"Obsolescence" of classical Russian literature
- Speransky ... Speransky ... What kind of writer is this, Speransky? Didn't hear something.
- Lev Aleksanych, a wonderful writer.
- Of the modern, or what?
- Yes, much more modern. He writes beautiful novels.
There was an opinion that the school curriculum is overloaded with Russian literature of the XNUMXth century, which at the moment is slightly outdated and not modern. There are also "recommendations" that the same Ostrovsky (which is "a ray of light", not "How tempered ...") is slightly outdated and it also needs to be "reworked".
As a matter of fact, something similar already took place at the beginning of the XX century, when Mr. Mayakovsky proposed to "throw off the ship of modernity" some Russian classics. The problem here is not even how wonderful, good and wonderful classical Russian literature is. This is not the question. And the fact that it arose quite late. By historical by European standards.
And, as a matter of fact, the "wealth of Russian literature" is very, very relative. In particular, a complete misunderstanding among the reading public is caused by the fact that the "sun of Russian poetry" is not very popular abroad. And here everything is quite simple. We must look at the situation in historical comparison.
You can start, oddly enough, with "The Captain's Daughter" and compare it (in terms of the literary language, for example) with "Shagreen Skin", which was published five years earlier (1836 - the first, 1831 - the second). And as if a lot becomes quite clear. That is, if Pushkin literally had to "invent" the literary Russian language, then Balzac was not faced with such a task.
The great French writer, so to speak, "saw far away (wrote well and beautifully), because he stood on the shoulders of giants." That is, classical French literature did not emerge at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. And not even at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. Everything was done much, much earlier. That is why Pushkin's works (both prose and poetry) could hardly be in demand there. No matter how disappointing it is.
The very first literary salons in France appeared already in the 1521th century. Queen Margot (the eldest) started the tradition here. And this was even before Ivan the Terrible. Such are the layouts. Historical time mismatch. And if we talk about the creation of a "modern literary language", then in Germany Martin Luther was also involved in this (translation of the Bible into German 1522-XNUMX), and this was in the same XNUMXth century. But book printing began there in the middle of the XNUMXth century ...
And literature in these countries developed consistently and practically continuously, and no one was trying to throw off anyone from the "steamer of our time" ... It was just that then steamers were not invented.
The era of steamers
By the way, this can serve as a starting point: classical Russian literature was de facto created already in the industrial era (the era of steam and steel). Previously, they simply did not have time.
Why, how and in what way it could become obsolete, taking into account its creation precisely in the era industrial, it is quite difficult to understand. Especially, for example, remembering that the classics of Spanish literature (the "golden age"), in general, was created in the second half of the XNUMXth - first half of the XNUMXth centuries, that is, during the de facto post-feudal times (for Spain), the greatest Spanish novel sharply ridicules vices late feudalism. And even in this turbulent, but fruitful period for Spain, no one tried to “throw outdated” writers from the galleon of modernity.
Lope de Vega and Cervantes are like the era before the Peace of Westphalia ... And somehow no one in Spain considers the literature of that era obsolete ... While the titans of Russian literature are either the XNUMXth century, or even the beginning of the XNUMXth. And the "earliest" of them - Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol - oddly enough, is quite modern to himself (the themes raised in his works are very relevant for modern Russia). And he is quoted often, almost more often than Mr. Medvedev.
Yes, oddly enough, the Russian classics were formed in parallel with the telegraph, telephone and railways. That is, by historical standards, literally "yesterday."
Something was somehow created in Russian literature in the eighteenth century, but God forbid to read this. Usually. So here Fonvizin with his "Minor" is just some kind of pioneer. For some reason, Fonvizin is being studied here, but not appreciated ... But he seems to be a forerunner ... He managed to be noted already in the XNUMXth century, and this is just as important for Russia as almost the first airplane of Mozhaisky.
A lot was written in the XNUMXth century, but when Solzhenitsyn is offered as the greatest writer, it becomes somehow strange. So-so writer. Let's take political journalism separately, writing separately. There were ratings where he was positioned, as it were, even higher than Dostoevsky. Laughed for a long time. Nobel laureate. The conscience of the Russian people.
There is also Bulgakov with the greatest "bestseller" for the late Soviet era "The Master and Margarita". "Quiet Don", Arkady Gaidar ... There are a lot of things. But, in fact, as far as poetry is concerned, here we were lucky in the XNUMXth century, more than enough of it was created. We were not so lucky with prose. This is if we consider quality, not quantity.
Briefly with all this literature can be found, for example, in the wonderful book by Dmitry Bykov "Soviet Literature. Short course ". This is to watch out for something. The book is very interesting, but sad. So, someone may not like it, but the “great Russian literature”, as it were, in the 30s, ends completely. Or rather, even already in the 20s.
And who is there left "on the ship of our time"?
And not so many decent people stay on the upper deck. This is when compared with European giants such as France. By the way, yes, the creator of the Russian literary language, Alexander Sergeevich, could quite possibly ride on steamers at one time, if he had the desire and financial capabilities. They were already.
And about Mandelstam's “Why are you complaining, poetry is respected only here — they kill for it. After all, nowhere else is anyone killed for poetry ... ”. So he simply was not, apparently, familiar with the fate of the "sun of Spanish poetry" Frederico García Lorca, who was shot precisely for poetry and precisely in the middle of the XNUMXth century. In cultural Spain. Why cultural? But because the investigator who was in charge of Lorca's case (an educated Spaniard) knew his work very well. Literally by heart. From large poems to small children's counting rhymes. And the scene from "The Era of Mercy" during that interrogation unfolded much wider.
And more about "obsolescence".
Recently I met an article permeated with the bitter insult of the author, who was called in a modern way "the author", the insult was deep and unbearable. Purely so feminine. However, the problem is much older. Strictly speaking, European culture begins with this question. Aristophanes in "Clouds", brilliantly anticipating the era of tolerance (or fearing to be thrown off the triremes of our time), carefully introduced two strictly scientific terms instead of the general (masculine) thrush: thrush and thrush.
And the problem with "Russian classical literature" is precisely this: it is not very classical in terms of the time of its creation and it is not so much that much has been written.
- Oleg Egorov
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.