Preface. Russian literary criticism of the 19th century

When analyzing literary works, polemicizing and debating, we often refer to the opinions of literary critics and provide quotes from their works. Indeed, Russian literary critics of the 19th century raised their skills to unprecedented heights. They helped to see in literary works what was hidden from the reader's eyes. Sometimes writers understood themselves better after becoming acquainted with the opinion of a famous critic. Among such critics, in addition to V.G. Belinsky, treated V.N. Maikov (1823-1847), who discovered Tyutchev the poet and was one of the first to give a brilliant analysis of the early works of F.M. Dostoevsky, A.V. Druzhinin (1824-1864) and P.V. Annenkov (1813-1887). The latter not only worked as a literary secretary for Gogol himself during the creation of Dead Souls, but later became a true ally of Turgenev and Nekrasov, who considered him an exceptionally gifted critic. In any case, it was Turgenev who gave the completed works to him to read before sending them to print. Annenkov was also an excellent biographer. Read his book “Pushkin in the Alexander era” (1874) and you will literally become imbued with the life of the Russian Empire of that era, look at many things known to you from the textbook through the eyes of the great poet and feel the atmosphere in which he grew up.

After Belinsky's death in 1848, literary criticism was left without its leader-tribune, but the seeds of future literary criticism had already been sown. Subsequent critics, especially those who would later be classified as revolutionary-democratic, increasingly analyze ideas in isolation from literary mastery, connect images directly with life, and talk more and more about the “usefulness” of a particular work. This disregard for form became deliberate, reaching the point of declaring “war on aestheticism” and “the fight against pure art.” These beliefs prevailed in society. On the eve of the reforms and in the first post-reform years, the very prestige of tradition fell. Dynasties were interrupted, children looked for other paths, different from those chosen by their parents. This also concerned changes in literary tastes and preferences.

In the future you will see how great novels grew as if from life itself, becoming great works of literature. Critics of the new wave saw in them new interpretations of Russian life, and this gave literary works a meaning unexpected for their authors!

Slavophiles and Westerners

Slavophilism and Westernism are trends in Russian social and literary thought of the 40-60s of the 19th century.

In 1832, the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov put forward the doctrine (theory) of the official nationality. It consisted of a simple formula of three words: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Orthodoxy is the moral basis of Russian life. Autocracy is the foundations, the order of Russian life, which has developed historically. Nationality is the unity of the people and the father-king. All together this constitutes the invincible unity of the Russian people. Everything that does not correspond to this formula is a threat to the well-being of Russia. Count Uvarov did not reject enlightenment; he only argued that its correct organization was protective for the autocracy, and not destructive, as happened in Europe shaken by revolutions.

Inspired by this theory, which became mandatory for Russian officials, the head of the Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery A.Kh. Benckendorff said: “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, and as for its future, it is beyond anything that the wildest imagination can draw.”

It was impossible to talk seriously about the present and future of Russia within the framework of the theory of official nationality. Various intellectual circles began to appear in Russia, in which possible ways of development of Russia were discussed. Despite the differences, sometimes irreconcilable, these circles were united by hatred of serfdom, rejection of the Nicholas regime, love for Russia and faith in its historical mission.

V.G. Belinsky first used the term “Slavophiles” in the article “Russian literature in 1843,” which was published in the January issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski for 1844. Here is a quote from his article: “We have champions of Europeanism, there are Slavophiles and others. They are called literary parties.” Although the Slavophiles considered this term inaccurate and did not call themselves that, it stuck. However, it was not Belinsky who introduced this word into the Russian language; it appeared during the struggle between the Karamzinists and the Shishkovists in Batyushkov’s poem “Vision on the Shores of Lethe” (1809).

The Slavophiles called their opponents Westerners.

The historical merits of both “literary parties” were obvious.

Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, as well as Yu.F. Samarin criticized serfdom and bureaucracy, fought for freedom of opinion, for the spiritual openness of society. Although they did not reject the “official nationality,” their views were more democratic. The struggle for “Russianness” became their banner. Under this slogan they spoke in their magazines “Moskvityanin”, “Moscow collections”, “Russian conversation”, in the newspapers “Molva”, “Parus”, “Den”.

Slavophilism took shape as an ideological movement from 1840 to 1847. It existed until the beginning of the era of reforms. At the turn of the 1850-1860s, the theoreticians of Slavophilism died one after another, and the abolition of serfdom, coupled with the subsequent reforms, opened the way to capitalism in Russia. Russia entered the Western path of development, which the Slavophiles sincerely hated and considered harmful for Russia. Slavophiles stood up for community, “peace,” considering this a feature of the Russian way of life, Russian civilization. They believed that Russian people are characterized by “humility” and “community”; There is no initial rebellion or revolutionary spirit in them, there is no backwardness from Europe either, Russia just has its own special path of development.

The Slavophiles did not form an art school. Their work looked relatively pale in comparison with the works of such Westerners as Turgenev, Herzen and Belinsky. However, the outstanding Russian philosopher of the 20th century N.A. Berdyaev believed that it was “Slavophiles, and not Westerners, who struggled with the riddle of what the creator thought about Russia and what path he prepared for it.”

Westerners include people of very different make-up: P.Ya. Chaadaeva, T.N. Granovsky, M.A. Bakunina, S.M. Solovyova, K.D. Kavelina, N.A. Ogareva, V.P. Botkina, N.A. Melgunova, A.V. Nikitenko.

In the first half of the 1840s, the main printed organ of Westerners was the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, ideologically headed by Belinsky. Later, in 1846, Belinsky moved to Sovremennik, where he worked until the end of his life (1848).

Westerners, in contrast to the Slavophiles, recognized reason, not faith, as the basis of personality and society. They placed man at the center of their thoughts about the future, emphasizing the intrinsic value of each person as a bearer of reason, contrasting the idea of ​​a free personality with the idea of ​​the “conciliarity” of the Slavophiles. They argued that Russia, albeit belatedly, should move in the same direction of historical development as Western European countries, and believed that Russia needed Europeanization. Westerners advocated a constitutional-monarchical form of government with limitations on autocracy, with guarantees of freedom of speech, a public court and personal integrity. Westerners had a negative attitude toward the police-bureaucratic order of Nicholas Russia, but, like the Slavophiles, they advocated the abolition of serfdom “from above.”

Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westerners had much in common: they belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia - their circle included writers, publicists, and scientists. Both of them were opponents of the Nikolaev political system, and both of them were worried about the fate and paths of development of Russia. “We, like a two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts beat the same,” wrote Herzen.

The latent, but hot public intensity of the philosophical and aesthetic quests and battles of the “Gogol period” of Russian literature gives rise to a new, socially most effective, journalistic genre - magazine criticism and polemics.

The primary place it gained in the 30s and 40s was also a fundamentally new phenomenon. as the most acute and operational weapon in the ideological struggle and demarcation of directions of not only literary, but also social, including scientific, thought that are different in their social aspirations.

In the form of the most “innocent” in terms of censorship, critical analyzes and aesthetic declarations are presented in magazines and the most burning issues of our time are solved in different ways.

One of the first prototypes of this new type of magazine was the organ of Moscow wise men, “Moskovsky Vestnik”. It was published from 1827 to 1830, its editor, almost nominal, was M. P. Pogodin. The magazine pursued a strictly defined goal - to contribute to the “enlightenment” of Russian society, to convince it that philosophy “is the science of sciences, the science of wisdom,” by introducing the philosophy of Schelling, the teachings of Herder, the artistic works and aesthetic theory of the German romantics and the corresponding critical interpretation of the phenomena of Russian literature.

Pushkin was directly involved in the creation of the magazine, mainly for tactical reasons. Not experiencing any attraction to German “metaphysics,” he hoped to subordinate the journal to his influence and find in it his own printed platform.

That did not happen. Becoming, as it was intended, a tribune of Schellingin’s views of the wise, “Moskovsky Vestnik” played a certain role in popularizing the ideas of German classical philosophy, but could not win a wide readership and soon ceased to exist.

The Literary Newspaper, which was close to Pushkin in its direction, lasted even less, only a year and a half, (January 1830 - June 1831). It was published by one of Pushkin’s closest friends, Delvig, with the participation of O. Somov, and after Delvig’s death - for several months by Somov alone. In addition to the publishers and Pushkin, the newspaper published Baratynsky, Vyazemsky, Katenin, Pletnev, Gogol, Stankevich and a number of other young writers and poets.

The name of the newspaper (it was published once every five days) emphasized its purely literary, non-political character. But its demonstrative independence from official ideology and fierce polemics with F. Bulgarin and N. Polev, who accused the newspaper, and not without reason, of seditious “aristocratism,” caused disapproval from the authorities and did not receive public support.

The most influential, serious and popular magazine at this time became the Moscow Telegraph, published by N. A. Polev from 1825 to 1834. The magazine had a clear literary and political program, militantly romantic, fundamentally pro-bourgeois, anti-noble and in this sense democratic , however, advocated for an alliance of autocracy with merchants and industrialists.

From this angle, the magazine widely covered the current literary, scientific and socio-political life of Western European countries, mainly France; the July Monarchy was assessed positively, even enthusiastically; the principles of French romanticism and its eclectic philosophy (Cousin, Villemain) were promoted as anti-aristocratic, and therefore the most promising for Russia.

In the first years of publishing the Moscow Telegraph, Polevoy managed to unite the best literary forces in it. Vyazemsky takes an active part in the publication, attracting Pushkin, Baratynsky, Yazykov, Katenin and other poets from his circle to him. During the years of the formation of the school of “stately romanticism,” the publisher of the Telegraph was by no means one of its supporters. Moreover, for a sharp critical review of N. Kukolnik’s official drama “The Hand of the Almighty Saved the Fatherland,” which captivated Nicholas I, the magazine was closed.

The Moscow Telegraph and its publisher had a significant impact on the democratization of literary and social consciousness, which was duly appreciated by Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. But Polevoy’s openly pro-bourgeois and ultimately loyal position threw him into the ranks of the enemies of Pushkin and Gogol and, after the closure of the Moscow Telegraph, brought him into the camp of reaction.

For the same reasons, the publisher of the Telegraph remained aloof from the most speculative in form, but highly promising in content, philosophical and aesthetic direction of the 30s, the origins of which were the wise men and the Moskovsky Vestnik.

In contrast to N. Polevoy, the publishers of the Moskovsky Vestnik, after the cessation of its publication, gradually became imbued with an increasingly anti-bourgeois spirit and, while still remaining adherents of Schelling, but now accepting his late reactionary “philosophy of revelation,” are gradually transformed from wise men into Slavophiles. In anticipation of this, they publish the “Moscow Observer” (1835-1837), led by S. P. Shevyrev and V. A. Androsov.

The magazine was conceived as a counteraction to “industrial” literature and journalism, represented by the same N. Polev, N. Grech, F. Bulgarin, publisher of the official newspaper “Northern Bee”, and mainly “Library for Reading”, published by a talented but unprincipled writer and the orientalist scientist O. I. Senkovsky together with the bookseller A. F. Smirdin since 1834. Designed for the tastes of the unpretentious reader, the “Library for Reading” enjoyed great success among bureaucrats and merchants, among the middle strata of the nobility, including provincial.

Schellingian in its philosophical design and in many ways fair criticism by the publishers of the Moscow Observer of the “industrial age” as a whole as hostile to the high aspirations of the human spirit and its highest expression - art - was combined with opposition to the autocratic serfdom system, but was criticism from the right, directed against democratic aspirations of our time.

This recoiled from the journal of Pushkin, who at one time sympathized with him, and was sharply condemned by Belinsky, who spoke out against the “Moscow Observer” in N. I. Nadezhdin’s journal “Telescope” and in the newspaper “Molva” (1831-1836) that was published as a supplement to it. .

Like the “observers,” the publisher of the Telescope was a convinced Schellingian, but of a significantly different and mainly democratic orientation, complicated, however, by political conservatism. Nadezhdin's views on the essence and social function of art were equally contradictory, but on the whole paved the way for realistic aesthetics.

Particularly significant is the contribution made by Nadezhdin to the democratic understanding of the problem of “nationality”, which is directly opposite to its protective interpretation by the publishers of the Moscow Observer, which formed the basis of their Slavophil doctrine, which took shape a few years later. Belinsky, who owes a lot to Nadezhdin, began his literary-critical activity in Telescope and Molva. Among the Telescope employees were future “Westerners” - A. I. Herzen, M. A. Bakunin, V. P. Botkin, P. Ya. Chaadaev.

Pushkin published two pamphlets on Bulgarin in Telescope, which corresponded to the magazine’s position, which was pointed simultaneously against Polevoy’s Moscow Telegraph and Moscow Observer. For the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter”, “Telescope” was closed, and its publisher was expelled from Moscow to the Urals.

Almost simultaneously, in April 1836, the first issue of the Sovremennik magazine, founded by Pushkin, was published. The magazine did not have a clear program and, in many ways continuing the traditions of Literaturnaya Gazeta, was, unlike it, intended for circles not only of the liberal noble intelligentsia, but also of the common, democratic intelligentsia.

In Sovremennik, Pushkin published a number of his artistic works, including “The Captain’s Daughter,” several critical and historical essays, reviews and notes. Old literary friends of Pushkin - Zhukovsky, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, as well as Yazykov, D. Davydov, Tyutchev and others - took part in the magazine (not too actively, to be sure).

The most active participant in the magazine was the young Gogol, who published a large and sharply polemical article “On the movement of magazine literature in 1834 and 1835” in the 1st issue of Sovremennik. She did not satisfy Pushkin in everything, which did not prevent such works of Gogol as “The Stroller”, “The Nose” and “The Morning of a Business Man” from appearing on the pages of Sovremennik.

Remaining aloof from the philosophical interests and controversies of its time (which did not quite justify the name “Sovremennik”), Pushkin’s magazine claimed to be not only a literary-critical, but to some extent a historical-literary and even historical publication. Most of Pushkin's plans related to this remained unfulfilled for censorship reasons.

Pushkin managed to publish only four issues of Sovremennik. But the magazine was destined to have a long life. After the death of its founder, it passed into the hands of Pletnev and Zhukovsky, and ten years later, at the end of 1846, it became the journal of Nekrasov and Belinsky, the most influential and advanced periodical publication of the second half of the 40s.

On the pages of Sovremennik, Belinsky’s struggle unfolded with the Slavophiles, who took up arms in his magazine Moskvityanin (1841-1855) against the “negative” direction of the “natural school.”

After the death of Belinsky (1848), Sovremennik gradually lost its fighting democratic spirit, which was revived with renewed vigor in 1853, when Nekrasov attracted N. G. Chernyshevsky to work in the magazine, and after that N. A. Dobrolyubov. The fate of Sovremennik is symbolic, as if embodying the objective logic of literary development of the 30s and 40s, largely, but not completely, foreseen by Pushkin.

A special and very significant role belongs to the first half of the 40s. and another long-standing magazine - “Notes of the Fatherland” (1820-1884). From 1839 to 1846, the critical-bibliographic, widely organized department of the journal, then published by A. A. Kraevsky, was led almost single-handedly by Belinsky.

Here the critic’s journalistic talent is fully developed, and his articles on Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Koltsov, systematic annual literary reviews and many, many other critical reviews become major events in literary and social life, eagerly awaited, read, discussed by students and democratic intelligentsia. Russian criticism had never known such a wide public response before.

Gradually, many young writers of socialist orientation, followers of Gogol and admirers of George Sand - Herzen, Ogarev, Saltykov, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, as well as Turgenev, Grigorovich and some others, grouped around the magazine and Belinsky, united by a new direction, which soon received the name “natural school”.

At the same time, Otechestvennye zapiski becomes an organ for the propaganda of socialist ideas, under the direct influence of which the realistic and democratic aesthetics of the “natural school” takes shape.

The words spoken by Herzen about the political lyrics of the Decembrists and Pushkin are fully applicable to it, as well as to the work of its inspirer, Gogol: “For a people deprived of public freedom, literature is the only platform from the height of which they make the cry of their indignation and their conscience heard.” "

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

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

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

Such an approach to the study of Russian classics formed stereotypes of artistic perception, significantly simplified and impoverished the picture of the development of Russian literature, which was distinguished by fierce ideological and aesthetic disputes.

Only recently, thanks to the emergence of a number of serial publications and in-depth literary studies, has our vision of the ways of development of Russian literature and criticism become more voluminous and multifaceted. In the series “Library “For Lovers of Russian Literature””, “History of Aesthetics in Monuments and Documents”, “Russian Literary Criticism”, articles by N. M. Karamzin, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, I. V. Kireevsky, N.I. Nadezhdin, A.A. Grigoriev, N.N. Strakhov and other outstanding domestic writers. The complex, dramatic quests of critics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, different in their artistic and social beliefs, are recreated in the series “Library of Russian Criticism”. Modern readers finally have the opportunity to get acquainted not only with the “peak” phenomena in the history of Russian criticism, but also with many other, no less striking phenomena. At the same time, our idea of ​​the “peaks”, of the scale of significance of many critics, has been significantly clarified.

It seems that the practice of school teaching should form a more comprehensive idea of ​​how Russian literature of the 19th century was reflected in the mirror of domestic criticism. It is important that the young reader begins to perceive criticism as an organic part of Literature. After all, Literature in the broadest sense is the art of words, embodied both in a work of art and in literary criticism. A critic is always a bit of an artist and a publicist. A talented critical article necessarily contains a powerful fusion of the moral and philosophical thoughts of its author with subtle and deep observations of the literary text.

Studying a critical article yields very little if its main provisions are perceived as a kind of dogma. It is important for the reader to emotionally and intellectually experience everything said by the critic, think about the logic of his thoughts, and determine the degree of evidence of the arguments put forward by him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that the anthology will become an indispensable guide to the works of outstanding Russian literary artists, will help to truly understand these works, compare different ways of interpreting them, and discover in what you read what went unnoticed or initially seemed unimportant and secondary.

Literature is a whole Universe. Its “suns” and “planets” had their own satellites - literary critics who fell into the orbit of their inevitable attraction. And how we would like that we could call not only the classics of Russian literature, but also these critics our eternal companions.

The era of the “sixties”, which does not quite correspond, as will happen in the 20th century, to calendar chronological milestones, was marked by a rapid growth of social and literary activity, which was reflected primarily in the existence of Russian journalism. During these years, numerous new publications appeared, including “Russian Messenger” and “Russian Conversation” (1856), “Russian Word” (1859), “Time” (1861) and “Epoch” (1864). The popular “Contemporary” and “Library for Reading” are changing their faces. New social and aesthetic programs are formulated on the pages of periodicals; Beginning critics quickly gain fame (N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, N. N. Strakhov and many others), as well as writers who returned to active work (F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin); uncompromising and principled discussions arise about new extraordinary phenomena of Russian literature - the works of Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, Ostrovsky, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Fet. Literary changes are largely due to significant socio-political events (the death of Nicholas I and the transfer of the throne to Alexander II, the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, liberal reforms and the abolition of serfdom, the Polish uprising). The long-restrained philosophical, political, civic aspiration of public consciousness in the absence of legal political institutions reveals itself on the pages of “thick” literary and artistic magazines; It is literary criticism that becomes an open universal platform on which the main socially relevant discussions unfold.

The clearly defined uniqueness of criticism in the 1860s lies in the fact that the analysis and evaluation of a work of art - its original, “natural” function - is supplemented and often replaced by topical reasoning of a journalistic, philosophical and historical nature. Literary criticism finally and clearly merges with journalism. Therefore, the study of literary criticism of the 1860s is impossible without taking into account its socio-political orientations.

In the 1860s, differentiation took place within the democratic social and literary movement, which had taken shape over the previous two decades against the backdrop of the radical views of the young publicists of Sovremennik and Russian Word, which were no longer associated only with the struggle against serfdom and autocracy, but also against the very idea of ​​social inequality. Adherents of former liberal views seem almost conservative. The irreversibility of ideological demarcation was clearly manifested in the fate of Nekrasov’s Sovremennik. Extreme in their latent anti-government orientation are the statements of that circle of writers, to whom the ideologically oriented collective designation of “revolutionary democrats” was assigned in Soviet historiography for many decades - N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, their followers and successors: M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M.A. Antonovich, Yu.G. Zhukovsky - forced even such propagandists of Belinsky as I.S. Turgenev, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov to leave the magazine. But also new employees Sovremennik did not reach the level of peremptory literary-critical statements for which the publicists of the Russian Word became famous.

The original social programs - Slavophilism and pochvennichestvo - were imbued with general guidelines for progressive social liberation development; The magazine “Russian Messenger” initially built its activities on the ideas of liberalism, the actual leader of which was another former comrade-in-arms of Belinsky, M. N. Katkov. However, the publication, which became famous thanks to the publication of the most significant works of the late 1850s and 1860s (Provincial Sketches, Fathers and Sons, The Enchanted Wanderer, Crime and Punishment, War and Peace were published here), turned out to be the most ardent opponent of radicalism, all kinds of reconciliation with it, and in the 1860s he was the first to defend the monarchical state foundations and primordial moral principles. It is obvious that public ideological and political indifference in literary criticism of this period is a rare, almost exceptional phenomenon (articles by A.V. Druzhinin, K.N. Leontyev). The widespread public view of literature and literary criticism as a reflection and expression of current social problems leads to an unprecedented increase in the popularity of criticism, and this gives rise to fierce theoretical debates about the essence of literature and art in general, about the tasks and methods of critical activity. The sixties were the time of primary understanding of the aesthetic heritage of V.G. Belinsky. Critics of that time did not encroach on the main principles of his literary declarations: the idea of ​​​​the connection of art with reality, and the “here” reality, devoid of mystical, transcendental openness, the position on the need for its typological knowledge, addressing the general, natural manifestations of life. However, journal polemicists from opposite extreme positions condemn either Belinsky’s aesthetic idealism (Pisarev) or his passion for social topicality (Druzhinin). The radicalism of the publicists of “Sovremennik” and “Russian Word” was also manifested in their literary views: the concept of “real” criticism, developed by Dobrolyubov, taking into account the experience of Chernyshevsky and supported (with all the variability of individual literary-critical approaches) by their followers, believed the “reality” represented (“reflected”) in the work, the main object of critical consideration. The position, which was called “didactic”, “practical”, “utilitarian”, “theoretical”, was rejected by all other literary forces, which in one way or another affirmed the priority of artistry in assessing literary phenomena. However, “pure” aesthetic, immanent criticism, which, as A. A. Grigoriev reasoned, deals with a mechanical enumeration of artistic techniques, did not exist in the 1860s. At the same time, internal analysis, paying attention to the individual artistic merits of a work, is present in the articles of Grigoriev himself, and in the works of Druzhinin, Botkin, Dostoevsky, Katkov and even Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Therefore, we call “aesthetic” criticism a movement that sought to comprehend the author’s intention, the moral and psychological pathos of a work, and its formal and content unity. Other literary groups of this period: Slavophilism, Pochvennichestvo, and the “organic” criticism created by Grigoriev - to a greater extent professed the principles of criticism “about”, accompanying the interpretation of a work of art with principled judgments on topical social problems. “Aesthetic” criticism did not have, like other movements, its own ideological center, finding itself on the pages of “Library for Reading”, “Sovremennik” and “Russian Messenger” (until the end of the 1850s), as well as in “Notes of the Fatherland”, which, unlike the previous and subsequent eras, did not play a significant role in the literary process of this time.

The most active and popular literary movement of the 1860s, which set the tone for the entire social and literary life of the era, was the “real” criticism of radical democratic orientation.

Its main publications were the magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. In 1854, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1826-1889) made his debut in Sovremennik, who, after his first performances, attracted attention with his directness and boldness of judgment.

In articles and reviews of 1854, Chernyshevsky appears as a truly faithful follower of Belinsky’s ideas as a theorist of the “natural school”: following the author of the famous “letter to Gogol,” the Sovremennik critic demands from writers a truthful and meaningful portrayal of the realities of the surrounding reality, revealing modern social conflicts and demonstrating the hardships of life of the oppressed classes.

Thus, in a review of A. N. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Poverty is not a vice,” Chernyshevsky seeks to show the unnaturalness of the happy ending and condemns the playwright for wanting to forcibly soften the critical pathos of his works, to find the bright, positive sides of merchant life. Chernyshevsky's creed as a journalist and writer is revealed by his polemical work “On Sincerity in Criticism” (1854). The author of the article recognizes that the main task of critical activity is to spread among the “mass of the public” an understanding of the social and aesthetic significance of a particular work, its ideological and content merits - in other words, Chernyshevsky brings to the fore the educational, educational possibilities of criticism. Pursuing the goals of literary and moral mentoring, the critic must strive for “clarity, certainty and directness” of judgments, to reject ambiguity and ambiguity in assessments.

Chernyshevsky’s master’s thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” (1855) became the programmatic aesthetic document of the entire radical democratic movement. Its main task was a dispute with the “dominant aesthetic system” - with the principles of Hegelian aesthetics. The key thesis of the dissertation - “beauty is life” - allowed its author to express his conviction in the objective existence of beauty. Art does not generate beauty, but more or less successfully reproduces it from the surrounding life - therefore, it is certainly secondary in relation to reality. Its meaning is “to give the opportunity, at least to some extent, to become acquainted with the beautiful in reality to those people who did not have the opportunity to actually enjoy it; serve as a reminder, excite and revive the memory of the beautiful in reality among those people who know it from experience and love to remember it.” The task of art, according to Chernyshevsky, in addition to “reproducing” reality, is its explanation and the verdict that the artist makes on the surrounding life. Thus, developing Belinsky’s aesthetic views, Chernyshevsky for the first time theoretically substantiates the socially productive function of art. In a series of articles about Pushkin, dedicated to the first posthumous collection of the poet’s works, Chernyshevsky seeks, on the basis of the first published materials from the Pushkin archive, to reconstruct his social position, attitude to political events, and to power.

Assessing Pushkin's progressiveness, Chernyshevsky reveals his internal opposition to power and at the same time reproaches him for passivity, for philosophical detachment, explaining this, however, by the oppressive living conditions of Nicholas's time. “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856) can be considered the first major development of the history of Russian criticism of the 1830-1840s. Positively assessing the work of Nadezhdin and N. Polevoy, Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who, according to the author of the cycle, outlined the true routes for the progressive development of Russian literary literature. Chernyshevsky, following Belinsky, recognizes the critical depiction of Russian life as the key to literary and social progress in Russia, taking Gogol’s work as the standard for such an attitude to reality. Chernyshevsky certainly places the author of “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” higher than Pushkin, and the main criterion for comparison is the idea of ​​the social effectiveness of the writers’ creativity. The journalist believed that a sober and critical understanding of reality at the present stage is not enough; it is necessary to take specific actions aimed at improving the conditions of public life. These views found expression in the famous article “Russian man on rendez-vous” (1858), which is also noteworthy from the point of view of Chernyshevsky’s critical methodology. Turgenev’s short story “Asya” became the reason for large-scale journalistic generalizations by the critic, which were not intended to reveal the author’s intention. In the image of the main character of the story, Chernyshevsky saw a representative of the widespread type of “best people” who, like Rudin or Agarin (the hero of Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”), have high moral virtues, but are not capable of decisive actions. As a result, these heroes look "more trashy than a notorious scoundrel." However, the deep accusatory pathos of the article is directed not against individuals, but against the reality that gives rise to such people. It is the surrounding social life that is actually the main character of most of Chernyshevsky’s literary critical articles.

In the late 1850s - early 1860s (until his arrest in 1862), Chernyshevsky paid less and less attention to literary critical activity, focusing entirely on issues of a political, economic), social and philosophical nature

Chernyshevsky's closest associate, Dobrolyubov, develops his propaganda endeavors, sometimes offering even more harsh and uncompromising assessments of literary and social phenomena. Dobrolyubov sharpens and concretizes the requirements for the ideological content of modern literature; The main criterion for the social significance of a work is its reflection of the interests of the oppressed classes. Unlike Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov admits that the author of works of art may not be a supporter of targeted denunciation, but by correctly and in detail presenting the facts of the surrounding reality, he thereby already serves the cause of literary and social progress. “If the work came from the pen of a writer who did not belong to the democratic camp, then for Dobrolyubov, such a lack of direct authorial assessment was probably even preferable<...>In this case, the reader and critic will not have to “unravel” the complex contradictions between objective images, facts and some subjective, fact-distorting conclusions that would most likely come from an “ideological” but not a democratic author.” In other words, what is important to the Sovremennik publicist is not what the author said, but what “affected” him. Dobrolyubov does not exclude the idea of ​​the unconscious nature of artistic creativity. From this point of view, a special role belongs to the critic, who, by subjecting the artist’s picture of life to analytical comprehension, formulates the necessary conclusions. Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, substantiates the possibility of literary-critical reflections “about” a work, which are addressed not so much to the comprehension of its internal formal and content uniqueness, but to actual social problems, the potential of which can be detected in it.

As a source for lengthy journalistic discussions, Dobrolyubov used the works of A.N. Ostrovsky (articles “The Dark Kingdom”, 1859 and “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”, I860), Goncharov (“What is Oblomovism?”, 1859), Turgenev (“When will the real day come?”, 1860), F.M. . Dostoevsky (“Downtrodden People”, 1861). However, despite such a variety of objects of literary criticism, due to the desire for broad generalizations, these articles can be considered as a single meta-text, the pathos of which boils down to proof of the inferiority of Russian socio-political foundations. One of the most fundamental issues for all “real” criticism was the search for new heroes in modern literature. Not living to see Bazarov’s appearance, Dobrolyubov only saw in Katerina Kabanova the signs of a personality protesting against the laws of “the dark and the kingdom.”

The harshness and peremptory nature of some of Dobrolyubov’s judgments provoked a conflict in the Sovremennik circle and in the entire democratic movement. After the article “When will the real day come?”, which, as Turgenev considered, distorted the ideological background of the novel “On the Eve” and thereby violated the ethical standards of criticism, its long-time employees - Turgenev, Botkin, L. Tolstoy - left the magazine. However, a real polemical storm within the most radical movement erupted in the mid-1860s between the magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. In 1860, Grigory Evlampievich Blagosvetlov (1824-1880) became the editor of the Russian Word, founded a year earlier, replacing Ya.P. Polonsky and A.A. Grigoriev, who did not bring popularity to the publication. The similarity with the thinkers of Sovremennik in the interpretation of basic values ​​- the need for social equality and political change - did not prevent the head of the new magazine from being skeptical about the productivity of those directions of public propaganda that Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov declared. The young publicists invited by him and working under his direct influence, D.I. Pisarev and V.A. Zaitsev, demonstrated the independence of the ideological foundations and tactical tasks of the monthly.

Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev (1840-1868) quickly became the leading employee of the Russian Word. Pisarev the writer found himself in the image of a fearlessly mocking skeptic, questioning any, even the most authoritative and popular teachings, shocking the reader with deliberate straightforwardness and unexpected paradoxicalness of judgments. The impeccability of extremely pragmatic, rationalistic logic brought Pisarev unprecedented popularity among young readers and provided evidence for his mercilessly mocking statements about the worthless (and, therefore, harmful) activities of the publicists of the Russian Messenger (Moscow Thinkers, 1862), Slavophilism (Russian Don Quixote”, 1862) and, in fact, all Russian philosophy, built on speculative, illusory foundations (“Scholastics of the 19th century”, 1861). Pisarev considers moderation in views to be an illusion, thereby justifying the legitimacy of extreme, radical views. Paying tribute to the liberation aspirations of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, Pisarev is not at all embarrassed by differences with them on some fundamental issues. The journalist of the Russian Word skeptically considers the possibility of conscious activity of the oppressed classes, especially the peasantry, considering educated youth to be the main active force of Russian society. Pisarev sharply disagrees with Dobrolyubov in his assessment of some literary phenomena. According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov, who considered Katerina Kabanova “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” succumbed to the obvious idealization of the heroine.

Pisarev subordinates his aesthetic and literary reasoning to extremely utilitarian ideas about human activity. The sole purpose of artistic literature is declared to be the propaganda of certain ideas, based on the tendentious reproduction of social conflicts and the depiction of “new heroes.” It is not surprising that Pisarev’s favorite works of the 1860s were “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev (“Bazarov”, 1862; “Realists”, 1864) and “What to do?” N.G. Chernyshevsky (“The Thinking Proletariat”, 1865), realizing Pisarev’s innermost ideas about conscious, rational work aimed at creating personal and public good.

Along with Pisarev’s articles, the works of Bartholomew Aleksandrovich Zaitsev (1842-1882) were published, who, with all his journalistic talent, brought the radical ideas of his journal colleague to the point of absurd simplification. Zaitsev is a desperate “destroyer of aesthetics” who categorically rejected art in general and consistently contrasted modern natural science concepts with poetry. Art, as the critic harshly asserts, “deserves complete and merciless denial.” These and similar statements by Zaitsev and Pisarev provoked constant polemical attacks, not only from their original opponents, opponents of radicalism, but also from their closest like-minded people - Sovremennik journalists. The controversy, which stemmed from differences in understanding the nuances of propaganda tactics, quickly turned into a magazine squabble that reached personal insults and mutual accusations of aiding conservative and pro-government forces. And despite the fact that in the end this futile dispute was stopped, the public reputation of the magazines suffered noticeably - the controversy demonstrated a clear shortage of new productive ideas and marked a crisis in the radical movement. The activities of magazines, in which literary issues were increasingly relegated to the periphery, were banned by the government after the assassination attempt on Alexander II in 1866.

Despite such loud internal disagreements, adherents of radical views had common opponents: representatives of “aesthetic” criticism, ideologists of Slavophilism and pochvennichestvo, supporters of the conservative “protection” from the “Russian Vestnik” and “Moskovskie Vedomosti”. The main opponents on many literary issues for the journalists of Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo remained representatives of the so-called “aesthetic” criticism. Former associates of Belinsky, who formed the backbone of Sovremennik until the mid-1850s: I.S. Turgenev, P.V.Annenkov, V.P.Botkin, A.V.Druzhinin - did not enthusiastically accept the proclamation of new aesthetic principles by the magazine’s young publicists. Turgenev, for example, in letters to Kraevsky, Nekrasov and others, called Chernyshevsky’s dissertation “vile carrion” and “disgusting book.” Critics, who, unlike their young colleagues, were not inclined to talk about literature in an abstract theoretical manner, had to defend their view of art. At the same time, focusing on the “classical” aesthetics of Belinsky (on his judgments of the early 1840s), they thought within the framework of aesthetic views common to the entire era: they compared literature with extra-aesthetic “real” life, looked for a typological reflection of “reality as it is” in the work There is". However, opponents of “utilitarian” or, as they put it, “didactic” criticism freed literature from the need to serve the pressing needs of the time, from the indispensable depiction of class conflicts, and left belles lettres with their independent, sovereign meaning.

Unlike the publicists of Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, who, when expressing their beliefs, often relied on Russian literature of previous years, defenders of the aesthetic approach mastered it as a positive basis for declaring their own predilections. Pushkin appears as their eminent like-minded person in the articles of A.V. Druzhinin (“A.S. Pushkin and the latest edition of his works,” 1855) and M.N. Katkov (“Pushkin,” 1856). The works of L. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Ostrovsky and even Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin demonstrate the unshakable relevance of timeless moral and psychological issues of human existence.

One of the first to stand up for the aesthetic ideals of this literary critical movement was Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov (1813-1887), who published the article “On Thought in Works of Fine Literature” in 1855 on the pages of Sovremennik and in 1856, already in Russian Bulletin”, work “On the significance of works of art for society”. Annenkov seeks to prove that in a literary work everything should be subordinated to a single goal - the expression of “artistic thought” associated with the development of “psychological aspects of a person or many persons.” Literary narration “draws life and strength from the observation of spiritual nuances, subtle characteristic differences, the play of countless emotions of the human moral being in contact with other people.” Any “deliberate”, abstract thought, philosophical or “pedagogical”, distorts the essence of real creativity, the most “dear” qualities of which are “freshness of understanding of phenomena, simplicity in looking at objects, courage in handling them.” On the other hand, internal, “artistic” thought, which can also be “random” in nature and which is based on attention to the spiritual motives of human behavior, to his moral experiences, is precisely the key to individual expressiveness and artistic persuasiveness of a literary creation. The qualities of “nationality” should have an equally subordinate character in a literary work. A critic who looks for these features in a work, ignoring its artistic merits, makes a mistake because it extracts a part from the whole: only a true artist is capable of being truly popular, penetrating the depths of national morality. Defending the ethical-psychological aspect of fiction as the main criterion for evaluating both the work itself and its heroes, Annenkov does not agree with the categorical verdicts passed by “real” criticism on the heroes of Turgenev’s works of the 1850s. In the article “On the literary type of a weak person” (1858), polemically responding to the work of N.G. Chernyshevsky’s “Russian man at rendez-vous”, the critic seeks to expand the perception of the social phenomenon that is embodied in the image of the main character of the story “Asya”: people who reflect, who know how to doubt themselves and those around them, play an important role in the life of society. "<...>We still continue to think that among people who are and are included in the category of suspicious people, as if deprived of the ability to desire long and strongly, only real, living thought is still preserved, meeting the needs of modern education.” The type of “weak” person “excites all inquiries, raises debates, touches on subjects from different sides, fumbles in research to confirm any generally beneficial thought, strives to organize life through science, and finally represents in free creativity the verification of the present and the desire for the poetic ideal of existence.”

In the second half of the 1850s, Russia for the first time had its own periodical publication of Slavophilism - the magazine “Russian Conversation”, which published articles by I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. Aksakov. Literary issues, however, are not the main interest of either the journal’s leaders (A.I. Kosheleva, I.S. Aksakov, T.I. Filippova) or its authors, who primarily addressed philosophical, historical and social issues. Of the literary-critical works of the publication, only K. Aksakov’s article “Review of Modern Literature” (1857) caused a great resonance. Strictly approaching the phenomena of artistic literature of the 1850s and through the prism of the “Russian view”, assessing the originality of writers and the depth of understanding of folk spirituality, Aksakov without hesitation only considers Tyutchev in poetry and Ostrovsky in prose to be truly significant authors. In the works of Fet and A. Maykov, the critic sees poverty of thought and content, in the works of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, despite the presence of “truly beautiful” works, - unnecessary details, from which “the common line connecting them into one is lost”1, in the stories of Grigorovich and Pisemsky there is a superficial description of people’s life, in Shchedrin’s “Provincial Sketches” there is a certain caricature of the images. At the same time, the final destruction of the “natural school” allows Aksakov to look optimistically into the future of Russian literature.

Despite the limited nature of the Slavophile movement in the 1850-1860s, it was at this time that the intensive spread of Slavophile ideology to other currents of social thought began. Figures and magazines of a purely Westernist orientation allow themselves unexpectedly sympathetic reviews of the works of K. Aksakov, Kireevsky, Khomyakov: Druzhinin, in an article on criticism of the Gogol period, reproaches Belinsky for unfair harshness towards the authors of “Moskvityanin”; a large work is published on the pages of “Otechestvennye Zapiski” K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumina “Slavophil teaching and its fate in Russian literature”, characterizing with respect and sympathy the activities of Moscow writers of the 1840-1850s. Many of the judgments and ideas of the Slavophiles were adopted and assimilated by new movements of the 1860s - in particular, “soil” criticism. The ideology of “soilism” in the first half of the decade was developed by F.M. Dostoevsky, who, together with his brother M.M. Dostoevsky, in 1861 gathered a small circle of relative like-minded people and organized the magazine “Time”. The position of the new movement was already defined in the advertisement for subscription to the publication, published on the pages of newspapers and magazines in 1860: the main goal of social activity, the author of the “Advertisement”, Dostoevsky, considers “the merging of education and its representatives with the beginning of the people”, more precisely, the promotion this process that naturally takes place in society. Sharing the key beliefs of the Slavophiles, the ideological inspirer of “Time” wrote about the spiritual identity of the Russian nation, about its opposition to European civilization. However, unlike the Slavophiles, Dostoevsky interprets the reforms of Peter I, with all their inorganicity for the popular consciousness, as a natural and necessary phenomenon, instilling on Russian soil the principles of literacy and education, which will ultimately lead Russian society to peaceful harmony.

In the “Introduction” to the “Series of Articles on Russian Literature”, which opened the critical and journalistic department of “Time”, Dostoevsky, in fact, continues to develop the ideas of the “moderate” Slavophile I. Kireevsky, talking about the pan-European and even universal human potential of Russian spirituality, based on exceptional ability to sympathize with the “stranger”, with special mental agility that allows one to perceive and master the national landmarks of other peoples. The process of class reconciliation, which, according to Dostoevsky, is currently taking place, will contribute to the realization of this potential; The task of journal criticism and journalism should be to facilitate this process: to bring educated society closer to understanding the Russian people, to the “soil,” as well as to promote the development of literacy in the lower classes.

Dostoevsky assigns a huge role in the unity of Russian society to Russian literature, which in its best examples demonstrates a deep comprehension of national spirituality. The problem of the goals and meaning of literary disputes is raised by Dostoevsky in his programmatic aesthetic article “G. -bov and the question of art" (1861). The two main journal and literary parties - supporters of the theory of “art for art’s sake” and, on the other hand, representatives of “utilitarian” criticism - according to Dostoevsky, are conducting an artificial discussion, distorting and exaggerating the opponent’s point of view and meaning not the search for truth, but only mutual painful vulnerability. In such an exchange of opinions, the fundamental question about the essence and functions of art is not only not resolved, but, in fact, is not even raised. Dostoevsky develops his own vision of the problem, modeling a polemical dialogue with Dobrolyubov. Without questioning the thesis about the social purpose of art, about “usefulness,” the author of “Time” resolutely opposes the point of view that a work of art should obey topical social needs and that the main criterion for assessing its “usefulness” is the presence in it of a certain tendency, its compliance with the “known” aspirations of society. According to Dostoevsky, this approach distorts ideas about the significance of art, since it ignores the main effect of a work of art - its aesthetic impact. Dostoevsky is convinced that works that fairly illuminate the pressing issues of our time, but are imperfect artistically, will never achieve the result that “utilitarians” expect - especially since a momentary understanding of “utility” can turn into a mistake upon further consideration.

True art is based on free creativity, then any demand on the artist ultimately also leads to a violation of the principle of “usefulness” - and in this aspect Dostoevsky sees the internal flaw of Dobrolyubov’s position. The defense of the philosophical and aesthetic predilections of “Time”, expressed in Dostoevsky’s articles, was taken upon himself by Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896), in the future an authoritative publicist of “neo-Slavophilism”, and in these years an aspiring journalist and critic. However, in his works there is also a desire, avoiding extremes, to promote the convergence of dissimilar literary and social programs. In Strakhov’s article about Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” (1862), published after two sensational reviews from “Sovremennik” and “Russian Word”, which were striking in their contrasting assessments of the novel, the critic’s intention is clearly visible to discover a grain of truth in the judgments of his predecessors, or, in any case, explain their point of view. Pisarev’s sincere position, devoid of tactical bias (Turgenev’s loud break with Sovremennik certainly influenced the pathos of Antonovich’s article), seemed more reliable to Strakhov, moreover, the article of “Russian Word” became for the critic another indirect confirmation that “Bazarovism”, “ nihilism" are indeed present in real social life. The critic considered Turgenev's merit to be his understanding of the aspirations of the younger generation, the latest manifestations of social consciousness, which were reflected in the novel even more consistently than in Pisarev's article. And in this article from Vremya, art is recognized as a more perfect means of understanding the deep problems of social life than the most “progressive” journalistic experiments.

One of the main critics of the magazine was A. A. Grigoriev, who, after several years of magazine wanderings, found a more or less suitable platform for expressing his favorite aesthetic judgments. After leaving Moskvityanin in 1855, Grigoriev occasionally published in the Russian Bulletin, Library for Reading, Russian Conversation, Svetoche, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and headed the critical department of the Russian Word before Blagosvetlov’s arrival, but I couldn’t find constant support and sympathy anywhere. However, it was at this time that his original concept of “organic” criticism took shape.

In the article “A Critical Look at the Foundations, Meaning and Techniques of Modern Art Criticism” (1857), Grigoriev, dividing works of art into “organic” ones, that is, “born” with the help of the author’s talent by life itself, and into “made” ones, which arose thanks to conscious literary efforts that reproduce a ready-made artistic model, he outlined the corresponding tasks of literary criticism, which should detect upward connections between “made” works and their source, and evaluate “organic” ones based on the life and artistic sensibility of the critic. At the same time, Grigoriev, as in the early 1850s, is looking for ways to combine ideas about the historicity of literature and its ideality. First of all, Grigoriev denies the fruitfulness of “pure” aesthetic criticism, which, in his opinion, comes down to the “material” recording of artistic means and techniques: a deep and comprehensive judgment about a work is always a judgment “about”, considering it in the context of the phenomena of reality .

However, he also does not accept the method of modern historicism, which connects literature with the immediate interests of the era: such a method is based on a false opinion about the relativity of truth and takes as a basis the truth of recent times, knowing or not wanting to know that it will soon turn out to be false. The critic contrasts such a “historical view” with a “historical sense” that knows how to see a given era through the prism of eternal moral values. In other words, Grigoriev rejects the rationalistic view of art - “theoretical” criticism, which biasedly searches for those aspects in a work of art that correspond to the a priori speculations of theorists, i.e., violating the main principle of “organicity” - naturalness. A “thought in the head” will never be able to understand reality more deeply and accurately than a “thought in the heart.”

Grigoriev confirms the steadfastness of his literary convictions in other program-theoretical works: in the article “A few words about the laws and terms of organic criticism” (1859) and in the late cycle “Paradoxes of organic criticism” (1864). In the article “Art and Morality” (1861), the former critic of “Moskvityanin” once again touches on the problem of a timeless and historical view of ethical categories. Sharing the eternal moral commandments and norms of moral etiquette, Grigoriev comes to the innovative judgment for his era that art has the right to violate modern moral dogmas: “art as an organically conscious response to organic life, as a creative force and as the activity of a creative force - nothing conditional, including and morality, does not and cannot be subject to anything conditional, therefore morality should not be judged and measured.<...>It is not art that should learn from morality, but morality<...>at art."

One of the criteria for high morality and “organic” literature for Grigoriev was its compliance with the national spirit. The popular and comprehensive talent of A.S. Pushkin, who created both the rebel Aleko and the peaceful, truly Russian Belkin, allowed Grigoriev to exclaim the famous: “Pushkin is our everything” (“A Look at Russian Literature from the Death of Pushkin”, 1859). The critic discovers an equally deep and comprehensive understanding of people’s life in Ostrovsky’s work (“After Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm,” 1860). Grigoriev categorically rejected Dobrolyubov’s opinion about the accusatory nature of the playwright’s work. An understanding of the problems of nationality and the tasks of Russian literature, similar to F. M. Dostoevsky, led Grigoriev to collaborate in the magazine “Time”, in which the critic developed the theme of the mutual influence of nationality and literature (“Nationalism and Literature”, 1861; “Poems by A.S. Khomyakov "; "Poems by N. Nekrasov", both 1862), as well as the problem of the relationship between the individual and society ("Taras Shevchenko", 1861; "Concerning the new edition of an old thing: "Woe from Wit"", 1863, etc.)

In 1863, in Strakhov’s article “The Fatal Question,” the censor saw seditious statements on a painful Polish topic, and “Time,” which since 1861 had significantly strengthened its authority and popularity, was unexpectedly banned. A year later, the publication of the magazine "Epoch", which retained both the staff and the position of "Time", did not bring the desired success. And in 1865, after the death of M.M. Dostoevsky, “Epoch” ceased to exist.