(1836-1861) Russian literary critic

The biography of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov is in many ways typical of the advanced Russian intelligentsia of that generation, but at the same time unique. He was born into a large family in which he was the eldest of eight children. His father was the rector of the Verkhne Posad St. Nicholas Church. Dobrolyubov’s maternal grandfather was also a priest. Actually, this is already a feature of the era. After all, the son of a priest is a commoner, a representative of the only non-noble class of that time, belonging to which required a certain educational qualification. Ten years earlier, almost all Russian intellectuals were nobles by birth. Among the sixties, almost every second person is from the clergy: Chernyshevsky and Antonovich, Pomyalovsky and N. Uspensky, V. Klyuchevsky and many other writers, scientists, revolutionaries.

Education was also determined by origin. There was then only one path for a boy from such a family: a four-year theological school (five years of study), then a three-year theological seminary (six years of study), after which the graduate was either immediately ordained as a priest or deacon, or, with special success, could be sent to one of the theological academies. Dobrolyubov followed the same path, with the exception that he was sent to the Nizhny Novgorod Theological School only in 1847, straight into the upper class.

Before this, Nikolai was taught at home: the basics of music and literacy by his mother, and from the age of eight by seminarian M. Kostrov. A special classroom in the priest's house indicated both some wealth and the cultural level of the parents of the future critic. Indeed, thanks to the rich city parish, Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov, unlike the majority of the clergy, especially the rural ones, was a fairly wealthy man, although the construction of a large stone house he undertook forced him to get into debt, which was then left to his children.

Dobrolyubov spent five years within the walls of the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary. According to his superiors, the boy was “quiet, modest, obedient”, “very zealous for worship.” During these years he reads fantastically a lot. But the main thing, however, is not the quantity, but the quality of his reading, his extraordinary consciousness. Every work read - be it poetry, a novel, a theological treatise or critical article- Dobrolyubov includes diaries in the “register of books read.” It was in these recordings that the future critic was formed. He not only reads, but also rereads, and even rereads those things that he absolutely did not like, checking his previous impressions.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov showed great ability to study. He graduated from the theological school course “with excellent success,” having the highest score in all subjects and being listed as sixth out of seventy-two graduates. However, already in his last year at the seminary, Dobrolyubov began to increasingly think about continuing his studies not at the theological academy, but at the university. Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he voluntarily and abruptly changes his fate and takes the entrance exams to the Main Pedagogical Institute, which was located in the same building as the university. On August 21, 1853, he was enrolled as a student at the Faculty of History and Philology, and on September 18, he was dismissed from the clergy. Among his fellow students, Dobrolyubov was distinguished by modesty, was “all in himself”, avoided frivolous friendly parties and debates, studied diligently, behaved quietly and even shyly. However, soon his comrades felt the strength of his character, were convinced of his honesty, responsiveness, experienced the power of his logic and saw that his knowledge was very extensive.

At that time, young minds were impressed by many events taking place in Russia: the Crimean campaign, the death of Nicholas I, and the planned peasant reform. Nikolai Dobrolyubov’s attitude to these events is clearly depicted in the following episode. When one of the students (from the nobility) said that the reform was not yet modern for Russia and that his personal interest, the landowner, would suffer as a result of this, Dobrolyubov turned pale, jumped up from his seat and shouted in a frantic voice: “Gentlemen, drive this scoundrel out!” Out there, you slacker! Look, dishonor to our cell!” Never before had his comrades seen Dobrolyubov so furious.

During his student years, Nikolai suffered severe grief: in 1854, his mother died during childbirth. Her death was shocking young man. But the family's suffering did not end there. In the summer of 1855, when Nikolai was at home on vacation, his father suddenly died, contracting cholera during a funeral service for the deceased. Nikolai Dobrolyubov is left with seven small children and complicated household chores.

During this tragic time, he showed great endurance and willpower. Friends of the late father took over the first concerns for the orphans and insisted that the eldest continue his studies. Subsequently, Prince Pyotr Andreevich Vyazemsky, then a comrade (today deputy) Minister of Public Education, took a close part in Dobrolyubov’s affairs. It was he who literally saved Nikolai Alexandrovich from the yoke of district teaching and thereby preserved the future critic for literature.

Having visited his homeland, in July 1857 Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov returned to St. Petersburg and was hired for a permanent job at the Sovremennik magazine. He was asked to run the critical-bibliographic department, and a little later, from the end of 1857, he began to conduct general editorial work as one of the leaders of the magazine, together with Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov. So, in the twenty-first year of his life, Dobrolyubov became a leading critic of one of the best and most influential magazines of those years.

Intelligence, talent, enormous erudition and efficiency put him in first place, which could not please the old employees of the magazine. Turgenev took an openly hostile position, who once, in a dispute with Chernyshevsky, declared: “I can still tolerate you, but I cannot tolerate Dobrolyubov. You are a simple snake, and Dobrolyubov is a spectacled snake.”

The most serious clash, which led to a complete break with Turgenev, was caused by Nikolai Dobrolyubov’s article “When will the real day come?” - about Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve”. Nekrasov had to choose between them, and he chose Dobrolyubov.

All the critic’s articles in Sovremennik are imbued with faith in an imminent popular revolution. Some of his articles, and above all the famous “When will the real day come?”, were perceived by the younger generation as an alarm bell calling Rus' to the axe.

All the most scandalous articles of that time published in Sovremennik were written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov: “Literary trifles of the past year” - the most detailed presentation of the positions of revolutionary democracy on a wide range of socio-political problems; “What is Oblomovism?” - a vivid description of the novel “Oblomov” by Ivan Aleksanrovich Goncharov; “The Dark Kingdom” is a large-scale study based on the plays of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky of the social psychology of a society based on inequality and oppression. The critic addressed not only literary processes, but also historical, socio-political problems: for example, in the article “Traits for Characterizing the Russian Common People” (1860), he called for the elimination of serfdom and all its manifestations.

1859-1860 became the peak short life Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. At this moment, he, in essence, becomes the central figure in Sovremennik, which is extremely rich in outstanding talents. But extremely hard work undermined the health of the young critic. In mid-May 1860, he went abroad for treatment. Dobrolyubov visited Germany, Switzerland, France, and visited Italy, the Czech Republic and Greece. At this time, Sovremennik published a series of his articles written abroad. Their main idea is the glorification of republicans and the debunking of bourgeois democracy.

In August 1861, he returned to St. Petersburg and immediately got involved in work, replacing Chernyshevsky, who had left. It should be noted that both critics were united by the ideas of the peasant revolution and social utopianism. His last major article, “Downtrodden People,” appears in the September issue of Sovremennik, which gives a positive assessment of the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Meanwhile, Dobrolyubov’s health continues to deteriorate. From the beginning of November he no longer gets out of bed, and on November 17 he dies. Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov was buried at the Volkov Cemetery, on the Literary Bridge, next to

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (January 24 (February 5), 1836, Nizhny Novgorod - November 17 (November 29), 1861, St. Petersburg) - Russian literary critic of the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous pseudonyms are Bov and N. Laibov, he did not sign his full real name. Was born in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a famous priest in the city (his father secretly married Melnikov-Pechersky). House No. 5 on Pozharsky Street, where Nikolai was born, was demolished at the beginning of the 21st century. Since childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry. From the age of 17 in St. Petersburg, he studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, studied folklore, and from 1854 (after the death of his parents) he began to share radical anti-monarchist, anti-religious and anti-serfdom views, which was reflected in his numerous “seditious” works of that time in poetry and prose, in including in handwritten student journals.

Dobrolyubov’s short life (he died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled extensively throughout Europe) was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, from a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), was published in N. A. Nekrasov’s magazine “Sovremennik” with a number of historical and especially literary critical works; his closest collaborator and like-minded person was N. G. Chernyshevsky. In one year, 1858, he published 75 articles and reviews. Some of Dobrolyubov’s works (both fundamentally illegal, especially directed against Nicholas I, and those intended for publication, but not passed by censorship at all or in the author’s edition) remained unpublished during his lifetime.

Dobrolyubov’s works, published under the guise of purely literary “criticism”, reviews of natural science works or political reviews from foreign life (Aesopian language), contained sharp socio-political statements. Although everything he wrote was dedicated fiction, to consider this literary criticism would be extremely unfair. True, Dobrolyubov had the rudiments of an understanding of literature, and the choice of things that he agreed to use as texts for his sermons was, in general, successful, but he never tried to discuss their literary side: he used them only as maps or photographs modern Russian life as a pretext for social preaching.

For example, a review of Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” entitled “When will the real day come?” contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” and “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” about Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” became a model of democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation artistic style Dobrolyubov was the first to use it - the article “On the degree of participation of the nationality in the development of Russian literature”), and in the USSR and Russia they were included in school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the rejection of “art for art’s sake” and subjecting pure lyricists to destructive criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The dying trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov’s political radicalism and led to the abandonment of the idea of ​​an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.

Dobrolyubov was also a satirist poet, a witty parodist, the soul of the literary supplement “Whistle” published under Sovremennik. In it, Dobrolyubov the poet performed under three parody masks - the “accuser” Konrad Lilienschwager, the Austrian “patriot” Jacob Ham and the “enthusiastic lyricist” Apollo Kapelkin (the masks were aimed primarily at Rosenheim, Khomyakov and Maykov, respectively, but were also of a more general nature) . Dobrolyubov also wrote serious poetry (the most famous is “Dear Friend, I am Dying...”), translated by Heine.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov, the ruler of the thoughts of his time, a wonderful critic and publicist, played a big role in the Russian political and ideological struggle of the past. He was a democratic revolutionary from the intelligentsia, who saw his goal in serving the people and in protecting the enslaved peasantry. Together with his comrade-in-arms N.G. Chernyshevsky, he rejected reformism and preached revolution as the only means of liberating the people from oppression.

At the theological seminary

Born into the family of a Nizhny Novgorod priest, Nikolai first entered a theological school in 1847, and then became a student at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary, where he studied literature, philosophy and theology. Teaching at the seminary did not meet his needs; he spoke about antediluvian concepts of literature and science, a complete lack of common sense, and the mediocrity of teaching. But he read a lot. His interests included Russian and foreign classic literature, natural science, history, philosophy, psychology, logic.

During his seminary years, he began to try his hand at poetry and journalism, wrote several stories about minor officials (1852), and also wrote critical and bibliographic notes (1853). During his studies, Dobrolyubov already began to doubt many of the tenets of Orthodox doctrine. Surpassing even the seminary teachers with his intellect, he finally came to a formula that should guide his activities: man and his path to happiness.

St. Petersburg: studying at the Pedagogical Institute

In 1853, Dobrolyubov moved to St. Petersburg and became a student at the historical and philological faculty of the Main Pedagogical Institute. There they used scholastic teaching methods and the inculcation of spiritual submission to the authorities: the strictest supervision, discipline, even surveillance. Despite such harsh conditions, students founded the “Dobrolyubov Party” circle (late December 1854 - early 1855), which united those who wanted to respond “to the demand of the century” and “comprehend the acquired knowledge” and their attitude to life.

During his years of study, he became increasingly convinced that he should devote his life to the fight against serfdom and autocracy. This theme is heard in his poems of these years, and in letters, and in student essays. In 1856, Dobrolyubov met Chernyshevsky, they became friends, and their communication further strengthened Dobrolyubov’s choice: to fight for a better future for the people. In a letter to his classmate, he wrote that this path would lead him to death, but he would be able to “die for a reason.”

In the magazine "Contemporary"

In 1857, Dobrolyubov became a permanent employee of the Sovremennik magazine, head of the department of literary criticism and bibliography, and in 1858 he already worked as one of the editors of the magazine, along with Nekrasov and Chernyshevsky. When a revolutionary situation matured in Russia in 1859 - 1861, the crisis of the “tops” and the activity of the “bottoms” created the preconditions for revolution, the magazine advocated the freedom of serfs, criticized the government and social order, and serf morality.

I. S. Turgenev, who published the novel “On the Eve” and was also on the editorial staff of Sovremennik, opposed Dobrolyubov’s article about the revolutionary interpretation of his novel - “When will the real day come?” and gave an ultimatum to Nekrasov - to make a choice: he or Dobrolyubov. As a result, Turgenev left Sovremennik. The magazine was always under the radar of the protective and liberal press, and the threat of closure constantly hung over it.

Illness and death

At the very end of May 1860, a severe form of tuberculosis forced Dobrolyubov to undergo treatment abroad, in Italy. From there he sent his articles for Sovremennik. A year later he returned to St. Petersburg. In the fall of 1861, his health condition was already so severe that he was practically bedridden. But even then he continued to work, even writing poetry. And in November he finally fell ill. Dobrolyubov died at the age of 25 - November 17, 1861. He was buried on November 20 at the Volkov cemetery - on the so-called “Literary Bridges”, next to the grave of Belinsky and other writers.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836–1861) headed the literary-critical department of the Sovremennik publication since 1857.

Being a successor of ideas, the critic, however, assessed phenomena in literature more sharply - he tightened the requirements for literature and, as the main criterion for the ideological nature of works, considered the degree to which they contain:

• ideas of the oppressed classes;
• critics of the ruling class.

The concept of “nationality” in the works of Dobrolyubov

In his work “On the degree of participation of nationality in the development of Russian literature” (1858), dedicated to the theory of radical criticism, he took up his own interpretation of the concept of “nationality” in literature.

Yes, in my work

• Only folklore considers a truly popular phenomenon,
• believes that more late literature serves the interests of the ruling class,
• ignores the principle of historicism in literature, ridiculing Karamzin and Lomonosov for their detachment from the ideals of “nationality”,
• notes the works of Koltsov and Shchedrin as the most “folk” among the works of their contemporaries.

This interpretation of the concept formed the basis of the accusatory motives of this critic’s critical articles.

Dobrolyubov and the role of citizenship

Unlike Chernyshevsky, the author believed that the final result of the author’s creativity is more important than his ideological preferences and civic position, i.e. The main thing for a critic is not what the author intended to say, but what is in the final result.

Similarly, he pointed out the importance of work literary critic, which is intended to reveal that same “unconscious creativity” in the work. That is, the critic points out the need to reveal social problems, involuntary hints of which can be found in this or that work.
Dobrolyubov in his criticism turned to the analysis of diverse works:

• "Dark Kingdom" was dedicated to
• “What is Oblomovism?” – ,
• "Downtrodden people" - .

At the same time, he was prone to broad generalizations, which is why in Dobrolyubov’s various articles one can often find extremely similar conclusions, boiling down to a statement of the depravity of the political system in Russia.

Dobrolyubov's critical methodology

The writer based his critical method on a socio-psychological typology, within the framework of which the author distributed the characters according to the degree of their compliance with the concept of “new man”.

As part of the author’s criticism, not only the merchants and Shchedrin were “gotten”, but also Beltov, Rudin, Pechorin and Onegin, whose behavior the author classified as “Oblomovism”. The skepticism of Rudin and Pechorin, according to the author, is alien to the ideals of progressive development, and against their background he even wins, since he is extremely honest in his inaction.

Criticizing “Oblomov,” Dobrolyubov considered the imperfection of the social system as the main reason for “Oblomovism.” Moreover, he noted that the depravity of this very system led to the fact that even Goncharov himself believed in the demise of Oblomov’s model, but this is not so.

“Oblomovka,” writes the critic, “is our direct homeland... and it’s too early to write a funeral eulogy for us.”

In addition to the ideological component, the critic Dobrolyubov took into account the individual artistic specificity of the works and the talent of the writer. Proof of this can be the author’s criticism of the works of V. Sollogub and M. Rozengeim on the pages of the satirical newspaper “Whistle”.

Analysis of the author's language as the basis of the methodology

The writer’s criticism was also based on an analysis of the author’s language, which made it possible to better reveal inner world characters. The paucity of speeches of Golyadkin and Devushkin in Dostoevsky’s early works, against the backdrop of their self-awareness, demonstrated the futility of their struggle against psychological oppression. Because of Dostoevsky’s love for his heroes – “downtrodden people” – the critic forgave the author minor aesthetic shortcomings in his works.

These works confirmed the critic’s idea of ​​the difference between Russian literature and world artistic examples and the inadmissibility of their evaluation according to general cultural criteria.

Dobrolyubov and the search for a “new hero”

He was not lucky enough to meet critics during his lifetime, so in his search for new heroes he settled on. In her Dobrolyubov saw a character protesting against injustices “ dark kingdom", Elena from the work "On the Eve" he also considered susceptible to social changes.

At the same time, Russian literature in general, as the author believed, she was not yet ready to understand and reflect on the necessary changes, and, consequently, to the birth of the corresponding heroes.

Dobrolyubov is an object of criticism

Work “When will the real day come?” became the reason that Dobrolyubov himself became the object of criticism from his colleagues, and a conflict broke out among the authors of the Sovremennik magazine.

• Turgenev condemned the critic for the harshness of his judgments, believing that Nikolai Alexandrovich’s work distorted the idea of ​​the novel “On the Eve”, and L. Tolstoy, Botkin and Turgenev himself left the magazine’s staff.

• in 1859-1860 A. Herzen published the article “Very dangerous!” in Kolokol, as well as the work “ Extra people and Zhelchevikov,” in which he also condemned Dobrolyubov for an unfair assessment of the 1840s.

Try to guess the thematic crossword about the work of this writer on our website

Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share it

DOBROLUBOV, NIKOLAY ALEKSANDROVICH(1836–1861), Russian critic, publicist. Born on January 24 (February 5), 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a priest. The father was a well-educated and respected man in the city, a member of the consistory. Dobrolyubov, the eldest of eight children, received elementary education at home under the guidance of a seminarian teacher. A huge home library contributed to an early introduction to reading. In 1847 Dobrolyubov entered the last class Nizhny Novgorod Theological School, in 1848 - to the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. He was the first student at the seminary and, in addition to the books necessary for his studies, “read everything that came to hand: history, travel, discussions, odes, poems, novels - most of all novels.” The register of books read, which Dobrolyubov kept, recording his impressions of what he read, numbers several thousand titles in 1849–1853. Dobrolyubov also kept diaries, wrote Notes, Memories, poetry (“In the world everyone lives by deception..., 1849, etc.), prose ( Adventures at Maslenitsa and its consequences(1849), tried his hand at drama.

Together with his fellow student Lebedev, he published the handwritten magazine “Akhineya”, in which in 1850 he published two articles about Lebedev’s poems. He sent his own poems to the magazines “Moskvityanin” and “Son of the Fatherland” (they were not published). Dobrolyubov also wrote articles for the newspaper Nizhny Novgorod Provincial Gazette, collected local folklore (more than a thousand proverbs, sayings, songs, legends, etc.), compiled a dictionary of local words and a bibliography for the Nizhny Novgorod province.

In 1853 he left the seminary and received permission from the Synod to study at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. However, upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he passed exams at the Main Pedagogical Institute at the Faculty of History and Philology, for which he was dismissed from his clergy. During his years at the institute, Dobrolyubov studied folklore and wrote Notes and additions to the collection of Russian proverbs by Mr. Buslaev (1854), ABOUT poetic features Great Russian folk poetry in expressions and turns(1854) and other works.

In 1854, Dobrolyubov experienced a spiritual turning point, which he called a “feat of remaking” himself. Disappointment in religion was facilitated by the almost simultaneous deaths of Dobrolyubov’s mother and father, as well as the situation of social upsurge associated with the death of Nicholas I and the Crimean War of 1853–1856. Dobrolyubov began to fight the abuses of the institute authorities; a circle of opposition-minded students formed around him, discussing political issues and reading illegal literature. For a satirical poem in which Dobrolyubov denounced the Tsar as a “sovereign master” ( On the 50th anniversary of His Excellency Nik.Iv.Grech, 1854), was put in a punishment cell. A year later, Dobrolyubov sent Grech a freedom-loving poem February 18, 1855, which the addressee sent to the III department. In a poetic pamphlet Duma at Olenin's tomb(1855) Dobrolyubov called for “the slave... to raise the ax against the despot.”

In 1855, Dobrolyubov began publishing the illegal newspaper “Rumors”, in which he published his poems and notes of revolutionary content - Secret societies in Russia 1817–1825, The debauchery of Nikolai Pavlovich and his close favorites and others. In the same year, he met N.G. Chernyshevsky, in whom he was shocked by the presence of “a mind, strictly consistent, imbued with a love of truth.” Chernyshevsky attracted Dobrolyubov to collaborate in the Sovremennik magazine. Dobrolyubov signed articles published in the magazine with pseudonyms (Laibov and others). In an article that attracted public attention Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word(1856) denounced the “dark phenomena” of autocracy. Dobrolyubov’s articles appeared in Sovremennik A few words about education regarding« Life issues» Pirogov (1857), Works gr. V.A. Solloguba(1857), etc. In 1857, at the suggestion of Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov headed the criticism department of Sovremennik.

In 1857, Dobrolyubov brilliantly graduated from the institute, but was deprived of a gold medal for freethinking. For some time he worked as a home tutor for Prince. Kurakin, and from 1858 became a tutor in Russian literature in the 2nd cadet corps. He continued to work actively in Sovremennik: in 1858 alone he published about 75 articles and reviews, a story Businessman and several poems. In the article On the degree of participation of nationalities in the development of Russian literature(1958) Dobrolyubov assessed Russian literature from a social point of view.

By the end of 1858, Dobrolyubov already played a central role in the combined department of criticism, bibliography and modern notes of Sovremennik, influencing the choice works of art for publication. His revolutionary democratic views, expressed in articles Literary trivia from last year (1859), What is Oblomovism? (1859), Dark Kingdom(1859) made him an idol of the various intelligentsia.

In his program articles 1860 When will the real day come?? (analysis of the novel by I. Turgenev The day before, after which Turgenev broke off relations with Sovremennik) and Ray of light in dark kingdom (about the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky Storm) Dobrolyubov directly called for the liberation of the homeland from the “internal enemy,” which he considered the autocracy. Despite the numerous censorship notes, the revolutionary meaning of Dobrolyubov’s articles was obvious.

Dobrolyubov also wrote for Whistle, a satirical supplement to Sovremennik. He worked in the genres of poetic parody, satirical review, feuilleton, etc., hiding behind the images of the “bard” Konrad Lilienschwager, the “Austrian chauvinist poet” Jacob Ham, the “young talent” Anton Kapelkin and other fictional characters.

Due to intense work and an unsettled personal life, Dobrolyubov’s illness intensified. In 1860 he treated tuberculosis in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and France. Political situation in Western Europe, meetings with famous figures of the revolutionary movement (Z. Serakovsky and others) were reflected in the articles Incomprehensible strangeness(1860), etc., in which Dobrolyubov doubted the possibility of “an instant, miraculous disappearance of all centuries-old evil” and called for a closer look at what life itself suggests for a way out of an unjust social structure. Unhappy love for an Italian woman I. Fiocchi brought to life poems 1861 There is still a lot of work in life..., No, I don’t like him either, our majestic north... and etc.

In 1861 Dobrolyubov returned to St. Petersburg. In September 1861, his last article was published in Sovremennik. Downtrodden people, dedicated to the work of F.M. Dostoevsky. IN last days Chernyshevsky visited Dobrolyubov every day, Nekrasov and other like-minded people were nearby. Feeling the proximity of death, Dobrolyubov wrote a courageous poem Let me die - there is little sadness....