Page 1
Federal agency of Education
State educational institution
higher professional education
"Vladimir State University"
Department of National History
Karas S. I.
Art. gr. Rzh-109
“Silver Age” of Russian poetry (late 19th – early 20th century)
Supervisor:
Associate Professor Burlakov A.I.
Vladimir 2009
Introduction: Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries 3
“Silver Age” of Russian poetry (late 19th – early 20th centuries) 5
Symbolism. Definition, history, symbolist poets 5
Acmeism. Definition, history, main features of the current 7
Futurism and its directions 13
Cubofuturism 15
Egofuturism 18
Imagism 23
Other poetic movements. Satiristic and peasant poetry, constructivism, poets who were not part of generally recognized schools 26
Constructivism 26
Satire 27
Peasant poets 28
Poets beyond currents 29
Connection of the Vladimir region with the poets of the “Silver Age” 29
Conclusion: “Silver Age” as a child of the century, blurring of the boundaries of this phenomenon 30
I. Introduction: Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries
In 1894, Emperor Nicholas II ascended the throne, declaring his intention to follow the conservative course of his father ( Alexandra III) and called on the public to abandon “meaningless dreams” about expanding the rights of organs local government and the introduction of any forms of popular representation.
Bright historical event This period was the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), which began in January 1904 with a sudden attack by the Japanese fleet on the ships of the Pacific squadron stationed in the Port Arthur roadstead. Decisive fighting deployed on the territory of Manchuria, where Japanese army successively inflicted defeats on the Russian army in August 1904 at the Battle of Liaoyang, and in September on the Shahe River. December 20, 1904 (January 2, 1905) the besieged fell Japanese troops Port Arthur. In February 1905, the Russian army suffered a heavy defeat at Mukden; in May, the Japanese fleet almost completely destroyed the 2nd Pacific squadron in naval battle at Tsushima. In August 1905, the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed, under the terms of which Russia transferred the southern part of Sakhalin Island to Japan, withdrew troops from Manchuria, ceded to Japan the rights to lease the Liaodong Peninsula, and recognized Korea as Japan's sphere of influence.
Beginning of the 20th century was marked by the rise of the mass worker and peasant movement. A strike at the Obukhov plant in St. Petersburg in May 1901 resulted in clashes with the police. In 1902, a mass May Day demonstration took place in Sormovo (a suburb of Nizhny Novgorod). During a strike at the Zlatoust arms factory on March 13, 1903, troops opened fire on the workers (69 people were killed, 250 were injured). That same year, a general strike swept through industrial enterprises in southern Russia. An attempt by the head of the Moscow security department S.V. Zubatov to create in the early 1900s. legal workers' organizations, operating under the control of the authorities, did not meet with support in the highest spheres of government and failed.
In the spring of 1902, mass uprisings of peasants took place in the Poltava and Kharkov provinces, suppressed by troops. In the summer and autumn of 1902, peasant unrest engulfed a number of counties in Kursk, Volyn, Chernigov, Voronezh, Kherson, Saratov, Simbirsk, Ryazan provinces and the Kuban region. The growth of the peasant movement contributed to the revival of faith among the radical intelligentsia in the revolutionary potential of the Russian peasantry. In 1901-02, various neo-populist circles and organizations united into the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), its Combat Organization carried out a number of terrorist acts against senior officials (the assassination of Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. by E. S. Sozonov on July 15, 1904 had the greatest public resonance). Plehve). The student movement intensified sharply: in 1900–10, unrest swept through almost all universities and some other higher education institutions. Many students were arrested and turned into soldiers. In response to these actions of the authorities, a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party P. V. Karpovich mortally wounded the minister on February 14, 1901 public education N. P. Bogolepova. On March 4, 1901, the police brutally dealt with the participants in the demonstration of students and female students on the square of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. The zemstvo movement expanded, whose participants sought to expand the rights of zemstvos. The liberal movement was headed by the “Union of Liberation” created in 1903, and in the same year the “Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists” took shape. During the “banquet campaign” organized by the Liberation Union in 1904, at meetings of representatives of the liberal intelligentsia, demands for the introduction of representative government in Russia were openly put forward.
The aggravation of socio-political contradictions in Russia was aggravated by the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. By the end of 1904 the country was on the verge of revolution.
II. “Silver Age” of Russian poetry (late 19th – early 20th century)
Symbolism. Definition, history, symbolist poets.
The philosophy and aesthetics of symbolism developed under the influence of various teachings - from the views of the ancient philosopher Plato to modern symbolists philosophical systems V. Solovyov, F. Nietzsche, A. Bergson. The symbolists contrasted the traditional idea of understanding the world in art with the idea of constructing the world in the process of creativity. Creativity in the understanding of the symbolists is a subconscious-intuitive contemplation of secret meanings, accessible only to the artist-creator. Moreover, it is impossible to rationally convey the contemplated “secrets”. According to the largest theoretician among the Symbolists, Vyach. Ivanov, poetry is “the secret writing of the ineffable.” The artist is required not only to have super-rational sensitivity, but also to have the subtlest mastery of the art of allusion: the value of poetic speech lies in “understatement,” “hiddenness of meaning.” The main means of conveying the contemplated secret meanings there was a symbol.
“The category of music is the second most important (after symbol) in the aesthetics and poetic practice of the new movement. This concept was used by symbolists in two different aspects - general ideological and technical. In the first, general philosophical meaning, music for them is not a sound rhythmically organized sequence, but a universal metaphysical energy, the fundamental basis of all creativity. In the second, technical significance, music is significant for symbolists as the verbal texture of a verse permeated with sound and rhythmic combinations, that is, as the maximum use of musical compositional principles in poetry. Symbolist poems are sometimes constructed as a bewitching stream of verbal and musical harmonies and echoes.”
Symbolism enriched Russian poetic culture with many discoveries. The symbolists gave the poetic word a previously unknown mobility and ambiguity, and taught Russian poetry to discover additional shades and facets of meaning in the word. Their searches in the field of poetic phonetics turned out to be fruitful: K. Balmont, V. Bryusov, I. Annensky, A. Blok, A. Bely were masters of expressive assonance and effective alliteration. The rhythmic possibilities of Russian verse have expanded, and the stanzas have become more diverse. However, the main merit of this literary movement is not associated with formal innovations.
Symbolism tried to create new philosophy culture, sought, after going through a painful period of revaluation of values, to develop a new universal worldview. Having overcome the extremes of individualism and subjectivism, the symbolists at the dawn of the new century raised the question of public role artists, began to move towards the creation of such forms of art, the experience of which could unite people again. Despite the external manifestations of elitism and formalism, symbolism managed in practice to fill the work with the artistic form with new content and, most importantly, to make art more personal, personalistic.
Symbolist poets: Annensky Innokenty, Balmont Konstantin, Baltrushaitis Jurgis, Bely Andrey, Blok Alexander, Bryusov Valery, Gippius Zinaida, Dobrolyubov Alexander, Sorgenfrey Wilhelm, Ivanov Vyacheslav, Konevskoy Ivan, Merezhkovsky Dmitry, Piast Vladimir, Rukavishnikov Ivan, Sologub Fedor, Solovyova Polixena, Viktor Strazhev, Alexander Tinyakov, Konstantin Fofanov, Georgy Chulkov.
Acmeism. Definition, history, main features of the current
Overcoming the Symbolists’ predilection for the “superreal,” polysemy and fluidity of images, and complicated metaphors, the Acmeists strove for sensual plastic-material clarity of the image and accuracy, precision of the poetic word. Their “earthly” poetry is prone to intimacy, aestheticism and poeticization of the feelings of primordial man. Acmeism was characterized by extreme apoliticality, complete indifference to the pressing problems of our time.
The Acmeists, who replaced the Symbolists, did not have a detailed philosophical and aesthetic program. But if in the poetry of symbolism the determining factor was transience, the immediacy of existence, a certain mystery covered with an aura of mysticism, then a realistic view of things was set as the cornerstone in the poetry of Acmeism. The vague instability and vagueness of symbols was replaced by precise verbal images. The word, according to Acmeists, should have acquired its original meaning.
The highest point in the hierarchy of values for them was culture, identical to universal human memory. That is why Acmeists often turn to mythological subjects and images. If the Symbolists focused their work on music, then the Acmeists focused on the spatial arts: architecture, sculpture, painting. The attraction to the three-dimensional world was expressed in the Acmeists' passion for objectivity: a colorful, sometimes exotic detail could be used for purely pictorial purposes. That is, the “overcoming” of symbolism occurred not so much in the sphere of general ideas, but in the field of poetic stylistics. In this sense, Acmeism was as conceptual as symbolism, and in this respect they are undoubtedly in continuity.
“A distinctive feature of the Acmeist circle of poets was their “organizational cohesion.” Essentially, the Acmeists were not so much an organized movement with a common theoretical platform, but rather a group of talented and very different poets who were united by personal friendship.” The Symbolists had nothing of the kind: Bryusov’s attempts to reunite his brothers were in vain. The same thing was observed among the futurists - despite the abundance of collective manifestos that they released. The Acmeists, or - as they were also called - "Hyperboreans" (after the name of the printed mouthpiece of Acmeism, the magazine and publishing house "Hyperboreas"), immediately acted as a single group. They gave their union the significant name “Workshop of Poets.” And the beginning of a new trend (which later became almost “ prerequisite"the emergence of new poetic groups in Russia) was caused by a scandal.
In the autumn of 1911, in the poetry salon of Vyacheslav Ivanov, the famous “Tower”, where they gathered poetry society and poetry was being read and discussed, a “riot” broke out. Several talented young poets defiantly left the next meeting of the Academy of Verse, outraged by the derogatory criticism of the “masters” of symbolism. Nadezhda Mandelstam describes this incident as follows: “Gumilev’s “Prodigal Son” was read at the “Academy of Verse,” where Vyacheslav Ivanov reigned, surrounded by respectful students. He subjected Prodigal Son“Real destruction. The speech was so rude and harsh that Gumilyov’s friends left the “Academy” and organized the “Workshop of Poets” - in opposition to it.”
And a year later, in the fall of 1912, the six main members of the “Workshop” decided not only formally, but also ideologically to separate from the Symbolists. They organized a new commonwealth, calling themselves “Acmeists,” i.e., the pinnacle. At the same time, the “Workshop of Poets” as an organizational structure was preserved - the Acmeists remained in it as an internal poetic association.
The main ideas of Acmeism were set out in the programmatic articles by N. Gumilyov “The Heritage of Symbolism and Acmeism” and S. Gorodetsky “Some Currents in Modern Russian Poetry”, published in the magazine “Apollo” (1913, No. 1), published under the editorship of S. Makovsky. The first of them said: “Symbolism is being replaced by a new direction, no matter what it is called, whether Acmeism (from the word akme - the highest degree of something, a blooming time) or Adamism (a courageously firm and clear view of life), in any case requiring greater balance forces and a more precise knowledge of the relationship between subject and object than was the case in symbolism. However, in order for this movement to establish itself in its entirety and become a worthy successor to the previous one, it is necessary that it accept its inheritance and answer all the questions it poses. The glory of the ancestors obliges, and symbolism was a worthy father.”
S. Gorodetsky believed that “symbolism... having filled the world with “correspondences”, turned it into a phantom, important only insofar as it... shines through with other worlds, and belittled its high intrinsic value. Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, scent and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else.”
In 1913, Mandelstam’s article “The Morning of Acmeism” was also written, which was published only six years later. The delay in publication was not accidental: Mandelstam’s acmeistic views significantly diverged from the declarations of Gumilyov and Gorodetsky and did not make it onto the pages of Apollo.
However, as T. Skryabina notes, “the idea of a new direction was first expressed on the pages of Apollo much earlier: in 1910, M. Kuzmin appeared in the magazine with an article “On Beautiful Clarity,” which anticipated the appearance of declarations of Acmeism. By the time this article was written, Kuzmin was already a mature man and had experience of collaborating in symbolist periodicals. Kuzmin contrasted the otherworldly and foggy revelations of the Symbolists, the “incomprehensible and dark in art,” with “beautiful clarity,” “clarism” (from the Greek clarus - clarity). An artist, according to Kuzmin, must bring clarity to the world, not obscure, but clarify the meaning of things, seek harmony with the environment. The philosophical and religious quest of the Symbolists did not captivate Kuzmin: the artist’s job is to focus on the aesthetic side of creativity and artistic skill. “The symbol, dark in its deepest depths,” gives way to clear structures and admiration of “lovely little things.” Kuzmin’s ideas could not help but influence the Acmeists: “beautiful clarity” turned out to be in demand by the majority of participants in the “Workshop of Poets.”
Another “harbinger” of Acmeism can be considered Innokenty Annensky, who, formally being a symbolist, actually paid tribute to it only in the early period of his work. Subsequently, Annensky took a different path: the ideas of late symbolism had practically no impact on his poetry. But the simplicity and clarity of his poems were well understood by the Acmeists.
Three years after the publication of Kuzmin’s article in Apollo, the manifestos of Gumilev and Gorodetsky appeared - from this moment it is customary to count the existence of Acmeism as an established literary movement.
Acmeism has six of the most active participants in the movement: N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, O. Mandelstam, S. Gorodetsky, M. Zenkevich, V. Narbut. G. Ivanov claimed the role of the “seventh Acmeist,” but such a point of view was protested by A. Akhmatova, who stated that “there were six Acmeists, and there never was a seventh.” O. Mandelstam agreed with her, who, however, believed that six was too much: “There are only six Acmeists, and among them there was one extra...” Mandelstam explained that Gorodetsky was “attracted” by Gumilyov, not daring to oppose the then powerful Symbolists with only "yellow mouths". “Gorodetsky was [by that time] famous poet..." At different times, the following took part in the work of the “Workshop of Poets”: G. Adamovich, N. Bruni, Nas. Gippius, Vl. Gippius, G. Ivanov, N. Klyuev, M. Kuzmin, E. Kuzmina-Karavaeva, M. Lozinsky, V. Khlebnikov and others. At the meetings of the "Workshop", unlike the meetings of the Symbolists, decisions were made concrete questions: “The Workshop” was a school for mastering poetic skills, a professional association.
Acmeism as a literary movement united exceptionally gifted poets - Gumilyov, Akhmatova, Mandelstam, the formation of whose creative individualities took place in the atmosphere of the “Workshop of Poets”. The history of Acmeism can be considered as a kind of dialogue between these three outstanding representatives. At the same time, the Adamism of Gorodetsky, Zenkevich and Narbut, who formed the naturalistic wing of the movement, differed significantly from the “pure” Acmeism of the above-mentioned poets. The difference between the Adamists and the triad Gumilyov - Akhmatova - Mandelstam has been repeatedly noted in criticism.
As a literary movement, Acmeism did not last long - about two years. In February 1914, it split. The "Poets' Workshop" was closed. The Acmeists managed to publish ten issues of their magazine “Hyperborea” (editor M. Lozinsky), as well as several almanacs.
“Symbolism was fading away” - Gumilyov was not mistaken in this, but he failed to form a movement as powerful as Russian symbolism. Acmeism failed to gain a foothold as the leading poetic movement. The reason for its rapid decline is said to be, among other things, “the ideological unadaptability of the movement to the conditions of a radically changed reality.” V. Bryusov noted that “the Acmeists are characterized by a gap between practice and theory,” and “their practice was purely symbolist.” It was in this that he saw the crisis of Acmeism. However, Bryusov’s statements about Acmeism were always harsh; at first he stated that “... Acmeism is an invention, a whim, a metropolitan quirk” and foreshadowed: “... most likely, in a year or two there will be no Acmeism left. His very name will disappear,” and in 1922, in one of his articles, he generally denies it the right to be called a direction, a school, believing that there is nothing serious and original in Acmeism and that it is “outside the mainstream of literature.”
However, attempts to resume the activities of the association were subsequently made more than once. The second “Workshop of Poets,” founded in the summer of 1916, was headed by G. Ivanov together with G. Adamovich. But it didn’t last long either. In 1920, the third “Workshop of Poets” appeared, which was last attempt Gumilyov to organizationally maintain the Acmeist line. Poets who consider themselves to be part of the school of Acmeism united under his wing: S. Neldichen, N. Otsup, N. Chukovsky, I. Odoevtseva, N. Berberova, Vs. Rozhdestvensky, N. Oleinikov, L. Lipavsky, K. Vatinov, V. Pozner and others. The third “Workshop of Poets” existed in Petrograd for about three years (in parallel with the “Sounding Shell” studio) - until the tragic death of N. Gumilyov.
The creative destinies of poets, one way or another connected with Acmeism, developed differently: N. Klyuev subsequently declared his non-involvement in the activities of the commonwealth; G. Ivanov and G. Adamovich continued and developed many of the principles of Acmeism in emigration; Acmeism did not have any noticeable influence on V. Khlebnikov. IN Soviet time the poetic style of the Acmeists (mainly N. Gumilyov) was imitated by N. Tikhonov, E. Bagritsky, I. Selvinsky, M. Svetlov.
In comparison with other poetic movements of Russian Silver Age Acmeism, in many ways, seems to be a marginal phenomenon. It has no analogues in other European literatures (which cannot be said, for example, about symbolism and futurism); the more surprising are the words of Blok, Gumilyov’s literary opponent, who declared that Acmeism was just an “imported foreign thing.” After all, it was Acmeism that turned out to be extremely fruitful for Russian literature. Akhmatova and Mandelstam managed to leave behind “eternal words.” Gumilyov appears in his poems as one of the brightest personalities of the cruel times of revolutions and world wars. And today, almost a century later, interest in Acmeism has remained mainly because the creativity of these outstanding poets, which had a significant influence on the fate of Russian poetry of the 20th century.
Basic principles of Acmeism:
liberation of poetry from symbolist appeals to the ideal, returning it to clarity;
rejection of mystical nebula, acceptance earthly world in its diversity, visible concreteness, sonority, colorfulness;
the desire to give a word a certain, precise meaning;
objectivity and clarity of images, precision of details;
appeal to a person, to the “authenticity” of his feelings;
poeticization of the world of primordial emotions, primitive biological natural principles;
roll call with the past literary eras, the broadest aesthetic associations, “longing for world culture.”
Futurism and its directions
Unlike Acmeism, futurism as a movement in Russian poetry did not originate in Russia at all. This phenomenon was entirely brought from the West, where it originated and was theoretically justified. The birthplace of the new modernist movement was Italy, and the main ideologist of Italian and world futurism was the famous writer Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1876-1944), who spoke on February 20, 1909 on the pages of the Saturday issue of the Parisian newspaper Le Figaro with the first “Manifesto of Futurism”, which included its stated “anti-cultural, anti-aesthetic and anti-philosophical” orientation.
In principle, any modernist movement in art asserted itself by rejecting old norms, canons, and traditions. However, futurism was distinguished in this regard by its extremely extremist orientation. This movement claimed to build a new art - “the art of the future”, speaking under the slogan of a nihilistic negation of all previous artistic experience. Marinetti proclaimed “worldwide historical task futurism,” which consisted of “spitting on the altar of art every day.”
“Futurists preached the destruction of the forms and conventions of art in order to merge it with the accelerated life process of the 20th century. They are characterized by a reverence for action, movement, speed, strength and aggression; exaltation of oneself and contempt for the weak; the priority of force, the intoxication of war and destruction were asserted.” In this regard, futurism in its ideology was very close to both right-wing and left-wing radicals: anarchists, fascists, communists, focused on the revolutionary overthrow of the past.
The main features of futurism:
rebellion, anarchic worldview, expression of mass sentiments of the crowd;
denial of cultural traditions, an attempt to create art aimed at the future;
rebellion against the usual norms of poetic speech, experimentation in the field of rhythm, rhyme, focus on the spoken verse, slogan, poster;
searches for a liberated “authentic” word, experiments in creating an “abstruse” language;
cult of technology, industrial cities;
shocking pathos.
Cubofuturism
When it comes to Russian futurism, the names of the Cubo-Futurists - members of the Gileya group - immediately come to mind. They were remembered both for their defiant behavior and shocking appearance(Mayakovsky’s famous yellow jacket, pink frock coats, bunches of radishes and wooden spoons in buttonholes, faces painted with unknown signs, shocking antics during speeches), and scandalous manifestos and sharp polemical attacks against literary opponents, and the fact that their ranks included Vladimir Mayakovsky, the only one of the futurists “not persecuted” in Soviet times.
In the 1910s of the last century, the fame of the “Gileans” really surpassed other representatives of this literary movement. Perhaps because their work was most consistent with the canons of the avant-garde.
"Gilea" is the first futuristic group. They also called themselves “Cubo-Futurists” or “Budetlyans” (this name was suggested by Khlebnikov). The year of its foundation is considered to be 1908, although the main composition was formed in 1909-1910. “We didn’t even notice how we became Gilaeans. This happened by itself, by general tacit agreement, just as, having realized the commonality of our goals and objectives, we did not take Hannibal’s oaths of allegiance to any principles to each other.” Therefore, the group did not have a permanent composition.
At the beginning of 1910 in St. Petersburg, “Gilea” announced its existence consisting of D. and N. Burlyuk, V. Khlebnikov, V. Mayakovsky, V. Kamensky, E. Guro, A. Kruchenykh and B. Livshits. It was they who became representatives of the most radical flank of Russian literary futurism, which was distinguished by revolutionary rebellion, oppositional sentiment against bourgeois society, its morality, aesthetic tastes, and the entire system of social relations.
Cubo-futurism is considered to be the result of the mutual influence of futurist poets and cubist painters. Indeed, literary futurism was closely associated with avant-garde artistic groups of the 1910s, such as the “Jack of Diamonds”, “Donkey’s Tail”, and the “Youth Union”. The active interaction of poetry and painting, of course, was one of the most important incentives for the formation of Cubo-Futurist aesthetics.
The first joint performance of the Cubo-Futurists in print was the poetic collection “The Judges’ Fishing Tank,” which actually determined the creation of the “Gilea” group. Among the authors of the almanac are D. and N. Burliuk, Kamensky, Khlebnikov, Guro, Ek. Niesen and others. Illustrations by D. and V. Burliuk.
The idea of the exhaustion of the cultural tradition of previous centuries was the starting point of the aesthetic platform of the Cubo-Futurists. Their manifesto, which bore the deliberately scandalous title “A Slap in the Face of Public Taste,” became the programmatic one. It declared a rejection of the art of the past, and there were calls to “throw out Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc., etc. from the steamship of modern times."
Showing a keen sense of words, the futurists reached the point of absurdity when designing. Special meaning they emphasized word creativity, “the word itself.” The program article “The Word as Such” contained the following abstruse lines:
Dyr bul schyl ubeshshur
The result of such activities of the futurists was an unprecedented surge in word creation, which ultimately led to the creation of the theory of “absent language” - zaumi.
In literary terms, zaum was a kind of action in defense of the “self-contained word” against the subordinate meaning that the word had in the poetics of symbolism, where it played only an auxiliary role in the creation of a symbol and where poetic vocabulary was extremely strictly separated from the vocabulary of colloquial speech.
In the article by L. Timofeev, characterizing this phenomenon, it is said that “Acmeism had already significantly expanded its vocabulary boundaries, ego-futurism went even further. Not content with inclusion in the poetry dictionary spoken language, cubo-futurism further expanded its lexical and sound capabilities, going along two lines: the first line - the creation of new words from old roots (in this case, the meaning of the word was preserved), the second line, i.e., zaum - the creation of new sound complexes, devoid of meaning - which brought this process of returning its “rights” to the word to the point of absurdity.”
In the spring of 1914, an attempt was made to create an “official” cubo-futurism, which was to become the “First Journal of Russian Futurists”, published in the “Publishing House of the First Journal of Russian Futurists” created by the Burliuk brothers. But the publication stopped after the first issue - the war began.
This most directly affected Gilei, which by the end of 1914 ceased to exist as a single group. Its members each went their own way. Many futurists left Moscow and Petrograd, hiding from conscription, or, on the contrary, ending up at the front.
Young people, who in peacetime constituted the main fertile audience of the futurists, were mobilized. Public interest in “futuristic audacity” began to quickly decline.
Despite all the cardinal external differences, the history of Cubo-Futurism in Russia is strikingly similar to the fate of Russian symbolism. The same furious non-recognition at first, the same noise at birth (among the futurists it was only much stronger, developing into a scandal). Following this was the rapid recognition of the advanced strata of literary criticism, triumph, and enormous hopes. A sudden breakdown and fall into the abyss at the moment when it seemed that unprecedented possibilities and horizons had opened up before him in Russian poetry.
Exploring futurism at the dawn of its inception, Nikolai Gumilyov wrote: “We are present at a new invasion of barbarians, strong in their talent and terrible in their disdain. Only the future will show whether they are “Germans” or… Huns, of whom not a trace will remain.”
Egofuturism.
Unlike Cubo-Futurism, which grew out of a creative community of like-minded people, Ego-Futurism was an individual invention of the poet Igor Severyanin.
He found it difficult to get into literature. Starting with a series of patriotic poems, then tried his hand at poetic humor and finally moved on to lyric poetry. However, newspapers and magazines also did not publish the young author’s lyrics. Published in 1904-1912. At his own expense, 35 poetic brochures, Northerner never gained the desired fame.
Success came from an unexpected direction. In 1910, Leo Tolstoy spoke with indignation about the insignificance of modern poetry, citing as an example several lines from Severyanin’s book “Intuitive Colors.” Subsequently, the poet gladly explained that the poem was satirical and ironic, but Tolstoy took it and interpreted it seriously. “The Moscow newspaper men instantly notified everyone about this, after which the all-Russian press started howling and wildly hooting, which made me immediately famous throughout the country! - he wrote in his memoirs. - Since then, each of my brochures was carefully commented on by criticism in every way, and with the light hand of Tolstoy... everyone who was not too lazy began to scold me. Magazines began to willingly publish my poems, and the organizers of charity evenings intensively invited me to take part in them...”
In order to consolidate success, and perhaps with the aim of creating a theoretical basis for his poetic creativity, the ideological and substantive basis of which was the most common opposition of the poet to the crowd, Severyanin, together with K. Olimpov (son of the poet K. M. Fofanov), founded in 1911 in St. Petersburg the “Ego” circle, from which, in fact, egofuturism began. The word, translated from Latin, meaning “I am the future,” first appeared in the title of Severyanin’s collection “Prologue. Egofuturism. Poetry grandos. Apotheotic notebook of the third volume" (1911).
However, unlike the Cubo-Futurists, who had clear goals (an attack on the positions of symbolism) and sought to substantiate them in their manifestos, Severyanin did not have a specific creative program or did not want to make it public. As he himself later recalled: “Unlike the Marinetti school, I added to this word [futurism] the prefix “ego” and in brackets “universal”... The slogans of my ego-futurism were: 1. The soul is the only truth. 2. Personal self-affirmation. 3. Searching for the new without rejecting the old. 4. Meaningful neologisms. 5. Bold images, epithets, assonances and dissonances. 6. Fight against “stereotypes” and “spoilers”. 7. Variety of meters."
Even from a simple comparison of these statements with the manifestos of the Cubo-Futurists, it is clear that this “program” does not contain any theoretical innovations. In it, Severyanin actually proclaims himself the one and only poetic personality. Having stood at the head of the new movement he created, he initially opposed himself to literary like-minded people. That is inevitable disintegration group was predetermined by the very fact of its creation. And it is not surprising that this soon happened.
A very precise description of ego-futurism (both St. Petersburg and later Moscow) is given by S. Avdeev: “This movement was some kind of mixture of the epigonism of early St. Petersburg decadence, bringing to limitless limits the “songability” and “musicality” of Balmont’s verse (as is known, Severyanin did not recite, but sang his poems at “poetry concerts”), a kind of salon-perfume eroticism, turning into light cynicism, and an assertion of extreme egocentrism<...>This was combined with the glorification of the modern city, electricity, borrowed from Marinetti. railway, airplanes, factories, cars (from Severyanin and especially from Shershenevich). Ego-futurism, therefore, had everything: echoes of modernity, and new, albeit timid, word-creation (“poetry”, “to numb”, “mediocrity”, “olilien” and so on), and successfully found new rhythms for conveying measured swaying car springs (Severyanin’s “Elegant Stroller”), and a strange admiration for a futurist for the salon poems of M. Lokhvitskaya and K. Fofanov, but most of all a love for restaurants and boudoirs<...>cafe-chantants, which became a native element for Northerner. Apart from Igor Severyanin (who soon abandoned ego-futurism), this movement did not produce a single poet of any kind.”
Northerner remained the only ego-futurist to go down in the history of Russian poetry. His poems, for all their pretentiousness and often vulgarity, were distinguished by their unconditional melodiousness, sonority and lightness. The Northerner, undoubtedly, had a masterly command of words. His rhymes were unusually fresh, bold and surprisingly harmonious: “in the evening air - there is a perfume of delicate roses in it!”, “on the waves of the lake - like life without roses is sulfur,” etc.
Severyanin’s books and concerts, along with cinema and gypsy romance, became a fact of mass culture at the beginning of the century. The collection of his poems “The Thundering Cup,” which was accompanied by an enthusiastic preface by Fyodor Sologub, won unprecedented recognition from readers and went through nine editions from 1913 to 1915!
Their own “egoists” tried to belittle the Northerner’s triumph. For example, K. Olimpov, who with some justification considered himself the author of the main provisions of the “Tablets of Egopoetry”, the term “poetry” and the symbol “Ego” itself, did not fail to publicly declare this. The northerner, irritated by attempts to challenge his leadership, parted with his apologists, with whom, having established himself as a poet, he did not need to cooperate. He was more interested in the recognition of the older Symbolists. Having played enough with “ego,” Severyanin buried his own invention by writing “Epilogue of Egofuturism” in 1912.
Only a year passed between the “Prologue of Egofuturism” and its “Epilogue”. After a fierce debate, Olympov and Severyanin, having said many unpleasant words to each other, separated; then Grail-Arelsky and G. Ivanov publicly renounced the “Academy”... It seemed that the fragile, not yet formed movement had come to an end. But the banner of egofuturism was picked up by 20-year-old Ivan Ignatiev, creating the “Intuitive Association of Egofuturists” - a new literary association, which, besides him, also included P. Shirokov, V. Gnedov and D. Kryuchkov. Their program manifesto “Gramdt” characterized egofuturism as “the constant striving of every Egoist to achieve the possibilities of the Future in the Present through the development of egoism - individualization, awareness, admiration and praise of the “I”,” essentially repeating the same vague, but very crackling slogans as the “Tablets” preceding it.
Acting as the ideological inspirer and theoretician of the “Association,” Ignatiev (I. Kazansky) sought to move from the general symbolist orientation of Northern ego-futurism to a deeper philosophical and aesthetic justification for the new direction. He wrote: “Yes, Igor Severyanin abandoned egofuturism in print, but whether egofuturism abandoned it is a question<...>for the ego-futurism that existed before the departure of the “master of the school” is only ego-northernism.”
Another representative of the “Association” was the notorious Vasilisk Gnedov, whose eccentric antics were in no way inferior to the Cubo-Futurists who were skilled in this matter. One of the notes from that time said: “Basilisk Gnedov, in a dirty canvas shirt, with flowers on his elbows, spits (literally) on the audience, shouting from the stage that it consists of “idiots.”
Gnedov wrote poetry and rhythmic prose (poets and rhythms) based on Old Slavonic roots, using alogisms, destroying syntactic connections. In search of new poetic paths, he tried to update the repertoire of rhymes, proposing instead of traditional (musical) rhyme a new coordinated combination - rhymes of concepts. In his manifesto, Gnedov wrote: “Dissonances of concepts are also extremely necessary, which will subsequently become the main building material. For example: 1) ...yoke - arc: rhyme of concepts (curvature); here - sky, rainbow... 2) Taste rhymes: horseradish, mustard... the same rhymes - bitter. 3) Olfactory: arsenic - garlic 4) Tactile - steel, glass - rhymes of roughness, smoothness... 5) Visual - both in the nature of the writing... and in concept: water - mirror - mother of pearl, etc. 6) Color rhymes -<...>s and z (whistles, having the same basic color (yellow); k and g (laryngeal) ... etc.”
However, he entered the history of literature not as a theoretical poet or innovator, but rather as the founder of a new genre - poetic pantomime. Developing program provisions“Association”, where the word as such was given a minimal role, Gnedov put an end to verbal art completely and irrevocably, creating a cycle of 15 poems called “Death to Art”. This entire essay fit on one page and was consistently reduced to a single letter, which made up the poem “U”, devoid of even the traditional period at the end. The cycle ended with the famous “Poem of the End,” which consisted of a silent gesture. V. Piast recalled the performance of this work in the artistic cabaret “Stray Dog”: “It had no words and all consisted of only one gesture of the hand, raised in front of the hair, and sharply lowered down, and then to the right side. This gesture, something like a hook, was the whole poem. The author of the poem turned out to be its creator in the literal sense of the word and covered the entire spectrum of its possible interpretations, from the vulgar and base to the sublimely philosophical.”
The community of “egoists” seems to be an even more motley movement than its opponents, the “Budetlyans”. This is especially noticeable in the example of another printed organ of the ego-futurists - “The Enchanted Wanderer”, in which Kamensky, N. Evreinov, M. Matyushin participated, and published their poems by Sologub, Severyanin, E. Guro, Z. Gippius.
In January 1914, Ignatiev committed suicide by cutting his throat with a razor. With his death, the official mouthpiece of egofuturism, the Petersburg Herald publishing house, ceased to exist. And although the almanac “The Enchanted Wanderer” continued to be published for some time, on the pages of which last time the name of the literary group of egofuturists was heard, egofuturism itself gradually lost its position and soon ceased to exist.
Imagism
Imagism was the last sensational school in Russian poetry of the 20th century. This direction was created two years after the revolution, but in all its content it had nothing in common with the revolution.
On January 29, 1919, the first poetic evening of imagists was held in the Moscow city branch of the All-Russian Union of Poets. And the very next day the first Declaration was published, which proclaimed the creative principles of the new movement. It was signed by those who pretentiously called themselves “ front line Imagists" poets S. Yesenin, R. Ivnev, A. Mariengof and V. Shershenevich, as well as artists B. Erdman and E. Yakulov. This is how Russian imagism appeared, which had only the name in common with its English predecessor.
There is still debate among researchers and literary scholars about whether imagism should be placed on a par with symbolism, acmeism and futurism, interpreting the creative achievements of this poetic group as “ interesting phenomenon literature of post-symbolism and as a certain stage of development,” or it would be more correct to consider this phenomenon among numerous movements and associations of the 20s of the XX century, which, developing in the general spirit of avant-gardeism, were unable to open fundamentally new ways of development of poetry and in the end remained only epigones of futurism.
Just like symbolism and futurism, imagism originated in the West and from there it was transplanted onto Russian soil by Shershenevich. And just like symbolism and futurism, it differed significantly from the imagism of Western poets.
The theory of imagism proclaimed the primacy of the “image as such” as the main principle of poetry. Not a word-symbol with infinite number meanings (symbolism), not a word-sound (cubo-futurism), not a word-name of a thing (Acmeism), but a word-metaphor with one a certain value is the basis of imagism. In the above-mentioned Declaration, the Imagists argued that “the only law of art, the only and incomparable method is the revelation of life through the image and rhythm of images... The image, and only the image<...>- this is the instrument of production of a master of art... Only the image, like mothballs pouring over the work, saves this last thing from the moths of time. The image is the armor of the line. This is the shell of the painting. This is fortress artillery for theatrical action. Any content in work of art as stupid and meaningless as newspaper stickers on paintings.” The theoretical justification of this principle was reduced by the Imagists to the assimilation poetic creativity the process of language development through metaphor.
One of the organizers and recognized ideological leader of the group was V. Shershenevich. “Known as a theorist and propagandist of imagism, a fierce critic and subverter of futurism, he began precisely as a futurist. E. Ivanova rightly notes that “the reasons that prompted Shershenevich to declare war on futurism are partly personal (“By accepting futurism, I do not accept futurists”), and partly political. But if we ignore his anti-futurist rhetoric (“Futurism is dead. Let the earth be a clownery for him”), the dependence of Shershenevich’s poetic and theoretical experiments on the ideas of F. Marinetti and creative quests other futurists - V. Mayakovsky, V. Khlebnikov."
The main features of imagism:
the primacy of the “image as such”;
image - maximum general category, replacing the evaluative concept of artistry;
poetic creativity is the process of language development through metaphor;
an epithet is the sum of metaphors, comparisons and contrasts of any subject;
poetic content is the evolution of the image and epithet as the most primitive image;
a text that has a certain coherent content cannot be classified as poetry, since it rather performs ideological function; the poem should be a “catalogue of images”, read equally from the beginning and from the end.
Other poetic movements. Satiristic and peasant poetry, constructivism, poets who were not part of generally recognized schools
Constructivism
But later the constructivists gradually freed themselves from these narrowly defined aesthetic frameworks and put forward broader justifications for their creative platform.
Constant sharp criticism of the constructivists from Marxist theorists led in 1930 to the liquidation of the LCC (Literary Center of Constructivists) and the formation of the “Literary Brigade M. I,” which became part of the Federation of Associations of Soviet Writers (FOSP), which carried out “the unification of various writer groups who wanted actively participate in the construction of the USSR and believe that our literature is called upon to play one of the responsible roles in this area.”
Satire
The editorial office of the magazine was located on Nevsky Prospekt, in house No. 9. “Satyricon” was a cheerful and caustic publication, sarcastic and angry; in it, witty text interspersed with caustic caricatures, funny anecdotes were replaced by political cartoons. At the same time, the magazine differed from many other humorous publications of those years in its social content: here, without going beyond the bounds of decency, representatives of the authorities, obscurantists, and Black Hundreds were uncompromisingly ridiculed and scourged. The position of the magazine in the last point was determined not so much by writers and journalists with Jewish roots - V. Azov, O. Dymov, O. L. D'Or, but by purebred Russians: A. Averchenko, A. Bukhov, Teffi and others, who gave to anti-Semites far more violently rebuffed than their Jewish counterparts.
Satirists such as V. Knyazev, Sasha Cherny and A. Bukhov were published by L. Andreev, A. Tolstoy, V. Mayakovsky, and famous Russian artists B. Kustodiev, I. Bilibin, A. Benois provided illustrations. In a relatively short period of time - from 1908 to 1918 - this satirical magazine (and its later version, “New Satyricon”) created an entire trend in Russian literature and an unforgettable era in its history.
Particular credit for such a resounding popularity of "Satyricon" largely belonged to the gifted poets - satirists and humorists who collaborated in the magazine.
In May 1913, the magazine split over financial issues. As a result, Averchenko and all the best literary forces left the editorial office and founded the magazine “New Satyricon”. The former Satyricon, under the leadership of Kornfeld, continued to publish for some time, but lost its best authors and, as a result, closed in April 1914. And “New Satyricon” continued to exist successfully (18 issues were published) until the summer of 1918, when it was banned by the Bolsheviks for its counter-revolutionary orientation.
Satiric poets: Izmailov Alexander, Knyazev Vasily, Teffi, Cherny Sasha.
Peasant poets
Born in the village of Gubovka, Kherson province, in a peasant family.
He studied at a rural school, then at a military paramedic school, in 1904-1908. - at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University.
Began publishing in 1909
In 1911, the Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda published the poem “About Demyan the Poor - a harmful man,” from which the poet’s pseudonym was taken.
From 1912 until the end of his life he published in the newspaper Pravda.
Bolshevik partisanship and nationality are the main features of Demyan Bedny’s work. The program poems - “My Verse”, “The Truth-Womb”, “Forward and Higher!”, “About the Nightingale” - capture the image of a new type of poet who has set himself a high goal: to create for the broad masses. Hence the poet’s appeal to the most democratic, intelligible genres: fable, song, ditty, propaganda poetic story.
In 1913, the collection “Fables” was published, which was highly appreciated by V.I. Lenin.
In the years civil war his poems and songs played a huge role, raising the spirit of the Red Army soldiers, satirically exposing class enemies.
During the Great Patriotic War, Demyan Bedny again worked a lot, published in Pravda, in TASS Windows, created patriotic lyrics and anti-fascist satire.
Awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner and medals.
Poets outside the currents
Connection of the Vladimir region with the poets of the “Silver Age”
So from the autumn of 1915 to May 1917, Anastasia Tsvetaeva, the last poet of the Silver Age, lived in Alexandrov. Sister Marina often came to visit her. A famous meeting between Marina Tsvetaeva and Osip Mandelstam took place in Alexandrov.
And in 1867, Balmont Konstantin was born in the Shuisky district of the Vladimir province, who later studied at the Vladimir gymnasium
In addition, many streets, avenues, and alleys in the Vladimir region were named in honor of the poets of this period. Thus, in Vladimir there is a street (on the site of the former Fokeevskaya and Kochetova), named in honor of the outstanding representative of the poetry of the “Silver Age” Poor Demyan by resolution of the Presidium of the City Council, protocol No. 32 of October 21, 1933.
III Conclusion: “Silver Age” as a child of the century, blurring of the boundaries of this phenomenon
The feeling of an approaching catastrophe: retribution for the past and hope for a great change was in the air. The time was felt as borderline, when not only the old way of life and relationships are gone, but also the system of spiritual values itself requires radical changes.
Socio-political tensions arise in Russia: a general conflict in which protracted feudalism, the inability of the nobility to fulfill the role of organizer of society and develop a national idea, the onslaught of new bourgeoisie, the clumsiness of the monarchy, which did not want concessions, the age-old hatred of the peasant for the master - all this gave rise to a feeling among the intelligentsia of approaching upheavals. And at the same time a sharp surge, a flourishing of cultural life. New magazines are published, theaters are opened, unprecedented opportunities appear for artists, actors, and writers. Their influence on society is enormous. At the same time, a mass culture is being formed, aimed at the unprepared consumer, and an elite culture, targeting connoisseurs. Art is splitting apart. At the same time, Russian culture is strengthening contacts with world culture. Unconditional authority in Europe of Tolstoy and Chekhov, Tchaikovsky and Glinka. “Russian Seasons” in Paris enjoyed worldwide fame. The names of Perov, Nesterov, Korovin, Chagall, Malevich shine in painting; in the theater: Meyerhold, Nezhdanova, Stanislavsky, Sobinov, Chaliapin; in ballet: Nezhinsky and Pavlova, in science: Mendeleev, Tsiolkovsky, Sechenov, Vernadsky. Marina Tsvetaeva argued that “after such an abundance of talent, nature should calm down.”
In literature, attention to individuality and personality has increased unusually: “War and Peace” (“War and Humanity”) by L. Tolstoy, “Man” by Gorky, “I” and the tragedy “Vladimir Mayakovsky” by V. Mayakovsky. There is a rejection of traditional moralizing, preaching, teaching topics: “How to live?”, “What to do?”, “What to do?”. All this - economic leaps, and the development of science, technological achievements and ideological searches at the turn of the century leads to a rethinking of values, to an awareness of the times that require different ideas, feelings, and new ways of expressing them. Hence the search for new forms.
All this together gave rise to such an unusual phenomenon as the “Silver Age” of Russian poetry, which was distinguished by a great difference in trends, and also left many questions for descendants. In particular, the debate about what time period should be considered the “Silver Age” has not yet subsided. “Did the Silver Age end with the revolution? Yes and no. One thing is certain: Russian literature has split..."
Literature
Bezelyansky Yu.N.
ISBN 978-5-699-22617-7
Bely A.
ISBN 5-268-00859-5
Ed. Voznyak V.S., Limonchenko V.V., Movchan V.S.
ISBN 978-966-384-150-2
Voskresenskaya M. A.
ISBN 5-98704-047-7
Ed. Gasparova M. L., Dubina B. V., Dikhacheva D. S., Skatova N. N., Toporova V. N.
ISBN 5-85050-455-9
Yesenin S. A.
Page 1
1. Symbolism, its theory and practice. Theoretical self-awareness of the symbolists in the articles-manifestos of D. Merezhkovsky, V. Bryusov, K. Balmont, A. Bely, Vyach. Ivanov (see list below). Symbolists about the tasks of art and the purpose of the modern poet; the meaning of disputes with realism. Various stages and trends within symbolism (“senior” and “younger” symbolists; aesthetic-psychological and aesthetic-religious trends) and their reflection in the articles of symbolists.
a) Valery Bryusov as a poet and theorist of symbolism;
b) Alexander Blok and symbolism;
c) poetry and theory of symbolism by Andrei Bely.
Poetics of Russian symbolism (main motives, symbol, poetics of correspondences, allusion; discoveries in the field of verse - enrichment of metrics, sound writing, rhyme, stanza). Summarize theoretical analysis based on the works of M.L. Gasparova, V.M. Zhirmunsky, D.M. Magomedova, V.E. Kholshevnikova.
2. Acmeism and its poets. Theoretical declarations and artistic practice. The Universe according to Acmeism. Philosophy of words and concept of creativity. Artistic principles of Acmeism.
a) the world of poetry of Nikolai Gumilyov;
b) the word and culture of Osip Mandelstam;
V) artistic originality lyrics by Anna Akhmatova.
3. Futurism. Futurist manifestos. The poet and his role in understanding the futurists. The art of books among the futurists. Word creation of futurists.
a) the works of Velimir Khlebnikov;
b) the poetics of Vladimir Mayakovsky.
4. Marina Tsvetaeva: words and meanings.
Literature
1. Averintsev S.S. Poets.- M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 1996.
2. Akbasheva A.S. Silver Age: artistic and reading creativity. - Sterlitamak: SGPA, GANU IPI AN RB, 2011.
3. Balmont K.D. Elementary words about symbolic poetry / K.D. Balmont // Sokolov A.G. Russian literary criticism of the late XIX – early XX centuries. / A.G. Sokolov, M.V. Mikhailova. – M.: Higher School, 1982. – P. 326-327.
4. Bely A. Symbolism as a worldview / V. Bely // Criticism of Russian symbolism: in 2 volumes. T. 2. - M.: Olimp, AST, 2002. - P. 103-119.
5. Bryusov V.Ya. Keys of secrets. About art. Sacred Sacrifice/ Bryusov V.Ya. Works: in 2 volumes. T. 2 / V.Ya. Bryusov. – M.: Khud. lit., 1987. – P. 37-48; 72-93.
6. Gasparov M.L. Essay on the history of Russian verse. Metrics. Rhythm. Rhyme. Strophic / M.L. Gasparov. – M.: Fortuna Limited, 2000. – 352 p. (Chapter 5 “The Time of Blok and Mayakovsky”)
7. Gasparov M.L. Poetics of the “Silver Age” / M.L. Gasparov // Russian poetry of the “Silver Age”. Anthology. – M.: Nauka, 1993. – P. 5-44.
8. Zhirmunsky V.M. Metaphor in the poetics of Russian symbolists. Valery Bryusov and legacy
9. Ivanov V. Two elements in modern symbolism / V. Ivanov // Criticism of Russian symbolism: In 2 volumes. T. 2. - M.: Olimp, AST, 2002. - P. 31-72.
10. Kikhney L.G. Acmeism: Worldview and Poetics. – M., 2001.
11. Kozhevnikova N.A. Word usage in Russian poetry of the early twentieth century / N.A. Kozhevnikova. – M.: Nauka, 1986. – 254 p.
12. Kolobaeva L.A. Russian symbolism / L.A. Kolobaeva. – M.: Publishing house Mosk. University, 2000. – 296 p.
13. Krylov V.N. Russian symbolist criticism: genesis, traditions, genres / V.N. Krylov. – Kazan: Kazan University Publishing House, 2005. – 268 p.
14. Kuzmina S.F. History of Russian literature of the twentieth century. Poetry of the Silver Age: tutorial. – M.: Flinta, 2012.
15. Lekmanov O. A book about Acmeism and other works. – Tomsk: Aquarius, 2001.
16. Literary manifestos from symbolism to the present day. – M.: XXI century. – Consent, 2000.
17. Magomedova D.M. Philological analysis lyric poem/ D.M. Magomedova. – M.: Academy, 2004. – 192 p. (Chapter 6 “Directional analysis of a lyric poem”)
18. Merezhkovsky D.S. On the causes of decline and new trends in modern Russian literature / D.S. Merezhkovsky // Criticism of Russian symbolism: In 2 vols. T. 2. – M.: Olimp, AST, 2002. – P. 41-61.
19. Poetic movements in Russian literature of the late XIX – early XX centuries: Literary manifestos and artistic practice: Reader / Comp. A. Sokolov. – M., 1988.
20. Pushkin / V.M. Zhirmunsky // Poetics of Russian poetry. – St. Petersburg: ABC-classics, 2001. – P. 162-281.
21. Russian literature of the twentieth century: Schools, directions, methods of creative work: Textbook for students. higher textbook institutions / Ed. S.I. Timina. – St. Petersburg; M., 2002.
22. Sarychev V.A. Cubo-futurism and cubo-futurists. Aesthetics. Creation. Evolution. – Lipetsk, 2000.
23. Word and fate. Osip Mandelstam. – M., 1990.
24. Taranovsky K. About poetry and poetics (compiled by M.L. Gasparov. - M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 2000.
25. Hansen-Leve A. Russian symbolism. System of poetic motives. Early symbolism / A. Hansen-Leve. – St. Petersburg: Academician. project, 1999. – 512 p. (Series “Modern Western Russian Studies”)
26. Kholshevnikov V.E. Poem of the early twentieth century / V.E. Kholshevnikov // Thought armed with rhymes. Poetic anthology on the history of Russian verse. – L.: Publishing house Leningr. Univ., 1994. – P. 216-220.
27. Etkind E.T. There, inside. About Russian poetry of the twentieth century. – M.: Maximo, 1997.
Lesson No. 7
The artistic system of A. Blok’s poem “Steps of the Commander”
1. “Commander’s Steps” in the context of the “Retribution” cycle. Meaning of the title.
2. Blok’s picture of the world and the image of the night in “The Commander’s Steps”
3. Space and time in the poem
1. System of oppositions (night/light). Dual world.
2. Basic phonological and lexical-semantic spheres, their figurative and character level:
a) the sphere of Don Juan and Donna Anna;
b) repetition function;
c) semantics of symbols.
3. Appearance of the Commander. The inevitability of retribution.
4. Intertextuality of the work.
Literature
1. Ivanov Vyach. Sun. The structure of Blok’s poem “Steps of the Commander” // Creativity of A. Blok and Russian culture of the twentieth century.” – Tartu, 1975.
2. Magomedova D.M. Commenting on Blok. – M.: RSUH, 2002.
3. Mints Z.G. Poetics of A. Blok. – St. Petersburg: “Art-SPB”, 1999.
4. Drunk M.F. The tragic twentieth century in the mirror of Russian literature. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house. "Blitz", 2003.
5. Fedorov F.P. The artistic system of the poem “Commander’s Steps” // Plot formation in Russian literature. – Daugavpils, 1980.
6. Etkind E.G. "Commander's Steps" Experience of compositional interpretation // Etkind E.G. There, inside. About Russian poetry of the twentieth century. – St. Petersburg: Maxima, 1997.
Lesson No. 8
Christian myth and Russian history in A. Blok’s poem “The Twelve”
1. Motives and images of A. Blok’s article “Intellectuals and Revolution”, included in the poem “The Twelve”. The evolution of the poet’s attitude towards the October Revolution from its romantic perception (as bringing “retribution” to the old world and giving it purification and transformation) to a skeptical perception of modernity (according to the diaries of 1917 - 1920).
2. Natural elements as symbols of social phenomena in the poem.
3. The principle of contrast as the main one in the artistic world of a work (the confrontation between light and darkness, cosmic storms and the earthly fate of a small person).
4. Images of social forces opposing each other:
a) a satirical depiction of representatives of the “old world”;
b) the controversial image of the Red Army soldiers and its development in the poem.
5. The role of the “love triangle” (Petrukha, Vanka and Katka) in the plot of the poem.
6. The meaning of the image of Jesus Christ as “the unrecognized spiritual leader of the “twelve”, seeking to direct the elements of rebellion along the righteous path.”
7. Polyphony of the work.
8. Style and verse of the poem.
9. Critical judgments about the “Twelve”.
Literature
1. Blok A. Intelligentsia and revolution. About romanticism. Diaries 1917 – 1920 // Block A. Collected works: In 8 volumes - M.; L., 1962. – T. 6, 8.
2. Wilczek L., Wilczek Vs. Epigraph of the century: A. Blok’s poem “The Twelve” // Banner. – 1991. – No. 11.
3. Dolgopolov L.K. Alexander Blok: personality and creativity. – L., 1980.
4. Dolgopolov L.K. A. Blok's poem "The Twelve". – L., 1979. – Ch. 2, 3.
5. Ivanova E. About the evolution of Blok after October in the poem “The Twelve” // Lit. At school. – 1993. – No. 3.
6. Kling O.A. Alexander Blok: the structure of a “novel in verse.” Poem "Twelve". – M., 2000.
Convention of the term. The initial boundary of the “Silver Age” is not debatable (it approximately coincides with the chronological turn of the century, or refers to 1892, 1894, 1895), and the ending is defined differently by researchers. Thus, In. Annensky passed away in 1909, and .Bunin - in 1953, despite the fact that both of them cannot be removed from the general context of the “Silver Age”. Vadim Kreid interprets the final boundary of the phenomenon in historically: “It all ended after 1917, with the outbreak of the civil war. There was no Silver Age after that, no matter how much they would like to assure us. In the 20s, inertia still continued, because such a wide and powerful wave, which was our Silver Age, could not help but move for some time before collapsing or breaking... Each of its active participants understood that, although people remained, the characteristic atmosphere The era in which talents grew like mushrooms after a mushroom rain has come to naught. What was left was a cold lunar landscape without atmosphere - and creative individuality - everyone in a separate closed cell of their creativity. By inertia, some more associations continued... But this postscript of the Silver Age was cut short mid-sentence when the shot was fired that killed Gumilyov.”
The poetry of the silver section achieved its greatest flourishing in the 1910s.
At this time, salons were replaced by literary cafes, where poems and reports were read and discussed.
In literary criticism, it is customary to call, first of all, three movements that declared themselves in the period from 1890 to 1917 as modernist. These are symbolism, acmeism and futurism, which formed the basis of modernism as a literary movement.
(Chronological period) (Direction)
1890-1917 MODERNISM
silver Age
Symbolism Acmeism Futurism (movements)
A modernist movement that considered the goal of art to be the comprehension of world unity through symbols, where a symbol is a polysemantic allegory (“Symbol is a window into “infinity” F. Sologub)
The modernist movement (from the Greek akme - edge, pinnacle, highest degree, pronounced quality), declaring specifically sensory perception of the external world, returning the word to its original, non-symbolic meaning.
A modernist movement that denied the artistic and moral heritage, preached the destruction of the forms and conventions of art for the sake of merging it with the accelerated life process.
The Silver Age, in essence, is the sum of modernist literary movements (symbolism, acmeism, futurism) and figures who do not fit into any of these movements. In parallel with the establishment of poetic schools, this time was characterized by an increase in personality. Literary school and creative individuality - two key categories of the poetic process of that time.
21. The role of symbols in the poem by A.A. Block "Twelve".
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, all aspects of Russian life were radically transformed: politics, economics, science, technology, culture, art. Various, sometimes directly opposite, assessments of the socio-economic and cultural prospects for the country's development arise. The general feeling is that it is approaching new era, carrying the shift political situation and a revaluation of previous spiritual and aesthetic ideals. Literature could not help but respond to the fundamental changes in the life of the country. There is a revision of artistic guidelines and a radical renewal of literary techniques. At this time, Russian poetry was developing especially dynamically. A little later, this period will be called the “poetic renaissance” or the Silver Age of Russian literature.
Realism at the beginning of the 20th century
Realism does not disappear, it continues to develop. L.N. is still actively working. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov and V.G. Korolenko, M. Gorky, I.A. have already powerfully declared themselves. Bunin, A.I. Kuprin... Within the framework of the aesthetics of realism, the creative individuality of writers of the 19th century, their civic position and moral ideals- realism equally reflected the views of authors who share a Christian, primarily Orthodox, worldview - from F.M. Dostoevsky to I.A. Bunin, and those for whom this worldview was alien - from V.G. Belinsky to M. Gorky.
However, at the beginning of the 20th century, many writers were no longer satisfied with the aesthetics of realism - new aesthetic schools began to emerge. Writers unite in various groups, put forward creative principles, participate in polemics - literary movements are established: symbolism, acmeism, futurism, imagism, etc.
Symbolism at the beginning of the 20th century
Russian symbolism, the largest of the modernist movements, arose not only as a literary phenomenon, but also as a special worldview that combines artistic, philosophical and religious principles. The date of emergence of the new aesthetic system is considered to be 1892, when D.S. Merezhkovsky made a report "On the causes of the decline and on new trends in modern Russian literature." It proclaimed the main principles of future symbolists: “mystical content, symbols and the expansion of artistic impressionability.” The central place in the aesthetics of symbolism was given to the symbol, an image with the potential inexhaustibility of meaning.
The symbolists contrasted the rational knowledge of the world with the construction of the world in creativity, the knowledge of the environment through art, which V. Bryusov defined as “comprehension of the world in other, non-rational ways.” In the mythology of different peoples, symbolists found universal philosophical models with the help of which it is possible to comprehend the deep foundations human soul and solving spiritual problems of our time. WITH special attention representatives of this trend also related to the heritage of Russian classical literature- new interpretations of the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tyutchev were reflected in the works and articles of the symbolists. Symbolism gave the culture names outstanding writers— D. Merezhkovsky, A. Blok, Andrei Bely, V. Bryusov; the aesthetics of symbolism had a huge influence on many representatives of other literary movements.
Acmeism at the beginning of the 20th century
Acmeism was born in the bosom of symbolism: a group of young poets first founded the literary association “Poets Workshop”, and then proclaimed themselves representatives of a new literary movement - acmeism (from the Greek akme - the highest degree of something, blossoming, peak). Its main representatives are N. Gumilev, A. Akhmatova, S. Gorodetsky, O. Mandelstam. Unlike the symbolists, who sought to know the unknowable and comprehend higher essences, the Acmeists again turned to the value of human life, the diversity of the vibrant earthly world. The main requirement for the artistic form of works was the pictorial clarity of images, verified and precise composition, stylistic balance, and precision of details. Acmeists assigned the most important place in the aesthetic system of values to memory - a category associated with the preservation of the best domestic traditions and world cultural heritage.
Futurism at the beginning of the 20th century
Derogatory reviews of previous and contemporary literature were given by representatives of another modernist movement - futurism (from the Latin futurum - future). A necessary condition for the existence of this literary phenomenon, its representatives considered an atmosphere of outrageousness, a challenge to public taste, and a literary scandal. The Futurists' desire for mass theatrical performances with dressing up, painting faces and hands was caused by the idea that poetry should come out of books onto the square, to sound in front of spectators and listeners. Futurists (V. Mayakovsky, V. Khlebnikov, D. Burliuk, A. Kruchenykh, E. Guro, etc.) put forward a program for transforming the world with the help of new art, which abandoned the legacy of its predecessors. At the same time, unlike representatives of other literary movements, in substantiating their creativity they relied on fundamental sciences - mathematics, physics, philology. The formal and stylistic features of futurism poetry were the renewal of the meaning of many words, word creation, the rejection of punctuation marks, special graphic design poetry, depoeticization of language (introduction of vulgarisms, technical terms, destruction of the usual boundaries between “high” and “low”).
Conclusion
Thus, in the history of Russian culture, the beginning of the 20th century was marked by the emergence of diverse literary movements, various aesthetic views and schools. However, original writers, true artists of words, overcame the narrow framework of declarations, created highly artistic works that outlived their era and entered the treasury of Russian literature.
The most important feature of the beginning of the 20th century was the universal craving for culture. Not being at the premiere of a play in the theater, not being present at an evening of an original and already sensational poet, in literary drawing rooms and salons, not reading a newly published book of poetry was considered a sign of bad taste, unmodern, unfashionable. When a culture becomes a fashionable phenomenon, this is a good sign. “Fashion for culture” is not a new phenomenon for Russia. This was the case during the time of V.A. Zhukovsky and A.S. Pushkin: let’s remember the “Green Lamp” and “Arzamas”, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature”, etc. At the beginning of the new century, exactly a hundred years later, the situation practically repeated itself. The Silver Age replaced the Golden Age, maintaining and preserving the connection of times.