INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND GENERAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the context of modern civilization genesis and evolution, a dialogue of cultures, including the study of the Russian literary and philosophical tradition in its interactions with world aesthetic thought, is in demand, the problem of the ideal of Plastic Beauty being an its lyrical variation. The study aims to solve the following problems:

• to define the general phenomenology of Plastic Beauty;

• to identify the main trends in the origin and development of this phenomenon in its aesthetic and theoretical understanding in Russia;

• to study the main levels and types of interaction of the poetics of Plastic Beauty and the poetics of theSublime on the material of philosophical and aesthetic thought in Russia, from ancient Russian sources to the first third of the 19th century;

• to conduct an experiment on the example of two idyllic odes of the last quarter of the 18th century (M.Muravyov “Ode Ten. Spring” (1775) and E. Lyutsenko “Spring” (1798)) in order to discover the defining features of the ideal of Plastic Beauty that became a leader in 19th century literary culture.

It is necessary to note from the beginning that the phenomenon of the so-called “anthology” was the source of the forming ideas about Plastic Beauty. Since the 18th century, anthological tradition in Europe has been understood as poetry in the ancient style. Such poems were united in anthologies. The word “anthology” in Greek literally means “collection of flowers”, “garland”. The name is based on the association of poems with flowers that was widely spread in the poetry of Ancient Greece, and comes from the ancient Greek poet of the 2nd – 1st centuries BC Meleager, the compiler of the first anthology that has not survived. This phenomenon originates in Russia in the 18thcentury. The first anthological tradition was founded by the classicists; representatives of almost all the later literary movements experienced the influence of this tradition and then developed and improved it in their own way. The literary and philosophical heritage of G.R. Derzhavin at the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries is indicative in this regard.

The anthological tradition in Russian literature is a more complex phenomenon than in European literature. It assumes not only antique reminiscences, techniques of ancient poetry, indirect antique parallels at various levels, but also the general meta-genre and meta-directional vector of literary culture. Its main goal is the synthesis of various arts in order to comprehend Beauty as the center for the transformation of the universe on the paths of Harmony. As a result, there arouses a hypothesis of modern theorists about the so- called "meta-artistry" as a dynamic phenomenon, aimed at the processes of unification, synthesis, harmonization (Gay: 2005, 96 - 141). In the world of humanities, researchers use a broader generic concept of “meta-theory” (Kola: 2013).

In our understanding, Plastic Beauty is an ethical-aesthetic, axiological ideal dating back to antiquity, the one that is an epitome of external and internal beauty in the system of leading moral concepts, such as truth, goodness and wisdom.

The topic of the dialogue of various cultures in the focus of philosophical and aesthetic searches, which we have taken as a theoretical basis for our research, is also relevant for modern humanities. A vivid confirmation of this is a recent theoretical and methodological article on comparative research in the era of multiculturalism and globalization (Kola: 2013).

The theoretical significance of the research is stipulated by the fact that the concept of Plastic Beauty that we substantiate can be applied when considering the most important moral and aesthetic ideals of both domestic and world philosophical and poetic traditions of different eras: from the beginning of the New Age to the present day (multicultural situation at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries).

The study uses data from such methods as: genetic, comparative-typological, and historical-functional. The genetic method makes it possible to identify the sources, genesis and evolution of ideas about Plastic Beauty including the material of Russian literary culture at the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries. Thecomparative typological method allows finding and presenting as a system similarities and differences in various interpretations of the topic. The historical-functional method permits identifying literary traditions in understanding the concept of Plastic Beauty in the dynamics of historical and cultural development of literature.

PLASTIC BEAUTY AS A PHENOMENON IN THE CONTEXT OF PHILOSOPHICAL AND AESTHETIC SEARCHES OF LITERARY CULTURE. HISTORICAL EXCURSION

Antiquity has always had a huge influence on Russian culture, in particular, on Russian literature. The turn of the 18th – 19th centuries is a tipping point in the development of European culture; different cultural strata coexist in the same temporary space. A.V. Mikhailov writes: “During this period, antiquity plays a significant role in European cultural processes. Antiquity as a cultural reality and cultural representation immensely surpasses in its participation in the life of this era the particularity and fragmentation of any borrowings, updated images and reflections” (Mikhailov: 1988, 309).

Many ancient ideals found a new life in the new aesthetic quest. Beauty in ancient aesthetics was understood as truth, peace, wisdom. It was precisely the ideas of the beautiful and the good that crowned the entire hierarchical system of ideas in Plato’s philosophy. The harmony of physical elements combined in the human body was understood in antiquity in relation to the ideals of beauty, the "soul" subjugating these “elements”. From the viewpoint of the ancients the phenomenon of Beauty originates in the ideal that is formed in these elements.

The philosophy of Plastic Beauty is born in the synthesis with these ideas. According to A.F. Losev, “...beauty is plastic. It means that beauty in its universality (not the beauty of a stone or a tree, a person or a society, but the very beauty that is present in all beautiful things and creatures, but which is not any of these objects) must be a living ... ”(Losev :1988, 87). “Beauty and art, like any expressiveness in general, are primarily something external and material. This external and material was so constant for the Greeks, so infinite, all-pervading and all-creating, that it is not sufficient to speak only about matter. Matter was not conceived here in any pure and abstract form. For the Greek, it was always plastic” (Losev: 1988, 282).

The famous German philosopher Oswald Spengler was one of the first to draw attention to this feature ofancient culture in the New Age: “The unconditional acceptance of sensual appearance flowed from the ancient ideal ... The Apollonian soul, Euclidean, pointed, felt an empirical, visible body as a perfect expression of its mode of existence, the Faustian soul aspiring for the distant, found the same expression not in person, soma, but in personality, character ... “Soul” for a genuine Hellenic was, after all, the shape of his body. That is how Aristotle defined it. “Body” for a Faustian man was a vessel for the soul. This is how Goethe felt” (Spengler: 1993, 432-433). That is why plastic arts had the same meaning for antiquity as music for Western European culture.

The understanding of Plastic Beauty in antiquity was associated primarily with sculptural images capturedin art. The world philosophical thought, from J. Winckelmann and G.-F. Hegel to O. Spengler and A.F. Losev, definitely affirms the ‘sculpturality’ of ancient culture. The aesthetic ideal was primarily embodied in the antique sculpture. This indicates that not only art, but the consciousness of the ancient Greeks was plastic.

Plastic Beauty in the anthological tradition of Russian lyricism that gave rise to it is inextricably linked with the ancient ideal of “kalos kagathos” – harmony of the human inner world with the external appearance: the external beauty in the vision of ancient artists expressed spiritual beauty. Initially, this ideal was embodied in the full or partial depiction of naked gods and heroes.

In axiology this understanding of Beauty was combined with the sacred. For an ancient person, theexperience of beauty implied a certain higher, sacred experience. Since the beauty of the external incarnation was the center of ancient culture, contact with Plastic Beauty and its perception through works of art can beconsidered an ethical and aesthetic value. In this regard, “... the correlation of the real and the ideally conceivable, carried out through the plastic, gives the latter unique aesthetic properties" (Sintsov: 2003, 51).

Three defining ideas are born from the interaction of the physical and the spiritual in the focus of kalos kagathos in ancient aesthetics:

1. 1. beauty as “sacred flesh”/ that is bodily beauty (kalos kagathos is the harmony of external and internal content);
2. 2. beauty as a reflection of the Oecumene (inner universe);
3. 3. beauty as a manifestation of a deified higher substance through the external plastic.

In this regard, J.J. Winckelmann’s statement seems important. “God is the highest beauty, and the concept of human beauty will be the more perfect, the more we think of it as of similar and coinciding with a higher being, which differs for us from matter by the concept of unity and indivisibility. This concept of beauty is like a spirit arising from matter, passing through fire and striving to give birth to a creature made in the image and likeness of the first intelligent creature conceived by the divine mind. The forms of such an image are simple and continuous, and diverse in this unity, and therefore, harmonious” (Winckelmann: 1935, 282).

In Russian culture and literature, the understanding of “plastic beauty” was at the junction of several traditions:

1. ancient culture;

2. philosophy and aesthetics of ancient Russia;

3. moral and aesthetic teachings of Europe.

“Russian Antiquity” (the term was introduced by G.S. Knabe, see: (Knabe: 1999)) inherited the ancient understanding of beauty and synthesized it with Christian spirituality. As the researcher of ancient Russian and Byzantine aesthetics V.V. Bychkov notes, “To the material, sensual perceived beauty, the attitude in Byzantine culture was twofold. ... revered it (especially natural) as a result of divine creativity, as an image and a reflection of higher levels of beauty...” (Bychkov: 1997, 65). In the theoretical aspect it is connected with an actual general problem of modern humanitarian studies – on the correlation of the art of word and morality, including through the levels of narratology – see: (Gefen: 2010).

Antiquing aesthetics continued the traditions of pre-Christian antique aesthetics. In the Byzantine concept of beauty, physical beauty in the ancient sense and spirituality were combined: “The attributes of visible beauty, traditional for the Greco-Roman world, harmony of body extremities and pleasant colour, were organically combined in this trend with signs of beauty that go back to the biblical aesthetics: radiance, sounding, exaltation of beauty to such an extent that even looking at it is unbearable” (Bychkov: 1997, 67).

As a result, we find an even higher level of understanding the problem: “... the inseparability of beauty and wisdom is at the origins of ancient Russian aesthetics. The harmony of Sophia is in the “unity of wisdom, humanity and beauty” (Valitskaya: 1983, 10).

Medieval representations of the beautiful are preserved and even concentrated and postulated in development in the aesthetics of the first half of the 17thcentury. Alongside, new trends are emerging. First of all, they are expressed in an increasing attention to the material, visually perceived beauty, in which self- worthy spirituality is seen. “The East Slavic (deep, archetypal) layer of Old Russian aesthetic consciousness is characterized by its tendencies to concreteness, materiality, plastic tactility (corporality) of spiritual phenomena, to sacralization of natural phenomena, to illusory and “documentary” certainty of the other world, to a sense of magical interconnectedness of all things and phenomena” (Bychkov: 2004, 32).

Besides, even during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages, beauty begins to be associated with the category of the Sublime (for a modern vision of this general theoretical problem, see: (Matthis: 2010, 148)). This category <“... has become”> a kind of a “coefficient” of transformation that turns one system of categories into another, a kind of a module of the new system... takes on the imprint of the Sublime in this sense, and is viewed from the angle of elevation, of a person’s erection overthe human empiry ... ” (Bychkov: 1997, 109). There appears a dialogue with the ontological categories of Beauty and Harmony.

Under the influence of European philosophical and aesthetic thought, by the middle of the 18th century, new semantic meanings of the phenomenon of Plastic Beauty had been fixed in the Russian tradition; it is often understood as a phenomenon that arose at the junction of various arts.

The idea of the links between painting and poetry permeates the original treatise of the famous Russian poet and thinker G.R. Derzhavin “Discourse on Lyric Poetry or Ode” (1811). “The very word “picture” passes through it as a leitmotif, accompanied by constant comments of the author, who seeks to clarify what “pictures” are in lyrics” (Makhov: 2016,15). According to Derzhavin, the poet “tries to display different pictures, one after another, that are opposite, such as terrible and pleasant...” (Derzhavin: 1872; VII, 541); “the paintings <...> in lyric poetry (not to mention epic) should be short, with a fiery brush, or with one stroke majestically, terribly, or pleasantly drawn” (Derzhavin: 1872, VII, 550); the property of the praise (as a lyrical genre) is that in it “pictures that, it seems, have no relationship with each other, are crowded together, but do not follow each other” (Derzhavin: 1872, VII, 580); “the lyrical high” lies “in the continuous presentation of many pictures and brilliant feelings” (Derzhavin: 1872, VII, 537).

The concept of Plastic Beauty was brought to a new level by the critic and philosopher V.G. Belinsky in the 19th century. For him it is:

1. an ability to catch beauty in motion;

2. an ability to draw this picture in the dynamics of language and style;

3. an ability to describe the stages of the movement of beauty “statuary”.

Later, we meet similar “movements”, though in a different semantic context, in “The Government Inspector” by N.V. Gogol (a false mirror – the famous “silent scene”) (for more details see: (Belinsky: 1955)

PLASTIC BEAUTY AND THE SUBLIME (EXPERIENCE IN A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHICAL AESTHETICS FIRST STAGES)

As we noted above, a deep understanding of the phenomenon of Plastic Beauty gradually merged with the ideas of the Sublime. More specifically, the spiritual side of the problem of Plastic Beauty impact on the world turned out to be closest in philosophical and aesthetic searches to the poetics of the Sublime category.

The undisputed, high level of awareness of Russian authors in the discussion of the Sublime in world aesthetics is noteworthy.

M.V. Lomonosov possessed a thorough understanding of Longinus’ ideas about the Sublime through the prism of Boileau’s judgements (Serman: 2002, 333-346). In the same decades, A.P. Sumarokov placed the selected translation of Boileau’s actual judgements of the Sublime in his “Hardworking Bee” (1759).

In the general art context, J.J. Winckelmann’s ideas acquire significance for the aesthetic thought of Russia in the second half of the 18th century in the aspect of the Sublime problem (including the access to literary practice by N.A. Lvov, M.N. Muravyov and others) (Mozgovaya: 2002, 155-179).

The religious wing of the Russian enlighteners of the second half of the 18thcentury was well oriented in the philosophical system of the most prominent opponent of Kantianism, J.G. Herder, with his doctrine of the “spirit of the time”, which was later so important for the romantics. It should be noted here that the hypothesis of the “completeness of the energy surge” as the focus of the ideas of the Sublime belongs to the German philosopher.

The teachings of Plotinus, John of Damascus, J. Böhme, J. Pordadge and a number of other philosophers and learned mystics were widely oriented to by Russian masons, creating their artistic Universe of the “Divine High”. Largely stirred up thanks to the Masons, the keen interest in the philosophical and aesthetic thought of Germany (in the works of Baumgarten, Sulzer, Eschenburg, etc.) logically leads to the fact that already fromthe beginning of the 1780s a whole series of translations of Sulzer were published (in 1787 – translation by D.Semenov; in 1781 – translation by I. Morozov).

N.M. Karamzin had a conversation with I. Kant and, according to fresh impressions, reflected his philosophy of the Sublime in “The Letters of a Russian Traveller”. 1804 saw the issue of “Immanuel Kant’s observations of the sensation of the Beautiful and the Sublime” (St. Petersburg: 1804), and the “St. Petersburg Vestnik” (part 3, 1812) published “Schiller’s discussion of the High” translated by A. Kh. Vostokov. Karamzin's epistolary novel was highly appreciated by the well-known theorist of aesthetics in Germany K. Zolger, and in 1822 I. Davydov introduced Zolger's treatise “Erwin” to the Russian readers (fragments were published in the “Vestnik of Europe”).

Among the publications of “Reading for Taste, Mind and Feelings” in 1793, we can find a free translation of J. Addison's essay “On the Pleasures of the Imagination” with transparent references to the Sublime’s poetics similar to G. Home’s theory of the so-called Sublime Beautiful, which in turn is the focus of the Plastic Beauty concept.

Anticipating Hegel’s reflections and drawing on the experience of European philosophers, Russian editions of the turn of the 18th century consistently refer to psalmodic lyrics as one of the oldest sources of the Sublime poetry (for example, the discussion “On the high thoughts of sacred songwriters” in the journal “Hippocrenus”, parts 5 and 6, issued in 1800). Thus, Plastic Beauty, by its spiritual facet, enters into synthesis with religious consciousness.

Clear echoes of Russia's former acquaintance with the concepts of the Sublime Beautiful (including in parallel with classical German aesthetics) are heard in the semi-translated experiment of Lyubim Korostavtsev “On the Sublime and frank” (Korostavtsev: 1822).

At the beginning of the 19th century, a number of Longinus’s extended translations were published (excerpts from Boileau’s and Lagarpe’s receptions in the original arrangement by I. Martynov). Remarkable experiments in creative translations of Abbot Batteux’s works on aesthetics (including the theory of the “beautiful Genius”) were carried out by D. Obleukhov (1807) and A. Bunin (1808). The ideas about Genius through the emerging cult of Schiller are of paramount importance at the beginning of the 19th century for the members of Andrei Turgenev’s literary circle (Lotman: 2001, 9-51).

The problem of reception by the Russian “thought of the Sublime” of Oriental culture is ‘blurred’ and private. For example, Masons began to master and translate Indian religious poetry, and to include it in the symbolism of their mystical sacraments and chants. A broader consideration, that includes Buddhist and other teachings, draws attention to the remark of P.S. Shkurinov, a modern scholar on the history of philosophy: “... the majority of the most prominent ... Russian Freemasonry theorists relied on ... church confessional tradition... Islamic, Buddhist or Lamaist teachings” (Shkurinov: 1992, 177). The most talented Russian pre-romanticN.A. Lvov was interested in Oriental and, in particular, Persian culture and philosophy. Modern Western humanities, filling up the gap that has existed until recently, focused on the Oriental philosophical “esthetics of the Beautiful”: (Kukkonen: 2011).

The dialectic of the general panorama of the “Russian Sublime” represents the following picture at the end of the 18th century.

Scientists are inclined to search for the proto-grain of the “Aesthetics of the Sublime” in the synthesis withthe ideas about the multidimensional phenomenon of Plastic Beauty in the Old Russian consciousness of the pagan era, in their native rites (Bychkov: 1997, 6). Later, having touched the shrine of Christianity the complex “temple” feeling of the ancient Russian “... in the traditional categories of aesthetics ... consists of the simultaneous experience of the Sublime and the Beautiful, expressed in the mode of enlightened tenderness” (Bychkov: 1997, 14).

On the basis of Plotinus’s teachings, the classical Byzantine Sublime “aesthetics of heaven” is built, bringing to Russia in the Christian era through translated apocrypha the idea of “Sublime heavenly beauty of spiritual contemplation” (Shokhin: 1963, 72). Likewise, Gregory of Nyssa comes to the significantformula that through the images of art “... by depicting “passionate phenomena”... the idea “... of exalting aperson through a visible image of art to the invisible greatness of God ...” is realized (Shokhin: 1963, 73). In many ways, the work of Cyril Turovsky became a vivid “continuing parallel” with the teachings of Gregory of Nyssa in the world of Old Russian literature.

The poetics of Light, which often focuses on “the whole variety of light metaphysics, mysticism and aesthetics creatively inherited from Byzantium, is of great importance in the classical Old Russian culture. It is this fertile soil that prepares the flowering of the concept of the Divine Fabor Light – “... uncreated radiance of Divine energy surpassing every mind and every feeling, but accessible to perception even by sensual sight with the help of Divine grace” in the Slavic culture of the late 14thcentury (Bychkov: 1997, 28). As soon as the idea of “sensory perception” arises, the transition to the aesthetics of the Beautiful with its most important “level”, that is Plastic Beauty, is prepared. In terms of historical and literary continuity, it is perfectly logical to talk about the passing tradition of “temple synthesis” of literature and art in the Baroque culture of the 17th – early 18thcenturies. (Sazonova: 1991,117-119).

In the middle of the 16thcentury, the original religious philosopher, Elder Ambrosios, reflecting on the highest beauty in the images of “light data”, divine, heavenly, identifies in this connection three illustrative hypostases of the "movement of the mind" in man: “carnal predestination of man”, “spiritual nature of righteousness” and, finally, “the spiritual reverend supremacy” (Shokhin: 1963, 79).

A number of modern researchers of the aesthetics of that era (V. Bychkov, A. Valitskaya and others) areinclined to see the sprouts of the new bipolar aesthetics “Sublime / Beautiful” in the poetics of the trivium, synthesis of various arts: Divine word, music, painting (iconography) that are developing during Tsar Alexei the Quietest time.

In the 18th century, the young Russian aesthetics was profoundly affected by the rhetorical doctrine “On the excitement of passions” by M.V. Lomonosov. According to A.P. Valitskaya’s observations, “The most important in his system – The Sublime Sense of surprise and delight is the most profound spectator experience, but only he who is in a state of “admiration” is capable of causing it. The poet must present himself “as amazed at the dream that comes from a great and strange or miraculous cause” (Valitskaya: 1983, 92). The origins and ideas about the writer as a genius who is called to transform the world through Plastic Beauty arouse from here.

By the middle of the 18th century, the phenomenology of the Sublime / Beautiful through the ideas about their plastic embodiment had been conceptually deepened. Thus, in the ideology of Freemasonry, the system of ancient Christian and Byzantine teachings on spiritual Ascension and Exaltation had been transformed. These are the doctrine of the three steps on the path to Perfection in Novikov’s “Sunset” (1782, Part 2): Self- knowledge – Study of the “wonderful composition” of Nature – the discovery of “Wisdom in its full radiance” through the Holy Scripture.

G.N. Teplov in the treatise “Reasoning on the qualities of the poet” (1755) comes close to the phenomenology of genius in literature. S.G. Domashnev, an employee of the Masonic didactic editions of the Kherasov school, reflects on “pure concepts and feelings”, “crystallized” by a pure mind and then striking the soul in his work “On Poem Creation”. According to the theorist, the poet rushes to the “great and important”, “penetrates the whole nature [...], amuse the mind, amuse [...] the feelings” (Useful Amusement: 1762, 196-197). He also owns a remarkable idea – a discovery that the poet’s main task is not to describe, but to “animate the universe”. Once again, the emphasis on the concept of Plastic Beauty, capable of transforming the universe and returning it to the divine indivisible Harmony, is completely obvious.

The writers’ aesthetic concepts are significant as well. One of the most integral concepts belongs to a prominent figure in the literary culture of Russia at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centuries – N.M. Karamzin. Thinking about the ability of the immortal human soul to rise to “pure, holy emotional pleasure” (a figurative formula was proposed by L.I. Kulakova (Kulakova: 1968, 211)), in his early “new epistle” “Poetry” (1787) he comes to an idea organic for the ancient Russian consciousness about the synthesis of poetry with a prayer that followed the person after he had been “blinded” by sins. In general, according to Karamzin, thepoet-creator “... in moments of inspiration ... draws near to God, and his voice teaches good, truth, exalts souls...” (Kulakova: 1968, 211).

Even this concise review gives full reason to talk about the dominance of the Sublime / Beautiful traditions in Russian aesthetic thought – traditions leading to a new understanding of the role of Plastic Beauty.

The aesthetic thought of Russia at the beginning of the 19thcentury “completes the picture”. Thus, A.F. Merzlyakov finds in his judgements the closest continuity with the moralizing tradition of the Enlightenment and, which is especially significant, with the apology of sensitivity typical of sentimentalism. Presenting a “panorama” of the factors determining Taste in “The Theory of Fine Arts” (Vestnik of Europe, 1812, No. 21- 22), he, in full accordance with the ancient ideal of “kalos kagathos” transformed in the Enlightenment, sets Beauty and Good next to Great, and High, and Favor. The most important aspect of the sentimental “poetics of sweet” is also discussed in detail: “One must have a gentle, educated, noble heart capable of high feelings, and one can find it everywhere” (Kamensky: 1974, 122).

P.E. Georgievsky, who composed “Introduction to Aesthetics” based on the course of his lectures of 18151817, draws even a clearer parallel with the general aesthetic tradition of the “Sublime Beautiful”. One of the formulas proposed by him is not accidental: “Sublime as a kind of ideal ...” (Kamensky: 1974, 235).

Only the Sublime, being concentrated in Plastic Beauty, will be able to cover the entire universe, fromsmall to cosmic – and comprehend the bi-plastic, external-internal Harmony contained in it. The observation of T.O. Rogov, another young theorist of aesthetics at the beginning of the 19thcentury is of interest: “The composition of a grass blade is as amazing as the composition of the Sun, as mysterious as ... the harmony of the heavenly spheres” (Russian Aesthetic: 1974, 1, 343).

In general, the following aspects of the “Sublime and Plastic Beauty” problem become especially significant:

• the idea of “the predominance of the Great and the Beautiful”, coupled with the nuances of thinking that the Sublime has a tendency to “appeal to one’s liking” and “arouse pleasantness”;

• the poetics of the Light;

• the cult of the Divine in the Sublime (the so-called Sublime Religious);Importar listanotions of the “true Virtue” as the basis for showing in the mortal man the Divine Infinite (more broadly about the “ascension” of man through the Sublime).

PLASTIC BEAUTY IN THE IDYLLIC ODES OF RUSSIAN SENTIMENTALISM (EXPERIENCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ON THE MATERIAL OF THE POEMS "ODE TEN. SPRING" BY M.N. MURAVYOV (1775) AND "SPRING" BY E.P. LYUTSENKO (1798))

The ancient thinkers, as we have discussed, attached key importance to the images of Nature, archetypal in relation to human culture in comprehending Plastic Beauty. Now we are to consider in a comprehensive analysis through comparison the two idyllic odes of Russian sentimentalism: “Ode Ten. Spring” by M.N. Muravyov (1775) and “Spring” by E.P. Lyutsenko (1798).

If the first poem is a vivid evidence of the emergence of a sentimentalist trend in Russian literature, the latter is already comparable with the period of its gradual decline and transition to synthesis with subsequent literary trends.

The composition of both poems is built on the similar symbolic principle of the “ring”: the first and last stanzas of both Muravyov’s and Lutsenko’s poems are transparently correlated with the relic traditions of classicism, while the “core” of each work is “responsible” for the embodiment of the sentimental poetics proper. The objective theme of “Ode ...” by Muravyov and “Spring” by Lutsenko follows precisely from here – the symbolic correlation of Spring and human life, leading to the discovery of the idea of immortality, the eternal renewal of Nature – and the finiteness of Human Being. It is Plastic Beauty that can overcome the emerging dialectic contradiction.

The symbolic chronotope of the “winter kingdom” prevailing at first in both poems (cf. psychological parallelisms – in Muravyov’s ode: “The frost will stop, the snow will melt, / And the gray hair will not blossom / And the cold will not disappear from the veins” (Muravyov: 1967, 127), and in Lutsenko’s poem: “But a brief youth will pass, / The roses on the cheeks will wither away, / Hazy frosts will come, / Fun in the feelings will die ...” (Pleasant and useful: 1798, 367). is overcome in the focal central part of the spring poetics that has become the poems’ title. The main symbolic images are pulled together to the core, including the potential of the archetype of Plastic Beauty.

Attention should be paid to the clear gradation of the worlds of basic images: this is the world of the lyrical “I” and the world of spring Nature.

For both Muravyov and Lutsenko, the symbolic image of Silence acquires key importance (note, since the time of ancient Russian aesthetics it has been closely interconnected with the symbols of bipolar, bodily- spiritual, Plastic Beauty). Cf.: in Muravyov’s ode – “The whirlwinds fell silent ...” (Muravyov: 1967, 126), and in Lutsenko’s poem: “In the silent, mild silence, / ... / Where the weather is dozing” (Pleasant and useful: 1798, 362).

In both poetic variations, it is from this starting point, according to the growing melody, that the emphasis begins with the themes of the revival of life and the soaring, the rise of spring Nature. In Muravyov’s ode we see, for example, the following symbolic chain: “singers of sweet silence” reigning in the sky (birds) – “morning Aurora rise” (dawn) – “beautiful companion of rains” – rainbow – breeze, “livening” the trees.

The lyrical “I” turns out to be the culmination in this picture, and the art of “repeating” the “ringing voices” of nature and singing “vernal beauty” was polemically posed by the young poet above the gift of a military painter: “I used to sing of battles sonorous / ... / You’ve instructed me to sing of fighting, / And I wrote you this verse / As a token of a sensitive soul” (Muravyov: 1967, 128).

The key symbolic and melodic focus is found, it is a “sensitive soul”. It is here that the spiritual potential of Plastic Beauty reaches its climax.

There is also a characteristic synthesis of arts: in Muravyov’s poetic pictures, signs of both pictorial artand the plastic art of dance are clearly visible (this is especially clearly seen in the dialogue of the images of the birds and the rainbow).

It is notable that all this significantly affects the genre palette of the work: the traditions of ode, didactic elegy (we talked about the characteristic “winter maxims” above) and the sensitive idyll (the fifth stanza, which actually opens the “core part of the composition leading transparently to the “shepherd’s” theme: “Out of a boring hut come out/ the Shepherd and his shepherdess ...”) are interwoven in Muravyov’s work (Muravyov: 1967, 126)).

Lutsenko introduces a no less iconic image of pigeons in the seventh stanza of his “Spring”: “But a pigeon from a bough ... / Says to his kind one ...” (Pleasant and Useful: 1798, 365). This author more visibly than Muravyov resorts to the correlation of “bird poetry” with the image of Plastic Beauty and the Sublime through the associative motif of the wind flight: “Orpheus feathered answers, / His intermittent peals / Soar on the wings of the breeze” (Pleasant and useful: 1798, 364). Lutsenko captures the poetics of the Height, the key to depicting the Sublime potential: “Mountain heights looked at...”, “... the stream of crystal / sparkled from the tops to the foot”, “... bowing their tops … / Makes noise with a green mantle” (Pleasant and Useful: 1798, 363– 364).

The position of the melodic semantic peak in Lutsenko’s work is already taken by a qualitatively different image that marks the birth of pre-romanticism, cf. the poetic motto: “Enjoy the dreams of the heart” (Pleasant and Useful: 1798, 363). It is notable that the complex of “sensual” motifs (“pleasure”, “saturation”), which is classical for the symbolism of Plastic Beauty, was applied to the symbolic-spiritual phenomenon (Dream).

The poet’s lyrical addressee seems more “blurred” at first sight but it can actually be explained by a greater variety of a psychological palette. If in Muravyov’s ode the core was a “dialogue” of the lyrical “I” with the mentor (Maykov), the general “friendly orientation to the world” is also fundamentally important forLutsenko. It is not by chance that a personal pronoun of the first person appears in his poem in the plural – “we”: “We will use the colour of years”, “We will keep silent ...” (Pleasant and Useful: 1798, 367).

The figurative and colour symbolism of Nature, focusing on the poetics of Plastic Beauty and the Sublime, allows this familiar and classic ode device of the “we”-meditation to go to a qualitatively different level, significant for pre-romantics: a sense of fusion with the universe, with a clearly expressed desire to transform it with a poetic dream and harmonious Beauty.

It is Plastic Beauty, that leads both poets to comprehend the Sublime as the Beautiful, which, realized on both the figuratively-symbolic and colour levels, significantly activates the cult of lyric feeling that is highest for sentimentalism (in Lutsenko’s model, it is Dream). At the genre level, we can see the overcoming of the relics of the didactic philosophical elegy in the bright offensive of the sentimental “idyll of feelings”.

DISCUSSION

The results of systematic studies conducted by the authors over the years have been repeatedly and comprehensively tested:

a) in international publications (Pashkurov: 2010; Pashkurov, Razzhivin: 2014; Nigmatullina, Pashkurov, Razzhivin, Dulalaeva: 2017; Pashkurov, Razzhivin, Dulalaeva: 2018; Razzhivin, Pashkurov, Dulalaeva: 2019; Pashkurov, Razzhivin et al.: 2019);

b) at several international forums: International scientific conference “Holiday Culture in Russian Literature of the 18th – 21st centuries” (Germany, Giessen, Institute of Slavic Studies, University of Giessen, September 2008); X International Scientific Conference “18th century as a mirror of other eras. 18th century in the mirror of other eras” (Moscow, Moscow State University; March 24 – 26, 2016); International Philological Seminar “Nikolai Karamzin and His Time” (Poland, Warsaw-Siedlce, May 19 – 20, 2016); 11th International Scientific Conference “18th century: Laughter and Tears in Literature and Art of the Enlightenment” (Moscow, Moscow State University, March 22 – 24, 2018);

c) in monographs: “The category of the Sublime in poetry of Russian sentimentalism and pre-romanticism: evolution and typology” (Pashkurov: 2004); “Late Russian sentimentalism: Dialogue of the idyllic and elegiac” (Pashkurov, 2010); “M.N. Muravyev and literary culture” (Pashkurov: 2019); “The phenomenology of Russian literature of the 18th century” (Razzhivin, Pashkurov: 2012a, 318, 406);

d) in the textbook for philological specialties of higher educational institutions “History of Russian literature of the 18th century” (Pashkurov, Razzhivin: 2018a; Pashkurov, Razzhivin: 2018b);

e) in the master’s thesis “The Ideal of Plastic Beauty in the Russian anthological tradition” (Sesorova: 2017).

RESULTS AND PROSPECTS

As our study shows, the phenomenon of Plastic Beauty originated in the domestic literary culture in the ancient Russian period. Unlike the Western model, in the literary culture of Russia it is associated not only with the antiquing tradition, but also with modifications of spiritual and religious thought. This ultimately led to a more diverse dialogue of ideas about Plastic Beauty with the leading categories of philosophical aesthetics, primarily, the Beautiful and the Sublime.

There is a bipolar nature of the concept of Plastic Beauty; being the synthesis of:

• bodily and spiritual principles;

• pagan relics and trends of religious teachings of the New Age;

• the potentials of the Beautiful and the Sublime duet as philosophical and aesthetic categories;

• the outward appearance embodied through natural phenomena and inner modifications focused on the genesis of the spiritual component in the humanitarian sphere of culture.

A comprehensive analysis of literature and its context through the concept of Plastic Beauty allows:

- considering in a new way the question of the dialogue of Russian philosophical thought with world tradition,

- revealing the laws of dialogue of various arts in the focus of the chosen concept,

- making prognostic conclusions about the genre palette dynamics of works, indirectly dependent on modifications of the Plastic Beauty phenomenon.

The research technique developed in our work can be applied to the analysis of a vast array of Russian and world anthological lyrics, primarily of the 19th century (in Russia, from A. A. Delvig to A. A. Fet), new results can be, in our opinion, obtained by analyzing the borderline phenomena of literary culture, built on the principle of the dialogue of arts (in particular, the phenomenon of ekphrasis).

BIODATA

Aleksej Nikolaevich PASHKUROV: Doctor of Philology, Professor, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University (Russia). A specialist in the history of Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries, the author of more than 200 scientific works, including 5 monographs; member of the bureau of the Zonal association of literary critics of the Volga region, deputy chairman of the Dissertation Council on literary criticism at KFU; collaborates with researchers in Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy. The priority field of scientific interests is the genesis of literary and aesthetic thought of the 1700-1870s, the dynamics of genres in this system.

Anatolij Ilich RAZZHIVIN: Candidate of Philological Sciences, Professor, Department of Russian Language and Literature, Elabuga Institute, Kazan Federal University (Russia); specialist in the field of the history of Russian literature of the turn of the 18th-19th centuries and its interactions with European literature. Scientific interests include the phenomenology of pre-romanticism, its philosophy, aesthetics and genreology. The author of more than 130 scientific papers, including 3 monographs. The research results are embedded in textbooks on the history of the 18th century Russian literature, addressed to university students.

Anastasia Dmitrievna SESOROVA: Post-graduate student of the Department of Russian and Foreign Literature, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University (Russia). The circle of scientific interests is connected with the genesis and evolution of philosophical and aesthetic thought in Russian literary culture of the late 18th – the first half of the 19th century; has 7 published works. The master's thesis studied di-ethics in literary culture, the upcoming candidate dissertation is devoted to the poetics of A.I. Polezhaev's work.

Irina Yulievna DULALAEVA: Senior Lecturer, Department of English Philology and Intercultural Communication, Elabuga Institute, Kazan Federal University (Russia); specializes in the field of philology and linguistics, the studies include lexical-stylistic and genre features of English-language literary works and the specifics of their translation into Russian; author of more than 20 scientific articles on modern English and Russian literature, translation theory, lexicology, chapters in a collective monograph, more than 15 teaching aids for university graduate students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BELINSKY, V.G. (1955). Complete works: in 13 volumes. Volume VII. Articles and reviews (1843). Articles about Pushkin (1843-1846). Moscow, USSR Academy of Science.

BYCHKOV, V.V. (1989). Aesthetics in Russia of the 17th century. Moscow, Znaniye.

BYCHKOV, V.V. (1997). Byzantine aesthetics. Moscow, Iskusstvo.

BYCHKOV, V.V. (2004). Aesthetics. Moscow, Gardariki.

DERZHAVIN, G.R. (1872). Works of Derzhavin with explanatory notes by J. Grot: in 9 volumes. St. Petersburg, Imperial Academy of Sciences, vol. VII.

GAY, N.K. (2001). The meta-art of literature. Theory of literature. Volume 1. Literature. Moscow, Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences: 96 - 141.

GEFEN, А. (2010) L’ethiqueest-elleunrecit? Le recitest-iluneethique? Retour sur la que relle du “narrativisme”. Rev. de philology. Beograd, 37(2): 157 – 166.

KNABE, G.S. (1999). Russian antiquity. Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities.

KOLA, A.F. (2013). Beyond’ global babble Comparative literature as a critical metatheory for glocalizing humanities. World lit. studies. Bratislava, 5(2): 39 – 51.

KOROSTAVTSEV, L. (1822). About high (sublime) and simple-hearted (naif). Works and translations of students of the Emperor Kharkov University, read June 30, 1822, after their exams ... Kharkov, University Printing House: 70 - 125.

KUKKONEN, T. (2011). The good the beautiful, and the true aesthetical issues in Islamic Philosophy. Studia Orientalica. Helsinki, 111: 87 – 103.

KULAKOVA, L.I. (1968). Essays on the history of Russian aesthetic thought of the 18th century. Leningrad, Prosveshcheniye.

LOSEV, A.F., CHISTYAKOVA, N.A., BORODAY, T.YU. (1988). Antiquity as a type of culture. Moscow, Nauka.

LOTMAN, U. (2001). New materials on the initial period of acquaintance with Schiller in Russian literature. Proceedings of Russian and Slavic Philology: Literary Studies. IV. New Series – Tartu, Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus: 9 - 51.

MAKHOV, A.E. (2016). Between Musicality and Visuality: Theory of Lyrics in West European Poetry of the 18th Century and in the Treatise by G.R. Derzhavin “Discourse on lyric poetry or ode”. New Philological Bulletin, 4 (39): 12-21.

MIKHAILOV, A.V. (1988). Antiquity as an ideal and cultural reality of the 18th – 19th centuries. Antiquity as a type of culture. Moscow, Obrazovaniye: 308 - 324.

MOZGOVAYA, E., LAPPO-DANILEVSKY, K. (2002). Ideas J.J. Winckelmann and the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts in the 18th century. The 18th century, Collection 22. St. Petersburg, Nauka: 155 - 179.

MURAVYOV, M.N. (1967). Poems. Moscow, Sovetskyi pisatel’.

NIGMATULLINA, YU.G., PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I., DULALAEVA, I.YU. (2017). Binary andTrinitarian Thought Dialogue in the Focus of Pre-romantic Melancholy Problem. European Journal of Science and Theology,13(4): 137-147.

PASHKUROV, A.N. (2004). The category of Sublime in Russian poetry of sentimentalism and pre- romanticism: Evolution and typology. Kazan, Kazan University.

PASHKUROV, A.N. (2010). Late Russian sentimentalism: A dialogue of idyllic and elegiac. Kazan, Kazan University

PASHKUROV, A.N. (2019). M.N. Muraviev and literary culture: Dialogue of perceptions. Kazan, Kazan University Publishing House.

PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I. (2014). Literary culture as a dialog of contradictions and reconciler (basing on review of poetics of Russian literature of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century). Life Science Journal,11(8s): 120 – 124.

PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I. (2018 a). History of Russian literature of the 18th century: textbook: in 2 parts. Part 1. Moscow, FLINTA: Nauka.

PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I. (2018 b). History of Russian literature of the 18th century: textbook: in 2 parts. Part 2. Moscow, FLINTA: Nauka.

PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I., DONSKOVA, E.S., DULALALEVA, I.Y., LI, PENGFEI (2019).Transitional Era Gallantry Culture in the Focus of Intercultural Communication Problem (on the Example ofN.M. Karamzin’s Prose). Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6): 1216-1224.

PASHKUROV, A.N., RAZZHIVIN, A.I., DULALAEVA, I.YU. (2018). The Idyll and the Problems of Harmonizing Culture. Opcion, 34(85): 1904 – 1917.

RAZZHIVIN, A.I., PASHKUROV, A.N. (2012). Phenomenology of Russian literature of the 18th century. Saarbrucken, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing AV Akademikerverlag GmbH-and-Co.KG.

RAZZHIVIN, A.I., PASHKUROV, A.N., DULALAEVA, I.Y. (2019). The Concept of Melancholy and Typological Problem of Transitional Era Literary Culture. Opcion, 35(19): 2337-2365.

KAMENSKY, A. (1974). Russian aesthetic treatises of the first third of the 19th century: in 2 volumes. Moscow, Iskusstvo.

SAZONOVA, L.I. (1991). Poetry of Russian Baroque (second half of the 17th – beginning of the 18th centuries). Moscow, Nauka.

SERMAN, I.Z. (2000). Time frames and milestones of the literature of the 18th century. Russian literature, 4: 3–25.

SESOROVA, A.D. (2017). The Ideal of Plastic Beauty in the Russian anthological tradition (G. Derzhavin, K. Batyushkov, I. Annensky). Kazan, Kazan University.

SHKURINOV, P.S. (1992). Philosophy of Russia of the 18th century. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola.

SHOKHIN, K.V. (1963). Essay on the history of the development of aesthetic thought in Russia: (Old Russian aesthetics of the 11th – 17th centuries). Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola.

SINTSOV, E.V. (2003). Inexpressible nature in art and culture: to the problem of the rigid-plastic foundations of artistic thinking in visual ornamentation and music. Kazan, Fen.

SPENGLER, O. (1993). Sunset of Europe. Gestalt and reality. Moscow, Mysl’.

MATTHIS, M.J. (2010). The Beautiful, the Sublime the Grotesque: The Subjective Turn in Aesthetics From the Enlightenment to the Present. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Press.

VALITSKAYA, A.P. (1983). Russian aesthetics of the 18th century (Historical and problematic essay of enlightening thought). Moscow, Iskusstvo.

WINCKELMANN, J.J. (1935). Selected works and letters. Moscow, Leningrad, Academia.