Brief biography of circles

Yes, to the successors of the great heritage are special requirements. From English poetry-to be in the SHECSPIR, Donne, Wordsworth, Kitsa, and so on-the reader a priori is waiting for something extraordinary, forgetting that the poets are not rope horses and the pedigree has no determining meaning. In the middle of the 20th century, an important event occurred in the history of England: the collapse of the empire, the landslide fall of the Zasorsky territories.

England ceased to be a great world power, in whose possessions, in a walking expression, “the Sun never comes in,” and turned into one of the ordinary European countries, in some way returning to its status in Dodeshkspir times. For the British, this was a shock, shaking the national consciousness to the depths. In search of new identity, many poets turned to home, native, island.

In terms of the aggravated interest in English, one can consider, for example, the poetry of the social grotesque of the “old -fashioned” John Betjamen, Stevivi Smith's poems with their picky melancholy and inimitable eccentricity, the intensive development of the ballad form Charles Koesley, as well as pagan, pre -Christian mythology Ted Hughes. In the middle of the x, shortly after the early death of Dilan Thomas - perhaps the most vivid British poet from those born after the First World War - a group of poets "Movement" with a clearly expressed anti -romantic program appeared.

In one of the first manifestations of the Kingsley group, Emis wrote: “No one else needs poetry about philosophers, artists, art galleries, mythology and the like. At least, I hope that no one needs them ”[1]. He was echoed by Philip Larkin: “I do not believe in“ tradition ”, endless melting of the mythological deck and careless references to other poetry and poets” [2].

It is obvious that these statements were turned primarily against such poets as Dylan Thomas and Robert Graves, as well as against U. Oden, one of the most famous poems of which is called “In the Museum of Fine Arts”, and the book of poems, published in the same year, is “Achilles’s shield”. The installations of “movements” on rationality, accessibility, “sociality” led to prose, simplifying poetic speech and, in the future, to break with the most important part of the English poetic tradition.

Following the “Movement” group on the literary horizon, another appeared, which was already called without any undertaking simply “group”. The ideas of these "groups" were even more vague and vague; Nevertheless, it was they who, together with the “movements”, published anthologies, distributed prizes and generally steer poetry. For several decades, the poets of the “Movement” and “Group” managed to hold out at the top of a poetic establishment thanks to group adhesions and occupied positions in publishers and magazines; But the generation changed, and the house crumbled.

Perhaps one Philip Larkin survived. After the award of T. Eliot in the year, the Nobel Prize for Poetry was only awarded to the poets of the English -speaking, and both times not to the British: Irish Shaimas Khini in the year and the poet from the Caribbean islands of Derek Walkott in the metro station, Joseph Brodsky, explained this by the fact that the center no longer holds “Things Fall Apart; The Center Cannot Hold ”is a quote from W.

Jets's poem“ The Second Coming ”, the province people inevitably come to the forefront. It is hardly possible to challenge the fact that with the death of Ted Hughes in the year, the last truly large other, the great poet of England, left. There was a pause, the "gap". Yuri Tynyanov in the famous article of the year claimed that in the “gap” poetry inertia is drying, groups mix and decay, time of single poets begin.

Such a time seems to have come in English poetry.