N. G. Chernyshevsky

On sincerity in criticism

N. G. Chernyshevsky. Literary criticism. In two volumes. Volume 1. M., "Fiction", 1981 Preparation of text and notes by T. A. Akimova, G. N. Antonova, A. A. Demchenko, A. A. Zhuk, V. V. Prozorova In an article written by On the occasion of the new edition of “The Works of A. Pogorelsky” (“Contemporary”, No. VI, bibliography), we talked about the impotence of current criticism and pointed out one of the main reasons for this sad phenomenon - compliance, evasiveness, kindness. Here are our words: “The reason for the impotence of modern criticism is that it has become too compliant, indiscriminate, undemanding, satisfied with works that are decidedly pitiful, admires works that are barely bearable. It is on a level with those works with which it is satisfied; How do you want it to have a living meaning for the public? Writers whose bad works they praise are less satisfied with such criticism than with those poems, dramas and novels that are recommended to the attention of readers in the literature. her tender analyzes" 1 . And we concluded the article with the words: “no, criticism must become much stricter, more serious if it wants to be worthy of the name of criticism.” We pointed to the criticism of the Moscow Telegraph 2 as an example of what true criticism should be, and, of course, not for lack of better examples. But we refrained from any—we are not saying instructions, even from any allusions to this or that article of this or that journal, the tenderness and weakness of which now makes it necessary to remind criticism of its rights, of its duties—and we did not want to bring examples are probably no longer because it would be difficult to collect hundreds of them. Each of our journals in recent years has been able to provide a good deal of material for such guidance; the only difference was that one magazine could present them more, the other less. Therefore, it seemed to us that to make extracts from articles of one or another journal would only mean to unnecessarily impart a polemical character to an article written with the intention of pointing out a shortcoming that is common to some extent to all journals, and not at all with the goal of reproaching one or another journal. We considered it unnecessary to give examples because, wanting criticism to generally remember its dignity, we did not at all want to put this or that journal in the need to defend its weaknesses and through this cling to previous weaknesses - it is known that, forced to argue , a person becomes inclined to get carried away by positions that he initially defended, perhaps only out of necessity to answer something, and whose unfoundedness or insufficiency he might be ready to admit if he were not forced to admit openly. In a word, we did not want to make the acceptance of the general principle difficult for anyone and therefore did not want to affect anyone’s pride. But if someone himself, without any challenge, proclaims himself an opponent of the general principle, which seems fair to us, then he has already clearly expressed that he does not recognize the justice of the general principle, but on the contrary. After all these long reservations and mitigations, which very clearly prove how deeply we are imbued with the spirit of modern criticism and we, who are rebelling against its too soft, soft to the point of intangibility, methods, we can get down to business and say that Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the directness of some of our reviews of weak, in our opinion, works of fiction, although adorned with more or less famous names (we will present this review in full below), and that we, for our part, also did not exclude quite a few critical articles of Otechestvennye Zapiski from the general mass of timid and weak critics, whose proliferation we considered and consider an urgent necessity to rebel against. The purpose of our article is not at all to expose other people’s opinions, but to more clearly present our concepts of criticism. And if we borrow examples of criticism that, in our opinion, does not agree with the true concepts of serious criticism, from Otechestvennye zapiski, it is not at all because we wanted to blame only Otechestvennye zapiski for the weakness of criticism. We repeat that we rebel against weakness critics in general: if she were weak only in one magazine or another, would it be worth so much trouble? We are primarily concerned with the "Domestic Notes", borrowing examples exclusively from them, because they took the trouble to defend and praise "moderate and calm criticism" 3 - where, if not from the defender, should one look for true examples of what is being defended? Here, for example ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10), is an analysis of Mr. Grigorovich's novel "Fishermen". The main subject of criticism here is the consideration of the question of whether it is really possible for a lonely old man to catch minnows fishing rod and not nonsense (for which two people are needed), and is it really possible to see swallows, swifts, blackbirds and starlings on the Oka during high water, or do they arrive not during high water, but a few days later or earlier 4; in a word, it is not so much about the novel as about what bird lives where, what eggs lays 5 . Without any doubt, talking about the shortcomings and advantages of the novel from this point of view can and should be very calm. Here is another analysis of Mrs. T. Ch.’s novel “Smart Woman” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12); the essence of the review is as follows: “Here is the plot of “A Smart Woman,” one of the best stories by Mrs. T. Ch. There is so much smart, new and entertaining in this story. We missed in the story the entire previous life of a bachelor and an intelligent woman, a life that occupies at least three quarters of the novel. But this life does not concern us" 6. A good and entertaining novel should be in which at least threeTtwirl not worth reading. Here is a review of another story by the same author (Ms. T. Ch.), “Shadows of the Past” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 1). "The face taken by the author is very interesting; but for a complete description, its author as if he regretted it colors, of which he has no shortage (Why is the face pale if the author has the gift of vividly depicting faces?). We, it seems, will not be mistaken if we say that Mrs. T. C. cared little about how to use the plot; it is enough to read the scenes we have written out to make sure that she could This task could not be accomplished in the best possible way." 7 That is, "the author did not cope with the plot; but not because he couldn’t handle it,” because it’s impossible to say directly: the author took the plot beyond his strength. Indeed, such reviews consist of “riddles,” as the reviewer calls his analysis of “A Smart Woman” when starting on it (“from discussions about literature, we move on to a dissertation about old bachelors and ask the reader a riddle about them, let him guess who can." But, firstly, no one can solve it; secondly, who even wants to solve critical analyzes? Sharad and Not a single reader demands puzzles from Russian magazines). These are the same reviews about Mr. Fet’s poems, about the novel “Little Things in Life,” 8 etc. No one can guess whether these works are good or bad, excellent or unbearably bad in the opinion of the reviewers. For every praise or blame they always have a completely equivalent reservation or hint in the opposite sense. But we must not bore our readers with all these examples; “Ms. Tur suddenly became brighter and more noticeable” (do you expect the meaning of this phrase: Ms. Tur began to write worse than before? no), this is “a circumstance for which our novelist should blame not herself, but her connoisseurs,” because she has already been praised too much (you think this phrase means: she was praised, she began to write carelessly, stopped caring about correcting her shortcomings? No, not at all), magazine praise and blame cannot outrage the author’s own judgment of his talent, because “the best critic for a novelist is always the novelist himself” (do you think this applies to Madame Tour? No, because) “a woman always depends on someone else’s judgment” and “in the most brilliant woman one will not find that impartial independence” that gives a man the opportunity not to submit to the influence of criticism; “every talented woman is adversely affected by the admiration of a friend, the compliment of a polite connoisseur”, as a result of them “she gives her talent an unoriginal direction, in accordance with the delusions of her ardent followers” ​​(this leads, according to your assumption, to the announcement that new novel Ms. Tour is not independent, that “she composed the words based on someone else’s motive”? no), “in Ms. Tour’s latest novel we see quite a lot of independence,” “the novelist’s view of most of her heroes and heroines is her own”; but this independence “is obscured by phrases that obviously arose under the influence of others.” (Do you think this is a drawback? No, that’s not it.) “Mme. Tour’s novel lacks the external interest of the plot, the intrigue of events” (so, there is no intrigue of events in it? No, there is, because from the words of the reviewer) “it does not follow” that “it belongs to the category of novels in which the most important event - renting an apartment or something like that." Ms. Tour’s novel is uninteresting not for lack of intrigue, but because “its hero, Oginsky, cannot interest readers” (why? Because he is colorless? no, because) “Mrs. Tour did not tell us how he served, traveled, managed his affairs" (but this is precisely what would ruin the intrigue, the plot that you require); Oginsky is in love three times (here are three intrigues, and you said that there is not a single one), and “a man’s life consists of more than one love” (that’s why it was necessary to talk about all the details of Oginsky’s service and travels unnecessary for the novel !). Oginsky's face ruined the novel; “he brought a lot of misfortune to the work” (hence, is this person in the novel bad? no, good, because he) “could have brought even more misfortune to the work if the undoubted intelligence of the writer had not corrected matters wherever possible” (good praise! why was such a hero chosen?). In the history of all three of Oginsky’s tender affections, “we are faced with weakness, combined either with affectation or exaltation” (so, the novel is spoiled by affectation and exaltation? No, on the contrary), “the writer has a deep disgust for them” (but if they are depicted with disgust, in its true light, is a virtue, not a disadvantage). “The conversation is alive,” although “at times tainted by scientific expressions”; And Although“many aphorisms and tirades, put even into the mouths of young girls, seem to us worthy of a learned treatise, and yet the conversation represents the quintessence of living speech.” - “The syllable of Madame Tour May be in many ways fixed for the better, if so desired to the author herself" (!!) 9. This is the extent of contradictions and hesitations that the desire for "moderation" brings criticism to, that is, to mitigate all the slight doubts about the absolute merit of the novel that a humble reviewer allows himself to momentarily offer. At first, he seems to wants to say that the novel is worse than the previous ones, then adds: no, that’s not what I wanted to say, but I wanted to say that there is no intrigue in the novel: but I didn’t say that unconditionally, on the contrary, there is good intrigue in the novel, but the main drawback of the novel; the fact that the hero is uninteresting; however, the face of this hero is outlined perfectly; just to note that the style of the novel is bad, although the language is excellent, and even this “can be corrected if the author himself wishes.” great merits, although with even greater reservations, however, not without new laudable reservations, and therefore, although they say everything, they say nothing; from this, however, it does not follow that they are deprived of dignity, the existence of which, although imperceptible, is undeniable." One can also express themselves about them in the words of the "Notes of the Fatherland" themselves: "What do we mean by the word "criticism"? - an article in which the author said a lot without saying anything." 10 One can also say that the beginning of a romance is quite attached to such criticism: Don’t say “yes” or “no,” Be indifferent, as you used to, And decisive answer Throw a blanket of doubt 11 But what especially bad will criticism do if it directly, clearly and without any omissions expresses its opinion about the merits and even (oh, horror!) the shortcomings of literary works decorated with more or less famous names? and what do readers, and the very benefit of literature, demand from it? For what can it be reproached in this case? This is what “Domestic Notes” will tell us; as an epigraph to the extract, we will also take the words of “Domestic Notes”, said quite a long time ago: “We still need to talk about such simple and ordinary concepts that are no longer talked about in any literature.” 12 . “Recently, in the reviews of our magazines about various writers, we have become accustomed to encountering a moderate, cool-blooded tone; even if we sometimes read verdicts that were unjust, in our opinion, the very tone of the articles, alien to any impatience, disarmed us. We may not agree with the author’s opinion , but everyone has the right to have their own opinion. Respect for other people's opinions is a guarantee for respect for our own. All magazines have contributed a lot to curbing reviewers who take nothing into account except their own personal opinions, desires and often benefits. that recently some reviews of Sovremennik have extremely surprised us with their rashness of judgment, which has not been proven by anything. A view that contradicts what the Sovremennik itself recently said, and the injustice of the review addressed to such writers as Mrs. Eugenia Tur. , Mr. Ostrovsky, Mr. Avdeev, gave some strange look to the bibliography of Sovremennik last months, placed in decisive contradiction with itself. What she said a year ago, she now rejects in the most positive way. Still other thoughts come to mind. While, for example, Sovremennik was publishing stories by Mr. Avdeev, this magazine praised Mr. Avdeev; exactly the same should be said about his reviews of Evgenia Tur. Or has the reviewer failed to cope with opinions previously expressed in this journal? or did he know them, but wanted to distinguish himself by sharp originality? This is what, for example, was said in Sovremennik by the New Poet in 1853 in the April book, regarding Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” (follows an extract: we will release them here because we will compare and explain their imaginary oppositionOfalse below). In a word, the comedy is praised. Now look at what is said about the same comedy and about another, new one, “Poverty is not a vice” in the bibliography of the May book of Sovremennik, 1854, that is, just one year later (extract). Mr. Ostrovsky received his share of such reviews. This is what the same book says about Ms. Evgenia Tur’s latest novel, “Three Seasons of Life” (extract). Is it possible to speak like this about the author of “Niece”, “Mistakes”, “Debt”, even if the new novel by Mrs. Eugenia Tur was unsuccessful? The verdict is unfair, because the work of a talented writer, no matter how successful it may be, can never be absolutely bad; but it’s strange to come across this review in Sovremennik, where until now they were saying something completely different about the talent of Mrs. Evgenia Tur. Re-read, for example, what Mr. I. T. said in 1852 about the works of Mrs. Eugenia Tour (extract). How fitting after this is the review we cited above about the talent of Ms. Tour, where there is not even a word about the talent of this writer! With what bitter smile should writers look at magazine praise and blame after this? Is criticism really a toy? But the most unfair review was made in Sovremennik this year about Mr. Avdeev, one of our best storytellers, whom before (when Mr. Avdeev published his works in Sovremennik) In its subscription advertisements and in its reviews of literature, this magazine always ranked alongside our first writers. There is so much evidence for this that it is difficult to list them. Take, for example, a review of literature for 1850, where our best storytellers are counted: there Mr. Avdeev is ranked along with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. What does it say in the February book of Sovremennik for 1854 (extract)? Would you like us to tell you what Sovremennik said in 1851? But maybe the reviewer doesn’t care about Sovremennik’s opinions? In this case, the reviewer would do well to sign his name to an article refuting the opinion of the journal for which he writes. Below we will cite what Sovremennik said in 1851, and now we will write down another passage that is striking in its unceremoniousness, far from fashionable (extract: in it, as the most unfashionable expressions, the words are emphasized: “Tamarin... showed in it ability to developAndtyu... None of his stories can be called a work we are humanWithlying"). Allow me, Mr. thoughtful reviewer, to notice to you that it seems that you understand a thought only when it is expressed in the form of maxims; otherwise, how could one not see the thought even in “Tamarin” (there the reviewer was relieved "Entereniem", where the idea of ​​the work is stated) and in other stories by Mr. Avdeev? But let’s assume that there is no new thought in them, so be it. And what special thought will the reviewer find in “An Ordinary Story” or in “Oblomov’s Dream” by Mr. Goncharov, in “The Story of My Childhood” by Mr. L. - fascinating stories? And vice versa: what charm will the reviewer find in Mr. Potekhin’s drama “The Governess”, where the basis is an intelligent, noble thought? Why such contempt for the masterful story, which is visible in all the works of Mr. Avdeev? You say that Mr. Avdeev is exclusively an imitator in his “Tamarin”. But we will notice... However, why should we tell? Sovremennik has already expressed its opinion about this in its review of literature for 1850. Here it is (we apologize to the readerselem for the long extracts, but we believe that the reader sees how important in this case the quotes from Sovremennik, which once praised and now scolds the same writers) (extract). What can we say after this about the reviews of the reviewer of Sovremennik, the reviewer from whom this magazine found itself in such a strange position regarding its own opinions? Praise and deny all dignity, speak at the same time and Yes And No, Doesn't this mean not knowing what to say about our three best writers? I would like to delete from the list of writers three such writers as Messrs. Ostrovsky, Evgenia Tur and Avdeev, doesn’t it mean taking the weight on your shoulders is beyond your strength? And why is this attack? We leave this question to the reader himself." 13 Why did we write out this long passage? We want it to serve as an example of the extent to which modern criticism sometimes forgets about the most elementary principles of all criticism. Our remarks will only talk about such concepts , without being aware of which it is absolutely impossible to formulate concepts about criticism. Meanwhile, after skimming through our remarks, let the reader take the trouble to read the extract again: with all possible attention, he will not find any trace of the fact that the critic who was dissatisfied with us had these concepts in mind; not in a single phrase, not in a single word. "Domestic Notes" are dissatisfied with "Sovremennik" because it is inconsistent, contradicting itself. The inconsistency of "Sovremennik" lies in the fact that it previously praised the works of Messrs. zhi Tour, and now I have allowed myself to make a very unfavorable review of the works of the same writers. Is it really necessary to explain what consistency is? The question is really very tricky, almost more difficult than reconciling “yes” and “no” in one article about the same book; Therefore, let’s try to present it in the most important tone. Consistency in judgments consists in making the same judgments about identical objects. For example, in praising all good works and equally condemning all bad works that are full of claims. For example, when praising “Hero of Our Time,” one should also praise “Song about Kalashnikov”; but to speak of “Masquerade” in the same way as of “Hero of Our Time” would be inconsistent, because although the title of “Masquerade” bears the same name as “Hero of Our Time,” the merits of these works are completely different 14 . From this we dare to draw a rule: if you want to be consistent, then look exclusively at the merits of the work and do not be embarrassed by whether you previously found the work of the same author good or bad; because things are identical because of their essential quality, and not because of the stigma attached to them. From judgments about individual works of a writer, we must move on to a general judgment about the significance of the writer’s entire literary activity. Consistency, of course, will require: equally praising writers who have the right to praise, and equally not praising those who do not. With the passage of time everything changes; The position of writers in relation to the concepts of public and criticism also changes. What to do if justice requires the magazine to change its judgment about the writer? How, for example, did Otechestvennye zapiski receive? There was a time when they rated Marlinsky and others very highly, and we do not want to reproach them for that: the general opinion about these writers was then as follows; then public opinion about these same writers changed, perhaps because the first fervor had passed, and they looked more closely and calmly at their works; perhaps because they themselves began to write not better and better, but worse and worse; because, speaking in technical language, they “did not live up to expectations” (an expression that has almost as wide application in our language as fell ill, died, etc.); perhaps because other writers overshadowed them - it doesn’t matter, whatever the reason, but the opinion had to be changed, and it was changed 15. Did consistency really require continuing to worship Marlinsky and others? What consistency would there be in a magazine that would consider itself obliged, having first been a warrior for the best in literature, then to become a warrior for the worst only out of attachment to names? Such a magazine would betray itself. Not to mention the fact that he would have lost his honorable place in literature, would have lost all right to the sympathy of the best part of the public, and would have been subjected to general ridicule along with his clients. In fact, imagine that Otechestvennye zapiski in 1844 or 1854 would continue to call, as they called in 1839, our best writers, authors recognized as mediocre, what place would this magazine occupy in literature and journalism? We dare to expect that in Sovremennik, impartial judges will be honored not with guilt, but - we don’t want to say with dignity - at least with the fulfillment of the obligation to keep up with the opinions of the enlightened part of the public and the demands of justice, changing over time, if Sovremennik ", speaking about Mr. X or Z in April 1854, will think more about what rightly needs to be said about this writer now, rather than worrying about rewriting as literally as possible the very review that could and should have been made about the works of this writer in April 1853, 1852 or 1851. "Contemporary" hopes that he will not be blamed equally if he understands consistency as fidelity to his aesthetic requirements, and not as blind attachment to stereotypical repetitions of the same phrases about the writer, from his very literary adolescence to his very literary decrepitude. What to do if a writer who “showed promise,” who deserved the sympathy of the best part of the public and encouraging praise from critics, did not “justify” his hopes and lost the right to sympathy and praise? “Say what needs to be said now, and not what should have been said before,” and if your sentences are based on the same principles, you will be consistent, even if at first you had to say “yes” and a year later “no.” It’s a completely different matter if the verdict was once pronounced on the basis of one principle, and another time on the basis of another - then we will be inconsistent, even though we said the same thing both times (for example: “one of Mrs. NN’s novels is good, because in him one can see, through the exaltation, a sincere warmth of feeling; therefore, Ms. NN’s other novel is also good, Although only cloying exaltation is visible in it"). But, as we see, what is being said is not about this betrayal of principles, but simply about the dissimilarity of judgments about different works of the same writers. Such external heteroglossia is not always a grave fault; sometimes even the very consistency and dignity depends on it magazine. But the merit or demerit is a change in the previous verdicts in accordance with the change in the merit of the objects about which the verdict is pronounced; in any case, neither demerits nor merits can be recognized without considering to what extent they are rightly attributed to us. how great is the difference between the previous and current opinions of Sovremennik about Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Ms. Tour; does it really put Sovremennik in “a decisive contradiction with itself?” Ostrovsky’s “Don’t get into your own sleigh” is that the New Poet, in an April book of 1853, said: “Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy had a brilliant and well-deserved success on two stages: St. Petersburg and Moscow. In it, rude, simple, uneducated people, but with soul and direct common sense, are placed next to semi-educated people. The author very cleverly used this contrast. How beautiful these men are in their simplicity and how pathetic this squandered Vikhorev is. All this is excellent and extremely true to reality. Rusakov and Borodkin are living persons, taken from life without any embellishment." 16. In the February book of 1854 it is said 17: "In two of their latest works Mr. Ostrovsky fell into a cloying embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished. The works came out weak and false." The contradiction between these individual extracts is decisive; but it is completely smoothed out if we read them in connection with what precedes them in both articles. The new poet considers "Don't get on your own sleigh" in relation to to other works of our repertoire, speaks of the superiority of this comedy over other comedies and dramas played on the Alexandria stage 18 As for the essential merit of “Don’t get on your own sleigh,” the New poet seems to express his opinion quite clearly, adding: “But, despite this, still, artistically, this comedy cannot be staged along with his first comedy ("Our people-- let's settle"). In general, “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” is a work that does not go out of the range of ordinary talented works." 19 And since an article from No. II of Sovremennik this year 20 compares this comedy, "not out of the ordinary ordinary works", with the truly remarkable first work of Mr. Ostrovsky, then, calling it “weak,” this article, it seems to us, does not contradict the New poet, who says that “Don’t get into your own sleigh” cannot be placed along with “With their own people.” One side of the contradiction - about the artistic merit of comedy - does not exist. Another contradiction remains: The new poet called Borodkin and Rusakov “living persons, taken from reality, without any embellishment”, a year later Sovremennik says that; Mr. Ostrovsky fell (in the comedies “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” and in “Poverty is Not a Vice”) “into a sugary embellishment of what should not be embellished, and the comedies turned out to be false.” Here again we are forced to set about setting out elementary principles.” and explain, firstly, that in a work of art, the generality of which is permeated with the most false views and which therefore embellishes reality intolerably, individual persons can be copied from reality very faithfully and without any embellishment. Or not to talk about it? After all, everyone agrees that, for example, this is what happened in “Poverty is not a vice”: We love Tortsov, a dissolute drunkard with a kind heart, with a loving heart- a person with whom there are actually many similarities; Meanwhile, “Poverty is not a vice” as a whole is a highly false and embellished work, and - mainly - the falsity and embellishment are introduced into this comedy precisely by the face of Lyubim Tortsov, which, taken separately, is true to reality. This happens because, in addition to individual persons, in a work of art there is a general idea, on which (and not on individuals alone) the character of the work depends. There is such an idea in “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” but it was still quite cleverly covered up by a skillful setting and therefore was not noticed by the public: those who noticed the falsity of the idea in this comedy hoped (out of love for the wonderful talent of the author of “Our People”) that this idea is a fleeting delusion of the author, perhaps even unknown to the artist himself, crept into his work; That’s why they didn’t want to talk about this sad side unless absolutely necessary; 21 but there was no need, because the idea, skillfully hidden under an advantageous situation (the contrast of Rusakov and Borodkin with Vikhorev, an empty scoundrel), was noticed by almost no one, did not make an impression and, therefore, could not yet have an influence; there was therefore no further need to expose her, to execute her. But then “Poverty is not a vice” appeared; the false idea boldly threw off any cover of a more or less ambiguous situation, became a firm, constant principle of the author, was noisily proclaimed as a life-giving truth, was noticed by everyone and, if we are not mistaken, caused very strong displeasure in the entire sensible part of society 22 . "Contemporary" felt the obligation to pay attention to this idea and give, as far as possible, expression to the general feeling. Having talked about the idea of ​​“Poverty is not a vice,” Sovremennik considered it worthwhile to say two or three words about the author’s previous works and, of course, had to say that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” was the predecessor of “Poverty is not a vice,” which, of course, no one will deny now; the idea of ​​"Don't get in your own sleigh", now explained for all readers the last comedy Mr. Ostrovsky, could no longer be passed in silence, as was possible before, when it had no meaning for the public, and - to the previous review of the loyalty of some people to the comedy (which the analysis of “Poverty is not a vice” did not even think to deny). I had to add that the idea of ​​comedy is false. As for the reviews of Sovremennik about Mr. Avdeev and Ms. Tour, the contradiction disappears even without any explanation - one has only to compare the supposedly contradictory reviews. “Contemporary” found Ms. Tour’s novel “The Niece” rather bad and finds the novel “Three Seasons of Life” she wrote three years later bad, without saying a word about the other works of this writer; where is the contradiction here? We do not present extracts from the last review due to its decisive uselessness for explaining the matter; Having looked at No V of Sovremennik for this year, readers can be convinced that our review of the last novel does not say a single word about “Niece”, “Debt”, “Error” and therefore cannot in any way contradict any review of these works. It only remains to ask readers to look at the article about “The Niece” (No. I of Sovremennik for 1852): having looked at it, readers will see how much even then Sovremennik was forced to talk about the shortcomings of Madame Tour’s talent; True, this article says that there are similarities between the good sides of Madame Tour’s talent and Madame Gan’s talent and that “the brilliant hopes aroused by Madame Tour were so justified that they ceased to be hopes and became the property of our literature.” but these praises (more condescending and delicate than positive, as the whole tone of the article convinces) are far outweighed by passages like the following: “She (Mrs. Tour), regarding truths known to everyone, has a half-enthusiastic, half-instructive tone, as if she just opened them herself, but also this may happen. But this can also be excused. Talent, that independent talent that we talked about at the beginning of the article, in Ms. Tour or No, or very little; her talent is lyrical... unable to create independent characters and types. Ms. Tour's style is careless, her speech talkative, almost watery... It was unpleasant for us to encounter traces of rhetoric on some pages of “The Niece,” something that smelled like “Collected Exemplary Works,” some pretensions to writing, to literary decorations.” ("Contemporary", 1852,No. 1, Criticism, article by Mr. I. T.) 23. We ask what new things have been added to these reproaches in the review of “The Three Seasons of Life”? Absolutely nothing; Instead of accusing him of contradiction, one could rather blame the reviewer of this latest novel for being too saturated with Mr. I.T.’s article. True, the reviewer could not repeat the praise that mitigated the reproaches in Mr. I.T.’s article, but what what to do? The merits of "The Niece" faded to the point of imperceptibility, and the shortcomings developed to the extreme in "The Three Seasons of Life." But most of all, Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the review of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Avdeev (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 2) 24 . With this review, Sovremennik became “the strangest contradiction with itself, because (we admit, this “because” is very difficult to understand) now Sovremennik says that Mr. Avdeev has a wonderful talent as a storyteller,” and before “he considered Mr. Avdeev to our best storytellers,” namely: in 1850 he said: “In the first works of Mr. Avdeev we will find clear signs of talent. (dosadbe careful! why not say "brilliant talent"? no, just "pr"Andsigns" of it). The best proof that Mr. Avdeev is strong not only because of his ability to imitate (ah! even before 1850 it was found that Mr. Avdeev was still strong only in his ability to imitate!), served as the idyll of Mr. Avdeev “Clear Days”. This story is very sweet, there is a lot of warm, sincere feeling in it. (is there a lot of clarity of concepts about the world and people? Probably not, if this dignity is not exposed,--The review, which Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with, attacks this shortcoming). The wonderful language in which Mr. Avdeev constantly writes is probably noticed by the readers themselves." 25 Let us ask the reader to look at the analysis, which supposedly contradicts this review - and we don’t know whether readers will find, we don’t say, contradictions, but at least some Is there any disagreement in it with this extract from the previous review? Previously, Sovremennik ranked Mr. Avdeev among our best storytellers - but the latest review begins with the words: “G. Avdeev is a dear, pleasant storyteller" and so on; on the next page (41st) we again read: "G. Avdeev - full honor to him for this - a good, very good storyteller"; after repeated repetitions of the same phrase, the review ends with the words (p. 53): "he discovered the undoubted talent of a storyteller" ... and the assumption that, subject to the known conditions, “he will give us a lot of truly beautiful things” (the very last words of the review) the previous review says that there is no imitation in “Clear Days” - and the latest review does not think to question this; imitation; and the latest review proves this; the previous review sees warmth of feeling in “Clear Days” - and the latest review does not question this in the slightest, calling the faces of this idyll “favorites” of Mr. Avdeev, people who seem “nice” to him. , that there is not the slightest bit of contradiction in all this. It even seems to us that one can rather accuse the latest review of being too scrupulous in its study of previous reviews, just as one can accuse the analysis of Ms. Tour’s novel “The Three Seasons of Life” of being too close in similarity. with an article by Mr. I.T. about “Niece”. In a word, anyone who carefully compares the reviews with which others are so dissatisfied with the previous reviews of Sovremennik will find between these reviews and the previous reviews not a contradiction, but the most common similarity in opinion between articles of the same journal. And although it would be very nice for Sovremennik to give its readers as often as possible articles that are distinguished by their new outlook, it must admit that this is precisely the merit that the reviews that caused displeasure are least distinguished by. And we must conclude our elementary presentation of the concepts of consistency with the answer that Otechestvennye Zapiski themselves made in their time to similar dissatisfaction against them for the supposed novelty of opinions about the meaning of various celebrities of our literature, namely: “the opinions in question are "not new and not originalbus" 26, - especially for the readers of Sovremennik. How could they attract disfavor?" Is it really because they were expressed directly, without beating around the bush, omissions or reservations? Is it because they said: "Tamarin" is an imitation" , we did not add, as usual, which has been taking root for some time in our criticism: “however, we do not want to say that Mr. Avdeev in “Tamarin” was an imitator; we find in this novel much that is independent and at the same time beautiful,” etc.; Having said: “The Three Seasons of Life” is an exalted novel without any content,” they did not add: “However, there is a lot of bright and calm understanding of life in it and even more meaningful ideas, indicating that the author was not without reason thinking about a lot of things”? and Is it because they didn’t add general passages about “undoubted talents”, that the books under review “constitute a gratifying phenomenon in Russian literature”, etc. If so, then the answer to this is already ready in “Domestic notes": "In our criticism one can see the dominance of commonplaces, literary sycophancy of the living and the dead, hypocrisy in judgments. They think and know one thing, but say something else." 27 Having recalled this passage, we will move on to the presentation of "the simplest and most ordinary concepts" about what criticism is and to what extent it should be evasive and can do without directness - let's move on to the doctrine of the extent to which criticism does well when, in the words of Otechestvennye Zapiski, it speaks “with a disarming voice,” even in the face of injustice, with its humility 2S The polemical form in our article is only a means of getting those interested in a dry and too simple subject. who do not like dry subjects, no matter how important they may be, and consider it beneath their dignity to turn at least from time to time to thinking about simple things his attention, constantly occupied with “living and important” questions of art (for example, about the great dignity of some dozen novel). Now we can leave this form, because the reader who has skimmed more than half of the article will probably not ignore its end. We will directly present the basic concepts that we considered necessary to recall. Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of a literary work. Its purpose is to serve as an expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses. It goes without saying that this goal can be achieved in any satisfactory manner only with every possible care for clarity, certainty and directness. What kind of expression of public opinion is this - a mutual, dark expression? How will criticism give the opportunity to become acquainted with this opinion, to explain it to the masses, if it itself needs explanations and will leave room for misunderstandings and questions: “What do you really think, Mr. critic? But in what sense is it necessary understand what you are saying, Mr. critic? Therefore, criticism in general should, as far as possible, avoid all omissions, reservations, subtle and dark hints and all similar circumlocutions that only interfere with the directness and clarity of the matter. Russian criticism should not be like the scrupulous, subtle, evasive and empty criticism of French feuilletons; 29 this evasiveness and pettiness are not in the taste of the Russian public, and do not lead to living and clear convictions, which our public quite rightly demands from criticism. The consequences of evasive and gilded phrases have always been and will be the same for us: first, these phrases mislead readers, sometimes regarding the merits of works, always regarding the magazine’s opinions about literary works; then the public loses confidence in the magazine's opinions; and therefore all our magazines, which wanted their criticism to have influence and enjoy trust, were distinguished by the directness, unwavering, intransigence (in the good sense) of their criticism, calling all things - as much as possible - by their direct names, no matter how harsh they were there were names. We consider it unnecessary to give examples: some are in everyone’s memory, others we recalled when talking about old analyzes of Pogorelsky’s works. But how should one judge the sharpness of tone? Is she good? Is it even permissible? What to answer to this? c"est selon (Depending on the circumstances (French).--Ed.), what is the case and what is the sharpness. Sometimes criticism cannot do without it if it wants to be worthy of the name of living criticism, which, as we know, can only be written by a living person, that is, capable of being imbued with both enthusiasm and strong indignation - feelings that, as everyone also knows, pour out not in cold and sluggish speech, not in such a way that no one feels either warm or cold from their outpouring. We again consider it unnecessary to point out examples also because we have a proverb: “whoever remembers the old is out of sight.” And for tactile proof, as sharpness of tone is sometimes necessary in live criticism, let us assume such a case (not yet one of the most important). That manner of writing, which was driven out of use by the caustic sarcasms of sensible criticism, is beginning to come into fashion again due to various reasons, among other things, and the weakening of criticism, perhaps confident that flowery idle talk cannot recover from the blows dealt to it. Here again, as in the times of Marlinsky and Polevoy, works appear, are read by the majority, are approved and encouraged by many literary judges, consisting of a set of rhetorical phrases, generated by a “captive thought by irritation” 30, unnatural exaltation, distinguished by the same cloyingness, only with a new one. quality - Shalikov’s grace, prettiness, tenderness, madrigality; even some new “Maryina Roshchi” with Usladami appear; 31 and this rhetoric, revived in its worst form, again threatens to flood literature, have a harmful effect on the taste of the majority of the public, make the majority of writers again forget about the content, about a healthy outlook on life, as the essential merits of a literary work. Having assumed such a case (and there are even more bitter ones), we ask: is criticism obliged, instead of denunciations, to write madrigals to these frail but dangerous phenomena? Or can she act in relation to new painful phenomena in the same way as in her time she acted in relation to similar phenomena, and without roundaboutness say that there is nothing good in them? Probably can't. Why not? Because “a talented author could not write a bad essay.” Was Marlinsky less talented than today's epigones? Wasn’t “Maryina Roshcha” written by Zhukovsky? Tell me, what’s good about “Maryina Roshcha”? And why can one praise a work without content or with bad content? "But it is written in good language." Behind good language it was possible to forgive the pitiful content when the main need of our literature was to learn to write in a language other than gibberish. Eighty years ago it was a special honor for a person to know spelling; and indeed, then whoever knew how to put the letter ѣ in place could rightly be called an educated person. But wouldn’t it be ashamed now to place knowledge of spelling as a special merit to someone other than Mitya, brought out by Mr. Ostrovsky? 32 Writing in bad language is now a disadvantage; The ability to write well is no longer a special virtue. Let us recall the phrase we wrote in the Telegraph article about Pogorelsky: “Is it really because they glorify “The Monastery” that it is written smoothly?” 33 - and leave it to the compiler. “Memorial sheet of errors in the Russian language” the pleasant and difficult task of issuing certificates of merit for the art of writing in a satisfactory language 34 . This distribution would take up too much of the critic's time, and would also involve too much paperwork: how many feet would be required for sheets of praise if all the worthy were awarded? Let us return, however, to the question of the harshness of reviews. Is unsweetened directness of condemnation permissible when it comes to the work of a “famous” writer? - Do you really want it to be allowed to “attack only the most complete and defenseless orphan”? Is it really possible to go into battle fully armed with weapons, with the red-hot arrows of sarcasm, against some poor Makar, on whom all the bad things are falling? If so, give your critical chair to those Gogol gentlemen who “praise Pushkin and speak with witty barbs about A. A. Orlov” 35. - Yes, they are guilty; we began to write unclearly and unconvincingly; we have forgotten our intention to always start from the very beginning. Let's fill in the omission. Criticism worthy of its name is not written so that Mr. Critic flaunts his wit, not in order to give the critic the glory of a vaudeville coupletist, delighting the public with his puns. Wit, causticity, bile, if the critic possesses them, should serve him as a tool to achieve the serious goal of criticism - the development and purification of taste in the majority of his readers, should only give him a means of appropriately expressing the opinions of the best part of society. Is public opinion really interested in questions about the dignity of writers who are unknown to anyone, and who are not revered by anyone as “wonderful writers”? Is the best part of society indignant that some student of Fedot Kuzmichev or A. A. Orlov wrote a new novel in four parts of fifteen pages each? Do “Love and Loyalty” or “A Terrible Place” (see the Bibliography of this book by Sovremennik), or “The Adventures of My Lord George of England” spoil the public’s taste? 36 If you want, sharpen your wit on them, but remember that in this case you are engaged in “magazine pouring from empty to empty,” and not criticism. “But the author may be upset by strict condemnation” 37 - that’s another matter; If you are a person who does not like to upset your neighbor, then do not attack anyone, because even a little-known author will be as upset as the most famous author by pointing out the shortcomings of his literary brainchild. If you think that it is impossible to say unpleasant things to someone under any circumstances, for any good, then place the finger of silence on your lips or open them then to prove that all criticism is harmful, because all criticism upsets someone. But do not rush to condemn unconditionally any criticism. Everyone will agree that the justice and benefits of literature are higher than the personal feelings of the writer. And the heat of the attack must be proportionate to the degree of harm to the taste of the public, the degree of danger, the power of influence that you are attacking. Therefore, if you have before you two novels, distinguished by false exaltation and sentimentality, and one of them bears an unknown name, and the other a name that has weight in literature, then which one should you attack with greater force? To the one that is more important, that is, harmful to literature. Fast forward sixty years ago. You are a German critic. Before you lies the artistically excellent, but cloying "Hermann und Dorothea" ("Herman and Dorothea" (German).-- Ed.) Goethe and some other idyllic poem by some mediocre scribbler, quite neatly written and just as cloying as the “artistically beautiful creation” of the great poet. Which of these two poems should you attack with all your passion, if you think (as everyone clever man) cloying idealism is a very harmful disease for Germans? And which poem can you decipher in an accommodating, soft and perhaps even encouraging tone? One of them will go unnoticed, harmless, despite your compliant response; the other has been delighting the German public for fifty-seven years. You would have acted very well if, having been a German critic sixty years ago, you had poured out all the bile of indignation on this harmful poem, refused for a while to listen to the gentle suggestions of your deep respect for the name of the one who was the glory of the German people, and would not have been afraid of reproaches in impatience, in rashness, in disrespect for the great name and, having coldly and briefly said that the poem was written very well (there are hundreds of pens for this besides yours), we would attack as clearly and sharply as possible the harmful sentimentality and emptiness of its content, we tried To the best of your ability, prove that the poem of the great Goethe is pitiful and harmful in content and direction. To speak about Goethe’s work in this way would, of course, not be easy for you: it would be bitter for you to rebel against someone whom you would like to glorify forever, and many would think badly of you. But what to do? This is what your duty requires of you. What a pathetic tone! we forgot that Goethe has not been found among our writers for a long time, therefore, modern Russian criticism has to talk only about such writers who are more or less close to mere mortals, and, probably, heroic determination is not at all needed in order to dare when one of them will write bad work, call a work bad without any circumlocutions or reservations, and when someone expresses this opinion, do not be upset by his terrible audacity. Therefore, it seems to us that if we find shortcomings, for example, in Sovremennik’s review of “The Three Seasons of Life,” then it would be necessary to show not that the famous author of this novel is above criticism, but, on the contrary, is it , that it was hardly worth talking much about such a book, which, in all likelihood, is not destined to make a splash in the public at all. And it seems to us that readers might not be entirely satisfied with our long review due to its length; they may think that it would be much better and it would be completely enough to limit oneself to two or three words, for example, at least only those written in “Notes of the Fatherland” (in “Three Times” there is no thought, no credibility in the characters, no probability in the course of events there is only a terrible affectation, representing everything exactly opposite to how it happens in this world; an immeasurable emptiness of content dominates over all this); but Sovremennik did not at all talk about this novel because the novel itself is worth a lot of attention - it seemed to us that it deserves some attention as one of many similar affected novels, the number of which has recently multiplied very noticeably. What comes into fashion should be subject to closer examination for this very reason, even if it does not deserve it due to its essential significance. And this gives us an opportunity to regret that in recent years our literature has developed too slowly; and how significant its development was in the past within five or six years! But tell me, how much has she come forward since the appearance of "Niece", "Tamarin" and especially wonderful work Mr. Ostrovsky "Our people - we will be numbered"? And due to this very stagnation of literature, Sovremennik’s judgments about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour in 1854 could not differ significantly from its opinions about these writers in 1850. Literature has changed little, and the position of writers in literature has changed little. Still, the stagnation in literature was not complete - some writers (for example, Mr. Grigorovich, with whom others continue to rank along with Mr. Avdeev, as they did before) moved forward and took a much more prominent place in literature than in 1850 ; 38 others, for example, Madame Tour, moved back even more significantly; still others, a few, like Mr. Avdeev, remained completely in the same place; Consequently, the old ranks have already been upset, new ones have formed. And now it would seem ridiculous to any reader if they began to put, for example, along with Mr. Grigorovich, Mr. Avdeev and, even more so, Ms. Tur. To some extent, the concepts of these latter have changed. And isn’t it (we’ll only talk about Mr. Avdeev), isn’t every reader going to say now that when Mr. Avdeev’s first works appeared, one should have expected much more from him than he could hitherto produce? Doesn’t everyone say that up to now he “has not yet lived up to expectations”? and five or six years have already passed, he has already written five or six stories, it would be time to justify these hopes. And if we really need to expect something better from him (the hope that we share and which we expressed in our article), then isn’t it time, isn’t it long time ago, to draw the attention of the “truly gifted” narrator to the fact that until now he more Nothing did not do to strengthen his fame? When he publishes all his works in five or six years, shouldn’t his attention be drawn to the significant shortcomings of all his works (lack of thought and the lack of accountability with which he pours out his warm feelings)? Fortunately, “he can correct these shortcomings if he pleases” (happy expression!) 39, which is why it is necessary to show them more clearly to him - this can be quite useful. Another thing is the fundamental depravity of (real or supposed?) talent - this can hardly be helped, no matter how you point out the shortcomings; That’s why in one of the three reviews (not about “Tamarin” or “Poverty is not a vice”) in question, Sovremennik did not express any hopes. But the shortcomings that plague Mr. Avdeev’s talent can disappear if he seriously wants it, because they lie not in the essence of his talent, but in the absence of those qualities necessary for the fruitful development of talent that are not given by nature, as talent is given; which are given to others by the difficult experience of life, to others by science, to others by the society in which he lives; Sovremennik tried to draw the attention of Mr. Avdeev to these conditions throughout its entire review and, as clearly as possible, expressed them at the end 40. We regret that we cannot begin to discuss them here, partly because this would mean repeating what was said very recently. But all the talk about these “simple and ordinary concepts, which are no longer discussed in any literature,” leads us to say two or three words about what “thought” is - a concept that perplexes some, of course, very few, and about which we therefore consider it sufficient to say only two or three words, without expanding on a subject so well known. “What is “thought” in a poetic work?” How can I explain this simply and briefly? Probably everyone has noticed the difference between the people whose conversations he heard. You sit for two hours with another person - and you feel that you did not spend your time in vain; You find at the end of the conversation that you have either learned something new, or have begun to look at things more clearly, or have become more sympathetic to the good, or more keenly offended by the bad, or you feel an urge to think about something. After another conversation, nothing like this happens. You talk, it seems, for the same amount of time and, it seems, about the same subjects, only with a person of a different analysis, and you feel that you have taken absolutely nothing from his stories, it’s all the same, as if you were engaged not in a conversation with him, but blowing soap bubbles, all the same, as if he had not spoken. Is it really necessary to explain why this is so? because one interlocutor is either an educated person, or a person who has seen a lot in his life and has seen it not without benefit for himself, an “experienced” person, or a person who has thought about something; and the other interlocutor is what is called an “empty” person. Is it really necessary to indulge in proofs and explanations that books are divided into the same two categories as conversations? Some are “empty” - sometimes at the same time inflated, - others are “non-empty”; and it is about non-empty ones that it is said that they have “thought”. We think that if it is permissible to laugh at empty people, then it is probably permissible to laugh at empty books; that if it is permissible to say: “you should not have or listen to empty conversations,” then it is probably permissible to say: “you should not write or read empty books.” Previously, “content” was constantly required from poetic works; our current demands, unfortunately, should be much more moderate, and therefore we are ready to be satisfied even with “thought,” that is, with the very desire for content, with the breath in the book of that subjective principle from which “content” arises. However, perhaps it is necessary to explain what “content” is? But we are writing about complex issues, and learned treatises cannot do without quotations. Therefore, let us recall the words of “Notes of the Fatherland”: “Others, perhaps, will say that these words were used in the “Bulletin of Europe”, in “Mnemosyne”, in “Athenea” and so on, were understandable to everyone twenty years ago and did not excite anyone no surprise, no indignation. Alas! what to do! Until now we fervently believed in moving forward, but now we have to believe in moving backwards." The worst thing about this passage is that it is completely true. Therefore, we regret that “Ordinary History” and “Tamarin” or “Clear Days” did not appear twenty years ago: then we would have understood what a huge difference between these works. They would understand, of course, that at the basis of Mr. Potekhin’s drama “The Governess” (that is, “Brother and Sister”?) lies a false and affected thought, as, however, this has already been proven by Sovremennik 42. Let us return, however, again to the “sharpness” of tone. We said that in many cases this is the only tone suitable for criticism that understands the importance of the subject and does not look coldly at literary questions. But we also said that harshness comes in different kinds, and so far we have only talked about one case - when the harshness of tone occurs because a fair thought is expressed directly and as strongly as possible, without reservations. Another thing is illegibility of words; Of course, it’s not good to allow yourself to do so, because to be rude means to forget your own dignity. We do not think that they could reproach us for this, because this is the harshest of the expressions, emphasized for “unceremoniousness, far from fashionable”: “Tamarin” made us expect new and better things from Mr. Avdeev, showing in him the ability to develop; but not one of his stories published so far can still be called the work of a thinking man." These words are unlikely to be condemned by Gogol's ladies, who say: "get by with a handkerchief"; 43 but in no case should he be "amazed" by them , who immediately allows himself expressions that are much less fashionable. Yes, it is not good to be illegible in words; but it is still much more forgivable than allowing yourself dark hints that suspect the sincerity of someone with whom you are dissatisfied. because they, precisely because of their darkness, are attached to everything; and if, for example, Otechestvennye zapiski hint that Sovremennik is unfair to Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour because the works of these writers are no longer published in Sovremennik. ", then how easy it is (let us refrain from other hints) to explain this hint with the following phrase: To Otechestvennye Zapiski, Sovremennik's opinions about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour seem unfair because these authors are now publishing their works in Otechestvennye Zapiski. . But it’s better to leave all such trifles, which are decidedly ridiculous: did Otechestvennye zapiski really stop praising Mr. Benediktov because the works of this poet, which adorned the first issues of the magazine, then stopped appearing in Otechestvennye zapiski? 44 Isn’t it clear to everyone that there could be no connection between these facts, that, finally, the situation could be the other way around? Let's leave it at that. Criticism should not be a “journal squabble”; she must take up a more serious and worthy matter - the persecution of empty works and, as much as possible, exposing the internal insignificance and discord of works with false content. And no matter in which magazine Sovremennik encounters criticism with a similar desire, it is always happy to meet it, because the need for it is really strong.

NOTES

TEXTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND COMMENTED

T. M. Akimova ("Song different nations..."); G. N. Antonova ("On sincerity in criticism"); A. A. Demchenko ("Novel and stories by M. Avdeev"; "Notes on magazines. June, July 1856"); A. A . Zhuk ("Three Seasons of Life". Novel by Evgenia Tur"); V. V. Prozorov (“Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky”; “Notes on magazines. March 1857”)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Belinsky - V. G. Belinsky. Full collected op. in 13 volumes. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953-1959. Herzen - A. I. Herzen. Collection op. in 30 volumes. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1954-1984. Gogol - N.V. Gogol. Full collection op. in 14 volumes. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1948-1952. Dobrolyubov - N. A. Dobrolyubov. Collection op. in 9 volumes. M., "Fiction", 1961--1964. "Materials" - P. V. Annenkov. Materials for the biography of A. S. Pushkin. - In the book: "Works of A. S. Pushkin", vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1855. Nekrasov - N. A. Nekrasov. Full collection op. and letters in 12 volumes. M., Goslitizdat, 1948--1953. "Letters" - Pushkin. Letters. 1815--1833. Tt. I--II. Ed. and with notes B. L. Modzalevsky. Gosizdat, M.-L., 1926--1928; Vol. III. Ed. and with notes L. B. Modzalevsky. "Academia", M.-L., 1935. Pushkin - A. S. Pushkin. Full collection op. in 16 volumes. M.-L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1937--1949. "Works - "Works of A. S. Pushkin". Published by A. S. Pushkin" by P. V. Annenkov. St. Petersburg, 1855--1856. Turgenev. -- I. S. Turgenev. Full collection Works op. and letters in 28 volumes. M.-L., "Science", 1960--1968, vols. I--XV. Turgenev. Letters - I. S. Turgenev. Full collection op. and letters in 28 volumes. M.-L., "Science", 1960--1968, vols. I--XIII. Ts.r. -- censorship permission. TsGALI -- Central state archive literature and art of the USSR. Chernyshevsky - N. G. Chernyshevsky. Full collection op. in 16 volumes. M., Goslitizdat, 1939--1953. The two-volume collection of selected literary critical works by N. G. Chernyshevsky includes works published in 1854-1862. All of them were first published in Sovremennik, with the exception of the article “Russian man at rendez-vous”, which appeared in the Moscow magazine Athenaeum. From the “Notes on Journals,” which contain important literary critical material, the compilers of the two-volume work, constrained by the volume of the publication, reproduce only two fragments. One is associated with the name of A. N. Ostrovsky (the critic closely followed the development of his talent), the other contains theoretical judgments that are valuable for understanding Chernyshevsky’s position. Articles are arranged in chronological order and published before the first printed journal texts, verified with primary sources (manuscripts, proofs), if they have survived. All cases of introduction into the main text of places excluded (distorted) by censorship or resulting from auto-censorship are specified in the notes. The discrepancies found in the primary sources, which are essential for clarifying the author's intention, are also indicated here. When quoting sources, Chernyshevsky makes a number of inaccuracies that are not corrected. Only the most significant of them are noted in the notes. The texts are printed in full. Spelling and punctuation are close to modern standards. Only individual author's spellings are preserved: often lowercase (rather than capital) letters after exclamation and question marks, the introduction in some cases of dashes and semicolons (instead of commas), which, however, do not interfere with the perception of the text. The spellings characteristic of Chernyshevsky’s era were left unchanged: accompaniment, honor, touch, unfashionable, on the shoulders, sentimentality, masculine, etc. The names of literary works and periodicals are not given in italics, as was customary at that time, but in quotation marks: “Clear Days”, “Village Visit”, “Notes of the Fatherland”, etc. The publication was prepared by employees of the Department of Russian Literature of Saratov University under the leadership of Evgraf Ivanovich Pokusaev, who died untimely (August 11, 1977). The organizational work was carried out by A. A. Demchenko.

ABOUT SINCERE IN CRITICISM

For the first time - "Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, dep. III, p. 1--24 (ts. June 30). Without a signature. The manuscript and proofs have not survived. Chernyshevsky’s article is a detailed theoretical justification of the tasks, principles, and method of revolutionary democratic criticism, polemically directed against the “moderate”, crushing criticism of the 1850s, which, in the person of S. Dudyshkin, A. Druzhinin, V. Botkin, began the fight against literary traditions Belinsky. The immediate reason for writing the article was S. Dudyshkin’s note “Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 6, department IV, p. 157 --162). Referring to Chernyshevsky's articles (see this volume), Dudyshkin accused him of harshness and straightforwardness in his assessments, which contradicted the magazine's previous reviews of these writers. Chernyshevsky, redirecting the reproach of inconsistency to the reviewer of Otechestvennye Zapiski and explaining the meaning of “true criticism,” restores the current significance of Belinsky’s literary theoretical ideas and method of criticism. The very title of Chernyshevsky’s article seemed to contain a reminder of one of the most important “commandments” of Belinsky, who advocated “sincerity,” “originality,” and “independence” of critical opinions. Chernyshevsky's article provoked fierce attacks from liberal aesthetic critics. S. Dudyshkin, repeating his previous argument about the inconsistency of Sovremennik, called Chernyshevsky’s answer “long,” “confused” and “dark” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 8, department IV, p. 91); N. Strakhov, in an unpublished letter to the editors of Sovremennik, having approved Chernyshevsky’s negative attitude towards literary criticism of the 50s, at the same time did not accept his positive program: “I do not agree with almost any of the critic’s opinions” (quoted from the work of M. G. Zeldovich “An unknown response to Chernyshevsky’s article “On sincerity in criticism.” - In the book: “N. G. Chernyshevsky. Articles, research and materials,” issue 6. 1971, p. 226). Chernyshevsky’s speech was supported. editors of Sovremennik Nekrasov and I. Panaev. The editorial announcement of the publication of the magazine in 1855 said: “We intend to follow the same path in the future, taking care at least, if it is difficult to achieve more, about the sincerity of judgments... "("Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVII, No. 9, p. 5). 1 Quote from Chernyshevsky's article "Complete works of Russian authors. Works by Anton Pogorelsky. Published by A. Smirdin. Two volumes. SPb. , 1853" (Chernyshevsky, vol. II, pp. 381--388). 2 We are talking about the editor of the Moscow Telegraph (1825-1834) N. A. Polevoy. A detailed historically specific description of N. Polevoy and his role in the history of literary criticism is given by Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856 3). Moderate and calm criticism- expression of S. S. Dudyshkin (see: "Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 6, department IV, p. 157). 4 In S. Dudyshkin’s reviews (in the “Journalism” review) to D. Grigorovich’s novel “Fishermen” (1853), Chernyshevsky was obviously not satisfied with the interpretation of this work contained there as a poeticization of peasant “humility and complete reconciliation with the modest lot determined by providence” ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10, department V, p. 121). According to the democratic critic, the humanistic pathos of the writer’s works devoted to the depiction of peasant life, including “Fishermen,” consisted in the affirmation of the moral dignity and spiritual wealth of the “commoner” (see: “Notes on magazines. August 1856.”- - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 689-691). 5 Inaccurate quote from I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Education of the Lion” (1811). 6 Quote from the review of S. Dudyshkin “Smart Woman”, the story of Mrs. T. Ch. - “Library for reading”, No. X and XI (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12, department V, a 134 7 Quote from the review “Travel Notes. Tales of T. Ch., vol. I, ed. 2, St. Petersburg, 1853" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 1, department V, pp. 5-6). 8 The following reviews by S. Dudyshkin are meant: "Leshy", a story by Mr. Pisemsky and four poems by Mr. Feta" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 2, department IV, pp. 98--101); “Poems of Messrs. Fet and Nekrasov” (ibid., No. 3, section IV, pp. 36-40); “Little things in life” by Mr. Stanitsky (ibid., No. 5, department IV, pp. 57-58). 9 Quote from the review of “Three Seasons of Life,” a novel by Evgenia Tur. 1854. Three parts" (ibid., pp. 1-8). 10 Belinsky's words from the article "Russian Literature in 1840" (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 435). 11 Quote from "Romance" N. F. Pavlova (1830), set to music by Yu. A. Kopiev. Later, V. N. Vsevolozhsky and A. N. Verstovsky wrote music for this romance. 12 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1840.” Italics by Chernyshevsky (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 437). 13 Extract from S. Dudyshkin’s note “Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev.” In it, the author refers to the article. I. S. Turgeneva (I. T.) "Niece", op. Evgenia Tur. Moscow, 1851" ("Contemporary", 1852, vol. XXXI, No. 1, part III, p. 1 --14), article by V. P. Gaevsky “Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems” (Contemporary, 1851, vol. XXV, No. 2, department III, p. 65) , in which Avdeev was placed on a par with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. L. Tolstoy's story "Childhood" was published under the title "The History of My Childhood" ("Contemporary", 1852, vol. XXXV, No. 9). 14 Obviously, “Masquerade,” which Chernyshevsky did not mention either before the appearance of the article “On Sincerity in Criticism” or later, seemed to him a kind of exception from Lermontov’s realistic work. 15 “Domestic Notes” repeatedly published highly positive reviews of Marlinsky’s works (1839, No. 1, department VII, pp. 17-18; No. 2, department VII, p. 119; No. 3, department VII, p. 7). Belinsky subjected the work of this writer to devastating criticism in the article “The Complete Works of A. Marlinsky” (1840), noting that his stories and tales are dominated by “violent passions”, “brilliant rhetorical tinsel”, “beautiful, dandy phrases” (Belinsky, vol. IV, pp. 45, 51). 16 Chernyshevsky combines into one quotation different sentences from “Notes and reflections of the New poet (I. I. Panaev) on Russian journalism. March 1853” (Sovremennik, 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No. 4, department VI, p. 262, 263, 266). 17 Chernyshevsky was wrong: his article “Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky, Moscow. 1854", from which the quotation is given, was published in the fifth issue of Sovremennik for 1854. In the February book of Sovremennik the article "Novel and stories by M. Avdeev". 18 On the superiority of A. Ostrovsky's comedy "Don't sit in your own sleigh" in comparison with the plays of other authors from the repertoire Alexandria Theater It was not I. Panaev who wrote, but M. V. Avdeev in “Letters from an “empty man” to the provinces about life in St. Petersburg.” "Letter Four" ("Contemporary", 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, department VI, pp. 193-203). 19 Quote from “Notes and reflections of the New Poet on Russian journalism. March 1853” (ibid., No. 4, section VII, p. 266). 20 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article “Poverty is not a vice.” 21 Chernyshevsky obviously has in mind a restrained assessment of Ostrovsky’s play “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” in his article “Poverty is not a vice” (see present volume, p. 55). See also P. N. Kudryavtsev’s review in the “Journalism” review, who defined the main idea of ​​the play as “the idea of ​​the moral superiority of the uneducated over... the educated.” However, the critic spoke with great caution about the falsity of this idea, saying that he would not want to “reproach” Ostrovsky for the rumors that his play could arouse (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1853, No. 4, department V, p. 100 , 102, 118). 22 P. N. Kudryavtsev, objecting to A. Grigoriev and his like-minded people, called Ostrovsky’s comedy a “blunder”, “a mistake against art” and reproached the author for “the composition” and “sugaryness” of Mitya, the naturalism of Lyubim Tortsov, for the fact that “ “The most complete passivity” of Lyubov Gordeevna “is deliberately supplied as the highest ideal of female character” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 6, department IV, pp. 79-101). Actors such as M. S. Shchepkin and S. V. Shuisky were hostile to the Slavophile tendencies of the play when it was first staged at the Maly Theater (January 1854) (see: “A. N. Ostrovsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries.” M., 1966, pp. 53, 54, 117, 118). Subsequently, M. S. Shchepkin partly revised his view of the play “Poverty is not a vice” (see his letter to his son dated August 22, 1855 - In the book: T. S. Grits. M. S. Shchepkin. Chronicle of Life and creativity. M., 1966, p. 553). 23 The following words of I. S. Turgenev are meant: “... Mrs. Tour is a woman, a Russian woman... opinions, heart, voice of a Russian woman - all this is dear to us, all this is close to us... Writers we had many in Rus'; some of them had remarkable abilities, but of all of them, one... no longer alive, Ms. Gan, could challenge Ms. Tour for the advantage of the first spoken word about which we just now they mentioned. This woman really had a warm Russian heart, and experience of women’s life, and passion of convictions - and nature did not deny her those “simple and sweet” sounds in which inner life is happily expressed” (Turgenev. Works, vol. V, p. 370). In "Collection of exemplary Russian works and translations in prose", published by the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (parts 1-6, St. Petersburg, 1815-1817), works of ancient Russian literature, as well as literature from the period of classicism and romanticism, were published. 24 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article. 25 Quote from the article by V. P. Gaevsky “Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems” (Sovremennik, 1851, vol. XXV, No. 2, department III, p. 65). 25 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1841” (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 543). 27 Quote from the same article by Belinsky (ibid.). 28 Chernyshevsky plays on the polemical expressions of S. Dudyshkin. 29 An obvious allusion to A. Druzhinin, who in “Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber” (1848-1854), targeting Belinsky, contrasted the “exclusiveness” of the opinions of “previous ponderous reports on the annual movement of Russian literature” with light “feuilleton criticism”, “living and impartial”, “capable of getting along with life”, like the criticism of French feuilletonists (“Library for Reading”, 1852, No. 12, department VII, p. 192; 1853, No. 1, department VII, p. 162). 30 Line from Lermontov’s poem “Don’t Trust Yourself” (1839). 31 Delight- the hero of the story by V. A. Zhukovsky “Maryina Grove - an ancient legend” (1809). Mentioning this story and the mannered, sensitive works of P. I. Shalikov, Chernyshevsky has in mind the pseudo-realistic, anti-fiction literature of the 50s (see also Chernyshevsky’s reviews of “New stories. Stories for children. Moscow, 1854”; “Countess Polina." Tale by A. Glinka. St. Petersburg, 1856" - "Contemporary", 1855, vol. L, No. 3, department IV, p. 17--24; IV, pp. 62--67). Mitya- a character from Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is not a vice." 33 Quote from a review of “The Monastery”. Essay by Anthony Pogorelsky. Part one. St. Petersburg, 1830" ("Moscow Telegraph", 1830, No. 5, March, department "Modern bibliography", p. 94). 34 Along with the "Commemorative sheet of errors in the Russian language and other inconsistencies found in the works of many Russian writers ", published in "Moskvityanin" in 1852-1854, I. Pokrovsky published in the same magazine "A memorial sheet of successful innovations in the Russian language, such as: skillfully composed new words, happy expressions and figures of speech with the addition of sublime metaphors , wonderful thoughts, strikingly beautiful paintings and scenes found in the newest works of our domestic writers in the field of fine literature" ("Moskvityanin", 1854, vol. 1, department VIII, pp. 37-46). Extracts from various works , published in Russian periodicals (the author’s name was often not mentioned), were accompanied by commendable assessments 35 These words were used to describe its hero, Lieutenant Pirogov, in Gogol’s story “Nevsky Prospekt” (1835). 36 This refers to “Love and Loyalty, or the Terrible Minute.” " (1854) V. Vasilyeva, "A terrible place. Ukrainian fairy tale in verse in Russian ancient size" (1854) by M. S. Vladimirov. The emptiness of content, the melodrama of these pseudo-fictional works of "unknown" authors were subjected to devastating criticism on the pages of Sovremennik (1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, dep. IV, pp. 20-21). “The Tale of the Adventure of the English Mylord George and the Brandenburg Margravine Frederick Louise” (St. Petersburg, 1782) - an essay by Matvey Komarov, a popular popular book 37 Chernyshevsky plays on the polemical expressions of Belinsky from his article “Russian”. literature in 1841", where for the first time the principle of historicism in the analysis of literary phenomena is substantiated as the main criterion of impartial "true criticism." "Of course," wrote Belinsky, "then many "immortals" will completely die, great will only be done famous or wonderful, the famous are insignificant; many treasures will turn into trash; but on the other hand, the truly beautiful will come into its own, and the pouring from empty to empty with rhetorical phrases and commonplaces - an activity, of course, harmless and innocent, but empty and vulgar - will be replaced by judgment and thinking... But this requires tolerance for opinions , room for belief is needed. Everyone judges as best he can and as best he can; a mistake is not a crime, and an unfair opinion is not an insult to the author" (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 544). 38 In the 50s, Chernyshevsky spoke with constant approval of D. Grigorovich as one of the "gifted writers" "natural school", which "were brought up by the influence of Belinsky" ("Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature." - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 19, 96, 103, 223) Positively assessing Grigorovich's stories of the 40s ("Village"). ", "Anton Goremyka"), Chernyshevsky noted in the novels "Fishermen" (1853), "Migrants" (1855-1856), the story "Plowman" (1853), as well as in his other works of these years, "living thought" , “real knowledge of people’s life and love for the people” (“Notes on magazines. August 1856”) See also note 4 to this article. 39 Chernyshevsky paraphrases the words of the reviewer of “Notes of the Fatherland” about the novel by E. Tur. life." See above, note 9. 40 See present volume, pp. 25--39. 41 Inaccurate quote from Belinsky’s article “Russian Literature in 1840.” From Belinsky: “... until now we fervently believed in progress as a forward movement, but now we have to believe in progress as a backward movement..." (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 438). 42 Chernyshevsky argues with S. Dudyshkin, who wrote: “The idea underlying Mr. Potekhin’s drama “Brother and Sister” is beautiful, although it will be called ideal” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 4, department IV, p. 88). In almost the same words, certifying this play, main character of which - the governess, in another article, "Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev", Dudyshkin mistakenly calls the drama itself - "The Governess". "Contemporary" responded to Potekhin's play with Chernyshevsky's article "Poverty is not a vice" by Ostrovsky." 43 An expression from Gogol's "Dead Souls" (1842). 44 In "Notes of the Fatherland" poems by V. Benediktov were published only in Nos. 1 and 2 for 1839 ("Italy", "Renewal", "Tears and Sounds"). On the pages of these and subsequent issues of the magazine, criticism sympathetically noted the "deep feeling and thought" in his poetry ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1839, No. 1, section VII). , pp. 14--15; No. 2, department VII, p. 5; No. 3, department VII, p. 6. .) Belinsky, who, back in “Telescope”, in the article “Poems of Vladimir Benediktov” (1835), characterized his work as the embodiment of pretentiousness, far-fetchedness, and rhetoric.

Its main representatives: N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, as well as N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin as the authors of actual critical articles, reviews and reviews.

Printed organs: magazines “Sovremennik”, “Russkoe Slovo”, “Domestic Notes” (since 1868).

The development and active influence of “real” criticism on Russian literature and public consciousness continued from the mid-50s to the end of the 60s.

N.G. Chernyshevsky

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889) acted as a literary critic from 1854 to 1861. In 1861, the last of Chernyshevsky’s fundamentally important articles, “Is this the beginning of change?” was published.

Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical speeches were preceded by a solution to general aesthetic issues undertaken by the critic in his master’s thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” (written in 1853, defended and published in 1855), as well as in a review of the Russian translation of Aristotle’s book “On Poetry” (1854) and auto-review of his own dissertation (1855).

Having published the first reviews in “Domestic Notes” by A.A. Kraevsky, Chernyshevsky in 1854 transferred at the invitation of N.A. Nekrasov at Sovremennik, where he heads the critical department. Sovremennik owed much to the collaboration of Chernyshevsky (and, from 1857, Dobrolyubov) not only for the rapid growth in the number of its subscribers, but also for its transformation into the main tribune of revolutionary democracy. The arrest in 1862 and the hard labor that followed interrupted Chernyshevsky’s literary and critical activity when he was only 34 years old.

Chernyshevsky acted as a direct and consistent opponent of the abstract aesthetic criticism of A.V. Druzhinina, P.V. Annenkova, V.P. Botkina, S.S. Dudyshkina. Specific disagreements between Chernyshevsky the critic and “aesthetic” criticism can be reduced to the question of the admissibility in literature (art) of the entire diversity of current life - including its socio-political conflicts (“the topic of the day”), and social ideology (trends) in general. “Aesthetic” criticism generally answered this question negatively. In her opinion, socio-political ideology, or, as Chernyshevsky’s opponents preferred to say, “tendentiousness,” is contraindicated in art, because it violates one of the main requirements of artistry - an objective and impartial depiction of reality. V.P. Botkin, for example, stated that “a political idea is the grave of art.” On the contrary, Chernyshevsky (like other representatives of “real” criticism) answered the same question in the affirmative. Literature not only can, but must become imbued with and inspired by the socio-political trends of its time, for only in this case will it become an expression of urgent social needs, and at the same time serve itself. After all, as the critic noted in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855 - 1856), “only those areas of literature achieve brilliant development that arise under the influence of strong and living ideas that satisfy the urgent needs of the era.” Chernyshevsky, a democrat, socialist and peasant revolutionary, considered the most important of these needs to be the liberation of the people from serfdom and the elimination of autocracy.

The rejection of “aesthetic” criticism of social ideology in literature was justified, however, by a whole system of views on art, rooted in the tenets of German idealistic aesthetics - in particular, Hegel’s aesthetics. The success of Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical position was therefore determined not so much by the refutation of the particular positions of his opponents, but by a fundamentally new interpretation of general aesthetic categories. This was the subject of Chernyshevsky’s dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.” But first, let’s name the main literary critical works that a student needs to keep in mind: reviews “Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky" (1854), "On Poetry." Op. Aristotle" (1854); articles: “On sincerity in criticism” (1854), “Works of A.S. Pushkin" (1855), "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", "Childhood and adolescence. Essay by Count L.N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy" (1856), " Provincial essays...Collected and published by M.E. Saltykov. ..." (1857), "Russian man at rendez-vous" (1858), "Isn't this the beginning of a change?" (1861).

In his dissertation, Chernyshevsky gives a fundamentally different definition of the subject of art compared to German classical aesthetics. How was it understood in idealist aesthetics? The subject of art is beauty and its varieties: sublime, tragic, comic. The source of beauty was thought to be the absolute idea or the reality that embodies it, but only in the entire volume, space and extent of the latter. The fact is that in a separate phenomenon - finite and temporary - the absolute idea, by its nature eternal and infinite, according to idealistic philosophy, is not incarnate. Indeed, between the absolute and the relative, the general and the individual, the natural and the random, there is a contradiction similar to the difference between the spirit (which is immortal) and the flesh (which is mortal). It is not possible for a person to overcome it in practical (material, production, socio-political) life. The only areas in which the resolution of this contradiction was possible were considered religion, abstract thinking (in particular, as Hegel believed, his own philosophy, more precisely, its dialectical method) and, finally, art as the main types of spiritual activity, the success of which is enormous depends on the creative gift of a person, his imagination, fantasy.

This led to the conclusion; beauty in reality, inevitably finite and transitory, is absent, it exists only in creative creatures artist - works of art. It is art that brings beauty into life. Hence the corollary of the first premise: art, as the embodiment of beauty above life.// “Venus de Milo,” declares, for example, I.S. Turgenev, - perhaps, undoubtedly more than Roman law or the principles of 89 (that is, the French Revolution of 1789 - 1794 - V.N.).” Summarizing in his dissertation the main postulates of idealistic aesthetics and the consequences arising from them, Chernyshevsky writes: “Defining the beautiful as the complete manifestation of an idea in a separate being, we must come to the conclusion: “the beautiful in reality is only a ghost, put into it by our factism”; from this it will follow that “strictly speaking, the beautiful is created by our imagination, but in reality... there is no truly beautiful”; from the fact that there is no truly beautiful in nature, it will follow that “art has as its source the desire of man to make up for the shortcomings of the beautiful in objective reality” and that the beautiful created by art is higher than the beautiful in objective reality” - all these thoughts constitute the essence of the prevailing now concepts..."

If in reality there is no beauty and it is brought into it only by art, then creating the latter is more important than creating, improving life itself. And the artist should not so much help improve life as reconcile a person with its imperfections, compensating for it with the ideal-imaginary world of his work.

It was to this system of ideas that Chernyshevsky contrasted his materialistic definition of beauty: “beauty is life”; “beautiful is the being in which we see life as it should be according to our concepts; “Beautiful is the object that shows life in itself or reminds us of life.”

Its pathos and at the same time fundamental novelty consisted in the fact that the main task of man was recognized not to create the beautiful in itself (in its spiritually imaginary form), but to transform life itself, including the present, current one, according to this person’s ideas about its ideal . Solidarizing in in this case with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Chernyshevsky seems to be saying to his contemporaries: first of all, make life itself beautiful, and do not fly away from it in beautiful dreams. And second: If the source of beauty is life (and not an absolute idea, Spirit, etc.), then art in its search for beauty depends on life, generated by its desire for self-improvement as a function and means of this desire.

Chernyshevsky also challenged the traditional opinion of beauty as the supposed main goal of art. From his point of view, the content of art is much broader than beauty and constitutes “generally interesting things in life,” that is, it covers everything. what worries a person, what his fate depends on. For Chernyshevsky, man (and not beauty) essentially became the main subject of art. The critic interpreted the specifics of the latter differently. According to the logic of the dissertation, what distinguishes an artist from a non-artist is not the ability to embody an “eternal” idea in a separate phenomenon (event, character) and thereby overcome their eternal contradiction, but the ability to reproduce life collisions, processes and trends that are of general interest to contemporaries in their individually visual form. Art is conceived by Chernyshevsky not so much as a second (aesthetic) reality, but as a “concentrated” reflection of objective reality. Hence those extreme definitions of art (“art is a surrogate for reality”, “a textbook of life”), which, not without reason, were rejected by many contemporaries. The fact is that Chernyshevsky’s desire, legitimate in itself, to subordinate art to the interests of social progress in these formulations turned into oblivion of his creative nature.

In parallel with the development of materialist aesthetics, Chernyshevsky also reinterprets such a fundamental category of Russian criticism of the 40s - 60s as artistry. And here his position, although it is based on individual provisions of Belinsky, remains original and, in turn, is polemical to traditional ideas. Unlike Annenkov or Druzhinin (as well as such writers as I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov), Chernyshevsky considers the main condition of artistry not the objectivity and impartiality of the author and the desire to reflect reality in its entirety, not the strict dependence of each fragment of the work ( character, episode, detail) from the whole, not the isolation and completeness of the creation, but an idea (social tendency), the creative fruitfulness of which, according to the critic, is commensurate with its vastness, truthfulness (in the sense of coincidence with the objective logic of reality) and “consistency.” In the light of the last two requirements, Chernyshevsky analyzes, for example, the comedy by A.N. Ostrovsky “Poverty is not a vice”, in which he finds “a sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished.” The erroneous initial thought underlying the comedy deprived it, Chernyshevsky believes, of even plot unity. “Works that are false in their main idea,” the critic concludes, “are sometimes weak even in a purely artistic sense.”

If the consistency of a truthful idea provides unity to a work, then its social and aesthetic significance depends on the scale and relevance of the idea.

Chernyshevsky also demands that the form of the work correspond to its content (idea). However, this correspondence, in his opinion, should not be strict and pedantic, but only expedient: it is enough if the work is laconic, without unnecessary excesses. To achieve such expediency, Chernyshevsky believed, no special author's imagination or fantasy is needed.

The unity of a truthful and consistent idea with a corresponding form is what makes a work artistic. Chernyshevsky’s interpretation of artistry thus removed from this concept the mysterious aura that representatives of “aesthetic” criticism had endowed it with. It was also freed from dogmatism. At the same time, here, as in determining the specifics of art, Chernyshevsky’s approach was guilty of unjustified rationality and a certain straightforwardness.

The materialistic definition of beauty, the call to make everything that excites a person the content of art, the concept of artistry intersect and are refracted in Chernyshevsky’s criticism in the idea of ​​​​the social purpose of art and literature. The critic here develops and clarifies Belinsky’s views of the late 30s. Since literature is a part of life itself, a function and means of its self-improvement, it, says the critic, “cannot help but be a servant of one or another direction of ideas; this is a purpose that lies in her nature, which she cannot refuse, even if she wanted to refuse.” This is especially true for those who are undeveloped politically and civil relations autocratic-serf Russia, where literature “concentrates... the mental life of the people” and has “encyclopedic significance.” The direct duty of Russian writers is to spiritualize their work with “humanity and concern for the improvement of human life,” which have become the dominant need of the time. “The poet,” writes Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period...”, is a lawyer., of her (the public. - V.NL) own ardent desires and sincere thoughts.

Chernyshevsky’s struggle for a literature of social ideology and direct public service explains the critic’s rejection of the work of those poets (A. Fet. A. Maykov, Ya. Polonsky, N. Shcherbina), whom he calls “epicureans”, “for whom public interests do not exist, for whom public interests are known.” only personal pleasures and sorrows. Considering the position of “pure art” in everyday life to be by no means disinterested, Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period...” also rejects the argumentation of the supporters of this art: that aesthetic pleasure “in itself brings significant benefit to a person, softening his heart, elevating his soul,” that aesthetic experience “directly... ennobles the soul by the sublimity and nobility of objects and feelings with which we are seduced in works of art.” And a cigar, Chernyshevsky objects, softens, and a good dinner, in general health and excellent living conditions. This, the critic concludes, a purely epicurean view of art.

The materialist interpretation of general aesthetic categories was not the only prerequisite for Chernyshevsky’s criticism. Chernyshevsky himself indicated two other sources of it in “Essays on the Gogol Period...”. This is, firstly, Belinsky’s legacy of the 40s and, secondly, Gogol’s, or, as Chernyshevsky clarifies, the “critical direction” in Russian literature.

In “Essays...” Chernyshevsky solved a number of problems. First of all, he sought to revive the covenants and principles of criticism of Belinsky, whose very name was under censorship ban until 1856, and whose legacy was suppressed or interpreted by “aesthetic” criticism (in letters from Druzhinin, Botkin, Annenkov to Nekrasov and I. Panaev) one-sidedly, sometimes negative. The plan corresponded to the intention of the editors of Sovremennik to “fight the decline of our criticism” and “to improve, if possible,” their own “critical department,” as stated in the “Announcement about the publication of Sovremennik” in 1855. It was necessary, Nekrasov believed, to return to the interrupted tradition - to the “straight path” of “Notes of the Fatherland” of the forties, that is, Belinsky: “... what faith there was in the magazine, what a living connection between him and the readers!” Analysis from democratic and materialist positions of the main critical systems of the 20s - 40s (N. Polevoy, O. Senkovsky, N. Nadezhdin, I. Kireevsky, S. Shevyrev, V. Belinsky) at the same time allowed Chernyshevsky to determine for the reader his own position in the emerging with the outcome of the “dark seven years” (1848 - 1855) of the literary struggle, as well as to formulate modern tasks and principles of literary criticism. “Essays...” also served polemical purposes, in particular the fight against the opinions of A.V. Druzhinin, which Chernyshevsky clearly has in mind when he shows the selfish-protective motives of S. Shevyrev’s literary judgments.

Considering in the first chapter of “Essays...” the reasons for the decline of criticism by N. Polevoy, “who at first so cheerfully emerged as one of the leaders in the literary and intellectual movement” of Russia, Chernyshevsky concluded that for viable criticism, firstly, modern philosophical theory, Secondly. moral feeling, meaning by it the humanistic and patriotic aspirations of the critic, and finally, orientation towards truly progressive phenomena in literature.

All these components organically merged in Belinsky’s criticism, the most important principles of which were “fiery patriotism” and the latest “scientific concepts”, that is, the materialism of L. Feuerbach and socialist ideas. Chernyshevsky considers other major advantages of Belinsky’s criticism to be its struggle with romanticism in literature and in life, the rapid growth from abstract aesthetic criteria to animation by the “interests of national life” and the judgments of writers from the point of view of “the significance of his activities for our society.”

In “Essays...” for the first time in the Russian censored press, Belinsky was not only associated with the ideological and philosophical movement of the forties, but was made its central figure. Chernyshevsky outlined the scheme of Belinsky’s creative emotion, which remains the basis of modern ideas about the activity of a critic: the early “telescopic” period - the search for a holistic philosophical understanding of the world and the nature of art; a natural meeting with Hegel on this path, a period of “reconciliation” with reality and a way out of it, a mature period of creativity, which in turn revealed two moments of development - according to the degree of deepening of social thinking.

At the same time, for Chernyshevsky, the differences that should appear in future criticism in comparison with Belinsky’s criticism are also obvious. Here is his definition of criticism: “Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of some literary direction. Its purpose is to encourage the expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses” (“On Sincerity in Criticism”).

“The best part of the public” are, without a doubt, democrats and ideologists of the revolutionary transformation of Russian society. Future criticism should directly serve their tasks and goals. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the workshop isolation among professionals and enter into constant communication with the public. reader, as well as gain “all possible ... clarity, certainty and directness” of judgment. The interests of the common cause, which she will serve, give her the right to be harsh.

In the light of the requirements, first of all, of social-humanistic ideology, Chernyshevsky undertakes an examination of both the phenomena of current realistic literature and its sources in the person of Pushkin and Gogol.

Four articles about Pushkin were written by Chernyshevsky simultaneously with “Essays on the Gogol period...”. They included Chernyshevsky in the discussion started by A.V.’s article. Druzhinin “A.S. Pushkin and the latest edition of his works”: 1855) in connection with Annenkov’s Collected Works of the poet. Unlike Druzhinin, who created the image of a creator-artist, alien to the social conflicts and unrest of his time, Chernyshevsky appreciates in the author of “Eugene Onegin” the fact that he “was the first to describe Russian morals and the life of various classes ... with amazing fidelity and insight” . Thanks to Pushkin, Russian literature became closer to “Russian society.” The ideologist of the peasant revolution especially cherishes Pushkin’s “Scenes from the Times of Knights” (they should be placed “not lower than “Boris Godunov””), the meaningfulness of Pushkin’s verse (“every line... touched, aroused thought”). Crete, recognizes the enormous importance of Pushkin “in the history of Russian education.” enlightenment. However, in contrast to these praises, the relevance of Pushkin’s legacy for modern literature was recognized by Chernyshevsky as insignificant. In fact, in his assessment of Pushkin, Chernyshevsky takes a step back compared to Belinsky, who called the creator of “Onegin” (in the fifth article of Pushkin’s cycle) the first “poet-artist” of Rus'. “Pushkin was,” writes Chernyshevsky, “primarily a poet of form.” “Pushkin was not a poet of someone with a specific view of life, like Byron, he was not even a poet of thought in general, like ... Goethe and Schiller.” Hence the final conclusion of the articles: “Pushkin belongs to a bygone era... He cannot be recognized as a luminary of modern literature.”

The general assessment of the founder of Russian realism turned out to be unhistorical. It also made clear the sociological bias in Chernyshevsky’s understanding of artistic content and poetic idea, which was unjustified in this case. Willingly or unwittingly, the critic gave Pushkin to his opponents - representatives of “aesthetic” criticism.

In contrast to Pushkin’s legacy, the Gogolian legacy according to Chernyshevsky’s thought, addressed to the needs of social life and therefore full of deep content, receives the highest appreciation in “Essays...”. The critic especially emphasizes Gogol’s humanistic pathos, which was essentially not noticed in Pushkin’s work. “To Gogol,” writes Chernyshevsky, “those who need protection owe a lot; he became the head of those. who deny evil and vulgarity."

The humanism of Gogol’s “deep nature,” however, Chernyshevsky believes, was not supported by modern advanced ideas (teachings), which had no impact on the writer. According to the critic, this limited the critical pathos of Gogol’s works: the artist saw the ugliness of the facts of Russian social life, but did not understand the connection of these facts with the fundamental foundations of Russian autocratic-serf society. In general, Gogol had the “gift of unconscious creativity,” without which one cannot be an artist. However, the poet, adds Chernyshevsky, “will not create anything great if he is not also gifted with a wonderful mind, strong common sense and subtle taste.” Chernyshevsky explains Gogol's artistic drama by the suppression of the liberation movement after 1825, as well as the influence on the writer of the protective minded S. Shevyrev, M. Pogodin and his sympathies for patriarchy. Nevertheless, Chernyshevsky’s overall assessment of Gogol’s work is very high: “Gogol was the father of Russian prose,” “he is credited with firmly introducing the satirical into Russian literature - or, as it would be more fair to call his critical trends,” he is “the first in Russian literature to have a decisive desire to content and, moreover, striving in such a fruitful direction as critical.” And finally: “There was no writer in the world who was as important for his people as Gogol was for Russia,” “he awakened in us consciousness about ourselves - this is his true merit.”

Chernyshevsky’s attitude towards Gogol and the Gogolian trend in Russian realism, however, did not remain unchanged, but depended on which phase of his criticism it belonged to. The fact is that in Chernyshevsky’s criticism there are two phases: the first - from 1853 to 1858, the second - from 1858 to 1862. The turning point for them was the emerging revolutionary situation in Russia, which entailed a fundamental division between democrats and liberals on all issues, including literary ones.

The first phase is characterized by the critic’s struggle for the Gogolian direction, which remains effective and fruitful in his eyes. This is a struggle for Ostrovsky, Turgenev, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, L. Tolstoy, for the strengthening and development of their critical pathos. The task is to unite all anti-serfdom writer groups.

In 1856, Chernyshevsky dedicated a large review to Grigorovich, by that time the author not only of “The Village” and “Anton the Miserable,” but also of the novels “Fishermen” (1853), “Migrants” (1856), imbued with a deep participation in life and fate “ common people,” especially serfs. Contrasting Grigorovich to his numerous imitators, Chernyshevsky believes that in his stories “peasant life is depicted correctly, without embellishment; strong talent and deep feeling are visible in the description.”

Until 1858, Chernyshevsky took “extra people” under protection, for example, from the criticism of S. Dudyshkin. reproaching them for lack of “harmony with the situation,” that is, for opposition to the environment. In conditions modern society such “harmony,” Chernyshevsky shows, will come down only to “being an efficient official, a managerial landowner” (“Notes on Journals,” 1857*. At this time, the critic sees in “superfluous people” still victims of the Nicholas reaction, and he values that share of protest that they contain in themselves. True, even at this time he treats them differently: he sympathizes with Rudin and Beltov, who are striving for social activity, but not with Onegin and Pechorin.

Particularly interesting is Chernyshevsky’s attitude towards L. Tolstoy, who, by the way, spoke extremely hostilely about the critic’s dissertation and his very personality at that time. In the article “Childhood and adolescence. Essay by Count L.N. Tolstoy...” Chernyshevsky revealed extraordinary aesthetic sensitivity when assessing an artist whose ideological positions were very far from the mood of the critic. Chernyshevsky notes two main features in Tolstoy’s talent: the originality of his psychological analysis (unlike other realist writers, Tolstoy is not interested in the result of the mental process, not the correspondence of emotions and actions, etc., but “the mental process itself, its forms, its laws , dialectics of the soul") and the sharpness ("purity") of the "moral feeling", the moral perception of the depicted." The critic rightly understood Tolstoy's mental analysis as an expansion and enrichment of the possibilities of realism (we note in passing that even such a person was at first very skeptical about this feature of Tolstoy's prose a master like Turgenev, who called it “picking out the dirty linen from under the armpits”) As for the “purity of moral feeling”, which Chernyshevsky noted, by the way, in Belinsky, Chernyshevsky sees in it a guarantee of the artist’s rejection of social untruth as well as moral falsity. , social lies and injustice. This was already confirmed by Tolstoy’s story “The Morning of the Landowner,” which showed the meaninglessness of lordly philanthropy in relation to the peasant in conditions of serfdom. The story was highly praised by Chernyshevsky in “Notes on Journals” in 1856. The author was given credit for the fact that the content of the story was taken “from a new sphere of life,” which developed the writer’s very view “of life.”

After 1858, Chernyshevsky’s judgments about Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev, as well as about “superfluous people” changed. This is explained not only by the break between democrats and liberals (in 1859 - 1860, L. Tolstoy, Goncharov, Botkin, Turgenev left Sovremennik), but also by the fact that during these years a new trend was emerging in Russian realism, represented by Saltykov-Shchedrin (in 1856, “Russian Bulletin” began publishing his “Provincial Sketches”), Nekrasov, N. Uspensky, V. Sleptsov, A. Levitov, F. Reshetnikov and inspired by democratic ideas. Democratic writers had to establish themselves in their own positions, freeing themselves from the influence of their predecessors. Chernyshevsky is also involved in solving this problem, believing that Gogol’s direction has exhausted itself. Hence the overestimation of Rudin (the critic sees in him an unacceptable “caricature” of M. Bakunin, with whom the revolutionary tradition was associated), and other “superfluous people” whom Chernyshevsky no longer separates from the liberal nobles.

Chernyshevsky’s famous article “Russian man at rendez-vous” (1958) became a declaration and proclamation of an uncompromising demarcation from noble liberalism in the Russian liberation movement of the 60s. It appears at the moment when, as the critic specifically emphasizes, the denial of serfdom, which united liberals and democrats in the 40s and 50s, was replaced by the polar opposite attitude of the former allies to the coming, Chernyshevsky believes, peasant revolution.

The reason for the article was the story by I.S. Turgenev's "Asya" (1858), in which the author of "The Diary of an Extra Man", "The Calm", "Correspondence", "Trips to Woodland" depicted the drama of failed love in conditions when the happiness of two young people seemed both possible and close . Interpreting the hero of “Asia” (along with Rudin, Beltov, Nekrasov’s Agarin and other “superfluous people”) as a type of noble liberal. Chernyshevsky gives his explanation of the social position (“behavior”) of such people - albeit revealed in the intimate situation of a date with a beloved girl who reciprocates. Filled with ideal aspirations, sublime feelings, they, says the critic, fatally they stop before putting them into practice and are unable to combine words with deeds. And the reason for this inconsistency is not in any of their personal weaknesses, but in their belonging to the dominant noble class, burdened with “class prejudices.” It is impossible to expect decisive actions from a noble liberal in accordance with “the great historical interests of national development” (that is, to eliminate the autocratic serfdom system), because the main obstacle for them is the nobility itself. And Chernyshevsky calls for a decisive rejection of illusions regarding the liberating and humanizing capabilities of the noble oppositionist: “The idea is developing in us more and more strongly that this opinion about him is an empty dream, we feel... that there are people better than him, precisely those whom he offends; that we would be better off without him.”

In his article “Polemical Beauty” (1860), Chernyshevsky explains his current critical attitude towards Turgenev and his break with the writer, whom the critic had previously defended from attacks, by the incompatibility of revolutionary democracy with reformism. cnpalai “Our way of thinking became so clear for Mr. Turgenev that he stopped approving of him . It began to seem to us that Mr. Turgenev’s latest stories were not as close to our view of things as before, when his direction was not so clear to us, and our views were not so clear to him. We parted".

Since 1858, Chernyshevsky’s main concern has been devoted to raznochinsky-democratic literature and its authors, called upon to master the craft of writing and show the public heroes other than “superfluous people,” close to the people and inspired by popular interests.

Chernyshevsky connects his hopes for creating a “completely new period” in poetry primarily with Nekrasov. Back in 1856, he wrote to him in response to a request to speak about the famous collection “Poems of N. Nekrasov” that had just been published: “We have never had a poet like you.” Chernyshevsky retained his high assessment of Nekrasov throughout the following years. Having learned about the poet’s fatal illness, he asked (in a letter on August 14, 1877 to Pypin from Vilyuysk) to kiss him and tell him, “the most brilliant and noblest of all Russian poets. I’m crying for him” (“Tell Nikolai Gavrilovich,” Nekrasov answered Pypin, “that I thank him very much, I am now comforted: his words are more valuable than anyone else’s words”). In the eyes of Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov is the first great Russian poet who became truly popular, that is, who expressed both the state of the oppressed people (the peasantry), and faith in their strength, the growth of national self-awareness. At the same time, Chernyshevsky cherishes the intimate lyrics of Nekrasov - “poetry of the heart,” “plays without a tendency,” as he calls it, which embodied the emotional-intellectual structure and spiritual experience of the Russian raznochinsky intelligentsia, its inherent system of moral and aesthetic values.

In the author of “Provincial Sketches” M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky saw a writer who went beyond the critical realism of Gogol. Unlike the author of Dead Souls, Shchedrin, according to Chernyshevsky, already knows “what the connection is between the branch of life in which facts are found and other branches of the mental, moral, civil, state life“, that is, he knows how to trace the private outrages of Russian social life to their source - the socialist system of Russia. “Provincial Sketches” are valuable not only as “a wonderful literary phenomenon,” but also as “ historical fact"Russian life" on the path of its self-awareness.

In reviews of writers ideologically close to him, Chernyshevsky raises the question of the need for a new positive hero in literature. He is waiting for “his speech, the most cheerful, at the same time the calmest and most decisive speech, in which one could hear not the timidity of theory before life, but proof that reason can rule over life and a person can reconcile his life with his convictions.” Chernyshevsky himself became involved in solving this problem in 1862, creating in the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress a novel about “new people” - “What is to be done?”

Chernyshevsky did not have time to systematize his views on democratic literature. But one of its principles - the question of depicting the people - was developed by him very thoroughly. This is the subject of the last of Chernyshevsky’s major literary critical articles, “Isn’t this the beginning of change?” (1861), the occasion for which was “Essays on National Life” by N. Uspensky.

The critic opposes any idealization of the people. In conditions of the social awakening of the people (Chernyshevsky knew about mass peasant uprisings in connection with the predatory reform of 1861), he believes that it objectively serves protective purposes, since it reinforces popular passivity, the belief in the inability of the people to independently decide their fate. Nowadays, the depiction of the people in the form of Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin or Anton Goremyka is unacceptable. Literature must show the people, their moral and psychological state “without embellishment,” because only “such an image testifies to the recognition of the people as equal to other classes and will help the people get rid of the weaknesses and vices instilled in them over centuries of humiliation and lawlessness. It is equally important, not content with routine manifestations of folk life and ordinary characters, to show the people in whom the “initiative of popular activity” is concentrated. This was a call to create images of people's leaders and rebels in literature. Already the image of Saveliy, the “hero of Holy Russia” from Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” spoke of this. that this behest of Chernyshevsky was heard.

Chernyshevsky's aesthetics and literary criticism are not distinguished by academic dispassion. They, in the words of V.I. Lenin, imbued with the “spirit of class struggle.” And also, we add, the spirit of rationalism, faith in the omnipotence of reason, characteristic of Chernyshevsky as an educator. This obliges us to consider Chernyshevsky’s literary critical system in the unity of not only its strong and promising premises, but also its relatively weak and even extreme premises.

Chernyshevsky is right in defending the priority of life over art. But he is mistaken when, on this basis, he calls art a “surrogate” (that is, a substitute) for reality. In fact, art is not only a special (in relation to scientific or social-practical human activity), but also a relatively autonomous form spiritual creativity- aesthetic reality, in the creation of which a huge role belongs to the holistic ideal of the artist and the efforts of his creative imagination. In turn, by the way, underestimated by Chernyshevsky. “Reality,” he writes, “is not only more vivid, but also more complete than fantasy. Fantasy images are only a pale and almost always unsuccessful reworking of reality. This is true only in the sense of the connection between artistic fantasy and the life aspirations and ideals of a writer, painter, musician, etc. However, the very understanding of creative fantasy and its possibilities is erroneous, for the consciousness of a great artist does not so much remake the real world as create a new world.

The concept of an artistic idea (content) acquires from Chernyshevsky not only a sociological, but sometimes a rationalistic meaning. If its first interpretation is completely justified in relation to a number of artists (for example, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin), then the second actually eliminates the line between literature and science, art and sociological treatise, memoirs, etc. An example of unjustified rationalization of artistic content is the following statement by a critic in a review of the Russian translation of Aristotle’s works: “Art, or, better said, POETRY ... spreads among the masses of readers great amount information and, what is even more important, acquaintance with the concepts developed by science - this is the great significance of poetry for life.” Here Chernyshevsky, wittingly or unwittingly, anticipates the future literary utilitarianism of D.I. Pisareva. Another example. Literature, the critic says elsewhere, acquires authenticity and content if it “talks about everything that is important in any respect that happens in society, considers all these facts ... from all possible points of view, explains, from what causes each fact comes, what supports it, what phenomena must be brought into existence to strengthen it, if it is noble, or to weaken it, if it is harmful.” In other words, a writer is good if, while recording significant phenomena and trends in social life, he subjects them to analysis and makes his own “sentence” on them. This is how Chernyshevsky himself acted as the author of the novel “What is to be done?” But to fulfill such a formulated task it is not at all necessary to be an artist, for it is completely solvable within the framework of a sociological treatise, a journalistic article, brilliant examples of which were given by Chernyshevsky himself (remember the article “Russian man on rendez-vous”), Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev.

Perhaps the most vulnerable place in Chernyshevsky’s literary critical system is the idea of ​​artistry and typification. Agreeing that “the prototype for a poetic person is often a real person”, raised by the writer “to a general meaning,” the critic adds: “There is usually no need to build, because the original already has general meaning in its individuality." It turns out that typical faces exist in reality itself, and are not created by the artist. The writer can only “transfer” them from life into his work in order to explain them and judge them. This was not only a step back from the corresponding teachings of Belinsky, but also a dangerous simplification, reducing the work and work of the artist to copying reality.

Famous rationalization creative act and art in general, the sociological bias in the interpretation of literary and artistic content as the embodiment of one or another social trend explains the negative attitude towards Chernyshevsky’s views not only of representatives of “aesthetic” criticism, but also of such major artists of the 50s and 60s as Turgenev, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy. In Chernyshevsky’s ideas they saw the danger of “enslaving art” (N.D. Akhsharumov) by political and other transitory tasks.

While noting the weaknesses of Chernyshevsky's aesthetics, one should remember the fruitfulness - especially for Russian society and Russian literature - of its main pathos - the idea of ​​​​the social and humanistic service of art and the artist. Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov would later call Chernyshevsky’s dissertation one of the first experiments in “practical aesthetics.” L. Tolstoy’s attitude towards her will change over the years. A number of provisions of his treatise “What is art?” (published in 1897 - 1898) will be directly consonant with the ideas of Chernyshevsky.

And one last thing. We must not forget that literary criticism was for Chernyshevsky, in the conditions of a censored press, in fact, the main opportunity from the position of revolutionary democracy to highlight the pressing problems of Russian social development and influence it. One can say about Chernyshevsky the critic what the author of “Essays on the Gogol Period...” said about Belinsky: “He feels that the boundaries of literary issues are narrow, he yearns in his office, like Faust: he is cramped in these walls lined with books , - it doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad; he needs life, not talk about the merits of Pushkin’s poems.”

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky

Pushkin's works, annexes of materials for his biography, portrait, photographs from his handwriting and his drawings, etc. Published by P. V. Annenkov. St. Petersburg 1855

The impatient expectation, the urgent need of the Russian public, is finally satisfied. The first two volumes of a new edition of the works of our great poet have been published; the remaining volumes will soon follow.

The beginning of 1855 was marked by events that were joyful for all educated people of the Russian land: in one capital - the anniversary of Moscow University, which participated so much in the spread of education and contributed so much to the development of science in Russia; in another capital - a worthy publication of the works of a great writer who had such an influence on the education of the entire Russian public - what a celebration for Russian science and literature!

Fully understanding the importance of such an event as the publication of Pushkin’s works, we hasten to give an account of it to the public.

We will not talk about the significance of Pushkin in the history of our social development and our literature; Nor will we consider the essential qualities of his works from an aesthetic point of view. As far as possible for the present time, the historical significance of Pushkin and the artistic merit of his creations have already been appreciated by both the public and critics. It will be years before others literary phenomena will change the public's real understanding of the poet, who will forever remain great. Therefore, years will pass before criticism will be able to say anything new about his creations. We can now only study the personality and activities of Pushkin on the basis of the data presented by the new publication.

We will not pay attention to the inevitable shortcomings of the new edition. We can only talk about what the publisher gives us, and to what extent he satisfactorily fulfills what he could perform.

So, first of all, let's talk about the system and boundaries of the new edition.

It was based on the posthumous publication of “Works of Alexander Pushkin” in 11 volumes. But this posthumous publication, as we know, was done carelessly, according to a bad system, with omissions of many works, with irregularities in the text, with an arbitrary and often erroneous arrangement of works according to headings, which only complicated the study of both the works themselves and the gradual development of Pushkin’s genius. Therefore, Mr. Annenkov’s duty was to correct shortcomings in the new edition. He talks about it like this:

The first concern of the new edition was to correct the text of the previous edition; but this, due to the importance of the task, could not happen otherwise than with the presentation of evidence for the right of amendment or change. Hence the system of notes included in this edition. Each of the poet’s works, without exception, is provided with an indication of where it first appeared, what versions it received in other editions during the poet’s lifetime, and in what relationship the text of the new edition stands with the text of these editions. The reader thus has, if possible, a history of external and, partly, internal changes obtained in different eras each work, and according to it can correct the oversights of the posthumous edition, of which the most striking ones have already been corrected by the publisher of the proposed collected works of Pushkin. Many of the poet's poems and articles (especially those that appeared in print after his death) are collated with manuscripts and the author's numerical notes, his first thoughts and intentions are indicated on them. (Preface to Volume II).

The correction of the text was followed by its addition: the publisher took advantage of all the instructions about the works of Pushkin that had ever been published that were missing in the posthumous edition, reviewed all the almanacs and magazines in which Pushkin published his poems and articles: but this was not the only addition: all the papers were placed at the disposal of the publisher , left after Pushkin, and he extracted from them everything that still remained unknown to the public. Finally, to the bibliographical notes and variants that we talked about above, he added, wherever he could, an explanation of the cases and reasons for which the famous work was written.

Instead of the previous confused and arbitrary division into small and imprecise headings, which constituted one of the significant shortcomings of the posthumous edition, he adopted a strict chronological order, with the distribution of works into a few departments, which are accepted in all the best European editions of classical writers and are indicated by convenience for readers, aesthetic concepts and the essence of the matter:

I. Poems. The first section is lyrical, the second section is epic, the third section is dramatic works.

II. Prose. Section one - Notes of Pushkin: a) Genealogy of the Pushkins and Hannibalovs; b) The remains of Pushkin’s notes in the strict sense (autobiographical); c) Thoughts and comments; d) Critical notes; f) Anecdotes collected by Pushkin; f) Travel to Arzrum. Section two - novels and stories (here also includes “Scenes from Knightly Times”). Section three - journal articles published in posthumous editions and published in magazines, but not included in the posthumous edition (eleven articles). Section four - History of the Pugachev rebellion with appendices and an anti-critical article about this work that was not included in the posthumous edition.

Then (says the publisher) many passages, both poetic and prose, a number of small plays and continuations or additions of his works were found in Pushkin’s manuscripts. All these remains are placed in the “Materials for the biography of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin” and in the appendices to them.

Having thus explained the order and system underlying the new collection, the publisher does not at all hide from himself that there will still be many omissions and oversights, both in the notes and in other respects. With all this, the publisher dares to cherish the hope that with the system adopted for the new edition, any correction by knowledgeable and well-intentioned criticism can be applied to the case sooner than before. The arena for bibliographical, philological and historical criticism is open. The common action of experienced and conscientious people will speed up the time of publication of the works of our people's writer in a completely satisfactory manner. (Preface to Volume II.)

Criticism of the new edition must agree with this modest and impartial assessment of it, given by the publisher himself. It is the best edition that could be made at the present time; its shortcomings are inevitable, its advantages are enormous, and the entire Russian public will be grateful to the publisher for them.

Of the first two volumes of the new edition published, the first contains “Materials for the biography of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin with his portrait (engraved by Utkin in 1838) and the following appendices: 1) Genealogy of A. S. Pushkin; 2) Fairy tales (three) of Arina Rodionovna, recorded by Pushkin; 3) French letters (two) from Pushkin regarding “Boris Godunov”; 4) and 5) The last minutes of Pushkin, described by Zhukovsky, and an extract from the biography of Pushkin compiled by Mr. Bantysh-Kamensky; 6) Pushkin’s translation of Ariostov’s XXIII song “Orlando Furioso” (stanzas 100–112); 7) Additional octaves for the story “House in Kolomna” (15 octaves); 8) Continuation of the story “Roslavlev”; 9) Comments on the Tale of Igor's Campaign. The second, third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth appendices are in print for the first time. Finally, seven facsimile of Pushkin are attached to this volume: 1) His handwriting in 1815, 2) his handwriting in 1821, 3) a sheet of paper from a notebook containing the first original of “Poltava”, 4) the same sheet of paper, completely rewritten, 5) a drawing from the last page of the fairy tale: “The Merchant Dungeon”, 6) a drawing made by Pushkin for the story “The House in Kolomna”, 7) a draft title page for dramas and dramatic passages. These pictures are beautifully done.

Introduction

The relevance of this topic for me lies in the acquisition of new knowledge in the field of journalism, for the further use of this knowledge in professional activities.

The purpose of this study is to study the journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova and D.I. Pisareva.

Research objectives

Studying specialized literature to familiarize yourself with the biography and journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova; DI. Pisareva.

Collection of information, data analysis, formulation of conclusions on this topic;

Acquiring new knowledge in the field of journalism.

The term "journalism" comes from the Latin word "publicus", which means "public". In the broadest sense of the word, the term “journalism” refers to all literary works relating to issues of politics and society. In contrast to fiction, which covers these issues in pictures of life, images of people depicted in works of art, journalism in the narrow sense of the word is called socio-political and scientific texts, dedicated to issues of life of the state and society.

Also, the term journalism, due to the polysemy of this word, is used in the following meanings:

In a broader sense – all journalism;

In a narrower sense - some forms or genres of journalism;

It is necessary to distinguish between concepts journalism And journalism. Journalism can be defined as a special social institution, an integral and relatively independent system, a special cooperation of people connected by the unity of activity. And journalism is, first of all, a creative process. Its essence lies in the process of reflecting the evolving phenomena of life, which is constantly developing under the influence of the needs of social practice. This is a special flow of information that captures socio-political relations in empirical facts and reasoning, in concepts, journalistic images and hypotheses.

Journalism exists as a special kind of literature along with scientific and artistic literature; at present we can already say that it has emerged as a special form of creativity, reflection of reality, propaganda, and formation of the consciousness of the masses.

Journalistic creativity appears as a socio-political activity, whose task is not only broad information, ideological education of the reader, listener, viewer, but also their social activation. It is in this way that journalism contributes to the operational regulation of the social mechanism and indicates the shortest path to satisfy an emerging social need.

Journalism is a type of literary (mainly journalistic) socio-political activity that reflects public consciousness and purposefully influences it. Its function is a prompt, in-depth, objective study of public life and influence on the audience. Depending on the genre, purpose, literary intent, and creative style of the author, conceptual or figurative means of expressing thoughts, their combination, and means of logical and emotional influence are used in a journalistic work.

1. Literary-critical and journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky

Literary-critical activity of Chernyshevsky.

In 1853, Chernyshevsky began his literary, critical and journalistic activities in the Sovremennik magazine, the leading organ of Russian revolutionary democracy. In 1853-1858, Chernyshevsky was the main critic and bibliographer of the magazine and published several dozen articles and reviews on its pages. The most significant works of Chernyshevsky as a critic include the historical and literary cycles “Works of L. Pushkin” (1855) and “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856), which determined the attitude of revolutionary-democratic literature and journalism to the literary heritage of 1820-1840- s and established its historical pedigree (the most significant names here were Gogol and Belinsky), as well as critical analyzes of the works of modern writers: L.N. Tolstoy (“Childhood and adolescence. Op. Count L.N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy”, 1856), M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“Provincial Sketches of Shchedrin”, 1857), I.S. Turgenev (“Russian Man”, 1858), N.V. Uspensky (“Isn’t this the beginning of change?”, 1861).

A distinctive feature of Chernyshevsky’s literary critical speeches was that he literary material they primarily examined issues of the socio-political movement in Russia during the period of the first revolutionary situation. Chernyshevsky gave Russian literature examples of social, journalistic criticism addressed to life itself.

Chernyshevsky's social temperament turned out to be so strong that it prompted him to leave literary criticism and turn to journalistic creativity itself. In 1858, when N.A. became established in the editorial office of Sovremennik. Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky handed over to him the critical and bibliographic department of the magazine, and he devoted himself entirely to work in the political department of Sovremennik.

Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical, economic, socio-political speeches in the Sovremennik magazine made him the recognized head of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia. Meanwhile, a tragic turning point was coming in the fate of this movement: from the middle of 1862, the government of Alexander I, which until now had acted under the sign of an albeit half-hearted liberalization of Russian life, turned back. The era of liberation and reform was replaced by the era of reaction: one of its first harbingers was the suspension of Sovremennik for 8 months in May 1862. On July 7, Chernyshevsky was arrested. After two years of imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress - for two years the Senate fabricated Chernyshevsky’s “case” - Chernyshevsky learned the verdict of the Senate Commission: “For malicious intent to overthrow the existing order, for taking measures to indignate and for composing an outrageous appeal to the lordly peasants and submitting it for publication in types of distribution - to deprive all rights of the estate and exile to hard labor in the mines for fourteen years and then settle in Siberia forever.” Alexander II approved the sentence, reducing the term of hard labor by half. Chernyshevsky spent the period from 1864 to 1872 in hard labor, then another 11 years, until 1883, he lived in a settlement in Vilyuisk. In 1883, Chernyshevsky was allowed to return to Russia, although this was not liberation, but a change of place of settlement: from Vilyuysk he was transferred to Astrakhan. Only a few months before his death, in 188!), Chernyshevsky was able to return to his homeland, to Saratov . The second half of Chernyshevsky's life, 27 years of prison and exile, became the time in which HE became an outstanding writer.

Fictional works by N.G. Chernyshevsky are organically connected with his social and journalistic activities.

The writer's first novel is “What to do?” - was created in the solitary confinement of the Alekseevsky ravelin, where Chernyshevsky was placed after his arrest. The time it took to complete the work is surprising: only four months. The novel began on December 4, 1802, and was completed on April 14, 1863. Chernyshevsky was in a hurry, he needed to make public the demolition of his creation. The novel contains a complex of ideas, the knowledge of which the writer considered mandatory for young people of the 60s, “The whole sum of the philosophy of the novel, the whole meaning of its figures embraces a certain encyclopedia of ethical and social principles indicating certain rules of life,” wrote the famous Soviet researcher of Chernyshevsky’s work A.P. Skaftymov “What to do?” - a work that also has a frankly didactic purpose. Chernyshevsky's task is to tell the young reader about the new human type so that an ordinary healthy person can be re-educated in the process of reading. This teaching goal determined the type of novel, its composition, features of character construction, and the author’s position. “I don’t have a single artistic talent...” the writer said in the preface. “All the merits of the story are given to it only by its truth.” Chernyshevsky’s words about his lack of artistic talent should not be taken in the literal and unambiguous sense. This statement by the author of the novel is not without irony regarding traditional, romantic ideas about artistic talent. The “serious” meaning of this statement is that the author notes in his fictional method something more than traditional artistry. The narrative, Chernyshevsky emphasizes, is organized by an idea, and an idea, in his opinion, a true one. This determines the main value of the novel.

Author of “What to do?” conducts a direct conversation with the reader. The direct dialogue between the author and the reader concerns the most pressing issues of our time. The journalistic orientation of the novel is exposed and emphasized by Chernyshevsky. The essence of his method is to teach the business; the novelistic “finishing” is needed only because it makes it easier to assimilate the truth.

Offering the public a new complex of human morality, Chernyshevsky constantly activates the attention of “his” reader, primarily by arguing with the image of the “insightful reader” he created. A “discerning reader” is a person with a formal mindset, a philistine in his worldview. Explaining his bewilderments and objections, the author polemicizes with his possible opponents: the novel, after its release, was inevitably bound to cause sharp disagreements. Conversations with the “insightful reader” made it possible for Chernyshevsky to predict and deflect the alleged charges. In these episodes of the novel, the author showed himself to be a brilliant artist-thinker, exceptionally skilled in irony.

Chernyshevsky represents diarrhea, which is just emerging as already victorious. “New people” are programmed as winners, they are “doomed” to happiness. This feature of the writer’s creative method, manifested in “What is to be done?”, allows us to characterize the novel as a utopian novel. Before Chernyshevsky, “utopia” was most often a work of fantastic content. But at the same time, Chernyshevsky also shows the real picture of the world.

See also in other dictionaries:

I. INTRODUCTION II. RUSSIAN ORAL POETRY A. Periodization of the history of oral poetry B. Development of ancient oral poetry 1. The most ancient origins of oral poetry. Oral poetry creativity ancient Rus' from the 10th to the middle of the 16th century. 2.Oral poetry from the middle of the 16th century to the end... ... Literary encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia

A set of philosophical ideas, images, concepts present throughout the context national culture, from its inception to this day. The genesis of Russian culture and the proto-philosophical thought that arose in its bosom goes deep into the depths... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

It got its start in ancient Greece. Even before Aristotle, many Greek philosophers not only thought about issues of aesthetics and literary criticism, but wrote entire treatises about them. Thus, according to Diogenes Laertius, Democritus wrote several...

RUSSIAN LITERATURE. Literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century- Already on the eve of the 60s. the deepest renewal of R. l begins. A new era, extremely rich in its socio-historical content (the fall of serfdom; a series of reforms that followed, affecting both the management system and... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

For the convenience of viewing the main phenomena of its development, the history of Russian literature can be divided into three periods: I from the first monuments to the Tatar yoke; II until the end of the 17th century; III to our time. In reality, these periods are not sharply... encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron

- - son of Gabriel Ivanovich Ch., publicist and critic; genus. July 12, 1828 in Saratov. Gifted by nature with excellent abilities, the only son of his parents, N. G. was the subject of intense care and concern for the whole family. But… …

- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of the characteristic representatives of public excitement in the era of “great reforms.” He was the son of a priest in Nizhny Novgorod. Father,… … Large biographical encyclopedia

A gifted critic; born on October 2, 1840 in the family village of Znamensky, on the border of the Oryol and Tula provinces. Until the age of 11, he grew up in the family as the only beloved son; was brought up under the influence of the mother of a former college student; by the age of 4 already... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Pisarev D.I. PISAREV Dmitry Ivanovich (1840 1868) famous publicist and literary critic. R. in the village of Znamensky, Oryol province. in a wealthy landowner family. He received his secondary education in one of the St. Petersburg gymnasiums. In 1856 1861 he studied... Literary encyclopedia

Lenin V.I. (Ulyanov, 1870-1924) - b. in Simbirsk on April 10 (23), 1870. His father, Ilya Nikolaevich, came from the townspeople of the mountains. Astrakhan, lost his father at the age of 7 and was raised by his older brother, Vasily Nikolaevich, to whom... ... Large biographical encyclopedia