Acmeism in literature. Abstract: Acmeism as a literary movement

Acmeism (from the Greek akme - the highest degree of something, blossoming, maturity, peak, edge) is one of the modernist movements in Russian poetry of the 1910s, formed as a reaction to the extremes of symbolism.

Overcoming the Symbolists’ predilection for the “superreal,” polysemy and fluidity of images, and complicated metaphors, the Acmeists strove for sensual plastic-material clarity of the image and accuracy, precision of the poetic word. Their “earthly” poetry is prone to intimacy, aestheticism and poeticization of the feelings of primordial man. Acmeism was characterized by extreme apoliticality, complete indifference to the pressing problems of our time.

The Acmeists, who replaced the Symbolists, did not have a detailed philosophical and aesthetic program. But if in the poetry of symbolism the determining factor was transience, the immediacy of existence, a certain mystery covered with an aura of mysticism, then a realistic view of things was set as the cornerstone in the poetry of Acmeism. The vague instability and vagueness of symbols was replaced by precise verbal images. The word, according to Acmeists, should have acquired its original meaning.

The highest point in the hierarchy of values for them was culture, identical to universal human memory. That is why Acmeists so often appeal to mythological subjects and images. If the Symbolists focused their work on music, then the Acmeists focused on the spatial arts: architecture, sculpture, painting. The attraction to the three-dimensional world was expressed in the Acmeists' passion for objectivity: a colorful, sometimes exotic detail could be used for purely pictorial purposes. That is, the “overcoming” of symbolism took place not so much in the sphere general ideas, how much in the field of poetic stylistics. In this sense, Acmeism was as conceptual as symbolism, and in this respect they are undoubtedly in continuity.

« Distinctive feature The Acmeist circle of poets was their “organizational cohesion.” Essentially, the Acmeists were not so much an organized movement with a common theoretical platform, but rather a group of talented and very different poets who were united by personal friendship.” The Symbolists had nothing of the kind: Bryusov’s attempts to reunite his brothers were in vain. The same thing was observed among the futurists - despite the abundance of collective manifestos that they released. The Acmeists, or - as they were also called - "Hyperboreans" (after the name of the printed mouthpiece of Acmeism, the magazine and publishing house "Hyperboreas"), immediately acted as a single group. They gave their union the significant name “Workshop of Poets.” And the beginning of a new trend (which later became almost “ prerequisite"the emergence of new poetic groups in Russia) was caused by a scandal.

In the fall of 1911, a “riot” broke out in the poetry salon of Vyacheslav Ivanov, the famous “Tower”, where the poetry society gathered and poetry was read and discussed. Several talented young poets defiantly left the next meeting of the Academy of Verse, outraged by the derogatory criticism of the “masters” of symbolism. Nadezhda Mandelstam describes this incident as follows: “Gumilev’s “Prodigal Son” was read at the “Academy of Verse,” where Vyacheslav Ivanov reigned, surrounded by respectful students. He subjected the “Prodigal Son” to real destruction. The speech was so rude and harsh that Gumilyov’s friends left the “Academy” and organized the “Workshop of Poets” - in opposition to it.”

And a year later, in the fall of 1912, the six main members of the “Workshop” decided not only formally, but also ideologically to separate from the Symbolists. They organized a new commonwealth, calling themselves “Acmeists,” i.e., the pinnacle. At the same time, the “Workshop of Poets” as organizational structure preserved - the Acmeists remained in it as an internal poetic association.

The main ideas of Acmeism were set out in the programmatic articles by N. Gumilyov “The Heritage of Symbolism and Acmeism” and S. Gorodetsky “Some Currents in Modern Russian Poetry”, published in the magazine “Apollo” (1913, No. 1), published under the editorship of S. Makovsky. The first of them said: “Symbolism is being replaced by a new direction, no matter what it is called, whether Acmeism (from the word akme - the highest degree of something, a blooming time) or Adamism (a courageously firm and clear view of life), in any case, requiring a greater balance of power and a more accurate knowledge of the relationship between subject and object than was the case in symbolism. However, in order for this movement to establish itself in its entirety and become a worthy successor to the previous one, it is necessary that it accept its inheritance and answer all the questions it poses. The glory of the ancestors obliges, and symbolism was a worthy father.”

S. Gorodetsky believed that “symbolism... having filled the world with “correspondences”, turned it into a phantom, important only insofar as it... shines through with other worlds, and belittled its high intrinsic value. Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, scent and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else.”

In 1913, Mandelstam’s article “The Morning of Acmeism” was also written, which was published only six years later. The delay in publication was not accidental: Mandelstam’s acmeistic views significantly diverged from the declarations of Gumilyov and Gorodetsky and did not make it onto the pages of Apollo.

However, as T. Skryabina notes, “the idea of a new direction was first expressed on the pages of Apollo much earlier: in 1910, M. Kuzmin appeared in the magazine with an article “On Beautiful Clarity,” which anticipated the appearance of declarations of Acmeism. By the time this article was written, Kuzmin was already a mature man and had experience of collaborating in symbolist periodicals. Kuzmin contrasted the otherworldly and foggy revelations of the Symbolists, the “incomprehensible and dark in art,” with “beautiful clarity,” “clarism” (from the Greek clarus - clarity). An artist, according to Kuzmin, must bring clarity to the world, not obscure, but clarify the meaning of things, seek harmony with the environment. The philosophical and religious quest of the Symbolists did not captivate Kuzmin: the artist’s job is to focus on the aesthetic side of creativity and artistic skill. “The symbol, dark in its deepest depths,” gives way to clear structures and admiration of “lovely little things.” Kuzmin’s ideas could not help but influence the Acmeists: “beautiful clarity” turned out to be in demand by the majority of participants in the “Workshop of Poets.”

Another “harbinger” of Acmeism can be considered Innokenty Annensky, who, formally being a symbolist, actually paid tribute to it only in the early period of his work. Subsequently, Annensky took a different path: the ideas of late symbolism had practically no impact on his poetry. But the simplicity and clarity of his poems were well understood by the Acmeists.

Three years after the publication of Kuzmin’s article in Apollo, the manifestos of Gumilev and Gorodetsky appeared - from this moment it is customary to count the existence of Acmeism as an established literary movement.

Acmeism has six of the most active participants in the movement: N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, O. Mandelstam, S. Gorodetsky, M. Zenkevich, V. Narbut. G. Ivanov claimed the role of the “seventh Acmeist,” but such a point of view was protested by A. Akhmatova, who stated that “there were six Acmeists, and there never was a seventh.” O. Mandelstam agreed with her, who, however, believed that six was too much: “There are only six Acmeists, and among them there was one extra...” Mandelstam explained that Gorodetsky was “attracted” by Gumilyov, not daring to oppose the then powerful Symbolists with only "yellow mouths". “Gorodetsky was [by that time] a famous poet...” IN different time The following people took part in the work of the “Workshop of Poets”: G. Adamovich, N. Bruni, Nas. Gippius, Vl. Gippius, G. Ivanov, N. Klyuev, M. Kuzmin, E. Kuzmina-Karavaeva, M. Lozinsky, V. Khlebnikov, etc. At the meetings of the “Workshop,” unlike the meetings of the Symbolists, specific issues were resolved: the “Workshop” was a school for mastering poetic skills, a professional association.

Acmeism as a literary movement united exceptionally gifted poets - Gumilyov, Akhmatova, Mandelstam, the formation of whose creative individuals took place in the atmosphere of the "Poets' Workshop". The history of Acmeism can be considered as a kind of dialogue between these three outstanding representatives. At the same time, the Adamism of Gorodetsky, Zenkevich and Narbut, who formed the naturalistic wing of the movement, differed significantly from the “pure” Acmeism of the above-mentioned poets. The difference between the Adamists and the triad Gumilyov - Akhmatova - Mandelstam has been repeatedly noted in criticism.

As a literary movement, Acmeism did not last long - about two years. In February 1914, it split. The "Poets' Workshop" was closed. The Acmeists managed to publish ten issues of their magazine “Hyperborea” (editor M. Lozinsky), as well as several almanacs.

“Symbolism was fading away” - Gumilyov was not mistaken in this, but he failed to form a movement as powerful as Russian symbolism. Acmeism failed to gain a foothold as the leading poetic movement. The reason for its rapid decline is said to be, among other things, “the ideological unadaptability of the movement to the conditions of a radically changed reality.” V. Bryusov noted that “the Acmeists are characterized by a gap between practice and theory,” and “their practice was purely symbolist.” It was in this that he saw the crisis of Acmeism. However, Bryusov’s statements about Acmeism were always harsh; at first he stated that “... Acmeism is an invention, a whim, a metropolitan quirk” and foreshadowed: “... most likely, in a year or two there will be no Acmeism left. His very name will disappear,” and in 1922, in one of his articles, he generally denies it the right to be called a direction, a school, believing that there is nothing serious and original in Acmeism and that it is “outside the mainstream of literature.”

However, attempts to resume the activities of the association were subsequently made more than once. The second “Workshop of Poets,” founded in the summer of 1916, was headed by G. Ivanov together with G. Adamovich. But it didn’t last long either. In 1920, the third “Workshop of Poets” appeared, which was Gumilyov’s last attempt to organizationally preserve the Acmeist line. Poets who consider themselves to be part of the school of Acmeism united under his wing: S. Neldichen, N. Otsup, N. Chukovsky, I. Odoevtseva, N. Berberova, Vs. Rozhdestvensky, N. Oleinikov, L. Lipavsky, K. Vatinov, V. Posner and others. The third “Workshop of Poets” existed in Petrograd for about three years (in parallel with the “Sounding Shell” studio) - until the tragic death of N. Gumilyov.

The creative destinies of poets, one way or another connected with Acmeism, developed differently: N. Klyuev subsequently declared his non-involvement in the activities of the commonwealth; G. Ivanov and G. Adamovich continued and developed many of the principles of Acmeism in emigration; Acmeism did not have any noticeable influence on V. Khlebnikov. IN Soviet time the poetic style of the Acmeists (mainly N. Gumilyov) was imitated by N. Tikhonov, E. Bagritsky, I. Selvinsky, M. Svetlov.

In comparison with other poetic movements of Russian Silver Age Acmeism, in many ways, seems to be a marginal phenomenon. It has no analogues in other European literatures (which cannot be said, for example, about symbolism and futurism); the more surprising are the words of Blok, Gumilyov’s literary opponent, who declared that Acmeism was just an “imported foreign thing.” After all, it was Acmeism that turned out to be extremely fruitful for Russian literature. Akhmatova and Mandelstam managed to leave behind “eternal words.” Gumilev appears in his poems as one of brightest personalities cruel time of revolutions and world wars. And today, almost a century later, interest in Acmeism has remained mainly because the work of these outstanding poets, who had a significant influence on the fate of Russian poetry of the 20th century, is associated with it.

Basic principles of Acmeism:

· liberation of poetry from symbolist appeals to the ideal, returning it to clarity;
· rejection of mystical nebula, acceptance of the earthly world in its diversity, visible concreteness, sonority, colorfulness;
· the desire to give a certain word, exact value;
· objectivity and clarity of images, precision of details;
· appeal to a person, to the “authenticity” of his feelings;
· poeticization of the world of primordial emotions, primitive biological natural principles;
· echoes of past literary eras, broad aesthetic associations, “longing for world culture.”

Acmeism is a poetic movement that began to take shape around 1910. The founders were N. Gumilyov and S. Gorodetsky, they were also joined by O. Mandelstam, V. Narbut, M. Zenkevich, N. Otsup and some other poets, who proclaimed the need for a partial rejection of some of the precepts of “traditional” symbolism. Mystical aspirations towards the “unknowable” were criticized: “Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, smell and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else” (S. Gorodetsky). Accepting all the basic provisions of symbolism, which was considered a “worthy father,” they demanded its reform in only one area; they were against the fact that the Symbolists directed “their main forces into the region of the unknown” [“they fraternized with mysticism, then with theosophy, then with the occult” (Gumilyov)], into the region of the unknowable. Objecting to these elements of symbolism, the Acmeists pointed out that the unknowable, by the very meaning of the word, cannot be known. Hence the desire of the Acmeists to free literature from those obscurities that were cultivated by the symbolists, and to restore clarity and accessibility to it. “The main role of literature,” says Gumilyov, “was seriously threatened by mystic symbolists, for they turned it into formulas for their own mysterious contacts with the unknowable.”

Acmeism was even more heterogeneous than symbolism. But if the Symbolists relied on the traditions of romantic poetry, the Acmeists were guided by the traditions of French classicism of the 18th century. The goal of the new trend is to accept real world, tangible, visible, audible. But, rejecting the symbolist deliberate obscurity and inarticulateness of verse, which envelops the real world in a foggy veil of mystical allegories, the Acmeists did not deny the existence of the otherness of the spirit or the unknowable, but refused to write about all this, considering it “unchaste.” At the same time, the opportunity was still allowed for the artist to approach the border of this “unknowable”, especially where the conversation is about the psyche, the mystery of feelings and confusion of spirit.

One of the main provisions of Acmeism is the thesis of “unconditional” acceptance of the world. But the ideals of the Acmeists collided with the social contradictions of Russian reality, from which they sought to escape, trying to isolate themselves in aesthetic problems, for which Blok reproached them, saying that the Acmeists “do not have and do not want to have a shadow of an idea about Russian poetry and the life of the world in general.”

Acmeism proclaimed the task of literature to be “beautiful clarity” (M.A. Kuzmin), or clarism (from the Latin clarus - clear). The Acmeists called their movement Adamism, associating with the biblical Adam the idea of a clear and direct view of the world. The Acmeists tried with all their might to return literature to life, to things, to man, to nature. “As Adamists, we are a bit of forest animals,” Gumilyov declares, “and in any case we will not give up what is bestial in us in exchange for neurasthenia.” They began to fight, as they put it, “for this world, sounding, colorful, having shapes, weight and time, for our planet earth.” Acmeism preached a “simple” poetic language, where words would directly name objects. In comparison with symbolism and related movements - surrealism and futurism - one can highlight, first of all, such features as the materiality and this-worldliness of the depicted world, in which “each depicted object is equal to itself.” From the very beginning, the Acmeists declared a love of objectivity. Gumilyov called for looking not for “shaky words”, but for words “with a more stable content.” Thing determined the predominance of nouns in poetry and the insignificant role of the verb, which is completely absent in many works, especially in Anna Akhmatova.

If the Symbolists imbued their poems with an intense musical element, then the Acmeists did not recognize such an unlimited intrinsic value of verse and verbal melody and carefully took care of the logical clarity and substantive clarity of the verse.

Also characteristic is a weakening of verse melodiousness and a tendency towards expressions of simple colloquial language.

The poetic narratives of the Acmeists are distinguished by laconicism, clarity of lyrical plot, and sharpness of conclusion.

The creativity of Acmeists is characterized by an interest in past literary eras: “Nostalgia for world culture” - this is how O. E. Mandelstam subsequently defined Acmeism. These are the motives and moods of Gumilyov’s “exotic novel”; images of ancient Russian writing by Dante and the psychological novel of the 19th century. from A. A. Akhmatova; Antiquity by Mandelstam.

The aestheticization of the “earthly,” the narrowing of problematics (as a consequence of ignoring the true passions of the era, its signs and conflicts), the aestheticization of little things did not allow the poetry of Acmeism to rise (fall) to reflect real reality, primarily social. Nevertheless, and perhaps due to the inconsistency and contradictoriness of the program, the need for realism nevertheless expressed itself, predetermining the further paths of the most powerful masters of this group, that is, Gumilyov, Akhmatova and Mandelstam. Their inner realism was well felt by their contemporaries, who at the same time understood the specificity of their artistic method. Trying to find a term that replaces the full-meaning word “realism” and suits the characteristics of Acmeism, V.M. Zhirmunsky wrote in the article “Overcoming Symbolism”:

“With some caution, we could talk about the ideal of the “Hyperboreans” as neorealism, understanding by artistic realism an accurate, little distorted by subjective mental and aesthetic experience, the transfer of separate and distinct impressions of primarily external life, as well as mental life, perceived from the external, most separate and distinct side; with the caveat, of course, that for young poets it is not at all necessary to strive for naturalistic simplicity of prose speech, which seemed inevitable to former realists, that from the era of symbolism they inherited an attitude towards language as a work of art.”

And indeed, the realism of the Acmeists was marked by obvious features of novelty - primarily, of course, in relation to symbolism.

There were many differences between the Acmeists, which emerged almost from the very beginning of the emergence of this group. Rarely did any of them adhere to the proclaimed manifestos - almost all of them were broader and higher than the proclaimed and declared programs. Everyone went their own ways, and it is difficult to imagine more dissimilar artists than, for example, Akhmatova, Gumilyov, Mandelstam, whose creative destinies took shape in internal polemics with Acmeism.

About the poetic flow:

The highest point in the hierarchy of values for them was culture, identical to universal human memory. That is why Acmeists often turn to mythological subjects and images. If the Symbolists focused their work on music, then the Acmeists focused on the spatial arts: architecture, sculpture, painting. The attraction to the three-dimensional world was expressed in the Acmeists' passion for objectivity: a colorful, sometimes exotic detail could be used for purely pictorial purposes. That is, the “overcoming” of symbolism occurred not so much in the sphere of general ideas, but in the field of poetic stylistics. In this sense, Acmeism was as conceptual as symbolism, and in this respect they are undoubtedly in continuity.

A distinctive feature of the Acmeist circle of poets was their “organizational cohesion.” Essentially, the Acmeists were not so much an organized movement with a common theoretical platform, but rather a group of talented and very different poets who were united by personal friendship. The Symbolists had nothing of the kind: Bryusov’s attempts to reunite his brothers were in vain. The same thing was observed among the futurists - despite the abundance of collective manifestos that they released. The Acmeists, or - as they were also called - "Hyperboreans" (after the name of the printed mouthpiece of Acmeism, the magazine and publishing house "Hyperboreas"), immediately acted as a single group. They gave their union the significant name “Workshop of Poets.” And the beginning of a new movement (which later became almost a “mandatory condition” for the emergence of new poetic groups in Russia) was marked by a scandal.

And a year later, in the fall of 1912, the six main members of the “Workshop” decided not only formally, but also ideologically to separate from the Symbolists. They organized a new commonwealth, calling themselves “Acmeists,” i.e., the pinnacle. At the same time, the “Workshop of Poets” as an organizational structure was preserved - the Acmeists remained in it as an internal poetic association.

Another “harbinger” of Acmeism can be considered In. Annensky, who, formally being a symbolist, actually paid tribute to him only in the early period of his work. Subsequently, Annensky took a different path: the ideas of late symbolism had practically no impact on his poetry. But the simplicity and clarity of his poems were well understood by the Acmeists.

Acmeism has six of the most active participants in the movement: N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, O. Mandelstam, S. Gorodetsky, M. Zenkevich, V. Narbut. G. Ivanov claimed the role of the “seventh Acmeist,” but such a point of view was protested by A. Akhmatova, who stated that “there were six Acmeists, and there never was a seventh.” O. Mandelstam agreed with her, who, however, believed that six was too much: “There are only six Acmeists, and among them there was one extra...” Mandelstam explained that Gorodetsky was “attracted” by Gumilyov, not daring to oppose the then powerful Symbolists with only "yellow mouths". “Gorodetsky was [by that time] a famous poet...” At different times, the following took part in the work of the “Workshop of Poets”: G. Adamovich, N. Bruni, Nas. Gippius, Vl. Gippius, G. Ivanov, N. Klyuev, M. Kuzmin, E. Kuzmina-Karavaeva, M. Lozinsky, V. Khlebnikov, etc. At the meetings of the “Workshop,” unlike the meetings of the Symbolists, specific issues were resolved: the “Workshop” was a school for mastering poetic skills, a professional association.

The creative destinies of poets, one way or another connected with Acmeism, developed differently: N. Klyuev subsequently declared his non-involvement in the activities of the commonwealth; G. Ivanov and G. Adamovich continued and developed many of the principles of Acmeism in emigration; Acmeism did not have any noticeable influence on V. Khlebnikov. In Soviet times, the poetic style of the Acmeists (mainly N. Gumilyov) was imitated by N. Tikhonov, E. Bagritsky, I. Selvinsky, M. Svetlov.

In comparison with other poetic movements of the Russian Silver Age, Acmeism, in many ways, is seen as a marginal phenomenon. It has no analogues in other European literatures (which cannot be said, for example, about symbolism and futurism); the more surprising are the words of Blok, Gumilyov’s literary opponent, who declared that Acmeism was just an “imported foreign thing.” After all, it was Acmeism that turned out to be extremely fruitful for Russian literature. Akhmatova and Mandelstam managed to leave behind “eternal words.” Gumilyov appears in his poems as one of the brightest personalities of the cruel times of revolutions and world wars. And today, almost a century later, interest in Acmeism has remained mainly because the work of these outstanding poets, who had a significant influence on the fate of Russian poetry of the 20th century, is associated with it.

Basic principles of Acmeism:

Liberating poetry from symbolist appeals to the ideal, returning it to clarity;

Refusal of mystical nebula, acceptance of the earthly world in its diversity, visible concreteness, sonority, colorfulness;

The desire to give a word a specific, precise meaning;

Objectivity and clarity of images, precision of details;

Appeal to a person, to the “authenticity” of his feelings;

Poeticization of the world of primordial emotions, primitive biological natural principles;

A echo of past literary eras, the broadest aesthetic associations, “longing for world culture.”

Acmeism is a movement that originated in Russian poetry in 1910 as an alternative to symbolism at the time of its crisis. This was the time when “the poetic youth were already clearly aware that continuing to dance on their symbolic rope over the abyss of the universe was not only risky, but also in vain, since the audience, tired of the cardboard suns and stars stuck on the black calico of the symbolic sky, began to yawn and run away. The magazine “Libra”, around which the most significant representatives of this trend were grouped, ceased to exist. The magazine "Apollo", which has appeared at the present time, has given shelter to the former "Vekhi" members, although it has not become a parental home for them. There was no unity and agreement among representatives of this trend in their views on the future fate of symbolism and poetic creativity. Thus, V. Bryusov considered poetry only an art, and V. Ivanov saw in it religious and mystical functions.

The emergence of Acmeism was also due to the urgent need of the time. “Symbolism was born at a moment of historical decline and spiritual desert. His mission was to restore the rights of the spirit, to breathe poetry again into a world that had forgotten about it. Acmeism... appeared in Russia to meet the great challenge of the 20th century: 1914, 1917, and for some in 1937,” says Nikita Struve.

On October 20, 1911, “Echo of the Poets” was created (not a coincidence and the very name, which expressed the attitude towards poetry as a craft), which became the forerunner of Acmeism. The main core of the Workshop were M. S. Gumilev, A. A. Akhmatova, O. E. Mandelstam, V. I. Narbut, M. A. Zenkevich. In October, the first issue of the magazine “Hyperborea” (“Wind of Wanderings”) was published.

The first discussions related to the emergence of a new literary movement began shortly after the creation of the Workshop. On February 18, 1912, in the editorial office of the Apollo magazine, at the next meeting of the Academy, V. Ivanov and A. Bely made reports on symbolism. Objections proclaiming separation from symbolism were made by their opponents - M. Gumilyov and S. Gorodetsky, who announced the creation of a literary school - Acmeism.

Acme - from Greek, which means the highest degree of something, color, blooming time. Thus, Acmeism meant a blossoming life full of power, the apogee, the highest development, an Acmeist - a creator, a pioneer who glorifies life in all its manifestations... On the Acmeists’ shield it was written: clarity, simplicity, affirmation of the reality of life.”

In contrast to S. Gorodetsky (see his report “Symbolism and Acmeism”, 1912), M. Gumilev believed that Acmeism comes out of symbolism and has points of contact with it. In his article, published for the first time in the Apollo magazine in 1913, “The Legacy of Symbolism and Acmeism,” M. Gumilyov reveals common features and the differences between Acmeism and Symbolism. He believes that Acmeism should become a worthy heir to the movement that preceded it, perceive its heritage and answer the questions it posed.

The defining feature of the aesthetic concept of the Acmeists was the objection to the “obligatory mysticism” of the Symbolists. “I’m afraid of all mysticism,” said Nikolai Stepanovich (Gumilyov), “I’m afraid of rushing into other worlds, because I don’t want to give the reader bills that will be paid not by me, but by some unknown force.”

But as a counterweight to the Symbolists, the Acmeists affirmed the ideals of beauty, which were born from the aestheticization of nature itself. The highest beauty the world proclaimed “free nature” and the enjoyment of it. In the atheistic manifesto of S. Gorodetsky, “Some trends in modern Russian poetry,” the “inextricable unity of earth and man” is promoted and an attempt is made to instill in art a new worldview—Acmeism.

Acmeists call the ideal of man “the primordial Adam,” whom they wanted to see as cheerful, spontaneous and wise. Hence the Acmeists have the courage to call a spade a spade, as well as a courageous, sober view of the material world.

The word was proclaimed to be the single artistic value of the verse, and the importance of its material side was emphasized. The main thing in a word is its “conscious content, Logos,” which is not integral part content of the word, but acts as its formal component. The content of the word was proclaimed by its form.

Main feature O. Mandelstam saw the Russian language because it is a “Hellenistic” language. The Russian language does not need foreign symbolism, since the language itself is already symbolic in its essence and gives the poet images.

In deliberate symbolization, Acmeists saw the cause of the death of the real dynamic nature of language. Therefore, they strived for semantic simplicity and clarity, “purity” of vocabulary material. When the Symbolists reduced the symbol of the main artistic principle, the Acmeists used it as one of the tropes. “We do not agree to sacrifice other means of poetic influence to him and seek their complete consistency.” Striving for simplicity and clarity, the feeling material world, the Acmeists resorted to detailed sketches of things and objects, so the principle of detailing became canonized for them artistic device. They revived the architectural harmony and completeness of the composition of the verse. “The spirit of construction, architecturalness is the recognition of the suitability of things, of reality as such (without correlation with another reality), this is the recognition of the three-dimensional dimension of the world, not as a prison, not as a burden, but as a God-given palace.”

The material for construction, the supporting elements of the composition were the word, color, light, flavor, space, line, which contributed to the picturesqueness, decorativeness of the style (G. Ivanov, G. Adamovich, V. Junger), plasticity, gesture were used (M. Gumilyov, O. Mandelstam).

Therefore, in order to seek and find peace in oneself, to live in peace with oneself and the world, to write logically, to be clear in one’s statements, to love the word, to be a masterful architect, to restrain chaos with a clear form, another principle of Acmeist poetics assisted - the principle of claricism ( excellent clarity), developed by G. Kuzmin.

The main literary genre of the Acmeists is constant lyricism. Lyrical miniatures, sketches from life, and sketches were created. An attempt is being made to revive the classical forms of ancient Greek poetry. Adamovich, Verkhovensky, Stolitsa, Kuzmin restore the bucolic genres of idyll, pastoral, and eclogue in their work.

Acmeism poetry was marked by an increased tendency towards cultural associations; it echoed past literary eras. “Longing for world culture,” - this is how O. Mandelstam later defined Acmeism. “Each direction feels in love with one or another creator of the era. And it is no coincidence that the exponents of the ideas of Acmeism, the “foundations” of its structure were Shakespeare, who showed “ inner world man,” Rabelais, who sang “the body and its joys, wise physiology,” Villon, who “told... about life,” and Théophile Gautier, who found for this life “in art worthy clothes of impeccable forms.” To combine these four moments in oneself is the dream that unites the people who so boldly called themselves Acmeists.

The name "Acmeism" comes from the Greek. “acme” - tip, top.
The theoretical basis is N. Gumilyov’s article “The Heritage of Symbolism and Acmeism.” Acmeists: N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, S. Gorodetsky, M. Kuzmin.

ACMEISM is a modernist movement that declared a concrete sensory perception of the external world, returning the word to its original, non-symbolic meaning.

At the beginning of his creative path young poets, future acmeists, were close to symbolism, attended “Ivanovo Wednesdays” - literary meetings in Vyach.Ivanov’s St. Petersburg apartment, called the “tower”. In the “tower” classes were held for young poets, where they learned poetry. In October 1911, students of this “poetry academy” founded a new literary association, “The Workshop of Poets.” “Tseh” was a school of professional excellence, and its leaders were the young poets N. Gumilyov and S. Gorodetsky. In January 1913, they published the declarations of the acmeist group in the Apollo magazine.

The new literary movement, which united great Russian poets, did not last long. The creative searches of Gumilyov, Akhmatova, Mandelstam went beyond the scope of Acmeism. But the humanistic meaning of this movement was significant - to revive a person’s thirst for life, to restore the feeling of its beauty. It also included A. Akhmatova, O. Mandelstam, M. Zenkevich, V. Narbut and others.

Acmeists are interested in the real, not the other world, the beauty of life in its concrete - sensual manifestations. The vagueness and hints of symbolism were contrasted with a major perception of reality, the reliability of the image, and the clarity of the composition. In some ways, the poetry of Acmeism is the revival of the “golden age,” the time of Pushkin and Baratynsky.

Acmeism aesthetics:
- the world must be perceived in its visible concreteness, appreciate its realities, and not tear yourself away from the ground;
- we need to revive the love for our body, the biological principle in man, to value man and nature;
- the source of poetic values is on earth, and not in the unreal world;
- in poetry, 4 principles must be fused together:
1) Shakespeare’s traditions in depicting the inner world of man;
2) Rabelais’ traditions in glorifying the body;
3) Villon’s tradition in chanting the joys of life;
4) Gautier's tradition in glorifying the power of art.

Basic principles of Acmeism:
- liberation of poetry from symbolist appeals to the ideal, returning it to clarity;
- rejection of mystical nebula, acceptance of the earthly world in its diversity, visible concreteness, sonority, colorfulness;
- the desire to give a word a specific, precise meaning;
- objectivity and clarity of images, precision of details;
- appeal to a person, to the “authenticity” of his feelings;
- poeticization of the world of primordial emotions, primitive biological natural principles;
- a echo of past literary eras, the broadest aesthetic associations, “longing for world culture.”

Distinctive features of Acmeism:
- hedonism (enjoyment of life), Adamism (animal essence), clarism (simplicity and clarity of language);
- lyrical plot and depiction of the psychology of experience;
- colloquial elements of language, dialogues, narratives.

In his famous article “The Legacy of Symbolism and Acmeism,” N. Gumilyov wrote: “Symbolism is being replaced by a new direction, no matter what it is called, whether Acmeism (from Greek word bchmYU (“acme”) the highest degree of something, color, blooming time), or Adamism (a courageously firm and clear view of life), in any case, requiring a greater balance of forces and a more accurate knowledge of the relationship between subject and object than that was in symbolism” Here and further: Gumilyov N. Criticism of Russian post-symbolism: An Anthology. - M.: Olimp, AST, 2002. - 384 p. - P. 20 - 25..

The chosen name of this direction confirmed the desire of the Acmeists themselves to comprehend the heights of literary excellence. Symbolism was very closely connected with Acmeism, which its ideologists constantly emphasized, starting from symbolism in their ideas.

In the article “The Legacy of Symbolism and Acmeism,” Gumilyov, recognizing that “symbolism was a worthy father,” stated that it “has completed its circle of development and is now falling.” Having analyzed both domestic, French and German symbolism, he concluded: “We do not agree to sacrifice other methods of influence to it (the symbol) and are looking for their complete consistency,” “It is more difficult to be an Acmeist than a symbolist, just as it is more difficult to build a cathedral than tower. And one of the principles of the new direction is to always follow the line of greatest resistance.”

Sergei Gorodetsky also wrote about the differences between symbolism and acmeism in the article “Some trends in modern Russian poetry”: “The struggle between acmeism and symbolism, if it is a struggle and not the occupation of an abandoned fortress, is, first of all, a struggle for this world, sounding, colorful , having shapes, weight and time, for our planet Earth. Symbolism, in the end, having filled the world with “correspondences”, turned it into a phantom, important only insofar as it shines through and shines through other worlds, and diminished its high intrinsic value. Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, scent and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else. The star Mair, if it exists, is beautiful in its place, and not as a weightless fulcrum of a weightless dream. The troika is daring and good with its bells, coachman and horses, and not with the politics pulled under its cover. And not only the rose, the star Mair, the three are good, that is, not only everything that has long been beautiful is good, but ugliness can also be beautiful. After all the “rejections,” the world was irrevocably accepted by Acmeism, in all its beauties and ugliness.” Gorodetsky S. Some trends in modern Russian poetry // Criticism of Russian post-symbolism: Anthology. - M.: Olimp, AST, 2002. - 384 p. - P. 12 - 20..

In addition to symbolism, the Acmeists identified the following of their predecessors: William Shakespeare, Francois Rabelais, Francois Villon and Théophile Gautier. It was believed that Shakespeare showed the inner world of man, Rabelais - the body and its joys, wise physiology, Villon told about a life that does not doubt itself at all; Théophile Gautier found in art worthy clothes of impeccable shapes for this life. To combine these four points is what the Acmeists strived for.

The famous poem “Art” by Théophile Gautier, translated by Gumilyov, was perceived as a kind of credo of Acmeism:

Art is all the more beautiful

Why is the material taken more dispassionate?

Poem, marble or metal...

It is the “dispassionate material” that is characteristic of the poetry of the Acmeists.

Discussing the relationship between the world and human consciousness, Gumilyov demanded to “always remember the unknowable,” but at the same time “not to offend your thoughts about it with more or less probable guesses.” Having a negative attitude towards the desire of symbolism to know secret meaning existence (he remained secret for Acmeism), Gumilyov declared the “unchastity” of knowledge of the “unknowable”, the “childishly wise, painfully sweet feeling of one’s own ignorance”, the intrinsic value of the “wise and clear” reality surrounding the poet.

One of the main criteria in the poetry of Acmeism was attention to the word, to the beauty of the sounding verse. There was a certain general orientation towards traditions of Russian and world art that were different from those of the Symbolists. Speaking about this, V. M. Zhirmunsky wrote in 1916: “Attention to the artistic structure of words now emphasizes not so much the importance of the melodiousness of lyrical lines, their musical effectiveness, but rather the picturesque, graphic clarity of images; the poetry of hints and moods is replaced by the art of precisely measured and balanced words... there is a possibility of rapprochement between young poetry not with the musical lyricism of the romantics, but with the clear and conscious art of French classicism and with the French 18th century, emotionally poor, always rationally in control of itself, but graphic rich variety and sophistication of visual impressions, lines, colors and forms” Zhirmunsky V.M. Overcoming symbolism: article [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://gumilev.ru/main.phtml?aid=5000895.

In his 1919 article “The Morning of Acmeism,” O. Mandelstam singled out “the word as such” as the most important component of Acmeism. “The word as such was slowly born.” Gradually, one after another, all the elements of the word were drawn into the concept of form, only the conscious meaning. Logos is still erroneously and arbitrarily considered content. Logos only loses from this unnecessary honor. Logos requires only equality with other elements of the word. The futurist, unable to cope with conscious meaning as a material for creativity, frivolously threw it overboard and essentially repeated the gross mistake of his predecessors.

For Acmeists, the conscious meaning of the word, Logos, is the same beautiful form as music for the Symbolists” Mandelstam O. Morning of Acmeism // Mandelstam O. On art. - M.: Art, 1995..

Researchers note that language for Acmeists was not only a material, a means, but also a goal. For them, “... it is necessary that the thing should not be (or, at least, that it should not only be) the master of the word, so that the word will acquire that independence, which alone gives it the highest poetic power.” See Levin Yu.I., Segal D.M., Timenchik R.D., Toporov V.N., Tsivyan T.V. Russian semantic poetics as a potential cultural paradigm // Death and immortality of the poet: Scientific materials. conf. / Comp. M.Z. Vorobyova, I.B. Delectorskaya, P.M. Nerler, M.V. Sokolova, Yu.L. Freidin. - M.: RGGU, 2001. - 320 p. pp. 286-287. This is how the unique beauty of the sound of acmeistic poems is achieved.

Researchers also note that in the work of the Acmeists, the boundary between poetry and prose has shifted. More precisely, poets introduced into their poems elements that are primarily characteristic of prose works. This is manifested in the presence of a plot, large number characters, complex composition, the presence of dialogues, the use of various layers of speech, etc. According to the authors of the famous study “Russian semantic poetics as a potential cultural paradigm,” such a combination of poetry and prose was done “for the sake of maximally compressing the world of the work - after all, it was prose under the pen of Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, and especially Dostoevsky that acquired the ability to extremely fully absorb and adequately convey the content in your language<…>outside world" Decree. Op. P. 289.. This technique is especially clearly manifested in the work of Akhmatova, about whom Mandelstam wrote in 1922: “Akhmatova brought into Russian lyrics all the enormous complexity and richness of the Russian novel of the 19th century.”

Basic principles of Acmeism - page No. 1/1

Basic principles of Acmeism:

- liberation of poetry from symbolist appeals to the ideal, returning it to clarity;

- rejection of mystical nebula, acceptance of the earthly world in its diversity, visible concreteness, sonority, colorfulness;

- the desire to give a word a certain, precise meaning;

- objectivity and clarity of images, precision of details;

- appeal to a person« authenticity» his feelings;

- poeticization of the world of primordial emotions, primitive biological natural principles;

- echoes of past literary eras, the broadest aesthetic associations,« longing for world culture».

Acmeist poets

Akhmatova Anna

Gumilev NikolayGorodetsky Sergey

Zenkevich Mikhail

Ivanov Georgy

Krivich Valentin

Lozinsky Mikhail

Mandelstam Osip

Narbut Vladimir

Shileiko Vladimir

Acmeism (from the Greek akme - the highest degree of something, blossoming, maturity, peak, edge) - one of the modernist movements in Russian poetry of the 1910s, formed as a reaction to the extremes of symbolism.

Overcoming the Symbolists' predilection for« hyperreal», polysemy and fluidity of images, complicated metaphors, Acmeists strived for sensual plastic-material clarity of the image and accuracy, precision of the poetic word. Their« earthly» poetry is prone to intimacy, aestheticism and poeticization of the feelings of primordial man. Acmeism was characterized by extreme apoliticality, complete indifference to the pressing problems of our time.

A distinctive feature of the Acmeist circle of poets was their« organizational cohesion». Essentially, the Acmeists were not so much an organized movement with a common theoretical platform, but rather a group of talented and very different poets who were united by personal friendship. The Symbolists had nothing of the kind: Bryusov’s attempts to reunite his brothers were in vain. The same thing was observed among the futurists - despite the abundance of collective manifestos that they released. Acmeists, or - as they were also called -« Hyperboreans» ( by the name of the printed mouthpiece of Acmeism, magazine and publishing house« Hyperborea»), immediately performed as a single group. They gave their union a significant name« Workshop of poets». And the beginning of a new trend (which later became almost« prerequisite» the emergence of new poetic groups in Russia) was marked by a scandal.

The main ideas of Acmeismwere set out in the program articles of N. Gumilyov« The legacy of symbolism and acmeism» and S. Gorodetsky« Some trends in modern Russian poetry», published in the magazine« Apollo"(1913, No. 1),published under the editorship of S. Makovsky. The first of them said:« Symbolism is being replaced by a new direction, no matter what it is called, whether acmeism (from the word akme - the highest degree of something, a blooming time) or Adamism (a courageously firm and clear view of life), in any case, requiring a greater balance of forces and more accurate knowledge of the relationship between subject and object than was the case in symbolism. However, in order for this movement to establish itself in its entirety and become a worthy successor to the previous one, it is necessary that it accept its inheritance and answer all the questions it poses. The glory of the ancestors obliges, and symbolism was a worthy father».

S. Gorodetsky believed that« symbolism... filling the world with “correspondences”, turned it into a phantom, important only insofar as it... shines through other worlds, and diminished its high intrinsic value. Among the Acmeists, the rose again became good in itself, with its petals, smell and color, and not with its conceivable likenesses with mystical love or anything else».

Mandelstam’s article was also written in 1913« Morning of Acmeism», which was released only six years later. The delay in publication was not accidental: Mandelstam’s acmeistic views significantly diverged from the declarations of Gumilyov and Gorodetsky and did not make it onto the pages« Apollo».