Chernyshevsky critical articles. Nikolaev P

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 "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality". In 1855-1856, on the pages of Sovremennik, he published Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature. This essay was supposed to be in two parts, and in it a characterization of the literary movement of the 30-50s was to occupy a significant place. But Chernyshevsky managed to create only the first part, devoted to the history of criticism of the "Gogol period"; in passing arguments, he also touched on the works of art of this period.

In the article "On Sincerity in Criticism" and some works, Chernyshevsky outlined his critical code, continuing V.G. Belinsky: he ridiculed "evasive" criticism and developed his own understanding of "direct", principled, high-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, no less important economic problems at that time, entrusting the department of criticism in Sovremennik to N. Dobrolyubov.

Chernyshevsky outlined his materialistic aesthetics as a system, opposing it to idealist systems. Three circumstances compelled him to do this: the internal consistency of his own materialistic thought, the systematic nature of Belinsky's revived heritage, 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 had arisen.

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

Chernyshevsky comprehensively analyzed the basic formula of idealistic aesthetics: "The beautiful is the perfect correspondence, the perfect identity of the idea with the image." This formula was born in the bosom of idealistic aesthetics, mainly of the Hegelian school, and follows from the following idealistic thesis: the whole world is the embodiment of an absolute idea, the idea in its development goes through a number of stages, the area of ​​spiritual activity is subject to the law of ascent from direct contemplation to pure thinking. According to Hegel, the naive stage of contemplation is art, followed by religion, and the most mature stage of spiritual activity is philosophy. The beautiful is the sphere of art, it is the result of the apparent identity of the idea and the image, their complete coincidence in a separate object. In fact, say the idealists, 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 a concrete image, and for developed thinking there is not an illusory beauty, but only an 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 images of base empiricism in order to appear to the world.

Proclaiming "beautiful is life", Chernyshevsky took life in all the boundlessness of its manifestations, in the meaning of the joy of being ("better to live than not to live"). He interpreted life in its social and class manifestations. Chernyshevsky showed that there are different ideas about beauty among the peasants and the masters. For example, the beauty of a rural girl and a secular young lady. He put forward the class principle of understanding the problem of beauty.

Chernyshevsky clearly sympathizes with the ideas of beauty that the naive consciousness of the working peasantry has developed, but supplements them with ideas about the "mind and heart" that are formed in the enlightened consciousness of leaders of the revolutionary democratic direction. As a result of the fusion of these two principles, Chernyshevsky's position on beauty received a materialistic interpretation.

The idealists introduced the categories of the sublime, the comic, and the tragic into their doctrine of the beautiful. 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 order), and the subject or hero, active and strong-willed by nature, violated this order, collided with it, suffered and died. But his work, cleansed of individual limitations, did not disappear; it entered as an integral element into the general life. .

Chernyshevsky refuted the fatalism of the theory of the hero's tragic fate. 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 there is only a chain of causes and a correlation of forces. If the hero realizes that he is right, then even a hard 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. In this statement one senses the optimism of a true revolutionary fighter.

Chernyshevsky rightly pointed out that "one should not limit the sphere of art to one beautiful", that "the general interest in life is the content of art." Idealists clearly confused the formal beginning 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 yet another purpose - to give an "explanation of life", to be a "textbook of life." Such is the intrinsic quality of art itself. The artist cannot, even if he wanted to, refuse to pronounce his judgment on the phenomena depicted: "this sentence is expressed in his work."

The purpose of art, according to N.G. Chernyshevsky, consists in reproducing reality, in explaining it and in judging it. Chernyshevsky not only returned to the ideas of Belinsky, but also significantly enriched materialist aesthetics with the requirements arising from the very essence of art and the specific conditions of literary life in the 1950s and 1960s. Of particular importance was the thesis of a "sentence" on life. This was something new that Chernyshevsky introduced into the problem of the tendentiousness of art.

But there are also simplifications in Chernyshevsky's dissertation. He argued: art is secondary, and reality is primary (“above” art). However, Chernyshevsky's comparison of images of art with living objects is not carried out in the sense in which art is related to life as a "second reality". Chernyshevsky recognizes for art only the right of a medium of information, commentary, "a surrogate for reality." Even the expression "textbook of life", although true in principle, has a narrow meaning: a guide to life, an abbreviated presentation of it. In those cases where Chernyshevsky speaks of typification, generalization in art, he recognizes the primacy and superiority of the "typification" inherent in elemental life itself, and art leaves only a judgment, a sentence over reality. But this quality generally follows from the ability of a person to judge everything around him. Where is the special form of judgment in art? Chernyshevsky does not speak of bare tendentiousness, but he also does not say that art affects a person through its images and the general tone, the pathos of the work. The true idea of ​​the objectivity of beauty and the typical is simplified by Chernyshevsky, since he diminishes the importance of typification, of revealing in the chaos of accidents what is natural and necessary. He also underestimated the role of the creative imagination, the artistic form in art.

Chernyshevsky believed that, although a judgment about reality is part of the intention of the writer, he still does not rise to the generalizations of a scientist, and a work of art - to a scientific work. According to Chernyshevsky, the only difference is that history, for example, speaks of the life of mankind and the life of society, while art speaks of the individual life of a 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 an environment that is “more spectacular” and even more befitting of its essence than an ordinary real environment. You can choose a more “appropriate” environment for the characters. Chernyshevsky pointed out in his dissertation that art can easily "complete" the incompleteness of the picture of reality, and in this case it has an "advantage over reality." But Chernyshevsky did not consider these possibilities of art essential 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 invents new combinations, diversifies the combinations of those elements that reality provides him. Chernyshevsky reduced the significance of fantasy to the reproduction of missing links, to the replenishment of memory. All this for him serves only to "translate" events from the "language of life" into the "meager, pale, dead language of poetry." But fantasy gives great power to the language of poetry.

From the problem of the beautiful, 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 alien to it are introduced into the work. Not every poetic idea allows the formulation of social questions. So, in "Childhood"
L. Tolstoy is given a children's world with its own specific range 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 a beautiful finish of details . Artistry lies in the "correspondence of the form with the idea." All parts of the form of the work stem from the main idea. Let us recall that the unity of form and content, idea and image was for Chernyshevsky one of the definitions of beauty in the technological sense, in the sense of craftsmanship.

With few exceptions, all literary phenomena of the past were evaluated by Chernyshevsky close to Belinsky's point of view. Chernyshevsky departed from her in the 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 works of art. "Woe from Wit" Chernyshevsky considered a comedy of little art; he was indifferent to satire
XVIII century, which seemed to him too weak.

Chernyshevsky's four large articles on the Annenkov edition of Pushkin's works (1855) precede "Essays on the Gogol period" (1855-1856). Pushkin for him is a purely historical topic, already solved 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 the aesthetic sense. In the face of Pushkin, Russian society for the first time recognized the writer as a "great, historical figure." At the same time, perhaps higher than Belinsky, Chernyshevsky appreciated the mind of Pushkin and the content of his poetry. Pushkin is a man of "extraordinary mind", each of his pages "seething with the mind and life of educated thought."

Chernyshevsky's articles were a response to a dispute that broke out in criticism about the "Pushkin" and "Gogol" directions: the names of Pushkin and Gogol conventionally denoted two opposite 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 raised literature to the "dignity of a national cause", was the ancestor of all its schools. "The whole possibility of the further development of Russian literature was prepared and partly is still being prepared by Pushkin ...". Based on the information provided by Annenkov about Pushkin's creative laboratory, Chernyshevsky destroyed the legend of a free artist who allegedly created without difficulty, on a whim. The great poet stubbornly processed every line of his works, always pondered 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, to interpret the meaning of Gogol's satire and realism, to comprehend the new materials about him that appeared after the writer's death, and, finally, to unravel the mystery of his contradictory personality.

What are the advantages and merits of N.V. Gogol? He is "the father of our romance." He "gave a preponderance" 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. He has a purely Russian themes and problems. He "awakened in us the consciousness of ourselves." The significance of Gogol is not exhausted by the significance of his own works. He is not only a brilliant writer, but at the same time the head of the school - "the only school that Russian literature can be proud of."

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 controversy of previous years about Gogol. All critics are divided by him into persecutors and admirers of Gogol. The first group includes N. Polevoy, O. Senkovsky, S. Shevyrev, the second - P. Vyazemsky, P. Pletnev. But Gogol was most deeply appreciated by V.G. Belinsky.

AT "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 of the 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 they did not understand him? How to qualify in the usual terms the features of Gogol's worldview, what is the psychological riddle of his character?

The new materials published at that time for the first time revealed a striking picture of internal processes, contradictions in the writer's soul.

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

Gogol understood the need to be a satirist. So, this essence is in the premises and goals of Gogol. Clearly, denunciation was a means to that end. Extortion has already been denounced by Kantemir, Derzhavin, Kapnist, Griboyedov, Krylov. What is the peculiarity of Gogol's satire?

The basis of Gogol's satire was "grateful and beautiful." Chernyshevsky extends this assertion even to the second volume of Dead Souls. Moreover, although "Selected passages from correspondence with friends" stained Gogol's name, even here he could not "under any theoretical convictions turn his heart to stone 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: “Inwardly, I have never changed in my main provisions,” and claims that the path
Gogol - something unified, the writer did not change, he only gradually revealed himself. On the other hand, Chernyshevsky proves that in Gogol's way of thinking, which led to "Selected Places", a dramatic change took place somewhere in 1840-1841. This was facilitated by "some special case", probably due to "cruel fear".

Apparently, Chernyshevsky should be understood as follows: the 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 subjectively, the preaching idea was part of Gogol's general concept of life both when he created The Inspector General and Dead Souls and when he wrote Selected Places.

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

If we continue Chernyshevsky’s reasoning, then the basis of Gogol’s tragedy is that, having correctly felt the prophetic “appointment of a writer in Russia” and the need to have an all-encompassing concept of life with its positively affirmative tendencies, he turned out to be unprepared to take such a position. He was not a bad theoretician in general (this is evidenced by his sensible critical articles), but precisely a theoretician of that “teaching” and all-encompassing scale that he wanted to be. To do this, it was necessary to resolutely go for rapprochement with Belinsky's camp, which the critic suggested to him 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 writings unconditionally satisfying all the modern needs of the Russian public,<...>even in "Dead Souls" we find sides 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 from one side, not fully aware of their linkage, their causes and consequences.

The concept of the "Gogol period" organically included another colossal figure in which the conscious theoretical principles of the realistic trend were just ideally expressed, this is Belinsky. For Chernyshevsky he was an ideal critic and public figure. To restore the memory of him, Chernyshevsky did more than anyone else. It was necessary to remove the ban on the name of Belinsky, to refute the slander of enemies, to 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 Volkovo Cemetery, which did not even have a monument at that time (Notes on Journals, July 1856).
Meanwhile, everywhere “his thoughts”, “everywhere he is”, "Our literature still lives on them! ..".

Chernyshevsky considered 1840-1847 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 evading it, have been "empty flowers" or "parasitic plants" in recent years.

Chernyshevsky called Belinsky a man of "genius" who produced a "decisive epoch" 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 had a deeply patriotic character.

Belinsky's system was formed on the basis of important searches of previous Russian criticism in the struggle against currents hostile to realism. Chernyshevsky analyzed the critical legacy
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 from which Chernyshevsky considered Belinsky are curious. For Chernyshevsky, it was most important 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, zigzags, but on the whole it was slow, changes in judgments occurred imperceptibly. Chernyshevsky considered the greatest merit of Belinsky's criticism to be its theoretic nature, its appeal to reality, its socio-social pathos.

Chernyshevsky clarified in detail what kind of relationship Belinsky had with Hegel, what was an acquisition and what was a concession to idealism on his part. Belinsky "discarded 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 "Gogol" trend and the legacy of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky boldly assessed contemporary literature. Its problems began to go beyond the framework of previous experience, to be determined by the requirements of the new era.

The conditions for the life of literature depend not only on literature itself, Chernyshevsky pointed out, but rather in the public itself. What the public wants, that is what literature is. Do not rush to always condemn the Russian writer. The public knows little about the behind-the-scenes side of literary life; its position can only arouse compassion. This is not about intrigues and a game of vanities. There are relationships and circumstances much more important: censorship, tastes, authorities who are worshiped. Only a more lively participation of public opinion can raise the level of literature.

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 oppose the gypsy choir to the opera, put Kirsha Danilov above Pushkin? (Review of "Songs of different peoples" translated by N. Berg, 1854).

Expanding the understanding of the subject of the history of literature, Chernyshevsky at the same time sought to develop the necessary terminological concepts. The critic understood that modern realistic literature could 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 a trend in literature.

He said that it was time for a new, post-Gogol trend in literature to appear, for its further development. This would be a new era in literature, a new satirical, or, as it would be more fair to call it " critical direction". Chernyshevsky believed that it would be 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 is expanding in its boundaries, capturing the sphere of life. At the same time, Chernyshevsky sensitively grasped the inconsistency of the desire, which was already beginning at that time, to identify the methods of art with the methods of the natural sciences, naive and flat positivism. “In the latest science,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “criticism is called not only a judgment about the phenomena of one branch of folk life - art, literature or science, but in general a judgment about the phenomena of life, made on the basis of concepts that mankind has reached, and the feelings aroused by these phenomena when compared with the requirements of reason. Therefore, taking the word "criticism" in this broadest sense, in the "recent science", i.e. since the time of Belinsky, they began to say: "A critical trend in fine literature, in poetry." Of course, this expression denotes a direction, to some extent similar to the "analytical direction" in literature, about which there has been so much talk in Russia lately. But the difference, Chernyshevsky emphasizes, is that the "analytic trend" can study the details of everyday phenomena and reproduce them under the influence of the most diverse strivings, even without any striving, without thought or meaning; and the "critical direction" in a detailed study and reproduction of the phenomena of life is imbued with a consciousness of the correspondence or inconsistency of the studied phenomena with the norm of reason and noble feeling. Therefore, the "critical trend" in literature is one of the particular modifications of the "analytic trend" in general, and it more accurately expresses the essence of realism.

Chernyshevsky's main task was to preserve all its rights for realism, so that the criticism of realism would not be narrowed down to one-sided satire and would not dissolve into cold natural-scientific "analytism".

On the basis of these general aesthetic and literary-historical criteria, Chernyshevsky evaluated all writers and formed the realist trend contemporary to him.

Chernyshevsky the critic truly discovered the actual significance 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 activity as a true friend of Herzen. Chernyshevsky disassembled the secret motives of Ogarev's poetry, the friendship he sang 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 of the poet's poems: "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 the Sovremennik edited by him, but Chernyshevsky successfully chose the method of popularizing his poems. Chernyshevsky reprinted another poem by Nekrasov published in the "Library for Reading" - "Schoolboy". The critic did his best to make Russian poetry take Nekrasov as a model.

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

After the death of Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky began to collect materials for his biography, published some of them a few months later in Sovremennik. And after the exile, shortly before his death, he replenished the collection of documents for the biography of Dobrolyubov, wrote his memoirs about the history of the relationship between Turgenev and Dobrolyubov.

Finally, Chernyshevsky included M. Shchedrin, a major satirist, the "new Gogol", who had just entered the literary arena after exile, to the same vanguard of the realistic trend. 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, while Shchedrin is stern and indignant. Elsewhere, Chernyshevsky noted a great consistency
Shchedrin the satirist compared to Gogol: he sees the linkage of all the small and big phenomena of Russian life, he denounces more consciously (“not so instinctively”).

In journal notes in 1856, Chernyshevsky highly appreciated the "Notes of a Hunter"
I.S. Turgenev and the new novel by D.V. Grigorovich "Settlers". But several years passed, and Grigorovich and Turgenev began to seem to Chernyshevsky already writers who idealized peasant life too much.

Chernyshevsky gazed intently at A.F. Pisemsky. He was an active writer, collaborating in the hostile Reading Library and disagreeing with Sovremennik on many issues. Chernyshevsky, in his reviews of his “Essays from Peasant Life” and the story “The Old Lady”, disputed the opinion of A.V. Druzhinin, who tried to oppose Pisemsky to 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 the remarks of Chernyshevsky, 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 “Is it the beginning of a change?” (1861).

In search of "experts on life" Chernyshevsky turned his attention to another modern writer, who tried to keep himself emphatically at a distance - 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-denial, was precisely the assessment of Tolstoy's work. Tolstoy served as an example of how much an artist can achieve if he truly portrays a peasant and, as it were, moves into his soul.

It can be said that Chernyshevsky discovered Tolstoy's grandiose talent. He made out the walking, formulaic praise of Tolstoy by contemporary critics. They talked about extraordinary powers of observation, a subtle analysis of spiritual movements, distinctness in the depiction of pictures of nature, their elegant simplicity, but did not reveal anything specific in the writer's talent. Meanwhile, Tolstoy's talent was special, and he developed rapidly, more and more new features appeared in him.

Pushkin's observation, as Chernyshevsky believes, is "cold, impassive."
The newest writers have a more developed evaluating side. Sometimes observation in one way or another correlates with some other feature of talent: for example, Turgenev's observation is directed to the poetic aspects of life, and he is inattentive to family life. Psychological analysis is different. Now he has a goal in front of him, in order to completely outline some kind of character, then the influence of social relations on characters or on the connection of feelings with actions. Analysis can 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 a reflection of the mind that knows itself, this is self-observation by splitting.

Tolstoy is interested in the very forms of psychological counterbalance, the laws of the "dialectic of the soul", and "he alone is a master at this." For Tolstoy, the overflow of states is in the first place. The 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 "dialectic of the soul", the range of his capabilities is constantly felt even by one of some traits.

Tolstoy is characterized by "purity of moral feeling". She somehow survived with him "in all youthful immediacy and freshness." She is graceful, immaculate, like nature.

These features of Tolstoy's talent, Chernyshevsky declared, would remain with the writer forever, no matter how many works he wrote. He has a long way to go: “what a wonderful hope for our literature,” Chernyshevsky prophesied, “everything that has been created so far is “only pledges of what he will do later, but how rich and beautiful these pledges are.”
In connection with The Morning of the Landowner, Chernyshevsky significantly clarified the content of the concepts of "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, reproduced not only the external environment of the life of the peasants, but, more importantly, their “view of things”: “he knows how to move into the soul of a peasant - his peasant is extremely true to his nature, - in the speeches of his peasant no embellishment, no rhetoric...”.

The success of the "Family Chronicle" S.T. Aksakov gave reason to many contemporaries to believe that Aksakov "begins a new era for our literature." But Chernyshevsky knew the significance of the "Gogol period" and what the new era of modern literature should consist of. In the praises of Aksakov, he saw a certain maneuver of the Slavophiles, attempts to oppose the literature of the critical realism of an artist from "his" camp with calm positive ideals. Chernyshevsky saw something useful in the "Family Chronicle" in the same elements of realism, in exposing the nobility, the atrocities of the Kurolesovs.

Chernyshevsky was not bribed by the "common people" of the origin of the poet I. Nikitin. The quality of his poetry was regarded by him as low. Nikitin, in the eyes of Chernyshevsky, is only a reworking of other people's motives. This is a gift of education, not nature. Chernyshevsky advised Nikitin to leave writing poetry for a while, until life awakens in him truly poetic thoughts and feelings. This lesson was not in vain for Nikitin.

About Chernyshevsky's desire to influence a major writer are 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 - let's settle" (1847). Contemporaries compared his play with "Undergrowth" and "The Government Inspector". But then came a special period in the work of Ostrovsky: he was influenced by the Young Slavophile group. The "poor bride" did not drop his talent, but did not support him either. "Do not sit in your sleigh" already caused 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 Settle" and the comedy "Poverty is not a vice" is that Ostrovsky "fell into sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished."

Undoubtedly, Chernyshevsky's negative assessment of the comedy "Poverty is no vice" is due to the fact that A. Grigoriev raised Ostrovsky's new moods to the shield. Chernyshevsky's task was to win back Ostrovsky from the neo-Slavophiles. The playwright has already damaged his literary reputation, but "has not yet ruined his beautiful talent." Profitable Place (1856) reconciled Chernyshevsky with Ostrovsky: this play "reminded" him
“We will settle our people”, there is a lot of “truth and nobility” in it, only the entire fifth act seems superfluous, 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 the “heroes of the time”, which had been painted 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 very name of the hero is chosen according to the same type as Onegin, Pechorin.

Avdeev wanted to discredit Pechorin. He said that readers were too carried away with the brilliance painted by Pechorin and, instead of seeing in him a model of their shortcomings, they began to imitate him. In this way, Avdeev revived the old slander of the reactionary "Mayak" and "Moskvityanin", according to which Lermontov carved out 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 of the classical images of the heroes of the time.

In a dispute with Dudyshkin about the “ideals” of Turgenev’s work, Chernyshevsky in 1857 admitted, 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) about Turgenev's Asya, Chernyshevsky showed not only an example of aesthetic flair, but also a systemic understanding of the whole problem: he summed up the hero of Asya under the ready-made Onegin and Rudin type. Some of the critics then argued that the character of the hero was not sustained. But, alas, "the melancholy merit ... of the story," said Chernyshevsky, "is that the hero's character is faithful to our society." And so Chernyshevsky began to draw the pedigree of "superfluous people", which he had previously denied. In Turgenev's Faust, the worthless hero tries to "encourage" himself that he and his beloved Vera must renounce each other. Almost the same in Rudin: offended by the cowardice of the hero, the girl turns away from him. The hero of Nekrasov's poem "Sasha" looks exactly the same in type, although Nekrasov's talent is completely different than that of Turgenev. This coincidence of types of heroes by different authors was very remarkable. Let us recall the behavior of Beltov: he also preferred retreat to any decisive step. Chernyshevsky does not name Onegin. But from the whole logic of his reasoning it is clear that the noted regularity in the development of the type is somehow inherent in this hero as well. “Such are our “best people” (i.e., “superfluous people”) - they all look like our Romeo”, i.e. on the hero from "Asia".

Chernyshevsky does not design a new type to replace him. 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 drastically change the very approach to the problem of the hero of time. But in criticism, he stopped at what he said in the article about "Ace". Dobrolyubov and Pisarev worked on the whole problem of “superfluous people”, highlighting the fundamentally new meaning of the images of Insarov, Bazarov, Rakhmetov.

But the generality of Chernyshevsky's statement of the question is evident from the title of the article: the nobleman is taken as a type, as a man on a 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 such. 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 structure.

P. A. Nikolaev

Classic of Russian criticism

N. G. Chernyshevsky. Literary criticism. In two volumes. Volume 1. M., "Fiction", 1981 Preparation of the text and notes by T. A. Akimova, G. N. Antonova, A. A. Demchenko, A. A. Zhuk, V. V. Prozorova Less than ten years Chernyshevsky intensively engaged in literary criticism - from 1853 to 1861. But this activity of his made up a whole epoch in the history of Russian literary and aesthetic thought. Arriving at Nekrasov's Sovremennik in 1853, he soon headed the critical and bibliographic department of the journal, which became the ideological center of the country's literary forces. Chernyshevsky was Belinsky's successor, and in understanding the tasks of criticism he started from the experience of his brilliant predecessor. He wrote: "Belinsky's criticism was more and more imbued with the vital interests of our life, comprehended the phenomena of this life better and better, strove more and more resolutely to explain to the public the significance of literature for life, and to literature the relations in which it must to stand in life as one of the main forces governing its development. What could be higher than such a role of criticism - to influence artistic creativity, which could "manage" reality? This "leading example" of Belinsky was fundamental for Chernyshevsky the critic. The time of Chernyshevsky's literary critical activity was the years of the maturing of socio-economic changes in Russian life, when the age-old peasant problem in Russia demanded its solution with all its might. The most diverse social forces - reactionary-monarchist, liberal and revolutionary - tried to participate in this decision. Their social and ideological antagonism was clearly revealed after the peasant reform announced by the autocracy in 1861. As is known, the revolutionary situation that had arisen in the country by 1859 did not grow into a revolution, but it was the best people of that era who thought about the radical revolutionary transformation of Russian life. And the first among them is Chernyshevsky. He paid with imprisonment in the fortress and long years of exile for his revolutionary political activity, and this tragic fate was not unexpected for him. He foresaw it even in his youth. Who does not remember his conversation in Saratov with his future wife: “I have such a way of thinking that I have to wait from minute to minute that the gendarmes will come, take me to Petersburg and put me in a fortress ... We will soon have a riot. .. I will certainly participate in it." These words Chernyshevsky wrote down in 1853, in the same year he began literary work in St. Petersburg magazines (first in Otechestvennye Zapiski, and then in Sovremennik). Since the February issue of Sovremennik for 1854, where Chernyshevsky published an article about the novel and short stories by M. Avdeev, his critical speeches in this journal have become regular. In the same year, followed by the publication of articles about the novel by E. Tour "Three Pores of Life" and Ostrovsky's comedy "Poverty is not a vice". At the same time, the article "On Sincerity in Criticism" was published. The revolutionary consciousness of the young writer could not be expressed in his first critical articles. But even in these speeches of his, the analysis of specific works of art is subordinated to the solution of major social and literary problems. In their objective sense, the requirements that the young critic made to literature were of great importance for its further development. Chernyshevsky's first critical speeches coincided with his work on the famous treatise The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality. If Chernyshevsky had never assessed the concrete phenomena of the current literary process, he would still have exerted a tremendous influence on literary critical thought with this dissertation. "Aesthetic relations ..." constituted the theoretical, philosophical basis of criticism itself. In addition to the formula “beautiful is life”, which is fundamentally important for literary criticism, the dissertation contains a remarkable definition of the tasks of art. There are three of them: reproduction, explanation, sentence. With terminological scrupulousness, one can notice a certain mechanistic nature of such a classification of artistic goals: after all, an explanatory moment is already contained in the reproduction itself. Chernyshevsky himself understood this. But it was important for him to characterize the creatively transforming process of the artistic consciousness of the world. The art theorist emphasized with the word "sentence" the author's active attitude to the reproduced real object. On the whole, the dissertation, with its consistently materialistic pathos, deep philosophical substantiation of the priority of life over art, and definition of the social nature of artistic creativity (“general interest in life is the content of art”), was a remarkable manifesto of Russian realism. It played a truly historic role in the development of Russian theoretical, aesthetic and critical thought. This role will become especially clear if we recall the social conditions when Chernyshevsky wrote his dissertation and published his first critical articles. 1853-1854 - the end of the "gloomy seven years" (in the terminology of that time), the political reaction that came in Russia after 1848, the year of revolutionary events in many European countries. It had a heavy impact on the literary life of Russia, frightened a significant part of the literary intelligentsia, even those who only recently welcomed Belinsky's articles and spoke of love for the "furious Vissarion." Now the name of Belinsky could not even be mentioned in the press. The satirical depiction of reality that flourished in the literature of the 1940s under the influence of Gogol, warmly welcomed and comprehended by Belinsky, now evoked a different reaction. The dominant aesthetic criticism opposed writers who responded to the topic of the day. For six years - from 1848 to 1854 - Druzhinin published his "Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber on Russian Journalism" in Sovremennik, outwardly resembling Belinsky's annual literary reviews, but in essence denying the aesthetics of the great revolutionary thinker, because in "Letters" sounded as the leitmotif of the thesis: "The world of poetry is detached from the prose of the world." Many critics of this orientation tried to convince the reader that Pushkin's work is such a "world of poetry." This was stated, for example, by Annenkov, who did a lot to promote Pushkin's legacy and excellently published the collected works of the great poet. "Against the satirical direction to which the immoderate imitation of Gogol has led us, Pushkin's poetry can serve as the best tool," wrote Druzhinin. Now, of course, it seems strange to contrast the two founders of Russian realism, at the same time it determined the essential aspects of literary and journalism. The artificial opposition of Pushkin's and Gogol's trends met with no objections from Chernyshevsky, and he acted as an ardent defender of Gogol's satirical trend in literature. He pursued this line steadily, beginning with his first article on Avdeev's novel and short stories. From Chernyshevsky's point of view, the artistic value of Avdeev's works is low, since they "do not measure up to the standards of our age," that is, "do not measure up" according to the high "standard" of Russian realistic literature. In Avdeev's debut - the first parts of the novel "Tamarin" - there was already a clear imitation of "A Hero of Our Time". On the whole, the novel looks like a copy of "Eugene Onegin" and "Polinka Sax" by Druzhinin. The writer also has stories reminiscent of Karamzin's Letters from a Russian Traveler. Epigonism and Avdeev's characteristic idyllicity and sentimentality (for example, in the story "Clear Days") lead the writer to a violation of the truth of life, to a retreat from realism. Some, in the words of Chernyshevsky, "kites and magpies, who have settled down under pink colors," Avdeev certainly wants to represent innocent pigeons. Avdeev lacks an understanding of what "concepts about the life of truly modern people" are, and creative success is possible for a writer only "if he is convinced that thought and content are given not by unaccountable sentimentality, but by thinking." Such a harsh characterization was fundamentally different from the assessments of Avdeev's novel by "aesthetic" criticism and, in fact, was directed against the latter. In 1852, Dudyshkin, in Otechestvennye Zapiski, wrote very approvingly about Avdeev's "Tamarin" and especially about one of the characters in the novel. And although in this early critical work Chernyshevsky still does not single out the Gogol tradition as a special and most fruitful one, in the context of the article, Avdeev’s warning against idyllic narrative (“pink color”), which is anti-Gogol in nature, acts primarily as a desire to orient the writer to a sober and the merciless truth of the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls. This is also the basic literary and aesthetic idea of ​​Chernyshevsky's article on Yevgenia Tur's novel The Three Pores of Life. More sharply than in the article about Avdeev, the critic speaks here about the aesthetic consequences of meaningless writing. The narrative manner in the novel is distinguished by a strange exaltation, affectation, and therefore there is "neither plausibility in characters, nor probability in the course of events" in it. The absence of a deep thought in the novel does not turn into a realistic style, but, in essence, anti-artistic. This harsh review of Chernyshevsky turned out to be prophetic, accurately determining the price of the literary activity of E. Tur in the future: it is known that her stories "The Old Woman" and "At the Turn", published in 1856-1857, met with almost universal disapproval, and the writer abandoned the artistic creativity. Chernyshevsky was also very stern about Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is no vice." The critic agreed with the overall very high assessment of Ostrovsky's comedy "Our people - let's settle", which appeared in 1850. But he took the play "Poverty is no vice" as evidence of the fall of the playwright's talent. He saw the weakness of the play in "the apotheosis of ancient life", "sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished." Fearing possible reproaches for the ideological bias of his analysis, the critic declares that he is not talking about the intention of the author of the play, but about the performance, that is, about artistic merit, which in this case is not great: the author wrote "not an artistic whole, but something sewn from different shreds on a live thread". The critic sees in the comedy "a series of incoherent and unnecessary episodes, monologues and narrations", although the very intention to present in the play all kinds of Christmas evenings with riddles and disguise does not cause him objections. We are talking about some compositional miscalculations in the play, but it is clear to the attentive reader that unnecessary scenes and monologues come from the playwright's desire to idealize certain aspects of life with their help, to idealize the patriarchal merchant life, where forgiveness and high morality allegedly reign. Idealization was in a sense programmatic for Ostrovsky, as evidenced by his critical speeches (including, by the way, about E. Tur.) in the Moskvityanin magazine shortly (in 1850-1851) before the creation of "Poverty is not a vice" . On the whole, the Slavophile trend in criticism and literature was opposed to the "natural", Gogol school, far from any idealization of reality. Hence the complete sympathy for the "aesthetic" criticism (Druzhinin, Dudyshkin) of Ostrovsky's Slavophile tendency. The latter circumstance explains the sharp rejection of Ostrovsky's play by Chernyshevsky, who thus objectively defended the Gogol school. Another reason for the much harsher response to this play compared to the article about Avdeev is formulated in the article "On Sincerity in Criticism." "Everyone will agree," writes Chernyshevsky, "that the justice and usefulness of literature are higher than the personal feelings of the writer. And the heat of the attack must be proportionate to the degree of harm to the taste of the public, the degree of on the public is incomparably higher than the influence of Avdeev and Evg. Tour. At the end of the article, the critic spoke optimistically about such a "wonderful talent" as Ostrovsky. It is known that the further creative path of the playwright confirmed Chernyshevsky's hopes (already in 1857 he would welcome the play "Profitable Place"). Chernyshevsky's critical performance at one of the turning points undoubtedly played a positive role in the development of Ostrovsky's dramatic art. But the literary-critical position of the young Chernyshevsky had a certain theoretical weakness, which gave rise to a certain bias in his specific characterization of "Poverty is no vice." This weakness is philosophical and aesthetic, and it is connected with Chernyshevsky's interpretation of the artistic image. In his dissertation, he underestimated the generalizing nature of the artistic image. "The image in a poetic work ... is nothing more than a pale and general, indefinite allusion to reality," he wrote. This is one of the consequences of the not entirely dialectical posing of the question in the thesis about what is higher: reality or art. This concept prompted Chernyshevsky sometimes to see in the artistic image a simple embodiment of the author's idea - in fact, the image is wider than it, and the larger the writer, the more significant the generalizing function of the artistic image. The realization of this would come to Chernyshevsky later, but for now he could not see that in the play of the outstanding playwright the content of the images does not at all boil down to Slavophile or other ideas of the author and that they contain, as often happens in great art, a considerable artistic truth. In the article "On Sincerity in Criticism," Chernyshevsky said that the play's central character, Lyubim Tortsov, is realistic, "true to reality," but he did not draw any theoretical conclusions from this observation. He did not admit the possibility that the weak and unconvincing "general idea" of the play could be at least partially refuted in the course of the entire dramatic narrative. Subsequently, in the second half of the 1950s, when Chernyshevsky, together with Dobrolyubov, would develop the principles of "real criticism", that is, he would consider, first of all, the internal logic of a work of art, the "truth of characters", and not the theoretical ideas of the author, he would demonstrate the complete objectivity of his critical ratings. She was, of course, in the early critical speeches - especially in the assessments of the work of Avdeev and E. Tur. Pointing to the critic's theoretical miscalculation, let's not forget that Chernyshevsky rejected "general ideas" and individual motifs in works that did not correspond to the main, critical pathos of Russian literature, the highest expression of which was Gogol's work. However, the struggle for the Gogol trend in literature and its opposition to Pushkin's was fraught with considerable dangers. After all, it seems that only Turgenev believed at that time that modern literature needed to assimilate the experience of both Pushkin and Gogol to the same extent, while critics of both camps were extremely one-sided in their assessments. Chernyshevsky did not escape one-sidedness, in particular, in his assessment of Pushkin. In an extensive article on Pushkin's writings published by Annenkov in 1855, Chernyshevsky seeks to emphasize the richness of content in the works of the great poet. He says that in them "every page ... boils with the mind." In the article "Works of A. S. Pushkin" one can read: "The whole possibility of the further development of Russian literature was prepared and is still partly being prepared by Pushkin." Pushkin is "the father of our poetry". Speaking in this way, Chernyshevsky has in mind, first of all, the poet's merits in the creation of a national artistic form, without which Russian literature could not develop further. Thanks to Pushkin, such artistry arose, which, according to Chernyshevsky, "constitutes not one shell, but grain and shell together." Russian literature also needed this. Some sketchiness of the critic's concept is obvious, moreover, it is vulnerable in terms of terminology. But Chernyshevsky is very contradictory in his assessment of Pushkin's heritage. And it's not that he has mistakes (repeating Belinsky's mistakes) in evaluating the work of late Pushkin, in which he saw nothing artistic. He did not agree with Druzhinin's statement about the "conciliatory and gratifying coloring" in Pushkin's poetry, however, he did not try to refute it either. It seemed to Chernyshevsky that Pushkin's "general views" were not very original, taken from Karamzin and other historians and writers. The critic did not understand the depth and richness of the artistic content in Pushkin's creations. That theoretical miscalculation, which is visible in the article on Ostrovsky's "Poverty is not a vice" and consists in underestimating the content of the artistic types of comedy, made itself felt in judgments about Pushkin. And although it is precisely in the article about Pushkin that Chernyshevsky writes that the critic, when analyzing a work of art, must "understand the essence of the characters" and that Pushkin has a "general psychological fidelity of characters," he did not try to look broadly at the content, at the "general idea in these characters. Moreover, Chernyshevsky interpreted Pushkin's "fidelity of characters" primarily as evidence of the poet's high creative skill in the field of form. The principles of "real criticism", when the content of art, including the "general idea", "general convictions" of the author are revealed in the analysis of all the details of the narrative and, of course, artistic characters, will be realized by Chernyshevsky a little later. But very soon. And this will coincide with the time when Chernyshevsky's struggle will receive new stimuli and find support in current literature. The "gloomy seven years" in Russian public life were coming to an end, political reaction temporarily receded, but "aesthetic criticism" still did not recognize the decisive influence of Gogol's trend on modern literature. Chernyshevsky, on the other hand, at a time when the social struggle was entering a new stage, when the ideas of the peasant revolution were maturing, places even greater hopes on the assimilation of Gogol's realism by contemporary literature. He creates his capital work - "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", where he writes: "Gogol is important not only as a brilliant writer, but at the same time as the head of the school - the only school that Russian literature can be proud of." The revolutionary democrat was sure that only in this case, adhering to the Gogolian, satirical trend, literature would fulfill its socio-political role, which was dictated to it by the time. Chernyshevsky's hopes were based on the real literary process of that time. In "Notes on Journals" (1857), he notes with satisfaction the evolution of Ostrovsky, who returned to the realism of the period of the comedy "Our people - let's settle." In the play "Profitable Place" the critic saw a "strong and noble direction" of general thought, that is, critical pathos. Chernyshevsky finds in comedy a lot of truth and nobility in moral content. The aesthetic sense of the critic is satisfied by the fact that in the play "many scenes are conducted admirably." Chernyshevsky explains the great creative success of the playwright by the integrity of a serious accusatory plan and its implementation. At the same time, Chernyshevsky came out in support of Pisemsky against Druzhinin, who believed that the stories of this writer produce a gratifying, conciliatory impression. In the gloomy coloring of the stories "Pitershchik", "Goblin", "The Carpenter's Artel", the critic sees the harsh truth of life. He writes a long article "The Works and Letters of N. V. Gogol", dedicated to the six-volume edition of 1857, which was prepared by P. A. Kulish. Chernyshevsky speaks here of Gogol's "way of thinking", interpreting this concept broadly - as a system of the writer's views, expressed in his artistic work (in Chernyshevsky's previous articles there was no such broad understanding of the artist's worldview). He protests against the assertion that "Gogol himself did not understand the meaning of his works - this is an absurdity, too obvious." Chernyshevsky constantly emphasizes that Gogol perfectly understood the meaning of his satirical works, but, "indignant at the bribery and arbitrariness of provincial officials in his Inspector General, Gogol did not foresee where this indignation would lead: it seemed to him that the whole thing was limited to the desire to destroy bribery; connection this phenomenon with other phenomena was not clear to him. Even in the late period of his activity, when he created the second volume of "Dead Souls" with his, according to Chernyshevsky, "inappropriate and awkward idealism", Gogol did not cease to be a satirist. Chernyshevsky, with understandable bitterness, like Belinsky, having accepted the religious philosophy of "Selected passages from correspondence with friends", asks: does Gogol really think that "Correspondence with friends" will replace Akaky Akakievich's overcoat? "The critic does not answer his own question in the affirmative. He believes that, whatever Gogol's new theoretical convictions, the direct view of the world and the emotional feeling of the author of The Overcoat remained the same. In the literary process of the mid-50s, Chernyshevsky found "pledges of more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only from one side, not fully aware of their linkage, their causes and effects. "The basis for it was the works of the most prominent follower of Gogol - M.E. Saltykov (N. Shchedrin). Chernyshevsky saw in In the early work of Shchedrin, a somewhat different type of artistic thinking, which gave rise to a new type of realism.The differences between the work of Gogol and Shchedrin, in addition to the problematics, objects of satire and other aspects of content, are in the degree of correspondence between the subjective thought of the writers and the objective results of their artistic representation.Already in the article about Gogol Chernyshevsky noted that Shchedrin in "Provincial Essays", in contrast to the author " Dead Souls", is fully aware of where bribery comes from, what supports it and how to exterminate it. In a special article (in 1857) on the named cycle of Shchedrin's essays, Chernyshevsky declares their very publication "a historical fact of Russian life." Such an assessment suggests both the social and literary significance of the book. Chernyshevsky puts "Provincial Essays" in connection with the Gogol tradition, but seeks to give an idea of ​​their originality. Analyzing the artistic characters created by Shchedrin, he reveals the main idea of ​​the essays, which reflects the most important life pattern - the determinism of the individual, its dependence on society, on the circumstances of life. Chernyshevsky considered the idea of ​​social determinism of personality in many aspects, resorting to broad historical analogies. Here are the forms of relations between the population of India and the English colonialists, and the conflict situation in Ancient Rome, when the famous Cicero denounced the ruler of Sicily for abuse of power - everywhere Chernyshevsky finds confirmation of his thought: the behavior of people is conditioned by their position, social tradition, prevailing laws. For a critic, the dependence of moral qualities, and even more so a person's beliefs, on objective factors is unconditional. Chernyshevsky traces all forms of this dependence by analyzing the image of a bribe taker. Bribery is characteristic not of one clerk, but of all those around him. You can condemn the clerk for choosing a bad service, and even encourage him to leave it, but another will take the place, and the essence of the matter will not change. There are no completely and hopelessly bad people - there are bad conditions, Chernyshevsky believes. “The most inveterate villain,” he writes, “is still a man, that is, a creature inclined by nature to respect and love the truth ... Remove harmful circumstances, and a person’s mind will quickly brighten up and his character will be ennobled.” So Chernyshevsky leads the reader to the idea of ​​the need for a complete change in "circumstances", that is, a revolutionary transformation of life. In this essentially journalistic article with such a clear social problem Chernyshevsky insistently emphasizes his special interest in the purely "psychological side of types" in Shchedrin's essays. This idea is internally connected with Chernyshevsky's often repeated in the articles of 1856-1857 the thesis about the "truth of characters" as the main dignity of art. The "truth of characters" is also a reflection of the essential aspects of life, but it is also a psychological truth, and it is precisely this that the critic finds in the images created by Shchedrin. Like the "Provincial Essays" themselves, their interpretation by Chernyshevsky also became a historical fact of Russian spiritual life. The article on "Provincial Essays" vividly showed that Chernyshevsky's struggle for realism had entered a new stage. Realism in the interpretation of Chernyshevsky has become, in modern terms, a structural factor in a work of art. Of course, even before the critic did not recognize the illustrative function of art, but only now - in 1856-1857 - he deeply realized the entire dialectic of connections between the "general idea" and all the details of the work. Who did not write then about the need for unity in the work of art of the right idea and artistry! However, Druzhinin, Dudyshkin and other representatives of "aesthetic" criticism lacked strong initial prerequisites for critical analysis: awareness of the internal connections of art with reality, the laws of realism. Analyzing, sometimes very skillfully, the artistic form - composition, plot situation, details of certain scenes - they did not see the meaningful sources of all these "laws of beauty" in art. Chernyshevsky, in his "Notes on Journals" for 1856, gave his definition of artistry: it "consists in accordance with the idea; therefore, in order to consider what the artistic merits of a work are, it is necessary to investigate as rigorously as possible whether the idea underlying the work is true. If the idea is false, there can be no question of artistry, because the form will also be false and full of inconsistencies. Only a work in which a true idea is embodied is artistic if the form is in perfect harmony with the idea. To solve the last question, it is necessary to see whether all the parts and details of the work really stem from its main idea. No matter how intricate or beautiful a well-known detail may be in itself - a scene, a character, an episode - but if it does not serve to the fullest expression of the main idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe work, it harms its artistry. This is the method of true criticism." This interpretation of artistry did not remain with Chernyshevsky only a theoretical declaration. In essence, all literary phenomena in the past and present are, as it were, "checked" by Chernyshevsky with its help. Let us pay attention to Chernyshevsky's articles about two poets: V. Benediktov and N. Shcherbine. Chernyshevsky, like Belinsky, negatively reacted to the work of Benediktov. In his three-volume collected works, the critic found only three or four poems containing a semblance of thought. In the rest, he saw the absence of aesthetic measure and "poetic fantasy", without which "poems g Benediktov's paintings remain cold, his paintings are inconsistent and lifeless." Benediktov has rather naturalistic, even "physiological" details that an undemanding reader liked. The work of the once promising poet Shcherbina is another version of the contradiction between content and form. When the poet has exhausted the content, "which naturally appears with united with the ancient manner, "his poems have lost the dignity that was characteristic of them before. In the article about Shcherbina, the critic speaks especially insistently; that the poet's thought should find a figurative, concrete-sensual form. The meaning of the quoted extended formula of Chernyshevsky regarding artistry is most deeply revealed in his famous article on the work of the young Tolstoy (1856). She is remarkable in many respects, and her place in the history of Russian literature and criticism is great. It also occupies an important place in the development of Chernyshevsky's own critical thought. This article was largely dictated by the tactical considerations of Chernyshevsky, who strove to preserve for Sovremennik a writer whose scale of talent he well understood. This was not hindered by Tolstoy's hostile attitude towards Chernyshevsky, towards his aesthetics and towards all the activities in Sovremennik, about which the writer spoke to Nekrasov more than once; and that was, of course, known to the critic. Chernyshevsky's tactic consisted in an unconditionally positive assessment of the works of the young writer, whose talent "is already quite brilliant so that each period of his development deserves to be noted with the greatest care." Even in his early articles, Chernyshevsky spoke of the originality of creative talent as a decisive merit of artistic talent (he would develop this theme later, in 1857, for example, in articles about Pisemsky and Zhukovsky). In an article about Tolstoy, he seeks to establish the individual identity of the artist, "the distinctive physiognomy of his talent." The critic saw this distinctive feature in psychological analysis, which in Tolstoy appears as an artistic study, and not a simple description of mental life. Even great artists, who are able to capture the dramatic transitions of one feeling into another, most often reproduce only the beginning and end of the psychological process. Tolstoy is interested in the process itself - "hardly perceptible phenomena ... of inner life, replacing one another with extreme speed and inexhaustible variety." Another distinguishing feature of Tolstoy, the critic considers the "purity of moral feeling" in his works. This feature was also highly appreciated by other critics: Druzhinin in "Library for Reading" (1856) noted the "moral splendor" in Tolstoy's "Snowstorm" and "Two Hussars", he also spoke about the psychological art of the writer, who knows how to represent the "spiritual expansion of man." But Chernyshevsky sees in Tolstoy's psychologism not a vague "spiritual expansion" but a clear "dialectic of the soul," the study of which is Tolstoy's universal key to understanding the complex psyche. The article about Tolstoy demonstrated a new level of Chernyshevsky's understanding of realistic art. Dobrolyubov's later formula, "real criticism," is now fully applicable to Chernyshevsky's criticism. Chernyshevsky writes about the "unity of the work" in Tolstoy, that is, about such a compositional organization of his stories, when there is nothing extraneous in them, when the individual parts of the work fully correspond to its main idea. This idea is the psychological history of the developing personality. Chernyshevsky polemicizes with Dudyshkin, who reproached Tolstoy for the lack of "grand events", "female characters", "feelings of love" in his works ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1856, No 2). “One must understand,” writes Chernyshevsky, “that not every poetic idea allows the introduction of social questions into a work; one must not forget that the first law of artistry is the unity of a work, and that therefore, depicting “Childhood”, it is necessary to depict precisely childhood , and not anything else, not public issues, not military scenes. .. And people who make such narrow demands speak of freedom of creativity!" Chernyshevsky interprets artistry in realistic art so deeply. Chernyshevsky sees the writer’s humanism in the poetization of moral feeling. And the humane content of a work of art, combined with the truthfulness of the depiction of personality and life in general, now for Chernyshevsky, the essence and strength of realistic art. Chernyshevsky's article on the young Tolstoy precisely defined those features of talent that remained basically unchanged in the subsequent work of the great writer. "Purity of moral feeling" in Tolstoy's stories attracted a revolutionary thinker, in whose social and aesthetic views At that time, an idea was taking shape of the positive hero of our time and his reflection in literature. With the intensification of the social struggle, with the sharp demarcation of revolutionary democracy and liberalism, this general idea was filled with concrete content. mulled by Chernyshevsky in the article "Poems by N. Ogarev" (1856): "We are still waiting for this successor, who, having got used to the truth from childhood (here it is, Tolstoy's naturalness of moral feeling! - P.H.), not with quivering ecstasy, but with joyful love looks at her; we are waiting for such a person and his speech, a most cheerful, at the same time calm and decisive speech, in which one would hear not the timidity of a theory before life, but proof that reason can rule over life and a person can harmonize his life with his convictions. "Subsequently, this idea of positive hero resulted in the images of revolutionaries in the novels "What is to be done?" and "Prologue". The approval of the new hero in Chernyshevsky's articles was accompanied by the discrediting of the positive hero of the previous era, the "superfluous person", and at the same time the nobility, as a class, unable to take an active part in the transformation of reality. In the 1858 article "A Russian Man on Rendezvous", dedicated to Turgenev's story "Asya", the critic proves the social and psychological failure of the "superfluous person". We are talking mainly about the main character of the story - Mr. inability to act - traits characteristic not only of Mr. N., but of the entire class of society that gave birth to it. Chernyshevsky found great artistic truth in Turgenev's story. Contrary to his ideological position, the writer reflected in it the real processes and requirements of the time. The critic writes about the evolution of "superfluous people" in Russian life and literature, shows how the new historical needs of the social struggle more and more clearly reveal the abstractness of the search and protest of "superfluous people", how the reflective hero becomes smaller in his social significance. Drawing broad conclusions from observations of Turgenev's character, the critic directs the attentive reader to the young democratic forces of Russia, on which the future depends only. The sentence of the revolutionary democrat to Turgenev's hero sounds uncompromisingly: "The idea is developing in us more and more strongly ... that there are people better than him ... that without him it would be better for us to live." Chernyshevsky's interpretation of Asya was naturally not accepted by liberal critics. In the journal "Atenei" (at the same time, in 1858), P. Annenkov, in the article "The Literary Type of a Weak Man", tried to prove that the moral impotence of Turgenev's hero is not, as Chernyshevsky thinks, symptoms of the social failure of this social type - it is ostensibly the exception to the rule. It was important for Annenkov to reject the very idea of ​​a socially active personality in literature; the critic even set out to convince the reader that the positive hero of Russian literature has always been and should be a humble "little" person. The ideological source of such a position is a sharp rejection of possible revolutionary changes, and, of course, people who can bring about these changes. A revolutionary situation was approaching, and the position of liberal criticism turned out to be so backward that interest in it on the part of the general reader almost completely disappeared. And vice versa, from 1858 to 1861 criticism of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov acts as a powerful ideological and literary force. But this did not last long. The death of Dobrolyubov, the ensuing political reaction, and the subsequent arrest of Chernyshevsky deprived literary criticism of its former significance. But in the same 1861, Chernyshevsky published his great, and last, critical work - the article "Is not the beginning of a change?" -- a remarkable example of revolutionary journalistic criticism. The ideologist of the peasant revolution, he wrote more than once about the enormous role of the people in history, especially at critical, exceptional historical moments. He considered such moments the Patriotic War of 1812 and now the abolition of serfdom, which was supposed to release the latent energy of the peasant masses, the energy that should be directed to improving their own situation, to satisfying their "natural aspirations". Ouspensky's essays published in 1861 provided the critic with material for the development of this idea. It is not the humiliation of the Russian muzhik, not the pessimism in relation to his spiritual abilities that Chernyshevsky sees in Ouspensky's essays. In the images of ordinary peasants depicted by the writer, he notes the hidden power that needs to be understood in order to awaken it to action. “We, according to the instructions of Mr. Uspensky, are talking only about those people of the peasant rank who in their circle are considered ordinary people, colorless, impersonal. Whatever they are (like two drops of water similar to similar people of our estates), do not conclude by about all the common people ... The initiative of popular activity is not in them ... but one must know their properties in order to know what motives the initiative can act on them, "writes the critic. The time has come when it is necessary to tell the Russian peasant that he himself is largely to blame for his disastrous condition and the hard life of people close to him, to whom he does not realize his duty. "The truth without any embellishment" about peasant darkness and cruelty in the essays of the young writer was interpreted by the great critic in a revolutionary democratic spirit. The humane depiction of the common man has long become a tradition in Russian literature, but this is no longer enough for modern times. Even the humanism of Gogol's "Overcoat" with its poor official Bashmachkin belongs only to the history of literature. The humane pathos in post-Gogol literature is also insufficient, for example, in the stories of Turgenev and Grigorovich. Time demanded a new artistic truth, and the "truth" of the young democratic writer answered these requirements. Chernyshevsky considers that "the truth without any embellishment" contained in Uspensky's essays to be a genuine discovery in Russian literature. This "truth" was a change in historical view of the people. Emphasizing the originality of Uspensky's views on the character of the peasant, Chernyshevsky does not speak of his essays as something exceptional, unexpected for Russian literature. The innovation of the young writer was prepared by the artistic practice of many of his predecessors (even earlier Chernyshevsky wrote about Pisemsky, who spoke about the darkness of the peasants). There are no impenetrable boundaries between the "truth" depicted by Uspensky and Tolstoy's same "dialectics of the soul". It is worth recalling the famous words from "Notes on Journals": "Count Tolstoy with remarkable skill reproduces not only the external environment of the life of the villagers, but, more importantly, their view of things. He knows how to move into the soul of the villager - his peasant is extremely faithful to his nature". "Is not the beginning of a change?" - the last literary-critical work of Chernyshevsky. She summed up his struggle for realism in literature. The sharply modern article called for changing sentimental sympathies for the Russian people for an honest, uncompromising conversation with them: "... talk to a peasant simply and naturally, and he will understand you; enter into his interests, and you will gain his sympathy. This business is completely easy for he who really loves the people - loves not in words, but in his soul. Not the ostentatious, Slavophile, love of the people of the "leavened patriots," but an interested and extremely frank conversation with the peasant is the basis of genuine folk literature, according to Chernyshevsky. And here is the only hope for a reciprocal understanding of the writers on the part of the people. The author of the article inspires the reader that the rigidity of peasant thinking is not eternal. The very appearance of works similar to Ouspensky's essays is a gratifying phenomenon. The question in the title of the article was answered in the affirmative. The final critical work of Chernyshevsky spoke convincingly about the "changes" in Russian literature, noting the new features of its democracy and humanism. In turn, it influenced the further development of critical realism. The 1960s and 1970s produced many artistic versions of "truth without embellishment" (V. Sleptsov, G. Uspensky, A. Levitov). Chernyshevsky's articles also influenced the further development of critical thought. Russian literature for Chernyshevsky was both a high form of art and at the same time a high platform of social thought. She is an object of both aesthetic and social research. In the aggregate, the criticism represented the unity of these studies. The breadth of the great critic's approach to literature stemmed from Chernyshevsky's awareness of its "encyclopedic expression of the entire intellectual life of our society." This is how Belinsky thought about literature, but thanks to Chernyshevsky, such an understanding of literature was finally established in Russian criticism. If Chernyshevsky's dissertation sometimes still gave external grounds for reproaching its author with logicism, with theoretical abstraction, then his articles on certain writers and works are a remarkable form of "testing" the correctness of general propositions. In this sense, Chernyshevsky's articles were truly "moving aesthetics," as Belinsky once defined criticism. Under the influence of Chernyshevsky, the internal connection between theoretical and concrete analysis will become the norm in the articles of the best critics of the second half of the 19th century. The critical experience of Chernyshevsky oriented Russian criticism towards revealing the creative originality of the writer. It is known that many of his assessments of the originality of Russian artists have remained unchanged to this day. The emphasis on the individual originality of the writer demanded from Chernyshevsky attention to the aesthetic side of the works. Chernyshevsky, following Belinsky, taught Russian critics to see how weaknesses in ideological content could have a disastrous effect on an artistic form. And this analytical lesson of Chernyshevsky was assimilated by Russian critical thought. This is a lesson in literary critical skill, when the true ideological and aesthetic essence of a work is revealed in the unity of all its constituent elements. Chernyshevsky taught Russian criticism that a concrete analysis of the creative individuality would help to understand the place of the writer and his works in modern spiritual life, in the liberation movement of the era. Chernyshevsky's literary and aesthetic views had a huge impact on Russian literature and criticism in all subsequent decades of the 19th and 20th centuries. With all the philosophical and sociological deviations from Chernyshevsky's historical ideas, populist criticism, primarily in the eyes of Mikhailovsky, took into account his methodology for the study of art. Early Marxist thought in Russia (Plekhanov) directly repelled many of the philosophical and aesthetic propositions of the leader of revolutionary democracy. Lenin named Chernyshevsky among the immediate forerunners of Russian social democracy, highly appreciating the consistency of his materialistic views, his political works and works of art. There is a historical continuity between Chernyshevsky's aesthetics, which recognizes the class nature of art, the possibility of its ideological and aesthetic "sentence", and Lenin's teaching on the partisan nature of literature. Soviet literary science and criticism owe much to Chernyshevsky. The solution of fundamental philosophical and aesthetic problems, the interpretation of the social function of art and literature, the improvement of literary critical methods and principles for analyzing a work of art, and much more, which makes up a complex system of literary and aesthetic research - all this is to one degree or another carried out taking into account the universal experience Chernyshevsky - politics, philosopher, aesthetics and criticism. His literary and aesthetic ideas, his criticism is destined for a long historical life.

In 1854. Thanks to the boldness of his statements, the critic immediately found himself in the spotlight.

Ideas of the "natural school" in the works of Chernyshevsky

In his ideas, the writer followed the founder of the "natural school". The critic believed that the writer is obliged to reveal the life of the oppressed and social contradictions as truthfully as possible.
Reviewing the work "Poverty is not a vice" - a comedy work, he blamed the author for the deliberate "clarification" of the finale and attempts to justify the merchant's life.

"Critical Enlightenment" by the author

In his work "On Sincerity in Criticism" (1954), Chernyshevsky most fully revealed his professional creed. Here the critic speaks of the need to disseminate in the mass consciousness ideas that will lead to an understanding of the social and aesthetic significance of the works. In other words, the author focuses on the educational potential of criticism. Any critic is obliged to use clear and accessible judgments, since he performs the function of a moral mentor. These postulates were subsequently successfully realized by the followers of the critic.

The work "Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality" and the idea of ​​the socially productive function of art.

The ideas of the master's work "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality", which Chernyshevsky prepared in 1855, were supported by the radical democratic camp, and the work became, in fact, its program document. The purpose of the work was to criticize the postulates of Hegelianism, which were developed in Russian criticism by Belinsky. Bypassing the idea of ​​the transcendental nature of art, the writer insisted on its "materialistic" interpretation. Art, being in juxtaposition with empiricism, is only capable of reproducing objectively existing beauty with varying degrees of success.

It makes it possible to join the beautiful "those people who did not have the opportunity to enjoy it in reality." At the same time, art is designed not only to reproduce reality, but also to explain and evaluate it.
In this paper, the author for the first time substantiates his theory - the evaluation of art from the standpoint of its social performance. In addition, she predetermined the critical method of Chernyshevsky, who always put the plot component of the work above its artistic specificity.

Chernyshevsky about Pushkin

The critic in his works invariably searched for a connection between literature itself and the literary and artistic life by which it was conditioned. In a series of works devoted to poems, he turned to the reconstruction of the socio-political position of the poet, based on his personal archive, while the author does not pay too much attention to literary criticism proper. The critic points to Pushkin's inner opposition. At the same time, the writer points to his passivity and detachment, explaining this, however, by the atmosphere of the Nikolaev era.

Chernyshevsky and the first experience of compiling the history of Russian criticism

The first experience of a large-scale reflection of the history of Russian criticism was "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", created by the author in 1855-1856. In this work

• the writer speaks positively of Nadezhdin as a staunch anti-romanticist and N. Polevoy as an accomplished democrat;
• according to Chernyshevsky, it was Belinsky who pointed out the true path of the formation of domestic literature;
• following him, he notes that the main condition for literary development is a critical reflection of reality, and creativity leads as a model

Considering him as the most "socially effective" writer, the critic puts him much higher than the works of A. Pushkin. However, already in 1957, Shchedrin, after the publication of Provincial Essays, managed, according to Chernyshevsky, to surpass Gogol. It is he who, in the eyes of the critic, becomes the main Russian accuser.

Criticism of liberal ideology

Chernyshevsky often criticized the ideology of the 1840s, noting that a critical reflection of reality, not supported by concrete actions, is not a sufficient means. In his work “The Russian Man on Rendez-Vous” (1858), which the author devoted to the analysis of Turgenev’s “Asia”, he compared the main character of the story with Agarin and Rudin from the poem “Sasha” by Nekrasov. Despite the high morality, the author believed, they lacked determination for specific actions, but the critic is inclined to blame the vices of reality, and not the characters themselves.

Criticism of Tolstoy

Chernyshevsky's reviews of Tolstoy's "Military Stories" and "Childhood and Adolescence" became almost the only attempt by the author to comprehend not the social effectiveness of the work, but its artistic specificity. The critic forgives Tolstoy for the lack of topicality in his works for the "dialectics of the soul" - the ability to teach the reader human psychology in all the contradictions of its formation.
Withdrawal from literary activity
At the turn of the 1850s and 60s, Chernyshevsky departed from literary criticism and turned to politics, philosophy and economics.

• in 1862 he was arrested for his connection with Herzen and for the proclamation "bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers ...";
• two years later, by court decision, he was sent to hard labor, where he spent more than twenty years;
• in 1883 he was allowed to move to Astrakhan, and a little later - to his native Saratov.

N. G. Chernyshevsky

On Sincerity in Criticism

N. G. Chernyshevsky. Literary criticism. In two volumes. Volume 1. M., "Fiction", 1981 Preparation of the text and notes by T. A. Akimova, G. N. Antonova, A. A. Demchenko, A. A. Zhuk, V. V. Prozorova In an article written according to on the occasion of the new edition of A. Pogorelsky's Works (Sovremennik, No VI, bibliography), we spoke of the impotence of current criticism and pointed out one of the main reasons for this sad phenomenon - compliance, evasiveness, kindness. Here are our words: “The reason for the impotence of modern criticism is that it has become too compliant, indiscriminate, undemanding, is satisfied with such works that are decidedly pitiful, admires such works that are hardly tolerable. It stands on a level with those works with which it is satisfied; how do you want it to have a living significance for the public? It is lower than the public; writers whose bad works it praises can be satisfied with such criticism; the public remains just as pleased with it as with those poems, dramas and novels that are recommended to the attention of readers in her gentle parsing" 1 . And we concluded the article with the words: "No, criticism must become much stricter, more serious, if it wants to be worthy of the name of criticism." We pointed out, as an example of what true criticism should be, the criticism of the Moscow Telegraph 2 , and, of course, not for lack of better examples. But we refrained from any - we do not say indications, even from any allusions to this or that article of this or that journal, tenderness, the weakness of which now makes it necessary to remind criticism of its rights, of its duties - and we did not want to quote examples, probably not because it was difficult to collect hundreds of them. Each of our journals in recent years could provide a lot of material for such indications; the only difference was that one magazine could present more of them, the other less. Therefore, it seemed to us that to make extracts from the articles of this or that journal would mean only unnecessarily giving a polemical character to an article written with the intention of pointing out a shortcoming common to some extent to all journals, and not at all with the aim of reproaching this or that journal. We considered it superfluous to give examples because, wishing that criticism in general would remember its dignity, we did not at all want to put this or that journal in the necessity of defending its weaknesses and thereby clinging to former weaknesses - it is known that, forced to argue , a person becomes inclined to be carried away by propositions that at first he defended, perhaps only out of necessity to answer something, and of which he might be ready to admit the groundlessness or insufficiency if he were not forced to confess openly. In a word, we did not want to make it difficult for anyone to accept the general principle, and therefore did not want to touch anyone's pride. But if someone himself, without any challenge, proclaims himself an opponent of the general principle, which seems just to us, then he has already clearly expressed that he does not recognize the justice of the general principle, but on the contrary. After all these lengthy reservations and mitigations, which very clearly prove how deeply we are imbued with the spirit of the current criticism and we, who rebel against its too soft, soft to the point of intangibility, can get down to business and say that Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the directness of some of our reviews of weak, in our opinion, fiction, although embellished with more or less well-known names (below we will present this review in full), and that we, for our part, also did not exclude quite a few critical articles of Otechestvennye Zapiski from the general mass of timid and weak critics, against whose reproduction we considered and still consider it an imperative necessity. The purpose of our article is not at all to expose other people's opinions, but to set out more clearly our concepts of criticism. And if we borrow examples of criticism that, in our opinion, does not agree with the true concepts of serious criticism, from Notes of the Fatherland, it is not at all because we want to blame the weakness of criticism exclusively on Notes of the Fatherland. We repeat that we rise against weakness general criticism: if she was only weak in one magazine or another, would it be worth the trouble? We are mainly concerned with the Notes of the Fatherland, borrowing examples exclusively from them, because they took it upon themselves to defend and praise "moderate and calm criticism" 3 - where, if not from the defender, should one look for true examples of the defended? Here, for example (Notes of the Fatherland, 1853, No. 10), is an analysis of Mr. Grigorovich's novel The Fishermen. Here the main subject of criticism is the consideration of the question of whether it is really possible for a lonely old man to catch minnows. fishing rod and not nonsense (which requires two people), and is it really possible to see swallows, swifts, thrushes and starlings on the Oka during the flood, or do they fly not during the flood, but a few days later or earlier 4; in a word, it is not so much about the novel as about what kind of bird lives where, what kind of eggs it lays. Without any doubt, it is possible and should be very cold-blooded to talk about the shortcomings and merits of the novel from this point of view. Here is another analysis of the novel by Mrs. T. Ch. "Smart Woman" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 12); the essence of the review is as follows: “Here is the plot of “Smart Woman”, one of the best stories of Mrs. T. Ch. How much smart, new and entertaining is in this story. occupies at least three-quarters of the novel. But this life does not concern us" 6 . Good and entertaining should be a novel in which at least threettwirl not worth reading. Here is a review of another story by the same author (Ms. T. Ch.), "Shadows of the Past" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No 1). "The face taken by the author is very interesting; but for a complete outline, his author as if sorry colors, in which he has no shortage (why is the face pale if the author has a talent for vividly delineating faces?). We do not seem to be mistaken if we say that Mrs. T. Ch. cared little about how to use the plot; it is enough to read the scenes we have written out to make sure that she could perform such a task in the best possible way" 7. That is, "the author did not cope with the plot; but not because he could not cope, "after all, one cannot say directly: the author took the plot beyond his strength. Indeed, such reviews consist of "riddles", as the reviewer calls his analysis of "Smart Woman", taking on it ("from reasoning about literature, we turn to a dissertation about old bachelors and ask the reader a riddle about them. Let him guess who can. "But, firstly, no one can solve it; secondly, who wants to solve critical analyzes? Charade and not a single reader demands rebuses from Russian journals.) Such are the opinions about the poems of Mr. Fet, about the novel Little Things in Life, 8 etc. No one can guess whether these works are good or bad, excellent or unbearably bad, according to reviewers. For every praise or censure they always have a completely equivalent reservation or allusion in the opposite sense.But we must not tire our readers with all these examples; we will confine ourselves to one review of Madame Tour's novel The Three Seasons of Life. -and and Tour became suddenly brighter and more noticeable" (do you expect the meaning of this phrase: Madame Tour began to write worse than before? no), this is "a circumstance in which our novelist should blame not herself, but her connoisseurs", because she has already been praised too much (do you think that this phrase means: she was praised, she began to write carelessly, stopped caring about correcting her shortcomings? No, not at all), magazine praises and censures cannot outrage the author's own judgment of his talent, because "the best critic for a novelist is always the novelist himself" (do you think this applies to Madame Tour? No, because) "a woman always depends on someone else's court" and "in the most brilliant woman one cannot find that impartial independence" that gives a man the opportunity not to submit to the influence of criticism; "every gifted woman is harmfully affected by the delight of a friend, the compliment of a polite connoisseur", as a result of them "she gives her talent an unoriginal direction, consistent with the errors of her ardent adherents" (this leads, according to your assumption, to the announcement that Madame Tour's new novel is not independent that "she composed words to someone else's motive"? no), "in the last novel of Madame Tour we see quite a lot of independence", "the view of the novelist on most of her heroes and heroines belongs to her own"; but this independence "is obscured by turns, obviously born under someone else's influence." (Do you think this is a flaw? No, that's not it). "Mrs. Tour's novel lacks the external interest of the plot, the intrigue of events" (so, there is no intrigue of events in it? No, it is, because from the words of the reviewer) "it does not follow" that "it belongs to the category of novels in which the most important event - renting an apartment or something like that." Ms. Tour's novel is uninteresting, not for lack of intrigue, but because "his hero, Oginsky, cannot entertain readers" (why? because he is colorless? no, because) "Mrs. Tour did not tell us how he served, traveled, managed his own affairs" (but this is precisely what would have ruined the intrigue, the plot that you demand); Oginsky is in love three times (there are three whole intrigues, and you said that there is not a single one), and "a man's life consists of more than one love" (that's why it was necessary to tell about all the details of Oginsky's service and travels that are unnecessary for the novel !). Oginsky's face spoiled the novel; "he brought a lot of misfortune to the work" (therefore, this face in the novel is bad? no, good, because he) "could bring even more misfortune to the work if the undoubted mind of the writer did not correct things wherever possible" (good praise! Why is such a hero chosen? In the history of all three of Oginsky’s tender attachments, “we are confronted with weakness, connected now with affectation, now with exaltation” (so, the novel is spoiled by affectation and exaltation? No, on the contrary), “the writer has a deep disgust for them” (but if they are depicted with disgust, in the true light, then this is a virtue, not a disadvantage). "The conversation is alive" though "at times spoiled by scientific expressions"; and although"many aphorisms and tirades, put even into the mouths of young girls, seem to us worthy of a learned treatise, and yet the conversation is the quintessence of living speech." - "The style of Madame Tour may be in many ways fixed for the better, if it pleases the writer herself" (!!) 9. These are the contradictions and hesitations to which the desire for "moderation" leads criticism, that is, to alleviate all slight doubts about the absolute dignity of the novel, which a humble reviewer only allows himself to offer for a moment. At first, he seems to wants to say that the novel is worse than the previous ones, then adds: no, I didn’t mean to say that, but I wanted to say that there is no intrigue in the novel: but I didn’t say this unconditionally, on the contrary, the novel has a good intrigue; and the main drawback of the novel that the hero is uninteresting; however, the face of this hero is outlined excellently; however - however - however, I did not want to say "however", I wanted to say "besides" ... no, I did not want to say "besides", but I wanted only to note that the style of the novel is bad, although the language is excellent, and even this “can be corrected if the author himself pleases.” What comment can be made about such reviews? large merits, although with even more groats by certain reservations, however, not without new commendable reservations, and therefore, although they say everything, nothing is said; from this, however, it does not follow that they were deprived of dignity, whose existence, although imperceptible, is nevertheless indisputable. "One can also express oneself about them in the words of the Notes of the Fatherland themselves, as follows:" what do we mean by the word "criticism"? - an article in which the author said a lot without saying anything "10. One can also say that the beginning of one romance is quite attached to such criticism: decisive answer Put on a veil of doubt.11 But what harm will critics do if they directly, clearly and without any omissions express their opinion about the merits and even (horror!) shortcomings of literary works adorned with more or less well-known names? and the readers demand of it, and the very usefulness of literature? For what can it be reproached in this case? This is what the Notes of the Fatherland will tell us; as an epigraph to the extract, we will also take the words of the Notes of the Fatherland, spoken quite a long time ago: "We still need to talk about such simple and ordinary concepts, which are no longer discussed in any literature" 12 . “Recently, in the reviews of our journals about various writers, we have become accustomed to meeting a moderate, cold-blooded tone; if, however, we sometimes read unjust sentences, in our opinion, then the very tone of the articles, alien to any passion, disarmed us. We may not agree with the opinion of the author but everyone is entitled to have his own opinion. Respect for another's opinion is a guarantee for respect for our own. All journals have done much to curb reviewers who take nothing into account but their own personal opinions, desires, and often benefits. But we must confess that recently some reviews of Sovremennik have surprised us extremely by their rash judgments, which have not been proven by anything.A view that contradicts what Sovremennik himself recently said, and the injustice of the review addressed to such writers as Ms. Evgenia Tur , Mr. Ostrovsky, Mr. Avdeev, gave a strange look to the bibliography of Sovremennik in recent months, placed in decisive contradiction is with herself. What she said a year ago, she now rejects in the most positive way. Other thoughts come to mind. While, for example, Mr. Avdeev's novels were being published in Sovremennik, this journal praised Mr. Avdeev; exactly the same should be said about his reviews of Yevgeny Tur. Or did the reviewer not cope with the opinions previously expressed in this journal? Or did he know them, but wanted to distinguish himself by his sharp originality? Here is what, for example, was said in Sovremennik by the New Poet in an April book in 1853, about Mr. Ostrovsky's comedy "Don't get into your sleigh" (an extract follows: we will release them here, because we will compare and explain their imaginary oppositionaboutfalsity below). In a word, the comedy is touted. Now look at what is said about the same comedy and about another, new one, "Poverty is not a vice" in the bibliography of the May book of Sovremennik in 1854, that is, after only one year (excerpt). Mr. Ostrovsky received such reviews to his share. Here is what is said in the same book about Ms. Evgenia Tur's latest novel "Three Pores of Life" (excerpt). Is it possible to speak in this way about the author of "The Niece", "Mistakes", "Debt", even if the new novel by Mrs. Evgenia Tur was unsuccessful? The verdict is unfair, because the work of a talented writer, no matter how successful it may be, can never be unconditionally bad; but it is strange to come across this review in Sovremennik, where until now they have said something completely different about the talent of Ms. Evgenia Tur. Re-read, for example, what was said to Mr. I. T. in 1852 about the works of Mrs. Eugenia Tur (excerpt). How opportunely after this is the above review of the talent of Madame Tour, where there is not even a word about the talent of this writer! With what bitter grin must writers look after this at the praises and censures of the magazines? Is criticism a toy? But the most unfair review was made in Sovremennik of the same year about Mr. Avdeev, one of our best storytellers, who had previously (when Mr. Avdeev published his works in Sovremennik) this journal, in its advertisements for subscriptions and in its reviews of literature, has always ranked it alongside our first writers. There is so much evidence for this that it is difficult to list them all. Take, for example, a survey of literature for 1850, which lists our best narrators: there Mr. Avdeev is placed alongside Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. What does it say in the February book of Sovremennik for 1854 (extract)? Wouldn't we like to tell you what Sovremennik said in 1851? But perhaps the reviewer does not care about the opinions of Sovremennik? In this case, the reviewer would do well to sign his name under an article refuting the opinion of the journal in which he writes. We will cite below what Sovremennik said in 1851, and now we will write out one more passage, striking in its unceremoniousness, far from fashionable (extract: in it, as the most unfashionable expressions, the words are underlined: "Tamarin ... showed in it ability to developandtiyu... None of his stories can be called a work we are humanWithlying"). Permit me, Mr. thinking reviewer, to remark to you that you seem to understand a thought only when it is expressed in the form of maxims; otherwise, how not to see thoughts even in "Tamarin" (there the reviewer was facilitated by the "Introductioneniem", where the idea of ​​the work is stated) and in other stories by Mr. Avdeev? But let us assume that there is no new thought in them, so be it. And what special thought will the reviewer find in Ordinary History or in Oblomov's Dream by Mr. Goncharov, in Mr. L.'s History of My Childhood - fascinating stories? And vice versa: what charm will Mr. Reviewer find in Mr. Potekhin's drama "The Governess", where at the base lies an intelligent, noble thought? Why such contempt for the masterful story, which is visible in all the works of Mr. Avdeev? You say that Mr. Avdeev is exclusively an imitator in his Tamarin. But we will notice ... However, why should we talk? Sovremennik has already expressed its opinion about this in a review of literature for 1850. Here it is (we apologize to readelem for long extracts, but we believe that the reader sees how important in this case are quotations from Sovremennik, which once praised, and now scolds the same writers) (excerpt). What can be said after this about the opinions of the Sovremennik reviewer, the reviewer who placed this journal in such a strange position regarding its own opinions? Praise and deny all dignity, speak at the same time and Yes and No, doesn't that mean not knowing what to say about our three best writers? To want to cross out from the list of writers three such writers as Messrs. Ostrovsky, Evgenia Tur and Avdeev, doesn't it mean taking on your shoulders a burden beyond your strength? And why is this an attack? We leave this question to the reader's own permission." 13 Why did we write out this long passage? We wish it to serve as a model of the extent to which present-day criticism sometimes forgets the most elementary principles of all criticism. Our remarks will speak only of such concepts. and meanwhile, having run through our remarks, let the reader take the trouble to read the extract again: with every possible attention, he will not find any trace of the fact that the critic, dissatisfied with us, had in mind these concepts; they were not reflected not in a single phrase, not in a single word. Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with Sovremennik because he is inconsistent, contradicting himself. The inconsistency of Sovremennik lies in the fact that he had previously praised the works of Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Mr. zhi Tour, and now he allowed himself to make a very unfavorable review of the works of the same writers. sequence? The question is really very tricky, almost more difficult than reconciling "yes" and "no" in one article about the same book; Therefore, let us try to state it in the most important tone. Consistency in judgments consists in the fact that judgments about identical objects are the same. For example, to praise all good works, to condemn all bad, but full of claims, equally. For example, praising the "Hero of Our Time", praise the "Song about Kalashnikov"; but to refer to "Masquerade" in the same way as to "Hero of Our Time" would be inconsistent, because although the title of "Masquerade" has the same name as on "Hero of Our Time", the dignity of these works is completely different. From this we dare to deduce a rule: if you want to be consistent, then look exclusively at the dignity of the work and do not be embarrassed by whether you found good or bad before the work of the same author; because things are the same according to their essential quality, and not according to the stigma attached to them. From judgments about the individual works of the writer, we must pass to a general judgment about the significance of the entire literary activity of the writer. Consistency, of course, will require: to equally praise writers who have the right to praise, and equally not to praise those who do not. Everything changes in the course of time; the position of writers in relation to the concepts of public and criticism also changes. What to do if justice requires the magazine to change its judgment about the writer? How, for example, did Otechestvennye Zapiski act? There was a time when they highly regarded Marlinsky and others, and we do not want to reproach them for this: the general opinion about these writers was then as follows; then public opinion about the same writers changed, perhaps because the first ardor had passed, that they peered closer and more calmly at their works; perhaps because they themselves began to write not better and better, but worse and worse; because, speaking in technical language, that they "did not live up to expectations" (an expression that has almost as wide use in our language as fell ill, died, etc.); maybe because other writers eclipsed them - it doesn't matter, for whatever reason, but the opinion had to be changed, and it was changed 15 . Did the consistency demand to continue to worship Marlinsky and others? What consistency would there be in a journal that would consider itself obliged, first being a warrior for the best in literature, then becoming a warrior for the worst only out of attachment to names? Such a magazine would change itself. Not to mention the fact that he would have lost his place of honor in literature, would have lost all right to the sympathy of the best part of the public, would have been subjected to general ridicule along with his clients. Indeed, imagine that in 1844 or 1854 Otechestvennye Zapiski would continue to call, as they called in 1839, our best writers, authors recognized as mediocre, what place in literature and journalism would be occupied by this journal? We dare to expect that even in the Sovremennik impartial judges will be honored not with guilt, but - we don’t want to say with dignity - at least with the fulfillment of the duty to keep up with the opinion of the enlightened part of the public and the demands of justice, which change over time, if the Sovremennik ", speaking of Mr. X or Z in April 1854, he will think more about what it is fair to say about this writer now, than take care to rewrite as literally as possible the same review that could and should have been made about the works of this writer in April 1853, 1852 or 1851. The "contemporary" hopes that he will not be blamed in the same way if he understands consistency as fidelity to his aesthetic requirements, and not as a blind attachment to the stereotypical repetitions of the same phrases about the writer, from his very literary adolescence to his very literary decrepitude. What is to be done if a writer who "showed promise", who deserved the sympathy of the best part of the public and the encouraging praise of criticism, did not "justify" the hopes, lost the right to sympathy and praise? "Say what you need to say now, and not what you should have said before," and if your sentences are based on the same principles, you will be consistent, even if you had to say "yes" at first, and "no" a year later. It is a completely different matter if the sentence is once pronounced on the basis of some principles, and the next time on the basis of others - then we will be inconsistent, even if both times we say the same thing (for example: "one novel by Mrs. NN is good, because in it, through exaltation, the sincere warmth of feeling is visible; therefore, the other novel of Mrs. NN is good, although only cloying exaltation is visible in it.") But, as we see, it is not about this betrayal of principles, but simply about the unequal judgments about different works of some writers. Such external heterogeneity is not always a grave fault; sometimes even the very consistency and dignity depend on it but the merit or defect is the change of former judgments in accordance with the change in the merit of the objects about which the judgment is pronounced, in any case, neither defects nor merit can be recognized for ourselves without considering to what extent they are justly attributed to us. how great is the real difference between Sovremennik's former and present opinions about Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Madame Tour, does it really place Sovremennik in "decisive contradiction with itself". Ostrovsky "Do not get into your sleigh" lies in the fact that the New Poet, in the April book of 1853, said: "The comedy of Mr. Ostrovsky had bl a thorough and well-deserved success on two stages: St. Petersburg and Moscow. In it people are rude, simple, uneducated, but with a soul and with direct common sense are placed next to people who are semi-educated. The author has very cleverly used this contrast. How beautiful these peasants are in their simplicity, and how pitiful is this squandered Vikhorev. All this is excellent and extremely true to reality. Rusakov and Borodkin are living faces taken from life without any embellishment." 16 In the February book of 1854 it is said: 17 "In his last two works, Mr. Ostrovsky fell into a sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished. The works came out weak and false. "The contradiction between these separate extracts is decisive; but it is completely smoothed out if we read them in connection with what precedes them in both articles. The new poet considers "Do not get into your sleigh" in relation to to other works in our repertoire, speaks of the superiority of this comedy over other comedies and dramas played on the Alexandrian stage.18 With regard to the essential merit of "Do not get into your sleigh," the New Poet seems to express his opinion quite clearly, adding: "But, despite this, nevertheless, artistically, this comedy cannot be staged along with his first comedy ("Our people-- agree"). In general, “Don’t get into your sleigh” is a work that does not go beyond the range of ordinary talented works.” 19 And since the article from No. II of Sovremennik this year 20 compares this comedy, “which does not go beyond the range of ordinary works,” with the truly remarkable first work of Mr. Ostrovsky, then, calling it "weak", this article, it seems to us, does not run into contradiction with the New Poet, who says that "Don't get into your sleigh" cannot be put along with "Your own people". One side of the contradiction - about the artistic merit of comedy - does not exist. Another contradiction remains: the New poet called Borodkin and Rusakov "living persons taken from reality, without any embellishment"; a year later, Sovremennik says that Mr. Ostrovsky fell (in the comedies Do Not Get into Your Sleigh and Poverty is Not a Vice) "into sugary embellishment of what should not be embellished, and the comedies came out false. " Here we are again forced to set about expounding elementary principles and explain, firstly, that in a work of art, the generality of which is imbued with the most false outlook and which therefore embellishes reality to the point of intolerance, individuals can be written off from reality very faithfully and without any embellishment. Or not to spread about it? After all, everyone agrees that, for example, this is what happened in "Poverty is not a vice": We love Tortsov, a dissolute drunkard with a kind, loving heart - a person with whom there are in fact very many similarities; meanwhile, "Poverty is not a vice" as a whole is a work of the highest degree false and embellished, and - mainly - falseness and embellishment are introduced into this comedy precisely by the person of Lyubim Tortsov, who, taken separately, is true to reality. This is due to the fact that, in addition to individuals, in a work of art there is a general idea, on which (and not on individual individuals alone) the nature of the work depends. There is such an idea in Don't Get into Your Sleigh, but it is still quite cleverly covered up by artful furnishings and therefore was not noticed by the public: those who noticed the falsity of the idea in this comedy hoped (out of love for the wonderful talent of the author of "Your People") that this idea is a fleeting delusion of the author, perhaps even unknown to the artist himself, crept into his work; therefore they did not want to talk about this unfortunate side without extreme necessity; 21 a there was no need, because the idea, skillfully hidden under favorable circumstances (opposing Rusakov and Borodkin to Vikhorev, the most empty scoundrel), was not noticed by almost anyone, made no impression and, therefore, could not yet have influence; there was no need to expose her, to execute her, therefore. But then came "Poverty is not a vice"; the false idea boldly threw off all cover by a more or less ambiguous situation, became a firm, constant principle of the author, was noisily proclaimed as a life-giving truth, was noticed by everyone and, if we are not mistaken, produced very strong displeasure in the entire sane part of society. The "contemporary" felt obliged to pay attention to this idea and to give, as far as possible, expression to the general feeling. Having spoken of the idea "Poverty is not a vice," Sovremennik considered it useful to say two or three words about the author's previous works, and, of course, had to say that "Don't get into your sleigh" was the predecessor of "Poverty is not a vice." which, of course, no one will now deny; the idea "Don't get into your sleigh," now explained to all readers by Mr. Ostrovsky's latest comedy, could no longer be passed over in silence, as was possible before, when it had no meaning for the public, and - to the previous review of The fidelity of some persons of the comedy (which the analysis of "Poverty is not a vice" did not even think to deny) had to be added that the idea of ​​the comedy was false. As for Sovremennik's opinions about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tur, the contradiction disappears even without any explanation - one has only to compare the supposedly contradictory opinions. The Sovremennik found Madame Tour's novel The Niece to be quite good, and finds the novel The Three Seasons of Life written by her bad three years later, without saying a word about the other works of this writer; where is the contradiction? We do not present extracts from the last review due to its decisive uselessness for explaining the case; having reviewed No V of Sovremennik for this year, readers can be convinced that our review of the last novel does not say a single word about "Niece", "Debt", "Mistake" and therefore cannot in any way contradict any review about these works. It only remains to ask the readers to look at the article on the "Niece" (No. I of the Sovremennik for 1852): by looking through it, the readers will see how much the Sovremennik, even then, was forced to talk about the shortcomings of Madame Tour's talent; it is true that this article says that there is a similarity between the good sides of the talent of Madame Tour and the talent of Madame Gan and that "the brilliant hopes aroused by Madame Tour were so justified that they ceased to be hopes and became the property of our literature", but these praises (more condescending and delicate than positive, as the whole tone of the article convinces) are far outweighed by passages like this: she had just opened them herself, but also this may happen. But this can also be excused. Talent of that independent talent, which we spoke about at the beginning of the article, in Mrs. Tour or No, or very few; her lyrical talent... unable to create independent characters and types. Madame Tour's style is careless, her speech chatty, almost watery ... It was unpleasant for us to meet on other pages of the "Niece" traces of rhetoric, something that smelled of "Collected exemplary works", some claims to writing, to literary decorations " ("Contemporary", 1852,no 1, Criticism, article by Mr. I. T.) 23. We ask what new things have been added to these reproaches in the review of the "Three Pores of Life"? Absolutely nothing; instead of an accusation of contradiction, one could rather accuse the reviewer of this last novel of being too saturated with Mr. I. T.'s article. what to do? The virtues of The Niece faded to invisibility, and the faults developed to the extreme in The Three Pores of Life. But most of all, Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with Sovremennik's review of Mr. Avdeev's writings (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 2). With this review, Sovremennik has become "the strangest contradiction with itself, because (we admit that this is 'because' it is very difficult to understand) now Sovremennik says that Mr. Avdeev has a remarkable talent for storytelling," and before that he "ranked Mr. Avdeev to our best narrators", namely: in 1850 he said: "In the first works of Mr. Avdeev we will find clear signs of talent (dosadnay caution! why not say "brilliant talent"? no, just "prandsigns" of it). The best proof that Mr. Avdeev is strong in more than one imitative ability (Ah! even before 1850 it was found that Mr. Avdeev was still strong only in his ability to imitate!), the idyll of Mr. Avdeev "Clear Days" served. This story is very sweet, there is a lot of warm, sincere feeling in it. (and there is a lot of clarity of concepts about the world and people? Probably not, if this dignity is not put on display,--The review, with which Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied, attacks this shortcoming). The wonderful language in which Mr. Avdeev constantly writes has probably been noticed by the readers themselves." there is any disagreement in him with this extract from the previous review. Previously, Sovremennik ranked Mr. Avdeev among our best narrators—but even the last review begins precisely with the words: “G. Avdeev is a nice, pleasant storyteller", etc. in this vein; on the next page (41st) we read again: "G. Avdeev - full credit to him for this - is a good, very good storyteller"; after repeated repetitions of the same phrase, the review ends with the words (p. 53): "he discovered an undoubted talent for storytelling" ... and the assumption that, subject to known conditions, "he will give us a lot of truly beautiful" (the very last words of the review).The previous review says that there is no imitation in "Clear Days" - and the last review does not think to question this; the previous review does not think to deny that "Tamarin" imitation; and the last review proves this; the previous review sees in "Clear Days" warmth of feeling - and the last review does not cast the slightest doubt on this, calling the faces of this idyll "favorites" of Mr. Avdeev, people "nice" to him. that there is not a drop of contradiction in all this. It even seems to us that one can rather accuse the latest review of too scrupulous study of previous reviews, just as one can accuse the analysis of Madame Tour's novel "Three Pores of Life" in too close affinity with the article by Mr. I. T. on "The Niece". In a word, anyone who carefully compares the reviews with the previous reviews of Sovremennik, with which others are so dissatisfied, will find between these reviews and the previous reviews not a contradiction, but the most common similarity in view between articles of the same journal. And although it would be very pleasant for Sovremennik to give its readers as often as possible articles that are distinguished by the novelty of their outlook, it must admit that reviews that have caused dissatisfaction are least distinguished by this merit. And we must conclude our elementary exposition of the concepts of consistency with the answer, which the “Notes of the Fatherland” themselves did in their time to such displeasures against them for the alleged novelty of opinions about the significance of various celebrities of our literature, namely: “the opinions in question, "not new and not originalbus" 26, - especially for the readers of Sovremennik. How could they attract dislike? Is it really that they are expressed directly, without obfuscation, omissions and reservations? Is it not that, saying: "Tamarin" is an imitation " , we did not add, as usual, which has been taking root for some time in our criticism: “however, we do not want to say by this that Mr. Avdeev was an imitator in Tamarin; we find in this novel a lot of independent and at the same time beautiful”, etc.; having said: "Three pores of life" is an exalted novel without any content", they did not add: "however, it contains a lot of bright and calm understanding of life and even more meaningful ideas, indicating that the author did not think about many things for nothing"? perhaps because they did not add to this commonplaces about "undoubted talents", that the books being analyzed "constitute a gratifying phenomenon in Russian literature", etc. If so, then the answer to this is already ready in the "Patriotic notes": "In our criticism, the dominance of commonplaces, literary servility to the living and the dead, hypocrisy in judgments are noticeable. They think and know one thing, but say another."27 Having recalled this passage, we will proceed to present "the most simple and common concepts" of what criticism is and to what extent it must be evasive and can do without frankness—we will proceed to the doctrine of how well criticism does when, in the words of Otechestvennye zapiski, it speaks in a "disarming voice", even in case of injustice, by its humility 2S The polemical form in our article is only a means to interest the dry and too uncomplicated subject of those who do not like dry subjects, no matter how important they may be, and consider it beneath their dignity to turn their attention, at least from time to time, to thinking about simple things, constantly occupied with "living and important" questions of art (for example, about how great the dignity of a dozen novels.) Now we can leave this form, because the reader who has skimmed over half of the article will probably not leave the end of it without attention either. to state directly the basic concepts, which we considered necessary to recall. Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of a literary work. Its purpose is to serve as an expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses. It goes without saying that this goal can be achieved in any satisfactory way only with every possible concern for clarity, definiteness and directness. What kind of expression of public opinion is a mutual, obscure expression? How will criticism give the opportunity to get acquainted with this opinion, to explain it to the masses, if she herself needs explanations and leaves room for misunderstandings and questions: “But what do you really think, Mr. critic? Yes, in what sense is it necessary understand what you are saying, Mr. Critic?" Therefore, criticism in general should, as far as possible, avoid any omissions, reservations, subtle and obscure allusions, and all similar roundabouts that only interfere with the directness and clarity of the matter. Russian criticism should not be like the scrupulous, subtle, evasive and empty criticism of French feuilletons; This evasiveness and pettiness is not in the taste of the Russian public, it does not lead to lively and clear convictions, which our public rightly demands from criticism. The consequences of evasive and gilded phrases have always been and will be the same with us: at first, these phrases mislead readers, sometimes about the dignity of works, always about the opinions of the magazine about literary works; then the public loses confidence in the opinions of the magazine; and therefore all our journals, desiring that their criticism should have influence and be trusted, were distinguished by the directness, steadfastness, intransigence (in a good sense) of their criticism, calling all things - as far as possible - by their direct names, no matter how harsh there were names. We consider it superfluous to give examples: some are in the memory of everyone, we recalled others when talking about old analyzes of Pogorelsky's works. But how should one judge the sharpness of tone? Is she good? is it even allowed? What to answer to this? c "est selon (Depending on the circumstances (fr.).-- Ed. ), what is the case and what is the sharpness. Sometimes criticism cannot do without it if it wants to be worthy of the name of living criticism, which, as we know, only a living person can write, that is, capable of being imbued with both enthusiasm and strong indignation - feelings that, as everyone knows, are poured out not in cold and languid speech, not in such a way that no one from their outpouring was neither warm nor cold. We again consider it superfluous to point out examples, also because we have a proverb: "he who remembers the old, that's out of the eye." And for tangible proof, as sharpness of tone is sometimes necessary in living criticism, let us suppose such a case (not yet one of the most important). That style of writing, which was driven out of use by the caustic sarcasms of practical criticism, is beginning to come back into fashion due to various reasons, among other things, and the weakening of criticism, perhaps confident that flowery idle talk cannot recover from the blows inflicted on it. Here again, as in the days of Marlinsky and Polevoy, works appear, are read by the majority, approved and encouraged by many literary judges, works consisting of a set of rhetorical phrases, generated by "captive thought irritation" 30, unnatural exaltation, distinguished by the former cloying, only with a new one. quality - Shalikov's grace, good looks, tenderness, madrigality; there are even some new "Maryina Groves" with Delights; 31 and this rhetoric, revived in its worst form, again threatens to flood literature, to have a harmful effect on the taste of the majority of the public, to make the majority of writers again forget about content, about a healthy outlook on life, as the essential virtues of a literary work. Assuming such a case (and there are even more bitter ones), we ask: is criticism obliged to write madrigals instead of denunciations of these frail but dangerous phenomena? or can it act in relation to new painful phenomena in the same way as it was done in its time with respect to similar phenomena, and say without circumlocution that there is nothing good in them? Probably not. Why not? Because "a talented author could not write a bad essay." But was Marlinsky less talented than today's epigones? Was it not Zhukovsky who wrote Maryina Grove? And tell me, what's good in Maryina Grove? And for what can one praise a work without content or with bad content? "But it's written in good language." For a good language, one could forgive a miserable content when the main need of our literature was to learn to write in a non-gibberish language. Eighty years ago, it was a special honor for a person to know spelling; and indeed, then whoever knew how to put the letter ѣ in place, he could justly be called an educated person. But wouldn't it be shameful now to put the knowledge of spelling in special merit to someone other than Mitya, bred by Mr. Ostrovsky? 32 Writing in bad language is now a disadvantage; the ability to write well is no longer a special virtue. Let us recall the phrase written out by us in the article about Pogorelsky "Telegraph": "Is it really that they glorify the Monastyrka because it is written smoothly?" 33 -- and leave it to the compiler. "Memorial sheet of errors in the Russian language" a pleasant and laborious duty to issue commendable sheets for the art of writing in a satisfactory language 34 . This distribution would take too much time from the critic, and would involve too much paperwork: how many stops would be required for commendable sheets if all deserving ones were rewarded? Let us return, however, to the question of the sharpness of the reviews. Is unsweetened directness of condemnation permissible when it comes to the work of a "famous" writer? "Do you really want to be allowed to 'attack only the roundest and most defenseless orphan'?" Is it possible, fully armed with swearing, with red-hot arrows of sarcasm, to go into battle against some poor Makar, on whom all the bumps fall? If so, then give your critical chair to those Gogol gentlemen who "praise Pushkin and speak with witty taunts about A. A. Orlov."35 Yes, they are guilty; we began to write vaguely and unconvincingly; we forgot our intention to always start from the beginning. We fill in the gap. Criticism worthy of its name is not written so that Mr. Critic flaunts wit, not in order to give criticism the glory of a vaudeville coupletist who cheers the audience with his puns. Wit, causticity, gall, if the critic possesses them, should serve him as an instrument for achieving the serious goal of criticism - the development and purification of taste in the majority of his readers, should only give him the means to appropriately express the opinions of the best part of society. But is public opinion interested in questions about the dignity of writers who are not known to anyone, who are not revered by anyone as "excellent writers"? Is the best part of society indignant that some student of Fedot Kuzmichev or A. A. Orlov wrote a new novel in four parts of fifteen pages each? Does "Love and Fidelity" or "A Terrible Place" (see the bibliography of this book "Sovremennik"), or "The Adventures of George my Lord of England" spoil the taste of the public? 36 If you wish, refine your wit over them too, but remember that in this case you are engaged in "magazine spilling from empty to empty", and not criticism. "But the author may be upset by a severe condemnation" 37 is another matter; if you are a person who does not like to upset your neighbor, then do not attack anyone, because a little-known author will be upset just as much as the most famous author by pointing out the shortcomings of his literary brainchild. If you think that it is impossible to say unpleasant things to someone in any case, for any good, then put the finger of silence on your lips or open them then to prove that any criticism is harmful, because any one upsets someone. But do not rush to condemn unconditionally any criticism. Everyone will agree that the justice and usefulness of literature are higher than the personal feelings of the writer. And the heat of the attack should be proportionate to the degree of harm to the taste of the public, the degree of danger, the strength of the influence that you attack. Therefore, if you have before you two novels distinguished by false exaltation and sentimentality, and one of them bears an unknown name, and the other a name that has weight in literature, which one should you attack with more force? The one that is more important, that is, harmful to literature. Fast forward sixty years ago. You are a German critic. Before you lies the artistically excellent but sugary "Hermann und Dorothea" ("Hermann and Dorothea" (German).-- Ed. ) Goethe and some other idyllic poem by some mediocre scribbler, rather well written and as cloying as the "artistically beautiful creation" of the great poet. Which of these two poems should you attack with all your might if you consider (like any intelligent person) cloying idealism to be a very harmful disease for the Germans? And which poem can you make out in an accommodating, gentle, and perhaps even encouraging tone? One of them will pass unnoticed, harmless, despite your compliant response; the other has been delighting the German public for fifty-seven years. You would do very well if, being a German critic sixty years ago, you poured out all the bile of indignation on this harmful poem, if you would refuse for a while to obey the gentle suggestions of your deep respect for the name of the one who was the glory of the German people, would not be afraid of reproaches in vehemence, in recklessness, in disrespect for the great name and, coldly and briefly saying that the poem is written very well (there are hundreds of pens for this, and besides yours), they would attack as clearly and sharply as possible the harmful sentimentality and emptiness of its content, they tried to the best of your strength, to prove that the poem of the great Goethe is pitiful and harmful in content, in direction. Of course, it would not be easy for you to speak of Goethe's work in this way: it is bitter for you yourself to rebel against the one whom you would like to glorify forever, and many will think ill of you. But what to do? That is what duty requires of you. What a pathetic tone! we have forgotten that Goethe has not been found among our writers for a long time, therefore, modern Russian criticism has to talk only about such writers who are more or less close to mere mortals, and, probably, heroic determination is not at all necessary in order to dare when one of them will write a bad work, call the work bad without any roundabouts or reservations, and when someone expresses this opinion, then do not be upset by his terrible boldness. Therefore, it seems to us that if one finds faults, for example, in Sovremennik's review of The Three Pores of Life, then it would be necessary to show not that the famous author of this novel stands above criticism, but, on the contrary, is it that it was hardly worth talking much about such a book, which, in all probability, was not at all destined to make a fuss in the public. And it seems to us that readers might not be completely satisfied with our long review for its length; they may think that it would be much better and that it would be completely sufficient to limit oneself to two or three words, for example. , even if only by those who write out "Notes of the Fatherland" (in "Three Pores" there is neither thought, nor plausibility in characters, nor probability in the course of events; there is only a terrible affectation, representing everything just upside down against how it happens in this world All this is dominated by an immeasurable emptiness of content); but Sovremennik did not at all expand on this novel because the novel itself was worthy of great attention—it seemed to us that it deserved some attention as one of the many affected novels similar to it, the number of which had recently multiplied very noticeably. What comes into fashion should be subjected to closer examination already for this circumstance, even if it does not deserve it due to its essential significance. And this gives us an opportunity to regret that in recent years our literature has developed too slowly; and how significant was its development in the course of five or six years before! But, tell me, how much has she gone forward since the appearance of "Niece", "Tamarin" and especially the wonderful work of Mr. Ostrovsky "Own people - we will settle"? And for this very stagnation of literature, Sovremennik's judgments about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tur in 1854 could not differ significantly from his opinions about these writers in 1850. Literature has changed little, and the position of writers in literature has changed little. Nevertheless, the stagnation in literature was not perfect - some writers (for example, Mr. Grigorovich, with whom others continue to put Mr. Avdeev on the same line, as they put before) moved forward, took a much more prominent place in literature than in 1850 ; 38 others, such as Madame Tour, moved further back; still others, a few, like Mr. Avdeev, remained completely in the same place; consequently, the old rows have already been upset, new ones have formed. And now it would seem ridiculous to any reader if they were to put Mr. Avdeev, for example, and even more so Mrs. Tur, along with Mr. Grigorovich. To some extent, the concepts of these latter have changed. And won't every reader now (let's talk only about Mr. Avdeev) say that when the first works of Mr. Avdeev appeared, they should have expected much more from him than he could produce until now? Doesn't everyone say that up to now he "has not justified his hopes"? and five or six years have already passed, he has already written five or six stories, it would be time to justify these hopes. And if something better should really be expected from him (a hope that we share and which we expressed in our article), then isn’t it time, isn’t it time to draw the attention of a “really gifted” narrator to the fact that until now he more nothing not done to strengthen his fame? When he publishes all his works in five or six years, should not his attention be drawn to the essential shortcomings of all his works (the lack of thought and the lack of accountability with which he spills his warm feeling)? Fortunately, to correct these shortcomings "he can, if he pleases" (happy expression!) 39 , that's why it is necessary to expose them more clearly to him - this may not be useful. Another thing is the fundamental corruption (true or supposed?) talent - this can hardly be helped, no matter how you point out the shortcomings; that is why in one of the three reviews (not about "Tamarina" or "Poverty is not a vice"), in question, "Sovremennik" did not express any hopes. But the shortcomings that Mr. Avdeev's talent suffers from can disappear if he seriously wants to, because they lie not in the essence of his talent, but in the absence of those qualities necessary for the fruitful development of talent, which are not given by nature, as talent is given; which are given to another by the difficult experience of life, by another science, by another society in which he lives; Sovremennik tried to draw Mr. Avdeev's attention to these conditions in its entire review, and expressed them as clearly as possible at the end. We regret that we cannot begin to discuss them here, partly already because this would mean repeating what was said very recently. But all the talk about these "simple and ordinary concepts, which are no longer discussed in any literature," leads us to say two or three words about what "thought" is - a concept that perplexes some, of course, very few, and about which we therefore consider it sufficient to say only two or three words, without expanding on a subject so well known. "What is "thought" in a poetic work?" How can I explain this simply and briefly? Probably everyone has happened to notice the difference between the people whose conversation he happened to hear. You sit for two hours with another person, and you feel that your time has not been spent in vain; you find at the end of the conversation that you have either learned something new, or you have begun to look at things more clearly, or you have become more sympathetic to the good or offended by the bad more vividly, or you feel an impulse to think about something. After another conversation, nothing like this happens. You talk, it seems, for the same amount of time and, it seems, about the same subjects, only with a person of a different sort - and you feel that you got absolutely nothing out of his stories, all the same, as if you were engaged not in a conversation with him, but blowing soap bubbles, all the same, as if he had not spoken. Is it really necessary to explain why this is so? because one interlocutor is either an educated person, or a person who has seen a lot in his lifetime and has seen not without benefit to himself, an “experienced” person, or a person who has thought about something; and the other interlocutor is what is called an "empty" person. Is it really necessary to launch into proofs and explanations that books are divided into the same two categories as conversations? Some are "empty" - sometimes inflated at the same time - others are "non-empty"; and it is said about non-empty ones that they have "thought". We think that if it is permissible to laugh at empty people, then it is probably permissible to laugh at empty books; that if it is permissible to say: "it is not worth making and listening to empty talk," then it is probably also permissible to say: "it is not worth writing and reading empty books." Previously, "content" was constantly required of poetic works; our current demands, unfortunately, must be much more moderate, and therefore we are ready to be satisfied even with "thought", that is, the very striving for content, the inspiration in the book of that subjective principle from which "content" arises. However, perhaps it is necessary to explain what "content" is? But we write about difficult questions, and scholarly treatises cannot do without citations. Therefore, let us recall the words of Otechestvennye Zapiski: “Someone, perhaps, will say that these words were used in the Vestnik Evropy, in the Mnemosyne, in the Athenaeus, etc., were understood by everyone twenty years ago and did not excite anyone. neither surprise nor indignation. Alas! what can be done! Up to now we have fervently believed in moving forward, but now we have to believe in moving backward. The worst thing about this passage is that it is completely fair. Therefore, we regret that "An Ordinary Story" and "Tamarin" or "Clear Days" did not appear twenty years ago: then they would understand what a huge difference between these works. They would, of course, also understand that at the basis of Mr. Potekhin's drama The Governess (i.e., Brother and Sister?) lies a false and affected thought, as, by the way, has already been proved by Sovremennik. Let us return, however, again to the "sharpness" of the tone. We said that in many cases this is the only tone appropriate for criticism that understands the importance of the subject and does not look coldly at literary questions. But we have also said that harshness is of various kinds, and so far we have only spoken of one case—when harshness of tone results from the fact that a just thought is expressed directly and as strongly as possible, without reservations. Another thing is illegibility in words; it, of course, is not good to allow yourself, because to be rude means to forget your own dignity. We do not think that we can be reproached for this, because here is the harshest of the expressions emphasized for "unceremoniousness, far from fashionable": "Tamarin" made us expect something new and better from Mr. Avdeev, showing in him the ability to develop; but not one of his stories published so far can still be called the work of a thinking person. "These words will hardly be condemned by Gogol's ladies, who say: "get by with a scarf"; 43 but in no case should he be "amazed" by them "who immediately allows himself expressions much less fashionable. Yes, it is not good to be illegible; but it is still much more forgivable than allowing yourself dark hints that suspect the sincerity of someone with whom you are dissatisfied. We would not advise anyone to use them, because, precisely because of their obscurity, they are attached to everything, and if, for example, Otechestvennye Zapiski hints that Sovremennik is unfair to Mr. Avdeev and Madame Tur because the works of these writers are no longer published in Sovremennik ", then how easy it is (we refrain from other hints) to explain this allusion with such a phrase: "To Otechestvenny Zapiski" the opinions of "Sovremennik" about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tur seem unfair because these authors are now publishing their own Oizvedeniya in "Domestic Notes". But it is better to leave all such trifles, decidedly funny: did Otechestvennye Zapiski ceased to praise Mr. Benediktov because the works of this poet, which adorned the first issues of the journal, then ceased to appear in Otechestvennye Zapiski? 44 Is it really not clear to everyone that there could be no connection between these facts, that, finally, things could be the other way around? Let's leave it. Criticism should not be a "magazine squabble"; it must take up a more serious and worthy task - the persecution of empty works and, as much as possible, denounce the internal insignificance and discord of works with false content. And in whatever journal Sovremennik meets criticism with such aspiration, it is always glad to meet it, because the need for it is really strong.

NOTES

TEXTS PREPARED AND COMMENTED

T. M. Akimova ("Song of different peoples..."); G. N. Antonova ("On Sincerity in Criticism"); A. A. Demchenko ("A novel and stories by M. Avdeev"; "Notes on journals. June, July 1856"); A. A. Zhuk ("Three pores of life. A novel by Evgenia Tur"); V. V. Prozorov ("Poverty is not a vice. A. Ostrovsky's comedy"; "Notes on magazines. March 1857")

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Belinsky - V. G. Belinsky. Full cobr. op. in 13 volumes. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1953-1959. Herzen -- A. I. Herzen. Sobr. op. in 30 volumes. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1954-1984. Gogol - N. V. Gogol. Full coll. op. in 14 volumes. M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1948-1952. Dobrolyubov -- N. A. Dobrolyubov. Sobr. op. in 9 volumes. M., "Fiction", 1961-1964. "Materials" - P. V. Annenkov. Materials for the biography of A. S. Pushkin. - In the book: "Works of A. S. Pushkin", vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1855. Nekrasov - N. A. Nekrasov. Full coll. op. and letters in 12 volumes. M., Goslitizdat, 1948-1953. "Letters" - Pushkin. Letters. 1815--1833. Tt. I--II. Ed. and with note. B. L. Modzalevsky. Gosizdat, M.--L., 1926--1928; vol. III. Ed. and with note. L. B. Modzalevsky. "Academia", M.--L., 1935. Pushkin - A. S. Pushkin. Full coll. op. in 16 volumes. M.--L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1937--1949. "Works -" Works of A. S. Pushkin. "Published by A. S. Pushkin" P. V. Annenkov. SPb., 1855--1856. Turgenev. -- I. S. Turgenev. Full coll. Works op. and letters in 28 volumes. M.--L., "Science", 1960--1968, vols. I-XV. Turgenev. Letters - I. S. Turgenev. Full coll. op. and letters in 28 volumes. M.--L., "Science", 1960--1968, vols. I--XIII. C. r. -- censorship. TsGALI - Central State Archive of Literature and Art of the USSR. Chernyshevsky -- N. G. Chernyshevsky. Full coll. op. in 16 volumes. M., Goslitizdat, 1939-1953. The two-volume collection of selected literary-critical works of N. G. Chernyshevsky included works published in 1854-1862. All of them were published for the first time in Sovremennik, with the exception of the article "Russian man on rendez-vous", which appeared in the Moscow magazine Ateney. Of the Notes on Journals, which contains important literary critical material, the compilers of the two-volume edition, constrained by the volume of the publication, reproduce only two fragments. One is associated with the name of A. N. Ostrovsky (the critic closely followed the development of his talent), the other contains theoretical judgments valuable for understanding Chernyshevsky's position. The articles are arranged in chronological order and are published before the first printed journal texts, verified with the original sources (manuscripts, proofreadings), if they have survived. All cases of introduction into the main text of places excluded (distorted) by censorship or resulting from auto-censorship are specified in the notes. It also indicates the discrepancies found in the primary sources, which are essential for clarifying the author's intention. When citing sources, Chernyshevsky makes a number of inaccuracies that are not corrected. Only the most significant of them are noted in the notes. Texts are printed in full. Spelling and punctuation are close to modern standards. Only individual author's spellings are preserved: often lowercase (rather than capital) letters after exclamation and question marks, the introduction in some cases of dashes and semicolons (instead of commas), which, however, do not violate the perception of the text. The spellings of the words characteristic of the Chernyshevsky era were left unchanged: accompaniment, honor, touch, unfashionable, on the shoulders, sentimentality, masculine, etc. The names of literary works and periodicals are not given in italics, as was customary at that time, but in quotation marks: "Clear Days", "Village Visit", "Notes of the Fatherland", etc. The publication was prepared by employees of the Department of Russian Literature of Saratov University under the guidance of Evgraf Ivanovich Pokusaev, who died untimely (August 11, 1977). Organizational work was carried out by A. A. Demchenko.

ON SINCERE IN CRITICISM

For the first time - "Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVI, No 7, ed. III, p. 1--24 (c. R. June 30). Without a signature. The manuscript and proofreading have not survived. Chernyshevsky's article is a detailed theoretical substantiation of the tasks, principles, method of revolutionary democratic criticism, polemically directed against the "moderate", crushed criticism of the 1850s, which, in the person of S. Dudyshkin, A. Druzhinin, V. Botkin, began to fight against literary traditions Belinsky. The closest reason for writing the article was S. Dudyshkin's note "Critical reviews of Sovremennik on the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev" ("Domestic Notes", 1854, No 6, section IV, p. 157 --162). Bearing in mind Chernyshevsky's articles (see present vol.), Dudyshkin accused him of harshness and straightforwardness of his assessments, which contradicted the journal's earlier reviews of these writers. Chernyshevsky, redirecting the reviewer of Otechestvennye Zapiski to the reproach of inconsistency and explaining the meaning of "true criticism", restores the actual significance of Belinsky's literary-theoretical ideas and method of criticism. The very title of Chernyshevsky's article seemed to contain a reminder of one of the most important "commandments" of Belinsky, who stood up for the "sincerity", "originality", "independence" of critical opinions. Chernyshevsky's article provoked fierce attacks from liberal aesthetic critics. S. Dudyshkin, repeating his previous argument about the inconsistency of Sovremennik, called Chernyshevsky's answer "long", "confused" and "obscure" (Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1854, No. 8, section IV, p. 91); N. Strakhov, in an unpublished letter to the editors of Sovremennik, while approving Chernyshevsky's negative attitude towards literary criticism of the 1950s, at the same time did not accept his positive program: "I do not agree with almost a single opinion of the critic" (quoted from the work of M. G. Zel'dovich "An unknown response to Chernyshevsky's article "On sincerity in criticism." - In the book:" N. G. Chernyshevsky. Articles, research and materials, "issue 6. 1971, p. 226). Chernyshevsky's speech was supported Nekrasov and I. Panaev, editors of Sovremennik, The editorial announcement of the publication of the journal in 1855 said: “We intend to follow the same path in the future, taking care at least, if it is difficult to achieve more, about the sincerity of judgments ... (Sovremennik, 1854, vol. XLVII, No 9, p. 5). 1 Quote from Chernyshevsky's article "The Complete Works of Russian Authors. Works by Anton Pogorelsky. Edition A. Smirdin. Two volumes. SPb. , 1853" (Chernyshevsky, vol. II, pp. 381--388). 2 We are talking about the editor of the "Moscow Telegraph" (1825--1834) N. A. Polev. A detailed historically specific description of N. Polevoy and his role in the history of literary criticism is given by Chernyshevsky in "Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature" (1855-1856). Moderate and calm criticism- an expression by S. S. Dudyshkin (see: "Domestic notes", 1854, No 6, section IV, p. 157). 4 In the reviews of S. Dudyshkin (in the review "Journalism") on the novel by D. Grigorovich "Fishermen" (1853), Chernyshevsky, obviously, was not satisfied with the interpretation of this work contained there as a poeticization of peasant "submission and complete reconciliation with a modest share determined by providence" ("Domestic Notes", 1853, No. 10, sec. V, p. 121). According to a critic-democrat, the humanistic pathos of the writer's works devoted to the depiction of peasant life, including "Rybakov", consisted in affirming the moral dignity and spiritual wealth of the "commoner" (see: "Notes on Journals. August 1856" .- - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 689--691). 5 An inaccurate quote from I. A. Krylov's fable "The Education of a Lion" (1811). 6 Quote from the review of S. Dudyshkin "Smart Woman", the story of Mrs. T. Ch. "-" Library for Reading ", No X and XI ("Domestic Notes", 1853, No 12, sec. V, a 134 7 Quote from the review "Travel notes. Tales of T. Ch., no. I, ed. 2, SPb., 1853" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No 1, section V, pp. 5-6). 8 The following reviews by S. Dudyshkin are meant: "Leshy", a story by Mr. Pisemsky and four poems by Mr. Feta" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 2, sec. IV, pp. 98--101); "Poems of Messrs. Fet and Nekrasov" (ibid., No. 3, section IV, pp. 36--40); "Little Things in Life" by Mr. Stanitsky (ibid., No. 5, section IV, pp. 57--58). 9 Quote from the review "Three Pores of Life", a novel by Evgenia Tur. 1854. Three parts" (ibid., pp. 1--8). 10 Belinsky's words from the article "Russian Literature in 1840" (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 435). 11 Quote from "Romance" N. F Pavlov (1830), set to music by Yu. A. Kopiev in 1838. Later, V. N. Vsevolozhsky and A. N. Verstovsky wrote music for this romance.12 Words by Belinsky from the article "Russian Literature in 1840". Chernyshevsky's italics (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 437) 13 Extract from a note by S. Dudyshkin "Critical reviews of Sovremennik on the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev". In it, the author refers to an article I. S. Turgenev (I. T.) "Niece". Novel, composed by Evgenia Tur. 4 parts. Moscow, 1851 "(" Sovremennik", 1852, vol. XXXI, No 1, section III, p. 1 --14), an article by V. P. Gaevsky "Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems" ("Sovremennik", 1851, vol. XXV, No 2, part III, p. 65) , in which Avdeev was put on a par with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. Under the title "History of my childhood" ("Contemporary", 1852, vol. XXXV, No. 9) L. Tolstoy's story "Childhood" was published. 14 Obviously, "Masquerade", which Chernyshevsky did not mention either before the appearance of the article "On Sincerity in Criticism", or later, seemed to him a kind of exception from Lermontov's realistic work. 15 Otechestvennye Zapiski repeatedly published extremely positive reviews of Marlinsky's works (1839, No. 1, section VII, pp. 17-18; No. 2, section VII, p. 119; No. 3, section VII, p. 7). Belinsky subjected the work of this writer to devastating criticism in the article "Complete Works of A. Marlinsky" (1840), noting that his stories and novels are dominated by "violent passions", "brilliant rhetorical tinsel", "beautiful, dandy phrases" (Belinsky, vol. IV, pp. 45, 51). 16 Chernyshevsky combines into one quote different sentences from "Notes and Reflections of the New Poet (I. I. Panaev) on Russian Journalism. March 1853" ("Sovremennik", 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No 4, part VI, p. 262, 263, 266). 17 Chernyshevsky was mistaken: his article "Poverty is not a vice." Comedy by A. Ostrovsky, Moscow. 1854", from where the quote is given, was published in the fifth issue of Sovremennik for 1854. In the February book of Sovremennik, the article "The novel and stories of M. 18 It was not I. Panaev, but M. V. Avdeev who wrote about the superiority of A. Ostrovsky's comedy "Don't get into your sleigh" in comparison with the plays of other authors from the repertoire of the Alexandrinsky Theater in "Letters of an "Empty Man" to the Province of Petersburg life". "The Fourth Letter" ("Sovremennik", 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No 3, sec. VI, pp. 193-203). 19 Quote from Notes and Reflections of the New Poet on Russian Journalism. March 1853" (ibid., No. 4, section VII, p. 266). 20 That is, Chernyshevsky's article "Poverty is not a vice." in his article "Poverty is not a vice" (see present vol., p. 55).See also P.N. .. educated". However, the critic spoke about the falsity of this idea with great caution, stating that he would not like to reproach Ostrovsky with the rumors that his play might arouse ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 4, dep. V, pp. 100, 102, 118. 22 P. N. Kudryavtsev, objecting to A. Grigoriev and his associates, called Ostrovsky's comedy a "gross blunder", "a mistake against art" and reproached the author for "composing" and "sweetness" Mitya, the naturalism of Lyubim Tortsov, that the "perfect passivity" of Lyubov Gordeevna "is deliberately supplied by the highest ideal feminine character" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 6, sec. IV, p. 79--101). When it was first staged on the stage of the Maly Theater (January 1854), such actors as M.S. M., 1966, pp. 53, 54, 117, 118). Subsequently, M. S. Shchepkin partly revised his view of the play "Poverty is not a vice" (see his letter to his son dated August 22, 1855 - In the book: T. S. Grits. M. S. Shchepkin. Chronicle of Life and creativity, Moscow, 1966, p. 553). 23 I mean the following words of I. S. Turgenev: "... Mrs. Tur is a woman, a Russian woman ... the opinions, the heart, the voice of a Russian woman - all this is dear to us, all this is close to us ... Writers we had a lot in Russia; some of them possessed remarkable abilities, but of all of them, one of them ... no longer alive, Madame Gan, could dispute with Madame Tour the advantage of the first spoken word, about which we In this woman there really was a warm Russian heart, and the experience of a woman's life, and the passion of her convictions - and nature did not deny her those "simple and sweet" sounds in which inner life is happily expressed "(Turgenev. Works, vol. V, p. 370). In "Collection of exemplary Russian works and translations in prose", published by the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (parts 1-6, St. Petersburg, 1815-1817), works of ancient Russian literature, as well as literature of the period of classicism and romanticism, were printed. 24 That is, an article by Chernyshevsky. 25 Quote from V. P. Gaevsky's article "Review of Russian Literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems" ("Sovremennik", 1851, vol. XXV, No 2, section III, p. 65). 25 Belinsky's words from the article "Russian Literature in 1841" (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 543). 27 Quoted from the same article by Belinsky (ibid.). 28 Chernyshevsky plays on the polemical expressions of S. Dudyshkin. 29 A clear allusion to A. Druzhinin, who in "Letters from a non-resident subscriber" (1848-1854), aiming at Belinsky, contrasted the "exclusiveness" of the opinions of "previous heavy reports on the annual movement of Russian literature" with a light "feuilleton criticism", "lively and impartial", "capable of getting used to life", like criticism of the French feuilletonists ("Library for Reading", 1852, No 12, section VII, p. 192; 1853, No 1, section VII, p. 162). 30 Line from Lermontov's poem "Don't trust yourself" (1839). 31 Delight- the hero of the story by V. A. Zhukovsky "Maryina Grove - an old legend" (1809). Mentioning this story and the mannered, sensitive works of P. I. Shalikov, Chernyshevsky has in mind the pseudo-realistic, anti-fiction literature of the 50s (see also Chernyshevsky's reviews of "New stories. Stories for children. Moscow, 1854"; "Countess Polina". The story of A. Glinka. St. Petersburg, 1856" - "Sovremennik", 1855, vol. L, No 3, div. IV, pp. 17-24; 1856, vol. LVI, No 4, div. IV, pp. 62--67).32 Mitya- a character from Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is not a vice." 33 Quote from the review of "Monastyrka". The composition of Anthony Pogorelsky. Part one. SPb., 1830" ("Moscow Telegraph", 1830, No. 5, March, section "Modern Bibliography", p. 94). ", published in "Moskvityanin" in 1852-1854, I. Pokrovsky published in the same journal "A memorial leaflet of successful innovations in the Russian language, such as: skillfully composed new words, happy expressions and turns of speech with the addition of lofty metaphors , wonderful thoughts, strikingly beautiful paintings and scenes found in the latest works of our domestic writers in terms of fine literature "(" Moskvityanin ", 1854, vol. 1, part VIII, pp. 37--46). Extracts from various works , published in Russian periodicals (the name of the author was often not mentioned), were accompanied by commendable assessments. 35 Such words were characterized in Gogol's story "Nevsky Prospekt" (1835) by its hero - lieutenant Pirogov. 36 Meaning "Love and fidelity, or Terrible minute" (1854) V. Vasilyeva, "A terrible place. A Ukrainian fairy tale in verses of Russian old meter" (1854) by M. S. Vladimirova. The emptiness of the content, the melodramatic nature of these pseudo-fiction works of "unknown" authors are subjected to devastating criticism on the pages of Sovremennik (1854, vol. XLVI, No 7, ed. IV, pp. 20-21). "The Tale of the Adventure of the English Milord George and the Margravine Frederica Louise of Brandenburg" (St. Petersburg, 1782) - the work of Matvey Komarov, a popular popular print. 37 Chernyshevsky plays on Belinsky's polemical expressions from his article "Russian literature in 1841", where for the first time the principle of historicism is substantiated in the analysis of literary phenomena as the main criterion for impartial "true criticism". "Of course," wrote Belinsky, "then many" immortal "will die completely, great will only become famous or wonderful famous - insignificant; many treasures will turn into rubbish; but on the other hand, the truly beautiful will come into its own, and the pouring of rhetorical phrases and commonplaces from empty to empty - an occupation, of course, harmless and innocent, but empty and vulgar - will be replaced by judgment and thinking ... But for this, tolerance for opinions is necessary. , you need room for beliefs. Everyone judges as he can and as he knows how; a mistake is not a crime, and an unfair opinion is not an insult to the author" (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 544). 38 "natural school", which "were brought up by the influence of Belinsky" ("Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature" - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 19, 96, 103, 223). ", "Anton Goremyka"), Chernyshevsky also noted in the novels "Fishermen" (1853), "Settlers" (1855--1856), the story "Plowman" (1853), as well as in his other works of these years "living thought" , "real knowledge of people's life and love for the people" ("Notes on journals. August 1856"). See also note 4 to this article 39 Chernyshevsky paraphrases the words of the reviewer of "Notes of the Fatherland" about E. Tur's novel "Three Pores life". See above, note 9. 40 See current vol., pp. 25--39. 41 Inaccurate quote from Belinsky's article "Russian Literature in 1840". Belinsky: "...d Until now, we passionately believed in progress as a move forward, but now we have to believe in progress as a backward movement back ... "(Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 438). 42 Chernyshevsky polemicizes with S. Dudyshkin, who wrote: "The idea underlying Mr. Potekhin's drama "Brother and Sister" is beautiful, even though it will be called ideal" ("Domestic Notes", 1854, No 4, div. IV, p. 88). In almost the same words attesting this play, the main character of which is a governess, in another article, "Critical Reviews of Sovremennik on the Works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev", Dudyshkin mistakenly calls the drama itself - "Governess". "Sovremennik" responded to Potekhin's play with an article by Chernyshevsky "Poverty is not a vice" by Ostrovsky. 43 An expression from Gogol's Dead Souls (1842). ("Italy", "Renewal", "Tears and Sounds") On the pages of these and subsequent issues of the journal, criticism sympathetically noted in his poetry "deep feeling and thought" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1839, No 1, dep. VII, p. 14--15; No 2, sec. VII, p. 5; No 3, sec. VII, p. 6). The position of Otechestvennye Zapiski in relation to Benediktov changed with the advent of Belinsky to the journal (in August 1839), who, in the Telescope, in the article "Poems of Vladimir Benediktov" (1835), characterized his work as the embodiment of pretentiousness, far-fetchedness, rhetoric.

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

The social situation of the middle of the 19th century - the social movement of the 1850-60s, the abolition of serfdom, the activation of the public and the high politicization of the social life of that time - contributed most of all to this dynamics of the method. It is also significant that under conditions of censorship, political journalism and party ideology were forced to mix with literary criticism and existed immanently in its composition. Almost all representatives of "real" criticism supported the ideas of revolutionary democracy and the corresponding social movements.

Features of real criticism at a mature stage of its development can be found 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 brilliant subjectivity, which affects the specificity of art, develops into the category of a subjectively built ideal. The ideal, however, was conceived in terms determined by nature, 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 all”. Thus, real criticism (in the model of N.G. Chernyshevsky and his direct followers) considers it good to impart objectivity to art, to moderate or exclude subjectivity, the individuality of the creative act.

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

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

5) If V.G. Belinsky did not assume the participation of art in politics, then 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 built on a predominant interest in "external" literary phenomena, processes that link artistic literature with social and literary life.

« Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature"(1855-1856) can be regarded as the first major development of the history of Russian criticism in 1830-1840. Positively evaluating the work of Nadezhdin and N. Polevoy, Chernyshevsky focuses on the activities of Belinsky, who, in the opinion of the author of the cycle, outlined the true routes for the progressive development of Russian literature. Following Belinsky, Chernyshevsky recognizes the critical image of Russian life as the key to literary and social progress in Russia, taking Gogol's work as a standard for such an attitude to reality. Chernyshevsky puts the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls unconditionally higher than Pushkin, and the main criterion for comparison is the idea of ​​the social effectiveness of the writers' work. Chernyshevsky's optimistic faith in social progress compelled him to see processes of progressive development in literature as well.

Responding in 1857 for the publication of "Provincial Essays", the critic gives the palm to Shchedrin in the matter of literary accusation: in his opinion, the novice writer surpassed Gogol by the ruthlessness of sentences

and generalization of characteristics. The desire to demonstrate a change in social needs can also explain the harsh attitude of Chernyshevsky

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

article "Russian man on rendez-vous"(1858), which is also remarkable from the point of view of Chernyshevsky's critical methodology. Turgenev's short story "Asya" became the occasion for large-scale journalistic generalizations of the critic, which did not aim to reveal the author's intention. In the image of the protagonist of the story Chernyshevsky

I saw a representative of the widespread 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 action. As a result, these heroes look "cheesier than a notorious villain." However, deep accusatory

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

which produces such people.