Definition of national originality of literature. National literature

Literature is the art of words, therefore the features of the national language in which it is written are a direct expression of its national identity. The lexical riches of the national language affect the nature of the author’s speech and the speech characteristics of the characters; the syntax of the national language determines the intonation moves of prose and poetry, phonetic

This unique structure creates the uniqueness of the sound of the work.

Since there are now more than two and a half thousand languages in the world, we can assume that there is the same number of national literatures. However, there are significantly fewer of the latter.

Despite differences in language, some peoples that have not yet formed into nations often have a commonality literary traditions, first of all - a single folk epic. From this point of view, the example of peoples is very indicative North Caucasus and Abkhazia, which are represented by more than fifty languages, but have a common epic cycle - “Narts”. The epic heroes of the Ramayana are common to the peoples of India who speak different languages, and even to many peoples of Southeast Asia. Such a community arises because, although individual nationalities live in remote places, often closed, isolated from the outside world, which is why differences in language arise, their living conditions are nevertheless close to each other. They have to overcome the same difficulties in their encounter with nature, they have the same level of economic and social development. There are often many similarities in their historical destinies. Therefore, these nationalities are united by common ideas about life and human dignity, and hence, in literature, the imagination is captivated by the images of the same epic heroes.

Writers can also use the same language, and their work represents different national literatures. On Arabic, for example, Egyptian, Syrian, and Algerian writers write. The French language is used not only by the French, but also partly by the Belgians and Canadian writers. Both the British and the Americans write in English, but the works they create bear a vivid imprint of various features of national life. Many African writers, using the language of former colonialists, create works that are completely original in their national essence.

It is also characteristic that with a good translation into another language, fiction may well retain the stamp of national identity. “It would be ideal if every work of every nationality included in the Union was translated into the languages of all other nationalities of the Union,” dreamed M. Gorky. - In this case

We would all quickly learn to understand the national-cultural properties and characteristics of each other, and this understanding, of course, would greatly speed up the process of creating... a unified socialist culture.” (49, 365-366). Consequently, although the language of literature is the most important indicator of its nationality, it does not exhaust its national identity.

A very important role in the formation of national identity artistic creativity The commonality of the territory plays a role, because in the early stages of the development of society, certain natural conditions often give rise to common tasks in the struggle of man with nature, a commonality of labor processes and skills, and hence - customs, life, and worldview. Therefore, for example, in the mythology that developed during the clan system among the ancient Chinese, the hero is Gong, who managed to stop the flood of the river (a frequent occurrence in China) and saved the people from the flood, obtaining a piece of “living earth”, and among the ancient Greeks - Prometheus, who mined sky fire. In addition, impressions of the surrounding nature influence the properties of the narrative, the features of metaphors, comparisons and other artistic means. Northern peoples rejoice in the warmth and sun, so their beauty is most often compared to the clear sun, and southern peoples prefer comparison With the moon, because the night brings coolness that saves from the heat of the sun. In Russian songs and fairy tales, a woman’s gait is compared to the smooth stride of a swan, and in India - with the “wonderful gait of royal elephants.”

Territorial community often leads to common paths economic development, creates a community of historical life of the people. This influences the themes of literature and gives rise to differences in artistic images. Thus, the Armenian epic “David of Sasun” tells about the life of gardeners and cultivators, about the construction of irrigation canals; Kyrgyz "Manas" captured nomadic life cattle breeders, searches for new pastures, life in the saddle; in the epic of the German people, “The Song of the Nibelungs,” the search for ore, the work of blacksmiths, etc. are depicted.

As a nation is formed from a nationality and the community of spiritual make-up of the people crystallizes, the national identity of literature is manifested not only in labor and everyday customs and ideas, peculiarities of perception of nature, but also in

benefits public life. The development of class society, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another: from slaveholding to feudal and from feudal to bourgeois - occurs in different nations at different times, under different conditions. The external and internal political activities of the national state develop differently, which influences the organization and strengthening of property and legal relations, the emergence of certain moral norms, and hence the formation of ideological (including religious) ideas and traditions. All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of the life of society. From childhood, people are brought up under the influence of a complex system of relationships and ideas of national society, and this leaves an imprint on their behavior. This is how the characters of people of different nations - national characters - are historically formed.

Literature has an honorable place in revealing the peculiarities of national character. The versatility of this phenomenon, its connection with the main subject of artistic knowledge - man in his social character - give the artist advantages over the scientist. “Images of fiction,” writes I. Kon, “embrace national-typical features deeper and more multifaceted than scientific formulas. Fiction shows the diversity of national types, their specific class nature, and their historical development» (63, 228).

It is often believed that national character is determined by one dominant psychological trait, inherent only to one nation, exclusively only to it. But common features can manifest themselves in representatives of different nations. The uniqueness of the national character lies in a certain relationship between these traits and the trends in their development. Literary characters They perfectly show how one and the same character trait, in unity with others, takes on different national incarnations. So, for example, Balzac portrays Gobsek’s stinginess, but it is not at all similar in its psychological manifestation to the stinginess of Gogol’s Plyushkin. Both characters, striving to accumulate wealth, have ceased to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary, and for both it is senselessly rotting under the watchful supervision of

Miser's rum. However, these common features are formed in different ways - by bourgeois society for one and feudal-serf society for the other. The most important role in reflecting national character traits in literature belongs to critical realism. Critical realists, to a much greater extent than romanticists or even more so classicists, had the opportunity to reveal in their works all the contradictory complexity of the national characters of their characters who belonged to different strata of society. An artist who has mastered the art of the finest realistic detail conveys both the social determination of a certain character trait or manifestation of feeling, and his national identity.

With the emergence of critical realism in literature, an important quality of national originality is revealed. Since a realistic work bears the imprint of the writer’s personality, his individuality, and the writer himself acts as a bearer of national character, national identity becomes an organic property of creativity itself. The characters of people in their national characteristics not only act as an object of artistic knowledge, but are also depicted from the point of view of the writer, who also carries within himself the spirit of his people, his nation. The first profound exponent of the national Russian character in literature is Pushkin. Belinsky wrote about this more than once, Gogol expressed it especially aptly: “Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit: this is the Russian man in his development, in which he may appear in two hundred years. In it, Russian nature, Russian soul, Russian language, Russian character were reflected in the same purity, in such purified beauty, in which the landscape is reflected on the convex surface of optical glass.” (46, 33).

The imprint of national originality is borne not only by those works that directly depict the characters and events of national reality or history (“Eugene Onegin” and “Poltava” by Pushkin, “War and Peace” or “Resurrection” by L. Tolstoy), but also those , which reflect the life of other peoples (for example, “Lucerne” or “Hadji Murat”), but comprehend and evaluate its contradictions from the point of view of a person shaped by Russian reality.

At the same time, national identity is not limited to

only depicting individual characters, it covers the creative process so deeply that it manifests itself in the plots and themes of the works. Thus, in Russian literature the theme of the “superfluous man” has become widespread - a nobleman, a person of progressive views, who is in conflict with the surrounding reality, but is unable to realize his dissatisfaction with the existing order. For French literature, the conflict of a person making his way in the bourgeois world turned out to be typical. As a result, certain genres received preferential development in national literature (the novel of education, for example, in German and English literature).

Thus, the literature of critical realism, developing in Europe in the 19th century, contains the most complete, profound expression of national identity.

National character plays a large role in determining the national identity of literature, however, when analyzing, it is necessary to take into account that this is not only a psychological, but also a socio-historical category, because the formation of character is determined by the socio-historical conditions prevailing in society. Therefore, national character cannot be considered as something given forever. The development of historical life can change the national character.

Some writers and critics, taking a superficial approach to the problem of national identity, idealize patriarchal life with its stability and even rigidity. They do not try to understand the national identity in the life of those sections of society that have become involved in the achievements international culture. As a result, a falsely interpreted love for their nation leads them to misunderstanding the progressive phenomena of national life. An exclusive interest only in what distinguishes one nation from others, a belief in the chosenness of one’s nation, in the superiority of its ancestral customs, rituals and everyday habits leads not only to conservatism, but also to nationalism. Then the national feeling of the people is used by the exploiting classes in their own interests. Therefore, the concept of national identity must be considered in relation to the concept of nationality.

NATIONALITY OF LITERATURE

The concepts of nationality and nationality of artistic creativity did not differ for a long time. When national literatures began to take shape, the German scientist I. Herder came up with a theory of national identity based on the study of folk legends and oral folk art. In 1778-1779 he published collections of folk poetry entitled “Voices of Peoples in Songs.” According to Herder, folk poetry was “the flower of the unity of the people, its language and its antiquity, its activities and judgments, its passions and unfulfilled desires” (62, 213). Thus, the German thinker found expression folk spirit, national “substance” primarily in the psychological make-up of the working people, and he had to endure a lot of ridicule for turning to the poetry of the “plebeians.”

Interest in folk art in connection with the problem of national identity was both natural and progressive for the 18th century. In the feudal era, national identity was most clearly manifested in oral folk art and in the works that were influenced by this creativity (“The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” in Russia, “The Song of Roland” in France, etc.) The ruling class, trying to oppose itself the working masses, to emphasize the exclusivity of their position, gravitated towards a cosmopolitan culture, often using even a language foreign to the people. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. progressive figures - educators and romantics - turned to folk poetry.

This was especially evident in Russia. For the noble Decembrist revolutionaries, who in their way of life were far from the popular, working masses, familiarity with folk art became one of the ways to get to know their people and become familiar with their interests. Sometimes in their works they managed to penetrate the spirit of folk art. Thus, Ryleev created the duma “The Death of Ermak”, adopted by the masses as a folk song.

In Russia, the poetry of the Decembrists and writers close to them in spirit, led by Pushkin, with great force expressed the interests of the progressive, revolutionary movement. Their poetry was national in character, non-national and democratic in meaning. But they themselves and the critics of subsequent decades had not yet seen the difference between these concepts. Yes, Belinsky

constantly called Pushkin and Gogol “national poets,” meaning by this the high national originality of their work, and only towards the end of his activity did he gradually come to an understanding of the nationality itself.

In the 30s years XIX V. The ruling circles of autocratic Russia created the nationalist theory of “official nationality.” By “nationality” they understood devotion to autocracy and Orthodoxy; Literature was required to depict native Russian life, permeated with religious prejudices, historical paintings glorifying the love of the Russian people for the Tsar. Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky did a lot to show the limitations of the authors (Zagoskin, Kukolnik and some others) who spoke in line with the nationalistically understood “nationality”.

A decisive turning point in the understanding of nationality in literature was made by Dobrolyubov’s article “On the degree of participation of nationality in the development of Russian literature” (1858). The critic showed that nationality is determined not by the range of topics that interest the writer, but by the expression in literature of the “point of view” of the working people, the masses, who form the basis of national life. Moreover, assessing the nationality of the writer’s work, the critic demanded that the interests of the oppressed masses be elevated to the height of the interests of general civil, national development. Therefore, he reproached even Koltsov for his narrow-mindedness (55, 263). The expression of the advanced ideas of the time, which in one way or another meet the interests of the masses, is a condition for literature to achieve true nationality.

Revolutionary-democratic writers, following Dobrolyubov, consciously strove for nationality in their artistic work, but nationality may also be unconscious. So, Dobrolyubov, for example, wrote about Gogol: “We see that Gogol, although in his best creations came very close to people's point of view but he approached unconsciously, simply with an artistic touch" (55, 271; emphasis added - S.K.). In this case, the nationality of works can only be assessed historically, raising the question of what works, how and to what extent this or that writer could in his era national development express the interests of the people.

The most important ones are the works

Folk in meaning can also be those works that depict the best representatives of the ruling class, dissatisfied with the meaninglessness of the existence of the environment to which they belong by birth and upbringing, looking for ways to activity and to other forms of human relations. Such are “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, the best novels of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, “Foma Gordeev” and “Yegor Bulychev” by Gorky, etc. V. I. Lenin attached great importance creativity of L. Tolstoy primarily because he found

in his works there is an expression of popular protest in the era of “preparation for a revolution in one of the countries oppressed by the serfs...” (14, 19).

And lyrical works that reproduce the inner world, reflecting the diversity of the poet’s emotional responses to the surrounding reality, can also be folk in their meaning if they are distinguished by the depth and truthfulness of their ideological orientation. Such are the sonnets of Petrarch and Shakespeare, the lyrics of Byron and Shelley, Pushkin and Lermontov, Heine, Blok, Yesenin, Mayakovsky. They enrich the moral, emotional and aesthetic experience of the nation and all humanity.

To create works of national significance, the most important role is played by the progressiveness of the writer’s worldview and his ideals. But works that are folk in their meaning can also be created by writers with a contradictory worldview. Then the measure of their nationality is determined by the depth of the critical problematics of their work. This can be judged by the works of A. Ostrovsky or Dickens. The spontaneous-democratic worldview gave them the opportunity to create the brightest pictures exposing the world of profit. But writers who are progressive only in the critical side of their work are usually unstable in their positions. Next to sharp, revealing images, they have implausible idyllic pictures patriarchal life. The researcher must be able to reveal such contradictions of a writer whose national significance is recognized by the history of literature. It is in this approach to understanding artistic creativity that the methodological meaning of Lenin’s assessment of L. Tolstoy, whose ideals reflected the “immaturity of daydreaming” of the patriarchal peasantry, but at the same time led the writer to realistically tearing off “all and every mask” (13, 212, 209).

Folk literature, in its significance, equips the advanced forces of the nation, its progressive social movements, which serve to emancipate the working masses and establish new forms of social life. It raises the civic activity of the lower social classes, freeing workers from authoritarian ideas and from their dependence on those in power. The words of V. I. Lenin, retold by K. Zetkin, correspond to the modern understanding of nationality: “Art belongs to

to the people. It must have its deepest roots in the very depths of the broad working masses. It must be understandable to these masses and loved by them. It must unite the feeling, thought and will of these masses, lift them up" (16, 657).

To fulfill this function, art must be accessible to the people. Dobrolyubov saw one of the main reasons for the absence of nationality in the long centuries of development of Russian literature in the fact that literature remained distant from the masses due to the illiteracy of the latter. The critic was extremely sensitive to the narrowness of Russian reading circles: “... the greatness of it (literature. - S.K.) meaning is weakened in this case only by the smallness of the circle in which it acts. This is the last circumstance that is impossible to remember without regret and which chills us every time we get carried away by dreams of the great significance of literature and its beneficial influence on humanity” (55, 226-226).

Contemporary writers in Latin America and many countries in Asia and Africa write about the same tragic separation of the bulk of the people from national culture. Such a barrier can only be overcome by social transformations of society. An example is the transformations in our country after the Great October Socialist Revolution, when cultural achievements ceased to be the property of the “top ten thousand.”

The nationality of art is determined not only by the merits of its content, but also by the perfection of form. The people's writer strives for the capacity and expressiveness of every word, artistic detail, and plot twist. Sometimes this is given to him with great difficulty. Reading in L. Tolstoy’s “Resurrection” a simple, at first glance, phrase: “Katyusha, beaming with a smile and eyes as black as wet currants, flew towards him,” the reader imagines a girl charming in her youthful defenselessness. But he has no idea how long the artist worked on these words until he found the only necessary comparison (the initial comparison of Katyusha’s eyes with cherries destroyed the artistic effect).

The simplicity and accessibility of the artistic form in this sense are determined by the creative demands of the writer, his aesthetic sense, and the extent of his talent. To convey to the reader the ideological wealth of their

works, the artist must give them the highest perfection of artistic form and style.

Genuinely folk literature expresses national interests most fully, therefore it also has a pronounced national identity. It is through the works of such artists as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov, L. Leonov, Tvardovsky that our idea of both the nationality of art and its national identity is determined.

However, the development process never occurs in isolation in one national culture. It is very important to understand the interaction not only between the folk and national meanings of literature, but also their connection with its universal meaning. It follows from the role that the nation that created its literature plays in human development. To do this, it is necessary that the writer, in the national identity of the processes occurring in the life of his people, reveal the features of the progressive development of all humanity.

Thus, the poems of Homer, thanks to their national identity, reflected with particular perfection, according to K. Marx, that early stage of development of all peoples, which can be called the childhood of “human society” 1. It had a similar global significance for the Renaissance Italian poetry(Dante, Petrarch, etc.), as well as English drama (Shakespeare); for the era of absolutism - dramaturgy French classicism; for the era of bourgeois revolutions - the romantic poetry of Byron; for the era of development of bourgeois society - realistic literature France (Balzac, Flaubert), England (Dickens), Russia (Pushkin, Gogol, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

The fusion of the folk, national and universal is most clearly manifested in the literature of socialist realism. The processes of formation of the human personality in the struggle to build a new, classless society are important for all humanity. Writers of socialist realism are armed with a scientific understanding of the objective laws of historical development,

1 See: Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12. P. 737.

they consciously defend the interests of the people. Soviet multinational literature fully applies to the words about Soviet culture, voiced in the Political Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the XXVII Party Congress: “By absorbing the wealth of national forms and colors, it becomes a unique phenomenon in world culture” (17, 53).

The best works of fiction, in which artists capture the present of the people in its connection with the past, and thereby reflect general movement from the present to the future, retain enduring national, and often world-historical significance. They live for centuries in the consciousness of society, being monuments of the natural stages of development of both individual peoples and all of humanity. They are rethought by the public of different nations at new stages of their historical development in different aspects of their content, each time acquiring new ideological and aesthetic relevance.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1. Marks K. Introduction (From economic manuscripts 1857-
1858)// Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12.

2. Marks K. Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, April 19, 1859 //
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 29.

3. Engels F. Anti-Duhring // Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed.
T. 20.

4. Engels F. Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, May 18, 1859 //
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 29.

5. Engels F. Letter to Minna Kautskaya, November 26, 1885 //
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 36.

6. Engels F. Letter to Margaret Harkness, early April 1888 //
Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 37.

7. Lenin V.I. Economic content of populism and criticism
him in the book by Mr. Struve // Fields. collection Op. T. 1.

8. Lenin V.I. What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against
Social Democrats // Poly. collection Op. T. 1.

9. Lenin V.I. What inheritance are we giving up? // Poly,
collection Op. T. 2.

10. Lenin V.I. Party organization and party literature //
Poly. collection Op. T. 12.

11. Lenin V.I. Socialist Party and non-party revolution
tion // Poly. collection Op. T. 12.

12. Lenin V.I. The agrarian program of social democracy in the first
Russian Revolution 1905-1907 // Poly. collection Op. T. 16.

13. Lenin V.I. Leo Tolstoy as a mirror of the Russian revolution //
Poly. collection Op. T. 17.

14. Lenin V.I. L. N. Tolstoy // Poly. collection Op. T. 20.

15. Lenin V.I. Critical notes on the national question //
Poly. collection Op. T. 24.

16. Lenin V.I. About literature and art. 7th ed. M., 1986.

17. Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Soviet Communist Party
Union. M., 1986.

19. Gorbachev M. S. Selected speeches and articles. M., 1985.

20. Aristotle. About the art of poetry. M., 1957.

21. Bakhtin M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. M., 1972.

22. Bakhtin M. Questions of Literature and Aesthetics: Research Times
new years. M., 1975.

23. Belinsky V. G. About the Russian story and the stories of Mr. Gogol
(“Arabesques” and “Mirgorod”) // Poly. collection cit.: [In 13 vols.] M., 1953.
T. 1.

24. Belinsky V. G. Woe from the mind. Essay by A. S. Griboyedov //
Poly. collection cit.: [In 13 vols.] M., 1953. T. 3.

25. Belinsky V. G. Division of poetry into genera and types // Complete.
collection cit.: [In 13 vols.] M., 1954. T. 5.

26. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin // Complete. collection
cit., [In 13 vols.] M., 1955. T. 7.

27. Belinsky V. G. Russian literature in 1843 // Complete. collection
cit.: [In 13 vols.] M., 1955. T. 8.

28. Belinsky V. G. Ivan Andreevich Krylov // Poly. collection Op.:
[In 13 volumes] M., 1955. T. 8.

29. Belinsky V. G. A look at Russian literature of 1847 //
Poly. collection cit.: [In 13 volumes] M., 1956. T. 10.

30. Bely A. We will look for melodies [preface to the collection. "After
separation"] //Bely A. Poems and poems. M.; L., 1966.

31. Becher I. My love, poetry. M h 1965.

32. Block A. Retribution [preface! // Collection cit.: [In 8 vols.] M.,
1960. T. 3.

33. Brecht B. Additions to the “Small Organon” // Brecht B. Theater:
[In 5 volumes] M., 1965. T. 5. Part 2.

34. Boileau N. Poetic art. M., 1957.

35. Bucher K. Work and rhythm. M., 1923.

36. Veseloesky A. N. Historical poetics. L., 1940.

37. Vinogradov V.V. About the language literary prose. M., 1980.

38. Vinokur G. O.“Woe from Wit” as a monument to Russian art
venous speech //Vinokur G. O. Favorite works on the Russian language. M.,
1959.

39. Vinokur G. O. The language of “Boris Godunov” // Vinokur G. O. Favorite
works on the Russian language. M., 1959.

40. Vinokurov E. Poetry and thought. M., 1966.

41. Hegel. Logic // Op. M.; L., 1929. T. 1.

42. Hegel. Lectures on aesthetics. Soch., M., 1938-1958. T. 12-14.

43. Hegel G. W. F. Aesthetics: [In 4 vols.] M., 1968-1973.

44. Goethe I.V. About art. M., 1976.

45. Gogol N.V. Theater tour after the presentation of a new
comedy // Fields. collection cit.: [In 15 vols.] M., 1949. T. 5.

46. Gogol N.V. A few words about Pushkin // Complete. collection Op.:
[In 15 volumes] M., 1953. T. 6.

47. Gorky M. About how I learned to write // Collection. Op.: In 30 volumes.
M., 1953. T. 24.

48. Gorky M. Conversation with young people // Collection. cit.: In 30 volumes. M., 1953.
T. 27.

49. Gorky M. Letter to G. Mammadli, November 19, 1934 // Collection.
cit.: In 30 volumes. M., 1956. T. 30.

50. Gorky M. About literature. M., 1953.

51. Hugo V. Preface to “Cromwell” // Izbr. Op.: In 2 vols. M.,
1952. T. 2.

52. Diderot D. Paradox about the actor // Collection. cit.: In 10 vols. M.; L., l
1936. T. 5. *

53. Diderot D. About dramatic poetry // Collection. cit.: In 10 vols. M.;
L., 1936. T. 5.

54. Diderot D. Scattered thoughts//Collected. Op.: In 10 volumes. M.. 1946.
T. 6.

55. Dobrolyubov N. A. On the degree of participation of the people in development
Russian literature // Collection. cit.: In 9 volumes. M., 1962. T. 2.

56. Dobrolyubov N. A. Dark Kingdom // Collection. Op.: In 9 vol. M.,
1962. T. 5.

57. Dobrolyubov N. A. When will the real day come? // Collection
cit.: In 9 volumes. M., 1963. T. 6.

58. Dostoevsky F. M. Letter to M. M. Dostoevsky, February 1
1846/ /Dostoevsky F. M. Letters. M.; L., 1928. T. 1.

59. Zalygin S. O artistic language and artistic image//Issue. literature. 1969. No. 6.

60. Zeldovich M. G. Questions of the theory of realism. Kharkov, 1957.

61. Zola E. Naturalism in the theater // Collection. Op.: In 26 volumes. M, 1966
T. 24.

62. History German literature. M., 1963. T. 2.

63. Kon I. National character - myth or reality? //
Foreign literature. 1968. No. 9.

64. Lessing G. E. Laocoon, or On the Boundaries of Painting and Poetry. M.,
1957.

65. Lomonosov M. V. Preface about the benefits of church books in Russia
Siysk language // Lomonosov M. V. Poems. M., 1935.

66. Lomonosov M. V. Letter on the rules of Russian poetry
va //Lomonosov M.V. Poems. M., 1935.

67. Lunacharsky A. A. Silhouettes. M., 1965.

68. Lyubimov N. M. Cervantes - master of words: Observations
driver // Cervantes and world literature. M., 1969.

69. Mann T. Experience about the theater // Collection. cit.: In 10 volumes. M., 1960. T. 9.

70. Nemirovich-Danchenko V. I. Letter to A. M. Gorky, February 4
1936/ /Nemirovich-Danchenko V.I. Favorite letters: In 2 vols. M., 1979.
T. 2.

71. Olesha Yu. Not a day without a line. M., 1965.

73. Pavlovsky A. On psychological analysis in Soviet literature
round (In a historiographical aspect) // Problems of psychologism in society
secular literature. L., 1970.

74. Plekhanov G. V. Letters without an address // Plekhanov G. V. Literature
and aesthetics. M., 1958. T. 1.

75. Plekhanov G. V. Art and social life //Plekha
new G.V. Literature and aesthetics. M., 1958. T. 1.

76. Pospelov G. N. Problems of the historical development of literature.
M., 1972.

77. Pospelov G. N. Questions of methodology and poetics: Sat. articles. M.,
1983.

78. Prishvin M. Forget-me-nots. M., 1969.

79. Pushkin A. S. About the classical tragedy // Collection. Op.: In 10 volumes M.,
1962. T. 6.

80. Pushkin A. S. TaYe-Ta1k//Collected. cit.: In 10 volumes. M., 1962. T. 7.

81. Pushkin the critic. M.; L., 1934.

82. Russian writers about literary work(XVIII-XX centuries): In 4 vols.
L., 1954-1956.

83. Russian writers about language (XVIII-XIX centuries). L., 1954.

84. Sergeenko P. Tolstoy and his contemporaries. M., 1911.

85. Stanislavsky K. S. My life in art // Collection. Op.: In 8 vols.
M., 1954. T. 1.

86. Talma. About performing arts. M., 1888.

87. Theory of literature. Main problems in historical context
grooming. Types and genres of literature. M., 1964; Style. Work.
Literary development. M., 1965.

88. Tolstoy L. N. What is art?//Full. collection op.: [In 90 volumes]
M., 1951. T. 30.

89. Tolstoy L. N. About Shakespeare and his drama // Complete. collection Op.:
[In 90 volumes] M., 1950. T. 35.

90. Tolstoy L. N. Letter to A. A. Fet, November 17, 1870 // Complete.
collection cit.: [In 90 vols.] M., 1953. T. 61.

91. Tolstoy L. N. Letter to S. A. Rachinsky, January 27, 1878
// Full collection cit.: [In 90 vols.] M., 1953. T. 62.

92. L. N. Tolstoy about literature. M., 1955.

93. Tomashevsky B. Theory of literature. Poetics. M.; L., 1930.

94. Turgenev I. S. Preface to Volume VII of the collection. Op. 1869//
Collection cit.: In 12 volumes. M., 1956. T. 9.

95. Tynyanov Yu. N. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M.,
1977.

96. Fadeev A. Defeat//Collection. cit.: In 5 volumes. M., 1959. T. 1.

97. Fadeev A. For thirty years. M., 1959.

98. Hemingway E. Favorite works. M., 1959. T. 2.

99. Reader on the history of Western European theater: In 2 volumes/
Comp. and lane S. Mokulsky. 2nd ed. M.; L., 1953. T. 1.

100. Chernyshevsky N. G. Aesthetic relations of art to reality
vitality//Full. collection cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1949. T. 2.

101. Chernyshevsky N. G. About poetry. Aristotle's work//
Full collection cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1949. T. 2.

102. Chernyshevsky N. G. Childhood and adolescence. Works of the Count
L. N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy // Complete. collection
cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1947. T. 3.

103. Chernyshevsky N. G. Notes on magazines (June 1869)//
Full collection cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1947. T. 3.

104. Chernyshevsky N. G. Works and letters of N.V. Gogol // Complete.
collection cit.: In 15 volumes. M., 1948. T. 4.

105. Schelling F. Philosophy of art. M., 1966.

106. Schiller F. Criminal because of lost honor // Collection. Op.:
In 7 volumes. M., 1956. T. 3.

107. Schiller F. About tragic art // Collection. Op.: In 7 vol. M.,
1957. T. 6.

108. Schiller F. Articles on aesthetics. M, 1935.

109. Shaw B. About drama and theater. M., 1963.

Theory of nationality in Russia (Collecting, N. Dobrolyubov, A. Pypin, Russian writers)

Initially, Rousseau's activities were perceived in Russia only as educational, along with the works of French educators. Even in the time of Elizabeth, in the 1750s, Trediakovsky, a theoretician and practitioner of Russian classicism, in “The Tale of Wisdom, Prudence and Virtue,” rebelled with indignation against the teachings of Rousseau, calling him “the philistine of Geneva,” from

whose teachings “damage to good morals” occurred. Trediakovsky’s negative attitude towards the ideas of European enlightenment is emphasized here. Subsequently, the influence of Rousseau’s philosophy on the plans of young Catherine II is noted, although already in the 70s years XVIII century, it became clear that this was just ostentatious interest.

At first, Catherine, through Grigory Orlov, even offered Rousseau asylum in Russia. But then, especially after Pugachev and the French Revolution of 1789, this philosophy turned out to be unacceptable and even dangerous for her: Rousseau, as the author of the Social Contract and writings on Poland, did not at all contribute to the strengthening of Russian absolutism.

Catherine II, after the French Revolution, in 1795, wrote that “Rousseau will force the French to walk on all fours.” The fact is that Rousseau, expressing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and, to a large extent, the broad masses of the people, opposed absolutism from a unique position: while denying the civilization of his day, he called back to the past, and saw a “healthy” grain in the initial steps of man , in ancient times, in the life of ordinary people.

This was the first step in the formation of the idea of national culture, albeit in fantastic forms. Rousseau contrasted the “natural state of peoples with the latest, artificial” European civilization.

So, the idea of nationality received its initial impetus in the above-mentioned controversial theory of Rousseau, which was a reaction to the outdated philosophical and aesthetic systems of classicism. This reaction against rationality and metaphysical materialism manifested itself in Germany and Russia in literary systems.

On the one hand, this speech by Rousseau is a protest against the rationality and normativity of the aesthetics of classicism, and on the other hand, the first sprouts of the idea of nationality.

This initial impetus, which led to a change in ideology, social thought Europe received it from Rousseau, who was the forerunner of a new direction in philosophy and literature. He influenced Lessing, Goethe, Schiller, A. Herzen, N. Novikov, A. Radishchev, N. Karamzin, and Russian romantics.

In Russia, the process of forming the theory of national literature was accompanied by the introduction and justification of the main literary concepts and the desire to comprehend fiction from the point of view of a system of interconnected phenomena. This process began with the reforms of Peter I, who introduced Russia to Western European science and culture.

This process accelerated more and more throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries, complicated by social and historical factors of a national and pan-European scale. First of all, we should point out the French Revolution of 1789 and the Patriotic War of 1812, which had a huge impact on the formation of Russian national culture and literature.

The influence of Rousseau and Herder, with his unique “philosophical-historical” theory, on Russian literary criticism is undeniable. However, in the formation of the theory of nationality in Russia there was a period of unconscious spontaneous tendencies, when literary practice prevailed. This practice emerged in the works of writers of the 18th century and was characterized by two points.

First of all, it was an interest in ancient period poetry. Our first lovers of folk antiquity tried to understand its essence and meaning using their own means. The second trend is interest in folk art. This was a period of collecting and publishing folk art materials - songs, epics, proverbs, sayings. The names of N. I. Novikov, M. D. Chulkov, I. Pracha and others should be mentioned here.

By themselves, the above two features (interest in the ancient period of literature and folk art) cannot determine the specificity of the concept of nationality, since they are too general in nature.

If we consider these forms of literary criticism (collecting, comparing and processing texts, description and publication), then within the framework of the academic direction they are closest to the philological school, characterized by the simplest, elementary techniques of literary processing.

It is not always possible to talk here about the consistent application of the principle of historicism and nationality, but the general cultural significance of the works of scientists of this period, which enriched Russian science in quantitative terms, is undoubtedly.

The desire for a systematic study of fiction, clearly evident in the works of Russian writers of the 18th century, was the threshold of the emergence of scientific literary criticism in Russia.

Systematicity involves considering literary facts from the perspective of either one (leading) scientific principle, or a set, a system of principles (of varying degrees of complexity, depending on the number of levels, depth of analysis and breadth of generalization). At the same time, different degrees of validity and orderliness of literary phenomena are possible.

From the very beginning, literary science developed, like other sciences, from elementary to complex, from facts and phenomena to their connections and interrelations, from the study of connections to proof of their regularity. And finally, at a certain stage in the development of literary science, a tendency was revealed to give the conclusions the character of immutable laws.

The role and specific weight of the science of literature in the system of other sciences increases with the development of fiction itself as an object of literary studies. The level of development and state of fiction, in turn, were determined by the forms, conditions and circumstances of the historical development of Russian reality - the subject of the depiction of literature and the subject of study of literary science.

The beginning of systematic, scientific literary knowledge was laid in Russia XVIII century In the 17th century, one can find only elements of a scientific interpretation of historical and literary phenomena in the works of G.K. Kotoshikhin and I.T. Pososhkov. The emergence of systematic, conscious scientific research in Russia is associated with the establishment of the Academy of Sciences, and in particular, with the works of historians P. I. Rychkov, V. V. Krestinin, V. N. Tatishchev and others.

Russian literature of the 18th century notes the influence of Rousseau's philosophy on Novikov, who deeply sympathized with the so-called vile common people. Novikov mastered the heritage of Western European philosophy on his own.

Rousseau's literary activity (his novel "The New Heloise") marked the beginning of Karamzin's sentimentalism. Novikov took from Rousseau the ideas of nationality and enlightenment, and Karamzin adopted the idealistic sentimentality of Rousseau. Thus, the folk historical tradition was discovered in the 18th century through the works of Novikov, who adopted one of the sides of this tradition, dating back to Rousseau. “Sensibility” itself is not necessarily compatible with the idea of the people of literature. In Rousseau, it is complemented by a feeling of love for nature, a spontaneous denial of civilization.

In another respect, close in his views to Novikov was A. N. Radishchev, whose views were also influenced by French philosophy, including Rousseau. At the same time, there is no indication of the influence on Radishchev of that side of Rousseau’s philosophy in which his interest in antiquity was expressed.

Radishchev, like D. Fonvizin and a number of other writers of the 18th century, is characterized by an interest in the modern situation of the people, in their social conditions. Rousseau's influence on Radishchev was not exceptional. It was noted, along with the influence of other French philosophers, apparently in the first period of Rousseau’s activity, the period of general education, when he was close to the encyclopedists. This was the period of formation of Radishchev’s views, the 60s of the 18th century. Among the students at the University of Leipzig, he became acquainted with the French philosophers Voltaire, C. A. Helvetius, Rousseau, Raynal, and G. B. Mably.

Herder has been known in Russia since the 18th century, although the essence of his works was not immediately understood. Karamzin, who visited him in 1789, admires his thoughts and sees him as a great scientist. It is known that founded in 1801 by Zhukovsky (with the participation of A.F. Merzlyakov, V.F. Voeikov, brothers Andrei and Alexander Turgenev) “Friendly literary society”reminded the “Friendly Scientific Society” of I.V. Lopukhin and N.I. Novikov and that, having arrived in Mishenskoye in 1802, V.A. Zhukovsky brought there publications by Schiller, Herder, Lessing, as well as ideas of a new literary direction.

In the first half of the 19th century, one can note the influence of Herder in the works of a number of Russian scientists. In his “History of Russian Literature” S.P. Shevyrev will refer to the works of the “great” German Herder. Following in his works the “unforgettable” Herder O. M. Bodyansky, he is studied by A. N. Pypin and N. S. Tikhonravov.

In Russia, by the middle of the 19th century, this new science among such representatives of academic literary criticism as Pypin, it is called the “science of folk studies.” For Pypin it is already clear that Russian literature, which for so long has been in forms of pseudo-classicism alien to it, can flourish only along the paths of national development, in which both its universal meaning and significance will be determined.

So, in the formation of the theory of folk literature in Russia, the first stage was an interest in the study of monuments of folk antiquity, noted in Russian literature by the activities of Novikov, Chulkov, and Prach.

The second stage of the formation of a new school is the first third XIX century. And Herder’s work was important for this stage. After Herder, such theorists of nationality as I. I. Sreznevsky, Bodyansky, M. A. Maksimovich become understandable. The idea of nationality came to Russia along with romanticism, in the aesthetics of which it occupied an important place, and romanticism, in turn, also goes back to Herder. Herder's works are the source of the ideas of nationality and romanticism of the early 19th century.

However, interest in the study of nationalities in Russia did not depend entirely on Western European influence and was determined by the conditions of Russian reality. It was a movement parallel to the development of European thought. Interest in folk poetry in Russia is associated with the publication of “songbooks” in the 70s of the 18th century, simultaneously with “ Folk songs» Herder. This was not a systematic scientific study, but rather a spontaneous gathering.

The formation of scientific ethnography and literary criticism in Russia was prepared precisely by the collectors of the 18th century, as well as by the collectors of the early 19th century - I. M. Snegirev, I. P. Sakharov and others. In the 40s-60s of the 19th century, according to Pypin, the third period of development of the theory of folk literature was characterized by the works of such “partisans of folk poetry” as F. Buslaev and A. Afanasyev.

Buslaev’s work is “On Teaching the Russian Language” (1844), Afanasyev’s is “Poetic Views of the Slavs on Nature” (1866-1869). Thus, both scientific schools in Russia: the academic (“folk studies”) and the philosophical-aesthetic (Hegelian-Schellingian) school of Belinsky correlate with the teachings of Herder and are also explained by the similarity of the conditions of national development of Germany and

Russia. In both cases, interest in “nationality” is associated with the peculiarities of the development of “national self-awareness.” The commonality of the philosophical sources of the two scientific schools brings closer and historical results their development: on the one hand, the educational democracy of the academic direction, and on the other, the radical democracy of Belinsky and Dobrolyubov.

The German idealistic school of I. Kant, I. G. Fichte, F. W. Schelling, G. F. Hegel took from Herder the “ideal” side of his teaching, which in Russia became the basis of Belinsky’s natural school, which contributed to the study of “nationality” "from the perspective of its socio-aesthetic significance.

Hegel was a supporter of the idea of “pure” nationality, independent of “ethnic” goals. According to Hegel (adopted in the 1930s by Belinsky), Herder’s form of “nationality” was artificial and was merely an imitation of genuine nationality.

At the same time, the German idealistic philosophy of art - Kant, Schelling, Hegel - promoting the ideas of freedom of creativity as opposed to the normative aesthetics of classicism, thereby inherited the corresponding ideas of Rousseau and Herder.

Only Belinsky’s refusal in the 1840s from the Hegelian idea of creative freedom not only brought his concept of the peoplehood of literature closer to academic theory“ethnic studies”, but gave this theory a new socio-political meaning.

Introduction to literary criticism (N.L. Vershinina, E.V. Volkova, A.A. Ilyushin, etc.) / Ed. L.M. Krupchanov. - M, 2005

^ NATIONAL IDENTITY AND POPULARITY OF LITERATURE

A work that appears at one or another stage of literary development always has a national identity. As an integral part of national culture, literature is the bearer of traits that characterize a nation, an expression of common national properties that arise historically, formed by the peculiarities of the natural conditions of the territory in which the people live, the economic relations of their life, the political system, the traditions of ideological and, in particular, literary life . From all this follows the national uniqueness of literature.

The national originality of literature cannot be considered outside of its social significance. “There are two national cultures in every national culture,” wrote V. I. Lenin. - There is a Great Russian culture of the Purishkeviches, Guchkovs and Struves, - but there is also a Great Russian culture, characterized by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. Eat such same two culture in Ukraine, as in Germany, France, England, among Jews, etc.” (15, 129). Therefore, the meaning of the idea of national identity in literature is dialectically connected with the concepts of nationality and nationality.

^ NATIONAL IDENTITY OF LITERATURE

This structure creates the uniqueness of the sound of the work.

Despite the differences in language, some peoples that have not yet formed into a nation often have a common literary tradition, first of all, a single folk epic. From this point of view, the example of the peoples of the North Caucasus and Abkhazia, which are represented by more than fifty languages, but have a common epic cycle - “Narts”, is very indicative. The epic heroes of the Ramayana are common to the peoples of India who speak different languages, and even to many peoples of Southeast Asia. Such a community arises because, although individual nationalities live in remote places, often closed, isolated from the outside world, which is why differences in language arise, their living conditions are nevertheless close to each other. They have to overcome the same difficulties in their encounter with nature, and they have the same level of economic and social development. There are often many similarities in their historical destinies. Therefore, these nationalities are united by common ideas about life and human dignity, and hence, in literature, the imagination is captivated by the images of the same epic heroes.

Writers can also use the same language, and their work represents different national literatures. For example, Egyptian, Syrian, and Algerian writers write in Arabic. The French language is used not only by French, but also to some extent by Belgian and Canadian writers. Both the British and the Americans write in English, but the works they create bear a vivid imprint of various features of national life. Many African writers, using the language of former colonialists, create works that are completely original in their national essence.

A very important role in the formation of the national identity of artistic creativity is played by the commonality of territory, because in the early stages of the development of society, certain natural conditions often give rise to common tasks in the struggle of man with nature, common labor processes and skills, and hence customs, life, and worldview. Therefore, for example, in the mythology that developed during the clan system among the ancient Chinese, the hero is Gong, who managed to stop the flood of the river (a frequent occurrence in China) and saved the people from the flood, obtaining a piece of “living earth”, and among the ancient Greeks - Prometheus, who mined sky fire. In addition, impressions of the surrounding nature influence the properties of the narrative, the features of metaphors, comparisons and other artistic means. Northern peoples rejoice in the warmth and sun, so they most often compare a beauty to the clear sun, while southern peoples prefer the comparison With the moon, because the night brings coolness that saves from the heat of the sun. In Russian songs and fairy tales, a woman’s gait is compared to the smooth stride of a swan, and in India - with the “wonderful gait of royal elephants.”

Territorial community often leads to common paths of economic development and creates a common historical life of the people. This influences the themes of literature and gives rise to differences in artistic images. Thus, the Armenian epic “David of Sasun” tells about the life of gardeners and cultivators, about the construction of irrigation canals; the Kyrgyz “Manas” captured the nomadic life of cattle breeders, the search for new pastures, life in the saddle; in the epic of the German people, “The Song of the Nibelungs,” the search for ore, the work of blacksmiths, etc. are depicted.

Benevolence of social life. The development of class society, the transition from one socio-economic formation to another: from slave-owning to feudal and from feudal to bourgeois - occurs among different peoples at different times, under different conditions. The external and internal political activities of the national state develop differently, which influences the organization and strengthening of property and legal relations, the emergence of certain moral norms, and hence the formation of ideological (including religious) ideas and traditions. All this leads to the emergence of a national characteristic of the life of society. From childhood, people are brought up under the influence of a complex system of relationships and ideas of national society, and this leaves an imprint on their behavior. This is how the characters of people of different nations - national characters - are historically formed.

It is often believed that national character is determined by one dominant psychological trait inherent only to one nation, exclusively to it. But common features can appear among representatives of different nations. The uniqueness of the national character lies in a certain relationship between these traits and the trends in their development. Literary characters perfectly show how the same character trait, in unity with others, takes on different national incarnations. So, for example, Balzac portrays Gobsek’s stinginess, but it is not at all similar in its psychological manifestation to the stinginess of Gogol’s Plyushkin. Both characters, striving to accumulate wealth, have ceased to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary, and for both it is senselessly rotting under the watchful supervision of

With the emergence of critical realism in literature, an important quality of national originality is revealed. Since a realistic work bears the imprint of the writer’s personality, his individuality, and the writer himself acts as a bearer of national character, national originality becomes an organic property of the work itself. The characters of people in their national characteristics not only act as an object of artistic knowledge, but are also depicted from the point of view of the writer, who also carries within himself the spirit of his people, his nation. The first profound exponent of the national Russian character in literature is Pushkin. Belinsky wrote about this more than once, Gogol expressed it especially aptly: “Pushkin is an extraordinary phenomenon and, perhaps, the only manifestation of the Russian spirit: this is the Russian man in his development, in which he may appear in two hundred years. In it, Russian nature, Russian soul, Russian language, Russian character were reflected in the same purity, in such purified beauty, in which the landscape is reflected on the convex surface of optical glass.” (46, 33).

At the same time, national identity is not limited to

Only by depicting individual characters, it covers the creative process so deeply that it manifests itself in the plots and themes of the works. Thus, in Russian literature the theme of the “superfluous man” has become widespread - a nobleman, a person of progressive views, who is in conflict with the surrounding reality, but is unable to realize his dissatisfaction with the existing order. For French literature, the conflict of a person making his way in the bourgeois world turned out to be typical. As a result, certain genres received preferential development in national literature (the novel of education, for example, in German and English literature).

Thus, the literature of critical realism, developing in Europe in the 19th century, contains the most complete, profound expression of national identity.

Some writers and critics, taking a superficial approach to the problem of national identity, idealize patriarchal life with its stability and even rigidity. They do not try to understand the national identity in the life of those sections of society that have become familiar with the achievements of international culture. As a result, a falsely interpreted love for their nation leads them to misunderstanding the progressive phenomena of national life. An exclusive interest only in what distinguishes one nation from others, a belief in the chosenness of one’s nation, in the superiority of its ancestral customs, rituals and everyday habits leads not only to conservatism, but also to nationalism. Then the national feeling of the people is used by the exploiting classes in their own interests. Therefore, the concept of national identity must be considered in relation to the concept of nationality.

^ NATIONALITY OF LITERATURE

The concepts of nationality and nationality of artistic creativity did not differ for a long time. When national literatures began to take shape, the German scientist I. Herder came up with a theory of national identity based on the study of folk legends and oral folk art. In 1778-1779 he published collections of folk poetry entitled “Voices of Peoples in Songs.” According to Herder, folk poetry was “the flower of the unity of the people, its language and its antiquity, its activities and judgments, its passions and unfulfilled desires” (62, 213). Thus, the German thinker found the expression of the national spirit, the national “substance” primarily in the psychological makeup of the working people, and he had to endure a lot of ridicule for turning to the poetry of the “plebeians.”

He constantly called Pushkin and Gogol “national poets,” meaning by this the high national originality of their work, and only towards the end of his activity did he gradually come to an understanding of the nationality itself.

In the 30s of the XIX century. The ruling circles of autocratic Russia created the nationalist theory of “official nationality.” By “nationality” they understood devotion to autocracy and Orthodoxy; Literature was required to depict native Russian life, permeated with religious prejudices, historical paintings glorifying the love of the Russian people for the Tsar. Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky did a lot to show the limitations of the authors (Zagoskin, Kukolnik and some others) who spoke in line with the nationalistically understood “nationality”.

Revolutionary-democratic writers, following Dobrolyubov, consciously strove for nationality in their artistic work, but nationality may also be unconscious. So, Dobrolyubov, for example, wrote about Gogol: “We see that Gogol, although in his best creations came very close to people's point of view but he approached unconsciously, simply with an artistic touch" (55, 271; emphasis added - S.K.). In this case, the nationality of works can only be assessed historically, raising the question of what works, how and to what extent this or that writer could, in his era of national development, express the interests of the masses.

The most important ones are the works

Folk in meaning can also be those works that depict the best representatives of the ruling class, dissatisfied with the meaninglessness of the existence of the environment to which they belong by birth and upbringing, looking for ways to activity and to other forms of human relations. Such are “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, the best novels of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, “Foma Gordeev” and “Egor Bulychev” by Gorky, etc. V. I. Lenin attached great importance to the work of L. Tolstoy, primarily because he found

His works express popular protest in the era of “preparing for a revolution in one of the countries oppressed by the serfs...” (14, 19).

To create works of national significance, the most important role is played by the progressiveness of the writer’s worldview and his ideals. But works that are folk in their meaning can also be created by writers with a contradictory worldview. Then the measure of their nationality is determined by the depth of the critical problematics of their work. This can be judged by the works of A. Ostrovsky or Dickens. The spontaneous-democratic worldview gave them the opportunity to create the brightest pictures exposing the world of profit. But writers who are progressive only in the critical side of their work are usually unstable in their positions. Along with sharp, revealing images, they have implausible idyllic pictures of patriarchal life. The researcher must be able to reveal such contradictions of a writer whose national significance is recognized by the history of literature. It is in this approach to understanding artistic creativity that the methodological meaning of Lenin’s assessment of L. Tolstoy, whose ideals reflected the “immaturity of daydreaming” of the patriarchal peasantry, but at the same time led the writer to realistically tearing off “all and every mask” (13, 212, 209).

To the people. It must have its deepest roots in the very depths of the broad working masses. It must be understandable to these masses and loved by them. It must unite the feeling, thought and will of these masses, lift them up" (16, 657).

Works, the artist must give them the highest perfection of artistic form and style.

Truly folk literature expresses national interests most fully, and therefore it also has a pronounced national identity. It is through the works of such artists as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Sholokhov, L. Leonov, Tvardovsky that our idea of both the nationality of art and its national identity is determined.

Thus, the poems of Homer, thanks to their national identity, reflected with particular perfection, according to K. Marx, that early stage of development of all peoples, which can be called the childhood of “human society” 1. Italian poetry (Dante, Petrarch, etc.), as well as English drama (Shakespeare); for the era of absolutism - the dramaturgy of French classicism; for the era of bourgeois revolutions - the romantic poetry of Byron; for the era of development of bourgeois society - realistic literature of France (Balzac, Flaubert), England (Dickens), Russia (Pushkin, Gogol, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov).

1 See: Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 12. P. 737.

The Great French Revolution also influenced Russia. Russia. Abolition or limitation of autocratic power: abolition of feudal economic institutions, and above all serfdom; establishment of firm legality, excluding arbitrariness and corruption; protection of the human person; finally, the fight against ignorance, prejudice, social and nationalist prejudices; enlightenment of the broadest strata of the people - this is the force field of ideas in which classical Russian literature developed. There are a number of clear features that distinguish the literary development of the first half of the 19th century from the second. The literature of the first half of the 19th century is distinguished by the extraordinary capacity and universality of the artistic images it created. At this time, the foundations of Russian literary classics, its living cells, which carry a unique “genetic code”. This is a literature of short, but promising artistic formulas in their further development, containing powerful figurative energy, still compressed in them, not yet unfolded. It is no coincidence that many of them will become proverbs, become a fact of our everyday language, part of our spiritual experience: almost all of Krylov’s fables, many poems from “Woe from Wit” and “Eugene Onegin”, “Nozdrevschina”, “Manilovschina”, “Chichikovschina” Gogol, “repetilovism”, “silence” of Griboedov, etc. In Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century, the problem of artistic form, brevity and accuracy of the linguistic design of a poetic image occupies a large place. The process of developing a literary language is underway. Hence the intense and lively debate about the fate of the Russian language between the “Shishkovists” and the “Karamzinists.” Hence the genre universalism of Russian writers of the first half of the 19th century. The works of Russian writers of the first half of the 19th century are small in volume, but significant in the figurative power that they contain.

Periodization	The most important historical events in Europe and Russia	General characteristics of the period	Main genres
1. 1795--1815	Great French revolution(1789--1793) Opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Patriotic War 1812. The emergence of Decembrist organizations	The secular nature of literature. Development of European cultural heritage. Increased attention to Russian folklore and folk legends. The decline of classicism and its transformation in Derzhavin’s work. Specifics of Russian sentimentalism and emerging romanticism. The rise of journalism. Literary societies and circles	Travel, novel (educational novel, novel in letters). Elegy, message, idyll
2. 1816--1825	The growth of revolutionary and national liberation movements in Europe. The emergence of secret societies in Russia (1821-1822). The death of Napoleon and the death of Byron. Decembrist revolt (1825)	The dominant direction is romanticism. Literature of the Decembrists. Publishing almanacs. The principle of historicism put forward by Karamzin. Romantic aspirations in the works of Pushkin 1812-1824.	“Modernized” by the Decembrists, ode, tragedy, “high comedy,” civil or patriotic poem, elegy, epistle. "Psychological Tale", ballad
3 . 1826 - first half of the 50s.	Defeat of the Decembrist uprising. "New censorship regulations." Victories of Russia in the wars with Persia and Turkey (1826-1829). July Revolution in France (1830). Suppression Polish uprising(1831). Persecution of free thought in Russia. The deepening crisis of serfdom, public reaction. Strengthening democratic tendencies. Development of the ideas of revolution and utopian socialism. Reactionary protective measures of the government in connection with revolutions in Europe	Fidelity to the ideas of Decembrism and realism in the works of Pushkin (1826-1837). The heyday of Lermontov's romanticism. The transition to realism and social satire in Gogol. Realism takes on leading importance, although most writers work within the framework of romanticism. The emergence of new romantic genres. Replacement of poetry by prose. The 1830s are the heyday of the story. Belinsky's realistic aesthetics. Publication of the first volume of Dead Souls (1842). The growing influence of advanced journalism on public life. The struggle of progressive and democratic forces in journalism. The ideological struggle between Slavophiles and Westerners. "Natural school" Priority of social issues. Development of the "little man" theme. Confrontation of literature " Gogol school"and romantic lyric poets	Romantic ballad, poem, historical novel. Secular, historical, romantic, everyday story. Literary critical article. The main genres of the “natural school”: social story, socio-psychological novel, poem. Landscape, love-aesthetic and philosophical lyrics of romantic poets

Literary and social movement (activities of literary societies and circles) of the first third of the 19th century. Main trends in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.

A specific feature of social life at the beginning of the 19th century was the organization of literary societies, which was an indicator of the relative maturity of literature and the desire to give it the character of a public matter. The earliest of them was one that arose in Moscow in January 1801 "Friendly Literary Society", which grew out of a student circle of graduates of Moscow University and the university Noble boarding school - brothers Andrei and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, S.G. Rodzianka. How a circle of young like-minded people opened in St. Petersburg on July 15, 1801 "Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and Arts". His interests were not limited to literature alone. The society included sculptors (I. I. Terebenev, I. I. Galberg), artists (A. I. Ivanov), archaeologists, historians, doctors (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. languages, etc.). “Society has chosen literature, science and art as the subject of its exercises,” wrote V.V. Popugaev, with the goal of “mutually improving ourselves in these three branches of human abilities” and “contributing to the best of our ability to improve these three branches.” But the leading position in Society was occupied, of course, by writers. Unlike the Friendly Literary Society, they were alien to the Karamzin direction, adhered to educational traditions and developed a civic theme in their work. Among them were people of different social origins: people from petty bureaucrats, clergy, and merchants. In 1811, at Moscow University it was organized "Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature", which existed for more than 100 years. It included among its ranks teachers, writers and simply lovers of fine literature. At first, the chairman of the society was Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich Antonsky. The society organized a preparatory committee of six active members, which prepared the next open meetings: selected works for oral reading, discussion or publication in the proceedings of the society. The meetings usually opened with the reading of an ode and ended with the reading of a fable. In between, other genres of literature in poetry and prose were discussed, and articles of a scientific nature were read. “Conversation of lovers of the Russian word” (1811 1816) and opposing her "Arzamas" fell into the center of the literary and social struggle of the first quarter of the 19th century. With the closure of “Conversation...” and the end of the literary dispute with it, a crisis began in the activities of “Arzamas” (1815-1818). In 1817, members of secret Decembrist organizations - N. M. Muravyov, M. F. Orlov, N. I. Turgenev - joined it. Dissatisfied with the fact that society is busy discussing literary issues, the Decembrists are trying to give it a political character. The loose structure of society does not satisfy their serious intentions. They are trying to adopt strict “laws” of society at the meeting and insist on publishing a special journal. A split ensues, and in 1818 the society's activities ceased. Founded in 1818-1819, the “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” and the “Green Lamp” became branches (“governments”) of secret Decembrist organizations. Participants in the Union of Welfare, in accordance with the charter, were obliged to penetrate legal literary societies and monitor their activities. The meetings of the “Green Lamp” took place in the house of N. Vsevolozhsky, in a hall illuminated by a lamp with a green lampshade. It was a literary association with a radical political orientation, not registered in government circles. This included young oppositionists, among whom were people with republican convictions. The meetings of the “Green Lamp” were attended by poets (F. Glinka, N. Gnedich, A. Delvig, A. Pushkin), theater critics (D. Barkov, Ya. Tolstoy), publicist A. Ulybyshev, society dandies seething with freethinking (P. Kavelin, M. Shcherbinin). In 1816, with the permission of the government, the “Free Society of Competitors of Education and Charity” was founded, which in 1818 received the highest approval under the name “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, with the right to publish its own magazine “Competitor of Education and Charity. Proceedings of the “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature.” All benefits from the publication were assigned to “those who, while engaged in the sciences and arts, require support and charity.” The Decembrists (F. Glinka, brothers N. and A. Bestuzhev, K. Ryleev, A. Kornilovich, V. Kuchelbecker, O. Somov), having become members of this society, began a decisive struggle against its well-intentioned wing (N. Tsertelev, B Fedorov, D. Khvostov, V. Karazin). The struggle was crowned with success, and from 1821 the society became a legal branch of the Decembrist movement. Regular meetings began to be held to discuss the most pressing problems of the humanities, literature and art. Members of the society support with their works the magazines close to their convictions: “Son of the Fatherland”, “Nevsky Spectator”, and then the almanac “Polar Star” created by Ryleev and Bestuzhev. The publication of its own magazine “Competitor of Education and Charity” becomes permanent. Thus, in the early 1820s, the “Free Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” “became the most influential and most significant of all organizations of this type” (R.V. Jesuitova). The activities of the society were discontinued at the end of 1825 due to the Decembrist uprising and the investigation into their case. In 1823 in Moscow, with the participation of V.F. Odoevsky, D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky, S.P. Shevyrev and M.P. Pogodin, the “Society of the wise” was opened - an association of a new type, gravitating not to social literary and political, but to philosophical and aesthetic problems, which acquired particular popularity and significance in the post-Decembrist era.

Briefly in the table:

Years of activity	Literary societies, circles and salons			Literary direction
Years of activity	Title/status	Press organ (magazine)	Participants	Fading, leading, emerging literary movement
	"Friendly Literary Society"	Published: Morning Dawn, Bulletin of Europe	grew out of a student circle of graduates of Moscow University and the university Noble boarding school - brothers Andrei and Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, A.F. Voeikov, A.S. Kaisarov, V.A. Zhukovsky, S.G. Rodzianka.	began his literary career as a convinced “Karamzinist.” Soon, disagreements arose between members of the society in relation to Karamzin. The radically minded Andrei Turgenev and A.S. Kaisarov, under the influence of Schiller, began to affirm the romantic idea of nationality and high citizenship in literature.
	"Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and Arts"	“Scroll of the Muses” (1802-1803), then the magazine “Periodical publication of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Sciences and Arts” (only one issue of the magazine was published in 1804), and also collaborated in other periodical publications. The journals “Northern Herald” (1804–1805) and “Lyceum” (1806), published by I. I. Martynov, “Journal of Russian Literature” (1805) by N. P. Brusilova, “Flower Garden” (1809–1810) A. E. Izmailov and A. P. Benitsky, “St. Petersburg Bulletin” (1812), created by decision of the society. From 1804 1805 poets K. N. Batyushkov, A. F. Merzlyakov, S. S. Bobrov, N. I. Gnedich were accepted as members of the society. The activity of the society revived and largely changed its direction with the arrival of the “Karamzinists” writers - D. N. Bludov, V. L. Pushkin and especially D. V. Dashkov, who in 1811 was elected president of the society and tried to give it a militant character directed against Shishkov’s “Conversations...” This includes K. F. Ryleev, A. A. Bestuzhev, V. K. Kuchelbecker, A. F. Raevsky (brother of V. F. Raevsky), O. M. Somov and other prominent writers were Decembrists.	sculptors (I. I. Terebenev, I. I. Galberg), artists (A. I. Ivanov), scientists archaeologists, historians, doctors (A. I. Ermolaev, I. O. Timkovsky, D. I. Yazykov, etc. .). Vostokov. poet G. P. Kamenev, I. M. Born and V. V. Popugaev, I. P. Pnin, N. A. Radishchev	They gravitated towards classicism and later developed.
In 1811	Moscow Society of Lovers of Russian Literature"		It included among its ranks teachers, writers and simply lovers of fine literature. The chairman of the society at first was Professor Anton Antonovich Prokopovich Antonsky
	“Conversation among lovers of the Russian word”		G. R. Derzhavin and A. S. Shishkov. S.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, D.I. Khvostov, A.A. Shakhovskoy, I.S. Zakharov and others also belonged to it. The “Conversation” also included N.I. Gnedich and I.A. Krylov
	"Arzamas" Arzamast society of unknown people.		writers (V. A. Zhukovsky, K. N. Batyushkov, P. A. Vyazemsky, A. A. Pleshcheev, V. L. Pushkin, A. S. Pushkin, A. A. Perovsky, S. P. Zhikharev, A. F. Voeikov, F. F. Vigel, D. V. Davydov, D. A. Kavelin), as well as persons better known for their social activities (brothers A. I. and N. I. Turgenev, S. S. Uvarov, D. N. Bludov, D. V. Dashkov, M. F. Orlov, D. P. Severin, P. I. Poletika and others).
	"Green Lamp"		Decembrists S. P. Trubetskoy, F. N. Glinka, Ya. N. Tolstoy, A. A. Tokarev, P. P. Kaverin, as well as A. S. Pushkin and A. A. Delvig. The meetings were attended by N. I. Gnedich, A. D. Ulybyshev, D. N. Barkov, D. I. Dolgorukov, A. G. Rodzyanko, F. F. Yuryev, I. E. Zhadovsky, P. B. Mansurov , V.V. Engelhardt (1785-1837).
	Society of Philosophy	"Mnemosyne"	Vladimir Odoevsky (chairman), Dmitry VenevItinov (secretary), I. V. Kireevsky, N. M. Rozhalin, A. I. Koshelev, V. P. Titov, S. P. Shevyrev, N. A. Melgunov. Sometimes the meetings were attended by some other Moscow writers.	Interested in German (idealistic) philosophy

In the first half of the 19th century there was no classicism, no sentimentalism, no romanticism in its pure form. TO early XIX V. Russian literature has already survived (but not outlived!) an artistic movement on a pan-European scale - classicism. However, it is no coincidence that the first phase of the classical period of Russian literature coincided with the formation and flowering of another pan-European movement in it - sentimentalism. Awareness of the value of the human personality, conditioned, and sometimes constrained, regulated by social relations; interest in the “life of the heart,” in feeling, in sensitivity - this is the soil on which Russian sentimentalism developed and which then served as the starting point for further literary evolution. At the same time, both the formation of sentimentalism and the emergence of all subsequent trends and schools were possible only because Karamzin’s reform and the movement it caused gave literature new language- the language of subtle emotional experiences, overflows of feelings, fluctuations and changes in mood, deep heartfelt inclination, longing, melancholy - in a word, the language of the “inner man.” Thus, the main channel of Russian literary evolution in the first half of the century was the same as in the West: sentimentalism, romanticism and realism. But the appearance of each of these stages was extremely unique, and the originality was determined both by the close interweaving and merging of already known elements, and by the emergence of new ones - those that Western European literature did not know or hardly knew. It can be argued that at the beginning of the century, in sentimentalism and partly in romanticism, the picture was determined by the fusion of elements, and in subsequent directions (realism) - by the advancement of still unknown, new ones.

The essence of romanticism as an artistic method. The originality of Russian romanticism, its varieties.

Romanticism arose earlier in Europe and Russian romanticism borrows a lot. Romanticism is born out of disappointment with reality; it is a kind of reaction to the Great French Revolution. Romanticism has two homelands, Germany (among the writers and philosophers of the Jena school (W. G. Wackenroder, Ludwig Tieck, Novalis, brothers F. and A. Schlegel). The philosophy of romanticism was systematized in the works of F. Schlegel and F. Schelling. Subsequently development, German romanticism is distinguished by an interest in fairy-tale and mythological motifs, which was especially clearly expressed in the works of the brothers Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, Hoffmann. Heine, starting his work within the framework of romanticism, later subjected it to a critical revision) and England (the first representatives are the poets of the “Lake School” ", Wordsworth and Coleridge. They established the theoretical foundations of their direction, having become acquainted with the philosophy of Schelling and the views of the first German romantics during a trip to Germany. English romanticism is characterized by an interest in social problems: they contrast modern bourgeois society with old, pre-bourgeois relations, glorification of nature, simple, natural feelings. A prominent representative of English romanticism is Byron). At the center of the romantics’ picture of the world is personality. Its essence is not in the mind or feelings, but the main essence of personality is in freedom of spirit. And the goal of every person is “the strength and desire to become like God and always have the infinite before his eyes.” A characteristic feature of a romantic hero is exclusivity. The individual's desire for absolute freedom. But she encounters obstacles: 1) society (fleeing from the world or expelled by it), 2) nature (unity/conflict with nature), 3) fate (fate). Romantics believe that a person does not know the world, but he experiences it. Contemplation is a special vision that allows you to penetrate from the external to the internal. The favorite motif of romantics is mystical. Romanticism is also characterized by “two worlds” - the romantic person is in two worlds (the real and his own). Genres: story, short story, elegy, ode (civic romanticism), excerpt (the embodiment of genre freedom), lyric poem, dramatic poems (in dialogue), ballad - a favorite genre of romantics, with the poetics of horror at its core. It is usually believed that in Russia romanticism appears in the poetry of V. A. Zhukovsky (although some Russian poetic works of the 1790-1800s are often attributed to the pre-romantic movement that developed from sentimentalism). In Russian romanticism, freedom from classical conventions appears, a ballad and romantic drama are created. A new idea is being established about the essence and meaning of poetry, which is recognized as an independent sphere of life, an expression of the highest, ideal aspirations of man; the old view, according to which poetry seemed to be empty fun, something completely serviceable, turns out to be no longer possible. Stages of development of Russian romanticism:

1810s - the emergence and formation of a psychological movement in romanticism. Zhukovsky, Batyushkov.

The end of the 1810s - 1820s - the emergence of a civil movement in romanticism. Ryleev, Kuchelbecker, Glinka.

1820 – maturity of the psychological movement. Pushkin, Baratynsky, Vyazemsky, YazYkov.

1830 – emergence of a philosophical movement. Baratynsky, poets of wisdom, Tyutchev, Odoevsky’s prose, Lermontov, Benediktov’s lyrics. The penetration of romanticism into prose.

1840 – decline of romanticism. It becomes the object of the image. Novel "Hero of Our Time".

Psychological course: characterized by the development of ideas of self-knowledge, self-improvement of the individual as the most correct way of human transformation.

Civil: a person is part of society, which means he is destined for civic activity.

Philosophical: man, his destiny, his place in the world are predestined and depend on the general laws of the universe, are subject to fate.

Lyrics by V. Zhukovsky. The originality of the creative method. Themes and images.

Zhukovsky is considered the first Russian romantic. He was a deeply religious person; in his opinion, the world is divided into an earthly world and an afterlife. Poetry exhibits features of pantheism (God is in everything). A person must strive to transform earthly life. The work begins with a translation of Thomas Gray’s elegy “The Country Cemetery.” The elegy opens with a description of the approaching evening, when the “malice of the day” does not dominate the solitary person, when the vain worries of a noisy day leave him. In the mysterious silence, feelings become sharper, inner vision awakens, the soul responds to the fundamental, age-old questions of existence. At a rural cemetery, the young poet is faced with the question of the meaning of life. The first original elegy "Evening". The moment of transition from one state to another. The poet-singer recognizes himself as a friend of the villages and an opponent of the urban form of civilization; he bitterly regrets the disintegration of his circle of friends, the death of one of his closest friends. He fears that “the search for honors” and “the vain honor of being considered pleasant in the world” may drown out the memory of friendship and love. Towards the end of the poem, he predicts a special fate for the poet, which contains a hint of his chosen role as a romantic:

Fate has judged me: to wander along an unknown path,

To be a friend of peaceful villages, to love the beauty of Nature,

Breathe oak forest silence under the dusk

And, looking down at the foam of water,

Sing the Creator, friends, love and happiness.

O songs, pure fruit of heartfelt innocence!

Zhukovsky glorifies a peaceful life, devoid of external conflicts. In the landscape he created, there is, as it were, a character who perceives its beauty, responding extremely sensitively and subtly to the most diverse manifestations of the natural landscape. It is this natural world, which evokes whimsical and changeable experiences and moods in the lyrical “I,” that constitutes the actual content of the elegy. “Evening” - in comparison with the sentimentalist elegy - is new both in method and in techniques psychological drawing type of romantic text: successive memories, thoughts, moods and feelings are designed to express a new spiritual experience that is unique in its internal content, especially reliable in reflections on the transience of youth, on losses along the path of a person’s life. Unlike poets of the XVIII V. Zhukovsky’s task is, first of all, to convey the reactions of the lyrical “I” in their particularly refined, individually unique form:

How incense sleeps with the coolness of plants!

How sweet is the splashing of the jets in the silence by the shore!

How softly the zephyr blows across the waters

And the fluttering of the flexible willow!

In the elegy “The Inexpressible” (1819), the poet expressed regret about the impossibility of capturing a moment of beauty, of catching and capturing in words the play of light, the play of shadows and sunspots, the reflection of shining clouds in water - all the diversity of living, constantly changing nature.

What is our earthly language compared to wondrous nature?

With what careless and easy freedom

She scattered beauty everywhere...

And yet, in his poetry, he set himself this task: to give a visible, sounding, figurative embodiment of the inexpressible - that which flashes in the depths of human consciousness, that emerges momentarily in bright bursts from the recesses of the subconscious and almost never lends itself to definition in logical concepts. And very often Zhukovsky managed to solve it brilliantly. So here, in “The Inexpressible,” he found words with which he evoked in the reader the idea of a fire of colors in the blue of the sky and in the reflection of clouds in the blue of water, evoked the illusion of our participation in that beauty in nature that arose in the unsteady, almost elusive glimpses and what resonated in the human soul. After all, it is for the perception of beauty!

One of the most famous is the elegy “The Sea”. It reveals the classic image of the sea, the poet personifies himself as the elements. The sea is a huge soul. The image of the sky also appears. There is earthly bondage and heaven. The sea reflects the light of the sky. The finale is the calming of the sea. In this poem, the poet paints the sea in three scenes: in a calm state, during a storm and after it. The calm surface of the sea reflects the azure of the sky and the “golden clouds” and the shine of the stars. In a storm, the sea beats and waves rise. It does not immediately calm down and after it, despite the outer calm, in its depths, as the lyrical hero says, it hides confusion. It is easy to see that Zhukovsky does not just describe a seascape. The poet is talking about something intimate, dear to him. The sea appears to the lyrical hero as a living, thinking and feeling creature, concealing a “deep secret” within itself. The author shows us his experiences through a description of nature. The mood of the lyrical hero is fused with the mood of the sea.

National literature

NATIONAL LITERATURE. - In bourgeois literary criticism and criticism, this term was usually used to designate the literature of national minorities, the literature of oppressed peoples, in contrast to the literature of the dominant nation. So, in pre-war Austria under N. l. meant the literature of all the peoples inhabiting this state except the Germans, whose literature was considered basic, dominant, and guiding. In old pre-October Russia under N. l. understood literature not in Russian, but in the language. other peoples oppressed by the tsarist government, Russian landowners and bourgeoisie. In the mouths of the ideologists of the property classes (landowners, bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie) of the ruling nation N. l. denoted second-class literature. The ideologists of the Russian autocracy, the landowners, in their attitude towards the literature of other peoples inhabiting Russia, showed their special zoological chauvinism, treated these literatures as barbaric dialects, like jargons, considered them carriers of all kinds of harmful tendencies, a manifestation of bad taste, a product of low culture and fought against these literatures not only and not so much as means of ideological influence, but rather through measures of police oppression and extermination. The most open forms of oppression of N. l. practiced by the Russian autocracy. This struggle was part of everything national policy tsarist government.
The ongoing policy of Russification of Poles, Ukrainians, Georgians, Tatars and many others. other peoples, restrictions on the most basic rights of a number of peoples, especially Jews, a ban on teaching in their native language in schools. or in general the language and literature of these peoples, the prohibition of using any other language other than Russian in government institutions, the prevention of the opening of Ukrainian, Georgian, Lithuanian or Polish universities and gymnasiums in a number of cities, or the establishment of a percentage norm for Jews when entering educational institutions, secondary and highest, extremely ferocious persecution of the press in non-Russian languages, frequent bans on theaters - all this is extremely a complex system the persecution and eradication of non-Russian culture could not but affect the development of the literature of these peoples.
Hiding behind liberal phrases, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie of the dominant nation essentially always pursued an equally nationalistic policy of oppression in relation to the literature of the conquered peoples. The bourgeoisie of the ruling nation, or more precisely the dominant national bourgeoisie, shows some philanthropic concern and humanistic sympathy for literature, as in general for the culture of other peoples of the country, until it itself becomes in power. This was the case with the Russian liberals of the Cadet persuasion, with the Polish people's democrats. The behavior of the ideologists of the Russian bourgeoisie during the years of the Stolypin reaction and especially during the months when the Provisional Government was in power was extremely significant. Forgetting its former preaching of a fraternal attitude towards the culture of other peoples, the Russian bourgeoisie tried in every possible way to push back, squeeze, and delay the development of the culture of other peoples. And if the ideologists of the landowners, “Messrs. Purishkevich, would not even be averse to completely banning ‘dog dialects, which are spoken by up to 60% of the non-Russian population of Russia,” then “the position of the liberals is much more cultured and subtle” (Lenin, Is a mandatory state language?, 3rd ed., vol. XVII, p. 179). They express their sympathy in every possible way for the development of the culture of other peoples, but they defend the obligatory nature of the state language. from higher, supposedly state reasons.
The defense of “the state expediency of the Russian literary language,” writes Lenin, “was a unique form of struggle against the culture and literature of other peoples, which extremely hampered the development of these cultures and literature. Lenin cites the current argument of national-liberal “defenders” of the culture and literature of foreigners: “The Russian people are great and powerful, the liberals tell us. So don’t you really want everyone who lives on any outskirts of Russia to know this great and powerful language? Don’t you see that the Russian language will enrich the literature of foreigners, give them the opportunity to become familiar with great cultural values, etc.?” (Vol. XVII, p. 180).
Lenin exposes the falsely hypocritical nature of this desire of Russian liberals to benefit the oppressed peoples and “enrich the literature of foreigners.” He writes: “All this is true, gentlemen liberals,” we answer them. We know better than you that the language of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky is great and powerful. We, more than you, want the closest possible communication and fraternal unity to be established between the oppressed classes of all the nations inhabiting Russia without distinction. And we, of course, stand for every resident of Russia to have the opportunity to learn the great Russian language. We don't want just one thing: an element of coercion. We don't want to drive people into heaven with a club. Because how much beautiful phrases No matter what you say about culture, a compulsory state language is associated with coercion and indoctrination. We think that the great and powerful Russian language does not need anyone to study it under pressure” (vol. XVII, p. 180).
In the same way, the dominant German bourgeoisie in pre-Versailles Austria or the dominant Polish bourgeoisie in modern Poland, each in its own way expressing liberal sympathy and sympathy for the culture and literature of other peoples of old Austria or modern Poland, essentially treats these cultures and literatures as dubious values of a third-rate kind. ; under the guise of phrases about the exceptional importance of the great German or Polish literature for the growth of Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian or Jewish “lesser brothers,” they carried out and are carrying out, both through measures of ideological struggle and by means of administrative and police influence, the Germanization or Polonization of these cultures and in every possible way hinder the development liter of these oppressed nations. If the ruling national bourgeoisie, boasting the names of Goethe and Schiller, Pushkin and Tolstoy, sought to intimidate the peoples it oppressed with the “great cultural values” of its literature, then the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of the oppressed peoples presented their literature as a source of humanism, disinterested love of humanity, natural democracy and love of the people. They endlessly talked about the messianic role of their literature as the intercessor of all the oppressed. These motifs varied in different ways in classical Polish literature, Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Jewish, Belarusian and a number of other literatures. But if in “Grandfathers” and “Pan Tadeusz” by Mickiewicz, in “The Nag” by Mendel-Moicher-Sforim, in the works of Shevchenko and many other poets of the oppressed peoples of old tsarist Russia, especially before the 60-70s. XIX century, all these motives, generated by the oppression of the tsarist autocracy and Russian landowners, and then the Russian bourgeoisie, were an expression of protest against the oppressors; if the very fact of the literary formation of national identity in this literature was a kind of rebellion against rapists; if this literature at this stage to some extent nourished liberation sentiments, then already from the end of the 19th century, when the revolutionary proletariat entered the scene, and even more so after October revolution, this literature in the hands of the nationalist bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie became an instrument of chauvinist nationalist propaganda. The nationalist apologetics of the described motives, the epigonic variation of these motives by modern nationalist poets and writers of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of the “small nations” become factors in the conservation of backwardness, the fascisation of the backward layers of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie and the distraction from the revolutionary struggle of certain individual groups of the working class.
The ideologists of the ruling classes of great-power nations, as well as small oppressed peoples, all of them, in their own way, gave a chauvinistic reactionary formulation of the question of historical literature, and these metaphysical and ahistorical statements must be contrasted with a concrete historical formulation of the problem of scientific literature.
The very use of the term N. l. is incorrect. only to the literature of peoples oppressed by the ruling national bourgeoisie, or even to the literature of small liberated peoples, like ours in the USSR, but representing a minority in one or another republic of our Union. This is incorrect, first of all, because then the literature of one or another people of one era would have to be considered as national, and the literature of another era would have to be excluded from the category of literary literature. For example, Czech or Polish literature, which before the imperialist war was considered by German or Russian bourgeois historians and critics to be non-fiction, probably according to the logic of the same historians after the imperialist war can no longer be considered as non-fiction; It is also impossible to indicate any special signs and qualities that would characterize the so-called. N. l. and which, in one form or another, would not have been inherent in the literature of “big” nations during the period of their capitalist formation, during the period of their struggle for national unification or for national liberation.
N. l. The literature of any people is equally the literature of the oppressed and the literature of the oppressing nation, both those who represent the majority and those who are the minority in a given country. N. l., like the nations themselves, begins to primarily form together with the beginning of the formation of elements of capitalism within feudal society. It is a unique form of ideological consolidation in the images of social struggle of a given people, the features of the class struggle in it throughout its origins and development. Regarding the period of capitalist formation, when Ch. arr. modern nations took shape and took shape, Lenin established that “developing capitalism knows two historical trends in the national question. First: the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, the creation of national states. Second: the development and intensification of all kinds of relations between nations, the breaking down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, economic life in general, politics, science, etc.
Both trends are the world law of capitalism. The first predominates at the beginning of its development, the second characterizes capitalism that is mature and moving toward its transformation into a socialist society” (“Critical Notes on the National Question,” Vol. XVII, p. 140).
What Lenin said entirely applies to N. l. N. l. reflects these two historical trends. With the beginning of the penetration of capitalism into a given nation, its literature becomes a factor in the awakening of national life and the formation of national self-awareness. It is a factor in the struggle for the creation of a national state, a factor in the liberation of these peoples from dependence on foreign landowners, the bourgeoisie, in the struggle against any national oppression, since the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie that follows it are interested in constructing themselves into a separate state organism or defending themselves as a special national organism within the state, dominated by a stronger national bourgeoisie. This first period is characterized by intensive artistic consolidation of “national characteristics”. Hence the exceptional interest of the young bourgeoisie in the epic: among the Germans in the songs of the Nibelungs, Hildenbrand and Gudrun; among Russian Slavophiles - to collecting folk songs and fairy tales; The poets and writers of these young peoples, awakening to the national life, have a great interest in the poetic processing of folk art and the development of legends of the historical past, as well as in an artistic story about actual events of the historical past. These processes are revealed in different ways in N. l. of different peoples in accordance with the characteristics of the class struggle of a given people and the general historical situation that determines the awakening of national life and the struggle against national oppression. All this leads to such diverse literary phenomena as Goethe's "Götz von Berlichengen", Pushkin's fairy tales or the already mentioned "Grandfathers" and "Pan Tadeusz" by Mickiewicz.
At this first stage, which characterizes the various degrees of penetration of capitalism into a given national environment, features appear in the literature that sharply distinguish one people from another and reflect the features of their centuries-old life behind strong feudal walls.
But N. l. begin to lose many of their features in the second period of “capitalism that is mature and moving toward its transformation into a socialist society.” The features of the second period noted by Lenin: “the development and intensification of all kinds of relations between nations, the breaking down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, economic life in general, politics, science” (“Critical Notes on the National Question”, vol. XVII, p. 140), affected especially in the culture and literature of the same class of different peoples. That is why the petty-bourgeois Scandinavian writer Ibsen became so in tune with Russian literature already in the last 10 years before 1905 and especially during the years of reaction, and before the revolution he became close to the Russian bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie with some of his features, and during the years of reaction with others. These general tendencies of capitalism at the end of the industrial era and the beginning of imperialism explain special intimacy and the similarity of the modernist literature of France, England, Germany or the modernist writers of these countries with the work of many Russian writers: symbolists and decadents. With the approach of imperialism. war, during the war years and after the Treaty of Versailles, when the imperialist governments of all countries began to prepare for the second round of imperialist wars, the bourgeoisie strengthened its social order for nationalist literature. N. l. They again began to cultivate nationalist, ultra-chauvinistic motives in every possible way. However, these literatures did not gain in any way in their national identity, because the pan-German or pan-English vestments of these literatures do not neutralize the imperialist fascist character common to all of them. Fundamental to all literature of the era “remains that world-historical tendency of capitalism to break down national barriers, to erase national differences, to assimilate nations, which manifests itself more and more powerfully with every decade, which constitutes one of the greatest engines transforming capitalism into socialism.” This does not mean that even under capitalism the boundaries between one literature and another will be erased and the process of assimilating the literature of different peoples into one literature will take place. Lenin, and then Stalin, relying on Lenin, always argued that this task would be solved only in a socialist society. Lenin wrote that “national and state differences between peoples and countries... will persist for a very, very long time, even after the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat on a worldwide scale” (vol. XXV, p. 229). Based on this position of Lenin, Stalin will conclude. in a word on the political report of the Central Committee of the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, he said: “As for the more distant perspective of national cultures and national languages, I have always held and continue to hold to the Leninist view that in the period of the victory of socialism on a global scale, when socialism will become stronger and enter into everyday life, national languages must inevitably merge into one mutual language, which of course will be neither Great Russian nor German, but something new” (“Questions of Leninism”, p. 571, 9th ed.). “...The question of the withering away of national languages and their merging into one common language is not a domestic question, not a question of the victory of socialism in one country, but an international question, a question of the victory of socialism on an international scale” (ibid., p. 572, ed. 9th).
The world-historical tendency of capitalism, indicated by Lenin, to break down national barriers and erase national differences is of great importance for N.L. in the sense of an ever-increasing increase in common themes, motives, social types, ideological sentiments, and the nature of the artistic expression of these motives and sentiments in the literature of the same classes, homogeneous social groups of different peoples. This is where one of the most characteristic contradictions emerges between the current state of the productive forces of capitalist countries and the ideological tasks of the imperialist fascist bourgeoisie. The state of the productive forces and the entire economic life generated by them contributes to the erasure of national differences and the breakdown of national barriers. On the other hand, the struggle between the imperialist bourgeoisies dictates the N.L. the need to create nationalist, chauvinistic ideological barriers, the need to cultivate all kinds of ideas of national chosenness, racial exclusivity, the need to preserve the “purity” of the “national spirit.” Along all lines, interest is being cultivated in those phenomena of the past of N.L., when the features of national isolation and isolation were strong in them. Publishers are intensively re-publishing such literary monuments, literary historians and critics endlessly apologize them, poets and writers epigonously vary and modernize them in an imperialist fascist manner.
Nationalist ideologists of the proprietary classes always sought and found in the features of the epic and the works of the classics of their people an expression and confirmation of national “chosenness”. Depending on the tendencies of a given class, these ideologists revealed in these works the essence of the “national genius”, which coincides with their landowner-Black Hundred, bourgeois-liberal or petty-bourgeois-democratic ideal. Over the last decades of imperialism and fascism, ideologists of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie draw from the same sources arguments to affirm the imperialist and fascist essence of the “national genius,” revealing the unity of the “national spirit” of the song about the Nibelungs and Hildenbrand with the fascist anthem. By this openly class character of the interpretation of the “national genius” embodied in N. l., the “national spirit” revealed in N. l., the ideologists of the property classes expose the falsity of their metaphysical, reactionary-idealistic formulation of the question of the essence of N. l.
In essence, the features of this national literature, from which nationalist ideologists derive their chauvinistic theories of the “national genius,” are only an expression and reflection of those specific historical conditions, in which the liquidation of feudalism and the formation of capitalism among a given people took place: the expression of the characteristics of the class struggle of a given people during the entire process of the liquidation of feudalism and the development of capitalism, or in general the entire historical process of their existence, since we are talking about peoples whose development goes beyond The framework of feudal and capitalist formations and literature of which managed to go through a number of significant historical stages. National literature is not the expression of some eternal, unchanging “national spirit”; it is not the revelation of some immanent “national genius”. This is also evident from the fact that essentially not a single N. l. At no stage of its development does it represent a single whole, but is sharply divided into very different literature of the oppressed and the oppressors, reactionary and progressive or revolutionary literature. Moreover, since the opportunity to create culture and create literary values was incomparably greater among the exploiting classes, among the propertied property classes, the tendencies of these classes most determined the character of any literary work; then, as some classes were replaced by others, or as the same classes acquired new historical functions - they turned from revolutionary into reactionary, the character of any N. l. continuously changed in accordance with the specific alignment of class forces and the specific forms and conditions of the class struggle. Therefore, about no ahistorical character of N. l. how the revelation of the “eternal” “national genius” is out of the question. Any N. l. there is a specific class, specific historical category. Lenin wrote in the already cited work “Critical Notes on the National Question”: “There are two nations in each modern nation, - we will say to all National Socialists. There are two national cultures in every national culture. There is a Great Russian culture of the Purishkevichs, Guchkovs and Struves, but there is also a Great Russian culture characterized by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There are the same two cultures in Ukraine, as in Germany, France, England, among the Jews, etc.” (Vol. XVII., p. 143).
Therefore, Lenin insists that it is equally incorrect to talk about the complete reactionary nature of the culture of some nations, whose landowners and bourgeoisie are dominant in a given country, as it is to talk about the complete revolutionary nature of the literature of the oppressed peoples. He writes: “In every national culture there are, even if not developed, elements of a democratic and socialist culture, for in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, whose living conditions inevitably give rise to a democratic and socialist ideology. But in every nation there is also a bourgeois culture (and in the majority also Black Hundred and clerical), and not only in the form of “elements”, but in the form of the dominant culture. Therefore, “national culture in general is the culture of landowners, priests, and bourgeoisie” (ibid., p. 137).
What Lenin said about national culture applies entirely to N. l. In the main features of national cultures indicated by Lenin, all the features of the content and form of any national culture find their explanation. If we talk about the capitalist formation, then mainstream literature bourgeois literature is part of the dominant culture in all countries and among all peoples in which capitalism has triumphed. Bourgeois content is what is common to the capitalist literatures of all nations that dominate within their own nation. But these N. l. different from each other in their shape.
It is known that form is determined by content (see in detail about this Literature, section “Form and Content”, and in the article “Form and Content” specifically devoted to this issue).
Why, however, is the general bourgeois content of N. l. gives rise to very different national forms? This is explained by the peculiarities of the content itself. Over the past 200-300 years, all European peoples have made their way from feudalism to capitalism, through industrial capitalism to imperialism, and the peoples of our USSR - to the construction of socialism. But each of these peoples made this journey under very different conditions. In some conditions, the liquidation of feudalism took place in England or France, in others - in Germany or among the peoples that made up the Russian Empire. The elimination of feudalism in these countries, the struggle of the third estate against the old regime, the struggle of classes among themselves within the third estate for the forms and methods of eliminating the old order and for ways of further capitalist development, for a greater or lesser triumph of one or another of the two main historical paths capitalist development - all this represented specific content within the same basic process; It is not surprising that this content determined the forms of N. l. that were extremely different from each other. bourgeoisie. Only in the various conditions of the struggle of the English Puritan bourgeoisie against the English aristocracy of the 17th century, the French third estate against the old regime in the 18th century, the fragmented and weak German bourgeoisie against its feudal overlords, the extremely backward Russian bourgeoisie against the Russian autocracy and landowners who managed to preserve serfdom until the middle of the 19th century, only in specific features social processes in England, France, Germany and Russia, only in the peculiarities of the content of the class struggle of these peoples lie the reasons for the identification of such different, different from each other forms of N. l., such as for example. the form of Milton's Paradise Lost and Regained or Richardson's novels in England, the work of the great encyclopedists and educators in France, the poets and writers of Sturm und Drang in Germany, or finally the work of the so-called. repentant nobles and commoners in Russia.
In the same way, all features further development lit-r of these peoples during the era of industrial capitalism and imperialism, and here, in the USSR, during the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism, all the features of the form of these N. l. are entirely determined by the peculiarities of the class struggle in these countries and among these peoples. Nationalist ideologists of the proprietary classes, based on these features and in every possible way denying the class genesis of these features, boasted of their national spirit, their national traditions, which had, to one degree or another, world-historical significance. Lenin sometimes spoke about the world-progressive features of certain national cultures, but he proceeded from the fact of the existence of two nations and two national cultures within every modern nation and every modern national culture. Polemicizing with the Bund, Lenin wrote that in that part of the Jewish nation that does not have “caste isolation, the great world-progressive features in Jewish culture were clearly reflected there: its internationalism, its responsiveness to the progressive movements of the era (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews in the population in general)” (“Critical Notes on the National Question,” vol. XVII, p. 138).
Rejecting the Bundist formulation of the question of national culture as the formulation of “an enemy of the proletariat, a supporter of the old and caste in Jewry, an accomplice of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie” (ibid., p. 42), Lenin believes that those Jews who participate “in the creation of an international culture of the worker movements..." "making their contribution (both in Russian and in Jewish)..." "those Jews... continue the best traditions of Judaism" (ibid., p. 139).
Lenin rejects operating with the peculiarities of national culture in general: under capitalist conditions, “national culture” in general “is the culture of the landowners, priests, and bourgeoisie.” He talks about world-progressive features, about the best traditions of N. l. and culture, investing in them a certain historical, class meaning. World-progressive features, the best traditions in the Leninist sense, that’s how it should be. arr. look only along the line of Russian N.L., which comes from Chernyshevsky, but not along the line that comes from Dostoevsky’s “Demons”: the latter express a different tradition of “national culture” in general. The form of this national literature is determined by the content of the class existence of reactionary Russian forces.
N. l. the oppressed revolutionary part of the nation differs from N. l. property classes not only in their content, but also in their form. At the 16th Party Congress, Stalin said: “What is national culture under the rule of the national bourgeoisie? A culture that is bourgeois in its content and national in its form, with the goal of poisoning the masses with the poison of nationalism and strengthening the dominance of the bourgeoisie. What is national culture under the dictatorship of the proletariat? A culture that is socialist in content and national in form, with the goal of educating the masses in the spirit of internationalism and strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat” (“Questions of Leninism,” p. 565).
At the 16th Party Congress, Stalin raised the question of the culture of the proletariat under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But even under the conditions of a bourgeois dictatorship, the proletariat creates its own proletarian socialist literature, which is distinguished by its qualities and is proletarian in content and national in form. This literature is not dominant in general scientific literature, and its share in all scientific literature is of course, much less than under the dictatorship of the proletariat, but, as Lenin established in his time, “in every national culture there are at least undeveloped elements of democratic and social-democratic culture, for in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, living conditions which inevitably give rise to democratic and socialist ideology.” It does not at all follow from Comrade Stalin’s formula that national cultures and literatures under the rule of the national bourgeoisie and under the dictatorship of the proletariat differ from each other only in their content and represent something uniform in their form. Not at all, because the national form manifests itself in one case as bourgeois, and in another as proletarian, socialist. Here it goes like this. arr. the general problem of class analysis of form, the class character of style.
The works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Chernyshevsky, Chekhov and Gorky differed from each other not only in their content, but also in their form. These differences are due to the fact that the work of these writers expressed the ideology of different classes and different ideological contents found their adequate expression in different forms. All these writers were Russian writers. Their work, contrasted with the work of Goethe, Schiller, Heine or Nikolai Baratashvili or Chavchavadze and Akaki Tseretelli, represents examples of Russian literary fiction. unlike the German N. l. or from Georgian N. l. But within the Russian N. l. itself. In each given era we distinguish special styles, artistic forms, generated by different and opposing class content. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about any single national form, such does not exist; in reality, there is a literary form among the various classes of a given people, representing a dialectical unity with the content of the literature of a given class, a given people. We therefore have to talk not in general about Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian national literature and national form, but about Russian noble bourgeois or proletarian literature and about a special form of Russian noble literature, different from German or Polish noble literature; Russian bourgeois literature, which differs, say, from Jewish or Ukrainian bourgeois literature; Belarusian peasant literature, in contrast to Russian or Ukrainian peasant literature, and this class national form corresponds to a given class national content. In the same way we distinguish national proletarian literatures from each other by their national form. But here is a special form of, say, Russian proletarian literature, in contrast to a number of proletarian literatures - Ukrainian, Belarusian, Jewish or from proletarian literatures Turkic peoples- is determined by the peculiarities of the entire history of the struggle of the Russian proletariat with its oppressors, in contrast to those unique historical conditions in which the struggle of the working people of these peoples developed to overthrow the power of the landowners and bourgeoisie and in which the struggle for the construction of socialism is currently taking place.
Precisely because the features of the form are determined by the specific conditions of the class struggle of a given people, various shapes proletarian or bourgeois literature among different peoples is not reduced only to linguistic differences. Let's take this example: there is a struggle for the elimination of the kulaks and collectivization Agriculture in our Union. The kulaks of all nations are resisting the revolution. But the process of collectivization and liquidation of the kulaks, on the one hand, as well as the resistance of the kulaks, on the other, are extremely unique among the various peoples of the USSR. The Ukrainian “kurkul” (fist) covers up its resistance with a phrase about national independence and seeks to discredit collectivization by treating the 25 thousand people who came from Leningrad or Ivanovo as “Muscovites.” The Jewish kulak, yesterday's small-town shopkeeper, covers up his resistance with lamentations and lamentations about the pogroms he experienced, about tsarist oppression, about anti-Semitism, etc., etc. The North Caucasian kulak, from former Cossacks, conducts his agitation against collective farms through the romanticization of the old Cossack way of life and praising the privileges of the Cossacks under the autocracy. The originality of the past kulaks of these various peoples, the peculiarities of their resistance to the revolution, the peculiarities of the struggle of the proletariat and the collective farm peasantry of these peoples against kulak counter-revolutionism, reflected in Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, Georgian, Armenian or Jewish proletarian literature - all this is the dominant factor in the creation of specific forms of national proletarian literature. This uniqueness of the class struggle of a given nation is rooted in its entire past. Proletarian literature seeks and finds an adequate expression of this uniqueness in the entire historically formed form of a given people in the process of class struggle and from it creates a new proletarian national form. Russian, Ukrainian or Jewish proletarian writers, whose work is an ideological factor in socialist construction, are doing an international socialist cause common to the entire proletariat. Their work is internationalist, socialist in its attitude, national in its form insofar as it reveals the uniqueness of the struggle for socialism in the conditions of a given people. This example clearly reveals the difference between the proletarian national form and the bourgeois one. Three kulak writers - Ukrainian, Russian and Jewish - developing the same theme of collectivization and liquidation of the kulaks, will create works imbued with the idea of capitalist restoration, the idea of defeating the revolution. They are united by a common bourgeois task, a common proprietary essence. But they will also be imbued with the spirit of mutual national hostility: anti-Semitism, Russophobia or Ukrainophobia. Their national form expresses and reflects their deeply chauvinistic essence.
The bourgeois national form, therefore, is a means of consolidating national isolation, narrow-mindedness, and cultivating national enmity, since it is determined by proprietary content. The proletarian national form is a means of overcoming national hatred, since it is imbued with internationalist content and socialist ideology.
The emphasized features of the historical fate of classes of various peoples are reflected in the entire artistic system of N. l., in particular and ch. arr. in the nature of assimilation of N. l. cultural heritage. While the bourgeois literature of our time varies the motives in every possible way religious literature, decorates its language in every possible way with biblical metaphors and images or various kinds of comparisons taken from religious and church usage, proletarian literature starts from these sources and uses them only in terms of exposure and denial. The literature of oppressed nations romanticized the national past. In many cases, this romanticization had some progressive significance, since it aroused protest against the oppressors of the dominant nation. This was the meaning of romance in Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Georgian literature at the beginning, and in some literature throughout the first half of the 19th century. But this romance later, with the growth of the revolutionary movement of the working masses, acquired a definitely reactionary nationalist character. The literary epigones of the proprietary classes are still intensively cultivating this romance. It becomes an essential part of their national form precisely because it corresponds to their nationalistic content and serves the main goal of bourgeois N.L. “to poison the masses with the poison of nationalism and strengthen the rule of the bourgeoisie” (Stalin).
On the contrary, proletarian literature, precisely in terms of internationalist tasks, starts from nationalist romance and in every possible way protects its creativity from the idealistic-formal elements characteristic of bourgeois romantic literary fiction. Proletarskaya N. l. is looking for prototypes for his romance in world revolutionary literature on a large scale. Romantic elements of the form of proletarian N. l. therefore, they differ significantly from the form of romantic N. l. proprietary classes (for more information about this issue, as well as in general about the problem of N. l. under the dictatorship of the proletariat and under socialism, see Proletarskaya and socialist literature).
The national form, determined by bourgeois content, is a factor in the cultivation of national backwardness and isolation, national enmity and, consequently, reaction. The national form, determined by socialist content, imbued with international ideology, becomes a factor in the cooperation of working people of all nations, a factor in the revolution. That is why, under the conditions of the dominance of landowners and the bourgeoisie, the development of N. l. was possible. only the bourgeoisie and landowners of the dominant nationalities and in every possible way the development of the literature of the oppressed peoples was hampered, stifled, and persecuted. Under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, an exceptional flourishing of national cultures and literature becomes possible: “The flourishing of cultures that are national in form and socialist in content under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country for merging them into one common socialist (both in form and in content) culture with in one common language, when the proletariat wins throughout the world and socialism enters everyday life - this is precisely the dialectical nature of Lenin’s formulation of the question of national culture” (Stalin, Questions of Leninism, p. 566).
“...The flourishing of national cultures (and languages),” being international in its socialist content, prepares the conditions “for their withering away and merging into one common socialist culture (and into one common language) during the period of the victory of socialism throughout the world” (there same, pp. 566-567).
Bourgeois N. l. were born and took shape in the struggle for liberation from feudal domination and were factors in national unification, so important for creating the conditions for the successful development of capitalism. At this progressive stage, bourgeois N. l. put forward slogans of religious tolerance and brotherhood of peoples, created such masterpieces of propaganda for the unity of peoples as Lessing’s “Nathan the Wise”. Those days are long gone for N.L. proprietary classes. The conditions of capitalist competition, the imperialist struggle for the redivision of the world, the need to fight the international ideas of the revolutionary proletariat have long forced the bourgeoisie to betray the covenants of the brilliant fighters for its own liberation and replace the slogans of the “brotherhood of peoples” with the propaganda of zoological nationalism and chauvinism. The threat of the triumph of socialism long ago forced the bourgeoisie to begin cultivating “socialism for fools,” as Bebel called anti-Semitism, mutual national hatred. From “Nathan the Wise” to fascist pulp novels about the godlikeness of one’s own people and the bestial, devilish nature of other peoples - this is the path of bourgeois N.L. Nationalist fascist tendencies take on a different character in the literature of the property-owning classes of the ruling nations and in the literature of the property-owning classes of the oppressed nations. But most characteristic feature For all national literature of the proprietary classes of the era of decay of capitalism, there is a clearly expressed fascist orientation. Tendencies of bourgeois N. l. capitalist countries in one disguised form or another are also found in the literature of the nationalities of the USSR, expressed mainly in great-power chauvinism, national democracy and national opportunism, in manifestations of anti-Semitism, etc.
Both great-power chauvinism and national democracy, national opportunism or anti-Semitism in N.L. represent a unique form of struggle of the class enemy, the bourgeoisie, the kulaks, against socialist construction, the struggle for the restoration of capitalism. Therefore, it is not accidental that this or that degree of closure between Russian writers, whose work was affected by manifestations of great-power chauvinism, with white emigration or the direct participation of a number of Belarusian and Ukrainian national democratic writers in counter-revolutionary organizations. On the other hand, it is extremely natural that the process of ideological restructuring of petty-bourgeois Ukrainian, Jewish, Belarusian writers or petty-bourgeois writers of a number of Turkic peoples was closely connected with their elimination of their nationalist sentiments, with their break with national democracy, with their renunciation of their nationalist opportunism.
Socialist N. l. on their internationalist basis they are fighting both great-power chauvinism and all kinds of manifestations of local nationalism, and this active struggle is developing all the more successfully the more this literature, socialist in content, is national in form, for “only if national cultures develop truly backward nationalities to the cause of socialist construction" (Stalin).

Literary encyclopedia. - At 11 t.; M.: Publishing House of the Communist Academy, Soviet Encyclopedia, Fiction. Edited by V. M. Fritsche, A. V. Lunacharsky. 1929-1939 .