A. Dmitrieva

Part III

Fighting for the creation of a party of the people in literature, for writers to consciously serve the interests of the people, Dobrolyubov was deprived of any sectarianism, narrowness, which his ideological opponents so often tried to accuse him of. He did not impose anything on art. With deep interest he approached each talented work, he knew how to reveal the originality of the writer's talent, his view of the world.

How subtly and penetratingly Dobrolyubov showed, for example, the features of Goncharov the artist! In the works of Goncharov, he wrote, there is little action, no intrigue, no external obstacles. We will not find an expression of the feelings of the author himself: he does not care about the readers, about the conclusions that will be drawn from the novel. But "he has an amazing ability - at any given moment to stop the volatile phenomenon of life, in all its fullness and freshness, and keep it in front of him until it becomes the full property of the artist." Goncharov is characterized by the completeness of the poetic worldview, "the ability to embrace full image object, to mint, to sculpt it - hence the love for details and "an unusually subtle and deep mental analysis." The writer will not lag behind the phenomenon, "not tracing it to the end, not finding its causes, not understanding its connection with all the surrounding phenomena."

It was this property of the writer's talent that helped him raise the image of Oblomov to a type, determine its generic and permanent meaning, and thereby reveal social entity Oblomovism. Dobrolyubov wrote that there is no need to present Goncharov with a demand for a different, less calm attitude towards reality - his attitude to life facts is revealed from their very depiction.

Turgenev's talent is in many respects the opposite of Goncharov's, he has a deep lyricism. The writer talks about his heroes as about people close to him, he “watches them with tender participation, with painful trepidation, he himself suffers and rejoices along with the faces he created, he himself is carried away by the poetic atmosphere that he always loves to surround them ... And his enthusiasm is contagious: it irresistibly seizes the reader's sympathy, from the first page rivets his thought and feeling to the story, makes him experience, re-feel those moments in which Turgenev's faces appear before him" (258).

This lyricism, together with another remarkable feature of the writer's talent - the ability to "immediately respond to every noble thought and honest feeling that is just beginning to penetrate the minds of the best people" - determined the range of problems that Turgenev addressed: a hero who is at odds with society , revealed in him primarily in the sphere of feelings; writer created poetry female images, he is "a singer of pure, ideal female love." Understanding these features of Turgenev's talent helped Dobrolyubov to reveal the social significance of the artist's works, something new and fruitful that appeared in his work under the influence of a new movement in society.

Speech in the literary field of Ostrovsky immediately caused a lot of articles. critics various directions sought to present the playwright as an exponent of the ideas of their camp. Dobrolyubov did not impose any abstract theories on Ostrovsky, he compared his creations with life itself - and this allowed him not only to expose the dark kingdom of autocratic-feudal Russia, but also to astutely determine the most important features of the playwright's talent: his moral pathos, close attention to the victims of social evil, to personalities a man crushed by tyranny, and hence a deep attention to the inner world of the characters: Ostrovsky is characterized by "the ability to notice nature, to penetrate into the depths of a person's soul, to catch his feelings, regardless of the image of his external, official relations" (311).

Dobrolyubov shows the inconsistency of Ostrovsky's critics, who stated that the endings of his comedies are random, and there is no logical harmony and consistency in the composition. In this freedom of the playwright from the dilapidated canons of various piitiks, from the "old stage routine", he sees true innovation: the very depiction of the life of tyrants, where there is no logic, no moral laws, requires "lack of logical sequence."

One of Dostoevsky's fierce critics was Dostoevsky, who in his article "G.-bov and the question of art" ("Time", 1861, No. 2) accused him of being "utilitarian", of neglecting artistry. Dostoevsky wrote that works of art affect the reader with their beauty, which gives "harmony and tranquility" to a person, especially when he is at odds with reality. In the article "The Downtrodden People", analyzing in detail the works of Dostoevsky, two types of his heroes - meek, downtrodden, submissive, and - fierce, desperate - the critic highlights the characteristic features of the writer's worldview - pain for a humiliated person, turned into rags due to "wild, unnatural relations" reigning in society. The artistry of the writer's works, contrary to false theories, manifested itself not in pacifying beauty, but in the merciless truth of the images, in his "highly humane ideal."

Dobrolyubov deeply despised criticism, "wandering in synthetic fogs", as well as criticism, "which approaches the authors, as if they were peasants brought into the presence of a recruit, with a uniform measure, and shouts "forehead!", then "back of the head!" according to whether the recruit fits the measure or not,” that is, whether his creation meets the “eternal laws of art printed in textbooks.” He understood artistry not as decoration of scenes, details, not as external picturesqueness. He deeply and penetratingly analyzed the most important thing in works of art - types, human characters And circumstances, in which they operate. And this invariably gave its fruitful results: Dobrolyubov saw and revealed the greatest achievement of the art of realism - the ability to reveal the social and historical conditioning of a person's character.

The critic spoke of the significance of the outstanding phenomena of literature for the social struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, and at the same time showed their eternal and enduring content, the new that they introduced into the development of art itself, posed and solved great aesthetic problems.

One of the most important problems of aesthetics is the problem of typing. The reflection of reality in art is not a mechanical process, it presupposes the active work of the artist's consciousness, which generalizes life's phenomena. “An artist,” writes Dobrolyubov, “is not a plate for photography, reflecting only currently: then there would be no meaning in works of art and life. The artist supplements the fragmentary nature of the captured moment with his creative feeling, generalizes particular phenomena in his soul, creates one harmonious whole from disparate features, finds a living connection and sequence in seemingly incoherent phenomena, merges and processes in the community of his worldview the diverse and contradictory aspects of living reality" (686).

To be truthful, to be true to his talent, the writer must penetrate deeply into the essence of life. To do this, firstly, he must turn his talent to vital objects, and secondly, to catch the development trend public life, to see what dies in it and what is born is a necessary property of typification, only this will determine the completeness and comprehensiveness of the picture of reality, a correct view of it. The critic's idea boils down to the fact that in a truly great art realism and idealism are necessarily united, because the truth of the image in itself is "a necessary condition, and not yet the dignity of a work.

We judge the dignity by the breadth of the author's view, the fidelity of understanding and the liveliness of the image of those phenomena that he touched" (628--629),

Dobrolyubov attached great importance to the general convictions and sympathies of the writer, which are manifested in the entire figurative structure of his works and act as worldview. The worldview of the artist is his own view of the world, which is developed in the process artistic knowledge reality and contradicts "partiality" - false ideas, narrow views, assimilated by education, taken for granted.

Worldview is by no means some spontaneous property of talent, completely independent of the subjective principle, of the personality of the artist. On the contrary, it is the result of activity, his knowledge, creative will, deep penetration into life. Dobrolyubov speaks of Goncharov's careful study of life types, of Turgenev's types, "to the subtlety studied and lively heartfelt author", about Ostrovsky's ability to see and pursue tyranny in all its forms and forms ... In works of art, the critic emphasizes, we see a phenomenon taken from life itself, but "clarified in the mind of the artist and placed in positions that enable it to manifest itself more fully and more decisively than is the case in most cases of ordinary life" (655).

When Dobrolyubov remarks that among strong talents "sometimes from a simple statement of facts and relations made by an artist, their solution follows by itself," he does not mean the writer's passivity, thoughtlessness. The worldview is formed under the influence of the developing reality and means the artist's involvement in the progressive movement of time. It turns out this is because, knowing life, studying it, the writer penetrates into its needs, reflects the overdue ideas of social development. Unlike false, abstract ideas imposed on reality, contradicting it and therefore hostile to art, progressive ideas naturally follow "from the existing facts of life." These ideas are not introduced artificially into the work, but help the artist to reflect social relations more fully and deeply - not from any narrow, false, but from a universal, fair, that is, people's point of view - this is how Dobrolyubov asserts the connection between the ideological nature of art and its nationality.

The artist's worldview is not just a reflection of life, but a reflection of it from the point of view of "human truth." Dobrolyubov shows that this is precisely what allowed Ostrovsky, for example, to base his plays on the motive of "the unnaturalness of social relations, which occurs as a result of the tyranny of some and the lack of rights of others." This is what allowed Dostoevsky, who preached patience and humility, to discover in his downtrodden, lost heroes "the never-suppressed aspirations and needs of human nature", to take out "the protest of the personality hidden in the very depths of the soul against external violent oppression" and present it to judgment and sympathy. reader. These goals and objectives are not always clearly understood by the artist, they follow from the very development of life. Cognizing and reflecting life, the writer discovers such aspects and patterns of it, of which a progressive idea associated with progressive historical development, "flows by itself".

Introducing the concept of "world outlook", Dobrolyubov clearly expresses that feature of truly realistic creativity, which the artists of the word themselves spoke about - Pushkin, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy and others. Turgenev, for example, wrote about "Fathers and Sons": "To accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life - is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies" (I. S. Turgenev, Sobr. soch., Goslitizdat, M. 1956, v. 10, p. 349.).

Dobrolyubov wrote that false ideas and views fetter the writer's work, prevent him from freely indulging in the suggestions of his artistic nature. This can be seen in the plays of Ostrovsky during his fascination with Slavophilism: the author, sometimes misunderstanding the connection of the phenomena he depicted, sought to elevate persons to a general type, which in reality had "very private and petty significance", and with this false look at the hero harmed his works. Since any one-sidedness and exclusivity interferes with the true observance of the truth, the artist "must ... save himself from one-sidedness by the possible expansion of his view, by assimilating for himself those general concepts that have been developed by people who reason." Dobrolyubov connects the implementation of the nationality of literature with the breadth of the writer's worldview, with the reflection of advanced ideas in his work.

The main progressive idea of ​​that time was the idea of ​​the complete failure of serfdom and "all its offspring". It arose not in literature, Dobrolyubov said, not in the minds of progressive figures, but from the very course of social life. But literature, reflecting it, picking it up, distributing and promoting it with its own inherent means, in turn, influences the further development of society.

Dobrolyubov could not fully give a scientific explanation of the origin and role of ideas, he did not even reach the understanding of the class conditionality of the artist’s worldview, but he saw the opposition and struggle of the ideas of the exploiters and workers, he also saw that ideas do not arise as a result of the artist’s purely speculative activity, but from the practical, material needs of society and play an active role in its development. This determined the strength and depth of his analysis.

In his articles "What is Oblomovism?" (1859), "The Dark Kingdom" (1859), "When will the real day come?" (1860), "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" (1860), "The Downtrodden People" (1861), analyzing wonderful works contemporary literature, the critic showed that the penetration by means of art into the essence of life, into its main conflicts, leads to the fact that even writers who are far from the revolutionary worldview overcome false ideas, the prejudices of their class and, truthfully depicting life, act as impartial judges of everything, that has outlived its time...

Time itself, the progressive process of history, is on the side of the people. Reflecting the urgent needs of social development, writers thereby participate in the struggle for people's happiness and at the same time realize their creative potential, enrich the art of realism.

Under the specific conditions of that time, the camp of revolutionary democracy put forward the task of educating public figures of a new type, heroes of the people's struggle. The question of the hero in life and in literature caused heated debate. Chernyshevsky, in his article "A Russian Man on Rendez-Vous" (1858), debunked the image of a "superfluous man", showing that these people, who showed their pettiness in the realm of feelings, in love for a woman, are also untenable in public sense"You can't expect them to improve their lives." The “superfluous person” is an imaginary hero who “retreats from everything that requires determination and a noble risk,” because the very circumstances of life instill in him selfishness, selfishness, and inability to do real work. This article was not only an angry debunking of liberalism, but also raised the most important question for literature about the positive hero of the time.

The liberal P. Annenkov opposed Chernyshevsky with the article "The Literary Type of a Weak Man" (1858). "Is the spineless man of the era as weak and insignificant as they say about him, and where to look for the type opposite to him, who, according to the highest moral character would he be worthy of replacing him?" (P. V. Annenkov, Memoirs and Critical Essays. Section Two, St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 153.) - Annenkov asked. The so-called "strong characters," he said, - - these are burmisters, tyrants of Ostrovsky, Shchedrin's officials, Aksakov's patriarchal landowners, and when you look at them enough, "the need to return to the circle of the" weak "to refresh thoughts and feelings becomes irresistible, passionate. "Weak man, - concluded Annenkov, - there is "the only moral type both in contemporary life and in its reflection - current literature". It was this person and no one else, he believed, that still had a lot to do for Russian society. That is why it is necessary to treat him with care and participation and not make exorbitant demands, because "in the properties of our character and the warehouse of our life there is nothing resembling a heroic element" (Ibid., pp. 167-168.).

Dobrolyubov maliciously ridiculed this "weak hero", who in modern times has lost all halo of heroism and was already perceived as a fragment of former eras. In contrast to P. Annenkov, he saw the need for the birth of a new, strong, real hero. In different strata of society, discontent is rising, the spirit of protest is rising - and writers, expanding the scope of reality available artistic reflection, show not only the failure of the former heroes who remained aloof from public affairs, but also the birth of the heroic from life itself.

The true and imaginary hero, his relation to reality, the ways of his depiction, typification - Dobrolyubov devoted a lot of attention to these problems. great attention, and his conclusions are instructive for our day. Literary heroes, he pointed out, are not the product of the writer's fantasy, but are taken from life itself and, depending on its movement, change, receive a new meaning, and, consequently, a new assessment on the part of the artist. Dobrolyubov traces the development of the type of "superfluous person" in Russian literature and comes to the conclusion: "Over time, as the conscious development of society, this type changed its forms, took on different attitudes to life, acquired a new meaning. Notice these new phases of its existence , to determine the essence of its new meaning - this has always been an enormous task, and the talent that was able to do this has always made a significant step forward in the history of our literature" (263).

The writer, recreating a true picture of reality, trying to present his hero in all its fullness and artistic persuasiveness, cannot but think about the essence of certain life types, about their connection with each other, about their significance in society.

In an article about Shchedrin's "Provincial Essays" (1857), recalling the beginning of the discussion of the proposed reforms, the energetic exclamations of the champions of progress, the calls to save Rus' from internal evil, the critic says that this atmosphere of general ferment and expectations gave rise to hope - new figures entered the public arena , true heroes. "But two years have passed, and although nothing particularly important has happened in these years, social aspirations now appear far from the same form as before." Everyone saw that the enthusiastic cries of home-grown progressives are worth little, because they do not produce any practical results. And the heroes themselves, from whom great deeds were expected, became very dim: “It turns out that ... many of the people who warmly welcomed the dawn of a new life suddenly wanted to wait for noon and decided to sleep until then; what else most of people who blessed the deeds, suddenly humbled and hid when she saw that the deeds must be performed not on words alone, that real labors and donations are needed here" (128).

Shchedrin - and in this, first of all, Dobrolyubov sees his merit as an artist, in this the strength of his talent, deeply in tune with modernity, was manifested - debunked these would-be progressives, subjected them to merciless satirical ridicule, creating various types talented natures, in which "the dominant character of our society is quite clearly expressed."

We know that Shchedrin is a writer with a conscious revolutionary ideal, a merciless enemy of liberal verbiage.

However, Dobrolyubov in many of his works shows that other writers, in another creative manner, but sometimes no less vividly captured the changes in public life, passing judgment on the old, obsolete, sensitively noticing the birth of the new. Attention to life, to the new in it - this, according to Dobrolyubov, is the first and indispensable sign of talent.

The appearance of a new type in literature becomes possible only when this type arises in life itself, when, at least in some, the most advanced part of society, the consciousness matures that the old heroes are already lagging behind life, cannot serve as a real example for readers. And works of literature will be the more valuable and truthful, the more they will have an impact, the sooner the artist notices these thosendentia social development, will see the features of a new, progressive movement, will give us the opportunity to be present at the very birth of a new hero, when the decline of the old idols has just begun.

In the article "What is Oblomovism?" Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Goncharov's novel not only for the fact that it passes a merciless verdict on the old, already obsolete serf relations, but also for the fact that in it shows the evolution of a once lofty and noble hero, a "superfluous person" who did not find real activity for himself, ruined by the environment. In the new conditions, when the possibility of a "terrible mortal struggle" with hostile circumstances is close at hand, when the people themselves "realized the need for a real cause," this hero appears in a new light.

"Superfluous people," says Dobrolyubov, "not seeing a goal in life, had, despite this, high authority in the eyes of the reader, because they were advanced people standing far above their environment. The very possibility of broad practical work was not yet open to them, it had not yet matured in society.

Now it's not the same. A new generation is waiting for heroes real deIvalue. It will no longer listen with love and reverence to endless speeches about dissatisfaction with life and the need to act. These speeches in the new conditions cannot but be perceived as apathy of thought and soul, as moral Oblomovism. And the modern type of the well-intentioned liberal, with his deceit and idle talk, is involuntarily associated in the mind of the reader with the heroes of former times - "superfluous people." Now, from the vantage point of modern times, one can see that the features of Oblomovism were always in embryo in the character of superfluous people - after all, these seemingly strong natures so often showed failure in the face of hostile circumstances and retreated whenever it was necessary to make a firm step in life. , a decisive step - whether it concerned their relationship to society or the field of feelings - their relationship to the woman they love.

Goncharov's talent, the breadth of his views were reflected in the fact that he felt this breath of a new life. Dobrolyubov calls the creation of the Oblomov type "a sign of the times", and main merit sees its author in the fact that he caught in advanced Russian society a different attitude towards life type which appeared thirty years ago. Oblomov's history "reflected Russian life, it presents us with a living, modern Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness; a new word of our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with complete consciousness of truth. Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov's novel a much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have about him" (262).

In the public consciousness, this transformation of the "superfluous person" into Oblomov has not yet taken place, Dobrolyubov points out, the process has only just begun. But it is here that the great property and great significance of true art comes into play - to catch a progressive movement, an idea that has only just begun to emerge and will be realized in the future. Having debunked, brought the former hero from a high pedestal to a soft Oblomov sofa, directly posing the question: what is he doing? What is the meaning and purpose of his life? - the artist thereby put the entire meaning of his work and important question about what a modern hero should be like.

True, the artist’s limited worldview was also reflected in the novel: who knew how to understand Oblomovism so deeply and so vividly show Oblomovism, he “could not, however, not pay tribute to the general delusion, Oblomovism and the past, having decided to bury it.”

The image of Stolz, through whose mouth Goncharov buries Oblomovism and in whose person he wanted to show an active progressive hero, lacks persuasiveness, he lacks life's typical features. Dobrolyubov explains this by the fact that the artist here seeks to wishful thinking, runs too far ahead of life, because such active, active heroes, whose thought immediately turns into action, is not yet among the educated Russian society. Stolz cannot satisfy the reader from the point of view of his social ideals either. In his businesslike practicality, he is narrow, he does not need anything but his own happiness, he "calmed down from all the aspirations and needs that even Oblomov overcame."

The critic sees a hint of a new Russian life, of an active Russian character in the image of Olga Ilyinskaya. Her naturalness, courage and simplicity, the harmony of her mind and heart are manifested so far only in the realm of feeling, in active love. She tries to bring Oblomov out of his hibernation, to revive him morally, and when she is convinced of his complete passivity, she resolutely and directly rejects the sleepy Oblomov kingdom. She is constantly worried about some questions and doubts, she strives for something, although she still does not know well what exactly. The author did not reveal to us these unrest in all their fullness, says the critic, but there is no doubt that they are an echo of a new life, to which Olga is "incomparably closer to Stolz."

Dobrolyubov also sees the features of the new Russian character in the heroine of the novel "On the Eve" - ​​Elena. The critic most appreciated the writer's ability to reveal thirst for activity in his heroine. This is not the activity itself, because Russian reality did not yet provide material for such an image, it would not have turned out to be a living person, but a dry scheme: Elena “would have turned out to be a stranger to Russian society,” and the social significance of the image would be equal to zero. themselves search, herself uncertainty images of the heroine, her dissatisfaction with the present here are surprisingly true, they cannot but cause deep reflections of the reader and will play much big role in the active influence of literature on society, than the image of an ideal hero, artificially "composed of the best features developing in our society."

Turgenev, an artist extremely sensitive to the burning issues of our time, under the influence of the natural course of social life, "to which the very thought and imagination of the author involuntarily obeyed," saw that his former heroes - "superfluous people" could no longer serve as a positive ideal, and made an attempt show the leading hero of modern times - Insarov, a fighter for the liberation of his homeland from foreign enslavers. The greatness and holiness of the idea of ​​patriotism penetrates Insarov's entire being. Not the outward command of duty, not the renunciation of oneself, as was the case with the former heroes. Love for the motherland for Insarov is life itself, and this cannot but bribe the reader.

And yet, Dobrolyubov did not consider this image a complete artistic success: if in Stolz Goncharov depicted activity without ideals, then Insarov is an ideological hero without activity. He is not placed "face to face with the cause itself - with the parties, with the people, with a foreign government, with his like-minded people, with the enemy force" (464). True, Dobrolyubov says, this was not part of the author's intention, and, judging by his previous works, he could not have shown such a hero. But the very possibility of creating epics of folk life and character public actionela the critic saw precisely in the depiction of the struggle of the people, as well as the best representatives an educated society that defends the interests of the people. The new hero will bear little resemblance to the former, inactive one. And literature was faced with the task of finding ways to depict not only the new hero, but also the former ones - because their social role had changed, and from a progressive force they turned into a force that hindered social development.

Belinsky wrote about Eugene Onegin: "You can do something only in society, on the basis of social needs, indicated by reality itself, and not by theory. But what would Onegin do in a community with such wonderful neighbors, in the circle of such dear neighbors?" (V. G. Belinsky, Poln. sobr. soch., v. XII, p. 101.). The very rise of the hero above the environment was already a sign of his positivity, exclusivity. In modern times, such passive superiority was not enough. The motif of the suffering hero and his environment, which was so widespread in literature, could no longer satisfy the requirements of art itself.

In the article "Good intention and activity" (1860), devoted to the analysis of Pleshcheev's stories, Dobrolyubov analyzes this issue in detail. The depiction of the environment is "a good and very strong motif for art," he writes. But the writers here have a lot of reticence and abstraction - if the suffering of the hero is depicted in full and in detail, then his relationship to the environment raises many questions: what is this hero trying to achieve? What is the strength of the environment based on? What eats the hero and why does he allow himself to be eaten? And, having penetrated into the essence of the matter, the artist discovers that these heroes are vitally connected with the environment, have experienced its vicious influence: they are internally powerless, completely inactive. These heroes have no right to our sympathy. They cannot continue to be drawn with romantic pathos, in an aura of suffering. Such a hero, like the environment itself, is "a subject for the most merciless satire." The critic considers the author's "negative, mocking attitude" to the "Platonic liberalism and nobility" of his heroes to be the main advantage of Pleshcheev's works.

Future talented writers, says Dobrolyubov, "will give us heroes with healthier content." These heroes grow in life itself, although they have not yet decided in all their integrity and completeness. But the question of them has already been raised by reality itself, and the best writers have sensitively reflected this social need. Soon, very soon, real heroes will appear in Russian life and literature - revolutionary figures, the Russian Insarovs, who have a difficult and holy task ahead of them - the liberation of their homeland from the internal Turks.

And a sure guarantee of this is the fact that the features of the new hero are manifested not only among the educated class, but in all strata of society, because the whole of people's Russia is already rising against the old order.

Dobrolyubov highly appreciated the importance of Ostrovsky's realism and especially the image of Katerina from The Thunderstorm. The playwright was able to "depict the essential aspects and demands of Russian life in a very complete and multifaceted way," to show the aspirations that had already awakened among the people. And here, too, the critic notes that Ostrovsky "found the essence general requirements life at a time when they were hidden and expressed by very few and very weakly.

Wild merchant world tyrants, presented by Ostrovsky, as in a drop of water reflects the entire "dark kingdom" of autocratic-feudal Russia, where arbitrariness reigns, "powerless arbitrariness of some over others", where individual rights are destroyed. But "life is not already completely absorbed by their influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, legal, correct order of affairs." And that is what makes it possible for the artist satirical image petty tyrants: they already cause "laughter and contempt".

In depicting the senseless influence of tyranny on family and public life Dobrolyubov sees the basis of Ostrovsky's comedy. The writer reveals to us that “this tyranny is powerless and decrepit in itself, that there is no moral power in it, but its influence is terrible because, being itself meaningless and powerless, it distorts common sense and the concept of law in all who come into contact with him" (348). However, the artist shows - and this is the revolutionary meaning and deep truth of his works - that the very intolerance of oppression gives rise to and strengthens the protest against unnatural relations, and this protest comes out, it can no longer be suppressed at its very inception. Thus, says Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky expressed the idea that matured in society about the illegality of tyranny, and most importantly, he created a strong, integral folk character, which "had long demanded its implementation in literature," which "corresponds to a new phase of folk life."

In characters goodies, according to Dobrolyubov, there should be organicity, integrity, simplicity, which are due to the naturalness of their aspirations for a new life. He finds these features in Olga, Elena. With a special, irresistible force, they manifested themselves in Katerina. And this is natural. Katerina's strength is in her "complete opposition to any self-impossible beginnings." Here everything is alien to her, her inwardly free nature requires will, happiness, spaciousness of life. Not abstract ideals and beliefs, but everyday life facts, disenfranchised, materially dependent existence make her strive for something new. That is why her desire for freedom is so organic and so strong: freedom is dearer to her than life. This is a heroic, courageous character, such people, if necessary, will survive in the fight, you can rely on them.

Katerina’s spontaneous, unconscious protest is much more precious to Dobrolyubov than the “bright speeches of lofty orators of truth,” who shout about their selflessness, about “renouncing themselves for a great idea,” and end up in complete humility before evil, because, they say, the fight against it "still too hopeless." In Katerina, the playwright managed to "create such a person who serves as a representative of a great national idea, without carrying great ideas either in his tongue or in his head, selflessly goes to the end in an unequal struggle and perishes, without dooming himself to high self-sacrifice."

Dobrolyubov speaks about the breadth of the writer's worldview, which makes his works deeply popular. The measure of nationality is that it stands "on a level with those natural aspirations that have already awakened in the people at the request of the modern order of affairs," that he understood and expressed them fully and comprehensively. "The demands of law, legality, respect for man", a protest against arbitrariness and tyranny - this is what the reader hears in Ostrovsky's plays, this is what allowed Dobrolyubov to show on the material of these plays that the only way out of the darkness of the "dark kingdom" is a revolutionary struggle against all his foundations. The playwright himself did not think about the possibility of such revolutionary conclusions from his works, his worldview was not revolutionary.

Dobrolyubov dreams of the literature of the future, when artists will consciously preach advanced ideals: "The free transformation of the highest speculations into living images and, at the same time, the full consciousness of the highest, general meaning in every, the most private and random fact of life - this is the ideal , representing a complete fusion of science and poetry and hitherto not achieved by anyone" (309). Revolutionary-democratic criticism set itself the task of fighting for such revolutionary literature.

The path of conscious service to the people, to the revolution must also lead to the further flourishing of art, because "when general concepts the artist's ideas are correct and in complete harmony with his nature, then this harmony and unity are reflected in the work. Then reality is reflected in the work more vividly and more vividly, and it can more easily lead the reasoning person to correct conclusions and, consequently, have more significance for life" (309).

Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel written in the 19th century. In the work, the author touches upon a number of social and philosophical problems, including the issues of human interaction with society. The protagonist of the novel, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, is an “extra person” who cannot adapt to a new, rapidly changing world, change himself and his views for the sake of a brighter future. That is why one of the most acute conflicts in the work is the opposition to the passive, inert hero active society in which Oblomov cannot find a worthy place for himself.

What does Oblomov have in common with "superfluous people"?

In Russian literature, such a type of hero as "an extra person" appeared in the early 20s of the 19th century. This character was characterized by alienation from the usual noble environment and, in general, the whole official life Russian society, as he felt bored and his superiority (both intellectual and moral) over the rest. The “superfluous person” is overwhelmed with spiritual fatigue, can talk a lot, but do nothing, is very skeptical. At the same time, the hero is always the heir to a good fortune, which, nevertheless, he does not try to increase.
Indeed, Oblomov, having inherited a larger estate from his parents, could easily settle things there long ago in order to live in full prosperity on the money received from the farm. However, mental fatigue and boredom overwhelming the hero prevented the start of any business - from the banal need to get out of bed to writing a letter to the headman.

Ilya Ilyich does not associate himself with society, which Goncharov vividly depicted at the beginning of the work, when visitors come to Oblomov. Each guest for the hero is like a cardboard decoration, with which he practically does not interact, putting a kind of barrier between others and himself, hiding behind a blanket. Oblomov does not want to visit like others, communicate with hypocritical and not interesting people who disappointed him even during his service - when he came to work, Ilya Ilyich hoped that everyone would be the same friendly family as in Oblomovka, but he ran into with a situation where every person is “for himself”. Discomfort, the inability to find one's social vocation, the feeling of uselessness in the "neoblomov" world leads to the hero's escapism, immersion in illusions and memories of the wonderful Oblomov past.

In addition, the “extra” person always does not fit into his time, rejecting it and acting contrary to the system that dictates the rules and values ​​to him. Unlike those gravitating towards romantic tradition, always striving forward, ahead of their time, Pechorin and Onegin or the character of Chatsky’s enlightenment, towering over a society mired in ignorance, Oblomov is an image of a realistic tradition, a hero who does not strive forward, to transformations and new discoveries (in society or in his soul), beautiful distant future, but focused on the near and important past for him, "Oblomovism".

The love of an "extra person"

If in the matter of time orientation Oblomov differs from the “superfluous heroes” that preceded him, then in love matters their fates are very similar. Like Pechorin or Onegin, Oblomov is afraid of love, afraid of what can change and become different or negatively affect his beloved - up to the degradation of her personality. On the one hand, parting with lovers is always a noble step on the part of " extra hero”, On the other hand, this is a manifestation of infantilism - for Oblomov it was an appeal to the “Oblomov” childhood, where everything was decided for him, they took care of him and everything was allowed.

The “extra man” is not ready for fundamental, sensual love for a woman, it’s not so much the real lover that matters to him, but the self-created, inaccessible image - we see this both in Onegin’s feelings for Tatyana that flared up years later, and illusory, “spring” feelings Oblomov to Olga. The "superfluous person" needs a muse - beautiful, unusual and inspiring (for example, like Bella at Pechorin). However, not finding such a woman, the hero goes to the other extreme - he finds a woman who would replace his mother and create an atmosphere of distant childhood.
Oblomov and Onegin, not similar at first glance, equally suffer from loneliness in the crowd, but if Eugene does not refuse secular life, then for Oblomov the only way out becomes self-absorption.

Is Oblomov an extra person?

The "superfluous person" in Oblomov is perceived by other characters differently than similar characters in previous works. Oblomov is a kind, simple, honest person who sincerely wants a quiet, calm happiness. He is sympathetic not only to the reader, but also to the people around him - not in vain, after all, with school years his friendship with Stolz does not stop and Zakhar continues to serve with the master. Moreover, Olga and Agafya sincerely fell in love with Oblomov precisely for his spiritual beauty dying under the pressure of apathy and inertia.

What is the reason that, from the very appearance of the novel in the press, critics have defined Oblomov as “an extra person”, because the hero of realism, unlike the characters of romanticism, is a typed image that combines the features of a whole group of people? Depicting Oblomov in the novel, Goncharov wanted to show not one “extra” person, but a whole social stratum of educated, wealthy, intelligent, sincere people who could not find themselves in a rapidly changing, new Russian society. The author emphasizes the tragedy of the situation when, unable to change with the circumstances, such “Oblomovs” slowly die, continuing to hold on tightly to long-gone, but still important and soul-warming memories of the past.

It will be especially useful for grades 10 to familiarize themselves with the above reasoning before writing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and “extra people””.

Artwork test

N.L. Dobrolyubov

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836 - 1861) - the second largest representative of the "real" criticism of the 60s. By the way, this term itself belongs to him - real criticism.

In 1857, Dobrolyubov, who was still a student at the St. Petersburg Main Pedagogical Institute, appeared on the pages of Sovremennik (the articles “Interlocutor of lovers of the Russian word”, “A.V. Koltsov”, etc.), became a permanent contributor to this magazine. From the beginning of 1858, N.G. Chernyshevsky, who saw a combat comrade-in-arms in the young critic, transferred the department of criticism and bibliography to his jurisdiction. “Four years of feverish tireless work” (N.A. Nekrasov) followed, which soon made the author of the articles “What is Oblomovism?”, “Dark Kingdom”, “When will the real day come?” one of the central figures of Russian literary and social thought of that time.

In 1861, in the article "Mr. - ... bov and the question of art" F.M. Dostoevsky testified that today's critics are hardly read, but "Mr. - ... bov (i.e. Dobrolyubov, who signed his speeches with an incomplete surname. - V.N.) ... forced himself to read, and for this one thing he deserves special attention.

The literary-critical position of Dobrolyubov was already defined in such articles of 1857-1858 as “ Provincial essays. From notes ... Shchedrin "and" On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature ". It receives its development and completion in the major works of the critic: “What is Oblomovism?” (1850). "Dark Kingdom" (1859). "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" (1860), "When will the real day come?" (1860), Downtrodden People (1861). Dobrolyubov is a direct ally of Chernyshevsky in the struggle for the “party of the people” in literature, that is, for the creation of a literary movement that depicts modern Russian reality from the standpoint of the people (peasantry) and serves the cause of liberation. Like Chernyshevsky, he is a constant opponent of "aesthetic criticism", which, with good reason, he qualifies as dogmatic, dooming art "to immobility". Dobrolyubov (“The Dark Kingdom”) seems unsuccessful, for example, by critics N.D. Akhsharumov and B.N. Almazov to understand from the standpoint of the "eternal and general" laws of aesthetics in such an unconventional phenomenon as the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky.

Like Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov draws on the legacy of Belinsky in the 1940s. At the same time, Dobrolyubov's critical position is characterized by deep originality and independence, which not only bring the author of The Dark Kingdom closer to other representatives of real criticism, but also distinguish him from them. They are manifested in the understanding of the role and significance in the creative act of the artist's direct feelings, on the one hand, and his ideological position (ideology), on the other.

Paying tribute to such a writer's ability as "the power of direct creativity" (Belinsky), teacher Dobrolyubov major success(or, on the contrary, failure) of the artist was nevertheless determined by his ideological sphere. Hence the reproaches of both Belinsky and Chernyshevsky against Gogol, who, possessing "the amazing power of direct feeling (in the sense of the ability to reproduce every object in the fullness of his life, with all its finest features)", did not rise or could not, as critics believed. , to rise to the advanced (socialist and revolutionary-democratic above all) modern theories. On the contrary, Dobrolyubov, analyzing the works of Ostrovsky and Goncharov, links the main achievements of these authors primarily with their inherent "power of direct feeling", and not with their ideological position. It was to him, according to Dobrolyubov, that Ostrovsky owed his correct view of the phenomena of Russian life. Moreover, this feeling, according to the critic, is capable of conflicting with the ideology (views) of the writer, if it diverges from the truth of life.

Indicative in this light is Dobrolyubov's attitude, for example, to Ostrovsky's plays Don't Get into Your Sleigh, Don't Live as You Want. "Poverty is not a vice", created under the influence of Slavophile ideas, in the eyes of a critic-democrat, obviously false. Chernyshevsky, in his 1856 review of the comedy "Poverty is no vice," argued as follows. The work is based on an erroneous idea. Since a false thought bleeds even the strongest talent, Ostrovsky's comedy turned out to be artistically untenable as well. Dobrolyubov puts the question differently. Yes, he says, the named plays by Ostrovsky are inspired by false sentiments. “But,” the critic continues, “the power of the immediate artistic” feeling could not leave the author here either, and therefore particular provisions and separate characters taken by him ... are distinguished by genuine truth.

In the first place, Dobrolyubov also cherishes direct feeling in Goncharov. Speaking in his last annual review of Russian literature about the desire of the author of "Ordinary History" to portray his heroes purely objectively, impartially ("He has neither love nor enmity for the faces he creates, they do not amuse him, he does not give any moral lessons neither to them nor to the reader). Belinsky considered this a shortcoming of the novelist. “Of all current writers,” he remarked with irony, “he (Goncharov. - V.N.) alone ... is approaching the ideal of pure art, while all others have moved away from him to an immeasurable space” - and thereby have time " . "First of all, an artist" - calm, sober, impassive - calls Goncharova in the article "What is Oblomovism?" and Dobrolyubov. However, unlike Belinsky, he evaluates these features of the talent and creative position of the creator of Oblomov in essence positively. After all, thanks to them, "his (Goncharova's. - V.N.) creativity is not embarrassed by any prejudices, does not lend itself to any exceptional sympathies." In other words, the direct reaction of the writer to reality is stronger in it.

What's the matter here? Why does Dobrolyubov, unlike Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, determine the veracity of the reproduction of life not so much by the ideology of the writer as by his living instinct and feeling?

The answer is in the philosophical premise of Dobrolyubov's criticism - the so-called anthropological materialism. This common ground"real" criticism. However, with Dobrolyubov, it acquires, perhaps, the most effective character, largely predetermining the Dobrolyubov concept of both the person and the artist.

Anthropologism is one of the varieties of the materialistic world outlook, which preceded the dialectical and historical materialism of K. Marx and F. Engels. Anthropological materialists were the French enlighteners of the 18th century (in particular, Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and later many of the French utopian socialists. Then the anthropological principle in philosophy was developed by L. Feuerbach, who made it the basis of his ideas about man. In the human individual, philosophers-anthropologists distinguish, first of all, the original nature (nature, nature), which developed in the pre-class period of history and consists of a number of main components (beginnings). Man, according to this understanding, by nature: 1) is reasonable (homo sapiens), 2) is inclined to activity, a worker (homo faber), 3) is a social, collective being (sociale animal est homo; zoon politicon, 4) good, 5) strives for happiness (profit), egoist, 6) free and freedom-loving.

The presence in this or that individual of all the components of his nature, equally developed and complementing each other, turns him into a “normal person”, that is, fully consistent with his nature. Such, for example, according to Chernyshevsky, are the heroes of his novel about "new people" - Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna, Mertsalovs. (According to Chernyshevsky, we note in brackets, human "naturalness" is identical to genius, therefore a genius is simply a normally developed person.)

So, a real person in his behavior is primarily conditioned by the requirements of his human nature, but he is also influenced by the society in which he is located. This impact can coincide with the requirements of nature if society is built in full accordance with it: if reason reigns in it, "universal labor, a sense of collectivism, and not individualism, goodness, freedom for each and all. In this case, the very egoism of a person, pacified reason and striving for good, is transformed into " reasonable selfishness”, that is, it naturally reconciles the interests (benefit, benefit) of the individual with the benefit of the whole society. Chernyshevsky depicted such a society in the novel What Is To Be Done? in the fourth dream of Vera Pavlovna. This, according to the novelist, is a natural human community, that is, it meets all the needs of human nature.

Dobrolyubov thinks the same way. Thus, in the article “The Dark Kingdom”, the critic likens Russian society to a prison, into which “not a single sound from free air, not a single ray of a bright day penetrates. But he immediately adds: and in it "from time to time a spark of that sacred flame flares up, which burns in every human breast, until it is flooded with an influx of worldly dirt." In the light of the anthropological interpretation of the mind, Dobrolyubov characterized such a phenomenon of Russian life as tyranny. Tyrants are people; "unaccustomed to all rationality and truth in their worldly relations." Tyranny force - force "meaningless", "not recognizing any reasonable rights and demands." Tyrants are people with an extremely distorted nature, and along with generally useful work, they despise the mind that is fundamental to it.

So, the human personality in the view of Dobrolyubov. turns out to be dual: the natural (“natural”) principle is combined in it with the actual social, formed by the dominant way of life, the environment. The modern Russian artist is by no means free from the versatile influence of the latter. Therefore, a certain duality can distinguish him as well.

These premises explain the preference given by Dobrolyubov to the direct intuition and feeling of the writer over his ideology, general views. After all, they are incomparably more than the natural sphere of his personality, subject to the influence of concepts and ideas imposed by the dominant society. Sharing them as a thinker, an ideologist, an artist is able to challenge and correct them as a living person - by the power of direct truth, natural humanity. This will happen the sooner, the larger, more original nature of the artist.

The scale of the nature (nature) of the writer, therefore, is almost adequate in Dobrolyubov for the exchange of artistic talent. A dependent, petty person is incapable of becoming a major artist. At best, he will become an exponent of fashionable ideas and moods, like. for example, the liberal writers-denunciators V. Sollogub and Rosenheim. “We understand,” writes Dobrolyubov, “that Count Sollogub, for example, cannot be disassembled otherwise than by asking:“ What did he want to say to his “Officer”? poems, the relative significance of the idea on which it is composed remains. On the contrary, in the works of Ostrovsky, in the opinion of the critic, first of all, the deep nature of this person is reflected. Therefore, “Ostrovsky knows how to look into the depths of the human soul, knows how to distinguish nature from all the deformities and stratifications accepted from the outside ...”

For a true artist, it is necessary, Dobrolyubov believes, to distinguish and share a priori views that he owes to society (or took on faith), on the one hand, and a worldview that embodies the deepest "beginnings of his personality, its innermost pathos, on the other hand, the concept of a worldview (and not actually ideological position) becomes the most important in Dobrolyubov's criticism. In works talented artist, - he writes in the article "The Dark Kingdom", -... one can always notice something in common that characterizes all of them and distinguishes them from the works of other writers. In the technical language of art, it is customary to call this the worldview of the artist. But it would be in vain for us to bother to bring this world outlook into definite logical constructions, to express it in definite formulas. These abstractions usually do not exist in the very mind of the artist; often, even in abstract reasoning, he expresses concepts that are strikingly opposed to what is expressed in his artistic activity - concepts that he accepted on faith or obtained through false, hastily, purely outwardly composed syllogisms. His own view of the world, which serves as the key to characterizing his talent, must be sought in the living images created by him.

The contradiction between the nature (direct feeling) of the artist and his views (ideology), however, did not seem absolutely inevitable to Dobrolyubov. There is no doubt that the critic did not find it among people of a revolutionary disposition and the same convictions - among N.A. Nekrasova, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. However, writers who fully corresponded to the Dobrolyubov ideal of a freedom-loving artist were still numbered in a few. Turgenev, Goncharov, Ostrovsky, Dostoevsky, who enjoyed great success with the public, did not share those conclusions about the need for the forcible elimination of the existing social order, which for Dobrolyubov. Chernyshevsky inevitably followed, in particular, from the anthropological concept of man and history. Born humanists, these writers, however, were not revolutionaries.

Consciousness of this fact explains Dobrolyubov's first requirement for criticism: it must, leaving the writer's own ideology aside, deal with the artistic images he created, since the artist's worldview is reflected precisely in them. Dobrolyubov will go this way, analyzing the dramas of Ostrovsky, the novels of Goncharov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky. Without imposing, say, on Ostrovsky any predetermined statutes and requirements, which was the sin of the representatives of "aesthetic" criticism, Dobrolyubov focuses his attention on specific characters, scenes and positions of this or that play, exploring the objective meaning contained in them. At the same time, criticism is interested not so much in what the writer wanted to say, but in what affected in a certain way, by conflict, by the work as a whole. Dobrolyubov called this method of criticism real.

According to Dobrolyubov, even a single character, an image created by a great artist, contains a significant and, moreover, relevant content, embodying the natural aspirations of his contemporaries to one degree or another. The fact is that a true artist knows how to put before the reader " complete man", thereby "forcing human nature to peep through all the intrusive abominations." This ability distinguishes, in particular, Ostrovsky. “And in this ability to notice nature,” writes Dobrolyubov, “to penetrate deep into a person’s soul, to catch his feelings, regardless of the image of his external, official relations, we recognize this as one of the main best properties of Ostrovsky’s talent.”

To portray a person in his entirety, that is, in the aggregate of not only social, but also natural traits, means to guarantee fidelity to the truth of life to the character. And at the same time, artistic and aesthetic value. From these positions, Dobrolyubov defends Ostrovsky's play from the reproaches of "aesthetic" criticism, which found in them an abundance of random persons and episodes, even "contempt for the logical isolation of the work." Yes, agrees Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky's dramas indeed often end in accidental denouement. But after all, they reflect a society in which unreason prevails. Where is the reasonable interchanges here. “In our opinion,” the critic notes, “all kinds of plots are suitable for a work of art, no matter how random they may be, and in such plots it is necessary to sacrifice even abstract logic for naturalness, in full confidence that life, like nature, has its own logic. and that this logic, perhaps, will turn out to be much better than the one that we often impose on it. Dobrolyubov links the originality of the plot in Ostrovsky's plays with their genre. By his definition, these are "plays of life."

The proposed definition reflected, however, along with the strength of Dobrolyubov's critical method and the danger lurking in it. The definition emphasized Ostrovsky's genre innovation, the difference between his playwrights and the comedy of characters, sitcom, etc. At the same time, it seemed to erase the line separating artistic authenticity (truth) from the truth of objective reality. Their identification “threatened the substitution of the analysis of the actual work of art with a journalistic conversation about it.

“The fullness of the phenomena of life”, accessible to this or that artist, becomes for Dobrolyubov an important criterion of talent. Here, he says, are two poets - Tyutchev and Fet. Both are gifted. But if Fet captures life only in fleeting impressions of quiet natural phenomena, Tyutchev also has access to "a deep thought, severe with energies ... excited by moral questions, the interests of public life." Consequently, Tyutchev is a bigger artist than Fet. The ability to “capture the full image of an object, to mint, sculpt it” is evidence, according to Dobrolyubov, of the extraordinary talent of Goncharov.

In the articles “Russian satire in the age of Catherine”, “On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature” (1858), “Features for characterizing the Russian common people” (1860), Dobrolyubov formulated the second most important requirement of “real” criticism. This is a requirement (criterion) of nationality. “The measure of the dignity of a writer or an individual work,” the critic said, “we accept how much they serve as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people.”

By “natural aspirations”, Dobrolyubov, as a follower of anthropological materialism, understands the inherent human needs for freedom and happiness, the social (collective) orientation and content of which are guaranteed by reason and generally useful labor consecrated by reason. In general useful labor, first of all, the life of the people (peasantry) passes. This circumstance turns the people, in the eyes of Dobrolyubov, spiritually and morally into the most healthy part of the Russian nation, into a decisive force and on the path to its liberation. Hence the love of the people (but not the worship of the people) of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky.

A writer becomes popular to the extent that his works reproduce and stimulate the natural aspirations of his contemporaries, especially those from a democratic environment. According to Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky deserves the name of the people's writer in many respects, in whose dramas, along with the corrupting influence of the inhumane social order, the critic sees heroes from whose lips a voice of protest is heard, the voice of uncomplicated human nature. At the same time, Dobrolyubov notes that in modern Russian literature there is still no “party” (the names of Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin are not named, apparently for tactical reasons), which would speak on behalf of the people and their voice. It has yet to be created.

So, Dobrolyubov's analysis and final assessment of a work of art are defined by two main criteria, determined by both the philosophical and socio-political positions of the critic: 1) the objective content of the images created by the artist (characters, conflicts, situations, etc.). considered in the light of the natural aspirations of man, 2) the degree of nationality.

The strength of Dobrolyubov was the ability to use talented literature as an ally in revolutionary propaganda and struggle. Dobrolyubov's interpretation of Ostrovsky's dramas, the novels of Turgenev, Goncharov, Dostoevsky and others turned them from moral and aesthetic phenomena into facts and factors of social, civic consciousness and progress. At the same time, the shift in the attention of the critic from the concept of the artist himself (his "innermost spirit", in the words of Belinsky) to the objective meaning of his images threatened to disregard not only the a priori views of the writer, but also the inner logic of the work. Dobrolyubov did not avoid this danger when analyzing Turgenev's novel "On the Eve" in the article "When will the real day come?". Turgenev not only did not accept the Dobrolyubov interpretation of the novel, but also protested against the publication of the article. And the second. One or the other artistic image(character) cannot be removed from the figurative system of the work without prejudice to its artistic meaning. And it must be said that Dobrolyubov does this in more than one article, The Dark Kingdom, where he groups Ostrovsky's characters in the light of their own understanding, and not their position in this or that playwright's play. In both cases, the conversation about the work threatened to turn into arguments about it, that is, pure journalism.

And now for another interesting feature. critical works Dobrolyubov, which has not yet been recorded by specialists.

Dobrolyubov's articles were often likened to sociological treatises, which is largely true. At the same time, they have a curious feature, dictated primarily by the anthropological philosophy of the author. Dobrolyubov's major speeches are nothing more than an analysis of Russian society in a vertical section, starting with the upper ruling classes and ending with the lower classes, the people. The critic measures these layers by the degree of natural aspirations available to them.

One of the first major articles - “Provincial essays. From the notes of ... Shchedrin” - analyzes the noble intelligentsia. The critic finds in its representatives an extreme impoverishment of "nature" - natural inclinations. This, in his opinion, is not surprising, since the life of a noble intellectual, with rare exceptions, proceeds in idleness, provided by the gratuitous labor of serfs. Therefore, according to the critic, these are not even "talented natures" in the ironic sense that the author of the essays gave this epithet, but "rotten" natures.

The second, fundamentally important article - "What is Oblomovism?" - from the same position, he debunks the dominant type of noble oppositionist (“an extra person”) - from Onegin and Pechorin to Rudin. Here also the original nature is distorted or weakened by similar conditions of existence. This is why "cheesy" nature.

The article "Dark Kingdom" draws a close to the literary image of a "senseless" tyrannical force - a symbol of the life of the ruling classes. This is a life that has broken with light, reason and labor, the focus of gross absurdities, moral deformities, lies and hypocrisy. In other words, the “dark kingdom” (“power of darkness”) in the original meaning of the concept, which goes back to the Bible.

Dominant" dark kingdom", his oppressive and belittling human nature shaped by force downtrodden people”(This is the title of Dostoevsky’s article about Dostoevsky’s novel The Humiliated and Insulted), that is, “downtrodden natures. timid and patiently suffering people, in whose souls, however, the light of human desires has not completely gone out. These are petty officials, poor writers, etc.

Finally, the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" points to the environment - a layer of Russian society - in which human nature appears unbroken despite the suffocating atmosphere of the prevailing customs and way of life. This is a sphere close to the working people. This is a font of "normal" natures, an example of which was Katerina from Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" for Dobrolyubov.

So, hoping for the final victory of the natural aspirations of man, his primordial nature over the "fantastic" and "artificial" social order, Dobrolyubov ended his literary and critical work, who died of tuberculosis at the age of 25.

And the last. Until now, we have used the definition of Dobrolyubov's criticism that he himself gave to it: real. The foregoing makes it possible to concretize this definition common to democratic criticism. The critical method (system) of Dobrolyubov can be characterized as a literary and publicistic one, meaning both the predominance of journalistic pathos in it and the author's commitment to literary progress proper.

Criticism from the Greek "kritice" - to disassemble, judge, appeared as a kind of art form back in antiquity, over time becoming a real professional occupation, which for a long time had an "applied" character, aimed at overall rating works, encouraging or vice versa condemning the author's opinion, as well as recommending or not the book to other readers.

Over time, this literary trend developed and improved, starting its rise in the European Renaissance and reaching significant heights by the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

On the territory of Russia, the rise of literary criticism falls on the middle of the 19th century, when, having become a unique and striking phenomenon in Russian literature, it began to play a huge role in the public life of that time. In the works of prominent critics of the 19th century (V.G. Belinsky, A.A. Grigoriev, N. A. Dobrolyubov, D. I. Pisarev, A. V. Druzhinin, N. N. Strakhov, M. A. Antonovich) only a detailed review of the literary works of other authors, analysis of the personalities of the main characters, discussion artistic principles and ideas, but also vision and own interpretation of the whole picture modern world in general, his moral and spiritual problems, ways to solve them. These articles are unique in their content and the power of influencing the minds of the public, and today they are among the most powerful tools for influencing the spiritual life of society and its moral foundations.

Russian literary critics of the 19th century

At one time, A. S. Pushkin's poem "Eugene Onegin" received a wide variety of reviews from contemporaries who did not understand the author's brilliant innovative methods in this work, which has a deep, genuine meaning. It was this work of Pushkin that was devoted to 8 and 9 critical articles of Belinsky's "Works of Alexander Pushkin", who set himself the goal of revealing the attitude of the poem to the society depicted in it. The main features of the poem, emphasized by the critic, are its historicism and the truthfulness of the reflection of the real picture of the life of Russian society in that era, Belinsky called it "an encyclopedia of Russian life", and an extremely popular and national work.

In the articles “A Hero of Our Time, M. Lermontov’s Work” and “M. Lermontov’s Poems,” Belinsky saw in Lermontov’s work an absolutely new phenomenon in Russian literature and recognized the poet’s ability to “extract poetry from the prose of life and shock souls with its true image.” In the works of the outstanding poet, the passion of poetic thought is noted, in which all the most pressing problems of modern society are touched upon, the critic called Lermontov the successor of the great poet Pushkin, noticing, however, the complete opposite of their poetic nature: for the first one, everything is permeated with optimism and described in bright colors, for the second one, on the contrary, the writing style is distinguished by gloominess, pessimism and sorrow for lost opportunities.

Selected works:

Nikolai Aleksandro-vich Dobrolyubov

Well-known critic and publicist of the mid-19th century. N. A Dobrolyubov, a follower and student of Chernyshevsky, in his critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" based on Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" called him the most decisive work The author, which touches upon very important "painful" social problems of that time, namely the clash of the personality of the heroine (Katerina), who defended her beliefs and rights, with the "dark kingdom" - representatives of the merchant class, distinguished by ignorance, cruelty and meanness. The critic saw in the tragedy, which is described in the play, the awakening and growth of protest against the oppression of tyrants and oppressors, and in the image of the main character, the embodiment of the great popular idea of ​​liberation.

In the article “What is Oblomovism”, dedicated to the analysis of Goncharov’s work “Oblomov”, Dobrolyubov considers the author to be a talented writer who acts as an outside observer in his work, inviting the reader to draw conclusions about its content. The main character Oblomov is compared with other "superfluous people of his time" Pechorin, Onegin, Rudin and is considered, according to Dobrolyubov, the most perfect of them, he calls him "insignificance", angrily condemns his qualities of character (laziness, apathy for life and reflection) and recognizes them as a problem not only of one specific person, but of the entire Russian mentality as a whole.

Selected works:

Apollo Alek-sand-ro-wich Grigoriev

A deep and enthusiastic impression was made by Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" on the poet, prose writer and critic A. A. Grigoriev, who in the article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev "does not argue with Dobrolyubov's opinion, but somehow corrects his judgments, for example, replacing the term tyranny with the concept of nationality, which, in his opinion, is inherent specifically for a Russian person.

Selected work:

D. I. Pisarev, the “third” prominent Russian critic after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, also touched on the topic of Goncharov’s Oblomovism in his article “Oblomov” and believed that this concept very well characterizes a significant flaw in Russian life that will always exist, highly appreciated this work and called it relevant for any era and for any nationality.

Selected work:

The well-known critic A. V. Druzhinin in the article “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov drew attention to the poetic side of the nature of the protagonist of the landowner Oblomov, which causes him not a feeling of irritation and hostility, but even some sympathy. He considers the main positive qualities the Russian landowner's tenderness, purity and gentleness of the soul, against which the laziness of nature is perceived more tolerantly and is regarded as a kind of protection from the influences of pernicious activity " active life» other characters

Selected work:

One of famous works outstanding classic of Russian literature I.S. Turgenev, which caused a stormy public outcry, was the novel “Fathers and Sons” written in 18620. In the critical articles "Bazarov" by D. I. Pisarev, "Fathers and Sons" by I. S. Turgenev by N. N. Strakhov, and also by M. A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of Our Time", a sharp controversy erupted over the question of who should be considered the main the hero of the work of Bazarov - a jester or an ideal to follow.

N.N. Strakhov in his article “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev" saw the deep tragedy of the image of Bazarov, his vitality and dramatic attitude to life and called him a living embodiment of one of the manifestations of the real Russian spirit.

Selected work:

Antonovich considered this character as an evil caricature of the younger generation and accused Turgenev of turning his back on the democratically minded youth and betraying his former views.

Selected work:

Pisarev, on the other hand, saw in Bazarov a useful and real person who was able to destroy outdated dogmas and old authorities, and thus clear the ground for the formation of new advanced ideas.

Selected work:

The common phrase that literature is created not by writers, but by readers turns out to be 100% true, and it is the readers who decide the fate of the work, on the perception of which the future fate of the work depends. It is literary criticism that helps the reader to form his personal final opinion about a particular work. Critics also provide invaluable assistance to writers when they give them an idea of ​​how clear their works are to the public, and how correctly the thoughts expressed by the author are perceived.

"Oblomov" met with unanimous recognition, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article "What is Oblomovism?" I saw in "Oblomov" a crisis and the collapse of the old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - "our indigenous people's type", symbolizing laziness, inaction and stagnation of the entire feudal system of relations. He is the last in a series of "superfluous people" - the Onegins, the Pechorins, the Beltovs and the Rudins. Like his older predecessors, Oblomov is infected with a fundamental contradiction between word and deed, daydreaming and practical worthlessness. But in Oblomov, the typical complex of the "superfluous person" is brought to a paradox, to its logical end, followed by the disintegration and death of a person. Goncharov, according to Dobrolyubov, reveals more deeply than all his predecessors the roots of Oblomov's inaction.

The novel reveals the complex relationship between slavery and nobility. “It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature,” writes Dobrolyubov. “But the vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery. Slavery is so intertwined with the nobility of Oblomov, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems that there is not the slightest possibility of drawing some kind of boundary between them ... He is the slave of his serf Zakhar, and it is difficult to decide which of them is more subordinate the power of another. At least - what Zakhar does not want, that Ilya Ilyich cannot force him to do, and what Zakhar wants, he will do against the will of the master, and the master will submit ... "

But that's why the servant Zakhar is in a certain sense a "master" over his master: Oblomov's complete dependence on him makes it possible for Zakhar to sleep peacefully on his couch. The ideal of the existence of Ilya Ilyich - "idleness and peace" - is to the same extent a longed-for dream of Zakhar. Both of them, master and servant, are the children of Oblomovka.
Three or four generations lived quietly and happily in it. "At the master's house, too, a gallery collapsed from time immemorial, and the porch had long been going to be repaired, but has not yet been repaired.

“No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services,” concludes Dobrolyubov. “A significant part of Oblomov sits in each of us, and it’s too early to write us a funeral word.”

“If I now see a landowner talking about the rights of mankind and the need for personal development, I already know from his first words that this is Oblomov.

If I meet an official complaining about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov.

If I hear from an officer complaints about the tiring parades and bold arguments about the futility of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov.

When I read liberal antics against abuses in magazines and the joy that at last what we have long hoped and desired has been done, I think that everyone writes from Oblomovka.

When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of mankind and for many years with undiminished ardor tell all the same (and sometimes new) jokes about bribe-takers, about oppression, about lawlessness of all kinds, I involuntarily feel that I moved to the old Oblomovka," writes Dobrolyubov.

Thus, one point of view on Goncharov's novel Oblomov, on the origins of the main character's character, developed and strengthened. But already among the first critical responses, a different, opposite assessment of the novel appeared. It belongs to the liberal critic A. V. Druzhinin, who wrote the article "Oblomov", a novel by Goncharov."

But, according to Druzhinin, "in vain, many people with overly practical aspirations intensify to despise Oblomov and even call him a snail: all this strict trial of the hero shows one superficial and fleeting nitpick. Oblomov is kind to all of us and worth boundless love. "

"The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for the land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov." What does Druzhinin see as the advantages of Oblomov and Oblomovism? “Oblomovism is disgusting if it comes from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil obstinacy, but if its root is hidden simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people before practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry at it means the same what to be angry at a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of the evening noisy conversation of adults ... "

Druzhinin's approach to understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism did not become popular in the 19th century. The Dobrolyubov interpretation of the novel was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. However, as the perception of "Oblomov" deepened, revealing to the reader more and more new facets of its content, the druzhina's article began to attract attention. Already in Soviet times, M. M. Prishvin wrote in his diary: "Oblomov." In this novel, Russian laziness is internally glorified and outwardly it is condemned by the depiction of deadly active people (Olga and Stolz). No "positive" activity in Russia can withstand Oblomov's criticism: his peace is fraught with a demand for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace. This is a kind of Tolstoyan "non-doing".

The image of Stolz was conceived by Goncharov as an antipode to the image of Oblomov. In the image of this hero, the writer wanted to present a whole, active, active person, to embody a new Russian type. However, Goncharov's plan was not entirely successful, and, above all, because ...

N. A. Dobrolyubov in his famous article “What is “Oblomovism”?” wrote about this phenomenon as a "sign of the times." From his point of view, Oblomov is “a living, modern, Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness.”...

1. New!

   For the writer, both space and time are not only the object of the image, but also an important means in the artistic exploration of the world. An appeal to the spatio-temporal organization of the novel will help to better understand the ideological and artistic structure...

“To disassemble the female images created by I. A. Goncharov means to make a claim to be a great connoisseur of the female heart,” remarked one of the most insightful Russian critics, N. A. Dobrolyubov. Indeed, the image of Olga Ilyinskaya can be called ...