Literary genres. Their classification. Memory of the genre. What is the music genre about? II. Lesson topic message

At all times, memory is such a primordial, natural code for the perception of reality, history, and the future that it is rarely recognized by the analyzing consciousness. To a certain extent, the reason for the lack of development of this phenomenon is explained by M.M. Bakhtin: “memory of a supra-individual body”, “memory of contradictory being” “cannot be expressed by monosemantic concepts and monochromatic classical images”, since “in a term, even a non-foreign language, there is a stabilization of meanings, a weakening of metaphorical power, polysemy and play are lost meanings" (Bakhtin, 1986: 520). Nevertheless, as one of the broadest and most fundamental categories, it can be perceived as a meta-category of literary criticism, since genetically literary literature, like culture as a whole, is one of the ways of collective memory, focused on the specific preservation, consolidation and reproduction of individual skills and group behavior.

In the broadest sense, memory is a general category that defines what remains from the past, a kind of “database” of past experience and information. At the same time, it is not only a “passive repository of constant information,” but also a generating, creative mechanism for its preservation. Obviously, this is an extremely general definition that requires clarification in each specific study.

This work explores the meaning, methods and means of expression, poetic functions of memory in the artistic consciousness of the 19th century.

The peculiarity of human memory is that it is no longer natural, but socio-cultural memory, which for an individual person consists of knowledge about one’s origin, about childhood, about one’s self. philosophical language this is called self-awareness, which, in turn, is associated with the concept of freedom. But a person deprived of cultural and historical memory: knowledge of his own history, experiencing history as a process of transforming the future into the present, the present into the past, a culture realizing itself as a “reflective” history of human development (Davydov, 1990).

The degree of development of the problem. We find the first attempts to understand the phenomenon of memory in Aristotle in his treatise “On Memory and Recollection” and in Plotinus in his treatise “On Sensation and Memory”. But a comprehensive and multifaceted study of the problem began only in the 19th century, primarily in psychology and philosophy. The main works on memory, written in the 20th century by A. Bergson, P. Janet, A. Leontiev, F. Bartlett, P. Blonsky, are of a distinctly philosophical nature, although they lay the foundation for a literary approach to the problem.

It is generally accepted that an important stage in the philosophical understanding of the problems of memory is associated with the report of Ewald Hering “Memory as a universal function of organized matter,” which he read in 1870 at a session of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna. In Hering's concept, memory is not only a generalized designation for certain biological and psychological factors, but also an explanatory principle. The development of skills, memories of past events in the life of an individual, the stages of its development, the birth of a new generation, the transmission of traditions and the continuity of morals - all this is explained in a single, universal property of organized matter - memory. H.-G. Gadamer will go further, insisting that “preservation in memory, forgetting and remembering anew belong to the historical states of man”: “The time has come to free the phenomenon of memory from the psychological equation with abilities and 4 to understand that it represents an essential feature, of course, of historical existence man" (Gadamer, 1988: 57).

But if initially memory is emotional and personal, then in culture a mobile, changing, but holistic image of the past is formed from the multivariance, diversity of modalities of individuals and microgroups. Appeared back in the 19th century. interest in collective representations (E. Durkheim), collective psychology(G. Le Bon, G. Tarde) inevitably had to connect with research in the field of memory. So the next step was taken, and memory became the focus of psychology (3. Freud, K.G. Jung, V.M. Bekhterev, J.I.C. Vygodsky, A.N. Leontiev), social sciences(M. Halfbacks, P. Janet, N.A. Berdyaev, R. Barth, K. Becker) from the point of view of the collective, as well as the connection between the individual and the collective. Thus, M. Halbwachs in his book “Social Boundaries of Memory” pays a lot of attention to the problem of group differentiation of “collective memory”. The researcher believes that a person retains the past in memory as a member of a group, or, more precisely, reconstructs it constantly anew, based on the experience of the group to which he belongs. In his opinion, there is a “collective memory” of families, religious groups, social classes (Yalbwachs, 1969: 421-422). Let us add that the concept of mentality in modern historiography (in particular, French) is built on the extra-personal aspects of individual consciousness, along with the unconscious, everyday, automated in human behavior. But it is difficult to agree with Halbwachs’s denial of the very possibility of the existence of individual memory, which would not be completely determined by the social context. The memory of an individual is not only a passive receptacle for the thoughts and memories of other people; it can also be considered as a creatively working and transformative mechanism. French researcher M. Dufresne in “Notes on Tradition” sees everything through the individual (1a tradition passe<.>par Tindividu"): “tradition is not simply a social 5 fact, objectified in social institutions and customs, to which we submit: tradition is the presence of the past in ourselves, making us sensitive to the influence of this social fact” (Dufrenne, 1947: 161 ).

Thus, we can talk about the memory of an individual, the intersubjective collective memory of social groups and the extrapersonal memory of culture.

Social memory manifests itself not as a simple component of individual memories, but as a specific, extremely complex and contradictory, intentional process of recreating the past in the actual present.

Already in the 19th century. The concept of memory is made, first of all, by the moral aspect as a category of social and artistic consciousness. Memory, like forgetting, becomes a key indicator moral qualities-personal, family, social, civil. It has a specific moral and value dimension, the understanding of which seems relevant both for philosophical and ethical theory and for literary criticism. In this case, memory acts as a reflexive process of creating an event that belongs to the past, but receives a value-semantic assessment in the present. Indeed, an individual’s memories are not just a mechanical summation of the past; they simultaneously have the property of an emotional and intellectual interpretation of the past, which reflects their assessment by the individual. Modern philosopher B.C. Bibler compares morality (“this conscience that torments me today”) with the trunk of an antediluvian tree, the rings of which symbolize historical forms moral idea. The “trunk” of morality is the more powerful, the more “annual rings” there are in its cut, the more memorable our conscience,” the researcher asserts, proposing to “slowly peer into the “annual rings of a tree cut”, “spiritually rely on the historically developed moral memory” ( Bibler, 1990: 17). This approach is anthropocentric in its essence, since it actualizes the axiological aspect, namely the study of the place and role of memory in the spiritual and practical development of the world by the individual. A memory is essentially an interpretation; every depicted memory is a reinterpretation. And the fact that memory prefers to transform rather than copy reveals its similarity to art.

But in art the moral aspect is inseparable from the aesthetic. This has been emphasized more than once by Academician D.S. Likhachev. In his book, he writes: “It is customary to divide time into past, present and future. But thanks to memory, the past enters the present, and the future is predicted by the present, connected to the past. Memory is overcoming time, overcoming death. This is the greatest moral significance of memory. The memory of the past, first of all, is “light” (Pushkin’s expression), poetic. She educates aesthetically” (Likhachev, 1985: 160, 161). MM. Bakhtin also insists that memory “holds the golden key of the aesthetic completion of personality.”

The study of the ethical and aesthetic aspects of the category of memory should become the subject of a systematic study of the memory of literature.

Suffice it to recall the development of problems in the study of memory in the work of the French philosopher Henri Bergson “Matter and Memory. Essay on the relationship between body and spirit,” which appeared back in 1896. Memory is considered by the scientist in a number of categories such as duration, freedom, intuition. To understand the mechanisms of memory, and ultimately the nature of intuition or the process of cognition, Bergson studied in isolation pure perception and pure memory, memory of the body and memory of the spirit, mechanical memory and image memory. The orientation towards Bergson also explains the thesis of phenomenologists that in memory we recognize ourselves in our sentient, spiritualized corporeality. In the complex process of remembering 7, the memory of the body, formed from a set of sensorimotor systems organized by habit,” is only a means of materializing “subconscious memories,” since “in order for a memory to reappear in consciousness, it is necessary that it descend from the heights of pure memory

To that strictly defined point where the action takes place” (Bergson, 1992: 256).

For our research, it was also fundamentally important to understand the connection between memory and thinking in the work of P.P. Blonsky (Blonsky, 2001). The scientist showed that the four types of memory - motor, affective, figurative and verbal - represent four successive stages mental development person. Methodologically significant is the opinion of Pierre Janet that only with the use of language does real memory arise, for only then does the possibility of description arise, that is, the transformation of the absent into the present. Therefore, truly human memory

This is a memory-narrative (recit), a means of a person mastering his own internal subjective world, structurally formalized in speech. And only when the logical and grammatical design of communication begins to play a particularly important role does the concept of the present, and then the future and the past, become isolated. Orientation in time has the opposite effect on memory, turning it into logical memory, based on awareness of the necessary connection of events. And finally, since from the point of view of the structure of those participating in these processes psychological mechanisms memory is a “retelling to oneself”; it thus determines the development of language (Janet, 1928: 205, 219, 221, 224, 225). The correlating role of memory in the structure of consciousness is considered by S.L. Frank: “Memory,” as we know, exists common name for the totality of many diverse phenomena and features of mental life and consciousness” (Frank, 1997: 149). In the work “The Soul of Man” S.L. Frank's special

The section is devoted to the nature and meaning of memory, its phenomenological 8 essence. The philosopher comes to the conclusion: “Memory is self-knowledge or self-awareness, knowledge of the internal content of that subjective world, which we in the broad sense of the word call our life.” “Strictly speaking, this objective little world exists only by virtue of memory” (Ibid.: 150) as “a sphere in which the absolute unity of being comes into contact with the partial potential unity of our spiritual life” in the “supratemporal unity of our consciousness” (Ibid.: 152) . At G.G. Shpet we find an understanding of “cultural consciousness” as “cultural memory and memory of culture” (Shlet, 155, 156). D.S. speaks more than once about the history of culture as “the history of human memory, the history of the development of memory, its deepening and improvement.” Likhachev (Likhachev, 1985: 64-65).

Genetically, fiction, like culture in general, is one of the ways of collective memory, focused on the specific preservation, consolidation and reproduction of individual and group behavior skills. An interesting theoretical model of the relationship between memory and culture was formed in the works of Yu.M. Lotman and B.A. Uspensky (Lotman, Uspensky, 1971: 146-166; Lotman, 1992: 200202).

Any culture, in their opinion, consists of memories, encoded elements of preserved past experience, which exist in a wide variety of forms, ranging from written texts, monuments, works of art and ending with folk customs, rituals and traditions, all that Lotman and Uspensky summarized are called "texts". Accordingly, according to I.P. Smirnov, memory becomes a semiotic concept: “Semantic memory is formed by information extracted by an individual not from the world directly perceived by him, but from all kinds of substitutes for actual reality. In other words, semantic memory is a repository of texts and messages we have learned” (Smirnov, 1985: 135). Yu.M. Lotman considers culture as the “non-hereditary memory” of the collective as a “supra-individual mechanism for storing and transmitting certain messages (texts) and developing new ones.” Any cultural memory, in his opinion, forms a context. Every context is a component of a broader system of cultural memory (social, intellectual, religious), a single whole consisting of interdependent parts connected by a common idea or scheme.

The long-term memory of a culture is determined by its own set of texts that have existed for a long time, with corresponding codes. Together they form a cultural space, “a space of some common memory.” Texts that have been preserved for centuries contain certain semantic invariants that can be updated and revived in the context of a new era. By semantic invariant, Lotman means something that, in all its various interpretations, retains “identity to itself.” Any invariant, by definition, is part of cultural memory. Therefore, according to I.P. Smirnov, “further development of intertextual theory will have to merge with the theory of memory” (Ibid.). The idea that an invariant gives rise to variants will be fundamental for this study, since for the literature of the 19th century. the wide range of variations of invariant motives from imitation to subversion is highly characteristic.

Depending on the type of information stored, texts fall into two categories. The first, according to Lotman’s terminology, are texts of “informative memory”. They store factual, scientific and technological information. Information memory “has a planar<.>character” because it “is subject to the law of chronology.

It develops in the same direction as the flow of time, and in agreement with this flow.” The second category includes texts of “creative (creative) memory,” which Lotman calls “memory of art.” For creative memory, “the entire thickness of texts” turns out to be “potentially active.”

The transformative role of memory is pointed out by P.A. Florensky, for whom “memory is an activity of mental assimilation, i.e. creative reconstruction from ideas - that which is revealed by mystical experience in Eternity" (Florensky, 1914: 201). When we talk about artistic creativity, we are concerned not so much with the accumulation of information about reality, but with the transformation of this reality by the human imagination in a potentially creative union with cultural memory. Therefore, it is extremely important for understanding nature artistic creativity is the connection between memory and imagination, already noted by Aristotle and Plotinus. The object of memory for them is images, representations. The imagination, possessing the image of an already disappeared sensation, “remembers.” The awareness of the connection between memory and imagination is already present in the first work of JI.H. Tolstoy’s “Childhood”: “So many memories of the past arise when you try to resurrect in your imagination the features of your beloved being, that through these memories, as through tears, you dimly see them. These are tears of imagination" (I: 8). Essentially, the mechanism of interaction between memory and imagination was outlined by A.N. Veselovsky, highlighting “poetic formulas” as “essential elements for communication”: “these are nerve nodes, the touch of which awakens in us a series of certain images, in one more, in another less, as we develop, experience and ability to multiply and combine the evoked image of association" (Veselovsky, 1913: 475).

I. Kant in his “Anthropology” describes the connection of memory with reason, with imagination, sets out the division of memory into “mechanical”, “symbolic”, and “systematic” (Kant, 1900: 57-60). We also find the division of memory into “natural” and “artistic” in the rhetoric of Stefan Jaworski “The Rhetorical Hand”, translated from Latin in the early 1710s, but, unfortunately, the concept of “artistic memory” remained outside the national theoretical framework. literary consciousness of the 18th century.

In Russian cultural tradition Interest in memory problems has been intensifying since the end of the 19th century. I.A. speaks more than once about the creative power of memory. Bunin, contrasting it with the “everyday meaning” of the concept: “... living in the blood, secretly connecting us with tens and hundreds of generations of our fathers who lived, and not just existed, this memory, religiously resounding in our entire being, is poetry, the most sacred heritage ours, and it is this that makes poets, dreamers, clergy of the word, introducing us to the great church of those who lived and died. That is why true poets are so often so-called “conservatives”, i.e. guardians, adherents of the past" (Bunin, 1997: 195), possessing "especially living and especially imaginative (sensual) Memory" (V: 302). Therefore, the words with which Bunin begins “The Life of Arsenyev” are also significant: “Things and deeds that are not written are covered with darkness and are consigned to the grave of unconsciousness, but written as if they were animated.” (VI: 7). According to O.A. Astashchenko, this quote, borrowed in a slightly modified form from a handwritten book by a Pomeranian preacher of the 18th century. Ivan Filippov’s “A Brief History in These Answers” ​​sets the tone for the entire narrative, being a kind of epigraph to the novel (Astaschenko, 1998: 12). The image of the “mirror of memory” as an adequate reflection of the past is also not accidental. Although the artist’s image is not mirror-like, it is selective and wears creative nature. According to the late Bunin, artistic memory can elevate a person above the chaos of passing life.

Vyach. Ivanov also interprets Memory as a collective force of existence that prevents the world from crumbling into chaotic oblivion, which the researcher calls “oblivion.” He distinguishes between Eternal Memory, Memory

12 eternal and simple memory. The meaning of this diversity lies in the postulation of the energetic impact of the Pre-Eternal Memory on the Eternal Memory and, through it, on human memory.

MM. Bakhtin in his later notes, reflecting on the “model of the world that underlies every artistic image,” also refers to the “great experience of humanity,” in which “memory that has no boundaries, memory that descends and goes into the subhuman depths of matter and the inorganic life of the worlds and atoms”, is preserved in the “system of folklore symbols formed over thousands of years”, providing “the intellectual comfort of a world inhabited by millennia of thought” (in contrast to “symbols” official culture"with their "little experience", pragmatic and utilitarian). And the history of an individual person begins for this memory long before the awakening of his consciousness (his conscious self).” “This great memory is not a memory of the past (in the abstract-temporal sense); time is relative in it. That which returns eternally and at the same time is irrevocable. Time here is not a line, but a complex shape of a body of rotation.” Answering the question “in what forms and spheres of culture is embodied “great experience, great memory, not limited by practice,” Bakhtin singles out: “Tragedies, Shakespeare - in terms of official culture - are rooted in non-official symbols of great national experience. Language, unpublished patterns of speech life, symbols of laughter culture. The basis of the world is not processed and rationalized by official consciousness” (Bakhtin, 1986: 518-520).

Modern literary studies on memory problems, and there are more and more of them (Maltsev, 1994; Ryaguzova, 1998; Thompson, 1999; Evdokimova, 1999; Fedotova, 2000), are based primarily on the theoretical calculations of M.M. Bakhtin and Yu.M. Lotman. A comprehensive analysis and dialogical approach to understanding the phenomenon of memory can only be achieved through the efforts of many researchers of the past, present and

13 future. Therefore, the accumulated knowledge, awareness of the need for their scientific interpretation, philosophical and literary understanding of memory convince the author of this work of the need for further development of the problem. Lack of research that comprehensively covers the empirical material of the work and its theoretical basis, determined the relevance of the dissertation topic.

Understanding memory as the most important form of national self-awareness, defining the universals of national culture, forms theoretical approaches and criterial foundations for the analysis of literary texts, allows us to consider cultural heritage as a complex subjective-objective structure that operates with global philosophical concepts“tradition”, “time”, “eternity”, “value”, “symbol”, “culture”.

Memory seems to be one of the highest mental abstractions, constituted as an integrity in which a number of ontological layers are distinguished and which, thanks to this, functions simultaneously both as a bearer of ideal meaning and as a set of sensually perceived signs. In art, historical and cultural memory is materialized through a complex of archetypal values, ideas, attitudes, expectations, stereotypes, myths, etc., connecting the past with the present. Conventionally, they can be combined into three large groups concepts of history, tradition, myth as forms of revealing the Eternal. In each of the forms, the temporal is not denied, but is revealed by its special facet associated with the timeless. Here, both the objective-spiritual aspects of memory are realized (memory appears as a form of social consciousness, as an “experience of relationships”), and its subjective-spiritual, personalistic aspects.

The concept allows us to combine a variety of layers of Russian literature, starting with interest in history in the 19th century. and ending with such concepts as patriarchy, tradition, national identity, which

14 are built on understanding the fundamental, permanent, that is, from generation to generation, from century to century, repeating features and forms of life. In addition, it is possible to analyze biblical themes, motives, reminiscences in the light of philosophical, moral, and aesthetic categories. In the 19th century These categories practically did not become the object of literary analysis, but were an integral part of reflections in the artistic text on the national character, on the social, ethical and aesthetic ideal, on the past and future of Russia. This determined the following research goals:

Based on an analysis of works of Russian literature of the 19th century. to give a comprehensive understanding of the category of memory by the artistic consciousness of this time, to consider memory not only as a theme or subject of a work, but as a principle of artistic construction, to show the place and role of memory in the structure of the text;

Identify the cognitive content of mnemonic images, symbols, forms, specificity and unity in it of concrete sensory, irrational and abstract logical elements of cognition;

Based on the analysis of archaic consciousness, approach to understanding the specifics of the anthropological component of the cultural and historical process of the 19th century;

There is an obvious need to consider the category of time, to compare the momentary, temporary and eternal. Moreover, time, both as a subjective sensation and as an objective characteristic of a person’s existence, is significantly connected with the moral and value content of her life. The existence of temporary layers is an objective reality, but, according to N.O. Lossky, “the world cannot consist only. from that being which, having a temporary form, instantly falls into the past and is replaced by a new being that has the same fate.” The philosopher’s reasoning is anthropocentric at its core, since “the ideal would

15 “thing that does not have a temporary form” is thought of by him as “our self” (Lossky, 1994: 296). But what makes “our self” such a “supra-temporal being” is memory, in which the simultaneous presence of the past, present and, to some extent, the future is possible.

Specific research objectives!

Identify the ontological foundations of the concept of memory and the forms of its existence in a literary text;

Explore the anthropological foundations of memory as an archetypal form of expression of personal and collective experience;

Consider the conditionality of the literary interpretation of memory by the sociocultural axiological factors of the era;

Determine the place of this category in the artistic picture of the world of the 19th century.

Fulfillment of the assigned tasks is possible not only on the basis of methods of traditional literary criticism, but also with the help of phenomenological, hermeneutic, psychoanalytic approaches to understanding the essence of memory and human cognition in general. In particular, the phenomenological analysis of the category memory involves the implementation of the following methodological principles:

Analysis of the layer-by-layer structure of the phenomenon of memory and its embodiment in a literary text of the 19th century;

Ontological study of this object of knowledge;

Identification of the cause-and-effect relationships of the phenomenon with the historical and literary situation of the 19th century.

A systemic-structural approach to understanding memory will allow us to consider this phenomenon in the unity and interconnection of artistic, ontological, anthropological and axiological elements, sides and aspects. The versatility of the problem required the combination of genetic and evolutionary principles of studying the literary series, attracting

16 concepts and terms that are already characteristic of modern literary criticism (chronotope, archetype, mythologem, etc.). At the same time, we will try to organically introduce them into the literary process under study, adhering to its inherent hierarchy of values ​​and spiritual attitudes. For example, literature of the 19th century. does not know the word chronotope, but already combines the concepts of space and time in his reasoning. Let us recall the thoughts of Tolstoy's Levin: “...In infinite time, in the infinity of matter, in infinite space, a bubble-organism stands out, and this bubble will hold on and burst, and this bubble is me” (XIX: 370).

G.S. Batenkov, perhaps for the first time in the 19th century. uses the concept of space in a “purified” terminological designation of the model and composition of “non-spatial” phenomena (Batenkov, 1916: 45). Highlighting the space of thought, faith, love, memory, he spoke for the first time about the “sense of space” (Batenkov, 1881: 253). Undoubtedly, the concept of historical and cultural memory initially has spatiotemporal characteristics, and for us this will be a kind of tool for comprehending all its complexity.

In the 1820-1830s. a whole range of problems emerged with particular urgency, in which questions of the philosophy of history, its methodology, questions of understanding the history of Russia, reflections on the peculiarities of literary process, ethical and aesthetic criteria for assessing events of our time and the distant past. Therefore, it is natural that this time became the starting point in our research.

Particular attention is paid to the middle of the 19th century, since the existence of traditions becomes problematic in times of cultural turning points, the breakdown of cultural paradigms and the restructuring of the canon, when marginal elements begin to invade the well-functioning literary process, being interpreted over time as an innovation.

On the other hand, it was not possible, while declaring the continuity and succession of tradition, to strictly limit the choice of writers and works to the time frame of the century. To a certain extent, it was Russian, mostly emigrant, literature of the early 20th century. completed the classical tradition. Such a broad time paradigm made it possible to include a large range of authors in the field of research. Therefore, the research material was the work of N.A. Lvova, N.A. Polevoy, V.I. Dalia, A.I. Herzen, A.A. Feta, I.A. Goncharova, S.V. Engelhardt, L.N. Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina, A.P. Chekhova, I.A. Bunina, B.K. Zaitsev and other writers.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation. For the first time, the meaning, methods and means of expression, poetic functions of memory in the artistic consciousness of the 19th century are explored in such a volume. The category of memory is the basis for a systematic analysis of a work of art. The literary interpretation of memory undertaken in the work, its place in the structure of a literary text mid-19th V. made it possible to reveal new aspects of the problem, to clarify such initial concepts for the analysis of this category as tradition, patriarchy, memory, time and eternity, myth-making.

The practical value of the work is determined by the relevance of developing modern approaches to understanding the spiritual situation of the time and the literary process. The results of the study can be widely used in the formulation and analysis of the main problems of the course on the history of literature and a number of special courses exploring the philosophical, cultural and literary aspects of the theory of memory.

Approbation of research results. The main ideas and results of the study are presented by the author in the monographs “Ethical and axiological aspects of memory in the figurative structure of a work of art”

18th and 19th centuries" (Kursk, 2003. - 14 pp), as well as in a number of articles, speeches at regional, Russian, international conferences: Tula, 2000; Pskov, 2000; Kursk-Rylsk, 2000; Kursk-Orel, 2000; Kursk, 2000, 2001, 2002; Lipetsk, 2001; Moscow, 2001, 2002, 2003; Tver, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; St. Petersburg, 2002; Voronezh, 2002, 2003; Voronezh-Kursk, 2003; Kaluga, 2003.

The research materials formed the basis of the interactive special course “Ethical and axiological aspects of the category of memory in Russian literature and culture of the 19th century.”

Structure and scope of work. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two parts, each of which contains two chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography (list of the main literature used).

Conclusion

So, memory underlies the conventional sign system, which allows us to produce and express the world artistic ideas and images. As a meta-category of literary criticism, it forms theoretical approaches and criteria for the analysis of a literary text, and allows us to consider cultural heritage as a complex subject-object structure.

MM. Bakhtin was sure that “in the world of memory, a phenomenon appears in a completely special context, under conditions of a completely special pattern”: “cultural and literary traditions (including the most ancient) are preserved and live not in the individual subjective memory of an individual person and not in any then the collective “psyche”, but in the objective forms of culture itself,<.>and in this sense they are intersubjective and interindividual;<.>hence they come into works of literature, sometimes almost completely bypassing the subjective individual memory of the creators” (Bakhtin, 1986: 281). But the indivisibility of “collective memory” remains convincing only as long as the study does not assume a specific existentially existing person (and not such a construct as a historical subject), who embodies and realizes historical and temporal experience in different ways. Therefore, it is advisable to talk about the memory of an individual, the intersubjective collective memory of social groups and the extrapersonal memory of culture. The structure of this work is determined by the need to consider different forms of existence of memory.

The study of “genre memory” allows us to trace the evolution of genres, identify their constructive features, and show both dynamics and statics in the development of individual genre forms. The memory of such “first phenomena” of a whole range of narrative genres as legends, legendary-historical and mythological traditions, parables, biography (biography) in the 19th century. persists in all complex genre formations.

It is obvious that the study of genres is closely related to the analysis of the narrative structure of specific texts, the idea of ​​​​the subjective and spatio-temporal organization of the work. Sometimes the author’s intentions are specifically stated at the beginning of the narrative: “I intend to write not an autobiography, but a history of my impressions; I take myself as an object, as a completely outsider, I look at myself as one of the sons of a certain era, and, therefore, only what characterizes the era in general should enter my memories” (Grigoriev A.A., 1980: 10 ).

Consideration of the narrative structure reveals ways of constructing a prose text through the characteristics of the subject of speech in his relation, on the one hand, to the addressee, on the other, to the real author of the work. Thus, researchers agree that it is almost impossible to distinguish an autobiography from autobiographical novel, which completely imitates it (M. Malikova, J. Genette, F. Lejeune). The main condition for perceiving a text as autobiographical is the identity of the author, narrator and hero. If in the first they are identical, then in the second - the identity of the narrator and the hero, although they do not coincide with the name of the author. Using the terminology of M.M. Bakhtin, we can say that the one we read about does not have the excess memory necessary to write about himself, but such an excess is possessed by the one who narrates his past from another point in time and space, and this excess of artistic vision is the criterion that allows us to separate them. At the same time, the narrator turns out to be both an object and a subject

327 of the narrative, his immediate experience and later awareness of any fact are fused together, he is simultaneously captured by the event and sees it from the outside. Temporal certainty and repeated chronological reference turn out to be imaginary. The autobiographical hero lives in his own subjective time, within which he freely moves in any direction. The construction of a work according to the laws of memory also becomes a conscious artistic technique: on the one hand, the inconsistent, impulsive, often subconscious nature of the memory process, based on the flow of associations, is emphasized; on the other hand, there is a strict selection of both material and artistic means.

The evolution of ideas about memory in prose of the 19th century. led to a sharp increase in the number of means that create a figurative idea of ​​the fragmentation of memories, their discrete and associative nature, displacement and confusion of objective and subjective plans; strengthening the role of mythological images and expanding the range of quotes.

Myth, legend, history act as various forms of objectification of memory and, above all, creative memory that is interesting to us. Biblical imagery forms in the works of the second half of the 19th century. not only and not so much a plot-genre layer, as it forms an existential-worldview level. "Memory of Myth" plays special role in the formation of the philosophical and ethical level of Russian literature. Biblical texts, perceived in their mythological and historical specificity, set the most important direction creative work memory in the work. The plots, themes, and motifs of the Bible, which have received figurative, plastic expression and carry fixed meanings, give a timeless meaning to everyday life, introducing it to eternity, from the reproduction of sensory sensations they lead to the underlying transcendental reality of a moral or philosophical plane.

The specificity of the perception of the biblical plot in the middle of the century is that the consideration of “eternal” themes turns out to depend on the priority of rational and emotional approaches to issues of faith. The mind-heart antinomy is the broadest and most comprehensive opposition in the literature of the middle of the last century. The combination of truth and reason, truth and faith, truth and freedom is at the forefront of most outstanding works of Russian literature, as is the combination of “historical truth” and “poetic truth.”

Perhaps the impossibility of an unambiguous answer to the biblical question also gives rise to doubt about the absolute value of truth: each of the writers in his own way sees an alternative to this concept: truth and God, truth and faith, truth and mercy.

Ethical and axiological properties of memory in the artistic consciousness of the 19th century. can be most productively considered through the phenomenon of history and tradition as forms of existence of “collective memory”. They realize both the objective-spiritual aspects of memory (memory appears as a form of social consciousness, as an “experience of relationships”), and its subjective-spiritual, personalistic aspects, since fiction is interested not so much in history, rite or ritual as such, but the well-being of a person in them.

For artistic consciousness, a spiritually imaginative perception of history, which comes primarily through tradition, is also important. Russian philosophers of the early 20th century, in particular P.A. Florensky, N.A. Berdyaev more than once point out that memory is the eternal ontological beginning of history, realizing itself primarily in tradition. “Outside the category of historical legend, historical thinking is impossible. Recognition of tradition is some a priori - some absolute category for all historical knowledge" (Berdyaev, 1990: 20). Since history is a reality of a special kind, that is, not “an empiricism given to us, naked factual material»,

329 then memory is devoid of psychological definitions such as an innate ability to imagine, but is recognized as “spiritual activity, as some specific spiritual attitude to the “historical” in historical knowledge, which turns out to be internally, spiritually transformed and spiritualized” (Berdyaev, 1990: 26).

No less important is the reflection of national self-identification in literature, since mentality as a specific essence of social consciousness is an integral part of the broader concept of “social memory”. We have already come to the realization of such a need writers XVIII c., reflecting on the “spirit of the nation”, “spirit of the people”. By the beginning of the 19th century. memory is recognized as the most important guarantee of “independence” (A.S. Pushkin), which P.V. Kireevsky in a dispute with P.Ya. Chaadaev will formulate as follows: “I feel more vividly every hour that the distinctive, essential property of barbarism is forgetfulness; that there is neither a high deed nor a harmonious word without a living sense of self-worth, that there is no self-esteem without national pride, and there is no national pride without national memory.”

Various forms of tradition are deposited in the “collective memory” of social groups, ensuring continuity in their cultural development, and form the characteristics of the mentality, which reflects a specific type of both individual and collective thinking.

As a way of life, based on the fundamental foundations of Russian life, its customs, traditions, and centuries-won moral values, a patriarchal way of life can be called, in which the “social memory” of the nation, including the cultural, historical, social experience of previous generations, is a kind of universal the cultural and ethical basis of the world, which has its own spatial and temporal characteristics.

Overall concept historical memory is inextricably linked with the category of time, therefore the interdependence of the categories of memory and time becomes the basis for the philosophical understanding of existence as a whole. If G.R. Derzhavin and the “river of times”<.>drowns peoples, kingdoms and kings into the abyss of oblivion,” and “will be devoured by the mouth of eternity And the common fate will not escape,” then in the 19th century. an idea is formed about the connection of times and the possibility of gaining memory and immortality in eternity.

In conclusion, let us refer to the opinion of A.F. Loseva: “In the depths of the memory of centuries, the roots of the present lie and feed on them. Eternal and dear, it, this past, stands somewhere in the chest and heart; and we are unable to remember it, as if some melody or some picture seen in childhood, which is about to be remembered, but is not remembered. In a miracle, this memory suddenly arises, the memory of centuries is revived and the eternity of the past is revealed, inescapable and everlasting.”

Memory is the connecting miracle of existence, and the miracle is filled with “smart silence and peace of eternity,” and together they are the coincidence of the randomly occurring empirical history of the individual with his ideal task.

1. World Encyclopedia: Philosophy of the 20th century. M.: Mn., 2002.

2. Carlot H.E. Dictionary of symbols. M., 1994.

3. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1998.

4. Aitmatov Ch.T. And the day lasts longer than a century; Scaffold; Piebald dog running by the edge of the sea: Novels, story. Frunze: Kyrgyzstan. 656 pp.

5. Batyushkov KN. Works: In 2 volumes. Compiled, text preparation, introduction. Article and comment. V.A. Kosheleva. M.: Fiction, 1989.

6. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky A. A. Works: In 2 volumes. M.: Goslitizdat, 1958.

7. Bulgakov M.A. Collected works: In 5 volumes. M.: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1992. T. 5. 733 p.

8. Bunin I.A. Inonia and Kitezh. On the 50th anniversary of the death of gr. A.K. Tolstoy and Bunin Iv. Great dope. M.: Top Secret, 1997. 352 p.

9. Bunin I.A. Collected works: In 9 volumes. M.: Fiction, 1965-1967.

10. Yu. Herzen A.K Collected works: In 30 volumes. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the SSS, 19541957.p. Goncharov IA. Collected works: In 8 volumes. M.: Fiction, 1977.

11. Dal V.I. Selected works. M., 1983.

12. Dal V.I. Complete works: In 10 volumes. St. Petersburg; M., 1897-1898.i. Dal Vl. Essays. New complete edition. St. Petersburg, 1861.

13. Dostoevsky F. M. Complete works: In 30 volumes. L.: Nauka, 1973.

14. Zhukovsky V.A. Works: In 3 vols. M., 1980.

15. M. Zaitsev B.K. Collected works: In 5 volumes. M.: Russian Book, 1999.

16. Zaitsev B.K. Collected works: In 5 volumes. Volume 7 (additional). Holy Rus'. M.: Russian book, 2000. 528 p.

17. Kapnist V.V. Collected works: In 2 volumes. M.: JL, 1960.

18. Karamzin N.M. Notes of an old Moscow resident: Selected prose. M., 1986.

19. Karamzin N.M. My confession // Bulletin of Europe. 1802. No. 6.

20. Leskov N.S. Collected works: In 12 volumes. M., 1989.

21. P N. Christmas stories // Moscow Telegraph. 1826. Part XII. No. 23. P. 116; No. 12.

22. Passek T.P. From distant years. Memoirs: In 2 vols. M., 1963.

23. Polevoy N.A. Selected works and letters. JL, 1986.

24. Field Nick. Oath at the Holy Sepulchre. M., 1992.

25. Polonsky Ya.P. Antiquity and my childhood // Polonsky Ya.P. Prose. M., 1988.

26. Pushkin A. S. Complete works. M.; JL, 1937-1949. T.I-XVI; XVII (Reference), 1959.

27. Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Collected works: In 20 volumes. M., 1965.

28. Solovyov Vl. “Only the sun of love is motionless.” Poems. Prose. Letters. Memoirs of contemporaries. M., 1990.

29. Tolstoy JI.H. Full composition of writings. In 90 t. M.; L., 1928-1958.

30. Turgenev KS. Complete collection of works and letters: In 28 vols. M.; L., 1960-1968.

31. Tyutchev F.I. Full composition of writings. St. Petersburg, 1916.

32. Fet A.A. Evening lights / Ed. prepared D.D. Blagoy, M.A. Sokolova. M., 1979.

33. Fet A.A. Memories. M., 1890. Reprint edition: In 3 volumes. Pushkino: Culture, 1992.

34. Fet A.A. Works: In 2 volumes. M., 1982. Vol. 1. Poems. Poems. Translations / Text preparation, compilation, commentary. A.E. Tarkhova. M.: Fiction, 1982.

35. Fet A.A. Poems. Prose. Letters. M.: Pravda, 1988. 560 p.

36. Chekhov A.P. Complete works: In 30 volumes. M., 1977.

37. Shmelev KS. Collected works. M., 1998-1999.

38. JSC Engelgardt S.V. Olga N***. Live not as you want, but as God commands // Contemporary. 1854. No. 2.41. Engelgardt S.V. (Olga N*). The mind will come, it's time to pass. Proverb // Domestic notes. 1855. T. CI (July). pp. 199-224.

39. M. Engelgardt S.V. Olga N. Stumbling block // Russian Bulletin. 1862 T. 42.

40. Engelhardt S.V. Olga N. There are many varieties of berries. Tale // Russian Bulletin. 1868. T. 76. July.

41. Averintsev S.S. Plutarch and ancient biography: On the question of the place of the classic of the genre in the history of the genre. M.: Nauka, 1973. 278 p.

42. Averintsev S.S. Parable // Literary encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987. P. 305.

44. Andreev Yu.V. Poetry of myth and prose of history. L.: Lenizdat, 1990. 233 p.

45. Annenkova E.I. On the question of the relationship between folklore and book traditions in “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” N.V. Gogol // Folklore tradition in Russian literature. Volgograd, 1986.

46. ​​Aristotle. Works: In 4 volumes. M.: Thought 1976-1983.

47. Astashchenko O.A. “There is a certain light that darkness will not crush” (word and memory in I.A. Bunin’s novel “The Life of Arsenyev”) // Problems of the evolution of Russian literature of the 20th century: Materials of interuniversity. scientific conferences. Vol. 5. M., 1998.

48. Afanasyev A. Living water and prophetic word: Sat. articles. M.: Soviet Russia, 1988. 508 p.

49. Bayburin A.K. Ritual in traditional culture: Structural and semantic analysis of East Slavic rituals. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1993. 248 p.

50. Barth R. Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics. Per. from French / Comp. total ed. and entry Art. Kosikova G.K. M.: Progress, 1989. 616 p.

51. Barth R. Zero degree of writing // Semiotics. M., 1983.

52. Batenkov G.S. "Russian Propylaea". Materials on the history of Russian thought and literature. Collected and prepared for publication by M. Gershenzon. M., 1916. T. 2.

53. Bakhtin M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics / Ed. 4. M.: Soviet Russia, 1979. 320 p.

54. Bakhtin M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1986. 444 p.

55. Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics: Studies from different years. M.: Fiction, 1975. 504 p.

56. Bakhtin M.M. Literary critical articles. M., 1986.

57. Belinsky VT. Complete works: In 13 volumes. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953.

58. Bergson A. Introduction to metaphysics // Bergson Henri. Collected works: In 5 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1914. T. 5.

59. Bergson A. Matter and memory // Bergson Henri. Collected works: In 4 volumes. M., 1992. T.1.

60. Berdyaev N. The meaning of history: Experience in the philosophy of human destiny. M.: Mysl, 1990. 173 p.

61. Berdyaev N.A. The Grand Inquisitor // About the Grand Inquisitor: Dostoevsky and those who followed. M., 1991. S. 219-242.

62. Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of freedom. M., 1989.

63. Berkovsky N.Ya. Articles about literature. M.; JL: Goslitizdat, 1962. 452 p.

64. Bibler B.C. Moral. Culture. Modernity (Philosophical reflections on life’s problems) // Ethical thought: Scientific and journalistic readings. M.: Politizdat, 1990. P. 16-57.

65. Blonsky P.P. Memory and thinking. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. 288 p.

66. Boym S. The end of nostalgia? Art and cultural memory of the end of the century: The case of Ilya Kabakov // New Literary Review. 1999. No. 39 (5)

67. Borey Yu.B. Aesthetics: In 2 volumes, 5th ed., additional. Smolensk: Rusich, 1997. 640 p.

68. Buber M. Philosophy of Man. M., 1992.

69. Bulgakov S.N. Orthodoxy: Essays on the teachings of the Orthodox Church. M., 1991.

70. Bychkov V.V. From the history of Byzantine aesthetics // Byzantine temporary book. T. 37. M., 1976.

71. Vatsuro V.E. Lyrics of Pushkin's time (“elegiac school”). St. Petersburg, 1994.

72. Vatsuro V.E. Russian idyll in the era of romanticism // Russian romanticism. L., 1978. P. 138.

73. Weiman R. History of literature and mythology. M., 1975.

74. Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. M.: graduate School, 1989. 406 p.

75. Virolainen M.N. World and style (“Old World Landowners” by Gogol) // Questions of Literature. 1979. No. 4.

76. Vlashchenko V. A sad story about a sad fate (“ Stationmaster"Pushkin) // Questions of literature. 1998. No. 6.

77. Volkov G. The World of Pushkin. M., 1989.

78. Gadamer H.-G. Truth and Method. (Fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics). M.: Progress, 1988.

79. Gachev G.D., Kozhinov V.V. Content literary forms// Theory of literature. The main problems in historical coverage. Types and genres of literature. M., 1964.

80. Herzen A.I. Favorites philosophical works. M., 1948.

81. Ginzburg L.Ya. About psychological prose. JL: Fiction, 1977.412 pp.

82. Glumkova T. Tradition of conscience of poetry. M.: Sovremennik, 1987.

83. Golovko V.M. Artistic and philosophical quests of the late Turgenev (depiction of a person). Sverdlovsk, 1989.

84. Goncharov I.A. An extraordinary story // Collection of the Russian Public Library: T. 2. Pg., 1924.

85. Grigoriev A.A. Memories. JI.: Nauka, 1980. 437 p.

86. Grigoriev A.A. Literary criticism. M., 1967.

87. Grossman L.P. Poetics of Dostoevsky. M., 1925.91. Gukovsky G.A. Pushkin and the problems of realistic style. M.; L.: Goslitizdat, 1957.

88. Gurevich A.Ya. What is time? // Questions of literature. 1968. No. 11.9. Gurevich A.Ya. Categories medieval culture. M.: Art, 1974. 350 p.

89. Davydov Yu. N. Ethical dimension of memory (Moral and philosophical reflections in connection with the novel by Ch. Aitmatov) // Ethical thought: Scientific and journalistic readings. M.: Politizdat, 1990. P. 165-199.

90. Dmitrovskaya M.A. Philosophy of memory // Conceptual analysis: methods, results, prospects. M., 1990.

91. Dobrolyubov N.A. “Village life of a landowner in the old years”, 1858 // Dobrolyubov N.A. Collected works: In 9 vols. M.; L., 1962. T. 2.

92. Dostoevskaya A.G. Memories. M., 1981.

93. Dunaev M.M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. At 5 o'clock. M.: 1998.

94. Dushechkina E.V. Russian Christmas story. Formation of the genre. St. Petersburg, 1995.

95. Evdokimova O.V. Memory, intuition, faith in the artistic world N.S. Leskova (“The Lord’s Court”) // Christianity and Russian literature.

96. B. 3. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. pp. 237-249.

98. Esaulov I.A. Holidays. Joy. Sorrow // New world. 1992. No. 10.1. pp. 235-242.

99. Zholkovsky A.K. Wandering Dreams and Other Works. M., 1994.

100. Zabelin I.E. Home life of Russian tsars in the 16th and 17th centuries. 3rd ed. M., 1895. Part I.

101. Zapadov V.A. Poem by N.A. Lvov “Winter” // XXIV Herzen Readings. Philological sciences. L., 1971.

102. Notes of G.S. Batenkova. Data. The story of one’s own life // Russian archive, year 19. 1881. II (2).

103. Zenkovsky V.V. History of Russian philosophy: In 2 volumes. Rostov-on-Don, 1999.

104. Ivanov V.I. Collected works: In 4 volumes. Brussels, 1971-1987.

105. Ilyin I. A. About darkness and enlightenment. M., 1991.

106. Kant I. Anthropology. St. Petersburg, 1900.

107. Kireevsky IV. Selected articles. M.: Sovremennik, 1984. 383 p.

108. Kireevsky IV. Criticism and aesthetics. M., 1979.

109. Kozubovskaya G.P. Poetry of A. Fet and mythology. - Barnaul; M.: Publishing house BSPI, 1991.217 p.

110. Kozubovskaya G.P. The problem of mythology in Russian poetry of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Samara; Barnaul: Publishing house BSPI, 1995. 168 p.

111. Kotlyarevsky N.A. Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol, 1829-1842. Pg., 1915.

112. Koshelev V.A. Pushkin: History and legend. SPb.: Academic project, 2000. 359 p.

113. Krasnov G.V. Pushkin. Boldino pages. Bitter. 1984. P. 4454;

114. Kupreyanova E.N. A.S. Pushkin // History of Russian literature: In 4 vols. L.: Nauka, 1981. T. 2. P. 235-323.

115. Kuraev A. Tradition. Dogma. Rite. M.-Klin, 1995.

116. Kurilov A. S. Literary studies in Russia in the 18th century. M., 1981.

117. Kurlyandskaya G.B. Philosophy of harmony in Fet’s late lyrics // Kurlyandskaya G.B. Literary Central Russia. Orel, 1996.

118. Literary-critical works of the Decembrists. M., 1978.

119. Likhachev D.S. Letters about the good and the beautiful. M., 1985.

120. Likhachev D.S. Poetics ancient Russian literature. L.: Nauka, 1967.

121. Likhachev D. S. Past to future. L., 1985.

122. Losev A.F. Greek mythology // Myths of the peoples of the world. T. 1. M., 1980. P. 334-335;

123. Losev A.F. Dialectics of myth // Losev A.F. From early works. M.; Pravda, 1990. 580 p.

124. Lossky I.O. Sensual, intellectual and mystical intuition. M.: Republic, 1994.

125. Lotman Y., Egorov B., Mints 3. The main stages of the development of Russian realism // Scientific notes of the Tartu State. university. Vol. 98 Transactions on Russian and Slavic philology, 1960.

126. Lotman Yu.M. A.S. Pushkin // History of world literature. M., 1989. T. 6.

127. Lotman Yu.M. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. Biography of the writer. L.: Education, 1981. 255 p.

128. Lotman Yu.M. At the school of poetic words: Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. M.: Education, 1988. 348 p.

129. Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 volumes. Tallinn: Alexandra, 19921993.

130. Lotman Yu.M. About poets and poetry. St. Petersburg, 1996.

131. Lotman Yu.M. About Russian literature: Articles and studies (1958-1993): History of Russian prose. Theory of literature. St. Petersburg: Art-SPB, 1997. 845 p.

132. Lotman Yu.M., Uspensky B.A. On the semiotic mechanism of culture // Scientific notes of the Tartu State University. university. Works on sign systems. Vol. V. Tartu, 1971. pp. 146-166.

133. N.A. Lviv. Preface to the translation. Poems of Anacreon of Tia. St. Petersburg, 1794. Book. 1.

135. Maltsev Yuri. Ivan Bunin. Sowing, 1994.

136. Meletinsky E.M. Analytical psychology and the problem of the origin of archetypal plots // Questions of Philosophy. 1991. No. 10.

137. Meletinsky E.M. Mythology // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1983. P. 378.

138. Melnik V.I. Ethical ideal of I.A. Goncharova. Kyiv, 1991.

139. Merezhkovsky D.S. Goncharov // Merezhkovsky D.S. Acropolis. M., 1991.

140. Merezhkovsky D.S. Jesus the Unknown. M., 1996.

141. Merezhkovsky D.S. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Eternal companions. M., 1995.

142. Mitin G. Pilate’s Court // Literature at school. 1994. No. 1.

143. Nedoshivin G. The image of a revolutionary in Repin. Art. 1948. No. 4.

144. Nikolina N.A. Poetics of Russian autobiographical prose: Textbook. M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2002. 424 p.

145. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. Literary critical works: In 2 volumes. M.: Fiction, 1989.

146. Ozerov Lev. Three notes about Fet // Russian speech. 1970. No. 6.

147. Osminina E. Ivan Shmelev, known and hidden // Moscow. 1994. No. 1.

148. Otradin M.V. Prose by I.A. Goncharov in a literary context. St. Petersburg, 1994.

149. Panchenko A.M. Russian literature on the eve of Peter's reforms. L., 1984.

150. Panchenko I. Questioning the past to look into the future // Questions of literature. 1983. No. 6.

151. Peremyillev E. “Decent German poems.” // Literature. 1996. No. 41.

152. Correspondence of I.N. Kramskoy. Correspondence with artists. M., 1954.

153. Petrunina N.N. About the story “The Station Agent” // Pushkin. Research and materials. T. XII. L., 1986.

154. Petrunina N.N. Pushkin's prose (paths of evolution). L.: Nauka, 1987. 332 p.

155. Polevoy N. Speech about the merchant title, and especially in Russia. M., 1832.

156. Polevoy N.A. About spiritual poetry // Library for reading. 1838. T. XXVI. No. 1.

157. Polevoy N.A., Polevoy Ks. A. Literary criticism. L., 1990.

158. Porechnikov V. Provincial letters about our literature. First letter // Otechestvennye zapiski. 1861. No. 12.

159. The last days of the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ, depicted according to the legends of all four evangelists. Odessa, 1857. Reprint. ed. 1991.

160. Pospelov G.G., On the understanding of time in painting of the 1870-1890s. Paintings dedicated to the fate of the individual // Typology of Russian realism of the second half of the 19th century. M., 1979.

161. Poets of the 18th century. L., 1972.

162. Protopopov M. Women's creativity // Russian thought. 1891. Book. 2. pp. 96-112.

163. Razmusen L.I. About verb tenses // Journal of the Ministry of Education. 1891. No. 6.

164. Rogovin M.S. Problems of memory theory. M., 1977.

165. Rodnyanskaya I.V. Artistic time and artistic space // Literary encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1978.

166. Russian story of the 19th century: History and problems of the genre. L., 1973.

167. Senderovich S. Aletheya. Pushkin’s elegy “Remembrance” and the problems of his poetics / Wiener Slawisticher Almanach. V. 8. Wien, 1985.

168. Symbol: Journal of Christ. culture under Slav. Library in Paris. 1987. No. 17.

169. Smirnov I.P. The generation of intertext (Elements of intertextual analysis with examples from the work of B.L. Pasternak). Vienna, 1985.

170. Sokolov A.N. Essays on the history of Russian poems of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. M., 1955.

171. Soloviev B.S. Eternity, - // Encyclopedic Dictionary / F.A. Brockhaus, I.A. Efron. St. Petersburg, 1890-1907. T. VIIA. 1892. pp. 699-700. On the spine T. 14.

172. Solovyov V. History and future of theocracy // Solovyov B.C. Collected works: In 10 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1911. T. 4.

173. Strakhov N.N. Literary criticism. M.: Sovremennik, 1984. 431 p.

174. Stroganov M. V. Legends in historical works Pushkin // Russian literary journal. 1996. No. 8. P. 23-31.

175. Stroganov M.V. Man in the artistic world of Pushkin. Tver, 1990.

176. Stroganova E.N. The poem “Hero” in the drafts of “War and Peace” // Reader in the creative consciousness of Russian writers. Kalinin, 1986. pp. 54-65.

177. Surat IZ. “Once upon a time there lived a poor knight.” M., 1990.

178. Sukhikh I. Fet’s world: moment and eternity // Star. 1995. No. 11. P. 123-133.

179. Tarle E.V. Pushkin as a historian // New World. 1963. No. 9. P. 211-220.

180. Telegin S.M. The main myth of Dostoevsky // Literature at school. 1998. No. 4.

181. Timofeeva V.V. Man and History // Modern Soviet novel. Philosophical aspects. M.-L.: Science. 1979.

182. Tolstoy L.N. and N.N. Ge. Correspondence. M.; L., 1930.

183. Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers: In 2 vols. M, 1978.

184. Thompson D.E. "The Brothers Karamazov" and the poetics of memory. St. Petersburg: Academic project, 1999. 344 p.

185. Toporov V.N. Instead of memories // Lotman Yu.M. and the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school. M., 1994.

186. Tyupa V.I. Narratology as an analyst of narrative discourse (“The Bishop” by A.P. Chekhov). Tver, 2001.

187. Tyupa V.I. The parable of the prodigal son in the context of “Belkin’s Tales” as an artistic whole // Boldin Readings. Gorky, 1983.

188. Farrar F.V. Life of Jesus Christ. St. Petersburg, 1893. Reprint, ed. 1991.

189. Fedorov F.P. "Faust" by Goethe. Riga, 1976.

191. Fet A.A. Our roots // A.A. Fet. Poet and thinker: Sat. scientific tr. M., 1999.

192. Fet A.A. Afterword to his translation by A. Schopenhauer // Russian Review. 1901. Issue 1.

193. Fet A.A. Preface and comments to the second part of Goethe's Faust / Publication by N.P. Generalova // 175 years since the birth of Afanasy Afanasyevich Fet: Sat. scientific works Kursk, 1996.

194. Florensky P. Articles on art. Paris, 1985.

195. Florensky P.A. The pillar and ground of truth. Experience of Orthodox theodicy in twelve letters. M., 1914.

196. Frank C.JI. Reality and man. M.: Republic, 1997. 479 p.

197. Frank C.JI. Russian worldview. St. Petersburg, 1996.

198. Fudel S.I. Dostoevsky's legacy. The appearance of Christ in modern times // Russian abroad in the year of the millennium of the baptism of Rus'. M., 1991.

199. Khaainadi 3. Culture as memory // Slavica. Debrecen, 2000. No. 30. P. 73-92.

200. Khalizev V.E. Theory of literature. M.: Higher School, 1999. 398 p.

201. Halbwachs M. Social classes and morphology / Transl. from fr. edited by A.T. Bikbova. M: Institute of Experimental Sociology. St. Petersburg: Ale-teya, 2000. 509 p.

202. Huizinga J. Homo ludens. M., 1992.

203. Tseitlin A. G. Time in Dostoevsky’s novels // Native language At school. 1927. No. 5.

204. Chaadaev P.Ya. Articles and letters. M.: Sovremennik, 1987. 367 p.

205. Chafe W. Memory and verbalization of past experience // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 12. M., 1983.

206. Cheremisinova L.I. About A. Fet’s “Afterword” to A. Schopenhauer’s translation // A.A. Fet: Problems of studying life and creativity: Sat. scientific works. Kursk, 1997. pp. 38-47.

207. Chernov A.V. The archetype of the “prodigal son” in Russian literature of the 19th century. // Problems of historical poetics. Vol. 3. The Gospel text in Russian literature of the 18th-20th centuries. Quote, reminiscence, motive, plot, genre. Sat. scientific works Petrozavodsk, 1994.

208. Chetina E.M. Gospel images, plots, motives in artistic culture: Problems of interpretation. M., 1998.

209. Szacki Jerzy. Utopia and tradition. M., 1990.

210. Schelling F.V.I. Philosophy of art. M., 1966.

211. Shestov L.I. Articles on Russian literature // Russian literature. 1991. No. 3.

212. Schopenhauer A. About will in nature. The world as will and representation. M., 1993.

213. Shpet G.G. Literature // Scientific notes of Tartu State. university. Works on sign systems. Vol. XV. Tartu, 1982.

214. Stern M. In search of lost harmony. Prose by I.A. Bunin 1930-1940 Omsk, 1988.

215. Shultz S.A. Chronotope of a religious holiday in Gogol’s works // Russian literature and Christianity. M., 1997.

216. Engelhardt S.V. Letters to A.A Fet. Part 1 (1858-1873). Publication by N.P. Generalova // Yearbook of the Manuscript Department of the Pushkin House for 1994. St. Petersburg, 1998.

217. Yakovleva E.S. Fragments of the Russian linguistic picture of the world (models of space, time and education). M.: Publishing house "Gnosis", 1994. 344 p.

218. BartR. Text //Encyclopaedis universalis. V. 15. P., 1973. P. 78.

219. Dufrenne M. Note sur la tradition. // Cahiers Internationalaux de Sociologie. 1947. Vol. III. P. 161.

220. Durkheim E., Mauss M. De quelques formes primitives de classifications, contribution a G étude des representations collectives // Annee Sociologique, 1903.

221. Franks F. Spatial Form in Modern Literature // Criticism / The Foundation of Modern Literary Judgment. Ed. By M. Schorer. New York, 1958. P. 392.

222. Oexle O.G. Memoria als Kultur Herausgegeben von Otto Gerhard Ocxle. Gottingen, 1995. S. 99-41.

223. Yalbwachs M. Spoleczne ramy pamieci. Warszawa, 1969. S. 421-422.