Stage results: The main result of the project was the development of an analytical biobibliographic dictionary “Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century.” Its relevance for the science of literature is due to a number of reasons. First of all, the need for a modern assessment of the individual contribution of researchers to the development of literary studies of the last century, freed from ideological overlay. Its absence left the works of many scientists in unfair oblivion and did not allow us to present the picture scientific life in relative completeness and obvious complexity. Secondly, the systematic study of the knowledge accumulated in the twentieth century helped to better understand and clarify the content and subject of literary criticism as a developing scientific discipline, the meaning of its categories, or “key words” (as defined by A.V. Mikhailov), its place among related sciences and in culture as a whole. Understanding and re-evaluating the literary heritage is also necessary to overcome the theoretical and methodological crisis that has developed in domestic conditions, which, as is known, is associated with the lack of new ideas. In addition, the creation of a dictionary has scientific significance, since the biographies of scientists represent a “collection of unique cases”, by studying which one can get an adequate idea of ​​​​humanitarian thinking. Finally, the dictionary can be an important step towards developing a methodology for creating biographies of literary scholars. In order to highlight from wide range literary issues related to the development of the dictionary “Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century”, and to prepare further dictionary entries on the basis of the Department of Literary Theory of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov was organized and held an international Scientific Conference“Russian literary criticism of the 20th century: names, schools, concepts”, which brought together about 100 participants from 5 countries and 22 Russian cities. The plenary session, which brought together representatives of various literary schools in Moscow (MSU, IMLI RAS, Russian State University for the Humanities), St. Petersburg, Kazan, and Saransk, aroused great interest. Professor O.A. Kling, in his report “Literary Studies of the 20th Century as a Sociocultural Phenomenon,” emphasized that “it is completely inappropriate to paint everyone with the same brush when talking about the Soviet period of literary criticism,” and suggested that the unprecedented situation in the science of literature at the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st will someday be called platinum century: “This is a special time: literary thought has already experienced a significant renewal, the time has come for its calm flow. We are on the threshold of a new status for the science of words (and literature itself) in conditions where a variety of schools coexist, and quite peacefully. Moreover, each of them has its own circle of authors and its own circle of readers. Maybe we are returning, but on a new level, to synthetic literary criticism, when in dialogue different schools and directions there will be a knowledge of the inexhaustible essence of the text.” Associate Professor L.Ya. Voronova spoke about literary studies of the first half of the twentieth century at Kazan University. Professor O.E. Osovsky using the example of the life stories of M.M. Bakhtin turned to the genre of biography of a literary critic as an object of literary research. Professor V.I. devoted his speech to the analysis of literary text in Russian literary criticism of the twentieth century. Tyupa. Russian literary criticism in the era of the dominance of Marxism-Leninism was discussed in the report of Professor V.E. Khalizeva. At the plenary session there were speeches about such different literary researchers as B.M. Eikhenbaum (report by Professor E.I. Orlova “B.M. Eikhenbaum as a literary critic”), A.M. Evlakhov (report by Professor E.A. Taho-Godi “The Forgotten Forerunner of Russian Formalism”), E.A. Solovyov-Andreevich (report by Professor M.V. Mikhailova “How Marxist literary criticism began: a wreath on the grave of E.A. Solovyov-Andreevich”). The highlight of the program were the speeches of Professor B.F. Egorov, who commented on new materials about the life and work of Yu.M. Lotman, corresponding member of the RAS N.V. Kornienko, who turned to literary criticism in the context of the literary struggle of the NEP era, as well as Professor Yu.V. Mann, who shared his philological memories of student years at Moscow State University. At the conference, issues related to the heritage of the past in Russian literary criticism of the twentieth century were actively discussed. Particular attention was paid to the uniqueness of Russian literary criticism and its place in the world science of literature. The participants dedicated their speeches not only to academic schools and their recognized leaders, but also to non-directional concepts, as well as to unfairly forgotten researchers. The work of the first section was focused around specific names. The speakers turned to the literary heritage of S.D. Krzhizhanovsky (L.V. Chernets), V.L. Komarovich (O.A. Bogdanova), F.P. Schiller (A.A. Smirnov), G.D. Gacheva (A.G. Gacheva), U.R. Fokhta (L.A. Khodanen), K.I. Chukovsky (F.A. Ermoshin), M.M. Dunaeva (E.R. Varakina), I.F. Annensky (A.V. Domashchenko), L.D. Gromova-Opulskaya (N.I. Burnasheva), A.V. Belinkova (V.G. Moiseeva), I.Yu. Podgaetskaya (E.M. Lutsenko), A.V. Mikhailova (O.V. Nikandrova), A.A. Saburova (E.E. Lebedeva), D.S. Likhacheva (E.V. Surovtseva), I.A. Ilyin (E.G. Rudneva). In the second section, three aspects could be distinguished: self-reflection of literary criticism, new scientific directions, the heritage of Russian literature in the assessment of certain literary scholars. V.V. Kurilov gave a definition of “literary school”, “direction”, “current” and introduced the concept of an individual methodological strategy for the analysis and interpretation of a literary work. The reports of N.G. were oriented in the same vein, but more specifically. Vladimirova (“The Author as a Problem of English Fiction in the Context of Its Perception by Russian Literary Studies”) and S.G. Isaev (“The concept of expressiveness in the theoretical quest of the early twentieth century: mystical and positivist projections”) about the change in methodological priorities in literary criticism of the twentieth century: the rejection of epistemology in favor of ontology, phenomenology and functionality. L.A. Trakhtenberg turned to the history of the study of Russian laughter literature based on the works of I.E. Zabelina, V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.M. Bakhtina, D.S. Likhacheva, Yu.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspensky. Discussion in Soviet literary criticism about the relationship between literary criticism, literary criticism and literature, as well as the later theses of A.V. Mikhailov and S.G. Bocharov’s ideas about the “literariness” of literary criticism were compared in the report of V.A. Tretyakov with the development of corresponding ideas in Western literary theory of the second half of the twentieth century. CM. Telegin presented his own concept of myth restoration and substantiated it theoretical basis and pointed out the difference from previous theories. Ideas by S.M. Telegin were developed in the reports of T.A. Alpatova (“Methodology of the Russian mythological school today: possibilities of mythological restoration of the poetic image”), L.M. Elnitskaya (“On one direction of modern mythological research in literary criticism: the method of myth restoration”), E.Yu. Poltavets (“The system of terms in the method of myth restoration”). D.V. Koblenkova, in turn, characterized domestic Scandinavian studies of the second half of the twentieth century. The reports of the third section were related to the functioning of a variety of concepts in Russian literary criticism of the past century. AND I. Esalnek reflected on the multifunctionality of dialogism in the science of literature. A.V. Zhdanova addressed the problem of the genesis of the terms “grotesque style”, “game style”, “non-traditional narrative”. In the report of P.P. Tkacheva considered the concept of the system literary families I.V. Gutorov (whose works are a bibliographic rarity today) from the point of view of the processes of self-organization in literature. L.N. Ryaguzova explored the concept of “second Middle Ages” as a cultural and semiotic concept in the theoretical reflection of P.M. Bicilli. In the speech of O.I. Pleshkova noted the connection between the historical prose of Yu.N. Tynyanov and the theory of literary evolution of the scientist, in addition, the influence of scientific concepts and artistic experiments of Yu.N. Tynyanov on the development of modern historical prose of Russian postmodernism. M.B. Loskutnikova also turned to the figure of Yu.N. Tynyanov in the light of the literary critic’s work on the problems of poetics. To the forgotten works of V.V. Gippius about the work of M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina appealed to E.Yu. Sadovskaya. Works of the Ufa literary critic R.G. Nazirov, related to the study of the works of A. Pushkin, N. Gogol, F. Dostoevsky, A. Chekhov, was analyzed by Yu.V. Shevchuk. Speech by E.I. Gutkina was associated with the characteristics developed by E.K. Rosenov’s concept of the “golden section” in poetry and determining the significance of the scientist’s research for the theory of lyrical creativity. In conclusion, E.V. Pugacheva traced the transformation “ eternal image» Beauty in the poems of A. Akhmatova. The central event of the conference was a round table dedicated to discussing the draft dictionary “Russian Literary Scholars of the 20th Century”. Formulated by A.A. Kholikov, the main problem areas and theoretical and methodological principles of the future publication were initiated by expert presentations: B.F. Egorova, I.B. Rodnyanskaya, V.E. Khalizeva, M.Yu. Edelshteina, M.V. Mikhailova, E.A. Tahoe-Godi, V.I. Maslovsky, A.A. Smirnova, L.Ya. Voronova and other conference participants. A preliminary public discussion of the dictionary prospectus (Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century: Dictionary prospectus / Kling O.A., Kholikov A.A. - M., 2010) took place for two months as part of another Internet conference. The collected material for the future dictionary “Russian Literary Scholars of the 20th Century” is unprecedented in its scale and scope of names. Previously, dictionaries of Russian writers were published in Russia (Russian writers. 1800-1917. Biographical dictionary. Vol. 1 – 5. M., 1989 – 2007, publication continues; Russian writers of the 20th century. Biographical dictionary. M., 2000, etc.) , general (New Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 2000, etc.) and literary encyclopedias (Literary Encyclopedia: In 11 volumes [M.], 1929 - 1939; Brief literary encyclopedia: In 9 t. M., 1962 – 1978), reference books in the genre “Who is who” (Chuprinin S. New Russia: the world of literature. Encyclopedic dictionary-reference book: In 2 volumes. M., 2003; Ogryzko V.V. Russian writers: the modern era. Lexicon: Sketch of a future encyclopedia. M. , 2004; Who's who in Russian literary criticism. Reference book. [In 3 hours] M., 1991 - 1994), where there were articles only about some of the most famous literary critics or prose writers and poets, who, along with artistic creativity, were mostly engaged in criticism, less often - the science of words. The project participants managed to focus the attention of researchers on the literary scholars themselves, including little-known and forgotten ones, not only Russian and Soviet, but also representatives of the Russian diaspora (information about whom is still scattered and difficult to access), who worked in the twentieth century and have already passed away. Already on initial stage obtain the following results: 1) a general scientific concept of the dictionary has been developed; 2) the theoretical and methodological principles of the publication are formulated; 3) the final dictionary is approved [The dictionary is compiled in accordance with the stated theoretical and methodological principles. The division of names into three groups (scientists, writers, emigrants) is conditional and was done for the convenience of working with the material. When publishing the dictionary, all names will be arranged in a row alphabetically.]; 4) a memo was developed for the author and editor of dictionary entries; 5) standard articles were written, reviewed and edited [Examples of dictionary entries about three dissimilar literary scholars were created based on the theoretical and methodological principles formulated in the prospectus. Designed in accordance with the “Memo to the Author of a Dictionary Entry,” these texts were intended to help future authors of the Dictionary. It is important to understand that standard articles do not represent standard, but only acceptable options. Thus, the article about Skaftymov is more distinguished by the presence of contextual information (a kind of “lyrical digression”) than the article about Eikhenbaum. In turn, the analytical part of the article about Gershenzon, unlike the rest, is written primarily in an abstract manner. The articles differ, despite the commonality of theoretical and methodological principles, which is due to the individuality of literary scholars - both heroes and authors]; 6) 100% of dictionary entries from the approved dictionary were ordered. On final stage, according to the developed general scientific concept of the dictionary and the formulated theoretical and methodological principles of the publication, it was possible to: 1) collect 500 articles (work with the authors continues on the remaining ones); 2) conduct an examination of written articles (100% of their total number); 3) edit texts submitted by the authors (500 out of 500); 4) make changes agreed upon with the authors; 5) attract new authors for the remaining dictionary entries. The results obtained have not only empirical, but also theoretical significance. The forms of embodiment of biographies of scientists are very diverse: from scientific monographs to works of art. The success of any of them depends on the level of development of specific principles and methods for studying the personality and activities of a scientist. But since the number of biographies of humanists (especially literary scholars) is small, the methodology for their creation has not previously been developed at the proper level. An important step towards solving this problem on a scientific basis was the development of a dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century. The dictionary includes the following personalities. Firstly, philologists, scientific activity which was focused on studying fiction and everything connected with it. This is the largest group of researchers, which will include some linguists (V.V. Vinogradov, G.O. Vinokur, B.A. Larin, A.A. Shakhmatov, R.O. Yakobson, etc.), historians and literary theorists , folklorists (V.P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.K. Azadovsky, M.P. Alekseev, M.M. Bakhtin, N.Ya. Berkovsky, S.M. Bondi, V.E. Vatsuro, M.L. Gasparov, L.Ya. Ginzburg, B.I. Purishev, B.V. Tomashevsky, V.N. Turbin, B.M. Eikhenbaum, B.I. Yarkho and others - the skeleton of the dictionary), bibliographers and bibliologists ( V.Ya. Adaryukov, A.V. Mezier, K.D. Muratova, A.G. Fomin, etc.). Secondly, writers who reflected on the nature of artistic creativity and analyzed the works of not only contemporary authors. These are writers (A.A. Akhmatova, T.A. Bek, Andrei Bely, V.Ya. Bryusov, V.A. Kaverin, Maxim Gorky, K.I. Chukovsky, etc.), critics who addressed not only the current literary process (A.L. Volynsky, A.K. Voronsky, D.A. Gorbov, A.Z. Lezhnev, etc.), some thinkers, at first glance, are far from literary studies, but made a special contribution to its development ( N.A. Berdyaev, G.V. Plekhanov, V.V. Rozanov, etc.). The initial condition for selecting names was that the literary scholar had published research, written in Russian, scientifically significant, original or typical for his time. The question of the time boundaries of the dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century requires comment. In general, these boundaries correspond to the calendar century, but since, according to the precise remark of S.A. Vengerov, “formal chronology and the chronology of truly integral historical and literary periods rarely coincide,” then they needed to be expanded. The dictionary includes mainly those whose literary work is strongly associated with the 20th century, although it could have begun in the last quarter of the 19th century and ended before 2010 (with rare exceptions). Thus, the “ethical imperative” of scientific research is observed – “not a word about the living.” Separately, it should be noted that there are no geographical barriers to the inclusion of emigrant literary scholars in the dictionary (G.V. Adamovich, Yu.I. Aikhenvald, N.M. Bakhtin, P.L. Weil, M.L. Goffman, K.V. Mochulsky, N.A. Otsup and others). No less important than the composition of the dictionary was the solution to the problem of the structure and content of the dictionary entry. The dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century is not limited to help function and provides the reader not only with “dry” factual information a brief retelling paramount scientific works. Consequently, the issue of theoretical and methodological principles for writing a dictionary entry was resolved. To illustrate them, we will focus on the genre of biography of a literary critic in its specifics and list the main problematic “nodes” associated with the structure of the narrative, the tasks implemented in the text, as well as the sources of the biography. Let's start with the structure. The biography of a literary critic consists of a number of mandatory elements, which include: characteristics of the main stages life path And research activities, a narrative about the era and immediate surroundings as factors of influence on a creative personality. This is the core. Within the tight confines of the dictionary entry, a three-part composition was implemented, which presupposes: 1) the presence of brief biographical information (dates and places of birth/death, origin, education, beginning, main stages and end of career activity, first lifetime publications of literary works, and some others) , lined up in a straight line chronological sequence; 2) an analytical review of literary activity, confirming its individuality and/or typicality, highlighting the main terms and concepts (which will allow, thanks to the compilation of an index of terms and concepts, to trace the history of their functioning and actual application in the twentieth century, which has not yet been written, but extremely necessary); 3) a bibliography of works by a literary critic and about him, which acquires special value in articles about “forgotten” names, has a recommendatory function and is complementary in relation to the second compositional part. The structure of the narrative reveals the tasks facing the biographer and helping him achieve the main goal - to understand and explain the “hero” of the biography. According to M.G. Yaroshevsky, “the activity and individuality of a scientist can be adequately explained only in a system of three coordinates: subject-logical, socio-historical, personal-psychological.” The last thing that should be briefly discussed is the problem of sources, which becomes important for distinguishing between the reliable and the incredible in the biography of a literary scholar. In this case, the time of origin of the source (before or after the death of the literary scholar), the nature (oral or written) and the authorship (biographer, literary scholar or other person) were taken into account. According to the concept of B.M. Kedrova, to the greatest extent A source directly related to the time of interest to us, emanating from the literary critic himself and having a written nature, has the least reliability, and the least reliable is a source distant in time from the event being described, emanating from other persons and having an oral nature. At the same time, archival and hard-to-access materials were of greatest value for writing a dictionary entry. As a result of following the proposed methods and approaches, materials for the dictionary were prepared, the purpose of which is to provide specialists (and not only) with brief, systematized information about Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century with a modern analysis of their activities. Such a dictionary will be the most complete in terms of its coverage of names and will become a necessary contribution to the study of the science of literature of the past century. The dictionary “Russian literary scholars of the 20th century” became an open project, in which not only scientists from the department of literary theory, other departments of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, but also authors from educational and scientific centers Russia and the world.

A philologist is a person who studies the spiritual component of a people, their language and culture through text.

There were scientists in Russia who contributed to the development of the theory of linguistics.

Lomonosov Mikhail Vasilievich

Artist and poet, one of the founders of Russian scientific and literary language, author "Russian Grammar" and the first Russian manual on rhetoric, applied the theory of three styles to the Russian language, and developed the foundations of Russian syllabic-tonic poetry.

Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov

Philologist and poet, founded comparative Slavic linguistics in Russia, established correspondences between the vowels of Slavic languages, discovered nasal vowels (yus) in Old Church Slavonic and supin in Old Russian, published for the first time "Ostromir Gospel".

Petr Vasilievich Kireevsky

Folklorist, historian and Slavophile, the largest collector of Russian folk songs.

Vladimir Ivanovich Dal

The largest Russian lexicographer of the nineteenth century, folklorist and Turkologist, author of the famous "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" and collection "Proverbs of the Russian people".

Fedor Ivanovich Buslaev

Founder of linguistic Russian studies, created classifications subordinate clauses And minor members proposals, identified three types coordinating connection and connection-adjacency, studied the Buslaev Psalter.

Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky

The largest Slavic philologist of the mid-19th century, the founder of dialectology of the Russian language, studied and published many ancient Slavic manuscripts.

Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya

Founder theoretical linguistics in Russia, the author of the doctrine of the internal form of the word, a pioneer in the study of the connection between language and thinking (anticipated the emergence of psycholinguistics).

Nikolai Vyacheslavovich Krushevsky

Author key concept phoneme (the basic unit of phonology), first proposed a general theory phonetic alternations and introduced the idea of ​​language as a system of signs, pioneering the synchronic analysis of language.

Ivan Aleksandrovich Baudouin de Courtenay

founder of phonology and experimental phonetics, mathematical linguistics and structuralism; pioneer in the study of synchrony and living speech, developed the idea of ​​the phoneme and the theory of alternations, founded Kazan linguistic school.

Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov

Founder Moscow linguistic school (“formal” or “Fortunatovian”), distinguished between inflection and formation, author of Fortunatov’s laws in Indo-European studies.

Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba

The author of the phrase “Glokaya kuzdra shteko budlanul bokra and kurdyachit bokrenok”, introduced the concepts of negative linguistic material and linguistic experiment, one of the creators of the doctrine of the phoneme, founded St. Petersburg phonological school.

Evgeny Dmitrievich Polivanov

The creator of the currently used Russian transcription for the Japanese language (Polivanov’s system), developed the convergent-divergent theory in diachronic phonology, and first identified phraseology as a separate discipline.

Vladimir Yakovlevich Propp

The founder of the comparative typological method in folklore, one of the founders modern theory text, an outstanding researcher of Russian fairy tales, author of the work “Morphology fairy tale».

Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin

Culturologist, literary critic and philosopher of language, introduced a number of important concepts into literary studies (polyphonism, laughter culture, chronotope, carnivalization, menippea and others).

Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman

Literary critic, culturologist and semiotician, founder of cultural semiotics, major researcher of Russian poetry, introduced the concept of semiosphere, founder Moscow-Tartu semiotic school.

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev

Philologist, culturologist and art critic, the largest researcher of ancient Russian literature and Russian culture in the 20th century; published and commented on many literary monuments.

Moscow Department of Education

State educational institution

higher vocational education Moscow cities

"Moscow City Pedagogical University"

Institute of Humanities
Department of Russian Literature and Folklore

HISTORY OF RUSSIAN LITERARY STUDIES
EDUCATIONAL AND METHODOLOGICAL COMPLEX OF DISCIPLINE
OOP 050100.68 “Pedagogical education”

(“Literary Education”)

level of training: master's degree
qualification: Master of Teacher Education
course 1, semester 2
Full-time form of education

Moscow 2011

The educational and methodological complex of the discipline was discussed and approved at a meeting of the Department of Russian Literature and Folklore, protocol No. 1 of August 30, 2011, approved at a meeting of the Academic Council of the Institute of Humanities, protocol No. _____ of _______________.
Compiled by:

Candidate philological sciences, Associate Professor M.B. Loskutnikova

Reviewers:

Doctor of Philology, Professor I.A. Belyaeva

Doctor of Philology, Professor A.I. Smirnova

Head of the department:

Doctor of Philology, Professor S.A. Dzhanumov

Part I. Discipline program
EXPLANATORY NOTE
This program meets the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the Master's Degree 050100.68 “Pedagogical Education”, approved by Order of the Ministry of Education and Science No. 35 of January 14, 2010, is based on the recommendations of the UMO, compiled in accordance with the curriculum of the Institute of Humanities of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education, Moscow State Pedagogical University this direction.

The discipline prepares students for the following types of professional activities: pedagogical (in secondary and higher school), research, editorial and publishing (within production), literary and creative (within cultural and educational).

The purpose of the academic discipline. In the university education system a course on the history of Russian literary criticism is necessary in order to systematize ideas about scientific schools, scientific directions, scientific centers - both in the process of forming literary criticism, and at the present stage. The course fulfills one of essential functions in the formation of the necessary professional level of a philologist student - consistently introduces the teachings, theories, concepts of historical and modern literary criticism.

Objectives of the academic discipline. The course is aimed at introducing the stages of development of science: philosophy - aesthetics - theoretical literary criticism. While focusing on the outstanding Russian contribution to science, students also gain an understanding of the global movement in developing tools for analysis creative individuality and the literary process, as well as about the methodological dynamics of science - about how and what concepts and methodologies are included in the “body” of science, and which remain the property of only private methodologies and historical facts in the theoretical understanding of the artistic whole. Knowledge of these processes and facts is necessary for the professional development of philologists as highly qualified teachers and teachers, research scientists, editorial and publishing workers, and literary critics.

Place of discipline in the basic general education program. The course on problems of the history of Russian literary criticism is a connecting link in the cycle of theoretical disciplines - between courses on problems of theoretical and functional poetics and courses on fundamental issues of historical poetics. Mastering the theory and practice of Russian literary criticism contributes to the development of students' skills in theoretical understanding of problems.

Requirements for the initial level of student training. A student starting to study the discipline must have a general understanding of the conceptual and terminological apparatus of literary criticism and the laws of the formation of an artistic whole in literature, formed at the undergraduate level and during the study of the discipline “Artistic Content and Style” in the master’s program.
Requirements for the level of mastery of the discipline

Discipline is aimed at formation of the following competencies in students:

• 
  the ability to improve and develop one’s general intellectual and general cultural level(OK-1);
• 
  the ability to analyze the results of scientific research and apply them in solving specific educational and research problems (PC-5);
• 
  willingness to use individual creative abilities to original solution research tasks (PC-6);
• 
  readiness to systematize, generalize and disseminate methodological experience (domestic and foreign) in professional field(PC-9);
• 
  ability to demonstrate in-depth knowledge in a selected area specific area philology (SK-2);
• 
  ability to independently replenish, critically analyze and apply theoretical and practical knowledge in the field of philology for own scientific research (SK-3);
• 
  possession of the skills of independent research of the language system and the basic patterns of functioning of folklore and literature in synchronic and diachronic aspects (SC-4);
• 
  possession of skills to conduct training sessions and extracurricular work on literature in general and secondary institutions special education; practical classes in philological disciplines in institutions of higher professional education (SK-6);
• 
  possession of skills in preparing educational and methodological materials in literary disciplines (SK-7);
• 
  the ability to shape the artistic and cultural environment (PK-21).

A student who has completed studying the discipline, must:

Have systematic knowledge of the facts of the movement of science (philosophy - aesthetics - theoretical literary criticism),

To master the issues of the origin, development and formation of Russian literary criticism from the 18th to the 21st centuries,

To develop ideas about the conceptual basis of modern literary science,

Professionally apply acquired knowledge when analyzing a work of art,

To consolidate ideas about the facts of the development of the literary process and their reflection in the facts of the development of science.
Labor intensity of the discipline: 3 credits, or 108 hours.

1. Origins of philological knowledge

Book knowledge in Rus'. Humanitarian culture in Russia in the XVI- XVIIcenturies.

The composition of the “verbal sciences” in the 18th century.

Russian classicistic science and criticism. Works of M.V. Lomonosov in the field of “verbal sciences”. Reform of Russian verse. “Letter on the rules of Russian poetry”, “A short guide to eloquence”, “Preface on the benefits of church books in the Russian language”, etc. The provisions of classicism in the philological works of V.K. Trediakovsky; “A new and short way to compose Russian poems”, “On ancient, middle and new Russian poems”, “Prediction about the ironic poem”, etc. Literary-critical activity of A.P. Sumarokova; “Instruction for those who want to be writers” and others. Literary critical works of M.M. Kheraskova; “transitional” nature of creativity: changing priorities of Russian culture; “Discourse on Russian poetry”, “A look at epic poems”, etc. Understanding of G.R. Derzhavin questions of poetry. "Discourse on lyric poetry, or on an ode."

Development of “verbal sciences” in Russia in the 2nd half. XVIII century. Ideas of the Enlightenment. Analysis of drama in the works of V.I. Lukin and in articles by P.A. Plavilshchikov. Educational activities N.I. Novikova (“Experience of a historical dictionary about Russian writers x" etc.). Satirical literary-critical activity of D.I. Fonvizin and her polemical character. Satirical magazines. Principles and techniques of satire in literary critical speeches by I.A. Krylova. Ideas of the Enlightenment and literary journalism by A.N. Radishcheva.

Russian sentimentalist criticism. The emergence of a new aesthetics. N.M. Karamzin as an educator of the taste of the reading public, as an editor and literary critic. Essay “What does the author need?”, notes, “Letter to the publisher”, etc. Literary critical practice of sentimentalism; "Moscow Journal". Literary-critical activity of I.I. Dmitrieva.

Scientific philology: issues of formation and development prospects by the beginning of the 19th century. Scientific nomenclature (“A brief and general outline of the sciences and liberal arts”); ideas about criticism, philology, aesthetics.

2. Formation and development of Russian literary criticism in the 19th century

Trends in the development of Russian literature at the beginning of the 19th century and the processes of its comprehension. Questions of periodizations of Russian literature. Study of creative individuality. Ideas about modern literature.

“A Brief Outline of the Theory of Belle Literature” by A.F. Merzlyakova. Research by N.I. We buckle Russian traditions literature XVIII century (“Experience brief history Russian literature"). V.A. Zhukovsky as a translator and theorist of literary translation. Russian romantics about the history of literature (A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, V.K. Kuchelbecker, P.A. Vyazemsky, etc.). Formation of the historical research method: the activities of N.I. Nadezhdina, S.P. Shevyreva. Reference sources early XIX century; "Dictionary of Ancient and new poetry» N.F. Ostolopova. Russian writers (A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, N.A. Nekrasov, F.M. Dostoevsky, I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy, etc.) as literature analysts.

Formation of scientific methodologies.

Mythological school. Western European theory and practice (A. and F. Schlegel, J. and W. Grimm). Analysis of artistic words as special phenomenon culture. Study of the most ancient forms of artistic consciousness. Collecting and publishing texts. The influence of the school on the development of auxiliary philological disciplines (textual criticism, text commentary). F.I. Buslaev (“Wandering Tales and Stories”, “Historical Sketches of Russian Folk Literature and Art”), A.N. Afanasyev (“Poetic views of the Slavs on nature”), O.F. Miller. P. Yakushkin, P.V. Kireevsky, P.N. Rybnikov. IN AND. Dahl.

Biographical school in European culture. Sh.O. Sainte-Beuve (“Literary-critical portraits”, etc.). Artist's personality. Artist's biography as a criterion individual creativity. The genre of psychobiographical portrait.

Cultural and historical direction. Overcoming limitations biographical school. I. Ten (“On the method of criticism and the history of literature”, “Philosophy of art”, etc.) and his “theory of moments”. A.N. Pypin as a Russianist, Slavist, folklorist, paleographer, ethnographer, historian. Literature as a social phenomenon, as a phenomenon of the national spirit. N.S. Tikhonravov and his research into works of the 17th-18th centuries; collecting and publishing activity; works on problems of the history of Russian theater. N.I. Storozhenko, N.A. Kotlyarevsky, S.A. Vengerov.

Comparative historical direction and issues of comparativism. T. Benfey (preface to the translation of the monument of ancient Indian narrative literature “Panchatantra”) and the theory of borrowings. A.N. Veselovsky. Inductive poetics. Historical poetics. Scientific research and objective scientific requirements for it (“On the method and tasks of the history of literature as a science”). Problems poetic style(“From an introduction to historical poetics”). Monographic article “From the history of the epithet” as a history of poetic style through the prism of the history of the epithet. Imagery in the light of the development of plots, the “fable formula”, the phenomenon of parallelism in artistic speech (“ Psychological parallelism and its forms in reflections of poetic style"). Syncretism of folk poetry, “personal creativity,” the language of poetry and the language of prose (“Three chapters from historical poetics”). Posthumous publications (“History of poetic subjects.” “The task of historical poetics”). The theory of “wandering plots” (“Poetics of plots”). Alexey N. Veselovsky.

Psychological direction. Estopsychology by E. Gennequin. V. Wundt and his idea of ​​the “primary volitional principle.” Theories " internal form words" and "internal form of art" by A.A. Potebnya (“Thought and Language”). “Superinformation” of thought compared to the word, the conditions for the emergence of the artistic word. Theory of image, “poetic” and “prosaic”. Analogy between the creativity of words and the creativity of a work of art. Posthumous works (“From lectures on the theory of literature”, “From notes on the theory of literature”). Issues of allegorical word and allegorical image (metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, symbol, allegory, irony, etc.). Sociological aspects in the works of D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (“Pechorin”, “People of the 40s” and Gogol”, etc.). "Kharkov Potebnians".

Problems of science in Russian literary criticism of the 19th century. V.G. Belinsky. Historical and literary issues in the works of the Moscow period: realism, nationality (“Literary dreams.” “On the Russian story and the stories of Mr. Gogol”); problem solving creative method in the St. Petersburg period (articles on the problems of the creativity of M.Yu. Lermontov and N.V. Gogol, the cycle “Works of Alexander Pushkin”, etc.). Theoretical issues: art as “thinking in images”, development of the Hegelian concept of literary genera and genres (“The Idea of ​​Art.” “The division of poetry into genera and types”). Slavophiles (I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, A.S. Khomyakov) and Westerners. Building up the conceptual and terminological apparatus. N.G. Chernyshevsky. Historical and literary issues: artistry, romanticism and realism; psychologism; (cycle “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature”, “Childhood and adolescence. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy”, “Russian man at rendez-vous”, etc.). Aesthetic issues: controversy with G.V.F. Hegel and the Young Hegelians; sublime; terrible and tragic; the comic and its typology (“Aesthetic relations of art to reality.” “The sublime and the comic”). “Real” criticism (N.A. Dobrolyubov and others) “Aesthetic” criticism (A.V. Druzhinin, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). “Organic” criticism by A.A. Grigorieva. Populist criticism (N.K. Mikhailovsky, A.M. Skabichevsky), etc.

3. Theories, teachings, concepts in Russian literary criticism of the XX-XXI centuries

Psychological direction in the science of the twentieth century. L.S. Vygotsky and questions of the psychology of art; theory of "reactions". Psychoanalysis in Russian literary criticism abroad (“The Three Loves of Dostoevsky” by Mark Slonim and others).

Scientific formalism. “Prague Linguistic Circle” (J. Mukarzhovsky). Russian school of scientific formalism and its contribution to the development of philological science. Applicability of theoretical and historical-literary developments of Russian formalists. The concept of disinterested beauty by I. Kant as a philosophical justification for scientific formalism.

OPOYAZ (“Society for the Study of Poetic Language”). “Collections on the theory of poetic language” (1916-1923). Ideas of OPOYAZ and MLK (“Moscow Linguistic Circle”; G.O. Vinokur, R.O. Yakobson). GIIII ( State Institute art history); V.N. Peretz, F.F. Zelinsky and others; young generation - V.M. Zhirmunsky, B.V. Tomashevsky, S.I. Bernstein, later V.B. Shklovsky, B.M. Eikhenbaum, Yu.N. Tynyanov, V.V. Vinogradov and others.

Absolutization of the poetic (in in a broad sense artistic) form and its meaning in art; the idea of ​​immanent development. Criticism of previous theories scientific directions, primarily the teachings of A.A. Potebnya, from which formalism largely grew. Proposals for changing the conceptual and terminological apparatus. Article by V.B. Shklovsky “Art as a technique” (1916) and its programmatic significance. Terminology of scientific formalism (“thing”, “technique”, “stumbling rhythm”, “recognition”, “defamiliarization”, “automatism of perception”, etc.). The uniqueness of creative individuality and the forms of its artistic and aesthetic self-expression. Article by B.M. Eikhenbaum “How Gogol’s “Overcoat” was Made.” The desire to break through to the specifics of fiction. Terms B.M. Eikhenbaum “morphologists”, “specifiers” (“Young Tolstoy”, “Around the question of “formalists””). Categorical and schematic.

Yu.N. Tynyanov as a researcher of the semantics of literary words, B.V. Tomashevsky - meter and rhythm, B.M. Eikhenbaum - architectonics literary work, R.O. Yakobson - the individual style of the artist, V.B. Shklovsky - plot composition, V.M. Zhirmunsky - verse, V.Ya. Propp - fairy tales and others. Theoretical ideas and concepts of Yu.N. Tynyanov: a lyrical hero (“Blok”), the birth of a new literary feature as a result of a violation of the norm (the dilogy “Literary Fact” and “On Literary Evolution”), a work as a system of factors, a dominant (“Ode as an oratorical genre”), the concept of poetry and prose (“On the composition of “Eugene Onegin””); historical and literary works (“Archaists and Innovators” 1929). Problems of style in the works of V.V. Vinogradov of the 1920s (“Studies on Gogol’s style”, “Evolution of Russian naturalism (Gogol and Dostoevsky)”, “The problem of the tale in stylistics”, “Towards the construction of a theory of poetic language”). “The problem of authorship and the theory of styles” V.V. Vinogradova (1961); justification of literary stylistics; identity of the categories of style and author. V.M. Zhirmunsky as a comparative researcher who worked “from the angle” of genre and style (works on the problems of creativity of A.S. Pushkin and J.G. Baron, etc.).

The personality of a contemporary in the assessment of scientific formalists: “Overcoming Symbolism” (1916) V.M. Zhirmunsky, “Anna Akhmatova. Experience of Analysis" (1923) B.M. Eikhenbaum, “On the poetry of Anna Akhmatova: Stylistic sketches” (1925) V.V. Vinogradova.

The confrontation between scientific formalism and the sociological trend, which has taken the form of vulgar sociologism. Monopolization claims scientific truth; general error against objectivity as a break in the unity of form and content: the self-sufficient meaning of artistic form for formalists and vulgarization artistic content, reduced to classism, for vulgar sociologists. Intradirectional differences in the positions of individual scientists; the difference between the declarations of a particular direction and the essence of the research of scientists belonging to this direction.

The connection between the sociological direction and the works of I. Ten, the guidelines of the cultural-historical school, and the works of D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. “The Works of Dostoevsky” and “The Works of Gogol” by V.F. Pereverzeva. " Sociological method in literary criticism" and "Theory of literary styles" by P.N. Sakulina.

The development of scientific formalism in literary criticism in close connection with linguistics, under the influence of the works of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure, against the background of modernist quests in art. Features of the formal method in the 1910s in the art criticism works of O. Walzel and G. Wölfflin, in the 1920s - in the “morphology of the novel” by W. Dibelius, later in the “semantic analysis” of A.A. Richards, in the “new criticism” (England and the USA), which removed the artist from socio-historical processes, in the 1940-1960s - in the studies of the German scientist W. Kaiser. “Theory of Interpretation” by E. Steiger and its influence on the American school of “new criticism” and on German researchers.

Works of scientists “outside directions”. A.F. Losev. MM. Bakhtin (“The Problem of the Author”, “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics”, “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity”, etc.). A.P. Skaftymov (“Moral quests of Russian literature”).

Structuralism. R. Barth and the concept of “death of the author.” Tartu Semiotic School and collections “Works on Sign Systems”. “Lectures on structural poetics” by Yu.M. Lotman. B.A. Uspensky (“Poetics of Composition”). G.A. Lesskis G.A. (“The Master and Margarita” by Bulgakov (narrative style, genre, macro-composition)”). V.N. Toporov (“Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image: Research in the field of mythopoetic”). B.O. Korman (“Results and prospects for studying the author’s problem”).

Traditions of literary post-structuralism (deconstructionism); J. Derrida, Y. Kristeva, F. Jameson and others.

Generation of scientists “outside directions” in the 2nd half. XX century. S.S. Averintsev (“Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature”). D.S. Likhachev (“Poetics of Old Russian Literature”). A.P. Chudakov (“Chekhov’s Poetics”). S.G. Bocharov (“The Poetics of Pushkin”). A.V. Chicherin (“Rhythm of the image: Stylistic problems”, “Ideas and style: On the nature of the poetic word”, “Essays on the history of Russian literary style”). A.N. Sokolov (“Theory of Style”). G.N. Pospelov (“Problems of literary style”). G.V. Stepanov (“Content and form in the literary critical analysis of a work”, “On the boundaries of linguistic and literary analysis of a literary text”)

Scientific centers and schools in Moscow, Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Izhevsk, Voronezh, etc.
List of recommended literature

Basic

Gasparov B.M. Tartu school of the 1960s as a semiotic phenomenon // Yu.M. Lotman and the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school / Comp. and ed. HELL. Koshelev. M.: Gnosis, 1994. (Series “Language. Semiotics. Culture”).

Krupchanov L.M. Cultural-historical school in Russian literary criticism: Textbook. allowance. M., 1983. 224 p.

Loskutnikova M.B. Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries: Origins, development, formation of methodologies: Textbook. allowance. M., 2009. 352 p.

Markovich V.M. Myths and biographies: From the history of criticism and literary criticism in Russia: Sat. Art. St. Petersburg, 2007. 320 p.

Nikolaev P.A., Kurilov A.S., Grishunin A.L. History of Russian literary criticism: Textbook. allowance / Ed. P.A. Nikolaev. M., 1980. 349 p.

Erlich V. Russian formalism: History and theory / Transl. from English A.V. Glebovskaya, scientific. ed. V.N. Sazhin. St. Petersburg: Academic Project, 1996. (Series “Modern Western Russian Studies”).
Additional

Academic schools in Russian literary criticism. M., 1975.

The emergence of Russian literature science. M., 1975.

Zhirmunsky V.M. Veselovsky and comparative literary criticism // Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative literature. L., 1979.

Loskutnikova M.B. Moscow schools in theoretical literary criticism // Moscow and the “Moscow text” in Russian literature and folklore. M., 2004. P. 72-80.

Loskutnikova M.B. Russian science of literature and literary criticism of the 19th century: Textbook. allowance. M., 2009.

Osmakov N.V. Psychological direction in Russian literary criticism: D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky: Textbook. special course manual. M., 1981. 160 p.

Remneva M.L., Sokolov A.G. Philological Faculty of Moscow University: Brief history // http://www.philol.msu.ru/~msu250/history/briefhistory/

Russian aesthetic treatises of the first third of the 19th century: In 2 volumes. M., 1974.

Sukhikh S.I. Historical poetics A.N. Veselovsky: Lectures on the history of Russian literary criticism. N. Novgorod, 2001.

Sukhikh S.I. Psychological literary criticism D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky: Lectures on the history of Russian literary criticism. N. Novgorod, 2001.

Sukhikh S.I. Theoretical poetics A.A. Potebni. N. Novgorod, 2001.

Uspensky B.A. On the problem of the genesis of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school // Yu.M. Lotman and the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school. M., 1994.
Material and technical support of the discipline

Multimedia audience for showing presentations on individual course topics.

and a plan for mastering the discipline
Lectures: 12 hours according to the curriculum.

Practical classes: 12 hours according to the curriculum in a group.

Independent work: 48 hours according to the curriculum.

Intermediate certification: exam in the 2nd semester (36 hours).

Total: 108 hours according to the curriculum.
Approximate distribution of discipline labor intensity

by type of educational work and content sections

№	Contents section	Total hours	Types of teaching classes		SRS
			Lecture	Pract.
1.	Origins of philological knowledge	14	4	2	8
2.	Formation and development of Russian literary criticism in the 19th century	23	4	4	15
3.	Theories, teachings, concepts in Russian literary criticism of the XX-XXI centuries	35	4	6	25
	Total	72 + 36 copies. =108	12	12	48

THEMATIC PLANNING
LECTURES

1. 
   Block 1. Origins of philological knowledge - 4 hours.
2. 
   
3. 
   Block 3. Theories, teachings, concepts in Russian literary criticism of the XX-XXI centuries - 4 hours.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

1. 
   Block 1. Origins of philological knowledge - 2 hours.
2. 
   Block 2. Formation and development of Russian literary criticism in the 19th century - 4 hours.
3. 
   Block 3. Theories, teachings, concepts in Russian literary criticism of the XX-XXI centuries - 6 hours.

Lesson 1

The origins of Russian literary criticism

Sources, literature

Russian literary criticism of the 18th century: Collection of texts / Compiled, ed., intro. Art. and note. IN AND. Kuleshova. M., 1978.

Partial use of the collection is possible: Criticism of the 18th century. M., 2002. (Library of Russian criticism).

Loskutnikova M.B. Poetic vocabulary. Poetic syntax. Historical questions of metrics (“Questions of the history of verse”, “History of Russian verse”). Rhyme. Strophic // Loskutnikova M.B. Artistic speech and issues of style formation. M., 2007. P. 9-60, 61-67, 94-97, 101-111.

Loskutnikova M.B. Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries: Origins, development, formation of methodologies: Textbook. allowance. M., 2009. pp. 31-84, 84-121.

1. Study the philological works of M.V. Lomonosov.

a) What positions of versification did the scientist defend in his work “Letter on the Rules of Russian Poetry”?

b) What requirements for “word writers” did Lomonosov write about in his work “A Brief Guide to Eloquence” (Book 1 “Rhetoric”)?

2. Consider the philological works of V.K. Trediakovsky.

a) What are the main provisions of the works “A New and Brief Method for Composing Russian Poems” and “On Ancient, Middle and New Russian Poems”?

b) What classicist traditions did Trediakovsky defend in “The Letter Containing a Discussion on the Poem /…/”?

c) What problems of translation did the scientist discuss in his work “The Science of Poetry and Poetry” from French verses by Boalo-Depreov and verses?

d) Analyze the “Prediction of the Iroic Poem” and identify the criteria in the poetics of the epic.

3. Highlight the contribution of A.P. Sumarokov into science.

a) In the article “Response to Criticism,” Sumarokov polemicized with Trediakovsky. What was the essence of this controversy?

b) Consider the main provisions of Sumarokov’s programmatic treatise “Instructions for those who want to be writers.”

4. Analyze the literary critical theory and practice of sentimentalism and study the works of N.M. Karamzin.

a) What was the literary-critical innovation of the article “What does the author need?”?

b) What “wealth of language” did Karamzin write about in his work of the same name?

c) One of Karamzin’s notes is conventionally titled “Finding the spiritual side in the most ordinary things.” What is the essence of this statement?

d) Cover the provisions of the article “A few words about Russian literature” and “Letters to the publisher”, as well as the essay “Why is there little authorial talent in Russia?”

e) Consider Karamzin’s positions in his article “On incidents and characters in Russian history that can be the subject of fiction.”

5. Consider the work of N.I. Novikova “Experience of a historical dictionary about Russian writers” and determine its significance in the history of Russian science and culture.
Lesson 2

Russian literary criticism in the 1st half of the 19th century

(V.G. Belinsky, S.P. Shevyrev)

Sources, literature

Belinsky V.G. Collection Op.: In 9 vols. / Ed. N.K. Gaia, V.I. Kuleshova et al. M., 1976-1982. Or any edition of the works of V.G. Belinsky.

Shevyrev S.P. On Russian literature / Comp., intro. Art. and comment. V.M. Markovich. M., 2004. (Series “Classics of Literary Science”).

Shevyrev S.P. Science priest and warrior of truth! / Comp., intro. Art., comment. E.Yu. Filkina. M., 2009. (Series “Big Moscow Library”).

Loskutnikova M.B. Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries: Origins, development, formation of methodologies: Textbook. allowance. M., 2009. P. 222-224, 238-266, 132-139 (or Loskutnikova M.B. Russian science of literature and literary criticism of the 19th century: Textbook. M., 2009. P. 109-137) .

1. Analyze the contribution of V.G. Belinsky into domestic science

a) Study the article “The division of poetry into genera and types.”

How were the ideas of dialectics reflected in Belinsky’s article?

What laws of the epic does Belinsky cover? How do his thoughts relate to the provisions of Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics?

What features of the subjective type of poetry does Belinsky write about? How do his judgments resonate with Hegel's?

How do Hegel, and after him Belinsky, view the dramatic genre of literature? What genres of drama do the German philosopher and Russian critic write about?

b) Consider articles from the 1840s:

State the main provisions of the articles “Hero of our time. Essay by M.Yu. Lermontov”, “Poems by M. Lermontov”;

Formulate the direction of Belinsky’s thought in the articles of 1842 dedicated to the poem by N.V. Gogol's "Dead Souls";

Analyze the principle of organization of the monographic series of articles “Works of Alexander Pushkin”.

2. Study the philological positions of S.P. Shevyreva.

a) State the main provisions of the work “History of Poetry”.

b) Consider Shevyrev’s assessment of the work of his contemporaries (A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, N.V. Gogol).

c) Analyze the main provisions of the article “On criticism in general and here in Russia.”

Lesson 3

Russian literary criticism in the middle - 2nd half of the 19th century

(N.G. Chernyshevsky, A.V. Druzhinin, P.V. Annenkov)

Sources, literature

Chernyshevsky N.G. Collection Op.: In 5 volumes / Comp. and general ed. Yu.S. Melentyeva; note U. Guralnik to volume III [literary criticism], note. P.A. Nikolaev to volume IV [articles on philosophy and aesthetics]. M., 1974. Or any collected works of Chernyshevsky.

Druzhinin A.V. Beautiful and Eternal / Intro. Art. and comp. N.N. Skatova, comment. V.A. Kotelnikov. M., 1988. (Series “For lovers of Russian literature. From the literary heritage”).

Annenkov P.V. Critical essays / Compiled, prepared. text, intro. Art. and note. I.N. Dry. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Loskutnikova M.B. Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries: Origins, development, formation of methodologies: Textbook. allowance. M., 2009. P. 267-299, 222-226, 322-345 (or Loskutnikova M.B. Russian science of literature and literary criticism of the 19th century: Textbook. M., 2009. P. 138-169) .

1. Study the aesthetic and philological activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky

a) Cover the problems and logic of the development of Chernyshevsky’s thought in his master’s thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality.”

What is the essence of Chernyshevsky’s polemic with Hegel and the Young Hegelians? In what ways are Hegel and Chernyshevsky close and in what ways are they irreconcilable?

How does Chernyshevsky understand beauty? What is Chernyshevsky’s objective scientific materialist breakthrough in solving this central problem of art and humanities?

What are the features of Chernyshevsky’s understanding of the category of the sublime?

What is unique about Chernyshevsky’s polemic with Hegel regarding the essence, nature and scope of the category and problem of the tragic? (On what basis does Chernyshevsky reduce the tragic to the terrible? What is the fundamental difference between the tragic and the terrible? Why did the politicization of Chernyshevsky’s thinking prevent him from seeing all the dialectical complexity of the tragic?)

How does Chernyshevsky understand the problem of mimesis? How and why are mimesis and copyism connected in Chernyshevsky’s worldview?

b) Highlight the provisions of the article “The Sublime and the Comic”.

Chernyshevsky repeats and concretizes his judgments about the nature of the beautiful, about the understanding of the sublime and the tragic, while maintaining a generally simplified assessment of the latter. However, there are differences between the coverage of these problems in the dissertation and in the article. What are they?

Study Chernyshevsky's solution to the problem of the comic and its individual issues. (How does Chernyshevsky define the aesthetic nature of the comic? What, in his opinion, is the difference between the ugly and the ugly? What does Chernyshevsky write about the social character of the tragic? Is the comic possible in nature? Analyze the typology of the comic put forward by Chernyshevsky).

c) State the main provisions of article 2 from the cycle “Works of Pushkin” (artistry, genre content and genre form, language and, in a broad sense, the form of works verbal art, artistic form, romanticism as a subjectively determined view of the world and man in it, as well as realism and its achievements associated with artistic psychologism);

d) State the main provisions of the article “Childhood and adolescence. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy" (problems of artistic psychologism, "purity moral sense and ideas about catharsis, artistry).

2. Study the literary critical activity of A.V. Druzhinin and his concept of “eternal art”.

a) Consider the main provisions of the article “A.S. Pushkin and latest edition his works."

How did Druzhinin assess the significance of Pushkin’s work?

What did Druzhinin see as the merits of Annenkov the Pushkin scholar?

What is the essence of Druzhinin’s opposition between the “Pushkin” and “Gogol” trends in literature?

b) What paths of development of Russian literature did Druzhinin write about in the article “Russians in Japan, at the end of 1853 and at the beginning of 1854 (from travel notes I. Goncharova). St. Petersburg, 1855"?

c) What are the features of Druzhinin’s understanding of the literary word presented in the articles “Poems by A.A. Feta. St. Petersburg, 1856" and "Blizzard". - “Two hussars.” The stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy"?

d) Study Druzhinin’s programmatic article “Criticism of the Gogol period of Russian literature and our relationship to it.”

Which of the contemporary critics did Druzhinin enter into polemics with? What is the polemical aspect of the article?

What, according to Druzhinin, are the merits of criticism of the 1830-1840s to Russian society?

Consider Druzhinin’s assessment of Hegel’s philosophy of art and its influence on Russian criticism and, indirectly, on Russian society (How, in this regard, did Druzhinin understand Belinsky’s contribution to the development of Russian culture? What did Druzhinin mean when he said that the Russian public was not accustomed “to deep aesthetic views", and how was this contradiction overcome by Russian criticism? What, according to Druzhinin, determined the loss of the Hegelian methodology of analysis of literary works and the literary and artistic process by Russian criticism?)

Consider Druzhinin’s theory of dividing verbal art into two directions - “artistic” and “didactic”.

What are the features of the “artistic” movement and how, according to Druzhinin, are they assessed by opponents of this theory?

What priorities of the “didactic” direction in art did Druzhinin write about? How is this direction, according to the critic’s beliefs, represented in modern literature? What trends in the “didactic” direction of the development of literature did Druzhinin identify and how did he assess their prospects?

-- [ Page 1 ] --

MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY

THEM. M.V. LOMONOSOV

Department of Literary Theory, Faculty of Philology

RUSSIAN LITERARY SCIENTISTS

DICTIONARY PROSPECTUS

Publishing house "Pero"

Moscow 2010

Doctor of Philology, Professor,

Head of the Department of Literary Theory

Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, Oleg Alekseevich Kling Candidate of Philological Sciences, teacher of the Department of Theory of Literature, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Alexey Aleksandrovich Kholikov K 49 Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century: Prospectus of the dictionary / Kling O.A., Kholikov A.A. – M.: Pero Publishing House, 2010. - 85 p.

ISBN 978-5-91940-014- This prospectus of the dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century contains an editorial article (O.A. Kling), a rationale for the relevance and basic theoretical and methodological principles of the publication (A.A. Kholikov), a dictionary (A.A. Kholikov, with the participation of V.I. Maslovsky), examples of dictionary entries (V.E. Khalizev - about A.P. Skaftymov, E.I. Orlova - about B.M. Eikhenbaum, E.Yu. Litvin - about M. Gershenzon .O.), as well as a memo to the authors of the dictionary (A.A. Kholikov).

The purpose of the prospectus is to highlight from a wide range of literary issues and bring up for discussion issues related to the development of the dictionary “Russian Literary Critics of the 20th Century.”

BBK 83.3 (2Ros=Rus) © Kling O.A., © Kholikov A.A, ISBN 978-5-91940-014- RUSSIAN LITERARY STUDIES OF THE XX CENTURY:

HISTORY IN PERSONS From the editor Readers are offered a prospectus for a new dictionary - “Russian literary scholars of the 20th century.” What is its novelty?

He is the first of his kind. Before this, dictionaries of Russian writers1, general2 and literary encyclopedias3, reference publications4 in the “Who’s Who” genre were published in Russia, where there were articles only about some of the most famous literary critics or prose writers and poets, who, along with artistic creativity, were mostly engaged in criticism, less often – the science of words. Now the time has come to concentrate the attention of researchers on literary scholars themselves.

The dictionary will consist of 1023 entries, at least the dictionary published in this prospectus (compiled by A.A. Kholikov), at at this stage includes so many names.

This list, after discussion with the scientific community during an online conference (September - November 2010), can be assumed to be slightly changed. However, the selection of names is based on a rather simple principle, but probably the only one possible to achieve objectivity: the dictionary includes the names of only deceased literary scholars.

The dictionary also includes literary scholars from abroad.

Today there is no need to prove to anyone that domestic science is not divided along borders. We all witnessed how they changed in the recently ended 20th century, but the boundaries cultural space are not so quickly abolished, unlike political ones.

The dictionary “Russian literary scholars of the 20th century” is an open project in which not only scientists from the department of Russian writers take part. 1800-1917. Biographical Dictionary. T. 1 – 5. M., 1989 – 2007 (publication ongoing);

Russian writers of the 20th century. Biographical Dictionary. M., 2000, etc.

New encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2000, etc.

Literary encyclopedia: In 11 volumes [M.], 1929 – 1939;

Brief literary encyclopedia: In 9 volumes. M., 1962 – 1978.

Chuprinin S. New Russia: the world of literature. Encyclopedic dictionary reference book: In 2 vols. M., 2003;

Ogryzko V.V. Russian writers: modern era. Lexicon: Sketch of a future encyclopedia. M., 2004;

Who's who in Russian literary criticism. Directory. [At 3 hours] M., 1991 – 1994.

theory of literature, other departments of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, but also authors from educational and scientific centers of Russia and the world.

Taken together, over 1000 dictionary entries about Russian literary scholars will shed new light on the theoretical and historical literary picture of Russia in the 20th century. However, the question may arise: what does literary theory have to do with it? Firstly, the dictionary was conceived at the Department of Literary Theory of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow University. And one of the directions in the scientific activity of the department is the history of literary criticism.

Unfortunately, in last years In Russian science, there is a noticeable gap in the study of the history of literary criticism. The last significant achievement, however, within the framework of the study of aesthetic thought of one era - the 1920s - 1930s - was the second, significantly expanded edition of the book by the outstanding scientist of the 20th century G.A. Belaya “Don Quixote of the Revolution - the experience of victories and defeats” (Moscow, 2004). Nearby there is another project carried out under the leadership of G.A. Belaya, is a two-volume anthology “The Experience of Unconscious Defeat: Models of Revolutionary Culture of the 20s. Reader" (Moscow, 2001);

“Aesthetic self-awareness of Russian culture. 20s of the XX century:

Anthology" (Moscow, 2003).

The serious, academic study of the history of Russian literary criticism needs to be given a new impetus. This should be the creation first of a prospectus, and then of the dictionary itself “Russian literary scholars of the 20th century.” By understanding the heritage of Russian scientists, the characteristics of their paths in science, achievements and passions, schools, trends and concepts that were close to them, a larger, more complete and at the same time extremely detailed picture of the literary pursuits of the past century will be created. Without giving preference to one or another scientific philologist, any one or more schools, ideas in science, the team of authors puts the goal at the forefront - to show in all its diversity the richness of such unique phenomenon, as Russian literary criticism of the 20th century. And this will significantly expand our understanding of scientific, including theoretical discoveries in the field of literary criticism. And not only in his victories, but also in his frequent defeats.

The conceived project is related to literary theory in one more aspect. Of course, for modern theoretical thought it is extremely important to revise the terminological apparatus, and sometimes simply update it. But given the multiplicity of approaches to the text in modern literary criticism, the absence of clearly expressed leadership of any one school or concept, a certain stagnation, when for a relatively long time a clearly expressed new direction in the science of words does not appear and there is a certain parity in it (major philologists turn to different methods), interpretation in one hundred and first Since the meaning of the terms “genus”, “genre”, “author”, “motive”, etc., and even more so in the spirit of normativity worse than that of N. Boileau, is not the only possible way of existence of the theory of literature. Through “personalities” – in articles about big, “medium” and not very famous scientists – comprehension will occur the latest achievements theoretical thoughts that do not fit into the concepts of school literary criticism. The history of the science of literature “in person” at this stage of theoretical thought seems promising to us also because scientists - such as Yu.N. Tynyanov, B.M. Eikhenbaum, whose names are closely associated with the formal school, and such as Yu.M. Lotman, Z.G. Mints, who stood at the origins of Soviet structuralism, many, many others whom tradition rigidly binds to one or another scientific school, - in fact, were literary scholars of a synthetic sense, incorporating all the diversity of approaches to the study of literature. Thus, the dictionary “Russian literary scholars of the 20th century” will highlight the history of Russian literary criticism, including theoretical thought, “above barriers.”

The Dictionary of Russian Literary Critics is a large-scale project, since it must reflect all the diversity of such a complex and extremely significant phenomenon as the Russian science of words. The 20th century occupied a special place in the history of Russian literary criticism. This is an era of incredible ups, achievements and discoveries, brilliant victories, but also, admittedly, very instructive defeats. Russian literary criticism, relatively late in relation to Europe, only in the 19th century, having developed as a science, gained a new breath in the 20th century. For the Russian science of literature, the 19th century is also unique in its own way: it was then that, following the European ones, literary schools emerged in Russia. Of course, literary criticism, like others, is not only humanitarian, but also natural sciences, followed European searches. Russian literary criticism, like Russian literature, was student-centered.

But what happened, one might say, was an unpredictable, but in fact a natural phenomenon (although it can also be called a miracle). Russian literature, imitative for a long time, has turned into a phenomenon unlike anything else. Later this would be called the golden age of Russian literature. But in order to understand the nature of these artistic phenomena, literary thought (including critical thought) had to rise above itself, overcoming many obstacles (for example, the conceptual and terminological apparatus had not yet fully developed), and stand on a par with literature itself. In many cases, when it came to great writers, this was not difficult to do. A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol, then L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky and many others masterfully and masterfully coped with the work of comprehending their own and other people’s literary works. Suffice it to recall how Pushkin spoke about his works and literary novelties in letters, articles and reviews, notes, including in the genre of anti-criticism. Thus, long before the established division of the evolution of Russian literature into periods and long before the emergence of the term “realism,” Pushkin, in an anonymous review in 1830 on the almanac “Dennitsa,” identified three periods. At the head of the first he put Karamzin, the second - Zhukovsky, the third - Pushkin - “the poet of reality”5. In all later definitions of the word “realism” the category “reality” became mandatory and almost exhaustive. It is no coincidence that later L.Ya. Ginzburg in his book “On Lyrics” (1964) called the chapter on the late Pushkin “The Poetry of Reality.” Well, and further “definitions” such as “critical depiction of reality” are on the conscience of the 20th century. Then, with the light hand of M. Gorky and official Soviet scientists, the concept of “critical realism” appeared, now almost forgotten, but from which it is one step to socialist realism.

It would be a mistake to believe that the formation of literary criticism as a science in Russia is a continuous evolutionary growth from one literary school to another (for example, biographical or mythological through the cultural-historical A.N. Pypin in the spirit of I. Taine to comparative historical or psychological ). In Pushkin’s judgments about himself and literature in a condensed form (Pushkin is concise and succinct not only in his A.S. Pushkin-critic. M., 1978. P. 220. In the same 1830, Pushkin wrote in an unfinished note: “Literature in we exist, but there is no criticism yet"

artistic prose, but also criticism) is a program, a kind of code for the future in the development of literature and literary criticism, not only for the 19th, 20th, but also subsequent centuries. In times of crisis, this code is unreadable, it seems to be erased.

This is how it was in the 20th century. In terms of history and literature closely related to it (as well as literary criticism), for significant periods of time it was the “Iron”6, “Wolfhound Age”

(O. Mandelstam). During the period that can conventionally be called the Soviet era, mountains of now-forgotten literary works were written. In literary criticism, in principle, alas, short life: it dies faster than even the “badest” literature.

Only the apical one remains (the most striking example from the 20th century is M.M. Bakhtin). Facts from the history of literature are rewritten in their own way and in adaptation for their own purposes by scientists of subsequent generations, and ideas, if they are relevant, live in free movement - without authorship, from time to time acquiring a temporary “label” with the name of this or that literary scholar. Official Soviet literary criticism died before its physical death - once and for all. With the same force with which it suppressed the bright creations of uninvolved scientists that existed in the darkest decades and broke through like grass through the asphalt (the expression of G.A. Belaya) (the names of M.M. Bakhtin, L.Ya. Ginzburg, Yu. M. Lotman, this series can be continued), time has ousted the “heritage” of official literary criticism, which had shrunk to an almost invisible insignificance, from scientific existence. Today, it is addressed only when studying the works of Soviet writers, for example, V.S. Grossman in assessing lifetime criticism.

But one should not reduce the idea of ​​“Soviet”

literary criticism to only one of its layers - the official one. About the same V.S. Grossman wrote wonderfully in 1970 A.G. Bocharov.

Soviet literary criticism is a multi-level, complex phenomenon, with different levels, transitions, sometimes the most unexpected.

A special place in philology was occupied by the “elders” - V.M. Zhirmunsky, B.M. Eikhenbaum, others. Nearby – G.A. Gukovsky, D.E. Maximov, although forgotten, but actively working in the province M.M. Bakhtin, B.O. Korman, Y.O. Zundelovich, many others. Finally, in the 1960s, people came into science who soon gained worldwide fame:

It should be distinguished from the concept " iron age"in the history of primitive man.

Yu.M. Lotman, Z.G. Mints, S.S. Averintsev, M.L. Gasparov, some others. One cannot help but say about the generation of bright young scientists (their beginnings of activity were in the “Soviet” 1970s – 1980s) who passed away early (A.B. Esin, A.M. Peskov, M.I. Shapir). So it is completely wrong to paint everyone with the same brush when talking about the Soviet period of literary criticism. Judgments have been expressed (in my opinion, not entirely legitimate) that A.D. Sinyavsky, in his censored articles, fully fit into the paradigm of Soviet literary criticism. It is natural to assume that in the works of M.B. Khrapchenko, Ya.E. Elsberg and A.I. Metchenko you can still find something valuable today.

The conceived dictionary will precisely draw out difficult, sometimes circuitous, dead-end paths through the destinies of specific scientists national science. Paradoxical as it may seem, in the Soviet era literary criticism and criticism were often more interesting than literature itself. Literary works were read like bestsellers:

A striking example is the book by A.V. Belinkov "Yuri Tynyanov" or "Poetics of Byzantine Literature" S.S. Averintsev, works by Yu.M. Lotman and Scientific notes University of Tartu. Soviet literary criticism - not all of it, but in its best manifestations - was a form of dissent. In the subtext of articles about literature, the thoughtful reader found a conversation about the pressing problems of our time. Thus, the introductory article by M.L. Gasparova to " Mournful elegies"Ovid Nazon in the series "Literary Monuments" (Moscow, 1978) against the backdrop of the realities of the reign of L.I. Brezhnev was forced to compare Rome in the era of decline and Moscow in the era of stagnation.

Scientific commentary, for example, to the volumes of the “Literary Heritage”, typed in small print, often also provided that breath of freedom that everyone was waiting for.

The review genre had a special status. Either because of their peripheral nature (literary generals wrote articles), or due to an oversight of censorship and the liberality of the editors, a little more was “allowed” in them. Magazines of the era of stagnation, including Voprosy Literatury, were read from the end - from the reviews section. It is precisely the dictionary of Russian literary scholars that should show all the diversity of the science of words in the Soviet era, I would like to repeat, irreducible to officialdom.

But, speaking about the “iron” 20th century, we should not forget about its other periods - at least the silver one. True, there is a need to somehow name the literary period of the end of the 20th century - starting from the era of Gorbachev’s “glasnost” and perestroika. Of course, it was prepared by the Khrushchev “thaw”, the Brezhnev “stagnation”, when some ideological “nuts” were loosened, but for literature and closely related literary studies it was an extremely significant period, which, certainly, will never be repeated. It was the latest rise (who knows, maybe it’s the last?) of unprecedented interest, it would not be an exaggeration to say, of the people in literature and, at the same time, in literary criticism. Not only works of art, but also the works of philologists were in demand and were published in significant editions. It is quite possible that from the distance of time (not now, but later) the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries in Russia will be called platinum. In Russia, there has never been such a situation in its entire history when literature and literary criticism closely related to it gained freedom after the abolition of censorship, ideological floodgates were opened, and streams of detained, hidden - it is also called “missed” - literature, there and samizdat, and finally, the latest literature of the 1980s and 1990s, which has not yet been fully appreciated for its artistic significance. And this applies, again, not only to literature, but also to literary criticism. A dialogue between Russian literary criticism and Western literature has begun. A milestone here is the publication edited by G.K. Kosikov books: Bart R. Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics.

M., 1989. In just a few years, Russian literary criticism assimilated the conceptual apparatus of poststructuralism and other newest schools: “discourse”, “intertext”, “archetype”, “actor” and other terms have acquired a “Russian” context. No less impressive phenomena: the rapid revival of domestic neo-Freudianism (however, the sensational article by I.P. Smirnov, who now lives in the West, “Pushkin’s castration complex” appeared in a foreign publication), the rise of the neo-mythological school led by E.M. Meletinsky, formation and, it seemed, victory, but imaginary in Russian literature and literary criticism of postmodernism.

Literary scholars and critics of Russian have “returned” silver age, philologists, repressed during the Stalin years, representatives of the Russian diaspora. It was a happy era, contradictory in many ways (take, for example, the fate of peoples and their cultures in the post-Soviet space), but fertile for literature and the science of it. The writer and the reader existed in an almost idyllic connection: publication in a magazine with a million circulation - and the next morning the author becomes famous. An idyll, as a rule, is doomed to sad outcome, but this—the end of literary-centricity in Russia—happened later. At the same time, literature and literary criticism made an unprecedented leap in their development.

Literary criticism was different at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. This is a special time: literary thought has already undergone a significant renewal, and the time has come for its calm flow. We are on the threshold of a new status for the science of words (and literature itself) in conditions where a variety of schools coexist, and quite peacefully. Moreover, each of them has its own circle of authors and its own circle of readers. Maybe we are returning, but at a new stage, to synthetic7 literary criticism, when in the dialogue of different schools and directions the inexhaustible essence of the text will be learned. The dictionary we have conceived, “Russian Literary Scholars of the 20th Century,” will provide answers to this and many other questions.

O.A. Kling It was noted above that it was such by its nature among the great scientists of the 20th century. The first attempt to approach synthetic literary criticism belonged to the Russian symbolists (V. Bryusov, Vyach. Ivanov, this was especially clearly manifested in Andrei Bely).

THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DICTIONARY OF RUSSIAN LITERARY STUDIES OF THE XX CENTURY Scientific interest in the genre of biography of a literary critic in our country is extremely low compared to the biographies of non-humanists. This is the trend. Back in Soviet times (for example, let’s take the period from 1961 to 1974), in the series “Scientific and Biographical Literature” of the USSR Academy of Sciences, “7 books are devoted to the life and work of encyclopedist scientists, 15 mathematicians, 18 physicists, 8 astronomers, 8 chemists.” 30, biologists – 47, geologists – 10, geographers – 16, doctors – 2, technicians – 45.”9. In most cases, these are enviable figures for philologists.

The forms of embodiment of biographies of scientists are very diverse:

from scientific monographs to works of art. The success of any of them depends on the level of development of specific principles and methods for studying the personality and activities of a scientist. But since the number of biographies of humanists (especially literary scholars) is small, the methodology for their creation is not developed at the proper level.

An important step towards solving this problem on a scientific basis could be the creation of a dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century. The need for an academic publication of this type is due to other reasons. First of all, the need for a modern assessment of the individual contribution of researchers to the development of literary studies of the last century, freed from ideological overlay. Its absence leaves the works of many scientists in unfair oblivion and does not allow us to present a picture of scientific life in relative completeness and obvious complexity. Secondly, a systematic study of the knowledge accumulated in the twentieth century will help to better understand and clarify the content and subject of literary criticism as a developing scientific discipline, the meaning of its categories, or “key words” (as defined by A.V. Mikhailov), its place among related sciences and in When writing this chapter, we could not help but take into account the experience of other work:

No. 48. P. 97 – 112.

Sokolovskaya Z.K. Scientific and biographical series of the USSR Academy of Sciences // Man of Science. M., 1974. P. 385.

culture as a whole. Understanding and revaluation of the literary heritage is necessary to overcome the theoretical and methodological crisis that has developed in domestic conditions, which, as is known, is associated with the lack of new ideas10. “...In previous years,” writes a modern literary theorist, “there was a certain devaluation of conceptual literary criticism.” At the same time, I would like to believe that interest in the history of literary criticism is not dictated by a premonition of its end.

The creation of the Dictionary also has scientific significance, since “the biographies of scientists represent that same collection of unique cases, having studied which one can finally form an adequate idea of ​​scientific thinking, its genesis and dynamics in the natural conditions of real human life”12.

*** For a publication dedicated to researchers of literature of the twentieth century, the word “literary critic” is perfectly suitable, since it was in the last century that it became firmly established in Russian literature. speech practice. At the same time, the task of the dictionary compiler is complicated by an obstacle, which was discussed in a conversation with T.A. Kasatkina reasoned with I.B. Rodnyanskaya: “...almost everyone who deals with what this word is supposed to cover is afraid of it, like a plague infection, and in various certificates about themselves tries to write whatever they want: philologist, literary historian, culturologist (although culturologist is also an unimportant word ).

But not a literary critic. Behind this, apparently, there is some not fully verbalized feeling that this artificial word either immensely broad, or means nothing at all. Either too much, or nothing.”13. Who, in this case, should compile a dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century?

Firstly, philological scientists, whose scientific activity was focused on the study of fiction and everything, See about this block of materials: Philology: a crisis of ideas? // Banner. 2005. No. 1.

Kling O.A. The influence of symbolism on post-symbolist poetry in Russia in the 1910s: problems of poetics. M., 2010. P. 33.

Moshkova G.Yu. Scientific research in the context of a scientist’s life path // Philosophy of Science. Vol. 9: The evolution of creative thinking. M., 2003. P. 253.

Rodnyanskaya I.B. Movement of literature. In 2 volumes. T. 1. M., 2006. P. 7.

what is connected with it14. This is the largest group of researchers, which will include some linguists (V.V. Vinogradov, G.O. Vinokur, B.A. Larin, A.A. Shakhmatov, R.O. Yakobson, etc.), historians and literary theorists , folklorists (V.P. Adrianova Peretz, M.K. Azadovsky, M.P. Alekseev, M.M. Bakhtin, N.Ya. Berkovsky, S.M. Bondi, V.E. Vatsuro, M.L. Gasparov, L.Ya. Ginzburg, B.I. Purishev, B.V. Tomashevsky, V.N. Turbin, B.M. Eikhenbaum, B.I. Yarkho and others - the skeleton of the dictionary), bibliographers and bibliologists (V Y. Adaryukov, A. V. Mezier, K. D. Muratova, A. G. Fomin, etc.). Secondly, writers who reflected on the nature of artistic creativity and analyzed the works of not only contemporary authors15. These are writers (A.A. Akhmatova, T.A. Bek, Andrei Bely, V.Ya. Bryusov, V.A. Kaverin, Maxim Gorky, K.I. Chukovsky, etc.), critics who addressed not only the current literary process (A.L. Volynsky, A.K. Voronsky, D.A. Gorbov, A.Z. Lezhnev, etc.), some thinkers, at first glance, are far from literary studies, but made a special contribution to its development ( N.A. Berdyaev, G.V. Plekhanov, V.V. Rozanov, etc.).

The initial condition for selecting names should be that the literary critic has published research, written in Russian, that is scientifically significant, original or typical for his time.

The question of the time boundaries of the dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century requires comment. In general, these boundaries correspond to the calendar century, but since, according to the precise remark of S.A. Vengerov, “formal chronology and the chronology of truly integral historical and literary periods are rare in literary studies,” writes V.E. Khalizev, - not only literary and artistic works as such are under his jurisdiction, but also much more: 1) the processes of creative activity of writers and their biographies;

2) the sphere of perception of literature by readers;

3) various kinds of literary communities - genres or national literatures, literary eras;

world literature as such or the evolution of artistic forms and creative principles, etc.” (Khalizev V.E. On the composition of literary criticism and the specifics of its methodology // Science of literature in the twentieth century: (History, methodology, literary process): Collection of articles. M., 2001. pp. 8 – 9.

In this case, we proceed from the established tradition of classifying the current literary process as the subject of literary criticism as a discipline that deals with “unfinished” phenomena. Despite the vulnerability, this position allows you to more clearly form a vocabulary.

coincide"16, then they need to be expanded. It would be legitimate to include in the dictionary mainly those whose literary work is strongly associated with the 20th century, although it could have begun in the last quarter of the 19th century and ended before 2010 (with rare exceptions). Thus, the “ethical imperative” of scientific research will be respected – “not a word about the living.”

Separately, it should be noted that there are no geographical barriers to the inclusion of emigrant literary scholars in the dictionary (G.V. Adamovich, Yu.I. Aikhenvald, N.M. Bakhtin, P.L. Weil, M.L. Goffman, K.V. Mochulsky, N.A. Otsup and others).

*** No less important than the composition of the dictionary is the problem of the structure and content of the dictionary entry. In essence, its solution boils down to reflection on the genre of the biography of a scientist, since the backbone of the dictionary should be made up of professional philologists. At the same time, the inclusion of writers in the dictionary does not seem to be a violation of the “canon,” since the closeness of the two genres (the biography of a scientist and the biography of a writer) is confirmed even by a superficial comparison.

The origins of the genre of biography of a scientist, as well as a writer, go back to antiquity. “Essentially,” writes V.Ya. Frenkel, - Plato’s dialogues are nothing more than a scientific biography of Socrates;

Memoirs of Socrates were written by his student Xenophon.

Democritus owns a biography of Pythagoras that has not come down to us, but is repeatedly mentioned in ancient sources.”17 Of course, one can easily argue with the “scientific” nature of Plato’s dialogues. But interest in the biography of a scientist (and in relation to antiquity, more precisely, a philosopher) has ancient origins. In addition, the first domestic biographical dictionaries, which largely contributed to the emergence of scientific biographies, were dedicated to both writers and scientists. This is eloquently evidenced not only by the content, but also by the title of some of them: “Reference Dictionary of Russian Writers and Scientists Who Died in the 18th and 19th Centuries...” (G.N. Gennadi), “Critical-Biographical Dictionary of Russian Writers and Scientists ( from the beginning of Russian education to the present day)" (S.A. Vengerov), "Brief Russian literature of the twentieth century (1890 - 1910). In 2 books. Book 1. M., 2000. P. 19.

Frenkel V.Ya. On the genre of biography of scientists // Man of Science. P. 109.

biographical dictionary of scientists and writers of the Poltava province with half of the XVIII century. With portraits" (I.F. Pavlovsky), "Saratov residents - writers and scientists (Materials for a biobibliographic dictionary" (S.D. Sokolov).

The similarities don't stop there. “Although,” believes B.S. Meilakh (whose judgment on this topic makes sense to listen to) - the types of biographies of scientists and writers each have their own specifics, depending on the characteristics of scientific and literary artistic activity, yet there are general methodological problems of the biographical genre. The experience of writers’ biographies should also be taken into account when discussing ways to reconstruct the life and work of a scientist...”18 We are talking here about several bonds that unite two genres.

The authors of biographies of a scientist and writer deal with the same type of sources (epistolary, diaries, autobiographies, documents of the era), which require search, selection, that is, professional criticism and strength testing, processing.

Faced with a lack of reliable materials, when reconstructing “blank spots”, any biographer is forced to turn to intuition for help, choosing between scientific speculation and fiction. “In biographical reconstruction,” writes M.G. Yaroshevsky, - especially concerning the psychological world of the hero, which is often closed not only to others, but also to himself, the biographer is forced to revolve in the sphere of speculation, which, however, should not be identified with artistic fiction"19. “In conjecture - logical, reasonable, psychologically justified,” E.M. continues the same thought. Klyaus, there is nothing odious. After all, there is scientific speculation in the arsenal of scientists! Why shouldn’t there be speculation in the work of a historian of science?! Of course, speculation is not contrary to reliable facts, but only where they are lacking, where there is no other way to establish the truth;

a conjecture that helps to recreate the psychologically reliable appearance of a scientist and certain supposed situations”20. Discussing the biography of the writer, G.O. Vinokur argued that “verbal expression serves as a reason for Meilakh B.S. Biography as a methodological problem // Man of Science. S. 8.

Yaroshevsky M.G. Biography of a scientist as a scientific problem // Man of Science. P. 24.

Klyaus E.M. Psychological detail in scientific biography // Man of Science.

pp. 208 – 209.

for the emergence of biographical interests, since it is a symptom or sign of the author’s personal experiences and behavior”21. Despite the widely declared unification of the language of science, expressed by G.O. Vinokur’s idea can also be applied to the biographies of outstanding scientists, whose works “certainly bear the imprint of stylistic individuality”22.

To verify this, it is enough to compare scientific style works by M.M. Bakhtina, N.Ya. Berkovsky, S.S. Averintseva. Another connecting link between the two genres is the myths that surround both writers and scientists. According to the correct remark of B.G. Volodina:

“A person who dares to undertake a serious biographical work, whether a scholar or a writer, is almost inevitably faced with the need to destroy the myths that arise around famous people with a pattern that was colorfully defined by the illustrious Anton Antonovich Skvoznik Dmukhanovsky: ... just put up some kind of monument or just a fence somewhere - the devil knows where they will come from and cause all sorts of rubbish!..”23. In this case, myths should not be confused with legends, which are on a par with historical anecdotes, which have unconditional biographical value. Biographers of writers and scientists encounter common difficulties not only in the cases mentioned, but also when interpreting a variety of facts and including the creative heritage of the “hero” in the outline of the biography. “Besides,” wrote one of the researchers in the 1970s, “if we proceed from modern understanding creativity as a system (in accordance with the general theory of systems), then scientific and artistic creativity can be considered as subsystems united by the universal laws of creative thinking (which, of course, should not lead to ignoring the uniqueness of each of the subsystems)”24. It makes sense to dwell on this uniqueness.

In the eyes of a scientist-biographer, the writer’s creative personality is not united “at the everyday and super-everyday levels”25, if we take into account what Vinokur G.O. Biography and culture // Same. Biography and culture.

Russian stage pronunciation. M., 1997. P. 13.

Kirsanov V.S. On the criteria for approaching the biography of a creative personality // Man of Science. P. 93.

Volodin B. Myths and documents // Man of Science. P. 125.

Meilakh B.S. Biography as a methodological problem // Man of Science. P. 9.

See about this in detail: Kholikov A.A. Biography of a writer as a genre: Textbook. M., 2010. pp. 86 – 88. Let me briefly remind you that the everyday level in literary criticism is the isolation of the author as real person from the author in a work of art. The writers themselves testify to this duality of nature. Let us recall the textbook lines of A.S. Pushkin: “Until Apollo demands the poet / To the sacred sacrifice, / In the worries of the vain world / He is cowardly immersed;

/ … / But only the divine verb / Will touch the sensitive ear, / The poet’s soul will perk up, / Like an awakened eagle”26. The peculiarity of the scientist’s creative personality is different. “If only a scientist,” writes G.Yu. Moshkova, “does not suffer from a split personality, then in all his manifestations he acts and perceives himself as a single and indivisible, integral personality, within which there is no barrier between I am a scientist and I am a person”27. With all this, a writer acting as a literary critic (as well as a critic) is not much different from a scientist, much less a humanist, whose activity is no less individualized than artistic creativity. Typical features do not appear as clearly in it as in the works of representatives of the exact sciences. Thus, we have no doubt about the possibility of duplicating the results of the work of two physicists unfamiliar with each other, but we have difficulty imagining two absolutely identical analyzes of a poem (if this is not plagiarism). In other words, in its individuality, the work of a humanitarian is akin to artistic creativity. Finally, the creative personality of a writer in the eyes of a biographer can be as unified as the personality of a scientist if it is studied at the “essential” level, when the main principle becomes “the writer is his style.” At the same time, the personality is represented in all its texts, regardless of their genre, and the most important indicator of its manifestation is not always conscious repetition in the lexical, syntactic, which implies the study biographical facts in isolation from the creative activity of the individual, and at a super-everyday level, the biographer examines the life of the writer in its relation to creativity.

Although the statements of writers in this case are not the most reliable argument. Pushkin’s view can be contrasted with the thesis of V.Ya. Bryusova: “There are no special moments when a poet becomes a poet: he is either always a poet, or never. And the soul should not wait for the divine verb in order to perk up like an awakened eagle. This eagle must look at the world forever with sleepless eyes” (Bryusov V.Ya. Sacred Sacrifice// Same.

Collected works: In 7 volumes. T. 6. M., 1975. P. 99).

Moshkova G.Yu. Scientific research in the context of a scientist’s life path // Philosophy of Science. Vol. 9: The evolution of creative thinking. P. 252.

compositional, figurative and semantic levels. In addition, the style reveals the individuality of the creative person - unique originality at the text level.

*** The dictionary of Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century should not be limited only to the reference function and provide the reader with “dry” factual information with a brief retelling of the primary scientific works. In this regard, it would be useful to recall the remark of D.S. Likhacheva: “The powerlessness of literary criticism is clearly reflected in the analysis of a literary work through retelling - more or less detailed.” And further: “Retelling is always distortion, simplification and dullness”28. This idea can be extended to scientific creativity. Consequently, the question arises about the theoretical and methodological principles of writing a dictionary entry. To get closer to the answer, we will focus on the genre of biography of a literary critic in its specifics and list the main problematic “nodes” associated with the structure of the narrative, the tasks implemented in the text, as well as the sources of the biography.

Let's start with the structure. The biography of a literary scholar consists of a number of mandatory elements, which include: a description of the main stages of life and research activities, a narrative about the era and immediate environment as factors of influence on a creative personality. This is the core. Within the tight confines of a dictionary entry, a three-part composition can be realized, which presupposes: 1) the presence of brief biographical information (dates and places of birth/death, origin, education, beginning, main stages and end of career activity, first lifetime publications of literary works, and some others ), arranged in direct chronological sequence;

2) an analytical review of literary activity, confirming its individuality and/or typicality, highlighting the main terms and concepts (which will allow, thanks to the compilation of an index of terms and concepts, to trace the history of their functioning and actual application in the twentieth century, which has not yet been written, but extremely necessary);

3) a bibliography of the literary critic’s works and - about him, which acquires special value in D.S. Likhachev. Notes and observations: From notebooks different years. L., 1989. S. 175 – 176.

The structure of the narrative reveals the tasks facing the biographer and helping him achieve the main goal - to understand and explain the “hero” of the biography. According to one of the researchers, “the activity and individuality of a scientist (in our case, a literary critic - A.Kh.) can be adequately explained only in a system of three coordinates: subject-logical, social-historical, personal-psychological”29.

For the biographer, writes M.G. Yaroshevsky, “there is no higher goal than to explain how the logic of the development of science determines the behavior of a specific individual, in what form it, this logic, being independent of consciousness and will individuals, conquers their consciousness and will, becomes their vital impulse and departure”30. M.M. wrote about the same thing. Bakhtin: “When working on any book, it is important to assimilate not only the facts and ready-made provisions of science contained in it, but also the methods by which they were found, established, and proven. We must master the very logic of science.”31

Despite the fact that only the main “hero” should be at the center of the biography, it is impossible to create a full-fledged biography of a literary scholar, even in the form of a dictionary entry, outside the context of the fate of the scientific or literary community. Much attention must be paid to the influence of general historical and social factors on the personality of a literary scholar and his immediate environment. Ideally, such a biography, albeit in a condensed form, “can serve as a source of valuable scientific information”32 related to the development of the science of literature. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the biography of an individual literary critic is the history of literary criticism.

Coverage of the activities of a literary critic in connection with socio-historical circumstances and the movement of science does not cancel Yaroshevsky M.G. Biography of a scientist as a scientific problem // Man of Science. P. 29.

Right there. P. 33.

Bakhtin M.M. Some remarks // M.M. Bakhtin: Aesthetic heritage and modernity. Part 1. Saransk, 1992. P. 18.

Bykov G.V. Light and shadows in scientific biography // Man of Science. P. 68.

the problem of studying his individual identity. That is why one of the main tasks remains to characterize “ creative laboratory» researcher.

Solving this problem is equivalent to creating the plot of a work of art. The biographer, no matter who he writes for, has the goal of at least partially reflecting inner world scientist (his worldview) and penetrate into the psychology of scientific activity.

Since the works of outstanding scientists, as well as writers, bear the imprint of stylistic individuality, one of the biographer’s attitudes may be their linguistic research. And in order to more fully show the spiritual content of the personality of a literary critic, it is necessary to deeply study his aesthetic world, identifying artistic (not only scientific!) predilections and inclinations.

Answering numerous questions, the biographer asks new ones. And this, in turn, as well as indicating the directions of possible research, gives the biography every right to be called scientific, in line with the epistemological tradition, the basic principle of which was formulated by Yu.M. Lotman: “Literary criticism is learning to ask - before it was in a hurry to answer”33 - but the foundation was laid by A.N. Veselovsky: “It is useful to expose new les pourquoi, because there is a lot of unknown, and it often goes beyond what has been decided, understandable by itself, as if we had all agreed at least on, for example, what romanticism and classicism, naturalism and realism are, what such a revival, etc.”34.

Another task that a biographer cannot do without is studying the motivation of certain actions in which a creative personality is manifested. According to G.Yu. Moshkova, “it is necessary to answer the question not only of what and how happened in a person’s life, but also why it happened”35. The problem of ethical assessment of this or that action that arises in this case must be solved by the biographer with the utmost correctness. To implement this task G.Yu. Moshkova offers a scheme for analyzing key events. Lotman Yu.M. Analysis of poetic text. Verse structure. L., 1972. P. 6.

Veselovsky A.N. From an introduction to historical poetics. Questions and answers // Same. Favorites: Historical poetics. M., 2006. P. 58.

Moshkova G.Yu. Scientific research in the context of a scientist’s life path // Philosophy of Science. Vol. 9: The evolution of creative thinking. P. 259.

the life path of a scientist, which can be applied to literary scholars: “...1) the factuality of the event, that is, what exactly happened;

2) psychological essence alternatives from which a choice is made (if any);

3) the struggle of motives and the motivation of choice;

4) actual and psychological consequences of this event"36.

The last thing that should be briefly discussed is the problem of sources, which becomes important for distinguishing between the reliable and the incredible in the biography of a literary scholar. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the time of origin of the source (before or after the death of the literary scholar), the nature (oral or written) and the authorship (biographer, literary scholar or other person). According to the concept of B.M. Kedrov, the greatest degree of reliability will be possessed by a source directly related to the time of interest to us, emanating from the literary critic himself and of a written nature, and the least - a source distant in time from the event described, emanating from other persons and of an oral nature37. At the same time, I dare to add, archival and hard-to-access materials are of the greatest value for writing a dictionary entry.

The tasks are not easy, but can be solved through the efforts of biographers, literary scholars, who have the talents of persistent researchers and, at the same time, popularizers who are able to write about complex scientific problems in accessible form. As a result of following the listed theoretical principles (the list of which cannot be called closed), a dictionary should be obtained, the purpose of which is to provide the specialist (and not only) with brief, systematized information about Russian literary scholars of the twentieth century with a modern analysis of their activities. Such a dictionary cannot claim to be exhaustive in covering names, but it will be a necessary contribution to the study of the science of literature of the past century.

A.A. Kholikov Ibid. P. 260.

Kedrov B.M. Reliable and unreliable, probable and incredible in the biography of scientists // Man of Science. P. 63.

VOCABULARY Compiled by A.A. Kholikov, with the participation of V.I. Maslovsky.

The dictionary is compiled in accordance with the stated theoretical and methodological principles. The division of names into three groups (scientists, writers, emigrants) is conditional and was done for the convenience of working with the material. When publishing the dictionary, all names will be arranged in a row alphabetically. The dictionary contains just over 1000 names and is open-ended, allowing changes. The authors of the prospectus will be grateful for your comments, clarifications and suggestions, which can be sent to: [email protected].