home-Tops-The author of the letter to Gogol. Gogol's letter to Belinsky

The author of the letter to Gogol. Gogol's letter to Belinsky

The most important problem of this period was insufficient agricultural production. The industry had low productivity, insufficient mechanization, and collective farmers had no incentive to work.

The government began to take measures to reorganize Agriculture. In August 1953, with the adoption of a new budget, subsidies for the production of goods in the food industry increased. At the September Plenum of the Central Committee in 1953, a decision was made to increase purchase prices, write off collective farm debts and reduce taxes.

The February Plenum of the Central Committee decided to begin agricultural production in the semi-arid zone in the east of the country - in the Volga region, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Altai and the Lower Urals.

To this end, in 1954, 300 thousand volunteers set off to develop virgin lands. It was planned to put 42 million hectares of arable land into circulation and by the end of 1960 to increase grain production by 40%.

Initially low yields fell over time, the lands were depleted, and funds were required for land reclamation, agronomic measures, and infrastructure development. The soil was dying from erosion and weeds. Nevertheless, due to the development of huge areas, it was possible to increase the gross harvest of grain crops. Over three years, agricultural production increased by 25%.

After visiting N.S. Khrushchev of the USA The Plenum of the Central Committee in 1955 decided to make corn a major crop. 18 million hectares were planted in areas not suitable for this production.

The next stage of agricultural reorganization began in May 1957, when Khrushchev put forward the slogan “Catch up and overtake America!” In 1957, MTS was dissolved. As a result, collective farms received equipment, but were left without a repair base. This led to a reduction in the fleet of agricultural machinery and the withdrawal of significant funds from collective farms.

The second reform aimed to consolidate collective farms and create associations that would promote the industrialization of agriculture. Farm managers sought to fulfill their obligations to the state by infringing on the interests of ordinary collective farmers (homestead plots were reduced, private livestock was forcibly taken to collective farms).

Much attention was paid to the development of heavy industry and defense. As a result, the situation in the production of consumer goods was lost, and a deficit was created in this area.

In 1954, the 11th Trade Union Congress revealed serious shortcomings in the management of industry and the situation of workers. Production meetings were revived, control over overtime work was strengthened, and incentive measures were strengthened. Administration representatives teamed up with specialists.

In 1957, to facilitate interaction between industries, industrial ministries were replaced by economic councils. However, the “administrative fever” did not produce positive results; the pace economic development countries were declining. In general, the standard of living in the country has increased.

To achieve this, the state has taken a number of measures:

  • wages were regularly increased;
  • a law on pensions was adopted;
  • the working week has been shortened;
  • the duration of maternity leave has increased;
  • the practice of imposing purchases and compulsory government loans ceased;
  • all types of tuition fees have been cancelled;
  • Mass housing construction began.

At the turn of the 50-60s. Serious miscalculations were made in agricultural policy and economics. The manufacturing sector was destructured by ill-considered reforms and storming. Since 1963, the government was forced to make regular purchases of grain abroad. They tried to correct the crisis situation by withdrawing funds from the population, increasing retail prices and reducing tariff rates in production. This led to social tension and spontaneous protests by workers (for example, in Novocherkassk in 1962).

Civil war and formation of the USSR: constitution new country and formation of governing bodies. Soviet Union in the foreign policy arena in the 20s -40s. XX century: the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, relations with Western countries and the signing of a non-aggression pact with Germany. Socio-economic, political and cultural characteristics Soviet state of the pre-war period: from “war communism” to the NEP, industrialization and nationalization. The main stages of the Great Patriotic War, comparison of enemy forces, the role of the anti-Hitler coalition. USSR policy after the end of the war with Germany (1945-1953): planned economy and repressions against the intelligentsia.

  • - Education of the USSR. Recognition of the independence of the three republics. Chronology of events. Variants of the names of the seceding countries. The federal structure of the USSR according to Lenin and the USSR as single state according to Stalin's plan. Fundamental differences between the plans government system.
  • - Victory in the war strengthened the position of the USSR in the world, but the Soviet government had to resolve issues of demobilization, as well as restoration of the economy and the state apparatus. It dealt with their solution in the late 40s and early 50s.
  • - Relations between Soviet power and Russian Orthodox Church in the 20-30s of the XX century. The emergence of new ideological movements within the Church and among the Soviet intelligentsia. Test questions for knowledge of the material with multiple choice answers.
  • - The position of Russia in the world in the 20s of the twentieth century. Confession Soviet state Germany and its causes. The significance of the Genoa Conference, its consequences. Causes Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Guidelines for the foreign policy of the Bolsheviks in 1917-1920. Peace agreements.
  • - Internal and national policy of the Soviet Union at the end of the 30s. Development of new territories, ideological control, emergence of civil passports. Characteristics, goals and methods of the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union. Definition of terror. 1937
  • - Specifics of the civil war in Russia, which lasted from November 1918 to April 1919. Foreign intervention. Its definition, the goals of intervention of foreign states in a civil conflict within the country. Events Civil War V Unified State Exam test.
  • - Foreign policy of the Soviet government in the 20s of the twentieth century. The Genoa Conference as an indicator of the unpreparedness for a political compromise between the USSR and Western countries. Recognition of the USSR international level to create cost-effective relationships.
  • - The Great Patriotic War as part of the Second World War, presented through a chronological table. Plan of attack on the USSR, the beginning of the war, a turning point in the course of hostilities, The final stage. End of World War II. Knowledge-reinforcing questions.
  • - NEP in the USSR. Program, goals, implementation. Advantages and disadvantages of the NEP. Socio-economic consequences. Reasons for introducing the NEP. The question of the grain procurement crisis. State and private capital. Socialist enterprises.
  • - The split within the Central Committee of the RCP in the 20s - 30s. Causes of the conflict. Stalin's struggle for power. Members of opposition party associations of the 20s of the XX century. Description of periods of internal party struggle. Clash of political views and consequences of conflicts.
  • - “War communism” in Russia during the Civil War. Characteristics of social, economic, financial, banking, trade policy areas. Disadvantages of the measures taken. The regime of food dictatorship and signs of “barracks socialism.”
  • - Foreign policy positions of the USSR in the early 30s: following the policy of “appeasement” in relation to the aggression of Germany and Japan, an alliance with democratic Western countries. Changes in the foreign policy orientation of the USSR in 1939 and rapprochement with Germany.
  • - The principles of foreign policy of the USSR in the 20-30s of the XX century, proclaimed by Lenin: proletarian internationalism and peaceful coexistence with the capitalist system. Western interest in economic relations with the USSR and opposition to the socialist state.
  • - The foreign policy situation of the USSR at the beginning of the Second World War, the desire for a global unification of forces against fascist aggression. The main foreign policy agreements during the Second World War: Moscow, Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences. War with Japan.
  • - Struggle Soviet people behind enemy lines during the Great Patriotic War. The strength of the people's spirit, the cruelty of the enemy and the support of the country's leadership as the reasons for the formation of the partisan movement. Activity partisan detachments and their role in military battles.
  • - Domestic policy of the USSR, aimed at strengthening the power of military forces at the expense of the rear: the transition to a military economy and the establishment of military-industrial production, tough social measures, adaptation Soviet ideology, supporting the front through art.
  • - Having started unexpectedly, the Great Patriotic War at the first stage was unsuccessful for the USSR. The turning point in the war was Stalingrad and Battle of Kursk, after these large-scale battles, a massive offensive began on all fronts.
  • - The position of the USSR in the international arena in the second half of the 40s of the twentieth century. The coming to power of democratic forces in countries of Eastern Europe as the reason for the Soviet Union’s rapprochement with them and the beginning of “ cold war"between the USSR and Western capitalist powers.
  • - Stalin’s domestic policy aimed at the speedy restoration of the state weakened by the war. The unrealized draft of the new constitution of the USSR and the course towards strengthening the administrative command apparatus. Tightening labor discipline and the policy of repression.
  • - The socio-economic situation of the USSR after the end of the Second World War: restructuring of the state apparatus, approval of a plan for the development of the national economy with an emphasis on heavy and defense industry and attracting scientific resources. Results of economic measures by the beginning of the 50s.
  • - Peculiarities cultural processes in the Soviet Union in the 20s - 30s of the twentieth century. Culture as a weapon of the proletariat in the fight against bourgeois ideology. The introduction of the ideas of Marxism into the consciousness of citizens through the arts, the development of education and universal literacy of the population.
  • - Features of the cultural formation of Russia in the 20s of the twentieth century. The elimination of cultural backwardness of the population as the main task of the Soviet government, the protection of artistic and historical values, the influence of the revolution on art, the fight against liberalization during the NEP period.
  • - Power structures in the wartime USSR: the Defense Committee, the General Staff and the Headquarters of the High Command. Their definitions, dates of formation, leaders, composition, spheres of influence, nature, direction and results of activities, some transformations.
  • - Types of weapons from the Second World War. comparison table With military equipment USSR and Germany. Combat vehicles: tanks, fighters, bombers, mortars, artillery mounts. Key achievements of the USSR in the military sphere from 1946 to 1949.
  • - Large-scale battles of three stages of the Great Patriotic War: initial, turning point and final. List of military actions Soviet army. Surnames Soviet military leaders who commanded key battles during the Great Patriotic War.
  • - Countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. Supporters and opponents of the Soviet Union in the war with Nazi Germany. The fall of fascism. The question of a documented international agreement between the coalition allies. List of countries occupied by Germany.
  • - The main goals of industrialization in the Soviet Union. Answer options. Economic transformations in the USSR 1937-1939. Suggested options. Ways and methods of nationalization in the country. Characteristics of the economy of the USSR in the late 20-30s of the twentieth century.
  • - The position of the USSR in foreign policy of the 30s. XX century. Demands of the Western powers. Diplomatic relations concluded by the Soviet Union with Western countries. Soviet military doctrine of the late 1930s: Soviet-Finnish war and a non-aggression pact with Germany.
  • - Soviet authority 20's - 40's XX century. Signs of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the reason for the Socialist Revolutionaries leaving the government. Constitution of the USSR 1924. System of governing bodies and its activities. Chairmen of government agencies. Signs of democracy and dictatorship in state politics.

After the dismissal of N.S. Khrushchev, L.I. Brezhnev was elected first secretary of the party's Central Committee. It was he who was one of the initiators of the party conspiracy and the removal of Khrushchev.

During Brezhnev's stay in power, the role of the party was maximally elevated above the state. Party bodies received broad rights of control over the activities of administration at various levels, from primary to sectoral and republican. At the XXIII Congress of the CPSU, held in 1966, the post was restored Secretary General The Central Committee of the CPSU, which was immediately occupied by Brezhnev.

During the same period, a number of important transformations were carried out, which gave a certain impetus to the development of the Soviet economy. These economic reforms of the 60s were associated with the name of A.N. Kosygin, who at that time held the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Being a supporter of radical measures in the economy, he sought to develop some elements of the market mechanism. First of all, he considered it necessary to improve the motivational mechanism, in which the results of work would be more closely linked with wages. The core of the Kosygin reform was economic accounting, to which industrial enterprises were transferred. According to the innovation, they had the right to keep part of their income for themselves, and then distribute it within the team for material incentives, socio-cultural and everyday needs of workers. This was an attempt to implement Lenin’s idea that “socialism is working for yourself.” The economic councils introduced under Khrushchev were to be liquidated, and the sectoral management system in the form of ministries was restored. Economic reform began in January 1966. In the first years of the Eighth Five-Year Plan, positive results. The volume of industrial production increased by one and a half times during this period. By the end of the 60s, economic reform began to decline. The main obstacle to its path was the command-administrative system, total planning and industry monopoly.

Reforms in the mid-60s also affected agriculture. The rural residents were given back their private plots, which had been taken away or severely curtailed during the Khrushchev period. Debts were written off from collective farms, purchase prices were increased, and premiums were established for the delivery of excess production to the state. However, the gigantic sums of money invested in agriculture and spent inefficiently ultimately resulted in a very low increase in labor productivity in the agricultural sector of the Soviet economy. And the USSR was forced, as before, to purchase a significant part of food products abroad.

If we talk about the increase in production in all spheres of the national economy, then it was, first of all, of an extensive nature. During the Brezhnev period, the country faced insurmountable difficulties. In almost all sectors of the economy, indicators of growth in labor productivity and production approached zero.

The Soviet Union lagged sharply behind the leading countries of the world in introducing scientific and technological achievements into production. The production assets of enterprises were not updated. Repair costs were rising. Even in the defense industries, one could observe a trend of aging and deterioration of equipment. As an example, even in the aviation industry, many enterprises in the industry still have not updated their equipment and still use machines and units that were supplied from Germany after the reparations war.

The country was increasingly turning into a raw material appendage of the West. At the same time, a total shortage of goods and services has become a very common occurrence. The queue has become a familiar landscape of Soviet society.

First in March 1965 An agrarian program was developed to overcome the crisis situation.

But the most ambitious attempt to improve the socialist economic system was proposed in October 1965 administrative economic reform in the industrial sector. The need for this reforms due to the following reasons:

1. Unfavorable economic results implementation of the seven-year plan (1959- 1965 years).
2. The second reason, the presence of which, unlike the first, the country’s leadership was forced to admit, is necessity reorganization of the Soviet economic a mechanism that could not even use the possibilities of extensive economic development.

48. The main directions of economic transformations affected by the economic reform of 1965 in the USSR.

On the initiative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin, a group of economists led by E. Lieberman developed a strategy for carrying out economic reform, Moreover, the experience of the NEP economic restructuring of the 1920s was actively studied, but in the structure of the economic reforms of 1965 Many elements of the model of “market socialism” that existed in the NEP system were missing: a mixed economy, the private sector, elements of the market system and market infrastructure, the golden chervonets and others.

In the structure of this economic reform the following can be distinguished basic principles:

a) administrative management centralization: abolition of economic councils and a return to the sectoral management system through the restoration of industrial sectoral ministries and state committees (instead of the optimal combination of sectoral and regional principles management);

b) transfer of industrial enterprises to the system economic calculation: providing enterprises with prompt economic independence (within established limits) so that they work at principles payback, profitability, material interest and financial responsibility for achieved results, in conditions of monetary control by the state over the use of material, financial, and labor resources;

c) changing the system of centralized state planning and economic stimulation of industrial enterprises, so that the latter can realize their self-supporting rights. This provision has four aspects:

1) reduction in the number of planned indicators economic activities of enterprises established from above: 9 directive indicators remained, and within the remaining indicators the enterprise received self-supporting independence; however, these mandatory indicators regulated basic aspects of enterprise activity, therefore industrial cost accounting 1965 initially had a partial, limited nature, in contrast to the market self-regulation of trust self-supporting structures of the NEP period;

2) a change in the criterion for assessing the activities of enterprises: in contrast to the previous system, which was focused on the growth of gross output, now the main indicator was the growth in the volume of products sold by enterprises, i.e. it was intended to evaluate the results economic activities related to profit received (production profitability) and fulfillment of tasks for the supply of the most important types of products;

3) changes in the pricing system: new wholesale prices began to more objectively reflect real production costs and enterprises could already receive profit from the sale of their products, from which payments for production assets and fixed (rent) payments were paid into the budget; Naturally, this price reform led to an increase in the general wholesale price index;

4) at enterprises, at the expense of profits, it was allowed to create (according to certain standards) economic incentive funds: a fund for the development of production, material incentives, socio-cultural events and housing construction; Truth, later activities these funds came under the brutal administrative control of the center;

d) increasing the role of cost economic categories and production regulators: the influence of such instruments as price, profit, profitability premium, credit, which were returned to their original value, increased.

In the history of the implementation of this economic reforms Two periods can be distinguished. The first period - 1966-1970, or the period of the Eighth Five-Year Plan - demonstrated obvious positive results, although the success of the initial period reforms was largely associated with the action of the “first effect” factor. Nevertheless, during the years of the Eighth Five-Year Plan, according to official data, the increase in industrial production compared to the previous period was 50%, agriculture - 21%, labor productivity - 36%, national income - 38%, real income of the population - 33%. But during the second period - the 1970s - the first half of the 1980s - positive potential reforms exhausted, difficulties arose in implementing reforms, departure from her basic principles and, ultimately, the growth of crisis phenomena in the Soviet economy.

It is necessary to consider the reasons for blocking and curtailing this economic reform in the 1970s.

1. Lack of an integrated, structured approach to reform Soviet economic systems. Originally given reform could not be radical, because she, like all Soviet reforms, left the strategic relations of production – property relations – unchanged. The reform, to a certain extent, affected only one structural element of the economic system - the relationship between relatively independent enterprises and state-owned enterprises. management organizations(although the mechanism for coordinating the interests of the center and self-supporting entities was more administrative in nature), while other structural elements of the people economic complex had practically no influence reforming. Therefore this reform was inconsistent, limited and logically incomplete and did not provide stable economic results.

2. Availability of this reforms bureaucratic conservative opposition: during the period reforms contradictions emerged between supporters of limited centralization led by Brezhnev while maintaining the role of the political-administrative system in the functioning of the economy and adherents of partial market systems united around Kosygin reforms. The country's party leadership, having taken several steps forward towards the market, did not dare to further transform economic system, since this would inevitably lead to necessity and political liberalization.

3. Changes in the ideological situation in the world system of socialism: similar economic reforms in selected European socialist countries(especially in Czechoslovakia) had a version of the “socialist market”, which caused a negative reaction in the conservative party nomenklatura. Defeat of the Prague Spring 1968 of the year(the entry of troops of the Warsaw Pact countries into Prague) through a chain reaction led to the curtailment of economic reforms in the world socialist economic system.

Eventually economic reform of 1965, like all the others, it actually turned out to be aimed at prolonging the existence of the command-administrative system itself, since it did not reject it basic institutions and principles, no attempt reforming economies could not produce the desired effect.

49. Improving the planning system in accordance with the provisions of the economic reform of 1965 in the USSR.

For a century and a half, representatives of educated Russian society, participating either in the liberal or in the communist movement, studying with interest the well-known controversy between V. G. Belinsky and N. V. Gogol, gave preference to the arguments of the first.

Literary criticism

After 1917, the dispute between these great people was included in the general education course. However, the textbooks presented only the point of view that V. G. Belinsky adhered to. The letter to Gogol reflected his attitude to reality and showed the solidarity of his thoughts with liberal democratic ideas. Nikolai Vasilyevich was a conservative. In revolutionary Russia, Gogol the thinker was not only unnecessary, but even harmful. All judgments that came from him were allowed, in best case scenario, interpret, while changing them beyond recognition. For many decades, official literary criticism characterized Gogol only from one side. He acted as a critic of "the society in which he lived." He was shown as a writer whose work sought only to illustrate the negative sides of the existing bourgeois landowner's world, the anti-people essence of autocracy. The spiritual side of Nikolai Vasilyevich remained in the shadows.

Reason for the dispute

On December 31, 1846, it was published. It was called “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.” An angry Belinsky almost immediately writes a letter to Gogol. In it, he calls the book “vile” and accuses its author of ignorance of reality. The work was eventually withdrawn from circulation for a long time and placed in closed storage. Russians were allowed to read "The Inspector General", "Dead Souls", "Viya", "Nevsky Prospekt" and other fiction. However, the author himself called “Selected Places...” his only practical book. It has now been returned to readers.

Public opinion

The book of 1846 caused a wave of indignation in advanced Russian society. During these years, many authors put forward a variety of reasons that prompted Gogol to write it. Some said that this was a serious and bitter delusion of the author, who had lost the correct understanding of the reality that surrounded him. Others believed that the book reflected his weakness not only as a thinker, but also as a person in general. Still others said that Gogol was frightened by the conclusions that followed from his other artistic works. Still others believed that the book showed the ideological vacillations of the author, who himself found himself in the trap of religious prejudices and reactionary utopias.

Belinsky's letter to Gogol: summary

It is believed that it brought an end to the critic’s literary activity, since it was written shortly before his death. Lenin believed that Belinsky's letter to Gogol was one of outstanding works democratic uncensored press. Its significance remained for a long time. At first, the book “Selected Places...” was raised like a banner, meeting with a positive reaction from part of society. However, Belinsky’s letter to Gogol gave her a decisive rebuff. What was the critic talking about? In his lines, he gave a merciless characterization of the writer. The critic called him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.” Belinsky’s letter to Gogol, a brief summary of which was retold by the Petrashevites and all progressive circles of society, expressed the interests and thoughts of the serf people against the autocracy. The critic said that earlier the writer denounced tsarism, ridiculed the landowners, and fought against serfdom. The revolutionary circle accepted Gogol. He made the whole country laugh at the Plyushkins, Sobakeviches, and Khlestakovs, which undoubtedly made the fight against them much easier. In an objective sense, he denounced serfdom. Belinsky's letter to Gogol reminds Nikolai Vasilyevich of former times. The critic speaks of his respect and love for him, as a person who is closely connected with his country, who acted as one of the leaders on the path of progress. After the publication of the book “Selected Places...” Belinsky gave extremely negative feedback in Sovremennik. At that time, his appeal to Nikolai Vasilyevich could not be published, but nevertheless became widespread. The advanced part of society without any difficulty understood the essence of Belinsky’s letter to Gogol. The critic rebelled against the preaching of “immorality and lies under the auspices of religion and the whip.” Belinsky pointed out in his letter the atheistic nature of Russian people. At the same time, he recognized the historicity of Christ and his teachings about freedom, fraternity and equality. Belinsky’s letter to Gogol, in short, became a manifesto of a thinking and progressive Russia. “The name of the critic was known to every representative of progressive youth,” said Aksakov.

Belinsky's letter to Gogol: analysis

Lenin gave an extremely high rating to the critic’s words. At that time, the government persecuted those who kept and read it. According to the reviews of the agent of the third department and the Petrashevites, the critic’s words created general delight. Belinsky's letter is the most important monument social thought. The critic now spoke of Nikolai Vasilyevich not as a progressive artist, but as a reactionary publicist. His book defended the Nicholas autocracy, supported serfdom. N.V. Gogol exalted the landowner, proclaimed him “the father of the peasants,” and pointed out the need to obey him. He called the serf himself “unwashed snout.” Gogol taught the landowner to make more money from the peasant’s labor, called for obedience to the tsar and his officials, and to follow the traditions of antiquity. All this caused sharp criticism. Belinsky stated that the salvation of Russia does not lie in asceticism, mysticism and pietism, but in the success of humanity, enlightenment and civilization. He categorically opposed preaching, calling for the awakening of the people's sense of self-worth, which for centuries had been trampled into rubbish and dirt.

In his letter to Gogol, Belinsky pointed out the writer’s misconceptions about reality. The critic said that the public would not be able to forgive such a disregard for freedoms as was expressed in the book. Speaking against serfdom, Belinsky clearly illuminated all its humiliation. After reading “Selected Places...”, the critic was struck by the change that occurred in the author’s thoughts. More recently, “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” came out from his pen, denouncing the landowner system and ridiculing it. It must be said that at the time of writing his book, Gogol was abroad. This became another argument for criticism. Belinsky said that it is impossible to understand the situation while being away from the country. Meanwhile, the critic, hoping that all these thoughts of the writer were the result of his delusions, recommends that he create a counterbalance work that would neutralize the effect of his book.

Important points of the message

Belinsky was struck by Gogol's words about the uselessness and even harmfulness of literacy for the common people. Nikolai Vasilyevich’s words that perhaps his book is a delusion are categorically rejected. Belinsky says that this line of thought has been known in Russia for a long time. Moreover, the critic points out the absence of any intelligence and talent in the work. He says that this in no way fits with the creations that he created earlier. Belinsky resolutely rejects the conclusion that the book was the fruit of Gogol’s mental disorder. He explains this by saying that it was written not in one or two days, but perhaps over years.

Nikolai Vasilievich's answer

As mentioned above, the critic published an article about the new book “Selected Places...” in Sovremennik. Offended by her, Gogol wrote a letter to Belinsky. In it, he says that criticism of his book is most likely due to personal attitudes. Meanwhile, Belinsky fell seriously ill. While in Russia, he could not answer Nikolai Vasilyevich, since censorship was strict at that time. But illness forced him to go abroad. From there he sent an angry response.

N. Gogol's letter to Belinsky was sent on August 10. In it, the writer is deeply shocked by the public's reaction to his book. He says he received about 50 reviews, and they were all different. Nikolai Vasilyevich admits that he really did not understand the current situation well. However, Gogol’s letter to Belinsky cannot be called repentance for “Selected Places...”. Moreover, we can say that he did not admit the fallacy of his opinions, conclusions, words and ideas. He only says that you should come to Russia, see and again learn everything that is in it. Gogol's last letter to Belinsky demonstrates the author's reluctance to create something new before he has visited the country. The author believes that even those people who are in Russia cannot fully understand the whole situation. Addressing Vissarion Grigorievich, he points out that he, for his part, also cannot know many things that are known to him. Accordingly, there cannot be a complete understanding of the reasons that prompted the creation of “Selected Places...”. Gogol’s letter to Belinsky does not promote anything, does not call for anything. Nikolai Vasilyevich is trying to justify himself in some way, to explain the superficial state of affairs. At the same time, he understands that, most likely, his words will not find a response from the critic.

Gogol's letter to Belinsky reflects the author's state. He was depressed and practically destroyed by criticism. Progressive circles greeted his work with indignation, but they enthusiastically discussed Vissarion Grigorievich’s response to it. Despite the support given to his book by the government, Gogol did not experience the satisfaction he expected. In his response to the critic, he does not indicate the true reasons that prompted him to write the book. Gogol's letter to Belinsky seems unclear and blurry in comparison with the critic's message. However, he admits to focusing too much on himself. At the same time, he points out to Belinsky that he was too “scattered.” He says that the critic neglects the need to know everything that he himself knows in order to understand his motives and thoughts. Gogol's letter to Belinsky in 1847 ends with a wish for health. Nikolai Vasilyevich reminds Vissarion Grigorievich that only in the absence of illness can one do reasonable things in any field.

conclusions

Belinsky pointed out to Gogol that the situation seemed quite prosperous at a distance from Russia. However, up close it won't be as beautiful. Gogol admits this. However, at the same time, it also suggests that the critic himself cannot know many things. But, unlike Belinsky, Gogol indicates that he is ready to admit his mistakes and work on them. At the same time, the critic does not see the same desire, which, of course, greatly disappoints him. He says that Russia is on the threshold of great events that require people to consider life from all sides, without rushing headlong into revolution. Perhaps Gogol really was influenced by religious teachings. The perception he had directed his thoughts towards autocracy. He spoke about the spiritual connection between the people and the king, and the need to preserve it further. This was in sharp contrast to the ideas he had previously followed. However, from his answer to Belinsky it follows that he does not intend to abandon his thoughts at all. He is only ready to re-study Russia and the state of affairs in it. But he most likely needed this to further strengthen his ideas.

Communication of figures

Belinsky and Gogol at one time were good friends and supporters of the same ideas. The first, as a critic, put forward decisive social and political demands to the government, insisting on meeting the pressing needs of the peasant masses who were under the yoke of serfdom. To the very topical issues He attributed modernity to the abolition of punishments and the introduction of strict enforcement of all existing laws. The key demand was the overthrow of serfdom. Gogol, in turn, as a writer, was an exposer of landowners, officials, and autocracy. This is precisely where the views of these people converged. Belinsky, highlighting the humiliating situation of the peasants, wrote that Russia is becoming a terrible country in which human trafficking occurs. In the state there were not only no guarantees for property, honor, personality, but also police order. Belinsky considered the destruction of serfdom to be his primary task. Literary activity, in his opinion, was a guide for the people. He saw writers as leaders of a new system. Among them, Gogol enjoyed special respect and love from Belinsky himself and other representatives of progressive society. But, having gone abroad, he publishes a book that turns all ideas about him upside down.

Conclusion

Responding to criticism, Gogol does not provide any arguments in his favor. He only states the existing facts. There is no desire in his letter to correct himself, to “come to his senses,” or, ultimately, to apologize to the public. His book was not recognized by the advanced strata of society at that time. This was mainly due to the fact that the desire for a new, free life, which the autocracy was not able to provide, was already firmly rooted in the people.

Sasha, dear, hello!

I read N.V. Gogol’s answers to V.G. Belinsky and decided to send them to you so that you could read them carefully.

I really appreciate these letters from Gogol; here is his whole nature, as a Russian person in general and as a writer who is aware of his responsibility before God and people.

1 letter

Date of creation: around June 20, 1847, publ.: 1855. Source: Gogol N.V. Complete collection works in 14 volumes. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - T. 13. Letters, 1846-1847. - pp. 326-328

“I read with regret your article about me in the second issue of Sovremennik. Not because I was saddened by the humiliation into which you wanted to put me in the minds of everyone, but because in it you can hear the voice of a person who was angry with me. But I would not want to anger even a person who did not love me, especially you, whom I always thought of as a person who loved me. I did not at all mean to upset you in any place in my book. How did it happen that on I was angry, every single one in Russia, I still can’t understand this myself. Eastern, Western and neutral - everyone was upset. It’s true, I meant a small click to each of them, considering it necessary, having experienced the need for it on their own skin (we all need more humility), but I didn’t think that my click would come out so grossly awkward and so insulting. I thought that I would be generously forgiven and that in my book the germ of universal reconciliation, and not discord. You looked at my book with your eyes an angry person and therefore almost everything was accepted in a different form. Leave all those places that are still a mystery to many, if not all, and pay attention to those places that are accessible to every sensible and reasonable person, and you will see that you were mistaken in many ways.
It was not for nothing that I begged everyone to read my book several times, anticipating all these misunderstandings in advance. Believe me, it is not easy to judge such a book, where one’s own heartfelt story a person who is not like others, and, moreover, a secretive person<о>, who lived for a long time within himself and suffered from the inability to express himself. It was also not easy to decide on the feat of exposing yourself to general shame and ridicule, exposing part of that inner cage, the real meaning of which would not soon be felt. Already one such feat should make a thinking person think and, without rushing to give his own voice about it, read it at different hours of his spiritual disposition, calmer and more attuned to his own confession, because in such moments only the soul is able to understand the soul , and in my book it’s a matter of the soul. You would not have made those erroneous conclusions that filled your article. How is it possible, for example, from the fact that I said that there is a lot of justice in the critics who spoke about my shortcomings, to draw the conclusion that the critics who spoke about my merits are unfair? Such logic can only be present in the head of an irritated person who continues to look for the very thing that can irritate him, and does not calmly examine the object from all sides. Well, what if I spent a long time in my head and thought about how to talk about those critics who spoke about my merits and who, regarding my writings, spread many wonderful thoughts about art? And if I impartially wanted to determine the dignity of each and those delicate shades of aesthetic sense with which each of them was more or less uniquely gifted? And if I was only waiting for the time when it would be possible for me to say about this, or, more accurately, when it would be decent for me to say about it, so that they would not later say that I was guided by some selfish goal, and not by a sense of impartiality and justice? Write the harshest criticisms, take all the words you know in order to humiliate a person, contribute to the ridicule of me in the eyes of your readers, without sparing the most sensitive strings, perhaps the most tender heart - my soul will endure all this, although not without pain and sorrowful shocks. But it’s hard for me, it’s very hard (I tell you this truly), when personal bitterness feeds against me even evil person, not only kind, but I considered you to be kind person. Here is a sincere statement of my feelings!”

Notes:
1. For Belinsky’s article on “Selected passages from correspondence with friends,” see Sovremennik 1847, No. 2, dep. 3, pp. 103-124.

2 letter

Date of creation: end of July - beginning of August 1847, publ.: 1856. Source: Gogol N.V. Complete works in 14 volumes. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - T. 13. Letters, 1846-1847. - pp. 435-446 A draft of Belinsky’s response to his Salzbrunn letter to Gogol dated July 3/15, 1847, not sent by Gogol.

<С чего начать мой>response to your letter?<Начну его с ваших же слов>: “Come to your senses, you are standing<на краю>abyss! How [far] you have strayed from the straight path, in what a twisted form things have become before you! In what a rude, ignorant sense you took my book! How did you interpret it! Oh, may the holy powers bring peace into your suffering, tormented soul<у! Зачем вам>was to change once chosen, the world<ную дорогу?>What could be more beautiful than showing readers the beauty in the works of our writers, elevating their soul and strength to an understanding of all that is beautiful, enjoying the thrill of the sympathy awakened in them and thus<асно>affect their souls? This road would lead you to reconciliation with life, this road would make you bless everything in nature. As for political events, society would naturally reconcile if reconciliation were in the spirit of those who have influence on society. And now your lips breathe bile and hatred. Why should you, with your ardent soul, go into this political maelstrom, into these murky events?<енности>, among which is a firm, prudent multilateral<ость>gets lost? With your one-sided mind, ardent as gunpowder, already flaring up before you even know what the truth is, how can you not get lost? You will burn out like a candle, and you will burn others. Oh, how my heart aches [at this moment for you!] What if I am also to blame, what if my writings have led you astray?
But no, no matter how I consider all my previous works<мои>, I see that they could not<и соблазнить вас. Как ни?>look at them in<них нет лжи некоторых?>modern works.
How strange<м заблуждении вы находитесь! Ваш светлый ум>got foggy.<В каком превратном>you received the form, see<ысл моих произведений.>IN<н>theirs is my answer. When [I wrote them, I was in awe]<ред>everyone, in front of<чем>a person owes good<го>vet. The ridicule [and dislike I heard] was not at the authorities, not at the fundamental laws of our state, but at perversion, at deviations, at incorrect interpretations, at bad<приложением их?..>, over the scab that has accumulated, over<...>life unusual for him<ю>. Nowhere did I mock what constitutes the basis of the Russian character and its great strengths. The ridicule was only for small things that were out of character for him. My mistake is that I discovered little of the Russian man, I did not open him up, did not expose him to those great springs that are stored in his soul. But this is not an easy matter. Although I observed the Russian man more than you, although some gift of clairvoyance could help me, I was not blinded by myself, my eyes were clear. I saw that I was still immature to deal with events higher than those that had hitherto appeared in my writings, and with the strongest characters. Everything could seem exaggerated and stressful. This is what happened with this book of mine, which you attacked so much. You looked at her with inflamed eyes, and everything about her seemed to you in a different form. You didn't recognize her. I won't defend my book. How to respond to any of your accusations when they are all gone? I attacked her myself and am attacking her. It was published in hasty haste, uncharacteristic of my prudent and prudent character. But the movement was honest. I didn’t want to flatter or poop anyone with it. I only wanted to use it to stop a few ardent heads that were ready to spin and get lost in this whirlpool and disorder in which all the things of the world suddenly found themselves. I fell into excess, but I'm telling you, I didn't even notice it. I didn’t have any selfish goals before, when I was still somewhat occupied by the temptations of the world, and especially since<лее теперь>when it's time to think about death. I didn't have any selfish mind<ысла>. I didn't want anything<я>straighten it out<ашивать>. [It’s not in my nature either]. There is beauty in poverty. If only you could remember<что>I don’t even have a corner, and I’m only trying to figure out how to make my small traveling suitcase even lighter, so that it’s easier to part with [the world]. You should have restrained yourself from branding me with those offensive suspicions, with which I would not have the courage to sully the last scoundrel. It is for you<нужно>I wish I could remember. You excuse yourself by being in an angry mood. But how<в гневном расположении духа?>[you dare to speak]<о таких?>important subjects and not<дите, что вас ослепляет гневный?>mind and takes away sp<окойствие...>
How can I defend myself against your attacks when the attacks are random? My words to the sovereign, reminding him of the sanctity of his title and his high responsibilities, seemed like a lie to you. you call<их>flattery. No, each of us should be reminded that his title is sacred, and even more so the sovereign<арю>. Let him remember how<ой>strict answer<буется>From him. But if the title of each of us is sacred, then even more so is the title of the one who has been given the difficult and terrible lot of caring for the dear ones.<л>and she<х>. Why remind us of the holiness of the title? Yes, we should even remind each other of our sacred<тости на>our duties and titles. Without this, a person will become mired in material feelings.<Вы говорите?>by the way, as if I<спел>a paean to our government. I didn't sing anywhere. I told<ал>only that the government consists of us. We curry favor and form the government. What if the government is a huge gang of thieves, or do you think none of the Russians know this? Let's take a closer look, why is this? Is it not because of this complexity and the monstrous accumulation of rights, is it not because we are all in the forest, some in need of firewood? One looks to England, another to Prussia, the third to France. One leaves on one basis, the other on another. One thrusts that project onto the sovereign, the other<иной, третий?>different again. No matter what person<то разные проекты и раз>new thoughts no matter what<город?>, then different thoughts and<проекты... Как же не>form in the middle<такой разладицы вор>and all sorts of things<плутням и неспра>prudence, when everyone<видит, что везде>there are obstacles, everyone thinks only about themselves and about how to get a warmer apartment?.. You say that the salvation of Russia lies in European civilization. But what a boundless and boundless word this is. If only you could define what is meant by the name of European civility<зации>which everyone repeats pointlessly. Here the phalansterie, and the red, and everyone, and everyone is ready to eat each other, and everyone wears such destructive, such destroying principles that even every thinking head in Europe is trembling and involuntarily asks, where is our civilization? And she became European civilization a ghost that definitely<никто>haven't seen it yet, and if<пытались ее>grab with your hands, she races<пается>. And there was progress too, until I thought about it<али, когда же?>they began to catch him, and he scattered<ся>.
Why did you think that I also sang a song to our vile, like<вы>you say, the clergy? Is it really my word that a preacher of the Eastern Church must preach by life and deeds? And why do you have such a spirit of hatred? I knew a lot of bad priests and I can tell you a lot of funny jokes about them, maybe more than you. But I also met those whose holiness of life and exploits I marveled at, and saw that they were the creation of our Eastern Church, and not the Western. So, I did not at all think of paying hymn to the clergy who disgraced our church, but to the clergy who exalted our church.
How strange it all is! How strange is my situation, that I must defend myself against those attacks which are not all directed against me and not against my book! You say that you have read my book a hundred times, while your own words say that you have not read it even once. Anger has clouded your eyes and prevented you from seeing anything in the real sense. There are sparkles of truth wandering here and there among a huge heap of sophistry and rash youths<ких>hobbies. But what ignorance shines on every page<нице>! You separate the church from<Христа и>Christianity, that very church, those very<...>shepherds who martyred<своей смертью>sealed the truth of every word of Christ, who perished in thousands under the knives and swords of murderers, praying for them, and finally tired of the executioners themselves, so that the victors fell at the feet of the vanquished, and the whole world confessed<это слово>. And you want to separate these very shepherds, these martyred bishops, who carried the shrine of the church on their shoulders, from Christ, calling them unjust interpreters of Christ. Who do you think can interpret Christ closer and better now? Are the current<м>Unists and socialists, [explaining that Christ commanded to take away property and land<бить>those [who have made a fortune for themselves?] Come to your senses! Called Voltaire<ете>who have rendered a service to Christianity and say that this is known to every student of the hymn<зии>. Yes, when I was still in the gymnasium, I did not admire Voltaire even then. Even then I was smart enough to see in Voltaire a clever wit, but far from deep man. Voltaire could not be admired by full and mature minds; he was admired by uneducated youth. Voltaire, despite all his brilliant manners, remained the same Frenchman. One can say about him what Pushkin says about the Frenchman in general:
The Frenchman is a child:
He's like that, jokingly,
Will destroy the throne
And he will give the law;
And quick as a glance
And empty as nonsense
And it will surprise
And it will make you laugh.
<...Христос>doesn't tell anyone anywhere<что нужно приобрета?>yes, and also on the contrary<настоятельно нам?>he orders to yield:<снимаю>taking your clothes off,<отдай последнюю>rub<ашку, с прося>I want you to go with you<одно>field, go through two.<Не>lzya, getting easy magazine images<ание, судить>about such items. Needed for this<го изучи>there is the history of the church.
Need again<прочи>thief with thought for all historians<чело>of the world in the source<х, а не в нынешних>light brochures,<написанных...?>God knows who. These<поверхностные энциклопеди>technical information scatters the mind rather than focusing it<от>revive him. What can I say to you in response to the harsh remark that the Russian peasant is not inclined towards religion and that, when speaking about God, he scratches his lower back with his other hand, a remark that you pronounce with such self-confidence, as if you have been treating the Russian peasant for centuries? Whats up<гово>to speak when so eloquent<говорят>thousands of churches and monasteries covering<русскую землю>. They are built [not by gifts] from the rich, but from the poor<ми>mites of the poor, the very people about whom you say that they speak with disrespect of God, and who share their last penny with the poor and God, suffer bitter need, about which<рой знает каждый из нас?>to be able to bring diligence<ное подаяние Богу?>. No, Vissarion Gr<игорьевич>, one cannot judge the Russian people by someone who has lived a century in St. Petersburg, engaged in light magazine reading<статейками и романами>those French people<манистов, которые>so biased<что не хотят видеть>, as from the Gospel ref.<одит истина?>, and do not notice how ugly and<пошло?>their life is depicted. Now let me<азать>that I have more before you [the right to speak]<о русском>people. At least all my works, one by one<душному>conviction, show knowledge of<ироды>Russian, they hand over a man who was observing with the people<ателен и... стало>may already have the gift of entry<ить в его жизнь>what is being said<было>much that you yourself have confirmed in your critics. And what<вы предста>as proof of your knowledge of human nature and the Russian people, that you have produced one in which it is clear<это>know<ние>? Item<этот>great, and I could tell you about this<написать>books. You yourself would be ashamed of the crude meaning that you gave to my advice to the landowner. No matter how much these tips are cut off by censorship,<в н>there is no protest against literacy,<а>isn't it<лишь>protest against corruption<народа русск>Oh, a letter, instead of the fact that a letter was given to us in order to strive for the highest light of man. Your reviews about the landowner generally echo Fonvizin’s times. Since then, much, much has changed in Russia, and now much more has appeared. What is more profitable for the peasants, the rule of one landowner, already quite educated, [who] was brought up at the university and who nevertheless [therefore should already feel a lot] or<быть>governed by<многих чиновнико>in, less educated,<корыстолюбив>s and caring about that<только, чтобы нажи>is there? Yes and a lot<есть таких предмето>in, which should be mentioned<каждому из нас>think ahead before<нежели с>with the ardor of an intemperate knight and a young man to talk about liberation, so that this can be mastered<божде>nothing was worse than slavery. In general, we are somehow more concerned about change<назва>ny and names. Aren't you ashamed of your mind?<шительных име>ours, [which we give]<...>[sometimes to comrades], in<иде>humiliation<чел>sheepishness and a sign of barbarism? These are the childish conclusions that an incorrect view of the main subject leads to...
I was also amazed by this brave arrogance with which you say: “I know about<щество>ours and his spirit,” and you guarantee<в этом>. How can you vouch for this constantly changing chameleon? What data can you certify that you know the society? Where are your means to do this? Have you shown anywhere in your writings that you are a deep knower of the human soul? Have you gone through life experience?<ни>? Living almost without touching people and light, leading the peaceful life of a magazine employee, always engaged in<х>feuilleton articles, how do you have an idea about this huge monster that<ое неожи>these phenomena<ловит нас>into that trap<торую попадают>all young pi<сатели, рассуждающие>about the whole world and humanity, whereas<довольно>worries to us and around us. Need to<прежде всего>fulfill them, then society<само>will go well by itself. And if<пренебрежём>responsibilities regarding persons<близких и погони>I'm after society, then<упустим и те и другие?>just the same. I met in Lately many beautiful l<юдей, которые>completely lost. ABOUT<д>They don’t think [that] through transformations and reforms, by turning this way and that way, the world can be corrected; others think that through some special, rather mediocre<ной>literature, which you call fiction, can have an effect on the education of society. But the welfare of society will not be brought to a better state by either unrest or [hot heads]. The fermentation within cannot be corrected by any constitution.<...Общест>is formed by itself, socially<тво>made up of units.<Надобно, чтобы каждая едини>she did her duty<ность свою.> <...>Man needs to remember<что>he is not a material beast at all,<но вы>juicy citizen of the high heaven<го гра>waiting. As long as<он хоть ско>Somebody won't live life<неб>natural citizen, until then<пр>goes in order and ze<мное>citizenship.
You say that Russia is<олго и напрасно моли>las. No, Russia m<олилась не напрасно. К>when she prayed, she saved<лась. О>she prayed in 1612 and was saved from the Poles; she prayed in 1812 and escaped from the French. Or is this what you call a prayer, which is one out of a hundred<молится>, and all the others revel, headlong, from morning to evening at all sorts of shows, bets<вая>the last of your property to enjoy all the comforts<ми>, which this b has endowed us with<естолковая?>European civilization?
No, let's leave it<одобные сом>specific provisions<и посмотрим на>yourself [honestly].<Будем стара>try not to bury it in the ground<алант свой>. We will carry out our craft according to our conscience<о. Тогда>everything will be fine, and the state of society will improve on its own. IN<этом>the sovereign means a lot.<Ему дана должн>awn, which is important<на и>pre<выше?>everyone. Everyone takes their example from the sovereign. All he has to do is, without distorting anything,<править?>ok, everything will go by itself. Why do you know, maybe the idea will come to him to live the rest of the time from business modestly, in solitude,<в>far from the corrupting court,<от>all this accumulation. That's all<обер>It doesn’t go without saying. Crazy<ую жизнь захотят?>quit. The owners will disperse to their estates and get down to business. Officials will see that there is no need to live richly, they will stop stealing. And the ambitious man, seeing that important places are not rewarded with either money or a rich salary,<оставит службу. Оставь>those this world has become insolent<евших?..>, who died<для которого>neither you nor I are born.<Позвольте мне>remind your previous ones<раб?>from<ы>and Sochin<ен>and I. let me<также>remind you of your old path<...>. The writer exists<твует для другого>. He must serve art,<которое вносит в души мира высшую примиряющую <исти>well, not hostility,<лю>bless the man<а>not bitter<ение и>hatred.<Возьмитесь снова>for his field, with<которого вы удалились?>with the frivolity of youth<ши>. Get started<сызнова?>learning. Take on those poets<и му>wise men who educate the soul. You<сами>realized<что>Journal studies erode your soul and you finally notice the emptiness in yourself.<Это>and it cannot be otherwise. Remember that you studied somehow and didn’t even finish your university course. Reward<это>by reading large works, not owls<ременных>brochures written in the heat of the moment<умом>, seducing from direct sight.
I'm definitely backing down<говорить?..>about such subject<ах, о которых дано?>the right to speak alone<ому тому, кто получил его в силу многоопыт?>no life. Not m<оё дело говорить?>about God. I should have<говорить не о Боге, а?>about what is around us, what<должен изображать?>writer, but so that<каждому?>I would like it myself<ворить?>about God<...>
Although my book is not at all filled with the thoughtfulness that you suspect<ете>, on the contrary, it was printed in a hurry, it even contained letters written<ные>during printing itself, although<в ней>there really is<ного не>clear and so true<оятно>you can accept something else<...>but to such an extent<спутаться>how confused you are, accept<всё>in that<ком>in a strange way! Only by anger, which darkened the mind and fogged<голову>, can be explained like this<ое заблуждение...>
You took my words about literacy in a literal, close sense. These words were spoken to a landowner whose peasants are farmers. I even found it funny when from these words you understood that I was armed against the Gramo<тности>. It’s as if this is the question now, when this is a question that was resolved long ago by our fathers. Our fathers and grandfathers, even illiterate ones, decided that it was literate<сть>needed. Not in this case. The thought that runs through my entire book is how to enlighten the literate before the illiterate, how to enlighten before those who have close encounters with the people than the people themselves, all these petty officials and authorities who are all literate and who meanwhile They do a lot of abuse. Believe me, it is more important for these gentlemen to publish those books that you think are useful for the people. The people are less corrupted than the entire literate population. But to publish books for these gentlemen, which would reveal to them the secret of how to deal with the people and with the subordinates who are entrusted to them, not in that broad sense in which the word is repeated: do not steal, keep the truth or: remember that your subordinate people are like this the same as you, and so<подобные>, but which could reveal to him exactly how not to steal, and to accurately comply<юдалась>Truth.

Notes:
1.Here and below, the text taken out from the original and restored by the editor is enclosed in angle brackets. Dots indicate torn out places that cannot be restored. (Editor's note)
2. This poem is not by Pushkin, but by Polezhaev (“Four Nations”). (Editor's note)

3 letter



Related publications: