Chapter IX THE FALL OF serfdom. BOURGEOIS REFORMS OF THE 60-70s Late 50s - early 60s of the XIX century. became a turning point in the history of Russia, including Ukraine. During these years, the first revolutionary situation took shape, which clearly showed the impossibility of

The fall of serfdom On the eve of the reform of 1861, the anti-serfdom sentiments of the peasants reached a particularly wide scope. In order to prevent the elimination of serfdom "from below", that is, by the peasants themselves, the government of Alexander II shortly after the Crimean War

Advanced Russian literature of the 10-30s of the XIX century

Advanced Russian literature of the 10-30s of the XIX century developed in the struggle against serfdom and autocracy, continuing the liberation traditions of the great Radishchev.

The time of the Decembrists and Pushkin was one of the essential stages in that long struggle against serfdom and autocracy, which unfolded with the greatest acuteness and in a new quality later, in the era of revolutionary democrats.

The struggle against the autocratic-feudal system, which intensified at the beginning of the 19th century, was due to new phenomena in the material life of Russian society. Strengthening the decomposition process feudal relations, the ever-increasing penetration of capitalist tendencies into the economy, the growth of exploitation of the peasantry, its further impoverishment - all this exacerbated social contradictions, contributed to the development of the class struggle, the growth of the liberation movement in the country. For the progressive people of Russia, it became more and more obvious that the existing socio-economic system was an obstacle to the progress of the country in all areas of economic life and culture.

The activities of representatives of the noble period of the liberation movement turned out to be directed, to one degree or another, against the foundations of feudalism - feudal property on the land and against political institutions that corresponded to the interests of the feudal landlords, who defended their interests. Although the Decembrists, according to V. I. Lenin’s definition, were still “terribly far ... from the people,”1 but for all that, their movement in its best aspects reflected the hopes of the people for liberation from centuries of slavery.

The greatness, strength, talent, inexhaustible possibilities of the Russian people were revealed with particular brightness during the Patriotic War of 1812. Popular patriotism, which grew in Patriotic War, played a huge role in the development of the Decembrist movement.

The Decembrists represented the first generation of Russian revolutionaries, whom V. I. Lenin called "revolutionary nobles" or "noble revolutionaries." “In 1825 Russia saw for the first time a revolutionary movement against tsarism,” said V. I. Lenin in his Report on the Revolution of 1905.2

In the article “In Memory of Herzen”, V. I. Lenin gave a description of the Decembrist movement given by Herzen: “The nobles gave Russia the Bironov and Arakcheevs, countless “drunk officers, bullies, card players, heroes of fairs, hounds, brawlers, sekunov, seralniks”, Yes, beautiful-hearted Manilovs. “And between them,” Herzen wrote, “people developed on December 14, a phalanx of heroes fed, like Romulus and Remus, with milk wild beast... These are some heroes, forged from pure steel from head to toe, warriors-companions who deliberately went out to an obvious death in order to awaken the younger generation to a new life and purify children born in an environment of butchery and servility. I. Lenin emphasized the revolutionary significance of the Decembrist movement and its role for the further development of advanced social thought in Russia and spoke with respect of the republican ideas of the Decembrists.

IN AND. Lenin taught that under the conditions when the exploiting classes dominate, “there are two national cultures in every national culture.”2 The disintegration of the feudal-serf system was accompanied by the rapid development of advanced Russian national culture. In the first decades of the 19th century, it was a culture directed against the "culture" of the reactionary nobility, the culture of the Decembrists and Pushkin - the culture for which Belinsky and Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, representatives of a qualitatively new, revolutionary democratic stage of the Russian liberation movement.

During the years of the war with Napoleon, the Russian people not only defended their independence by defeating the hitherto invincible hordes of Napoleon, but also liberated other peoples of Europe from the Napoleonic yoke. The victory of Russia over Napoleon, being an event of world-historical significance, became a new and important step in the development of national self-consciousness. “It was not Russian journals that awakened the Russian nation to a new life—it was awakened by the glorious dangers of 1812,” asserted Chernyshevsky.3 The exceptional significance of 1812 in the historical life of Russia was also repeatedly emphasized by Belinsky.

“The time from 1812 to 1815 was a great epoch for Russia,” wrote Belinsky. “We mean here not only the outward grandeur and brilliance with which Russia covered herself in this great era for her, but also the internal success in citizenship and education, resulting from this era. It can be shown without exaggeration that Russia has lived longer and stepped further from 1812 to the present day than from the reign of Peter until 1812. On the one hand, the 12th year, having shaken all of Russia from end to end, awakened its dormant forces and discovered in it new, hitherto unknown sources of strength... the beginning of public opinion; in addition, the 12th year dealt a strong blow to the stagnant antiquity ... All this greatly contributed to the growth and strengthening of the emerging society.

With the development of the revolutionary movement of the Decembrists, with the advent of Pushkin, Russian literature entered into new period of his history, which Belinsky rightly called the Pushkin period. to the new one, high step patriotic and emancipatory ideas, characteristic of the preceding progressive Russian literature, were raised.

The best Russian writers “following Radishchev” sang of freedom, patriotic devotion to the motherland and people, angrily denounced the despotism of the autocracy, boldly revealed the essence of the feudal system and advocated for its destruction. While sharply criticizing the existing social order, advanced Russian literature at the same time created images of positive heroes, passionate patriots, inspired by the desire to devote their lives to the cause of liberating the motherland from the chains of absolutism and serfdom. Hostility to the entire system that existed at that time, ardent patriotism, exposure of the cosmopolitanism and nationalism of the reactionary nobility, a call for a decisive break in feudal-serf relations is the pathos of the work of the Decembrist poets, Griboedov, Pushkin and all progressive writers of this time.

The powerful upsurge of national self-consciousness, caused by 1812 and the development of the liberation movement, was an incentive for the further democratization of literature. Along with images the best people From the nobility, in fiction, images of people from the social lower classes began to appear more and more often, embodying the remarkable features of the Russian national character. The pinnacle of this process is the creation by Pushkin in the 30s of the image of the leader of the peasant uprising Emelyan Pugachev. Pushkin, although not free from prejudice against the "merciless" methods of peasant reprisal against the landowners, nevertheless, following the truth of life, embodied in the image of Pugachev the charming features of an intelligent, fearless, devoted to the people leader of the peasant uprising.

The very process of establishing realism in Russian literature of the 1920s and 1930s was very complex and proceeded in a struggle that took sharp forms.

The beginning of the Pushkin period was marked by the emergence and development of progressive romanticism in literature, which was inspired by poets and writers of the Decembrist circle and headed by Pushkin. “Romanticism is the first word that announced the Pushkin period,” Belinsky wrote (I, 383), linking the struggle for the originality and popular character of literature, the pathos of love of freedom and public protest with the concept of romanticism. Progressive Russian romanticism was engendered by the demands of life itself, reflected the struggle between the new and the old, and therefore was a kind of transitional stage on the road to realism (while the romantics of the reactionary trend were hostile to all realistic tendencies and advocated the feudal-serf order).

Pushkin, having led the direction of progressive romanticism and survived the romantic stage in his work, embodying the strongest aspects of this romanticism, overcame it unusually quickly. weak sides- a certain abstraction of images, the lack of analysis of the contradictions of life - and turned to realism, the founder of which he became. The inner content of the Pushkin period of Russian literature was the process of preparation and approval of artistic realism, which grew on the basis of the socio-political struggle of the advanced forces of Russian society on the eve of the uprising of December 14, 1825 and in the post-December years. It is Pushkin who has the historical merit of the comprehensive development and implementation in artistic creativity by the principle of the realistic method, the principles of depicting typical characters in typical circumstances. The principles of realism laid down in Pushkin's work were developed by his great successors - Gogol and Lermontov, and then raised to an even higher level by revolutionary democrats and strengthened in the fight against all kinds of reactionary trends by a whole galaxy of progressive Russian writers. Pushkin's work embodies the foundations of the world significance of Russian literature, which grew with each new stage of its development.

In the same period, Pushkin accomplished his great feat by transforming the Russian literary language, having improved on the basis of the national language that structure of the Russian language, which, according to the definition of I.V. Stalin, “has been preserved in everything essential, as the basis of the modern Russian language.”1

In his work, Pushkin reflected the proud and joyful consciousness of the moral strength of the Russian people, who demonstrated their greatness and gigantic power to the whole world.

But the people, who overthrew the “idol weighing over the kingdoms” and hoped for liberation from feudal oppression, after the victorious war, remained in serf captivity as before. In the manifesto of August 30 of the year, which, in connection with the end of the war, granted various “mercies”, only the following was said about the peasants: “Peasants, our faithful people, may they receive their reward from God.” The people were deceived by the autocracy. The defeat of Napoleon ended with the triumph of reaction, which determined the entire international and domestic policy of Russian tsarism. In the autumn of 1815, the monarchs of Russia, Prussia and Austria formed the so-called Holy Alliance to fight national liberation and revolutionary movements in European countries. At congresses Holy Union which Marx and Engels called "bandit"2, measures were sought and discussed to combat the development of revolutionary ideas and national liberation movements.

The year 1820 - the year of Pushkin's expulsion from Petersburg - was especially rich in revolutionary events. These events unfolded in Spain, Italy and Portugal; a military conspiracy was uncovered in Paris; Petersburg, an armed uprising of the Semenovsky regiment broke out, accompanied by serious unrest in the entire royal guard. The revolutionary movement also spread to Greece, the Balkan Peninsula, Moldavia and Wallachia. The leading role played in the reactionary policy of the Holy Alliance by Alexander I, together with the Austrian Chancellor Metternich, made the name of the Russian Tsar synonymous with European reaction. The Decembrist M. Fonvizin wrote: “Alexander became the head of the monarchist reactionaries... After the deposition of Napoleon, the main subject of all the political actions of Emperor Alexander was the suppression of the spirit of freedom that had arisen everywhere and the strengthening of the monarchic principles...”3 The revolutions in Spain and Portugal were suppressed. An attempt at an uprising in France ended in failure.

The internal policy of Alexander I over the last ten years of his reign was marked by a fierce struggle against all manifestations of opposition sentiments in the country and progressive public opinion. Peasant unrest became more and more stubborn, sometimes lasting for several years and pacified. military force. During the years from 1813 to 1825, at least 540 peasant unrest took place, while only 165 of them are known for the years 1801-1812. The largest mass unrest occurred on the Don in 1818-1820. “When there was serfdom,” writes V. I. Lenin, “the whole mass of peasants fought against their oppressors, against the class of landlords, who were guarded, protected and supported by the tsarist government. The peasants could not unite, the peasants were then completely crushed by darkness, the peasants had no helpers and brothers among the city workers, but the peasants still fought as best they could and as best they could.

The unrest that took place in individual army units was also connected with the mood of the serfs who fought with the landowners. The soldier's service lasted at that time for 25 years, and for the slightest misconduct, the soldier was doomed to indefinite life service. Cruel corporal punishment then raged in the army. The largest of the army unrest was the indignation of the Semyonovsky Life Guards Regiment in St. Petersburg, which was distinguished by its special unity and stamina. In the St. Petersburg barracks, revolutionary proclamations were found calling for a fight against the tsar and the nobles, declaring that the tsar "is none other than a strong robber." The indignation of the Semenovites was suppressed, the regiment was disbanded and replaced by a new staff, and the "instigators" of the indignation were subjected to the most severe punishment - driven through the ranks.

“... Monarchs,” writes V. I. Lenin, “at times flirted with liberalism, at other times they were the executioners of the Radishchevs and ‘let loose’ on the loyal subjects of the Arakcheevs ...”.2 During the existence of the Holy Alliance, flirting with liberalism was not needs, and on loyal subjects, the rude and ignorant royal satrap Arakcheev, the organizer and chief head of military settlements, a special form of recruiting and maintaining the army, was “lowered”.

The introduction of military settlements was a new measure of serf oppression and was met with unrest by the peasants. However, Alexander I declared that "military settlements will be at all costs, even if the road from St. Petersburg to Chudov had to be laid with corpses."

The reaction also raged in the field of education, and the struggle against the revolutionary ideas that were spreading in the country was carried out through the expansion of religious and mystical propaganda. At the head of the Ministry of Public Education was placed the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, the reactionary Prince A. Golitsyn - "a servile soul" and a "destroyer of education", as Pushkin's epigram characterizes him. With the help of his officials Magnitsky and Runich, Golitsyn under the guise of a "revision" undertook a campaign against the universities. Many of the professors who made the reactionaries suspicious were removed from high school. The captiousness of censorship reached its extreme limits at that time. In the press, all discussions about the systems of the political system were forbidden. The country was covered with an extensive network of secret police.

Decembrist A. Bestuzhev in a letter from the Peter and Paul Fortress to Nicholas I, recalling last years the reign of Alexander I, noted: “The soldiers grumbled in languor with exercises, purges, guards; officers to the scarcity of salaries and exorbitant severity. Sailors to menial work doubled by abuse, naval officers to inaction. People with talents complained that they were barred from the road to the service, demanding only silent obedience; scholars to the fact that they are not allowed to teach, youth to obstacles in learning. In a word, dissatisfied faces were seen in all corners; they shrugged their shoulders in the streets, whispered everywhere - everyone said what would this lead to?

The years of the triumph of the Holy Alliance and the Arakcheevshchina were at the same time the years of the upsurge of revolutionary sentiment among the advanced nobility. During these years, organized secret societies future Decembrists: the Union of Salvation, or the Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland (1816-1817), the Welfare Union (1818-1821), the Southern Society (1821-1825) headed by Pestel and S. Muravyov-Apostol, the Northern Society (1821-1825), finally, the Society of United Slavs (1823-1825) - these are the most important associations of the future Decembrists. Despite all the variety of political programs, ardent love for the motherland and the struggle for human freedom were the main principles that united all the Decembrists. “Slavery of the vast, disenfranchised majority of Russians,” wrote the Decembrist M. Fonvizin, “cruel treatment of superiors with subordinates, all kinds of abuses of power, arbitrariness reigning everywhere, all this revolted and indignantly educated Russians and their patriotic feeling.” 2 M. Fonvizin emphasized that the sublime love for the fatherland, a sense of independence, first political, and later popular, inspired the Decembrists in their struggle.

All advanced Russian literature of the first third of the 19th century developed under the sign of the struggle against autocracy and serfdom. The creative work of Pushkin and Griboyedov is organically connected with the revolutionary movement of the Decembrists. Poets VF Raevsky, Ryleev, Kuchelbeker came out of the Decembrists themselves. Many other poets and writers were also involved in the orbit of the Decembrist ideological influence and influence.

According to the Leninist periodization of the historical process, there were three periods in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement: “... 1) the noble period, approximately from 1825 to 1861; 2) raznochinskiy or bourgeois-democratic, approximately from 1861 to 1895; 3) proletarian, from 1895 to the present.3 The Decembrists and Herzen were the main representatives of the first period. V. I. Lenin wrote: “... we clearly see three generations, three classes that acted in the Russian revolution. First - the nobles and landowners, the Decembrists and Herzen. The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people. But their work is not lost. The Decembrists woke up Herzen, Herzen launched a revolutionary agitation.”4

December 14, 1825 was a milestone in the socio-political and cultural life of Russia. After the defeat of the December uprising, a period of ever-increasing reaction began in the country. “The first years following 1825 were horrendous,” Herzen wrote. “It took at least ten years for one to come to oneself in this unfortunate atmosphere of enslavement and persecution. People were seized by deep hopelessness, a general decline in strength ... Only Pushkin's sonorous and wide song sounded in the valleys of slavery and torment; this song continued the past era, filled the present with courageous sounds and sent its voice to the distant future.

In 1826, Nicholas I created a special corps of gendarmes and established the III Department of "His Majesty's Own Chancellery." III Section was obliged to pursue "state criminals", he was entrusted with "all orders and news on the affairs of the higher police." The Baltic German Count A. Kh. Benkendorf, an ignorant and mediocre martinet who enjoyed the boundless trust of Nicholas I, was appointed chief of the gendarmes and head of the III Department. Benkendorf became the strangler of every living thought, every living undertaking.

“On the surface of official Russia, the ‘facade empire’, only losses, a ferocious reaction, inhuman persecution, and the aggravation of despotism were visible. Nikolai was visible, surrounded by mediocrities, soldiers of parades, Baltic Germans and wild conservatives - himself distrustful, cold, stubborn, ruthless, with a soul inaccessible to high impulses, and mediocre, like his entourage.

In 1826, a new censorship charter was introduced, called "cast iron". This statute was directed against "free-thinking" writings "filled with the fruitless and pernicious sophistication of modern times."3 Two hundred and thirty paragraphs of the new statute opened up the widest scope for casuistry. According to this charter, which obligated to look for a double meaning in the work, it was possible, as one contemporary said, to reinterpret the Our Father in the Jacobin dialect.

In 1828, a new censorship charter was approved, somewhat softer. However, this statute also provided for the complete prohibition of any judgments about state structure and government policy. According to this statute, fiction was recommended to be censored with extreme strictness in relation to "morality". The Rules of 1828 marked the beginning of a multiplicity of censorship, which was extremely difficult for the press. Permission to print books and articles was made dependent on the consent of those departments to which these books and articles could relate in terms of content. After the revolutionary events in France and the Polish uprising, it was time for real censorship and police terror.

In July 1830 there was bourgeois revolution in France, and a month later the revolutionary events spread to the territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian states. Nicholas I created plans for military intervention to suppress the revolution in Western Europe, however, his plans were thwarted by an uprising in the Kingdom of Poland.

The time of the Polish uprising was marked by a strong upsurge of the mass movement in Russia. The so-called "cholera riots" broke out. In Staraya Russa, Novgorod province, 12 regiments of military settlers revolted. Serfdom continued to be a heavy burden on the popular masses of Russia and served as the main brake on the development of capitalist relations. In the first decade of the reign of Nicholas I, from 1826 to 1834, there were 145 peasant unrest, an average of 16 per year. In the years that followed, the peasant movement continued to grow in spite of severe persecution.

To maintain "calm" and "order" in the country, Nicholas I intensified the reactionary policy in every possible way. At the end of 1832, the theory of "official nationality" was declared, which determined the internal policy of the Nikolaev government. The author of this "theory" was S. Uvarov, the "Minister of the Redemption and Obscuration of Education," as Belinsky called him. The essence of the theory was expressed in the formula: “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”, and the last member of the formula, the most popular and popular, was also the main one for the reactionaries: demagogically distorting the meaning of the word “nationality”, they sought to establish serfdom as the main guarantee of the inviolability of church and state . S. Uvarov and other apologists for the "theory" of official nationality clearly understood that the historical fate of the autocratic system was predetermined by the fate of serfdom. “The question of serfdom,” said Uvarov, “is closely connected with the question of autocracy and even autocracy. “These are two parallel forces that have evolved together. Both have one historical beginning; their legitimacy is the same. - What we had before Peter I, then everything is gone, except for serfdom, which, therefore, cannot be touched without a general shock. manage to move Russia 50 years away from what theories are preparing for her, then I will fulfill my duty and die in peace. Uvarov carried out his program with strict consistency and perseverance: without exception, all areas of state and public life were gradually subordinated to the system of the strictest government guardianship. Science and literature, journalism, and theater were also regulated accordingly. I. S. Turgenev later recalled that in the 1930s and 1940s, “the governmental sphere, especially in St. Petersburg, captured and conquered everything.”2

Never before has the autocracy oppressed society and the people so cruelly as in the time of Nikolaev. Yet persecution and persecution could not kill the freedom-loving thought. The revolutionary traditions of the Decembrists were inherited, expanded and deepened by a new generation of Russian revolutionaries - revolutionary democrats. The first of them was Belinsky, who, according to V. I. Lenin, was “the forerunner of the complete displacement of the nobles by the raznochintsy in our liberation movement.”3

Belinsky entered the public arena three years before Pushkin's death, and during these years the revolutionary-democratic worldview of the great critic had not yet taken shape. In the post-December era, Pushkin did not see and still could not see those social forces that could lead the fight against serfdom and autocracy. This is the main source of those difficulties and contradictions in the circle of which Pushkin's genius was destined to develop in the 1930s. However, Pushkin shrewdly guessed the new social forces that finally matured after his death. It is significant that in the last years of his life he carefully looked at the activities of the young Belinsky, spoke sympathetically about him, and quite shortly before his death decided to involve him in joint journal work in Sovremennik.

Pushkin was the first to guess a huge talent in Gogol and with his sympathetic review of "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" helped the young writer to believe in himself, in his literary vocation. Pushkin gave Gogol the idea for The Government Inspector and Dead Souls. In 1835, the historical significance of Gogol was finally determined: as a result of the publication of two of his new books - "Arabesques" and "Mirgorod" - Gogol gained fame as a great Russian writer, the true heir of Pushkin in the transformation of Russian literature. In the same 1835, Gogol created the first chapters of Dead Souls, begun on the advice of Pushkin, and a year later, The Inspector General, a brilliant comedy that was an event of enormous social significance, was published and put on stage. Another great successor of Pushkin, who continued the traditions of the liberation struggle under the conditions of the Nikolaev reaction, was Lermontov, who had already created his drama Masquerade and the image of Pechorin in Princess Ligovskaya during Pushkin's lifetime. Lermontov's wide popularity in Russian society began with his poem "The Death of a Poet", where he responded to the murderers of Pushkin, stigmatizing them with amazing power of artistic expression, with courage and directness.

Pushkin fell victim to the autocratic serf system, hunted down by the high-society court servants; he died, as Herzen later wrote, at the hands of “... one of those foreign brawlers who, like medieval mercenaries ..., give their sword for money to the services of any despotism. He fell in the full bloom of his strength, without finishing his songs, without saying what he had to say.

The death of Pushkin became a national grief. Several tens of thousands of people came to bow to his ashes. “It was already like a popular demonstration, like a suddenly awakened public opinion", - wrote a contemporary.2

After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, Moscow University became one of the centers of progressive, independent thought. “Everything went back,” Herzen recalled, “blood rushed to the heart; activity, hidden outside, boiled, hidden inside. Moscow University resisted and began to be the first to cut out because of the general fog. The sovereign hated him ... But, despite this, the disgraced university grew in influence; into it, as into a common reservoir, the young forces of Russia poured in from all sides, from all strata; in its halls they were cleansed of prejudices captured at the hearth, came to the same level, fraternized among themselves and again spilled into all directions of Russia, into all its layers ... The motley youth, who came from above, below, from the south and north, quickly fused into a compact mass of partnership. Social distinctions did not have that insulting influence with us that we find in English schools and barracks ... A student who would take it into his head to show off his white bone or wealth with us would be excommunicated from "water and fire" ... ”(XII , 99, 100).

In the 1930s, Moscow University began to play an advanced social role not so much thanks to its professors and teachers, but thanks to the youth it united. The ideological development of university youth proceeded mainly in student circles. The development of Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Lermontov, Goncharov, as well as many others, whose names subsequently entered the history of Russian literature, science and social thought, was connected with participation in circles that arose among students of Moscow University. In the mid-1950s, Herzen recalled in Past and Thoughts that “thirty years ago, the Russia of the future existed exclusively between a few boys who had just emerged from childhood ... and they had the legacy of December 14, the legacy of a universal science and pure people's Rus'» (XIII, 28).

The “December 14 Legacy” was already developed at the new revolutionary-democratic stage of social thought, in the 1940s, when Belinsky and Herzen worked together on the creation of Russian materialistic philosophy, and Belinsky laid the foundations of realistic aesthetics and criticism in Russia.

In the process of forming their revolutionary-democratic views, which were determined by the growth of the liberation movement in the country and, in connection with this, continuously aggravated political struggle in Russian society, Belinsky launched a struggle for the legacy of Pushkin. It can be said without any exaggeration that Pushkin's national and world fame was revealed to a large extent thanks to the work of Belinsky, thanks to the fact that Pushkin's work was illuminated by advanced revolutionary democratic theory. Belinsky defended Pushkin's heritage from reactionary and false interpretations, he waged an uncompromising struggle against all kinds of attempts to take Pushkin away from the Russian people, to distort and falsify his appearance. Belinsky stated with all certainty about his judgments about Pushkin that he considered these judgments far from final. Belinsky showed that the task of determining the historical and "undoubtedly artistic significance" of a poet like Pushkin "cannot be solved once and for all, on the basis of pure reason." “No,” Belinsky argued, “its solution must be the result of the historical movement of society” (XI, 189). And hence comes Belinsky's astonishing sense of historicism in the inevitable limitations of his own assessments of Pushkin's work. “Pushkin belongs to the ever-living and moving phenomena, which do not stop at the point at which their death found them, but continue to develop in the consciousness of society,” wrote Belinsky. “Each epoch pronounces its own judgment about them, and no matter how correctly it understands them, it will always leave the next epoch to say something new and more true ...” (VII, 32).

Belinsky's great historical merit lies in the fact that, realizing all of Pushkin's work in terms of the development of the liberation movement in the country, he revealed and approved Pushkin's significance as the founder of Russian advanced national literature, as a harbinger of the future perfect social order based on respect for man to man. Russian literature, beginning with Pushkin, reflected the global significance of the Russian historical process, steadily advancing towards the world's first victorious socialist revolution.

In 1902, in the work "What is to be done?" V. I. Lenin emphasized that Russian literature began to acquire its worldwide significance due to the fact that it was guided by advanced theory. V. I. Lenin wrote: “... only a party led by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of a leading fighter. And in order to at least somewhat concretely imagine what this means, let the reader remember such predecessors of Russian social democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 70s; let him think about the universal significance that Russian literature is now acquiring...”1

After the Great October Socialist Revolution, which opened a new era in world history, the world-historical significance of Russian literature and the world significance of Pushkin as its founder were fully revealed. Pushkin found a new life in the hearts of the many millions of Soviet people and all progressive mankind.

The 40s is one of the most interesting periods of collecting Russian literature XIX century...

The 1940s is one of the most interesting periods of collecting Russian literature of the 19th century, that amazing phenomenon that once struck the European world. Here, along with minor names, there are great artists who have taken a step forward in the development fiction peace. This complex process takes at least a century (XIX century). It was during the period of the 1940s that the spiritual beauty of a person collided especially sharply with the "lead abominations" of that time in literature, which gave rise to a painful search for ways to develop Russia.

The time of the 40s is the time of ideological searches. Thought struggled over what Russia is, what is its meaning. Slavophiles and Westernizers, circles of Herzen and Ogarev, Petrashevsky, Stankevich... But life could not be limited to circles, because they did not fill the gap in the knowledge of reality. And the task of knowing reality comes with extraordinary energy to the young people of that time and requires immediate reflection and response. And here we can present the knowledge of the material in the form of three directions. This is the knowledge of reality, associated with the general world movement of ideas characteristic of that time. This is the knowledge of what is connected with everyday life, I would say, artistic and literary. And this is the knowledge of the political, factual and moral life of the society of that time. These three areas of knowledge will haunt us all the time, because they contain the Russian reality of that time.

The example of B.C. is very characteristic and instructive. Pecherin. A man of great talent, aspiring to classicism, to the study of Greece, antiquity, recognized by experts as an outstanding phenomenon in medieval studies, he could not remain indifferent to the events of the 1830 revolution in France, and all his thoughts, searches from that moment relate primarily to the existing experience. moment, lie not in the field of antiquity, but in the field of “flashy contradictions” - contradictions between the gospel truth and the feudal, slave, despotic, in essence speaking, life order of Russia of that time. But to overcome the craving for knowledge to the end spiritual world and Pecherin could not live on the topic of the day. Hence his departure from active life in society to Catholicism, the desire to isolate himself from real events. One of the brilliant minds of Russia becomes the chaplain of the prison church. Sometimes "gloomy" Russia still wakes up in his mind - hence his literary correspondence, correspondence with Herzen.

Pecherin did not find a place for himself in old Russia. His figure stands on the threshold of precisely socialist Russia. His individual drama reflected many features of the historical collision of the old and new worlds.

Alexander Herzen of this period, like Pecherin, feels the acuteness of the contradictions between the gospel truth and the slavish reality, the despotic essence of Russia. Characteristic is Herzen's attitude to the gospel truth, to the reading of the gospel carried through his whole life: “I read the gospel a lot and with love.

…> without any guidance, did not understand everything, but felt a sincere and deep respect for what was being read. In my perky youth, I was often carried away by Voltairianism, I loved irony and mockery, but I do not remember that I ever took the Gospel in my hands with a cold feeling, this led me through my whole life. At all ages, I returned to reading the Gospel, and each time its content brought peace and meekness to the soul.

Both Herzen and Ogarev, and many "boys" are seized by the sharpness of contradictions, about whom Saltykov-Shchedrin will successfully say later: "Boys are the strongest class in Russia." Herzen, as an energetic, expansive nature, could not be alone with his thoughts and completely devoted himself to fiction. Later he will say that the story is not his element; his element - articles, journalism. But now - the story of his element. The world in which we live is a "house of the damaged", i.e. crazy, from the point of view of Dr. Krupov. Herzen's excellent sociological story "Notes of Dr. Krupov" depicts a healthy nature (Levka) and a sick society. Herzen, of course, succeeded in the image of the stupid-born Lyovka, he perfectly, like an artist, revealed the inner world of the boy, his various manifestations: when Levka met Krupov, returning from the seminary and kissing him, he was delighted, embarrassed by this manifestation of tenderness, hiding him from strangers . The author admires the sleeping Levka, his good, calm face, without traces of illness, slightly illuminated by a ray of the sun and, as it were, experiencing all the charm of life from the feeling of sleep: “... Under a large tree, Levka slept ... how quietly, how meekly he slept ...<…>No one ever took the trouble to peer into his face: it was not at all devoid of its beauty. Especially now that he was asleep; his cheeks flushed a little, his slanting eyes were not visible, his facial features expressed such peace of mind, such calmness that it became envious. Herzen managed to portray the range of psychological experiences of a person who is no different from healthy people, only he has his own attitude to the earth: he understands it, feels it, feels its beauty. Here Herzen the artist turned into some new side, but, unfortunately, this did not have further development in his artistic work.

In the novel "Who is to blame?" this dialectic of the soul of the heroes no longer exists. Only the scheme is left here: the environment and the hero - and the fact that the environment is to blame for everything: the tragedy of Krucifersky and Lyubochka, whose peace is disturbed by Beltov (“an extra person”) with his romantic quests. Herzen's rhetoric, which closed the inner world of the characters, did not please many readers. This novel is directly connected with the educational literature of the 1940s (“the natural school”). Traits such as a primitive plot scheme, lack of inner world heroes, rhetoric, make it look like a textbook, which was typical for the literature of the 40s.

Herzen's work of this period is nothing but the program of Christian socialism. The French Revolution of 1789 is considered the moment of the birth of the new socialism. Part of Russian society, no doubt, sympathized with the historical catastrophe of France and considered 1789 the beginning of a new era of the human race. However, Herzen found only the name of the phenomenon, its name, but not the very essence, not the movement. Consideration of the essence of Christian socialism is missing here.

Herzen and Ogarev. They are very different in psychological make-up, in relation to the world, in understanding of man. Ogarev took a lot from Lermontov. In the lyrics of Ogarev, echoes of Lermontov's poetry and romanticism in general are very strong. Ogarev did not part with romanticism (“Romanticism cannot be eradicated in us”, “The world is waiting for something ...”). His personal collapse - he lost his dream (his wife leaving for Herzen, etc.). And how badly they lived! They did not have a way of life, a family, a patriarchal calendar. They parted with the patriarchal way of life. They did not have a family in the sense that Christianity gives. They were at a different stage of development leading to socialism. As far as the old world is concerned, it is decadence. As for the new world, it is development. Old things, way of life, patriarchal life save a person from the anxieties that progress brings with it. As soon as this connection is torn, it is bound to be a tragedy. Progress destroys what is, the established forms of life. In this tragedy human development- that there can be no immutability.

As writers, Herzen and Ogarev are very different. One is a portrait painter, pamphleteer, essayist. He succeeds in sharp pictures of morals, he has a sharp pen. He knows how to create a face, a portrait. The other, Ogarev, is a romantic, a dreamer, a mystic. The strength of Ogarev is in his lyrical sound, in the confession of the soul, in subjectivity. Both are autobiographical.

global movement. World movement of ideas of that time. What is the place of Russia in the world movement? Russia and Europe - what are the points of contact, mutual penetration? What is our historical mission? Are we Asians? Are we Europeans? Isn't this what most of the works of Stankevich, Herzen, Ogarev, Iv. Kireevsky? This is very important, because from now on we can talk about the common movement of Russia and Europe as phenomena of one whole. Let us say in advance that this phenomenon is important, necessary, and has not yet been disclosed by historians of literature and culture.

In realizing the actual political life, they are occupied with the course of philosophical thought: Khomyakov, Pecherin, the Aksakov brothers, Herzen are Slavophiles and Westernizers. And, as always, where we do not have enough historical material for knowledge, we make up for it with artistic images, works of art. Having passed the stage of apprenticeship, we failed to enter the stage of independent, independent judgment about the development of history and Russia's place in it.

To this we can add the fact that all the facts we have described now occur after the events of December 14, 1825, i.e. when Russia could or wanted to survive the revolution, but did not understand that the revolution was not made only by a military coup - this is evidence of the failure of historical thought Russia of that time. We lack strict logical alignment, historical and ideological thinking. But we succeed in thinking in images, in artistic comprehension of the material. Therefore, the main thing seems to be the movement or state of fiction of the 40s (until the mid-50s) - fiction, as it was then called - the “natural school”, but this concept contains much more than you are used to seeing.

During these years we see a great interest in biographies. We replace historical and typological phenomena with the facts of the present, without bringing them to a generalization. The material of the biographical order gives quite detailed descriptions time and nature of this period. This is a whole artistic encyclopedia of works that are simultaneously made art documents of the era. Biographies of contemporaries are excellent documentary material that reveals the events of that time. This, in essence, is a very large section, which largely explains why we have so many memoirs of the 20-30s of the 19th century. We replace our philosophical, historical judgments with memories - this characteristic Russian memoir.

Here, S. Aksakov's memoir "Childhood of Bagrov's grandson" is important to us, where the memoir ceases to be him in the literal sense of the word. Memory is only an occasion for reasoning of a philosophical, economic, ethical nature. Without understanding Aksakov's memoir "Childhood of Bagrov's grandson", the meaning of this genre in general and in particular of the JI trilogy is not clear. Tolstoy "Childhood. Adolescence. Youth".

The revolutionary situation was being prepared in memoirs. This led to highest form realism - to the Russian realistic novel: "War and Peace" JI. Tolstoy, "Demons", "The Brothers Karamazov" by F. Dostoevsky, "Oblomov" by I. Goncharov.

From the real world to the ideal world - a process that is barely perceptible to us, but unusually clear and precise. This is where the facets of art and reality pass into each other. Yesterday's ideal appears to us as a reality, as a matter that can be felt, where the boundaries between art and life are lost, or rather, art has surpassed life. We believed in it as a reality, as an everyday phenomenon. This conclusion is given in his novel "Oblomov" by I.A. Goncharov. This novel was written in the late 50s, the time depicted in it is the 40s-50s.

In the novel, the "natural direction" through the eyes of Oblomov is extremely well characterized. In the first chapter, he argues with Penkin: “Where is humanity here?<…>What kind of art is here, what poetic colors did you find? Expose debauchery, dirt, only<…>no pretense of poetry. “Don't mix art with the dirt of life. Let the dirt of life remain. You still can't do anything." Truth requires not beauty, not poetry, but reality.

The novel is merciless in the image human feelings- and this was a great discovery by I.A. Goncharova. He has no mercy modern man: there are many more ideal imaginations here. Goncharov does very cruel things in Oblomov: the collapse of Stolz, the collapse of Oblomov. A person is equally released both happiness and suffering. Crossing these boundaries - happiness and unhappiness - a person loses the ability to act, to control himself. The person in Goncharov's image cannot accommodate the norm of happiness and the norm of tragedy, because there are no such norms. And this was Goncharov's discovery, it struck Leo Tolstoy (who, by the way, did not reach such depth in depicting a person): “Oblomov is the most important thing, which has not been for a long, long time.<…>... I am delighted with Oblom [ov] ... Oblomov is not an accidental success, not with a bang, but a healthy, capital and timeless ... "

1 Tolstoy JI.H. Poly. coll. cit.: In 90 t. M.: GIHL, 1949. T. 60. S. 290.

Goncharov managed to deceive his hero (Oblomov), showing that "Pshenitsyna's elbows" are as beautiful as "snow" and "lilacs" (that is, everything beautiful in life). But enjoying life does not mean understanding it. Oblomov, fortunately, only touched, with Olga, - and could not stand it. And with Pshenitsyna he survived. Ap. Grigoriev wrote that Oblomov needed a simple woman, "without fantasies and inventions", which Olga Ilyinskaya had. Ap. Grigoriev was quite satisfied with the idea of ​​a philistine, philistine life, which Pshenitsyna provided to Oblomov. Simplicity is beyond all lyrical feelings. Simplicity replaces everything. Why did Sheremetev marry Parasha? Not only because she was a great actress, but because there was simplicity. This "simplicity", it turns out, is the most important thing! Pshenitsyn is simpler than Olga Ilyinskaya. Pshenitsyna has a heart and love, where not sensuality prevails, but kindness: it will warm you and say a kind word. Although the meaning in this word is small (Pshenitsyna did not think about anything at all), but the intonation is rich. But Olga did not know her heart. Ap. Grigoriev believed that Olga ruined Oblomov's life. We must live by the heart, not by upbringing. A person can be taught, educated, but you can't put your heart into it.

It is impossible not to agree with the opinion of Ap. Grigoriev, which, in essence, reflects the whole direction of Russian life of that time. You can't think that literary criticism the whole was imbued with progressive ideas. Next to this there was a critique of everyday life, denying all ideas. One idea was proclaimed - simplicity as the most important thing in human life and in art.

Ap. Grigoriev is a denier of socialist theories. All modern literature for him - literature in favor of the poor and in favor of women. Ap. Grigoriev believed that a Russian person cannot drown out the voices of spiritual and spiritual interests. Socialism turns a person into a "pig with its snout down", and for the Russian soul there is nothing more repugnant than Fourier's utopia.

East and West are different paths, opposing each other, like theory and life. The West limits a person to his own limits, the main thing here is the rehabilitation of the flesh, and not the search for the spirit. The East, on the other hand, internally bears within itself a living thought, "believes in the living soul." Socialists are people with narrow theories: Herzen's "negative correctness" and later - N.G. Chernyshevsky. In Russian ideological life, the type of seminarian prevailed, for whom the starting point is negation, brought up on the schemes and doctrinairism of priestly socialism. “They were broken in the bursa, they were bent at the academy - why shouldn’t they break their lives?” (Ap. Grigoriev).

Ap. Grigoriev in his views is an idealist, a romantic. "Knight of pure image", as he called himself. Grigoriev longed for “colored” truth, that is, not black and white, but an ambiguous fullness of life that would not fit into any theory. Socialism for Grigoriev is colorless, prudent - this is not the soul of a Russian person. He felt himself a wanderer, a knight at a crossroads:

Whoever is capable of shedding tears for the great, Whose heart is full of thirst for truth, In whom fanaticism is capable of humility, On that is the seal of election and service.

In this there is, although not without a pose, a lot of sincerity, freedom and spiritual beauty.

While all this talk about socialism, Fourierism, phalanxes was going on, the government did not attach much importance to this. And socialism itself looked like a utopia in their eyes. But when Chaadaev's Philosophical Letters appeared in Teleskop in 1836, the government could not bear this. It was offended and indignant. The Letters asserted that Russia had not introduced anything new into historical progress, that our existence is like a bivouac life, where there is nothing stable, solid, indestructible. “We do not belong to either the East or the West ... we have no traditions ... we stand, as it were, outside of time, we have not been touched by the universal education of the human race ...”. “Hermits in the world, we have given nothing to the world and learned nothing from it. We have not contributed a single idea to the mass of ideas of mankind. We have added nothing to the progressive development of the human mind, and what we have used, we have disfigured.

Chaadaev was declared insane, his reasoning was nonsense, and he himself was taken into medical care in order to avoid any trouble. A signature was received from Chaadaev that he would not write anything else. He was visited by a doctor and a police chief to examine his mental illness. The imperial rescript aroused indignation on the part of the progressive people of that time and fear in the philistine environment. Chaadaev wrote at that time "The Apology of a Madman", which he could not publish anywhere. Pyotr Yakovlevich remained calm and imperturbable, continued to attend society, the noble assembly, and was, as it were, a reproach to the stupidity and ignorance of the Nikolaev government.

How could it happen that Russia is declared bankrupt when Russia expelled the French and proclaimed in Austria, after the congresses at which Alexander I spoke, that “the Russian Tsar has become the Tsar of Tsars”? Complete victory of Russian policy in Europe. Between the expulsion of the French and the "Philosophical Letters" - 20 years. But this is not the time for history. That is why the government of Nicholas I was so dumbfounded.

Chaadaev understood that the existing policy was leading Russia to collapse. And so it happened when the war on the Black Sea suddenly broke out. There is no fleet, no equipment, and the Europeans (England, France) acted cunningly: they threw forward all the native troops (there were also various colonial troops there), Russia began to recapture with its colonial troops (Caucasian, Asian), and there were tremendous losses for her . According to the treaty, Russia was supposed to destroy the entire Black Sea Fleet. So here Chaadaev, like a prophet, saw the future. Nicholas I realized his mistake, and a hypothesis arose that he poisoned himself, unable to bear this shame.

Khomyakov. It was tragic for both Khomyakov and Chaadaev that they thought of the worldview they were creating as universal material which gives an explanation of historical processes. In this case, when talking about history, they were thinking about Russia. But an ideology cannot grow from scratch, by order, according to a built scheme. Ideology, or a system of views, philosophy of various directions, is the result of a long, constant, painful work not only of human thought, but, first of all, of a historical beginning. It is important how historical facts are formed, what order is accepted, what is the main thing, what is secondary, where the author is only a medium, and where he arbitrarily distributes the material at his own discretion.

If at one time Chaadaev managed to clearly and consistently state his system, and no one, in essence, could refute him, except for the comical premises “meeting on Saturdays”, at which everyone laughed - including Chaadaev himself, realizing that the most intelligent a person in Russia is "crazy", then Khomyakov's situation is completely different. He did not invent any system. Yes, this could not be. The researcher only follows the facts and events, dressing them in a verbal skin. That is why Khomyakov's thought is so weak until it is dressed in religious clothes. But when she is "dressed", she loses her socio-historical meaning and is only an appendix to the story. Therefore, it is most interesting to write about Khomyakov as a master, organizer, organizer, practice, and not about a person of a philosophical system. He was rewarded with a practical mind, but this practice can never be as interesting as historical fact but only as a sequential story. This was the tragedy of the author of Semiramis. This shows that we did not have philosophy in Russia. We are not fit to be philosophers. We wander in Christian mysticism and find nothing we need, although everything lies on the surface. This national trait was best expressed by F. Dostoevsky: “Humble yourself, proud man!” You build, create, but do not meddle in abstraction. The Church denies philosophizing, recognizes only influx, inner enlightenment. Philosophizing is not necessary for a believer. Doesn't it matter which God you pray to - as long as you pray.

Khomyakov has only one form of knowledge - conciliar, collective. There can be no individual knowledge, because it is only a part of the whole. Khomyakov's epistemology rests on the very fact of being, and not on the doctrine of being. N. Berdyaev writes that Khomyakov “could not connect the idea of ​​catholicity with the doctrine of the world soul” (and here much more could be expected from Berdyaev himself), but he, Khomyakov, did not set himself such a task.

Dreams about the organization of society without class-class contradictions are frankly expressed by Kheraskov in his works. At Khomyakov, they retain almost their original shape. The ideas of a classless peasant world occupied a large place among the thinkers of the period of the forties.

How could subjective sympathy develop into a social doctrine? Just like a dream. (Turn a dream into real help Perhaps only Novikov succeeded: Kheraskov provided Novikov with a printing house, and he printed everything he wanted there. He printed religious literature least of all, and most of all - propaganda, explaining who is a peasant, who is a peasant.) Khomyakov's poems about Russia caused terrible discontent of Nicholas I. The soul of Russia must repent of those crimes that are being committed now. This is not a program - this is a call to repentance:

With a kneeling soul, With a head lying in the dust.

The emperor was poisoned. It was frankly said that he could not bear the complete defeat of the fleet in the Black Sea.

Gogol is a powerful figure. In essence, an ignorant person, without education (except for a gymnasium in Ukraine), but what a strong desire to penetrate the essence of phenomena and what a strong penetration into the essence of people, things, ideas! In "Selected places from correspondence with friends": "They want to embrace all of humanity as a brother, but they themselves will not embrace a brother."

The power of words is a great thing! And it was given to Gogol. He could embody this great power of the word in different genres, in different colors and with great power to expose the world!

The 40s is the period when literature is collected. And Gogol "collects" it. "Bedovik", street musicians - all this has lost its meaning.

Like an explosion, a whole collection of stories appeared that struck everyone - "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka." When Gogol wrote "Evenings ...", everything was overshadowed - and I no longer wanted to write about the janitors. His stories were so new, interesting and different from the previous ones that everyone stopped, gaping, and laughed - from critics to compositors. One story is more interesting and exciting than the other! “This crest will rewrite us,” voices of that time were heard.

But as an artist of the word, Gogol understood that this was not enough. And he rushed into everyday life, into the everyday that surrounds us. "The Tale of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich." The quarrel came out because of a trifle - like airing a gun. Ivan Ivanovich liked the gun. He asked to sell it, but Ivan Nikiforovich refused. If you can not sell, then you can change - and offered a brown pig. Ivan Nikiforovich was offended: “Kiss yourself with your pig. A gun is a thing.

The insulting word "gander" hung between the two friends as fatally. And since then the battle has begun. The court has not yet started the case, but the quarrel continues. Everyday life with gossip, intrigue, slander is a plot that is important for a person of that time.

Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and his aunt. The bride looked at Shponka, and Shponka looked at the bride. She made circular motions on the chair. Auntie realized that everything was decided, and the betrothal took place. Gogol offers the reader hilarious scenes, but not only that. A wonderful lyrical story, on a par with the most sensitive novels, is The Old World Landowners.

Fruit trees, fences, rickety houses ... and the inhabitants themselves. A secret wedding, as in the best adventure novels, and life went remarkably smoothly, beautifully, lyrically. Their special occupation was to eat. Conversations between Pulcheria and Afanasy Ivanovich. "What would you like? - And it's still possible. Afanasy Ivanovich ate his fill, and everything went on to everyone's satisfaction. But then a strange thing happened. The white cat, whom Pulcheria was very fond of, decided to take a walk and got lost in the thick of the trees, apparently meeting a gentleman there who carried her away. When the cat did not return the next day, Pulcheria said that this was not a good sign. Afanasy Ivanovich consoled her. But this did not convince Pulcheria. Finally the kitty came running, stood up against her and meowed. “This is my death,” said Pulcheria. With this mood they remained. And after a while, Pulcheria really fell ill and died. Afanasy Ivanovich wept like a child. His suffering was indescribable. They were afraid that he would not move in his mind. He accompanied the companion of his life to the grave, bitterly; squealed and paid no attention to any persuasion. A lot of time passed when the author again looked into this lovely tract. Afanasy Ivanovich was terribly pleased with my arrival. We sat down at the table. When the girl shoved a napkin into him with sharp movements, he did not even pay attention to it. When I remembered Pulcheria, Afanasy Ivanovich burst into bitter tears. His sadness was so great, so genuine and so terrible that the author saw what a human passion can be, not subject to age. The nest in which they spent so many beautiful days is gone. How much love was there! But everything passes.

“Khokhol, who will rewrite us,” indeed, rewrote everyone - and created the heroic epic “Taras Bulba”, where both Cossack and Lyash characters (Poles are Poles) unfold in full breadth. This artist was able to show the revelry of the Cossacks, their violent morals, intolerable character, and the refined Lyash upbringing. Among these two worlds, he places his hero - Andriy. Lyrical hero who fell in love with the beauty of a Polish woman. The worst thing for a Cossack is an alliance with a polka. And then - a tragic scene: "I gave birth to you, I will kill you." And Ostap fell into the clutches of the Poles. People gathered on Cathedral Square to publicly execute him. But before that, he still needs to be tested, exhausted, inflicted maximum pain. Ostap said: “Father, where are you? Do you hear? And from the crowd a voice was heard: “I hear, son!” And the voices of this could not be silenced.

In various genres, Gogol depicts the material, spiritual, everyday life that time.

But he wants to represent all of Russia - and writes a poem " Dead Souls».

30s - the era of Pushkin. And all our ideas are connected with Pushkin's ideas both in aesthetic and ideological terms. Now the centers have moved. The ideas themselves began to take on a completely different character. Life, fenced off from everyday life, was muffled, and another life came to the fore - with all its little things. Everyday life, the little things of everyday life, which are already no longer perceived as trifles, but are perceived as something significant. This applies to absolutely everything. Pushkin will not focus on the hero's waistcoat, cufflinks and shirtfront. This is unimportant for him, as a matter of course. And Gogol's hero is all woven of this. This is very important in the course of the story, because his actions, his ideas, his interests - they are also petty. His passions, up to profit, are also petty. Although the visibility is very large, but in essence - this "millionaire" has nothing in his soul. But these features are characteristic not only for Gogol, but for the entire period. Gogol in this sense is a "banner". This feature of pettiness, lack of ideas embraced all the writers of that period, but Gogol captured these features extremely.<…>

Notes:

The term "Slavophiles" is essentially accidental. This name was given to them by their ideological opponents - Westerners in the heat of controversy. The Slavophiles themselves initially denied this name, considering themselves not Slavophiles, but “Russo-lovers” or “Russophiles”, emphasizing that they were mainly interested in the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and not the Slavs in general. A.I. Koshelev pointed out that they should most likely be called "natives" or, more precisely, "original people", because their main goal was to protect the originality of the historical fate of the Russian people, not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East. Early Slavophilism (before the reform of 1861) was also not characterized by pan-Slavism, which was already inherent in late (post-reform) Slavophilism. Slavophilism as an ideological and political trend in Russian social thought leaves the stage around the middle of the 70s of the 19th century.

The main thesis of the Slavophiles is proof of the original path of development of Russia, more precisely, the requirement to “follow this path”, the idealization of “original” institutions, primarily the peasant community and Orthodox Church.

The government was wary of the Slavophiles: they were forbidden to wear demonstrative beards and Russian dresses, some of the Slavophiles were imprisoned for several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress for harshness of statements. All attempts to publish Slavophile newspapers and magazines were immediately suppressed. The Slavophils were subjected to persecution in the conditions of the strengthening of the reactionary political course under the influence of the Western European revolutions of 1848-1849. This forced them to curtail their activities for a while. In the late 50s - early 60s, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassky are active participants in the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform.

Westernism , like Slavophilism, arose at the turn of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841-1842. Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, including among Westerners in general all those who opposed the Slavophiles in their ideological disputes. The Westernizers, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.Kh. Ketcher, V.F. Korsh, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen called themselves "Westerners" in their disputes with the Slavophiles.

In terms of their social origin and position, the majority of Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Among the Westerners were well-known professors of Moscow University - historians T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, jurists M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later N.A. Nekrasov.

The Westerners opposed themselves to the Slavophiles in disputes about the ways of Russia's development. They argued that although Russia was “late”, it was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, they advocated its Europeanization.

Westerners glorified Peter I, who, as they said, "saved Russia." They considered the activities of Peter as the first phase of the renewal of the country, the second should begin with reforms from above - they will be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheavals. Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) great importance gave the role of state power in the history of Russia and became the founders of the so-called state school in Russian historiography. Here they were based on the scheme of Hegel, who considered the state to be the creator of development. human society.

Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in the Moscow Observer, Moskovskie Vedomosti, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and later in Russkiy Vestnik and Ateney. Readable T.N. Granovsky in 1843 - 1851. cycles of public lectures on Western European history, in which he proved the commonality of the laws of the historical process in Russia and Western European countries, according to Herzen, "made propaganda into history." The Westernizers also made extensive use of the Moscow salons, where they "fought" with the Slavophiles and where the enlightened elite of Moscow society gathered to see "who will finish whom and how they will finish him himself." Heated debates broke out. Speeches were prepared in advance, articles and treatises were written. Herzen was especially sophisticated in his polemical fervor against the Slavophiles. It was an outlet in the deadly atmosphere of Nikolaev Russia.

Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westernizers grew up from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being prominent writers, scientists, publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was German classical philosophy. Both those and others were worried about the fate of Russia, the ways of its development. Both those and others acted as opponents of the Nikolaev system. “We, like two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts were the same,” Herzen would later say.

It must be said that all directions of Russian social thought, from the reactionary to the revolutionary, advocated “nationality”, putting completely different content into this concept. The revolutionary considered "people" in terms of the democratization of national culture and enlightenment of the masses in the spirit of advanced ideas, saw in the masses the social support of revolutionary transformations.

3. Revolutionary direction

The revolutionary direction was formed around the journals Sovremennik and Domestic Notes, which were led by V.G. Belinsky with the participation of A.I. Herzen and N.A. Nekrasov. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but, unlike the liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals inevitable.

Until the mid 50s. the revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom for A.I. Herzen . Dissociated in the late 40's. from Westernism, he came to the idea of ​​"Russian socialism", which was based on the free development of the Russian community and artel in conjunction with the ideas of European socialism and assumed self-government on a national scale and public ownership of land.

A characteristic phenomenon in Russian literature and journalism of that time was the distribution of “seditious” poems, political pamphlets and journalistic “letters” in the lists, which, under the then censorship conditions, could not appear in print. Among them, the written V 1847 Belinsky “ Letter to Gogol ”. The reason for his writing was the publication in 1846 by Gogol of the religious and philosophical work "Selected passages from correspondence with friends." In a review of the book published in Sovremennik, Belinsky wrote in harsh terms about the author's betrayal of his creative heritage, about his religiously “humble” views, and self-humiliation. Gogol considered himself insulted and sent a letter to Belinsky, in which he regarded his review as a manifestation of personal hostility towards himself. This prompted Belinsky to write his famous Letter to Gogol.

The “Letter” sharply criticized the system of Nicholas Russia, which, according to Belinsky, “is a terrible sight of a country where people traffic in people where there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers”. Belinsky also attacks the official church - the servant of the autocracy, proves the "deep atheism" of the Russian people and questions the religiosity of church pastors. He does not spare famous writer, calling him "a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals."

Belinsky formulated the most immediate, urgent tasks facing Russia at that time as follows: “The abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict enforcement of at least those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter was distributed in thousands of lists and caused a great public outcry.

P. Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to the Nikolaev rule. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). A graduate of Moscow University, a participant in the battle of Borodino and the "battle of the peoples" near Leipzig, a friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, in 1836 he published in the journal Teleskop the first of his Philosophical Letters, which, according to Herzen, "shook the whole thinking Russia". Denying the official theory of the "amazing" past and "magnificent" present of Russia, Chaadaev gave a very gloomy assessment of the historical past of Russia and its role in world history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress in Russia. The main reason for Russia's separation from the European historical tradition of Chaadaev considered the rejection of Catholicism in favor of the religion of serf slavery - Orthodoxy.The government regarded the "Letter" as an anti-government speech: the magazine was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police supervision.