Westernizers and Slavophiles. Aesthetic criticism of V. S. Solovyov and his phases

By Masterweb

In Russia in the middle of the 19th century, two philosophical trends clashed - Westernism and Slavophilism. The so-called Westerners firmly believed that the country should adopt the European model of development, based on liberal democratic values. The Slavophils, in turn, believed that Russia should have its own way, different from the Western one. In this article, we will focus our attention on the Westernizer movement. What were their views and ideas? And who can be ranked among the main representatives of this trend in Russian philosophical thought?

Russia in the first half of the 19th century

So, Westerners - who are they? Before answering this question, it is worth getting at least a little familiar with the social, economic and cultural situation in which Russia found itself in the first half of the century before last.

At the beginning of the 19th century, a difficult test awaited Russia - the Patriotic War with the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte. It was liberating in nature and provoked an unprecedented upsurge of patriotic feelings among the broad masses of the population. In this war, the Russian people not only defended their independence, but also significantly strengthened the position of their state in the political arena. At the same time, the Patriotic War claimed thousands of lives and caused serious damage to the Russian economy.

Speaking about this period of Russian history, one cannot fail to mention the Decembrist movement. These were mostly officers and wealthy nobles who demanded reforms, fair trials and, of course, the abolition of serfdom. However, the Decembrist uprising, which took place in December 1825, failed.

Agriculture in the first half of the 19th century in Russia was still extensive. At the same time, active development of new lands begins - in the Volga region and in the south of Ukraine. As a result of technological progress, machines have been introduced into many industries. As a result, productivity increased two to three times. The pace of urbanization accelerated significantly: the number of cities in the Russian Empire almost doubled between 1801 and 1850.

Social Movements in Russia in the 1840s-1850s

The socio-political movements in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century noticeably revived, despite the reactionary policy of Nicholas I. And this revival was largely due to the ideological heritage of the Decembrists. The questions they posed were answered throughout the nineteenth century.

The main dilemma that was hotly discussed at that time was the choice of the development path for the country. And everyone saw this path in their own way. As a result, many directions of philosophical thought were born, both liberal and radical revolutionary.

All these directions can be combined into two large currents:

1. Westernism.
2. Slavophilism.

Westernism: definition and essence of the term

It is believed that the split in Russian society into the so-called Westerners and Slavophiles was introduced by Emperor Peter the Great. After all, it was he who began to actively adopt the ways and norms of life in European society.

Westerners are representatives of one of the most important trends in Russian social thought, which was formed at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. They were also often referred to as "Europeans". Russian Westernizers argued that there was no need to invent anything. For Russia, it is necessary to choose the advanced path that Europe has already successfully traveled. Moreover, the Westerners were sure that Russia would be able to follow it much further than the West did.

Among the origins of Westernism in Russia, three main factors can be distinguished:

• Ideas of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century.
• Economic reforms of Peter the Great.
• Establishment of close socio-economic ties with the countries of Western Europe.

By their origin, Westerners were mostly rich merchants and noble landowners. There were also scientists, publicists and writers among them. We list the most prominent representatives of Westernism in Russian philosophy:

• Petr Chaadaev.
• Vladimir Solovyov.
• Boris Chicherin.
• Ivan Turgenev.
• Alexander Herzen.
• Pavel Annenkov.
• Nikolay Chernyshevsky.
• Vissarion Belinsky.

The main ideas and views of Westerners

It is important to note that Westerners did not at all deny Russian identity and originality. They only insisted that Russia should develop in the wake of European civilization. And the foundation of this development should be based on universal human values ​​and personal freedoms. At the same time, they considered society as a tool for the realization of a single individual.

The main ideas of the Western movement include the following:

• Adoption of the main values ​​of the West.
• Closing the gap between Russia and Europe.
• Development and deepening of market relations.
• Establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia.
• The liquidation of serfdom.
• The development of universal education.
• Popularization of scientific knowledge.

V. S. Solovyov and his phases

Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) is a prominent representative of the so-called religious Westernism. He distinguishes three main phases in the course of general Western European development:

1. Theocratic (represented by Roman Catholicism).
2. Humanitarian (expressed in rationalism and liberalism).
3. Naturalistic (expressed in the natural science direction of thought).

According to Solovyov, all these phases can be traced in the same sequence in the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century. At the same time, the theocratic aspect was most clearly reflected in the views of Pyotr Chaadaev, the humanitarian aspect in the works of Vissarion Belinsky, and the naturalistic aspect in Nikolai Chernyshevsky.

Vladimir Solovyov was convinced that the key feature of Russia is that it is a deeply Christian state. Accordingly, the Russian idea should be an integral part of the Christian idea.

P. Ya. Chaadaev and his views

Far from the last place in the social movement of Russian Westernizers was occupied by the philosopher and publicist Pyotr Chaadaev (1794-1856). His main work, Philosophical Letters, was published in the Telescope magazine in 1836. This work seriously stirred up the public. The magazine was closed after this publication, and Chaadaev himself was declared insane.

In his "Philosophical Letters" Pyotr Chaadaev contrasts Russia and Europe. And he calls religion the foundation of this opposition. Catholic Europe is characterized by him as a progressive region with strong-willed and active people. But Russia, on the contrary, is a kind of symbol of inertia, immobility, which is explained by the excessive asceticism of the Orthodox faith. Chaadaev saw the reason for the stagnation in the development of the state also in the fact that the country was not sufficiently covered by the Enlightenment.

Westernizers and Slavophiles: Comparative Characteristics

Both the Slavophiles and the Westernizers sought to turn Russia into one of the leading countries in the world. However, they saw the methods and tools of this transformation differently. The following table will help you understand the key differences between the two currents.

Finally

So, Westerners are representatives of one of the branches of Russian social thought in the first half of the 19th century. They were sure that Russia in its further development should be guided by the experience of Western countries. It should be noted that the ideas of the Westerners subsequently to some extent transformed into the postulates of liberals and socialists.

Russian Westernism became a noticeable step forward in the development of dialectics and materialism. However, it has not been able to provide any concrete and scientifically substantiated answers to questions relevant to the public.

Kievyan street, 16 0016 Armenia, Yerevan +374 11 233 255

Westernism is a trend of Russian social thought that took shape in the 40s of the 19th century. Its objective meaning was to fight against serfdom and to recognize the "Western", that is, the bourgeois path of Russia's development. Z. was represented by V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, I. S. Turgenev, K. D. Kavelin , V.A. Milyutin, I.I. Panaev, A.D. Galakhov, V.N. Maikov, E.F. Korsh, N.Kh. Ketcher, D.L. Kryukov, P.G. Redkin, and also Petrashevists (in modern historical science there is an opinion according to which Petrashevists are excluded from Westernism as a special ideological phenomenon). The term "Z." limited to a certain extent, since it fixes only one side of the anti-serfdom trend, which was not homogeneous; Westerners had their own contradictions. This was clearly shown by Herzen's theoretical disputes (supported by Belinsky and Ogarev) with Granovsky, Korsh and others in 1845-1846 on questions of atheism, on the attitude towards socialist ideas. In contrast to the liberal trend in Z. Belinsky and Herzen expressed the emerging democratic and revolutionary trend in the Russian liberation movement. Nevertheless, the name Z. in relation to the 40s is legitimate, since in the conditions of insufficient differentiation of the social and ideological forces of that time, both tendencies still acted together in many cases.
Representatives of Western Europe advocated the “Europeanization” of the country—the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of bourgeois freedoms, primarily freedom of the press, and the broad and all-round development of industry. In this regard, they highly appreciated the reforms of Peter I, which prepared the further progressive development of Russia. In the field of literature, Westerners came out in support of the realistic trend and, above all, the work of N.V. Gogol. The main tribune of Z. were magazines "Domestic Notes" and "Contemporary" .

Belinsky, who most deeply understood the current political situation and the main tasks of the time, considered the ideologists of the official nationality and the part close to them to be his main opponents. Slavophilism . In relation to the oppositional tendencies within Z., he put forward, as the most correct, the tactics of unification. In 1847, he wrote: “We have great happiness for the journal if it manages to combine the works of several people with both talent and a way of thinking, if not completely identical, then at least not diverging in the main and general provisions. Therefore, to demand from a journal that all its contributors be in perfect agreement, even in shades of the main direction, means to demand the impossible” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 10, 1956, p. 235). For the same reason, Belinsky did not bring to the fore questions that caused disagreements among the representatives of Z. lead the wolves to the sheepfold, instead of taking them away from it” (ibid., vol. 12, 1956, p. 432). In the journals that became the organs of Z., along with scientific and popular science articles that told about the successes of European science and philosophy (for example, Botkin’s German Literature in 1843), the Slavophile theory of the community was disputed and the ideas of the commonality of the historical development of Russia and other European countries (for example, “A look at the legal life of ancient Russia” by Kavelin), the genre of travel essays-letters was widely cultivated: “Letters from abroad” (1841-1843) and “Letters from Paris” (1847-1848) by Annenkov, “Letters about Spain” (1847-1849, separate edition 1857) by Botkin, “Letters from Avenue Marigny” (1847) by Herzen, “Letters from Berlin” by Turgenev (1847), etc. An important role in the dissemination of Z.'s ideas was also played by the pedagogical activity of professors at Moscow University, primarily Granovsky's public lectures. Finally, oral propaganda was also important, especially the controversy between Westerners and Slavophiles in Moscow in the homes of P.Ya. Chaadaev, D.N. Sverbeev, and A.P. Elagina. This controversy, which became more acute every year, led in 1844 to a sharp divergence between Herzen's circle and the "Slavs". The most irreconcilable position in the fight against the Slavophiles was taken by Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, who in his letters to Muscovites reproached them for inconsistency and demanded a complete break: “... there is nothing to stand on ceremony with the Slavophiles” (ibid., p. 457). Belinsky's articles Tarantas (1845), Reply to the Muscovite (1847), A Look at Russian Literature in 1847 (1848) and others played a decisive role in the criticism of Slavophilism. Great help in this struggle was provided by Herzen's publicistic and artistic works, as well as the artistic works of Grigorovich, Dal, and especially Gogol, which, in the words of Belinsky, were "...positively and sharply anti-Slavophile" (ibid., vol. 10, p. 227). The ideological disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles are depicted in Herzen's Past and Thoughts. They were reflected in Turgenev's Notes of a Hunter, Herzen's The Thieving Magpie, V.A. Sollogub's Tarantass.

in the 1950s and especially in the early 1960s, in connection with the intensification of the class struggle, the liberal trend in Zambia increasingly opposed itself to revolutionary democracy, while on the other hand it drew closer and closer to Slavophilism. “... Between us and former close people in Moscow - everything is over - ..., - Herzen wrote in 1862. “The behavior of Korshey, Ketcher ... and all the bastards is such that we put an end to them and consider them outside the existing ones” (Sobr. soch., vol. 27, book 1, 1963, p. 214). With the transition to the camp of reaction, many Western liberals broke with the fundamental principles of realistic aesthetics and stood up for the positions of "pure art".
The name "Westerners" ("Europeans") arose in the early 40s in the polemical speeches of the Slavophiles. In the future, it firmly entered the literary everyday life. So M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote to the book “Abroad”: “As you know, in the forties, Russian literature (and after it, of course, the young reading public) was divided into two camps: Westerners and Slavophiles ... I, at the same time, time had just left the school bench and, brought up on the articles of Belinsky, naturally joined the Westernizers” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 14, 1936, p. 161). The term "Z." was used. and in scientific literature - not only bourgeois-liberal (A.N. Pypin, Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky, S.A. Vengerov), but also Marxist (G.V. Plekhanov). Bourgeois-liberal researchers are characterized by a non-class, abstract-enlightenment approach to the problem of Z., which led to smoothing out the contradictions between the Westernizers and Slavophiles in the 40s (for example, P.N. Sakulin’s articles in “History of Russia in the 19th century”, part 1-4, 1907-1911) and to an attempt to consider in the categories of Z. and Slavophilism all the subsequent development of Russian social thought (for example, F. Nelidov in "Essays on the History of Recent Russian Literature", 1907). The latter point of view was also shared by P.B. Struve, who saw in the dispute between the Marxists and the Narodniks “... a natural continuation of the disagreement between Slavophilism and Westernism” (“Critical Notes on the Question of the Economic Development of Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1894, p. 29). This provoked a sharp objection from Lenin, who emphasized that “populism reflected such a fact of Russian life, which was still almost absent in the era when Slavophilism and Westernism were taking shape, namely: the opposition of the interests of labor and capital” (Soch., vol. 1, p. 384 ). Plekhanov contributed a great deal of value to the development of this problem. While he singled out various tendencies in Z., he regarded it as a whole as a progressive phenomenon.

At the end of the 40s of the 20th century, an attempt was made in Soviet historical and literary science to revise this point of view, the current understanding of the problem of Z. The rational point of this criticism is to emphasize the well-known conventionality of the concept of Z., the heterogeneity of Z. as a current. However, unfounded conclusions were drawn from this position: Z., beyond which the views of Belinsky, Herzen, and partly Granovsky were taken out, were interpreted almost as a reactionary phenomenon. Such an approach sinned with anti-historicism, mechanically transferring to the 40s of the 19th century the categories of the politically more developed situation of the 60s.

Brief literary encyclopedia in 9 volumes. State scientific publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia", v.2, M., 1964.

Literature:

Lenin V.I., In memory of Herzen, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 18; Plekhanov G.V., M.P. Pogodin and the struggle of classes, Soch., vol. 23, L.-M., 1926; his own, Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky, ibid., his own, About Belinsky, ibid.; Belinsky V.G., Works of Prince V.F. Odoevsky, Poln. coll. soch., vol. 8, 1955; his own, A look at Russian literature of 1846, ibid., vol. 10, M., 1956; his, A Look at Russian Literature of 1847, ibid.; his own, Answer “Moskvityaninu, ibid; his, Letter to N.V. Gogol July 15, n.s. 1847, ibid.; Herzen A.I., Past and thoughts, Sobr. op. in 30 vols., v. 8-10, M., 1956; his, On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia, ibid., vol. 7, M., 1956; Chernyshevsky N.G., Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature, Poln. coll. op. in 15 vols., t 3, M., 1947; his own, Works of T.P. Granovsky, ibid., v. 3-4, M., 1947-1948; Vetrinsky Ch. (Cheshikhin V.E.), Granovsky and his time, 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1905; Pypin A.N., Characteristics of literary opinions from the twenties to the fifties, 4th ed., St. Petersburg, 1909, ch. 6.7, 9; Veselovsky A., Western influence in the new Russian literature, M., 1916. p. 200-234; Memoirs of Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin. Moscow of the forties, M., 1929; Azadovsky M.K., Folklore in the concepts of Westerners (Granovsky), Abstracts of reports at the section of philological sciences of Leningrad State University, Leningrad, 1945, p. 13-18; Nifontov A.S., Russia in 1848, M., 1949; Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism, vol. 1, L., 1950; Dementiev A., Essays on the history of Russian journalism 1840-1850, M.-L., 1951; Dmitriev S.S., Russian community and the seven hundredth anniversary of Moscow (1847), Historical Notes, 1951, vol. 36; History of Russian literature, vol. 7, M.-L., 1955; History of Russian criticism, vol. 1, M.-L., 1958; Kuleshov V.I., “Domestic notes” and literature of the 40s of the XIX century, M., 1959; Annenkov P.V., Literary memories, M., 1960; Polyakov M.Ya., Vissarion Belinsky. Personality - ideas - era, M., 1960; Karyakin Yu., Plimak E., Mr. Cohn explores the Russian spirit, M., 1961.

Russian literary-critical and philosophical thought of the second half of the 19th century

(Literature lesson in grade 10)

Type of lesson - lesson-lecture

slide 1

Our turbulent, impetuous time, which has sharply liberated spiritual thought and social life, requires an active awakening in a person of a sense of history, personal, deliberate and creative participation in it. We should not be "Ivans who do not remember kinship", we should not forget that our national culture is based on such a colossus as Russian literature of the 19th century.

Now, when on television and video screens the dominance of Western culture, sometimes empty and vulgar, when petty-bourgeois values ​​are being imposed on us and we are all wandering along the side of a stranger, forgetting our own language, we must remember that the names of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov are incredibly revered in the West, that Tolstoy alone became the ancestor of a whole creed, Ostrovsky alone created a national theater, that Dostoevsky spoke out against future rebellions if a tear of at least one child was shed in them.

Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century was the ruler of thoughts. From the question "Who is to blame?" she moves on to the question "What to do?" Writers will decide this question in different ways due to their social and philosophical views.

According to Chernyshevsky, our literature was elevated to the dignity of a national cause, the most viable forces of Russian society came here.

Literature is not a game, not fun, not entertainment. Russian writers treated their work in a special way: for them it was not a profession, but a service in the highest sense of the word, a service to God, the people, the Fatherland, art, and high. Beginning with Pushkin, Russian writers saw themselves as prophets who came into this world "to burn people's hearts with the verb."

The word was perceived not as an empty sound, but as a deed. This belief in the miraculous power of the word was also hidden in Gogol, dreaming of creating a book that itself, by the power of only the only and undeniably true thoughts expressed in it, should transform Russia.

Russian literature in the second half of the 19th century was closely connected with the social life of the country and was even politicized. Literature was the mouthpiece of ideas. Therefore, we need to get acquainted with the socio-political life of the second half of the 19th century.

slide 2

The socio-political life of the second half of the 19th century can be divided into stages.

*Cm. slide 2-3

slide 4

What parties existed in the political horizon of that time and what did they represent?(Teacher announces slide 4, animated)

slide 5

In the course of the slide demonstration, the teacher gives definitions, students write them in a notebook

vocabulary work

Conservative (reactionary)- a person who defends stagnant political views, averse to everything new and advanced

Liberal - a person who adheres to middle positions in his political views. He talks about the need for change, but in a liberal way

Revolutionary - a person who actively calls for changes, who does not go to them in a peaceful way, defending a radical break in the system

slide 6

This slide organizes the subsequent work. Students draw the table in a notebook to fill it in during the lecture.

The Russian liberals of the 1960s advocated reforms without revolutions and pinned their hopes on social reforms "from above". The liberals were divided into Westerners and Slavophiles. Why? The fact is that Russia is a Eurasian country. She absorbed both eastern and western information. This identity has taken on a symbolic meaning. Some believed that this originality contributed to the lag of Russia, others believed that this was its strength. The first began to be called "Westerners", the second - "Slavophiles". Both trends were born on the same day.

Slide 7

In 1836, the article "Philosophical Letters" appeared in the "Telescope". Its author was Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. After this article, he was declared insane. Why? The fact is that in the article Chaadaev expressed an extremely bleak view of Russia, the historical fate of which seemed to him "a gap in the order of understanding."

Russia, according to Chaadaev, was deprived of organic growth, cultural continuity, in contrast to the Catholic West. She had no "tradition", no historical past. Her present is extremely mediocre, and her future depends on whether she enters the cultural family of Europe, refusing historical independence.

Slide 8

Westerners included such writers and critics as Belinsky, Herzen, Turgenev, Botkin, Annensky, Granovsky.

Slide 9

The press organs of the Westerners were the journals Sovremennik, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and Library for Reading. In their journals, Westerners defended the traditions of "pure art". What does "pure" mean? Pure - devoid of teaching, any ideological views. They tend to portray people as they see them, like, for example, Druzhinin.

Slide 10

slide 11

Slavophilism is an ideological and political movement of the mid-19th century, whose representatives contrasted the historical path of Russia's development with the development of Western European countries and idealized the patriarchal features of Russian life and culture.

The founders of Slavophile ideas were Peter and Ivan Kireevsky, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov and Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov.

In the circle of Slavophiles, the fate of the Slavic tribe was often discussed. The role of the Slavs, according to Khomyakov, was belittled by German historians and philosophers. And this is all the more surprising that it was the Germans who most organically assimilated the Slavic elements of spiritual culture. However, while insisting on the original historical development of Russia, the Slavophiles spoke disparagingly of the successes of European culture. It turned out that the Russian person had nothing to console himself with in the West, that Peter the Great, who opened a window to Europe, distracted her from her original path.

slide 12

The mouthpieces of the ideas of Slavophilism were the magazines Moskvityanin, Russkaya Beseda, and the newspaper Severnaya Pchela. The literary-critical program of the Slavophiles was connected with their views. They did not accept socio-analytical principles in Russian prose and poetry; refined psychologism was alien to them. They paid much attention to CNT.

slide 13

Critics in these journals were Shevyryov, Pogodin, Ostrovsky, Apollon Grigoriev.

Slide 14

The literary activity of Russian writers has always been associated with the socio-political situation in the country, and the second half of the 19th century is no exception.

In the 40s of the 19th century, the dominance of the "natural school" in literature. This school fought against romanticism. Belinsky believed that "it is necessary to crush romanticism with the scourge of humor." Herzen called romanticism "spiritual scrofula". Romanticism was opposed to the analysis of reality itself. Critics of that time believe that "literature should follow the path blazed by Gogol." Belinsky called Gogol "the father of the natural school."

By the beginning of the 1940s, Pushkin and Lermontov were dead, and romanticism was leaving with them.

In the 40s, such writers as Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Goncharov came to literature.

slide 15

Where did the term "natural school" come from? So Belinsky called this current in 1846. This school is condemned for being "filthy", for the fact that the writers of this school draw the details of the life of poor people, humiliated and offended. Samarin, an opponent of the "natural school", divided the heroes of these books into beaten and beating, scolded and scolded.

The main question that the writers of the “natural school” pose to themselves is “Who is to blame?”, Circumstances or the person himself in his miserable life. Until the 1940s, it was believed in literature that circumstances were to blame; after the 1940s, it was believed that the person himself was to blame.

Very characteristic of the natural school” is the expression “environment stuck”, that is, much in a person’s distress was attributed to the environment.

The "Natural School" took a step towards the democratization of literature, putting forward the most important problem - the personality. Since a person begins to move to the forefront of the image, the work is saturated with psychological content. The school comes to the traditions of Lermontov, seeks to show a person from the inside. The "natural school" in the history of Russian literature was necessary as a transition from romanticism to realism.

slide 16

How is realism different from romanticism?

1. The main thing in realism is the representation of types. Belinsky wrote: “It’s a matter of types. Types are representatives of the environment. Typical faces should be looked for in different classes. It was necessary to pay all attention to the crowd, to the masses.
2. The subject of the image was not heroes, but typical faces in typical circumstances.
3. Since the subject of the image is an ordinary, prosaic person, then the genres, therefore, are prosaic: novels, short stories. During this period, Russian literature moves from romantic poems and poems to realistic stories and novels. This period affected the genres of such works as Pushkin's novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" and Gogol's prose poem "Dead Souls". The novel and the story makes it possible to imagine a person in public life, the novel admits the whole and the details, it is convenient for combining fiction and the truth of life.
4. The hero of the works of the realistic method is not the hero of the individual, but a small person like Gogol's Akakiy Akakievich or Pushkin's Samson Vyrin. A small person is a person of low social status, depressed by circumstances, meek, most often an official.

So, realism becomes the literary method of the second half of the 19th century.

Slide 17

In the early 1960s, an upsurge in the socio-political struggle is planned. As I said earlier, the question “who is to blame?” replaced by the question "what to do?" Literature and social activity include "new people", no longer contemplatives and talkers, but figures. These are revolutionary democrats.

The rise of the socio-political struggle was associated with the inglorious end of the Crimean War, with the amnesty of the Decembrists after the death of Nicholas 1. Alexander 2 carried out many reforms, including the peasant reform of 1861.

Slide 18

The late Belinsky developed socialist ideas in his articles. They were picked up by Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. They are moving from a shaky alliance with the liberals to an uncompromising struggle against them.

Dobrolyubov is in charge of the satirical department of the Sovremennik magazine and publishes the Whistle magazine.

Revolutionary democrats are promoting the idea of ​​a peasant revolution. Dobrolyubov becomes the founder of the critical method, creates his own "real criticism". Democratic revolutionaries unite in the Sovremennik magazine. These are Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, Pisarev.

Slide 19

In the 60s, realism - the only method in Russian literature - was divided into several currents.

Slide 20

In the 1960s, the “superfluous person” was condemned. Eugene Onegin and Pechorin can be attributed to the "superfluous people". Nekrasov writes: “People like him roam the earth, looking for gigantic business for themselves.” They can't do it and they don't want to. These are people who "think at a crossroads." These are reflective people, that is, people who subject themselves to introspection, constantly analyzing themselves and their actions, as well as the actions and thoughts of other people. The first reflective personality in literature was Hamlet with his question "To be or not to be?" The “superfluous person” is being replaced by a “new person” - a nihilist, a revolutionary, a democrat, a native of a heterogeneous environment (no longer a nobleman). These are people of action, they want to actively change lives, they are fighting for the emancipation of women.

slide 21

After the manifesto that liberated the peasants in 1861, contradictions escalate. After 1861, government reaction sets in again:*Cm. slide

A dispute broke out between Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo over the peasantry. The activist of the Russian Word, Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev, saw revolutionary force in the proletariat, raznochintsy revolutionaries, carrying natural science knowledge to the people. He condemned the figures of Sovremennik Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov for embellishing the Russian peasant.

slide 22

The 1970s are characterized by the activities of the revolutionary Narodniks. The Narodniks preached "going among the people" in order to teach, heal, and enlighten the people. The leaders of this movement are Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, Tkachev. Their organization "Land and Freedom" split, the terrorist "Narodnaya Volya" emerged from it. Populist terrorists make many attempts on Alexander 2, who is eventually killed, after which the government reacts.

slide 23

In parallel with the Narodnaya Volya, Narodniks, there is another thought - religious and philosophical. The ancestor of this trend was Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov.

He believes that God is the creator of the universe. But why is the world imperfect? Because man has contributed to the inferiority of the world. Fedorov correctly believed that a person spends his strength on the negative. We have forgotten that we are brothers and perceive the other person as a competitor. Hence the decline of human morality. He believes that the salvation of mankind in unification, catholicity, and Russia contains the makings of a future unification, as in Russia.*See next slide

slide 24

Homework:

Learn the lecture, prepare for the test work

Prepare for the test work on the questions:

1. Liberal Western Party. Views, figures, criticism, magazines.
2. Liberal Slavophile Party. Views, criticism, magazines.
3. Public Program and Critical Activities of Soil Workers
4. Literary and critical activity of revolutionary democrats
5. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo. Conservative ideology of the 80s.
6. Russian liberal populism. Religious and philosophical thought of the 80-90s.

"Domestic Notes". The journal was founded in 1818 by Svinin. It published articles on historical and geographical topics, as well as reports on the life and customs of the Russian people, who thrive under the rule of the tsar, the church and the nobility. The magazine was not very successful. In 1831 he stopped publishing. But in 1838 Svinin tried to resume the publication. But again, unsuccessful. And he gave the publishing rights to A.A. Kraevsky, a man with literary abilities and experience, as well as good business acumen. He had long dreamed of publishing a magazine. He was pro-Western. The magazine was voluminous, encyclopedic. Enjoyed success. Almost immediately, Belinsky began to cooperate in it, highly appreciated him. Under Belinsky, the publication received a clear direction - the struggle against serfdom, remnants, stagnation, and Asianism. This position was especially noticeable in the departments of bibliography and criticism, in which Belinsky published articles. Nekrasov, Herzen, Panaev, Ogarev participated in the work of the journal, Lermontov, Koltsov and Turgenev were published. The journal actively argued with the publications of Bulgarin, Grech, Senkovsky, especially with “ Library for reading”, as well as with Slavophile publications . Belinsky attracted many prominent writers to work in the magazine - Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Odoevsky, Dal, Fet, Maikov and others. The translation department of the magazine was also interesting - Dickens, F. Cooper, George Sand, G. Heine. Of the foreign writers of the past, only Goethe and Shakespeare appeared on the pages of this publication. The department of criticism published reviews of not only domestic, but also foreign literature, placed translations of critical articles by foreign authors. There were also polemical articles in the journal against the appearances in the press of well-known Slavophiles. The journal spoke out for the spread of enlightenment, for freedom, for progressive forms of economic, political and cultural life. He stood up for the comprehensive development of the country and its people. He fought against serfdom, using all possible pretexts for this. For example, he published articles about slavery in America. He wrote about new methods of labor, leading to the idea of ​​the need to abolish serfdom. An important place was given to the national culture of Russia and the scornful attitude of the nobility towards it was condemned. Despite their Westernizing views, Herzen and Belinsky, who collaborated in the journal, did not in the least bow to the West, although they objectively assessed the great achievements of its capitalist civilization. Many materials in the journal were devoted to the development of science, highlighting new developments in philosophy. However, in 1846 Belinsky, Nekrasov and Herzen left the magazine, after which he took a liberal position.

"Contemporary". The magazine, founded by A.S. Pushkin in 1846, was purchased from Pletnev by Nekrasov and Panaev. Among its leading employees is Belinsky, who actually carried out the ideological leadership. He worked here for only two years, but this is the most noticeable period in the life of the updated magazine. “Letter to Gogol” is a kind of program work by Belinsky, for a long time known only in handwritten version. Here his view is expressed on the role of literature and journalism in the struggle against serfdom, against the arbitrariness of those in power, against the remnants of autocracy. It is with this measure that Belinsky approaches the assessment of contemporary literature and journalism, in this vein he reacts to the speeches of other journals, from such positions he participates in polemics with opponents. This ensured the success of the magazine. It comes out with a circulation of 3,100 copies, and begins to generate income. After Belinsky's death, the magazine remains one of the best magazines. The works of Tolstoy appear on its pages, Turgenev Goncharov, Pisemsky are published. The journal was closed in 1866.

Editions of the "revolutionary democrats"- these are publications produced abroad and delivered to Russia illegally. The first person to do this was A.I. Herzen, a talented publicist, writer and philosopher. He decided in practice to show the power of the free printed word and began publishing his almanac and newspaper with him. He was a supporter of Russian utopian socialism. And he considered revolutionary propaganda to be the main task of his journalistic and publishing activities. Criticism of serfdom, enlightenment of the people, dissemination of the ideas of utopian socialism, reliance on the Russian peasant community - these are the main topics of his publications. On their pages, he supported revolutionary manifestations in different countries, primarily the Polish insurgents of Russia. First, Herzen publishes pamphlets, then an almanac and a newspaper.

Herzen's publications: the almanac "Polar Star" (1855) and the newspaper "The Bell" (1857-1867). The Almanac was published in London. The name completely repeats the title of the Decembrists' almanac. This is also reflected in the design - on the cover there are portraits of all the executed Decembrists. The first issue came out on the anniversary of their execution - July 25, 1855. The main thing in it is a letter to Emperor Alexander II, in which he demanded freedom of speech and the release of the peasants. The publication was distributed in Russia. A year later, the second issue came out. It published forbidden poems by Pushkin, Ryleev and other poets. Herzen's literary works also played a propaganda role and were perceived as journalistic materials by readers. These were the features of the time. The Almanac was rarely published. Herzen decided to publish in addition to it the newspaper “ Bell". This first revolutionary newspaper had the epigraph “ I call the living!”. It was published once a month, and becoming an independent publication in 1861, twice a month. The main theme of the newspaper's speeches was determined by what was proclaimed in “ Pole Star" motto: “ Everywhere, in everything, always be on the side of the will against violence, on the side of reason against prejudices, on the side of science against fanaticism ... ”The topical sharp messages from Russia were published here. Many materials were written in the genre of revolutionary appeals for the liberation of the peasants from the oppression of the landlords, for the abolition of censorship and freedom of speech. For the liberation of peasants from beatings. In his speeches, Herzen mercilessly criticized the autocracy, landlords, embezzler dignitaries. He contributed to the development of new genres of revolutionary journalism: editorial, critical correspondence, open letter pamphlet. The abolition of serfdom first pleased Herzen. But then it became clear that the problems hardly became less. Peasants without land, the authorities are still pursuing an anti-people policy. In a word, Herzen had no shortage of topics for publications. Writes for this publication and his friend Ogarev. The success of the newspaper in Russia was enormous. Many have read it. The circulation was 2500-3000 copies. Naturally, the newspaper was published at the publisher's own expense. However, Herzen did not achieve his goal - there was no revolution in Russia. Freedom of speech was not gained. Democracy has not been formed. He experienced some disappointment. And he realized that spontaneous peasant revolts, senseless and merciless, in his words, cannot lead to success. In recent years, he began to devote more materials in the newspaper to the experience of the revolutionary struggle in European countries, the activities of the First International. In 1867 the publication stops. However, the influence of Herzen's journalism on Russian society and on journalism as a whole is very significant.

The main thing in the work of V. G. Belinsky - the revolutionary-democratic aspiration of the critic, his connection with the ideas of the liberation movement of his time. He was the first professional democratic journalist who, through his searches and reflections in the field of the history and theory of journalism, laid the foundations of the science of the press. For the first time in Russia, he formulated the requirements that journalism must meet in the article “Nothing about Nothing, or a Report to the Publisher of Teleskop for the Last Half Year (1835) of Russian Literature.” The article is written in the form of a review. The title allows you to touch on many topics and plots. Belinsky considers only magazines. They find the most complete expression of the leading trends of the time. Broad coverage of journalism issues. This is one of the first theoretical works in this area. It deals with questions about the direction of the magazine and how to influence the public. The goals and functions of the periodical and its various departments - all this is reflected in the article. Belinsky saw in the journal an enormous ideological force and wanted to use it to solve democratic problems. He expanded the concept of journalism - not only a way of intellectual development of the people, but also the only way to awaken their political and legal consciousness. “The magazine must have ... physiognomy, character; almanac impersonality is the worst thing for him. The physiognomy and character of the journal consists in its direction, its opinion, its dominant teaching, of which it should be the organ...”. The article is interesting for understanding the journal struggle of the 30s. 19th century It forged a democratic press. The article is directed against the anti-democratic concepts and protective activities of the journal triumvirate. The publicist Belinsky opposes Bulgarin, who, as he believes, mocks the Russian people and their literature, against the publisher of "Library for Reading" Senkovsky, who, as he claims, proclaims unscrupulousness and lack of ideas as the basis of his editorial activity. He condemns the subjective nature of the criticism of the Moscow Observer. Belinsky is trying to understand the reasons for the growth of the magazine industry, the reasons for the influence of trade journalism. It was quite significant. Given the underdevelopment of capitalist relations in Russia, the Russian bourgeois have learned to profit from the printed word. The noble educational and humanistic role of the press gave way to a frank trade in words - publishers' incomes were directly dependent on the depreciation of the ideas expressed by magazines. He tries to understand the reason for their popularity. Teaches to recognize true values ​​and false declarations. The article is full of pathos and struggle against the journal triumvirate (Senkovskii, Bulgarin and Grech with their publications). They, according to Belinsky, with their vulgarity, narrow-mindedness and obvious calculation for the tastes of the landlords, stood in the way of progressive journalism, which wanted to familiarize Russian people with the achievements of European culture, arouse their thirst for knowledge, interest in progress and desire for freedom. In trade journalism, he also sees positive features - its entertaining, accessibility, variety and richness of materials. He considers it necessary to use this advanced journalism. But he certainly stands for the ideology of publications at the same time as using methods of “winning” readers. But Belinsky's contribution to Russian journalism is not limited to this. He developed and made universal the genre of literary criticism, which became the leading genre in journalism in the second half of the 19th century. Belinsky creates a theory of realism, the main theses of which are the originality and nationality (i.e. truthfulness, fidelity) of literature. The works of the critic have long been moral and aesthetic guidelines for the intellectual part of society.

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

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

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

Slavophiles and Westernizers

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

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

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

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

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

The Slavophiles called their opponents Westernizers.

The historical merits of both "literary parties" were obvious.

Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, as well as Yu.F. Samarin criticized serfdom and bureaucracy, fought for freedom of opinion, for the spiritual openness of society. Although they did not reject the "official nationality", their views were more democratic. The struggle for "Russianness" became their banner. Under this slogan, they appeared in their magazines Moskvityanin, Moskovskie Sbornik, Russkaya Beseda, in the newspapers Molva, Parus, Den.

As an ideological trend, Slavophilism took shape from 1840 to 1847. It existed until the beginning of the era of reforms. At the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, Slavophile theorists died one after another, and the abolition of serfdom, coupled with the subsequent reforms, opened the way for capitalism in Russia. Russia embarked on the Western path of development, which the Slavophils sincerely hated and considered harmful to Russia. The Slavophils stood up for the community, "peace", considering this a feature of the Russian way of life, Russian civilization. They believed that Russian people are characterized by "humility", "community"; there is no primordial rebellion, no revolutionary spirit, no backwardness from Europe either, it's just that Russia has its own special way of development.

The Slavophiles did not constitute an art school. Their work looked relatively pale compared to the work of such Westerners as Turgenev, Herzen and Belinsky. However, the outstanding Russian philosopher of the 20th century N.A. Berdyaev believed that it was "the Slavophiles, and not the Westerners, who fought over the riddle of what the creator thought about Russia and what path he prepared for her."

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

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

The Westerners, in contrast to the Slavophiles, recognized not faith, but reason as the basis of the individual and society. They put a person at the center of their reflections on the future, emphasized the inherent value of each person as a bearer of reason, opposing the idea of ​​a free individual to the idea of ​​the “cathedralism” of the Slavophils. They argued that Russia, albeit belatedly, should go in the same direction of historical development as the Western European countries, and believed that Russia needed to be Europeanized. The Westerners were in favor of a constitutional-monarchical form of government with limited autocracy, with guarantees of freedom of speech, a public court and the inviolability of the individual. The Westerners had a negative attitude towards the police-bureaucratic orders of Nikolaev Russia, but, like the Slavophiles, they advocated the abolition of serfdom "from above".

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