D and Pisarev short biography. Pisarev D
(1840-1868) Russian critic and publicist
Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev was born on the family estate of his father, a wealthy but not very rich landowner. Until the age of twelve, Dmitry did not leave his parents' house. His mother, Varvara Dmitrievna, and invited teachers studied with him. When the boy turned twelve, his mother moved with him to St. Petersburg and enrolled her son in a classical gymnasium.
Dmitry Pisarev was an excellent student and graduated from high school in 1856 with a gold medal. In the same year he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. True, at this time Pisarev dreamed of being a philosopher; his interest in literature appeared only when he began to collaborate in the magazine for girls “Rassvet”.
At the request of the publisher, Dmitry Pisarev was supposed to review everything published at that time literary works. In articles devoted to the novel “Oblomov” by Ivan Goncharov, the works of Ivan Turgenev and the stories of Leo Tolstoy, the young critic tried to show his young readers the originality of each of the authors. He did not just present new products, but analyzed each work, identifying its merits and novelty, connecting them with modern problems of society.
While studying in his last year at university, Dmitry Pisarev fell in love with his cousin L. Koreneva. The young people were planning to get married, but were never able to overcome their parents’ ban. The forced break with his beloved caused Pisarev a severe nervous shock, after which he was treated in a psychiatric clinic for more than six months.
After recovery and rest, he returned to his studies at the university and in 1861 completed the course, defending thesis, dedicated to the teachings of the Roman philosopher Apollonius of Tyana. She was awarded a silver medal, and the gifted student received an offer to remain at the department at the university, but abandoned his scientific career and, at the invitation of his friend G. Blagosvetlov, became the editor of the popular magazine “ Russian word».
Soon his articles in this magazine began to attract the attention of readers author's position, sincerity, sharpness of thought, the circulation of the publication began to grow. In addition to creating journalistic articles, he began to engage in literary work. Thus, he published a translation into Russian of Heinrich Heine’s poem “Atta Troll”.
By this time it had changed public consciousness criticism. Carried away by philosophical materialism, Dmitry Pisarev believes that it is necessary first of all to solve the socio-economic problems of Russia. Having come to the conclusion that enlightenment masses can accelerate the process of revolutionary transformation of society, it develops a whole pedagogical system, which is a continuation democratic views Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. Pisarev believes that for young people striving for knowledge and public life, “a talented critic with a lively feeling and an energetic mind, a critic like V. G. Belinsky, could be in the full sense of the word a teacher of morality.”
Published in 1862, Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev’s article “Bazarov” became the most important literary-critical statement of revolutionary democrats. The author decided to “describe in broad strokes the personality of Bazarov, or, rather, that general, emerging type, of which the hero of Turgenev’s novel is a representative.” Considering that main character can count on reader sympathy, Pisarev at the same time noted that his nihilistic one-sidedness, his rejection of poetry, music and other arts is a sign of “narrow mental despotism.”
The article became the object of fierce polemics with Antonovich, a critic of the Sovremennik magazine, and Dmitry Pisarev gained fame as a bright, interesting polemicist, brilliant researcher and deep thinker. At the same time, he became one of the largest Russian critics. His articles were read all over Russia, and the release of each issue of the magazine was eagerly awaited.
His life seemed to be going quite well. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev worked a lot and was literally inundated with offers from various publications. But suddenly the calm flow of life changed. At the beginning of 1862, he wrote a review-pamphlet on the pamphlet of S. Firks, the author of which criticized the activities of the political emigrant writer Alexander Herzen.
Realizing that official publications would not dare to publish this work, Pisarev handed over the manuscript to an illegal student handwritten journal. Unexpectedly, a search was carried out at the magazine's editorial office, and the manuscript fell into the hands of the police.
A few days later, Dmitry Pisarev was arrested and put in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress on charges of treason. The thoughts contained in the article were perceived as a call for the overthrow of the existing system. Only a year after his arrest, Pisarev received permission to write and publish his works.
Over the years, Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev wrote more than forty articles that brought him true literary fame. Immense power will, maternal support and the participation of the staff of the magazine “Russian Word” helped him withstand the prison loneliness. Most of Pisarev's journalistic articles were devoted to socio-political, philosophical and pedagogical issues.
Among the literary critical works of this period, the article “Motives of Russian Drama”, according to the assessment of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm” (1864), should be noted. The article was written to refute N. A. Dobrolyubov’s view of the image main character plays. In his work “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” Dobrolyubov pointed out Katerina’s nobility, passion, honesty and conscientiousness, calling her a “ray of light” in the kingdom of ignorance, tyranny and despotism. He believed that “The Thunderstorm” was “the most decisive work Ostrovsky." And Dmitry Pisarev in his work proved that Katerina’s whole life consists of constant internal contradictions. Every minute she rushes from one extreme to another, and finally, having mixed up everything that was at her hands, she cuts through the lingering knots with the most stupid means - suicide, and even a suicide that is completely unexpected for herself...
In the fall of 1864, the magazine “Russian Word” appeared famous work Pisarev “Realists”, in which the critic again analyzed the image of Bazarov. He believed that Turgenev created a more vital type than A. Pushkin in his time. Of course, Dmitry Pisarev’s assessments were distinguished by a certain categoricalness, caused by the fact that he was in prison and was deprived of the opportunity to participate in live debate. But the thoroughness and reasoning of the analysis, as well as the simplicity and accessibility of the presentation of the material, ensured the popularity of his articles in different strata of society.
However, the official assessment critical works Pisareva was completely different. After the publication of his article " Thinking proletariat», dedicated to the novel N. Chernyshevsky “What to do”, the authorities hastened to close the journal “Russian Word”.
On November 18, 1866, Dmitry Pisarev was released from prison. Having received permission to live in St. Petersburg, he, together with a small circle of friends, founded a new literary magazine, Delo. The financial side was taken over by G. Blagosvetlov, who was associated with Pisarev for many years of friendship and working together in the magazine "Russian Word".
After leaving the fortress, the critic overestimated much of what he had written in polemical fervor. In particular, in the articles “The Struggle for Life” and “The Struggle for Existence,” he gave a detailed analysis of Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” and showed that Raskolnikov is a kind of hero of warning.
In his subsequent articles, Dmitry Pisarev changed his point of view on the image of Katerina, largely agreeing with Dobrolyubov’s opinion. The constancy of Pisarev’s revolutionary views gradually led to a break with Blagosvetlov, who was afraid that the authorities would close his new magazine.
At the beginning of 1868, Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev accepted N. Nekrasov’s offer and became deputy editor-in-chief of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. There he again began publishing reviews of everything literary novelties, but the smooth work was unexpectedly interrupted.
Having gone with his wife and son to the resort town of Dubbeln (Dubulti) near Riga in the summer, Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev drowned during a boat trip. He was buried at the Volkov cemetery in St. Petersburg, which was a kind of necropolis for Russian cultural figures.
The fate of the literary heritage D. I. Pisareva remarkable. Pisarev did not theorize, did not create universal concepts; Almost everything he wrote is either polemic or popularization. Both of these genres - with short term life: after ten years, the essence of the dispute is forgotten, and sometimes the names of those arguing; popularized ideas become either self-evidently true or equally self-evidently false; in both cases, a lengthy conversation about them ceases to interest the reader.
Meanwhile, after Pisarev’s death it was difficult to find a critic more read, more loved (and hated!). Lenin and Plekhanov, Timiryazev and Pavlov unanimously note the significance of Pisarev’s role in their own spiritual development. And - what is completely surprising - even today, reading his thoughts about long-forgotten books and long-lost debates - you are indignant, and you agree, and you admire - together with him; you live by what you read. Why is it alive?
Perhaps the reason is the historical importance of what Pisarev did? Yes, his role in the history of Russian thought is undeniable. But there are so many books whose historical significance we all recognize.
Maybe in the accuracy of the assessments? But today (as, indeed, many years ago) the reader will not agree with a good half of the critic’s judgments.
Maybe it’s a matter of consonance of mindsets? Of course, each era has its own filter; and in the past we see most clearly and most vividly what resonates with the present. But any of the segments of the past century is so original and unique that this explanation does not seem sufficient.
So what's the deal? Perhaps this is the brightest quality of Pisarev’s personality, which his biographer E. Solovyov called “the talent for truth.” Quite recently, already in our days, it was said: “The inability to find and tell the truth... no amount of ability to tell lies can be covered.” So, each of Pisarev’s pages is brought to life and inspired by precisely this “ability to tell the truth.” To speak the truth, in the true, highest sense of the word, means to speak about the main thing.
In Pisarev’s time, the main thing was liberation. Both the social - from the tenacious and still living remnants of serfdom, and the moral - from the spiritual silence of the Nicholas era, from the soldier’s uniformity of “generally accepted” opinions and assessments.
“Literature in all its modifications must hit one point: it must with all its might emancipate the human personality from those various constraints that are imposed on it by the timidity of one’s own thought, the prejudices of caste, the authority of tradition, the desire for a common ideal and all that outdated rubbish that interferes with a living person can breathe and develop freely,” Pisarev will say in one of his first articles.
In these words is the program for all future literary work criticism. And in them is the story of his own spiritual development. Pisarev, like his other fellow commoners, did not have to experience the hardships of poverty and slavish dependence from childhood. It was different - the affectionate slavery of comfort and “good manners.”
A cloudless childhood in a wealthy landowner family, a decorous - not without cloying - home upbringing, conscientious cramming in the gymnasium and conscientious studies in academically boring philology and history at the university - everything seemed to foreshadow further belonging to the “category of sheep” (as such a social group would later call the type is Pisarev himself). Biographers of criticism are still embarrassed by the insignificance of external circumstances, which in a year turned a well-behaved researcher of philological antiquities into an ardent nihilist and “shaker of the foundations.” The point, apparently, is not in external circumstances, but in the fact that the art of telling the truth is always accompanied by the ability to hear this truth. And Pisarev - despite everything that was instilled in him since childhood - heard it in the articles of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Herzen.
Pisarev’s spiritual liberation (the word “birth” would be no less accurate) was quick, but not easy. This is probably common feature the first generation of sixties revolutionaries. There was a reason for this. The continuity of ideas - from Belinsky, Herzen - was preserved, but there was no personal continuity, teaching and apprenticeship, which are so necessary for a person at the time of his formation. The formula “fathers and sons” was not a ringing word, but precise definition reality; One could count on one hand the number of people of the older generation who supported the “boys” and “nihilists.”
For Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev circumstances were doubly unfavorable: at the very beginning literary activity he was arrested for an illegal article in defense of Herzen, and almost all the most powerful things that came from his pen were written within the walls of the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Here is the time to talk about one more personality trait of Pisarev. No less than the “talent of truth,” he also possessed the talent of courage. In everything that he wrote during more than four years of imprisonment, one cannot find, perhaps, a single sad, pitiful, suffering line. This is also a generational property; “What is to be done?” was created within the same walls and in the same years. But this is not just “social optimism”, but a cross-cutting feature of the mental structure of the “new people”.
Pisarev's letters to his mother from Petropavlovka are amazing. It’s as if the eldest and the youngest had swapped places - so much in the lines of a twenty-three to twenty-five year old young man vital firmness and calm disregard for everything external. He either jokes that, thank God, he is not in danger of the flu epidemic that has spread throughout St. Petersburg, or notes that given the high cost of living in the capital, it is worth even thanking the authorities who took care of him... Or here’s another thing about himself: “Now to One trait was added to my character that did not exist before. I began to love people in general... Now I often imagine that my article is being read somewhere in the wilderness by a very young man who has lived in the world even less than I have and knows very little... And I am overcome by the desire to do the best for him more benefit, tell him as many good things as possible, give him all sorts of thorough knowledge..."
Black Hundreds and liberals called Pisarev and other sixties “nihilists” and “deniers.” Pisarev did not renounce this nickname. But he understood perfectly well that simply denying everything that deadens society and the human personality is not enough. It is necessary to establish a new morality, a new type of person. Pisarev saw the outlines of this type in Bazarov, in Chernyshevsky’s “new people”. But what forces are capable of creating this human type, capable of resisting the deadening pressure of reality? “Love, knowledge, labor” - this is how Pisarev defines these forces, and it was easy for contemporaries, accustomed to the conventions of the language of the censored press, to understand what kind of love, what kind of knowledge, what kind of work is implied here.
Naturally, reflections on the essence of the “new man” directed the critic’s attention to the sphere of education. His pedagogical articles still amaze today with their wit and merciless vigilance to all sorts of manifestations of “educational doctrinaire.” And they admire deep respect for the child’s personality, for his right to be himself.
Pisarev saw the main and primary task of education in giving space on our own child, his cognitive activity. At first glance, it may seem that Pisarev believed that education should completely replace upbringing. But such a view would be erroneous. The critic spoke only against education, the goals of which are alien to the needs of the child, and the means are hostile to him, against education based on fear and blind authority.
Pisarev gained the reputation of a denier of art, a destroyer of aesthetics. It is easy to find reasons for this - dozens of bitter and merciless pages have been written about art by critics. But let’s not classify them only under the department of “historical limitations.” Their source is much more thorough. Pisarev asked a stern but inevitable question: does society have a right to art as long as the question of “the hungry and the naked” is not resolved, as long as injustice exists? And what exactly is art if it has nothing to do with injustice?
We may not like Pisarev's answer. But this does not change the question. Let us remember, by the way, that Tolstoy, who was in no way similar to Pisarev, put it just as sharply later and responded to it in almost the same way.
“I write cheerfully,” he once said about himself literary critic. This cheerful, free, young spirit, the spirit of truth and research, is the source of the enduring charm of Pisarev’s pages.
Life can be cruelly consistent sometimes. As if wanting to present in Pisarev’s personality the complete image of a person at the time of his independent formation, not clouded by later changes, she cuts off his path at the very beginning. Having barely left Petropavlovka, barely begun new plans and works, Pisarev unexpectedly and absurdly dies. He drowned when he was less than twenty-eight years old while swimming at the Dubbeln resort near Riga. It happened on July 4, 1868, more than a hundred years ago.
V. Rybakov, from an article in the magazine “Family and School”
Pisarev (Dmitry Ivanovich) - a gifted critic, born on October 2, 1840 in the family village of Znamensky, on the border of the Oryol and Tula provinces.
Until the age of 11, he grew up in a family, the only beloved son; was brought up under the influence of his mother, a former college student; By the age of 4 he was already reading and speaking French fluently. The boy was cut off from all relations with the serfs; he was being prepared for a brilliant secular career. While studying at the gymnasium (in St. Petersburg), Pisarev lived in his uncle’s house and was brought up at his expense, surrounded by the same lordly atmosphere as in the village. He was distinguished by exemplary diligence, unquestioning obedience to his elders, in his own words, “belonged to the category of sheep,” and at the age of 16 he graduated from the course with a medal, but with extremely mediocre knowledge and very low mental development. In his autobiographical article “Our University Science,” Pisarev says that when he graduated from high school, his favorite pastime was coloring pictures in illustrated publications, and his favorite reading were novels by Cooper and, especially, Dumas. Macaulay's History of England proved irresistible to him; critical journal articles gave the impression of a "code of hieroglyphic inscriptions"; Russian writers were known to the young man only by name. Pisarev entered the Faculty of History and Philology not by conscious choice, but with the sole purpose of avoiding mathematics and legal dryness, which he hated. At the university, Pisarev languishes under the yoke of scholasticism, called pure science, is forced to translate a German book, the content of which is inaccessible and uninteresting to him ("The Linguistics of Wilhelm Humboldt and the Philosophy of Hegel"), languish over the translation of Strabo or, on the recommendation of the professor, satisfy his attraction to history by studying primary sources and reading encyclopedic dictionary. Subsequently, Pisarev found that even reading the Petersburg or Moscow Gazette, which by no means shone with literary merit, would have brought his mental development much more benefit than the first two years of university science. Literary education also little progress was made: Pisarev only managed to become acquainted with Shakespeare, Schiller, Goethe, whose names constantly flashed before his eyes throughout the history of literature. In his third year, Pisarev began to study literary activity, in the magazine for girls - "Dawn". It is his responsibility to maintain the bibliographic department; in the first year of cooperation, he gives a report on Oblomov and the Noble Nest. “My bibliography,” says Pisarev, “forcibly pulled me out of the sealed cell to Fresh air". From now on, the university is left completely on the sidelines; Pisarev decides not to leave the literary field. Bibliographic work in a girls' magazine could not, however, be particularly free. Pisarev learned a lot of facts, memorized other people's ideas, but personally remained in the "category of sheep ". In the article: “Mistakes of immature thought,” Pisarev attributes a “rather abrupt revolution” in his mental development to 1860, in the article: “Our University Science” he calls the summer of 1859 the era of “mental crisis.” The latter definition should be considered more accurate .This summer played out romantic drama, which deeply shocked Pisarev, - unhappy love to my cousin. Neither the object of his hobby nor his relatives sympathized with this passion, and Pisarev had to endure a fierce struggle with unsatisfied feelings. Suffering did much more for Pisarev’s ideological movement than his book experiments. In one of his letters to his mother, he puts his failure of heart in direct connection with his new moods. “I decided,” he writes, “to concentrate all the sources of my happiness in myself, began to build myself a whole theory of egoism, admired this theory and considered it indestructible. This theory gave me such complacency, arrogance and courage that at the very first meeting hit all my comrades very unpleasantly." “In a fit of arrogance,” he took up a question from science that was completely alien to him. This shows what a big role affects played in Pisarev’s worldview. In his life there is no history of the moral world, gradually, step by step, developing its content, but there is a series of explosions, immediately
directly reflected in the writer’s ideological process. Yesterday's "sheep" today feels like "Prometheus". Idyllic submission to elders is suddenly replaced by unlimited skepticism, reaching the point of denial of the sun and moon. All reality gave the young man the impression of a mystification, and his “I” grew to enormous proportions. In a fit of megalomania, Pisarev began studying Homer in order to prove one of his “titanic ideas” about the fate of the ancients. The mania ended in real mental illness; Pisarev was placed in a psychiatric hospital. Here he attempted suicide twice and then, 4 months later, fled. He was taken to the village; his health was restored, but some “oddities and eccentricities” (expressions of Mr. Skabichevsky) remained until the end of his life; The habit of the most decisive interpretations also remained. Pisarev's later favorite subject - natural science - threatened him with mistakes and unfounded hobbies every time, when the popularizer took upon himself the courage to say his word in some scientific dispute; just recall the article "The exploits of European authorities", which destroyed Pasteur with contemptuous irony in the name of supposedly scientific truths about arbitrary generation. In the spring of 1861, Pisarev completed a course at the university and received a silver medal for his argument “Apollonius of Tyana.” Even earlier, in “Russian Word” (edited by Blagosvetlov), Pisarev published a translation of Heine’s poem: “Atta Troll”, and soon Pisarev’s intensified collaboration began in this magazine, although back in April 1861 Pisarev was looking for cooperation in “Strannik”, the organ more than conservative. When Pisarev was subsequently reproached for this step, he justified himself by saying that before his close acquaintance with Blagosvetlov, “he had no idea about the serious responsibilities of an honest writer.” For Pisarev, collaboration in Russkoe Slovo was a break with his closest university comrades, who considered journalism a betrayal of science. “Carefree and cheerful Pisarev followed the slippery slope of a journalist” and discovered amazing activity, delivering up to 50 printed sheets a year. In the spring of 1862, Pisarev was persecuted for an article published in an underground magazine, was put in a fortress and remained imprisoned for more than 4 years; but his writing did not stop, but, on the contrary, developed even more energetically, since it was the prisoner’s only business and entertainment. Pisarev did not complain about his position and even found that good side in it, that it was conducive to concentration and serious activity. In the first two years of work in the Russian Word, Pisareva is, in terms of his moral worldview, an epicurean, not without points of contact with aesthetics. He “respects” Maykov as “an intelligent and developed person, as a preacher of harmonious enjoyment of life.” This sermon is called a “sober worldview” (Article “Pisemsky, Turgenev and Goncharov”). Pushkin, so hated by Pisarev later, is now for him the author of a novel that stands “along with the most precious historical monuments"and, together with Ulrich von Hutten, Voltaire, Goethe, Schiller, a model publicist. The most characteristic article of this period is "Bazarov." Pisarev was so carried away by Turgenev's novel that he confesses to "some kind of incomprehensible pleasure, which cannot be explained by the entertaining nature of the stories told." events, nor the amazing fidelity to the main idea"; it is caused, therefore, only by aesthetic feelings - the "nightmare" of Pisarev's later criticism. He perfectly understands the strong and weak sides Bazarov type, pointing out in detail where Bazarov is right and where he is “lying.” Pisarev also understands the source of the “deception”: extreme protest against the “Hegelist phrase” and “hovering in the cloudy heights.” The extreme is understandable, but “ridiculous,” and “realists” should be more thoughtful about themselves and not get lost in the heat of dialectical battles. “To deny completely arbitrarily,” says Pisarev, “this or that natural and truly existing need or ability in a person, means moving away from pure empiricism... To cut people to the same standard as yourself means to fall into a narrow mind
natural despotism." These words of Pisarev were subsequently used by his opponents when he began to "destroy aesthetics." Now Pisarev is not yet the unconditional admirer of Bazarov, which he will soon become; he recognizes him as "an extremely uneducated person," stands for "harmless (i.e. . aesthetic) pleasures" and does not agree with Bazarov that a person is condemned to live exclusively "in the workshop"; "a worker needs to rest", "a person needs to be refreshed by pleasant impressions." In conclusion, Pisarev admires the author of the novel as an artist, "a person unconsciously and involuntarily sincere " - therefore, he recognizes unconscious creativity, also one of his “nightmares” in the future. In addition to clearly aesthetic tendencies, Pisarev during this period also showed a cultural worldview, completely different from the later one. Discussing the mutual relations of the individual and the environment, Pisarev considers the environment to be the decisive force, society: individuals are “not blameworthy” as products of environmental conditions. Hence the great interest artistic types, in which petty, powerless and vulgar people are embodied: they are an illustration of the social atmosphere. Actually, during this time he expressed few more “Pisarev’s ideas”. Pisarev rebels against speculative philosophy and stands for meeting the needs of the crowd of “mere mortals,” that is, for the democratization and usefulness of knowledge. All this is proof of the truth, successfully formulated by the critic himself: “with us it always happens that a young man who has completed a course of study immediately becomes an irreconcilable enemy of the teaching system that he experienced himself.” Pisarev severely criticizes the classical system and goes so far as to preach natural science as the basis of the gymnasium curriculum (later Pisarev will radically change his opinion and demand the removal of natural sciences from the gymnasium course). The change in atmosphere is clearly felt from the article: “Flowers of Innocent Humor.” Here the question of the comprehensive cultural role of natural science is sharply raised; Buckle's idea reigns undivided and unlimited; natural science is “the most pressing need of our society,” the popularization of natural sciences is the highest purpose of “thinking people.” In the following article: “Motives of Russian Drama” the same idea is expressed very figuratively: young people should be imbued with “the deepest respect and ardent love for the sprawled frog... It is here, in the frog itself, that the salvation and renewal of the Russian people lies.” The new worldview is revealed in its entirety in the article "Realists". This worldview is nothing more than comprehensive development ideas and psychology of Bazarov. The author repeatedly refers to Turgenev's hero, identifies him with the concept of "realist", contrasts him with "aesthetics" and even Belinsky. The definition of “strict and consistent realism” as “economy of mental forces” is confirmed by Bazarov’s previously refuted saying about nature - the workshop. Hence the idea of usefulness, the idea of what is needed. But first of all, food and clothing are needed; everything else, therefore, is “a nonsense need.” All nonsense needs can be united by one concept: aesthetics. “Wherever you look, you come across aesthetics”; "aesthetics, lack of accountability, routine, habit - these are all completely equivalent concepts." Hence the endless series dark forces which the realist must destroy: pygmies engaged in sculpture, painting, music, learned phrase-mongers like the “sirens” - Macleay and Granovsky, parodies of poets like Pushkin. “It is shameful and reprehensible to let one’s thoughts wander into the dead past,” so let them “pass by” Walter Scott with his historical novel, the Grimms, Russian scientists with their research folk art and worldview, even in general" ancient period Russian literature." Pisarev stipulates that "realists" do not understand benefit in the narrow sense that their "antagonists" think. Pisarev also allows poets, only on the condition that they "clearly and vividly reveal to us those sides human life, which we need to know in order to think and act thoroughly." But this reservation does not at all save art and poetry. Pisarev be
constantly poses a dilemma: either “feed hungry people”, or “enjoy the wonders of art” - either popularizers of natural science, or “exploiters of human naivety.” Pisarev, following the example of Chernyshevsky, compares a society that has hungry and poor people in its midst and at the same time develops the arts with a hungry savage who adorns himself with jewelry. For the present time, at least, creativity is a “nonsensical need.” When analyzing the works of the only art allowed by Pisarev - poetry, he demands that the critic treat them exclusively as factual material, read them as we “run through the foreign news section of a newspaper,” and not pay any attention to the peculiarities of talent, language the author, his manner of narration: this is a matter of “aesthetics”, not “ thinking man "("A Puppet Tragedy with a Bouquet of Civil Sorrow", "Destruction of Aesthetics"). Obviously, this requirement reduces poetry to the level of reporting and deprives it of any independent right to exist: "the advantage of the telegraph is that it transmits news quickly and accurately , and not in the fact that the telegraph wire depicts various convolutions and arabesques." Quite consistently, Pisarev went so far as to identify architects with cooks pouring cranberry jelly into intricate shapes, painters with old women who whiten and blush. The history of art is also explained simply: it's all about capitalist patrons of the arts and the cheap labor of corrupt or cowardly architects and decorators ("The Destruction of Aesthetics"). Such decisive ideas had to be expressed in an appropriate form. Pisarev's style was always distinguished by a remarkable brilliance of presentation, but during the heroic period of the destruction of aesthetics, it acquired , moreover, dramaticism, as if the critic, destroying drama and comedy, decided to take the place of the fiction writer himself. In his opinion, “figures of science and life” do not write poetry and drama, because the size of their minds and the strength of their love for the idea do not allow them to engage in all this “aesthetics”. It is not without reason that the author himself once tried to write a novel - now he constantly arranges scenes with his opponents, with the public, with the heroes of the works being analyzed (“My dear friend Arkashenka”, “Oh, Anna Sergeevna!”, “Oh, loins of humanity "). On every page one can feel the author's delight in his task and his unshakable faith in the irresistible power of his preaching. Pisarev wants to “bring some sense” to the public about Pushkin, to “resolve” the issues resolved by Belinsky, “from the point of view of consistent realism.” Articles about Pushkin are an extreme expression of Pisarev's criticism. They are also interesting because Pisarev showed remarkable originality here and broke with all authorities, even with the most respected of them, Chernyshevsky. The author of “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality” supplied Pisarev with all the ideas directed against aesthetics: Pisarev himself announced that Chernyshevsky had destroyed aesthetics even before him. Chernyshevsky, in the eyes of Pisarev, is both a brilliant thinker and the author of a classic novel, the creator of the ideal type - Rakhmetova. But Chernyshevsky, with all his realism, recognizes Pushkin and highly valued Belinsky’s articles about him. Pisarev does not speak in print about this crime of Chernyshevsky, but in a letter to his mother he calls himself “the most consistent of Russian writers” and relies more on the authority of Bazarov than Chernyshevsky. Pisarev remains faithful to Bazarov even in the nature of the war: Bazarov attributed to Pushkin thoughts and feelings that were not expressed by him - Pisarev does the same. All accusations are based on identifying the author’s personality with his hero. Pushkin is guilty of everything for which Eugene Onegin can be blamed: he is responsible for the vulgarity and mental inertia of the upper Russian class of the first quarter of the 19th century; it is his fault that his bored hero is neither a fighter nor a worker. Pisarev does absolutely no condescension to Pushkin, even in such cases when he diligently searches for excuses and explanations for others. Pisarev justifies the cult of pure poetry, characteristic of Heine, by unfavorable external circumstances: even
He does not criticize Heine’s “real” attitude towards women, but attacks Pushkin for much less guilt. In general, the critic strained his strength against Pushkin, fighting for the honor of realism and his consistency. But it was precisely this battle that proved the inconsistency of Pisarev’s new direction. It turned out to be possible to debunk the poet only through an obvious misunderstanding - by confusing a personal moral issue with an authorial and artistic one. The most ardent philippic against Pushkin was written about the duel between Onegin and Lensky. The words of the poet: “And this is public opinion! The spring of honor is our idol! And this is what the world revolves on!” - Pisarev understood it as if Pushkin at that moment was idealizing his hero and recognizing the legitimacy of the prejudice leading to the duel: “Pushkin justifies and supports with his authority the timidity, carelessness and slowness of individual thought...”. Another feature of Pisarev in this period of his activity is an extreme cult of personality, which is completely at odds with Pisarev’s previous ideas about the omnipotence of the environment. This cult did not represent anything original and therefore Pisarev could not draw from it such striking conclusions as those drawn from the idea of consistent realism. In some respects, however, the individualistic view must have been of considerable benefit to the critic. This was reflected mainly in his pedagogical reasoning. “The sanctity of the human personality” encourages Pisarev to demand from educators respect for the child’s personality, for his natural aspirations, for his consciousness. Nurturing personal independence, personal dignity and energy is Pisarev’s main principle. Practical applications of this principle are based on extreme enthusiasm for Comte's ideas. Pisarev offers an exemplary program for gymnasiums and universities, guided by Comte’s classification of sciences; mathematics should form the basis of gymnasium teaching. At the same time, the study of crafts is projected, for many utilitarian reasons: knowledge of the craft will reduce cases of renegadery; mental workers, having lost their jobs, can earn their living through physical labor and not enter into reprehensible transactions; finally, physical labor most of all leads “to a sincere rapprochement with the people,” who supposedly recognize only physical workers. Pisarev repeats here the Saint-Simonian idea of “rehabilitation of physical labor”, of “the connection between the laboratory of a scientific specialist and the workshop of a simple artisan”; but it did not occur to the Saint-Simonists to sacrifice physical labor to mental education. At universities, Pisarev proposes to abolish the division into faculties. Having previously rejected history as a science, he now, according to Comte’s instructions, connects it with the mathematical and natural sciences, starting the compulsory program with differential and integral calculus and ending with history, taught only in the last year. The fantastic nature and impracticability of these projects is clear at first glance. Pisarev is absolutely right when he says that his pedagogical articles “take a purely negative point of view and are devoted to the systematic exposure of pedagogical quackery and home-grown mediocrity”; He did not detect any organizational, creative thought here either. For Pisarev there was no difference between logical premises and phenomena of reality; mathematics and dialectics served for him as an infallible reflection of social and personal life and the only source for practical reasoning. The simplicity and schematic nature of thought irresistibly fascinated Pisarev; For the sake of these fascinating qualities, he could cast aside all doubts, all skepticism. Complex phenomena in life and in psychology alike eluded his insight. Hence his contradictory assessment of Belinsky. In the article: “Scholastics of the 19th Century,” only historical significance is recognized for Belinsky’s ideas. At the beginning of the heroic or Bazarov period, Belinsky is compared with Bazarov and is defeated for his sympathy with the Raphaels, who are not worth a penny, but in the article “Angry Impotence” Belinsky’s principles are called “excellent” for the modern public. A little
later, Belinsky’s criticism is again contrasted with the realistic one: that one is on her knees before holy art, and this one is on her knees before holy science (“A Walk in the Gardens Russian literature"). The article "Pushkin and Belinsky" recognizes the "blood relationship of real criticism with Belinsky"; "for 20 years the best people Russian literature is developing his thoughts and the end of this work is not yet in sight." Obviously, critics were struck by one or the other side of Belinsky's talent and activity - aesthetic or journalistic; he failed to capture the writer's personality in all its completeness. Upon leaving fortress, at the end of 1866, Pisarev discovered a clear exhaustion of strength. Articles for 1867 and 1868 are pale and impersonal: Pisarev for the most part limits himself to a more or less eloquent presentation of the content of the works being analyzed (“The Struggle for Life” - about Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” "; article about Andre Leo's novels); he admires historical novels Erkman-Chatrian, recognizing them as a successful attempt to popularize history and benefit the people's identity. Pisarev's latest articles were published in Otechestvennye Zapiski. From the beginning of 1867, his relationship with Blagosvetlov ceased; Pisarev was not a contributor to Delo, which replaced Russkoe Slovo, although a historical article he had previously submitted was published here. Death overtook Pisarev in the full prime of his life, but hardly in the prime of his life (he drowned at sea, in Dubbeln, on July 4, 1868). Pisarev instantly and brightly caught fire and just as quickly went out. It was an explosion of youthful protesting energy, the heroic scope of organic destructive force who experienced unspeakable pleasure in the very process of destruction. Undoubtedly, such energy could also benefit society, the majority of which was just awakening to an independent spiritual life. At this time, every convincing appeal to the individual in the name of human dignity was valuable. Pisarev considered these calls to be his purpose as a writer. For him - until the end an aristocrat, detached from the black masses - the most burning issue of our time did not exist: the people's issue. And yet he was, albeit on a limited stage, the man Gogol dreamed of - a man who knew how to sincerely say the word “forward!” Pisarev was one of the most courageous representatives of the spontaneous movement of the sixties. It will remain a curious subject for study as a whole psychological image famous period in the history of Russian social development. His personal views - the so-called Pisarev ideas - have long been only a symptom of the well-known cultural direction, transitional and only instructive from the same historical point of view. The untouchable capital bequeathed by Pisarev - ideas about progress, about education, about personality - did not belong to him even in his time, and his personal hobbies were relegated to the realm of archival material. Ed. op. Pisarev, F. Pavlenkov (in 12 volumes), published during the author’s lifetime, with the exception of the last two volumes; second ed. in 6 volumes, with a portrait of Pisarev and an article by Evg. Solovyov - in 1894. Pisarev’s biography, with excerpts from his unpublished correspondence, written by Evg. Solovyov for "Biographical bibliography." F. Pavlenkova. - Wed. also A.M. Skabichevsky, in his "Works". Iv. Ivanov.
Pisarev Dmitry Ivanovich
Pisarev Dmitry Ivanovich (1840 – 1868), critic, publicist. Born on October 2 (14 NS) in the village of Znamenskoye, Oryol province, into a poor noble family. Childhood years were spent in the parental home; His initial education and upbringing was handled by his mother. Dmitrievna. At the age of four he could read Russian and French fluently, then mastered German.
From 1952 to 56 he studied at the St. Petersburg Gymnasium, after which he entered the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University.
Since 1859, Pisarev regularly gives reviews and articles in the magazine “Rassvet” (“Oblomov.” Roman Goncharova”; “ Noble Nest" Roman I. Turgenev”; "Three Deaths" The story of Count L. Tolstoy”). Dissatisfied with the university program, he purposefully engages in self-education.
In 1860, as a result of overwork and personal experiences due to many years unrequited love to his cousin R. Koreneva, Pisarev becomes mentally ill and spends four months in a psychiatric hospital. After recovery, he continued his university course and successfully graduated from the university in 1861.
He actively collaborates with the magazine “Russian Word” (until its closure in 1866), becoming its leading critic and practically co-editor. His articles attract the attention of readers with the sharpness of thought, sincerity of tone, and polemical spirit.
In 1862 he published the article “”, which intensified the debate around the so-called “nihilism” and “nihilists”. The critic openly sympathizes with Bazarov, his strong, honest and stern character. He believed that he understood this new human type for Russia “as truly as none of our young realists will understand.”
In the same year, outraged by the repressions against the “nihilists” and the closure of a number of democratic educational institutions, Pisarev wrote a pamphlet (about the Chedo-Ferroti pamphlet, written by order of the government and addressed against Herzen), containing a call for the overthrow of the government and the physical liquidation of the reigning house.
On July 2, 1862, he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he spent four years.
After a year spent in prison, he received permission to write and publish.
The years of imprisonment marked the flowering of Pisarev’s activities and his influence on Russian democracy. At this time, there were almost forty of his publications in “Russian Word” (article “Motives of Russian Drama”, 1864; “Realists”; “and”, 1865; “The Thinking Proletariat about Chernyshevsky’s novel “What to Do?”, etc.).
Released early on November 18, 1866 under an amnesty, Pisarev first worked with his former co-editor, who was now publishing the magazine “Delo,” but in 1868 accepted N. Nekrasov’s invitation to collaborate in “ Domestic notes”, where he publishes a number of articles and reviews.
Pisarev’s creative path came to an abrupt end at the age of 28: while on vacation near Riga, he drowned while swimming in the Baltic Sea. He was buried at the Volkov cemetery in St. Petersburg.
“...what can be broken must be broken;
whatever can withstand a blow is good,
whatever shatters into pieces is rubbish;
in any case, hit right and left,
there will be no harm from this and cannot be"
DI. Pisarev, 1861
Russian publicist, literary critic, propagandist of the ideas of Darwinism.
"A brilliant publicist and literary critic Dmitry Pisarev Already at the age of four he could read Russian and French fluently, then mastered German. From the early 1860s, he became a leading contributor to the Russian Word magazine. From that moment his popularity began and at the same time his misadventures began. In 1860, as a result of overwork and unrequited love to his cousin R. Koreneva, he spent four months in a psychiatric hospital. After recovery, he successfully graduated from St. Petersburg University. In 1862-1866 for a pamphlet containing a call for the overthrow of the government and the physical destruction of the royal family (the illegal pamphlet was written in defense of A.I. Herzen– Approx. I.L. Vikentyev), Pisarev was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he continued to work actively and wrote almost forty articles.”
Ryzhkov A., Criminal talent, M., Eksmo, 2006, p. 203-204.
DI. Pisarev after the arrest and analysis of the situation, I came to the conclusion that the masses Not capable of revolution in Russia and therefore believed main force social progress, science and education... Based on this model, he assigned a utilitarian role to art, and considered some types of art: sculpture, ballet and music simply useless for humanity.
“Attaching decisive importance to science in historical progress, Pisarev simplified the relationship between art and science: The role of writers was essentially reduced to the popularization of advanced ideas of social and natural scientific thought.”
World monuments aesthetic thought in 5 volumes, Volume 4, Book 1, M., “Art”, 1969, p. 375.
The critic denied the importance of creativity A.S. Pushkin for modern times: “Pushkin uses his artistic virtuosity as a means to initiate all of reading Russia into the sad secrets of his inner emptiness, his spiritual poverty and his mental impotence.” The 1860s were a time that persistently demanded utilitarianism and benefits from art. Its creators, on the banner “whose name was written Chernyshevsky", fearlessly - following Pisarev - proclaimed that "the boot is higher Shakespeare" Art's goal was to serve poor people, humiliated and insulted, unhappy and disadvantaged. This was a noble feat of Russian cultural figures who forever “obliged” themselves to be “citizens”. Teaching and the benefits of art were put at the forefront. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we can assume that in art the main thing became “what” and not “how”; the content overshadowed the form.”
Bikkulova I.A., The phenomenon of Russian culture Silver Age, M., "Flint"; "Science", 2010, p. 20.
“There was already a moment in the history of Russian literature when Pisarev “abolished” Pushkin, declaring it superfluous and insignificant. But the Pisarev movement did not captivate a wide range of readers and soon disappeared. Since then, Pisarev’s name has been pronounced more than once with irritation, even with anger, which is natural for connoisseurs of literature, but impossible for a historian who indifferently listens to good and evil. Pisarev’s attitude towards Pushkin was stupid and tasteless. However, it was prompted by the ideas that were then in the air, to some extent expressed the spirit of the time, and, expressing it, Pisarev expressed the view of a certain part of Russian society. Those on whom Pisarev relied were people of small intelligence and poor aesthetic development - but it is in no way possible to say that they were bad people, hooligans or obscurantists. In the primordial split of Russian society, they stood precisely on the side on which its best part stood, and not its worst.”
