struggle of the East.

Writers of the second half of the 19th century complained about the difficulty of depicting the deep processes of life in connection with its rapid changes. But what was all this in comparison with the development of life in two decades of the twentieth century? Literature of the 90s spoke about awakening the consciousness of the masses. In 1905, the people already loudly declared their denied rights.

Three revolutions in 13 years! No other country has known such a revolutionary upsurge, such rapid changes in political and social life, in the psychology of the people, which required enormous effort of will, intelligence and courage.

During the years of the revolution, the innovation of M. Gorky's creativity was especially significant. Critics wrote already at the very beginning of the 1900s that it does not fit into the framework of old realism. The novel “Mother” and the play “Enemies” impressively revealed the main trends in the development of revolutionary Russia and showed who the true creator of modern history is. It was realism, inspired by the socialist ideal, realism calling for the construction of a new society on socialist principles.

Literary scholars have still not come to a consensus on which work of Gorky laid the foundation for a new creative method, later called socialist realism. The fundamental features of this method are present in both the play “The Bourgeois” (the choice of the central character) and in the play “At the Depths” (the revelation of Gorky’s attitude towards man and his ideas about false and true humanism).

One can also recall “Foma Gordeev,” where the innovative features of Gorky’s psychologism were first demonstrated. However, Gorky appeared most clearly as a realist of a new type, as a Marxist writer, precisely in “Mother” and “Enemies”. The revolution of 1905 was the stimulus that allowed Gorky the artist to fuse together what he had previously achieved. “Mother” opened a new page in the history of world literature.

For propaganda purposes, revolutionaries widely used works by foreign authors dedicated to the working class in workers' circles. Now the Russian writer has created a novel that has become a reference book for the domestic and foreign proletariat. “Maxim Gorky,” wrote V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, who was adjacent to the Marxist camp of criticism, “is a symbol, this is the name of an entire era, marked by Gorky’s mood.”

Significant events in the literary life of the revolutionary years include the appearance of V. I. Lenin’s article “Party Organization and Party Literature” (1905), which raised the question of modern literature.

Speaking about the impossibility of a writer to remain neutral in a class society (the myth of a free creator not subject to the pressure of this society was collapsing), the article called on writers to openly side with the awakening people and give their pen to the service of party art, speaking in defense of high socialist ideals. At the same time, Lenin explained that the principle of party membership does not limit the creative possibilities and inclinations of the authors.

The article drew attention to the most pressing problem of the time - the growing number of readers from the people, “who constitute the color of the country, its strength, its future”, for whom the writer should have worked.

In the 19th century More than once, disputes arose about “pure” and “tendentious” art, about the artist’s personal position, free or biased. Lenin's article continued this debate in new historical conditions. Thus, it is organically connected with the tradition of revolutionary democratic criticism, which has always advocated active art, inextricably linked with people's life and advanced social ideas.

Written on the eve of the December battles of the proletariat in Moscow, Lenin’s article transferred long-standing debates into the realm of judgments about the writer as a fighter of a certain socio-political camp, as an exponent of the modern aspirations of the people, and thereby gave this problem a different social orientation and scale.

Lenin's article caused a great resonance. Marxist criticism took it into service (see the article by A.V. Lunacharsky “Tasks of Social Democratic Artistic Creativity”). In 1906, the newspaper “Freedom and Life” (No. 11-13) published contradictory answers from writers of dissimilar social orientations to the proposed questionnaire “Literature and Revolution”; These answers were essentially responses to Lenin’s speech.

The Symbolists, who especially intensively praised self-sufficient individualism in their early work, greeted this speech with irritation. Bryusov immediately appeared in the magazine “Scales” (1905, No. 11) with a polemical article aimed at defending the artist’s independent position.

In an indirect form, such responses appeared in critical articles of the same “Libra”; they argued that party art entails a decline in talent, that party membership and aesthetics are incompatible concepts. And if A.V. Lunacharsky, relying on Gorky’s new works, said in 1907 that an innovative type of socialist literature had arisen, then the critic of the symbolist camp D. Filosofov would publish the article “The End of Gorky” in the same year.

Responses to the questions raised in Lenin’s article can be found in a number of works of art (“The Last Martyrs” by Bryusov, “The Zeitgeist” by A. Verbitskaya).

Pre-October realistic literature had not yet been able to become an organic part of the proletarian cause (the only exceptions were the works of Gorky, Serafimovich, and proletarian poets), but many of its representatives were actively involved in the fight against the autocracy and the bourgeoisie.

During the revolution, the work of writers grouped around the Znanie publishing house, headed by Gorky, attracted general attention. Znanievo people wrote about the breakdown of the old worldview, about the rebellion of man and the growth of his social activity, about the aggravation of conflicts in all areas of life.

They were not only witnesses, but also chroniclers of a time when it was no longer just individuals who saw the light socially, but vast masses of people. The Znanievites were the first to depict this process, which was so complex and unusual for Russian reality.

Depending on their ideological positions, modern critics called Znanievo’s realism, which they perceived as a special realistic movement, like the “Gorky school,” “combat,” “red,” or “directional.”

Some noted the innovation of the Znanievo people, emphasizing, however, the insufficient artistic depth of their discoveries; others believed that rhetoric and journalisticism obscured their artistic beginnings. There were many who did not accept the ideological essence of Znaniev’s creativity. But on the whole, criticism was forced to recognize the enormous popularity of the “Collections of the Knowledge Partnership.”

Other realists also turned their attention to the phenomena born of the revolution, but they paid their attention mainly to the negative phenomena that accompanied the revolutionary process.

The revolution of 1905 brought to life a mass of sharp satirical magazines. For the first time in the history of Russian satirical periodicals, a kind of “picturesque journalism” (political drawings and illustrations) appeared on their pages.

After the revolution, the “turmoil” of the era intensified even more. The prevailing reaction is once again causing a wave of disappointment, pessimism, and disbelief in the strength of the people, in the possibility of a quick change in the destinies of Russia. The passion for idealistic philosophy flares up again with even greater force, and religious quests come to life. There is an outbreak of neo-populist ideas, which have penetrated, in particular, into the circle of symbolists, and neo-Slavophilism.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 30

Slide 31

1. Literature of the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. as a special literary era. The problem of revaluing the values ​​of Russian classical literature in the literature of the turn of the century. Concepts of decadence and modernism. 3

2. Socio-political, cultural-historical and philosophical-aesthetic context of turn-of-the-century literature. Problems of the collection "Milestones". 5

3. New trends in the development of Russian art at the turn of the century. Main directions of development of Russian literary criticism. 6

4. Ideological and artistic features of M. Gorky’s creativity in the 1890s. Romance and realism in the style of Gorky. Nietzscheanism of early Gorky. 8

5. The main features of Gorky’s dramaturgy of the 1900s. Analysis of one of the dramas (optional).

6. M. Gorky’s play “At the Lower Depths”: issues, character system, artistic structure. Problems of interpretation. 12

7. Stylistic contours of A. Kuprin’s prose: “Moloch”, “Shulamith”, “Yama” (other examples of different styles may be used in the answer).

8. Features of A. Kuprin’s psychological realism in the story “The Duel.” 20

9. “Eternal” themes in Russian realism of the 1910s. Comparative analysis of the works of I. Bunin and A. Kuprin about love. 21

10. Poetry of I. Bunin. Expressive possibilities of Bunin's lyrics. 24

11. Prose of I. Bunin 1890−1900s. Artistic features of Bunin's short stories. Bunin's substantive representation. 25

12. Depiction of the Russian national character in I. Bunin’s stories about the village (“Village”, “Sukhodol”).

13. Modernist principles in the works of I. Bunin. Mentality 19 and

2nd century in the artistic consciousness of the writer. thirty

14. The work of I. Bunin in exile (“The Life of Arsenyev”, “Dark Alleys”).

15. Typology of Russian realism at the turn of the century. Naturalism, expressionism and impressionism as stylistic “admixtures” of realistic prose at the turn of the century. The creative image of one of the Znaniev writers (optional).

16. Literary phenomena of a complex aesthetic nature. The problem of neorealism at the turn of the century. Analysis of the works of B. Zaitsev, S. Sergeev-Tsensky, A. Remizov (optional).

17. The problem of naturalism in Russian literature at the turn of the century. Neo-naturalism by M. Artsybashev. 42

18. Stylistic features of I. Shmelev’s prose (using the example of 1-2 works).

19. The evolution of L. Andreev’s creativity: from the “Yuletide” story to expressionist drama. The problem of the “transitivity” of his creative method. 47

20. Expressionist stylistics in the works of L. Andreev. Analysis of one of the writer’s plays (optional).

21. The theme of the “little man” in the works of L. Andreev, A. Kuprin, I. Shmelev, F. Sologub. 51

22. Russian symbolism: main stages of development and style varieties. Basic concepts of internal gradation of symbolism. 54

23. Impressionist lyrics by K. Balmont. Analysis of one of the poems (optional).

24. The poetic world of F. Sologub. Analysis of one of the poems (optional).

Analysis of Sologub’s poem “I am the god of the mysterious world...” 60

25. The evolution of V. Bryusov’s creativity. Bryusov as a leader of symbolism. Neoclassicism by V. Bryusov. 61

26. Artistic features of I. Annensky’s lyrics. Analysis of one of the poems (optional).

27. Aesthetic system of Young Symbolism: concepts of theurgicity, conciliarity, “objectification of theurgic longing,” “loyalty to things”; color and number symbolism. Creativity of Vyach.Ivanov. 64

28. Artistic features of the poetry of Andrei Bely. The genre of symphony in Bely’s work. Analysis of one of the poems (optional).

29. The main stages of the creative evolution of A. Blok. Russian theme in the poet's work. 66

30. Early lyrics of A. Blok. Analysis of one of the poems in the first volume. 68

31. Problematics and poetics of A. Blok’s poem “The Twelve”. The problem of interpreting the ending of the poem. 69

32. Symbolist prose. Analysis of two novels (optional) by D. Merezhkovsky, F. Sologub, A. Bely, V. Bryusov. 70

33. History of the organizational design of Russian Acmeism. Acmeists as heirs of the Symbolists. 72

34. The evolution of N. Gumilyov’s creativity. Analysis of one of the poems (optional).