______________ * How beautiful it is, how amazing it is! (French).
“We owe our little acquaintance with sensitive young ladies,” continues Dobrolyubov, “by the fact that we do not know how to write such pleasant and harmless criticism. Frankly admitting this and refusing the role of “educator of the aesthetic taste of the public,” we choose another task, more modest and more commensurate with our strengths. We simply want to summarize the data that is scattered in the writer’s work and which we accept as an accomplished fact, as a vital phenomenon standing before us" (6, 96-97).
Real criticism first of all strives to clarify those life phenomena that are reflected in a work of art, and then analyzes these phenomena and expresses its verdict on 20 of them. There is no doubt that it is journalistic criticism. But not every journalistic criticism can be called real in Dobrolyubov’s understanding. It would be wrong to think that the great Russian thinkers were returning to the ideas of the enlighteners of the 18th century, who partly took on the role of educators of the public’s aesthetic taste, and partly imposed the demands of public morality on art. Real criticism is of a journalistic nature, but it is far from the desire to impose any external tendencies on the artist or tell him what he should have done. The mechanistic view of the 18th century was a step long abandoned for Russian authors who stood at the level of Belinsky and Dobrolyubov.
“We know,” writes Dobrolyubov, “that pure aestheticians will immediately accuse us of trying to impose their opinions on the author and prescribe tasks for his talent. Therefore, let’s make a reservation, even though it’s boring. No, we don’t impose anything on the author, we say in advance that we don’t we know for what purpose, as a result of what preliminary considerations, he depicted the story that makes up the content of the story “On the Eve.” For us, what is important is not so much what the author wanted to say, but what was said by him, even if not intentionally, simply as a result of truthful reproduction facts of life. We value every talented work precisely because in it we can study the facts of our native life, which is already so little open to the gaze of a simple observer" (6, 97).
This shows how real criticism understands the content of the work. This content is real, it is given by external reality. Artistic creativity is not a purely subjective visual process, in which it is important how the writer managed to convey what he conceived and saw in front of him. Real criticism is primarily interested in what is reflected in a literary work, even beyond the will and intention of the author. The activity of a writer is for her an objective process of reflecting life, and in this process the first place belongs to reality itself. Literary images are not just pictorial signs, topographic pictures, hieroglyphs of objects and phenomena of the external world, but real clots of life, real images created by the process of its formation. Criticism accepts these data of the historical world, included in works of literature, “as an accomplished fact, as a vital phenomenon facing us.”
Here we are not talking about the external influence of the social environment on the psychology of the writer - a circumstance that was well known to French criticism of the 18th century. The social environment influences literary creativity - this is undeniable. But a person who would like to reduce the meaning of criticism to the clarification of these influences could be said that he walks around his subject without penetrating further than the secondary conditions of its origin. “Of course, this is not a criticism of an elegant work,” wrote Belinsky, “but a commentary on it, which may have a greater or lesser value, but only as a commentary” (2, 107). We will not help matters at all if we add to such a sociological or biographical commentary an analysis of artistic form in the spirit of aesthetic criticism. Dobrolyubov has something else in mind. Real criticism speaks of the irresistible influence of objective reality on the writer’s literary work. She is interested in the reflection of the life of society, which becomes an internal necessity for the artist and, subordinating it to its historical basis, makes art the real voice of life. The presence of historical content, felt as an accomplished fact, as a vital phenomenon facing us, is the first proof of the artistry of a literary work.
Therefore, the highest interest for real criticism is literature that is free from all artificiality or posture, rhetoric and false poetry. It was precisely this kind of courageous maturity that Russian literature reached in the middle of the 19th century. For her, the times of artificial passions and unprecedented positions, borrowed charms, whitewash and rouge of literary cosmetics are over. “Our literature,” Belinsky wrote in one of his last articles, “was the fruit of conscious thought, appeared as an innovation, began with imitation. But it did not stop there, but constantly strived for originality, nationality, from rhetoric it sought to become natural, natural. This striving, marked by noticeable and constant successes, constitutes the meaning and soul of the history of our literature. And we will say without hesitation that in not a single Russian writer has this striving achieved such success as in Gogol. This could only happen through the exclusive appeal of art to reality, apart from any ideals... This is a great merit on the part of Gogol... with this he completely changed the view of art itself. To the works of each of the Russian poets one can, although with a stretch, apply the old and decrepit definition of poetry as “decorated nature "; but in relation to Gogol's works this is no longer possible. They come with another definition of art - as the reproduction of reality in all its truth" (8, 351 - 352).
Thus, in the person of the head of the natural school, Russian literature turned to reality, apart from any ideals. This does not at all mean a contemptuous attitude towards ideals on the part of Belinsky. We will see later how Russian criticism looked at the relationship of literature to the social goals that inspire it. Speaking about ideals alien to Gogol’s realism, Belinsky had in mind superficial good intentions in the spirit of the philanthropic impulses of one of the heroes of “Dead Souls” - the landowner Manilov. Such “ideals” were deeply alien to real criticism No wonder Dobrolyubov in his parody of magazine enthusiasm for the works of Turgenev mocks not only the aesthetics of sensitive young ladies, but also hurts the sublime feelings of liberal journalists. He foresees their Manilov speeches about “a deep understanding of the invisible streams and currents of social thought” and that Turgenev’s last story enlivens and decorates your life, elevates human dignity before you and the great, eternal significance of the holy ideas of truth, goodness and beauty! "(6, 96-97).
Real criticism examined Russian literature from the point of view of revolutionary democracy, which is why it had to treat so-called ideals with particular sobriety, testing them against the touchstone of real social facts and decisively rejecting empty liberal rhetoric. That is why, for example, when speaking about Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov rejects only the attempts of the Slavophiles to present the stage work of the great Russian playwright as a direct expression of their reactionary ideas, but also criticizes the claims of the liberal-Western "Athenaeus", expressed from the point of view of "progressive ideals". Real criticism is not interested in the subjective intentions of the author, good or bad, in a work of art , and the content of living reality that was included in his work was truly embodied in form, if we have before us a real talent capable of serving as a mirror of the outside world.
“The reader sees,” said Dobrolyubov, “that for us it is precisely those works that are important, in which life was expressed by itself, and not according to a program previously invented by the author. For example, we did not talk about “A Thousand Souls” at all*, because, in our opinion, the entire social side of this novel is forcibly fitted to a pre-conceived idea. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about here, except to what extent the author cleverly composed his work. It is impossible to rely on the truth and living reality of the facts presented by the author, because his attitude to these facts is not simple and not truthful. We see not at all the same attitude of the author to the plot in the new story of Mr. Turgenev, as in most of his stories. In “On the Eve” we see the irresistible influence of the natural course of social life and thought , to which the very thought and imagination of the author involuntarily submitted" (6, 98).
______________ * We are talking about the novel by A F Pisemsky, first published in the magazine. "Domestic Notes" in 1858
If a writer more or less deftly selects pictures and images to complement a pre-composed idea, then his work can serve as the subject of a lower type of criticism, subjecting the idea and form to external analysis. Every true work of art, precisely because it is the work of an artist and not a craftsman, is something more than just a product of human hands. In it one can see an objective reflection of a well-known feature or process in the life of society. And here the field of action of higher, real criticism opens up. She wants to “interpret the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work, without, however, imposing on the author any in advance composed ideas and tasks" The main goal of literary criticism, says
Dobrolyubov, there is “an explanation of those phenomena of reality that gave rise to a famous work of art” (6, 98, 99).
A brilliant example of real criticism are Dobrolyubov’s own articles about Goncharov’s novel Oblomov,” Ostrovsky’s plays and Turgenev’s story “On the Eve.” Collecting individual features and generalizing them into one complete image of Oblomovism, Dobrolyubov explains to the reader the life phenomena that were reflected in the artistic type created by Goncharov’s fantasy Oblomov is a gifted and noble man, whose whole life is spent lying on the sofa, in unfulfilled endeavors and empty daydreaming. He is not even capable of creating the happiness of the woman he loves and loves him. However, can his feeling be called love? Like Oblomov’s life itself, Goncharov’s narrative depicts the conditions in which his hero’s terrible illness developed, an illness that paralyzes all natural inclinations and plunges the individual into a humiliating state.
The fate of Oblomov is a clear example of how a person is sucked in by the sticky web of serfdom, relations of domination and slavery, how it gives rise to a fatal lack of will even among those representatives of the lordly part of society, whose souls are yearning for clean air and would be glad to wish their people a better life, but completely are incapable of decisive practical actions, and, perhaps, do not want them, instinctively clinging to their privileges.
Explaining the final conclusions, which may have remained unclear to the writer himself, Dobrolyubov compares Oblomov with a whole gallery of his literary ancestors. Russian literature is well known for the type of intelligent person who understands the baseness of the existing order of life, but is unable to find application for his thirst for activity, his talents and desire for good. Hence loneliness, disappointment, spleen, and sometimes contempt for people. This is a type of intelligent uselessness, as Herzen put it, a type of superfluous person, certainly vital and characteristic of the Russian noble intelligentsia of the first half of the 19th century. Such are Pushkin’s Onegin, Lermontov’s Pechorin, Turgenev’s Rudin, Herzen’s Beltov. The historian Klyuchevsky found the ancestors of Eugene Onegin in more distant times. But what can be in common between these outstanding personalities, who strike the reader’s imagination with their inner suffering even when their actions are filled with the poison of contempt for people, and the lazy Oblomov, a funny lazy person who, despite all his high impulses, descends to slovenliness, marries a fat bourgeois woman, falls into complete slavery to her cunning relatives and dies in this unclean puddle?
And, however, they are all Oblomovites, in each of them there is a particle of Oblomov’s shortcomings - their maximum value, their further and, moreover, not fictitious, but real development. The appearance in literature of a type like Oblomov shows that “the phrase has lost its meaning, the need for real action has appeared in society itself” (4, 331).
Therefore, Onegins, Pechorins, Rudins can no longer appear before the reader in ideal attire. They appear in a more real light. Developing this idea, Dobrolyubov does not at all want to belittle the charm of the images created by the genius of Pushkin and Lermontov. He only wants to point out the morphological development of images by life itself.
“We are not saying again that Pechorin, in these circumstances, began to act exactly like Oblomov; he could have developed in a different direction due to these very circumstances. But the types created by strong talent are durable: and today there live people who seem to be modeled after Onegin, Pechorin , Rudin, etc., and not in the form in which they could have developed under other circumstances, but precisely in the form in which they are presented by Pushkin, Lermontov, Turgenev. Only in the public consciousness do they all turn more and more into Oblomov. It is impossible. to say that this transformation has already taken place: no, even now thousands of people spend time in conversations and thousands of other people are ready to take conversations for action. But that this transformation is beginning is proved by the type of Oblomov created by Goncharov. His appearance would have been impossible if although in some part of society the consciousness has not matured of how insignificant all these quasi-talented natures, which were previously admired, were previously covered with different robes, adorned themselves with different hairstyles, and attracted to them with different talents. But now Oblomov appears before us exposed as he is, silent, brought down from a beautiful pedestal onto a soft sofa, covered instead of a robe only with a spacious robe. Question: what does he do? What is the meaning and purpose of his life? delivered directly and clearly, not filled with any side questions. This is because now the time for social work has already come or is coming urgently... And that’s why we said at the beginning of the article that we see a sign of the times in Goncharov’s novel” (4, 333).
Knowing the strict limits of tsarist censorship, Dobrolyubov, in Aesopian language, makes it clear to his readers that social activity should be understood as a revolutionary method of fighting autocracy and serfdom, while Oblomovism in all its forms represents landowner liberalism. In a broader sense, the image of Oblomov combines all the features of laxity, inactive submission and readiness to be satisfied with empty dreams that centuries of serfdom and royal despotism have introduced into people’s habits.
“If I now see a landowner talking about the rights of humanity and the need for personal development, I know from his first words that this is Oblomov.
If I meet an official who complains about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov.
If I hear from an officer complaints about the tedium of parades and bold arguments about the uselessness of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov.
When I read in magazines liberal outbursts against abuses and the joy that what we have long hoped and desired has finally been done, I think that everyone is writing this from Oblomovka.
When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of humanity and for many years, with undiminished fervor, tell the same (and sometimes new) anecdotes about bribe-takers, about oppression, about lawlessness of all kinds, I involuntarily feel that I moved to old Oblomovka."
When asked what needs to be done, these people cannot say anything sensible, and if you yourself offer them some remedy, they will be unpleasantly puzzled. And, most likely, from them you can hear the recipe that in Turgenev’s novel Rudin presents to his beloved girl Natalya: “What to do? Of course, submit to fate. What to do! I know too well how bitter, difficult, unbearable it is, but, judge themselves..." and so on... You won't expect anything more from them, because all of them bear the stamp of Oblomovism" (4, 337-338).
This is the approach of real criticism to literary images, its manner of “interpreting the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work.” The writer created a wonderful book that reflected an important social phenomenon. Comparing this book with life, the critic explains the objective historical content of the novel about an enlightened man who dies from an amazing disease - Oblomovism. He extends this concept to a whole circle of people and objects that, at first glance, have nothing to do with Oblomov’s sofa. He shows their common features, which served the artist, perhaps even without his knowledge, as real material for the creation of a literary type. He finds the sources of these features in the life of society, connects them with certain class relations, gives them an even more precise political designation, pointing out the features of Oblomovism in the cowardly liberalism of the upper classes. Thus, the critic explains to the reader the truth of the content embodied in the artistic image. At the same time, he shows the falsity of this content, and, moreover, not in the subjective sense of the word, as the falsity of the plan put by the writer as the basis of his creation, but in the objective sense - as the falsity of the subject of the image itself. The appearance of Oblomov’s type in literature proves, according to Dobrolyubov, that the time of liberal phrase-mongering is over. In the face of a real revolutionary cause, it becomes obvious how alien the features of Oblomovism are to the true needs of the people. As evidence of the maturity of public consciousness, Goncharov’s novel has a significance that goes far beyond the literary department. A work of art becomes a sign of the times.
Thanks to Dobrolyubov’s criticism, the word Oblomovism entered the everyday speech of the Russian people as an expression of those negative traits that advanced Russia has always struggled with. It is in this sense that Lenin uses this concept.
Another example of real criticism is the wonderful article by Dobrolyubov’s teacher, N. G. Chernyshevsky, “Russian man on rendez-vous” (1858). It was written about "Asia" by Turgenev. The situation shown in this story is similar to the situation in Oblomov. It is also related to the position of Rudin in the decisive scene with Natalya, Pechorin in relation to Princess Mary, Onegin in the famous explanation with Tatiana. It gives rise to some generalizations. Let's imagine Romeo and Juliet. A girl, full of deep and fresh feelings, is waiting for her sweetheart on a date. And he really comes to read her the following notation: “You are guilty before me,” he tells her; “you got me into trouble, I am dissatisfied with you, you are compromising me, and I must end my relationship with you; it is very unpleasant for me.” to part with you, but if you please go away from here" (5, 157).
Some readers were dissatisfied with Turgenev's story, finding that this rough scene did not fit with the general character of the hero of Asya. “If this man is what he appears to be in the first half of the story, then he could not have acted with such vulgar rudeness, and if he could have acted like that, then from the very beginning he should have appeared to us as a completely crappy person” (5, 158). This means the writer did not make ends meet contrary to the laws of art. Chernyshevsky undertakes to prove that this contradiction is not a consequence of the author’s weakness, but stems from life itself, its own contradictions and limitations. The fact is that the hero of “Asia” really belongs to the best people in society. But, alas, these best people behave very strangely at rendez-vous; and such are they in every matter that requires not only conversations, but also the determination to act, disregarding conventions and taking responsibility for what they have done. That is why the position of women in the works of Russian authors of the 19th century is so unenviable. Natures are organic and rich, they believe in the truth of the words and noble motives of Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, the hero of Nekrasov’s “Sasha” and other best people of their time. And these people themselves consider themselves capable of feats. But at the decisive moment they remain inactive, and, moreover, they value this inactivity, since it gives them the pitiful consolation of thinking that they are above the reality around them and are too smart to take part in its petty fuss. And here they are
scouring the world
They are looking for gigantic things to do for themselves,
The benefit of the legacy of rich fathers
Freed me from small labors.
“Everywhere, whatever the character of the poet,” says Chernyshevsky, whatever his personal concepts about the actions of his hero, the hero acts in the same way with all other decent people, like him, bred from other poets, there is no talk about the matter yet, but only need to occupy idle time, to fill an idle head or an idle heart with conversations and dreams, the hero is very lively; the matter is approaching to directly and accurately express his feelings and desires - most of the heroes are already beginning to hesitate and feel clumsiness in language. A few, the bravest , somehow still manage to gather all their strength and tongue-tiedly express something that gives a vague idea of ​​​​their thoughts; but if someone decides to grab hold of their desires, to say: “You want such and such; we are very happy; start acting, and we will support you,” - with such a remark, one half of the bravest heroes faints, the others begin to very rudely reproach you for putting them in an awkward position, they begin to say that they did not expect such proposals from you , that they are completely losing their heads, cannot figure out anything, because “how is it possible so quickly,” and “besides, they are honest people,” and not only honest, but very meek and do not want to expose you to trouble, and that in general Is it really possible to bother about everything that is talked about out of nothing to do, and what is best is not to take on anything, because everything is connected with troubles and inconveniences, and nothing good can happen yet, because, as already said , they “didn’t expect or expect at all” and so on.” (5, 160).
The critical activity of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov was the development of the foundations created by the genius of Belinsky. Currently, every educated Russian thinks in living figures of national literature. Chatsky, Onegin, Lensky, Tatyana, Pechorin, Khlestakov, Manilov, Rudin, Oblomov... All these classic images of Russian writers received the imprint of complete clarity in the eyes of the people thanks to the efforts of real criticism. They became something more significant than mere creations of literature, almost historical figures.
5
It may be objected that literary criticism, which considers its main task to be “explaining those phenomena of reality that gave rise to a well-known work of art,” uses this work as a pretext for its journalistic goal and loses sight of the purely artistic effect of art. But such an objection would be wrong. In any case, it does not affect Russian criticism of the 19th century, which never allowed itself to measure a work of art by some alien, external scale. To clarify this circumstance, we need to take a closer look at the method of real criticism as an application of a well-known aesthetic theory in practice.
The aesthetic theory of Russian thinkers of the 19th century can be expressed in the form of several main principles. The first principle is already known to us. “The beautiful is life,” says the basic formula of Chernyshevsky’s dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.” The subject of poetry is truth, the task of literature is to reflect the actual world in its living reality. Truthfulness and naturalness constitute a necessary condition for a truly artistic work. The great writer depicts life as it is, without embellishing or distorting it.
Thus, the first principle of the Russian aesthetic school can be called the principle of realism. However, realism is not understood here in the usual, subjective-formal sense - as a skillful depiction of objects of the external world on canvas or in a novel. Real criticism examines the author's successes and failures in the technique of copying life. In any significant work of literature, the shortcomings of form belong to the very reality that lies at the basis of literary creativity. For example, real criticism does not accuse Ostrovsky of the fact that his plays are devoid of Shakespearean passions and stunning dramatic effects. She believes that such advantages would be completely unnatural in plays from the life of the Russian “middle class”, and indeed Russian life in the mid-19th century. They say that the endings in Ostrovsky's comedies are unreasonable and random. The objection is empty, writes Dobrolyubov. “Where can we get rationality when it is not in the very life depicted by the author? Without a doubt, Ostrovsky would have been able to present some more valid reasons for keeping a person from drunkenness than the ringing of a bell; but what to do if Peter Ilyich was like that, what reasons could not understand? You can’t put your mind into a person, you can’t change a people’s superstition. To give it a meaning that it does not have would mean to distort it and lie to the very life in which it manifests itself. The same is true in other cases: - to create unyielding dramatic characters, evenly and deliberately striving for one goal, to invent a strictly conceived and subtly executed intrigue would mean to impose on Russian life something that is not in it at all" (5, 27). They say that Ostrovsky's characters are inconsistent and logically inconsistent. "But what if naturalness requires a lack of logical consistency?" - In this case, some contempt for the logical isolation of the work may turn out to be necessary from the point of view of fidelity to the facts of reality.

Its main representatives: N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, as well as N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin as the authors of actual critical articles, reviews and reviews.

Printed organs: magazines “Sovremennik”, “Russkoe Slovo”, “Domestic Notes” (since 1868).

The development and active influence of “real” criticism on Russian literature and public consciousness continued from the mid-50s to the end of the 60s.

N.G. Chernyshevsky

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889) acted as a literary critic from 1854 to 1861. In 1861, the last of Chernyshevsky’s fundamentally important articles, “Is this the beginning of change?” was published.

Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical speeches were preceded by a solution to general aesthetic issues undertaken by the critic in his master’s thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” (written in 1853, defended and published in 1855), as well as in a review of the Russian translation of Aristotle’s book “On Poetry” (1854) and auto-review of his own dissertation (1855).

Having published the first reviews in “Domestic Notes” by A.A. Kraevsky, Chernyshevsky in 1854 transferred at the invitation of N.A. Nekrasov at Sovremennik, where he heads the critical department. Sovremennik owed much to the collaboration of Chernyshevsky (and, from 1857, Dobrolyubov) not only for the rapid growth in the number of its subscribers, but also for its transformation into the main tribune of revolutionary democracy. The arrest in 1862 and the hard labor that followed interrupted Chernyshevsky’s literary and critical activity when he was only 34 years old.

Chernyshevsky acted as a direct and consistent opponent of the abstract aesthetic criticism of A.V. Druzhinina, P.V. Annenkova, V.P. Botkina, S.S. Dudyshkina. Specific disagreements between Chernyshevsky the critic and “aesthetic” criticism can be reduced to the question of the admissibility in literature (art) of the entire diversity of current life - including its socio-political conflicts (“the topic of the day”), and social ideology (trends) in general. “Aesthetic” criticism generally answered this question negatively. In her opinion, socio-political ideology, or, as Chernyshevsky’s opponents preferred to say, “tendentiousness,” is contraindicated in art, because it violates one of the main requirements of artistry - an objective and impartial depiction of reality. V.P. Botkin, for example, stated that “a political idea is the grave of art.” On the contrary, Chernyshevsky (like other representatives of “real” criticism) answered the same question in the affirmative. Literature not only can, but must become imbued with and inspired by the socio-political trends of its time, for only in this case will it become an expression of urgent social needs, and at the same time serve itself. After all, as the critic noted in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” (1855 - 1856), “only those areas of literature achieve brilliant development that arise under the influence of strong and living ideas that satisfy the urgent needs of the era.” Chernyshevsky, a democrat, socialist and peasant revolutionary, considered the most important of these needs to be the liberation of the people from serfdom and the elimination of autocracy.

The rejection of “aesthetic” criticism of social ideology in literature was justified, however, by a whole system of views on art, rooted in the tenets of German idealistic aesthetics - in particular, Hegel’s aesthetics. The success of Chernyshevsky’s literary-critical position was therefore determined not so much by the refutation of the particular positions of his opponents, but by a fundamentally new interpretation of general aesthetic categories. This was the subject of Chernyshevsky’s dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.” But first, let’s name the main literary critical works that a student needs to keep in mind: reviews “Poverty is not a vice.” Comedy by A. Ostrovsky" (1854), "On Poetry." Op. Aristotle" (1854); articles: “On sincerity in criticism” (1854), “Works of A.S. Pushkin" (1855), "Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature", "Childhood and adolescence. Essay by Count L.N. Tolstoy. War stories of Count L.N. Tolstoy" (1856), "Provincial Sketches... Collected and published by M.E. Saltykov. ..." (1857), "Russian man at rendez-vous" (1858), "Isn't this the beginning of a change?" (1861).

In his dissertation, Chernyshevsky gives a fundamentally different definition of the subject of art compared to German classical aesthetics. How was it understood in idealist aesthetics? The subject of art is beauty and its varieties: sublime, tragic, comic. The source of beauty was thought to be the absolute idea or the reality that embodies it, but only in the entire volume, space and extent of the latter. The fact is that in a separate phenomenon - finite and temporary - the absolute idea, by its nature eternal and infinite, according to idealistic philosophy, is not incarnate. Indeed, between the absolute and the relative, the general and the individual, the natural and the random, there is a contradiction similar to the difference between the spirit (it is immortal) and the flesh (which is mortal). It is not possible for a person to overcome it in practical (material, production, socio-political) life. The only areas in which the resolution of this contradiction was possible were considered religion, abstract thinking (in particular, as Hegel believed, his own philosophy, more precisely, its dialectical method) and, finally, art as the main types of spiritual activity, the success of which is enormous depends on the creative gift of a person, his imagination, fantasy.

This led to the conclusion; beauty in reality, which is inevitably finite and transitory, is absent; it exists only in the creative creations of the artist - works of art. It is art that brings beauty into life. Hence the corollary of the first premise: art, as the embodiment of beauty above life.// “Venus de Milo,” declares, for example, I.S. Turgenev, - perhaps, undoubtedly more than Roman law or the principles of 89 (that is, the French Revolution of 1789 - 1794 - V.N.).” Summarizing in his dissertation the main postulates of idealistic aesthetics and the consequences arising from them, Chernyshevsky writes: “Defining beauty as the complete manifestation of an idea in a separate being, we must come to the conclusion: “beauty in reality is only a ghost, put into it by our factism”; from this it will follow that “strictly speaking, the beautiful is created by our imagination, but in reality... there is no truly beautiful thing”; from the fact that there is no truly beautiful in nature, it will follow that “art has as its source the desire of man to make up for the shortcomings of the beautiful in objective reality” and that the beautiful created by art is higher than the beautiful in objective reality” - all these thoughts constitute the essence of the prevailing now concepts..."

If in reality there is no beauty and it is brought into it only by art, then creating the latter is more important than creating, improving life itself. And the artist should not so much help improve life as reconcile a person with its imperfections, compensating for it with the ideal-imaginary world of his work.

It was to this system of ideas that Chernyshevsky contrasted his materialistic definition of beauty: “beauty is life”; “beautiful is the being in which we see life as it should be according to our concepts; “Beautiful is the object that shows life in itself or reminds us of life.”

Its pathos and at the same time its fundamental novelty consisted in the fact that the main task of man was recognized not to create beauty in itself (in its spiritually imaginary form), but to transform life itself, including the present, current one, according to this person’s ideas about its ideal . Solidarizing in this case with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Chernyshevsky seems to be saying to his contemporaries: first of all, make life itself beautiful, and do not fly away from it in beautiful dreams. And second: If the source of beauty is life (and not an absolute idea, Spirit, etc.), then art in its search for beauty depends on life, generated by its desire for self-improvement as a function and means of this desire.

Chernyshevsky also challenged the traditional opinion of beauty as the supposed main goal of art. From his point of view, the content of art is much broader than beauty and constitutes “generally interesting things in life,” that is, it covers everything. what worries a person, what his fate depends on. For Chernyshevsky, man (and not beauty) essentially became the main subject of art. The critic interpreted the specifics of the latter differently. According to the logic of the dissertation, what distinguishes an artist from a non-artist is not the ability to embody an “eternal” idea in a separate phenomenon (event, character) and thereby overcome their eternal contradiction, but the ability to reproduce life collisions, processes and trends that are of general interest to contemporaries in their individually visual form. Art is conceived by Chernyshevsky not so much as a second (aesthetic) reality, but as a “concentrated” reflection of objective reality. Hence those extreme definitions of art (“art is a surrogate for reality”, “a textbook of life”), which, not without reason, were rejected by many contemporaries. The fact is that Chernyshevsky’s desire, legitimate in itself, to subordinate art to the interests of social progress in these formulations turned into oblivion of his creative nature.

In parallel with the development of materialist aesthetics, Chernyshevsky also reinterprets such a fundamental category of Russian criticism of the 40s - 60s as artistry. And here his position, although it is based on individual provisions of Belinsky, remains original and, in turn, is polemical to traditional ideas. Unlike Annenkov or Druzhinin (as well as such writers as I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov), Chernyshevsky considers the main condition of artistry not the objectivity and impartiality of the author and the desire to reflect reality in its entirety, not the strict dependence of each fragment of the work ( character, episode, detail) from the whole, not the isolation and completeness of the creation, but an idea (social tendency), the creative fruitfulness of which, according to the critic, is commensurate with its vastness, truthfulness (in the sense of coincidence with the objective logic of reality) and “consistency”. In the light of the last two requirements, Chernyshevsky analyzes, for example, the comedy by A.N. Ostrovsky “Poverty is not a vice”, in which he finds “a sugary embellishment of what cannot and should not be embellished.” The erroneous initial thought underlying the comedy deprived it, Chernyshevsky believes, of even plot unity. “Works that are false in their main idea,” the critic concludes, “are sometimes weak even in a purely artistic sense.”

If the consistency of a truthful idea provides unity to a work, then its social and aesthetic significance depends on the scale and relevance of the idea.

Chernyshevsky also demands that the form of the work correspond to its content (idea). However, this correspondence, in his opinion, should not be strict and pedantic, but only expedient: it is enough if the work is laconic, without unnecessary excesses. To achieve such expediency, Chernyshevsky believed, no special author's imagination or fantasy is needed.

The unity of a truthful and consistent idea with a corresponding form is what makes a work artistic. Chernyshevsky’s interpretation of artistry thus removed from this concept the mysterious aura that representatives of “aesthetic” criticism had endowed it with. It was also freed from dogmatism. At the same time, here, as in determining the specifics of art, Chernyshevsky’s approach was guilty of unjustified rationality and a certain straightforwardness.

The materialistic definition of beauty, the call to make everything that excites a person the content of art, the concept of artistry intersect and are refracted in Chernyshevsky’s criticism in the idea of ​​​​the social purpose of art and literature. The critic here develops and clarifies Belinsky’s views of the late 30s. Since literature is a part of life itself, a function and means of its self-improvement, it, says the critic, “cannot help but be a servant of one or another direction of ideas; this is a purpose that lies in her nature, which she cannot refuse, even if she wanted to refuse.” This is especially true for autocratic-serf Russia, which is undeveloped politically and civilly, where literature “concentrates... the mental life of the people” and has “encyclopedic significance.” The direct duty of Russian writers is to spiritualize their work with “humanity and concern for the improvement of human life,” which have become the dominant need of the time. “The poet,” writes Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period...”, is a lawyer., of her (the public. - V.NL) own ardent desires and sincere thoughts.

Chernyshevsky’s struggle for a literature of social ideology and direct public service explains the critic’s rejection of the work of those poets (A. Fet. A. Maykov, Ya. Polonsky, N. Shcherbina), whom he calls “epicureans”, “for whom public interests do not exist, for whom public interests are known.” only personal pleasures and sorrows. Considering the position of “pure art” in everyday life to be by no means disinterested, Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period...” also rejects the argumentation of the supporters of this art: that aesthetic pleasure “in itself brings significant benefit to a person, softening his heart, elevating his soul,” that aesthetic experience “directly... ennobles the soul by the sublimity and nobility of objects and feelings with which we are seduced in works of art.” And a cigar, objects Chernyshevsky, softens, and a good dinner, in general health and excellent living conditions. This, the critic concludes, a purely epicurean view of art.

The materialist interpretation of general aesthetic categories was not the only prerequisite for Chernyshevsky’s criticism. Chernyshevsky himself indicated two other sources of it in “Essays on the Gogol Period...”. This is, firstly, Belinsky’s legacy of the 40s and, secondly, Gogol’s, or, as Chernyshevsky clarifies, the “critical direction” in Russian literature.

In “Essays...” Chernyshevsky solved a number of problems. First of all, he sought to revive the precepts and principles of criticism of Belinsky, whose very name was under censorship ban until 1856, and whose legacy was suppressed or interpreted by “aesthetic” criticism (in the letters of Druzhinin, Botkin, Annenkov to Nekrasov and I. Panaev) one-sidedly, sometimes negative. The plan corresponded to the intention of the editors of Sovremennik to “fight the decline of our criticism” and “to improve, if possible,” their own “critical department,” as stated in the “Announcement about the publication of Sovremennik” in 1855. It was necessary, Nekrasov believed, to return to the interrupted tradition - to the “straight path” of “Notes of the Fatherland” of the forties, that is, Belinsky: “... what faith there was in the magazine, what a living connection between him and the readers!” Analysis from democratic and materialist positions of the main critical systems of the 20s - 40s (N. Polevoy, O. Senkovsky, N. Nadezhdin, I. Kireevsky, S. Shevyrev, V. Belinsky) at the same time allowed Chernyshevsky to determine for the reader his own position in the emerging with the outcome of the “dark seven years” (1848 - 1855) of the literary struggle, as well as to formulate modern tasks and principles of literary criticism. “Essays...” also served polemical purposes, in particular the fight against the opinions of A.V. Druzhinin, which Chernyshevsky clearly has in mind when he shows the selfish-protective motives of S. Shevyrev’s literary judgments.

Considering in the first chapter of “Essays...” the reasons for the decline of criticism by N. Polevoy, “who at first so cheerfully emerged as one of the leaders in the literary and intellectual movement” of Russia, Chernyshevsky concluded that for viable criticism, firstly, modern philosophical theory, Secondly. moral feeling, meaning by it the humanistic and patriotic aspirations of the critic, and finally, orientation towards truly progressive phenomena in literature.

All these components organically merged in Belinsky’s criticism, the most important principles of which were “fiery patriotism” and the latest “scientific concepts,” that is, the materialism of L. Feuerbach and socialist ideas. Chernyshevsky considers other major advantages of Belinsky’s criticism to be its struggle against romanticism in literature and in life, the rapid growth from abstract aesthetic criteria to animation by the “interests of national life” and the judgments of writers from the point of view of “the significance of his activities for our society.”

In “Essays...” for the first time in the Russian censored press, Belinsky was not only associated with the ideological and philosophical movement of the forties, but was made its central figure. Chernyshevsky outlined the scheme of Belinsky’s creative emotion, which remains the basis of modern ideas about the activity of a critic: the early “telescopic” period - the search for a holistic philosophical comprehension of the world and the nature of art; a natural meeting with Hegel on this path, a period of “reconciliation” with reality and a way out of it, a mature period of creativity, which in turn revealed two moments of development - according to the degree of deepening of social thinking.

At the same time, for Chernyshevsky, the differences that should appear in future criticism in comparison with Belinsky’s criticism are also obvious. Here is his definition of criticism: “Criticism is a judgment about the merits and demerits of a literary movement. Its purpose is to encourage the expression of the opinion of the best part of the public and to promote its further dissemination among the masses” (“On Sincerity in Criticism”).

“The best part of the public” are, without a doubt, democrats and ideologists of the revolutionary transformation of Russian society. Future criticism should directly serve their tasks and goals. To do this, it is necessary to abandon the workshop isolation among professionals and enter into constant communication with the public. reader, as well as gain “all possible ... clarity, certainty and directness” of judgment. The interests of the common cause, which she will serve, give her the right to be harsh.

In the light of the requirements, first of all, of social-humanistic ideology, Chernyshevsky undertakes an examination of both the phenomena of current realistic literature and its sources in the person of Pushkin and Gogol.

Four articles about Pushkin were written by Chernyshevsky simultaneously with “Essays on the Gogol period...”. They included Chernyshevsky in the discussion started by A.V.’s article. Druzhinin “A.S. Pushkin and the latest edition of his works”: 1855) in connection with Annenkov’s Collected Works of the poet. Unlike Druzhinin, who created the image of a creator-artist, alien to the social conflicts and unrest of his time, Chernyshevsky appreciates in the author of “Eugene Onegin” the fact that he “was the first to describe Russian morals and the life of various classes ... with amazing fidelity and insight” . Thanks to Pushkin, Russian literature became closer to “Russian society.” The ideologist of the peasant revolution especially cherishes Pushkin’s “Scenes from the Times of Knights” (they should be placed “not lower than “Boris Godunov””), the meaningfulness of Pushkin’s verse (“every line... touched, aroused thought”). Crete, recognizes the enormous importance of Pushkin “in the history of Russian education.” enlightenment. However, in contrast to these praises, the relevance of Pushkin’s legacy for modern literature was recognized by Chernyshevsky as insignificant. In fact, in his assessment of Pushkin, Chernyshevsky takes a step back compared to Belinsky, who called the creator of “Onegin” (in the fifth article of Pushkin’s cycle) the first “poet-artist” of Rus'. “Pushkin was,” writes Chernyshevsky, “primarily a poet of form.” “Pushkin was not a poet of someone with a specific view of life, like Byron, he was not even a poet of thought in general, like ... Goethe and Schiller.” Hence the final conclusion of the articles: “Pushkin belongs to a bygone era... He cannot be recognized as a luminary of modern literature.”

The general assessment of the founder of Russian realism turned out to be unhistorical. It also made clear the sociological bias in Chernyshevsky’s understanding of artistic content and poetic idea, which was unjustified in this case. Willingly or unwittingly, the critic handed Pushkin over to his opponents - representatives of “aesthetic” criticism.

In contrast to Pushkin’s legacy, the Gogolian legacy according to Chernyshevsky’s thought, addressed to the needs of social life and therefore full of deep content, receives the highest appreciation in “Essays...”. The critic especially emphasizes Gogol’s humanistic pathos, which was essentially not noticed in Pushkin’s work. “To Gogol,” writes Chernyshevsky, “those who need protection owe a lot; he became the head of those. who deny evil and vulgarity."

The humanism of Gogol’s “deep nature,” however, Chernyshevsky believes, was not supported by modern advanced ideas (teachings), which had no impact on the writer. According to the critic, this limited the critical pathos of Gogol’s works: the artist saw the ugliness of the facts of Russian social life, but did not understand the connection of these facts with the fundamental foundations of Russian autocratic-serf society. In general, Gogol had the “gift of unconscious creativity,” without which one cannot be an artist. However, the poet, adds Chernyshevsky, “will not create anything great if he is not also gifted with a wonderful mind, strong common sense and subtle taste.” Chernyshevsky explains Gogol's artistic drama by the suppression of the liberation movement after 1825, as well as the influence on the writer of the protective minded S. Shevyrev, M. Pogodin and his sympathies for patriarchy. Nevertheless, Chernyshevsky’s overall assessment of Gogol’s work is very high: “Gogol was the father of Russian prose,” “he is credited with firmly introducing the satirical into Russian literature - or, as it would be more fair to call his critical trends,” he is “the first in Russian literature to have a decisive desire to content and, moreover, striving in such a fruitful direction as critical.” And finally: “There was no writer in the world who was as important for his people as Gogol was for Russia,” “he awakened in us consciousness about ourselves - this is his true merit.”

Chernyshevsky’s attitude towards Gogol and the Gogolian trend in Russian realism, however, did not remain unchanged, but depended on which phase of his criticism it belonged to. The fact is that in Chernyshevsky’s criticism there are two phases: the first - from 1853 to 1858, the second - from 1858 to 1862. The turning point for them was the emerging revolutionary situation in Russia, which entailed a fundamental division between democrats and liberals on all issues, including literary ones.

The first phase is characterized by the critic’s struggle for the Gogolian direction, which remains effective and fruitful in his eyes. This is a struggle for Ostrovsky, Turgenev, Grigorovich, Pisemsky, L. Tolstoy, for the strengthening and development of their critical pathos. The task is to unite all anti-serfdom writer groups.

In 1856, Chernyshevsky dedicated a large review to Grigorovich, by that time the author not only of “The Village” and “Anton the Miserable,” but also of the novels “Fishermen” (1853), “Migrants” (1856), imbued with deep participation in life and fate “ commoners", especially serfs. Contrasting Grigorovich to his numerous imitators, Chernyshevsky believes that in his stories "peasant life is depicted correctly, without embellishment; strong talent and deep feeling are visible in the description."

Until 1858, Chernyshevsky took “extra people” under protection, for example, from the criticism of S. Dudyshkin. reproaching them for lack of “harmony with the situation,” that is, for opposition to the environment. In the conditions of modern society, such “harmony,” Chernyshevsky shows, will come down only to “being an efficient official, a managerial landowner” (“Notes on Journals,” 1857*. At this time, the critic sees in “superfluous people” more victims of the Nicholas reaction , and he values ​​the share of protest that they contain. True, even at this time he treats them differently: he sympathizes with Rudin and Beltov, who strive for social activity, but not with Onegin and Pechorin.

Particularly interesting is Chernyshevsky’s attitude towards L. Tolstoy, who, by the way, spoke extremely hostilely about the critic’s dissertation and his very personality at that time. In the article “Childhood and adolescence. Essay by Count L.N. Tolstoy...” Chernyshevsky revealed extraordinary aesthetic sensitivity when assessing the artist, whose ideological positions were very far from the mood of the critic. Chernyshevsky notes two main features in Tolstoy’s talent: the originality of his psychological analysis (unlike other realist writers, Tolstoy is not concerned with the result of the mental process, not the correspondence of emotions and actions, etc., but “the mental process itself, its forms, its laws , dialectics of the soul") and the sharpness ("purity") of the "moral feeling", the moral perception of the depicted." The critic rightly understood Tolstoy's mental analysis as an expansion and enrichment of the possibilities of realism (we note in passing that at first even such a person was very skeptical about this feature of Tolstoy's prose a master like Turgenev, who called it “picking out the dirty linen from under the armpits.”) As for the “purity of moral feeling”, which Chernyshevsky noted, by the way, in Belinsky, Chernyshevsky sees in it a guarantee of the artist’s rejection, after moral falsity, also of social untruth , social lies and injustice.This was already confirmed by Tolstoy’s story “The Morning of the Landowner,” which showed the meaninglessness of lordly philanthropy in relation to the peasant under the conditions of serfdom. The story was highly praised by Chernyshevsky in “Notes on Journals” in 1856. The author was given credit for the fact that the content of the story was taken “from a new sphere of life,” which also developed the writer’s very view “of life.”

After 1858, Chernyshevsky’s judgments about Grigorovich, Pisemsky, Turgenev, as well as about “superfluous people” changed. This is explained not only by the break between democrats and liberals (in 1859 - 1860 L. Tolstoy, Goncharov, Botkin, Turgenev left Sovremennik), but also by the fact that during these years a new trend was emerging in Russian realism, represented by Saltykov-Shchedrin (in 1856, “Russian Bulletin” began publishing his “Provincial Sketches”), Nekrasov, N. Uspensky, V. Sleptsov, A. Levitov, F. Reshetnikov and inspired by democratic ideas. Democratic writers had to establish themselves in their own positions, freeing themselves from the influence of their predecessors. Chernyshevsky is also involved in solving this problem, believing that Gogol’s direction has exhausted itself. Hence the overestimation of Rudin (the critic sees in him an unacceptable “caricature” of M. Bakunin, with whom the revolutionary tradition was associated), and other “superfluous people” whom Chernyshevsky no longer separates from the liberal nobles.

Chernyshevsky’s famous article “Russian man at rendez-vous” (1958) became a declaration and proclamation of an uncompromising demarcation from noble liberalism in the Russian liberation movement of the 60s. It appears at the moment when, as the critic specifically emphasizes, the denial of serfdom, which united liberals and democrats in the 40s and 50s, was replaced by the polar opposite attitude of the former allies to the coming, Chernyshevsky believes, peasant revolution.

The reason for the article was the story by I.S. Turgenev's "Asya" (1858), in which the author of "The Diary of an Extra Man", "The Calm", "Correspondence", "Trips to Woodland" depicted the drama of failed love in conditions when the happiness of two young people seemed both possible and close . Interpreting the hero of “Asia” (along with Rudin, Beltov, Nekrasov’s Agarin and other “superfluous people”) as a type of noble liberal. Chernyshevsky gives his explanation of the social position (“behavior”) of such people - albeit revealed in the intimate situation of a date with a beloved girl who reciprocates. Filled with ideal aspirations and sublime feelings, they, the critic says, fatally stop short of putting them into practice and are unable to combine word with deed. And the reason for this inconsistency is not in any of their personal weaknesses, but in their belonging to the dominant noble class, burdened with “class prejudices.” It is impossible to expect decisive actions from a noble liberal in accordance with “the great historical interests of national development” (that is, to eliminate the autocratic serfdom system), because the main obstacle for them is the nobility itself. And Chernyshevsky calls for a decisive rejection of illusions regarding the liberation-humanizing capabilities of the noble oppositionist: “The idea is developing in us more and more strongly that this opinion about him is an empty dream, we feel... that there are people better than him, precisely those whom he offends; that we would be better off without him.”

In his article “Polemical Beauty” (1860), Chernyshevsky explains his current critical attitude towards Turgenev and his break with the writer, whom the critic had previously defended from attacks, by the incompatibility of revolutionary democracy with reformism. cnpalai “Our way of thinking became so clear for Mr. Turgenev that he stopped approving of him . It began to seem to us that Mr. Turgenev’s latest stories were not as close to our view of things as before, when his direction was not so clear to us, and our views were not so clear to him. We parted".

Since 1858, Chernyshevsky’s main concern has been devoted to raznochinsko-democratic literature and its authors, called upon to master the craft of writing and show the public heroes other than “superfluous people,” close to the people and inspired by popular interests.

Chernyshevsky connects his hopes for creating a “completely new period” in poetry primarily with Nekrasov. Back in 1856, he wrote to him in response to a request to speak about the famous collection “Poems of N. Nekrasov” that had just been published: “We have never had a poet like you.” Chernyshevsky retained his high assessment of Nekrasov throughout the following years. Having learned about the poet’s fatal illness, he asked (in a letter on August 14, 1877 to Pypin from Vilyuysk) to kiss him and tell him, “the most brilliant and noble of all Russian poets. I’m crying for him” (“Tell Nikolai Gavrilovich,” Nekrasov answered Pypin, “that I thank him very much, I am now consoled: his words are more valuable than anyone else’s words”). In the eyes of Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov is the first great Russian poet who became truly popular, that is, who expressed both the state of the oppressed people (the peasantry), and faith in their strength, the growth of national self-awareness. At the same time, Chernyshevsky cherishes the intimate lyrics of Nekrasov - “poetry of the heart,” “plays without a tendency,” as he calls it, - which embodied the emotional-intellectual structure and spiritual experience of the Russian raznochinsky intelligentsia, its inherent system of moral and aesthetic values.

In the author of “Provincial Sketches” M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky saw a writer who went beyond the critical realism of Gogol. Unlike the author of Dead Souls, Shchedrin, according to Chernyshevsky, already knows “what the connection is between that branch of life in which facts are found and other branches of mental, moral, civil, state life,” that is, he knows how to construct private outrages Russian social life to their source - the socialist system of Russia. “Provincial Sketches” are valuable not only as a “wonderful literary phenomenon,” but also as a “historical fact” of Russian life” on the path of its self-awareness.

In his reviews of writers ideologically close to him, Chernyshevsky raises the question of the need for a new positive hero in literature. He is waiting for “his speech, the most cheerful, at the same time the calmest and most decisive speech, in which one could hear not the timidity of theory before life, but proof that reason can rule over life and a person can reconcile his life with his convictions.” Chernyshevsky himself became involved in solving this problem in 1862, creating in the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress a novel about “new people” - “What is to be done?”

Chernyshevsky did not have time to systematize his views on democratic literature. But one of its principles - the question of depicting the people - was developed by him very thoroughly. This is the subject of the last of Chernyshevsky’s major literary critical articles, “Isn’t this the beginning of change?” (1861), the occasion for which was “Essays on National Life” by N. Uspensky.

The critic opposes any idealization of the people. In conditions of the social awakening of the people (Chernyshevsky knew about mass peasant uprisings in connection with the predatory reform of 1861), he believes that it objectively serves protective purposes, since it reinforces popular passivity, the belief in the inability of the people to independently decide their fate. Nowadays, the depiction of the people in the form of Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin or Anton Goremyka is unacceptable. Literature must show the people, their moral and psychological state “without embellishment,” because only “such an image testifies to the recognition of the people as equal to other classes and will help the people get rid of the weaknesses and vices instilled in them over centuries of humiliation and lawlessness. It is equally important, not content with routine manifestations of folk life and ordinary characters, to show the people in whom the “initiative of popular activity” is concentrated. This was a call to create images of people's leaders and rebels in literature. Already the image of Saveliy, the “hero of Holy Russia” from Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” spoke of this. that this behest of Chernyshevsky was heard.

Chernyshevsky's aesthetics and literary criticism are not distinguished by academic dispassion. They, in the words of V.I. Lenin, imbued with the “spirit of class struggle.” And also, we add, the spirit of rationalism, faith in the omnipotence of reason, characteristic of Chernyshevsky as an educator. This obliges us to consider Chernyshevsky’s literary critical system in the unity of not only its strong and promising premises, but also its relatively weak and even extreme premises.

Chernyshevsky is right in defending the priority of life over art. But he is mistaken when, on this basis, he calls art a “surrogate” (that is, a substitute) for reality. In fact, art is not only special (in relation to the scientific or social-practical activity of a person), but also a relatively autonomous form of spiritual creativity - an aesthetic reality, in the creation of which a huge role belongs to the holistic ideal of the artist and the efforts of his creative imagination. In turn, by the way, underestimated by Chernyshevsky. “Reality,” he writes, “is not only more vivid, but also more complete than fantasy. Fantasy images are only a pale and almost always unsuccessful reworking of reality. This is true only in the sense of the connection between artistic fantasy and the life aspirations and ideals of a writer, painter, musician, etc. However, the very understanding of creative fantasy and its possibilities is erroneous, for the consciousness of a great artist does not so much remake the real world as create a new world.

The concept of an artistic idea (content) acquires from Chernyshevsky not only a sociological, but sometimes a rationalistic meaning. If its first interpretation is completely justified in relation to a number of artists (for example, Nekrasov, Saltykov-Shchedrin), then the second actually eliminates the line between literature and science, art and sociological treatise, memoirs, etc. An example of an unjustified rationalization of artistic content is the following statement of a critic in a review of the Russian translation of Aristotle’s works: “Art, or, better said, POETRY... distributes among the mass of readers a huge amount of information and, more importantly, familiarity with the concepts developed by science - - this is the great significance of poetry for life.” Here Chernyshevsky, wittingly or unwittingly, anticipates the future literary utilitarianism of D.I. Pisareva. Another example. Literature, the critic says elsewhere, acquires authenticity and content if it “talks about everything that is important in any respect that happens in society, considers all these facts ... from all possible points of view, explains, from what causes each fact comes, what supports it, what phenomena must be brought into existence to strengthen it, if it is noble, or to weaken it, if it is harmful.” In other words, a writer is good if, while recording significant phenomena and trends in social life, he subjects them to analysis and makes his own “sentence” on them. This is how Chernyshevsky himself acted as the author of the novel “What is to be done?” But to fulfill such a formulated task it is not at all necessary to be an artist, for it is completely solvable within the framework of a sociological treatise, a journalistic article, brilliant examples of which were given by Chernyshevsky himself (remember the article “Russian man on rendez-vous”), Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev.

Perhaps the most vulnerable place in Chernyshevsky's literary critical system is the idea of ​​artistry and typification. Agreeing that “the prototype for a poetic person is often a real person,” raised by the writer “to a general meaning,” the critic adds: “There is usually no need to raise it, because the original already has a general meaning in its individuality.” It turns out that typical faces exist in reality itself, and are not created by the artist. The writer can only “transfer” them from life into his work in order to explain them and judge them. This was not only a step back from the corresponding teachings of Belinsky, but also a dangerous simplification, reducing the work and work of the artist to copying reality.

The well-known rationalization of the creative act and art in general, the sociological bias in the interpretation of literary and artistic content as the embodiment of one or another social trend explain the negative attitude towards Chernyshevsky’s views not only of representatives of “aesthetic” criticism, but also of such major artists of the 50s and 60s , like Turgenev, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy. In Chernyshevsky’s ideas they saw the danger of “enslaving art” (N.D. Akhsharumov) by political and other transitory tasks.

While noting the weaknesses of Chernyshevsky's aesthetics, one should remember the fruitfulness - especially for Russian society and Russian literature - of its main pathos - the idea of ​​​​the social and humanistic service of art and the artist. Philosopher Vladimir Solovyov would later call Chernyshevsky’s dissertation one of the first experiments in “practical aesthetics.” L. Tolstoy’s attitude towards her will change over the years. A number of provisions of his treatise “What is art?” (published in 1897 - 1898) will be directly consonant with the ideas of Chernyshevsky.

And one last thing. We must not forget that literary criticism was for Chernyshevsky, in the conditions of a censored press, in fact, the main opportunity from the position of revolutionary democracy to highlight the pressing problems of Russian social development and influence it. One can say about Chernyshevsky the critic what the author of “Essays on the Gogol Period...” said about Belinsky: “He feels that the boundaries of literary issues are narrow, he yearns in his office, like Faust: he is cramped in these walls lined with books , - it doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad; he needs life, not talk about the merits of Pushkin’s poems.”

St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions

KIROV BRANCH

TEST

in the discipline History of Russian Literature

Topic: Drama A.N. Ostrovsky “The Thunderstorm” in Russian criticism

Salamatova Anna Alexandrovna

Introduction

Many of the largest works of world literature upon their appearance were subject to censorship bans and persecution, becoming a field of heated polemics and fierce ideological struggle. Griboyedov did not live to see the publication of the full text of “Woe from Wit”; he did not see his comedy on stage. Flaubert - after the publication of Madame Bovary - was put on trial for “insulting public morality, religion and good morals.” The critical battles surrounding most of the most significant Russian novels (especially Turgenev's novels), dramas, poems and poems of the nineteenth century represented irreconcilable clashes between progressive and reactionary forces, the struggle for truth and the realism of artistic creation.

Contemporaries vigorously greeted the new works, which later became classics. A complex and contradictory struggle also unfolded around Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm”. After the author's readings of the new drama, its first stage performances and magazine publication, a fierce battle ensued between critics with different ideological positions, between innovators and retrogrades. The unusual and complex nature of the controversy surrounding “The Thunderstorm” was that not only ideological and aesthetic opponents, but also leading artists and critics differed in their views on this drama. “The Thunderstorm” was rated very highly by people of the warring ideological camps.

“The Thunderstorm” first saw the light not in print, but on stage: on November 16, 1859, the premiere took place at the Maly Theater, and on December 2 at the Alexandrinsky Theater. The drama was published in the first issue of the magazine “Library for Reading” the following year, 1860, and in March of the same year it was published as a separate publication.

It is obvious that Ostrovsky’s “most decisive work” was not accidental, nor out of a writer’s whim, appeared at the turn of the fifties and sixties, at a time when the social atmosphere in the country was heated to the limit, when life itself inevitably demanded decisive changes. “The Thunderstorm” sounded like the tragic voice of the times, like the cry of the people’s soul, which could no longer endure oppression and bondage.

The purpose of this work is to study the place of the drama “The Thunderstorm” in literature. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: analyze scientific publications on this work, characterize the characters in the drama, highlight the essence of the conflict present in “The Thunderstorm,” and also reveal the essence of the title of this work.

Drama (as a generic concept of tragedy and comedy) is the highest kind of poetry, and the highest precisely because in it the personality of the poet - his mood, his views, etc., clearly appearing in lyrical works and more or less visible in epic works, disappear completely , giving way to life, reproduced quite objectively. Therefore, drama does not allow for morality, or maxims, or ulterior motives, or the desire to carry out some idea, to present some principle in a favorable light, or the desire to defeat some social vice and elevate some social virtue to a pedestal. All this is alien to drama, which deals only with life, objectively reproduced - and with nothing more. The task of a dramatic writer is to bring life to the stage, but not to judge it, not to explain it, not to punish its bad sides or admire its good ones. If a dramatic writer, struck by some unreasonable phenomenon of life, sets himself the task of exposing to the viewer in the brightest possible light all the harm of this phenomenon, then he ceases to be a dramatic writer in the real sense of the word (for he ceases to have an objective attitude towards life) and becomes a satirist, punishing this or that social evil. Such satire usually takes on a dramatic form and, depending on the degree of evil punished, takes on a comic or tragic character. Such is “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov, such is the last play by A. N. Ostrovsky, “The Thunderstorm,” which was performed at a benefit performance in the city of Vasilyev.1

If we look at Mr. Ostrovsky's play as a drama in the real sense of the word, then it will not withstand strict criticism: much in it will turn out to be superfluous, much insufficient; but if we see in it caustic satire, clothed only in the form of drama, then it, in our opinion, surpasses everything so far written by the venerable author.

1.1 The purpose of creating Ostrovsky’s play

The purpose of "The Thunderstorm" is to show in all its terrifying light how that terrible family despotism that prevails in the "dark kingdom" (According to the excellent expression of Mr. -Bov (Dobrolyubov).) - in the life of some part of our callous, undeveloped merchants, with its inner side life that still belongs to times long past - so is that murderous, fatal mysticism,2 which in a terrible net entangles the soul of an undeveloped person. And the author masterfully achieved his goal: the disastrous results of both appear before you in a terrible, astonishing picture, in a picture faithfully copied from nature and not deviating a single feature from the gloomy reality; you see in living, artistically reproduced images what these two scourges of the human race lead to - to loss of will, character, debauchery and even suicide.

1.2 Images of heroes in the plot of Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”

The plot of the drama is as follows. In the city of Kalinov, on the banks of the Volga, lives Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova, a rich merchant's wife, a widow, a rude, wild woman, a bigot and a despot. Rooted in old barbaric concepts, she is a terrible scourge in her family: she oppresses her son, suppressing every manifestation of his will, every impulse, she oppresses her daughter-in-law, sharpening her like rusty iron for every act that disagrees with her wild, insane demands. Kabanova is the ideal of a female slave, ossified in slavery and enslaving everything that her wild tyranny can extend to. There is something hellish, satanic in this woman; This is some kind of Lady Macbeth,3 snatched from the dark corners of the “dark kingdom”.

Tikhon Ivanovich, Kabanova’s son, on the contrary, is a kind man, with a soft heart, but already completely devoid of any will: his mother does whatever she wants with him. Loving his wife and, by his nature, not being able to treat her rudely, despotically, as the ancient customs require, in which Kabanova would like to raise and keep everyone, he thereby incurs the constant persecution of his mother, her rude nature, brought up in rude, barbaric morals, cannot allow the thought that a husband could not beat his wife, and treat her meekly, like a human being. She sees this as a weakness and a character flaw. The wife, in her opinion, also should not be affectionate towards her husband and openly express her feelings - she is not a mistress, but a wife (an amazing argument!): all this is contrary to the code of morality, which is so sacredly adhered to in the “dark kingdom”. It is only proper for a wife to subserviently before her husband, bow at his feet, unquestioningly carry out his orders - and deceive him, pretend, hide her thoughts and feelings from him.

Having suppressed all will in her son, Kabanova cannot, however, completely enslave her daughter-in-law: Katerina constantly rebuffs her, constantly defends her rights to independence. Hence the eternal enmity between them. The result of all this is that life in Kabanova’s house is not life, but hard labor. Neither Tikhon nor Katerina has the strength to remain in this situation, and each of them gets out of their apparently hopeless situation in their own way. Tikhon is eager to go somewhere - and gets drunk - although he will take his soul away with wine - and his mother does not say a word against this: drinking and debauchery is allowed by the morals of the “dark kingdom”, as long as everything is sewn and covered. Katerina also finds an outcome, but only in a different way: she falls in love with one young man, Boris Grigorievich, the nephew of the merchant Dikiy.

In Katerina, as an undeveloped woman, there is no consciousness of duty, moral obligations, no developed sense of human dignity and no fear of sullying it with some immoral act; in her there is only the fear of sin, the fear of the devil, she is only afraid of absolute hell, fiery Gehenna: 4 there is mysticism in her, but no morality.

And she, in our opinion, is the only difference from her sister-in-law, Varvara, in whom there is no longer any mysticism or morality, and who calmly spends her nights with the clerk Vanya Kudryash, without fear of either humiliating her human dignity or getting caught for it into fiery Gehenna. Katerina’s personality attracts the viewer from the first time, but only from the first time, until you think about it; she deserves not sympathy, but only compassion, as the epileptics, the blind, the lame deserve it: you can feel sorry for them, you should try to help them, but you certainly cannot sympathize with their epilepsy,5 blindness and lameness: that would be madness. If Katerina had not had such a mother-in-law (mother-in-law - I.S.) - a Baba Yaga, she would not have started an intrigue with Boris and would have spent her life with Tisha, who, it seems to us, is a thousand times smarter and more moral than the vulgar Boris. But she has a mother-in-law - Lady Macbeth - and she walks with her lover for ten nights, forgetting during this time both about the Last Judgment and about fiery hell. But then her husband returns - and the fear of the sin he has committed begins to torment Katerina. If mysticism had not overwhelmed her so much, she would have somehow gotten out of her predicament (especially with the help of Varvara, who will guide and lead her out) - But mysticism has overpowered her too much - and she does not know what to do: the thought of the sin she has committed haunts her at every step. And then another thunderstorm turns up, which drives her into some kind of grotto, and in the grotto on the walls there are pictures of the Last Judgment and fiery hell - well, it’s all over. Katerina fell at her husband’s feet, and well, repent - and she repented of everything, and even in front of all the honest people who also ran here to take shelter from the rain.

What followed is not difficult to guess: Katerina ran away from home, turned to Boris to take her with him (his uncle sends him to Siberia for love affairs), but Boris, a terrible vulgar, answered her that his uncle did not order it. And the unfortunate woman was left with either of two options: either return to her mother-in-law for eternal torment and suffering, or throw herself into the Volga. Mysticism helped her here too: she rushed into the Volga...

Despite, however, such a tragic end, Katerina - we repeat, still does not arouse the viewer's sympathy - because there is nothing to sympathize with, there was nothing reasonable, nothing human in her actions: she fell in love with Boris for no reason, cheated to her husband (who trusted her so completely, so nobly that, when saying goodbye to her, it was even difficult for him to pronounce his mother’s strict order not to look at other people’s fellows) - for no reason at all, she repented - for no reason at all , threw herself into the river - also for no reason at all. This is why Katerina cannot possibly be the heroine of a drama; but it serves as an excellent subject for satire. Of course, there is no point in bursting out with thunder against Katerina - they are not to blame for what the environment has made of them, into which not a single ray of light has yet penetrated; but then it is all the more necessary to rage against an environment where there is no religion (mysticism is not a religion), no morality, no humanity, where everything is vulgar and rude and leads to only vulgar results.

So, the drama “The Thunderstorm” is a drama only in name, but in essence it is a satire directed against two of the most terrible evils deeply rooted in the “dark kingdom” - against family despotism and mysticism.

Whoever looks at Mr. Ostrovsky's drama as a drama in the real sense of the word and applies to it demands that are appropriate only for dramas that are completely artistic, and not dramatic satires, will come to the conclusion that all the other faces of the drama about which We haven’t talked yet, it’s completely unnecessary. But it won't be fair; for - once again - Mr. Ostrovsky's drama is not a drama, but a satire.

The best of these accessory faces - necessary and excellent in satire, and superfluous in drama - is, in our opinion, Kuligin, a tradesman, a self-taught watchmaker. This face is directly snatched from life and is full of deep meaning in relation to the main idea of ​​Mr. Ostrovsky’s drama. Look - what a bright worldview Kuligin has, how alien mysticism is to him, how kindly and joyfully he looks at everyone, how he loves everyone, look what a desire for knowledge he has, what a love for nature, what a thirst to benefit people: he is also concerned about the construction of a sundial on the boulevard, and the construction of lightning rods - and all this is not for oneself, not for self-interest, not for the sake of speculation, but so - for the sake of the common good, in the purest and noblest meaning of the word... Look now at the other face of the drama ( also accessory): to Savelya Prokofich Dikiy, a merchant, a significant person in the city. What a contrast with Kuligin! The first exudes humanity, rationality, it is clear that the light of God has penetrated his soul; the second is like a fierce beast: he doesn’t want to know anything, doesn’t want to recognize anyone’s rights, doesn’t listen to anyone, scolds everyone, finds fault with everyone - and all because he has such a temper that he can’t control himself. Where does this contrast come from? Because a ray of truth, goodness and beauty - a ray of education - has penetrated into the soul of one, while the soul of the other is enveloped in impenetrable darkness, which can only be dispersed by the light of enlightenment...

Of the other accessory persons, after Kuligin, Feklusha, the hanger-on, comes to the fore. This face, masterfully drawn from life, plays a huge role in the concept of Mr. Ostrovsky’s satirical drama. Feklusha, who talks about “Saltan Mahmud of Turkey”, about “Saltan Mahmud of Persia” and that in Turkey there are no righteous judges, but all judges are unrighteous, etc., this Feklusha, and others like her, constitute the only source of light and enlightenment for the inhabitants of the “dark kingdom”: every absurdity that can come into her head will usually get stuck forever and ever in the heads of “dark people” who listen with religious reverence to her story about distant countries - about holy places, about the city of Kyiv and so on. and so on. A considerable source of mysticism, which entangled the soul of unfortunate Katerina in such a devilish net, lies, in our opinion, in these hangers-on Feklushi, in their stories about various differences that fog the consciousness of poor “dark people” for the rest of their lives.

Now a few words about the other persons. They are not needed for the course of the drama (with the possible exception of the Barbarians), but are necessary for a complete picture of the life of the district merchants, of which “The Thunderstorm” presents us with a bilious satire. Dikoy, Boris’s uncle, is one of the tyrants who are so brilliant at Mr. Ostrovsky. A picture of merchant life cannot exist without a tyrant: this is already an axiom. This is the reason why Dikoy is brought out in “The Thunderstorm”, although he is not needed for the course of the play - and the reason, in our opinion, is completely legal and reasonable.

Varvara’s face is also depicted excellently, and it is absolutely necessary for the concept of satire: Varvara serves as visual, plastic proof that the despotism of a mother will not protect her daughter’s morality, as is confirmed by millions of examples taken from the life of the “dark kingdom.”

As for Boris’s face (although necessary in the drama, it is completely colorless), its very colorlessness is its dignity as an artistically reproduced face: Boris should be colorless, because his uncle’s tyranny has brought out any color in him. His colorlessness is also good in the sense that it brings into relief the whole absurdity of Katerina’s love for him.

play by Ostrovsky critic Pisarev

2. Assessment of the drama by Russian critics

2.1“A Ray in the Dark Kingdom” by Dobrolyubov

In 1859, Ostrovsky summed up the interim result of his literary activity: his two-volume collected works appeared. “We consider it best to apply real criticism to Ostrovsky’s works, which consists of reviewing what his works give us,” Dobrolyubov formulates his main theoretical principle. “Real criticism relates to the artist’s work in the same way as to the phenomena of real life: she studies them, trying to determine their own norm, to collect their essential, characteristic features, but without fussing at all about why oats are not rye, and coal is not diamond..."

What kind of norm did Dobrolyubov see in Ostrovsky’s world? “Social activities are little touched upon in Ostrovsky’s comedies, but Ostrovsky extremely fully and vividly displays two types of relationships to which a person can still attach his soul in our country - family relationships and property relations. It is no wonder, therefore, that the plots and the very names of his plays revolve around the family, the groom, the bride, wealth and poverty.

The “Dark Kingdom” is a world of senseless tyranny and suffering of “our younger brothers”, “a world of hidden, quietly sighing sorrow”, a world where “outward humility and dull, concentrated grief, reaching the point of complete idiocy and the most deplorable depersonalization” are combined with “slavish cunning, the most vile deception, the most unscrupulous treachery." Dobrolyubov examines in detail the “anatomy” of this world, its attitude to education and love, its moral beliefs like “than others steal, I’d rather steal,” “that’s my father’s will,” “so that it’s not her over me, but me swaggering over her.” , as much as your heart desires,” etc.

“But is there any way out of this darkness?” - a question is asked at the end of the article on behalf of an imaginary reader. “It’s sad,” the truth is; but what can we do? We must admit: we did not find a way out of the “dark kingdom” in Ostrovsky’s works,” the critic answers. “Should we blame the artist for this? Isn’t it better to look around us and turn our demands on life itself, which so sluggishly and monotonously weaves around us... The way out must be sought in life itself: literature only reproduces life and never gives what is not in reality.” Dobrolyubov's ideas had a great resonance. Dobrolyubov’s “Dark Kingdom” was read with an enthusiasm with which, perhaps, not a single magazine article was read at that time; the great role of Dobrolyubov’s article in establishing Ostrovsky’s reputation was recognized by contemporaries. “If you collect everything that was written about me before Dobrolyubov’s articles appeared, then at least drop your pen.” A rare, very rare case in the history of literature is a case of absolute mutual understanding between writer and critic. Soon each of them will make a response “replica” in the dialogue. Ostrovsky - with a new drama, Dobrolyubov - with an article about it, a kind of continuation of "The Dark Kingdom". In July 1859, just at the time when Sovremennik began printing The Dark Kingdom, Ostrovsky began The Thunderstorm.

2.2Refutation of Dobrolyubov's views by Russian critic Pisarev

Another critic, D.I. Pisarev, entered into polemics with Dobrolyubov.

Pisarev constructs his analysis of “The Thunderstorm” as a consistent refutation of Dobrolyubov’s view. Pisarev fully agrees with the first part of Dobrolyubov’s dilogy about Ostrovsky: “Based on the dramatic works of Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that “dark kingdom” in which the mental abilities wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is depleted. As long as the phenomena of the “dark kingdom” exist “And as long as patriotic dreaminess turns a blind eye to them, until then we will constantly have to remind the reading society of Dobrolyubov’s true and living ideas about our family life.” But he resolutely refuses to consider the heroine of “The Thunderstorm” as a “ray of light”: “This article was a mistake on Dobrolyubov’s part; he was carried away by sympathy for Katerina’s character and mistook her personality for a bright phenomenon.”
Like Dobrolyubov, Pisarev proceeds from the principles of “real criticism”, without questioning either the aesthetic validity of the drama or the typical character of the heroine: “Reading “The Thunderstorm” or watching it on stage, you will never doubt that Katerina should act in reality exactly as she acts in the drama." But the assessment of her actions, her relationship with the world is fundamentally different from Dobrolyubov’s. “Katerina’s whole life,” according to Pisarev, “consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another; today she repents of what she did yesterday, and yet she herself does not know what she will do tomorrow; she is at every Step by step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything that was at her fingertips, she cuts through the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide, and even a suicide that is completely unexpected for herself. Pisarev speaks of “a lot of nonsense” committed by “the Russian Ophelia and quite clearly contrasts with her the “lonely personality of the Russian progressive,” “a whole type that has already found its expression in literature and which is called either Bazarov or Lopukhov.” (Heroes of the works of I. S. Turgenev and N. G. Chernyshevsky, raznochintsy, prone to revolutionary ideas, supporters of the overthrow of the existing system).

On the eve of the peasant reform, Dobrolyubov optimistically pinned his hopes on Katerina’s strong character.

Four years later, Pisarev, already on this side of the historical border, sees: the revolution did not work out; the expectation that the people themselves would decide their own fate did not come true.

We need a different path, we need to look for a way out of the historical impasse. “Our social or national life does not need strong characters, of which it has plenty, but only and exclusively consciousness.

We need exclusively people of knowledge, that is, knowledge must be assimilated by those iron characters with which our people's life is filled Dobrolyubov, assessing Katerina on only one side, concentrated all his attention as a critic only on the spontaneously rebellious side of her nature, which caught Pisarev's eyes exclusively Katerina’s darkness, the antediluvian nature of her social consciousness, her peculiar social “Oblomovism,” political bad manners.”

Conclusion

Based on the dramatic works of Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that “dark kingdom” in which the mental abilities wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is depleted. The article was read, praised, and then put aside. Lovers of patriotic illusions, who were unable to make a single solid objection to Dobrolyubov, continued to revel in their illusions and will probably continue this activity as long as they find readers. Looking at these constant genuflections before folk wisdom and folk truth, noticing that gullible readers accept current phrases devoid of any content at face value, and knowing that folk wisdom and folk truth were expressed most fully in the construction of our family life - conscientious criticism placed in the sad necessity of repeating several times those positions that have long been expressed and proven.

As long as the phenomena of the “dark kingdom” exist and as long as patriotic dreaminess turns a blind eye to them, until then we will constantly have to remind the reading society of Dobrolyubov’s true and living ideas about our family life. But at the same time, we will have to be stricter and more consistent than Dobrolyubov; we will need to defend his ideas against his own passions; where Dobrolyubov succumbed to the impulse of aesthetic feeling, we will try to reason calmly and see that our family patriarchy suppresses any healthy development. Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" prompted a critical article from Dobrolyubov entitled "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom."

Bibliography

1. Artamonov S.D. History of foreign literature of the 17th-18th centuries. Textbook for students of pedagogical institutes about specialty No. 2101 “Russian language and literature.” M.: Enlightenment. 1978.-608 p.

Lebedev Yu.V. Russian literature of the 19th century: 2nd half: A book for students.-M.: Enlightenment. 1990.-288 p.

Kachurin M.G., Motolskaya D.K. Russian literature. Textbook for 9th grade of secondary school. M.: Enlightenment. 1982.-384 p.

Ostrovsky A.N. Storm. Dowryless. Plays. Reprint.-M.: Children's literature.. 1975.-160 p.

Reader on foreign literature for grades VIII-IX of secondary school. M.: Enlightenment. 1972.-607 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

We have established that the play is the basis of the future performance and that without the passion of the director and the entire team for the ideological and artistic merits of the play, there can be no success in working on its stage embodiment. The unique form of the performance must be organically connected with all the features of the play and flow from these features.

The moment of the director’s initial acquaintance with the play is very important in this regard. The question here is whether a creative impulse for further work on the play arises or not. It will be very annoying if you have to regret later: a creative union could have taken place, but it did not take place as a result of underestimating the conditions that are designed to facilitate this. That is why you need to learn how to create these conditions for yourself and remove the obstacles that interfere with your creative passion. If passion still does not happen, then we will have the opportunity to say: we did everything we could. However, what conditions are we talking about? And what mistakes should you avoid?

First of all, when first getting acquainted with the play, it is important to approach its perception with maximum spontaneity. To do this, you need to arrange the very process of reading the play for the first time in such a way that nothing interferes with this immediacy of impressions.

First impression

You should not start reading the play in a state of mental or physical fatigue, nervous irritation, or, conversely, excessive elation. To read the play, we leave enough time to read the entire play from beginning to end at one time, only with breaks for rest in the amount of, for example, ordinary theatrical intermissions. There is nothing more harmful than reading a play in parts with long breaks, or even more so in fits and starts, somewhere on a bus or in a subway car.

It is necessary to provide yourself with a calm environment for the entire time of reading, so that no one interrupts you and nothing outside interferes. Sit comfortably at the table or on the sofa and start reading slowly.

When reading the play for the first time, forget that you are a director, and try to be naive, childishly trusting and completely surrender to your first impressions. At the same time, you don’t need to show any special conscientiousness, strain your attention, force yourself to read or think about it. You just need to be ready to get carried away if there are reasons for this, to be ready to put yourself at the disposal of those thoughts and feelings that will come by themselves. No effort, no "work". Be bored if you're bored, think about something else if the play can't capture your attention. If she has the ability to interest and excite, she will interest and excite you, and if she does not have this ability, it is not your fault.

Why do we need this first, immediate, general impression of the play? In order to determine the properties organically inherent in a given play. For the first general impression is nothing more than the result of the influence of precisely these properties.

To reason and analyze, weigh and determine - there will be enough time ahead for all this. If you immediately miss the opportunity to receive a living, immediate impression, you will lose this opportunity forever: when you start reading the play again the next day, your perception will already be complicated by elements of analysis; it will not be pure and immediate.

We have not yet managed to bring anything of our own into the play; we have not yet interpreted it in any way. Let us hasten to record the impact that the play itself had on us. Then we will no longer be able to separate what belongs to the play from what we ourselves, with our analysis and our imagination, brought into it; we will no longer know where the playwright’s creativity ends and our own creativity begins. If we do not immediately determine and record our first impression, in the middle of work it will be impossible to even recall it in our memory. By then we will be immersed in details, in particular, we will not see the forest for the trees. When the day of the performance arrives and the audience arrives, we risk encountering a reaction from the audience that we did not expect at all. For the organic properties of the play, the sense of which we have lost, will suddenly, in the face of the immediate viewer, loudly declare themselves. This can be both a pleasant and an unpleasant surprise, since the organic properties of the play can be both positive and negative. Or it could be even worse: having lost the sense of the organic properties of the play, in our work we can accidentally strangle and trample on a number of its positive properties.

For the first time, K. S. Stanislavsky spoke so definitely about the significance of the first, direct impression of the play. Following his instructions, we consider it necessary to realize and record our first impression. The goal that we pursue is not to be blindly guided by this impression in our further work, but to take it into account in one way or another, to take it into account in one way or another - to take into account the objectively inherent ability of a given play to produce what not another impression. In further work on the play, we will strive to identify and reveal, with the help of stage means, the positive properties of the play and overcome, extinguish those of its properties that for some reason we recognize as negative.

For example, upon initial acquaintance, the play seemed boring to us - this was our immediate impression. Does this mean that the play should be abandoned? Not always. It often happens that a play, boring to read, turns out to be extremely interesting on stage - with the right stage design.

Further careful analysis of the play can reveal the deepest potential stage possibilities inherent in it. The fact that it is boring to read only indicates that this play does not have the ability to captivate attention with verbal material alone. This property of the play must be taken into account: it indicates that when staging a play, one should not take the text as the main support for oneself. You need to put all your energy into revealing the content that is hidden behind the text, that is, the internal action of the play.

If the analysis shows that there is nothing behind the text, the play can be thrown into the trash. But in order to make such a verdict, it is necessary to carry out a conscientious, comprehensive analysis of the play.

A director, for example, will make a big mistake if he refuses to stage any of Shakespeare's comedies only on the grounds that it did not make him laugh when reading it. Shakespearean comedies rarely evoke laughter when read. But, when staged on stage, they continually cause bursts of unanimous laughter in the audience. Here humor is rooted not so much in the words of the characters, but in actions, deeds, and stage positions. Therefore, in order to feel the humor of Shakespearean comedies, you need to mobilize your imagination and imagine the characters not only speaking, but also acting, that is, act out the play on the screen of your own imagination.

Testifying to Stanislavsky’s first impression of Chekhov’s “The Seagull,” Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote that this brilliant director, who had an exceptional artistic sense, “having read “The Seagull” ... did not understand at all what one could get carried away with: people seemed somehow half-hearted to him , passions - ineffective, words - perhaps too simple, images - not giving the actors good material... And the task was: to arouse his interest precisely in the depths and lyricism of everyday life. It was necessary to divert his imagination from fantasy or history, from where characteristic features are always drawn stories, and immerse us in the most ordinary everyday life around us, filled with our most ordinary everyday feelings"1.

Often a play, the dramatic form of which bears the stamp of the author's innovation and is characterized by unusual perceptible features, initially evokes a negative attitude towards itself. This happened, for example, with M. Gorky’s play “Yegor Bulychov and Others.” After the first reading, the team of the Theater named after Evg. Vakhtangov was completely perplexed: almost no one liked the play. They said that it was “conversational”, that it lacked a naturally unfolding plot, no intrigue, no plot, no action.

The essence of the matter was that in this play Gorky boldly violated the traditional canons of dramatic art. This made it difficult to initially perceive its exceptional merits, which required new ways of expression to be revealed. The inertia of human consciousness in such cases is the reason for resistance to everything that does not correspond to the usual ideas, views and tastes.

It was decided to entrust the production of Gorky's play to the author of these lines. But only after a long, very active resistance, the theater management managed to persuade me to study it in detail. And only as a result of such study did my attitude towards the play radically change - I not only stopped resisting, but would even be in despair if the theater management changed their decision and took the play away from me.

As you can see, you cannot completely rely on the first, immediate impression. Love does not always arise, as in Romeo and Juliet - at first sight, it often takes a certain period of gradual rapprochement. The same is true of the process by which a director falls in love with a play. The moment of creative passion in these cases is postponed for some time. But it may not take place at all as a result of a hasty negative decision. Therefore, one should never rush to pronounce a “guilty verdict.” First, through analysis, we will find out the reasons for the negative impression that arose when we first read the play.

There are also cases of an inverse relationship between the true quality of a play and the first impression of it - when the play causes delight upon initial acquaintance with it, and then, in the process of work, its ideological and artistic inconsistency is revealed. What reasons could there be?

It happens, for example, that a play has clear literary merits: its language is characterized by imagery, aphorism, wit, etc. But the characters of the characters are vague, the action is sluggish, the ideological content is vague... When reading the play for the first time, its literary merits may temporarily overshadow stage flaws. However, the moment of disappointment will come sooner or later, and then you will have to stop the work on which a considerable amount of time and energy of the team has already been spent.

So, one cannot blindly be guided by the first impression, but it is certainly necessary to take it into account, because it reveals the organic properties of the play, some of which require direct stage identification, others - stage dissection, and still others - stage overcoming.

How to capture the first, immediate impression?

Try, after reading or listening to a play, immediately, without analyzing, without thinking, without criticizing, to name in words the trace that it left in your mind. Try, with the help of short, concise definitions, to capture on the fly an impression that is ready to slip away. Using these definitions, take a snapshot of the state that the play evoked in you. Without wasting time on long reflection, begin to write down in a column those definitions that come to your mind. For example:

If we compare these two series of definitions, we will see that they refer to two images that are opposite in nature.

Each row gives a holistic view of the impression we received. There is no talk here about the ideological content of the play, about its theme and plot - we are talking only about the general impression, which is predominantly emotional in nature.

However, as soon as you compare the general idea of ​​a given play evoked by these definitions with a specific object of the image, bring this idea into combination with a particular topic, you will immediately be able to give an ideological assessment of this play.

We see, therefore, what a significant role the recorded first impression plays in the subsequent analysis of the play. But more on this later. For now, our task is to characterize the ways of recording the first impression.

Working with students on a dramatization of Chekhov's story "The Good End", E. B. Vakhtangov defined the general impression of this story as follows: "Deal, stupidity, seriousness, positivity, fatness, cumbersomeness." “Cumbersomeness,” said Vakhtangov, “must be revealed in forms, dullness and fatness - in colors, transaction - in action.” We see how, based on the general impression, Vakhtangov is also groping for the nature of those stage devices that should realize the organic properties of Chekhov's story, reflected in the first impression.

“No matter what thing you work on,” said Vakhtangov, “the starting point of the work will always be your first impression.”

However, can we be sure that our first impression really reflects the properties and features objectively inherent in the play? After all, it may turn out to be very subjective and may not coincide with the first impression of other people. The first impression depends not only on the properties and features of the play, but also on the director himself, in particular, even on the state in which the director was reading the play. It is quite possible that if he had read it yesterday rather than today, his impression would have been different.

In order to insure yourself against errors caused by accidents of subjective perception, you should check your first impression at collective readings and interviews. This is also necessary because the director, as we know, must be an exponent and organizer of the creative will of the team. Therefore, he should not consider his personal first impression final and unconditional. His personal impression must be digested in the “common cauldron” of collective perception.

The more collective readings and discussions of the play that take place before work begins, the better. In each theater, the play is usually read to the theater's artistic council, the troupe and the entire team at production meetings, and, finally, to the actors who will be involved in the play.

All this is extremely useful. The director’s job is to direct the discussion of the read play in each individual case in such a way that, even before any analysis, the general immediate impression of those gathered is revealed. By comparing his own first impression with a number of the most frequently repeated definitions, the director can always eventually compose a series from which the accidents of too subjective perceptions will fall out and which will most accurately reflect the organic properties of the play that are objectively inherent in it.

Having checked, corrected and thus supplemented his immediate impression of the play, the director finally establishes and writes down a number of definitions that give a general, holistic idea of ​​it.

The more often the director refers to this recording in the future, the fewer mistakes he will make. Having such a record, he will always be able to establish whether in his work he follows his intention to identify some properties of the play and overcome others, that is, he will be able to constantly control himself. And this is absolutely necessary, because in such a complex art as the art of a director, it is extremely easy to go astray from the intended path. How often does it happen that a director, having seen the finished result of his work at a dress rehearsal, asks himself in horror: did I really want this? Where are the qualities of the play that fascinated me when I first met it? How did it happen that I, unnoticed by myself, turned somewhere to the side? Why did this happen?

The answer to the last question is not difficult. This happened because the director lost his feeling for the play, the feeling that most completely takes possession of him when he first gets acquainted with the play. That is why it is so important to identify, record on paper and often recall your first, immediate impression.

Let me give you an example from my directorial practice. Once I had the opportunity to stage a play by a Soviet author, in which the action took place on one of the collective farms in the fisheries of the Azov coast. After reading the play, I recorded my first impression in the following definitions:

Severity

Poverty

Courage

danger

fresh salty air

grey sky

gray sea

hard labour

nearness of death.

All these definitions revealed, as it seemed to me, the objective qualities of the play, and I dreamed of realizing them in my production. But while working on the model, I, together with the artist, became fascinated by the formal and technical task of creating an illusory image of the sea. We definitely wanted to depict him in motion. In the end this was achieved to a certain extent. Black velvet was hung on the backdrop, with tulle in front. Between the velvet and tulle we placed a structure consisting of a series of parallel spirals made from pieces of shiny tin. These spirals were set in motion by a special mechanism and, when illuminated by the rays of spotlights, their rotation created the illusion of water sparkling in the sun and moving in waves. The effect was especially striking under moonlight. The result was a magical picture of the night sea. Moonlight reflected in the water in the form of iridescent reflections. The sound of the waves, produced by a noise machine, completed the picture. We were extremely satisfied with the result of our efforts.

And what? Our success with the set turned out to be the reason for the complete failure of the performance. The best qualities of the play were killed, strangled by the brilliant decoration. Instead of severity, we got sweetness, instead of hard and dangerous work - sports entertainment, instead of a gray sky and a gray sea with low, boring sandy shores - blinding, sparkling waters in the bright rays of the sun and the poetic tenderness of the Crimean night. Under the conditions of this external design, all my efforts to realize the properties of the play through acting failed. The actors were unable to “re-enact” the scenery. Our tin sea turned out to be stronger than the actors.

What is the essence of my mistake?

I did not forget at one time to determine and record my first general impression of the play, but I forgot to check with this impression in the process of further work. I approached the matter formally, “bureaucratically”: I defined it, wrote it down, filed it and... forgot. As a result, despite a number of acting successes, the result was a formal aesthetic performance devoid of internal unity.

Everything that has been said about the first impression is not difficult to apply in practice when it comes to staging a contemporary play. The situation is incomparably more complicated when staging a classical work. In this case, the director is deprived of the opportunity to get a first, direct impression. He is well aware of not only the play itself, but also a whole series of its interpretations, many of which, having become traditional, have so firmly captured the minds that it is extremely difficult to break through the generally accepted opinion. And yet the director must, making a special creative effort, try to perceive the play well known to him anew. It's not easy, but it's possible. To do this, you need to distract yourself from all existing opinions, judgments, assessments, prejudices, cliches and try, while reading the play, to perceive only its text.

In this case, the so-called “paradoxical approach” recommended by V. E. Meyerhold may be useful, but subject to its skillful and careful use. It consists in the fact that you try to perceive this work in the light of definitions that are diametrically opposed to the generally accepted ones. So, if the opinion regarding a given play is that it is a gloomy work, try reading it as cheerful; if it is perceived by everyone as a frivolous joke, look for philosophical depth in it; if you are used to viewing it as a heavy drama, try to find a reason to laugh in it. You will find that at least one time out of ten you will be able to do this without much effort.

Of course, it is absurd to elevate the “paradoxical approach” to a guiding principle. It is impossible to mechanically turn inside out the traditional views obtained in this way of determination in advance to be considered the truth. Each paradoxical assumption must be carefully checked. If you feel that in the light of the paradoxical definition you perceive the play more easily, that no conflict arises within you between the paradoxical assumption and the impression you receive from the play, you can admit that your assumption is not without a right to exist.

But still, you will make your final decision only after analyzing both the play itself and those interpretations that you want to reject. In the process of analysis, you will answer the following questions: why was the play interpreted earlier this way and not otherwise, and why can it be given a different, radically different interpretation from the previous ones? Only by answering these questions can you finally establish yourself in your paradoxical definitions and believe that they reflect the organic properties objectively inherent in the play.

I have already written that M. Gorky’s amazing play “Yegor Bulychov and Others” met with a negative attitude at the first reading at the Vakhtangov Theater. The future director of the play - the author of these lines - fully agreed with the theater staff in this assessment. However, after that I staged the play five times in various theaters, and each time I tried to approach my directorial task from the perspective dictated by the social situation of that period. However, the word “tried” is not entirely appropriate here: it worked out naturally. And the beginning of this new approach was each time rooted in the initial moment of the work, that is, in the new impression from the first reading of the play after a long break. In other words, each time the matter began with a new “first impression”. And every time I was surprised to discover properties and features in the play that I had not previously noticed.

15 years passed between the fourth and fifth productions of the play. Much has changed in our country and throughout the world during this time, and when I re-read the play for the first time after the break, it seemed even more relevant, even more modern. Accordingly, the characteristics of the first immediate impression have been enriched with a number of new definitions. The column of these definitions increased, which subsequently gave rise to a number of new stage colors in the director's interpretation of the play and in its staging. Here's that definition column:

extraordinary relevance

second youth of the play

freshness brightness

courage and determination

sarcasticity and anger

ruthlessness

cruelty

severity

laconicism

truthfulness

humor and tragedy

vitality and versatility

simplicity and grotesque

breadth and symbolism

confidence and optimism

focus on the future

From these definitions grew the play that I staged in Sofia at the end of 1967 with the outstanding Bulgarian actor Stefan Getsov in the title role.

Three times I staged one of Chekhov's best works - his famous "The Seagull". It seems to me that the latest production revealed the beauty and depth of the play much more fully and accurately than the previous two. And again, just as with multiple productions of “Yegor Bulychov,” the “first impression” of the play with each subsequent production was enriched with new discoveries. Before starting work on the third option, this list looked like this:

modern and relevant

poetic

gently and firmly

subtle and strong

elegant and strict

fearlessly and fairly

pain of the heart and courage of thought

wise calm

grief and worry

affectionately and sternly

mockingly and sadly

with faith and hope

Shakespearean passions

Chekhovian restraint

struggle, aspiration, dream

overcoming

Even from this list it is clear how complex, multifaceted and contradictory, and therefore very difficult to stage, this masterpiece of dramatic literature is.

However, the director's work on the most difficult play is greatly facilitated if he has such a list in his hands. Thinking over his plan, mobilizing fantasy and imagination for this, the director has the opportunity to constantly cope with such a “cheat sheet” so as not to go astray in the search for a director’s solution for the play, in which all these properties and features should find their stage embodiment.

So, we have established that the starting point of the director’s creative work is determining the first general impression of the play. The first impression is a manifestation of the properties organically inherent in a given play; These properties can be positive and they can be negative. Some properties of the play manifest themselves upon initial acquaintance with the play and are thus realized in the first impression, while others reveal themselves as a result of analysis or even only during the stage embodiment of the play. Some properties, therefore, exist explicitly, others - in a hidden form. Explicit positive properties are subject to stage embodiment, hidden ones - to stage disclosure. Negative properties (both obvious and hidden) must be creatively overcome.

Determining the themes of the play, its ideas and main objectives

It seems to us most appropriate to begin a preliminary director's analysis of the play by defining its theme. This will be followed by the disclosure of its leading, main idea and super task. At this point, the initial acquaintance with the play can be considered largely complete.

Let us agree, however, regarding terminology.

We will call the theme the answer to the question: what is this play about? In other words: to define a theme means to define the object of the image, that circle of phenomena of reality that has found its artistic reproduction in a given play.

We will call the main, or leading, idea of ​​the play the answer to the question: what does the author claim regarding this object? The idea of ​​the play expresses the author's thoughts and feelings in relation to the reality depicted.

The topic is always specific. She is a piece of living reality. The idea, on the contrary, is abstract. It is a conclusion and a generalization.

Theme is the objective side of the work. The idea is subjective. It represents the author’s reflections on the reality depicted.

Every work of art as a whole, as well as every individual image of this work, is the unity of theme and idea, i.e. concrete and abstract, particular and general, objective and subjective, the unity of the subject and what the author says about this subject.

As you know, in art life is not reflected in a mirror, in the form in which it is directly perceived by our senses. Having passed through the artist’s consciousness, it is given to us in a cognized and transformed form, along with the artist’s thoughts and feelings, which were caused by the phenomena of life. Artistic reproduction absorbs, absorbs the thoughts and feelings of the artist, expressing his attitude towards the depicted object, and this attitude transforms the object, turning it from a phenomenon of life into a phenomenon of art - into an artistic image.

The value of works of art lies in the fact that every phenomenon depicted in them not only amazes us with its amazing similarity to the original, it appears before us illuminated by the light of the artist’s mind, warmed by the flame of his heart, revealed in its deep inner essence.

Every artist should remember the words spoken by Leo Tolstoy: “There is no more comical reasoning, if you just think about its meaning, like the very common reasoning, and especially among artists, that an artist can depict life without understanding its meaning, not loving the good and not hating the evil in her..."

To truthfully show every phenomenon of life in its essence, to reveal a truth that is important for people’s lives and to infect them with your attitude to what is depicted, with your feelings - this is the task of the artist. If this is not the case, if the subjective principle (i.e., the artist’s thoughts about the subject of the image) is absent and, thus, all the merits of the work are limited to elementary external verisimilitude, then the value of the work turns out to be negligible.

But the opposite also happens. It happens that a work lacks an objective beginning. The subject of the image (part of the objective world) dissolves in the subjective consciousness of the artist and disappears. If we can, by perceiving such a work, learn something about the artist himself, then it cannot say anything significant about the reality surrounding him and us. The cognitive value of such non-objective, subjectivist art, to which modern Western modernism gravitates so much, is also completely insignificant.

The art of theater has the ability to bring out the positive qualities of a play on stage and can destroy them. Therefore, it is very important that the director, having received a play for production in which the theme and idea are in unity and harmony, does not turn it on stage into a naked abstraction, devoid of real life support. And this can easily happen if he separates the ideological content of the play from a specific topic, from those life conditions, facts and circumstances that underlie the generalizations made by the author. In order for these generalizations to sound convincing, it is necessary that the topic be realized in all its vital concreteness.

Therefore, it is so important at the very beginning of the work to accurately name the theme of the play, while avoiding all kinds of abstract definitions, such as: love, death, goodness, jealousy, honor, friendship, duty, humanity, justice, etc. Starting work with abstraction, we risk depriving the future performance of concrete life content and ideological persuasiveness. The sequence should be as follows: first - a real object of the objective world (the theme of the play), then - the author's judgment about this subject (the idea of ​​the play and the ultimate task) and only then - the director's judgment about it (the idea of ​​the performance).

But we will talk about the idea of ​​the play a little later - for now we are only interested in what is given directly in the play itself. Before moving on to the examples, one more preliminary note.

One should not think that those definitions of the theme, idea and ultimate task that the director gives at the very beginning of the work are something fixed, established once and for all. In the future, these formulations can be clarified, developed and even changed in their content. They should be considered initial assumptions, working hypotheses, rather than dogmas.

However, it does not at all follow from this that one can refuse to define the theme, idea and ultimate task at the very beginning of the work under the pretext that everything will change later anyway. And it would be wrong if the director carries out this work somehow, hastily. In order to carry it out conscientiously, you need to read the play more than once. And each time, read slowly, thoughtfully, with a pencil in hand, lingering where something seems unclear, noting those lines that seem especially important for understanding the meaning of the play. And only after the director has read the play several times in this way will he have the right to pose questions that need to be answered in order to determine the theme of the play, its leading idea and ultimate goal.

Since we decided to call the theme of the play a certain segment of the life recreated in it, every theme is an object localized in time and space. This gives us reason to begin defining the theme by determining the time and place of action, that is, by answering the questions: “when?” and where?"

"When?" means: in what century, in what era, in what period, and sometimes even in what year. "Where?" means: in what country, in what society, in what environment, and sometimes even in what exact geographical location.

Let's use examples. However, with two important caveats.

Firstly, the author of this book is very far from claiming to consider his interpretations of the plays chosen as examples as indisputable truth. He readily admits that more precise formulations of themes can be found and a deeper revelation of the ideological meaning of these plays can be given.

Secondly, when defining the idea of ​​each play, we will not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis of its ideological content, but will try to give the quintessence of this content in the briefest possible terms, make an “extract” from it and thus identify what seems to us the most significant in this particular play. play. Perhaps this will result in some simplification. Well, we’ll have to come to terms with this, since we have no other opportunity, using several examples, to introduce the reader to the director’s method of analyzing a play, which has proven its effectiveness in practice.

Let's start with "Yegor Bulychov" by M. Gorky.

When does the play take place? In the winter of 1916-1917, i.e. during the First World War, on the eve of the February Revolution. Where? In one of the provincial cities of Russia. Striving for extreme specificity, the director, in consultation with the author, established a more precise location: this work is the result of observations made by Gorky in Kostroma.

So: winter of 1916-1917 in Kostroma.

But this is not enough. It is necessary to establish among which people and in what social environment the action takes place. It’s not difficult to answer: in the family of a wealthy merchant, among representatives of the average Russian bourgeoisie.

Why did Gorky become interested in the merchant family during this period of Russian history?

From the first lines of the play, the reader is convinced that the members of the Bulychov family live in an atmosphere of enmity, hatred, and constant squabbling. It is immediately clear that this family is shown by Gorky in the process of its disintegration and decomposition. Obviously, it was this process that was the subject of observation and special interest on the part of the author.

Conclusion: the process of decomposition of a merchant family (i.e. a small group of representatives of the average Russian bourgeoisie) living in a provincial city (more precisely, in Kostroma) in the winter of 1916-1917 - this is the subject of the image, the theme of M. Gorky’s play “Egor Bulychov and others ".

As you can see, everything is specific here. For now - no generalizations or conclusions.

And we think that the director will make a big mistake if in his production he uses, for example, a rich mansion in general as a setting, and not the kind that a rich merchant’s wife, the wife of Yegor Bulychov, could have inherited at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Volga city. He will make no less a mistake if he shows the Russian provincial merchants in those traditional forms to which we have become accustomed since the time of A. N. Ostrovsky (undershirt, untucked shirt, boots with bottles), and not in the form as they looked in 1916-1917 years. The same applies to the behavior of the characters - their way of life, manners, habits. Everything that concerns everyday life must be historically accurate and specific. This, of course, does not mean that you need to overload the performance with unnecessary trifles and everyday details - let only what is necessary be given. But if something is given, let it not contradict historical truth.

Based on the principle of the vital concreteness of the theme, the direction of "Yegor Bulychov" required the performers of some roles to master the folk Kostroma dialect starting with "o", and B.V. Shchukin spent the summer months on the Volga, thus gaining the opportunity to constantly hear around yourself the folk speech of the Volga residents and achieve perfection in mastering its characteristics.

Such specification of the time and place of action, setting and everyday life not only did not prevent the theater from revealing the full depth and breadth of Gorky’s generalizations, but, on the contrary, helped make the author’s idea as intelligible and convincing as possible.

What is this idea? What exactly did Gorky tell us about the life of a merchant family on the eve of the February Revolution of 1917?

Carefully reading the play, you begin to understand that the picture of the decomposition of the Bulychov family shown by Gorky is important not in itself, but insofar as it is a reflection of social processes on a huge scale. These processes took place far beyond the borders of Bulychov’s house, and not only in Kostroma, but everywhere, throughout the vast territory of the tsarist empire, shaken in its foundations and ready to collapse. Despite the absolute concreteness, realistic vitality - or, rather, precisely because of the concreteness and vitality - this picture is involuntarily perceived as unusually typical for that time and for this environment.

At the center of the play, Gorky placed the smartest and most talented representative of this environment, Yegor Bulychov, endowing him with traits of deep skepticism, contempt, sarcastic mockery and anger towards what so recently seemed holy and unshakable to him. Capitalist society is thus subjected to crushing criticism not from the outside, but from within, which makes this criticism even more convincing and irresistible. Bulychov's inexorably approaching death is involuntarily perceived by us as evidence of his social death, as a symbol of the inevitable death of his class.

Thus, through the particular, Gorky reveals the general, through the individual, the typical. Showing the historical pattern of social processes that were reflected in the life of one merchant family, Gorky awakens in our minds a firm belief in the inevitable death of capitalism.

So we come to the main idea of ​​Gorky’s play: capitalism is death! All his life Gorky dreamed of liberating the human person from all types of oppression, from all forms of physical and spiritual slavery. All his life he dreamed of liberating all his abilities, talents, and possibilities in a person. All his life he dreamed of a time when the word “Man” would truly sound proud. This dream, it seems to us, was the ultimate task that inspired Gorky when he created his “Bulychov”.

Let us consider in the same way A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Seagull”. Time of action - 90s of the last century. The scene is a landowner's estate in central Russia. The environment consists of Russian intellectuals of different origins (from small landed nobility, burghers and other commoners) with a predominance of people from artistic professions (two writers and two actresses).

It is not difficult to establish that almost all the characters in this play are mostly unhappy people, deeply dissatisfied with life, their work and creativity. Almost all of them suffer from loneliness, from the vulgarity of the life around them, or from unrequited love. Almost all of them passionately dream of great love or the joy of creativity. Almost all of them strive for happiness. Almost all of them want to escape from the captivity of a meaningless life, to get off the ground. But they fail. Having taken possession of an insignificant grain of happiness, they tremble over it (like, say, Arkadina), afraid of missing out, desperately fight for this grain and immediately lose it. Only Nina Zarechnaya, at the cost of inhuman suffering, manages to experience the happiness of creative flight and, believing in her calling, find the meaning of her existence on earth.

The theme of the play is the struggle for personal happiness and success in art among the Russian intelligentsia of the 90s of the 19th century.

What does Chekhov say about this struggle? What is the ideological meaning of the play?

To answer this question, let's try to understand the main thing: what makes these people unhappy, what do they lack to overcome suffering and feel the joy of life? Why did only Nina Zarechnaya succeed in this?

If you carefully read the play, the answer will come very accurate and comprehensive. It sounds in the general structure of the play, in the contrast of the fates of various characters, is read in individual remarks of the characters, is guessed in the subtext of their dialogues, and, finally, is directly expressed through the lips of the wisest character in the play - through the lips of Doctor Dorn.

This is the answer: the characters in “The Seagull” are so unhappy because they do not have a big and all-consuming goal in life. They don’t know why they live and why they create art.

Hence the main idea of ​​the play: neither personal happiness nor true success in art is unattainable if a person does not have a great goal, an all-absorbing super-task of life and creativity.

In Chekhov's play, only one creature found such a super task - wounded, exhausted by life, turned into one continuous suffering, into one continuous pain and yet happy! This is Nina Zarechnaya. This is the meaning of the play.

But what is the author’s ultimate task? Why did Chekhov write his play? What gave him this desire to convey to the viewer the idea of ​​an indissoluble connection between a person’s personal happiness and the great, comprehensive goal of his life and work?

Studying Chekhov's work, his correspondence and the testimony of his contemporaries, it is not difficult to establish that in Chekhov himself there lived this deep longing for a great goal. The search for this goal is the source that fed Chekhov’s creativity during the creation of The Seagull. To arouse the same desire in the audience of a future performance is probably the ultimate goal that inspired the author.

Let us now consider the play “Invasion” by L. Leonov. Time period: the first months of the Great Patriotic War. The setting is a small town somewhere in the west of the European part of the Soviet Union. Wednesday is the family of a Soviet doctor. At the center of the play is the son of a doctor, a broken, spiritually distorted, socially sick man, cut off from his family and his people. The action of the play is the process of transforming this selfish man into a real Soviet man, into a patriot and hero. The theme is the spiritual revival of man during the struggle of the Soviet people against the fascist invaders in 1941-1942.

Showing the process of the spiritual rebirth of his hero, L. Leonov demonstrates faith in man. He seems to be telling us: no matter how low a person has fallen, we should not lose hope for the possibility of his revival! The heavy grief hanging like a lead cloud over his native land, the endless suffering of loved ones, the example of their heroism and self-sacrifice - all this awakened in Fyodor Talanov love for the Motherland, fanning the smoldering flame of life in his soul into a bright flame.

Fedor Talanov died for a just cause. In his death he gained immortality. This is how the idea of ​​the play becomes clear: there is no higher happiness than unity with one’s people, than the feeling of a blood and inextricable connection with them.

To arouse people's trust in each other, to unite them in a common feeling of high patriotism and to inspire them to great work and high feats for the sake of saving the Motherland - this, it seems to me, was one of the greatest writers of our country in this time of its most difficult trials, who saw his civic and artistic mission. .

Let's also consider the dramatization of Ch. Grakova "Young Guard" based on the novel by A. Fadeev.

The peculiarity of this play is that its plot contains almost no elements of fiction, but is composed of historically reliable facts of life itself, which are most accurately reflected in the novel by A. Fadeev. The gallery of images depicted in the play is a series of artistic portraits of real people.

Thus, the specification of the subject of the image is brought to the limit here. To the questions "when?" and where?" In this case, we have the opportunity to answer absolutely precisely: during the days of the Great Patriotic War in the city of Krasnodon.

The theme of the play is, therefore, the life, activity and heroic death of a group of Soviet youth during the occupation of Krasnodon by fascist troops.

The monolithic unity of the Soviet people during the days of the Great Patriotic War, moral and political unity - this is what the life and death of the group of Soviet youth, known as the Young Guards, testifies to. This is the ideological meaning of both the novel and the play.

The Young Guards are dying. But their death is not perceived as the fatal finale of a classic tragedy. For in their very death lies the triumph of the highest principles of life irresistibly striving forward, the inner victory of the human personality, which has retained its connection with the collective, with the people, with all of struggling humanity. The Young Guards die with the consciousness of their strength and the complete powerlessness of the enemy. Hence the optimism and romantic power of the ending.

This is how the broadest generalization was born based on the creative development of the facts of reality. The study of the novel and its dramatization provides excellent material for achieving the patterns underlying the unity of the concrete and abstract in realistic art.

Consider the comedy “Truth is good, but happiness is better” by A. N. Ostrovsky.

The time of action is the end of the last century. The scene is Zamoskvorechye, merchant environment. The theme is the love of a rich merchant's daughter and a poor clerk from the bourgeoisie, a young man full of lofty feelings and noble aspirations.

What does A. N. Ostrovsky say about this love? What is the ideological meaning of the play?

The hero of the comedy - Platon Zybky (oh, what an unreliable surname he has!) - is overwhelmed not only by love for a rich bride (with a cloth snout and a Kalash line!), but to his misfortune also by a destructive passion to tell the truth to everyone indiscriminately eyes, including those of the powers that be, who, if they want, will grind this Zamoskvoretsky Don Quixote into powder. And the poor fellow would have been sitting in a debtor's prison, and not marrying Polixena, dear to his heart, if not for a completely random circumstance in the person of “under” Groznov.

Happening! Almighty happy accident! Only he was able to help out a good, honest, but poor guy who had the imprudence to be born in a world where human dignity is trampled upon with impunity by rich tyrants, where happiness depends on the size of the wallet, where everything is bought and sold, where there is no honor, no conscience, no truth. This, it seems to us, is the idea of ​​Ostrovsky’s charming comedy.

The dream of a time when everything will radically change on Russian soil and the high truth of free thought and good feelings will triumph over the lies of oppression and violence - isn’t this the ultimate task of A. N. Ostrovsky, the great Russian playwright-humanist?

Let us now turn to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

When and where does the famous tragedy take place?

Before answering this question, it should be noted that there are literary works in which both the time and place of action are fictitious, unreal, as fantastic and conventional as the work as a whole. These include all plays that are allegorical in nature: fairy tales, legends, utopias, symbolic dramas, etc. However, the fantastic nature of these plays not only does not deprive us of the opportunity, but even obliges us to raise the question of that very real time and no less real places, which, although not named by the author, but in a hidden form form the basis of this work.

In this case, our question takes on the following form: when and where does reality exist (or did it exist), which is reflected in a fantastic form in this work?

"Hamlet" cannot be called a work of the fantastic genre, although there is a fantastic element in this tragedy (the ghost of Hamlet's father). Nevertheless, the dates of the life and death of Prince Hamlet are unlikely to be so significant in this case in accordance with accurate data from the history of the Danish kingdom. This tragedy of Shakespeare, in contrast to his historical chronicles, is, in our opinion, the least historical work. The plot of this play is more of a poetic legend than a truly historical incident.

The legendary Prince Amleth lived in the 8th century. Its history was first told by Saxo Grammaticus around 1200. Meanwhile, everything that happens in Shakespeare's tragedy, by its nature, can be attributed to a much later period - when Shakespeare himself lived and worked. This period of history is known as the Renaissance.

When creating Hamlet, Shakespeare created not a historical play, but a contemporary play for that time. This determines the answer to the question “when?” - during the Renaissance, on the verge of the 16th and 17th centuries2.

As for the question “where?”, it is not difficult to establish that Denmark was taken by Shakespeare as a place of action conditionally. The events taking place in the play, their atmosphere, morals, customs and behavior of the characters - all this is more characteristic of England itself than of any other country of Shakespeare's era. Therefore, the question of the time and place of action in this case can be resolved as follows: England (relatively Denmark) in the Elizabethan era.

What is this tragedy talking about in relation to the specified time and place of action?

At the center of the play is Prince Hamlet. Who is he? Who did Shakespeare portray in this character? Any specific person? Hardly! Yourself? To some extent this may be true. But in general, we have before us a collective image with typical features characteristic of the advanced intelligent youth of Shakespeare's era.

The famous Soviet Shakespeare scholar A. Anikst refuses to admit, along with some researchers, that the fate of Hamlet is based on the tragedy of one of Queen Elizabeth's close associates - the Earl of Essex, who was executed by her, or some other specific person. “In real life,” writes Anikst, “there was a tragedy of the best people of the Renaissance - the humanists. They developed a new ideal of society and state, based on justice and humanity, but were convinced that there were still no real opportunities to implement it”3.

The tragedy of these people was, according to A. Anikst, reflected in the fate of Hamlet.

What was especially characteristic of these people?

Broad education, a humanistic way of thinking, ethical demands on oneself and others, a philosophical mindset and faith in the possibility of establishing on earth the ideals of goodness and justice as the highest moral standards. Along with this, they were characterized by such qualities as ignorance of real life, inability to take into account real circumstances, underestimation of the strength and treachery of the hostile camp, contemplation, excessive gullibility and good-naturedness. Hence: impetuosity and instability in the struggle (alternating moments of rise and fall), frequent hesitations and doubts, early disappointment in the correctness and fruitfulness of the steps taken.

Who surrounds these people? What world do they live in? In a world of triumphant evil and brutal violence, in a world of bloody atrocities and brutal struggle for power; in a world where all moral norms are neglected, where the supreme law is the right of the strong, where absolutely no means are disdained to achieve base goals. Shakespeare portrayed this cruel world with great force in Hamlet's famous soliloquy "To be or not to be?"

Hamlet had to come face to face with this world so that his eyes would open and his character would gradually evolve towards greater activity, courage, firmness and endurance. It took a certain amount of life experience to understand the bitter need to fight evil with its own weapons. Comprehension of this very truth is in the words of Hamlet: “To be kind, I must be cruel.”

But - alas! - this useful discovery came to Hamlet too late. He did not have time to break the insidious intricacies of his enemies. He had to pay for the lesson he learned with his life.

So, what is the theme of the famous tragedy?

The fate of a young humanist of the Renaissance, who, like the author himself, professed the progressive ideas of his time and tried to enter into an unequal struggle with the “sea of ​​evil” in order to restore trampled justice - this is how the theme of Shakespeare’s tragedy can be briefly formulated.

Now let's try to solve the question: what is the idea of ​​tragedy? What truth does the author want to reveal?

There are many different answers to this question. And every director has the right to choose the one that seems most correct to him. The author of this book, working on the production of “Hamlet” on the stage of the Theater named after Evg. Vakhtangov, formulated his answer in the following words: unpreparedness for struggle, loneliness and contradictions corroding the psyche doom people like Hamlet to inevitable defeat in single combat with the surrounding evil.

But if this is the idea of ​​tragedy, then what is the author’s super task that runs through the entire play and ensures its immortality for centuries?

Hamlet's fate is sad, but it is natural. Hamlet's death is the inevitable result of his life and struggle. But this struggle is not at all fruitless. Hamlet died, but the ideals of goodness and justice suffered by humanity, for the triumph of which he fought, live and will live forever, inspiring the movement of humanity forward. In the catharsis of the solemn finale of the play, we hear Shakespeare's call for courage, firmness, activity, a call to fight. This, I think, is the ultimate task of the creator of an immortal tragedy.

From the examples given, it is clear what a responsible task it is to determine the topic. To make a mistake, to incorrectly establish the circle of life phenomena that are subject to creative reproduction in a performance, means that, following this, the idea of ​​the play is also incorrectly defined.

And in order to correctly determine the theme, it is necessary to accurately indicate those specific phenomena that served as the object of reproduction for the playwright.

Of course, this task turns out to be difficult to accomplish if we are talking about a purely symbolic work, divorced from life, leading the reader into a mystical and fantastic world of unreal images. In this case, the play, considering the problems posed in it outside of time and space, is devoid of any specific life content.

However, even in this case, we can still characterize the specific social-class situation that determined the author’s worldview and thus determined the nature of this work. For example, we can find out what specific phenomena of social life determined the ideology that found its expression in the nightmarish abstractions of Leonid Andreev’s “Life of a Man.” In this case, we will say that the theme of “The Life of Man” is not the life of man in general, but the life of man in the minds of a certain part of the Russian intelligentsia during the period of political reaction in 1907.

In order to understand and appreciate the idea of ​​this play, we will not reflect on human life outside of time and space, but will study the processes that took place during a certain historical period among the Russian intelligentsia.

When determining the topic, looking for an answer to the question of what this work is talking about, we may find ourselves perplexed by the unexpected circumstance that the play says a lot at once.

So, for example, in “Yegor Bulychov” Gorky talks about God, and about death, and about war, and about the impending revolution, and about relations between the older and younger generations, and about various kinds of commercial fraud, and about the struggle for inheritance - in a word, what is not said in this play! How, among the many themes touched upon in one way or another in a given work, can one single out the main, leading theme, which unites all the “minor” ones and, thus, imparts integrity and unity to the entire work?

In order to answer this question in each individual case, it is necessary to determine what exactly in the circle of these life phenomena served as the creative impulse that prompted the author to take up the creation of this play, what fed his interest, his creative temperament.

This is exactly what we tried to do in the examples above. Decomposition, the disintegration of the bourgeois family - this is how we defined the theme of Gorky's play. Why did she interest Gorky? Is it because he saw an opportunity through it to reveal his main idea, to show the process of disintegration of the entire bourgeois society - a sure sign of its imminent and inevitable death? And it is not difficult to prove that the theme of the internal decomposition of the bourgeois family in this case subordinates all other themes: it, as it were, absorbs them into itself and, thus, puts them at its service.

The super-super task of the playwright

In order to understand the idea of ​​the play and the author’s ultimate task in their deepest, most intimate content, it is not enough to study only this play. The ultimate goal of the play is clarified in the light of the author’s worldview as a whole, in the light of that general ultimate goal that characterizes the entire creative path of the writer and imparts internal integrity and unity to his work.

If we called the ideological orientation that feeds this work a super-task, then the ideological aspiration that underlies the entire creative path of the writer can be called a super-super-task. Consequently, the super-super-task is a clot, the quintessence of everything that makes up both the worldview and the creativity of the writer. In the light of the super-super task, it is not difficult to deepen, clarify, and, if necessary, correct the formulation of the super task of this play that we have found. After all, the super-task of a play is a special case of the manifestation of a writer’s super-super task.

Finding out the place and meaning of this play in the context of the writer’s entire work, the director enters deeper into his spiritual world, into the laboratory where this work was born and matured. And this, in turn, allows the director to acquire that invaluable quality that can be called the feeling of the author or the feeling of the play. This feeling will appear only when the fruits of study, analysis and reflection, united with each other, turn into a holistic fact of the director’s emotional life, into a deep and indivisible creative experience. Under its influence, the creative concept of the future performance will gradually mature.

To better understand what a writer’s super-super task is, let’s turn to the works of outstanding representatives of Russian and Soviet literature.

Studying the work of Leo Tolstoy, it is not difficult to establish that his super-super task was of a pronounced ethical nature and consisted in a passionate dream of realizing the ideal of a morally perfect person.

The super-super task of A.P. Chekhov’s creativity was rather of an aesthetic nature and consisted in the dream of the inner and outer beauty of the human personality and human relationships and, accordingly, also included a deep disgust for everything that strangles, destroys, kills beauty - to all types of vulgarity and spiritual philistinism. “Everything in a person should be beautiful,” says Chekhov through the mouth of one of his characters, “face, clothes, soul, and thoughts.”

If, in the light of this super-super-task, we consider the super-task that was established in relation to “The Seagull” (the desire for a large, comprehensive goal), then this super-task will seem to us even deeper and more meaningful. We will understand that only a great goal, giving meaning to a person’s life and creativity, can tear him out of the captivity of a vulgar, bourgeois existence and make his life truly beautiful.

The life-giving source that nourished M. Gorky’s work was the dream of the liberation of the human personality from all forms of physical and spiritual slavery, of its spiritual wealth, of bold flight, of daring. Gorky wanted the very word “man” to sound proud, and he saw the path to this in revolution. The super-super task of his work was of a socio-poetic nature. The super-task of his play “Yegor Bulychov and Others” and the super-super-task of Gorky’s entire work completely coincide.

The work of A. N. Ostrovsky, deeply national at its core, feeding on the juices of folk life and folk art, grew out of an ardent desire to see his native people free from violence and lawlessness, from ignorance and tyranny. Ostrovsky’s super-super task was of a socio-ethical nature and had deep national roots. The humanistic super-task of his play “Truth is good, but happiness is better,” which expressed the author’s deep sympathy for the honest, simple and noble “little man,” follows entirely from the super-super-task of the entire work of the great playwright.

F. M. Dostoevsky passionately wanted to believe in God, who would cleanse the human soul from vices, humble his pride, defeat the devil in the human soul, and thus create a society united by the great love of people for each other. The super-super task of Dostoevsky’s creativity was of a religious and ethical nature with a significant amount of social utopia.

The passionate satirical temperament of Saltykov-Shchedrin, driven by the greatest hatred of slavery and despotism, was fueled by the dream of a radical change in the then political system, the bearer of all evils and vices. The super-super task of the great satirist was of a social revolutionary nature.

Let us turn to contemporary Soviet literature. For example, the work of Mikhail Sholokhov. Closely connected with the historical stages of the revolutionary destruction of the old and the creation of the new - both in the life of the entire Soviet people and in the consciousness of each individual person - it was fueled by the dream of overcoming the painful contradictions between the old and the new, of a harmoniously integral human personality, consciously placing itself on service to the working people. The super-super-task of one of the greatest Soviet writers is thus of a revolutionary-social and political nature, incorporating at the same time the beginnings of people's life.

Another outstanding Soviet writer, Leonid Leonov, subordinates his work to the great dream of a time when the tragedy of fratricidal hostility between individuals and entire nations will become impossible, when the curse of hatred and mutual destruction will be lifted from humanity and it will finally turn into one family of independent peoples and free of people. The super-super task of Leonid Leonov’s creativity is also multifaceted, but with a predominance of motives lying in the plane of social ethics. The ultimate goal of L. Leonov’s play “Invasion”, formulated by us as the desire to unite the audience in a common feeling of high patriotism and inspire them to exploits in the name of the Motherland, is closely connected with the ultimate goal of the entire work of the writer, for the war waged by the Soviet people against the fascist invaders was fought in in the name of the highest principles of humanity, in the name of the triumph of peace between nations and the happiness of people.

The examples given show that the super-super task of the creativity of great artists, with all the unique features of each of them, grows from one common root. This common root is a high humanistic worldview. It has many sides and facets: ethical, aesthetic, socio-political, philosophical... Each artist expresses the facet that best suits his spiritual interests and spiritual structure, and this determines the ultimate task of his work. But all rivers and streams flow into the ocean of humanistic aspirations suffered by humanity. Man is the meaning and purpose of art, its main subject and the theme common to all its creators.

The anti-humanistic super-super task - misanthropy, disbelief in man, in his ability to improve and rebuild the world in accordance with the highest ideals of goodness and justice - could never give birth to anything valuable in art. For in humanism is the beauty and power of art, its greatness.

That is why the principles of high humanity should form the basis for the evaluation of every play that the director wants to stage.

Exploring reality

Let's say we have determined the theme of the play, revealed its main idea and ultimate goal. What should I do next?

Here we come to the point where the paths of various creative directions in theatrical art diverge. Depending on which path we choose, the question will be decided whether we limit our intentions in relation to this or that play to tasks of a purely illustrative nature, or whether we claim a certain amount of creative independence, want to enter into co-creation with the playwright and create a performance that will a fundamentally new work of art. In other words, it depends on whether we agree to accept the idea of ​​the play and all the author’s conclusions about the depicted reality on faith, or whether we want to develop our own attitude towards the object of the image, which - even if it coincides completely with the author’s - will be experienced by us as our own , blood, independently born, internally justified and justified.

But the second approach is impossible unless we temporarily abstract ourselves from the play and turn directly to reality itself. After all, so far we, apparently, do not yet have our own experience, our own knowledge and judgments about the phenomena of life that are within the scope of this topic. We do not have our own point of view from which we could consider and evaluate both the properties of the play and the idea of ​​the author. Therefore, any further work on the play, if we want to approach this topic creatively, is useless. If we continue this work, we will, willy-nilly, find ourselves in the thrall of the playwright. We must acquire the right to further creative work on the play.

So, we must temporarily put the play aside, if possible even forget about it, and turn directly to life itself. This requirement remains valid even if the theme of a given play is very close to you, if the range of phenomena of real life depicted in the play is very well studied by you even before you get acquainted with the play itself. Such a case is quite possible. Suppose that your past, the conditions of your life, your profession made it so that you moved in exactly the environment depicted in the play, thought about exactly the issues raised in it - in a word, you know very well everything that concerns this Topics. In this case, your director's creative imagination involuntarily runs ahead, creating different colors for the future performance. And yet ask yourself: doesn’t the artist’s conscientiousness require that you recognize the available material as insufficient, incomplete, and shouldn’t you, now having a special creative task before you, once again begin to study what you have learned before? You will always find significant gaps in your previous experience and knowledge that require filling; you will always be able to detect insufficient completeness and integrity in your judgments about a given subject.

We have already briefly described the process of understanding reality in relation to the actor’s work on a role. Now let us develop this theme somewhat in relation to the art of the director.

Let us recall that all knowledge begins with the sensory perception of specific facts, with the accumulation of specific impressions. The means for this is creative observation. Therefore, every artist, and therefore the director, must first of all plunge headlong into the environment that he has to reproduce, greedily gain the impressions he needs, and constantly search for the necessary objects of observation.

So, the director’s personal memories and observations are the means by which he carries out the task of accumulating the stock of specific impressions he needs.

But personal impressions - memories, observations - are far from enough. At best, a director can, for example, visit two or three villages, two or three factories. The facts and processes that he will witness may turn out to be insufficiently characteristic, insufficiently typical. Therefore, he does not have the right to limit himself to his personal experience - he must attract the experience of other people to his aid. This experience will make up for the lack of his own impressions.

This is all the more necessary if we are talking about life that is distant from us in time or space. This includes all classical plays, as well as plays by foreign authors. In both cases, we are largely deprived of the opportunity to receive personal impressions, to use our own memories and observations.

I said “to a significant extent,” and not completely, because in these cases we can see something similar, analogous in the reality around us. Yes, in essence, if we don’t find something analogous or similar in a classical or foreign play, then it’s hardly worth staging such a play. But in the characters of almost every play, whenever and wherever it was written, we will find manifestations of universal human feelings - love, jealousy, fear, despair, anger, etc. Therefore, we have every reason to stage, for example, " Othello", observe how feelings of jealousy manifest themselves in modern people; staging "Macbeth" - how a person living in our time is overcome by a thirst for power, and then by fear of the possibility of losing it. By staging Chekhov's "The Seagull", we can still observe the suffering of an unrecognized innovative artist and the despair of rejected love. By staging Ostrovsky's plays, in our reality we can find manifestations of tyranny, hopeless love, fear of retribution for our actions...

In order to observe all this, there is no need to plunge into the distant past or go abroad: all this is close to us, for the grain, the root of any human experience changes little with the passage of time or a change of place. Conditions, circumstances, reasons change, but the experience itself remains almost unchanged in its essence. As for the specific shades in the external manifestations of human experiences (in plasticity, manners, rhythms, etc.), we can always make the necessary adjustments for the time or place of action, using the experience of other people who had the opportunity to observe the life that interests us.

How can we use other people's experiences?

Historical documents, memoirs, fiction and journalistic literature of a given era, poetry, painting, sculpture, music, photographic material - in a word, everything that can be found in historical and art museums and libraries is suitable for accomplishing our task. Based on all these materials, we form the most complete picture possible of how people lived, what they thought about, how and why they fought among themselves; what interests, tastes, laws, morals, customs and characters they had; what they ate and how they dressed, how they built and decorated their homes; what exactly were their social and class differences, etc., etc.

Thus, while working on the play “Yegor Bulychov and Others,” I called upon, firstly, my own memories for help: I ​​remember quite well the era of the First World War, my memory retains many of the impressions I received among the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia, i.e. i.e. precisely in the environment that was to be reproduced on stage in this case. Secondly, I turned to all kinds of historical materials. Memoirs of political and public figures of that time, fiction, magazines and newspapers, photographs and paintings, songs and romances that were fashionable at that time - I attracted all this as necessary creative food. I read sets of several bourgeois newspapers ("Rech", "Russian Word", "New Time", the Black Hundred "Russian Banner", etc.), became acquainted with a number of memoirs and documents testifying to the revolutionary movement of that time - in general, on While working on the play, he turned his room into a small museum on the history of social life and class struggle in Russia during the era of the imperialist war and the February Revolution.

I would like to emphasize that at this stage of the director’s work, what is important to the director is not generalizations, conclusions, conclusions regarding the life he is studying, but for now only facts. More concrete facts - this is the director’s slogan at this stage.

But to what extent should a director collect facts? When will he finally have the right to say to himself with satisfaction: enough! Such a boundary is that happy moment when the director suddenly feels that an organically holistic picture of the life of a given era and a given society has arisen in his mind. The director suddenly begins to feel that he himself lived in this environment and witnessed the facts that he collected bit by bit from various sources. Now he can, without much effort, even talk about aspects of the life of a given society about which no historical materials have survived. He already involuntarily begins to draw conclusions and generalize. The accumulated material begins to synthesize itself in his consciousness.

E. B. Vakhtangov once said that an actor should know the image he creates as well as he knows his own mother. We have the right to say the same about the director: he must know the life that he wants to reproduce on stage as well as he knows his own mother.

The extent of accumulation of factual material is different for each artist. One needs to accumulate more, the other less, so that as a result of the quantitative accumulation of facts, a new quality arises: a holistic, complete idea of ​​​​the given phenomena of life.

E. B. Vakhtangov writes in his diary: “For some reason, from two or three empty hints, I clearly and vividly feel this spirit (the spirit of the era) and almost always, almost unmistakably, I can even tell the details of the life of a century, society, caste - habits, laws, clothing, etc."

But it is known that Vakhtangov had enormous talent and exceptional intuition. In addition, the above lines were written at a time when he was already a mature master with a wealth of creative experience. A director who is just mastering his art should under no circumstances rely on his intuition to the extent that Vakhtangov could do this, to the extent that this can be done by people with exceptional talent, who also have enormous experience. Modesty is the best virtue of an artist, for this virtue is the most useful for him. Let us, without relying on “inspiration,” study life carefully and diligently! It is always better to do more than less in this regard. In any case, we can calm down no earlier than we achieve the same thing that E.B. Vakhtangov achieved, that is, until we can, like him, “accurately tell even the details” of the life of a given society. Even if Vakhtangov achieved this at the cost of incomparably less effort than we can do, we can still say that ultimately, in the result achieved, we were equal to Vakhtangov.

The process of accumulating living impressions and concrete facts ends with the fact that we involuntarily begin to draw conclusions and generalize. The process of cognition thus moves into a new phase. Our mind strives to see behind the external chaotic incoherence of impressions, behind the multitude of individual facts that are still disconnected for us, internal connections and relationships, their co-subordination to each other and interaction.

Reality appears to our eyes not in a stationary state, but in constant movement, in continuously occurring changes. These changes initially seem random to us, devoid of internal patterns. We want to understand what they ultimately boil down to, we want to see a single internal movement behind them. In other words, we want to reveal the essence of a phenomenon, to establish what it was, what it is and what it is becoming, to establish a development trend. The final result of knowledge is a rationally expressed idea, and every idea is a generalization.

Thus, the path of knowledge is from the external to the essence, from the concrete to the abstract, in which all the richness of the known concreteness is preserved.

But just as in the process of accumulating living impressions we did not rely exclusively on personal experience, but also used the experience of other people, so in the process of analyzing the phenomena of reality we do not have the right to rely solely on our own strengths, but must use the intellectual experience of mankind.

If we want to stage Hamlet, we will have to study a number of scientific studies on the history of class struggle, philosophy, culture and art of the Renaissance. Thus, we will sooner and more easily come to understand the heap of facts we have accumulated from the lives of people in the 16th century than if we analyzed these facts only on our own.

In this regard, the question may arise: did we not waste time on observations and collecting specific material, since we can find the analysis and dissection of this material in finished form?

No, not in vain. If we did not have this concrete material in our minds, we would perceive the conclusions found in scientific works as mere abstractions. Now these conclusions live in our minds, filled with a wealth of colors and images of reality. And this is precisely how any reality should be reflected in a work of art: in order for it to influence the mind and soul of the perceiver, it should not be a schematically presented abstraction, but at the same time it should not be a heap of concrete materials of reality that are not internally connected - it must necessarily realize the unity of the concrete and the abstract. How can this unity be realized in the artist’s work if it is not first achieved in his consciousness, in his head?

So, the birth of an idea completes the process of cognition. Having come to the idea, we now have the right to return to the play again. Now we are entering into co-creation with the author on equal terms. Even if we have not equaled him, we have significantly approached him in the field of knowledge of life that is subject to creative reflection, and we can enter into a creative alliance for cooperation in the name of common goals.

When starting to study the reality that is subject to creative reflection, it is useful to draw up a plan for this large and labor-intensive work, dividing it into several interrelated topics. So, for example, if we are talking about the production of Hamlet, we can imagine the following topics for reworking:

1. The political structure of the English monarchy of the 16th century.

2. Social and political life of England and Denmark in the 16th century.

3. Philosophy and science of the Renaissance (what Hamlet studied at the University of Wittenberg).

4. Literature and poetry of the Renaissance (what Hamlet read).

5. Painting, sculpture and architecture of the 16th century (what Hamlet saw around him).

6. Music in the Renaissance (what Hamlet listened to).

7. Court life of the English and Danish kings of the 16th century.

8. Etiquette at the court of the English and Danish kings of the 16th century.

9. Women's and men's costumes in England in the 16th century.

10. Military affairs and sports in England in the 16th century.

11. Statements about “Hamlet” by the most prominent representatives of world literature and criticism.

The study of reality in connection with the production of Chekhov’s “The Seagull” can proceed approximately according to this plan:

1. Social and political life of Russia in the 90s of the XIX century.

2. The situation of the middle landowner class at the end of the last century.

3. The situation of the intelligentsia in the same period (in particular, the social life of the students of that time).

4. Philosophical movements in Russia at the end of the last century.

5. Literary movements during this period.

6. Theatrical art of this time.

7. Music and painting of this time.

8. Life of provincial theaters at the end of the last century.

9. Women's and men's costumes of the end of the last century.

10. History of productions of “The Seagull” in St. Petersburg, on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater, in 1896 and in Moscow, on the stage of the Art Theater, in 1898.

Individual topics of the plan compiled in this way can be divided between members of the director’s staff and performers of responsible roles so that everyone makes a report on this topic to the entire cast of participants in the performance.

In theater educational institutions, during the practical completion of this section of the directing course on a specific example of a play, the topics of the plan drawn up by the teacher can be divided among the students of the study group.

Director's reading of the play

When the work, which was aimed at direct knowledge of life, has been crowned with certain conclusions and generalizations, the director receives the right to return to studying the play. Re-reading it, he now perceives many things differently than the first time. His perception will become critical. After all, he had his own ideological position, based on the facts of living reality he had studied. He now has the opportunity to compare the leading idea of ​​the play with the one that was born to him in the process of independent study of life. He won the right to agree or disagree with the author of the play. Having agreed, he will become his conscious like-minded person and, creating a performance, will enter into creative cooperation with him on equal terms.

It is very good if reading the play at this stage does not reveal any significant disagreements between the director and the author. In this case, the director’s task will be reduced to the most complete, vivid and accurate disclosure of the ideological content of the play through the means of theater.

But what if serious discrepancies emerge? What if it turns out that these differences relate to the very essence of the life depicted and are therefore irreconcilable? In this case, the director will have no other choice but to categorically refuse to stage the play. Because in this case he won’t get anything useful out of working on it anyway.

True, in the history of the theater there were cases when a self-confident director took on a play that was ideologically hostile to his own views, hoping to use specific theatrical means to turn the ideological content of the play inside out. However, such experiments, as a rule, were not rewarded with any significant success. This is not surprising. For it is impossible to give the play a meaning that is directly opposite to the author’s idea without violating the principle of the organic nature of the performance. And the lack of organicity cannot but have a negative impact on its artistic persuasiveness.

The ethical side of the issue should also be touched upon. The high ethics of the creative relationship between the theater and the playwright categorically prohibits free handling of the author's text. This applies not only to modern authors, who, if necessary, can protect their rights in court, but also to authors of classical works, defenseless against the director’s arbitrariness. Only public opinion and artistic criticism can help the classics, but they do this, unfortunately, not in all cases where it is necessary.

That is why it is so important for the director himself to have a sense of responsibility to the playwright, to handle the author’s text with care, respect and tact. This feeling should be an integral part of both director's and actor's ethics.

If the presence of fundamental ideological differences with the author entails a very simple decision - refusal to stage the production, then minor differences concerning various kinds of particulars, shades and details in the characterization of the depicted phenomena do not at all exclude the possibility of a very fruitful collaboration between the author and the director.

Therefore, the director must carefully study the play from the angle of his understanding of the reality reflected in it and accurately establish the points that, from his point of view, require development, clarification, emphasis, amendments, additions, reductions, etc.

The main criterion for determining the legitimate, natural boundaries of the director's interpretation of the play is the goal, in pursuit of which the director realizes in the play the fruits of his imagination, which arose in the process of creative reading of the play based on independent knowledge of life. If this goal is the desire to express as deeply, accurately and clearly as possible the author’s overarching task and the main idea of ​​the play, then any creative invention of the director, any departure from the author’s stage directions, any subtext not provided for by the author that forms the basis for the interpretation of a particular scene, any director's paint, right down to changes in the very structure of the play (not to mention textual amendments agreed with the author). All this is justified by the very ideological task of the play and is unlikely to cause any objections from the author, - after all, he is more than anyone else interested in the best way to convey to the audience his ultimate task and the main idea of ​​the play!

However, before finally deciding on the production of the play, the director must answer a very important question: for what, in the name of what, does he want to stage this play today, for today’s audience, in today’s conditions of public life? That is, the second element of Vakhtangov’s triad naturally comes into its own - the factor of modernity.

The director must feel the idea of ​​the play and the author’s ultimate task in the light of contemporary socio-political and cultural problems, evaluate the play from the point of view of the spiritual needs, tastes and aspirations of today’s audience, understand for himself what the audience will receive from his performance, what kind of response he expects from them , with what feelings and thoughts he is going to let them go after the performance.

All this taken together should find expression in a more or less precisely formulated super-task of the director himself, which will later turn into the super-task of the performance.

Does this mean that the author’s ultimate task and the director’s ultimate task may not coincide? Yes, they can, but the author’s ultimate task should always be part of the director’s ultimate task. The director’s ultimate task may turn out to be broader than the author’s, because it always includes the motive of modernity when it answers the question: why do I, the director, want to realize the author’s ultimate task today?

The super-tasks of the author and the director can completely coincide only in those cases when the director stages a modern play. This is exactly what happened in my directorial practice, when I staged plays such as “Invasion” by L. Leonov, “Aristocrats” by N. Pogodin, “The Young Guard” based on the novel by A. Fadeev, “First Joys” based on the novel by K. Fedin. In all these cases, I saw no difference in the purposes for which these works were written and the tasks that I set for myself as a director. Our “why” completely coincided.

However, sometimes a decade separating the creation of a play from its production is enough for the identity of the super-tasks of the author and the director to be violated. As for the classics, such a violation usually turns out to be completely inevitable. The time factor plays a huge role in this case.

Each more or less “old” play inevitably raises the question of its contemporary director’s interpretation. And today’s reading finds expression primarily in the director’s ultimate task. The lack of a clear and precise answer to the question of why a given play is being staged today is very often the reason for the director’s creative failure. The history of the theater knows examples when an excellent play, superbly staged by an experienced director and performed by talented actors, hopelessly failed, because there was no contact between the performance and the current interests of the audience.

This is, of course, not about following the lead of the audience, pandering to the tastes of the backward part of the audience. Not at all! The theater should not descend to the level of the “average” viewer, but raise it to the level of the highest spiritual demands of its time. However, the theater will not be able to solve this super task if it ignores the real interests and demands of its viewer, if it does not take into account the peculiarities of perception inherent in this viewer, if it does not want to take into account the spirit of the time and does not fill its super task with the living, interesting, great and exciting of today content. Certainly fascinating and certainly relevant to today, even if the play itself was written three hundred years ago.

The director will be able to accomplish this task only if he has a sense of time, that is, the ability to capture in the current life of his country and the whole world the fundamental things that determine the course of social development.

In search of examples that illustrate the definition of a director's ultimate task, let me again turn to my own directorial practice. During the period when I staged “Hamlet” on the stage of the Vakhtangov Theater (1958), the ideas of abstract humanism, imbued with a condescending, conciliatory attitude towards the carriers of social evil, were being propagated with particular energy in the West. His preachers contrasted their “non-class”, “non-party” humanism then and continue to contrast it with a humanism that combines deep humanity with integrity, with firmness in the struggle, and, if necessary, with mercilessness in relation to enemies.

It was under the influence of reflections on this topic that my plan for staging Hamlet took shape. I felt the essence of the director’s super task in Hamlet’s phrase in the scene with his mother: “To be kind, I must be cruel.” The idea of ​​the moral legitimacy of such forced cruelty became a guiding star in my work on Hamlet. Under its influence, I felt Hamlet’s human character not in static, but in continuous development.

Hamlet, questioning the Shadow of his father in the first act, and Hamlet, striking the king at the end of the play - these, as it seemed to me, are two different people, two different human characters. I wanted to show the process of formation of Hamlet’s personality in such a way that at the beginning of the performance he appeared before the audience in the image of a restless, unbalanced, hesitant young man, full of internal contradictions, and at the end he declared himself as a mature husband, with a strong and purposeful character.

Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, I was not able to fully implement this plan. I flatter myself with the hope that if not me, then someone else will sooner or later complete this task. And then the audience will leave the performance not depressed by the tragic denouement, but internally armed with the consciousness of their strength, their courage, with an awakened conscience, with a mobilized will and readiness to fight.

Not so long ago (at the end of 1971) I had the opportunity to stage Ostrovsky’s comedy “Truth is good, but happiness is better” at the National Armenian Theater named after Sundukyan (in Yerevan, in Armenian). What circumstances and facts of modern life fueled my directorial super task in this case?

I wanted to show the Armenian audience a performance in which the element of the Russian national spirit would be clearly manifested, that is, the principle with which Ostrovsky’s work is thoroughly imbued. I wanted the Armenian actors to feel and appreciate the beauty of the national characters shown in this charming comedy, the kindness of the Russian man, the scope of his freedom-loving nature, the strength of his temperament, the poetry of his national plasticity, his special rhythmic structure and much more that is a specific feature Russian people. It seemed to me that such a performance could be for its creators a worthy form of participation in the upcoming national holiday (the 50th anniversary of the founding of the USSR), designed to demonstrate and strengthen the great friendship between all the peoples of our country. This desire was my directorial super task.

1 Nemirovich-Danchenko Vl. I. From the past. M, 1936. P. 154.

2 "Hamlet" was written in 1600-1601.

3 Anikst A. Shakespeare. M, 1964. P. 211.

Dobrolyubov - theorist of “real criticism”

Dobrolyubov became famous among his contemporaries as a theorist of “real criticism.” He put forward this concept and gradually developed it. “Real criticism” is the criticism of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, brought by Dobrolyubov to classically clear postulates and methods of analysis with one goal - to reveal the social benefit of works of art, to direct all literature towards a comprehensive denunciation of social orders. The term “real criticism” goes back to the concept of “realism”. But the term “realism”, used by Annenkov in 1849, has not yet taken root. Dobrolyubov modified it, interpreting it in a certain way as a special concept.

In principle, in all methodological techniques of “real criticism” everything is similar to the techniques of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. But sometimes something important was narrowed down and simplified. This is especially evident in the interpretation of the connections between criticism and literature, criticism and life, and problems of artistic form. It turned out that criticism is not so much a disclosure of the ideological and aesthetic content of works, but rather the application of works to the requirements of life itself.

A consistently carried out “real” approach often led not to an objective analysis of what is in the work, but to judging it from inevitably subjective positions that seemed to the critic the most “real”, the most worthy of attention... Outwardly, the critic seems to know nothing imposes, but he relies more on his own competence, his own verification and does not seem to fully trust the cognitive power of the artist himself as the discoverer of truths. Therefore, the “norm”, volumes, and angles of what was depicted in the works were not always determined correctly. It is no coincidence that Pisarev, from the standpoint of the same “real criticism,” entered into a polemic with Dobrolyubov regarding the image of Katerina from “The Thunderstorm,” dissatisfied with the degree of civil criticism inherent in it... But where could the merchant Katerina get it? Dobrolyubov was right when he assessed this image as “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”

“Real criticism” theoretically took almost nothing upon itself in relation to the study of the writer’s biography, the creative history of the work, the concept, drafts, etc. This seemed to be an extraneous matter.

Dobrolyubov was right in rebelling against the “penny-pinching” of criticism. But at first he mistakenly classified N.S. as a “penny-pincher.” Tikhonravov and F.I. Buslaeva. Dobrolyubov had to reconsider his statements when he was faced with sensible factual and textual clarifications and discoveries. Reviewing the seventh volume of Annenkov's edition of Pushkin's works, Dobrolyubov stated that Pushkin appeared somewhat different in his mind; Pushkin’s article about Radishchev, critical notes, newly discovered poems “O muse of fiery satire!” shook the previous opinion of Pushkin as a “pure artist”, devoted to religious sentiments, who fled from the “uninitiated rabble.”

Although theoretically the question of analyzing the artistic form of works was not posed in sufficient detail by Dobrolyubov - and this is a lack of “real criticism” - in practice, Dobrolyubov can establish several interesting approaches to this problem.

Dobrolyubov often analyzed the form in detail in order to ridicule the emptiness of the content, for example, in the “fizzy” poems of Benediktov, in the mediocre “accusatory” poems of M. Rozenheim, the comedies of N. Lvov, A. Potekhin, and the stories of M. I. Voskresensky.

In his most important articles, Dobrolyubov seriously examined the artistic form of the works of Goncharov, Turgenev, and Ostrovsky.

Dobrolyubov demonstrated how “artistry took its toll” in Oblomov. The public was indignant that the hero of the novel did not act during the entire first part, that in the novel the author evaded pressing modern issues. Dobrolyubov saw the “extraordinary richness of the novel’s content” and began his article “What is Oblomovism?” from the characteristics of Goncharov’s leisurely talent, his inherent enormous power of typification, which perfectly corresponded to the accusatory direction of his time. The novel is “stretched out”, but this is what makes it possible to describe an unusual “subject” - Oblomov. Such a hero should not act: here, as they say, the form fully corresponds to the content and follows from the character of the hero and the talent of the author. Reviews about the epilogue in Oblomov, the artificiality of Stolz’s image, the scene revealing the prospect of Olga’s possible breakup with Stolz—these are all artistic analyses.

And vice versa, analyzing only the activity of the energetic Insarov in “On the Eve” mentioned but not shown by Turgenev, Dobrolyubov believed that “the main artistic shortcoming of the story” lies in the declarative nature of this image. The image of Insarov is pale in outline and does not appear before us with complete clarity. What he does, his inner world, even his love for Elena is closed to us. But Turgenev always succeeded in the love theme.

Dobrolyubov establishes that only in one point is Ostrovsky’s “Thunderstorm” built according to “rules”: Katerina violates the duty of marital fidelity and is punished for it. But in all other respects, the laws of “exemplary drama” in “The Thunderstorm” are “violated in the most cruel way.” The drama does not inspire respect for duty, passion is not fully developed, there are many extraneous scenes, the strict unity of action is violated. The character of the heroine is dual, the outcome is random. But, starting from the caricatured “absolute” aesthetics, Dobrolyubov superbly revealed the aesthetics that the writer himself created. He made deeply correct remarks about Ostrovsky’s poetics.

We encounter the most complex and not entirely justified case of polemical analysis of the form of a work in the article “Downtrodden People” (1861). There is no open polemic with Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky reproached Dobrolyubov for neglecting artistry in art.

Dobrolyubov told his opponent the following: if you care about artistry, then from this point of view your novel is no good or, in any case, stands below aesthetic criticism; and yet we will talk about it because it contains “pain for man,” which is precious in the eyes of real criticism, that is, everything redeems the content. But can we say that Dobrolyubov was right in everything here? If such a technique could easily be applied to some Lvov or Potekhin, then it looked somehow strange in relation to Dostoevsky, already highly appreciated by Belinsky, and whose novel “The Humiliated and Insulted,” for all its shortcomings, is a classic work of Russian literature .

In Dobrolyubov’s aesthetic concept, the problems of satire and nationality are important.

Dobrolyubov was dissatisfied with the state of contemporary satire, especially since opportunistic “accusatory” literature appeared. He expressed this in the article “Russian Satire in the Age of Catherine” (1859). The external reason for considering the issue was the book by A. Afanasyev “Russian satirical magazines of 1769-1774”. Afanasyev's book was a response to the period of "glasnost" and exaggerated the social successes of satire in Russian literature of the 18th century, the development of satire in Russian literature. Dobrolyubov praised in the article “Russian Satire in the Age of Catherine” such works of the 18th century as “Excerpt of a Journey to ***”, and Fonvizin’s famous “Experience of a Russian Estatesman”, now attributed either to Novikov or Radishchev, which caused a sharp cry from the queen.

Dobrolyubov was right in raising the criteria for assessing satire in general. But he clearly underestimated the satire of the 18th century. He approached it too utilitarianly, not historically. Dobrolyubov proceeded from a scheme that was not established in science: “...satire appeared among us as an imported fruit, and not at all as a product developed by the people’s life itself” 1 . If Belinsky allowed a similar statement in relation to Russian literature with its odes and madrigals, then in any case the satirical direction, even in the form in which it began with Cantemir, he always considered native, unartificial.

This generalization by Dobrolyubov was also unhistorical: “... the character of all satire of Catherine’s time is distinguished by the most sincere respect for existing regulations and the prosecution of abuses alone.” Here the 18th century is clearly being judged by the criteria of the 60s of the 19th century. In Novikov’s time, one still had to learn to at least attack abuses; There was also Catherine’s “impersonal” satire on vices in general.

In general, Dobrolyubov’s conclusion about satire was this: “But its weak side was that it did not want to see the fundamental crudity of the mechanism that it was trying to correct.”

It is clear that Dobrolyubov’s harsh analyzes and verdicts regarding 18th-century satire had their purpose. He wanted not petty satire, but militant satire, directed against the exploitative social system. In this way he expressed his revolutionary-democratic aspirations, his desire to raise the standards of modern satire and contrast it with liberal denunciation. But Dobrolyubov solved a complex issue too didactically. These goals should not have violated the specific historical analysis of what 18th-century satire was able to do in its time. Only on the basis of a correct generalization of historical experience was it possible to indicate the prospects and tasks for Russian criticism in the 60s of the 19th century. Chernyshevsky was more circumspect and stricter in this kind of assessment of the past.

Dobrolyubov interprets the concept of “nationality” somewhat vaguely; it is vague in the very title of the special article “On the degree of participation of the nationality in the development of Russian literature” (1858). What, exactly, was meant by nationality? Ethnographic elements, popular aspirations, the people as a theme for writers, or the participation of writers from the people in literary life? What was meant by the people themselves? All peasants or the middle strata of society along with them? Dobrolyubov used this word in different senses. And the men are the people, and Katerina, the merchant’s wife, is a heroine of the people.

The tendency in this article to consider all the literature from one angle is extremely strong. Bestuzhev reviewed it from the point of view of the development of civic motives from Boyan to Ryleev. Belinsky - from the point of view of rapprochement with life and the development of realism. Chernyshevsky reviewed the “school of Gogol” and the “school of ideas” of Belinsky from a sociological angle. Dobrolyubov’s aspect was characteristic of the pre-reform years: everything was measured by the yardstick of “people’s” life. But there is some uncertainty in the criterion.

The general principle of Dobrolyubov’s understanding of the writer’s nationality is as follows: “To be a truly national poet, one must<...>imbued with the spirit of the people, live its life, become on par with it, discard all prejudices of classes, book teachings<...>and feel everything with that simple feeling that the people possess.”

It is quite obvious that Dobrolyubov oversimplified this complex issue.

It seems to Dobrolyubov that there were two processes in literature: the gradual loss of the national, popular principle in the post-Petrine era and then its gradual revival. This process dragged on so long that, in fact, Dobrolyubov could not call almost a single writer national. “It is also in vain that we have the loud name of folk writers: the people, unfortunately, do not care at all about the artistry of Pushkin, the captivating sweetness of Zhukovsky’s poems, the lofty soaring of Derzhavin, etc. Let’s say more: even Gogol’s humor and Krylov’s sly simplicity are not at all reached the people."

Everything is resolved by the critic too straightforwardly: “Lomonosov did a lot for the success of science in Russia... but in relation to the social significance of literature, he did nothing.” Lomonosov does not say a word about serfdom. Dobrolyubov recognizes only direct, visible forms of service. Derzhavin moved only “a little” in his view of the people, their needs and relationships. Karamzin’s point of view is “still abstract and extremely aristocratic.” Zhukovsky “reproduced only one thing from the Russian people... and that one thing is folk superstition” (in “Svetlana” - V.K). Pushkin, for all his enormous merits as an artist, “comprehended only the form of the Russian nationality.” Gogol “found more strength in himself,” but his depiction of the vulgarity of life was “horrifying”; he blamed all the sins not on the government, but on the people. “No, we are decisively dissatisfied with Russian satire, with the exception of satire of the Gogol period.”

Of course, such an analysis outlined some higher tasks for literature. “Holy” discontent was seething in Dobrolyubov. But it was doubtful to advance the matter with such one-sided, extreme judgments that destroyed the accumulated historical experience. After all, Belinsky already knew that almost all of the listed writers were truly popular, each to the extent of his talent and time. The artistic immortality of the work was generally not taken into sufficient account by Dobrolyubov.