Description of the presentation by individual slides:

1 slide

Slide description:

Moral degradation of the nobility in the novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs”

2 slide

Slide description:

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in the novel “The Golovlevs” talks about the death of a person in an atmosphere of lack of spirituality, uterine existence, about the meaning and purpose of life, about the extent of a person’s responsibility for his destiny, the inevitable spiritual death of those who submit to external circumstances, about the need to resist them.

3 slide

Slide description:

Back in the very early 60s, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin spoke about the imminent death of the “Old Man,” that is, the landowner class. He tried to find such manifestations of human degradation that were hidden from a superficial glance, from obvious signs of degeneration.

4 slide

Slide description:

The writer explores the process of decomposition and disintegration of the noble family, revealing its hidden springs. The death of the Golovlev family does not occur at all because the abolition of serfdom undermined its economic foundations. The cause of the tragedy lies deep and is difficult to understand.

5 slide

Slide description:

Each of the chapters of the novel is equipped with a capacious “talking” title. The titles of the first five chapters are directly and directly related to the theme of family, family relationships (“Family Court”, “In a related way”, “Family results”, “Niece”, “Illegal family joys”). Each of these five titles, which seems to hint at the existence of family ties, actually contains a hidden ironic hint about their irreversible disintegration: only words remain, not filled with meaning.

6 slide

Slide description:

Stepan Golovlev. Stepan Vladimirovich, the eldest unloved son, persecuted and humiliated by his mother since childhood: “he very early became one of the “hateful” ones and from childhood he played the role of either a pariah or a jester in the house.” During her student years, she also lived as a jester with rich friends. After graduating from university, he demonstrates complete inability to work. “He had no patronage, no desire to make his way through personal labor. The young man’s idle thought had become so unaccustomed to concentration that even bureaucratic tests, such as memos and extracts from cases, turned out to be beyond its strength.” The Moscow house granted by the mother is quickly lived out; service in the militia does not give any results. Stepan is forced to return to Golovlevo. Return to die.

7 slide

Slide description:

“Finally he reached the churchyard, and then his cheerfulness finally left him. The manor's estate looked out from behind the trees so peacefully, as if nothing special was happening in it; but her appearance had the effect of a jellyfish head on him. He imagined a coffin there. Coffin! coffin! coffin! - he repeated unconsciously to himself.”

8 slide

Slide description:

Pavel Golovlev Pavel Vladimirovich is “a man devoid of actions.” He served, or rather was listed in the army for a certain time, then retired so that he could indulge in binge drinking without interference and slowly die. The upbringing and environment in which the hero grew up made him extremely depersonalized. Already from childhood, Pavel lived an unreal life. “As the years passed, Pavel Vladimirovich gradually developed into that apathetic and mysteriously gloomy personality, from which the end result is a person devoid of actions.” Pavel ends up drowning in unreality, namely, drinking himself to death.

Slide 9

Slide description:

“Arina Petrovna made a terrible discovery: Pavel Vladimirych was drinking. This passion ate into him stealthily, thanks to rural loneliness, and finally received that terrible development that was supposed to lead to an inevitable end.”

10 slide

Slide description:

Arina Petrovna Arina Petrovna is the head of the Golovlevsky house, at the beginning of the novel “a woman of about sixty, but still vigorous and accustomed to living at her own discretion. She behaves menacingly: she single-handedly and uncontrollably manages the vast Golovlevsky estate.” Serfdom developed in her a despotic nature, accustomed to commanding the weak. Arina Petrovna poisoned her husband’s life, reduced him to the position of a jester and took root, crippled the lives of “hateful” children, and corrupted her favorite children. She increased her husband’s wealth, but in doing so she further deepened and accelerated the crisis that was brewing in Golovlev.

11 slide

Slide description:

The long-term practice of depersonalizing the weak did not teach Arina Petrovna how to deal with real difficulties. The abolition of serfdom undermines her inner strength, internally feeling the hypocrisy of Judas, she, nevertheless, falls into his snare and eventually becomes a hanger-on in the house of her unloved son Paul, she sums up the sad results: “All her life she had been arranging something, I was killing myself over something, but it turns out that I was killing myself over a ghost. All her life the word “family” never left her tongue – and suddenly it turns out that she doesn’t have a family!”

12 slide

Slide description:

The chapter “Family Results” significantly deepens the image of Arina Petrovna, the blows of fate “illuminated in her mental horizons some corners that her thought, apparently, had never looked into before,” she was able to understand the human needs of her granddaughters, rushing away from Pogorelka. And when Judas pushed her second son into the abyss, she sees and condemns in him her own former cruelty. A spiritual impulse and moral insight force her to decide on a terrible step - to curse her own son, but this can’t change anything. Soon she dies, “entangled on all sides by idleness, idle talk and empty womb.”

Slide 13

Slide description:

Anninka and Lyubinka Anninka and Lyubinka - the nieces of Judushka Golovlev, who in childhood longed for greetings, warmth, love, received a stone instead of bread, and a mallet instead of teaching. The impregnable fortress of the family, so energetically and imperiously erected by Arina Petrovna, did not provide “a single moral foundation that could be held on to.” Their death in independent life turned out to be inevitable. Having flown out of their native nest, they turned out to be incapable of anything other than a hateful and depraved existence; instead of real life, they end up in a “garbage pit.”

CULTIVATION OF HATE:

THE IMAGE OF THE RUSSIAN NOBILITY IN WORKS OF FICTION OF THE 19TH CENTURY.

M.V. SMAHTPNA

Department of Russian History Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198 Russia, Moscow, st. Miklouho-Maclay, 10-1

Recently, in modern Russian historiography, it has been customary to consider fiction as a meaningful, vibrant and rich source on the history of Russia in connection with the turn to historical anthropology, the study of the history of mentalities.1 The traditional documentary base was not able to clarify a number of issues. It was at this time that literary works became “new sources of understanding” of Russian history of the 19th-20th centuries, since they captured many features of everyday life, norms of behavior, moods, passions, lifestyles, and self-awareness of all classes of Russian society. Unfortunately, today most of Russian fiction still remains unstudied by scientists. This fact indicates the lack of demand for fiction as a document, although thanks to structuralism the scientific world has recognized all literary texts of the past and present as historical sources.

The images of Russian landowners, formed in fiction, have not yet become the subject of in-depth scientific research in modern Russian historiography, despite the fact that a number of researchers recognize works of art as a source that “deserves special attention and reveals a wide panorama of provincial life and in it the place and role of the estate as factor that shapes the conditions of life within one’s own spatial environment and the immediate surroundings.”3

This article is devoted to identifying and analyzing the negative features of the Russian landed nobility4 in post-reform times with an excursion into the previous period based on the use of a historical-anthropological approach and fiction of the 30-40s. XIX - early XX centuries. as a source (works by A.I. Goncharov, A.B. Druzhinin, A.N. Apukhtin, I.S. Turgenev, N.G. Pomyalovsky, A.N. Ostrovsky, N.S. Leskov, M.E. Saltykov- Shchedrin, A.I. Kuprin, A.F. Pisemsky, N.G. Garin-Mikhailovsky, P.D. Boborykin, A.P. Chekhov, F.M. Dostoevsky, J.I.H. Tolstoy, I.A. Bunin).

This choice of documentary base is explained by the fact that Russian national literature is primarily a noble (and therefore landowner) literature. Therefore, we can fully count on the fact that the writers knew their class well, and the collective images of landowners they created are lifelike and realistic. So, let's begin an analysis of the negative traits of the nobility that were recorded by these writers.

Among the negative traits that were subjected to special criticism by writers are such traits of the nobility as arrogance, snobbery, swagger as a trait of large nobles,5 lordly arrogance and arrogance, which was also instilled in children.6 Noble arrogance, as a rule, was directed at the lower classes - merchants, burghers, peasants, commoners, or even representatives of the lower nobility and officials.7

Class arrogance was also manifested in what occupations were considered non-noble. Thus, becoming an artist for a person from a noble family was unthinkable, since society regarded such a profession as a disgrace, dishonoring not only the nobleman himself, but also his family.

Art could only be practiced at an amateur level - filling one’s leisure time and “for society,” but in no case making a living from it.4 The profession of an actor for a girl or man of noble birth was also considered an indecent occupation in provincial society. It was perceived as a non-noble task, since the role of an actor is akin to the role of a jester entertaining the public,9 and only a truly talented actress who received recognition and love from the public could count on approval.10 Physical labor was also treated as a non-noble task. Moreover, such behavior was considered deviant not only among the nobility, but also among the merchants and workers.11

The low level of education of a number of landowners and provincial young ladies, which persisted even at the time of the peasant reform, was the talk of the town.1” As a rule, such narrow-minded people were hostile to everything foreign and were distinguished by jingoism.13

The system of raising children, both boys and girls, was often criticized in literature. For example, the director of the gymnasium did not value camaraderie and encouraged snitching in children.14 The problem of poor upbringing is posed in the literature as a public one, especially with regard to the quality of women's education. In the opinion of an enlightened man, a life partner should be a woman and a friend, and not a child and a “boarder.”15 The result of the limited “institutional-operetta” education of girls was stereotyped ideas about life, as well as bad taste,16 which made it impossible to lead a working life. 17

A sharply negative attitude towards the aristocracy of writers, according to I.S. Turgenev, has become a common place in literature:

Moreover, all the writing brothers

Curses were poured out on “light and luxury”...

The tendency of the nobility towards idleness, secularism, and empty pursuits is subjected to derogatory criticism in the works of I.S. Turgenev and the no less famous everyday life writer II.D. Boborykina.19 The authors exposed the falsehood of the aristocracy: “After all, “good form” does not tell a person to be himself... You must erase everything that is yours and be like everyone else!”0 Noble society, high society was portrayed as a society of empty people - gossips and backbiters who blindly follow some inflated authority.21 In addition to empty interests, the attitude of representatives of high society towards people was also sharply criticized. A person who has become unnecessary “is not even abandoned, but simply dropped ..: like a glove after a ball, like a piece of paper with candy, like someone who didn’t win a tombola lottery ticket.”““

Small and medium-sized landowners also did not like aristocrats as strangers, “proud”, although they could respect them “for their excellent, aristocratic manners.”23 Often a provincial national society that lived in difficult times by the interests of its country (for example, during the Crimean War) , is opposed to the aristocracy, alien to everything national/4

On the pages of books by P.D. Boborykin captured colorful portraits of typical representatives of the then provincial noble society, the description of which is generally not flattering: the writer portrays it as a bunch of idle and stupid people.25 Moreover, in the works of other writers such an assessment was given to both urban and rural provincial society,26 in the village is “not only boring, but also stuffy.”27 Criticism of the morals of a provincial town migrates from work to work. “They only eat, drink, sleep, then die... others will be born and also eat, drink, sleep and, in order not to become dull from boredom, they diversify their lives with nasty gossip, vodka, cards, litigation, and wives deceive their husbands, and husbands lie , pretend that they see nothing, hear nothing,

Shat, and an irresistibly vulgar influence oppresses the children, and the spark of God goes out in them...” Doctor Blagovo says the same thing: “There is terrible boredom in the city, there is not a single living soul, there is no one to say a word with,” “all Gogol’s pig snouts.”9 The moral state of provincial society is determined by dishonesty and bribery.30

Lack of corporate solidarity, disunity of the nobility as evidence of instability in society,31 division of the class into several ideological wings -

conservatives and liberals, radicals, while society needed consolidation, also became the subject of attacks by writers.3“ Even in the matter of educating the people, which was traditionally considered the mission of the nobles, “there is no mutual understanding,” there were two parties: “worshippers of the people” advocated education , and retrogrades are against.33 The lack of corporatism was also manifested in the fact that the nobles did not help each other in case of ruin in order to save the good name of a representative of their class.34

The well-known everyday life writer of the post-reform period A.P. testified to the disunity of the provincial and metropolitan noble society. Chekhov. His hero, the young nobleman Poloznev, broke with decency, becoming an ordinary painter in his hometown. By engaging in non-noble business, he shocked the entire patriarchal society - both the provincial nobility and other classes, who believed that Poloznev’s occupation undermined the class principle.3" As a result, at the request of his father, outraged by his son’s profession and lifestyle, the governor summoned Poloznev Jr. to himself and made a suggestion, promising to take “extreme measures” in case of disobedience.

The attempt of the governor in post-reform times to interfere in the private life of a free nobleman, to force him, with the help of administrative measures, to renounce his way of life caused bewilderment and laughter from an enlightened young lady, the daughter of a local engineer-entrepreneur: “If only this could be told in St. Petersburg!”36 Then the enlightened capital To liberals, such behavior of the governor might seem not only ridiculous, but also backward: after all, the reforms carried out practically eliminated class as a principle of life for the entire Russian society. However, provincial society - traditional and difficult to accept new norms and values ​​- was in full solidarity with the governor. It was about the tragic split in the post-reform society, misunderstanding of each other: that. what was no longer acceptable in St. Petersburg continued to be considered the norm of behavior in the provinces. Life in the capitals and the Russian outback “took place to a certain extent in different historical times.”7 We can draw a similar conclusion about the split in provincial society from the journalistic, actually documentary heritage of the writer. In the post-reform period, “Nizhny Novgorod society, as if on purpose, spread out in different directions. Even the former secular-hospitable master connection disappeared and was replaced by absolutely nothing.”38

In a later period, towards the end of the century, society was never consolidated; and this disunity led to the growth of individualistic sentiments among the intelligentsia. One of the signs of the bright individualism of that time was a passion for sports, including the bicycle that came into fashion at the same time.39 Sports became a way of demonstrating one’s individuality, but at the same time a kind of tribute to fashion, a means of showing one’s professionalism.

progressiveness, so it turned, according to the author, into “something like a religion.”

Writers also criticized the “public” nature of the social life of the nobility and the impossibility of starting circles: “At that time, a separate, independent life, some small intimate circles, was unthinkable. It was necessary to know everyone...”41 Society “did not allow anyone to stand apart” and “very jealously guarded its class status.”42

In the same letter, the author denounces the lordly and bureaucratic idleness and idleness. Everyday life consisted of acquaintances, trips, as well as “two home entertainments: vodka and grand solitaire”, all other “master’s undertakings: musicians, songwriters, actors, etc.” They were held only on holidays; they were supposed to entertain guests and their hospitable hosts. “All this... [“attributes of lordly hospitality”] did not constitute an intimate home environment, but, on the contrary, a public environment.”43 At the same time, the writer claims that there was actually no meaningful leisure. It was replaced by inevitable communication exclusively in a closed, single-class circle.

The idle lifestyle of the nobility, the lordly laziness of the landowners, the lack of lively business, and the inability to live within one’s means have been criticized by writers for a long time and were the main feature of provincial bars.44 The heroine of Turgenev’s poem “Andrei” Avdotya spoke about the emptiness, boredom of provincial existence, lack of activities, “desert ", where she is "terribly stuffy."45

The lifestyle of landowners and county young ladies in the village is melancholy from idleness, prayer, caring for cats, grand solitaire and whining.46 Writers emphasized that degradation was taking place in the village, “the work of physical and moral destruction” of the individual as a result of idleness and boredom. And Saltykov-Shchedrin stated that idleness and idle talk are synonymous.47 Authors

they wrote about the immorality of an idle existence, called on the nobility to work, which often caused sharp rejection among the latter.49 A new female noblewoman who was engaged in business was an extremely rare phenomenon. The majority, including those obsessed with the impulse to work, such as Liza Bakhareva and Elena Bertoldi from Leskov’s novel “Nowhere,” only read new books and knew how to speak well about the need for personal labor.50

Pomyalovsky explained Russian idleness as a phenomenon of the life of the noble class by the fact that the upper class was characterized by “contempt for work, as a sign of dependence, and love for idleness, as having the authority of freedom and human dignity.”51 And Chekhov, through the mouth of his hero Likharev, stated that idleness is the primordial trait of the Russian person: “Nature has invested in the Russian person an extraordinary ability to believe, an inquisitive mind and the gift of thinking, but all this is broken into dust by carelessness, laziness and dreamy frivolity...”52

The main problem of the nobility in the 19th century was restlessness, the lack of a living cause.5 "' The noble type of the 40-50s, developed in Russian literature, is superfluous people. They became superfluous because nowhere, in any sphere of public and state life They could not realize themselves. Civil service was not perceived by them as a necessary, useful “business” for society.54 The self-portrait of the hero of “The Cliff” by Raisky is a characteristic of this type of superfluous people: “... I’m a freak, I... I... don’t know , what am I, and no one knows it. I am a sick, abnormal person, and besides, I have outlived, spoiled, distorted... or no, I did not understand my life." And further: "He felt and understood that he was not a couch potato. and not lazy, but something else...”55 Mikhalevich, Lavretsky’s university friend, also speaks about the lack of business among the nobility: “And that is, we have such gentlemen.. who spend their whole lives in some kind of delusion of boredom , get used to it, sit in it... Oh, this moment of boredom is the death of the Russian people! The nasty bobak is going to work all century..."56

In the post-reform era, high social activity and initiative were even more required from people. Therefore, the authors criticized the reluctance of the nobility to take up the matter when the opportunity finally presented itself. It becomes a shame not to serve for the benefit of society.57 Very often in the literature a situation was described when the nobles, even in post-reform times, were no longer capable of any work at all; in modern times, there is an even greater leveling of the value of service: the authors noted no

the ability of nobles to work systematically.

Worship of rank has also traditionally been subject to strong criticism and ridicule in Russian literature. Writers criticized the state of “searching” and servility among the nobility, through which great careers were often made. At the same time, the oblivion of the traditions and self-awareness of the class led to its decline.59 The official hierarchy was strictly observed and was a characteristic feature of the social life of provincial cities in Nicholas's time.60 “It happened. - recalled II.D. Boborykin New Year's balls in the Nizhny Novgorod noble assembly - in the middle of the hall stands the governor majestically and around him are officials and authorities. Everyone comes up and bows.”61

In the pre-reform period, reverence for rank was replaced by new trends - disrespect for rank;62 provincial society itself became amorphous: it did not have its own opinion; opinions were formed by government officials and other authorities. After the peasant reform, when liberal ideas were in fashion, the advanced metropolitan official Sipyagin simply laughs at the demand of the provincial retrograde landowner to observe the hierarchy: “... all this smells, excuse me, of something very backward.”63 “He has changed radically” , according to Boborykin, and the view of the hall after the reforms, in the winter of 1863-1864: “Firstly, no center, everything scattered... The presence of the head of the province was not noticed by anyone. The leader also hid in a corner, ranks and power were drained

lis with the mass...” There was “neither the old respect for rank, nor the ridiculous features of lordly swagger, nor the old tone.”64 We are talking about the liberalization of society; this process even affected the provinces. However, a strange picture appears before us; The old structure of society has been destroyed, but a new one has not yet been formed during this transitional, transformational period. Bare and the ranks have not yet found an occupation in tune with that historical period, and also have not decided on their new place.

One of the objects of ridicule of writers is the official, class-social or ideological “uniform”, which the nobles, and then commoners “put on” in the form of Slavophilism,65 Anglomanism, liberalism and humanism, modesty and radicalism. The monologues and dialogues of the characters in Boborykin’s fiction of the 1880-1890s, reflecting the struggle of ideas and class strife in Russian society of that time, are permeated with a protest against the “officialdom” of a “compulsory” or “semi-forced orientation”, “voluntary slavery to some invented principle ”, against all types of “mystical populism”. A uniform is always false, something superficial, unreal, superficial, borrowed due to the absence of one’s own thoughts. the nobles wore clothes depending on fashion, and the ideas themselves were read from magazines. When the time came for reforms, among the enlightened part of the nobility there was a need to become liberals. Not only the nobles played in liberalism,68 but also the authorities.69 The authors showed the superficial roots of Russian home-grown liberalism, when with a sudden change in the political course or a change in the situation, the political views of the nobles instantly changed,”0 who could quickly move from jingoism71 to ingratiating themselves with the West.72

Russian writers condemned even more sharply the contempt and dislike of the nobles for the people, lack of understanding of their life and needs." The authors noted that among the aristocracy they often do not know about the peasant troubles74 or despise the people.75 The "hypocritical" charity of the nobility was also criticized. Analysis of the true meaning of all kinds "charitable" events and projects have long occupied Chekhov (the stories "Princess", "For the Sake of Boredom", "Wife", the story "House with a Mezzanine"). For the princess from the story of the same name, charity is a game, "the desire to have fun with living dolls and nothing else “, she “doesn’t know how to distinguish people from lap dogs.”16

During the peasant reform, the impoverishment of the class intensified. The process of mass ruin of the nobility testified to Russian writers about its low viability. The ruin occurred as a result of extravagance, living beyond one's means on a grand scale.80 However, many noble writers wrote with pain about the ruin, impoverishment and degradation of the nobility.81 They repeatedly emphasized that after the reform of 1861 there was not just the extinction of the class, but its degeneration, degradation - the nobles became drunkards and committed suicide.82 In these cases, among the reasons for the impoverishment and extinction of noble families after the abolition of serfdom, the oblivion of noble traditions was indicated;83 and the engagement in “money dealing”, not worthy of the title of nobleman, as a result of which the noble values ​​and code the honors of a nobleman were forgotten; and “servitude”, because

for whom the best noble families mixed with the “upstarts”; and “old serfdom”

“skoe” and “nouveau-ourge” predation; and inability to do housekeeping; and wastefulness, lack of efficiency of the class, inability to live by counting, since in the minds of the “nobles,” counting is not a noble thing.86 In a number of works, the authors saw the reason for the ruin of the class in the fact that the nobility “separated from the people” and adopted a foreign, alien culture and forgot Russian, native, its traditions and roots.87

Boborykin, Chekhov, Turgenev, Tolstoy stated the fact that the nobles do not know how to calculate, conduct commercial business and manage their farms poorly.88 Indeed, in Russia, successful agrarian entrepreneurs-nobles were a rare phenomenon, not becoming typical even by the end of the century, although it was for For the nobility, the government created especially favorable conditions for engaging in trade and industry: they did not require official registration for this, which made it possible to avoid tax registration.89 Those nobles who were still engaged in business, again did not meet with sympathy from the writers, since they conducted their business dishonest and unfair, trying to make money in any way. Such “businesslike activity” against the backdrop of unenterprising and passive nobles was presented in literature as akin to fraud, as “empty fronderism and predatory business.”90 Writers emphasized the immorality of landowners receiving fines from men,91 income from taverns and taverns where people get drunk,92 loans to peasants bread and money at a hundred percent or more,93 and indifferent talk about the ignorance of the peasants and the need for their education, which is only hypocrisy and farce with the aim of drowning out the conscience.94

Of course, many writers also named in their works the positive features of the noble class in the person of its individual representatives: “real” patriotism, the hospitality of the landowners, the disappearance of class arrogance. The attempts of the nobility to find their place in society were welcomed in literature; Writers, however, sometimes portrayed people of action, professional farmers, “workers” who realized the value of personal labor, engaged in living work for the benefit of society or charity, broad education of the people, serving the fatherland, behind whom was “the future of the noble class and the country.” Writers noted the consolidation of society during periods of disaster, during the fight against famine and epidemics, as a positive process. However, at the same time, the above and many other negative features in the depiction of the nobility still certainly prevailed. Even in those works whose authors “rooted” for the nobility, it was presented as a “defective” class.

So, in Russian noble literature, as a rule, such traits of the noble class as snobbery, arrogance, conceit and arrogance, aimed at the lower classes, were criticized; the low level of education of landowners, the system of raising children, the quality of education received, especially for women; ceremonial worship. Judging by Russian literature, lordly and bureaucratic idleness, idleness, and lack of active work were the main features of provincial bars. But it was not only a matter of laziness; the nobles often seemed simply unable to realize themselves in the sphere of public life. A sharply negative attitude towards the aristocracy, as well as a negative characterization of urban and rural provincial noble society, have become commonplace in literature. Writers portrayed provincial society as a bunch of idle and stupid hypocrites. The authors noted among the highest ranks of the nobility a lack of understanding of the life of the people, their troubles and needs, as well as contempt for the people, and exposed hypocritical charity. The “serf-owning habits” of a number of landowners were condemned. Many writers wrote about the instability of post-reform society and the lack of corporate solidarity among the nobles, which led to the growth1 of individualistic sentiments among the intelligentsia. In fiction, the ideological “uniform” was also ridiculed as a sign of the absence of one’s own thoughts, be it Anglomanism, liberalism, Slavophilism or humanism. Writers also criticized the pseudo-patriotism of the nobility and their ingratiation to the West. The authors showed in their works the danger of “worship of the people,” which was associated with the idea of ​​a noble revival, making unnecessary sacrifices in the name of the people and the renunciation of their class and privileges by the nobility. The literature has criticized the lack of entrepreneurial

chivalry, vital passivity of heroes of noble origin in new conditions; a typical positive image of a successful agricultural entrepreneur or industrialist from the nobility was never created. Many works noted the impoverishment and ruin of the nobility as a result of the reform.

Criticizing the nobility and revealing to the whole society the negative features of this class, Russian authors of the 19th century, in spite of everything, continued to believe in its necessity for the country, because they found heroes worthy of empathy and sympathy only in this environment. But at the same time, classical Russian literature, created mainly by the nobles themselves, formed the image of the “noble class” with accentuated negative characteristics, thereby stimulating dislike and even hatred “for bars” in ever-increasing circles of readers, expanding primarily due to commoners and other new urban strata, as well as, to a certain extent, the peasantry. This “education of hatred” played a huge role later, in the events of the first decades of the 20th century.

NOTES

1 See: History of Russia in the 19th-20th centuries: New sources of understanding / Ed. S.S. Sekirinsky. M., 2001 Sekirinsky S.S. History and literature. From different perspectives“1 // Domestic History. 2002. No. 1. C 4, Zverev V.V. Fiction as a historical source (Towards the formulation of the problem) // Yearbook of historical and anthropological research. 2001/2002. M., 2002. pp. 66-67.

1 Noble and merchant rural estate in Russia in the 16th-20th centuries. Historical essays. M., 2000. P. 290.

4 The positive features of the class are the subject of a separate study. It is not possible to consider the entire set of features within the framework of one article.

"Turgenev I.S. Noble nest // Collected works in 12 volumes. M., 1976. T 2. P. 142: L-n P. From Nizhny Letter second // Library for reading 1864. Ys 9 P 41-42 ("Correspondence")

I Garin-Mikhailovsky N G Childhood Topics // Garin-Mikhailovsky N G. Childhood Topics. Gymnasium students. M., 1977. T. 1 C 12.14

Boborykin P.D. Princess /7 Bulletin of Europe. 1896 T I. jV" 1 January, p. 75; T. 2. No. 3. March. S. 46, 61, 65, 73. 78, 82: T. 2. Not 4. April, P. 563: Book. 2. February P. 508: G 3. No. 6 June. C 578; Turgenev I.S. Fathers and Sons // Turgenev I.S. Collected works in 12 volumes. M., 1976. T. 3. S 162, 171, 187; It's him. Rudin // Ibid. T. 2, P. 85; Goncharov I.A. Break. M., 1977. P. 186, 250-251, 417: Tolstoy L.N. Anna Karenina. L, 1979. Part 1^4. C, 175; Pomyalovsky N.G. Bourgeois happiness // Pomyalovsky N.G. Philistine happiness. Essays on bursa. M., 1981. P. 68: Chekhov A.P. The story of Mrs. NN // Chekhov A.P. Stories L„ 1978. P. 175: Leskov N. S. Seedy family // Leskov N. S. Collection. op. in 12 volumes M., 1989 T 6. P. 57-59, 61-62, 68, Kuprin A.I. Painting (1895) // Kuprin A.I. Collection op. in 9 vols. M., 1964. G I S 267-268, Garin-Mikhailovsky N.G Childhood Topics P. 42; It's him. Gymnasium students//Ibid. P. 139.

"Goncharov I.A. Obryv. P. 71-72, 95, 192-193 Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Lord Golovlevs // Collected works in ten volumes. M., 1988. T. 6. P. 124; Ostrovsky A N Les // Ostrovsky A N. Plays M., 1979 P. 317, 364; Chekhov A.P. The Seagull. Comedy in four acts II Selected works in two volumes M.. 1979. T. 2 P. 475, 507- 508

:1, Ostrovsky A N. Guilty without guilt // Ostrovsky A N. Plays. M., 1979 P. 494

II Chekhov A.P. My life The story of a provincial // Works: In 2 vols. M., 1982. T, 2 P. 126-127.

‘ Turgenev I.S. Rudin. From 20; Bunin IA Sukhodol // Collected works in four volumes T. 2. M., 1988 P. 230; Pomyalovsky N.G. Bourgeois happiness S. 50, 55

’ Turgenev I.S. Landowner // Collected works in 12 volumes. M.. 1979 T. 11. P. 174.

4 Garin-Mikhailovsky N.G Childhood Topics. T. 1 P. 55

“Druzhinin A.V. Polinka Sax // Druzhinin A V. Polinka Sax. Diary. M., 1989. pp. 28-29.

Right there. P. 32. ь Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Lord Golovlevs. P. 171 Turgenev I.S. Parasha //Collected works in 12 p. M., 1979. T. 11. P. 137.

“Leskov N. S. Seedy family // Collected works in 12 volumes. M., 1989. T. 6. P. 120; Boborykin P.D. Zemstvo forces // Library for reading 1865 January T. 1 Book. 1 No. 1. C 96; Turgenev I.S. Smoke // Collected works in 12 volumes M.. 1976 T. 4. P. 98.

30 Goncharov I.A. Break. C 47 See also p. 28, 163

Turgenev I.S. Rudin. pp. 96-97 21 Same. Fathers and Sons. P. 177.

"4 Apukhtin A.N. Unfinished story T 2. No. 4. March S. 672 ° Boborykin P.D Zemsky forces S 93-94.

Turgenev I.S. Rudin. P. 39 "Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Lord Golovlevs. P. 103.

2* Chekhov A. P. Three sisters // Selected works in 2 volumes, Volume 2 M., 1979. P 609.

He is My life. The story of a provincial C 128.

Right there. C 120, Goncharov I.A. Break, C 806-807

11 Boborykin II.D. Zemstvo forces. No. 3. C 40, Tolstoy L.N. Anna Karenina. L, 1979, Part 5-8. C 220; Leskov N.S. A seedy family. P. 96.

"5 Ibid. P. 137.

16 Chekhov A.G1. My life. The story of a provincial S. 138.

’ Sekirinsky S S Touches to the portrait of the highest bureaucracy: governors and fiction writers // History of Russia in the 19th-20th centuries: New sources of understanding. P. 81

Mr. P. From Nizhny. Letter two. pp. 38-39, 42-43. 48. p Boborykin II.D. Princess. N" 2 S. 528, 535-538.

41 Boborykin II.D. Where to go? Novel // Bulletin of Europe. 1899. No. 1. P. 25.

41 Bn P. From Nizhny, First Letter // Reading Library 1864. No. 8 August. P. 4 (“Correspondence”),

42 Ibid., C 4,

43 Gum. P. 4. See also: Boborykin P.D. Brothers // Bulletin of Europe 1904 No. 1. P. 74, 77-87, 89; No. 2. P. 511, 535-536,

44 Goncharov I.A. An ordinary story. M.. 1980. S. 58, 207; Turgenev I.S. Andrey // Collected works in 12 volumes, Vol. 11. P. 194, 198, Same. Landowner // Collected works 8 12 vols. T, 11. C 173, 178; Boborykin P.D. Princess. Book 2. February. 1896. P. 501; Chekhov A. P. Uncle Vanya. Sienas from village life in four acts // Selected works in 2 volumes. T 2 S. 533. 537; Chekhov A.P. The Cherry Orchard // Selected works in 2 volumes. P. 620.

45 Turgenev I.S. Andrey S. 226, 227

4" Leskov N.S. Nowhere // Collected works in 12 volumes. T. 4. P. 185, 194.

4‘ Saltykov-Shchedrin M E. Lord Golovlevs S. 69, 91. 105. 117, 241

48 Chekhov A.P. Bride // Works V 2 t 2 P. 291; Chekhov A P. My life. Provincial's story C 134

49 Leskov N.S. Nowhere. C 637

50 See also: Chekhov A.P. Ionych // Works; In 2 vols. T. 2. P 228.

31 Pomyalovsky N G. Bourgeois happiness. P. 29

32 Chekhov A.P. On the way // Chekhov A.P. Stories. L, 1978 P. 119

3 Goncharov I.A. An ordinary story. M., 1980. S. 203, 308; Chekhov A.P. In the native corner // Works: In 2 vols.

"Goncharov I.A. Break. P. 364. See also p. 25.

“Ibid. pp. 43, 64

*’ Turgenev I.S. Noble nest // Collected works in 12 volumes T. 2 P. 201

"7 Garin-Mikhailovsky N. G. Gymnasium students T, 1. P. 319.

’■ Boborykin P.D. Princess. 1896. T 2. No. 3. March. P. 79; It's also China Town. M., 1947. S. 39, 45, 46-47, 232,

237-238, 239, 248-249, 250. 258-259, 288-289” Leskov N.S. A seedy family. C, 114-115

60 Goncharov I.A. Precipice S. 402; Apukhtin A N. Unfinished story. From 167. m Boborykin P.D. From Nizhny. Second letter // Library for reading. 1864. No. 9. P. 42-43.

1.2 Goncharov I.A. Break. P. 419.

Turgenev I.S. Nov // Collected works in 12 volumes. T. 4. P. 227.

1.4 Boborykin P.D. From Nizhny S. 42-43 Same. Princess. T. 1, No. G January P. 63; Apukhtin A N. Unfinished story. P. 178.

66 Same. From novelists (Parisian impressions) // Slovo. 1878. To? 11. From 1-2 (2nd step)

Turgenev I.S. Smoke // Collected works in 12 volumes G. 4. pp. 28-29. See also ibid. P. 158. y8 Leskov N.S. Nowhere S. 94-95 “h Boborykin P.D Zemsky forces S. 40.

70 Turgenev I.S. Noble nest C 165, Same. Nov S. 189, 227: Tolstoy L.N. Anna Karenina. Parts 1-4. pp. 10-11.

11 Turgenev I.S. The Noble Nest. P. 161

2 He is Smoke. P. 28.

73 Leskov N.S. A seedy family. C 108 7“ Goncharov I.A. Break. From 46.

"Boorykin P.D. Princess. S. 533-534. See also: Turgenev I.S. Noble nest // Collected works in

12 vols. M., 1976. T. 2. P 162

76 Ibid. pp. 40-41. See also 39-40.

77 Zimin A.A. “About books, theater, cinema and other things.” (From archival heritage) // History of Russia in the 19th-20th centuries: New sources of understanding P. 16.

78 Chekhov A.P. New dacha // Chekhov A.P. Novels and stories. M., 1983. S. 262, 269; Chekhov A.P. On the way // Chekhov A.P. Stories. S 115 116, Boborykin P.D. Walker // Collection. novels, novellas and short stories T 9 C 56. 382

74 Turgenev I.S. Smoke. P. 28.

*" Ostrovsky A. N. Forest // Ostrovsky A. N. Plays M.. 1979 P. 291; Goncharov I. A. Obryv, P. 186, Chekhov A. P. Three years // Chekhov A. P. Novels and stories S. 140.

41 Boborykin 11.D. Princess. P. 65.

S2 Apukhtin A N. Unfinished story T 2 No. 3 March P. 148; Chekhov A.P. On the cart // Works: In 2 vols. T. 2. P. 198, 199; Chekhov A.P. Uncle Ivan. From 541-542: Boborykin G1.D. Zemstvo forces. P. 9: Bunin I.A. Antonov apples // Bunin I.A. Life of Arsenyev. Novels and stories. M.. 1989. P. 329 Bunin I.A. Sukhodol. P. 266.

”4 Leskov N S Seedy family S. 95

43 Bunin I.A. The Good Life // Collected Works in four volumes. T. 2 - P. 277.

w’Tolstoy L.N. Anna Karenina. Parts 1-4 P. 176; Shmelev I.S. Funny adventure//Favorites. M.. 1989 P. 155.

fl Shmelev I.S. Funny adventure. P. 63. See also p. 62

ss Boborykin P.D. Princess S. 56; Tolstoy L.N. Anna Karenina. Parts 1-4. P. 171; Turgenev I.S. Nov S. 318; Chekhov A P The Cherry Orchard // Selected works in 2 volumes. Volume 2. P 620, 626, 634; Chekhov A.P. House with mezzanine. The artist's story // Chekhov A.P. Novels and stories. C 215; Chekhov A.P. On a way. P. 113.

Ryndzyunsky P.G. The establishment of capitalism in Russia. M., 1978 P. 16.

Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Messrs. Golovlev S. 78, 85,

Dostoevsky F.M. Brothers Karamazov / 7 Poli collection. op. in 30 vol. L., 1976. T. 14. P. 158; Chekhov A.P., In my native corner. pp. 194-195

1 Chekhov A.P. My life. A provincial's story. P. 125; Turgenev I.S. New. C 299, 318.

1 Chekhov A P. In my native corner. C 194-195

FORMING THE HATRED: NOBILITY"S IMAGE IN RUSSIAN FICTION OF 19TH CENTURY

Department of Russian History Peoples Friendship University of Russia 10-1 Mikhlukho-Maklay Sir., Moscow, 117198 Russia

In the article some negative traits of the Russian nobleman are examined on the basis of analysis of the 19th century Russian fiction which forms the negative image of the all social class. Among these ones are arrogance, abuses of serfdom, hypocritical charity, a low level of education of the landed classes, rank admiration, idleness. The political preferences are regarded as an ethical uniform" (for example England mama, liberalism, the Russian people"s admiration etc.).

KSU "Secondary school No. 42" of the akimat of the city of Ust-Kamenogorsk

Bun Inna Viktorovna,

teacher of Russian language and literature

highest level of qualification of the highest category.

Methodological development of a lesson on Russian literature in

10th grade - natural and mathematical direction.

Explanatory note.

The emergence of specialized classes led to the need to develop lessons for studying literature courses in specialized classes and methodological recommendations for studying the creativity of writers.

Profile training is a system of specialized training in the senior grades of a general education school, focused on the individualization of learning and the socialization of students. The process of socialization is impossible without language, without studying literature.

This lesson is the third in studying the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In the first lesson, students are introduced to the biography of the writer and the satirical nature of his work. In this lesson, it is important to show that not only the writer had a satirical style of presentation, but also important problems did not pass by his work.

The lesson has an important educational value, as it fosters a respectful attitude towards such concepts as “home”, “family”, “kindness”, “respect”, “love”, “mutual understanding”. Students form their own moral ideas.

Allotted for the lesson 1 hour. During the lesson, a problem is posed, knowledge of the text is tested, knowledge is systematized, conclusions are drawn, and an assessment is given to each image of the novel. When studying literature at the general educational level, it is necessary to preserve the fundamental foundations of the course, which plays a vital role in the formation of the moral sphere: the student’s personality, his cultural baggage, and spiritual development in general. As part of a two-hour literature course, it is necessary to focus on textual, and not on a review, study of works included in the mandatory minimum content of education of the State Educational Standard of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2.3.4.01.-2010, to form reading skills, and to develop a culture of oral and written speech.

The goal and objectives of the lesson are formulated in accordance with the lesson model using the technology “Development of critical thinking through reading and writing.”

Lesson topic:“The degradation of the Russian nobility and its degeneration through the eyes of a writer” based on the novel by M.E. Saltykov - Shchedrin “The Golovlevs.”

Form: Work in the lesson takes place in groups.

The purpose of the lesson: Students will demonstrate knowledge of the text of the novel, determine the main idea of ​​the novel and its features, and its connection with life.

Lesson objectives:

Students will be able to identify the features of the novel, reveal the concept, main ideas, and genre uniqueness of the work.

Students will form an idea of ​​value orientations, ideals, the meaning of a person’s life in a family based on critical thinking, they will highlight the main thing, draw up a table, think associatively, develop oral and written speech, conduct a conversation, analyze, developing functional literacy.

The guys will listen and hear each other, working in groups, as a class; They will respect the opinions of others, they will have a negative attitude towards greed and selfishness, and a value-based and respectful attitude towards family.

Technologies, methods and techniques for solving problems: The lesson uses the technology “Development of critical thinking through reading and writing”; To achieve the set objectives, a three-stage lesson strategy is used: at the motivation stage - the “Cinquain” method, at the implementation stage - the “Conceptual Table” method, at the reflection stage - “Discussion Card”.

Equipment, design: portrait of the writer, illustrations for his works, book exhibition of the writer’s works, text of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel “The Golovlevs,” textbook.

Material and technical equipment of the lesson: projector, multimedia presentation.

Handout: diagram with the five-line “Sinquain”, sample table.

Interdisciplinary connections: with history (period at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries).

Lesson type: comprehensive application of knowledge.

Determining the type and structure of the lesson: the entire content of the lesson is the practical application of the skills of analyzing a literary text, the ability to work in groups.

Slide No. 1

Episodes from the life of one family.

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin

During the classes.

Slide No. 2

Organizational stage.

Greeting, checking the presence of students, checking their readiness for the lesson, setting the general goal of the lesson, writing an epigraph and explanations of the topic.

Home reading test. Updating knowledge.

Slide No. 3

To check home reading, a task is given: add the most distinctive features of the following characters. Distribute the heroes into groups.

Each group characterizes a specific hero.

Arina Petrovna -…….,……….,………..,…………..

Porfiry -………,………….,………..,…………..

Styopka - ……….,…………,………..,…………. etc.

The task is completed by each group and then read aloud.

Slide No. 4

Explanation of new material. Teacher's word.

During this stage, it is important to talk about the concept of the work, how the novel was created, etc.

Slide No. 5

(Initially, Saltykov-Shchedrin wanted to write several stories from the life of landowner families and include them in a series of satirical essays "Well-Intentioned Speeches." Encouraged by good reviews from N.A. Nekrasov about the chapter “Family Court”, the writer continued writing the Golovlev chronicle and wrote the novel “The Golovlev Gentlemen” in 1880. According to critics, this is one of the most remarkable works of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin).

You can assign such information to a stronger student to prepare.

Slide No. 6

Then it is appropriate to dwell on the impressions that the students made after reading. These are a kind of personal observations of students, and they don’t even need to be corrected; they will draw their own conclusions in the end.

You can ask several questions for the primary perception of the text:

Which of the characters did you like?

Which hero do you consider treacherous?

What colors would you use to describe the whole family if you drew them all together in a picture?

Who among all the heroes deserves pity? …..

Slide No. 7

Motivation - Application of knowledge, skills - challenge - “Sinquain”.

The teacher should give the students a problem to solve.

The question is asked:

What does the word “family” mean to you?

Each group has one representative who expresses his opinion.

Then it is proposed to compose a five-line “Cinquain” based on this word “Family”.

If you follow the writing rule, the following option is possible:

The word itself

Word definition

(2 adjectives)

Action word (3 verbs)

A phrase with this word of 4 words.

Synonym word, association.

Slide No. 8

Family

Happy, many children

Loves, helps, protects

Support in a person's life

House!

After such work, students are presented with a definition of the word “family”; they can already identify the main properties of this concept.

Slide No. 9

Implementation – Conceptualization - “Conceptual table”.

Analysis of the text of the work.

A table for work is provided.

Each group is given a task based on a specific image:

find a description of the hero in the text,

enter data into the table, tell everything about the hero’s life,

use quotes.

Each group asks questions during the performance.

This table is drawn on the board and filled in by each group as they answer.

This creates a general picture of the family and characteristics of each member of this family individually.

Heroes

Character traits

Fate at the end of the novel

Arina Petrovna

Vladimir Mikhailovich

Styopka-dumb

Pashka is quiet

Anna

Porfiry (Judas)

Slide No. 10

After each group performs, the table becomes full.

Slide No. 11

Heroes

Character traits

Relationships with children and parents

Fate at the end of life

Arina Petrovna

The woman is about 60 years old, but still vigorous and accustomed to living at her own discretion. He behaves menacingly, manages the estate alone and uncontrollably, lives alone and stingily.

The character is independent and unyielding, obstinate.

Cruel serfdom, dexterous, predatory, greedy, petty.

She does not show love and care for her children, does not love any of them, her relationship with her husband is strange, they are almost strangers.

“This old woman will eat him up, eat him up not with torment, but with oblivion. There’s no one to say a word to, nowhere to run – she’s everywhere, imperious, numb, despising,” “numb in the apathy of power”.

At the end of life it comes to collapse. From the “uncontrolled owner of the Golovlev estates” she turned into a modest hanger-on in her son’s house.

Died, forgotten by her son, whom she relied on most

Vladimir Mikhailovich

Jester, drunkard, very dreamy, hates his wife, completely impractical

Indifferent to children, favorable only to Stepan

He drinks and dies, forgotten by everyone

Styopka - “boobs”

Boy- smart, impressionable, malleable, unloved.

young man- capable, educated (university, diploma), does not want to work, lived and begged for the rich, squandered his house.

Forty year old man- long, thin, unwashed, swollen face, disheveled beard, with a cold.

At mother's house- half-starved, weak-willed, weak-willed, slavishly obedient, does not like work, can amuse everyone. Lack of faith and spiritual strength.

He was afraid of his mother, he learned antics and buffoonery from his father, he did not communicate with his brothers

He got drunk and died, forgotten even by his own mother.

Pashka – “quiet”

Boy- no inclination to study, to play, to be sociable, lived alone, dreamed.

young man- an apathetic and mysteriously gloomy person, did no good to anyone, willingly spent money, did not offend anyone, was honest.

Man– he wrote to his mother rarely and briefly.

At mother's house- half-starved, weak-willed, weak-willed, slavishly obedient, does not like work, can amuse everyone. Lack of faith

Weak character, downtrodden, humiliated, does not commit any actions.

His mother only scolded him, but his father did not notice him, he did not communicate with his brothers.

I hated the company of people. I was lying all alone.

He drank himself to death and died in emptiness and loneliness.

Anna

More determined than her brothers, but impractical and weak-willed.

Her mother saw her as an assistant, but Anna ran away with the officer.

She died after her husband left and left her two daughters orphans.

Porfiry

Petrovich

(Judas)

Childhood- He loved to cuddle up to his mother, to talk in her ears, and did not take his eyes off her.

A two-faced person, very cunning, flattering, chooses any means to achieve the goal, a sycophant, very obsequious. Porfiry Golovlev served for about 30 years as an official in one of the departments of the capital. I learned all the secrets of intrigue, learned to understand people, and use them for my own selfish purposes.

Although his mother did not trust him, he turned out to be the most practical and managed to “survive” even his own mother

Life leads him to binge drinking; on the threshold of death, he begins to understand the meaninglessness of life, experiences mental anguish, goes to a distant churchyard, to his mother’s grave.

He got drunk and died on the street (frozen)

Conclusion: Each chapter ends with the death of one of the Golovlevs, the degeneration of the family.

Slide No. 12

The composition of the novel helps to understand its ideological content.

“Family Court” - Stepan Vladimirovich dies,

“In a related way” - Pavel Vladimirovich and Vladimir Mikhailovich die,

“Family Results” - the suicide of Volodya, the son of Porfiry Golovlev,

“Niece” - Arina Petrovna and Peter, the last son of Porfiry, die,

“Reckoning” - Pofiry Golovlev dies, Lyubinka commits suicide, the last in the Golovlev family, Anninka, agonizes.

- What ruined the Golovlev family?

Slide No. 13

Reflection - Generalization and systematization - “Discussion card”.

It is necessary to bring students to the conclusion: what ruined the family and what character traits ruined trust and kindness.

To do this, it is proposed to draw a conclusion in the form of a discussion map.

Students, first individually, then in groups, name 3 traits that are characteristic and unusual for the family.

(The teacher writes on the interactive board).

Slide No. 14

Slide No. 15

Lesson summary:

As a result, students can draw their own conclusions based on the pentaverse and this discussion card. It should only be noted that Saltykov-Shchedrin pronounces a verdict on the blind thirst for money, calculation, and hypocrisy, which poison the life of a person and an entire family. These people do not value family, so it falls apart. The theme of the collapse of the “noble nest”, its moral decay, determined the plot and composition of the work. One after another, the Golovlev landowners pass away. Their fate reveals the main idea of ​​the novel.

What is the reason for the extinction of the Golovlevs?

(They are destroyed by idleness, lack of habit of living by their own labor, drunkenness, predation, idle talk. In such an atmosphere, a full-fledged personality cannot be formed).

2.Grading, the most distinguished students for the lesson are noted.

Slide No. 16

Homework:

It is proposed to write an essay-discussion about what a family should be like and what destroyed the Golovlev family. The topic can be formulated independently;

Prepare an oral biographical story on behalf of one of the characters (students’ choice).

List of used literature:

Kolesnikov A. A. Rethinking the archetype of the “prodigal son” in Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel “The Golovlev Lords” // Writer, creativity: modern perception. Kursk, 1999. P. 128.

Nikolaev D.P. M.E. Saltykov - Shchedrin: Life and creativity. M., 1985.

Pavlova I. B. The theme of family and clan in Saltykov-Shchedrin in the literary context of the era. M., 1999.

Prozorov V.V. Saltykov - Shchedrin Book for teachers M., 1988.

Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. The story of one city. Mr. Golovlev. Fairy tales. - M.: Olimp; AST, 1999.

Russian classical literature and modernity: Textbook for 10 grades of a secondary school of natural and mathematical direction / V. V. Savelyeva, G. G. Lukpanova, G. M. Michnik, I. R. Makhrakova, N. M. Mogilevskaya, E. M. Luludova, V. P. Prokhodova, T. I. Sidikhmenova, L. F. Tuniyants. – Almaty: Zhazushy, 2010. – 352 p.

Russian classical literature and modernity: Reader. for 10th grade of secondary school / V.V. Savelyeva, G.G. Lukpanova, G.M. Michnik, L.F. Tuniyants., N.M. Mogilevskaya, I.R. Makhrakova, E.M. Luludova. – Almaty: Zhazushy, 2010. – 320 p.

Svitelsky V.A. Features of the author's assessment and genre structure of the novel by M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs” // Russian literature of the 1870-1890s. - Sverdlovsk, 1981.

Skabichevsky M. G. Shchedrin as a modern brilliant writer: “Well-intentioned speeches.” Type of Judas // Criticism of the 70s. XIX century / Comp., introductory article, preamble and notes. S. F. Dmitrenko. - M., Olympus Publishing House: AST Publishing House LLC, 2002. (Library of Russian Criticism).

Telegin S.M. “The devil is not as terrible as his little ones”: [analysis of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s novel “The Golovlevs”] // Russian literature. - M., 1997. - No. 5.

Successes and challenges of today RWCT ./ Ed. S. Mirseitova and A. Irgebaeva. Kazakhstan Reading Association. – Almaty, 2005.

RWCT philosophy and methods in action. /Ed. S. Mirseitova and A. Irgebaeva. Kazakhstan Reading Association. – Almaty, 2004.

Khalizev V.A. Saltykov-Shchedrin in Russian literature. M., 1999.