However, my good friend. a new hero - a native of the people's "lower classes"

In 1846, Belinsky left the Notes of the Fatherland.

Back in the spring of 1844, the Slavophiles began negotiations with M.P. Pogodin on the transfer of his "Moskvityanin" under their editorship. The Moskvityanin, distinguished, in the words of I. Kireevsky, by “the complete absence of any clear direction,” was the only magazine in Moscow in that hole, and therefore Khomyakov, Granovsky, Solovyov, and Herzen occasionally used its pages. By that time, Moskvityanin had only about 300 subscribers and eked out a miserable existence.

Under the terms of the agreement reached by the end of 1844, I. Kireevsky, once the publisher and editor of the European, became the unofficial editor of the Moskvityanin. His name was not put on the cover, but this fact was not hidden from the government. Pogodin remained the owner and publisher of the magazine, he also continued to lead the historical department in it. I. Kireevsky hoped that after the publication of three or four issues, the journal would noticeably strengthen its financial position. He needed at least 900 subscribers in order to settle accounts with Pogodin and get Moskvityanin at his full disposal.

I. Kireevsky, who by that time had not been published anywhere for ten years, took up a new business with ardent enthusiasm. During the day he was given editorial duties, and at night he wrote his own articles. For the updated Moskvityanin, I. Kireevsky prepared more than a dozen works, including introductory notes to materials by other authors, and the program article “Review of the Current State of Literature” published with continuation, and reviews for the “Criticism and Bibliography” department, which he led together with a young philologist F. I. Buslaev. Under I. Kireevsky, two new departments appeared in the journal - “Foreign Literature” and “Agriculture”.

Moscow Collection" did not go unnoticed in society. Yu. F. Samarin wrote from St. Petersburg, unfriendly to the Slavophiles: “It spreads well, it is read everywhere, in all circles, and everywhere it produces rumors, disputes, etc. Who praises, who scolds, but no one remained indifferent to him ". Encouraged by this, Panov prepared the next collection, the circulation of which he intended to increase to 1200 copies.

"Moscow Literary and Scientific Collection for 1847" was published in March of this year. In terms of the composition of materials and the circle of authors, it resembled the previous one, although it became more voluminous. The positions of the Slavophiles, as in the previous year, were represented in it by the works of Khomyakov (“On the Possibility of the Russian Art School”), K. Aksakva (“Three Critical Articles by Mr. Imrek”), as well as articles by Chizhov and Popov. The work of K. S. Aksakov, which was intended for the previous Moscow Collection, consisted of reviews of three St. Petersburg Collection” by I. A. Nekrasov. Accusing St. Petersburg literature of being “separated from the Russian land”, K. Aksakov pointed out the need for a different approach to depicting the people, “the powerful keeper of the great secret of life”, and as an example, he noted the story of I. S. Turgenev “Khor and Kalinich”.

Solovyov came out here with an article "On localism." The collection also included fragments of Karamzin's letters, and Zhukovsky, Ya. P. Polonsky and Yu. V. Zhadovskaya added to its poetic part, in addition to the previous authors.

The Slavic theme was widely presented: “A look at the current state of literature among the Western Slavs” by Sreznevsky, a continuation of “Letters from Vienna” by Rigelman and an excerpt from Pogodin’s letters called “Prague”, as well as Serbian folk songs translated by N. V. Berg, already known to readers from "Moskvityanin" and the previous collection.

After the release of the Moscow Collection for 1847, the Slavophiles were going to continue it next year. K. Aksakov suggested reducing its volume, but releasing it more frequently. However, the publication was not destined to come true, as well as the journal "Russian Messenger", which Yazykov and Chizhov intended to publish from 1848, four times a year.

"Russian conversation" is a Russian magazine of the Slavophil direction, published in Moscow in 1856-1860. Publisher-editor - A.I. Koshelev. Since 1858, I.S. Aksakov actually edited the magazine<*>. As an appendix to "R.b." in 1858 and 1859, the magazine "Rural Improvement" was published, devoted to the issues of the peasant reform. In "R.b." there were departments of belles-lettres, science, criticism, reviews, mixture, biography; the works of S.T. Aksakov, V.I. Dal, “Profitable Place” by A.N. Ostrovsky, poems by A.S. S. Nikitina, T. G. Shevchenko, unpublished poems by E. A. Baratynsky, V. A. Zhukovsky, N. M. Yazykov and others. and the possibility of new beginnings for philosophy” by I.V. Kireevsky, “The dying unfinished essay” by A.S. Khomyakov, “On Truth and Sincerity in Art” by A.A. Grigoriev, “Two words about nationality in science” by Yu.F. Samarina and others. In the field of philosophy, the journal defended idealistic ideas, promoted Orthodoxy as an absolute theological and philosophical truth. The magazine contrasted the peoples of Western Europe with the Russian people, allegedly developing according to special laws due to primordial national characteristics. "R.b." advocated the preservation of the peasant community after the reform, the release of peasants with land for ransom, for the abolition of the death penalty; tried to connect the preaching of religion among the people with the spread of universal literacy. The magazine advocated freedom of speech according to the formula: to the tsar - completeness of power, to the people - freedom of opinion. The advanced circles of society were repelled by "R.B." its religious direction, negative attitude towards socialism, the revolutionary movement; the magazine was viewed with suspicion by conservative circles due to its independent stance on some issues. "Contemporary"<*>in the person of N.G. Chernyshevsky, he first tried to use the magazine in the fight against the reactionary organs of the Russian press on the basis of protecting the community and democratic freedoms. However, irreconcilable contradictions between the direction of Sovremennik, the journal of revolutionary democracy, and the liberal-protective position of R.B., became clear very soon.

14. History of the Sovremennik magazine N.A. Nekrasov. "Contemporary" during the revolutionary situation in Russia (1859-1861). Publicism and criticism of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov. Dobrolyubov's satirical application "Whistle"

"Contemporary" Nekrasov

Created by A.S. Pushkin in 1836, it was issued every three months. After the death of the poet, one issue of the magazine was released II. A. Vyazemsky, A. A. Kraevsky, V. F. Odoevsky and N. A. Pletnev. In 1838, P. A. Pletnev, a professor at St. Petersburg University, became its permanent editor and publisher.

By 1846, the closest associates of V.G. Belinsky on the "Notes of the Fatherland" N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev firmly decided to create their own journal. A.V. became the editor. Nikitenko, publishers Nekrasov and Panaev.

The new Sovremennik took the best from the practice of Otechestvennye Zapiski: the volume of the publication was increased to 25 author’s sheets, the title of Sovremennik read: “Literary Journal”, and now subscribers could receive the best domestic and foreign literary works. Twice a year, complete bibliographic lists of all books published in Russia were issued.

Main departments in the magazine were already familiar to the reader: Literature, Science and Art, Criticism and Bibliography, Mixture, Fashion. The face and direction of Sovremennik was primarily determined by the Literature department, where, according to Belinsky, “Russian stories with a Gogol direction” set the tone. It is enough to name fourteen stories by I. S. Turgenev from the “Notes of a Hunter”, A. Grigorovich’s story “Anton-Goremyka”, “Polinka Sax” by A. Druzhinin, essays by A. I. Goncharov, E. Grebenka, “The Magpie-Thief » A. I. Herzen. In addition, in the appendix to the first issue of 1847, readers received the novels "Ordinary History" by I. A. Goncharov and "Who is to blame?" A. I. Herzen. Nekrasov's poems "Troika", "Hound Hunt", "Am I Riding Down the Dark Street at Night" and others were published here. Lucrezia Floriani" by J. Sand and with many other remarkable works of Western European literature.

Under the leadership of Belinsky, who considered having a position an indispensable condition for the success of the journal in the eyes of the reader, the Science and Art department was internally transformed. Historical articles by K. D. Kavelin “A look at the legal life of ancient Russia” and S. M. Solovyov “Daniil Romanovich, Prince of Galitsky” were published here. At At the same time, historical problems were considered by the authors of Sovremennik "from the point of view of the present."

Article examples: N. Satin's article "Ireland" published in the science department caused a great domestic resonance. The Irish theme was used in the democratic press of Russia as an excuse to draw attention in an allegorical way to a topical issue - the plight of the peasants as a result of an unsatisfactory state system and economic relations. Satin's article contained a significant warning: for Ireland, a radical change in all social relations is necessary, and if this does not happen, social upheavals are possible, which, in the author's thoughts, will not be slow to come.

public position"Contemporary" - anti-serfdom. These ideas literally permeated all the publications of the magazine, even those that went under the heading "Modern Notes" in the "Mixture" section and, as a rule, were small but voluminous materials on various topics. So, in 1847, under this heading, the magazine published several opinions on the management of landowners' lands, one of which, in particular, told about a manager who knows how to spank a peasant so with a whip that he will remember this lesson "until new brooms."

"Sovremennik" stood out among other publications by the certainty of its assessments, the variety of content, the clarity of the structure, the talented and original forms of presentation of the material. Even a department like Fashions looked unusual compared to the same department in other magazines. The thoughtful editorial policy of Sovremennik, directed by Belinsky, the efforts of Nekrasov and Panaev, applied by them to attract the best authors, allowed the journal to successfully compete with other publications, win “its readership”, and become the leader of the Russian magazine world.

As popularity grew, the censorship pressure. Belinsky's reviews, V. A. Milyutin's articles, and, in general, the direction of the journal attracted particular attention. In May 1848, Belinsky died, in the same year, in connection with the events of the French Revolution, the censorship of the journal became more severe, and Nekrasov, as the main leader, had to exert a lot of effort and skill to lead his publication through all the reefs of the changed political situation of the “gloomy seven years”. ", as contemporaries called the period 1848 to 1855.

"Contemporary" in the period of the revolution. Journalism II. G. Chernyshevsky and II. A. Dobrolyubova

During the period of the beginning of the social upsurge in Russia, the Sovremennik magazine took a central place in a number of periodicals of the 60s. During these years, Sovremennik underwent a significant internal evolution, in which three periods can be conditionally distinguished:

The second half of the 1850s: the development of a new direction, a change in the circle of employees;

- 1859-1861: the most radical socio-political and literary positions of the magazine;

1862-1866: censorship difficulties, decline in circulation, gradual loss of influence.

The internal evolution of the magazine was greatly facilitated by the renewal of the circle of employees. The appearance in 1854 of Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik was of great importance in determining the social and political direction of the journal. By the beginning of his work in Sovremennik, Chernyshevsky had already developed his materialistic views in the field of philosophy and esthetics, ideas about the purpose of literature and literary criticism. Subsequently, these ideas were embodied and developed in Chernyshevsky's literary-critical and journalistic activities.

Already his first speeches in Sovremennik drew attention to themselves by the certainty and sharpness of his judgments. Reviews of M.A. Avdeev, novel by Evg. Tour "Three Holes of Life" and on the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Poverty is not a vice" provoked a protest in literary circles. Speaking of Avdeev, Chernyshevsky wrote that his works “are well written, but there is no freshness in the novel, it is sewn from worn rags, and the stories do not fit the standards of our century, ready to come to terms with shortcomings of form rather than shortcomings of content, with a lack of thought ". Even more severe is Chernyshevsky's review of The Three Pores of Life by Evg. The tour, where he finds "neither thought, nor credibility in characters, nor probability in the course of events, an immeasurable emptiness of content dominates everything." Chernyshevsky's assessment of Ostrovsky's new comedy "Poverty is no vice" was also sharply negative, in which the critic discovers "falseness and weakness", sees "the apotheosis of ancient life."

In 1856-1858. Sovremennik, in its direction, was still not much different from other liberal publications that welcomed the royal rescripts. Chernyshevsky's positions were strengthened with the arrival of Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov, who began cooperation in the journal as early as 1856, and from 1857 headed the critical and bibliographic department. The arrival of Dobrolyubov in Sovremennik was a great success for Chernyshevsky.

Like Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov came to Sovremennik with definite views. Already the first article published in Sovremennik, The Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word, attracted the attention of readers with its independence of judgment, passionate denunciation of the empirical ("bibliographic") trend in the history of literature and criticism. From the first publications in the journal, Dobrolyubov declared his loyalty to the Belinsky tradition, speaking out for realism and folk literature, against aesthetic criticism.

Dobrolyubov's work in Sovremennik was distinguished by great intensity. In 1858 alone he published 75 articles and reviews. Dobrolyubov's work is marked by certainty and integrity: his philosophical convictions and social program, ethics and aesthetics, his view of literature and the tasks of criticism are distinguished by a rare unity of feeling and thought. The starting point in his system of views is the denial of the social system of contemporary Russia, which is revealed in the uncompromising nature of his criticism directed against autocracy and serfdom, against their corrupting effect on all sectors of society (“The rural life of the landowner in the old years”, “What is Oblomovism?").

The idea of ​​a deep social upheaval, the meaning of which Dobrolyubov saw in the socialist ideal (back in early 1857 he called himself a “desperate socialist”), is revealed by him in the articles “Robert Owen and his attempts at social reforms”, “Incomprehensible May strangeness ”, etc. Dobrolyubov’s arrival at Sovremennik contributed to the journal’s self-determination as an organ of democracy, his attitude towards liberals, who were completely satisfied with the government’s course, was extremely skeptical. The critic is irreconcilable in characterizing the liberal intelligentsia, seeing all the new evidence of "our manilovs", proves the need for a political demarcation of forces in the opposition environment, pins hopes on the "young generation".

Dobrolyubov's view of literature was deeply influenced by Belinsky. However, belonging to the era of sharp polarization of socio-political forces, Dobrolyubov, in contrast to Belinsky, for whom the value of art appeared in its entirety, focused primarily on the socially transformative role of literature. Dobrolyubov's criticism developed into a sociological and journalistic study of Russian life, which revealed its weakness - the danger of a utilitarian approach to literature as a means subordinate to a journalistic task.

Dobrolyubov's satirical application "Whistle"

A significant role in strengthening the radical direction of Sovremennik in 1859-1861. played the satirical department "Whistle", the initiator of the creation of which was Nekrasov, the main author is Dobrolyubov. Chernyshevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, as well as the brothers A.M. and V. M. Zhemchuzhnikovs and A. K. Tolstoy, who acted under the pseudonym Kozma Prutkov. A total of nine issues were published (in 1859 and 1860 - but three issues, in 1861, 1862 and 1863 - but one). The editors of Sovremennik even had an idea to turn the department into an independent newspaper. "Whistle" was the brainchild of Dobrolyubov. He outlined topics and authors, carefully developed the program of the upcoming newspaper, which, however, was not destined to appear. The vast majority of Whistle's materials were written in him.

In its ideological content, The Whistle was closely connected with the journalism of Sovremennik. Feuilletons, satirical couplets, poetic parodies were devoted to topical socio-political and literary problems. The main task of the Whistle was to combat the mania of accusation that gripped the entire writing part of Russian society on the eve of the reforms. Using irony and parody as forms of Aesop's manner of writing, Dobrolyubov ridiculed the liberals' enthusiasm for the successes of Russian progress. Widely using the forms of poetic parody and rehashing, Dobrolyubov the satirist acted under the guise of either a writer, an admirer of everything beautiful, admiring the eloquence of the heroes of the liberal press, then the unlucky Konrad Lilienschwager, then the “Austrian” but pa-chauvinist Jacob Ham, then in the image of a “young talent”, obsessed with an “unbearable love for poetry”, Apollon Kapelkin. A number of satirical reviews were written by him together with Nekrasov.

A significant place in the Whistle was occupied by the works of Kozma Prutkov, who in 1854 became one of the main employees of the Literary Jumble, the humorous department of Sovremennik. After five years of silence, this literary mask reappeared on the pages of Sovremennik and turned into the most popular character of Whistle. An active author of the Whistle was Nekrasov, who, after the death of Dobrolyubov in 1861, headed the department. The popularity of the "Whistle", according to contemporaries, was enormous, especially in 1859-1860, during the time of Dobrolyubov's leadership.

Question #15

The political position of the "Bells"

On April 13, 1857, the release of the Kolokol newspaper was announced. At first it was planned as "additional sheets" to the "Polar Star", but in the process of preparation it turns into an independent publication. The Bell came out on July 1, 1857 and ran for ten years. It was a long, difficult path, during which, in connection with changes in living conditions in Russia and with the evolution of the views of the newspaper publishers, its tactics, content, structure, and circle of authors changed. In its development, the "Bell" went through three stages:
1857-1861 - the period of rise and the highest popularity and influence of the publication (circulation reaches 3000 copies);
1862-1864 - the time of the loss of popularity and the cooling of the Russian reader (circulation drops to 500 copies).
1865-1867 - translation of "The Bell" to the continent, attempts to establish contacts with the "young emigration", lack of demand for publication in Russia.
Until 1858, The Bell was published once a month, then its frequency increased to twice a month, and from June 21, 1859, it was sometimes issued every week.
The first two issues of Kolokol did not yet contain materials sent from Russia. But already in the fifth issue (sheet), the editors reported on the huge amount of correspondence that came to the newspaper from the Motherland. By the time the Bell was published, contacts had been established with Russia, which gradually began to be established after the publication of the Polar Star.

Herzen's publications had a significant impact on the actions of government spheres. Information regularly reached the publishers that Alexander II himself was closely following Kolokol.

By 1857-1858. refers to the intention of a number of high-ranking officials to create a press organ that could oppose the Bell. The issue of publishing the anti-"Bells" was the subject of a special discussion at meetings of the State Council. However

By 1859-1860. refers to the polemic between Kolokol and Sovremennik about the attitude to accusatory literature and other issues, but with which discrepancies were identified in the programs of publications.
March 1, 1860 in the "Bell" was placed "Letter from the provinces" signed Russian people. The letter was a continuation of the controversy that flared up between Sovremennik and Kolokol.
An anonymous author reproached Herzen for insufficient radicalism, for striving for a peaceful solution to the peasant question, for the fact that the Bell had "changed its tone," that he should "bring the gospel not to a prayer service, but to ring the alarm," "calling Russia to the axe."

Herzen's preference for a peaceful "autocratic revolution" was associated at that time with hopes for the tsar, for the possibility of supreme power. These hopes were based on the historical experience of Russia, the development of which since the time of Peter I was largely determined by the actions of the government and the educated nobility. In addition, the publicist considers it impossible and immoral to call "to the axes" from London.

Controversy between Kolokol and Sovremennik in 1859-1860. showed that, given the common final goals, they saw the means of solving the peasant problem in different ways, and each of them pursued his own line. While Sovremennik categorically separated itself from the liberals before the reform, Kolokol sought to unite various opposition forces, trying to use every opportunity to liberate the peasants peacefully, through reforms.

On the pages of European newspapers in October - November 1861, reports were regularly published about student unrest in Russia. Kolokol responded to these events with a number of articles: “Petersburg University is closed!”, “About student beatings”, “Third blood!”, “The giant is waking up!”. Herzen greeted the students: “Praise be to you! You are starting a new era, you have realized that the time of whispering, distant allusions, forbidden books is passing. You secretly still print at home, but you are clearly protesting.”

Young Russia" expressed sharp criticism of the "Bell", accusing him of liberalism, and its publishers - of the loss of revolutionary spirit.
Herzen responded to the "Young Russia" proclamation and the events that followed it with the article "Young and Old Russia", published in Kolokol on July 15, 1862. Then this topic was developed by the publicist in the article "Journalists and Terrorists". These articles marked a new stage in Herzen's understanding of revolutionism. He emphasizes that a revolution can only be popular, and no conspiracy of the “educated minority” can make it, and therefore, “as long as the village, village, steppe, Volga, Urals are calm, only oligarchic and guard coups are possible.” Calling the people to the revolution, Herzen believes, is possible only when ready, "on the eve of the battle." Any premature call is “a hint, a message given to the enemy, and a denunciation of one’s weakness before him.” Replying to the reproach of Young Russia that the publishers of Kolokol had lost all "belief in violent coups,"

The theory of "Russian socialism" by Herzen acquired certainty in the means to achieve the goal. Choosing between revolution and reform and leaning most often towards a peaceful solution of problems, the publicist rejected extremism in all its manifestations, offered
multivariate development depending on specific historical conditions. These reflections were reflected in the cycle of letters "Ends and Beginnings" (1862), addressed to Turgenev and which was a continuation of the debate about the historical fate of Western Europe and Russia and the prospects for their development. According to Herzen, the revolutionary spirit of the West has died, bourgeois Europe has finished writing the last page of its history. He contrasts the European "ends" with the Russian "beginnings", which he sees in the rural community and in the emancipatory traditions of the Russian people. Moreover, speaking about the ways of development of the movement, he clarified that "the general plan of development allows for an infinite number of unforeseen variations." Thus, from an unequivocal decision in favor of the revolution to the events of 1848, Herzen, developing the theory of "Russian socialism" and correcting it in accordance with changing historical conditions, comes to realize the multivariance of development.

The situation in which Kolokol found itself in 1863, the loss of popularity that the newspaper's support for Poland led to, were not the result of Bakunin's influence, but were the result of a conscious choice of the leaders of Kolokol. Despite the difficulty of the choice, all the doubts and hesitations, when "I wanted to shut up", but "it was decidedly impossible to shut up." In an atmosphere of terror and reaction in Russia, Herzen could no longer refuse to support Poland, although this cost him the popularity of the Bell.

Bell” for Herzen was not only a political, but also a literary affair, and few of the young emigrants proved their abilities for literature.
At the beginning of the Geneva stage of publication, Herzen's main task was to redefine the environment of his readers, to create a network of permanent correspondents among them, so that the Bell could receive its former strength. Declaring to readers about the need to send not only articles, but also, in particular, correspondence, the editors paid special attention to the relevance of their content. The experience of previous years has shown that correctly chosen topical issues of Russian reality determined the popularity of "The Bell", its active participation in the life of Russia.

Having arisen during the years of social upsurge in Russia and relying on hundreds of correspondent readers, at the time of the decline of the democratic movement, deprived of direct connection with the homeland, the Bell could no longer continue its former existence. Understanding this and not wanting to be silent at all, Herzen plans to publish The Bell for Europe in French.

• General characteristics of the period. The emergence of a new literary trend - the "natural school". The role of fiction in the social life of Russia, the significance of literary criticism. Journals of the "merchant line" in the 1840s.

Journalism of the Slavophiles in the 40s. "Sinbir collection" D.A. Valuev and "Collection of Historical and Statistical Information about Russia and the Peoples of the Same Faith and Commonwealth" (1845). Magazine "Moskvityanin", its historical concept. Article by S.P. Shevyrev "A look at the modern direction of Russian literature." "Young edition" of "Moskvityanin" (1850s), participation in the journal A.N. Ostrovsky.

• Journalism of the "Gloomy Seven Years" period (1848-1855): creation of press committees, massacre of the Petrashevskyites, Herzen's emigration, Belinsky's death. Censorship of periodicals. The politics of journals during the "Gloomy Seven Years".

Journalism in the 1840s. Main literature: textbooks and teaching aids

• Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism (1703-1917). M., 2000.

• Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century. M., 2003.

• History of Russian journalism of the XVIII-XIX centuries. / Ed. prof. A.V. Zapadova. 3rd ed. M., 1973.

• History of Russian Journalism of the 18th-19th Centuries: Textbook / Ed. L.P. Thunderous. SPb., 2003.

• Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism: In 2 vols. V.1. L., 1950.

Journalism in the 1840s. additional literature

• Annenkov P.V.. Literary Memories. M., 1983.

• Berezina V.G. Russian journalism of the second quarter of the 19th century (1840s). L., 1969.

• Voroshilov V.V. History of journalism in Russia. SPB., 1999.

• Esin B.I., Kuznetsov N.V. Three centuries of Moscow journalism. M., 1997.

• Ivlev D.D. History of Russian journalism of the 18th-early 20th centuries. M., 2004.

• Kuleshov V.I. Slavophiles and Russian literature. M., 1976.

• Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature of 1826-1855. St. Petersburg, 1908.

• Lemke M. Essays on the history of Russian censorship and journalism of the 19th century (“The era of censorship terror”). St. Petersburg, 1904.

• Panaev I.I. Literary Memories. M., 1950.

• Pirozhkova T.F.. Slavophile journalism. M., 1997.

• Chicherin B.N. Moscow of the forties. M., 1929.

Journalism in the 1840s. Texts

• Aksakov K.S. , Aksakov I.S. Literary criticism. M., 1981.

• Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and aesthetics. M., 1979.

Journalism in the 1840s. General characteristics of the period

Slavophiles

• Slavophilism is one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 19th century.

• The identity of Russia - in the absence of class struggle

• in the Russian land community and artels,

• in Orthodoxy

• Negative attitude towards the revolution

• Monarchism

• Religious and philosophical concepts opposed to the ideas of materialism.

• They opposed the assimilation by Russia of the forms and methods of Western European political life and practices.

Westerners

• representatives of one of the directions of Russian social thought of the 40-50s. 19th century

• advocated the abolition of serfdom

• recognized the need for Russia to develop along the Western European path

Historical views of the Slavophiles

• Idealization of pre-Petrine Russia

• Rapprochement with the people

• Studying the history of the peasantry in Russia

• Collection and preservation of monuments of Russian culture and language:

• collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky,
• Dahl's Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language, etc.

In the 1840s, a sharp ideological struggle was waged in the literary salons of Moscow: A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. F. and K. K. Pavlov.

• Avdotya Petrovna Elagina,

• niece and friend of V. A. Zhukovsky, mother of I. V.

• and P.P. Kireevsky; one of the most educated

• women of her time, mistress of the famous

• literary salon

"Natural School"

• The term was first used by Bulgarin (“Northern bee”) as a contemptuous nickname for the literary youth of the 1840s.

• Rethought by Belinsky: "natural" - "true image of reality."

• Writers of the "natural school":

• I.S. Turgenev

• A.I. Herzen

• ON THE. Nekrasov

• F.M. Dostoevsky

• I.A. Goncharov

• M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin

Distinctive features of the "natural school"

• deep interest in the life of the common people

• a new hero - a native of the people's "lower classes"

• criticism of serfdom

• images of the social vices of the city, the contradictions of poverty and wealth

• the predominance of prose genres: novel, story, "physiological essay"

A.I. Herzen:

• “For a people deprived of public freedom, literature is the only tribune from the height of which he makes the cry of his indignation and his conscience heard”

Literary disputes of the 1840s.

• Dispute about Lermontov

• controversy around

• "Dead Souls"

• N.V. Gogol

• controversy around

• "natural school"

• "Lighthouse"

• "Library for reading"

1840s: "journal period of Russian literature"

• Publishing becomes a profitable business

• Responsibilities of an editor are separated from those of a publisher

• High fees are used to attract the right writers

• The number of professional journalists and writers is increasing: work in publications is becoming the only means of subsistence.

• Thick monthly magazines are the dominant type of publication, the ideological centers of the country's life.

"Son of the Fatherland" (1812-1852)

• changeover in editors. Polevoy's involvement in journal editing:

• defense of the official ideology
• misunderstanding of new literary trends, protection of the aesthetic principles of romanticism
• as a result - the lack of reader interest and the decline in circulation.

"Russian Messenger" (1840-1844)

• Publishers - N.I. Grech, N.A. Polevoy, N.V. Puppeteer

• criticism of progressive writers
• support for the "original Russian worldview".
• Circulation - 500 copies, irregular edition.

"Library for reading" (1834-1865)

• drop in circulation from 5 to 3 thousand copies
• the wit of Brambeus lost to Belinsky and Herzen
• rejection of the "natural school", an incorrect assessment of the advanced phenomena of literature

• "Gogol, as a novelist, is much lower than the Dollmaker"

• O.I. Senkovsky,

• 1852

Slavophile journalism in the 40s

• "Sinbir collection" D.A. Valuev (1845)

• "Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of her same faith and fellow tribes" ("Slavic") (1845)

Magazine "Moskvityanin" (1841-1857)

• Publishers:

• Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin

• Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev

Two periods in the existence of the journal

• 1) 1841-1851: the direction and composition of the closest employees remained almost unchanged

• 2) 1851-1856: the so-called "young editorial board" begins to play a leading role in the journal, and the appearance of "Moskvityanin" changes

The main sections of the "Moskvityanin"

• "Spiritual Eloquence"

• "Elegant Literature"

• "Science"

• "Materials for Russian history and the history of Russian literature"

• "Criticism and Bibliography"

• "Slavic news"

• "Mixture (Moscow Chronicle, Internal News, Fashion, etc.)".

Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev (1806 -1864)

• Russian literary critic, literary historian, poet

• 1835-37 - leading critic of the Moscow Observer

• since 1837 - professor at Moscow University

• Since 1841 - together with M.P. Pogodin, he headed the "Moskvityanin"

"Moskvityanin" was published,

• "Moskvityanin" was published,

• As he can, by himself!

• He's used to it! - will gather

• Wandering to the printing house

• Creeps to the binder

• Then crawl into the shop!

• Waiting, waiting for his reader,

• Scold, and go home!

• And the most respected publisher,

• However, my good friend,

• No matter how he issued it, out of hand!

• Dmitriev

"Young edition" of "Moskvityanin" (1851-1853)

• "Young edition":

• A.N. Ostrovsky

• A.F. Pisemsky

• A.Grigoriev

• L.A. May

• E. N. Edelson

• T. Filippov and others

“Old rubbish and old rags cut off all the shoots of life in the “Moskvityanin” of the 50s. You used to write an article about modern literature - well, let's say, at least about lyric poets - and suddenly, to amazement and horror, you see that the names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Khomyakov, Ogaryov, Fet, Polonsky, Mey got mixed into it in the neighborhood the names of Countess Rostopchina, Mrs. Karolina Pavlova, Mr. M. Dmitriev, Mr. Fedorov .. and oh, horror! - Avdotya Glinka! You see and you can't believe your eyes! It seems that I even read the last proofreading and the layout, - suddenly, as if by a wave of a magic wand, the named guests appeared in print!

• A. Grigoriev

"Moskvityanin"

"Gloomy Seven Years" (1848 - 1855) in the history of Russia

• Police measures intensified, the provinces were flooded with troops.

• Universities reduced the number of students and banned philosophy.

• Inspection of the content of journals, establishment of the "Buturlin Committee".

"Buturlinsky Committee", or "Committee on April 2"

• Standing Committee on Press Affairs with exclusive powers: the committee's orders were considered personal orders Nicholas I.

• The committee was silent. He did not replace, but controlled the censorship department.

Repressions against writers and journalists

• Saltykov-Shchedrin- exiled to Vyatka for the story "A Tangled Case"

• In 1849, a reprisal against the Petrashevites was organized, a rite of civil execution over Dostoevsky

• Slavophil Samarin exiled to Simbirsk province

• Police supervision of Ostrovsky established

• Arrested Ogarev, Satin

• Turgenev sent to his estate for Gogol's obituary

Journalism during the "Gloomy Seven Years"

• A number of magazines have been discontinued

• Journals have lost their strict direction

• The fundamental controversy ended

• Significant events are not covered

• The idea of ​​"art for art's sake" is discussed

• In large numbers appear:

• historical and literary works
• feuilletons
• scientific publications.

The forties of the 19th century usher in a new era in literature. The work of writers is increasingly focused on the ideological side of works and on deep inner mental work associated with the search for the foundations of a worldview that could satisfy the thirst for truth and lofty ideals.
This intellectual movement was prepared by many important events in the historical life of Russia. Its origin dates back to the reign of Catherine (Novikov, Radishchev), then consistently and steadily continues in the period of the twenties and thirties, capturing an increasing area of ​​spiritual interests.
The works of Pushkin and Gogol introduced the beauties of poetry, hidden in the depths of folk life. Historical and ethnographic studies penetrated deeper and deeper into this life, about which until now there were only vague and fantastic ideas, borrowed from alien sources and from wartime patriotic reports.
On the other hand, Western European literature increasingly enriched the awakening thought with whole revelations and opened up broad horizons. These were the general causes that led to the flourishing of literature in the forties.
The character of this period of Russian literature was directly influenced by the ideological movement which, as has been pointed out, manifested itself in the mid-thirties in the Moscow circles of young idealists. Many of the largest luminaries of the forties owe their first development to them. In these circles, the main ideas were born that laid the foundation for entire areas of Russian thought, the struggle of which revived Russian journalism for decades. , a strong ideological ferment was manifested in literary circles: they either converged on many common points, then diverged to directly hostile relations, until, finally, two bright literary trends were determined: Western, Petersburg, with Belinsky and Herzen at the head, which put at the head the corner of the foundation of Western European development, as an expression of universal ideals, and Slavophile, Moscow, represented by the brothers Kireevsky, Aksakov and Khomyakov, who tried to find out special paths of historical development that corresponded to a well-defined spiritual type of a well-known nation or race, in this case Slavic (see Slavophilism) . Passionate by temperament, adherents of both directions very often fell into extremes in their enthusiasm for the struggle, either denying all the bright and healthy aspects of national life in the name of glorifying the brilliant mental culture of the West, or trampling on the results worked out by European thought, in the name of unconditional admiration for the insignificant, even insignificant, but on the other hand, the national features of their historical life.
Nevertheless, during the period of the forties, this did not prevent both directions from converging on some basic, general and binding provisions for both, which had the most beneficial effect on the growth of public self-consciousness. This common thing that connected both warring groups was idealism, disinterested service to the idea, devotion to the interests of the people in the broadest sense of the word, no matter how differently the paths to achieving possible ideals were understood.
Of all the figures of the forties, the general mood was best expressed by one of the most powerful minds of that era - Herzen, in whose works the depth of the analytical mind was harmoniously combined with the poetic softness of sublime idealism. Without embarking on the realm of fantastic constructions, which the Slavophiles often indulged in, Herzen, however, recognized many real democratic foundations in Russian life (for example, the community).
Herzen deeply believed in the further development of the Russian community and at the same time analyzed the dark sides of Western European culture, which were completely ignored by pure Westerners. Thus, in the forties, literature for the first time put forward clearly expressed directions of social thought. She aspires to become an influential social force. Both warring trends, Westernism and Slavophiles, with the same categorical attitude set the tasks of civic service for literature.
With the advent of Gogol's The Inspector General and especially Dead Souls, a turning point occurs in Belinsky's activity, and he firmly establishes himself on the basis of a worldview, the main provisions of which have since formed the basis of all subsequent real critical school. Evaluation of literary works from the point of view of their social significance and the demand for artistic truth - these are the main provisions of the young real school, equally recognized as obligatory by both Westerners and Slavophiles. These same general propositions became guiding principles for the young artistic forces, which owed much of their spiritual development to literary circles and which were subsequently destined to occupy an outstanding position in Russian literature.
But the characteristic side of the forties was not only in the development of general theoretical propositions, but also in that intimate, mental work, in that spiritual process that most of the best people of the forties experienced and which was reflected in a bright thread in most of the works of art of that time. The main roles in this spiritual process were played by the awareness of the horrors of serfdom, which the previous generation did not even approximately have, and spiritual split: on the one hand, lofty dreams and ideals, perceived from the greatest creations of human genius, on the other, a complete consciousness of powerlessness in the struggle even with ordinary everyday failures, corroding, debilitating reflection, hamletism. This spiritual split is the key to understanding almost all the outstanding works of the period 1840-1860.
The consciousness of social ulcers led to a deep sympathy for the people enslaved for centuries, to the rehabilitation of their human personality, and at the same time of all the "humiliated and insulted", and was embodied in the best creations dedicated to folk life: in the village stories of Grigorovich, "Notes of a hunter" by Turgenev , in the first songs of Nekrasov, in "Poor People" and "Notes from the House of the Dead" by Dostoevsky, in the first stories of Tolstoy, in "little people" and in Ostrovsky's "dark kingdom" and, finally, in Shchedrin's "Provincial Essays". And all the spiritual chaos of the penitent, full of good impulses, but suffering from lack of will, tormented by reflection, the hero of the forties found expression in the creation of the most witty and deeply analyzed types of that time, such as those of Turgenev: Rudin, Lavretsky, Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district; Tolstoy: Nekhlyudov, Olenin; Goncharov: Aduev Jr., Oblomov; Nekrasov: "Knight for an hour", Agarin (in "Sasha") and many others. The artists of the 1940s reproduced this type in such a variety of forms, devoted so much attention to it, that its creation must be considered one of the most characteristic phenomena of this period. In their further development, many mental features of this type served for some major writers as the basis for a whole worldview.
So, Turgenev in the article "Don Quixote and Hamlet" undoubtedly had this type in mind, giving his psyche a universal significance. And in L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, it turns into the type of "repentant nobleman", becomes an expression, as it were, of nationwide repentance for all historical sins and is almost identified with their own worldview, giving them the opportunity, on the basis of this repentance, to approach the analysis of modern social evils and to a peculiar their illumination and understanding. Subsequently, the same type of "repentant nobleman" had a significant influence on the formation of the characteristic aspects of the trend known as populism, which sought in merging with the common people and serving them a means to clear their conscience by "paying the debt to the people", and in his spiritual warehouse and forms of his life who saw the elements to create the future ideal order of life.
The merits of the writers of the 40s include their humane attitude towards women, inspired by Pushkin's Tatyana and the novels of Georges Sand. It found its most poetic expression both in the brilliant pages of Belinsky's criticism, and in the artistic creations, first of Herzen ("Who is to blame", "Forty thief"), and then in the heroines of Turgenev's stories, who caused a number of imitators in the 60s and created a whole school of women writers

Topic: "Western" and "Slavophile" journalism of the 1840s.

1. Russia in the 1840s The theory of "official nationality" in the press in the 2nd paragraph of the 30s - early 40s.

2. Ancestors of "Slavophilism". Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov and Ivan Vasilyevich Kirievsky.

3. Slavophile publications.

4. The social meaning of "Westernism"

Literature

1. Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century: Textbook. – M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2002.

3. Blagova T.I. Ancestors of Slavophilism. A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kirievsky. - M., 1995.

4. Pirazhkova T.F. Slavophile journalism. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow. state. un-ta, 1997.

5. Chicherin B.N. Moscow of the forties. - M., 1997.

In the 40s. Х1Х century socio-economic contradictions continue to grow within Russia, which caused the movement of noble revolutionaries. Serfdom hindered the economic and cultural development of the country, the situation of the people remained difficult. From year to year, the discontent of the masses increases.

In the report of the III department for 1841 year recorded: “The idea of ​​the freedom of the peasants smolders between them continuously. These dark ideas are developing more and more and promise something bad. Peasants spontaneously rise to revolts and riots. According to far from complete data, 1830s gg. It was 105 peasant unrest, and 1840s - 273 unrest, i.e. almost in 3 times more. Lynching of landowners and arson of estates are becoming commonplace in the Russian countryside. The situation was so serious that the government at the end 1839 d. creates a special committee to consider measures related to alleviating the situation of the serfs.

The internal policy of Nicholas I was aimed at delaying the disintegration of serfdom by all means and preserving the landlord system.

Active defenders of the theory of "official nationality" in the press in the 2nd paragraph of the 30s - in the 40s were historian and journalist Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, writer and journalist Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev, Faddey Venediktovich Bulgarin, Stepan Anisimovich Burachek. Periodicals in the spirit of the theory of "official nationality" (autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality) are "Moskvityanin", "Northern Bee", "Son of the Fatherland", "Lighthouse", "Library for Reading" .

There are changes in public sentiment. The best people of their time no longer wanted to put up with the intolerable situation of the Russian population, with the age-old backwardness of their homeland. The example of the Decembrists inspired them to fight for freedom. The abolition of serfdom and democratic reforms became a historical necessity in the country. From 1840 to 1860, all social issues in Russia were reduced to the struggle against the serf system.

On the other hand, the defeat of the Decembrists forced the search for new ways for the further development of the country: methods and means of its implementation. It was on these issues that they disagreed. Westerners and Slavophiles. The problem on which the discussion began, maybe. is formulated as follows: is the historical path of Russia the same as the path of Western Europe, or does Russia have a special path and its culture belongs to a different type?

1. Ancestors of "Slavophilism". Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov and Ivan Vasilyevich Kirievsky.

The answer given by the Slavophiles about the essence and purpose of Russia is debatable. Nevertheless, they still have the lasting merit of clearly posing and discussing the problem of national Russian self-consciousness. The merits of the Slavophiles, despite the romanticism of their outlook on the Russian past, are great.

Slavophilism- a direction in the social, literary and philosophical thought of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. The main ideologists Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (May 1 (13), 1804 - October 5, 1860 - 56 years old). Born in Moscow, on Ordynka, in an old noble family, he was educated at home. In 1821 he passed the examination for the degree of Candidate of Mathematical Sciences at Moscow University. Actively published (poems, translations). In 1822, he was assigned to military service. F 1825 leaves the service, goes abroad, paints, writes the historical drama "Ermak". In 1828 - 1829. Khomyakov takes part in the Russian-Turkish war, after which he retires and leaves for his estate, deciding to take up farming.

Collaborates in various magazines. The main theoretical positions of Slavophilism are set forth by him in the article "Old and New"(1839). In 1838 he began work on his main historical and philosophical work, Notes on World History.

As a public figure, Khomyakov spoke from liberal positions for the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, for the introduction of freedom of speech, the press, etc. Since 1850, he has paid special attention to religious issues and the history of Russian Orthodoxy.

He considered the monarchy the only acceptable form of government for Russia, advocated the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, linking with it the hope of resolving the contradiction between power and land that arose in Russia as a result of Peter's reforms.

Being engaged in the treatment of peasants during the cholera epidemic, he fell ill. He died on September 23 (October 5), 1860 in the village of Speshnevo-Ivanovsky, Tambov province (now in the Lipetsk region). Buried in Moscow.

He is the father of Nikolai Alekseevich Khomyakov, Chairman of the III State Duma of the Russian Empire.

brothers Ivan Vasilievich and Petr Vasilievich Kirievsky - sons of the Orel landowner Vasily Ivanovich Kirievsky and Avdotya Petrovna, nee Yushkova. They are the champions of Slavophilism and representatives of its philosophy. The source of the European crisis of European enlightenment was seen in the departure from religious principles.

In his youth and youth, I.V. Kirievsky was little religious. It so happened that he married the spiritual daughter of Seraphim of Sarov, an intelligent, well-educated girl. At first, he did not like his wife's deep religiosity, and he allowed himself to blaspheme more than once in her presence.

The turning point happened during a joint reading of Schelling's writings, when it turned out that much of what Schelling wrote was known to his wife from the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church. This struck him so much that he himself began to read the works of St. Fathers and established relations with the elders of Optina Pustyn.

brothers Aksakovs (Konstantin Sergeevich and Ivan Sergeevich), Yuri Fedorovich Samarin. A literary and philosophical circle has developed around these people.

Slavophilism ideologically took shape in 1839, when Khomyakov in the cabin Avdotya Petrovna Elagina read the report "Old and New" . This is the mother of the Kirievsky brothers, her teacher was V.A. Zhukovsky, stayed with them on the estate, Elagina - the second surname, Kirievsky at one time opened at his own expense expanded the Oryol hospital where the wounded were kept, was an educated person, collected a library, died of typhus). Avdotya's house with Elagin (writer and translator) became the cultural center of Moscow in the 1920s and 1950s. Х1Х century Fellow students of her children, professors of Moscow University, writers, poets gathered.

Avdotya Petrovna actively participated in public life: she helped her son in the publication of the journal "European", petitioned for censorship permission for "Philosophical Letters of P. Chaadaev", was a translator Elagina spent the last years of her life on her estate, coming to Moscow only for the winter.

I.V. Kirievsky responded with an article "In reply Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov" , which was not intended for printing (published in 1861). Both of these documents became programmatic for Slavophilism.

The main idea of ​​the Slavophiles is only true, undistorted Christianity - Orthodoxy can give a person spiritual wholeness. Only the removal to Orthodoxy will eliminate the spiritual split that has plagued Russian educated society since the time of Peter the Great.

Kirievsky and Khomyakov understood that Russian philosophical thought was more deeply rooted in Christianity than Western thought. The salvation of Russia lies in the development of Orthodox education and Orthodox culture, and not in imitation of European culture.

A brilliant analysis of the contradictory nature of Russian and European principles was given by I.V. Kirievsky in the article "On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia".

In the history of Russia there has been a fusion of the spiritual values ​​of Orthodoxy with the life of the people. As a result, the "spirit of the people" took shape, thanks to which the people become the true subject of the historical process.

The greatest merit of the Slavophiles lies in the fact that they began to consider the nation as a spiritual phenomenon, and stopped the tendency of blind imitation of European culture.

The Slavophiles saw the community as the structural unit of the organization of Russian folk life, the main characteristic of which is self-government. The community structure is based on the principles of common responsibility, the development of joint decisions in accordance with the voice of conscience, a sense of justice, and folk customs.

They owned the timid idea of ​​democracy, which gave them the glory of the opposition. However, this was a noble reaction to the capitalization of the country, which became a characteristic feature of the life of Russia in the 1830s-1840s. The pressure of capitalist relations is intensifying. Trade, internal and external, is growing, industrial enterprises are growing, entrepreneurial methods are penetrating the noble estates.

The theory of Russia's special development was no less conservative than the idea of ​​"official nationality", despite the criticism of certain aspects of the autocracy. The attempts of the Slavophils to find some special properties, qualities of the national spirit were of an abstract nature. Objectively, they also defended the existing, only in an idealized form, cleansed of shortcomings. The Slavophiles dreamed of patriarchal, peaceful relations between the peasants and the nobility, the monarchy, and the Orthodox Church. In Russia there will be no revolution, no capitalism; philosophy, divorced from faith, is alien to it. Great hopes were placed on the rural community.

Many Slavophiles were indignant at serfdom and spoke out in favor of emancipating the peasants, but in their criticism they were moderate and did not want to part with noble privileges. It is also known that the Slavophiles rather sharply criticized the regime of Nicholas I, believing that the ruling circles of the St. Petersburg aristocracy did not care well about the interests of the country. That is why the government treated the Slavophiles with distrust, forbade their publications, although in their assessment of the autocracy, the Slavophiles have always been staunch supporters of the monarchy.

Chapter 8

JOURNALISM 1840s

§ 1. Ideological searches of the “epoch of consciousness”

Forties of the 19th century - one of the most interesting periods in the history of national journalism. This decade, outwardly not marked by any outstanding events, was a time of intense theoretical research, one of the key stages in the development of Russian social thought. The passionate devotion of the advanced Russian intelligentsia to the world of ideas and ideals, the selflessness of ideological quests created a special halo around this period and gave it special significance.

V. G. Belinsky called the 1840s "the era of consciousness." The specificity of the ideological life of these years was determined, first of all, by the process of decomposition of feudal-serf relations, the crisis state of the state system. This crisis manifested itself both in the economic and political life of society. There is an increase in the number of peasant uprisings against the landowners and, at the same time, an increase in political pressure from the autocratic state. The crisis of the feudal system in the forties became more and more evident in connection with the growth of capitalist relations within the feudal state. At this time, there is a rapid industrial development of the country, a revival of trade, an increase in the class of small producers. If in the economic sphere the crisis was just beginning to manifest itself, then in the sphere of ideological life it showed itself most clearly.

In the forties of the XIX century. the activation of social thought led to the search for the most effective means of influencing the consciousness of contemporaries. Journalism has become such a medium. "Journals-

everything is from a geek in our time, ”Belinsky wrote during these years. "The magazine is everything, and ... nowhere in the world does it have such great and important significance as ours." At the same time, the position of the press was determined by the policy of the autocracy in relation to the mass media. According to the censorship charter of 1828, Russian journalism was deprived of the right not only to criticize, but also to discuss any actions of the government and persons in public service, even those at the lowest rungs of the class and bureaucratic ladder. To strengthen control over periodicals, the government used Section III. As part of the imperial office, it stood not only outside the general system of government institutions, but also, to a certain extent, much higher than them. In 1841-1842. in the III Division, in addition to the four existing ones, a fifth, censorship, expedition was organized. She was entrusted with the "supreme supervision" of periodicals. The expedition received an obligatory copy of all publications published in Russia, the officials of the 111th Department were members of each censorship committee, the number of which increased to twelve. Oversight of the press was officially included in the terms of reference of the political police. The control of the press has become widespread.

In one of the memorandums in the III Department of F. Bulgarin, a loyal publisher of the "Northern Bee", contains a gay curious evidence of the vise in which journalism of that time was. Bulgarin wrote: “For example, if I discovered that the baker was drunk and insulted a passing woman, I would gain enemies: 1) the Minister of the Interior. 2) Military governor-general. 3) Chief of Police. 4) Police chiefs. 5) Private bailiff. 6) Quarter warden. 7) City non-commissioned officer. Even Bulgarin, who can hardly be suspected of freethinking, expressed dissatisfaction with such a system of multi-stage control over the press.

“The system of hiding the truth,” as Bulgarin called the police-bureaucratic machine that controlled public opinion in autocratic Russia, was functioning properly. Realizing the growing influence of the press on the mindset in society, the government in these years continues to expand its spheres of influence in this area. One of them is the strengthening of the provincial press. Since 1838, in 41 provinces of Russia, "Gubernskiye Vedomosti" began to appear, which were of an official nature. Their content was strictly regulated. "Provincial Gazette" consisted of two parts - official and unofficial. The official printed orders and orders of the provincial governments, permitted by the government

information about state affairs - as a rule, a reprint from St. Petersburg newspapers, most often from the Northern Bee. In 1846, a circular was created regulating the content of the unofficial part of Vedomosti. Here, “based on the definition of the provincial government, the following news could be placed: 1) about emergencies in the province, 2) about market reference prices for various needs, 3) about the state of both state-owned and private significant factories and plants, 4) about the privileges granted for invention and company formation, 5) about ways to improve agriculture and home economics, etc. The 22 points scrupulously list the topics that provincial journalists were allowed to cover. With such a system of government and gendarmerie control, the provincial statements of those years were, as a rule, mouthpieces of information of a government nature. In a secret circular order dated March 19, 1846, the chief of the gendarmes charged his subordinates with the obligation to have “unremitting monitoring of the provincial statements published in the provinces, reading them with attention, and to gain time to report directly to His Excellency the chief of the gendarme corps.” The very fact of encouraging publications in the provinces and close control over them testified that the tsarist government was aware of the importance of the press as a means of political influence on society. Proceeding from this, everything was done to slow down the development of private publishing activity and, conversely, to give scope to official publications. Departmental special editions were encouraged, mainly intended for a relatively narrow circle of readers, such as the Nouvellist, Musical Light, and also all kinds of Zapiski of various societies. In total, 53 publications were opened during the period from 1839 to 1848. Among them are 11 magazines, only 4 of which were of a literary and public nature: “Domestic Notes”, “Mayak”, “Moskvityanin”, “Finnish Vestnik”. The bulk of the publications, along with the "Provincial Gazette" were magazines, almanacs, collections. There were significantly fewer newspapers, and they, as a rule, were of a specialized nature. Only a few of them can typologically be attributed to literary and public publications.

The government treated such publications with particular suspicion: it was they who enjoyed the greatest success with the reader. In the early 1840s, an attempt was made to paralyze the "harmful" influence of Otechestvennye Zapiski by creating two new socio-literary journals, Mayak (1840) and Moskvityanin (1841).

They were headed by S. A. Burachek and M. P. Pogodin - writers, whose way of thinking was in full accordance with the official ideology. The government had high hopes that they would be able to resist liberal and democratic ideas. But that did not happen. The journals were published at a low professional level, did not take into account the needs of readers, and were not topical. The circulation of these publications was small, and the public impact could not be compared with the publicism of the "Notes of the Fatherland". "Mayak" and "Moskvityanin" preached official patriotism, and often militant obscurantism.

At a difficult historical crossroads, after the suppression of the Decembrists, in front of the “frightened in thought”, according to N.P. Ogarev, the country faced the problem of understanding the ways of further development, the place of Russia among other peoples and states. Revolutionary events in Europe became the catalyst for this process. In the bizarre interweaving of theories, doctrines, political schemes in Russian society in the forties, the main ideological currents were determined - feudal, liberal and democratic. The concepts of official nationality, Westernism and Slavophilism, as well as the ideology of Russian democracy, are being formulated.

The basis of government ideology was the so-called theory of official nationality. Its main postulates were formulated back in the 1830s by the Minister of Education S. Uvarov. The very fact of the appearance of this theory and the support that the government provided to it were natural. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, in connection with the strengthening of the liberation movement in Europe, the revolutionary events of the thirties in France, which shook the foundations of the Holy Alliance, the Russian government acutely felt the need for such an ideological system that could resist both the fermentation of minds within the country and the influence of public movements of the West, and in particular France, where the hated by the monarchs the word "revolution" again flashed in the civil lexicon.

The establishment of a single ideological regime in the country was seen as a reliable means against the influence of the revolutionary ideas of the "West." Uvarov called Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality "truly Russian protective principles", which, as he wrote, were "the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland ". The monarchical form of government, according to the concept, was declared the only one corresponding to the spirit of the Russian people, and serfdom - a natural state

loyal subjects; religion was called upon to sanctify these principles. "The task of theory is to subdue" stormy impulses towards the foreign, towards the unknown, towards the abstract in the vague realm of politics and philosophy, "to multiply, wherever possible, the number of mental dams."

At the other pole of public life in the forties, an opposite official ideology of Russian democracy was formed, which was distinguished by deep intolerance towards the feudal system, which hindered the development of the country, and the desire for a social reorganization of society. In the "great confrontation" of these ideologies, the ideological crisis of the feudal system was clearly revealed.

In the 1840s, liberal trends of Westernism and Slavophilism took shape. Despite the well-known conventionality of these terms, they quite accurately reflect the content and internal orientation of the ideological programs created by representatives of these trends. It should be noted that until the 1940s, Russian public thought, which was in opposition to the government, essentially did not know division, was to a certain extent homogeneous, despite the many shades within it.

Born by the crisis of the feudal system, the intensive search for ways to change the social system in the forties went in two directions. One section of Russian thinkers, the so-called Westerners, focused their main attention on the study of the historical experience of the West, the state structure of countries that are more developed economically and politically. The Russians were especially interested in France, which had experienced major revolutionary upheavals. The "Europeanization" of Russia, advocated by the Westerners, meant, first of all, the desire to include the country in a single process of world historical development.

Westerners were critical of serfdom, but the revolutionary nature of the transformations was alien to them. It is no coincidence that the final ideological demarcation in this camp occurred in the second half of the forties, when a revolutionary movement began in Europe. On the eve of the revolution, differences were clearly revealed between the liberal part of Westernism and its radical wing, headed by Belinsky and Herzen. Both Ge and others were focused on studying the historical experience of Europe. But the liberal part of Westernism was more interested in the problems of the state, cultural, economic development of Europe, which had embarked on the path of capitalist development. The ideologists of revolutionary democracy closely studied the social experience of Europe and, most carefully, the experience of the revolution.

Arising on the same axis of social tension as the Western

nichestvo, Slavophile direction in search of an ideal social order turned to the study of the history, political system and spiritual life of pre-Petrine Russia. The Slavophiles put forward the thesis about the original path of the historical development of Russia. This originality, in their opinion, was given to it by the fact that Russia, which adopted Christianity from Byzantium, did not know conquests and therefore formed its own way of social life, inherent only to it, based on the Christian community. The Slavophiles, who focused their attention on the religious foundations of Russian life, were alien to the idea of ​​the inevitability of revolutions and social upheavals. They rejected serfdom as a form of violence against a person, contrary to the spirit of Christian brotherhood. The criticism of serfdom by the Slavophils was sympathetically perceived by Belinsky and Herzen, but at the same time they subjected the theory of the Slavophils to sharp criticism for historical limitations and religious mysticism.

I [the presence of three political forces in society, three ideological camps was reflected in the press. The following directions are determined in the publications of this time. First of all, these are numerous publications of the official direction, reflecting the ideological guidelines of the feudal state: magazines of ministries (Ministry of Internal Affairs, public education, state property), provincial journals, Severnaya pchela, government bulletins and the bulk of specialized publications. In addition, the press of this period reflected the processes associated with the development of bourgeois relations and realized in the ideology of liberalism, which united political forces opposed to the tsarist autocracy - Westerners and Slavophiles. The ideology of revolutionary democracy was formed on the left flank of this direction.

The process of political differentiation of society in the forties was most directly reflected in the press. As Belinsky wrote, “journal opinions divide the public into literary coterie.” The reader's attention to one or another press organ was determined primarily by its direction, and this direction, in turn, was determined by that. what ideological positions the publication preached.

However, it is impossible to imagine the matter as if there were press organs that "sterilely" clearly adhered to one or another ideological orientation. In terms of political qualities, the press of the forties was an extremely complex, colorful and contradictory phenomenon. Almost every publication experienced ideological fluctuations over the course of a decade. This happened, for example, with the Moskvityanin magazine. Created as an organ of the official idea

ology, in 1845 it passed into the hands of the Slavophiles and, under the editorship of P. V. Kireevsky, changed direction. This period did not last long, only three months. Then the magazine returned to its original positions of the official nationality. In 1843 there were changes in the direction of the official newspapers Moskovskie Vedomosti and Russky Invalid. Despite the fact that these newspapers were controlled by government agencies - Moscow University and the Ministry of War respectively, they were rented by private individuals. E. F. Korsh became the editor of the unofficial part in Moskovskie Vedomosti, and A. A. Kraevsky became the editor of the Russian Invalid. Since that time, their content has been formed under the strong influence of the democratic journal Otechestvennye Zapiski. The same thing happened with the "Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti" in 1847, when A. N. Ochkin headed the newspaper.

The newspaper world of this period was not very diverse. The Russian reader still had a bad perception of the difference between a newspaper and a magazine. Defined since the 18th century. type of official newspaper like. for example, "Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti", was still firmly on its feet. A detachment of the official and semi-official press was represented by provincial journals and the semi-official "Northern Bee". Nevertheless, in the 1940s, some changes were observed both in the content model of newspapers and in the expansion of the typology of publications.

The type of “literary newspaper” that arose back in the early 1930s with the participation of A.S. Pushkin was finally approved in the 1940s. Literaturnaya Gazeta of that period became one of the leaders in the newspaper market and shared the democratic positions of Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Her creative biography consists of several periods, the most interesting of which were 1841-1845. At this time, I. A. Nekrasov actively collaborated in the newspaper, and in 1844-1845. - V. G. Belinsky, other authors of the Notes of the Fatherland were published. The social and literary position of the newspaper was clearly manifested in the controversy with the "Northern Bee" and other pro-government publications. The democratic press considered Bulgarin's publications as a means of disorienting the reader and constantly exposed their methods of influencing subscribers.

Approval of the principles of critical realism in literature, defense of the achievements of the "natural school" with its close attention to the tragedy of the individual in the conditions of an autocratic state, education of a thinking person who is critical of reality

reader - this is an incomplete list of issues raised by the newspaper.

The intensification of the controversy in Literaturnaya Gazeta with Bulgarin coincided with the campaign against the head of "reptilian" literature, which in 1842 and 1843. Belinsky was especially active in Otechestvennye Zapiski. In almost every article in the series "Literary and Journal Notes" he did not miss the opportunity to respond to the malicious attacks of the publisher of "Northern Bee" or comment on his opinion.

It was important for the progressive press to neutralize Bulgarin also because Gogol and Lermontov, i.e., writers whose work Belinsky associated with the development of a new method of literature - critical realism, were constantly criticized on the pages of his publications. The interpretation of Gogol's works is one of the main polemics of the forties. "Literaturnaya Gazeta" was in full solidarity with the position of "Notes of the Fatherland". It is characteristic that the main speeches of the newspaper about Gogol's work coincided in time with Belinsky's reviews in Otechestvennye Zapiski.

When Gogol's collected works were published at the end of 1842, Literaturnaya Gazeta hastened to immediately inform its readers about this. Commenting on this event, she called "wonderful" Gogol's story "The Overcoat" and the play "Marriage" for the first time published there. In the article, in a parodic form, all possible opinions of critics about Gogol's work were stated. And although not a single name was mentioned here, it was clear that the newspaper was fighting against the same targets as Belinsky: “In Moscow, they will begin to prove,” the reviewer ironically, “that Gogol is Aristophanes and Terence of the present century; others will refute this and show only that before and after Gogol there was not and will not be Russian literature; still others will find fault with typos and incorrect turns of language. “Finally, the fourth,” the author wrote, bearing in mind, of course, Bulgarin’s point of view, “will begin to prove that Gogol is a completely mediocre person, whom his friends glorify for dropping other satirical writers. Well, it will be a pure satire on Russian literature: where do we have these satirical writers who can be dropped and who could at least something to measure against Gogol.

For the purpose of controversy, Literaturnaya Gazeta used every hint. So, about Bulgarin, she caustically remarked: "He mixes the format with the size of the paper, and this is the same difference as in the works of Gogol and Bulgarin." The polemical meaning of this comparison will become clear if we keep in mind that Bulgarin repeatedly declared Gogol's lack of talent and argued that he could not be compared

even with such writers as Odoevsky and Sollogub, "who are taller than Mr. Gogol, like Chimboraso is taller than Pulkovo Mountain."

Along with the defense of Gogol against his false interpreters, the newspaper drew attention to the work of Lermontov. A review of Lermontov's "Poems" stated that the development of his talent "promised a lot of brilliant and imaginative". "Literaturnaya Gazeta" was one of the few Russian publications that reported the death of the poet. A message about this appeared in the 89th issue for 1841 under the heading "Literary and theatrical news". Apparently, for censorship reasons, the newspaper could not devote more space and attention to the death of the disgraced poet.

The performances of Literaturnaya Gazeta on issues of theatrical art are also of great interest. Let us name the main directions in which theatrical criticism developed on the pages of the newspaper. This is, firstly, a deep dissatisfaction with the theater repertoire, the desire to influence the formation of the aesthetic tastes of the viewer, to educate him in a critical attitude towards the entertainment theater that dominated then. Secondly, serious reflections on the specifics and purpose of dramatic genres, on the role of theatrical critic. Thirdly, the fight against the pseudo-patriotic works of the memorized Russian playwrights G. Obodovsky and N. Polevoy, the exposure of their anti-artistic essence.

In 1844 and 1845 in the newspaper, as already noted, Belinsky and Nekrasov collaborated most intensively. In the field of literary theory, Belinsky’s article “A Look at the Main Phenomena of Russian Literature in 1843”, published in the 1st and 2nd issues for 1844, and “On Parties in Literature” - in the 17th issue for 1845

Of great interest in Literaturnaya Gazeta was the Notes for Hosts section. It was led by A. I. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, a well-known Russian economist, author of the famous article “On the Causes of Fluctuations in Bread Prices in Russia”, which was published in 1847 in Otechestvennye Zapiski and received an approving review from Belinsky. In 1845, in the 8th issue of the Literaturnaya Gazeta, a note signed by Nikifor Rabotyagin appeared entitled “On the current state of bread prices in different places in Russia”, apparently written by Zablotsky, which can be considered a kind of blank for a large magazine article . The general democratic position of the newspaper was reflected even in such an insignificant, at first glance, subsection as "Kitchen". It was led by V. F. Odoevsky, who in the feuilleton

In some form, he ridiculed those whose "gastric functions are the main and only ones in life."

In 1845, a material appeared with the heading "Letters to Dr. Puf". In the first letter, the author, who called himself the dock of mountains Knuf, asked such questions, for example: “Tell me, why are there many, many people who have nothing to eat? What will your rich science give to the poor man who has chaff for his food? Teach me how to make consommé, salami, pudding or roast beef from chaff and water?” “... Do not forget,” the author warned, “that this is a very important subject. The poor, I think... make up the majority everywhere.” Allusions of this kind took on a social dimension, and the "Kitchen" section was only a kind of screen behind which topical thoughts were hidden.

In 1845, six weeks after the publication of F. Engels' book The Condition of the Working Class in England, the first Russian review of it appeared in the Literary Gazette, which indicated the publication's obvious interest in acute social problems.

The Moskovskiye Vedomosti newspaper changed direction from 1843, when E.F. Korsh became the editor. E. Korsh was friendly with Herzen, Granovsky, Ogarev and shared their views. Moskovskiye Vedomosti showed great interest in the study of social problems.

In particular, a lot of materials devoted to economic issues are published here. The issues of freedom of trade, tariff systems, scientific literature on economics were especially actively discussed. Moskovskiye Vedomosti became the initiator of controversy on these issues. At the same time, economic problems were considered together with social ones.

For example, the article “On the Future of Money”, published in 1846, can serve as a characteristic evidence. “Whoever has money,” it said, “he enjoys everything: honor, distinction, pleasure and peace. The rich man everywhere plays the main role, sets the tone, manages, orders. The poor means almost nothing or is only a thing that others use, deriving their own benefits from it. The article directly expressed the hope that such an order would be eliminated: "It is not possible to admit that the dominion of money and the perverse life resulting from it have before them an endless future."

The newspaper E. Korsh published sharp materials of an anti-serfdom nature, for example, "The Liberation of Negroes in the French Colonies." In an allegorical form, the article sounded demanding

the liberation of Russian peasants from serfdom, their position was directly compared with the slavery of Negroes.

This 1844 article attracted the attention of the censors, especially the following passage: “Slavery is against the laws of morality; it corrupts both master and slave; the former by giving him irresponsible, ceaselessly oppressive power over his slaves... the latter by likening him to cattle, replacing all rational activity with fear of the whip and blind obedience.” The chief of the gendarmes A. Orlov rightly found in it "a more extensive meaning and not related to only Negroes." The newspaper was warned, but despite this, in 1846, in the article “Slavery in the French Colonies”, these same thoughts were sharpened to the limit: “Slavery, which corrupts the masters and destroys the slaves, cannot be ennobled, but must be exterminated as as soon as possible."

In 1847, for the first time, an attempt was made to create a city newspaper. It was the Moscow City List. The newspaper lasted only one year. It came out 2 times a week and, judging by the content, intended to become a competitor to the leading newspaper of the country - Bulgarin's Northern Bee. The editor of the newspaper, V. Drashusov, made efforts to establish permanent information about the life of Moscow. In January 1847, the “Department of City Rumors” appeared, which soon gave way to others: “Trade Movement”, “Spectacles and Amusement”, “Announcements”, “Moscow”. But the newspaper failed to establish an information service.

The editors could not decide on the direction. The composition of the editorial staff was extremely varied. S. Shevyrev, M. Zagoskin, D. Veltman, writers and publicists of the official direction, published here, at the same time A. D. Galakhov, a regular author of Otechestvennye Zapiski, collaborated. The newspaper published an essay by A. I. Herzen "Station Edrovo". "physiological essays" by E. Grebenka, a writer of the "natural school", were published.

The inconsistency of the position of the Moscow City List can be illustrated by the following example. Starting with the 3rd issue, lectures by Professor of Moscow University S. Shevyrev "A General View of the History of Art and Poetry in Particular" were printed in it. In them, a lot of space was devoted to the fiction of the West. Western literature, according to the author, has become obsolete: "The mental personality of the West has ended its period."