N. G. Chernyshevsky

On sincerity in criticism

N. G. Chernyshevsky. Literary criticism. In two volumes. Volume 1. M., "Fiction", 1981 Preparation of text and notes by T. A. Akimova, G. N. Antonova, A. A. Demchenko, A. A. Zhuk, V. V. Prozorova In an article written by on the occasion of the new edition of "Works of A. Pogorelsky" ("Contemporary", No VI, bibliography), we talked about the impotence of current criticism and pointed out one of main reasons this sad phenomenon is compliance, evasiveness, soft-heartedness. Here are our words: “The reason for the impotence of modern criticism is that it has become too compliant, indiscriminate, undemanding, satisfied with works that are decidedly pitiful, admires works that are barely bearable. It is on a level with those works with which it is satisfied; How do you want it to have a living meaning for the public? Writers whose bad works they praise are less satisfied with such criticism than with those poems, dramas and novels that are recommended to the attention of readers. her tender analyzes" 1 . And we concluded the article with the words: “no, criticism must become much stricter, more serious if it wants to be worthy of the name of criticism.” We pointed to the criticism of the Moscow Telegraph 2 as an example of what true criticism should be, and, of course, not for lack of better examples. But we refrained from any—we are not saying instructions, even from any allusions to this or that article of this or that journal, the tenderness and weakness of which now makes it necessary to remind criticism of its rights, of its duties—and we did not want to bring examples are probably no longer because it would be difficult to collect hundreds of them. Each of our magazines could provide a lot of materials for such instructions; the only difference was that one magazine could present them more, the other less. Therefore, it seemed to us that to make extracts from articles of one or another journal would only mean to unnecessarily impart a polemical character to an article written with the intention of pointing out a shortcoming that is common to some extent to all journals, and not at all with the goal of reproaching one or another journal. We considered it unnecessary to give examples because, while wanting criticism to generally remember its dignity, we did not at all want to put this or that journal in the need to defend its weak sides and through this cling to previous weaknesses - it is known that, forced to argue, a person becomes inclined to get carried away by positions that at first he defended, perhaps only out of necessity to answer something and whose groundlessness or insufficiency he, perhaps, was ready would admit if he were not forced to admit openly. In a word, we did not want to make the acceptance of the general principle difficult for anyone and therefore did not want to affect anyone’s pride. But if someone himself, without any challenge, proclaims himself an opponent of the general principle, which seems fair to us, then he has already clearly expressed that he does not recognize the justice of the general principle, but on the contrary. After all these long reservations and mitigations, which very clearly prove how deeply we are imbued with the spirit of modern criticism and we, who are rebelling against its too soft, soft to the point of intangibility, methods, we can get down to business and say that Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the directness of some of our reviews of weak, in our opinion, works of fiction, although more or less decorated famous names (we will present this review in full below), and that we, for our part, also did not exclude quite a few critical articles of Otechestvennye Zapiski from the general mass of timid and weak criticism, the proliferation of which we considered and still consider an urgent necessity. The purpose of our article is not at all to expose other people’s opinions, but to more clearly present our concepts of criticism. And if we borrow examples of criticism that, in our opinion, does not agree with the true concepts of serious criticism, from Otechestvennye zapiski, it is not at all because we wanted to blame only Otechestvennye zapiski for the weakness of criticism. We repeat that we rebel against weakness if she were weak only in one magazine or another, would it be worth so much trouble? We are primarily concerned with the "Domestic Notes", borrowing examples exclusively from them, because they took the trouble to defend and praise "moderate and calm criticism" 3 - where, if not from the defender, should one look for true examples of what is being defended? Here, for example ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10), is an analysis of Mr. Grigorovich's novel "Fishermen". The main subject of criticism here is the consideration of whether it is really possible for a lonely old man to catch minnows fishing rod and not nonsense (for which two people are needed), and is it really possible to see swallows, swifts, blackbirds and starlings on the Oka during high water, or do they arrive not during high water, but a few days later or earlier 4; in a word, it is not so much about the novel as about what bird lives where, what eggs lays 5 .Without any doubt, talking about the shortcomings and advantages of the novel from this point of view can and should be very calm.Here is another analysis of Mrs. T. Ch.’s novel “Smart Woman” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12); the essence of the review is as follows: “Here is the plot of “A Smart Woman,” one of the best stories by Mrs. T. Ch. There is so much smart, new and entertaining in this story. We missed in the story the entire previous life of a bachelor and an intelligent woman, a life that occupies at least three quarters of the novel. But this life does not concern us" 6. A good and entertaining novel should be in which at least three T twirl not worth reading. Here is a review of another story by the same author (Ms. T. Ch.), “Shadows of the Past” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 1). This task could not be accomplished in the best possible way." 7 That is, "the author did not cope with the plot; but not because he couldn’t handle it,” because it’s impossible to say directly: the author took the plot beyond his strength. Indeed, such reviews consist of “riddles,” as the reviewer calls his analysis of “A Smart Woman” when starting on it (“from discussions about literature, we move on to a dissertation about old bachelors and ask the reader a riddle about them, let him guess who can." But, firstly, no one can solve it; secondly, who even wants to solve critical analyzes? Sharad and Not a single reader demands puzzles from Russian magazines). These are the same reviews about Mr. Fet’s poems, about the novel “Little Things in Life,” 8 etc. No one can guess whether these works are good or bad, excellent or unbearably bad in the opinion of the reviewers. For every praise or blame, they are always ready with a completely equivalent reservation or hint in the opposite sense. But we cannot bore our readers with all these examples; “Ms. Tur suddenly became brighter and more noticeable” (do you expect the meaning of this phrase: Ms. Tur began to write worse than before? no), this is “a circumstance for which our novelist should blame not herself, but her connoisseurs,” because she has already been praised too much (you think this phrase means: she was praised, she began to write carelessly, stopped caring about correcting her shortcomings? No, not at all), magazine praise and blame cannot outrage the author’s own judgment of his talent, because “the best critic for a novelist is always the novelist himself” (do you think this applies to Madame Tour? No, because) “a woman always depends on someone else’s judgment” and “in the most brilliant woman one will not find that impartial independence” that gives a man the opportunity not to submit to the influence of criticism; “every talented woman is adversely affected by the admiration of a friend, the compliment of a polite connoisseur”, as a result of them “she gives her talent an unoriginal direction, in accordance with the delusions of her ardent followers” ​​(this leads, according to your assumption, to the announcement that new novel Ms. Tour is not independent, that “she composed the words based on someone else’s motive”? no), “in Ms. Tour’s latest novel we see quite a lot of independence,” “the novelist’s view of most of her heroes and heroines is her own”; but this independence “is obscured by phrases that obviously arose under the influence of others.” (Do you think this is a drawback? No, that’s not it.) “Mme. Tour’s novel lacks the external interest of the plot, the intrigue of events” (so, there is no intrigue of events in it? No, there is, because from the words of the reviewer) “it does not follow” that “it belongs to the category of novels in which the most important event - renting an apartment or something like that." Ms. Tour’s novel is uninteresting not for lack of intrigue, but because “its hero, Oginsky, cannot interest readers” (why? Because he is colorless? no, because) “Mrs. Tour did not tell us how he served, traveled, managed his affairs" (but this is precisely what would ruin the intrigue, the plot that you require); Oginsky is in love three times (here are three intrigues, and you said that there is not a single one), and “a man’s life consists of more than one love” (that’s why it was necessary to talk about all the details of Oginsky’s service and travels that were unnecessary for the novel !). Oginsky's face ruined the novel; “he brought a lot of misfortune to the work” (hence, is this person in the novel bad? no, good, because he) “could have brought even more misfortune to the work if the undoubted intelligence of the writer had not corrected matters wherever possible” (good praise! why was such a hero chosen?). In the history of all three of Oginsky’s tender affections, “we are faced with weakness, combined either with affectation or exaltation” (so, the novel is spoiled by affectation and exaltation? No, on the contrary), “the writer has a deep disgust for them” (but if they are depicted with disgust, in its true light, is a virtue, not a disadvantage). “The conversation is alive,” although “at times tainted by scientific expressions”; And Although“many aphorisms and tirades, put even into the mouths of young girls, seem to us worthy of a learned treatise, and yet the conversation represents the quintessence of living speech.” - “The syllable of Madame Tour May be in many ways fixed for the better, if so desired to the author herself" (!!) 9. This is the extent of contradictions and hesitations that the desire for "moderation" brings criticism to, that is, to mitigate all the slight doubts about the absolute merit of the novel that a humble reviewer allows himself to momentarily offer. At first, he seems to wants to say that the novel is worse than the previous ones, then adds: no, that’s not what I wanted to say, but I wanted to say that there is no intrigue in the novel: but I didn’t say that unconditionally, on the contrary, there is good intrigue in the novel, but the main drawback of the novel; the fact that the hero is uninteresting; however, the face of this hero is outlined perfectly; just note that the style of the novel is bad, although the language is excellent, and even this “can be corrected if the author himself wishes.” great merits, although with even greater reservations, however, not without new laudable reservations, and therefore, although they say everything, they say nothing; from this, however, it does not follow that they are deprived of dignity, the existence of which, although imperceptible, is undeniable." One can also express themselves about them in the words of the "Notes of the Fatherland" themselves: "What do we mean by the word "criticism"? - an article in which the author said a lot without saying anything." 10 One can also say that the beginning of a romance is quite attached to such criticism: Don’t say “yes” or “no,” Be indifferent, as you used to, And decisive answer Throw a blanket of doubt 11 But what especially bad will criticism do if it directly, clearly and without any omissions expresses its opinion about the merits and even (oh, horror!) the shortcomings of literary works decorated with more or less famous names? and what do the readers, and the very benefit of literature, demand from it? For what can it be reproached in this case? This is what “Domestic Notes” will tell us; as an epigraph to the extract, we will take the words also spoken by “Domestic Notes” quite a long time ago: “We still need to talk about such simple and ordinary concepts that are no longer talked about in any literature.” 12 . "IN Lately in the reviews of our magazines about various writers, we are accustomed to encountering a moderate, cold-blooded tone; Even if we sometimes read verdicts that were unjust, in our opinion, the very tone of the articles, alien to any passion, disarmed us. We may not agree with the author's opinion, but everyone has the right to have their own opinion. Respect for other people's opinions is a guarantee for respect for our own. All journals have done a lot to curb reviewers, who take nothing into account except their personal opinions, desires and often benefits. But we must admit that recently some reviews of Sovremennik have extremely surprised us with their rashness of judgment, which has not been proven by anything. A view that contradicts what Sovremennik itself recently said, and the injustice of the review addressed to such writers as Mrs. Evgenia Tur, Mr. Ostrovsky, Mr. Avdeev, gave a strange look to the bibliography of Sovremennik in recent months , placed in decisive contradiction with itself. What she said a year ago, she now rejects in the most positive way. Still other thoughts come to mind. While, for example, Sovremennik was publishing stories by Mr. Avdeev, this magazine praised Mr. Avdeev; exactly the same should be said about his reviews of Evgenia Tur. Or has the reviewer failed to cope with opinions previously expressed in this journal? or did he know them, but wanted to distinguish himself by sharp originality? This is what, for example, was said in Sovremennik by the New Poet in 1853 in the April book, regarding Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” (follows an extract: we will release them here because we will compare and explain their imaginary oppositionOfalse below). In a word, the comedy is praised. Now look at what is said about the same comedy and another, new one, “Poverty is not a vice” in the bibliography of the May book of Sovremennik, 1854, that is, just one year later (extract). Mr. Ostrovsky received his share of such reviews. This is what the same book says about Ms. Eugenia Tur’s latest novel, “Three Seasons of Life” (extract). Is it possible to speak like this about the author of “Niece”, “Mistakes”, “Debt”, even if the new novel by Mrs. Eugenia Tur was unsuccessful? The verdict is unfair, because the work of a talented writer, no matter how successful it may be, can never be absolutely bad; but it’s strange to come across this review in Sovremennik, where until now they were saying something completely different about the talent of Ms. Evgenia Tur. Re-read, for example, what Mr. I.T. said in 1852 about the works of Mrs. Eugenia Tour (extract). How appropriate after this is the review we cited above about the talent of Ms. Tour, where there is not even a word about the talent of this writer! With what bitter smile should writers look at magazine praise and blame after this? Is criticism really a toy? But the most unfair review was made in Sovremennik this year about Mr. Avdeev, one of our best storytellers, whom before (when Mr. Avdeev published his works in Sovremennik) In its subscription advertisements and in its reviews of literature, this magazine always ranked alongside our first writers. There is so much evidence for this that it is difficult to list them. Take, for example, a review of literature for 1850, where our best storytellers are counted: there Mr. Avdeev is ranked along with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. What does it say in the February book of Sovremennik for 1854 (extract)? Would you like us to tell you what Sovremennik said in 1851? But maybe the reviewer doesn’t care about Sovremennik’s opinions? In this case, the reviewer would do well to sign his name to an article refuting the opinion of the journal for which he writes. Below we will cite what Sovremennik said in 1851, and now we will write down another passage that is striking in its unceremoniousness, far from fashionable (extract: in it, as the most unfashionable expressions, the words are emphasized: “Tamarin... showed in it ability to developAndtyu... None of his stories can be called a work we are humanWithlying"). Allow me, Mr. thoughtful reviewer, to notice to you that it seems that you understand a thought only when it is expressed in the form of maxims; otherwise, how could one not see the thought even in “Tamarin” (there the reviewer was relieved "Entereniem", where the idea of ​​the work is stated) and in other stories by Mr. Avdeev? But let’s assume that there is no new thought in them, so be it. And what special thought will the reviewer find in “An Ordinary Story” or in “Oblomov’s Dream” by Mr. Goncharov, in “The Story of My Childhood” by Mr. L. - fascinating stories? And vice versa: what charm will the reviewer find in Mr. Potekhin’s drama “The Governess”, where the basis is an intelligent, noble thought? Why such contempt for the masterful story, which is visible in all the works of Mr. Avdeev? You say that Mr. Avdeev is exclusively an imitator in his “Tamarin”. But we will notice... However, why should we tell? Sovremennik has already expressed its opinion about this in its review of literature for 1850. Here it is (we apologize to the readerselem for the long extracts, but we believe that the reader sees how important in this case the quotes from Sovremennik, which once praised and now scolds the same writers) (extract). What can we say after this about the reviews of the reviewer of Sovremennik, the reviewer from whom this magazine found itself in such a strange position regarding its own opinions? Praise and deny all dignity, speak at the same time and Yes And No, Doesn't this mean not knowing what to say about our three best writers? I would like to delete from the list of writers three such writers as Messrs. Ostrovsky, Evgenia Tur and Avdeev, doesn’t it mean taking the weight on your shoulders is beyond your strength? And why is this attack? We leave this question to the reader himself." 13 Why did we write out this long passage? We want it to serve as an example of the extent to which modern criticism sometimes forgets about the most elementary principles of all criticism. Our remarks will only talk about such concepts , without being aware of which it is absolutely impossible to formulate concepts about criticism. Meanwhile, after skimming through our remarks, let the reader take the trouble to read the extract again: with all possible attention, he will not find any trace of the fact that the critic who was dissatisfied with us had these concepts in mind; not in a single phrase, not in a single word. "Domestic Notes" are dissatisfied with "Sovremennik" because it is inconsistent, contradicting itself. The inconsistency of "Sovremennik" lies in the fact that it previously praised the works of Messrs. zhi Tour, and now I have allowed myself to make a very unfavorable review of the works of the same writers. Is it really necessary to explain what consistency is? The question is really very tricky, almost more difficult than reconciling “yes” and “no” in one article about the same book; Therefore, let’s try to present it in the most important tone. Consistency in judgments consists in making the same judgments about identical objects. For example, in order for everything praise, all bad, but full of claims, equally condemn. For example, when praising “Hero of Our Time,” one should also praise “Song about Kalashnikov”; but to speak of “Masquerade” in the same way as of “Hero of Our Time” would be inconsistent, because although the title of “Masquerade” bears the same name as “Hero of Our Time,” the merits of these works are completely different 14 . From this we dare to draw a rule: if you want to be consistent, then look exclusively at the merits of the work and do not be embarrassed by whether you previously found the work of the same author good or bad; because things are identical because of their essential quality, and not because of the stigma attached to them. From judgments about individual works of a writer, we must move on to a general judgment about the meaning of the whole writer. Consistency, of course, will require: equally praising writers who have the right to praise, and equally not praising those who do not. With the passage of time everything changes; The position of writers in relation to the concepts of public and criticism also changes. What to do if justice requires the magazine to change its judgment about the writer? How, for example, did Otechestvennye zapiski receive? There was a time when they rated Marlinsky and others very highly, and we do not want to reproach them for that: the general opinion about these writers was then as follows; then public opinion about these same writers changed, perhaps because the first fervor had passed, and they looked more closely and calmly at their works; perhaps because they themselves began to write not better and better, but worse and worse; because, speaking in technical language, they “did not live up to expectations” (an expression that has almost as wide application in our language as fell ill, died, etc.); perhaps because other writers overshadowed them - it doesn’t matter, whatever the reason, but the opinion had to be changed, and it was changed 15. Did consistency really require continuing to worship Marlinsky and others? What consistency would there be in a magazine that would consider itself obliged, having first been a warrior for the best in literature, then to become a warrior for the worst only out of attachment to names? Such a magazine would betray itself. Not to mention the fact that he would have lost his honorable place in literature, would have lost all right to the sympathy of the best part of the public, and would have been subjected to general ridicule along with his clients. In fact, imagine that Otechestvennye zapiski in 1844 or 1854 would continue to call, as they called in 1839, our best writers, authors recognized as mediocre, what place would this magazine occupy in literature and journalism? "Contemporary" hopes that he will not be blamed equally if he understands consistency as fidelity to his aesthetic requirements, and not as blind attachment to stereotypical repetitions of the same phrases about the writer, from his very literary adolescence to his very literary decrepitude. What to do if a writer who “showed promise,” who deserved the sympathy of the best part of the public and encouraging praise from critics, did not “justify” his hopes and lost the right to sympathy and praise? “Say what needs to be said now, and not what should have been said before,” and if your sentences are based on the same principles, you will be consistent, even if at first you had to say “yes” and a year later “no.” It’s a completely different matter if the verdict was once pronounced on the basis of one principle, and another time on the basis of another - then we will be inconsistent, even though we said the same thing both times (for example: “one of Mrs. NN’s novels is good, literary activity because Although only a cloying exaltation is visible in it"). But, as we see, it is not about this betrayal of principles, but simply about the dissimilarity of judgments about different works of the same writers. Such external heteroglossia is not always a grave fault; sometimes even the very consistency and dignity depends on it magazine. But the merit or demerit is a change in the previous verdicts in accordance with the change in the merit of the objects about which the verdict is pronounced; in any case, neither demerits nor merits can be recognized without considering to what extent they are rightly attributed to us. how great is the difference between the previous and current opinions of Sovremennik about Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Ms. Tour; does it really put Sovremennik in “a decisive contradiction with itself?” Ostrovsky’s “Don’t get into your own sleigh” is that the New Poet, in an April book of 1853, said: “Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy had a brilliant and well-deserved success on two stages: St. Petersburg and Moscow. In it, rude, simple, uneducated people, but with soul and direct common sense, are placed next to semi-educated people. The author very cleverly used this contrast. How beautiful these men are in their simplicity and how pathetic this squandered Vikhorev is. All this is excellent and extremely true to reality. Rusakov and Borodkin are living persons, taken from life without any embellishment." 16. In the February 1854 book it is said 17: "In his last two works, Mr. Ostrovsky fell into a cloying embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished. The works came out weak and false." The contradiction between these individual extracts is decisive; but it is completely smoothed out if we read them in connection with what precedes them in both articles. The new poet considers "Don't get on your own sleigh" in relation to to other works of our repertoire, speaks of the superiority of this comedy over other comedies and dramas played on the Alexandria stage 18 As for the essential merit of “Don’t get on your own sleigh,” the New poet seems to express his opinion quite clearly, adding: “But, despite this, still, from an artistic point of view, this comedy cannot be staged along with his first comedy ("Our people-- let's settle"). In general, “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” is a work that does not go beyond the range of ordinary talented works." 19 And since the article from No. II of Sovremennik this year 20 compares this comedy, "does not go out from the range of ordinary works," with the truly remarkable first work of Mr. Ostrovsky, then, calling it “weak,” this article, it seems to us, does not contradict the New poet, who says that “Don’t get into your own sleigh” cannot be placed along with “Your people." One side of the contradiction - about the artistic merit of comedy - does not exist. Another contradiction remains: The new poet called Borodkin and Rusakov "living persons, taken from reality, without any embellishment"; a year later, Sovremennik says that Mr. Ostrovsky fell (in the comedies “Don’t Get in Your Sleigh” and in “Poverty is not a Vice”) “into a sugary embellishment of what should not be embellished, and the comedies turned out to be false.” , firstly, that in a work of art, the generality of which is permeated with the most false views and which therefore embellishes reality intolerably, individual persons can be copied from reality very faithfully and without any embellishment. Or not to talk about it? After all, everyone agrees that, for example, this is what happened in “Poverty is not a vice”: We love Tortsov, a dissolute drunkard with a kind, loving heart - a person similar to whom there are actually many; Meanwhile, “Poverty is not a vice” as a whole is a highly false and embellished work, and - mainly - the falsity and embellishment are introduced into this comedy precisely by the face of Lyubim Tortsov, which, taken separately, is true to reality. This happens because, in addition to individual persons, in a work of art there is a general idea, on which (and not on individuals alone) the character of the work depends. There is such an idea in “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” but it was still quite cleverly covered up by a skillful setting and therefore was not noticed by the public: those who noticed the falsity of the idea in this comedy hoped (out of love for the wonderful talent of the author of “Our People”) that this idea is a fleeting delusion of the author, perhaps even unknown to the artist himself, crept into his work; That’s why they didn’t want to talk about this sad side unless absolutely necessary; 21 but there was no need, because the idea, skillfully hidden under an advantageous situation (the contrast of Rusakov and Borodkin with Vikhorev, an empty scoundrel), was noticed by almost no one, did not make an impression and, therefore, could not yet have an influence; there was therefore no further need to expose her, to execute her. But then “Poverty is not a vice” appeared; the false idea boldly threw off any cover of a more or less ambiguous situation, became a firm, constant principle of the author, was noisily proclaimed as a life-giving truth, was noticed by everyone and, if we are not mistaken, caused very strong displeasure in the entire sensible part of society 22 . "Contemporary" felt the obligation to pay attention to this idea and give, as far as possible, expression to the general feeling. Having talked about the idea of ​​“Poverty is not a vice,” Sovremennik considered it worthwhile to say two or three words about the author’s previous works and, of course, had to say that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” was the predecessor of “Poverty is not a vice,” which, of course, no one will deny now; the idea “Don’t get into your own sleigh,” now explained for all readers by Mr. Ostrovsky’s latest comedy, could no longer be passed over in silence, as was possible before, when it had no meaning for the public, and - to the previous review of the loyalty of some people to comedy (which the analysis “Poverty is not a vice” did not even think to deny) it was necessary to add that the idea of ​​​​comedy is false. last review We do not present it because it is absolutely unnecessary to explain the matter; Having looked at No. V of Sovremennik for this year, readers can be convinced that our review of the last novel does not say a single word about “Niece”, “Debt”, “Error” and therefore cannot in any way contradict any review of these works. It only remains to ask readers to look at the article about “The Niece” (No. I of Sovremennik for 1852): having looked at it, readers will see how much even then Sovremennik was forced to talk about the shortcomings of Madame Tour’s talent; True, this article says that there are similarities between the good sides of Madame Tour’s talent and Madame Gan’s talent and that “the brilliant hopes aroused by Madame Tour were so justified that they ceased to be hopes and became the property of our literature,” but these praises (more condescending and delicate than positive, as the whole tone of the article convinces) are far outweighed by passages like the following: “She (Ms. Tour), regarding truths known to everyone, has a half-enthusiastic, half-instructive tone, as if she just opened them herself, but also this may happen. But this can also be excused. Talent, that independent talent that we talked about at the beginning of the article, in Ms. Tour or No, or very little; her talent is lyrical... unable to create independent characters and types. Ms. Tour's style is careless, her speech talkative, almost watery... It was unpleasant for us to encounter traces of rhetoric on some pages of “The Niece,” something that smelled like “Collected Exemplary Works,” some pretensions to writing, to literary decorations.” ("Contemporary", 1852,No. 1, Criticism, article by Mr. I. T.) 23. We ask what new things have been added to these reproaches in the review of “The Three Seasons of Life”? Absolutely nothing; Instead of accusing him of contradiction, one could rather blame the reviewer of this latest novel for being too saturated with Mr. I.T.’s article. True, the reviewer could not repeat the praise that mitigated the reproaches in Mr. I.T.’s article, but what what to do? The merits of "The Niece" faded to the point of imperceptibility, and the shortcomings developed to the extreme in "The Three Seasons of Life."But most of all, Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the review of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Avdeev (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 2) 24 . With this review, Sovremennik became “the strangest contradiction with itself, because (we admit, this “because” is very difficult to understand) now Sovremennik says that Mr. Avdeev has a wonderful talent as a storyteller,” and before “he considered Mr. Avdeev to our best storytellers,” namely: in 1850 he said: “In the first works of Mr. Avdeev we will find clear signs of talent.(dosaAndd be careful! why not say "brilliant talent"? no, just "pr" signs" of it). The best proof that Mr. Avdeev is strong not only because of his ability to imitate (ah! even before 1850 they found that Mr. Avdeev was still strong only in his ability to imitate!),--served as the idyll of Mr. Avdeev “Clear Days”. This story is very sweet, there is a lot of warm, sincere feeling in it.(is there a lot of clarity of concepts about the world and people? Probably not, if this dignity is not exposed, The review, which Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with, attacks this shortcoming). reviews). The previous review says that there is no imitation in "Clear Days" - and the latest review does not think to question this; the previous review does not think to deny that "Tamarin" is an imitation; and the latest review proves it; the previous review sees warmth of feeling in “Clear Days” - and the latest review does not question this in the slightest, calling the faces of this idyll “favorites” of Mr. Avdeev, people “dear” to him. It seems to us that there is not the slightest bit of contradiction in all this. It even seems to us that one can rather accuse the latest review of too scrupulously studying previous reviews, just as one can accuse the analysis of Ms. Tour’s novel “The Three Seasons of Life” of being too close in resemblance to Mr. I.T.’s article on “ To my niece." In a word, anyone who carefully compares the reviews with which others are so dissatisfied with the previous reviews of Sovremennik will find not a contradiction between these reviews and the previous reviews, but the most common similarity in opinion between articles of the same journal. And although it would be very nice for Sovremennik to give its readers as often as possible articles distinguished by their new outlook, it must admit that this is precisely the merit that the reviews that caused displeasure are least distinguished by. And we must conclude our elementary presentation of the concepts of consistency with the answer that Otechestvennye Zapiski themselves made in their time to similar dissatisfaction against them for the supposed novelty of opinions about the meaning of various celebrities of our literature, namely: “the opinions in question are"not new and not originalb 26, - especially for the readers of Sovremennik. How could they attract disfavor?" Is it really because they were expressed directly, without beating around the bush, omissions or reservations? Is it because they said: "Tamarin" is an imitation" , we did not add, as usual, which has been taking root for some time in our criticism: “however, we do not want to say that Mr. Avdeev in “Tamarin” was an imitator; we find in this novel much that is independent and at the same time beautiful,” etc.; Having said: “The Three Seasons of Life” is an exalted novel without any content,” they did not add: “However, there is a lot of bright and calm understanding of life in it and even more meaningful ideas, indicating that the author was not without reason thinking about a lot of things”? and Is it because they didn’t add general passages about “undoubted talents”, that the books under review “constitute a gratifying phenomenon in Russian literature”, etc. If so, then the answer to this is already ready in “Domestic notes": "In our criticism, the dominance of commonplaces, literary sycophancy of the living and the dead, hypocrisy in judgments is noticeable. They think and know one thing, but say something else." 27 Having recalled this passage, we will move on to the presentation of "the simplest and most ordinary concepts" about what criticism is and to what extent it should be evasive and can do without directness - let's move on to the doctrine of the extent to which criticism does well when, in the words of Otechestvennye Zapiski, it speaks “with a disarming voice,” even in the face of injustice, with its humility 2S The polemical form in our article is only a means to interest those in a dry and too simple subject. who do not like dry objects, no matter how important they may be, and consider it beneath their dignity to turn their attention, at least from time to time, to thinking about simple things, constantly occupied with “living and important” questions of art (for example, how great the dignity of some novel). Now we can leave this form, because the reader who has skimmed more than half of the article will probably not ignore its ending. We will directly present the basic concepts that we considered necessary to recall. Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of something. Its purpose is to serve as an expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses. It goes without saying that this goal can be achieved in any satisfactory manner only with every possible care for clarity, certainty and directness. What kind of expression of public opinion is this - a mutual, dark expression? How will criticism give the opportunity to get acquainted with this opinion, to explain it to the masses, if it itself needs explanations and leaves room for misunderstandings and questions: “What do you really think, Mr. critic? But in what sense is it necessary understand what you are saying, Mr. critic? Therefore, criticism in general should, as far as possible, avoid all omissions, reservations, subtle and dark hints and all similar circumlocutions that only interfere with the directness and clarity of the matter. Russian criticism should not be like the scrupulous, subtle, evasive and empty criticism of French feuilletons; 29 this evasiveness and pettiness are not in the taste of the Russian public, and do not suit the living and clear convictions that our public quite rightly demands from criticism. The consequences of evasive and gilded phrases have always been and will be the same for us: first, these phrases mislead readers, sometimes regarding the merits of works, always regarding the magazine’s opinions about literary works; then the public loses confidence in the magazine's opinions; and therefore all our magazines, which wanted their criticism to have influence and enjoy trust, were distinguished by their directness, unwavering, intransigence (in in a good way) of his criticism, which called all things - as much as possible - by their direct names, no matter how harsh the names were. We consider it unnecessary to give examples: some are in everyone’s memory, others we recalled when talking about old analyzes of Pogorelsky’s works. But how should one judge the sharpness of tone? Is she good? Is it even permissible? What to answer to this? c"est selon (Depending on the circumstances (French).--Ed.), what is the case and what is the sharpness. Sometimes criticism cannot do without it if it wants to be worthy of the name of living criticism, which, as we know, can only be written by a living person, that is, capable of being imbued with both enthusiasm and strong indignation - feelings that, as everyone also knows, pour out not in cold and sluggish speech, not in such a way that no one feels either warm or cold from their outpouring. We again consider it unnecessary to point out examples also because we have a proverb: “whoever remembers the old is out of sight.” And for tactile proof, as sharpness of tone is sometimes necessary in live criticism, let us assume such a case (not yet one of the most important). That manner of writing, which was driven out of use by the caustic sarcasms of sensible criticism, is beginning to come into fashion again due to various reasons, among other things, and the weakening of criticism, perhaps confident that flowery idle talk cannot recover from the blows dealt to it. Here again, as in the times of Marlinsky and Polevoy, works appear, are read by the majority, are approved and encouraged by many literary judges, consisting of a set of rhetorical phrases, generated by a “captive thought by irritation” 30, unnatural exaltation, distinguished by the same cloyingness, only with a new one. quality - Shalikov’s grace, prettiness, tenderness, madrigality; even some new “Maryina Roshchi” with Usladami appear; 31 and this rhetoric, revived in its worst form, again threatens to flood literature, have a harmful effect on the taste of the majority of the public, make the majority of writers again forget about the content, about a healthy outlook on life, as the essential merits of a literary work. Having assumed such a case (and there are even more bitter ones), we ask: is criticism obliged, instead of denunciations, to write madrigals to these frail but dangerous phenomena? Or can she act in relation to new painful phenomena in the same way as in her time she acted in relation to similar phenomena, and without roundaboutness say that there is nothing good in them? Probably can't. Why not? Because “a talented author could not write a bad essay.” Was Marlinsky less talented than today's epigones? Wasn’t “Maryina Roshcha” written by Zhukovsky? Tell me, what’s good about “Maryina Roshcha”? And why can one praise a work without content or with bad content? "But it is written in good language." Behind good language it was possible to forgive the pitiful content when the main need of our literature was to learn to write in a language other than gibberish. Eighty years ago it was a special honor for a person to know spelling; and indeed, then whoever knew how to put the letter ѣ in place could rightly be called an educated person. But would it not be ashamed now to place the knowledge of spelling as a special merit to someone other than Mitya, brought out by Mr. Ostrovsky? 32 Writing in bad language is now a disadvantage; The ability to write well is no longer a special virtue. Let us recall the phrase we wrote in the Telegraph article about Pogorelsky: “Is it really because they glorify “The Monastery” that it is written smoothly?” 33 - and leave it to the compiler. "Memorial sheet of errors in the Russian language" the pleasant and difficult task of issuing certificates of merit for the art of writing in a satisfactory language 34 . This distribution would take up too much of the critic's time, and would also involve too much paperwork: how many feet would be required for sheets of praise if all the worthy were awarded? Let us return, however, to the question of the harshness of reviews. Is unsweetened directness of condemnation permissible when it comes to the work of a “famous” writer? - Do you really want it to be allowed to “attack only the most complete and defenseless orphan”? Is it really possible to go into battle fully armed with weapons, with the red-hot arrows of sarcasm, against some poor Makar, on whom all the bad things are falling? If so, give your critical chair to those Gogol gentlemen who “praise Pushkin and speak with witty barbs about A. A. Orlov” 35. - Yes, they are guilty; we began to write unclearly and unconvincingly; we have forgotten our intention to always start from the very beginning. Let's fill in the omission. Criticism worthy of its name is not written in order for Mr. Critic to flaunt his wit, not in order to give the critic the glory of a vaudeville coupletist, delighting the public with his puns. Wit, causticity, bile, if the critic possesses them, should serve him as a tool to achieve the serious goal of criticism - the development and purification of taste in the majority of his readers, should only give him a means of appropriately expressing the opinions of the best part of society. Is public opinion really interested in questions about the dignity of writers who are unknown to anyone, who are not revered by anyone as “wonderful writers”? Is the best part of society indignant that some student of Fedot Kuzmichev or A. A. Orlov wrote a new novel in four parts of fifteen pages each? Is it "Love and Loyalty" or ""(See the bibliography of this book by Sovremennik), or "The Adventures of George, My Lord of England" spoil the taste of the public? 36 If you want, sharpen your wit on them, but remember that in this case you are engaged in "magazine pouring from empty to empty “, and not criticism. “But the author may be upset by strict condemnation” 37 - that’s another matter; if you are a person who does not like to upset your neighbor, then do not attack anyone, because there are as many little-known authors as the most famous ones, It will upset you to point out the shortcomings of his literary brainchild. If you think that it is impossible to say unpleasant things to someone under any circumstances, for any good, then put the finger of silence on your lips or open them then to prove that all criticism is harmful, because everyone upsets someone. But do not rush to condemn absolutely any criticism. Everyone will agree that the justice and benefit of literature are higher than the personal feelings of the writer, and the heat of the attack should be proportionate to the degree of harm to the taste of the public, the degree of danger, the power of influence that you are attacking. Therefore, if you have before you two novels, distinguished by false exaltation and sentimentality, and one of them bears an unknown name, and the other a name that has weight in literature, which one should you attack with greater force? To the one that is more important, that is, harmful to literature. Fast forward sixty years ago. You are a German critic. Before you lies the artistically excellent, but cloying "Hermann und Dorothea" ("Herman and Dorothea" (German).-- Ed. ) Goethe and some other idyllic poem by some mediocre scribbler, quite neatly written and just as cloying as the “artistically beautiful creation” of the great poet. Which of these two poems should you attack with all your heat if you consider (like any intelligent person) sugary idealism a very harmful disease for the Germans? And which poem can you decipher in an accommodating, soft and perhaps even encouraging tone? One of them will go unnoticed, harmless, despite your compliant response; the other has been delighting the German public for fifty-seven years. You would have acted very well if, having been a German critic sixty years ago, you had poured out all the bile of indignation on this harmful poem, refused for a while to listen to the gentle suggestions of your deep respect for the name of the one who was the glory of the German people, and would not have been afraid of reproaches in impatience, in rashness, in disrespect for the great name and, having coldly and briefly said that the poem was written very well (there are hundreds of pens for this besides yours), we would attack as clearly and sharply as possible the harmful sentimentality and emptiness of its content, we tried You would like, to the best of your ability, to prove that the poem of the great Goethe is pitiful and harmful in content and direction. To speak about Goethe’s work in this way would, of course, not be easy for you: it would be bitter for you yourself to rebel against someone whom you would like to glorify forever, and many will think badly of you. But what to do? This is what your duty requires of you. , at least only by those who write “Notes of the Fatherland” (in “Three Times” there is no thought, no credibility in the characters, no probability in the course of events; there is only a terrible affectation, representing everything exactly the opposite of how it happens in this world All this is dominated by an immeasurable emptiness of content); but Sovremennik did not at all talk about this novel because the novel itself is worth a lot of attention - it seemed to us that it deserves some attention as one of many similar affected novels, the number of which has recently multiplied very noticeably. What comes into fashion should be subject to closer examination for this very reason, even if it does not deserve it due to its essential significance. And this gives us an opportunity to regret that in recent years our literature has developed too slowly; and how significant its development was in the past within five or six years! But, tell me, how much has she come forward since the appearance of “The Niece”, “Tamarin” and especially the wonderful work of Mr. Ostrovsky “Our own people - we will be numbered”? And due to this very stagnation of literature, Sovremennik’s judgments about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour in 1854 could not differ significantly from its opinions about these writers in 1850. Literature has changed little, and the position of writers in literature has changed little. Nothing did not do to strengthen his fame? When he publishes all his works in five or six years, shouldn’t his attention be drawn to the significant shortcomings of all his works (lack of thought and the lack of accountability with which he pours out his warm feelings)? Fortunately, “he can correct these shortcomings if he pleases” (happy expression!) 39, which is why it is necessary to show them more clearly to him - this can be quite useful. Another thing is the fundamental depravity of (real or supposed?) talent - this can hardly be helped, no matter how you point out the shortcomings; That’s why in one of the three reviews (not about “Tamarin” or “Poverty is not a vice”) in question, Sovremennik did not express any hopes. But the shortcomings that plague Mr. Avdeev’s talent can disappear if he seriously wants it, because they lie not in the essence of his talent, but in the absence of those qualities necessary for the fruitful development of talent that are not given by nature, as talent is given; which are given to others by the difficult experience of life, to others by science, to others by the society in which he lives; Sovremennik tried to draw the attention of Mr. Avdeev to these conditions throughout its entire review and, as clearly as possible, expressed them at the end 40. We regret that we cannot begin to discuss them here, partly because this would mean repeating what was said very recently. But all the talk about these “simple and ordinary concepts, which are no longer discussed in any literature,” leads us to say two or three words about what “thought” is - a concept that bewilders some, of course, very few, and about which we therefore consider it sufficient to say only two or three words, without expanding on a subject so well known. Is it really necessary to explain why this is so? because one interlocutor is either an educated person, or a person who has seen a lot in his life and has seen it not without benefit, an “experienced” person, or a person who has thought about something; and the other interlocutor is what is called an “empty” person. Is it really necessary to indulge in proofs and explanations that books are divided into the same two categories as conversations? Some are “empty” - sometimes at the same time inflated, - others are “non-empty”; and it is about non-empty ones that it is said that they have “thought”. We think that if it is permissible to laugh at empty people, then it is probably permissible to laugh at empty books; that if it is permissible to say: “you should not have or listen to empty conversations,” then it is probably permissible to say: “you should not write or read empty books.” An ordinary story" and "Tamarin" or "Clear Days" did not appear twenty years ago: then they would have understood what a huge difference between these works. They would have understood, of course, that at the basis of Mr. Potekhin's drama "The Governess" (that is, " Brother and sister"?) lies a false and affected thought, as this, however, has already been proven by Sovremennik 42. Let us return, however, again to the "sharpness" of the tone. We said that in many cases this is the only tone worthy of criticism who understands the importance of the subject and does not look coldly at literary questions. But we also said that harshness comes in different kinds, and so far we have only talked about one case - when the harshness of tone occurs because a fair thought is expressed directly and as strongly as possible, without reservations. Another thing is illegibility of words; Of course, it’s not good to allow yourself to do so, because to be rude means to forget your own dignity. We do not think that they could reproach us for this, because this is the harshest of the expressions, emphasized for “unceremoniousness, far from fashionable”: “Tamarin” made us expect new and better things from Mr. Avdeev, showing in him the ability to develop; but not a single one of his stories published so far can still be called the work of a thinking man." It is unlikely that these words will be condemned by Gogol's ladies, who say: "get by with a handkerchief"; 43 but in no case should he be "amazed" by them , who immediately allows himself expressions that are much less fashionable. Yes, it is not good to be illegible in words; but it is still much more forgivable than allowing yourself dark hints that suspect the sincerity of someone with whom you are dissatisfied. because they, precisely because of their darkness, are attached to everything; and if, for example, Otechestvennye zapiski hint that Sovremennik is unfair to Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour because the works of these writers are no longer published in Sovremennik. ", then how easy it is (let us refrain from other hints) to explain this hint with the following phrase: To Otechestvennye Zapiski, Sovremennik's opinions about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour seem unfair because these authors are now publishing their works in Otechestvennye Zapiski. . But it is better to leave all such trifles, which are decidedly ridiculous: did Otechestvennye zapiski really stop praising Mr. Benediktov because the works of this poet, which adorned the first issues of the magazine, then stopped appearing in Otechestvennye zapiski? 44 Isn’t it clear to everyone that there could be no connection between these facts, that, finally, the situation could be the other way around? Let's leave it at that. Criticism should not be a “journal squabble”; she must take up a more serious and worthy matter - the persecution of empty works and, as much as possible, exposing the internal insignificance and discord of works with false content.

And no matter in which magazine Sovremennik encounters criticism with a similar desire, it is always happy to meet it, because the need for it is really strong.

TEXTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND COMMENTED

T. M. Akimova ("Song different nations..."); G. N. Antonova ("On sincerity in criticism"); A. A. Demchenko ("Novel and stories by M. Avdeev"; "Notes on magazines. June, July 1856"); A. A . Zhuk ("Three Seasons of Life". Novel by Evgenia Tur"); V. V. Prozorov (“Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky”; “Notes on magazines. March 1857”)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Belinsky - V. G. Belinsky. Full collected op. in 13 volumes. M., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953-1959. Only the most significant of them are noted in the notes.

ABOUT SINCERE IN CRITICISM

For the first time - "Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, dep. III, p. 1--24 (ts. June 30). Without a signature. The manuscript and proofs have not survived. Chernyshevsky’s article is a detailed theoretical justification of the tasks, principles, and method of revolutionary democratic criticism, polemically directed against the “moderate”, crushing criticism of the 1850s, which, in the person of S. Dudyshkin, A. Druzhinin, V. Botkin, began the fight against literary traditions Belinsky."Contemporary" about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 6, department IV, pp. 157--162). Bearing in mind the articles of Chernyshevsky (see. present), Dudyshkin accused him of harshness and straightforwardness in his assessments, which contradicted the magazine’s previous reviews of these writers, Chernyshevsky, redirecting the reproach of inconsistency to the reviewer of Otechestvennye Zapiski and explaining the meaning of “true criticism,” restores the current meaning of literary and theoretical ideas. and the method of criticism of Belinsky. The very title of Chernyshevsky’s article seemed to contain a reminder of one of the most important “commandments” of Belinsky, who advocated “sincerity,” “originality,” and “independence” of critical opinions. Chernyshevsky’s article provoked fierce attacks from liberal aesthetic critics. S. Dudyshkin, repeating his previous argument about the inconsistency of Sovremennik, called Chernyshevsky’s answer “long,” “confused” and “dark” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 8, dep. IV, p. 91); N. Strakhov, in an unpublished letter to the editors of Sovremennik, having approved Chernyshevsky’s negative attitude towards literary criticism of the 50s, at the same time did not accept his positive program: “I do not agree with almost any of the critic’s opinions” (quoted from the work of M. G. Zeldovich “An unknown response to Chernyshevsky’s article “On sincerity in criticism.” - In the book: “N. G. Chernyshevsky. Articles, research and materials,” issue 6. 1971, p. 226). Chernyshevsky’s speech was supported. editors of Sovremennik Nekrasov and I. Panaev. The editorial announcement of the publication of the magazine in 1855 said: “We intend to follow the same path in the future, taking care at least, if it is difficult to achieve more, about the sincerity of judgments... "("Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVII, No. 9, p. 5). 1 Quote from Chernyshevsky's article "Complete works of Russian authors. Works by Anton Pogorelsky. Published by A. Smirdin. Two volumes. St. Petersburg, 1853" (Chernyshevsky, vol. II, pp. 381--388). 2 It's about about the editor of the Moscow Telegraph (1825-1834) N. A. Polev. A detailed historically specific description of N. Polevoy and his role in the history of literary criticism is given by Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856). 3- expression of S. S. Dudyshkin (see: "Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 6, department IV, p. 157). 4 In S. Dudyshkin’s reviews (in the “Journalism” review) to D. Grigorovich’s novel “Fishermen” (1853), Chernyshevsky was obviously not satisfied with the interpretation of this work contained there as a poeticization of peasant “humility and complete reconciliation with the modest lot determined by providence” ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10, department V, p. 121). According to the democratic critic, the humanistic pathos of the writer’s works devoted to the depiction of peasant life, including “Fishermen,” consisted in the affirmation moral worth and the spiritual wealth of the “commoner” (see: “Notes on magazines. August 1856.” - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 689--691). “Poems of Messrs. Fet and Nekrasov” (ibid., No. 3, section IV, pp. 36-40); “Little things in life” by Mr. Stanitsky (ibid., No. 5, department IV, pp. 57-58). Avdeev". 18 On the superiority of A. Ostrovsky's comedy "Don't sit in your own sleigh" in comparison with the plays of other authors from the repertoire 5 Inaccurate quote from I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Education of the Lion” (1811). It was not I. Panaev who wrote, but M. V. Avdeev in “Letters from an “empty man” to the provinces about life in St. Petersburg.” "Letter Four" ("Contemporary", 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, department VI, pp. 193-203). 19 Quote from “Notes and reflections of the New Poet on Russian journalism. March 1853” (ibid., No. 4, section VII, p. 266). 20 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article “Poverty is not a vice.” In "Collection of exemplary Russian works and translations in prose", published by the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (parts 1-6, St. Petersburg, 1815-1817), works of ancient Russian literature, as well as literature from the period of classicism and romanticism, were published. 24 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article. 25 Quote from the article by V. P. Gaevsky “Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems” (Sovremennik, 1851, vol. XXV, No. 2, department III, p. 65). 25 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1841” (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 543).- a character from Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is not a vice." 33 Quote from a review of “The Monastery”. Essay by Anthony Pogorelsky. Part one. St. Petersburg, 1830" ("Moscow Telegraph", 1830, No. 5, March, department "Modern bibliography", p. 94). 34 Along with the "Commemorative sheet of errors in the Russian language and other inconsistencies found in the works of many Russian writers ", published in "Moskvityanin" in 1852-1854, I. Pokrovsky published in the same magazine "A memorial sheet of successful innovations in the Russian language, such as: skillfully composed new words, happy expressions and figures of speech with the addition of sublime metaphors , wonderful thoughts, strikingly beautiful paintings and scenes found in the newest works of our domestic writers in the field of fine literature" ("Moskvityanin", 1854, vol. 1, department VIII, pp. 37-46). Extracts from different works , published in Russian periodicals (the author's name was often not mentioned), were accompanied by commendable assessments. 35 These words were used to describe its hero, Lieutenant Pirogov, in Gogol’s story “Nevsky Prospekt” (1835). 36 This refers to “Love and Loyalty, or a Terrible Minute” (1854) by V. Vasilyev, “A Terrible Place. Ukrainian fairy tale in Russian old verse” (1854) by M. S. Vladimirov. The emptiness of content, the melodrama of these pseudo works of art “unknown” authors were subjected to devastating criticism on the pages of Sovremennik (1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, department IV, pp. 20-21). “The Tale of the Adventure of the English Mylord Georg and the Brandenburg Margravine Frederick Louise” (St. Petersburg, 1782) - an essay by Matvey Komarov, a popular popular print book. 37 Chernyshevsky plays on Belinsky’s polemical expressions from his article “Russian Literature in 1841,” where for the first time the principle of historicism in the analysis of literary phenomena is substantiated as the main criterion for impartial “true criticism.” “Of course,” wrote Belinsky, “then many “immortals” will completely die, great the famous are insignificant; many treasures will turn into trash; but on the other hand, the truly beautiful will come into its own, and the pouring from empty to empty with rhetorical phrases and commonplaces - an activity, of course, harmless and innocent, but empty and vulgar - will be replaced by judgment and thinking... But this requires tolerance for opinions , room for belief is needed. Everyone judges as best he can and as best he can; a mistake is not a crime, and an unfair opinion is not an insult to the author" (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 544). 38 In the 50s, Chernyshevsky spoke with constant approval of D. Grigorovich as one of the "gifted writers" "natural school", which "were brought up by the influence of Belinsky" ("Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature." - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 19, 96, 103, 223) Positively assessing Grigorovich's stories of the 40s ("Village"). ", "Anton Goremyka"), Chernyshevsky noted in the novels "Fishermen" (1853), "Migrants" (1855-1856), the story "Plowman" (1853), as well as in his other works of these years, "living thought" , “real knowledge of people’s life and love for the people” (“Notes on magazines. August 1856”) See also note 4 to this article. 39 Chernyshevsky paraphrases the words of the reviewer of “Notes of the Fatherland” about the novel by E. Tur. life." See above, note 9. 40 See present volume, pp. 25--39. 41 Inaccurate quote from Belinsky’s article “Russian Literature in 1840.” From Belinsky: “... until now we fervently believed in progress as a forward movement, but now we have to believe in progress as a backward movement..." (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 438). 42 Chernyshevsky argues with S. Dudyshkin, who wrote: “The idea underlying Mr. Potekhin’s drama “Brother and Sister” is beautiful, although it will be called ideal” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 4, department IV, p. 88). In almost the same words, certifying this play, main character of which - the governess, in another article, "Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev", Dudyshkin mistakenly calls the drama itself - "The Governess". "Contemporary" responded to Potekhin's play with Chernyshevsky's article "Poverty is not a vice" by Ostrovsky. 43 Expression from " Dead souls "(1842) by Gogol. 44 In "Notes of the Fatherland" the poems of V. Benediktov were published only in Nos. 1 and 2 for 1839 ("Italy", "Renewal", "Tears and Sounds"). On the pages of these and subsequent issues magazine critics sympathetically noted in his poetry " and thought" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1839, No. 1, department VII, pp. 14--15; No. 2, department VII, p. 5; No. 3, department VII, p. 6). Position " "Domestic Notes" in relation to Benediktov changed with the arrival of Belinsky to the magazine (in August 1839), who, back in the "Telescope", in the article "Poems of Vladimir Benediktov" (1835), characterized his work as the embodiment of pretentiousness, far-fetchedness, and rhetoric.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

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

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

The relevance of this topic for me lies in the acquisition of new knowledge in the field of journalism, for the further use of this knowledge in professional activities.

Target this study- study journalistic activity N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova and D.I. Pisareva.

Research objectives

Studying specialized literature to familiarize yourself with the biography and journalistic activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubova; DI. Pisareva.

Collection of information, data analysis, formulation of conclusions on this topic;

Acquiring new knowledge in the field of journalism.

The term "journalism" comes from the Latin word "publicus", which means "public". In the broadest sense of the word, the term “journalism” refers to all literary works relating to issues of politics and society. Unlike fiction, covering these issues in pictures of life, images of people depicted in works of art, journalism in the narrow sense of the word is called socio-political and scientific texts devoted to issues of life of the state and society.

Also, the term journalism, due to the polysemy of this word, is used in the following meanings:

In a broader sense - all journalism;

In a narrower sense - some forms or genres of journalism;

It is necessary to distinguish between concepts journalism And journalism. Journalism can be defined as a special social institution, an integral and relatively independent system, a special cooperation of people connected by a unity of activity. And journalism is, first of all, a creative process. Its essence lies in the process of reflecting the evolving phenomena of life, which is constantly developing under the influence of the needs of social practice. This is a special flow of information that captures socio-political relations in empirical facts and reasoning, in concepts, journalistic images and hypotheses.

Journalism exists as a special kind of literature along with scientific and artistic literature; at present we can already say that it has emerged as a special form of creativity, reflection of reality, propaganda, and formation of the consciousness of the masses.

Journalistic creativity appears as a socio-political activity, whose task is not only broad information, ideological education of the reader, listener, viewer, but also their social activation. It is in this way that journalism contributes to the operational regulation of the social mechanism and indicates the shortest path to satisfy an emerging social need.

Journalism is a type of literary (mainly journalistic) socio-political activity that reflects public consciousness and purposefully influences it. Its function is a prompt, in-depth, objective study of public life and influence on the audience. Depending on the genre, purpose, literary intent, creative manner The author's journalistic work uses conceptual or figurative means of expressing thoughts, their combination, and means of logical and emotional influence.

1. Literary-critical and journalistic activity of N.G. Chernyshevsky

Literary-critical activity of Chernyshevsky.

In 1853, Chernyshevsky began his literary, critical and journalistic activities in the Sovremennik magazine, the leading organ of Russian revolutionary democracy. In 1853-1858, Chernyshevsky was the main critic and bibliographer of the magazine and published several dozen articles and reviews on its pages. The most significant works of Chernyshevsky as a critic include the historical and literary cycles “Works of L. Pushkin” (1855) and “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856), which determined the attitude of revolutionary-democratic literature and journalism to the literary heritage of 1820-- 1840s and established its historical pedigree (the most significant here were the names of Gogol and Belinsky), as well as critical analyzes of the works of modern writers: L.N. Tolstoy (“Childhood and adolescence. Op. Count L.N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy”, 1856), M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“Provincial Sketches of Shchedrin”, 1857), I.S. Turgenev (“Russian Man”, 1858), N.V. Uspensky (“Isn’t this the beginning of change?”, 1861).

A distinctive feature of Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical speeches was that, based on literary material, they primarily examined issues of the socio-political movement in Russia during the period of the first revolutionary situation. Chernyshevsky gave Russian literature examples of social, journalistic criticism addressed to life itself.

Chernyshevsky's social temperament turned out to be so strong that it prompted him to leave his studies literary criticism and turn to journalistic creativity itself. In 1858, when N.A. became established in the editorial office of Sovremennik. Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky handed over to him the critical and bibliographic department of the magazine, and he devoted himself entirely to work in the political department of Sovremennik.

Chernyshevsky's literary-critical, economic, socio-political speeches in the Sovremennik magazine made him the recognized head of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia. Meanwhile, a tragic turning point was coming in the fate of this movement: from the middle of 1862, the government of Alexander I, which until now had acted under the sign of an albeit half-hearted liberalization of Russian life, turned back. The era of liberation and reform was replaced by the era of reaction: one of its first harbingers was the suspension of Sovremennik for 8 months in May 1862. On July 7, Chernyshevsky was arrested. After two years in prison Peter and Paul Fortress, - for two years the Senate fabricated Chernyshevsky’s “case”, - Chernyshevsky learned the verdict of the Senate Commission: “For malicious intent to overthrow the existing order, for taking measures to indignate and for composing an outrageous appeal to the lordly peasants and transmitting it for publication in the form of distribution - - to be deprived of all rights to the estate and sent to hard labor in the mines for fourteen years and then settled in Siberia forever.” Alexander II approved the sentence, reducing the term of hard labor by half. Chernyshevsky spent the period from 1864 to 1872 in hard labor, then for another 11 years, until 1883, he lived in a settlement in Vilyuisk. In 1883, Chernyshevsky was allowed to return to Russia, although this was not liberation, but a change of place of settlement: from Vilyuysk he was transferred to Astrakhan. Only a few months before his death, in 188!), Chernyshevsky was able to return to his homeland, to Saratov . The second half of Chernyshevsky's life, 27 years of prison and exile, became the time in which HE became an outstanding writer.

Fictional works by N.G. Chernyshevsky are organically connected with his social and journalistic activities.

The writer's first novel - "What to do?" - was created in the solitary confinement of the Alekseevsky ravelin, where Chernyshevsky was placed after his arrest. The time it took to complete the work is surprising: only four months. The novel began on December 4, 1802, and was completed on April 14, 1863. Chernyshevsky was in a hurry, he needed to make public the demolition of his creation. The novel contains a complex of ideas, the knowledge of which the writer considered mandatory for young people of the 60s, “The whole sum of the philosophy of the novel, the whole meaning of its figures embraces a certain encyclopedia of ethical and social principles indicating certain rules of life,” wrote the famous Soviet researcher of Chernyshevsky’s work A.P. Skaftymov “What to do?” - a work that also has a frankly didactic purpose. Chernyshevsky's task is to tell the young reader about the new human type so that an ordinary healthy person can be re-educated in the process of reading. This teaching goal determined the type of novel, its composition, features of character construction, and the author’s position. “I don’t have a single artistic talent...” the writer said in the preface. “All the merits of the story are given to it only by its truth.” Chernyshevsky’s words about his lack of artistic talent should not be taken in the literal and unambiguous sense. This statement by the author of the novel is not without irony regarding traditional, romantic ideas about artistic talent. The “serious” meaning of this statement is that the author notes in his fictional method something more than traditional artistry. The narrative, Chernyshevsky emphasizes, is organized by an idea, and an idea, in his opinion, a true one. This determines the main value of the novel.

Author of “What to do?” conducts a direct conversation with the reader. The direct dialogue between the author and the reader concerns the most pressing issues of our time. The journalistic orientation of the novel is exposed and emphasized by Chernyshevsky. The essence of his method is to teach the business; the novelistic “finishing” is needed only because it makes it easier to assimilate the truth.

Offering the public a new complex of human morality, Chernyshevsky constantly activates the attention of “his” reader, primarily by arguing with the image of the “insightful reader” he created. A “discerning reader” is a person with a formal mindset, a philistine in his worldview. Explaining his bewilderments and objections, the author polemicizes with his possible opponents: the novel, after its release, was inevitably bound to cause sharp disagreements. Conversations with the “insightful reader” made it possible for Chernyshevsky to predict and deflect the alleged charges. In these episodes of the novel, the author showed himself to be a brilliant artist-thinker, exceptionally skilled in irony.

Chernyshevsky represents diarrhea, which is just emerging as already victorious. “New people” are programmed as winners, they are “doomed” to happiness. This feature of the writer’s creative method, manifested in “What is to be done?”, allows us to characterize the novel as a utopian novel. Before Chernyshevsky, “utopia” was most often a work of fantastic content. But at the same time, Chernyshevsky also shows the real picture of the world.

2. Literary-critical activity of N.A. Dobrolyubova

Literary critical activity falls in the 60s. He devotes a special satirical section of the Sovremennik magazine called “Whistle” to denouncing liberals. Here Dobrolyubov acts not only as a critic, but also as a satirical poet. Criticism of liberalism then alerted A.I. Herzen, unlike Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, continued to hope for reforms “from above” and overestimated the radicalism of liberals until 1863. However, Herzen's warnings did not stop the revolutionary democrats of Sovremennik. Beginning in 1859, they began to pursue the idea of ​​a peasant revolution in their articles.

They considered the peasant community to be the core of the future socialist world order. Unlike the Slavophiles, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov believed that communal ownership of land rested not on Christian, but on the revolutionary-liberation, socialist instincts of the Russian peasant. Dobrolyubov became the founder of the original critical method. He saw that the majority of Russian writers do not share the revolutionary-democratic way of thinking and do not pronounce judgment on life from such radical positions.

Dobrolyubov saw the task of his criticism as completing in his own way the work begun by the writer and formulating this verdict, relying on real events and artistic images of the work. Dobrolyubov called his method of understanding the writer’s work “real criticism.” Real criticism"examines whether such a person is possible and real; having found that it is true to reality, it moves on to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, etc. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author being analyzed, criticism uses them and thanks the author; if not, he doesn’t pester him with a knife to his throat - how, they say, did he dare to bring out such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? In this case, the critic takes the initiative into his own hands: he explains the reasons that gave rise to this or that phenomenon from a revolutionary-democratic position and then pronounces a verdict on it. Dobrolyubov positively evaluates, for example, Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” although the author “does not and, apparently, does not want to give any conclusions.” It is enough that he “presents you with a living image and vouches only for its resemblance to reality.” For Dobrolyubov, such authorial objectivity is quite acceptable and even desirable, since he takes upon himself the explanation and the verdict. Real criticism often led Dobrolyubov to a peculiar reinterpretation artistic images writer in a revolutionary-democratic manner.

It turned out that the analysis of the work, which developed into an understanding of the pressing problems of our time, led Dobrolyubov to such radical conclusions that the author himself had never expected. In Dobrolyubov’s articles, the young, strong nature of a talented critic comes to life, sincerely believing in the people, in whom he sees the embodiment of all his highest moral ideals, with whom he connects the only hope for the revival of society. All the critic’s activities were aimed at the struggle for the creation of a “party of the people in literature.”

She gave preference to the “thought of the heart” over the “thought of the head”;

She stood up for the “synthetic” principle in art, for “born” and not “made” works, for the spontaneity of creativity, not associated with any scientific or theoretical systems;

This is a system built on the denial of determinism, the social essence of art;

One of the most serious opponents of realism.

In the article “A critical look at the foundations, meaning and techniques of modern art criticism” (1857), Grigoriev, dividing works of art into “organic”, that is, “born” with the help of the author’s talent by life itself, and into “made”, which arose thanks to conscious literary efforts that reproduce a ready-made artistic model, he outlined the corresponding tasks of literary criticism, which should detect upward connections between “made” works and their source, and evaluate “organic” ones based on the life and artistic sensibility of the critic. Grigoriev denies the fruitfulness of “pure” aesthetic criticism, which, in his opinion, comes down to “material” logging artistic means and techniques: a deep and comprehensive judgment about a work is always a judgment “about”, considering it in the context of the phenomena of reality. However, he also does not accept the method of modern historicism, which connects literature with the immediate interests of the era: such a method is based on a false opinion about the relativity of truth and takes as a basis the truth of recent times, knowing or not wanting to know that it will soon turn out to be false.

Grigoriev rejects the rationalistic view of art - “theoretical” criticism, which biasedly searches for those aspects in a work of art that correspond to the a priori speculations of theorists, i.e. violating the main principle of “organicity” - naturalness.

3. Literary-critical activity of D.I. Pisareva

The magazine "Russian Word", which was one of the most popular publications in the 60s (especially among students), reflected revolutionary democratic ideology and was an ally of Sovremennik on many social and literary problems. It began to be published in St. Petersburg in January 1859 as a monthly literary and scientific magazine with a volume of 25-30 printed pages and included three sections. The first consisted of works literary prose, poetry and science articles, the second included criticism and bibliography, the third (“Mixture”) - the feuilleton “Public Life in St. Petersburg,” intended primarily for nonresident subscribers, notes about foreign life, as well as works of small artistic forms ( short stories, plays). The “Chess Sheet” was published as a supplement to the magazine, which can be considered the prototype of sports publications in Russia.

It was in “Russian Word” that Pisarev began his journalistic activity.

One had to have Blagosvetlov’s editorial instincts to discern a “prophet” in the twenty-year-old youth who appeared at the editorial office at the end of 1860 with translations from Heine younger generation", as Shelgunov called Pisarev. Pisarev came to Russkoye Slovo as a young and still immature man. His experience in literary work was limited to collaboration in a publication published by artillery officer V.A. Krempin "Rassvete" - a monthly magazine of "sciences, arts and literature for adult girls", where he led the bibliographic department.

The idea of ​​emancipation human personality, proclaimed by Blagosvetlov from the pages of “Russian Word” and which distinguished this magazine from all other democratic organs of the 60s, was declared and developed already in Pisarev’s first speeches - “Plato’s Idealism” and “Scholasticism of the 19th Century”. He connects the task of liberating the individual with the struggle against idealistic philosophy, seeing in it a theoretical justification for government and political enslavement. He perceived his struggle against idealism as a struggle against the shackles that religion and official ideology impose on a person.

“Scholasticism of the 19th century” became a very important stage in the formation of Pisarev’s democratic views. In its first part, which appeared in the May issue of “Russian Word” for 1861, the publicist further expresses doubts about the effectiveness of journalism and literature, their influence on the life of society, because they were tormented by disputes over trifles, stuck with routine and scholasticism. The second part of the article, published at the height of student unrest (published in the September issue of 1861), testifies to the evolution of Pisarev’s views to the left.

The fight against aesthetics and aesthetics becomes main theme Pisarev's criticism in 1864-1865, when his concept of “realism” was formed as a type of “real criticism”, supplemented by the slogan “destruction of aesthetics”. During this period, his popularity as a theorist and spiritual leader of Russian nihilism reached its peak. The work “The Realists” (in the censored version - “The Unresolved Question”), published in 1864 and combining the features of literary criticism, journalism, and a philosophical and political manifesto, became a programmatic work. The trend of Pisarev’s irreconcilable and demonstrative denial of aesthetic and artistic authorities began with “The Realists.” Aesthetic issues, according to Pisarev, separate even representatives of the same ideological camp from each other.

He declared war on everything that fettered thought, contemptuously calling it “aesthetics.” For him, exposing “aesthetics” was tantamount to fighting routine, inertia, stagnation, traditions, and habits. Taking a materialistic view of art as a basis,

Pisarev utilitarianly substantiates the idea of ​​the civil purpose of literature. Consistent realism, he believes, certainly despises everything that does not bring significant benefit. That is why a poet, without ceasing to be a poet, is obliged to bring real and undoubted benefit to society.

The extremes of Pisarev’s utilitarian aesthetics manifested themselves especially sharply in relation to Pushkin. In the articles “Eugene Onegin” and “Pushkin’s Lyrics,” published in 1865, he examines the poet’s work from the perspective of his theory of “realism,” which was based on the question of “the hungry and the naked.” Having abandoned aesthetic approaches and straightforwardly assessed the work of the great poet with the utilitarian principles of the theory of “realism,” Pisarev failed to understand either Pushkin or Belinsky’s articles about Pushkin. In a number of articles, Pisarev criticizes Belinsky and Dobrolyubov for deviations from “realism” and for making concessions to “aesthetics.”

Being a revolutionary and radical by literary and social temperament, Pisarev reached extremes in his assessments of the phenomena of literary and social life. The period of his prison creativity is unique in all respects. Pisarev’s apology for reality and common sense is, first of all, a protest against any lack of freedom, and the preaching of “realism”, conducted from a prison dungeon, is more a dream of what should be than a reflection on the present, the real. His work was aimed at a youth audience that rejected official, normative culture. Paradoxicality was one of the main features of his journalism. The positions he puts forward sometimes seem strange, contrary to familiar concepts. But behind the paradoxicality lies a fresh, original view, clothed in a brilliant metaphorical form.

His style is characterized by audacity of thought, certainty of judgment, captivating logic, aphoristic expressions and caustic irony, which fascinate and captivate the reader.

The magazines "Time" (1861-1863) and "Epoch" (1864-1865) became a noticeable phenomenon of social and literary life Russia in the 1860s.

First Mich. Mich. Dostoevsky obtained permission to publish the weekly political and literary newspaper Vremya. Then he turned to the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee with a petition to publish “under the same title” a monthly magazine with a volume of 25-30 printed sheets and received permission in 1860.

Throughout its existence, the magazine was printed in the printing house of E. Pratz. Subscriptions in St. Petersburg and Moscow were accepted in A.F. bookstores. and I.V. Bazunovs, as well as through other bookstores, the editorial office of the magazine and departments of various ministries and institutions. At first the magazine had a small circulation and audience, but business quickly took off.

The rapid growth of the magazine's success allowed the editor to increase the amount of fees to the level of other reputable magazines (not less than 50 rubles per printed sheet); money was often given in advance for works not yet written. In addition, the editors paid small additional amounts to employees in need, at their request.

Already in the second half of 1860, a circle of various authors began to rally around “Time”. The magazine published: Turgenev, Nekrasov, Grigorovich, Maikov, Pleshcheev, Milyukov and Poretsky, Polonsky, Strakhov, Grigoriev and Razin, poets V. Krestovsky, F. Berg, V. Kostomarov; prose writers and playwrights S. Levitov, Pomyalovsky, Voronov, L. Utkin, Bibikov, Suslova, V. Ostrogorsky; authors of journalistic articles and reviews P. Tkachev, N. Blagoveshchensky, M. Vladislavlev, M. Semevsky and others. It is very noteworthy that the editors of Vremya willingly provided a place in the magazine for novice authors. The difference in views of employees was revealed in editorial disputes, which made it possible to coordinate positions and smooth out contradictions.

The ideology of “soilism” reconciled Westerners and Slavophiles, “civilization” and “the people’s principle.” The democratic nature of the new theory was stated by F.M. Dostoevsky from the first issue of the magazine in “A series of articles on Russian literature”, published during 1861.

In the summer of 1862 F.M. Dostoevsky traveled abroad for the first time. He visited Germany, Italy, Switzerland, France. England, visited Herzen in London. This trip gave rise to Dostoevsky’s new thoughts about the fate of Russia and the West, reflected in “Winter Notes on Summer Impressions,” published in the magazine but returning in 1863. “Winter Notes...” are imbued with sharp criticism of European bourgeois civilization.

The reforms undertaken by the government drew their own assessment on the pages of Vremya. The announcement of the February 19 Manifesto and the “Regulations” did not receive widespread coverage in the magazine. “Time,” along with the text of the Manifesto, published only a few phrases about the “great event,” the glory of Alexander II and the beginning of a new stage in the history of Russia. Moreover, the magazine is primarily interested in the moral side of the liberation of the peasants. Attention to the moral significance of the abolition of serfdom and the protection of the individual became the leitmotif of almost all subsequent speeches about reform. About economic conditions, in cat. It turned out that the peasants did not write the magazine.

In "Internal News" there was an insistent demand to abolish corporal punishment and wean the people away from it. “Time” consistently opposed the class boundaries with which the nobility tried to dissociate itself.

Individual rights were the focus of the magazine and when discussing the upcoming judicial reform. The abundance of published articles on this issue is largely due to the interest of F.M. Dostoevsky to the problem of crime and justice of punishment.

One of the main topics in the magazine was also the idea of ​​developing literacy, education, and science. The problem of spreading literacy required solving problems: what to read to the people and where to get teachers to teach them. Turning to reform higher education, “Time” wrote about the need for its democratization, accessibility, and the restoration of the autonomy of universities.

One of the most striking in the magazine was the international political review, which was conducted by A.E. Razin, giving 30-40 pages of printed text from month to month. Typically his articles consisted of a short introduction entitled " General position”, then there were reviews of the state of affairs in three or four states, taken depending on the events taking place in them (“Italian affairs”, “French affairs”), and a short conclusion was placed in the form of “Latest News”.

Conclusion

literary journalism critical pisarev

The teachings of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were of particular importance in the Slavic countries, where the national liberation movement was unfolding. The ground for a close connection between the advanced trends in the ideology of the West Slavic and South Slavic countries with Russian revolutionary thought was prepared by historical circumstances and the commonality of many socio-economic processes.

The great traditions of Russian revolutionary democracy, the traditions of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, enriched progressive thought, social movement and national culture many peoples. This is the global significance of the activities and legacy of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky.

The task of the article, as the most scientific and journalistic genre of literary and artistic criticism, is to reveal, analyze, evaluate the essential aspects of the literary and artistic process, interpret, generalize, evaluate facts, events, phenomena, and identify connections between art and life.

In the center critical article there is always an actual, ideological, moral, aesthetic problem, it is posed mainly on modern literary and artistic material, the author of the article does not try to characterize the works he has chosen from all sides, he chooses the aspects he needs to main issue his articles.

The difficulty of composing an article is to find a measure of generality and specific analysis, to connect journalistic pathos and accuracy, between identifying the author's critical position and the objective requirement of the material involved in the article, objective logic.

Scientificity is not only a property of a critical article, but also a visibly observable structure-forming quality of this genre; works that border between criticism and science proper often arise (either deductive - from the problem to the material, or an inductive method of construction - from the material to general conclusions).

A problem article most often has a deductive structure, all other types of the genre have an inductive structure.

Along with the problem article, there are many more varieties of the article genre. They differ in two main ways:

Function (including those related to the place of publication);

Style intonation.

Theoretical article is devoted to the fundamental ideological and theoretical issues of the development of art, the approval and development of the principles of social reality, and the exposure of the views of ideological opponents.

The function of a theoretical article is to pose theoretical questions on modern artistic material; the stylistic dominant of such an article is the language of scientific speech or close to it.

An anniversary article is necessarily associated with some significant date; it is functionally focused on presenting the positive contribution of a given artist to culture or emphasizes the significance of a given historical and artistic event. This does not at all exclude a conversation about the objective limitations or subjective delusions of masters of art. Stylistically, he gravitates more towards scientific speech, more often he represents the popularization of what has been achieved by art history in his views on a given artist; but what ties it to criticism is the emphasis on modern sound artist's experience.

The essay is more a revelation of the personal, lyrical principle, the author’s conscious desire for a stylistic and compositional essence.

The function is to find in the reader not only a logical, but also an emotional response; in style - the desire for special artistry (art masters themselves often write - the argument is small, but the authority of the name is high).

A polemical article has as its function a direct, journalistic, pointed refutation of concepts, interpretations, and readings that the author considers harmful.

Literature

1. Volgin I.V. N.G. Chernyshevsky - journalist (“A Writer’s Diary” and the Russian public) / I.V. Volgin. - M., 1986.

2. Dmitrieva L.S. Literary and aesthetic concept of F.M. Dostoevsky / L.S. Dmitrieva. - M., 1974.

3. Nechaeva V.S., Journal M.M. and N.G. Chernyshevsky “Time” (1861-1863) / V.S. Nechaeva. - M.: Nauka, 1972.

4. Nechaeva V.S., Journal M.M. and F.M. Dostoevsky “Epoch” (1864-1865) / V.S. Nechaeva. - M.: Nauka, 1975.

5. Tunimanov V.A. Creativity N.G. Chernyshevsky 1854-1862 / V.A. Tunimanov. - Leningrad: Science, 1980.

6. Friedlander N.G. Chernyshevsky and world literature/ G.M. Friedlander. - M.: Soviet writer, 1985.

7. Dostoevsky. Collected works in 15 volumes (volume 13) / G.M. Friedlander, V.A. Tunimanov, V.D. Cancer. - Leningrad: Science, 1988-1996.

8. Andrulaitis L. “Diary of a Writer” N.G. Chernyshevsky as a prototype of network journalism / L. Andrulaitis // October. - 2005. - No. 12.

9. Zohrab I. Editorial activities of N.G. Chernyshevsky in the magazine “Citizen” and the religious and moral context of “The Karamazov Brothers” / I. Zohrab // Russian literature. - 2014. - No. 3. - P. 55-77.

10. Russian writers and poets. Brief biographical dictionary. Moscow, 2000.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

The novel "Oblomov" as the pinnacle of the work of Ivan Andreevich Goncharov. Review by N.A. Dobrolyubova about the novel "Oblomov" in the article "What is Oblomovism?" Distinctive signs of the poet's talent in the assessment of D.I. Pisarev. Benchmarking articles by these critics.

abstract, added 02/01/2012


The significance of Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev as an original Russian literary critic, the direction and form of his critical analysis. Lexical, syntactic and morphological analysis of the article by D.I. Pisarev "Walk through the gardens of Russian literature."

course work, added 01/09/2011


The author's main idea in the work "The Thunderstorm". The place of drama in literature. Images of heroes in the plot of Ostrovsky's play. Evaluation of the drama by Russian critics. "Beam in dark kingdom"Dobrolyubov. Refutation of Dobrolyubov's views in Pisarev's "Motives of Russian Drama."

test, added 02/20/2015


The novel "Eugene Onegin" - General characteristics. An encyclopedic look at the novel. A practical look at the novel. Criticism of the novel "Eugene Onegin". Review by Pushkin's contemporary Belinsky. A look at "Eugene Onegin" decades later in the person of Pisarev.

course work, added 11/24/2005


ON THE. Dobrolyubov is a famous Russian critic, a representative of the method of journalistic consideration of literary works. The life of a highly gifted young man, the torment of creativity, the triumph of his ideas. The fight between Dobrolyubov and Davydov, the ideal attitude towards loved ones.

biography, added 10/29/2009


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

presentation, added 05/13/2015


The origins of Russian literary criticism and discussions around its nature. Trends in modern literary process and criticism. Evolution creative path V. Pustova as a literary critic of modern times, the traditionalism and innovation of her views.

thesis, added 06/02/2017


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

course work, added 05/24/2016


Biography of Radishchev and the main directions of his political, social and literary activities. Analysis of Radishchev's book "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" as his main work. Radishchev about the revolution as a way to achieve freedom for the people.

abstract, added 09/21/2010


Displaying the image of Bazarov in the novel with the help of articles by critics D.I. Pisareva, M.A. Antonovich and N.N. Strakhov. The polemical nature of the lively discussion of the novel by I.S. Turgenev in society. Disputes about the type of new revolutionary figure in Russian history.

In an article written on the occasion of the new edition of "The Works of A. Pogorelsky" ("Contemporary", No VI, bibliography), we talked about the impotence of current criticism and pointed out one of the main reasons for this sad phenomenon - compliance, evasiveness, kindness. Here are our words:

“The reason for the impotence of modern criticism is that it has become too compliant, indiscriminate, undemanding, satisfied with works that are decidedly pitiful, admires works that are barely bearable. It is on par with those works with which it is satisfied; as you wish so that it has a living meaning for the public? It is lower than the public; writers whose bad works it praises can be satisfied with such criticism; 1 .

And we concluded the article with the words: “no, criticism must become much stricter, more serious if it wants to be worthy of the name of criticism.” We pointed to the criticism of the Moscow Telegraph 2 as an example of what true criticism should be, and, of course, not for lack of better examples. But we refrained from any—we are not saying instructions, even from any allusions to this or that article of this or that journal, the tenderness and weakness of which now makes it necessary to remind criticism of its rights, of its duties—and we did not want to bring examples are probably no longer because it would be difficult to collect hundreds of them. Each of our journals in recent years has been able to provide a good deal of material for such guidance; the only difference was that one magazine could present them more, the other less. Therefore, it seemed to us that to make extracts from articles of one or another journal would only mean to unnecessarily impart a polemical character to an article written with the intention of pointing out a shortcoming that is common to some extent to all journals, and not at all with the goal of reproaching one or another journal. We considered it unnecessary to give examples because, wanting criticism to generally remember its dignity, we did not at all want to put this or that journal in the need to defend its weaknesses and through this cling to previous weaknesses - it is known that, forced to argue , a person becomes inclined to get carried away by positions that he initially defended, perhaps only out of necessity to answer something, and whose unfoundedness or insufficiency he might be ready to admit if he were not forced to admit openly. In a word, we did not want to make the acceptance of the general principle difficult for anyone and therefore did not want to affect anyone’s pride. But if someone himself, without any challenge, proclaims himself an opponent of the general principle, which seems fair to us, then he has already clearly expressed that he does not recognize the justice of the general principle, but on the contrary.

After all these long reservations and mitigations, which very clearly prove how deeply we are imbued with the spirit of modern criticism and we, who are rebelling against its too soft, soft to the point of intangibility, methods, we can get down to business and say that Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the directness of some of our reviews of weak, in our opinion, works of fiction, although decorated with more or less famous names (we will present this review in full below), and that we, for our part, also did not exclude quite a few critical articles of Otechestvennye Zapiski from the general mass of timid and weak critics, whose proliferation we considered and consider an urgent necessity to rebel against. The purpose of our article is not at all to expose other people’s opinions, but to more clearly present our concepts of criticism. And if we borrow examples of criticism that, in our opinion, does not agree with the true concepts of serious criticism, from Otechestvennye zapiski, it is not at all because we wanted to blame only Otechestvennye zapiski for the weakness of criticism. We repeat that we rebel against weakness (we will present this review in full below), and that we, for our part, also did not exclude quite a few critical articles of Otechestvennye Zapiski from the general mass of timid and weak criticism, the proliferation of which we considered and still consider an urgent necessity. The purpose of our article is not at all to expose other people’s opinions, but to more clearly present our concepts of criticism. And if we borrow examples of criticism that, in our opinion, does not agree with the true concepts of serious criticism, from Otechestvennye zapiski, it is not at all because we wanted to blame only Otechestvennye zapiski for the weakness of criticism. We repeat that we rebel against weakness if she were weak only in one magazine or another, would it be worth so much trouble? We are primarily concerned with the "Domestic Notes", borrowing examples exclusively from them, because they took the trouble to defend and praise "moderate and calm criticism" 3 - where, if not from the defender, should one look for true examples of what is being defended?

Here, for example ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10), is an analysis of Mr. Grigorovich's novel "Fishermen". The main subject of criticism here is the consideration of whether it is really possible for a lonely old man to catch minnows Here, for example ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10), is an analysis of Mr. Grigorovich's novel "Fishermen". The main subject of criticism here is the consideration of whether it is really possible for a lonely old man to catch minnows and not nonsense (for which two people are needed), and is it really possible to see swallows, swifts, blackbirds and starlings on the Oka during high water, or do they arrive not during high water, but a few days later or earlier 4; in a word, this is not so much about the novel as about

What bird lives where?
What eggs does 5 lay?

Without any doubt, talking about the shortcomings and advantages of the novel from this point of view can and should be very calm.

Here is another analysis of Mrs. T. Ch.’s novel “Smart Woman” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12); The essence of the review is as follows:

“Here is the plot of “The Smart Woman,” one of the best stories of Mrs. T. Ch. There is so much smart, new and entertaining in this story. We missed in the story the entire previous life of a bachelor and an intelligent woman, a life that occupies at least three quarters novel. But this life does not concern us" 6.

A good and entertaining novel should be in which and not nonsense (for which two people are needed), and is it really possible to see swallows, swifts, blackbirds and starlings on the Oka during high water, or do they arrive not during high water, but a few days later or earlier 4; in a word, it is not so much about the novel as about what bird lives where, what eggs lays 5 .Without any doubt, talking about the shortcomings and advantages of the novel from this point of view can and should be very calm.Here is another analysis of Mrs. T. Ch.’s novel “Smart Woman” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12); the essence of the review is as follows: “Here is the plot of “A Smart Woman,” one of the best stories by Mrs. T. Ch. There is so much smart, new and entertaining in this story. We missed in the story the entire previous life of a bachelor and an intelligent woman, a life that occupies at least three quarters of the novel. But this life does not concern us" 6. not worth reading.

"The face taken by the author is very interesting; but for a complete description, its author at least three T twirl not worth reading. Here is a review of another story by the same author (Ms. T. Ch.), “Shadows of the Past” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 1). there is no better way to accomplish such a task" 7 .

Indeed, such reviews consist of “riddles,” as the reviewer calls his analysis of “A Clever Woman” when he begins it (“from a discussion about literature we move on to a dissertation about old bachelors and ask the reader a riddle about them. Let him guess who can.” But, firstly, no one can solve it; secondly, who wants to solve critical analyzes? No reader demands charades and puzzles from Russian magazines).

The same are the reviews of Mr. Fet’s poems, the novel “Little Things in Life,” 8 etc. No one can guess whether these works are good or bad, excellent or unbearably bad, according to the reviewers. For every praise or blame, they are always ready with a completely equivalent clause or hint in the opposite sense. But we must not bore our readers with all these examples; Let’s limit ourselves to just one review of Ms. Tour’s novel “The Three Seasons of Life.”

“The weaknesses of Ms. Tour’s stories and novels suddenly became brighter and more noticeable” (do you expect the meaning of this phrase: Ms. Tour began to write worse than before? no), this is “a circumstance for which our novelist should not blame herself, but her connoisseurs,” because she has already been praised too much (do you think this phrase means: she was praised, she began to write carelessly, stopped caring about correcting her shortcomings? No, not at all), magazine praise and blame cannot outrage one’s own the author’s judgment about his talent, because “the best critic for a novelist is always the novelist himself” (do you think this applies to Ms. Tour? No, because) “a woman always depends on someone else’s judgment” and “in the most brilliant a woman will not find that impartial independence” which gives a man the opportunity not to be subject to the influence of criticism; “every talented woman is adversely affected by the admiration of a friend, the compliment of a polite connoisseur”, as a result of them “she gives her talent an unoriginal direction, in accordance with the delusions of her ardent followers” ​​(this leads, according to your assumption, to the announcement that Madame Tour’s new novel is not independent , that “she composed the words based on someone else’s motive”? No), “in Ms. Tour’s last novel we see quite a lot of independence,” “the novelist’s view of most of her heroes and heroines is her own”; but this independence “is obscured by phrases that obviously arose under the influence of others.” (Do you think this is a drawback? No, that’s not it.) “Mme. Tour’s novel lacks the external interest of the plot, the intrigue of events” (so, there is no intrigue of events in it? No, there is, because from the words of the reviewer) “it does not follow” that “it belongs to the category of novels in which the most important event - renting an apartment or something like that." Ms. Tour’s novel is uninteresting not for lack of intrigue, but because “its hero, Oginsky, cannot interest readers” (why? Because he is colorless? no, because) “Mrs. Tour did not tell us how he served, traveled, managed his affairs" (but this is precisely what would ruin the intrigue, the plot that you require); Oginsky is in love three times (here are three intrigues, and you said that there is not a single one), and “a man’s life consists of more than one love” (that’s why it was necessary to talk about all the details of Oginsky’s service and travels that were unnecessary for the novel !). Oginsky's face ruined the novel; “he brought a lot of misfortune to the work” (hence, is this person in the novel bad? no, good, because he) “could have brought even more misfortune to the work if the undoubted intelligence of the writer had not corrected matters wherever possible” (good praise! why was such a hero chosen?). In the history of all three of Oginsky’s tender affections, “we are faced with weakness, combined either with affectation or exaltation” (so, the novel is spoiled by affectation and exaltation? No, on the contrary), “the writer has a deep disgust for them” (but if they are depicted with disgust, in its true light, is a virtue, not a disadvantage). “The conversation is alive,” although “at times tainted by scientific expressions”; And Although“Many aphorisms and tirades, even put into the mouths of young girls, seem to us worthy of a learned treatise, and yet the conversation represents the quintessence of living speech.” -- "The syllable of Mrs. Tour May be in many ways fixed for the better, if so desired to the writer herself" (!!) 9.

These are the contradictions and hesitations to which criticism is driven by the desire for “moderation,” that is, to mitigate all the slight doubts about the absolute merits of the novel that a humble reviewer allows himself to offer for a moment. At first he seems to want to say that the novel is worse than the previous ones, then he adds: no, that’s not what I wanted to say, but I wanted to say that there is no intrigue in the novel: but I didn’t say that unconditionally, on the contrary, there is good intrigue in the novel ; and the main drawback of the novel is that the hero is uninteresting; however, the face of this hero is excellently outlined; however - however, I didn’t want to say “however”, I wanted to say “besides”... no, I didn’t want to say “besides”, but just wanted to note that the style of the novel is bad, although the language is excellent, and this "can be corrected if the author himself so desires." What feedback can be made about such reviews? Is it the following, in the same vein: “They count in great detail hundreds of major advantages, although with even larger reservations, however, not without new laudable reservations, and therefore, although they say everything, they say nothing; of this, however , they should not be deprived of dignity, the existence of which, although invisible, is undeniable." One can also express them in the words of the “Notes of the Fatherland” themselves: “what do we mean by the word “criticism”? - an article in which the author said a lot without saying anything” 10. One can also say that the beginning of one romance is quite attached to such criticism:

Don't say yes or no
Be indifferent as before
And to a decisive answer
Cast doubts blanket 11.

But what especially bad will criticism do if it directly, clearly and without any omissions expresses its opinion about the merits and even (oh, horror!) shortcomings of literary works adorned with more or less famous names? After all, this is precisely what both readers and the very benefits of literature demand from her? What can she be blamed for in this case? "Domestic Notes" will tell us this; As an epigraph to the extract, we will take the words of “Notes of the Fatherland”, said quite a long time ago: “We still need to talk about such simple and ordinary concepts that are no longer talked about in any literature.” 12 .

“Recently, in the reviews of our magazines about various writers, we have become accustomed to encountering a moderate, cool-blooded tone; even if we sometimes read verdicts that were unjust, in our opinion, the very tone of the articles, alien to any impatience, disarmed us. We may not agree with the author’s opinion , but everyone has the right to have their own opinion. Respect for other people's opinions is a guarantee for respect for our own. All magazines have contributed a lot to curbing reviewers who take nothing into account except their own personal opinions, desires and often benefits. that recently some reviews of Sovremennik have extremely surprised us with their rashness of judgment, which has not been proven by anything. A view that contradicts what the Sovremennik itself recently said, and the injustice of the review addressed to such writers as Mrs. Eugenia Tur. , Mr. Ostrovsky, Mr. Avdeev, gave a strange look to the bibliography of Sovremennik in recent months, placed in decisive contradiction with itself. What she said a year ago, she now rejects in the most positive way. Still other thoughts come to mind. While, for example, Sovremennik was publishing stories by Mr. Avdeev, this magazine praised Mr. Avdeev; exactly the same should be said about his reviews of Evgenia Tur. Or has the reviewer failed to cope with opinions previously expressed in this journal? or did he know them, but wanted to distinguish himself by sharp originality? This is what, for example, was said in Sovremennik by the New Poet in 1853 in the April book, regarding Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” (follows an extract: we will release them here because we will compare and explain their imaginary oppositionOfalse below). In a word, the comedy is praised. Now look at what is said about the same comedy and another, new one, “Poverty is not a vice” in the bibliography of the May book of Sovremennik, 1854, that is, just one year later (extract). Mr. Ostrovsky received his share of such reviews. This is what the same book says about Ms. Eugenia Tur’s latest novel, “Three Seasons of Life” (extract). Is it possible to speak like this about the author of “Niece”, “Mistakes”, “Debt”, even if the new novel by Mrs. Eugenia Tur was unsuccessful? The verdict is unfair, because the work of a talented writer, no matter how successful it may be, can never be absolutely bad; but it’s strange to come across this review in Sovremennik, where until now they were saying something completely different about the talent of Ms. Evgenia Tur. Re-read, for example, what Mr. I.T. said in 1852 about the works of Mrs. Eugenia Tour (extract). How appropriate after this is the review we cited above about the talent of Ms. Tour, where there is not even a word about the talent of this writer! With what bitter smile should writers look at magazine praise and blame after this? Is criticism really a toy? But the most unfair review was made in Sovremennik this year about Mr. Avdeev, one of our best storytellers, whom before (when Mr. Avdeev published his works in Sovremennik) In its subscription advertisements and in its reviews of literature, this magazine always ranked alongside our first writers. There is so much evidence for this that it is difficult to list them. Take, for example, a review of literature for 1850, where our best storytellers are counted: there Mr. Avdeev is ranked along with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. What does it say in the February book of Sovremennik for 1854 (extract)? Would you like us to tell you what Sovremennik said in 1851? But maybe the reviewer doesn’t care about Sovremennik’s opinions? In this case, the reviewer would do well to sign his name to an article refuting the opinion of the journal for which he writes. Below we will cite what Sovremennik said in 1851, and now we will write down another passage that is striking in its unceremoniousness, far from fashionable (extract: in it, as the most unfashionable expressions, the words are emphasized: “Tamarin... showed in it ability to developAndtyu... None of his stories can be called a work we are humanWithlying"). Allow me, Mr. thoughtful reviewer, to notice to you that it seems that you understand a thought only when it is expressed in the form of maxims; otherwise, how could one not see the thought even in “Tamarin” (there the reviewer was relieved "Entereniem", where the idea of ​​the work is stated) and in other stories by Mr. Avdeev? But let’s assume that there is no new thought in them, so be it. And what special thought will the reviewer find in “An Ordinary Story” or in “Oblomov’s Dream” by Mr. Goncharov, in “The Story of My Childhood” by Mr. L. - fascinating stories? And vice versa: what charm will the reviewer find in Mr. Potekhin’s drama “The Governess”, where the basis is an intelligent, noble thought? Why such contempt for the masterful story, which is visible in all the works of Mr. Avdeev? You say that Mr. Avdeev is exclusively an imitator in his “Tamarin”. But we will notice... However, why should we tell? Sovremennik has already expressed its opinion about this in its review of literature for 1850. Here it is (we apologize to the readerselem for the long extracts, but we believe that the reader sees how important in this case the quotes from Sovremennik, which once praised and now scolds the same writers) (extract). What can we say after this about the reviews of the reviewer of Sovremennik, the reviewer from whom this magazine found itself in such a strange position regarding its own opinions? Praise and deny all dignity, speak at the same time and Yes And No, Doesn't this mean not knowing what to say about our three best writers? I would like to delete from the list of writers three such writers as Messrs. Ostrovsky, Evgenia Tur and Avdeev, doesn’t it mean taking the weight on your shoulders is beyond your strength? And why is this attack? We leave this question to the reader himself." 13

Why did we write out this long passage? We wish it to serve as an example of the extent to which modern criticism sometimes forgets about the most elementary principles of all criticism. Our remarks will speak only of such concepts, without awareness of which it is absolutely impossible to formulate concepts of criticism. Meanwhile, having skimmed through our remarks, let the reader take the trouble to read the extract again: with all possible attention, he will not find any trace that the critic dissatisfied with us had these concepts in mind; they were not reflected in a single phrase, not a single word.

Otechestvennye zapiski are dissatisfied with Sovremennik because it is inconsistent and contradicts itself. The inconsistency of Sovremennik lies in the fact that it previously praised the works of Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Mrs. Tour, and now allowed himself to make a very unfavorable review of the works of the same writers. Is it really necessary to explain what a sequence is? The question is really very tricky, almost more difficult than reconciling “yes” and “no” in one article about the same book; Therefore, let’s try to present it in the most important tone.

Consistency in judgments consists in making the same judgments about identical objects. For example, in praising all good works and equally condemning all bad works that are full of claims. For example, when praising “Hero of Our Time,” one should also praise “Song about Kalashnikov”; but to speak of “Masquerade” in the same way as of “Hero of Our Time” would be inconsistent, because although the title of “Masquerade” bears the same name as “Hero of Our Time,” the merits of these works are completely different 14 . From this we dare to draw a rule: if you want to be consistent, then look exclusively at the merits of the work and do not be embarrassed by whether you previously found the work of the same author good or bad; because things are identical because of their essential quality, and not because of the stigma attached to them.

From judgments about individual works of a writer, we must move on to a general judgment about the significance of the writer’s entire literary activity. Consistency, of course, will require: equally praising writers who have the right to praise, and equally not praising those who do not. With the passage of time everything changes; The position of writers in relation to the concepts of public and criticism also changes. What to do if justice requires the magazine to change its judgment about the writer? How, for example, did Otechestvennye zapiski receive? There was a time when they rated Marlinsky and others very highly, and we do not want to reproach them for that: the general opinion about these writers was then as follows; then public opinion about these same writers changed, perhaps because the first fervor had passed, and they looked more closely and calmly at their works; perhaps because they themselves began to write not better and better, but worse and worse; because, speaking in technical language, they “did not live up to expectations” (an expression that has almost as wide application in our language as fell ill, died, etc.); perhaps because other writers overshadowed them - it doesn’t matter, whatever the reason, but the opinion had to be changed, and it was changed 15. Did consistency really require continuing to worship Marlinsky and others? What consistency would there be in a magazine that would consider itself obliged, having first been a warrior for the best in literature, then to become a warrior for the worst only out of attachment to names? Such a magazine would betray itself. Not to mention the fact that he would have lost his honorable place in literature, would have lost all right to the sympathy of the best part of the public, and would have been subjected to general ridicule along with his clients. In fact, imagine that Otechestvennye zapiski in 1844 or 1854 would continue to call, as they called in 1839, our best writers, authors recognized as mediocre, what place would this magazine occupy in literature and journalism?

We dare to expect that in Sovremennik, impartial judges will be honored not with guilt, but - we don’t want to say with dignity - at least with the fulfillment of the obligation to keep up with the opinions of the enlightened part of the public and the demands of justice, changing over time, if Sovremennik ", speaking about Mr. X or Z in April 1854, will think more about what rightly needs to be said about this writer now, rather than worrying about rewriting as literally as possible the very review that could and should have been made about the works of this writer in April 1853, 1852 or 1851. "Contemporary" hopes that he will not be blamed equally if he understands consistency as fidelity to his aesthetic requirements, and not as blind attachment to stereotypical repetitions of the same phrases about the writer, from his very literary adolescence to his very literary decrepitude. What to do if a writer who “showed promise,” who deserved the sympathy of the best part of the public and encouraging praise from critics, did not “justify” his hopes and lost the right to sympathy and praise? “Say what needs to be said now, and not what should have been said before,” and if your sentences are based on the same principles, you will be consistent, even if at first you had to say “yes” and a year later “no.” It’s a completely different matter if the verdict was once pronounced on the basis of one principle, and another time on the basis of another - then we will be inconsistent, even though we said the same thing both times (for example: “one of Mrs. NN’s novels is good, literary activity because Although only a cloying exaltation is visible in it"). But, as we see, it is not about this betrayal of principles, but simply about the dissimilarity of judgments about different works of the same writers. Such external heteroglossia is not always a grave fault; sometimes even the very consistency and dignity depends on it magazine. But the merit or demerit is a change in the previous verdicts in accordance with the change in the merit of the objects about which the verdict is pronounced; in any case, neither demerits nor merits can be recognized without considering to what extent they are rightly attributed to us. how great is the difference between the previous and current opinions of Sovremennik about Messrs. Ostrovsky, Avdeev and Ms. Tour; does it really put Sovremennik in “a decisive contradiction with itself?” Ostrovsky’s “Don’t get into your own sleigh” is that the New Poet, in an April book of 1853, said:

“Mr. Ostrovsky’s comedy had a brilliant and well-deserved success on two stages: St. Petersburg and Moscow. In it, rude, simple, uneducated people, but with soul and direct common sense, are placed next to semi-educated people. The author very cleverly took advantage of this contrast. How these men are beautiful in their simplicity and how pitiful this squandered Vikhorev is. All this is excellent and extremely true to reality - these are living faces taken from life without any embellishment."

The February 1854 book says 17:

“In his last two works, Mr. Ostrovsky fell into a sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished. The works came out weak and false.”

The contradiction between these individual extracts is decisive; but it is completely smoothed out if we read them in connection with what precedes them in both articles. The new poet examines “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” in relation to other works in our repertoire, speaks of the superiority of this comedy over other comedies and dramas played on the Alexandria stage 18 . As for the essential merit of “Don’t get into your own sleigh,” the New Poet seems to express his opinion quite clearly, adding:

“But, despite this, still, from an artistic point of view, this comedy cannot be staged along with his first comedy ("Our people-- let's settle"). In general, “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” is a work that does not go beyond the range of ordinary talented works” 19.

And since an article from No. II of Sovremennik this year 20 compares this comedy, “not beyond the range of ordinary works,” with the truly remarkable first work of Mr. Ostrovsky, then, calling it “weak,” this article, it seems to us, is not falls into conflict with the New poet, who says that “Don’t get into your own sleigh” cannot be placed along with “Your people.” One side of the controversy - about the artistic merit of comedy - does not exist. Another contradiction remains: the new poet called Borodkin and Rusakov “living persons, taken from reality, without any embellishment”; a year later, Sovremennik says that Mr. Ostrovsky fell (in the comedies “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” and in “Poverty is Not a Vice”) “into a cloying embellishment of what should not be embellished, and the comedies turned out to be false.” Here we are again forced to set about expounding the elementary principles and explain, firstly, that in a work of art, the generality of which is permeated by the most false views and which therefore embellishes reality intolerably, individual persons can be copied from reality very faithfully and without any embellishment. Or not to talk about it? After all, everyone agrees that, for example, this is what happened in “Poverty is not a vice”: We love Tortsov, a dissolute drunkard with a kind, loving heart - a person similar to whom there are actually many; Meanwhile, “Poverty is not a vice” as a whole is a highly false and embellished work, and - mainly - the falsity and embellishment are introduced into this comedy precisely by the face of Lyubim Tortsov, which, taken separately, is true to reality. This happens because, in addition to individual persons, in a work of art there is a general idea, on which (and not on individuals alone) the character of the work depends. There is such an idea in “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” but it was still quite cleverly covered up by a skillful setting and therefore was not noticed by the public: those who noticed the falsity of the idea in this comedy hoped (out of love for the wonderful talent of the author of “Our People”) that this idea is a fleeting delusion of the author, perhaps even unknown to the artist himself, crept into his work; That’s why they didn’t want to talk about this sad side unless absolutely necessary; 21 but there was no need, because the idea, skillfully hidden under an advantageous situation (the contrast of Rusakov and Borodkin with Vikhorev, an empty scoundrel), was noticed by almost no one, did not make an impression and, therefore, could not yet have an influence; there was therefore no further need to expose her, to execute her. But then “Poverty is not a vice” appeared; the false idea boldly threw off any cover of a more or less ambiguous situation, became a firm, constant principle of the author, was noisily proclaimed as a life-giving truth, was noticed by everyone and, if we are not mistaken, caused very strong displeasure in the entire sensible part of society 22 . "Contemporary" felt the obligation to pay attention to this idea and give, as far as possible, expression to the general feeling. Having talked about the idea of ​​“Poverty is not a vice,” Sovremennik considered it worthwhile to say two or three words about the author’s previous works and, of course, had to say that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” was the predecessor of “Poverty is not a vice,” which, of course, no one will deny now; the idea “Don’t get into your own sleigh,” now explained for all readers by Mr. Ostrovsky’s latest comedy, could no longer be passed over in silence, as was possible before, when it had no meaning for the public, and - to the previous review of the loyalty of some people to comedy (which the analysis “Poverty is not a vice” did not even think to deny) it was necessary to add that the idea of ​​​​comedy is false.

As for the reviews of Sovremennik about Mr. Avdeev and Ms. Tour, the contradiction disappears even without any explanation - one has only to compare the supposedly contradictory reviews. “Contemporary” found Ms. Tour’s novel “The Niece” rather bad and finds the novel “Three Seasons of Life” she wrote three years later bad, without saying a word about the other works of this writer; where is the contradiction here? We do not present extracts from the last review due to its decisive uselessness for explaining the matter; Having looked at No. V of Sovremennik for this year, readers can be convinced that our review of the last novel does not say a single word about “Niece”, “Debt”, “Error” and therefore cannot in any way contradict any review of these works. It only remains to ask readers to look at the article about “The Niece” (No. I of Sovremennik for 1852): having looked at it, readers will see how much even then Sovremennik was forced to talk about the shortcomings of Madame Tour’s talent; True, this article says that there are similarities between the good sides of Madame Tour’s talent and Madame Gan’s talent and that “the brilliant hopes aroused by Madame Tour were so justified that they ceased to be hopes and became the property of our literature,” but these praises (more condescending and delicate than positive, as the whole tone of the article convinces) are far outweighed by passages like the following:

“She (Ms. Tour), regarding truths known to everyone, has a half-enthusiastic, half-instructive tone, as if she herself had just discovered them, but also this may happen. But this can also be excused. Talent, that independent talent that we talked about at the beginning of the article, in Ms. Tour or No, or very little; her talent is lyrical... unable to create independent characters and types. Ms. Tour's style is careless, her speech talkative, almost watery... It was unpleasant for us to encounter traces of rhetoric on some pages of “The Niece,” something that smelled like “Collected Exemplary Works,” some pretensions to writing, to literary decorations.” ("Contemporary", 1852,No. 1, Criticism, article by Mr. I. T.) 23 .

We ask what new things have been added to these reproaches in the review of “The Three Seasons of Life”? Absolutely nothing; Instead of accusing him of contradiction, one could rather blame the reviewer of this latest novel for being too saturated with Mr. I.T.’s article. True, the reviewer could not repeat the praise that mitigated the reproaches in Mr. I.T.’s article, but what what to do? The merits of "The Niece" faded to the point of imperceptibility, and the shortcomings developed to the extreme in "The Three Seasons of Life."

But most of all, Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the review of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Avdeev (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 2) 24 . With this review, Sovremennik became “the strangest contradiction with itself, because (we admit, this “because” is very difficult to understand) now Sovremennik says that Mr. Avdeev has a wonderful talent as a storyteller,” and before “he considered Mr. . Avdeev to our best storytellers", namely: in 1850 he said:

"In the first works of Mr. Avdeev we will find clear signs of talent We ask what new things have been added to these reproaches in the review of “The Three Seasons of Life”? Absolutely nothing; Instead of accusing him of contradiction, one could rather blame the reviewer of this latest novel for being too saturated with Mr. I.T.’s article. True, the reviewer could not repeat the praise that mitigated the reproaches in Mr. I.T.’s article, but what what to do? The merits of "The Niece" faded to the point of imperceptibility, and the shortcomings developed to the extreme in "The Three Seasons of Life."But most of all, Otechestvennye Zapiski is dissatisfied with the review of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Avdeev (Sovremennik, 1854, No. 2) 24 . With this review, Sovremennik became “the strangest contradiction with itself, because (we admit, this “because” is very difficult to understand) now Sovremennik says that Mr. Avdeev has a wonderful talent as a storyteller,” and before “he considered Mr. Avdeev to our best storytellers,” namely: in 1850 he said: “In the first works of Mr. Avdeev we will find clear signs of talent.(dosaAndd be careful! why not say "brilliant talent"? no, just "pr" signs" of it). The best proof that Mr. Avdeev is strong not only because of his ability to imitate (ah! even before 1850 they found that Mr. Avdeev was still strong only in his ability to imitate!),--served as the idyll of Mr. Avdeev “Clear Days”. This story is very sweet, there is a lot of warm, sincere feeling in it. The wonderful language in which Mr. Avdeev constantly writes is probably noticed by the readers themselves." 25

Let us ask the reader to look at the analysis, which supposedly contradicts this review - and we do not know whether readers will find, not to say, contradictions, but at least some disagreement in it with this extract from the previous review. Previously, Sovremennik ranked Mr. Avdeev among our best storytellers, but the latest review begins precisely with the words: “G. Avdeev is a dear, pleasant storyteller,” etc. of this kind; on the next page (41st) we read again: “G. Avdeev - full honor to him for this - a good, very good storyteller”; after repeated repetitions of the same phrase, the review ends with the words (p. 53): “he discovered an undoubted talent as a storyteller”... and the assumption that, subject to certain conditions, “he will give us a lot of truly beautiful things” (the very last words of the review). The previous review says that there is no imitation in "Clear Days" - and the latest review does not think to question this; the previous review does not think to deny that "Tamarin" is an imitation; and the latest review proves it; the previous review sees warmth of feeling in “Clear Days” - and the latest review does not question this in the slightest, calling the faces of this idyll “favorites” of Mr. Avdeev, people “dear” to him. It seems to us that there is not the slightest bit of contradiction in all this. It even seems to us that one can rather accuse the latest review of too scrupulously studying previous reviews, just as one can accuse the analysis of Ms. Tour’s novel “The Three Seasons of Life” of being too close in resemblance to Mr. I.T.’s article on “ To my niece."

In a word, anyone who carefully compares the reviews with which others are so dissatisfied with the previous reviews of Sovremennik will find not a contradiction between these reviews and the previous reviews, but the most common similarity in opinion between articles of the same journal. And although it would be very nice for Sovremennik to give its readers as often as possible articles distinguished by their new outlook, it must admit that this is precisely the merit that the reviews that caused displeasure are least distinguished by. And we must conclude our elementary presentation of the concepts of consistency with the answer that Otechestvennye Zapiski themselves made in their time to similar dissatisfaction against them for the supposed novelty of opinions about the meaning of various celebrities of our literature, namely: “the opinions in question are In a word, anyone who carefully compares the reviews with which others are so dissatisfied with the previous reviews of Sovremennik will find not a contradiction between these reviews and the previous reviews, but the most common similarity in opinion between articles of the same journal. And although it would be very nice for Sovremennik to give its readers as often as possible articles distinguished by their new outlook, it must admit that this is precisely the merit that the reviews that caused displeasure are least distinguished by. And we must conclude our elementary presentation of the concepts of consistency with the answer that Otechestvennye Zapiski themselves made in their time to similar dissatisfaction against them for the supposed novelty of opinions about the meaning of various celebrities of our literature, namely: “the opinions in question are"not new and not originalb 26, - especially for Sovremennik readers. How could they attract disfavor for themselves?" Is it really because they were expressed directly, without beating around the bush, omissions or reservations? Is it because, having said: “Tamarin” is an imitation,” we did not add, as usual, which takes root from a certain point time in our criticism: “however, we do not want to say that Mr. Avdeev in “Tamarin” was an imitator; we find in this novel a lot of independent and at the same time beautiful things,” etc.; Having said: “The Three Seasons of Life” is an exalted novel without any content,” they did not add: “However, there is a lot of bright and calm understanding of life in it and even more meaningful ideas, indicating that the author was not without reason thinking about a lot of things”? and Is it because they didn’t add general passages about “undoubted talents”, that the books under review “constitute a gratifying phenomenon in Russian literature”, etc. If so, then the answer to this is already ready in “Domestic notes": "In our criticism, the dominance of commonplaces, literary sycophancy of the living and the dead, hypocrisy in judgments is noticeable. They think and know one thing, but say something else." 27 Having recalled this passage, we will move on to the presentation of "the simplest and most ordinary concepts" about what criticism is and to what extent it should be evasive and can do without directness - let's move on to the doctrine of the extent to which criticism does well when, in the words of “Notes of the Fatherland,” it speaks “with a disarming voice,” even in the face of injustice, with its humility 2S.

The polemical form in our article is only a means of attracting interest in a dry and too simple subject to those who do not like dry subjects, no matter how important they may be, and consider it beneath their dignity to turn their attention, even from time to time, to thinking about simple things, constantly occupied with “living and important” questions of art (for example, about the great dignity of some dozen novel). Now we can leave this form, because the reader who has skimmed more than half of the article will probably not ignore its end. We will directly present the basic concepts that we considered necessary to recall.

Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of a literary work. Its purpose is to serve as an expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses. It goes without saying that this goal can be achieved in any satisfactory manner only with every possible care for clarity, certainty and directness. What kind of expression of public opinion is this - a mutual, dark expression? How will criticism give the opportunity to get acquainted with this opinion, to explain it to the masses, if it itself needs explanations and leaves room for misunderstandings and questions: “What do you really think, Mr. critic? But in what sense is it necessary understand what you are saying, Mr. critic? Therefore, criticism in general should, as far as possible, avoid all omissions, reservations, subtle and dark hints and all similar circumlocutions that only interfere with the directness and clarity of the matter. Russian criticism should not be like the scrupulous, subtle, evasive and empty criticism of French feuilletons; 29 this evasiveness and pettiness are not in the taste of the Russian public, and do not suit the living and clear convictions that our public quite rightly demands from criticism. The consequences of evasive and gilded phrases have always been and will be the same for us: first, these phrases mislead readers, sometimes regarding the merits of works, always regarding the magazine’s opinions about literary works; then the public loses confidence in the magazine's opinions; and therefore all our magazines, which wanted their criticism to have influence and enjoy trust, were distinguished by the directness, unwavering, intransigence (in the good sense) of their criticism, which called all things - as much as possible - by their direct names, no matter how harsh they were there were names. We consider it unnecessary to give examples: some are in everyone’s memory, others we recalled when talking about old analyzes of Pogorelsky’s works. But how should one judge the sharpness of tone? Is she good? Is it even permissible? What to answer to this? c"est selon (Depending on the circumstances (French). -- Ed. ), what is the case and what is the sharpness. Sometimes criticism cannot do without it if it wants to be worthy of the name of living criticism, which, as we know, can only be written by a living person, that is, capable of being imbued with both enthusiasm and strong indignation - feelings that, as everyone also knows, pour out not in cold and sluggish speech, not in such a way that no one feels either warm or cold from their outpouring. We again consider it unnecessary to point out examples also because we have a proverb: “whoever remembers the old is out of sight.” And for tactile proof, as sharpness of tone is sometimes necessary in live criticism, let us assume such a case (not yet one of the most important). That manner of writing, which was driven out of use by the caustic sarcasms of sensible criticism, is beginning to come into fashion again due to various reasons, among other things, and the weakening of criticism, perhaps confident that flowery idle talk cannot recover from the blows dealt to it. Here again, as in the times of Marlinsky and Polevoy, works appear, are read by the majority, are approved and encouraged by many literary judges, consisting of a set of rhetorical phrases, generated by a “captive thought by irritation” 30, unnatural exaltation, distinguished by the same cloyingness, only with a new one. quality - Shalikov’s grace, prettiness, tenderness, madrigality; even some new “Maryina Roshchi” with Usladami appear; 31 and this rhetoric, revived in its worst form, again threatens to flood literature, have a harmful effect on the taste of the majority of the public, make the majority of writers again forget about the content, about a healthy outlook on life, as the essential merits of a literary work. Having assumed such a case (and there are even more bitter ones), we ask: is criticism obliged, instead of denunciations, to write madrigals to these frail but dangerous phenomena? Or can she act in relation to new painful phenomena in the same way as in her time she acted in relation to similar phenomena, and without roundaboutness say that there is nothing good in them? Probably can't. Why not? Because “a talented author could not write a bad essay.” Was Marlinsky less talented than today's epigones? Wasn’t “Maryina Roshcha” written by Zhukovsky? Tell me, what’s good about “Maryina Roshcha”? And why can one praise a work without content or with bad content? "But it is written in good language." For good language one could forgive pitiful content when the main need of our literature was to learn to write in a language other than gibberish. Eighty years ago it was a special honor for a person to know spelling; and indeed, then whoever knew how to put the letter ѣ in place could rightly be called an educated person. But would it not be ashamed now to place the knowledge of spelling as a special merit to someone other than Mitya, brought out by Mr. Ostrovsky? 32 Writing in bad language is now a disadvantage; The ability to write well is no longer a special virtue. Let us recall the phrase we wrote in the Telegraph article about Pogorelsky: “Is it really because they glorify “The Monastery” that it is written smoothly?” 33 - and leave it to the compiler. "Memorial sheet of errors in the Russian language" the pleasant and difficult task of issuing certificates of merit for the art of writing in a satisfactory language 34 . This distribution would take up too much of the critic's time, and would also involve too much paperwork: how many feet would be required for sheets of praise if all the worthy were awarded?

Let us return, however, to the question of the harshness of reviews. Is unsweetened directness of condemnation permissible when it comes to the work of a “famous” writer? - Do you really want it to be allowed to “attack only the most complete and defenseless orphan”? Is it really possible to go into battle fully armed with weapons, with the red-hot arrows of sarcasm, against some poor Makar, on whom all the bad things are falling? If so, give your critical chair to those Gogol gentlemen who “praise Pushkin and speak with witty barbs about A. A. Orlov” 35 . - Yes, they are guilty; we began to write unclearly and unconvincingly; we have forgotten our intention to always start from the very beginning. Let's fill in the omission. Criticism worthy of its name is not written in order for Mr. Critic to flaunt his wit, not in order to give the critic the glory of a vaudeville coupletist, delighting the public with his puns. Wit, causticity, bile, if the critic possesses them, should serve him as a tool to achieve the serious goal of criticism - the development and purification of taste in the majority of his readers, should only give him a means of appropriately expressing the opinions of the best part of society. Is public opinion really interested in questions about the dignity of writers who are unknown to anyone, who are not revered by anyone as “wonderful writers”? Is the best part of society indignant that some student of Fedot Kuzmichev or A. A. Orlov wrote a new novel in four parts of fifteen pages each? Do “Love and Loyalty” or “A Terrible Place” (see the Bibliography of this book by Sovremennik), or “The Adventures of My Lord George of England” spoil the public’s taste? 36 If you want, sharpen your wit on them, but remember that in this case you are engaged in “magazine pouring from empty to empty,” and not criticism. “But the author may be upset by strict condemnation” 37 - that’s another matter; If you are a person who does not like to upset your neighbor, then do not attack anyone, because even a little-known author will be as upset as the most famous author by pointing out the shortcomings of his literary brainchild. If you think that it is impossible to say unpleasant things to someone under any circumstances, for any good, then place the finger of silence on your lips or open them then to prove that all criticism is harmful, because all criticism upsets someone. But do not rush to condemn unconditionally any criticism. Everyone will agree that the justice and benefits of literature are higher than the personal feelings of the writer. And the heat of the attack must be proportionate to the degree of harm to the taste of the public, the degree of danger, the power of influence that you are attacking. Therefore, if you have before you two novels, distinguished by false exaltation and sentimentality, and one of them bears an unknown name, and the other a name that has weight in literature, which one should you attack with greater force? To the one that is more important, that is, harmful to literature. Fast forward sixty years ago. You are a German critic. Before you lies the artistically excellent, but cloying "Hermann und Dorothea" ("Herman and Dorothea" (German).-- Ed.) Goethe and some other idyllic poem by some mediocre scribbler, quite neatly written and just as cloying as the “artistically beautiful creation” of the great poet. Which of these two poems should you attack with all your heat if you consider (like any intelligent person) sugary idealism a very harmful disease for the Germans? And which poem can you decipher in an accommodating, soft and perhaps even encouraging tone? One of them will go unnoticed, harmless, despite your compliant response; the other has been delighting the German public for fifty-seven years. You would have acted very well if, having been a German critic sixty years ago, you had poured out all the bile of indignation on this harmful poem, refused for a while to listen to the gentle suggestions of your deep respect for the name of the one who was the glory of the German people, and would not have been afraid of reproaches in impatience, in rashness, in disrespect for the great name and, having coldly and briefly said that the poem was written very well (there are hundreds of pens for this besides yours), we would attack as clearly and sharply as possible the harmful sentimentality and emptiness of its content, we tried You would like, to the best of your ability, to prove that the poem of the great Goethe is pitiful and harmful in content and direction. To speak about Goethe’s work in this way would, of course, not be easy for you: it would be bitter for you yourself to rebel against someone whom you would like to glorify forever, and many will think badly of you. But what to do? This is what your duty requires of you.

What a pathetic tone! we have forgotten that Goethe has not been found among our writers for a long time, therefore, modern Russian criticism has to talk only about such writers who are more or less close to mere mortals, and, probably, heroic determination is not at all needed in order to dare when one of them will write a bad work, call the work bad without any circumlocutions or reservations, and when someone expresses this opinion, do not be upset by his terrible audacity.

Therefore, it seems to us that if we find shortcomings, for example, in Sovremennik’s review of “The Three Seasons of Life,” then it would be necessary to show not that the famous author of this novel is above criticism, but, on the contrary, is it , that it was hardly worth talking much about such a book, which, in all likelihood, is not destined to make a splash in the public at all. And it seems to us that readers might not be entirely satisfied with our long review due to its length; they may think that it would be much better and it would be completely enough to limit oneself to two or three words, for example, at least only those written in “Domestic Notes” (in “Three Times” there is no thought, no credibility in the characters, no probability in the course of events; there is only a terrible affectation, representing everything exactly opposite to what happens in this world; an immeasurable emptiness of content dominates over all this); but Sovremennik did not at all talk about this novel because the novel itself is worth a lot of attention - it seemed to us that it deserves some attention as one of many similar affected novels, the number of which has recently multiplied very noticeably. What comes into fashion should be subject to closer examination for this very reason, even if it does not deserve it due to its essential significance. And this gives us an opportunity to regret that in recent years our literature has developed too slowly; and how significant its development was in the past within five or six years! But, tell me, how much has she come forward since the appearance of “The Niece”, “Tamarin” and especially the wonderful work of Mr. Ostrovsky “Our own people - we will be numbered”? And due to this very stagnation of literature, Sovremennik’s judgments about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour in 1854 could not differ significantly from its opinions about these writers in 1850. Literature has changed little, and the position of writers in literature has changed little.

Still, the stagnation in literature was not complete - some writers (for example, Mr. Grigorovich, with whom others continue to rank along with Mr. Avdeev, as they did before) moved forward and took a much more prominent place in literature than in 1850 ; 38 others, for example, Madame Tour, moved back even more significantly; still others, a few, like Mr. Avdeev, remained completely in the same place; Consequently, the old ranks have already been upset, new ones have formed. And now it would seem ridiculous to any reader if they began to put, for example, along with Mr. Grigorovich, Mr. Avdeev and, even more so, Ms. Tur. To some extent, the concepts of these latter have changed. And won’t (we will only talk about Mr. Avdeev), will not every reader now say that when Mr. Avdeev’s first works appeared, they should have expected much more from him than he could hitherto produce? Doesn’t everyone say that up to now he “has not yet lived up to expectations”? and five or six years have already passed, he has already written five or six stories, it would be time to justify these hopes. And if we really need to expect something better from him (the hope that we share and which we expressed in our article), then isn’t it time, isn’t it long time ago, to draw the attention of the “truly gifted” narrator to the fact that until now he more Nothing did not do to strengthen his fame? When he publishes all his works in five or six years, shouldn’t his attention be drawn to the significant shortcomings of all his works (lack of thought and the lack of accountability with which he pours out his warm feelings)? Fortunately, “he can correct these shortcomings if he pleases” (happy expression!) 39, which is why it is necessary to show them more clearly to him - this can be quite useful. Another thing is the fundamental depravity of (real or supposed?) talent - this can hardly be helped, no matter how you point out the shortcomings; That’s why in one of the three reviews (not about “Tamarin” or “Poverty is not a vice”) in question, Sovremennik did not express any hopes. But the shortcomings that plague Mr. Avdeev’s talent can disappear if he seriously wants it, because they lie not in the essence of his talent, but in the absence of those qualities necessary for the fruitful development of talent that are not given by nature, as talent is given; which are given to others by the difficult experience of life, to others by science, to others by the society in which he lives; Sovremennik tried to draw the attention of Mr. Avdeev to these conditions throughout its entire review and, as clearly as possible, expressed them at the end 40. We regret that we cannot begin to discuss them here, partly because this would mean repeating what was said very recently. But all the talk about these “simple and ordinary concepts, which are no longer discussed in any literature,” leads us to say two or three words about what “thought” is - a concept that bewilders some, of course, very few, and about which we therefore consider it sufficient to say only two or three words, without expanding on a subject so well known.

“What is “thought” in a poetic work?” How can I explain this simply and briefly? Probably everyone has noticed the difference between the people whose conversations he heard. You sit for two hours with another person - and you feel that you did not spend your time in vain; you find at the end of the conversation that you have either learned something new, or have begun to look at things more clearly, or have become more sympathetic to the good, or more keenly offended by the bad, or you feel an urge to think about something. After another conversation, nothing like this happens. You talk, it seems, for the same amount of time and, it seems, about the same subjects, only with a person of a different analysis - and you feel that you have taken absolutely nothing from his stories, it’s all the same, as if you were engaged not in a conversation with him, but blowing soap bubbles, all the same, as if he had not spoken. Is it really necessary to explain why this is so? because one interlocutor is either an educated person, or a person who has seen a lot in his life and has seen it not without benefit, an “experienced” person, or a person who has thought about something; and the other interlocutor is what is called an “empty” person. Is it really necessary to indulge in proofs and explanations that books are divided into the same two categories as conversations? Some are “empty” - sometimes at the same time inflated, - others are “non-empty”; and it is about non-empty ones that it is said that they have “thought”. We think that if it is permissible to laugh at empty people, then it is probably permissible to laugh at empty books; that if it is permissible to say: “you should not have or listen to empty conversations,” then it is probably permissible to say: “you should not write or read empty books.”

Previously, “content” was constantly required from poetic works; our current demands, unfortunately, should be much more moderate, and therefore we are ready to be satisfied even with “thought,” that is, with the very desire for content, with the breath in the book of that subjective principle from which “content” arises. However, perhaps it is necessary to explain what “content” is? But we are writing about complex issues, and learned treatises cannot do without quotations. Therefore, let us recall the words of “Notes of the Fatherland”:

“Others, perhaps, will say that these words were used in the “Bulletin of Europe”, in “Mnemosyne”, in “Athenaea” and so on, were understandable to everyone twenty years ago and did not arouse anyone’s surprise or indignation. Alas! what to do! Until now we fervently believed in moving forward, but now we have to believe in moving backwards." 41

The worst thing about this passage is that it is completely true. Therefore, we regret that “Ordinary History” and “Tamarin” or “Clear Days” did not appear twenty years ago: then we would have understood what a huge difference between these works. They would understand, of course, that at the basis of Mr. Potekhin’s drama “The Governess” (that is, “Brother and Sister”?) lies a false and affected thought, as, however, this has already been proven by Sovremennik 42.

Let us return, however, again to the “sharpness” of tone. We said that in many cases this is the only tone suitable for criticism that understands the importance of the subject and does not look coldly at literary questions. But we also said that harshness comes in different kinds, and so far we have only talked about one case - when the harshness of tone occurs because a fair thought is expressed directly and as strongly as possible, without reservations. Another thing is illegibility of words; Of course, it’s not good to allow yourself to do so, because to be rude means to forget your own dignity. We don’t think anyone could reproach us for this, because here is the harshest of the expressions emphasized for “unceremoniousness, far from fashionable”:

"Tamarin" made us expect new and better things from Mr. Avdeev, showing his ability to develop; but not one of his stories published so far can still be called the work of a thinking person."

It is unlikely that these words will be condemned by Gogol’s ladies, who say: “get by with a scarf”; 43 but in no case should anyone be “amazed” by them who immediately allows himself expressions that are much less fashionable. Yes, it is not good to be unintelligible in words; but this is still much more forgivable than allowing yourself dark hints that suspect the sincerity of the one with whom you are dissatisfied. We would not advise anyone to use them, because, precisely because of their darkness, they are attached to everything; and if, for example, Otechestvennye Zapiski hints that Sovremennik is unfair to Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour because the works of these writers are no longer published in Sovremennik, then how easy (let us refrain from other hints) to explain this a hint with the following phrase: To Otechestvennye zapiski, Sovremennik's opinions about Mr. Avdeev and Mrs. Tour seem unfair because these authors are now publishing their works in Otechestvennye zapiski. But it is better to leave all such trifles, which are decidedly ridiculous: did Otechestvennye zapiski really stop praising Mr. Benediktov because the works of this poet, which adorned the first issues of the magazine, then stopped appearing in Otechestvennye zapiski? 44 Isn’t it clear to everyone that there could be no connection between these facts, that, finally, the situation could be the other way around? Let's leave it at that. Criticism should not be a “journal squabble”; she must take up a more serious and worthy matter - the persecution of empty works and, as much as possible, exposing the internal insignificance and discord of works with false content.

And no matter in which magazine Sovremennik encounters criticism with a similar desire, it is always happy to meet it, because the need for it is really strong.

Notes

For the first time - "Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, dep. III, p. 1--24 (ts. June 30). Without a signature. The manuscript and proofs have not survived.

Chernyshevsky’s article is a detailed theoretical justification of the tasks, principles, and method of revolutionary democratic criticism, polemically directed against the “moderate”, crushing criticism of the 1850s, which, in the person of S. Dudyshkin, A. Druzhinin, V. Botkin, began the fight against literary traditions Belinsky.

The immediate reason for writing the article was S. Dudyshkin’s note “Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 6, department IV, p. 157 --162). Referring to Chernyshevsky's articles (see this volume), Dudyshkin accused him of harshness and straightforwardness in his assessments, which contradicted the magazine's previous reviews of these writers.

Chernyshevsky, redirecting the reproach of inconsistency to the reviewer of Otechestvennye Zapiski and explaining the meaning of “true criticism,” restores the current significance of Belinsky’s literary theoretical ideas and method of criticism. The very title of Chernyshevsky’s article seemed to contain a reminder of one of the most important “commandments” of Belinsky, who advocated “sincerity,” “originality,” and “independence” of critical opinions.

Chernyshevsky's article provoked fierce attacks from liberal aesthetic critics. S. Dudyshkin, repeating his previous argument about the inconsistency of Sovremennik, called Chernyshevsky’s answer “long,” “confused” and “dark” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 8, department IV, p. 91); N. Strakhov, in an unpublished letter to the editors of Sovremennik, having approved Chernyshevsky’s negative attitude towards literary criticism of the 50s, at the same time did not accept his positive program: “I do not agree with almost any of the critic’s opinions” (quoted from the work of M. G. Zeldovich “An unknown response to Chernyshevsky’s article “On sincerity in criticism.” - In the book: “N. G. Chernyshevsky. Articles, research and materials,” issue 6. 1971, p. 226). Chernyshevsky’s speech was supported. editors of Sovremennik Nekrasov and I. Panaev. The editorial announcement of the publication of the magazine in 1855 said: “We intend to follow the same path in the future, taking care at least, if it is difficult to achieve more, about the sincerity of judgments... "("Contemporary", 1854, vol. XLVII, No. 9, p. 5).

1 Quote from Chernyshevsky’s article “Complete works of Russian authors. Works of Anton Pogorelsky. Edition by A. Smirdin. Two volumes. St. Petersburg, 1853” (Chernyshevsky, vol. II, pp. 381--388).

2 We are talking about the editor of the Moscow Telegraph (1825-1834) N. A. Polev. A detailed historically specific description of N. Polevoy and his role in the history of literary criticism is given by Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855-1856).

3 3- expression of S. S. Dudyshkin (see: "Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 6, department IV, p. 157).

4 In S. Dudyshkin’s reviews (in the “Journalism” review) to D. Grigorovich’s novel “Fishermen” (1853), Chernyshevsky was obviously not satisfied with the interpretation of this work contained there as a poeticization of peasant “humility and complete reconciliation with the modest lot determined by providence” ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1853, No. 10, department V, p. 121). According to the democratic critic, the humanistic pathos of the writer’s works devoted to the depiction of peasant life, including “Fishermen,” was to affirm the moral dignity and spiritual wealth of the “commoner” (see: “Notes on magazines. August 1856.” - - Chernyshevsky, vol. III, pp. 689-691).

5 Inaccurate quote from I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Education of the Lion” (1811).

6 Quote from the review of S. Dudyshkin “Smart Woman”, the story of Mrs. T. Ch. - “Library for reading”, No. X and XI (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1853, No. 12, department V, a 134 ).

7 Quote from the review "Travel Notes. Stories by T. Ch., issue I, ed. 2, St. Petersburg, 1853" ("Notes of the Fatherland", 1854, No. 1, department V, pp. 5-6).

8 We are referring to the following reviews by S. Dudyshkin: “The Goblin,” a story by Mr. Pisemsky and four poems by Mr. Fet” (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1854, No. 2, department IV, pp. 98–101); “Poems of Messrs. Fet and Nekrasov” (ibid., No. 3, section IV, pp. 36-40); “Little things in life” by Mr. Stanitsky (ibid., No. 5, department IV, pp. 57-58).

9 Quote from the review of “Three Seasons of Life,” a novel by Evgenia Tur. 1854. Three parts" (ibid., pp. 1-8).

10 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1840” (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 435).

11 Quote from “Romance” by N. F. Pavlov (1830), set to music by Yu. A. Kop’ev in 1838. Later, music for this romance was written by V. N. Vsevolozhsky and A. N. Verstovsky.

12 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1840.” Italics by Chernyshevsky (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 437).

13 Extract from S. Dudyshkin’s note “Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev.” In it, the author refers to the article by I. S. Turgenev (I. T.) “Niece.” Roman, op. Evgenia Tour. 4 parts. Moscow, 1851" ("Sovremennik", 1852, vol. XXXI, No. 1, department III, pp. 1--14), article by V. P. Gaevsky "Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems" ("Contemporary", 1851, vol. XXV, No. 2, department III, p. 65), in which Avdeev was placed on a par with Goncharov, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev. Under The title "The History of My Childhood" ("Contemporary", 1852, vol. XXXV, No. 9) was published by L. Tolstoy's story "Childhood".

14 Obviously, “Masquerade,” which Chernyshevsky did not mention either before the appearance of the article “On Sincerity in Criticism” or later, seemed to him a kind of exception from Lermontov’s realistic work.

15 “Domestic Notes” repeatedly published highly positive reviews of Marlinsky’s works (1839, No. 1, department VII, pp. 17-18; No. 2, department VII, p. 119; No. 3, department VII, p. 7). Belinsky subjected the work of this writer to devastating criticism in the article “The Complete Works of A. Marlinsky” (1840), noting that his stories and tales are dominated by “violent passions”, “brilliant rhetorical tinsel”, “beautiful, dandy phrases” (Belinsky, vol. IV, pp. 45, 51).

16 Chernyshevsky combines into one quotation different sentences from “Notes and reflections of the New poet (I. I. Panaev) on Russian journalism. March 1853” (Sovremennik, 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No. 4, department VI, p. 262, 263, 266).

17 Chernyshevsky was wrong: his article “Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky, Moscow. 1854,” from which the quotation is given, was published in the fifth issue of Sovremennik for 1854. In the February book of Sovremennik, the article “The Novel and Stories of M. Avdeev” was published.

18 It was not I. Panaev, but M. V. Avdeev who wrote about the superiority of A. Ostrovsky’s comedy “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” in comparison with the plays of other authors from the repertoire of the Alexandria Theater in “Letters of an “empty man” to the provinces about St. Petersburg life” . "Letter Four" ("Contemporary", 1853, vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, department VI, pp. 193-203).

19 Quote from “Notes and reflections of the New Poet on Russian journalism. March 1853” (ibid., No. 4, section VII, p. 266).

20 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article “Poverty is not a vice.”

21 Chernyshevsky obviously has in mind a restrained assessment of Ostrovsky’s play “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” in his article “Poverty is not a vice” (see present volume, p. 55). See also P. N. Kudryavtsev’s review in the “Journalism” review, who defined the main idea of ​​the play as “the idea of ​​the moral superiority of the uneducated over... the educated.” However, the critic spoke with great caution about the falsity of this idea, saying that he would not want to “reproach” Ostrovsky for the rumors that his play could arouse (“Notes of the Fatherland,” 1853, No. 4, department V, p. 100 , 102, 118).

22 P. N. Kudryavtsev, objecting to A. Grigoriev and his like-minded people, called Ostrovsky’s comedy a “blunder”, “a mistake against art” and reproached the author for “the composition” and “sugaryness” of Mitya, the naturalism of Lyubim Tortsov, for the fact that “ “The most complete passivity” of Lyubov Gordeevna “is deliberately supplied as the highest ideal of female character” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 6, department IV, pp. 79-101). Actors such as M. S. Shchepkin and S. V. Shuisky were hostile to the Slavophile tendencies of the play when it was first staged at the Maly Theater (January 1854) (see: “A. N. Ostrovsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries.” M., 1966, pp. 53, 54, 117, 118). Subsequently, M. S. Shchepkin partly revised his view of the play “Poverty is not a vice” (see his letter to his son dated August 22, 1855 - In the book: T. S. Grits. M. S. Shchepkin. Chronicle of Life and creativity. M., 1966, p. 553).

23 The following words of I. S. Turgenev are meant: “... Mrs. Tur is a woman, a Russian woman... opinions, heart, voice of a Russian woman - all this is dear to us, all this is close to us... Writers we had many in Rus'; some of them had remarkable abilities, but of all of them, one... no longer alive, Ms. Gan, could challenge Ms. Tour for the advantage of the first spoken word about which we just now they mentioned. This woman really had a warm Russian heart, and experience of women’s life, and passion of convictions - and nature did not deny her those “simple and sweet” sounds in which inner life is happily expressed” (Turgenev. Works, vol. V, p. 370). In "Collection of exemplary Russian works and translations in prose", published by the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (parts 1-6, St. Petersburg, 1815-1817), works of ancient Russian literature, as well as literature from the period of classicism and romanticism, were published.

24 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article.

25 Quote from the article by V. P. Gaevsky “Review of Russian literature for 1850. Novels, stories, dramatic works, poems” (Sovremennik, 1851, vol. XXV, No. 2, department III, p. 65).

25 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1841” (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 543).

27 Quote from the same article by Belinsky (ibid.).

28 Chernyshevsky plays on the polemical expressions of S. Dudyshkin.

29 An obvious allusion to A. Druzhinin, who in “Letters from a Nonresident Subscriber” (1848-1854), targeting Belinsky, contrasted the “exclusiveness” of the opinions of “previous ponderous reports on the annual movement of Russian literature” with light “feuilleton criticism”, “living and impartial”, “capable of getting along with life”, like the criticism of French feuilletonists (“Library for Reading”, 1852, No. 12, department VII, p. 192; 1853, No. 1, department VII, p. 162).

30 Line from Lermontov’s poem “Don’t Trust Yourself” (1839).

31 24 That is, Chernyshevsky’s article.- the hero of the story by V. A. Zhukovsky “Maryina Grove - an ancient legend” (1809). Mentioning this story and the mannered, sensitive works of P. I. Shalikov, Chernyshevsky has in mind the pseudo-realistic, anti-fiction literature of the 50s (see also Chernyshevsky’s reviews of “New stories. Stories for children. Moscow, 1854”; “Countess Polina." Tale by A. Glinka. St. Petersburg, 1856" - "Contemporary", 1855, vol. L, No. 3, department IV, p. 17--24; IV, pp. 62--67).

32 25 Belinsky’s words from the article “Russian Literature in 1841” (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 543).- a character from Ostrovsky's play "Poverty is not a vice."

33 Quote from a review of “The Monastery”. Essay by Anthony Pogorelsky. Part one. St. Petersburg, 1830" ("Moscow Telegraph", 1830, No. 5, March, department "Modern bibliography", p. 94).

34 Along with the “Memorable sheet of errors in the Russian language and other inconsistencies found in the works of many Russian writers”, published in “Moskvityanin” in 1852-1854, I. Pokrovsky published in the same magazine “Memorable sheet of successful innovations in Russian language, such as: skillfully composed new words, happy expressions and figures of speech with the addition of sublime metaphors, wonderful thoughts, strikingly beautiful pictures and scenes found in the newest works of our domestic writers in the field of fine literature" ("Moskvityanin", 1854, t, 1, department VIII, pp. 37-46). Extracts from various works published in Russian periodicals (the author's name was often not mentioned) were accompanied by commendable assessments.

35 These words were used to describe its hero, Lieutenant Pirogov, in Gogol’s story “Nevsky Prospekt” (1835).

36 This refers to “Love and Loyalty, or a Terrible Minute” (1854) by V. Vasilyev, “A Terrible Place. Ukrainian fairy tale in Russian old verse” (1854) by M. S. Vladimirov. The emptiness of content, the melodrama of these pseudo-fictional works of “unknown” authors were subjected to devastating criticism on the pages of Sovremennik (1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, department IV, pp. 20-21). “The Tale of the Adventure of the English Mylord Georg and the Brandenburg Margravine Frederick Louise” (St. Petersburg, 1782) - an essay by Matvey Komarov, a popular popular print book.

37 Chernyshevsky plays on Belinsky’s polemical expressions from his article “Russian Literature in 1841,” where for the first time the principle of historicism in the analysis of literary phenomena is substantiated as the main criterion for impartial “true criticism.” “Of course,” wrote Belinsky, “then many “immortals” will completely die, 36 This refers to “Love and Loyalty, or a Terrible Minute” (1854) by V. Vasilyev, “A Terrible Place. Ukrainian fairy tale in Russian old verse” (1854) by M. S. Vladimirov. The emptiness of content, the melodrama of these pseudo works of art “unknown” authors were subjected to devastating criticism on the pages of Sovremennik (1854, vol. XLVI, No. 7, department IV, pp. 20-21). “The Tale of the Adventure of the English Mylord Georg and the Brandenburg Margravine Frederick Louise” (St. Petersburg, 1782) - an essay by Matvey Komarov, a popular popular print book. 37 Chernyshevsky plays on Belinsky’s polemical expressions from his article “Russian Literature in 1841,” where for the first time the principle of historicism in the analysis of literary phenomena is substantiated as the main criterion for impartial “true criticism.” “Of course,” wrote Belinsky, “then many “immortals” will completely die, great the famous are insignificant; many treasures will turn into trash; but on the other hand, the truly beautiful will come into its own, and the pouring from empty to empty with rhetorical phrases and commonplaces - an activity, of course, harmless and innocent, but empty and vulgar - will be replaced by judgment and thinking... But this requires tolerance for opinions , room for belief is needed. Everyone judges as best he can and as best he can; a mistake is not a crime, and an unfair opinion is not an insult to the author" (Belinsky, vol. V, p. 544).

38 In the 50s, Chernyshevsky spoke with constant approval of D. Grigorovich as one of the “gifted writers” of the “natural school” who were “educated by the influence of Belinsky” (“Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature.” - Chernyshevsky, vol. III , pp. 19, 96, 103, 223). Positively assessing Grigorovich's stories of the 40s ("Village", "Anton Goremyka"), Chernyshevsky also noted in the novels "Fishermen" (1853), "Migrants" (1855-1856), the story "Plowman" (1853), and also in his other works of these years there is “living thought”, “real knowledge of people’s life and love for the people” (“Notes on magazines. August 1856”). See also note. 4 to present Art.

39 Chernyshevsky paraphrases the words of the reviewer of “Notes of the Fatherland” about E. Tur’s novel “Three Times of Life.” See above, note. 9.

40 See present. t., p. 25--39.

41 Inaccurate quote from Belinsky’s article “Russian Literature in 1840.” From Belinsky: “... until now we fervently believed in progress as a move forward, but now we have to believe in progress as a backward movement back...” (Belinsky, vol. IV, p. 438).

42 Chernyshevsky argues with S. Dudyshkin, who wrote: “The idea underlying Mr. Potekhin’s drama “Brother and Sister” is beautiful, although it will be called ideal” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1854, No. 4, department IV, p. 88). In almost the same words, certifying this play, the main character of which is a governess, in another article, “Critical reviews of Sovremennik about the works of Mr. Ostrovsky, Mrs. Evgenia Tur and Mr. Avdeev,” Dudyshkin mistakenly calls the drama itself - "Governess". "Contemporary" responded to Potekhin's play with Chernyshevsky's article "Poverty is not a vice" by Ostrovsky.

43 Expression from “Dead Souls” (1842) by Gogol.

44 In “Notes of the Fatherland,” V. Benediktov’s poems were published only in Nos. 1 and 2 for 1839 (“Italy,” “Renewal,” “Tears and Sounds”). On the pages of these and subsequent issues of the magazine, criticism sympathetically noted in his poetry “deep feeling and thought” (“Notes of the Fatherland”, 1839, No. 1, department VII, pp. 14-15; No. 2, department VII, p. 5; No. 3, section VII, p. 6). The position of "Domestic Notes" in relation to Benediktov changed with the arrival of Belinsky to the magazine (in August 1839), who, back in "Telescope", in the article "Poems of Vladimir Benediktov" (1835), characterized his work as the embodiment of pretentiousness, far-fetchedness, rhetoric.

Here Chernyshevsky was the only exile and could only communicate with the gendarmes and the local Yakut population; correspondence was difficult and often deliberately delayed. Only in 1883, under Alexander III, Chernyshevsky was allowed to move to Astrakhan. The sudden change in climate greatly damaged his health.

The years of fortress, hard labor and exile (1862-1883) did not lead to the oblivion of the name and works of Chernyshevsky - his fame as a thinker and revolutionary grew. Upon arrival in Astrakhan, Chernyshevsky hoped to return to active literary activity, but the publication of his works, albeit under a pseudonym, was difficult. In June 1889, Chernyshevsky received permission to return to his homeland, Saratov. He made big plans, despite his rapidly deteriorating health. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage and was buried in Saratov.

On July 7, 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested. The reason for the arrest was a letter from Herzen and Ogarev intercepted at the border, in which it was proposed to publish Sovremennik in London or Geneva. On the same day, Chernyshevsky became a prisoner of the Alekseevsky ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he remained until the verdict was pronounced - civil execution, which took place on May 19, 1864 on Mytninskaya Square. He was deprived of all rights of the estate and sentenced to 14 years of hard labor in the mines, followed by settlement in Siberia. Alexander II reduced the term of hard labor to 7 years. The trial in the Chernyshevsky case dragged on for a very long time due to the lack of direct evidence.

In an atmosphere of growing post-reform reaction, the attention of the III Department is increasingly attracted by the activities of Chernyshevsky. Since the fall of 1861, he was under police surveillance. But Chernyshevsky was a skilled conspirator; nothing suspicious was found in his papers. In June 1862, the publication of Sovremennik was banned for 8 months.

Composition

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

In the article “On Sincerity in Criticism” (1854) and some other works, Chernyshevsky outlined his critical code, continuing Belinsky’s “Speech on Criticism”: he ridiculed “evasive” criticism and developed his understanding of “direct”, principled, highly ideological, progressive criticism. Chernyshevsky also acted as a critic of the current modern literature. But, having made a number of remarkable successes in this area, among which the greatest was the discovery of L. Tolstoy as a writer, he took up other economic problems that were no less important at that time, entrusting the department of criticism in Sovremennik to Dobrolyubov.

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

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

Chernyshevsky comprehensively analyzed the basic formula of idealistic aesthetics: “The beautiful is perfect correspondence, perfect identity of the idea with the image”1. This formula was born in the bosom of idealist aesthetics, mainly the Hegelian school, and follows from the following idealist thesis: the whole world is the embodiment of an absolute idea, the idea in its development goes through a number of stages, the field of spiritual activity is subject to the law of ascent from direct contemplation to pure thinking. According to Hegel, art is the naive stage of contemplation, then comes religion, and the most mature stage of spiritual activity is philosophy. The beautiful is the sphere of art; it is the result of the apparent identity of the idea and the image, their complete coincidence in separate subject. In fact, idealists say, an idea can never be embodied in a separate object, but the illusion itself ennobles the object so much that it looks beautiful. At the next stages of cognition, the idea leaves the concrete image, and for developed thinking there is not illusory beauty, but only authentic truth. For pure thinking there is no beauty; beauty is even humiliating for it. Pure thinking is an idea adequate to itself, not resorting to the help of images of base empiricism in order to appear to the world.

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

Chernyshevsky clearly sympathizes with those ideas about beauty that were developed by the naive consciousness of the working peasantry, but complements them with ideas about the “mind and heart” that take shape in the enlightened consciousness of leaders of the revolutionary democratic trend. As a result of the merger of these two principles, Chernyshevsky’s position on the beautiful received a materialistic and democratic interpretation. Idealists introduced the categories of the sublime, comic, and tragic into their doctrine of beauty. Chernyshevsky also paid great attention to them. In idealistic aesthetics, the concept of the tragic was combined with the concept of fate. Fate appeared in the form of the existing order of things (which corresponded to the concept of a social system), and the subject or hero, active and strong-willed by nature, violated this order, encountered it, suffered and died. But his work, cleared of individual limitations, did not disappear; it entered as a component element into universal life.

In all these positions of idealism, Chernyshevsky brilliantly revealed the protective tendency inherent in them. He refuted the fatalism of the theory tragic fate hero not only as a revolutionary democrat, but also as a dialectician, a consistent realist. He also proceeded from the fact that the tragic is connected with the struggle of the hero and the environment. “Is this struggle always tragic?” asked Chernyshevsky and answered: “Not at all; sometimes tragic, sometimes not tragic, as it happens.”1 There is no fatalistic effect of fate, but only a concatenation of causes and a relationship of forces. If the hero realizes that he is right, then even a difficult struggle is not suffering, but pleasure. Such a struggle is only dramatic. And if you take the necessary precautions, then this struggle almost always ends happily. This statement conveys the optimism of a true revolutionary fighter.

Chernyshevsky correctly pointed out that “the sphere of art should not be limited to the beautiful”, that “what is generally interesting in life is the content of art”1. Idealists clearly confused the formal principle of art - the unity of idea and image as a condition for the perfection of a work - with the content of art.

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

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

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