It is curious that Dobrolyubov himself outlined these features long before the publication of “On the Eve”, and he did this in polemics with Turgenev. Thus, in the article “Nikolai Vladimirovich Stankevich” (Sovremennik, 1858, No. IV) Dobrolyubov spoke out against Turgenev’s morality of “duty” and “renunciation”, expressed in the story “Faust”. To people of the old generation, who understand duty as moral chains, as adherence to “an abstract principle that they accept without internal heartfelt participation,” Dobrolyubov contrasted supporters of the new morality, those who “care to merge the demands of duty with the needs of their inner being.” In another article - “Literary trivia of the past year” (Sovremennik, 1859, No. I) Dobrolyubov again developed the antithesis of “abstract principles” and living, internal attraction and again put it at the basis comparative characteristics old and young generations. Developing an ideological and psychological portrait of the “new people” who replaced the knights of “abstract principles,” Dobrolyubov saw in modern figures people “with strong nerves and a healthy imagination,” distinguished by calmness and quiet firmness." “In general,” he wrote, “the young The current generation of our time does not know how to shine and make noise. There seem to be no screaming notes in his voice, although there are sounds that are very strong and firm.”
Now, in the article “When will the real day come?”, characterizing Insarov, Dobrolyubov found in him the very traits that he wrote about in his time, speaking about the “young active generation”; love for the homeland and for freedom in Insarov “is not in his mind, not in his heart, not in his imagination, she is in his body,” “he will do what his nature leads him to,” moreover, “completely calmly, without pretense or fanfare, as simply as he eats and drinks.” etc. Noting with deep sympathy the new features of Turgenev’s hero, Dobrolyubov clearly saw that in this case, “the phenomena and characters that actually exist in life, previously recognized by himself and seen in Russian soil. In Turgenev, Insarov is only friendly and close to the Russian people, but he did not develop as a type in the conditions of Russian life.
This was connected with Turgenev’s understanding of the relationship between man and environment, and this question again led Dobrolyubov to polemics with the author of “On the Eve.” In the article “Good intentions and activity,” published four months after the article “When will the real day come?”, Dobrolyubov spoke out against the “Turgenev school” with its constant motive “the environment eats a person.” In Turgenev, man is powerless against historical circumstances, he is suppressed by the harsh power of the social environment and therefore is not capable of fighting the conditions that oppress the progressive people of Russia. The criticism of Turgenev's fatalism of the environment, developed in detail in the article “Benevolence and Activity,” is also evident in the commented work. Dobrolyubov poses the question of the relationship between man and environment dialectically: the same conditions that make the emergence of “new people” impossible will, at a certain stage of development, make their appearance inevitable. Now this stage has been reached in Russia: “We said above that our social environment suppresses the development of personalities like Insarov. But now we can add to our words: this environment has now reached the point where it itself will help the emergence of such a person,” with these words Dobrolyubov hinted that in Russia the ground had already been prepared for revolutionary action. Any other tactics in the conditions of 1860 Mr. Dobrolyubov considered liberal quixoticism, and this again sounded polemical in relation to Turgenev, who, in the speech “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” published two months before Dobrolyubov’s article about “On the Eve,” saw features of quixoticism in people of struggle and selfless conviction , in “enthusiasts” and “servants of the idea.” No matter how highly Turgenev placed people of a quixotic nature, he still believed that they were fighting with windmills and do not achieve their goals. Therefore, Dobrolyubov rejected the nickname Don Quixote from himself and his like-minded people and returned it to Turgenev and the supporters of the theory of a “seizing environment.”
Perhaps it was precisely the polemical orientation of Dobrolyubov’s article against many of Turgenev’s views that was perceived by the writer as unfair and harsh. In any case, neither general analysis the novel, nor the high assessment of the realistic power of Turgenev’s art gave rise to such an understanding of Dobrolyubov’s article. As for the “troubles” that Turgenev feared, then, apparently, according to his assumption, they could arise for him due to the revolutionary conclusions that Dobrolyubov drew from the analysis of “On the Eve.” In the original version of the article, these conclusions were even sharper and clearer. But even in the journal text, and even more so in the text of the collected works, the revolutionary meaning of the article was clearly understood by both contemporaries and readers of subsequent generations, primarily by figures of the liberation movement.
Thus, P. L. Lavrov, in the article “I. S. Turgenev and Russian Society,” published in “Bulletin of the People’s Will,” 1884, No. 2, speaking about the growth of the revolutionary movement in the seventies, compared with the previous period, focused on Dobrolyubov's article. “The Russian Insarovs,” he wrote, “people “consciously and completely imbued with the great idea of the liberation of their homeland and ready to take an active role in it,” received the opportunity to “prove themselves in modern Russian society” (Oc. Dobrolyubova, III, 320). New Helens They could no longer say: “What to do in Russia?” They filled the prisons. They went to hard labor.
V.I. Zasulich, in an article on the fortieth anniversary of Dobrolyubov’s death (Iskra, 1901, No. 13), noted that in a critical analysis of “On the Eve,” Dobrolyubov managed to “write with clarity that does not allow doubt his revolutionary testament to the growing youth of the educated classes.” In the same issue of Iskra, V. I. Lenin’s article “The Beginning of Demonstrations” was published. In it, V.I. Lenin, touching on Dobrolyubov, said that “all educated and thinking Russia cherishes a writer who passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the “internal Turks” - against the autocratic government.” It is important that in this general description of Dobrolyubov as a revolutionary writer, V.I. Lenin relied on the article “When will the real day come?”, from which the formula “internal Turks” was taken.
Footnotes
1
Beat the drum and don't be afraid! (German). – Ed.
2
How beautiful it is, how charming! (French). – Ed.
3
We have already been reproached once for being partial to the younger generation and pointing out the vulgarity and emptiness to which most of its representatives indulge. But we never thought of standing up for all young people indiscriminately, and this would not be consistent with our goal. Vulgarity and emptiness are the heritage of all times and all ages. But we spoke and are now speaking about chosen people, the best people, and not about the crowd, since Rudin and all the people of his caliber did not belong to the crowd, but to the best people of their time. However, we will not be wrong if we say that among the mass of society, the level of education has recently risen.
4
The extraordinary success experienced by the publications of the works of some of our writers in the forties can apparently testify against this idea. Especially a shining example Belinsky can serve, whose works quickly sold out, they say, in the amount of 12,000 copies. But, in our opinion, this very fact serves as the best confirmation of our thought. Belinsky was the foremost of the advanced, none of his peers went further than him, and where 12,000 copies of Belinsky were snapped up in a few months, the Rudins simply had nothing to do. Belinsky’s success proves not at all that his ideas are still new for our society and require great efforts to spread, but precisely that they are now dear and sacred to the majority and that their preaching no longer requires either heroism or special talents.
N. A. Dobrolyubov
When will the real day come?
("On the Eve", story by I. S. Turgenev. "Russian Messenger", 1860, No. 1--2)
N. A. Dobrolyubov. Russian classics. Selected literary criticism articles.
The publication was prepared by Yu. G. Oksman.
Series "Literary Monuments" M., "Science", 1970
Schlage die Trommel und furchte dich nicht! (*) HEINE. 1}
Aesthetic criticism has now become the property of sensitive young ladies. From conversations with them, servants of pure art can glean many subtle and correct remarks and then write criticism of this kind. “Here is the content of Mr. Turgenev’s new story (story of the content). Already from this pale sketch it is clear how much life and poetry is the freshest and most fragrant. But only reading the story itself can give an idea of that instinct for the subtlest poetic shades of life, about that acute mental analysis, about that deep understanding of the invisible streams and currents of social thought, about that friendly and at the same time bold attitude towards reality that make up distinctive features talent of Mr. Turgenev. Look, for example, how subtly these mental traits are noted (repetition of one part from the story of the content and then an extract); read this wonderful scene, filled with such grace and charm (extract); remember this poetic, living picture (extract) or this tall, bold image (extract). Isn’t it true that this penetrates into the depths of your soul, makes your heart beat stronger, enlivens and decorates your life, elevates before you human dignity and the great, eternal significance of the holy ideas of truth, goodness and beauty! Comme c"est joli, comme c"est delicieux!" (How beautiful it is, how charming! (French).--Ed.) We owe our little acquaintance with sensitive young ladies the fact that we do not know how to write such pleasant and harmless criticism. Frankly admitting this and refusing the role of “educator of the aesthetic taste of the public,” we choose another task, more modest and more commensurate with our strengths. We simply want to summarize the data that is scattered in the writer’s work and which we accept as an accomplished fact, as a vital phenomenon standing before us. The work is simple, but necessary, because with a lot of activities and rest, rarely does anyone want to look at all the details themselves literary work, disassemble, check and put in their place all the figures from which this complex report is compiled about one of the sides of our public life, and then think about the outcome and what it promises and commits us to. And this kind of verification and reflection is very useful regarding the new story of Mr. Turgenev. We know that pure aestheticians will immediately accuse us of trying to impose their opinions on the author and assign tasks to his talent. So let’s make a reservation, even though it’s boring. No, we are not imposing anything on the author, we say in advance that we do not know for what purpose, due to what preliminary considerations, he depicted the story that makes up the content of the story “On the Eve”. For us it is not so important that wanted tell the author how much, what affected to them, even if unintentionally, simply as a result of a truthful reproduction of the facts of life. We value every talented work precisely because in it we can study the facts of our native life, which is already so little open to the gaze of a simple observer. There is still no publicity in our lives other than the official one; Everywhere we encounter not living people, but officials serving in one department or another: in public places - with neat writers, at balls - with dancers, in clubs - with gamblers, in theaters - with hairdressing patients and etc. Everyone continues to bury his spiritual life; everyone looks at you as if saying: “After all, I came here to dance or to show off my hair; well, be happy that I’m doing my job, and please don’t try to extort my feelings and ideas from me.” ". And indeed, no one is asking anyone, no one is interested in anyone, and the whole society goes apart, annoyed, that should converge on official occasions, like, a dinner party or some committee meeting. Where can a person learn and study life who has not devoted himself exclusively to observing social mores? And then there is what diversity, what even opposition in the various circles and classes of our society! Thoughts that have already become vulgar and backward in one circle are still hotly contested in another; what is considered insufficient and weak by some, seems too harsh and bold to others, etc. What falls, what wins, what begins to establish itself and prevail in the moral life of society - we have no other indicator for this except literature, and mainly her artistic works. The writer-artist, not caring about any general conclusions regarding the state of social thought and morality, always knows how to grasp their most essential features, brightly illuminate and directly place them before the eyes of reflective people. That is why we believe that as soon as talent is recognized in a writer-artist, that is, the ability to feel and depict the vital truth of phenomena, then, already by virtue of this very recognition, his works provide a legitimate reason for reasoning about that environment of life, about that era , which evoked this or that work in the writer. And the measure of a writer’s talent here will be the extent to which he has captured life, the extent to which the images he has created are durable and vast. We considered it necessary to express this in order to justify our technique - to interpret the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work, without, however, imposing on the author any pre-conceived ideas and tasks. The reader sees that for us it is precisely those works that are important in which life manifested itself, and not according to a program previously invented by the author. For example, we didn’t talk about “A Thousand Souls” at all, because, in our opinion, the whole of this novel is forced into a preconceived idea. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss here, except to what extent the author cleverly composed his essay. It is impossible to rely on the truth and living reality of the facts presented by the author, because his inner attitude towards these facts is not simple and truthful. We see a completely different attitude from the author to the plot in Mr. Turgenev’s new story, as in most of his stories. In “On the Eve” we see the irresistible influence of the natural course of social life and thought, to which the author’s very thought and imagination involuntarily submitted. Setting the main task of literary criticism as an explanation of those phenomena of reality that caused the known piece of art , we should note that in application to the stories of Mr. Turgenev, this task still has a special meaning. G. Turgenev can rightly be called the representative and singer of the morality and philosophy that has dominated our educated society in the last twenty years. He quickly guessed new needs, new ideas introduced into the public consciousness, and in his works he usually drew (as much as circumstances allowed) attention to the issue that was on the agenda and was already vaguely beginning to worry society. We hope on another occasion to trace the entire literary activity of Mr. Turgenev and therefore now we will not dwell on this. Let’s just say that this author’s instinct for the living strings of society, this ability to immediately respond to every noble thought and honest feeling that is just beginning to penetrate into consciousness the best people , we attribute a significant share of the success that Mr. Turgenev constantly enjoyed among the Russian public. Of course, and stormy, impetuous force, but on the contrary - softness and some kind of poetic moderation serve as characteristic features of his talent. Therefore, we believe that he could not arouse the general sympathy of the public if he dealt with issues and needs that were completely alien to his readers or had not yet been aroused in society. Some would have noticed the charm of the poetic descriptions in his stories, the subtlety and depth in the outlines of various faces and positions, but, without any doubt, this would not have been enough to make lasting success and fame for the writer. Without a living attitude towards modernity, everyone, even the most sympathetic and talented narrator, must suffer the fate of Mr. Fet, who was once praised, but from whom now only a dozen amateurs remember the top ten best poems. A lively attitude towards modernity saved Mr. Turgenev and strengthened his constant success among the reading public. Some thoughtful critic even once reproached Mr. Turgenev for the fact that his activities so strongly reflected “all the fluctuations of social thought” 2 . But, despite this, we see here precisely the most vital side of Mr. Turgenev’s talent, and with this side we explain why each of his works has been met with such sympathy, almost with enthusiasm, until now. ever. Until now, Mr. Turgenev’s path, in accordance with the path of development of our society, has been quite clearly outlined in one direction. He proceeded from the sphere of higher ideas and theoretical aspirations and was directed to bring these ideas into aspirations into crude and vulgar reality, which had deviated far from them. The preparations for the struggle and the suffering of the hero, who worked for the victory of his principles, and his fall before the overwhelming force of human vulgarity - were usually the interest of Mr. Turgenev’s stories. Of course, the very foundations of the struggle, that is, ideas and aspirations, changed in each work or, with the passage of time and circumstances, were expressed more definitely and sharply. Thus, the extra person was replaced by Pasynkov, Pasynkov by Rudin, Rudin by Lavretsky. Each of these faces was bolder and fuller than the previous ones, but the essence, the basis of their character and their entire existence was the same. They were introducers of new ideas into a well-known circle, educators, propagandists - at least for one female soul, and propagandists. For this they were very praised, and indeed - at one time they were apparently very needed, and their work was very difficult, honorable and beneficial. It was not for nothing that everyone greeted them with such love, so sympathized with their mental suffering, and so regretted their fruitless efforts. It is not for nothing that no one then thought to notice that all these gentlemen were excellent, noble, intelligent, but, in essence, idle people. Drawing their images in different positions and collisions, Mr. Turgenev himself usually treated them with touching sympathy, with heartache for their suffering, and constantly aroused the same feeling among the mass of readers. When one motive for this struggle and suffering began to seem insufficient, when one trait of nobility and sublimity of character began to seem to be covered with some vulgarity, Mr. Turgenev knew how to find other motives, other traits, and again fell into the very heart of the reader, and again aroused to himself and enthusiastic sympathy for my heroes. The item seemed inexhaustible. But recently, in our society, quite noticeable demands have emerged that are completely different from those that brought Rudin and all his brethren to life. In relation to these individuals in terms of the educated majority, what happened was . The question was no longer about the modification of one or another motive, one or another beginning of their aspirations, but about the very essence of their activity. During that period of time, while all these enlightened champions of truth and goodness, eloquent sufferers of lofty convictions, were depicted before us, new people grew up for whom love of truth and honesty of aspirations are no longer a novelty. From childhood, inconspicuously and constantly, they were imbued with those concepts and aspirations for which previously the best people had to fight, doubt and suffer in adulthood (We were once reproached for being partial to the younger generation and pointed out the vulgarity and emptiness to which it indulges in Most of our representatives But we never thought of defending all young people indiscriminately, and this would not be consistent with our goal. Vulgarity and emptiness constitute the heritage of all times and all ages. the best, and not about the crowd, since Rudin and all the people of his caliber did not belong to the crowd, but to the best people of their time. However, we will not be wrong if we say that in the mass of society the level of education has recently increased. still risen.) Therefore, the very nature of education in today’s young society has taken on a different color. Those concepts and aspirations that previously gave the title of an advanced person are now considered the first and necessary accessory of the most ordinary education. From a high school student, from a mediocre cadet, even sometimes from a decent seminarian, you will now hear the expression of such convictions for which in the past, for example, Belinsky had to argue and get excited. And the high school student or cadet expresses these concepts - so difficult, acquired in battle before - completely calmly, without any excitement or self-satisfaction, as a thing that cannot be otherwise, and is even unthinkable otherwise. It is clear that in this state of affairs the former sowers of good, people fundamental change hardened, lose a significant share of their previous credit. They are respected like old mentors; but rarely does anyone, having entered his mind, be disposed to listen again to those lessons that were received with such greed before, in the age of childhood and initial development. Something else is needed, we need to go further (Against this idea, apparently, can be evidenced by the extraordinary success with which editions of the works of some of our writers of the forties are encountered. A particularly striking example is Belinsky, whose works were quickly sold out, they say, in the amount of 12,000 copies. But, in our opinion, this very fact serves as the best confirmation of our thought. Belinsky was the most advanced, none of his peers went further than him, and where 12,000 copies of Belinsky were snapped up in a few months, Rudin simply had to make them. nothing. Belinsky’s success proves not at all that his ideas are still new to our society and require great efforts to spread, but precisely that they are now dear and sacred to the majority and that their preaching no longer requires heroism from new leaders. , no special talents.). Thus, after a period Rudinsky awareness known ideas and aspirations should appear in society during their thinking and talking must be followed by action. The question now is: what has our society been doing in the last 20-30 years? Nothing for now. It studied, developed, listened to the Rudins, sympathized with their failures in the noble struggle for convictions, prepared for action, but did nothing... So much beauty had accumulated in the head and heart; in the existing order of affairs, so many absurd and dishonest things have been noticed; the mass of people “conscious of themselves above the surrounding reality” is growing every year - so that soon, perhaps, everyone will be above reality... It seems there is nothing to wish for us to continue forever to walk this tedious path of discord, doubt and abstract sorrows and consolations. It seems clear that what we now need is not people who would “elevate us above the surrounding reality” even more, but people who would raise—or we were taught to raise—reality itself to the level of those reasonable demands that we have already recognized . In a word, we need people of action, and not of abstract, always a little epicurean, reasoning. The awareness of this, although vaguely, was already expressed in many with the appearance of the “Noble Nest”. Mr. Turgenev's talent, together with his faithful tact to reality, brought him out of a difficult situation with triumph this time. He knew how to stage Lavretsky in such a way that it would be awkward to mock him, although he belongs to the same family of idle types whom we look at with a grin. The drama of his situation no longer lies in the struggle with his own powerlessness, but in the clash with such concepts and morals, with which the struggle should really frighten even an energetic and courageous person. He is married and has deserted his wife; but he fell in love with a pure, bright being, brought up in such concepts in which love for there is a terrible crime. Meanwhile, she loves him too, and his claims can constantly and terribly torment her heart and conscience. You will inevitably think bitterly and heavily about such a situation, and we remember how painfully our hearts sank when Lavretsky, saying goodbye to Liza, said to her: “Oh, Liza, Liza! How happy we could be!” - and when she, already a humble nun at heart, answered: “You yourself see that happiness depends not on us, but on God,” and he began: “Yes, because you...”, and did not finish. .. Readers and critics of The Noble Nest, I remember, admired many other things in this novel. But for us, his most significant interest lies in this tragic collision of Lavretsky, whose passivity in this particular case we cannot but excuse. Here Lavretsky, as if betraying one of the generic traits of his type, is almost not even a propagandist. Beginning with his first meeting with Liza, when she was going to mass, throughout the novel he timidly bows before the inviolability of her concepts and never once dares to approach her with cold reassurances. But this, of course, is because here propaganda would be the very thing that Lavretsky, like all his brothers, is afraid of. With all this, it seems to us (at least it seemed when reading the novel) that the very position of Lavretsky, the very collision chosen by Mr. Turgenev and so familiar to Russian life, should serve as strong propaganda and lead each reader to a series of thoughts about the significance of the whole huge section concepts that govern our lives. Now, according to various printed and verbal reviews, we know that we were not entirely right: the meaning of Lavretsky’s position was understood differently or was not at all clear to many readers. But that there was something legitimately tragic in it, and not illusory, was understood, and this, together with the merits of the performance, attracted the unanimous, enthusiastic participation of the entire reading Russian public to “The Noble Nest.” Having read Oblomov, the public understood his relationship with married man "interesting personalities" and realized that these people are now really superfluous and that they are of exactly the same use as the kindest Ilya Ilyich. "What will Mr. Turgenev create now?" - we thought and with great curiosity began to read "On the Eve" The instinct of the present moment did not deceive the author this time, realizing that the previous heroes had already done their job and could not arouse the same sympathy in the best part of our society, he decided to leave them and, having sensed in several fragmentary manifestations the spirit of new demands of life, he tried. take the road along which the advanced movement of the present time is taking place... In Mr. Turgenev’s new story we encounter other provisions, other types than those we are accustomed to in his works of the previous period. The social need for action, living action, the beginning of contempt for the dead. , abstract principles and passive virtues were expressed in the entire structure of the new story. Without a doubt, everyone who reads our article has now already read “On the Eve”. Therefore, instead of telling the content of the story, we will present only a short sketch of its main characters. She became on a level with her elders, making them defendants before her. And at the same time, her thoughts were not cold, her whole soul merged with them, because it was about people too close, too dear to her, about relationships with which the most sacred feelings, the most living interests of the girl were connected. That is why her thoughts were directly reflected in her disposition of heart: from adoration of her father, she moved on to passionate attachment to her mother, in whom she began to see an oppressed, suffering creature. But in this love for the mother there was nothing hostile to the father, who was neither a villain, nor a positive fool, nor a domestic tyrant. He was just a very ordinary mediocrity, and Elena lost interest in him, instinctively, and then, perhaps consciously, deciding that there was nothing to love him for. Yes, she soon saw the same mediocrity in her mother, and in her heart, instead of passionate love and respect, only a feeling of regret and condescension remained. G. Turgenev very successfully outlined her relationship with her mother, saying that she “treated her mother like a sick grandmother.” The mother admitted that she was inferior to her daughter; the father, as soon as his daughter began to outgrow him mentally, which was very easy, lost interest in her, decided that she was strange, and abandoned her. for all of God's sakeOle, and she herself dreamed of how she would put on the bag and run away with Katya. Katya soon died, but meeting her could not help but leave sharp marks on Elena’s character. It added another new side to her pure, humane, compassionate dispositions: it inspired in her that contempt, or at least that strict indifference to unnecessary excesses rich life, which always penetrates the soul of a not entirely spoiled person due to helpless poverty. Soon Elena’s whole soul was aflame with a thirst for active good, and this thirst began to be satisfied for the first time by the usual acts of mercy that were possible for Elena. “The poor, the hungry, the sick occupied her, worried her, tormented her; she saw them in her dreams, asked all her friends about them.” Even “all the oppressed animals, thin yard dogs, kittens condemned to death, sparrows that fell from the nest, even insects and reptiles found patronage and protection in Elena: she herself fed them, did not disdain them.” Her father called all this vulgar tenderness; but Elena was not sentimental, because sentimentality is precisely characterized by an excess of feelings and words with a complete lack of active love, and Elena's feelings constantly sought to manifest themselves in action. She did not tolerate empty caresses and tenderness and generally did not attach importance to words without action and respected only practically useful activities. She didn’t even like poetry, she didn’t even know much about art. But the active aspirations of the soul mature and grow stronger only through spacious and free activity. You need to try your strength several times, experience failures and collisions, find out what different efforts cost and how different obstacles are overcome - in order to acquire the courage and determination necessary for an active struggle, in order to know the extent of your strengths and be able to find them. corresponding work, Elena, with all the freedom of her development, could not find enough funds to actively exercise her strength and satisfy her aspirations. No one stopped her from doing what she wanted; but there was nothing to do. She was not constrained by the pedantry of systematic teaching, and therefore she managed to be educated without accepting many prejudices inseparable from systems, courses and, in general, from the routine of education. She read a lot and with participation; but reading alone could not satisfy her; it had only the influence that the rational side developed in Elena more strongly than others and mental demands began to overpower even the living aspirations of the heart. Giving alms, caring for puppies and kittens, protecting a fly from a spider - also could not satisfy her: when she became bigger and wiser, she could not help but see the poverty of this activity; and besides, these activities required very little effort from her and could not fill her existence. She needed something more, something higher; but she didn’t know what, and even if she knew, she didn’t know how to get down to business. Because of this, she was constantly in some kind of agitation, still waiting and looking for something; This is why her appearance took on such a special character. "In her whole being, in her facial expression, attentive and a little timid, in a clear but changeable gaze, in a smile, as iftensen Noah, in the voice quiet and uneven, there was something nervous, electric, something It is clear that she is still in vague doubt about herself, she has not yet defined her role. She has realized what she does not need, and looks proudly and independently at the usual surroundings of her life; but what she needs, and most importantly - what to do to achieve what she needs - she does not yet know, and therefore her whole being is tense, uneven, impetuous. She is still waiting, she is still living on the eve of something... She is ready for the most lively, energetic activity, but she does not dare to start the task on her own, alone. This timidity, this practical passivity of the heroine, with a wealth of internal strength and a languid thirst for activity, involuntarily strikes us in Elena’s very face, makes us see something unfinished. But in this unfinished personality, in the lack of a practical role, we see a living connection between the heroine of Mr. Turgenev and our entire educated society. By the way Elena’s character is conceived, at its core she represents an exceptional phenomenon, and if in fact she were everywhere an exponent of her views and aspirations, she would turn out to be alien to Russian society and would not have the same meaning for us as it does now . She would be a made-up face, a plant unsuccessfully transplanted onto our soil from somewhere else. But a true sense of reality did not allow Mr. Turgenev to give his heroine full compliance with its theoretical concepts and inner impulses of the soul. Our social life does not yet provide the writer with materials for this. In our entire society, what is now noticeable is only a newly awakened desire to get down to real business, an awareness of the vulgarity of various beautiful toys, sublime reasoning and immobile forms with which we have amused and fooled ourselves for so long. But we still haven’t left the sphere in which we could sleep so peacefully, and we don’t really know where the exit is; and if anyone finds out, they are still afraid to open it. This difficult, painful transitional state of society necessarily puts its stamp on the work of art that comes out of its midst. In society there may be individual strong natures, individuals may achieve high moral development; Such personalities appear in literary works as well. But all this remains only in the sketch of the person’s nature, and is not transferred to life; supposed to be possible, but not actually done. In Olga "Oblomova" we saw an ideal woman, far removed in her development from the rest of society; but where is its practical activity? She is capable, it seems, of creating a new life, but meanwhile she lives in the same vulgarity as all her friends, because she has nowhere to escape from this vulgarity. She likes Stolz as an energetic, active person; and yet he, with all the skill of the author of “Oblomov” in depicting characters, appears before us only with his abilities and does not allow us to see how he uses them; he has no ground under his feet and floats in front of us as if in some kind of fog. Now in Turgenev’s Elena we see a new attempt to create an energetic, active character and we cannot say that the author failed in depicting the character itself. If it was rare for anyone to meet women like Elena, then, of course, many had to notice in the most ordinary women the germs of certain essential traits of her character, the possibility of developing many of her aspirations. How perfect face , composed of the best elements developing in our society, Elena is understandable and close to us. Her very aspirations are defined very clearly for us; Elena seems to serve as an answer to the questions and doubts of Olga, who, having lived with Stolz, languishes and yearns and cannot give herself an account of what. In the image of Elena, the reason for this melancholy is explained, which inevitably affects every decent Russian person, no matter how good his own circumstances are. Elena longs for active good, she is looking for opportunities to create happiness around herself, because she does not understand the possibility of not only happiness, but even her own peace of mind, if she is surrounded by grief, misfortune, poverty and humiliation of her neighbors. And they, of course, left without making a single energetic attempt to correct this vulgar environment, and their removal was considered the only honest way out of their situation, and was glorified as a feat. Naturally, with such examples and concepts in mind, the author could not better illuminate Elena’s home life than by placing it completely apart from this life. However, as we said, Elena’s powerlessness is given a special motive in the story, stemming from her feminine, humane feelings: she is afraid of all sorts of clashes - not for lack of courage, but for fear of causing insult and harm to someone. Having never experienced a full, active life, she still imagines that her ideals can be achieved without struggle, without harm to anyone. After one incident (when Insarov heroically threw a drunken German into the water), she wrote in her diary: “Yes, you can’t joke with him, and he knows how to intercede. But why this anger, these trembling lips, this poison in his eyes? Or , maybe there’s no other way? You can’t be a man, a fighter and remain meek and soft?” This simple thought came to her mind only now, and even then in the form of a question that she still does not resolve. It is in this uncertainty, in this inaction with continuous agonizing expectation of something, that Elena lives until the twentieth year of her life. At times it is very difficult for her; she realizes that her strength is wasted, that her life is empty; she says to herself: “If only I could become a maid somewhere, really; it would be easier for me.” This difficult disposition is increased in her by the fact that she does not find a response to her feelings in anyone, does not see support for herself in anyone. “Sometimes it seems to her that she wants something that no one wants, that no one thinks about in the whole of Russia”... She becomes scared, and the need for sympathy develops stronger, and she tensely and anxiously waits for another soul who would knew how to understand her, respond to her holy feelings, help her, teach her what to do. There was a desire in her to give herself up to someone, to merge her being with someone, and even this independence with which she stood so alone in the circle of people close to her became unpleasant to her. “From the age of sixteen, she lived her own life, but a lonely life. Her soul flared up and went out alone, she fought like a bird in a cage, but there was no cage; no one constrained her; no one restrained her, but she tore and languished. She sometimes she didn’t understand herself, she was even afraid of herself. Everything that surrounded her seemed to her either meaningless or incomprehensible. “How to live without love, and there is no one to love,” she thought, and she became afraid from these thoughts, from these sensations. arttenseness of this nature, I saw that here everything depends on the moment, there is nothing permanent and reliable, the whole organism is made up of contradictions: laziness drowns out abilities, and wasted time then causes fruitless repentance, raises bile, arouses self-contempt, which in turn serves as a consolation in failures and makes you proud and admire yourself. Elena understood all this instinctively, without severe pangs of bewilderment, and therefore her decision regarding Shubin was completely calm and good-natured. “You imagine that everything about me is feigned; you don’t believe my repentance, you don’t believe that I can sincerely cry!” - Shubin once says to her in a desperate impulse. And she doesn’t answer: “I don’t believe it,” but says simply: “No, Pavel Yakovlich, I believe in your repentance, and I believe in your tears, but it seems to me that your very repentance amuses you, and your tears too.” Shubin trembled at this simple sentence, which really should have pierced his heart deeply. He himself never imagined that his impulses, contradictions, suffering, throwing from side to side could be understood and explained so simply and correctly. With this explanation, it even stops happening" interesting person"And indeed, as soon as Elena formed an opinion about him, he no longer interests her. She doesn’t care whether he’s here or not, remembers her or forgot, loves her or hates her; she has nothing in common with him, although she is not averse to sincerely praising him if he does something worthy of his talent... The other one begins to occupy her thoughts in a completely different way; he is clumsy, old-fashioned, his face is ugly and even somewhat funny, but he expresses a habit of thinking and kindness. In addition, according to the author, some "a stamp of decency was noticeable throughout his clumsy being." This is Andrei Petrovich Bersenev, a close friend of Shubin. He is a philosopher, scientist, reads the history of the Hohenstaufens and other German books and is filled with modesty and selflessness. To Shubin's cries: "We need happiness, happiness! We will win happiness for ourselves!" - he objects incredulously: "As if there is nothing higher than happiness?" - and then the following conversation takes place between them: For example? - asked Shubin and stopped. - Yes, for example, you and I , as you say, we are young, we are good people, let’s say each of us wants happiness for ourselves, but is this word “happiness” that would unite, ignite us both, force us to shake hands with each other? I want to say, isn’t this a word that separates? - Do you know words that connect? - Yes, and you know them too. - Well, what kind of words are they? art, since you are an artist; homeland, science, freedom, justice. “And love?” asked Shubin. “And love is a connecting word; but not the love that you crave now: not love-pleasure, love.” -victim." Shubin frowned. “It’s good for the Germans; I want to be number one.” “Number one,” repeated Bersenev. “But it seems to me that putting myself number two is the whole purpose of our life.” . He, in love with Elena, becomes a mediator between her and Insarov, whom she fell in love with, generously helps them, looks after Insarov during his illness, gives up his happiness in favor of a friend, although not without a constriction of heart, and not even without a murmur. His heart is kind and loving, but from everything it is clear that he will always do good not so much out of the desire of his heart, but because necessary to do good. He finds that he must sacrifice his happiness for his homeland, science, etc., and by this he condemns himself to be an eternal slave and martyr of the idea. He separates his happiness, for example, from his homeland; he, a poor man, does not know how to rise to the point of understanding the good of his homeland inseparably from his own happiness and so as not to understand happiness for himself otherwise than with the prosperity of his homeland. On the contrary, he seems to be afraid that his personal happiness will interfere with the good of his homeland, the triumph of justice, the success of science, etc. That is why he is afraid to wish for happiness for himself and, out of the nobility of his principles, decides to sacrifice it for the ideas he has designated, considering this, of course, a big favor on my part. It is clear that such a person is only capable of passive nobility. But it is not for him to merge his soul with some great cause, it is not for him to forget the whole world for his beloved thought, it is not for him to be inflamed by it and fight for it, as for his joy, his life, for his happiness... He does this; what duty tells him, he strives for what he recognizes as fair in principle; but his actions are sluggish, cold, uncertain, because he constantly doubts his abilities. He completed his course at the university with flying colors, loves science, studies constantly and wants to be a professor: it seems, what could be simpler? But when Elena asks him about the professorship, he considers it necessary to make a reservation with commendable modesty: “Of course, I know very well All, what do I lack to be worthy of such a high... I want to say that I am too little prepared; but I hope to get permission to go abroad "... Exactly the introduction to an academic speech: "I hope, mm. gg., that you will kindly excuse the dryness and pallor of my presentation" and so on... Meanwhile, the professorship about which Bersenev speaks so much is his cherished dream! When Elena asked whether he would be completely satisfied with his position if he received the department, - he answers: “Quite, Elena Nikolaevna, completely. What better calling could there be? Think about following in the footsteps of Timofey Nikolaevich... 3 Just the thought of such activity fills me with joy and embarrassment... yes, embarrassment which... which comes from the consciousness of my small powers." The same consciousness of his small powers makes him stubbornly not believing that Elena fell in love with him, and then lamenting that she has become indifferent to him. This same consciousness is visible when he recommends his friend Insarov, among other things, because he does not borrow money. The same consciousness is reflected. even his thoughts about nature. He says that nature arouses in him some kind of anxiety, anxiety, even sadness, and asks Shubin: “What does this mean? Do we become more conscious in front of her, in her face, of all our incompleteness, our obscurity, or, moreover, of the satisfaction with which she is content, but she does not have the other, that is, I want to say, what we need? “Most of Bersenev’s reasoning is of this empty romantic kind. And yet in one place in the story it is mentioned that he was talking about Feuerbach: it would be interesting to hear what he says about Feuerbach!.. So, Bersenev is a very good Russian a nobleman, brought up in the beginnings of duty and then embarking on learning and philosophy, he is much more efficient and reliable than Shubin, and if he is led along any path, he will go willingly and directly. But he himself cannot lead not only others, but even. and himself: he does not have initiative in nature, and he did not have time to acquire it either in his upbringing or in his subsequent life. Elena at first felt sympathy for him because he is kind and talks about his business. She is even ashamed of his own affairs. ignorance, on the occasion that he keeps bringing her books that she can’t read. But she cannot become completely attached to him, give him her soul, her destiny: even before she saw Insarov, she instinctively understood that Bersenev was not what she needed. And indeed, it can be said with certainty that Bersenev would have been afraid if Elena had decided to force herself on his neck, and would certainly have run away under various, very plausible pretexts. However, in the solitude in which Elena lived, she was carried away for a minute by Bersenev and was already asking herself: was he not the one whom her soul had been waiting for so long and so greedily, who was supposed to lead her out of all her perplexities and show her the path of activity? But Bersenev himself brought Insarov to her, and the charm disappeared... Strictly speaking, there is nothing extraordinary about Insarov. Bersenev and Shubin, and Elena herself, and, finally, even the author of the story characterize him with increasingly negative qualities. He never lies, does not change his word, does not borrow money, does not like to talk about his exploits, does not delay the execution of a decision, his word does not diverge from deeds, etc. In a word, he does not have those traits for which he should Every person who claims to consider himself decent reproaches himself bitterly. But, in addition, he is a Bulgarian who harbors in his soul a passionate desire to liberate his homeland, and he devotes himself entirely to this thought, openly and confidently, it is the ultimate goal of his life. He does not think of putting his personal good in opposition to this end; such a thought, so natural in the Russian learned nobleman Bersenev, cannot even occur to a simple Bulgarian. On the contrary, he is concerned about the freedom of his homeland because he sees in this his personal peace, the happiness of his entire life; he would have left his enslaved homeland alone if only he could find satisfaction in something else. But he cannot understand himself separately from his homeland. “How can one be content and happy when one’s fellow countrymen suffer?” he thinks. “How can a person calm down while his homeland is enslaved and oppressed? And what activity can be pleasant for him if it does not lead to relief?” the fate of the poor fellow countrymen?" Thus, he does his intimate work completely calmly, without pretense or fanfare, as simply as he eats and drinks. For now, he still has to work little to directly implement his idea; but what to do? He now has to eat poorly and little, and sometimes even goes hungry; but still the food, although meager, constitutes necessary condition his existence. So is the liberation of his homeland: he studies at Moscow University in order to be fully educated and get closer to the Russians, and during the course of the story he is content for the time being with translating Bulgarian songs into Russian, compiling a Bulgarian grammar for Russians and Russian for Bulgarians, corresponding with his fellow countrymen and intends to go home - to prepare an uprising, during the first outbreak of the Eastern War (the story takes place in 1853). Of course, this is meager food for Insarov’s active patriotism; but he does not yet consider his stay in Moscow to be real life; he does not consider his weak activity satisfactory even for his personal feelings. He also lives the day before great day of freedom, on which his being will be illuminated with the consciousness of happiness, life will be filled and will be real life. He is looking forward to this day like a holiday, and that is why it does not occur to him to doubt himself and coldly calculate and weigh exactly how much he can do and what great man he will manage to equal. Whether he will be Timofey Nikolaich or Ivan Ivanovich, he absolutely does not care about that; whether he will have to be number one or number two, he doesn’t even think about it. He will do what his nature leads him to do; if his nature is such that there are no others better, he will become number one, he will go at the head; if there are people stronger and braver than him, he will follow them, and in both cases he will remain unchanged and true to himself. Where to stand and where to reach - this will be determined by circumstances: but he wants to go, he cannot go , not because he was afraid of breaking any duty, but because he would die if he could not move. This is a huge difference between him and Bersenev. Bersenev is also capable of sacrifices and exploits; but at the same time he looks like a generous girl who, in order to save her father, decides on a hated marriage. With hidden pain and heavy resignation to fate, she awaits her wedding day and would be glad if something interfered with her. Insarov, on the contrary, awaits his exploits, the onset of his selfless activity, passionately and impatiently, like a young man in love awaits his wedding day with his beloved girl. Only fear worries him: lest something upset him or delay the desired moment. Insarov’s love for the freedom of his homeland is not in his mind, not in his heart, not in his imagination: it is in his entire body, and no matter what enters him, everything is transformed by the power of this feeling, submits to it, merges with it. That is why, with all the ordinariness of his abilities, with the howling lack of brilliance in his nature, he stands immeasurably higher, affects Elena incomparably stronger and more charming than the brilliant Shubin and the smart Bersenev, although both of them are also noble people that loving. Elena makes a very apt remark about Bersenev in her diary (to which the author did not spare his thoughtfulness and wit): “Andrei Petrovich, maybe more learned than him (Insarov), maybe even smarter... But, I don’t know, -- he’s so small in front of him.” Should I tell the story of Edena’s rapprochement with Insarov and their love? It doesn't seem necessary. Our readers probably remember this story well; but you can’t tell this. We are afraid to touch this tender poetic creature with our cold and hard hand; With a dry and insensitive retelling, we are afraid to even profane the reader’s feelings, which are certainly aroused by the poetry of Turgenev’s story. The singer of pure, ideal female love, Mr. Turgenev looks so deeply into the young, virgin soul, embraces it so completely and with such inspired trepidation, with such fervor of love, paints her best moments that we can feel in his story - and hesitation virgin breast, and a quiet sigh, and a moistened gaze, every beat of an excited heart is heard, and our own heart swells and sank from a languid feeling, and blessed tears more than once come to the eyes, and something breaks from the chest - as if we meet with an old friend after a long separation, or we are returning from a foreign land to our native places. And this feeling is sad and cheerful: there are bright memories of childhood, irrevocably lost, there are proud and joyful hopes of youth, there are ideal, friendly dreams of a pure and powerful imagination, not yet humbled, not humiliated by the trials of everyday experience. All this has passed and will not happen again; but the person has not yet disappeared, who, even in memory, can return to these bright dreams, to this pure, infantile rapture of life, to these ideal, majestic plans - and then shudder, when looking at the dirt, vulgarity and pettiness in which he passes his present life. And it is good for him who knows how to awaken such memories in others, to evoke such a mood of the soul... Mr. Turgenev’s talent has always been strong in this aspect, his stories constantly made such a pure impression with their general structure, and this, of course, lies their essential meaning for society. This meaning is not alien to “On the Eve” in the depiction of Elena’s love. We are confident that readers, even without us, will be able to appreciate all the charm of those passionate, tender and languid scenes, those subtle and deep psychological details that depict the love of Elena and Insarov from beginning to end. Instead of any story, we will recall only Elena’s diary, her expectation when Insarov was supposed to come to say goodbye, the scene in the chapel, Elena’s return home after this scene, her three visits to Insarov, especially the last one (There are people whose imagination is so greasy and corrupted, that in this lovely, pure and deeply moral scene of the complete, passionate fusion of two loving beings they will see only material for voluptuous ideas. Judging everyone by themselves, they will even cry out that this scene can have a bad influence on morality, for it arouses impure thoughts. But let them cry out: after all, there are people who, even at the sight of the Venus de Milo, feel only sensual irritation and, when looking at the Madonna, say with a priapic smile: “And she... is... suitable for that”... But not for these people. - art and poetry, but true morality is not for them. Everything in them is transformed into something disgustingly unclean. But let an innocent, pure-hearted girl read these same scenes, and, believe me, there will be nothing but the brightest and brightest. noble thoughts, she will not take away from this reading.), then farewell to her mother, to her homeland, departure, finally last walk her and Insarov along the Canal Grande, listening to La Traviata and returning. This last image had a particularly strong effect on us with its stern truth and infinitely sad charm; for us this is the most sincere, most sympathetic place in the entire story. Leaving the readers themselves to enjoy the recollection of the entire development of the story, we will turn again to the character of Insarov or, better, to the attitude in which he stands towards the Russian society around him. We have already seen that here he hardly acts to achieve his main goal; only once do we see that he goes 60 miles away to reconcile quarreling fellow countrymen who lived in Troitsky Posad, and at the end of his stay in Moscow it is mentioned that he drove around the city and secretly saw different people. Yes, of course, he had nothing to do while living in Moscow; for real work he needed to go to Bulgaria. And he went there, but on the road death overtook him, and we never see his activities in the story. From this it is clear that the essence of the story does not at all consist in presenting to us a model of civil, that is, public valor, as some want to believe. There is no reproach here for the Russian younger generation, no indication of what a civic hero should be. If this were part of the author’s plan, then he would have to put his hero face to face with the matter itself - with parties, with the people, with a foreign government, with his like-minded people, with enemy force... But our author did not want to , yes, as far as we can judge from all his previous works, he would not be able to write a heroic epic. His work is completely different: from the entire “Iliad” and “Odyssey” he appropriates only the story of Ulysses’ stay on the island of Calypsa and beyond. This does not extend. Having given us to understand and feel what Insarov is and what environment he found himself in, Mr. Turgenev gives himself entirely to the image of how Insarov loves and how he is loved Where love must finally give way to living civic activity. he ends the life of his hero and ends the story. What, then, is the meaning of the appearance. in this story? What does Bulgarian mean here, why not Russian? Are there no such natures among Russians anymore, aren’t Russians capable of loving passionately and decisively, aren’t they capable of headlong marrying for love? Or is it just a whim of the author’s imagination, and there is no need to find any special meaning in it? “I took a Bulgarian, they say, and that’s it; but I could have taken a gypsy and a Chinese, perhaps”... The answer to these questions depends on one’s view of the whole meaning of the story. It seems to us that the Bulgarians could indeed be replaced here, perhaps, by another nationality - a Serb, a Czech, an Italian, a Hungarian - but not a Pole or a Russian 4. Why not a Pole, of course, there can be no question; and why not the Russians - this is the whole question, and we will try to answer it as best we can. The fact is that in “On the Eve” the main person is Elena. It reflected that vague longing for something, that almost unconscious, but irresistible need for a new life, new people, which now covers all of Russian society, and not even just the so-called educated one. Elena so clearly reflected the best aspirations of our, and in those around her, the whole inconsistency of the usual order of the same life stands out so clearly that one involuntarily takes the desire to draw an allegorical parallel. Here everything would have been in place: not the evil, but empty and stupidly self-important Stakhov, in conjunction with Anna Vasilievna, whom Shubin calls a chicken, and the German companion with whom Elena is so cold, and the sleepy, but at times thoughtful Uvar Ivanovich, who is only concerned about the news of the counter-bombardon, and even the unseemly lackey who denounces Elena to his father when the whole matter is already over... But such parallels, which undoubtedly prove the playfulness of the imagination, become strained and funny when they go into great detail. Therefore, we will refrain from details and make only a few very general comments. Elena's development is not based on great learning, not on extensive life experience; the best, ideal side of her being revealed, grew and matured in her at the sight of the meek sadness of her dear face, at the sight of the poor, sick and oppressed whom she found and saw everywhere, even in her dreams. Is it not on similar impressions that all the best in Russian society grew and was brought up? Isn’t every truly decent person characterized by hatred of all violence, tyranny, oppression and a desire to help the weak and oppressed? We do not say: “by fighting in defense of the weak from the insults of the strong,” because this does not exist, but precisely desire, exactly like Elena's. We are also happy to do a good deed when it contains only a positive side, that is, it does not require any struggle, does not imply any outside opposition. We will give alms, perform a charity performance, even sacrifice part of our property in case of need; but only so that the matter is limited to this, so that we do not have to bother and struggle with various troubles because of some poor or offended person. “The desire for active good” is in us and there is strength; but fear, lack of self-confidence and, finally, ignorance: what to do? - we are constantly stopped, and we, without knowing how, suddenly find ourselves aloof from public life, cold and alien to its interests, just like Elena in her environment. Meanwhile still boils in our chests (we are talking about those who do not try to artificially drown out this desire), and we are all searching, thirsting, waiting... waiting for at least someone to explain to us what to do. With pain of bewilderment, almost with despair, Elena writes in her diary: “Oh, if only someone told me: this is what you should do! To be kind is not enough; to do good... yes, this is the main thing in life. How to do good? Which of the people in our society who are aware of a living heart within themselves has not painfully asked themselves this question? Who has not recognized as pitiful and insignificant all those forms of activity in which, to the best of his ability, his desire for good was manifested? Who hasn’t felt that there is something else, something higher, that we could even do, but we don’t know how to do it... And where is the resolution of doubts? We languidly, greedily look for it in the bright moments of our existence and do not find it anywhere. Everything around us, it seems to us, is either languishing in the same bewilderment as we are, or has destroyed the human image in itself and has narrowed itself to pursuing only its own petty, selfish, animal interests. And so, day after day, life passes until it dies in a person’s heart, and day after day a living person waits: will tomorrow be better, will tomorrow be resolved, will tomorrow someone who will tell us what to do will appear? good... This melancholy of waiting has been tormenting Russian society for a long time, and how many times have we been mistaken, like Elena, in thinking that the one we were waiting for had appeared, and then grew cold. Elena became passionately attached to Anna Vasilyevna; but Anna Vasilyevna turned out to be insignificant, characterless... She felt a disposition towards Shubin, just as our society at one time was carried away by artistry; but Shubin had no meaningful content, only sparkles and whims, and Elena had no time to admire toys in the midst of her quest. I got carried away for a moment by serious science in the person of Bersenev; but serious science turned out to be modest, doubtful, waiting for the first number to follow. And what Elena really needed was for a person to appear who was not numbered and not waiting for his own destination, but who independently and irresistibly strived for his goal and attracted others to it. This is how Insarov finally appeared before her, and in him she found the realization of her ideal, in him she saw the possibility of answering the question: how can she do good. “To liberate your homeland,” she says, “it’s scary to even utter these words - they are so great!” And she feels that the word of her heart has been found, that she is satisfied, that she cannot set herself a higher goal than this, and that she will have enough active content for her entire life, for her entire future, if only she follows this person. And she tries to peer into him, she wants to penetrate his soul, share his dreams, enter into the details of his plans. And in him there is only a constant, merged with him, the idea of the homeland and its freedom; and Elena is pleased, she likes in him this clarity and definiteness of aspirations, calmness and firmness of soul, the power of the plan itself, and she soon herself becomes an echo of the idea that animates him. “When he talks about his homeland,” she writes in her diary, “he grows and grows, and his face becomes prettier, and his voice is like steel, and then, it seems, there is no such person in the world, before whom would he look omitted. And he not only talks, he did and will do. I’ll ask him.” A few days later she writes again: “But it’s strange that until I was twenty, I didn’t love anyone! It seems that D. (I will call him D., I like this name: Dmitry) is so clear in his soul that he gave himself entirely to his work, to his dream. Why should he worry? Who gave himself all... all.. . all... grief is not enough for him, he is not responsible for anything. That wants." And, having understood this, she herself wants to merge with him so that not she wanted, but He And That, what animates him. And we understand her situation very well; We are confident that the whole of Russian society, although it will not yet be carried away, like her, by Insarov’s personality, will understand the possibility and naturalness of Elena’s feelings. We say: society will not get carried away on its own, and we base this assumption on the fact that this Insarov is still a stranger to us. Mr. Turgenev himself, who studied so well the best part tenseour society, did not find the opportunity to do itA shim. Not only did he take him out of Bulgaria, he did not bring this hero closer enough to us, even just as a person. This, if you want to look even at the literary side, is the main artistic flaw of the story. We understand one of the important reasons for it, independent of the author, and therefore we do not reproach Mr. Turgenev. But, nevertheless, the pallor of Insarov’s outlines is reflected in the very impression made by the story. The greatness and beauty of Insarov’s ideas are not presented to us with such force that we ourselves are imbued with them and exclaim in proud animation: we are following you! And yet this idea is so holy, so sublime... Much less humane, even simply false ideas, ardently expressed in artistic images, produced a feverish effect on society; The Karl Moors, Werthers, and Pechorins evoked a crowd of imitators. Insarov will not call them. It is true that it was surprising for him to come out completely with his idea, living in Moscow and doing nothing: after all, it’s not like practicing rhetorical rantings! But from the story we learn little about him as a person: his not available to us; It is closed to us what he does, what he thinks, what he hopes, what changes he experiences in his relationships, how he looks at the course of events, at the life rushing before his eyes. Even his love for Elena remains not fully revealed to us. We know that he loved her passionately; but how this feeling entered him, what attracted him to her, to what extent this feeling was when he noticed it and decided to leave - all these internal details and many others that Mr. knows how to draw so subtly, so poetically. Turgenev, remain obscure in Insarov’s personality. As a living image, as a real person, Insarov is extremely far from us. Elena could love him with all the strength of her soul, because she saw him in life, and not in a story, but for us he is close and dear only as a representative of an idea that strikes us, like Elena, with instant light and illuminates the darkness of our existence . That’s why we understand all the naturalness of Elena’s feelings for Insarov, and that’s why we ourselves, satisfied with his unwavering fidelity to the idea, do not notice, for the first time, that he appears before us only in pale and general outlines. And they also want him to be Russian! “No, he couldn’t be Russian,” Elena herself exclaims in response to the regret that appeared that he was not Russian. And indeed, there are no such Russians, there should not be and there cannot be, at least at the present time. We don’t know how new generations are developing and will develop, but those that we see now active did not develop at all in such a way that they could become like Insarov. The development of each individual person is influenced not only by his private relationships, but also by the entire social atmosphere in which he is destined to live. Some develop heroic tendencies, others peaceful inclinations; some irritate, others lull. Russian life has developed so well that everything in it evokes a calm and peaceful sleep, and every sleepless person seems, not without reason, restless and completely superfluous to society. Compare, in fact, the circumstances under which Insarov’s life begins and passes with the circumstances that greet the life of every Russian person. we own others, but no one owns us... In Bulgaria there are no public rights and guarantees. Insarov says to Elena: “If you knew what a blessed land ours is. And yet they are trampling it, they are tormenting it, they have taken everything from us, everything: our churches, our rights, our lands; the filthy Turks are driving us like a herd, they are slaughtering us. ..” Russia, on the contrary, is a well-organized state, there are wise laws in it that protect the rights of citizens and define their responsibilities, justice reigns in it, and beneficial publicity flourishes. Churches are not taken away from anyone, and faith is not hampered in any way, but on the contrary, they encourage the zeal of preachers in exposing the lost; Not only are rights and lands not taken away, but they are also granted to those who did not have them before; no one is driven as a herd. “In Bulgaria,” says Insarov, “the last man, the last beggar and I - we want the same thing: we all have the same goal.” There is no such monotony at all in Russian life, in which each class, even each circle, lives its own separate life, has its own special goals and aspirations, its own established purpose. With the existing social improvement in our country, everyone can only strengthen their own well-being, for which there is no need to unite with the whole nation in one common idea, as is the case in Bulgaria. Insarov was still a baby when the Turkish Agha kidnapped his mother and then stabbed him to death, and his father was shot because, wanting to take revenge on the Agha, he struck him with a dagger. When and which of the Russian people could encounter such impressions in life? Has anything like this ever been heard of in Russian soil? Of course, criminal offenses are possible everywhere, but in our country, if any yeahand kidnapped and killed or then killed another man’s wife, the husband would not have been allowed to take revenge, for we have laws that are equal for everyone and impartially punish the crime.In a word, Insarov absorbs with his mother’s milk hatred of his enslavers, dissatisfaction with the present order of things. He does not need to strain himself, he does not need to go through a long series of syllogisms to determine the direction of his activity. As soon as he is not lazy or a coward, he already knows what to do and how to behave; he has nowhere to throw himself away. Yes, and he has a task as Shubin says: “As soon as you kick out the Turks, it’s a great thing!” And Insarov knows, moreover, that he is right in his activities, not only before his own conscience, but also before the human court: his plans will find sympathy in every decent person. Now imagine something like this in Russian society: it’s inconceivable... In the Russian translation, Insarov will come out as nothing more than a robber, a representative of the “anti-social element”, about whom the Russian public knows very well from the eloquent studies of Mr. Solovyov, reported by the Russian messenger" 5. Who, one might ask, could love someone like that? What well-bred and intelligent girl would not run from him as fast as she could, shouting: quelle horreur! Our heroes, who take upon themselves the protection of the suffering, will drive them out of the world. It is, of course, noble and lofty; Is it possible to sympathize with these unreasonable people? And we are not talking about those cold servants of duty who act in this way simply out of duty, we mean Russian people who really sincerely sympathize with the oppressed and are even ready to fight to protect them. And these turn out to be useless and ridiculous, because they do not understand the general significance of the environment in which they operate. And how can they understand when they themselves are in it, when their tops stretch upward, but the roots are still attached to the same soil? They want to drive away the grief of their neighbors, but it depends on the structure of the environment in which both the grieving and the supposed comforters live. How can we be here? If you turn this whole environment upside down, you will also have to turn yourself around; Go ahead and sit in the empty box and try to turn it over with you. What effort this will require from you! - whereas, approaching from the side, you could handle this box with one push. Insarov takes advantage of the fact that he does not sit in a box; the oppressors of his fatherland are the Turks, with whom he has nothing in common; all he has to do is approach them and push them as far as he can. The Russian hero, who usually comes from an educated society, is himself vitally connected with what he must rebel against. He is in the same position as would be, for example, one of the sons of the Turkish aga, who decided to liberate Bulgaria from the Turks. It is difficult to even imagine such a phenomenon; but if it happened, then so that this son does not seem to us a stupid and funny fellow, it is necessary that he renounce everything that connected him with the Turks: - and from faith, and from nationality, and from the circle of relatives and friends , and from the everyday benefits of his position. One cannot but agree that this is terribly difficult and that such determination requires a slightly different development than what the son of a Turkish aga usually receives. Heroism is not much easier for a Russian person. This is why we have sympathetic, energetic natures and satisfy themselves with petty and unnecessary bravados, without achieving real, serious heroism, that is, before renouncing the whole mass of concepts and practical relations by which they are connected with the social environment. Their timidity in the face of the vast host of opposing forces is reflected even in their theoretical development: they are afraid or do not know how to get to the root and, thinking, for example, to punish evil, they only rush to some small manifestation of it and become terribly tired before they even have time to think about it. its source. They don’t want to raise their hands to the tree on which they themselves grew up; So they try to convince themselves and others that all the rottenness is only on the outside, that all they have to do is clean it off, and everything will be fine. Expel several bribe-takers from the service, place guardianship over several landowners' estates, expose a kisser who sold bad quality vodka in one tavern - then justice will reign, peasants throughout Russia will prosper, and farming will become an excellent thing for the people. Many people sincerely think so, and really spend all their strength on such feats, and for this they seriously consider themselves heroes. handy- go with him to the woods for the summer; arrived, saw what was going on there, and began to explain - both to his comrade, and his father, and even to the mayor and the peasants - about how it was illegal to drive peasants into corvée for more than three days, how it was impermissible to flog them without any trial and reprisals, how dishonorable it is to drag peasant women into a master's house at night, etc. It ended with the men who listened to him with sympathy being flogged, and the old master ordered him to lock up his horses and asked him not to appear in their area anymore if he wanted it's okay to stay. Having somehow spent the summer, our hero entered the university in the fall thanks to the fact that on the exam he came across all the questions that were not provocative, on which it was impossible to run wild and argue. He entered the medical faculty and studied really well; but in practical course When the professor explained his wisdom at the patient’s bedside, he could never resist cut off a retarded or charlatan professor; As soon as he lies something, he will go and prove to him that it is nonsense. As a result of such antics, our hero was not retained at the university, not sent abroad, but assigned to some distant hospital. Here, at first, he caught the caretaker and threatened to complain against him; then, another time, he caught it and complained, for which he received a reprimand from the head doctor; receiving a reprimand, he, of course, spoke very loudly and was soon transferred from the hospital... After that he got to see off some party; he began to make noise about the soldiers with the head of the party and with the official in charge of food supplies. Seeing that words did not help, he wrote a report that the soldiers were undernourished and underfed at the mercy of the official and that the head of the party condoned this. Upon arrival at the scene - investigation; They interrogate the soldiers, they say: they are satisfied; our hero becomes indignant, speaks insolently to the General Staff Doctor, and a month later is demoted to paramedic assistant. After spending two weeks in this position and unable to withstand the deliberately brutal treatment of him, he shot himself 6 . Isn't it true - an extraordinary phenomenon, a strong, impetuous nature? Meanwhile, look at what he is dying on. There is nothing in all his actions that does not constitute a direct duty of every on his place; and he needs, however, a lot of heroism, in order to act in this way, he needs a selfless determination to die for good. The question now is: if he already has this determination, then wouldn’t it be better to use it for a big cause, which would actually achieve something significantly useful? But the trouble is that he does not realize the need and possibility of such a thing and does not understand what surrounds him. He does not want to see mutual responsibility in everything that is done before his eyes, and imagines that every evil he notices is nothing more than an abuse of a wonderful institution, possible only as a rare exception. With such concepts, Russian heroes can only, of course, confine themselves to minuscule particulars, without thinking about the general, while Insarov, on the contrary, always subordinates the particular to the general, in the confidence that “even that will not go away.” So, in response to Elena’s question whether he took revenge on his father’s murderer, Insarov says: “I didn’t look for him. I didn’t look for him not because I couldn’t kill him - I would have killed him very calmly - but because there is no time for private revenge when it comes to the liberation of the people. One thing would interfere with the other. In due time, even that will not go away.” It is in this love for a common cause, in this presentiment of it, which gives the strength to calmly withstand individual insults, that lies the great superiority of the Bulgarian Insarov over all Russian heroes who have no trace of a common cause. That is why no one has that clarity, that integrity of views and actions that are so natural, even, for example, in Insarov. For him, the impressions of life that act on the heart and awaken its energy are constantly reinforced by the demands of reason, by all the theoretical education that he receives. With us it’s completely the opposite. One of our acquaintances, who holds progressive opinions and is also burning with a thirst for active good, but is the meekest and most harmless person in the world, this is what he told us about his development, in explanation of his current inactivity. All these discoveries were pleasing to me, and I greedily grabbed at them as the best solution to all my doubts. I decided to verify them with my inexperienced mind, but there was a lot I couldn’t do, and what turned out to be accessible turned out to be true. And so I trustingly and enthusiastically surrendered to the newly discovered system, in it I concluded all my aspirations, and at the age of twelve I was already a little philosopher and a terrible partisan of the rule of law. I came to the conclusion that every misfortune is the fault of man himself - either because he was not careful, because he was not careful, or because he did not want to be content with little, or because he was not imbued with sufficient respect for the law and the will of his elders. Actually, I still didn’t have a very good idea of the law, but it was personified for me in all authority and seniority. That is why during this period of my life I constantly stood up for teachers, bosses, etc. and was very loved by my superiors and senior classes. Once I was almost thrown out the window by my comrades: one teacher told the whole class: “You pigs!”; everyone became excited at the end of the class, and I began to defend the teacher and prove that he had honest man say it. Another time one of our comrades was expelled for being rude to his superiors; everyone felt sorry for him, because he was the best among us, but I argued that he fully deserved the punishment, and was very surprised how he, being such a smart boy, could not understand that obedience to elders is our first duty and the first condition of happiness . So every day I became stronger in my concepts of legality and little by little I got used to looking at most people only as instruments for executing higher orders. In this way I broke the living connection with the soul of man, I stopped worrying about the misfortunes of my brothers, I stopped looking for opportunities to alleviate them. “It’s our own fault,” I said to myself, and I even began to feel either anger or contempt for them, as for people who do not know how to calmly and peacefully enjoy the benefits that are offered to them through the power of public improvement. Everything that was good in my nature turned in the other direction - to maintaining the rights of our elders over us. I felt that this was self-sacrifice, a renunciation of my own independence, I was convinced that I was doing this for the common good, and I almost considered myself a hero. - knelt down; she became stubborn. Then I grabbed her by the arms, lifted her from her seat, then put my elbows on her shoulders and pressed down with all my might. The poor girl sank to her knees and squealed: her leg went crazy with this movement. I was very scared; but when my mother began to scold me for treating my sister this way, I very calmly tried to prove that she herself was to blame, that if she had immediately obeyed my order, then none of this would have happened. However, I was secretly tormented, especially since I loved my sister very much. At this time, the idea became clear to me that even elders can be wrong and do absurd things, and that one must respect the law itself, as it is, and not as it manifests itself in the interpretations of this or that person. Then I began to criticize the actions of individuals, and from conservative irresponsibility I quickly jumped into opposition legale (legal opposition (French).-- Ed. ). But for a long time I attributed everything bad only to private abuses and attacked them - not in the name of the urgent needs of society, not out of compassion for unfortunate brothers, but simply in the name of a positive law. At that time, of course, I would have passionately spoken against the cruel treatment of blacks, but, like a certain Moscow publicist, I would have wholeheartedly accused Brown, who decided to liberate blacks completely illegally 7 . However, I was still very young then (probably younger than the venerable publicist), my thought moved and wandered; I could not stop there, and, after many considerations, I finally came to the realization that laws can also be imperfect, that they have a relative, temporary and particular meaning and must be subject to change over time and according to the requirements of circumstances. But again, why did I reason like that? In the name of the highest, abstract law of justice, and not at all by instilling a living feeling of love for our fellow men, not at all by the consciousness of those direct, urgent needs that are indicated by the life going on before us. And what? So I took the last step: from the abstract law of justice, I moved on to the more real demand for human good; I finally brought all my doubts and speculations to one formula: man and his happiness. But this formula was in my soul even in childhood, before I began to study various sciences and write edifying copybooks. And, shall I say? - now I understand it better and can prove it more thoroughly; but then I felt her more strongly, she was more connected with my being, and even, it seems, I was ready to do more for her then than now. Now I try not to do anything that contradicts the law I have recognized, I try not to take away happiness from people; but I limit myself to this passive role. To rush in search of happiness, to bring it closer to people, to destroy everything that interferes with it - I could only do this if my childhood feelings and dreams had unhinderedly developed and strengthened. Meanwhile, they became deaf and died in me for fifteen years, and only now I return to them again and find them pale, skinny, weak. I still need to restore them before using them; and who knows whether it will be possible to restore?"... It seems to us that in this story there are features that are far from exceptional, but, on the contrary, that can serve as a general indication of the obstacles that Russian people encounter on the path of independent development. Not all with the same They are forcibly attached to the morality of the rules, but no one escapes its influence, and it has a paralyzing effect on everyone. To get rid of it, a person must lose a lot of strength and lose a lot of self-confidence during this continuous fuss with an ugly tangle of doubts; contradictions, concessions, twists, etc. Thus, whoever retains the strength for heroism among us has no need to be a hero, he does not see the real goal, does not know how to get down to business and therefore is only quixotic. And whoever understands what is needed and how it is needed has already put all of himself into this understanding, and does not know how to take a step in practical activities, and shuns any interference, like Elena, even in the home environment. Moreover, Elena is still bolder and freer, because only the general atmosphere of Russian life influenced her, but, as we have already said, the routine of school education and discipline did not leave its mark. modern society , are only just able to understand the thirst for active good that burns Elena, and can show her sympathy, but they will not be able to satisfy this thirst. And these are still advanced, we also call them “public figures.” Otherwise, most smart and impressionable people flee from civic virtues and devote themselves to various muses. Even if it were the same Shubin and Bersenev in “On the Eve”: glorious natures, both of them know how to appreciate Insarov, they even strive in their souls to follow him, if only they had a slightly different development and a different environment, they too would not sleep. But what should they do here, in this society? Rebuild it in your own way? Yes, they don’t have any harmony and they don’t have the strength. Fix some things in it, cut off and discard little by little the various squabbles of the social order? Isn’t it disgusting to pull out teeth from a dead person, and what will this lead to? Only heroes like Messrs. Panshin and Kurnatovsky are capable of this. "How she studied him!" - you think, perhaps at this moment. Yes - in order to describe it to you. And how can you not study your fiance! There is something iron in him... and stupid, and empty, at the same time - and honest; They say he is definitely very honest. You are also made of iron, but not like this one. He sat next to me at the table, Shubin sat opposite us. At first the conversation turned to some commercial enterprises; they say he knows a lot about them and almost quit his job to take over a large factory. I didn't guess! Then Shubin started talking about the theater: Mr. Kurnatovsky announced, and I must admit, without false modesty, that he knows nothing about art. This reminded me of you... but I thought: no, Dmitry and I still don’t understand art any other way. This one seemed to want to say: I don’t understand him, and it’s not necessary, but in a well-organized state it is allowed. To Petersburg and to comme il faut (secular decency (French).--Ed.) he, however, is rather indifferent; he once even called himself a proletarian. We, he says, are laborers. I thought: if Dmitry said this, I wouldn’t like it. Let this one talk to himself! Let him brag! He was very polite to me; but it still seemed to me that a very, very condescending boss was talking to me. When he wants to praise someone, he says that such and such there are rules-- it is his favorite word. He must be self-confident, hardworking, capable of self-sacrifice (you see, I am impartial), that is, sacrificing his benefits, but he is a great despot. The trouble is to fall into his hands! At the table they started talking about bribes... “I understand,” he said, “that in many cases the person taking the bribe is not to blame: he could not have done otherwise. But still, if he is caught, he should be crushed. I screamed: “Crush the innocent!”- Yes, for the sake of principle. “Which one?” asked Shubin.Kurnatovsky was either confused or surprised, and said: there is nothing to explain. Dad, who seemed to be in awe of him, said that, of course, there was nothing, and, to my chagrin, this conversation stopped. In the evening Bersenev came and entered into a terrible argument with him. I have never seen our good Andrei Petrovich in such excitement. Mr. Kurnatovsky did not at all deny the benefits of science, universities, etc. Meanwhile, I understood Andrei Petrovich’s indignation. He looks at all this as some kind of gymnastics. Shubin came up to me after the table and said: this one and someone else (he can’t pronounce your name) are both practical people, but look what a difference: there is a real, living, life-given ideal, but here it’s not even a sense of duty, but just official honesty and efficiency without substance. - Shubin is smart, and I remembered him for youClever words; But in my opinion, what do you have in common? You V e Rish,, on the other hand, the active Chichikovs, vigilant, tireless, heroic in achieving their narrow and nasty interests. And even further rise the Bruskovs, Bolshovs, Kabanovs, Ulanbekovs, 8 and all this evil tribe lays claim to the life and will of the Russian people... Where does heroism come from here, and if a hero is born, where can he get the light and reason for that? so as not to let his strength go to waste, but to serve goodness and truth? And if he finally gets enough, then where can the broken and torn one become a hero, where can a toothless squirrel gnaw nuts? It’s better not to flatter yourself in vain, it’s better to choose some specialty for yourself, and bury yourself in it, drowning out the unworthy feeling of involuntary envy of people who live and know why they live. This is what Shubin and Bersenev did in “On the Eve”. Shubin was at odds when he learned about Elena’s wedding to Insarov, and began: “Insarov... Insarov... Why false humility? Well, let’s say he’s a good guy, he stands up for himself; but as if we’re such complete rubbish? Well, at least Am I really rubbish? Has God really offended me with everything?” etc.... And the poor man immediately turned to art: “Maybe,” he says, “even in time I will become famous for my works.”... And sure enough, he began to work on his talent, and from him he is a wonderful sculptor it turns out... And Bersenev, kind, selfless Bersenev, who so sincerely and cordially looked after the sick Insarov, so generously served as a mediator between him, his rival, and Elena - and Bersenev, this heart of gold, as Insarov put it, - not can refrain from poisonous thoughts, having finally become convinced of the mutual love of Insarov and Elena. “Let them!” he says. “It’s not for nothing that my father used to tell me: we are about you, brother, not sybarites, not aristocrats; we are not minions of fate and nature, we are not even martyrs, we are toilers, toilers and toilers. Put them on.” your leather apron, worker, and stand at your work machine, in your dark workshop! And let the sun shine on others, and in our deaf life there is its own pride and its own happiness! What a hell of envy and despair these unjust reproaches wreak - no one knows to whom and for what!... Who is to blame for everything that happened? Isn't it Bersenev himself? No, Russian life is to blame: “If we had good people, as Shubin puts it, this girl, this sensitive soul, would not have left us, would not have slipped away like a fish into water.” And what makes people good or bad is life, its general structure in and in a famous place. The structure of our life turned out to be such that Bersenev had only one means of salvation left: “To dry up the mind with fruitless science.” He did so, and scientists very much praised, according to the author, his works: “On some features of ancient German law in the matter of judicial punishments” and “On the significance of the urban principle in the matter of civilization.” And it’s also good that at least I could find salvation in this... For Elena, there was no resource left in Russia after she met Insarov and understood a different life. That is why she could neither stay in Russia nor return to it alone after the death of her husband. The author knew how to understand this very well and preferred to leave her fate in the unknown rather than return her to her parents’ roof and force her to live out her days in her native Moscow, in the melancholy of loneliness and inaction. The call of her own mother, which reached her almost at the very moment she lost her husband, did not soften her disgust from this vulgar, colorless, inactive life. "Return to Russia! Why? What to do in Russia?" - she wrote to her mother and went to Zara to get lost in the waves of the uprising. And how good it is that she made this determination! What really awaited her and Russia? Where is the purpose of life for her, where is life? To return again to the unfortunate kittens and flies, to give the beggars money that was not earned by her and God knows how and why she got it, to rejoice at the successes in Shubin’s art, to talk about Schelling and Bersenev, to read to his mother “Moskovskie Vedomosti” and to see how they strive in the public arena rules in the form of different Kurnatovskys - and nowhere to see the real thing, not even to hear the spirit of a new life... and little by little, slowly and languidly wither, wither, freeze... No, if once she tried another life, breathed another air , then it’s easier for her to rush into any danger. rather than condemning herself to this severe torture, to this slow execution... And we are glad that she escaped our life and did not justify on herself these hopelessly sad, soul-tearing foreshadowings of the poet, so constantly and mercilessly justified against the best, chosen natures in Russia: Far from the sun and nature, Far from light and art, Far from life and love Your youth will flash by, Your living feelings will fade, Your dreams will dispel... And your life will pass unseen In a deserted, nameless land, On an unnoticed land, -- How a cloud of smoke disappears In a dim and foggy sky, In the boundless autumn darkness... 9 It remains for us to summarize the individual features scattered in this article (for the incompleteness of which we apologize to the readers) and draw a general conclusion. Insarov, as a person consciously and completely imbued with the great idea of the liberation of his homeland and ready to take an active role in it, could not develop and manifest himself in modern Russian society. Even Elena, who knew how to love him so completely and so merge with his ideas, cannot remain among Russian society, although all her close and dear ones are there. So, great ideas, great sympathies still have no place among us?.. Everything heroic and active must flee from us if it does not want to die from inaction or die in vain? Is not it? Isn’t this the meaning of the story we have analyzed? We think not. True, for broad activities in our society there is already a place for great ideas and sympathies, and the time is not far when these ideas can be manifested in practice. The fact is that no matter how bad our life is, it already contains the possibility of such phenomena as Elena. And not only have such characters become possible in life, they have already been captured by the artistic consciousness, included in literature, elevated to type. Elena is an ideal face, but her features are familiar to us, we understand her, we sympathize with her. What does it mean? The fact that the basis of her character is love for the suffering and oppressed, the desire for active good, the languid search for someone who would show how to do good - all this is finally felt in the best part of our society. And this feeling is so strong and so close to fulfillment that it is no longer deluded, as before, by a brilliant, but sterile mind and talent, or by conscientious, but abstract scholarship, or by official virtues, or even by a kind, generous, but passively developed heart. To satisfy our feelings, our thirst, we need more: we need a person like Insarov, but a Russian Insarov. , elusive, invulnerable, and yet disturbing you everywhere, poisoning your whole life and not allowing you to rest or look around in the struggle. You can't do anything with this internal enemy with ordinary weapons; you can get rid of it only by changing the damp and foggy atmosphere of our life, in which it originated, grew and intensified, and by fanning yourself with such air that it cannot breathe. Then a complete, sharply and vividly outlined image of the Russian Insarov will appear in literature. And we won’t have to wait long for him: this is guaranteed by the feverish, painful impatience with which we await his appearance in life. It is necessary for us, without it our whole life somehow doesn’t count, and every day means nothing in itself, but serves only as the eve of another day. This day will finally come! And, in any case, the eve is not far from the next day: just some night separates them!..
What do we need it for? We ourselves said above that we do not need hero-liberators, that we are a sovereign people, not an enslaved one... Yes, we are protected from the outside, and even if there were an external struggle, we can be calm. We have always had plenty of heroes for military exploits, and in the delight that young ladies still experience from an officer’s uniform and mustache, one can see indisputable proof that our society knows how to value these heroes. But don’t we have enough internal enemies? Isn't it necessary to fight them and isn't heroism required for this fight? Where are our people who are capable of doing this? Where are the whole people, captured by one idea from childhood, who have become accustomed to it in such a way that they need to either bring triumph to this idea, or die? There are no such people because our social environment has not yet been conducive to their development. And it is from this, from this environment, from its vulgarity and pettiness that new people must liberate us, whose appearance is so impatiently and passionately awaiting the best, everything fresh in our society.
First published in Sovremennik, 1860, No III, dep. III, pp. 31--72, without signature, under the title "New story of Mr. Turgenev" ("On the Eve", story by I. S. Turgenev, "Russian Messenger", 1860, No. 1--2). Reprinted under the title “When will the real day come?”, with significant additions and changes to the main text, especially in the second part of the article, in the Works of N. A. Dobrolyubov, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1862, pp. 275--331. Autograph unknown. Published in this edition according to the text of 1862, established by N. G. Chernyshevsky on the basis of a manuscript that has not reached us and pre-censorship proofs. This text contains some stylistic clarifications made by Dobrolyubov in the process of editing the proofs of the journal edition of the article. given by N.I. Mordovchenko in the options section Full. collection op. N. A. Dobrolyubov in six volumes, vol. 2. M., 1935, pp. 652--657 "On the debatability in this case of the text of 1862, see our considerations in the article "Old and new editions of Dobrolyubov's works" (present . ed. pp. 555-556), as well as notes by M. Ya. Elinchevskaya “Article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “When will the real day come?”” (Russian Literature, 1965, No. 1, p. 90 --97). Dobrolyubov had to again adapt his article to censorship requirements. Despite all these revisions, the article, after publication, attracted the attention of the Main Directorate of Censorship, which qualified it on July 18, 1860, as well as Dobrolyubov’s other work, “Foreign debates on the situation.” Russian clergy" and "Anthropological principle in philosophy" by N. G. Chernyshevsky as works that "shock the basic principles of monarchical power, the meaning of unconditional law, the family purpose of a woman, the spiritual side of man and arousing hatred of one class for another" (N. A. Dobrolyubov . Complete collection of works, vol. 2. M., 1935.) Censor F. Rachmaninov, who missed the article, was reprimanded. Wed. G. V. Kurlyandskaya. Novels of I. S. Turgenev of the 50s - early 60s. - "Scientific Notes of Kazan University", vol. 116, book. 8, 1956, pp. 107--113.). The original edition of the article was banned by the censor V. Beketov around February 19, 1860 in proof (See the letter of V.N. Beketov to Dobrolyubov dated February 19, 1860 with a refusal to “pass it in the form in which it was compiled.”-- "Testaments", 1913, No. 2, p. 96.). Dobrolyubov was forced to greatly rework the article, but even in a softened form it did not satisfy the new censor F. Rachmaninov, who looked through it from March 8 to 10, 1860 in proofs (these proofs were preserved in the papers of A. N. Pypin (Institute of Russian Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences ). Their detailed characteristics objective the meaning of a literary work and considers it impossible to reduce its content to a reflection of the author’s ideas and intentions. At the same time, as the article under consideration shows, the critic is not at all inclined to ignore the intention of the work and We know that pure aestheticians will immediately accuse us of trying to impose their opinions on the author and assign tasks to his talent. So let’s make a reservation, even though it’s boring. No, we are not imposing anything on the author, we say in advance that we do not know for what purpose, due to what preliminary considerations, he depicted the story that makes up the content of the story “On the Eve”. For us it is not so important that ideological position tell the author how much, what to them, even unintentionally, simply as a result of the truthful reproduction of the facts of life." Dobrolyubov has complete confidence in the ability of a realist writer to subordinate his artistic imagination to the course of life itself, the ability to "feel and depict the vital truth of phenomena." Such a principle of criticism therefore cannot exist. applied to writers who didactically subordinate the depiction of modern reality not to the logic of life facts, but to a “pre-conceived program”, Turgenev’s novel opened up a wide opportunity for the formulation of political tasks that objectively followed from the picture of Russian life created by the author, although they might not coincide with his personal social ones. aspirations. The critic saw the main political task of our time in the need to change the “damp and foggy atmosphere of our life” with the forces of the Russian Insarovs, fighters not against external oppression, but against internal enemies. In these transparent allegories it was not difficult to see a call for a popular revolution, which should be led. convinced leaders like Turgenev's Insarov become courageous. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, in a letter to P.V. Annenkov dated February 3, 1859, stated regarding “The Noble Nest”: “And what can be said about all of Turgenev’s works in general? Either that after reading them one can breathe easily, easily Do you believe it, do you feel warmth? What do you clearly feel, how the general level in you rises, that you mentally bless and love the author?<...>author. However, his focus is not so much on “what say author; how much is that and as a civil fighter, standing face to face “with parties, with people, with foreign governments, with like-minded people, with enemy forces.” Dobrolyubov imagined such a novel as a “heroic epic” and Turgenev considered him incapable of creating it. His sphere is not wrestling, but only “training for the fight” - Dobrolyubov said this at the very beginning of the article. Meanwhile, in Insarov’s personality, in his character, in his nature, he found exactly those traits that befitted a true hero of a modern epic. In Turgenev, Insarov is only friendly and close to the Russian people, but he did not develop as a type in the conditions of Russian life. I haven’t been so shocked for a long time, but I can’t give myself an idea of what exactly. I think that neither one nor the other, nor the third, but the general structure of the novel" (M. E. Saltykov (N. Shchedrin). Complete collection of works, vol. 18. L., GIHL, 1937, p. 144 ).) Dobrolyubov imagined the novel about “new people” not only as a lyrical narrative about their personal lives, according to Dobrolyubov, should be an integral element in such a narrative, where the hero would appear to the reader at the same time. was connected with Turgenev’s understanding of the relationship between man and environment, and this question again led Dobrolyubov to polemics with the author of “On the Eve.” In the article “Good intentions and activity,” published four months after the article “When will the real day come?”, Dobrolyubov spoke out against the “Turgenev school” with its constant motive “the environment eats a person.” In Turgenev, man is powerless against historical circumstances, he is suppressed by the harsh power of the social environment and therefore is not capable of fighting the conditions that oppress the progressive people of Russia. The criticism of Turgenev's fatalism of the environment, developed in detail in the article “Benevolence and Activity,” is also evident in the work under comment. Dobrolyubov poses the question of the relationship between man and environment dialectically: the same conditions that make the emergence of “new people” impossible will, at a certain stage of development, make their appearance inevitable. Now this stage has been reached in Russia: “We said above that our social environment suppresses the development of personalities like Insarov. But now we can add to our words: this environment has now reached the point that it itself will help the emergence of such a person,” - with these words Dobrolyubov hinted that in Russia the ground had already been prepared for revolutionary action. Dobrolyubov considered any other tactics in the conditions of 1860 to be liberal quixoticism, and this again sounded polemical in relation to Turgenev, who, in the speech “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” published two months before Dobrolyubov’s article on “On the Eve,” saw features of quixoticism in people of struggle and selfless conviction, in “enthusiasts” and “servants of the idea.” No matter how highly Turgenev valued people of a quixotic nature, he still believed that they were fighting windmills and were not achieving their goals. Therefore, Dobrolyubov rejected the nickname Don Quixote from himself and his like-minded people and returned it to Turgenev and the supporters of the theory of a “seizing environment” (See Yu. G. Oksman. Turgenev and Herzen in the controversy about political essence images of Hamlet and Don Quixote.-- "Scientific Yearbook of Saratov University". Faculty of Philology, 1958, dept. III, pp. 25--29, and also: Yu. D. Levin. Article by I. S. Turgenev "Hamlet and Don Quixote". On the issue of the controversy between Dobrolyubov and Turgenev. - "N. A. Dobrolyubov. Articles and materials." Answer. editor G.V. Krasnov. Gorky, 1965, pp. 122--163.). I. Lenin "The Beginning of Demonstrations." In it, V.I. Lenin, touching on Dobrolyubov, said that “all educated and thinking Russia cherishes a writer who passionately hated tyranny and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the “internal Turks” - against the autocratic government” (V.I. Lenin Complete collection of works, vol. V, p. 370. It is important that in this general description of Dobrolyubov as a revolutionary writer, V.I. Lenin relied on the article “When will the real day come?”, from which the formula “internal Turks” was taken. all the fluctuations and changes in the very outlook on life"("Otech. Notes", 1857, No. 1, Criticism and Bibliography, p. 2. Our italics). Khmelnitsky" ("Russian Bulletin", 1859, No. 2). 6 This story reflected some facts of the stormy biography of I. I. Parzhnitsky, Dobrolyubov’s friend at the Pedagogical Institute. From the institute he moved to the Medical-Surgical Academy, from where he was sentenced for violating discipline exiled as a medical assistant to the distant outskirts. Then he entered the Kazan University, but was expelled from there. He went abroad and entered the University of Berlin. Information about his participation in the Polish uprising of 1863 has been preserved. See M. I. Shemanovsky. The Main Pedagogical Institute 1853-1857.-- In the book: "N. A. Dobrolyubov in the memoirs of contemporaries." M.--L., 1961, pp. 59--69, as well as in the comments of S. A. Reiser, ibid., pp. 427--428. 7 Dobrolyubov uses here the anonymous political review in the Moscow Bulletin of January 9, 1860, No. 1: “In the North American States, the antagonism of North and South, abolitionists and supporters of slavery played out over Brown’s enterprise, which outraged slaves in Virginia. This violent and illegal attempt to resolve the issue of slavery was unsuccessful; Brown was executed, and abolitionists expressed their disapproval of his action and recognized the need to support black slavery for the sake of the unity of the federation. Thus, Brown rather damaged the cause to which he sacrificed his life and which can only be resolved legally" (p. 9). 6 Dobrolyubov names the characters in A. N. Ostrovsky's comedies: Bruskov - ""At someone else's feast there is a hangover", Bolshov - “Our people are numbered”, Kabanova - “Thunderstorm”, Ulanbekova - “Pupil.”
It is curious that Dobrolyubov himself outlined these features long before the publication of “On the Eve”, and he did this in polemics with Turgenev. Thus, in the article “Nikolai Vladimirovich Stankevich” (Sovremennik, 1858, No. IV) Dobrolyubov spoke out against Turgenev’s morality of “duty” and “renunciation”, expressed in the story “Faust”. To people of the old generation, who understand duty as moral chains, as adherence to “an abstract principle that they accept without internal heartfelt participation,” Dobrolyubov contrasted supporters of the new morality, those who “care to merge the demands of duty with the needs of their inner being.” In another article - “Literary trivia of the past year” (Sovremennik, 1859, No. I) Dobrolyubov again developed the antithesis of “abstract principles” and living, internal attraction and again laid it as the basis for a comparative description of the old and young generations. Developing an ideological and psychological portrait of the “new people” who replaced the knights of “abstract principles,” Dobrolyubov saw in modern figures people “with strong nerves and a healthy imagination,” distinguished by calmness and quiet firmness." “In general,” he wrote, “the young The current generation of our time does not know how to shine and make noise. There seem to be no screaming notes in his voice, although there are sounds that are very strong and firm.”
Now, in the article “When will the real day come?”, characterizing Insarov, Dobrolyubov found in him the very traits that he wrote about in his time, speaking about the “young active generation”; love for the homeland and for freedom in Insarov “is not in his mind, not in his heart, not in his imagination, she is in his body,” “he will do what his nature leads him to,” moreover, “completely calmly, without pretense or fanfare, as simply as he eats and drinks.” etc. Noting with deep sympathy the new features of Turgenev’s hero, Dobrolyubov clearly saw that in this case, “the phenomena and characters that actually exist in life, previously recognized by himself and seen in Russian soil. In Turgenev, Insarov is only friendly and close to the Russian people, but he did not develop as a type in the conditions of Russian life.
This was connected with Turgenev’s understanding of the relationship between man and environment, and this question again led Dobrolyubov to polemics with the author of “On the Eve.” In the article “Good intentions and activity,” published four months after the article “When will the real day come?”, Dobrolyubov spoke out against the “Turgenev school” with its constant motive “the environment eats a person.” In Turgenev, man is powerless against historical circumstances, he is suppressed by the harsh power of the social environment and therefore is not capable of fighting the conditions that oppress the progressive people of Russia. The criticism of Turgenev's fatalism of the environment, developed in detail in the article “Benevolence and Activity,” is also evident in the work under comment. Dobrolyubov poses the question of the relationship between man and environment dialectically: the same conditions that make the emergence of “new people” impossible will, at a certain stage of development, make their appearance inevitable. Now this stage has been reached in Russia: “We said above that our social environment suppresses the development of personalities like Insarov. But now we can add to our words: this environment has now reached the point that it itself will help the emergence of such a person,” - With these words, Dobrolyubov hinted that in Russia the ground had already been prepared for revolutionary action. Dobrolyubov considered any other tactics in the conditions of 1860 to be liberal quixoticism, and this again sounded polemical in relation to Turgenev, who, in the speech “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” published two months before Dobrolyubov’s article on “On the Eve,” saw features of quixoticism in people of struggle and selfless conviction, in “enthusiasts” and “servants of the idea.” No matter how highly Turgenev valued people of a quixotic nature, he still believed that they were fighting windmills and were not achieving their goals. Therefore, Dobrolyubov rejected the nickname Don Quixote from himself and his like-minded people and returned it to Turgenev and the supporters of the theory of a “seizing environment.”
Perhaps it was precisely the polemical orientation of Dobrolyubov’s article against many of Turgenev’s views that was perceived by the writer as unfair and harsh. In any case, neither a general analysis of the novel nor a high assessment of the realistic power of Turgenev’s art gave rise to such an understanding of Dobrolyubov’s article. As for the “troubles” that Turgenev feared, then, apparently, according to his assumption, they could arise for him due to the revolutionary conclusions that Dobrolyubov drew from the analysis of “On the Eve”. In the original version of the article, these conclusions were even sharper and clearer. But even in the journal text, and even more so in the text of the collected works, the revolutionary meaning of the article was clearly understood by both contemporaries and readers of subsequent generations, primarily by figures of the liberation movement.
Thus, P. L. Lavrov, in the article “I. S. Turgenev and Russian Society,” published in “Bulletin of the People’s Will,” 1884, No. 2, speaking about the growth of the revolutionary movement in the seventies, compared with the previous period, focused on Dobrolyubov's article. “The Russian Insarovs,” he wrote, “people “consciously and completely imbued with the great idea of the liberation of their homeland and ready to take an active role in it,” received the opportunity to “prove themselves in modern Russian society” (Oc. Dobrolyubova, III, 320). New Helens They could no longer say: “What to do in Russia?” They filled the prisons. They went to hard labor.
V.I. Zasulich, in an article on the fortieth anniversary of Dobrolyubov’s death (Iskra, 1901, No. 13), noted that in a critical analysis of “On the Eve,” Dobrolyubov managed to “write with clarity that does not allow doubt his revolutionary testament to the growing youth of the educated classes.” In the same issue of Iskra, V. I. Lenin’s article “The Beginning of Demonstrations” was published. In it, V.I. Lenin, touching on Dobrolyubov, said that “all educated and thinking Russia cherishes a writer who passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the “internal Turks” - against the autocratic government.” It is important that in this general description of Dobrolyubov as a revolutionary writer, V.I. Lenin relied on the article “When will the real day come?”, from which the formula “internal Turks” was taken.
Footnotes
1
Beat the drum and don't be afraid! (German). – Ed.
2
How beautiful it is, how charming! (French). – Ed.
3
We have already been reproached once for being partial to the younger generation and pointing out the vulgarity and emptiness to which most of its representatives indulge. But we never thought of standing up for all young people indiscriminately, and this would not be consistent with our goal. Vulgarity and emptiness are the heritage of all times and all ages. But we spoke and are now speaking about chosen people, the best people, and not about the crowd, since Rudin and all the people of his caliber did not belong to the crowd, but to the best people of their time. However, we will not be wrong if we say that among the mass of society, the level of education has recently risen.
4
The extraordinary success experienced by the publications of the works of some of our writers in the forties can apparently testify against this idea. A particularly striking example is Belinsky, whose works quickly sold out, they say, in the amount of 12,000 copies. But, in our opinion, this very fact serves as the best confirmation of our thought. Belinsky was the foremost of the advanced, none of his peers went further than him, and where 12,000 copies of Belinsky were snapped up in a few months, the Rudins simply had nothing to do. Belinsky’s success proves not at all that his ideas are still new for our society and require great efforts to spread, but precisely that they are now dear and sacred to the majority and that their preaching no longer requires either heroism or special talents.
Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov
When will the real day come?
(“On the Eve”, story by I. S. Turgenev. “Russian Bulletin”, 1860, No. 1–2)
Schlage die Trommel und furchte dich nicht!
Aesthetic criticism has now become the property of sensitive young ladies. From conversations with them, servants of pure art can glean many subtle and correct remarks and then write criticism of this kind. “Here is the content of Mr. Turgenev’s new story (story content). Already from this pale sketch it is clear how much life and poetry is the freshest and most fragrant. But only reading the story itself can give an idea of that instinct for the subtlest poetic shades of life, that acute mental analysis, that deep understanding of the invisible streams and currents of social thought, that friendly and at the same time bold attitude towards reality, which constitute the distinctive features of Mr. Turgenev. Look, for example, how subtly these mental traits are noted (repetition of one part from the story of the content and then an extract); read this wonderful scene, filled with such grace and charm (extract); remember this poetic, living picture (extract) or this tall, bold image (extract). Isn’t it true that this penetrates into the depths of your soul, makes your heart beat stronger, enlivens and decorates your life, elevates before you human dignity and the great, eternal significance of the holy ideas of truth, goodness and beauty! Comme c"est joli, comme c"est delicieux!”
We owe our little acquaintance with sensitive young ladies the fact that we do not know how to write such pleasant and harmless criticism. Frankly admitting this and refusing the role of “educator of the aesthetic taste of the public,” we choose another task, more modest and more commensurate with our strengths. We simply want to summarize the data that is scattered in the writer’s work and which we accept as an accomplished fact, as a vital phenomenon standing before us. The work is simple, but necessary, because, with a lot of activities and rest, rarely does anyone have the desire to look closely at all the details of a literary work, to disassemble, check and put in their place all the figures from which this complex report is compiled about one of the aspects of our social life. life, and then think about the outcome and what it promises and what it obliges us to. And this kind of verification and reflection is very useful regarding the new story of Mr. Turgenev.
We know that pure aestheticians will immediately accuse us of trying to impose their opinions on the author and assign tasks to his talent. So let’s make a reservation, even though it’s boring. No, we are not imposing anything on the author, we say in advance that we do not know for what purpose, due to what preliminary considerations, he depicted the story that makes up the content of the story “On the Eve.” For us it is not so important that We know that pure aestheticians will immediately accuse us of trying to impose their opinions on the author and assign tasks to his talent. So let’s make a reservation, even though it’s boring. No, we are not imposing anything on the author, we say in advance that we do not know for what purpose, due to what preliminary considerations, he depicted the story that makes up the content of the story “On the Eve”. For us it is not so important that tell the author how much, what tell the author how much, what to them, even if unintentionally, simply as a result of a truthful reproduction of the facts of life. We value every talented work precisely because in it we can study the facts of our native life, which is already so little open to the gaze of a simple observer. There is still no publicity in our lives other than the official one; Everywhere we encounter not living people, but officials serving in one department or another: in public places - with neat writers, at balls - with dancers, in clubs - with gamblers, in theaters - with hairdressing patients, etc. Everyone continues to bury his spiritual life; everyone looks at you as if saying: “After all, I came here to dance or to show off my hair; Well, be happy that I’m doing my job, and please don’t try to extort my feelings and concepts from me.” And indeed, no one questions anyone, no one is interested in anyone, and the whole society goes apart, annoyed that they should converge on official occasions, like a new opera, a dinner party or some committee meeting. Where can a person learn and study life who has not devoted himself exclusively to observing social mores? And then there is what diversity, what even opposition in the various circles and classes of our society! Thoughts that have already become vulgar and backward in one circle are still hotly contested in another; what is considered insufficient and weak by some, seems too harsh and bold to others, etc. What falls, what wins, what begins to establish itself and prevail in the moral life of society - we have no other indicator for this except literature, and mainly , her artistic works. The writer-artist, not caring about any general conclusions regarding the state of social thought and morality, always knows how to grasp their most essential features, brightly illuminate and directly place them before the eyes of reflective people. That is why we believe that as soon as talent is recognized in a writer-artist, that is, the ability to feel and depict the vital truth of phenomena, then, already by virtue of this very recognition, his works provide a legitimate reason for reasoning about that environment of life, about that era , which evoked this or that work in the writer. And the measure of a writer’s talent here will be the extent to which he has captured life, the extent to which the images he has created are durable and vast.
We considered it necessary to express this in order to justify our technique - to interpret the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work, without, however, imposing on the author any pre-conceived ideas and tasks. The reader sees that for us it is precisely those works that are important in which life manifested itself, and not according to a program previously invented by the author. We didn’t talk about “A Thousand Souls,” for example, at all, because, in our opinion, the entire social side of this novel was forced into a preconceived idea. Therefore, there is nothing to discuss here, except to what extent the author cleverly composed his essay. It is impossible to rely on the truth and living reality of the facts presented by the author, because his inner attitude towards these facts is not simple and truthful. We see a completely different attitude from the author to the plot in Mr. Turgenev’s new story, as in most of his stories. In “On the Eve” we see the irresistible influence of the natural course of social life and thought, to which the author’s very thought and imagination involuntarily submitted.
Setting the main task of literary criticism as the explanation of those phenomena of reality that gave rise to a well-known work of art, we must note that when applied to the stories of Mr. Turgenev, this task has a special meaning. G. Turgenev can rightly be called the representative and singer of the morality and philosophy that has dominated our educated society in the last twenty years. He quickly guessed new needs, new ideas introduced into the public consciousness, and in his works he usually drew (as much as circumstances allowed) attention to the issue that was on the agenda and was already vaguely beginning to worry society. We hope on another occasion to trace the entire literary activity of Mr. Turgenev and therefore now we will not dwell on this. Let’s just say that we attribute to this author’s instinct for the living strings of society, this ability to immediately respond to every noble thought and honest feeling that is just beginning to penetrate the consciousness of the best people, a significant share of the success that Mr. Turgenev constantly enjoyed among the Russian public . Of course, literary talent itself contributed a lot to this success. But our readers know that Mr. Turgenev’s talent is not one of those titanic talents that, solely by the power of poetic representation, amazes, captures you and draws you to sympathy for such a phenomenon or idea, which you are not at all inclined to sympathize with, not a stormy, impetuous force, but on the contrary, gentleness and some kind of poetic moderation serve as characteristic features of his talent. Therefore, we believe that he could not arouse the general sympathy of the public if he dealt with issues and needs that were completely alien to his readers or had not yet been aroused in society. Some would have noticed the charm of the poetic descriptions in his stories, the subtlety and depth in the outlines of various faces and positions, but, without any doubt, this would not have been enough to make lasting success and fame for the writer. Without a living attitude towards modernity, everyone, even the most sympathetic and talented narrator, must suffer the fate of Mr. Fet, who was once praised, but from whom now only a dozen amateurs remember the top ten best poems. A lively attitude to modernity saved Mr. Turgenev and strengthened his constant success among the reading public. Some thoughtful critic even once reproached Mr. Turgenev for the fact that his activities so strongly reflected “all the fluctuations of social thought” (2). But, despite this, we see here precisely the most vital side of Mr. Turgenev’s talent, and with this side we explain why each of his works has been met with such sympathy, almost with enthusiasm, until now.
So, great ideas, great sympathies still have no place among us?.. Everything heroic and active must flee from us? Isn't that the point of the story?
We think no. No matter how bad our life is, it already contains the possibility of such phenomena as Elena. And not only have such characters become possible in life, they have already been captured by the artistic consciousness, included in literature, elevated to type. Elena is an ideal face, but her features are familiar to us, we understand her, we sympathize with her. What does it mean? The fact that the basis of her character is love for the suffering and oppressed, the desire for active good, the languid search for someone who would show how to do it - all this is finally felt in the best part of our society. And this feeling is so strong and so close to fulfillment that it is no longer seduced, as before, by either a brilliant but sterile mind and talent, or conscientious but abstract scholarship, or service virtues, or even a kind, generous, but passively developed heart. . To satisfy our feelings we need a person like Insarov, but a Russian Insarov.
What do we need it for? We ourselves said above that we do not need heroic liberators, that we are a sovereign people, and not an enslaved people...
Yes, we are protected from the outside. But don’t we have enough internal enemies? Isn't there a need to fight them and isn't heroism required for this fight? Where are our people who are capable of doing this?
It is still difficult for such a hero to appear: the conditions for his development are extremely unfavorable, and the task is much more complex and difficult than that of Insarov. An external enemy can be caught and defeated much more easily than an internal enemy, scattered everywhere in a thousand different species, elusive, invulnerable, and yet disturbing us everywhere, poisoning our whole life and not allowing us to rest or look around in the struggle. You can't do anything with this internal enemy with ordinary weapons; we can get rid of it only by changing the damp and foggy atmosphere of our life in which it originated and grew and intensified.
Is it possible? When it's possible? Of these questions, only the first one can be answered categorically.
Self-awareness is noticeable everywhere and in everything, the inconsistency of the old order of things is understood everywhere, reforms and corrections are expected everywhere, and no one lulls their children to sleep with a song about what an incomprehensible perfection the modern order of affairs represents in every corner of Russia. On the contrary, children now grow up filled with hopes and dreams of a better future. When their turn comes to get down to business, they will already bring into it that energy, consistency and harmony of heart and thought, about which we could barely acquire a theoretical concept.
Then a complete, sharply and vividly outlined image of the Russian Insarov will appear in literature. And we won’t have to wait long for him: this is vouched for by the feverish, painful impatience with which we await his appearance in life. This day will finally come! And, in any case, the eve is not far from the next day: just some night separates them!..
Questions for self-control
1. What quality of Turgenev’s talent explains the special interest of “real” criticism in his work?
2. As on the material previous works Has the writer determined the leading theme of his work and the leading type of hero?
3. Why is the critic’s attitude towards Lavretsky different than towards other representatives of the leading Turgenev type? How can we define (name) this relationship?
4. What difficult-to-solve problems of social life does the critic point out when he calls Lavretsky’s situation “legitimately tragic”?
5. In connection with what did the critic fear “for the fate of Mr. Turgenev’s new work” and why did it not disappoint him?
6. Why, in your opinion, does the analysis of the novel begin with a consideration of the image of the heroine? How does this relate to the characterization of the current moment of Russian life and the definition of the heroine’s character as ideal?
7. How is Elena explained by the circumstances of her life in her parents’ home?
8. Why, before Insarov’s appearance, of all the contenders for the heroine’s heart, according to the critic, did Bersenev have the greatest chance?
9. How does the critic reproach the hero with Bersenev’s willingness to “put himself number two” and belittle him in comparison with Insarov? In your opinion, does the interpretation of the question of the relationship between duty and happiness, given in the analysis of Bersenev’s image, correspond to the author’s?
10. Why is the main place in the conversation about Insarov given to the question that he cannot be Russian? How does this limitation of the topic relate to the tasks of “real” criticism? How is it motivated by the features of the construction of the image in the novel noted by the critic (the plot of the hero, psychologism, etc.)?
11. How does a conversation about Insarov’s nationality develop into ironic praise of Russian life? What are the points of this praise, and how do they point to the “internal enemies” that the Russian Insarov will have to fight?
12. What are the critic’s predictions regarding the perception of the Russian Insarov by well-bred young ladies and Russian society as a whole? How do these predictions clarify the political profile of the expected hero? How do thoughts about Russian Don Quixotes and how difficult it is to turn a box over while inside hint at the class affiliation of the Russian Insarov?
13. To what extent, in your opinion, did Turgenev’s next (“Fathers and Sons”) confirm the critic’s predictions?
14. How many times and in what meanings is the word in the title mentioned in the text of the article? How does the epigraph resonate with the title of the article?
15. What in Dobrolyubov’s article, in your opinion, could Turgenev dislike so much that he left Sovremennik because of its publication?
