Famous Russian literary critics of the past. Modern literary criticism

Vladimir Novikov "Freedom begins with literature", dedicated to the deplorable state of modern literary criticism. The author of the note does not want to bury criticism ahead of time and proposes to give it back a new breath, freshness and audacity of thought: "... what to do in the territory where I lived my professional life, in a cultural space that shrinks like shagreen leather, I answer. Read contemporary Russian literature and write about it. Passionately, interestedly, not afraid to cross the border between artistic texts and the bleeding text of our lives. Out of the flags."

Most recently, in his "Open Lecture", Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Ivanov stated that in modern literature there is an unspoken ban on topicality. By "topical" Ivanov did not mean political engagement, but a reflection acute problems modernity. Most interesting works are now appearing in historical novels, science fiction and fantasy, which is also a kind of departure from the discussion of the problems of the day. Novikov speaks of similar processes in literary criticism: “We are now reading in the press reviews of novels and short stories by Ludmila Ulitskaya and Tatyana Tolstaya, Vladimir Sorokin and Viktor Pelevin, Dmitry Bykov and Alexander Terekhov, Zakhar Prilepin and Sergey Shargunov, and you see: only "quality of the text", and there is no such thing as a bold social reading of the author's "message", an open journalistic dialogue between a critic and a prose writer. "The quality of the text" is certainly important, but we, critics, hit the sky so often here! Every year, for example, with a sour face we write that A new book Pelevin is worse than the previous ones. Well, as much as possible! Isn't it better to reflect after the writer on the topic of the total zombification of the population of our country, about the dominance of the "power security officers" who ousted the "liberal" security officers from the political field?

Novikov also writes that "without a social and journalistic nerve, literary criticism loses its readership, becomes uncompetitive in the media in relation to materials about the theater, cinema, music and fine arts. It is not for nothing that the large review articles have almost disappeared even from the pages of thick magazines. And for the electronic media, there are, in general, three "information occasions": the writer receiving the award, the writer's anniversary and his death. The release of a book is not an event.<...>Yes, criticism has no economic basis; commissions and fees have disappeared. But I think that new criticism can also grow "from below", from amateur reading activities on the net. First of all, it is necessary to restore the review business that existed in Russia for two centuries, and is still represented today in the press of developed countries. It is abnormal and monstrous that the vast majority of novelties in poetry and prose do not receive any response from us! And this is in the context of new information technologies.

Finally, Novikov raises the painful question of the loss of literary journalism’s influence on public sentiment: “But what about ourselves? Aren’t our presentations and round tables too dignified and boring? and all sorts of coordinating councils fail with quiet disgrace.But since the time of Radishchev, our real opposition has been literature and literary journalism. In 1988, I turned on the TV one day, and in the news of Channel One, the announcer announced that in the May issue of Znamya there was an article about the intelligentsia and bureaucracy in life and literature. Today, this would seem fantastic. Because the corrupt bureaucracy, alas, defeated the intelligentsia. Sometimes there is a feeling that on television it is simply forbidden to talk about contemporary writers and their new books.

I will also try to speak on this topic, especially since on October 22, within the framework of the 14th Forum of Young Writers in Moscow, round table on the topic "Literary Today. Workshop of Contemporary Criticism", at which I was declared as a participant in the discussion. Novikov's diagnosis is generally correct, but one cannot consider literary criticism in isolation from the general literary process, and the ban on topicality, as already written above, concerns modern literature generally. Indeed, being a critic today is neither fashionable nor profitable. The most talented critics today are not critics at all. exact sense words, and people who took place in completely different areas (most often - in philology and literary criticism) and who occasionally, for some reason, write critical articles and reviews of books and films. As a profession, literary criticism has long since ceased to exist, and as an additional activity and hobby, literary criticism still has little chance of survival.

At the same time, we can talk about the crisis of literary institutions that are trying to preserve the old forms, from which the remnants of living life are rapidly flowing. Write now, as before, many and many, but this stream of publications does not reach the general reader, because no one will read long texts about writers of the third row, written in bad language and avoiding any sensitive topics. The authority of the literary critic in Russian society is close to zero today. Thick literary magazines will soon die out in the form in which they exist now: without a full-fledged Internet version and an active readership, without a constant influx of fresh blood and carefully maintaining a pool of talented authors who would be associated with a particular publication, without a clear direction and touching on provocative topics, without charismatic and bright editors, who are the locomotive of the journal, while maintaining a strong dependence on financial support from the state and the fear of losing this support.

What kind of freedom and what kind of going beyond the flags can we talk about publications that exist on grants from the Ministry of Culture or federal agency on the press and mass communications, when we know about the tyranny of officials who suddenly deprive of funding for a variety of cultural and scientific projects for the slightest criticism of the official position of the authorities. Yes, and the trouble does not come alone - problems with renting premises, various tax audits, persecution by Orthodox activists and "patriotic" titushki can follow, if only the command is given to deal with the too freedom-loving magazine. The fact that censorship has not fully reached literary magazines only means that these magazines have not yet given any reason to attack them: they are so unpopular and inexpressive that there is no danger in terms of broadcasting a different opinion on contemporary issues for the current political regime they just don't represent. The old editors quietly and peacefully live out their lives, visiting those initiated by the authorities literary collections with the participation of the descendants of classic writers in search of new money and honors, publishing boring issues formed according to the principle of taste, and complaining about the lack of funding and readership.

I am sure that the desire to cling to old brands at any cost, without filling them with new quality, is fundamentally false. Other things need to be taken to the museum as soon as their historical value begins to significantly exceed modern functionality. The literary magazine is apparently a one-generation project; he, like the theater, lives as long as its founder is alive and as long as the team with which he is associated works in it. Further, profanation already arises, an artificial extension of the existence of a magazine mummy in a literary mausoleum.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that when they talk about the crisis of literary criticism, they mean precisely criticism in thick literary magazines. But modern publicists have no serious reason to strive to be published in magazines with meager circulations that no one reads, for publications in which they do not pay royalties and which, moreover, do not have a full-fledged version on the Internet. It is much more tempting to participate in a talk show on television (for those who want to become famous or earn money) or, at worst, maintain a column in a conditional Forbes or in some glossy publication. For people with a different motivation, who need not to show themselves, but to resolve the issue, narrow professional communities are enough, in which an interesting life full of rich ideas flows quietly and imperceptibly. And yet, criticism, like a writer, is vital for a mass readership, and therefore the future of literary criticism lies with the Internet. There are already many interesting bloggers that are read daily by tens of thousands of people. It is hard to imagine that the author of a popular Internet page, spoiled by the attention of the public, wants to publish in a publication that no one reads and which, moreover, diligently hides from the world, allowing access to his materials only for money.

We must understand that we now live in an era of total collapse of authorities. All familiar and previously respected abbreviations today have significantly transformed and, as a rule, are not better side. Who today seriously talks about the union of writers? The ROC is associated only with obscurantism and total pressure on a person's personal freedom. Even the RAS no longer exists in its former form, but there is a faceless and frightening FANO. We live in an era of lone artists who will find new and new formats for their self-expression, including in literary criticism. By the way, the format of the magazine here is optimal and, of course, new magazines and websites should appear, devoted to literature and politics. However, in the current Russian conditions they, apparently, need to be created abroad so that there is no risk of their premature destruction by state censorship.

Vladimir Novikov, speaking about freedom, made a reference to the times of Radishchev, but did not recall what price Radishchev and his (Novikov's) namesake, the well-known freemason and book publisher Nikolai Novikov, paid for their love of freedom. Dostoevsky said that in order to write well, you need to suffer a lot. Are you ready for suffering, public defamation, state-sanctioned harassment, criminal cases for insulting someone's feelings and real prison terms contemporary critics? Freedom of expression is now expensive and sometimes requires a significant price. One cannot be a critic who castigates the vices of modernity and reveals the ulcers of society, and at the same time bathe in universal love, receiving awards from the state. Therefore, few people want to be a critic. But those who want to write complimentary reviews on the books of their colleagues and friends and abusive reviews on those with whom they broke up in life are more than enough. The high title of critic, it seems to me, still needs to be earned, but for this you need to be more than just an author writing criticism - you need to be a talented person and a caring citizen who not only has a good education and manners, but also has a thirst to engage in enlightenment every day per day, disinterestedly and enthusiastically, solely for the sake of higher ideals. Do we have many critics?

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

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

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

Tasks of a literary critic

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

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

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

The most famous literary critics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development of literary criticism in Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literary criticism is a highly specialized field these days. Professional evaluation of literature is in demand only in scientific circles, and is really interesting to a small circle of connoisseurs of literature. Public opinion about this or that writer is formed by a whole range of marketing and social tools that have nothing to do with professional criticism. And this state of affairs is only one of the inalienable attributes of our time.

Literary criticism

Literary criticism- the field of literary creativity on the verge of art (fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism).

Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems of social and spiritual life); reveals and approves the creative principles of literary trends; has an active influence on the literary process, as well as directly on the formation public consciousness; relies on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, aesthetics. It is often journalistic, politically topical in nature, intertwined with journalism. It is closely connected with related sciences - history, political science, linguistics, textual criticism, bibliography.

Story

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

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

History of Russian literary criticism

Until the 18th century

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

Works containing such elements include

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

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

18th century

For the first time in Russian literature, the word "critic" was used by Antioch Kantemir in 1739 in the satire "Education". Also in French - critique. In Russian spelling, it will go into frequent use middle of the 19th century

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

Character traits literary controversy XVIII century:

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

19th century

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

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

Sections of criticism of the first half of the 19th century are formed on the basis of literary movements (classicism, sentimentalism, romanticism). In criticism of the second half of the century literary characteristics supplemented by socio-political ones. In a special section, one can single out writer's criticism, which is distinguished by great attention to the problems of artistic skill.

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

20th century

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

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

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

Famous Russian literary critics of the past

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

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

On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism falls on the middle of the 19th century, when, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, it began to play a huge role in the public life of that time. In the works of prominent critics 19th century(V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. N. Strakhov, M. A. Antonovich) not only a detailed review was concluded literary writings other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion artistic principles and ideas, but also vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, his moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and the power of influencing the minds of the public, and today they are among the most powerful tools for influencing the spiritual life of society and its moral foundations.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

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

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

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandro-vich Dobrolyubov

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

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

Selected works:

Apollo Alek-sand-ro-wich Grigoriev

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

Selected work:

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

Selected work:

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

Selected work:

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

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

Selected work:

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

Selected work:

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

Selected work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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