The appearance of Lermontov's novel immediately caused a sharp controversy, which revealed the polar opposite of his interpretations and assessments. Before others, with extraordinary fidelity, he appreciated the "Hero ..." Belinsky, in the first printed response to the novel, who noted in it a “deep sense of reality”, “richness of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society”, “originality and originality” of a work that represents “completely new world arts." With the concretization and development of these thoughts, the critic spoke in a large article devoted to the "Hero ..." and published in the summer of 1840 in "OZ", showing the enormous life-knowledge, socio-psychological and philosophical significance of the image of Pechorin, as well as the novel as a whole. Protective criticism fell upon Lermontov's novel, seeing in it, especially in the image of Pechorin, a slander on Russian reality.

Belinsky's view of the essence and meaning of the "Hero ..." was largely developed in the new historical conditions by N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov. Chernyshevsky pointed out the role of the "Hero ..." in the formation psychological analysis in the works of L. N. Tolstoy (“dialectics of the soul”). At the same time, agreeing to recognize the significance of the socio-psychological type of their time for Pechorin, the revolutionary democrats somewhat underestimated the moral and philosophical content of this image, sometimes unnecessarily straightforwardly opposing him and other "superfluous people" of the 1830s-1840s of the sixties raznochintsy. Pechorin's lack of socially useful activity, considered from the standpoint of modern tasks, was interpreted by Dobrolyubov as a manifestation of the social essence of his character, whose name is "Oblomovism" ("What is Oblomovism?", 1859). Herzen turned out to be more historical in interpreting the essence and meaning of "superfluous people", in particular Onegin and Pechorin. In Art. "Superfluous people and bilious people" (1860), arguing against their identification with modern liberals, he emphasized that "extra people were then as much necessary as it is necessary now that they should not be." At the same time, Herzen was inclined to identify Lermontov with Pechorin, arguing that the poet died in the hopeless hopelessness of the Pechorin trend ... ".

Slavophile and liberal-Western criticism (K. S. Aksakov, S. S. Dudyshkin, A. V. Druzhinin, and others) converged in their rejection of the “Lermontov trend”; Lermontov was declared the last Russian poet of the imitative era, respectively exaggerating the significance of the Western European sources of the image of Pechorin. IN research literature this trend was most clearly manifested in the works of the comparativists (E. Duchen, S. I. Rodzevich, and others), in which, despite some accurate observations, the search for the context of “parallels” prevailed. More meaningful were the studies of representatives of the cultural-historical school (A.N. Pypin, N.A. Kotlyarevsky). In their works, for the first time, the idea of ​​Lermontov's "reconciliation" with life, which was developed in pre-revolutionary literature, was indicated. Populist criticism in the person of N.K. Mikhailovsky, on the contrary, put forward the protesting principle in the work of Lermontov, but the false theory of the “crowd and hero” prevented the true essence of the image of Pechorin from penetrating.

Symbolists of the early twentieth century. (Vl. S. Solovyov, D. S. Merezhkovsky) considered Lermontov's poetic heritage and novel without regard to specific historical problems, trying to find a mystical, "superhuman" beginning in the author and his characters. The representative of the psychological school, D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskii, deduced the content of The Hero... from the depths of the author's psychology, identifying Lermontov with Pechorin, considering the innate "egocentrism" in their characters to be the main thing. At the same time, M. Gorky considered Lermontov's work from other socio-historical positions in the course of Russian literature, read in 1909 at the Capri school. The main thing in it for Gorky is "the greedy desire for business, active intervention in life." Emphasizing the typicality of Pechorin and at the same time his spiritual closeness to the author, Gorky did not identify them, noting that "Lermontov was wider and deeper than his hero." New methodological principles in the study of the novel were determined in a number of general works on Lermontov and his era, which belonged to representatives of early Marxist criticism (G. V. Plekhanov, A. V. Lunacharsky); they raised questions about the social content of Lermontov's work, about his connection with the social movement.
The originality of the plot and composition of the novel 1

A Hero of Our Time is both similar and unlike the traditional novel that has developed in the West. It does not tell about an incident or an event with a plot and denouement that exhausts the action. Each story has its own plot. Closest to the traditional novel is the fourth story - "Princess Mary", however, its ending contradicts the Western European tradition and on the scale of the whole work is in no way a denouement, but implicitly motivates the situation of "Bela", placed in the general narrative in the first place - explains why Pechorin ended up in a fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych. "Bela", "Taman", "Fatalist" abound in adventures, "Princess Mary" - intrigues: a short work, "A Hero of Our Time", unlike "Eugene Onegin", is oversaturated with action. It contains many conditional, strictly speaking, implausible, but just typical situations for novels. Maxim Maksimych has just told a random fellow traveler the story of Pechorin and Bela, and immediately they meet with Pechorin. In different stories, the heroes repeatedly eavesdrop and peep - without this there would be no story with smugglers, no exposure of the plot of the dragoon Getmtan and Grushnitsky against Pechorin. Main character predicts his death on the way, so it happens. At the same time, "Maxim Maksimych" is almost devoid of action, it is primarily a psychological study. And all the various events are not valuable in themselves, but are aimed at revealing the character of the hero, revealing and explaining his tragic fate.

The same purpose is served by the compositional rearrangement of events in time. Pechorin's monologues, turned to his past, constitute the novel's prehistory. For some reason, this St. Petersburg aristocrat turned out to be an army officer in the Caucasus, he goes there through Taman "from the road for state needs", then, together with Grushnitsky, he takes part in the battles, which is mentioned in "Princess Mary", and after a while meets him in Pyatigorsk. After the duel, he lives with Maxim Maksimych in a fortress for "a year", from where he leaves for two weeks in a Cossack village. Upon retirement, he probably lives in St. Petersburg, then travels. In Vladikavkaz, he has a chance meeting with Maxim Maksimych and an officer dealing with literature, who receives from the staff captain "some notes ..." and subsequently publishes them, providing a preface beginning with the words: "Recently, I learned that Pechorin, returning from Persia, died. The sequence of "chapters" in the novel is as follows: "Bela", "Maxim Maksimych"; "Pechorin's Journal" - the publisher's preface, "Taman", "Princess Mary", "Fatalist". That is, the action begins in the middle after the announcement of the death of the hero, which is highly unusual, and the previous events are described thanks to the journal after those that occurred later. This intrigues the reader, makes him reflect on the riddle of Pechorin's personality, and explain to himself his "great oddities."

As the events are presented, as they are presented in the novel, Pechorin's bad deeds accumulate, but his guilt is less and less felt and her virtues emerge more and more. In "Bel" he, on his whim, commits a series of crimes, although according to the concepts of the nobility and officers who participated in the Caucasian War, they are not. In "Maxim Maksimych" and "Taman" everything goes without blood, and in the first of these stories Pechorin unwittingly offended an old friend, and in the second his victims are only strangers without moral principles (the girl is ready to drown Pechorin on one suspicion of wanting to convey, she and Yanko leave an old woman and a blind boy to their fate). In “Princess Mary”, Pechorin is very to blame, the people around him are mostly completely vile - they turn the “comedy” he conceived into a heavy drama with the death of a person, not the worst of them. Finally, in The Fatalist, it is not Pechorin’s bet with Vulich that has a tragic outcome, and then Pechorin accomplishes a real feat, capturing the Cossack killer, whom they already wanted to “shoot” in fact in front of his mother, without giving him the opportunity to repent, even though he “ not a cursed Chechen, but an honest Christian.”

Of course, the change of narrators plays an important role. Maxim Maksimych is too simple to understand Pechorin, he basically sets out external events. The great monologue of Pechorin about his past that he conveyed is conditionally motivated: “So he spoke for a long time, and his words stuck in my memory, because for the first time I heard such things from a 25-year-old man, and, God willing, the last .. "The words of the captain:" I have always said that there is no use in someone who forgets old friends! mind, of course, Byron): “... why, they were always notorious drunkards!” ("Bela").

A writer who denounces Pechorin with his own eyes is a man of his circle, he sees and understands much more than an old Caucasian. But he is deprived of direct sympathy for Pechorin, the news of whose death he was "very pleased" with the opportunity to print a magazine and "put his name on someone else's work." Let this be a joke, but on a very gloomy occasion. Finally, Pechorin himself fearlessly, without trying to justify anything, talks about himself, analyzes his thoughts and actions. In "Taman" events are still in the foreground, in "Princess Mary" experiences and reasoning are no less significant, and in "The Fatalist" the very title of the story is a philosophical problem.

But the most important thing, for the sake of which events are rearranged in time, is how Pechorin leaves the novel. We know that he "was exhausted" and died young. However, the novel ends with the only act of Pechorin that is worthy of him. "The people dispersed, the officers congratulated me - and for sure, it was with what." The Fatalist does not contain any plot denouement on the scale of the entire novel; in the last phrase, only a passing characterization of Maxim Maksimych is given, who "does not like metaphysical debate at all." On the other hand, we say goodbye not only to the “hero of time”, but also to a real hero who could do wonderful things if his fate had turned out differently. This is how he, according to Lermontov, should be remembered by the reader most of all. The compositional technique expresses the hidden optimism of the author, his faith in man.

Lesson 46

The purpose of the lesson: analysis of the part "Princess Mary", comparison of the actions, characters of the heroes of this story with the character of Pechorin, teaching monologue speech and elements of analysis of the author's style.

Vocabulary work: plot self-sufficiency, climax, philosophical problems, the symbolic meaning of the image.
During the classes

I. Conversation

The story "Princess Mary" is perceived as main story in the novel. Why do you think?

The story is characterized by plot self-sufficiency; this is the culmination of Pechorin's diary; it contains the most reasoning about the soul and fate; in the chapter, the philosophical content of the novel receives the most detailed development.
II. Group work

The initial impetus to all events is given by Pechorin's relationship with Grushnitsky. Analyze the history of their friendship-enmity. Compare this with the situation "Onegin - Lensky" and with Pushkin's discussion of friendship in the second chapter of the novel "Eugene Onegin".

Analyze the history of relations between Pechorin and Princess Mary. For comparison, in The Fatalist, pay attention to the episode with the daughter of the constable Nastya as an example of Pechorin's usual indifference to a woman.

How and why are relations between Pechorin and Vera developing? What does the tragic scene of the pursuit of Vera indicate (compare it with the chase scene in the story "Bela", paying attention to the symbolic meaning of the image of the horse in both cases).

Analyze the relationship between Pechorin and Dr. Werner. How did Pechorin develop relations with the "water society"? Why?

Compare the finals of "Princess Mary" and "Taman". Expressive reading fragments.

This is a difficult task, and the children should be helped to conclude that, despite the common theme - the seascape - there is a significant difference: in "Taman" this is a real landscape, and in "Princess Mary" - an imaginary, romantic emblem inner world Pechorin.

How does Pechorin's personality manifest itself in the manner of keeping a diary? In its content?
III. Checking the perception of the text by students. Dispute

Why is Pechorin like a foreign element wherever he appears?

How is the century characterized through the protagonist of Lermontov's novel?
Homework

2. Compose questions in groups to test knowledge of the text of the chapter "Taman".

Lesson 47

(according to the chapter "Taman")

The purpose of the lesson: teaching the main stages of analysis of an episode of a literary text.

The students were already working on the analysis of part of the piece (see lesson 24). Given that the word "episode" in the exam topics suggests exactly part of the text for analysis on this lesson we will take the chapter "Taman". Considering also that we have before us a prose text, not a dramatic one, let us change the structure of the analysis somewhat.
During the classes

I. We offer students a plan for working with an episode

Consider the episode "from the inside":

a) microplot;

b) composition;

Establish immediate connections, consider the episode in the system of other episodes.

Pay attention to possible "roll calls" of episodes with other works.

Link your observations to the theme, idea of ​​the piece, the author's worldview, and skill.
II. Working with a detailed composition plan(distributed to each table)

The role of the head "Taman" in the novel "A Hero of Our Time":

1. The division into parts that differ in plot and characters is a distinctive feature of the novel "A Hero of Our Time".

2. The role of the head "Taman" in the novel.

3. The plot of the chapter, its construction.

4. The character of Pechorin, speaking from the events described; how the central situation of the chapter helps to reveal its character.

5. Laconism of the story, accuracy and simplicity as the distinguishing features of the narrative.

6. Landscape, contrast, romantic motifs, accurate reproduction of everyday life, image of the exotic world - ways of expressing the author's position.

7. "Taman" - the first part of Pechorin's diary entries, the "self-disclosure" of the hero begins from this chapter.

8. The influence of the chapter on Russian literature (N. N. Tolstoy's story "Plastun" and the poem "By the Sea" by N. Ogarev).

9. Appreciation of “Taman” by V. Belinsky: “We did not dare to make extracts from this story, because it resolutely does not allow them: it is like some kind of lyrical poem, all the charm of which is destroyed by one verse released or changed not by the poet himself ..."

The transformation of the story cycle into psychological novel- an innovative solution to the problem of the Russian novel and the beginning of its further development by Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
Homework

1. Prepare for the final work on the work of M. Yu. Lermontov.

3. Individual tasks: to prepare a review of books about Gogol on general theme"Interesting about Gogol".

4. Home composition. My favorite pages of the novel "A Hero of Our Time". Episode analysis.
Information for the teacher

The theme of fate and chance in the novel "A Hero of Our Time" 1

The theme of fate and chance runs through the entire novel "A Hero of Our Time" and becomes central in the story "The Fatalist".

The events described in The Fatalist are recorded by Pechorin in his own diary at about the same time as the story of the duel with Grushnitsky. It seems that Pechorin during her stay in the fortress N worries about some question, in an attempt to clarify which there are records of a duel and an incident with Vulich. This is the same question, so the events of the Fatalist must be correlated with the duel. What is this question?

This is an opportunity to fight the case. Why does Pechorin go to a duel with Grushnitsky? Indeed, from the very beginning, Pechorin is trying to convince us that Grushnitsky is immeasurably lower than him, he does not miss the opportunity to prick Grushnitsky and literally forces us to believe that everything that happens looks exactly as he, Pechorin, describes. In the scene with the fallen glass, it may have been really painful for the wounded Grushnitsky to bend down, but in the presentation by Pechorin, Grushnitsky appears as depicting suffering.

In general, Pechorin denies Grushnitsky the right be; portray, seem, pretend - yes, but not be. This is the privilege of one Pechorin. Pechorin, unwittingly, in his diary betrays his passion to be above everyone - even when describing a completely foreign lady at the ball, he does not miss the opportunity to notice the "variegation of uneven skin" and a large wart on the neck, covered with a clasp. Pechorin is in general extremely perceptive, but why should one record observations like these in a diary, which, in his own words, is kept by him for himself and should eventually serve as a “precious memory” for him? What joy did Pechorin want to experience in his declining years, remembering this wart? But the point is not in a specific external defect that has not escaped Pechorin's keen eye, the point is that he practically cannot but notice human shortcomings, those very “weak strings” that he is so proud of knowing. This is a feature of his, Pechorin's, vision, and it stems primarily from the desire to be the best, the highest.

However, everything looks like this only in the diary, where Pechorin is the owner, where he creates his own world, setting the accents he needs. Real life, obviously, differs from the desired, and therefore anxiety penetrates into Pechorin's notes. He had just tried to convince us of the insignificance of Grushnitsky, looked down at him, when he suddenly drops the phrase: "... I feel that someday we will collide with him on a narrow road, and one of us will be unhappy." Perhaps there are “strong strings” in Grushnitsky, the existence of which Pechorin cannot admit to himself? Or does this Pechorin feel like a not so unambiguous celestial being? One way or another, but the struggle with Grushnitsky is so serious and tense that it is impossible not to feel that this is how one fights only with an equal opponent.

Pechorin's anxiety has one more reason. Pechorin is actually smart, observant, cold-blooded, bold, decisive. He is used to getting whatever he wants. However, Pechorin cannot but be disturbed by the question of the limits of his possibilities, his power. Is there something in the world that cannot be defeated with Pechorin's skills, which, as a rule, bring success? Can he always "be on horseback", keep the situation under control, calculate everything to the smallest detail? Or are there cases that do not depend on it? The duel with Grushnitsky becomes for Pechorin not only a struggle with a man who dared to want to become on the same level with Pechorin, but also an opportunity to find out his relationship with such chance who do not want to obey the will and reason of man. It is paradoxical, but that is why it is extremely important for Pechorin that Grushnitsky should be the first to shoot. And the point is not only that Pechorin has an internal justification for the murder; it is much more important that only in such a scenario can one enter into combat with chance. Shoot Pechorin first - he would have won without any doubt. But he would have won a man, which is no longer news either for Pechorin or for us. But when Grushnitsky shoots first, when the muzzle of a pistol is directed against you, that's when the deadly game begins, the very terrible experience that, as a little later Vulich, Pechorin will also put on himself.

What are the possible costs? Grushnitsky can simply miss or shoot to the side - then Pechorin wins, because the next shot will be for him. Such an outcome, as well as generally winning the right of the first shot, would be desirable for Pechorin if he fought a specific person and wished for his physical destruction, or at least only that. However, the essence of the matter lies much deeper, and in order to solve this case, Pechorin needs the most unfavorable alignment for him. So, Grushnitsky must shoot and at the same time aim at Pechorin, while Pechorin himself will stand on the edge of the cliff, so that even the slightest wound will cause a fall and death - these are the initial conditions under which it will be possible to measure strength with chance. In a situation where everyone is against him, Pechorin directs all his remarkable strength, all his knowledge of human nature to literally split, break Grushnitsky from the inside, squeeze him out, plunge him into such an abyss of internal struggle that he, even aiming at Pechorin, won't be able to get in. And Pechorin achieves this. And this becomes his real victory - solely by the power of his own will, he managed not to leave a single loophole unfavorable for the outcome of the case, he managed to make it so that almost all possible outcomes can be completely calculated. This is breathtaking, for it is likely that chance, fate, and all other transpersonal forces that have been given such importance actually seem strong only because a person of such abilities, such firmness of such will, has not yet appeared.

It is from here that the thread stretches to the Fatalist. The word "case" has a special meaning. In fact, with the same case, Pechorin faces his power in The Fatalist.

Literally before his eyes, the same type of event occurs twice with Vulich: something exceptional falls out to him, really one case out of a thousand. The first time a loaded pistol misfires and it is at the very moment when Vulich shoots himself, the second time - a meeting with a drunken Cossack, the intersection at one point in time and space of the whimsical and winding paths of two people. Note that the exceptional nature of what happened is specially emphasized: if the gun were simply not loaded, the incident could be called almost ordinary; not just a meeting led Vulich to death - he also approached the Cossack and spoke to him. But with this general exclusivity, the two incidents are opposite in result: the first time, as a result of the incident, Vulich remains alive, and the second time, he dies. Is it because Pechorin was shocked when he learned about the death of Vulich that before his eyes the case again demonstrates its strength, omnipotence, unpredictability, lack of control? Chance governs a person's life; chance does whatever it wants. Is it not because the events of the Fatalist are entered in the diary that Pechorin cannot come to terms with what he saw, and what he saw just when he had just remembered and recorded to the smallest detail how the character defeats this very case (a duel with Grushnitsky)?

And Pechorin decides to test himself once again, to once again enter a duel with fate. And he wins again: as a result of his calculation, his decisive and cold-blooded actions, he manages to accomplish the almost impossible - to capture the Cossack who has locked himself in the house.

So, fight with the case. Constantly figuring out who is who. And a permanent victory, at least within the novel.

Lesson 48

The purpose of the lesson: to reveal the assimilation of the topic.
During the classes

V. G. BELINSKY ABOUT M.Yu. LERMONTOV’S NOVEL “HERO OF OUR TIME”

Lermontov expressed his attitude to the main character in the title of the novel. So, the hero of our time is the main idea of ​​the work. Belinsky asks the question: “Why is he bad?” Blaming Pechorin for not having faith is pointless. In addition, Pechorin himself is not happy with his unbelief. He is ready to buy this faith at the cost of life and happiness. But her hour has not yet come. For his egoism, Pechorin despises and hates only himself. The soul of Pechorin is “not stony soil, not dried up from the heat of the earth.” “In this man there is strength of mind and power of will ... something great looms in his very vices, and he is beautiful, full of poetry even in those moments when human feeling rises up against him. His passions are storms that purify the realm of the spirit; his delusions, no matter how terrible they are, are acute illnesses in a young body, strengthening it for a long and healthy life. Let him slander the eternal laws of reason, placing the highest happiness in saturated pride; let him slander human nature, seeing in it only selfishness; let him slander himself, taking the moments of his spirit for its full development and mixing youth with manhood - let him! ... So deep is his nature, so innate is his rationality, so strong is his instinct for truth! Pechorin still early considered himself to have drunk the cup of life to the bottom, while he had not yet blown away its hissing foam decently ... he still does not know himself, and if he should not always believe him when he justifies himself, then even less should he believe when he accuses himself or ascribes to himself various inhuman properties and vices. Pechorin says that there are two people in him ... “This confession reveals the whole of Pechorin. There are no phrases in it, and every word is sincere. Unconsciously, but truly, Pechorin spoke out all of himself. This man is not an ardent young man who chases impressions and gives himself entirely to the first of them until it is erased and the soul asks for a new one ... he has completely survived adolescence ... he no longer dreams of dying for his beloved, pronouncing her name and bequeathing a lock of hair to a friend, he does not take words for deeds ... He felt a lot, loved a lot and knows from experience how short all feelings, all affections; his spirit is ripe for new feelings and new thoughts, his heart demands a new affection: reality is the essence and character of all this new. This is a transitional state of the spirit, in which everything old has been destroyed for a person, but there is no new yet, and in which a person is only the possibility of something real in the future and a perfect ghost in the present ...

But can Pechorin be called a hero in the positive sense of the word? Or, perhaps, a deep irony is hidden in the very title of the novel? The answer to this question is to be found in the preface. In it, Lermontov categorically states that Pechorin is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development. Pechorinism was a typical disease of the time. However, even in those years, full of darkness and hopelessness, the names of true heroes appeared. step by step they walked the "flinty path" of the fighters and showed the world examples of patriotism and civic courage.

Pechorin is the Onegin of our time. Onegin - a reflection of the era of the 20s, the era of the Decembrists; Pechorin is the hero of the third decade, the "cruel century". Both of them are thinking intellectuals of their time. But Pechorin lived in a difficult era of social oppression and inaction, and Onegin lived in a period of social revival and could have been a Decembrist. Pechorin did not have this opportunity. Therefore, Belinsky says: "Onegin is bored, and Pechorin suffers" (Onegin is already the past, and the past is irrevocable). Their dissimilarity among themselves is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora. Onegin is undoubtedly superior to Pechorin in artistic terms. But Pechorin is higher than Onegin in theory. After all, what is Onegin? This is a man who was killed by upbringing and social life, who took a closer look at everything, fell in love with everything, and quickly got tired of his whole life. Pechorin, on the other hand, does not indifferently, not apathetically bear his suffering: “he is furiously chasing life, looking for it everywhere.” Pechorin is bitter in his delusions. Internal questions are constantly born in him, which disturb and torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution. Of himself he has made the most curious object of his observations, and, trying to be as sincere as possible in his confession, he candidly admits his shortcomings.

Belinsky notes that Lermontov's novel makes a "complete impression." The reason for this lies in the unity of thought, which gives rise to a sense of responsibility of the parts with the whole. Belinsky admires the artistic skill of Lermontov, who in each part of his novel managed to exhaust its content and, in typical lines, "bring out everything internal" that was hidden in it as a possibility. As a result of all this, Lermontov appeared in the story as the same creator as in his poems. “A hero of our time,” writes Belinsky, discovered the power of young talent and showed his diversity and versatility. The main character of Lermontov's novel is Pechorin. The main problem of romanticism can be defined in one word - "personality". Lermontov is a romantic.

“A hero of our time” is a sad soul in our time,” Belinsky writes. Lermontov's century was predominantly historical. All thoughts, all questions and answers, all the activities of that time grew out of historical soil and on historical soil. Roman Lermontov is no exception. However, the very image of Pechorin in the form of the image is not entirely artistic. The reason for this is not the author's lack of talent, but the fact that the character portrayed by him was so close to him that he was unable to separate from him and objectify himself. Pechorin is hiding from us with the same unsolved creature as he appears to us at the beginning of the novel. That is why the novel itself leaves a feeling of hopelessness. There is something unsolved in it, as if unsaid, and therefore a heavy impression remains after reading it. But this shortcoming, according to Belinsky, is at the same time the merit of Lermontov's novel, because such are all modern public issues expressed in poetry. It is the cry of suffering, its cry, which distinguishes suffering.

Criticism of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" began during the life of Lermontov, from the moment the first chapters were published (the novel was published in parts from 1839).

Opinions about the novel are quite diverse. Among critics, writers and others famous people you can find both negative and rave reviews. At the same time, which is quite natural, the attitude towards the novel is improving from century to century. This is due to the general trend for all classical authors - over time, their recognition only increases.

For this reason, both modern and early criticism of the novel must be considered. Modern opinion is relevant now, and the past is devoid of the prism of greatness M.Yu. Lermontov.

This page contains a brief review of the novel A Hero of Our Time.

Nicholas I (years of life 1796-1855)

The most important historical figure who wrote a review of the novel in his letter was Emperor Nicholas I. However, in this review it is important to take into account the negative attitude of the authorities towards the author of the novel himself (Lermontov's references to the Caucasus, non-recognition of merits).

For the first time, the emperor mentions the novel on June 13, 1840, showing a positive assessment of the first volume of the novel:

I have worked and read all of Hero, which is well written.

However, the score is worse the next day:

And already in the evening of the same day, the attitude towards the novel becomes negative:

I have read Hero to the end and find the second part disgusting, quite worthy of being in vogue. This is the same depiction of despicable and incredible characters that is found in modern foreign novels. Such novels spoil the morals and harden the character. And although you read these feline sighs with disgust, they nevertheless produce a painful effect, because in the end you get used to believing that the whole world consists only of such individuals, in whom even seemingly good deeds are committed only by vile and dirty motives. . What result can this give? Contempt or hatred for humanity! But is this the purpose of our existence on earth? People are too prone to become hypochondriacs or misanthropes anyway, so why should such writings arouse or develop such inclinations! So, I repeat, in my opinion, this is a pitiful talent, it indicates the perverted mind of the author. The character of the captain is sketched well. Starting the story, I hoped and rejoiced that he would be the hero of our day, because in this category of people there are much more real people than those who are so indiscriminately awarded this epithet. Undoubtedly, the Caucasian corps has a lot of them, but rarely anyone knows how to make out them. However, the captain appears in this essay as a hope that never came true, and Mr. Lermontov failed to follow this noble and so simple character; he replaces him with contemptible, very uninteresting faces, who, rather than inducing boredom, would do better if they remained in obscurity - so as not to cause disgust. Good luck, Mr. Lermontov, let him, if possible, clear his head in an environment where he will be able to complete the character of his captain, if at all he is able to comprehend and describe it.

V.G. Belinsky (years of life 1811-1848)

The most famous critic of the novel is V.G. Belinsky, whose reviews are most often found on the Internet.

The first publication was printed immediately after the release of the story "Bela". Belinsky speaks negatively about the story, noting the simplicity, conciseness and artlessness of the story. At the same time, after printing a separate edition of the novel, Belinsky emphasizes the originality and originality of the work, considering the novel as a whole, for the first time talking about the gradual disclosure of the main character, from chapter to chapter.

a whole new world of art

Contrary to the opinion of the majority of reactionary critics, who considered the novel a slander of Russian life, Belinsky defends Lermontov, arguing that Pechorin is strongly connected with reality:

“The art of the poet should consist in developing in practice the task: how the character given by nature should be formed under the circumstances in which fate puts him”

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the analysis of the image of Pechorin by Belinsky. It obtained one of the main features of the characteristics of Russian critical realism of the 19th century: the image of the character of a typical representative of modern society is given in such a way that it leads to a denial of the relations that prevail in society. It was Belinsky who began a series of criticisms about " extra people"and a comparison of Onegin and Pechorin.

S.O. Burachek (years of life 1800-1877)

The first reactionary criticism belongs to the pen of S. O. Burachka, who unites Lermontov himself with Pechorin. In general, he gives the novel an extremely negative assessment:

In whom the spiritual forces are even a little bit alive, for those this book is disgustingly unbearable.

Burachek indignantly notes the absence of nationality and truthfulness in the novel. For the first time, an opinion is heard about the novel as a slander on Russian reality:

no religiosity, no nationality

The only non-disgusting character, in his opinion, is Maxim Maksimych, but even that is given too little time.

O.I. Senkovsky (years of life 1800-1858)

Senkovsky gave a review that can be understood ambiguously. First he writes positively:

G. Lermontov happily got out of the most difficult situation in which a lyric poet can only be, placed between exaggerations, without which there is no lyricism, and truth, without which there is no prose. He put on the cloak of truth on exaggeration, and this outfit is very fitting for them.

Then, after the release of the second edition, everything changes:

“you can’t pass off a Hero of Our Time as anything higher than a cute little student sketch”

F. Bulgarin (years of life 1789-1859)

F. Bulgarin's review in Severnaya pchela is remarkable. The review is so positive that it raised doubts about its honesty. So Belinsky wrote about her:

false friends appeared who speculate on the name of Lermontov in order to improve their unenviable reputation in the eyes of the crowd with imaginary impartiality

Bulgarin himself describes the impression of the novel as follows:

The best novel I have not read in Russian

Bulgarin continues Belinsky's idea of ​​the disease of society considered in the novel, but believes that this disease is caused by the West. He claims that Pechorin is only moral lesson:

What does a brilliant upbringing and all secular advantages lead to without positive rules, without faith, hope and love

S.P. Shevyrev (years of life 1806-1864)

He put forward the most complete assessment of the novel from the reactionary camp. And this assessment is unflattering:

Shevyrev believed that the image of Pechorin was not only unrealistic, but literary inferior and inspired by Western ideals:

Pechorin is one of those pygmies of evil with whom the narrative and dramatic literature West

P.A. Pletnev (years of life 1792-1866)

Another positive assessment was given by P. A. Pletnev, who notes the great talent of the writer.

marked with the seal of true talent; each took on the lively, bright colors of the era of their creation; everyone is destined to listen in silence to the peevish antics of judges who, being deprived of the ability to think and feel, console themselves with their inalienable right to scold everything that is attractive and living

A. Grigoriev (years of life 1822-1864)

Grigoriev writes:

Pechorin, in spite of his impressionability, still has the suffisance of his own I, worshiping only himself, not suffering painfully from that noble, gracious suffering, which, finding food in itself, inexorably survives petty, limited egoism in order to create conscious egoism, imbued with a sense of the whole and respect for oneself and others as parts of a great whole

See how in Lermontov himself this egoism burned out and was cleansed, how this feeling of love from boredom and idleness, the feeling of a soul suffering from emptiness, the feeling of denial turned into a reasonable and human idea in the poems of his last era

Grigoriev doubted Lermontov's abilities as a thinker and tried to show that the Lermontov trend was dead.

the word of Lermontov's activity, by its very nature, was incapable of further development. This word was a protest of the individual against reality - a protest that did not come out of a clear understanding of the ideal, but from the conditions that consisted in the painful development of the personality itself.

A.I. Herzen (years of life 1812-1870)

Herzen supports the possibility of Pechorin's existence in the past:

The Onegins and Pechorins were absolutely true, expressing the real grief and fragmentation of Russian life at that time ... Our literary flankers of the last set are now poking fun at these weak dreamers who broke down without a fight, over these idle people who did not know how to find themselves in the environment in which they lived. It’s a pity that they don’t agree - I myself think that if Onegin and Pechorin could, like many, adapt to the Nikolaev era, Onegin would be Viktor Nikitich Panin, and Pechorin would not have disappeared on the way to Persia, but he would have ruled like Kleinmichel, by means of communication and would interfere with the construction of railways. But the time of Onegins and Pechorins has passed. Now in Russia there are no superfluous people, now, on the contrary, there are not enough hands for these huge smells. Whoever does not find a job now has no one to blame, he is really an empty person, a fistula or a lazy person. And therefore, very naturally, Onegins and Pechorins become Oblomovs.

Public opinion, which spoiled the Onegins and Pechorins because it sensed their suffering in them, will turn away from the Oblomovs.

Herzen perceived Pechorin rather one-sidedly:

Lermontov was a comrade of Belinsky for years, he was with us at the university, but he died in the hopeless hopelessness of the Pechorin trend, against which both the Slavophiles and we were already revolting.

DI. Pisarev (years of life 1840-1868)

D. I. Pisarev did not speak highly of Lermontov's poetry, but he appreciated his prose. He evaluated the novel "A Hero of Our Time" within the framework of another Russian classic, trying to highlight the difference between "superfluous" and "new" people.

"Bored drones" he called Pechorin and Onegin and believed that few such characters live in every wealthy and smart person. He compared Pechorin with Bazarov:

The Pechorins and Bazarovs are made from the same material ... they are not similar to each other in the nature of their activities, but they are completely similar to each other in typical features of nature: both are very smart and quite consistent egoists, and both of them choose everything from life that at this moment you can choose the best ...

S.S. Dudyshkin (years of life 1820-1866)

A critic who completely denied the images of "superfluous people", especially Pechorin. Dudyshkin called such people "seekers of strong sensations", presumptuous and deceitful.

He hated Pechorin so much that he devoted most of the introductory article to Lermontov's Works to his analysis, using such expressions:

Pechorin has more Byron's character than a Russian officer

Pechorin now belongs to the weakest creatures of Lermontov

F.M. Dostoevsky (years of life 1821-1881)

Dostoevsky shared Belinsky's position, believing that Pechorin was folk character, but distant from the common people due to the convergence of the wealthy class to Europe.

Onegin, and then Pechorin, expressed to dazzling brightness precisely all those features that could be expressed in a single Russian person ... at the very moment when civilization for the first time was felt by us as life, and not as a whimsical inoculation, but at the same time and all the perplexities, all the strange, unsolvable questions of that time for the first time from all sides began to besiege Russian society and ask to enter its consciousness.

Subsequently, Dostoevsky sharply changed his opinion about Pechorin. This is due to the growth of revolutionary ideas, with which Dostoevsky did not agree. Now he denies the existence of such a real character.

were ready, for example, to highly value in their time various bad little men who appeared in our literary types and borrowed for the most part from foreign

N.K. Mikhailovsky (years of life 1842-1904)

An unusual opinion about the novel was expressed by the populist critic N. K. Mikhailovsky. He singled out the heroic and protesting beginnings in Lermontov's work. Mikhailovsky compares Lermontov and Pechorin, saying that Lermontov himself had "immense forces" that he could not properly use in an era of timelessness.

Mikhailovsky gave Pechorin an anthropological explanation:

To act, fight, win hearts, one way or another to operate on the souls of near and far, loved and hated - such is the vocation or fundamental requirement of the nature of all the outstanding characters in Lermontov's works, and even of himself.

G.V. Plekhanov (years of life 1856-1918)

He brought a Marxist approach to the study of Lermontov and his novel. Plekhanov wrote:

Art owes its origin to social man, and this latter changes with the development of society. Therefore, to understand a given work of art means not only to understand its basic idea, but also to find out for yourself why this idea interests people - although perhaps few people - of a given time. To resolve this issue, it will be necessary to remember that Lermontov was born in October 1814 and that, consequently, he had to spend his youth in a society that was completely suppressed by the reaction, which greatly intensified after the failure of the well-known Decembrist movement ...

Plekhanov noted:

A hero of our time”, “Despite all the arguments, the historical significance of Pechorin is not understood. The character of Pechorin is explained from the point of view of personal psychology ... Pechorin suffers from the fact that he has not yet come to terms with reality. It is so, but not so. To come to terms with reality was the same for him as Alexander the Great to become a clerical scribe

M. Gorky (years of life 1868-1936)

Gorky in his lectures continues the ideas of Plekhanov and the revolutionary democrats. He wrote, comparing the poem "Both Boring and Sad" with the dialogue between Pechorin and Werner:

And again we see a complete coincidence of the feelings and thoughts of the author with the feelings and thoughts of his hero. It is important for us to know that Onegin is a portrait of Pushkin, and Pechorin is a portrait of Lermontov ...

At the same time, Gorky believes that Lermontov and Pechorin do not completely merge:

Pechorin was too narrow for him; following the truth of life, the poet could not endow his hero with everything that he carried in his soul, and if he did this, Pechorin would be untruthful

Gorky also explained what caused the protagonist's problems:

Pechorin and Onegin are alien to the so-called social issues, they live a narrow personal life, they are both strong, well-gifted people and therefore do not find a place for themselves in society

B.M. Eichenbaum (years of life 1886-1959)

The last review in this article in order, but not in importance, is devoted to Eikhenbaum, the largest Soviet Lermontov scholar.

In the works of Eikhenbaum, the texts of the novel were critically evaluated, and the final version of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" was established.

Eikhenbaum drew attention to the assessment of Pechorin by the author himself, which is evident from the title:

The title, indeed, sounds ironic, and otherwise it cannot be understood: “This is what the heroes of our time are like!” This title brings to mind the lines of Borodin, to which Belinsky drew attention: “Yes, there were people in our time, not like the current tribe: the heroes are not you!”. However, the irony of this title is directed, of course, not against the very personality of the hero, but against "our time", this is the irony of "Duma" and "Poet". This is how the evasive reply of the author of the preface, "I don't know," should be understood. This means: “Yes, an evil irony, but directed not at Pechorin himself, but at you, the reader, and at all of modernity”

A review of the criticism of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" was prepared using the works:

1. Hero of our time / M. Yu. Lermontov; ed. prepared by: B. M. Eikhenbaum and E. E. Naidich; [Acad. sciences of the USSR]. - Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. - 225 p.
2. The fate of Lermontov / E. Gershtein. — 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M .: Art. lit., 1986. - 350 p.

E. E. Naiditsch

"HERO OF OUR TIME"
IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

"A Hero of Our Time" is one of the books that, having passed through the centuries, retain their attractive power and continue to excite the minds and hearts of many generations.

Immediately after being published in the March issue of " Domestic notes"In 1839, the story" Bela "Belinsky on the pages of the magazine" Moscow Observer "noted that "Lermontov's prose is worthy of his high poetic talent." He drew attention to the simplicity and artlessness of the story, to its brevity and significance. Belinsky saw in the story an antidote to the romantic literature about the Caucasus that was fashionable in those years, and above all to the stories of Marlinsky. He writes that, unlike the latter, "such stories introduce the subject rather than slander it."

Shortly after the publication of a separate edition of the novel, two small reviews by Belinsky were published in Otechestvennye Zapiski (1840, No. 5) and Literary Gazette (1840, No. 42, May 25), preceding a detailed analysis of the novel. Belinsky emphasized the originality and originality of A Hero of Our Time and, with amazing courage and foresight, declared that the novel was a "completely new world of art" 1 .

Belinsky drew attention to the fact that "A Hero of Our Time" is not a collection of disparate stories and short stories, but a single novel, the components of which "cannot be read separately or viewed as separate works" (IV, 173).

Belinsky considered the “Hero of Our Time” as a closed artistic whole: “There is not a page, not a word, not a line that would be sketched by chance; here everything comes out of one main idea and everything returns to it” (IV, 146). The basis of the novel, according to the critic, is the idea developed in the main character - Pechorin.

Here Belinsky for the first time expressed a judgment, which later became generally accepted, about the gradual disclosure of the character of the protagonist from story to story.

Belinsky saw in Lermontov's novel "a deep sense of reality, a true instinct for truth", "deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society" (IV, 146). According to the critic, “the novel should arouse universal attention, all the interest of our public,” since “in the main idea of ​​​​the novel ... lies the important modern question of inner man» 2 .

All these thoughts of Belinsky were further developed in his article on the "Hero of Our Time", published in "Notes of the Fatherland" in 1840 (No. 6, 7).

Analyzing the image of Pechorin, Belinsky was still in captivity of the erroneous ideas of "reconciliation with reality." He believed that life's contradictions are only a necessary moment in the development of the absolute idea that dissonance will be resolved by harmonious harmony (IV, 238-239). Belinsky considered Pechorin's condition as a temporary illness, reflecting a "transitional state of mind." However, despite this position, Belinsky, precisely with his characterization of Pechorin, immediately outlined a progressive line in evaluating the novel. Even before the reactionary critics declared the image of Pechorin a slander of Russian life, Belinsky came out with a passionate defense of Pechorin, arguing that this is an image of life, deeply connected with reality.

“The art of a poet,” Belinsky wrote, “should consist in developing the task in practice: how a character given by nature should be formed under the circumstances in which fate puts it” (IV, 205). Emphasizing the nobility, depth and power of Pechorin's spirit and explaining his actions, which are in sharp contradiction with his nature, the circumstances in which the hero is placed, Belinsky placed the responsibility for this not on Pechorin himself, but on the time in which he lives. An analysis of Pechorin's image led Belinsky to the main conclusion: "The 'Hero of Our Time' is a sad thought about our time..." (IV, 266).

The historical and literary significance of Belinsky's analysis of the image of Pechorin is very great. It can be said that in the article about the "Hero of Our Time" one of the main features of Russian critical realism of the 19th century has already been noted: the character of a typical representative of modern society is depicted in such a way that it leads to a denial of the relations that prevail in society. Belinsky here for the first time in Russian criticism expresses the idea, later formulated with the utmost clarity by Chernyshevsky: "How to condemn an ​​individual person for what the whole society is to blame for."

Belinsky's article opens a series of speeches by Russian critics about "superfluous people"; it compares the images of Onegin and Pechorin, reflecting the corresponding periods in the development of Russian society. Onegin's characterization enables Belinsky to convincingly substantiate main idea articles - about Pechorin's typicality.

In a letter to V.P. Botkin dated August 12, 1840, Belinsky wrote: “... I am very glad that you liked my 2nd article about Lermontov, “the second part of the article about“ A Hero of Our Time ””. Her short tone is the result of my state of mind: I can neither affirm nor deny anything, and involuntarily I try to keep to the middle. However, my future articles should be better than the previous ones: the 2nd article on Lermontov is the beginning of them. From the theory of art, I want to turn again to life and talk about life...” (XI, 540). This turn, which emerged in the process of working on the article on "A Hero of Our Time," unwittingly led Belinsky to a contradiction 3 .

At the beginning of the analysis, Belinsky emphasized that the reason for the "fullness of impressions" lies "in the unity of thought that was expressed in the novel." “In all stories there is one thought, and this thought is expressed in one person, who is the hero of all stories” (IV, 199). In the reviews preceding the article, Belinsky wrote: "Mr. Lermontov's novel is imbued with a unity of thought...". The critic put forward this thesis in connection with the interpretation of the novel as a separate, closed whole. In the second part of the article, when Belinsky turns from theories about art to life, he deviates somewhat from his previous conclusions: “... the novel, striking with its amazing unity Feel, does not strike at all with the unity thoughts... he writes. “It is this unity of feeling, and not of ideas, that binds the whole novel” (IV, 267).

Such a change is due to the fact that after a specific analysis of the novel, Belinsky came to the conclusion that the power of the novel lies primarily in the formulation of the most important social and everyday issues, and not in their solution: “There is something unsolved in it, as if unspoken .. ... such are all modern social questions expressed in poetic works: this is a cry of suffering, but a cry that alleviates suffering ”(IV, 267).

The first response of the press of the reactionary camp to Lermontov's novel was an article by S. O. Burachka (“Conversation in the Living Room”), published in the journal Mayak (1840, part IV). Having identified the author of the novel with Pechorin, Burachok indignantly wrote that in "A Hero of Our Time" "there is neither religiosity nor nationality", that the image of Pechorin is a slander on Russian reality, "on a whole generation of people", that "in nature, such insensitive, unscrupulous people are impossible.”

The only exception from the number of "disgusting and dirty" characters, according to Burachok, is the image of Maxim Maksimych in the novel. Outraged by the author's insufficiently respectful attitude towards this character, the critic of "Mayak" considered "The Hero of Our Time" as an example of the latest "romantic literature" devoid of moral foundations, and contrasted Lermontov's novel with the insignificant novel by A. P. Bashutsky "The Petty Bourgeois" published simultaneously with it.

At the beginning of June 1840, even before the publication of Belinsky's article, but after his preliminary reviews, a sharp review of the "Hero of Our Time", belonging to N. A. Polevoy, appeared in Son of the Fatherland.

With the light hand of Burachok, the comparison of A Hero of Our Time with Bashutsky's The Petty Bourgeois became one of the polemical methods of reactionary criticism. In order to belittle the significance of Lermontov's novel, Polevoy devoted his review to both works at once, characterizing them as "sick creatures drawn between life and death into a small interval of their poor, ephemeral existence" 6 .

If Polevoy and Burachok differed in their assessment of the "Peaceful Man", then in relation to the "Hero of Our Time" they had complete unanimity. Polevoy's words that criticism is useless for many writers, "just as rain and dew are useless for plants whose roots have been undermined by an inexorable worm" were only a repetition of Burachok's reasoning.

The fact that this anonymous review belongs to N. Polevoy is confirmed by the fact that in the same issue of Son of the Fatherland, where the review of A Hero of Our Time was published, there was a note by N. Polevoy in which he announced his departure from the magazine. He wrote that this was the last issue in which he appeared as a member and editor of the departments of criticism, bibliography and mixture. At the end of the review of "A Hero of Our Time" there are lines directly related to this circumstance: "Mm. g., sad to look at contemporary literature Russian, and the duty of a reviewer is now becoming a heavy, unbearable duty! It is unlikely that anyone, having devoted some time to her, will not want to atone for dismissal from her with all sorts of donations, will not want to buy peace of mind with silence, leaving everyone to do what he pleases. Blessed is he who can lay down a critical pen and repeat Virgil's verse: Deus nobis haec otium fecit! 7.

These lines of Polevoy are especially interesting because, to some extent, they also represented an answer to the poem "Journalist, Reader and Writer" by Lermontov.

N. I. Mordovchenko established that "Journalist, Reader and Writer" was a kind of literary and social declaration of Lermontov, put forward on the eve of the publication of the novel. In the image of a journalist and in his speeches, as N. I. Mordovchenko showed, “it is impossible not to recognize some essential features of the appearance of N. Polevoy” 8 . On Lermontov's poems about tragic fate Writer Polevoy responded with words about the "heavy, unbearable" duties of a journalist who wants to "buy peace of mind with silence."

The review of the "Hero of Our Time", which belonged to O. I. Senkovsky, is very ambiguous. "G. Lermontov, - wrote Senkovsky, - happily got out of the most difficult situation in which a lyrical poet can only be, placed between exaggerations, without which there is no lyricism, and truth, without which there is no prose. He put on the cloak of truth for exaggeration, and this outfit is very fitting for them.

What Senkovsky's praises were worth can be judged by his sharply negative review of the second edition of A Hero of Our Time. Senkovsky wrote that after Lermontov's death, it is possible to discuss his work objectively and that "one cannot pass off a Hero of Our Time as anything higher than a nice little student's sketch" 10 . Senkovsky's review evoked a sharp rebuke from Belinsky in his response to the third edition of A Hero of Our Time (" Literary newspaper" dated March 18, 1844).

The publisher of Sovremennik P. A. Pletnev greeted Lermontov’s novel kindly, comparing in a brief review of A Hero of Our Time with Karamzin’s A Knight of Our Time. He wrote that these works are marked by “the seal of true talent; each took on the lively, bright colors of the era of their creation; everyone is destined to listen in silence to the peevish antics of judges who, being deprived of the ability to think and feel, console themselves with their inalienable right to scold everything that is attractive and living.

A special place in the speeches of reactionary criticism is occupied by the laudatory review of F. Bulgarin, published in the Northern Bee (1840, June 30). “The best novel,” Bulgarin wrote, “I have not read in Russian.” Shortly after the appearance of Bulgarin’s article on the pages of Otechestvennye Zapiski, Belinsky wrote about the true background of this article: “false friends have appeared who speculate on Lermontov’s name in order to imaginary impartiality (similar to purchased addiction 12) to improve his unenviable reputation in the eyes of the crowd” (IV, 373).

The speculation that Belinsky wrote about was that Bulgarin importunately emphasized his objective attitude towards the writer, who constantly appears on the pages of an organ hostile to the Northern Bee. Bulgarin took an interesting position in resolving the main issue that arose in the controversy around the novel. He borrowed from Belinsky the idea that the novel disclosed the disease of Russian society 13 and thus parted company with Burachok. But this disease, according to Bulgarin, consisted in "the stigma of the West on modern generation". Having condemned Burachok for his harsh article, the publisher of Severnaya Pchela, like the critic of Mayak, approached the novel from a moralistic position and saw in it only a moral lesson: “What does a brilliant upbringing and all secular advantages lead to without positive rules, without faith, hope and love" - ​​such, according to Bulgarin, is the dominant idea of ​​the novel.

The most complete and detailed assessment of A Hero of Our Time, coming from the reactionary camp, belongs to S.P. Shevyrev. Shevyrev formulated his main thesis in the article “A look at modern education Europe" ("Moskvityanin", 1841, No. 1) and then developed it in a special article devoted to Lermontov's novel ("Moskvityanin", 1841, No. 2).

The main idea of ​​Belinsky's articles about "A Hero of Our Time" is the assertion of Pechorin's connection with modern life, proof that Pechorin is a "character valid". The critic of Moskvityanin opposed this provision: “The entire content of Mr. Lermontov’s stories, except for Pechorin,” Shevyrev argued, “belongs to essential life; but Pechorin himself, with the exception of his apathy, which was only the beginning of his moral illness, belongs to the dreamy world produced in us by the false reflection of the West. This phantom, only in the world of our imagination, having materiality.

Behind the opposite of Pechorin's assessments, the opposite of the views of Shevyrev and Belinsky, their different attitude to Russian reality, is easily revealed. Shevyrev wrote in his article that if Pechorin is recognized as a hero of our time, then "consequently, our age is seriously ill."

Shevyrev also accused Lermontov of naturalism. According to the critic, the image of Pechorin is not only false in its basis, but also artistically inferior, since evil, as the main subject artwork, can be depicted only by large features of the ideal type (in the form of a titan, not a pygmy), and Lermontov in "A Hero of Our Time" allegedly delves into "all the details of the decay of life." Pechorin "belongs to those pygmies of evil with whom the narrative and dramatic literature of the West is now so abundant."

A significant place in Shevyrev's article is occupied by the analysis of the theme of the Caucasus in the work of Lermontov, in particular in "A Hero of Our Time". “Here,” Shevyrev wrote, “Europe and Asia converge in great and irreconcilable enmity. Here Russia, civilly arranged, repulses these ever-torn streams of mountain peoples who do not know what a social contract is ... Here is our eternal struggle ... Here is the duel of two forces, educated and wild ... Here is life! .. How why not rush here to the imagination of the poet?

In the spring of 1841, in the preface to the second edition of A Hero of Our Time, Lermontov summed up the literary controversy that unfolded after the publication of the novel. The writer gave a sharp rebuke to Shevyrev and ironically spoke of Burachok's opinions. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov acted as a supporter of Belinsky. As N. I. Mordovchenko showed, the final part of the preface, devoted to the author's assessment of Pechorin, is in direct accordance with what Belinsky wrote 15 . Lermontov's preface evoked an enthusiastic response from Belinsky in a review of the second edition of the novel and was quoted in its entirety on the pages of Notes of the Fatherland (V, 451-456).

We should pay attention to one more fact related to the controversy around the "Hero of Our Time". Shortly after the publication of Shevyrev's articles on "A Hero of Our Time" and on Lermontov's poems ("Moskvityanin", 1841, No. 4), the poet wrote the poem "Dispute" and submitted it for publication in "Moskvityanin" 16 . The transfer of the poem to the Slavophile magazine was a kind of response to Shevyrev's criticism. A. S. Khomyakov, one of the most prominent employees of the Moskvityanin, wrote in a letter to N. M. Yazykov in the summer of 1841: “In the Moskvityanin there was an analysis of Lermontov by Shevyrev, and the analysis was not entirely pleasant, in my opinion, somewhat unfair .

Lermontov answered very prudently: he gave the glorious play “The Dispute between Shat and Kazbek” to the “Moskvityanin”, beautiful verses” 17.

The appearance of a poem with the title "Dispute" in the organ of literary opponents should obviously indicate the poet's disagreement with Shevyrev's criticism, should have emphasized that the best response to criticism is artistic creativity in the same direction. The choice of the theme of the poem was not accidental. After all, the magazine "Moskvityanin" constantly wrote about the historical mission of Russia, and Shevyrev, in an article about "A Hero of Our Time", spoke at length about the struggle between Russia and the Caucasus. The struggle itself, the dispute between these two forces, Shevyrev interpreted in an abstractly idealistic way and considered it irreconcilable and eternal.

Lermontov in the poem "Dispute" in response to these reactionary arguments of Shevyrev gave a picture of the struggle between Russia and the Caucasus, striking in its strength artistic images, colorfulness, philosophical depth and accuracy. His literary opponents had no choice but to recognize this poem as beautiful and place it on the pages of their magazine (Moskvityanin, 1841, No. 6).

These are the main stages of the controversy that unfolded in 1840-1841. after the release of "A Hero of Our Time".

The article analyzes the reviews of the editor of the magazine "Mayak" S.A. Burachka dedicated to the work of M.Yu. Lermontov - first of all, his novel "A Hero of Our Time". Relying on his own theory of the “Russian novel”, which, in its morality, should oppose Western European works of “violent” romanticism, Burachok turned the conversation about the aesthetics of Lermontov’s work into a religious and ethical plane. Comparison of the views of Burachka and the position of V.G. Belinsky in relation to the work of Lermontov is also the focus of our attention in this article.

Keywords: Lermontov, Burachok, Belinsky, "Mayak", "Hero of Our Time"

S.A. Burachok, who published together with P.A. Korsakov 1 since 1840, the periodical collection (since 1842 - already alone and in the format of a magazine) "Mayak", entered the history of Russian journalism as "a half-mad saint who taught Lermontov with the style of a literary gaer" (Vatsuro, Gillelson, 1986: 240). Burachok's critical articles were not subjected to any serious analysis either in pre-revolutionary times, 2 much less in Soviet times.

It is also symptomatic that, unlike his main opponent V.G. Belinsky, whose articles about M.Yu. Lermontov can be read in any collection of works of the "frantic" critic, Burachok's reviews were republished with an abridgement only in 2002 4 . A paradoxical situation has arisen: in any literary work about Lermontov, Burachok was mentioned as the main critic of The Hero of Our Time, but his articles were unfamiliar to a wide range of readers. Today it is all the more important when literary criticism gets rid of Soviet stereotypes, gradually overcomes the outdated approach to literary criticism of the 1840s (as a one-dimensional model focused around the figure of Belinsky), to embrace the entire range of assessments of Lermontov’s work, to see not only those who were “pro”, but also those who were “contra”, and not just repeat the phrase that set the teeth on edge about the fact that Burachok is an obscurantist, obscurantist and "fool" 5 .

A significant contribution to the analysis of Burachka's position on this issue was made by V.G. Mehtiyev (Mekhtiyev, 2004). It seems that the researcher even somewhat exaggerated the importance of Burachok and his publication in the history of Russian literature and journalism. Nevertheless, the ideological platform of the magazine "Mayak" and the position of its editor, which ultimately influenced Burachk's sharply negative assessment of Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time", are still not fully clarified. Obviously, it is necessary to describe in more detail the ideological and aesthetic concept of Burachka, which is done in the proposed article on the example of Mayak's criticism of Lermontov's work.

Burachok was one of the first to comment on the novel “A Hero of Our Time” - in the fourth part of “Mayak” for 1840 (censorship permission - May 29, 1840), his anonymous review “Literary Books” (pp. 210-219) was published, which ended analysis of Lermontov's novel. In turn, this review was the fourth article in Burachka's program cycle, in which he intended to acquaint readers with his vision of the tasks of philosophy and literature. In the same volume of the Lighthouse, the previous parts of the cycle were published: “The Content of Philosophy” (pp. 81-101, subscript S.B.), “History of Philosophy” (pp. 101-146, subscript S.B.) , “Religious and moral-philosophical books” (pp. 147-176, signed by S.B.).

Burachka's analysis of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" organically fits into his theory of the "Russian novel", which, according to the critic, should, in its morality and purity, oppose the novels of European "frantic literature". Based on this belief, Burachok divides all Russian novels into three categories. The first one is “low”, where the plot (the plot, the climax and the denouement) “makes everything”. Burachkom also included in this category historical novels in which "only external deeds" of people are unfolded. The “neuter gender” is characteristic of moralistic novels, they analyze “in the faces of passion, prejudice, delusion”, that is, “external phenomena of social life”. Novels of the "high kind" have the virtues of the first two, but beyond that they depict "the inner life, inner work the human spirit, led by the spirit of Christianity to perfection, through the cross, destruction and struggle between good and evil” 6 .

In order to tangibly hurt the admirers of Lermontov's talent (and, I think, not least Belinsky), Burachok classified Lermontov's novel as "low". Therefore, even the virtues present in the work (“the external construction of the novel is good”, “the style is good”, 7, etc.) do not cover its shortcomings, the main of which is harmful, according to Burachok, ideological content. The content of "A Hero of Our Time" is "romantic in excellence, i.e. false at the base; harmony between causes, means, phenomena, effects and purpose - not the slightest<...>8 i.e. the internal structure of the novel is no good: the idea is false, the direction is crooked” (p. 210).

It is quite natural that in figurative system In the novel, only Maksim Maksimych evokes positive emotions in Burachok: "... a hero of past times, simple, kind-hearted, a little bit literate, a servant to the tsar and people for life and death." But even the image of this character cannot be considered quite successful: “... would be the only encouraging face in the whole book, if the painter, for the greater success of his “hero”, did not take it into his head to set off the good-natured staff captain with an ebb d’un bon home [simpleton. - E.S.] - a funny eccentric "(p. 211).

It should be pointed out that Maksim Maksimych was considered a true "hero of the time" by other critics of the conservative camp (for example, S.P. Shevyrev in a review published in the February issue of Moskvityanin 9). It is interesting to note that this is how, apparently, Nicholas I assessed the image of Maxim Maksimych: “The character of the captain is well planned. When I began this essay, I hoped and rejoiced, thinking that he would probably be the hero of our time, because in this class there are much more real people than those who are usually called that ”(Quoted by: Eikhenbaum, 1969: 425).

On the contrary, Pechorin is an immoral person, an egoist and a proud man, through whose mouth evil is justified and aestheticized in the novel. Here is how, for example, Burachok understood the content of the first short story of “The Hero of Our Time” “Bela”: “theft, robbery, drunkenness [?! - E.S.], kidnapping and seduction of a girl, two murders, contempt for everything holy, stiffness, paradoxes, sophisms, spiritual and bodily atrocities. Bela's death, according to Burachok, caused only joy and relief in Pechorin: "Bela died, the commandant cries from the depths of her soul, and the hero laughs!" (p. 212). Although in fact, obviously, Pechorin's laughter is from the nervous shock that the character experienced; it is no coincidence that after the death of the heroine, Pechorin “was unwell for a long time, lost weight” 10 .

From the point of view of the Mayak critic, Pechorin's philosophy of life is based on the idea of ​​romantic freedom, which is understood in the spirit of "frantic literature". An adventurous plot, a lot of "intrigues", "heartbreaking" pictures and scenes - all this has its source in the "easy reading" of "violent romanticism". Burachok objects: “It's amazing how these heroes interpret themselves highly!<.>Their soul is firm - when it wallows in the mud of romantic frenzy" (p. 216). Such an assessment of Lermontov's hero, of course, did not allow Burachok to see the full complexity of the psychological picture of the novel, to appreciate the elements of psychological analysis that the author introduced into the work, which ultimately led to a one-sided interpretation of "A Hero of Our Time". The “History of the Human Soul”, which so occupies Lermontov, remained inaccessible to Burachok.

The critic is sure that "the whole novel is an epigram composed of incessant sophisms, so there is no trace of philosophy, religiosity, Russian nationality." And the main mistake of Lermontov, a man, of course, talented, according to the author of "Mayak", was the wrong choice of the main character. Moreover, this choice came from the author’s desire to write in the style of “frantic literature”, taking modern French and English literature: “It is a pity that he [Pechorin. - E.S.] died and erected a monument of “easy reading” on his grave, similar to a coffin that had been torn down, - outside it is beautiful, it glitters with tinsel, but inside it is rot and stench ”(p. 211).

The perniciousness of "easy reading" (regardless of Lermontov) is generally a favorite thought of the critic of "Mayak". So, in a review of Russian literature, which also included a review of Lermontov's novel, Burachok noted: “Of the thousand mortal inventions of the latest romanticism, easy reading is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and, I will add, the most harmful invention for literature!<...>By light reading they mean: idle talk, dressed in beautiful, playful forms, which, due to the lack of oral conversation in living rooms, would replace this conversation, to shuffle around, chat and kill time until the first opportunity. In essence, what the reviewer called “easy reading” can (with reservations, of course) be characterized as mass literature, which began to actively develop in Russia in the 1830s and 1840s due to an increase in the readership. It is no coincidence that Burachok always opposed the publications of F.V. Bulgarin, on the pages of "Mayak" he argued with the "Northern Bee", and the main character of the first satirical work of Burachka "A Tale without a Title" (in 1838 banned by censorship) was Baron Brambeus (O.I. Senkovsky) 12.

This does not mean that you don’t need to show negative characters in your works at all, it’s just that, from the point of view of Burachka, you can’t write about them with such an approving intonation, as Lermontov did, and even more so you can’t consider them “heroes” and recognize Pechorin as a typical representative of the generation: “I don’t want to say by this that sinful, dirty and vicious human little things should be completely excluded from the number of materials and colors of belles-lettres and the reader should be lulled by only virtuous, bright, lofty, clean<...>no, I only want all the colors of the picture of the human heart to be truly true from the dark and light side; so that readers are not taken to the office of ideal monsters, deliberately selected; so that the picture of the dirty side serves for something, and does not harm, and so that the author does not slander a whole generation of people, passing off a monster, and not a person, as a representative of this generation ”(pp. 212-213). It follows from this that Burachok did not at all understand Lermontov's ironic attitude to the concept of "hero" in the title of the novel.

Moreover, the critic of "Mayak" not only did not see Lermontov's irony in relation to Pechorin, he (quite, by the way, following the logic of romantic aesthetics) put an equal sign between the main character and the author: "... you sincerely regret why Pechorin, the real author of the book , so he used his beautiful talents for evil, solely because of a penny handout - the praise of people yawning from the emptiness of the head, soul and heart ”(p. 211). This passage in Burachka's review, apparently, especially offended Lermontov, who, in the first edition of the preface to A Hero of Our Time, wrote that the magazines "almost all were more than supportive of this book.<.>all except one, who, as if on purpose in his criticism, confused the name of the writer with the hero of his story, probably hoping that no one would read it; but, although the insignificance of this journal serves as sufficient protection for him, nevertheless, after reading rude and indecent abuse, an unpleasant feeling remains in the soul, as after meeting a drunk on the street. In the final text of the preface, which was printed in the second edition of the novel (1841), these words are removed.

After analyzing Lermontov's novel, Burachok, with his penchant for generalizations (sometimes superficial), turned to thinking about what the general relationship between art and morality is. According to Burachka, "literature should be a service to God in the face of humanity" (p. 217). Therefore, Lermontov's book is harmful, because it is immoral, in it Pechorin does not evoke in the reader that feeling of disgust that such an unattractive character should have evoked: “... what service will the portrait of such a hero bring to humanity? - Is it that after him the number of heroes will multiply much, and certainly will not decrease in any way, because the book is read, the hero is sweet, smart, sharp, in his very furies he seems only a victim of fate "(p. 217).

It should be pointed out that Burachok here formulated the main thesis (core) of his aesthetic concept: art should lead a person to God. Even in the introductory part of the review, where Lermontov’s novel was analyzed, it was said on this occasion: “The aesthetic feeling must obey the spiritual feeling: illuminated, warmed, fertilized by love, and love is God. Therefore, the goal of all fine works is the service of God in the face of humanity” (p. 191) 14 . Further in the article, Burachok outlined the boundaries of the concepts of “spiritual” and “soulful” and once again recalled the need to subordinate aesthetics to religious ethics: “Our spiritual forces: mind, sensuality and desire are very fragile without the support of spiritual forces: reason, feelings and will. The mind is equally logically and mathematically capable of thinking falsehood and truth, depending on the basis, the starting point, which the mind gives it. And when the mind is clouded, the mind grinds nonsense. aesthetic feeling<...>the most selfish feeling: in everything it seeks only itself, its own pleasures; it delights equally in the picture of evil and the picture of good. But in the light of a spiritual feeling, aesthetic tastes cannot bear pictures of evil, ugliness, and fury” (p. 218).

This fragment of the article appears to have contained a direct attack against Belinsky and his idea of ​​self-worth, the “isolation” of art. The critic of Otechestvennye Zapiski in the so-called "conciliatory" period insisted on the complete "autonomy" of art, attached exceptional importance to the "artistic point of view", because literature is a separate world that exists according to its own laws, it develops "immanently", by itself "in itself has no goal outside itself” 15 (an article on Woe from Wit, 1840). In the program article of this period, “Mentzel, critic of Goethe” (1840), Belinsky condemned V. Menzel for his reproaches of Goethe that he shunned socio-political issues: “Art should not serve society except by serving itself: let each goes his own way without interfering with each other.

A. Lavretsky rightly pointed out that criticism of Belinsky's "conciliatory" period "is both purely objective and purely tendentious." Belinsky believed that the poet ("the organ of the general and the world") cannot be mistaken. Objectivist was the idea that not artistry depends on the idea, on whether it is true or false, but the idea depends on artistry, which is objective and truthful and makes everything that is organically connected with it so: “Tendentious is the purpose of art, which gives to him Belinsky: a true work of art "reconciles with reality"; according to the aesthetics of the Belinsky border of the 30-40s. artistic creativity does not depend on the likes and dislikes of the artist, who in the process of creativity ceases to exist as a definite personality and turns into the voice of an absolute idea” (Lavretsky, 1968: 24-25). Therefore, according to Belinsky, "the fidelity of thought is tested by artistry", "the art of the writer" 17 .

Burachok, who devoted a separate article “The System of Philosophy of Otechestvennye Zapiski” to the analysis of Belinsky’s views, noted that the critic of the journal A.A. Kraevsky subordinated all aspects of creativity (ideological, philosophical, moral) to the aesthetically understood category of "artism", thus absolutizing the "specialty" of the "intrinsic" Word, refusing the Divine nature of the latter, which gave birth to it. Burachok reproached Belinsky for "idolatry" and considered his belief in "the infallibility of poets" 18 to be erroneous.

It turned out that Belinsky (deliberately?) exalted both art and its creators to the utmost, made them sacralized and almost sacred. As rightly noted by V.G. Mekhtiyev, “in the idea of ​​the “isolation” of art, Burachok caught the craving of a “godless” person to create an “idol”, which here is the aesthetically understood beauty of a work of art and the “omniscience” of a creative personality” (Mekhtiyev, 2004: 14). Burachka's controversy with Belinsky's views ended with an important postulate: the "rapid reproduction" of German "philosophical systems" led to the fact that "the goal of all elegant works was set solely to satisfy aesthetic taste, without subordinating them to any other conditions" 20. That is why the editor of "Mayak" took Lermontov's novel so negatively, which, according to Burachka, was written in the spirit of "frantic literature".

It is interesting to note that the analysis of "A Hero of Our Time" was highly appreciated by the famous novelist M.N. Zagoskin, who sent a letter to the journal addressed to P.A. Korsakov. In it, he conveyed his admiration for Burachok's article: ". I would have rushed to Burachka on the neck - but unfortunately, his neck is in St. Petersburg, and my hands are in Moscow. Zagoskin fully shares the idea of ​​Mayak's critic that The Hero of Our Time is a "nasty absurdity" written for the needs of the public, and the magazine itself is assessed by him as a "publication<...>in which it is said directly that without religion there can be no good literature” 21 .

So, an analysis of Burachok's responses to Lermontov's novel showed that the editor of Mayak wanted to translate the conversation about the aesthetics of the work into a religious and ethical plane. The critic feared that the idea of ​​the "self-worth" of art would lead to its immorality. V.G. Mekhtiyev correctly noted that these ideas of Burachok were consonant with the pathos of many subsequent Russian thinkers (Mekhtiyev, 2004: 187) and acquired a finished form from one of the greatest culturologists of the 20th century, V.V. Weidle, who argued that throughout the development of mankind, art never performed only an “aesthetic function”, but in modern times the situation changed, which led to “aesthetic egoism”, that is, the destruction of “faith in the integrity of the individual”, “refusal of creativity, that is, from the Creator in itself, the refusal to merge with the creative basis of the world”, which ultimately symbolizes the “disease of art” (Veidle, 1996: 42, 46, 65, 90, 140).

Nevertheless, such a perception of art by Burachok led to an obvious aesthetic "deafness", in which, for example, a novel by a minor writer A.P. Bashutsky "The Petty Bourgeois" was placed above Lermontov's novel, and the spiritual poems of P.A. Korsakov - higher than Lermontov's lyrics 22 .

At the same time, we emphasize once again that the demands that Burachok made to Lermontov's novel A Hero of Our Time undoubtedly reflected the moral maximalism characteristic of Russian literature, which determined its national identity. V.G. is absolutely right. Mehdiyev: “The attacks of the magazine [Mayak]. - E.S.] against Lermontov’s work testify not to the “lack of spirituality” of the poet’s works, but to their involvement in the absolute scale of their requirements, to the exceptional spiritual intensity of the poet’s work” (Mekhtiyev, 2004: 188). Otherwise, Burachok simply would not have argued with him, as with another "literary fly" (an expression of the editor of "Mayak").

Notes

1 P.A. Korsakov is the censor of the first and second editions of the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" (St. Petersburg, 1840; 1841).

2 An exception is the article by A.A. Grigorieva Opposition to stagnation. Features from the history of obscurantism ”(Vremya. 1861. No. 5. P. 1-35). It seems to us that Grigoriev’s assessment of Burachka is deeply correct: “Wherever it comes to philosophical principles, Mr. Burachek<...>is a logical thinker, a dialectician who has developed his own original method, with which one can argue, but which one could not but respect” (Ibid., p. 17). At the same time, Grigoriev's idea of ​​changing aesthetic program"Mayak" in last years publications (from conservative to reactionary-obscurantist) seems unconvincing. It is no coincidence that for a critic it remains declarative, not confirmed by concrete examples from Burachka's journal.

3 It is significant that in an informative article directly devoted to this topic and published in the “Lermontov” volume of the “Literary Heritage”, N.I. Mordovchenko, having analyzed in detail the critical reviews about Lermontov V.G. Belinsky, mentions Burachka in passing, simplifying the latter’s complex position: “Burachka’s judgments are not without interest in the sense that they were not only cruder and more primitive, but also more consistent than the judgments of other reactionary critics. Burachok openly scolded Lermontov, while others declared recognition of his poetry, but minus the works of accusatory and rebellious direction" (Mordovchenko, 1941: 781). In the authoritative "Lermontov Encyclopedia" there is a 48-line note about the editor of "Mayak", also sustained in extremely negative tones (Popov I. V. Burachok S. A. // Lermontov Encyclopedia. M., 1981. P. 73). As we will try to show in this article, Burachka's position in relation to Lermontov's work was much more complicated.

4 Two articles by Burachka (“A Hero of Our Time”. M. Lermontov. (Conversation in the Living Room)” and “Poems by M. Lermontov. (Letter to the Author)”) were published by V.M. Markovich with excellent comments by G.E. Potapova and N.Yu. Zavarzina in the anthology “M.Yu. Lermontov: pro et contra” [M.Yu. Lermontov, 2002, p. 53-65; 96-119] and simultaneously published in the journal Literature with comments by S.I. Sobolev (Sobolev L.I. Stepan Burachok about Lermontov // Literature. 2002. No. 31. Access mode: http://lit.1september.ru/article.php?ID=200203105).

5 The last is the famous epigram of S.A. Sobolevsky, written in the 1840s and included in all modern textbooks on the history of Russian journalism: “Enlightenment Lighthouse / Publishes a big fool, / Nicknamed Korsak; / The fool helps, / Nicknamed Burachok ”(Epigram and satire. From the history of the literary struggle of the 19th century. M .; L., 1931. T. 1. P. 461).

6 S.B. [S.A. Burachok] Hero of our times. Tradesman // Lighthouse. 1840. Part 5. S. 22.

7 S.B. [S.A. Burachok] Literary books // Lighthouse. 1840. Part 4. P. 210. In what follows, Burachok's review will be quoted from this edition, indicating the page in parentheses.

8 At this point, Burachok referred to another part of his review, where he reflected on the correct construction of the novel: “... in a novel, as in history, the external must be the signature of the internal: phenomena must follow from causes and be explained by consequences. The inner, as the most important, should be in the foreground. The characters, incidents, plot and denouement should be just scenery, means that will certainly lead to a reasonable, bright goal.<...>Where this is not there, there is no novel, but only an idle book, with emptiness in its entire format, empty laces, pointless chatter, food for one idleness, unworthy of high art - the craft of a conjurer ”(p. 193).

9 In Shevyrev's review of Maxim Maksimych, the following is said: “Of course, we must give first place to Maxim Maksimovich among the side characters. What an integral character of the native Russian good man, into whom the subtle infection of Western education has not penetrated; who, with the imaginary outward coldness of a warrior who had seen enough of the danger, retained all the ardor, all the life of the soul; who loves nature inwardly, without admiring it, loves the music of a bullet, because his heart beats stronger at the same time. (Moskvityanin. 1841. No. 2. S. 517).

10 Lermontov M.Yu. Hero of our time // Collected. cit.: In 6 vols. M.; L., 1954-1957. T. 6. S. 237.

11 S.B. [S.A. Burachok] Literary books. pp. 200-201.

12 Drafts of this story are now kept in the S.A. Burachka in the manuscript department of the Pushkin House of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RO IRLI. F. 34. items 14, 15).

13 Lermontov M.Yu. Decree. op. T 6. S. 563.

14 It is noteworthy that Gogol looked at art in exactly the same way, who considered it “invisible steps to Christianity” (Gogol N.V. Complete collection of works: In 14 vols. B. M., 1937-1952. Vol. 8. S. 269). Nevertheless, unlike Burachka in Selected Places from Correspondence with Friends, Gogol highly appreciated Lermontov's talent and, pointing to the poems "Angel", "Prayer", etc., did not consider his work immoral. Although, of course, “no one has ever played so lightly with his talent and tried so hard to show him some kind of even boastful contempt as Lermontov” (Ibid., vol. 8, p. 402).

15 Belinsky V.G. Full coll. cit.: In 13 t. M., 1953-1959. T. 3. S. 431.

16 Ibid. S. 403.

17 Ibid. S. 404.

18 S.B. [S.A. Burachok] System of Philosophy of Otechestvennye Zapiski // Mayak. 1840. Part 9. S. 9.

19 It should be emphasized that, having overcome the tendencies of the "conciliatory" period in himself, Belinsky abandoned the idea of ​​"objectivity" and "isolation" of art. Already at the beginning of December 1840, the critic defined the article about Menzel as “nasty” (Belinsky V.G. Decree. Op. T. 11. S. 576), and his aesthetic position as a whole - as erroneous: “Yes, Botkin, stupid I was with my artistry, because of which I did not understand what content is ”(V. G. Belinsky, decree. Op. T. 12. P. 85). However, the thesis that art should be a "step" to religion, Belinsky consistently denied until the end of his life. Thus, the main controversy between Mayak and Otechestvennye Zapiski unfolded in the mid-1840s. In the annual review Russian Literature in 1845, Belinsky unambiguously expressed his position on this issue: “One magazine [Mayak. - E.S.]<...>accusing all Russian literature of various heresies<...>he accused the “Library for Reading” and “Notes of the Fatherland” of the same, probably based on the fact that they do not contain articles of theological content. Yes, they were not and will not be in Fatherland Notes, because theology is not included in their program. The critic believed that “writing about theological subjects should be the exclusive right and duty of people of the clergy” (V. G. Belinsky, Decree, op. vol. 9, pp. 403-404). One can hardly agree with the "frantic Vissarion", because the peculiarity of Russian Orthodox culture is that many (if not the most significant) spiritual works were created in the 19th century by secular people (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky and others .), when the phenomenon named by A.M. Panchenko "secular holiness" (Panchenko, 1999: 361-374).

20 S.B. [S.A. Burachok] System of Philosophy of Otechestvennye Zapiski. S. 19.

21 Letter to M.N. Zagoskin // Lighthouse. 1840. Part 7. S. 101-102.

22 It is interesting to note that such aesthetic “deafness”, which, like Burachok, comes from the recognition of the primacy of religion over art, is quite typical for many modern representatives of “religious philology” (S.G. Bocharov’s term). So, M.M. Dunaev in his fundamental work "Orthodoxy and Russian Literature" calls the largest (!) Writer of our time V.N. Krupin, because “among the Russian writers who lived in literature at the turn of the century and millennium, he most consistently and consciously established himself in Orthodoxy” (Dunaev, 2000: 391).

Bibliography

Vatsuro V.E., Gilelson M.I. Through the "mental dams": Essays on books and the press of Pushkin's time. M., 1986.

Veidle V.V. Dying of art. Reflections on the fate of literary and artistic creativity. St. Petersburg, 1996.

Dunaev M.M. Orthodoxy and Russian literature. M., 2000. T. 6.

Lavretsky A. Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov in the struggle for realism. M., 1968.

M.Yu. Lermontov: pro et contra / comp. V.M. Markovich, G.E. Potapova, entry. article by V.M. Markovich, comment. G.E. Potapova and N.Yu. Zavarzina. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Mekhtiev V.G. Mayak magazine: spiritual opposition to the aesthetic ideas of journalism in the 1840s. and romanticism M.Yu. Lermontov. Khabarovsk, 2004.

Mordovchenko N.I. Lermontov and Russian criticism of the 40s // M.Yu. Lermontov. M., 1941. Prince. 1. (Lit. heritage; T. 43/44). pp. 745-796.

Panchenko A.M. Russian history and culture. SPb., 1999.