The Sovremennik magazine, founded by Pushkin in 1836, after his death passed to P. A. Pletnev, professor at St. Petersburg University, critic and poet. He quickly turned Sovremennik into an organ free from controversy and standing aloof from social and literary life.
This was done by the publisher ostensibly in order to serve "the highest tasks of art and truth" and was justified by references to the ignorance of readers and the baseness of morals that reign in literature and journalism.
The isolation of Sovremennik from life, steadily carried out by Pletnev, his hidden enmity towards new progressive phenomena of the social movement and literature, relegated the magazine to the category of obscure publications. In the first years after Pushkin, although rarely, Gogol, Tyutchev, Zhukovsky, Baratynsky, Koltsov, Vyazemsky, Yazykov published their works in it (not to mention the posthumous publications of some of Pushkin's works), but soon their participation in the journal ceased, and " Sovremennik” from issue to issue was filled with articles by Ya. K. Grot, essays by A. O. Ishimova, bibliographic reviews by Pletnev, poems by the same Pletnev, F. Glinka and little-known authors like Koptev, Aibulat-Rozen, Marselsky.
For a long time, the publisher was not embarrassed by the gradual decrease in the number of employees in his magazine. “Really you, Alexandra Osipovna [Ishimova. - Ed.], but I won’t fill four books with something? ” - he wrote to Grot on October 8, 1840. But along with the writers, Sovremennik also lost its readers. The number of subscribers fluctuated in the 1840s between 300-400, and in 1846 fell to 233.
Finally, Pletnev decided to abandon the magazine and in September 1846 transferred the right to publish Sovremennik to Nekrasov and Panaev.
Writers close to Belinsky have long wanted to have their own independent body in which they would feel like masters. Otechestvennye Zapiski, where they had to cooperate, caused them more and more dissatisfaction every year, since Kraevsky's unprincipled behavior affected the content and direction of the journal.
Belinsky did not have to become the editor of the magazine, which was his long-standing dream: the reputation of an "unreliable" writer did not even allow him to start troubles about this. Nekrasov and Panaev did not enjoy the trust of the government either. I had to look for an official editor who could be approved in this position and would not be a completely alien person for the magazine. These conditions were satisfied by the professor of St. Petersburg University A. V. Nikitenko, who simultaneously performed the duties of a censor, and Nekrasov and Panaev invited him to the post of editor of Sovremennik, stipulating for themselves complete freedom of action. During 1847-1848, when Nikitenko signed the magazine, he almost did not interfere in the editorial affairs, and Belinsky was the ideological leader of Sovremennik. Nekrasov and Panaev did not take a single step in journal affairs without the knowledge and advice of Belinsky, and when discussing literary materials, his voice was always decisive. “I can do what I want,” Belinsky wrote to Botkin on November 4-8, 1847. “Due to my condition with Nekrasov, my work is more qualitative than quantitative; my participation is more moral than active ...
It is not Nekrasov who tells me what I should do, but I notify Nekrasov what I want or consider it necessary to do.
Herzen provided the most serious assistance to Sovremennik. He gave the editors the novel “Who is to blame?”, The first part of which was published in Fatherland Notes, and his wife provided financial assistance to Nekrasov, who needed funds to purchase the magazine. Refusing to participate in the Notes of the Fatherland, Herzen became the closest collaborator of Sovremennik.
However, some former friends of Belinsky behaved differently. Yielding to his persistent persuasion and demands, Botkin, Kavelin, Granovsky and others agreed to cooperate in Sovremennik, but did not want to leave Fatherland Notes. They tried to justify their behavior with references to the fact that they equally love both magazines. But, in essence, Botkin and other liberals were afraid of the ideological and political line of Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, which, as they correctly assumed, would find its embodiment in Sovremennik. As for Otechestvennye Zapiski, they hoped that with Belinsky's departure, this journal would not contain the "anxious spirit", "peskyness" and "extremes" that aroused their fears.
Indeed, the direction of Otechestvennye Zapiski began to change, and soon the journal completely lost the traditions of Belinsky and became a colorless publication of a moderately liberal nature. Sovremennik, on the other hand, having been turned into an organ of a revolutionary-democratic trend, has become truly the best magazine forties.
One after another, such works were published in Sovremennik fiction like "Who's to blame?" (the whole novel is in the appendix to No. 1), "The Thieving Magpie", "Doctor Krupov's Notes" and "Letters from Awenue Marigny" by Herzen, "An Ordinary Story" by Goncharov, fourteen stories from "The Hunter's Notes", the story "The Gide" and the play “Where it is thin, there it breaks” by Turgenev, Grigorovich’s story “Anton Goremyka”, Druzhinin’s story “Polinka Saks”, Nekrasov’s poems (among them are “Troika”, “Hound Hunt”, “Am I Going at Night ...”), Ogarev , Maikov, translations from Schiller, Goethe, George Sand, Dickens, etc. In terms of “literature”, the magazine immediately achieved amazing success and gave readers a series of works that are outstanding in their ideological and artistic qualities and forever included in the treasury of Russian literature.
Literary criticism and bibliography were at a very high level in Sovremennik. The journal owed this to Belinsky, who published in it “A Look at Russian Literature of 1846”, “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847”, “An Answer to a Muscovite”, “Selected passages from correspondence with friends” by Nikolai Gogol” and a number of other articles and reviews. They determined not only the artistic, but also the political positions of Sovremennik and played a big role in the development of Russian literature and social thought. Nekrasov occasionally spoke in the Criticism and Bibliography Department, several reviews belong to V. Maikov, and A. Kroneberg wrote informative articles on George Sand's latest novels and Dickens' Christmas stories.
Articles on questions of science occupied a significant place in Sovremennik. Kavelin, S. Solovyov, Granovsky and others presented articles, reviews, and notes on historical topics. Kavelin's article “A look at the legal life ancient Russia” caused a sharp controversy with the Slavophiles. Of great interest are Milyutin's political and economic works on Butovsky's book "An Essay on National Wealth, or the Principles of Political Economy" and on Malthus and his opponents. Often articles and reviews on general problems of natural science appeared in Sovremennik. The following works were published in the journal: Littre "The Importance and Progress of Physiology", Humboldt "Cosmos", Schleiden "The Plant and Its Life", articles on geography, astronomy, zoology, chemistry by domestic scientists D. Perevoshchikov, A. Savich, K. Roulier, P. Ilyenkova and others attracted the attention of readers of the article by N. Satin "Ireland", "Paris letters" by Annenkov, "Letters about Spain" by Botkin.
In Sovremennik, the "Mixture" section, which played a very significant role, was informative and varied. Within the censorship limits, this department replaced the socio-political departments that were not allowed to the journal and often included articles and notes on socio-economic and political issues of domestic and international life. Here you can find articles directed against serfdom and the capitalist system, notes promoting the ideas of socialism, polemical speeches against reactionary journals, against the Slavophiles. The “Modern Notes” and feuilletons of the New Poet (Panaev) were constantly placed here, and sometimes small works of art ( for example, the first story from the "Notes of a Hunter" - "Khor and Kalinich", 1847, No. 1). In addition to Nekrasov and Panaev, the economist A. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, the statistician and trade and industry specialist G. Nebolsin, the chemist P. Ilyenkov, and others took an active part in the "Mixture" department.
Even the Fashion department of Sovremennik tried to be original and entertaining. Panaev, who headed this department, published in it "an experience of a high-society novel in two parts" under the title "The Great Secret of Dressing to Face" - a work that both introduced fashion and parodied the genre of salon fiction. Later, the magazine introduced the reader to fashion through "Correspondence between a Petersburger and a provincial" (1848, No. 8-10) and "Letters from a metropolitan friend to a provincial groom" (1848, No. 11-12). The author of the latter was I. A. Goncharov, who hid under the pseudonym “A. Chelsky".
From the very first months of its existence, the renewed Sovremennik was to the taste of readers, which immediately affected the growth of its circulation: in 1847 the magazine had 2,000, and in 1848–3,100 subscribers.
In its direction, Sovremennik under Belinsky was a revolutionary-democratic journal. He pursued those ideas that were expressed by Belinsky in the Salzbrunn letter to Gogol - the ideas of a revolutionary struggle against serfdom, autocracy and religion. Belinsky's letter to Gogol was the true program of Sovremennik. Like a letter, the magazine reflected the moods and aspirations of the serfs.
The main goal of Sovremennik was the struggle against serfdom. The journal published anti-serfdom works of art by Herzen, Turgenev, Goncharov, Grigorovich, and in Belinsky's articles he explained their meaning and significance. Nekrasov's poems and Belinsky's speeches against Gogol's reactionary book "Selected passages from correspondence with friends", against the "Moskvityanin" and the Slavophiles had a clearly anti-serfdom character. Articles and notes were published in the journal proving the unprofitability of serf labor, the detrimental effect of serfdom on the national economy of Russia, the need to develop trade and industry, railways and shipping in the country.
The question of serfdom was raised very sharply in the article "Ireland" by H. M. Sateen, former member Herzen's mug at Moscow University. The author painted an expressive picture of the poverty and oppression of the peasantry in Ireland, but he did it in such a way that everything he said applied to feudal Russia as well. The article contained the following words: “Resolute means are needed: it is necessary to change customs and legislation, political, administrative, judicial and religious organization, it is necessary to change the conditions of property and industry, the relations of the rich and the poor; it is necessary to create for both of them new duties in conjunction with new rights; in a word, a fundamental revolution is needed, and if for Ireland such a revolution does not come from above, then it will not be slow to come from below.
Speaking for the development of industry, trade, and transport in Russia, understanding the progressiveness of capitalism in comparison with serfdom, the leaders of Sovremennik saw the fundamental flaws of the bourgeois system and were hostile to any attempts to idealize it. Belinsky directed his program article "A Look at Russian Literature of 1846" not only against the Slavophiles, but also against the cosmopolitans who were servile to foreign countries. In "Notes of Dr. Krupov" and "Letters from Avenue Marigny" Herzen mercilessly criticized not only serfdom in Russia, but also the bourgeois system of Western Europe.
Exposing the sharp social contradictions between the popular masses of France and the bourgeoisie, showing the growth of the indignation of the working people, Herzen rises to foresee an inevitable revolutionary explosion.
A profound analysis of the irreconcilable contradictions of the capitalist system is contained in the works on questions of political economy published in the journal by Milyutin. In an article about Butovsky's book, Milyutin, criticizing bourgeois economists who praise and embellish capitalism, convincingly shows that their optimism does not correspond to the facts of reality. The author draws attention to the "ulcer of pauperism", and to the increase in mortality "between the working classes", and to the increase in poverty "in parallel with the increase in wealth". “The contrast between the luxury of the upper classes and the poverty of the lower ones reached its most extreme limits and cried out for the immediate destruction of unreasonable institutions that strengthen the slavery of labor under the yoke of capital,” writes Milyutin.
As far as possible, Sovremennik promoted the socialist structure of society. Belinsky, in his "View of Russian Literature in 1847," wrote that welfare in society should be equally extended to all its members; Herzen, in "Letters from Avenue Marigny," argued that "the whole misfortune of past revolutions was the omission of the economic side," and predicted such a revolution that would crush the power of the bourgeoisie and bring the working people to power; Milyutin, in articles on Malthus and Butovsky, argued the need for a "radical transformation of economic relations" and, criticizing the systems of utopian socialism, at the same time expressed confidence that the future belongs to socialism.
In the field of philosophy, Sovremennik defended the principles of dialectics and materialism and fought against idealism and religion. The journal published a large number of different kinds of materials on natural science, which contributed to the spread of materialistic views.
The main task of literary criticism of the journal was the struggle for realistic, truly folk art, art of great ideological and social significance. The principle of realism and nationality "Sovremennik" contrasted with the principle of "pure art", "decoration and ennoblement of reality." Defending realism and genuine nationality in art, Belinsky in his articles gave a deep final assessment of Gogol's activities, rightly considering his artistic work the pride of Russian national culture.
Sovremennik vigorously fought for the development of the natural school and was able to correctly evaluate and promote such writers as Herzen, Goncharov, Turgenev, whose work was ill-disposed by the magazine's enemies. Sovremennik had to defend its assessments and characteristics in the struggle not only with the literary archaists who remained faithful to Karamzin, but also with those journals and critics who elevated Kukolnik, Benediktov, Khomyakov, N. Polevoy and even Bulgarin to the category of “great writers”.
The Sovremennik direction made him many friends and enemies. The reactionary journals waged a constant war with him. Journalists like Bulgarin did not disdain any means of struggle, composed denunciations.
Sovremennik was severely pursued by censorship. Belinsky's articles suffered especially. His letters are literally filled with bitter complaints about censorship. “Nature has condemned me to bark like a dog and howl like a jackal, and circumstances tell me to purr like a cat, twirl my tail like a fox,” Belinsky wrote to Botkin on February 28, 1847. Censorship and some of Herzen’s works, especially “The Thieving Magpie” and the article “ New Variations on Old Themes. The censorship did not show condescension towards the works of other Sovremennik employees either. At the request of the censors, the end of Grigorovich's story "Anton Goremyk" had to be redone: to shoot a picture of a peasant uprising. Instead of the second half of George Sand's Piccinino, which was uncensored, a brief retelling of its contents had to be placed. Some of the works intended for publication in Sovremennik were completely "slaughtered" by censorship.
After the events of 1848, Sovremennik found itself in an exceptionally difficult position. The Menshikov Committee, which, on behalf of the tsar, examined Russian journalism, found that Sovremennik was preaching communism and revolution. In confirmation, they pointed to Belinsky's article "A Look at Russian Literature of 1847", Herzen's article "A Few Remarks on the "Historical Development of Honor", Grigorovich's story "Anton Goremyka" and his story "Bobyl", to the judgments expressed in "Mixture" about life of the peasants. As a result, Nikitenko, like Kraevsky, was summoned to the Third Department, where he gave a signature that he would try in every possible way to give Sovremennik a direction "completely consistent with the views of our government." Frightened by the strictness, Nikitenko thought it best to stop editing Sovremennik immediately.
Government punishment and the departure of Nikitenko put Sovremennik on the brink of death. But Nekrasov and Panaev decided to continue publishing the magazine. With great difficulty, they secured the approval of Panaev as the editor of Sovremennik - and temporarily and only "in the form of experience" - (since April 16, 1848).
Throughout the "gloomy seven years" the existence of "Sovremennik", accused of propagating communism and revolution and placed under the strictest supervision of the Third Section and the "April 2nd Committee", hung in the balance. The magazine was severely censored.
In November 1848, the Illustrated Almanac was banned, which was to be published as an appendix to Sovremennik. The almanac contained the novel by N. Stanitsky (Panaeva) "The Talnikov Family", stories by Druzhinin and Grebenka, stories by Dostoevsky and Dahl, drawings by Stepanov, Nevakhovich, Agin, Fedotov. The prohibition of the publication brought Nekrasov and Panaev a loss of 4,000 rubles.
In 1849, Sovremennik again incurred the wrath of the "Buturlin Committee" and the tsar himself by publishing an article by I. I. Davydov "On the Appointment of Russian Universities." The article was written on behalf of the Minister of Education, Uvarov, in connection with the spreading rumors about the closure (at the insistence of Buturlin) of Russian universities, and contained a very cautious defense of university education. The "Buturlin Committee" drew the attention of the tsar to Davydov's article, seeing in it "interference in government affairs inappropriate for a private person." Nicholas I fully agreed with the opinion of the committee and found the article "indecent." “You must obey, but keep your reasoning to yourself,” he said about Davydov's article. Uvarov retired shortly after this story.
Finally, in the same 1849, the editors of Sovremennik had to visit the Third Section and listen there to a reprimand for criticizing the censorship regime in a modest review of Smaragdov’s textbook on the history of the Middle Ages: “You want new novels, you want scientific articles, you want smart reviews and critic? But have you ever thought about the state of your literature, your journalism? Who writes today? Today is definitely the age of book-hatred.
Such difficult conditions of existence could not but affect Sovremennik. The journal ceased to deal with the issue of serfdom and the position of the peasantry, could not say anything about the revolution of 1848 in Western Europe, and even about the Eastern War that began in 1853 was forced to write very dully. Sovremennik was able to respond to Belinsky's death with only ten lines and brief polemical remarks about Moskvityanin, caused by the fact that Pogodin, at Belinsky's grave, tried in the most rude form to settle scores with the great critic. And then for a number of years the very name of Belinsky was forbidden to be mentioned in the Russian press. When Gogol died, Sovremennik could only reprint in the March 1852 issue an informational article by the Moscow correspondent of Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti devoted to this event. When Nekrasov's poem "Blessed is the Gentle Poet" was published in the same issue of the journal, censorship did not allow it to be indicated that it refers to Gogol. Only later, in 1854, did P. A. Kulish’s “Experience in the biography of N. V. Gogol” and M. N. Longinov’s “Memories of Gogol” see the light in Sovremennik.
The entire burden of leading Sovremennik under the difficult conditions of reaction fell on the shoulders of Nekrasov and Panaev. Belinsky's death was an irreparable loss for the publication. No one could replace Herzen in the magazine, who became an emigrant. Nekrasov and Panaev were forced to involve Botkin, Annenkov, Druzhinin and other liberal writers who considered themselves friends of Belinsky and Herzen to a more active participation in Sovremennik.
Meanwhile, during these years, many former friends of Belinsky and Herzen, who had not gone further than liberalism before, clearly renounce their ideas and precepts, as well as from the “Gogol trend” of literature.
Nekrasov and Panaev did not share the views of Botkin, Druzhinin and their associates, but did not fully understand how hostile these views were to the cause of people's liberation. Before the arrival of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, they collaborated with Druzhinin and others and did not always oppose alien ideas. Under the influence of the liberals, Sovremennik has noticeably changed in comparison with Belinsky's time.
During the years of the "gloomy seven years" "Sovremennik" faded, became less meaningful. On its pages often appeared works that contradicted the traditions of Belinsky and the direction that he gave to the magazine. The general decline of Russian journalism also affected Sovremennik.
The ideological and artistic level of the Literature department has decreased. Druzhinin's Julie, E. Tur's novels Mistake and Niece, M. Avdeev's trilogy about Tamarin took a large place in it - artistically weak works, with undoubted noble-secular predilections. More serious in concept, but a little more successful in execution were the stories of N. Stanitsky (Panaeva), Panaev's novel "Lions in the Province", Nekrasov and Panaeva's novel "Dead Lake". The coverage of science issues in the journal has worsened. Sovremennik printed a lot during these years scientific articles on topics of little relevance, divorced from the demands of society, or articles that are too special, which would be much more suitable for scientific collections than for a literary magazine. It is unlikely that the reader could be interested, for example, in such materials as Prescott’s book “The Conquest of Peru”, which stretched for almost a year, P. Ilyenkov’s review of Viluev’s “Discourse on the weight of a share of bismuth”, M. Stasyulevich’s “Critical study of the speech of Iperides against Demosthenes” .
The “Mixture” section, which until recently played such an important role in Sovremennik, has now also lost its significance. Articles and notes on political and socio-economic topics almost disappear from the pages of the Mix. On the other hand, the feuilleton receives extraordinary development. Of course, the feuilleton genre in itself is not at all reprehensible and was often used by the progressive Russian press for sharp criticism of the autocratic-feudal system. The trouble was that a significant part of the Sovremennik feuilletons of those years had an empty, entertaining character. Druzhinin’s feuilletons “Ivan Chernoknizhnikov’s Sentimental Journey Through St. Petersburg Dachas” and “Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber” were imbued with vulgarity and unprincipled buffoonery.
Criticism suffered the most in Sovremennik. Before the arrival of Chernyshevsky, no one could replace the deceased Belinsky in the journal. This became apparent as soon as Annenkov tried to give a review of Russian literature for 1848. Instead of a review, the result was colorless, superficial "notes", poor in material, vague in terms of initial positions. They did not in any way resemble the brilliant and deep "Views" of Belinsky. Was gone in the department of criticism of combat articles on the most important issues and phenomena modern literature. They gave way to historical and literary works of an empirical nature about the writers of the 18th and early 19th centuries: Kapnist, Kostrov, Makarov, Izmailov, Delvig, written by Gaevsky, Gennady, Galakhov.
As you can see, the changes that have taken place in Sovremennik during the years of the “gloomy seven years” have affected, to one degree or another, all departments of the journal. But the most significant retreat from the positions won under Belinsky was to involve Druzhinin in active cooperation. In the "Sovremennik" of those years, his works were published from issue to issue: stories, critical articles, feuilletons. Meanwhile, Druzhinin was a moderate liberal who feared revolution and socialism, a supporter of the theory of "pure art", a staunch enemy of Belinsky and Gogol's trend in Russian literature. In Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber, published in Sovremennik, he allowed himself to openly defend estate sybarism and the aesthetic-gourmand attitude to literature, rejoiced at the appearance of Kukolnik’s works on the pages of the magazine, opposed polemics with reactionary and liberal journals for reconciliation with them, attacked surreptitiously on Belinsky and Gogol. Speaking about the “negative aspects” of Russian literature of those years, Druzhinin argued that they were due to the following reasons: “firstly, that the satirical element is not capable of being the predominant element in belles-lettres, and secondly, that our writers have exhausted their abilities, chasing plots from modern life." It is quite obvious that Druzhinin attacked critical realism and its theorist and propagandist, Belinsky.
It is impossible not to see that Sovremennik, having lost Belinsky and Herzen, under the yoke of censorship, to a certain extent, has lost its former revolutionary-democratic character. However, even at that time he continued to be the best of the then Russian magazines. Nekrasov and Panaev spared no effort, no time, no money to keep Sovremennik at a high level. Their letters to Turgenev, Grigorovich and other writers testify to the energy and perseverance with which, in the name of the readers of Sovremennik, they obtained material for each successive book, at the cost of which constant efforts they supported and preserved Sovremennik in the difficult years of reaction.
Thanks to the efforts of Nekrasov and Panaev, a number of excellent works of Russian literature appeared on the pages of Sovremennik during this period as well. First of all, undoubtedly, it should be noted that during these years the first works of Leo Tolstoy were published in the journal: "Childhood" (1852), "Foray" (1853) and "Boyhood" (1854).
Very actively continued to collaborate in the journal Turgenev. In addition to a number of stories from the Hunter's Notes, his novels Three Meetings, Two Friends, Calm, Mumu and several reviews were published there. In Sovremennik appeared Goncharov's Dream of Oblomov (Literary Collection, attached to the journal in 1849), Grigorovich's The Fishermen and Nakatov's Adventures, Pisemsky's The Rich Groom and Fanfaron, Three Countries of the World Nekrasov and Stanitsky.
The poetry of Sovremennik cannot be considered poor either. Nekrasov, Maikov, Ogarev, Polonsky, A. Tolstoy, Fet were published in the magazine. Nekrasov's great merit lies in the fact that in 1850, in the article "Russian Minor Poets", he recalled Tyutchev's poems forgotten by readers, referring him to the number of primary poetic talents, and reprinted more than a hundred of his poems in Sovremennik. Since that time, Tyutchev has taken his rightful place in Russian poetry. In the Literary Yeralash department in 1854, the famous Kozma Prutkov (A. Zhemchuzhnikov, V. Zhemchuzhnikov, A. Tolstoy) was first born, whose aphorisms ridiculed bureaucratic stupidity and complacency, and whose poems parodied the poets of "pure art" and epigones of romanticism.
One could also name a number of valuable scientific works published in Sovremennik during these years (Granovsky, S. Solovyov, Perevoshchikov, etc.), and translations by Dickens (David Copperfield, Bleak House), Thackeray (Vanity Fair, Newcomes), but and what has been said convinces us that Sovremennik, despite some impoverishment, continued to be a very interesting and informative journal.
The leaders of Sovremennik, Nekrasov and Panaev, made great efforts to preserve the former democratic direction of the journal. They were faithful and devoted to the traditions and precepts of Belinsky and led Sovremennik, albeit with errors and deviations, along the path outlined by their teacher and friend. V.E. Evgeniev-Maksimov’s assertion that the Sovremennik of the period of the “gloomy seven years” “becomes an organ of bourgeois-noble, more noble than bourgeois liberalism” is erroneous.
Ideas about the liberal nature of Sovremennik of that time are usually based on Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber and other speeches by Druzhinin. But the trend of these letters cannot be identified with the direction of the magazine. “To confuse a non-resident subscriber with the editors of Sovremennik is completely unfair,” Panaev said in “Notes of a New Poet on Russian Journalism” in the May issue of the magazine for 1851, condemning Druzhinin’s manner with “arrogance and familiarity to talk about subjects that deserve serious and businesslike discussion." Nekrasov and Panaev gave Sovremennik a direction that was far from Druzhinin's views, and more than once spoke against his opinions and assessments on the pages of the magazine.
A quite definite concept of the Sovremennik line is given by Nekrasov's programmatic works published in the journal in those years. In poems such as New Year”, “Blessed is the Gentle Poet”, “Muse”, “A Conversation between a Journalist and a Subscriber”, the article “Russian Minor Poets” reveals both Nekrasov’s worldview and his understanding of the tasks of literature and journalism.
The literary tendencies of the editors of Sovremennik found an exceptionally strong embodiment in Nekrasov's well-known poem "Blessed is the Gentle Poet." It is about Gogol, but the image of the poet-satirist, drawn by Nekrasov, undoubtedly, has a wider meaning, and not only literary, but also political. While all reactionary and liberal criticism (and Druzhinin above all) opposed the Gogol trend, against satire and criticism of serfdom in literature for the idealization of reality, for "pure art", Nekrasov, completely in the spirit of Belinsky, sings in his poem of the poet-citizen, a fighter and accuser who "preaches love with a hostile word of denial."
No wonder the poem "Blessed is the Gentle Poet" was attacked by both "Moskvityanin" and Druzhinin. The latter more than once unsuccessfully tried to be ironic about main idea poems: "loving - hating." Panaev defended Nekrasov in Sovremennik, and Turgenev, under the influence of these poems, wrote those “a few words” about Gogol that caused his arrest and exile.
In 1917, V. I. Lenin, in his article "Political blackmail", used Nekrasov's poem in the fight against the bourgeois press, which slandered the Bolsheviks. “A Bolshevik in general,” wrote Lenin, “could apply to himself the well-known saying of the poet:
He hears the sounds of approval
Not in the sweet murmur of praise,
And in the wild cries of anger.
The poem “Blessed is the Gentle Poet” is joined by the poem “Muse”, written by Nekrasov in 1851 and published in Sovremennik in 1854. Here the poet also affirms a true depiction of life in art and the connection of poetry with the labor and suffering of the people. It is characteristic that this poetic declaration of Nekrasov did not go unanswered by the defenders of "pure art". After reading the "Muse", the poet A. Maikov turned to Nekrasov with a poetic message in which he urged Nekrasov to abandon "enmity" and "malice" and "incline his tired gaze to nature".
An important place in Sovremennik of the period of reaction is occupied by Nekrasov's well-known article "Russian Minor Poets". Its significance lies not only in the fact that it "discovered" Tyutchev's readers, but also in the promotion of advanced aesthetic principles. While the supporters of "pure art" insisted that poetry should be alien to conscious thought and social tendency, Nekrasov in his article acted as a staunch supporter of democratic aesthetics, which, not afraid of accusations of preaching "didacticism", defended the inseparable combination of poetry and conscious thought and resolutely rejected poetry devoid of serious social content.
Raising in his article the question of the causes of the poverty of modern poetry, Nekrasov argues that the first and main reason is that poets do not pay due attention to the content of their works, but only follow the finishing of the form. Meanwhile, according to Nekrasov, at present our literature "is already at the stage when the graceful form is not considered a virtue, but a necessary condition." Now the mind is required from the poet, the content from poetry. Belinsky in "A Look at Russian Literature in 1847" called thought the "living force" of art. Nekrasov writes an article in defense of poetry, "full of thought and genuine feeling", against verses that are smooth and harmonious, but empty.
A real declaration on the issues of journalism of that time is Nekrasov's poetic feuilleton "A Conversation between a Journalist and a Subscriber" (1851, No. 8). It is known that in it Nekrasov ridicules such shortcomings of journalism as the lack of ideas and pettiness of the scientific departments of journals, the low level of journal controversy, the substitution of serious, principled disputes with empty squabbles, the publication of too many translations in journals to the detriment of the works of Russian authors.
According to the plan, Nekrasov's feuilleton was directed against Otechestvennye Zapiski and their editor, Kraevsky. However, the critical judgments of the subscriber, with whom the poet himself undoubtedly agreed, revealed the typical illnesses of all journalism of that time. “A Conversation between a Journalist and a Subscriber” once again characterizes Nekrasov not only as an outstanding poet, but also as a wonderful editor who was deeply aware of the features and shortcomings of the periodicals of that time, was well versed in the needs of readers and acted as a fighter for the ideology and nationality of Russian journalism.
In those years, I. I. Panaev shared the work on the management of Sovremennik with Nekrasov. He was also a very active contributor to the magazine. From issue to issue, Panaev placed parodies and feuilletons of the New Poet and reviews of the Russian press in Sovremennik. According to I. G. Yampolsky, Panaev’s speeches in the journal, with all their shortcomings, characterize him “as a person who basically remained true to Belinsky’s literary views,” as a critic whose statements “not only do not come close to Druzhinin’s views and assessments, but this was sometimes written about, but they are directly opposite to them.
In his reviews of journalism and feuilletons, Panaev waged a tireless struggle against journals hostile to Sovremennik, primarily Otechestvennye Zapiski and Moskvityanin. And although Panaev's reviews were not distinguished by such depth, richness and sharpness as Belinsky's famous speeches, they nevertheless defended advanced aesthetic principles, a realistic trend in literature.
Together with Nekrasov, Panaev actively fought on the pages of Sovremennik for the Gogol trend in literature, for truthful literature, “which depicts life without embellishment, through laughter visible to the world and invisible tears” (1852, No. 12). He spoke with deep respect about Gogol, Dickens, Thackeray, brought Nekrasov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky to the forefront of modern Russian literature, sympathized with Grigorovich's "Fishermen" and Pisemsky's work.
At the same time, Panaev fiercely pursued literature, which "strengthens to decorate and curl" reality. He noted the unreality, fictitiousness of the plots and characters of the stories of Druzhinin and various minor writers of that time, the idealization of life in some of Ostrovsky’s plays (“Don’t get into your sleigh”, etc.), the author’s arbitrariness in Grigorovich’s Country Roads. Panaev was especially negative about the embellished depiction of peasant life. “Any false idealization in the matter of art is unpleasant; nothing can be more offensive than the idealization of peasant life,” he wrote.
As a student of Belinsky, Panaev advocated a literature of advanced ideas that not only reproduces reality, but also fights for its transformation. It was from these positions that Panaev condemned the naturalistic tendencies in the work of Pisemsky, a writer whom he considered one of "our most talented writers of fiction." He saw Pisemsky's serious shortcoming in his excessive "objectivity", as a result of which in some works of this writer "it was absolutely not clear which of his faces he sympathized with" (1851, No. 12).
Both in the reviews of journalism and in the feuilletons of The New Poet, Panaev waged a constant war against the theory and practice of "pure art". Shcherbina (whose anthological poems were praised by Druzhinin), he recommended, “leaving the ancient world, to try your talent in the sphere of living reality”, he wrote evil parodies on the Kukolnik (whose appearance in Sovremennik was welcomed by Druzhinin), exposing the philistine, vulgar nature of his romanticism and aestheticism . The parodies of the “New Poet,” notes I. G. Yampolsky, “are the undoubted and immediate predecessors of the parodies of Kozma Prutkov and for the most part are directed against the same literary phenomena, the same poets as they are. The very image of the New Poet, although it did not develop into such a holistic and vivid creation as Kozma Prutkov, is also his unconditional predecessor.
The sworn feuilletonist of Sovremennik, Panaev, and here, in his attitude to the feuilleton, decisively disagreed with the “untimely defender” of “jolly” literature and empty literary chatter - Druzhinin. In a special review devoted to explaining the views of the Sovremennik editors on the feuilleton, Panaev stated that he, like the Non-Gorodny Subscriber, loves a witty joke, but he is “sad and sorry to see when all literature turns into a feuilleton, voluntarily renounces his own high vocation and significance, from the lofty goal of art; when it serves only as one empty entertainment, one entertainment of idle curiosity. In the light of this attitude of the editors of Sovremennik to the feuilleton, it becomes clear why Druzhinin's famous feuilletons "Ivan Chernoknizhnikov's Sentimental Journey Through St. Petersburg Dachas" ceased to appear on the pages of Nekrasov and Panaev's magazine.
Thus, it is obvious that Nekrasov and Panaev, during the difficult years of the “gloomy seven years”, made every effort to ensure that Sovremennik retained the direction and content that was characteristic of it under Belinsky. Basically, this problem was solved by them.
However, the position of the magazine in those years was difficult. There were no writers in Sovremennik capable of replacing Belinsky and Herzen, of raising the level of criticism in the journal, of giving it a consistent and militant revolutionary-democratic direction.
From the first issue of Sovremennik in 1854, reviews and articles by N. G. Chernyshevsky began to be published in it. Chernyshevsky's appearance in Sovremennik is truly of historical significance. A great revolutionary, scientist, publicist and critic, a worthy successor of Belinsky, an unshakable defender of the interests of the oppressed people, came to the journal. Soon he will become the "ruler of thoughts" of advanced Russian society and the leader of the revolutionary democrats of the sixties.
Associated with the names of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov new stage in the life of Sovremennik.
Literary magazines second half of XIX centuries were a kind of headquarters of social struggle. A group of writers, publicists, scientists, artists, more or less closely united by common views on literature and social life, rallied around each journal. Magazines passed through the tsarist censorship, so the leading writers had to use a special style full of allusions, allegories, allegories. This, as Lenin said, was the cursed time of Aesopian speeches ... slave language, ideological serfdom. But no matter how raging censorship was, it was not possible to stifle free speech: in one form or another, it broke through to readers.
"Contemporary". Literary and socio-political magazine founded by A. S. Pushkin. It was published in St. Petersburg since 1836 4 times a year. The magazine published the works of Nikolai Gogol (“Carriage”, “Morning of a Businessman”, “Nose”), Alexander Turgenev, V. A. Zhukovsky, P. A. Vyazemsky, V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Davydov, N M. Yazykov, E. A. Baratynsky, F. I. Tyutchev, A. V. Koltsov. He published poetry, prose, critical, historical, ethnographic and other materials. After the death of Pushkin, the journal was continued during 1837 by a group of writers headed by P. A. Vyazemsky, then P. A. Pletnev. The magazine has fallen into disrepair. P. A. Pletnev in September 1846 sold it to N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev. After the death of Pushkin, the journal was continued during 1837 by a group of writers headed by P. A. Vyazemsky, then P. A. Pletnev (1837-1846). S. A. Zakrevskaya made her debut in the journal (1837, v. 8). In 1838-1847, articles, novels, novels, and translations by F. F. Korf were published in the journal. Since 1843, the magazine began to appear monthly. The magazine has fallen into disrepair. P. A. Pletnev in September 1846 sold it to N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev. magazine taught Russian society fearlessly explore life, eradicating not only the servile habit of silence, but also the servile habit of not thinking. Only a thought brought to heroism can give rise to heroism in action, - said Saltykov-Shchedrin. Making their way through the thicket of censorship prohibitions, risking the fate of their beloved offspring and their personal fate, the leaders of Sovremennik carried their great truth to the Russian people. The magazine found ways to tell readers everything it wanted to tell them. The Sovremennik responded to the reform of 1861 with contemptuous silence. It was especially demonstrative against the backdrop of the enthusiasm that choked other magazines and newspapers.
"Domestic Notes".
The journal was founded by the historian and writer P. P. Svinin in 1818 and was filled with articles on the topics of the history, geography, life and customs of Russia. Published until 1831; in 1838 it was renewed by Svinin and from January 1839 transferred to A. A. Kraevsky. The publisher-editor of the journal Kraevsky transformed Otechestvennye Zapiski into a large-volume monthly scientific, literary and political journal (up to 40 printed sheets). From August 1839, Belinsky began to publish in Otechestvennye Zapiski, and at the end of October he moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg and took over the leadership of the critical and bibliographic department of the journal. In Otechestvennye Zapiski appeared the best works Russian literature created in the 1840s. Thanks to Belinsky and the direction that he gave to the journal, writers belonging to the natural school began to collaborate in Fatherland Notes.
One of the most active authors, who together with Belinsky determined the direction of the journal, was Herzen. Under the pseudonym “Iskander”, he placed in “Notes of the Fatherland” several works of art (“Notes of a Young Man”, “More from the Notes of a Young Man”, the first part of the novel “Who is to blame?”), As well as philosophical works (“Amateurism in Science”, “Letters on the Study of Nature”) and journalistic articles, including three feuilletons directed against the magazine “Moskvityanin”. Turgenev handed over to Otechestvennye Zapiski almost all of his works created before the Hunter's Notes, published since 1847 in Sovremennik. From the beginning of the 1840s, Nekrasov collaborated in the journal. In addition to several stories ("An Unusual Breakfast", "An Experienced Woman") and poems ("A Modern Ode", "The Gardener"), he owned significant amount sharp anonymous reviews that Belinsky liked.
Dostoevsky, who made his debut in literature with the novel "Poor People", published in Nekrasov's "Petersburg Collection" (1846), placed almost all of his subsequent works of the forties in "Notes of the Fatherland": "Double", "Mr. Prokharchin", "White Nights", "Netochka Nezvanova" and others. Under difficult censorship conditions, Otechestvennye Zapiski fought against serfdom and all its manifestations in the political system, ideology and everyday life. The magazine stood up for enlightenment and freedom, for progressive forms of economic, political and cultural life of the country, for the comprehensive development of Russia, defended the interests of the masses.
The literary struggle reached a sharp aggravation in the 1960s. which unfolded between peasant democrats headed by Chernyshevsky, on the one hand, and liberal and conservative writers, on the other. The arena of this struggle was, in particular, the magazine Sovremennik. The Sovremennik magazine was created by Pushkin and Sovremennik began to appear in 1836, a year before his death. For one year the magazine was published by a group of people close to the poet; in 1838 Professor P. A. Pletnev, rector of St. Petersburg University, became its editor. The magazine stood outside the literary groupings, was pale and inconspicuous. In 1847, the journal was rented by Panaev and Nekrasov, who managed to group all the best literary forces of that time around it: Belinsky led the critical department, Herzen, Ogaryov, Turgenev Grigorovich, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Fet and others collaborated in the journal. However, death Belinsky and rampant reaction, which began in connection with the growth of the revolutionary movement in the West (in 4848) and in Russia, lowered the social level of the journal.
But it was getting closer new time, voice sounded louder
"new people" - revolutionary democrats, and soon two of their brilliant representatives, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, entered the editorial office of Sovremennik and made the journal a revolutionary platform, an instrument of struggle to overthrow all the old authorities. The success of the magazine increased with each new book. “Our magazine is doing great ... I think that Sovremennik owes a lot to Chernyshevsky in this,” Nekrasov wrote. Grigorovich, Druzhinin, supporters of slow and gradual reforms, were alien to the “muzhik democratism” of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, supporters of the peasant revolution. This aggravation of disagreements reflected the sharp division of class forces that emerged in society on the eve of "liberation". Chernyshevsky in a number of articles proved the class character of the reform being prepared, defended the interests of the working peasantry; Dobrolyubov did the same.
By 1866 Sovremennik received there have already been two warnings about the closure, of which the second was the result of Nekrasov’s poem published in the journal “ Railway". The censor found in this most truthful poem "a terrible slander that cannot be read without a shudder." The direction of the journal was determined by censorship as follows: "Opposition to the government, extreme political and moral opinions, social democratic aspirations, and finally, religious denials and materialism."
April 4, 1866 Karakozov made an attempt on Alexander II. To combat the "sedition" from Vilna, General Muravyov was summoned and given dictatorial powers, for the brutal suppression of the Polish uprising, he received the nickname "Hangman". All progressive writers lived in an anxious daily, hourly expectation of a search and arrest. Eliseev, an employee of Sovremennik, colorfully spoke about this time: “Those who did not live then in St. Petersburg and did not belong to literary circles ... cannot imagine the panic that took place here. Any writer who did not belong to the direction of Katkov'.,. considered himself a doomed victim and was sure that he would certainly, just because he was a writer, be arrested ... The employees of Sovremennik, which Katkov looked at as a hotbed and a den of all kinds of harmful teachings, were all the more sure of the inevitability of such a fate for themselves " .
It became clear that the days of Sovremennik were numbered.. Nekrasov, like most of the leading writers, experienced a state of extreme anxiety. How Chief Editor"Sovremennik" N. A. Nekrasov, who gave the journal twenty years of his life, made various attempts to preserve the organ of advanced social thought. However, nothing helped. In June 1866 Sovremennik was again closed, this time for good. At the same time, another leading magazine, Russkoye Slovo, was banned, the main employee of which was D. I. Pisarev, who had been languishing in the Peter and Paul Fortress for the fourth year.
"Russian word"- a magazine close to Sovremennik, Russkoye Slovo, was founded in 1859. Pisarev's talented articles brought the magazine wide popularity among democratic readers and the hatred of reactionaries. The "Russian word", according to Shelgunov, a democratic figure of the 60s, was the other side of the coin, the first side of which was represented by Sovremennik. The Russian Word was, as it were, an addition to Sovremennik. The disagreements that sometimes arose between these journals reflected the differences within one, although not a single, democratic camp. Russkoe Slovo shared the fate of Sovremennik to the end: in 1866 both journals were banned forever. All of Pisarev's best articles were published in the Russian Word, and when this journal was banned, Pisarev switched to Nekrasov's Domestic Notes.
Sharply hostile to Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo» The position was occupied by the magazines Library for Reading and Russky Vestnik. The critic of the Library for Reading, A. Druzhinin, came up with a program of "pure art" that is not connected with real life. He argued that art should abandon the depiction of reality and remain alien to all sorts of socio-political issues. “The poet,” wrote Druzhinin, “lives in the midst of his sublime world and descends to earth, as the Olympians once descended to it, firmly remembering that he has his own home on the high Olympus.”
Druzhinin's views could not and did not have success with wide circles of society in the 60s. The best part of the Russian intelligentsia followed Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov and agreed with Nekrasov, who spoke; “There is no science for science, there is no art for art - they all exist for society, for the ennoblement and elevation of man ...”
The poets who shared the theories of Druzhinin: Fet, Maikov and others were not popular among the advanced part of Russian society. The poetic leader of the generation was Nekrasov, followed by a large group of talented democratic poets: M. L. Mikhailov, A. N. Pleshcheev, V. S. Kurochkin, D. D. Minaev and others. Especially hostile to Sovremennik"The position was occupied by Katkov's magazine" Russian Bulletin "(published since 1856). At the beginning of the second half of the 50s, when the struggle between the peasant democrats and supporters of the government had not yet reached extreme sharpness, Katkov occupied liberal positions (in his journal in 1856-1857, for example, "Provincial essays" by Saltykov-Shchedrin were published) , but soon after the “liberation”, “during the first democratic upsurge in Russia (the beginning of the 60s of the XIX century), he turned towards nationalism, chauvinism and the rabid Black Hundreds” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 18, p. 250). Katkov poisoned Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Pisarev day after day, slandered the revolutionary youth and called on the government to brutally punish them. Russky Vestnik was a center of attraction for many liberal and conservative writers. Supported by the government, Katkov's magazine became a kind of "black album" of the reaction. .
"Domestic notes" Kraevsky - Russian literary magazine XIX century, which had a significant impact on the movement of literary life and the development of social thought in Russia; published in St. Petersburg in 1818-1884 (with interruptions). The journal was founded by the historian and writer P. P. Svinin in 1818 and was filled with articles on the topics of the history, geography, life and customs of Russia. In the early 1820s, the journalist, writer, historian N. A. Polevoy took part in the journal. Published until 1831; in 1838 it was renewed by Svinin and from January 1839 it was transferred to A. A. Kraevsky.
The publisher-editor of the journal Kraevsky transformed Otechestvennye Zapiski into a large-volume monthly scientific, literary and political journal (up to 40 printed sheets). Each issue contained the sections "Modern Chronicle of Russia", "Science", "Literature", "Arts", "Housekeeping, Agriculture and Industry in General”, “Criticism”, “Modern Bibliographic Chronicle”, “Mixture”.
Writers of different trends and generations were involved in the journal - V. A. Zhukovsky, V. F. Odoevsky, historians M. P. Pogodin. Belinsky attracted his friends and associates V. P. Botkin, Bakunin, later in " Otechestvennye zapiski” was attended by N. P. Ogaryov, A. I. Herzen, N. A. Nekrasov, and I. S. Turgenev. Zhukovsky, Vyazemsky gradually left the magazine.
The journal fought against Bulgarin and Grech's "Northern Bee" and Senkovsky's "Library for Reading", Pogodin's and Shevyryov's "Moskvityanin" and Slavophiles. For material reasons (Kraevsky paid low for Belinsky's work, while at the same time demanding to write abundantly on a wide variety of topics) and ideological nature, Belinsky stopped working in the magazine from April 1846 and from January 1847 became a critic of the Sovremennik magazine Nekrasov and Panaev. Herzen also moved to Sovremennik. The departure of some of the staff affected the position and reputation of the magazine, which remained a publication of a liberal-Western orientation, but gradually lost its popularity. The publisher-editor of the journal in 1860-1866, together with Kraevsky, was S. S. Dudyshkin. In 1866-1867, the historian and publicist N. Ya. Aristov participated in the journal. In 1868, Kraevsky gave the journal to N. A. Nekrasov.
Under an agreement with Kraevsky, he remained the official editor of the journal and retained some property rights, but from 1868 N. A. Nekrasov became the actual director. To the leadership of the magazine Nekrasov, leaving behind general leadership magazine and department of poetry, attracted M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (fiction) and G. Z. Eliseev (publicism). After the death of Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin became the head of the Notes of the Fatherland, N.K. Mikhailovsky became the co-editor. The magazine, partly continuing the revolutionary-democratic line of Sovremennik, was populist in nature. The circulation of the magazine grew from two to six to eight thousand copies and regained influence.
In April 1884, the journal was closed by personal order of the chief censor of Russia, head of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs, Yevgeny Feoktistov, in the recent past - an employee of the journal.
Published Russian and foreign literature.
"Contemporary" - Russian magazine published in 1836-1866. Literary and socio-political magazine founded by A. S. Pushkin. It was published in St. Petersburg since 1836 4 times a year. The magazine published the works of Nikolai Gogol (“Carriage”, “Morning of a Businessman”, “Nose”), Alexander Turgenev, V. A. Zhukovsky, P. A. Vyazemsky, V. F. Odoevsky, D. V. Davydov, N M. Yazykov, E. A. Baratynsky, F. I. Tyutchev, A. V. Koltsov. The first issue contained the article "On Rhyme" by E. F. Rosen. He published poetry, prose, critical, historical, ethnographic and other materials. The journal did not have reader success: a new type of serious periodical dedicated topical issues, interpreted by necessity as hints, the Russian public had yet to get used to. The magazine ended up with only 600 subscribers, which made it ruinous for the publisher, since neither printing costs nor staff fees were covered. The last two volumes of Sovremennik are more than half filled by Pushkin with his works, mostly anonymous. The magazine published his "Feast of Peter I", "From A. Chenier", "The Miserly Knight", "Journey to Arzerum", "The Genealogy of My Hero", "Shoemaker", "Roslavlev", "John Tenner", "Captain's daughter". After the death of Pushkin, the magazine was continued during 1837 by a group of writers headed by P. A. Vyazemsky, then P. A. Pletnev (1837-1846). S. A. Zakrevskaya made her debut in the journal (1837, v. 8). In 1838-1847 articles, stories, novels, and translations by F. F. Korf were published in the journal. Since 1843, the magazine began to appear monthly. The magazine has fallen into disrepair. P. A. Pletnev in September 1846 sold it to N. A. Nekrasov and I. I. Panaev.
Literary and socio-political monthly magazine; came out from January 1, 1847. In 1847-1848 A. V. Nikitenko was the official editor. The program of the journal was determined by the articles of its ideological leader V. G. Belinsky. Nekrasov attracted I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov (“Ordinary History”), A. I. Herzen (“Who is to blame?”, “The Thieving Magpie”, “Notes of Dr. Krupov”), N P. Ogaryova, A. V. Druzhinina ("Polinka Sachs"). The journal published works by L. N. Tolstoy, articles by T. N. Granovsky, S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin. The magazine published translations of works by C. Dickens, George Sand, Thackeray and other Western European writers.
Since 1853, N. G. Chernyshevsky, along with Nekrasov, became the head of the journal, and from 1856, N. A. Dobrolyubov. From 1858, the journal engaged in sharp polemics with liberal and conservative journalism and became the ideological center and tribune of the revolutionary-democratic trend in Russian social thought. This led to a split in the editorial office: Tolstoy, Turgenev, D. V. Grigorovich left it.
In June 1862 the magazine was suspended for 8 months. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (until 1864), M. A. Antonovich, G. Z. Eliseev, and A. N. Pypin joined the editorial board of the journal, which was resumed by Nekrasov in early 1863. The journal published works by Saltykov-Shchedrin, V. A. Sleptsov, F. M. Reshetnikov, G. I. Uspensky. In June 1866 the magazine was closed.
93. The emergence and development of the press of Udmurtia at the beginning of the 20th century. (leaflets, calendars, newspapers)
Materials about our region, most of which belonged to the Vyatka province, systematically appeared in periodicals. publications, printing in Vyatka, incl. "Vyatskiye Provincial Gazette" - VGV (1838-1917), "Vyatskaya Gazeta" (1894-1907), "Vyatka Territory" (1895-98), "Vyatka Life" (1905-06). By the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. with the development of industry and trade, merchant Sarapul, as well as Yelabuga and worker Izhevsk, already surpassed many county and provincial centers in terms of population and influence, and therefore could not do without their information body. In Jan. 1895 Ch. Department of Press Min-va ext. affairs Ros. empire allowed the publication of gas. in Sarapul. On May 4, 1897, the first issue of the Sarapul List of Announcements was published. In 1906, Sarapul began to publish daily. social-politic., lit., commercial. gas. "Prikama region". In Yelabuga, the Kama Leaflet of Announcements was published (1897–1904). In 1904, the first homer of the Izhevsk telegrams was published, and 10 years later, gas. "Announcements of Izhevsk".
In the wake of the first Russian revolution, gas arose. "Izhevsk Worker", "Worksheet", "News of the Kama Worker". In 1905–07, local committees of the RSDLP published their publications: in Votkinsk - "Bulletin", in Izhevsk - "Worksheet", in Glazov - "First Ray". The Izhevsk Cadets, led by the gun manufacturer V.I. Petrov, were emitting gas. "People's Freedom". After Oct. rev-tion began to take shape owls. press. 7(20) sept. 1917 for money, coll. workers of Izhevsk, published "News of the Izhevsk Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies". The publication was interrupted in Aug. 1918 during the counter-rev. rebellion. In 1918, Izvestia of the Glazov Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies was published in Glazov. However, during the days of the 1918 rebellion in Izhevsk, according to EF. Shumilov, there were five newspapers carrying out anti-Soviet propaganda. Among them - "Izhevsk Defender", "People's Power". There were also anti-Soviet ones - "Votkinskaya Zhizn", Sarapul gas. "Worker". At the same time, on the other side of the front, the Bolsheviks were emitting gas. "New way". At the headquarters of the Azin division, gas was released. "Struggle".
The annual calendars of I. Mikheev are considered the beginning of the Udmurt national periodical press. (4 editions for 1905-1910). In 1915, in the city of Vyatka, the first UDM came out. yaz gas. “Voynais Ivor” (“News from the War”), which was published by c. missionaries in ch. with P. Glezdenev. During the years of the Civil wars came out udm. gas. "Gord Gyrly" ("Red Bell"), "Syurlo" ("Sickle"). From 15 Aug. 1917 in Vyatka Vyatka Province. the land emitted gas. "Udmort", which since Jan. 1918 she became the body of the Udm. sections of national minorities Glazovsky district. executive committee. The publication was discontinued in 1919. In 1918, the newspaper Vil Sin (New Look) was published in Yelabuga. Means. an event in the formation of the Udm. periodic press was the publication of the gas. "Gudyri" ("Thunder"), the first issue of which was published on 31 October. 1918 as an organ of the Udm. sections national minorities Yelabuga district. executive committee. From Jan. 1920 she became the organ of the Udm. commissariat in the city of Sarapul, from July 26, 1921 to 1930, it was published first in Glasvoi, then in Izhevsk as an organ of the Votsky OK RCP (b) and the regional executive committee. For the northern Udmurts, since 1927, gas came out in Glazov. "Vyl gurt" ("New village") - as an organ of the Udmurt regional committee of the CPSU (b). In 1930 it was renamed Lenin Sures (Lenin's Way). Among its authors were I.Kalinin, A.Nagovitsyn (Ochko Sanko), K.Gerd, Kedra Mitrey and other well-known figures.
After the suppression of the Izhevsk-Votkinsk rebellion, December 4 came out. 1918 first number gas. "Izhevskaya Pravda". To cover the life of the village, Izhevskaya Pravda published a weekly. the appendix "Voice of the Peasant", the first issue of which was released on November 3. 1924 (later "New Village", from November 1930 - "Kolkhoznaya Pravda"). In accordance with the post. Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the Rural District and Grassroots Press” (January 18, 1931) and the creation of the district. newspapers, the publication of the supplement was discontinued, and Izhevskaya Pravda itself in 1937 would be renamed Udmurtskaya Pravda.
Printing for children and youth is born. 11 Sept. 1921 the first issue of gas came out. "Young metalworker", organ of the region. and Izhevsk district. kit RKSM shooting range. 1500 copies In con. sept. 1921 began to publish Koms. gas. "Egit fool" ("Young blacksmith") in Udm. lang. Both gas. Came out once every 2 weeks. Due to the lack of wed-in gas. "Egit fool" was soon closed. Following. year on several the rooms went out of gas. "For change", "Lenin's change".
In the 1920s on the initiative of K. Gerd, attempts are being made to publish children's magazines in the UDM. lang. “Mush” (“Bee”, 1920, 3 numbers), “Pichi Demenchi” (“Young Collectivist”, 1930-31, 10 numbers), “Kuzili” (“Ant”, 1927 - No. 1, 1928 - No. 1, 2). Gas has been produced since 1931. "Egit Bolshevik" ("Young Bolshevik"). For young readers in 1930 began to appear on the udm. lang. gas. "Give lu!" ("Be ready!").
There was also a specialized press. According to the theater expert V.V. Lozhkin, in 1928 the Actor and the Spectator, the weekly magazine of the Theater. M. Gorky, who was based in the Summer Theater (the territory of the modern city garden named after M. Gorky). At the turn of the 1920s and 30s, Zh. for the party activists "For Study" and "Activist". The fortnightly journal Aktivist of the Udmurt OK VKP(b) was published in 1928–30 in Izhevsk. Addressed to the party activists of the city and the countryside, he covered the questions of the party. construction (circulation in 1930 - 3 thousand copies).
By the beginning of the 1930s, a party-Soviet press was taking shape with a system of republican, regional newspapers, which were organs of party committees and Soviets of Working People's Deputies. In 1932, 24 newspapers were published, incl. 14 per udm. lang., in 1935 - 42 newspapers: 6 republics, 28 districts, 8 factory-managers, incl. 23 at udm. lang. General one-time shooting range. 90 thousand copies, in the Udm. 50 thousand copies
A split in the editorial board of Sovremennik was becoming inevitable. The last reason for it was the article written by Dobrolyubov in 1860 “When will the real day come?” (about Turgenev's novel "On the Eve"). In this article, Dobrolyubov predicted the imminent appearance of the Russian Insarovs, who would fight for the liberation of Russia, against all the oppressors of the people. Turgenev got acquainted with Dobrolyubov's article before it appeared in print and demanded that Nekrasov not publish this article. He gave Nekrasov an ultimatum: "Choose - me or Dobrolyubov." Nekrasov was put in an extremely difficult position: he had an almost twenty-year friendship with Turgenev, in addition, with the departure of Turgenev from the Sovremennik magazine, he lost a talented writer. However, ideological considerations prevailed.
Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were ideological and moral teachers for Nekrasov. The poet of "revenge and sorrow" decisively took the side of Dobrolyubov. His article, albeit with large censorship cuts, appeared in the journal, made a huge impression, and the gap became a fait accompli. Even earlier, the critic and prose writer A. V. Druzhinin, who was sharply hostile to Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, as well as L. Tolstoy, I. Goncharov and D. Grigorovich, who were alien to the revolutionary positions of Sovremennik, and supporters of “art for art’s sake” left the magazine. » poets A. Fet and A. Maikov.
The role of "Sovremennik" in the then public life was enormous. Each book of the magazine became an event. The fiery articles of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov and the poems of Nekrasov brought up "unbridled, wild enmity towards the oppressors", called for struggle and revolution. The government was frightened by the revolutionary sermon that sounded from the pages of the magazine. The head of the gendarme corps, Timashev, told Panaev: "I give the deputy advice - to clear my magazine of such employees as Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, and their entire gang." “Destroy Chernyshevsky with his brothers and Sovremennik. This is a dangerous enemy, more dangerous than Herzen,” wrote an anonymous scammer to the security department.
Censorship persecution intensified to an unprecedented degree. In November 1861, Sovremennik "suffered an irreplaceable loss: Dobrolyubov died. In the same year, the talented poet and translator M. L. Mikhailov was arrested and then sentenced to hard labor in Siberia, close friend Chernyshevsky; soon another employee of Sovremennik, V. A. Obruchev, was also exiled to hard labor; the young poet Goltz-Miller, previously published in the magazine, languished in prison. The ranks of Sovremennik's employees were thinning out every day, but those who remained continued to work with all the greater passion.
Then the government switched to the path of direct reprisal against the recalcitrant magazine: on June 15, 1862, Sovremennik was closed for eight months, and three weeks later he was arrested, imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and then exiled to Siberia, the ideological leader and inspirer of the magazine N. G. Chernyshevsky.
The forced silence of Sovremennik lasted eight months, but when the first (double) issue of the journal appeared in 1863, the reading public was convinced that Sovremennik remained true to the great traditions of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Pomyalovsky, Reshetnikov, Nikolai Uspensky, critics and publicists Antonovich and Eliseev, Pleshcheev unanimously continued the fight against reaction, skillfully bypassing censorship obstacles. Especially great was the significance of the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin, who castigated in his articles all the ugliness of public life in Russia at that time. Taking advantage of the oversight of censorship, which did not see the socialist orientation of Chernyshevsky's novel What Is to Be Done?, Nekrasov placed this work of his imprisoned friend and teacher in the magazine. The novel was an unheard-of success among progressive youth and provoked belated vicious attacks from the reactionary press.
Censorship persecution did not weaken, and only Nekrasov's inhuman efforts can explain the fact that the magazine lasted another three and a half years. By 1866, Sovremennik had already received two warnings about closing, of which the second was the result of Nekrasov's poem "Railway" placed in the magazine. The censor found in this poem "terrible slander that cannot be read without a shudder."
April 4, 1866 Karakozov made an attempt on Alexander II. For the fight against "sedition" from Vilna, General Muravyov was called and received dictatorial powers, for the brutal suppression of the Polish uprising, he received the nickname "Hangman". All progressive writers lived in an anxious daily, hourly expectation of a search and arrest. Eliseev, an employee of Sovremennik, colorfully spoke about this time: “Those who did not live then in St. Petersburg and did not belong to literary circles ... cannot imagine the panic that took place here. Every writer who did not belong to Katkov's trend ... considered himself a doomed victim and was sure that he would certainly be arrested, just because he was a writer ... Employees of Sovremennik, which Katkov looked at as a hearth and pernicious teachings, all the more so were they killed "(renes in the inevitability of such a fate for themselves"; It became clear that the days of "Sovremennik" were numbered. Nekrasov, like most of the leading writers, experienced a state of extreme anxiety. As the editor-in-chief of "Sovremennik" N. A. Nekrasov, who gave the journal twenty years of his life, made various attempts to preserve the organ of advanced social thought. However, nothing helped. In June 1866, Sovremennik was again closed, and this time for good. At the same time, another advanced magazine-Russian Word, whose eye collaborator was D. I. Pisarev, who languished in the Peter and Paul Fortress for the fourth year. the opposite side of the coin, the first side of which was represented by Sovremennik. The Russian Word was, as it were, an addition to Sovremennik. The disagreements that sometimes arose between these journals reflected the differences within one, although not a single, democratic camp. Russkoe Slovo shared the fate of Sovremennik to the end: in 1866 both journals were banned forever.
All of Pisarev's best articles were published in Russkoye Slovo, and when that journal was banned, Pisarev switched to Otechestvennye Zapiski. Druzhinin's views could not and did not have success among wide circles of society in the 60s. The best part of the Russian intelligentsia followed * Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov and agreed with Nekrasov, who said: “There is no science for science, there is no art for art - they all exist to ennoble and elevate a person ...” Poets who shared the theories of Druzhinin: Fet, Maikov and others were not popular among the advanced part of Russian society. The poetic leader of the generation was Nekrasov, followed by a large group of talented poets: M. L. Mikhailov. A. N. Pleshcheev, V. S. Kurochkin. D. D. Minaev and others. A particularly hostile position to Sovremennik was taken by Katkoz's journal Russkiy Vestnik (published since 1856).
Russky Vestnik was a center of attraction for many liberal and conservative writers. Supported by the government, Katkov's magazine became a kind of "black headquarters" of the reaction.
Need to download an essay? Click and save - "The role of" Sovremennik "in the then public life. And the finished essay appeared in the bookmarks.