Belin biography Criticism

As Vissarion Belinsky broke the Russian literary canon, to the years of the great Russian critic Belinsky, tired of the foundation and authorities, considered Schiller to his personal enemy, was distinguished by an extremely viscous and incorrect syllable and wanted to start a hedgehog. In honor of the flight of the great Russian critic Svetlana Voloshin talks about the features of his creative method.

He devoted his pen exclusively to criticism, and, under the oppression of the need and illness, came out of it the kind of an evil demon, who had overthrew all the years of glory, mocked over all the existing and ordinary and striving for the general breaking of Corfu, smart, enlightened, sincerely devoted to the king and monarchical foundations. Not being a writer, Korf nevertheless accurately noted the influence of Belinsky in two fundamentally different fields, magazine and imperious, thereby connecting them.

On the one hand, Belinsky revised more precisely, broke the existing literary canon, was mercilessly whining to everything that he thought or that he seemed unworthy in the literary world, became the initiator and leader of the new criticism without graduating from the university and almost not knowing foreign languages. On the other hand, he was an object of serious suspicions and claims on the part of the authorities, one of the main defendants in the case of the III department more accurately, several cases immediately after the European revolutionary events G.

Opinion of Modest Andreyevich Korf here is unique and valuable just by the intersection of two optics, if we assume that optics can intersect: an educated reader, including modern periodicals and a powerful agent, along the debt of a new appointment for this periodicals. The overseeing Korf was a member of both committees for supervision over literature and censorship, urgently established by Nicholas I in the city in the “case of Belinsky” a retrospective look from the beautiful t.

I know that I saw how it was all my peers. Rozanov, and it is likely that his generation was one of the latter, who did not need a historical context, to whom the critic was “transmitted”. Nadezhdin "Rumor" where, in particular, the terrible stated: "We have no literature." Further - more: in a sightseeing article in Russian Literature of the Year in the “Domestic Notes” from high -profile statements, Belinsky moved to a relatively systematic or at least consistent presentation of the history of Russian literature.

The opinion about the Belinsky author of “Donos”, writer M. Dmitriev, was quite mainstream for a conservative and respectable reader public. Sensitive to the mood of the authorities and trying to direct these sentiments in his favor, F. Bulgarin directly correlated the overthrow of the literary Olympic with a political revolution. Bulgarin read this in the second article about Pushkin in the September book of “Domestic Notes” for the city of Portrait of V.

Gorbunov, from Belinsky really went to everyone: the discharge of the canon went from the very beginning of domestic social literature and to the end stations, its true peaks - Pushkin and Lermontov. According to the critic, the modern reader is doomed to "yawn from the heavy, prosaic and retoric verses of Lomonosov." Sumarokov, although “brought a kind of benefit and made a particle of good for society; But I do not want to bow to the dirty Pomel, which they shared the street.

" Probably, part of the grandiose popularity and influence that Belinsky gained among the young and then the young: society is growing up, and the dead critic of the same readers came from the youthful tone of his articles, the youthful confidence of the justified, and in the event of xg. Dusty busts, harshly looking down from top to bottom, are removed from the upper shelves and are in the corner - joy and updating, a new world in which gogols are born and grow right now, like mushrooms, and in literature and - perhaps in society - progress is also happening right now.

Only the word “society” under Nicholas I is unprintable, social and economic problems cannot be mentioned, therefore, a literary critic who writes on literary topics seems to explain for a long time what the word progress means, in what context the progress in literature is generally possible and that evil retrograde forces in the garden of the same F.

Bulgarin and his publications do not like the word Belinsky in the article “A look in Russian literature years ”used the word“ progress ”23 times, if you count the subtitle. And it is already taught to see the subtext partly where he is not there, the reader understands and secretly rejoices and rejoices that he is nourished on the dietary food of the censional journalism: progress can be not only in literature.

Belinsky often goes astray “Everything was young, bold, hotly, and also performed by mistakes, conscious and the author himself subsequently,” a contemporary of P. Annenkov is not like a teacher, but the eldest not much older than a classmate, who, without fully understanding the subject, but passionately loving him, inconsistently, jumping from one concept and name to another, choking in words, says what he read and understood and incomprehensible.Belinsky is a convenient target for censure and ridicule: a student expelled from the university, who, by the end of his short life, has learned to French “read and translate with a dictionary”, a hot fan and immediately - a propagandist of German idealistic philosophy, studied by reservations of friends “however in the eyes of contemporaries, everything was somewhat different.

So, for example, it is described by Prince V. Odoevsky, one of the most versatile and deeply formed by Belinsky’s acquaintances, in the past-the chairman of the young any wisdom: “Belinsky was one of the highest philosophical organizations that I have ever met in life. He had the conjugation of Kant, Schelling and Hegel, the conjugation of completely organic, for he did not read any of them: he did not know in German, he very poorly understood in French, and in his era, none of these philosophers was translated in French whenever we met Belinsky, we argued brutally with him; But I could not help but be surprised how, from the superficial knowledge of the principles of natural philosophy, Naturphilosophie developed the whole organic world of Sui Generis.

” This last “sui generis” is very important for characterizing the views and knowledge of Belinsky - they were, but it was “kind”, peculiar. He did not know him at all, but became close to him in the same way as the mathematician, not knowing the work of another mathematician, is close to him in the conclusions the only development of this theorem. ” According to Odoevsky, this would not have been given a dozen man, and the philosopher does not ironize at all against the critic.

Belinsky called a monstrous hybrid to life: a power occupied by literary criticism, and this occupation could not end well for both criticism and modern literature. One of the first affairs of the III branches, which began after the news of the French revolutionary events of February G. explaining the danger of Belinsky and his texts, the author of the report most likely, the governor of the secret police, L.

Dubelt, also clearly expressed the attitude of the domestic power to literature in general. The authorities were sure: today the critic and his readers are ruining the literary hierarchy, and tomorrow they would go to destroy the state. He does not recognize any advantages in Lomonosov, nor in Derzhavin, nor in Karamzin, nor in Zhukovsky, nor in all other writers, admires the works of one Gogol, whom the writers of a natural school consider their head unfortunately, from the report it is impossible to understand that it ultimately became a “disrespect” by the bail Bannikov.

So the work of the power agent with the text led to political consequences: the revision of the first periodic, and then the rest of the literature on the subject of “new ethics” - the compliance with its highest political values. Nicholas I approved the report III of the department, and the authorities, for the inaccessibility of Belinsky, will soon repeat, the deceased, took severe measures in relation to the editors of magazines and censors.

Belinsky and Slavophiles. The artist B. Lebedev is curious that, claiming the revolutionaryness of Belinsky’s texts, the administration, however, faced the problem of argumentation and, above all, with the selection of quotes to confirm their suspicions and gloomy forecasts. Quotes are really heated: firstly, Belinsky’s syllable himself, who was feverishly written about literature and anything that followed all the winding moves of thought, which was distracted by a rather petty polemic, which simultaneously destroyed the authority and made unexpected conclusions, comments and generalizations for which, in fact, his criticism was mainly read-itself-itself, itself-itself.

Belinsky’s syllable was so knitting and wrong that it was difficult to find fault with specific words. It is important to note that in this manner of writing it is worth blaming the Nikolaev power itself, in particular, censorship. Having imposed a ban on any socio-political journalistic statements, the authorities drove these statements into outwardly innocent forms-including the form of articles about literature.

The authors and readers learned to see in articles on literary, historical and sometimes natural-scientific topics hints on an actual socio-political context. A striking example was the poem by the poetess E. Rostopchina “Nazi marriage”, where in the descriptions of the unlucky family life of the lyrical heroine and her suffering from a cruel husband, contemporaries saw the allegory of the relations of Russia and Poland.

Belinsky’s texts were not so easy for interpretations, but the administration was not embarrassed by this, making an inductive conclusion about political unreliability of both Belinsky and the magazines in which he collaborated and journalism in general. It is also worth noting that the manner of Belinsky’s letter was partly explained by the peculiarity of his “creative method”: having missed almost half a month after playing the cards and hastily, to the pain in his hand, trying to meet on time, Belinsky sometimes clearly did not re -read his own articles, giving them to the editor Kraevsky, who was a terrible non -creative person - was angry to disrupt the deadline!But I always advise any young man to read them in order to get acquainted with the interesting historical fact of the literature and the Russian language.

” Something similar can be said to Belinsky’s journalism with all reservations and caution: his articles are “an interesting historical fact” of criticism and Russian thoughts. Articles, but not a letter. The maximum frank, passionate and analytical letters of Belinsky were the forerunner of a later psychological novel here cannot but mention L.'s work L. In the letters “temperature” it is transmitted to a completely modern reader: this is a fever, especially “infectious” by the fact that he also has “the power of the really former”.

Who, besides Belinsky, could relate to the figures of science and art - to figures both alive, modern and long -dead and departed in history - both to their children? Passionately suspecting and seeing the genius of them, telling everyone around how talented they are and how they promise these talents to turn over the world, and then, having read and peered, they are desperately disappointed, curse, accuse them, that they did not save the world, that is, some such “forpee” children returned, polluting sins with new beautiful ones from the point of view of the “father” The works, as, for example, I.

Stankevich in November, did not justify the hope of the “old Belinsky” and F. Dostoevsky of the “doctorship” period, of course, first erected in the genius, and then passionately and with shame from the brilliant ranks thrown out. Dostoevsky brother Mikhail in October, after a couple of years, everything was different: about the novel by Dostoevsky "Mistress" Belinsky at the end of the city Belinsky and N.

Lebedev is another reputation, largely “spoiled” by Belinsky and in such a spoiled form in many respects, belongs to the editor of “domestic notes” by Andrei Alexandrovich Kraevsky. Belinsky’s attitude towards him passed from one pole to another - from an infinite respect for a person who managed to put a magazine in Russia to a new level, to frenzied hatred, during the attacks of which Belinsky wrote a lot of wild and unreasonable accusations, later with the pleasure of journal competitors and not going beyond the ideological framework by researchers.

His passionate need to either love without end and without a edge, or hate, if the region was still or visible, Belinsky tried to realize, apply on any, sometimes completely random, animated and inanimate objects. Stankevich, honor, conscience and kindness of his generation. Plants became such “objects of adoration” - Belinsky started them in many houses once wanted to have a hedgehog.

I went into the flower row this morning and seduced. He gave the last thirty rubles, ”I. however, judging by the fact that the names of the colors of Belinsky changed, they did not reciprocate his love, they did not answer his love. Passionately, painfully, carried away and loving, Belinsky was almost always disappointed - to despair and illness. The writers, as already mentioned, were betrayed - by the fact that they did not correspond to the vague and impossible even in definition, not that in realizing the ideal the ideal changed, sometimes turning into its opposite: this was, for example, the attitude to “reality” - from reconciliation from it to rebellion.

People also betrayed - also by the fact that they were not as they imagined in his imagination filled with theories. So, friendship with M. Bakunin turned out to be ghostly: there was no true, until the last molecule, coincidence, chemical electoral affinity: “I betrayed Botkin in February, women betrayed or theory about love - that in the case of Belinsky, about the same thing - the fact that love did not want to build in the categories and schemes of the German idealistic philosophy, love for Alexander Bakunina turned out to be“ false.

feeling ”,“ in which only the need of feeling was true. ” Odoevsky, there is a sad unexpected self -disclosure: the philosophical direction “Not so Belinsky in Paris.

Women sometimes betrayed Lebedev by possessing a body and thereby excited desires that were not compatible with the idealistic concepts of true love. So, an affair was unsuccessful with Beloshweika: “At that time near G. Belinsky was carried away by a passion for one young craftswoman, he took up her mental development, with the help of reading chosen poetic works; But she soon defeated the ideal he created, ”writes Belinsky’s biography by A.

Bakunin in August, perhaps this is the best definition of Belinsky and the best explanation of the attractiveness of what he wrote. Belinsky in a certain respect is similar to the future heroes of F.'s hot hand, we can assume that he would have passed “test” of one of the main quotes proposed to the characters of the novel “Demons”: “And write your affairs angel of the Laudician Church; You are neither cold nor hot; Oh, if you were cold or hot!