Criticism about “Eugene Onegin. Scientific research on the novel Eugene Onegin Grigoriev’s opinion on the novel Eugene Onegin
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.
Presentation on the topic: The novel “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism of the 19th century
1 of 14
Presentation on the topic: The novel “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism of the 19th century
Slide no. 1
Slide description:
The novel “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism of the 19th century. Criticism is the determination of the attitude towards the subject (sympathetic or negative), the constant correlation of the work with life, the expansion and deepening of our understanding of the work by the power of the talent of the critic
Slide no. 2
Slide description:
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. D.S.Pisarev
Slide no. 3
Slide description:
First reviews of the novel The editor of the Moscow Telegraph magazine N. Polevoy welcomed the genre of Pushkin’s work and noted with delight that it was written not according to the rules of “ancient literature, but according to the free demands of creative imagination.” The fact that the poet describes modern mores was also assessed positively: “We see our own, hear our native sayings, look at our quirks.”
Slide no. 4
Slide description:
Slide no. 5
Slide description:
Slide no. 6
Slide description:
Decembrists about the novel Why do you spend the delights of the sacred hours for songs of love and fun? Throw off the shameful burden of sensual bliss! Let others fight in the magic nets of Jealous beauties - let them seek other Rewards with poison in their cunning eyes! Save direct delight for the heroes! A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky
Slide no. 7
Slide description:
Conflicting judgments about the novel As new chapters are published, the motive for rejection of the novel, an ironic and even sarcastic attitude towards it, begins to sound more and more clearly in the evaluations. "Onegin" turns out to be the target of parodies and epigrams. F. Bulgarin: Pushkin “captivated and delighted his contemporaries, taught them to write smooth, pure poetry... but did not carry his age along with him, did not establish the laws of taste, did not form his own school.” In the parody “Ivan Alekseevich, or New Onegin,” both the composition and the content of the novel are ridiculed: Everything is there: about legends, And about treasured antiquity, And about others, and about me! Don’t call it a vinaigrette, Read on, - and I’m Warning you, friends, That I follow fashionable poets.
Slide no. 8
Slide description:
Conflicting judgments about the novel “I really love the extensive plan of your Onegin, but most people do not understand it. they are looking for a romantic connection, looking for the unusual and, of course, they don’t find it. The high poetic simplicity of your creation seems to them the poverty of fiction, they do not notice that old and new Russia, life in all its changes passes before their eyes.” E.A. Baratynsky
Slide no. 9
Slide description:
V.G. Belinsky about the novel “Eugene Onegin” “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 with such completeness, lightly and clearly, as Pushkin’s personality was reflected in Onegin. Here is all his life, all his soul, all his love, here are his feelings, concepts, ideals.” According to the critic, * the novel was an “act of consciousness” for Russian society, “a great step forward” * the poet’s great merit lies in the fact that he “brought out of fashion the monsters of vice and the heroes of virtue, drawing instead of them just people” and reflected the “true reality picture of Russian society in a certain era "(encyclopedia of Russian life") ("Works of Alexander Pushkin" 1845) V.G. Belinsky
Slide no. 10
Slide description:
D. Pisarev in the novel “Eugene Onegin” Pisarev, analyzing the novel from the point of view of immediate practical benefit, argues that Pushkin is a “frivolous singer of beauty” and his place is “not on the desk of a modern worker, but in the dusty office of an antique dealer” “Elevating in the eyes of the reading masses those types and those character traits that in themselves are low, vulgar and insignificant, Pushkin with all the forces of his talent lulls to sleep that social self-awareness that a true poet must awaken and educate with his works" Article "Pushkin and Belinsky" (1865) D .I.Pisarev
Slide no. 11
Slide description:
F.M. Dostoevsky about the novel “Eugene Onegin” F.M. Dostoevsky calls the novel “Eugene Onegin” an “immortal, unattainable poem” in which Pushkin “appeared as a great people’s writer like no one before him. He immediately, in the most accurate, most insightful way, noted the very depths of our essence...” The critic is convinced that in “Eugene Onegin” “real Russian life is embodied with such creative power and such completeness as never happened before Pushkin.” Speech at the opening of the monument to Pushkin (1880) F.M. Dostoevsky
Slide no. 12
Slide description:
Critics about Onegin V.G. Belinsky: “Onegin is a kind fellow, but at the same time a remarkable person. He is not fit to be a genius, he does not want to be a great person, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him”; “suffering egoist”, “reluctant egoist”; “The powers of this rich nature were left without application, life without meaning...” D.I. Pisarev: “Onegin is nothing more than Mitrofanushka Prostakov, dressed and combed in the metropolitan fashion of the twenties”; “a person extremely empty and completely insignificant”, “pathetic colorlessness”. F.M. Dostoevsky: Onegin is an “abstract man”, “a restless dreamer throughout his life”; “an unhappy wanderer in his native land”, “sincerely suffering”, “not reconciled, not believing in his native soil and in its native forces, ultimately denying Russia and himself”
Slide no. 13
Slide description:
Critics about Tatyana V.G. Belinsky: “Tatiana is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature”; “Eternal fidelity to such relationships that constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships that are not sanctified by love are extremely immoral” D.I. Pisarev: “The head of the unfortunate girl... is clogged with all sorts of rubbish”; “she loves nothing, respects nothing, despises nothing, thinks about nothing, but simply lives from day to day, obeying the established order”; “She put herself under a glass bell and obliged herself to stand under this bell throughout her life” F.M. Dostoevsky: “Tatyana is the type of a completely Russian woman who has protected herself from superficial lies”; her happiness “in the highest harmony of spirit”
Slide no. 14
Slide description:
Conclusions Interest in Pushkin’s work was not always the same. There were moments when it seemed to many that the poet had exhausted his relevance. More than once they tried to assign him a “modest place... in the history of our mental life” or even suggested “throwing him off the ship of modernity.” The novel “Eugene Onegin,” initially enthusiastically received by his contemporaries, was subjected to sharp criticism in the 30s of the 19th century. Y. Lotman: “Pushkin went so far ahead of his time that his contemporaries began to feel that he was behind them” In the era of revolutionary upheavals (for example, the 60s of the 19th century), when the socio-political struggle reached its highest point of tension , the humane Pushkin suddenly turned out to be uninteresting and unnecessary. And then interest in him flared up with renewed vigor. F. Abramov: “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. When a person faces the problem of moral improvement, questions of honor, conscience, justice, turning to Pushkin is natural and inevitable
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]
“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 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
MY SITE AFORIZMY.RU - LITERARY SITE OF GENNADY VOLOVOVY
www.aphorisms.ru
It contains the best authors of modern Russian literature, aphorisms, and anecdotes.
For the first time, only the most talented works of the RuNet are collected on a single portal.
For the first time, a literary community is being created that has expelled graphomaniacs and mediocrities from its ranks.
"EVGENY ONEGIN" A.S. PUSHKIN - THE MYSTERY OF THE NOVEL (CRITICISM) - GENNADY VOLOVOY
“A new truth inevitably looks crazy, and the degree of this madness is proportional to its greatness. It would be idiocy to constantly recall the biographies of Copernicus, Galileo and Pasteur and at the same time forget that the next innovative scientist will look as hopelessly wrong and crazy as they looked in their time.”
(Hans Selye - Nobel Prize laureate)
My website on the Internet: www.aphorisms.ru - literary site of Gennady Volovoy (The best prose in RuNet, aphorisms of a bitch, a sucker, aphorisms of love)
In Russia, Pushkin remains the most popular poet. His significance is so great that all his creations are declared the most outstanding works in Russian literature. Each new generation of writers and critics considers it their duty to declare Pushkin a bearer of the highest morality and an example of an unattainable literary form. The poet, like a guiding star, accompanies them through the thorny
Young men making their first “steps” and old men, gray-haired and tired of honorary titles, live by the paths of creativity and its prayers. For the rest of the people, Pushkin is imprinted in three things that are studied at school - “The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish”, “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands” and “Eugene Onegin”.
They prefer not to remember that the first is a talented interpretation of a folk tale, completely giving the authorship to the poet. The second is that the idea of a miraculous monument belongs not to Pushkin but to Horace, who literally said: “I erected a monument more durable than bronze.” Pushkin modestly developed this idea in relation to one’s own personality and the importance of oneself in present and future Russia. And thirdly... “What did he also borrow from someone?”, the angry Pushkin scholar will exclaim. No, we are not disputing Pushkin’s authorship here. We only note that it was very difficult for Pushkin to create his own work without a guiding idea. We had to change both the plot and composition.
The novel “Eugene Onegin” stands at the pinnacle of the poet’s work. And, of course, it is an innovative work, unsurpassed in the boldness of its creative concept. No one has yet succeeded in creating a novel in the form of poetry. No one managed to repeat Pushkin's ease of writing and breadth of material covered.
However, despite the fact that Pushkin acted as a brilliant poet, there are weaknesses in this work in compositional and dramatic development. And this is the unfortunate mistake that Pushkin made. What, in our opinion, is the secret of the novel “Eugene Onegin”? Is there a secret plan of the poet, similar to the one we considered in Lermontov and Turgenev? No, the poet did not set such a task, and there is no plot hidden in the subtext, just as there are no secret actions of the heroes that have eluded the reader. So what's the secret? What is the purpose of this study? Before answering this question, let us remember how many chapters the novel consists of. Of course, it consists of nine chapters and a tenth unfinished. For reasons known to God, the last chapter was burned by Pushkin. There are assumptions about the political reasons that forced the poet to do this. We will return to this later and try to answer this question, the main thing is that the end of the novel was intended by Pushkin in the next tenth chapter, and not the ninth.
The tenth chapter is considered as a kind of annex to the main action of the novel, which ends with Tatyana’s rebuke in the ninth chapter: “But I was given to another and I will be faithful to him forever,” the anthem of abandoned women reproaching their former lovers. The secret of the novel “Eugene Onegin”, in our opinion, lies it is in this in this unfinished ending. Why did Pushkin complete his work in this way? Why did the plot end at the most dramatic action? Is it possible to end works of art in this way?
It is traditionally believed that such an ending to the novel is the height of perfection of Pushkin’s genius.
It is assumed that Onegin had to crash against the marble-ice block of duty and honor of Tatyana, who gave the final answer about the impossibility of their relationship. With all this, the novel is exhausted, the action is completed, the dramatic denouement has arrived. However, we are not afraid to say that Pushkin cleverly deceived the audience with such an ending, in other words, he fooled. He hid the true ending of the novel, because its continuation was not profitable for him and could spoil his reputation.
He did not complete the novel, although the ending may have been written in the burned tenth chapter; in any case, the poet did not want to present it to the public. Until today, no one has understood what trick Pushkin took and why he did it. We will try to unravel the mystery of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.
What arguments can we give in favor of the ending of the novel hidden by Pushkin?
Firstly, Pushkin stopped the action at the most exciting moment. He understands very well that the question may arise, why? - and therefore - Pushkin answers:
"Blessed is he who celebrates life early
Left it without drinking to the bottom,
Glasses full of wine,
Who hasn't finished reading her novel?
And suddenly he knew how to part with him,
Like me and my Onegin.”
Maybe someone is “blessed” not knowing exactly how the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana will develop further, but a real playwright will never stop the action at the dramatic denouement, he will give its full logical conclusion. If the villain’s hand is raised above the victim, it should come down and the last cry of the unfortunate person should reach the viewer, listener or reader. If only Homer had ended the travels of his Odysseus at the moment when he arrived in Ithaca and learned that a crowd of suitors were besieging his wife. What would readers ask next? And he would have answered like Pushkin - blessed is the husband, having learned that numerous applicants are wooing his wife, and therefore the time has come to stop the story and leave Odysseus...
In the above passage there is a very important admission by Pushkin himself of incompleteness. Life is compared to a novel that you haven’t finished reading. This is a direct projection onto the unfinished novel itself, Pushkin justifies himself, tries to find an argument for such a denouement. He interrupts the reader’s perplexed question in advance and imposes his view.
Secondly, the existence of the tenth chapter. Pushkin wrote that he managed to part with Onegin. What made him change plans and return to his hero again? It is nonsense for a literary work when the author says that this is the end and soon returns to his work again. Probably Pushkin understood that his novel had no ending, no conclusion. As a brilliant poet, he realized his mistake and decided to correct it, but still ultimately refused. We will outline our assumptions as to why this happened a little later.
Thirdly, did Pushkin want to present Tatyana in a different light, to tear her away from the existing stereotype? If we were to show the final outcome, then this would have to be done. Tatyana, no matter how she led, would have remained faithful to duty and honor, or would she have accepted Onegin’s love, would have lost her former attractiveness in the eyes of society. In the first case, Onegin would appear as an annoying loser lover, and Tatyana as a ruthless guardian of secular principles. And in the second case, she acted as a traitor to the family hearth, a traitor to her husband and a stupid woman who abandoned her rich husband and position in society for the sake of her lover.
Now let us briefly trace the events preceding the last conversation of the heroes in order to understand the logic of the further behavior of the heroes after the author left them.
With Tatiana's letter to Onegin, the active relationship between the characters begins. The letter crosses the line accepted in society and testifies to the girl’s desire to meet her beloved. She endows Onegin with the traits of an ideal man.
“My whole life was a pledge
The faithful's meeting with you;
I know you were sent to me by God,
Until the grave you are my keeper..."
A sincere outburst of feeling, a frank confession made Tatyana a completely new heroine, like never before. She is devoid of natural feminine cunning; she speaks directly about her feelings and wants to find understanding in this. Pushkin here confronts Onegin with difficult circumstances. He must understand this young girl, he must appreciate her impulse, and if he has grown to a true understanding of love, then he will accept it. However, this does not happen. Onegin rejects the girl's love. You can justify the hero, who, by the way, is only being condemned for this. In fact, he was not in love with Tatyana, for him she was one of the many young ladies from the district, and he, spoiled by secular beauties, did not expect to meet his chosen one in the wilderness. And Tatyana’s reproach for this later is also unfair. He is not in love and therefore he is right. You can’t blame the hero for not responding even to the sparked feeling, you have to respond in kind, but he doesn’t have that.
The point is different. He didn't have the maturity that came much later. He did not attach much importance to the feelings and union of two people in love. For him it was an empty phrase. Only later, after experiencing the tragedy with Lensky, after his wanderings, does he realize that he needs precisely this girl, precisely this recognition, which now acquires special value for him. Onegin's mistake lies in his immaturity. If he had a new acquired experience, then, of course, he would not automatically fall in love with Tatyana, but he would not have rejected her either, he would have allowed his feeling to develop, he would have waited for that cherished hour when his feelings would flare up. When he realized it was already too late. Tatyana was married. She could not be available as before.
Pushkin brilliantly developed the situation here. He showed how the hero gains the painful experience of true love. Now Onegin is really in love. He is madly in love. And the point is not at all in how the hero is reproached, in Tatiana’s inaccessibility, but in the fact that he understood the value of love in a person’s life. Having spent a turbulent youth, disappointed in everything and everyone. He found life in love. This is the highest comprehension of character made by Pushkin. And what a pity that Pushkin’s genius was not able to withstand and bring this character to the end.
“Lonely and out of place in his environment, he now felt more and more acutely the need for another person. The loneliness cultivated by romanticism and the enjoyment of his suffering weighed heavily on him after the trip. Thus he was reborn to love” (1).
Of course, it is very important to analyze what caused Onegin’s love. Blagoy and some researchers believe that Onegin’s love is connected with the fact that Tatiana is unavailable: “In order to fall in love with Tatiana, Onegin needed to meet her “not as this timid, in love, poor and simple girl, but as an indifferent princess, but as an unapproachable goddess, luxurious, gift-giving.” Not you". If he had seen her again not in the magnificent, brilliant frame of high-society salons, if not the “stately” and “careless” “legislator of the hall” had appeared before him, but the “poor and simple” appearance of the “tender girl” - the former Tatyana - had appeared again, it’s safe to say that he would have walked past her indifferently again” (2).
And Pushkin himself also seems to confirm this: “What is given to you does not entail.” If this is so, then there was no spiritual revival of Onegin; he remained a secular darling, to whom interest is aroused only by the inaccessible. Yes, the character is diminishing... No, Pushkin only grinningly says that the inaccessible helped Onegin understand the depth of his mistake. Blagoy is wrong in believing that if Onegin met Tatyana again in the guise of a rural young lady, Onegin would turn away. No, this was already a different Eugene, he already looked at the world with “spiritual eyes.”
But Tatyana, despite all his advances, does not show any attention to him. Onegin cannot come to terms with this. “But he is stubborn, he doesn’t want to fall behind. He still hopes and works hard.” However, all his efforts lead to nothing. He does not yet understand that Tatyana already knows the world well and knows that many then only drag their feet in order to then make the object of their desires look funny. She doesn't believe Onegin. He has not yet said something that would reveal his soul. Onegin decides to speak openly and frankly about his feelings. She must understand, because she herself was in the same position quite recently. He speaks to Tatyana in her own language. He writes his letter to her. There have been many words of praise for the poetry of Tatiana’s letter, but it is often forgotten that Onegin’s letter is in no way inferior in depth and strength of feeling.
"When would you know how terrible
To yearn for love,
Blaze and mind completely
Calm the excitement in the blood;
I want to hug your knees,
And sobbing at your feet
Pour out prayers, confessions, penalties,
Everything, everything I could express.”
What can we say - this is true poetry. This is a great example of a man’s declaration of love for a woman. Love inspired, pure and passionate. Is it possible to compare these confessions with the false-sweet ones, with the pompous desire to preserve the peace of the beloved woman, written by the same Pushkin?
“I loved you: love is still possible,
My soul has not completely died out;
But don't let it bother you anymore;
I don’t want to make you sad in any way.”
No, Onegin is persistent in his passion, he does not want to be content with the “peace” of a woman, he is ready to go ahead. He carries out the program of action that truly proves his love for a woman. The truly African passion of Pushkin himself shines here. If Tatyana's message is soft, poetic, disturbing. That message of Onegin is power, this is love, this is repentance...
"Your hateful freedom
I didn't want to lose.
……
I thought freedom and peace
Substitute for happiness. My God!
How wrong I was, how I was punished!”
Yes, here it is, the spiritual rebirth of the hero has taken place. So he realized the value of being, found the meaning of his own existence.
Onegin is a subtle psychologist; he cannot come to terms with and cannot believe that the feeling he once evoked has passed without a trace. He cannot believe that his letter will not find a response in the soul of the woman he loves. That's why he is so unpleasantly surprised by Tatyana's behavior.
“Ugh! how surrounded you are now
With Epiphany cold she
…….
Where, where is the confusion, the compassion?
Where are the stains of tears?.. They are not there, they are not there!
There is only a trace of anger on this face..."
For Onegin this is collapse. This is confirmation that all that remains of love for him is ash. He found no outward signs of love. Meanwhile, in fact, he did not know it yet, his letters evoked the most lively response. If this had not happened, even in the form of sympathy, a terrible evolution would have occurred, the light and its laws would have killed Tanya’s beautiful soul, fortunately this did not happen. But with all her appearance she makes it clear that she does not want to accept love. She sees the futility of their relationship for herself and makes it clear about the termination. Researchers think this is good. She is both faithful to her convictions and faithful to her affections. It is in the pursuit of the ideal, in high moral principles, in moral purity. She is in need of true love, based on deep and strong feeling.
Tatyana must remain within the bounds of decency. Duty conquers love and this is the strength of the Russian woman. But we’ll think about whether this is really good or bad a little later, but now let’s return to Onegin, who, having retired, continues to suffer and be reborn. Still, suffering is beneficial. Suffer - this is the evolution of the hero, this is when he becomes deeply tragic, and the writer who created him is truly great. Great is Pushkin, he created a living hero and made him live and suffer with real earthly passions.
Now Onegin has come to repeat Tatiana’s path. He reads a lot, he becomes spiritual.
All of Onegin's thoughts are now focused on Tatyana. He cannot refuse her, although he knows that she is married, and even to a friend from his youth, to a general. He strives for it because he realized what a priceless thing he lost through his own fault. Tatiana went to his friend, probably the same former womanizer, but who managed to discern and not refuse the rural young lady. For Onegin, realizing this is doubly offensive. But here it is important to emphasize the following - he does not think about his comrade, he does not remember him, before him, even in his soul, Onegin has no excuses._ At first glance, this can be regarded as a manifestation of selfishness. But on the other hand, it can be assumed that he knows very well the true “worth” of his friend and distant relative.
Really, what is Tatyana’s husband like? How could it happen that she did not fall in love with a military general who was maimed in battle? The general was old, he had black skin, and she fell in love with him because there was a reason, what was stopping her, because the general was a copy of Onegin in her youth? This means that he did not have those positive qualities that could inspire her love.
Indeed, Tatyana’s husband made a good career, he took part in military operations, but he faithfully served the regime. Unlike Onegin, he entered the royal service and reached significant heights in it. Pushki has a negative attitude towards him; he believes that the general is not worthy of Tatyana’s love.
“And he raised his nose and shoulders
The general who came in with her.”
No, Tanya does not love her husband, not because she still has an everlasting love for Onegin, but because the general did not turn out to be the person who met her ideal. He needs this light, he needs to show everyone his beautiful, smart wife and please his vanity. It is he who does not want to move away from the court, because awards, honors, and money are important to him. He tortures his wife. For Tatyana, it is better to be back in the rural wilderness; the general does not want to hear the emotional impulse of his wife. She cannot admit, just like Onegin, that she does not want to shine in the world, that she has different ideals. Her husband will not want to understand, she is his hostage. He wants her to need the light as much as he does, and if this does not happen, he obliges Tatyana to live in his world.
Therefore, as Pushkin believes, and we agree with him, Onegin does not bear any moral obligations to him. He is not worthy of Tatyana's love. If this were not so, then the poet would have emphasized that for the sake of his own feelings, Onegin is ready to trample on his friend’s happiness. Therefore, only Tatyana appears in Onegin’s thoughts. No, this is not another affair, this is not the hero’s wounded pride. This is the understanding that Tatyana’s place is not in society, where: “Lukerya Lvovna is whitewashing everything, Lyubov Petrovna is still lying, Ivan Petrovich is just as stupid, Semyon Petrovich is just as stingy, Pelageya Nikolaevna still has the same friend Monsieur Finmush, and the same Pomeranian, and the same husband.” Not at balls, where “she is surrounded everywhere by a vulgar crowd of fools, liars, empty-headed and greedy for gossip, for dinners, for rich brides, regulars of Moscow drawing rooms” (3).
The love that flared up in Onegin’s soul flares up every day: “Onegin is “like a child, in love” with Tatyana. “Like a child” - with all spontaneity, with all purity and faith in another person. Onegin's love for Tatyana - as it is revealed in the letter - is a thirst for another person. Such love could not separate a person from the world - it firmly connected him with him, opening the way to an active and beautiful life” (4).
With the onset of spring, feelings play out more strongly in Onegin’s soul and he again rushes to attack Tatiana. He needs a refusal, he needs an insult, he needs to expel from his soul this demonic image that has shackled his entire soul and mind. He hurries to Tatyana
“Is Onegin striving? you in advance
You guessed it right; exactly:
He rushed to her, to his Tatyana
My uncorrected eccentric..."
Let us note that Onegin does not want to come to terms with the loss of Tatyana. He remains an "uncorrected eccentric"! A very important characteristic of the hero for further assessment of his possible actions. In addition, Pushkin predicts the expectations of the reader, who is sure that the main explanation has not yet occurred. Tatyana had to clarify herself - who she had become, remained the same Tanya or became a socialite.
Could Pushkin allow Tatyana's evolution? If this had happened, if she had become his pillar, then it would have been the collapse of not only Tatiana and the novel itself. Then Onegin had to run away, as Chatsky did.
Yes, Pushkin led his hero along the thorny path of suffering, but Onegin did not yet know that an even more bitter lesson awaited him ahead. Onegin comes home and takes Tatyana by surprise - she was not ready for the unexpected meeting.
“The princess is alone before him,
Sits, untidy, pale,
He's reading some letter
And quietly tears flow like a river,
Leaning your cheek on your hand.”
Yes, the old Tanya came to life in her, who, however, did not die, but was only slightly powdered with social life.
“A pleading look, a silent reproach,
She understands everything. Simple maiden
With dreams, the heart of former days,
Now they have risen again in it"
Now the test falls to Tatyana. And she proves that the light has not spoiled her soul, that she has retained her best features. And this is terrible for Onegin; he has nothing to be disappointed in. It would be easier for him to realize that he was completely unloved, but now he clearly sees that he is loved and loved with all his soul and heart.
The action begins to unfold. The reader is captivated and intrigued. What will be next? He already expects to expect a stormy declaration of love, then quarrels and a break with her husband, then the flight of lovers from the world that condemns them. But Pushkin offers an unexpected twist. Pushkin has a different plan of action.
“What is her dream now?
A long silence passes,
And finally she quietly:
"Enough; stand up. I must
You need to explain yourself frankly.”
Tatyana begins to teach Onegin a lesson. For a long time she kept an unhealed wound in her soul and now it is not Onegin who splashes out her reproaches.
Here Pushkin shows a subtle understanding of female character. His heroine demonstrates the manifestation of female character in its pure form. She expresses everything that has accumulated in her over the years. And although in many ways Tatyana’s reproaches are unfair, in her “accusatory” speech she is beautiful.
This reveals the most lively and most faithful character of the heroine. Only Pushkin could know a woman like that and the peculiarities of her behavior. And not only to know, but also to idolize, and lovingly protect, and accept reproaches. That is why Pushkin does not accuse Tatyana of unfair reproaches, he lets her speak out.
“Onegin, I was younger then,
I think I was better
And I loved you; and what?
What did I find in your heart?
What answer? Just severity.
Isn't it true? It wasn't news to you
Humble girl's love?
And now – oh my God! - the blood runs cold,
As soon as I remember the cold look
And this sermon... But you.”
Where did Tatyana see the severity in Onegin’s teachings, when did he have a cold look? Tatyana behaves in accordance with feminine logic. She continues to reproach, although she already knows that Onegin is pursuing her not because she is “rich and noble,” not because:
"...what a shame,
Now everyone would notice him.
And could bring in society
Would you like a tempting honor?
She knows that all this is not so, she knows that Onegin’s soul has honor, there is dignity, but she continues to speak. And here Pushkin points out a very interesting detail. Tatyana says that her husband was injured during the battles, and: “Why is the court caressing us?” Court?.. but this is a clear indication of the insignificance of the husband, the general, who became a loyal courtier. He earned the favor of the royal court. But one should not question Pushkin’s own attitude towards such a general. He is not the person Tatyana could fall in love with. She would rather fall in love with a general who would move away from the court, who would be uncomfortable with balls and masquerades. As we noted above.
In general, in Tatyana’s reproaches a living and real woman appeared. With all the weaknesses and prejudices inherent in women. Tatyana herself understands the injustice of her reproaches, she needs to justify her attacks and she ends her accusatory speech with words.
"How about your heart and mind
To be a slave to petty feelings?
Of course, she recognizes in him both the mind and the heart in Onegin, just as she recognizes, but only in words, a petty affair in his actions. In fact, she believes in Onegin’s sincerity and cannot withstand the pretentious tone for long. She becomes the simple and sweet Tanya again.
“And to me, Onegin, this pomp,
Life's hateful tinsel,
My successes are in a whirlwind of light,
My fashionable house and evenings,
What's in them? Give it now
I'm glad All this rags of a masquerade,
All this shine, and noise, and fumes
For a shelf of books, for a wild garden,
For our poor home,
For those places where for the first time,
Onegin, I saw you,
Yes for the humble cemetery,
Where is the cross and the shadow of the branches today?
Over my poor nanny..."
The memory of the nanny speaks of Tatyana’s kindness. Here, in a whirlwind of masquerade, she remembers her first teacher and this shows the extraordinary height of her soul. Yes, Tatyana realized that everything that surrounds her is alien to her. False shine and unnecessary tinsel destroy her soul. She understands that her real life remains in her past. She would love to go back there, but she can't.
“And happiness was so possible,
So close!.. But my destiny
It's already decided"
But what prevents happiness?.. What prevents you from returning back to the wonderful past? What obstacles are stopping Tatyana and why? After all, here is happiness nearby in the person of Onegin, sensitive, attentive, loving, sharing her views and beliefs. It seems that stretch out your hand and your best dreams will come true. She gives an explanation.
"I got married. You must,
I ask you to leave me;
I know it's in your heart
And pride and direct honor.
I love you (why lie?),
But I was given to another;
And I will be faithful to him forever"
It turns out Tatyana is married. Onegin did not know this. Now that he is aware of this, he, of course, will rush away as fast as he can. Which, by the way, he did to the delight of Pushkin and readers, concerned about the possible moral decline of their beloved heroine. Whether Onegin acted correctly or not will be discussed a little later, but first let’s take a closer look at what Tatyana did and what she said.
Oddly enough, it has not yet been said that there are two diametrically opposed opinions on the heroine’s statement. Moreover, they exist in a completely peaceful relationship, although they completely exclude each other. And here is the point of view on the action of Tatyana Belinsky, which also justifies her, but in a very strange, inconsistent way:
“This is the true pride of female virtue! But I was given to someone else - just given, not given away! Eternal loyalty - to whom and in what? Loyalty to such relationships that constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships that are not sanctified by love are extremely immoral...” (5).
So, according to Belinsky, Tatyana acted in the highest degree immoral? It turns out that yes... But the critic is in a hurry to immediately disagree with his own judgment. He states that: “Tatiana is a type of Russian woman...” who takes public opinion into account. “This is a lie: a woman cannot despise public opinion...” and, catching herself, adds the completely opposite: “but she can sacrifice it modestly, without phrases, without self-praise, understanding the greatness of her sacrifice, the whole burden of the curse that she takes upon herself, obeying another higher law - the law of her nature, (and again returns to her previous point of view) and her nature is love and self-sacrifice...” (6).
A woman can sacrifice public opinion. Tatyana doesn't do this. But maybe Pushkin is right, this is the moral ideal of a Russian woman - to sacrifice herself in the name of duty? Let's see how other Russian writers solve this moral problem. Is there any great man besides Pushkin who would justify the act of a woman who rejected love for the sake of secular decency?
“The clearer and stronger Anna’s feeling of love for Vronsky and hatred for her husband becomes, the deeper the conflict between Anna and high society becomes... The more Anna feels the need for lies in this world of falsehood and hypocrisy” (7). Anna Karenina is not afraid to challenge the secular society for the sake of love. She was able to go abroad and throw off the burden of forced lies and hypocrisy. Could Tolstoy's heroine have acted differently? Could she have acted as Tatyana did? No. It can be assumed that Anna is the same Tatyana, but in the continuation of the development of feelings for Onegin.
Ostrovsky’s Katerina, in her quest for happiness, breaks the shackles that bind her: “A decisive, integral character... appears in Ostrovsky in the female type” (8), writes Dobrolyubov. He believes that such a woman should be “full of heroic selflessness.” She is eager for a new life. Nothing can hold her back - not even death. (And for Tatyana, false obligations are above all!)
She, as in her time, was told to Tatyana that: “every girl should get married, they showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step.” Their position is completely equal: both married, at the insistence of their relatives, a person they did not love. However, if Pushkin forces his heroine to renounce love, then Ostrovsky endows his heroine with spiritual and moral strength, which: “will stop at nothing - law, kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of internal attraction ; she does not spare herself and does not think about others” (8). (Emphasis mine. G.V.V.).
Tatyana was unable to overcome only two points, which are far from being as difficult as, for example, violating the law or kinship. So who is the true type of Russian woman: Katerina and Tatyana? Both, researchers sweetly say. One goes to great deeds, while the other gives in to difficult circumstances. Both the one and the other - they nod their heads. One sacrifices her life for the sake of freedom, the other is doomed to forever bear the yoke of hateful light. Both of them - they say with their hands folded on their chests. Hypocrites are the true face of these researchers. They know that they have to choose one thing. They don’t do this because face is important to them, decency is important, and their own reputation is important. And how many of them stuck to the great Russian literature! The time has come to clean the bottom of the great ship from their stuck shells and shells, from their rotting stench.
Chekhov solved the love triangle problem quite interestingly. His characters hesitate for a long time to admit their feelings.
“I tried to understand the secret of a young, beautiful, intelligent woman who marries an uninteresting man, almost an old man (her husband was over forty years old), has children from him - to understand the secret of this uninteresting man, a good-natured person, a simpleton... who believes in his right be happy" (10).
The love that has been brewing in Alekhine for years finally breaks through during the last meeting:
“When here, in the compartment, our eyes met, our spiritual strength left us both, I hugged her, she pressed her face to my chest, and tears flowed from her eyes; I kiss her face, shoulders, hands, wet with tears - oh, how unhappy we were with her! - I confessed my love to her, and with a burning pain in my heart I realized how unnecessary, petty and how deceptive everything was that prevented us from loving. I realized that when you love, then in your reasoning about this love you need to proceed from the highest, from something more important than happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their current sense, or you don’t need to reason at all” (11).
Here the position is viewed from the man’s perspective. And this is all the more interesting, because in Onegin’s claims to the married Tatyana one can see a manifestation of selfishness. Is Onegin really doing the right thing by persuading a woman to cheat, bombarding her with love messages, pursuing her? It is these questions that Chekhov’s hero is tormented by: how can their love break “the happy course of life of her husband, children, this whole house” (12).
Alekhine’s situation is much more complicated - his woman has children, and this is already a big reproach to the desire to destroy the family. Tatyana, as you know, had no children. And yet the hero understands that for the sake of love one must sacrifice everything. He himself was unable to overcome this. He has only matured to understand true love. Onegin does not experience such doubts and in this he is significantly higher than Alekhine. No, Onegin is not driven by egoism at all, but by true love, and he knows that for the sake of such love one must be able to sacrifice everything.
So, who's right? Pushkin or Ostrovsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov cited by us? One and the same problem is solved in the most opposite way. Of course, Tolstoy, Ostrovsky, and Chekhov acted as true artists; they revealed the ugliness and injustice of the false position of a woman forced to live in a loveless marriage. They protest against this order of things, against this legalized slavery. Love is the only bond that should bind a man and a woman.
Now let's think about it. Is Tatyana really the guardian of secular morality? Is Pushkin really ready to admit that love has no power over his heroine, that in the future she will also be able to so stoically resist the onslaughts of Onegin? Let's assume that Onegin did not retreat; how long will the heroine have the patience to remain indifferent and virtuous?.. We think that Tatyana will act in exactly the same way as Katerina and Anna Karenina did. She will show the highest understanding of love and, like a real woman, will give up everything that interferes with her happiness. If this happened, something terrible would happen... terrible for Pushkin. Readers will tear his dear Tatiana, his example of purity and morality to smithereens...
Pushkin was afraid of this outcome. He decided not to develop Tatyana’s character because he understood well what his heroine would lead to. He was still a genius and could not manipulate the characters, as Flaubert did with pure tears of shamelessness in his novel Madame Bovary. One of the most famous French novels in Russia.
Using the example of this novel, one can illustrate the author's arbitrariness in relation to the characters. When a writer invents a plot to please his own idea of how a hero should act in certain circumstances, not in accordance with the character he himself has given. The idea of the novel is the desire to please everyone, women who are disappointed in love and who do not love their own husbands, public morality, which requires unconditional fidelity from them. At the same time, and to please old and jealous husbands, as an edification to unfaithful wives. In a word, Flaubert bowed to everyone he could. Everyone will find something in this novel. The ability to please everyone creates the most favorable review of a literary work, but it disfigures and makes the work of art itself vitally untrue.
The story of Madame Bovary is typical of women for whom love is the highest value. She wants to love, but she cannot because her husband does not meet her ideals. From the very beginning of the novel, Flaubert took the line of depicting an ideal husband, indulging all the whims of his wife. He has angelic patience and an absolute lack of vision for his wife’s mental life. For the time being, Flaubert is on the side of his heroine, but only until she begins not to make unacceptable mistakes from the point of view of so-called public morality. Flaubert begins to latently condemn his heroine. She cheats on her husband, but doesn't find love. She is abandoned by her lover, betrayed by a young rake. A moral lesson has been taught - in love you will be deceived and abandoned. Conclusion - do not leave your husband, the husband will remain, but the lovers will disappear.
What leads to the collapse of a poor woman, for what offense does the author decide to send her to the next world? Lovers become the reason? Not really. Spendthrift. This is a terrible sin that public morality cannot forgive a woman. Madame Bovary squanders her husband's money. She secretly takes bail money. And that’s when it becomes impossible to hide the deception and the poor husband must find out that he is completely ruined. Here the anger of society should reach its climax. Flaubert catches him with a sensitive ear and administers cruel justice. Madame Bovary takes mouse poison.
Public morality will wave its hand approvingly at the writer, because it can forgive everything - debauchery, treason, betrayal, but not the waste of money. This is the highest value in society. This is the reason why Flaubert made the poor woman poison herself.
But Flaubert feels that this is not enough, he has not yet taught the lesson of public flogging to his unfaithful wife well enough. He begins to look for plot moves that visibly showed all the evil that Madame Bovary brought with her rash actions, so that she herself would be horrified by her delusions. He immediately sends her angel husband to the next world, who dies of grief. But this is still not enough for Flaubert, and then he remembers the children who were taken into the care of the old woman - Bovary's mother.
No, the writer decides, she didn’t love her husband, she must be punished by those she loved, otherwise there will be female souls who will justify her: well, her husband died, he couldn’t bear the suffering, but she didn’t love him, it’s not her fault in that? And then the writer finishes off such reasoning with an argument that already deprives poor Madame Bovary of all excuses.
The grandmother is quickly sent to the next world, and the poor children end up in an orphanage, where they are poor and forced to beg. This is where there is no forgiveness for a woman who doomed her children to vegetation. They lived in a prosperous, wealthy family, and now they have lost their parents and are leading a miserable existence.
The anger of public morality is inexorable - since all the events led to such an ending - there is no forgiveness for this woman - she is a criminal.
Pushkin was dependent on the opinion of the society of his time. He wrote with caution. After each chapter, he heard one or another opinion about his heroes and adjusted the plot accordingly. He decided not to spoil the reputation of his heroine that had developed in the public consciousness. But as the proverb says: one fool threw a stone into a well - forty wise men do not know how to get it out of there. Researchers are also at a loss in conjecture, not understanding where the true ending of the novel is: “Hence the natural question: is the text that has been in front of Russian readers for a century and a half the finally completed creation of Pushkin? Or was he a compromise for the author?” (13).
The ending of the novel was intentionally thrown out of the novel by Pushkin. He deliberately interrupted the story. But here one can object. Perhaps Tatyana would really behave like the heroines of Ostrovsky and Tolstoy. But Onegin himself didn’t want this, which is why Pushkin interrupted the story because the hero himself refused and went on travels.
Who refused Onegin? He, who in dreams and in reality raved about Tatyana, who read mountains of literature, who was ready to do anything for the sake of the woman he loved? Pushkin perfectly understood the beneficial rebirth that took place in the soul of his hero. He knew perfectly well that Onegin would stop at nothing, so in the most voluntaristic way he leaves his hero speechless. He does not give him the opportunity to personally express his love to Tatyana. First he falls at her feet. Then “A long silence passes.” Then comes Tatyana’s long monologue, her reproaches and instructions. Onegin, a true gentleman, cannot interrupt him. Then she leaves - he doesn’t even try to call out to her, he came here without any hope and suddenly found out that he is also loved. Pushkin objects, but this was so unexpected for him that he could not immediately find what to say.
“She left. Evgeniy stands,
As if struck by thunder.
What a storm of sensations
Now his heart is immersed.”
That is, out of shock, he withdrew so much into himself that he began to act like a young girl hearing a declaration of love for the first time. But Pushkin foresees that the reader will ask, but when Onegin’s shock wears off, he will rush after Tatyana, he will begin to dissuade her, he will begin to swear his love. If he has been pursuing her for so long without any hope, then now he must explain his feelings... No matter how it is, Pushkin quickly forces Tatyana’s husband to appear. When Onegin pursued her at balls, her husband did not appear, he stood in the shadows and waited in the wings to appear at the right moment. Well, he arrived in time... So it was possible to pull the donkey by the ears, as long as he played the required role. Now, in the presence of an unwanted witness, Onegin can no longer say anything. Pushkin carefully and unceremoniously throws him out of Tatyana’s house. You just want to exclaim in the words of the poet: “Oh yes Pushkin, oh yes son of a bitch...”, you are good at manipulating the characters in the direction you need. And then the author rejoices at the completion of the novel.
“And here is my hero,
In a moment that is evil for him,
We will now leave the reader,
For a long time... forever. Behind him
Quite we are on the same path
We wandered around the world."
Pushkin left his hero, and so that the reader has no doubt that he finished the novel, he adds that he left it forever. But the hero was left with seething passions in his heart. Or maybe he caused a scandal and challenged Tatyana’s husband to a duel. Or maybe he began to court with even greater zeal. Pushkin deprives his hero of the word that he could not express what he thinks and how he should act.
Tatyana said what she had to say at that moment, but it is important for the reader to find out what Onegin will say. He saw the tears of his beloved woman, he heard her declaration of love. Of course, Pushkin understands how stupid and vulgar it would be to agree to leave Onegin and not pursue him, which is implied. These words are impossible in the mouth of a fiery lover, so Pushkin chooses a clever position - he silences his hero.
I wonder why readers are so gullible and allow themselves to be led by the nose; this is unacceptable to anyone, even such a genius as Pushkin. Well, it was impossible to deprive Onegin of his word; according to all the rules of dramatic art, he had to speak out.
Pushkin is afraid that the hero will wake up and begin to convince, tell Tatyana that no, for the sake of “seductive honor,” not to discredit, not because of petty feelings, but for the sake of true love, for the sake of happiness, he came here. And of course he proposed marriage, and of course the husband found out about this and a new duel, and... In a word, Pushkin decided not to contact his heroes anymore and left them to their fate. But in the name of what is the author manipulating his hero? Why did he need such an incomprehensible and complex combination? Why does he violate the logic of the hero’s behavior, why does he change his character at a decisive moment?
According to all the rules of the literary genre, Onegin was obliged to explain himself to Tatyana, to give his explanation in the new circumstances that had opened up for him. Pushkin didn’t want this, or rather, he was afraid in the same way that Gagin was afraid to let N.N. explain himself to Asya. This is what Pushkin does with his hero. He does not give his word, he does not want Onegin to pursue Tanya anymore, what if he achieves the desired result, and Tanya, the bearer of pure morality, the example of a Russian woman, will fall in the eyes of the public... This is what Pushkin was afraid of. He decided that the best thing was to interrupt the novel. Pushkin stops the novel at the most interesting point; he violates one of the important elements of a work of art - he does not provide a decisive denouement.
And all this in the name of the same light, before whose opinion the great genius broke. In the subsequent action, Tatyana had to cheat on her husband and the poet could not do anything about it. He is still not Flaubert, who turns his heroes upside down, he understands the logic of character development, and understands that he cannot escape this logic. Onegin will certainly continue to pursue his beloved woman and new explanations will follow, and there will be betrayal, and there will be a duel. No, Pushkin was afraid of his heroes. That is why Pushkin so unexpectedly decides to finish the novel.
Tatyana's fall in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of the reading public... yes, this is impossible... Defenders of traditional morality will rush to defend their beloved ideal. No, they would scream, Tatyana would never go back on her words, she would never be allowed to have an affair, she would never become Onegin’s mistress. Come on, gentlemen, if you consider Tatyana’s behavior as valor, then for Pushkin this means the failure of her heroine. “A woman’s life is primarily centered in the life of the heart; to love means to live for her, and to sacrifice means to love,” writes Belinsky, but immediately stipulates: “Nature created Tatyana for this role; but society recreated it…” (14).
No no and one more time no. Society did not recreate Tatyana. She remained a true woman capable of loving and capable of sacrificing for the sake of this love. All she needed was to be finally convinced of the strength of Onegin’s feelings, that he would not abandon her halfway along the Path, as Boris did with Katerina, as Mr. N.N. carelessly did.
It is Pushkin who deprives her of happiness with her loved one, it is he who does not give her a way out and leaves her to suffer for the rest of her life, it is he who breaks Tatyana’s happiness. And for what? In order not to condemn his heroine, so that he would not be condemned in society - this clearly showed the hypocrisy and cowardice of the singer of the “cruel century”. But time, as the proverb says, is an honest man. Sooner or later it pronounces its verdict, which, alas, is far from comforting for the great poet.
This is the secret of the novel “Eugene Onegin”. Pushkin deceived the public, but did he deceive himself? He, who knew women well, he, who, in a rush, split the composition of his works. No. Pushkin soon realized what a stupidity he had committed, how hypocritically and unworthily he had completed his truly great work. He could not leave himself, just like Onegin, who pushed Tatyana away and then returned to her. Pushkin returns to the novel! He commits an act of incredible courage.
The fact of writing the tenth chapter testifies to Pushkin’s recognition of his mistake in hasty completion of the novel. He finds the courage to start writing a novel again. He already sees its worthy completion. In the tenth chapter, Pushkin hoped to reflect the entire spectrum of socio-political life from the time of the War of 1812 to the Decembrist uprising.
“Only encrypted fragments have been preserved, the place of which in the overall composition of the chapter is not always clear. However, these passages also testify to the acute political content of the destroyed chapter. A vivid and sharp characterization of the “ruler of the weak and crafty” - Alexander I, a brilliant picture of the development of political events in Russia and Europe in its laconicism and accuracy (the War of 1812, the revolutionary movement in Spain, Italy, Greece, European reaction, etc.) “This gives grounds to assert that in terms of artistic merit, the tenth chapter was one of the best chapters of the novel.” (15).
Onegin was probably supposed to become a participant in the Senate uprising. And of course, the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana would have continued further. There is no doubt that the relationship would have led to a break with her husband, a new duel, Onegin’s participation in the uprising and exile to Siberia, where Tatyana would have followed like the wives of the Decembrists. A worthy finale to a great creation.
This is how Pushkin ended the action of the novel or a little differently, we will never know, because here Pushkin does something that forever disgraced his name. He burns the tenth chapter... It’s scary to think about it, he didn’t hide it, didn’t put it aside, but, worrying about his own fate, destroyed it. Even Galileo, as the legend says, in the face of the Inquisition, forced to abandon his mathematical calculations, exclaimed, but still it rotates. But no one persecuted Pushkin, no one drove iron needles under his nails, no one exiled him to Siberia...
Fear of losing his position in society, fear of ruining relations with the authorities, fear for his own future pushed Pushkin to a fatal step. Pushkinists, as flattering courtiers of the powerful Shah, declared this step as a manifestation of the highest wisdom and courage: “No matter how much suffering the burning of the tenth chapter and the destruction of the eighth cost Pushkin, the decision to say goodbye to his hero and novel, which resounds with such force in the last stanzas and with the same force is enshrined in the memory and consciousness of generations of Russian readers - this decision of Pushkin was firm and recklessly bold! (16).
Yes, our great genius acted in the most insignificant, most unworthy manner, he disgraced himself. But everyone is silent about it. No one will say that manuscripts do not burn if the writers themselves do not burn them. Pushkin was the first Russian writer to burn his work. He always subtly felt the line that could not be crossed in his “freedom-loving” poems, so as not to repeat the fate of the Decembrists.
Pushkin was never able to grow up, could not get rid of his own prejudices, which ultimately led to his death. He was not able to fully establish himself as a great writer. But still, he entered Russian literature as an innovator, as the creator of an as yet unsurpassed novel in verse. He remained in his works the same as he was in life, and nothing can be done - this is our genius and we accept it with all its weaknesses and shortcomings, and the novel “Eugene Onegin” remains a great work, although without a worthy conclusion.
Pushkin is a genius, but a genius is not without flaws, he is the sun of Russian poetry, but the sun is not without spots...
LITERATURE
1. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's book "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. P. 7.
2. D.B. Blagoy. Pushkin's mastery. Soviet writer. M. 1955, pp. 194-195.
3. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. P. 101.
4. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. P. 122.
5. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. P. 424.
6. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. P. 424.
7. V. T. Plakhotishina. The skill of Tolstoy as a novelist., 1960., “Dnepopetrovsk Book Publishing House”. P. 143.
8. N. A. Dobrolyubov. Collected works in three volumes. T. 3. “Hood. Lit. M., 1952. P. 198.
9. Ibid. P. 205.
10. A. P. Chekhov. Stories. "Dagestan book publishing house". Makhachkala. 1973. P. 220.
11. Ibid. P. 222.
12. Ibid. P. 220.
13. A.S. Pushkin. The novel “Eugene Onegin. M. Hood. Lit. 1976. In the foreword by P. Antokolsky. P. 7.
14. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. P. 424.
15. B. Meilakh. A.S. Pushkin. Essays on life and creativity. Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M., 1949. P. 116.
16. A.S. Pushkin. The novel “Eugene Onegin. M. Hood. Lit. 1976. In the foreword by P. Antokolsky. pp. 7-8.
G.V. Volova
THREE SECRETS OF THREE RUSSIAN GENIUS
ISBN 9949-10-207-3 Electronic book in Microsoft Reader format (*.lit).
The book is dedicated to revealing the encrypted works of Russian writers. A new interpretation of the novel “Hero of Our Time” by Lermontov, the story “Asya” by Turgenev, the novel “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, allowed us to get closer to the true author’s intention. For the first time, the analysis of the composition, plot, and actions of the characters are considered in artistic unity. This book offers a largely unexpected and fascinating reading of classic works of Russian literature.
My website on the Internet: Aphorisms.Ru - Literary website of Gennady Volovoy
www.aphorisms.ru
" xml:lang="-none-" lang="-none-">PAGE 4
;color:#ff0000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">“A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” in Russian criticism X;color:#ff0000" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">I;color:#ff0000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">X century"
D. Pisarev: “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."
Starting to analyze the novel “Eugene Onegin” in 1845, V. Belinsky admitted that he was starting this work"not without some timidity"and claimed that“to evaluate such a work means to evaluate the poet himself in all the abundance of his creative activity”
1. E.A.Baratynsky , a subtle connoisseur and connoisseur of poetry, not only managed to understand the poet’s creative intent and appreciate his innovation (the novel “reflected the century // and modern man is depicted quite correctly // ... with his embittered mind // seething in empty action”), but and revealed the origins of the intolerant perception of the novel by readers of Pushkin’s era: they were prevented from correctly assessing the novel by the superficiality of their outlook and the habit of looking for romanticism everywhere.
2. The reason for the sharp change in opinions about Onegin, in agreement with Baratynsky, was explained by V.G. Belinsky , who believed that Pushkin had outgrown his age, having achieved the highest skill in the realistic depiction of reality at a time when the public, as before, expected romantic stories from him in the spirit of “Ruslan and Lyudmila.”
Yu. Lotman: “Pushkin went so far ahead of his time that his contemporaries began to think that he was behind them.”
Comparison of literary critical articles.
This was the assessment of the novel “Eugene Onegin” at the time when A.S. Pushkin lived and worked. Many years have passed since that time, and each new era has read the novel in its own way. Interest in the poet’s most beloved creation and in Pushkin’s work in general was not always the same. Between peaks of interest there were periods of outflow of readership. There were moments when it seemed to many that the poet had exhausted his relevance. They tried to take him away“a modest place... in the history of our mental life” or even “they offered to throw us off the ship of modernity.”But every time interest in Pushkin’s work and personality was revived.
“the novel “Eugene Onegin” through the eyes of the poet’s contemporaries”
The novel was written over seven years and published in chapters as they were written." xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">PThe appearance of the first songs led the reading public into delight and surprise." xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Вadmired the aesthetic perfection of the work and the novelty of its concept.
« Have you read Onegin? What do you think of Onegin? What can you say about Onegin? these are the questions repeated incessantly among writers and Russian readers,”wrote “Northern Bee” in 1825
At the same time, a review appeared about the first chapter of Onegin, authored by the editor of the Moscow Telegraph N. Polevoy. This review welcomed the genre of Pushkin’s work and noted with delight that it was not written according to the rules"ancient piitik, andaccording to the free demands of the creative imagination."The fact that the poet describes modern mores was also positively assessed:“We see our own, hear our own sayings, look at our quirks.”
At the same time, a flattering review was heard about the first chapters of Zhukovsky’s novel."You don't have talent, and genius... I read Onegin... incomparably,”he wrote to Pushkin.
“What a delight, what a delight when I began to read the first chapter“Onegin! I carried it in my pocket for two months, memorized it,”this is how A. Herzen spoke in his memoirs about the novel.
But the Decembrists Bestuzhev and Ryleev did not like Onegin. Here is Ryleev’s assessment of the novel: “I don’t know what “Onegin” will be next, but now it is lower than “The Bakhchisarai Fountain” and “Prisoner of the Caucasus”
There is a well-known poetic response to Pushkin’s novel by Bestuzhev-Marlinsky:
What about the delights of the sacred hours?
Do you spend for songs of love and fun?
Throw off the shameful burden of sensual bliss!
Let others fight in magic nets
Jealous beauties, let others look for them
Rewards with poison in their cunning eyes!
Save direct delight for the heroes!
As new chapters were published, the initial unanimous enthusiasm soon gave way to a range of contradictory opinions, judgments, and assessments. The motive for rejection of the novel, an ironic and even sarcastic attitude towards it, begins to sound more and more clearly. "Onegin" turns out to be the target of parodies and epigrams.
In particular, the parody “Ivan Alekseevich, or the New Onegin” appears, where the composition and content of the novel are ridiculed. In it, for example, the reader finds an exaggeratedly mocking list of themes in Pushkin’s novel:
Everything is here: and about legends,
And to the cherished antiquity,
And about others, and about me!
Don't call it a vinaigrette
I'm warning you, friends,
That I follow fashionable poets.
The persecution of the poet is becoming more and more consistent. This is evidenced, for example, by F. Bulgarin’s articles on VII chapter of the novel, where the critic blames Pushkin for the sad coloring of the chapter, for the fact that Moscow society is described in accusatory tones and comes to the conclusion that;font-family:"Verdana";color:#000000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Pushkin “captivated and delighted his contemporaries, taught them to write smooth, pure poetry... but did not carry away his century with him, did not establish the laws of taste, did not form his own school.”
And the Moscow Telegraph, which spoke so enthusiastically about Onegin in 1825, stated that Pushkin was completely“not a spokesman for the thoughts and aspirations of his peers,” but just
“elegant” and “brilliant” poet.
Baratynsky’s words sounded like dissonance at this time: “I really love the extensive plan of your Onegin, but most people do not understand it... The high poetic simplicity of your creation seems to them the poverty of fiction, they do not notice that old and new Russia, life in all its changes pass before their eyes"
statements by F.M. Dostoevsky, V.G. Belinsky, D.I. Pisarev regarding Tatiana’s explanation with Onegin.
V.G. Belinsky
This explanation expressed everything that makes up the essence of a Russian woman with a deep nature, developed by society, everything: fiery passion, and the sincerity of a simple sincere feeling, and the purity and holiness of the naive movements of a noble nature, and reasoning, and offended pride, and vanity a virtue under which a slavish fear of public opinion is disguised...
The main idea of Tatyana's reproaches is the conviction that Onegin did not fall in love with her then because it did not have the charm of temptation for him; and now the thirst for scandalous fame brings him to her feet... The fear for her virtue breaks through in everything... Tatyana does not like the light and, for happiness, would consider leaving it for the village forever, but as long as she is in the light, his opinion will always be her idol. The last verses are amazing - truly the end crowns the matter! This is the true pride of female virtue! But I was given to another, - precisely _given, not _given away! Eternal fidelity - _to whom_ and in what? Loyalty to relationships that constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships that are not sanctified by love are extremely immoral...
D.I.Pisarev
;font-family:"Times New Roman"" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU"> Tatiana's famous monologue... clearly proves that Tatiana and Onegin are worthy of each other: both of them have distorted themselves to such an extent that they have completely lost the ability to think, feel and act humanly. Suspecting Onegin of petty vanity, Tatyana obviously denies him her respect, and at the same time, not respecting him, she loves him, and at the same time, loving him , she pushes him away; pushing him away out of respect for the demands of the world, she despises “all this rags of a masquerade"; despising all this rags, she deals with it from morning to evening. All these contradictions prove quite obviously that she loves nothing, nothing respects, does not despise anything, does not think about anything, but simply lives from day to day, obeying the established order.
;font-family:"Times New Roman"" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Onegin is a completely worthy knight of such a lady who... sheds burning tears; Onegin doesn’t even have another, more energetic feeling would have endured; such a feeling would have frightened and put our hero to flight; the woman who, out of love for Onegin, would have decided to violate the majestic decorum of the general’s house would have been insane and unhappy.
" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">
F.M.Dostoevsky.
No, it’s the same Tanya, the same old village Tanya! She is not spoiled, she, on the contrary, is depressed by this magnificent St. Petersburg life, broken and suffering... And so she firmly says to Onegin:
But I was given to someone else
And I will be faithful to him forever
She expressed this precisely as a Russian woman, this is her apotheosis... Is it because she refused to follow him because... she is not capable of taking a bold step, unable to break her bonds, unable to sacrifice the charm of honors, wealth, her secular significance, conditions virtues? No, the Russian woman is brave. A Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes in. But she “was given to someone else and will be faithful to him forever.” To whom and what is she loyal? What kind of duties are these?.. She may have married him out of despair, but now he is her husband, and her betrayal will cover him with shame, shame and kill him. Can a person base his happiness on the misfortune of another?
Happiness does not lie in the pleasures of love alone, but also in the highest harmony of the spirit. How can you calm the spirit if a dishonest, ruthless, inhumane act is behind you? Should she run away just because my happiness is here? But what kind of happiness can there be if it is based on someone else’s misfortune?
;color:#ff0000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Conclusions:
;text-decoration:underline" xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US">I;text-decoration:underline" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">.;text-decoration:underline" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">V.G. Belinskybelieved that literature should reflect the life of the people, expose their oppressors, and instill a sense of dignity in the people. He fought against art, divorced from life, and passionately exposed the official preaching of humility. The critic paid special attention to the aesthetic merits of the work.
1. The critic saw the main advantages of the novel in the fact that it:
A) “there is a poetically true picture of Russian society in a certain era”(“encyclopedia of Russian life”); that the poet “took... life as it is, with all its coldness, with all its prose and vulgarity.”
b) Onegin’s mental illness is caused by the social environment that shaped him as a person, and is caused simultaneously by subordination to society and conflict with it(“reluctantly selfish”; “superfluous person”)
2. Tatyana before marriage is ideal for Belinsky, as she is an exception"among morally crippled phenomena."At the same time, the democratic revolutionary Belinsky condemns Pushkin’s heroine for sacrificing her freedom for the sake of loyalty to her unloved husband.
3. Belinsky highly appreciated the artistic merits of the novel:"Onegin" from the point of view of form is a highly artistic work."
D.I. Pisarev, arguing that Pushkin "frivolous singer of beauty", judges the heroes of the novel not from the point of view of their historical and artistic existence, but from the point of view of their real benefit and contribution to the social life of Russia in modern times. The critic is convinced that a hero like Onegin cannot be an inspirer of new generations, therefore, the novel is useless.
;font-family:"Verdana";color:#000000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">The critical interpretation of the images of Onegin and Tatyana in the article “Pushkin and Belinsky” gives way to the creation of evil caricatures.
;text-decoration:underline" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">F.M. Dostoevskyadmired the ideological and thematic content and artistic merits of Pushkin’s novel, in which;font-family:"Verdana";color:#008080" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">“real Russian life is embodied with such creative power and such completeness that never happened before Pushkin.”
The critic empathizes with the tragedy of the individualist hero, “an unfortunate wanderer in his native land,” forced to live according to the inhuman laws of society, and calls for humility:“Humble yourself, idle man, and first of all, work in your native field... The truth is not outside of you, but in yourself: find yourself in yourself, subjugate yourself, master yourself, and you will see the truth.”
;font-family:"Verdana";color:#000000" xml:lang="ru-RU" lang="ru-RU">Tatyana for Dostoevsky is the embodiment of moral perfection, because a person is not
