Critics about the novel Eugene Onegin summary. Scientific research of the novel Eugene Onegin

Scientific research of the novel “Eugene Onegin”

Roman A.S. Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” is one of the most inexhaustible and profound works of Russian literature, which is confirmed by a huge number of studies by modern literary scholars devoted to the form, genre of the novel in verse, the essence of the plan and its implementation, the ideological, aesthetic, moral and philosophical issues of the novel. These studies began with the critical works of the 19th and 20th centuries. “Author of the first philosophical review of our literature” I.V. Kireyevsky was one of the first to give a serious critical assessment of Pushkin’s work, despite the fact that, in his opinion, “it is difficult ... to find a general expression for the nature of his poetry, which took so many different forms.” However, the critic spoke quite unequivocally about the novel in verse “Eugene Onegin”: “Its distinctive features are: picturesqueness, some carelessness, some special thoughtfulness and, finally, something inexpressible, understandable only to the Russian heart.” The critic also spoke about the poet’s desire for originality, which, according to him, is revealed in the work. In conclusion, speaking about “the strong influence that the poet has on his compatriots,” Kireyevsky noted in this regard “another important quality in the character of his poetry - relevance to his time.”

The question of the national and global significance of Pushkin was first raised by V.G. Belinsky. “Pushkin was the perfect expression of his time... the contemporary world, but the Russian world, but Russian humanity.” In the article “Literary Dreams” the critic identified the main issue of literary life - the problem of nationality in literature. Nationality, which consists of freedom from alien influences and “fidelity to the depiction of pictures of Russian life,” acts, as Belinsky rightly points out, as a criterion for Pushkin’s national significance. In Belinsky's fundamental work - a cycle of 11 articles under the general title "Works of Alexander Pushkin" (1843-1846) - a well-known formula appears about "Eugene Onegin" as "an encyclopedia of Russian life and a highly popular work."

Critic A.V. Druzhinin in his article “A.S. Pushkin and the last edition of his works” (1855) approached Pushkin’s work “from the position of the “absolute” principles of art, its “eternal” principles, and it is natural that for him in many ways the super-historical meaning of Pushkin’s work is revealed, which goes far beyond of its time." “Onegin,” the critic wrote, “on the whole seems to be one of the most entertaining novels that has ever occurred to the most highly gifted writers.” Druzhinin noted such features of the novel as “harmoniousness”, “masterful combination of story with lyricism”, “unexpected denouement” and “influence on the reader’s curiosity”. A. Grigoriev, the author of the famous formula “Pushkin is our everything,” believed that “the best that was said about Pushkin” in contemporary criticism “was reflected in Druzhinin’s articles.” He himself rightly spoke of the poet as “the only complete sketch of our national personality,” a “nugget.” Pushkin, in his opinion, is “our original type, already measured against other European types, passing through in consciousness the phases of development that they went through, but fraternizing with them in consciousness.” The nature of the Russian genius, according to A. Grigoriev, responded to everything “to the best of the Russian soul.” This statement anticipated the words of F.M. Dostoevsky about Pushkin’s “worldwide responsiveness”: “he shares this... most important ability of our nationality with our people, and most importantly, he is a people’s poet.”

Criticism of Russian symbolism saw in Pushkin a prophet, a spiritual standard and a moral guideline for the artist. “Pushkin... with a sensitive ear foresaw the future trembling of our modern soul,” V. Bryusov wrote about the genius-prophet, and on the basis of this he put forward the main requirement for the modern poet: the offering of a “sacred sacrifice” “not only in poetry, but with every hour of his life, with every feeling..." "Creativity consists not only in the rattling of an absent-minded hand on the lyre, but also in the painful work of translating images into words,” critics of the early 20th century F. Sologub and Ivanov-Razumnik rightly wrote about the enormous work done by Pushkin during the period of creation novel in verse "Eugene Onegin".

The history of commenting on the novel “Eugene Onegin” is interesting. After all, as soon as Pushkin’s novel transcended its time and became the property of a new reading environment, much in it required additional explanation. In the 20th century, the first post-revolutionary editions of Pushkin’s works generally refused to comment on “Eugene Onegin.” Separate editions of “Eugene Onegin” appeared, equipped with brief comments by G.O. Vinokura and B.O. Tomashevsky and intended mainly for a wide range of readers. Let us note the significant importance of brief footnotes and explanatory articles to the school edition of “Eugene Onegin”, carried out by S.M. Bondi. These comments also influenced the scientific understanding of Eugene Onegin. In 1932, a new commentary was created by N.L. Brodsky. About the goals and objectives of his book “Eugene Onegin”. Roman A.S. Pushkin" Brodsky wrote in the preface to the third edition, stating that the task arose to outline the time that determined the fate and psychology of the main characters of the novel, to reveal the range of ideas of the author himself in a constantly changing reality. Book by N.L. Brodsky was addressed, in particular, to a literature teacher, on whose level of knowledge about “Eugene Onegin” the presentation of it to students depends. In this sense, the significance of Brodsky's work is very great. However, recognizing Pushkin’s novel as the pinnacle monument of literature of the 19th century, Brodsky views it primarily as a work that has forever become a thing of the past and belongs to him.

In 1978, “Eugene Onegin” was published with comments by A.E. Tarkhova. The goal that the author has set for himself is to analyze the creative history of the novel in unity with the evolution of the hero. Despite the fact that the author pays attention primarily to general textual comments rather than to particulars, his work provides readers of Pushkin’s novel with detailed material for understanding Eugene Onegin, based on the previous scientific tradition.
One of the most significant events in the modern interpretation of “Eugene Onegin” was the publication in 1980 of a commentary by Yu.M. Lotman, addressed, like the work of N. L. Brodsky, to the teaching audience. In the book "Eugene Onegin". Commentary" includes "Essay on the life of the nobility of Onegin's time" - a valuable guide for studying not only "Eugene Onegin", but in general all Russian literature of Pushkin's time. The structure of the book is designed, as the researcher himself notes, for parallel reading with Pushkin’s text. The basis of the scientific commentary by Yu.M. Lotman has deep textual work. The commentary provides two types of explanations: textual, intertextual and conceptual (the author gives historical, literary, stylistic, and philosophical interpretations). The task set by the researcher - “to bring the reader closer to the semantic life of the text” - is solved in this book at the highest level.

Foreign authors have also turned to commentary on “Eugene Onegin” more than once. Among the most famous are the extensive commentary by V.V. Nabokov, characterized by detailed explanations of numerous details of the text of Pushkin’s novel. Here, an important place is occupied by lengthy excursions into the history of literature and culture, versification, as well as translator’s notes and comparisons with previous experiences of translating “Eugene Onegin” into English. The writer explains realities that are incomprehensible primarily to a foreign language reader. His work also has its costs: excessively detailed reasoning, sometimes too harsh polemics with his predecessors. Nevertheless, this commentary represents a significant achievement in Western Pushkin studies - primarily in terms of the thoroughness and scale of commentary on the text of the novel.
In 1999, the Moscow publishing house “Russian Way” published the “Onegin Encyclopedia” in 2 volumes, in the creation of which researchers such as N.I. took part. Mikhailova, V.A. Koshelev, N.M. Fedorova, V.A. Viktorovich and others. The encyclopedia differs from the previously created commentaries on Eugene Onegin in its special organizational principle: it combines articles of different genres (small studies, literary essays, brief explanations of the text of the novel). The encyclopedia is supplied with rich illustrative material. A big advantage of the publication is that it is addressed to both specialists and a wide range of readers. We can say that the compilers of the encyclopedia have come closer to a new understanding of the novel thanks to the wide coverage of the material.

A productive stage in the study of Pushkin’s creativity and in particular the novel “Eugene Onegin” was the fundamental research of S.G. Bocharov (“Pushkin’s Poetics”, “Plan Form”), who pays attention to the stylistic world of the novel, its language, talks about the poetic evolution of the author. N.N. Skatov (author of the large-scale work “Pushkin. Russian Genius”, numerous essays on the life and work of the poet) explores the poetics of Pushkin’s works, speaks out about the enduring significance of the poet’s work as the highest, ideal exponent of Russian national identity. I. Surat made her contribution to Pushkin studies by raising the large-scale problem of “art and religion” and expressing the idea that Pushkin embodied poetry itself in its ontological essence (“Pushkin as a religious problem”). Judgments about Pushkin as an ontological, ethical and aesthetic phenomenon are also expressed by such modern literary scholars as V.S. Nepomnyashchiy, Yu.N. Chumakov, S.S. Averintsev, V.K. Kantor and many others. They develop questions about the significance of the novel “Eugene Onegin” as a unique phenomenon of world art, about its influence on Russian literature of the 19th century and subsequent eras. The attention of researchers is focused on revealing the ontological phenomenology of Pushkin’s novel in the context of world literature.
Currently, the problem of the real place of genius in national history, its role in the spiritual self-awareness of the people, in the destinies of the nation, i.e. its exclusive mission, a special historical task. Following the religious and philosophical criticism of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. (D.S. Merezhkovsky, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank), who affirmed the idea that “in the Holy Spirit... that combination of grace and freedom occurs that we see in Pushkin’s work,” Pushkin’s phenomenon as a philosophical and methodological The category is considered in his works by V.S. Nepomnyashchy. According to the literary critic, “in order for Pushkin’s genius to appear before us in all its brightness and fullness of life, it is necessary to consider it... in an ontological context as a phenomenon of being.”

So, each era “highlighted” the levels closest to it in the novel, which was reflected in the stages of scientific study. Modern researcher Yu.N. Chumakov rightly believes that now is the time to read the novel “against the backdrop of universality.” The universal content of “Eugene Onegin” reveals itself in the picture of the world, presented as a system of values, as a constantly developing, “ever moving” set of ideas about reality.

Belinsky began analyzing the novel “Eugene Onegin” at the peak of his literary talent. Directing and being the ideological inspirer of the department of literary criticism of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski in the period 1839-1846, Belinsky published his best works in it. Articles about Pushkin’s work “Eugene Onegin” were successively published in issues 8 and 9 of the magazine in 1944 and 1945.

Belinsky’s writing of a critical article was preceded by his ardent passion for Hegel’s ideas, in particular, the idea of the primacy of the historicity of any action, both in literature and in life. The personality of the hero, his actions, and actions were considered by the critic exclusively from the point of view of the influence of the environment and circumstances of the time on the hero.

Roman - "encyclopedia of Russian life"

By the time he was working on the study of Pushkin’s novel, the critic had outgrown his youthful fascination with the ideas of the philosopher and was considering the work and its characters based on their actual position. Belinsky, assessing the personalities of the heroes, the motives of their actions, the concept of the work, strives to be guided by universal human values and the author’s intention, without limiting reality within the framework of past worldviews. At the same time, the idea of historicity in the evaluation of a work continues to play an important role.

The novel “Eugene Onegin” is characterized by Belinsky, firstly, as a historical work, “an encyclopedia of Russian life”, and secondly, as the most “sincere” work of the poet, which reflected his personality most fully, “lightly and clearly”.

Pushkin, according to Belinsky, described in the heroes of the novel that part of Russian society (which he loved and to which he belonged) in a certain phase of its development. The heroes of the novel are people with whom the poet constantly encountered, communicated, became friends and hated.

Characteristics of the personalities of Tatiana and Onegin

The main character of the novel, Onegin, Pushkin’s “good friend,” in the eyes of Belinsky, is not at all the empty person, the cold egoist that he seemed to the reading public. Belinsky calls him a “suffering egoist.” In Onegin, according to the critic, social life did not kill feelings, but only “cooled one to fruitless passions” and “petty entertainments.” Onegin is captive of the framework in which he is placed by his origin and position in society. The hero is weak, but he is also strong enough, “a remarkable person, as the critic writes, to understand the emptiness of his life and try to change it. Belinsky associated the open ending of the novel with the fact that Onegin, being a product of his environment, would not be able to realize the potential of his personality.

Tatiana is contrasted with Onegin in the part that is responsible for the free expression by the individual of his needs for spirituality. Describing the heroine, Belinsky calls her more than once an example of a “Russian woman” of a certain class, understanding by this both her weaknesses and strength. Tatyana, a village girl, is “mute” without books, from which she draws knowledge about life. Tatyana, a society lady, is subject to false concepts about the value of a woman's personality, and cares most of all about her virtue. But at the same time, she is not limited by the “code” of a secular person, in this the heroine is more free than Onegin

Belinsky concludes his literary study with a hymn to the contribution of Pushkin, who wrote a work after which “standing” became impossible in literature. The novel, according to the critic, became a “great step forward” for Russian society.

Criticism of the novel "Eugene Onegin"

About the presence of “contradictions” and “dark” places in the novel by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" has been written a lot. Some researchers believe that so much time has passed since the creation of the work that its meaning is unlikely to ever be unraveled (in particular, Yu.M. Lotman); others try to give "incompleteness" some philosophical meaning. However, the “unsolvedness” of the novel has a simple explanation: it was simply read inattentively.

Feedback from Pushkin's contemporary Belinsky

Speaking about the novel as a whole, Belinsky notes its historicism in the reproduced picture of Russian society. “Eugene Onegin,” the critic believes, is a historical poem, although there is not a single historical person among its heroes.

Next, Belinsky names the novel’s nationality. There are more nationalities in the novel “Eugene Onegin” than in any other Russian folk work. If not everyone recognizes it as national, it is because the strange opinion has long been rooted in us that a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset are no longer Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is a zipun, bast shoes, fusel and sour cabbage. “The secret of the nationality of every people lies not in its clothing and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.”

According to Belinsky, the deviations made by the poet from the story, his appeal to himself, are filled with sincerity, feeling, intelligence, and acuity; the personality of the poet in them is loving and humane. “Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” says the critic. The critic points out the realism of Eugene Onegin.

In the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, according to the critic, Pushkin depicted Russian society in one of the phases of its formation, its development.

The critic speaks of the enormous significance of the novel for the subsequent literary process. Together with Griboedov’s contemporary brilliant creation, “Woe from Wit,” Pushkin’s poetic novel laid a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature.

Belinsky characterized the images of the novel. Characterizing Onegin in this way, he notes: “Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly!.. Social life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments... Onegin did not like to get lost in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open up to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature, therefore only by people, but also by itself.”

In Lensky, according to Belinsky, Pushkin portrayed a character completely opposite to the character of Onegin, a completely abstract character, completely alien to reality. This was, according to the critic, a completely new phenomenon.

Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, “he was an ignoramus at heart,” always talking about life, but never knew it. “Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his imagination,” writes Belinsky.

“Great was Pushkin’s feat that he was the first in his novel to poetically reproduce Russian society of that time and, in the person of Onegin and Lensky, showed its main, that is, male, side; but perhaps the greater feat of our poet is that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.”

Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle.

Ilyina Maria Nikolaevna

The novel "Eugene Onegin" is studied at school in the 9th grade. The genre of the work is very difficult - a novel in verse. Therefore, immediately after its publication, a stream of different opinions, both positive and negative, fell upon it. As part of the school curriculum, only the article by V. G. Belinsky is studied. Immediately after reading the novel, the student became interested in the opinions of other critics. To work on the abstract, a plan was drawn up and the necessary material was selected. Articles and opinions of critics from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were analyzed. The most interesting thing is that the controversy surrounding the novel has not subsided in our time, and will never subside as long as the novel is alive, as long as there are people interested in our literature and culture in general. The essay was highly appreciated and the student received a certificate for her work.

Download:

Preview:

Department of Education

Pochinkovsky district, Nizhny Novgorod region

Municipal budgetary educational institution

Gazoprovodskaya secondary school

Essay

Topic: “The novel “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism.”

Ilyina Maria

Nikolaevna,

Student of 11th grade

Supervisor:

Zaitseva

Larisa Nikolaevna.

Pochinki

2013

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… p. 3

Chapter 1. The novel “Eugene Onegin” - general characteristics……………………..p. 3

Chapter 2. Criticism of the novel “Eugene Onegin”……………………………………...p. 6

2.1.Review of A.S. Pushkin’s contemporary V.G. Belinsky………………….p. 7

2.2. A look at “Eugene Onegin” decades later in the person of D. Pisarev...p. 9

Y. Lotman's assessment……………………………………………………………p. 10

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..p. 12

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..p. 13

Applications

Introduction

For the third century now, A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” has attracted the minds of a large number of people both in Russia and abroad. Numerous reviewers and critics approach the study of this work differently. Ordinary people perceive the novel differently.

Question - who are you “Eugene Onegin”? remains relevant to this day from the moment of its birth after the publication of the novel during the life of A. S. Pushkin.

Why isn't the novelHas it still lost its relevance? The fact is that, based on the ideas of historicism and nationality, Pushkin raised in his work fundamental issues that worried the poet’s contemporaries and subsequent generations.

Russia was captured in the works of Pushkin in the amazing richness of its history, reflected in the destinies and characters of the central images - types - Peter 1, B. Godunov, Pugachev, Onegin, Tatyana, etc.

“Pushkin’s poetry,” wrote Belinsky, “is surprisingly faithful to Russian reality, whether it depicts Russian nature or Russian characters; on this basis, the general voice called him a Russian national, people's poet..."

Realizing himself as a poet of reality, Pushkin drew the content of his work from the depths of life. Having subjected reality to criticism, he at the same time found in it ideals close to the people, and condemned it from the height of these ideals.

Thus, Pushkin extracted beauty from life itself. The poet combined the truth of the image and the perfection of form.

Pushkin's work is understandable to the widest masses of readers. The general availability of his poetry is the result of an enormous effort of creative will and tireless work.

Pushkin deeply felt and brilliantly reflected all human conditions in his work “Eugene Onegin”. In fact, his work is a reflection of a person’s spiritual path, with all the ups and downs, mistakes, deceptions, delusions, but also with the eternal desire to understand the world and oneself. That is why it attracts readers and critics so much and remains relevant in our time.

Chapter 1. The novel “Eugene Onegin” - general characteristics.

The novel “Eugene Onegin,” despite its very peculiar, unconventional ending for an epic work (the “endless” end), is a holistic, closed and complete artistic organism. The artistic originality of the novel and its innovative character were determined by the poet himself. In the dedication to P. A. Pletnev, with which the novel opens, Pushkin called it “a collection of motley chapters.”

Elsewhere we read:

And the distance of a free romance

Me through a magic crystal

I couldn't discern it clearly yet.

Concluding the first chapter, the poet admits:

I was already thinking about the form of the plan

And I’ll call him a hero;

For now, in my novel

I finished the first chapter;-

I reviewed all of this strictly:

There are a lot of contradictions

But I don’t want to fix them.

What does "free romance" mean? “Free” from what? How should we understand the author’s definition: “a collection of motley chapters”? What contradictions does the poet have in mind, why does he not want to correct them?

The novel “Eugene Onegin” is “free” from the rules by which works of art were created in the time of Pushkin; it is “in contradiction” with them. The plot of the novel includes two plot lines: the history of the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana, Lensky and Olga. In compositional terms, they can be considered as two parallel event lines: the novels of the heroes of both lines did not take place.

From the point of view of the development of the main conflict on which the plot of the novel rests, the plot line Lensky - Olga does not form its own storyline, even if it is a side one, since their relationship does not develop (where there is no development, movement, there is no plot).

The tragic outcome, the death of Lensky, is not due to their relationship. The love of Lensky and Olga is an episode that helps Tatyana understand Onegin. But why then is Lensky perceived by us as one of the main characters of the novel? Because he is not only a romantic young man in love with Olga. The image of Lensky is an integral part of two more parallels: Lensky - Onegin, Lensky - the Narrator.

The second compositional feature of the novel: the main character in it is the Narrator. He is given, firstly, as Onegin’s companion, now approaching him, now diverging; secondly, as the antipode of Lensky - the poet, that is, like the poet Pushkin himself, with his views on Russian literature, on his own poetic creativity.

Compositionally, the Narrator is presented as a character in lyrical digressions. Therefore, lyrical digressions should be considered as an integral part of the plot, and this already indicates the universal nature of the entire work. Lyrical digressions also serve a plot function because they accurately mark the boundaries of the novel’s time.

The most important compositional and plot feature of the novel is that the image of the Narrator pushes the boundaries of personal conflict and the novel includes Russian life of that time in all its manifestations. And if the plot of the novel fits within the framework of the relationships between only four persons, then the development of the plot goes beyond this framework, due to the fact that the Narrator acts in the novel.

“Eugene Onegin” was written over the course of seven years or even more - if you take into account the amendments that Pushkin made to the text after 1830. During this time, a lot changed in Russia, and in Pushkin himself. All these changes could not help but be reflected in the text of the novel. The novel was written as if “as life progressed.” With each new chapter it became more and more like an encyclopedic chronicle of Russian life, its unique history.

Poetic speech is an unusual and to a certain extent conventional form. In everyday life one does not speak in poetry. But poetry, more than prose, allows you to deviate from everything familiar and traditional, because they themselves are a kind of deviation. In the world of poetry, Pushkin feels, in a certain respect, freer than in prose. In a novel in verse, some connections and motivations may be omitted, making transitions from one topic to another easier. For Pushkin this was the most important thing. A novel in verse was for him, first of all, a free novel - free in the nature of the narrative, in composition.

Friends of Lyudmila and Ruslan!

With the hero of my novel

Without preamble, right now

Let me introduce you.

Tatiana, dear Tatiana!

With you now I shed tears;

You're in the hands of a fashionable tyrant

I've already given up my fate.

Departing from the story of the main events of the novel, the author shares his memories. The author does not conduct the poetic narrative itself calmly, but worrying, rejoicing or grieving, sometimes embarrassed:

And now I'm a muse for the first time

For a social event I bring:

The delights of her steppe

I look with jealous shyness.

The author in the novel “Eugene Onegin” is perceived by us as a living person. It seems that we not only feel and hear, but also see it. And he seems to us smart, charming, with a sense of humor, with a moral view of things. The author of the novel stands before us in all the beauty and nobility of his personality. We admire him, we rejoice in meeting him, we learn from him.

Not only the main characters, but also episodic characters play a big role in Pushkin’s novel. They are also typical and help the author to present as fully as possible a living and diverse historical picture. Episodic characters do not take part (or take little part) in the main action, in some cases they have little connection with the main characters of the novel, but they push its boundaries and expand the narrative. Thus, the novel not only better reflects the fullness of life, but also becomes like life itself: just as seething, many-faced, many-voiced.

...She is between business and leisure

Revealed the secret as a husband

Rule autocratically.

And then everything went smoothly.

She traveled for work.

I salted mushrooms for the winter.

She managed expenses, shaved her foreheads.

I went to the bathhouse on Saturdays,

She beat the maids, getting angry

All this without asking my husband.

The poet paints his poetic and historical pictures, now smiling, now sympathetic, now ironic. He reproduces life and history, as he always liked to do, “at home,” close, unforgettable.

All elements of the form of a novel, as is the case in a truly artistic work, are subordinated to the ideological content and ideological tasks of the author. In solving the main task that Pushkin set for himself when he wrote “Eugene Onegin” - to depict modern life broadly, on the scale of history - lyrical digressions help him. In Pushkin's novel in verse they have a special character.

Here, surrounded by his own oak grove,

Petrovsky Castle. He's gloomy

He is proud of his recent glory.

Napoleon waited in vain

Intoxicated with the last happiness,

Moscow kneeling

With the keys of the old Kremlin:

No, my Moscow did not go

To him with a guilty head.

Not a holiday, not a receiving gift,

She was preparing a fire

To the impatient hero.

Pushkin portrays in the novel mainly representatives of the noble class; their life is shown in the novel first of all. But this does not prevent the novel from being popular. It is important not who the writer portrays, but how he portrays it. Pushkin evaluates all phenomena of life and all heroes from a national point of view. This is precisely what earned Pushkin’s novel the title of folk novel.

Finally, the very form of free storytelling, artistically tested by the author of Eugene Onegin, was of great importance in the development of Russian literature. One can even say that this free form determined the “Russian face” of both the Russian novel and works of genres close to the novel.

Chapter 2. Criticism of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

The novel “Eugene Onegin”, due to its peculiarities, numerous riddles and half-hints, becomes the object of various kinds of reviews, criticism, and articles after its release in the 19th century.

“Only that which is rotten is afraid of the touch of criticism, that, like an Egyptian mummy, disintegrates into dust from the movement of air. A living idea, like a fresh flower from the rain, grows stronger and grows, withstanding the test of skepticism. Before the spell of sober analysis, only ghosts disappear, and existing objects, subjected to this test, prove the effectiveness of their existence,” wrote D. S. Pisarev. [8]

Much has been written about the presence of “contradictions” and “dark” places in the novel. Some researchers believe that so much time has passed since the creation of the work that its meaning is unlikely to ever be unraveled (in particular, Yu. M. Lotman); others try to give “incompleteness” some philosophical meaning. However, the “unsolvedness” of the novel has a simple explanation: it was simply read inattentively.

2.1.Review of A.S. Pushkin’s contemporary V.G. Belinsky.

V. G. Belinsky is an unsurpassed researcher and interpreter of the work of A. S. Pushkin. He owns 11 articles about the great Russian poet, of which the 8th and 9th are devoted to the analysis of the novel in verse. Critical articles were successively published in 1844 - 1845 in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski.

Belinsky set himself the goal: “To reveal, as far as possible, the relationship of the poem to the society that it depicts,” and he was very successful in this.

Belinsky believes that “Eugene Onegin” is “the most important, significant work of the poet.”

“Onegin is Pushkin’s most sincere work, the most beloved child of his imagination, and one can point to too few works in which the poet’s personality would be reflected as completely, lightly and clearly as Pushkin’s personality was reflected in Eugene Onegin. Here is all life, all soul, all love, here are his feelings, concepts. ideals. To evaluate such a work means to evaluate the poet himself in the entire scope of his creative activity.” [2]

Belinsky emphasizes that “Onegin” has great historical and social significance for Russians: “In “Onegin” we see a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society, taken from the most interesting moments of its development. From this point of view, “Eugene Onegin” is a historical norm, although there is not a single historical figure among its heroes.” [3]

“Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” says Belinsky. He points to “nationality” as a characteristic feature of this novel, believing that there are more nationalities in “Eugene Onegin” than in any other Russian folk work. - If not everyone recognizes it as national, it is because a strange opinion has long been rooted in us, as if a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset are no longer Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is a zipun, bast shoes, and fusel. and sauerkraut. The secret of the nationality of every people lies not in its clothing and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.”

Belinsky believes that “the poet did a very good job choosing heroes from high society.” He could not fully explain this idea for censorship reasons: to show the life of the noble society from which the Decembrists came, to show how dissatisfaction and protest were brewing in the advanced nobility was very important. The critic characterized the images of the novel, and paid especially much attention to the main character - Onegin, his inner world, the motives of his actions.

Characterizing Onegin, he notes: “Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly!.. Social life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments... Onegin did not like to get lost in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open up to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature...” Onegin does not claim to be a genius, does not try to be a great person, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him.

“Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an involuntary egoist,” believes Belinsky, “in his egoism one should see what the ancients called “fatum.” This explains the understanding of Onegin as an “unfinished” character, whose fate is tragic due to this incompleteness. Belinsky does not agree with those critics who considered Onegin a “parody,” finding in him a typical phenomenon of Russian life.

Belinsky deeply understands the tragedy of Onegin, who was able to rise to the denial of his society, to a critical attitude towards it, but could not find his place in life, the use of his abilities, could not take the path of struggle against the society that he hated. “What a life! This is true suffering... At the age of 26, you have gone through so much, having tried life, to become so exhausted, tired, to do nothing, to reach such an unconditional denial, without going through any convictions: this is death!

The character of Lensky, typical of the era of “ideal” existence, “detached from reality,” seems quite simple and clear to Belinsky. This was, in his opinion, a completely new phenomenon. Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, “he was an ignoramus at heart,” always talking about life, but never knew it.

“Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his fantasy,” writes Belinsky. Lensky fell in love with Olga and adorned her with virtues and perfections, ascribed to her feelings and thoughts that she did not have and about which she did not care. “Olga was charming, like all “young ladies” before they became ladies; and Lensky saw in her a fairy, a selfide, a romantic dream, without at all suspecting the future lady,” writes the critic.

“People like Lensky, with all their undeniable merits, are not good in that they either degenerate into perfect philistines, or, if they retain their original type forever, they become these outdated mystics and dreamers, who are just as unpleasant as ideal old maids, and who are more enemies of all progress than people who are simply without pretensions, vulgar... In a word, these are now the most intolerable, empty and vulgar people,” Belinsky concludes his thoughts about Lensky’s character. [3]

Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is “an exceptional creature, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle. With the happiness of reciprocity, the love of such a woman is an even, bright flame; otherwise, it is a stubborn flame, which willpower may not allow it to break out, but which is the more destructive and burning the more it is compressed inside. A happy wife, Tatyana would calmly, but nevertheless passionately and deeply love her husband, would completely sacrifice herself for the children, but not out of reason, but again out of passion, and in this sacrifice, in the strict fulfillment of her duties, she would find her greatest pleasure, your supreme bliss." “This marvelous combination of coarse, vulgar prejudices with a passion for French books and respect for the profound creation of Martyn Zadeka is possible only in a Russian woman. Tatiana’s entire inner world consisted of a thirst for love, nothing else spoke to her soul, her mind was asleep…” the critic wrote. According to Belinsky, the real Onegin did not exist for Tatyana. She could neither understand nor know him, because she understood and knew herself just as little. “There are creatures whose fantasy has much more influence on the heart... Tatyana was one of such creatures,” the critic claims.

Belinsky gives a magnificent socio-psychological study of the position of Russian women. He sends impartial remarks to Tatyana, who did not give herself up, but was given, but he places the blame for this not on Tatyana, but on society. It was this society that recreated her, subordinating her whole and pure nature to the “calculations of prudent morality.” “Nothing is so subject to the severity of external conditions as the heart, and nothing requires unconditional will so much as the heart.” This contradiction is the tragedy of Tatyana’s fate, who ultimately submitted to these “external conditions.” And yet Tatyana is dear to Pushkin because she remained herself, remained faithful to her ideals, her moral ideas, her popular sympathies.

Summing up the analysis of the novel, Belinsky wrote: “Let time pass and bring with it new needs, new ideas, let Russian society grow and overtake Onegin: no matter how far it goes, it will always love this poem, will always stop at her gaze filled with love and gratitude.”

In the critical articles discussed above, Belinsky took into account and at the same time decisively rejected all those petty and flat interpretations of Pushkin’s novel that criticism has been guilty of since the appearance of its first chapter until the publication of Belinsky’s articles. Analysis of these articles allows us to understand the true meaning and price of an immortal, “truly national” work.

2.2. A look at “Eugene Onegin” decades later in the person of D. Pisarev.

Twenty years later, D.I. Pisarev entered into an argument with Belinsky. In 1865, Pisarev published two articles, united under a common title: “Pushkin and Belinsky.” These two articles by the critic give a sharply polemical, biased assessment of the poet’s work. Pisarev's articles about Pushkin caused a noisy response when they appeared. Some were captivated by their straightforward conclusions, others were repulsed as a mockery of the work of the great poet. It would, of course, be completely wrong to treat them as ordinary literary criticism.

Pisarev proposed to put almost all the art of the past into the archive - it was “useless” in the economic and spiritual transformation of Russia in the 1860s. Pushkin was no exception for him. “I do not at all blame Pushkin for the fact that he was more imbued with those ideas that did not exist in his time or could not be accessible to him. I will ask myself and decide only one question: should we read Pushkin at the present moment or can we put him on the shelf, just as we have already done with Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin and Zhukovsky?

Pisarev was ready to destroy everything. Everything that was not, in his opinion, useful “at the moment.” And he didn’t think about what would follow this moment.

In Tatyana, he saw a creature whose consciousness was spoiled by reading romantic books, with a morbid imagination, without any virtues. He considers Belinsky’s enthusiasm unfounded: “Belinsky completely forgets to inquire about whether there was a sufficient amount of brain in her beautiful head, and if so, in what position this brain was located. If Belinsky had asked himself these questions, he would have immediately realized that the amount of brain was very insignificant, that this small amount was in the most deplorable state, and that only this deplorable state of the brain, and not the presence of the heart, explains the sudden outburst of tenderness that manifested itself. in composing an extravagant letter."

Pisarev, in his article on “Eugene Onegin,” takes to the extreme the discrepancy between the elevated content of the work and its emphatically reduced transcription. It is known that everything can be ridiculed, even the most sacred. Pisarev ridiculed Pushkin’s heroes in order to take away the sympathy of readers from them, in order to “make room” for attention to new heroes, to the commoners of the sixties. The critic wrote: “You will not see a historical picture; you will only see a collection of antique costumes and hairstyles, antique price lists and posters, antique furniture and antique antics... but this is not enough; to paint a historical picture, one must not only be an attentive observer, but also, in addition, a remarkable thinker.”

In general, Pisarev’s assessment of Pushkin represents a serious step back in comparison with Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. In this sense, it is interesting how Pisarev, for example, “translates into his own language” Belinsky’s well-known idea that Pushkin was the first to show the dignity of poetry as art, that he gave it “the opportunity to be an expression of every direction, every contemplation” and was an artist par excellence. [ 9 ]

For Belinsky, this statement meant that Pushkin, having achieved complete freedom of artistic form, created the necessary conditions for the further development of realism in Russian literature. For Pisarev, it turns out to be tantamount only to the statement that Pushkin was a “great stylist” who improved the forms of Russian verse.

2.3. The novel in verse “Eugene Onegin” almost two centuries later.

Evaluation by Yu. Lotman.

"Eugene Onegin" is a difficult work. The very lightness of the verse, the familiarity of the content, familiar to the reader from childhood and emphatically simple, paradoxically create additional difficulties in understanding Pushkin’s novel in verse. The illusory idea of the “comprehensibility” of a work hides from the consciousness of the modern reader a huge number of words that are incomprehensible to him. expressions, phraseological units, allusions, quotes. Thinking about a poem that you have known since childhood seems like unjustified pedantry. However, once we overcome this naive optimism of the inexperienced reader, it becomes obvious how far we are from even a simple textual understanding of the novel. The specific structure of Pushkin’s novel in verse, in which any positive statement by the author can immediately and imperceptibly be turned into an ironic one, and the verbal fabric seems to slide, transmitted from one speaker to another, makes the method of forcibly extracting quotes especially dangerous. To avoid this threat, the novel should be considered not as a mechanical sum of the author’s statements on various issues, a kind of anthology of quotes, but as an organic artistic world, the parts of which live and receive meaning only in relation to the whole. A simple list of problems that Pushkin “raises” in his work will not introduce us to the world of Onegin. An artistic idea implies a special type of transformation of life in art. It is known that for Pushkin there was a “devilish difference” between poetic and prosaic modeling of the same reality, even while maintaining the same themes and problematics.” [6]

The absence of traditional genre features in “Eugene Onegin”: a beginning (the exposition is given at the end of the seventh chapter), an end, traditional features of a novel plot and familiar heroes - was the reason that contemporary criticism of the author did not discern the innovative content. The basis for constructing the text of Onegin was the principle of contradictions. Pushkin declared: “I reviewed all this strictly; There are a lot of contradictions, but I don’t want to correct them.”

At the character level, this resulted from the inclusion of the main characters in contrasting pairs, and the antitheses Onegin - Lensky, Onegin - Tatyana, Onegin - Zaretsky, Onegin - author, etc. give different and sometimes difficult to compatible images of the title character. Moreover, Onegin of different chapters (and sometimes of the same chapter, for example the first - before and after the 14th stanza) appears before us in different light and accompanied by opposing author's assessments.

So, for example, the categorical condemnation of the hero in the 7th chapter, given on behalf of the narrator, whose voice is merged with the voice of Tatyana, “beginning to understand” the riddle of Onegin (“imitation, an insignificant ghost,” “interpretation of other people’s whims ...”), is repeated almost verbatim in the 8th, but on behalf of “proud insignificance”, “prudent people”, and refuted by the entire tone of the author’s narrative. But, giving a new assessment of the hero, Pushkin does not remove (or cancel) the old one. He prefers to preserve and juxtapose both 9as, for example, in the characterization of Tatyana: “Russian in soul,” “she didn’t know Russian well... and had difficulty expressing herself in her native language”).

Behind this construction of the text lay the idea of the fundamental incompatibility of life with literature, the inexhaustibility of possibilities and the endless variability of reality. Therefore, the author, having brought out in his novel the decisive types of Russian life: the “Russian European”, a man of intelligence and culture and at the same time a dandy, tormented by the emptiness of life, and a Russian woman who connected the nationality of feelings and ethical principles with European education, and the prosaicity of secular existence with spirituality the whole structure of life, did not give the plot an unambiguous development. This is the general view of Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” by Yu. Lotman.

Conclusion.

A.S. Pushkin was a genius. A genius that time cannot destroy. Pushkin's actions are subject to his unique nature. His novel “Eugene Onegin” is not an exception, but rather the rule. V. G. Belinsky called it “an encyclopedia of Russian life...”.

Pushkin's works are still discussed today. One of the most discussed works is “Eugene Onegin”. Moreover, this pattern is not limited to criticism of the 19th century. The 21st century has become the heir to endless research and questions about the novel.

The main conclusions of the study are as follows:

1. The form of the novel speaks of the complex torment of both the author himself and the characters described in it;

2. The subtle play of endless meanings in the novel is only an attempt to resolve the numerous contradictions of real life on Pushkin’s part;

3. Both Belinsky and Pisarev are right in their assessments of the novel;

4. The appearance of diametrically opposed criticism of the novel in the person of Belinsky and Pisarev was predetermined by the desires of Pushkin himself;

5. The criticisms of A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” presented in the study outlined the framework for future statements in relation to the novel as a whole.

Each of the critics is right in their assessments of the novel and its characters; this was predetermined by the desires of Pushkin himself. Each assessment of the novel deepened the understanding of Eugene Onegin, but narrowed its meaning and content.

For example, Tatiana correlated exclusively with the Russian world, and Onegin - with the European one. From the reasoning of critics it followed that the spirituality of Russia depends entirely on Tatiana, whose moral type is salvation from the Onegins, who are alien to the Russian spirit. It is not difficult, however, to notice that for Pushkin both Tatyana and Onegin are equally Russian people, capable of inheriting national traditions and combining them with the brilliance of Russian noble, enlightened Western and universal culture.

“Eugene Onegin” captured the spiritual beauty of Pushkin and the living beauty of Russian folk life, which was discovered by the author of the brilliant novel.

When a person faces the problem of moral improvement, questions of honor, conscience, justice, turning to Pushkin is natural and inevitable.

F. Abramov wrote: “It was necessary to go through trials, through rivers and seas of blood, it was necessary to understand how fragile life is in order to understand the most amazing, spiritual, harmonious, versatile person that Pushkin was.”

Bibliography

1. Belinsky V. G. Complete works, vol. 7, M. 1955

2. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin, M. 1984, p. 4-49

3. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin. (Articles 5, 8, 9), Lenizdat, 1973.

4. Viktorovich V. A. Two interpretations of “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism of the 19th century.

Boldino readings. - Gorky: VVKI, - 1982. - p. 81-90.

5. Makogonenko G. P. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”. M., 1963

6. Meilakh B. S. “Eugene Onegin.” Pushkin. Results and problems of the study. M., L.: Nauka, 1966. - p. 417 - 436.

7.Pisarev D.I. Collected works in 4 volumes. M., 1955 - 1956.

8. Pisarev D. I. Literary criticism: in 3 volumes. L., 1981.

9. Pisarev D. I. Historical sketches: Selected articles. M., 1989.

10. Pushkin A. S. Lyrics. Poems. Stories. Dramatic works. Eugene Onegin. 2003.

11.Russian criticism from Karamzin to Belinsky: collection. articles. Compilation, introduction and comments by A. A. Chernyshov. - M., Children's literature, 1981. - p. 400

Moreover, contemporary criticism lagged behind him. If the first chapters of “Eugene Onegin” were received by her rather sympathetically, the latter met with almost unanimous condemnation.

In any case, it is important that Russian criticism recognized the vitality of the novel's heroes. Bulgarin stated that he met “Dozens” of “Onegins” in St. Petersburg. Polevoy recognized in the hero a “familiar” person, whose inner life he “felt”, but, without the help of Pushkin, “could not explain.” Many other critics say the same thing in different ways. Even the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote an interesting article “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors”, where the hero of Pushkin’s novel is analyzed as a historical type.

The question of the “nationality” of Pushkin’s novel in Russian criticism

It is also important that the novel raised the question of what “nationality” is in literature. Some critics recognized the novel's significance as a “national” work, others saw in it an unsuccessful imitation of Byron. From the dispute it became clear that the first saw “nationality” in the wrong place where it should have been seen, while the second overlooked Pushkin’s originality. None of the critics rated this work as “realistic”, but many attacked its form, pointed out the shortcomings of the plan, the frivolity of the content...

Polevoy's review of "Eugene Onegin"

One of the most serious reviews of the novel must be the article Field. He saw in the novel a “literary capriccio”, an example of a “playful poem”, in the spirit of Byron’s “Beppo”, and appreciated the simplicity and liveliness of Pushkin’s story. Polevoy was the first to call Pushkin’s novel “national”: “we see our own, hear our own folk sayings, look at our own quirks, which we were all not alien to once.” This article caused a lively debate. In the image of Tatyana, only one of the critics of that time saw the complete independence of Pushkin’s creativity. He placed Tatyana above the Circassian woman, Maria and Zarema.

The question of “Byronicism” in the novel

Critics who argued that “Eugene Onegin” is an imitation of Byron’s heroes, all the time argued that Byron is higher than Pushkin, and that Onegin, “an empty, insignificant and ordinary creature,” is lower than his prototypes. In essence, in this review of Pushkin’s hero, there was more praise than blame. Pushkin painted a “living” image without idealizing it, which cannot be said about Byron.

Nadezhdin's review of "Eugene Onegin"

Nadezhdin did not attach serious importance to the novel; in his opinion, Pushkin’s best work remained the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila”. He suggested looking at Pushkin’s novel as a “brilliant toy” that should neither be too extolled nor too condemned.