Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s novel “What to do?” contemporaries perceived it ambiguously. Some considered him an “abomination,” others considered him a “charm.” This is due to the complex composition, attempts to hide the main idea behind the dreams of the main character and the love triangle, and, finally, to the peculiarities of the language design. However, the novel had a serious influence on Russian society XIX century. Schoolchildren study it in 10th grade. We offer brief analysis the work “What to do?”, which will help you prepare qualitatively for lessons and for the Unified State Exam.
Brief Analysis
History of creation- N. Chernyshevsky created the novel while he was in the Peter and Paul Fortress. The writer was arrested for radical ideas. The work was conceived as a response to Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons,” so there is a certain similarity between the images of Evgeny Bazarov and Rakhmetov.
Subject– In the work, two main themes can be distinguished - love and life in a new society built on the basis of the laws of labor and equality.
Composition- The structure of the work has its own peculiarities. The through lines of the novel are the life of Vera Pavlovna, the fates of Lopukhov and Kirsanov. Love twists and turns play a major role in these storylines. Vera Pavlovna’s dreams are closely intertwined with reality. With the help of them, the author encrypted socio-political motives.
Genre– A novel in which one can notice the features of several genre varieties - a utopian novel, socio-political, love and philosophical novels.
Direction– Realism.
History of creation
The writer worked on the analyzed work for several months: from December 1862 to April 1863. At that time he was under arrest in the Peter and Paul Fortress. He was imprisoned for his radical views. The novel was conceived as a response to Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons,” so there is a certain similarity between the images of Yevgeny Bazarov and Rakhmetov.
While working on the novel, N. Chernyshevsky understood that censorship would not allow it to be published if it noticed an acute political subtext. To deceive the regulatory authorities, the writer resorted to artistic techniques: framed social motives love context, introduced dreams into the plot. He managed to publish his work in Sovremennik, but soon the authorities prohibited not only distributing the novel, but even imitating it. Permission was granted to publish Chernyshevsky’s work “What is to be done?” only in 1905
Subject
The novel displays motifs characteristic of Russian literature of the 19th century. The writer implemented them in an extraordinary, intricate plot. He presented situations that should push the reader to independent conclusions.
N. Chernyshevsky revealed several topics, among which the following stand out: love, which is fueled by common interests and mutual respect; dreams of a new life. These topics are closely intertwined and determine problems“What to do?”: marriage without love, friendship, equality of men and women, the role of work in human life.
A significant part of the novel is devoted to the life of Vera Pavlovna. The heroine's mother wanted to marry her to a rich man. She considered the owner's son to be a profitable match. The mother did not even think that he was a womanizer with whom her daughter would not find happiness. Verochka was saved from an unsuccessful marriage by medical student Dmitry Lopukhov. A tender feeling arose between the young people and they got married. Vera became the owner of a sewing workshop. However, she did not use hired labor. The heroine made the girls who worked for her co-owners, and they shared the income equally. In the story about Vera Pavlovna’s workshop, the author embodied the idea of equal labor.
The marriage with Lopukhov soon broke up: Verochka fell in love with her husband’s friend, Kirsanov. To untie the love knot, Lopukhov decided to shoot himself. It turns out that he left the note discussed at the beginning of the novel. In the message, he stated that no one was to blame for his death, and Vera Pavlovna calmly married Kirsanov.
The married couple lived happily. Vera Pavlovna was passionate about her favorite activity - sewing workshops; she began to study medicine, and her husband helped her in every possible way. In the descriptions of the family life of these people, the idea of equality of men and women is manifested. At the end of the novel we learn that Lopukhov is alive. Now he took the surname Beaumont and married Ekaterina Vasilievna Polozova. The Kirsanov and Beaumont families begin to become friends and spread the ideas of a “new” life.
Composition
In “What to do?” the analysis should be supplemented with a characterization of the composition. Features of the formal and semantic organization of the text allow the author to reveal several topics and veil forbidden motives. At first glance, main role love twists and turns play in the novel. In fact, they are a mask that hides socio-political problems. To reveal the latter, the author used the description of Vera Pavlovna’s dreams.
The components of the plot are placed inconsistently: the author presents the event from the development of actions before the exposition, and only then the plot elements are arranged in a logical chain. Both at the beginning and at the end of the novel the image of Lopukhov appears. This creates a kind of frame.
Main characters
Genre
The genre of the work is a novel, as it contains several storylines, A central problem remains open. The work is characterized by genre syncretism: it intertwines the features of love, philosophical, socio-political novels and utopia. The direction of the work is realism.
Work test
Rating Analysis
Average rating: 4.1. Total ratings received: 72.
Publication of the novel “What to do?” in the 3rd, 4th and 5th issues of Sovremennik in 1863 literally shocked reading Russia. The camp of direct and hidden serf owners, the reactionary and liberal press received the novel extremely unkindly. The reactionary “Northern Bee”, “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, “Home Conversation”, the Slavophile “Day”, as well as other publications of a protective nature, in different ways, but attacked the novel and its author with equal degrees of rejection and hatred.
Progressive-minded circles, especially young people, read the novel with intense attention and delight.
Against slanderous attacks on “What is to be done?” V. Kurochkin, D. Pisarev, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A. Herzen and other prominent figures of Russian literature spoke. “Chernyshevsky created a highly original and extremely remarkable work,” noted D. Pisarev. M. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote: “...“What to do?” - a serious novel, conveying the idea of the need for new life foundations."
Even enemies were forced to admit that the novel was an extraordinary phenomenon. Censor Beketov, removed from his post for such a rude review, testified: “I rose up in dismay when they saw that something extraordinary was happening between young people of both sexes under the impression of this work.”
Issues of Sovremennik containing Chernyshevsky's novel were strictly prohibited by the government. But a significant part of the circulation has already been distributed throughout the country. Hundreds of copies of “What to do?” copied by hand. Not a single work of art in Russia XIX century did not have such a public resonance, did not have such a direct impact on the formation of revolutionary generations. This was emphasized by prominent populists P. Kropotkin and P. Tkachev. G. Plekhanov wrote about this emotionally and excitedly: “Who has not read or re-read this famous work? Who was not carried away by him, who did not fall under his beneficial influence cleaner, better, more cheerful and bolder? Who has not been struck by the moral purity of the main characters? Who, after reading this novel, has not thought about with my own life, did not subject his own aspirations and inclinations to a strict test? We all drew from him both moral strength and faith in a better future.”
Soon after its resounding success in Russia, Chernyshevsky’s novel was translated into English, French, German, Italian and many other languages of the world, published and read widely, recruiting more and more volunteers for the revolutionary cause far from Russia.
The influence of Chernyshevsky and his novel “What is to be done?” recognized by such famous figures of the international liberation and labor movement as A. Bebel, X. Botev, J. Guesde, G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, K. Zetkin. The founders of scientific communism, K. Marx and F. Engels, highly valued the revolutionary and literary feat of Nikolai Gavrilovich, calling him a great Russian writer, a socialist Lessing.
What is the secret of the unfading longevity of N. G. Chernyshevsky’s book? Why does each new generation of socialists and revolutionaries see again and again in the novel “What is to be done?” “an old but formidable weapon”? Why do we, people of the late 20th century, the period of developed socialism, read it with such excitement?
Perhaps, first of all, because N. G. Chernyshevsky was the first in the history of world literature to show that the high ideas of socialism and the enlightened morality of the future golden age are not the lot of celestials and supermen, but daily life completely understandable, tangible “ordinary new people” whom he saw in life and whose characters he made the subject of artistic research.
The undeniable merit of the writer is the naturalness of that ascent to the heights of the human spirit and action - from the dirt and immobility of the bourgeois world of “old people” - which he forces the reader-friend to go through step by step along with his heroine Verochka Rozalskaya - Vera Pavlovna Lopukhova-Kirsanova.
Let us remember the very beginning of his unexpected “Preface,” which boldly invaded the semi-detective beginning of the novel: “The content of the story is love, the main character is a woman...
I. It’s true, I say,” the author states.
Yes, it's true! The novel “What to do?” a book about the love of people and about the love for people that inevitably comes, which must be established on earth.
Vera Pavlovna’s love for the “new man” Lopukhov gradually led her to the idea that “all people need to be happy, and that we need to help this come sooner... this is one thing natural, one thing humane...” N G. Chernyshevsky was deeply convinced that among the “new people”, the main features of which he considered were activity, human decency, courage and confidence in achieving the once chosen. high goal, the ethics of socialism and revolution can and should grow out of relationships in love, in the family, in the circle of comrades-in-arms, like-minded people.
He left evidence of this conviction for us not only in the novel, masterfully showing in it the development and enrichment (from the particular to the general) of Vera Pavlovna’s living feelings. In one of his letters to his sons from far away in Siberia, many years later, he wrote: “No one can think about millions, tens, hundreds of millions of people as well as they should. And you can't. But still, part of the rational thoughts inspired in you by love for your father inevitably extends to many, many other people. And at least a little bit these thoughts are transferred to the concept of “man” - to everyone, to all people.”
Many pages of the novel are a true hymn to the love of “new people,” which is the result and crown of the moral development of humanity. Only real equality of lovers, only their joint service to a beautiful goal will help us enter the kingdom of the “Bright Beauty” - that is, into the kingdom of such Love that a hundred times exceeds the love of the times of Astarte, Aphrodite, the Queen of Purity.
These pages were read by many in Russia and abroad. For example, I. E. Repin wrote about them with delight in his book of memoirs “Distant Close”. August Bebel singled them out from the entire novel, “... seems to me to be a pearl among all the episodes comparative characteristics love in different historical eras... This comparison is perhaps the best that the 19th century has so far said about love,” he emphasized.
It is also true that, being a novel about love, “What is to be done?” - a book about the revolution, about its moral principles, about ways to achieve a better future for humanity. With the entire structure of his work, the specific lives of his specific heroes, Chernyshevsky showed that a wonderful future cannot come by itself, that a persistent and long struggle is needed for it. Dark forces evil, which are so specifically “humanized” in the characters of “old people” - from Marya Alekseevna, Storeshnikov and the “insightful reader”, many-faced in his vile vulgarity, to the barely identified persecutors of Vera Pavlovna’s workshop, behind whom one can discern police ranks, prohibition, prisons and all the accumulated centuries-old arsenal of violence - they are not at all going to voluntarily give way to the future.
A world hostile to true morality and love must be swept away by the spring flood of revolutionary renewal, which must be expected, but which must be actively prepared. It is for this purpose that life puts forward and reveals to the reader Chernyshevsky a “special person.” Creating the image of Rakhmetov - a professional revolutionary, conspirator, herald, and possibly the leader of a future popular uprising - is a literary feat of Nikolai Gavrilovich. The art of the novelist and the height of the “Aesopian possibilities” of the author, who knew how to “educate real revolutionaries” even under censored conditions, allowed him to say a lot more about Rakhmetov than was said in the chapter “A Special Person.”
Once found and awakened to a new life by Kirsanov, Rakhmetov actively influences inner world all the main characters: Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna, their friends. He is the catalyst and inner spring of their actions, as, indeed, the inner spring of the novel itself. The “discerning reader” does not and cannot see this. But the author constantly invites the like-minded reader to take part in this extra-plot line of the novel.
Rakhmetov is truly a special person, one of those few who, according to the author, are “the salt of the earth,” “the engines of the engines.” He is the knight of the plan, the knight of that Bright beauty who appears in Vera Pavlovna’s beautiful dreams. But no matter how the author distinguishes Rakhmetov from his other favorite heroes, he still does not separate them with an impassable abyss. And at times he makes it clear that under certain circumstances “ordinary decent people” can turn into “special” people. This happened in the time of Chernyshevsky, and we see even more examples in subsequent history, when modest soldiers of the revolution became its true knights, leaders of millions of misses.”
Volumes have been written about Vera Pavlovna’s famous dreams, about retrospective allegories and insights into the future in them during the existence of the novel. Additional interpretations are hardly needed. Of course, specific pictures of the socialist distance, a kind of utopia painted with a bold brush by the author of “What is to be done?” seem naive to us today, but they made a strong impression on the reader of the last century. By the way, N.G. Chernyshevsky himself was skeptical about the possibility of “clearly describing for others or at least imagining for oneself a different social structure that would be based on a higher ideal.”
But today’s reader of the novel cannot help but be captivated by that reverent faith, that inescapable conviction, that historical optimism with which more than one hundred and twenty years ago the prisoner from “number eleven” of the Peter and Paul Fortress looked into the future of his people and humanity. Without waiting for the verdict that the world of autocracy and serfdom, the world of “old people” already doomed by history, was preparing for him, N. G. Chernyshevsky himself pronounced his verdict on this world, prophetically proclaiming the inevitability of the onset of the world of socialism and labor.
Chernyshevsky finished “What to do?” shortly before his 35th birthday. He came to literature as a man of comprehensive erudition, a strong materialistic worldview, a serious life experience and almost incredible knowledge in the field of philology. Nikolai Gavrilovich was aware of this himself. In one of the versions of the preface to the novel “Tales within a Tale,” written shortly after the publication of “What is to be done?”, he says: “I have thought so much about life, read so much and thought about what I read, that a little poetic talent is enough for me to to be a wonderful poet." It is hardly necessary to give here other considerations about his possible place in literature as a novelist. They, as the reader of “What is to be done?” remembers well, are full of ironic self-criticism, but, by and large, they contain a restrained assessment of their capabilities, without self-deprecation.
Of course, Chernyshevsky’s enormous talent as a fiction writer could not reveal itself to its full potential. The heavy pressure of censorship and the ban on even his very name from 1863 almost until the revolution of 1905 is one of the most vile crimes of tsarism against the Russian people and world literature. The reader of the 19th century practically never recognized a single new work by a writer buried alive. However, “What is to be done?”, the incomparable literary fate of N. G. Chernyshevsky’s first novel, gives a convincing idea of the scope and depth of his literary talent.
The noticeable influence of Chernyshevsky’s novel on the future fate of Russian literature is generally recognized in Soviet literary criticism. It can be traced even in the works of such outstanding artists, like JI. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, N. Leskov, who could not avoid the power of influence of many ideas “What is to be done?” - even when they built some of their works taking into account their rejection or direct polemics with them.
Chernyshevsky’s book “What to do?” brought to literature not only the vast world of ideas, not only new genre intellectual novel. Having absorbed much from the innumerable treasures of the literary arsenal, the author enriched them, reworked them with the power of his talent, and sometimes he himself made discoveries both in the field of content and in the sense of equipping with literary devices, plot devices, the relaxedness of the visible author's participation in the fabric itself, the architectonics of the work .
Researchers rightly note, for example, that the origins of such a literary device as Vera Pavlovna’s dreams should be seen in Radishchev’s Pryamovzor from the chapter “Spasskaya Cavity” of the famous “Travel...”. “The sister of her sisters and the bride of her grooms” is a talented continuation of the image of the one who, by the will of Alexander Radishchev, removed the eyesore from seeing the reality of true life. Of course, Chernyshevsky took into account the experience of “Eugene Onegin” and “ Dead souls”, when he boldly introduced into the novel not just individual author’s digressions, lyrical reflections, but the author himself in flesh, character, the power of sarcasm or respect for the many-sided reader, who himself often turns out to be a hero and participant in the story.
L n Chernyshevsky’s ability to create visible, “culturally tangible types of “old people” - such as Verochka’s parents, or the hopelessly stupid Storeshnikov with the stupid maman, mired in class snares, or the monstrously bloated noble spider Chaplin from “Prologue” - is it Don’t we see the talent of Shchedrin’s or Swift’s strength?
In the light of what has been said, the “What to do?” arguments that have now been refuted by more than a century of life and that arose in the first battle around the novel seem truly absurd.
about his lack of artistry. Unfortunately, this vile version turned out to be tenacious. Apparently, it was not in vain that the enemies of revolutionary literature worked so hard around it.
It is very significant that the controversy that once raged around the work of N. G. Chernyshevsky, around the novel “What is to be done?” have not been relegated to the field of archival literary criticism. Either dying down, then flaring up again, they did not stop either in the years preceding the Great October Revolution, or in the middle of the twentieth century, or in our days. Fearing the impact of a revolutionary novel on the reading public, wanting at all costs to downplay human feat its author, bourgeois ideologists of all stripes, from Russian White emigrants to their today's ideological followers - literary scholars and Sovietologists, continue to fight Chernyshevsky to this day, as if alive.
In this sense, the picture of the “study” of Chernyshevsky’s work in the USA is of considerable interest. Some revival that emerged in the study of Russian revolutionary thought during the Second World War and the first post-war years gave way to calm. For a long time, the name of Chernyshevsky only occasionally appeared on the pages of American literary publications. In the 60-70s, due to a number of reasons: the aggravation of social contradictions, crisis phenomena in the economy, the growth of anti-war sentiment in the United States, the success of the peace initiatives of the USSR, the turn to international détente - interest in our country and its history began to grow. Certain intellectual circles in the United States sought to look at the “Russian question” and its origins with different eyes. It was at this time that the attention of American researchers to Russian revolutionary democrats, and especially to Chernyshevsky, increased.
New processes in the socio-political and intellectual atmosphere of those years were manifested to a large extent, for example, in the serious work of F. B. Randall - the first American monograph on Chernyshevsky, published in 1967. According to the author’s own statement, he set the task of discovering a new name in Russian for the Western reader. XIX literature century. He believes, and it is difficult to disagree with this, that the previous works of his colleagues did not give even an approximate idea of the true scale and significance of Chernyshevsky in the history of literature and social thought in Russia.
Randall very convincingly shows the reader the stereotypes-“myths” that have developed in American and generally Western literature about Chernyshevsky. One of them is the “myth” of Chernyshevsky as a primitive utilitarian in the field of aesthetics and morality. Another “myth” is about the Russian thinker as an uncritical popularizer of crude vulgar materialistic theories borrowed from the West. The third "myth" -
about Chernyshevsky as a boring, ponderous writer, supposedly of no interest to the modern reader. Randall considers all these “myths” to be the product of incompetence, scientific dishonesty and even ignorance of scientific specialists, of whom, in his opinion, only every second person has read “What is to be done?” and at most one in twenty took the trouble to become acquainted with other works of the Russian author.
Well, the assessment is harsh, but perhaps not without foundation. Randall showed an enviable familiarity not only with the works of N. G. Chernyshevsky, but also with world (including Soviet) literature on these issues. For him, reading Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” and other works - not a boring task at all. It gives “pleasure and genuine pleasure.” In his opinion, Chernyshevsky is a witty polemicist with exceptional advantages of style, integrity, unity of form and content. The American researcher is captivated high degree the persuasiveness of Chernyshevsky’s works, his faith in the bright future of humanity, in the correctness of his views. He admits with frank sadness and regret that such qualities are absent among the ideologists of the modern Western world.
Noting the undoubted merits and personal courage of Randall, who took upon himself the difficult burden of “rehabilitating” Chernyshevsky before the American reader, it should be said that he does not always fulfill this role. The burden of bourgeois “myths” is too heavy. The author himself sometimes engages in myth-making, accusing either Soviet researchers or Chernyshevsky himself of various kinds of sins. There is no shortage of contradictory arguments in the book, evidence of the influence of stereotypes of Western propaganda and bourgeois thinking, but still the appearance of such a monograph is an undoubted step by an American scientist along the path of comprehending the true Chernyshevsky, along the path of constructiveness and scientific integrity.
A continuation of the emerging trend of serious interest in the life and work of Chernyshevsky in American scientific literature One should consider the monograph by Professor William Werlin, “Chernyshevsky - a Man and a Journalist,” published at Adapi and Harvard University in 1971. And this author freely uses the works of Chernyshevsky himself, the literature about him of his predecessors in the West, and a wide range of names of Soviet researchers. The book contains many correct conclusions and observations about the personality, philosophical, and economic views of Chernyshevsky. But in assessing his aesthetics and literary positions, Werlin remains in the snares of popular bourgeois ideas. He was unable to understand the dialectical depth of the aesthetic views of the great democrat; his assessment of the novel “What is to be done?” is rather primitive. According to Werlin, Chernyshevsky “salted his novel with heroes who embody abstract vices and virtues.” But the author does not deny the wide popularity of the novel and the fact that the “new people” were perceived by Russian youth as an example to follow, and Rakhmetov became “an example of a professional revolutionary” for many years.
However, even timid inclinations towards truth and objectivity in matters of studying Russian literature and the history of social thought alarmed the guardians of the “true” bourgeois mores from science. Sovietologists of all stripes tried to “win back.” Unusual book Randall did not go unnoticed. In the very first review by a certain C. A. Moser, it was criticized for breaking with “generally accepted” concepts. N. G. Pereira, first in articles and then in a special monograph, hastened not only to restore the former “myths”, but also to go further than others in his slanderous accusations against Chernyshevsky.
In 1975, new names joined the war against Chernyshevsky. Among them, Rufus Mathewson, a professor at Columbia (New York) University, particularly “distinguished himself.” He came out with a libelous book called “A Positive Hero in Russian Literature”2. One of the many chapters, entitled “The Salt of the Salt of the Earth,” is specifically devoted to Chernyshevsky, his aesthetics and literary practice. Nikolai Gavrilovich is directly charged (which for some reason seems terrible to the aesthetic professor) that “he created a consistent and integral doctrine of literature in the service of society” and thereby became the theoretical forerunner of the Soviet literature so hated by Mathewson. “The full extent of his (Chernyshevsky - Yu. M.) influence on Soviet thought has yet to be assessed,” the bellicose professor warns threateningly. After all goodie Soviet literature “agrees to all sorts of restrictions on his life’s needs in order to become, like Chernyshevsky’s Rakhmetov, an instrument of history.”
For a bourgeois researcher, the very idea that art is a reflection of life’s reality seems blasphemous. What this bourgeois philistine does not attribute to Chernyshevsky: both the fact that he “completely denies the creative functions of the artist” and the fact that he wrote “What is to be done?” from a “radical utilitarian position”, and what “denies artistic imagination”, and, finally, even what the Soviet five-year plans foresaw.
"What to do?" literally causes Mathewson's pathological hatred, since the novel is a realization aesthetic principles, developed by Chernyshevsky in his dissertation. He sees many sins in the novel and is even ready to forgive both the author’s inexperience and his supposed indifference to literary traditions, but cannot forgive what is most terrible for him - “errors stemming from the basic doctrines of radical literature, formulated then and still in effect now.” Mathewson “criticizes” Chernyshevsky precisely from the position of a bourgeois, frightened by the possibility of an organized struggle of working people for their future. He is clearly not satisfied with the author’s call “What to do?” to the reader - to see a better future and fight for it. He is trying to reject a wonderful novel, to condemn it precisely for its effectiveness, for its revolutionary meaning.
Reading and thinking about this today, one cannot help but be surprised at how far-sighted Chernyshevsky was when, on December 14, 1862, he conceived a work that carries an intellectual charge of such explosive power, against which to this day the ideological defenders of the passing world so unsuccessfully wave their hands. old people."
For more than a century of active work, Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” in the bright field of the struggle for socialism, shows even more clearly the undoubted rightness of V.I. Lenin, who so highly regarded Chernyshevsky himself, and the artistic and ideological-political merits of his novel “What is to be done?” Already in the post-war years, additional materials about this became known from the book of memoirs of the former Menshevik N. Valentinov “Meetings with Lenin”. Such a stroke is typical. When in 1904, during Lenin’s conversation with Vorovsky and Valentinov, the latter began to denounce the novel “What is to be done?”, Vladimir Ilyich ardently stood up for Chernyshevsky. “Are you aware of what you are saying? - he asked me. “How can a monstrous, absurd idea come into one’s head to call the work of Chernyshevsky, the greatest and most talented representative of socialism before Marx, primitive, mediocre?.. I declare: it is unacceptable to call “What is to be done?” primitive and mediocre. Under his influence, hundreds of people became revolutionaries. Could this have happened if Chernyshevsky had written incompetently and primitively? For example, he captivated my brother, and he captivated me too. He plowed me all deep. When did you read What to Do? It is useless to read it if the milk on your lips has not dried. Chernyshevsky's novel is too complex and full of thoughts to be understood and appreciated. early age. I tried to read it myself, I think, when I was 14 years old. It was a worthless, superficial reading. But after my brother’s execution, knowing that Chernyshevsky’s novel was one of his most beloved works, I took up real reading and sat over it not for several days, but for weeks. Only then did I understand the depth. This is something that gives you a charge for life.”
In 1928, during the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Chernyshevsky’s birth, A.V. Lunacharsky said with considerable irony: “The following attitude has been established towards Chernyshevsky: he is, of course, a weak artist; his fictional works are something like a fable; morality is important in them...” Lunacharsky ridiculed such reasoning, showed their superficiality and complete inconsistency, he emphasized that for the purpose of communist education of young people, it is fundamentally important to acquaint them with Chernyshevsky’s novels. He called on literary scholarship to study these works more deeply and rightly believed that studying the experience of the great democrat could help the development of young Soviet literature. More than half a century has passed since then. Much has changed in our ideas about Chernyshevsky, we have learned a lot about him and his work. But Lunacharsky’s conclusions and advice on the significance of human and literary feats II. G. Chernyshevsky, about the importance of distributing his books for our life and literature seem very relevant today.
In October 1862, during the birth of the idea “What to do?”, Nikolai Gavrilovich wrote to Olga Sokratovna the following proud and prophetic lines: “...our life with you belongs to history; Hundreds of years will pass, and our names will still be dear to people; and they will remember us with gratitude when they have already forgotten almost everyone who lived at the same time with us. So we must not lose ourselves in terms of cheerfulness of character in front of people who will study our life.”
And Chernyshevsky did not lose himself either during the civil execution, or in the Nerchinsk mines, or in the monstrous Vilyui exile. With more than three years of fortress, hard labor, and exile for each year of work at Sovremennik, tsarism took revenge on its dangerous enemy. But his will was unyielding. When in 1874, with promises of imminent freedom, the authorities tried to persuade an exhausted prisoner to submit a request for pardon to the “highest name,” a short and firm answer followed: “I read. I refuse to submit the petition. Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
“Relief” occurred only in 1883, when almost under him Arctic Circle Chernyshevsky was secretly transferred to the semi-desert heat of the then Astrakhan. At the end of June 1889, after much trouble with the family, Chernyshevsky moved to Saratov. The meeting with my family was wonderful, but short. The health of the great fighter and martyr was undermined. On October 29, 1889, Chernyshevsky passed away.
A century and a half has passed since the day when the great democrat and writer was born in a modest house in Saratov, on the high bank of the Volga. Life on the banks of his beloved river changed, the wind of the revolutionary storm he predicted turned the history of Russia sharply. Already more than a third of humanity and pillboxes are on the way to building a new, socialist world. Guided by the truth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, progressive people of the world know today what to do to save and decorate planet Earth. And in all this there is a considerable share of the work, talent, courage and time of Nikolai Chernyshevsky, who loved people and wanted them to be happy.
Back .Useful material on topic
“What to do” is a famous novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky, written by him during his imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1862-1863. The manuscript was handed over to the censorship commission, which saw only a love story in the novel and allowed publication. However, later the censors saw a revolutionary beginning in this work, but the novel was already published in the Sovremennik magazine. Issues containing this novel were confiscated, but it was still distributed to the masses in handwritten form.
The plot of the work
Vera Pavlovna Rozalskaya, the main character of the novel, not wanting to marry a rich groom, enters into a fictitious marriage with Lopukhov, a medical student - a noble and decent man. Thus, Vera Pavlovna leaves her father's house. Being an independent and active person, she is trying to find her purpose. She opens a sewing workshop, where she recruits girls who are just as interested in developing the business as she is.
Then Vera Pavlovna falls in love with her fictitious husband's friend Alexander Kirsanov. Kirsanov has mutual feelings for her, but in order not to ruin his friend’s family, Kirsanov leaves them for a long time. Subsequently, realizing that marriage is burdening Vera, Lopukhov fakes his suicide, thereby giving Vera and Kirsanov the opportunity to be together. Lopukhov leaves for America, where he becomes an agent of an English company, then returns to Russia, gets married, and informs the Kirsanov family of his return.
Chernyshevsky devotes separate pages to Rakhmetov. Despite the fact that he is a supporting hero, he is special for Chernyshevsky. In Rakhmetov, the author wanted to collect all the qualities of the “new” people of that time. He studies revolutionary literature and is an ardent supporter of his cause. He did not allow himself excesses, ate cheap food, slept on felt, and worked hard. He did all this in order to better understand life ordinary people. My life goal he saw it as serving for the benefit of the common people.
Characteristics of the main characters
- Vera Pavlovna Rozalskaya is the main character of the novel, a young girl, she grew up in St. Petersburg, studied at a boarding school, sews well, is cheerful, sociable, despite her youth, she is a mature person, responsible, independent. Great place in the novel, the dreams of Vera Pavlovna are devoted. Through her dreams, Chernyshevsky expresses his philosophical reflections.
- Lopukhov is a medical student, honest, noble, decent, belongs to the new generation. He selflessly helps Vera Pavlovna, offers to enter into a fictitious marriage for her so that she can leave her home and avoid an unwanted marriage. Being in a fictitious marriage, he does not insist on a relationship between him and Vera. Seeing that Vera Pavlovna is unhappy in her marriage to him, she stages her suicide, thereby giving her the opportunity to free herself from the bonds of marriage.
- Kirsanov is Lopukhov’s best friend, honest, decent, serious, smart, responsible, works in a hospital. He loves Lopukhov's wife, Vera Pavlovna Rozalskaya, but tries not to interfere with their family life and disappears. After Lopukhova's staged suicide, he marries Rozalskaya.
- Rakhmetov is a friend of Kirsanov and Lopukhov, a nobleman, a bright, extraordinary personality, a real revolutionary, the author calls him a “special person.” He unswervingly follows his principles. Despite the fact that he is a nobleman, he leads an ascetic lifestyle and wants to understand the life of ordinary people. Having fallen in love once, he suppresses this feeling in every possible way, since he believes that it will interfere with his lofty thoughts.
The meaning of Vera Pavlovna’s dreams in the work
A special place in the novel is given to the dreams of Vera Pavlovna. In the first dream, in a veiled form, there is talk of a revolution that will help women defend their rights. In the second dream we are talking about “pure dirt” - that is, common people, the main thing for them is work. “Rotten dirt” are those people who live off the labor of other people.
The fourth dream deals with the past, present and future of humanity. She again dreams of the image of a revolution that speaks of equality and freedom.
Problems of the work
In his novel, Chernyshevsky touches on many pressing issues of the time.
The main problems of the novel are:
- the problem of a woman’s place in the society of that time
- the problem of the crisis of the autocratic system
- problem moral choice
- the hard life of poor people
First of all, the author raises the problem of a woman’s place in the society of that time. Women cannot get decent jobs and support themselves; instead, they can only marry for convenience. Vera Pavlovna found herself in the same situation, but thanks to Lopukhov, she managed to avoid such a fate. Chernyshevsky raises the issue of the lack of rights and helplessness of women of that time. And in the person of Lopukhov and Kirsanov, he calls for treating a woman as an equal person.
Note 1
The crisis of autocracy came quite a long time ago, people wanted revolution, their desire became stronger and stronger. The monarchy fought very sluggishly against the new worldview and dissent.
Each of the main characters of the novel is tested by the problem of moral choice. Vera entered into a fictitious marriage not out of love, but is trying in every possible way to preserve it. Kirsanov, not wanting to destroy his friend’s family, leaves his friends for a long time. Lopukhov, seeing Vera's suffering, stages suicide and thereby frees her from the bonds of marriage. It should be noted that all heroes pass these tests with dignity.
The problem of poverty is also topical for that time. In order for a woman to exist, she had to marry a rich man. It is precisely concerns about the financial condition of her daughter that make Vera’s mother forget about morality and lead her to moral degradation.
The main idea of the work
The heroes of Chernyshevsky’s novel were created by him as role models for young people. In his “special” hero Rakhmetov, Chernyshevsky gives readers the answer to the question “What to do?” The main idea of the work is to show the reader a new active person whose goal is to live and act for the benefit of his people. The novel is interesting primarily because the author not only describes and is indignant about the social and moral situation that developed at that time, but also puts forward ways in his opinion the right decision. With the character of Rakhmetov, the author calls on readers of that time to abandon their selfish motives and calls not to pay attention to the difference in classes. In the image of Rakhmetov, Chernyshevsky reveals the main idea of the novel - the determination to defend bright ideals.
History of creation
Chernyshevsky himself called these people a type that “has recently been born and is quickly breeding,” is a product and a sign of the times.
These heroes are characterized by a special revolutionary morality, which is based on the Enlightenment theory of the 18th century, the so-called “theory of reasonable egoism.” This theory is that a person can be happy if his personal interests coincide with public ones.
Vera Pavlovna is the main character of the novel. Her prototypes are Chernyshevsky’s wife Olga Sokratovna and Marya Aleksandrovna Bokova-Sechenova, who fictitiously married her teacher and then became the wife of the physiologist Sechenov.
Vera Pavlovna managed to escape from the circumstances that surrounded her since childhood. Her character was tempered in a family where her father was indifferent to her, and for her mother she was simply a profitable commodity.
Vera is as enterprising as her mother, thanks to which she manages to create sewing workshops that give good profit. Vera Pavlovna is smart and educated, balanced and kind to both her husband and girls. She is not a prude, not hypocritical and smart. Chernyshevsky admires Vera Pavlovna’s desire to break outdated moral principles.
Chernyshevsky emphasizes the similarities between Lopukhov and Kirsanov. Both are doctors, engaged in science, both from poor families and achieved everything through hard work. For the sake of helping an unfamiliar girl, Lopukhov gives up his scientific career. He is more rational than Kirsanov. This is also evidenced by the idea of imaginary suicide. But Kirsanov is capable of any sacrifice for the sake of friendship and love, avoids communication with his friend and lover in order to forget her. Kirsanov is more sensitive and charismatic. Rakhmetov believes him, embarking on the path of improvement.
But main character of the novel (not in plot, but in idea) - not just a “new man”, but a “special person”, the revolutionary Rakhmetov. He generally renounces egoism as such, and happiness for himself. A revolutionary must sacrifice himself, give his life for those he loves, live like the rest of the people.
He is an aristocrat by birth, but has broken with the past. Rakhmetov earned money as a simple carpenter, a barge hauler. He had the nickname “Nikitushka Lomov”, like a hero-barge hauler. Rakhmetov invested all his funds in the cause of the revolution. He led the most ascetic lifestyle. If new people are called Chernyshevsky the salt of the earth, then revolutionaries like Rakhmetov are “the flower of the best people, the engines of engines, the salt of the salt of the earth.” The image of Rakhmetov is shrouded in an aura of mystery and understatement, since Chernyshevsky could not say everything directly.
Rakhmetov had several prototypes. One of them is the landowner Bakhmetev, who in London transferred almost all of his fortune to Herzen for the cause of Russian propaganda. The image of Rakhmetov is collective.
Rakhmetov's image is far from ideal. Chernyshevsky warns readers against admiring such heroes, because their service is unrequited.
Stylistic features
Chernyshevsky widely uses two means artistic expression- allegory and omission. Vera Pavlovna's dreams are full of allegories. The dark basement in the first dream is an allegory of women’s lack of freedom. Lopukhov's bride is a great love for people, real and fantastic dirt from the second dream - the circumstances in which the poor and the rich live. The huge glass house in the last dream is an allegory of a communist happy future, which, according to Chernyshevsky, will definitely come and give joy to everyone without exception. The silence is due to censorship restrictions. But some mystery of the images or plot lines in no way spoils the pleasure of reading: “I know more about Rakhmetov than I say.” The meaning of the ending of the novel, which is interpreted differently, remains vague, the image of a lady in mourning. All the songs and toasts of a cheerful picnic are allegorical.
In the last tiny chapter, “Change of Scenery,” the lady is no longer in mourning, but in elegant clothes. In a young man of about 30, one can discern the released Rakhmetov. This chapter depicts the future, albeit a short one.
The novel “What to do?” has a subtitle: “From stories about new people with common benefit...”. With this, the author determined the main theme of the novel. “New people” - Dmitry Sergeevich Lopukhov, Alexander Matveevich Kirsanov and their friends - in their personal qualities are opposite to the “vulgar” ones. Previously, decent people sometimes appeared in the vulgar world, but they were lonely and either wasted away, or reconciled with vulgarity and “turned to good people living on earth... only to smoke the sky." In the novel “What is to be done?” we already see a whole group of “new people”: in addition to Lopukhov, Kirsanov and Vera Pavlovna, the heroes of the novel are Katya Polozova, the Mertsalovs, young professors, officers, students - comrades and students of Lopukhov and Kirsanov are mentioned in the episodes. This is a circle of people united by common interests and a common cause. Their life is filled with deep content: questions of philosophy, advances in natural science, economic theories, events in political life - everything is of keen interest to them and causes heated debate.
“New people” do not pursue any selfish goals, therefore, in their circle there reigns absolute sincerity and simplicity of relationships, strong friendship, constant readiness to help each other, and complete equality. This is how they fundamentally differ from the people of the “antediluvian world,” in which everyone fights for their “place in life,” which gives rise to rivalry, hypocrisy, and oppression of the weak by the strong. Even among those belonging to the “selected” society, social inequality: Storeshnikov “barely clung to Jean’s tail, Jean barely clung to Serge’s tail.”
Describing in detail the life of the “new people,” Chernyshevsky tries to emphasize that there is nothing special about it. To live the way these people live - that is, not to do anything vile, not to waste time in vulgar idleness, to devote yourself wholeheartedly to your favorite work, to strive for knowledge, to have reasonable entertainment - every person can and should, in this “not God knows what a heroic feat is.” The “new people” are just good people. But they differ from the good people of former times in that they “do not smoke the sky”, do not become “superfluous people”, but actively participate in life and in its transformation. The difference between the heroes of “What to do?” from “extra people” is explained not only by the time of their appearance, but also social status: « extra people“belonged to the nobility, the “new” ones were commoners who went through a harsh labor school. Both Lopukhov and Kirsanov “early got used to making their way with their chests, without any support” with images of “new people”
Chernyshevsky clarified the ideas about common democrats, which was necessary in connection with the heated debate caused by I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.”
Progressive youth were dissatisfied with some of Bazarov's one-sidedness and dryness, as well as with the fact that Bazarov was shown alone among a noble society alien to him. But Turgenev, according to Pisarev, “simply did not know how the Bazarovs behaved with other Bazarovs.” Chernyshevsky was well acquainted with people like Lopukhov and Kirsanov. His characters reflected the features of the writer’s friends - doctor P. I. Bokov, physiologist I. M. Sechenov and other “New People”, with various individual character traits - sociable and reserved, cheerful and reserved, passionately loving art and indifferent to him - they are united by common qualities that truly distinguished them from the people of the old world. New People respect the dignity of others and firmly assert their own independence. This trait is also characteristic of Verochka Rozalskaya. “...If you dare to approach me in the theater, on the street, somewhere, I will slap you in the face,” she declares to Storeshnikova. “Mother will torture me... but let it be with me, whatever happens, it doesn’t matter!” Lopukhov, Kirsanov, and Katya Polozova also resolutely defend their honor. “New people” have a goal in life and persistently strive to achieve it. “Each of them is a courageous person, who does not hesitate, does not retreat, who knows how to take up a task, and if he takes it up, he already grasps it tightly, so that it does not slip out of his hands.” Each of them is a person of impeccable honesty, such that the question does not even come to mind: “Can I rely on this person unconditionally in everything?” These people are not just honest, they are noble and selfless; For the sake of the happiness of others, they are ready to sacrifice their own happiness, and, if necessary, their lives. An example of noble self-sacrifice is Lopukhov’s act, which forms the plot basis of the novel. Lopukhov sincerely loves Vera Pavlovna, but when he saw that she loved Kirsanov, in order to remove obstacles to their happiness, he staged suicide and left for America. He is filled with high spiritual nobility farewell letter to friends: “I embarrassed your calmness. I'm leaving the stage. Don't be sorry; I love you both so much that I am very happy with my determination. Farewell".
“New people” are modest and afraid of pompous phrases like fire. They don't want the people they sacrifice to feel burdened with gratitude, so they say they do it "for selfish reasons," for "their own benefit." “... This is a false concept: the victim is soft-boiled boots, argues Lopukhov. “Whatever is more pleasant, that’s what you do.” Lopukhov and Kirsanov adhere to the theory of “reasonable egoism,” according to which each person is guided only by his own benefit. Not everyone understands what this benefit really is. A “vulgar” person considers it profitable to rob and deceive other people, while “new people” believe that their happiness lies in fighting for the happiness of other people. “...If I once act against my entire human nature, I will forever lose the possibility of peace, the possibility of self-satisfaction, I will poison my whole life,” thinks Kirsanov.
The theory of “reasonable egoism” expresses the morality of revolutionary democrats. Liberal nobles said that their “duty” was to “serve the people.” Chernyshevsky claims that one can fight for the happiness of the people only at the behest of the heart, according to the attraction of “one’s nature,” and words about duty are false words. For “new people,” the people are not something extraneous that needs to be taken care of to the detriment of their own interests. They themselves are part of the people - the most advanced and conscious part of it, therefore the “new people” are alien to the discord between mind and feeling inherent in heroes from the nobility. “The personal benefit of the new people coincides with the general benefit, and their egoism contains the broadest love for humanity,” wrote D. I. Pisarev in the article “The Thinking Proletariat.”
Noticing that Vera Pavlovna fell in love with Kirsanov, Lopukhov decided that he not only had no right to interfere, but was even obliged to help them. The morality that Lopukhov was guided by is formulated by Pisarev as follows: “... a person does not have the right to take away the happiness of another person either by his actions, or words, or even silence.” If Lopukhov had not helped Vera Pavlovna, she might have been able to suppress her feelings, but Lopukhov did not want to take credit for someone else’s happiness. By his attitude towards Vera Pavlovna, says Chernyshevsky, Lopukhov proved “that courage will never betray him in anything, that in all trials, whatever, he will remain calm and firm, that... until the last minute of his life, how no matter what blows he is subjected to, he will be happy with the consciousness of his human dignity.” In other words, a person who is honest in his personal life, like Lopukhov, is ready to die for a just cause, that is, he is capable of being a revolutionary.
People like Lopukhov and Kirsanov were not so rare during the revolutionary situation of the 60s, but they still constituted a small part of society.
The main theme of Chernyshevsky’s novel “What to do?”
Other essays on the topic:
- The “new people” that Chernyshevsky wrote about in his novel were representatives of a new phase in the development of society at that time. The world of these people...
- The theme of labor in the novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky “What to do?” The stumbling block for many readers of the novel “What is to be done?” are Vera's dreams...
- On July 11, 1856, a note left by a strange guest is found in the room of one of the large St. Petersburg hotels. The note says...
- Essay on the topic: Evolution of design. The problem of genre. The appearance on the pages of Sovremennik of Chernyshevsky’s novel, which was then located in the Peter and Paul Fortress, was...
- The main humanistic theme of “The Bell” finds expression primarily in the famous epigraph from John Donne: “There is no man who is...
- The prototype of the future is also the personal relationships of “new people”, resolving conflicts on the basis of the humane theory of “calculation of benefits” (the new morality is shaded by tradition...
- Chernyshevsky’s firm and calm behavior during the two-year duel with the tsarist justice caused swipe by the prestige of the government. Even bigger...
- In Chernyshevsky’s diverse heritage, an important place is occupied by works on aesthetics, literary criticism, artistic creativity. In all these areas he performed...
- In “The Shore” Bondarev relies on figurative-associative thinking, rather than conceptual thinking. Journalistic episodes in the novel are only one of the moments....
- While preparing “Walking Through Torment” for publication in one book in 1942, Tolstoy turned for the last time to work on...
- The hero of the novel, Rakhmetov, is a revolutionary. He is a nobleman by birth. His father was a rich man. But the free life did not deter Rakhmetov...
- This is a search and knowledge of oneself, a search for the meaning of life in all its contradictions.” A similar idea, as you can see, organizes artistic...
- A storm happens, because Pechorin cannot live without them, he creates them himself (lines from Lermontov’s “Sails” come to mind...
- The appearance on the pages of Sovremennik of Chernyshevsky’s novel, which was then located in the Peter and Paul Fortress, was an event of enormous importance both in terms of socio-political and...