Criticism about “Eugene Onegin. Scientific research of the novel Eugene Onegin

Speaking about the novel as a whole, Belinsky notes its historicism in the reproduced picture of Russian society. “Eugene Onegin,” the critic believes, is a historical poem, although there is not a single historical figure among its heroes.

Next, Belinsky names the novel’s nationality. In the novel "Eugene Onegin" there are more nationalities than in any other Russian folk work... If not everyone recognizes it as national, it is because a strange opinion has long been rooted in us, as if a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset is already not Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is zipun, bast shoes, fusel and sauerkraut. “The secret of the nationality of every people lies not in its clothing and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.”

A deep knowledge of everyday philosophy made Onegin and Woe from Wit original and purely Russian works.

According to Belinsky, the digressions made by the poet from the story, his appeal to himself, are filled with sincerity, feeling, intelligence, and acuity; the personality of the poet in them is loving and humane. "Onegin" can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and in highest degree folk work", says the critic.

The critic points out the realism of "Eugene Onegin"

“Pushkin took this life as it is, without distracting from it only its poetic moments; he took it with all the coldness, with all its prose and vulgarity,” notes Belinsky. "Onegin" is a poetically true picture of Russian society in a certain era. "

In the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, according to the critic, Pushkin portrayed Russian society in one of the phases of its formation, its development.

The critic speaks of the enormous significance of the novel for the subsequent literary process. Together with his contemporary a brilliant creation Griboyedova - Grief from the mind," Pushkin's poetic novel laid a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature.

Together with Pushkin's Onegin... Woe from Wit... laid the foundation for subsequent literature, and were the school from which Lermontov and Gogol came.

Belinsky characterized the images of the novel. Characterizing Onegin this way, he notes:

“Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly!.. Savor did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments... Onegin did not like to get lost in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open up to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature, therefore only by people, but also by itself."

Onegin is a kind fellow, but at the same time a remarkable person. He is not fit to be a genius, he does not want to be a great person, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him. Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an involuntary egoist, Belinsky believes, in his egoism one should see what the ancients called rock, fate.

In Lensky, Pushkin portrayed a character completely opposite to the character of Onegin, the critic believes, a completely abstract character, completely alien to reality. This was, according to the critic, a completely new phenomenon.

Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, “he was an ignoramus at heart,” always talking about life, but never knew it. “Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his imagination,” writes Belinsky. He fell in love with Olga, and adorned her with virtues and perfections, ascribed to her feelings and thoughts that she did not have and about which she did not care. “Olga was charming, like all “young ladies” before they became “ladies”; and Lensky saw in her a fairy, a selfide, a romantic dream, without suspecting the future lady at all,” writes the critic

People like Lensky, with all their undeniable merits, are not good in that they either degenerate into perfect philistines, or, if they retain their original type forever, they become these outdated mystics and dreamers, who are just as unpleasant as ideal old maids, and who are more enemies of all progress than people who are simply, without pretensions, vulgar. In a word, these are now the most intolerable, empty and vulgar people.

Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle. With the happiness of reciprocity, the love of such a woman is an even, bright flame; otherwise, it is a stubborn flame, which willpower may not allow it to break out, but which is the more destructive and burning the more it is compressed inside. Happy wife Tatyana would calmly, but nevertheless passionately and deeply love her husband, would completely sacrifice herself to her children, but not out of reason, but again out of passion, and in this sacrifice, in the strict fulfillment of her duties, she would find her greatest pleasure, her supreme bliss “This wonderful combination of coarse, vulgar prejudices with a passion for French books and with respect for the profound creation of Martyn Zadeka is possible only in a Russian woman. All inner world Tatiana’s passion was a thirst for love, nothing else spoke to her soul, her mind was asleep...,” the critic wrote.

According to Belinsky, for Tatyana there was no real Onegin, whom she could neither understand nor know, which is why she understood and knew herself just as little as Onegin.

“Tatyana could not fall in love with Lensky, and even less could she fall in love with any of the men she knew: she knew them so well, and they provided so little food for her exalted, ascetic imagination...” Belinsky reports.

“There are creatures whose fantasy has much more influence on the heart... Tatyana was one of such creatures,” says the critic.

After the duel, Onegin’s departure and Tatyana’s visit to Onegin’s room, “she finally understood that there are interests for a person, there are suffering and sorrows, except for the interest of suffering and the sorrow of love... And therefore, a book acquaintance with this new world of sorrows was, if anything, a revelation for Tatyana , this revelation made a heavy, bleak and fruitless impression on her.

Onegin and the reading of his books prepared Tatiana for the rebirth from a village girl into a society lady, which so surprised and amazed Onegin." "Tatiana does not like the light and would consider it happiness to leave it forever for the village; but as long as she is in the world, his opinion will always be her idol and the fear of his judgment will always be her virtue... But I was given to another, - precisely given, not given away! Eternal fidelity to such relationships, which constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships, not sanctified by love, are extremely immoral... But somehow with us it all sticks together: poetry - and life, love - and marriage according to calculation, life with the heart - and strict fulfillment of external duties, internally violated every hour. a woman cannot despise public opinion, but can sacrifice it modestly, without phrases, without self-praise, understanding the greatness of her sacrifice, the full burden of the curse that she takes upon herself,” writes Belinsky.

1. V. G. Belinsky. Article "Hero of Our Time".

"...Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly! This is not enough: many good-naturedly believed and believe that the poet himself wanted to portray Onegin as cold an egoist. This already means - having eyes, not seeing anything. Social life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments.” “The connection with Lensky, this young dreamer who was so liked by our public, speaks loudest against Onegin’s imaginary callousness.”

“Remember how Onegin was brought up, and you will agree that his nature was too good, if such an upbringing did not completely kill it. A brilliant young man, he was carried away by the world, like many; but he soon got bored with them and left him, as too few do. A spark of hope smoldered in his soul - to be resurrected and refreshed in the silence of solitude, in the lap of nature; but he soon saw that a change of place does not change the essence of some irresistible circumstances that are not dependent on our will.

“Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an involuntary egoist; in his egoism one should see what the ancients called “fatum.”

“Onegin was so smart, subtle and experienced, he understood people and their hearts so well that he could not help but understand from Tatyana’s letter that this poor girl was gifted with a passionate heart, hungry for fatal food, that her passion was childishly simple-minded and that she was not at all like on those coquettes who were so tired of him with their feelings, sometimes easy, sometimes fake. In his letter to Tatyana, he says that, having noticed a spark of tenderness in her, he did not want to believe her (that is, he forced himself not to believe), he did not let her. I gave up my sweet habit and didn’t want to part with my hateful freedom.”

“And the more natural, simpler Onegin’s suffering is, the further it is from any showiness, the less it could be understood and appreciated by the majority of the public. At twenty-six years old, to experience so much without tasting life, to become so exhausted, tired, without having done anything, to reach such an unconditional denial, without going through any convictions: this is death! But Onegin was not destined to die without tasting the cup of life: a strong and deep passion immediately aroused the powers of his spirit dormant in anguish.

“Onegin is a real character, in the sense that there is nothing dreamy or fantastic in him, that he could be happy and unhappy only in reality and through reality.”

“Tatiana is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any reconciliatory middle.”

“Visiting Onegin’s house and reading his books prepared Tatyana for the transformation of a village girl into a society lady, which so surprised and amazed Onegin.”

“In fact, Onegin was to blame before Tatyana for not loving her then, when she was younger and better and loved him! After all, for love all you need is youth, beauty and reciprocity! A dumb village girl with childhood dreams - and a secular woman, tested by life and suffering, who found a word to express her feelings and thoughts: And yet, in Tatyana’s opinion, she was more capable of inspiring love then than now, because then she was younger and better! !"

2. D. N. Ovsyanikov-Kulikovsky.

“Onegin is, first of all, a representative of an educated society, ... a man who rises slightly above the average level of secular young people of that time educated and affected by the ideas of the century. He is smart, but his mind has neither profundity nor sublimity... Russian coldness , poor performance, inability to get carried away by any business or idea and a great ability to get bored - these are character traits Onegin..."

“Onegin... can be called an ordinary person, spoiled, incapable of work, serious business, etc., but he cannot be called spiritually empty. At first he led an empty life, but it bored him precisely because of its emptiness - he was dissatisfied with it. "

“Pushkin finds in the bored, apathetic, dejected Onegin something attractive, not entirely ordinary, not at all vulgar and seemingly significant.”

“The board of mental loneliness pursues Onegin everywhere. Running away from melancholy, he is looking not so much for new impressions, which are all boring, but for at least some food for the mind.”

3. Onegin is not at all an egoist, as it might seem at first glance. His biggest misfortune and at the same time dignity is the directness and frankness that came to him along with spiritual emptiness. He knew how to be a hypocrite, but he decided to break with the past and did not want to pretend in front of a sweet and naive girl who confessed her love to him.

Tatyana fell in love with Evgeny, not yet knowing or understanding him. This is youthful love, idealizing and romantic, but Eugene needed such feelings. He was no longer looking for adoration, but for understanding, not for romanticism, but for real, mature feelings. He will see all this in Tatyana later, when he meets her, changed and beautiful, knowing and understanding him now.

Tatyana Larina, brought up in a truly Russian spirit, could never leave her lawful husband even for the sake of the person she loves. She regrets the past, the time when she was free, when there was the possibility of happiness. She failed to stop loving Onegin, but for the sake of this love she will not destroy the happiness of another person. Suffering herself, Tatyana does not want to be a source of suffering for people who do not deserve it.

June 23 2010

The critic approached “Eugene Onegin” with such attitudes. Pisarev contrasted the mindless admiration of the average person with the sober approach of a “realist.” Just as a natural scientist dissects a living body to study its structure, the critic dissected it with a sharp scalpel of logical analysis of art. He translated poetry into prose, trying to determine in the retelling what benefits could be derived from the work for the development of the mental abilities of his contemporaries. What goal did he pursue by carefully recording the details of that noble life: Onegin’s beaver collar, on which frost sparkles, objects in the office of a noble undergrowth? This is as useless for Pisarev’s contemporary as familiarity with the lines in which the poet admires the legs of ballerinas. And if so, then the position of the author of the novel in verse, his artistic idea. Wrong choice.

Why portray such an “insignificant vulgarity, an insidious traitor and a cruel tyrant of ladies’ hearts”? How will the generation of acute social cataclysms be enriched if they become acquainted with this likeness of Mitrofanushka Prostakov of a different formation? Idleness corrupted the hero, because “to live in Onegin’s language means to walk along the boulevard, dine at Talon’s, go to theaters and balls. To think means to criticize Didelot’s ballets and to scold the moon as a fool because it is very round...” Such a hero cannot be an inspirer of a new generation, and therefore is useless, the critic concludes.

Debunking the main character and Pushkin's novel in verse as a whole, Pisarev refutes Belinsky, who highly appreciated Eugene Onegin. And he doesn’t so much refute it as explain the reasons why Belinsky was such a connoisseur of the “encyclopedia of Russian life.” It turns out that it was not Pushkin who “generated with his works” the wonderful thoughts expressed in eleven “excellent articles” (Pisarev), but they belonged to Belinsky himself. It turns out, according to the words, that “Belinsky loved the Pushkin he created for himself.” According to the correct remark of V.V. Prozorov, these words are from with good reason can be attributed to Pisarev himself: “He violently overthrew Pushkin, whom he “created for himself.”

Having explained Belinsky’s position and debunked the former idol, an authority for several generations of readers, the critic led to what seemed to many a convincing conclusion: “Pushkin can only have historical meaning, and for those people who have no time and no need to study the history of literature, it does not even have any meaning at all”3.

Pisarev's nihilistic statements remained essentially unanswered. An article by Skabichevsky, published in 1869 in Otechestvennye zapiski (who showed that it was precisely the rejection of historicism that prevented the critic from distinguishing Pushkin, and in particular his novel, in the heroes), advanced people of its time) could not compare with the effect produced by Pisarev’s articles. Lack of rebuff and worthy reaction to the attack of the “prophet” younger generation"(N. Shelgunov) testified to the invulnerability of his positions.

All this sadly affected the literary and reading generation that followed Pisarev. Interest in Pushkin fell even more than before the beginning of the 60s. Not without Pisarev’s influence, according to a contemporary, the passion for the poetic form faded: Ya. Polonsky, recalling the time of popularity of the critic’s articles, noted that since his light hand Interest in poetry faded away, no one read poetry out loud anymore5.

Most strong impression the articles were aimed at young people. Much later, having read Pisarev’s reviews of Pushkin for the first time, Marietta Shaginyan recalled: “Pushkin with early childhood became my god. And this deity - Pushkin - faded before me from page to page... I was in the greatest, spontaneous confusion, I experienced that “vasodilation” that happens physically from taking heart medicine,

and mentally it was expressed in the pleasure of overthrowing authorities.”

As time passed, the attention of readers was attracted by one or the other features of Pisarev’s reading of Pushkin. The critic's ideas have not been forgotten to this day. They are looking for explanations for the phenomenon of Pisarev's nihilism; more interest is being drawn to the motives of his review of the poet, the origins of his views, as well as the consequences of the articles - immediate and more distant. “Who will agree with the interpretation of Pushkin’s work proposed by Pisarev? And at the same time, who will reject its historical value? After all, without her there is no Pisarev, she is typical of Pisarev, of his time, of cultural life Russia in the 60s,” notes D. S. Likhachev, reflecting on the principles historical approach to the perception of art.

Every striking cultural and historical fact of assessing a classic is multi-valued. Its effect on the public is sometimes the opposite of the author's intentions. The outflow of the reading masses from Pushkin literally a decade and a half later was replaced by a new surge of attention to the poet. It is possible and paradoxical that with his extreme nihilistic position the critic to a certain extent prepared the reorientation of sympathies towards Pushkin that followed in the early 1980s. Maybe this is not a paradox at all, but a kind of “experiment” by Pisarev?

After all, he himself clearly formulated his own credo, asserting that “only what is rotten, what, as egyptian mummy, disintegrates into dust from the movement of air. A living idea, like a fresh flower from the rain, grows stronger and grows, withstanding the test of skepticism. Before the spell of sober analysis, only ghosts disappear; and existing objects, subjected to this test, prove to them the reality of their existence. If you have items that have never been touched by a critic, you would do well to give them a good shake to make sure that you are storing a real treasure and not rotten rubbish.

The critic “shook up” Pushkin’s legacy and offered his conclusions. Objectively, the poet withstood this test with his all-destructive skepticism and ahistorical approach. The wisdom of Pushkin, the artistic perfection of his works, as well as general meaning heritage for Russian culture have become even more obvious. The experience of interpreting Pushkin was expanded by an attempt at debunking, which at first blinded readers, but soon convinced them of the inconsistency of such operations.

The vitality and all-conquering relevance of Pushkin’s legacy were more clearly revealed. Pisarev’s position in relation to the poet emphasized this aspect of his objective significance, revealing at the same time weak sides views. Belinsky and other social democrats in interpreting the role of the classic. Pisarev provoked a test of Pushkin’s creativity for viability in new historical conditions. Is this why, who infinitely appreciated Pushkin, in a letter to Ogarev, it was precisely the articles “Pushkin and Belinsky” and “Bazarov” that Pisarev called “the most wonderful things”?

If we go back to the time the articles appeared, then the simmering passions around them did not last too long. The critic's positions were refuted in the most effective way - by life. The opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow determined the revision of ideas, including Pisarev’s, and contributed to new discussions about the role of the poet in the spiritual life of Russia.

Need a cheat sheet? Then save - "Criticism of Pisarev about the novel "Eugene Onegin". Literary essays!

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

"Eugene Onegin" in Russian criticism

Head: Petkun Lyudmila Prokhorovna

Introduction

1. “Eugene Onegin” in the life of A.S. Pushkin

2. “Eugene Onega in Russian criticism”

2.1 N.Ya. Nightingale "Eugene Onegin"

2.2 A. Slonimsky “Pushkin’s Mastery”

2.3 V.G. Belinsky "Eugene Onegin"

3. Comments on the novel “Eugene Onegin”

3.1 Yu.M. Lotman "Eugene Onegin"

3.2 N.L. Brodsky "Eugene Onegin"

4. A.S. Pushkin about “Eugene Onegin” in letters to friends

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The novel “Eugene Onegin” occupies a central place in the poet’s work. This is his biggest, most popular work, which had a strong influence on the fate of Russian literature. While working on a novel, the poet writes to Vyazemsky: “Now I’m not writing a novel, but a novel in verse - a devilish difference.” Indeed, working on a novel is a colossal effort. Pushkin worked on this novel for 8 years. His characters, plot, and writing style developed and grew with him. Work on the novel took place during the transition from romanticism to realism in creative life A.S. Pushkin. No wonder V.G. Belinsky called the novel “an encyclopedia of Russian life.” This work reflects the life and lifestyle of society early XIX century, represented by the main characters - typical representatives of that time. “In the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, Pushkin depicted Russian society in one of the phases of its formation, its development, and with what truth, with what fidelity, how fully and artistically he depicted it,” said Belinsky.

In general, what is literary criticism? Literary criticism- region literary creativity on the verge of art ( fiction) and the science of literature (literary criticism). Engaged in the interpretation and evaluation of works of literature from the point of view of modernity (including pressing problems of social and spiritual life) and the personal views of the critic; identifies and affirms creative principles literary trends; has an active influence on literary process, as well as directly on the formation public consciousness; relies on the theory and history of literature, philosophy, aesthetics. It is often journalistic, political and topical in nature, intertwined with journalism.

Abstract objectives:

1. Get acquainted with criticism of the novel “Eugene Onegin”.

2. Find out the attitude of critics towards the novel, their opinions.

3. Analyze critical articles.

4. Draw a conclusion.

1 . “Eugene Onegin” in the life of A.S.Pushkin

literary criticism Onegin Pushkin

Pushkin began writing “Eugene Onegin” in May 1823 in Chisinau, and finished it on September 25, 1830 in Boldino. In 1831, Pushkin again turned to the novel. According to the plan, the novel was supposed to have nine chapters, but subsequently the author removed the eighth chapter and put the ninth in its place. The tenth chapter was also written, but the poet burned it. In 1833, the novel was published and contained eight chapters.

Since Pushkin wrote the novel for about 8 years, it is difficult to give detailed history writing. However, in the book by Yu.M. I found some references to Lotman:

Period in Mikhailovsky (1824-1826):

“On September 26, 1824, Pushkin wrote the poem “Conversation of a Bookseller with a Poet,” which he published as a preface to separate publication first chapter of Eugene Onegin. It was a declaration of the poet’s right to a truthfully prosaic attitude towards life.” “In February 1825, the first chapter of the novel was published...” During his stay at Mikhailovsky, Pushkin finishes the third chapter of the novel and works on the fourth, fifth and sixth. “Creative thinking follows complex paths: at the beginning of January 1826, Pushkin finally ends the fourth chapter of Eugene Onegin with humorous verses about the preference that he has been giving for some time to Bordeaux wine compared to Ai champagne. Then, with feverish haste, the fifth and then the sixth chapter of the novel are written, stanzas dedicated to Odessa, which were later included in Onegin’s Travels.

“The duality of his attitude towards the world was deeply unusual for Pushkin and filled him with inner restlessness and dissatisfaction with himself. An interesting paradox emerges in the relationship between life and creativity: while in “Poltava” truth is equated with a calm historical view in the perspective of a century-long distance (“A hundred years have passed...”), while the rebellious Onegin is condemned and contrasted with Tatiana’s wise humility...”

Later, Pushkin realized that the movement begun in Mikhailovsky needed to be stopped. 1830 was a year of completion: “Eugene Onegin” was completed, the small tragedies conceived in Mikhailovsky were written, the first completed prose works- “Belkin's Tales”.

2 . "Eugene Onegin" in Russianth criticism

In criticism and literary criticism, the assessment of “Eugene Onegin” has long been strengthened as central work Pushkin. Therefore, the novel received considerable attention even from those critics who, due to their conservative ideological and aesthetic positions, denied it serious social and literary significance. "Eugene Onegin" - the first realistic novel in the history of literature - became a work around which there were debates about the tasks and directions of art, about artistic method, about genres, style. The severity of the controversy surrounding “Eugene Onegin”, the clash of different points of view in illuminating its concept and images, Special attention to him in the history of Russian social thought - all this is explained by his exceptional social, artistic, and general cultural significance. Reproducing the Russian life of the era, reflecting the most pressing issues of our time, Pushkin at the same time put forward in his novel problems that go far beyond the time of its creation and have a broad national, national and universal sound, - problems of the meaning of life, the relationship between man and social environment, civic and moral duty, nationality and humanism. As we will see later, it was precisely these problems that arose in one form or another in Russian criticism and literary criticism when covering and interpreting the novel.

The literature about “Eugene Onegin” is truly immense. There are almost no studies about Pushkin’s work that would not, to one degree or another, concern the novel, its content or images. In this chapter we will touch only on the main directions in understanding the novel and works that most clearly reflect the history of its assessment and study, as well as express various trends in the development of problems related to it.

2.1 N.Ya Solovey “Eugene Onegin”

Nikolai Yakovlevich Solovey is a Russian playwright.

In his critical article N.Ya. Nightingale paid great attention to the birth of the concept of “Eugene Onegin”: “The novel in verse was conceived at a time when the poet became disillusioned with romanticism, but did not immediately come to an understanding of the new, realistic tasks of fiction.” Speaking about the romantic crisis in the work of A.S. Pushkin, Nikolai Yakovlevich draws a parallel between romantic works, for example, “Demon”, “Sower”, paid much attention to the poem “Gypsies”.

“Eugene Onegin is the central character of the novel in verse. Understanding this image and its artistic embodiment Pushkin worked for over ten years. The difficulty of implementing the plan was that for the first time in the history of Russian literature centrally work of art big genre form became a contemporary” - in these words N.Ya. The nightingale begins the chapter about Onegin. The critic identified 5 stages of Pushkin’s work on this image:

Stage I:

This stage refers to the creation of the first to fourth chapters (1823-1825). “Already in the first chapter, Pushkin describes in detail the actions young man, who lived eight years of distracted social life in St. Petersburg.” In general, this stage is devoted to creating the image of the main character; in these chapters, the concept of Onegin’s character is further developed. Nightingale notes that society has played big role in Onegin’s disappointment in life: “The influence of the social environment on the formation of such properties of the hero as disappointment in life, selfishness, individualism is shown in the first four chapters of the novel.”

Stage II:

The second stage of work on the image began in 1826. It is worth noting that at this time in public life Russia are happening important events: the Decembrist uprising was suppressed (December 14, 1825), the investigation and trial of its participants took place, the leaders of the uprising were executed.

N.Ya. Solovey says that in this chapter the poet “for the first time depicts the provincial nobility in sufficient detail as part of the social environment where Onegin’s life takes place.” Onegin has almost no effect at the beginning of the fifth chapter, he only “appears in Tatyana’s ominous dream as a fatal figure in relation to Lensky.” However, in the second part, Onegin already appears “in a real-life, not a fantasy situation” at Tatiana’s name day. In the actions of the hero, the egoistic peculiarity of his character is again felt.

In the sixth chapter, where the duel is described, Pushkin shows “the dependence of the behavior of a contemporary person on public opinion, on the morals of the environment.”

Stage III:

The third stage is associated with the work on the seventh chapter (1827-1828). In this chapter, Onegin does not appear on the pages of the novel; he is characterized through the perception of Tatyana, who is trying to unravel him. She reads books belonging to Onegin, who:

“Although we know that Eugene has long ceased to love reading, However, he excluded several creations from disgrace: The Singer Gyaour and Juan Yes, with him two or three more novels, In which the century is reflected And modern man is Portrayed quite correctly With his immoral soul, Selfish and dry, immensely devoted to dreams, with his embittered mind, seething in empty action.”

This chapter traces the similarities between Onegin and Byron's heroes. So isn't Onegin a parody? “For Pushkin, Onega is not a parody. The poet takes under the protection of his hero with his “inimitable strangeness.”

Stages IV and V:

These stages relate to the period 1829-1830. These are the final chapters of the novel, eighth, ninth and tenth.

The eighth chapter was entitled "The Journey", which was not included in the canonical text. The author took a new step in the development of the hero’s relationship with society: “Already in the first stanzas of the chapter “Wandering,” the theme of Onegin as an “extra” person in noble society was outlined and developed.” The same theme is repeated in chapter nine.

The last, tenth chapter is the final (eighth chapter) in the final version of the novel. In this chapter, Onegin’s inner world is characterized by his letter to Tatyana. “Only the changed Onegin could fall in love with Tatyana, and his letter is the most vivid evidence of the changes that have taken place in him.

Lensky's death made life in the village painful for him:

“From everything that is dear to the heart, Then I tore my heart away; Strange to everyone, not bound by anything, I thought: freedom and peace are a substitute for happiness. My God! How wrong I was, how I was punished!”

Indifference to everything, living only for himself did not give him satisfaction. Onegin sees his happiness and salvation in love:

“No, to see you every minute, to follow you everywhere, a smile of the mouth, a movement of the eyes.

To catch you with loving eyes, to listen to you for a long time, to understand with your soul all your perfection, to freeze before you in agony, to turn pale and fade away... this is bliss!” Thus, having examined the stages of work on creating the image of Onegin, N.Ya. Nightingale traced the evolution of the development of the main character, and consideration of the concept of the work helped him to better understand the character of Onegin.

2 .2 A.Slonimsky “The Mastery of Pushkin”

The work of A. Slonimsky is called “The Mastery of Pushkin.” This book presents detailed descriptions many of the poet's works, including "Eugene Onegin".

Slonimsky immediately begins by analyzing the image of the author: “The author in the first chapter acts as a “good friend” of Onegin. At times he even displaces his hero, attributing to him his own thoughts and moods:

“I was embittered, he was sullen; We both knew the game of passion: Life tormented both of us; The heat died down in both hearts; Both were awaited by the malice of Blind Fortune and people in the very morning of our days.”

This is a biography of Pushkin himself, and, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with Onegin, because, as can be seen from the foregoing, he was not haunted in his youth by any “malice of blind Fortune and people.” On the contrary, in the world he was greeted warmly from the first steps:

“...The world decided that he was smart and very nice.”

The next stage in the analysis of “Eugene Onegin” is the image of Tatiana. Slonimsky writes: “Tatyana is a “county young lady”, one of those about whom Pushkin wrote later (in “The Young Lady - Peasant”).” “Tatiana’s beauty is not in her “marble”, plastic beauty, but in that inner “life”, the absence of which Onegin notices in her sister: “Olga has no life in her features.”

Slonimsky pays great attention to the love story of Tatiana and Onegin: “ Love story Tatiana and Onegin do without major events. It all takes place in a peaceful environment and is made up of small psychological moves.”

According to A. Slonimsky, “Onegin occupies a passive position in the action of the novel: Tatyana declares his love to him, Lensky challenges him to a duel, but there is almost no sign of his own initiative.”

As for Lensky, Slonimsky mentions him in passing and does not focus much attention on him. However, he dwelled in detail on his poems, refuting the opinion that they are parodies: “Lensky’s poems receive parody against the backdrop of Pushkin’s speech, they are preceded by the following lines:

“Takes a pen; his poems, Full of love nonsense, resound and flow. He reads them aloud, in lyrical fervor, like Delvig drunk at a feast.”

A. Slonimsky concludes his article with the speech of the characters: “Each character (in addition to his direct speech) contributes to author's story their speech structure (which, of course, entails a certain structure of concepts and ideas): Onegin - ironic, Tatyana - village, estate, Lensky - romantic, all the others (Larins, Zaretsky, etc.) - everyday, characteristic of one or another environment - landowners, army, etc., such as, for example, the “dashing” transition to Zaretsky:

“Forward, forward, my story! A new face is calling us.”

Thus, it can be noted that the peculiarity of A. Slonimsky’s article is that he did not specifically describe each character, but followed the chronology of the novel. He traced the relationship between the characters, revealed the peculiarities of their speech and manner of conversation.

2 .3 V.G. Belinsky "Eugene Onegin"

V. G. Belinsky called Pushkin’s novel “an encyclopedia of Russian life and a highly popular work,” revealing in two articles entitled “Pushkin’s Works” the enormous merits of the novel, making it a great work of Russian literature.

Belinsky calls the novel historical, folk, national: “Eugene Onegin” is a historical poem.” “Pushkin was national at heart; he found national elements in a life half accustomed to forms alien to it.” "Eugene Onegin" is the first national work of art."

Belinsky compares the works of Pushkin and Byron, and concludes that “the form of Eugene Onegin was invented by Byron, but when comparing we do not find anything in common except this form and manner of writing. Byron wrote about Europe - for Europe, Pushkin about Russia - for Russia."

Speaking about the images of the main characters, Belinsky noted that “in the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, Pushkin depicted Russian society in one of the phases of its education, its development...”

Characterizing Onegin, Belinsky notes that most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. However, in his opinion, this is not entirely true: “Onegin is neither cold, nor dry, nor callous, there is poetry in his soul...”, “Secular life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled them.” “The inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him, he doesn’t even know what he needs, what he wants, but he knows that he doesn’t need, what he doesn’t want,” writes Belinsky. Dissatisfaction with oneself and the environment is characteristic of Pushkin's hero. This dissatisfaction is evidence of how much higher Onegin is secular society. Belinsky calls his egoism suffering from egoism, egoism involuntarily, due to historical circumstances.

In the image of Tatyana, Belinsky sees “a somewhat complex, but deep nature.” A simple village girl, then a society lady, Tatyana retains her inner essence in all life situations, she is “an exceptional being; deep, loving, passionate nature.” Dramatic fate noble youth of the Decembrist era is expressed not only in the image of Onegin, but also in the image of Lensky. Tatyana is opposed to Onegin and Lensky in the novel, she is close to her native people, Russian nature, her image helps to reveal the main idea of the novel: only communication with the people can save the intelligentsia, make their life meaningful, their work useful. In his article, Belinsky realistically presented his opinion and the opinion of the society of his time. Having analyzed and analyzed the novel with historical melancholy point of view, he came to the conclusion that “Eugene Onegin” is “an encyclopedia of Russian life.”

3 . Comments to poman "Eugene Onegin"

The main task of the commentary is to provide an opportunity to expand

evaluate the value of the text, clarify unclear points or express disagreement with the author. However, in in some cases comments can be more valuable than the text itself. Typically, comments are your own thoughts, partially expressing the opinion of the commentator. Less often - quotes from any sources or images. Comments are often speculative or personal judgments and are not necessarily accurate.

Literary commentaries most often explain some lines or passages from the text. This helps the reader understand what the author wanted to say and understand the idea contained in this passage.

3 .1 Y.M. Lotman “Eugene Onegin”.A comment

In this article, Lotman explains lines from the novel “Eugene Onegin”. However, there are some elements of criticism at the beginning.

The first place Lotman's commentary begins is with the internal chronology of Eugene Onegin. In this part, the critic talks about the time of the events that occurred in the novel: “1811-1812 - the end of Onegin’s “study” and his release into the world.” Counting the time from the winter of 1819 - spring of 1820 (the time of action of Chapter I), Pushkin writes:

“This is how he killed eight years old,

Having lost the best light of life.”

Y. Lotman talks in detail about the life of the nobility, about their interests and activities, about housing, entertainment and balls: “Dancing takes up a significant place in the novel; The author’s digressions are devoted to them; they play a large role in the plot.”

A very interesting article by Y. Lotman about the title of the work: “Eugene Onegin - the choice of the title and name of the main character was not accidental. This choice determined the genre nature of the text and the nature of the reader's expectations. The inclusion in the title of not only the first name, but also the surname of the hero, moreover, not conventionally literary, but actually everyday, was possible only in a relatively small circle of genres focused on modern content and creating the illusion of the truth of incidents.”

The main part of Y. Lotman's commentary is occupied by the analysis of each chapter. In these analyses, Y. Lotman explains lines from the novel.

In general, this article cannot be called completely criticism, but its elements are present. Y. Lotman's comments help us understand the novel, study it to the smallest detail, and form our opinion on this matter.

3 .2 N.L. Brodsky "Eugene Onegin"

Unlike Yu.M. Lotman's commentary by Brodsky is more complete. In his commentary, Brodsky explains each fragment of the text, and not some individual words.

The bulk of his work is devoted to epigraphs, he begins with a definition: “An epigraph is a single word or saying, in prose or verse, taken from any famous writer, or their own, which the authors place at the beginning of their work and thereby express the general idea of the work or their attitude to the depicted reality.” Next comes the analysis of the epigraphs: “And he is in a hurry to live and in a hurry to feel” - this epigraph is taken from a poem by P.A. Vyazemsky “First Snow” (1819). In the 1825 edition of the first chapter, the epigraph was missing. Pushkin borrowed it from a couplet in which Vyazemsky gave a generalized description of youth and its thirst for life:

This is how young ardor glides through life:

And he’s in a hurry to live and he’s in a hurry to feel!

So, in the light of these verses, it becomes obvious that the epigraph does not refer to an individual portrait of Onegin, but characterizes the mood typical of young people of that time.”

Thus, analysis of epigraphs helps us understand main idea a certain chapter, because it is precisely in the epigraph that it is contained, and the main text is its disclosure.

4 . A.S. Pushkin about “Eugene Heegin" in letters to his friends

A.S. Pushkin mentioned his novel in letters to his friends. From these letters one can trace the stages of work on the novel and Pushkin’s feelings about censorship. I will give a couple of excerpts from the letters.

In letters of 1823, Pushkin speaks about the beginning of work:

Letter to P.A. Vyazemsky November 4, 1823: “As for my studies, I am now writing not a novel, but a novel in verse - a devilish difference! Like Don Juan. There’s nothing to think about printing: I write carelessly.”

Letter to A.A. Delvig November 16, 1823:“I am writing now new poem, in which I’m rambling on and on... God knows when we’ll read it together...”

Letter to A.I. Turgenev December 1, 1823:“In my spare time I’m writing a new poem, Eugene Onegin, in which I’m choking on bile. Two songs are already ready.”

In his letters, Pushkin does not speak specifically about the characters or actions, does not describe the novel itself, but talks about the stages of work. However, in a letter to P.A. On May 27, 1826, the poet wrote to Vyazemsky: “...My deaf Mikhailovskoye makes me sad and furious. In the 4th song of Onegin I depicted my life...” This makes us understand that there are still elements of autobiography in the image of Onegin.

Also, from a letter to A. Bestuzhev on March 24, 1825, you can still feel Pushkin’s attitude towards his work: “Your letter is very smart, but still you are wrong; you are looking at Onegin from the wrong point; after all, it is my best work...”

Conclusion

“Eugene Onegin” is a great work of Russian and world literature. We see that this creation worried many people, not only critics, but also writers and poets, because this is only a small part of critical articles.

Each critic analyzed this work in his own way: someone analyzed every chapter, every word (this is called a commentary), and someone simply expressed their opinion about the work (this is criticism). Also, the manner and structure of the articles were different: some paid much attention to the characters, while others focused on vocabulary and syntax. Different attitude to heroes and events.

In general, criticism helps us form our opinion, find out the opinions and attitudes of other people, think and compare and come to a final opinion.

As for me, I really enjoyed working with criticism, because I learned a lot about the novel: the stages of writing, formed my opinion about the characters and events, supplemented it with new information, and it was also interesting to read excerpts from Pushkin’s letters in which he talks about novel.

List of used literature

1. N.Ya. Nightingale “Roman A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin".

2. A. Slonimsky “The Mastery of Pushkin.”

3. Yu.M. Lotman “Roman A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"

4. N.L. Brodsky "Eugene Onegin". Roman A.S. Pushkin."

5. V.G. Belinsky "Eugene Onegin".

6. A.S. Pushkin in the memoirs of his contemporaries (a series of literary memoirs).

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

The question of the “nationality” of Pushkin’s novel in Russian criticism

It is also important that the novel raised the question of what “nationality” is in literature. Some critics recognized the novel's significance as a “national” work, others saw in it an unsuccessful imitation of Byron. From the dispute it became clear that the first saw “nationality” in the wrong place where it should have been seen, while the second overlooked Pushkin’s originality. None of the critics rated this work as “realistic”, but many attacked its form, pointed out the shortcomings of the plan, the frivolity of the content...

Polevoy's review of "Eugene Onegin"

One of the most serious reviews of the novel must be the article Field. He saw in the novel a “literary capriccio”, an example of a “playful poem”, in the spirit of Byron’s “Beppo”, and appreciated the simplicity and liveliness of Pushkin’s story. Polevoy was the first to call Pushkin’s novel “national”: “we see ours, we hear ours.” folk sayings, we look at our quirks, which we were all not alien to once.” This article caused a lively debate. In the image of Tatyana, only one of the critics of that time saw the complete independence of Pushkin’s creativity. He placed Tatyana above the Circassian woman, Maria and Zarema.

The question of “Byronicism” in the novel

Critics who argued that “Eugene Onegin” is an imitation of Byron’s heroes, all the time argued that Byron is higher than Pushkin, and that Onegin, “an empty, insignificant and ordinary creature,” is lower than his prototypes. In essence, in this review of Pushkin’s hero, there was more praise than blame. Pushkin painted a “living” image without idealizing it, which cannot be said about Byron.

Nadezhdin's review of "Eugene Onegin"

Nadezhdin did not attach serious importance to the novel; in his opinion, Pushkin’s best work remained the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila”. He suggested looking at Pushkin’s novel as a “brilliant toy” that should neither be too extolled nor too condemned.