A.M. Gurevich Three Stages of Russian Realism: On the Debate over Literary Trends

... for me, imagination has always beenhigher than existence, and the strongest loveI experienced in a dream.
L.N. Andreev

Realism, as is known, appeared in Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century and throughout the century existed within the framework of its critical current. However, symbolism, which made itself known in the 1890s - the first modernist trend in Russian literature - sharply opposed itself to realism. Following symbolism, other non-realist movements arose. This inevitably led to qualitative transformation of realism as a method of depicting reality.

The symbolists expressed the opinion that realism only glides over the surface of life and is not able to penetrate the essence of things. Their position was not infallible, but since then began in Russian art confrontation and mutual influence of modernism and realism.

It is noteworthy that modernists and realists, outwardly striving for delimitation, internally had a common aspiration for a deep, essential knowledge of the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that the writers of the turn of the century, who considered themselves realists, understood how narrow the framework of consistent realism was, and began to master syncretic forms of narration that made it possible to combine realistic objectivity with romantic, impressionistic and symbolist principles.

If the realists of the nineteenth century paid close attention to the social nature of man then the realists of the twentieth century correlated this social nature with psychological, subconscious processes expressed in the clash of reason and instinct, intellect and feelings. Simply put, the realism of the early twentieth century pointed to the complexity of human nature, which is by no means reducible only to his social being. It is no coincidence that Kuprin, Bunin, and Gorky have a plan of events, the environment is barely indicated, but a refined analysis of the character's spiritual life is given. The author's gaze is always directed beyond the limits of the characters' spatial and temporal existence. Hence - the appearance of folklore, biblical, cultural motifs and images, which made it possible to expand the boundaries of the narrative, to attract the reader to co-creation.

At the beginning of the 20th century, within the framework of realism, four currents:

1) critical realism continues the traditions of the 19th century and involves an emphasis on the social nature of phenomena (at the beginning of the 20th century, these were the works of A.P. Chekhov and L.N. Tolstoy),

2) socialist realism - the term of Ivan Gronsky, denoting the image of reality in its historical and revolutionary development, the analysis of conflicts in the context of the class struggle, and the actions of heroes - in the context of benefit for humanity ("Mother" by M. Gorky, and later - most of the works of Soviet writers),

3) mythological realism formed in ancient literature, but in the 20th century under M.R. began to understand the image and understanding of reality through the prism of well-known mythological plots (in foreign literature, a striking example is the novel by J. Joyce "Ulysses", and in Russian literature of the early 20th century - the story "Judas Iscariot" by L.N. Andreev)

4) naturalism involves depicting reality with the utmost plausibility and detail, often unsightly ("Pit" by A.I. Kuprin, "Sanin" by M.P. Artsybashev, "Notes of a Doctor" by V.V. Veresaev)

The listed features of Russian realism caused numerous disputes about the creative method of writers who remained faithful to realistic traditions.

Bitter begins with neo-romantic prose and comes to the creation of social plays and novels, becomes the ancestor of socialist realism.

Creation Andreeva was always in a borderline state: the modernists considered him a "contemptible realist", and for the realists, in turn, he was a "suspicious symbolist". At the same time, it is generally accepted that his prose is realistic, and his dramaturgy gravitates towards modernism.

Zaitsev, showing interest in the microstates of the soul, created impressionistic prose.

Attempts by critics to define the artistic method Bunin led to the fact that the writer himself compared himself to a suitcase pasted over with a huge number of labels.

The complex worldview of realist writers, the multidirectional poetics of their works testified to the qualitative transformation of realism as an artistic method. Thanks to a common goal - the search for the highest truth - at the beginning of the 20th century there was a convergence of literature and philosophy, which was outlined even in the work of Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy.

In recent years, more and more voices have been heard calling for a revision of the concept of a literary movement or even a complete rejection of it - in the name of freeing the history of literature from habitual stereotypes and outdated dogmas. The need for such a revision is usually justified by the fact that the work of a number of writers, especially major ones, can hardly fit within the framework of any particular direction, or even stands apart altogether. And the literary trends themselves are multi-layered, internally heterogeneous, not clearly delimited from each other, as a result of which transitional, mixed, hybrid forms constantly appear.

All this seems to be self-evident. But another thing is just as self-evident: the category of a literary trend does not exist at all so that the label of a sentimentalist, romantic, realist, etc. can be unconditionally attached to the name of any writer. It is intended only to mark the main milestones in the movement of literature, to designate the most important stages of the literary process, its landmarks. And such guidelines are necessary not only for specialists-researchers, but also for the writers themselves - to comprehend and correct their own artistic principles, develop creative programs, clarify their attitude towards predecessors, followers, opponents. Without passionate, fierce disputes between “classics” and romantics, romantics and realists, symbolists and acmeists, disputes between the romantics themselves, realists about the essence of romanticism, realism, art, it is generally impossible to imagine the literary life of past eras. The struggle and change of literary trends is an integral part of the history of literature.

Another thing is that it is necessary to distinguish between a literary movement as a kind of ideal model - a schematic designation of its essential features - and a literary movement in its concrete historical existence - as a living, dynamic, changeable phenomenon, largely different in different national literatures and at different stages of its development. . Unfortunately, such a distinction is not easy for our science.

It is significant that V.M. Markovich (in the mentioned works) builds his arguments about literary trends, based on the material of Russian realism alone. Meanwhile, it is well known that realism in its classical form was established in Western European literature as a method of artistic study of the internal, often hidden socio-psychological antagonisms inherent in bourgeois society, which developed in the West much earlier than in Russia.

It was in Western European (most of all - French) literature of the second half of the 19th century. the essential properties of the realistic art of the word were most clearly, consistently and fully embodied - such as an objective, mercilessly sober socio-psychological analysis, the absence of any illusions, hopes and hopes for the future, a sense of the stability of social life. As for Russian realism, it arises not just in a different socio-historical situation, but also at a fundamentally different - pre-bourgeois - stage of social evolution: after all, Russia has never known any developed bourgeois society. Therefore, he comprehends and captures a different historical reality - a society that is still permeated in many respects by patriarchal-clan relations, the very process of changing eras, a collision of old and new beginnings.

Moreover, Russia in the second half of the 19th century lives under the sign of impending or ongoing upheavals, a sense of the impetuousness of historical movement, the inevitability of change. And therefore the task of the artistic and analytical study of modernity, paramount for realists in the West, was subordinated in Russian realism to the task of transforming the world and man. The study of life and its laws from this point of view acted as a necessary condition, as a prerequisite for the coming renewal - social, spiritual, moral.

Hence the synthetic nature of realism in Russia, its closer (compared to Western European) connection with previous literary trends: sentimentalism, enlightenment, and especially romanticism. The romantic thirst for the transformation of man and society, the intense search for ways to change and improve them is the most important feature of Russian classical realism in general.

Undoubtedly, therefore, the national-historical originality of Russian realism and its significant difference from the "classical" Western European model. Just as essential and fundamental are the differences between the stages of its evolution. Even if we take only the second half of the XIX century. - the era of the maturity of realism in Russia - not only individual, but also typological features of the realism of Goncharov, Ostrovsky, Turgenev, on the one hand, and the realism of Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, on the other, will be obvious. As a new phase of realistic art, the work of writers of the end of the century is usually considered: Korolenko, Garshin, but, above all, Chekhov. The three named stages of Russian realism will be discussed.

For all the national-historical originality of the realistic Russian literature of the mid-19th century, for all its undoubted difference from the literatures of the West, its significant approximation - precisely during this period - to the pan-European model of realism is just as undoubted. It is no coincidence that the genre of the novel, the leading genre of realistic literature, is now coming to the fore. The very type of “heroic novel” (L.V. Pumpyansky) is being formed, which is based on “a trial of the social significance of a person”. The main thing is that it was at this time that the most important features of the realistic artistic method crystallized: the installation on the creation of typical concrete historical characters embodying the generic, essential features of a certain environment, era, social structure, and the desire for objectivity, reliability in depicting reality, for recreating life in its natural course and life-like forms, "in their inherent internal logic" .

Undoubtedly, for example, the determining influence of the patriarchal-local way of life on the character and lifestyle of Oblomov, on the whole fate of this hero. His desire to certainly arrange a semblance of a cozy patriarchal nest in the capital, his fruitless daydreaming and practical helplessness, the futility of his attempts to be reborn to a new life under the influence of Stolz and Olga, his marriage to Agafya Pshenitsyna and death itself - all this is characterized and explained in the finale of the novel in one word , with one concept - "Oblomovism". If we add to this the writer's predilection for depicting an established life (for the type, in his opinion, "is composed of long and many repetitions or layers of phenomena and persons"); the inclusion of his characters in the usual rhythm of everyday life, in the established circle of habits and relationships; finally, the objectivity of the slow epic narrative - it will become clear how clearly and fully these properties of realism were embodied in Goncharov's work.

The work of Ostrovsky can be characterized in a similar way. Recall that in the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”, Dobrolyubov, defending the playwright from the attacks of criticism, called his works “plays of life”. He explained that many "superfluous" (from the traditional point of view) characters and scenes of his dramas are necessary and artistically justified, although they are not directly related to the plot of the play, its intrigue. They are necessary because they show that “position”, that social “ground”, which determines the “meaning of the activity” of the main characters. It was in the instinctive fidelity to reality, in the ability to vividly and fully recreate the "environment of life", in other words - in the social characteristic and typicality of the phenomena depicted, that the critic saw the most important feature of Ostrovsky's talent.

The same qualities of the playwright were noted by other insightful contemporary critics. Comparing Ostrovsky's plays with Gogol's dramatic works, they pointed to the pronounced subjectivity of Gogol's picture of life, where "exaggeration", "exaggeration", "hyperbole" prevail, while the main feature of Ostrovsky's comedies is naturalness and authenticity, "mathematical fidelity to reality" . If Gogol's image of reality is permeated with his own impressions of it, then Ostrovsky recreates life in its authenticity - "as it is." The animated lyricism of Gogol is therefore opposed by the impartiality of Ostrovsky's artistic manner.

All of the above explains the intense interest of Russian writers and critics in the very problem of creating typical characters in which the accidental is overcome: socio-historical regularity triumphs over empirical reality. So, Goncharov, according to Dobrolyubov, "wanted to ensure that a random image that flashed before him was raised to a type, to give it a generic and permanent meaning." And Turgenev constantly repeated, varied the idea that the task of the artist is “to achieve types through the game of chances”, the writer said about himself that he always sought to capture and convey “the very spirit and pressure of time”, to embody it “in the proper types” . "The triumph of poetic truth," in his words, lies in the fact that "the image taken by the artist from the depths of reality comes out of the hands of his type."

On the other hand, the transformation of an image into a type, the elimination of everything empirically accidental in the name of this goal, has, from the point of view of realist writers, its own limit, for it is fraught with the danger of schematization. Meanwhile, the desire for typicality, they believed, should not kill the illusion of life, full of accidents, unpredictability, contradictions, the illusion of its free and natural movement. In other words: as soon as typical characters embody common, generic properties, they must also possess individually unique features. Otherwise, they will be lifeless figures, similar, in the words of Herzen, "to anatomical wax preparations." “A wax cast,” Herzen develops his comparison, “can be more expressive, more normal, more typical; everything that the anatomist knew can be sculpted in it, but there is nothing that he did not know ... In the cast, like a statue, everything is outside, nothing behind the soul, but in the preparation life itself has dried up, stopped, numb itself with all accidents and secrets " .

It is noteworthy that Balzac's characters seem lifeless to Turgenev, who "prick their eyes with their typicality." The writer himself strives to harmoniously balance the typifying and individualizing tendencies in his works.

In "Fathers and Sons" the typologizing principle is revealed, perhaps most clearly. In fact, the main characters of the novel: Bazarov, on the one hand, and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, on the other, appear before the reader as the embodiment of two opposite and easily recognizable by contemporaries socio-psychological types, two generations - "a man of the forties" and "a man sixties". Typical was not only their contrast, but also their opposition itself - ideological, personal, social, psychological. It is no coincidence that the antagonism of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov arises immediately, literally at first sight - long before their ideological disputes.

This is the inner meaning of the persistent, steady comparison and opposition of the central characters of the novel, which is consistently drawn along all lines, in all areas of the image (appearance, behavior, speech, lifestyle, past, characters, views) and which gives the work an internal unity. . Attention is drawn to the purposefulness of the artistic details with which the main characters are depicted. The details of their costume, behavior, speech, etc. hit one point and are contrastingly correlated with each other. Thus, the transformation of the image into a type is achieved.

At the same time, in "Fathers and Sons" (as, indeed, in other Turgenev's novels), the opposite trend can also be revealed - the desire to overcome the typological unambiguity in the portrayal of the hero, to weaken the feeling of the absolute opposite of the contrasting characters. The most important role in this belongs to the plot organization of the work. It is the plots of Turgenev's novels that carry the main anti-typological charge, they reveal the irreducibility of a person to typological formulas. No wonder they are most often based on the fact that the central character enters a certain society from somewhere outside, feels himself in it - in one way or another - a stranger, an alien. The plot paradox of "Fathers and Sons" lies precisely in the fact that the commoner hero, having fallen into the aristocratic circle, to some extent ceases to be himself, is convinced of the unviability and limitations of his usual views. “And his appearance confronts everyone around him with problems, the very existence of which they did not know before. In other words, the characters are immediately taken out of the channels outlined by the typological schemes and enter into chains that are illogical from the point of view of these schemes.

The plot of the novel is constructed in such a way as to weaken, in particular, the fundamental opposition of the main antagonists, between whom, it would seem, there is and cannot be anything in common. Nevertheless, the story of Bazarov's love for Odintsova is in many ways similar to the unfortunate romance of Pavel Petrovich and Princess R. Another important similarity that arises between them is doom. Bazarov was soon destined to die. Pavel Petrovich, having settled the affairs of his brother, also feels like a dead man. “Yes, he was a dead man,” the author concludes mercilessly. This is how the balance of opposing tendencies is maintained in Turgenev's novel.

The writer's desire for naturalness, naturalness, strict objectivity of the image largely determined the features of his recreation of the spiritual life of a person - the principles of Turgenev's psychologism. The writer considered the artist's most important task not to be an in-depth analysis, but a lively, distinct, clear for readers re-creation of spiritual movements and mental states in all their diversity. Looking ahead, we note that non-compliance with this principle extremely irritated Turgenev in L. Tolstoy, the author of War and Peace, whom he reproached for violating objectivity, immediacy of the image in favor of the “system” adopted by him, for constantly emphasizing the author’s position, for the importunity of pointing author's finger. On the contrary, the main feature of Turgenev's psychologism is its unobtrusiveness, invisibility.

All these individual properties of the artistic method of Turgenev the novelist turn out to be at the same time typologically significant, characteristic of the stage of Russian realism we are considering. Reducing the matter to an elementary and simplified formula, it could be conditionally designated as “ typical» realism.

The new phase of Russian realism, represented primarily by the names of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, differs in many respects from the previous one in terms of its original creative principles. The realism of these writers can be called "super-typical" or "universal", because they saw their main task not so much in creating historically specific social types, but in getting to the roots of human actions, to the fundamental principles and root causes of observed and recreated processes and phenomena - the causes of social, psychological, spiritual and moral.

In this regard, the balance between the objectively recreative and analytical principles, characteristic of the realism of the previous period, is now violated: the analytical principle is noticeably enhanced due to the objectivity and naturalness of the image. It is this feature that brings both writers together.

To begin with, they themselves felt the unusualness of their artistic method, its difference from the traditional realism of the Goncharov-Turgenev model, they sought to explain, protect, and substantiate their artistic tasks and principles.

Dostoevsky sees the limitations of traditional realism in its indifference to such phenomena and facts of "current reality" that seem, at first glance, unusual, exceptional, fantastic. Meanwhile, they express the essence of the processes taking place in society to a much greater extent than ordinary and familiar facts. It is precisely the comprehension of not just reality “as it is”, but also the tendencies of its development, the possibilities contained and hidden in it - these are the main tasks of that artistic method, which the writer called “realism in the highest sense”.

Of course, Dostoevsky not only noticed the “fantastic” facts of the “current reality”, but he himself created exceptional, extreme situations in his works, preferring a hero who was able to completely surrender to the idea that captured him, to bring it to the extreme, to its logical end. And such a hero, in his view, was a person who was least connected with a certain social environment, moral and cultural tradition, family tradition, a person “from a random family” - as opposed to a person from a “tribal family”.

Thus, Dostoevsky essentially undermines the principle of social conditioning of character - the cornerstone of traditional realistic aesthetics. The inner world of his characters is freer, autonomous, less dependent on the social "soil", the social position of the character (which connects Dostoevsky with the tradition of romanticism - a fact that has been repeatedly noted in our science).

The traditional view of realism as the creation of stable socio-psychological types was also unacceptable for L. Tolstoy with his ideas about the constant variability of a person, the fluidity of his consciousness (“people are like rivers”). He defined his artistic method as a combination of opposing principles - "pettiness" and "generalization", i.e., as a method of close observation and detailed analysis of the human psyche, which ultimately allows to comprehend and show "secrets common to all people."

All that has been said does not mean, of course, that Tolstoy did not want or was unable to create specific socio-psychological types; on the contrary, the relief and authenticity of his characters are striking. And yet, everyday, socio-historical specificity was for him only an external stratum, a kind of shell through which it is necessary to break through - for a start - to the inner life of the individual, his psyche, and then even further - to the constant and unchanging core of personality. The essence of Tolstoy's depiction of a person lies precisely in demonstrating the fundamental similarity of all people - regardless of their social affiliation or the era in which they live, “to show that the real life of people goes on regardless of history, which is basically human life is unchanging, etc.” . Meanwhile, classical realism, as is well known, stands firmly on socio-historical ground. And this special position of Tolstoy largely determined the originality of his artistic method.

I must say that contemporaries - writers, readers, critics, acutely felt the unusual artistic manner of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. It was difficult for critics to overcome and master new aesthetic principles; many were irritated by the greater measure of artistic conventionality inherent in the work of both writers. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were reproached for departing from realistic canons: for violating naturalness and plausibility, for the atypicality of the characters or plot situations they created, for an overly detailed, analytical consideration of the characters' inner world.

On the other hand, they themselves were acutely aware of the limitations of the former realism and the need to update it. And, of course, such an update could not but mean a revision of a number of fundamental provisions of traditional realistic aesthetics.

For all the differences between the two described stages of Russian realism, there is much in common between them. They are brought together, first of all, by the socio-ideological pathos - the thirst for solving specific and urgent social problems.

In the realistic literature of the end of the century, which can be regarded as the next stage of Russian realism, the picture changes significantly: it is characterized by a sense of chaotic confusion, complexity, incomprehensibility of life as a whole, its tragedy, regardless of the state of society or political regime.

In Chekhov's work, the ideological and aesthetic principles of the new stage of Russian realism were embodied with the greatest artistic completeness, consistency and strength. It is known that contemporary critics have repeatedly reproached Chekhov for the lack of a worldview and lack of ideas, the insignificance of content, and so on. And although it is, of course, impossible to agree with such opinions, one cannot but say that there was undoubtedly some truth in such judgments. After all, Chekhov himself spoke more than once about his lack of any definite and complete worldview, and persistently dissociated himself from existing ideological currents and systems. “I am afraid of those who look for trends between the lines and who want to see me as a liberal or a conservative without fail,” he admitted in a famous letter to A.N. Pleshcheev. Moreover, the writer was deeply convinced that to follow any doctrine, theory, doctrine, concept means to claim the monopoly possession of the truth, especially absurd now - in the confusion and confusion of modern life. To think that "she knows everything, understands everything" can only be a crowd. As for the people who write, “then it’s time for them to admit that in this world you can’t make out anything.”

At the same time, Chekhov invariably emphasized the need for a "general idea", "higher goals". After all, the question for him was the applicability of ideally lofty ideas to existing reality: “When there are tundra and Eskimos around, then general ideas, as inapplicable to the present, blur and slip away just as quickly as thoughts of eternal bliss.

And if in the art of classical realism (compared to romanticism) the spheres of the ideal and the real have united, drawn closer (the ideal for a realist is the edge of reality itself), then in Chekhov they again diverged far. The world of higher spiritual and moral values ​​and "remote goals", so necessary, but inaccessible to modern man, and the sphere of everyday everyday life exist in Chekhov separately, as if on their own, barely touching. And such separation is tragic.

Deprived of a "general idea", everyday "human life consists of trifles", "of horrors, squabbles and vulgarities, changing and alternating" . The power of trifles, trifles, everyday worries, like a web that entangles a person, can be called the main theme of Chekhov's creativity. Hence - the writer's inclination to anecdotal plots and situations, details and replicas expressing the absurdity of being. In Chekhov's tragicomic world, everything can turn out to be anecdotal - from a meaninglessly and fruitlessly lived life (as in "Gooseberry") to a typo in a telegram ("Funeral Tuesday" - in "Darling"). Let us recall at least the famous remark of Chebutykin: "Balzac got married in Berdichev." It is doubly absurd: as an absurdity in the mouth of a provincial officer, a degraded military doctor, and as a statement of the anecdotal nature of the life situation itself. This phrase is a model of Chekhov's "theater of the absurd".

But if life consists of anecdotal absurdities, of details, trifles, trifles that have no apparent meaning, if it is difficult to explain and it is difficult to find a guiding idea in it, how can one distinguish in such a case the important from the unimportant, the main from the secondary, the accidental from the regular? But the concept of the typical was based on this opposition - the central category of traditional realism. Accordingly, each detail was charged with the whole and directed towards a single center; it had a characterological meaning.

Chekhov's realism is based on completely different principles. In his artistic system, the main is freely mixed with the secondary, the typical with the atypical, the regular with the accidental; they are simply inseparable from each other. If in traditional realism the accidental exists only as a manifestation of the characteristic, typical, then in Chekhov “it is actually accidental, having an independent existential value and an equal right to artistic embodiment with everything else”, because the writer’s task is to create an artistic world that is closest “to natural being”. in its chaotic, meaningless, random forms. In a word, if the old realism sought to recreate the world in its permanent and stable features, then Chekhov - in its instantaneous and momentary appearance.

Indeed, even an inexperienced reader can easily understand the fundamental difference between such details as Oblomov’s robe or Bazarov’s bare red hands, and the fact that in Chekhov “one of the characters wears worn-out shoes and beautiful ties, the other heroine drops matches all the time when talking, and another one has a habit of eating frozen apples while reading magazines, and the hero of another story examines his palms while talking, etc. etc. ... Such details in Chekhov have incomparably greater autonomy in relation to the whole.

Using the terminology of A.P. Chudakov, Chekhov's realism could be called " random realism"or in other words - realism" atypical”, significantly different from the classical realism of the XIX century.

So, even over a relatively short historical period - in the literature of the second half of the XIX century. - it is possible to single out at least three phases, three stages of realism, which largely differ from each other in terms of initial creative attitudes and deep artistic principles. The stages, which we have arbitrarily labeled as "typical", "supertypical" and "atypical" realism. At the same time, only “typical” realism is unconditionally close to the classical (“ideal”) model of realism as such. In all other cases, such closeness is problematic.

It follows from what has been said that it is necessary to distinguish between realism in its original essence and in its broader, general meaning (this also applies to other literary movements). Therefore, it is quite legitimate to correlate certain literary phenomena with the original model of realism, to seek to identify the measure of their typological correspondence or non-coincidence. But it hardly makes sense to try at all costs to discover the fullness of the signs or general properties of realistic art in the work of any writer or even a group of writers who act under the banner of realism. And it is absolutely strange, having become convinced of the futility of such an occupation, to lay responsibility for this on the imperfection of the very category of literary movement.

At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher explains to the students the essence of the concept of realism, talks about the concept of "natural school". Further, the postulates of naturalism of the French writer Emile Zola are given, the concept of social Darwinism is revealed. A detailed story is given about the features of Russian realism of the late XIX - early XX centuries, the most significant works of Russian writers are considered, how they form the literature of that period.

Rice. 1. Portrait of V. Belinsky ()

The key event for Russian realism in the middle of the 19th century was the release in the 40s of two literary collections - this is the collection "Physiology of Petersburg" and "Petersburg Collection". Both of them came out with a preface by Belinsky (Fig. 1), where he writes that Russia is divided, there are many classes in it that live their own lives, they know nothing about each other. People of different classes speak and dress differently, believe in God and earn their living. The task of literature, according to Belinsky, is to acquaint Russia with Russia, to break down territorial barriers.

Belinsky's concept of realism had to endure many difficult trials. From 1848 to 1856 it was even forbidden to mention his name in print. Issues of Otechestvennye Zapiski and Sovremennik with his articles were confiscated in libraries. Profound changes began in the very camp of progressive writers. The "natural school" of the 40s, which included various writers - Nekrasov and A. Maikov, Dostoevsky and Druzhinin, Herzen and V. Dal - was possible on the basis of a united anti-serfdom front. But by the end of the 40s, democratic and liberal tendencies intensified in it.

The authors opposed "tendentious" art, for "pure artistry", for "eternal" art. On the basis of "pure art" Botkin, Druzhinin and Annenkov united in a kind of "triumvirate". They mistreated the true disciples of Belinsky, such as Chernyshevsky, and in this they received support from Turgenev, Grigorovich, Goncharov.

These individuals did not simply advocate the aimlessness and apolitical nature of art. They challenged the pointed tendentiousness that the Democrats wanted to give to art. They were satisfied with the outdated level of tendentiousness, although they could hardly come to terms with it during Belinsky's lifetime. Their position was typically liberal, and they were later completely satisfied with the limited "glasnost" that was established as a result of the tsarist reform. Gorky pointed to the objectively reactionary meaning of liberalism in the context of the preparations for a democratic revolution in Russia: “The liberals of the 1860s and Chernyshevsky,” he wrote in 1911, “are representatives of two historical tendencies, two historical forces that, from then until our time determine the outcome of the struggle for a new Russia.

The literature of the middle of the 19th century developed under the influence of the concept of V. Belinsky and was called the “natural school”.

Emile Zola (Fig. 2) in his work "Experimental Novel" explained that the task of literature is the study of a certain period in the life of its heroes.

Rice. 2. Emile Zola ()

In his ideas about man, E. Zola relied on the study of the famous French physiologist C. Bernard (Fig. 3), who considered man as a biological being. Emile Zola believed that all human actions are based on blood and nerves, that is, the biological motives of behavior determine a person's life.

Rice. 3. Portrait of Claude Bernard ()

The followers of E. Zola were called social Darwinists. For them, Darwin's concept is important: any biological individual is formed, adapting to the environment and fighting for survival. The will to live, the struggle for survival and the environment - all these principles will be found in the literature of the turn of the century.

Zola's imitators appeared in Russian literature. For Russian realism-naturalism, the main thing was to photographically reflect reality.

Naturalist writers of the late 19th century were characterized by: a new look at the estates from the outside, a realistic presentation in the spirit of a psychological novel.

One of the most striking manifestos of the literature of that time was the article by the critic A. Suvorin (Fig. 4) “Our poetry and fiction”, which answered the questions “Do we have literature?”, “How to write?” and "What does an author need?". He complains that new people from the works of this time - representatives of different classes - are engaged in old, familiar activities for literary heroes (fall in love, marry, divorce), and writers for some reason do not talk about the professional activities of heroes. The writers are not aware of the occupations of the new heroes. The biggest problem writers face is not knowing the material they are writing about.

Rice. 4. Portrait of Suvorin ()

“A fiction writer should know more or should choose for himself some one corner as a specialist and try to become, if not a master, then a good worker,” wrote Suvorin.

At the end of the 80s, a new wave appeared in literature - this is M. Gorky, Marxists, a new idea of ​​​​what sociality is.

Rice. 5. Collection of partnership "Knowledge" ()

"Knowledge" (Fig. 5), a book publishing partnership in St. Petersburg, organized in 1898-1913 by members of the Literacy Committee (K.P. Pyatnitsky and others) for cultural and educational purposes. Initially, the publishing house produced mainly popular science books on natural science, history, public education, and art. In 1900, M. Gorky joined Znanie; at the end of 1902 he headed the publishing house after its reorganization. Gorky united realist writers around Knowledge, reflecting the oppositional moods of Russian society in their works. Having released in a short time the collected works of M. Gorky (9 vols.), A. Serafimovich, A.I. Kuprin, V.V. Veresaeva, Wanderer (S. G. Petrova), N.D. Teleshova, S.A. Naydenova et al., "Knowledge" has gained fame as a publishing house that focuses on a broad democratic circle of readers. In 1904, the publishing house began publishing the Collections of the Knowledge Association (up to 1913, 40 books were published). They included works by M. Gorky, A.P. Chekhov, A.I. Kuprin, A. Serafimovich, L.N. Andreeva, I.A. Bunina, V.V. Veresaeva and others. Translations were also published.

Against the background of the critical realism of the majority of the “Znanievists”, Gorky and Serafimovich, representatives of socialist realism, stood out, on the one hand, and Andreev and some others, subject to the influences of decadence, on the other. After the revolution of 1905-07. this division has intensified. Since 1911, the main editing of the collections "Knowledge" passed to V.S. Mirolyubov.

Along with the release of collected works of young writers and collections, the Knowledge partnership published the so-called. "Cheap Library", in which small works of "Knowledge" writers were printed. In addition, on the instructions of the Bolsheviks, Gorky published a series of socio-political brochures, including works by K. Marx, F. Engels, P. Lafargue, A. Bebel, and others. circulation - about 4 million copies).

During the years of reaction that came after the revolution of 1905-07, many members of the Knowledge partnership left the publishing house. Gorky, forced to live abroad during these years, broke with the publishing house in 1912. M. Gorky's letters speak more and more about the timeliness of literature and its usefulness, that is, the need to develop the reader and instill in him the correct worldview.

At this time, the division into friends and foes is characteristic not only of writers, but also of readers. The main reader for Gorky and the Znanevites is the new reader (the working man, the proletariat, who is not yet accustomed to reading books), and therefore the writer needs to write simply and clearly. The writer must be the teacher and leader of the reader.

The Znaniev concept in literature will form the basis of the concept of Soviet literature.

Since what is stated in a work of art should be clear and understandable, the main path for Znaniev literature is allegory I (allegory, an abstract concept is illustrated by a specific object or image).

For each concept: "valor", "faith", "mercy" - there were stable images that were understood by readers. In this period of literature, such concepts as “stagnation” and “revolution”, the world “old” and “new” are in demand. In each of the stories of the partnership there is a key image-allegory.

Another important feature of realism at the end of the 19th century is the appearance of writers from the provinces: Mamin-Sibiryak, Shishkov, Prishvin, Bunin, Shmelev, Kuprin and many others. The Russian province appears unknown, incomprehensible, in need of study. The Russian outback of this time appears in two guises:

1. something motionless, alien to any movement (conservative);

2. something that keeps traditions, important life values.

The story "Village" by Bunin, "Uyezdnoe" by Zamyatin, the novel "Small Demon" by F. Sologub, stories by Zaitsev and Shmelev and other works that tell about the provincial life of that time.

1. Naturalism ().
2. "Natural school" ().
3. Emile Zola ().
4. Claude Bernard ().
5. Social Darwinism ().
6. Artsybashev M.P. ().
7. Suvorin A.S. ().

Publishing house of the partnership "Knowledge"

The direction of philosophical thought at the beginning of the century.

Literary searches of supporters of the revolutionary movement.

At the beginning of the XX century. a completely different direction of literature arose. It was associated with the specific tasks of the social struggle. This position was defended by a group of "proletarian poets". Among them were intellectuals, workers and yesterday's peasants. The attention of the authors of revolutionary songs and propaganda poems was drawn to the plight of the working masses, their spontaneous protest and organized movement.

The works of such an ideological orientation contained many real facts, correct observations, and expressively conveyed certain public moods. At the same time, there were no significant artistic achievements here. The attraction to political conflicts, the social essence of a person dominated, and the development of the personality was replaced by ideological preparation for participation in class battles.

The path to art lay through the comprehension of the multifaceted relationships of people, the spiritual atmosphere of the time. And where specific phenomena were somehow linked with these problems, a living word, a vivid image was born.

For the artists of the beginning of the century, overcoming the general disunity and disharmony went back to the spiritual rebirth of man and mankind.

A painful reaction to the social struggle, to calls for violence, gave rise to the neo-religious quest of the era. The sermons of class hatred were opposed by the Christian precepts of Goodness, Love, and Beauty. Thus, the desire of a number of thinkers was manifested to find in the teaching of Christ

the path to the salvation of contemporary humanity, tragically divided and alienated from eternal spiritual values.

The "religious renaissance" determined the activities of a number of modern philosophers. All of them were warmed by the dream of introducing a weak, erring person to divine truth. But each expressed his own idea of ​​such a rise.

Most of the writers, outside of special research in the field of religion, came to consonant with neo-Christian ideals. In the recesses of a lonely contradictory soul, an underlying desire for perfect love, beauty, for harmonious merging with the divinely beautiful world was revealed. In the subjective experience of the artist, faith in the incorruptibility of these spiritual values ​​was acquired.

The young realism of the frontier era had all the signs of a transforming, seeking and acquiring the truth of art. Moreover, its creators went to their discoveries through subjective attitudes, reflections, dreams. This feature, born of the author's perception of time, determined the difference between the realistic literature of the beginning of our century and the Russian classics.

1. The next generation of his heroes "stepped" into the work of Chekhov's younger contemporaries.

Sleepiness, alienation of the soul from the world increased many times over and, unlike the works of Chekhov, became habitual, imperceptible.

Gloomy impressions prompted writers to turn to the mysteries of human nature itself. The socio-psychological origins of his behavior were by no means hushed up. But it was correlated with subconscious processes: the influence of the "power of the flesh" "on the strength of the spirit" (Kuprin), the clash of reason and instinct (Andreev), instinct and intellect (Gorky), the spiritualized soul and the soulless mechanism (Bunin). From eternity, people are doomed to vague, confused experiences, which leads to a sad and bitter fate. The motley, changeable, beautiful and terrible world remained a mystery to the heroes of frontier prose. It is not surprising that a stream of thoughts and forebodings emanating from the artist himself spilled into the works.

At these origins, the renewal of genre and style structures began.
Hosted on ref.rf
The plan of events, communication of characters was simplified in every possible way, sometimes barely indicated. But the limits of spiritual life are pushed apart, accompanied by a refined analysis of the internal states of the character. Often in connection with this, the reproduction of several months, even days, grew into large narratives. Difficult themes, as if requiring a detailed implementation, were presented in a "stingy" form, since difficult problems are defined on behalf of the writer or are expressed by symbolizing phenomena.

The author's gaze is constantly directed beyond the boundaries of the chosen situation, towards the person and the world as a whole. The limits of time and space depicted in the work are freely expanded. In their search, a new generation of prose writers turned to folklore, biblical images and motifs,

creeds of many peoples, to historical, cultural and literary reminiscences, often to the personality of classical artists.

Author's thoughts literally permeate the works. Meanwhile - a striking fact - in the literature of the beginning of the century there is no trace of instructive or prophetic intonations. The difficult assimilation of reality did not give an unambiguous answer. The reader, as it were, was attracted to consciousness, co-creation. This is the phenomenal feature of realistic prose; she called for discussion.

The originality of realism - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The originality of realism" 2017, 2018.

Realism in literature is a direction, the main feature of which is a truthful depiction of reality and its typical features without any distortion or exaggeration. This originated in the 19th century, and its adherents sharply opposed the sophisticated forms of poetry and the use of various mystical concepts in the works.

signs directions

Realism in the literature of the 19th century can be distinguished by clear signs. The main one is the artistic depiction of reality in images familiar to the layman, which he regularly encounters in real life. Reality in the works is considered as a means of human cognition of the surrounding world and oneself, and the image of each literary character is worked out in such a way that the reader can recognize himself, a relative, colleague or acquaintance in it.

In the novels and short stories of realists, art remains life-affirming, even if the plot is characterized by a tragic conflict. Another sign of this genre is the desire of writers to consider the surrounding reality in its development, and each writer tries to detect the emergence of new psychological, social and social relations.

Features of this literary trend

Realism in literature, which replaced romanticism, has the characteristics of art that seeks and finds truth, seeking to transform reality.

In the works of realist writers, discoveries were made after much thought and dreams, after an analysis of subjective attitudes. This feature, which can be identified by the author's perception of time, determined the distinguishing features of the realistic literature of the early twentieth century from the traditional Russian classics.

Realism inXIX century

Such representatives of realism in literature as Balzac and Stendhal, Thackeray and Dickens, Jord Sand and Victor Hugo, in their works most clearly reveal the themes of good and evil, and avoid abstract concepts and show the real life of their contemporaries. These writers make it clear to readers that evil lies in the way of life of bourgeois society, capitalist reality, people's dependence on various material values. For example, in Dickens' novel Dombey and Son, the owner of the company was callous and callous, not by nature. It’s just that such character traits appeared in him due to the presence of big money and the ambition of the owner, for whom profit becomes the main life achievement.

Realism in literature is devoid of humor and sarcasm, and the images of the characters are no longer the ideal of the writer himself and do not embody his cherished dreams. From the works of the 19th century, the hero practically disappears, in the image of which the author's ideas are visible. This situation is especially clearly seen in the works of Gogol and Chekhov.

However, this literary trend is most clearly manifested in the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, who describe the world as they see it. This was also expressed in the image of characters with their own strengths and weaknesses, a description of mental anguish, a reminder to readers of the harsh reality that cannot be changed by one person.

As a rule, realism in literature also affected the fate of representatives of the Russian nobility, as can be judged from the works of I. A. Goncharov. So, the characters of the characters in his works remain contradictory. Oblomov is a sincere and gentle person, but because of his passivity, he is not capable of better. Another character in Russian literature possesses similar qualities - the weak-willed but gifted Boris Raysky. Goncharov managed to create the image of an "anti-hero" typical of the 19th century, which was noticed by critics. As a result, the concept of "Oblomovism" appeared, referring to all passive characters, the main features of which were laziness and lack of will.