Saltykov-Shchedrin was exiled to Vyatka for the story “A Confused Affair.” Russian literary critic, literary historian, poet

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select job type Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem Solving Business Plan Answers to Questions Creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text PhD thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

IN national history The 1840s entered as “the era of excited mental interests” (A. I. Herzen), a period of amazing rise of philosophical, social and literary critical thought. The formulation and solution of all socio-political, philosophical, historical and aesthetic issues in this “wonderful decade” (P. V. Annenkov) were determined by the confrontation between two trends of Russian social thought that formed at the turn of the 1830s and 1840s - Westernism and Slavophilism. At the heart of the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles lay the vital important question about Russia’s place in the historical process, the connection of its cultural and historical past with the present and future, its possible contribution to world history. The assessment of certain phenomena also depended on the answer to it. literary history and modernity.

WESTERNS(V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, T.N. Granovsky, 1C D. Kavelin, V.P. Botkin, 11 V. Annenkov and others) - defended the need for Russia’s historical movement along the European path, put forward the foreground idea of ​​freedom and self-worth of the human personality emphasized the exhaustion of those principles that formed the basis of ancient Russian life. The keynote speeches of Westerners were public lectures by T.N. Granovsky, articles by Belnisky that appeared in "Domestic Notes" for 1841 and later received the general title “Russia before Peter the Great”, and K. D. Kavelin’s work “A Look at the Legal Life of Ancient Russia”, published in the first issue of Nekrasov’s Sovremennik.

SLAVICOPHILES(A.S. Khomyakov. I.V. and P.V. Kireevskys, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin, D.A. Valuev, etc.) - published their articles on the pages “Moskvityanin”, “Moscow literary and scientific collections”, “Russian conversation”, opposed the transfer of schemes to the history of Russia European history. Justifying the “Russia-Europe” opposition, they emphasized that Europe arose as a result of the conquest of some peoples by others, and Russia - peacefully; In the West, rational Catholicism took hold; in Russia, an integral Christian faith; In European life, the individualistic principle predominates, and in Russian life, the communal principle predominates. The main task The Slavophiles saw the challenge facing the Russian nation as building life on communal and truly Christian principles and thereby embarking on the path to true unity - “conciliarity”.

Despite heated disputes among themselves, Westerners and Slavophiles were allies in a common desire to transform Russian life. Both of them criticized the Nikolaev regime, demanded the abolition of serfdom, and defended freedom of conscience, speech, and press. The later recognition of A. I. Herzen is characteristic: “... we were their opponents, but very strange... They and you fell in love with early years one strong, unaccountable... feeling of boundless, all-existence love for the Russian people, Russian way of life, for the Russian mentality. And we are like Janus or what double headed eagle, looked in different directions, while the heart beat alone.”

The platform for social and aesthetic debates in the 40s, as in the previous decade, remained Russian journalism, which had undergone major changes. A “magazine period” is beginning in the history of Russian literature. Responding to the weight of the most significant phenomena of the intellectual life of Russia and Europe, absorbing all domestic and translated fiction (Otechestvennye zapiski, Sovremennik, Moskvityanin, etc.) “turned into an extremely important factor in the socio-political and cultural movement and became the centers of the country’s ideological life.”

The growing influence of the journals Belinsky and Gsrtsen was approvingly assessed. According to Herzen, they “have disseminated in the last twenty-five years a huge amount of knowledge, concepts, ideas. They gave residents of the Omsk or Tobolsk provinces the opportunity to read the novels of Dickens or George Sand. two months after their appearance in London or Paris."

Publishers and editors of magazines sought to impart ideological unity to all materials published here: journalistic, critical, artistic and scientific. Even more important place Literary criticism took a more prominent place in them than before. In the journals of this time, as N. G. Chernyshevsky rightly noted, “aesthetic issues were...primarily only a battlefield, and the subject of the struggle was the influence on mental life in general.” The concept “ literary direction”, which Polevoy actively defended back in the 1830s. Journal polemics on various issues flared up with renewed vigor, attracting the attention of reading and thinking Russia.

In the 1840s, the types of periodicals became more varied than before. Along with literary monthlies, the theater magazine “Repertoire and Pantheon” by F. A. Koni and the weekly illustrated magazine “Illustration” by N. Kukolnik are published, designed for a wide audience. The importance of newspapers is growing: in a number of cities the publication of the Gubernskiye Gazette has become established. Entrepreneurial relationships are increasingly penetrating the publishing industry, and the number of professional journalists and writers. Next to the reader from the nobility, a new democratic reader appears from among the bureaucrats, merchants and clergy.

The central place in journalism of the 1840s was occupied by "Domestic Notes", which in 1839 passed into the hands of A. A. Kraevsky, who was close to literary circles. Trying to resist the magazine monologue of F. Bulgarin. N. Grech and O. Senkovsky, A. A. Krasvsky attracted to the publication talented writers different directions. Among the employees of Otechestvennye Zapiski were writers from Pushkin’s circle (P. A. Vyazemsky, V.A. Zhukovsky, V. F. Odoevsky), who began creative path young writers (Lermontov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Panaev, etc.). The magazine, large in volume (up to 40 printed pages), included eight sections: “Modern Sprinkles” of Russia.” (Science”, “Literature”, “Arts”, “Home Economics, Agriculture and Industry in General”, “Criticism”, “Modern Bibliographic Chronicle”, “Mixture”. The direction of the magazine was determined by Belinsky, who, after moving to St. Petersburg, headed the critical-bibliographic department of the magazine, and his friends - Botkin, Katkov, Granovsky, Ketcher, Kudryavtsev. Soon, close critics Herzen, Ogarev and Nekrasov began to collaborate in Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Having become the organizational center of Westerners, the magazine “Otech. Notes" actively advocated the Europeanization of Russian life, introduced readers to the highest achievements of European scientific and artistic thought. Foaming in Otechestvennye Zapiski best works Russian literature created in the late 1830s and 1840s: poems by Lermontov and individual parts of “Gsroy of our time”, “songs” and “thoughts” by Koltsov, works by Herzen, early works of Turgenev, stories and poems by Nekrasov, stories by Dostoevsky and Saltykov- Shchedrin In addition to the mentioned writers, D.V. Grigorovich, V.I. Dal, V.A. Sollogub, G.F. Kvitka-Osnovyanenko, A.A. Fet and many others published in the literature department. Translated fiction was represented by the works of J. Side, Dickens, and F. Cooper. G Heine.

At the end of the 1840s, the leading position in Russian journalism was taken by "Contemporary" Published after the death of Pushkin by P. A. Pletnev and not attracting long years active readership, this magazine passed into the hands of N.A., Nekrasov and I.I. in 1847. Panaev and acquired, thanks to the participation of Belinsky and Herzen, a radical orientation,

In order to counter advanced Russian journalism in the early 1840s ruling circles gave permission to publish two new publications - the magazines “Mayak” (edited by Burachok) and “Moskvityanin” (edited by Pogodin). "Mayak" furiously attacked German philosophy, pursued modern French literature and sought to instill a protective spirit in Russian literature, evaluating it exclusively from the standpoint of religiosity, “patriotism” and “nationality”. “The Moskvitian” - slanderous adjustments to advanced journalism and literature, angry invective against the West, mired in depravity, exhausted from “turns and destructions”, coexisted here with a deep assessment of the foundations of European and Russian enlightenment in the articles of I. Kireevsky, insightful, albeit one-sided judgments about Gogol’s work in the articles of K. Aksakov, with faith in the peasantry as the guardian and exponent of people’s beliefs and aspirations in the speeches of A.S. Khomyakov.

In connection with the growing disagreements among Westerners, a polemic began on a number of issues between Sovremennik and the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. However, the most fundamental line of confrontation lay in the 40s between Otechestvennye zapiski and Sovremennik as organs of a democratic direction, on the one hand, and Moskvityanin, on the other.

Critical articles and bibliographic notes "Domestic Notes" in possessed the unity of aesthetic, historical and ethical principles review of works. A large number of review articles in the magazine testified to the desire of critics to identify the main trends in historical and literary development. Belinsky, Galakhov, Botkin defended “the poetry of reality, inspired by the living national interest, the “humane subjectivity” of the artist, welcomed the movement of Russian literature along the path of realism. On the pages of the magazine, tendentious criticism began to take shape, criticism “about”, which would take a central place in the magazines of the next decade. In this regard, the recognition of A.D. Galakhov is characteristic: “...we were interested not so much in the content of the work being analyzed, but in the relationship of the content to the beliefs dear to us. We used the new work of a writer or scientist as an occasion to talk about what was the task of the magazine, what gave it color, corresponded to the essence of its program.”

In general, the criticism of the late 1840s and early 1850s, reminiscent of the “calm before the storm,” reflects the concentrated expectations of the literary community associated with changes in political life.

The collection includes the best poems of a number of talented poets of the 1840–1850s, whose work is not represented in other issues of the second edition of the Great Series of the "Poet's Library": E. P. Rostopchina, E. I. Guber, E. P. Grebenka, E. . L. Milkeeva, Yu. V. Zhadovskaya, F. A. Koni, P. A. Fedotov, M. A. Stakhovich, etc. Some works of these poets are published for the first time.

The collection includes the sharply satirical poem by P. A. Fedotov “Amendment of Circumstances, or the Marriage of a Major” - a kind of commentary on his famous painting “The Major’s Matchmaking.” The collection included poems by the once popular poetess E.P. Rostopchina, dedicated to Pushkin and Lermontov, with whom she was well acquainted. The easily written, lively, witty couplets from F. A. Koni’s vaudevilles and the parodies of “The New Poet” (I. I. Panaeva) are interesting.

Many of the poems included in this collection were set to music by Russian composers.

RUSSIAN POETRY OF THE 1840–1850S - Introductory article 1

POEMS 15

NOTES 74

Notes 92

Poets of the 1840s–1850s

RUSSIAN POETRY OF THE 1840–1850S
Introductory article

The time about which we'll talk in this article, does not belong to the brightest periods in the history of Russian poetry. This is like an intermediate stage between the era of Pushkin and Lermontov and the era of Nekrasov. The formation of Nekrasov is the most significant phenomenon in the poetry of this time; but Nekrasov in those years was still just approaching his great achievements.

This period covers the time from the early 1840s to the mid-1850s. The second half of the 50s is usually included in the period conventionally called the “60s”. In the mid-50s, ideological groups were redistributed, a new generation of commoner writers began to gain hegemony, after the death of Nicholas I and the lost war, a new, liberal reformist course of the new government was announced, censorship noticeably improved (after the brutal reaction of the “dashing seven years”) conditions. The general tone of literature and the nature of literary life are changing. A new period in the history of Russian literature begins.

The 40s and the first half of the 50s are the end of the noble stage of Russian literature, a time, in essence, transitional to the bourgeois-democratic, raznochinsky stage. "The predecessor of the complete displacement of the nobles by commoners in our liberation movement V. G. Belinsky was still under serfdom,” writes V. I. Lenin. In the 40s, Belinsky, having sharply turned from “reconciliation with reality” to the ideas of socialism, developed the foundations of a revolutionary democratic ideology and led - within the censorship possibilities of that time - the propaganda of materialism. Young anti-serfdom and democratic writers rallied around Belinsky, and a “natural school” was formed - the seed of critical realism of the second half of the century.

The 40s and early 50s were the time when almost all the major writers of the second century entered the historical stage. half of the 19th century century. At this time, Herzen, Turgenev, Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, Goncharov, Saltykov, Pisemsky, Ostrovsky, Leo Tolstoy appeared in literature.

The new period was marked not only by the emergence of a new generation of writers, who were destined to have a long hegemony in the literature of the second half of the 19th century, but also by the departure from the historical scene of writers of previous generations. The "Natural School" was formed under the strong influence of Gogol, but Gogol himself, having created the entire range of his brilliant works during the 30s, essentially completed his creative path in 1842 with the release of his collected works and the first volume " Dead souls"After 1842, Gogol created nothing, having spent ten years in vain attempts to continue Dead Souls. The minor fiction writers of the 30s - Zagoskin, Lazhechnikov, Veltman, V. Odoevsky and others - stopped writing in the 40s or faded into the shadows and began to be perceived as outdated and archaic; for advanced readers, it became obvious that literature was being created by young writers united under the banner of the “natural school.”

In poetry, the change of generations turned out to be even more dramatic than in prose.

Usually in literature several generations work simultaneously. Thus, in the 1810s Derzhavin, Karamzin, Zhukovsky and Pushkin wrote. Not so in the 40s. By this time, as if suffocated in the atmosphere of Nicholas's reign, all the poets who emerged in previous decades had disappeared, with the exception of Zhukovsky, who in the 40s was considered the “patriarch” of poetry and the patron of young poetic talents. But during these years he himself was only engaged in translations (mainly of the Odyssey), and wrote several fairy tales in imitation of Pushkin’s.

The 40s are the time when Pushkin’s generation should have reached the full flowering of their creative powers. After all, Pushkin’s peers were about forty years old by the beginning of the 40s. But the poets of this generation did not survive their youth. Even before Pushkin’s early death, Russian literature lost Ryleev, Venevitinov, Griboedov, Delvig, and immediately after Pushkin - Polezhaev, Odoevsky, Denis Davydov, Kozlov. In the early 40s, poems by Baratynsky and Yazykov still appeared in magazines and were published in separate collections, but these two poets also briefly outlived the rest of the representatives of the “Pushkin galaxy”: Baratynsky died in 1844, Yazykov in 1846.

The few surviving poets of Pushkin's generation fell silent by the 1940s - temporarily or forever. Tyutchev, in the 20s and 30s, cut off from Russian literary life, publishing his poems mainly in secondary publications and almost always without a full signature, was little known to readers and did not attract the attention of critics; in the 40s it was not published at all. Critical interest in Tyutchev, the systematic publication of his poems, and his fame began only in the 50s.

By the 40s, Katenin, V. Tumansky, Podolinsky completely fell silent. Only occasionally does Vyazemsky publish poetry.

The new literary generation, which emerged in the mid-30s, immediately put forward two major poets: Lermontov and Koltsov. But both of them died at the very beginning of the 40s: Lermontov in 1841, Koltsov in 1842.

Belinsky, in articles of 1838–1840, usually names, after Lermontov and Koltsov, two more poets of the same generation - V.I. Krasov and I.P. Klyushnikov (who published under the pseudonym -Ѳ-). Krasov and Klyushnikov are poets of Stankevich’s circle, who, together with Belinsky, experienced the mood of “reflection,” “discord with reality,” and “reconciliation with reality.” Breaking with “conciliatory” tendencies, Belinsky debunked both poets. By this time they themselves felt the exhaustion of their creative potential and, having abruptly stopped publishing their poems in the early 40s, apparently stopped or almost stopped writing them.

Benediktov, who made his debut with extraordinary success in the mid-30s, was declared a “poet of thought” and a rival of Pushkin, a poet who was highly appreciated by Zhukovsky, Vyazemsky, Tyutchev, Shevyrev, Pletnev, whom the young Turgenev, Fet, Apollo Grigoriev at first reveled in, lost popularity among artistically developed readers as quickly as he acquired it, which was especially facilitated by Belinsky’s articles, which revealed pomposity and posturing in Benediktov’s spectacular lines. From the mid-40s, Benediktov completely stopped publishing; he “resurrects” for a short time already in new era and in the new role of a liberal “civil” poet.

The poetic activity of other representatives of vulgar romanticism who thundered in the 30s also fades: N.V. Kukolnik, A.V. Timofeev, whom Senkovsky declared as Pushkin’s successor and the second Byron.

There were almost no poets left who began publishing before the 40s and actively continued their activities by the mid-40s. Zhukovsky, Vyazemsky, Khomyakov, Fyodor Glinka, Rostopchina, Guber, Koni - that’s all, except for the smallest ones. All these are poets who are clearly finishing their careers or, in any case, do not have a serious influence on the character, direction and fate of poetry.

In the early 40s, a new generation of poets emerged onto the empty stage. The largest of them, unlike their immediate predecessors, were destined to have a long career and a leading position in poetry for several decades.

In 1840, poems by Fet, Polonsky, Ogarev, and Mey first appeared in print. Somewhat earlier (in 1838-1839) the first poems of Nekrasov, Maykov, Turgenev, Shcherbina, Karolina Pavlova were published, and a little later (in 1843-1844) Apollo Grigoriev and Pleshcheev began to be published.

These new names belonged to young people who appeared in print almost with their first poetic experiments. These are mainly people born in the early 20s.

The new generation of poets, however, did not occupy a sufficiently prominent place in literary life during the 40s. The fame of its largest representatives is created in the 50s, and then in the new decades there are no poets who could relegate the representatives of the “galaxy of the 40s” to the background. "Civil Poetry" was headed by him until Nekrasov's death; “venerable” Maikov, Fet, Polonsky even in the 80s overshadowed new formation poets - adherents of "pure art".

• General characteristics of the period. The emergence of a new literary movement - the “natural school”. The role of fiction in the social life of Russia, the importance of literary criticism. Trade magazines in the 1840s.

Journalism of the Slavophiles in the 40s. “Sinbirsk collection” by D.A. Valuev and “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribe” (1845). Magazine "Moskvityanin", its historical concept. Article by S.P. Shevyrev “A look at the modern direction of Russian literature.” “Young editorial staff” of “Moskvityanin” (1850s), participation in the magazine A.N. Ostrovsky.

• Journalism of the period of the “dark seven years” (1848-1855): the creation of press committees, reprisals against Petrashevites, Herzen’s emigration, Belinsky’s death. Censorship persecution of periodicals. The politics of magazines during the period of the “dark seven years”.

Journalism of the 1840s. Basic literature: textbooks and teaching aids

• Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism (1703-1917). M., 2000.

• Esin B.I. History of Russian journalism of the 19th century. M., 2003.

• History of Russian journalism of the 18th-19th centuries. / Ed. prof. A.V. Zapadova. 3rd ed. M., 1973.

• History of Russian journalism of the 18th-19th centuries: Textbook / Ed. L.P. Thunderous. St. Petersburg, 2003.

• Essays on the history of Russian journalism and criticism: In 2 volumes. T.1. L., 1950.

Journalism of the 1840s. additional literature

• Annenkov P.V.. Literary Memoirs. M., 1983.

• Berezina V.G. Russian journalism of the second quarter of the 19th century (1840s). L., 1969.

• Voroshilov V.V. History of journalism in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1999.

• Esin B.I., Kuznetsov N.V. Three centuries of Moscow journalism. M., 1997.

• Ivlev D.D. History of Russian journalism of the 18th – early 20th centuries. M., 2004.

• Kuleshov V.I. Slavophiles and Russian literature. M., 1976.

• Lemke M. Nikolaev gendarmes and literature of 1826-1855. St. Petersburg, 1908.

• Lemke M. Essays on the history of Russian censorship and journalism of the 19th century (“The Age of Censorship Terror”). St. Petersburg, 1904.

• Panaev I.I. Literary Memoirs. M., 1950.

• Pirozhkova T.F.. Slavophile journalism. M., 1997.

• Chicherin B.N. Moscow in the forties. M., 1929.

Journalism of the 1840s. Lyrics

• Aksakov K.S. , Aksakov I.S. Literary criticism. M., 1981.

• Kireevsky I.V. Criticism and aesthetics. M., 1979.

Journalism of the 1840s. General characteristics of the period

Slavophiles

• Slavophilism is one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 19th century.

• The identity of Russia lies in the absence of class struggle

• in the Russian land community and artels,

• in Orthodoxy

• Negative attitude towards the revolution

• Monarchism

• Religious and philosophical concepts opposing the ideas of materialism.

• They opposed Russia’s assimilation of the forms and methods of Western European political life and order.

Westerners

• representatives of one of the directions of Russian social thought of the 40-50s. 19th century

• advocated the abolition of serfdom

• recognized the need for Russia to develop along the Western European path

Historical views of the Slavophiles

• Idealization of pre-Petrine Rus'

• Getting closer to the people

• Studying the history of the peasantry in Russia

• Collecting and preserving monuments of Russian culture and language:

• collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky,
• Dahl's Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language, etc.

In the 1840s, a sharp ideological struggle was waged in the literary salons of Moscow: A. A. and A. P. Elagin, D. N. and E. A. Sverbeev, N. F. and K. K. Pavlov.

• Avdotya Petrovna Elagina,

• niece and friend of V. A. Zhukovsky, mother of I. V.

• and P.P. Kireevskikh; one of the most educated

• women of her time, mistress of the famous

• literary salon

"Natural School"

• The term was first used by Bulgarin (“Northern Bee”) as a contemptuous nickname addressed to the literary youth of the 1840s.

• Rethought by Belinsky: “natural” is “a truthful image of reality.”

• Writers of the “natural school”:

• I.S. Turgenev

• A.I. Herzen

• ON THE. Nekrasov

• F.M. Dostoevsky

• I.A. Goncharov

• M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin

Distinctive features of the “natural school”

• deep interest in the lives of ordinary people

• a new hero - a native of the people's "lower classes"

• criticism of serfdom

• depictions of the city's social vices, the contradictions of poverty and wealth

• predominance of prose genres: novel, story, “physiological essay”

A.I. Herzen:

• “For a people deprived of public freedom, literature is the only platform from the height of which they make the cry of their indignation and their conscience heard.”

Literary controversies of the 1840s.

• Dispute about Lermontov

• Controversy around

• "Dead Souls"

• N.V. Gogol

• Controversy surrounding

• "natural school"

• "Lighthouse"

• "Library for Reading"

1840s: “the magazine period of Russian literature”

• Publishing is becoming a profitable business

• The editor's responsibilities are separate from those of the publisher.

• High fees are used to attract the right writers

• The number of professional journalists and writers is increasing: work in publications is becoming the only means of subsistence.

• Thick monthly magazines are the dominant type of publication and the ideological centers of the country's life.

"Son of the Fatherland" (1812-1852)

• changeover in editors. Involving Polevoy in editing the magazine:

• protection official ideology
• misunderstanding of new literary trends, defense of the aesthetic principles of romanticism
• as a consequence - a lack of reader interest and a drop in circulation.

"Russian Messenger" (1840-1844)

• Publishers - N.I. Grech, N.A. Polevoy, N.V. Puppeteer

• criticism of leading writers
• support for the “original Russian worldview.”
• Circulation – 500 copies, irregular publication.

"Library for Reading" (1834-1865)

• circulation drop from 5 to 3 thousand copies
• Brambeus's wit was inferior to Belinsky and Herzen
• rejection of the “natural school”, incorrect assessment of advanced literary phenomena

• “Gogol, as a fiction writer, is much lower than the Puppeteer”

• O.I. Senkovsky,

• 1852

Journalism of the Slavophiles in the 40s

• “Sinbirsk collection” by D.A. Valueva (1845)

• “Collection of historical and statistical information about Russia and the peoples of the same faith and tribe” (“Slavic”) (1845)

Magazine "Moskvityanin" (1841-1857)

• Publishers:

• Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin

• Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev

Two periods in the existence of the magazine

• 1) 1841-1851: the direction and composition of the closest employees remained almost unchanged

• 2) 1851-1856: the so-called “young editorial staff” begins to play a leading role in the magazine, and the appearance of “Moskvityanin” changes

Main sections of "Moskvityanin"

• "Spiritual Eloquence"

• "Fine Literature"

• "Science"

• “Materials for Russian history and the history of Russian literature”

• "Criticism and Bibliography"

• "Slavic News"

• “Mixture (Moscow Chronicle, Internal News, Fashion, etc.).”

Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev (1806 -1864)

• Russian literary critic, literary historian, poet

• 1835-37 - leading critic of the Moscow Observer

• since 1837 - professor at Moscow University

• From 1841 - together with M. P. Pogodin he headed the “Moskvityanin”

"Moskvityanin" was published

• "Moskvityanin" was published

• As best he can, of course!

• He's already used to it! - will get ready,

• He wanders into the printing house,

• It crawls towards the bookbinder,

• Then he’ll crawl into the shop!

• The reader waits and waits for him,

• Scold him and go home!

• And most respected publisher,

• However, my good friend,

• No matter how you say it, out of your hands!

• Dmitriev

“Young editorial staff” of “Moskvityanin” (1851-1853)

• "Young Editorial":

• A.N. Ostrovsky

• A.F. Pisemsky

• A. Grigoriev

• L.A. May

• E. N. Edelson

• T. Filippov and others

« Old trash and old rags trimmed all the shoots of life in the “Moskvityanin” of the 50s. You might write an article about modern literature - well, let's say, at least about lyric poets - and suddenly, to amazement and horror, you see that in it, along with the names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Koltsov, Khomyakov, Ogarev, Fet, Polonsky, Mey in the neighborhood the names of Countess Rostopchina, Mrs. Carolina Pavlova, Mr. M. Dmitriev, Mr. Fedorov... and oh the horror! - Avdotya Glinka! You see and don’t believe your eyes! It seems that I even read the last proofreading and layout - suddenly, as if by the wave of a magic wand, the named guests appeared in print!

• A. Grigoriev

"Moskvitian"

“Gloomy seven years” (1848 – 1855) in the history of Russia

• Police measures intensified, the provinces were flooded with troops.

• Universities reduced the number of students and banned philosophy.

• Inspection of the contents of magazines, establishment of the Buturlinsky Committee.

"Buturlinsky Committee", or "Committee of April 2"

• Standing Committee on Press Affairs with exclusive powers: orders of the committee were considered personal orders Nicholas I.

• The committee was silent. He did not replace, but controlled the censorship department.

Repression of writers and journalists

• Saltykov-Shchedrin- exiled to Vyatka for the story “A Confused Affair”

• In 1849, a reprisal against the Petrashevites was organized, a rite of civil execution of Dostoevsky

• Slavophile Samarin exiled to Simbirsk province

• Police supervision over Ostrovsky was established

• Ogarev and Satin were arrested

• Turgenev was exiled to his estate for Gogol's obituary

Journalism during the “dark seven years”

• A number of magazines have been discontinued

• Magazines have lost direction

• The principled controversy has ceased

• Significant events are not covered

• The idea of ​​"art for art's sake" is discussed

• The following appear in large numbers:

• historical and literary works
• feuilletons
• scientific publications.

The emergence of the Babis movement

Note 1

The signing of a number of unequal treaties by the Qajars with Russia, Great Britain, France, and Austria caused mass discontent in the country. The most noticeable manifestation of such discontent was the movement of the Babids - radical Shiites who founded a unique religious sect in the early 1840s.

Its founder was the hereditary cotton fabric merchant Ali Muhammad Shirazi. In 1844 he called himself Bab - that is, the “Gate” through which the “hidden” 12th Imam conveys his will to people, and in 1847 he proclaimed himself the long-awaited Mahdi, to whom, as a result of the transmigration of souls, the spiritual grace of all previous prophets passed and who finally came to earth to establish justice on it. The Bab outlined his ideas in the book “Bayan” (“Revelation”), which should become the new Holy Scripture instead of the outdated Koran. Thus, claiming the Muslim character of his creation, the Bab wrote Bayan simultaneously in Persian and Arabic.

Note 2

The foundation of the new ideology was the postulate that orthodox Muslim laws and orders, established by the Prophet Muhammad and codified by the Koran and Sharia, are already outdated and must be replaced by new ones.

The Bab proposed to build the political structure of his state on the basis of the “sacred number” 19, which he derived from Arabic word khair (“good, good”), since the letter form of this word in Arabic calculus means the number 18, to which a unit was attached, which symbolized the single bearer of eternal life.

For promoting ideas that fundamentally contradicted the canons of orthodox Shiism, the newly-minted prophet was immediately arrested (1847) and imprisoned in the Mak fortress, but the arrest of the Bab only contributed to the radicalization of the movement. His associates moved from preaching to active actions. The Babids held a congress at which they announced the beginning of their statehood.

Revolt of the Babis

The Shah's government dispersed the Babid congress. The response to this action was an armed uprising, which began in September 1848. For eight months the Shah's troops tried to suppress the uprising, but to no avail. In May 1849, the authorities offered the “rebels” amnesty, life and freedom in case of voluntary surrender. In the same month, the Babids agreed to the surrender proposed by the authorities, but the Shah’s troops treacherously destroyed them all.

The second Babid uprising broke out in June 1849. The government sent a large punitive army with cannons that literally pulverized the defensive structures of the “rebels,” but the resistance did not subside. Only at the cost of heavy losses did the Qajar troops break the resistance. In December 1849, the surviving rebels were also promised the Shah's forgiveness, and when they laid down their arms, they killed everyone.

Note 3

Fearing that they would completely lose control over the situation in the country, the government turned to emergency measures. In July 1850, Baba, who had been imprisoned back in 1847, was executed in Tabriz, depriving the rebels of their religious and political inspirer.

The uprising was suppressed by mass terror and entire families of the Babids were burned alive. Now no one promised them anything - the rebellion was drowned in blood.

Increased centralization and reform

Note 4

During the reign of Amir Nizam (1808 - 1852), noticeable changes took place in the social life of the country. By carrying out appropriate reforms, the government carefully tried to free the educational and judicial systems from the total control of the orthodox Shiite clergy.

In 1851, Persian-language newspapers began to be published in Iran, and the following year the first secular lyceum was opened in Tehran for the children of the court nobility, where history, geography, chemistry and medicine were taught. Later, in line with the reforms that had begun, a European-style military school was organized in the Iranian capital, where French instructors taught. The initiated reforms continued by inertia for some time after his death. The construction of the first machine industry enterprises began in Iran.

However, the effectiveness of these innovations turned out to be scanty. Iran Qajars confidently descended into the swamp of semi-colonial enslavement. This process was accelerated by another military embarrassment - defeat by England in the war.

Crisis and increasing dependence of Iran

The semi-colonial enslavement of Iran was completed by the financial and economic expansion of European countries - primarily Russia and Great Britain. The chronic lack of funds forced the Qajars to look for investors to develop the economy on any terms.

Note 5

The Qajar state finally lost its economic and diplomatic sovereignty, and soon lost its financial independence. Deprived of funds Nasser al-Din Shah late XIX V. was forced to take loans at exorbitant interest rates from British and Russian financiers, who had previously deprived Iran of financial sovereignty.

The collapse of the state was accompanied by the intensification of separatist regimes in the provinces of the empire, where it was no longer the Shah’s governors who ruled together with foreigners, but local officials, with whom the British and Russians, ignoring the Shah’s government, entered into direct agreements on concessions, subsidies, and the organization of autonomous armed formations.

Formally, Iran retained its dependence, but only because Britain did not allow Iran to become a Russian colony, and Russia to become a British colony.

Chapter 8

JOURNALISM 1840s

§ 1. Ideological quests of the “age of consciousness”

Forties of the 19th century. - one of the most interesting periods in the history of Russian journalism. This decade, outwardly not marked by any outstanding events, was a time of intense theoretical quest, one of the key stages in the development of Russian social thought. The passionate devotion of the advanced Russian intelligentsia to the world of ideas and ideals, the dedication of ideological quests created a special aura around this period and gave it special significance.

V. G. Belinsky called the 1840s “the era of consciousness.” The specifics of the ideological life of these years were determined, first of all, by the process of decomposition of feudal-serf relations and the crisis state of the state system. This crisis manifested itself in both the economic and political life of society. There is an increase in the number of peasant protests against the landowners and, at the same time, increased political pressure from the autocratic state. The crisis of the serfdom system in the forties became increasingly clear in connection with the growth of capitalist relations within the feudal state. At this time, there was rapid industrial development of the country, a revival of trade, and an increase in the class of small producers. If in the economic sphere the crisis was just beginning to manifest itself, then in the sphere of ideological life it showed itself most clearly.

In the forties of the XIX century. the activation of social thought led to the search for the most effective means of influencing the consciousness of contemporaries. Journalism became such a means. "Magazines-

“everything is crazy in our time,” Belinsky wrote during these years. “The magazine is everything, and... nowhere in the world does it have such great and important significance as it does here.” At the same time, the position of the press was determined by the policy of the autocracy regarding the media. According to the censorship statute of 1828, Russian journalism was deprived of the right not only to criticize, but also to discuss any actions of the government and persons in the public service, even those at the lower levels of the class and bureaucratic ladder. To strengthen control over periodicals, the government used Division III. As part of the imperial chancellery, it stood not only outside the general system of government institutions, but to a certain extent significantly above them. In 1841-1842 in the III Division, in addition to the four existing ones, a fifth, censorship, expedition was organized. She was entrusted with "higher supervision" of periodicals. The expedition received a mandatory copy of all publications published in Russia; officials of Section 111 were members of each censorship committee, the number of which increased to twelve. Supervision of the press officially became part of the powers of the political police. Control of the press has become widespread.

In one of the memos to the III Department of F. Bulgarin, the loyal publisher of the Northern Bee, the gay man contained interesting evidence of the grips in which journalism was at that time. Bulgarin wrote: “For example, if I discovered that the baker was drunk and insulted a passing woman, I would have acquired enemies: 1) the Minister of Internal Affairs. 2) Military Governor-General. 3) Chief of Police. 4) Police chiefs. 5) Private bailiff. 6) Quarterly overseer. 7) City non-commissioned officer." Even Bulgarin, who can hardly be suspected of freethinking, expressed dissatisfaction with such a system of multi-stage control over the press.

The “system of concealing the truth,” as Bulgarin called the police-bureaucratic machine that controlled public opinion in autocratic Russia, functioned properly. Aware of the growing influence of the press on the mentality of society, the government in these years has continued to expand its sphere of influence in this area. One of them is strengthening the provincial press. Since 1838, “Gubernskie Gazette” began to be published in 41 provinces of Russia, which were of an official nature. Their content was strictly regulated. “Provincial Gazette” consisted of two parts - official and unofficial. The official printed the orders and instructions of the provincial boards, permitted by the government

Information about government affairs- as a rule, a reprint from St. Petersburg newspapers, most often from the Northern Bee. In 1846, a circular was created regulating the content of the unofficial part of the Vedomosti. Here, “based on the definition of the provincial government, the following news could be placed: 1) about emergencies in the province, 2) about market reference prices for various needs, 3) about the state of both state-owned and private significant factories and plants, 4) about granted privileges for invention and formation of companies, 5) about ways to improve Agriculture and home economics,” etc. The 22 paragraphs meticulously list the topics that provincial journalists were allowed to cover. With such a system of government and gendarmerie control, provincial bulletins of those years were, as a rule, mouthpieces of government information. In a secret circular order dated March 19, 1846, the chief of gendarmes obliged his subordinates to have “relentless monitoring of the provincial gazettes published in the provinces, reading them with attention, and to gain time, report directly to His Excellency the chief of the gendarme corps.” The very fact of encouraging publications in the provinces and closely monitoring them indicated that the tsarist government was aware of the importance of the press as a means of political influence on society. Based on this, everything was done to slow down the development of private publishing and, conversely, to give space to official publications. Departmental special publications were encouraged, mainly intended for a relatively narrow circle of readers, such as “Nouvellist”, “Musical Light”, as well as all kinds of “Notes” of various societies. In total, 53 publications were opened during the period from 1839 to 1848. Among them are 11 magazines, only 4 of which were of a literary and social nature: “Domestic Notes”, “Mayak”, “Moskvityanin”, “Finnish Bulletin”. The bulk of publications, along with the “Provincial Gazette,” were magazines, almanacs, and collections. There were significantly fewer newspapers, and they tended to be specialized. Only a few of them can be typologically classified as literary and social publications.

The government treated such publications with particular suspicion: they were the ones that enjoyed the greatest success among the reader. In the early 1840s, an attempt was made to paralyze the “harmful” influence of Otechestvennye zapiski by creating two new social and literary magazines - Mayak (1840) and Moskvityanin (1841).

They were led by S. A. Burachek and M. P. Pogodin - writers whose way of thinking was in full accordance with the official ideology. The government had high hopes that they would be able to resist liberal and democratic ideas. But that did not happen. The magazines were published at a low professional level, took little into account the needs of readers, and were not topical. The circulation of these publications was small, and the social impact was not comparable to the journalism of Otechestvennye Zapiski. “Mayak” and “Moskvityanin” preached official patriotism, and often militant obscurantism.

At a difficult historical crossroads, after the suppression of the Decembrist movement, the country, “frightened into thought,” according to N.P. Ogarev, faced the problem of understanding the paths of further development, Russia’s place among other peoples and states. The catalyst for this process was revolutionary events in Europe. In the intricate interweaving of theories, teachings, and political schemes in Russian society in the forties, the main ideological trends were determined - serfdom, liberal and democratic. The concepts of official nationalism, Westernism and Slavophilism, as well as the ideology of Russian democracy, are formalized.

The basis of government ideology was the so-called theory of official nationality. Its main postulates were formulated back in the 1830s by the Minister of Public Education S. Uvarov. The very fact of the appearance of this theory and the support that the government gave it were natural. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, in connection with the strengthening of the liberation movement in Europe, the revolutionary events of the thirties in France, which shook the foundations of the Holy Alliance, the Russian government acutely felt the need for an ideological system that could withstand both the ferment of minds within the country and the influence of social movement The West, and in particular France, where the word “revolution”, hated by monarchs, again appeared in the civil lexicon.

The establishment of a unified ideological regime in the country was considered as a reliable means against the influence of the revolutionary ideas of the West. Uvarov called Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality “truly Russian protective principles,” which, as he wrote, constituted “the last anchor of our salvation and the surest guarantee of the strength and greatness of our fatherland.” "The monarchical form of government, according to the concept, was declared to be the only one corresponding to the spirit of the Russian people, and serfdom was a natural state.

loyal subjects; religion was called upon to sanctify these principles. “The task of theory is to pacify “turbulent impulses towards the foreign, to the unknown, to the abstract in the foggy field of politics and philosophy”, “to multiply, wherever possible, the number of mental dams.”

At the other pole of social life, in the forties, an opposite official ideology of Russian democracy was formed, which was distinguished by deep irreconcilability towards the serfdom system, which hampered the process of development of the country, and a desire for social reconstruction of society. In the “great confrontation” of these ideologies, the ideological crisis of the serfdom system was clearly revealed.

In the 1840s, liberal trends of Westernism and Slavophilism took shape. Despite the well-known convention of these terms, they quite accurately reflect the content and internal orientation of the ideological programs created by representatives of these directions. It should be noted that until the forties, Russian social thought, which was in opposition to the government, essentially did not know divisions, was in to a certain extent homogeneous, despite the many shades within it.

Born of the crisis of the serfdom system, intensive searches for ways to change the social system in the forties went in two directions. One part of Russian thinkers, the so-called Westerners, focused their main attention on studying the historical experience of the West, the state structure of countries that are more developed economically and politically. The Russians were especially interested in France, which had experienced major revolutionary upheavals. The “Europeanization” of Russia, which Westerners advocated, meant, first of all, the desire to include the country in a single process of world historical development.

Westerners were critical of serfdom, but the revolutionary nature of the changes was alien to them. It is no coincidence that the final ideological demarcation in this camp occurred in the second half of the forties, when the revolutionary movement began in Europe. On the eve of the revolution, differences clearly emerged between the liberal part of Westernism and its radical wing, led by Belinsky and Herzen. Both Ge and others were focused on studying the historical experience of Europe. But the liberal part of Westernism was more interested in the problems of state, cultural, and economic development of Europe, which had taken the path of capitalist development. The ideologists of revolutionary democracy carefully studied the social experience of Europe and, most of all, the experience of the revolution.

Having emerged on the same axis of social tension as the Western

nichestvo, the Slavophile movement, in search of the ideal of social order, turned to the study of history, the political system and the spiritual life of pre-Petrine Russia. Slavophiles put forward the thesis about the original path of historical development of Russia. This originality, in their opinion, was given to it by the fact that Russia, which adopted Christianity from Byzantium, did not know conquest and therefore formed its own unique way of social life, based on the Christian community. The Slavophiles, who focused their attention on the religious foundations of Russian life, were alien to the idea of ​​the inevitability of revolutions and social upheavals. They rejected serfdom as a form of violence against the individual, contrary to the spirit of Christian brotherhood. The Slavophiles' criticism of serfdom was sympathetically perceived by Belinsky and Herzen, but at the same time they sharply criticized the theory of the Slavophiles for its historical limitations and religious mysticism.

I [the presence of three political forces in society, three ideological camps was reflected in the press. The following trends are identified in the publications of this time. First of all, these are numerous official publications that reflected the ideological guidelines of the feudal state: magazines of ministries (Ministry of Internal Affairs, public education, state property), provincial gazettes, “Northern Bee”, government bulletins and the bulk of specialized publications. In addition, the press of this period reflected the processes associated with the development of bourgeois relations and realized in the ideology of liberalism, which united the political forces opposed to the tsarist autocracy - Westerners and Slavophiles. On the left flank of this trend, the ideology of revolutionary democracy was formed.

The process of political differentiation of society in the forties was most directly reflected in the press. As Belinsky wrote, “magazine opinions divide the public into literary coteries.” The reader's attention to a particular press organ was determined primarily by its direction, and this direction, in turn, was determined by that. what ideological positions the publication preached.

However, one cannot imagine the matter as if there were press organs that “sterilely” clearly adhered to one or another ideological orientation. In terms of political qualities, the press of the forties was an extremely complex, motley and contradictory phenomenon. Almost every publication experienced ideological fluctuations throughout the decade. This happened, for example, with the magazine “Moskvityanin”. Created as a body of official ideology

ology, in 1845 it passed into the hands of the Slavophiles and, under the editorship of P. V. Kireevsky, changed direction. This period did not last long, only three months. Then the magazine returned to its original position of the official nationality. In 1843, changes occurred in the direction of the official newspapers “Moskovskie Vedomosti” and “Russian Invalid”. Despite the fact that these newspapers were controlled by government agencies - Moscow University and the Ministry of War, respectively - they were rented by private individuals. The editor of the unofficial part in Moskovskie Vedomosti was E.F. Korsh, and the “Russian Invalid” was A.A. Kraevsky. From that time on, their content was formed under the strong influence of the democratic journal Otechestvennye zapiski. The same thing happened with the St. Petersburg Gazette in 1847, when the newspaper was headed by A. N. Ochkin.

The newspaper world of this period was not very diverse. The Russian reader still had a hard time understanding the difference between a newspaper and a magazine. Determined since the 18th century. a type of official newspaper, like. for example, “St. Petersburg Vedomosti” was still firmly on its feet. The detachment of the official and semi-official press was represented by the provincial newspapers and the semi-official “Northern Bee”. Nevertheless, in the forties, some changes were observed both in the content model of newspapers and in the expansion of the typology of publications.

The type of “literary newspaper” that emerged in the early 30s with the participation of A.S. Pushkin was finally established in the forties. "Literaturnaya Gazeta" of this period became one of the leaders of the newspaper market and shared the democratic positions of "Otechestvennye Zapiski".

Her creative biography consists of several periods, the most interesting of which were 1841 -1845. At this time, I. A. Nekrasov actively collaborated with the newspaper, and in 1844-1845. - V. G. Belinsky, other authors of “Domestic Notes” were published. The newspaper's social and literary position was clearly manifested in polemics with Northern Bee and other pro-government publications. The democratic press viewed Bulgarin's publications as a means of disorienting the reader and constantly exposed their methods of influencing subscribers.

Establishment of the principles of critical realism in literature, defense of the achievements of the “natural school” with its close attention to the tragedy of the individual in an autocratic state, education of a thinker critical of reality

reader - this is an incomplete list of problems addressed by the newspaper.

The intensification of polemics in Literaturnaya Gazeta with Bulgarin coincided with the campaign against the head of “reptilian” literature, which in 1842 and 1843. Belinsky was especially active in Otechestvennye zapiski. In almost every article in the “Literary and Magazine Notes” series, he did not miss an opportunity to respond to the malicious attacks of the publisher of the “Northern Bee” or comment on his opinion.

Neutralizing Bulgarin was important for the progressive press also because on the pages of his publications Gogol and Lermontov were constantly criticized, that is, writers whose work Belinsky associated with the development of a new method of literature - critical realism. The interpretation of Gogol's works is one of the main polemics of the forties. Literaturnaya Gazeta was in full agreement with the position of Otechestvennye Zapiski. It is characteristic that the main speeches of the newspaper about Gogol’s work coincided in time with Belinsky’s reviews in Otechestvennye zapiski.

When the collected works of Gogol were published at the end of 1842, Literaturnaya Gazeta hastened to immediately inform its readers about it. Commenting on this event, she called Gogol’s story “The Overcoat” and the play “Marriage”, which were first published there, “remarkable.” The article, in a parody form, set out all possible opinions of critics about Gogol’s work. And although not a single name was mentioned here, it was clear that the newspaper was fighting against the same targets as Belinsky: “In Moscow they will begin to prove,” the reviewer sneered, “that Gogol is the Aristophanes and Terence of the present century; others will refute this and will only show that before and after Gogol there was and will not be Russian literature; still others will find fault with typos and incorrect turns of language.” “Finally, the fourth,” the author wrote, referring, of course, to Bulgarin’s point of view, “will begin to prove that Gogol is a completely mediocre person, whom his friends glorify for bringing down other satirical writers. Well, this will be pure satire on Russian literature: where do we have these satirical writers who can be dropped and who could at least measure themselves against Gogol in some way.”

For the purpose of polemics, Literaturnaya Gazeta used any hint. Thus, about Bulgarin, she sarcastically remarked: “He confuses the format with the size of the paper, and this is the same difference as in the works of Gogol and Bulgarin.” The polemical meaning of this comparison will become clear if we keep in mind that Bulgarin repeatedly declared Gogol’s lack of talent and argued that he cannot be compared

even with such writers as Odoevsky and Sollogub, “who are higher than Mr. Gogol, like Chimborazo is higher than Pulkovo Mountain.”

Along with defending Gogol against his false interpreters, the newspaper drew attention to the work of Lermontov. The review of Lermontov’s “Poems” indicated that the development of his talent “promised a lot of brilliant and imaginative things.” Literaturnaya Gazeta was one of the few Russian publications that reported the death of the poet. A message about this appeared in the 89th issue for 1841 under the heading “Literary and theatrical news.” Apparently, for censorship reasons, the newspaper was unable to devote more space and attention to the death of the disgraced poet.

Speeches by Literaturnaya Gazeta on issues of theatrical art also include big interest. Let us name the main directions along which theater criticism developed on the pages of the newspaper. This is, firstly, a deep dissatisfaction with the theater repertoire, a desire to influence the formation of the viewer’s aesthetic tastes, to educate him in a critical attitude towards the entertainment theater that dominated then. Secondly, serious thoughts about the specifics and purpose of dramatic genres, about the role of the theater critic. Thirdly, the fight against the pseudo-patriotic works of noted Russian playwrights G. Obodovsky and N. Polevoy, exposing their anti-artistic essence.

In 1844 and 1845 in the newspaper, as already noted, Belinsky and Nekrasov collaborated most intensively. In the field of literary theory, Belinsky’s article “A Look at the Main Phenomena of Russian Literature in 1843,” published in the 1st and 2nd issues of 1844, and “On Parties in Literature” - in the 17th issue of 1844, can be considered programmatic. 1845

Of great interest was the section “Notes for the owners” in the Literaturnaya Gazeta. It was led by A.I. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, a famous Russian economist, author of the famous article “On the reasons for fluctuations in bread prices in Russia,” which was published in 1847 in “Domestic Notes” and received an approving review from Belinsky. In 1845, in the 8th issue of Literaturnaya Gazeta, a note appeared signed by Nikifor Rabotyagin entitled “On the current state of bread prices in different places Russia,” apparently written by Zablotsky, which can be considered a kind of preparation for a large magazine article. The general democratic position of the newspaper was reflected even in such an insignificant, at first glance, subsection as “Kitchen”. It was led by V.F. Odoevsky, who in the feuilleton

In a certain form, he ridiculed those for whom “stomach functions are the main and only ones in life.”

In 1845, material appeared with the title “Letters to Doctor Poof.” In the first letter, the author, who called himself Dok Knuf, asked questions such as: “Tell me, why are there so many people who have nothing to eat? What will your rich science spare for the poor man who has chaff for his food? Can you teach me how to make consommé, salami, pudding or roast beef from chaff and water?” “...Don’t forget,” the author warned, “that this is a very important subject. The poor, I think... are the majority everywhere.” These kinds of hints acquired a social meaning, and the “Kitchen” section was only a kind of screen behind which topical thoughts were hidden.

In 1845, six weeks after the publication of F. Engels’s book “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” the first Russian review of it appeared in the Literary Gazette, which indicated the publication’s obvious interest in pressing social problems.

The Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper changed direction in 1843, when E. F. Korsh became editor. E. Korsh was friendly with Herzen, Granovsky, Ogarev and shared their views. Moskovskie Vedomosti showed great interest in the study of social problems.

In particular, a lot of materials devoted to economic issues are published here. Issues of free trade, tariff systems, and scientific literature on economics were especially actively discussed. Moskovskie Vedomosti initiated controversy on these issues. At the same time, economic problems were considered together with social ones.

Characteristic evidence can be, for example, the article “On the Future of Money,” published in 1846. “Whoever has money,” it said, “enjoys everything: honor, distinction, pleasure and peace. The rich man plays the main role everywhere, sets the tone, controls, orders. Poor means almost nothing or is only a thing that others use, deriving their own benefits from it.” The article directly expressed the hope that such an order would be eliminated: “There is no way to allow the dominion of money and the depraved way of life resulting from it to have an endless future.”

E. Korsh's newspaper published sharp anti-serfdom materials, for example, “The Liberation of Negroes in the French Colonies.” In an allegorical form, the article sounded demanding

In the process of liberating Russian peasants from serfdom, their situation was directly compared with the slavery of blacks.

This 1844 article attracted the attention of the censors, especially the following passage: “Slavery is contrary to the laws of morality; it corrupts both master and slave; the first by giving him irresponsible, continuously oppressive power over his slaves... the latter by likening him to cattle, replacing all rational activity with fear of the whip and blind obedience.” The chief of gendarmes, A. Orlov, rightly found in it “a broader meaning that does not apply only to blacks.” The newspaper was given a warning, but despite this, in 1846, in the article “Slavery in the French Colonies,” these same thoughts were sharpened to the limit: “Slavery, which corrupts masters and destroys slaves, cannot be ennobled, but must be exterminated as as soon as possible."

In 1847, the first attempt was made to create a city newspaper. It was the Moscow City Leaflet. The newspaper existed for only one year. It was published 2 times a week and, judging by the content, intended to become a competitor to the leading newspaper of the country - Bulgarin's Northern Bee. The editor of the newspaper, V. Drashusov, made efforts to establish constant information about the life of Moscow. In January 1847, the “Department of City Rumors” appeared, which soon gave way to others: “Trade Movement”, “Shows and Entertainment”, “Announcements”, “Moscow”. But the newspaper failed to establish an information service.

The editors were unable to decide on the direction. The editorial staff was extremely diverse. S. Shevy-rev, M. Zagoskin, D. Veltman - writers and publicists of the official direction - published here, at the same time A. D. Galakhov, a regular author of "Domestic Notes", collaborated. The newspaper published an essay by A. I. Herzen “Edrovo Station”. “physiological essays” by E. Grebenka, a writer of the “natural school,” were published.

The inconsistency of the position of the Moscow City List can be illustrated by the following example. Starting from the 3rd issue, it published lectures by Moscow University professor S. Shevyrev “A General View of the History of Art and Poetry in Particular.” In them, a lot of space was devoted to Western fiction. Western literature, according to the author, has outlived its usefulness: “The spiritual personality of the West has ended its period.”