The History Of Russian Law And Literature In The Critical Works Of N.S. Gumilev

Abstract

The relationship between literature and law has always been a special and important relationship and no one can deny the profound effects of literature on law. These two are humanities fields and it should be mentioned that humanities fields are all related. One of the most important reasons for the dependence of the field of law on literature is that in order to write clear, explicit and executive laws, lawyers need literature, especially in the field of writing and grammar, so that they can include laws that, in addition to solving the judicial problems of the society, have Eloquence and eloquence are necessary and should not be a source of conflict. The more literary teachings permeate the thoughts of a lawyer or law student, the more likely the legal system of a society will pay attention to human values and emotions. The critical work of Nikolai Gumilev is valuable not only in terms of the coverage of the most important events in the literary process of the 1910s and Gumilev’s interpretation of them, but also in terms of its content: Gumilev's critical and theoretical works raise and solve many pressing problems of Russian literary criticism, including contemporary one.  The article makes an attempt to reconstruct the history of Symbolism in the reception of N.S. Gumilev's criticism. Unlike other studies on the subject, the study does not emphasize on the problem of justification of the struggle between Acmeism and Symbolism. The author proves that Gumilev-critic in practice overcomes the program declarations formulated in the manifestos. Talking about Gumilev's attitude to Symbolism, it is clear that he was not hostile to Symbolism even after its extinction, and the negative assessment was exposed not so much symbolism as the lack of new ideas and talentlessness of the authors. Gumilev's views on Symbolism and the Symbolists, taken as a whole, suggest that the critic paid tribute to the work of the Symbolist generation in freeing poetry from its didactic overlay, appreciated their contribution to the use of musical possibilities of the word, but could not accept their aestheticism, idleness and escapism from life.