Interaction of Russian and Western European literature in 19. The influence of Western European literature on Russian symbolism

The portal offers readers a series of conversations about Russian literature and culture with Professor Alexander Nikolaevich Uzhankov, theorist and historian of literature and culture of Ancient Rus', teacher, vice-rector of the Literary Institute. Maxim Gorky.

– Alexander Nikolaevich, you talked about the importance of classical works of Russian literature for the development of a young person’s consciousness. Are there any classical works world literature that would help a person understand his place in life, strengthen himself morally and spiritually?

– Well, I’m not such a big specialist in foreign literature, I want to say right away. I focused my attention more on Russian literature. Most likely, precisely because I realized for myself that Russian literature is more moral than European literature. Of course, in training course University, at the philological department, we studied literature from antiquity to the present day. We were very well acquainted with the monuments of antiquity and the Middle Ages - there was in-depth study and so on, but our souls did not accept much. Yes, there is more rational there, we have more spirituality. These are two different types of crops, and we need to pay attention to this.

Russian people are more concerned not with material well-being, but with the spiritual world, that is, the salvation of the soul

The Western European type of culture is a eudaimonic type. Eudaimonia is the construction of earthly happiness, earthly well-being. Hence, in fact, the apotheosis of this - American movies with their happy ending - a happy ending, that is, he and she find each other, they receive a million, or some kind of inheritance, finally, they buy a 5-story house somewhere on Cote d'Azur and so on - so they lived happily. That is, the ending of all human stories is to live safely, to strive for well-being. To some extent, Protestant culture, in fact, and religion prepare for this. Russian culture, based on Orthodoxy, is soteriological. Soteriology is the doctrine of the end of the world and the salvation of the soul. This means that a Russian person is more concerned not with material well-being, but with the spiritual world (like the writer, the ancient Russian writer), that is, the salvation of the soul. This is the basis of ancient Russian literature, and, in general, in the 19th century, as we said, works also contribute to the spiritual or moral development of the individual. This is the first. Second: let's say if we take, again Western European culture, it leans more, let’s say, towards the Christmas type of culture. The main holiday in the West is the coming of Christ into the world. That is, he focuses again on the earthly. If we look at Orthodox culture, Russian culture, we also love Christmas very much, but we have an Easter type of culture. Easter is more important to us. Why? Because this is just the resurrection in future life. And here it is, this direction: if the Savior has risen, then we also have hope for salvation. Again, this is the hope for spiritual transformation and preparation for this future - the future century, imperishable life, as Hilarion said - this is what will happen after the Last Judgment. Therefore, the main thing is not what is here, but the main thing is what will be there. And a person must approach this (why all the Russian saints were so prepared for this), this is clearly shown in the lives of the Russian saints. So when we talk about literary works, - here, I showed the difference. That is, I am, of course, speaking in general, we can already talk about some different works, but we will see that, say, their approach will be the one that I have outlined. Russian literature is more important, much more important, than European literature. It is no coincidence that the 19th century of Russian literature in the world context is considered the “golden age”, because no literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century. But if they still knew and understood Old Russian, then, of course, the attitude would be completely different.

No literature in the world has given as much as Russian literature in the 19th century.

– It turns out that both understanding and perception of deep and hidden thoughts in Russian classics depend on worldview. At the same time, the richness and breadth of our horizons and artistic perception depend on the works we read. That is, some vicious circle. Can you name a specific, small number of works that a young person who wants to acquire initial depth of perception and expand his horizons could start with? For example, it seems to me that Dostoevsky’s works are too deep in this regard; they are for adults who have experienced and thought about their lives a lot, life experience other people. But for a young man...

– Well, to some extent, your question already contains the answer, the answer lies. Look, we have a difference from the Western European model of education, when the work of a writer or even one work is studied, in isolation from the work of other writers and other works, and the result is a truly one-sided perception of this work. We have always built the history of Russian literature. That is, chronologically, I don’t want to say, from simpler to more complex, no, not at all, but, let’s say, Dostoevsky came out of Pushkin, but to a greater extent even from Lermontov. This duality is also in the heroes, in the splitting of heroes, and here, undoubtedly, we need to pay attention to the heroes of Lermontov and the heroes of Dostoevsky. A very important point is that Dostoevsky knew both of them well, he knew Gogol too, you see, his work is based on the work of his predecessors. To some extent, it may be polemical in relation to them, this needs to be understood. Two contemporaries lived - Tolstoy and. They didn’t know each other personally, but they were well acquainted with each other’s work, and to some extent, their works were a polemic with both the worldview and the way of life of one and the other, do you understand?

Now, if we tear apart, examine, as if through a magnifying glass, or under a microscope, only one thing, then, of course, we will not see the world, so we certainly need to consider it in context. This is the first, but very important rule. Secondly, in the work of the writer himself, more simple themes to more complex ones - this is a must. Start with the “basics” - where the writer started, yes, what he paid attention to, and what he came to. Even in Dostoevsky, so to speak, we look - there is “Poor People”, we look - there is “Crime and Punishment” or “The Brothers Karamazov”. Why is this pinnacle achieved, and how? What does he refuse, and what does he pay more attention to?

"The Captain's Daughter" is a literary and spiritual testament Pushkin. Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life

Pushkin has the same plot in two works. Now, if I say this: a young man, about 18 years old, goes by mail to his destination, and when he arrives there, some young lady falls in love with him, and then there will be a duel... What is this? Some will say that this is “Eugene Onegin”, and others will say that it is “The Captain’s Daughter”. Why does he use the same plot twice, especially since the original plan for “The Captain's Daughter” was completely different? Because there real events were, which he learned about when he traveled to the Orenburg province to collect materials about the Pugachev uprising. This means that it was very important for Pushkin to argue even with himself, because “Eugene Onegin” did not completely satisfy him. Although it is a complex work, a wonderful work, everyone admires it, but Pushkin does not. Well, really, he exclaimed after writing it, when he read it, but then he thought about it and said no. Now, if we take the consciousness of Pushkin, try to look into this consciousness, the consciousness of an Orthodox man, can he justify himself before God with this work? Because “every gift from above is,” right? So, does he have the gift of writing and composing from God? Did he serve God with his talent in Eugene Onegin? No. Why? Because everyone there is passionate. And "The Captain's Daughter"? – And this is completely different. It is no coincidence that literary scholars say, this is Pushkin’s literary testament, this is the spiritual testament of a secular man. This means that he has already risen to this level of perception. Why? Because there is that mercy that we so lack in life. “Be merciful, like your Father in heaven.” “By the way you judge, you will be judged.” Do you understand? And look, in this work everyone loves each other. There is simply love spilled throughout the entire work. There is only one person who does not love anyone - this is Shvabrin. Why? But he’s a murderer and doesn’t believe in God—that’s all. "God is love". This is what Pushkin came to. A simple work, a hundred pages. Pushkin once wrote such things in a month. And this, meanwhile, has been writing for almost three years. Why? Because it was important to him. But then that’s all, everything doesn’t matter: this work has been written, Pushkin’s spiritual testament. Do you understand?

When they removed essays from school and replaced them with the Unified State Exam, children stopped thinking, and not just figuratively

Now from school curriculum « Captain's daughter"throw away. "Eugene Onegin" remains, but "The Captain's Daughter" is discarded. What does this mean? Is this the half-educated Pushkin? Why did he write then? He wrote, in general, for us. Why? Because he wanted to direct us along a certain path, to give us spiritual development, you know? School, unfortunately, emasculates all this. When they removed essays from school and replaced them with Unified State Examinations and exams, children stopped thinking, and not only figuratively. To connect their thoughts, that is, to explain what they read, to recreate these images verbally - this is now given to them with great, great difficulty. I'm not even talking about those ridiculous questions that are asked in the Unified State Exam. Now, thank God, composition is returning to school, now they will write it, because the clip consciousness is developing in children, they cannot compose full-fledged and coherent texts now.

This is one problem, the second problem is that we are having a film adaptation. What is screen adaptation? A film adaptation is, in essence, the same reading of a work, but only by one person, the director. Why do I always tell my students: before watching this film, be sure to read the work, so that you form your own images, your attitude towards this work, so that you try to reveal the idea of ​​this work, and then watch what they show you. This is a different reading, you compare yours with another. And then, perhaps, determine what the meaning of this work is. Maybe you can get a hint there, no doubt, but maybe vice versa. I remember the film adaptation of Anna Karenina Soviet period. There wonderful actors, but, let’s say, when I watched Karenin, he was played in such a way (albeit by a very talented actor), that he evoked some kind of certain, if not disgust, then, in any case, antipathy, to put it mildly. This is some kind of shuffling old man. I ask the students: how old is Karenin? What is forty-two years, old man? You see, this is starting to be perceived in a completely different way.

Or I ask students a question: how old was Tatyana Larina when she wrote a letter to Onegin? Because when we watch an opera or a film, we see such portly women, especially in the opera. And the answer is that Tatyana is only fourteen years old, so how does Eugene Onegin (and he is twenty-eight) look at her? Dismissively and condescendingly, for which she is grateful to him, which she herself speaks about at the end of the novel. You see, these are the very details that we don’t pay attention to, because no one, not a single audience has yet told me how old the characters are. The question is, what are you reading? It is no coincidence that the author writes out this age, and draws attention to it several times. The point is that piece of art, it is insidious. Why? Because it gives flow to our imagination. We build our own images, we think out many things for the writer, and, naturally, we develop certain ideas. And when you draw the attention of the same directors to this, they are surprised: how did I not notice this? Because I read it that way, because my personal perception... This is good, yes, but then you need to say that this is my perception. It wasn’t Pushkin who wrote it that way (or Lermontov, or Dostoevsky, or Tolstoy), it’s the way I see them. So that's great.

– Alexander Nikolaevich, you once touched upon the topic of the complexity and danger of contact, even within theatrical productions, contact with evil spirits when a person tries to enter into the image of an evil spirit, pretend to be it or become close to it. And these words were confirmed by the words of one of the priests who is giving us a course of lectures on the practice of pastoral ministry. He is personally familiar with examples from the lives of actors whose lives were shattered after participating in such scenes, participating in works where they assumed the role of evil spirits. Relatives died, something completely out of place and inexplicable happened from the point of view of a non-believer. Some - he said so directly - after such events in their lives considered it great joy and help to be baptized. That is, people came to understand that faith and God are necessary in life, but through such difficulties. The question arises: how would you explain to yourself and to young people the danger of such advances? It would seem that this is an ordinary theatrical production, because man himself does not define himself as having departed from God and having come to Satan. At the same time, there is an unconditional influence of such roles and such experiments in a person’s life.

– You can build the history of the Russian theater, or the theater, probably, in Russia - this way, perhaps, it will be more correctly said. In the 17th century, in the second half of the 17th century, it appears. Initially, only foreigners were actors. Why? Because in Rus' theater has always been perceived as anti-church. understood this perfectly. Red Square is an open-air temple, and where the Historical Museum is now, Peter I planned to create a theatrical temple in which some actions would take place. Well, instead of Peter, now they are also organizing events, essentially on Red Square, essentially in an open-air church, as it was perceived in the 17th and even in early XVIII century.

Flirting with spiritual forces is not just a game, a transformation, it is the perception in your soul of who the actor is going to play

So, what is theater? This is acting, as they said in Ancient Rus'. The author behind the guise, that is, behind the mask, hides his own face and begins to play with passions. A person in his life must get away from passions, and in the theater he must even play other people’s passions, being, perhaps, completely moral person . Naturally, passions can captivate both the actor himself, who plays the actor, and those sitting in the audience. It is no coincidence that Alexei Mikhailovich immediately went to the bathhouse after the theater to wash away, outwardly, so to speak, these sins that seemed to cover his whole body. Why? Because he saw the passions that were raging on stage and, naturally, somehow joined them. Maybe without your own will, although - one wonders - why were you sitting, what were you watching, and so on. Not only he, but the entire retinue went to wash away these sins. You see, the form is correct, right? Maybe they didn’t understand the content. Why? Because I’ve already joined anyway. Then Russian troupes appeared, but, what is important (in imitation, of course, of European ones) - who acted as actors - free people or serfs? All our theaters were mostly serfs. Do you understand why? Because the landowner there, or the owner, forced them to play. If a nobleman was going to play in the theater, then he took a pseudonym so as not to discredit his surname, the honor of his noble class and noble surname. He or she played on stage under a pseudonym (in general, there were such things in the 19th century, we see examples of this). As for when a person is not just playing reincarnation, but is already flirting with spiritual forces, everything is more complicated, much more complicated. Why? Because this is not just a game, a reincarnation, but this is the perception in one’s soul of who he is going to play - Gogol perfectly showed this in the example of an unnamed artist who painted a portrait. Why? Because the artist reflects what he absorbs into his soul - it must be digested inside, he must get used to it, and then, so to speak, it spills out on the canvas. It’s the same with an actor - he must first absorb it into himself, and then throw it out on stage, because he, too, an artist, will certainly let everything pass through himself. And when all this happens, when a person absorbs it, what is the danger? The fact is that he may not get rid of it. What was needed for the nameless artist? Lose your wife, lose your children, go to a monastery and atone for your sin through long fasting, prayers, and hermitage. All for just one portrait of a moneylender, right? And then he was able to transform internally, and then he was able to paint a fresco of the Nativity of Christ. The same is true for an actor who plays: again, is he flirting, is he acting, or is he really taking it into his own hands? I just know too, I am personally acquainted with some actors who themselves told me, and since she told me publicly, I can probably say about Natalya Varley - a Komsomol member, an athlete, a beautiful girl who played - her student role - a lady in "Vie". She says: “Even then I had no idea what I would face in my life.” She was indeed baptized later, and now she is a deeply religious person, a churchgoer, she says: “If they had told me then what would happen to me, to my destiny in the future, I would never have agreed to this role.” So there really can be a lot of such examples. This is a taboo topic, a person should not transgress it.

One of the ancient examples of a full and widespread interaction of literatures is the exchange of traditions between the Greek and Roman literatures of antiquity. Borrowed once upon a time artistic values were later transferred to other European nations. The heritage of antiquity formed the artistic basis of Renaissance literature. In turn, ideas, themes and images Italian Renaissance influenced not only the literature of France and England, but a century later found an echo in European classicism.

In the 19th century, the formation of a complex whole concept began: world literature"(this term was proposed by I. Goethe). With the strengthening of worldwide ideological, cultural, and economic ties, a new basis for constant and close interaction between literatures has emerged.

In the twentieth century, the interaction of literatures becomes truly global. In the world literary process are actively included major literature East and Latin America.

The interaction of literatures is determined not by the tasteful choice of individual models for assimilation and imitation, and not by the personal predilections of individual writers for the achievements of foreign literatures. This interaction of cultures as a whole occurs on the historical basis of great national demands. Thus, the rapid spread of the ideas of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century in the literature of Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia at the beginning of the 19th century is explained not by the “French education” of many European writers, but by the situation of a serious social crisis, which then gripped other European countries. And the depth of perception of the ideas of the French Enlightenment and free-thinking depended on how deep this crisis was in each individual country.

The role played by Russian literature in this process of mutual enrichment is peculiar. After in the Pushkin era many diverse influences from Western European literature were absorbed with extraordinary speed, from the second half of the 19th century Russian literature itself began to influence the course of literary development worldwide. On the one hand, the literature of developed countries experienced the powerful influence of L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Chekhov. On the other hand, Russian literature contributed to the progress of literatures that were delayed in their development (for example, in Bulgaria), literatures of the national outskirts of Russia. The impact here was not always direct. For example, Tatar literature adopted the Russian experience earlier than many other Turkic literatures; and she was the conductor of artistic progress in the literature of Central Asia. Writers from a number of republics of the USSR (V. Bykov, Ch. Aitmatov, etc.), through translations into Russian, simultaneously exchange experiences with each other and contribute to the development of Russian literature.

In the new historical conditions, Soviet literature had a powerful influence on the artistic development of the whole world. A striking example and the heroes of the best works of socialist realism served as models for artists in many countries.

Currently, the interaction of literature is ensured by a wide network of international creative unions, associations and permanent conferences of writers, literary critics and translators. Row national literatures as a result of interactions with other literatures, it develops rapidly and in a short time goes through those stages of growth that in more developed literatures required several centuries. The interaction of literatures also determines the rapid development of literatures among those peoples who previously had no written language at all (Soviet literatures of the former national borderlands). The interaction of literatures accelerates progress in the most diverse spheres of the spiritual life of mankind; it is closely connected with the logic of world processes.

Comparative literature studies the scientific study of the interaction of literatures.

Answer

An interesting question, but it needs to be reformulated slightly. Precisely imitation (as servile plagiarism stylistic devices, copying plots, stealing images) to Western writers among the works of Russians classical authors there was very little. But the influence was much greater. Therefore, it is better to formulate the question: “Can we consider that the development of Russian literature occurred due to the influence of Western literature?”

Let’s limit the question to the framework of classical Russian literature, without delving into the twentieth century, because beyond this line modernism begins, and there the influence of a completely different kind. Personally, I believe that it cannot be considered that way. The influence of Western literature on Russians classical writers It was of an impressive scale, that's for sure. However, it would be wrong to completely link the development of Russian literature with Western influence. The formulation of the question suggests that if this influence had not occurred, then the very development of Russian literature would have stopped, and we would not now have the classical literature that we love so much. Nevertheless, if this influence had not existed, then development would have continued as usual, but many of the works familiar to us would have been written in a different style or would not have been written at all. Perhaps they would be replaced by completely different things, written in a different style. There are no writers who have never been influenced by other authors. To become interested in literary creativity and start writing, you must first start reading and become interested in reading. Therefore, if there were no influence of Western literature, there would be an influence, for example, of Eastern literature. In addition, many of the Russian classical writers began their work by drawing inspiration from the works of their predecessors, other Russian writers. And the main motive of Russian classical literature has always been the reflection of Russian reality, mainly in the style of realism. That is, the books of Russian classics have always had, as it is now fashionable to say, the “setting” of Russian life. The Russian philologist and philosopher Ernest Radlov spoke well on this topic: “the influence of Western writers on Russian classics affected the manner of interpreting famous stories", on the choice of topics and on a certain attitude towards them, and not on the content itself, which is entirely borrowed from Russian life and the conditions of Russian life."

So, which Western writers most influenced the development of Russian literature?

1. Charles Dickens. This English gentleman greatly influenced the literary manners of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Goncharov, Turgenev. In the words of Tolstoy: "Sift world prose, and Dickens will remain." In Tolstoy's late works, especially in the novel "Resurrection", sentimental images seasoned with high Christian morality often flash, reflecting class inequality and social injustice; this is the direct influence of Dickens. The second titan of Russian classics, Dostoevsky, reflecting on Dickens, said: "We in Russian understand Dickens, I am sure, almost the same as the English, even, perhaps, with all the shades; even, perhaps, we love him no less than his compatriots." Unlike Tolstoy, who admired him more such Dickens novels as Big hopes" and "Notes Pickwick Club“, Dostoevsky was most influenced (as, by the way, also by Franz Kafka with his “The Trial”) by a novel written in the best traditions of English romanticism, called “Bleak House.” It is in this novel that there are those very descriptions of the fractures of the human psyche that will later saturate Dostoevsky’s novels. Just look at the scene of Bleak House, where one of the main characters pays a visit to the house of the English poor to enlighten them with Christian teaching. Opening the doors, she discovers a woman beaten by her alcoholic husband, who, sitting in front of the fireplace, rocks and cradles her infant child. The conversation with her husband takes place in a humorous manner, in the spirit of “We didn’t invite Christ here,” until the main character comes closer to the woman and notices that the child is dead, and the woman herself has lost her mind. Why not Dostoevsky?

2. Another English gentleman, but no longer the prim Dickens, but the poet, rebel, pessimist, misanthrope, mystic and occultist, Lord George Byron. His poetry greatly influenced the work of Pushkin and Lermontov. It is even possible to argue that if it were not for Byron, the world would not have seen “Eugene Onegin” and “A Hero of Our Time.” Pushkin, by his own admission, “went crazy about Byron” and brought the image of Onegin closer to the Byronic heroes Beppo and Don Juan. “We have the same soul, the same torments” - this is what Lermontov said about Byron, and did not hide the fact that in Pechorin he tried to create one of the domestic versions of Byron’s hermit, and in Grushnitsky - a parody of a typical Byronic hero. Pushkin was also greatly influenced by the English novelist Walter Scott, who encouraged him to interpret the genre in his own way. historical novel” and refer to various events in Russian history.

3. The Germans Goethe, Schiller and Hoffmann. Their works filled the shelves of almost all Russian writers. Before experiencing the influence of English romanticism, many Russian writers were influenced by German romanticism. Faust is one of the main images of world literature in principle, and without him, who knows what we would have missed in the history of literature. The theme of a contract with the devil partially appears in the works of many Russian classics.

4. The French Balzac, Hugo, Flaubert and Stendhal. They were read by Turgenev, Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky. Turgenev wrote in a letter to his friend K.S. Serbinovich: “Balzac has a lot of intelligence and imagination, but also strangeness: he looks into the most intimate, barely noticeable to others, cracks of the human heart.” Dostoevsky’s friend, the writer Grigorovich, said in his memoirs: “When I began to live with Dostoevsky, he had just finished translating Balzac’s novel Eugene Grande.” Balzac was our favorite writer, we both admired him equally, considering him immeasurably higher than all French writers.” As you can see, Dostoevsky translated Balzac's books by hand, and translation leads to an even stronger influence than reading. It was Balzac who introduced stylistic realism into fashion, which became very popular among Russian classics. Balzac proceeded from the need to depict “men, women and things,” understanding by “things” the material embodiment of people’s thinking. Goncharov and Turgenev later proceeded from the same principles in their work. But Tolstoy gave more preference to Stendhal. P. A. Sergeenko, Lev Nikolaevich’s secretary, said that Tolstoy’s first essay was written by him at the age of sixteen. “It was a philosophical treatise in imitation of Stendhal,” said Tolstoy. It turns out that the first literary impulse of the great Russian classic was accomplished only thanks to the influence of the Frenchman Stendhal. And it is enough to remember how much the works of Russian classics were saturated with French expressions, which they picked up from the books of French novelists, to appreciate the scale of their influence. In addition to Stendhal, Tolstoy spoke very highly of Victor Hugo, considered the novel “Les Miserables” the best work of that era, and borrowed many motifs from him for his “Resurrection.” Studying the image of Anna Karenina, you involuntarily notice the similarity of her image with Madame Bovary from the novel by Gustave Flaubert.

If desired, the list of culprits of Western influence can be continued. To summarize the answer to the question, we can say that the influence of Western literature on the development of Russian literature was colossal, but this does not mean that it occurred only due to this influence. Most of Russian creativity was still original. Each of our great classics had their own insatiable drive, their own motivation, their own passion, thanks to which they began to write their novels. They began to write not because they decided to imitate their favorite Western authors (this was just a charge of inspiration), but because they could not do otherwise. They could not help but write; creativity was their main need, which inevitably sought satisfaction. If you remove the influence of Western literature, then many things that made up Russian literature either changed or disappeared altogether. But in return they would receive other styles, motifs, images and plots. Russian literature would not stop in its development.

so as not to ultimately degenerate into cosmopolitanism,

the panhumanity of Russian literature cannot but be immersed

again and again into its deepest folk core.

V.V. Kozhinov

Among the most pressing issues modern culture V. Kozhinov calls the problem of “the originality of our literature,” the need for discussion of which has matured in the public consciousness of the 20th century. V. Kozhinov’s ideological position in relation to Russian and Western European literature was reflected in a number of his articles in the 1960s-80s of the 20th century. Thus, in the article “And every language that exists in it will call me...” V. Kozhinov, relying on the views of Dostoevsky, develops the Russian writer’s thought about “all-humanity as the essence of our national self-consciousness and, as a consequence, the fundamental, decisive quality of Russian literature.”

V. Kozhinov confirms his idea about the spiritual priorities of Russian literature and its fundamental difference from Western, including American, in the words of Dostoevsky from “Speech on Pushkin”: “I... am not trying to equate the Russian people with Western peoples in the spheres of their economic glory or scientific. I’m just saying that the Russian soul, that the genius of the Russian people, is perhaps the most capable of all peoples to embrace the idea of ​​all-human unity...” Noting the receptivity of Russian literature and culture in general to the literatures of other peoples, V. Kozhinov forms his ideological position as purely Orthodox and patriotic, associated with folk basis, but at the same time notes the complexity in understanding the originality and the very essence of Russian literature, which does not imply clear and complete conclusions, which makes the issue open to debate. Developing historical view on Russian literary self-awareness, in the same article V. Kozhinov cites Belinsky’s words about Russian originality, which lies in the ability to “easily imitate” someone else’s life, for “whoever does not have his own interests, it is easy to accept others’.” In contrast to Belinsky, Chaadaev saw in the Russian consciousness and culture “a conscientious court on many litigations” and a great educational mission “to teach Europe an infinite variety of things.”

However, V. Kozhinov considers the “all-humanity” of Russian literature in a double sense: as a positive, “ideal” quality, and “at the same time as an unambiguously “negative” one.” This ambiguity, according to the critic, lies, on the one hand, in the not always appropriate “versatility with which a Russian person understands other nationalities” (Belinsky), and on the other hand, in this V. Kozhinov agrees with Chaadaev’s judgments, in the absence of “ our life”, “national egoism”, citing as an example a quote from a Russian philosopher: “We belong to those nations that do not seem to be part of humanity, but exist only to give the world some important lesson”, that is, V. Kozhinov concludes, we should talk about “ universal mission“Russia, called upon to be a “conscientious court” for Europe. Thus, V. Kozhinov, following Chaadaev and Dostoevsky, speaks of the special role of Russian culture, located between “East” and “West”, and its stay in a childish state, or “underdevelopment” (Pushkin) serves as the basis for “future bliss” ( Chaadaev), and therefore the embodiment of the ideal in the future, orientation towards the process of development of this “transcendent” ideal. V. Kozhinov calls “all-humanity” and “universality” the key qualities of Russian literature, which were formed in the process of its entire historical development, that is, “this is not some pre-given, ready-made quality, but precisely the task that determines its development, even the super task<… >, the creative will that animates her entire life...”

Turning to the understanding of this creative will, V. Kozhinov discusses the other side of the universality and versatility of Russian literature, which Chaadaev, Belinsky and Dostoevsky pointed out in their time, namely the seduction of Europe, admiration for Western culture and way of life, and in order to get out of this humiliating position, Russian literature needs to become world-class, that is, to make works of Russian literature “the property of wide sections of European society” (Chaadaev).

In their critical articles V. Kozhinov forms a historical and religious concept of the development of Russian literature, inseparable from the Orthodox worldview. Russian literature, like the Russian people, Rus' as a state was formed, according to V. Kozhinov, on the basis of the religious foundation of the highest power under the influence of Orthodox Christianity, the adoption of which in the 10th century from Byzantium became an expression of the free will of the state, and thanks to which there was a union of faith and authorities. Prince Vladimir chose this principle of building the Russian state, guided by the Byzantine idea of ​​the omnipotence of God, the executor of whose will on earth is the emperor, an absolute monarch, which is where his title arose - authorkrator, executor of God's will on earth. Speaking about its interaction with Byzantium, which is decisive for the fate of Russia, V. Kozhinov traces cultural ties with the Orthodox empire, calling them related, when Rus' does not forcefully, but “completely voluntarily accepts Byzantine culture,” conducting a constant dialogue with it, which contributed to the emergence and development Russian culture in general, including church architecture, icon painting, literature.

V. Kozhinov traces the formation of Russian literature to the time of Metropolitan Hilarion and his “Sermon on Law and Grace,” which he writes about in the article “On the Origins of Russian Literature. The work of Hilarion and the historical reality of his time,” citing the metropolitan’s words: “The light of the moon departed when the sun rose, and so the law gave way to Grace.” Moreover, says the researcher, the “Word...” identifies the fundamental properties of the Russian Orthodox world and Russian culture and outlines its path further development: “...in it [in the “Word of Law and Grace.” — L.S.] that holistic understanding of Russia and the world, man and history, truth and goodness was already beginning to take shape, which much later, in XIX-XX centuries, embodied with the greatest power and openness in Russian classical literature and thoughts - in the works of Pushkin and Dostoevsky, Gogol and Ivan Kireevsky, Alexander Blok and Pavel Florensky, Mikhail Bulgakov and Bakhtin." Based on Hilarion’s thought that Orthodoxy is addressed to all peoples, eight centuries later Dostoevsky accepted and developed the idea of ​​the ancient Russian writer about the worldwide responsiveness of Russian literature as Orthodox literature, i.e. inspired by God-given “spiritual fire” (Dunaev).

V. Kozhinov characterizes the essence of the Western world and its self-awareness, based on similar judgments of Hegel and Chaadaev, as a purely individualistic, subjective phenomenon, the purpose of which was “the realization of absolute truth as endless self-determination of freedom,” and “all other human tribes ... exist as if with its will”, which made it possible to talk about the insurmountable contradictions and contrasts of Western and Eastern Christianity, which initially shaped not only the culture, but the features of the Western Catholic and Orthodox-Byzantine worldview.

Religious identity Western culture and literature goes back to the Old Testament Jewish, ancient and Catholic-Protestant doctrine of chosenness and predestination, which became the ideological basis of humanistic values ​​based on the mixing and secularization of various religious categories, the result of which was “self-affirmed individualism” (A.F. Losev), corresponding to the concept of “man-god”. Anthropocentrism and humanism became the blood and flesh of the Western spirit, the “Faustian soul,” as O. Spengler defined the essence of the Western personality, which “is... a force relying on itself.” This turned out to be the price for the good and likening of a seduced person to God, stated in the Old Testament: “... and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Western European literature turned out to be immersed in the process of individualistic and eudaimonic self-affirmation, the search for a universal existence for one’s “I”, and the Gospel words “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) have become relevant for Western people precisely with the thesis of “acquiring the world,” earthly treasures, as opposed to the Orthodox way of saving the soul. The Renaissance accomplished the truly titanic task of the formation of nations and “national self-awareness,” since “it was in this era that literature assimilated the specific diversity of the life of the nation and revealed the element of the people. On the other hand, it is then that literature affirms the sovereign human personality (individual)”, turns into “a thing for itself,” - this is how V. Kozhinov characterizes the process of formation of Western literary consciousness. It was during the Renaissance, under the powerful influence of ancient paganism, that humanistic individualism was formed, the secularization of the church was activated, which would ultimately lead to the events of the Reformation. Petrarch was the first, according to A.F. Losev, spoke about “bright antiquity, about the dark ignorance that began after Christianity became the official religion and the Roman emperors began to worship the name of Christ, and about the expected return to the forgotten ancient ideal.” Based on the ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, a secular worldview arises, which creates a titanic man surrounded by “aesthetically understood being” (A.F. Losev). Thus, the philosophical-rational and at the same time sensual-ecstatic character of Western consciousness and literature was determined, based, on the one hand, on the Aristotelian concept of mimesis, and on the other hand, going back to Plato’s mystical theory artistic creativity, according to which the source of creativity is obsession as special kind inspiration given to the artist by higher divine powers, and not by reason. “After all, what you say about Homer,” Socrates says to Jonah, “all this is not from art and knowledge, but from divine determination and obsession."

The path of Russian literature, according to V. Kozhinov, was completely different, aimed at “igniting and maintaining spiritual fire in human hearts” (Dunaev). On this basis, V. Kozhinov substantiates the confrontation between the two literatures: “Comparison or even direct opposition of the peculiar features of Western European and Russian life one way or another runs through all our literature and, more broadly, public consciousness". An important factor in comparing the two literatures for V. Kozhinov are the peculiarities of the perception and influence of Western literature on Russian. Western art has always been attractive to Russian culture, which resulted in worship, sometimes blind imitation, copying, etc. V. Kozhinov traces the fascination with the West as a long-term historical process in the development of national culture: “...Russians, like no one else, knew how to appreciate this Western incarnation, sometimes even going overboard, denying their own, Russian “under-incarnation” for the sake of European completeness.” However, it was precisely this “under-embodiment”, “insufficient objectification” that provided the “redundancy of spiritual energy” (Kozhinov), inherent in Russian literature, which allowed Gogol from the “beautiful distance” of Italy to hear a Russian song and see a “sparkling, wonderful, unfamiliar distance to the earth.”

Distinguishing the spiritual values ​​of Russian and Western literature, V. Kozhinov actually characterizes a specific chronotope, within the framework of which spatio-temporal relations result in the categories “Russian world” and “European world”, which have their own key concepts: « individual and nation" for Western literature, "personality and people" for Russian culture.

“Aesthetics of being”, “aesthetics of a thing” as “organic elements of Western European aesthetics” (Kozhinov) and consciousness allow us to talk about the replacement of religious and moral ideas about man and the world with aesthetic-humanistic, anti-Christian ones, which ultimately led Western literature and its hero to “ the absolute completeness of enjoyment of the treasures on earth” (Dunaev) or to the existential experience of one’s death as deliverance from an ugly and vulgar reality. Therefore, with all the shortcomings and disorders of life in Russia, literature “remained a living impulse of man and people,” where the subject of the image was a living soul, turned to the world in a readiness to suffer and sympathize, to atone for its sins and answer for them to its contemporaries and descendants, because in Orthodox understanding “suffering is not evil for a person, sin is evil” (Novoselov).

To trace the specifics of the relationship between Rus' and the West and East, V. Kozhinov turns to the period of the emergence of Western Europe, emphasizing the aggressive nature of the barbarian Germanic tribes, who built their states on the principles of violence and suppression, which was correctly noted by Hegel, whose statement on this matter is cited by V. Kozhinov: “The Germans began by... conquering the decrepit and rotten states of civilized peoples.”

Already the first barbarian epics, created on the ruins of Roman antiquity, provided examples of heroic deeds and freedom of spirit of the new European peoples, showing “the lack of holiness and sinful hostility towards God” (Novoselov) (“The Song of Roland”, “The Song of the Nibelungs”). The history of the West, according to V. Kozhinov’s definition, “is a truly heroic exploration of the world.” However, in the heroic assertion of absolute freedom, the hero of Western literature, “satisfied with his moral state” (I. Kireevsky), does not experience repentance and, to paraphrase Dostoevsky, accepts “sin for truth.” These are the heroes of works created in the most seemingly civilized period of the development of European literature from the Renaissance to classical realism of the 19th century by such outstanding writers as Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Kleist, Hoffmann, Hugo, Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Dickens, Thackeray and etc. Thus, the desire for absolute, but individually understood justice pushes both Shakespeare's Hamlet and Kleist's Kohlhaas to commit bloody crimes. As a result of their heroic deeds, “the world perishes and the truth” of human law triumphs. Horatio calls the content of the future “story” about Hamlet’s deeds “a story of inhuman and bloody deeds, random punishments, unexpected murders, deaths, arranged out of necessity by wickedness...”. Even the ardent hater of human nature, Martin Luther, calls Michael Kohlhaas “a godless, terrible man” (Kleist), although Kohlhaas is a visible result of the Protestant ethic, which removed from man all responsibility for his actions, since his nature is damaged by sin without hope of restoration and the fate of everyone is predetermined the will of God, which gave the Protestant person more freedom of action than the Catholic believer, but at the same time led to despair (S. Kierkegaard). The thirst for absolute freedom without reliance on God turns Westerners romantic heroes Byron, Shelley, Hölderlin into lone rebels calling for “divine equality” (Shelley, “The Rise of Islam”) through the blood of revolutionary rebellion.

Another direction of absolutization of qualities opposite to rebellion, namely good and evil of the heroes of humanist writers Hugo and Dickens, looks like a kind of predestination, as V. Kozhinov believes, they are “weighed and measured,” which, according to the critic, in Russian literature “appears as limitation , complacency, dogmatism”, and contradicts Orthodox ideas about love for one’s neighbor, self-denial, self-sacrifice without expectation of reward. Western literature, even in its desire to preach authentic moral values, absolutizes them, turning them into legally substantiated virtues that require material rewards and self-exaltation of a virtuous person. This is how the Protestant idea of ​​active, practical love for people is consolidated, expressed in the realization of the worldly (practical) purpose of Western man in combination with legal law.

But at the same time, V. Kozhinov, defining the specifics of Russian and Western literature, does not set out to deny one for the sake of the other. Both of them go through their own path of search, discovery, understanding of life and man: “Both Russia and the West had and have their own unconditional good and equally unconditional evil, their own truth and their own lies, their own beauty and their own ugliness.” The great spiritual mission of Russian literature became apparent by the end of the 19th century, which Western writers began to recognize. Dostoevsky in his “Speech on Pushkin” gave impetus to understanding the role of Russian culture on a global scale: “... the Russian soul,... the genius of the Russian people, perhaps, are most capable, of all peoples, of incorporating the idea of ​​all-human unity...”. One of the reasons for the new look of Western literature on Russian literature is the formulation of pressing problems and the inability to solve these problems. Because in the situation of the “death of God” (Nietzsche), Western European society stopped hearing the “call of God” (Guardini), which was also recognized by Western theologians. Having entered into an alliance with the Unconscious (beginning with Jena romanticism), Western aesthetics in subsequent eras, especially in modernism and postmodernism, revalued values, which led to the dehumanization of consciousness and creativity; according to the modern philosopher Ortega y Gasset, “Western man fell ill with a pronounced disorientation, no longer knowing which stars to follow” (Ortega y Gasset).

Considering Russian literature from the position of its inconsistency with the problems of Western aesthetics, V. Kozhinov nevertheless looks for points of contact between opposite sides, turning to the Bakhtinian idea of ​​dialogue, “in which extremely distant voices can equally participate.” The “dialogue of cultures” proposed by V. Kozhinov can serve as a way of mutual understanding as opposed to Hegel’s “monological dialectic,” which will manifest the truly “creative will” of Russian literature—“worldwide responsiveness.” V. Kozhinov repeatedly speaks about the undoubted influence of Russian literature on world literature, emphasizing precisely the religious basis of such a rapprochement, emanating from the conciliar, liturgical nature of Russian culture, which he writes about in the article “Unified, Integral”: “... a number of works have been published in the West about Orthodox liturgy, which is placed immeasurably higher than Catholic worship." In the article “Disadvantage or Originality?” he cites the statements of W. Woolf, a classic of English modernism, about the spirituality of Russian literature, which is clearly lacking in Western literature: “It is the soul that is one of the main characters Russian literature... Perhaps this is precisely why such a great effort is required from an Englishman... The soul is alien to him. Even antipathetic... We are souls, tortured, unfortunate souls who are busy only with talking, opening up, confessing...” It is the “conciliarity”, “collectivity” of Russian literature, as V. Kozhinov believes, citing N. Berkovsky’s statement, that is a model for Western culture, since it “is not always noticeable to him, serves as a means of self-knowledge, tells him about those sources of life, which he also has...”

Back in the 19th century, P. Merimee, who deeply studied the Russian language and literature, spoke about the need to perceive and follow the Russian literary tradition. He considers the main criterion of Russian literature to be the truth of life, which he does not find in French literature: “Your poetry seeks first of all the truth, and beauty appears later, by itself. Our poets, on the contrary, follow the opposite path - they are concerned primarily with effect, wit, brilliance, and if in addition to all this it becomes possible not to offend verisimilitude, then they will probably take this in addition.” " living soul Flaubert saw Russian culture in Turgenev, calling him “my Turgenev” in his letters. He defines the impact of Turgenev’s works as “shock” and “cleansing of the brain.”

However, until now, the pathos of “all-humanity” and “nationality” has not become the spiritual core of Western literature due to its immersion in the search for its individual self-awareness and arrogant self-determination in relation to the “external world - both natural and human - as a “man-god””, which has always served as a way of justifying oneself. On this occasion, V. Kozhinov recalls the statement of I. Kireevsky, who accurately named the fundamental difference between Western man: he is always “satisfied with his moral state<…>, he is completely pure before God and people." While “a Russian person,” notes I. Kireevsky, “always vividly feels his shortcomings.” This “self-criticism” and the need for moral “lynching” are reflected in literature, also becoming its important property, going back to the Christian ideal of overcoming pride and humility. In the “self-criticism” of Russian literature, V. Kozhinov saw its ideal direction, which is not characteristic of Western critical realism, as the critic talks about in the article “Russian literature and the term “critical realism””. In his discussions about the types of realism in domestic and foreign literary traditions, V. Kozhinov sets himself the task of “determining the nature of the Russian historical and literary process.” Critical direction in Western literature, V. Kozhinov associates with self-determination and the stable position of the bourgeois system, hence the revealing pathos of Western critical realism built only on criticism negative aspects bourgeois life in general, and the search for a positive ideal, without which no culture can exist, is limited to the image of “ privacy people" (Dickens). Recognizing the “powerful critical, denying element” in Russian classics, V. Kozhinov does not consider this criticism to be the main and defining quality of Russian literature, the path of which should be aimed at searching for a positive ideal, the need for which Dostoevsky spoke: “An ideal is also a reality, such as legal as current reality.”

The era of the 20th and early 21st centuries is represented, as Vyach puts it. Ivanov, a “critical culture”, which is characterized by “increasing alienation... the inevitable competition of one-sided truths and relative values.” Western literature at the turn of the century, while continuing to develop a mythological and mystical-otherworldly attitude to reality (Proust, Hesse, Joyce, Camus, Sartre, etc.), follows the path of Nietzschean theomachism and the affirmation of the “Faustian spirit” of universal possession (Spengler), that is, desires for world domination. Religious (Christian) consciousness is replaced by artistic aestheticism as a new religion (starting with romanticism), continuing to develop the mythological concept of art. But at the same time, the romantic concept of dual worlds becomes irrelevant in the literature of modernism, since the gravitation towards the divine absolute (the ideal world of art) will be replaced by the categories of a split, fragmented consciousness and world (the heroes of Hesse - Haller, W. Woolf - Orlando, J. Joyce - Bloom, Proust - Marcel, Sartre - Roquentin, etc.). The hero of modern modernist and postmodernist literature receives the status of a “Christian subman” - a superman (Nietzsche). He overcame in himself the feelings of guilt, compassion, shame, moral responsibility, contrasting them with the instinct of self-preservation and the spirituality of the Superego sublimated by instincts (according to Freud), which led to the awareness of “loss of soul”, “decay of the soul” in the absence of religious feelings and spiritual values . Western literature of the 20th century has embarked on the path of “dehumanization,” as noted by European and American critics themselves (O. Spengler, H. Ortega y Gasset, W. Wulff, M. Heidegger, J. Huizinga, H. Bloom, etc.) and in search of spiritual support, Western man still relies on himself, his “Self” (C. Jung), which expresses itself through artistry and different forms art, it contains, according to Nietzsche, “the highest dignity, for only as an aesthetic phenomenon are being and the world justified in eternity.” Having excluded Christian values ​​from its worldview, Western aesthetic philosophy cultivates an “artistic” assessment of life, where there is only one “carefree and immoral God-artist” (Nietzsche), who is beyond good and evil, free from contradictions for the sake of pleasure. Christian teaching in the era of modernism and postmodernism is declared hostile to art, since, says Nietzsche, it is an obstacle to liberated instincts and “with its truthfulness of God, it pushes art into the realm of lies,” i.e. denies, curses, condemns him." Its main task is modern western art sees in contrast to the Christian direction of “all-humanity” the “artistic, anti-Christian” (Nietzsche) image of the “instinct of life”, that unconscious and impersonal that in aesthetic philosophy (thanks to Nietzsche) received the definition of “Dionysianism”. Speaking about modern Western, in particular American, literature in the article “Attention: US literature today. Achievements and failures of Soviet American studies" V. Kozhinov characterizes the main trends of postmodern culture, going back to the Nietzschean-Freudian physiological instincts of complete emancipation of the individual, for which "the only reality of existence is acceptable<…>these are biological and purely psychological, primarily subconscious, impulses and states...” Continuing, as V. Kozhinov believes, to follow the already “hackneyed ideas of the absurdity of being”, Western literature remains faithful to the immoral values ​​of bourgeois reality, primitive “affects” and myths,” since in the decanonized and desacralized postmodern consciousness, where questions of faith and morality lose their meaning, art itself becomes part of bourgeois innovative activity that provides material profit. Lack of faith and immorality, elevated to the absolute, have become the main criteria for the creative activity of modern Western writers and publicists, both postmodernists and neoconservatives (D. Updike, N. Mailer, N. Podhoretz, S. Sontag, etc.), who set their own “ progressive" creativity in the service of the American ideology of violence and universal subordination, but in reality, as V. Kozhinov argues, citing the words of the American writer P. Brooks, one of the instigators of the idea of ​​​​a general "rebellion", provoke a postmodernist revolt, that same controlled chaos, "where Anarchist-minded youth will reign on the ruins of an exploded culture, morality and spiritual values ​​now accepted in the Western and Eastern worlds.” In this politicized-ideological struggle between the opposites of true culture, that is, built on traditional Christian values, and the “counterculture” of the avant-garde and neoconservatism, V. Kozhinov sees the main danger for the development and preservation of real literature, which calls not for an anarchic rebellion, but for a holy state of soul, what the Russian classics said, to whom the critic always appeals: “Art must be sacred. The true creation of art has something soothing and conciliatory in itself,” said Gogol.

The implementation of “creative will” in the modern era, in the view of V. Kozhinov, is the ability of literature to “preserve and develop the unity of nationality and pan-humanity”, since, as the critic believes, “pan-humanity” is “not purely national self-affirmation”, an elevation above other peoples and cultures , and the trait is “its national, distinctively folk basis.”

Notes

1.Andreev L.G. How did the history of the second millennium end?// Foreign literature second millennium. 1000-2000. - M., 2001.

2.Asmus V. Plato. - M., 1975.

3.Guardini R. The collapse of the world picture of the New Age and the future // Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and the USA: collection. articles. - M., 2000.

4.Gogol N.V. Selected passages from correspondence with friends/In the book: Reflections on the Divine Liturgy. - M., 2006.

5. Dostoevsky F.M. Full collection Op. in 30 vols. T. 21. L.: 1980. P. 75-76.

6. Dunaev M.M. Faith in the crucible of doubt. "Orthodoxy and Russian Literature." Electronic resource: http://sdruzhie-volga.ru/knigi/o_zhizni/m.m-dunaev-vera_v_gornile_somnenij.htm

7.Ivasheva V.V. History of Western European literature of the 19th century. - M., 1951.

8.Kozhinov V.V. About Russian national consciousness - M., 2004.

9.Kozhinov V.V. Reflections on Russian literature. - M., 1991.

10.Kozhinov V.V. Russia as civilization and culture. - M., 2012.

11.Kozhinov V.V. Sin and holiness of Russian history. - M., 2006.

12. Kleist G. Betrothal in San Domingo. Novellas - M., 2000.

13.Losev A.F. Aesthetics of the Renaissance - M., 1978.

14. Nietzsche F. The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music // Op. In 2 volumes - M., 1990. T.1. P.75.

15. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Essays. - Minsk, 2007.

16.Ortega y Gasset. Theme of our time//Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and the USA: collection. articles. - M., 2000.

17. Flaubert G. On literature, art, writing - M., 1984.

18.Chaadaev P.Ya. Philosophical letters. Electronic resource: http://www.vehi.net/chaadaev/filpisma.html

19. Shakespeare V. Hamlet - Minsk, 1972.

20.Shelley. Selected works- M., 1998.

21. Spengler O. Decline of Europe. Volume 2 // Self-awareness of culture and art of the 20th century. Western Europe and the USA: collection. articles - M., 2000.

Speaking about early Russian symbolism, one cannot consider it outside of connection with Western European literature. It is significant that Bryusov and Balmont gave clear preference not to the French symbolists of the end of the century, but to the poets who are usually called their predecessors - Baudelaire, Verlaine and Mallarmé.

One of the creators of poetry big city, imbued with the tragic consciousness of the contradiction between the evil reigning in the world and the unattainable ideal of imperishable beauty, Charles Baudelaire influenced the Russian symbolists in many aspects of his work. Thus, there is no doubt about the connection between Baudelaire’s anti-aestheticism (a sign of protest against philistine good intentions) and audacity poetic images from early Bryusov. Baudelaire's tragedy will be reflected in Bryusov's poetry of the city, and Baudelaire's theme of painful evil in its demonic overtones was also characteristic of Sologub's poetry.

Russian symbolists picked up from Baudelaire the theory of “correspondences” - hidden, poetically comprehended analogies between mental and natural phenomena, between real world and the world of the poet’s own “I”. The poem "Correspondences" was perceived by the "senior" symbolists as an aesthetic manifesto of the new literary direction. The theme of “correspondences” is developed in the poems of Sologub (“There are correspondences in everything...”, 1898), Bryusov (“As a child, I knew no fear...”, 1900), Balmont (“Baudelaire”, 1904).

Symbolists highly valued the poetry of Paul Verlaine. “Before Verdun, there was no symbolism,” wrote Bryusov to P. Pertsov in 1905. Verlaine introduced into poetry the impressionistic art of capturing fleeting moments of life, the ability to capture and convey shades in changing sensations, impressions and moods and, as it were, to capture changing outlines through them outside world. Verlaine transferred dissatisfaction with life and poetic admiration for the beauty of nature into sketches tinged with sadness, metaphorically reproducing the “landscape of the soul” of the poet.

The decadent melancholy mood in the spirit of the “end of the century” (“fin de siècle”) was answered by the musicality of the lyrics, the melodic intonation of a naive song or romance and the “as if” incoherent flow of images. What struck Verlaine in his lyrics was the extraordinary palpability of the sound side of the verse, which sometimes obscured the meaning of the words - assonance, alliteration and rhyme. The words “music first” from Verlaine’s programmatic poem “The Art of Poetry” (1874) received great significance among the Symbolists.

“Landscape of the soul” in the manner of Verlaine is present in many symbolists (Balmont, Bryusov, Annensky). They were also brought closer to Verdun by the desire to reproduce the rapid change of impressions. The lesson of poetry thus consisted in the discovery of new poetic forms of knowledge of man and nature, perceived by the symbolists. However, we should not forget that the introduction to the poetry of Verlaine was already, to a certain extent, prepared for the Russian Symbolists by their assimilation of the poetry of Fet, whom they considered as the first Russian impressionist. In translations from Verlaine, Bryusov and other symbolists often have poetic images and phrases in the spirit of Fet.

Simultaneously with Baudelaire and Verdun, Stéphane Mallarmé entered the poetry of Russian symbolism. It was mainly Bryusov and Annensky who gravitated towards him. Mallarmé attracted Russian poets not so much with the content of his chamber poetry, the feeling of melancholy, emptiness of life and loneliness, but rather with the search for new means of poetic expression. His poems, strict in form and somewhat pathetic, contain hints of a secret meaning hidden in them, thanks to which objects of the external world (for example, a mirror or a fan) lose their material meaning and become symbols of the poet’s abstract ideas or experiences. Mallarmé mastered the art of allusion associated “with the obscuring” of the final symbolic meaning of poetic images. As a theorist, he demanded that the poetic impression be created through understatement. This position of the French poet formed the basis of Bryusov’s first theoretical statements, in which he defines symbolism as the art of allusion.

Russian symbolism echoes French in the aesthetic rejection of the bourgeois world and philistine complacency, however, anti-bourgeois rebellion manifested itself among Russian poets with greater certainty, which was caused by other historical conditions development of Russian literature at the turn of the century.

French symbolism was initially imbued with the spirit of social protest, but later pessimism and disbelief in man prevailed in it; art turned into an end in itself. Social protest originated in Baudelaire’s rebellious “Flowers of Evil” (1857), a book largely inspired by the 1848 revolution (more precisely, the July proletarian uprising), but completed after its defeat and therefore bearing a certain decadent overtones. The poetic work of Verlaine and Rimbaud contains echoes of the ideological connection with the Paris Commune, but its tragic defeat, in turn, contributed to their transition to the path of decadence.

Formed as a literary movement in the 80s. French symbolism was already devoid of social protest and evolved in the spirit of increasing decadent pessimism in it. “French symbolism after the fall of the Paris Commune is developing in a downward direction,” states its researcher D. D. Oblomievsky.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.