Chernyshevsky briefly outlines the Gogol period of Russian literature. Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature
“Gogolian direction” is a literary movement, which was started by N.V.Gogol « Petersburg stories", "The Inspector General" and "Dead Souls" and which was defined in the 40s as a natural school. V.G. Belinsky, who was an ardent supporter of the natural school, emphasized its connection with the ideological and artistic principles of Gogol’s realistic creativity, asserting the fruitful influence of the Gogol school on modern Russian literature. The term arose in the 50s of the 19th century in the controversy between revolutionary democratic and liberal criticism as a designation of a socially critical, satirical line in Russian literature. Democratic criticism came up with the rationale for “G.n.” in modern literature. The extensive work of N.G. Chernyshevsky, “Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature,” published in Sovremennik in 1855, was primarily devoted to this goal. The ideas developed by Chernyshevsky were opposed by A.V. Druzhinin, who published in the “Library for Reading” (1856, Nos. 11, 12) an article “Criticism of the Gogol period of Russian literature and our relationship to it,” in which he deliberately contrasted Gogol’s and Pushkin’s began in Russian literature, advocated for an “artistic” understanding of art. Idealist, liberal criticism (Druzhinin, P.V. Annenkov, S.S. Dudyshkin, N.D. Akhsharumov) and Slavophile (A.A. Grigoriev, T.I. Filippov, B.N. Almazov, E.N. Edelson) wrote about the need to overcome Gogol’s “one-sided” criticism (P.V. Annenkov, “On the significance of works of art for society,” 1856) and about the victory of the “Pushkin direction,” “pure artistic poetry", "healthy" attitude to life.
They tried to find confirmation of this thesis in the works of A.N. Ostrovsky, A.F. Pisemsky, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, one-sidedly characterizing some aspects of the work of these writers. Historical and literary comparison of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol as artists and a comparative assessment of them social significance for a certain period of development of Russian society, characteristic of V.G. Belinsky, turned among the liberal critics of the 50s into a metaphysical opposition between them creative principles, in connection with which the terms “G.n.” and the “Pushkin direction” acquired an ahistorical character, abstracted from the specific stages of the development of realism - from Pushkin to Gogol. The “Pushkin direction” was declared by liberal criticism to be the only truly poetic expression of supposedly “pure art.” "G.n." interpreted as “rough” art, even base. In contrast to such a distortion of the real meaning of the evolution of Russian realism, critics of the revolutionary-democratic camp strongly emphasized public importance critical pathos is precisely “G.n.” Continuing Belinsky’s point of view, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov rightly argued that for modern life what is needed is as much “poetry of reality” as “the idea of negating” it, which constitutes the pathos of Gogol’s work. At the same time, revolutionary-democratic criticism understood that “G.n.” cannot simply repeat Gogol. Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period” speaks of the need for “a more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only on one side, without fully realizing their connection, their causes and consequences.” He soon noted in Shchedrin’s “Provincial Sketches” that Gogol lacked a clear understanding of the connection between individual “ugly facts and the whole situation of our life.” Thus, at the heart of the literary-aesthetic polemic was the question of the attitude towards Russian reality, about public role literature, its tasks and ways of development; Ultimately, it was a dispute about which path Russian literature would take - along the path of “pure” (essentially protective) art or along the path of direct, open service to the people, that is, along the path of the struggle against serfdom and autocracy. From a methodological point of view, the opposition of the “Pushkin direction” to “G.N.” (no matter how different and even opposite the goals with which this opposition was made) is associated with a certain loss in Russian criticism of that time of a holistic perception of the phenomena of art, which distinguished Belinsky’s critical statements. In general, the influence of “G.n.” on the future fate of Russian literature testified to the victory of materialist aesthetics over idealistic ones, which had a beneficial effect on the development of Russian realistic art. In modern foreign literary criticism, the views of Russian liberal criticism are often repeated in the interpretation of Russian literary process 19th century. Thus, in the “Dictionary of Russian Literature” (published in the USA in 1956), the role of revolutionary-democratic criticism is downplayed, while Pushkin is interpreted as a supporter of “pure art.” R. Poggioli, in a book of essays about Russian writers “The Phoenix and the Spider” (published in the USA, 1960), calls the theory of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky about Gogol as the father of Russian realism “dubious,” believing that “Russian classical realism was largely a denial of Gogol’s cause than a continuation of it." Thus, foreign bourgeois criticism is trying to rely on those tendencies of Russian “aesthetic” criticism of the 60s of the 19th century, which were rejected by all subsequent development of Russian literature.
“Gogolian direction” is a literary movement, which was started by N.V. Gogol “Petersburg stories”, “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” and which was defined in the 40s as a natural school. V.G. Belinsky, an ardent supporter of the natural school, emphasized its connection with the ideological and artistic principles of Gogol’s realistic creativity, asserting the fruitful influence of the Gogol school on modern Russian literature. The term arose in the 50s of the 19th century in the controversy between revolutionary democratic and liberal criticism as a designation of a socially critical, satirical line in Russian literature. Democratic criticism came up with the rationale for “G.n.” in modern literature. The extensive work of N.G. Chernyshevsky, “Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature,” published in Sovremennik in 1855, was primarily devoted to this goal. The ideas developed by Chernyshevsky were opposed by A.V. Druzhinin, who published in the “Library for Reading” (1856, Nos. 11, 12) an article “Criticism of the Gogol period of Russian literature and our relationship to it,” in which he deliberately contrasted Gogol’s and Pushkin’s began in Russian literature, advocated for an “artistic” understanding of art. Idealist, liberal criticism (Druzhinin, P.V. Annenkov, S.S. Dudyshkin, N.D. Akhsharumov) and Slavophile (A.A. Grigoriev, T.I. Filippov, B.N. Almazov, E.N. Edelson) wrote about the need to overcome Gogol’s “one-sided” criticism (P.V. Annenkov, “On the significance of works of art for society,” 1856) and about the victory of the “Pushkin trend,” “pure artistic poetry,” and a “healthy” attitude to life. They tried to find confirmation of this thesis in the works of A.N. Ostrovsky, A.F. Pisemsky, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, one-sidedly characterizing some aspects of the work of these writers. The historical and literary comparison of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol as artists and a comparative assessment of their social significance for a certain period of development of Russian society, characteristic of V.G. Belinsky, turned into a metaphysical opposition between them among the liberal critics of the 50s creative principles, in connection with which the terms “G.n.” and the “Pushkin direction” acquired an ahistorical character, abstracted from the specific stages of the development of realism - from Pushkin to Gogol. The “Pushkin direction” was declared by liberal criticism to be the only truly poetic expression of supposedly “pure art.” "G.n." interpreted as “rough” art, even base. In contrast to such a distortion of the real meaning of the evolution of Russian realism, critics of the revolutionary-democratic camp strongly emphasized the social significance of the critical pathos of “G.n. " Continuing Belinsky’s point of view, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov rightly argued that modern life needs as much “poetry of reality” as the “idea of negating” it, which constitutes the pathos of Gogol’s work. At the same time, revolutionary-democratic criticism understood that “G.n.” cannot simply repeat Gogol. Chernyshevsky in “Essays on the Gogol Period” speaks of the need for “a more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only on one side, without fully realizing their connection, their causes and consequences.” He soon noted in Shchedrin’s “Provincial Sketches” that Gogol lacked a clear understanding of the connection between individual “ugly facts and the whole situation of our life.” Thus, at the heart of the literary-aesthetic polemic was the question of the attitude to Russian reality, the social role of literature, its tasks and paths of development; Ultimately, it was a dispute about which path Russian literature would take - along the path of “pure” (essentially protective) art or along the path of direct, open service to the people, that is, along the path of struggle against serfdom and autocracy. From a methodological point of view, the opposition of the “Pushkin direction” to “G.N.” (no matter how different and even opposite the goals with which this opposition was made) is associated with a certain loss in Russian criticism of that time of a holistic perception of the phenomena of art, which distinguished Belinsky’s critical statements. In general, the influence of “G.n.” on the future fate of Russian literature testified to the victory of materialist aesthetics over idealistic ones, which had a beneficial effect on the development of Russian realistic art. In modern foreign literary criticism, the views of Russian liberal criticism are often repeated in the interpretation of the Russian literary process of the 19th century. Thus, in the “Dictionary of Russian Literature” (published in the USA in 1956), the role of revolutionary-democratic criticism is downplayed, while Pushkin is interpreted as a supporter of “pure art.” R. Poggioli, in a book of essays about Russian writers “The Phoenix and the Spider” (published in the USA, 1960), calls Belinsky and Chernyshevsky’s theory about Gogol as the father of Russian realism “dubious,” believing that “Russian classical realism was largely a denial of Gogol’s cause than a continuation of it." Thus, foreign bourgeois criticism is trying to rely on those tendencies of Russian “aesthetic” criticism of the 60s of the 19th century, which were rejected by all subsequent development of Russian literature.
Brief literary encyclopedia in 9 volumes. State Scientific Publishing House " Soviet encyclopedia", vol. 2, M., 1964.
Literature:
Chernyshevsky N.G., Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature, Complete. collection soch., vol. 3, M., 1947;
Annenkov P.V., A wonderful decade. 1838-1848, in his book: Literary Memoirs, M., 1860;
Annenkov P.V., Youth of I.S. Turgenev, ibid.; Vinogradov V., Gogol and the natural school, L., 1925;
Prutskov N.I., Stages of development of the Gogolian direction in Russian literature, “Uch. Notes of Groznensky ped. institute", 1946, c. 2;
Prutskov N.I., “Aesthetic” criticism (Botkin, Druzhinin, Annenkov), in the book: History of Russian criticism, vol. 1, M.-L., 1958;
Mordovchenko N., Belinsky and the beginning of the Gogol period of Russian literature, in his book: Belinsky and Russian literature of his time, M.-L., 1950;
Mashinsky S., Gogol and the revolutionary democrats, M., 1953;
Kuleshov V.I., “Notes of the Fatherland” and literature of the 40s of the 19th century, M., 1958;
Pokusaev E.I., N.G. Chernyshevsky, M., 1960, p. 107-122;
Pospelov G.N., History of Russian literature of the 19th century, vol. 2, part 1, M., 1962.
Read further:
Gogol Nikolay Vasilievich(1809-1852), biographical materials.
341 -
ESSAYS OF THE GOGOL PERIOD OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE
(Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Four volumes.
Second edition. Moscow. 1855.
The works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, found after his death.
The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Volume two (five chapters). Moscow. 1855)ARTICLE ONE
In ancient times, about which only dark, implausible, but marvelous in their improbability memories are preserved, as about a mythical time, as about “Astraea,” as Gogol put it, - in this ancient times there was a custom to begin critical articles reflections on how quickly Russian literature is developing. Think about it (they told us) - Zhukovsky was still in full bloom when Pushkin appeared; Pushkin had barely completed half of his poetic career, cut off so early by death, when Gogol appeared - and each of these people, so quickly following one after the other, introduced Russian literature into new period development, incomparably higher than everything that was given in previous periods. Only twenty-five years separate “Rural Cemetery” from “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka”, “Svetlana” from “The Inspector General” - and in this short period of time Russian literature had three eras, Russian society took three great steps forward along the path of mental and moral
342 -
improvement. This is how critical articles began in ancient times.
This deep antiquity, barely remembered by the current generation, was not too long ago, as one might assume from the fact that the names of Pushkin and Gogol are found in its legends. But - although we are separated from it by very few years - it is decidedly outdated for us. The positive testimonies of almost all the people now writing about Russian literature assure us of this - they repeat as an obvious truth that we have already gone far ahead from the critical, aesthetic, etc. principles and opinions of that era; that its principles turned out to be one-sided and unfounded, its opinions exaggerated and unfair; that the wisdom of that era has now turned out to be vanity and that the true principles of criticism, the truly wise views of Russian literature - which the people of that era had no idea about - were found by Russian criticism only from the time when critical articles began to remain uncut in Russian magazines.
One can still doubt the validity of these assurances, especially since they are expressed decisively without any evidence; but it remains undoubted that in fact our time differs significantly from the immemorial antiquity of which we spoke. Try, for example, to begin a critical article today, as they began it then, with considerations about the rapid development of our literature - and from the very first word you yourself will feel that things are not going well. The thought will present itself to you: it is true that Pushkin came after Zhukovsky, Gogol after Pushkin, and that each of these people introduced a new element into Russian literature, expanded its content, changed its direction; but what new was introduced into literature after Gogol? And the answer will be: the Gogolian direction still remains the only strong and fruitful one in our literature. If it is possible to recall several tolerable, even two or three excellent works, which were not imbued with an idea akin to that of Gogol’s creations, then, despite their artistic merits, they remained without influence on the public, almost without significance in the history of literature. Yes, it still continues in our literature
343 -
Gogol's period - and twenty years have passed since the appearance of "The Inspector General", twenty-five years since the appearance of "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" - before, two or three directions changed during such an interval. Nowadays the same thing prevails, and we do not know how soon we will be able to say: “a new period has begun for Russian literature.”
From this we clearly see that nowadays it is impossible to begin critical articles the way they began in ancient times - with reflections on the fact that we barely have time to get used to the name of the writer who makes his writings new era in the development of our literature, as there is already another, with works whose content is even deeper, whose form is even more independent and more perfect - in this regard, one cannot but agree that the present is not similar to the past.
To what should we attribute such a difference? Why does the Gogol period last for such a number of years? former time was it enough to change two or three periods? Perhaps the sphere of Gogol’s ideas is so deep and vast that it takes too much time for them to be fully developed by literature, for their assimilation by society - conditions on which, of course, further literary development depends, because only after absorbing and digesting the food offered, one can yearn for something new, only by completely ensuring oneself the use of what has already been acquired; one must seek new acquisitions - perhaps our self-consciousness is still completely occupied with the development of Gogol’s content, does not anticipate anything else, does not strive for anything more complete and profound? Or would it be time for a new direction to appear in our literature, but it does not appear due to some extraneous circumstances? Offering last question, we thereby give reason to think that we consider it fair to answer it in the affirmative; and by saying: “yes, it would be time for a new period in Russian literature to begin,” we thereby pose two new questions to ourselves: what should be the distinctive properties of the new direction that will arise and partly, although still weakly, hesitantly, is already emerging from Gogolian direction? and what
344 -
Are circumstances delaying the rapid development of this new direction? The last question, if you want, can be solved briefly - at least, for example, by regret that a new brilliant writer is not born. But again one can ask: why doesn’t he come for so long? After all, before, and how quickly one after another, Pushkin, Griboyedov, Koltsov, Lermontov, Gogol... five people appeared, almost at the same time - which means they do not belong to the number of phenomena so rare in history peoples, like Newton or Shakespeare, for whom humanity has been waiting for several centuries. Let a man appear now, equal to at least one of these five, with his creations he would begin a new era in the development of our self-awareness. Why are there no such people today? Or are they there, but we don’t notice them? As you wish, but this should not be left without consideration. The case is very casual.
And another reader, having read the last lines, will say, shaking his head: “not very wise questions; and somewhere I read something completely similar, and even with answers - where, let me remember; Well, yes, I read them from Gogol, and precisely in the following excerpt from the daily “Notes of a Madman”:
December 5. I've been reading newspapers all morning today. Strange things are happening in Spain. I couldn't even make them out well. They write that the throne has been abolished and that the ranks are in a difficult position about electing an heir. I find this extremely strange. How can the throne be abolished? There must be a king on the throne. “Yes,” they say, “there is no king” - it cannot be that there is no king. A state cannot exist without a king. There is a king, but he’s just hiding somewhere in the unknown. He may be there, but some family reasons, or fears from neighboring powers, such as France and other lands, force him to hide, or there are some other reasons.
The reader will be absolutely right. We really came to the same situation in which Aksentiy Ivanovich Poprishchin was. The only thing is to explain this situation on the basis of the facts presented by Gogol and our newest writers, and
345 -
transpose conclusions from the dialect spoken in Spain into ordinary Russian.
Criticism generally develops on the basis of facts presented by literature, the works of which serve as necessary data for the conclusions of criticism. Thus, after Pushkin with his poems in the Byronic spirit and Eugene Onegin, criticism of the Telegraph appeared; when Gogol gained dominance over the development of our self-consciousness, the so-called criticism of the 1840s appeared... Thus, the development of new critical beliefs was each time a consequence of changes in the dominant character of literature. It is clear that our critical views cannot have any claims to either special novelty or satisfactory completeness. They are derived from works that represent only some foreshadowings, the beginnings of a new direction in Russian literature, but do not yet show it in full development, and cannot contain more than what is given by literature. It has not yet moved far from The Inspector General and Dead Souls, and our articles cannot differ much in their essential content from the critical articles that appeared on the basis of The Inspector General and Dead Souls. In terms of essential content, we say, the merits of development depend exclusively on the moral strength of the writer and on the circumstances; and if in general it must be admitted that our literature has recently become shredded, then it is natural to assume that our articles cannot but be of the same nature in comparison with what we read in the old days. But be that as it may, these last years were not completely fruitless - our literature acquired several new talents, even if they did not create anything as great as “Eugene Onegin” or “Woe from Wit”, “Hero of Our Time” or “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls”, however, have already managed to give us several wonderful works, remarkable for their independent artistic merits and living content - works in which one cannot help but see the guarantees of future development. And if our articles reflect at least some of the beginning of the movement expressed in these works, they will not be completely devoid of premonitions of a more complete and profound
346 -
development of Russian literature. Readers will decide whether we will succeed. But we ourselves will boldly and positively assign another dignity to our articles, a very important one: they are generated by deep respect and sympathy for what was noble, fair and useful in Russian literature and criticism of that deep antiquity that we spoke about at the beginning, an antiquity that, however, it is only because antiquity is forgotten by the lack of convictions or arrogance, and especially by the pettiness of feelings and concepts, that it seems to us that it is necessary to turn to the study of the high aspirations that animated the criticism of former times; Unless we remember them and become imbued with them, our criticism cannot be expected to have any influence on the mental movement of society, or any benefit for the public and literature; and not only will it not bring any benefit, but it will not arouse any sympathy, even any interest, just as it does not arouse him now. And criticism should play an important role in literature, it’s time for it to remember this.
Readers may notice in our words an echo of the powerless indecision that has taken possession of Russian literature in recent years. They may say: “You want to move forward, and where do you propose to draw the strength for this movement? Not in the present, not in the living, but in the past, in the dead. Those appeals to new activity that set their ideals in the past and not in the future are not encouraging. Only the power of negation from everything that has passed is the power that creates something new and better.” Readers will be partly right. But we are not completely wrong. For someone who is falling, any support is good, just to get back to his feet; and what should we do if our time does not show itself capable of standing on its own feet? And what to do if this falling man can only lean on coffins? And we also need to ask ourselves, are the dead actually lying in these coffins? Are there living people buried in them? At the very least, isn’t there much more life in these dead people than in many people who are called living? After all, if the writer’s word is animated by the idea of truth, the desire for a beneficial effect on the mental life of society, this word contains
347 -
seeds of life, it will never be dead. And have many years passed since these words were spoken? No; and there is still so much freshness in them, they still fit the needs of the present time so well that they seem to have been said only yesterday. The source does not dry up because, having lost the people who kept it clean, we, through negligence and thoughtlessness, allowed it to be filled up with the rubbish of idle talk. Let's throw away this rubbish - and we will see that a stream of truth still flows from the source, which can at least partially quench our thirst. Or do we not feel thirsty? We want to say “we feel,” but we are afraid that we will have to add: “we feel, just not too much.”
Readers could already see from what we said, and will see even more clearly from the continuation of our articles, that we do not consider Gogol’s works to unconditionally satisfy all the modern needs of the Russian public, that even in “Dead Souls” we find
348 -
sides are weak or at least insufficiently developed, that, finally, in some works of subsequent writers we see the guarantees of a more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only on one side, without being fully aware of their connection, their causes and consequences. And yet we dare to say that the most unconditional admirers of everything written by Gogol, who extol to the skies every work of his, every line of his, do not sympathize with his works as keenly as we sympathize, do not attribute to his activities such enormous significance in Russian literature as we attribute. We call Gogol, without any comparison, the greatest of Russians
349 -
writers by meaning. In our opinion, he had every right to say words, the immense pride of which at one time embarrassed his most ardent admirers and whose awkwardness is understandable to us:
"Rus! What do you want from me? What incomprehensible connection lies between us? Why are you looking like that and why? everything that is in you turned its eyes full of expectation on me?»
350 -
He had every right to say this, because no matter how highly we value the importance of literature, we still do not value it enough: it is immeasurably more important than almost everything that is placed above it. Byron is perhaps a more important person in the history of mankind than Napoleon, and Byron’s influence on the development of mankind is still far from being as important as the influence of many other writers, and for a long time there has not been a writer in the world who would be so important for his people, like Gogol for Russia.
351 -
not invented by us, but only drawn from the article “On the Russian story and stories of Mr. Gogol,” published exactly twenty years ago (“Telescope”, 1835, part XXVI) and belonging to the author of “Articles on Pushkin.” He proves that our story, which began very recently, in the twenties of this century, had Gogol as its first true representative. Now, after “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” appeared, it must be added that in the same way Gogol was the father of our novel (in prose) and prose works
352 -
in dramatic form, that is, Russian prose in general (one must not forget that we are talking exclusively about fine literature). In fact, the true beginning of each side of people's life should be considered the time when this side is revealed in a noticeable way, with some energy, and firmly asserts its place in life - all previous fragmentary, episodic manifestations that disappear without a trace should be considered only impulses towards self-fulfillment, but not yet actual existence. Thus, Fonvizin’s excellent comedies, which had no influence on the development of our literature, constitute only a brilliant episode, foreshadowing the emergence of Russian prose and Russian comedy. Karamzin's stories are significant only for the history of language, but not for the history of original Russian literature, because there is nothing Russian in them except language. Moreover, they too were soon overwhelmed by the influx of poetry. When Pushkin appeared, Russian literature consisted only of poetry, did not know prose, and continued not to know it until the early thirties. Here - two or three years earlier than Evenings on the Farm - Yuri Miloslavsky made a splash - but you only need to read the analysis of this novel published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, and we will clearly see that if readers liked Yuri Miloslavsky, not too demanding regarding artistic merit, then for the development of literature
353 -
even then he could not be considered an important phenomenon - and indeed, Zagoskin had only one imitator - himself. Lazhechnikov's novels had more merit, but not enough to establish the right of literary citizenship for prose. Then there remain Narezhny’s novels, in which several episodes of undoubted merit serve only to more clearly expose the clumsiness of the story and the incongruity of the plots with Russian life. They, like Yagub Skupalov, are more like popular prints than works of literature belonging to an educated society. Russian prose stories had more gifted figures - among others, Marlinsky, Polevoy, Pavlov. But their characteristics are represented by the article that we talked about above, and for us it will be enough to say that Polevoy’s stories were recognized as the best of all that existed before Gogol - whoever has forgotten them and wants to get an idea of their distinctive qualities, I advise you to read the excellent a parody that was once placed in “Notes of the Fatherland” (if we are not mistaken, 1843) - “An Unusual Duel”; and for those who do not happen to have it at hand, we put in a note a description of the best of Polevoy’s works of fiction - “Abbaddonna”. If this was the best of prose works, then one can imagine what the dignity of the entire prose branch of the literature of that time was. In any case, the stories were
354 -
are incomparably better than novels, and if the author of the article we mentioned, having reviewed in detail all the stories that existed before Gogol, comes to the conclusion that, strictly speaking, “we did not yet have a story” before the appearance of “Evenings on the Farm” and “Mirgorod” , then it is even more certain that we did not have a novel. There were only attempts that proved that Russian literature was preparing to have
355 -
novel and story, which revealed in her a desire to create a novel and story. This cannot be said about dramatic works: the prose plays performed at the theater were alien to any literary qualities, like the vaudevilles that are now being remade from French.
Thus, prose in Russian literature occupied very little space and had very little meaning. She strived to exist, but did not yet exist.
In the strict sense of the word, literary activity was limited exclusively to poetry. Gogol was the father of Russian prose, and not only was its father, but quickly gave it a decisive superiority over poetry, an advantage that it has maintained to this day. He had neither predecessors nor assistants in this matter. Prose owes its existence and all its successes to him alone.
356 -
"How! had no predecessors or assistants? Is it possible to forget about Pushkin’s prose works?”
It’s impossible, but, firstly, they are far from having the same significance in the history of literature as his works written in verse: “The Captain’s Daughter” and “Dubrovsky” are excellent stories in the full sense of the word; but indicate what their influence was? where is the school of writers who could be called followers of Pushkin as a prose writer? A literary works are endowed with significance not only by their artistic merit, but also (or even more) by their influence on the development of society or, at least, literature. But the main thing is that Gogol appeared before Pushkin as a prose writer. The first of Pushkin’s prose works (except for minor excerpts) were published “Belkin’s Tales” - in 1831; but everyone will agree that these stories did not have much artistic merit. Then, until 1836, only “The Queen of Spades” was published (in 1834) - no one doubts that this small play is written beautifully, but also no one will attribute special importance to it. Meanwhile, Gogol published “Evenings on a Farm” (1831-1832), “The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich” (1833), “Mirgorod” (1835) - that is, everything that later made up the first two parts his "Works"; in addition, in “Arabesques” (1835) - “Portrait”, “Nevsky Prospekt”, “Notes of a Madman”. In 1836, Pushkin published “The Captain’s Daughter”, but in the same year “The Inspector General” appeared and, in addition, “The Stroller”, “Morning” business man" and "Nose". Thus, most of Gogol’s works, including “The Inspector General,” were already known to the public when they only knew “ Queen of Spades" and "The Captain's Daughter" ("Arap of Peter the Great", "Chronicle of the Village of Gorokhin", "Scenes from the Times of Knights" were published already in 1837, after the death of Pushkin, and "Dubrovsky" only in 1841) - the public had enough time to become imbued with the works of Gogol before becoming acquainted with Pushkin as a prose writer.
357 -
In a general theoretical sense, we do not think of giving preference to the prose form over the poetic, or vice versa - each of them has its own undoubted advantages; but as for Russian literature itself, looking at it from a historical point of view, one cannot help but admit that all previous periods, when the poetic form predominated, are far inferior in significance both for art and for life to the last, Gogol period, the period of the dominance of the poem. We don’t know what the future will bring for literature; we have no reason to deny our poetry a great future; but we must say that until now the prose form has been and continues to be much more fruitful for us than the poetic one, that Gogol gave existence to this most important branch of literature for us, and he alone gave it the decisive predominance that it retains to this day and, in all likelihood, , will keep it for a long time.
It cannot be said, on the contrary, that Gogol did not have predecessors in the direction of content that is called satirical. It has always constituted the most living, or, better to say, the only living side of our literature. We will not expand on this generally accepted truth, we will not talk about Kantemir, Sumarokov, Fonvizin and Krylov, but we must mention Griboedov. “Woe from Wit” has artistic shortcomings, but it still remains one of the most beloved books, because it presents a number of excellent satires, presented either in the form of monologues or in the form of conversations. Almost as important was the influence of Pushkin as a satirical writer, as he appeared mainly in Onegin. And yet, despite the high merits and enormous success of Griboedov’s comedy and Pushkin’s novel, Gogol should be solely credited with the merit of firmly introducing Russian fine literature satirical - or, as it would be fairer to call it, critical direction. Despite
358 -
the delight excited by his comedy, Griboyedov had no followers, and “Woe from Wit” remained in our literature a lonely, fragmentary phenomenon, like Fonvizin’s comedies and Kantemir’s satires before, and remained without a noticeable influence on literature, like Krylov’s fables. What was the reason for this? Of course, the dominance of Pushkin and the galaxy of poets who surrounded him. “Woe from Wit” was a work so brilliant and lively that it could not help but arouse general attention; but Griboyedov’s genius was not so great that with one work he could gain dominance over literature from the very first time. As for the satirical trend in the works of Pushkin himself, it contained too little depth and consistency to produce a noticeable effect on the public and literature. It almost completely disappeared in the general impression of pure artistry, alien to a certain direction - such an impression is made not only by all the other, best works of Pushkin - “The Stone Guest”, “Boris Godunov”, “Rusalka” and so on, but also by “Onegin” itself. : - those who have a strong predisposition to a critical look at the phenomena of life will only be influenced by the cursory and light satirical notes found in this novel; - readers who are not predisposed
359 -
to them, they will not be noticed, because they really constitute only a minor element in the content of the novel.
Thus, despite the glimpses of satire in Onegin and the brilliant philippics of Woe from Wit, the critical element played in our literature before Gogol minor role. And not only a critical, but also almost no other definite element could be found in “its content, if you look at the general impression made by the entire mass of works that were then considered good or excellent, and not dwell on the few exceptions that, being accidental, alone, did not produce a noticeable change in the general spirit of literature. There was nothing definite in its content, we said, because it had almost no content at all. Re-reading all these poets - Yazykov, Kozlov and others, you are amazed that they managed to write so many pages on such poor topics, with such a meager reserve of feelings and thoughts - although they wrote very few pages - you finally come to because you ask yourself: what did they write about? and did they write about anything, or just nothing? Many are not satisfied with the content of Pushkin's poetry, but Pushkin had a hundred times more content than his associates taken together. They had almost everything in uniform; under their uniform you will find almost nothing.
Thus, Gogol has the merit that he was the first to give Russian literature a decisive desire for content, and, moreover, a desire in such a fruitful direction as the critical one. Let us add that our literature also owes its independence to Gogol. After the period of pure imitations and adaptations, which were almost all the works of our literature before Pushkin, there follows an era of creativity that is somewhat freer. But Pushkin's works still closely resemble either Byron, or Shakespeare, or Walter Scott. Let's not even talk about Byron's poems and Onegin, which was unfairly called an imitation of Childe Harold, but which, however, really would not have existed without this Byronic novel; but in the same way “Boris Godunov” is too noticeable
360 -
obeys the historical dramas of Shakespeare, "The Mermaid" - directly arose from "King Lear" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "The Captain's Daughter" - from the novels of Walter Scott. Let's not even talk about other writers of that era - their dependence on one or another of the European poets is too obvious. Is it now? - the stories of Mr. Goncharov, Mr. Grigorovich, L.N.T., Mr. Turgenev, the comedies of Mr. Ostrovsky just as little make you think about borrowing, just as little remind you of anything alien, like a novel by Dickens, Thackeray , Georges Sand. We do not think of making comparisons between these writers in terms of talent or importance in literature; but the fact is that Mr. Goncharov appears to you only as Mr. Goncharov, only as himself, Mr. Grigorovich as well, every other gifted writer of ours as well - no one’s literary personality appears to you as a double of some other writer, none of them there was no other person peeking over their shoulders to tell him - none of them can be said to be “the Dickens of the North,” or “the Russian George Sand,” or “the Thackeray of northern Palmyra.” We owe this independence only to Gogol, only his works, with their high originality, raised our gifted writers to the height where originality begins.
However, no matter how much honorable and brilliant there is in the title “the founder of the most fruitful trend and independence in literature,” these words do not yet define the full greatness of Gogol’s significance for our society and literature. He awakened in us a consciousness of ourselves - this is his true merit, the importance of which does not depend on whether we should consider him the first or tenth of our great writers in chronological order. Consideration of the significance of Gogol in this regard should be the main subject of our articles - a very important matter, which, perhaps, we would recognize as beyond our strength if most of this task had not already been completed, so that we, when analyzing the works of Gogol himself , it remains almost only to systematize and develop the thoughts already expressed by the criticism that we talked about at the beginning of the article; - there will be few additions that actually belong to us, because although the thoughts we developed were
361 -
are expressed fragmentarily, on various occasions, however, if you bring them together, there will not be many gaps left that need to be filled in in order to obtain a comprehensive description of Gogol’s works. But Gogol’s extraordinary importance for Russian literature is not yet entirely determined by the assessment of his own creations: Gogol is important not only as a brilliant writer, but at the same time as the head of a school - the only school of which Russian literature can be proud - because neither Griboyedov nor Pushkin , neither Lermontov nor Koltsov had students whose names would be important for the history of Russian literature. We must make sure that all of our literature, insofar as it was formed under the influence of non-foreign writers, is adjacent to Gogol, and only then will we fully understand his significance for Russian literature. Having made this review of the entire content of our literature in its present development, we will be able to determine what it has already done and what we should still expect from it - what guarantees of the future it represents and what it still lacks - an interesting matter, because the state Literature is determined by the state of society, on which it always depends.
No matter how fair the thoughts about the significance of Gogol expressed here are, we can, without being at all embarrassed by fears of self-praise, call them completely fair, because they were not expressed for the first time by us, and we have only assimilated them, therefore, our pride cannot be proud of them , it remains completely aside - no matter how obvious the justice of these thoughts is, there will be people who think that we place Gogol too highly. This is because there are still many people who rebel against Gogol. Literary fate his in this respect is completely different from the fate of Pushkin. Pushkin has long been recognized by everyone as a great, undeniably great writer; his name is a sacred authority for every Russian reader and even a non-reader, as, for example, Walter Scott is an authority for every Englishman, Lamartine and Chateaubriand for a Frenchman, or, to move to a higher level, Goethe for a German. Every Russian is an admirer of Pushkin, and no one finds
362 -
It is inconvenient for oneself to recognize him as a great writer, because worship of Pushkin does not oblige one to anything, understanding his merits is not determined by any special qualities of character, by any special mood of mind. Gogol, on the contrary, belongs to those writers whose love requires the same mood of soul as them, because their activity is serving a certain direction of moral aspirations. In relation to such writers as, for example, Georges Sand, Béranger, even Dickens and partly Thackeray, the public is divided into two halves: one, which does not sympathize with their aspirations, is indignant at them; but she who sympathizes loves them to the point of devotion as representatives of her own moral life, as advocates for her own ardent desires and most sincere thoughts. Goethe made no one feel either warm or cold; he is equally friendly and subtly delicate to everyone - anyone can come to Goethe, whatever his rights to moral respect - compliant, gentle and, in essence, quite indifferent to everything and everyone, the owner will not offend anyone, not only with obvious severity, even not a single titillating hint. But if the speeches of Dickens or Georges Sand serve as consolation or reinforcement for some, then the ears of others find in them much that is harsh and extremely unpleasant for themselves. These people live only for friends; they do not keep an open table for everyone who comes and goes; another, if he sits down at their table, will choke on every piece and be embarrassed by every word, and, having escaped from this difficult conversation, he will forever “remember the stern master.” But if they have enemies, they also have numerous friends; and never can a “kindly poet” have such passionate admirers as one who, like Gogol, “feeding his chest with hatred” for everything low, vulgar and harmful, “with a hostile word of denial” against everything vile, “preaches love” for goodness and truth . He who strokes the fur of everyone and everything loves no one and nothing except himself; whoever everyone is happy with does not do anything good, because good is impossible without insulting evil. To whom no one hates, no one owes anything.
363 -
Those who need protection owe a lot to Gogol; he became the leader of those who deny evil and vulgarity. Therefore, he had the glory of arousing hostility towards himself in many. And only then will everyone be unanimous in praising him, when everything vulgar and base that he fought against disappears!
We said that our words about the significance of Gogol’s own works will only in a few cases be a supplement, and for the most part only a summary and development of the views expressed by criticism of Gogol’s period of literature, the center of which was “Notes of the Fatherland”, the main figure being the critic to whom “ Articles about Pushkin". Thus, this half of our articles will be primarily historical in nature. But history must begin from the beginning - and before we present the opinions that we accept, we must present an outline of the opinions expressed regarding Gogol by representatives of the former literary parties. This is all the more necessary because the criticism of the Gogol period developed its influence on the public and literature in a constant struggle with these parties, that the echoes of the judgments about Gogol expressed by these parties can still be heard - and, finally, because these judgments are partly “Selected passages from correspondence with friends” are explained - this is such a remarkable and, apparently, strange fact in Gogol’s activities. We will have to touch on these judgments, and we will need to know their origins in order to properly assess the degree of their integrity and fairness. But, in order not to overextend our review of the attitudes towards Gogol of people whose literary opinions are unsatisfactory, we will limit ourselves to presenting the opinions of only three magazines that were representatives of the most important of the secondary trends in literature.
The strongest and most worthy of respect among the people who rebelled against Gogol was N. A. Polevoy. All others, when they did not repeat his words, attacking Gogol, showed themselves only a lack of taste and therefore do not deserve much attention. On the contrary, if Polevoy’s attacks were harsh, if sometimes they even crossed the boundaries of literary criticism and accepted
364 -
as they put it then, “legal character” - then intelligence is always visible in them, and, as it seems to us, N.A. Polevoy, while not being right, was, however, conscientious, rebelling against Gogol not out of base calculations, not out of suggestions pride or personal enmity, like many others, but out of sincere conviction.
The last years of N.A. Polevoy’s activity need justification. He was not destined to have the good fortune of going to his grave clean from all reproach, from all suspicions - but how many of the people who have long taken part in mental or other debates get this happiness? Gogol himself also needs justification, and it seems to us that Polevoy can be justified much more easily than he.
The most important stain on the memory of N. A. Polevoy lies in the fact that he, who at first so cheerfully acted as one of the leaders in the literary and intellectual movement, - he, the famous editor of the Moscow Telegraph, who acted so strongly in favor of enlightenment, destroyed so many literary and other prejudices, at the end of his life he began to fight against everything that was then healthy and fruitful in Russian literature, took with his “Russian Messenger” the same position in literature that the “Bulletin of Europe” had once occupied, became a defender of immobility, rigidity, which is so strongly amazed in the best era of his activity. Our mental life began so recently, we have still experienced so few phases of development, that such changes in the position of people seem mysterious to us; meanwhile, there is nothing strange in them - on the contrary, it is very natural that a person who was at first at the head of the movement becomes backward and begins to rebel against the movement when it continues uncontrollably beyond the boundaries that he foresaw, beyond the goal to which he strived. We will not give examples from general history, although they most likely could explain the matter. And in the history of the mental movement there was recently a great, instructive example of such weakness of a person lagging behind the movement of which he was the head - we saw this sad example in Schelling, whose name has recently been in Germany a symbol of obscurantism, while once
365 -
he gave a powerful movement to philosophy; but Hegel took philosophy beyond the boundaries that Schelling’s system could not cross, and Hegel’s predecessor, friend, teacher and comrade became his enemy. And if Hegel himself had lived a few years longer, he would have become an enemy of his best and most faithful students - and, perhaps, his name would also have become a symbol of obscurantism.
It was not without intention that we mentioned Schelling and Hegel, because to explain the change in the position of N.A. Polevoy, it is necessary to recall his attitude towards different systems of philosophy. N.A. Polevoy was a follower of Cousin, whom he considered the resolver of all wisdom and the greatest philosopher in the world. In fact, Cousin's philosophy was composed of a rather arbitrary mixture of scientific concepts, borrowed partly from Kant, still more from Schelling, partly from other German philosophers, with some scraps from Descartes, from Locke and other thinkers, and this whole heterogeneous collection was in addition remade and smoothed so as not to confuse the prejudices of the French public with any bold thought. This mush, called “eclectic philosophy,” could not have much scientific merit, but it was good because it was easily digested by people who were not yet ready to accept the strict and harsh systems of German philosophy, and, in any case, was useful as a preparation for a transition from the former rigidity and Jesuitical obscurantism to more sensible views. In this sense, she was also useful in the Moscow Telegraph. But it goes without saying that Cousin’s follower could not come to terms with Hegelian philosophy, and when Hegelian philosophy penetrated Russian literature, Cousin’s students turned out to be backward people, and there was nothing morally criminal on their part in defending their beliefs and they called it absurd what people said who were ahead of them in mental movement: one cannot blame a person for the fact that others, gifted with fresher strength and greater determination, got ahead of him - they are right, because they are closer to the truth, but he is not to blame either, he's just wrong.
366 -
The new criticism was based on ideas belonging to the strict and sublime system of Hegelian philosophy - this is the first and perhaps the most important reason that N. A. Polevoy did not understand this new criticism and could not help but rebel against it as a person gifted with a lively and ardent character. That this disagreement in philosophical views was an essential basis for the struggle, we see from everything that was written by both N.A. Polev and his young opponent - we could give hundreds of examples, but one will be enough. Beginning his critical articles in Russian Vestnik, N. A. Polevoy prefaces them with a profession de foi, in which he sets out his principles and shows how Russian Vestnik will differ from other magazines, and this is how he characterizes the direction of the journal in which new views prevailed:
In one of our magazines they offered us pathetic, ugly fragments of Hegel's scholasticism, presenting it in a language that is hardly understandable even to the magazine publishers themselves. Still striving to destroy the past, due to their confused and interrupted theories, but feeling the need for some kind of authority, they screamed wildly about Shakespeare, created tiny ideals for themselves and bowed their knees before the childish game of poor homemade work, and instead of judgments they used abuse, as if they were cursing evidence.
You see, the main point of the accusation was adherence to “Hegelian scholasticism”, and all other sins of the enemy are presented as consequences of this basic error. But why does Polevoy consider Hegelian philosophy erroneous? Because she is incomprehensible to him, he himself says this directly. In the same way, the enemy is his main disadvantage, the main reason The fall of the former romantic criticism was revealed by the fact that it relied on the shaky system of Cousin, did not know and did not understand Hegel.
Indeed, disagreement in aesthetic beliefs was only a consequence of disagreement in philosophical
367 -
the foundations of the entire way of thinking - this partly explains the cruelty of the struggle - because of one disagreement in purely aesthetic concepts it would be impossible to become so bitter, especially since in essence both opponents cared not so much about purely aesthetic issues, but in general about the development of society, and literature was precious to them mainly in the sense that they understood it as the most powerful of the forces acting on the development of our social life. Aesthetic questions were primarily just a battlefield for both, and the subject of the struggle was the influence on mental life in general.
But whatever the essential content of the struggle, its field was most often aesthetic issues, and we must recall, albeit briefly, the nature of the aesthetic beliefs of the school, of which N. A. Polevoy was a representative, and show its relationship to new views.
We will not, however, talk in too much detail about romanticism, about which quite a lot has already been written; Let's just say that French romanticism, of which both Marlinsky and Polevoy were champions, must be distinguished from German, whose influence on our literature was not so strong. (The Ballads of Southey, translated by Zhukovsky, already represent an English modification of German romanticism.) German romanticism, the main sources of which were, on the one hand, falsely reinterpreted thoughts of Fichte, on the other, exaggerated opposition to the influence of French literature of the 18th century, was a strange mixture of desires for sincerity, the warmth of feeling that lies at the basis of the German character, with the so-called Teutonomania, a passion for the Middle Ages, with a wild worship of everything in which the Middle Ages differed from modern times - everything that was vague in them, contrary to the clear view of the new civilization - worship of everything prejudices and absurdities of the Middle Ages. This romanticism has many similarities with the opinions that inspire people in our country who see the ideal of a Russian person in Lyubim Tortsov. Romanticism became even stranger when it spread to France. In Germany, it was mainly about the direction, the spirit of literature: the Germans
368 -
there was no need to bother much about overthrowing conventional pseudo-classical forms, because Leesing had long ago proven their absurdity, and Goethe and Schiller presented examples of works of art in which the idea is not forced into a conventional form alien to it, but gives birth to a form of its own. peculiar. The French did not yet have this - they still needed to free themselves from epic poems with appeals to the Muse, tragedies with three unities, solemn odes, get rid of coldness, stiffness, conventional and partly vulgar smoothness in style, monotonous and sluggish - in a word , romanticism found in them almost the same thing that we had before Zhukovsky and Pushkin. Therefore, the struggle turned primarily to questions about freedom of form; The French romantics looked at the content itself from a formalistic point of view, trying to do everything contrary to the previous: among the pseudo-classics, faces were divided into heroes and villains - their opponents decided that villains were not villains, but true heroes; passions were portrayed by the classics with cutesy, cold restraint - romantic heroes began to go berserk with their hands, and especially with their tongues, mercilessly shouting all sorts of gibberish and nonsense; the classics fussed about foppiness - their opponents proclaimed that all prettiness is vulgarity, and savagery and ugliness are true artistry, etc.; in a word, the romantics had as their goal not nature and man, but a contradiction to the classics; plan of the work, characters and provisions characters and the language itself was not created by free inspiration, but was composed, invented by calculation, and by what petty calculation? - only for it all to turn out decisively against how it was with the classics. That’s why with them everything came out just as artificially and tensely as with the classics, only this artificiality and tension was of a different kind: among the classics it was smoothed and sleek, among the romantics it was deliberately disheveled. Common sense was the idol of the classics, who did not know about the existence of fantasy; romantics became enemies common sense and artificially irritated the fantasy to the point of painful tension. After this, it is obvious how simple, natural, and understanding of reality they could have been.
369 -
life and artistry - absolutely no traces. Such were the works of Victor Hugo, leader of the romantics. Such were the works of Marlinsky and Polevoy, for whom, especially for Polevoy, Victor Hugo was the ideal of a poet and novelist. Anyone who has not re-read their stories and novels for a long time and does not have the desire to review them can form a sufficient understanding of the character of romantic creatures by running through the analysis of “Abbaddonna” given above. Where did the author get his Reichenbach? Was one of the characteristic types of our society of that time made up of ardent, great poets with deeply passionate natures? - no, we haven’t even heard of such people, Reichenbach was simply invented by the author; and is the main theme of the novel - the struggle of fiery love for two women - given by the mores of our society? Are we like the Italians as they are portrayed in bloody melodramas? no, in Rus', from the very calling of the Varangians until 1835, there was probably not a single case similar to the one that happened with Reichenbach; and what is interesting for us, what is important for you in the depiction of collisions that are decidedly alien to our life? - These questions about the close relationship of poetic creatures to the life of society did not even occur to romantic writers - they only bothered to depict stormy passions and torn situations in frantically phrased language.
We recall its characteristics not at all as a reproach to romanticism, but only to draw conclusions about whether a person, imbued through and through with such concepts of art, could understand true artistry, whether he could admire simplicity, naturalness, and a faithful depiction of reality. We don’t want to laugh at the romantics; on the contrary, let’s remember them with a kind word; they were very useful to us at one time; they rebelled against rigidity, immobile moldiness; if they managed to lead literature along the road that they liked, it would be bad, because the road led to the dens of fantastic villains with cardboard daggers, the dwellings of phrase-mongers who were vain about fictitious crimes and passions; but this did not happen - the romantics only managed to deduce
370 -
literature from the motionless and fresh swamp, and she went her way, not listening to their cries; Consequently, they did not have time to harm her, but did her good - why scold them, and how can one not remember their services with a kind word?
We need to know their concepts not in order to laugh at them - this is useless, let's laugh better at what is still absurd and wild in us - but in order to understand the sincerity and conscientiousness of their struggle against those who came after them who were better than them.
In fact, could an admirer of Victor Hugo, the author of Abbaddonna, understand an aesthetic theory that placed simplicity and animation in questions of real life as the main conditions for artistic creation? No, and he cannot be blamed for not understanding what he did not understand; one must only say that his opponents were right, defending a teaching higher and more just than the concepts he held.
We do not think of taking the side of N. A. Polevoy as an opponent of criticism and literature of the Gogol period; on the contrary, he was completely wrong, his opponent was completely right - we only assert that the main motivation for the struggle of N.A. Polevoy, as his opponent, was genuine, unfeigned conviction.
The struggle was brutal and, naturally, entailed countless insults to the pride of the partisans of one side or the other, especially the backward and weaker side, because the winner can forgive insults to a weakening enemy, but the vanity of the vanquished can be irritable and irreconcilable. Therefore, it may very well be that the bile of N.A. Polevoy’s various antics was intensified by the bitter feeling of consciousness that others took a place ahead of him, deprived him (and his convictions, because he valued his convictions) of primacy, dominance in criticism, that literature ceased to recognize him as her supreme judge, the consciousness that he was not winning, as before, but was defeated, and with painful cries of deeply wounded pride; but all this was only a secondary element that developed during the struggle, and the true, main reasons for the struggle were beliefs,
371 -
selfless and alien to low calculations or petty vanity. At one time, it was impossible not to refute the erroneous judgments of a writer who had such strong authority; but because of the erroneous direction of his activity, it was impossible to forget either that in essence he always remained a person worthy of respect in character, or especially that in the past he provided many services to Russian literature and education. This was always recognized by his opponent with the usual directness and was passionately expressed in the brochure “Nikolai Alekseevich Polevoy.”
Brutal attacks on Gogol are among the most important mistakes of N. A. Polevoy; they were one of the main reasons for the dislike that the public and best writers the past decade. But we just have to realize that he could never get out of the circle of concepts developed by the French romantics, disseminated among us by his first magazine, Moscow Telegraph, practically realized in his stories and in Abbaddon - and we will be convinced that Polevoy is not could understand Gogol, could not understand the best side his works, their most important significance for literature. He could not understand - and, therefore, the delight aroused in later criticism by these works must have seemed unfair to him; as a man accustomed to ardently defend his opinions, he could not help but raise a loud voice in a matter whose importance was so strongly emphasized both by Polevoy’s opponent and by the heated talk in the public. That this opinion, based on eclectic philosophy and romantic aesthetics, was extremely unfavorable to Gogol is not at all surprising - on the contrary, it could not have been otherwise. In fact, eclectic philosophy always stopped in the middle of the road, tried to take the “golden mean”, saying “no”, adding “yes”, recognizing the principle, not allowing its applications, rejecting the principle, allowing its applications. “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” were the decisive opposite of this rule of spoiling the impression of the whole with an admixture of unnecessary and unfair reservations - they, as works of art, leave an integral, complete, definite effect, not weakened by outsiders
372 -
and arbitrary additions, alien to the main idea - and therefore for a follower of eclectic philosophy they should have seemed one-sided, exaggerated, and unfair in content. In form, they were the complete opposite of the favorite aspirations of the French romantics and their Russian follower: “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” do not have any of those qualities for which N. A. Polevoy recognized Victor Hugo’s “Notre Dame de Paris” as a great creation of art and which he tried to give to his own works: there is a cunning plot that can be invented only with the highest irritation of imagination, invented characters, unprecedented in the world, exceptional, implausible situations and an enthusiastic, feverish tone; here the plot is an everyday incident known to everyone, the characters are ordinary, encountered at every step, the tone is also ordinary. It is sluggish, vulgar, vulgar according to the standards of people who admire Notre Dame de Paris. N.A. Polevoy acted quite consistently, condemning Gogol both as a thinker and as an esthetician. There is no doubt that the tone of condemnation would not have been so harsh if others had not praised Gogol so much and if these others had not been opponents of N.A. Polevoy, but the essence of the judgment would have remained the same; it depended on the philosophical and aesthetic judgments of the critic, and not on his personal relationships. And one cannot blame him for the harshness of this tone: when praisers speak loudly, it is necessary and fair that people who do not agree with their opinion should express their convictions just as loudly - no matter on whose side the truth is, it will benefit from that the debate is being conducted publicly: contemporaries will understand the essence of the issue more clearly, and adherents of a just cause will defend it more zealously when faced with the need to fight opponents who challenge every step boldly and as strongly as possible. And when
Death tells the anger to be silent,
373 -
history will say that if the victors were right and honest, then some of the vanquished were honest; she even recognizes the merit of these honest vanquished people that their stubborn resistance gave the opportunity to fully express the strength and rightness of the cause against which they fought. And if history considers the time in which we and our fathers lived worthy of memory, it will say that N.A. Polevoy was honest in the matter of Gogol. Let's take a closer look at his opinions about this writer.
Some people, with fresher and more insightful eyes, saw in “Evenings on the Farm”, “Mirgorod” and the stories included in “Arabesques”, the beginning of a new period for Russian literature, in the author of “Taras Bulba” and “Ivan Ivanovich’s Quarrel with Ivan” Nikiforovich" - Pushkin's successor. The author of the article “On the Russian Tale and the Stories of Mr. Gogol,” published in 1835, when “The Inspector General” was not yet known, concludes his review with the following words, which could serve as one of the brilliant proofs of his critical insight, if evidence of it were needed were to people who at least followed Russian literature to some extent:
From modern writers no one can be called a poet with more confidence and without hesitation, like Mr. Gogol... The distinctive character of Mr. Gogol’s stories is: simplicity of fiction, nationality, the perfect truth of life, originality and comic animation, always overcome by a deep feeling of sadness and despondency. The reason for all these qualities lies in one source: Mr. Gogol is a poet, a poet of real life. G. Gogol had just begun his career; therefore, it is up to us to express our opinion about his debut and the hopes for the future that this debut gives. These hopes are great, for Mr. Gogol has an extraordinary, strong and high talent. At least at the present time he is the head of literature, the head of poets.
Other critics of the time did not imagine this. “Evenings on the Farm” pleased everyone because of the gaiety of the story; they even noticed in the author some ability to quite vividly depict faces and scenes from common Little Russian life; nothing else was noticed about them,
374 -
and they were right. But the old critics were wrong in that until the end of his career they looked at Gogol as the author of “Evenings on a Farm,” measuring all his subsequent works with a yardstick that was only suitable for these first experiments, not understanding in “The Government Inspector” and “ Dead Souls" is nothing that was not already in "Evenings on the Farm", and seeing signs of a decline in talent in everything that in Gogol's subsequent works was not similar to "Evenings".
So it was with N.A. Polev. Only the first and weakest works of Gogol remained understandable and good for him, because a new principle that exceeded the level of his concepts had not yet prevailed in them. He always continued to find “Evenings on the Farm”, “The Nose”, “The Stroller” beautiful - rightly seeing in them signs of great talent, although just as rightly not seeing in them works of genius, colossal ones. But then the “Inspector” appeared; people who understood this great creation proclaimed Gogol a brilliant writer; N.A. Polevoy, as one might expect, did not understand and condemned “The Inspector General” for not being like “a story about a nose.” This is very curious, and it would be strange if we did not see that the philosophical and aesthetic convictions of the critic were too indecisive and fantastic to accommodate the idea expressed by “The Inspector General” and to understand the artistic merits of this great work. These are the thoughts “The Inspector General” aroused in N. A. Polevoy:
The author of “The Inspector General” presented us with a sad example of what evil the spirit of parties and the laudatory cries of friends, selfish minions and that senseless crowd that appears around people with talent can cause to a person with talent. We must thank God for the enmity rather than for the friendship of the people about whom Pushkin spoke:
These are my friends, my friends!
No one doubts Mr. Gogol's talent and that he has his own undisputed area in the field of poetic creations. His plot is a good-natured joke, a Little Russian “zhart”, somewhat similar to the talent of Mr. Osnovyanenka, but separate and original, although it also contains the properties of Little Russians. In a kind of joke, in a good-natured story about Little Russia, in cunning simplicity
375 -
Mr. Gogol’s view of the world and people is excellent and inimitable. What a delight his description of Ivan Ivanovich’s quarrel, his “ Old world landowners", his depiction of the Zaporozhye Cossack life in Taras Bulba (excluding those places where the Cossacks are heroes and make people laugh with a caricature of Don Quixote), his story is about the nose, about the sale of a stroller!
Likewise, his “The Inspector General” is a farce, which is liked precisely because it has no drama, no purpose, no plot, no denouement, no specific characters. The language in it is incorrect, the faces are ugly grotesques, and the characters are Chinese shadows, the incident is unrealizable and absurd, but all together it is hilariously funny, like a Russian fairy tale about a lawsuit between a ruff and a bream, like a story about Durna, like a Little Russian song:
The fish danced with the crayfish,
And parsley with parsnips,
And the tsybulya with garlic...Do not think that such creations are easy to write, that anyone can write them. For them you need a special talent, you need to be born for them, and moreover, often what seems to you to be a product of leisure, a matter of a moment, the result of a cheerful state of mind, turns out to be hard, long-term work, a consequence of a sad disposition of the soul, a struggle of sharp opposites.
“The Inspector General” was treated very unfairly. Only the public in general acted fairly, which is carried away by the general, unconscious impression and almost never makes mistakes in it; but all our judges and noted critics were unfair. Some decided to dismantle The Inspector General according to the rules of drama, were primly offended by his jokes and language and leveled him to dirt. Others, on the contrary, the author's imaginary friends, saw something Shakespearean in The Government Inspector, extolled him, glorified him, and the same story came out as with Ozerov. It’s annoying to remember what motives there were for immoderate praise. But even if they were sincere, they were wrong; and look what evil they caused, and, seeing the condemnation of some and the praise of others, the author considered himself an unrecognized genius, did not understand the direction of his talent and, instead of not taking on what was not given to him, intensify his activity in the direction that gained him general respect and fame, remember the words of Sumarokov:
Decide what your nature draws you to -
Only enlightenment, writer, give to the mind,
376 -
began to write history, discussions about the theory of grace, about the arts, began to write fantastic, pathetic subjects, just as La Fontaine once proved that he took samples from the ancient classics. Of course, the author lost his lawsuit. Everything that is said here is not our invention and is not said at random: read the author’s letter attached to the new edition of The Inspector General, which can be preserved as an interesting historical feature and as material for the history of the human heart. Could Shakespeare only write like this about himself and his creations and speak about the character of his Hamlet like Mr. Gogol speaks about the character of Khlestakov. And at the same time, this letter breathes such good-natured, poetic sadness.
But, they will tell us, therefore, what is the fault of the author’s praisers? - Because, if they had not led the author’s pride into error, condemnation could have a beneficial effect on the author and turn him onto the straight path. Condemnation will never destroy us, but praise often and almost always destroys us. That's how a person is.
And how can one not have so much respect for oneself that, out of petty calculations of self-interest, one is not ashamed to show oneself as a bubble blower! If praise comes from an unaccountable passion, how can one not be so aware of one’s own concepts, one cannot learn from the experiences of the past not to repeat the same boring fairy tale in each generation!
Is it possible to blame a person for the fact that he cannot see in “The Inspector General” “neither drama nor goals, no ties, no closure, no certain characters"? This is the same as blaming an admirer of the “Russian fairy tale about the litigation between a ruff and a bream” for not understanding “Hamlet” and not admiring Pushkin’s “The Stone Guest”. He doesn’t understand these works, and only: what do you want to do with him! This is the degree of his aesthetic development. One can and should say that he is mistaken if he said that “Hamlet” is empty and “The Stone Guest” is boring; one might add that he is not a judge of these works; but it is impossible to see in his judgments a deliberate aesthetic crime, a desire to mislead others: they are too naive, too compromising the mind of the person pronouncing them - they can only be pronounced by someone who really does not see the merits of those being condemned
377 -
them works. If he had understood at all, if he had wanted to deliberately mislead others, believe me, he would not have said that; believe me, he would have come up with a slightly better trick. The review we wrote out is harsh to the point of rudeness, but one cannot help but see that its author does not actually have a hostile disposition against Gogol. On the contrary, through the tone, harsh to the point of insult, one can hear a benevolent desire to return the talented lost sheep to the true path. The mentor is mistaken - the one he believes prodigal son, walks on the straight path and should not leave it - but one cannot condemn a person if he raises his voice so that it reaches the ears of a dying young man, deafened, in the opinion of the adviser, by insidious flatterers. We know that these people are not flatterers; that they did not - unfortunately - have a particular influence on Gogol, we also know: otherwise he would not have written such “letters to friends” and would not have burned the second volume of “Dead Souls”. But they don’t call a doctor a criminal who lags behind the modern movement of science, prescribes intricate recipes that make you shrug your shoulders in surprise - they simply say about him that he has ceased to be a good doctor, and they stop paying attention to his advice. - But then “Dead Souls” came out - and aroused delight, of which there were no examples in Rus', they were praised to the skies as the most colossal creation of Russian literature; - from the point of view to which N.A. Polevoy grew, this much extolled work should have seemed even worse than The Inspector General, and it was necessary to raise his voice so that it could be heard among the deafening cries of praise. And Polevoy expressed his judgment about the new work of the dying talented writer in more detail - not unfounded, like others, but with detailed, well-presented evidence, relating not to external details, but to important aspects of the matter.
We expressed our opinion about the literary merits of Mr. Gogol, assessing in him what constitutes his indisputable merit. Let's repeat our words ( the first half of the review above has been written out). We dare to think that such an opinion will not be called an opinion that would inspire prejudice, partiality, personality
378 -
against the author. All the more frankly we will say that “The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls,” confirming our opinion, shows the justice of what we added to our opinion about Mr. Gogol’s talent ( the other half of the review has been written out). Chichikov's adventures are also an interesting note for the history of literature and the human heart. Here we see to what extent a talent can be carried away from the straight path and what monstrosities it creates by following the wrong path. Where “The Inspector General” began, “Chichikov” ended...
From everything that Mr. Gogol writes and says about himself, one can conclude that he views his talent incorrectly. Buying his creations with hard work, he does not think of joking, sees in them some kind of philosophical and humorous creations, considers himself a philosopher and didactician, composes for himself some kind of false theory of art, and it is very clear that, considering himself a universal genius, he considers the very way of expression, or its language, is original and original. Perhaps such an opinion about oneself is necessary by its nature, but we will not stop thinking, however, that, with the advice of prudent friends, Mr. Gogol could be convinced otherwise. The question is: would he have produced his own then or not? beautiful creatures, can be resolved positively or negatively.
It could easily have happened that Mr. Gogol would then have rejected everything that harmed him, and it could just as easily have happened that, disappointed in high opinion about himself, he would have sadly thrown away his pen, as an instrument of a joke unworthy of his greatness. Man is a tricky and complex mystery; but we are rather inclined to the first of these opinions - whether to say - we would even rather wish that Mr. Gogol would stop writing altogether, rather than for him to gradually fall and become more and more mistaken. In our opinion, he has already strayed far from the true path, if we consider all his works, starting from “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” to “The Adventures of Chichikov.” Everything that makes up the charm of his creations gradually disappears from him. Everything that destroys them gradually intensifies.
“Gogol was praised,” says Polevoy: “he dreamed that he was called to write highly philosophical creations, imagined that the language he used to write was even beautiful when he indulged in grandiloquent dreams, and look,
379 -
where it led him - to works like the passage "Rome", recently printed." “Rome” is “a set of false conclusions, childish observations, funny and insignificant notes, not imbued with a single bright or deep thought, expressed in a broken, wild, absurd language” - there is both “the tar of hair” and “the shining snow of the face” , and “the ghost of emptiness that is seen in everything,” and “women who, like buildings, are either palaces or shacks” - in a word, “Rome” is “nonsense.” There is some truth in this review of Rome, and a significant one. We will still have to turn to “Rome”, speaking about the gradual development of Gogol’s ideas, and then we will note that Polevoy has omitted from sight, calling “Rome” absolute nonsense - this passage, which really represents a lot of wild things, is not devoid of poetry. We will not dwell on the comments regarding the language - we will still have to deal with them. “We admit,” continues Polevoy, “that having read the “letter” under “The Inspector General” and “Rome,” we already expected little from “Dead Souls,” which were heralded as something great and wonderful. Truly wonderful: “Dead Souls” exceeded all our expectations.”
We do not at all think of condemning Mr. Gogol for calling “Dead Souls” a poem. Of course, the name is a joke. Why ban a joke? Our condemnation of “Dead Souls” will touch upon something more important.
Let's start with the content - what poverty! We don’t remember whether we read or heard what someone called “Dead Souls” old honk in a new way. Indeed: “Dead Souls” is cut off from “The Inspector General” - again some swindler comes to a city populated by rogues and fools, cheats with them, deceives them, fearing persecution, leaves quietly - and “the end of the poem!” - Is it necessary to say that a joke, repeated again and again, becomes boring, and even more so if it is stretched out over 475 pages? But if we add to this that “Dead Souls,” while creating a crude caricature, relies on unprecedented and unrealizable details; that the faces in them, every single one, are unprecedented exaggerations, disgusting scoundrels or vulgar fools - every single one of them, we repeat; that the details of the story are filled with such expressions that sometimes you throw the book down involuntarily; and finally, that the language of the story, like the language of Mr. Gogol in “Rome” and “Revizor”, can be called a collection of errors against logic and grammar, -
380 -
We ask, what can we say about such a creature? Shouldn’t we, with a sad feeling, see in him the decline of the talent of beauty and regret another of our lost hopes, regret it all the more since the author’s fall is deliberate and voluntary? - Caricature, of course, belongs to the field of art, but a caricature that has not crossed the limit of grace. The Russian story about Eremushka and the midwife, like the Russian fairy tale about the sexton Savushka, the novels of Dickens, the frantic novels of the latest French literature, are excluded from the realm of fine art, even if crude farces, Italian buffoonery, and epic poems are admitted into the lower department of art. inside out(travesti), poems like "Elisha". Can you not regret that Mr. Gogol’s wonderful talent is wasted on such creations!
Art has nothing to do, nothing to settle accounts with “Dead Souls”.
You see, Polevoy refuses petty quibbles about the title of “Dead Souls” - for this alone he deserves to be distinguished from other reviewers, whose wit endlessly made fun of the fact that “The Adventures of Chichikov” is called a poem. The poverty of content in “Dead Souls” is again one of those judgments, the sincerity of which is proven by their unimaginable naivety, remarks that arouse pity for the one who made them and completely disarm the reader who disagrees with him. But note, however, that Polevoy begins with the essential aspects of the issue and even achieves some accuracy of reproaches, noting that “Dead Souls” is copied from “The Inspector General” - this will not occur to anyone who understands the difference between the essential content of “The Inspector General” and “The Dead.” souls": the pathos of one work is bribery, various riots, etc., in a word, predominantly the official side of life, the pathos of the other is private life,
381 -
a psychological depiction of various types of emptiness or savagery. But Polevoy, without noticing a significant difference, looked at the plots of both works from that purely external point of view from which one can find that “Woe from Wit” is a repetition of “Hamlet”, because in both here and there the main character is a young man with intelligence and with a beautiful heart, surrounded by bad people, remaining pure among them, indignant, saying a lot of things that seem absurd to his listeners, finally recognized as a crazy man, dangerous and unable to marry the girl he loves. The convergence of the plots of “The Government Inspector” with “Dead Souls” is as absurd as the rapprochement of the plots of “Hamlet” and “Woe from Wit”; but Polevoy knew how to expose the strained features of an imaginary resemblance in a rather skillful way. Was this rapprochement invented on purpose? No, his sincerity is again proven by his naivety - only from a sincere soul can an intelligent person, as N.A. Polevoy undoubtedly was, say such strange things. Then complaints begin about the exaggeration of characters and situations, their implausibility, and so on. Let us postpone the analysis of these accusations until the time when we consider “Dead Souls,” and now we will limit ourselves to the remark that the relationship of romantic aesthetics to the latest works art, which has thrown off the disheveled sophistication of the French romantics, to people who have learned to write novels with faces and positions that are not similar to the “giant images of Victor Hugo” and his “Notre Dame de Paris”, are sufficiently determined by the fact that N. A. Polevoy excludes the novels of Dickens and Georges Sand from the field of art, puts them below the most vulgar farces, on the same level as “The Tale of the Fool” - did N. A. Polevoy really have any personalities against Dickens and Georges Sand? Did he really condemn them not out of conviction, but from some extraneous view? By the way, he judges Lermontov in exactly the same way as he judges Gogol. Here are his actual words:
You say that the mistake of previous art was precisely that it blushed nature and put life on stilts. So be it; but, choosing only the dark side from nature and life, choosing from them dirt, dung, debauchery and vice, don’t you fall into
382 -
Are you going to the other extreme and are you depicting nature and life correctly? Nature and life, as they are, present us side by side with life and death, good and evil, light and shadow, heaven and earth. Choosing only death, evil, shadow, earth into your picture, are you writing off nature and life correctly? You are bored by the former heroes of art - but show us a person and people, yes, a person, and not scoundrels, not a monster, people, and not a crowd of swindlers and scoundrels. Otherwise, we’d better take up the old heroes, who are sometimes boring, but do not outrage, at least our soul, and do not offend our feelings. To portray man with his good and evil, the thought of heaven and the life of earth, to reconcile for us the visible discord of reality with the elegant idea of art that has comprehended the mystery of life - this is the artist’s goal; but are “Heroes of Our Time” and “Dead Souls” directed towards it? It will be in vain for you to refer to Shakespeare, to Victor Hugo, to Goethe. Besides the fact that Shakespeare is bad, Shakespeare is not great because Ophelia sings an indecent song, Falstaff swears and Julia’s nurse speaks ambiguities - but are your dirty caricatures similar to the creations of Shakespeare’s lofty humor, to the gigantic images of Victor Hugo ( are we talking about his Notre Dame de Paris), on Goethe's multifaceted creations?
Why do we quote literally so many excerpts from N.A. Polevoy’s rude reviews? Because they have one undoubted advantage: coherence, logic, consistency in the form of judgments. We need to see with what concepts of art the reproaches against Gogol for his one-sided direction are necessarily connected - reproaches that are still repeated by people who do not understand their meaning, who do not understand that whoever calls Gogol one-sided and greasy must be equally one-sided and to call Lermontov greasy, to find that “A Hero of Our Time” is a dirty and disgusting work, that the novels of Dickens and Georges Sand are not only disgusting, but also weak artistically, weaker than the last most absurd vaudeville, uglier than the last farce - at the same time it is necessary to stage Victor Hugo is between Shakespeare and Goethe, a little lower than the former, much higher than the latter. Whoever thinks this way about Victor Hugo, Lermontov, Dickens and Georges Sand should reproach Gogol for being one-sided and greasy - but does he deserve refutation?
383 -
pay attention to the opinion of such a connoisseur? It is sometimes important to know the origin of an opinion and the primitive, genuine form in which it was expressed - often this is enough to fully assess the suitability of this opinion for our time - it often turns out that it belongs inextricably to a system of concepts that are impossible in our time. The most pitiful figure is represented not by those people who have an erroneous way of thinking, but by those who do not have any definite, consistent way of thinking, whose opinions are a collection of incoherent scraps that do not stick together. Having read Polevoy's reviews, we are convinced that all the reproaches that other people have so far made to Gogol are borrowed from these reviews; the only difference is that N.A. Polevoy’s reproaches made sense, being a logical conclusion from a system of beliefs that, although unsatisfactory for our time, was nevertheless beautiful and useful in its time; Meanwhile, in the mouths of people who are now repeating these attacks, they are devoid of any basis, any meaning. Having presented many examples of the “trivial” and “implausible” in “Dead Souls”, many examples of the fact that Gogol writes in an incorrect and low language (here it is also apparent that Chichikov cannot make offers to landowners the first time to sell dead souls, and the fact that Nozdryov cannot sit on the floor at the ball and catch the dancers by the feet, and Petrushka with the smell of a living room, and a drop falling into Themistoclus’s soup, etc., and the “stupid story” about Captain Kopeikin, and the words “turyuk”, “to stir up”, etc. - in a word, everything that only served as food for subsequent witty jokes and noble indignation at Gogol), N. A. Polevoy ends his review like this:
Let's not talk any more about the style, about the image of expression, but let's say in conclusion: what is the author's concept of art and its purpose if he thinks that an artist can be a criminal judge in modern society? Yes, even if we assume that this is really the duty of the writer, will he point out evil and warn him with inventions about modern society, with unprecedented caricatures? We take upon ourselves the name that seems funny to the author
384 -
patriots, even “so-called patriots,” let them call us Kif Mokievichs, but we ask him: why does modernity really appear to him in such a hostile form, in which he portrays it in his “Dead Souls”, in his “The Government Inspector” , - and why not ask: why does he think that every Russian person carries in the depths of his soul the embryos of the Chichikovs and Khlestakovs? We foresee the indignation and insult of the author's defenders: they will present us as fake patriots, hypocrites, perhaps something even worse - after all, such trinkets will not matter to many!.. Their will, but we will say frankly and affirmatively that, attributing the author's prejudice good intentions, one cannot help but notice some kind of perverse view of him on many things. You will say that Chichikov and the city where he appears are not images of an entire country, but look at many places in “Dead Souls”: Chichikov, having left Nozdryov, scolds him bad words- “what to do,” adds the author, “a Russian man, and in his hearts too!” - Chichikov’s drunken coachman meets an oncoming carriage and begins to swear - “a Russian man,” adds the author, “does not like to admit to others that he is to blame!..” A city is depicted; a frieze overcoat (a necessary accessory of the city, according to the author) trudges along the street, “knowing only one (alas!) road, too well-worn by the Russian people!” - Some merchants invited other merchants to a feast - “a feast on the Russian foot”, and “the feast (the author adds), as usual, ended in a fight”... We ask if this is how they portray, if this is how they say what is nice and dear to your heart? Leavened patriotism! Dear sirs, we ourselves do not tolerate it, but let me say that leavened patriotism is still better than cosmopolitanism... whatever?.. yes, we understand each other!
We don’t know whether we will have to take a detailed look at this reproach, perhaps the most significant of all that was said against Gogol. In the meantime, let us remind the reader that Gogol himself excellently explained the essence of the question with an anecdote about Kif Mokievich and the following passage in “Departure from the Theater” after the performance of “The Inspector General”:
Mister P. Have mercy, brother, what is this? How is this really possible?
Mister B. What?
Mister P. Well, how can we deduce this?
385 -
Mister B. Why not?
Mister P. Well, judge for yourself: well, right? All vices and vices; Well, what example is given to the audience through this?
Mister B. Is it possible to boast about vices? After all, they are brought out to ridicule.
Mister V. But let me note, however, that all this, in some way, is already an insult that more or less applies to everyone.
Mister P. Exactly. This is what I myself wanted to notice to him. This is exactly the insult that is being spread.
Mister Q. Instead of exposing the bad, why not exposing the good, worthy of imitation?
Mister B. Why? A strange question: “why”. Why did one father, wanting to tear his son out of a disorderly life, did not waste words and instructions, but brought him to the infirmary, where the terrible traces of a disordered life appeared before him in all horror? Why did he do this?
Mister Q. But let me point out to you: these are in some ways our social wounds that need to be hidden, not shown.
Mister P. It's true. I completely agree with this. With us, bad things must be hidden, not shown. ( Mr. B. leaves. Prince N approaches). Listen, prince!
Prince N. What?
Mister P. Well, however, tell me: how to imagine this? What does it look like?
Prince N. Why not imagine?
Mister P. Well, judge for yourself - well, how can he suddenly be a rogue on stage - after all, these are all our wounds.
Prince N. What wounds?
Mister P. Yes, these are our wounds, our, so to speak, social wounds.
Prince N. Take them for yourself. Let them be your wounds, not mine! Why are you poking them at me? ( Leaves.)
Exactly! it is precisely this “in some way our wounds!”, it is precisely “the bad things about us must be hidden, not shown!”, it is precisely this “insult that is spreading!” Mr. P. is right, a thousand times right! But why do you yourself, Messrs. Dissatisfied with Gogol, do you find Mr. P. funny and absurd? If it's ridiculous, then it's not
386 -
repeat his words. They only make sense in his language.
In the review of “The Inspector General,” one cannot help but notice that N. A. Polevoy does not yet despair of correcting Gogol, attributing all the blame only to his “flatterers,” and does not yet abandon Gogol; - after the release of “Dead Souls”, he already considers him a person who is irretrievably lost to art, incurably ossified in his extravagant pride - to write such absurd things, of which “The Inspector General” was the first. Here are the last lines of the analysis of “Dead Souls”:
If we dared to take upon ourselves to answer the author on behalf of Rus', we would say to him: dear sir! You think too much about yourself - your pride is even funny, but we recognize that you have talent, and the only trouble is that you have lost your head a little! Leave your “blizzard of inspiration” alone, learn the Russian language and tell us your old tales about Ivan Ivanovich, about the stroller and the nose, and don’t write such nonsense as your “Rome”, or such nonsense as your “Dead Souls”! However, it’s your choice!
We have finished our extracts from N.A. Polevoy’s judgments about Gogol. We will still have to return to some of the opinions expressed by him for the first time, speaking about the opinions expressed by others even now. Others can be left indiscriminately, because their extreme naivety makes any refutation unnecessary. But here it remains for us to make two comments caused by the verdicts of N.A. Polevoy.
Polevoy blames Gogol’s “flatterers” for the fact that Gogol dreamed of himself not as an innocent joker, but as a great writer with a deeply philosophical direction. It would be ridiculous in our time to think that works like “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” could owe their origin to any outside influence - creations so deeply felt are the fruit only of the author’s own deep nature, and not extraneous instigations. In addition, we have already said that the people who understood the significance of these lofty creations of art better than others had no influence on Gogol. In the next article we will see,
387 -
how little “Dead Souls” was understood by other people who, being fans of Gogol, were at the same time his friends - these wise Varangian-Russians, if they were guilty of anything, it was perhaps in “Correspondence with Friends.” Moreover, they were not familiar with Gogol and did not play a significant role in literature in 1834, when The Inspector General was written. Pushkin knew Gogol much earlier, had some influence on the aspiring young man and praised his works, but it is impossible that Polevoy considered him Gogol’s “flatterer” - on the contrary, everyone knows that Zhukovsky and Pushkin were Gogol’s patrons, occupying a much higher position in literature and society a more honorable place than he, the unknown young man. Meanwhile, while he was still a completely unknown and insignificant young man, he was already publishing philosophical and pompous articles, in which Polevoy sees a consequence of the flattery that turned his head. Some of these articles were reprinted in Arabesques, some others were counted by Mr. Gennadi. In general, it must be said that in his development Gogol was more independent of outside influences than any other of our first-class writers. He owes everything that is beautiful in his works solely to his deep nature. This is obvious now to everyone who is not alien to the concepts of Russian literature. And if Gogol’s pride ever involved him in mistakes, then in any case it must be said that the source of this pride was his own high concept of himself, and not the praise of others. Some people have such a proud and lofty concept of themselves that other people’s praise cannot have much influence on them - anyone who knew such people will easily see from Gogol’s letters and author’s confession that he was one of them.
388 -
Our other remark concerns N.A. Polevoy himself. Based on the last two passages from his review of Dead Souls, others may conclude that he, as the publisher of the Russian Messenger, became untrue to his own opinions, which were expressed with such energy in the Moscow Telegraph; this conclusion would be unfair. We do not want to say that N. A. Polevoy was ready to repeat in 1842 exactly what he said in 1825 about every single issue. The opinions of a thinking person are never fossils - over time, he can notice aspects in many subjects , which I had overlooked before because they had not yet been sufficiently revealed by the historical movement. But the fact is that a person with an independent mind, having reached mental maturity and developed known basic beliefs, usually remains forever imbued with their essential content, and this basis of all opinions remains forever the same for him, no matter how the facts surrounding him change. And it should not be considered a betrayal of beliefs if, in accordance with a change in surrounding facts, such a person, who at first was primarily concerned with showing one side of them, subsequently considered it necessary to show the other more strongly. He can become a backward person without ceasing to be true to himself. So it was with N.A. Polev. He fought against the classics, but then, when the classics were knocked down at all points, he saw new people who, not paying attention to classicism, which was already completely exhausted, were fighting against romanticism. Their beliefs differed much more from the beliefs of N. A. Polevoy than the beliefs of N. A. Polevoy from the beliefs of the classics - both latter shades belonged to the same sphere of concepts, only in various ways changeable - new literary concepts separated from them by a whole abyss. And N.A. Polevoy, without at all betraying his romantic convictions, could say: “It’s better to write Boileau’s poetry than Hegel’s aesthetics. Better classicism than works latest literature" And indeed, Genlis is closer to Victor Hugo than Dickens or Georges Sand; “Poor Liza” has more kinship with “Abbaddonna” than “A Hero of Our Time”
389 -
or "Dead Souls". Jeanlis and Victor Hugo, “Poor Liza” and “Abbaddonna” are similar, although in that they portray people not at all as they really are. What do they have in common with the novels of new literature?
And this explains the apparently strange fact that a person with such a remarkable mind as N.A. Polevoy could not understand 1 works of new - not only Russian, but all European literature in general; it explains the incredibly strange mixture of smart and practical critical techniques with naive and decidedly unfair conclusions in the articles of “Russian Messenger” and other magazines published by him in the last half of his life. He drew correct conclusions from principles that became unsatisfactory over time - and neither his intelligence nor his conscientiousness loses anything in the eyes of a fair judge from the absurdity of the conclusions. On the contrary, a strong mind is revealed in every line of these extremely naive articles - and as for their conscientiousness, we do not doubt it at all and think that every impartial person will reach the same conviction if he penetrates into the essence of the matter, short review which we presented.
The last half of N. A. Polevoy’s literary activity needs justification, we said at the beginning of this review; and, in our opinion, it can be satisfactorily justified - it is time to remove the stain from the memory of a person who, acting erroneously in recent years, could have been an enemy literary development and to be subject to fair reproaches for that in his time - but now the danger that his influence on literature posed then had passed - and therefore now we must admit: he rightly said about himself that he was always an honest man and wanted the best for literature, and that for he remains integrally important in the history of our literature and development - to admit that, when publishing a collection of his critical articles, he had the right to say in the preface:
I put my hand on my heart and dare to say out loud that I have never been carried away either by anger - a feeling that is contemptuous for me, or by envy - a feeling that I do not understand - never what I said or wrote disagreed with my conviction, and never sympathy
390 -
goodness did not leave my heart; it always beat strongly for everything great, useful and good. I dare to add that such constant striving brought me wonderful, delightful moments that rewarded me for the sorrows and suffering of my life. How many times have I heard sincere gratitude and greetings from young men who said that they had lent me moral pleasure and faith in goodness! Whoever takes the trouble to get acquainted with what I have written will not say about me - he will not say that I have in any way dishonored the title that I have always valued and valued highly - the title of writer. My words are not self-praise, but the sincere voice of a man and writer who values the title of honest. Meanwhile, as a man, I paid a bitter tribute to the imperfections and weaknesses of man... Let someone who has not himself experienced deception and disappointment in those around him and - what is even sadder - in himself! If you are still young, my brother, you are not my judge; let the gray hair on your head show through, let your heart grow cold, let your strength become tired from work and time, and then speak and judge me!..
I am not my own judge. But no one will challenge my honor that I was the first to make criticism a permanent part of a Russian magazine, the first to turn criticism to all the most important modern subjects. My experiments were imperfect, incomplete, they will tell me, and my followers were far ahead of me in the essence and very manner of their views. Let it be so, and it would be a shame for the new generation not to become higher than us, a generation that is already passing, because it is higher because it is older than us, came after us, continues what we started, and we should be satisfied if our labors have its historical value... I myself feel, re-reading it now, the incompleteness, imperfection of much... Much renews for me in the present a comforting feeling, and instills an even more sad feeling, the consciousness of an unattained dream, unexpressed ideals. This feeling, I think, is natural to everyone who has lived and thought for any length of time. Only ignorance, only stupidity has received on this earth (though I don’t know if it’s a happy one) the fate of complacency. There is another reward, more precious, with which Providence blesses us: the thought that if God gave us something that burned strongly in our soul, greatly disturbed us in the days of our youth with an unconscious, dark feeling, we did not destroy it later in vanity and the disasters of life, we did not bury our talent in the ground... Even if we did not achieve the ideals we sought, at least we will rejoice that our life was not wasted fruitlessly...
391 -
How much nobility there is in these words, and what truth emanates from them! Whoever says this is not lying, and indeed, this man’s life was not fruitless, and we should remember him not with condemnation, but with gratitude.
Footnotes
See Gogol’s letter to Maksimovich, dated August 14, 1834, in “An Experience in the Biography of Gogol,” Nikolai M., published in Sovremennik, 1854.
See the list of Gogol’s works compiled by Mr. Gennadi in “Domestic Notes” of 1853. Most of these articles, such as “Sculpture, Painting and Poetry”, “On Architecture”, “Life”, belong back to 1831 and were written, of course, before Gogol’s name was mentioned in print.
N. G. Chernyshevsky
Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature
(Works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Four volumes. Second edition. Moscow. 1855;
The works of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, found after his death.
The Adventures of Chichikov or Dead Souls. Volume two (five chapters). Moscow, 1855)
This edition contains only four articles (1, 7, 8, 9).-- (Ed.).
Library of Russian classics
N. G. Chernyshevsky. Collected works in five volumes.
Volume 3. Literary criticism
Library "Ogonyok".
M., "Pravda", 1974
OCR Bychkov M.N.
ARTICLE ONE
In ancient times, about which only dark, implausible, but marvelous in their improbability memories are preserved, as about a mythical time, as about “Astrea”, as Gogol put it, - in this deep antiquity there was a custom to begin critical articles with reflections on how Russian literature is developing rapidly. Think about it (they told us) - Zhukovsky was still in full color strength, just as Pushkin appeared; Pushkin barely completed half of his poetic career, so cut off early by death, as Gogol appeared - and each of these people, so quickly following one after another, introduced Russian literature into a new period of development, incomparably higher than everything that was given by previous periods. Only twenty five years separate "Rural Cemetery" from "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka", "Svetlana" from "The Inspector General" - and in this short period of time, Russian literature had three eras, Russian society took three great steps forward along the path of mental and moral improvement. This is how critical articles began in ancient times.
This deep antiquity, barely remembered by the current generation, was not too long ago, as one might assume from the fact that the names of Pushkin and Gogol are found in its legends. But, although we are separated from it by very few years, it is decidedly outdated for us. The positive evidence of almost all the people who are now writing about Russian literature assures us of this - as an obvious truth, they repeat, that we have already gone far ahead from the critical, aesthetic, etc. principles and opinions of that era; that its principles turned out to be one-sided and unfounded, its opinions exaggerated and unfair; that the wisdom of that era has now turned out to be vanity, and that the true principles of criticism, the truly wise views of Russian literature - which the people of that era had no idea about - were found by Russian criticism only from the time when critical articles began to remain uncut in Russian magazines.
One can still doubt the validity of these assurances, especially since they are expressed decisively without any evidence; but it remains undoubted that in fact our time differs significantly from the immemorial antiquity of which we spoke. Try, for example, to begin a critical article today, as they began it then, with considerations about the rapid development of our literature - and from the very first word you yourself will feel that things are not going well. The thought will present itself to you: it is true that Pushkin came after Zhukovsky, Gogol after Pushkin, and that each of these people introduced a new element into Russian literature, expanded its content, changed its direction; but what new was introduced into literature after Gogol? And the answer will be: the Gogolian direction still remains the only strong and fruitful one in our literature. If it is possible to recall several tolerable, even two or three excellent works, which were not imbued with an idea akin to that of Gogol’s creations, then, despite their artistic merits, they remained without influence on the public, almost without significance in the history of literature. Yes, in our literature the Gogol period still continues - and after all, twenty years has passed since the appearance of "The Inspector General", twenty-five years since the appearance of "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" - before, two or three directions changed in such a period. Nowadays the same thing prevails, and we do not know how soon we will be able to say: “a new period has begun for Russian literature.”
From this we clearly see that nowadays it is impossible to begin critical articles the way they began in ancient times - with reflections on the fact that as soon as we have time to get used to the name of a writer who with his works makes a new era in the development of our literature, the other, with works whose content is even deeper, whose form is even more independent and more perfect - in this regard, one cannot but agree that the present is not similar to the past.
To what should we attribute such a difference? Why does the Gogol period last so long? years, which in the past was enough to change two or three periods? Perhaps the sphere of Gogol’s ideas is so deep and vast that it takes too much time for them to be fully developed by literature, for their assimilation by society - conditions on which, of course, further literary development depends, because only after absorbing and digesting the food offered , one can yearn for something new, only by completely ensuring oneself the use of what has already been acquired, one must look for new acquisitions - perhaps our self-consciousness is still completely occupied with the development of Gogol’s content, does not anticipate anything else, does not strive for anything more complete and profound? Or would it be time for a new direction to appear in our literature, but it does not appear due to some extraneous circumstances? By proposing the last question, we thereby give reason to think that we consider it fair to answer it in the affirmative; and by saying: “yes, it would be time to begin a new period in Russian literature,” we thereby pose two new questions to ourselves: what should be the distinctive properties of the new direction that will arise and, in part, although still weakly, hesitantly, is already emerging from Gogol’s directions? and what circumstances are delaying the rapid development of this new direction? The last question, if you like, can be solved briefly - at least, for example, by regret that there is no new writer of genius. But again one can ask: why doesn’t he come for so long? After all, before, and how quickly one after another, Pushkin, Griboedov, Koltsov, Lermontov, Gogol... five people appeared, almost at the same time - which means they do not belong to the number of phenomena so peoples rare in history, like Newton or Shakespeare, for whom humanity has been waiting for several centuries. Let a man appear now, equal to at least one of these five, with his creations he would begin a new era in the development of our self-awareness. Why are there no such people today? Or are they there, but we don’t notice them? As you wish, but this should not be left without consideration. The case is very casual.
And another reader, having read the last lines, will say, shaking his head: “not very wise questions; and somewhere I read completely similar ones, and even with answers - where, let me remember; well, yes, I read them from Gogol, and precisely in the following excerpt from the daily “Notes of a Madman”:
December 5. I've been reading newspapers all morning today. Strange things are happening in Spain. I couldn't even make them out well. They write that the throne has been abolished and that the ranks are in a difficult position about electing an heir. I find this extremely strange. How can the throne be abolished? There must be a king on the throne. “Yes,” they say, “there is no king” - it cannot be that there is no king. A state cannot exist without a king. There is a king, but he’s just hiding somewhere in the unknown. He may be there, but some family reasons, or fears from neighboring powers, such as France and other lands, force him to hide, or there are some other reasons.
The reader will be absolutely right. We really came to the same situation in which Aksentiy Ivanovich Poprishchin was. The only thing is to explain this situation on the basis of the facts presented by Gogol and our newest writers, and to transfer the conclusions from the dialect spoken in Spain into ordinary Russian.
Criticism generally develops on the basis of facts presented by literature, the works of which serve as necessary data for the conclusions of criticism. Thus, after Pushkin with his poems in the Byronic spirit and "Eugene Onegin" came the criticism of the "Telegraph", when Gogol gained dominance over the development of our self-awareness, the so-called criticism of the 1840s appeared... Thus, the development of new critical convictions each times was a consequence of changes in the dominant character of literature. It is clear that our critical views cannot have any claims to either special novelty or satisfactory completeness. They are derived from works that represent only some foreshadowings, the beginnings of a new direction in Russian literature, but do not yet show it in full development, and cannot contain more than what is given by literature. It has not yet moved far from The Inspector General and Dead Souls, and our articles cannot differ much in their essential content from the critical articles that appeared on the basis of The Inspector General and Dead Souls. In terms of essential content, we say, the merits of development depend exclusively on the moral strength of the writer and on the circumstances; and if in general it must be admitted that our literature has recently become shredded, then it is natural to assume that our articles cannot but be of the same nature in comparison with what we read in the old days. But be that as it may, these last years were not completely fruitless - our literature acquired several new talents, even if they had not yet created anything so great ones, like “Eugene Onegin” or “Woe from Wit”, “Hero of Our Time” or “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls”, then they have already managed to give us several beautiful works, remarkable for their independent merits in artistic terms and living content, - works in which one cannot help but see the guarantees of future development. And if our articles reflect at least to some extent the beginning of the movement expressed in these works, they will not be completely devoid of premonitions about a more complete and profound development of Russian literature. Whether we succeed in this will be up to the readers to decide. But we ourselves will boldly and positively assign another dignity to our articles, a very important one: they are generated by deep respect and sympathy for what was noble, fair and useful in Russian literature and criticism of that deep antiquity that we spoke about at the beginning, an antiquity that, however, it is only because antiquity is forgotten by lack of convictions or arrogance, and especially by the pettiness of feelings and concepts, that it seems to us that it is necessary to turn to the study of the high aspirations that animated the criticism of former times; Unless we remember them and become imbued with them, our criticism cannot be expected to have any influence on the mental movement of society, or any benefit for the public and literature; and not only will it not bring any benefit, but it will not arouse any sympathy, even any interest, just as it does not arouse him now. And criticism should play important role in literature, it’s time for her to remember this.
Readers may notice in our words an echo of the powerless indecision that has taken possession of Russian literature in recent years. They can say: “you want to move forward, and where do you propose to draw strength for this movement? Not in the present, not in the living, but in the past, in the dead. Those appeals to new activity that set their ideals in the past are not encouraging. and not in the future. Only the power of negation from everything that has passed is the power that creates something new and better." Readers will be partly right. But we are not completely wrong. For someone who is falling, any support is good, just to get back to his feet; and what should we do if our time does not show itself capable of standing on its own feet? And what to do if this falling man can only lean on coffins? And we also need to ask ourselves, are the dead actually lying in these coffins? Are there living people buried in them? At the very least, isn’t there much more life in these dead people than in many people who are called living? After all, if the writer’s word is animated by the idea of truth, the desire for a beneficial effect on the mental life of society, this word contains the seeds of life, it will never be dead. And is there a lot years has it been since these words were spoken? No; and there is still so much freshness in them, they still fit the needs of the present time so well that they seem to have been said only yesterday. The source never runs dry that's why that, having lost the people who kept it clean, we, through negligence and thoughtlessness, allowed it to be filled with rubbish of idle talk. Let's throw away this rubbish - and we will see that a stream of truth still flows from the source, which can, at least partially, quench our thirst. Or do we not feel thirsty? We want to say “we feel,” but we are afraid that we will have to add: “we feel, just not too much.”
Readers could already see from what we said, and will see even more clearly from the continuation of our articles, that we do not consider Gogol’s works to unconditionally satisfy all the modern needs of the Russian public, that even in “Dead Souls” (*) we find weak sides or, at least, insufficiently developed, that, finally, in some works of subsequent writers we see the guarantees of a more complete and satisfactory development of ideas that Gogol embraced only on one side, without being fully aware of their connection, their causes and consequences. And yet, we dare to say that the most unconditional admirers of everything written by Gogol, who extol to heaven every work of his, every line of his, they do not sympathize with his works as vividly as we sympathize, they do not attribute to his activities such enormous significance in Russian literature as we ascribe. We call Gogol, without any comparison, the greatest of Russian writers in terms of significance. In our opinion, he had every right to say words, the immense pride of which at one time embarrassed his most ardent admirers, and whose awkwardness is understandable to us:
"Rus! What do you want from me? What incomprehensible connection lies between us? Why are you looking like that and why? whatever There is in you, turned your eyes full of expectation on me?”
(* We are talking here only about the first volume of Dead Souls, as elsewhere, where it is not indicated that we're talking about about the second. By the way, it is necessary to say at least a few words about the second volume, until it is our turn to analyze it in detail, when reviewing Gogol’s works. The now printed five chapters of the second volume of Dead Souls survived only in a draft manuscript, and, without a doubt, had a completely different form in the final edition. in which we now read them - it is known that Gogol worked hard, slowly, and only after many corrections and alterations did he manage to give the true form to his works. This circumstance, which significantly complicates the decision of the question: “below or above the first volume of “Dead Souls” in artistic terms would be their continuation, finally processed by the author,” cannot yet force us to completely abandon the judgment of whether Gogol lost or retained all the enormity his talent in the era of a new mood, expressed in “Correspondence with Friends.” But a general verdict about the entire draft sketch preserved from the second volume is made impossible because this passage itself, in turn, is a collection of many passages written at different times, under the influence of different moods of thought, and, it seems, written according to different general plans works hastily crossed out without replenishing the crossed out places - passages separated by gaps, often more significant than the passages themselves, finally, because many of the surviving pages were, apparently, discarded by Gogol himself as unsuccessful, and replaced by others written completely again, of which others - perhaps also discarded in turn - reached us, others - and probably a larger number - perished. All this forces us to consider each passage separately and make a judgment not about the “five chapters” of “Dead Souls”, as a whole, albeit rough sketch, but only about the varying degrees of merit of different pages, not connected either by a unity of plan, or a unity of mood, or the sameness of contentment with them in the author, not even the unity of the era of their composition. Many of these passages are decidedly as weak in execution and especially in thought as the weakest parts of “Correspondence with Friends”; These are especially the passages in which the ideals of the author himself are depicted, for example, the wonderful teacher Tentetnikov, many pages of the passage about Kostanzhoglo, many pages of the passage about Murazov; but this still does not prove anything. The depiction of ideals has always been the weakest side in Gogol’s works, and probably not so much because of the one-sidedness of his talent, to which many attribute this failure, but precisely because of the strength of his talent, which consisted in an unusually close relationship with reality: when reality presented ideal faces, they came out excellently Gogol, as, for example, in “Taras Bulba” or even in “Nevsky Prospekt” (the face of the artist Piskarev). If reality did not present ideal persons or presented it in positions inaccessible to art, what could Gogol do? Making them up? Others, accustomed to lying, do it quite skillfully; but Gogol never knew how to invent, he himself says this in his Confession, and his inventions were always unsuccessful. Among the passages in the second volume of Dead Souls there are many that are fictitious, and one cannot help but see that they arose from Gogol’s conscious desire to introduce into his work a gratifying element, the lack of which in his previous works so many and so loudly shouted and buzzed at him. ears. But we do not know whether these passages would have been destined to survive in the final edition of Dead Souls - artistic tact, of which Gogol had so much, would have correctly told him when viewing the work that these passages are weak; and we have no right to assert that the desire to spread a pleasant color throughout the work would then overpower artistic criticism in the author, who was both unforgiving to himself and an insightful critic. In many cases, this false idealization appears to occur purely from the arbitrariness of the author; but other passages owe their origin to a sincere, involuntary, though unjust, conviction. These passages include mainly Kostanzhoglo’s monologues, which are a mixture of truth and falsehood, true observations and narrow, fantastic inventions; this mixture will surprise with its strange diversity everyone who is not briefly familiar with the opinions that often appeared in some of our magazines and belong to people with whom Gogol had a short relationship. In order to characterize these opinions with some name, we, adhering to the rule: nomina sunt odiosa (Names are hateful, - that is, we will not name names (lat.).), let's just name the late Zagoskin - many pages of the second volume of Dead Souls seem to be imbued with his spirit. We don’t think that Zagoskin had even the slightest influence on Gogol, and we don’t even know what kind of relationship they had with each other. But opinions that penetrate right through Zagoskin’s last novels and have the best of their many sources as a simple-minded and short-sighted love for patriarchy, prevailed among many people closest to Gogol, some of whom are distinguished by great intelligence, and others by erudition or even erudition, which could seduce Gogol, rightly complaining that he did not receive an education commensurate with his talent, and, one might add, with the great strengths of his moral character. It was their opinions, of course, that Gogol submitted to, portraying his Kostanzhoglo or drawing the consequences that resulted from Tentetnikov’s weakness (pp. 24-26). Similar passages found in “Correspondence with Friends” most of all contributed to the condemnation that Gogol was subjected to for her. Subsequently we will try to consider to what extent he should be condemned for succumbing to this influence, from which, on the one hand, his insightful mind should have protected, but against which, on the other hand, he did not have a sufficiently firm support, nor in a solid modern education, nor in warnings from people who look at things directly - because, unfortunately, fate or pride kept Gogol always far from such people. Having made these reservations, inspired not only by deep respect for the great writer, but even more by a sense of fair condescension towards a person surrounded by relations unfavorable for his development, we cannot, however, not say directly that the concepts that inspired Gogol in many pages of the second volume " Dead Souls,” are unworthy of either his mind, his talent, or especially his character, in which, despite all the contradictions that remain mysterious to this day, one must recognize the basis as noble and beautiful. We must say that on many pages of the second volume, in contrast to other and better pages, Gogol is an advocate of rigidity; however, we are sure that he took this obduracy for something good, deluded by some aspects of it, which from a one-sided point of view could be presented in a poetic or meek form and cover up the deep ulcers that Gogol saw so well and conscientiously exposed in other areas, more known to him, and which he did not distinguish in the sphere of actions of Kostanzhoglo, he did not so well known. In fact, the second volume of Dead Souls depicts life, which Gogol almost did not touch upon in his previous works. Previously, cities and their inhabitants, mainly officials and their relationships, were always in the foreground; Even in the first volume of Dead Souls, where so many landowners appear, they are not depicted in their village relations, but only as people who are part of the so-called educated society, or purely from the psychological side. Gogol decided to touch upon rural relations only in the second volume of Dead Souls, and his news in this field can to some extent explain his delusions. Perhaps, with a closer study of the subject, many of the paintings he sketched would have completely changed their coloring in the final edition. One way or another, in any case we have positive grounds to assert that no matter what some of the episodes were in the second volume of Dead Souls, the predominant character in this book, when it was finished, would still remain the same, how different its first volume is from all previous works of the great writer. The very first lines of the currently published chapters assure us of this:
“Why depict poverty, and poverty, and the imperfection of our life, digging people out of the wilderness, from the remote corners of the state? - What to do if these are already the properties of the writer, and, having fallen ill with his own imperfection, he can no longer depict anything else, as soon as poverty, and poverty, and the imperfections of our life, digging people out of the wilderness, from the remote corners of the state?..”
It is obvious that this passage, which serves as a program for the second volume, was written already when Gogol was very busy talking about the imaginary one-sidedness of his works; when he, considering these rumors fair, already explained his imaginary one-sidedness by his own moral weaknesses - in a word, it belongs to the era of “Correspondence with Friends”; and yet the artist’s program remains, as we see, the previous program of “The Inspector General” and the first volume of “Dead Souls”. Yes, Gogol the artist always remained true to his calling, no matter how we should judge the changes that happened to him in other respects. And indeed, whatever his mistakes may be when he talks about subjects that are new to him, one cannot help but admit, re-reading the surviving chapters of the second volume of Dead Souls, that he barely moves into the spheres of relationships that are closely familiar to him, which he depicted in the first volume of Dead Souls, how his talent appears in its former nobility, in its former strength and freshness. In the surviving passages there are many such pages that must be ranked among the best that Gogol ever gave us, which delight us with their artistic merit, and, what is more important, with their truthfulness and the power of noble indignation. We do not list these passages because there are too many of them; Let’s just mention a few: Chichikov’s conversation with Betrishchev about how everyone requires encouragement, even thieves, and an anecdote explaining the expression: “love us black, and everyone will love us white,” a description of Kashkarev’s wise institutions, the trial of Chichikov and the brilliant deeds of an experienced legal adviser; finally, the marvelous ending of the passage is the speech of the Governor-General, nothing like which we have ever read in Russian, not even in Gogol. These passages will convince the person most prejudiced against the author of “Correspondence with Friends” that the writer who created “The Inspector General” and the first volume of “Dead Souls” remained true to himself as an artist until the end of his life, despite the fact that as a thinker he could have been mistaken; They will convince you that a high nobility of heart, a passionate love for truth and goodness always burned in his soul, that he seethed with passionate hatred of everything base and evil until the end of his life. As for the purely humorous side of his talent, every page, even the least successful, provides evidence that in this respect Gogol always remained the same, the great Gogol. From large passages imbued with humor, all readers of the second volume of Dead Souls noticed the amazing conversations of Chichikov with Tentetnikov, with General Betrishchev, the excellently outlined characters of Betrishchev, Pyotr Petrovich Rooster and his children, many pages from Chichikov’s conversations with the Platonovs, Kostanzhoglo, Kashkarev and Khlobuev, the excellent characters of Kashkarev and Khlobuev, a wonderful episode of Chichikov’s trip to Lenitsyn, and, finally, many episodes from the last chapter, where Chichikov is put on trial. In a word, in this series of draft passages that were left to us from the second volume of Dead Souls, there are weak ones that, no doubt, would have been altered or destroyed by the author during the final finishing of the novel, but in most of the passages, despite their unfinished nature, Gogol’s great talent appears with its former strength, freshness, with the nobility of direction innate to his high nature.)
He had every right to say this, because no matter how highly we value the importance of literature, we still do not value it enough: it is immeasurably more important than almost everything that is placed above it. Byron is perhaps a more important person in the history of mankind than Napoleon, and Byron’s influence on the development of mankind is still far from being as important as the influence of many other writers, and for a long time there has not been a writer in the world who would be so important for his people, like Gogol for Russia.
First of all, let's say that Gogol should be considered the father of Russian prose literature, just as Pushkin is the father of Russian poetry. We hasten to add that this opinion was not invented by us, but was only extracted from the article “On the Russian story and the stories of Mr. Gogol,” published exactly twenty years ago. years ago ("Telescope", 1835, part XXXVI) and belonging to the author of "Articles about Pushkin". He proves that our story, which began very recently, in the twenties of this century, had Gogol as its first true representative. Now, after “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls” appeared, it must be added that in the same way Gogol was the father of our novel (in prose) and prose works in dramatic form, that is, Russian prose in general (we must not forget that we We are talking exclusively about fine literature). In fact, the true beginning of each side of people's life should be considered the time when this side is revealed in a noticeable way, with some energy, and firmly asserts its place in life - all previous fragmentary, disappearing without a trace, episodic manifestations should be are considered only impulses towards self-fulfillment, but not yet actual existence. Thus, Fonvizin’s excellent comedies, which had no influence on the development of our literature, constitute only a brilliant episode, foreshadowing the emergence of Russian prose and Russian comedy. Karamzin's stories are significant only for the history of language, but not for the history of original Russian literature, because there is nothing Russian in them except language. Moreover, they too were soon overwhelmed by the influx of poetry. When Pushkin appeared, Russian literature consisted only of poetry, did not know prose, and continued not to know it until the early thirties. Here - two or three years earlier than "Evenings on the Farm", "Yuri Miloslavsky" made a splash - but you only need to read the analysis of this novel, published in the "Literary Gazette", and we will clearly see that if you liked "Yuri Miloslavsky" readers who are not too demanding regarding artistic merits, then even then he could not be considered an important phenomenon for the development of literature - and indeed, Zagoskin had only one imitator - himself. Lazhechnikov's novels had more merit, but not enough to establish the right of literary citizenship for prose. Then there remain Narezhny’s novels, in which several episodes of undoubted merit serve only to more clearly expose the clumsiness of the story and the incongruity of the plots with Russian life. They, like Yagub Skupalov, are more like popular prints than works of literature belonging to an educated society. Russian prose stories had more gifted figures - among others, Marlinsky, Polevoy, Pavlov. But their characteristics are represented by the article that we talked about above, and for us it will be enough to say that Polevoy’s stories were recognized as the best of all that existed before Gogol - anyone who has forgotten them and wants to get an idea of their distinctive qualities, I advise you to read an excellent parody that was once placed in “Notes of the Fatherland” (if we are not mistaken, 1843) - “An Unusual Duel”, and for those who do not happen to have it at hand, we put in a note a description of the best of Polevoy’s fictional works - “ Abbaddons." If this was the best of prose works, then one can imagine what the dignity of the entire prose branch of the then literature was (*). In any case, the stories were incomparably better than the novels, and if the author of the article we mentioned, having reviewed in detail all the stories that existed before Gogol, comes to the conclusion that, strictly speaking, “we did not yet have a story” before the appearance of “Evenings on Khutor" and "Mirgorod", then it is even more certain that the novel did not exist in our country. There were only attempts that proved that Russian literature was preparing to have a novel and a story, which revealed in it a desire to produce a novel and a story. This cannot be said about dramatic works: the prose plays performed at the theater were alien to any literary qualities, like the vaudevilles that are now being remade from French.
Formulated a century and a half ago at the beginning by V. G. Belinsky See: Belinsky V. G. A few words about Gogol’s poem: “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls” // Belinsky V. G. Complete. collection cit.: In 13 volumes. M., 1955. T. 6. P. 259., and later by N. G. Chernyshevsky See: Chernyshevsky N. G. Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature // Chernyshevsky N. G. Complete. collection cit.: In 11 volumes. M., 1947. T. 3. P. 19. point of view, according to which a new period of Russian literature begins with Gogol, since the one that preceded it, Pushkin’s, successfully ended. See: Belinsky V. G. Russian literature in 1841 // Belinsky V. G. Complete. collection op. T. 5. P. 565., in a certain sense (in the sense that they put into it) is quite convincing. If you follow the hierarchy of values on which it is based, then it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that Gogol is a social poet to a much greater extent than Pushkin, and for this reason he is of greater importance for Russian society. Concept by V.V. Rozanov, who played huge role in rethinking the ideas about Gogol and Pushkin, in the sense that interests us, continues the previous ones: one genius was supplanted others, “equivalent” Rozanov V.V. Pushkin and Gogol // Gogol in Russian criticism: Anthology. M., 2008. P. 176.. Meanwhile, we can put forward another hypothesis - about a single - Pushkin-Gogol period of Russian literature, we can try to re-evaluate the significance that Pushkin and Gogol, in the arguments of Belinsky and Chernyshevsky opposed each other, had for Russian culture.
The uniqueness of the Pushkin-Gogol period of Russian literature lies in the constant and fruitful dynamic tension of the binary oppositions of Russian culture: aristocratic and democratic tendencies, “aesthetic” bias and “ethical”, archaists and innovators, Slavophilism and Westernism, conservatism and liberalism, spiritual and secular (in to a considerable extent associated with the process of secularization of culture and resistance to this process of quixotic Christianity), the real and the ideal, poetry and prose, pure artistry and critical pathos, worldwide responsiveness and national identity, a primary interest in internal life or external life, in form or content, in public service or the search for eternal truths, the desire to depict or transform reality, the confrontation between Moscow and St. Petersburg as a cultural duality. Representatives of the early stage of this period were Zhukovsky and Karamzin, Vyazemsky and Yazykov, Khomyakov and the Kireevsky brothers, the Aksakov family and Prince V. Odoevsky. Both Pushkin and Gogol paid tribute to both poles of oppositions and at the same time, to a certain extent, distanced themselves from those trends that were, to a large extent, generated by them. Gogol, in particular, admitted that he always saw himself as a participant in the cause of the “common good” and knew that without him “the reconciliation of many things at war with each other would not be possible.” Letter to S.P. Shevyrev dated May 13 (25), 1847 (Correspondence N.V. Gogol: In 2 vols. M., 1988. T. 2. P. 359).. With the advent of Gogol, there was not a change from one trend to another, as Chernyshevsky stated in “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature,” but their “ reconciliation”, since the trends were not mutually exclusive, but interdependent and mutually enriching.
Over time, some of them came to the fore, others went into the shadows, but were not stopped and continued to act as a productive factor in the development of culture. It is quite natural that in the work of great writers the unity of these polar tendencies was realized, while the activities of minor writers demonstrated their confrontation and opposition.
In my opinion, the Pushkin-Gogol period began with the publication of Pushkin’s first works and finally took shape with the publication of Gogol’s last works.
With the appearance of Gogol in literature, its second component, so necessary for Russian culture of the New Age, arose, taking into account the existence of the first - Pushkin's, and the formation of a system of binary oppositions was completed.
Such an understanding of the specifics of this period as a bipolar dynamic cultural space, thereby differing both from the period of Old Russian literature and from the period of literature of the 18th century, allows us to conclude that it continues to this day.
It is known that it was in the 1820s-1850s that Hegelianism was the most influential phenomenon in Russian intellectual life. Therefore, it is worth noting that the work of writers belonging to the first stage of the Pushkin-Gogol period, many of whom were Hegelians, is an excellent confirmation of the Hegelian idea of the unity and struggle of opposites.
Soon after the revolution that Pushkin made, two new tectonic shifts occurred, due to Gogol: a natural school arose and a little later a “supranatural” school was formed. Both events were of great importance for Russian culture. Khodasevich’s lines are perfectly applicable to the second of these most important events in Russian literature of modern times:
The spirit began to erupt,
Like a tooth from under swollen gums Khodasevich V. From the diary // Khodasevich V. Poems. L., 1989. P. 138 (Poet's book. Large ser.)..
We find a lot of evidence in his letters about the torment that Gogol endured during this process. So, on March 21, 1845, he wrote to A. O. Smirnova: “I tormented myself, forced myself to write, suffered severe suffering, seeing powerlessness, and several times I had already caused myself illness through such coercion - and I could not do anything, and everything came out forcedly.” and bad.<...>Whether this state of illness will sustain me, or whether the illness is born precisely because I did violence to myself to raise my spirit to the state necessary for creation, this, of course, is better known to God; in any case, I thought about my treatment only in this sense, so that not the ailments would decrease, but life-giving moments would return to the soul to create and turn into the word that is created, but this treatment is in the hands of God, and he alone should be given it.” Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. T. 2. P. 149-150..
Gogol wrote to M.P. Pogodin: “...my subject has always been man and the soul of man.” Letter dated June 26 (July 8), 1847 (Ibid. T. 1. P. 427).. Neither Karamzin nor Zhukovsky, nor Pushkin, Gogol argued in a letter to P. A. Pletnev dated April 27, 1847, did not set such a goal. Ibid. P. 285.. However, after Gogol, the soul became the subject of “art”, and not of a religious treatise or sermon. The subject of that “art” that Pushkin brought to perfection. The specific recommendations that Gogol gave to N.M. Yazykov, who was close to him in spirit, in a letter dated December 21, 1844, are of a programmatic nature. Highly appreciating Yazykov’s poem “Blessed is he who has high wisdom. ", Gogol nevertheless advises the poet in the future, turning to spiritual poems, to build them not so much on “praise” as on “reproach” generated by anger, “compassion” generated by love, or “pleading” “pulled out by the power of spiritual weakness » Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. P. 405..
In the article “The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls. Poem by N. Gogol. Second edition” Belinsky perspicaciously noted what turned out to be the “grain” of a new state of Russian literature, a foreshadowing of the great Russian novel, admittedly a new stage in world literature. However, the critic himself was concerned about something completely different: “the grain, perhaps, of his (Gogol’s) complete loss. V.B.) talent for Russian literature." "Important<...>We find the shortcomings of the novel “Dead Souls,” wrote Belinsky, almost everywhere where, from a poet, from an artist, the author strives to become some kind of prophet and falls into a somewhat inflated and pompous lyricism. Fortunately, the number of such lyrical passages is insignificant in relation to the volume of the entire novel, and they can be skipped while reading without losing anything from the pleasure delivered by the novel itself.” Belinsky V. G. The Adventures of Chichikov, or Dead Souls. Poem by N. Gogol. Second edition. Moscow. 1846 // Belinsky V. G. Complete. collection op. T. 10. P. 51.. It is significant that the proposed method of correcting the “shortcomings” of Gogol’s poem was used by some of the first translators of the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, who inherited similar “shortcomings” from Gogol. Many of them mercilessly cut out the extra-fabular lyrical, historiosophical and religious-philosophical reasoning of Russian writers.
The position put forward by Belinsky about two “divisions” of poetry - ideal and real, was primarily based on the work of Gogol as the creator of real poetry, striving to “reproduce” and not “recreate” life. Late Gogol, in a new round of his spiritual and aesthetic development, returned again to ideal poetry, however, not in the old romantic, but in a still unprecedented, prophetic and confessional guise. That is why the indignation of the critic was so great when he saw Gogol’s betrayal of their common ideals in the past.
In addition to the established Pushkin direction in literature, the late Gogol, in one of his last letters to Zhukovsky, formulates his writer’s manifesto, which, to the same extent as Pushkin’s poetry, will become a symbol of faith for all subsequent Russian culture. The writer’s task is to “transparently reflect life in its highest dignity, in which it should and can be on earth and in which it exists so far in the chosen and best few” Letter dated December 16, 1850 (Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. T. 1. P. 231)..
It is curious that it was Gogol who wrote the heartfelt words about the “genius of receptivity”, which, from his point of view, is so strong in the Russian people and which found brilliant embodiment in the work of Zhukovsky, who knew how to “put into a better frame everything that is not appreciated, not cultivated and neglected.” other peoples" (VIII, 379). Later, similar thoughts about Pushkin’s worldwide responsiveness were expressed by Dostoevsky, who continued rather the Gogol “line” in Russian culture. It is equally significant that when Zhukovsky aptly defines the essence of Russian poetry, which replaced the poetry of Pushkin’s era, how "disenchantment" Gogol will join his friend’s assessment (V, 401). However, further, in the same chapter “What, finally, is the essence of Russian poetry and what is its peculiarity”, included in the book “Selected passages from correspondence with friends”, he will add that Russian poetry tried all the chords and mined the world language then, “to prepare everyone for a more significant service” (VIII, 407).
Gogol was aware that he was different in almost everything from his adored Pushkin - both in the type of creative personality, and in his attitude, and in the tasks that he set for himself. At the same time, he tended to compare his actions, his searches, his discoveries with Pushkin, to compare himself with him, explaining to himself and those around him his differences from him. Thus, in a letter to S.P. Shevyrev dated August 29, 1839, Gogol admitted: “I was always amazed by Pushkin, who, in order to write, had to get into the village, alone, and lock himself in. On the contrary, I could never do anything in the village, and in general I can’t do anything where I am alone and where I felt bored. I wrote all my now printed sins in St. Petersburg and precisely when I was busy with my post, when I had no time, amid this liveliness and change of activities, and the more fun I spent the eve, the more inspired I returned home, the fresher my morning was. » Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. T. 2. pp. 286-287. That is, according to the subtle observation of Gogol, who idolized Pushkin and at the same time cared about his independence, if Pushkin needed loneliness to talk with eternity, then he needed vanity to talk with people.
If a significant part of the outstanding figures of Russian culture can say that they came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat,” then the other part, to which no less outstanding writers and thinkers belong, can say that they owe everything to the first Russian quixote of Christianity and that they all came out of “Selected passages from correspondence with friends.” The enormous significance of Gogol in the history of not only Russian, but also world literature lies in the fact that he foresaw the synthesis of “sermon-confession” and “fiction,” the art of living images and the art of direct dialogue with the reader of the author, who is both a confessor and a confessor. It is in this sense that P. A. Pletnev is right when he asserts that “Selected passages from correspondence with friends” is “the beginning of Russian literature proper.” Letter to Gogol dated January 1, 1847 (Ibid. T. 1. P. 271 ).. There is no doubt that the work of such artists as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky turned out to be a synthesis of both Pushkin’s line and both forms of Gogol’s heritage. And it is equally obvious that a similar synthesis was the work of Pushkin and Gogol themselves. By the way, one of the confirmations of this is the disappointment in their idols of that part of the public that did not agree with their “betrayal” of ideals - aesthetic, ethical, political, which were formed by them. In fact, it was a matter of creative evolution, as a result of which the artist left far behind his fans and followers, who expected from him the lessons they had learned.
Apparently, Gogol realized that with both the second volume of “Dead Souls” and “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” he not only, and perhaps not so much, made a discovery, but showed the way just as Pushkin showed the way, just as he himself showed the way with his early prose (which, however, already in the mid-1840s caused him regret). “I expect,” he wrote to Zhukovsky on February 22, 1847, “that after my book several smart and practical works will appear, because in my book there is precisely something that digs into human mental activity. Despite the fact that in itself it does not constitute a major work of our literature, it can give rise to many major works.” Ibid. P. 209..
It is significant that Gogol renounced not the “Pushkin period” of Russian literature, but early period own creativity. It is quite obvious that an insoluble contradiction exists precisely between “real reality”, which Gogol brilliantly depicted in his early works, and the “ideal reality” to which he devoted himself in the 1840s. It is equally obvious that Pushkin reconciles both of these incompatible tendencies opposing each other.
In a letter to N. M. Yazykov dated October 14, 1844, trying to encourage his friend to new achievements, considering all contemporary literature imperfect, including both his early work and the poetry of Pushkin’s time, Gogol argued that it is necessary to depict inner life , not external life Correspondence of N.V. Gogol. T. 2. P. 390.. In a letter to him dated April 9, 1846, Gogol admits that already in the works of modern Russian literature, which took advantage of both Pushkin’s and his own discoveries, “the material and spiritual statistics of Rus' are visible” Ibid. P. 426.. Several decades will pass, and the whole world recognizes as the most characteristic feature of Russian literature the ability of Russian writers to depict inner life through the prism of outer life with the same depth and with the same skill as external life through the prism of inner life, their desire to offer images simultaneously “material and spiritual statistics.” In this regard, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy had no equal either in the literature of previous eras, or in the literature of their time, or in the twentieth century. The foundations of this literature were laid by Pushkin and Gogol, who independently strived for completeness and unity.
