Describe the Gogol period in Russian literature. Gogolian direction of Russian literature

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)

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 short by death so early, when Gogol appeared - and each of these people, so quickly following one after the other, 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 But - although we are separated from it by very few years - it is decidedly outdated for us.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 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: Gogol’s 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, the Gogol period is still ongoing in our literature - 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 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, another one appears. , with works whose content is even deeper, whose form is even more independent and 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 that in previous times it 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 development depends literary development, because only having absorbed and digested the food offered, can one hunger for new ones, only having completely ensured 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 strives for nothing 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 the distinctive properties a new direction that will arise and partly, although still weakly, hesitantly, is already emerging from the Gogolian direction? and what circumstances are 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, Griboedov, 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 the history of peoples, like Newton or Shakespeare, whom humanity has been waiting for for several centuries. Let now a man appear who is equal to at least one of these five, he would, with his creations, begin a new era in the development of our self-consciousness. 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 passage from the daily “Notes of a Madman”:

December 5. I read 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 point is only 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, 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 at all it must be admitted that our literature is Lately crushed, 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 were not completely fruitless last years- our literature has acquired several new talents, who, if they have not yet created anything as great as “Eugene Onegin” or “Woe from Wit”, “Hero of Our Time” or “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls”, have already managed to give we have several beautiful works, remarkable for their independent advantages in artistically 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. 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 to do if our time does not show itself capable of standing on its feet on our own? 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? By at least, is there not 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 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 weak sides, or at least not enough 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 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 has everything in you turned its eyes full of expectation to me?”

He had every right to say this, because no matter how highly we value the importance of literature, we still do not appreciate 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, like Pushkin - the father of Russian poetry. We hasten to add that this opinion was not invented by us, but only drawn from the article “On the Russian story and the 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 in dramatic form, that is, Russian prose in general (we must not forget that we We are talking exclusively about fine literature). Indeed, the true beginning of each side folk life we must consider the time when this side reveals itself 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 to realize oneself, but not yet real 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 "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 "Yuri Miloslavsky" was liked by readers, 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 - 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 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 there is no doubt that there was no romance between us. 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. Relatively dramatic works this cannot be said either: the prose plays given at the theater were alien to any literary qualities, like vaudevilles, which 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 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.

"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” - stories in in every sense excellent words; 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 Knightly Times" 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.

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 satirical writer, as he appeared primarily in Onegin. And yet, despite the high merits and enormous success of Griboyedov’s comedy and Pushkin’s novel, Gogol should be solely credited with the merit of firmly introducing the satirical - or, as it would be more fair to call it, the critical - direction into Russian fine literature. Despite the delight aroused by his comedy, Griboedov had no followers, and “Woe from Wit” remained a lonely, fragmentary phenomenon in our literature, 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 general impression pure artistry, alien to a certain direction - such an impression is made not only by all other, best works of Pushkin - “The Stone Guest”, “Boris Godunov”, “Rusalka” and so on, but also by “Onegin” itself: - who has a strong predisposition to a critical look at the phenomena of life, only that will be influenced by the fluent and light satirical notes that come across in this novel; - by readers who are not predisposed 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 almost no other definite element could be found in “its content, if you look at the general impression made by the whole 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 noticeably subordinate to 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 expressed fragmentarily, on various occasions, however, if we bring them together, there will not be many gaps left that need to be supplemented 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? she has already done and what we should still expect from her - what guarantees of the future she represents and what she still lacks - is an interesting matter, because the state of literature determines 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. His literary fate 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 it inconvenient to recognize him as a great writer, because worship of Pushkin does not oblige him to anything, understanding his merits is not determined by any special qualities of character, no 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 considerate to everyone - anyone can come to Goethe, whatever his rights to moral respect may be - compliant, gentle and essentially 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 .15 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.

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 took on, as they expressed it then, a “legal character,” then intelligence is always visible in them, and, as it seems to us, N.A. Polevoy did not being right, he was, however, conscientious, rebelling against Gogol not out of base calculations, not out of inspirations of 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 strove. 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 he once gave a powerful movement of 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 in that 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.

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 pitiful, ugly fragments of Hegelian scholasticism, presenting it in a language that was hardly understandable even to the publishers of the magazine. Still striving to destroy the past, as a result of 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 knelt 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, his opponent pointed out that the main shortcoming, the main reason for the fall of the old romantic criticism, was that it relied on Cousin’s shaky system and did not know and did not understand Hegel.

Indeed, disagreement in aesthetic beliefs was only a consequence of disagreement in philosophical foundations whole 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 embittered, 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 for them it was precious mainly in the sense that they understood it as the most powerful of the forces acting on the development of our public 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.