Standing Committee on Press Affairs with exclusive powers: the orders of the committee were considered the personal orders of Nicholas I. Appear in large numbers

Topic: “Western” and “Slavophile” journalism of the 1840s.

1. Russia 1840s The theory of “official nationality” in the press in the 2nd part of the 30s - early 40s.

2. The founders of “Slavophilism”. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov and Ivan Vasilyevich Kirievsky.

3. Slavophile publications.

4. Social meaning of “Westernism”

Literature

1. Esin B.I.. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century: Textbook. – M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2002.

3. Blagova T.I. The founders of Slavophilism. A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kirievsky. – M., 1995.

4. Pirazhkova T.F. Slavophile journalism. – M.: Publishing house Mosk. state University, 1997.

5. Chicherin B.N. Moscow in the forties. – M., 1997.

In the 40s Х1Х century socio-economic contradictions within Russia continue to grow, which gave rise to the movement of noble revolutionaries. Serfdom slowed down the economic and cultural development country, the situation of the people remained difficult. The dissatisfaction of the popular masses is increasing from year to year.

In the report of the III department for 1841 year recorded: “The thought of freedom for the peasants smolders among them continuously. These dark ideas are developing more and more and promise something bad.” The peasants spontaneously rise up in uprisings and riots. According to far incomplete data, in 1830s gg. was 105 peasant unrest, and in 1840s – 273 unrest, i.e. almost in 3 times more. Lynching of landowners and arson of estates are becoming common occurrences in the Russian countryside. The situation was so serious that the government at the end 1839 creates a special committee to consider measures related to alleviating the situation of serfs.

The internal policy of Nicholas I was aimed at doing everything possible to delay the collapse of serfdom and preserve the landowner system.

Active defenders of the theory of “official nationality” in the press in the 2nd part of the 30s - in the 40s became historian and journalist Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, writer and journalist Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev, Thaddeus Venediktovich Bulgarin, Stepan Anisimovich Burachek. Periodicals in the spirit of the theory of “official nationality” (autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality) are “Moskvitian”, “Northern Bee”, “Son of the Fatherland”, “Lighthouse”, “Reading Library” .

There are changes in public sentiment. The best people of their time no longer wanted to put up with the unbearable situation of the Russian population, with the centuries-old backwardness of their homeland. The example of the Decembrists inspired them to fight for freedom. The abolition of serfdom and democratic reforms became a historical necessity in the country. From 1840 to 1860, all social issues in Russia boil down to the struggle against serfdom.

On the other hand, the defeat of the Decembrists forced us to look for new ways of further development of the country: methods and means of its implementation. It was on these issues that they differed Westerners And Slavophiles. The problem on which the discussion ensued may be formulated as follows: is it historical path Is Russia the same as the path of Western Europe, or does Russia have a special path and its culture belongs to a different type?

1. The founders of “Slavophilism”. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov and Ivan Vasilyevich Kirievsky.

The answer that the Slavophiles gave about the essence and purpose of Russia is controversial. Nevertheless, they retain the enduring merit of clearly posing and discussing the problem of national Russian self-awareness. The merits of the Slavophiles, despite the romanticism of their worldviews on the Russian past, are great.

Slavophilism- a direction in social, literary and philosophical thought in Russia in the mid-19th century. Main ideologists - Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov (May 1(13), 1804 – October 5, 1860 – 56 years old). Born in Moscow, on Ordynka, into an old noble family, he was educated at home. In 1821 he passed the exam for the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences at Moscow University. He published actively (poems, translations). In 1822 he was assigned to military service. F 1825 leaves the service, goes abroad, takes up painting, writes the historical drama “Ermak”. In 1828 – 1829 Khomyakov takes part in the Russian-Turkish war, after which he retires and leaves for his estate, deciding to start farming.

Collaborates in various magazines. Basic theoretical position Slavophilism are set out by him in the article "About old and new"(1839). In 1838 he began work on his main historical and philosophical work, “Notes on World History.”

As a public figure, Khomyakov spoke from a liberal position for the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, for the introduction of freedom of speech, the press, etc. Since 1850, he has paid special attention to religious issues and the history of Russian Orthodoxy.

He considered the monarchy to be the only acceptable form of government for Russia, and advocated the convening of the “Zemsky Sobor,” pinning on it the hope of resolving the contradiction between power and land that arose in Russia as a result of Peter’s reforms.

While treating peasants during a cholera epidemic, he fell ill. He died on September 23 (October 5), 1860 in the village of Speshnevo-Ivanovsky, Tambov province (now in the Lipetsk region). Buried in Moscow.

He is the father of Nikolai Alekseevich Khomyakov, chairman III State Duma of the Russian Empire.

brothers Ivan Vasilievich And Petr Vasilievich Kirievsky - sons of the Oryol landowner Vasily Ivanovich Kirievsky and Avdotya Petrovna, nee Yushkova. They are champions of Slavophilism and representatives of its philosophy. The source of the European crisis of European enlightenment was seen in the departure from religious principles. He considered the task of original Russian philosophy to be the processing of advanced Western philosophy in the spirit of the teachings of Eastern patristics.

In his youth and youth I.V. Kirievsky was little religious. It so happened that he married the spiritual daughter of Seraphim of Sarov, an intelligent, well-educated girl. At first, he did not like his wife’s deep religiosity, and he allowed himself to blaspheme more than once in her presence.

The turning point occurred during a joint reading of Schelling’s works, when it became clear that much of what Schelling wrote was known to his wife from the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church. This amazed him so much that he himself began to read the works of St. Fathers and began relations with the elders of Optina Pustyn.

brothers Aksakovs (Konstantin Sergeevich And Ivan Sergeevich), Yuri Fedorovich Samarin. A literary and philosophical circle formed around these people.

Slavophilism took shape ideologically in 1839, when Khomyakov in the cabin Avdotya Petrovna Elagina read the report "About old and new" . This is the mother of the Kirievsky brothers, her teacher was V.A. Zhukovsky, stayed with them on the estate, Elagina is their second surname, Kirievsky at one time opened at his own expense the Oryol hospital where the wounded were kept, he was an educated man, collected a library, died of typhus). The house of Avdotya with Elagin (writer and translator) became the cultural center of Moscow in the 20s - 50s. Х1Х century Her children's classmates, professors from Moscow University, writers, and poets gathered.

Avdotya Petrovna actively participated in public life: helped her son in the publication of the magazine “European”, petitioned for censorship permission for “Philosophical Letters of P. Chaadaev”, was a translator. Elagina spent the last years of her life on her estate, coming to Moscow only for the winter.

I.V. Kirievsky responded with an article "In reply Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov" , which was not intended for printing (published in 1861). Both of these documents became programmatic for Slavophilism.

The main idea of ​​the Slavophiles is that only true, undistorted Christianity - Orthodoxy can give a person spiritual integrity. Only conversion to Orthodoxy will eliminate the spiritual duality that has plagued Russian educated society since the time of Peter.

Kirievsky and Khomyakov understood that Russian philosophical thought was more deeply rooted in Christianity than Western thought. The salvation of Russia lies in the development of Orthodox education and Orthodox culture, and not in imitation of European culture.

A brilliant analysis of the inconsistency of Russian and European principles was given by I.V. Kirievsky in the article “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relationship to the education of Russia.”

In the history of Russia there has been a merger of the spiritual values ​​of Orthodoxy with folk life. As a result of this, the “spirit of the people” took shape, thanks to which the people become a genuine subject of the historical process.

The greatest merit of the Slavophiles is that they began to view the nation as a spiritual phenomenon and stopped the tendency to blindly imitate European culture.

The Slavophiles saw the community as the structural unit of the organization of Russian folk life, the main characteristic of which is self-government. The communal structure is based on the principles of shared responsibility, the development of joint decisions in accordance with the voice of conscience, a sense of justice, and folk customs.

They had a timid idea of ​​democracy, which gave them the glory of opposition. However, this was a noble reaction to the capitalization of the country, which became a characteristic feature of Russian life in the 1830s - 1840s. The pressure of capitalist relations is increasing. Trade is growing, domestic and foreign, growing industrial enterprises, entrepreneurial methods penetrate into noble estates.

The theory of special development of Russia was no less conservative than the idea of ​​​​an “official nationality”, despite criticism from certain aspects of the autocracy. The attempts of the Slavophiles to find some special properties, qualities of the national spirit were of an abstract nature. Objectively, they also defended what existed, only in an idealized form, cleared of shortcomings. Slavophiles dreamed of patriarchal, peaceful relations between peasants and nobility, the monarchy, and the Orthodox Church. There will be neither revolution nor capitalism in Russia; philosophy, divorced from faith, is alien to it. Great hopes were placed on the rural community.

Many Slavophiles were indignant at serfdom and spoke out for the liberation of the peasants, but they were moderate in their criticism and did not want to part with noble privileges. It is also known that the Slavophiles rather sharply criticized the regime of Nicholas I, believing that the ruling circles of the St. Petersburg aristocracy did not take good care of the interests of the country. That is why the government treated the Slavophiles with distrust and banned their publications, although in their assessment of autocracy, the Slavophiles have always been staunch supporters of the monarchy.

Chapter 8

JOURNALISM 1840s

§ 1. Ideological quests of the “age of consciousness”

Forties of the 19th century. - one of the most interesting periods in the history of Russian journalism. This decade, outwardly not marked by any outstanding events, was a time of intense theoretical quest, one of the key stages in the development of Russian social thought. The passionate devotion of the advanced Russian intelligentsia to the world of ideas and ideals, the dedication of ideological quests created a special aura around this period and gave it special significance.

V. G. Belinsky called the 1840s “the era of consciousness.” The specifics of the ideological life of these years were determined, first of all, by the process of decomposition of feudal-serf relations and the crisis state of the state system. This crisis manifested itself in both the economic and political life of society. There is an increase in the number of peasant protests against the landowners and, at the same time, increased political pressure from the autocratic state. The crisis of the serfdom system in the forties became increasingly clear in connection with the growth of capitalist relations within the feudal state. At this time, there was rapid industrial development of the country, a revival of trade, and an increase in the class of small producers. If in the economic sphere the crisis was just beginning to manifest itself, then in the sphere of ideological life it showed itself most clearly.

In the forties of the XIX century. the activation of social thought led to the search for the most effective means of influencing the consciousness of contemporaries. Journalism became such a means. "Magazines-

“everything is crazy in our time,” Belinsky wrote during these years. “The magazine is everything, and... nowhere in the world does it have such great and important significance as it does here.” At the same time, the position of the press was determined by the policy of the autocracy regarding the media. According to the censorship regulations of 1828, Russian journalism was deprived of the right not only to criticize, but also to discuss any actions of the government and persons in the public service, even those at the lower levels of the class and bureaucratic ladder. To strengthen control over periodicals, the government used Division III. As part of the imperial chancellery, it stood not only outside the general system of government institutions, but to a certain extent significantly above them. In 1841-1842 in the III Division, in addition to the four existing ones, a fifth, censorship, expedition was organized. She was entrusted with "higher supervision" of periodicals. The expedition received a mandatory copy of all publications published in Russia; officials of Section 111 were members of each censorship committee, the number of which increased to twelve. Supervision of the press officially became part of the powers of the political police. Control of the press has become widespread.

In one of the memos to the III Department of F. Bulgarin, the loyal publisher of the Northern Bee, the gay man contained interesting evidence of the grips in which journalism was at that time. Bulgarin wrote: “For example, if I discovered that the baker was drunk and insulted a passing woman, I would have acquired enemies: 1) the Minister of Internal Affairs. 2) Military Governor-General. 3) Chief of Police. 4) Chiefs of Police. 5) Private bailiff. 6) Quarterly overseer. 7) City non-commissioned officer." Even Bulgarin, who can hardly be suspected of freethinking, expressed dissatisfaction with such a system of multi-stage control over the press.

The “system of concealing the truth,” as Bulgarin called the police-bureaucratic machine that controlled public opinion in autocratic Russia, functioned properly. Aware of the growing influence of the press on the mentality of society, the government in these years has continued to expand its sphere of influence in this area. One of them is strengthening the provincial press. Since 1838, “Gubernskie Gazette” began to be published in 41 provinces of Russia, which were of an official nature. Their content was strictly regulated. “Provincial Gazette” consisted of two parts - official and unofficial. The official printed the orders and instructions of the provincial boards, permitted by the government

Information about government affairs- as a rule, a reprint from St. Petersburg newspapers, most often from the Northern Bee. In 1846, a circular was created regulating the content of the unofficial part of the Vedomosti. Here, “based on the definition of the provincial government, the following news could be placed: 1) about emergencies in the province, 2) about market reference prices for various needs, 3) about the state of both state-owned and private significant factories and plants, 4) about granted privileges for invention and formation of companies, 5) about ways to improve Agriculture and home economics,” etc. The 22 paragraphs meticulously list the topics that provincial journalists were allowed to cover. With such a system of government and gendarmerie control, provincial bulletins of those years were, as a rule, mouthpieces of government information. In a secret circular order dated March 19, 1846, the chief of gendarmes obliged his subordinates to have “relentless monitoring of the provincial gazettes published in the provinces, reading them with attention, and to gain time, report directly to His Excellency the chief of the gendarme corps.” The very fact of encouraging publications in the provinces and closely monitoring them indicated that the tsarist government was aware of the importance of the press as a means of political influence on society. Based on this, everything was done to slow down the development of private publishing and, conversely, to give space to official publications. Departmental special publications were encouraged, mainly intended for a relatively narrow circle of readers, such as “Nouvellist”, “Musical Light”, as well as all kinds of “Notes” of various societies. In total, 53 publications were opened during the period from 1839 to 1848. Among them are 11 magazines, only 4 of which were of a literary and social nature: “Domestic Notes”, “Mayak”, “Moskvityanin”, “Finnish Bulletin”. The bulk of publications, along with the “Provincial Gazette,” were magazines, almanacs, and collections. There were significantly fewer newspapers, and they tended to be specialized. Only a few of them can be typologically classified as literary and social publications.

The government treated such publications with particular suspicion: they were the ones that enjoyed the greatest success among the reader. In the early 1840s, an attempt was made to paralyze the “harmful” influence of Otechestvennye zapiski by creating two new social and literary magazines - Mayak (1840) and Moskvityanin (1841).

They were led by S. A. Burachek and M. P. Pogodin - writers whose way of thinking was in full accordance with the official ideology. The government had high hopes that they would be able to resist liberal and democratic ideas. But that did not happen. The magazines were published at a low professional level, took little into account the needs of readers, and were not topical. The circulation of these publications was small, and the social impact was not comparable to the journalism of Otechestvennye Zapiski. “Mayak” and “Moskvityanin” preached official patriotism, and often militant obscurantism.

At a difficult historical crossroads, after the suppression of the Decembrist movement, the country, “frightened into thought,” according to N.P. Ogarev, faced the problem of understanding the paths of further development, Russia’s place among other peoples and states. The catalyst for this process was revolutionary events in Europe. In a bizarre interweaving of theories, teachings, and political schemes in Russian society in the forties, the main ideological trends were determined - serfdom, liberal and democratic. The concepts of official nationalism, Westernism and Slavophilism, as well as the ideology of Russian democracy, are formalized.

The basis of government ideology was the so-called theory of official nationality. Its main postulates were formulated back in the 1830s by the Minister of Public Education S. Uvarov. The very fact of the appearance of this theory and the support that the government gave it were natural. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, in connection with the strengthening of the liberation movement in Europe, the revolutionary events of the thirties in France, which shook the foundations of the Holy Alliance, the Russian government acutely felt the need for an ideological system that could withstand both the ferment of minds within the country and the influence of social movement The West, and in particular France, where the word “revolution”, hated by monarchs, again appeared in the civil lexicon.

The establishment of a unified ideological regime in the country was considered as a reliable means against the influence of the revolutionary ideas of the West. Uvarov called Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality “truly Russian protective principles,” which, as he wrote, constituted “the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.” "The monarchical form of government, according to the concept, was declared to be the only one corresponding to the spirit of the Russian people, and serfdom was the natural state

loyal subjects; religion was called upon to sanctify these principles. “The task of theory is to pacify “turbulent impulses towards the foreign, to the unknown, to the abstract in the foggy field of politics and philosophy”, “to multiply, wherever possible, the number of mental dams.”

At the other pole of social life, in the forties, an opposite official ideology of Russian democracy was formed, which was distinguished by deep irreconcilability towards the serfdom system, which hampered the process of development of the country, and a desire for social reconstruction of society. In the “great confrontation” of these ideologies, the ideological crisis of the serfdom system was clearly revealed.

In the 1840s, liberal trends of Westernism and Slavophilism took shape. Despite the well-known convention of these terms, they quite accurately reflect the content and internal orientation of the ideological programs created by representatives of these directions. It should be noted that until the forties, Russian social thought in opposition to the government essentially did not know any divisions and was to a certain extent homogeneous, despite the many shades within it.

Born of the crisis of the serfdom system, intensive searches for ways to change the social system in the forties went in two directions. One part of Russian thinkers, the so-called Westerners, focused their main attention on the study of the historical experience of the West, the state structure of countries that are more economically and politically developed. The Russians were especially interested in France, which had experienced major revolutionary upheavals. The “Europeanization” of Russia, which Westerners advocated, meant, first of all, the desire to include the country in a single process of world historical development.

Westerners were critical of serfdom, but the revolutionary nature of the changes was alien to them. It is no coincidence that the final ideological demarcation in this camp occurred in the second half of the forties, when the revolutionary movement began in Europe. On the eve of the revolution, differences clearly emerged between the liberal part of Westernism and its radical wing, led by Belinsky and Herzen. Both Ge and others were focused on studying the historical experience of Europe. But the liberal part of Westernism was more interested in the problems of state, cultural, and economic development of Europe, which had taken the path of capitalist development. The ideologists of revolutionary democracy carefully studied the social experience of Europe and, most of all, the experience of the revolution.

Having emerged on the same axis of social tension as the Western

nichestvo, the Slavophile movement, in search of the ideal of social order, turned to the study of history, the political system and the spiritual life of pre-Petrine Russia. Slavophiles put forward the thesis about the original path of historical development of Russia. This originality, in their opinion, was given to it by the fact that Russia, which adopted Christianity from Byzantium, did not know conquest and therefore formed its own unique way of social life, based on the Christian community. The Slavophiles, who focused their attention on the religious foundations of Russian life, were alien to the idea of ​​the inevitability of revolutions and social upheavals. They rejected serfdom as a form of violence against the individual, contrary to the spirit of Christian brotherhood. The Slavophiles' criticism of serfdom was sympathetically perceived by Belinsky and Herzen, but at the same time they sharply criticized the theory of the Slavophiles for its historical limitations and religious mysticism.

I [the presence of three political forces in society, three ideological camps was reflected in the press. The following trends are identified in the publications of this time. First of all, these are numerous official publications that reflected the ideological guidelines of the feudal state: magazines of ministries (Ministry of Internal Affairs, public education, state property), provincial gazettes, “Northern Bee”, government bulletins and the bulk of specialized publications. In addition, the press of this period reflected the processes associated with the development of bourgeois relations and realized in the ideology of liberalism, which united the political forces opposed to the tsarist autocracy - Westerners and Slavophiles. On the left flank of this trend, the ideology of revolutionary democracy was formed.

The process of political differentiation of society in the forties was most directly reflected in the press. As Belinsky wrote, “magazine opinions divide the public into literary coteries.” The reader's attention to a particular press organ was determined primarily by its direction, and this direction, in turn, was determined by that. what ideological positions the publication preached.

However, one cannot imagine the matter as if there were press organs that “sterilely” clearly adhered to one or another ideological orientation. In terms of political qualities, the press of the forties was an extremely complex, motley and contradictory phenomenon. Almost every publication experienced ideological fluctuations throughout the decade. This happened, for example, with the magazine “Moskvityanin”. Created as a body of official ideology

ology, in 1845 it passed into the hands of the Slavophiles and, under the editorship of P. V. Kireevsky, changed direction. This period did not last long, only three months. Then the magazine returned to its original position of the official nationality. In 1843, changes occurred in the direction of the official newspapers “Moskovskie Vedomosti” and “Russian Invalid”. Despite the fact that these newspapers were controlled by government agencies - Moscow University and the Ministry of War, respectively - they were rented by private individuals. The editor of the unofficial part in Moskovskie Vedomosti was E.F. Korsh, and the “Russian Invalid” was A.A. Kraevsky. From that time on, their content was formed under the strong influence of the democratic journal Otechestvennye zapiski. The same thing happened with the St. Petersburg Gazette in 1847, when the newspaper was headed by A. N. Ochkin.

The newspaper world of this period was not very diverse. The Russian reader still had a hard time understanding the difference between a newspaper and a magazine. Determined since the 18th century. a type of official newspaper, like. for example, “St. Petersburg Vedomosti” was still firmly on its feet. The detachment of the official and semi-official press was represented by the provincial newspapers and the semi-official “Northern Bee”. Nevertheless, in the forties, some changes were observed both in the content model of newspapers and in the expansion of the typology of publications.

The type of “literary newspaper” that emerged in the early 30s with the participation of A.S. Pushkin was finally established in the forties. "Literaturnaya Gazeta" of this period became one of the leaders of the newspaper market and shared the democratic positions of "Otechestvennye Zapiski".

Her creative biography consists of several periods, the most interesting of which were 1841-1845. At this time, I. A. Nekrasov actively collaborated with the newspaper, and in 1844-1845. - V. G. Belinsky, other authors of “Domestic Notes” were published. The newspaper's social and literary position was clearly manifested in polemics with Northern Bee and other pro-government publications. The democratic press viewed Bulgarin's publications as a means of disorienting the reader and constantly exposed their methods of influencing subscribers.

Establishment of the principles of critical realism in literature, defense of the achievements of the “natural school” with its close attention to the tragedy of the individual in an autocratic state, education of a thinker critical of reality

reader - this is an incomplete list of problems addressed by the newspaper.

The intensification of polemics in Literaturnaya Gazeta with Bulgarin coincided with the campaign against the head of “reptilian” literature, which in 1842 and 1843. Belinsky was especially active in Otechestvennye zapiski. In almost every article in the “Literary and Magazine Notes” series, he did not miss an opportunity to respond to the malicious attacks of the publisher of the “Northern Bee” or comment on his opinion.

Neutralizing Bulgarin was important for the progressive press also because on the pages of his publications Gogol and Lermontov were constantly criticized, that is, writers whose work Belinsky associated with the development of a new method of literature - critical realism. The interpretation of Gogol's works is one of the main polemics of the forties. Literaturnaya Gazeta was in full agreement with the position of Otechestvennye Zapiski. It is characteristic that the main speeches of the newspaper about Gogol’s work coincided in time with Belinsky’s reviews in Otechestvennye zapiski.

When the collected works of Gogol were published at the end of 1842, Literaturnaya Gazeta hastened to immediately inform its readers about it. Commenting on this event, she called Gogol’s story “The Overcoat” and the play “Marriage”, which were first published there, “remarkable.” The article, in a parody form, set out all possible opinions of critics about Gogol’s work. And although not a single name was mentioned here, it was clear that the newspaper was fighting against the same targets as Belinsky: “In Moscow they will begin to prove,” the reviewer sneered, “that Gogol is the Aristophanes and Terence of the present century; others will refute this and will only show that before and after Gogol there was and will not be Russian literature; still others will find fault with typos and incorrect turns of language.” “Finally, the fourth,” the author wrote, referring, of course, to Bulgarin’s point of view, “will begin to prove that Gogol is a completely mediocre person, whom his friends glorify for bringing down other satirical writers. Well, this will be pure satire on Russian literature: where do we have these satirical writers who can be dropped and who could at least measure themselves against Gogol in some way.”

For the purpose of polemics, Literaturnaya Gazeta used any hint. Thus, about Bulgarin, she sarcastically remarked: “He confuses the format with the size of the paper, and this is the same difference as in the works of Gogol and Bulgarin.” The polemical meaning of this comparison will become clear if we keep in mind that Bulgarin repeatedly declared Gogol’s lack of talent and argued that he cannot be compared

even with such writers as Odoevsky and Sollogub, “who are higher than Mr. Gogol, like Chimborazo is higher than Pulkovo Mountain.”

Along with defending Gogol against his false interpreters, the newspaper drew attention to the work of Lermontov. The review of Lermontov’s “Poems” indicated that the development of his talent “promised a lot of brilliant and imaginative things.” Literaturnaya Gazeta was one of the few Russian publications that reported the death of the poet. A message about this appeared in the 89th issue for 1841 under the heading “Literary and theatrical news.” Apparently, for censorship reasons, the newspaper was unable to devote more space and attention to the death of the disgraced poet.

Speeches by Literaturnaya Gazeta on issues of theatrical art are also of great interest. Let us name the main directions along which theater criticism developed on the pages of the newspaper. This is, firstly, a deep dissatisfaction with the theater repertoire, a desire to influence the formation of the viewer’s aesthetic tastes, to educate him in a critical attitude towards the entertainment theater that dominated then. Secondly, serious thoughts about the specifics and purpose of dramatic genres, about the role of the theater critic. Thirdly, the fight against the pseudo-patriotic works of noted Russian playwrights G. Obodovsky and N. Polevoy, exposing their anti-artistic essence.

In 1844 and 1845 in the newspaper, as already noted, Belinsky and Nekrasov collaborated most intensively. In the field of literary theory, Belinsky’s article “A Look at the Main Phenomena of Russian Literature in 1843,” published in the 1st and 2nd issues of 1844, and “On Parties in Literature” - in the 17th issue of 1844, can be considered programmatic. 1845

Of great interest was the section “Notes for the owners” in the Literaturnaya Gazeta. It was led by A.I. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, a famous Russian economist, author of the famous article “On the reasons for fluctuations in bread prices in Russia,” which was published in 1847 in “Domestic Notes” and received an approving review from Belinsky. In 1845, in the 8th issue of Literaturnaya Gazeta, a note appeared signed by Nikifor Rabotyagin entitled “On the current state of bread prices in different places in Russia,” apparently written by Zablotsky, which can be considered a kind of preparation for a large magazine article . The general democratic position of the newspaper was reflected even in such an insignificant, at first glance, subsection as “Kitchen”. It was led by V.F. Odoevsky, who in the feuilleton

In a certain form, he ridiculed those for whom “stomach functions are the main and only ones in life.”

In 1845, material appeared with the title “Letters to Doctor Poof.” In the first letter, the author, who called himself Dok Knuf, asked questions such as: “Tell me, why are there so many people who have nothing to eat? What will your rich science spare for the poor man who has chaff for his food? Can you teach me how to make consommé, salami, pudding or roast beef from chaff and water?” “...Don’t forget,” the author warned, “that this is a very important subject. The poor, I think... are the majority everywhere.” These kinds of hints acquired a social meaning, and the “Kitchen” section was only a kind of screen behind which topical thoughts were hidden.

In 1845, six weeks after the publication of F. Engels’s book “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” the first Russian review of it appeared in the Literary Gazette, which indicated the publication’s obvious interest in pressing social problems.

The Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper changed direction in 1843, when E. F. Korsh became editor. E. Korsh was friendly with Herzen, Granovsky, Ogarev and shared their views. Moskovskie Vedomosti showed great interest in the study of social problems.

In particular, a lot of materials devoted to economic issues are published here. Issues of free trade, tariff systems, and scientific literature on economics were especially actively discussed. Moskovskie Vedomosti initiated controversy on these issues. At the same time, economic problems were considered together with social ones.

Characteristic evidence can be, for example, the article “On the Future of Money,” published in 1846. “Whoever has money,” it said, “enjoys everything: honor, distinction, pleasure and peace. The rich man plays the main role everywhere, sets the tone, controls, orders. Poor means almost nothing or is only a thing that others use, deriving their own benefits from it.” The article directly expressed the hope that such an order would be eliminated: “There is no way to allow the dominion of money and the depraved way of life resulting from it to have an endless future.”

E. Korsh's newspaper published sharp anti-serfdom materials, for example, “The Liberation of Negroes in the French Colonies.” In an allegorical form, the article sounded demanding

In the process of liberating Russian peasants from serfdom, their situation was directly compared with the slavery of blacks.

This 1844 article attracted the attention of the censors, especially the following passage: “Slavery is contrary to the laws of morality; it corrupts both master and slave; the first by giving him irresponsible, continuously oppressive power over his slaves... the latter by likening him to cattle, replacing all rational activity with fear of the whip and blind obedience.” The chief of gendarmes, A. Orlov, rightly found in it “a broader meaning that does not apply only to blacks.” The newspaper was given a warning, but despite this, in 1846, in the article “Slavery in the French Colonies,” these same thoughts were sharpened to the limit: “Slavery, which corrupts masters and destroys slaves, cannot be ennobled, but must be exterminated as as soon as possible."

In 1847, the first attempt was made to create a city newspaper. It was the Moscow City Leaflet. The newspaper existed for only one year. It was published 2 times a week and, judging by the content, intended to become a competitor to the leading newspaper of the country - Bulgarin's Northern Bee. The editor of the newspaper, V. Drashusov, made efforts to establish constant information about the life of Moscow. In January 1847, the “Department of City Rumors” appeared, which soon gave way to others: “Trade Movement”, “Shows and Entertainment”, “Announcements”, “Moscow”. But the newspaper failed to establish an information service.

The editors were unable to decide on the direction. The editorial staff was extremely diverse. S. Shevy-rev, M. Zagoskin, D. Veltman - writers and publicists of the official direction - published here, at the same time A. D. Galakhov, a regular author of "Domestic Notes", collaborated. The newspaper published an essay by A. I. Herzen “Edrovo Station”. “physiological essays” by E. Grebenka, a writer of the “natural school,” were published.

The inconsistency of the position of the Moscow City List can be illustrated by the following example. Starting from the 3rd issue, it published lectures by Moscow University professor S. Shevyrev “A General View of the History of Art and Poetry in Particular.” In them, a lot of space was devoted to Western fiction. Western literature, according to the author, has outlived its usefulness: “The spiritual personality of the West has ended its period.”

Turgenev, like many other Russian writers, went through the school of romanticism. It was a hobby that I had to go through. The romantic beginning in the work of early Turgenev was the basis for the writer to develop an artistic system, which would then become part of his creative method.

Already in Turgenev's early work - a dramatic poem " Steno"(1837) - motifs of world sorrow, the loneliness of a person who feels like a stranger in a world of beautiful and harmonious nature are heard. In the poem" Talk"(1844) the cross-cutting theme is the idea that the "brazen feast of people" is opposed by the greatness of nature. The poem "Conversation" in composition (dialogue-argument between an old desert man and a young man) and rhythm is reminiscent of Lermontov's "Mtsyri". Here one of the main The theme of Turgenev's work is the problem of "fathers" and "children", their mutual misunderstanding. The hero of "Conversation" - a young man infected with reflection - is the predecessor of "superfluous people" in the writer's stories and novels. He is psychologically opposed to Mtsyri, he is a symbol of the "broken strength."

“Wall” and “Conversation” are exclusively romantic works with pronounced attributes of romance. The main subject of the image in them is the inner world of man, the content is the spiritual search for the ideally beautiful.

A special place in Turgenev’s work of the 1840s. belongs to the poem " Parasha"(1843), written in imitation of "Eugene Onegin" in plot and verse. It clearly sounds social motives, although painted in romantic tones. The meaning of the poem is revealed in the contrast between satirical pictures of landowner life and the depth of the heroine’s longing for a romantic ideal, which has no place in the vulgar everyday life of existence. Unlike Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin", there is neither Lensky nor a duel in this poem, and the heroine's first love ends in marriage. In this well-being, according to the author, lies the true tragedy of the heroes, who were not touched by the saving grace of suffering, which cleanses the soul. The study of living connections between man and society, man and nature, outlined in the early works, will be continued in the works of the late 1840s and early 1850s.

The era of the 1840s, not without the influence of Belinsky, declared war on romanticism as an obsolete literary movement. In this struggle, Turgenev took a special position: without rejecting romantic means of depicting heroes, he saw the “inadequacy” of romanticism in its indifference to pressing social issues and public problems. These ideas are reflected in the stories "Andrey Kolosov" (1844), "Three Portraits" (1845), "Breter"(1847). In "Breter", a story almost unnoticed by Turgenev's contemporary criticism, romanticism, which took on ugly egoistic forms in the image of Avdey Luchkov, was given a severe verdict, as, indeed, was the soft-hearted good-naturedness of Kister, who was unable to defend his feelings. Together with Thus, Turgenev saw the vitality of many forms, means and techniques of romanticism, without which the artist could not imagine art. In this case, we are not talking about romanticism as a literary movement, but about romance as a special type of attitude to life. The romantic principle in Turgenev’s creative method is manifested in differently.

An important technique for creating the psychological appearance of a character is detail. The idealizing, romantic principle receives artistic embodiment in the combination of the real and the fantastic. The originality of the psychological appearance of the romantic nature was fully manifested in Turgenev’s first significant work "Notes of a Hunter". The main character of the cycle is the author-narrator, complexity inner world which is determined by the combination of two levels of storytelling: a sharply negative image of feudal reality and a romantically direct perception of the secrets of nature. In one of the best stories in the series "Bezhin Meadow" nature appears in the perception of the heroes (it is no coincidence that these are children) and the narrator as a living force that speaks to people in its own language. Not everyone can understand this language. In the author’s perception, a real detail becomes a symbol of the mystical: the dove is the “soul of the righteous,” and the “wailing sound” that instills awe in those gathered around the fire is the voice of a swamp bird. The narrator, wandering through the forest, lost his way in the dark (a real detail) and “suddenly found himself over a terrible abyss” (a romantic touch), which turned out to be a prosaic ravine. The ability to perceive the miraculous, the desire to join the mystery of nature and man becomes the emotional key of the story, fulfilling the function of characterizing the narrator.

Contemporary criticism of Turgenev, recognizing him as a psychologist and an excellent lyricist, denied the writer his humorous and satirical talent. Π. N. Polevoy wrote that Turgenev imitates Gogol in the satirical scenes of his works. P. V. Annenkov and A. V. Druzhinin - close friends of Turgenev - usually interpreted satirical scenes as a necessary psychological release of the reader's tension or as the author's good-natured fun or prank.

Subsequent criticism - A. M. Skabichevsky, Yu. I. Aikhenvald (beginning of the 20th century) - stubbornly adhered to these views and only in the late 1930s. N.K. Piksanov expressed the opinion of the need to study Turgenev’s satire. Of course, Turgenev is not a satirist in the full sense of the word, but satire is organically inherent in his work. In the writer's stories, short stories, and novels there are all types of comedy: from gentle ridicule to caustic irony and sarcasm.

Merging with the main lyrical-romantic stream of his works, Turgenev’s satire differs from the “pure” satire of Saltykov-Shchedrin. Turgenev really follows the tradition of Gogol, who saw in the combination of the lyrical and satirical principles the only possible way for him to convey a picture of Russian life.

Gogol's influence on the young Turgenev was undoubtedly reflected in the poem " landowner"(1846). Using Gogol's favorite technique, satirical contrast, Turgenev builds the plot on identifying the discrepancy between the external significance of the hero and his internal failure. The object of the satirical exposure becomes the district nobility and the Slavophil idealization of serfdom as a form of ideology that justifies existing order of things. At the same time, the lyrical theme in the poem is associated with the image of the author-narrator, constantly addressed to the reader-interlocutor. They clearly indicate the “Pushkin” turn in resolving the topic: the author-narrator and his assessment of what is depicted take the form of a direct judgment, albeit of an emotional rather than rational nature: "O pitiful, weak race! O time // Half-bursts, long thoughts // And timid things! Oh century! Oh tribe // Without faith in your own mind." What we have before us is Turgenev’s version of the characterization of the phenomenon that in “Eugene Onegin” was defined as “the blues.” In Chapter XXV of the poem, Turgenev, quite in Pushkin's style, gives a description of a county ball, laid with a rustic simplicity of the table for the guests of the kind widow: " Here is a handsome old man, // A well-known bribe-taker - and here // The luminary of the world, the idle bari, // Orator, agronomist and spendthrift, // Oddball, for your own amusement // Treating his own people..."

Published in the Petersburg Collection, the poem became a unique stage in the development of the theme of serfdom in the series Notes of a Hunter.

The story brought Turgenev literary fame "Khor and Kalinich"(1847), published in Sovremennik and highly appreciated by readers and critics. The success of the story stimulated Turgenev’s decision to continue the work, and in subsequent years he would create a number of works included in the book “Notes of a Hunter” published in 1852.

The critical pathos of the depiction of the Russian nobility in this work is due to Turgenev’s negative attitude towards the moral foundations of serfdom, towards its social function. In all the essays and stories of "Notes of a Hunter" the writer uses some general principles images: each essay or story is based on a few plot episodes and descriptive characteristics of the characters. The author conveys details of the characters’ poses, gestures, and speech, and the selection and sequence of their appearance before the reader is motivated by the figure of the narrator, his movement in space and time. In this regard, the main semantic load falls on the descriptive elements: on the portrait and everyday characteristics of the characters and the retelling of their stories about their lives in the past and present.

The comedy of situations is very often combined with the comedy of situations that reveal the discrepancy between the characters' claims and their essence. Often this form of the comic manifests itself in the monologues of the heroes, which turn out to be a means of self-exposure of the character. So, in "Hamlet of Shchigrovsky district" the hero of the essay, Vasily Vasilyevich, confesses at night, in the dark in front of a stranger, opening his heart to him. Hamlet's famous "to be or not to be, that is the question..." in the setting of the Shchigrovsky district does not elevate the hero above the crowd, but, on the contrary, becomes a reason to expose the inconsistency of the protest "under the pillow." The subject of ridicule is the entire system of hothouse education of the nobility, which gives rise to worthless idealists incapable of anything.

In the story "Ovsyannikov's Palace" before us appears a Slavophile landowner dressed in a coachman's caftan, causing a feeling of bewilderment and laughter in the peasants with his attempts at “nationality”. Landowner Penochkin from the story " Mayor" - a sophisticated European and a "progressive" owner - he himself does not flog the servant for not warming the wine up enough, but simply gives the order to "make arrangements for Fedor."

In "Notes of a Hunter" an important feature of Turgenev's artistic method emerges: detailed characteristics of everyday life, the environment, significant descriptive fragments of the narrative - the path to mastering the skill of generalization.

The anti-serfdom, socially accusatory essence of “Notes of a Hunter” was noted not only by Turgenev’s contemporary critics. Minister of Education A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov described the work to Emperor Nicholas I as follows: " Substantial part The articles contained in the book have a decisive direction towards the humiliation of landowners, who are either presented in a funny and caricatured, or more often in a form reprehensible to their honor." The publication of "Notes of a Hunter" caused irritation and discontent in official circles: a reason was needed to punish the writer Turgenev himself gave this reason by publishing in the Moskovskie Vedomosti "Letter from St. Petersburg" - an article in connection with the death of Gogol, which the censorship had not previously allowed through. The writer was arrested and sent to "moving out". The period that followed the arrest lasted two years (without trial and investigation) exile to Spasskoye-Lutovinovo, and only in 1854 Turgenev received freedom.

To the "Notes of a Hunter", stories and poems of the 1840s. are closely related to Turgenev's plays in their satirical problematics. The main themes of Turgenev the playwright were criticism of the moral impotence of the Russian nobility, ridicule of the “riot” of sublime romantic feelings that prevent one from seeing real life. In the writer’s work, it became very popular in the 1840s. one-act comedy genre: " Carelessness" (1843), "Lack of money" (1846), "Breakfast at the Leader's"(1849). Such a comedy can be considered as a form of dramatized “physiological” essay, built on the technique of self-exposure of characters through a situation of dialogue and communication. In a two-act play" Freeloader"(1848) Turgenev continues to develop a gallery of types in the spirit of the "natural school". The hero of the play - Vasily Kuzovkin - is a "nobleman living on bread." This is one of the first in Russian literature the image of a "jester", a hanger-on, which will be developed psychologically by Dostoevsky in a diversified way . The hero is clearly aware of the injustice of the world around him, but only in the most acute moments of life is he capable of protest, which, however, quickly loses its relevance. Turgenev creates the first psychological drama in Russian literature, which revealed the features of human social psychology. The study of the social psychology of types of Russian reality will be continued in a five-act drama "A Month in the Country"(1850). In the play, the peaceful existence of the provincial Islaev family is disrupted by the arrival of student Belyaev, with whom the owner of the estate and her pupil fall in love. The love triangle that arises in the work becomes a means of debunking the emptiness and worthlessness of the existence of all characters without exception.

Comedy Bachelor", which continued the traditions of the natural school and defended the moral dignity of "little people", Turgenev successfully debuted as a playwright on the St. Petersburg stage in 1849. The writer had plans to continue his dramatic work, but interrupted it, having finished working for the vaudeville theater " Provincial" (1851) and a dramatic scene "Evening in Sorrento" (1852).

The events that unfolded in France caused a sharp aggravation of the ideological and political confrontation between democratic and liberal circles of Russian society. Turgenev, who was always sensitive to changes in the social climate, returned to prose (the story “The Diary of an Extra Man,” 1849; “Correspondence,” 1850; “ Calm", 1854), in which he addresses the problem of ideological confrontation between the revolutionary and reformist understanding of the further development of Russian society. Typical in this regard is the story "The Calm", where Turgenev tries his hand at a new artistic manner. The basis of the story is a story about the lack of will of the nobility, leading to tragedy both in public and on a personal level. Unlike “The Diary of an Extra Man,” in “The Calm” Turgenev refuses the method of psychological self-exposure of the character and seeks to express a critical attitude towards the hero through the plot organization of the material and its compositional solution. Realizing the need to change aesthetic guidelines, the writer admitted in one of his letters to Annenkov: “We need to take a different road<...>and bow out forever in the old manner. I have tried quite hard to extract divisible essences from human characters... But the question is: am I capable of something big, calm! Will simple, clear lines be given to me?

In 1846, Belinsky left Otechestvennye zapiski.

Back in the spring of 1844, the Slavophiles began negotiations with M.P. Pogodin about transferring his “Moskvitian” to their editorship. “Moskvityanin”, distinguished, according to I. Kireevsky, by “the complete absence of any clear direction,” at that time was the only magazine in Moscow, and therefore its pages were occasionally used by Khomyakov, Granovsky, Soloviev, and Herzen. By that time, “Moskvityanin” had only about 300 subscribers and was eking out a miserable existence.

Under the terms of the agreement reached by the end of 1844, I. Kireevsky, once the publisher and editor of the European, became the unofficial editor of the Moskvityanin. His name was not included on the cover, but this fact was not hidden from the government. Pogodin remained the owner and publisher of the magazine, and he continued to run its historical department. I. Kireevsky hoped that after the publication of three or four issues the magazine would noticeably strengthen its financial position. He needed at least 900 subscribers in order to, having settled with Pogodin, get “Moskvityanin” at his complete disposal.

I. Kireevsky, who by that time had not published anywhere for ten years, took up the new task with ardent enthusiasm. His daytime was devoted to editorial duties, and at night he wrote his own articles. For the updated “Moskvityanin”, I. Kireevsky prepared more than a dozen works, including introductory notes to materials by other authors, and a program article “Review of the modern state of literature” that was published as a continuation, and reviews for the department “Criticism and Bibliography”, which he led together with the young philologist F.I. Buslaev. Under I. Kireevsky, two new departments appeared in the magazine - “Foreign Literature” and “Agriculture”.

Moscow collection” did not go unnoticed in society. Yu. F. Samarin wrote from St. Petersburg, which was unfriendly to Slavophiles: “He sells well, he is read everywhere, in all circles, and everywhere he creates talk, controversy, etc. Some praise, some scold, but no one remained indifferent to him " Encouraged by this, Panov prepared the next collection, the circulation of which he intended to increase to 1200 copies.

“Moscow Literary and Scientific Collection for 1847” was published in March of this year. In terms of the composition of materials and the range of authors, it resembled the previous one, although it became more voluminous. The positions of the Slavophiles, as the year before, were represented in it by the works of Khomyakov (“On the Possibility of a Russian Art School”), K. Aksakva (“Three Critical Articles of Mr. Imrek”), as well as articles by Chizhov and Popov. Intended for the previous “Moscow Collection”, K. S. Aksakov’s work consisted of reviews of three St. Petersburg publications: the collection “Before and Today” prepared by V. A. Sollogub, “An Experience in the History of Russian Literature” by A. V. Nikitenko and “ Petersburg collection" by I. A. Nekrasov. Accusing St. Petersburg literature of “isolation from the Russian land,” K. Aksakov pointed out the need for a different approach to depicting the people, “the powerful guardian of life.” great mystery”, and as an example of this he noted the story of I. S. Turgenev “Khor and Kalinich”.

Solovyov spoke here with an article “On Localism.” The collection also included fragments of Karamzin’s letters, and its poetic part, in addition to previous authors, was replenished by Zhukovsky, Ya. P. Polonsky and Yu. V. Zhadovskaya.

The Slavic theme was widely represented: “A Look at the Current State of Literature among the Western Slavs” by Sreznevsky, a continuation of “Letters from Vienna” by Rigelman and an excerpt from Pogodin’s letters entitled “Prague”, as well as Serbian folk songs in translations by N.V. Berg, already known to readers from “Moskvityanin” and the previous collection.

After the publication of the Moscow Collection for 1847, the Slavophiles intended to continue it in next year. K. Aksakov proposed reducing its volume, but releasing it with greater frequency. However, the publication was not destined to come true, just like the magazine “Russian Bulletin”, which Yazykov and Chizhov intended to publish since 1848, four times a year.

“Russian Conversation” is a Russian magazine of Slavophile direction, published in Moscow in 1856-1860. Publisher-editor - A.I. Koshelev. Since 1858, I.S. Aksakov actually edited the magazine<*>. As a supplement to "R.b." in 1858 and 1859, the magazine “Rural Improvement” was published, dedicated to issues of peasant reform. In "R.b." there were departments of fine literature, science, criticism, review, mixture, biography; works by S.T. Aksakov, V.I. Dahl, “Profitable Place” by A.N. Ostrovsky, poems by A.S. Khomyakov, F.I. Tyutchev, A.K. Tolstoy, I.S. Aksakov, I S. Nikitin, T. G. Shevchenko, unpublished poems by E. A. Baratynsky, V. A. Zhukovsky, N. M. Yazykov and others. The most significant articles in the “Science” and “Criticism” sections were: “On the need and the possibilities of new beginnings for philosophy" by I.V. Kireevsky, "The dying unfinished essay" by A.S. Khomyakov, "On truth and sincerity in art" by A.A. Grigoriev, "Two words about nationality in science" by Yu.F. Samarina and others. In the field of philosophy, the magazine defended idealistic ideas and promoted Orthodoxy as an absolute theological and philosophical truth. The magazine opposed the peoples Western Europe the Russian people, supposedly developing according to special laws due to primordial national characteristics. "R.b." advocated the preservation of the peasant community after the reform, the release of peasants with land for ransom, and the abolition of the death penalty; tried to connect the preaching of religion among the people with the spread of universal literacy. The magazine advocated freedom of speech according to the formula: for the tsar - full power, for the people - freedom of opinion. The progressive circles of society were repulsed by "R.B." her religious orientation, negative attitude towards socialism, the revolutionary movement; Conservative circles viewed the magazine with suspicion because of its independent stance on certain issues. "Contemporary"<*>in the person of N.G. Chernyshevsky, he first tried to use the magazine in the fight against the reactionary organs of the Russian press on the basis of protecting the community and democratic freedoms. However, very soon irreconcilable contradictions became clear between the direction of Sovremennik - the journal of revolutionary democracy - and the liberal-protective position of R.B.

14.​ History of the magazine “Sovremennik” N.A. Nekrasova. “Sovremennik” during the revolutionary situation in Russia (1859-1861). Journalism and criticism N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova. Dobrolyubov’s satirical application “Whistle”

"Contemporary" Nekrasov

Created by A. S. Pushkin in 1836, issued once every three months. After the poet’s death, II was published one issue at a time. A. Vyazemsky, A. A. Kraevsky, V. F. Odoevsky and N. A. Pletnev. In 1838, St. Petersburg University professor P. A. Pletnev became its permanent editor and publisher.

By 1846, the closest associates of V.G. Belinsky, based on “Notes of the Fatherland,” N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev firmly decided to create their own magazine. The editor was A.V. Nikitenko, publishers Nekrasov and Panaev.

The new "Sovremennik" took the best from the practice of "Domestic Notes": the volume of the publication was increased to 25 author's sheets, the title of "Sovremennik" read: "Literary magazine", and now subscribers could receive the best domestic and foreign works as an appendix. literary works. Twice a year, complete bibliographic lists of all books published in Russia were issued.

Main departments in the magazine were already familiar to the reader: “Literature”, “Sciences and Arts”, “Criticism and Bibliography”, “Mixture”, “Fashions”. The face and direction of Sovremennik were primarily determined by the Literature department, where, according to Belinsky, “Russian stories with a Gogolian direction” set the tone. Suffice it to name fourteen stories by I. S. Turgenev from “Notes of a Hunter”, A. Grigorovich’s story “Anton the Miserable”, “Polinka Sax” by A. Druzhinin, essays by A. I. Goncharov, E. Grebenka, “The Thieving Magpie” "A.I. Herzen. In addition, in the appendix to the first issue of 1847, readers received the novels “Ordinary History” by I. A. Goncharov and “Who is to blame?” A. I. Herzen. Nekrasov’s poems “Troika”, “Hound Hunt”, “Am I Driving Down a Dark Street at Night”, etc. were published here. From Sovremennik, the Russian reader became acquainted with the novels “Dombey and Son” by Charles Dickens, “Tom Jones” by Fielding, “ Lucrezia Floriani” by J. Sand and with many other wonderful works of Western European literature.

Under the leadership of Belinsky, who considered having a position as an indispensable condition for the success of the magazine in the eyes of the reader, the “Science and Arts” department was internally transformed. Published here historical articles K. D. Kavelina “A look at legal life ancient Russia" and S. M. Solovyov "Daniil Romanovich, Prince of Galitsky." At In this case, historical problems were considered by the authors of Sovremennik “from the point of view of the present.”

Article examples: N. Satin’s article “Ireland” published in the science department caused a great domestic resonance. The Irish theme in the democratic press of Russia was used as a reason in an allegorical form to draw attention to a pressing problem - the plight of the peasants as a consequence of the unsatisfactory state system and economic relations. Satin's article contained a significant warning: Ireland needs a radical revolution in all social relations, and if it does not happen, social upheavals are possible, which, according to the author, will not be slow to appear.

Public position"Contemporary" - anti-serfdom. These ideas literally permeated all the publications of the magazine, even those that were under the heading “Modern Notes” in the “Mixture” department and, as a rule, were small but voluminous materials on various topics. So, in 1847, under this heading, the magazine published several opinions on the management of landowners’ lands, one of which, in particular, told about a manager who can spank a peasant with a whip so that he will remember this lesson “until new brooms.”

Sovremennik stood out among other publications for the certainty of its assessments, diversity of content, clarity of structure, and talented and original forms of presenting material. Even a department like Fashion looked unusual compared to the same department in other magazines. The thoughtful editorial policy of Sovremennik, directed by Belinsky, and the efforts made by Nekrasov and Panaev to attract the best authors, allowed the magazine to successfully compete with other publications, win “its reader,” and become the leader of the Russian magazine world.

Along with the growth of popularity, the pressure from censorship. Particular attention was drawn to Belinsky’s reviews, articles by V. A. Milyutin, and the general direction of the journal. In May 1848, Belinsky died, in the same year, in connection with the events of the French Revolution, the censorship of the magazine became more severe, and Nekrasov, as the main leader, had to exert a lot of effort and skill to guide his publication through all the reefs of the changed political situation of the “dark seven years” ", as contemporaries called the period 1848 to 1855.

"Contemporary" during the revolution. Journalism II. G. Chernyshevsky and II. A. Dobrolyubova

During the period of social upsurge in Russia, the Sovremennik magazine took a central place among the periodicals of the 60s. During these years, Sovremennik underwent a significant internal evolution, in which three periods can be roughly distinguished:

Second half of the 1850s: development of a new direction, change in the circle of employees;

- 1859-1861: the most radical socio-political and literary positions of the magazine;

1862-1866: censorship difficulties, decline in circulation, gradual loss of influence.

The internal evolution of the magazine was greatly facilitated by the renewal of the circle of employees. The appearance of Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky in Sovremennik in 1854 was important in determining the socio-political direction of the magazine. By the beginning of his work at Sovremennik, Chernyshevsky had already developed his materialistic views in the field of philosophy and aesthetics, ideas about the purpose of literature and literary criticism. Subsequently, these ideas were embodied and developed in Chernyshevsky’s literary critical and journalistic activities.

Already his first speeches in Sovremennik attracted attention with the definiteness and harshness of his judgments. Reviews of works by M.A. Avdeeva, novel by Evg. Tour “Three Holes of Life” and the play by A.N. Ostrovsky’s “Poverty is not a vice” caused a protest in literary circles. Speaking about Avdeev, Chernyshevsky wrote that his works “are well written, but there is no freshness in the novel, it is sewn from worn scraps, and the stories do not meet the standards of our century, which is ready to come to terms with shortcomings of form rather than with shortcomings of content, with a lack of thought.” " Even more severe is Chernyshevsky’s review of Eug.’s “Three Times of Life.” Tour, where he finds “neither thought, nor plausibility in characters, nor probability in the course of events, an immeasurable emptiness of content dominates everything.” Chernyshevsky’s assessment of Ostrovsky’s new comedy “Poverty is not a Vice” was also sharply negative, in which the critic discovers “falsity and weakness” and sees “the apotheosis of ancient life.”

In 1856-1858 Sovremennik, however, in its direction was not much different from other liberal publications that welcomed the tsar’s rescripts. Chernyshevsky’s position was strengthened with the arrival of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov to the editorial office, who began collaborating with the magazine back in 1856, and from 1857 headed the critical and bibliographic department. Dobrolyubov’s arrival at Sovremennik was a great success for Chernyshevsky.

Like Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov came to Sovremennik with defined views. Already the first article published in Sovremennik, “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word,” attracted the attention of readers with its independent judgments and passionate denunciation of the empirical (“bibliographic”) trend in the history of literature and criticism. From his first publications in the magazine, Dobrolyubov declared his loyalty to the tradition of Belinsky, advocating realism and the nationality of literature, against aesthetic criticism.

Dobrolyubov’s work at Sovremennik was very intense. In 1858 alone, he published 75 articles and reviews. Dobrolyubov’s work is marked by certainty and integrity: his philosophical beliefs and social program, ethics and aesthetics, view of literature and the tasks of criticism are distinguished by a rare unity of feeling and thought. The starting point in his system of views is the denial of the social system of contemporary Russia, which is revealed in the uncompromising nature of his criticism, directed against autocracy and serfdom, against their corrupting influence on all layers of society (“Village life of a landowner in the old years”, “What is Oblomovism?”).

The idea of ​​a deep social revolution, the meaning of which Dobrolyubov saw in the socialist ideal (even at the beginning of 1857, he called himself a “desperate socialist”), is revealed by him in the articles “Robert Owen and his attempts at social reforms”, “Incomprehensible strangeness”, etc. Dobrolyubov’s arrival at Sovremennik contributed to the magazine’s self-determination as an organ of democracy; its attitude towards liberals, who were completely satisfied with the government course, was extremely skeptical. The critic is irreconcilable in his characterization of the liberal intelligentsia, seeing more and more evidence of “our Manilas,” he proves the need for a political demarcation of forces in the opposition environment, and pins his hopes on the “younger generation.”

Dobrolyubov's view of literature was formed under the deep influence of Belinsky. However, belonging to the era of sharp polarization of socio-political forces, Dobrolyubov, unlike Belinsky, for whom the value of art was represented in the fullness of phenomena, focused primarily on the socially transformative role of literature. Dobrolyubov's criticism developed into a sociological and journalistic study of Russian life, which revealed its weakness - the danger of a utilitarian approach to literature as a means subordinate to a journalistic task.

Dobrolyubov’s satirical application “Whistle”

A significant role in strengthening the radical direction of Sovremennik in 1859-1861. played the satirical department "Whistle", The initiator of the creation was Nekrasov, the main author was Dobrolyubov. Chernyshevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, as well as brothers A.M. took part in the department. and V. M. Zhemchuzhnikovs and A. K. Tolstoy, who performed under the pseudonym Kozma Prutkov. A total of nine issues were published (in 1859 and 1860 - but three issues, in 1861, 1862 and 1863 - but one). The editors of Sovremennik even came up with the idea of ​​turning the department into an independent newspaper. “Whistle” was the brainchild of Dobrolyubov. He outlined topics and authors, carefully developed a program for the upcoming newspaper, which, however, was not destined to appear. The overwhelming majority of the materials in “Whistle” were written by him.

In my own way ideological content"Whistle" was closely connected with the journalism of "Contemporary". Feuilletons, satirical couplets, and poetic parodies were devoted to topical socio-political and literary problems. The main task of “Whistle” was the fight against the mania of accusations that gripped the entire writing section Russian society on the eve of reforms. Using irony and parody as forms of Aesopian writing, Dobrolyubov ridiculed liberals’ enthusiasm for the success of Russian progress. Widely using the forms of poetic parody and rehash, Dobrolyubov the satirist acted under the guise of either a writer, an admirer of everything beautiful, admiring the eloquence of the heroes of the liberal press, or the unlucky Konrad Lilienschwager, or the “Austrian” but chauvinist Jacob Ham, or in the image of a “young talent” obsessed with an “unbearable love for poetry”, Apollo Kapelkin. A number of satirical reviews were written by him together with Nekrasov.

A significant place in “Whistle” was occupied by the works of Kozma Prutkov, who in 1854 became one of the main employees of the “Literary Jumble” - the humorous department of “Sovremennik”. After five years of silence, this literary mask reappeared on the pages of Sovremennik and became the most popular character in Whistle. The active author of “Whistle” was Nekrasov, who after Dobrolyubov’s death in 1861 headed the department. The popularity of "Whistle", according to contemporaries, was enormous, especially in 1859-1860, during the leadership of Dobrolyubov.

Question No. 15

Political position of Kolokol

On April 13, 1857, the publication of the Kolokol newspaper was announced. At first it was planned as “additional sheets” to the “Polar Star”, but in the process of preparation it turned into an independent publication. The Bell was published on July 1, 1857, and ran for ten years. It was a long, difficult journey, during which, due to changing living conditions in Russia and the evolution of the views of the newspaper’s publishers, its tactics, content, structure, and circle of authors changed. In its development, “The Bell” went through three stages:
1857-1861 - the period of rise and highest popularity and influence of the publication (circulation reaches 3000 copies);
1862-1864 - a time of loss of popularity and cooling of the Russian reader (circulation drops to 500 copies).
1865-1867 - translation of “The Bell” to the continent, attempts to establish contacts with the “young emigration”, lack of demand for publication in Russia.
Until 1858, The Bell was published once a month, then its frequency increased to twice a month, and from June 21, 1859, it was sometimes published every week.
The first two issues of Kolokol did not yet contain materials sent from Russia. But already in the fifth issue (sheet), the editors reported on a huge amount of correspondence that came to the newspaper from the Motherland. By the time “The Bell” was published, contacts had been established with Russia, which gradually began to be established after the release of “The Polar Star”.

Herzen's publications had a significant influence on the actions of government spheres. Publishers regularly received information that Alexander II himself was closely following the Bell.

By 1857-1858 refers to the plan of a number of high-ranking officials to create a press organ that could counteract the Bell. The issue of publishing the anti-“Bell” was the subject of special discussion at meetings of the State Council. However

By 1859-1860 refers to the polemic between “Kolokol” and “Sovremennik” about the attitude towards accusatory literature and other issues, but on which discrepancies were identified in the publication programs.
On March 1, 1860, a “Letter from the Province” signed by a Russian person was published in Kolokol. The letter was a continuation of the controversy that flared up between Sovremennik and Kolokol.
The anonymous author reproached Herzen for insufficient radicalism, for striving for a peaceful solution to the peasant question, for the fact that the Bell “changed its tone,” that he should “not preach the gospel, but ring the alarm bell,” “call Rus' to the axe.”

Herzen’s preference for a peaceful “autocratic revolution” at that time was associated with hopes for the tsar and the possibilities of supreme power. These hopes were based on the historical experience of Russia, the development of which since the time of Peter I was largely determined by the actions of the government and the educated nobility. In addition, the publicist considers it impossible and immoral to call “to the axes” from London.

The controversy between Kolokol and Sovremennik in 1859-1860. showed that with general ultimate goals They saw the means of solving the peasant question differently, and each of them followed his own line. While Sovremennik, before the reform, categorically separated itself from the liberals, Kolokol sought to unite various opposition forces, trying to use all opportunities to liberate the peasants peacefully, through reforms.

In the pages of European newspapers in October - November 1861, reports about student unrest in Russia were regularly published. “Kolokol” responded to these events with a number of articles: “St. Petersburg University is closed!”, “About student beatings,” “Third Blood!”, “The Giant Awakens!” Herzen greeted the students: “Praise you! You are starting a new era, you have realized that the time of whispering, distant hints, forbidden books is passing. You are still printing secretly at home, but you are clearly protesting.”

Young Russia expressed sharp criticism of Kolokol, accusing it of liberalism and its publishers of losing its revolutionary spirit.
Herzen responded to the “Young Russia” proclamation and the events that followed it with the article “Young and old Russia", published in the "Bell" on July 15, 1862. Then this topic was developed by the publicist in the article "Journalists and Terrorists." These articles marked a new stage in Herzen's understanding of revolutionism. He emphasizes that a revolution can only be popular, and no conspiracy of an “educated minority” can accomplish it, and therefore, “as long as the countryside, village, steppe, Volga, Ural are calm, only oligarchic and guards coups are possible.” Herzen believes that people can be called to revolution only when they are ready, “on the eve of the battle.” Any premature call is “a hint, a message given to the enemy, and an exposure of one’s weakness to him.” Responding to the reproach of Young Russia that the publishers of Kolokol have lost all “faith in violent coups,”

Herzen’s theory of “Russian socialism” acquired certainty in the means of achieving the goal. Choosing between revolution and reform and most often leaning towards a peaceful solution to problems, the publicist rejected extremism in all its manifestations and proposed
multivariate development depending on specific historical conditions. These reflections were reflected in the series of letters “Ends and Beginnings” (1862), addressed to Turgenev and which were a continuation of disputes about the historical destinies of Western Europe and Russia and the prospects for their development. According to Herzen, the revolutionary spirit of the West is dead, bourgeois Europe has written the last page of its history. He contrasts the European “ends” with the Russian “beginnings,” which he sees in the rural community and in the liberation traditions of the Russian people. Moreover, speaking about the ways of development of the movement, he specified that “the general development plan allows for an infinite number of unforeseen variations.” Thus, from the unequivocal decision in favor of the revolution to the events of 1848, Herzen, developing the theory of “Russian socialism” and adjusting it in accordance with changing historical conditions, came to realize the multivariate nature of development.

The situation in which Kolokol found itself in 1863, the loss of popularity to which Poland’s support led the newspaper, were not a consequence of Bakunin’s influence, but were the result of a conscious choice by the leaders of Kolokol. Despite the difficulty of choice, despite all the doubts and hesitations when “I wanted to shut up”, but “it was absolutely impossible to shut up.” In the climate of terror and reaction in Russia, Herzen could no longer refuse to support Poland, although this cost him the popularity of the Bell.

“The Bell” for Herzen was not only a political, but also a literary matter, and few of the young emigrants proved their ability for literature.
Herzen’s main task at the beginning of the Geneva stage of the publication was to again determine the environment of his readers, to create among them a network of permanent correspondents, so that the Bell could gain its former strength. Declaring to readers the need to send not only articles, but also, in particular, correspondence, the editors paid special attention to the relevance of their content. Previous experience has shown that correctly selected current issues Russian reality determined the popularity of "The Bell", its Active participation in the life of Russia.

Having emerged during the years of social upsurge in Russia and relying on hundreds of reader-correspondents, at the time of the decline of the democratic movement, deprived of a direct connection with the homeland, Kolokol could no longer continue its previous existence. Understanding this and not wanting to remain silent at all, Herzen plans to publish “The Bell” for Europe in French.