Larisa Strelnikova. V. Kozhinov about Russian and Western literary consciousness: interaction and confrontation. The influence of Western European literature on Russian symbolism

12.04.2019

INTERACTION OF RUSSIAN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN LITERATURES OF THE END OF THE 15TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURIES

I.N. Nikitina

The article highlights the main aspects of literary interaction between Russian and Western European literatures at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. The historical and literary processes that influenced the development of the aesthetics of pre-romanticism in Russian literature are considered.

Key words: Prose, drama, sentimentalism, pre-romanticism, novel, hero, image

Russian literature of the 18th century developed and enriched itself through wide international communication. The period of transition from classicism to romanticism was characterized by great interest in Western European literature, from which Russian writers took what was necessary and useful for the development of free artistic creativity. The quality of novelty and the depth of originality of national literature largely depended on the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures.

A major role in introducing Russian literature to world ideas, plots and images was played by the dramaturgy of W. Shakespeare, the poetry of E. Jung, D. Thomson, T. Gray, the work of L. Stern, J.-J. Russo, I.V. Goethe, I.G. Herder, F. Schiller.

Of the English prose writers, the most popular was L. Stern, author of the novels “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy” (1759-1762), “A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy” (1768). Stern was interested as the creator of the genre of sentimental travel, as a writer capable of broadly covering the inner world of a person, able to show the originality of his inner experiences, when the sublime and the ordinary, heroic and base, good and evil are intricately combined in a person and give vent to his passions. Stern's artistic discoveries were adopted by European literature, including Russian literature.

Stern gained the greatest popularity in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, when “The Beauties of Stern or a collection of the best ego-pathetic stories and excellent observations on life for sensitive hearts” (M., 1801) were published and when numerous imitations of Karamzin and “Travel” appeared. Stern (Shalikov, Izmailov, etc.) and as a rebuff to the extremes of sentimentalism - the comedy of A.A. Shakhovsky “New Stern” (1805). Karamzin was also one of the fans English writer. This manifested itself in his first novel, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (1791-1792) and in the autobiographical story “A Knight of Our Time.”

German literature had a particularly strong influence on Karamzin. The poetry of Schiller, Goethe and representatives of Sturm und Drang, in originals and translations, was well known in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. German writers F.M. Klinger and J. Lenz lived and worked in Russia. Living threads stretch from German pre-Romanticism to Russian. Preferring German literature to French, Karamzin began to get acquainted with it back in Moscow, in the late 70s. thanks to the “Friendly Scientific Society” N.I. Novikova. Karamzin learned a lot about cultural and literary life Europe thanks to his travels in 1789-1790 through Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Of the German writers of that time, H.M. had a great influence on him. Wieland (“History of Agathon”) and G.E. Lessing (“Emilia Galotti”).

Pre-romantic tendencies in Karamzin’s worldview and creativity appeared in the late 80s. As a pre-romantic, he at that time lost faith in sentimentalist concepts of world harmony and the “golden age” of humanity. In the writer’s worldview, nature turns from one that sympathizes with humanity into a fatal, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive force; man is just a toy of terrible elemental forces. The laws of society are no longer in harmonious combination with the laws of nature; they now oppose them. Karamzin tried to show all this in his story “The Island of Bornholm” (1794), steeped in the romance of the Ossian North. One of the essential signs of pre-romanticism is a refined sense of nature and, as a consequence of it, “landscape painting” in works of art. Under the influence of Rousseau, Stern, Jung, Thomson and Gray, “landscape painting” also appears in the works of Karamzin (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”, “Spring Feeling”, “To the Nightingale”, “Lily”, “Proteus, or the Disagreement of the Poet”, “ Village"). Unlike the hero of works of sentimentalism, the hero of pre-romanticism literature does not accept the order of things in life as it is. This hero is a rebel by nature, the heroic and the ordinary, the good and the evil are intricately combined in him, as in the heroes of Schiller's dramas. A new hero for Russian literature was discovered in the pre-romantic poetry and prose of Karamzin 1789-1793. In the novel “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, in the stories “ Poor Lisa", "Natalia, the Boyar's Daughter", "Bornholm Island", "Sierra Morena", "Julia" Karamzin significantly expanded the possibilities of Russian literature, turning to the disclosure of the rich spiritual life of the inner world of man, his “I”. By the mid-90s. Karamzin changes his ideological and artistic positions: he moves away from pre-romanticism and turns to sentimentalism.

Impact Western European literature A.N. is also experiencing Radishchev. During his investigation

Bulletin of Bryansk State University. 2016(1)

the writer admitted that the creation of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” was influenced, in addition to Herder and Reynal, by Stern in German translation[Babkin, 1957, 167]. The images of Yorick and the Traveler are similar in their humane mood and warm sympathy for the disadvantaged; The episode of the Traveler's meeting with the blind singer at the Klin station is reminiscent of the episode of the meeting of the Traveler Yorick with the monk Lorenzo. Radishchev argues with Stern, rejects the deistic moral system of English sentimentalist writers, which is clearly manifested in the chapter from “Travel” called “Edrovo”.

The differences between Stern's and Radishchev's Travels are much greater than the similarities. They are completely different in genre. Radishchev's "Journey" is closer to satire, a political pamphlet. Stern’s laughter, which, in the words of T. Carlyle, is “sadder than tears,” did not find a response from A.N. Radishcheva.

The influence of Herder's ideas on literary process Russia. Radishchev was the first to mention Herder in his “Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow” in the chapter “Torzhok”; assessments of Russians also went back to Herder folk songs and the origins of the Russian character in the chapters “Sofia” and “Zaitsovo”, as well as opinions on the role of language in society in the chapter “Kresttsy”. The organic assimilation of Herder's ideas by Radishchev is confirmed by the entire work of the author of "Travel", in which the philosophy of history is inseparable from the theory of popular revolution. Both Derzhavin and Karamzin, who met with Herder and translated some of his works in 1802-1807, turned to Herder, but did not agree with the German thinker on everything.

The creative work of the classics of German literature Goethe and Schiller did not go unnoticed in Russia. Until 1820, Goethe was known in Russia primarily as the author of “The Sorrows of Young Werther,” a typically pre-Romantic work, translated for the first time into Russian in 1787. At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. Werther was often remembered, this work was often quoted, he was imitated (for example, Radishchev in the chapter “Wedge” of his “Journey”, Karamzin in “Poor Liza”). Goethe's lyric poetry was also popular.

They learned about F. Schiller and his work in Russia in the second half of the 1780s. Schiller's dramas “The Robbers”, “The Fiesco Conspiracy”, “Cunning and Love”, “Mary Stuart”, “Don Carlos”, “William Tell” played a significant role in the formation of the new “romantic” theater in Russia. Along with other phenomena of pre-Romanticism, everything new that Schiller’s drama brought with it was also perceived. Schiller was widely read in Russia.

The consideration of the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures can be continued further. Their influence on Russian literature is undeniable.

The article covers the main aspects of literary interaction of Russian and West European literatures at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. The historico-literary processes which influenced the development of the esthetics of Preromanticism in Russian literature are considered.

Keywords: Prose, dramatic art, Sentimentalism, Preromanticism, novel, hero, image

References

1. Berkov P.N. Basic questions of studying Russian enlightenment // Problem of Russian enlightenment in the literature of the 18th century. M., Leningrad, 1961. P. 26.

2. History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes. T. 4, M.-L., 1947

3. Babkin D.S. Process A.N. Radishcheva. M.-L., 1957

4. Lukov V.A. Pre-romanticism. M., 2006

6. Pashkurov A.N., Razzhivin A.I. History of Russian literature of the 18th century: Textbook. for students of higher educational institutions: at 2 o'clock - Yelabuga: Yerevan State Pedagogical University. -2010. - Part 1.

7. Makogonenko G.P. Radishchev and his time. M., 1956

Nikitina I.N. - candidate philological sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian, Foreign Literature and Mass Communications, Bryansk State University named after Academician I.G. Petrovsky, [email protected]

STRUCTURE OF THE INITIATION MOTIF IN PROSE ABOUT THE FIRST AND SECOND WORLD WARS

O.E. Pokhalenkov

The article is devoted comparative analysis structures of the initiation motive in works about the First and Second World Wars. The nuclear-peripheral motive model in the works of Erich Maria Remarque, Richard Aldington, Ernest Hemingway and Viktor Nekrasov is identified and considered. The movement of the motif from the core to the periphery and vice versa allows us to talk about the plot-forming function of the motif in the works of writers. Certain typological convergences also appear at the spatiotemporal level. The presence of common features of different levels of text (compositional, motive-thematic and spatio-temporal) among writers of German, American, English and Russian literature allows us to draw a conclusion about the typological commonality of the motivic structures of the structures under consideration. Key words: motive of initiation, comparative literature, military prose, composition, plot, artistic space.

The motive of initiation and its role in the structure of a literary text are considered by V.Ya. Propp in his book “Morphology of the Fairy Tale”. Propp argued that the structure of the plot of a fairy tale reflects the process of initiation (he turned to totemic initiations as an example). However, this motif lies not only at the heart of the tale's plot. When considering the motive structure of military prose, we identified a set of motives similar to those analyzed by Propp in his “Morphology”.

This article examines the motive of initiation in the structure of military prose1.

In the traditional sense, initiation is a rite relating to a particular stage of culture. In the psychological sense, initiation2, as M. Eliade puts it, is “an ahistorical archetypal behavior of the psyche.” In many cases, initiations are accompanied by difficult psychological and physical tests. At the end of initiation, purification rites are performed. Typically, the newly initiated receives certain insignia that highlight the social distinction between initiates and non-initiates.

Our model is based on the traditional (three-part) initiation scenario, according to which the initiate moves away from people, undergoes death-transformation, and is reborn as a different person. The material was prose about the First World War: three novels about the First World War (“On Western Front no change" E.M. Remarque, “Death of a Hero” by R. Aldington and “A Farewell to Arms!” E. Hemingway), as well as the story by V. Nekrasov “In hometown"about the Second World War.

So, the first stage, moving away from people, corresponds to the stage of growing up, or the preparatory stage. The second is about everyday life at the front and the third is about revival. Each of the stages has own characteristics on different levels text: compositional, motive-thematic and spatio-temporal. Let's look at the first stage in more detail.

I. Compositional level.

It should be noted that this stage is presented in different ways in the text. We can find the most complete picture of growing up and upbringing in Remarque and Aldington. Both authors describe in detail the growing up of the central character, his spiritual world, family relationships, friends, etc. An explanation for this can be the task that the writers themselves set for themselves when writing their works. After all, both Remarque and Aldington did not just create a text about the First World War - they tried to discover and explain the causes of the tragedy. Hemingway (like Nekrasov), unlike Remarque and Aldington, gives extremely scant information about the hero’s young years (childhood and adolescence). This can be interpreted as follows. If Remarque and Aldington need to show the development of the hero’s worldview - from support for government policy and war to complete denial, then Hemingway and Nekrasov had a completely different task. America neither acted as an aggressor, like the German Empire, nor was it an active participant in hostilities from the first days, like England. Therefore, Frederick Henry Hemingway is a solitary hero, he is not one of many, like Remarque’s Paul Bäumer or Aldington’s George Winterbourne. His participation in hostilities is his personal choice, which is dictated by his inner convictions. That is why it is not so important for the reader to know about his past: about the hobbies of childhood and youth, about family and friends. The main thing is to realize the trauma that the war itself caused, to understand the motives for his refusal to fight at the front and his deliberate flight from the front line. Kerzhentsev fulfills his duty, acts as a defender of his homeland, so Nekrasov focuses on the real hero, giving only rare allusions to his past.

1 It is worth noting that war poetry about the Second World War has already been analyzed from the point of view of the rite of passage [see: 2]. The work of Remarque and Aldington was also analyzed [see: 8, 9].

2 Of particular interest is the article by R. Efimkina “Three initiations in “feminine” fairy tales", which presents an interpretation of the ritual from a psychological aspect.

Literary studies 189

INTERACTION OF RUSSIAN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN LITERATURES

END OF THE 18TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURIES

I.N. Nikitina

The article highlights the main aspects of the literary interaction between Russian and Western European literatures at the turn of the century

18-19 centuries. The historical and literary processes that influenced the development of the aesthetics of pre-romanticism in Russian literature are considered.

Key words: Prose, drama, sentimentalism, pre-romanticism, novel, hero, image Russian literature of the 18th century developed and was enriched in wide international communication. The period of transition from classicism to romanticism was characterized by great interest in Western European literature, from which Russian writers took what was necessary and useful for the development of free artistic creativity. The quality of novelty and the depth of originality of national literature largely depended on the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures.

Herder, F. Schiller.

Karamzin was also one of the fans of the English writer. This manifested itself in his first novel, “Letters of a Russian Traveler” (1791-1792) and in the autobiographical story “A Knight of Our Time.”

Karamzin learned a lot about the cultural and literary life of Europe thanks to his travels in 1789. in Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Of the German writers of that time, H.M. had a great influence on him. Wieland (“History of Agathon”) and G.E. Lessing (“Emilia Galotti”).

Pre-romantic tendencies in Karamzin’s worldview and creativity appeared in the late 80s.

As a pre-romantic, he at that time lost faith in sentimentalist concepts of world harmony and the “golden age” of humanity. In the writer’s worldview, nature turns from one that sympathizes with humanity into a fatal, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive force; man is just a toy of terrible elemental forces. The laws of society are no longer in harmonious combination with the laws of nature; they now oppose them. Karamzin tried to show all this in his story “The Island of Bornholm”, steeped in the romance of the Ossian North.

(1794). One of the essential signs of pre-romanticism is a refined sense of nature and, as a consequence, its landscape painting” in works of art. Under the influence of Rousseau, Stern, Jung, Thomson and Gray, “landscape painting” also appears in the works of Karamzin (“Letters of a Russian Traveler”, “Spring Feeling”, “To the Nightingale”, “Lily”, “Proteus, or the Disagreement of the Poet”, “ Village"). Unlike the hero of works of sentimentalism, the hero of pre-romanticism literature does not accept the order of things in life as it is. This hero is a rebel by nature, the heroic and the ordinary, the good and the evil are intricately combined in him, as in the heroes of Schiller's dramas. A new hero for Russian literature was discovered in the pre-romantic poetry and prose of Karamzin 1789-1793. In the novel “Letters of a Russian Traveler”, in the stories “Poor Liza”, “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter”, “Bornholm Island”, “Sierra Morena”, “Julia” Karamzin significantly expanded the possibilities of Russian literature, turning to the disclosure of the rich spiritual life of the inner the world of man, his “I”. By the mid-90s. Karamzin changes his ideological and artistic positions: he moves away from pre-romanticism and turns to sentimentalism.

A.N. also experiences the influence of Western European literature. Radishchev. During the investigation of him 190 Bulletin of Bryansk State University. 2016(1), the writer admitted that the creation of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” was influenced, in addition to Herder and Raynal, by Stern in the German translation [Babkin, 1957, 167]. The images of Yorick and the Traveler are similar in their humane mood and warm sympathy for the disadvantaged; The episode of the Traveler's meeting with the blind singer at the Klin station is reminiscent of the episode of the meeting of the Traveler Yorick with the monk Lorenzo. Radishchev argues with Stern, rejects the deistic moral system of English sentimentalist writers, which is clearly manifested in the chapter from “Travel” called “Edrovo”.

The influence of Herder’s ideas on the literary process in Russia is absolutely obvious. Radishchev was the first to mention Herder in his “Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow” in the chapter “Torzhok”; assessments of Russian folk songs and the origins of the Russian character in the chapters “Sofia” and “Zaitsovo” also went back to Herder, as well as opinions on the role of language in society in the chapter "Sacrums". The organic assimilation of Herder's ideas by Radishchev is confirmed by the entire work of the author of "Travel", in which the philosophy of history is inseparable from the theory of popular revolution. Both Derzhavin and Karamzin, who met with Herder and translated some of his works in 1802-1807, turned to Herder, but did not agree with the German thinker on everything.

Early 19th century Werther was often remembered, this work was often quoted, he was imitated (for example, Radishchev in the chapter “Wedge” of his “Journey”, Karamzin in “Poor Liza”). Goethe's lyric poetry was also popular.

They learned about F. Schiller and his work in Russia in the second half of the 1780s. Schiller's dramas “The Robbers”, “The Fiesco Conspiracy”, “Cunning and Love”, “Mary Stuart”, “Don Carlos”, “William Tell” played a significant role in the formation of the new “romantic” theater in Russia. Along with other phenomena of pre-romanticism, everything new that Schiller’s drama brought with it was also perceived. Schiller was widely read in Russia.

The consideration of the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures can be continued further. Their influence on Russian literature is undeniable.

Keywords: Prose, dramatic art, Sentimentalism, Preromanticism, novel, hero, image References

1. Berkov P.N. Basic questions of studying Russian enlightenment // Problem of Russian enlightenment in the literature of the 18th century. M., Leningrad, 1961. P. 26.

2. History of Russian literature: In 10 volumes. T. 4, M.-L., 1947

3. Babkin D.S. Process A.N. Radishcheva. M.-L., 1957

4. Lukov V.A. Pre-romanticism. M., 2006

7. Makogonenko G.P. Radishchev and his time. M., 1956

– – –

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the structure of the initiation motif in works about the First and Second World Wars. The nuclear-peripheral motive model in the works of Erich Maria Remarque, Richard Aldington, Ernest Hemingway and Viktor Nekrasov is identified and considered. The movement of the motif from the core to the periphery and vice versa allows us to talk about the plot-forming function of the motif in the works of writers. Certain typological convergences also appear at the spatiotemporal level. The presence of common features of different levels of text (compositional, motive-thematic and spatio-temporal) among writers of German, American, English and Russian literature allows us to draw a conclusion about the typological commonality of the motivic structures of the structures under consideration.

Key words: motive of initiation, comparative literature, military prose, composition, plot, artistic space.

This article examines the motive of initiation in the structure of military prose1.

Our model is based on the traditional (three-part) initiation scenario, according to which the initiate moves away from people, undergoes death-transformation, and is reborn as a different person. The material was prose about the First World War: three novels about the First World War (“All Quiet on the Western Front” by E.M. Remarque, “Death of a Hero” by R. Aldington and “A Farewell to Arms!” by E. Hemingway), as well as the story IN.

Nekrasov “In My Hometown” about the Second World War.

So, the first stage, moving away from people, corresponds to the stage of growing up, or the preparatory stage.

The second is about everyday life at the front and the third is about revival. Each stage has its own characteristics at different levels of the text: compositional, motive-thematic and spatio-temporal. Let's look at the first stage in more detail.

I. Compositional level.

Hemingway (like Nekrasov), unlike Remarque and Aldington, gives extremely scant information about the hero’s young years (childhood and adolescence). This can be interpreted as follows. If Remarque and Aldington need to show the development of the hero’s worldview - from support for government policy and war to complete denial, then Hemingway and Nekrasov had a completely different task. America neither acted as an aggressor, like the German Empire, nor was it an active participant in hostilities from the first days, like England. Therefore, Frederick Henry Hemingway is a solitary hero, he is not one of many, like Remarque’s Paul Bäumer or Aldington’s George Winterbourne. His participation in hostilities is his personal choice, which is dictated by his inner convictions. That is why it is not so important for the reader to know about his past: about the hobbies of childhood and youth, about family and friends. The main thing is to realize the trauma that the war itself caused, to understand the motives for his refusal to fight at the front and his deliberate flight from the front line.

Kerzhentsev fulfills his duty, acts as a defender of his homeland, so Nekrasov focuses on the real hero, giving only rare allusions to his past.

It is worth noting that war poetry about the Second World War has already been analyzed from the point of view of the rite of passage. The work of Remarque and Aldington was also analyzed [see: 8, 9].

Of particular interest is the article by R. Efimkina “Three initiations in “women’s” fairy tales,” which presents an interpretation of the ritual from a psychological aspect.

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, with 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, connected with the national 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 for discussion. Developing a historical view of 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, "all-humanity" Russian literature V. Kozhinov views it in a double sense: as a positive, “ideal” quality, and “at the same time as an unambiguously “negative” quality.” 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, as it were, are not part of humanity, but exist only to give the world some important lesson”, that is, V. Kozhinov concludes, we should talk about a “universal mission” of 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 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 his 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. This principle of building the Russian state was chosen by Prince Vladimir, 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, in the “Word...” the fundamental properties of the Russian Orthodox world and Russian culture are outlined and the paths for its further development are outlined: “... in it [in the “Tale 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 contradictions and contrasts of Western and Eastern Christianity that are insurmountable to this day, which initially shaped not only the culture, but the features of the Western Catholic and Orthodox-Byzantine worldview.

The religious self-awareness of 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 oneself,” - 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 official religion and the Roman emperors began to worship the name of Christ, and 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 of 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 justifies 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 of 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 national culture, which resulted in worship, sometimes blind imitation, copying, etc. V. Kozhinov traces the fascination with the West as a long historical process in the development of national culture: “... the 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 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, scary person"(Kleist), although Kohlhaas is a visible result of Protestant ethics, which relieved man of all responsibility for his actions, since his nature is damaged by sin without hope of restoration and the fate of everyone is predetermined by the will of God, which gave the Protestant person more freedom of action than the Catholic believer, but at the same time it led to despair (S. Kierkegaard). The thirst for absolute freedom without reliance on God turns the Western romantic heroes of 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, Holistic”: “... published in the West a whole series works on the 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.” Flaubert saw the “living soul” of 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.” V. Kozhinov associates the critical trend in Western literature with self-determination and the stable position of the bourgeois system, hence the revealing pathos of Western critical realism, built only on criticism of the negative aspects of bourgeois life in general, and the search for a positive ideal, without which no culture can exist, is limited to the depiction of “the private life of 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.”

era XX-early XXI centuries is represented, in the words of Vyach. 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." Modern Western art sees its main task in contrasting the Christian direction of “all-humanity” with 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,” because in the decanonized and desacralized postmodern consciousness, where questions of faith and morality lose their meaning, art itself becomes part of bourgeois innovation activity that provides material profit. Unbelief and immorality, elevated to the absolute, have become the main criteria creative activity modern Western writers and publicists, both postmodernists and neoconservatives (D. Updike, N. Mailer, N. Podhoretz, S. Sontag, etc.), who put their “progressive” creativity in the service of the American ideology of violence and universal subjugation, and in fact, as V. Kozhinov asserts, citing the words American writer P. Brooks, one of the instigators of the idea of a general “rebellion,” provokes 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 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 of the 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 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.

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. The artistic values that were once borrowed were later transferred to other peoples of Europe. The heritage of antiquity formed the artistic basis of Renaissance literature. In turn, the ideas, themes and images of the 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. The major literatures of the East and Latin America are actively involved in the world literary process.

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 ideas french revolution 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 heterogeneous influences from Western European literature were absorbed with extraordinary speed, from the second half of the 19th century century, Russian literature itself began to influence the course of literary development all over the world. On the one hand, the literature experienced the powerful influence of L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Chekhov developed countries. 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 a conductor of artistic progress in literature 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 new historical conditions had a powerful influence on artistic development Soviet literature all over the world. The heroes of the best works of socialist realism served as a striking example and model for artists in many countries.

Currently, the interaction of literatures is ensured by a wide network of international creative union, associations and permanent conferences of writers, literary critics and translators. A number of national literatures, as a result of interactions with other literatures, are developing rapidly and in short term goes through 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.

The increasing complexity of city life, the growth of the state apparatus, and the development of international relations placed new demands on education. The literacy level in the 17th century increased significantly and in various strata it was: among landowners 65 percent, merchants - 96, townspeople - about 40, peasants - 15, archers, gunners, Cossacks - 1 percent. In the cities, quite a lot of people were already trying to teach their children to read and write. But training was not cheap, so not everyone could study. Women and children in rich families usually remained illiterate. The teachers were clergy or clerks (serving in the orders). As before, literacy was most often taught in the family. One of the main methods of pedagogy, as in the 15th century, was recognized corporal punishment“rod”, “breaking of ribs”, “rod”. A very indicative essay on pedagogy is “Citizenship of Children’s Customs” - a set of rules that determined all aspects of children’s lives: behavior at school, at the table, when meeting people; clothes and even facial expressions. The main teaching aids remained books of religious content, but several secular publications were also published: primers by Burtsev (1633), Polotsky (1679) and Istomin (1694), which were broader in content than their name, and included articles on religious doctrine and pedagogy, dictionaries, etc.; ABC books - dictionaries foreign words, which introduced philosophical concepts and contained brief information on Russian history, about ancient philosophers and writers, geographical materials. These were reference manuals that provided already elementary school familiarity with a fairly wide range of problems

Secondary schools, including private ones, appeared in Moscow, where they studied not only reading, writing, arithmetic, but also foreign languages, and some other subjects: 1621 - an all-class Lutheran school in the German settlement, Russian boys also studied there; 1640 - private school of boyar F. Rtishchev for young nobles, where they were taught Greek and Latin, rhetoric and philosophy; 1664 – public school for training clerks of the Order of Secret Affairs at the Zaikonospassky Monastery; 1680 - a school at the Printing House, the main discipline in which was Greek, etc.

In 1687, Patriarch Macarius opened the first higher education institution in Russia in the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow. educational institution– Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy for free people of “every rank, dignity and age” for the training of higher clergy and officials civil service. The first teachers of the academy were the Likhud brothers, Greeks who graduated from the University of Padua in Italy. The Likhud brothers, Ioannikis and Sophronius, taught the first courses in “natural philosophy” and logic in the spirit of Aristotelianism at the academy. The composition of the students was heterogeneous; representatives of different classes studied here (from the sons of a groom and a bonded man to the relatives of the patriarch and princes of the most ancient Russian families) and nationalities (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, baptized Tatars, Moldavians, Georgians, Greeks). The academy studied ancient languages (Greek and Latin), theology, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, grammar, and other subjects. The Academy played a major role in development and enlightenment in the late 17th and first half of the 18th century. From it during the reign of Peter 1 came the mathematician Magnitsky, later Lomonosov. Subsequently, the academy was moved to the Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra.

One of the outstanding figures of that era was Patriarch Nikon - an intelligent, educated, energetic man who was elected Moscow Patriarch in 1652. He ardently took up the task of correcting errors in church books and customs. For this work, he recruited learned monks from Greece and the Kyiv Academy. When the books were corrected, Patriarch Nikon ordered new books to be sent to all churches, and the old ones to be taken away and burned. The people were excited because people believed that the soul could be saved only by using the old books that their fathers and grandfathers prayed from. What worried the people most of all was the order to cross themselves not with two fingers, to which everyone was accustomed, but with three, as in the Greek Church, where the ancient, more correct custom was preserved.

The dispute about the correction of books and church ritual reforms carried out by order of the patriarch continued for a very long time. This reform itself and the forceful methods of its implementation led to a split. Schism is a complex socio-religious phenomenon associated with profound changes in national consciousness. Under the sign of the struggle for the old faith, everyone who was dissatisfied with the changes in living conditions gathered: the plebeian part of the clergy, who protested against the growth of feudal oppression on the part of the church elite, and part of the church hierarchs who opposed Nikon’s centralizing changes; representatives of the boyar aristocracy, dissatisfied with the strengthening of autocracy (princes Khovansky, Sokovnin sisters - boyar Morozova and princess Urusova, and others); archers, relegated to the background by regular military formations; merchants, frightened by increased competition. Members also stood for the old faith royal family. The head of the dissenters was the archpriest Avvakum, also a powerful and ardent man. The famous Solovetsky Monastery also defended the old faith, and only after a seven-year siege (1668-1676) was the monastery taken by the Moscow army. Old Believers, by order of the patriarch, were persecuted, imprisoned, and punished. As for the peasantry, for the most part they associated the deterioration of their position with a retreat from “ancient piety.” So the Old Believers movement was quite massive. The leaders of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum and his associates were exiled to Pustoozersk (lower Pechora) and spent 14 years in an earthen prison, after which they were burned alive. Since then, Old Believers often subjected themselves to “baptism of fire” - self-immolation in response to the coming into the world of “Nikon, the Antichrist.”

The ideology of the schism included a complex range of ideas and demands, from the preaching of national isolation and hostility towards secular knowledge, to the denial of the serfdom with its inherent enslavement of the individual and the encroachment of the state on the spiritual world of man and the struggle for the democratization of the church.

The schism became one of the forms of social protest of the masses who linked the deterioration of their situation with the reform of the church. Thousands of peasants and townspeople, carried away by the passionate sermons of the dissenters, fled to the Pomeranian north, the Volga region, the Urals, and Siberia, where they founded Old Believer settlements. Some of them still exist today.

The need to revise all church rituals and bring them into line with Greek liturgical practice was caused, first of all, by the desire to streamline the ritual practice of the Russian Church in the conditions of the growth of religious freethinking and the decline of the authority of the clergy. Rapprochement with the Greek Church was supposed to increase prestige Russian state in the Orthodox East, discrepancies in Russian and Greek church books sometimes led to real scandals. However, it would be wrong to believe that the conflict arose due to issues of ritual - unanimity or polyphony, two-fingered or three-fingered, etc.

Behind the phenomenon of church schism lies a deep historical and cultural meaning. The schismatics experienced the decline of Ancient Rus' as a national and personal catastrophe; they did not understand why the time-honored ancient way of life was so bad, what was the need for a radical change in the life of a huge country that had emerged with honor from the trials of turmoil and was growing stronger year after year. Behind the polemics, limited within a narrow framework, the outlines of the main dispute of that era emerged - the dispute about historical correctness. One side insisted on insignificance, the other on greatness, on the “truth” of antiquity.

The split was a great tragedy for the people. He instilled a mood of expectation of the Antichrist. People fled to forests, mountains and deserts, schismatic monasteries were formed in the forests. At the same time, the tragedy entailed an extraordinary upsurge, firmness, sacrifice, and a willingness to endure everything for faith and convictions.

In numerous literature, schismatics are assessed as reactionaries, conservatives, and fanatics. This ambiguity is hardly correct. For example, in some aspects, Archpriest Avvakum turned out to be a greater innovator than his opponents. This concerns, first of all, theory and practice literary language. One should also think about another assessment that appeared in one of the latest works, although one should not idealize the schism: probably not everything is so simple with the attitude of the Old Believers to everything new, non-religious. There is no doubt that for the Avvakumites only the “ancient”, the primordially national, the native had the status of truth... And yet, in itself, such an approach to tradition, to the past, does not yet give grounds to talk about the inertia and ignorance of the Old Believers. Having spoiled it, it seems to us that in an environment of abrupt disruption of the established social norms and the spiritual and ideological foundations that marked the entire 17th century, it was the Old Believers, despite its eschatological essence, even fanaticism and everyday detachment, that maintained continuity in the development of national identity and culture. This demonstrated the undeniable positive beginning of the split movement.

Over time, the Old Believer emerged as a special type of Russian person, with a cult of work, which is sometimes compared to the Protestant work ethic in the West. And among Russian industrialists the proportion of Old Believers turned out to be very high. In their public life, the schismatics took as a basis the institution of zemstvo with its practice of councils, assemblies, and elected self-government, thus preserving the democratic traditions of the people.

Already in the first half of the 17th century, manufacturing entrepreneurship began to emerge in Russia. In the ancient region of small-scale metallurgy, several Tula-Kashira metallurgical ironworks appeared, founded by Russian merchants and enterprising boyars, and ordinary people, for example entrepreneurial activity Tula blacksmith Nikita Antufiev-Demidov led him at the beginning of the 18th century to be one of the country's largest businessmen. Foreigners noted the uniqueness of trade in the Moscow state, in the sense that it was carried out in rows, each with goods of a certain kind. They approved of this order, since the buyer “from many similar things located together can very easily choose the best one.” According to the inventory of 1695, in Kitai-gorod there were 72 rows, including only the rows of those selling materials, there were up to 20. There were rows: fist, mitten, stocking, shoe, ear, icon, etc. Many traders tried to display their goods in a more convenient place, for example at the gate of their own home, but the government, primarily for fiscal purposes, waged a stubborn fight against such trade outside the ranks. Difficult-to-control peddling bargaining was also prohibited: “do not walk in the rows with white fish”, “do not walk with herring”, “do not walk with butter rolls”. In 1681, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich, it was again stated: “so that people of all ranks do not trade in the indicated places, and from that great sovereign there would be no needless losses and shortages to the treasury.” In practice, these prohibitions were generally not observed: throughout the 17th century, trade outside the ranks continued to develop. According to the testimony of a foreigner who visited Russia at the end of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, in Moscow there were “more trading shops than in Amsterdam or in another entire principality.”

The desire for originality and contentment with inertia developed in Rus' somehow in parallel with a certain desire to imitate someone else's. The influence of Western European education arose in Rus' from the practical needs of the country, which they could not satisfy with their own means. Need forced the government to invite foreigners. But, calling them and even caressing them, the government at the same time jealously protected the purity of national beliefs and life from them. However, meeting foreigners was still a source of “innovation.” The superiority of their culture irresistibly influenced our ancestors, and the educational movement appeared in Rus' back in the 16th century. Ivan the Terrible himself could not help but feel the need for education; His political opponent, Prince Kurbsky, also stands firmly for education. Boris Godunov seems to us to be a direct friend European culture. In the 17th century, a lot of military, commercial and industrial foreigners appeared and settled in Moscow, enjoying great trade privileges and enormous economic influence in the country. Muscovites became more familiar with them and foreign influence thus increased. Never before have Moscow people become so close to Western Europeans, have they so often adopted various little details of everyday life from them, and have not translated so many foreign books as in the 17th century. Well-known facts of that time clearly tell us not only about the practical assistance from foreigners to the Moscow government, but also about the mental cultural influence of the Western people who settled in Moscow on the Moscow environment. This influence, already noticeable under Tsar Alexei, in the mid-17th century, of course, formed gradually, not immediately, and existed before Tsar Alexei, under his father. A typical bearer of alien influences in their early days was Prince Ivan Andreevich Khvorostin (died in 1625) - a “heretic” who fell under the influence of first Catholicism, then some extreme sect, and then repented and even became a monk. But this was the first sign of a cultural spring. Moscow not only looked closely at the customs of Western European life, but in the 17th century it began to become interested in Western literature. However, from the point of view of practical needs. In the Ambassadorial Prikaz, the most educated institution of that time, entire books, mostly manuals of applied knowledge, were translated along with political news from Western newspapers for the sovereign. The love of reading undoubtedly grew in Russian society in the 17th century - this is evidenced by the abundance of handwritten books that have come down to us from that time, containing both works of Moscow writing of a spiritual and secular nature, as well as translated works. Noting such facts, the researcher is ready to think that the cultural turning point of the early 18th century and its cultural side was far from being a completely unexpected novelty for our ancestors.

Among the new genres that expressed the growth of self-awareness, dramaturgy occupies a special place. The first theatrical performances took place in 1672 in the court theater of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, where plays based on ancient and biblical stories. The founder of Russian drama was S. Polotsky, whose plays (the comedy “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” and the tragedy “About Nebuchadnezzar the King”) raised serious moral, political and philosophical problems.

The king liked the theatrical performances. In the plank theater, ballets and dramas were presented to the king, the plots of which were borrowed from the Bible. These biblical dramas were peppered with crude jokes; Thus, in Holofernes, the servant, having seen the head of the Assyrian commander cut off by Judith, says: “The poor thing, when he wakes up, will be very surprised that his head was taken away.” It was essentially the first theater school in Russia.

In 1673, the Ballet of Orpheus Eurydice was staged by N. Lima for the first time at the court of Alexei Mikhailovich, which laid the foundation for periodic performances in Russia and the emergence of the Russian ballet theater.

And wandering artists walked around the cities and villages - buffoons, guslars - songwriters, guides with bears. Puppet shows with the participation of Petrushka were very popular.

The appearance of the Kremlin changed noticeably in the 17th century. The architecture of this time was different from the architecture of previous centuries. The monumental and laconic style of Russian architects of the 15th and 16th centuries was replaced by the decorative and picturesque style of the 17th century. The shapes of the buildings became more complex, their walls were covered with multi-colored ornaments, white stone carvings, brick patterns, and tiles. Not only palaces and rich houses, but also churches often resembled fairy-tale towers. In many ways new architecture reflected the popular idea of the ideal, heavenly beauty, harmony of the world. However, old and new architecture were inextricably linked, because the buildings of the 17th century and previous centuries got along well with each other.

During the intervention at the beginning of the 17th century, the Kremlin suffered greatly. After the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders in 1612, they began to restore it. In 1625, a multi-tiered roof with a high stone tent covered with tiles rose above the Frolovskaya Strelnitsa - the main entrance to the Kremlin. The tower acquired a very elegant look. Her lower quadruple was completed with a belt of arches with a white stone pattern. White stone statues (booties) were placed in the arches, and turrets, pyramids, and sculptures of strange animals were placed above the arcature belt. At the corners of the quadrangle, the gilded weather vanes of white stone pyramids shone in the sun. On the lower quadrangle there was another, two-tiered, but smaller. There was a clock on it - chimes. The second quadrangle turned into an octagon, which ended with a stone gazebo with keeled arches. Chimes bells were placed in the gazebo. The architecture of the new completion of the Frolov Tower combined features of Western European Gothic and Russian ornamentation. The authors of the tent project were Russian architects Bazhen Ogurtsov and English watchmaker Christopher Golovey. Together with the Kazan Cathedral built on Red Square, the Frolovskaya Tower became a monument to the revival of Russia after the terrible years of unrest. In 1658, by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Frolovskaya tower was renamed Spasskaya - an image of the Savior was painted above its gates from the side of Red Square. Others also received new completions Kremlin towers. Multi-tiered tents with platforms for sentinels, tiled roofs, and gilded weather vanes above them changed the appearance of the Moscow fortress. In the 30s of the 17th century, Bazhen Ogurtsov, Antip Konstantinov, Trifil Sharutin and Larion Ushakov added “very strange chambers” to the royal palace, called the Terem Palace, a true masterpiece of Russian architecture of the 17th century. The palace was based on earlier buildings. Having retreated from their edge so as to create a wide bypass terrace (gulbishche), the architects erected the first two floors, and above them, retreating further, they built a third floor - the Upper Teremok, the high roof of which was eventually gilded. Together with the heads of the cathedrals, it sparkled dazzlingly in the sun. The palace thus acquired a stepped, tiered silhouette, characteristic of the architecture of that time. A wide staircase with amazingly delicate and elegant workmanship, a Golden lattice, led to the chambers of the palace. On the ground floor of the palace there were service premises and the royal “soap box”. The king lived in the second. In the third, Teremka, there was big hall for the play of royal children; The Boyar Duma also sometimes met there. The interior of the palace was covered with vaults and richly decorated. Its walls were decorated with carved frames and portals, ornamental belts, and multi-colored tiles. The surrounding staircases and porches gave the palace an even more elegant appearance. Adjacent to the palace was a group of house churches, crowned with a shining array of gilded domes. The whole appearance of the palace created a festive atmosphere. Another Kremlin building, the Amusement Palace, which was built as the residential chambers of I.D., also responded to the picturesque manner of stone patterning in the 17th century. Miloslavsky. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the palace was rebuilt and from 1672 theatrical performances and other court entertainments - “fun”, were held there, for which it received the name “Amusing”. The long building, consisting of a number of chambers with high staircases, had a more restrained appearance - the Prikaz building - government offices on Ivanovskaya Square. At the same time a new building appeared on and on Cathedral Square. By order of Patriarch Nikon, new Patriarchal Chambers with the five-domed Cathedral of the Twelve Apostles were built behind the Assumption Cathedral. The appearance of the cathedral gravitated towards the architecture of the 16th century. This reflected the taste of the customer: Patriarch Nikon did not favor many architectural innovations.

By the end of the 17th century, hundreds of buildings already existed in the Moscow Kremlin. Cathedrals and small churches, palaces and chambers, monasteries and private houses formed dozens of squares, streets, alleys and dead ends. The Kremlin was also famous for its gardens. In the gardens there were cages in which strange birds walked and sang. The remarkable Russian historian N.V. Karamzin called the Moscow Kremlin “a place of great historical memories.” Indeed, stepping under the arches of the ancient cathedrals of the Kremlin, admiring the splendor of its architecture, walking along Ivanovskaya Square, one cannot help but feel the living touch of antiquity and give free rein to one’s imagination. “No,” exclaimed M.Yu. Lermontov, “it is impossible to describe the Kremlin, nor its battlements, nor its dark passages, nor its magnificent palaces: you have to see... you have to feel everything that they say to the heart and imagination!...

The rise of civil architecture, clearly manifested in the late 15th and early 16th centuries during the construction of the Kremlin Palace, had a worthy continuation in the 17th century. Palaces, administrative buildings, residential buildings, and guest courtyards were built on an unprecedented scale. In their architectural appearance This was reflected not only by the desire of the architects to follow the best traditions of the past, but also by the desire to create completely new types of buildings and develop a new style.

The evolutionary processes that took place in the Russian state system in the 17th century, the breakdown of the traditional worldview, a noticeably increased interest in the surrounding world, and a craving for “external wisdom” were reflected in general character Russian culture. The changes were also facilitated by the country’s unusually expanded ties with Western Europe, as well as with Ukrainian and Belarusian lands(especially after the reunification of left-bank Ukraine and part of Belarus with Russia in the middle of the century) the “generic characteristic” of the culture and art of this era is “secularization”, liberation from the canons. Expanding the subject matter of images, increasing the proportion of secular and historical subjects, and using Western European engravings as “samples” allowed artists to create with less regard for tradition and to look for new paths in art. However, we must not forget that the golden age of ancient Russian painting is far behind us. It was no longer possible to rise to the top again within the framework of the old system. Icon painters found themselves at a crossroads. The beginning of the 17th century was marked by the dominance of two artistic movements inherited from the previous era. One of them was called the “Godunov” school, since most of the famous works of this direction were commissioned by Tsar Boris Godunov and his relatives. “Godunov’s” style as a whole is distinguished by a tendency towards narrative, an overload of composition with details, physicality and materiality of forms, and a passion for architectural forms. At the same time, he is characterized by a certain orientation towards the traditions of the great past, towards the images of the distant Rublevsky-Dionysian time. The color palette of the works is restrained. Drawing played a large role in the construction of the form.

Another direction is usually called the “Stroganov” school. Most of the icons of this style are associated with orders from the famous merchant family, the Stroganovs. The Stroganov school is the art of icon miniatures. It's no coincidence characteristic features most clearly manifested in works of small size. In Stroganov's icons, the aesthetic principle asserts itself with an audacity unheard of at that time, as if overshadowing the cult purpose of the image. Shallow internal content, a particular composition and lack of wealth spiritual world the characters excited the artists, and the beauty of the form in which all this could be captured. Careful, fine writing, mastery of finishing details and sophisticated drawing, masterly calligraphy of lines, richness and sophistication of ornamentation, multi-colored coloring, the most important integral part which gold and silver became - these are the components of the language of the masters of the Stroganov school.

One of the most famous Stroganov artists was Prokopiy Chirin. His early works include the icon “Nikita the Warrior” (1593). The image of Nikita, which still retains echoes of the lyrical intonations of the 15th century, is already devoid of internal significance. The war pose is exquisitely mannered. Thin legs in golden boots are shifted and slightly bent at the knees, making the figure barely maintain its balance. The head and hands with “thinned” fingers seem too small compared to the massive torso. This is not a warrior-defender, but rather a secular dandy, and the sword in his hands is just an attribute of a festive outfit.

Elements of a kind of realism observed in the painting of the Stroganov school were developed in creativity the best masters the second half of the 17th century - royal icon painters and painters of the Armory. Their recognized leader was Simon Ushakov - a man of versatile talents, a theorist and practitioner of painting, graphics, applied arts. In 1667, in his treatise “A word to those who are interested in icon painting,” Ushakov outlined views on the tasks of painting that essentially led to a break with the icon-painting tradition. A typical example of the practical implementation of Ushakov’s aesthetic materials in icon painting is his “Trinity” (1671). The composition of this icon reproduces the famous Rublev “sample” with its smooth circular rhythms, with an orientation towards the plane, despite the distinct spatiality. But Ushakov, without meaning to, destroyed this plane. The depth of perspective has become too noticeable; three-dimensionality and physicality are sharply revealed in the figures. Despite the care and purity of the writing, with the emphasized elegance and realism of details, all this evokes a feeling of academic coldness, the deadness of the image. An attempt to write as in life turned out to be lifeless.

The greatest integrity is marked by those works of Ushakov in which main role assigned to the human face. It was here that the artist was able to sufficiently fully express his understanding of the purpose of art. It is no coincidence, apparently, that Ushakov so loved to depict the Savior Not Made by Hands. The large scale of Christ's face allowed the master to demonstrate how excellently he mastered the technique of cut-off modeling, knew the anatomy perfectly, and was able to convey the silkiness of the hair and beard, the matteness of the skin, and the expression of the eyes as close to life as possible. However, the artist, of course, was mistaken in believing that he was able to organically connect the elements of a realistic interpretation of form with the ancient precepts of icon painting.

The 17th century completes more than seven centuries of history of ancient Russian art. From that time on, Old Russian icon painting ceased to exist as a dominant artistic system. Old Russian icon painting is a living, priceless heritage that gives artists a constant impetus for creative research. She opened and opens ways contemporary art, in which much of what was inherent in the spiritual and artistic quest of Russian icon painters will be embodied

A sharp change occurred in Russian aesthetics of the 17th century. The new aesthetics destroys established traditions in painting in the name of truth. The stories of scripture have been used by artists to create simple household paintings. In the Yaroslavl Church of Elijah the Prophet, a harvest scene is depicted on the wall. The artists depicted not a biblical legend, but a picture of the usual work of a peasant. Churchmen fought against the secularization of painting. Among the painters who carried out the orders of the Tsar and the Patriarch, the desire to break free from the constraining rules of church icon painting was already clearly defined. This is what caused the appearance of the first parsuns in Rus'. Russian painters were invited to Moldova and Georgia, and Ukrainian and Belarusian masters worked in Greece. Portraiture of this time was the first secular genre. In the 17th century, all eminent people of the country tried to capture their image in portraits. Tsarist icon painters Simon Ushakov, Fyodor Yuryev, Ivan Maksimov painted portraits of Prince B.I. Repnin, steward G.P. Godunova, L.K. Naryshkin and many others. Parsuns, as a purely secular genre, originated at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, further development received in the second half of the 17th century, the best parsuns were painted at the end of the century (portrait of steward V.F. Lyudkin, uncle and mother of Peter I - L.K. and N.K. Naryshkins). They have already outlined the features of the Russian portrait of the coming century - attention to inner world of the person being portrayed, about the ethicization of the image, subtle coloring. In just a few decades new genre has come a long way - from semi-iconographic parsuns to completely realistic images.

The fresco in the 17th century, which experienced its last rise, can only conditionally be classified as monumental painting. There is almost no correlation between the pictorial surfaces and the architectural ones, the images are crushed, permeated with intricate ornaments, hagiographic compositions have acquired the character genre paintings, abounding folklore elements(works by G. Nikitin and S. Savin with an artel, works by D. Plekhanov with an artel).

Realistic aspirations in art gave rise to the formation of a new worldview, but have not yet led to the creation of a unified creative method. Bright and controversial Russian art 17th century – large artistic phenomenon, which completed the eight-century history of medieval art and came close to the aesthetics of modern times.

The dawn of Russian social thought in the first quarter of the 17th century is associated with the appearance of a number of narratives, by spiritual and secular authors, about the events of the time of troubles. Most famous works: “The Legend” by Abraham Politsin, “Vremenniki” by clerk Ivan Timofeev, “Words” by Prince Ivan Khvorostnin, “The Tale” by Prince Ivan Kaptyarev-Rostovsky. The official versions of the events of the Troubles are contained in the “New Chronicler” of 1630, written by order of Patriarch Filaret. The main purpose of this work is to strengthen the position of the new Romanov dynasty. The accusatory direction is presented by “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself.” Its author, the inspirer of the Old Believers movement, preaches the ideas of ancient piety.

In the 17th century, secular literature became a noticeable phenomenon of Russian culture. There was a significant genre differentiation. The transformation of the hagiographic genre ended with the emergence of the story - life. The best works of this genre were distinguished by everyday realism: “The Tale of Uliani Osoryina, Osoryin’s Squad,” and others. The growth of literacy attracted provincial nobles, servicemen and townspeople into the circle of readers, who made new demands on literature. The answer to these needs was the appearance of an everyday story, which, in an entertaining form, referring to everyday life, made an attempt to penetrate into the psychology of the heroes, to move away from the medieval template that divided the characters into ideal heroes and absolute villains. The main theme of such works is the clash between the younger and older generations, the question of morality, a person with his personal experiences (the story “About Grief and Misfortune”, mid-17th century; “the story of Savva Grudtsyn”, 60s of the 17th century; “the story of Frol Skobeev” 1680 year). The heroes of these stories, merchants and poor noble adventurers, rejected the patriarchal foundations and moral standards of the past. New ideals were still expressed vaguely. During this period, posad literature appeared, as well as democratic satire, which ridiculed state and church institutions, parodied legal proceedings, church service, holy scripture, clerical red tape. In the satirical story “about Ersha Ershovich,” Sturgeon, the “great boyar and governor,” the nobleman Bream, and the rich man Som were ridiculed. Among the townspeople there were already many book lovers who rewrote the works they loved for themselves. Entire handwritten books were obtained that penetrated the peasant environment. Literature of the 17th century slowly freed itself from medieval traditions. The religious worldview was supplanted by a more realistic vision of reality, providentialism by the search for patterns of peaceful development. The formation of satirical-everyday and autobiographical genres marked the beginning of fiction. New areas of literature appeared - versification and drama.

For a long time, everything in the Moscow state was arranged in such a way that it was mainly the royal treasury that grew rich, and those who in one way or another served the treasury and used it; and it is not surprising that foreigners were amazed at the abundance of the royal treasures and at the same time noticed the extreme poverty of the people. The appearance of the capital of that time corresponded to this order of things. A foreigner entering it was struck by the contrast, on the one hand, with the gilded tops of the Kremlin churches and royal towers, and on the other - a bunch of chicken huts, townspeople, and the pitiful, dirty appearance of their owners. A Russian man of that time, if he had wealth, tried to appear poorer than he was, was afraid to put his money into circulation, so that, having become rich, he would not become the subject of denunciations and be subjected to royal disgrace, which was followed by the confiscation of his entire fortune “to the sovereign,” not counting his family; Therefore, he hid the money somewhere in the monastery or buried it in the ground “for a rainy day”, kept his grandfather’s caftans embroidered in gold, sable fur coats, silver cups under lock and key in chests, and he himself walked around in a dirty, shabby sheepskin coat, or a single row of coarse cloth and ate from wooden utensils. Uncertainty in safety, constant fear of secret enemies, fear of a thunderstorm, ready to strike him from above every minute, suppressed in him the desire to improve his life, to an elegant environment, to proper work, to mental work. The Russian man lived haphazardly, acquired his means of living haphazardly; always exposed to the danger of being robbed, deceived, treacherously destroyed, he himself did not find it difficult to prevent what could happen to him; he also deceived, robbed where he could, profited at the expense of his neighbor, for the sake of means for his always fragile existence. The Russian man differed from this in home life untidiness, in work - laziness, in relations with people - deceit, deceit and heartlessness.

A nation, as we know, is a historical community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territories, economic life, culture and certain characteristics of their mental make-up. A nation has self-awareness. This means that in its attitude to the world, in its language, a nation has special ways in which it recognizes and portrays itself, its memory, its activities. All this is realized in culture. National culture is formed simultaneously with the process of formation of national identity. It gives the culture a distinct national character. The spiritual strength of a nation, national dignity, and in general the ideological and creative potential of the people, mainly depends on how well all the spiritual achievements of past centuries, taken in their peaks and depths, are preserved, deeply realized and felt.

It was in the 17th century that the social stratification of cultural consumption took place. While the peasant population still preserved traditional culture, the upper class focused on the West, adopted customs, and imitated the fashions of the European nobility. Unprivileged part of residents major cities I began to feel more and more clearly the need to create my own art - this is how urban folklore began to take shape. IN. Klyuchevsky noted in this regard that since the mid-17th century, Russian society“a foreign culture, rich in experience and knowledge, began to operate,” and this Western influence unevenly penetrated different layers of the population, affecting, first of all, its upper circles.

1. “Readings and stories on the history of Russia” by S.M. Solovyov “Pravda” 1989.

2. “Full course of lectures on Russian history” S.F. Platonov St. Petersburg, 1992.

1668-1684 years

Late 17th century

Passion for science -

1626-1686

Portrait image of people, from the word “person”

Portraits of Tsars Alexander Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich, young Tsarevich Peter (GII)

Biographical stories