“Stories of a businesslike, incriminating nature leave a very difficult impression on the reader, therefore, while recognizing their usefulness and nobility, I am not entirely satisfied that our literature has taken exclusively such a gloomy direction.”
This is what quite a lot of people say, apparently not stupid, or, better to say, they said so until the peasant question became the real subject of all thoughts, all conversations. Whether their words are fair or unfair, I don’t know; but I happened to be under the influence of such thoughts when I began to read perhaps the only good new story, from which, from the first pages, one could already expect a completely different content, a different pathos, than from business stories. There is no chicanery with violence and bribery, no dirty swindlers, no official villains explaining in elegant language that they are the benefactors of society, no philistines, peasants and little officials tormented by all these terrible and disgusting people. The action is abroad, away from all the bad surroundings of our home life. All the characters in the story are among the best people among us, very educated, extremely humane, imbued with the noblest way of thinking. The story has a purely poetic, ideal direction, not touching on any of the so-called dark sides of life. Here, I thought, my soul will rest and be refreshed. And indeed, she was refreshed by these poetic ideals until the story reached the decisive moment. But the last pages of the story are unlike the first, and after reading the story, the impression left is even more bleak than the stories about disgusting bribe-takers with their cynical robbery. They do bad things, but they are recognized by each of us as bad people; It is not from them that we expect improvements in our lives. There are, we think, forces in society that will put a barrier to their harmful influence, that will change the nature of our life with their nobility. This illusion is most bitterly rejected in the story, which awakens the brightest expectations with its first half.
Here is a man whose heart is open to all high feelings, whose honesty is unshakable, whose thought has absorbed everything for which our century is called the century of noble aspirations. So what is this man doing? He makes a scene that would put the last bribe-taker to shame. He feels the strongest and purest sympathy for the girl who loves him; he cannot live an hour without seeing this girl; all day and all night his thoughts draw him a beautiful image of her; the time of love has come for him, you think, when the heart is drowned in bliss. We see Romeo, we see Juliet, whose happiness nothing interferes with, and the moment is approaching when their fate will be decided forever - for this Romeo must only say: “I love you, do you love me?” - and Juliet will whisper: “Yes...” And what does our Romeo (that’s how we will call the hero of the story, whose last name was not given to us by the author of the story) do when he goes on a date with Juliet? With trembling love, Juliet awaits her Romeo; she must learn from him that he loves her - this word was not uttered between them, it will now be uttered by him, they will unite forever; bliss awaits them, such a high and pure bliss, the enthusiasm of which makes the solemn moment of decision barely bearable for the earthly organism. People died from less joy. She sits like a frightened bird, covering her face from the radiance of the sun of love appearing before her; she is breathing quickly, trembling all over; she lowers her eyes even more tremblingly when he enters and calls her name; she wants to look at him and cannot; he takes her hand - this hand is cold, lies as if dead in his hand; she wants to smile; but her pale lips cannot smile. She wants to talk to him, and her voice breaks. They both were silent for a long time - and, as he himself says, his heart melted, and so Romeo says to his Juliet... and what does he say to her? “You are guilty before me,” he tells her: “you got me into trouble, I am dissatisfied with you, you are compromising me, and I must end my relationship with you; It’s very unpleasant for me to part with you, but if you please, go away from here.” What it is? How she guilty? Is it what I thought his a decent person? compromised his reputation by going on a date with him? This is amazing! Every feature in her pale face says that she is waiting for her fate to be decided by his word, that she has given her whole soul to him irrevocably and now only expects him to say that he accepts her soul, her life, and he reprimands her for that she is compromising him! What kind of ridiculous cruelty is this? what kind of low rudeness is this? And this man, who acts so vilely, has been presented as noble until now! He deceived us, deceived the author. Yes, the poet made a very serious mistake in imagining that he was telling us about a decent person. This man is worse than a notorious scoundrel.
Such was the impression made on many by the completely unexpected turn in the relationship of our Romeo to Juliet. We have heard from many that the whole story is spoiled by this outrageous scene, that the character of the main person is not maintained, that if this person is what he appears to be in the first half of the story, then he could not have acted with such vulgar rudeness, and if he could have acted like that, then From the very beginning he should have appeared to us as a completely crappy person.
It would be very comforting to think that the author was really mistaken; but the sad dignity of his story lies in the fact that the character of the hero is true to our society. Perhaps, if this character were such as people would like to see him, dissatisfied with his rudeness on a date, if he were not afraid to give himself to the love that took possession of him, the story would have won in an ideally poetic sense. The enthusiasm of the first date scene would be followed by several other highly poetic minutes, the quiet charm of the first half of the story would rise to pathetic charm in the second half, and instead of the first act from Romeo and Juliet with an ending in the style of Pechorin, we would have something really similar to Romeo and Juliet, or at least one of Georges Sand's novels. Anyone looking for a poetically complete impression in a story must really condemn the author, who, having lured him with sublimely sweet expectations, suddenly showed him some vulgar, absurd vanity of petty, timid egoism in a man who started out like Max Piccolomini and ended up like some Zakhar Sidorich, playing penny preference.
N. G. Chernyshevsky
Russian man at rendez-vous
Reflections on reading Mr. Turgenev's story "Asya"
Library Russian classics N. G. Chernyshevsky. Collected works in five volumes. Volume 3. Literary criticism Library "Ogonyok". We see Romeo, we see Juliet, whose happiness nothing interferes with, and the moment is approaching when their fate will be decided forever - for this Romeo must only say: “I love you, do you love me?” And Juliet will whisper: “Yes...” And what does our Romeo (as we will call the hero of the story, whose last name was not told to us by the author of the story) do when he goes on a date with Juliet? With trembling love, Juliet awaits her Romeo; she must learn from him that he loves her - this word was not uttered between them, it will now be uttered by him, they will be united forever; bliss awaits them, such a high and pure bliss, the enthusiasm of which makes the solemn moment of decision barely bearable for the earthly organism. People died from less joy. She sits like a frightened bird, covering her face from the radiance of the sun of love appearing before her; she is breathing quickly, trembling all over; she lowers her eyes even more tremblingly when he enters and calls her name; she wants to look at him and cannot; he takes her hand - this hand is cold, lies as if dead in his hand; she wants to smile; but her pale lips cannot smile. She wants to talk to him, and her voice breaks. They both were silent for a long time - and, as he himself says, his heart melted, and now Romeo says to his Juliet... and what does he say to her? “You are to blame for me,” he tells her; “you got me into trouble, I am dissatisfied with you, you are compromising me, and I must end my relationship with you; it is very unpleasant for me to part with you, but if you please, get out of here.” away." What it is? How she guilty? Is it what I thought his a decent person? Compromised his reputation by going on a date with him? This is amazing! Every feature in her pale face says that she is waiting for her fate to be decided by his word, that she has given her whole soul to him irrevocably and now only expects him to say that he accepts her soul, her life, and he reprimands her for that she is compromising him! What kind of ridiculous cruelty is this? What kind of low rudeness is this? And this man, who acts so vilely, has been presented as noble until now! He deceived us, deceived the author. Yes, the poet made a very serious mistake in imagining that he was telling us about a decent person. This man is worse than a notorious scoundrel. In Faust, the hero tries to cheer himself up by the fact that neither he nor Vera have serious feelings for each other; sitting with her, dreaming about her is his business, but in terms of determination, even in words, he behaves in such a way that Vera herself must tell him that she loves him; For several minutes the conversation had been going on in such a way that he should definitely have said this, but he, you see, did not guess and did not dare to tell her this; and when the woman who must accept the explanation is finally forced to make the explanation herself, he, you see, “froze,” but felt that “a wave of bliss was running through his heart,” only, however, “from time to time,” but actually speaking, he “completely lost his head” - it’s only a pity that he didn’t faint, and even that would have happened if he hadn’t come across a tree to lean against. As soon as the man had time to recover, the woman he loves, who expressed her love to him, approaches him and asks what he intends to do now? He... he was "embarrassed." It is not surprising that after such behavior of a loved one (otherwise, the image of this gentleman’s actions cannot be called “behavior”), the poor woman developed a nervous fever; It’s even more natural that he then began to cry about his fate. It's in Faust; almost the same in "Rudin". Rudin at first behaves somewhat more decently for a man than the previous heroes: he is so decisive that he himself tells Natalya about his love (although he does not speak of his own free will, but because he is forced to this conversation); he himself asks her for a date. But when Natalya on this date tells him that she will marry him, with or without the consent of her mother, it doesn’t matter, as long as he loves her, when he says the words: “Know, I will be yours,” Rudin only finds an exclamation in response : "Oh my God!" - an exclamation more embarrassed than enthusiastic - and then he acts so well, that is, to such an extent he is cowardly and lethargic, that Natalya is forced to invite him on a date herself to decide what to do. Having received the note, “he saw that the denouement was approaching, and was secretly troubled in spirit.” Natalya says that her mother told her that she would rather see her daughter dead than Rudin’s wife, and again asks Rudin what he intends to do now. Rudin answers as before, “My God, my God,” and adds even more naively: “So soon! What do I intend to do? My head is spinning, I can’t figure out anything.” But then he realizes that he should “submit.” Called a coward, he begins to reproach Natalya, then lectures her about his honesty and, when remarked that this is not what she should hear from him now, he replies that he did not expect such decisiveness. The matter ends with the offended girl turning away from him, almost ashamed of her love for the coward. true to life a story by any of our current poets, and if there is an ideal side to the story, rest assured that the representative of this ideal side acts exactly the same as the persons of Mr. Turgenev. For example, the nature of Mr. Nekrasov’s talent is not at all the same as Mr. Turgenev’s; You can find any shortcomings in him, but no one will say that Mr. Nekrasov’s talent lacks energy and firmness. What does the hero do in his poem "Sasha"? He explained to Sasha that, he says, “you should not weaken in soul,” because “the sun of righteousness will rise above the earth,” and that you need to act to fulfill your aspirations, and then, when Sasha gets down to business, he says that all this is in vain and It won’t lead to anything that he was “talking empty talk.” Let us remember how Beltov acts: in the same way he prefers retreat to any decisive step. There could be a lot of similar examples. Everywhere, whatever the character of the poet, whatever his personal concepts about the actions of his hero, the hero acts in the same way as all other decent people, similar to him, bred from other poets: while there is no talk of business, but you just need to occupy idle time, to fill an idle head or an idle heart with conversations and dreams, the hero is very lively; As the matter approaches to directly and accurately express their feelings and desires, most of the heroes begin to hesitate and feel clumsy in their language. A few, the bravest, somehow still manage to gather all their strength and tongue-tiedly express something that gives a vague idea of their thoughts; but if anyone decides to grab hold of their desires, to say: “You want such and such; we are very glad; start acting, and we will support you,” - at such a remark, one half of the bravest heroes faints, others begin to reproach you very rudely for putting them in an awkward position, they begin to say that they did not expect such proposals from you, that they completely lose their heads, cannot figure anything out, because “how is it possible so soon?” and "besides, they - honest people", and not only honest, but very humble and do not want to expose you to troubles, and that in general is it really possible to bother about everything that is talked about out of nothing to do, and that it is best not to get involved in anything, because everything is connected with troubles and inconveniences, and nothing good can happen yet, because, as has already been said, they “didn’t expect or expect” and so on. the best people" - they all look like our Romeo. How much trouble for Asya is that Mr. N. did not know what to do with her, and was decidedly angry when courageous determination was required of him; how much trouble is there in this for Asya, we don’t know. The first thought that comes to her is that this will cause very little trouble for her; on the contrary, thank God that the crappy weakness of character in our Romeo pushed the girl away from him even when it was not too late for Asya to be sad for several weeks, several months. and she will forget everything and can surrender to a new feeling, the object of which will be more worthy of her. So, but the trouble is that she will hardly meet a person more worthy; that is the sad comedy of our Romeo’s relationship with Asya, that our Romeo. - truly one of the best people in our society, that there are almost no people better than him in our country. Only then will Asya be satisfied with her relations with people when, like others, she begins to limit herself to beautiful reasoning, until the opportunity presents itself to start making speeches. and when the opportunity presents itself, he will bite his tongue and fold his hands, like everyone else does. Only then will they be satisfied with it; and now, first of all, of course, everyone will say that this girl is very sweet, with a noble soul, with amazing strength of character, in general a girl whom you cannot help but love, whom you cannot help but revere; but all this will be said only as long as Asya’s character is expressed in words alone, as long as it is only assumed that she is capable of a noble and decisive act; and as soon as she takes a step that in any way justifies the expectations inspired by her character, hundreds of voices will immediately shout: “For mercy, how is this possible, this is madness! To assign a rendez-vous to a young man! After all, she is ruining herself, ruining herself is completely useless! Nothing can come of this, absolutely nothing except that she will lose her reputation. Is it possible to risk herself so insanely? “Risk herself? That would be nothing,” others add. “Let her do with herself what she wants, but why expose others to trouble? What position has she put this poor man in?” young man? Did he think she would want to take him this far? What should he do now given her recklessness? If he follows her, he will destroy himself; if he refuses, he will be called a coward and he will despise himself. I don’t know whether it is noble to put people in such unpleasant situations who, it seems, have not given any special reason for such incongruous actions. No, this is not entirely noble. And the poor brother? What is his role? What bitter pill did his sister give him? He won't be able to digest this pill for the rest of his life. Nothing to say, my dear sister borrowed it! I don’t argue, all this is very good in words - noble aspirations, self-sacrifice, and God knows what wonderful things, but I will say one thing: I would not want to be Asya’s brother. I will say more: if I were in her brother’s place, I would lock her in her room for six months. For her own good, she needs to be locked up. She, you see, deigns to get carried away high feelings ; but what is it like to dispense to others what she deigned to brew? No, I will not call her action, I will not call her character noble, because I do not call those noble who frivolously and impudently harm others." Thus the general cry will be explained by the reasoning of sensible people. We are partly ashamed to admit, but still we have to admit, that these reasoning seem to us to be reasonable. In fact, Asya harms not only herself, but also everyone who had the misfortune of being close to her, and we cannot help but condemn those who, for their own pleasure, harm all their loved ones. By condemning Asya, we justify our Romeo. In fact, did he give her a reason to act recklessly? Did he not have the right to tell her that it was in vain that she confused him? unpleasant relationship? You are indignant at the fact that his words are harsh, you call them rude. But the truth is always harsh, and who will condemn me if even a rude word escapes me when I, innocent of anything, am entangled in an unpleasant matter; and are they pestering me to make me rejoice at the misfortune into which I was dragged? Beware of this, try to become a practical person in your opinions and for the first time try to reconcile at least with our Romeo, by the way we are already talking about him. I am ready to tell you the path by which I reached this result, not only regarding the scene with Asya, but also regarding everything in the world, that is, I became happy with everything that I see around me, I am not angry at anything, I am not upset by anything (except for failures in matters that are personally beneficial to me), I do not condemn anything or anyone in the world (except for people who violate my personal benefits), I do not wish for anything (except for my own benefit) - in a word, I will tell you how I turned from a bilious melancholic a man so practical and well-intentioned that I wouldn’t even be surprised if I received a reward for my good intentions. better than the first, but still there will be no special splendor in it, it will be called nothing more than a fairly decent ball, and the first one will be a decent ball. Thus, even the feeling of vanity with an income of 20 thousand is satisfied with very little more than with 10 thousand; As for pleasures that can be called positive, the difference in them is completely unnoticeable. Personally, a person with 10 thousand income has exactly the same table, exactly the same wine and a chair in the same row at the opera as a person with twenty thousand. The first is called a fairly rich man, and the second is also not considered an extremely rich man - there is no significant difference in their position; and yet, according to the routine accepted in society, everyone will rejoice when their income increases from 10 to 20 thousand, although in fact they will not notice almost any increase in their pleasures. People are generally terrible routineists: you only have to look deeper into their thoughts to discover this. Some gentleman will puzzle you extremely at first with the independence of his way of thinking from the society to which he belongs; he will seem to you, for example, a cosmopolitan, a man without class prejudices, etc., and he, like his acquaintances, imagines himself to be so from a pure heart. But observe more precisely a cosmopolitan, and he will turn out to be a Frenchman or a Russian with all the peculiarities of concepts and habits belonging to the nation to which he is classified according to his passport, he will turn out to be a landowner or official, a merchant or a professor with all the shades of the way of thinking belonging to his class. I am sure that the large number of people who have the habit of being angry with each other, blaming each other, depends solely on the fact that too few are engaged in observations of this kind; but just try to start peering into people in order to check whether this or that person, who at first seems different from others, really differs in anything important from other people of the same position, just try to engage in such observations, and this analysis will captivate you so much , will so interest your mind, will constantly deliver such calming impressions to your spirit that you will never be left behind and will very soon come to the conclusion: “Every person is like all people, in everyone there is exactly the same thing as in others." And the farther, the harder You you will become convinced of this axiom. Differences seem important only because they lie on the surface and are striking, but beneath the visible, apparent difference, perfect identity is hidden. And why on earth would a person really be a contradiction to all the laws of nature? After all, in nature, cedar and hyssop feed and bloom, elephants and mice move and eat, rejoice and get angry according to the same laws; under the external difference of forms lies the internal identity of the organism of a monkey and a whale, an eagle and a chicken; one has only to delve into the matter even more carefully, and we will see that not only different creatures of the same class, but also different classes of creatures are constructed and live according to the same principles, that the organisms of a mammal, a bird and a fish are the same, that a worm breathes like a mammal, although he has neither nostrils, nor a windpipe, nor lungs. Not only would the analogy with other beings be violated by non-recognition of the sameness of the basic rules and springs in the moral life of each person, but the analogy with his physical life would also be violated. Of two healthy people of the same age in the same mood, one’s pulse beats, of course, somewhat stronger and more often than the other’s; but is this difference great? It is so insignificant that science does not even pay attention to it. It's different when you compare people of different years or in different circumstances; a child's pulse beats twice as fast as an old man's, a sick person's pulse beats much more often or less frequently than a healthy one, someone who drank a glass of champagne beats more often than someone who drank a glass of water. But even here it is clear to everyone that the difference is not in the structure of the organism, but in the circumstances under which the organism is observed. And the old man, when he was a child, had a pulse as fast as the child with whom you compare him; and a healthy person’s pulse would weaken, just like a sick person’s if he fell ill with the same disease; and Peter, if he drank a glass of champagne, his pulse would increase in the same way as Ivan’s. I’m not even talking about this invaluable spiritual and practical benefit, I’m not even talking about how many monetary benefits wise condescension towards people will bring you: you will completely cordially welcome a scoundrel whom you would have driven away from yourself before; and this scoundrel may be a man of importance in society, and a good relationship with him will improve your own affairs. I’m not even saying that you yourself will then be less embarrassed by false doubts of conscience in taking advantage of those benefits that will come your way: why should you be embarrassed by excessive ticklishness if you are convinced that everyone would act in your place in exactly the same way? , just like you? I do not expose all these benefits, with the goal of pointing out only the purely scientific, theoretical importance of the belief in the sameness of human nature in all people. If all people are essentially the same, then where does the difference in their actions come from? Striving to achieve the main truth, we have already found in passing the conclusion from it that serves as the answer to this question. It is now clear to us that everything depends on social habits and on circumstances, that is, in the final result everything depends exclusively on circumstances, because social habits, in turn, also arose from circumstances. You blame a person - first look at whether he is to blame for what you blame him for, or whether the circumstances and habits of society are to blame, look carefully, perhaps it is not his fault at all, but only his misfortune. When talking about others, we are too inclined to consider every misfortune as guilt - this is the true misfortune for practical life, because guilt and misfortune are completely different things and require treatment, one not at all the same as the other. Guilt causes censure or even punishment against the person. Trouble requires assistance to a person through the elimination of circumstances stronger than his will. I knew a tailor who poked his apprentices in the teeth with a hot iron. Perhaps he can be called guilty, and he can be punished; but not every tailor pokes a hot iron into his teeth; examples of such fury are very rare. But almost every craftsman happens to get into a fight after drinking on a holiday - this is not a fault, but simply a misfortune. What is needed here is not punishment of an individual, but a change in living conditions for the whole class. The sadder is the harmful confusion of guilt and misfortune because it is very easy to distinguish between these two things; We have already seen one sign of difference: wine is a rarity, it is an exception to the rule; trouble is an epidemic. Deliberate arson is a fault; but out of millions of people there is one who decides to do this. There is another sign needed to complement the first. Trouble falls on the very person who fulfills the condition leading to trouble; guilt falls on others, benefiting the guilty. This last sign is extremely accurate. A robber kills a man in order to rob him, and finds it beneficial for himself - this is guilt. A careless hunter accidentally wounded a man and is the first to suffer from the misfortune he caused - this is not guilt, but simply misfortune. Let's start with the fact that the poor young man does not understand at all the business in which he is taking part. The point is clear, but he is obsessed with such stupidity that he is unable to reason with the most obvious facts. We absolutely do not know what to compare such blind stupidity to. The girl, incapable of any pretense, not knowing any trick, tells him: “I myself don’t know what’s happening to me. Sometimes I want to cry, but I laugh. You shouldn’t judge me... by what I do.” Oh, by the way, what is this tale about Lorelei? Isn’t it her rock that is visible? They say that she drowned everyone first, and when she fell in love, she threw herself into the water.” It seems clear what feeling awoke in her. Two minutes later, with excitement reflected even by the pallor on her face, she asks if he liked that lady whom, somehow jokingly, was mentioned in a conversation many days ago; then asks what he likes in a woman; when he notices how well the sky shines, she says: “Yes, good! If you and I were birds, how we would soar, how we would fly!.. We would drown in this blue... but we are not birds ".-- “But wings can grow on us,” I objected.-- “How so?” - “As you wait, you will find out. There are feelings that lift us from the ground. Don’t worry, you will have wings.” - “Did you have them?” - “How can I tell you?.., it seems that I haven’t flown yet.” The next day, when he came in, Asya blushed; I wanted to run away from the room; she was sad and finally, remembering yesterday’s conversation, told him: “Remember, yesterday you talked about wings? My wings have grown.” It seems that a person who has loved several times should understand what feeling is expressed in himself by these signs. It seems that a person who knew women well could understand what was going on in Asya’s heart. But when she writes to him that she loves him, this note completely amazes him: he, you see, did not foresee this in any way. Wonderful; but be that as it may, whether he foresaw or did not foresee that Asya loves him, it doesn’t matter: now he knows positively: Asya loves him, he now sees it; Well, what does he feel for Asya? He really doesn’t know how to answer this question. Poor thing! in his thirties, due to his youth, he would need to have an uncle who would tell him when he should wipe his nose, when he should go to bed and how many cups of tea he should have. When you see such a ridiculous inability to understand things, you may feel like you are either a child or an idiot. Neither one nor the other. Our Romeo is a very smart man, who, as we noticed, is nearly thirty years old, has experienced a lot in life, and has a rich stock of observations about himself and others. Where does his incredible slow-wittedness come from? Two circumstances are to blame for it, of which, however, one stems from the other, so it all comes down to one thing. He was not used to understanding anything great and living, because his life was too petty and soulless, all the relationships and affairs to which he was accustomed were petty and soulless. This is the first. Second: he is timid, he powerlessly retreats from everything that requires broad determination and noble risk, again because life has accustomed him only to pale pettiness in everything. He looks like a man who all his life played jumble for half a penny in silver; put this skilled player in a game in which the winnings or losses are not hryvnias, but thousands of rubles, and you will see that he will be completely embarrassed, that all his experience will be lost, all his art will be confused - he will make the most ridiculous moves, perhaps , will not be able to hold cards in his hands. He looks like a sailor who all his life made voyages from Kronstadt to St. Petersburg and very deftly knew how to navigate his small steamer according to the indications of milestones between countless shoals in semi-fresh water; what if suddenly this experienced swimmer sees himself in the ocean after a glass of water? Without acquiring the habit of original participation in civic affairs, without acquiring the feelings of a citizen, a male child, growing up, becomes a male being of middle and then old age, but he does not become a man, or at least does not become a man of noble character. It is better for a person not to develop than to develop without the influence of thoughts about public affairs, without the influence of the feelings awakened by participation in them. If from the circle of my observations, from the sphere of actions in which I move, ideas and motives that have a common benefit are excluded, that is, civic motives are excluded, what remains for me to observe? What remains for me to participate in? What remains is the busy confusion of individuals with their narrow personal concerns about their pockets, their bellies, or their amusements. If I begin to observe people in the form in which they appear to me when I distance myself from participation in civic activities, what concept of people and life will form in me? Once upon a time we loved Hoffmann, and his story was once translated about how, by a strange incident, the eyes of Mr. Perigrinus Thyss received the power of a microscope, and about what the results of this quality of his eyes were for his concepts about people. Beauty, nobility, virtue, love, friendship, everything beautiful and great disappeared from the world for him. Whoever he looks at, every man seems to him to be a vile coward or an insidious intriguer, every woman - a coquette, all people - liars and selfish, petty and base to the last degree. This terrible story could only have been created in the head of a person who had seen enough of what is called in Germany Kleinstadterei (The Outback (German).), who had seen enough of the life of people deprived of any participation in public affairs, limited to a closely measured circle of their private interests, who had lost all thought about anything higher than penny preference (which, however, was not yet known in the time of Hoffmann). Remember what a conversation becomes in any society, how soon the conversation ceases to be about public affairs? No matter how intelligent and noble the interlocutors are, if they do not talk about matters of public interest, they begin to gossip or idle talk; malicious vulgarity or dissolute vulgarity, in both cases senseless vulgarity - this is the character inevitably adopted by a conversation moving away from public interests. The nature of the conversation can be used to judge who is talking. If even people with the highest development of their concepts fall into empty and dirty vulgarity when their thoughts deviate from public interests, then it is easy to imagine what a society should be like if it lives in complete alienation from these interests. Imagine a person who was brought up living in such a society: what will be the conclusions from his experiences? What are the results of his observations of people? He understands everything vulgar and petty perfectly, but besides this, he understands nothing, because he has not seen or experienced anything. He could read God knows what wonderful things in books, he can find pleasure in thinking about these beautiful things; perhaps he even believes that they exist or should exist on earth, and not in books alone. But how do you want him to understand and guess them when they suddenly meet his unprepared gaze, experienced only in classifying nonsense and vulgarity? How do you want me, who was served wine under the name of champagne, which has never seen the vineyards of Champagne, but, however, a very good sparkling wine, how do you want me, when I am suddenly served truly champagne wine, to be able to say for sure: yes , is this really not a fake anymore? If I say this, I will be phat. My taste only feels that this wine is good, but have I drunk enough good fake wine? How do I know that this time they brought me a real wine? No, no, I am an expert in fakes, I can distinguish good from bad; but I cannot evaluate genuine wine. We would be happy, we would be noble, if only the unprepared look, the inexperience of thought prevented us from guessing and appreciating the high and great when it comes our way in life. But no, and our will is involved in this gross misunderstanding. It’s not just the concepts that have narrowed in me because of the vulgar narrow-mindedness in whose vanity I live; this character passed into my will: what is the breadth of vision, such is the breadth of decisions; and, besides, it is impossible not to get used to finally doing as everyone else does. The contagiousness of laughter and the contagiousness of yawning are not exceptional cases in social physiology; the same contagiousness belongs to all phenomena found among the masses. There is someone's fable about how some healthy person ended up in the kingdom of the lame and crooked. The fable says that everyone attacked him, why do he have both eyes and both legs intact; the fable lied because it didn’t finish the newcomer was attacked only at first, and when he settled in the new place, he himself squinted one eye and began to limp; It already seemed to him that it was more convenient, or at least more decent, to look and walk this way, and soon he even forgot that, strictly speaking, he was not lame or crooked. If you are a hunter of sad effects, you can add that when our visitor finally needed to walk with a firm step and look vigilantly with both eyes, he could no longer do this: it turned out that the closed eye no longer opened, the crooked leg no longer straightened; from long coercion the nerves and muscles of the poor distorted joints had lost the power to act in the right way. Anyone who touches the resin will turn black - as a punishment for himself, if he touched it voluntarily, to his own misfortune, if not voluntarily. It is impossible for someone who lives in a tavern not to be saturated with the drunken smell, even if he himself has not drunk a single glass; It is impossible not to be imbued with the pettiness of will for someone who lives in a society that has no aspirations other than petty everyday calculations. Shyness involuntarily creeps into my heart from the thought that I may have to make a lofty decision, boldly take a brave step off the beaten path of daily exercise. That’s why you try to assure yourself that no, the need for nothing so extraordinary has not yet come until the last moment. , you deliberately convince yourself that everything that seems to come out of habitual pettiness is nothing more than seduction. A child who is afraid of a beech closes his eyes and shouts as loudly as possible that there is no beech, that the beech is nonsense - by this, you see, he encourages himself. We are so smart that we try to convince ourselves that everything we are afraid of, we are afraid only because we have no strength for anything lofty - we try to convince ourselves that all this is nonsense, that they only scare us with it, like a child beech, but in essence there is nothing like that and never will be. Finding that in reality the decisive moment is approaching for them, which will determine their fate forever, we still do not want to say to ourselves: at the present time they are not able to understand their situation; are not able to act prudently and at the same time generously - only their children and grandchildren, brought up in other concepts and habits, will be able to act as honest and prudent citizens, and they themselves are now not suitable for the role that is given to them; we do not want to turn the words of the prophet to them: “They will see and will not see, they will hear and will not hear, because the sense in these people has become coarse, and their ears have become deaf and they have closed their eyes so as not to see,” no , we still want to believe them capable of understanding what is happening around them and above them, we want to think that they are able to follow the wise admonition of the voice that wanted to save them, and therefore we want to give them instructions on how to get rid of the troubles that are inevitable for people, those who do not know how to understand their situation in time and take advantage of the benefits that a fleeting hour represents. Against our wishes, our hope for the insight and energy of people weakens every day, whom we beg to understand the importance of present circumstances and act in accordance with common sense, but at least let them not say that they did not hear prudent advice, that it was not explained to them position. Among you, gentlemen (we will address these honorable people), there are quite a lot of literate people; they know how happiness was portrayed fatal moment: it was represented as a woman with a long braid blown in front of her by the wind carrying this woman; It’s easy to catch her while she’s flying towards you, but miss one moment - she’ll fly by, and you’d run in vain to catch her: you can’t grab her if you’re left behind. A happy moment cannot be returned. You will not wait until the favorable combination of circumstances repeats itself, just as the conjunction of the heavenly bodies that coincides with the present hour will not repeat. Not to miss a favorable moment is the highest condition of everyday prudence. Happy circumstances exist for each of us, but not everyone knows how to use them, and this art is almost the only difference between people whose lives are going well or badly. And for you, although perhaps you were not worthy of it, the circumstances turned out happily, so happily that your fate at the decisive moment depends solely on your will. Will you understand the demands of the time, will you be able to take advantage of the position in which you are now placed - that is the question of happiness or unhappiness for you forever. What are the methods and rules for not missing out on the happiness offered by circumstances? Like in what? Is it difficult to say what prudence requires in everyone? in this case ? Suppose, for example, that I have a lawsuit in which I am entirely to blame. Let us also assume that my opponent, who is completely right, is so accustomed to the injustices of fate that he can hardly believe in the possibility of waiting for the resolution of our litigation: it has been dragging on for several decades; many times asked He court, when the report would come, and many times he was answered “tomorrow or the day after tomorrow,” and each time months and months, years and years passed, and the case was not resolved. Why it dragged on so long, I don’t know, I only know that the chairman of the court for some reason favored me (he seemed to believe that I was devoted to him with all my soul). But then he received an order to resolve the matter immediately. Out of his friendship for me, he called me and said: “I cannot hesitate to resolve your case; it cannot end in your favor by judicial procedure - the laws are too clear; you will lose everything; the loss of property will not end for you; with the verdict of our civil the court will reveal circumstances for which you will be held accountable under criminal laws, and you know how strict they are; I don’t know what the decision of the criminal chamber will be, but I think that you will get off too easily if you are sentenced only to deprivation of rights. state, - between us, you can expect much worse. Today is Saturday; your lawsuit will be reported and decided; I have no power to postpone it further, with all my goodwill toward you. ? Take advantage of the day you have left: offer peace to your opponent; he still does not know how urgent the necessity is that I am placed in by the order I received; he heard that the lawsuit was being resolved on Monday, but he heard about its imminent solution so many times that he lost faith. to your hopes; now he will also agree to an amicable deal, which will be very beneficial for you in monetary terms, not to mention the fact that it will get you rid of the criminal process, acquire the name of a forgiving, generous person, who seems to have felt the voice of conscience and humanity himself . Try to end the litigation with an amicable deal. I ask you about this as your friend." What should I do now, let each of you say: would it be smart for me to rush to my enemy to conclude a peace deal? Or would it be smart to lie on my sofa for the only day remaining to me? Or would it be smart to attack with with rude curses at the judge who favored me, whose friendly advance gave me the opportunity to end my litigation with honor and benefit? From this example the reader sees how easy it is in this case to decide what prudence requires: “Try to reconcile with your opponent before you get there. you are with him until the trial, otherwise your adversary will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the executor, and you will be thrown into prison and will not come out of it until you have paid for everything down to the last detail" (Matt. , chapter V, verse. 25 and 26).
V
First published in the magazine "Athenaeum", 1858, No. 18. The article was written as a response to Turgenev's story "Asya", which was published in Sovremennik in the same year (No. 1). V.I. Lenin, speaking about the fact that Chernyshevsky raised real revolutionaries with censored articles, had in mind, in particular, this brilliant political pamphlet. Characterizing the cowardly and treacherous behavior of the Russian liberal during the first Russian revolution, Lenin in 1907 recalled the ardent Turgenev hero who escaped from Asya, the “hero” about whom Chernyshevsky wrote: “Russian man on rendez-vous.” Examining the main character of the story as if under a strong microscope, the critic discovers in him a commonality with other literary heroes of Russian literature, with the so-called “superfluous people.” Chernyshevsky’s attitude towards “superfluous people” was not unambiguous. Until about 1858, when the common democrats had not yet completely lost faith in the liberal nobility, the critic took under the protection of “superfluous people” from the attacks of the reactionary-protective press, contrasting them with the inert and complacent “existents.” However, the progressive meaning of “extra people” was limited; it had exhausted itself long before the start of the revolutionary situation in the 60s. In new historical conditions his reflections on “our Romeo,” the hero of the story “Asya,” who “was not used to understanding anything great and living, because his life was too petty and soulless, all the relationships and affairs to which he was accustomed were petty and soulless... he is timid, he powerlessly retreats from everything that requires broad determination and noble risk..." Meanwhile, this “slow-witted” person is smart, he has experienced a lot in life, and is rich in observations of himself and others. The critic-publicist in the article “Russian man on rendez-vous” addresses the noble liberal intelligentsia with a serious warning: whoever does not take into account the demands of the peasantry, does not meet the revolutionary democracy that defends the vital rights of the working people, will ultimately be swept away by the course of history. This is stated in an allegorical form, but quite definitely. The reader was led to this conclusion by the subtle analysis contained in Chernyshevsky’s article of the behavior of “our Romeo,” who was frightened selfless love the girl and the one who abandoned her. Page 398. Stories in a business... kind the critic ironically calls the works of so-called “accusatory literature” (see notes to “Provincial Essays”). Page 401. ...something... similar... on one of Georges Sand's novels. -- This refers to the novels "Indiana", "Jacques", "Consuelo" and others by the French writer Georges Sand (pseudonym of Aurora Dudevant, 1804-1876). Max Piccolomini - the hero of Schiller's dramas "Piccolomini" and "The Death of Wallenstein", a noble romantic dreamer."Faust". — Here we mean a story in nine letters by I. S. Turgenev, originally published in the magazine Sovremennik (1856, No. 10). Page 403. Beltov- the hero of the novel by A. I. Herzen "Who is to blame?" (1846) sacrifices his love in order not to bring suffering to the husband of the woman he loves. Page 412.- Chernyshevsky allegorically points to the antagonism between the nobles and the mixed-democratic intelligentsia. The pathos of the article lies in the affirmation of the idea of the disengagement of forces occurring during historical process: the “people of the forties” were replaced by a generation of sixties revolutionaries who led the people’s liberation movement.
Page 421. The end of the article is a detailed allegory. Chernyshevsky was forced to resort to allegories, talk about “litigation,” and turn to the gospel story in order to convey the idea of the irreconcilability of the class interests of the Russian peasantry and the serf-owner landowners.
I.A. Goncharov was one of the most prominent observers of the phenomenon of national character not only in Russian, but also in world literature. His novels “Oblomov” and “Break” represent an entire encyclopedia of Russian types, and “Frigate Pallas” demonstrates the writer’s extraordinary ability to instantly and accurately capture the essence of a national character in the most insignificant everyday manifestations. According to Goncharov, the national explains human behavior almost to a lesser extent than the social.
Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov felt the powerful influence of the “German genius”. In his works it is easy to find traces of creative contact with such giants German culture, like F. Schiller, I. Goethe, G. Heine. Played a huge role personal experience writer. After all, his life was spent in the Volga region and St. Petersburg - two regions of the traditional settlement of Russian Germans. To some extent, Russian Germans were even involved in Goncharov’s upbringing. In one of his autobiographies, he wrote: “I received my initial education in sciences and languages, French and German, in a small boarding school, which was maintained on the estate of Princess Khovanskaya, beyond the Volga, by a village priest, very intelligent and learned man, married to a foreigner" [ 1 ]. Another autobiography explains that, firstly, this foreigner was German, and secondly, it was she who taught the future writer the first lessons of French and German: “Here with the priest’s wife, a German woman who converted to Orthodoxy, he laid the foundation for the study of French and German languages".
Obviously, already during this period, on the Volga, the writer saw examples of “German education” based on instilling the habit of hard and energetic work, as well as moral independence and responsibility of the individual. Strengths This upbringing could not help but catch the eye and serve as a constant background for reflections on “Oblomovism,” reflections that began very early (V, 242). This upbringing is called “labor, practical upbringing” in the novel “Oblomov.” If we talk about Goncharov’s direct personal impressions of the Russian Germans, then there were quite a lot of them throughout the writer’s subsequent life: at the university, in the service, on a circumnavigation, even among relatives (through the wife of his brother, N.A. Goncharov) .
Already in Goncharov’s first novel, “Ordinary History,” there are references to Russian Germans. These are two opposites psychological type. One of them is Yulia Tafaeva’s teacher, an extremely awkward and insecure person. This image was undoubtedly inspired by Goncharov’s real meetings with German teachers who taught at the Commercial School. He always remembered this school with longing and irritation. In a special artistic context, Goncharov depicts the piety of a German teacher who teaches German and literature by Yulia Tafaeva. In this regard, it is curious how the teacher selects books for Julia: “The first book was: “Idylls” by Gesner,” “Gut!” said the German and read with pleasure the idyll about a broken jug. He unfolded the second book: “Gothic calendar of 1804.” He leafed through it: there are dynasties of European sovereigns, pictures of various castles, waterfalls, - “Sehr gut!” - said the German - the Bible: he put it aside, muttering piously: “Nein!”... Another German in the novel. - virtuoso musician.
Especially great place in this row are occupied by the "Baltic Sea people". The writer observed them during his service in St. Petersburg, and subsequently, during the period summer holiday for several years, in the Baltic region. These impressions were superimposed by others - directly from Germany, where he first came in 1857. In “Servants of the Old Century,” he writes, for example, that “I saw how in Germany, with a smoking pipe in their teeth, peasants plow, peasant women in straw hats reap.” From all this, the writer’s ideas were developed both about the German national character and about the role that Germans play in Russian life. If in " Ordinary history“The Germans are random characters, then in Oblomov, Stolz’s German origin is a fundamentally important point.
The parallel between Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts has become almost a commonplace. Meanwhile, it is not as clear-cut as it might seem. The general tone of Goncharov's reflections on Russia is determined by his idea of it as a country of enormous, but not yet developed, possibilities. According to the writer, Russia is still just entering European civilization. Goncharov is pleased to welcome all those internal forces, which contribute to Russia’s advancement towards pan-European life and vice versa, condemns “stagnation, sleep, immobility” (VIII, 80). In this sense, in the national character he is only interested in a certain dominant: a person’s ability to be a worker, a transformer of life. He mentions this dominant in the article “Better late than never,” speaking about the image of Stolz and the role “that both the German element and the Germans have played and still play in Russian life. Until now, they are our teachers, professors, mechanics , engineers, technicians in all parts. The best and richest branches of industry, trade and other enterprises are in their hands. This is, of course, annoying, but it is fair... To deny the usefulness of this influx of foreign elements into Russian life is both unfair and impossible. They bring into all kinds and types of activity, first of all, their patience, the perseverance (perseverance) of their race, and then many other qualities..." (VIII, 81). In a letter to Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov, Goncharov supplements his judgments: “They... will teach the Russians, us, their truly enviable tribal qualities, lacking in the Slavic races - this is perseverance in every matter... and systematic. Armed with these qualities, we will then, and only then, show what natural forces and what wealth Russia possesses!
For now, we have nothing else to learn from the Baltic cultural leaders and nothing to borrow" [ 2 ].
The comparison of Oblomov and Stolz in the novel is a comparison of a “worker” and a lordly “lazy person.” If Stolz is, according to Goncharov, “a model of energy, knowledge, labor, and all strength in general” (VSh, 80), then Oblomov embodies “laziness and apathy in all its breadth and inveterateness as a spontaneous Russian trait” (VSh, 80). Accordingly, Stolz presents those traits that the “Slavic races” lack. Much in the images of these two heroes is built on the principle of direct and unambiguous opposition.
About Ilya Ilyich, for example, it is said: “His body, judging by the matte, too white color of his neck, small plump arms, soft shoulders, seemed too pampered for a man.” Andrei Stolts is characterized completely differently: “He is all made up of bones, muscles and nerves... He is thin... bone and muscle, but not a sign of fatty roundness.” The contrast is deepened by other characteristics: “Ilya Ilyich’s lying down... was his normal state,” while Stolz was “constantly on the move”; “Oblomov loved to withdraw into himself and live in the world he created,” while Stolz “most of all... was afraid of imagination... He was afraid of every dream.” The dreamy Oblomov cannot realize his plans: “The desire is about to come true, turn into a feat. But... morning flashes by, the day is already approaching evening, and with it Oblomov’s weary strength tends to peace: storms and unrest are reconciled in the soul. ..". Stolz has a different story: “Above all else he placed persistence in achieving goals... He walked towards his goal, bravely walking through all obstacles...” The contrasts are too obvious. Moreover, it is also obvious that what we are faced with is not a difference of individuality, but a contrast of national mentalities: Russian and German. True, it is not as clear as it might seem at first glance.
A contemporary of the writer, historian N.I. Kostomarov did not make a discovery, but only generalized what was known when he wrote: “The enmity of the German tribe with the Slavic tribe belongs to such a worldwide historical phenomenon, the beginning of which is inaccessible to research, because it is hidden in the darkness of prehistoric times. Despite the paucity of our information, we see more than once in distant antiquity there were signs of pressure from the German tribe over the Slavic tribe" [ 3 ]. Later, the philosopher N. Berdyaev gives a philosophical justification for this historical fact: “The Germanic race is courageous, self-confidently and limitedly masculine. The Germanic world feels the femininity of the Slavic race and thinks that it should own this race and its land, that only it is able to make this land cultural. For a long time already, Germanism sent its matchmakers, had its agents and felt Russia was destined for itself. The entire St. Petersburg period of Russian history was under the sign of the internal and external influence of the Germans. The Russian people were almost ready to come to terms with the fact that only the Germans could rule them and civilize them. And a completely exceptional world catastrophe was needed, it was necessary. the madness of Germanism from pride and conceit, so that Russia realizes itself..." [ 4 ].
Such judgments, absolutely clearly expressed in the twentieth century, of course, could not help but circulate (albeit in a more vague expression) in Russia in the nineteenth century, for there was a fact: the long-standing historical presence of the Germans on Russian soil and their historical superiority in civilizing activities. An ambivalent attitude towards Russian Germans was inevitable.
In an article with the characteristic title “Russian apathy and German activity,” critic A.P. Miliukov wrote: “Should we really recognize a fresh nature, an ideal in this Stolz... In this anti-apathetic nature, under the mask of education and humanity, the desire for reforms and progress, hides everything that is so contrary to our Russian character and outlook on life. In It was in these stolz that the foundations of the oppression that weighed so heavily on our society were hidden" [ 5 ]. Many other critics of the novel wrote about the same thing. Even N.A. Dobrolyubov, who so ardently spoke out against “Oblomovism,” did not recognize it as a national disease, and Stolz as the ideal of a Russian figure.
In Russian literature, since the time of the unforgettable Biron, the German theme has often developed with a sharply negative connotation. As a rule, such features were emphasized as the methodical nature of the German, sometimes reaching the point of cruelty, lack of sincerity, exceptional prudence, stinginess, desire to get the better of the Russian person, etc. At the same time, they noted with pleasure the “liquid nature” of the German in comparison with the Russian. One of the most typical examples is the image of Biron in “The Ice House” by I.I. Lazhechnikova. It is worth recalling the “sin” of Herman from “The Queen of Spades” by A.S. Pushkin. N.V. Gogol, starting with “Hanz Küchelgarten,” develops the German theme in his work, sometimes to the point of national parody, reproducing the folklore perception of the German by the Russian people. His characters use many proverbs that have developed in the Russian language about Germans. So, in “Vladimir of the Third Stage” the characters talk about German stinginess: “That’s a German cigar... He’s stingy, the damned little thing... He won’t drink beer at his own expense, the German sausage!” In “The Night Before Christmas” Gogol depicts the devil through a comparison with a German: “In front he is completely German...” The image of the “German-devil”, the German who brought Western “devilishness” to Russia, is deeply philosophical and organic, it manifests itself in one way or another in the works of many authors in Russian literature. In “Nevsky Prospekt” Gogol gives a traditional perception of German methodology: “Schiller was a perfect German... From the age of twenty, from that happy time in which the Russian man lives on fufu, Schiller already measured out his entire life and no, no in no case did he make an exception... He set himself within ten years to build up a capital of fifty thousand, and this was already as true and irresistible as fate..."
The folklore layer of perception of Russian Germans is also present in the novel “Oblomov”. First of all, this concerns Oblomov’s servant, Zakhar, talking about his neighbors: “Where will the Germans take their rubbish... Look how they live! The whole family has been gnawing on bones for a whole week. The frock coat passes from the father’s shoulders to the son, and from the son again on the father. The wife and daughters are wearing short dresses: everyone tucks their legs under them like geese... Where can they get dirty laundry?”
However, Goncharov constantly corrects the national perception of the Germans with emphasized sobriety and pragmatism. In the case of Zakhar, this is expressed in self-parody, which Zakhar does not notice when he continues his speech: “We don’t have this, like we do, for a bunch of old worn-out clothes to lie in the closets for years or a whole corner of bread crusts to accumulate for the winter... "
Expressing the traditional folklore perception of the German, Goncharov, following Gogol, resorts to a proverb. Letting Ilyusha Oblomov go to Verkhlevo to the Stolts and loading him with food supplies, the Oblomovites say: “You won’t get hungry there, they’ll give you soup for lunch, and frying pan, and potatoes, with butter for tea, and for dinner, morgen fries - wipe your nose.”
However, Goncharov was not absolutely the first who managed to rise above the purely “shabby” perception of the problem of the Russian Germans. The same Lazhechnikov in the novel “Basurman” showed the struggle of two points of view on the “German graft” to Russian life. The craving for enlightenment, culture, and Europeanization of Russian life collides in the novel with “Oblomovism,” interpreted in the spirit of the cruel mores of the Russian Middle Ages. "Basurman" was written from an educational perspective; the author historically correctly assesses the contribution of the Germans to Russian civilization.
Gogol also shows objectivity in the microplot about the shoemaker Maxim Telyatnikov in “Dead Souls,” in which the closeness to the concept of Goncharov’s “Oblomov” is clearly visible. Chichikov says about his late shoemaker: “You studied with a German who fed you all together, beat you with a belt for sloppiness and didn’t let you out into the street to hang out, and you were a miracle, not a shoemaker, and the German didn’t boast about you when talking to his wife or a comrade. And how did your teaching end: “Now I’ll start my own little house,” you said, “but not like a German, who costs a penny, but suddenly I’ll get rich”... I got some rotten leather somewhere for a fraction of the price and You definitely won twice on every boot, but after two weeks your boots were full... And now your shop was deserted, and you went to drink and wallow in the streets, saying: “No, it’s bad in the world! There is no life for the Russian man, all the Germans are in the way"..."
Nevertheless, it is Goncharov who deserves the credit for a balanced, objective, strictly historical formulation of the question of the role of Russian Germans in the historical development of Russia. For the first time, the concept of a Russian novel was built on a comparison of the abilities of a Russian person and a German to act for the benefit of Russia. Author with to a large extent national self-criticism, patriotism and spiritual freedom, resolves the issue in favor of the German, not the Russian, which could not but give rise to countless accusations of lack of patriotism. In essence, Goncharov based his concept on the bitter confessions formulated in the above quotes from his article and letter: “This, of course, is annoying, but fair”; “They will teach... us their truly enviable tribal qualities, which are missing in the Slavic races...”
Goncharov set a direct task for the Russian people: to learn from the Germans, to learn, throwing away the feeling of national arrogance, throwing away historically established grievances, etc., for the future good of Russia: “Armed with these qualities, we will then, and only then, show what natural forces and what riches Russia has!"
Reflecting on the fate of Russia, on its prospects historical development, the author of "Oblomov" could limit himself to the given single-plane diagram. However, the parallel between Oblomov and Stolz is not so simple. Goncharov poses general philosophical questions in the novel: about the meaning of life, about a harmonious person, about the correlation between “mind” and “heart,” etc. All these issues are considered by the author in a process of constant dialogical comparison of positions. The “tribal qualities” of Oblomov and Stolz in this dialogue turn into different sides. Thus, Oblomov’s Slavic “female” nature is distinguished by “lazy grace,” plasticity, softness, contemplation, “dovelike tenderness,” cordiality, sincerity; Stolz expresses a strong-willed and rational, sometimes rational, active principle. Oblomov is a fatalist and contemplator, Stolz is a strong-willed transformer. Oblomov sees the meaning of life and work in rest, Stolz in work itself. Oblomov is drawn to the idyll, to nature, Stolz - to society.
In the novel, philosophical issues are examined in the process of a subtle comparative game with national characters. Moreover, this game is very dynamic and moving: Oblomov is not always Russian, just like Stolz is not always German in his philosophical manifestations and attitudes. Sometimes Oblomov appears as a contemplative ancient philosopher, sometimes as a representative of Asia and the Asian attitude to life. In the same way, Stolz sometimes manifests himself as a European in general. Nevertheless, a fairly wide range of Russian and German national characters with their general popularity in the main (“spirituality”, “cordiality” - “will”, “reason”) allowed the novelist to lead artistic research a wide range of philosophical issues by searching for a “measure”, a “golden mean” between polar extremes.
During the comparison, both the strengths and weaknesses of both characters are revealed. It is quite obvious that in Stolz the author lacks aesthetic breadth, plasticity, spontaneity, and cordiality. Goncharov does not agree with the judgments about the German character expressed by Zakhar or the Oblomovites, but he certainly accepts something in these judgments. It is no coincidence that Andrei Stolz’s mother “did not like the rudeness, independence and arrogance with which the German masses everywhere present their burgher rights, developed over a millennium, like a cow wears its horns, not being able, by the way, to hide them.” The vocabulary and style of this passage show that there is an assessment here not only of the heroine, but also of the author. Goncharov recognizes burghership as a national characteristic. Another thing is that he does not limit the national character - unlike his heroes - only to the burghers. Obviously, he does not at all agree with Mrs. Stolz’s assumption that “in the entire German nation there was not and could not be a single gentleman.” By the way, Stolz’s mother is depicted in the novel with a certain amount of irony: she is “infected” with Oblomov’s psychology, although this psychology is given in her character in a somewhat ennobled version.
Comparing Oblomov and Stolz is not always in favor of the latter. In Oblomov there is more sincerity, thoughts about the ultimate purpose of man and human life, he has a subtler and deeper understanding of beauty and nobility. In the scene with Tarantyev’s slap in the face, he appears as a knight, etc. The author's love for the Russian people is ultimately undeniable. In essence, the endless love for Ilya Ilyich prompted the writer to strike that brilliant nostalgic note that permeates the entire “life” of the idyllic man Oblomov. Goncharov describes the hero Ilya as a powerless patient dying, it would seem, because of trifles. He describes it in such a way that every reader feels sorry for Oblomov along with him. Goncharov wants the hero Ilya to recover, to finally get up from his bed, to shake himself off from sleep. This is why he makes a terrible diagnosis of the disease, this is why he brings a half-foreigner onto the stage as a model: “annoying, but fair.”
The novel constantly intertwines national and historical plans for assessing the heroes. From the point of view of national characters, Stolz and Oblomov have their own advantages and disadvantages. The author, putting forward the idea of a harmonious person, would perhaps like Stolz to be more serious, sincere, and Oblomov to be more strong-willed and rational. How hard it is for the Russian heart to endure the fact that a foreigner is put forward as a role model. But maybe this is exactly what Goncharov was looking for - annoyance that provokes action, a moral shake-up? Maybe he thought the disease was too advanced?
In the article “Better late than never” he wrote: “But I was reproached... why did I put a German, and not a Russian, in contrast to Oblomov?.. Especially, it seems, the Slavophiles - both for the unflattering image of Oblomov and most of all for the German - they didn’t want to know me, so to speak. The late F. Tyutchev once affectionately... reproaching me, asked “why did I take Stolz!” however, it seems, against my will - there was actually no mistake here..."
This dramatic in spirit appeal to the “German element” reveals in the author of “Oblomov” an undoubted patriot, extremely soberly and with genuine love thinking about the prospects of Russian life and overcoming its possible “cliffs”.
Melnik Vladimir Ivanovich, Doctor of Philology, Professor
FOOTNOTES
1 - Goncharov I.A. Collection Op. in 8 volumes. T.8. M., 1955. P. 221. Further references to this publication are given in the text indicating the volume and page.
2 - RO IRLI. F. 137, N 64.
3 - Kostomarov N.I. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. Issue 1. St. Petersburg, 1893. P. 154.
4 - Nikolay Berdyaev. The fate of Russia. Experiments on the psychology of war and nationality. M., 1918. pp. 16-17.
5 - Roman I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" in Russian criticism. L., 1991. P. 138.
Reads in 6 minutes
“Russian man at rendez-vous” refers to journalism and has the subtitle “Reflections on reading Mr. Turgenev’s story “Asya”. At the same time, in the article Chernyshevsky gives a broader picture associated with his contemporary Russian society, namely, with the image of the “positive hero” of stories and novels, who in a number of situations displays unexpected negative character traits (indecisiveness, cowardice). First of all, these traits manifest themselves in love and personal relationships.
The title of the article is directly related to the reason for its writing. Food for thought was the ambiguous situation in the story “Asya”, when the girl showed determination and herself made an appointment with the hero (“rendez-vous”).
In the very first lines - impressions of the date scene in the story “Asya”, when main character(perceived by the reader of the story as “positive” and even “ideal”) says to the girl who came on a date with him: “You are to blame for me, you got me into trouble and I must end my relationship with you.” "What it is?" - Chernyshevsky exclaims. - “What is she to blame for? Was it because she considered him a decent person? Compromised his reputation by going on a date with him? This man is worse than a notorious scoundrel.”
Next, the author analyzes love line a number of Turgenev’s works (“Faust”, “Rudin”) in order to understand whether the author was mistaken in his hero or not (the story “Asya”), and comes to the conclusion that in Turgenev’s works the main character personifies the “ideal side” in love affairs he behaves like a “pathetic scoundrel.” “In Faust, the hero tries to cheer himself up by the fact that neither he nor Vera have serious feelings for each other. He behaves in such a way that Vera herself must tell him that she loves him. In “Rudin” the matter ends with the offended girl turning away from him (Rudin), almost ashamed of her love for the coward.”
Chernyshevsky asks the question: “Perhaps this pitiful trait in the character of the heroes is a feature of Mr. Turgenev’s stories?” - And he himself answers: “But remember any good, true to life story of any of our current poets. If there is an ideal side to the story, rest assured that the representative of this ideal side acts exactly the same as the people of Mr. Turgenev.” In order to argue his point of view, the author, as an example, analyzes the behavior of the protagonist of Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”: “I explained to Sasha that “you should not weaken in soul”, because “the sun of truth will rise above the earth” and that you need to act to realize your aspirations, and then, when Sasha gets down to business, he says that all this is in vain and will lead nowhere, that he was “talking empty talk.” In the same way, he prefers retreat to any decisive step.” Returning to the analysis of the story “Asya,” Chernyshevsky concludes: “These are our best people.”
Then the author unexpectedly declares that the hero should not be condemned, and begins to talk about himself and his worldview: “I have become satisfied with everything that I see around me, I am not angry at anything, I am not upset by anything (except for failures in business, personally beneficial for me), I do not condemn anything or anyone in the world (except for people who violate my personal benefits), I do not wish for anything (except for my own benefit) - in a word, I will tell you how I turned from a bilious melancholic into a person who was so practical and well-intentioned that I wouldn’t even be surprised if I receive a reward for my good intentions.” Further, Chernyshevsky resorts to a detailed contrast between “trouble” and “guilt”: “A robber stabbed a man to rob him, and finds it beneficial for himself - this is guilt. A careless hunter accidentally wounded a man and is the first to suffer from the misfortune he caused - this is not guilt, but simply misfortune.” What happens to the hero of the story “Asya” is a disaster. He does not receive benefit and pleasure from the situation when a girl in love with him strives to be with him, and he backs down: “The poor young man does not understand at all the business in which he is taking part. The matter is clear, but he is possessed by such stupidity that the most obvious facts are unable to reason with him.” Next, the author gives a number of examples from the text when Asya allegorically, but very clearly let “our Romeo” understand what she was really experiencing - but he did not understand. “Why do we analyze our hero so harshly? Why is he worse than others? Why is he worse than all of us?
Chernyshevsky reflects on happiness and the ability not to miss the opportunity to be happy (which the hero of the story “Asya” fails to do): “Happiness in ancient mythology was represented as a woman with a long braid blown in front of her by the wind carrying this woman; It’s easy to catch her while she’s flying towards you, but miss one moment - she’ll fly by, and you’d run in vain to catch her: you can’t grab her if you’re left behind. A happy moment cannot be returned. Not to miss a favorable moment is the highest condition of everyday prudence. Happy circumstances exist for each of us, but not everyone knows how to use them.”
At the end of the article, Chernyshevsky gives a detailed allegory when, in a situation of a long-lasting and exhausting legal battle, the hearing is postponed for a day. “What should I do now, let each of you say: would it be smart for me to rush to my enemy to conclude a peace deal? Or would it be smart to lie on my couch for the only day I have left? Or would it be smart to attack with rude curses a judge who was favorable to me, whose friendly warning gave me the opportunity to end my litigation with honor and benefit for myself?
The article ends with a quote from the Gospel: “Try to reconcile with your adversary before you reach the court with him, otherwise your adversary will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the executor of sentences, and you will be thrown into prison and will not come out of it until you will pay for everything to the last detail” (Matt., chapter V, verses 25 and 26).
Chernyshevsky N. G. Russian man on rendez-vous
Reflections on reading Mr. Turgenev's story "Asya"
Library of Russian classics
N. G. Chernyshevsky. Collected works in five volumes.
Volume 3. Literary criticism
Library "Ogonyok".
M., "Pravda", 1974
OCR Bychkov M.N.
“Stories of a businesslike, incriminating nature leave a very difficult impression on the reader; therefore, while recognizing their usefulness and nobility, I am not entirely satisfied that our literature has taken exclusively such a gloomy direction.”
This is what quite a lot of people say, apparently not stupid, or, better to say, they said so until the peasant question became the only subject of all thoughts, all conversations. Whether their words are fair or unfair, I don’t know; but I happened to be under the influence of such thoughts when I began to read perhaps the only good new story, from which, from the first pages, one could already expect a completely different content, a different pathos, than from business stories. There is no trickery with violence and bribery, no dirty swindlers, no official villains explaining in elegant language that they are the benefactors of society, no philistines, peasants and little officials tormented by all these terrible and disgusting people. The action is abroad, far from all the bad surroundings of our home life. All the characters in the story are among the best among us, very educated, extremely humane: imbued with the noblest way of thinking. The story has a purely poetic, ideal direction, not touching on any of the so-called black sides of life. Here, I thought, my soul will rest and be refreshed. And indeed, she was refreshed by these poetic ideals until the story reached the decisive moment. But the last pages of the story are not similar to the first, and after reading the story, the impression left from it is even more bleak than from the stories about disgusting bribe takers with their cynical robbery. They do bad things, but they are recognized by each of us as bad people; It is not from them that we expect improvements in our lives. There are, we think, forces in society that will put a barrier to their harmful influence, that will change the nature of our life with their nobility. This illusion is most bitterly rejected in the story, which awakens the brightest expectations with its first half.
Here is a man whose heart is open to all high feelings, whose honesty is unshakable, whose thought has absorbed everything for which our century is called the century of noble aspirations. So what is this man doing? He makes a scene that would put the last bribe-taker to shame. He feels the strongest and purest sympathy for the girl who loves him; he cannot live an hour without seeing this girl; all day and all night his thoughts draw him a beautiful image of her; the time of love has come for him, you think, when the heart is drowned in bliss. We see Romeo, we see Juliet, whose happiness nothing interferes with, and the moment is approaching when their fate will be decided forever - for this Romeo must only say: “I love you, do you love me?” And Juliet will whisper: “Yes...” And what does our Romeo (as we will call the hero of the story, whose last name was not told to us by the author of the story) do when he goes on a date with Juliet? With trembling love, Juliet awaits her Romeo; she must learn from him that he loves her - this word was not uttered between them, it will now be uttered by him, they will be united forever; bliss awaits them, such a high and pure bliss, the enthusiasm of which makes the solemn moment of decision barely bearable for the earthly organism. People died from less joy. She sits like a frightened bird, covering her face from the radiance of the sun of love appearing before her; she is breathing quickly, trembling all over; she lowers her eyes even more tremblingly when he enters and calls her name; she wants to look at him and cannot; he takes her hand - this hand is cold, lies as if dead in his hand; she wants to smile; but her pale lips cannot smile. She wants to talk to him, and her voice breaks. They both were silent for a long time - and, as he himself says, his heart melted, and now Romeo says to his Juliet... and what does he say to her? “You are to blame for me,” he tells her; “you got me into trouble, I am dissatisfied with you, you are compromising me, and I must end my relationship with you; it is very unpleasant for me to part with you, but if you please, get out of here.” away." What it is? What is her fault? Was it because she considered him a decent person? Compromised his reputation by going on a date with him? This is amazing! Every feature in her pale face says that she is waiting for her fate to be decided by his word, that she has given her whole soul to him irrevocably and now only expects him to say that he accepts her soul, her life, and he reprimands her for that she is compromising him! What kind of ridiculous cruelty is this? What kind of low rudeness is this? And this man, who acts so vilely, has been presented as noble until now! He deceived us, deceived the author. Yes, the poet made a very serious mistake in imagining that he was telling us about a decent person. This man is worse than a notorious scoundrel.
Such was the impression made on many by the completely unexpected turn in the relationship of our Romeo to his Juliet. We have heard from many that the whole story is spoiled by this outrageous scene, that the character of the main person is not sustained, that if this person is what he appears to be in the first half of the story, then he could not have acted with such vulgar rudeness, and if he could have acted like that, then From the very beginning he should have appeared to us as a completely crappy person.
It would be very comforting to think that the author was really mistaken, but the sad dignity of his story lies in the fact that the character of the hero is true to our society. Perhaps, if this character were such as people would like to see him, dissatisfied with his rudeness on a date, if he were not afraid to give himself to the love that took possession of him, the story would have won in an ideally poetic sense. The enthusiasm of the first date scene would be followed by several other highly poetic minutes, the quiet charm of the first half of the story would rise to pathetic charm in the second half, and instead of the first act from Romeo and Juliet with an ending in the style of Pechorin, we would have something really similar to Romeo and Juliet, or at least one of Georges Sand's novels. Anyone looking for a poetically complete impression in a story should really condemn the author, who, having lured him with sublimely sweet expectations, suddenly showed him some vulgar, absurd vanity of petty, timid egoism in a man who started out like Max Piccolomini and ended up like some Zakhar Sidorich, playing penny preference.
But was the author really wrong about his hero? If he made a mistake, this is not the first time he makes this mistake. No matter how many stories he had that led to a similar situation, each time his heroes emerged from these situations in no other way than being completely embarrassed in front of us. In Faust, the hero tries to cheer himself up by the fact that neither he nor Vera have serious feelings for each other; sitting with her, dreaming about her is his business, but in terms of determination, even in words, he behaves in such a way that Vera herself must tell him that she loves him; For several minutes the conversation had been going on in such a way that he should definitely have said this, but he, you see, did not guess and did not dare to tell her this; and when the woman who must accept the explanation is finally forced to make the explanation herself, he, you see, “froze,” but felt that “a wave of bliss was running through his heart,” only, however, “from time to time,” but actually speaking, he “completely lost his head” - it’s only a pity that he didn’t faint, and even that would have happened if he hadn’t come across a tree to lean against. As soon as the man had time to recover, the woman he loves, who expressed her love to him, approaches him and asks what he intends to do now? He... he was "embarrassed." It is not surprising that after such behavior of a loved one (otherwise, the image of this gentleman’s actions cannot be called “behavior”), the poor woman developed a nervous fever; It’s even more natural that he then began to cry about his fate. It's in Faust; almost the same in "Rudin". Rudin at first behaves somewhat more decently for a man than the previous heroes: he is so decisive that he himself tells Natalya about his love (although he does not speak of his own free will, but because he is forced to this conversation); he himself asks her for a date. But when Natalya on this date tells him that she will marry him, with or without the consent of her mother, it doesn’t matter, as long as he loves her, when he says the words: “Know, I will be yours,” Rudin only finds an exclamation in response : "Oh my God!" - an exclamation more embarrassed than enthusiastic - and then he acts so well, that is, to such an extent he is cowardly and lethargic, that Natalya is forced to invite him on a date herself to decide what to do. Having received the note, “he saw that the denouement was approaching, and was secretly troubled in spirit.” Natalya says that her mother told her that she would rather see her daughter dead than Rudin’s wife, and again asks Rudin what he intends to do now. Rudin still answers, “My God, my God,” and adds even more naively: “So soon! what am I going to do? my head is spinning, I can’t figure out anything.” But then he realizes that he should “submit.” Called a coward, he begins to reproach Natalya, then lectures her about his honesty and to the remark that this is not what she should hear now from him, replies that he did not expect such decisiveness. The matter ends with the offended girl turning away from him, almost ashamed of her love for the coward.
But perhaps this pitiful trait in the characters’ characters is a feature of Mr. Turgenev’s stories? Perhaps it is the nature of his talent that inclines him to portray such faces? Not at all; the nature of the talent, it seems to us, means nothing here. Remember any good story true to life by any of our current poets, and if there is an ideal side to the story, be sure that the representative of this ideal side acts exactly the same as the people of Mr. Turgenev. For example, the nature of Mr. Nekrasov’s talent is not at all the same as Mr. Turgenev’s; You can find any shortcomings in him, but no one will say that Mr. Nekrasov’s talent lacks energy and firmness. What does the hero do in his poem "Sasha"? He explained to Sasha that, he says, “you should not weaken in soul,” because “the sun of righteousness will rise above the earth,” and that you need to act to fulfill your aspirations, and then, when Sasha gets down to business, he says that all this is in vain and It won’t lead to anything that he was “talking empty talk.” Let us remember how Beltov acts: in the same way he prefers retreat to any decisive step. There could be a lot of similar examples. Everywhere, whatever the character of the poet, whatever his personal concepts about the actions of his hero, the hero acts in the same way as all other decent people, similar to him, bred from other poets: while there is no talk of business, but you just need to occupy idle time, to fill an idle head or an idle heart with conversations and dreams, the hero is very lively; As the matter approaches to directly and accurately express their feelings and desires, most of the heroes begin to hesitate and feel clumsy in their language. A few, the bravest, somehow still manage to gather all their strength and tongue-tiedly express something that gives a vague idea of their thoughts; but if anyone decides to grab hold of their desires, to say: “You want such and such; we are very glad; start acting, and we will support you,” - at such a remark, one half of the bravest heroes faints, others begin to reproach you very rudely for putting them in an awkward position, they begin to say that they did not expect such proposals from you, that they completely lose their heads, cannot figure anything out, because “how is it possible so soon?” and “besides, they are honest people,” and not only honest, but very meek and do not want to expose you to trouble, and that in general, is it really possible to bother about everything that is talked about out of nothing to do, and that the best thing is - - not to take on anything, because everything is connected with troubles and inconveniences, and nothing good can happen yet, because, as already said, they “didn’t expect or expect anything” and so on.
These are our “best people” - they are all like our Romeo. How much trouble for Asya is that Mr. N. did not know what to do with her, and was decidedly angry when courageous determination was required of him; We don’t know how much trouble there is in this for Asya. The first thought that comes to her is that this will cause her very little trouble; on the contrary, and thank God that the crappy impotence of character in our Romeo pushed the girl away from him even when it was not too late. Asya will be sad for several weeks, several months and will forget everything and may surrender to a new feeling, the object of which will be more worthy of her. Yes, but that’s the trouble, she’s unlikely to meet a more worthy person; This is the sad comedy of our Romeo’s relationship with Asya, that our Romeo is truly one of the best people in our society, that there are almost no people better than him in our country. Only then will Asya be satisfied with her relationships with people, when, like others, she begins to limit herself to beautiful reasoning, until the opportunity presents itself to start making speeches, and when the opportunity presents itself, she will bite her tongue and fold her hands, as everyone else does. Only then will they be satisfied with it; and now, first of all, of course, everyone will say that this girl is very sweet, with a noble soul, with amazing strength of character, in general a girl whom you cannot help but love, whom you cannot help but revere; but all this will be said only as long as Asya’s character is expressed in words alone, as long as it is only assumed that she is capable of a noble and decisive act; and as soon as she takes a step that in any way justifies the expectations inspired by her character, hundreds of voices will immediately shout: “For mercy, how is this possible, this is madness! To assign a rendez-vous to a young man! After all, she is ruining herself, ruining herself is completely useless! Nothing can come of this, absolutely nothing except that she will lose her reputation. Is it possible to risk herself so insanely? “Risk herself? That would be nothing,” others add. “Let her do with herself what she wants, but why expose others to trouble? What position did she put this poor young man in? Did he think that she would want lead him so far? What should he do now, given her recklessness? If he follows her, he will destroy himself; if he refuses, he will be called a coward and he will despise himself. I don’t know whether it is noble to put people in such unpleasant situations. who, it seems, did not give any special reason for such incongruous actions. No, this is not entirely noble. And the poor brother? What is his role? What bitter pill did his sister give him? He won't be able to digest this pill for the rest of his life. Nothing to say, my dear sister borrowed it! I don’t argue, all this is very good in words - noble aspirations, self-sacrifice, and God knows what wonderful things, but I will say one thing: I would not want to be Asya’s brother. I will say more: if I were in her brother’s place, I would lock her in her room for six months. For her own good, she needs to be locked up. She, you see, deigns to be carried away by high feelings; but what is it like to dispense to others what she deigned to brew? No, I will not call her action, I will not call her character noble, because I do not call those noble who frivolously and impudently harm others." Thus the general cry will be explained by the reasoning of sensible people. We are partly ashamed to admit, but still we have to admit, that these reasoning seem to us to be reasonable. In fact, Asya harms not only herself, but also everyone who had the misfortune of being close to her, and we cannot help but condemn those who, for their own pleasure, harm all their loved ones. .
By condemning Asya, we justify our Romeo. In fact, what is his fault? had he given her a reason to act recklessly? did he incite her to an act that could not be approved? didn't he have the right to tell her that it was in vain that she entangled him in an unpleasant relationship? You are indignant that his words are harsh, you call them rude. But the truth is always harsh, and who will condemn me if even a rude word escapes me, when I, innocent of anything, get entangled in an unpleasant matter; and are they pestering me to make me rejoice at the misfortune into which I was dragged?
I know why you so unfairly admired Asya’s ignoble act and condemned our Romeo. I know this because I myself for a moment succumbed to the unfounded impression that remained in you. You have read about how people in other countries acted and acted. But realize that these are other countries. You never know what is being done in the world in other places, but what is very convenient in a certain situation is not always and not everywhere possible. In England, for example, the word “you” does not exist in colloquial language: a manufacturer to his worker, a landowner to the digger he hires, a master to his footman always says “you” and, wherever it happens, they insert sir in a conversation with them, that is, it doesn’t matter what French monsieur, but in Russian there is no such word, but it comes out as politeness in the same way as if a master said to his peasant: “You, Sidor Karpych, do me a favor, come to me for a cup of tea, and then straighten the paths in my garden ". Will you judge me if I speak to Sidor without such subtleties? After all, I would be ridiculous if I adopted the language of an Englishman. In general, as soon as you begin to condemn what you don’t like, you become an ideologist, that is, the funniest and, to tell you the truth, the most dangerous person in the world, you lose the solid support of practical reality from under your feet. Beware of this, try to become a practical person in your opinions and for the first time try to reconcile at least with our Romeo, by the way we are already talking about him. I am ready to tell you the path by which I reached this result, not only regarding the scene with Asya, but also regarding everything in the world, that is, I became happy with everything that I see around me, I am not angry at anything, I am not upset by anything (except for failures in matters that are personally beneficial to me), I do not condemn anything or anyone in the world (except for people who violate my personal benefits), I do not wish for anything (except for my own benefit) - in a word, I will tell you how I turned from a bilious melancholic a man so practical and well-intentioned that I wouldn’t even be surprised if I received a reward for my good intentions.
K began with the remark that one should not blame people for anything and for nothing, because, as far as I have seen, the most intelligent person has his own share of limitations, sufficient to ensure that in his way of thinking he cannot stray far from society in which he was brought up and lives, and the most energetic person has his own dose of apathy, sufficient so that in his actions he does not stray too far from routine and, as they say, floats with the flow of the river, where the water carries. In the middle circle, it is customary to paint eggs for Easter; at Shrovetide there are pancakes, and everyone does it, although some people don’t eat colored eggs at all, and almost everyone complains about the weight of pancakes. This is true not just in trifles, but in everything. It is accepted, for example, that boys should be kept more freely than girls, and every father, every mother, no matter how convinced they are of the irrationality of such a distinction, raises their children according to this rule. It is accepted that wealth is a good thing, and everyone is pleased if, instead of ten thousand rubles a year, thanks to the happy turn of affairs, he begins to receive twenty thousand, although, reasoning sensibly, every intelligent person knows that those things that, being inaccessible at first income that become available in the second cannot bring any significant pleasure. For example, if with ten thousand income you can make a ball of 500 rubles, then with twenty you can make a ball of 1,000 rubles: the latter will be somewhat better than the first, but still there will not be any special splendor in it, it will be called nothing more than a fairly decent ball , and the first one will be a decent ball. Thus, even the feeling of vanity with an income of 20 thousand is satisfied with very little more than with 10 thousand; As for pleasures that can be called positive, the difference in them is completely unnoticeable. Personally, a person with 10 thousand income has exactly the same table, exactly the same wine and a chair in the same row at the opera as a person with twenty thousand. The first is called a fairly rich man, and the second is also not considered an extremely rich man - there is no significant difference in their position; and yet, according to the routine accepted in society, everyone will rejoice when their income increases from 10 to 20 thousand, although in fact they will not notice almost any increase in their pleasures. People are generally terrible routineists: you only have to look deeper into their thoughts to discover this. Some gentleman will puzzle you extremely at first with the independence of his way of thinking from the society to which he belongs; he will seem to you, for example, a cosmopolitan, a man without class prejudices, etc. etc., and he, like his friends, imagines himself like this from a pure heart. But observe more precisely a cosmopolitan, and he will turn out to be a Frenchman or a Russian with all the peculiarities of concepts and habits belonging to the nation to which he is classified according to his passport, he will turn out to be a landowner or official, a merchant or a professor with all the shades of the way of thinking belonging to his class. I am sure that the large number of people who have the habit of being angry with each other, blaming each other, depends solely on the fact that too few are engaged in observations of this kind; but just try to start peering into people in order to check whether this or that person, who at first seems different from others, really differs in anything important from other people of the same position, just try to engage in such observations, and this analysis will captivate you so much , will so interest your mind, will constantly deliver such calming impressions to your spirit that you will never be left behind and will very soon come to the conclusion: “Every person is like all people, in everyone there is exactly the same thing as in others." And the further you go, the more firmly you will become convinced of this axiom. Differences seem important only because they lie on the surface and are striking, but beneath the visible, apparent difference, perfect identity is hidden. And why on earth would a person really be a contradiction to all the laws of nature? After all, in nature, cedar and hyssop feed and bloom, elephants and mice move and eat, rejoice and get angry according to the same laws; under the external difference of forms lies the internal identity of the organism of a monkey and a whale, an eagle and a chicken; one has only to delve into the matter even more carefully, and we will see that not only different creatures of the same class, but also different classes of creatures are constructed and live according to the same principles, that the organisms of a mammal, a bird and a fish are the same, that a worm breathes like a mammal, although he has neither nostrils, nor a windpipe, nor lungs. Not only would the analogy with other beings be violated by non-recognition of the sameness of the basic rules and springs in the moral life of each person, but the analogy with his physical life would also be violated. Of two healthy people of the same age in the same mood, one’s pulse beats, of course, somewhat stronger and more often than the other’s; but is this difference great? It is so insignificant that science does not even pay attention to it. It's different when you compare people of different years or in different circumstances; a child's pulse beats twice as fast as an old man's, a sick person's pulse beats much more often or less frequently than a healthy one, someone who drank a glass of champagne beats more often than someone who drank a glass of water. But even here it is clear to everyone that the difference is not in the structure of the organism, but in the circumstances under which the organism is observed. And the old man, when he was a child, had a pulse as fast as the child with whom you compare him; and a healthy person’s pulse would weaken, just like a sick person’s if he fell ill with the same disease; and Peter, if he drank a glass of champagne, his pulse would increase in the same way as Ivan’s.
You have almost reached the boundaries of human wisdom when you are established in this simple truth that every person is the same person as all others. Not to mention the gratifying consequences of this conviction for your everyday happiness; you will stop being angry and upset, stop being indignant and blaming, you will meekly look at what you were previously ready to scold and fight for; in fact, how would you become angry or complain about a person for such an act that anyone would do in his place? An undisturbed, gentle silence settles into your soul, sweeter than which can only be the Brahminical contemplation of the tip of the nose, with the quiet, incessant repetition of the words “om-mani-padmekhum.” I’m not even talking about this invaluable spiritual and practical benefit, I’m not even talking about how many monetary benefits wise condescension towards people will bring you: you will completely cordially welcome a scoundrel whom you would have driven away from yourself before; and this scoundrel may be a man of importance in society, and a good relationship with him will improve your own affairs. I’m not even saying that you yourself will then be less embarrassed by false doubts of conscience in taking advantage of those benefits that will come your way: why should you be embarrassed by excessive ticklishness if you are convinced that everyone would act in your place in exactly the same way? , just like you? I do not expose all these benefits, with the goal of pointing out only the purely scientific, theoretical importance of the belief in the sameness of human nature in all people. If all people are essentially the same, then where does the difference in their actions come from? Striving to achieve the main truth, we have already found in passing the conclusion from it that serves as the answer to this question. It is now clear to us that everything depends on social habits and on circumstances, that is, in the final result everything depends exclusively on circumstances, because social habits, in turn, also arose from circumstances. You blame a person - first look at whether he is to blame for what you blame him for, or whether the circumstances and habits of society are to blame, look carefully, perhaps it is not his fault at all, but only his misfortune. When talking about others, we are too inclined to consider every misfortune as guilt - this is the true misfortune for practical life, because guilt and misfortune are completely different things and require treatment, one not at all the same as the other. Guilt causes censure or even punishment against the person. Trouble requires assistance to a person through the elimination of circumstances stronger than his will. I knew a tailor who poked his apprentices in the teeth with a hot iron. Perhaps he can be called guilty, and he can be punished; but not every tailor pokes a hot iron into his teeth; examples of such fury are very rare. But almost every craftsman happens to get into a fight after drinking on a holiday - this is not a fault, but simply a misfortune. What is needed here is not punishment of an individual, but a change in living conditions for the whole class. The sadder is the harmful confusion of guilt and misfortune because it is very easy to distinguish between these two things; We have already seen one sign of difference: wine is a rarity, it is an exception to the rule; trouble is an epidemic. Deliberate arson is a fault; but out of millions of people there is one who decides to do this. There is another sign needed to complement the first. Trouble falls on the very person who fulfills the condition leading to trouble; guilt falls on others, benefiting the guilty. This last sign is extremely accurate. A robber kills a man in order to rob him, and finds it beneficial for himself - this is guilt. A careless hunter accidentally wounded a man and is the first to suffer from the misfortune he caused - this is not guilt, but simply misfortune.