Literary context: journals and journal controversy. Russian literary criticism of the 19th century
The era of the “sixties”, which did not quite correspond, as it will happen in the 20th century, to calendar chronological milestones, was marked by a rapid growth in social and literary activity, which was reflected primarily in the existence of Russian journalism. Numerous new publications appeared during these years, including Russkiy Vestnik and Russkaya Beseda (1856), Russkoe Slovo (1859), Vremya (1861) and Epoch (1864). The popular Sovremennik and Library for Reading are changing their face. New social and aesthetic programs are formulated on the pages of periodicals; novice critics quickly become famous (N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, N. N. Strakhov and many others), as well as writers who have returned to active work (F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin); uncompromising and principled discussions arise about new outstanding phenomena in Russian literature - the works of Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, Ostrovsky, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Fet. Literary changes are largely due to significant socio-political events (the death of Nicholas I and the succession of the throne to Alexander II, the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, liberal reforms and the abolition of serfdom, the Polish uprising). The long-held philosophical, political, civic aspiration of public consciousness, in the absence of legal political institutions, reveals itself on the pages of "thick" literary and art magazines; it is literary criticism that becomes an open universal platform on which the main socially relevant discussions unfold.
The clearly marked uniqueness of the criticism of the 1860s lies in the fact that the analysis and evaluation of a work of art - its original, "natural" function - is supplemented, and often replaced by topical reasoning of a journalistic, philosophical and historical nature. Literary criticism finally and distinctly merges with journalism. Therefore, the study of literary criticism of the 1860s is impossible without taking into account its socio-political guidelines.
In the 1860s, differentiation took place within the democratic socio-literary movement that had been taking shape over the previous two decades against the backdrop of the radical views of the young publicists of Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, which were no longer associated only with the struggle against serfdom and autocracy, but also against the very idea of social inequality. Adherents of former liberal views seem almost conservative. The irreversibility of the ideological delimitation was clearly manifested in the fate of Nekrasov's Sovremennik. Extreme in their latent anti-government orientation "statements of that circle of writers, behind whom in Soviet historiography for many decades the ideologically oriented collective designation of "revolutionary democrats" was fixed - N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov, their followers and successors: M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M.A. Antonovich, Yu.G. Zhukovsky - forced even such propagandists of Belinsky as I.S. Turgenev, V.P. "Sovremennik" did not reach that peremptory literary-critical statements, which the publicists of "Russian Word" became famous for.
The original social programs - Slavophilism and pochvenism - were imbued with general guidelines for progressive social liberation development; at first, the Russky Vestnik magazine also built its activities on the ideas of liberalism, the de facto leader of which was another former associate of Belinsky, M.N. Katkov. However, the publication, which became famous thanks to the publication of the most significant works of the late 1850s and 1860s (Provincial Essays, Fathers and Sons, The Enchanted Wanderer, Crime and Punishment, War and Peace were printed here), turned out to be the most ardent opponent of radicalism, all kinds of reconciliation with it, and in the 1860s was the first to defend the monarchical state foundations and primordial moral foundations. It is obvious that public ideological and political indifference in literary criticism of this period is a rare, almost exclusive phenomenon (articles by A.V. Druzhinin, K.N. Leontiev). The widespread public view of literature and literary criticism as a reflection and expression of current social problems leads to an unprecedented growth in the popularity of criticism, and this gives rise to fierce theoretical disputes about the essence of literature and art in general, about the tasks and methods of critical activity. The sixties are the time of the primary comprehension of the aesthetic heritage of V.G. Belinsky. The critics of that time did not encroach on the main principles of his literary declarations: on the idea of the connection of art with reality, moreover, the reality of the "local", devoid of mystical, transcendental openness, on the position of the need for its typological knowledge, referring to the general, natural manifestations of life. However, magazine polemicists from opposite extreme positions condemn either Belinsky's aesthetic idealism (Pisarev) or his passion for social topicality (Druzhinin). The radicalism of the publicists of "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word" was also manifested in their literary views: the concept of "real" criticism, developed by Dobrolyubov, taking into account the experience of Chernyshevsky and supported (with all the variability of individual literary critical approaches) by their followers, believed "reality", presented (“reflected”) in the work, the main object of critical consideration. The position, which was called "didactic", "practical", "utilitarian", "theoretical", was rejected by all other literary forces, one way or another asserting the priority of artistry in assessing literary phenomena. However, "pure" aesthetic, immanent criticism, which, as A. A. Grigoriev argued, is engaged in a mechanical enumeration of artistic techniques, did not exist in the 1860s. At the same time, an internal analysis that pays attention to the individual artistic merits of a work is present both in the articles of Grigoriev himself, and in the works of Druzhinin, Botkin, Dostoevsky, Katkov, and even Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Therefore, we call "aesthetic" criticism a trend that sought to comprehend the author's intention, the moral and psychological pathos of the work, its formal and meaningful unity. Other literary groups of this period: both Slavophilism, and pochvenism, and the "organic" criticism created by Grigoriev - to a greater extent professed the principles of criticism "about", accompanying the interpretation of a work of art with fundamental judgments on topical social problems. "Aesthetic" criticism did not have, like other currents, its ideological center, revealing itself on the pages of "Library for Reading", "Contemporary" and "Russian Messenger" (until the end of the 1850s), as well as in "Domestic Notes", which, unlike the previous and subsequent eras, did not play a significant role in the literary process of this time.
The most active and popular literary trend of the 1860s, which set the tone for the entire social and literary life of the era, was the "real" criticism of the radical democratic orientation.
Its main publications were the magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. In 1854, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1826-1889) made his debut in Sovremennik, who, after his very first performances, attracted attention with his directness and boldness of judgment.
In the articles and reviews of 1854, Chernyshevsky appears as a truly faithful follower of Belinsky’s ideas as a theoretician of the “natural school”: following the author of the famous “letter to Gogol”, the critic of Sovremennik demands from writers a truthful and meaningful depiction of the realities of the surrounding reality, revealing modern social conflicts and demonstrating the hardships of the life of the oppressed classes.
Thus, in his review of A. N. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Poverty is no vice,” Chernyshevsky seeks to show the unnaturalness of a happy ending and condemns the playwright for his desire to forcibly soften the critical pathos of his works, to find the bright, positive aspects of merchant life. The creed of Chernyshevsky - a journalist and writer - is revealed by his polemical work "On Sincerity in Criticism" (1854). The author of the article recognizes that the main task of critical activity is to spread among the "mass of the public" an understanding of the social and aesthetic significance of a work, its ideological and substantive merits - in other words, Chernyshevsky brings to the fore the educational, educational possibilities of criticism. In pursuing the goals of literary and moral mentoring, the critic must strive for "clarity, certainty and directness" of judgments, for the rejection of ambiguity and ambiguity of assessments.
Chernyshevsky's master's thesis "The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality" (1855) became the programmatic aesthetic document of the entire radical democratic movement. Its main task was to argue with the "dominant aesthetic system" - with the principles of Hegelian aesthetics. The key thesis of the dissertation - "beautiful is life" - allowed its author to express his conviction in the objective existence of beauty. Art does not generate beauty, but more or less successfully reproduces it from the surrounding life - therefore, it is certainly secondary in relation to reality. Its meaning is “to give an opportunity, although to some extent, to get acquainted with the beautiful in reality to those people who did not have the opportunity to enjoy it in reality; serve as a reminder, excite and revive the memory of the beautiful in reality in those people who know it from experience and love to remember it. The task of art, according to Chernyshevsky, in addition to "reproducing" reality, is its explanation and the verdict that the artist makes of the surrounding life. Thus, developing the aesthetic views of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky for the first time theoretically substantiates the socially productive function of art. In a series of articles about Pushkin, dedicated to the first posthumous collection of the poet's works, Chernyshevsky seeks to reconstruct his social position, attitude to political events, and power on the basis of the materials from the Pushkin archive for the first time.
Assessing the progressiveness of Pushkin, Chernyshevsky reveals his inner opposition to the authorities and at the same time reproaches him for passivity, for philosophical detachment, explaining this, however, by the oppressive conditions of life of the Nikolaev time. "Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature" (1855-1856) can be regarded as the first major development of the history of Russian criticism in the 1830s-1840s. Positively evaluating the work of Nadezhdin and N. Polevoy, Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who, in the opinion of the author of the cycle, outlined the true routes for the progressive development of Russian literature. Following Belinsky, Chernyshevsky recognizes the critical image of Russian life as the key to literary and social progress in Russia, taking Gogol's work as the standard of such an attitude to reality. Chernyshevsky places the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls unquestionably higher than Pushkin, and the main criterion for comparison is the idea of the social effectiveness of the writers' work. The journalist believed that a sober and critical understanding of reality at the present stage is not enough, it is necessary to take concrete actions aimed at improving the conditions of public life. These views found expression in the famous article "Russian man on rendez-vous" (1858), which is also remarkable from the point of view of Chernyshevsky's critical methodology. Turgenev's short story "Asya" became the occasion for large-scale journalistic generalizations of the critic, which did not aim to reveal the author's intention. In the image of the protagonist of the story, Chernyshevsky saw a representative of the widespread type of “best people”, who, like Rudin or Agarin (the hero of Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”), have high moral virtues, but are not capable of decisive actions. As a result, these heroes look "cheesier than a notorious villain." However, the deep accusatory pathos of the article is directed not against individuals, but against the reality that gives rise to such people. It is the surrounding social life that is actually the protagonist of most of Chernyshevsky's literary critical articles.
In the late 1850s and early 1860s (until his arrest in 1862), Chernyshevsky paid less and less attention to literary criticism, concentrating entirely on issues of a political, economic), socio-philosophical nature.
Chernyshevsky's closest associate, Dobrolyubov, develops his propaganda initiatives, sometimes offering even sharper and uncompromising assessments of literary and social phenomena. Dobrolyubov sharpens and concretizes the requirements for the ideological content of modern literature; the main criterion for the social significance of the work becomes for him the reflection of the interests of the oppressed classes. Unlike Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov admits that the author of works of art may not be a supporter of purposeful accusation, but by correctly and in detail presenting the facts of the surrounding reality, he thereby already serves the cause of literary and social progress. “If a work came out from the pen of a writer who did not belong to the democratic camp, then for Dobrolyubov it was probably even preferable to have such a lack of direct authorial assessment<...>In this case, the reader and the critic will not have to "unravel" the complex contradictions between objective images, facts and some subjective conclusions that distort facts, which an "ideological" but not democratic author would certainly have found. In other words, what matters to the publicist of Sovremennik is not what the author said, but what "affected" them. Dobrolyubov does not exclude the idea of the unconscious nature of artistic creativity. From this point of view, a special role belongs to criticism, which, by subjecting the picture of life depicted by the artist to analytical comprehension, just formulates the necessary conclusions. Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, substantiates the possibility of literary-critical reflections “about” a work, which are directed not so much to comprehending its internal formal-content originality, but to actual social problems, the potential of which can be found in it.
Dobrolyubov used the works of A.N. Ostrovsky (articles "Dark Kingdom", 1859 and "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", I860), Goncharov ("What is Oblomovism?", 1859), Turgenev ("When will the real day come?", 1860), F.M. . Dostoevsky ("The Downtrodden People", 1861). However, despite such a variety of objects of literary criticism, due to the desire for broad generalizations, these articles can be considered as a single metatext, the pathos of which boils down to proving the inferiority of Russian socio-political foundations. One of the most fundamental questions for all "real" criticism was the search for new heroes in modern literature. Dobrolyubov, who did not live to see the appearance of Bazarov, only in Katerina Kabanova saw the signs of a person protesting against the laws of "the crown of the head and the kingdom."
The sharpness and categorical nature of some of Dobrolyubov's judgments provoked a conflict in the Sovremennik circle and throughout the democratic movement. After the article “When will the real day come?”, which, according to Turgenev, distorted the ideological background of the novel “On the Eve” and thereby violated the ethical norms of criticism, the magazine was left by its longtime collaborators - Turgenev, Botkin, L. Tolstoy. However, a real polemical storm within the most radical movement erupted in the mid-1860s between the journals Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. In 1860, Grigory Evlampievich Blagosvetlov (1824-1880) became the editor of the Russian Word, founded a year earlier, replacing Ya.P. Polonsky and A.A. Grigoriev, who did not bring popularity to the publication. The similarity with the thinkers of Sovremennik in the interpretation of basic values - the need for social equality and political change - did not prevent the head of the new journal from being skeptical about the productivity of those areas of public propaganda that Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov declared. The young publicists invited by him and working under his direct influence, D. I. Pisarev and V. A. Zaitsev, demonstrated the independence of the ideological foundations and tactical tasks of the monthly.
Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev (1840-1868) quickly became the leading contributor to the Russian Word. Pisarev the writer found himself in the image of a fearlessly mocking skeptic, questioning any, even the most authoritative and popular teachings, shocking the reader with deliberate straightforwardness and unexpected paradoxical judgments. The impeccability of the extremely pragmatic, rationalistic logic brought Pisarev unprecedented popularity among young readers and provided evidence for his mercilessly mocking statements about the worthless (and, therefore, harmful) activities of the publicists of the Russian Messenger (Moscow Thinkers, 1862), Slavophilism (Russian Don Quixote", 1862) and, in fact, the whole of Russian philosophy, which is built on speculative, illusory foundations ("Scholastics of the 19th century", 1861). Pisarev considers moderation in views to be an illusion, thus substantiating the legitimacy of extreme, radical views. Paying tribute to the liberation aspirations of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, Pisarev is not in the least embarrassed by his disagreement with them on certain fundamental issues. The publicist of Russkoye Slovo is skeptical about the possibility of the conscious activity of the oppressed classes, especially the peasantry, considering the educated youth to be the main active force in Russian society. Pisarev sharply disagrees with Dobrolyubov in his assessment of certain literary phenomena. According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov, who considered Katerina Kabanova "a ray of light in a dark kingdom", succumbed to the explicit idealization of the heroine.
Pisarev subordinates his aesthetic and literary reasoning to extremely utilitarian ideas about human activity. The only purpose of fiction is declared to be the promotion of certain ideas, based on the tendentious reproduction of social conflicts and on the image of "new heroes". It is not surprising that Pisarev's favorite works of the 1860s were "Fathers and Sons" by I.S. Turgenev ("Bazarov", 1862; "Realists", 1864) and "What is to be done?" N.G. Chernyshevsky ("The Thinking Proletariat", 1865), realizing Pisarev's innermost ideas about conscious rational work aimed at creating personal and social good.
Next to Pisarev's articles were published the works of Varfolomey Alexandrovich Zaitsev (1842-1882), who, with all his journalistic talent, reduced the radical ideas of his journal colleague to an absurd simplification. Zaitsev is a desperate "destroyer of aesthetics", who categorically rejected art as a whole and consistently opposed modern natural science ideas to poetry. Art, according to the harsh statement of the critic, "deserves a complete and merciless denial." These and similar statements by Zaitsev and Pisarev caused constant polemical attacks, not only from the original opponents, opponents of radicalism, but also from the closest like-minded people - the journalists of Sovremennik. The controversy, the source of which was differences in understanding the nuances of propaganda tactics, quickly turned into a magazine squabble, reaching personal insults, to mutual accusations of complicity with conservative and pro-government forces. And despite the fact that in the end this hopeless dispute was terminated, the public reputation of the journals suffered markedly - the controversy demonstrated a clear shortage of new productive ideas and marked the crisis of the radical movement. The activity of magazines, in which literary issues were increasingly relegated to the periphery, was banned by the government after the assassination attempt on Alexander II in 1866.
Despite such loud internal disagreements, the adherents of radical views had common opponents: representatives of "aesthetic" criticism, ideologists of Slavophilism and pochvennichestvo, supporters of the conservative "protection" from Russky Vestnik and Moskovskie Vedomosti. The main opponents on many literary issues for the journalists of "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word" were representatives of the so-called "aesthetic" criticism. Former associates of Belinsky, who formed the backbone of Sovremennik until the mid-1850s: I.S. Turgenev, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.V. Druzhinin - without enthusiasm perceived the proclamation of new aesthetic principles by the young publicists of the magazine. Turgenev, for example, in letters to Kraevsky, Nekrasov, and others, called Chernyshevsky's dissertation "vile carrion" and "a vile book." Critics, who, unlike their young colleagues, were not inclined to talk about literature in an abstract theoretical way, had to defend their view of art. At the same time, focusing on the “classical” aesthetics of Belinsky (on his judgments of the early 1840s), they thought within the framework of aesthetic views common to the entire era: they compared literature with non-aesthetic “real” life, searched for a typological reflection of “reality as it is” in the work. There is". However, the opponents of "utilitarian", or, as they put it, "didactic" criticism, freed literature from the need to serve the topical needs of the time, from the indispensable depiction of class conflicts, left its independent, sovereign meaning behind the belles-lettres.
In contrast to the publicists of Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, who, while expressing their convictions, often started from Russian literature of previous years, the defenders of the aesthetic approach mastered it as a positive basis for declaring their own predilections. Pushkin appears as their eminent like-minded person in the articles of A. V. Druzhinin (“A. S. Pushkin and the last edition of his works”, 1855) and M. N. Katkov (“Pushkin”, 1856). The work of L. Tolstoy, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, and even Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin demonstrates the unshakable relevance of timeless moral and psychological issues of human existence.
Pavel Vasilievich Annenkov (1813-1887) was one of the first to stand up for the aesthetic ideals of this literary-critical movement, publishing in 1855 on the pages of Sovremennik the article “On Thought in Works of Fine Literature” and in 1856, already in the Russian Bulletin”, the work “On the Importance of Artistic Works for Society”. Annenkov seeks to prove that in a literary work everything should be subordinated to a single goal - the expression of "artistic thought" associated with the development of "the psychological aspects of a person or many persons." Literary narration "draws life and strength from the observation of spiritual shades, subtle characteristic differences, the play of countless excitements of a human moral being in contact with other people." Any "intentional", abstract thought, philosophical or "pedagogical", distorts the essence of true creativity, the most "expensive" qualities of which are "freshness in understanding phenomena, innocence in looking at objects, courage in handling them." On the other hand, inner, “artistic” thought, which can also have a “random” character and which is based on attention to the spiritual motives of human behavior, to its moral experiences, is precisely the key to individual expressiveness and artistic persuasiveness of a literary work. The qualities of “nationality” must also have an equally subordinate character in literary creation. A critic who looks for these features in a work, ignoring its artistic merits, makes a mistake, because he extracts a part from the whole: only a true artist is able to be truly popular, penetrating into the depths of national morality. Defending the ethical and psychological aspect of fiction as the main criterion for evaluating both the work itself and its heroes, Annenkov does not agree with the categorical sentences passed by "real" criticism on the heroes of Turgenev's works of the 1850s. In the article “On the literary type of a weak person” (1858), which polemically responds to the work of N.G. Chernyshevsky "Russian man on rendez-vous", the critic seeks to expand the perception of the social phenomenon that is embodied in the image of the protagonist of the story "Asya": people who think, who know how to doubt themselves and those around them, play an important role in the life of society. "<...>we still continue to think that among people who enlist and themselves enroll in the category of suspicious, as if deprived of the ability to long and strongly desire, only a real, living thought is still saved that meets the needs of modern education. The type of “weak” person “excites all requests, raises debate, touches on subjects from different angles, swarms in research to confirm some generally beneficent thought, tries to arrange life with science, and finally represents in free creativity the verification of the present and the striving for the poetic ideal of existence.”
In the second half of the 1850s in Russia for the first time appeared its own periodical of Slavophilism - the journal "Russian conversation", which published articles by I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. Aksakov. Literary issues, however, are not the subject of the main interest of either the leaders of the journal (A. I. Koshelev, I. S. Aksakov, T. I. Filippova), or its authors, who turned mainly to philosophical, historical and social problems. Of the literary-critical works of the publication, only the article by K. Aksakov "Review of Modern Literature" (1857) caused a great resonance. Strictly approaching the phenomena of artistic literature of the 1850s and through the prism of the “Russian outlook”, evaluating the originality of writers and the depth of understanding of folk spirituality, Aksakov considers only Tyutchev in poetry and Ostrovsky in prose to be truly significant authors without hesitation. In the work of Fet and A. Maikov, the critic sees the poverty of thought and content, in the work of Turgenev and L. Tolstoy, despite the presence of "truly beautiful" works, - unnecessary details, from which "the general line that connects them into one whole is lost"1, in the stories of Grigorovich and Pisemsky - a superficial description of folk life, in Shchedrin's "Provincial Essays" - some caricature of images. At the same time, the final destruction of the "natural school" allows Aksakov to look with optimism into the future of Russian literature.
Despite the limited nature of the Slavophile movement in the 1850s and 1860s, it was precisely at this time that the intensive spread of the Slavophile ideology to other currents of social thought began. Figures and magazines of a purely Western orientation allow themselves unexpectedly sympathetic reviews of the works of K. Aksakov, Kireevsky, Khomyakov: Druzhinin, in an article on criticism of the Gogol period, reproaches Belinsky for unfair harshness towards the authors of Moskvityanin, a great work is published on the pages of Fatherland Notes K.N. Bestuzheva-Ryumin "Slavophile doctrine and its fate in Russian literature", characterizing the activities of Moscow writers of the 1840-1850s with respect and sympathy. Many of the judgments and ideas of the Slavophiles were accepted and assimilated by the new currents of the 1860s - in particular, "soil" criticism. In the first half of the decade, the ideology of “pochvennichestvo” was developed by F.M. Dostoevsky, who, together with his brother M.M. Dostoevsky, in 1861 gathered a small circle of relative like-minded people and organized the Vremya magazine. The position of the new movement was already determined in the announcement of a subscription to the publication, published on the pages of newspapers and magazines in 1860: the main goal of social activity, the author of the "Announcement", Dostoevsky, considers "the fusion of education and its representatives with the beginning of the people", more precisely, the promotion this process, which takes place naturally in society. Sharing the key beliefs of the Slavophiles, the ideological inspirer of Vremya wrote about the spiritual identity of the Russian nation, about its opposition to European civilization. However, unlike the Slavophiles, Dostoevsky interprets the reforms of Peter I, for all their inorganic nature for the people's consciousness, as a natural and necessary phenomenon that instilled on Russian soil the principles of literacy and education, which in the end will lead Russian society to peaceful harmony.
In the "Introduction" to the "Series of Articles on Russian Literature", which opened the critical and journalistic department of "Vremya", Dostoevsky, in fact, continues to develop the ideas of the "moderate" Slavophil I. Kireevsky, discussing the all-European and even universal human potential of Russian spirituality, based on the exceptional ability to sympathize with the "alien", on a special mental mobility that allows you to perceive and master the national landmarks of other peoples. The process of class reconciliation, which, according to Dostoevsky, is currently taking place, will contribute to the realization of this potential; the task of journalism and journalism should be to promote this process: to bring an educated society closer to the understanding of the Russian people, to the “soil”, as well as to promote the development of literacy in the lower classes.
Dostoevsky assigns a huge role in the unity of Russian society to domestic literature, which, in its best examples, demonstrates a deep understanding of national spirituality. The problem of the goals and meaning of literary disputes is raised by Dostoevsky in the programmatic aesthetic article “G. -bov and the question of art "(1861). The two main journalistic and literary parties - supporters of the theory of "art for art's sake" and, on the other hand, representatives of "utilitarian" criticism - according to Dostoevsky, are conducting an artificial discussion, distorting and exaggerating the opponent's point of view and having in mind not the search for truth, but only mutual pain. In such an exchange of views, the fundamental question of the essence and functions of art is not only not resolved, but, in fact, is not even raised. Dostoevsky develops his own vision of the problem by modeling a polemical dialogue with Dobrolyubov. Without questioning the thesis about the social purpose of art, about "usefulness", the author of Vremya resolutely opposes the point of view that a work of art should be subject to topical social needs and that the main criterion for evaluating its "usefulness" is the presence in it of a certain trend, its compliance with the "known" aspirations of society. According to Dostoevsky, this approach distorts ideas about the significance of art, because it ignores the main effect of a work of art - its aesthetic impact. Dostoevsky is convinced that works that fairly illuminate the pressing issues of our time, but are artistically imperfect, will never achieve the result that the "utilitarians" are counting on - especially since a momentary understanding of "usefulness" can turn into a mistake when viewed remotely.
True art is based on free creativity, then any requirement for the artist in the end also leads to a violation of the principle of "usefulness" - and in this aspect Dostoevsky sees the internal inferiority of Dobrolyubov's position. Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896), in the future an authoritative publicist of "neo-Slavophilism", and in these years - an aspiring journalist and critic, took upon himself the defense of the philosophical and aesthetic predilections of "Vremya", expressed in Dostoevsky's articles. However, in his works there is a desire, avoiding extremes, to promote the convergence of dissimilar literary and social programs. In Strakhov's article on Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" (1862), which came out after two sensational reviews of "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word", which struck with the opposite of assessments of the novel, one can clearly see the critic's intention to discover a grain of truth in the judgments of his predecessors, or, in any case, explain their point of view. Pisarev’s sincere position, devoid of tactical bias (Turgenev’s loud break with Sovremennik certainly influenced the pathos of Antonovich’s article), seemed to Strakhov more reliable, moreover, the Russkoye Slovo article became for the critic another indirect confirmation that “Bazarovism”, “ nihilism" are indeed present in real social life. The critic considered Turgenev's merit an understanding of the aspirations of the younger generation, the latest manifestations of social consciousness, which were reflected in the novel even more consistently than in Pisarev's article. And in this article in Vremya, art is recognized as a more perfect means of understanding the deep problems of social life than the most "progressive" journalistic experiments.
One of the main critics of the magazine was A. A. Grigoriev, who, after several years of journal wanderings, found a more or less suitable platform for expressing his favorite aesthetic judgments. After leaving the Moskvityanin in 1855, Grigoriev occasionally published in Russkiy Vestnik, Library for Reading, Russian Conversation, Svetoche, Otechestvennye Zapiski, headed the critical department of the Russian Word before Blagosvetlov came, but I never found constant support and sympathy anywhere. However, it was at this time that his original concept of "organic" criticism took shape.
In the article “A Critical Look at the Foundations, Meaning and Techniques of Modern Art Criticism” (1857), Grigoriev, dividing works of art into “organic”, that is, “born” with the help of the author’s talent by life itself, and into “made”, arising thanks to conscious writer's efforts, reproducing a ready-made artistic model, he outlined the corresponding tasks of literary criticism, which should discover the ascending connections of “made” works with their source, and evaluate “organic” ones based on the life and artistic susceptibility of the critic. At the same time, Grigoriev, as in the early 1850s, is looking for ways to combine ideas about the historicity of literature and its ideality. First of all, Grigoriev denies the fruitfulness of “pure” aesthetic criticism, which, in his opinion, comes down to “material” recording of artistic means and techniques: a deep and comprehensive judgment about a work is always a judgment “about”, considering it in the context of the phenomena of reality. .
However, he also does not accept the method of modern historicism, which connects literature with the momentary interests of the era: such a method is based on a false opinion about the relativity of truth and takes as its basis the truth of the last time, knowing or not wanting to know that it will soon turn out to be false. The critic opposes such a “historical view” with a “historical feeling”, which is able to see a given era through the prism of eternal moral values. In other words, Grigoriev rejects the rationalistic view of art - "theoretical" criticism, which biasedly searches for those aspects in a work of art that correspond to the a priori speculations of theorists, that is, violating the main principle of "organism" - naturalness. "Head thought" will never be able to understand reality deeper and more accurately than "heart thought".
Grigoriev also confirms the firmness of his literary convictions in other programmatic and theoretical works: in the article “A Few Words on the Laws and Terms of Organic Criticism” (1859) and in the later cycle “Paradoxes of Organic Criticism” (1864). In the article "Art and Morality" (1861), the former critic of "Moskvityanin" once again touches upon the problem of a timeless and historical view of ethical categories. Sharing the eternal moral commandments and norms of moral etiquette, Grigoriev comes to an innovative judgment for his era that art has the right to violate modern moral dogmas: “art as an organically conscious response to organic life, as a creative force and as an activity of creative force - nothing conditional, including and morality, does not obey and cannot obey, nothing conditional, therefore morality, should not be judged and measured.<...>Not art should learn from morality, but morality<...>at art."
One of the criteria for high morality and "organism" of literature for Grigoriev was its compliance with the national spirit. Popular and comprehensive talent of A.S. Pushkin, who created both the rebel Aleko and the peaceful, truly Russian Belkin, allowed Grigoriev to exclaim the famous: “Pushkin is our everything” (“A look at Russian literature since the death of Pushkin”, 1859). The critic discovers an equally deep and comprehensive understanding of folk life in Ostrovsky’s work (“After Ostrovsky’s Thunderstorm”, 1860). Grigoriev categorically rejected Dobrolyubov's opinion about the accusatory nature of the playwright's work. An understanding of the problems of nationality and the tasks of Russian literature, similar to F. M. Dostoevsky, led Grigoriev to collaborate in the journal Vremya, in which the critic developed the theme of the mutual influence of nationality and literature (“People and Literature”, 1861; “Poems by A. S. Khomyakov "; "Poems by N. Nekrasov", both - 1862), as well as the problem of the relationship between the individual and society ("Taras Shevchenko", 1861; "Regarding the new edition of the old thing:" Woe from Wit "", 1863, etc.)
In 1863, in Strakhov's article "The Fatal Question", censorship saw seditious statements on a painful Polish topic, and "Vremya", which since 1861 had significantly strengthened its authority and popularity, was subjected to an unexpected ban. The publication of the Epoch magazine, undertaken a year later, which retained both the staff and the position of Vremya, did not bring the desired success. And in 1865, after the death of M. M. Dostoevsky, the "Epoch" ceased to exist.
The latent, but hot social intensity of philosophical and aesthetic searches and battles of the "Gogol period" of Russian literature gives rise to a new for her, socially the most effective, journalistic genre - journalism criticism and polemics.
A fundamentally new phenomenon was the paramount place that he won in the 1930s and 1940s. as the sharpest and most operative instrument of ideological struggle and delimitation of different directions in their social aspirations, not only literary, but also social, including scientific, thought.
In the form of the most “innocent” in terms of censorship, critical analyzes and aesthetic declarations are put in magazines and the most burning issues of our time are resolved in different ways.
One of the first prototypes of this new type of journal was the organ of the Moscow philosophers "Moskovsky Vestnik". It was published from 1827 to 1830, its editor, almost nominally, was MP Pogodin. The journal pursued a strictly defined goal - to contribute to the "enlightenment" of Russian society, to convince it that philosophy "is the science of sciences, the science of wisdom", by familiarizing itself with the philosophy of Schelling, with the teachings of Herder, with works of art and the aesthetic theory of the German romantics and the corresponding critical interpretation of the phenomena of Russian literature.
Pushkin was directly involved in the creation of the magazine, mainly for tactical reasons. Feeling no attraction to German "metaphysics", he hoped to subordinate the journal to his influence and find in it his own printed platform.
That did not happen. Having become, as it was intended, a tribune of Schelling's views of the philosophers, the Moscow Bulletin played a certain role in popularizing the ideas of German classical philosophy, but it failed to win a wide readership and soon ceased to exist.
Even less, only a year and a half, Literaturnaya Gazeta, close to Pushkin in its direction, also existed (January 1830 - June 1831). It was published by one of Pushkin's closest friends, Delvig, with the participation of O. Somov, and after the death of Delvig, for several months by Somov alone. In addition to the publishers and Pushkin, Baratynsky, Vyazemsky, Katenin, Pletnev, Gogol, Stankevich and a number of other young writers and poets were published in the newspaper.
The name of the newspaper (it came out every five days) emphasized its purely literary, non-political character. But its demonstrative independence from the official ideology and fierce polemics with F. Bulgarin and N. Polev, who accused the newspaper, and not without reason, of seditious "aristocratism", aroused the disapproval of the authorities and did not receive public support.
The most influential, serious and popular magazine at that time was the Moscow Telegraph, published by N. A. Polev from 1825 to 1834. The magazine had a clear literary and political program, militantly romantic, basically pro-bourgeois, anti-noble and, in this sense, democratic , however, who advocated an alliance between the autocracy and the merchants and industrialists.
From this point of view, the journal widely covered the current literary, scientific and socio-political life of the Western European countries, mainly France; the July monarchy was evaluated positively, even enthusiastically; the principles of French romanticism and its eclectic philosophy (Cousin, Wilmain) were promoted as anti-aristocratic, and therefore the most promising for Russia.
In the early years of the publication of the Moscow Telegraph, Polevoy managed to combine the best literary forces in it. Vyazemsky takes an active part in the publication, attracting Pushkin, Baratynsky, Yazykov, Katenin and other poets of his entourage to it. In the years when the school of "stately romanticism" was taking shape, the publisher of the "Telegraph" was by no means one of its supporters. Moreover, for a sharp critical review of the semi-official drama by N. Kukolnik "The Hand of the Most High Saved the Fatherland", which captivated Nicholas I, the magazine was closed.
The Moscow Telegraph and its publisher had a considerable impact on the democratization of the literary and social consciousness, which was appreciated by Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. But the frankly pro-bourgeois and ultimately loyal position of Polevoy threw him into the ranks of the enemies of Pushkin and Gogol and, after the closure of the Moscow Telegraph, led him to the camp of reaction.
For the same reasons, the publisher of Telegraph remained aloof from the most speculative in form, but highly promising in content philosophical and aesthetic trend of the 1930s, at the origins of which are the philosophers of wisdom and the Moskovsky Vestnik.
In contrast to N. Polevoi, the publishers of Moskovsky Vestnik, after its publication was discontinued, are gradually imbued with an ever more anti-bourgeois spirit and, remaining Schelling’s adherents, but now accepting his late reactionary “philosophy of revelation,” are gradually transforming from philosophies into Slavophiles. In anticipation of this, they publish The Moscow Observer (1835-1837), directed by S. P. Shevyrev and V. A. Androsov.
The journal was conceived as a counteraction to "industrial" literature and journalism, represented by the same N. Polev, N. Grech, F. Bulgarin, the publisher of the official newspaper "Northern Bee", and mainly by the "Library for Reading", published by a talented but unprincipled writer and orientalist O. I. Senkovsky together with the bookseller A. F. Smirdin since 1834. Designed for the tastes of an unpretentious reader, the “Library for Reading” enjoyed great success in the bureaucratic and merchant environment, among the middle strata of the nobility, including provincial.
Schellingian in its philosophical design and largely justified criticism by the publishers of the Moscow Observer of the "industrial age" as a whole as hostile to the lofty aspirations of the human spirit and its highest expression - art - was combined with opposition to the autocratic-feudal system, but was criticism from the right, directed against democratic aspirations of the present.
This repulsed Pushkin’s journal, who at one time sympathized with him, and was sharply condemned by Belinsky, who spoke out against the Moscow Observer in N. I. Nadezhdin’s journal Teleskop and in the newspaper Molva (1831-1836) published as an appendix to it. .
Like the "Observers", the publisher of "Teleskop" was a staunch Schellingian, but of an essentially different and mostly democratic orientation, complicated, however, by political conservatism. Nadezhdin's views on the essence and social function of art were just as contradictory, but on the whole paved the way for realistic aesthetics.
Particularly significant is the contribution made by Nadezhdin to the democratic understanding of the problem of “nationality”, which is directly opposite to its protective interpretation by the publishers of the Moscow Observer, which formed the basis of their Slavophile doctrine, which took shape a few years later. In "Telescope" and "Molva" Belinsky began his literary and critical activity, much indebted to Nadezhdin. Among the employees of the "Telescope" were the future "Westerners" - A. I. Herzen, M. A. Bakunin, V. P. Botkin, P. Ya. Chaadaev.
Pushkin published two pamphlets on Bulgarin in Teleskop, which corresponded to the position of the magazine, which was sharpened against Polevoy's Moscow Telegraph and Moscow Observer at the same time. For the publication of Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letter" the "Telescope" was closed, and its publisher was expelled from Moscow to the Urals.
Almost simultaneously, in April 1836, the first issue of the Sovremennik magazine founded by Pushkin was published. The magazine did not have a clear program and, continuing in many ways the tradition of the Literaturnaya Gazeta, in contrast to it, it was designed for circles not only of the liberal noble intelligentsia, but also of the raznochintsy, democratic.
In Sovremennik, Pushkin published a number of his works of art, including The Captain's Daughter, several critical and historical essays, reviews and notes. The magazine was attended (not too active, though) by Pushkin's old literary friends - Zhukovsky, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, as well as Yazykov, D. Davydov, Tyutchev and others.
The most active participant in the journal was the young Gogol, who published in the 1st issue of Sovremennik a large and sharply polemical article "On the movement of journal literature in 1834 and 1835." She did not satisfy Pushkin in everything, which did not prevent Gogol's works such as "Carriage", "Nose" and "Morning of a Businessman" from appearing on the pages of Sovremennik.
Staying aloof from the philosophical interests and disagreements of its time (which did not quite justify the name "Contemporary"), Pushkin's journal claimed the value of not only a literary-critical, but to some extent a historical-literary and even historical publication. Most of Pushkin's plans related to this remained unfulfilled for censorship reasons.
Pushkin managed to publish only four issues of Sovremennik. But the magazine was destined for a long life. After the death of its founder, it passed into the hands of Pletnev and Zhukovsky, and ten years later, at the end of 1846, it became the journal of Nekrasov and Belinsky, the most influential and advanced periodical of the second half of the 40s.
On the pages of Sovremennik Belinsky unfolded a struggle with the Slavophiles, who took up arms in their journal Moskvityanin (1841-1855) against the "negative" direction of the "natural school".
After the death of Belinsky (1848), Sovremennik gradually loses its militant democratic spirit, which was revived with renewed vigor in 1853, when Nekrasov recruited N. G. Chernyshevsky to work in the journal, and after that N. A. Dobrolyubov. The fate of Sovremennik is symbolic, as if embodying the objective logic of the literary development of the 1930s and 1940s, which Pushkin foresaw in many respects, but not completely.
A special and very significant role belongs to the first half of the 40s. and another long-term journal, Otechestvennye Zapiski (1820-1884). From 1839 to 1846, the critical and bibliographic, widely placed department of the journal, then published by A. A. Kraevsky, was led almost exclusively by Belinsky.
Here the journalistic talent of the critic is fully deployed, and his articles on Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Koltsov, systematic annual literary reviews and many, many other critical reviews become major events in literary and social life, eagerly awaited, read, discussed by student youth and democratic intelligentsia. Russian criticism had not known such a wide public response before.
Gradually, many young writers of a socialist orientation, followers of Gogol and admirers of George Sand - Herzen, Ogarev, Saltykov, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, as well as Turgenev, Grigorovich and some others, are gradually grouped around the magazine and Belinsky, united by a new direction, which soon received the name "natural school".
At the same time, Otechestvennye Zapiski became a propaganda organ for socialist ideas, under the direct influence of which a realistic and democratic aesthetics of the “natural school” was formed.
To her, as well as to the work of her inspirer - Gogol, the words spoken by Herzen about the political lyrics of the Decembrists and Pushkin are fully applicable: “For a people deprived of public freedom, literature is the only tribune from the height of which it makes you hear the cry of your indignation and your conscience. ".
History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983
Literary criticism occupied an important place in Russian literary and social life.
How do criticism and fiction relate? It would seem that there is no doubt that literature is primary, and criticism is secondary, in other words, that critical thought follows in its development the movement of literature and cannot contain more than what is given by literature. In principle, this is how it is, however, since the time of the Decembrists, it has become a tradition for Russian criticism to address problems not only purely literary, but also social, philosophical, and moral. In addition, cases are known when the best critics were able to give such forecasts of literary development, which were subsequently fully justified.
Public life in the 60s. was very tense. Literary criticism was just one of the main areas of ideological struggle, which was reflected in a sharp polemic between representatives of various trends. Defenders of the revolutionary democratic ideology and supporters of "pure art" defended diametrically opposed theories, looked at the goals and objectives of literary creativity in different ways.
Not all prominent writers of the XIX century. recognized the justice of the sharp literary controversy, when some defended the benevolence of only Gogol's traditions, while others accepted only Pushkin's "pure poetry". However, Turgenev wrote to Druzhinin about the need for both Pushkin and Gogol in Russian literature: “Pushkin’s literature receded into the background - let it come forward again, but not in order to replace Gogol’s. We still urgently need Gogol's influence both in life and in literature. A similar position was held by Nekrasov, who, during the period of the most acute controversy, urged the younger generation to learn from Pushkin: “... learn from the example of a great poet to love art, truth and homeland, and if God has given you a talent, follow in the footsteps of Pushkin” . But at the same time, in a letter to Turgenev, Nekrasov argued that Gogol is “a noble and most humane person in the Russian world; one must wish that the young writers of Russia follow in his footsteps. material from the site
In the middle of the XIX century. representatives of two main trends, two aesthetic theories sharply argued. Who was right, who was wrong? To a certain extent, both sides were right.
We can say that the ideal is an organic combination, the harmony of aesthetic, moral, sociological, historical criteria. Unfortunately, this has not always worked out. There was no unity among critics: various schools and directions appeared, each of which had not only its own achievements and successes, but also shortcomings, not least caused by excessive polemical extremes.
I will start a little afar, from the very beginning of the 19th century, because all this may be necessary for the feeling of the era - and because it was a single process.
The role of Russian journals in this period is great and varied. Journals are sources of education, conductors of philosophical, aesthetic, political and economic information. All fiction, not to mention critical literature, passed through magazines.
New Russian journalism arose at the very beginning of the 19th century, or even in the last decade of the 18th century. Karamzin's Moscow Journal, published in 1791-1792, hardly anyone can remember, but his Vestnik Evropy (1802-1803) is closer to us, educated people over sixty can remember how their parents read it , For example). These are the first Russian magazines created according to the Western European model - magazines with permanent sections, including critics, a variety of material, a more or less unified ideological and artistic direction, fascination and accessibility of presentation, and, finally, a certain periodicity.
In the first half of the century, such magazines as the Moscow Telegraph (1825-1834), Telescope and the appendix - the newspaper Molva (1831-1836), Sovremennik (published since 1836) and Domestic Notes ( from 1846). The last two journals will play an exceptional role in the social and political life of the second half of the 19th century.
Although I will talk mainly about magazines, it is impossible not to mention the famous odious newspaper of the 19th century - this is the "Northern Bee" (1825-1864), founded by the equally famous and odious Bulgarin. Attention, until 1825 it was a stronghold of liberal ideas, Decembrist poets were published in it, after that it was a loyal organ, for which it was subjected to a number of polemical attacks and ridicule from almost all other magazines. Since 1860, he again changes course towards a democratic one, articles about Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin begin to be published in it. Nevertheless, all the time of its existence it is considered the secret body of the III branch.
The Literaturnaya Gazeta did not exist for long, in the publication of which Pushkin took part - in 1830-1831 this newspaper was considered an opposition publication, following the traditions of Decembrist journalism. It publishes both Russian (Gogol) and foreign (Hugo) writers.
The newspaper under the same name appears in 1840-1849, has a subtitle: "Bulletin of sciences, arts, literature, news, theaters and fashion" and a general progressive orientation.
"Moscow Telegraph" - a magazine published in 1825-1834. It did not have a bright literary orientation, but it published articles on philosophy, literary history, history, public and private economy, natural sciences, including translated ones.
"Telescope" - also did not shine with bright fiction, but served as a platform for controversy on a variety of issues - linguistic, historical and even natural science. Belinsky's first articles appear in Molva.
It was in the "Telescope" that the beginnings of those phenomena that would later be called Slavophilism and Westernism appeared.
The Western and Slavophile trend of thought emerged in the 1930s and 1940s in a debate about the path of Russia's development. The names are very conditional, and in no case can one of these directions be considered oppositional, and the other - loyal. Both were in opposition to the official course. Westerners were supporters of the Europeanization of Russia, the development of its economy, culture, politics and public institutions along the path of Western European states. Among them were liberals, supporters of gradual reforms, and radicals (democrats) - supporters of the revolution. Actually, the controversy between Otechestvennye Zapiski and Sovremennik was connected with this (see below). T.N. Granovsky, M.N. Katkov, I.S. Turgenev, P.Ya. Chaadaev, B.N. Chicherin and others. The extreme left wing of the Westerners - A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky, N.P. Ogarev, partly M.A. Bakunin.
The Slavophils, on the contrary, defended the idea of the originality of the social system of Russia and Russian culture, and saw the origins of this originality in the special character of Orthodoxy. They attributed rationalism and disunity to the West, while in Russia they saw patriarchy, spiritual integrity. The Slavophiles called for a rejection of the path that Russia had followed since the reforms of Peter I - in particular, by the way, they objected to the separation of the educated classes from the lower ones and saw salvation in the people's life, way of life and customs. (Remember in "Fathers and Sons" the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich? “(Bazarov): And then I’ll be ready to agree with you,” he added, getting up, “when you present me at least one decision in our modern life, in family or public life, which would not cause complete and merciless denial.
“I will present you millions of such resolutions,” exclaimed Pavel Petrovich, “millions!” Yes, at least the community, for example.
A cold smile twisted Bazarov's lips.
- Well, about the community, - he said, - talk better with your brother. He now seems to have experienced in practice what a community, mutual responsibility, sobriety and the like are.
- The family, finally, the family, as it exists among our peasants! cried Pavel Petrovich.
- And this question, I believe, is better for you not to analyze in detail. Have you heard of daughters-in-law, tea? The position of Pavel Petrovich does not correspond to the Slavophile as a whole, he is rather close to Westernizers-liberals, but this exchange of remarks perfectly illustrates the way of polemic between Slavophiles and Westerners-democrats).
The Slavophiles include the critic I.V. Kireevsky, poet, philosopher and critic A.S. Khomyakov, S.T. Aksakov, the author of the book “Childhood of Bagrov-grandson”, and his sons K.S. Aksakov and I.S. Aksakov, also literary critics.
The Slavophiles did not have a permanent journal for reasons of censorship. They published a number of collections of articles, in the 1950s, when censorship softened somewhat, the magazines Molva, Parus and Moskvityanin appeared.
In 1861-1863, the magazine "Time" was published by F.M. and M.M. Dostoevsky. It develops the ideas of pochvenism, which is, in essence, a modification of Slavophilism - pochvenism recognizes the original path of Russia, but does not deny historical progress, which, however, is given a different meaning than that of the Westerners.
In general, at the time being described, moderate Westernism rather than Slavophilism is favored in political and public life. Western journals are actively arguing with each other, but the Slavophiles, as we see, do not have their own journal.
Among Westerners there are both believers (Granovsky) and atheists (Bakunin), for example, both liberals and democrats. Slavophiles are mostly Orthodox, often defiantly.
After the reforms of 1861, the moderate Westernizers partly drew closer to the Slavophiles.
Otechestvennye Zapiski has been published in St. Petersburg since 1818. Until 1839, the magazine was mostly filled with articles on historical and geographical topics. Its true heyday begins in 1839, when the publisher transformed it into a monthly "scholarly-literary journal" of a large volume (up to 40 printed sheets). Each issue contained the sections "Modern Chronicle of Russia", "Science", "Literature", "Art", "House Economics, Agriculture and Industry in General", "Criticism", "Modern Bibliographic Chronicle", "Mixture". It is attended by writers and critics of various generations and trends, as well as Westerners and Slavophiles. The critical department is headed by the famous critic, who influenced the entire literary process of the second half of the 19th century and the entire school of Russian literary criticism, V.G. Belinsky. Gradually, the magazine becomes a distinctly Westernizing organ. In 1847, Belinsky, and with him Herzen, for a number of reasons, including everyday ones, moved to the journal Sovremennik, and Otechestvennye Zapiski became a publication of a liberal-Western orientation, while Sovremennik acquires a distinctly democratic - revolutionary flavor.
The Sovremennik magazine was founded in 1836, and Pushkin was involved in its founding. In particular, "The Captain's Daughter" was printed there. Until 1843, the magazine was published 4 times a year. In 1846 the magazine fell into disrepair and was sold to Nekrasov and Panaev.
Since then, the program of the journal has been determined by the articles of its ideological inspirer Belinsky. It publishes the works of leading authors - Goncharov, Herzen, Turgenev, Druzhinin's story "Polinka Saks" is printed in it, and translations of novels by Dickens, Thackeray and George Sand are also printed in it. Since 1858, the magazine begins to conduct a sharp debate with the liberal trend, finally becoming openly revolutionary. At this time, Turgenev leaves him (and soon after he writes the novel "Fathers and Sons" - the polemic with the democrats in the novel is present in the most distinct way).
In June 1862, the magazine was suspended for 8 months; it began to appear again at the beginning of 1863.
In London, in 1855-1868, the almanac of Westerners Herzen and Ogarev "Polar Star" was published. This is the first uncensored Russian democratic journal. It frankly calls for revolution, publishes the freedom-loving poems of Pushkin, Lermontov, Ryleev, and publishes various revealing materials. Despite this, the magazine was not banned in Russia and, according to rumors, Alexander II opened the meetings of the Cabinet of Ministers with the words “Have everyone read the latest issue of the Polar Star? Attitude towards Herzen changed after the Polish uprising of 1863 :), when he sided with Poland and condemned the Russian Empire.
So, the dry residue. Currently, the newspaper "Northern Bee", the magazines "Domestic Notes", "Sovremennik" (St. Petersburg), "Molva", "Parus" and "Moskvityanin" (Moscow) are published (but they can hardly reach our city, as they come out in a very small circulation), "Polar Star" (London)
