"New people" and the problems of the future of Russia in the poetry and prose of the revolutionary democrats

The 1860s went down in the history of our country as the years of the high rise of the democratic movement. Already during the Crimean War, a wave of peasant uprisings against the tyranny of the landowners was growing. The political situation in the country became especially aggravated after 1855. The defeat of tsarism in the Crimean War, which revealed a deep crisis of the feudal-serf system, the intolerable oppression of the landlords, which fell with all its weight on the shoulders of millions of peasants, and the police arbitrariness that reigned in the country, gave rise to a revolutionary situation. During these years, during the preparation and implementation of the "peasant reform" on February 19, 1861, the peasant movement became especially widespread. The largest was the action of the peasants led by Anton Petrov in the village of Bezdne, Kazan province in April 1861, brutally suppressed by the tsarist troops. In 1861, serious student demonstrations in St. Petersburg and in some other cities, which were of a pronounced democratic character, also fell. In 1861, the revolutionary organization "Land and Freedom" appears and develops its activities. Proclamations are drawn up and distributed, addressed to democratic youth, peasants, soldiers and calling for an uprising, for resistance to the tsarist authorities and the feudal landlords. The Kolokol by Herzen and Ogarev and other uncensored publications are widely distributed in Russia and contribute to the development of the democratic movement.

During these years, the most important issue for the revolutionary democrats is the question of preparing a democratic peasant revolution, of merging the scattered actions of peasants and democratic youth into a general offensive against the existing system. The ideological leaders of the unfolding movement, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, were preparing the democratic forces of society for this.

On the originality of Russian literary criticism."As long as our poetry is alive and well, until then there is no reason to doubt the deep health of the Russian people," wrote critic NN Strakhov, and his associate Apollon Grigoriev considered Russian literature "the only focus of all our highest interests." VG Belinsky bequeathed to his friends to put in his coffin the issue of the journal "Otechestvennye zapiski", and the classic of Russian satire, M. Ye. Saltykov-Shchedrin, in his farewell letter to his son said: "Most of all, love your native literature and prefer the title of a writer to any other." ... According to N. G. Chernyshevsky, our literature has been elevated to the dignity of a national cause that has united the most viable forces of Russian society. In the minds of the 19th century reader, literature was not only "fine literature", but also the basis of the spiritual life of the nation. The Russian writer treated his work in a special way: it was not a profession for him, but a service. Chernyshevsky called literature "a textbook of life", and Leo Tolstoy was later surprised that these words did not belong to him, but to his ideological opponent. Artistic assimilation of life in Russian classical literature never turned into a purely aesthetic pursuit, it always pursued a living spiritual and practical goal. “The word was perceived not as an empty sound, but as a deed - almost as“ religious ”as the ancient Karelian singer Veinemeinen, who“ made a boat by singing. ” a book that itself, by the power of only expressed in it, the only and undeniably correct thoughts, should transform Russia ", - notes the modern literary critic GD Gachev. Faith in Effective World-Transforming Power artistic word also determined the features of Russian literary criticism. From literary problems, it has always risen to social problems that have a direct bearing on the fate of the country, people, nation. The Russian critic did not limit himself to arguments about artistic form, about the skill of the writer. Analyzing literary work, he went out to the questions that life posed to the writer and reader. The orientation of criticism towards a wide range of readers made it very popular: the authority of the critic in Russia was great and his articles were perceived as original works, enjoying success along with literature. Russian criticism II half of the XIX century develops more dramatically. The social life of the country at this time became unusually complicated, many political directions arose that argued with each other. The picture of the literary process also turned out to be variegated and multi-layered. Therefore, criticism has become more discordant in comparison with the era of the 30s and 40s, when the entire variety of critical assessments was covered by the authoritative word of Belinsky. Like Pushkin in literature, Belinsky was a kind of universal in criticism: he combined sociological, aesthetic and stylistic approaches in evaluating a work, embracing the literary movement as a whole with a single glance. In the second half of the 19th century, Belinsky's critical universalism turned out to be unique. Critical thought specialized in specific areas and schools. Even Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, the most versatile critics, who had a broad public outlook, could no longer claim not only to cover the literary movement in its entirety, but also to interpret an individual work as a whole. Sociological approaches predominated in their work. Literary development as a whole and the place in it of an individual work was now revealed by the entire totality of critical trends and schools. Apollon Grigoriev, for example, arguing with A. N. Ostrovsky's dobrolyubov assessments, noticed such facets in the playwright's work that Dobrolyubov eluded. A critical understanding of the work of Turgenev or Leo Tolstoy cannot be reduced to the assessments of Dobrolyubov or Chernyshevsky. NN Strakhov's works on "Fathers and Children" and "War and Peace" substantially deepen and clarify them. The depth of understanding of the novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is not limited to Dobrolyubov's classic article "What is Oblomovism?"

Literary Critical Activity of Revolutionary Democrats... The public, socially critical pathos of the articles of the late Belinsky with his socialist convictions was picked up and developed in the sixties by the revolutionary-democratic critics Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. By 1859, when the government's program and the views of the liberal parties became clear, when it became obvious that the reform "from above" in any of its variants would be half-hearted, the revolutionary democrats moved from a shaky alliance with liberalism to severing relations and an uncompromising struggle against it. On this, the second stage of the social movement of the 60s, the literary-critical activity of N.A.Dobrolyubov falls. He devotes a special satirical section of the Sovremennik magazine called "Whistle" to exposing the liberals. Here Dobrolyubov acts not only as a critic, but also as a satirical poet. Criticism of liberalism then alerted A. I. Herzen, (* 11) who, being in exile, in contrast to Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, continued to hope for reforms "from above" and overestimated the radicalism of the liberals until 1863. However, Herzen's warnings did not stop the revolutionary democrats of Sovremennik. Beginning in 1859, they began to carry out the idea of ​​a peasant revolution in their articles. They considered the peasant community to be the core of the future socialist world order. Unlike the Slavophiles, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov believed that communal ownership of land was based not on Christian, but on the revolutionary, liberating, socialist instincts of the Russian peasant. Dobrolyubov became the founder of the original critical method. He saw that the majority of Russian writers do not share the revolutionary-democratic way of thinking, do not pronounce a sentence on life from such a radical position. Dobrolyubov saw the task of his criticism in completing the work begun by the writer in his own way and formulating this sentence, relying on real events and artistic images of the work. Dobrolyubov called his method of comprehending the work of the writer "real criticism." Real criticism "examines whether such a person is possible and real; having found that it is true to reality, it proceeds to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, etc. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author under examination, the critic uses them and thanks the author; if not, he doesn't stick to him with a knife to his throat - how, they say, did he dare to deduce such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? " In this case, the critic takes the initiative into his own hands: he explains the reasons that gave rise to this or that phenomenon from a revolutionary-democratic position and then pronounces a verdict on it. Dobrolyubov positively assesses, for example, Goncharov's novel Oblomov, although the author "does not give and, apparently, does not want to give any conclusions." It is enough that he "presents you with a living image and vouches only for its resemblance to reality." For Dobrolyubov, such an author's objectivity is quite acceptable and even desirable, since he takes on the explanation and the verdict himself. Real criticism often led Dobrolyubov to a kind of reinterpretation artistic images writer in a revolutionary democratic way. It turned out that the analysis of the work, which grew into an understanding of the acute problems of our time, led Dobrolyubov to such radical conclusions that the author himself had never imagined. On this basis, as we will see later, Turgenev's decisive break with the Sovremennik magazine took place, when Dobrolyubov's article on the novel On the Eve was published in it. Dobrolyubov's articles revive the young, strong nature of a talented critic who sincerely believes in the people, in which he sees the embodiment of all his highest moral ideals, with whom he connects the only hope for the revival of society. "His passion is deep and stubborn, and obstacles do not frighten him when they need to be overcome in order to achieve the passionately desired and deeply conceived," Dobrolyubov writes about the Russian peasant in his article "Traits for characterizing the Russian common people." All the critic's activities were aimed at the struggle for the creation of a "party of the people in literature." He devoted four years of unremitting work to this struggle, having written nine volumes of essays in such a short time. Dobrolyubov literally burnt himself to death in the selfless journalist work, which undermined his health. He died at the age of 25 on November 17, 1861. Nekrasov spoke of the premature death of a young friend: But your hour struck too early And the prophetic feather fell from his hands. What a lamp of reason has gone out! What a heart has stopped beating! Decline of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word ... At the end of the 1960s, dramatic changes took place in Russian social life and critical thought. The manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the emancipation of the peasants not only did not soften, but further exacerbated the contradictions. In response to the upsurge of the revolutionary-democratic movement, the government launched an open attack on the progressive thought: Chernyshevsky and DI Pisarev were arrested, and the publication of the Sovremennik magazine was suspended for eight months. The situation is aggravated by a split within the revolutionary democratic movement, the main reason for which was the differences in the assessment of the revolutionary socialist capabilities of the peasantry. The figures of the "Russian Word" Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev and Bartholomew Aleksandrovich Zaitsev sharply criticized "Sovremennik" for (* 13) its alleged idealization of the peasantry, for an exaggerated idea of ​​the revolutionary instincts of the Russian peasant. Unlike Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, Pisarev argued that the Russian peasant was not ready for a conscious struggle for freedom, that for the most part he was dark and downtrodden. Pisarev considered the "intellectual proletariat", the commoner revolutionaries who brought natural science knowledge to the people, to be the revolutionary force of our time. This knowledge not only destroys the foundations of official ideology (Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality), but also opens people's eyes to the natural needs of human nature, which are based on the instinct of "social solidarity." Therefore, the enlightenment of the people with the natural sciences can lead society to socialism not only in a revolutionary ("mechanical") way, but also in an evolutionary ("chemical") way. In order for this "chemical" transition to take place faster and more efficiently, Pisarev suggested that Russian democracy be guided by the "principle of economy of strength." The "intellectual proletariat" must concentrate all its energy on destroying the spiritual foundations of the presently existing society through the propaganda of the natural sciences among the people. In the name of the so-understood "spiritual liberation" Pisarev, like Turgenev's hero Yevgeny Bazarov, proposed abandoning art. He really believed that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet," and recognized art only to the extent that it participates in the promotion of natural science and destroys the foundations of the existing system. In the article "Bazarov" he praised the triumphant nihilist, and in the article "Motives of the Russian Drama" he "crushed" the heroine of Alexander Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" Katerina Kabanova, who had been erected on a pedestal by Dobrolyubov. Destroying the idols of the "old" society, Pisarev published the notorious anti-Pushkin articles and the work "Destruction of aesthetics". The fundamental differences that emerged in the course of the polemic between Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo weakened the revolutionary camp and were a symptom of the decline of the social movement. Social upsurge of the 70s... By the beginning of the 70s, the first signs of a new social upsurge associated with the activities of the revolutionary populists were outlined in Russia. The second generation of revolutionary democrats, who made a heroic attempt to rouse the peasants to (* 14) a revolution by "going to the people", had their own ideologists, who, in the new historical conditions, developed the ideas of Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. "Belief in a special way of life, in the communal system of Russian life; hence - the belief in the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution - this is what inspired them, roused tens and hundreds of people to a heroic struggle against the government," wrote VI Lenin about the populists-seventies ... This faith, to one degree or another, permeated all the works of the leaders and mentors of the new movement - P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, M.A. Bakunin, P.N. Tkachev. The mass "going to the people" ended in 1874 with the arrest of several thousand people and the subsequent trials of the 193s and 50s. In 1879, at a congress in Voronezh, the populist organization "Land and Freedom" split: "politicians" who shared Tkachev's ideas organized their own party "Narodnaya Volya", proclaiming the main goal of the movement was a political coup and terrorist forms of struggle against the government. In the summer of 1880, the Narodnaya Volya organized an explosion in the Winter Palace, and Alexander II miraculously escaped death. This event causes shock and confusion in the government: it decides to make concessions by appointing the liberal Loris-Melikov as the plenipotentiary ruler and appealing to the country's liberal public for support. In response, the sovereign receives notes from Russian liberals, in which it is proposed to immediately convene an independent meeting of representatives of the zemstvos to participate in governing the country "in order to develop guarantees and individual rights, freedom of thought and speech." It seemed that Russia was on the verge of adopting a parliamentary form of government. But on March 1, 1881, an irreparable mistake was made. The People's Will, after repeated attempts, kill Alexander II, and this is followed by a government reaction in the country.

It is at this time that the most intense literary

Pisarev's activities. He came to the end of the democratic movement revolutionary situation 1859-1861 years. Shortly after starting his career in democratic journalism, he was imprisoned for a long time. His release coincided with an even more violent offensive by reaction after Karakozov's shot in 1866. The magazine in which he had worked until that time was closed, and new repressions fell on democratic literature. And just two years after his release, the tragic death cut short the life of the young critic.

The difficult conditions in which Pisarev's brilliant, but short-lived activity in the democratic press developed, and especially the general difficult situation for the democratic movement, starting in 1862, but could not but affect the direction of this activity, could not but affect the individual contradictions inherent in Pisarev.

But for all that, Pisarev was a characteristic "man of the sixties", a vanguard of the democratic movement. The main thing that catches the eye in his works, written often under the vivid impression of heavy losses, defeats and difficulties experienced by the democratic movement, is a feeling of deep, militant optimism, a firm conviction in the inevitability of moving forward, confidence in the ultimate victory of the forces of democracy, constant militant spirit and youthful enthusiasm of the fighter.

We cannot fail to be struck by the intensity of Pisarev's literary activity, the diversity of his interests as a thinker and critic, so indicative in general for the revolutionary democratic writers of the 1860s. In a little over seven years of work in the democratic press, he wrote more than fifty major articles and essays, not counting reviews, and meanwhile, during this time his journalistic activities were interrupted twice.

Throughout his career in 1861-1868, Pisarev remained in the ranks of conscious fighters for a better future for his homeland. Turgenev He began as a poet. VG Belinsky, with whom Turgenev later became friends and who exerted a spiritual influence on him, highly appreciated his poetic work. The first critically acclaimed poetry was the poem "Parasha" (1843). In 1844 - 1845, Turgenev wrote the first stories, tried his hand at drama. In the plays "Freeloader", "Provincial", "A Month in the Country", Turgenev touches upon those to which he will turn later: the whimsicality of human destinies, the fleetingness of human happiness. These plays were successfully performed on stage, critics spoke favorably about them. “Turgenev made an attempt to raise the drama to the peak where it comes into contact with the realm of everyday tragedy,” wrote the historian of the Russian theater NN Dolgov years later.

Belinsky in conversations constantly urged the writer to turn to the depiction of peasant life. “The people are the soil,” he said, “keeping the vital juices of all development; personality is the fruit of this soil. " Turgenev spent the summer months in the village, hunting, communicating with peasants-hunters, who retained their self-esteem, an independent mind, sensitivity to the life of nature, revealed to the writer daily life common people. Turgenev came to the conclusion that serfdom did not destroy the living forces of the people, that "in the Russian man lurks and matures the embryo of future great deeds, of great national development." For the writer, hunting has become a way of studying the entire structure of people's life, the inner makeup of the people's soul, which is not always accessible to an outside observer.

At the beginning of 1847, a short essay by Turgenev, Khor and Kalinich, was published in the Sovremennik magazine, which the publisher published under the title From the Notes of a Hunter. The success of the essay was great and unexpected for the author. Belinsky explained it by the fact that in this work Turgenev "... went to the people from the side from which no one had come before him." The economic Khor with the “face” of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, with practical meaning and practical nature, with a strong and clear mind, and the poetically gifted “idealist” Kalinich are two poles of the peasant world. They were not just representatives of their environment, but bright and distinctive characters. In them, the writer showed the fundamental forces of the nation, which determine its viability, the prospects for its further growth and formation.

Turgenev decided to write more stories, united in the general cycle "Notes of a Hunter", most of which were written abroad. They were published as a separate book in 1852 and became not only a literary event. They played a prominent role in the preparation public opinion to future reforms in Russia. Readers saw in Turgenev's book a sharp criticism of the landlord's life in Russia. The Hunter's Notes convinced them of the need to abolish serfdom as the basis of the entire social system in Russia. The censor who let the book go to print was removed from office, and the writer himself was first arrested: formally - for violating censorship rules when publishing an article dedicated to the memory of Gogol, truly - for "Notes of a Hunter" and connections with progressive circles of revolutionary Europe - Bakunin, Herzen, Gerweg. Later he was exiled to Spasskoye-Lutovinovo.

Turgenev was not the first Russian writer to write about the people. But really artistic discovery the image of a simple Russian peasant became a person, a “man”. The peasant heroes of Turgenev are by no means idealized people, inseparable from their way of life with their worries and needs, and at the same time are always unique, and often bright individuals. The writer portrayed ordinary peasants with great sympathy, showed that in conditions of poverty and oppression, the peasants were able to preserve their intelligence, self-esteem, poetic and musical talent, faith in a better life. At the same time, Turgenev discovered in Russian literature the theme of contradictions and contrasts in the consciousness and morality of the Russian peasantry. Rebelliousness and servility, dreams of will and admiration for the master's power, protest and obedience, spiritual giftedness and indifference to one's own fate, worldly sharpness and complete lack of initiative - all these properties existed side by side, often turning into one another.

F. I. Tyutchev, having read the "Notes of a Hunter", especially emphasized the inherent in the book "combination of reality in the image human life with everything that is hidden in her, and hidden nature with all her poetry. " Nature is, indeed, the second hero of the book, equal with man. It crowns the living, holistic image of people's Russia. The accuracy of Turgenev's landscape and its three-dimensionality have long been noted. In the "Notes of a Hunter", the description of nature is conditioned, firstly, by the plot - we look at everything as if through the eyes of the author-"hunter", and secondly - by Turgenev's own philosophy of nature: the peasant lives one life with nature, the peasant life is inseparably connected with it ; all nature is alive, in every blade of grass there is a special world, in which its own laws and secrets. Best Heroes books are not just portrayed "against the background" of nature, but act as a continuation of its elements.

The anti-serfdom pathos of the "Notes of a Hunter" lies in the fact that Gogol's gallery of the dead shower writer added gallery of living souls. The peasants in the Hunter's Notes are serfs, dependent people, but serfdom did not turn them into slaves: spiritually they are freer and richer than their miserable masters. The existence of strong, courageous, bright folk characters turned serfdom into a shame and humiliation of Russia, into a social phenomenon incomparable with the moral dignity of the Russian person. The official order in which strong and gifted people are ruled by cruel, inhuman and limited tyrant landowners looks wild and scary. At the same time, in subsequent stories ("Mumu", "Inn"), Turgenev notes that centuries of serf bondage have taught the people to feel like the master of their native land, a citizen, that the Russian peasant is ready to accept evil. And this is one more reason for denouncing serfdom.

In the "Notes of a Hunter", two Russia is opposed: the official, serfdom, deadening life, on the one hand, and the people's peasant, living and poetic, on the other. But the image of “Living Russia” is not socially homogeneous. There is a whole group of noblemen endowed with national-Russian character traits. The book repeatedly emphasizes that serfdom is hostile to both the human dignity of the peasant and the moral nature of the nobleman, that it is a nationwide evil that adversely affects the life of both classes.

In "Notes of a Hunter" Turgenev for the first time felt Russia as a single artistic whole. The central idea of ​​the book is the harmonious unity of the viable forces of Russian society. His book opens the 60s in the history of Russian literature, anticipates them. A direct link from "Notes of a Hunter" goes to "Notes from the House of the Dead" by Dostoevsky, "Provincial Essays" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, "War and Peace" by Tolstoy.

The range of Turgenev's creativity is unusually wide. He writes works (novels, stories, plays), in which he illuminates the life of various strata of Russian society. The writer is looking for ways leading to the transformation of the social structure of Russia. The will and intelligence, righteousness and kindness, revealed to him in the Russian peasant, already seem to him insufficient for this purpose. The peasantry retreats to the periphery of his work. Turgenev is addressing people from the educated class. In the novel "Rudin", written in 1855, his heroes belong to the intelligentsia, who was fond of philosophy, dreamed of a bright future for Russia, but practically could not do anything for this, and main character largely autobiographical: he received a good philosophical education at the University of Berlin. Rudin is a brilliant orator, he conquers society with brilliant philosophical improvisations about the meaning of life, about the high purpose of man, but in everyday life he does not know how to find out clearly and accurately, does not feel well around. This is a novel about the failure of noble idealism.

Once again Turgenev tries to find a hero of his time in noble society in the novel about the historical fate of the Russian nobility " Noble Nest”, Written in 1858, when the revolutionary democrats and liberals were still fighting together against serfdom, but a split was already outlined between them. Turgenev sharply criticizes the noble groundlessness - the separation of the estate from their native culture, from the people, from Russian roots. For example, the father of the hero of Lavretsky's novel spent his entire life abroad, in all his hobbies he is infinitely far from Russia and the Russian people. He is a supporter of the constitution, but at the same time he does not tolerate the appearance of "fellow citizens" - peasants. Turgenev feared that noble groundlessness could cause Russia a lot of trouble, warned about the catastrophic consequences of those reforms that "are not justified either by knowledge of their native land or belief in an ideal."

Lavretsky greets the younger generation in the novel's finale: “Play, have fun, grow young forces ...” At that time, such a finale was perceived as Turgenev's farewell to the noble period of the Russian liberation movement and the coming to replace it with a new one, where the main characters are commoners. These are people of action, fighters for the education of the people. Their mental and moral superiority over representatives of the noble intelligentsia is undeniable. Turgenev was called "the chronicler of the Russian intelligentsia." He keenly caught the latent movements, feelings and thoughts of the "cultural layer" of Russian people and in his novels embodied not only existing types and ideals, but also barely emerging ones. Such heroes appear in Turgenev's novels "On the Eve" (1860) and "Fathers and Sons" (1862): the Bulgarian revolutionary Dmitry Insarov and the common democrat Yevgeny Bazarov.

The hero of the novel "On the Eve" by Dmitry Insarov completely lacks a contradiction between word and deed. He is not busy with himself, all his thoughts are aimed at achieving the highest goal: the liberation of his homeland, Bulgaria. Even his love turned out to be incompatible with this struggle. Social issues are in the foreground in the novel. “Note,” says Insarov, “the last man, the last beggar in Bulgaria, and I — we want the same thing. We all have one goal. "

The novel "Fathers and Sons" is full of democratic ideology. In it, Turgenev portrayed a person in diverse and complex relationships with other people, with society, affecting both social and moral conflicts. In the work, not only representatives of different social groups - liberals and revolutionary democrats - collide, but also different generations. The central place in the novel is occupied by the conflict of ideological opponents: Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - the representative of the “fathers”, and Evgeny Bazarov - the representative of the “children”. In the image of the protagonist Yevgeny Bazarov - a man of extraordinary intelligence and abilities, possessing high moral qualities and a noble soul - we see an artistic synthesis of the most essential aspects of the worldview of a diverse democracy. At the same time, Bazarov is an extreme individualist who mercilessly denies morality, love, and poetry. In the novel, he is characterized as a nihilist.

Turgenev dreamed of uniting social forces to prepare for the coming changes. He wrote these novels with the secret hope that Russian society would heed his warnings that the "right" and "left" would come to their senses and end the fratricidal disputes that threatened tragedy for themselves and the fate of Russia. He believed that his novels would serve to rally social forces. This calculation did not come true. The revolutionary democrats interpreted these novels in their own way. Publication in the Sovremennik magazine of Dobrolyubov's article "When Will the Present Day Come?" criticism of the novel "On the Eve" led to Turgenev's break with the magazine, with which he collaborated for many years. And the appearance of the novel "Fathers and Sons" only accelerated the process of ideological demarcation of Russian society, causing an effect opposite to what was expected. The topic of two generations, two ideologies turned out to be very relevant, a heated polemic unfolded in the press. Friends and associates accused Turgenev of exalting Bazarov and belittling the "fathers", currying favor with the younger generation. The critic Pisarev, on the contrary, found in him all the best and necessary traits for a young revolutionary, for whom there is still no room for his activities. In Sovremennik they saw in the image of Bazarov an evil caricature of the younger generation. In the conditions of the mobilization of democratic forces for a decisive struggle against the autocracy, Turgenev's critical attitude to the ideas of different-ranked democracy, which manifested itself in the development of the image of Bazarov, was perceived by the leaders of Sovremennik as an emphatically hostile act. Offended by rude and tactless polemics, Turgenev went abroad. He intends to complete his literary activity and writes the latest stories - "Ghosts" (1864) and "Enough" (1865). They are imbued with deep sorrow, thoughts about the frailty of love, beauty and even art.

All of Turgenev's works affirm faith in the power of beauty that transforms the world, in the creative power of art. With Turgenev, not only in literature, the poetic image of the companion of the Russian hero, the "Turgenev girl", entered life. The writer chooses the period of the woman's heyday, when, in anticipation of the chosen one, the girl's soul will stir up, such an overabundance of vitality is radiated, which will not receive a response and earthly incarnation, but will remain a tempting promise of something infinitely higher and more perfect, a guarantee of eternity. In addition, all Turgenev's heroes are tested by love. Turgenev wrote lyrical, largely autobiographical stories - a kind of trilogy about the evil fate that persecutes lovers, that a man in love is a slave to his feelings - the stories "Asya" (1858), "First Love" (1860) and "Spring Waters" (1872). It must be said that in many of Turgenev's works, inexplicable higher powers triumph over a person, commanding his life and death.

The last major works of the writer were the novels "Smoke" (1867) and "Nov" (1876). In the novel "Smoke", Turgenev's extreme Westernizing views were manifested, who expressed in the monologues of the hero Potugin many evil thoughts about the history and significance of Russia, whose only salvation is to tirelessly learn from the West. The main character of the novel, Litvinov, watching smoke from the carriage window, suddenly thought that everything was Russian, his own life- this is smoke that "disappears without a trace, reaching nothing ...". This novel deepened the misunderstanding between Turgenev and the Russian public. The writer was accused of slandering Russia and criticizing the revolutionary emigration.

In the novel "Nov" Turgenev publicly spoke out on hot topic: the emergence of a new social movement - populism. The main thing in the novel is the clash of different parties and strata of Russian society, first of all - revolutionary agitators and peasants. The Narodniks have never been close to the people, but they are trying to serve them. Therefore, their attempts to "raid" the dense peasants, to call them to rebellion inevitably lead to bitter disappointment and even to the suicide of one of the heroes. According to Turgenev, the future lies not with impatient troublemakers, but with sober supporters of slow changes, people of action.

In the late 60s - early 80s, Turgenev created a number of stories and stories in which he refers to the historical past of Russia ("Brigadier", "Steppe King Lear", "Punin and Baburin"), such mysterious phenomena of the human psyche, as hypnosis and suggestion ("Clara Milich", "Song of Triumphant Love"), he supplemented the "Notes of a Hunter" with several stories conceived back in the 40s ("The End of Tchertop-Khanov," Living Power "," Knocks! "), thereby strengthening the artistic unity of the book.

With the cycle "Poems in Prose" (the first part was published in 1882), Turgenev, as it were, summed up his life and work. All the leading motives of his work are reflected in lyrical miniatures: from the song to Russian nature ("Village"), thoughts about Russia, about love, about insignificance human existence, about the meaningfulness and fruitfulness of suffering, to the hymn to the Russian language: "But one cannot but believe that such a language was not given to a great people!" ("Russian language").

Turgenev's literary merits were highly valued not only in Russia. In the summer of 1879, he received news that the University of Oxford in England had awarded him a Ph.D. for his contribution to the liberation of the peasants in The Hunter's Notes.

Chernyshevsky

New people... What distinguishes "new people" from "vulgar" people like Marya Aleksevna? A new understanding of human "benefit", natural, non-perverted, corresponding to human nature. For Marya Aleksevna, what is beneficial is what satisfies her narrow, "unreasonable" philistine egoism. New people see their "benefit" in something else: in the social significance of their labor, in the pleasure to do good to others, to benefit others - in "reasonable egoism." The morality of the new people is revolutionary in its deep, inner essence, it completely denies and destroys the officially recognized morality, on the foundations of which the modern Chernyshevsky society is based - the morality of sacrifice and duty. Lopukhov says that "the victim is soft-boiled boots." All actions, all human deeds are only truly viable when they are performed not by compulsion, but by inner attraction, when they are consistent with desires and beliefs. Everything that is done in society under duress, under the pressure of debt, ultimately turns out to be defective and stillborn. Such is, for example, the reform of the nobility "from above" - ​​the "sacrifice" brought by the upper class to the people. Morality of new people unlocks creativity human personality , who joyfully realized the true needs of human nature, based, according to Chernyshevsky, on the "instinct of social solidarity." In accordance with this instinct, Lopukhov is pleased to be engaged in science, and Vera Pavlovna is pleased to tinker with people, start sewing workshops on a reasonable and just socialist basis. New people and fatal love problems and problems of family relations are solving in a new way. Chernyshevsky is convinced that the main source of intimate dramas is inequality between a man and a woman, a woman's dependence on a man. Emancipation, Chernyshevsky hopes, will significantly change the very nature of love. The excessive concentration of a woman on love feelings will disappear. Her participation on an equal footing with a man in public affairs will remove the drama in love relationships, and at the same time destroy the feeling of jealousy as purely selfish in nature. (* 151) New people differently, less painfully resolve the most dramatic in human relations conflict of the love triangle. Pushkin's "how God bless you to be different" becomes for them not an exception, but a daily norm of life. Lopukhov, having learned about Vera Pavlovna's love for Kirsanov, voluntarily makes way for his friend, leaving the stage. Moreover, on the part of Lopukhov, this is not a sacrifice - but "the most profitable benefit." Ultimately, having made a "calculation of benefits", he experiences a joyful feeling of satisfaction from an act that brings happiness not only to Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna, but also to himself. One cannot but pay tribute to Chernyshevsky's faith in the limitless possibilities of human nature. Like Dostoevsky, he is convinced that man on Earth is an unfinished, transitional being, that he contains enormous, not yet revealed creative potential, which is destined to be realized in the future. But if Dostoevsky sees the ways of revealing these possibilities in religion and not without the help of the higher powers of grace standing above humanity, then Chernyshevsky trusts the powers of reason, capable of re-creating the nature of man. Of course, the spirit of utopia blows from the pages of the novel. Chernyshevsky has to explain to the reader how Lopukhov's "reasonable egoism" did not suffer from his decision. The writer clearly overestimates the role of reason in all actions and actions of a person. Lopukhov's reasoning smacks of rationalism and rationality, the introspection carried out by him evokes in the reader a feeling of some inventiveness, improbability of human behavior in the situation in which Lopukhov found himself. Finally, one cannot fail to notice that Chernyshevsky facilitates the decision by the fact that Lopukhov and Vera Pavlovna do not yet have real family, no child. Many years later, in the novel Anna Karenina, Tolstoy will refute Chernyshevsky's tragic fate the main character, and in "War and Peace" will challenge the excessive enthusiasm of the revolutionary democrats for the ideas of women's emancipation. But one way or another, in the theory of "reasonable egoism" of Chernyshevsky's heroes there is an indisputable attractiveness and an obvious rational grain, especially important for Russian people, who for centuries lived under the strong pressure of the autocratic statehood, which held back initiative and sometimes extinguished the creative impulses of the human personality. The moral of the heroes of Chernyshevsky, in a sense, has not lost its relevance even in our times, when society's efforts are aimed at awakening a person from moral apathy and lack of initiative, at overcoming dead formalism. "Special person"... New people in Chernyshevsky's novel are intermediaries between vulgar and higher people... “The Rakhmetovs are a different breed,” says Vera Pavlovna, “they merge with a common cause so that it is a necessity for them that fills their life; for them it even replaces their personal life. , How is he". Creating the image of a professional revolutionary, Chernyshevsky also looks into the future, in many ways ahead of his time. But the writer defines the characteristic properties of people of this type with the maximum possible completeness for his time. First, he shows the process of becoming a revolutionary, dividing Rakhmetov's life path into three stages: theoretical training, practical involvement in the life of the people and the transition to professional revolutionary activity. Secondly, at all stages of his life, Rakhmetov acts with full dedication, with absolute exertion of spiritual and physical strength. He undergoes a truly heroic hardening both in mental studies and in practical life, where for several years he performs hard physical work, earning himself the nickname of the legendary Volga barge haule Nikitushka Lomov. And now he has an "abyss of things" about which Chernyshevsky does not specifically extend, so as not to tease the censorship. The main difference between Rakhmetov and new people is that "he loves higher and wider": it is not by chance that he is a little scary for new people, but for ordinary people, like the maid Masha, for example, he is his own person. Comparison of the hero with the eagle and with Nikitushka Lomov is simultaneously intended to emphasize the breadth of the hero's views on life, and his extreme closeness to the people, sensitivity to understanding the primary and most pressing human needs. It is these qualities that turn Rakhmetov into historical figure... "There is a great mass of honest and kind people, and there are few such people; but they are in her - tein in tea, a bouquet in noble wine; from them strength and aroma; it is the color of the best people, it is the engines of engines, it is the salt of the salt of the earth. "Rakhmetov's" rigorism "should not be confused with" sacrifice "or self-restraint. need, the highest meaning of existence. Rakhmetov's refusal of love does not feel any sign of regret, for Rakhmetov's "rational egoism" is larger and fuller than the rational egoism of new people. Vera Pavlovna says: "But is it possible for a person like us, not an eagle? it is up to him to others, when it is very difficult for him? Does he care about convictions when he is tormented by his feelings? "But here the heroine expresses a desire to move to the highest stage of development, which Rakhmetov has reached." No, you need a personal matter, a necessary matter on which your own life would depend, which ... for all my destiny would be more important than all my hobbies for passion ... "This opens up in the novel the prospect of the transition of new people to the higher level, builds a successive connection between them. But at the same time, Chernyshevsky does not consider Rakhmetov's" rigor "the norm of everyday human existence. people are needed on the steep passes of history as individuals who absorb the needs of the whole people and deeply feel the pain of the whole people. That is why in the chapter "Change of scenery" the "lady in mourning" changes her outfit for a wedding dress, and next to her is a man of about thirty. love returns to Rakhmetov after the revolution. The fourth dream of Vera Pavlovna... The key place in the novel is occupied by "The Fourth Dream of Vera Pavlovna", in which Chernyshevsky develops a picture of "a bright future." He paints a society in which the interests of everyone are organically combined with the interests of everyone. This is a society where man has learned to rationally manage the forces of nature, where the dramatic division between mental and physical labor has disappeared and the personality has acquired the harmonious completeness and completeness that has been lost over the centuries. However, it was in "The Fourth Dream of Vera Pavlovna" that the weaknesses typical of utopians of all times and peoples were revealed. They consisted in the excessive "regulation of details", which caused disagreement even in the circle of Chernyshevsky's associates. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote: "Reading Chernyshevsky's novel" What is to be done? " forms of life are final? After all, Fourier was a great thinker, and the entire applied part of his theory turns out to be (* 154) more or less untenable, and only undying general propositions remain. " Hard labor and exile... The novel "Prologue". After the publication of the novel "What is to be done?" the pages of legal publications were closed for Chernyshevsky forever. The civil execution was followed by the long and painful years of Siberian exile. However, even there Chernyshevsky continued his stubborn fictional work. He conceived a trilogy consisting of the novels "Old Man", "Prologue" and "Utopia". The novel "Old Man" was secretly sent to St. Petersburg, but cousin the writer A.N. Pypin was forced to destroy it in 1866, when, after Karakozov's shot at Alexander II, searches and arrests began in St. Petersburg. The novel "Utopia" Chernyshevsky did not write, the idea of ​​the trilogy was extinguished on the unfinished novel "Prologue". The Prologue begins in 1857 and opens with a description of the St. Petersburg spring. This is a metaphorical image, clearly hinting at the "spring" of social awakening, at a time of great expectations and hopes. But the bitter irony immediately destroys the illusions: "admiring the spring, he (Petersburg. - Yu. L.) continued to live like the winter, behind double frames. And in this he was right: the Ladoga ice has not yet passed." This sensation of the approaching "Ladoga ice" was not in the novel "What is to be done?" It ended with an optimistic chapter, "A Change of Scenery," in which Chernyshevsky hoped to await a revolutionary coup very soon ... But he never waited for it. The pages of the novel "Prologue" are permeated with a bitter consciousness of lost illusions. In it, two camps are opposed to each other, the revolutionary democrats - Volgin, Levitsky, Nivelzin, Sokolovsky - and the liberals - Ryazantsev and Savelov. The first part of "The Prologue of the Prologue" deals with the private lives of these people. Before us is the story of the love relationship between Nivelzin and Savelova, similar to the story of Lopukhov, Kirsanov and Vera Pavlovna. Volgin and Nivelzin, new people, are trying to save the heroine from "family slavery." But nothing comes of this attempt. The heroine is not able to surrender to the "reasonable" arguments of "free love". She loves Nivelzin, but "with her husband she has such a brilliant career." It turns out that the most reasonable concepts are powerless in the face of complex reality, which does not want to fit into the Procrustean bed of clear and precise logical schemes. So, using a particular example, new people begin to realize (* 155) that it is extremely difficult to move life with lofty concepts and reasonable calculations alone. In an episode of everyday life, like in a drop of water, the drama of the social struggle of the revolutionaries of the sixties is reflected, who, according to V. I. Lenin, "remained alone and suffered, apparently, a complete defeat." If the pathos "What is to be done?" - an optimistic statement of a dream, then the pathos of "Prologue" is a clash of dreams with the harsh reality of life. Together with the general tone of the novel, its characters also change: where Rakhmetov was, now Volgin appears. This is a typical intellectual, strange, myopic, absent-minded. He sneers all the time, bitterly makes fun of himself. Volgin is a man of "suspicious, timid character", the principle of his life is "wait and wait as long as possible, wait as quietly as possible." What caused such a strange position for a revolutionary? The liberals invite Volgin to give a radical speech at a meeting of provincial nobles so that, frightened by her, they will sign the most liberal draft of the peasant reform that is being prepared. Volgin's position at this meeting is ambiguous and comical. And now, standing aside by the window, he falls into deep thought. "He remembered how he used to walk down the street hometown a crowd of drunken barge haulers: noise, shouting, daring songs, robbery songs. A stranger would have thought: "The city is in danger - now, they will rush to rob shops and houses, smash everything to pieces." The door of the booth opens a little, from where a sleepy old man sticks in, with a gray, half-faded mustache, a toothless mouth opens and either screams or groans in a decrepit wheeze: "Bastards, why are they bursting out? Here I am for you!" Removing the mob quieted down, the front one is buried behind the back - still there would be such a shout, and the brave fellows would scatter, calling themselves "not thieves, not robbers, Stenka Razin workers", promising that as they "wave the oar", then "Moscow will shake ", - they would scatter wherever their eyes are looking ..." A pathetic nation, a pathetic nation! A nation of slaves, - from top to bottom, all slaves ... "- he thought and frowned." How to be a revolutionary if he is does not see a grain of the revolutionary spirit that he dreamed of during the period of work on the novel “What is to be done?” The question, which has already been answered, is now posed in a new way. "Liberals turn out to be. They really have (* 156)" an abyss of things to do ", but they are perceived as empty dances:" They interpret: "Let us free the peasants." Where is the strength for such a thing? No strength yet. It is absurd to get down to business when there is no strength for it. And you see where it is heading: they will liberate. What will come out? Judge for yourself what comes out when you take on a task that you cannot do. Naturally, that you spoil the business, an abomination will come out "- this is how Volgin assesses the situation. it is better. This is a general law of nature: a given amount of force produces the greatest amount of movement when it acts smoothly and constantly; jerking and jumping is less economical. Political economy has revealed that this truth is just as immutable in public life. We should wish that everything would be quiet and peaceful with us. The calmer the better. "It is obvious that Volgin himself is in a state of agonizing doubts. This is partly why he restrains the young impulses of his friend Levitsky. But Volgin's call to" wait "cannot satisfy the young romantic. when the people are silent, and it is necessary to work to improve the fate of the peasant, to explain to society the tragedy of his situation. But the society, according to Volgin, "does not want to think about anything but trifles." And in such conditions, you will have to adapt to his views, exchange great ideas for small trifles. One soldier in the field is not an army, why go into exaltation. What to do? There is no clear answer to this question in Prolog. The novel ends on a dramatic note of an unfinished dispute between the characters and goes into a description of Levitsky's love interests, which, in turn, are interrupted in mid-sentence. This is the result of Chernyshevsky's artistic work, which by no means diminishes the significance of the writer's legacy. Pushkin once said: "A fool alone does not change, for time does not bring him development, and experiments do not exist for him." In hard labor, persecuted and persecuted, Chernyshevsky found the courage to look directly and firmly in the eyes of the truth about which he told himself and the world in the novel Prologue. This courage is also a civil feat of Chernyshevsky, a writer and thinker. Only in August 1883, Chernyshevsky was "graciously" (* 157) allowed to return from Siberia, but not to Petersburg, but to Astrakhan, under police supervision. He met Russia, gripped by a government reaction after the assassination of Alexander II by the Narodnaya Volya. After seventeen years of separation, he met with the aged Olga Sokratovna (only once, in 1866, she visited him for five days in Siberia), with adults, completely unfamiliar to him sons ... In Astrakhan, Chernyshevsky lived alone. The whole Russian life changed, which he hardly understood and could no longer enter. After much trouble, he was allowed to move to his homeland, to Saratov. But soon after arriving here, on October 17 (29), 1889, Chernyshevsky died.

Dobrolyubov

By 1857, when Dobrolyubov devoted himself entirely to journalistic work, his first large article on a purely literary theme - about Shchedrin's "Provincial Essays", belongs. This is already a typical Dobrolyubov article "on the subject", where the author of the work being analyzed remains almost on the sidelines, and the whole task of the critic is to discuss the conditions of our social life on the basis of the material given by the work. Dobrolyubov's opponents see in such a technique a complete destruction of aesthetics and the abolition of art. They look at Dobrolyubov as one of the founders of that extremely utilitarian view of art, which reached later in the 60s in the person of Pisarev. There is a complete misunderstanding in this very widespread understanding of the Dobrolyubov method. It cannot be denied, of course, the genetic connection between the two leaders of the new generation, but Dobrolyubov's boundless respect for Pushkin alone shows that there is no way to establish any kind of close connection between them.

In complete contrast to Pisarev, who dreamed of pursuing the ideals of publicism that he liked, Dobrolyubov, with his articles, laid the foundation for exclusively journalistic criticism. He turned not an artist, but only a critic into a publicist. In art, he directly pursued rational tendentiousness; he, for example, refused to disassemble Pisemsky's A Thousand Souls, because it seemed to him that its content was adapted to a well-known idea. Dobrolyubov demanded only one thing from a literary work: the truth of life, which would make it possible to look at him with complete confidence. Art, therefore, for Dobrolyubov is something completely self-sufficient, only as interesting as it is on its own. The complete groundlessness of Dobrolyubov's accusations of destroying art will become even more obvious if we turn to the factual consideration of what exactly in the sphere of Russian art he destroyed. Yes, Dobrolyubov really destroyed the inflated reputations of Countess Rostopchina, Rosenheim, Benediktov, Sollogub with his witty ridicule. But isn't the fame of the two largest representatives of the "aesthetic" generation of the 1940s closely connected with the name of Dobrolyubov? Who more than Dobrolyubov contributed to the glory of Goncharov with the famous article: "What is Oblomovism"? Only thanks to Dobrolyubov was the deep meaning hidden in the novel, which so fully reflected the life of serf Russia, was revealed. The interpretation given by Dobrolyubov in "The Dark Kingdom" to Ostrovsky's works is disputed by some; but no one has yet come to mind to dispute the fact that it was the "whistler" Dobrolyubov who created Ostrovsky real all-Russian fame, which his closest literary friends from the Slavophilic "Moskvityanin" were powerless to bring to him. In "The Dark Kingdom" and "What is Oblomovshchina" Dobrolyubov's talent reached its climax.

Especially remarkable for the power of talent " Dark kingdom", which stands completely apart not only in Russian, but also in European critical literature. This is no longer a service analysis, but a completely independent, purely creative synthesis, from scattered features that created a logical structure that is striking in its harmony. Apollo Grigoriev himself, who walked around for ten years yes near Ostrovsky, confused in mystical distractions and narrow-circle interpretations, he was blinded by the light thrown at the work of his idol by a person opposite to Ostrovsky's “party.” But the fact of the matter is that the high animation and fiery indignation penetrating the “Dark Kingdom” Dobrolyubov learned not from his adherence to this or that literary circle, but from a deep humane feeling that permeated his entire being. lack of a concept of human dignity, in their totality form the world, named Dobrolyubov by the name of the "dark kingdom".

There are a number of other writers who also received nothing but the warmest greetings from Dobrolyubov. He was extremely sympathetic to Zhadovskaya, Polonsky, Pleshcheev, Marko-Vovchk; he gave comments imbued with true sympathy on Turgenev's "On the Eve" ("When the Present Day Comes") and Dostoevsky's "Humiliated and Insulted" ("Downed People"). Going through all this long series of literary reputations that have found powerful support in the authoritative word of Dobrolyubov, you ask yourself in bewilderment: why is Dobrolyubov a "denier"? Is it really only because the general meaning of his work is a protest against lawlessness and a denial of the dark forces of our life, which did not allow "the present day" to come? This is usually answered by pointing to "Whistle" - a satirical supplement to "Sovremennik", instituted in 1858 by Dobrolyubov together with Nekrasov. Dobrolyubov was the most active contributor to "Whistle" and, under the pseudonym of Konrad Lilienschwager, Jacob Ham and others, wrote many poems and satirical articles, which occupy an entire half of volume IV of his collected works. Even people who are generally friendly towards Dobrolyubov blame him for "Whistle", which allegedly laid the foundation for "whistle", that is, rude mockery of authorities and unbridled tone that was established in our journalism in the 1860s.

This accusation is the result of mixing Dobrolyubov with the later phenomena of Russian literary life. One has only to take a closer look at what Dobrolyubov wrote in "Whistle" to make sure that, with the exception of very few and very mild ridicule over Pogodin and Vernadsky, almost all of Dobrolyubov's "whistle dance" is not only not directed against the "authorities", but, on the contrary, he sneers at people almost "his own". Dobrolyubova was outraged by the herd nature of our suddenly emerging "progress"; sincere nature he was sickened by the parade of progressiveness. "Whistle" laughs at Benediktov, Rosenheim, Kokorev, Lvov, Semevsky, Sollogub, who "blew our ears, cries of truth, publicity, bribes, freedom of trade, the harm of ransom, the vileness of oppression," and so on. As for the alleged rudeness of Dobrolyubov's whistle ", then it has nothing to do with reality. Possessing a rare wit and remarkable talent for poetry, Dobrolyubov sarcastically sounded remarkably subtle. And if, as someone put it, the polemicists of the 1860s went into battle armed with dirty mops, then Dobrolyubov always fought with the thinnest Toledo sword in his hand. - A simple look at the weather distribution of Dobrolyubov's articles is enough to make sure that such work is beyond the power of even the most talented person

Early Russian Hegelianism, as we have seen it so far, was associated with circles influenced by German culture - but in the person of Herzen, we meet with another type of Russian Hegelianism, which adjoins not German, but French culture. True, in his youth Herzen experienced the extraordinary influence of Schiller, which he recalls many times in his memoirs ("Past and Thoughts"); German romance and even mysticism was also not alien to him. Nevertheless, the main features of Herzen's spiritual order were formed under the influence of French literature, both the 18th and 19th centuries. The general revolutionary attitude, the religious-utopian striving for the establishment of truth on earth, socialist dreams - all of this was formed by Herzen under French influence. It is no coincidence in this sense that disappointment in western culture sharpened " mental drama"Herzen, is connected precisely with his French impressions and should be attributed in its essential content precisely to French culture. A sharp aversion to bourgeois (" bourgeois ") psychology, which Herzen depicts with such inimitable force in the works of a foreign period, is caused mainly by his French impressions.

Russian early Hegelianism almost did not touch at all the general provisions of Hegel's philosophy and focused on questions of the philosophy of history. However, special attention to the problem of personality brought thought beyond the limits of historical being and prompted to raise questions of a general philosophical nature. This was the case with Bakunin, it was even brighter with Belinsky, and this was the case in the last year of his life with Stankevich, but in essence we will find the same in Herzen. And for Herzen, the philosophy of history at first acquires paramount importance, but for him a critical attitude and partial overcoming of Hegelianism is also associated with the problem of personality. All this is very typical of the paths of Russian philosophy - it gradually absorbs certain elements from the constructions of Western philosophers, relies on them, but then goes into problems that focus all attention, all creative searches. As for Herzen, his original philosophical work, his special genuine "philosophical experience" were concentrated both on the topic of personality and on the socio-ethical topic... Herzen received a very solid education in natural science in his youth, in a sense he can even be considered the ancestor of Russian positivism (with its main focus on natural science), but the main philosophical quest Herzen are anthropocentric. In this sense, Herzen is close to the vast majority of Russian thinkers.

At the same time, Herzen is moving along the paths of the Russian secular thoughts, he is one of the brightest and even passionate exponents of Russian secularism. But that courageous truthfulness that passes through all the years of Herzen's searches leads to the fact that in Herzen, brighter than in anyone else, secularism reaches its dead ends. We will see that it is from this that the stamp of tragedy is explained, which fell on all the ideological work of Herzen in the foreign period of his life.

Herzen's brilliant literary talent, placing him in the group of first-class Russian writers, helped him find his own special Herzen style, his own special manner of presenting and developing his thoughts. But for the historian of philosophy, this manner of writing makes it more difficult than helpful. Herzen really constantly - even with the development of the most abstract propositions - turns from pure analysis to an artistic manner of writing, interrupts his reasoning with a lively, almost always very bright and successful dialogue with someone, turning reasoning into an "exchange of opinions." Philosophical ideas Herzen often speak out to them "en passant" and they need to be collected, systematized, for him sometimes formulate general provisions. Let us note, by the way, that already with Herzen with full force appears (as it was partly before him with Prince Odoevsky) the frequent internal inseparability philosophical and artistic thinking- which we will find later in Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and even in Vl. Solovyov, not to mention the dii minores,<<*1>> like Rozanov, Leontiev and others. In Herzen, the artist constantly burst into the work of the thinker and turned, so to speak, in his favor what was obtained in the work of pure thought. Although Herzen's artistic talent never rose to the heights to which the work of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky rose, yet Herzen was undoubtedly a real artist, as his stories and especially his memoirs "Past and Thoughts" testify.

Herzen was "saved from moral death" by faith in Russia. Of course, this was affected by the ardent love for Russia, which was always inherent in Herzen, but also faith in Russia (as before, faith in Western Europe) was much more determined by social quest than by national feeling... Herzen placed all his social hopes on the Russian community (in this sense, Herzen, even more so than the Slavophiles, is the creator of the so-called populism (see below, in Chapter VIII). Together with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Leontiev, Herzen renounces the previous "eon" of history (that is, from its European era) and surrenders to the thought of a "new eon." European culture Herzen gradually frees himself from nit-picking and is entirely determined only by contemplation on the mistakes and falsehoods of the past. Herzen's literary activity completely goes into journalism, but this is philosophical journalism, all permeated with general (new) views on history, on the problem of progress. In the last period of his activity, Herzen ranks himself among the "nihilists, but in an interpretation that does not bring him closer to the Bazarovs of his day, but, on the contrary, moves him away from them. The break with the new generation was very darkening. last years life of Herzen, especially since he had a sufficient basis for himself. The new generation defended realism (in its rather primitive form), while Herzen, although he was a positivist, although he gravitated towards philosophical realism, he always was and remained to the end romantic... Spiritual attitudes on both sides, with all the closeness in separate points of the worldview, were profoundly different - and not only Herzen was painfully experienced by the resulting rupture.

"New people" and the problems of the future of Russia in the poetry and prose of the revolutionary democrats
The 1860s went down in the history of our country as the years of the high rise of the democratic movement. Already during the Crimean War, a wave of peasant uprisings against the tyranny of the landowners was growing. The political situation in the country became especially aggravated after 1855. The defeat of tsarism in the Crimean War, which revealed a deep crisis of the feudal-serf system, the intolerable oppression of the landlords, which fell with all its weight on the shoulders of millions of peasants, and the police arbitrariness that reigned in the country, gave rise to a revolutionary situation. During these years, during the preparation and implementation of the "peasant reform" on February 19, 1861, the peasant movement became especially widespread. The largest was the action of the peasants led by Anton Petrov in the village of Bezdne, Kazan province in April 1861, brutally suppressed by the tsarist troops. In 1861, serious student demonstrations in St. Petersburg and in some other cities, which were of a pronounced democratic character, also fell. In 1861, the revolutionary organization "Land and Freedom" appears and develops its activities. Proclamations are drawn up and distributed, addressed to democratic youth, peasants, soldiers and calling for an uprising, for resistance to the tsarist authorities and the feudal landlords. The Kolokol by Herzen and Ogarev and other uncensored publications are widely distributed in Russia and contribute to the development of the democratic movement.
During these years, the most important issue for the revolutionary democrats is the question of preparing a democratic peasant revolution, of merging the scattered actions of peasants and democratic youth into a general offensive against the existing system. The ideological leaders of the unfolding movement, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, were preparing the democratic forces of society for this.
On the originality of Russian literary criticism."As long as our poetry is alive and well, until then there is no reason to doubt the deep health of the Russian people," wrote critic NN Strakhov, and his associate Apollon Grigoriev considered Russian literature "the only focus of all our highest interests." VG Belinsky bequeathed to his friends to put in his coffin the issue of the journal "Otechestvennye zapiski", and the classic of Russian satire, M. Ye. Saltykov-Shchedrin, in his farewell letter to his son said: "Most of all, love your native literature and prefer the title of a writer to any other." ... According to N. G. Chernyshevsky, our literature has been elevated to the dignity of a national cause that has united the most viable forces of Russian society. In the minds of the 19th century reader, literature was not only "fine literature", but also the basis of the spiritual life of the nation. The Russian writer treated his work in a special way: it was not a profession for him, but a service. Chernyshevsky called literature "a textbook of life", and Leo Tolstoy was later surprised that these words did not belong to him, but to his ideological opponent. The artistic assimilation of life in Russian classical literature never turned into a purely aesthetic pursuit; it always pursued a living spiritual and practical goal. “The word was perceived not as an empty sound, but as a deed - almost as“ religious ”as the ancient Karelian singer Veinemeinen, who“ made a boat by singing. ” a book that itself, by the power of only expressed in it, the only and undeniably correct thoughts, should transform Russia ", - notes the modern literary critic GD Gachev. The belief in the effective, world-transforming power of the artistic word also determined the characteristics of Russian literary criticism. From literary problems, it has always risen to social problems that have a direct bearing on the fate of the country, people, nation. The Russian critic did not limit himself to speculations about the artistic form, about the skill of the writer. Analyzing a literary work, he came out to the questions that life posed to the writer and reader. The orientation of criticism towards a wide range of readers made it very popular: the authority of the critic in Russia was great and his articles were perceived as original works, enjoying success along with literature. Russian criticism of the second half of the 19th century develops more dramatically. The social life of the country at this time became unusually complicated, many political directions arose that argued with each other. The picture of the literary process also turned out to be variegated and multi-layered. Therefore, criticism has become more discordant in comparison with the era of the 30s and 40s, when the entire variety of critical assessments was covered by the authoritative word of Belinsky. Like Pushkin in literature, Belinsky was a kind of universal in criticism: he combined sociological, aesthetic and stylistic approaches in evaluating a work, embracing the literary movement as a whole with a single glance. In the second half of the 19th century, Belinsky's critical universalism turned out to be unique. Critical thought specialized in specific areas and schools. Even Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, the most versatile critics, who had a broad public outlook, could no longer claim not only to cover the literary movement in its entirety, but also to interpret an individual work as a whole. Sociological approaches predominated in their work. Literary development as a whole and the place in it of an individual work was now revealed by the entire totality of critical trends and schools. Apollon Grigoriev, for example, arguing with A. N. Ostrovsky's dobrolyubov assessments, noticed such facets in the playwright's work that Dobrolyubov eluded. A critical understanding of the work of Turgenev or Leo Tolstoy cannot be reduced to the assessments of Dobrolyubov or Chernyshevsky. NN Strakhov's works on "Fathers and Children" and "War and Peace" substantially deepen and clarify them. The depth of understanding of the novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is not limited to Dobrolyubov's classic article "What is Oblomovism?"
Literary Critical Activity of Revolutionary Democrats ... The public, socially critical pathos of the articles of the late Belinsky with his socialist convictions was picked up and developed in the sixties by the revolutionary-democratic critics Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. By 1859, when the government's program and the views of the liberal parties became clear, when it became obvious that the reform "from above" in any of its variants would be half-hearted, the revolutionary democrats moved from a shaky alliance with liberalism to severing relations and an uncompromising struggle against it. On this, the second stage of the social movement of the 60s, the literary-critical activity of N.A.Dobrolyubov falls. He devotes a special satirical section of the Sovremennik magazine called "Whistle" to exposing the liberals. Here Dobrolyubov acts not only as a critic, but also as a satirical poet. Criticism of liberalism then alerted A. I. Herzen, (* 11) who, being in exile, in contrast to Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, continued to hope for reforms "from above" and overestimated the radicalism of the liberals until 1863. However, Herzen's warnings did not stop the revolutionary democrats of Sovremennik. Beginning in 1859, they began to carry out the idea of ​​a peasant revolution in their articles. They considered the peasant community to be the core of the future socialist world order. Unlike the Slavophiles, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov believed that communal ownership of land was based not on Christian, but on the revolutionary, liberating, socialist instincts of the Russian peasant. Dobrolyubov became the founder of the original critical method. He saw that the majority of Russian writers do not share the revolutionary-democratic way of thinking, do not pronounce a sentence on life from such a radical position. Dobrolyubov saw the task of his criticism in completing the work begun by the writer in his own way and formulating this verdict, relying on real events and artistic images of the work. Dobrolyubov called his method of comprehending the work of the writer "real criticism." Real criticism "examines whether such a person is possible and really; having found that it is true to reality, it proceeds to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, and so on. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author under examination, the critic uses them. and thanks the author; if not, he does not stick to him with a knife to his throat - how, they say, he dared to deduce such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? "In this case, the critic takes the initiative into his own hands: he explains the reasons that gave rise to this or that phenomenon from a revolutionary-democratic position and then pronounces a verdict on him. Dobrolyubov positively assesses, for example, Goncharov's novel Oblomov, although the author" does not give , apparently, does not want to give any conclusions. "It is enough that he" presents you with a living image and vouches only for its resemblance to reality. "For Dobrolyubov, such author's objectivity is quite acceptable and even desirable, since he takes Real criticism often led Dobrolyubov to a kind of reinterpretation of the writer's artistic images in a revolutionary-democratic way. suggested by the author himself.On this basis, as we will see below, Turgenev's decisive break with the oremennik ", when Dobrolyubov's article about the novel" On the Eve "was published in it. Dobrolyubov's articles revive the young, strong nature of a talented critic who sincerely believes in the people, in which he sees the embodiment of all his highest moral ideals, with which he connects the only hope for the revival of society. "His passion is deep and stubborn, and obstacles do not frighten him when they need to be overcome in order to achieve the passionately desired and deeply conceived," Dobrolyubov writes about the Russian peasant in his article "Traits for characterizing the Russian common people." All the critic's activities were aimed at the struggle for the creation of a "party of the people in literature." He devoted four years of unremitting work to this struggle, having written nine volumes of essays in such a short time. Dobrolyubov literally burnt himself to death in the selfless journalist work, which undermined his health. He died at the age of 25 on November 17, 1861. Nekrasov spoke of the premature death of a young friend: But your hour struck too early And the prophetic feather fell from his hands. What a lamp of reason has gone out! What a heart has stopped beating! Decline of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word ... At the end of the 1960s, dramatic changes took place in Russian social life and critical thought. The manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the emancipation of the peasants not only did not soften, but further exacerbated the contradictions. In response to the upsurge of the revolutionary-democratic movement, the government launched an open attack on the progressive thought: Chernyshevsky and DI Pisarev were arrested, and the publication of the Sovremennik magazine was suspended for eight months. The situation is aggravated by a split within the revolutionary democratic movement, the main reason for which was the differences in the assessment of the revolutionary socialist capabilities of the peasantry. The figures of the "Russian Word" Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev and Bartholomew Aleksandrovich Zaitsev sharply criticized "Sovremennik" for (* 13) its alleged idealization of the peasantry, for an exaggerated idea of ​​the revolutionary instincts of the Russian peasant. Unlike Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, Pisarev argued that the Russian peasant was not ready for a conscious struggle for freedom, that for the most part he was dark and downtrodden. Pisarev considered the "intellectual proletariat", the commoner revolutionaries who brought natural science knowledge to the people, to be the revolutionary force of our time. This knowledge not only destroys the foundations of official ideology (Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality), but also opens people's eyes to the natural needs of human nature, which are based on the instinct of "social solidarity." Therefore, the enlightenment of the people with the natural sciences can lead society to socialism not only in a revolutionary ("mechanical") way, but also in an evolutionary ("chemical") way. In order for this "chemical" transition to take place faster and more efficiently, Pisarev suggested that Russian democracy be guided by the "principle of economy of strength." The "intellectual proletariat" must concentrate all its energy on destroying the spiritual foundations of the presently existing society through the propaganda of the natural sciences among the people. In the name of the so-understood "spiritual liberation" Pisarev, like Turgenev's hero Yevgeny Bazarov, proposed abandoning art. He really believed that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet," and recognized art only to the extent that it participates in the promotion of natural science and destroys the foundations of the existing system. In the article "Bazarov" he praised the triumphant nihilist, and in the article "Motives of the Russian Drama" he "crushed" the heroine of Alexander Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" Katerina Kabanova, who had been erected on a pedestal by Dobrolyubov. Destroying the idols of the "old" society, Pisarev published the notorious anti-Pushkin articles and the work "Destruction of aesthetics". The fundamental differences that emerged in the course of the polemic between Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo weakened the revolutionary camp and were a symptom of the decline of the social movement. Social upsurge of the 70s... By the beginning of the 70s, the first signs of a new social upsurge associated with the activities of the revolutionary populists were outlined in Russia. The second generation of revolutionary democrats, who made a heroic attempt to rouse the peasants to (* 14) a revolution by "going to the people", had their own ideologists, who, in the new historical conditions, developed the ideas of Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. "Belief in a special way of life, in the communal system of Russian life; hence - the belief in the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution - this is what inspired them, roused tens and hundreds of people to a heroic struggle against the government," wrote VI Lenin about the populists-seventies ... This faith, to one degree or another, permeated all the works of the leaders and mentors of the new movement - P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, M.A. Bakunin, P.N. Tkachev. The mass "going to the people" ended in 1874 with the arrest of several thousand people and the subsequent trials of the 193s and 50s. In 1879, at a congress in Voronezh, the populist organization "Land and Freedom" split: "politicians" who shared Tkachev's ideas organized their own party "Narodnaya Volya", proclaiming the main goal of the movement was a political coup and terrorist forms of struggle against the government. In the summer of 1880, the Narodnaya Volya organized an explosion in the Winter Palace, and Alexander II miraculously escaped death. This event causes shock and confusion in the government: it decides to make concessions by appointing the liberal Loris-Melikov as the plenipotentiary ruler and appealing to the country's liberal public for support. In response, the sovereign receives notes from Russian liberals, in which it is proposed to immediately convene an independent meeting of representatives of the zemstvos to participate in governing the country "in order to develop guarantees and individual rights, freedom of thought and speech." It seemed that Russia was on the verge of adopting a parliamentary form of government. But on March 1, 1881, an irreparable mistake was made. The People's Will, after repeated attempts, kill Alexander II, and this is followed by a government reaction in the country.
Pisarev
It is at this time that the most intense literary
Pisarev's activities. He entered the democratic movement towards the end of the revolutionary situation of 1859-1861. Shortly after starting his career in democratic journalism, he was imprisoned for a long time. His release coincided with an even more violent offensive by reaction after Karakozov's shot in 1866. The magazine in which he had worked until that time was closed, and new repressions fell on democratic literature. And just two years after his release, the tragic death cut short the life of the young critic.
The difficult conditions in which Pisarev's brilliant, but short-lived activity in the democratic press developed, and especially the general difficult situation for the democratic movement, starting in 1862, but could not but affect the direction of this activity, could not but affect the individual contradictions inherent in Pisarev.
But for all that, Pisarev was a characteristic "man of the sixties", a vanguard of the democratic movement. The main thing that catches the eye in his works, written often under the vivid impression of heavy losses, defeats and difficulties experienced by the democratic movement, is a feeling of deep, militant optimism, a firm conviction in the inevitability of moving forward, confidence in the ultimate victory of the forces of democracy, constant militant spirit and youthful enthusiasm of the fighter.
We cannot fail to be struck by the intensity of Pisarev's literary activity, the diversity of his interests as a thinker and critic, so indicative in general for the revolutionary democratic writers of the 1860s. In a little over seven years of work in the democratic press, he wrote more than fifty major articles and essays, not counting reviews, and meanwhile, during this time his journalistic activities were interrupted twice.
Throughout his career in 1861-1868, Pisarev remained in the ranks of conscious fighters for a better future for his homeland. Turgenev He began as a poet. VG Belinsky, with whom Turgenev later became friends and who exerted a spiritual influence on him, highly appreciated his poetic work. The first critically acclaimed poetry was the poem "Parasha" (1843). In 1844 - 1845, Turgenev wrote the first stories, tried his hand at drama. In the plays "Freeloader", "Provincial", "A Month in the Country", Turgenev touches upon those to which he will turn later: the whimsicality of human destinies, the fleetingness of human happiness. These plays were successfully performed on stage, critics spoke favorably about them. “Turgenev made an attempt to raise the drama to the peak where it comes into contact with the realm of everyday tragedy,” wrote the historian of the Russian theater NN Dolgov years later.
Belinsky in conversations constantly urged the writer to turn to the depiction of peasant life. “The people are the soil,” he said, “keeping the vital juices of all development; personality is the fruit of this soil. " Turgenev spent the summer months in the village, hunting, communicating with peasants-hunters, who retained their self-esteem, an independent mind, sensitivity to the life of nature, and revealed to the writer the daily life of the common people. Turgenev came to the conclusion that serfdom did not destroy the living forces of the people, that “in the Russian man the embryo of future great deeds, of great national development lurks and matures”. For the writer, hunting has become a way of studying the entire structure of people's life, the inner makeup of the people's soul, which is not always accessible to an outside observer.
At the beginning of 1847, a short essay by Turgenev, Khor and Kalinich, was published in the Sovremennik magazine, which the publisher published under the title From the Notes of a Hunter. The success of the essay was great and unexpected for the author. Belinsky explained it by the fact that in this work Turgenev "... went to the people from the side from which no one had come before him." The economic Khor with the “face” of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, with practical meaning and practical nature, with a strong and clear mind, and the poetically gifted “idealist” Kalinich are two poles of the peasant world. They were not just representatives of their environment, but bright and distinctive characters. In them, the writer showed the fundamental forces of the nation, which determine its viability, the prospects for its further growth and formation.
Turgenev decided to write more stories, united in the general cycle "Notes of a Hunter", most of which were written abroad. They were published as a separate book in 1852 and became not only a literary event. They played a significant role in preparing public opinion for future reforms in Russia. Readers saw in Turgenev's book a sharp criticism of the landlord's life in Russia. The Hunter's Notes convinced them of the need to abolish serfdom as the basis of the entire social system in Russia. The censor who let the book go to print was removed from office, and the writer himself was first arrested: formally - for violating censorship rules when publishing an article dedicated to the memory of Gogol, truly - for "Notes of a Hunter" and connections with progressive circles of revolutionary Europe - Bakunin, Herzen, Gerweg. Later he was exiled to Spasskoye-Lutovinovo.
Turgenev was not the first Russian writer to write about the people. But a truly artistic discovery was the portrayal of a simple Russian peasant as a person, a “man”. The peasant heroes of Turgenev are by no means idealized people, inseparable from their way of life with their worries and needs, and at the same time are always unique, and often bright individuals. The writer portrayed ordinary peasants with great sympathy, showed that in conditions of poverty and oppression, the peasants were able to preserve their intelligence, self-esteem, poetic and musical talent, faith in a better life. At the same time, Turgenev discovered in Russian literature the theme of contradictions and contrasts in the consciousness and morality of the Russian peasantry. Rebelliousness and servility, dreams of will and admiration for the master's power, protest and obedience, spiritual giftedness and indifference to one's own fate, worldly sharpness and complete lack of initiative - all these properties existed side by side, often turning into one another.
FI Tyutchev, having read "Notes of a Hunter", especially emphasized the book's inherent "combination of reality in the depiction of human life with everything that is hidden in it, and intimate nature with all its poetry." Nature is, indeed, the second hero of the book, equal with man. It crowns the living, holistic image of people's Russia. The accuracy of Turgenev's landscape and its three-dimensionality have long been noted. In the "Notes of a Hunter", the description of nature is conditioned, firstly, by the plot - we look at everything as if through the eyes of the author-"hunter", and secondly - by Turgenev's own philosophy of nature: the peasant lives one life with nature, the peasant life is inseparably connected with it ; all nature is alive, in every blade of grass there is a special world, in which its own laws and secrets. The best heroes of the book are not just portrayed "against the background" of nature, but act as a continuation of its elements.
The anti-serfdom pathos of The Hunter's Notes lies in the fact that the writer added a gallery of living souls to Gogol's gallery of dead souls. The peasants in the Hunter's Notes are serfs, dependent people, but serfdom did not turn them into slaves: spiritually they are freer and richer than their miserable masters. The existence of strong, courageous, bright folk characters turned serfdom into a shame and humiliation of Russia, into a social phenomenon incomparable with the moral dignity of the Russian person. The official order in which strong and gifted people are ruled by cruel, inhuman and limited tyrant landowners looks wild and scary. At the same time, in subsequent stories ("Mumu", "Inn"), Turgenev notes that centuries of serf bondage have taught the people to feel like the master of their native land, a citizen, that the Russian peasant is ready to accept evil. And this is one more reason for denouncing serfdom.
In the "Notes of a Hunter", two Russia is opposed: the official, serfdom, deadening life, on the one hand, and the people's peasant, living and poetic, on the other. But the image of “Living Russia” is not socially homogeneous. There is a whole group of noblemen endowed with national-Russian character traits. The book repeatedly emphasizes that serfdom is hostile to both the human dignity of the peasant and the moral nature of the nobleman, that it is a nationwide evil that adversely affects the life of both classes.
In "Notes of a Hunter" Turgenev for the first time felt Russia as a single artistic whole. The central idea of ​​the book is the harmonious unity of the viable forces of Russian society. His book opens the 60s in the history of Russian literature, anticipates them. A direct link from "Notes of a Hunter" goes to "Notes from the House of the Dead" by Dostoevsky, "Provincial Essays" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, "War and Peace" by Tolstoy.
The range of Turgenev's creativity is unusually wide. He writes works (novels, stories, plays), in which he illuminates the life of various strata of Russian society. The writer is looking for ways leading to the transformation of the social structure of Russia. The will and intelligence, righteousness and kindness, revealed to him in the Russian peasant, already seem to him insufficient for this purpose. The peasantry retreats to the periphery of his work. Turgenev is addressing people from the educated class. In the novel "Rudin", written in 1855, his heroes belong to the intelligentsia, who was fond of philosophy, dreamed of a bright future for Russia, but practically could not do anything for this, and the main character is largely autobiographical: he received a good philosophical education in Berlin university. Rudin is a brilliant orator, he conquers society with brilliant philosophical improvisations about the meaning of life, about the high purpose of a person, but in everyday life he does not know how to find out clearly and accurately, does not feel well around others. This is a novel about the failure of noble idealism.
Once again, Turgenev tries to find a hero of his time in the noble society in the novel about the historical fate of the Russian nobility "Noble's Nest", written in 1858, when the revolutionary democrats and liberals were still fighting together against serfdom, but a split was already outlined between them. Turgenev sharply criticizes the noble groundlessness - the separation of the estate from their native culture, from the people, from Russian roots. For example, the father of the hero of Lavretsky's novel spent his entire life abroad, in all his hobbies he is infinitely far from Russia and the Russian people. He is a supporter of the constitution, but at the same time he does not tolerate the appearance of "fellow citizens" - peasants. Turgenev feared that noble groundlessness could cause Russia a lot of trouble, warned about the catastrophic consequences of those reforms that "are not justified either by knowledge of their native land or belief in an ideal."
Lavretsky greets the younger generation in the novel's finale: “Play, have fun, grow young forces ...” At that time, such a finale was perceived as Turgenev's farewell to the noble period of the Russian liberation movement and the coming to replace it with a new one, where the main characters are commoners. These are people of action, fighters for the education of the people. Their mental and moral superiority over representatives of the noble intelligentsia is undeniable. Turgenev was called "the chronicler of the Russian intelligentsia." He keenly caught the latent movements, feelings and thoughts of the "cultural layer" of Russian people and in his novels embodied not only existing types and ideals, but also barely emerging ones. Such heroes appear in Turgenev's novels "On the Eve" (1860) and "Fathers and Sons" (1862): the Bulgarian revolutionary Dmitry Insarov and the common democrat Yevgeny Bazarov.
The hero of the novel "On the Eve" by Dmitry Insarov completely lacks a contradiction between word and deed. He is not busy with himself, all his thoughts are aimed at achieving the highest goal: the liberation of his homeland, Bulgaria. Even his love turned out to be incompatible with this struggle. Social issues are in the foreground in the novel. “Note,” says Insarov, “the last man, the last beggar in Bulgaria, and I — we want the same thing. We all have one goal. "
The novel "Fathers and Sons" is full of democratic ideology. In it, Turgenev portrayed a person in diverse and complex relationships with other people, with society, affecting both social and moral conflicts. In the work, not only representatives of different social groups - liberals and revolutionary democrats - collide, but also different generations. The central place in the novel is occupied by the conflict of ideological opponents: Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - the representative of the “fathers”, and Evgeny Bazarov - the representative of the “children”. In the image of the protagonist Yevgeny Bazarov - a man of extraordinary intelligence and abilities, possessing high moral qualities and a noble soul - we see an artistic synthesis of the most essential aspects of the worldview of a diverse democracy. At the same time, Bazarov is an extreme individualist who mercilessly denies morality, love, and poetry. In the novel, he is characterized as a nihilist.
Turgenev dreamed of uniting social forces to prepare for the coming changes. He wrote these novels with the secret hope that Russian society would heed his warnings that the "right" and "left" would come to their senses and end the fratricidal disputes that threatened tragedy for themselves and the fate of Russia. He believed that his novels would serve to rally social forces. This calculation did not come true. The revolutionary democrats interpreted these novels in their own way. Publication in the Sovremennik magazine of Dobrolyubov's article "When Will the Present Day Come?" criticism of the novel "On the Eve" led to Turgenev's break with the magazine, with which he collaborated for many years. And the appearance of the novel "Fathers and Sons" only accelerated the process of ideological demarcation of Russian society, causing an effect opposite to what was expected. The topic of two generations, two ideologies turned out to be very relevant, a heated polemic unfolded in the press. Friends and associates accused Turgenev of exalting Bazarov and belittling the "fathers", currying favor with the younger generation. The critic Pisarev, on the contrary, found in him all the best and necessary traits for a young revolutionary, for whom there is still no room for his activities. In Sovremennik they saw in the image of Bazarov an evil caricature of the younger generation. In the conditions of the mobilization of democratic forces for a decisive struggle against the autocracy, Turgenev's critical attitude to the ideas of different-ranked democracy, which manifested itself in the development of the image of Bazarov, was perceived by the leaders of Sovremennik as an emphatically hostile act. Offended by rude and tactless polemics, Turgenev went abroad. He intends to complete his literary activity and writes the last stories - "Ghosts" (1864) and "Enough" (1865). They are imbued with deep sorrow, thoughts about the frailty of love, beauty and even art.
All of Turgenev's works affirm faith in the power of beauty that transforms the world, in the creative power of art. With Turgenev, not only in literature, the poetic image of the companion of the Russian hero, the "Turgenev girl", entered life. The writer chooses the period of the woman's heyday, when, in anticipation of the chosen one, the girl's soul will stir up, such an overabundance of vitality is radiated, which will not receive a response and earthly incarnation, but will remain a tempting promise of something infinitely higher and more perfect, a guarantee of eternity. In addition, all Turgenev's heroes are tested by love. Turgenev wrote lyrical, largely autobiographical stories - a kind of trilogy about the evil fate that persecutes lovers, that a man in love is a slave to his feelings - the stories "Asya" (1858), "First Love" (1860) and "Spring Waters" (1872). It must be said that in many of Turgenev's works, inexplicable higher powers triumph over a person, commanding his life and death.
The last major works of the writer were the novels "Smoke" (1867) and "Nov" (1876). In the novel "Smoke", Turgenev's extreme Westernizing views were manifested, who expressed in the monologues of the hero Potugin many evil thoughts about the history and significance of Russia, whose only salvation is to tirelessly learn from the West. The main character of the novel, Litvinov, watching smoke from the carriage window, suddenly thought that everything Russian, his own life, is smoke that “disappears without a trace, reaching nothing ...”. This novel deepened the misunderstanding between Turgenev and the Russian public. The writer was accused of slandering Russia and criticizing the revolutionary emigration.
In the novel "Nov" Turgenev publicly spoke out on a topical topic: the emergence of a new social movement - populism. The main thing in the novel is the clash of different parties and strata of Russian society, first of all - revolutionary agitators and peasants. The Narodniks have never been close to the people, but they are trying to serve them. Therefore, their attempts to "raid" the dense peasants, to call them to rebellion inevitably lead to bitter disappointment and even to the suicide of one of the heroes. According to Turgenev, the future lies not with impatient troublemakers, but with sober supporters of slow changes, people of action.
In the late 60s - early 80s, Turgenev created a number of stories and stories in which he refers to the historical past of Russia ("Brigadier", "Steppe King Lear", "Punin and Baburin"), such mysterious phenomena of the human psyche, as hypnosis and suggestion ("Clara Milich", "Song of Triumphant Love"), he supplemented the "Notes of a Hunter" with several stories conceived back in the 40s ("The End of Tchertop-Khanov," Living Power "," Knocks! "), thereby strengthening the artistic unity of the book.
With the cycle "Poems in Prose" (the first part was published in 1882), Turgenev, as it were, summed up his life and work. All the leading motives of his work are reflected in lyrical miniatures: from the song to Russian nature ("Village"), thoughts about Russia, about love, about the insignificance of human existence, about the meaningfulness and fruitfulness of suffering, to the hymn to the Russian language: so that such a language is not given to a great people! " ("Russian language").
Turgenev's literary merits were highly valued not only in Russia. In the summer of 1879, he received news that the University of Oxford in England had awarded him a Ph.D. for his contribution to the liberation of the peasants in The Hunter's Notes.
Chernyshevsky
Chernyshevsky noted with chagrin that after the death of V.G.Belinsky, in the era of the "gloomy seven years," former friends A. V. Druzhinin, P. V. Annenkov, V. P. Botkin departed from the principles of revolutionary democratic criticism. Based on the aesthetic teaching of the German idealist philosopher Hegel, they believed that artistic creation irrespective of reality, that a real writer moves away from the contradictions of life into the pure and worldly sphere of eternal ideals of goodness, truth, (* 140) beauty, free from vanity. These eternal values ​​are not revealed in life by art, but, on the contrary, are brought into life by it, making up for its fatal imperfection, its irreparable disharmony and incompleteness. Only art is capable of giving the ideal of perfect beauty, which cannot be embodied in the surrounding reality. Such aesthetic views distracted the attention of the writer from issues of social reconstruction, deprived art of its effective character, its ability to renew and improve life. In his dissertation "The Aesthetic Relationship of Art to Reality," Chernyshevsky opposed this "slavish admiration for old, outdated opinions." For about two years, he sought permission to defend it: university circles were alarmed and frightened by the "spirit of free research and free criticism" contained in it. Finally, on May 10, 1855, a long-awaited event took place at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. According to the recollection of Nikolai V. Shelgunov, a friend and like-minded person of Chernyshevsky, “the small auditorium set aside for the debate was packed with listeners. There were also students, but it seems there were more outsiders, officers and young people from the state. It was very cramped, so the listeners stood at the windows ... Chernyshevsky defended his dissertation with his usual modesty, but with the firmness of unshakable conviction. After the dispute, Pletnev turned to Chernyshevsky with the following remark: “It seems that I did not read this to you at all in my lectures!” And indeed, Pletnev did not read this , but what he read would not have been able to lead the public into the delight that the dissertation led her to. Everything was new and alluring in it ... " : "beauty is life", "beautiful is the being in which we see life as it should be according to our concepts." Unlike Hegel and his Russian followers, Chernyshevsky sees the source of beauty not in art, but in life. Forms of beauty are not brought into life by art, but exist objectively, independently of art in reality itself. Asserting the formula "beauty is life," Chernyshevsky realizes that the forms of beauty that objectively exist in life are themselves neutral in aesthetics. They are recognized as beautiful only in the light of certain human concepts. But what then is the criterion of the beautiful? Maybe the formula is correct that there is no dispute about tastes, maybe how many people - so many concepts of beauty? Chernyshevsky shows that people's tastes are far from arbitrary, that they are defined socially: different classes of society have different ideas about beauty. Moreover, the true, healthy tastes are represented by those classes of society that lead a working lifestyle: "the villager always has the concept of work in the concept of" life ": it is impossible to live without work ..." And therefore "in the descriptions of the beauty in folk songs there is not a single sign of beauty that would not be an expression of blooming health and balance of forces in the body, the usual consequence of a life of contentment with constant and serious, but not excessive work. " , even makes an unpleasant impression on him, because he is used to considering “thinness” a consequence of pain or “bitter lot.” It is clear that Chernyshevsky's dissertation was the first manifesto of democratic aesthetics in Russia. Subordinating the ideal to the real, the art of reality, Chernyshevsky created a fundamentally new aesthetic theory not idealistic, but materialistic type. His work, enthusiastically greeted by different ranks of youth, irritated many prominent Russian writers. Turgenev, for example, called it “an abomination and insolence unheard of.” This was due to the fact that Chernyshevsky destroyed the fundamental of idealist aesthetics, which was brought up whole e generation of Russian cultural nobility of the 30-40s. Moreover, Chernyshevsky's youthful work was not free from obvious mistakes and simplifications. "When a stick is bent to one side," he said, "it can be straightened only by bent in the opposite direction: this is the law of social life." There are a lot of such "distortions" in Chernyshevsky's work. So, he asserts, for example, that "works of art cannot withstand comparison with living reality": "it is much better to look at the sea itself than at its image, but for the lack of the best, a person is content with the worst, for the lack of a thing - its surrogate." Of course, neither Turgenev nor Lev Tolstoy could agree with such a belittling of the role of art. They were irritated in Chernyshevsky's dissertation by the utilitarian, applied understanding of art, when it was assigned the role of a simple illustration of certain scientific truths. For a long time Turgenev (* 142) remembered Chernyshevsky's passage that offended his artistic nature, and in a slightly altered form put it in Bazarov's mouth. Examining the album with views of Saxon Switzerland, Bazarov arrogantly remarks to Madame Odintsova that he really has no artistic taste: "... But these views could interest me from a geological point of view, from the point of view of the formation of mountains, for example ... , which in the book is set out on as many as ten pages. " However, these simplified judgments about art, made in the heat of polemic fervor, in no way diminish the truth of the general pathos of Chernyshevsky's aesthetic views. Following Belinsky, he pushes the boundaries of art in order to enrich its content. "The general interest in life is the content of art," he asserts. In the same way, Chernyshevsky also pushes the boundaries of the aesthetic, which in the works of his predecessors, as a rule, were confined to the sphere of art. Chernyshevsky, however, shows that the area of ​​the aesthetic is extremely wide: it embraces the entire real world, all reality. From this logically follows Chernyshevsky's idea of ​​the need to re-create life itself according to the laws of beauty, a thought that corresponds to the deep essence of his revolutionary democratic convictions. In Sketches of the Gogol Period of Russian Literature, Chernyshevsky showed that the traditions of Belinsky's criticism of the 1940s are still viable. Criticizing theorists of "pure art", developing Belinsky's ideas, Chernyshevsky wrote: "Literature cannot but be the servant of one direction or another of ideas: this is an appointment that lies in its nature, an appointment that it cannot refuse, even if it wanted to The followers of the theory of pure art, presented to us as something that should be alien to everyday affairs, are deceived or pretend: the words "art should be independent of life" have always served only as a cover for the struggle against the directions of literature that did not like these people, in order to make it the servant of another direction, which more had these people to taste. " However, in a dispute with his ideological opponents, Chernyshevsky "goes too far" in the opposite direction: for the "Gogol" direction, he recognizes "content", while the "Pushkin" one accuses of "form-creation". "Pushkin was predominantly a poet of form ... In his (* 143) works one should not seek in the most important way a deep content, clearly understood and consistent." In fact, Chernyshevsky is inferior to Pushkin to the liberals. Considering art as one of the forms of socially useful activity, Chernyshevsky clearly underestimates its specificity. He appreciates in art only momentary, concrete-historical content that meets the interests of society at a given moment, and is skeptical of that timeless and eternal that makes a work of real art interesting for different times and different generations. But even this one-sidedness of Chernyshevsky reveals his temperament as a revolutionary fighter. In the main, he remains right: "Only those directions of literature achieve brilliant development that satisfy the urgent needs of the era." In his literary criticism, Chernyshevsky constantly strove to lead the reader to conclusions of a revolutionary nature. At the same time, he was not very interested in what the author wanted to say in his work: the main attention was focused on what was expressed in it involuntarily, sometimes against the wishes of the author. Analyzing Shchedrin's Provincial Essays, Chernyshevsky sees another, deeper problem behind the denunciations of bribery of provincial officials: other defamatory actions. " Referring to Turgenev's story "Asya" in the article "Russian people on rendez-vous", Chernyshevsky is not interested in artistic explanations of the hero's love failure given by the author. For the critic, the narrator of the Turgenev story is a typical "superfluous person" noble hero, whose time has passed both in life and in literature. Chernyshevsky's sharp appraisal of the "superfluous man" was soon supported by NA Dobrolyubov, who in his article "What is Oblomovism?" saw in the inaction of Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin typical aristocratic parasitism, aroused the resolute disagreement of A.I. Herzen. In "The Bell" he published two polemical articles on this subject - "Very dangerous !!!" ("Very dangerous !!!") and " Extra people and bile. "In them, Herzen protested against underestimating the role of the noble intelligentsia in the Russian liberation movement. A disagreement with a man whose opinion had enormous authority in Russia forced Chernyshevsky to go to London for a special explanation with Hertse - (* 144). But in a conversation each of the opponents about, etc .................

February 5 marks the 175th anniversary (1836) since the birth of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov - the great Russian revolutionary-democrat, an outstanding literary critic, publicist and materialist philosopher, close friend and colleague of N.G. Chernyshevsky.

Dobrolyubov belongs to the glorious galaxy of great Russian revolutionary democrats - Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Herzen, who waged a bold, decisive struggle against autocracy and serfdom, for the liberation of the working people from serfdom. Dobrolyubov took an advanced, prominent place in the history of Russian literary criticism and journalism of the 19th century. Following Belinsky, together with Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov and other employees of the fighting organ of revolutionary democracy Sovremennik, Dobrolyubov defended the ideological, realistic direction in fiction, materialistic principles in philosophy, aesthetics, and art theory.

Dobrolyubov was born in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a priest. In 1847 - 1853 Dobrolyubov - a student of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological School and Theological Seminary, then, in 1853 - 1857. - A student at the Main Pedagogical Institute. From the moment Dobrolyubov met Chernyshevsky for the first time, when a close personal friendship began between them, in the spring of 1856, his work began in the Sovremennik magazine, which lasted until November 17, 1861, when the fiery heart of a talented art critic and a true revolutionary stopped beating.

« He was only 25 years old. But for 4 years he was at the head of Russian literature - no, not only Russian literature, - at the head of the entire development of Russian thought, – wrote in an obituary on the death of Dobrolyubov Chernyshevsky. - His loss is irreparable for the people, for whom he burned with love and burned out so early. Oh, how he loved you, people! His word did not reach you, but when you are what he wanted to see you, you will find out how much this brilliant young man, the best of your sons, did for you.».

« The Russian people lost their best defender in him ", - wrote later Chernyshevsky.

The true flourishing of the creative literary activity of the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov refers to the years of work at Sovremennik, that is, to the last, very short period of his life (1857 - 1861). During this period, Dobrolyubov wrote works that made him world-famous. Dobrolyubov was in charge of the literary-critical department of Sovremennik. According to Chernyshevsky, since the end of 1858 there was not a single person in literary circles who did not say that Dobrolyubov - “ the strongest talent in Sovremennik ". Dobrolyubov did not take care of himself at all and devoted himself entirely to social activities. " Sometimes he promised to rest, but he was never able to refrain from passionate work. And could he take care of himself? He felt that his labors might powerfully accelerate the course of our development, and he hurried, hurried time ... » ( Chernyshevsky).

Russian literature of that time was a tribune from which burning questions of public life in Russia were pronounced and posed to readers. Dobrolyubov entered the field of social activity in the context of the acute class, political struggle that took place in Russia in the 50-60s. XIX century, especially around the issue of the emancipation of the peasants from serfdom. Confrontation flared up between two hostile camps - the revolutionary democratic camp, led by Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, on the one hand, and the autocratic landlord and liberal bourgeois, i.e. the reactionary camp - on the other.

The revolutionary activity of Dobrolyubov, still very young, his ardent, simple and truthful ideas and aspirations are for us, young communists, the most attractive, consonant today with our struggle, our aspirations.

Dobrolyubov is a revolutionary, he is imbued with an ardent desire to turn word into deed, to enter the broad road of practical activity that requires great effort and struggle. ... Dobrolyubov noted that in many works of the best Russian writers the image is drawn: “ extra people"Oblomov's type: Onegin, Beltov, Rudin, Pechorin and others. All of them, Dobrolyubov notes, are people of phrases, but meanwhile the phrase has already lost its meaning, there was a burning "need for a cause, a living cause", "we need people to do it" ; they are all full of "higher aspirations", but they only want, suffer and are indignant; they are incapable of doing business and therefore useless. « "Less words, more action" was his real motto and his dying testament to his close brothers in labor "- the poet Nekrasov said about Dobrolyubov.

Dobrolyubov called on the revolutionary to apply his knowledge, convictions and strengths, first of all, in his homeland, since “ here is his real business, in which he can be most useful ».

Dobrolyubov admits with grief, sadness that there are still few people in Russia who would selflessly, without fear and doubt, without loud and beautiful phrases, but in fact would give all their strength to the common cause of struggle. Dobrolyubov asks anxiously - where is it in Russia? people capable of doing business, "which would be a vital necessity for them, a heartfelt shrine, a religion, which would organically grow together with them, so taking it away from them would mean taking their life" ?

Dobrolyubov was well aware of the then unfavorable conditions for a wide manifestation of popular activity. However, Dobrolyubov fought against those who fell into despondency and, giving up on everything, spread pessimistic sentiments, losing all faith in the people. Dobrolyubov in his reasoning came “ not to despair in the vitality of the people, not to the conviction of the infinity of their apathy and inability to carry out public affairs, but to completely opposite conclusions ».

« There is no such thing – reasoned Dobrolyubov, - which could be bent and pulled endlessly: having reached a certain limit, it will certainly break or break. So surely there is no person in the world and there is no society that could not be taken out of patience. Eternal apathy cannot be assumed in a living being; lethargy must be followed either by death or by an awakening to active life. Consequently, if it is true that our people are completely indifferent to public affairs, then the question arises from this: should this be considered a sign of the imminent death of the nation, or should we wait for an early awakening? Pessimists are ready, perhaps, to condemn the whole Slavic tribe to a slow death; but, in our deep conviction, they are extremely unfair».

A long lethargy or death of the "Slavic tribe" is impossible, the awakening of the Russian people is inevitable, i.e. powerful and organized uprising, revolution - Dobrolyubov was deeply convinced. Dobrolyubov, following Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, was a revolutionary democrat and herald of the peasant revolution. “... It is necessary, for the destruction of evil, to start not from the top and side parts, but from the bottom. ", Wrote Dobrolyubov.

Dobrolyubov was faithful to himself to the end, believing that only a revolution would bring the Russian peasantry a fair liberation from serf-owners, which should not be postponed, on the contrary, it must be prepared and implemented in practice... Annoyed by Herzen, who spoke out against Sovremennik in 1859, Dobrolyubov wrote in his diary for June 5, 1859: “... However, our advanced people are good! They have already managed to knock down the flair with which they previously sensed the call for revolution, wherever it was heard and in whatever form it appeared. Now they have in their minds peaceful progress with the initiative from above, under the cover of legality! ».

The revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov is a supporter, following Chernyshevsky, of utopian socialism. On the question of the role and significance of the Russian community, Dobrolyubov generally adhered to Chernyshevsky. Lenin pointed out that the socialist-utopian Chernyshevsky, who dreamed of the transition to socialism through the old semi-feudal peasant community, did not and could not see in Russia in the 1860s that only the development of capitalism and the proletariat could create material conditions and social force for the implementation of socialism. This also applies to Dobrolyubov. Note that the West European utopian socialists were the creators of the reformist utopian socialism, and Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were representatives revolutionary utopian socialism.

A distinctive feature of the political views of the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov is that they are imbued with honest, sincere and militant patriotism. He was a man who passionately, selflessly loves his homeland and the Russian people. Dobrolyubov, speaking in his own words, exalted " to understand the good of the homeland inseparably from your own happiness, and not to understand happiness for yourself otherwise than with the prosperity of the homeland ».

Dobrolyubov was an implacable opponent of both those who preached the domination of some nations over others, and those who consigned to oblivion the feeling of national pride, honor and dignity. The source of Dobrolyubov's patriotism was the struggle of the masses against their oppressors, the ardent desire to see their homeland as powerful, cultured and free from forced labor.

In the 50s of the XIX century, especially during the Crimean War, on the eve of the peasant reform of 1861, the word “patriotism” did not leave the lips of representatives of the most diverse strata of the population of Russia. The liberals talked especially zealously about "patriotism". Evil Dobrolyubov ridiculed these pseudo-patriots, their official "leavened patriotism." " In fact, of course, these gentlemen do not have a trace of patriotism, so tirelessly proclaimed by them in words. They are ready to exploit, as much as possible, their compatriot, no less, if not more, than a foreigner; they are even ready to easily deceive him, ruin him for the sake of their personal views, are ready to do all sorts of nasty things, harmful to society, harmful, perhaps, to the whole country, but beneficial for them personally ... If they get the opportunity to show their power even on a small piece of land in their homeland, they will dispose of this piece of land, as in a conquered land ... But they will still shout about the glory and greatness of the fatherland ... And that's why they are pseudo-patriots! .. »

Dobrolyubov, with his ebullient, lively and active nature, was eager for practical struggle, but his life ended very early. Dobrolyubov did not manage to make a lot of what he passionately desired and what he was actively striving for. Back in May 1859, in a letter to a friend of his, Dobrolyubov wrote that there are still interests in life that “ are not in rank, not in comfort, not in a woman, not even in science, but in social activities ... We must create this activity; all forces must be directed towards its creation, no matter how many of them are in our nature ... We are still pure, fresh and young, we have a lot of strength; there are still two-thirds of life ahead ... We can take possession of the present and hold onto the future. There is nothing to be discouraged and sleepy ...»

Dobrolyubov was burning at work, he could not imagine his life without the selfless struggle to which he devoted his whole life, all his thoughts and actions, without that “ real activity - not with the tongue, but with the head, heart and hands together ". For us, Dobrolyubov is a living example of how we should work, what we should strive for, how we should be able to value our convictions, love our people, believe in them and fight for their happiness.

Grigory Pavelyev

On the ideological line, the heirs of Belinsky.

Chernyshevsky: "Beauty is life" - the main pathos - literature should serve life, therefore, the main requirement: authors should serve the public needs of readers ("A ray of light in a dark kingdom").

The most active and popular literary movement of the 1860s, which set the tone for the entire social and literary life of the era, was the "real" criticism of the radical democratic orientation. Its main print media were the Sovremennik and Russian Word magazines.

The irreversibility of ideological delimitation was clearly manifested in the fate of Nekrasov's Sovremennik. Extreme in their latent anti-government tendencies, the statements of the circle of writers, behind which in Soviet historiography for many decades the ideologically oriented collective designation of "revolutionary democrats" was fixed - Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, their followers and successors: Saltykov-Shchedrin, Antonovich, Zhukovsky - forced even such Belinsky's propagandists, like Turgenev, Botkin, Annenkov, leave the magazine.

In 1854 he made his debut in Sovremennik Nikolay Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, who, after the very first speeches, attracted attention with his directness and boldness of judgments. In articles and reviews, Chernyshevsky appears as a truly faithful follower of Belinsky's ideas as a theorist of the "natural school": following the author of the famous "letter to Gogol," the critic of Sovremennik demands from writers a truthful and meaningful depiction of the realities of the surrounding reality, revealing modern social conflicts and demonstrating the hardships of life of the oppressed classes. The credo of Chernyshevsky - a journalist and writer - is revealed in his polemical work "On Sincerity in Criticism." The author of the article recognizes that the main task of critical activity is the dissemination among the "mass of the public" of an understanding of the social and aesthetic significance of a particular work, its ideological and substantive merits - Chernyshevsky brings to the fore the educational and educational possibilities of criticism. Pursuing the goals of literary and moral mentoring, the critic should strive for "clarity, certainty and straightforwardness" of judgments, to reject the ambiguity and ambiguity of assessments. These principles were practically implemented by many like-minded people and followers of Chernyshevsky.

"Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature" can be regarded as the first major development of the history of Russian criticism in the 1830-1840s. Positively evaluating the work of Nadezhdin (for the principledness of anti-romantic speeches) and N. Polevoy (for convinced democracy), Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who outlined the true routes of the progressive development of Russian literary literature. Chernyshevsky, following Belinsky, recognizes the critical portrayal of Russian life as the guarantee of literary and social progress in Russia, taking the work of Gogol as the standard of such an attitude to reality.

The desire to demonstrate the change in social needs can also explain the harsh attitude of Chernyshevsky to the moderately liberal ideology that arose in the 1840s: the journalist believed that a sober and critical understanding of reality at the present stage is not enough, it is necessary to take concrete actions aimed at improving the conditions of public life. These views found expression in the famous article "Russian people on rendez-vous", which is also remarkable from the point of view of Chernyshevsky's critical methodology. Turgenev's short story "Asya" became the reason for the critic's large-scale publicistic generalizations, which were not intended to reveal the author's intention. In the image of the protagonist of the story, Chernyshevsky saw a representative of the widespread type of "best people" who, like Rudin or Agarin (the hero of Nekrasov's poem "Sasha"), have high moral merit, but are not capable of decisive actions. The deep accusatory pathos of the article is directed not against individuals, but against the reality that gives rise to such people.

In 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested on charges in connection with the political emigrant Herzen and in drawing up a proclamation "Bow to the peasants of the lords from their well-wishers ..."

N. Chernyshevsky "Russian man onrendez- vous»

Since 1858, the head of the literary-critical department of "Sovremennik" becomes Nikolay Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov... The closest associate of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov develops his propaganda endeavors, sometimes offering even sharper and uncompromising assessments of literary and social phenomena... Dobrolyubov sharpens and concretizes the requirements for the ideological content of modern literature: the main criterion of the social significance of a work becomes for him the reflection of the interests of the oppressed estates, which can be achieved with the help of a truthful, which means, sharply critical depiction of the "upper" classes, or with the help of a sympathetic (but not idealized) outlining the life of the people. In the article “On the Degree of Participation of a Nationality in the Development of Russian Literature,” Dobrolyubov outlined the historical and literary guidelines of radical criticism. According to the critic, only the earliest, pre-literary (i.e. folklore) works of Russian literature can be considered truly folk.

Dobrolyubov does not exclude the idea of ​​the unconscious nature of artistic creation. From this point of view, a special role belongs to the critic, who, by subjecting the artist's depiction of a picture of life to analytical comprehension, just formulates the necessary conclusions. Dobrolyubov used the works of Ostrovsky (articles "Dark kingdom", "A ray of light in a dark kingdom"), Goncharov ("What is Oblomovism?"), Turgenev ("When will the real day come?"), Dostoevsky ("Hammered People"). However, despite such a variety of objects of literary-critical discretion, due to the desire for broad generalizations, these articles can be viewed as a single metatext, the pathos of which boils down to proving the flawedness of Russian socio-political foundations.

Dobrolyubov's critical methodology is based on a kind of socio-psychological typification that divides literary heroes according to the degree of their conformity with the ideals of the “new man”.

N. Dobrolyubov "What is Oblomovism?"

He quickly became a leading employee of Russkoye Slovo. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev... Having managed to abandon the traditional role of the critic as a modest and courteous interpreter of literature, which had developed during his short work in the "magazine for adult girls" "Rassvet", the writer Pisarev found himself in the form of a fearlessly mocking skeptic who questioned any, even the most authoritative and popular teachings, shocking the reader with deliberate straightforwardness and unexpected paradoxical judgments. The modern "realist" thinker, according to Pisarev, needs to overcome the traditional, a priori world perception schemes and subject the existing social and ideological programs to a merciless analysis. In this case, the only criterion for their assessment should be the factor of utility, understood from the natural scientific, empirical point of view, including through the prism of human physiological needs.

Pisarev subordinates his aesthetic and literary reasoning to extremely utilitarian ideas about human activity. The only purpose of literary literature is declared to be the propaganda of certain ideas, based on the tendentious reproduction of social conflicts and on the depiction of “new heroes”. Not surprisingly, Turgenev's Fathers and Sons and What Is to Be Done? Became Pisarev's favorite works of the 1860s. Chernyshevsky, realizing Pisarev's innermost ideas about conscious rational work aimed at creating personal and public good. Among other novelists of the 1860s, Pisarev's condescending praise was awarded to Pisemsky, Pomyalovsky, Dostoevsky, but by the middle of his decade the critic was increasingly convinced of the absolute uselessness of aesthetic activity.

The essential features of the stylistic handwriting of the critic of the "Russian Word" are an ironic tone, aphoristic chasing, satirical imagery, often complemented by confessional-lyrical and pathetic motives.

D. Pisarev "Motives of Russian Drama"

17. "Organic criticism"

Apollon Grigoriev(1822 - 1864) Russian poet, literary and theater critic, translator, memoirist, author of a number of popular songs and romances. Apollon Aleksandrovich Grigoriev, who quickly became the main critic of The Mosvyanin, long before the formulation of his concept of "organic" criticism, strove to combine ideas about the historical conditionality of literature, about its faithful adherence to "reality as it is" with the need to reflect eternal moral ideals.

Grigoriev himself more often and more willingly called his criticism "organic", in contrast to both the camp of "theoreticians" - Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, and from "aesthetic" criticism, which defends the principle of "art for art", and from criticism "historical" , by which he meant Belinsky.

Belinsky Grigoriev put unusually high. He called him "an immortal fighter of ideas", "with a great and powerful spirit", with a "truly brilliant nature." But Belinsky saw in art only a reflection of life, and his very concept of life was too immediate and "holo logical." According to G. “life is something mysterious and inexhaustible, an abyss that absorbs every finite mind, an immense expanse, in which it often disappears, like a wave in the ocean, the logical conclusion of any clever head is something even ironic and at the same time full of love that makes worlds after worlds from itself. " Accordingly, “the organic view recognizes creative, immediate, natural, vital forces as its starting point. In other words: not only mind, with its logical requirements and theories generated by them, but mind plus life and its organic manifestations. " However, Grigoriev strongly condemned the "snake position: what is - is reasonable".

He recognized the mystical admiration of the Slavophiles before the Russian folk spirit as "narrow" and only put A. S. Khomyakov very highly, and that is because he "one of the Slavophiles, in an amazing way combined his thirst for the ideal with faith in the infinity of life and therefore did not rest on ideals." Konstantin Aksakov and others. In Victor Hugo's book about Shakespeare, Grigoriev saw one of the most integral formulations of the "organic" theory, the followers of which he also considered Renan, Emerson and Carlyle. And the "original, huge ore" of organic theory, according to Grigoriev, is "the works of Schelling in all phases of its development." Grigoriev proudly called himself a student of this "great teacher."

From admiration for the organic power of life in its various manifestations, Grigoriev's conviction follows that abstract, naked truth, in its pure form, is inaccessible to us, that we can assimilate only color truth, the expression of which can only be national art. Pushkin is by no means great by the size of his artistic talent: he is great because he has transformed in himself a whole series of foreign influences into something completely independent. In Pushkin, for the first time, "our Russian physiognomy, the true measure of all our social, moral and artistic sympathies, a complete outline of the type of the Russian soul" was isolated and clearly defined. Therefore, Grigoriev dwelt with particular love on the personality of Belkin, which was hardly commented on by Belinsky at all, on "The Captain's Daughter" and "Dubrovsky". With the same love he dwelt on Maxim Maksimovich from The Hero of Our Time, and with particular hatred on Pechorin, as one of the “predatory” types that are completely alien to the Russian spirit.

ORGANIC CRITICISM- direction of Russian. criticism of the 1860s, developed by A. Grigoriev and continued by N. Strakhov. A. Grigoriev saw in art an integral synthetic phenomenon and oriented criticism towards revealing in art. manuf. the specifics of the author's intention, embodied in it "thoughts of the heart". A. Grigoriev's position (to understand what the artist wanted to say) was opposed both to publicistic objectivism and "didactism" of real criticism (analysis of what was said in the work), and to the artist. objectivism of "purely technical", aesthetic criticism. In semiotic terms, O.K. can be characterized as an orientation towards the pragmatics of lit. image, that is, as one of the necessary aspects of lit. analysis.

A. Grigoriev "On Truth and Sincerity in Art", "Paradoxes of Organic Criticism"

critics of the second half of the 19th century as a profound interpreter of "War and Peace" Leo Tolstoy. It is not by chance that he called his work "a critical poem in four songs". Lev Tolstoy himself, who considered Strakhov his friend, said: "One of the happiness for which I am grateful to fate is that there is N. N. Strakhov."

Literary Critical Activity of Revolutionary Democrats

The public, socially critical pathos of the articles of the late Belinsky with his socialist convictions was picked up and developed in the sixties by the revolutionary-democratic critics Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov.

By 1859, when the government's program and the views of the liberal parties became clear, when it became obvious that the reform "from above" in any of its variants would be half-hearted, the revolutionary democrats moved from a shaky alliance with liberalism to severing relations and an uncompromising struggle against it. On this, the second stage of the social movement of the 60s, the literary-critical activity of N.A.Dobrolyubov falls. He devotes a special satirical section of the Sovremennik magazine called "Whistle" to exposing the liberals. Here Dobrolyubov acts not only as a critic, but also as a satirical poet.

Criticism of liberalism then alerted A. I. Herzen, (* 11) who, being in exile, in contrast to Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, continued to hope for reforms "from above" and overestimated the radicalism of the liberals until 1863.

However, Herzen's warnings did not stop the revolutionary democrats of Sovremennik. Beginning in 1859, they began to carry out the idea of ​​a peasant revolution in their articles. They considered the peasant community to be the core of the future socialist world order. Unlike the Slavophiles, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov believed that communal ownership of land was based not on Christian, but on the revolutionary, liberating, socialist instincts of the Russian peasant.

Dobrolyubov became the founder of the original critical method. He saw that the majority of Russian writers do not share the revolutionary-democratic way of thinking, do not pronounce a sentence on life from such a radical position. Dobrolyubov saw the task of his criticism in completing the work begun by the writer in his own way and formulating this verdict, relying on real events and artistic images of the work. Dobrolyubov called his method of comprehending the work of the writer "real criticism."

Real criticism "examines whether such a person is possible and real; having found that it is true to reality, it proceeds to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, etc. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author under examination, the critic uses them and thanks the author; if not, he doesn't stick to him with a knife to his throat - how, they say, did he dare to deduce such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? " In this case, the critic takes the initiative into his own hands: he explains the reasons that gave rise to this or that phenomenon from a revolutionary-democratic position and then pronounces a verdict on it.

Dobrolyubov positively assesses, for example, Goncharov's novel Oblomov, although the author "does not give and, apparently, does not want to give any conclusions." It is enough that he "presents you with a living image and vouches only for its resemblance to reality." For Dobrolyubov, such an author's objectivity is quite acceptable and even desirable, since he takes on the explanation and the verdict himself.

Real criticism often led Dobrolyubov to a kind of reinterpretation of the writer's artistic images in a revolutionary-democratic way. It turned out that the analysis of the work, which grew into an understanding of the acute problems of our time, led Dobrolyubov to such radical conclusions that the author himself had never imagined. On this basis, as we will see later, Turgenev's decisive break with the Sovremennik magazine took place, when Dobrolyubov's article on the novel On the Eve was published in it.

Dobrolyubov's articles revive the young, strong nature of a talented critic who sincerely believes in the people, in which he sees the embodiment of all his highest moral ideals, with which he connects the only hope for the revival of society. "His passion is deep and stubborn, and obstacles do not frighten him when they need to be overcome in order to achieve the passionately desired and deeply conceived," Dobrolyubov writes about the Russian peasant in his article "Traits for characterizing the Russian common people." All the critic's activities were aimed at the struggle for the creation of a "party of the people in literature." He devoted four years of unremitting work to this struggle, having written nine volumes of essays in such a short time. Dobrolyubov literally burnt himself to death in the selfless journalist work, which undermined his health. He died at the age of 25 on November 17, 1861. Nekrasov said in a heartfelt way about the premature death of a young friend:

But your hour has struck too soon

And the prophetic feather fell from his hands.

What a lamp of reason has gone out!

What a heart has stopped beating!

Decline of the social movement of the 60s. Disputes between Sovremennik and Russian Word.

At the end of the 1960s, dramatic changes took place in Russian social life and critical thought. The manifesto of February 19, 1861 on the emancipation of the peasants not only did not soften, but further exacerbated the contradictions. In response to the upsurge of the revolutionary-democratic movement, the government launched an open attack on the progressive thought: Chernyshevsky and DI Pisarev were arrested, and the publication of the Sovremennik magazine was suspended for eight months.

The situation is aggravated by a split within the revolutionary democratic movement, the main reason for which was the differences in the assessment of the revolutionary socialist capabilities of the peasantry. The figures of the "Russian Word" Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev and Bartholomew Aleksandrovich Zaitsev sharply criticized "Sovremennik" for (* 13) its alleged idealization of the peasantry, for an exaggerated idea of ​​the revolutionary instincts of the Russian peasant.

Unlike Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, Pisarev argued that the Russian peasant was not ready for a conscious struggle for freedom, that for the most part he was dark and downtrodden. Pisarev considered the "intellectual proletariat", the commoner revolutionaries who brought natural science knowledge to the people, to be the revolutionary force of our time. This knowledge not only destroys the foundations of official ideology (Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality), but also opens people's eyes to the natural needs of human nature, which are based on the instinct of "social solidarity." Therefore, the enlightenment of the people with the natural sciences can lead society to socialism not only in a revolutionary ("mechanical") way, but also in an evolutionary ("chemical") way.

In order for this "chemical" transition to take place faster and more efficiently, Pisarev suggested that Russian democracy be guided by the "principle of economy of strength." The "intellectual proletariat" must concentrate all its energy on destroying the spiritual foundations of the presently existing society through the propaganda of the natural sciences among the people. In the name of the so-understood "spiritual liberation" Pisarev, like Turgenev's hero Yevgeny Bazarov, proposed abandoning art. He really believed that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet," and recognized art only to the extent that it participates in the propaganda of natural science and destroys the foundations of the existing system.

In the article "Bazarov" he praised the triumphant nihilist, and in the article "Motives of the Russian Drama" he "crushed" the heroine of Alexander Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" Katerina Kabanova, who had been erected on a pedestal by Dobrolyubov. Destroying the idols of the "old" society, Pisarev published the notorious anti-Pushkin articles and the work "Destruction of aesthetics". The fundamental differences that emerged in the course of the polemic between Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo weakened the revolutionary camp and were a symptom of the decline of the social movement.

Social upsurge of the 70s.

By the beginning of the 70s, the first signs of a new social upsurge associated with the activities of the revolutionary populists were outlined in Russia. The second generation of revolutionary democrats, who made a heroic attempt to rouse the peasants to (* 14) a revolution by "going to the people", had their own ideologists, who, in the new historical conditions, developed the ideas of Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. "Belief in a special way of life, in the communal system of Russian life; hence - the belief in the possibility of a peasant socialist revolution - this is what inspired them, roused tens and hundreds of people to a heroic struggle against the government," wrote VI Lenin about the populists-seventies ... This faith, to one degree or another, permeated all the works of the leaders and mentors of the new movement - P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, M.A. Bakunin, P.N. Tkachev.

The mass "going to the people" ended in 1874 with the arrest of several thousand people and the subsequent trials of the 193s and 50s. In 1879, at a congress in Voronezh, the populist organization "Land and Freedom" split: "politicians" who shared Tkachev's ideas organized their own party "Narodnaya Volya", proclaiming the main goal of the movement was a political coup and terrorist forms of struggle against the government. In the summer of 1880, the Narodnaya Volya organized an explosion in the Winter Palace, and Alexander II miraculously escaped death. This event causes shock and confusion in the government: it decides to make concessions by appointing the liberal Loris-Melikov as the plenipotentiary ruler and appealing to the country's liberal public for support. In response, the sovereign receives notes from Russian liberals, in which it is proposed to immediately convene an independent meeting of representatives of the zemstvos to participate in governing the country "in order to develop guarantees and individual rights, freedom of thought and speech." It seemed that Russia was on the verge of adopting a parliamentary form of government. But on March 1, 1881, an irreparable mistake was made. The People's Will, after repeated attempts, kill Alexander II, and this is followed by a government reaction in the country.

Conservative ideology of the 80s.

These years in the history of the Russian public are characterized by the flourishing of conservative ideology. It was defended, in particular, by Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev in the books "East, Russia and Slavs" and "Our" New Christians "by F. M. Dostoevsky and Count Leo Tolstoy. Leontyev believes that the culture of every civilization goes through three stages of development: 1) primary simplicity, 2) blossoming complexity, 3) secondary mixing simplification. Leont'ev considers the spread of liberal and socialist ideas with their cult (* 15) equality and general prosperity to be the main sign of decline and entry into the third stage. Leont'ev opposed liberalism and socialism with "Byzantism" - a strong monarchical power and strict churchliness.

Leont'ev strongly criticized the religious and ethical views of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. He argued that both writers are influenced by the ideas of socialism, that they transform Christianity into a spiritual phenomenon, a derivative of the earthly human feelings of brotherhood and love. Genuine Christianity, according to Leont'ev, is mystical, tragic and terrifying for man, for it stands on the other side of earthly life and evaluates it as a life full of suffering and torment.

Leont'ev is a consistent and principled opponent of the very idea of ​​progress, which, according to his teaching, brings this or that people closer to mixing simplification and death. Stop, delay progress and freeze Russia - this idea of ​​Leontiev came to the court of the conservative policy of Alexander III.

Russian liberal populism of the 80-90s.

In the epoch of the 1980s, revolutionary populism was going through a deep crisis. The revolutionary idea is being replaced by the "theory of small matters", which in the 90s will take shape in the program of "state socialism". The transition of the government to the side of peasant interests can peacefully lead the people to socialism. The peasant community and artel, handicrafts under the patronage of zemstvos, active cultural assistance from the intelligentsia and the government can resist the onslaught of capitalism. At the dawn of the 20th century, the "theory of small matters" rather successfully developed into a powerful cooperative movement.

Religious and philosophical thought of the 80-90s. The time of deep disappointment in political and revolutionary forms of struggle against social evil made Tolstoy's preaching of moral self-improvement extremely relevant. It was during this period that the religious and ethical program of the renewal of life in the work of the great writer was finally formed and Tolstoyism became one of the popular social movements.

In the 80s and 90s, the teachings of the religious thinker Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov began to gain prominence. At the heart of his "Philosophy of the Common Cause" lies the idea, grandiose in its audacity, about the great vocation of man to fully master the secrets of life, conquer death and achieve god-like power and authority over the blind forces of nature. Humanity, according to Fedorov, by its own (* 16) efforts can carry out the transformation of the entire bodily composition of a person, making him immortal, resurrect all the dead and at the same time achieve control over "solar and other stellar systems." "Generated by a tiny earth, a spectator of immeasurable space, a spectator of the worlds of this space must become their inhabitant and ruler."

In the 1980s, along with the democratic ideology of the "common cause", along with "Readings on God-manhood" and "Justification of Good" by V. S. Solovyov, the first shoots of philosophy and aesthetics of the future Russian decadence appeared. The book "In the Light of Conscience" by N. M. Minsky is published, in which the author preaches extreme individualism. The influence of Nietzschean ideas is growing, it is pulled out of oblivion and becomes almost the idol of Max Stirner with his book "The One and His Property", in which outright selfishness was proclaimed as the alpha and omega of modernity ...

Questions and Tasks: What explains the diversity of trends in Russian criticism of the second half of the 19th century? What are the features of Russian criticism and how are they related to the specifics of our literature? In what did the Westernizers and Slavophiles see the weaknesses and advantages of Russian historical development? What, in your opinion, are the strengths and weaknesses of the public programs of Westernizers and Slavophiles? How does the soil program differ from the Western and Slavophil? How did the native people determine the significance of Pushkin in the history of new Russian literature? Describe the principles of Dobrolyubov's "real criticism". What is the originality of the social and literary critical views of DI Pisarev? Give a description of the social and intellectual movement in Russia in the 80s - 90s.

LITERATURE IN THE XIX CENTURY. The bourgeois reforms of the middle of the 19th century were a borderline in the socio-economic life of Russia and marked the beginning of the capitalist period in its history.

The spread of radical aspirations among young people, in connection with the Polish uprising and the St. Petersburg fires of 1862, made a strong impression on both the leading spheres and on a part of society. The reaction begins.

Grigoriev created his aesthetics under the influence of idealist philosophers F. Schelling and T. Carlyle. The main pathos of Grigoriev's "organic criticism" is the defense in art of "the heart's thought", the synthesis of the artist's thought and soul.

Directions of Russian social thought under Alexander II. Questions of philosophy, religion; new youth. Chernyshevsky on these issues.

Sovremennik is a magazine published from the beginning of 1847 to the middle of 1866 by Nekrasov and Panaev (from 1863 - by Nekrasov alone), purchased from Pletnev.

Creator of the "History of the Russian State" (vols. 1-12, 1816-29), one of the most significant works in Russian historiography. The founder of Russian sentimentalism ("Letters of a Russian Traveler", " Poor Lisa" and etc.).

The scientific study of the history of Russian literature dates back to Belinsky. Belinsky was the first to clearly establish the specificity of literature as an ideological phenomenon, Belinsky showed the regularity of the literary process.

Lermontov's main theme is personality in the process of self-knowledge and self-incarnation, that is, development. The character of most of his poems of the early period is very indicative: these are lyrical sketches, excerpts from a diary.

The creative heritage and features of the artistic style of Turgenev Turgenev influence on the writers of the later period (Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky). Turgenev is the creator of a socio-psychological novel.

Under this title, in 1818 and 1819, two collections were published in St. Petersburg, published by P.P. Svinyin and dedicated to Ch. image of Russian "nuggets", people who come from the people.

Oblomovism is the phenomenon of the landlord system of the era of the collapse of serfdom in Russia, reflected by Goncharov. In a number of its features Oblomovism also characterized the post-reform reality.

The issue that invariably worried the enlightened Russian society was the attitude towards religion. In the 40s, the idea of ​​socialism entered Russian humanistic thought, which followed the path of secularization, that is, isolation from religion and the Church.

On the role of artistic detail in literary works. An artistic detail in the work of Gogol. About the creation of artistic images in the novels of Turgenev. Reflection of the era in crisis for Russia in the novel "Fathers and Sons".

It seems to me that without the writer Saltykov-Shchedrin it is impossible to understand the political life of the second half of the 19th century. The significance of his satirical works for the history of Russia is enormous.

Chaadaev about the past and present of Russia. The future of Russia according to "Philosophical Letters", "Apology of the Madman". The concept of the history of the development of the Russian people.

Literary dreams, critic and public, "Rumor" and "Telescope".