Periodization of historical and literary development in abbreviation. Periodization of world literature. Division according to Pushkin

Russian literature is a great asset for the entire Russian people. Without it, since the 19th century, world culture is unthinkable. The historical and cultural process and the periodization of Russian literature have their own logic and specific traits... Having begun more than a thousand years ago, its phenomenon continues to develop in the time frame of our days. It is he who will become the subject of this article. We will answer the question of what is the periodization of Russian literature (RL).

general information

At the very beginning of the story, we generalized and presented the periodization of Russian literature. The table, compactly and clearly demonstrating the main stages of its development, illustrates the development of the cultural process in Russia. Next, we will consider the information in detail.

Conclusion

Russian literature is really capable of stirring up "good feelings". Its potential is bottomlessly deep. From the sunny musical style of Pushkin and Balmont to the intellectually deep and imaginative presentation of our virtual century by Pelevin. Fans of sentimental lyrics will love Akhmatova's work. It contains both the wisdom inherent in Tolstoy and the filigree psychologism of Dostoevsky, to which Freud himself took off his hat. Even among prose writers, there are those whose style of artistic expression resembles poetry. These are Turgenev and Gogol. Lovers of subtle humor will discover Ilf and Petrov. Those who want to taste the adrenaline from the plots of the criminal world will open the novels of Friedrich Neznansky. Fantasy lovers will not be disappointed with Vadim Panov's books.

In Russian literature, every reader can find something that will touch his soul. Good books are like friends or fellow travelers. They are able to console, advise, entertain, support.

Story literary language reveals those organic relationships that at all stages social development exist between the language and the history of the people. In the vocabulary of the literary language, in its functional styles, the events that marked certain turning points in the life of the people are most vividly and most noticeably reflected. The formation of the literary tradition of books, its dependence on the change of social formations, on the vicissitudes of the class struggle affects, first of all, the social functioning of the literary language and its stylistic branches. The development of the culture of the people, their statehood, their art, and first of all the art of the word - literature, leaves an indelible stamp on the development of the literary language, manifested in the improvement of its functional styles. Consequently, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language can be built not only on the basis of those stages that the common language is going through as a result of the objective processes of the internal spontaneous development of its main structural elements- sound structure, grammar and vocabulary, - but also on the correspondences between the stages historical development language and development of society, culture and literature of the people.

The periodization of the history of the Russian literary language has hardly been a subject of special scientific research... Those historical stages, which are recorded by university programs on the history of the Russian literary language, are outlined in the article by VV Vinogradov "The main stages of the history of the Russian language." In the course of A.I. Gorshkov's lectures, we find the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in accordance with the university curricula: 1. The literary language of the Old Russian (Old Eastern Slavic) nationality (X-early XIV centuries); 2. The literary language of the Russian (Great Russian) nationality (XIV-mid-XVII centuries); 3. The literary language of the initial epoch of the formation of the Russian nation (mid-17th — mid-18th centuries); 4. The literary language of the era of the formation of the Russian nation and the national norms of the literary language (mid-18th — early 19th centuries); 5. The literary language of the Russian nation ( mid XIX century - to our days).

Let us allow ourselves to make some critical remarks about the proposed periodization of the history of the Russian literary language. First of all, it seems to us that this periodization does not sufficiently take into account the connection between the history of the language and the history of the people. The highlighted periods correspond, rather, to the immanent development of the structural elements of the general Russian language, than to the development of the literary language itself, which is unthinkable without an inextricable connection with the history of Russian statehood, culture, and, above all, the history of Russian literature. Secondly, the indicated periodization suffers from excessive fragmentation and mechanism; in it, such stages of linguistic historical development are artificially torn into separate isolated periods, which should have been considered in an indissoluble unity.

Let us outline our concept of the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in an inextricable connection with the history of the Russian people, its culture and literature.

It seems to us most expedient to subdivide the entire thousand-year history of our literary language not into five, but only two main periods: the period of pre-national development of the Russian literary-written language and the period of its development as a national language. It would be natural to recognize the time around the middle of the 17th century as the boundary between the two outlined periods, from where, according to the well-known definition of V. Lenin, "a new period of Russian history" begins.

The patterns of development of Slavic literary languages, due to which the pre-national and national periods differ in them, were traced and substantiated in the report of V. V Vinogradov, made by him at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia. These differences are quite noticeable and characteristic. Among the most significant should be attributed the appearance in the national period of the development of the literary language of its oral-colloquial form, which as a means. oral national communication between members of the language community, apparently, was absent in the ancient era, when the written-literary form of the language was directly related to the dialect colloquial speech and contrasted with this latter.

V last years was proposed by Corresponding Member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR R. I. Avanesov special periodization of the most ancient stage in the development of the Russian literary language. The report on VII International the congress of Slavists in Warsaw (1973), highlighting the relationship between the Old Russian (Old Eastern Slavic) book type of language, the literary language itself and the language of the national dialect, the named scientist proposed the following chronological division of the era: XI century - first half of the XII century. ; second half of the XII century - the beginning of the XIII century; XIII-XIV centuries This division is based on more and more, according to R.I. Avanesov, the deepening divergence of the book-written and folk-dialect language, taking into account the genre varieties of written monuments, which are strictly differentiated in functional terms.

The division of the history of the Russian literary language into pre-national and national periods of development is widely accepted by both Soviet and foreign historians of the Russian language.

As for the decisive demarcation of the era of development of the literary language of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries - usually called the Moscow period) from the previous time proposed by A.I. proper literary-written language of the given era. It is the literary language of the Moscow period that is inextricably linked with the literary development of the entire preceding period. After all, we know about the unity of literature reflected in this language, that is, that Old Russian literature XI-XVII centuries, in which the same literary processes, the existence and rewriting of the same texts that arose in the XI or XII centuries. in ancient Kiev, and copied and lived in Moscow Russia, in the north and north-east of Kiev, and in the XIV century. ("Laurentian Chronicle"), and in the 16th century ("The Lay of Igor's Host") and even in the 17th century. ("The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned"). The same applies to such translated works of the Kiev era as "History of the Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius, "Alexandria" or "Devgenievo Deed", which undoubtedly arose in the XII-XIII centuries, while most of the copies date back to the XV-XVII centuries ... Thus, the unity of Old Russian literature throughout the development from the XI to the XVII century. ensured the unity of the tradition of the Old Russian literary and written language up to the middle of the 17th century.

The too fractional division of the periods of development of the Russian literary language of the national period, proposed by A.I. Gorshkov, also cannot be recognized as sufficiently justified. So, it seems to us, it is inappropriate to separate the language of the second half of the XIX v. from the previous Pushkin era, when, undoubtedly, the foundations for the development of the lexical-semantic and stylistic system of the Russian national literary language, which continues to exist today, are already being laid.

So, according to our conviction, it is most rational to single out only two, the main and main periods of the development of the Russian literary language: the pre-national period, or the period of the development of the literary-written language of the nationality (first the Old Russian nationality, the Common Eastern Slavic, and then, from the XIV century, the Great Russian nationality) , otherwise the Old Russian literary-written language until the 17th century, and the national period, covering the development of the Russian literary language in the proper sense of this term, as the national language of the Russian nation, starting from about the middle of the 17th century. to our days.

Naturally, in each of the named main periods of the development of the Russian literary language, smaller sub-periods of development are distinguished. Thus, the pre-national period is divided into three sub-periods. The Kiev sub-period (from the 10th to the beginning of the 12th century) corresponds to the historical existence of a single East Slavic nation and a relatively single Old Russian (Kiev) state. The named sub-period can be easily distinguished by such a noticeable structural feature as "falling of the deaf", or the change of the reduced vowels b and b into full vowels in strong positions and zero sound in weak positions, which, as you know, leads to a decisive restructuring of the entire phonological system Old Russian common language.

The second sub-period falls for a time from the middle of the XII to the middle of the XIV century, when dialect branches of a single East Slavic language are noticeably manifested in the literary-written language, which eventually led to the formation of different from each other in phonetics, morphology and vocabulary, zonal varieties of Old Russian literary written language in the era of feudal fragmentation.

The third sub-period of the development of the literary-written language falls on the XIV-XVII centuries. For the northeast, it is the language of the Muscovite state, in other areas of East Slavic settlement, these are the initial foundations of the subsequently developed independent national languages ​​of the East Slavic peoples (Belarusian and Ukrainian), acting in the 15th-17th centuries. as a written language of the entire Lithuanian-Russian state, or "simple Russian mova", which served both the future Belarusians and the ancestors of the Ukrainian people.

The national period of the development of the Russian literary language can also be subdivided into three sub-periods. The first one covers the middle, or the second half of XVII in., before early XIX v. (before the era of Pushkin). By this time, the phonetic and grammatical systems of the Russian common language were mainly established, however, in the literary, written language, traces of the previously established tradition continue to be felt with sufficient force in the forms of Church Slavonic and business Russian speech. This is a transitional sub-period, a sub-period of the gradual establishment and formation of comprehensive norms of the modern Russian literary language as the language of the nation.

The second sub-period could be called, using the apt definition that was outlined by V. I. Lenin, the time "from Pushkin to Gorky." This time from the 30s of the XIX century. before the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically, before the era of the proletarian revolution, which put an end to the rule of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the time of the development of the Russian literary language as the language of the bourgeois nation. During these years, the vocabulary of the language, which developed on the basis of a broad democratic movement, was enriched with particular intensity in connection with the flourishing of Russian literature and democratic journalism.

And, finally, the third sub-period in the history of the Russian literary language is singled out, starting with the preparation and implementation of the proletarian revolution, the Soviet sub-period, which continues to this day.

This is, in general terms, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language, which seems to us the most acceptable.

Meshchersky E. History of the Russian literary language

Periodization of Russian literature of the 19th century

In our time, periodization is treated with hostile irony, and students think so - in vain! Love for literature does not interfere with the knowledge of dates. At the heart of the period. Lies the fact that literature is changing, and in a certain era, the works of authors have common features... Gegil: "To understand is to discern." If you understand Pushkin and Gogol, then you can distinguish between them.

For a long time, the periodization of 19th century literature was tied to the liberation movements.

1st period: syncretic period (Pushkin, Griboyedov, Gogol, Lermontov) 1823 (Onegin) - 1843 (dead souls)

2nd - social realism (Hertsin, Goncharov)

3rd - philosophical and religious 1860s (Crime and Punishment) - 1885. They wrote: Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

4th - existential. Chekhov, Bunin.

Realism is a true portrayal and explanation of life. Not so easy literary direction, but a worldview with a special understanding of the world, which has reached philosophical depth. Traits of realism: historicism (Onegin - modern man), a serious tragic depiction of contemporary reality. The first theorist of realism is Belinsky (“Our century, a century in terms of its historical value, all our activity grows out of historical soil”). For the first time in the history of mankind, people wanted to build a society, a social and state system. This has never happened before. It began in 1789 (the French Revolution) and ended in 1991. The time of utopias and drowning. states, time of ideals.

"Accurately reproduce the truth real life, there is happiness for a writer ”(Turgenev).

It is characteristic of syncretic realism that it is marked by a hero who does not know the meaning of life. In this sense, Pushkin called Onegin an egoist, and Belinsky - suffering from egoism. Neither Manilov nor Chichikov know the meaning of life, but they do not suffer from this.

Writers of social realism have found a meaning in life that will inspire people. The point is to build a new society. These writers founded their society through literature.

Dostoevsky: "Then it happened between young people, two or three come together, and shouldn't we read Gogol today?"

A faith appeared in Russian society, which first captured a few, and eventually millions. "The idea that has taken possession of the masses becomes a historical force" (Marx). The era of revolution, belief in socialism.

Social realism is the worldview of the era of social revolutions. The first theoretician (Belinsky) is a revolutionary. The idea of ​​progress provided answers to all questions, including questions of religion. The ideals of good and evil were revised. “We are convinced that a person was born not for evil, but for good, not for a crime, but for a reasonable legal inheritance of life, evil is hidden not in a person, but in society” (Belinsky, anti-Christian sentiments). This thought reverberated terribly, for the consciousness of the masses was not ready. Christianity taught responsibility. Progress is a god and a fetish of the 19th century, its knights are revolutionaries (they are also the most readable, authoritative). The strength of socialist ideas was that they seemed like holy truth.

Turgenev

One of the most educated Russian writers, university in St. Petersburg, studied Hegel's philosophy in Germany, was a politically oriented writer (Westernizer), his origins were in the landed environment, which he rejected. His path as a writer was chosen as a path of rejection. Goncharov was also against serfdom, but she had sweet feelings for the landowners as for friends and people, Goncharov was worried about the laziness and stagnation of serfdom, Turgenev was outraged by despotism, violence, and tyranny. "I was born and raised in an atmosphere where beatings, clicks, beaters reigned ... That way of life, that environment and especially that strip of it, to which I belonged, the strip of landowners, serfs, had nothing good that could keep me" ...

Turgenev's mother is an unhappy woman, she was a friend of her uncles, after she married a beggar socialite, who all his life was given love for everyone except his wife. Morality - serfdom was harmful not only for the peasants, but also for the landlords. Power corrupts. Turgenev's mother was despotic even to her children, flogging them, often unfairly. Many eccentricities - she forbade the policeman to drive up to her estate with bells, and he obeyed. The future writer was saved by books, poetry, art and circles (a very interesting phenomenon of Russian spiritual life in the 30s, when it was impossible to express one's thoughts in Russia, in particular, there was a decree prohibiting speaking and conducting polemics about serfdom. the future of Russia and mankind. ”Turegnev described such circles in the novel" Ruden "). Dostoevsky was in the Petrashevsky circle, there were Herzen's circles, etc.

Education - when a person is able to think about general, omnipresent things.

Turgenev was called the chronicler of the Russian promise movement. But if Goncharov believed that novels should be instructive, then Turgenev saw the task of his works in an objective presentation of the socio-political situation in Russia, as well as all the ideas that determine the future of Russia. He did not teach wisdom, but simply showed the hero as a leader of the Russian public life... He always gave the hero a public assessment. For him main question was: Who will lead Russia on the path to progress?

All of Turgenev's novels begin with the date of the beginning of the action; Turgenev shows the rapidly changing physiognomy of Russian figures. Progress is the central concept of the novels of Turgenev and Goncharov. Thanks to the idea of ​​progress, Turgenev was able to write his novels. This is the main theme of his heroes. The way to the heart of a woman in Turgenev's rosans is through progress, the hero must be an advanced person, be at the pinnacle of knowledge. In Turgenev's work, even the furniture speaks of the political convictions of the heroes. The essence of all novels boils down to assessing the qualities of the heroes. The winner will be rewarded - an innovative, impeccably moral girl who loves progress. Heroes are highly glorious, proud, proud, public opinion is important to them, to form opinions about others is the main task of their life, it is necessary to find out who they are and what they are. Bakharov, for example, may well teach and instruct his sixty-year-old father, for he possesses the latest, new truth. An admiration for theory was characteristic of the Russian promise.

Turgenev's hero is an idea, Goncharov's character is, Dostoevsky's is philosophy.

Turgenev's hero fouls everything. For from the death of Bazarov, we learn that he remained faithful to his ideals, for example, from the death of Balkonsky, we learn what death is (as a whole). Every writer has his own concept of a person and the world.

Turgenev finally became disillusioned with progress, survived the crisis of his worldview. Belief in progress turned out to be devoid of foundation (we can see this already in Bazarov's work). "Task moral person is to increase the total amount of happiness. But will I be happy if everyone around is happy. " (Bazarov).

The crisis of the worldview is nothing and nothing is worse than that (as in the saying “grief is better than nothing”). Turgenev begins to figure out what is the price of life? In beauty and love, Turgenev decides, because this is what made his life beautiful. The very essence of life is beggarly flat and uninteresting, obi is worth nothing. "Even love is devalued by brevity." (Turgenev). He comes to the conclusion that the light in his heart has gone out, and the love of life has disappeared. Love for art: "Venus de Milo is more certain than Roman law or the principles of 1889?" QUESTION FOR OFFERING.

What is the human contradiction? “He alone is given to create, but to create for an hour, this is both an advantage and a curse; everyone feels that he is akin to something eternal, but he lives and must live for the moment, the greatest of us are those who are aware of these contradictions. "

Schopenhauer said: "There is no progress, only costumes change in the bloody action of history." A Russian society believed, while Turgenev was already disappointed. Confused by mortality, death. The greatest of us are creators who are conscious of the contradiction around us.

The novel "Smoke".

The most scandalous work of Turgenev, which caused a stir in publicism and criticism more than Fathers and Sons, after the publication of this novel, the entire Russian public condemned Turgenev in unison both for his novel and for his ideas.

The novel is a confrontation between two camps of public life, the difference is that he ridiculed both of these camps (depicted the same pamphlet-caricature, questioned political life Russia). The hero of his novel says: "It seems to me that it is too early for us Russians to have political convictions."

On the exam: refute the statements defaming Turgenev.

We call patriots those who praise Russia, but not those who criticize it. There is not a single author who wrote a work with the aim of slandering his homeland. For example: better than the one who vilified the Germans, criticizing them. Flauben is another prime example. Our propaganda calls every critic an enemy.

It is impossible to understand a work without correlating it with the current situation, which is why we pay attention to the era.

What does Turgenev and his hero Potugin see as a way out for Russia? "Whenever you have to get down to business, ask yourself, what are you talking about civilization?" THOSE. It is necessary to develop science, culture, art - in the case of Russia, they will be guided by the example of Europe. Turgenev insisted on the abolition of censorship and the coming to the idea of ​​freedom of speech. Linkov agrees, because he does not know any other way (the Japanese followed the path of European civilization - says the master).

Turgenev is unreasonable in his novel, and the work does not end with this reasoning - the ending of the novel in the words of the hero: "Smoke, smoke, smoke" - as better description situation in Russia. ("The wind will change, blow in the other direction and the mood will also change"). Example: biographies of writers at times of different political foundations. Rosii's problem: everything, like smoke, disappears without creating anything after itself. This is the main contradiction of the novel - on the one hand, the loss of faith in progress (after all, if everything is smoke, then progress is not needed), on the other hand, social principles. Smoke is Turgenev's most unfinished novel. Best of all, Fet formulated: "He himself - with a fingernail, and a beard with an elbow" (About Turgenev). The second minus of the novel is the presence of a resonant hero, which is unacceptable for realism (for the writer should not put an idea in the hero's mouth, but express it through the entire composition of the novel). Smoke is very indicative, interesting, instructive (it shows us how a writer who abandons the idea of ​​progress cannot build a novel and suffers artistic failure).

Nikolay Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky. "What to do?"

This novel gave birth to anti-non-humanistic literature - in contrast to the mood of the book (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Leskov) - an incentive for the creation of such heights of Russian literature as War and Peace, The Brothers Karamazov. You cannot understand great novels without reading Chernyshevsky. For understanding our fate, this novel is no less important than the great works of the above authors.

Readers perceived the novel as a "new gospel." Neither Dostoevsky, nor Tolstoy, nor Turgenev had such success. It’s a paradox - Chernyshevsky himself admitted that he had not a shadow of artistic talent, that he even had a poor command of the language. Nobody denied this (Leskov: "From the point of view of talent, Chernyshevsky is ridiculous"). But everyone reads it!

Dostoevsky understood perfectly well what the consequences of writing Chernyshevsky's novel would lead to (“They will not overthrow the churches and will pour blood over the earth” - and so it happened).

Chernyshevsky did not even think to answer all the disputes and criticism, for he was confident in his victory and was absolutely right. I was sure that there is a force that makes up for the lack of talent - "this force is called Truth." (“Truth is a good thing, it rewards the shortcomings of the writer who serves it," = quotation from the novel).

What truth did Chernyshevsky serve? The answer to this question is the success of the novel among its contemporaries. The truth is as follows: people are promised heaven on earth, when all people will be "beautiful in body and pure in heart", for all there will be "eternal spring and summer, a holiday." And it is very simple to do this - it is enough to build a new human society.

But it has never been so in the history of mankind, for society has always grown by itself. An attempt to build a society rationally and not spontaneously. From the point of view of Chernyshevsky - "the age of reason has come." This is a world-historic moment. The popularity of socialism as a reasonable theory (there is nothing to compare this popularity, the attraction for millions was exceptional). It was thanks to the mass that the idea transformed the whole world. ("The idea of ​​socialism is at the same time graceful and simple, it is so legitimate, so audacious that it evokes admiration"). Because everyone wants there to be heaven on Earth - that's the whole secret. Not only millions, but also outstanding intellectuals fell under the charm and spell of socialism.

Chernyshevsky absolutizes theoretical reason and believes that everything can be invented. (Linkov says that everything can be done only spontaneously: religion, and even the issue of pricing. Not everything is decided by reason in human life. For example: tact, this is not reason, because a person can be smart, but it is out of place to speak).

The theory of "reasonable egoism" - every person strives for his personal happiness and well-being, and this striving is legitimate, in contrast to Christianity, which told a person that on Earth a person is subject to suffering in order to be happy in eternal life. New theory says that you have to be happy today. The theory of reasonable egoism was born in England and is the basis of capitalism, but in Russia it was "turned" towards socialism.

The Soviet Union is the principle of unreasonable selfishness. An example - a man built a house of 24 ares on 20 acres, a bulldozer came and demolished. The phenomenon of the potato riot, when the peasants refused to grow potatoes like the devil's apple - at the same time, they banned planting potatoes in the west, but allowed the peasants to plunder root crops - the result was a good harvest.

Chernyshevsky emphasizes only one feature in a person - reason, but Dostoevsky and Tolstoy (in contrast to him) raise desire forward.

Chernyshevsky wanted to teach people how to resolve a conflict situation beautifully ("The Competition of Nobility" by Vera Pavlovna, Kirsanov and Lopukhov). The situation is resolved "according to the mind" (without duels and fights): Lopukhov concedes his wife to a friend and is happy that his beloved woman is happy. But even such a peaceful outcome is assessed by the highest authority as unsatisfactory - for everyone must live second: quietly, calmly and peacefully. This is the new worldview. The old thing is that the family was not created for the pleasure of a person, first of all - for children (of which Chernyshevsky is out of the question). Chernyshevsky largely foresaw the future of mankind. Goncharov, Dostoevsky, Leskov, Tolstoy - they refuted these theses with all their might.

Lenin: "The merit of Chernyshevsky is that he proved that every decent person should be a revolutionary."

Ideology is a theory that expresses the interests of a particular class. Teaches how to create a better society (now there is no ideology). Neither Turgenev nor Goncharov said in their works that it was necessary to kill the landlords, which means that there is no ideology in them.

Dostoevsky will accuse Chernyshevsky of destroying the family, and rightly so (Linkov's remark).

Chernyshevsky does not recognize divine authority, and therefore does not recognize divine truths. The time of religion has passed, it was a fairy tale, now the time has come for science: Chernyshevsky interprets his ideology as "scientific ethics." Draws a line between pre-scientific philosophy (before the time of Chernyshevsky), but now philosophy has become scientific, which means that there is truth and it is one. "The natural sciences have already developed so much that they provide materials for the exact solution of the question." This is the main misconception of the 19th century - the development of science will lead to the solution of all moral problems.

The main nigilists who destroyed the foundations of Russia came from Orthodox families (Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov). It was impossible to polemize with the ideas of revolution in our country - they gained holy authority.

“Semi-science, the most terrible scourge of humanity, is worse than pestilence and hunger. Unknown until this century. Semi-science is a destpot that did not come before this century ”- Dostoevsky.

What questions does the novel not answer? He ignores all major life problems. Nikolai Gavrilovich even ignores death! He cannot live a spiritual life. He promised the people happiness, but brought one continuous grief (scoundrel!). Direct students - Lenin (studied with Rakhmedov).

The lie of the novel is happiness, without all the worst in human life; Chernyshevsky did not teach the attitude towards death, did not teach morality.

Direct controversy with the novel by Chernyshevsky - "Notes from the Underground", Dostoevsky ("When did people come from the same mind?").

Dostoevsky. "Notes from the Underground"

In his youth, Dostoevsky believed that there was nothing more terrible than death, and in old age he believed that the fear of death was a prejudice. This united him with Fet. In old age, Fet wrote to Tolstoy: "I am afraid of blindness, but not death."

For writers of a social orientation, progress was the main value, and for Tolstoy and Dostoevsky it was God. Therefore, the heroes differ significantly different directions: from Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, the heroes develop their own thoughts, and from their opponents, thoughts are borrowed. Ivan Karamazov reveals the truth, although, of course, he relies on Christianity.

Any literature is a forum where there is an eternal discussion, in which all writers of different centuries have a long debate. The postulate for Dostoevsky is that where there is no freedom, there is no human personality. Freedom is the highest value. Karamazy is a hymn to freedom.

Tolstoy is also an ardent defender of freedom. He wrote in war and peace: "It is impossible to imagine a person deprived of freedom, not otherwise than deprived of life." The main idea behind the demarcation of Dostoevsky and Chernyshevsky is the theory of mind, consciousness and life. “If we assume that life can be controlled by reason, then it will be impossible to live”, Tolstoy.

What is the value of the works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy? In that they showed the importance of unreasonable factors.

For Dostoevsky, man is a mystery, he is inexhaustible (Chernyshvsky's scheme of man is studied by theory). Dostoevsky's "P and N": "Youth is disfigured in theory." Dostoevsky did not despise reason, he simply spoke about its inadequacy in human life. Raskolnikov: "You cannot rely on the ramified reflections of the mind."

"Notes from the Underground".

They open the philosophical and religious period, 1864.

Dostoevsky went down in history as the creator of five novels, all of them written in the last years of his life - since 1866. Until the age of 45, he came a long way, but over the past 15 years he wrote best works... "Notes from the Underground" - an introduction to the novels, short synopsis ideas.

The work is based primarily on the polemic with Chernyshevsky. Direct polemic: “Oh, tell me, who was the first to proclaim that a person only does dirty tricks because he does not know his interests? And only to enlighten him, he will immediately change. Oh baby! Oh, pure child! "

"The system is a vile form of truth," Hegel.

The main thesis of the work is “to be too aware is a disease”. Declares disease what modernity considered prosperity. Most of the poveta is devoted to the disclosure of the "disease of developed consciousness", its causes. “The mind knows only what it has managed to learn, and, perhaps, it will never learn anything new. And human nature acts entirely, with everything that is conscious and unconscious in it. And let him lie, but he lives. "

Dostoevsky creates an experimental person, devoid of any character traits, similar to him is not found in world literature. "I was not only evil, but I could not do anything: neither evil, nor kind, nor even an insect." His position is so heavy that he could not even close himself up with an insect. This is scary, this is the disease. Why? Because he is only consciousness, only one mind, which cannot give a reason for an action. If you deprive you of all the organs with which your desires are connected, you cannot do anything. Man is driven by feelings, desires and will. Life is an interaction of desires and feelings, and a person is not always aware of it.

The lack of character properties makes him very sensitive to the problem of personality.

Socialism does not take into account the main thing, because freedom preserves our most precious thing - our personality. By personality Dostoevsky understood a certain stage of human development. The ideal for Dostoevsky was Jesus Christ. Saioe beautiful in Jesus was his highest freedom, manifested in free sacrifice.

An underground person longs for self-recognition from other people, since he has nothing remarkable, no character traits. He can have neither love nor friendship - for only a human personality is capable of these qualities.

Science cannot teach you to distinguish between good and evil. "This is how they will prove to you that one drop of your fat is more precious than the lives of thousands of your kind, so do nothing - take it, this is science, twice two is four."

The main property of a writer is to look and listen.

The first part of the work: "Underground" - general ideas. The second part is a plot character, we already personally see the underground characters and what life is like there. "Underground" is solitude, isolation from people, as well as feelings that he hides in himself and which poison his story.

The originality of the hero - he did not exist in literature before Dostevsky - he has no properties. The hero is a paradoxist, there is not a single statement that would not cause him to be denied.

A story from Linkov's life about a saleswoman without surrender: "Getting naughty is happiness, more than money."

An intelligent person is often characterized by spinelessness, indecision. But the fact is that Dostoevsky attaches massive importance to this factor, proves that education and pseudoscience makes a person weak-willed, aimless more outrageous. "Consciousness is a disease." All Russian, and not only Russian, literature strove to develop man, this special attitude towards the world and man seems familiar to us, but arose only in the 19th century. Symptoms of the disease: a contradiction. The hero was aware of the beautiful and the lofty, but continued to do nasty things.

"Impossibility means a stone wall." The hero believes that there is no truth according to which a person should prefer a drop of his fat to thousands of lives like you. There is no scientific truth according to which a person must distinguish between good and evil.

"False consciousness" (Marx) - interests distort views and truth. In particular, class interests. “If people were interested, they would refute the multiplication table” (Lenin).

Dostoevsky saw and showed the presence of pseudoscience before anyone else, reflecting personal interests and not tolerating criticism. Pseudoscience is the same stone wall.

The unwise critics of Chatso interpreted the work as a proclamation of selfishness. This contradicts Dostoevsky's ideology, since he believed that to be a person is to be free. Dostoevsky believed that the entire cosmic process was justified by the appearance of Christ.

“There is nothing more boring for a person than to build a perfect society. He will reach the goal - that's all. " Therefore, creation requires destruction. And man is very fond of destroying. “Achievement of infinity is complete satisfaction” (Dostoevsky). An example is Tolstoy. He had everything: wealth, happiness, fame, family - but he could not live.

"Intellect is the estate of vanity" (Hegel).

“Every decent person of the right time must be a coward and a slave,” says the hero. "The most notorious scoundrel can be exalted by the soul."

“I don’t want to think and live differently, except that all 90 million or how many of us will be Russians then, will be educated and happy” (Dostoevsky). The difference in judgment with Chernyshevsky is that the whole point is not only in reason, but above all in a pure heart. The whole trouble of the hero of the Notes is that he has nothing sacred.

Brothers Karamazov.

1880, last piece Dostoevsky, the result of all his work. He is trying to answer the question that has tormented him all his life: the question of the existence of God. The novel is an apology for faith in the days of atheism. Dostoevsky asserts his ideal through polemics, criticism of views that deny God. Leads the debate at a very deep level; presents the strongest arguments against the existence of God. "Senseless reality" - the impossibility of its moral justification.

Objectives: to reflect all the arguments of atheism and to protect the belief in God as a reasonable world order. Reading the novel you need to understand whether Dostoevsky managed to solve this problem?

Tries to portray reality in the novel not from the point of view urgent problems, and from the perspective of the distant future - the time when history ends. "Only when history is over can we understand what a person is." It presents two options for the end of history: utopia (the teachings of Elder Zosimus) and dystopia (the legend of the Grand Inquisitor). Dostoevsky was one of the first to draw a dystopian note.

Zosimos thinks that over time the state will disappear, and instead of it a church will arise - in the sense of a free spiritual religious union of people. Distinctive feature- no violence. Dostoevsky gives an example of a different attitude towards a criminal (to send away the perpetrator, to prevent the plotter). Violence is a means of maintaining the unity of the state. Totalitarianism - the state distributes the good, it also controls private life.

Dostoevsky was so perceptive because he himself was well acquainted with the ideas of socialism, as well as the people who preached them. Dostoevsky was the son of his time, but, unlike his contemporaries, he understood the complex nature of freedom. Freedom is a person's prerogative to decide what is good and what is evil. Opposing the revolution, Dostoevsky defended freedom.

The state of the inquisitor - people are freed from the "torment" to decide. The idea is to submit with joy. Power is from the devil, freedom from God; this is the whole of Dostoevsky.

Critic Leontyev: "After all, I confess, although not quite on the side of the inquisitor, but certainly not on the side of that all-forgiving Christ that Dostoevsky invented." Leont'ev could combine the idea of ​​Christ with the idea of ​​violence; Leontyev is an atheist from the point of view of Dostoevsky (although he was tonsured). Two types of atheism: revolutionary and churchly.

Many critics (even Berdyaev) believe that the main idea the novel is expressed in the idea of ​​the inquisitor and that Dostoevsky is in solidarity with Ivan.

Free love presupposes a sacrifice, fake love presupposes an anguish (monk Feropont, about father Ilyusha-Snegirev, about Katerina Ivanovna). Love out of gratitude, sympathy is not love; but the everlasting, heavy, gloomy duty.

Zosima taught to love life, an example of a brother. He teaches to love a person, because this is a very difficult, most difficult task. Accepts death as a saint.

The Karamazovs are distinguished by their extraordinary love of life, manifested, first of all, by their love for women. Their counterbalance is Smerdyakov, who is indifferent to everything (women, homeland, poetry). According to Likov: "Nikrophil is a person who has a death drive." He was squeamish, as a child he loved to hang cats and bury them with ceremony.

Faith is based on an indisputable fact - the mind does not know everything, and will never know - knowledge is infinite. A person will never comprehend the meaning of his existence on Earth, in return for this he has truths - they are contained in faith. And when will he know the truth? When life is over ("for then you will know everything and you will not argue"). And on Earth there are no indisputable truths. Dostoevsky said this in the language of myth (about how God raised feelings). This, according to the respected senile Linkov, is the meaning of life. BUT a person cannot confine himself to the earthly, he needs the immeasurable, he cannot accept himself, but evaluates all the time. Each person needs a feeling of connection with immensity, therefore a person is not frequent (including Dostoevsky himself).

Dostoevsky proves that anyone sitting in court can kill his father. "Everyone wishes him death, one reptile eats another reptile." People want shows, so they want to kill their father.

Ivan Karamazov claims that he will not allow his father to be killed (in a conversation with Alyosha, when Dmitry beat his father: "If he had not torn him off, he would have killed him like that. How much does Izop need (meaning Fyodor Pavlovich). I, of course, I will not let you kill my father ”). Dmitry turns out to be a murderer because they themselves want him to be a murderer. Dostoevsky originally titled the novel: A Misfire of Judgment. The question is: why were they wrong?

Dostoevsky's main reproach against Ivan is that he does not accept this world and considers those around him to be the culprits of all their troubles. And Zosimus says that everyone is to blame before everyone. The demon appeared to Ivan in the guise of an acclimate, because an acclimate is a person who does not feel responsibility to anyone.

Fyodor Pavlovich lost sight of the fact that Alyosha and Ivan have one mother, the question for the test: why?

Fyodor Pavlovich Tyutchev. Lyric poetry.

Lyrics is a true test of aesthetic taste and moral development of a person. Novels can be read as a means of "excitement", but lyrics cannot be read like that. You need to educate yourself in order to be imbued with the meaning of the lyrics. It is in poetry that the deepest truths are usually expressed.

Tyutchev was already a genius in Russian literature. He graduated from the university (sat at this desk), immediately went abroad, spent more than 20 years in Munich. Almost did not appear all this time in the Russian press.

Only in the 1850s, after the appearance of Nekrasov's article "Secondary Russian Poets" (by popularity), Tyutchev began to gain popularity. He was born in 1803, and his first collection of works came out only in 1851. This is due to Tyutchev's special attitude to his poems.

From the letters and biography one gets the impression that he is completely devoid of author's ambition.

The attitude towards poetry after Tyutchev's death changed a lot. Thus, Tolstoy wrote: "Among the new poets, darkness has been elevated to dogma." Tyutchev was a classical poet, his prose is "clear". “All his poetry trembles with thought and feeling” Aksakov. The difficulty of understanding for him lies not in the dullness of the word, but in the complexity of thought. Not everything that a person experiences is worthy of expression in verse. Lyrics are just special feelings. The poetry of the 19th century is characterized by the opposition of the lyrics of everyday life.

Poetry primarily writes about love and nature, from antiquity to the present day. Exception: Nekrasov, Ryleev, Mayakovsky. For us (contemporaries), nature is an object of scientific study, a source of means for life. We often think that this attitude is correct. Tyutchev thought just the opposite - the scientific attitude to nature seemed to him false, and "fairy tales and stories" - is the truth.

Pascal says that nature is higher than man, because man is conscious, Tyutchev is of the opposite opinion.

Tyutchev: "The main enemies in my life are time and space." Ehard (German mystic monk) said that "Time and space are the main obstacles on the path of man to God."

Tyutchev outraged the powerlessness of the authorities during Crimean War... He openly calls the authorities "idiots" (well, being abroad, I would allow myself to do that).

Afanasy Fet.

Lived a great life (1820-1892). Was a poet " pure art(almost the same as saying that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea - this is a well-known truth). All his life he wrote about the eternal and unchanging - roses, nightingales, sunsets. Did not touch on politics, did not participate in the public struggle. Firmly sheltered from the passions, as it seemed. But, at the same time, he was exposed to the sharpness of Russian criticism (moreover, the criticism was fierce and rude, Pisarev surpassed everyone, who said that "Fet does not benefit society, but, someday, it will - when his books go to wallpaper") ... Literature did not stop scolding Fet, the reason for the amicable persecution was an attempt on the deepest foundations of the mentality of Russian society, obsessed with the idea of ​​improving the world (Fet admitted the possibility of happiness outside the sphere of everyday human life, which contradicted the main efforts of the time). The emblem of the era is the muse of Nekrasov, the muse of "revenge and sorrow." Nekrasov's poetry called for the struggle for the happiness of the people, and Fet - for the search for happiness in the beauty of nature and art.

In Russian history there were three understandings of poetry: the citizen poet (Pushkin), the beauty singer, the prophet poet. General - a clear understanding of the goals of art and the consciousness of their high mission, everyone felt they were servants (to God, the people, beauty). In the 20th century, poets deliberately left the mission. But at 19 - they believed sacredly, and Fet did not believe less than Nekrasov or Pushkin. His gaze flowed from a clear, clear vision of the value of human existence.

Fet was convinced that the world is unchanged, there is a struggle for life and nightingales actually peck at butterflies, he was close to Schopenhauer's ideas and translated his works. He rejected two faiths of the time - Christian (in the immortality of the soul) and the faith in progress. Many examples of Fet's atheism have survived. Mikhail Solovyov recalls: During a dispute with Vehrov and his defense of freesty, Fet said: "Lord Jesus Christ and Mother Holy Mother of God, thank you that I am not a Christian!" Fet believed only in beauty, and he found the meaning of life, perhaps the most convincing of all that Russian writers of the 19th century found.

What is "beauty" for Fet? Like other fundamental concepts (freedom, truth, goodness) it became a field of ideological battles. There were different opinions (Fet - as the main goal of art "The world is beautiful in all its parts, and the main pleasure of the artist is to see it", Tolstoy - as a hindrance to art, Dostoevsky wrote in the Karamazovs "Beauty is a terrible thing, the cause of all contradictions").

Fet spoke directly about the primacy of the beauty of the real world over beauty in art ("And what your only glance expresses / That the poet cannot retell"). What is reality? Not only what is, but also what is the highest good. For Nekrasov, reality is historical reality, good is progress. For Tolstoy, good is true perfection. Fet shared the point of view of Gette: "Beauty is above good, because it contains it in itself." The people who scolded Fet did not try to delve into his idea of ​​goodness. He was scolded for meaningless poetry and personal pessimism. Bushtat (researcher Feta) believed that the poet's life was flat and boring, but he was sure that life is like that at all. Fet did not fundamentally accept the denial of life, he believed that it was not possible "for a person to love at least something in life, not only his wife or children, but even an old manuscript or coffee, he cannot deny life."

Fet wrote a letter to Tolstoy's wife (at that time Lev Nikolayevich parted with Fet on the grounds of rejection of Christianity): “No one understands Lev Nikolayevich's aspirations as clearly as I do. This is not so much boasting, I feel like a two-headed eagle with him, but heads looking in different directions understand the service of good in different ways. " He is in solidarity with Tolstoy in the struggle for good, but Lev Nikolaevich believes that it is necessary to give instructions, while Fet thinks that instructions are harmful, this leads to "fanaticism" (cruelty). Fet does not accept moralizing art out of love for it: "a moral goal is not achieved by preaching, but real art has a beneficial effect."

“Philosophy has been struggling for a whole century, seeking the meaning of life, but it does not exist. And poetry fights for the reflection of the meaning of life, and therefore, piece of art, in which there is a meaning, does not exist for me "- this quote is very often covered against Fet. The poet means poetry, whose meaning is taken from politics, philosophy, religion.

Nabokov about ideas: "all general ideas that are so easily obtained are only shabby passports that allow their owners to make quick transitions from one edge of ignorance to another." For Nabokov, the struggle for an idea often turned into aggression, but, nevertheless, his ideas as a successor of Fet are still relevant.

Fet on the appointment of the poet: “ great poet ours did not say for nothing: "The service of muses does not tolerate vanity" - in these verses the whole ideal and the whole history of art in the struggle with everyday life. " For Chernyshevsky, art is a struggle to improve everyday life, while for Fet it is a struggle against the "darkness of everyday affairs." Art gives a person joy, pleasure, special, disinterested, which cannot be obtained either from science or from religion. This is a special joy that cannot be obtained from satisfying needs. This joy is useless, but the most necessary for a person. It reminds a person that life is not limited to work and worries. The symbol is the stars addressing a person: "We are burning here, so that in the dark gloom, a clear day asks for you."

the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language can be based not only on the stages that the common language is going through as a result of objective processes of the internal spontaneous development of its main structural elements - sound structure, grammar and vocabulary, but also on the correspondences between the stages of the historical development of the language and development society, culture and literature of the people.

A.I. Gorshkov suggests the following periodization:

1. Literary language old Russian(ancient East Slavic) nationality (X - early XIV centuries);

2. The literary language of Russian ( Great Russian) nationality(XIV - mid-XVII centuries);

3. Literary language the initial era of the formation of the Russian nation(mid-17th - mid-18th centuries);

4. Literary language of the era education of the Russian nation and national norms of the literary language(mid-18th - early 19th centuries);

5. Literary language of the Russian nation(mid-19th century - to the present day).

The patterns of development of Slavic literary languages, due to which the pre-national and national periods differ in them, were traced and substantiated in the report of V. V Vinogradov, made by him at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia. These differences are quite noticeable and characteristic. Among the most significant should be attributed the appearance in the national period of the development of the literary language of its oral-colloquial form, which as a means of oral national communication between members of the linguistic community, apparently, was absent in the ancient era, when the written-literary form of the language was directly correlated with the dialect colloquial speech and was contrasted with this latter.

RI Avanesov proposed a special periodization of the most ancient stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In a report at the VII International Congress of Slavists in Warsaw (1973), highlighting the relationship between the Old Russian (Old East Slavic) book type of language, the literary language itself and the language of the national dialect, the named scientist proposed the following chronological division of the era: XI century - the first half of the 12th century; second half of the 12th century - the beginning of the XIII century; XIII - XIV centuries This division is based on more and more, according to R. I. Avanesov, the deepening divergence of the book-written and folk-dialect language, taking into account the genre varieties of written monuments, which are strictly differentiated in functional terms.

The division of the history of the Russian literary language into pre-national and national periods of development is widely accepted by both Soviet and foreign historians of the Russian language.

As for the decisive demarcation of the era of development of the literary language of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries - usually called the Moscow period) from the previous time proposed by A.I. actually literary - written language of the given era. It is the literary language of the Moscow period that is inextricably linked with the literary development of the entire preceding period. After all, we know about the unity of the literature reflected in this language, that is, that ancient Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the same literary processes are observed, the existence and rewriting of the same texts that arose in the 11th or 12th centuries ... in ancient Kiev, and copied and lived in Moscow Russia, in the north and north-east of Kiev, and in the XIV century. ("Laurentian Chronicle"), and in the 16th century ("The Lay of Igor's Host") and even in the 17th century. (“The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned”). The same applies to such translated works of the Kiev era, such as "History of the Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius, "Alexandria" or "Devgenievo Deed", which undoubtedly arose in the 12th-13th centuries, while most of the copies date back to the 15th-17th centuries ... Thus, the unity of Old Russian literature throughout the development from the XI to the XVII century. ensured the unity of the tradition of the Old Russian literary and written language up to the middle of the 17th century.

In each of the named main periods of the development of the Russian literary language, smaller sub-periods of development are distinguished. Thus, the pre-national period splits into three sub-periods. The Kiev sub-period (from the 10th to the beginning of the 12th century) corresponds to the historical existence of a single East Slavic nation and a relatively single Old Russian (Kiev) state. The named sub-period can be easily distinguished according to such a noticeable structural feature as “falling of the deaf”, or the change of the reduced vowels ъ and b into full vowels in strong positions and zero sound in weak positions, which, as you know, leads to a decisive restructuring of the entire the phonological system of the Old Russian common language.

The second sub-period falls for a time from the middle of the XII to the middle of the XIV century, when dialect branches of a single East Slavic language are noticeably manifested in the literary - written language, which ultimately led to the formation of zonal varieties of Old Russian that differ from each other in phonetics, morphology and vocabulary literary - written language in the era of feudal fragmentation.

The third sub-period of the development of the literary - written language falls on the XIV - XVII centuries. For the northeast, it is the language of the Muscovite state, in other areas of East Slavic settlement, these are the initial foundations of the subsequently developed independent national languages ​​of the East Slavic peoples (Belarusian and Ukrainian), acting in the 15th - 17th centuries. as a written language of the entire Lithuanian - Russian state, or "simple Russian mova", which served both the future Belarusians and the ancestors of the Ukrainian people.

The national period of the development of the Russian literary language can also be subdivided into three sub-periods. The first of them covers the middle, or the second half of the 17th century, until the beginning of the 19th century. (before the era of Pushkin). By this time, the phonetic and grammatical systems of the Russian common language were mainly established, however, in the literary, written language, traces of the previously established tradition continue to be felt with sufficient force in the forms of Church Slavonic and business Russian speech. This is a transitional sub-period, a sub-period of the gradual establishment and formation of comprehensive norms of the modern Russian literary language as the language of the nation.

The second sub-period could be called, using the apt definition that was outlined by V. I. Lenin, the time "from Pushkin to Gorky." This time from the 30s of the XIX century. before the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically, before the era of the proletarian revolution, which put an end to the rule of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the time of the development of the Russian literary language as the language of the bourgeois nation. During these years, the vocabulary of the language, which developed on the basis of a broad democratic movement, was enriched with particular intensity in connection with the flourishing of Russian literature and democratic journalism.

And, finally, the third sub-period in the history of the Russian literary language is singled out, starting with the preparation and implementation of the proletarian revolution, the Soviet sub-period, which continues to this day.

7.National language -

a socio-historical category that designates a language that is a means of communication between a nation and acts in two forms: oral and written. N. i. is formed together with the formation of a nation, being both a prerequisite and a condition for its emergence and existence, on the one hand, and the result, a product of this process, on the other.

N. i. from the point of view of the internal structure, it is the heir to the language of the nationality.

The understanding of a changing language (the emergence of N. Ya. From the language of a nationality) as one and the same "subject" belongs to the general philosophical problem of variability and stability. The process of change does not exist without its opposite - relative stability, preservation of the changing object.

The concept of "N. I am." refers to the forms of language existence and is a kind of language being, opposed to another or other types of existence (the language of a clan, tribe, nationality), as well as other national languages ​​(Spanish as opposed to Catalan, Russian as opposed to Ukrainian, etc.).

There are several periods in the history of Russian literature.

1. LITERATURE. Until the 10th century, that is, before the adoption of Christianity, there was no written literature in Russia. Subject and lyrical works existed orally and were passed down from generation to generation.

2. ANCIENT LITERATURE developed from the 11th to the 17th century. These are historical and religious texts of Kievan and Muscovy Rus.

3. LITERATURE OF THE 18TH CENTURY. This era is called "Russian enlightenment". The basis of the great Russian classical literature laid by Lomonosov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, Karamzin.

4. LITERATURE OF THE 19th CENTURY - "Golden Age" Russian literature, the period of the appearance of Russian literature on the world stage thanks to the genius of Pushkin, Griboyedov, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov and many other great writers.

5. SILVER AGE - a short period from 1892 to 1921, a time of a new heyday of Russian poetry, the emergence of many new trends and trends in literature, a time of bold experiments in art associated with the names of Blok, Bryusov, Akhmatova, Gumilyov, Tsvetaeva, Severyanin, Mayakovsky , Gorky, Andreev, Bunin, Kuprin and other writers of the early 20th century.

6. RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE SOVIET PERIOD (1922-1991) - the time of the fragmented existence of Russian literature, developing both at home and in Western countries, where dozens of Russian writers emigrated after the revolution; the time of existence of official literature, beneficial to the Soviet regime, and secret literature, created contrary to the laws of the era and became the property of wide range readers only decades later.

The periodization of the cultural-historical process is a way of structuring it. It is only depending on the definition of the system-forming element of culture that it is possible to explain the “pulsation” of the cultural-historical movement, to single out and substantiate the periods of the history of culture of a certain length of time. Since more than a sufficient number of guidelines have been put forward for the role of such system-forming elements, criteria for periodization, there are also a great many options for periodization of both the history of culture as a whole and the histories of various components of the historical process. The time of man, culture, historical existence is periodized in different ways. For each variant of periodization, as well as for the typology of culture, the choice of the basis, which is, as a rule, either in the material or in the spiritual sphere, or adjoins one of them, is essential and decisive.

The meaning of any periodization - be it the global periodization of the historical process as a whole, the periodization of the development process of any local culture, or even the isolation of stages creative activity scientist, artist, stages of development of scientific theory or processes of genre formation in art, etc. - consists in finding the necessary help in ordering facts, understanding them, classifying them. Periodization is "like a blueprint of history drawn on tracing paper." Periodization is introduced with the aim of a deeper study of the dynamics of development, sets milestones (slices of history), formalizes the process, reduces to a diagram, abstracting from specific details.