Nikolaev P. A.: Classic of Russian criticism

See also in other dictionaries:

I. INTRODUCTION II. RUSSIAN ORAL POETRY A. Periodization of the history of oral poetry B. Development of ancient oral poetry 1. The most ancient origins of oral poetry. Oral poetry creativity ancient Rus' from the 10th to the middle of the 16th century. 2.Oral poetry from the middle of the 16th century to the end... ... Literary encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word “judgment” is closely related to the concept of “court”. To judge, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze any object, try to understand its meaning, bring... ... Literary encyclopedia

A set of philosophical ideas, images, concepts present in the entire context of Russian culture, from its inception to the present day. The genesis of Russian culture and the proto-philosophical thought that arose in its bosom goes into the depths... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

It got its start in ancient Greece. Even before Aristotle, many Greek philosophers not only thought about issues of aesthetics and literary criticism, but wrote entire treatises about them. Thus, according to Diogenes Laertius, Democritus wrote several...

RUSSIAN LITERATURE. Literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century- Already on the eve of the 60s. the deepest renewal of R. l begins. A new era, extremely rich in its socio-historical content (the fall of serfdom; a series of reforms that followed, affecting both the management system and... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

For the convenience of viewing the main phenomena of its development, the history of Russian literature can be divided into three periods: I from the first monuments to the Tatar yoke; II until the end of the 17th century; III to our time. In reality, these periods are not sharply... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

- - son of Gabriel Ivanovich Ch., publicist and critic; genus. July 12, 1828 in Saratov. Gifted by nature with excellent abilities, the only son of his parents, N. G. was the subject of intense care and concern for the whole family. Although... ...

- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of characteristic representatives public excitement in the era of "great reforms". He was the son of a priest in Nizhny Novgorod. Father,… … Large biographical encyclopedia

A gifted critic; born on October 2, 1840 in the family village of Znamensky, on the border of the Oryol and Tula provinces. Until the age of 11, he grew up in the family as the only beloved son; was brought up under the influence of the mother of a former college student; by the age of 4 already... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Pisarev D.I. PISAREV Dmitry Ivanovich (1840 1868) famous publicist and literary critic. R. in the village of Znamensky, Oryol province. in a wealthy landowner family. He received his secondary education in one of the St. Petersburg gymnasiums. In 1856 1861 he studied... Literary encyclopedia

Lenin V.I. (Ulyanov, 1870-1924) - b. in Simbirsk on April 10 (23), 1870. His father, Ilya Nikolaevich, came from the townspeople of the mountains. Astrakhan, lost his father at the age of 7 and was raised by his older brother, Vasily Nikolaevich, to whom... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Page 5 of 24

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) began his critical activity by presenting his holistic theory of art and historical and literary concept. In 1853 he wrote, and in 1855 he defended and published his master's thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality.” In 1855-1856, he published “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” on the pages of Sovremennik. This essay was supposed to be in two parts, and a significant place in it should have been taken by the characteristics of the literary movement of the 30-50s. But Chernyshevsky managed to create only the first part, dedicated to the history of criticism of the “Gogol period”; in passing discussions he touched upon artistic works of this period.

In the article “On Sincerity in Criticism” and some works, Chernyshevsky outlined his critical code, continuing “Speech on Criticism” by V.G. Belinsky: he ridiculed “evasive” criticism and developed his understanding of “direct”, principled, highly ideological, progressive criticism. Chernyshevsky also acted as a critic of current modern literature.
But, having made a number of remarkable successes in this area, among which the greatest was the discovery of L. Tolstoy as a writer, he took up other economic problems that were no less important at that time, entrusting the criticism department in Sovremennik to N. Dobrolyubov.

Chernyshevsky presented his materialist aesthetics as a system, contrasting it with idealistic systems. Three circumstances forced him to do this: the internal consistency of his own materialist thought, the systematic nature of Belinsky’s revived legacy, and the logical consistency of Hegelian aesthetics, on which Chernyshevsky’s opponents relied. It was possible to defeat idealism only by creating a concept that could, from a new historical and philosophical point of view, more rationally illuminate all previously posed and new problems that arose.

All of Chernyshevsky’s theoretical constructions in his dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality” unfold as follows: first, he examines the prevailing idealistic ideas about the purpose and subject of art, namely the concept of beauty; then proclaims his thesis “beauty is life” and analyzes the attacks of idealists on the beautiful in reality and only then, in a certain sequence, positively sets out his theses. At the end of the dissertation, he draws conclusions from what has been said and concisely sets out the essence of the new materialist doctrine of art.

Chernyshevsky comprehensively analyzed the basic formula of idealistic aesthetics: “The beautiful is perfect correspondence, perfect identity of the idea with the image.” This formula was born in the bosom of idealist aesthetics, mainly the Hegelian school, and follows from the following idealist thesis: the whole world is the embodiment of an absolute idea, the idea in its development goes through a number of stages, the field of spiritual activity is subject to the law of ascent from direct contemplation to pure thinking. According to Hegel, art is the naive stage of contemplation, then comes religion, and the most mature stage of spiritual activity is philosophy. Beauty is the sphere of art; it is the result of the apparent identity of idea and image, their complete coincidence in a separate object. In fact, idealists say, an idea can never be embodied in a separate object, but it itself ennobles the object so much that it looks beautiful. At the next stages of cognition, the idea leaves the concrete image, and for developed thinking there is not illusory beauty, but only authentic truth. For pure thinking there is no beauty; beauty is even humiliating for it. Pure thinking is an idea adequate to itself, not resorting to the help of images of base empiricism in order to appear to the world.

Proclaiming “the beautiful is life,” Chernyshevsky took life in all the boundlessness of its manifestations, in the meaning of the joy of being (“it is better to live than not to live”). He interpreted life in its social and class manifestations. Chernyshevsky showed that peasants and gentlemen have different ideas about beauty. For example, the beauty of a rural girl and a society young lady. He put forward a class principle for understanding the problem of beauty.

Chernyshevsky clearly sympathizes with those ideas about beauty that were developed by the naive consciousness of the working peasantry, but complements them with ideas about the “mind and heart” that take shape in the enlightened consciousness of leaders of the revolutionary democratic trend. As a result of the merger of these two principles, Chernyshevsky’s position on the beautiful received a materialist interpretation.

Idealists introduced the categories of the sublime, comic, and tragic into their doctrine of beauty. Chernyshevsky also paid great attention to them.

In idealistic aesthetics, the concept of the tragic was combined with the concept of fate. Fate appeared in the form of the existing order of things (which corresponded to the concept of a social system), and the subject or hero, active and strong-willed by nature, violated this order, encountered it, suffered and died. But his work, cleared of individual limitations, did not disappear; it entered as an integral element into universal life. .

Chernyshevsky refuted the fatalism of the theory tragic fate hero. He also proceeded from the fact that the tragic is connected with the struggle of the hero and the environment. “Is this fight always
tragic? - Chernyshevsky asked and answered: “Not at all; sometimes tragic, sometimes not tragic, as it happens.” There is no fatalistic effect of fate, but only a concatenation of causes and a relationship of forces. If the hero realizes that he is right, then even a difficult struggle is not suffering, but pleasure. Such a struggle is only dramatic. And if you take the necessary precautions, this struggle almost always ends happily. This statement conveys the optimism of a true revolutionary fighter.

Chernyshevsky correctly pointed out that “the sphere of art should not be limited to the beautiful,” that “what is generally interesting in life is the content of art.” Idealists clearly confused the formal principle of art - the unity of idea and image as a condition for the perfection of a work - with the content of art.

In addition to the task of reproducing reality, art has another purpose - to provide an “explanation of life”, to be a “textbook of life”. This is the internal property of art itself. The artist cannot, even if he wanted, refuse to pronounce his judgment on the phenomena depicted: “this verdict is expressed in his work.”

The purpose of art, according to N.G. Chernyshevsky, is to reproduce reality, to explain it and to judge it. Chernyshevsky not only returned to Belinsky’s ideas, but also significantly enriched materialist aesthetics with requirements arising from the very essence of art and the specific conditions of literary life of the 50-60s. Of particular importance was the thesis about the “sentence” over life. This was something new that Chernyshevsky introduced into the problem of tendentiousness in art.

But Chernyshevsky’s dissertation also contains simplifications. He argued: art is secondary, and reality is primary (“above” art). However, Chernyshevsky does not compare images of art with living objects in the sense in which art relates to life as a “second reality.” Chernyshevsky recognizes art only as a medium of information, a commentary, a “surrogate for reality.” Even the expression “textbook of life,” although correct in principle, has a narrow meaning: a reference book of life, an abbreviated summary of it. In those cases where Chernyshevsky speaks of typification, generalization in art, he recognizes the primacy and superiority of the “typification” inherent in spontaneous life itself, and leaves to art only a judgment, a verdict over reality. But this quality generally follows from a person’s ability to judge everything around him. Where is the special form of judgment in art? Chernyshevsky does not talk about naked tendentiousness, but he also does not talk about the fact that art affects a person through its images and the general tone and pathos of the work. The correct idea about the objectivity of beauty and the typical is simplified by Chernyshevsky, since he belittles the importance of typification, the identification in the chaos of accidents of what is natural and necessary. He also underestimated the role of creative imagination and artistic form in art.

Chernyshevsky believed that, although a judgment about reality is part of the writer’s intention, he still does not rise to the generalizations of a scientist, and a work of art does not rise to a scientific composition. According to Chernyshevsky, the only difference is that history, for example, speaks about the life of humanity and the life of society, and art speaks about individual life person. This statement contradicted his other statements about the social essence and social role of art. The author of the dissertation asks why art is needed, what is its “superiority” over reality? For example, he said that a painter can place a group of people in a setting that is “more spectacular” and even more fitting to its essence than an ordinary actual setting.” You can choose a more “appropriate” setting for the characters. Chernyshevsky pointed out in his dissertation that art can easily “fill in” the incomplete picture of reality, and in this case it has “an advantage over reality.” But Chernyshevsky did not consider these possibilities of art significant and immediately limited their significance:“The landscape is only a frame for a group, or groups of people, only a secondary accessory.” The writer’s imagination only decorates and comes up with new combinations, diversifying the combinations of those elements that reality provides him with. Chernyshevsky reduced the meaning of fantasy to the reproduction of missing links, to the replenishment of memory. All this for him only serves to “translate” events from the “language of life” into the “meager, pale, dead language of poetry.” But fantasy gives the language of poetry great power.

From the problem of beauty, Chernyshevsky moved on to the doctrine of artistry.

The first law of artistry, said Chernyshevsky, is “the unity of the work.” The poetic idea is violated when elements that are alien to it are introduced into the work. Not every poetic idea allows for the formulation of social issues. So, in “Childhood”
L. Tolstoy given children's world with its own specific scope of interests. You cannot demand that A.S. Pushkin in “The Stone Guest” portrayed Russian landowners or expressed sympathy
Peter the Great. Artistry is not just beautiful finishing of details . Artisticity lies in the “correspondence of form to idea.” All parts of the work's form stem from the main idea. Let us remember that the unity of form and content, idea and image was one of Chernyshevsky’s definitions of beauty in the technological sense, in the sense of craftsmanship.

With few exceptions, all literary phenomena of the past were assessed by Chernyshevsky close to Belinsky’s point of view. Chernyshevsky departed from it in his assessment of Karamzin, regarding whom he believed that the writer was important only for the history of the Russian language and as a historiographer, and there was nothing Russian in his artistic works. Chernyshevsky considered “Woe from Wit” a comedy of little artistic merit; he was indifferent to satire
XVIII century, which seemed too weak to him.

Chernyshevsky's four large articles on Annenkov's edition of Pushkin's works (1855) precede "Essays on the Gogol Period" (1855-1856). Pushkin for him is a purely historical topic, already resolved by Belinsky in his “Pushkin articles.” Chernyshevsky shared Belinsky’s opinion that A.S. Pushkin is the true father of our poetry, the educator of aesthetic sense. In the person of Pushkin Russian society for the first time recognized the writer as a “great, historical figure.” At the same time, perhaps Chernyshevsky assessed Pushkin’s mind and the content of his poetry higher than Belinsky. Pushkin is a man of “extraordinary intelligence,” each of his pages “seems with intelligence and the life of educated thought.”

Chernyshevsky’s articles were a response to the controversy that flared up in criticism about the “Pushkin” and “Gogol” directions: the names of Pushkin and Gogol conventionally denoted two opposing directions in literature and criticism - “pure art” and “satire”. In contrast to this, Chernyshevsky tried in every possible way to emphasize the fundamental importance of Pushkin’s work for all Russian literature. Pushkin elevated literature to the “dignity of a national cause” and was the founder of all its schools. “The whole possibility of the further development of Russian literature was prepared and is partly still being prepared by Pushkin...” Based on the information provided by Annenkov about creative laboratory Pushkin, Chernyshevsky destroyed the legend of a free artist who supposedly created without difficulty, on a whim. Great poet persistently processed every line of his works, always thinking about their plan.

With the greatest interest, Chernyshevsky studied and explained to his contemporaries the meaning of the “Gogol period” of Russian literature. Gogol remained the best example of a realist writer. It was necessary to revive Belinsky’s judgments about him, interpret the meaning of Gogol’s satire and realism, comprehend new materials about him that appeared after the writer’s death, and, finally, unravel the mystery of his controversial personality.

What are the advantages and merits of N.V. Gogol? He is "the father of our romance." He “gave an advantage” to prose over poetry. He gave literature a critical, satirical direction. All writers - from Kantemir to Pushkin himself - are the forerunners of Gogol. He was independent of outside influences. It has purely Russian themes and problems. He "awakened in us a consciousness of ourselves." Gogol's significance is not limited to the significance of his own works. He is not only a brilliant writer, but at the same time the head of a school - “the only school of which Russian literature can be proud.”

Neither Griboyedov, nor Pushkin, nor Lermontov, according to Chernyshevsky, created schools. Gogol in a stronger form served a certain direction of “moral” aspirations, i.e. created a school.

Chernyshevsky examines in detail the polemics of previous years regarding Gogol. All critics divide him into persecutors and admirers of Gogol. The first group includes N. Polevoy, O. Senkovsky, S. Shevyrev, the second - P. Vyazemsky, P. Pletnev. But V.G. appreciated Gogol most deeply. Belinsky.

IN "Essays on the Gogol period" Chernyshevsky tried to unravel the inner meaning of Gogol's contradictions. What is the source of his artistic power, what is the degree of consciousness of creativity, what is the essence spiritual crisis? He is interested in the question: was there some kind of metamorphosis in Gogol’s views at the end of his life, or was he always himself, but was not understood? How to qualify the features of Gogol’s worldview in conventional terms, what is the psychological mystery of his character?

New materials published at that time for the first time revealed a striking picture of the internal processes and contradictions in the writer’s soul.

Chernyshevsky strongly objected to attempts to present Gogol as a writer who unconsciously attacked the vices of society.

Gogol understood the need to be a satirist. So, this essence is in Gogol’s premises and goals. It is clear that reproof was a means to these ends. Kantemir, Derzhavin, Kapnist, Griboedov, and Krylov have already exposed extortion. What is unique about Gogol's satire?

The basis of Gogol's satire was “grateful and beautiful.” Chernyshevsky extends this statement even to the second volume of Dead Souls. Moreover, although “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” was a stain on Gogol’s name, even here he could not “under any theoretical convictions harden his heart for the suffering of his neighbors.” He was a man of "great mind and high nature." By the nature of his work, Gogol is a public figure, a poet of ideas; and in “Selected Places” his enthusiasm is undeniable.

It may seem that there is some inconsistency in Chernyshevsky's reasoning. On the one hand, he selects from Gogol’s letters, for example to S.T. Aksakov, such statements as: “Internally, I have never changed in my main positions,” and claims that the path
Gogol is something unified; the writer did not change, he only gradually revealed himself. On the other hand, Chernyshevsky proves that there was a dramatic change in Gogol’s way of thinking that led to “Selected Places” somewhere in 1840-1841. This was facilitated by “some special incident,” probably due to “severe fear.”

Apparently, Chernyshevsky should be understood this way: a turning point occurred only in the sense of frankness and complete disclosure of views, but from the subjective side, nothing new appeared in Gogol’s concept. Objectively, Selected Places is, of course, a reactionary book. But on a subjective level, the preaching idea was part of Gogol’s general concept of life even when he created “The Inspector General” and “ Dead souls” and when I wrote “Selected Places”.

What then is the problem with Gogol as an internally contradictory thinker?

If we continue Chernyshevsky’s reasoning, then the basis of Gogol’s tragedy is that, having correctly sensed the prophetic “purpose of a writer in Rus'” and the need to have an all-encompassing concept of life with its positively affirming tendencies, he turned out to be unprepared to take such a position. He was not a bad theorist in general (this is evidenced by his sensible critical articles), but precisely a theorist of the “teacher” and all-encompassing scale that he wanted to be. To do this, it was necessary to resolutely move towards rapprochement with Belinsky’s camp, which the critic suggested to him back in letters of 1842.

There was a limit to the development of Gogol as a writer. Chernyshevsky pointed out: “We do not consider Gogol’s works to unconditionally satisfy all the modern needs of the Russian public,<...>even in " Dead souls» we find the parties weak or at least underdeveloped,<...>finally, in some works of subsequent writers we see the guarantees of a more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only on one side, without fully realizing their connection, their causes and consequences.”

The concept of the “Gogol period” organically included another colossal figure, in which the conscious theoretical principles of the realistic direction were ideally expressed, this is Belinsky. He was an ideal critic and public figure for Chernyshevsky. Chernyshevsky did more than anyone to restore his memory. It was necessary to lift the ban from Belinsky’s name, refute the slander of his enemies, revive his concept and assessments, his critical method.

Chernyshevsky emphasized that he “does not like” to disagree with Belinsky’s opinions, he likes to refer to them, since there is no more just authority than Belinsky, “the true teacher of the entire current young generation.”

The critic painted a touching picture of his visit to Belinsky’s grave at the Volkov cemetery, which did not even have a monument at that time (“Notes on Journals,” July 1856).
Meanwhile, “his thoughts” are everywhere, “he is everywhere”, “our literature still lives on it!..”

Chernyshevsky considered the years 1840-1847 to be the heyday of Belinsky’s activity, when his views were fully formed and had the greatest influence on Russian society. After Belinsky's death, Russian criticism noticeably weakened. Until now, only one criticism of Belinsky retains its vitality. All other directions, either opposing it or deviating from it to the side, recent years were “barren flowers” ​​or “parasite plants”.

Chernyshevsky called Belinsky a “brilliant” man who brought about a “decisive era” in our mental life. He had a “harmonious system of views”, in which one concept flowed from the other. And it was worth emphasizing that all his activities were deeply patriotic in nature.

Belinsky's system was formed on the basis of the important quests of previous Russian criticism in the fight against trends hostile to realism. Chernyshevsky analyzed the critical heritage
I. Kireevsky, S. Shevyrev, O. Senkovsky, N. Polevoy, N. Nadezhdin and other predecessors and opponents of Belinsky, not only from the point of view of how they assessed Gogol, but from the point of view of their critical, philosophical and theoretical methodology, approach to literary phenomena in general. It was precisely the proper systematic thinking and understanding of reality that he did not find among them.

The angles in which Chernyshevsky viewed Belinsky are curious. For Chernyshevsky, the most important thing was to show the integrity of Belinsky’s personality, the truly creative and conceptual nature of his theory of realistic art. The evolution of Belinsky's views is full of searches and zigzags, but on the whole it happened slowly, changes in judgments occurred imperceptibly. Chernyshevsky considered the greatest merit of Belinsky's criticism to be its theoretical nature, its appeal to reality, and its socio-social pathos.

Chernyshevsky found out in detail what kind of relationship Belinsky had with Hegel, what was a gain and what was a concession to idealism on his part. Belinsky “threw away everything in Hegel’s teaching that could hamper his thought” and became a completely independent critic. “Here for the first time the Russian mind showed its ability to be a participant in the development of universal science.”

Relying on the “Gogolian” direction and Belinsky’s legacy, Chernyshevsky boldly assessed contemporary literature. Its problems began to go beyond the framework of previous experience and were determined by the requirements of the new era.

The living conditions of literature depend not only on literature itself, Chernyshevsky pointed out, they rather depend on the public itself. Whatever the public wants, literature is what it is. Don’t always rush to condemn a Russian writer. The public knows little about the behind-the-scenes side of literary life; its situation can only evoke compassion. This is not about intrigue and playing with egos. There are relationships and circumstances that are much more important: censorship, tastes, authorities that are worshiped. The level of literature can only be raised more live participation public opinion.

Like Belinsky, Chernyshevsky does not believe in some isolated folk truth: “Folk poetry is attractive. It is the only means of self-expression of the infant people, and its form is beautiful. But this poetry is monotonous, and its content is poor. Why contrast the gypsy choir with opera, and put Kirsha Danilov above Pushkin?” (Review of “Songs different nations"translated by N. Berg, 1854).

Expanding the understanding of the subject of literary history, Chernyshevsky simultaneously sought to develop the necessary terminological concepts. The critic understood that modern realistic literature can no longer be designated by the name of any one writer. In “Essays on the Gogol Period...” Chernyshevsky raised the question of the need to introduce a methodological definition of direction in literature.

He said that it was time for a new, post-Gogol direction in literature to appear, his further development. It would be new era in literature, the new satirical, or, as it would be more fair to call it “ critical direction". Chernyshevsky believed that it was better to replace the traditional name “satirical direction” with “critical direction”. The new name will not give opponents reasons to exaggerate. In addition, the very concept of criticism expands in its boundaries, capturing the sphere of life. At the same time, Chernyshevsky sensitively grasped the inconsistency of the desire that was already beginning then to identify the methods of art with the methods of the natural sciences, naive and flat positivism. “In modern science,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “criticism is not only a judgment about the phenomena of one branch folk life- art, literature or science, but in general a judgment about the phenomena of life, made on the basis of the concepts that humanity has reached, and the feelings aroused by these phenomena when comparing them with the requirements of reason. Therefore, taking the word “criticism” in this broadest sense, in the “modern science”, i.e. Since the time of Belinsky, they began to say: “The critical trend in fine literature, in poetry.” Of course, this expression denotes a direction that is to some extent similar to the “analytical direction” in the literature, about which lately they say so much in Russia. But the difference, Chernyshevsky emphasizes, is that the “analytical direction” can study the details of everyday phenomena and reproduce them under the influence of the most diverse aspirations, even without any aspiration, without thought and meaning; and the “critical direction” in the detailed study and reproduction of life phenomena is imbued with the consciousness of the correspondence or inconsistency of the studied phenomena with the norm of reason and noble feeling. Therefore, the “critical direction” in literature is one of the particular modifications of the “analytical direction” in general, and it more accurately expresses the essence of realism.

Chernyshevsky’s main task was to preserve all of realism’s rights, so that the criticism of realism would not narrow down to one-sided satire and would not dissolve in cold natural science “analyticism.”

On the basis of these general aesthetic and historical-literary criteria, Chernyshevsky evaluated all writers and formed the contemporary realistic movement.

Chernyshevsky the critic truly discovered the current meaning of Ogarev’s poetry. He appreciated the poet's first collection of poems (1856) and, under censored conditions, hinted at the true scale of his activities as Herzen's faithful friend. Chernyshevsky analyzed the secret motives of Ogarev’s poetry and his glorified friendship with Herzen.

Chernyshevsky incurred the wrath of censorship and the reactionary press when, after the publication of the first collection of Nekrasov’s poems, in 1856, he reprinted in Sovremennik, in a brief review of the collection, three poems by the poet: “The Poet and the Citizen”, “The Forgotten Village” , “Excerpts from the travel notes of Count Garansky” (Nekrasov himself was abroad at that time).
It was inconvenient to talk about Nekrasov in Sovremennik, which he edited, but Chernyshevsky chose the method of popularizing his poems successfully. Chernyshevsky reprinted another poem by Nekrasov, “Schoolboy,” published in the “Library for Reading”. The critic tried with all his might to ensure that Russian poetry took Nekrasov as a model.

The ideal knight of the struggle in the eyes of Chernyshevsky was his direct associate -
N.A. Dobrolyubov.

After Dobrolyubov’s death, Chernyshevsky began collecting materials for his biography, publishing some of them a few months later in Sovremennik. And after exile, shortly before his death, he added to the collection of documents for Dobrolyubov’s biography, wrote his memoirs about the history of Turgenev’s relationship with Dobrolyubov.

Finally, to the same vanguard of the realistic trend, Chernyshevsky included M. Shchedrin, a major satirist, who had just entered the literary arena after exile, the “new Gogol.” He called " Provincial essays"(1857) a public document of great accusatory power. At the same time, Chernyshevsky noted one important feature that distinguished Shchedrin from Gogol: Gogol is a predominantly mournful writer, and Shchedrin is stern and indignant. Elsewhere Chernyshevsky noted a great consistency
Shchedrin the satirist in comparison with Gogol: he sees the interconnection of all the small and large phenomena of Russian life, he denounces more consciously (“not so instinctively”).

In journal notes of 1856, Chernyshevsky praised “Notes of a Hunter”
I.S. Turgenev and new novel D.V. Grigorovich "Displaced people". But several years passed, and Chernyshevsky began to see Grigorovich and Turgenev as writers who too idealized peasant life.

Chernyshevsky peered intently at A.F. Pisemsky. He was an active writer, collaborated in the hostile Library for Reading and disagreed with Sovremennik on many issues. Chernyshevsky, in his reviews of his “Sketches from Peasant Life” and the story “The Old Lady,” disputed the opinion of A.V. Druzhinin, who tried to contrast Pisemsky with all “Gogol” literature. Chernyshevsky guessed Pisemsky's essential weakness - his almost passive attitude towards evil, the naturalism of his work. By the way, having listened to Chernyshevsky’s comments, Pisemsky made corrections to “The Old Lady” in 1861.

But in the stories of the young writer N. Uspensky, the critic saw the truthfulness of the reproduction of the dark sides of peasant life, which helped to realize the spiritual and material poverty of the people. Such truth seemed better than any embellishment; love for the people was heard in it. Chernyshevsky outlined his ideas in connection with the stories of N. Uspensky in the article “Isn’t this the beginning of change?” (1861).

In search of “experts in life,” Chernyshevsky paid attention to another modern writer, who was trying to pointedly stay at a distance, - to L. Tolstoy. It can be said with all certainty that the highest achievement of Chernyshevsky’s work as a critic, an example of his aesthetic insight, personal impartiality, even self-sacrifice, was precisely the assessment of Tolstoy’s work. Tolstoy served as an example of how much an artist can achieve if he truthfully portrays a peasant and, as it were, moves into his soul.

We can say that Chernyshevsky discovered Tolstoy’s tremendous talent. He dismantled the current, stereotyped praise of Tolstoy from modern critics. They talked about extreme observation, subtle analysis of mental movements, clarity in depicting pictures of nature, their elegant simplicity, but did not reveal anything specific about the writer’s talent. Meanwhile, Tolstoy’s talent was special, and it developed quickly, more and more new features appeared in him.

Pushkin’s powers of observation, as Chernyshevsky believes, are “cold, dispassionate.”
The newest writers have a more developed evaluative side. Sometimes observation is somehow correlated with some other trait of talent: for example, Turgenev’s observation is aimed at the poetic aspects of life, and to family life he is inattentive. Psychological analysis varies. Either the goal is to fully outline a character, or the influence of social relations on characters or on the connection between feelings and actions. The analysis may consist in comparing the two extreme links of the process, the beginning and the end, or contrasting states of the soul. Lermontov, for example, has a deep psychological analysis, but analysis still plays a subordinate role for him: Lermontov chooses established feelings, and if Pechorin reflects, then this is the reflection of a mind that knows itself, this is introspection through doubling.

Tolstoy is interested in the very forms of psychological counterbalance, the laws of the “dialectics of the soul,” and “he is the only master of this.” For Tolstoy, the overflow of states comes first. His semi-dreamy feeling is linked with clear concepts and feelings, the intuitive with the rational. The ability to play on this string is manifested even when Tolstoy does not directly resort to the “dialectics of the soul”; the range of his capabilities is always felt even in one particular feature.

Tolstoy is characterized by “purity of moral feeling.” He somehow preserved it “in all its youthful spontaneity and freshness.” She is graceful, immaculate, like nature.

The indicated features of Tolstoy’s talent, Chernyshevsky said, will remain with the writer forever, no matter how many works he writes. He has a long way to go: “what a wonderful hope for our literature,” prophesied Chernyshevsky, “everything created until now is “only pledges of what he will accomplish later, but how rich and beautiful are these pledges.”
In connection with “The Morning of the Landowner,” Chernyshevsky significantly clarified the content of the concepts “dialectics of the soul” and “purity of moral feeling.” Otherwise, Tolstoy’s definition of talent was to some extent formal: it was only about the “powers of talent”, but not yet
"about the content of creativity." Now it turned out that Tolstoy, with remarkable skill, reproduces not only the external environment of the life of the peasants, but also, what is much more important, their “view of things”: “he knows how to move into the soul of a peasant - his peasant is extremely faithful to his nature - in the speeches of his peasant no embellishment, no rhetoric..."

The success of “Family Chronicle” by S.T. Aksakov gave reason to many contemporaries to believe that with Aksakov “a new era begins for our literature.” But Chernyshevsky knew the significance of the “Gogol period” and what the new era of modern literature should consist of. In Aksakov’s praises, he saw a certain maneuver of the Slavophiles, an attempt to contrast the literature of critical realism with an artist from “his” camp with calm positive ideals. Chernyshevsky saw what was useful in “Family Chronicle” in the same elements of realism, in exposing the lordship and atrocities of the Kurolesovs.

Chernyshevsky was not captivated by the “common people” origin of the poet I. Nikitin. The quality of his poems was considered low by him. Nikitin, in the eyes of Chernyshevsky, is only a remake of other people's motives. This is a gift of education, not nature. Chernyshevsky advised Nikitin to stop writing poetry for a while until life awakens truly poetic thoughts and feelings in him. This lesson was not in vain for Nikitin.

Chernyshevsky’s desire to influence a major writer is reflected in his reviews of
A.N. Ostrovsky. Chernyshevsky knew well that Ostrovsky began his journey in the spirit of the “natural school” in the comedy “Our People - We Will Be Numbered” (1847). Contemporaries compared his play with “The Minor” and “The Inspector General.” But then a special period began in Ostrovsky’s work: he was influenced by the Young Slavophile group. “Poor Bride” did not diminish his talent, but did not support him either. “Don’t sit in your own sleigh” already raised fears for his talent. And “Poverty is not a vice” (1854), according to Chernyshevsky, revealed the weakness and falsity of Ostrovsky’s new direction. The unfortunate difference between “Our People - Let's Number Oneself” and the comedy “Poverty is not a vice” is that Ostrovsky “fell into a sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished.”

Undoubtedly, the negative assessment of the comedy “Poverty is not a vice” on the part of Chernyshevsky is due to the fact that A. Grigoriev raised Ostrovsky’s new sentiments. Chernyshevsky’s task was to win Ostrovsky from the neo-Slavophiles. The playwright has already damaged his literary reputation, but “has not yet ruined his wonderful talent.” “Profitable Place” (1856) reconciled Chernyshevsky with Ostrovsky: this play “reminded” him
“We are our own people,” there is a lot of “truth and nobility” in it, only the entire fifth act seems unnecessary, without the moralism of which the image of Zhadov would be stronger.

Naturally, Chernyshevsky had to develop his own specific attitude towards the images of “heroes of the time”, which were drawn long before by noble writers. Chernyshevsky understood that the images created by Pushkin, Lermontov, Herzen are treasures in social and cognitive terms. Therefore, Chernyshevsky caustically ridiculed M. Avdeev’s attempt to use the image of Pechorin in order to create something like an “anti-nihilistic” novel. In 1850, M. Avdeev published the novel “Tamarin”. The hero's surname itself is chosen according to the same type as Onegin, Pechorin.

Avdeev wanted to discredit Pechorin. He said that readers were too carried away by the brilliant portrayal of Pechorin and, instead of seeing in him an example of their shortcomings, they began to imitate him. Thus, Avdeev revived the old slander of the reactionary “Mayak” and “Moskvityanin”, according to which Lermontov cut his Pechorin according to the Western model and imposed him on the tastes of Russian society. Chernyshevsky acted in his criticism as an uncompromising defender classic images heroes of time.

In a dispute with Dudyshkin about the “ideals” of Turgenev’s work, Chernyshevsky in 1857 recognized, albeit with reservations, the existence of the gallery: Onegin was replaced by Pechorin, Pechorin by Beltov, and these types, as Chernyshevsky pointed out, were followed by Rudin.

Only in the article "Russian man onrendez-vous" ("Russian man at a rendezvous") (1858) Regarding Turgenev’s “Asia,” Chernyshevsky showed an example of not only aesthetic flair, but also a systematic understanding of the entire problem: he brought the hero of “Asia” under the ready-made Onegin and Rudinsky type. Some of the critics then argued that the character of the hero was not consistent. But, alas: “this is the sad dignity... of the story,” said Chernyshevsky, “that the character of the hero is true to our society.” And so Chernyshevsky began to draw a pedigree himself. extra people", which he previously denied. In Turgenev's Faust, the worthless hero tries to “encourage” himself by the fact that he and his beloved Vera must renounce each other. It’s almost the same in “Rudin”: offended by the hero’s cowardice, the girl turns away from him. The hero of Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha” looks exactly the same type, although Nekrasov’s talent is completely different from Turgenev’s. This coincidence of hero types among different authors was quite remarkable. Let us recall Beltov’s behavior: he also preferred retreat to any decisive step. Chernyshevsky does not name Onegin. But from all the logic of his reasoning it is clear that the noted pattern of type development is one way or another inherent in this hero. “These are our “best people” (i.e. “extra people”) - they are all like our Romeo,” i.e. on the hero from "Asia".

Chernyshevsky is not constructing a new type to replace it. There are still no comparisons of this entire gallery of images with Insarov from “On the Eve”. Later, in the novel “What is to be done?”, Chernyshevsky will dramatically change the very approach to the problem of the hero of time. But in his criticism he focused on what he said in the article about “Ace”. The whole problem of “extra people” was refined by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, who illuminated a fundamentally new meaning of the images of Insarov, Bazarov, Rakhmetov.

But the generality of Chernyshevsky’s formulation of the question is clear from the title of the article: the nobleman is taken as a type, as a person at rendez-vous with his conscience and with society. Chernyshevsky's critical pathos is directed not so much at the hero himself, but at the Russian society that made him like that. This was Chernyshevsky’s favorite technique. He led the reader to the idea of ​​the need to completely replace both the hero of the time and the social order.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky is a prominent public figure of the 19th century. Famous Russian writer, critic, scientist, philosopher, publicist. His most famous work is the novel “What is to be done?”, which had a very great influence on the society of its time. In this article we will talk about the life and work of the author.

Chernyshevsky: biography. Childhood and youth

Born on July 12 (24), 1828 in Saratov. His father was the archpriest of the local Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, came from serf peasants in the village of Chernysheva, and this is where the surname originates. At first he studied at home under the supervision of his father and cousin. The boy also had a French tutor who taught him the language.

In 1846, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky entered St. Petersburg University in the historical and philological department. Already at this time, the circle of interests of the future writer began to take shape, which would later be reflected in his works. The young man studies Russian literature, reads Feuerbach, Hegel, and positivist philosophers. Chernyshevsky realizes that the main thing in human actions is benefit, and not abstract ideas and useless aesthetics. The works of Saint-Simon and Fourier made the greatest impression on him. Their dream of a society where everyone was equal seemed to him quite real and achievable.

After graduating from university in 1850, Chernyshevsky returned to his native Saratov. Here he took the place of a literature teacher at the local gymnasium. He did not at all hide his rebellious ideas from his students and clearly thought more about how to transform the world than about teaching children.

Moving to the capital

In 1853, Chernyshevsky (the writer’s biography is presented in this article) decides to quit teaching and move to St. Petersburg, where he begins a journalistic career. Very quickly he became the most prominent representative of the Sovremennik magazine, where he was invited by N. A. Nekrasov. At the beginning of his collaboration with the publication, Chernyshevsky focused all his attention on the problems of literature, since the political situation in the country did not allow him to speak openly on more pressing topics.

In parallel with his work at Sovremennik, the writer defended his dissertation in 1855 on the topic “Aesthetic relations of art to reality.” In it, he denies the principles of “pure art” and formulates a new view - “the beautiful is life itself.” According to the author, art should serve for the benefit of people, and not exalt itself.

Chernyshevsky develops the same idea in “Essays on the Gogol Period,” published in Sovremennik. In this work, he analyzed the most famous wills of the classics from the point of view of the principles he voiced.

New orders

Chernyshevsky became famous for his unusual views on art. The writer’s biography suggests that he had both supporters and ardent opponents.

With the coming to power of Alexander II, the political situation in the country changed dramatically. And many topics that were previously considered taboo became allowed to be discussed publicly. In addition, the whole country expected reforms and significant changes from the monarch.

Sovremennik, led by Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov and Chernyshevsky, did not stand aside and participated in all political discussions. Chernyshevsky, who was the most active in publishing, tried to express his opinion on any issue. In addition, he reviewed literary works, evaluating them from the point of view of their usefulness to society. In this regard, Fet suffered greatly from his attacks, and was eventually forced to leave the capital.

However, the news of the liberation of the peasants received the greatest resonance. Chernyshevsky himself perceived the reform as the beginning of even more serious changes. What I often wrote and spoke about.

Arrest and exile

Chernyshevsky's creativity led to his arrest. It happened on June 12, 1862, the writer was taken into custody and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. He was accused of drawing up a proclamation entitled “Bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers.” This view was handwritten and delivered to a person who turned out to be a provocateur.

Another reason for the arrest was a letter from Herzen intercepted by the secret police, in which a proposal was made to publish the banned Sovremennik in London. In this case, Chernyshevsky acted as an intermediary.

The investigation into the case lasted a year and a half. The writer did not give up all this time and actively fought with the investigative committee. Protesting against the actions of the secret police, he went on a hunger strike that lasted 9 days. At the same time, Chernyshevsky did not abandon his calling and continued to write. It was here that he wrote the novel “What is to be done?”, later published in parts in Sovremennik.

The verdict was handed down to the writer on February 7, 1864. It reported that Chernyshevsky was sentenced to 14 years of hard labor, after which he would have to settle permanently in Siberia. However, Alexander II personally reduced the time of hard labor to 7 years. In total, the writer spent more than 20 years in prison.

For 7 years, Chernyshevsky was transferred from one prison to another more than once. He visited the Nerchinsk penal servitude, the Kadai and Akatuysk prisons and the Alexandria Plant, where the house-museum named after the writer is still preserved.

After completing hard labor, in 1871, Chernyshevsky was sent to Vilyuysk. Three years later, he was officially offered release, but the writer refused to write a petition for pardon.

Views

Chernyshevsky's philosophical views throughout his life were sharply rebellious. The writer can be called a direct follower of the Russian revolutionary-democratic school and progressive Western philosophy, especially social utopians. His passion for Hegel during his university years led to criticism of the idealistic views of Christianity and liberal morality, which the writer considered “slave.”

Chernyshevsky's philosophy is called monistic and is associated with anthropological materialism, since he focused on the material world, neglecting spirituality. He was sure that natural needs and circumstances shape a person’s moral consciousness. If all people's needs are satisfied, the personality will flourish and there will be no moral pathologies. But to achieve this, we need to seriously change living conditions, and this is only possible through revolution.

His ethical standards are based on anthropological principles and the concept of rational egoism. Man belongs to the natural world and obeys its laws. Chernyshevsky did not recognize free will, replacing it with the principle of causality.

Personal life

Chernyshevsky got married quite early. The writer’s biography says that this happened in 1853 in Saratov, Olga Sokratovna Vasilyeva became the chosen one. The girl was a great success in local society, but for some reason she preferred the quiet and awkward Chernyshevsky to all her fans. During their marriage, they had two boys.

Chernyshevsky's family lived happily until the writer was arrested. After he was sent to hard labor, Olga Sokratovna visited him in 1866. However, she refused to go to Siberia after her husband - the local climate did not suit her. She lived alone for twenty years. During this time, the beautiful woman had several lovers. The writer did not at all condemn his wife’s connections and even wrote to her that it was harmful for a woman to remain alone for a long time.

Chernyshevsky: facts from life

Here are some notable events from the life of the author:

• Little Nikolai was incredibly well read. For his love of books, he even received the nickname “bibliophage,” that is, “book eater.”
• The censors passed the novel “What Is to Be Done?” without noticing its revolutionary themes.
• In official correspondence and secret police documentation, the writer was called “the enemy Russian Empire number one."
• F. M. Dostoevsky was an ardent ideological opponent of Chernyshevsky and openly argued with him in his “Notes from the Underground.”

Most famous work

Let's talk about the book "What to do?" Chernyshevsky's novel, as noted above, was written during the arrest in the Peter and Paul Fortress (1862-1863). And, in fact, it was a response to Turgenev’s work “Fathers and Sons.”

The writer handed over the finished parts of the manuscript to the investigative commission, which was in charge of his case. Censor Beketov overlooked the political orientation of the novel, for which he was soon removed from office. However, this did not help, since the work had already been published in Sovremennik by that time. Issues of the magazine were banned, but the text had already been rewritten more than once and in this form was distributed throughout the country.

The book “What to do?” became a real revelation for contemporaries. Chernyshevsky's novel instantly became a bestseller, everyone read and discussed it. In 1867, the work was published in Geneva by the Russian emigration. After that, it was translated into English, Serbian, Polish, French and other European languages.

Last years of life and death

In 1883, Chernyshevsky was allowed to move to Astrakhan. By this time he was already a sick man of advanced years. During these years, his son Mikhail begins to work for him. Thanks to his efforts, the writer moved to Saratov in 1889. However, in the same year he falls ill with malaria. The author died on October 17 (29) from a cerebral hemorrhage. He was buried at the Resurrection Cemetery in Saratov.

The memory of Chernyshevsky is still alive. His works continue to be read and studied not only by literary scholars, but also by historians.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Chernyshevsky (Nikolai Gavrilovich) - famous writer. Born on July 12, 1828 in Saratov. His father, Archpriest Gabriel Ivanovich (1795 - 1861), was a very remarkable man. His great intelligence, due to his serious education and knowledge of not only ancient but also new languages, made him an exceptional person in the provincial wilderness; but the most remarkable thing about him was his amazing kindness and nobility. It was the evangelical shepherd in best value a word from which, at a time when it was supposed to treat people harshly for their own good, no one heard anything but words of affection and greetings.

In the school business, which was then entirely based on brutal flogging, he never resorted to any punishment. And at the same time, this kind man was unusually strict and rigoristic in his demands; In communicating with him, the most dissolute people became morally better. Outstanding kindness, purity of soul and detachment from everything petty and vulgar completely passed on to his son. Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, as a person, was a truly bright personality - this is recognized by the worst enemies of his literary activity.

The most enthusiastic reviews of Chernyshevsky as a person belong to two elderly representatives of the clergy, who could not find enough words to characterize the harm of Chernyshevsky’s writings and theories. One of them, a teacher at various Palimpsest seminaries, mentally grieves that this “being with the purest soul” has turned, thanks to his passion for various Western European false teachings, into a “fallen angel”; but at the same time, he categorically declares that Chernyshevsky “really at one time resembled an angel in the flesh.”

Information about Chernyshevsky’s personal qualities is very important for understanding his literary activity; they provide the key to the correct illumination of many aspects of it and, above all, that which is most closely connected with the idea of ​​​​Chernyshevsky - the preaching of utilitarianism. Borrowed from the same exclusively kind person- J. St. Milla - Chernyshevsky’s utilitarianism does not stand up to criticism that does not close its eyes to reality. Chernyshevsky wants to reduce the best movements of our soul to “reasonable” egoism - but this “egoism” is very peculiar. It turns out that a person, acting nobly, acts so not for others, but exclusively for himself. He does well because doing well gives him pleasure. Thus, the matter comes down to a simple dispute over words.

Does it matter what motivates self-sacrifice; The only thing that matters is the desire to sacrifice oneself. In Chernyshevsky’s touchingly naive efforts to convince people that doing well is “not only sublime, but also profitable,” only the high structure of the soul of the preacher of “reasonable egoism,” who understood “profit” in such an original way, was clearly reflected.

Chernyshevsky received his secondary education under particularly favorable conditions - in the quiet of an ideally peaceful family, which included the A.N. family, who lived in the same yard as the Chernyshevskys. Pypin, Nikolai Gavrilovich's cousin on his mother's side. Chernyshevsky was 5 years older than Pypin, but they were very friendly and over the years their friendship grew stronger. Chernyshevsky bypassed the terrible bursa of the pre-reform era and the lower classes, seminaries, and only at the age of 14 did he directly enter high school. He was prepared mainly by his learned father, with some help from the gymnasium teachers.

By the time he entered the seminary, young Chernyshevsky was already extremely well-read and amazed his teachers with his extensive knowledge. His comrades adored him: he was the universal supplier of class essays and a diligent tutor for everyone who turned to him for help. After spending two years at the seminary, Chernyshevsky continued his studies at home and in 1846 went to St. Petersburg, where he entered the university, the Faculty of History and Philology. Chernyshevsky the father had to listen to reproaches about this from some representatives of the clergy: they found that he should have sent his son to the theological academy and not “deprive the church of its future luminary.” At the university, Chernyshevsky diligently studied departmental subjects and was among Sreznevsky’s best students.

On his instructions, he compiled an etymological-syntactic dictionary for the Ipatiev Chronicle, which was later (1853) published in Izvestia of the II Department of the Academy of Sciences. Much more than university subjects, he was fascinated by other interests. The first years of Chernyshevsky's student life were an era of passionate interest in socio-political issues. He was captured by the end of that period in the history of Russian progressive thought, when social utopias coming to us from France in the 1840s in one form or another were reflected to a greater or lesser extent in literature and society (see Petrashevtsy, XXIII, 750 and Russian literature XXVII, 634). Chernyshevsky became a convinced Fourierist and all his life remained faithful to this most dreamy of the doctrines of socialism, with the very significant difference that Fourierism was rather indifferent to political questions, to questions about the forms of state life, while Chernyshevsky attached great importance to them.

Chernyshevsky’s worldview also differs from Fourierism in religious matters, in which Chernyshevsky was a free thinker. In 1850, Chernyshevsky graduated from the course as a candidate and went to Saratov, where he received a position as a senior teacher at the gymnasium. Here, by the way, he became very close to Kostomarov, who was exiled to Saratov, and some exiled Poles. During this time, great grief befell him - his dearly beloved mother died; but during the same period of Saratov life, he married his beloved girl (the novel “What to Do,” published ten years later, “is dedicated to my friend O.S.Ch.” that is, Olga Sokratovna Chernyshevskaya). At the end of 1853, thanks to the efforts of an old St. Petersburg acquaintance - the famous teacher Irinarkh Vvedensky, who occupied an influential position in the teaching staff of military educational institutions, Chernyshevsky went to serve in St. Petersburg, as a teacher of the Russian language in the 2nd cadet corps. Here he lasted no more than a year. An excellent teacher, he was not strict enough with his students, who abused his gentleness and, while willingly listening to his interesting stories and explanations, did almost nothing themselves. Because he let the officer on duty calm down the noisy class, Chernyshevsky had to leave the building, and from then on he devoted himself entirely to literature. He began his activity in 1853 with small articles in St. Petersburg Gazette and in Otechestvennye Zapiski, reviews and translations from English, but already at the beginning of 1854 he moved to Sovremennik, where he soon became the head of the magazine. In 1855, Chernyshevsky, who passed the master's exam, presented as a dissertation the following argument: “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” (St. Petersburg, 1855).

At that time, aesthetic issues had not yet acquired the character of socio-political slogans that they acquired in the early 60s, and therefore what later seemed to be the destruction of aesthetics did not arouse any doubts or suspicions among members of the very conservative historical and philological faculty of St. Petersburg University . The dissertation was accepted and allowed to be defended. The master's student successfully defended his theses and the faculty would no doubt have awarded him the required degree, but someone (apparently I.I. Davydov, an “aesthetician” of a very peculiar type) managed to turn the Minister of Public Education A.S. against Chernyshevsky. Norova; he was outraged by the “blasphemous” provisions of the dissertation and the degree was not given to the master’s student. At first, Chernyshevsky's literary activity in Sovremennik was almost entirely devoted to criticism and the history of literature. During 1855 - 1857 A number of extensive historical-critical articles by him appeared, among which the famous “Essays on the Gogol Period”, “Lessing” and articles on Pushkin and Gogol occupy a particularly prominent place. In addition, during these same years, with his characteristic amazing capacity for work and extraordinary literary energy, he gave the magazine a number of smaller critical articles about Pisemsky, Tolstoy, Shchedrin, Benediktov, Shcherbin, Ogarev and others, many dozens of detailed reviews and, in addition, he also wrote monthly “Notes” about magazines." At the end of 1857 and the beginning of 1858, all this literary productivity was directed in a different direction.

With the exception of this (1858) article about Turgenev's "Ace" ("Russian man on rendez-vous") to support the emerging nice magazine "Atheneum", Chernyshevsky now almost leaves the field of criticism and devotes himself entirely to political economy, issues of foreign and domestic policy and partly development of a philosophical worldview. This turn was caused by two circumstances. In 1858, a very critical moment arrived in the preparations for the liberation of the peasants. The government's good desire to liberate the peasants did not weaken, but, under the influence of the strong connections of the reactionary elements of the highest government aristocracy, the reform was in danger of being significantly distorted. It was necessary to defend its implementation on the broadest possible basis. At the same time, it was necessary to defend one principle very dear to Chernyshevsky - communal land ownership, which, with his Fourierist ideal of the joint economic activity of mankind, was especially close to him.

The principle of communal land ownership had to be protected not so much from reactionary elements, but from people who considered themselves progressives - from the bourgeois-liberal “Economic Index” of Professor Vernadsky, from B.N. Chicherin, from Katkovsky’s “Russian Messenger”, who was then in the forefront of the forward camp; and in society, communal land ownership was treated with a certain distrust, because admiration for it came from the Slavophiles. The preparation of radical revolutions in Russian social life and the maturation of a radical change in the socio-political worldview of the majority of the advanced part of our intelligentsia also distracted Chernyshevsky's predominantly journalistic temperament from literary criticism. The years 1858 - 1862 are in the life of Chernyshevsky an era of intensive work on the translation or, rather, reworking of Mill's political economy, equipped with extensive "Notes", as well as on a long series of political, economic and political articles. Among them are: on the land and peasant issues - an article on “Research on the internal relations of people's life and especially rural institutions in Russia” (1857, No. 7); "On land ownership" (1857, No. 9 and 11); an article on Babst’s speech “On some conditions conducive to the increase of the people’s capital” (1857, No. 10); "Response to a letter from a provincial" (1858, No. 3); “Review of measures taken so far (1858) to organize the life of landowner peasants” (1858, No. 1); “Measures taken to limit landowner power during the reign of Empress Catherine II, Alexander I and Nicholas I” (1858, No. 0); "Concerning Mr. Troinitsky's article "On the number of serfs in Russia" (1858, No. 2); "On the need to keep as moderate figures as possible when determining the amount of redemption of estates" (1858, No. 11); "Is redemption of land difficult" (1859, No. 1); a number of reviews, journal articles on the peasant question (1858, No. 2, 3, 5; 1859, No. 1); “Criticism of philosophical prejudices against communal ownership” (1858, No. 12); continuation of the previous article); “Materials for solving the peasant question” (1859, No. 10); “Capital and Labor” (1860, No. 1); “Credit Affairs” (1861, No. 1). 1858, No. 1 and 4); “The Struggle of Parties in France under Louis XVIII and Charles X” (1858, No. 8 and 9); “The Question of Freedom of Journalism in France” (1859, No. 9); No. 10); "The July Monarchy" (1860, No. 1, 2, 5); "Current English Whigs" (1860, No. 12); "Preface to current Austrian affairs" (1861, No. 2); printing" (1862, No. 8). When Sovremennik was allowed to establish a political department, Chernyshevsky wrote monthly political reviews during 1859, 1860, 1861 and the first 4 months of 1862; These reviews often reached 40 - 50 pages. In the last 4 books for 1857 (No. 9 - 12), Chernyshevsky owns “Modern Review”, and in No. 4 for 1862 - “Internal Review”. Only the well-known article belongs to the sphere of Chernyshevsky’s directly philosophical works: “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” (1860, No. 4 and 5). A number of journalistic and polemical articles are of a mixed nature: “G. Chicherin as a publicist” (1859, No. 5), “The laziness of the rude common people” (1860, No. 2); “The Story Because of Mrs. Svechina” (1860, No. 6); “Great-grandfather’s morals” (regarding Derzhavin’s notes, 1860, No. 7 and 8); "New periodicals" ("Osnova" and "Time" 1861, No. 1); "On the causes of the fall of Rome. Imitation of Montesquieu" (regarding Guizot's "History of Civilization in France", 1880, No. 5); “Irrespect for Authority” (on Democracy in America by Tocqueville, 1861, No. 6); "Polemical Beauty" (1860, No. 6 and 7); "National Tactlessness" (1860, No. 7); "Russian Reformer" (about the "Life of Count Speransky" by Baron Korf, 1860, No. 10); “People’s stupidity” (about the newspaper “Den”, 1860, No. 10); "The Self-Proclaimed Elders" (1862, No. 3); "Have you learned?" (1862, no. 4).

No matter how intense this amazingly prolific activity was, Chernyshevsky still would not have left such an important branch of magazine influence as literary criticism if he had not been confident that he had found a person to whom he could calmly transfer the critical department of the magazine. By the end of 1857, if not for the entire reading public, then for Chernyshevsky personally, Dobrolyubov’s paramount talent was revealed in all its magnitude, and he did not hesitate to hand over the critical baton of the leading magazine to a twenty-year-old youth. Thanks to this insight alone, Dobrolyubov’s activity becomes a glorious page in literary biography Chernyshevsky. But in reality, Chernyshevsky’s role in Dobrolyubov’s activities is much more significant. From his communication with Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov drew the validity of his worldview, that scientific foundation, which, despite all his reading, he could not have had at twenty-one, twenty-two years old. When Dobrolyubov died and they began to talk about the enormous influence that Chernyshevsky had on the young critic, he protested against this in a special article (“Expression of Gratitude”), trying to prove that Dobrolyubov followed an independent path in his development simply because of his talent taller than him, Chernyshevsky.

At present, hardly anyone will argue against the latter, unless, of course, we talk about Chernyshevsky’s merits in the field of political and economic issues, where he occupies such a large place. In the hierarchy of the leaders of Russian criticism, Dobrolyubov is undoubtedly higher than Chernyshevsky.

Dobrolyubov still withstands the most terrible of literary tests - the test of time; his critical articles are still read with unflagging interest, which cannot be said about most of Chernyshevsky’s critical articles.

Dobrolyubov, who has just experienced a period of deep mysticism, has incomparably more passion than Chernyshevsky. One feels that he suffered for his new convictions and that is why he excites the reader more than Chernyshevsky, whose main quality is also the deepest conviction, but very clear and calm, given to him without internal struggle, exactly an immutable mathematical formula. Dobrolyubov is literary angrier than Chernyshevsky; No wonder Turgenev said to Chernyshevsky: “You are just a poisonous snake, and Dobrolyubov is a spectacled snake.” In the satirical appendix to Sovremennik - "Whistle", which with its causticity restored all the literary opponents of Sovremennik, more than the magazine itself, Chernyshevsky took almost no part; The dominant role in it was played by Dobrolyubov’s concentrated and passionate wit. In addition to wit, Dobrolyubov has more literary brilliance in general than Chernyshevsky. Nevertheless, the general coloring of the ideological wealth that Dobrolyubov developed with such brilliance in his articles could not but be partly the result of Chernyshevsky’s influence, because from the first day of their acquaintance both writers became extremely attached to each other and saw each other almost every day.

The combined activities of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov gave Sovremennik enormous importance in the history of the progressive movement in Russia. Such a leadership position could not help but create numerous opponents for him; many people watched with extreme hostility the growing influence of the organ of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov on the younger generation. At first, however, the controversy between Sovremennik and other magazines was purely literary, without much aggravation. Russian “progress” was then experiencing its honeymoon, when, with the most insignificant exceptions, all, one might say, intelligent Russia was imbued with a lively desire to move forward and disagreements were only in details, and not in basic feelings and aspirations.

A characteristic expression of this unanimity can be the fact that Chernyshevsky at the end of the 50s was a member of the editorial board of the official Military Collection for about a year. By the beginning of the 60s, the relationship between Russian parties and the unanimity of the progressive movement changed significantly. With the liberation of the peasants and the preparation of most of the “great reforms,” the liberation movement, both in the eyes of the ruling spheres and in the minds of a significant part of the moderate elements of society, became complete; further following the path of changes in the state and social system began to seem unnecessary and dangerous. But the mood, headed by Chernyshevsky, did not consider itself satisfied and moved forward more and more impetuously. At the end of 1861 and the beginning of 1862, the general picture of the political situation changed dramatically. Student unrest broke out at St. Petersburg University, Polish unrest intensified, proclamations calling on youth and peasants to revolt appeared, terrible St. Petersburg fires occurred, in which, without the slightest reason, but very persistently they saw a connection with the emergence of revolutionary sentiments among young people. The good-natured attitude towards extreme elements has completely disappeared. In May 1862, Sovremennik was closed for 8 months, and on June 12, 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he spent about 2 years. The Senate sentenced Chernyshevsky to 14 years of hard labor. In the final confirmation the period was reduced to 7 years. On May 13, 1864, the verdict was announced to Chernyshevsky on Mytninskaya Square.

The name of Chernyshevsky almost disappears from the press; before his return from exile, he was usually spoken of descriptively, as the author of “Essays on the Gogol Period” or the author of “The Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality,” etc. In 1865, the 2nd edition of “The Aesthetic Relation of Art to Reality” was authorized. , but without the name of the author ("edition by A.N. Pypin"), and in 1874 Mill's "Foundations of Political Economy" was published, also as "edition by A.N. Pypin", without the name of the translator and without "Notes". Chernyshevsky spent the first 3 years of his stay in Siberia in Kadai, on the Mongolian border, and then was installed at the Aleksandrovsky plant in the Nerchinsk district. During his stay in Kadai, he was allowed a three-day visit with his wife and 2 young sons.

Life for Chernyshevsky in material terms was not particularly difficult, because political prisoners at that time did not carry out real hard labor. Chernyshevsky was not constrained either in relations with other prisoners (Mikhailov, Polish rebels) or in walks; at one time he even lived in a separate house. He read and wrote a lot, but he immediately destroyed everything he wrote. At one time, performances were staged at the Aleksandrovsky Plant and Chernyshevsky composed short plays for them. “The common prisoners didn’t like them much, or rather, they didn’t even like them at all: Chernyshevsky was too serious for them” (Scientific Review, 1899, 4). In 1871, the term of hard labor ended and Chernyshevsky had to move into the category of settlers, who were given the opportunity to choose their place of residence within Siberia. The then chief of gendarmes, Count P.A. Shuvalov, however, entered with an idea about Chernyshevsky’s settlement in Vilyuysk.

This was a significant worsening of his fate, because the climate at the Aleksandrovsky plant is moderate, and Chernyshevsky lived there in communication with intelligent people, and Vilyuisk lies 450 miles beyond Yakutsk, in the harshest climate, and in 1871 had only 40 buildings. Chernyshevsky's society in Vilyuisk was limited to a few Cossacks assigned to him. Chernyshevsky's stay in such a place remote from the civilized world was painful; nevertheless, he worked actively on various works and translations. In 1883, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count D.A. Tolstoy petitioned for the return of Chernyshevsky, who was assigned Astrakhan for residence. In exile, he lived on funds that, according to his humblest needs, were sent to him by Nekrasov and his closest relatives. In 1885, the last period of Chernyshevsky’s activity began.

During this time, Chernyshevsky gave little that was original, not counting the prefaces to Weber’s “World History”: an article in “Russian Gazette” (1885): “The Character of Human Knowledge”, a long poem from ancient Carthaginian life, “Hymn to the Virgin of Heaven”, which was least sparkling with poetic merits "("Russian Thought", 1885, 7) and a large article signed with the pseudonym "Old Transformist" (all other works and translations of the Astrakhan period were signed with the pseudonym Andreev) - "The Origin of the Theory of Beneficence of the Struggle for Life" ("Russian Thought", 1888, No. 9). The article by “The Old Transformist” attracted attention and struck many with its manner: it was strange in its dismissive and mocking attitude towards Darwin and the reduction of Darwin’s theory to a bourgeois fiction created to justify the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Some, however, saw in this article the former Chernyshevsky, accustomed to subordinating all interests, including purely scientific ones, to the goals of the struggle for social ideals. In 1885, friends arranged for Chernyshevsky at the famous publisher and philanthropist K.T. Soldatenkova translation of Weber's 15-volume General History. Chernyshevsky carried out this enormous work with amazing energy, translating 3 volumes a year, each 1000 pages long.

Until Volume V, Chernyshevsky translated literally, but then he began to make large cuts in Weber’s text, which he generally did not like very much for its outdatedness and narrow German point of view. To replace what had been thrown out, he began to add, in the form of prefaces, a series of ever-expanding essays: “about the spelling of Muslim and, in particular, Arabic names”, “about races”, “about the classification of people by language”, “about the differences between peoples according to national character", "general character elements that produce progress", "climates". To the 2nd edition of the first volume of Weber, which quickly followed the first, Chernyshevsky attached "an outline of scientific concepts about the emergence of the conditions of human life and the course of human development in prehistoric times." In Astrakhan, Chernyshevsky managed to translate 11 volumes of Weber. In June 1889, at the request of the then Astrakhan governor, Prince L.D. Vyazemsky, he was allowed to settle in his native Saratov. There he began to work on Weber with the same energy, and managed to translate 2/3 of the XII volume. that the translation was coming to an end, I began to think about a new grandiose translation - the 16-volume "Encyclopedic Dictionary" of Brockhaus. But excessive work strained the senile body, whose nutrition was very poor, due to an exacerbation of Chernyshevsky's long-standing illness - catarrh of the stomach. Chernyshevsky died of a cerebral hemorrhage on the night of October 16-17, 1889. His death significantly contributed to the restoration of the correct attitude towards him. The press of various trends paid tribute to his extensive and amazingly versatile education, his brilliant literary talent and the extraordinary beauty of his moral being.

In the recollections of people who saw Chernyshevsky in Astrakhan, what is most emphasized is his amazing simplicity and deep disgust for everything that even remotely resembled a pose. They tried to talk to him more than once about the suffering he had endured, but always to no avail: he claimed that he had not suffered any special trials. In the 1890s, the ban on Chernyshevsky's works was partially lifted. Without the name of the author, as “publications by M.N. Chernyshevsky” (his youngest son), 4 collections of aesthetic, critical and historical-literary articles by Chernyshevsky appeared: “Aesthetics and Poetry” (St. Petersburg, 1893); "Notes on modern literature"(St. Petersburg, 1894); "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature" (St. Petersburg, 1890) and "Critical articles" (St. Petersburg, 1895). About the first of significant work Chernyshevsky - “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” - the opinion is still held that it is the basis and the first manifestation of that “destruction of aesthetics”, which reached its climax in the articles of Pisrev, Zaitsev and others. This opinion has no basis. Chernyshevsky’s treatise cannot be considered one of the “destruction of aesthetics” because he always cares about “true” beauty, which - rightly or wrongly, this is another question - he sees mainly in nature, and not in art.

For Chernyshevsky, poetry and art are not nonsense: he only sets them the task of reflecting life, and not “fantastic flights.” The dissertation undoubtedly makes a strange impression on the later reader, but not because it supposedly seeks to abolish art, but because it asks completely fruitless questions: what is higher in aesthetic terms - art or reality, and where is it more common? true beauty- in works of art or in living nature. Here the incomparable is compared: art is something completely original, the main role in it is played by the artist’s attitude towards what is being reproduced. The polemical formulation of the question in the dissertation was a reaction against the one-sidedness of German aesthetics of the 40s, with their disdainful attitude towards reality and their assertion that the ideal of beauty is abstract. The search for ideological art that permeated the dissertation was only a return to the traditions of Belinsky, who already from 1841 - 1842. had a negative attitude toward “art for art’s sake” and also considered art one of the “moral activities of man.” The best commentary on any aesthetic theories is always their practical application to specific literary phenomena. What is Chernyshevsky in his critical activity? First of all, an enthusiastic apologist for Lessing.

About Lessing’s “Laocoon” - this aesthetic code with which they always tried to beat our “destroyers of aesthetics” - Chernyshevsky says that “since the time of Aristotle, no one understood the essence of poetry as truly and deeply as Lessing.” At the same time, of course, Chernyshevsky is especially fascinated by the militant nature of Lessing’s activities, his struggle with old literary traditions, the harshness of his polemics and, in general, the mercilessness with which he cleared the Augean stables of his contemporary German literature. Of utmost importance for understanding Chernyshevsky’s literary and aesthetic views are his articles about Pushkin, written in the same year when his dissertation appeared.

Chernyshevsky's attitude towards Pushkin is downright enthusiastic. “Pushkin’s creations, which created new Russian literature, formed new Russian poetry,” according to the deep conviction of the critic, “will live forever.” “Being neither primarily a thinker nor a scientist, Pushkin was a man of extraordinary intelligence and an extremely educated person; not only for thirty years, but even now in our society there are few people equal to Pushkin in education.” “Pushkin’s artistic genius is so great and beautiful that, although the era of unconditional satisfaction with pure form has passed for us, we still cannot help but be carried away by the wondrous, artistic beauty of his creations. He is the true father of our poetry.” Pushkin “was not a poet of any specific view of life, like Byron, nor was he even a poet of thought in general, like, for example, Goethe and Schiller. The artistic form of “Faust,” “Wallenstein,” or “Childe Harold” arose for this purpose so that it expresses a deep view of life; we will not find this in Pushkin’s works. For him, artistry is not just one shell, but the grain and the shell together.” To characterize Chernyshevsky’s attitude to poetry, his short article about Shcherbin (1857) is also very important. Whether the literary legend about Chernyshevsky as a “destroyer of aesthetics” is at all true, Shcherbina is this typical representative of “pure beauty”, completely lost in ancient Hellas and the contemplation of her nature and art - least of all could I count on his good disposition.

In reality, however, Chernyshevsky, declaring that Shcherbina’s “antique manner” is “unsympathetic” to him, nevertheless welcomes the approval met by the poet: “if the poet’s imagination, due to subjective conditions of development, was overflowing with ancient images, from the abundance of the heart the lips should have spoken, and Mr. Shcherbina is right in front of his talent." In general, “autonomy is the supreme law of art,” and “the supreme law of poetry: preserve the freedom of your talent, poet.” Analyzing Shcherbina's "iambs", in which "the thought is noble, alive, modern", the critic is dissatisfied with them, because in them "the thought is not embodied in a poetic image; it remains a cold maxim, it is outside the realm of poetry." The desire of Rosenheim and Benediktov to join the spirit of the times and sing the praises of “progress” did not arouse in Chernyshevsky, as well as in Dobrolyubov, the slightest sympathy. Chernyshevsky remains a zealot of artistic criteria in his analyzes of the works of our novelists and playwrights. He, for example, was very strict about Ostrovsky’s comedy “Poverty is not a vice” (1854), although in general he highly regarded Ostrovsky’s “wonderful talent.”

Recognizing that “works that are false in their main idea are weak even in a purely artistic sense,” the critic highlights “the author’s disregard for the requirements of art.” Among the best critical articles of Chernyshevsky is a small note (1856) about “Childhood and Adolescence” and “War Stories” by Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy is one of those few writers who immediately received universal recognition and correct assessment; but only Chernyshevsky noticed in Tolstoy’s very first works the extraordinary “purity of moral feeling.”

His article on Shchedrin is very characteristic of determining the general physiognomy of Chernyshevsky’s critical activity: he deliberately avoids discussing the socio-political issues that the “Provincial Sketches” suggest, focusing all his attention on the “purely psychological side of the types represented by Shchedrin,” trying to show that in themselves, by their nature, Shchedrin’s heroes are not moral monsters at all: they became morally unsightly people because they did not see any examples of true morality in the environment. Chernyshevsky’s famous article: “A Russian man at a rendez-vous,” dedicated to Turgenev’s “Asa,” entirely refers to those articles “about” where almost nothing is said about the work itself, and all attention is focused on the social conclusions associated with the work. The main creator of this type of journalistic criticism in our literature is Dobrolyubov, in his articles about Ostrovsky, Goncharov and Turgenev; but if we take into account that the aforementioned articles by Dobrolyubov date back to 1859 and 1860, and Chernyshevsky’s article to 1858, then Chernyshevsky will also have to be included among the creators of journalistic criticism. But, as already noted in the article about Dobrolyubov, journalistic criticism has nothing in common with the requirement of journalistic art falsely attributed to it.

Both Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov demand from work of art only one thing - the truth, and then this truth is used to draw conclusions public importance. The article about “Ace” is devoted to clarifying that in the absence of a social life in our country, only such flabby natures as the hero of Turgenev’s story can be developed. Best illustration to the fact that, applying to literary works Chernyshevsky's journalistic method of studying their content does not at all require a tendentious depiction of reality; one of his last (end of 1861) critical articles on the stories of Nikolai Uspensky can serve as an example.

It would seem that the stories of Nikolai Uspensky, depicting the people in a very unattractive way, should have aroused an unpleasant feeling in such an ardent democrat as Chernyshevsky. In fact, Chernyshevsky warmly welcomes Uspensky precisely because he “writes the truth about the people without any embellishment.” He sees no reason to “conceal the truth from oneself for the sake of the peasant title” and protests against “the insipid deceit that is increasingly idealizing peasants.” Chernyshevsky's critical articles contain many beautiful pages, which reflect both his brilliant literary talent and his great mind.

But in general, neither criticism nor aesthetics were his vocation. In “Polemical Beauty” (1861), Chernyshevsky himself reports that since he devoted himself to studying economic issues at the beginning of 1858, he completely lagged behind current journalism and did not even read the “Russian Bulletin” (at that time, along with Sovremennik, our main magazine). Literature in the direct sense of the word did not completely captivate Chernyshevsky. This explains the fact that the historical and literary studies adjacent to Chernyshevsky’s critical articles are much more interesting and valuable. Speaking about the history of literature, Chernyshevsky has the opportunity to talk about public moods, about patterns of social life, about philosophical systems, about historical perspectives - and here he is at home. Among Chernyshevsky’s historical and literary studies, the leading place is occupied by “Essays on the Gogol Period.” This is a truly wonderful book, which is still read with benefit and pleasure. In relation to the development and understanding of the course of the history of modern Russian literature, the "Essays" occupy the same position as Belinsky's articles - in relation to the history of our literature of the 18th and first third of the 19th centuries.

When Chernyshevsky began his task - to give an outline of the development of literary concepts that culminated in the activities of Belinsky - it was still yesterday and it had never occurred to anyone to systematize such recent events. The more difficult was the task of Chernyshevsky, who had to lay the first clearings and set guiding milestones. His main goal was to restore and strengthen the disappearing memory of Belinsky, whose articles were buried in old magazines. Previously, Chernyshevsky had to recreate a series literary portraits the same way through the most tedious study of old magazines. Even less, of course, did Chernyshevsky have at his disposal the materials to reconstruct the spiritual appearance of Belinsky, not counting the oral stories of Annenkov.

Belinsky’s activity was developed somewhat one-sidedly by Chernyshevsky: Belinsky was taken mainly from the last period, when he demanded that art respond to the demands of life. The episode of conservative glorification of “reasonable reality” is touched upon fleetingly; The era of purely aesthetic demands from art is developed with less detail. In general, however, Chernyshevsky gave a broad and exciting picture of the mental movement of which Belinsky was the exponent. Chernyshevsky the publicist in all the splendor of this true calling was reflected mainly in his political and economic activities. Below is an outline of Chernyshevsky’s economic ideas and their significance in the history of criticism of the modern economic system is determined; here, to characterize Chernyshevsky as a journalist, it should be noted that if he showed remarkable strength in the field of economics, purely scientific analysis, then this happened somehow by itself, due to the properties of his large, broadly generalizing and subtly dissecting mind and sincere in his desire to help distressed hearts. literary writer Chernyshevsky utopian

The source of Chernyshevsky’s economic works is not in scientific aspirations, but in purely journalistic ones, that is, in the desire to illuminate the current topic of the day in a certain way. Journal notes, political reviews, philosophical, economic, political articles - all of this has one goal: to discredit the bourgeois system, the bourgeois worldview, bourgeois public and political figures. He was alien to the tenderness that gripped people of the older literary generation - the “gradualists” of the 40s - at the sight of a sincere desire for serious reforms. He could not be satisfied with what seemed to him to be the minimum of civil rights that were provided by the reforms being prepared: peasant and judicial. Hence the mocking attitude towards Russian “progress”, which plunged even Herzen into bewilderment; hence the ridicule of the luminaries of Western European liberalism - Thiers, Guizot, Tocqueville, Jules-Simon and others.

For Chernyshevsky, an ardent admirer of Louis Blanc, these were people who were in one way or another connected with the politics of Louis Philippe and the June days of 1848. Even in the haloed “liberator” of Italy Cavour, Chernyshevsky saw only a man who was at enmity with the socialist Garibaldi. Chernyshevsky remains the same militant publicist who does not know the middle in the sphere of philosophical questions, which occupied him only insofar as he saw in them a means of counteracting the strengthening of the existing system. Historically established theogonic ideas seemed to him a particularly important obstacle to achieving universal happiness. It was impossible to directly enter into a fight with them, so he tried to put forward an “anthropological principle,” that is, purely human, real ideas, which are based not on supersensible principles, but on properties common to all matter.

In the article “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy,” Chernyshevsky is the most decisive adherent of the materialism of Feuerbach, Buchner and other representatives of this teaching, which in Europe was then experiencing the time of its greatest dominance. The extreme materialism of the “Anthropological Principle” was not slow to cause protests, even from P.L. Lavrova.

However, the article was not immediately noted in the general press. The young professor of philosophy Yurkevich was the first to respond in the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”. Respecting Chernyshevsky's merits as a talented journalist, and at the same time taking the point of view of philosophical and theological idealism, Yurkevich tried to show the precocity and unfoundedness of Chernyshevsky's generalizations. Hidden away in a little-read special organ, Yurkevich's article would have gone unnoticed if Katkov had not retrieved it from there.

He reprinted in "Russian Bulletin", with the greatest praise, the most significant passages from Yurkevich's article, providing them with a sarcastic introduction. The attack on Chernyshevsky was swift; to retort him, Chernyshevsky burst out with “Polemical Beauties”, the first part of which is dedicated to the “Russian Messenger”, and the second to the “Notes of the Fatherland”, which also took Yurkevich’s side. The enemies of Chernyshevsky's literary activity considered and still consider "Polemical Beauties" to be Herculean pillars of vulgar harshness and "unceremoniousness." Indeed, "Polemical Beauties" is not free from vulgarity; but a reservation must be made regarding their harshness. Undoubtedly, the author is harsh and does not hesitate to directly state that Grot’s article on the Academy of Sciences is “indecent”, that Buslaev should not imitate Yakov Grimm, because “after all, Yakov Grimm, whatever he may be, is still a very great man mind,” etc. But in this harshness there is not even a shadow of that personal element, that personal irritation and personal squabbles with which literary dispute is discredited.

As for unceremoniousness, if we look at the matter solely from a formal point of view, there is also a lot of it in Polemical Beauties. Chernyshevsky, for example, directly stated that he not only had not read Yurkevich, but also would not read it, because he was sure in advance that it was something like those student “problems” that are given to seminarians of the philosophical class for exercise and which he himself wrote in abundance , when I studied at the Saratov seminary. However, the psychological reason for this much sensational episode from the literary history of the 60s did not lie in “rudeness.” Chernyshevsky knew how to treat his opponents with complete respect.

Thus, he polemicized with Slavophiles with complete restraint, not only in articles of 1856 - 1858; in the year of the appearance of "Polemical Beauties" he treated with complete respect the "Time" of Dostoevsky and Apollo Grigoriev. And in “Polemical Beauties” there are many personal compliments addressed to those very journalists and scientists whose ideas he polemicized with - Katkov, Albertini, Buslaev, Dudyshkin. The whole point is that the ideas of the “Anthropological Principle” seemed to Chernyshevsky to such an extent unshakable and true on their pedestal of exact knowledge that the objections that came from the theological academy seemed childish to him, and he quite sincerely offered Yurkevich several good books to familiarize him with "to the last bell of philosophy." Chernyshevsky was deeply convinced that only thoughtlessness and unfamiliarity with the conclusions of the new free European thought set out in the “Anthropological Principle” could keep people in the camp of “scholasticism” and “metaphysics”. In this deep confidence of Chernyshevsky there is both the strength and weakness of both Chernyshevsky himself and the movement that took place under his influence: strength, because it was no longer just a “direction” that was being created, but a kind of new religion that inspired the fight against concepts hostile to it ; weakness, because the war with “abstraction” and “metaphysics” led to the other extreme - to a very elementary clarity, devoid of depth and thoughtfulness. For a follower of Chernyshevsky there are no difficult problems, neither philosophical nor moral - therefore, there is no that burning struggle of doubts, in the crucible of which all the great seekers of truth tempered their spirit.

The optimistic belief that everything in the world can be arranged “very easily” with good will forms the basis of the semi-utopian novel “What is to be done” (1862-1863), which was the final chord of Chernyshevsky’s literary activity. In a purely artistic sense, the novel is so weak that from this aspect there is no need to talk about it in any serious way. The author himself, in one of his conversations with an “insightful reader,” directly states: “I don’t have a shadow of artistic talent.” If, however, we compare “What is to be done” with other social utopias, then Chernyshevsky’s novel is not entirely devoid of literary merits.

It is readable without boredom, and the image of the heroine’s mother cannot be denied a certain relief. As an economist, Chernyshevsky occupies an outstanding place in Russian literature. Belonging in his views to the school of the so-called utopian socialists, he sharply criticized the main provisions of the “Manchester” school of political economy that was dominant in his time, always remaining an independent, original thinker. Using an extremely imperfect “hypothetical” method, he nevertheless came to discoveries with which he anticipated many of the conclusions of the creators of scientific socialism, who published their main works at a time when Chernyshevsky’s literary activity had already ceased.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

A brief sketch of the life, stages of personal and creative development of the famous Russian writer N.G. Chernyshevsky. The beginning and stages of the literary activity of this author, analysis of the themes and content of outstanding works, place in world literature.

presentation, added 05/13/2015


Hermit life. Passionate attraction to literary activity. The first period of literary activity. "Crime and Punishment". Life abroad. "The Brothers Karamazov". The extensive literary heritage of Dostoevsky.

abstract, added 11/28/2006


Study of the main periods of life and work of N.G. Chernyshevsky. Analysis of the writer’s concept of reasonable egoism, built on an anthropological principle in the work “Anthropological Principle in Philosophy.” Exploring the concept of positive love.

course work, added 08/13/2012


Tolstoy's childhood and youth, education. The beginning of literary activity, the main hobbies of the future writer. Pedagogical activity of Tolstoy, arrangement of the Yasnaya Polyana school. The flowering of creativity, the greatest works.

presentation, added 11/07/2012


Depiction of the images of “vulgar people” and “special person” in Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” Development of the theme of the troubles of Russian life in the works of Chekhov. Celebrating Wealth spiritual world, morality and romanticism in Kuprin’s works.

abstract, added 06/20/2010


What is positivism? The place of positivism in Russian social thought of the 19th century. the fate of positivism and its significance for Russia. The problem of the formation of Chernyshevsky’s positivist views. Implementation of philosophical positivist doctrines.

thesis, added 09/20/2007


The idea and concept of the work. The birth, ideological and thematic originality of the epic novel. The characters of the main characters and their evolution. The novel "War and Peace" and its characters in the assessments of literary criticism, the opinions of various writers and critics about the work.

course work, added 12/02/2010


Genres of literary criticism. Literary-critical activity of A.V. Lunacharsky and M. Gorky. Features of the author's narration. Periodical literary critical publications. Problems of covering national literatures in Russian criticism of the twentieth century.

course work, added 05/24/2016


History of the utopian genre in the world and Russian literature. Traditions of utopian ideas about the state. Comparison of the texts of Chernyshevsky's novels "What is to be done?" and Zamyatin’s “We” to identify differences in the role of the state in the presented works.

course work, added 02/17/2009


Definition literary fairy tale. The difference between a literary fairy tale and science fiction. Features of the literary process in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. Tales of Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky. Fairy tale for children Yu.K. Olesha "Three Fat Men". Analysis of children's fairy tales by E.L. Schwartz.

The method created by V.G. Belinsky, developed in the work of his followers mainly along the path of deepening his central provisions about the connection between literature and reality, about the social functions of literature. This allowed real criticism to strengthen the tools for analyzing text and the literary process, and significantly bring together literary and social issues in its critical practice. At the same time, literature became increasingly dependent on extraliterary goals (social enlightenment and social struggle), the sovereignty and specificity of art was questioned, and aesthetic criteria were removed from criticism.

This dynamic of the method was most facilitated by the social situation of the mid-19th century - the social movement of the 1850s and 60s, the abolition of serfdom, the activation of the public and the highly politicized social life of that time. It is also significant that under conditions of censorship, political journalism and party ideology were forced to mix with literary criticism and existed immanently within its composition. Almost all representatives of “real” criticism supported the ideas of revolutionary democracy and corresponding social movements.

The features of real criticism at the mature stage of its development can be discovered by comparing the criticism of N.G. Chernyshevsky and V.G. Belinsky:

1) If V.G. Belinsky demanded from the writer a living involvement in reality, then, according to Chernyshevsky, art serves reality, responds to its requests and needs.

2) Presentation by V.G. Belinsky about genius subjectivity, in which the specificity of art is reflected, develops into the category of a subjectively constructed ideal. The ideal, however, was thought of in nature-defined, that is, objective contours - this is the “natural” state of man and the human world, given by nature - “reason, universal labor, collectivism, goodness, freedom of each and everyone.” Thus, real criticism (in the model of N.G. Chernyshevsky and his direct followers) considers it good to give objectivity to art, to moderate or exclude subjectivity, the individuality of the creative act.

3) If V.G. Belinsky spoke about the non-partisan nature of literature and found the specificity of literature in pathos, and not in the idea, then Chernyshevsky finds it precisely in the idea, believing that artistry is a true, progressive idea.

4) Chernyshevsky sees the correct aesthetic attitude not as the transformation of the material of reality, but as the copying of reality. Even typification, according to Chernyshevsky, is not the subjective work of the writer: the life patterns themselves are already “naturally” quite typical.

5) If V.G. Belinsky did not envision the participation of art in politics, but according to N.G. Chernyshevsky, - it must express a specific social idea, directly participate in the social struggle.

Chernyshevsky's fundamental historical and literary works are based on a primary interest in “external” literary phenomena, processes connecting literary literature with social and literary life.

« Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature"(1855-1856) can be considered as the first major development of the history of Russian criticism of 1830-1840. Positively assessing the work of Nadezhdin and N. Polevoy, Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who, according to the author of the cycle, outlined the true routes for the progressive development of Russian artistic literature. Chernyshevsky, following Belinsky, recognizes the critical image of Russian life as the key to literary and social progress in Russia, taking Gogol’s work as the standard for such an attitude to reality. Chernyshevsky certainly places the author of “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” higher than Pushkin, and the main criterion for comparison becomes the idea of ​​​​the social effectiveness of the writers’ creativity. The optimistic faith in social progress characteristic of Chernyshevsky forced him to see processes of progressive development in literature.

Responding in 1857 for the publication of “Provincial Sketches”, the critic gives Shchedrin the palm in the matter of literary denunciation: in his opinion, the aspiring writer surpassed Gogol in the mercilessness of his sentences

and generality of characteristics. The desire to demonstrate changes in social needs can also explain Chernyshevsky’s harsh attitude

to the moderate liberal ideology that arose in the 1840s: the journalist believed that a sober and critical understanding of reality modern stage is not enough, it is necessary to take specific actions aimed at improving the conditions of public life. These views found expression in the famous

article "Russian man at rendez-vous"(1858), which is also noteworthy from the point of view of Chernyshevsky’s critical methodology. Turgenev’s short story “Asya” became the reason for large-scale journalistic generalizations by the critic, which were not intended to reveal author's intention. In the image of the main character of the story Chernyshevsky

I saw a representative of the common type of “best people” who, like Rudin or Agarin (the hero of Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”), have high moral virtues, but are incapable of decisive actions. As a result, these heroes look "more trashy than a notorious scoundrel." However, the deep revealing

the pathos of the article is directed not against individuals, but against reality,

which produces such people.