The place of Russian literature in the world literary process. World significance and national originality of Russian literature of the 19th century. Your opinion about the works known to you on this issue. When studying which school topics you can use the methodology

On the question of the place of “culture” in the Russian soul

Varava V.V.

...fear of national and cultural identity is a sure symptom of the coming neo-totalitarianism, no matter what part of Europe and the world it comes from.

HE. Trubachev

...and our people are precisely the “Christ-Bearer”, Christopher.

Vyacheslav Ivanov

Identity and peace

When a person is absorbed in the contemplation of some object or phenomenon (and it does not matter - natural or cultural), then he perceives what he contemplates holistically, distracting from the details and nuances, that is, from the entire mechanics of structuring the object - what science does. When he tries to comprehend the impression he received, then, remembering the holistic image of what he saw, he nevertheless revives in his memory the most important and essential thing, trying to isolate the root and core of the object. And if you manage to grab this root, then integrity is restored. This root is the originality of an object, that is, the most dense condensation of its unique and original properties in minimal features and characteristics.

Vladimir Dahl's dictionary gives the most concentrated understanding of the word “original”, which does not contain unnecessary semantic overtones: “existent by itself or from itself, by its own forces. Strictly speaking, God alone is original, but this is the name for the independent personality and properties in a person, in opposition to everything imitative, especially his creative talents, genius. To exist in one’s own way, to live an original, self-existent life.”

This Dalevian “strictly speaking” is the essence of originality, in which the absolute ontology of the created world is revealed. Since created being is not independent, but is a borrowed being, the originality of the created, and therefore its independence and originality, is revealed only in imitation of the Creator-God - the true root of originality. Imitation within the created world means loss of originality and independence, which means doom to a secondary existence.

Based on Dahl’s interpretations, we can say that the self-existent world of Plato’s ideas is self-existent, which is an imperishable image of the “transient” existence of the mortal world. And the world does not fall apart only because there are grains of originality in it - elements of eternity that hold together the chaos of a non-uniform existence. The harmony of the Greek cosmos is the harmony of ideal (that is, original) geometric quantities that form the aesthetic beauty of the universe.

The Old Testament laments are a longing for the original Yahweh leaving the Jewish people. “Why, Lord, do you stand afar off, hiding Yourself during sorrow?” - the desperate questions of the psalmist, whose soul is constantly engulfed in the darkness of God-forsakenness, that is, a non-original existence.

In Christianity, the created world, naturally, is not original, but it receives existential power thanks to energetic participation in the original God. And only due to the manifested originality of God in the world in the images of God, created existence receives the measure, harmony and order it needs. Just gets the opportunity to be.

So, without identity there is no existence in the world. The subject of our interest is the cultural identity of the people, the Russian people, first of all. How to comprehend it, how to discover and cash it, how to make it the life-giving source of national existence?

Holy Orthodox man

The intelligent gaze penetrates through the chaos of the endless facets of an object to its hidden, ineffable essence, which, removed from the dark depths of the object, appears as obvious, transparent and accessible. Once upon a time, it was in this way that V. Rozanov got to the very core of Russian identity, saying in the article “L.N. Tolstoy and the Russian Church” that “The temple completely replaces the gymnasium, school, university, book and science for our people.” With all the shocking power of these words (shocking, first of all, the secular-liberal “enlightened” consciousness), Rozanov still discerned the most original and even essential feature of Russian national existence.

How does this temple replace the university, replace the book, and even science itself? What an absurdity! Isn’t the temple a source of books, enlightenment, and culture? - conservative zealots of piety will ask in bewilderment. And the anti-church intelligentsia will gloatingly exclaim at these words of Rozanov that, they say, it is correct, the church has always been an obstacle to knowledge, reason, enlightenment, which is why the Russian people are so dark and uneducated.

Conservatives are right, of course, because historically (and genetically) the Christian Church is the basis book culture, education and enlightenment (in the Orthodox East) and is also the basis of science as an institution of culture (in the Catholic West). And one cannot count all the most authoritative works that show and prove this.

But Rozanov is also right, having grasped the root of Russian originality, what is in the dry language scientific knowledge received the name “dichotomy of culture and faith” with clear conclusions about the civilized backwardness of Russia. The ominous stigma of “secondary”, “borrowed”, “lack of independence” national culture, ingrained in the flesh and soul of a Russian (primarily, of course, intelligentsia mentality) person.

Rozanov wrote against Tolstoy, reproaching his great, but still personal genius for its smallness, one-sidedness, and most importantly for its lack of understanding of the phenomenon of the “holy man”, which concentrates in itself the most fundamental characteristics of the Russian soul (in the language of cultural theory - mentality). The holy man, as the invisible presence of the Spirit, is endlessly diffused and dissolved in all pores of the Russian soul; he is its “archetype” and “symbol” and living creativity, encouraging a person to be well-being and do good. A holy man calls for Sacrifice, Feat, Self-Denial - all that constitutes the “strangeness” and illogicality of the Russian soul. A holy man is in this sense an antithesis" cultured person“, which is not characterized by the “holy madness” of self-denial, but which painstakingly, step by step, with a measured Catholic-Protestant gait, builds for itself a cozy and comfortable world of civilization, about which the psalmist pathetically exclaimed: “The workers of iniquity bloom to disappear forever.”

The important thing is that this “holy Orthodox man” was developed exclusively by the Church, its spirit and history. And therefore, the “holy man,” as Rozanov believes, “... is completely unknown Western Europe and not developed by any Church - neither Catholicism nor Protestantism", then we can believe that it is the true face of Russian culture, its core, root, its spiritual seed. It is here that the watershed divides cultural type Russian from a Western European. And distinguishing it by an infinitely incommensurable amount.

What a “holy man” is in Rozanov’s understanding is, of course, important and significant. But still, this is not the main thing. The main thing is that, firstly, the philosopher saw this type as truly national; secondly, he revealed his deep connection with the Church (“Without knowing the church service, it is absolutely impossible to understand what the Russian people are and how they came about”), and thirdly, he showed that Tolstoy did not grasp this property of Russian nature. This means that the entire camp of rationalists does not understand Tolstoy: from anti-autocratic socialists to anti-socialist liberals right up to anti-imperial postmodernists.

The Russian “holy man” is an impossibility and madness, for in him the mystery of the transformation of culture into faith took place, in which secular utopian claims to a happy and reasonable life in a mortal, sinful, unreformed world suffered a pious collapse, becoming the virtue of humility and hope. And therefore, the Russian person lives solely by faith alone, and this absolute faith is his own “culture.” Therefore, the Russian person is not uncultured, but super-cultured, since through a feat of holiness he overcame the mortal routine of this-worldly existence, destroying forever the illusions of the arrogant mind to settle in a civilized manner in the world of evil and vice. This is Russian originality - to break away from the cultural darkness that legitimizes evil and death and strive for the authentic and eternal.

And there is no point in grieving that the Russian soul did not accept a culture sown in the life-giving depths of the ancient Christian world, but then extinguished in the scholastic desert of Western civilization. Vyach. Back in 1907, Ivanov defined modern culture this way: “... the very name “culture” is quite dry and school-like and, in German, practical and tasteless, because it denies everything spontaneous and God-given and affirms only what is planted, sown, groomed, trimmed , grown and grafted - because it does not include the concept of creativity." But the absence of precisely this kind of culture, which denies creativity and God-givenness, is imputed to Russia as its eternal vice.

Whatever one sees as the content of originality, it is not possible to deny it unless one goes against the historical truth. And none of the serious thinkers has ever denied it. But today it is denied, denied in reality high level, at the highest levels, because it is identity that is a serious obstacle to “integrative projects” to create a global culture.

Eclipse of identity

The beginning of the last century in Russia was in many ways similar to the current situation. The cultural overmaturity of the country, manifested in the unimaginable plurality of “creative” processes, has given rise to a surprisingly dull and monotonous culture. The apocalypticism of the Silver Age, seething with eschatological outbursts of unprecedented power, turned into the construction of a culture devoid of any metaphysical perspective. A culture that is too diverse and diverse is a sure path to the extinction of true cultural creativity, a path to the disappearance of the living soul from culture and its transformation into an endless game of spiritually restless and painful forms.

Many felt something was wrong in Russian life. In particular, A. Bely wrote in the article “Stamped Culture”: “Interest “in everything cultural” gives rise to eclecticism; instead of deep penetration into one nation (this nation is not native), a superficial interest in all nations is born; this is how an international art bazaar arises (something in between from the arts of all nations), and from here, of course, completely commercial interests are introduced.”

“International art bazaar” - it is also an international bazaar of culture, which has lost all possible connections with its native, national, root - that’s the essence current situation in our "cultural sphere". A. Bely spoke alarmingly about the deplorable state of the word “originality,” which is disavowed by “cosmopolitanism.” This is happening in a culture dominated by “international art”, accessible and understandable, in Bely’s apt word – “an intelligent plebiscite of the whole world”, divorced from both “the healthy land of the people and from the top of the intellectual aristocracy.”

Internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and intelligent plebiscite today are clothed in the cultural pluralism of postmodernism, which has become even further divorced from the absolute origins of the Motherland. The cultural mob is rampaging through the spaces of the Russian language, nature, history, and spirit.

What is the most acute manifestation of the eclipse of identity today, what is the most terrible thing in modern Russian situation?

Spiritual and moral indifference. This is the most disastrous state of the modern spirit. Moral worldview provides metaphysical orientation in Being. Searching for the meaning of life through revealing the meaning of death will allow us to understand the highest, tragic significance of human existence, thereby justifying our always incomprehensible and imperfect existence before others (primarily the departed), before God. All this is being supplanted today mainly by the “cultural elite”. The intimate confession of Andrei Platonov: “I am ashamed to live without truth” is being desecrated and ridiculed. The search for meaning is declared a neurosis. As a consequence, there is a focus on informativeness and entertainment, the elimination of the teaching function in art (Gogol), and the promotion of new didactics - pleasure as the highest goal of existence.

Oblivion of Absolutes. Spiritual and moral insensibility underestimates and grounds human existence. A person remains within the boundaries of his untransformed self, guided exclusively by the this-worldly needs of the flesh. The Light of the Absolute disappears from the horizon of existence, which leads man out of the dark abode of the evil and mortal empiricism. Culture itself ceases to be a guide to the Absolute.

Lack of aristocracy. The loss of Absolutes leads to a blurring of the boundaries between mass and elite culture. The loss of the concept of great style, which has always been the dividing criterion between “high” and “low”. The aristocrat of the spirit (the term of V.P. Fetisov) is eliminated as human type, who himself is a spiritual and aesthetic censor who does not allow mixing different values, styles, and concepts.

Cultural omnivory. A consequence of the lack of aristocracy. This is the spiritual illegibility of the “educated mob” (Nietzsche), which seeks to absorb as much of modernity as possible in even its most absurd and ridiculous and base forms.

The evil infinity of cultural forms. Demand gives rise to supply: cultural omnivorousness must find its satisfaction. An army of new creators is ready to endlessly serve the lowest demands of society. Since the value hierarchy is destroyed, this leads to the creative unbridledness of the author, who is guided solely by one motive - the motive of self-expression, multiplied by commercial gain, not associated with any higher goals. The disease of modern “culture” is that it suffers from an overabundance of texts, in the absence of main texts.

The many faces of culture. Only metaphysical tension of the spirit is capable of generating true diversity of creativity. Non-aristocratic, non-moral, non-spiritual culture, with all its “diversity” (creative pluralism), is suffocating in the monstrous monotony of its “creations.”

Cultural deception. The intellectual and cultural establishment strenuously strives to create the appearance of freedom, creativity, prosperity, and tries to convince people of the progress of culture, which can justify their lives. But existential growth does not occur: a person remains in the dead point of his egoism, never touched by the spirit. A change of cultural scenery will ultimately not satisfy the average person, whose life becomes more empty and terrible, requiring far from cultural narcotics.

Loss of nationality. A true creation of man can be considered as such only if it connects the personal fate of the author with the existential fate of the people. This gives the criteria for true creativity - to teach and inspire. A genuine cultural creation is always “charged” with spiritual values ​​that are transmitted during the perception of the creation. This is the function of teaching - to reveal the highest values human existence, thereby revealing to a person his true spiritual status, which is not obvious in the bustle of everyday life. Even if creation does not directly teach (this goal is deep and requires special decoding), it should at least inspire: creative people- for creativity, for non-creative people for life, which, as we gain insight into its true meaning, becomes creativity. A cultural creation can both teach and inspire when it is rooted in the conciliar experience of a people who have learned conciliar reverence, a conciliar experience of grief and melancholy, and a conciliar overcoming of evil and death.

In a word, today we have a situation of cultural totalitarianism, when culture, having become detached from the metaphysical center of Being, has turned into an endless performance of petty creativity by insignificant creators, of whom there is no number. This petty creativity is no longer in any way connected with the theurgic function of transformation, illumination of the present horror of bad reality, and ultimately the salvation of the world and man from evil and death, from absurdity and nonsense. Modern culture, concerned exclusively with the self-expression of small creators, as if deliberately adding absurdity to an already absurd reality by creating an endless number of unnecessary artifacts with which the life market is overflowing. A pile of cultural phenomena (books, magazines, exhibitions, films, presentations, conferences, meetings, trips, exchanges, etc.) do not teach anything, do not call for anything, do not lead to anything. The total result of cultural activity is zero. Man is taught to live in a morally empty universe, since present life is not raised to the level of Eternity.

What A. Bely wrote about has reached terrifying proportions today. And therefore the principle of originality is now in dire need of protection and justification. First of all, it is necessary to restore the golden fund of classical patriarchal-conservative (patristic and Slavophile) thought. The Russophile paradigm of existence must become the substance of the spiritual and social life of the nation.

Here are some milestones of the movement of Russophile thought, in which domestic cultural identity is worked out with a fairly high degree of spiritual and historical authenticity. The basis of the historiosophical tradition is, of course, the “Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, in which cultural-philosophical wisdom, prophetic pathos and bright faith in the good future of the Russian land are interspersed with philosophical and historical analytics of the universal equality of peoples before “grace”. The legalistic “paradigm of Hagar” is replaced by the gracious “paradigm of Sarah”, thereby revealing the universal prospect of existence for all peoples, led by the Light of Christ from the narrow pagan darkness of tribal nationalism into the endless expanse of absolute spiritual kinship. Each people has its own “metaphysical share” in the common existential destiny of humanity. This is the difference in the cultural appearances of different peoples, since their cultural tasks are different. Since the “Word” in content is an Easter sermon, we can say that it sets out the Easter meaning and Easter task of Russia - to be the savior of the world from the yoke of evil and death.

Then the soul-saving creativity of medieval learned monks, the incredible Feat of Metropolitan Eugene (Bolkhovitinov), the historiosophy of Pushkin, the terrible insights and prophecies of Dostoevsky, the integral political philosophy of Ivan Ilyin... The series is naturally selective and incomplete and can be expanded over a larger space of the text.

The supercultural source of Russian identity

On the other hand, a modern theoretical justification for identity is needed, which should be sought in patristic thought. The cultural identity of a people is a measure of its spiritual self-sufficiency, which does not allow it to fall, on the one hand, into spiritually devastating ethnocentrism, and on the other, into the cultural emptiness of the universal human abyss. The patristic tradition gave a theologically verified “formula” of the God-man Jesus Christ - the unmerged and indivisible unity of two natures (Divine and human). This formula made it possible to overcome the heretical distortions of reducing Christ to the level of Man, eliminating the Divine, or elevating him to absolute Divinity, eliminating the human.

This dogmatic formula can (and even should) be applied to the empirical existence of culture. Every nation, like every person, has, first of all, its own, intimately concrete essence, its own Face, in which the Absolute Eidos of Existence, or in other words, the Image of God, is reflected in individual refraction. Not faceless universal humanity (in reality, subhumanity), but the conciliar unity of Divine diversity - the actual spiritual and cultural-historical foundation of the existence of humanity as a Race, in which the non-Cainian grace of the spirit is the guarantee and promise of its existence.

The principle of spiritual kinship of the human race is not in the secular ideologeme of “universal human values”, but in Orthodox dogma about the “unfused-inseparable” essence of two natures in Christ. Any unity of the Family is the unmerged and indivisible existence of peoples, just as any unity of people in the people is the unfused and indivisible existence of specific, unique individuals.

Unmerged-indivisible existence is the great spiritual principle of created existence, which determines the metaphysical specifics of any entity in the world. Unmerged means infinitely unique, not identical with anything, deeply intimate and original; inseparable means the deep spiritual basis of unity, which does not allow any uniqueness to die in its egoism of universal existence.

To ignore non-merger means to doom oneself to the dictates of universal human amorphism, in which there is no originality, authenticity, no love and creativity, but there is a machine-like existence of “intelligent beings” doomed to work, consumption and entertainment. There is no spiritual existence here. The philosophy of ignoring non-merger is, first of all, the Western philosophy of Marxism and the ideologies of socialism, communism, humanism, capitalism, and postmodernism that grew on its soil.

To ignore inseparability means to cultivate egoism, both personal and national, and not to see the deep spiritual basis of human kinship, whose spiritual kinship lies in the collective experience of the bitter fate of mortals, in their common suffering and longing for unity. Ignoring inseparability is manifested in the ideology of “private property”, which gives rise to cultural individualism, which developed in the Western Renaissance and gave more down-to-earth fruits - in the form of romanticism and bourgeoisism. As a result, capitalism and postmodernism are again, the beginning and the ends converge. This is why Western ideologists and their domestic adherents are afraid to talk about conciliarity and national-cultural originality.

In other words, neither people nor nations can either completely come together or diverge. To come together means to lose oneself in the mass, the crowd, the “universal rabble”; to separate means to perish in the pride of national egoism, without ever feeling the grace of a common non-Cainian kinship.

Unmerged and indivisible existence is the principle of the high tragedy of human existence, history, and culture. What is needed now is a nationally oriented philosophy-philology that is capable of revealing the primary meanings and fundamental principles of the existence of the Russian people. This revelation must take place in the fields of the Word, Faith, Spirit, that is, in the spaces national Idea, which captures the otherworldly meanings of national existence. And they are defined as Vladimir Solovyov did in his time: “not what a nation thinks about itself in time, but what God thinks about it in eternity.” Here the Russian “holy man” gives the right orientation in holding oneself before Eternity.

So, the Russian soul is not uncultured, not out-of-culture, but super-cultured; this means that the Russian soul is capable not only of spiritual upswings, ascents and impulses, which every nation is capable of (for the ability to transcendence - to go beyond the limits of existing existence - is distinctive human characteristic); The Russian soul is capable of super-impulse, of unknown transcendence of the boundaries of culture itself.

This is not banal anarchy and legal nihilism, which liberal humanists so often reproach the Russian people for; The Russian soul is cramped and ashamed within the limits created by purely human (albeit creative) labor. Culture is, after all, created by mortals whose moral motives are far from the ideals of piety. This means that culture cannot be idealized, otherwise it becomes an idol. Culture as an idol is perhaps the worst kind of idol, and cultural idolatry is perhaps the most vile type of idolatry.

The Russian soul despises the predatory structure of nature, before which the non-Christian peoples of China and India freeze in aesthetic reverence, exposes the immorality of the natural rhythms of the universe, in which a part must die in order for the faceless harmony of the Whole to triumph, and is suspicious of the revivalist delight in the rehabilitated natural world. bodily beauty, is capable of a higher contempt - contempt for culture itself, but not in the name of extra-cultural nihilism, but in the name of that which is higher than culture itself, in the name of that which lies beyond the boundaries of not only nature, but also culture.

Man is not all cultured; man is not only not a natural, but not even a completely cultural being. The image of God lies on the other side of nature, on the other side of culture. Perhaps it lies on the other side of man himself, and man needs to overcome himself in order to truly become a man. But to overcome not with the superhuman effort of Nietzsche, but with the conciliar effort of overcoming evil and death, which in the hard-hearted hearts of legal and civilized citizens of “developed” countries have become the norm and law. Here is a Russian insight into the unearthly mystery of Being.

The meaning of Russian identity is the high tragedy of Existence. But it is precisely this meaning that runs counter to the cardinal tenets of Western culture - the elimination of tragedy and suffering from life in order to create an easy existence both in life and in death.

Going beyond the boundaries of culture (and even more so of civilization, as a vulgarized culture) into a super-cultural being, into the azure abode of pure eternity, free from any burdening cultural impurities - this is the essence of Russian transcendence, this is the root of Russian originality.

And let other peoples endlessly settle down in the mortal world, let them build castles in the sand, let them indulge themselves in various social illusions and utopias. Russian identity must hold fast to its truth: the history of humanity is the history of failed humanity. And no one has the right to take away from Russians their right to be different from other peoples who do not strive for Truth, for Good, for God; no one can take away from Russia its pious desire to reject, not to accept “a world lying in evil,” but to strive to the best of our ability, with the help of God, to morally transform and thereby save the world. It is in this sense that the Russian people are Christ-bearers, as Vyach spoke about. Ivanov, for the thirst for resurrection is the very cherished dream and the idea of ​​Holy Rus'.

A progressive literary movement, in which a whole group of new, young people gradually united talented writers, continued the traditions of Russian realism in the 1820s. - traditions of realistic creativity of Pushkin, Lermontov and especially Gogol. Back in the 1830s, Gogol’s work was highly appreciated by Belinsky, who even then saw in Gogol the “head” of Russian literature, a writer who took the place left by Pushkin.

In the early 1840s, Belinsky joined new period ideological development. He sought to influence new progressive writers with his articles, demanding from their work “fidelity to reality” and to the traditions of Gogol’s realism. Soon Belinsky began to call them the “Gogol school” in Russian literature, and then also the “natural school”.

Soon, the progressive 1840s began to portray the serf peasantry from the same positions. This topic was not new in Russian literature. But a realistic image Everyday life and the inner world of the peasantry essentially did not exist before the 1840s.

Significant changes in the content and forms of Russian fiction, marking its transition to a new stage historical development, occurred already in the 1840s. The country was dominated by an atmosphere of heavy government reaction. Literature and journalism were under unbearable censorship. But the profound changes that have emerged in the depths of Russian society have intensified social thought and aroused new ideological interests. By the mid-1840s, a certain social upsurge was again emerging in the country, and literary life was reviving.

Writers of the new school showed the life of the people in the irreconcilable social contradictions that define it. At the same time, they revealed not only the suffering of the peasants under the rule of the landowners, but also those internal riches, those inclinations human development, which lurked in people doomed by serfdom to downtroddenness and underdevelopment.

The most important aspect of the creativity of the writers of this school was the sharply increased interest in the moral and everyday relations of the life of urban, democratic strata of the population to the inner world of their representatives, the desire to show and protect their moral dignity. By the mid-1840s, in the work of the nipples of the new school, the depiction of disadvantaged people in their everyday life became one of the important tasks of fiction. Writers portrayed the urban poor doomed to an abnormal existence, and contrasted their deprivation with the brilliant and prosperous life of the privileged strata of society. Of the writers of the older generation, Gogol came closest to such an understanding of life in “The Overcoat,” published just three years before “The Overcoat” took shape. natural school" And Dostoevsky had every reason to later say about himself and other representatives of this school: “We all came out of Gogol’s “The Overcoat.”

Advanced writers of the 1840s followed Gogol in the very principles of depicting life. One of Gogol’s most important aesthetic achievements was the awareness of life in its social and everyday characteristics and the use of many portrait, everyday and speech details as a means of typifying characters. Thus, the progressive literature of the 1840s made a significant step forward in expanding and deepening the problems of realistic depiction of life. At the same time, she also possessed significant aesthetic principles. Belinsky supported the realistic quests of young writers. So, in the 1840s, the struggle of sharply defined literary trends. In them, new trends in social thought that were just emerging at that time found their creative and theoretical expression.

Much more clearly and sharply than in the 1830s, two camps opposed each other in literature and criticism: progressive and conservative. In each of them young people appeared
old writers and critics who sought to express new social ideas. Both sides put forward new views on the tasks and essence artistic creativity. New literary trends were clearly taking shape in Russian literature.

Therefore, it is very important to find out the main features of public views of the most significant writers and critics of this time. Belinsky's social and literary views are especially important.

Why is Russian literature still of great importance all over the world!? Because writers and poets touch upon very important social and spiritual issues in their works. They analyze a person’s soul, penetrating it deeply, and at the same time show all the qualities that we are endowed with. The works are endowed with high morality, aestheticism, deep psychologism, complexity and beauty of language. And in all this, great philosophers are born, giving brilliant ideas. Russian literature is capable of educating a person as an individual. And this is its great value. Therefore, it differs from all foreign literature. And it resonates with people of other nations, making them feel, admire, be touched and much more. Russian literature has made a huge contribution to world literature precisely with its deep psychologism and detailed analysis of the human soul. Foreign readers first learned the power and greatness of Russian literature in 1879, when Tolstoy's War and Peace was translated into French. After this, Russian literature began to play an important role in the world literary process; Russian writers such as Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Chekhov influenced the spiritual life of many foreign countries. And we have something to be proud of! And we must know our culture since literature reflects it directly.

Reviews

What is in the text - Yes.

But by looks.

In my heart of hearts, I want the literature of other countries to be revealed in a strong way.

Yes, and Russia has original, to put it mildly, strong, very strong, overly strong authors in literature.

It seems to me that they do not need a particularly thorough introduction because they are very large and well-known. Everyone knows how to handle everything. It’s simply not interesting to see “Ready Progressive Souls”

I think that all great writers take too much admiration for themselves))

Therefore, it’s not cool for me, for example, to see some review of a beginning poet: “Read Chekhov!”

Damn it, it’s simply impossible to grow your uniqueness through imitation.

Regarding the fact that “great authors” take a lot of the audience’s attention, yes, and maybe what I wrote is that Russian literature is distinguished by individuality, it’s more a surge of patriotism and admiration for certain works and authors, since the literature itself is not very different, the themes are some kind of moral and the same thing, the point is just how it is expressed. And I wrote this text more for a school literature lesson (to be completely honest)

Let's also “walk” from the heart. This will certainly be much more successful.

A goal without energy is stupidity. The same underdevelopment, the same limitations.

The same victory of the bad over the good, lack of sensitivity, attentiveness, observation.

There is as little miracle in your answers as there is a lot of it in the poems themselves

How amazing the poems are, how absolutely predictable, typical and standard the answers are. And you do it, and you love it!

You, like many teenagers, don’t care about brightness in yourself and you value earthiness and lowliness

Stay with what you love!

There is no line about inaction, there is also no energy, there is no pain between good and evil, especially the victory of good over bad and everything is predictable

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.

Russian lliterature

Russian literature has become integral part world culture and received recognition from major artists.

The primacy of literature in the cultural life of the Russian people is explained by its origin and the significance that it has acquired since its inception. Writing and literature in Rus' were introduced from outside along with Christianity. The book appeared in Rus' in the form of a sacred text, which decisively influenced the place and role of literature in the history of Russian culture.

For centuries, church literature remained the main and only mental and moral food for Russian scribes and for the entire people. Thus, she greatly contributed to the formation folk character. Thus, Russian literature immediately and forever marked its connection with national and state life.

The most significant works of the Kiev period include the teachings of Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century), "The Tale of Bygone Years" (XI - early XII centuries), "The Teachings of Prince Vladimir Monomakh" (XI - early XII centuries), the works of Bishop Kirill Turovsky (XII century), "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" (XII century), "The Walking of Daniel the Sharper" (XII century). It was a busy time literary activity, who created the samples literary forms and genres for subsequent centuries.

Russian literature of the late Middle Ages is characterized by a feeling of being chosen (the theory of Moscow - the third Rome). Internal upheavals of the 16th-17th centuries. gave literature the character of religious and political journalism. In some cases, these works rise to a high artistic level. Such are the “much noisy” messages of Ivan the Terrible and “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum.” At the same time, oral speech achieved great power, beauty and expressiveness. folk poetry, but ancient Russian writers almost did not use this source. But from the end of the 16th century. The secular everyday story is rapidly developing, as a rule, reworking the wandering plots of Western and Eastern literature.

WITH late XVII V. Russian culture is experiencing a rapid invasion of Western European values. The ideological revolution, which coincided with the reform of language and spelling, led to the cultural crisis of the 18th century. Writers of that time hesitated between unconditional imitation of French models and searches for own themes, language and style. The desire to give literature a national identity can be traced throughout the entire period: V.K. Trediakovsky and M.V. Lomonosov create a theory of correct Russian versification; A.V. Sumarokov writes songs in folk style; DI. Fonvizin creates comedies with Russian everyday content and lively spoken language; Derzhavin anticipates the “sacred heat” of later Russian poetry.

Final design Russian literary language found in the works of N.M. Karamzina, V.A. Zhukovsky and A.S. Pushkin.

Alexander's time was a period of great creative tension, when Russian writers experienced the first joy of independent creativity, completely national in spirit and style. Poetry has become an indisputable spiritual feat and calling, and has acquired the meaning of a “sacred act.” IN literary creativity one feels some special power of life, the highest expression which was the work of A.S. Pushkin.

Since the 1840s Moral and metaphysical anxiety is growing in literature, which has found theoretical reflection in romanticism. The theme emerges extra person¦.

The era of "great reforms" of the 1860-1870s. awakened the attention of literature to social issues. Two creative highways of Russian literature are identified. Supporters of “pure art” (A. Grigoriev, A.V. Druzhinin, A.A. Fet) resolutely rebel against the moral and utilitarian function of literature, while L.N. Tolstoy's goal is to "destruct aesthetics" for the sake of the moral transformation of people through art. Religious understanding of the Russian experience of the 19th century. found expression in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky. The predominance of philosophical issues in literature determines the flourishing of the Russian novel. However, philosophical motives are clearly heard in the lyrics (F.I. Tyutchev).

In the pre-revolutionary years, a new cultural upsurge took place in literature, called " silver age".

Since the 1890s a new flowering of Russian poetry begins. Symbolism became not only literary movement, but also new spiritual experiences. Poetry and literature again receive special vital significance, as a path to faith and eternity through art. Artists strive to become “beyond good and evil”, to overcome ethics with aesthetics. Mysticism V.S. Solovyova finds a brilliant poetic commentary in the work of A.A. Blok. Acmeism becomes a reaction to the religious excitement of symbolism, to the understanding of the poet as a medium of higher, irrational forces (N.S. Gumilyov). At the same time, A.P. Chekhov and I.A. Bunin continue the classical line of Russian literature, enriching it with the latest achievements in the field of form.

The revolution of 1917 caused an artificial separation of Russian literature into domestic and emigrant literature, with the most prominent writers ending up abroad. However, in general, literature has retained its unity, based on involvement in the traditions of classical Russian culture, which are present to one degree or another in the works of I.A. Bunina, V.V. Nabokova, I.I. Shmeleva, G.I. Gazdanova, G.V. Ivanova, V.F. Khodasevich and O.E. Mandelstam, M.A. Bulgakova, B.L. Pasternak, M. Gorky, M. Sholokhov. It was this line of Russian literature that earned it in the 20th century. global recognition.

The last great examples of Russian prose were given by A.I. Solzhenitsyn, who managed to give a second wind to the classic Russian novel. In the field of poetry, the work of I. Brodsky has received worldwide recognition.

The path traveled by Russian literature in the 20th century testifies to its enduring global significance and inexhaustible creative possibilities.