Abstract: History of American Literature. American literature of the first half of the 20th century

General description of work.

Chapter first. Imagology and the problem of national identity in literature (comparative aspects).

1.1. The foreign factor in national literature as an integral part of the relationships and interaction of literatures.

1.2. Imagology and the problem of perception of national images of the world by Russian literature.

1.3. The entry of the image of America into Russian society and Russian literature.

1.4. Americanism and the Russian idea.

1.5. National identity of Russian and American literatures in the light of images of Russia and the USA.

1.6. The Image of America in the Literature of Russian Abroad.

Chapter two. The USA in the perception of Russian writers of the last quarter

XIX - first quarter of the XX century.

2.1. American theme in the works of G. Machtet and V. Korolenko

2.2. The United States in the perception of M. Gorky.

3.3. The image of America in the works of Sholom Aleichem

3.4. The American factor in the work of S. Yesenin

3.5. The American factor in the works of V. Mayakovsky.

Chapter three. Features of the US perception of Russian literature in

1920s-1940s.

3.1. Russian-American literary connections in the 1920s-1930s through the eyes of American criticism.

3.2. The image of the USA in the perception of Soviet literature of the 1930s

3.3. America and Russian society during the Second World War

Chapter Four. Russian literary consciousness and the image of America during the Cold War.

4.1. American literature in the perception of Soviet criticism in the late 40s and early 50s.

4.2. The image of America in the perception of Russian literature during the Cold War.”

Chapter five. "Thaw" and the "second discovery" of America.

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic "The Image of America in Russian Literature: From the history of Russian-American literary and cultural relations of the late 19th - first half of the 20th centuries."

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic "Theory and history of culture", Kubanev, Nikolai Alekseevich

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Throughout the history of the United States, European ideas nourished the spiritual life of the country, receiving a unique refraction and being enriched by American cultural experience. From the 30s of the 19th century until the 20s of the 20th century, America was influenced by Coleridge and Carlyle, Fourier and Owen, Germaine de Stael and Hippolyte Taine, Darwin and Spencer, Tolstoy and Nietzsche, Marx and Dostoevsky.

A powerful factor influencing American philosophical thought and artistic culture at the beginning of the 20th century. there was Russian literature. The idols of the Americans were Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and somewhat later - Gorky and Chekhov. They were read and propagated, admired for the psychological subtlety of the images they created, the depth of their depiction of Russian life, and learned from them artistic skill.

The wide popularity of Russian literature in America was not an accidental phenomenon. Literature of the USA and Russia of the early 20th century. were at different stages of development. After a protracted - compared to Europe - period of romanticism in American literature at the end of the 19th century. a new artistic method had just begun to become widespread, highest point which became the work of Mark Twain and Henry James. The Golden Age of Russian realistic literature, which opened with the works of Pushkin and Gogol, was nearing its end, and the Silver Age was already on the threshold. The rich artistic heritage of Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky was actively mastered by America as it became available in translation.

Rebellion against conventions and various kinds of aesthetic restrictions, the desire to renew the literary language, and develop a new artistic method predetermined the unusually great interest of Americans in Russian literature. Turn-of-the-century Americans who embraced the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey felt the need for social and intellectual renewal and were ready to embrace and appreciate new ideas and artistic principles. The mood that gripped many writers of that time was expressed by Theodore Dreiser in the article “Changes” (1916): “Do not blindly adhere to any religious doctrine or system of government, moral theory or philosophy of life, but be ready to throw away traditional teachings and gain freedom and the desire to accept completely new rules is the ideal state of mind." In the same year, the young, then unknown Dos Passos remarked: “We turn to Russian literature because American literature keeps us on a starvation diet” 2 . The writer’s too harsh words reflect a certain state of mind - dissatisfaction with the state of national literature, a feeling of some kind of pause in its development, perhaps even decline.

That was the time when a real cult of Russia arose in America. The atmosphere of that time was defined by Henry May: “Wherever you look, everywhere you can see the fruits of the Slavic genius - both new and those that have just now become popular. Literary and artistic criticism was full of Russian names, such as Diaghilev, Nijinsky, Stravinsky, Chekhov, Dostoevsky." Next, the critic quotes from the influential magazine Literary Digest for 1913: “Primacy in the world of art and literature has now passed to Russia” (2; p. 243).

Of great importance for the acquaintance of Americans with Russian literature was the fact that the works of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and later Gorky and Chekhov were widely translated and published both in England and in the USA. The main translator was the Englishwoman Constance Garnet, who accomplished a real feat - translating the collected works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky into English 3 . In America, Tolstoy's works were translated by Louise Mood, Alina Delano and Elizabeth Hapgood. The latter translated Tolstoy's treatise "On Life", his autobiographical trilogy and "Sevastopol Stories", as well as "Anna Karenina" and "War and Peace" (together with Nathan Dole), the latter two from a French translation. Louise Mood translated "Resurrection".

The spread of Russian literature in America was facilitated by the activities of publishing houses. So, in 1915 Alfred Knopf announced the beginning of the "Russian Project". Having decided to specialize in publishing Russian literature, the publisher explained it simply: “Russian literature, like German music, “the best in the world” (2; p. 291). These words, we note, belong to Yale University professor William Phelps, who prefaced them with a book of essays about Russian writers 4 .

It is important, however, to note that publishing houses did not always decide to print the works of Russian writers without cuts. Thus, Tolstoy’s religious treatise “The Kingdom of God is Within You” and the novel “Resurrection” were abridged. Even such a faithful follower of Tolstoy as Ernest Crosby, who did a lot to popularize him in America, believed that the novel should be shortened a little, so that “issues of gender in the narrative part are revealed less openly” 5 .

An important factor in the interaction and mutual influence of Russian and American literatures was personal contacts. American writers and journalists, drawn by an interest in a country where powerful political ferment and revolutionary changes were taking place, as well as by love and respect for its culture - especially literature - sought to visit Russia, become eyewitnesses to the events taking place there, and meet with writers whose authority in America was very tall. Among the Americans who visited Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, one can name, in particular, the writers Henry Adams and his brother Brooks Adams. They were mainly interested in the political situation in the country. From their trips they gained the impression that the country was on the verge of gigantic crises, but they refrained from predicting its future. In an article published in December 1900 in the Atlantic Monthly, Brooks Adams wrote: “What the socialist revolution will bring in Russia cannot even be imagined. But, most likely, its consequences will be felt by the whole world.” 6

Journalists of various political orientations also visited Russia: Albert Rees Williams, James Creelman, Andrew White, Stephen Bonsle, Leroy Scott, Ernest Crosby, William Walling, John Reed. The articles and books that they wrote upon returning to America shaped their compatriots’ understanding of Russia, social movements, the balance of socio-political forces and, not least of all, its spiritual culture.

The reverse process also took place: Russian writers came to America, became acquainted with the literary life of the United States, and their immediate impressions were reflected in travel notes and stories, becoming the historical background of their works. But there are few such examples; the most famous of them is Gorky’s trip to the USA, which stirred up public opinion.

Peter Kropotkin’s lectures on Russian literature, which he gave in Boston in 1901, should have had a definite, albeit limited, influence on Americans, which he gave in Boston in 1901. In the preface to publication of these lectures, he expressed a very subtle understanding of the literary situation in America and the significance of acquaintance with Russian literature for it: “It has a sincerity and simplicity of expression that makes it attractive to anyone who is sick of artificiality in literature. What is characteristic of it is that it introduces into the sphere of art - poetry, prose, drama - almost all social and political issues that in Western Europe and America are discussed mainly in journalism and very rarely in literature" 7 .

The first Russian writer to receive national recognition in the United States and “open Russia to American readers and writers” (3; p. 123) was Turgenev. His influence relates primarily to the literary life of the United States in the second half of the 19th century, but it persisted even later. Interest in his work was of great importance for the development of Russian-American literary and cultural ties. It is known that Turgenev was a fan of Hamlin Garland and Stephen Crane, Frank Norris and Sherwood Anderson, not to mention Henry James, for whom throughout his career the works of the Russian master remained a model of artistic perfection. Following “Notes of a Hunter,” American writers discovered the novels “Rudin,” “Fathers and Sons,” “Nove,” “Smoke,” and “The Noble Nest.”

Sherwood Anderson, who constantly read and reread Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Gorky, and Chekhov, wrote about the deep influence of Russian literature, and Turgenev in particular, on him. His first acquaintance with Russian literature took place, according to the writer himself, around 1911, when he read “Notes of a Hunter”: “I remember how my hands shook when I read this book. I read it avidly” 8. In a letter to Roger Sergel, he noted what was common to his favorite Russian writers: in Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, he found “a reverent attitude towards human life, the absence of that eternal didacticism and self-confidence, so characteristic of most Western writers” (8; p 118).

An interesting indication of Turgenev's enduring importance for the American reader is an article by John Reed, published in 1919 as a preface to the American edition of the novel "Smoke." The discerning eye of the critic notes the elegant form and laconic style, bright national features, but, most importantly, the acute social problems of the book.

Giving a general description of Turgenev's work, John Reed credits him primarily with the propaganda orientation of his works. Reed quotes the writer as saying that he vowed to defeat his “enemy”—serfdom. The theme of the liberation of the peasants, Reed notes, permeates almost all of Turgenev’s work, and this consistent and firm position had a tangible public resonance. “Notes of a Hunter,” according to the critic, awakened public opinion and caused numerous protests against serfdom. He repeats a phrase he heard somewhere: “Notes of a Hunter” is the Russian “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Turgenev's strength lies, Reed believes, in his ability to write about political issues without didacticism, creating truthful pictures folk life and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. The main interest for the critic was the image of Russian society - and not only the 60s of the 19th century, “but also the whole era until 1917.” 9: Turgenev showed the weakness and lack of will of the Russian intelligentsia (in Rudin and Smoke), who were carried away by Western liberal ideas, but were unable to accept the revolution and recoiled from it when it happened. According to Reed, Turgenev belonged to "the galaxy of great Russian novelists who came after Gogol." His books constituted “a true chronicle of an era that has irrevocably become a thing of the past” (9; pp. 145, 146).

Assessing the role of Turgenev in American and English literature at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, M.P. Alekseev noted that those writers who tried to find a way out of the contradictions of their time sought support in him; he “awakened their critical thought; from Turgenev they learned intense interest in the truth of life, love for man, hatred of cruelty, hypocrisy and self-interest” 10.

Indeed, Turgenev, as a master of psychological writing, who knew how to convey the mental state of the characters with precise, spare strokes, an artist who subtly felt the peculiarities of the Russian character, became an indisputable authority for American writers, from whom they learned the craft of writing.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, Turgenev's influence weakened somewhat: Americans discovered Tolstoy. Even a kind of “Tolstoy cult” arose, the spread of which was largely contributed by William Dean Howells. The assessments he expressed in the 80s of the 19th century did not undergo significant changes over time, but were confirmed and developed in articles written at the turn of the century: “The Philosophy of Tolstoy” (1897) and “Leo Tolstoy” (1908). After the writer's death, the latter was reprinted under the title "What are the reasons for Tolstoy's fame."

Howells highlights the main feature of Tolstoy's prose - the combination of the ethical and the aesthetic, writes about the writer's ability to show the merciless truth of life, recognizes the enormous moral power of his preaching of love, tolerance, and self-sacrifice. The critic closely connects the ideas of Tolstoy's philosophical and religious treatises with his artistic creativity, and admires such features of Tolstoy's talent as sincerity, simplicity and artlessness, and the depth of artistic study of characters. It is these qualities of Tolstoy that will be noted - following Howells - by many American writers of the 20th century, and their highest merit will be seen in his deep comprehension of life and humanistic pathos. According to Hamlin Garland, another passionate admirer of Tolstoy’s talent, it was Howells who did more than any other American to interpret the work of the Russian writer: “He always saw the moralist as an artist” (5; p. 162).

Tolstoy's popularity in America - although in very different ways - was contributed to by the brothers William and Henry James. G. James's attitude towards Tolstoy was formed in the last decades of the 19th century, but was most clearly expressed in articles and letters of 1907-1910. He did not share Tolstoy’s creative principles and his artistic method, remaining a supporter of Turgenev until the end of his days, but at the same time recognized the enormous scale of his talent. Although G. James warned young “authors against following Tolstoy, his recommendations apparently had the opposite effect. Tolstoy’s influence on the souls of Americans can be likened to the elements. The venerable American writer could not resist him.

In contrast to Henry James, the writer's brother, philosopher, psychologist and one of the founders of pragmatism, William James, paid tribute to the powerful figure of Tolstoy. He wrote about it in the book “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (1902), which had an undoubted influence on the literary process in the United States. William James quotes Tolstoy's treatise "Confession", in which he found confirmation of his thoughts regarding the possibility of overcoming the painful split personality. He speaks of a phenomenon that is by no means unique to Americans - the struggle between two principles: base and sublime, ideal and material, sinful and righteous: “The human soul is an arena of struggle between two warring principles - man himself recognizes them as natural and ideal”; “We have two lives - natural and spiritual; losing one, we gain another” 11.

William James seems to echo the words of Tolstoy, who characterized Nekhlyudov at the beginning of the novel “Resurrection” as follows: “In Nekhlyudov, like in all people, there were two people. One is a spiritual man, seeking only good for himself that would be good for other people, and the other is an animal man, seeking good only for himself and for this good is ready to sacrifice the good of the whole world. In this period<...>this animal man ruled in him and completely crushed the spiritual man" 12.

For William James, the fact that Tolstoy was able to overcome despair and disbelief in the meaningfulness of life - a kind of ontological skepticism, which, in his opinion, is evidenced by "Confession", is extremely important. Tolstoy's book served the philosopher to substantiate the position of internal harmony, which can be achieved through gradual (lysis), and not abrupt (crisis). It is noteworthy that James turned specifically to Russian literature for positive examples.

In the eighth chapter, entitled “Dual Personality and the Path to Wholeness,” William James wrote about Tolstoy’s spiritual crisis and how he overcame it with the help of religion, which brought the writer back to life from the abyss of despair. Among the targets of Tolstoy social criticism James names “the vulgarity of the world, the cruel imperial policy, the lies of the church, human vanity, the criminality of state institutions” (11; p. 175). He expressed his admiration for the talent of the great Russian writer metaphorically: “Tolstoy’s powerful nature can be compared to an old oak tree<...>He rejects luxury, falsehood, greed and cruelty, all the conventions of our civilization, and sees eternal values ​​in things that are more natural and living<...>Few can follow his example, for we do not possess such natural power. But we at least think that it would be nice to follow in Tolstoy’s footsteps” (11; p. 173).

Henry James with his brother William in Cambridge. Photo. 1905

Tolstoy's influence on American writers of the early 20th century. was deep and multifaceted. Sherwood Anderson, Upton Sinclair, and Theodore Dreiser were undoubtedly influenced by his work. Sherwood Anderson studied artistic skills with Tolstoy, which was reflected in his work later, in the late 10s and early 20s of the 20th century. Upton Sinclair, who gained fame at the beginning of the century as the author of the sharply social novels “The Jungle” (1906), “Capital” (1908), “The Money Changers” (1908), saw in Tolstoy primarily a “socialist writer”, a rebel against social injustice , defender of the disadvantaged. He especially singled out Tolstoy’s journalism and the novel “Resurrection,” which he spoke highly of: “This book<...>did more than any other work for the destruction of tsarism" (3; p. 213). Sinclair called Tolstoy the greatest writer in the world, personifying Russian genius and moral strength. Upton Sinclair expressed his admiration for Tolstoy directly, sending him a copy of the just published novel "The Jungle". Traces of Tolstoy's reading of the book are visible in his article "On the Significance of the Russian Revolution", which the writer was working on at that time (3; p. 161).

The impact of Tolstoy’s work on Dreiser’s artistic world can be judged both directly, based on his own confessions, and indirectly, by comparing the worldview of the two writers, the problematics and poetics of their works. Dreiser turned to Tolstoy’s experience throughout his entire creative life, mentioning him in works of art, journalism, and letters. The first works of Tolstoy, which he had the opportunity to read as a student, were the stories “The Kreutzer Sonata” and “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” as well as some of Tolstoy’s treatises. IN early work Dreiser, the influence of Tolstoy is invisibly present in a certain refracted form: Tolstoy’s demand for simplicity and merciless truthfulness in art, expressed in the treatise “What is Art,” should have impressed the American writer.

Dreiser's formation during his student years was influenced by such diverse writers and philosophers as Tolstoy, Spencer, Darwin, Huxley, Emerson, and later - already in 1908 - Nietzsche. “I will never forget the chapter on the unknowable from Spencer’s Principia,” he wrote in his autobiographical book “At Dawn.” “It completely amazed me” 13. But here is another recognition, very important for understanding Dreiser’s worldview. He responded as follows to the publication of the book “The Philosophy of Nietzsche” (1908) in a letter to G. Mencken: “If what you write in the preface conveys the meaning of Nietzsche’s philosophy, then I can consider myself like-minded (he and myself are hale fellows well met)" 1 4 . In another letter to Mencken (in 1916), he admitted that Hardy, Tolstoy and Balzac had the greatest influence on him (although he spoke very carefully about the concept of “influence” as applied to himself). “After 1906 or so I became acquainted with Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Maupassant, Flaubert, Strindberg and Hauptmann, but I cannot say that they influenced me, since I learned them too late” (14; v. 1, p. 215 ). He called Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" along with the novels "Madame Bovary" by Flaubert and "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, as well as Balzac's story "Père Goriot" one of the greatest works of world literature (13; p. 186).

In 1893, Dreiser read Tolstoy's treatise "So What Should We Do?" 15, which by that time had already been translated into English. Then he became acquainted with the religious and philosophical teachings of Tolstoy. Almost forty years later, the writer recalled how he and a college friend discussed Tolstoy’s theories. He doubted that they could be realized: “After all, it is well known what human nature is and how deeply Darwin’s thesis about the survival of the fittest has penetrated into our consciousness.<...>Tolstoy in his treatise preaches a return to simple life and work, which would provide a person with only the most necessary things. He calls not to return evil for evil - this is the ancient doctrine of non-resistance. But how can you force people to accept Tolstoy’s postulate and make them act contrary to their desires? It is clear that this question is very complex from both psychological and biological points of view. Neither he nor I could solve this problem" (15; p. 362).

Dreiser generally had a hostile attitude toward writers, whom he called “moralists” and “preachers” (religionists) (15; p. 543). It is not surprising that this side of Tolstoy’s work did not find a response in his soul. Unlike Howells, he did not always “see the artist in the moralist.” He valued Tolstoy, first of all, as an artist, and not as the creator of religious and philosophical teachings - their views were too different. He himself testifies to this as follows: “The dearest thing to me then (in my student years—E.O.) was Tolstoy the artist, author of the Kreutzer Sonata and The Death of Ivan Ilyich.”<...>I was shocked and delighted by the vitality of the pictures that were revealed to me in them” (5; p. 555).

Dreiser, by his own admission, sought to learn artistic skills from Balzac and Tolstoy. However, his worldview was based on different principles. At this time, he was strongly influenced by the ideas of social Darwinism, of which Tolstoy was a fierce opponent. In Dreiser's first novel, "Sister Carrie" (1900), in its depiction of the struggle for existence, in which it is not the most worthy who win, one can feel the author's passion for the doctrines of H. Spencer, but in general the book goes far beyond the scope of this teaching. The features of naturalism are also clearly visible in it, and the influence of Tolstoy is almost indistinguishable.

The German scholar Horst-Jürgen Gerick sees in this novel “stylistic closeness” (Affinitat) to Tolstoy’s artistic style, 16 which is difficult to agree with. Rather, we can talk about stylistic similarity to the style of Dreiser’s compatriot, Jack London. It is no coincidence that some chapters of the novel resemble London's essays, as well as certain passages from the book "People of the Abyss", which appeared three years after "Sister Carrie", but in this case it is hardly legitimate to talk about the influence (and then even about the influence of Dreiser on London) — rather, we are talking here about typological convergences.

The moral pathos so characteristic of Tolstoy was alien to Dreiser, as he explicitly stated in a letter to one of his correspondents in January 1919. Regarding Johan Boyer’s novel The Great Hunger, he wrote: “In my opinion, a novel should not be like religious treatise. Its idea should lie more on the material than on the spiritual plane. In life, of course, both of these elements are present, but the artist pursues one goal - to show life “in the round.”<...>Boyer is a true artist, although he strives to embody a spiritual message (if, of course, a writer with such a great flaw can be called an artist).

He is similar to Tolstoy in that he strives to teach<... >His book resembles a sermon, and that's what I don't like. To see this weakness of hers, it is enough to compare it with Saltykov’s novel “The Golovlevs,” “Madame Bovary” by Flaubert, “Cousin Beth” or “Père Goriot” by Balzac” (14; v. I, p. 258). By the way, Dreiser valued Saltykov-Shchedrin’s book “The Golovlev Gentlemen” very highly, and called its author “the greatest writer of Russia, and perhaps the world” (14; v. Ill, p. 847).

Like Tolstoy, Dreiser strove for merciless truth, but his truthfulness has different aesthetic characteristics than Tolstoy’s truthfulness. Thus, “Sister Carrie” shows the inexorable process of personality degradation - the gradual physical degradation of George Hurstwood, who in the life battle of “all against all” turned out to be one of the least adapted and died in the abyss of the New York Bowery. Carrie Meeber adapts, but her success in life is accompanied by moral degradation.

A different picture appears before us in “Jenny Gerhardt” (1911). It is quite possible that the depiction of the main character of the novel was influenced by female images from "Anna Karenina" - Dolly Oblonskaya and Kitty Shcherbatskaya. These women, unlike Anna Karenina, are endowed with the gift of self-sacrifice and genuine, not selfish love. Jenny Gerhardt has something in common with these Tolstoyan heroines.

In 1901, Tolstoy, in an interview with the American journalist Andrew White, noted that the literature of the United States was “not on the crest, but in a deep depression between high waves” 17. If he had had a chance to read Dreiser's novels, he might have softened his assessment.

The theme of art, which first appeared in Dreiser's work in "Sister Carrie" and developed in the novel "Genius" (1915), was partly suggested to the author by Tolstoy's article "What is Art" 18 . She obviously made an impression on Dreiser, although he did not share all of Tolstoy’s aesthetic views. In “Sister Carrie,” one hears echoes of the words about “the contagiousness of art, 19 to achieve which, as Tolstoy believed, originality, clarity of meaning and sincerity are necessary. Dreiser endowed the last of these qualities with Carrie Meeber when she happened to act for the only time in an amateur production of melodrama Augustine Daly "By the Light of Gaslamp." "Simplicity and artlessness" 20, which so captivated the audience, were especially valuable qualities in Dreiser's eyes. But the writer did not make Carrie a great actress, based on his artistic task: to show two processes in parallel - withering her acting talent and moral degradation.It is not without reason that her acting in vaudevilles and operettas was not distinguished by either depth or originality, and her fame was artificially inflated.

Although Dreiser did not share many of Tolstoy’s beliefs and was skeptical of his teaching about non-resistance to evil through violence, he considered it his duty to speak out in defense of the writer when Theodore Roosevelt led the anti-Tolstoy campaign in the United States in 1909. The former American president published a sharp article in Outlook magazine in which he called Tolstoy’s views “stupid and fantastic”, and some aspects of his teaching (renunciation of property, denial of the state, philosophical anarchism, pacifism and the famous non-resistance to evil with violence) - dangerous and even "immoral" 21. He perceived as “interference” in the internal affairs of America the words of a Russian writer who condemned the discriminatory ethnic policy of the American government and the war with Spain.

These ideas were voiced with great force, in particular, in Tolstoy’s article “To Political Figures” (1903), where he called on Americans—quite in the spirit of Thoreau—to civil disobedience. “The little-known American writer Thoreau,” wrote Tolstoy in 1903, “in his treatise on why a person is obliged to disobey the government, tells how he refused to pay the American government 1 dollar of tax, explaining his refusal by the fact that he did not want to dollar to participate in the affairs of the government, which allows the slavery of blacks. Isn’t that what a Russian person, not to mention a Russian person, but a citizen of the most advanced state of America can and should feel towards his government with its actions in Cuba, the Philippines, its attitude towards blacks, the expulsion of the Chinese. .." (19; vol. 35, pp. 208-209).

Theodore Roosevelt's fears were not in vain. The method proposed by Thoreau and developed by Tolstoy became, as history has shown, one of the ways of expressing civil protest. This, apparently, was also understood by Theodore Dreiser, although in his younger years, as already noted, he doubted the effectiveness of Tolstoy’s ethical teachings. Later, in The Living Thoughts of Thoreau (1939), he praised Thoreau as a philosopher and “moral reformer.” It can be assumed that his own views on the theory and practice of civil disobedience underwent some change. Dreiser's defense of Tolstoy against Theodore Roosevelt's invective suggests that the contradictions in his assessments of Thoreau and Tolstoy are being smoothed out. Two factors could have played a certain role in this: Tolstoy’s extreme popularity in America and Dreiser’s deeper familiarity with his work.

The roll call of voices and ideas in Russian and American literature is noteworthy: Tolstoy saw many similarities among US writers of the first half of the 19th century, who were interested in philosophical and social problems, which worried him too; Many thoughts of Thoreau and Emerson, Harrison and Parker resonated in his soul. They reinforced his own beliefs and gave impetus to thought and search. Conversely, the thoughts of Tolstoy the philosopher and the humanistic philosophy expressed in his artistic works and treatises, which combined individualism and community and taught people in their own lives, requiring daily decisions and actions, to consistently follow their convictions and build relationships on the basis of brotherly love, won He has many admirers and followers in America.

Tolstoy's influence also affected American journalism. At the beginning of the century, many of those who came to Russia considered it their duty to visit Yasnaya Polyana and talk with the great writer, which testifies to Tolstoy’s enormous authority in the United States. This interest was prepared both by the wide dissemination of Russian literature in America and by the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia.

In 1903, James Creelman, a correspondent for the New York World newspaper, visited Tolstoy in Yasnaya Polyana. The interview he took, reprinted in many newspapers, evoked enthusiastic responses from Americans and was perceived as Tolstoy’s appeal to the American people: the Russian writer called on Americans to return to the ideals embodied in the works of Thoreau, Emerson, Whittier, and Harrison. Creelman, although he did not agree with much of Tolstoy’s philosophy, considered him “the greatest of the most truthful people” (5; p. 434).

The famous American journalist and active participant in the socialist movement, William English Walling, visited Russia in 1905-1907 as a correspondent for several American newspapers and magazines. His reports, published in the magazines "Independent", "Outlook", "Nation", "Collier's Weekly", "World Today", were included in the book "Message to Russia. The World Significance of the Russian Revolution" (1908). It went through several editions and was even translated into Russian and published in Berlin.

Walling's book is a valuable eyewitness account, a document that reflected the atmosphere of those turbulent years, the struggle of ideas, the confrontation between various political and social forces. The American journalist met with statesmen, politicians, writers, talked with Tolstoy, Gorky, Korolenko, whom he visited during a trip to the Poltava province. He spoke with respect about the social preaching of Tolstoy, the rebellious spirit of Gorky, and spoke about the political views of Korolenko, whom he called “the best publicist in Russia” 23 .

The materials for the book were not only personal impressions and conversations. Walling turned to Russian periodicals published abroad, such as Correspondent Russ or the Social Revolutionary monthly Russian Tribune, published in Paris, used articles by American journalists Albert Edwards and Harold Williams in Colliers Weekly and Harpers Weekly, many other sources. Based on rich historical material, Walling's book is written by a talented pen and includes descriptions of places and events in the genre of a travel diary, character sketches, journalistically vivid and emotionally charged appeals to the reader, philosophical reflections, excerpts from letters, official documents, and periodicals.

For Walling, Russia in 1905-1907 is the only country in the world that is experiencing spiritual ferment, a country that is ahead of others not only in social thought and ideals, but also in many areas of cultural life. “Under the influence of severe trials and great suffering, the Russian people have become accustomed to a deeper and more intense spiritual life, and therefore its new word, its message to the world should deeply amaze all countries” 24. The time has come, Walling wrote in the preface, “to evaluate the significance of the first act of the great revolutionary drama. The second act has not yet begun, and its end is far ahead” (23; p. XII). In these words one can hear an echo of Walling's conversation with Tolstoy. They have preserved for us yet another evidence that the great Russian writer could penetrate into the innermost essence of events and predict the course of history.

The figure of Tolstoy occupies a special place in the book. The author considered him a successor of Rousseau's revolutionary ideas. “Tolstoy is now the greatest opponent of capitalism in Russia and throughout the world,” wrote Walling, and his social program, although it seems impractical, in fact is “the greatest threat to the existence of tsarism” (23; p. 434). The writer valued Tolstoy as a defender of the oppressed peasantry and noted the revealing power of his journalism.

In a conversation with Tolstoy, whom Walling visited in Yasnaya Polyana on May 12, 1906 (shortly after the convening of the First Duma), he admitted that he intended to live in Russia for several years to observe the progress of the revolution. To this Tolstoy replied that he would need to live in Russia for fifty years. “The Russian Revolution is the greatest drama, which consists of several acts. This Duma is not even the first act, but just the first scene of the first act, and, as always happens with the first scenes, it is a little comical” (23; p. 7) . In the 1917 edition of the book, Walling developed the image found by Tolstoy: “The second act will undoubtedly be played at the end or shortly before the end of the present war with Germany and Austria” 25. Walling's words turned out to be prophetic.

During the meeting between the two writers, they discussed methods of social protest, the possibility and justification of violence. According to Walling, Tolstoy noted that in this respect he “to a large extent agreed with the famous anarchists - Thoreau, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon and others” (23; p. 449). The American writer obviously understood the limitations of Tolstoy's position on this issue. However, he did not speak out, like Korolenko, against Tolstoy’s doctrine of non-resistance to evil through violence, because he saw how much evil retaliatory violence brought in the village, where there was a real civil war. On the other hand, he accurately assessed the historical futility of terrorism and individual acts of vengeance that were carried out by the “Combat Organization” of the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Walling's book contains not only an analysis of the revolutionary situation in Russia, but also reflections on the development of philosophical thought in Europe and America. Rejection of the ideas of social Darwinism forced Walling to look for opposite phenomena in Russian culture and philosophy. And he found them in Tolstoy’s teaching 26, in which he was attracted by the preaching of spirituality and moral improvement, nonconformism and denial of violence. Under the influence of a conversation with the writer, he formulates his vision of the ways of social progress as follows: “We must stop opposing social progress to personal improvement, stop trying to defend principles with the help of force. We must, together with him (Tolstoy. - E.O.) implement in our actions of non-resistance to evil!" (23; p. 449) At the same time, Tolstoy, Walling emphasizes, understands nonviolence as active resistance to evil.

Largely thanks to his acquaintance with the work and personality of Tolstoy, Walling came to the conclusion about the leading role of Russia in the field of spiritual life. For him, the “light from the East” (Lux Orientalis) came precisely from Russia. By the way, Walling's stay in Russia - together with his wife, Anna Strunskaya, and her sister, Rosa Strunskaya - had other consequences for the expansion of literary contacts between the two countries. Anna Strunskaya presented Tolstoy with the second edition of the book “Letters of Love” (Kempton-Wace Letters), which she wrote together with Jack London in 1902. Rosa Strunskaya translated excerpts from Tolstoy’s diaries into English, as well as Gorky’s book of religious quests “Confession” 27.

Walling's views and Russian impressions could not help but influence Jack London, who knew him closely through Anna Strunskaya. It was not by chance that he chose Walling as the prototype of the hero from the unfinished novel “The Murder Bureau” (1911), the plot of which is indirectly related to Russian events. The main conflict of the novel is the clash of two ideologies: the life philosophy of the head of the Murder Bureau, Ivan Dragomilov, and the socialist Winter Hall, a staunch opponent of terror carried out by an “initiative individual.” William Walling served as the prototype for Hall. This is evidenced not only by the portrait resemblance, but also by a number of characteristic details. London calls his hero a “millionaire socialist,” and these are the words used in the American press in relation to Walling, the grandson of a prominent politician and heir to a large fortune.

Like Walling, Winter Hall is a brilliant journalist, the author of many articles and books. He spent a year in Russia, where he witnessed the events of 1905 and studied the tactics of revolutionaries in the fight against autocracy. He became convinced that the time of the “rider on a horse” was over. IN ideological dispute with Dragomilov, Hall wins. He proves to his opponent that the activities of the Murder Bureau are antisocial or, as he said, “socially inappropriate.” (It is interesting that in a conversation with Walling, Boris Savinkov characterized the actions of Russian terrorists in similar words.) Having admitted defeat, Dragomilov accepts an order from Hall to destroy himself. As a result, having eliminated all members of the organization, he himself dies. Hall and Dragomilov's daughter, Grunya, remain to live, demonstrating the triumph of the principles of "humane socialism", devoid of any shade of Nietzscheanism, the principles of which Dragomilov professed.

Walling's views (and, possibly, the Azef case, about which he could have received information from the press or from acquaintances) influenced London's assessment of the methods of the Russian revolutionaries. The evolution in his views on the problem of violence is obvious: if in the essay “Revolution” he welcomed the explosion of Sozonov’s bomb, then in the novel “The Murder Bureau” he unequivocally condemned the Socialist Revolutionary tactics of terror 28.

The influence of Tolstoy, his artistic creativity and social views - both direct and indirect (as evidenced, in particular, by the case described above) - became, at the beginning of the 20th century, perhaps the most significant part of Russian-American literary ties. At the beginning of the century, the first attempt was made to stage Tolstoy. The choice fell on “Resurrection” 29. The novel was staged for several years in Paris, at the Odeon Theater. The American premiere took place in New York in February 1903. According to most critics, the performance was unsuccessful because it did not convey the essence of Tolstoy’s novel. However, it gave impetus to critical discussions about the writer’s work. In one of his reviews, a theater columnist for the Evening Post newspaper wrote about “Resurrection”: “The book contains a lot of the fantastic and utopian, which will remain so until a radical transformation of all humanity occurs. But its value lies not in savoring vice, not in a scrupulous description of poverty and the decline of morals, but in an analysis of the reasons that gave rise to them, in the psychological insight of the author, in the fiery philanthropic spirit that permeates the book, in a deep study of national life and customs, in an ardent desire to protect human interests" (29; p. 194).

An interesting testimony is from Ernest Crosby, who in a letter to Tolstoy mentioned a play he had seen by an American playwright (whom he does not name) “Lea Kleshma,” written under the influence of the novel. The main idea of ​​the play, according to Crosby, is that even in the most hardened criminal there is a spark of goodness (5; p. 398). In addition to “Resurrection,” some time later “The Power of Darkness” (Guild Theatre, 1920), “The Living Corpse” (Plymouth Theater, 1918) were staged on the New York stage, as well as a staging of “Anna Karenina” ( Herald Theater, 1907) 30.

An anonymous critic from the Evening Post quite accurately pointed out the reasons for Tolstoy's colossal influence on American consciousness at the beginning of the century. It was a time when Americans thirsted not only for the truth brought to light by the muckrakers, but also for a different kind of truth, framed by a utopian doctrine built on the foundation of an optimistic worldview similar to that which fueled the work of the transcendentalists. The Puritan ideals that shaped the American character remained influential in both the 19th and 20th centuries, changing under the influence of changes in social and spiritual life. It is no coincidence that the preaching pathos of the author of “Resurrection” found such a vivid response in the souls of many Americans.

Yet Tolstoy influenced American writers in different ways. He was perceived and evaluated in accordance with the peculiarities of his worldview, creative attitudes, and character. Some—there was a minority (Henry James and Theodore Roosevelt were among them)—although they recognized Tolstoy’s artistic talent, did not share his belief in the “religious principle of conscience,” and his teaching, at best, left them indifferent. They also rejected some provisions of Tolstoy’s aesthetics, which demanded a person who was irreconcilable to evil, sensitive to pain and suffering, calling him to the spiritual self-improvement of art; they were disgusted by the preaching pathos of his later stories, and recommendations in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount seemed beautiful and too lofty to follow in life.

Others—the majority of them—on the contrary, perceived Tolstoy’s work as a kind of unity of the ethical and aesthetic (Howells said this best), admired the writer’s artistic innovation, his deep democratism and the scope of social criticism. It is no coincidence that among those who were influenced by Tolstoy were socialists and radicals (Upton Sinclair, William Walling, Michael Gold 31), thinkers and philosophers (in particular, William James), and writers who sought to overcome the “tradition of decency” that was still palpable in literature. and reflect the merciless truth of life (Jack London, partly naturalists).

The next stage in America's introduction to Russian literature was acquaintance with the work of Dostoevsky. Its beginning dates back to the last decade of the 19th century. Already in 1889, after reading Crime and Punishment, Howells urged writers to study with Dostoevsky (later, however, he changed his mind) 32. However, recognition of Dostoevsky's genius did not come immediately. Many of the American writers of the late 19th century - Henry James, Stephen Crane, Hamlin Garland, Frank Norris - did not accept it, mainly for aesthetic reasons. Henry James spoke of his lack of compositional unity and saw a serious flaw in what he called “neglect of style,” “looseness,” and “extravagance” 33 .

In the 10-20s of the XX century. a kind of cult of Tolstoy began to gradually give way to a passion for Dostoevsky. This was greatly facilitated by the publication of the collected works of the writer translated by Constance Garnet. No less important is the fact that under the influence of the events of the First World War, public consciousness was prepared to perceive the tragic world of Dostoevsky. Its popularity at the end of the 1910s coincided with a turn in artistic consciousness and a change in the philosophical orientation of American prose writers, which was later reflected in the work of writers of the “Jazz Age”, in the poetics of Dos Passos and Faulkner. Randolph Bourne was probably the first to notice this. In 1917, in an article about Dostoevsky’s work in the magazine “Daiel,” he wrote about the novelty of Dostoevsky’s artistic method, which he saw in showing the depths of the human psyche, painful passions, “sinister and grotesque twists of human thinking.” It is no coincidence that he sharply spoke out against classifying Dostoevsky’s novels as “unhealthy, pathological, harmful” literature 34 .

The author of the article determined exactly what role Dostoevsky was to play in American literature and life: he was necessary to expand the artistic horizons of his compatriots; they needed to grow up, “to free themselves from pomposity and biased ideas about human psychology” (34; p. 266). It was necessary to shake the established principles of Victorian morality, enshrined in literature, to destroy aesthetic taboos. Only a great talent, an artist of extraordinary strength and a special vision of life could do this. He considered Dostoevsky to be such an artist. Analyzing the originality of his poetics, Born especially notes the artistic innovation of the writer, such a quality as the artist’s immanence, when it seems that the author does not distance himself from his heroes, but seems to merge with them. In "The Double" and "Demons" this involvement is taken to the extreme. The critic expressed his thought this way: “The work seems to tell itself” (34; p. 267). The significance of Dostoevsky, according to Born, was that he helped writers change their aesthetic guidelines, and critics to justify the need to more boldly reflect the complexity of the world.

Among those who admired Dostoevsky's talent were Dos Passoe, Floyd Dell, and Sherwood Anderson. Dos Passos read and re-read Crime and Punishment in the mid-1910s. Noting the decline of Turgenev’s popularity in these years, he spoke about the special significance of Dostoevsky’s poetics, his ability to make the reader “wholly live this novel” (3; p. 250).

Around the same time, Floyd Dell explained the reasons for Dostoevsky's extraordinary popularity in an article devoted to his work, published in 1915 in New Review magazine: “Dostoevsky’s art revealed to the reader the bottomless depths of life and forced writers to strive to achieve unprecedented heights. gave us a new understanding of truth" (3; p. 249). In another article that appeared in 1916 in Masses magazine, he noted that the great Russian writers Tolstoy, Turgenev and Dostoevsky changed the entire direction of literature in English.

Sherwood Anderson wrote and spoke repeatedly about the influence of Russian literature on him. He became acquainted with the works of Dostoevsky in the early 1910s, when he had already published his first novel, but had not yet created the famous cycle of stories “Winesburg, Ohio” (1919). Anderson called Dostoevsky the only writer before whom he was “ready to kneel” (8; p. 70). In all literature, he wrote, there is nothing equal to The Brothers Karamazov. He also highly appreciated other works of Dostoevsky: “Demons”, “The Idiot”, “Notes from the House of the Dead”.

The influence of Dostoevsky on the formation of Anderson the artist can be judged already from the first collection of stories, which was distinguished by its novelty of themes and boldness in showing the human psyche. Anderson managed to breathe new life into the American short story genre, which was experiencing a serious crisis at that time. He went against the established - and almost exhausted - tradition and refused to use exotic backgrounds, action-packed plots, spectacular or comforting endings in his stories. IN " simple stories", which compiled the collection "Winesburg, Ohio", he showed the life of a provincial town with its small joys, base passions and deeply hidden tragedies. Sherwood Anderson expanded the scope of the story to include the depiction of irrational impulses, character quirks, feelings of compassion and humility. Psychological depth The short story set him apart from other American writers of that time, and it was achieved not without the influence of Dostoevsky.

The statements of many US writers, and most importantly, their creations, confirm the correctness of Randolph Bourne’s judgment that Dostoevsky became the criterion for determining the aesthetic and moral maturity of Americans, their ability to perceive unpleasant truths about themselves and about human nature in general.

At the beginning of the 20th century. America became acquainted with another Russian writer, first through his works, and then through performances before American audiences - in Philadelphia and Providence, Boston and New York. We are talking about M. Gorky. In 1901, a translation of his story “Foma Gordeev” was published in America. Jack London immediately responded to the publication and wrote a review article that was published in the November issue of the San Francisco magazine "Impresions". In addition to the story, at the beginning of the century, a collection of short stories, “Twenty-Six and One,” and the novel “Mother,” which Gorky wrote in America in the summer of 1906, were published in the United States (it was published in Appleton Magazine in 1907). Later, at the beginning of the 10s, the play “At the Depths” was translated and published, and in 1919 it was staged on the American stage.

Gorky's artistic world became a real shock and an aesthetic discovery for American readers. His works were highly praised by critics. In 1917, in the New Republic magazine, Randolph Bourne published an article “In the World of Maxim Gorky,” in which he assessed the writer’s autobiographical books “Childhood” and “In People.” Their main advantage, according to the critic, is the truth about the unbearable “abominations of life.” The sensitive analytical eye of the critic caught the main thing in his books: the author’s ability to put into artistic form the idea of ​​​​the ability of Russian people to resist evil. He is impressed by Gorky's optimism, his ineradicable hope, thirst for life, love for people, "fortitude of soul." The critic considered Gorky’s great merit that he managed to “achieve a balance between the realism of the image and the artist’s sympathy” (34; pp. 68, 269).

The Russian experience, captured in the books “Childhood” and “In People,” helped Randolph Bourne to substantiate his own aesthetic principles: a preference for “moral”, responsible art over art that is far from the life of the people. The example of Gorky was for him an argument in a dispute with American writers, whose work, in his words, “takes a person exclusively into the realm of fantasy and thus reconciles him with the existing world.” Gorky’s strength lies in the fact that his works “are marked not by escapism and detachment from reality, but, on the contrary, by a close connection with it and its deep comprehension” (34; p. 70). Born saw the secret of the Russian writer’s talent in Gorky’s deep understanding of people’s life, the merciless truth of his depiction and the deep optimism that, quite obviously, appealed to the American critic. It is not for nothing that he quotes the words he especially liked from the first part of Gorky’s trilogy: “Our life is amazing not only because the layer of all sorts of bestial rubbish in it is so fertile and fat, but because through this layer the bright, healthy and creative still victoriously grows.” ... awakening an indestructible hope for our rebirth to a bright, human life" (34; p. 268). The critic assigned Gorky an important place in the history of literature, as evidenced by his high assessment of the writer’s autobiographical books. He called the trilogy one of the greatest literary biographies.

Gorky was perceived by many in America as a continuer of Tolstoy’s artistic traditions and an exponent of revolutionary sentiments in Russia. This is how, in particular, Jack London treated the writer. His review of "Foma Gordeev" deserves to be said in more detail about it.

For the American writer, Gorky is “truly Russian” in his perception and understanding of life. London, familiar with the works of Turgenev and Tolstoy (he read “The Noble Nest” and “Sevastopol Stories”), had great respect for Russian literature and appreciated the in-depth “introspection of Russians” and the passion of their social protest. He used the review of Gorky's story not only to express his own sympathies, but also for literary polemics directed against the authors of entertaining fiction, sentimental and light and airy romances. “From his clenched mighty fist comes not elegant literary trinkets, pleasant, delightful and deceitful, but living truth - yes, ponderous, crude and repulsive, but the truth” (34; p. 209).

Foma Gordeev symbolizes, in the eyes of London, the protest of a strong but broken person by the environment, who painfully thinks about the meaning of life - and does not find it. "... Spinning in the mad whirlpool of life, spinning in the dance of death, blindly chasing something nameless, vague, in search of a magical formula, the essence of things, the hidden meaning - a spark of light in pitch darkness, in a word, a reasonable justification for life, Foma Gordeev goes to madness and death" (34; p. 211). He was defeated in the struggle of life because he thought about the meaning of life and lost to successful merchants who “sing a hymn to strength” and proclaim freedom of unlimited, ruthless competition.

It is noteworthy that the tone of London’s article differs from that of the writer’s other speeches of those years: from the article written in the same 1901 about Kipling “These Bones Will Rise Again” and a whole series of journalistic essays in which competition and the struggle for existence are presented ( quite in the spirit of William Sumner) as a condition for the survival of the strongest and fittest individuals and races.

Undoubtedly, the writer was greatly impressed by the figure of Gorky himself, in whose fate he saw similarities with his own fate. He noted and commented on the autobiographical nature of the story: unlike his hero, the author found the meaning of life and found hope. Gorky's example obviously strengthened London's hope that it is possible to affirm goodness both in life and in creativity. London praised Gorky's novel highly - as a "healing book" that awakens the dormant conscience of people and can involve them in the "struggle for humanity" (34; p. 212). Jack London was, of course, biased in his assessments. His perception was influenced by his own philosophy of life and commitment to an artistic method marked by strong features of naturalism. Gorky's realism seemed to him more effective than Tolstoy's artistic method, and Turgenev's realism generally seemed “tiring,” if not “boring.” Not sharing Tolstoy's philosophy, London, of course, could not appreciate the depth of his artistic creations, but this did not prevent him from considering Tolstoy a great writer. London ends the article with high praise for Gorky, calling him a follower of Tolstoy and Turgenev: “The mantle from their shoulders fell onto his young shoulders, and he promises to wear it with true greatness” (34; p. 212).

Gorky’s story received favorable reviews in America, and one of them, written by Abraham Kahan, was published in the Bookman magazine in 1902 and was called “Tolstoy’s Mantle” (6; p. 158). As the title suggests, London's article did not go unnoticed.

ABOUT artistic method Howells also spoke highly of Gorky. In one of his critical essays in 1902, he called its realism “stormy and visual to the point of tangibility” 35 . in the same year, the magazine "Dayel" spoke with great praise of Gorky's stories. Later, Van Wyck Brooks wrote in the same magazine (v. LXII, 1917; at that time, his editors included famous writers and philosophers - Thorsten Veblen and John Dewey): “America and Russia are in many ways opposite: Russia is the richest of countries in the spiritual respectfully, America is the poorest; socially, Russia is the poorest country, and America is the richest" (2; p. 243). These words are reminiscent of the conclusion made by William Walling after his stay in Russia in 1905-1907, where he met with Russian writers, publicists and cultural figures.

Gorky revealed to the reader what the world of the “bottom” looked like. His tramps were perceived as new characters in literature, although they had an American counterpart - the hobo, described by Jack London. According to the American researcher Ivar Spektor, Gorky “was the first to show the world of vagabonds, and this is his main contribution to Russian literature” 36. But Americans first saw the image of the social bottom, of course, not in Gorky, but in Dostoevsky. In an effort to better express their literary preferences, critics were not always objective. The very fact of such bias can be partly explained by the deep impression from reading new works of Russian literature.

Gorky's play "At the Bottom" received high praise from critics. Theater columnist for the New York Sun newspaper James Huenecker, in an essay on this play (he saw it staged in a Berlin theater), noted its stunning truthfulness and complete lack of theatricality. It is interesting that he compared her mise-en-scène with the paintings of the little Dutchmen Teniers and Ostade 37 . “Is it possible to show more deeply the character of a person who has lost his place in society? Gorky’s play, although it sometimes evokes a feeling of disgust, awakens in us pity and horror<...>In comparison with the vulgar plays produced in Paris that come to America every year, this drama of social outcasts contains a moral lesson" (37; p. 283).

Characterizing the tastes of the American audience, which demanded entertainment, Hunecker expressed the idea that Gorky's play would not be successful in America and could even bring persecution on the author. The critic's fears were not justified. The play was staged in 1919 by Arthur Hopkins, although this great success, as in Germany, did not have (30; pp. 299-300).

In a book about Russian theater in America, Oliver Seiler writes that before 1918, Russian plays were rarely staged on the American stage. In addition to the already mentioned dramatizations of two novels and plays by L. N. Tolstoy, he talks about productions historical trilogy A.K. Tolstoy (New York Knickerbocker Theater), Gogol's "The Inspector General", Leonid Andreev's plays "Days of Our Lives" and "Anatema". He also mentions the unsuccessful production of Chekhov’s “The Seagull” in 1916 (30; pp. 299-305).

Ivar Spektor, who evaluated “At the Lower Depths” already in the 40s of the 20th century, interpreted the play in many ways differently than Huenecker. Gorky's heroes, he wrote, are spiritually richer than Chekhov's; "they regard the poverty in which they find themselves as a condition for freedom." The author, in his words, “discovered a whole world in the world of the bottom” (36; p. 245).

Gorky's popularity in America at the beginning of the 20th century. can be explained both by interest in Russia, its culture and the revolutionary movement that gripped the country, and by the wide response in the press to his works. When Gorky arrived in America in April 1906, he was given a warm welcome. According to William Phelps (4; pp. 219-220), at a meeting dedicated to the creation of a fund to help the Russian revolution, where Gorky was present, with short speech Mark Twain spoke. “With all my soul,” he said, “I sympathize with the movement for the liberation of the country that has unfolded in Russia. I am confident that it will be crowned with success. Any such movement deserves approval and the most serious and unanimous assistance on our part...” 38

However, the very next day a scandal broke out, which prevented Howells (and not only him) from personally welcoming the Russian writer to American soil. The fact is that they did not want to place Gorky in hotels together with M.F. Andreeva. A campaign against him in the press was launched by the World newspaper, the same one that three years earlier published an interview with Tolstoy. There were demands to expel Gorky from America. He himself wrote about this to D.B. Krasin in April 1906: “The World newspaper published an article in which it proved that I, firstly, am a bigamist, and secondly, an anarchist. I printed a portrait of my first wife with children, abandoned by me to the mercy of fate and dying of hunger. The fact is shameful. Everyone shied away from me. They kicked me out of three hotels. I stayed with an American writer and waited - what would happen?” 39

The incident with Gorky caused a storm of indignation in Russia 40 . A large group of cultural figures, including Mamin-Sibiryak, Nemirovich-Danchenko, Sologub, came forward with a letter of protest, published in the Early Morning newspaper. Such different reactions in America and Russia are not at all explained by political considerations: the concept of “decency” (a modification of rigoristic Puritan morality) dominated in the American press; in Russia there was much greater freedom of opinion. The fact that even Mark Twain - despite his freethinking - refused further meetings with the writer helps to understand the atmosphere of that time in America. Howells later remarked on this matter: “He (Gorky - E.O.), of course, is a simple man and a great writer, but you can’t do such things!” (6; p. 160) After several years, Upton Sinclair also recalled this episode, who did not forgive Howells and Twain for “turning their backs” on Gorky (9; p. 184).

After returning to Russia, Gorky continued correspondence with his American colleagues. John Reed, A.R. Williams, and, in the late 20s, Theodore Dreiser met with him. The latter noted that much of the Russian writer’s work was in tune with his own worldview. He classified Gorky's works, imbued with humanistic pathos, as literature that awakens and guides human thought.

In America, where in the 10s of the 20th century, according to Floyd Dell, there was a certain cultural hunger, the influence of Russian literature was extremely beneficial. In addition to Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Gorky, Americans discovered Chekhov, whose stories, and later plays (already in the 90s of the 19th century) began to appear here in translation.

Chekhov was perceived in America and England as a writer who achieved an amazing harmony of life and art, form and content. His unique style and subtle psychologism were highly appreciated not only by realist writers of the beginning of the century. They found a response in the hearts of modernist writers who were looking for new possibilities of artistic writing and new aesthetic approaches to reality. In Chekhov they found their idol. The charm of Chekhov's prose was able to be appreciated as something completely new by American writers, who had already felt the brilliant power of Tolstoy, the lyricism and sad poetry of Turgenev's prose, and felt the freshness of Gorky's writing style. An unfamiliar artistic world appeared before them, which, perhaps, had no equal in American literature at that time.

Enthusiastic reviews of Chekhov's work are contained in Dreiser's diaries; He considered his plays to be among the highest achievements of literature (14; v. 1, p. 118). Sherwood Anderson spoke about spiritual kinship with the writer. Creating a new type of plotless psychological novel for American literature, he relied on the experience of Russian masters, in particular the experience of Chekhov the novelist.

There is an opinion that the American story in the 10s of the 20th century. began to lose some characteristic features and began to “look like Russian,” and this happened thanks to the influence of Chekhov (6; p. 191). The fact that American writers felt the need to update the artistic language of short stories and turned to Russian literature in search of models is confirmed by the words of Sherwood Anderson. In a letter to the translator of his works, Pyotr Okhrimenko, in 1923, he noted: “We in America have a bad tradition, which we borrowed from the British and French: we are accustomed to looking for an entertaining plot, all sorts of cunning tricks (trickery) in the stories published in our magazines and juggling). As a result, human life recedes into the background, becomes unimportant; the plot does not grow out of the natural drama of life, generated by the complex interweaving of human relationships. In Russian literature, you feel the beating of life in every page" (8; p. 93).

Although the real acquaintance with Chekhov took place after the First World War, when the collected works of the writer began to appear in 13 volumes (1916-1922) in translations by Constance Garnet, the preconditions for Chekhov’s wide influence on American writers in the 30s and 40s were laid precisely at the beginning of the century .

US literature borrowed from Russian those features that were not yet sufficiently developed on American soil. In the first two decades of the 20th century. there were no artists here who could show with such frankness the painful movements of the soul and the destructive nature of passions as Dostoevsky; there was no talent on such a cosmic scale as Tolstoy, who had access to a psychologically subtle and precise analysis of the dialectics of the human soul and at the same time passionate social protest combined with a program of moral improvement; there was no writer who created exquisite prose, reflecting at the same time a deep knowledge of people's life, as Turgenev did. In America, the legacy of Puritanism with its many taboos was still affecting itself; The legacy of the Enlightenment and transcendentalists, who idealized human nature, was also alive; The “tradition of decency”, which sharply narrowed the horizons of artistic knowledge, has not completely disappeared.

Russian literature - from Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to Chekhov and Gorky - was the force that, during the difficult period of development of American literature at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, gave it new impulses and had a powerful influence on the creative attitudes of its writers. Turning to Russian literature helped them discover new paths in art, affirm humanistic ideals, and expand the boundaries of artistic knowledge.

NOTES

1 Quote by: Aaron D. Writers on the Left. Oxford & N.Y., Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 9.

2 Quote. by: May, Henry. The End of American Innocence. N.Y., Knopf, 1959, p. 243.

3 For more information about the translations of Russian writers into English, see: Niko-lyukin A. N. Interrelationships of the literatures of Russia and the USA. M., Nauka, 1987, p. 77-82, 159-168,238-240.

4 Phelps W. Essays on Russian Novelists. N.Y., 1917, p. VII.

5 Literary heritage, vol. 75. In 2 books. Tolstoy and the foreign world, book. 1. M., Nauka, 1965, p. 396.

6 Brewster D. East-West Passage. A Study in Literary Relationships. London, Allen and Unwin, 1954, p. 135.

7 Kropotkin P. Russian Literature. London, N.Y., McClure, 1905, p. V.

8 Anderson Sh. Letters. Selected and ed. by H. M. Jones. Boston. Little, Brown, 1953, p. 118.

9 US writers about literature. M., Progress, 1974, p. 145.

10 Literary heritage, vol. 76. M., Nauka, 1967, p. 506.

11 James W. The Varieties of Religious Experience. N.Y., Vintage Books, 1990, pp. 159, 155.

12 Tolstoy L. N. Collection. op. in 12 vols., t. 11. M., 1959, p. 60.

13 Dreiser, Theodore. A Selection of Uncollected Prose. Ed. by Donald Pizer. Detroit, Wayne State Univ. Press, 1977, p. 185.

14 Dreiser, Theodore. Letters. Philadelphia, 1959, v. 1, p. 97.

15 Dreiser, Th. Dawn. N.Y., 1965, p. 362.

16 Gerigk, Horst-Jurgen. Die Russen in America. Dostojewskij, Tolstoj, Turgenjew und Tschechov in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Literatur der USA. Hurtgenwald, Guido Pressler Verlag, 1995, s. 453.

17 White E. Walks and conversations with Tolstoy // Foreign literature, 1978, No. 8, p. 227.

18 H. -Yu. writes about this. Goerik (16; s. 451-452) and Stephen Brennan (Brennan S. "Sister Carrie" and the Tolstoyan Artist //Research Studies, 47, 1979, pp. 1-16).

19 Tolstoy L.N. Complete collection. soch., t. 30. M. -L., Goslitizdat, 1951, p. 148.

20 Dreiser T. Collection. op. in 12 vols. M., Goslitizdat, 1955, vol. 1, p. 216.

21 Roosevelt Th. Tolstoy // Outlook. XCII (1909, May 15), p. 105. Quote. by: Dreiser Th. Letters, v. I, rL53,

22 Russian word. New York, 1909, May 19, p. 3. I. Gorbunov-Posadov wrote about the influence of Tolstoy’s moral preaching on religious and social reformers in the USA. In the introductory article to the translation of Ernest Crosby's book "Tolstoy and his worldview" (Count Tolstoy's Philosophy of Life. Boston, 1896), he noted that numerous pacifist and religious organizations of various kinds, including ecumenical and Buddhist, send Tolstoy their publications. " They all send news about themselves to Yasnaya Polyana" (Gorbunov-Posadov I. Ernest Crosby, poet of the new world // Crosby E. Tolstoy and his worldview. M., Posrednik, 1911, p. XI).

23 Walling W. Russia's Message. The True Import of the Revolution. London, 1909, p. 237.

24 Walling W. Message to Russia. Berlin, 1910, p. 367.

25 Walling W. Russia's Message. The People and the Czar. N. Y., 1917, p. 14.

26 Let us note in passing that in America the debate with representatives of social Darwinism was led by Tolstoy’s follower Ernest Crosby. On this see: Hofstadter R. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Philadelphia, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press; Lnd., Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ Press, 1945, p. 167.

27 See: Perry J. Jack London. An American Myth. Chicago, 1981, p. 109.

28 For more information about this, see: Osipova E.F. The first Russian revolution in the work of Jack London // Russian revolutionary movement and problems of the development of literature. L., Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1989, p. 130-146.

29 Shchelokova E. N. The first dramatization of the novel “Resurrection” on the American stage // L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “Resurrection”. Historical and functional research. M., 1991, p. 188-194.

30 Sayler, Oliver. The Russian Theatre. N. Y., Brentano, 1922, pp. 297-299.

31 About Michael Gold’s perception of Tolstoy in his book of memoirs, “The Long Solitude” (1952), journalist and editor of the Catholic Worker Dorothy Day writes: “Michael liked the religion that Tolstoy preached - a religion without a church and clergy” (Aaron D. Writers on the Left, p. 85).

32 For more details on this, see: Nikolyukin AM. Relationships between the literatures of Russia and the USA, p. 238-284.

33 James H. The Letters. Ed. by P. Lubbock. N.Y., Scribner, 1920, v. 2, p. 237.

34 US writers about literature. M., Progress, 1982, vol. 1, p. 265, 266.

35 W. D. Howells as Critic. Ed. by E. Cady. London and Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973, p. 424.

36 Spector, Ivar. The Golden Age of Russian Literature. Caldwell, Idaho, 1948, p. 246.

37 Huneker, James. Maxim Gorky's Nachtasyl // Huneker J. Iconoclasts. A Book of Dramatists. N. Y., Scribner, 1921, p. 277.

38 Twain M. Russian Republic // Twain M. Collection. op. in 12 volumes, vol. 11. M., Goslitizdat, 1961, p. 582.

39 Gorky M. Collection. op. in 30 vols. M., Goslitizdat, 1954, vol. 28, p. 416.

40 For more information about this episode, see: Kireeva I.V., Lunina I.E.A.M. Gorky and Mark Twain // Russian American Studies in search of new approaches. M., 1998, p. 46-58.

If anyone in the United States has not heard of the works of Leo Tolstoy, they learned about the giant of Russian literature from the reading club of the famous TV presenter Oprah Winfrey. Five years ago, Oprah called Anna Karenina “the most exciting love story,” immediately making it an absolute bestseller across the country.

For decades, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev and Solzhenitsyn have remained perhaps the most popular Russian writers among American readers. Their works can be found at bookshelves on a par with the world classics of literature.

Why and who is interested in Russian literature?

Famous American literary scholars told Voice of America why Russian writers are so popular among Americans. As it turns out, many people have heard the names of famous Russian writers since school. Knowing names is most often the main reason why American students choose to study Russian literature courses. Moreover, interest in Russian literature is widespread not only among students studying literary studies, but also among historians, anthropologists and political scientists. Often famous names of Russian writers attract students who are far from the humanities, for example, those who specialize in international business and natural sciences.

Many students continue studying Russian literature after their first introduction to it, says Professor Radislav Lapushin of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sharing his experience, the professor admits: “I am always pleased and surprised by the spontaneity and keen interest with which students approach the study of Russian literature. For me, this is the best confirmation of how alive and necessary she is.”

Typically, American students read fiction translated into English. But those who seriously study Russian switch to the originals by the third year of study. The works of Pushkin, Chekhov and Mayakovsky are considered the most accessible for beginners. With interested students, Professor Lapushin continues to study Russian authors less known in the United States, such as Zamyatin, Bulgakov, Bunin and Babel. “Russian literature becomes part of their cultural baggage and inner experience,” the professor says of his students.

According to Professor Richard Tempest of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Russian writers, and especially Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, serve as Russian goodwill ambassadors in America. Writers create characters who, although often eccentric, embody the types of people one can meet both in Russia and in the United States. Both authors also describe situations and philosophical positions that resonate with realities in America today. Thus, Russian writers involuntarily lure the American reader to learn more about the history and culture of Russia.

“A classic example of this is the novel Anna Karenina,” says Tempest. – The suffering of children in a dysfunctional marriage, the varying degrees of closeness of mother and father to children - all this is familiar to readers, both in Russia and in the USA. Karenina's fate is repeated in different cultures in different time. The same problems in the relationship between a woman and a man from aristocratic Russia in the 19th century are relevant in America today.”

Further, despite the fact that there are huge temporal and geographical spaces between Dostoevsky and the United States, the writer’s characters reflect the realities of different levels of modern culture of society in the United States. In the heroes of the novel “Demons,” for example, students of Professor Tempest see the personification of a certain endless image of internal aggression, which is inherent both in the Russian revolution of the last century, and in the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, and in serial killers, recluses of the big city, and rebels of different times.

Same heroes, different readers

According to American literary scholars, many students are initially wary of War and Peace because of its thousand-page length. But after reading, many do not want the story to end. The explanation for this, Tempest believes, is that “Tolstoy’s characters are so beautifully described, so close to reality - they often seem more real than the people who surround us.” But the question arises: does the American reader understand the heroes of Russian writers in the same way as the Russian reader?

According to Professor Lapushin, Russian students become familiar with Pushkin, Gogol, Chekhov and Tolstoy from early childhood, “whereas for many American students this acquaintance occurs at a later age, so they have a fresher view - more open-mindedness, there are no ready-made formulas and cliche". Professor Robin Miller of Brandeis University says, “Reading Anna Karenina, many students find it difficult to understand why divorce was such a complex process in 19th-century Russia. Or, while reading Dostoevsky, students have many questions about the Russian judicial system and why the author condemns the jury. And this is the main difference between Russian writers. Their characters are able to touch the inner world of people from different cultures, they show how history can affect the lives of people everywhere, but despite the trials, these heroes withstand the blows of fate."

The novel “Doctor Zhivago” is another striking example of how reader perception sometimes differs in Russia and the United States, says Richard Tempest: “For the American reader, the novel describes an interesting love story of a talented doctor who divides his life between two women. Therefore, the reader is more interested in the emotional experiences of the protagonist than in the historical and political context of the novel. Likewise, although Solzhenitsyn’s work reflects the complex Stalinist and Cold War eras, these stories are compelling because of their memorable characters.”

Lisa Knapp from Columbia University believes that most often students are faced with the task of understanding that in Russian culture the rationality of actions is interpreted differently. “If in the West everything has to be rational, then Tolstoy and Dostoevsky consider a person’s emotional world to be more important than his rational behavior,” says Professor Knapp. For example, some of her students found it difficult to understand the reasons for Anna Karenina's suicide at the end of the novel: "Young people in America are accustomed to acting rationally, but Russian literature introduces them to heroes who trust their feelings more than their reason." Further, it is sometimes difficult for students to find an explanation for the concept of “conciliarity” in Russia, since individualism prevails in the West. According to Radislav Lapushin, it is precisely such “incomprehensible” moments that attract American students and help them discover something new in themselves.

With mind and heart...

By reading the works of Russian writers, students discover the extraordinary ingenuity in the works of Russian literature. Professor Miller says that students come to Russian literature classes “with an already formed idea of ​​the “Russian soul.” This idea is formulated among students after reading, for example, the English writer Virginia Woolf, according to whom “the soul is the main character in Russian fiction.”

“Because censorship has almost always been present in Russia, unlike in Europe, words and ideas have special meaning in Russian literature,” notes Robin Miller, “so Russian authors use Aesopian language to show the hidden meanings of their ideas.” As an example, Professor Miller encourages students to read any passage from Gogol's Dead Souls to get a feel for the novel's language. Through such experiments, students understand the depth of emotions of Gogol's heroes, but it is difficult for them to retell their impressions in words.

The great philosophical and metaphysical questions asked by the heroes of Russian literature often remind students of their own experiences. "Crime and Punishment", for example, is associated with the lives of some students from dysfunctional families, notes Professor Knapp. “I’m not talking about murder, of course,” explains Lisa Knapp, “but episodes similar to Marmeladov’s family life or Raskolnikov’s dream about a suffering horse that he cannot help push students to think about broader issues of humanity.” And Professor Miller notes that since her students are about the same age as Arkady from Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons, young Americans reading the novel are intrigued by the fate of the characters and how their actions resemble modern life.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

The main problems of studying the history of Russian literature of the twentieth century. Literature of the 20th century as returned literature. The problem of socialist realism. Literature of the first years of October. Main directions in romantic poetry. Schools and generations. Komsomol poets.

course of lectures, added 09/06/2008


The state of Russian criticism of the 19th century: directions, place in Russian literature; major critics, magazines. Meaning of S.P. Shevyrev as a critic for journalism of the 19th century during the period of transition of Russian aesthetics from the romanticism of the 20s to the critical realism of the 40s.

test, added 09/26/2012


A study of childhood, years of study at the gymnasium and relationships in the family of Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov. Descriptions of his difficult path to literature. Petersburg ordeals. The influence of childhood and adolescence on poetry. Poetic testament. The best poems.

presentation, added 12/04/2013


Russian literature of the second half of the twentieth century and the place in it of “other prose”. The originality of the works of Viktor Astafiev. Reflection of social and spiritual degradation of personality in the works of S. Kaledin. Literary quests of Leonid Gabyshev.

course work, added 02/14/2012


Growing immigration flow of intellectuals. State pressure on literature and free thought. August cultural pogrom of '20. The fight against counter-revolutionary elements. The emergence of "proletarian" magazines. Ideology of the public organization Proletkult.

presentation, added 06/19/2014


The concept of mass culture, its origin. Commercialization of writing activity. The phenomenon of the "glossy writer". Genres of mass literature. Faces of US mass literature. Russian literature. Aspects of mass literature in Russia in the 19th century.

abstract, added 06/11/2008


The origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature in the 18th century. The image of the “superfluous person” in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". The problem of the relationship between the individual and society. The appearance of the first national tragedies and comedies.