Chernyshevsky N. G.: Memories of Turgenev's relationship to Dobrolyubov and the break in friendship between Turgenev and Nekrasov

The history of the Sovremennik magazine is connected with the name of Pushkin. He buys the rights to this magazine shortly before his death - in 1836. During Pushkin's lifetime, four issues of Sovremennik were published, which immediately stood out as a new type of publication. It was here that Gogol's early stories, a selection of young Tyutchev's poems and many interesting materials on various topics of social and cultural life were printed. After Pushkin's death, the magazine passed to his heirs, and its publisher was an old friend of the poet Pletnev.

Sovremennik found a new life when Nekrasov and Panaev bought it on lease in 1846. Thus, they realized the old dream of a group of young writers, called the “natural school”, inspired and ideologically led by Belinsky. One of the active figures of the "natural school" was Turgenev. Young writers who defended the principles of realism and democracy in literature needed a printed organ on the pages of which they could freely express their positions. And now the Sovremennik magazine has become it. Turgenev took a direct part in the organization of the new journal.

Its first issue was published in 1847 and the story " Khor and Kalinich", which opened the Turgenev cycle" Hunter's Notes". Belinsky's programmatic articles were also published here, indicating the further development of the literature of the "Gogol period" and defining the face of Sovremennik of that time. Later Turgenev's relations with the writers who were part of the "natural school" and collaborated at first with the Sovremennik magazine developed in different ways, but his attitude towards Belinsky remained unchanged.

After the death of Belinsky in 1848, Nekrasov completely took over the leadership of the journal, and the articles of critics of the revolutionary-democratic trend N.G. Chernyshevsky and N. Dobrolyubov. But at first, writers and critics who took other positions continued to cooperate in it, among which were I.A. Goncharov, A.V. Druzhinin, A.N. Ostrovsky, L.H. Tolstoy, D.V. Grigorovich. Thanks to them, Sovremennik actively developed.

And Turgenev also actively participated in the publications of this journal, although from 1847 to 1850 he lived abroad without a break, and in 1852-1853 he was in exile on the Spasskoye-Lutovinovo estate for publishing in 1852 an obituary on the death of Gogol. Turgenev called him a great man "who, with his name, marked an era of history in our literature."

Turgenev and Sovremennik - their cooperation was very fruitful. This magazine published not only such stories by Turgenev as " Mu Mu", but also the stories that determined the beginning of a new direction in his work, -" Hamlet of Shchigrovsky district», « Diary of a superfluous person», « Calm"and written a little later" Asya" and " Faust". In them, Ivan Sergeevich turned to the problem of the "extra person" in the new social conditions. Then he continued its development in the genre of the novel - in " Rudin" and " noble nest". The position of Ivan Sergeevich is determined by a negative attitude towards the inactivity of the noble intelligentsia, their inability to find their place in life. On the whole, this approach corresponded to the position of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Turgenev and Sovremennik were close in many respects. Tale " Asya”, and then the novels “Rudin” and “The Noble Nest” were highly appreciated by the critics of this magazine.

But already in "Rudin" the attitude of the writer to the hero was not unambiguous. This applies even more to Lavretsky from the novel "The Nest of Nobles", published in 1858 and which was a huge success. A person of amazing moral purity and sensitivity appears in the novel by Liza Kalitina. The tragic love story of Lisa and Lavretsky forms the poetic basis of the novel, but it also contains its most important thought. Both of them are aware of the depravity of a life built at the expense of others, and cannot free themselves from a secret sense of shame for their unforgivable happiness, which leads to a break.
At the end of the novel, there are still bright motives associated with the hopes for a new generation, which the hero welcomes. Such an ending was perceived by many, including the leading critics of Sovremennik, as the author's farewell to the noble period, and the young heroes were seen as raznochintsev "new people".

But the attitude of the writer himself towards these "new people" was very complex, which was shown by his next novel " the day before”, published in the January issue of Sovremennik in 1860. Trying to find a new "hero of the time", Turgenev turned his attention to the story of the Bulgarian revolutionary Katranov, whose fate he learned from a manuscript left to him by a neighbor on the estate, the young landowner Karateev. This story was the basis for the plot of the new novel, and Katranov became the prototype of its hero, Insarov.

No less important is the image of Elena Stakhova, a poetic, loving, sacrificial nature, passionately desiring to be useful and needed by people. She personifies young Russia. Insarov's selflessness and dedication impressed her so much that she not only went with him to Bulgaria, but also continued his work after Insarov's death.

Dobrolyubov responded to the novel with the article “ When will the real day come?”, in which he noted that in the person of Elena, all of Russia is holding out a hand to the fighters for freedom. But the main thing for the critic is that the novel, in his opinion, shows the closeness of the day when the "Russian Insarovs" will appear and begin the struggle "with our inner Turks."

Under these "internal Turks" Dobrolyubov understands not only conservatives, opponents of reforms, but also liberals who are close to Ivan Sergeevich in spirit. This interpretation came into sharp conflict with the author's idea. In the novel, Insarov speaks of the unity of all the forces of Bulgaria in the struggle for freedom. Turgenev dreamed of such a unity, the consolidation of all anti-serfdom forces in Russia and the reconciliation of parties on the basis of a national idea, when creating his novel.

Thus, Dobrolyubov's article not only contradicts the author's intention, but without a miss hits the holy of holies beliefs and beliefs of Turgenev, the "genius of measure." It is understandable why the writer was so opposed to the publication of Dobrolyubov's article. He begged Nekrasov not to publish it, but Nekrasov made his choice in favor of Dobrolyubov, and the article appeared on the pages of the Sovremennik magazine.

And Turgenev decided to break with the magazine, at the origins of which he stood, cooperation with which lasted 15 years. It was also a break with old friends and associates, united by the memory of Belinsky. The gap had been brewing for a long time, many Dobrolyubov articles and reviews provoked sharp protest from Turgenev.

So, in a review of a new edition of Pushkin's collected works, Dobrolyubov attributed to the great poet, whom Ivan Sergeevich idolized, not only "superficiality and partiality" of views, "weakness of character", but also "excessive respect for the bayonet."

Such attacks could not but resent not only Turgenev, but also many other writers close to Sovremennik. Together with Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov, A.N. Ostrovsky. Thus ended a whole era not only of this journal, but also of the literary and social life of Russia.

You and I are stupid people
What a minute, then the flash is ready,
The resolution of an agitated chest,
An unreasonable, harsh word.

Chernyshevsky, when he found himself involved in Nekrasov's life with his "outbursts" and "unreasonable, harsh words", clearly seeing, first of all, a suffering element in a woman, defiantly, emphasized and somewhat unusual for him, kissed Panaeva's hand.
Love here most often held on to passionate suffering. And it was inevitably accompanied by the ruthlessness of sentences and fearlessness before, it would seem, the last test for love - everyday life: truly, in the words of the poet himself, "the prose of love."
Prose: love, lowered into the crucible of everyday life and passing through the test of vulgarity.
At a time of especially tense relations with Panaeva, which was getting closer and closer to a break, Nekrasov wrote the poems “Tears and Nerves”:

Oh, women's tears, with an addition
Nervous, heavy dramas!
You have been my task for a long time,
For a long time I blindly believed you.
And endured a lot of rebellious torments,
Now I know at last:
Not the weaknesses of gentle creatures, -
You are their crown of power.
Rather hardened steel
You strike hearts.
I don't know how much sadness you have
But despotism has no end!
When it used to be in front of me
My dear will pour
Outwardly tenderness will double,
But I'm angry inside.
While she trembles and moans
I lie with an idle soul:
The tongue foxes, and the eye spies
And opens... My God!
Why couldn't I see before?
She wasn't worth loving.
She shouldn't be hated...
Don't talk about her...

The poems were published in Suvorin's newspaper Novoye Vremya only 15 years later, in 1876, very shortly before Nekrasov's death, and almost immediately after his death, the publisher Ponomarev commented: "By the brightness of the image, you involuntarily think that the poems are full of autobiographical significance."
The second part of the autographed poem was subtitled "Who?".
Who? The fact is, however, that the "brightness of the image" doubled, tripled, quadrupled, ... raised this "autobiographical meaning" to an infinite degree. Who? Yes all.

Who brings her a bottle now,
Caught by the fatal scene?
Who asks for her forgiveness
Guilt not knowing for yourself?
Who himself is shaking in a fever,
When she runs to the window
In an exaggerated fit
And "are you free" says?
Who fearfully watches
Focused and angry
How the nervous rage subsides
And turns into an appetite?
Who spends difficult nights
Alone, jealous and sick,
And in the morning he wanders around the shops with her,
Outfit trading expensive?
Who says: "Both are beautiful" -
To the gentle demand: “Which one should I take?” -
While the anger boils
And to hell I want to send
French woman with a sassy nose
With her insidious "c" estjoli "Charming (fr.).
And even cute with a question ...
Who silently takes out rubles,
Hurrying to end the torment as soon as possible,
And, seeing himself in the dressing table,
In his face he reads flour
And slavery is a dark stigma? ..

The manuscript left an apparently superfluous explanation:

Under the yoke of omnipotent vulgarity
Only he did not bow his head,
Who is early under the tombstone
Reposed with an innocent heart.
We all go to her in an obedient crowd.
Whoever has not fallen must fall.

Where we are going? Under the yoke of vulgarity or to the gravestone? Or under the yoke of vulgarity, like a tombstone. The blackened words remained in the manuscript, apparently of very “autobiographical significance”:

There is not one such pair.
I am not like that. I don't taste good
A never extinguished cigar
Nor the cheating wife.

Love has passed the test of suffering, but under the yoke of vulgarity, it has wilted. However, here, as we see, poetry took the last bribe. The Panaevsky cycle in the life of the poet was ending. "Tears and Nerves" completed the cycle of Panaev's poetry, which has forever remained in Russian poetry, as the only poetry of its kind of suffering and "prose of love."
Although more indirectly, but hardly less fully than in Panaev's Russian poetry, Pauline Viardot entered Russian prose. Nekrasov, so to speak, historically satiated his thirst-suffering here too. Turgenev satisfied his - historically.
Turgenev's work, all his worldview and his very life, definitely found, perhaps, also a unique point of application, to satisfy the constantly aroused thirst - artistry. Pauline Viardot is not only a great singer, not only an outstanding actress, but, as it were, artistry itself is embodied. Her hands were molested by Alfred de Musset. She was inspired by the "Consuelo" Georges Sand. She brought Delacroix to ecstasy. The paradoxicalist Heine called her ugliness "almost beautiful." In the end, she fully appreciated the Russian young man who literally grew up with her into a great writer, whom she was once, back in 1843, introduced with the words: "a glorious hunter and a bad poet."
By the way, he, the "European" Turgenev, apparently, was also impressed by the Europeanness of Viardot's whole very French life, bourgeoisly comfortable, measured, rationally arranged, calculated and deliberate. Life itself did not injure, did not neglige, did not offend, but always flowed somewhere nearby. But Viardot was fully and variedly satisfied not only with Turgenev's Westernism, but also with his Russianness. And if her phrase about “dear Russian public” can still be considered as a complimentary passage of the artist, then the words about Russia - “her second homeland” - cannot but be taken as a sincere recognition of a person who spoke Russian well, sang and wrote impeccably in Russian music to lyrics by Afanasy Fet and Alexey Koltsov.
So both Nekrasov and Turgenev took a lot for this suffering, "abnormal" love of theirs. But they also paid a lot: restlessness, disorder, in the end, and familylessness. This was well understood: each in himself and each in the other.
In general, the ties between Nekrasov and Turgenev, from the beginning of the 40s at first only friendly, are becoming closer and, finally, friendly. Already in the early 1950s, the death of Gogol, which shocked both of them, helped a lot: Nekrasov’s poems, Turgenev’s obituary “provoked” by them, Turgenev’s arrest and imprisonment in the guardhouse (although the punishment for Russian writers is unoriginal: in this sense, the St. Petersburg guardhouse is also peculiar, almost not the only literary museum in the world that brought together writers of how many, so different - from Bulgarin to Dostoevsky), Nekrasov constantly visits him there.
Just after the spring of 1852, in their communications (and in correspondence too) “you” changed to “you”: the warmth of relations turns into true and touching love: first of all from Nekrasov. Panaeva recalled: “Nekrasov’s affection for Turgenev could be compared with the mother’s affection for her son, whom she, no matter how cruelly he offended her, still forgives and tries to attribute all sorts of excuses to his bad deeds.” “I,” finally writes Nekrasov to Turgenev in November 1856, “reached in relation to you to that height of love and faith that I spoke my most sincere truth about you.”
This devotion and this height of love in Nekrasov was largely born both by how he understood Turgenev's place in the literary life of the country, and clearly by what he considered himself indebted to Turgenev, a writer and public figure. In other words, Nekrasov's attitude to Turgenev, seemingly so personal, intimate, touching to the point of sentimentality, was both socially significant, and just so conscious.
Already about the first (unfinished) novel, on which Turgenev worked in 1853, Nekrasov wrote: “... I strongly affirm that its first four chapters are excellent and bear the character of that noble activity, from which, unfortunately, so far departed Russian literature. And Nekrasov associated this noble activity primarily with the name of Gogol: “Here is an honest son of his land ... No matter how embittered against Gogol everything that we know from behind the scenes and even some of his printed material As a result, he is a noble and in the Russian world the most humane personality - one must wish that young writers in Russia follow in his footsteps.
Turgenev was for Nekrasov the first Russian writer after Gogol. “He has,” he shares with Fet, “a huge talent, and if the truth be told, he is worth Gogol in his own way. I now affirm this positively. "Favorite modern writer" he calls Turgenev in a letter dated December 18, 1856.
These are not friendly courtesies or complimentary statements in private correspondence. About the same Nekrasov spoke with all certainty in print. For example, in Notes on Journals for February 1856, he assures that “a new era of activity is beginning for Mr. Turgenev, that his talent has gained new strength, that he will give us works even more significant than those that he deserved in the eyes public first place in our latest literature after Gogol.
Note that Turgenev is not yet the author of either The Nest of Nobles, or The Eve, or Fathers and Sons. True, Nekrasov is a special expert. His forecasts are born from the depths: he is almost the only one by the nature of close communication with Turgenev, by the degree of trust, by devotion to plans and projects.
Informing Botkin of the impression of the still unpublished Rudin, which Turgenev read to Nekrasov in October 1855, Nekrasov declares: “Here for the first time Turgenev will appear himself - still not quite yet - this is a man, capable of giving us ideals as far as they are possible in Russian life"(emphasis mine. - N. S.). How many and what kind of hopes Nekrasov placed here on Turgenev is perfectly explained by one letter - October 1857:
“Ax, my dear Turgenev, how I liked your words”: “our last word has not yet been said” - not for the faith that lies in them and which can deceive, but for the willingness to live for others. With this readiness, of course, you will do something.
The general attitude of Nekrasov towards Turgenev determined both Turgenev's place in Sovremennik and his authority in resolving "ideological" and "personnel" issues. From the very beginning, Turgenev sympathized with Chernyshevsky (with the exception of his aesthetic dissertation, which, like many, our writer regarded as anti-aesthetic): for knowledge, for skill, for his ability to criticize, and simply for his ability to work.
He read other pages of his “Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature”, according to his confession, “with heartfelt emotion”, primarily because of the captivating “dear name” - Belinsky, who for the first time in the seventh issue of Sovremennik for 1856 was allowed to be pronounced .
All this while abroad. At the same time, expressing confidence in a letter to Panaev, clearly not only out of courtesy, that he, together with Chernyshevsky, would be able to “make a very good journal” (Nekrasov, after all, also left for Europe for almost a year), Turgenev warns Botkin that “Chernyshevsky needs a mentor , and Panaev is a nanny.
In general, he watches Sovremennik as a their magazine. He is not surprised by Druzhinin's proposal, as completely natural: “You write that I will finally have to take up the editorial office of the magazine. I don’t know what the future holds for me…” This was still in the winter of 1856. And in the summer of 1857, he already quite confidently informed his correspondent: “And I will spend the winter in St. Petersburg, where I will have to pick up the limping Sovremennik.
True, he spent the winter in Paris, and other people picked up the Sovremennik, and he was quickly corrected from lameness. Moreover, the gait of the magazine, if we continue the comparison, became more and more clear, and the step was almost printed.
Back in 1857, at the very end, Nekrasov wrote abroad to Turgenev: “Read criticism, Bibliography, Modern Review in Sovremennik, you will find clever and even brilliant pages there: they belong to Dobrolyubov, a very gifted man.
At the beginning of the year, Dobrolyubov became a permanent contributor to Sovremennik and a member of the editorial board. On the other hand, the Binding Agreement, which united and fettered Turgenev, Tolstoy, Grigorovich, Ostrovsky, Goncharov around Sovremennik, was terminated: at the initiative of the publishers, but to the satisfaction of all parties - a sign that it has ceased to be organic.
Nevertheless, the magazine is gaining strength and subscribers. “Our magazine is doing very well with respect to subscription,” Nekrasov shares with Turgenev in September 1858. “I think that Sovremennik owes a lot to Chernyshevsky in this.” And - more and more - Dobrolyubov.
Turgenev returned from abroad to "his" magazine ("Sovremennik") and to "his" man (Nekrasov). But it turned out that the magazine was no longer completely its own, and it contained not only its own, but also strangers. Finally, more and more it became clear that they were alien.
In a certain sense, a real collision of the future "Fathers and Sons" arose, but in a different perspective. In the novel - "child" (Bazarov) fell into the environment of "fathers". In life - "father" (Turgenev) fell into the environment of "children". It was not Bazarov who came to the Kirsanovs, but, so to speak, Kirsanov came to the Bazarovs: next to Bazarov - Chernyshevsky stood Bazarov - Dobrolyubov ...
Compared even to Chernyshevsky, who was ten years younger than Turgenev, Dobrolyubov was almost twenty years younger, and he himself was barely over twenty: a boy.
According to Chernyshevsky, Turgenev - and always soft, amiable and benevolent - was especially attentive to novice writers: “Without a doubt, he was also kind to Dobrolyubov ... in all likelihood, Dobrolyubov during this first time of his personal acquaintance with Turgenev thought about him as a person in exactly the same way as Nekrasov: a good person. Probably, Turgenev's talent and good nature forced Dobrolyubov, like Nekrasov or me, to turn a blind eye to those features of his qualities that could not be sympathetic to Dobrolyubov or me.
Mutual alienation and obvious mutual irritation gradually began to be determined. In general, "fathers" and "children" are people of different social orientations, different cultures (both very high there and there), and different upbringing. It must be borne in mind that behind Chernyshevsky and, especially clearly manifested, behind Dobrolyubov, there was a tradition of severe, not without asceticism, moral Orthodox spiritual education: both of them are from the family of hereditary clergymen: faithful, law-abiding, loving children of their fathers. Is it not for this reason that Dobrolyubov the critic mentioned in his article about Pushkin a remark, surprising in its simplicity, sensitivity and insight, to which no liberal criticism of Pushkin was most enthusiastic, a characteristic that was almost the only one in our “big” criticism until the beginning of the 20th century : “Pushkin's poems have recently been distinguished by a particularly religious character. At that time, he was even engaged in transcribing the lives of the saints and almost participated in compiling the Dictionary of Saints Celebrated in the Russian Church. He promised to go even further along this path, but fate did not allow him to express this direction in any great publication. A terrible blow struck the poet at the very time when he was preparing to amaze Russia with new creations that were not expected from him.
By the way, neither Chernyshevsky nor Dobrolyubov, regardless of how their views were formed, never indulged in any kind of atheism and did not allow themselves a single attack on the side of the church, not to mention at least some element of theomachism, all the more arrogance, which paid such an abundant tribute to the noble Voltairianism.
“Dobrolyubov,” Nikolai Berdyaev later wrote, “was a pure, stern, serious man, devoid of any game that people of noble culture had and was their charm.”
Turgenev had such charm, and she, in particular, apparently irritated Dobrolyubov more and more. In addition, unlike Chernyshevsky, who mostly encountered Turgenev, so to speak, in the service, although in an apartment - Nekrasovskaya, Dobrolyubov, in essence, was doomed to a life together with Turgenev - again an apartment, Nekrasovskaya.
The fact is that Dobrolyubov, with his absolute indifference to the everyday side of his existence, lived after graduating from the institute in a nasty, damp and neglected apartment. When Nekrasov found out about this, he immediately set about organizing the Dobrolyubov life: an apartment, a servant, lunch. And two or three days later he organized it. In the house of Kraevsky, where Nekrasov and the Panaevs lived, two rooms from the front turned out to be free: or rather, they were freed from the tenants for an appropriate reward. Having moved there, Dobrolyubov, naturally, entered the Nekrasov-Panaevsky life. Turgenev, when he lived in St. Petersburg, stayed in this Nekrasov life for a long time and invariably: he came every day in the morning and stayed until the evening, before the visits, and often after them.
“Positively,” recalls Chernyshevsky, “he lived more with Nekrasov than at home.” And Dobrolyubov, in fact, lived with Nekrasov, as at home: morning teas, breakfasts, dinners ...
The "children" were not too delicate with the "father" even in matters relating to fiction, in which Turgenev for Sovremennik was always the main master and judge of the final verdicts.
Chernyshevsky himself spoke of two characteristic episodes.
Once Nekrasov, on the advice of Turgenev, asked Chernyshevsky to get acquainted with the folk stories of the German writer Auerbach, who was invariably valued by the author of the Hunter's Notes, for placement in Sovremennik. Chernyshevsky found Auerbach cutesy, insipid and boring. What's great is that I've never read it. Having read one (!) story at the insistence of Nekrasov, the critic gave the book to Nekrasov, saying that “it’s not worth translating anything (!) from it”: “Turgenev did not lag behind for a long time,” says Chernyshevsky, “and argued with me many times, and was very annoyed by the failure.
Again, the absolutely Bazarov self-confidence and categorism that is manifested even in a mature, educated writer, and not in a young raznochinny doctor, is striking again: one story, but - not worth translating nothing.
Received Turgenev and public clicks. Once at Nekrasov's, Turgenev was reading May's The Maid of Pskov, again wanting to publish it in Sovremennik. The play aroused general sympathy. “When,” Chernyshevsky writes, “the conversation began to subside, I said from my seat: “Ivan Sergeevich, this is a boring and completely mediocre thing, it’s not worth publishing it in Sovremennik.” Turgenev began to defend the opinion he had previously expressed, I analyzed his arguments, so we talked for several minutes. He folded and hid the manuscript, saying that he would not continue reading. That is how the matter ended. I don't remember what language I used to argue. In all likelihood, harmless to Turgenev. I remember positively about him that he argued with me very courteously. Why not dispute Bazarov with any of the Kirsanov brothers? And what is his “harmlessness” for Turgenev? Yes, Turgenev personally experienced such disputes of the future novel and personally offended and personally admired. But the matter did not end there.
In the case of Dobrolyubov, everything acquired even greater sharpness and greater constancy: both - Turgenev and Dobrolyubov - lived near and around Nekrasov, who, however, for the time being, apparently, was not inclined to dramatize the situation in readiness, so to speak, to combine in itself both. Although Turgenev's dislike for Dobrolyubov manifested itself more and more often, and Nekrasov felt it more and more strongly: “Nekrasov,” Chernyshevsky recalled, “began to tell me about the reasons for this hatred. “There are two of them,” he told me, “the main one was long-standing and had a peculiar character of such a kind that I laughingly recognized Turgenev’s bitterness as completely justified. The fact is that a long time ago Dobrolyubov once said to Turgenev, who bothered him with his sometimes gentle, sometimes smart conversations: “Ivan Sergeevich, I’m bored talking to you, and stop talking,” he got up and moved to the other side of the room . After that, Turgenev stubbornly continued to start conversations with Dobrolyubov every time he met with him at Nekrasov's, that is, every day, and sometimes more than once a day. But Dobrolyubov invariably left him either to the other end of the room, or to another room. After many such cases, Turgenev finally fell behind in ingratiating heartfelt conversations with Dobrolyubov, and they exchanged only ordinary words of meetings and farewells, or if Dobrolyubov talked with others and Turgenev sat down to this group, then Turgenev made attempts to make Dobrolyubov his interlocutor, but Dobrolyubov gave monosyllabic answers to his long speeches and stepped aside at the first opportunity.
Dobrolyubov taught Turgenev Bazarov's monosyllabic answers, but Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, perhaps, did not realize that the great writer studied and studied them, to tragic depths unknown to them, to penetration into the future of their very destinies. Bazarov (Dobrolyubov) believed that he was taller and smarter than Kirsanov (Turgenev), but in the end, Turgenev (Kirsanov), the author who created Bazarov, turned out to be smarter.
One way or another, but personal addictions and confrontations, it seemed, were only waiting for a socially significant reason and resolution. And they waited. Events developed quickly and dramatically.
At the beginning of 1860, Russkiy Vestnik published Turgenev's new novel, On the Eve. Dobrolyubov wrote an article about him. The censor Beketov showed it to Turgenev beforehand, and not without searching. Turgenev was not satisfied with the article, and in a rather categorical form he asked Nekrasov not to publish it. For his part, Dobrolyubov resolutely declared his readiness to leave the journal if the article was not published, especially since for a number of reasons, primarily of a censorial nature, the article had already been softened and transformed. Then Turgenev posed the question to Nekrasov with an ultimatum: "Me or Dobrolyubov."
The article has been printed. Turgenev left Sovremennik and broke off relations with Nekrasov. Such are the events in their outer canvas. Usually they write and say that Nekrasov, being between Turgenev and Dobrolyubov, made a choice in favor of Dobrolyubov.

• Specialty HAC RF10.01.01
• Number of pages 52

Dissertation title doctor of philological sciences in the form of scientific. report Mostovskaya, Natalia Nikolaevna

In the history of the literary and cultural life of Russia in the last century, the problem of the creative relationship between Turgenev and Nekrasov is one of the key, complex and unsolved. It does not come down only to the traditional "friendship-enmity" conflict, provoked by Turgenev's break with Nekrasov's Sovremennik, to which he devoted a lot of energy and where he really became close to Nekrasov. A comparison of the public positions of writers (as was the custom for a long time in literature) also does not fully explain the full depth of their creative contacts. Moreover, between these great artists there were no sharp professional polemics, no controversies on the fundamental ideological issues of the time, as was the case with Turgenev and Dostoevsky or Turgenev and Herzen. On the contrary, in the 1940s and 1950s they were united by many things: friendship with Belinsky, a single magazine platform - Sovremennik, common literary interests.

Little explains the matter and the recognition of the human incompatibility of the two artists, although the idea expressed in the latest literature of Turgenev and Nekrasov as "weak" and "strong" types (N.N. Skatov) to a certain extent reveals the motives of friendship, which ended in complete alienation .

It is known that the complex relationship between Turgenev and Nekrasov acquired the character of a scandalous legend even during their lifetime (starting from 1860). It is not easy to understand its origins and temporal layers. Its survivability was also affected by the historically established reputation of friends-enemies and the superficial, or rather biased, attention to them by contemporaries and descendants.

It is important to explore the history and vicissitudes of the creative ties between Turgenev and Nekrasov at different time periods, because we are not talking about the private fates of two great artists, but about talented and influential participants in that historical time, when the era itself acted as the central character.

During a long period in the history of Russian literature, the relationship between these writers was not stable and uncompromising, but at the same time they remained invariably creative. Conventionally, they can be divided into several stages. The 40-50s, marked by the formation of writers, the future leaders of Russian literature, one in prose, the other in poetry, are the most harmonious, which, apparently, was explained by the spiritual upsurge of the epoch of the 40s, which left a huge mark on the history of Russian culture.

Turgenev and Nekrasov at this time approached writers and critics, sometimes of the most heterogeneous views: with V. G. Belinsky, P. V. Annenkov, A. V. Druzhinin, V. P. Botkin, A. A. Fet, A. I. Ertsen, L. Tolstoy and others. Both bow before the personality of T.N. "), Nekrasov - in "Notes on Journals for October 1855". The clue to the influence of Granovsky's personality is devoted to the lines in Turgenev's novel "On the Eve". Eleven years later, Granovsky will come to life in "Scenes from the lyrical comedy" Bear Hunt "" by Nekrasov, saturated with realities and reminiscences from famous articles and speeches of the historian.

Belinsky played a special role in the fate of the two writers, although the place and significance of each of them in the environment of the critic are different. The young Turgenev, with a philosophical education and vast knowledge, treated the "frantic Vissarion" with reverence, and was almost on an equal footing with him among his assistants due to his knowledge of languages ​​and innate culture. Recalling his disputes with Belinsky, Turgenev explained the meaning of philosophical hobbies: "However, we were then looking for everything in philosophy in the world, except for pure thinking."

To the young Nekrasov, his own formula is quite applicable: "... recently escaped from the underground literary spheres." (in a draft autograph of fragments of his unfinished story "On the same day at eleven o'clock in the morning.", Known in literature and under the title "How great I am1"). 3 By this time, he was often published simultaneously with Belinsky in the same newspapers and magazines ("Literaturnaya Gazeta", "Finnish Vestnik", "Russian Invalid", Otechestvenye zapiski"), then involved him in his collections. H.H. T.N. Granovsky and Russian literature of his time // Literature and history (Historical process in the creative mind of Russian writers of the 18th-20th centuries St. Petersburg) * Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of op. and letters: In 28 vols. Works: In 15 vols. M., L., 1961. T.X1U. P.29. Subsequent references to this edition are given in the text by volume and page. 3 See the versions of the draft autograph of IR LI prepared by me for the story "On the same day at eleven o'clock in the morning."//Nekrasov H.A. Complete collection of op. and letters: V 15 t. L., 1987. V.7. P.669. Subsequent references to this edition are given in the text.

Physiology of Petersburg", "Petersburg Collection" and in the journal "Contemporary", in which Belinsky was assigned the leading and honorary role. x

Nekrasov was well aware of the critic's articles and wrote about Belinsky in his prose, much earlier than in poetry. So the draft manuscript of the novel "The Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trostnikov" (1843-1844), unpublished during the life of the poet, is replete with numerous inclusions, reminiscences from Belinsky's publications (see: 8, 726, 732-733, 739, 744, ^^ 747-749) .

Thus, in the spiritual life of Belinsky Nekrasov's circle, it was not heated philosophical disputes that attracted him. He treated them calmly and, to a certain extent, not without irony, seeing in them "words and phrases." This expression is repeatedly repeated in the novel The Thin Man, His Adventures and Observations (1855), and in a parodic tone. It had a direct appraisal relation to closed circle disputes and to the arguments of the Sovremennik participants about the perniciousness of the "phrase", "phrase" as an ethical personality trait, as a trait of behavior. Another enigmatic prose work by Nekrasov, "On the same day at eleven o'clock in the morning.", was apparently conceived as a story about Belinsky and his circle. Confirmation is contained in the creative history of this unfinished idea, associated with the poems "V. G. Belinsky", "Unfortunate." Nekrasov wrote penetratingly about Belinsky even when the name of the critic was under the strictest ban (poems "Business Conversation" (1957), "In memory of ^^ friend" (1855). (The name "In memory of Belinsky" appeared only in 1877 in the publication: Nekrasov. St. Petersburg, 1877. Series "Russian Library"). He is also remembered in the poem "Poet and Citizen" , whose creative history is connected with the poem "V. G. Belinsky".

Spiritual affinity with Belinsky, in accordance with his literary and aesthetic principles, affected both the first critical experiments of the young Nekrasov, and later in all his other types of literary

1 See: Mostovskaya H.H. 1. Nekrasov and Belinsky in the 1840s//Nekrasovsky Collection. SPb., 1998. Issue X1-XP. pp.35-43; Parody in Nekrasov's prose (satirical mastery of controversy) / / Ibid. L., 1988. Issue 1X. pp.54-68. activities. Another thing is no less important. Endowed by nature with the gift of purposefulness, the poet invariably admired Belinsky's thought, the charm of his personality, his indefatigable energy.

Pushkin and Gogol are two phenomena in the history of literature and the cultural tradition of Russia, without which it is impossible to imagine the creative convergence and divergence between Turgenev and Nekrasov.

Let's start with Pushkin. For Turgenev the artist, brought up on the classics, Pushkin at all times remained "a high manifestation of the Russian poetic genius" (x/^3). Pushkin's world, as an integral part of the writer's spiritual culture, is also present in his youthful poems ("Parasha", "The Landowner", and in stories and novels, and in "poems in prose" and in numerous prefaces to French translations of Pushkin's poems, his dramatic works, unpublished chapter from The Captain's Daughter, and in a famous speech at the opening of the poet's monument in Moscow, and in correspondence.

It is quite obvious that "Pushkin" in Turgenev is not only a sign of "literary" - but something more and essential in his work. The writer has always freely, perhaps, and involuntarily relied on the logic of Pushkin's artistic thinking, and therefore "Pushkin's" in his works is natural and organic. At the heart of Pushkin's creativity lies the fullness and integrity of artistic and historical consciousness, which is also felt in Turgenev's poetic style, despite the fact that his artistic experience falls on a different era of social disharmony. Obviously, the nature of the talents of these artists is so close that the impression of a genuine literary relationship is created. Apparently, therefore, the types, images, allusions of Pushkin's poetry are for Turgenev a natural form of his own poetic reflections and incarnations.

Turgenev has his own vision of Pushkin's artistic world and unconditional acceptance of Pushkin's "classical sense of proportion and harmony" (ХУ, 73). This feature was also noted by contemporaries. Annenkov shrewdly remarked that Turgenev is related to Pushkin by "the inner sincerity of feeling and the truth of thought." Nekrasov was one of the first to call Turgenev "a poet more than all Russian writers after Pushkin, taken together." 06 Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote the same, but in different words, after Turgenev's death.

It is quite natural that Turgenev never entered into polemics with his great predecessor, there are no "poetic dialogues" with him in his work. At the same time, Pushkin's reminiscences, allusions (a characteristic sign of the poetics of Turgenev's prose) performed a variety of purposes in his texts, as a rule, structure-forming. They served as a characteristic of the heroes: the reading of Pushkin's poems by Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov in "Fathers and Sons"; Natalia Petrovna Lasunskaya knew Pushkin by heart and often "guessed" according to Pushkin. One of the references to Pushkin's poems by Bazarov is deliberately parodic ("By the way, he must have served in the military<.>For mercy, on every page he has: "to fight, to fight for the honor of Russia! - USh, 325-326) is remarkable for characterizing the poet through the eyes of the "nihilists" - the sixties.1 The veiled presence of Pushkin's poem "The Cart of Life" in "Rudin" created the musical and semantic background of the novel, to a certain extent predetermining its philosophical content and compositional structure.

Most often, Turgenev resorted to direct quotation of Pushkin ("Rudin", "Clara Milic (After Death)", "Poems in Prose", etc.). One of the most "Pushkin" in terms of the abundance of quotations and their multifunctional role in poetics is the story "Calm" (published in French translation under the title "Antchar" with a prose translation of the poem by Turgenev and L. Viardot).2 Here "Anchar" is quoted three times ", the poem "Who knows the edge where the sky shines" is used. and "Little Tragedy", "The Stone Guest".

1 The source of such a "reading" of Pushkin, as a rule, is the review of N. Uspensky, who, on one of Turgenev's visits to Paris in 1861, "considered it his duty to scold Pushkin, assuring that Pushkin in all his poems did nothing but shout: " to fight, to fight for holy Russia "(1U, 182). One can name another. Nekrasov's lines echoed with the judgment of Bazarov and N. Uspensky: "Go into the fire for the honor of the fatherland." ("Poet and Citizen" ^ Perceptible here and the contamination of poetic lines both from "The Poet and the Citizen", and from Pushkin's "Borodino Anniversary", "Slanderers of Russia" and even "Poltava".

2 The interest of literary critics in the topic of roll calls and analogies in Pushkin and Turgenev is noted .; in the article: Mostovskaya H.H. "Pushkin" in the work of Turgenev ^sskaya literature. 1997. No. 1. S.28-37.

Anchar" is Pushkin's most metaphorical poem, which can be understood very broadly: both as a symbol of the inevitability and regularity of the evil of wildlife, and as the power of man over man, and as a problem, or rather a symbol of the tragedy of fate.

Turgenev interprets this poem in his own way, and in this he follows Pushkin's will: not to obscure or limit the artistic meaning of his creation. In terms of the deep significance that it carries in Turgenev's narrative, it is antinomic to the title of the story. Against the background of a blessed calm, an eternal human tragedy arises, the sign of which is Pushkin's poem. The fact that Turgenev attached special importance to "Anchar" can be seen from the correction in the draft autograph, in numerous versions and in its original name "Death Tree" (Pushkin's "Death Tree").

The quotation in the story close to Pushkin's text of the scene from "The Stone Guest" (dialogue between Don Carlos and Laura) in the form of a kind of retelling by its hero (Veretyev) symbolizes a different position in life - epicureanism. The Epicurean philosophy of the hero suffers an inevitable collapse, which is in tune with Turgenev's worldview. So, relying on Pushkin's images, Turgenev transfers the philosophical, tragic content of the story to the depth of subtext. The traditional grounded real plot outline remains on the surface, only indirectly affecting the main Turgenev theme inherent in all of his work: mortal longing for unattainable human happiness, love and death, beauty and evil.

Just as naturally and organically, the writer appealed to Pushkin, defending the freedom of creativity in Pushkin's understanding of the word. He often quoted (in letters, his works) verses from the poem "To the Poet", believing that "every novice writer should memorize them and remember them as a commandment: go along the free path, where your free mind leads you." (X)Y, 107)

1 See: Izmailov N.V. From the history of Pushkin's text: "Anchar, the tree of poison" // Pushkin and his contemporaries. L., 1927. Issue 31-32. S.3-14.

RO*"? ">""

9 GSS1,. , one:< Ь! , ■ - /

In other Pushkin lines from this poem: "You will hear the judgment of a fool and the laughter of a cold crowd." - Turgenev was going to use as an epigraph to "Novi", a novel with which he intended "to bow to the readers." Apparently, this epigraph was left aside because of its frankly polemical meaning. Perhaps because even then the idea arose of a poem in prose "You will hear the judgment of a fool." Dedicated to the fate of the writer and society, the apotheosis of freedom of creativity, which Turgenev, the artist, invariably professed and defended in Pushkin's style.

And for Nekrasov - a poet, prose writer, critic, Pushkin was also naturally and naturally a standard of mastery, a criterion for evaluating poetic phenomena. However, despite the abundance of "Pushkin" in his own work, it is impossible to talk about the literary relationship between Nekrasov and Pushkin.

In Turgenev's article "A Few Words about Tyutchev's Poems", written after Nekrasov's "Russian Minor Poets", from which Turgenev started, Tyutchev is spoken of as a poet who "stands decisively above all his brothers in Apollo" (U, 423). Meaning Fet, Maikov, Nekrasov. The article about Tyutchev was written in 1854, when there were still no signs of a conflict with Nekrasov, but the evaluative accents in it are very clearly placed. Let us also feel the general structure of Turgenev's aesthetic thought, which was reflected in his assessment of the poet: "... but on one city of Tyutchev lies the seal of that great era to which he belongs and which was so clearly and strongly expressed in Pushkin" (U, 423). Nekrasov, for Turgenev, is a different, new phenomenon. In this article, he is called one of the most gifted "current" poets, whose talent is marked by "energetic, often dry and harsh passion." In the epithets "often dry" and "hard" there is a covert shade of negative assessment, rejection. Turgenev prefers Tyutchev's poetry, which is closest to him in its aesthetic nature. "They don't argue about Tyutchev," he wrote to Fet (Sh, 254).

Pushkin firmly entered the aesthetic consciousness of the young poet, whose first poems ("Thought", the collection "Dreams and Sounds") are marked by imitation of Pushkin's poetic form, an abundance of paraphrases, epigraphs from Pushkin and other literary sources. Curious in this regard is one of the first stories of a nineteen-year-old author: "Missing piita." Pushkin's lines, allusions to Pushkin's are boldly introduced into his comic context and used as a literary game. At the same time, the range of acquaintance with the works of the poet is noticeably expanding. Reminiscences, on the other hand, take the form not of quotations, but of themes, motives, ironically rethought and reduced.

So an excerpt from the tragedy "piita Gribovnikov

O my children! O faithful wife! - Fedotovich calls out in rage, - In the morning, perhaps, I am destined for a scaffold, Death is grinning at my eyes! (7, 57) is a travesty reworking of Mazepa's monologue ("Poltava": "In the morning the execution. But without fear / He thinks of a terrible execution."), as well as an excerpt from Pushkin's poem "Andrey Chenier":

I'm doomed. I spend the last hours. Morning execution.

A truncated quotation from Pushkin's poem "Anchar" is easily caught in the retelling of the poetic content of the tragedy "Fedotovich": "he swears to destroy the enemy with a pernicious poison-il sword" (7, 57). Nekrasov highlights the last lines in italics as a sign of someone else's word. Thus, by including such high Pushkin reminiscences (obvious and barely perceptible) in the parodic text, the comic of the narration is enhanced.

There is also a hidden reference to Pushkin in Nekrasov's text as a rehash of Pushkin's lines, comically commented on by the hero - all this is done in the same spirit of a literary game, designed for recognition. The quotation of verses from Pushkin's romantic poem "The Robber Brothers" looks like this. After the lines "I'm cold - I want to go to hell!" Piita Gribovnikov makes a "small digression". “What can you say about the last verse uttered by the hero of the tragedy? Huh?! Doesn’t it remind you of something so great, colossal? Think, think!<.>What have you forgotten! Do you remember this verse from the iambic poem "The Robber":

I'm stuffy here - I want to go to the forest! Now repeat mine: "I'm cold - I want to go to hell!" What, not the same strength, harmony, sonority, melancholy? It's just pandan-sir. - True, true: talents are equivalent. "(7, 57).

Thus, relying on Pushkin, the story reduces the romantic canons ("The Robber Brothers") and, as a visible result, the high theme of the artist's talent is travestyed. This kind of prosaic experience preceded the epigram "Belinsky's Message to Dostoevsky", written in 1846 by Nekrasov together with Turgenev, as well as episodes in Nekrasov's story "On the same day at eleven o'clock in the morning.", Marked by a parody of the style of Dostoevsky's story "Double". Already in the story "Missing Piita", written in a parodic-comic style, as well as in "Dreams and Sounds", one of the leading themes of Nekrasov is indicated: the theme of the poet and poetry, connected with the author's thoughts about the artist's own fate, about ways of development of Russian poetry, about ordinary poets and "colossi", "luminaries", to which he attributed Shakespeare, Pushkin, Lermontov. It is no coincidence that the word "poet" is one of the most frequently repeated in his correspondence and articles.

The mature Nekrasov has many poems devoted to this topic ("Blessed is the gentle poet.", "Muse", "Shut up the muse of revenge and sorrow!.", "Despondency", "To the poet (in memory of Schiller)? "To the poet", the whole cycle of poems " The last songs ", etc.). Although he himself, as well as the poet F. Tyutchev, "rediscovered" by him, did not like to talk about this. The exception is his letters to Turgenev, imbued with the most sincere confessions about how he writes poetry. 1 Lyrical maxims about creativity) scattered in his

1 Here is one of them in a letter dated November 17, 1853. "Poems overcame - that is, almost nothing hurts and my soul is calm, the Muse comes and turns everything upside down; and goodness would be with some benefit, otherwise to no avail - excitement begins, soon crossing the boundaries of any moderation - and before I succeed in poems, not so much auto-recognition as the features of his poetics, a natural tribute to literary tradition.

In this series, the poem "The Poet and the Citizen" occupies a special place.

One of the central in the creative life of Nekrasov, it is perceived both as a characteristic sign of his poetry and as a sign of the social and literary life of the era. Many semi-official myths, literary legends and the petrified tradition of seeing in the poem only a militant revolutionary-democratic sound, only a “social political and aesthetic declaration” (such formulations are found in academic publications) are also associated with it, which naturally obscures the most important thing.

Nekrasov the artist. The reason for such myth-making was, to some extent, the poetic structure of the poem, its artistic system, its inherent dialogism.

Nekrasov's poem is also distinguished by a pronounced literary subtext. On the one hand, the author turned to literary samples and P-euromanipulations, using them as building material. In fact, this literary style became the style of his artistic thinking. After all, the poem is by no means exhausted by the dialogues between the Poet and the Citizen. It is polyphonic and as if deliberately contradictory. In it, in addition to the Citizen, there are several "poets", including the poet (not Pushkin), to whom the Citizen addresses with a paradoxical slogan, taken to the extreme and proclaimed clearly polemically: You may not be a poet ^ But you must be a citizen It is these the lines are most often quoted out of context, without taking into account the metaphor in them, while being attributed - as a direct appeal - to Nekrasov himself. to master a thought, and even more so to express it well, I roll around on the sofa - and so on, until the boring thought calms down. " Turgenev also wrote about the difficulties of the writer's "craft", in which "there is quite little pleasure - and it should be so: everything, even artists, even the rich, must live by the sweat of their brow. and whoever’s face does not sweat, so much the worse for him: his heart either hurts or dries up "(Sh, 281). He also called "strange conditions under which the so-called literary process takes place" and compared it with "binge drinking".

Meanwhile, the literary genealogy of the poem also determines many of its other themes and images. It is known that the central place in it belongs to Pushkin ("Teacher" Pushkin and "Savior Pushkin"), the author's reflections on the poet-artist, as a living phenomenon of modern literature, as a phenomenon with which Nekrasov's hopes for the poet of the future are connected. The Pushkin theme in this direction was outlined and revealed in Nekrasov's articles and reviews ("Russian Minor Poets", "Notes on Journals", saturated with reminiscences from Pushkin's poems "To the Poet", "The Poet and the Crowd", "Muse", "My Ruddy Critic ", etc.), anticipating the "Poet and Citizen". During the period of work on the poem ("I eat long rhymes and I'm tired" - said in a letter to Turgenev) Nekrasov wrote about Pushkin in high biblical tones, using the pathos and style of the Decembrist oratorical prose: ". If God has given you a talent, follow in the footsteps of Pushkin, trying to catch up with him, if not by success, then by disinterested zeal, to the best of your ability and ability, for enlightenment, the good and glory of the fatherland! (112, 214). And biblical statistics when referring to Pushkin, who determined for Nekrasov the criteria of aesthetic and ethical values ​​during the period of work on "The Poet and the Citizen", is not accidental.1 Moreover, the poet called not for imitation, but for high service to art, recalling the true creative continuity, on which Russian spiritual culture is based.

Pushkin" in Nekrasov's poem is present in an abundance of reminiscences, including in the well-known lines quoted in it from the poem "The Poet and the Crowd":

Not for worldly excitement Not for self-interest, not for battles, We were born for inspiration, for sweet sounds and prayers (2, 6)

1 The fact that the entire second half of the 50s passes for Nekrasov, under the sign of Pushkin "see: Skatov N.N. Nekrasov. M., 1994. P.217."

With different intonations, they are present in the articles of many writers from Gogol to Druzhinin and Pisarev. It was in connection with them that there was a controversy about the so-called "pure art" and the accusatory trend in literature. Nekrasov quotes them in the same way as his predecessors did, deliberately taking them out of context and turning them into clichés. But in Pushkin these lines were preceded by others, in which the thought of the high service of the poet, of the poet-priest, the herald of the future, sounded:

But having forgotten their service Altar and sacrifice, Do the Priests take a broom from you?

An excerpt from Pushkin, odious for Nekrasov's time, is admired by both the Poet and the Citizen:

Yes, the sounds are amazing. Hooray! And I share your enthusiasm (2, 7)

There is no irony in these words. In this context, "hooray!" - a sign of enthusiastic approval, there is no "pulling up" the image of the Citizen to the Poet (G.V. Krasnov), because Nekrasov also stands behind the Citizen with his thoughts and doubts about the purpose of poetry and his own vocation.

Nekrasov's appeal to Pushkin is not limited to just quoting famous lines. In essence, the author of "The Poet and the Citizen" refers to the style and poetic structure of the poem "The Poet and the Crowd" in its entirety, reading it in his own way. After all, Pushkin's poem is replete with polar opposite aesthetic declarations, and the author's position cannot be reduced to any of them, since their correlation, dialogue and reflection are important for the author. Paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, in Pushkin there is no direct opposition between the poet and the crowd; on the contrary, here we are talking about their interdependence. That is why the main thing for Pushkin is dialogue, search, reflection. And Nekrasov’s Citizen is to a certain extent the equivalent of Pushkin’s “crowd teaching the poet, waiting for him to benefit” and “goal.” “What goal does he lead us to?”, “What good is it for us”, “You can, loving your neighbor ,/Two bold lessons for us" - all these elements of the aesthetic program of the enlightenment sense did not go unnoticed by Nekrasov. After all, in Pushkin, the crowd "imposes" discussion on the poet and the poet, despite the aesthetic program proclaimed by him ("Not for worldly excitement / not for self-interest, not for battles") appears in the end as a satirist and preacher.

The same function is performed in Nekrasov's poem by the Citizen. It is he who encourages the poet to argue about art, teaches him, suggests topics to him, rejecting the reasons and doubts of the poet.

The title of Nekrasov's poem, "The Poet and the Citizen" (similar to "The Poet and the Crowd"), also sounds in a Pushkinian vein, implying dialogue, opposition, and a possible open authorial decision.

Pushkin's dialogue takes place in the present tense: there is neither past nor future. Nekrasov is also talking about modern poetry, and the "savior Pushkin"! its member. That is why the Citizen easily changes the topic of conversation and moves from an assessment of Pushkin's poems to the present, to the work of his interlocutor (“But I confess your poems / I take it to heart more alive”). And then, to substantiate his position, the Citizen suddenly turns (out of any connection with the previous text) not to the Poet-interlocutor and not to Pushkin, but to the poet from the poem "The Poet and the Crowd" ("And you, the poet! The chosen one of heaven.") until limit, developing Pushkin's dialogue between the poet and the crowd. At the same time, Nekrasov naturally uses Pushkin's remissions, his high tonality.

So Nekrasov argues with Pushkin's Poet (a kind of standard of romantic poetics, after all, Pushkin's Romantic Poet) in no way identifying him with the author ("Pushkin the Savior!"), and gives Pushkin's poem a new modern meaning.

In The Poet and the Citizen there are other literary sources, hidden and explicit. It is known that in the title itself there is an echo with Ryleev's poem "Voynarovsky", Nekrasov also has reminiscences from Radishchev and others unnoticed in the literature.

The most significant for Nekrasov is the appeal to Gogol. It is noticeable not only in the dialogue “Wake up: smash the vices boldly. Ah! I know: “Look where you threw!”, But also in allusions to Gogol the preacher (“To teach others is a genius is needed. poems "Blessed is the mild-tempered poet." ("Blessed is the silent citizen", "Blessed is the chattering poet"), written on the death of Gogol and about Gogol. And it's natural. Nekrasov's poem contains a direct response to the magazine controversy of that time about the Pushkin and Gogol trends in literature, a reaction to the new materials about Gogol that appeared in the press, which for the first time illuminated the personality of the writer, the deep suffering of his tragic path.

Admiration for selflessness and the sacrificial death of Gogol the artist (Nekrasov wrote to Turgenev about this) is associated with aphoristic verses (the Citizen's monologue) that sound like a spell:

Go into the fire for the honor of the motherland, For conviction, for love. Go and die flawlessly. You will not die in vain: the case is solid, When blood flows under it. (2, 9)

It was these verses that gave rise to a vulgarizing interpretation by idle commentators and, moreover, to a bad

1 On the functions of numerous literary sources in Nekrasov's poem, see: Mostovskaya H.H. Poem. ;,Poet and Citizen" in the literary "£radiation//Karabikha. Istoriko-lit.sb ^ Yaroslavl, 1997. Issue Z. pp.67-80.

2 Works by N.V. Gogol found after his death. M, 1855; Notes on the life of N.V. Gogol, compiled from the memoirs of his friends and his own letters. SPb., 1856. T. 1-2. At the same time, the publication of Gogol's Works and Letters in 6 volumes, started by the writer himself and completed by his nephew N.P. Trushkovsky, was completed. M., 1855-1856. Interest in myth-making about Nekrasov's "civil declarations". Although it is obvious that only a conscious neglect of the symbolism of the poetic word and a deliberate interpretation of it "makes it possible" to see the call of the "revolutionary democrat poet" to the blood-washed reorganization of society.

Meanwhile, in essence and style, this passage goes back to the Holy Scriptures, to the theme of sacrifice, redemption, victory over death, committed by Christ in the name of the salvation of mankind. The First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Peter says: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification from the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace be multiplied."

Thus, in the poetic structure of a poem, a variety of stylistic tonalities naturally coexist in their notorious opposition. But its integrity and artistic unity is not violated at all. On the contrary, there is an inner logic to turning to heterogeneous, at first glance, literary sources. The author does not proclaim his indisputable aesthetic and ethical position, but reflects and invites the reader to do the same.

Turgenev's assessment of this poem is unknown (apparently, his letter with a review has not been preserved), but that he knew him is indisputable, since he received the collection of Nekrasov's Poems, as well as Herzen. In a letter to Turgenev dated January 11, N.S. In 1857, Herzen wrote that he found in Nekrasov "a strong talent, although associated with some kind of evil dryness and angular abruptness." In the same spirit, he spoke in another letter to him, where he called the poem "The Poet and the Citizen" an "article", a "mess" of Pushkin-Goethe-Lermontov and denied Nekrasov the classical tradition, noting: "Nekrasov does not fit the words Muse and Parnassus at all ".

It can be assumed that Turgenev's opinion did not differ much from Herzen's, because the poem "The Poet and the Citizen"

Pushkin also stirred up in connection with the publication in 1855 of "Materials for the biography of Pushkin" (St. Petersburg, 1855), prepared by P.V. Annenkov. 1 Bible: The First Epistle of St. Peter. Chapter 1, article 2; cf .: Revelation of John the Theologian. Chapter 1, article 5. dedicated to art and serving it, and in these matters Turgenev was in solidarity with Herzen, and not with Nekrasov. In addition, polemical lines: “So, in your opinion, I am a great poet, higher than Pushkin?<.>No, you are not Pushkin. But as long as / You can’t see the sun from anywhere / It’s a shame to sleep with your talent. "(Dialogue between the Poet and the Citizen), which gave rise to many different interpretations of them in criticism, could alert Turgenev. Perhaps even such a "opposition" of the modern poet and Pushkin could cause rejection Turgenev.

Another important milestone bringing Turgenev and Nekrasov closer was Gogol. Nekrasov's concept of Gogol's work was formulated in the well-known epistolary and magazine judgments of the poet. She was embodied in his work. In this regard, the novel "The Thin Man, His Adventures and Observations" is especially indicative as a stage in the comprehension of Gogol, in the formation of the poetics of Nekrasov the prose writer, which also influenced his poetry. There is one author's digression in it, which is directly related to the theme of "Gogol" by Nekrasov. Formulated by the hero-narrator in an ironic tone, it is imbued with deep thoughts about the search for his own artistic style, about literary continuity, and, most importantly, it contains a recognition of the imperious outcome from Gogol's principles.

Let's bring him. “Yes! a glorious comparison! There is no doubt that it belongs to me. I haven’t read it anywhere, I haven’t heard it from anyone, it came into my head, it’s mine. But why is it that I first think that I stole it from Gogol? Is the power of a genius so great that it puts a stigma even on a certain kind of thoughts that can be born in the head of another? Or am I mistaken, and this is just a commonplace, a vulgar thought, to which I have given, fortunately, the form of Gogol's comparisons. Or the form - then it confuses me, and in an alien form my very thought seems alien to me? But I don’t know how to give my own form. Who will solve these questions for me? I can’t solve them. And that’s why I could never be a writer" (7, 444-445).

If we exclude here the irony that colors this author's digression, it becomes obvious: the hero-narrator (and behind him Nekrasov), as it were, sums up what has been done in literature after Gogol (including the writers of the "natural school"), enters into a dialogue with the powerful literary tradition of Gogol , seeking to unravel the paradoxes of Gogol's poetics, the nature and causes of its impact. Back in 1843, in a review of Bulgarin's book Essays on Russian Morals, or the Front and Back of the Human Race, young Nekrasov singled out the most essential thing in Gogol's artistic talent: his unique style (in Gogol's words, "syllable"). Here he noted the main features of the writer's talent: "true humor", "artistic reproduction of reality", "lively and animated speech". At the same time, he shrewdly guessed: “fakes” for these virtues are impossible without “not immediately recognizing them” (P2, 92). The stated judgment is indicative of Nekrasov's perception of Gogol, it remained unchanged throughout the entire creative path.

The work of Nekrasov the prose writer falls on the era called by Herzen "consciously Gogol's direction." It incorporates the confessional-accusatory development of Russian literature, whose active figures were Herzen himself, and Turgenev, and Dostoevsky, and Grigorovich, and Ostrovsky. All these artists went through the "school" of mastering Gogol's themes, plots, motifs, techniques, and style.

And yet, the specific aspects of Gogol's poetics belonged exclusively to Gogol and were not continued by any of his followers. Nekrasov recognized this as one of the first. "Gogol undeniably represents something completely new among individuals who possessed the power of creativity, something that cannot be summed up under any theories developed on the basis of works given by other poets" (112, 194), he wrote later. Apparently, the poet felt the uniqueness and mystery of Gogol's work even earlier.

Turgenev was in complete agreement with Nekrasov in recognizing the uniqueness of Gogol's creative personality. He also called himself a student and follower of Gogol, but he very pointedly remarked on this subject in one of his letters: "I know better than anyone where Gogol's boot is shaking." His own, individual in the comprehension of Gogol manifested itself in Nekrasov in the fact that he remained a poet. Apparently, this is why the young writer turned to the most difficult thing in Gogol's style - to lyrical digressions - the author's speech, painted in multicolored tones: from emotional conversation with the reader to ironic evaluative digressions and comic reasoning.

The abundance of authorial digressions, marked by proximity to Gogol's style, can be traced in the novel "The Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trostnikov", which has become a kind of literary scale for the writer. And the point is not in the list of such digressions, curious in themselves and explained in a real commentary on the novel (8, 62, 135, 229). An analysis of draft manuscripts, numerous versions, and sketches of the novel suggests that in the process of work, Nekrasov developed his own understanding of Gogol's artistic talent. It will be reflected both in his criticism and in his poetry (“Blessed is the gentle poet”). It is obvious that the young writer was in tune not only with the irony, humor, satire inherent in Gogol, many of his themes and images, but also with their stylistic expression. Here are just a few typical comparisons. At the beginning of Nekrasov's novel, there is a pathetic appeal to young men who have chosen the profession of a writer, to realize the high purpose of poetry, not to commit a crime against art. "Oh young men! Oh, you recent guests of the world, taking the unbridled boiling of blood in your young veins for inspiration. Exercise your strength in anything, but for the sake of heaven, for the sake of eternal and holy art - leave poetry, leave it and do not touch it until then until you realize in yourself the strength to understand its lofty and holy meaning!I beg you with the happiness and peace of your future, because I do not know on my conscience a crime that seemed to me stronger, that would torment me more and more often revolt my dreams, like crimes against art, against poetry! But nothing atones for sins against art. A man, having once defiled art, either forever loses the ability to understand it, or is afraid to approach it, feeling unworthy of it. Once trampled underfoot, it forever turns the forehead away from its defiler, and he does not have his holy gifts, he does not have a drop from the ever-living source of consolations that people who approach him with trembling and reverence will draw in art. niem!" (8, 62).

Filled with romantic pathos and stylistics, this lyrical digression incorporates both literary reminiscences and auto-reminiscences. The lines "unbridled boiling of blood in your young hearts for inspiration." they are a paraphrase of the beginning of Lermontov's poem "Do not trust yourself", dedicated to the theme of the dramatic fate of the poet; they also echo the final stanza of Nekrasov's own poem "He is not a poet" from the collection "Dreams and Sounds". Included in the text of a narrative devoted to "low" nature (the theme of "Petersburg corners", the hero's search for a literary haven as a means of subsistence, etc.), this author's digression strengthens the antithesis of the high destiny of man and his real existence.1 The motive is typically Gogol's. "God! what a life is ours! Eternal discord between dreams and materiality!"

The writer's reasoning about serving art is also marked by autobiographical notes - memories of failure with the collection Dreams and Sounds. In terms of content, emotional and teaching tone, it correlates with the lyrical digression in the sixth chapter of "Dead Souls" - an appeal to youth imbued with an elegiac mood. "Take with you on the road. In severe fierce courage, take with you all human movements, do not leave them on the road; you will not raise them later!" (6, 127). Nekrasov leaves Gogol's theme of the tragic death of old age aside for the time being (later, in 1874, it will sound in his poem "Despondency").

1 For an analysis of other author's digressions and reminiscences from Gogol, contained not only in the novel "The Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trostnikov", but also in Nekrasov's stories, see: Mostovskaya H.H. 1) Gogol in the perception of NekrasovShekrasovsky Sat. L., 1983. Vyp.SH. S.25-35; 2) Comprehension of Gogol//Vershinina N.L., Mostovskaya H.H. "From underground literary spheres.". Essays on Nekrasov's prose (textbook for a special course). Pskov, 1992. S.58-73. On Gogol's acquaintance with young writers, including Turgenev and Nekrasov, see: Mostovskaya H.H. Gogol and the Natural School // Russian Literature. 1988. No. 1. S. 180-185.

2 Gogol N.V. Complete collection of works: V 14 T. M., 1938. T.Z. P.30. Further references to this edition are given in the text by volume and page.

To an even greater extent, Nekrasov's lyrical appeal reveals similarities with Gogol's reasoning about the high appointment of the poet-artist, about his asceticism in the name of serving art in the story "Portrait". "Talent is a precious gift of God - do not destroy it!., above all that is in the world, the high creation of art" (3.135).

Mosaic as Nekrasov's passage may be in its origins, its content would obviously have been approved by the Turgenevs if he had been able to read the drafts of this novel. It was here that Nerasov formulated the thought dear to Turgenev about the inherent value of art, the most important type of human activity.

I will give one more lyrical digression in the novel, which corresponds to Gogol's tone, but is very akin to Nekrasov. Gogol's "animated speech" also sounds in the author's reflections full of pain and compassion on the fate of a humiliated and homeless woman (in the third part of the novel): "It makes me sad." (8, 233). This author's digression was reworked several times (it has many options) in search of the necessary expressive vocabulary. An elegiac mood is created here by the repeated repetition of the beginning (a sign of Gogol's poetics): "It makes me sad when I see.", - as a result, an almost poetic musical phrase appears: "Deadly melancholy attacks me, and I do not know how to pray from it" (8, 526). For all the similarity of these lines with Gogol's ("How much inhumanity is in a man" - 3, 144), they clearly outline an independent tragic Nekrasov theme ("Song of Repentance" - "Knight for an Hour"), which became the leading one in his poetry. So the diverse semantic and stylistic range of Gogol's authorial digressions, deeply and organically combining the original unity of poetry and prose, gave the young writer a powerful creative impulse. It is no coincidence that one of Nekrasov's best poems "Blessed is the Gentle Poet", written based on the beginning of the seventh chapter of "Dead Souls" and inspired by the death of Gogol, is dedicated to the theme of the poet and poetry.

And again a creative roll call with Nekrasov. Turgenev's obituary article ("Letter from Petersburg", written under the impression of a poem just read "Blessed is the Gentle Poet", began in the style of Gogol's author's digressions: "Gogol is dead! What Russian soul will not be shaken by these two words? (XIV, 72).

The theme of Gogol's uniqueness as an artist (peculiarities of lyricism, which permeated all the writer's work) is at the center of Nekrasov's critical articles, including his Notes on Journals for October 1855, dedicated to the controversy with A.F. Pisemsky about Gogol. The article was written during a period of keen interest in Gogol and literary disputes around his name. Here a detailed assessment of the best pages of the second volume of "Dead Souls" is given and Nekrasov's concept of Gogol's talent and personality is presented in their inseparable unity. In essence, Nekrasov was one of the first to write about Gogol the thinker and his moral quest: "... in our judgments about Gogol's shortcomings and mistakes, let's not forget that he was not only an artist, but also an insightful, strict critic of his works (1b, 195 ).

Corresponding with this assessment is his statement in a letter to Turgenev (dated August 12, 1855), in which Gogol's personality and work were comprehended as a whole: "Here is an honest son of his land! It hurts to think that the particular ugliness of this character for many serve as an obstacle to appreciating this man, who did not write what he might like, and not even what was easier for his talent, but tried to write what he considered most useful for his fatherland. , raped his own in many ways, but what selflessness!

Unlike Nekrasov, Turgenev, a subtle artist and connoisseur of Gogol's talent, the author of a heartfelt obituary article about him and memoirs, did not do justice to the writer's selflessness, did not accept his preaching and teaching tone. In a letter to Druzhinin, he called the "Author's Confession" "vague nonsense", "arrogant fuss with oneself." He noticed Annenkov about the fifth chapter "with the unbearable farmer Murazov" (the second volume of "Dead Souls"). "Why ruin and break and distort yourself?" (P, 184, 308).

At the same time, both Turgenev and Nekrasov were unanimous in assessing the essence of Gogol's and Pushkin's trends in the midst of the journal's controversy on this issue, being sure that these were not two differently directed roads, but one and the same path of development of domestic literature.

The beginning of cooperation between both in Sovremennik until the mid-1850s was marked by the emergence of genuine friendship, human and literary. Both masters were thoroughly interested in each other's work. To a greater extent, this applies to Nekrasov. He did not write about any of the Russian artists of the word so much, so often and with such reverence as about Turgenev. The joking line “And in this timid husband I absolutely love everything” (from the poem “I will encroach on indecency. ^ 1853) is not a phrase, but a sincere confession that remained in the poet’s soul for life.

It is known that Nekrasov appreciated in his friend not only a huge talent ("he is worth Gogol in his own way"), but also his individual characteristics, which, according to the poet, consisted in Turgenev's ability "to give us ideals, as far as they are possible in Russian life ". Said in a letter to V.P. Botkin November 24, 1855 during the work on "Rudin". A little over a year later, under the impression of the stories "Faust", "Yakov Pasynkov", "Three meetings", Nekrasov intended to write a detailed article about their author "for the public". "Perhaps I will say something that will reveal to you yourself as a writer: this is the most important work of criticism." - he addressed Turgenev in a letter dated March 26 (April 7), 1857. The article was not written. But in essence, her abstract is set out in the same letter with inspired lines: "You are a poet more than all Russian writers after Pushkin, taken together." Further, Nekrasov explains his thought: ". you are one of the new masters of the form - others give the reader raw material where one must be able to take poetry<.>. I beg you - reread "Three Encounters", - go into yourself, into your youth, into love, into the indefinite and madness-beautiful impulses of youth, into this melancholy without melancholy - and write something in this tone. You yourself don’t know what sounds will flow when once you manage to touch these strings of a heart that has lived so much - like yours - with love, suffering and every kind of ideality.

For all its emotionality, Nekrasov’s judgment strikes with the insight of a critical feeling, makes one recall Belinsky (his assessment of Turgenev: “you are a true poet and poet”), anticipates Saltykov-Shchedrin’s impression of the “Noble Nest” (“transparent, as if woven from air, images, this is the beginning of love and light, in every line, beating with a living spring "). Moreover, it turned out to be largely prophetic. Nekrasov was one of the first to notice a rare artistic sign of Turgenev's talent, his gift of deep vision, the intuition of a writer who knew how to see the general behind the private, in the ordinary - ideal. It is no coincidence that the poet liked the amazing tone of the stories, the tone of "some kind of passionate, deep sadness." In essence, it was about Turgenev's attention to the supersensible and the unknown, to the mysterious in the human psyche, to human destiny as a phenomenon. researchers will write at the beginning of the 20s of our century, and after a long break they will turn to this problem again.

Nekrasov's faith in his friend's artistic instinct, in his ability to foresee the new, emerging in the social and literary life of Russia, prompted the poet to give him almost all of his poems for reading before they were published, to share his ideas with him, to seek advice. All this was reflected in their correspondence, in Nekrasov's letters to Turgenev, the most poetic of all his epistolary heritage, in the poet's critical articles.

Turgenev followed Nekrasov's work no less attentively and passionately. At the same time, noting the advantages and disadvantages of his poetry, he invariably relied on the most important aesthetic criterion for himself - Pushkin's mastery, which became for him an invariable measure of true free art. He met with enthusiasm the poems of the young poet. "Am I driving down a dark street at night.", "Motherland". Nekrasov's autobiographical note of 1872 notes: Turgenev "likes both thoughts and verse" (13d, 48). Contemporaries, in particular A.A. Beer, also testified to this. In the poem "Motherland" Turgenev was attracted both by the "inclinations of denial" and the fact that in its artistic structure it was close to Pushkin's tradition, although Nekrasov argued with Pushkin here (they contain an ironic allusion to his poems about the nurse: "Winter Evening" and " Again I visited.",

1 See: Toporov VN. Strange Turgenev (Four chapters) M., 1998. 192 and mo^s review of this book: Was Turgenev "strange"?//Russian Literature. 1999. No. 1. as well as to the poems by N.M. Yazykov "To the nanny of A.S. Pushkin", "On the death of the nanny of A.S. Pushkin").

Reminiscences from Pushkin were also imbued with another Nekrasov poem - "Muse", about which Turgenev, who read it in the manuscript, wrote: ". your poems are good, although they do not contain that energetic and bitter explosion that you involuntarily expect from you - moreover the end seems to be sewn on<.>But the first 12 verses are excellent and resemble Pushkin's texture "(P, 88). The first half of Turgenev's review is often omitted when quoting. Meanwhile, the specifics of Nekrasov's talent, which determined a new direction in poetry, are shrewdly captured here.

Turgenev "learned by heart" the verses "For a long time - rejected by you." for the fact that they are "simply Pushkin's good" (P, 295). Perhaps, on this, all known positive judgments of Turgenev about Nekrasov's poetry are exhausted. To these we can add a few responses to the "Collected Poems" of 1856. One of them indicates a characteristic feature of Nekrasov's poetry - the enormous emotional impact of his poems in their totality: "Nekrasov's poems, collected in one focus, burn" (Sh, 58). This assessment is usually not commented on and is cited as proof of the unconditional recognition of the poet. Meanwhile, its meaning is more complicated and it is explained, to a certain extent, in comparison with another historically insightful judgment of Turgenev, expressed at the same time in another letter to V.P. Botkin: "Nekrasov's success is a significant thing. The public needs it - and therefore she grasps at it" (Sh, 47). The observation was made long before the discrepancy, but in its essence it not only echoes his later sharp assessments of the poet's work, but also, as it were, prepares them.

At the same time, about the "enormous and unheard-of success" of Nekrasov's "Poems" Turgenev wrote to many addressees, including A.I. in Moscow, your last poems (especially "Muse") made a deep impression. Even Khomyakov recognized you as a poet. What more do you need a laurel wreath for?" (P, 358). And yet, the dissimilarity between the aesthetic positions of Turgenev and

Nekrasov is clearly visible already in the "contemporary" period, and Turgenev's later denial of the poetry of his former friend does not seem so unexpected at all. His bewilderment about the line "Serve not glory, not art" is known. in the poem "To a Russian Friend", published in the sixth issue of Sovremennik for 1855 (subsequently, stanzas 3-5 were included in the poem "The Poet and the Citizen"). In a letter to I.I. Panaev, he asked "Serve not glory, not art - probably a typo, instead of art?" (P, 298). Nekrasov did not accept the amendment proposed by Turgenev, but remade it differently, retaining its polemical overtones.

Creative relationships between writers were not limited to epistolary and article statements about each other. They can be traced in their works of art and in the form of veiled polemics, and in hidden and explicit reminiscences, and in natural thematic coincidences and convergences.

Nekrasov's poem "Hound Hunting", published in the second issue of "Sovremennik" for 1847, is a polemical response to Turgenev's poem "Village" (especially "Grandfather" and "Before the hunt"), published in the first issue. It contains many semantic and verbal analogies, obviously deliberate reminiscences from Turgenev's poems. Parallels from Turgenev to Nekrasov's poem (key words, quotes, etc.) are evidence of interest in the creative manner of his contemporary, the opportunity to compete with him. Mostly, this is a poetic device for rethinking Turgenev's style. In Turgenev, the poetic, lyrical mood inherent in his creative manner prevailed, in Nekrasov it was more sober, ironic, although in Dog Hunting there are lively poetic pictures of the description of nature that have nothing to do with parody. Such roll calls are not at all explained by Nekrasov's desire to induce Turgenev to "sociality". This point of view has been expressed in the literature, but it is hardly justified, because. impoverishes Nekrasov and distorts Turgenev. Obviously, here we are talking about different stylistic solutions to the same topic: the lyricism and poetry of Turgenev's image (the poem "Grandfather") and satire, the emphasized prosaism of Nekrasov's.

Reflections on the artistic discoveries of Turgenev were also reflected in other works of the poet, including his novel The Thin Man, His Adventures and Observations (Contemporary, 1855, No. 1), in the poem Sasha, in Scenes from a Lyric Comedy Bear Hunt.

In the novel, densely saturated with ideological and literary problems, themes, motives, a hidden polemic with Turgenev about the search for a new literary hero, a new style is clearly visible. In essence, Nekrasov turned to the primordially Turgenev theme of the "superfluous person", creating in the novel his own ironic interpretation of this literary type, which had already firmly entered the literary consciousness of the era. At the same time, he was guided by the problems and artistic system of Turgenev's story "The Diary of a Superfluous Man" and the story "Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky District". He called the latter "the most successful in the Notes of a Hunter" (in a letter to Turgenev dated August 18, ¡855 and in a review of the almanacs "Comet" - "Sovremennik", 1851, No. 5). The polemical nature of Nekrasov's novel was enhanced by the fact that it was written (especially its first four chapters) in a parodic-ironic stylistic vein, which was achieved by a whole system of artistic techniques, primarily by the inconsistency of the ironic style with the complexity of the problem, by playing around with Turgenev's words and situations, and by the ironic stylization of Turgenev's stories.2 Already in the very title of Nekrasov's novel "The Thin Man." sounds like irony.

A hint of Turgenev is also contained in one of the author's digressions, expressed about the "imitation and repetition" already known in the poem "Sasha" was published in the first issue of Sovremennik for 1856 AD. with a dedication: "I-at T-vu", (i.e. to Ivan Turgenev). The dedication is preserved in the edition of "Poems" in 1856; the second part of all subsequent lifetime editions is published without dedication.

In the typesetting manuscript "Scenes from the lyrical comedy" Bear Hunt "(1866-1867), relating to the lines: "In the literature / He is described enough: he / They called him "superfluous"" Turgenev was named as a literary source, then the word "Turgenev" was crossed out (3, 288) 2 For a more detailed analysis of the parody skill of Nekrasov the prose writer, see: Mostovskaya H.H. 54-68; 2) Nekrasov and Turgenev (from the literary controversy of the 1840-1850s) / / I. S. Turgenev. Questions of biography and creativity. JI., 1990. P. 67-78. literature topics, plots, images : "Any subject is understood only then, - the narrator argues, - when it ceases to be the property of a limited number of specialists, as if they had received a privilege on it" (8, 328). The priority in creating the images of the "Russian Hamlets" belonged, as you know, to Turgenev. its semantic content (phrasing, propensity for effects, morbid pride) Nekrasov's concept of "thin man" is consonant with Turgenev's formula "extra man". But if Turgenev was more interested in the psychological nature of the "extra person", the philosophical roots of his worldview, then Nekrasov, on the one hand, emphasized the socio-psychological factor that contributed to the emergence of "thin people", on the other hand, he created an ironically debunking interpretation of Turgenev's hero.

For all the criticism of the "superfluous person" (in "Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district"), Turgenev's idea of ​​"superfluous people" is more capacious and complex. In this story (as well as in the "Diary of a Superfluous Man", in "Correspondence") there is also a feeling of "all-Russian homelessness", restlessness, which evokes a feeling of regret, compassion, sadness. Nekrasov deliberately excludes this motive, depriving his hero of any kind of sympathy. Focusing only on the shadowy features of the "Russian Hamlet" type, the author of "The Thin Man." as if destroying his inner integrity, artistic depth and deliberately makes his hero flatter.

The roll call with Turgenev can also be traced in Nekrasov's interpretation of the topic of circle education, characteristic of the noble intelligentsia of the 30s and 40s. Nekrasov called these circles "circles of wise men" ("encyclopedists"), who have the property of "quickly developing the pride of everyone who touches them" (8, 302-303). Turgenev writes about circles "as an ugly replacement for society<.>life", about circles in which "worship empty rhetoric, a selfish wise guy" (GU, 284-285). This is how his hero argues, who has become a victim of fruitless reflection.

This coincidence in thought and almost textual is connected to a certain extent not only with Nekrasov's orientation towards Turgenev's story. He also had his own critical thoughts on this matter. According to the testimony

S.N. Krivenko, the poet was deeply impressed by the "predominance of phrases", rhetoric, in circles, of which he was a member in his youth.

The veiled parody inherent in Nekrasov's novel undoubtedly reflects the writer's interest in Turgenev's artistic system, the desire to rethink it. At the same time, it also contains a polemical orientation, disagreement with Turgenev's characteristic justification for the weaknesses of the "superfluous person." This internal controversy with his contemporary will be developed both in the poem "Sasha" and in "Scenes from the lyrical comedy" Bear Hunt "", where "Turgenev's" is refracted more complicated and subtler.

Apparently the novel "The Thin Man." did not go unnoticed by Turgenev, an attentive reader of Sovremennik, but his direct responses to him were not preserved, except for a later statement about Nekrasov (known from A.N. Ostrovskaya's Memories): ". he wrote" Sasha "and, as usual shrugged off the type."

From the second half of the 1850s, a different era began in the creative relationship between Turgenev and Nekrasov. Nekrasov. This dramatic conflict in the history of the literary and social life of Russia is traditionally explained by ideological differences.2 There is some truth here, but not all of it.

Turgenev himself, a fairly broad person who does not believe "in any absolutes and systems", denied the ideological background of his departure from Sovremennik (and this was not a phrase), especially since he perfectly understood the ideology of his opponents and opponents, although did not share it. In a well-known letter to Herzen (January 30 (February 11, 1861)) he explained the problems of this most dramatic period in the history of the relationship between writers in the article: Mostovskaya H.H. Turgenev and Nekrasov. Confrontation/Urusskaya Literature. 1998. No. 4 (in print).

2 A lot has been written on this topic in Turgenev studies, non-beautiful studies, in works on the history of journalism and from different angles of view. See, for example: Muratov A.B. N.A. Dobrolyubov and I.S. Turgenev’s break with the Sovremennik magazine U / In the world of Dobrolyubov. Sat.st. M., 1989. S.316-340. his departure is much simpler: personal antipathy for Nekrasov. It arose, of course, not suddenly. And it was not Dobrolyubov's article about "On the Eve" that was the main reason for the "chasm" that formed between former friends. Dobrolyubov's article was only a pretext for disagreement. And this event was overgrown with a lot of speculation, scientific concepts and just myth-making. So the phrase "I or Dobrolyubov" is certainly a literary invention of Avdotya Panaeva, and she often flickers in the literature on this topic. It is known that in the memoir "On the occasion of "Fathers and Sons"" Turgenev highly appreciated Dobrolyubov's article. At the same time, he also objected to the mention of critics about his "irritated", "wounded" pride.

Arguments about Turgenev's "insulted pride", which have become commonplace, are greatly exaggerated and do little to explain the history of the dramatic conflict between the two artists. It was prepared gradually and did not take place immediately after the appearance of the Dobrolyubov article. This was preceded by a number of events. Here are just a few of them (many, by the way, remained unknown).

Already in May 1858, Turgenev was weary of the "obligatory agreement" invented by Nekrasov in order to somehow discipline employees and support Sovremennik. It fettered the freedom of the writer, and he cherished it invariably.

One of the signs of discord was the story of the second edition of the Hunter's Notes, which left an unpleasant mark on the relationship between Turgenev and Nekrasov. Its essence boiled down to the fact that Nekrasov retained the right to publish by paying Turgenev 1000 rubles (back in 1856) and then reselling it to I.V. Bazunov for 2500 rubles (published in 1859). Apparently, "money matters" that displeased the writer had arisen before.1 In August 1857, Turgenev wrote to Nekrasov: "(Sh, 144, 131).

1 In June 1857, Turgenev wrote to Herzen about this: "Is it really possible that I ever entered into his financial affairs and relations. They were always of such a kind that it was nothing for an outsider to look into them" (Sh, 131).

The details of the "Ogarevsky case" were not known to Turgenev. The secretive Nekrasov, defending the honor of a woman, hardly initiated close friends into them. But he was apparently sure of Nekrasov's innocence. This is evidenced by his appeal to Herzen (who was going to publish materials on this subject in Kolokol) not to do this, so as not to hit on "his own" (although Herzen did not consider Nekrasov to be "his own"). However, in October 1860, Turgenev wrote to Herzen about his article in Kolokol, "Superfluous people and zhelcheviki" ^ at the end of which an attack was made against Nekrasov: "I understood the end of Zhelcheviki - and I am especially grateful to you. place" (1U, 143). "Shameless mazurik", "dishonest person", "swindler" - the epithets expressed by Turgenev at Nekrasov's address are alarming and can hardly be explained only by the emotional rejection of a person. Apparently, behind them lie real deeds. They were overgrown with the conjectures of contemporaries, which created a bad reputation for both writers.

Chernyshevsky's (and not Dobrolyubov's, as Turgenev thought) review of the "Works of N. Hawthorne" ("Contemporary", 1860, No. 7) completed the job. Turgenev was not upset by the criticism of Rudin, but by the insulting tone of the article, in which the novel was ironically called "a vinaigrette of sweet and sour, mocking and enthusiastic pages, as if sewn from different stories." It also contained allusions to "wealthy friends", to the dependence of the writer on his "literary advisers" (meaning Annenkov).

It is quite obvious that two or three years ago such statements in Sovremennik with frank attacks against Turgenev were unthinkable. Historical time has changed: "everything has been shaken" (the words of Nekrasov) and mixed up: principles, journalistic disputes, attacks and just insults. The very concept of literary authority was questioned.

The official letter to Nekrasov about leaving Sovremennik was for Turgenev a kind of cartel, a means of protecting his convictions, human dignity. This letter is unknown, but certain passages from it are quoted in another document - Turgenev's letter to the publisher

Northern bee", in which he was forced to publicize the conflict with the "Contemporary"1 (ХУ, 142-143).

Nekrasov defended Turgenev as best he could from the attacks of his young colleagues. Objectively, his word as an editor meant a lot in this era of confrontation, but nevertheless he acted like a business man who preferred journalism and criticism in the journal as a public service and propaganda matter.

Meanwhile, for Turgenev (and in this he drew close to Herzen), art invariably remained valuable in itself, excluding any kind of "Templenstschnü" (Herzen). Herzen's judgment about art ("It<.>our only and undoubted good<:.>the goal is achieved in him"), expressed in Ends and Beginnings (1862-1863), Turgenev will repeat in his own way and almost verbatim in Enough (1864), one of his lyrical works, imbued with philosophical reflections and pessimism. Speech we are talking about the phrase that caused a lot of criticism and controversy: "Venus de Milo, perhaps, is more undoubted than Roman law or the principles of the 89th year" and further about the reasoning about art, which is "perhaps stronger than nature itself" (IX, 119). Turgenev wrote about the main place of art among other human activities.

In the 60s, a turning point for Russia, Nekrasov thought differently. For all his universalism, the main thing for him during this period was something else - the success of the magazine, and, in essence, he voluntarily or involuntarily surrendered his friend to the mercy of the winners, He did not defend (he could not or did not find it necessary to do this). Thus, the external visible history of the divergence, or rather confrontation, of the two former friends looks like a motley decoration, behind which deep essential contradictions are hidden.

Their origins date back to the 1950s, a time when Turgenev and Nekrasov worked hard on preparing editions of Tyutchev's and Fet's poems and argued a lot about poetry. The complex poetic systems of Tyutchev and Fet affirmed Turgenev in the opinion that Turgenev openly responded to the feuilleton of Yu.K. 1862. No. 316. November 22. art (in the words of Nekrasov, - "direction"), the endless expansion of the boundaries of the lyrical narrative (and this was inherent in Nekrasov's poetry) contradicted objectivity and artistry. All this, as it were, eroded the "artistic meaning of art", violated its "elegant proportion" (Herzen's words). Perhaps it was during this period that the literary and aesthetic barrier between Turgenev and Nekrasov was already clearly marked, which later became insurmountable and, I think, the most important in the confrontation between the two artists. After all, in the Dobrolyubov interpretation of the novel "On the Eve" (adopted by Nekrasov), it was about the unacceptable from Turgenev's point of view, the subordination of art to pragmatic goals. For a writer brought up on the best traditions of classical German (Goethe, Hegel) and Russian (Pushkin, Belinsky) aesthetics, art invariably remained an independent matter among other human concerns and activities.

There is another, no less important in this period after the divergence. Both for Turgenev and for Nekrasov, this event (Turgenev's departure from the magazine) did not remain without a trace. Nekrasov was especially hard pressed. This can be seen from his last letters to Turgenev, from his epistolary as a whole, from which the theme of art and poetry almost disappears. At this time, he writes a poem ". lonely, lost." (litter: "Inspired by discord with Turgenev in 1860" will be made by the poet before his death), "Tvu" (1861-1877). The first poem contains lines. "Who is to blame? - you can't interrogate fate / And does it really matter?" (2, 94) essentially resonating with the phrase (in Turgenev's letter to Yu.P. Vrevskaya in 1877) about the seriously ill Nekrasov and the events of his youth: ". and which of us is right - who is to blame?" (XP2, 70) as well as with the often repeated Shakespearean quote by the writer: "there is no right, there is no wrong." And on the manuscript of the poem "Tvu" there is a title unnoticed by the researchers: "Disputes" (IRLI, f.203, No. 19, l. 1), which obviously has a direct bearing on the dialogue with Turgenev the artist.

Nekrasov’s moral state was most accurately conveyed by Annenkov (in a letter to Turgenev dated October 20, 1863): “Nekrasov comes to me the other day, sits in a ball and says in a grave voice - both you and Turgenev have the right to be angry with me. I won't give you, I don't need you. I'm full, and I'm sick, but you don't know my soul, and you don't know that I can't squeeze the memory of you out of it, etc. What a mental incident!"

Turgenev, who lost his dear magazine platform, lost faith in his former friend, also feels homeless. His mood is felt in letters to E.E. Lambert of this time. In one of them, he bitterly remarks: "Everything<.„>connections are not just broken - but melted away. I feel as if I had died long ago, as if I belonged to a long time past - a being "(1U, 184). In another, he writes about his state of mind like this: ". some kind of indifferent despondency settled in me "(U, 14). At the same time, it is known that it was precisely after the divergence from Nekrasov that Turgenev repeatedly spoke negatively about him, about his work.2 As a rule, this is explained by the fact that the writer lost his aesthetic sense "This is hardly the case. Firstly, because negative assessments also contain positive things: indifference. Secondly, many of Turgenev's harsh judgments about Nekrasov's poetry are also objective in nature, and are not explained only by personal hostility. For example, in a letter to Fet (dated April 6 (18), 1862), Turgenev writes very ironically: "The poems of Nekrasov, this first of the modern Russian piites, are also good!" (1U, 372). in its content and poetic structure, it is a physiological essay in verse or a poetic feuilleton. It clearly does not withstand the criterion of "Pushkin's texture". New themes entailed a new design: a rhymed anecdote, a street scene, the forehead of the day, put into verses, etc. - all this caused the rejection of Turgenev, who was brought up on other, classical models, "Memoirs of Belinsky" (1869) and "Letter to the editor of St. Petersburg Vedomosti" (1870) about the poetry of Ya.P. Polonsky contained especially harsh attacks against Nekrasov. Here Turgenev was changed by "the desire for impartiality and for the whole Truth", the qualities for which he Annenkov P.V. Letters to I.S. Turgenev (1854, 1863). Publication and comments by Mostovskoy N.N.//Literature and history. St. Petersburg, 1997, p.318.

2 Turgenev's judgments about Nekrasov are reflected in the Chronicle of the life and work of I.S. Turgenev (1867-1870). SPb., 1997 and in the Chronicle of the life and work of I.S. Turgenev (1871-1875). SPb., 1998, author-compiler Mostovskaya H.H. thanked nature for giving them to him. Although, characterizing Belinsky's personality, the writer quoted Nekrasov's lines: "persisting: worrying and hastening" ("In Memory of a Friend"),

In "Memoirs of Belinsky", written in a polemical tone, full of allusions to the literary and social disputes of the 60s, Nekrasov was called "the official poet of the English club" and "master." Turgenev excluded these phrases only after the death of Nekrasov in the collected works of 1880. The publication of excerpts from Belinsky's letters to Turgenev in "Memoirs ^." remained. Apparently, the writer placed them as a document of the era, but in the choice of passages he was not objective, citing those in which Nekrasov was censured and not including others, where these reproaches were essentially removed, which did not go unnoticed by contemporaries: M.A. .Antonovich, B.N. Chicherin. The latter wrote to A.V. Stankevich that Belinsky's letters "were sealed except to annoy Nekrasov."

It was they who excited the poet, who kept a noble silence all these years and never entered into polemics with Turgenev. In 1869, Nekrasov for the first time "responded to Turgenev's speech, but did it in a peculiar way. He wrote, apparently at the same time, four letters addressed to M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (all of them are not finished, the first two drafts), but the addressee never recognized In their extreme frankness and harshness towards themselves, they were written for themselves, like a confession, in which the poet's desire to understand one of the difficult episodes of his journal activity, to remove the shadow cast on his reputation, is palpable.

The harshest assessment of Nekrasov is contained in the "Letter to the editor of the St. Petersburg Vedomosti" (1870), where the artistry of Ya.P. Polonsky's poetry was opposed to Nekrasov's ("her poetry is not even a penny"). But even this categorical and completely unattractive and unfair judgment is explained not only by the polemic nature of the "Letter" (Polonsky's defense against Saltykov-Shchedrin's criticism), but also by the dissimilarity of aesthetic

1 The controversy around "Memoirs of Belinsky" is discussed in the monograph: Mostovskaya H.H. I.S. Turgenev and Russian journalism in the 70s of the XIX century. L., 1983. S.34-36. positions of Turgenev and Nekrasov. Turgenev wrote about this much more restrainedly to Polonsky, trying to explain the reasons for his "trick against Nekrasov."

Despite Turgenev's negative reviews about the poet, something else can be traced in the writer's work. Turgenev invariably at all times remained an attentive reader of Nekrasov.

In the novel "The Nest of Nobles", published in "Sovremennik" in 1859, a year after the publication of the poem "Silence", Nekrasov's tonality, "the similarity of lyrical atmospheres" (V.M. Markovich) is easily traced. In episodes 18, 19, 20 of the chapters of The Nest of Nobles, which recreate the moral state of Lavretsky during his return from abroad and visiting the Vasilyevskoye family estate, one can feel not only Nekrasov's tone, but also a deeper correlation with Nekrasov's poem. These episodes, which are important for the ideological and artistic structure of the novel, reveal many stylistic analogies, reminiscences from Nekrasov's poem, up to textual coincidences.1 The very theme of the Motherland, spiritual renewal, and the search for work is revealed by Turgenev with a tangible orientation towards the ideological and artistic system. Nekrasov. The motif of "healing expanses of the native side" ("Silence") echoes Lavretsky's reflections on a quiet and unhurried life, ending with almost Nekrasov's lines: "And what strength is all around, what health in this inactive silence!" (UP, 183). The author of "The Nest of Nobles" is also consonant with Nekrasov's theme of "The Temple of Sighing, the Temple of Sorrow" as a symbol of national asceticism, severe and restrained grief.

Nekrasov's lines about the temple:

Here the people, beloved by you, brought their holy burdens of their irresistible longing, and left relieved! (4, 52)

1 See: Moskovskaya H.H. 1) About one creative roll call (Nekrasov and Turgenev) // Plot and time. Collection of scientific works. To the 70th anniversary of G.V. Krasnov. Kolomna, 1991. S.104-108. 2) The temple in the works of Nekrasov/Urusskaya Literature. 1995. No. 7. C: 194-202. and the eternal folk wisdom of the final verses: "Do not pursue personal happiness / And yield to God - without arguing." are associated with Lisa Kalitina's deep sense of religious duty ("one must repent of one's own sins and those of others") - a national trait rooted in folk psychology, and more broadly - in Russian spiritual culture. Consonance with Nekrasov's lyrical note marked Lavretsky's humility, and the poetic descriptions of the pilgrims, the vigil at the Kalitny's (during which Liza "prayed earnestly and fervently"), the temple that determined the fate of Turgenev's heroes.

Nekrasov's allusions in "The Nest of Nobles" are sometimes barely perceptible, but potentially present, based both on the similarity of themes and on the similarity of style, which combines the lofty (temple, motherland, the mystery of silence) and the prosaic. They are also remarkable for determining the points of contact between Nekrasov's lyrics and Turgenev's prose. In addition, these roll calls can be regarded as a creative response to one of the best works of the poet, in many respects consonant with the artistic searches of the author of "The Noble Nest". Apparently "Silence" attracted Turgenev and deep lyricism, and the absence of direct denunciations, and those poetic merits, in the assessment of which the writer relied on the highest criterion - "Pushkin's texture."

Turgenev's close interest and biased attention to Nekrasov's poetry is also distinguished by the novel "Nov". The accustomed interpretation of it only as a novel about populism completely drowns out in it the theme of art, the poet and the citizen, the Nekrasov theme, which sounds clearly here. After all, the tragedy of Nezhdanov was that he fell "not into his own rut": not revolutionary exploits, but service to art was to become the hero's main business. In all other respects, he, by his own admission, is exactly "a bad actor in someone else's role."

An analysis of Turgenev's text, rough drafts, variants, formulary list convinces that the novel is densely saturated with literary motifs, reminiscences, images, collisions from Russian and European classics, from the works of contemporaries. Among the references to the "foreign" word, the text, which constitute meaningful components of the novel, are Shakespeare and Goethe, Gogol and Ostrovsky, Saltykov and Dostoevsky, Dobrolyubov, Botkin, G. Uspensky, Pushkin and Nekrasov. In the artistic structure of "Novi" there are many autoreminiscences from "Rudin", "The Nest of Nobles" from the articles "Hamlet and Don Quixote", it also contains preparations for future poems in prose.

Nekrasovskoye" in the poetic system of "Novi" occupies a significant place.<.>as the slightest hint of poetry" (KhP, 32). This author's characteristic is associated with the well-known Nekrasov formula: "You may not be a poet, / But you must be a citizen." which absorbs many things, including the contradiction between word and deed as a socially significant problem.

The dialogue between the poet and the citizen is palpable in the novel and beyond. Refracted in its own way, sometimes exaggerated to the limit, it seems to portend a tragic outcome. The polyphony of the Nekrasov theme of "a poet and a citizen" is manifested in the author's characteristics of Nezhdanov, in his secretive poetry, confessional letters-messages to an unknown friend (also a literary occupation!), In an episode of a discussion of the hero's poems ("Dear friend, when I will / Die." ,2 accidentally discovered by Marianna, a convinced populist. In a dialogue with Nezhdanov about poetry, she, as it were, performs the functions of Nekrasov's Citizen: "Friends like poems like yours, not because they are very good, but because you are a good person - and they they look like you" (KhP, 215). This is how the theme of

1 See: Mostovskaya H.H. "Nekrasovskoye" in Turgenev's novel "Nov" / Russian Literature. 1996. No. 3. C, i!S

2 In its mood, the poem resembles Lensky's poems from the 6th chapter of "Eugene Onegin" and is an interweaving of the characteristic motifs of romantic elegies of the 20s. At the same time, it also has a tangible echo with Dobrolyubov's poem "Let me die - there is little sadness" also quoted in the novel. Some lines of Nezhdanov's poems are a clear paraphrase of Dobrolyubov's poems, altered in Turgenev's novel almost parodic. the subjectivity of poetry, and therefore its uselessness from the point of view of the doer and citizen.

As a counterweight to Nezhdanov's elegies, the novel mentions, with an obviously parodic purpose, a "socialist poem" by the "great correspondent" Kislyakov, engaged in his "convulsive revolutionary activity": "Love not me - but the idea!" (HP, 116-117). Kislyakov's poem is also associated with Nekrasov's cliché formula, taken out of context ("You may not be a poet, / But you must be a citizen"), deliberately coarsened by Turgenev. The correlation of the dialogue about poetry in Turgenev's novel with the motives and themes of the dialogue in "The Poet and the Citizen" can also be traced in other episodes and can be defined as a hidden reminiscence at the level of artistic structure.

The dispute between the poet and the citizen (it is essentially ongoing throughout the entire novel) is deepened by the intersection and interaction in the text of "Novi" of other reminiscences and quotations from different sources. Dobrolyubov's poem "Let me die - there is little sadness" occupies a sovereign place in the novel and is quoted by Turgenev in full, its functions in the novel are ambiguous: the hero-admirer of Dobrolyubov. It is also mentioned for the purpose of comparing it with Pushkin. “You need to write such poems as Pushkin, or such as these Dobrolyubov ones: this is not poetry, but something is no worse than it” (KhP, 215). This replica, constructed at the intersection of polar opposite literary associations, different poetic tones, seems to complete the dialogue between the poet and the citizen, carried out by Turgenev in his own way. Its meaning - reflections on the appointment of the poet and poetry - is quite consistent with Turgenev's assessment of Nekrasov, expressed in January 1878 in a letter to Polonsky: "Let the youth rush about with him. It is even useful, because in the end those strings that his poetry ( if I may say so) makes it ring, - the strings are good" (KhP, 263). Essentially, Turgenev used autoreminiscences from Novi here.

So in the novel and in the epistolary judgment there is an unconditional, although not unconditional, recognition of Nekrasov's poetry as a new trend in art. This is confirmed by the analysis of the poem "Dream" (at the end of the novel), written not only in Nekrasov's key. It is projected onto the leading motifs of Nekrasov's poetry. It clearly tangible references to the poem "Silence", to the poems "Despondency", "Reflections at the front door" above all. I will give just a few comparisons. The woeful finale of Nezhdanov's "Sleep": "The fatherland / Holy Russia sleeps with an unbreakable sleep!" - is, as it were, a kind of polemical response to the encouraging meaning of the lines in Nekrasov's poem "Silence":

There is silence over all Russia, But it is not a precursor to sleep: The sun of truth shines in her eyes, And she thinks a thought (4, 55)

At the same time, it clearly echoes other poems of the poet ("Reflections at the front door), filled with thoughts about the people: "And spiritually rested forever?" a hero to him." Sending this poem in a farewell letter to a friend, Nejdanov writes in a postscript: "Yes, our people are sleeping. But it seems to me that if something wakes him up, it will not be what we think." (KhP, 231). The ellipsis that ends this phrase makes its meaning capacious and open. Turgenev deliberately entrusts it to the hero and, in fact, "rewrites" here Nekrasov’s rhetorical question: “Will you wake up full of strength.” Indeed, in “Reflections at the Front Door” there is no answer to this question either, but there are reflections over which the poet struggles, there is understatement and ambiguity.

In Turgenev's novel there are other similarities with Nekrasov's poems. And although the reminiscences from Nekrasov, hidden and explicit, serve as characterizations of the characters, the author's appraisal is palpable in them, and the fact that Nekrasov's poetry did not pass without a trace for Turgenev.

It is possible that the "Nekrasov" in "Novi" (responses to Nekrasov's poetry) did not go unnoticed by the poet.1 Perhaps this could prompt him to return to the history of relations with Turgenev and to an old poem dedicated to him: "We went out together.", which was reflected in the draft mark on one of the manuscripts of this poem: “The beginning is on a scrap. [I remembered and wrote down January 11] (3, 481).2 By this time, Nov, apparently, had already been read by Nekrasov.

The creative exchange with Nekrasov, the author of "The Last Songs" can be traced in the cycle "Poems in Prose". There is indeed much in common at the center of these works: reflections on the purpose of art and the moral responsibility of the artist, motives for self-justification, and dialogue with the reader. Both "Poems in Prose" and "Last Songs" are imbued with the mood of farewell to life, a premonition of death. Nekrasov's poems are a kind of lyrical confession; Turgenev's - a lyrical diary, an afterword to all his work.

These cycles were brought together by the most essential thing - the awareness by their authors of the tragedy of being. Almost all of Turgenev's works and much of Nekrasov's poetry are permeated with tragedy. Hence the poet's motives for repentance, Turgenev's eternal doubts.

Until now, the classic sign of the Nekrasov theme in "Poems in Prose" was considered only "The Last Date", imbued with memories of youth, of that spiritual relationship that united Turgenev with Nekrasov and was dear to both of them. It was inspired by a belated meeting with the poet and, obviously, the comprehension of his "Last Songs". Nekrasov's assessment of "Novi" is known in A.N. Pypin's diary entry: "I liked the first part<.>but part 2 is bad<,.>a bad novel - even though I still love Turgenev. " Perhaps it is intertwined with the magazine reviews about Novi and with Pypin's wary attitude towards Turgenev, the chronicler of populism.

2 Wed. another litter of Nekrasov on the proof print (sheet of proofs of "Domestic Notes") - 3.471-472.481.

Various aspects of this problem are revealed in the articles: Mostovskaya H.H. 1) Turgenev's story "After death (Clara Milic)" in the literary tradition // Russian literature. 1993. No. 2. S. 137-148; 2) Oriental motifs in the work of Turgenev // Ibid., 1994. No. 4. P. 101-102; 3) The temple in the work of Nekrasov // Ibid., 1995. No. 1. S. 194-202.

Turgenev knew this cycle of Nekrasov's poetry, which is confirmed by some roll calls, including the lyrical theme of Nekrasov's "Introduction" ("The illness rushed like a hurricane.") and Turgenev's prose poem ("I barely recognized him. God! What did the illness do to him ?") and other text matches.

However, it is hardly possible to interpret "The Last Date" as a reflection of biographical events, since we are talking about a work of art built according to its own aesthetic laws. The original title of one of the enigmatic poems in the draft autograph reads: "Two friends. (Death, the cat comes to reconcile)" (ХШ, 603). Here is the key to understanding his poetic system. "The Last Date" is structured in such a way that it noticeably blurs the line between the real, the real and the mystical, irrational, which is confirmed by comparing its initial lines, which sound with chronicle accuracy: "We were once short and close friends." and final, saturated with symbolism: “It seemed to me that it was not his hand that took hold of mine. It seemed to me that a tall white woman was sitting between us<.>This woman joined our hands<.>Yes. Death has reconciled us" (XIII, 168). Thus, the poetic structure of Turgenev's "poem" (with its deeply philosophical problems) makes it possible to judge Turgenev's creative use of "Last Songs" and does not at all answer the question of whether reconciliation really took place between former friends.

Nekrasov is also associated with another "prose poem" by Turgenev: "Two quatrains", which remained outside the field of view of researchers. In the manuscript, it is placed next to "The Last Date". The theme of "poetry" is the conflict between rival poets and the perception of their work by the crowd of "poetry lovers". An analysis of a draft autograph containing many variants allows us to trace in Turgenev hidden reminiscences from Nekrasov's poem "Bayushki-bayu", as well as proximity to Nekrasov's - poems that two young poets recite "to support the grieving crowd." poem" is resolved by the words of the "gray-haired old man": "You said your own - but at the wrong time, and he said the wrong thing - but at the time. Therefore, he is right." (XIII, 162). This didactic ending, which has a clearly autobiographical source (magazine criticism of the novel "Nov"), is also associated with thoughts about Nekrasov, the poet, who, of course, "said" his own, and, most importantly, on time.

So the echoes of Nekrasov's poetry (a sign of interest in it), its tonality are clearly felt both in the writer's prose and in the final lyrical confession. No less important in this regard are other "poems in prose" by Turgenev, including "Phrase", "Village", "Threshold", "Sphinx".

The logic of the study allows us to come to the conclusion that in the 70s, in the perception and comprehension of Nekrasov's poetry, Turgenev the artist was clearly ahead of Turgenev the man, brought up on other general cultural traditions. This is confirmed by another fact forgotten by researchers - the history of the organization of a memorial evening in January 1878 in the Russian library (the center of the Russian colony of emigrants in Paris), conceived immediately after the death of the poet.2 Turgenev refused to participate in the evening, answering its organizer (S. F. Sharapov) that he cannot tell the "full truth" about Nekrasov, does not want to tell "untruth", "it is indecent to confine himself to platitudes." The pathos of the poem in prose "The Last Date", written three months after the death of the poet, clearly contradicted earthly - "banal" - judgments about him. Here, impassive and stern authenticity intertwined with the poetic recognition of the artist's personality. The worldly, the vain retreated before the sacrament of death, reconciling and all-forgiving.

1 Textual analysis of the poems "The Last Date" and "Two Quatrains" in comparison with the artistic system of "Last Songs" see in the article: Mostavskaya H.H. "Poems in prose" by I.S. Turgenev and "Last songs" by N.A. Nekrasov // Karabikha. Historical-literary collection. Yaroslavl, 1993. Issue 2. pp.167-173.

2 The article is devoted to this episode: Mostovskaya H.H. "Turgenev and the evening in memory of Nekrasov in Paris" // Nekrasov collection. Vyp.KhSh (preparing for publication).

Publicly, Turgenev will speak about the poet of "revenge and sorrow" - a new literary phenomenon - only in a speech at the opening of a monument to Pushkin in Moscow. Moreover, this will be done very briefly, as a mention and in connection with the comprehension of the historical development of society, "the emergence of conditions under which" a new life was born, which entered the political epoch from the literary one (XY, 73).

A more capacious and benevolent assessment of Nekrasov will be heard in one of the letters to Stasyulevich (in January 1878): "His image with all the good and bad sides will become clear only later, but for now, let him remain a legend, it is not bad" (121, 259) . So metaphorically Turgenev expressed his difficult attitude towards the personality of the poet.

The aesthetic barrier that separated Turgenev and Nekrasov for a long time is the main thing in the peculiarities of their creative relationship. Both artists personified independent strong trends in art and Russian culture, sometimes opposing, sometimes intersecting in some way, which will find its embodiment and peculiar refraction in the further development of the literary and aesthetic thought of Russia in the 20th century.

List of publications on the topic of the dissertation Books:

1. I.S. Turgenev and Russian journalism in the 70s of the XIX century. L., "Science", 198e 214s.

2. "From the underground literary" er. "Essays on: Nekrasov's prose. Questions (Textbook for the course). Pskov, 1992.5-8, 39-80. Chapters: Introduction; Literary realities in Nekrasov's prose. "Own" and " alien"; Comprehension of Gogol; Parody as Nekrasov's sign.

3. Chronicle of the life and work of I.S. Turgenev (1867-1870). SPb., "Nauka", 1997. 224p.

4. Chronicle of the life and work of I.S. Turgenev (1871-1875): St. Petersburg, "Nauka", 1998. 350p. " :

Science articles:

1. From the magazine controversy around "Novi" before the publication of the novel (Forgotten memories of A.V. Polovtsev) / / Turgenev collection. M.; L., "Science", 1966. Issue 2. pp.185-191.

2.Introductory article, preparation of texts and comments on M.Mstasyulevich's letters to Turgenev//Turgenev's collection. L., "Science", 1967. Issue Z. pp.382-407.

3. Turgenev and A.M. Zhemchuzhnikov (based on materials from unpublished correspondence of 1866-1869) / / Second Interuniversity Turgenev Collection (Uch.zap. Kursk Ped.In-ta, v.51). Eagle, 1968. S.219-226.

4. I.S. Turgenev//Soviet literary criticism for 50 years. L., "Science", 1968. S.118-123.

5. Turgenev and M. M. Stasyulevich's newspaper "Order" 7 / Turgenev collection. L. "Science". 1968. Issue 4. pp.282-292.

6. Preparation of texts and comments of Turgenev's letters-articles to the editors of the newspapers "Nash Vek", "Nedeli", to the secretary of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature//Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of op. and letters. Compositions: In 15 vols. M „L., "Science", 1968. T.HU. pp. 164, 168-170, 196, 376, 379-381, 394-395.

7. Annenkov's response to the failed anniversary of Turgenev in 1875 // Turgenev collection. L., "Science". Issue 5. 1969. S.391-393.

8. Writers in St. Petersburg//Russian Literature. 1971. No. 3. S.228-234.

9. Turgenev and "Bulletin of Europe" 7 / Third interuniversity Turgenev collection (Uch.zap. Kursk Ped.in-ta. T. 74). Eagle, 1971. S.222-23 5.

10. Turgenev and the St. Petersburg Society for the Mutual Assistance of Artists (Based on Unpublished Materials)//Russian Literature. 1973. No. 1. P. 98-101.

11. G. Uspensky and Turgenev // Turgenev and Russian writers. Fifth interuniversity Turgenev collection. Scientific work T.50 (143). Kursk, 1975. S.44-64.

12. N.G. Chernyshevsky on the pages of the journal "Bulletin of Europe" in the 7080s / N.G. Chernyshevsky. Articles, studies and materials. Saratov. Publishing House of Saratov University, 1975. S. 109-120.

13. Flaubert in the assessment of Turgenev and Zola on the pages of Vestnik Evropy//Turgenev and his contemporaries. L., "Science". 1977. S.154-161.

14. The personality of the artist in Gogol and L. Tolstoy ("Portrait" and "Albert") / / L.N. Tolstoy and Russian literary and social thought. L., "Science", 1979. S. 99-111.

15. Unknown letter to M.K. Tsebrikova about Nekrasov // Nekrasov collection. L., "Science", 1980. Issue. UP. pp.193-199.

16. Preparation of texts and comments to the stories "Enough" "Dog" (together with G.F. Perminov) / / Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of op. and letters: In 30 volumes. 2nd edition. Cit.: In 12 volumes. MTs 1981. V.7. S.220-246, 486-507.

17. Preparation of the text and commentary for the story "Dream", for the essays "Pergamum excavations", "Fifty shortcomings of a rifle hunter and fifty shortcomings of a pointing dog" (together with G.F. Perminov) / / Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of op. and letters: In 30 volumes. 2nd edition. Cit.: In 12 volumes. M., 1982. T.9. pp.102-120, 460-478; T.10. pp. 272-277, 326-330, 549-551, 574577.

18. I.V. Pavlov - Correspondent of Turgenev / M.S. Turgenev. Questions of biography and creativity. L., "Science", 1982. S.143-158.

19. Preparation of the text and commentary for the essay "The Execution of Tropman" (together with G.F. Perminov) / / Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of op. and letters: In 30 volumes. 2nd edition. Cit.: In 12 vol. M „ 1983. T.P. pp. 131-151; 396-403.

20. Gogol in the perception of Nekrasov//Nekrasovsky collection. L., "Science", 1983. Issue. USh. pp.25-35.

21. Soviet Turgenev scholarship of the Last decade//Canadion-american Slavic studies, 17, no. 1 (Spring 1983). P.89-108.

22. Preparation of texts f historical-literary and real comments to the stories "Unusual Breakfast", "Petersburg Corners", "Essays on Literary Life", "Psychological Task", "The Thin Man, His Adventures and Observations" U/Nekrasov H.A. Complete collection of op. and letters: V 15 t. L., "Nauka", 1983. V.7. pp.308-382.

23. Preparation of versions of a draft autograph, an excerpt from a white autograph, authorized copies of "Petersburg Corners" // Ibid. pp.509-530.

24. Preparation of the text, variants, historical, literary and real comments on the novel "The Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trostnikov"//Nekrasov

ON THE. Complete collection of op. and letters: V 15 vol.

25. Preparation of the text, variants, historical, literary and real comments to the stories "Surguchov", "On the same day at eleven o'clock in the morning." (with the participation of V.I. Korovin)//Ibid. pp. 281-294, 411-438, 564-580, 668689, 751-757, 766-780.

26. I.S. Turgenev and N. A. NekrasovU/Pereliska I.S. Turgenev in 2 vols. M., 1986. T.1. pp.88-144.

27. I.S. Turgenev and P.V. Annenkov//Ibid. pp.471-595.

28. Turgenev in P.V. Annenkova//I.S.Turgenev. Problems of outlook and creativity. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers Elista, 1986. S.173-182.

29. Parody in Nekrasov's prose (satirical skill; controversy) // Nekrasov's collection. L., "Science", 1988. Issue IX. pp.54-68.

30. About one parody by Herzen and Nekrasov / Nekrasov collection. L., "Science", 1988. Issue.X. pp. 101-107.

31. Gogol about the natural school / Russian literature. 1988. No. 1. S. 180185.

32. Turgenev and Nekrasov (Creative connections. Controversy)//Historical and literary process. Methodological aspects. Riga, 1989. Issue 2. S.42-43.

33. P.V. Annenkov / Russian writers. Biographical Dictionary. 18001917. M „ 1989. S. 80-82.

34. Literary criticism, bibliography. Journal notes. 18471869. Preparation of texts, variants, historical, literary and real comments (together with M.M. Gin) / / Nekrasov N.A. Complete collection of op. and letters: V 15 t. L., "Science", 1990. T. I, kn.2. 7-97, 100-270, 273-277, 281-297, 301-304, 305-331, 334-404, 406-407.

35. Nekrasov and Turgenev "(from the literary controversy of the 1840-1850s) / / I.S. Turgenev. Questions of biography and creativity. L., 1990. P. 67-78.

36. Turgenev and Nekrasov (the problem of creative relationships in the 50s) / / Creativity of I.S. Turgenev. The problem of method and style. Eagle, 1991. S.25-34.

37. Unknown article by A.P. Skaftymov about Nekrasov // Russian Literature. 1991. No. 2. S.205-209.

38. "Pushkin" in the work of Nekrasov / / Problems of modern Pushkin studies. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers Pskov, 1991. S. 177-185.

39. About one creative roll call (Nekrasov and Turgenev) / / Plot and time. Collection of scientific works for the 70th anniversary of G.V. Krasnov. Kolomna, 1991. S.104-108.

40. T.N. Granovsky and Russian literature of his time // Literature and history (Historical process in the creative mind of Russian writers of the 18th-20th centuries). SPb., "Nauka", 1992. S. 144-162.

41. Turgenev and women writers//Jai551ap<1 aus der Feder seiner Frauen zum Femininen Diskurs in der Russischen Literatur. Materialien des am 21/22 Mai 1992 im Fachbereich Slavistik der Universität Potsdam durchgeführten Kolloquiums. (Slavistische Beitrage. Band 297)/München, 1992, S. 159-165.

42. Turgenev's story "After death (Clara Milic)" in the literary tradition // Russian literature. 1993. No. 2. P. 137-148; also partially in the ed.: I.S. Turgenev. Life, creativity, traditions. Reports of the international conference dedicated to. 175th anniversary of the birth of I.S. Turgenev, August 26-28, 1993, Budapest. Budapest, 1994, pp. 152-160.

43. "Poems in prose" by I.S. Turgenev and "Last songs" by N.A. Nekrasov//Karabikha. Historical and literary coll. Yaroslavl, 1993. Issue 2. pp. 167-173.

44. P.V. Annenkov; Letters to I.S. Turgenev. Enter the article, preparation of texts and comments//Literary archive. Materials on the history of Russian literature and social thought. St. Petersburg, "Nauka", 1994. S L 88-276.

45. About one parody of the Slavophiles / / Slavophilism and modernity. Collection of articles. SPb., "Nauka", 1994. S.229-242.

46. ​​Oriental motifs in the work of Turgenev//Ruye literature. 1994. No. 4. pp.101-112.

47. Temple in the work of Nekrasov//Russian literature. 1995. No. 1. S. 194202.

48. How Russian writers were buried//Christianity and Russian literature. Sat.second. SPb., "Nauka", 1996. S.202-215.

49. "Nekrasovskoe" in Turgenev's novel "Nov" / Russian literature. 1996. No. 3. pp.115-125.

50. P.V. Annenkov - correspondent of I.S. Turgenev//TODRL. SPb., 1996. S. 640-645.

51. The poem "Poet and Citizen" in the literary tradition//Karabikha. Historical and literary coll. Yaroslavl, 1997. P.67

52. "Pushkin" in the work of Turgenev / / Russian literature. 1997. No. 1. S.28-37.

53. P.V. Annenkov. Letters to I.S. Turgenev (1854, 1863). Enter.st., preparation of texts and comments / / Literature and history (Historical process in the creative mind of Russian writers and thinkers of the 18th-20th centuries) St. Petersburg, "Science", 1997. Issue 2. pp.300-331.

54. Nekrasov and Belinsky in the 1840s//Nekrasovsky collection. SPb., "Nauka", 1998. Issue X1-XP. pp.35-43.

55. Nekrasov and George Sand//Ibid. P. ¡05-! 13.

56. About the "failed" Pushkin's epigraph to Turgenev's novel "Nov"//Boldinsik reading. Nizhny Novgorod, 1998. S.60-63.

57. Nekrasov's letters to Turgenev. Preparation of texts, comments//Nekrasov Complete collection of works. and letters: In 15 volumes of St. Petersburg, "Nauka". T. 14, book. 1-2 (in press).

58. Turgenev and Nekrasov. Confrontation//Russian Literature. 1998. No. 4 (in print).

59. Was Turgenev "strange"? // Russian literature. 1999. No. 1 (in print).

60. Turgenev and an evening in memory of Nekrasov in Paris//Nekrasoveky collection. SPb., "Science". Issue XIII (in print).

Recommended list of dissertations majoring in Russian Literature, 10.01.01 VAK code

• Pushkin's tradition in the process of formation and development of the genre of Turgenev's novel in the 1850s - early 1860s 2010, candidate of philological sciences Peretyagina, Anastasia Vladimirovna

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

One day in 1852, the following characteristic conversation took place between the famous writers Turgenev and Nekrasov, which turned into an argument in which two friends tried to find out: where are there more great writers - in Europe or in Russia?

It is worth noting that Turgenev, more than all contemporary writers, was familiar with the brilliant works of foreign literature, having read them all in the original. Nekrasov was well aware of this.

“Yes, Russia has lagged behind Europe in civilization,” said Turgenev, “how can such great writers as Dante and Shakespeare be born in our country?

- And God did not offend us, Turgenev, - Nekrasov remarked, - for Russians Gogol is Shakespeare.

Turgenev smiled condescendingly and said:

- Enough, dear friend, over the edge! You realize the huge difference. Shakespeare has been read by all educated nations throughout the globe for several centuries and will continue to read endlessly. These are world writers, and Gogol will be read only by Russians, and even then by several thousand, and Europe will not even know about his existence!

Sighing heavily, Turgenev continued dejectedly:

- The fate of Russian writers is sad in general, they are some kind of outcasts, their existence is pitiful, short-lived and colorless! Right, it's a shame; even some Dumas is translated and read by all European nations.

“God bless her, with this European fame, it is more important for us if the Russian people could read us,” said Nekrasov.

I envy your modest desires! Turgenev answered ironically. - I don’t even understand how you don’t feel the humiliation, the groveling that Russian writers are doomed to? After all, we write for a handful of Russian readers alone. However, the reason you don't feel it is because you haven't seen what position foreign writers occupy in every civilized state. They are considered the foremost members of an educated society, and we? Some pariahs! We do not dare to express either our thoughts or our impulses of the soul - now we are in jail, and we must consider this as mercy ...

You sit, write and know in advance that the fate of your work depends on some Bukhara people wrapped in ten robes, in which they sweat and smell their stinking sweat so that fresh air smells a little on their cone-shaped heads, they become furious and, like wild animals, they begin to tear pieces out of your composition! In my opinion, it would be more rational to break all the printing presses, burn down all paper factories, and impale anyone who has a pen in his hands! .. No, they only saw me; As soon as I receive my inheritance, I will run away and not write a line for Russian readers.

• “It seems so to you, but if you live abroad, it will pull you to Russia,” Nekrasov said, “after all, we are inspired by the Russian people, Russian fields, our forests; without them, really, we can't write anything good.

When I talk with a Russian peasant, his artless sensible speech, disinterested human feeling for my neighbor make me realize how depraved I am in front of him both in my heart and mind, and you blush for your egoism, with which I have been saturated to the marrow of my bones ... Maybe it seems to you wild, but in conversations with educated people I do not have this consciousness! And most importantly, Russian writers have a duty to the best of their ability and ability to reveal to readers shameful pictures of the slavery of the Russian people.

- I did not expect from you, Nekrasov, that you were capable of indulging in such childish illusions.

– These are not my illusions, is this consciousness not felt in society?

– If consciousness was born, then only in the form of an atom, which the human eye cannot distinguish, and even in the air contaminated with miasma, this atom will instantly die. No - I am a European at heart, my requirements for life are also European. I do not intend to humbly wait for the fate when the holiday comes and the lot falls for me to be eaten at the feast of cannibals! Yes, and leavened patriotism, I do not understand. At the first opportunity, I will run away from here without looking back, and you will not see the tip of my nose ... "

Turgenev's dream came true. One of the missions of his genius was to acquaint Europe with Russian artistic creativity and to interest her in it. To this end, for example, he constantly translated or supervised translations of Tolstoy's writings.

He achieved his goal in the best possible way. He was a pioneer; now almost all the best works of Russian literature (Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy) have been translated into foreign languages, and what could be more important for the development of mutual sympathy between peoples than acquaintance with the monuments of the spirit of one or another nationality?

No one, we note, was better adapted to this lofty and difficult task than Turgenev. By the very essence of his talent, he was not only a Russian, but also a European, world writer, which, for example, Gogol will never be.

• With all his enormous talent, Gogol will never be so kindred and close, so understandable to Europe, because his types are purely Russian, while Turgenev's are universal, perhaps even abstract psychological.

Of course, people are people everywhere, the same passions excite them, the same joys and sorrows visit them. But when Gogol painted his images, he uprooted them, so to speak, from Russian life, and thus presented them to the reader. Turgenev gave his images only a Russian setting, and therefore for a Frenchman, a German, an Englishman he was of double interest: a finely developed familiar universal type against the backdrop of someone else's unique environment.

Today, you can accuse Turgenev as much as you like of Westernism and striving to become a great world-famous writer, but it was he who, being in Europe for most of his life, did a lot for Russia. He opened and paved the way for fame to the great Russian writers, made them accessible to the European reader. Perhaps it is thanks to Turgenev that Western directors today shoot Anna Karenina and Tolstoy's War and Peace, erect monuments to Pushkin all over Europe, bow before the genius Gogol, whom he himself, the great writer Ivan Turgenev, idolized...