Intraliterary connections. Innovation and epigonism.

artistic method.

World literary process. Stages of development of literature.

Lecture plan

Literary direction, current and school.

Literary process and its main regularities.

The literary process historical existence, functioning and evolution of literature both in a certain era and throughout the history of a nation, country, region, world. “the literary process at every historical moment includes both the verbal and artistic works themselves, socially, ideologically and aesthetically of different quality - from high examples to epigone, tabloid or mass literature, and the forms of their social existence: publications, editions, literary criticism, imprinted in epistolary literature and memoirs, reader reactions” (Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary - M., 1987, p. 195).

An important aspect of the literary process is the interaction of fiction with other types of art, as well as with general cultural, linguistic, and ideological phenomena.

The literary process on a global scale (worldwide) is part of the socio-historical process, depends on it. Often (especially in recent centuries) there is a direct connection between literary creativity and socio-political movements (Decembrist literature, Chartist literature, etc.).

Scientists constantly emphasize that literature is actively influenced by social reality, that the literary process should be considered as conditioned by cultural and historical life. At the same time, it is noted that literature “cannot be studied outside the integral context of culture (...) and directly (through the head of culture) correlated with socio-economic and other factors. The literary process is an inseparable part of the cultural process ”(Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M., 1979, p. 344).

The literary process is correlated with the stages of human social development(mythological archaic, antiquity, middle ages, modern times, modern times). It is stimulated primarily by the (not always conscious) need of writers to respond to shifts in historical life, to participate in it, and to influence public consciousness. Thus, literature changes in historical time primarily under the influence of "shocks" from outside. At the same time, the inheritance of literary traditions is of great importance for its evolution, which allows us to speak of the literary process as such: the development of literature has a relative independence, immanent beginnings are important in it.

The “path” of world literature is a kind of resultant of different “roads” of national, zonal, and regional literatures. At the same time, there are general, global tendencies, the presence of which makes it possible to single out a number of stages in the world literary process.

On the scale of world literature, some of its stages can be represented by different national literatures, at some historical moment more fully and deeply expressing the trends in the development of art (Italian literature at the beginning of the Renaissance, French - in the era of classicism, German - in the era of early romanticism, Russian - in the era of mature realism (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

At the same time, historical poetics makes it possible to single out deep processes that are localized at the level of general principles. aesthetic vision and artistic thinking, subjective architectonics works (relations of the author, hero, listener-reader), archetypal forms image and plot, genera and genres. The formation and change of these phenomena takes centuries and even millennia. As historical poetics captures, “Literature at its historical stage came to the ready: the languages ​​were ready, the basic forms of vision and thinking were ready. But they develop further, but slowly (within the limits of the era you cannot keep track of them ”(Bakhtin M.M. From the records of 1970 - 1971 / / Aesthetics of verbal creativity - M .. 1979, p. 344). The need to “keep track” of the stretched for centuries slow development architectonic forms literature and generated large-scale historicism of historical poetics. This science has developed the most generalized picture of the literary process to date and has revealed three major stages in the development of world literature.

first stage in the history of poetics A.N. Veselovsky named era of syncretism. There are other names proposed by scientists later - the era of folklore, pre-reflexive traditionalism, archaic, mythopoetic. According to modern ideas, this stage lasts from the ancient Stone Age to the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. in Greece and the first centuries AD. e. in the East.

Veselovsky proceeded from the fact that the most obvious and simple, and at the same time the most fundamental difference between archaic consciousness and modern consciousness is its undivided-fused nature, or syncretism. It permeates the entire ancient culture, starting with the direct sensory perceptions of its bearers to their ideological constructions - myths, religion, art.

Syncretism is an expression of a peculiar holistic view of the world, characteristic of archaic consciousness, not yet complicated by abstract, differentiating and reflective thinking. In this consciousness, the very ideas of identity and difference have not yet taken shape in their separateness, and therefore it syncretically perceives man and nature, “I” and “other”, the word and the thing denoted by it, life (including ritual) practice and art.

Such a vision of the world gave rise to the originality of archaic art, primarily its subjective architectonics: the most ancient choral forms, the lack of ideas about authorship and clear boundaries between those participants aesthetic event, which will later become author, hero and listener in a literary work. And the original figurative structure of art, generated by such an aesthetic consciousness, speaks “not about the identification of human life with natural life and not about comparison, which presupposes the consciousness of the separateness of the compared objects, namely, about syncretism, which presupposes not confusion, but the absence of differences. The same relations of inseparability in the bosom of syncretic rites are connected different types art, future literary genera (epos, lyrics and drama) and genres.

In general, the poetics of the era of syncretism - and this is its very special place in the history of art - the time of the slow development of the basic and primary principles of artistic thinking, subjective forms, figurative languages, plot archetypes, genera and genres, everything that will be set for subsequent stages of development literature as ready forms, without which all the rest would be impossible.

Second big stage the literary process begins in the VI - V centuries BC. e. in Greece and the first centuries AD. e. in the East and lasts until the middle - the second half of XVIII in. in Europe and the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. in the East. The generally accepted name for this stage has not yet been established, its most common definition is rhetorical .Other designations - epoch reflexive traditionalism, traditionalist, canonical, eidetic.

An external sign indicating the onset of this stage is the appearance of the first poetic and rhetorician, in which aesthetic thought begins to separate from other forms of ideology and reflect on literature and, more broadly, on emerging new ("rhetorical") principles of culture. In Greece, such are the "Poetics" of Aristotle, the ancient rhetoricians (and even before them - "Feast" and "State" of Plato); in India - "Natyashastra" of Bharata (II - IV centuries AD), in China "Oda graceful word» Lu Ji (III century), etc. In Europe, this stage of poetics is usually divided into two stages: antiquity and the Middle Ages (VI century BC - XIII - XIV centuries AD) and "early modern times" - Renaissance, baroque, classicism (XIV - XVIII centuries).

This stage of poetics, which is very large and, from the point of view of the history of literature, seems to be extremely heterogeneous and variegated, is united by a new generative cultural and aesthetic principle that has replaced syncretism. Unfortunately, the desired principle in science has not yet been defined with sufficient clarity, which led to different understandings of this era of artistic development.

In general, it can be said that this period is marked by the predominance of traditionalism artistic consciousness and "poetics of style and genre": writers focused on pre-made forms ( ready-made character, genres and plots, verbal and figurative formulas etc.), were dependent on genre canons closely related to the traditionalist setting.

In other words, the artistic phenomenon was focused not on the new, individually unique and original, but on the traditional and repetitive, on "common places" ("loci communes"). At the same time, the structure of a work of art is organized so that it meets the reader's expectations, and does not violate them.

Within the framework of the second stage, two stages are distinguished, the boundary between which was the Renaissance (we are talking mainly about European literature). At the second of these stages, which replaced the Middle Ages, literary consciousness takes a step forward from an impersonal beginning to a personal one (although still within the framework of traditionalism), literature becomes more secular.

Third stage poetics begins in the middle - the second half of the 18th century in Europe and at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries in the East and continues to the present.

Researchers have described a "cultural break", "categorical break" at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries. Its general cultural prerequisite was the birth of an autonomous personality and its new, “autonomous-participatory” (M. M. Bakhtin) relationship to the “other”. This discovery led to the birth of the art world; individual-creative artistic consciousness comes to the fore. The subjective sphere of art is being reconstructed, giving birth to new relations between the author, the hero and the reader, making them, to the extreme, relations of autonomous subjects.

From now on, the “poetics of the author”, freed from the omnipotence of genre and style forms, dominates. From the middle of the 18th century, the process of decanonization of genres began, fundamentally renewing literature and continuing to update it to the present.

Literature, as never before, is extremely close to the immediate and concrete being of a person, imbued with his worries, thoughts, feelings. The era of individual author's styles is coming; the literary process is closely connected simultaneously with the personality of the writer and the reality surrounding him. All this takes place in the romanticism and realism of the 19th century, and to no small extent in the modernism of the 20th century.

What is the literary process?

This term, firstly, denotes the literary life of a particular country and era (in the totality of its phenomena and facts) and, secondly, the centuries-old development of literature on a global, worldwide scale.

literary process in the second meaning of the word is the subject of comparative historical literary criticism.

literary process- the historical movement of national and world literature, developing in complex relationships and interactions. The literary process is at the same time the history of the accumulation of aesthetic, spiritual and moral values, the indirect, but steady expansion of humanistic concepts. Until a certain time, the literary process is relatively closed, national character; in the bourgeois era, with the development of economic and cultural ties, "... from a multitude of national and local literatures one world literature is formed.

The study of the literary process involves the formulation and solution of many complex, complex problems, the main of which is to elucidate the patterns of transition of some poetic ideas and forms to others, old to new, entailing a change in styles, literary trends, trends, methods, schools, etc. What changes in meaningful form of literature, reflecting a life shift, a new historical situation?

Writers are included in the literary process with new artistic discoveries that change the principles of studying man and the world. These discoveries are not made in a vacuum. The writer certainly relies on the traditions of both immediate and distant predecessors, participants in the literary process of domestic and foreign literatures, in one form or another using all the experience gained in artistic development humanity. It can be said that the literary process is a struggle of artistic ideas, new with old, bearing in itself the memory of the old, defeated. Each literary trend (trend) puts forward its leaders and theorists, declaring new creative principles and refuting the old ones, as being exhausted by literary development.

So, in the XVII century. in France, the principles of classicism were proclaimed, strict rules of "poetic art" were established, as opposed to the willfulness of baroque poets and playwrights. But at the beginning of the XIX century. romantics sharply opposed all the norms and rules of classicism, declaring that the rules are crutches and genius does not need them (see Romanticism). Soon the realists rejected the subjectivism of the romantics, putting forward the demand for an objective, truthful depiction of life. But even within one school (direction, current) there is a change of stages. “So, for example, in Russian classicism, the role of the initiator was played by Kantemir, whose work ended in the very beginning of the 40s. 18th century In the work of M.V. Lomonosov, A.P. Sumarokov, V.K. at the beginning of the 19th century, classicism reaches its completion and ceases to exist as a certain literary trend. “The change in the stages of classicism was determined by the convergence of literature with reality” (L. I. Timofeev).

Even more complex picture represents the evolution of critical realism in Russian literature of the 19th century: A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol, I. A. Goncharov, I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, A. P. Chekhov. It is not just about different artistic individuals: the nature of realism itself, the knowledge of man and the world, is changing, deepening. The “natural school”, which opposed romanticism and created masterpieces of realistic art, was already perceived in the second half of the century as a kind of canon that fettered literary development. deepening psychological analysis L. N. Tolstoy and F. M. Dostoevsky marked a new stage of realism in comparison with the “natural school”. At the same time, it should be emphasized that, in contrast to the development of technology in the history of art and literature, new artistic discoveries do not cross out the old ones. Firstly, because the great works created on the basis of the "old" principles of human studies continue to live in new generations of readers. Secondly, because these "old" principles themselves find life in new epochs. For example, folklore in the "Quiet Don" by M. A. Sholokhov or the principles of the enlighteners of the 18th century. (see Enlightenment) in the dramaturgy of the German writer of socialist realism B. Brecht. And finally, thirdly: even when the experience of predecessors is rejected in a sharp controversy, the writer still absorbs some part of this experience. So, the conquests of psychological realism of the XIX century. (Stendhal, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy) were prepared by the romantics (see Romanticism), their close attention to the individual and her experiences. In new discoveries, the memory of the former ones lives, as it were.

An important role in understanding the literary process is played by the study of the influence of foreign literatures on literary process domestic (for example, the importance of J. G. Byron or I. F. Schiller for the development of literature in Russia) and domestic literature to foreign ones (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, M. Gorky in the literatures of the world).

The literary process is revealed very clearly in the history of different genres. So, if we consider the development of the novel on a European scale, we can trace the change artistic methods and directions (currents). For example, the novel by M. Cervantes "Don Quixote" is characteristic of the Renaissance, "Robinson Crusoe" by D. Defoe - for the Age of Enlightenment, "Cathedral Notre Dame of Paris» V. Hugo - for the era of romanticism, the novels of Stendhal, O. de Balzac, C. Dickens, I. S. Turgenev, L. N. Tolstoy, F. M. Dostoevsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky represent critical realism 19th century And a completely new stage (and new types) of the novel is advanced by the literature of socialist realism: Quiet Don» M. A. Sholokhov or “The Seventh Cross” by A. Zegers, “Communists” by L. Aragon. It is essential to emphasize here that the literary process in different countries ah goes through similar stages and the development of the genre, method, style reflects these stages.

111. The concept of the literary process

112. Succession

113. Literary interactions and mutual influences

111 The concept of the literary process

The basic law of life is its constant development. This law is also observed in the literature. In different historical eras, her condition was constantly changing, she had achievements and losses. Works. Homer. Aeschylus. Sophocles. Yes, ante. Shakespeare. Cervantes. Pushkin. Shevchenko,. Franco,. Lesya Ukrainian. Nicholas. Khvylovy,. Vinnichenko,. Pumpkins,. Rylsky,. Gonchar give reason to talk about the progressive development of literature. However, the bookmaking process is not only progress, progress, evolution. B-I. Antonich rightly noted that the concept of "development was transferred mechanically to the area of ​​art in the natural sciences", the concept of "development", "progress" must be used carefully. Of course, when the history of art is perceived as continuous progress, then the works of modern writers should be considered perfect from the works of past epics and perfected from the works of bygone eras.

The term "literary process" arose at the turn of the 20-30s of the XX century and became widely used starting from the 60s. The concept itself was formed during the XIX-XX centuries. In the 19th century, the terms "literary evolution", "literary life" were used "In modern literary criticism, a view has been established on the history of literature as a change in the types of artistic consciousness: mythopoetic, traditionalist, individual-author's. This typology takes into account the structural changes in artistic thinking myslennia".

The literary process is an important subject of literary history. Cyst classes, romantics, supporters of the biographical method studied the best works of geniuses. Literary criticism of the second half of the 19th century overcame selective news in the study of literature, the subject of its study was all the works of writers, regardless of the level of artistry and ideological direction.

Scientists of the 20th century G. Pospelov,. M. Khrapchenko opposed both the transformation of literary criticism into the "history of generals", and against the history of literature "without names"

The term "literary process", notes. V. Khalizeva, "the literary life of a certain country and era (in the totality of its phenomena and facts) is designated, and, secondly, the centuries-old development of literature on a global, global scale. The literary process in the second meaning of the word is the subject of comparative historical literary criticism of literature studies" .

The literary process is made up not only by masterpieces, but also by low-grade, epigone works. Viy includes literary and artistic publications, literary criticism, the development of trends, trends, styles, genera, species, genres, epistolary literature, memoirs. There have been cases in the history of literature when significant works have been underestimated, while mediocre ones have been overestimated. Soviet literary criticism, for example, underestimated early lyrics. P. Tychyna and overestimated works such as "The Party Leads", "Song of the Tractor Driver" underestimated the works of modernists, avant-garde artists, and diaspora writers. Often there is a disproportion between the popularity and cultural and aesthetic value of works. The works of writers sometimes come to the reader after a long period of time for many decades, the works were hushed up. Helena. carts,. Oleg. Olzhich,. Ulas. Samchuk,. Yuri. Maple,. Oksana. Lyaturinskaya,. Ivan. Irlyavskogurinsky, Ivan Irlyavsky.

The development of literature is influenced by the socio-economic characteristics of society. Economic relations can promote or harm art. However, one cannot directly link the development of literature on material production. The history of literature knows examples when, during periods of decline in socio-economic relations, outstanding works of art appeared. During the socio-political crisis in. Russia ( late XVIII- early XIX century) created. O. Pushkin,. M. Lermontov; era of deep political crisis of the times. Alexander III (XIX century) was a period of creative development. P. Tchaikovsky, and. Levitan,. V. Surikov; in feudal-r ozdribneniy. In Germany, the second half of the 18th century, creativity developed. Goethe and. Schiller; the defeat of the Ukrainian national revolution of 1917-1920 coincided with creativity. P. Tychiny,. M. Rylsky,. Nicholas. Khvylovy oh. M. Kulish,. O. Dovzhenko,. Lesya. Kurbas. As you can see, the connection between literature and reality is not direct, but complex and contradictory. Vulgar sociologists in particular. V. Shulyatikova,. V. Fritsche,. V. Pereverzev and the proletarians exaggerated the importance of the material factors of life in the development of literature. They believed that art is completely dependent on the material, socio-economic reality and directly reflects th. Socialist realists focused on the socio-political meaning, underestimating the importance of the artistic form of the work. Guided by the vulgar sociological method, V. Koryak singled out the following periods in the history of Ukrainian literature and Ukrainian literature:

1) day of tribal life;

2) the day of early feudalism;

3) Ukrainian Middle Ages;

4) a day of commercial capitalism;

5) day of industrial capitalism;

6) day of financial capitalism

A reaction to vulgar sociologism was the concept of art for art's sake, according to which art does not depend on reality and is not connected with it. The theory of "pure art" found its realization in the works of the "Young Muse" writers and the avant-garde writer.

Aesthetic and stylistic approach to the periodization of fiction proposed. D. Chizhevsky. He singled out such periods in the history of Ukrainian literature:

1. Old folk literature (folklore)

2. A day of monumental style

3. Ornamental style time

4 transitions per day

5. Renaissance and. Reformation

6. Baroque

7. Classicism

8. Romanticism

9. Realism

10. Symbolism

Aesthetic-stylistic periodization accurately reflects the development of literature. The style of the day combines the ideological, historical-sociological and aesthetes of the kopoet-kal facet of the existence of literature

Literature has its own laws of development. It is influenced by philosophy, politics, religion, morality, law, science, mythology, folklore, ethnography, as well as the mentality of the people. The philosophy of rationalism, for example, was counted on classicism, the philosophy of sensationalism - on sentimentalism, existentialism - on works. Camus. Sartre. Stefanik,. Vinnichenko.

Each national literature has its own laws of development. The heyday of humanism in Italian literature falls on the 15th century, in English - on the 17th century. Classicism in. France actively developed in the middle of the XVII century, and in. Russia - in the second half of the XVIII century.

play an important role in the development of literature. internal factors, in particular continuity, mutual, tradition, innovation

The term "literary process" in Russian literary criticism arose in the late 1920s, although the concept itself was formed in criticism as early as the 19th century. Belinsky's famous reviews "A Look at Russian Literature in 1846" and others are one of the first attempts to present features and patterns literary development of one or another period of domestic literature, i.e., features and patterns of the literary process.

The term "literary process" denotes the historical existence of literature, its functioning and evolution both in a certain era and throughout the history of a nation.

The chronological framework of the modern literary process is determined by the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries.

· The literature of the end of the centuries sums up in a peculiar way the artistic and aesthetic quests of the entire century;

· New Literature helps to understand the complexity and debatability of our reality. Literature as a whole helps a person to clarify the time of his existence.

· With his experiments outlines the prospect of development.

The uniqueness of the SLP lies in multi-level, polyphony. Hierarchy literary system absent, since styles and genres exist simultaneously. That is why, when considering modern literature, it is necessary to move away from the usual attitudes that were applied to Russian literature of past centuries. It is important to feel the change in the literary code and to present the literary process in an uninterrupted dialogue with previous literature. The space of modern literature is very colorful. Literature is created by people of different generations: those who existed in the bowels of Soviet literature, those who worked in the underground of literature, those who began to write quite recently. Representatives of these generations have a fundamentally different attitude to the word, to its functioning in the text.

Sixties writers(E. Yevtushenko, A. Voznesensky, V. Aksyonov, V. Voinovich, V. Astafiev and others) burst into literature during the thaw of the 1960s and, having felt a short-term freedom of speech, became symbols of their time. Later, their fates turned out differently, but interest in their work remained constant. Today they are recognized classics of modern literature, distinguished by the intonation of ironic nostalgia and commitment to the memoir genre. Critic M. Remizova writes about this generation as follows: “The characteristic features of this generation are a certain gloom and, oddly enough, some kind of sluggish relaxation, conducive more to contemplation than to active action and even an insignificant act. Their rhythm is moderato. Their thought is reflection. Their spirit is irony. Their cry - but they do not cry ... ".

Writers of the 70s Generation- S. Dovlatov, I. Brodsky, V. Erofeev, A. Bitov, V. Makanin, L. Petrushevskaya. V. Tokareva, S. Sokolov, D. Prigov and others. They worked in conditions of creative lack of freedom. The writer of the seventies, unlike the sixties, connected his ideas about personal freedom with independence from official creative and social structures. One of the prominent representatives of the generation, Viktor Erofeev, wrote about the peculiarities of the handwriting of these writers: “From the mid-70s, an era of hitherto unknown doubts began not only in a new person, but in a person in general ... literature began to doubt everything without exception: in love, children , faith, church, culture, beauty, nobility, motherhood, folk wisdom... ". It is this generation that begins to master postmodernism, the poem “Moscow-Petushki” by Venedikt Erofeev, the novels “School for Fools” by Sasha Sokolov and Andrei Bitov “Pushkin House”, the fiction of the Strugatsky brothers and the prose of the Russian Diaspora appear in samizdat.

With "perestroika" another large and bright generation of writers burst into literature- V. Pelevin, T. Tolstaya, L. Ulitskaya, V. Sorokin, A. Slapovsky, V. Tuchkov, O. Slavnikova, M. Paley and others. experiment." The prose of S. Kaledin, O. Ermakov, L. Gabyshev, A. Terekhov, Yu. Mamleev, V. Erofeev, the stories of V. Astafiev and L. Petrushevskaya touched on previously forbidden topics of army “hazing”, the horrors of prison, the life of homeless people, prostitution, alcoholism, poverty, the struggle for physical survival. “This prose revived interest in the “little man”, in the “humiliated and offended” - motives that form the tradition of an exalted attitude towards the people and people's suffering that goes back to the 19th century. However, unlike the literature of the 19th century, the “chernukha” of the late 1980s showed people's peace as a concentration of social horror, taken for the everyday norm. This prose expressed a feeling of total trouble modern life... ”, - write N.L. Leiderman and M.N. Lipovetsky.

In the late 1990s, another generation of very young writers appears- A. Utkin, A. Gosteva, P. Krusanov, A. Gelasimov, E. Sadur and others), about whom Viktor Erofeev says: “Young writers are the first generation of free people in the history of Russia, without state and internal censorship, singing random promotional songs under their breath. The new literature does not believe in "happy" social change and moral pathos, in contrast to the liberal literature of the 60s. She was tired of endless disappointment in man and the world, the analysis of evil (underground literature of the 70s and 80s).”

First decade of the 21st century- so diverse, polyphonic, that one and the same writer can hear extremely opposite opinions. So, for example, Alexei Ivanov, the author of the novels The Geographer Drank His Globe Away, Dormitory-on-the-Blood, The Heart of Parma, and The Gold of Riot, was named in the Book Review as the brightest writer who appeared in Russian literature 21st century". And here is what the writer Anna Kozlova expresses about Ivanov: “Ivanov's picture of the world is a section of the road that a chained dog sees from his booth. This is a world in which nothing can be changed and all that remains is to joke about a glass of vodka in full confidence that the meaning of life has just been revealed to you in all the unsightly details. In Ivanov, I do not like his desire to be light and glossy ... Although I cannot but admit that he is an extremely gifted author. And I found my reader.

・Despite the flourishing various styles and genres society is no longer literary-centric. Literature of the late XX early XXI almost loses its educational function.

· Changed the role of the writer.“Now readers have fallen off like leeches from the writer and have given him the opportunity to be in a situation of complete freedom. And those who still ascribe to the writer the role of a prophet in Russia are the most extreme conservatives. In the new situation, the role of the writer has changed. Previously, this workhorse was ridden by everyone who could, now she herself must go and offer her working hands and feet. Critics P. Weil and A. Genis accurately defined the transition from the traditional role of "teacher" to the role of "indifferent chronicler" as "zero degree of writing." S. Kostyrko believes that the writer found himself in an unusual situation for the Russian literary tradition roles: “Today's writers seem to be easier. Nobody demands ideological service from them. They are free to choose their own model of creative behavior. But, at the same time, this freedom also complicated their tasks, depriving them of obvious points of application of forces. Each of them is left face to face with existential issues - Love, Fear, Death, Time. And we need to work on the level of this problem.”

· Search new hero.“We have to admit that the face of a typical hero of modern prose is distorted by a grimace of a skeptical attitude towards the world, covered with youthful fluff and his features are rather lethargic, sometimes even anemic. His actions are frightening, and he is in no hurry to decide either on his own personality or on his fate. He is gloomy and irritated in advance by everything in the world, for the most part he seems to have absolutely nothing to live for. M. Remizova

Plus, tell us about the works you've read, plus your presentations on contemporary writers, plus marginal notes. Wow!

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2017-06-12

There is also a third meaning of the word "genesis", the most significant for literary criticism. This is the aggregate factors (stimuli) writing activities that take place both in the field of fiction and other types of art, and beyond them (the spheres of individual biographical and socio-cultural, as well as the world of anthropological universals). We denote this aspect of literary life by the phrase genesis of literary creativity. The study of the stimuli of writers' activity is important both for understanding the essence of individual works and for understanding the literary process - the patterns of development of verbal art.

Mastering the genesis of literary creativity as part of the science of literature is secondary to the study of the works themselves. “Any genetic consideration of an object,” A.P. Skaftymov, - should be preceded by the comprehension of its internal-constitutive meaning. However, in the history of literary criticism, genetic studies preceded the study of literary works themselves in their diversity and integrity. They almost dominated the science of literature until the 1910s and 1920s.

Each of the literary schools focused on one group of literary creativity factors. In this regard, we turn to cultural and historical school(second half of the 19th century). Here, the conditionality of writing activity by non-artistic phenomena, primarily by social psychology, was considered. “A work of literature,” wrote the leader of this school, the French scientist Hippolyte Taine, “is not just a play of the imagination, a masterful whim of an ardent soul, but a snapshot of the surrounding morals and evidence of a certain state of mind<…>according to literary monuments it is possible to judge how people felt and thought many centuries ago. And further: the study of literature "makes it possible to create a history of moral development and approach the knowledge of the psychological laws that govern events." Ten emphasized that the morals, thoughts and feelings refracted in literature depend on the national, social group and epochal features of people. These three factors of creative writing he called race, environment and historical moment. At the same time, a literary work was perceived more as a cultural and historical evidence, rather than a proper aesthetic phenomenon.

Genetic for the most part and aimed at extra-artistic facts was also sociological literary criticism 1910–1920s, which was an experience of applying the provisions of Marxism to literature. A literary work, V.F. Pereverzev, arises not from the writer's intentions, but from being (which is understood as psychoideology social group), and therefore the scientist must first of all understand the "social deposit" of literary fact. At the same time, the works were characterized "as a product of a certain social group", as "the aesthetic embodiment of the life of a certain social cell". (In other cases, the term "social stratum" was used.) Literary sociologists of the early 20th century. relied heavily on the concept class character of literature, understanding it as an expression of the interests and moods ("psychideology") of narrow social groups to which the writers belonged by origin and conditions of education.

In subsequent decades, the socio-historical genesis of literary creativity began to be understood by Marxist scholars more broadly: works were seen as the embodiment of the author’s ideological position, his views, his worldview, which were perceived as mainly (if not exclusively) due to the socio-political contradictions of this era in this country. In this regard, the social class beginning of literary creativity loomed differently than in the 1910s–1920s, in accordance with the judgments of V.I. Lenin about Tolstoy: not as an expression in the works of the psychology and interests of narrow social groups, but as a refraction of the views and moods of broad sections of society (oppressed or ruling classes). At the same time, in literary criticism of the 1930s–1950s (and often later), the class principle in literature was one-sidedly accentuated to the detriment of the universal: the socio-political aspects of the views of writers were brought to the center and pushed into the background their philosophical, moral, religious beliefs, so that the writer was perceived primarily as a participant in the social struggle contemporary to him. As a result, literary creativity is straightforward and categorically brought out from the ideological confrontations of his era.

The described literary trends studied mainly historical and, at the same time, extra-artistic genesis of literary creativity. But something else has taken place in the history of science: the rise to the fore intraliterary incentives the activities of writers, or, in other words, the immanent principles of literary development. Such was comparative direction in literary criticism of the second half of the 19th century. Scientists of this orientation (T. Benfey in Germany; in Russia - Aleksey N. Veselovsky, partly F.I. Buslaev and Alexander N. Veselovsky) attached decisive importance to influences and borrowings; carefully studied "wandering" plots migrating (wandering) from one region and country to another. The very fact of the writer's acquaintance with some earlier literary facts was considered a significant incentive for literary creativity.

A different kind of experiments in the immanent consideration of literature were undertaken formal school in the 1920s. As the dominant stimulus for the activity of word artists, their polemics with their predecessors, repulsion from previously used automated methods, in particular, the desire to parody existing literary forms, were considered. On the participation of writers in literary struggle Yu.N. Tynyanov. According to him, "any literary continuity is, first of all, a struggle", in which "there are no guilty, but there are defeated".

Literary creativity, further, has been repeatedly studied as stimulated by the general, universal (transhistorical) principles of human existence and consciousness. This aspect of the genesis of literature was emphasized mythological school, at the origins of which is the work of J. Grimm "German Mythology" (1835), where the creative spirit of peoples is realized as the eternal basis of artistic images, embodying itself in myths and legends, which constantly stay in history. “The laws of logic and psychology common to all mankind,” argued the head of the Russian mythological school, “common phenomena in everyday life, family and practical life, and finally, common paths in the development of culture, naturally, should have been reflected in the same ways to understand the phenomena of life and equally express them in myth, fairy tale, tradition, parable or proverb. The provisions of the mythological school, we note, are applicable to a greater extent to folklore and historically early fiction than to the literature of the New Age. However, the art of the XX century. refers to myth and a different kind of universals of consciousness and being (“archetypes”, “eternal symbols”) very persistently and actively, which stimulates the scientific study of such universals (such, in particular, psychoanalytic art criticism and literary criticism, based on the teachings of Freud and Jung about the unconscious).

Each of the considered concepts captures a certain facet of the genesis of the writers' activity and has enduring scientific significance. But to the extent that the representatives of these scientific schools absolutized the stimulus of literary creativity they studied, considering it the only important and invariably dominant one, they showed a tendency to dogmatism and methodological narrowness.

The experiments of the genetic examination of literature, which were discussed, are mainly aimed at understanding the general, supra-individual stimuli of literary creativity associated with the cultural-historical process and anthropological universals. Different from such approaches biographical method in criticism and literary criticism (Sh. St. Beve and his followers) and to some extent psychological school, presented by the works of D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. Here works of art are directly dependent on the inner world of the author, on his individual destiny and personality traits.

The views of the supporters of the biographical method were preceded by the hermeneutical teaching of F. Schleiermacher (on hermeneutics, see pp. 106–112), who argued that ideas and values, including artistic ones, cannot be understood without an in-depth analysis of their genesis, and therefore without appeal to the facts of a particular person's life. Such judgments also took place later. According to the aphoristically apt words of A.N. Veselovsky, "an artist is brought up on the soil of man" . P.M. Bitsilli, one of the brightest humanists of the post-revolutionary Russian diaspora, wrote: "A true genetic study of a work of art can only be that which aims to reduce it to the inner experiences of the artist."

Such ideas were substantiated in the article by A.P. Skaftymov, published in the Saratov scientific periodicals (1923) and remained unnoticed for several decades. The scientist argued that the consideration of the genesis in case of inattention to the personality of the author is fatally reduced to a mechanical statement of purely external facts: "The picture of the general must necessarily grow from the study of the particular." “There are many factors acting on the creative process,” he wrote, “and their effectiveness is not the same, they are all subject to the individuality of the author.<…>The ratio of life (cultural-historical and socio-psychological. - W.H.) and works of art should not be established directly, but through the personality of the author. Life is carved and flaked as part of a work of art<…>by the will (consciously or subconsciously) of the artist. Literary criticism, Skaftymov believes, "opens the door for the recognition of the need for general cultural, social and literary influences that have affected the artist's personality." The scientist substantiated a consistently non-dogmatic and, one might say, actually humanitarian approach to the genesis of literary creativity.

The study of artistic creations as stimulated primarily personality traits of the author is especially urgent when referring to the literature of the XIX-XX centuries, resolutely freed from genre canons. At the same time, a personal consideration of the genesis does not cancel, but complements those directional concepts that emphasize the non-individual determination of writing activity. After all, the author, despite the fact that his personality is unique and valuable in itself, thinks and feels, acts and speaks on behalf of certain human communities, sometimes very wide (a current of social thought, estate and class, nation, confession, etc.). I.F. spoke about this (in our opinion, with irresistible persuasiveness). Annensky in the article “Lecomte de Lisle and his Erinnies”: “<…>the laws of history do not change to please the most passionate will (poet. - W.H.). None of us can get away from those ideas that, like another legacy and debt to the past, turn out to be part of our soul when we enter our conscious life. And the more alive the mind of a person, the more selflessly he gives himself to something Common and Necessary, although it seems to him that he is free and myself chose his task.

The genetic consideration of literature, which actively takes into account the properties of the author's personality, makes it possible to perceive and comprehend more deeply his works themselves: to see in artistic creation, as Vyach put it. I. Ivanov, not only art, but also the soul of the poet. “Our approach to contemporary art,” wrote G.P. Fedotov, formulating one of the most important principles of religious and philosophical aesthetics, began our century - not as a purely aesthetic sphere, but as evidence of the integrity or poverty of a person, of his life and death. Similar thoughts were expressed much earlier, in the era of romanticism. F. Schlegel wrote: “For me, it is not some separate work of Goethe that is important, but he himself in his entirety.”

Clarification of the connections between artistic creations and the personality of the author is in the closest connection with interpretive activity, organically connected to it. For a “perfect understanding” of the text, G.G. Helmet, the unification of his "immanent" interpretation and genetic correlation with the personality of the author is vital.

Summing up the rich experience of the genetic review of the literature, we conclude that heterogeneity and multiplicity of factors writing activity. These factors can be grouped in a certain way. First, direct immediate incentives that encourage writing, what is primarily a creative and aesthetic impulse. This impulse is accompanied by the author's need to embody his spiritual (and sometimes also psychological and life-biographical) experience in the work and thereby influence the consciousness and behavior of readers. According to T.S. Elista, real poet"We are tormented by the need to communicate our experience to another." Secondly, as part of the genesis of literary creativity, the totality of phenomena and factors affecting the author from the outside is significant, i.e. stimulating context artistic activity.

At the same time (contrary to what was often proclaimed by scientists of different schools), none of the factors of literary creativity is its rigid determination: the artistic and creative act, by its very nature, is free and initiative, and therefore is not predestined. A literary work is not a "snapshot" and a "cast" from one or another phenomenon external to the author. It never acts as a "product" or "mirror" of any particular set of facts. The “components” of the stimulating context can hardly be built into some kind of universal scheme, hierarchically ordered: the genesis of literary creativity is historically and individually changeable, and any of its theoretical regulation inevitably turns into dogmatic one-sidedness.

At the same time, the stimulating context of creativity does not have the completeness of certainty. Its volume and boundaries are not subject to exact characteristics. Mayakovsky's answer to the question of whether Nekrasov influenced him is significant: "Unknown." “Let's not succumb to the temptation of petty vanity - to resort to formulas that a priori establish the genesis of creativity,” wrote a French scientist at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, arguing with the cultural-historical school. - We never know<…>all the elements that make up genius.

At the same time, consideration of the genesis of literary facts, free from dogmatism, is of great importance for their understanding. Knowledge of the roots and origins of a work not only sheds light on its aesthetic, actually artistic properties, but also helps to understand how the author’s personality traits were embodied in it, and also encourages us to perceive the work as a certain cultural and historical evidence.

As part of the context that stimulates literary creativity, a responsible role belongs to the intermediate link between anthropological universals (archetypes and mythopoetics, on which literary criticism is now focused) and intra-epochal specifics (the writer’s modernity with its contradictions, which with exorbitant persistence was brought to the fore in our “pre-perestroika” eras). decades). This middle link in the context of writing activity has not been sufficiently mastered by theoretical literary criticism, so we will dwell on it in more detail, referring to those meanings that are denoted by the terms "continuity", "tradition", "cultural memory", "heritage", "great historical time".

In the article "Answer to the Question of the Editorial Board of Novy Mir" (1970) M.M. Bakhtin, challenging the officially proclaimed and generally accepted attitudes since the 1920s, used the phrases “small historical time” and “great historical time”, meaning the former as the writer’s contemporaneity, and the latter as the experience of previous eras. “Modernity,” he wrote, “retains all its enormous and in many respects decisive importance. Scientific analysis can only proceed from it and<…>I have to check with her all the time." But, Bakhtin continued, "to close it ( literary work. - W.H.) is impossible in this era: its fullness is revealed only in big time". The last phrase becomes pivotal in the scientist's judgments about the genesis of literary creativity: “... the work has its roots in the distant past. Great works of literature are prepared for centuries, but in the era of their creation, only the ripe fruits of a long and complex process maturation." Ultimately, the activities of the writer, according to Bakhtin, are determined by the long-standing, "powerful currents of culture (in particular, grassroots, folk)" .

It is legitimate to distinguish between two meanings of the word "tradition" (from lat. traditio - transmission, tradition). Firstly, it is a reliance on past experience in the form of its repetition and variation (the words "traditional" and "traditionalism" are usually used here). Such traditions are strictly regulated and take the form of rituals, etiquette, ceremonial, strictly observed. Traditionalism was influential in literary creativity for many centuries, up to the middle XVIII century, which was especially pronounced in the predominance of canonical genre forms (see pp. 333–337). Later, it lost its role and began to be perceived as an obstacle and a brake on activities in the field of art: Judgments about the “oppression of traditions”, about tradition as an “automated technique”, etc., came into use.

In the changed cultural and historical situation, when the ritual-regulatory principle has noticeably made room both in public and in privacy people, acquired relevance (this is especially clearly visible in the 20th century) a different meaning of the term "tradition", which began to mean initiative and creative(active selective and enriching) inheritance cultural (and, in particular, verbal and artistic) experience, which involves the completion of the construction of values ​​that constitute the heritage of society, the people, humanity.

The subject of inheritance are both outstanding monuments of culture (philosophy and science, art and literature), as well as the inconspicuous "fabric of life", saturated with "creative influences", preserved and enriched from generation to generation. This is the sphere of beliefs, moral attitudes, forms of behavior and consciousness, communication style (not least intra-family), everyday psychology, work skills and ways to fill leisure, contacts with nature, speech culture, everyday habits.

An organically assimilated tradition (namely, in this form it should exist) becomes for individuals and their groups a kind of guideline, one might say, a beacon, a kind of spiritual and practical strategy. The involvement of tradition is manifested not only in the form of a clearly conscious orientation towards a certain kind of value, but also in spontaneous, intuitive, unintentional forms. The world of traditions is like the air that people breathe, most often without thinking about what an invaluable good they have. According to the Russian philosopher of the early 20th century V.F. Erna, humanity exists thanks to the free following of traditions: “ free tradition <…>there is nothing but inner metaphysical unity of humanity» . Later, I. Huizinga spoke in the same spirit: “A healthy spirit is not afraid to take a weighty load of values ​​​​of the past with it on the road.”

For literature of the 19th–20th centuries. traditions are undeniably important (of course, primarily in the second sense of the word) as folk culture, mainly domestic (which I. Herder and the Heidelberg romantics insistently talked about in Germany), and the culture of an educated minority (to a greater extent international). The era of romanticism brought about the synthesis of these cultural traditions; happened, according to V.F. Odoevsky, "the fusion of nationality with general education". And this shift predetermined much in later literature, including contemporary literature.

Our scholars speak very insistently about the great importance of traditions (cultural memory) as a stimulus for any creativity. They argue that cultural creativity is marked primarily by the inheritance of past values, that “creative adherence to tradition involves the search for the living in the old, its continuation, and not mechanical imitation<…>dead" that the active role of cultural memory in the generation of the new is a milestone in the scientific knowledge of the historical and artistic process - the stage that followed the dominance of Hegelianism and positivism.

The cultural past, one way or another "coming" into the works of the writer, is diverse. These are, firstly, verbal and artistic means that have been used before, as well as fragments of previous texts (in the form of reminiscences); secondly, worldviews, concepts) ideas that already exist both in non-artistic reality and in literature; and finally, thirdly, the forms outside artistic culture, which in many ways stimulate and predetermine the forms of literary creativity (generic and genre; subject-graphic, compositional, proper speech). Thus, the narrative form of epic works is generated by a story that is widely used in real life of people about what happened earlier; exchange of remarks between the characters and the choir in ancient drama genetically correlated with the public beginnings of the life of the ancient Greeks; the picaresque novel is the product and artistic interpretation of adventurousness as a special kind of life behavior; the flourishing of psychologism in the literature of the last one and a half to two centuries is due to the activation of reflection as a phenomenon of human consciousness, and the like. F. Schleiermacher said the following about this kind of correspondence between artistic and extra-artistic (vital) forms: “Even the inventor of a new form of representation is not completely free in the implementation of his intentions. Although it depends on his will whether or not this or that life form becomes the art form of his own works, he is in the process of creating something new in art in the face of the power of his analogues, which are already present. Writers, therefore, regardless of their conscious attitudes, are "doomed" to rely on certain forms of life that have become a cultural tradition. Of particular importance in literary activity have genre traditions (see pp. 337–339).

Thus, the concept of tradition in the genetic consideration of literature (both in its formal-structural side and in deep content aspects) plays a very important role. However, in the literary criticism of the XX century. (mostly avant-garde oriented) there is another, opposite idea of ​​tradition, continuity, cultural memory - as inevitably associated with epigonism and not related to the authentic, high literature. According to Yu.N. Tynyanov, tradition is “the basic concept of the old history of literature”, which “turns out to be an illegal abstraction”: “ one has to talk about continuity only with the appearance of a school, epigonism, but not with the phenomena of literary evolution, the principle of which is struggle and change».

Even today, the idea is sometimes expressed that literary criticism does not need this concept. “It should be noted,” writes M.O. Chudakov, that one of the undoubted, most obvious consequences of the work of Tynyanov and his associates was the discrediting of the vague concept of "tradition", which, after their critical assessment, hung in the air and then found a haven in texts that lie outside of science. Instead, she received a “quotation” (reminiscence) and “literary overtones” (mainly for poetic texts)» .

This kind of distrust of the word "tradition" and those deep meanings that stand behind it and are expressed in it, goes back to the categorical "anti-traditionalism" of F. Nietzsche and his followers. Let us recall the demands that the hero of the myth-poem “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” presented to people: “Break<…>old tablets"; “I told them (people. - V.Kh.) to laugh at them<…>saints and poets. Militant anti-traditionalist voices are heard today. Here is a phrase that sounded not so long ago, interpreting 3. Freud in the Nietzschean spirit: “You can express yourself only by criticizing the strongest and closest in spirit of your predecessors - by killing your father, as the (italics mine.-V.Kh.) orders the Oedipus complex.” Decisive anti-traditionalism in the 20th century. constituted a kind of tradition, paradoxical in its own way. B. Groys, who believes that “Nietzsche now remains an unsurpassed guide for modern thought,” states: “<…>a break with tradition is following it on a different level, for a break with models has its own tradition. It's hard to disagree with the last sentence.

The concept of tradition is now an arena of serious differences and ideological confrontations, which are most directly related to literary criticism.

This term, firstly, denotes the literary life of a particular country and era (in the totality of its phenomena and facts) and, secondly, the centuries-old development of literature on a global, worldwide scale. The literary process in the second meaning of the word (it will be discussed below) is the subject comparative-historical literary criticism.

The fact that literary creativity is subject to change as history moves is self-evident. Less attention is drawn to the fact that literary evolution takes place on a certain stable, stable basis. In the composition of culture (art and literature - in particular), individualized and dynamic phenomena are distinguishable - on the one hand, on the other - universal, transtemporal, static structures, often referred to as topic(from others - gr. topos - place, space). Topeka among the ancients was one of the concepts of logic (proof theory) and rhetoric (the study of "common places" in public speaking). In eras close to us, this concept came to literary criticism. According to A.M. Panchenko, culture (including verbal and artistic) “has a stock of stable forms that are relevant throughout its entire length”, and therefore “the view of art as an evolving topic” is legitimate and vital.

The topic is heterogeneous. Types of emotional mood (sublime, tragic, laughter, etc.), moral and philosophical problems (good and evil, truth and beauty), “eternal themes” associated with mythopoetic meanings, and, finally, an arsenal of art forms that find their application always and everywhere. The constants of world literature designated by us, i.e. topoi (they are also called common places - from lat. loci communes) make up succession fund without which the literary process would not have been possible. The fund of literary continuity has its roots in pre-literary archaism and is replenished from epoch to epoch. The experience of the European novelism of the last two or three centuries bears witness to the latter with maximum persuasiveness. Here, new topoi have been established, connected with the artistic development of the inner world of a person in its multifaceted connections with the surrounding reality.

In literary criticism, the notion of the presence of moments of commonality (recurrence) in the development of the literatures of different countries and peoples, of its single “progressive” movement in great historical time, is rooted and no one disputes. In the article "The Future of Literature as a Subject of Study" D.S. Likhachev speaks of the steady growth of the personal principle in literary creativity), of the strengthening of its humanistic character, the growth of realistic tendencies and the increasing freedom of choice of forms by writers, as well as the deepening historicism artistic consciousness. “The historicity of consciousness,” the scientist argues, “requires a person to be aware of the historical relativity of his own consciousness. Historicity is associated with "self-denial", with the ability of the mind to understand its own limitations.

The stages of the literary process are habitually conceived as corresponding to those stages in the history of mankind, which manifested themselves most distinctly and fully in the countries of Western Europe and especially brightly in the Romanesque. In this regard, ancient, medieval and - literature of the New Age with their own stages stand out (following the Renaissance - baroque, classicism, the Enlightenment with its sentimentalist branch, romanticism, and finally, realism, with which modernism coexists and successfully competes in the 20th century) .

scientists in most clarified the stadial differences between the literatures of the New Age and the writing that preceded them. Ancient and medieval literature was characterized by the prevalence of works with non-artistic functions (religious and ritual, informative and business, etc.); wide existence of anonymity; the predominance of oral verbal creativity over writing, which resorted more to records of oral traditions and previously created texts than to “writing”. An important feature of ancient and medieval literatures there was also the instability of the texts, the presence in them of bizarre alloys of “one's own” and “alien”, and as a result, the “blurring” of the boundaries between the original and translated writing. In modern times, however, literature is emancipated as a purely artistic phenomenon; writing becomes the dominant form of verbal art; open individual authorship is activated; literary development acquires much greater dynamism. All this seems undeniable.

The situation is more complicated with the distinction between ancient and medieval literatures. It is not a problem in relation to Western Europe (ancient Greek and Roman antiquity are fundamentally different from medieval culture more "northern" countries), but raises doubts and disputes when referring to the literature of other, primarily eastern, regions. Yes, and the so-called Old Russian literature was essentially a medieval type of writing.

The key question of the history of world literature is debatable: what are the geographical boundaries of the Renaissance with its artistic culture and, in particular, literature? If N.I. Conrad and the scientists of his school consider the Renaissance to be a global phenomenon, recurring and varying not only in the countries of the West, but also in the eastern regions, then other experts, also authoritative, consider the Renaissance as a specific and unique phenomenon of Western European (mainly Italian) culture: The Italian Renaissance acquired significance not because it was the most typical and best among all the Renaissances that happened, but because there were no other Renaissances. This one was the only one."

At the same time, modern scientists are moving away from the usual apologetic assessment of the Western European Renaissance, revealing its duality. On the one hand, the Renaissance enriched culture with the concept of complete freedom and independence of the individual, the idea of ​​unconditional trust in the creative abilities of man, on the other hand, the Renaissance “philosophy of luck fed<…>spirit of adventurism and immorality".

The discussion of the problem of the geographical boundaries of the Renaissance revealed the insufficiency of the traditional scheme of the world literary process, which is focused mainly on Western European cultural and historical experience and is marked by limitations, which is usually called "Eurocentrism". And scientists over the past two or three decades (the palm here belongs to S.S. Averintsev) have put forward and substantiated a concept that complements and, to some extent, revises the usual ideas about the stages of literary development. Here, to a greater extent than before, firstly, the specifics of verbal art and, secondly, the experience of non-European regions and countries are taken into account. In the concluding collective article of 1994 "Categories of Poetics in the Change of Literary Epochs", three stages of world literature are singled out and characterized.

First stage- this is the "archaic period", where the folklore tradition is certainly influential. Mythopoetical artistic consciousness prevails here and there is still no reflection on verbal art, and therefore there is no literary criticism, no theoretical studies, no artistic and creative programs. All this appears only in second stage literary process, the beginning of which was laid by the literary life of ancient Greece in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. and continued until the middle of the eighteenth century. This very long period is marked by the predominance traditionalism artistic consciousness and "poetics of style and genre": writers were guided by pre-made forms of speech that met the requirements of rhetoric (see pp. 228–229 about it), and were dependent on genre canons. Within the framework of this second stage, in turn, two stages are distinguished, the boundary between which was the Renaissance (here, we note, we are talking mainly about European artistic culture). At the second of these stages, which replaced the Middle Ages, literary consciousness takes a step from an impersonal beginning to a personal one (although still within the framework of traditionalism); Literature is becoming more secular.

And finally on third stage, which began with the era of the Enlightenment and romanticism, "individual creative artistic consciousness" is moving to the fore. From now on, the "poetics of the author" dominates, freed from the omnipotence of the genre and style prescriptions of rhetoric. Here literature, as never before, "is extremely close to the immediate and concrete being of a person, imbued with his concerns, thoughts, feelings, created according to his measure"; the era of individual author's styles is coming; the literary process is closely connected "simultaneously with the personality of the writer and the reality surrounding him." All this takes place in the romanticism and realism of the 19th century, and to no small extent in the modernism of our century. It is to these phenomena of the literary process that we turn now.

In the 19th century (especially in its first third) the development of literature proceeded under the sign of romanticism, which opposed classicist and enlightenment rationalism. Initially romanticism established itself in Germany, having received a deep theoretical justification, and soon spread throughout the European continent and beyond. It was this artistic movement that marked a globally significant shift from traditionalism to the poetics of the author.

Romanticism (in particular - German) is very heterogeneous, which is convincingly shown in early works V.M. Zhirmunsky, who had a major impact on the further study of this artistic system and are rightfully recognized as literary classics. Leading in the romantic movement early XIX in. the scientist considered not a dual world and not the experience of a tragic discord with reality (in the spirit of Hoffmann and Heine), but the idea of ​​the spirituality of human existence, of its “permeated” by the divine principle - the dream of “enlightenment in God whole life, and every pay, and every individuality ". At the same time, Zhirmunsky noted the limitations of early (Jenian) romanticism, prone to euphoria, not alien to individualistic self-will, which was later overcome in two ways. The first is an appeal to Christian asceticism of the medieval type (“religious renunciation”), the second is the development of the vital and good ties of a person with national-historical reality. The scientist positively assessed the movement of aesthetic thought from the dyad "personality - humanity (world order)", the meaning of which is cosmopolitan, to the understanding of the great importance of the mediating links between the individual and the universal, which are characteristic of the Heidelberg romantics, what are the "national consciousness" and "peculiar forms of the collective life of individual peoples" . The desire of the Heidelbergers for national and cultural unity, their involvement in the historical past of their country, was characterized by Zhirmunsky in high poetic tones. This is the article "Problem aesthetic culture in the works of the Heidelberg romantics”, written in a semi-esseist manner unusual for the author.

Following romanticism, inheriting it, and in some ways challenging it, in the 19th century. a new literary and artistic community, denoted by the word realism, which has a number of meanings, and therefore no doubt as a scientific term. The essence of realism in relation to the literature of the last century (speaking of its best examples, the phrase "classical realism" is often used) and its place in the literary process are understood in different ways. During the reign of Marxist ideology, realism exorbitantly rose to the detriment of everything else in art and literature. It was conceived as an artistic development of socio-historical specifics and the embodiment of the ideas of social determinism, rigid external conditioning of people's consciousness and behavior (“truthful reproduction of typical characters in typical circumstances”, according to F. Engels).

Today, the significance of realism in the literature of the 19th–20th centuries, on the contrary, is often leveled, if not denied altogether. This concept itself is sometimes declared "bad" on the grounds that its nature (as if!) consists only in "social analysis" and "life-likeness". Wherein literary period between romanticism and symbolism, commonly referred to as the heyday of realism, is artificially included in the scope of romanticism or is attested as the “epoch of the novel”.

There is no reason to expel the word "realism" from literary criticism, reducing and discrediting its meaning. Something else is essential: the cleansing of this term from primitive and vulgarizing strata. It is natural to reckon with the tradition according to which this word (or the phrase "classical realism") designates the rich, multifaceted and ever-living artistic experience of the 19th century (in Russia - from Pushkin to Chekhov).

The essence of the classical realism of the last century is not in socio-critical pathos, although it played a significant role, but, first of all, in the wide development of the living ties of a person with his close environment: the “microenvironment” in its specificity of national, epochal, class, purely local, etc. Realism (in contrast to romanticism with its powerful “Byronic branch”) tends not to exalt and idealize the hero, alienated from reality, who has fallen away from the world and arrogantly opposes it, but to criticism (and very severe) of the solitude of his consciousness. Reality was perceived by realist writers as imperiously demanding from a person responsible involvement in it.

At the same time, genuine realism (“in the highest sense,” as F.M. Dostoevsky put it) not only does not exclude, but, on the contrary, implies the interest of writers in the “great modernity”, the formulation and discussion of moral, philosophical and religious problems, and the understanding of human ties. with the cultural tradition, the fate of peoples and all mankind, with the universe and the world order. All this is irrefutably evidenced by the work of both the world-famous Russian writers of the 19th century and their successors in our century, such as I.A. Bunin, M.A. Bulgakov, A.A. Akhmatova, M.M. Prishvin, Are. A. Tarkovsky, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, G.N. Vladimov, V.P. Astafiev, V.G. Rasputin. Not only O. de Balzac, C. Dickens, G. Flaubert, E. Zola, but also J. Galsworthy, T. Mann, W. Faulkner are most directly related to classical realism among foreign writers.

According to V.M. Markovich, domestic classical realism, mastering the socio-historical specifics, "rushes beyond the limits of this reality with almost the same force - to the" last "essences of society, history, humanity, the universe", and in this it is similar to both the previous romanticism and subsequent symbolism. The sphere of realism, charging a person with “the energy of spiritual maximalism,” the scientist claims, includes both the supernatural, and revelation, and religious and philosophical utopia, and myth, and the mystery principle, so that “throwing human soul receive<…>transcendental meaning" correlate with such categories as "eternity, supreme justice, the providential mission of Russia, the end of the world, the kingdom of God on earth".

Let us add to this: realist writers do not take us to exotic distances and to airless mystical heights, to the world of abstractions and abstractions, to which romantics were often inclined (recall the dramatic poems of Byron). They discover the universal beginnings of human reality in the depths of "ordinary" life with its way of life and "prosaic" everyday life, which brings people both severe trials and invaluable benefits. So, Ivan Karamazov, unimaginable without his tragic reflections and the "Grand Inquisitor", is completely unthinkable outside of his painfully complex relationship with Katerina Ivanovna, his father and brothers.

In the XX century. other, new literary communities coexist and interact with traditional realism. This is, in particular, socialist realism, aggressively imposed by political power in the USSR, the countries of the socialist camp and spread even beyond their borders. The works of writers who were guided by the principles of socialist realism, as a rule, did not rise above the level of fiction (see pp. 132–137). But in line with this method, such bright artists words like M. Gorky and V.V. Mayakovsky, M.A. Sholokhov and A.T. Tvardovsky, and to some extent, M. M. Prishvin with his full of contradictions "The Tsar's Road". The literature of socialist realism usually relied on the forms of depicting life characteristic of classical realism, but in its essence it opposed the creative attitudes and worldview of most writers of the 19th century. In the 1930s and later, the opposition of the two stages of the realistic method proposed by M. Gorky was persistently repeated and varied. This is, firstly, characteristic of the XIX century. critical realism, which, as it was believed, rejected the existing social being with its class antagonisms and, secondly, socialist realism, which asserted the newly emerging in the 20th century. reality, comprehended life in its revolutionary development towards socialism and communism.

At the forefront of literature and art in the XX century. advanced modernism, organically grown out of the cultural needs of its time. Unlike classical realism, he showed himself most clearly not in prose, but in poetry. The features of modernism are the most open and free self-disclosure of the authors, their persistent desire to update the artistic language, focusing more on the universal and culturally distant historically than on close reality. In all this, modernism is closer to romanticism than to classical realism. At the same time, beginnings akin to the experience of nineteenth-century classic writers are persistently invading the sphere of modernist literature. Vivid examples to that - the work of Vl. Khodasevich (especially his “post-Pushkin” white iambic pentameters: “Monkey”, “November 2”, “House”, “Music”, etc.) and A. Akhmatova with her “Requiem” and “Poem without a Hero”, in which the pre-war literary and artistic environment that shaped her as a poet is severely criticized, as the focus of tragic delusions.

Modernism is extremely heterogeneous. He declared himself in a number of directions and schools, especially numerous at the beginning of the century, among which the first place (not only chronologically, but also in terms of the role he played in art and culture) rightfully belongs to symbolism especially French and Russian. It is not surprising that the literature that came to replace it is called post-symbolism, which has now become the subject of close attention of scientists (acmeism, futurism and other literary movements and schools).

As part of modernism, which largely determined the face of the literature of the 20th century, it is legitimate to single out two trends that are closely in contact with each other, but at the same time are multidirectional. These are avant-garde, which survived its "peak" point in futurism, and (using the term of V. I. Tyupa) neotraditionalism: “The powerful opposition of these spiritual forces creates that productive tension of creative reflection, that field of gravity, in which, one way or another, all more or less significant phenomena of the art of the 20th century are located. Such tension is often found within the works themselves, so it is hardly possible to draw an unambiguous line of demarcation between avant-garde and neotraditionalists. The essence of the artistic paradigm of our century, apparently, is in the incongruity and inseparability of the moments that form this confrontation. The author names T.S. Eliot, O.E. Mandelstam, A.A. Akhmatov, B.L. Pasternak, I.A. Brodsky.

A comparative historical study of the literature of different epochs (not excluding the modern one), apparently, with irresistible persuasiveness, reveals similarities in the literatures of different countries and regions. On the basis of such studies, it was sometimes concluded that "by their nature" literary phenomena different peoples and countries are “one”. However, the unity of the worldwide literary process by no means signifies its uniformity, much less the identity of the literatures of different regions and countries. In world literature, not only the recurrence of phenomena is deeply significant, but also their regional, state and national originality. It is to this facet of the literary life of mankind that we shall pass.

The deep, essential differences between the cultures (and, in particular, literatures) of the countries of the West and the East, these two great regions, are self-evident. Latin American countries, the Middle East region, Far Eastern cultures, as well as Western and Eastern (mainly Slavic) parts of Europe have original and original features. The national literatures belonging to the Western European region, in turn, differ markedly from each other. So, it is difficult to imagine, say, something similar to the Posthumous Notes Pickwick Club"Ch. Dickens, which appeared on German soil, but something akin" Magic grief» T. Mann - in France.

The culture of mankind, including its artistic side, is not unitary, not of the same quality, cosmopolitan, not “unison”. She has symphonic character: each national culture with its distinctive features belongs to the role of a certain instrument necessary for the full sound of the orchestra.

In order to understand the culture of mankind and, in particular, the worldwide literary process, the concept of non-mechanical whole, whose components, according to a modern orientalist, "are not similar to each other, they are always unique, individual, irreplaceable and independent." Therefore, cultures (countries, peoples, regions) are always correlated as complementary: "A culture that has become like another disappears as unnecessary." The same idea in relation to writing was expressed by B. G. Reizov: "National literatures live a common life only because they do not resemble one another."

All this determines the specificity of the evolution of the literatures of different peoples, countries, regions. Western Europe over the past five or six centuries has revealed a dynamism of cultural and artistic life unprecedented in the history of mankind; the evolution of other regions is associated with much greater stability. But no matter how varied the ways and pace of development individual literatures, they all move from epoch to epoch in the same direction: they go through the stages that we talked about.

The symphonic unity discussed above is provided to world literature, first of all, by a single foundation of continuity (for the topic, see pp. 356–357), as well as by the commonality of development stages (from archaic mythopoetics and rigid traditionalism to the free identification of the author's individuality). The beginnings of essential closeness between the literatures of different countries and eras are called typological similarities, or conventions. Along with the latter, a unifying role in the literary process is played by international literary connections(contacts: influences and borrowings).

Influence it is customary to call the impact on literary creativity of previous worldviews, ideas, artistic principles (mainly the ideological influence of Rousseau on L.N. Tolstoy; the refraction of the genre and style features of Byron's poems in Pushkin's romantic poems). Borrowing on the other hand, it is the use by the writer (in some cases - passive and mechanical, in others - creatively proactive) of single plots, motifs, text fragments, speech turns, etc. Borrowings, as a rule, are embodied in the reminiscences that were discussed above (See pp. 253-259).

The impact on writers of the literary experience of other countries and peoples, as noted by A.N. Veselovsky (arguing with traditional comparative studies), “assumes in the perceiver not an empty place, but counter currents, a similar direction of thinking, analogous images of fantasy” . Fruitful influences and borrowings "from outside" are a creative and creative contact of different, in many respects not similar friend on another literature. According to B. G. Reizov, international literary relations (in their most significant manifestations), “stimulating the development<…>literature<…>develop their national identity.

At the same time, at sharp turns in historical development, the intensive introduction of one or another literature to foreign, hitherto foreign artistic experience sometimes conceals the danger of subjugation to foreign influences, the threat of cultural and artistic assimilation. For the world artistic culture, broad and multifaceted contacts between the literatures of different countries and peoples are essential (as Goethe spoke about), but at the same time, the “cultural hegemonism” of literatures that have a reputation of being world-wide significant is unfavorable. The easy “stepping over” of national literature through one's own cultural experience to someone else's, perceived as something higher and universal, is fraught with negative consequences. “At the heights of cultural creativity”, according to the philosopher and culturologist N.S. Arseniev, there is a "combination of spiritual openness with spiritual rootedness" .

Perhaps the most large-scale phenomenon in the field of international literary relations of modern times is the intense impact of Western European experience on other regions (Eastern Europe and non-European countries and peoples). This globally significant cultural phenomenon, called Europeanization, or Westernization, or modernization, is interpreted and evaluated in different ways, becoming the subject of endless discussions and disputes.

Modern scientists pay close attention both to the crisis and even negative aspects of Europeanization, and to its positive significance for "non-Western" cultures and literatures. In this regard, the article “Some Peculiarities of the Literary Process in the East” (1972) by G.S. Pomeranets, one of the brightest modern culturologists. According to the scientist, the ideas familiar to Western European countries on "non-European soil" are deformed; as a result of copying someone else's experience, "spiritual chaos" arises. The consequence of modernization is the "enclave" (focal) culture: the "islands" of the new according to someone else's pattern are being consolidated, contrasting with the traditional and stable world of the majority, so that the nation and the state risk losing integrity. And in connection with all this, a split occurs in the field of social thought: there is a confrontation between Westerners (Westernizers-enlighteners) and ethnophiles (Romanticists of the soil) - the guardians of domestic traditions who are forced to defend themselves against the erosion of national life by “colorless cosmopolitanism”.

The prospect of overcoming such conflicts G.S. Pomeranz sees in the awareness of the "average European" the values ​​of the cultures of the East. And he regards Westernization as a deeply positive phenomenon of world culture.

In many respects, similar thoughts were expressed much earlier (and with a greater degree of criticism of Eurocentrism) in the book of the famous philologist and culturologist N.S. Trubetskoy "Europe and Humanity" (1920). Paying tribute to the Romano-Germanic culture and noting its worldwide significance, the scientist at the same time emphasized that it is far from being identical to the culture of all mankind, that the complete familiarization of an entire people with a culture created by another people is impossible in principle, and that a mixture of cultures is dangerous. . Europeanization, on the other hand, proceeds from top to bottom and affects only a part of the people, and therefore, as a result of it, the cultural layers are isolated from each other and the class struggle intensifies. In this regard, the introduction of peoples to European culture is carried out hastily: galloping evolution "squanders national forces." And a harsh conclusion is drawn: “One of the most serious consequences of Europeanization is the destruction of national unity, the dismemberment of the national body of the people.” Note that another, positive side of introducing a number of regions to Western European culture is also important: the prospect organic connection of the beginnings of the original, soil - and assimilated from the outside. G.D. spoke well about her. Gachev. In history not Western European literatures, he noted, there were moments and stages when they were carried out "energetic, sometimes violent pulling up under the modern European way of life, which at first could not but lead to a certain denationalization of life and literature." But over time, a culture that has experienced a strong foreign influence, as a rule, "reveals its national content, elasticity, conscious, critical attitude and selection of foreign material."

About this kind of cultural synthesis in relation to Russia XIX in. wrote N.S. Arseniev: the assimilation of the Western European experience went on growing here, “hand in hand with an extraordinary rise in national self-consciousness, with a boil creative forces rising from the depths folk life <…>The best in Russian cultural and spiritual life was born from here. The scientist sees the highest result of cultural synthesis in the works of Pushkin and Tyutchev, L.N. Tolstoy and A. K. Tolstoy. Something similar in the XVII-XIX centuries. observed in other Slavic literatures) where, according to A.V. Lipatov, there was an “interweaving” and “connection” of elements of literary trends that came from the West with “traditions of local writing and culture”, which signified “the awakening of national self-consciousness, the revival of national culture and the creation of a national literature of a modern type” .

International relations (cultural-artistic and actually literary) seem to constitute (along with typological similarities) the most important factor in the formation and strengthening of the symphonic unity of regional and national literatures.

In the comparative historical study of literature, questions of terminology turn out to be very serious and difficult to resolve. Traditionally allocated international literary communities(Baroque, Classicism, Enlightenment, etc.) are sometimes called literary movements, sometimes literary trends, sometimes artistic systems. At the same time, the terms “literary trend” and “literary trend” are sometimes filled with a narrower, more specific meaning. So, in the works of G.N. Pospelova literary currents- this is the refraction in the work of writers and poets of certain social views (worldviews, ideologies), and directions- these are writers' groupings that arise on the basis of a common aesthetic views and certain programs of artistic activity (expressed in treatises, manifestos, slogans). Currents and trends in this meaning of words are facts of individual national literatures, but not of international communities.

International literary communities ( art systems , as I.F. called them Volkov) do not have a clear chronological framework: often in the same era, various literary and general artistic “trends” coexist, which seriously complicates their systematic, logically ordered consideration. B.G. Reizov wrote: “Some major writer of the era of romanticism can be a classic (classicist. - W.H.) or a critical realist, a writer of the era of realism can be a romantic or a naturalist. Moreover, the literary process of a given country and a given epoch cannot be reduced to the coexistence of literary currents and tendencies. MM. Bakhtin reasonably warned scholars against "reducing" the literature of one period or another "to a superficial struggle of literary trends." With a narrowly directed approach to literature, the scientist notes, its most important aspects, "determining the work of writers, remain undisclosed" . (Recall that Bakhtin considered genres to be the "main characters" of the literary process.)

The literary life of the 20th century confirms these considerations: many major writers (M.A. Bulgakov, A.P. Platonov) carried out their creative tasks, being aloof from contemporary literary groups. The hypothesis of D.S. Likhachev, according to which the acceleration of the pace of change of direction in the literature of our century is "an expressive sign of their approaching end". The change of international literary trends (artistic systems), apparently, far from exhausts the essence of the literary process (neither Western European, nor even worldwide). Strictly speaking, there were no epochs of the Renaissance, Baroque, Enlightenment, etc., but there were periods in the history of art and literature marked by a noticeable and sometimes decisive significance of the corresponding principles. It is inconceivable that the literature of one or another chronological period is completely identical with any one world-contemplative-artistic trend, even if it is of paramount importance in given time. The terms 'literary movement' or 'trend' or 'artistic system' must therefore be used with caution. Judgments about the change of currents and directions are not a "master key" to the laws of the literary process, but only a very approximate schematization of it (even in relation to Western European literature, not to mention the literature of other countries and regions).

When studying the literary process, scientists also rely on other theoretical concepts, in particular, method and style. For a number of decades (starting from the 1930s), the term creative method as a characteristic of literature as knowledge (development) of social life. The successive currents and directions were considered as marked by a greater or lesser degree of presence in them. realism. So, I.F. Volkov analyzed artistic systems mainly from the point of view of the creative method underlying them.

Consideration of literature and its evolution in the aspect of style, understood very broadly, as a stable complex of formal artistic properties (the concept artistic style developed by I. Winkelman, Goethe, Hegel; it attracts the attention of scientists and our centuries). International Literary Communities D.S. Likhachev is called "great styles", delimiting in their composition primary(gravitating towards simplicity and plausibility) and secondary(more decorative, formalized, conditional). The scientist considers the centuries-old literary process as a kind of oscillatory movement between primary (longer) and secondary (short-term) styles. The first he refers to the Romanesque style, Renaissance, classicism, realism; to the second - gothic, baroque, romanticism.

For recent years the study of the literary process on a global scale emerges more and more clearly as the development historical poetics. (See pp. 143-145 for the meanings of the term "poetics".) The subject of this scientific discipline, which exists as part of comparative historical literary criticism, is the evolution of verbal and artistic forms (with content), as well as the creative principles of writers: their aesthetic attitudes and artistic outlook.

The founder and creator of historical poetics A.N. Veselovsky defined its subject in the following words: “the evolution of poetic consciousness and its forms.” The scientist devoted the last decades of his life to the development of this scientific discipline (“Three chapters from historical poetics”, articles on epithet, epic repetitions, psychological parallelism, an unfinished study “Poetics of plots” ). Subsequently, the patterns of the evolution of literary forms were discussed by representatives of the formal school (“On Literary Evolution” and other articles by Yu.N. Tynyanov). M.M. worked in line with Veselovsky’s traditions. Bakhtin [such are his works on Rabelais and the chronotope ("Forms of time and chronotope in the novel"); the latter is subtitled "Essays on Historical Poetics"]. In the 1980s, the development of historical poetics became more and more active.

Modern scientists are faced with the task of creating monumental studies on historical poetics: they have to constructively (taking into account the rich experience of the 20th century, both artistic and scientific) to continue the work begun a century ago by A.N. Veselovsky. It is legitimate to present the final work on historical poetics as a history of world literature, which will not have a chronological and descriptive form (from era to era, from country to country, from writer to writer, what is the recently completed eight-volume History of World Literature). This monumental work will probably be a study consistently structured on the basis of the concepts of theoretical poetics and summarizing the centuries-old literary and artistic experience of different peoples, countries, regions.

Notes:

The history of literary criticism as such is not considered in any detail by us. Special works are dedicated to her. Cm.: Nikolaev P.A., Kurilov A.S., Grishunin A.L. History of Russian literary criticism. M., 1980; Kosikov G.K. Foreign literary criticism and theoretical problems of the science of literature // Foreign aesthetics and theory of literature of the 19th–20th centuries: Treatises, articles, essays. M., 1987. A summary coverage of the fate of domestic theoretical literary criticism of the 20th century, one would hope, will be undertaken in the coming years.

Saparov M.A. Understanding a work of art and the terminology of literary criticism // Interaction of sciences in the study of literature. L., 1981. S. 235.

Belinsky V.G. Poly. coll. cit.: V 13 t. M., 1953. T. 3. S. 53.

Cm.: Pospelov G.N. Art and aesthetics. M., 1984. S. 81–82.

Cm.: Mikhailov A.V. The problem of character in art: painting, sculpture, music // Mikhailov A.V. Languages ​​of culture: Proc. allowance for cultural studies. M., 1997.

Davydov Yu.N. Culture - nature - tradition // Tradition in the history of culture. M., 1978. S. 60.

Likhachev D.S.. The past - the future: Articles and essays. L., 1985. S. 52, 64–67.

Lotman Yu.M. Memory in cultural illumination// Wiener Slawistischerт Almanach. bd. 16. Vienna, 1985.

Schleiermacher F.D.E. Henneneutik und Kritik. fr. a. M., 1977. S. 184.

Tynyanov Yu.N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. pp. 272, 258. Such a convergence of continuity and epigonism, in our opinion, is one-sided and vulnerable, because it gives reason to incorrectly include such bright and original traditionalist writers as I.S. Shmelev and B.K. Zaitsev, M.A. Sholokhov and A.T. Tvardovsky, V.G. Rasputin and V.I. Belov, V.P. Astafiev and E.I. Nosov.

Chudakova M.O. On the concept of genesis// Revue des etudes slaves. Fascicule 3, Paris, 1983, pp. 410–411.

Likhachev D.S.. The past - the future: Articles and essays. S. 175.

Cm.: Konrad N.I. About the Renaissance// Konrad N.I. West and East: Articles. L., 1972 (end of § 1, § 7–8).

Botkin L.M.. Type of culture as a historical integrity: Methodological notes in connection with the Italian Renaissance//Vopr. philosophy. 1969. No. 9. S. 108.

Lotman Yu.M. Technical progress as a cultural problem//Scientific Notes/of Tartu University. Issue. 831. Tartu, 1988. P. 104. For the same, see: Losev A.F.. Aesthetics of the Renaissance. M., 1978 (“The other side of titanism” and other sections).

Averintsev S.S., Andreev M.L., Gasparov M.L., Grintser P.A., Mikhailov A.V. Categories of poetics in the change of literary epochs. S. 33.

On romanticism as an international phenomenon, see the relevant section (author I.A. Terteryan) in: History of World Literature: In 8 vols. M., 1989. Vol. 6.

Zhirmunsky V.M.. Heine and Romanticism // Russian Thought. 1914. No. 5. P. 116. See. also: Zhirmunsky V.M.. German romanticism and modern mysticism. St. Petersburg, 1996 (1st ed.–1914).

Zhirmunsky V.M. Religious renunciation in the history of romanticism: Materials for the characterization of K. Brentano and the Heidelberg romantics. M., 1919. S. 25.

Cm.: Zhirmunsky V.M.. From the history of Western European literatures. L., 1981. From the set later works about romanticism, see: Vanslov V.V. aesthetics of romanticism. M., 1966; Berkovsky N.Ya. Romanticism in Germany. L., 1973; Fedorov F.P.. Romantic art world: space and time. Riga, 1988; Mann Yu.V. Dynamics of Russian romanticism. M., 1995.

Cm.: Jacobson P. O. On artistic realism//Yakobson P.O. Poetic works. pp. 387–393.

Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. M., 1965. T. 37. S. 35.

Cm.: Zatonsky D.V. What should not be the history of literature?// Vopr. literature. 1998. January - February. pp. 6, 28–29.

Markovich V.M. The question of literary trends and the construction of the history of Russian literature of the 19th century // Izvestia / RAS. Dep. literature and language. 1993. No. 3. S. 28.

See: Getting rid of mirages. Socialist realism today. M., 1990.

See: Proceedings of international scientific conferences at the Russian State University for the Humanities: Post-symbolism as a cultural phenomenon. Issue. 1–2. M., 1995, 1998.

Cm.: Tyupa V.I.. Polarization of Literary Consciousness // Liteiatura rosyjska XX wieku. Nowe czasy. Now problemy. Seria "Literatura na pograniczach". No. 1. Warszawa, 1992. P. 89; see also: Tyupa V.I.. Postsymbolism. Theoretical essays on Russian poetry of the XX century. Samara, 1998.

Konrad N.I. On some questions of the history of world literature // Konrad N.I. West and East. S. 427.

I use the expression of the art historian Yu.D. Kolpinsky. See: Cultural history ancient world. M., 1977. S. 82.

About the inseparable connection of creativity in people's lives with their national involvement and rootedness, see: Bulgakov S.N.. Nation and Humanity (1934) // Bulgakov S.N.. Cit.: V 2 t. M., 1993. T. 2.

Grigoryeva T.P.. Tao and Logos (meeting of cultures). M., 1992. S. 39, 27.

Questions of methodology of literary criticism. M.; L., 1966. S. 183. On the essential differences between the ancient literatures of the Middle East and Greece, which largely determined the fate of all European culture (including art), see: Averintsev S.S.. Ancient Greek literature and Middle Eastern literature (confrontation and meeting of two creative principles) // Typology and interconnections of literatures ancient world. M., 1971 (especially pp. 251–252).

Cm.: Zhirmunsky V.M. Literary currents as an international phenomenon // Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative literature. East and West. L „1979. pp. 137–138.

Veselovsky A.N.. Research in the field of Russian spiritual verse. Issue. 5. St. Petersburg, 1889, p. 115.

Reizov B.G.. History and theory of literature. L., 1986. S. 284.

Cm.: Goethe I.V. West-east sofa. pp. 668–669.

Arseniev D.S.. From the Russian cultural and creative tradition. Fr.a. M., 1959.S. 151. For the fact that international cultural contacts are marked by a comparison (comparison) of “one’s own” and “alien” (in the best cases - with the realization of their equivalence), see: Toporov V.N.. Space of culture and meetings in it // East - West: Research. Translations. Publications. Issue. 4. M., 1989.

Literature and culture of China. Moscow, 1972, pp. 296–299, 302. See also: Pomerants G.S.

Likhachev D.S.. The past is the future. S. 200.

Cm.: Volkov I.F.. Creative Methods and Art Systems, 2nd ed. Moscow, 1989, pp. 31–32, 41–42, 64–70.

See: Introduction to Literary Studies: Reader / / Ed. P.A. Nikolaev. M., 1997. S. 267–277.

Cm.: Likhachev D.S.. The development of Russian literature in the 10th - 17th centuries: Epochs and styles. M., 1973. S. 172–183.

Cm.: Veselovsky A.N.. From an introduction to historical poetics (1893)// Veselovsky A.N.. Historical poetics. S. 42.

See: Historical Poetics: Results and Perspectives of Study. M., 1986. We also point out the book: Mikhailov A.V. Problems of historical poetics in history German culture In: Essays from the history of philological science. M., 1989.