Critics will note that it is not just a public impulse. There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public

What historical period in the life of Russian society is reflected in the comedy "Woe from Wit"? Do you think I. A. Goncharov was right when he believed that Griboyedov’s comedy would never become outdated?

I think I'm right. The fact is that, in addition to historically specific pictures of life in Russia after the War of 1812, the author solves the universal problem of the struggle between the new and the old in the minds of people during the change of historical eras. Griboyedov convincingly shows that the new is initially quantitatively inferior to the old (25 fools for one smart person, as Griboyedov aptly put it), but “the quality of fresh power” (Goncharov) ultimately wins. It is impossible to break people like this. History has proven that any change of eras gives birth to its own Chatskys and that they are invincible.

Is the expression “superfluous man” applicable to Chatsky?

Of course not. It’s just that we don’t see his like-minded people on stage, although they are among the off-stage heroes (professors at the St. Petersburg Institute, practicing “in... lack of faith,” Skalozub’s cousin, who “picked up some new rules... suddenly left his service in the village I started reading books." Chatsky sees support in people who share his beliefs, in the people, and believes in the victory of progress. He actively invades public life, not only criticizes social orders, but also promotes his positive program. His work and his work are inseparable. He is eager to fight, defending his beliefs. This is not an extra person, but a new person.

Could Chatsky have avoided a collision with Famus society? What is Chatsky’s belief system and why does Famus society consider these views dangerous? Is it possible for Chatsky to reconcile with Famus society? Why? Is Chatsky's personal drama connected with his loneliness among the nobles of old Moscow? Do you agree with the assessment of Chatsky given by I. A. Goncharov? What artistic technique underlies the composition of a comedy? What attitude does Sofya Famusova have towards herself? Why? In which comedy episodes do you think the true essence of Famusov and Molchalin is revealed? How do you see the future of comedy heroes? What are the storylines of a comedy?

The plot of the comedy consists of the following two lines: love affair and social conflict.

What conflicts are presented in the play?

There are two conflicts in the play: personal and public. The main one is the social conflict (Chatsky - society), because the personal conflict (Chatsky - Sophia) is only a concrete expression of the general trend.

Why do you think comedy begins with a love affair?

“Social Comedy” begins with a love affair, because, firstly, this is a sure-fire way to interest the reader, and secondly, it is a clear indication of the author’s psychological insight, since it is precisely at the moment of the most vivid experiences, the greatest openness of a person to the world, which implies is love, often the most severe disappointments occur with the imperfections of this world.

What role does the theme of intelligence play in comedy?

The theme of the mind in comedy plays a central role because ultimately everything revolves around this concept and its various interpretations. Depending on how the characters answer this question, they behave.

How did Pushkin see Chatsky?

Pushkin did not consider Chatsky an intelligent person, because in Pushkin’s understanding, intelligence represents not only the ability to analyze and high intelligence, but also wisdom. But Chatsky does not correspond to this definition - he begins hopeless denunciations of those around him and becomes exhausted, embittered, sinking to the level of his opponents.

Read the list of characters. What do you learn from it about the characters in the play? What do their last names “say” about the characters in the comedy?

The heroes of the play are representatives of the Moscow nobility. Among them are the owners of comic and telling surnames: Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Khlestova, Repetilov. This circumstance tunes the audience to the perception of comic action and comic images. And only Chatsky of the main characters is named by last name, first name, patronymic. It appears to be valuable on its own merits.

There have been attempts by researchers to analyze the etymology of surnames. So, the surname Famusov comes from English. famous - “fame”, “glory” or from Lat. fama - “rumour”, “rumor”. The name Sophia means "wisdom" in Greek. The name Lizanka is a tribute to the French comedy tradition, a clear translation of the name of the traditional French soubrette Lisette. Chatsky’s name and patronymic emphasize masculinity: Alexander (from the Greek, winner of husbands) Andreevich (from the Greek, courageous). There are several attempts to interpret the hero’s surname, including associating it with Chaadaev, but all this remains at the level of versions.

Why is the list of characters often called a poster?

A poster is an announcement about a performance. This term is used most often in the theatrical field, but in a play, as in a literary work, as a rule, it is designated as a “list of characters.” At the same time, the poster is a kind of exposition of a dramatic work, in which the characters are named with some very laconic but significant explanations, the sequence of their presentation to the viewer is indicated, and the time and place of action are indicated.

Explain the sequence of characters in the poster.

The sequence of arrangement of characters in the poster remains the same as is accepted in the dramaturgy of classicism. First, the head of the house and his household are called, Famusov, the manager in the government place, then Sophia, his daughter, Lizanka, the maid, Molchalin, the secretary. And only after them the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky fits into the poster. After him come the guests, ranked by degree of nobility and importance, Repetilov, servants, many guests of all kinds, and waiters.

The classic order of the poster is disrupted by the presentation of the Gorich couple: Natalya Dmitrievna, the young lady, is named first, then Platon Mikhailovich, her husband. The violation of dramatic tradition is due to Griboyedov’s desire to hint already in the poster about the nature of the relationship between the young spouses.

Try to verbally sketch the first scenes of the play. What does the living room look like? How do you imagine the heroes when they appear?

Famusov's house is a mansion built in the style of classicism. The first scenes take place in Sophia's living room. A sofa, several armchairs, a table for receiving guests, a closed wardrobe, a large clock on the wall. On the right is the door that leads to Sophia's bedroom. Lizanka is sleeping, hanging from her chair. She wakes up, yawns, looks around and realizes in horror that it is already morning. He knocks on Sophia's room, trying to force her to break up with Molchalin, who is in Sophia's room. The lovers do not react, and Lisa, in order to attract their attention, stands on a chair, moves the hands of the clock, which begins to chime and play.

Lisa looks worried. She is nimble, fast, resourceful, and strives to find a way out of a difficult situation. Famusov, wearing a dressing gown, sedately enters the living room and, as if sneaking, approaches Lisa from behind and flirts with her. He is surprised by the behavior of the maid, who, on the one hand, winds the clock and speaks loudly, on the other hand, warns that Sophia is sleeping. Famusov clearly does not want Sophia to know about his presence in the living room.

Chatsky bursts into the living room violently, impetuously, with an expression of joyful feelings and hope. He is cheerful and witty.

Find the beginning of the comedy. Determine what plot lines are outlined in the first act.

Arrival at Chatsky’s house is the beginning of the comedy. The hero connects two storylines together - a love-lyrical and a socio-political, satirical one. From the moment he appears on stage, these two plot lines, intricately intertwined, but without in any way violating the unity of the continuously developing action, become the main ones in the play, but are already outlined in the first act. Chatsky’s ridicule of the appearance and behavior of visitors and inhabitants of Famusov’s house, seemingly still benign, but far from harmless, subsequently transforms into political and moral opposition to Famusov’s society. While in the first act they are rejected by Sophia. Although the hero does not yet notice, Sophia rejects his love confessions and hopes, giving preference to Molchalin.

What are your first impressions of Molchalin? Pay attention to the stage direction at the end of the fourth scene of the first act. How can you explain it?

The first impressions of Molchalin are formed from the dialogue with Famusov, as well as from Chatsky’s review of him.

He is a man of few words, which justifies his name. Has he not yet broken the silence of the press?

He did not break the “silence of the press” even on a date with Sophia, who mistakes his timid behavior for modesty, shyness, and rejection of insolence. Only later do we learn that Molchalin is bored, pretending to be in love “to please the daughter of such a man” “on the job,” and can be very cheeky with Liza.

And one believes Chatsky’s prophecy, even knowing very little about Molchalin, that “he will reach the known degrees, Because nowadays they love the dumb.”

How do Sophia and Lisa evaluate Chatsky?

Differently. Lisa evaluates Chatsky’s sincerity, his emotionality, his devotion to Sophia, remembers with what sad feeling he left and even cried, anticipating that he might lose Sophia’s love during the years of absence. “The poor thing seemed to know that in three years...”

Lisa appreciates Chatsky for his gaiety and wit. Her phrase characterizing Chatsky is easy to remember:

Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!

Sophia, who by that time already loves Molchalin, rejects Chatsky, and the fact that Liza admires him irritates her. And here she strives to distance herself from Chatsky, to show that before they had nothing more than childish affection. “He knows how to make everyone laugh,” “witty, smart, eloquent,” “pretended to be in love, demanding and distressed,” “he thought highly of himself,” “the desire to wander attacked him” - this is what Sophia says about Chatsky and draws a conclusion, mentally contrasting Molchalin to him: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why search for intelligence and travel so far?” And then - a cold reception, a remark said to the side: “Not a man - a snake” and a caustic question, has it ever happened to him, even by mistake, to speak kindly about anyone. She does not share Chatsky’s critical attitude towards the guests of Famus’s house.

How is Sophia's character revealed in the first act? How does Sophia perceive ridicule of people in her circle? Why?

Sophia does not share Chatsky’s ridicule of people in her circle for various reasons. Despite the fact that she herself is a person of independent character and judgment, acts contrary to the rules accepted in that society, for example, she allows herself to fall in love with a poor and humble person, who, moreover, does not shine with a sharp mind and eloquence, in the company of her father she is comfortable, convenient, habitually. Brought up on French novels, she likes to be virtuous and patronize the poor young man. However, as a true daughter of Famus society, she shares the ideal of Moscow ladies (“the high ideal of all Moscow husbands”), ironically formulated by Griboyedov - “A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of a wife’s pages...”. Ridicule of this ideal irritates her. We have already said what Sophia values in Molchalin. Secondly, Chatsky’s ridicule causes her rejection, for the same reason as Chatsky’s personality and his arrival.

Sophia is smart, resourceful, has independent judgments, but at the same time powerful, feeling like a mistress. She needs Lisa's help and completely trusts her with her secrets, but abruptly cuts off when she seems to forget her position as a servant ("Listen, don't take unnecessary liberties...").

What conflict arises in the second act? When and how does this happen?

In the second act, a social and moral conflict arises and begins to develop between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, the “present century” and the “past century.” If in the first act it is outlined and expressed in Chatsky’s ridicule of the visitors to Famusov’s house, as well as in Sophia’s condemnation of Chatsky for the fact that he “gloriously knows how to make everyone laugh,” then in dialogues with Famusov and Skalozub, as well as in monologues, the conflict moves into a serious stage contrasting socio-political and moral positions on pressing issues of life in Russia in the first third of the 19th century.

Compare the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov. What is the essence and reason for the disagreement between them?

The characters show different understandings of the key social and moral problems of their contemporary life. The attitude towards service begins a controversy between Chatsky and Famusov. “I would be glad to serve, but it’s sickening to be served” - the principle of the young hero. Famusov builds his career on pleasing individuals, not serving the cause, on promoting relatives and acquaintances, whose custom is “what matters, what does not matter” “Signed, off your shoulders.” Famusov uses as an example Uncle Maxim Petrovich, an important nobleman of Catherine’s (“All in orders, He rode forever in a train...” “Who promotes to ranks and gives pensions?”), who did not hesitate to “bend over” and fell three times on the stairs so that cheer up the empress. Famusov evaluates Chatsky by his passionate condemnation of the vices of society as a carbonari, a dangerous person, “he wants to preach freedom,” “he does not recognize the authorities.”

The subject of the dispute is the attitude towards the serfs, Chatsky’s denunciation of the tyranny of those landowners whom Famusov reveres (“That Nestor of noble scoundrels ...”, who exchanged his servants for “three greyhounds”). Chatsky is against the right of a nobleman to uncontrollably control the destinies of serfs - to sell, to separate families, as the owner of the serf ballet did. (“Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out individually…”). What for Famusov is the norm of human relationships, “What is honor for father and son; Be inferior, but if you have enough; Two thousand family souls, - He and the groom,” then Chatsky evaluates such norms as “the meanest traits of a past life,” with anger attacks careerists, bribe-takers, enemies and persecutors of enlightenment.

How does Molchalin reveal himself during a dialogue with Chatsky? How does he behave and what gives him the right to behave this way?

Molchalin is cynical and frank with Chatsky regarding his life views. He talks, from his point of view, with a loser (“Were you not given ranks, have you had no success in your service?”), gives advice to go to Tatyana Yuryevna, is sincerely surprised by Chatsky’s harsh reviews about her and Foma Fomich, who “was the head of the department under three ministers.” ". His condescending, even instructive tone, as well as the story about his father’s will, are explained by the fact that he does not depend on Chatsky, that Chatsky, for all his talents, does not enjoy the support of Famus society, because their views are sharply different. And, of course, Molchalin’s success with Sophia gives him considerable right to behave this way in a conversation with Chatsky. The principles of Molchalin’s life may only seem ridiculous (“to please all people without exception”, to have two talents - “moderation and accuracy”, “after all, you have to depend on others”), but the well-known dilemma “Is Molchalin funny or scary?” in this scene it is decided - scary. Molchalin spoke and expressed his views.

What are the moral and life ideals of Famus society?

Analyzing the monologues and dialogues of the heroes in the second act, we have already touched on the ideals of Famus society. Some principles are expressed aphoristically: “And win awards and have fun,” “I just wish I could become a general!” The ideals of Famusov's guests are expressed in the scenes of their arrival at the ball. Here Princess Khlestova, knowing well the value of Zagoretsky (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief / I even locked the door from him ...”), accepts him because he is “a master at pleasing” and got her a blackaa girl as a gift. Wives subjugate their husbands to their will (Natalya Dmitrievna, a young lady), the husband-boy, the husband-servant becomes the ideal of society, therefore, Molchalin also has good prospects for entering this category of husbands and making a career. They all strive for kinship with the rich and noble. Human qualities are not valued in this society. Gallomania became the true evil of noble Moscow.

Why did gossip about Chatsky’s madness arise and spread? Why do Famusov’s guests so willingly support this gossip?

The emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky's madness is a very interesting series of phenomena from a dramatic point of view. Gossip appears at first glance by chance. G.N., sensing Sophia’s mood, asks her how she found Chatsky. "He has a screw loose". What did Sophia mean when she was impressed by the conversation with the hero that had just ended? It’s unlikely that she put any direct meaning into her words. But the interlocutor understood exactly that and asked again. And it’s here that an insidious plan arises in the head of Sophia, offended for Molchalin. Of great importance for the explanation of this scene are the remarks to Sophia’s further remarks: “after a pause, she looks at him intently, to the side.” Her further remarks are already aimed at consciously introducing this thought into the heads of secular gossips. She no longer doubts that the rumor started will be picked up and expanded into details.

He is ready to believe! Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters, Would you like to try it on yourself?

Rumors of madness spread with astonishing speed. A series of “little comedies” begins, when everyone puts their own meaning into this news and tries to give their own explanation. Someone speaks with hostility about Chatsky, someone sympathizes with him, but everyone believes because his behavior and his views are inadequate to the norms accepted in this society. These comedic scenes brilliantly reveal the characters that make up Famus’s circle. Zagoretsky supplements the news on the fly with an invented lie that his rogue uncle put Chatsky in the yellow house. The countess-granddaughter also believes; Chatsky’s judgments seemed crazy to her. The dialogue about Chatsky between the countess-grandmother and Prince Tugoukhovsky is ridiculous, who, due to their deafness, add a lot to the rumor started by Sophia: “damned Voltairian”, “overstepped the law”, “he is in the Pusurmans”, etc. Then the comic miniatures are replaced by a mass scene (act three, scene XXI), where almost everyone recognizes Chatsky as a madman.

Explain the meaning and determine the significance of Chatsky’s monologue about the Frenchman from Bordeaux.

The monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" is an important scene in the development of the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society. After the hero had separate conversations with Molchalin, Sofia, Famusov, and his guests, in which a sharp opposition of views was revealed, here he pronounces a monologue in front of the entire society gathered at the ball in the hall. Everyone has already believed the rumor about his madness and therefore expects clearly delusional speeches and strange, perhaps aggressive, actions from him. It is in this spirit that Chatsky’s speeches are perceived by the guests, condemning the cosmopolitanism of noble society. It is paradoxical that the hero expresses sound, patriotic thoughts (“slavish blind imitation”, “our smart, cheerful people”; by the way, condemnation of gallomania is sometimes heard in Famusov’s speeches), they take him for a madman and leave him, stop listening, diligently spin in a waltz , old people scatter around the card tables.

The question presents only one point of view on the role of Repetilov’s image in comedy. It's unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is telling (Repetilov - from Latin repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and seems to openly express his thoughts. But we cannot catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and are there any... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched upon, but more about himself he speaks “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the substance of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings on Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, so to speak, of Repetilov is “We make noise, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky’s assessments of Repetilov’s words are interesting, which indicate the difference in the author’s views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author agrees with the main character in his assessment of the comic character who unexpectedly appeared when the guests were leaving: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union is meeting in an English club, and secondly, with the words “why are you freaking out?” and "Are you making noise? That's all?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it towards a denouement. According to the literary critic L.A. Smirnov: “The departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventual tension of the episode. But the tension that begins to subside... intensifies Repetilov. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the denouement of the events of the ball, carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue the conversations at the ball, the meeting with the belated guest excites the main impression in everyone’s mind, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an involuntary witness to the great slander, in its abbreviated, but already absolutely established version. Only now the largest, independently significant and dramatic version is completed a complete episode of comedy, deeply embedded in act 4 and equal in scope and meaning to the whole act.”

Why does the literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “the eternally young old men of Russian history”? What is Molchalin's true face?

By calling Molchalin this way, the literary critic emphasizes the typicality of this kind of people in Russian history: careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, and ways out in every possible way to tempting positions and profitable family connections. Even in their youth, they do not have romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for improving public and state life; they serve individuals, not causes. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “You should learn from your elders,” Molchalin assimilates in Famusov’s society “the meanest traits of his past life” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile ground: let us remember what he bequeathed Molchalin’s father), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one’s own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is Famusov’s moral character that Molchalin reproduces when seeking a love date with Liza. This is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D.I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and he walked along the road that leads to “known degrees”; he went and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; his mother dies on the side of the road, his beloved woman calls him to the neighboring grove, spit the whole world in his eyes to stop this movement, he will continue to walk and get there...” Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become a household name and The word “molchalinschina” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the resolution of the play's social conflict? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?

With the appearance of the XIVth last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins; in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that were heard in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov’s society are summed up and the final break between the two worlds is affirmed - “the present century and the past century.” It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “a million torments”, endures a personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced his early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball. Famusov's world is alien to him, he did not accept its laws. And therefore we can assume that moral victory is on his side. Moreover, Famusov’s final phrase, which concludes the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important master of noble Moscow:

Oh! My God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say? Griboyedov first called his play “Woe to Wit,” and then changed the title to “Woe from Wit.” What new meaning appeared in the final version compared to the original?

The original title of the comedy stated the unhappiness of the bearer of the mind, an intelligent person. In the final version, the causes of grief are indicated, and thus the title concentrates the philosophical orientation of the comedy; the reader and viewer are attuned to the perception of problems that always face a thinking person. These can be socio-historical problems of today or “eternal” moral ones. The theme of the mind underlies the conflict of the comedy and runs through all four of its acts.

Griboyedov wrote to Katenin: “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.” How is the problem of the mind solved in comedy? What is the play based on - on the clash of intelligence and stupidity or on the clash of different types of mind?

The conflict of comedy is based on the clash not of intelligence and stupidity, but of different types of intelligence. And Famusov, and Khlestova, and other characters in the comedy are not stupid at all. Molchalin is far from stupid, although Chatsky considers him such. But they have a practical, worldly, resourceful mind, that is, closed. Chatsky is a man of an open mind, a new mindset, searching, restless, creative, devoid of any practical acumen.

Find quotes in the text that characterize the characters in the play.

About Famusov: “Grumpy, restless, quick...”, “Signed, off your shoulders!”, “... we have had it since ancient times, / That honor is given to father and son,” “How will you introduce yourself to the little cross, to the town, Well, how can you not please your loved one,” etc.

About Chatsky: “Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, / Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”, “He writes and translates nicely,” “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us,” “May the unclean Lord destroy this spirit / Empty, slavish, blind imitation...", "Try about the authorities, and God knows what you'll say. / Bow a little low, bend over - like a ring, / Even in front of the monarch's face, / So he will call you a scoundrel!.."

About Molchalin: “Silent people are blissful in the world”, “Here he is on tiptoe and is not rich in words”, “Moderation and accuracy”, “At my age one should not dare to have his own judgment”, “A famous servant... like a thunderbolt”, “Molchalin! Who else will settle everything so peacefully! / There he will pet a pug in time, / Here he will rub a card just right...”

Get acquainted with various assessments of Chatsky's image. Pushkin: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs...” Goncharov: “Chatsky is positively smart. His speech is full of wit...” Katenin: “Chatsky is the main person... he talks a lot , scolds everything and preaches inappropriately." Why do writers and critics evaluate this image so differently? Does your view of Chatsky coincide with the above opinions?

The reason is the complexity and versatility of comedy. Pushkin was brought the manuscript of Griboyedov's play by I. I. Pushchin to Mikhailovskoye, and this was his first acquaintance with the work; by that time, the aesthetic positions of both poets had diverged. Pushkin already considered an open conflict between the individual and society inappropriate, but nevertheless he recognized that “a dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he has recognized over himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy.” Subsequently, “Woe from Wit” will be included in Pushkin’s work through hidden and explicit quotations.

Reproaches to Chatsky for verbosity and inappropriate preaching can be explained by the tasks that the Decembrists set for themselves: to express their positions in any audience. They were distinguished by the directness and sharpness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their verdicts, without taking into account secular norms, they called things by their proper names. Thus, in the image of Chatsky, the writer reflected the typical features of a hero of his time, a progressive person of the 20s of the 19th century.

I agree with the statement of I. A. Goncharov in an article written half a century after the creation of the comedy, when the main attention was paid to the aesthetic assessment of a work of art.

Read the critical sketch by I. A. Goncharov “A Million Torments.” Answer the question: “Why do the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society”?

The condition designated in the comedy as “the mind and heart are not in harmony” is characteristic of a thinking Russian person at any time. Dissatisfaction and doubts, the desire to affirm progressive views, speak out against injustice, the rigidity of social foundations, and find answers to pressing spiritual and moral problems create the conditions for the development of the characters of people like Chatsky at all times.

B. Goller in the article “The Drama of a Comedy” writes: “Sofya Griboyedova is the main mystery of comedy.” What do you think is the reason for this assessment of the image?

Sophia differed in many ways from the young ladies of her circle: independence, sharp mind, self-esteem, disdain for other people's opinions. She is not looking, like the Tugoukhovsky princesses, for rich suitors. Nevertheless, she is deceived in Molchalin, mistakes his visits for dates and tender silence for love and devotion, and becomes Chatsky’s persecutor. Her mystery also lies in the fact that her image evoked different interpretations by the directors who staged the play on stage. So, V.A. Michurina-Samoilova played Sophia who loves Chatsky, but because of his departure she feels insulted, pretending to be cold and trying to love Molchalin. A. A. Yablochkina represented Sophia as cold, narcissistic, flirtatious, and able to control herself well. Mockery and grace were combined in her with cruelty and lordliness. T.V. Doronina discovered a strong character and deep feeling in Sophia. She, like Chatsky, understood the emptiness of Famus society, but did not denounce it, but despised it. Love for Molchalin was generated by her power - he was an obedient shadow of her love, but she did not believe Chatsky’s love. The image of Sophia remains mysterious for the reader, viewer, and theater workers to this day.

Remember the law of three unities (place, time, action), characteristic of dramatic action in classicism. Is it observed in comedy?

In the comedy, two unities are observed: time (events take place during the day), place (in Famusov’s house, but in different rooms). The action is complicated by the presence of two conflicts.

Pushkin, in a letter to Bestuzhev, wrote about the language of comedy: “I’m not talking about poetry: half should be included in the proverb.” What is the innovation of the language of Griboyedov’s comedy? Compare the language of comedy with the language of writers and poets of the 18th century. Name the phrases and expressions that have become popular.

Griboyedov widely uses colloquial language, proverbs and sayings, which he uses to characterize and self-characterize the characters. The colloquial character of the language is given by the free (different foot) iambic. Unlike the works of the 18th century, there is no clear stylistic regulation (the system of three styles and its correspondence to dramatic genres).

Examples of aphorisms that sound in “Woe from Wit” and have become widespread in speech practice:

Blessed is he who believes.

Signed, off your shoulders.

There are contradictions, and many of them are weekly.

And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.

Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.

Evil tongues are worse than a gun.

And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.

Oh! If someone loves someone, why bother searching and traveling so far, etc.

Why do you think Griboyedov considered his play a comedy?

Griboyedov called "Woe from Wit" a comedy in verse. Sometimes doubt arises whether such a definition of the genre is justified, because the main character can hardly be classified as comic; on the contrary, he suffers from deep social and psychological drama. Nevertheless, there is reason to call the play a comedy. This is, first of all, the presence of comedic intrigue (the scene with the clock, Famusov’s desire, while attacking, to defend himself from exposure in flirting with Liza, the scene around Molchalin’s fall from the horse, Chatsky’s constant misunderstanding of Sophia’s transparent speeches, “little comedies” in the living room at the gathering of guests and when rumors about Chatsky's madness spread), the presence of comic characters and comic situations in which not only they, but also the main character find themselves, give every reason to consider "Woe from Wit" a comedy, but a high comedy, since it raises significant social and moral problems.

Why is Chatsky considered a harbinger of the “superfluous man” type?

Chatsky, like Onegin and Pechorin later, is independent in judgment, critical of high society, and indifferent to ranks. He wants to serve the Fatherland, and not “serve his superiors.” And such people, despite their intelligence and abilities, were not in demand by society, they were superfluous in it.

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the "present century"?

Chatsky, non-stage characters: cousin Skalozub, who “suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village”; Princess Fyodor’s nephew, who “doesn’t want to know the officials! He’s a chemist, he’s a botanist”; professors at the Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, who “practice in schisms and lack of faith.”

Which of the characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" belongs to the "past century"?

Famusov, Skalozub, Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky, old woman Khlestova, Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Molchalin.

How do representatives of Famus society understand madness?

When gossip about Chatsky's madness spreads among the guests, each of them begins to remember what signs of it they noticed in Chatsky. The prince says that Chatsky “changed the law”, the countess - “he is a damned Voltairian”, Famusov - “try about the authorities - and God knows what he will say,” that is, the main sign of madness, according to the views of Famusov’s society, is freethinking and independence of judgment.

Why did Sophia choose Molchalin over Chatsky?

Sophia was brought up on sentimental novels, and Molchalin, born in poverty, who, it seems to her, is pure, shy, sincere, corresponds to her ideas about a sentimental-romantic hero. In addition, after the departure of Chatsky, who had influence on her in her youth, she was raised by the Famus environment, in which it was the Molchalins who could achieve success in their careers and position in society.

Write 5-8 expressions from the comedy “Woe from Wit” that have become aphorisms.

Happy hours are not observed.

Pass us away from all sorrows and lordly anger and lordly love.

I walked into the room and ended up in another.

He never said a smart word.

Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world.

Where is better? Where we are not!

More in number, cheaper in price.

A mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod.

Not a man, a snake!

What a commission, creator, to be a father to an adult daughter!

Read not like a sexton, but with feeling, sense, and order.

The legend is fresh, but hard to believe.

I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served, etc.

Why is the comedy "Woe from Wit" called the first realistic play?

The realism of the play lies in the choice of a vital social conflict, which is resolved not in an abstract form, but in the forms of “life itself.” In addition, the comedy conveys real features of everyday life and social life in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. The play ends not with the victory of virtue over evil, as in the works of classicism, but realistically - Chatsky is defeated by the more numerous and united Famus society. Realism is also manifested in the depth of character development, in the ambiguity of Sophia’s character, and in the individualization of the characters’ speech.

Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent;

We have a society and secret meetings

On Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

And finally, the main principle, so to speak, of Repetilov is “We make noise, brother, we make noise.”

Chatsky’s assessments of Repetilov’s words are interesting, which indicate the difference in the author’s views on Chatsky and Repetilov. The author agrees with the main character in his assessment of the comic character who unexpectedly appeared when the guests were leaving: firstly, he ironizes that the most secret union is meeting in an English club, and secondly, with the words “why are you freaking out?” and “Are you making noise? But only?" nullifies Repetilov's enthusiastic delirium. The image of Repetilov, we answer the second part of the question, plays a significant role in resolving the dramatic conflict, moving it towards a denouement. According to literary critic L. A. Smirnov: “Departure is a metaphor for the denouement of the eventual tension of the episode. But the tension that begins to subside... makes Repetilov tense. The interlude with Repetilov has its own ideological content, and at the same time it is a deliberate slowdown of the outcome of the events of the ball, carried out by the playwright. Dialogues with Repetilov continue the conversations at the ball, the meeting with the belated guest excites the main impression in everyone’s mind, and Chatsky, hiding from Repetilov, becomes an involuntary witness to a great slander, in its abbreviated, but already absolutely established version. Only now is the largest, independently significant and dramaturgically integral episode of the comedy being completed, deeply embedded in Act 4 and equal in scope and meaning to the whole act.”

Why does literary critic A. Lebedev call the Molchalins “the eternally young old men of Russian history”? What is Molchalin's true face?

By calling Molchalin this way, the literary critic emphasizes the typicality of this kind of people in Russian history: careerists, opportunists, ready for humiliation, meanness, dishonest play in order to achieve selfish goals, and ways out in every possible way to tempting positions and profitable family connections. Even in their youth, they do not have romantic dreams, they do not know how to love, they cannot and do not want to sacrifice anything in the name of love. They do not put forward any new projects for improving public and state life; they serve individuals, not causes. Implementing Famusov’s famous advice “You should learn from your elders,” Molchalin assimilates in Famusov’s society “the meanest traits of his past life” that Pavel Afanasyevich so passionately praised in his monologues - flattery, servility (by the way, this fell on fertile soil: let us remember what he bequeathed Molchalin’s father), the perception of service as a means of satisfying one’s own interests and the interests of the family, close and distant relatives. It is Famusov’s moral character that Molchalin reproduces when seeking a love date with Liza. This is Molchalin. His true face is correctly revealed in the statement of D.I. Pisarev: “Molchalin said to himself: “I want to make a career” - and went along the road that leads to “famous degrees”; he has gone and will no longer turn either to the right or to the left; his mother dies on the side of the road, his beloved woman calls him to the neighboring grove, spit the whole world in his eyes to stop this movement, he will continue to walk and get there...” Molchalin belongs to the eternal literary types, it is no coincidence that his name has become a household name and The word “molchalinshchina” appeared in colloquial use, denoting a moral, or rather, immoral phenomenon.

What is the resolution of the play's social conflict? Who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser?

With the appearance of the XIVth last act, the denouement of the social conflict of the play begins; in the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky, the results of the disagreements that were heard in the comedy between Chatsky and Famusov’s society are summed up and the final break between the two worlds is affirmed - “the present century and the past century.” It is definitely difficult to determine whether Chatsky is a winner or a loser. Yes, he experiences “a million torments”, endures a personal drama, does not find understanding in the society where he grew up and which replaced his early lost family in childhood and adolescence. This is a heavy loss, but Chatsky remained true to his convictions. Over the years of study and travel, he became precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas, ready to preach even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball. Famusov's world is alien to him, he did not accept its laws. And therefore we can assume that moral victory is on his side. Moreover, Famusov’s final phrase, which ends the comedy, testifies to the confusion of such an important master of noble Moscow.

Being a Russian writer, I have always considered it my duty to follow the current
literature and always read with special attention the criticism to which I gave
occasion. I sincerely admit that the praise touched me as obvious and
probably sincere signs of favor and friendliness. Reading the analyzes
hostile, I dare say that I always tried to enter into the way of thinking of my
criticism and follow his judgments without refuting them with pride
impatience, but wanting to agree with them with all sorts of copyright
self-denial. Unfortunately, I noticed that for the most part we are each other
did not understand. As for critical articles written with one purpose
offend me in any way, I will only say that they are very
made me angry, at least in the first minutes, and that consequently the writers
they can be satisfied.

“Ruslan and Lyudmila” were generally received favorably. In addition to one article in
"Bulletin of Europe", in which she was scolded very unfoundedly, and very
there seemed to be no sensible “questions” exposing the weakness of the creation of the poem
bad words have been said about her. No one even noticed that she was cold.
She was accused of immorality for some slightly voluptuous descriptions,
for the poems I published in the second edition:

O terrible sight! the wizard is frail
Caresses with a wrinkled hand etc.

For the introduction, I don’t remember which song:

It was in vain that you lurked in the shadows, etc.

And for the parody of "The Twelve Sleeping Virgins"; for the last time you could have me
to scold in order, as for the lack of aesthetic sense. Unforgivable
it was (especially in my years) to parody, to please the mob, virginal,
poetic creation. Other reproaches were rather empty. Is there a
"Ruslana" is at least one place that, in the sense of jokes, could be compared with
pranks, even, for example, Ariost, about whom they kept telling me every minute? Yes and
the passage I released was a very, very softened imitation of Ariost
(Orlando, canto V, o. VIII).

"Prisoner of the Caucasus" is the first unsuccessful experience of a character with which I
managed forcibly; it was received better than anything I wrote, thanks
some elegiac and descriptive poems. But Nikolai and Alexander
The Raevskys and I had a good laugh at him.

"The Fountain of Bakhchisarai" is weaker than "Prisoner" and, like it, responds to reading
Byron, who made me crazy. Zarema's scene with Maria has
dramatic dignity. He didn't seem to be criticized. A. Raevsky laughed
over the following verses:

He is often in fatal battles
Raises the saber - and with a flourish
Suddenly remains motionless,
Looks around with madness,
Turns pale etc.

Young writers generally do not know how to depict physical movements
passions. Their heroes always shudder, laugh wildly, grind their teeth and
etc. All this is funny, like a melodrama.

I don’t remember who remarked to me that it was incredible that chained together
the robbers could swim across the river. This whole incident is fair and
happened in 1820, when I was in Yekaterinoslavl.

About "Gypsies" one lady remarked that in the whole poem there is only one honest
a man, and then a bear. The late Ryleev was indignant why Aleko was leading a bear
and also collects money from the gawking public. Vyazemsky repeated the same
comment. (Ryleev asked me to make Aleko at least a blacksmith, which would not be
more noble as an example.) It would be best to make him an 8th grade official or
a landowner, not a gypsy. In that case, however, the whole poem would not exist, ma
tanto meglio (1).

Our critics left me alone for a long time. This does them credit: I was
far from favorable circumstances. Out of habit they still believed me
a very young man. The first hostile articles, I remember, became
appear after the publication of the fourth and fifth songs of "Eugene Onegin". Parsing
of these chapters, published in the Athenaeum, surprised me with a good tone, a good style
and the strangeness of the bindings. The most common rhetorical figures and tropes
stopped the critic: is it possible to say the glass is fizzing instead of the wine fizzing in
glass? does the fireplace breathe instead of steam coming from the fireplace? Isn't the jealous too bold?
suspicion? wrong ice?
What do you think this means:

boys
Do skates make a sound when cutting ice?

The critic guessed, however, what this meant: the boys were running on the ice
ice skating
Instead of:

(Determining to sail across the bosom of waters)
Steps carefully onto the ice

The critic read:

The goose is heavy on red feet
I decided to swim -

And he rightly noted that you won’t swim far on red legs.
Some poetic liberties: after a negative particle not -
accusative, not genitive case; tense instead of tenses (as, for example, in
Batyushkova:

That ancient Rus' and morals
Vladimir time)

They caused my critic great bewilderment. But most of all I was irritated
his verse: People's rumors and a horse's tramp.
“Is this how we, who learned from the old grammars, express ourselves? Is it possible to
distort the Russian language?" They then laughed cruelly at this verse and
"Bulletin of Europe". Rumor (speech) is a native Russian word. Stomp instead of stomp
just as common as thorn instead of hissing1 (hence, clap
clapping instead is not at all contrary to the spirit of the Russian language). For that misfortune, the verse
not all mine, but taken entirely from a Russian fairy tale:
“And he went out of the city gates, and heard horses tramping and people’s rumors.”
Bova Korolevich.
The study of ancient songs, fairy tales, etc. is necessary for perfect
knowledge of the properties of the Russian language. Our critics have no reason to despise them.
Poem:

I don’t want to quarrel for two centuries

It seemed wrong to the critic. What does the grammar say? What
an active verb, controlled by a negative particle, no longer requires
accusative, but genitive case. For example: I don't write poetry. But in my
In the verse, the verb to quarrel is controlled not by the particle not, but by the verb I want. Ergo (2)
The rule doesn't apply here. Take, for example, the following sentence: I can't help you
let me start writing... poetry, and certainly not poetry. Really?
the electrical force of the negative particle must pass through this entire circuit
verbs and respond to a noun? Don't think.

Speaking of grammar. I write gypsies, not gypsies, Tatars, not Tatars.
Why? because all nouns ending in anin, yanin,
Arin and Yarin have their plural genitive in an, yang, ar and yar, and
nominative plural in ana, yana, are and yara. Still, nouns
ending in an and yang, ar and yar, have a plural nominative of an,
yans, ars and yars, and the genitive into ans, yans, arovs, yars.
The only exception: proper names. Descendants of Mr. Bulgarin
there will be years Bulgarins, not Bulgars.

We have many (among others, Mr. Kachenovsky, who, it seems, cannot
reproach for ignorance of the Russian language) conjugate: I decide, you decide, decides,
decide, decide, decide instead of decide, decide, etc. I decide how to conjugate
I'm sinning.

Foreign proper names ending in e, i, o, y, not
bow down. Those ending in a, ъ and ь are declined in the masculine gender, and in the feminine
no, and many of us sin against this. They write: a book composed by Getem,
and so on.

How should you write: Turks or Turks? both are correct. Turk and
Turk are equally common.

It’s been 16 years since I’ve been publishing, and critics have noticed 5 in my poems
grammatical errors (and rightly so):
1. fixed his gaze on distant communities
2. on the theme of mountains (crown)
3. howled instead of howled
4. was refused instead he was refused
5. abbot instead of abbot.
I have always been sincerely grateful to them and always corrected what I noticed
place. I write much more incorrectly in prose, and I speak even worse and almost like
as G. ** writes.

Many people write yupka, wedding, instead of skirt, wedding. Never in derivatives
in words t does not change to d, nor p to b, but we say skirt, wedding.

Twelve, not twelve. Two is short for two, like three is
three.

They write: cart, cart. Isn't it more correct: cart (from the word
Taurus - carts are drawn by oxen)?

The spoken language of the common people (who do not read foreign books and,
thank God, who, like us, does not express his thoughts in French)
is also worthy of in-depth research. Alfieri studied Italian at
Florentine bazaar: it’s not bad for us sometimes to listen to Moscow
Mallow. They speak an amazingly clear and correct language.

The Moscow accent is extremely gentle and whimsical. Sound letters u and h
before other consonants in it are changed. We even say women, nosleg (see.
Bogdanovich).

Spies are like the letter ъ. They are needed only in some cases, but here too
You can do without them, but they are used to meddling everywhere.

Omitted stanzas have repeatedly given rise to censure. What is
stanzas in "Eugene Onegin", which I could not or did not want to print, this
there is nothing to be surprised about. But, once released, they break the connection of the story, and
therefore, the place where they were supposed to be is signified. It would be better to replace these
stanzas by others or transport and float those saved by me. But it's my fault
I'm too lazy for that. I also humbly confess that in Don Juan there are 2
released stanzas.

Mr. Fedorov in the magazine that he began to publish, examining quite
favorably chapters 4 and 5, I noticed, however, that in the description of autumn
several poems in a row begin for me with a particle, which is what he called
snakes, and what in rhetoric is called unity of command. He also condemned the word cow
and reprimanded me for being a noble young lady and probably an official
called girls (which, of course, is impolite), while a simple
he called the village girl a maiden: In the hut, singing, the maiden
Spinning...

The sixth song was not analyzed and was not even noticed in Vestnik Evropy
Latin typo. By the way: since I left the lyceum, I have not revealed
Latin book and completely forgot the Latin language. Life is short;
no time to re-read. Wonderful books crowd one after another, but no one
nowadays he doesn’t write them in Latin. In the 14th century, on the contrary, the Latin language was
necessary and rightly considered the first sign of an educated person.

I reviewed the 7th song in “Northern Bee” while visiting and in such
for a minute, I had no time for Onegin... I only noticed very well
written poems and a rather funny joke about a beetle. I have it said: Was
evening. The sky was darkening. Water
They flowed quietly. The beetle was buzzing.
The critic rejoiced at the appearance of this new face and expected from him a character
better aged than others. It seems, however, not a single sensible comment
or there was no critical thought. I have not read other critics, because, really, I
there was no time for them.
N.B. The criticism of “The Northern Bee” was in vain attributed to Mr. Bulgarin: 1)
the poetry in it is too good, 2) the prose is too weak, 3) Mr. Bulgarin did not say
would be that the description of Moscow was taken from “Ivan Vyzhigin”, for Mr. Bulgarin did not
says that the tragedy "Boris Godunov" is taken from his novel.

Probably my tragedy will not have any success. Magazines on me
embittered. For the public I no longer have the main attraction: youth and
novelty of a literary name. In addition, the main scenes have already been printed or
distorted in other people's imitations. Having opened at random a historical novel by Mr.
Bulgarin, I found that he too was coming to announce the appearance of the Pretender
Tsar Prince V. Shuisky. I have Boris Godunov talking alone with Basmanov about
the destruction of localism - also with Mr. Bulgarin. It's all dramatic
fiction, not a historical tale.

Having read these verses for the first time in Voinarovsky:

The wife of the sufferer Kochubey
And the daughter seduced by him, -

I was amazed how the poet could pass by such a terrible circumstance.
It is not surprising to burden historical characters with imaginary horrors.
not generous. Slander in poems has always seemed uncommendable to me. But in
in the description of Mazepa it would have been impossible to miss such a striking historical feature
more unforgivable. However, what a disgusting object! not a single good one
favorable feeling! not a single consoling feature! temptation, enmity,
betrayal, deceit, cowardice, ferocity... Strong characters and deep,
the tragic shadow cast over all these horrors is what captivated me.
I wrote “Poltava” in a few days, I couldn’t do it any longer and I gave up
that's all.

Among other literary accusations, they reproached me for being too expensive
at the cost of "Eugene Onegin" and saw in it terrible self-interest. This is good
to say to someone who has never sold his works or whose works have not
sold, but how could the publishers of Severnaya
bees"? The price is set not by the writer, but by the booksellers. Regarding
poems the number of requests is limited. It consists of the same people
who pay 5 rubles per seat in the theater. Booksellers, having bought, put,
A copy of an entire edition would cost a ruble; after all, they would sell it for 5 rubles. Is it true,
in this case, the author could proceed to the second cheap edition, but also
the bookseller could then himself lower his price and thus reduce
new edition. These trade turnovers are very familiar to us, philistine writers.
We know that the cheapness of a book does not prove the author’s disinterestedness, but either
a big demand for this or a complete stop in the sale. I ask: what
It’s more profitable to print 20,000 copies of one book and sell it for 50 kopecks.
or print 200 copies and sell for 50 rubles?
The price of the latest edition of Krylov's fables, in all respects the most
our people's poet (le plus national et le plus populaire3)), not
contradicts what we said. Fables (like novels) are read by both writers and
merchant, and socialite, and lady, and maid, and children. But the poem
Lyric poetry is read only by poetry lovers. Are there many of them?

The jokes of our critics sometimes amaze us with their innocence. Here
true joke: in the lyceum one of our younger comrades, and, otherwise
remembered, a good boy, but quite simple and last in all classes,
I once composed two poems, known throughout the lyceum:

Ha-ha-ha, hee-hee-hee,
Delvig writes poetry.

What was it like for us, Delvig and me, last year in 1830 in the first book
important "Bulletin of Europe" find the following joke: Almanac "Northern Flowers"
divided into prose and poetry - hee, hee! Imagine how happy we were
our old friend! This is not enough. This hehe seemed so obvious
intricate that it was reprinted with great praise in the Northern Bee: “hee
hey, as it was very wittily said in the Bulletin of Europe" etc.

Young Kireevsky in his eloquent and thoughtful review of our
literature, speaking about Delvig, used this exquisite expression: “Ancient
his muse is sometimes covered with the soul-warmer of the newest despondency." Expression,
Of course it's funny. Why not just say: “In Delvig’s poems
sometimes the despondency of modern poetry echoes"? - Our journalists, about whom Mr.
Kireevsky responded rather disrespectfully, they were delighted, they picked up this
warmer, torn into small shreds and have been flaunting them for a year now,
trying to make his audience laugh. Let's say it's the same joke every time
succeeds; but what profit do they get from it? the public hardly cares about literature,
and a small number of lovers finally believe not the joke, constantly repeated, but
constantly, albeit slowly, the opinions of sound criticism and
impartiality.

1 He shot out a thorn like a snake. "Ancient Russian poems" (Note.
Pushkin.)

comedy of rehearsals? How do you understand this image?

Critics note that not only Chatsky’s social impulse, but also Repetilov’s chatter can be understood as the author’s view of Decembrism. Why was Repetilov introduced into the comedy? How do you understand this image? The question presents only one point of view on the role of Repetilov’s image in comedy. It's unlikely to be true. The surname of this character is telling (Repetilov - from Latin repetere - repeat). However, he does not repeat Chatsky, but distortedly reflects the views of him and progressive-minded people. Like Chatsky, Repetilov appears unexpectedly and seems to openly express his thoughts. But we cannot catch any thoughts in the stream of his speeches, and are there any... He talks about those issues that Chatsky has already touched upon, but more about himself he speaks “such a truth that is worse than any lie.” For him, what is more important is not the substance of the problems raised at the meetings he attends, but the form of communication between the participants. Please be silent, I gave my word to be silent; We have a society and secret meetings on Thursdays. The most secret alliance...

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 Sketches... 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 (it 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, which is inevitably finite and transitory, is absent; it exists only in the creative creations of the 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 beauty as the complete manifestation of an idea in a separate being, we must come to the conclusion: “beauty 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 thing”; 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 its fundamental novelty consisted in the fact that the main task of man was recognized not to create beauty 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 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 autocratic-serf Russia, which is undeveloped politically and civilly, 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, objects Chernyshevsky, 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 the letters of 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 against 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 a literary movement. 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 outlook on 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 handed Pushkin over 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 deep participation in life and fate “ commoners", 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 the conditions of 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” more victims of the Nicholas reaction , and he values the share of protest that they contain. True, even at this time he treats them differently: he sympathizes with Rudin and Beltov, who strive 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 the 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 concerned with 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 at first even such a person was 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, after moral falsity, also of social untruth , 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 under the 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 also 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 and sublime feelings, they, the critic says, fatally stop short of putting them into practice and are unable to combine word with deed. 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 liberation-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 raznochinsko-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 noble of all Russian poets. I’m crying for him” (“Tell Nikolai Gavrilovich,” Nekrasov answered Pypin, “that I thank him very much, I am now consoled: 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 that branch of life in which facts are found and other branches of mental, moral, civil, state life,” that is, he knows how to construct private outrages 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 a “historical fact” of Russian life” on the path of its self-awareness.

In his 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 special (in relation to the scientific or social-practical activity of a person), but also a relatively autonomous form of spiritual creativity - an 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 an 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... distributes among the mass of readers a huge amount of information and, more importantly, familiarity 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 raise it, because the original already has a 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.

The well-known rationalization of the 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 explain 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 , like 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.”