Apr 25 2010
The eccentric uncle of the late Pyotr Beltov is also depicted with kind feeling in the novel. This gentleman of an old cut (his youth fell on the initial period of the reign of Catherine II, about seventy years before the plot action in the novel) has a friendly attitude towards dependent people, a sincere passion for the humanistic ideals of the French enlightenment philosophers. And he described Sofya Nemchinova, the future Beltova, with a sincere feeling of affection and sympathy. A powerless serf, she accidentally received an education and was sold as a governess, and then slandered, driven to despair, but she found the strength to defend herself from vulgar persecution and preserve her good name. Chance made her free: a nobleman married her. After the death of her husband Pyotr Beltov, she became the owner of the richest estate, White Field, with three thousand souls of serfs. This was perhaps the most difficult test: power and wealth at that time almost inevitably corrupted a person. However, Sofya Beltova resisted and remained humane. Unlike other serf-wives, she does not humiliate the servants, does not treat them as animate property, and does not rob her wealthy peasants - even for the sake of her beloved son Vladimir, who was more than once forced to pay very large sums of money to the swindlers who deceived him.
Not without sympathy, Herzen even introduced the reader to the official Osip Yevseich, under whose command Vladimir Beltov began his official service. Came up from the bottom the hard way
this rootless son of a doorman in one of the St. Petersburg departments. “By copying out papers in blank and at the same time examining people in rough form, he daily acquired a deeper and deeper knowledge of reality, a correct understanding of the environment and the correct tact of behavior,” noted Herzen. It is noteworthy that Osip Evseich, the only one of the characters in the novel, correctly identified the very essence of the character of nineteen-year-old Beltov, and his typicality, and even the fact that he would not get along in the service. He understood the main thing: Beltov is honest, sincere, wants the best for people, but is not a fighter. Beltov has no endurance, no tenacity in the fight, no business acumen, and most importantly, no knowledge of life and people. And therefore, all his reform proposals for service will not be accepted, all his speeches in defense of the offended will turn out to be untenable and dreams of beauty will crumble to dust.
Herzen admitted that this character of his was right. “Indeed, the chief reasoned thoroughly, and events, as if on purpose, rushed to confirm him.” Less than six months later, Beltov resigned. A long, difficult and fruitless search began for something that would be useful for society.
Vladimir Beltov is the central character of the novel. His fate especially attracts Herzen's attention: it serves as confirmation of his conviction that serfdom as a system of social relations has exhausted its capabilities, is approaching inevitable collapse, and the most sensitive representatives of the ruling class are already aware of this, rushing about, looking for a way out and even trying to break out of their shy - the framework of the dominant system.
The Swiss Joseph played a special role in the upbringing of Vladimir Beltov. An educated and humane person, intelligent and persistent in his convictions, he does not know how to take into account the social nature of society, he simply does not know it. In his opinion, people are bound and united not by the demands of social necessity, but by sympathy or antipathy, reasonable arguments, and the convictions of logic. Man is by nature a rational being. And reason requires people to be humane and kind. It is enough to give them all the right education, to develop their minds - and they will understand each other and come to reasonable agreements, regardless of national and class differences. And order will be established in society by itself.
Joseph was a utopian. Such a teacher could not prepare Vladimir Beltov for the struggle of life. But Sofya Beltova was looking for just such a teacher: she did not want her son to grow up like those from whom she experienced persecution in her youth. The mother wanted her son to become a kind, honest, intelligent and open person, and not a serf owner. Dreamy Joseph was not familiar with Russian life. This is why he attracted Beltova: she saw in him a man free from the vices of serfdom.
What happened in the end when harsh reality began to test Beltova’s beautiful dreams and Joseph’s utopian intentions, assimilated by their pet?
Through the efforts of a loving mother and an honest, humane educator, a young character was formed, full of strength and good intentions, but detached from Russian life. Herzen's contemporaries positively assessed this as a true and deep generalization; but at the same time they noted that Beltov, for all his merits, is an extra person. The type of superfluous person developed in Russian life in the twenties and forties of the 19th century and was reflected in a number of literary images from Onegin to Rudin.
Like all superfluous people, Vladimir Beltov is a real denial of serfdom, but the denial is not yet clear, without a clearly realized goal and without knowledge of the means of combating social evil. Beltov failed to understand that the first step towards universal happiness should be the destruction of serfdom. However, for whom is he superfluous: for the people, for the future open struggle for the liberation of the people, or for his own class?
Herzen directly stated that Beltov “did not have the ability to be a good landowner, an excellent officer, a zealous official.” And that is why he is superfluous for a society where a person is obliged to be one of these exponents of violence against the people. After all, a “good landowner” deserves a positive assessment from other nobles only because he knows how to “well” exploit the peasants, and they do not need any landowners at all - neither “good” nor “bad”. Who are an “excellent officer” and a “zealous official”? From the point of view of the serf-owning nobles, an “excellent officer” is one who disciplines soldiers with a stick and forces them, without reasoning, to go against the external enemy and against the internal “enemy,” that is, against the rebellious people. And the “zealous official” zealously carries out the will of the ruling class.
Beltov refused such a service, and there was no other service for him in a feudal state. That is why he turned out to be superfluous for the state. Beltov essentially refused to join the rapists - and that is why the defenders of the existing order hate him so much. Herzen directly speaks about the reason for this, at first glance, strange hatred towards one of the richest and, therefore, most respected owners of the province: “Beltov is a protest, some kind of denunciation of their life, some kind of objection to its entire order.”
For a short moment, the fate of Lyubonka Krutsiferskaya was closely connected with the fate of Vladimir Beltov. Beltov’s appearance in the provincial town, the Krutsiferskys’ acquaintance with him, conversations on topics outside the circle of petty city news and family interests - all this stirred up Lyubonka. She thought about her position, about the opportunities that were allotted to the lot of a Russian woman, she felt a calling in herself to a significant public cause - and this spiritually transformed her. She seemed to have grown up, become larger and more significant than the other characters in the novel. She surpasses everyone in the strength of her character - and she also surpassed Beltova. She is a genuine novel.
Lyubonka Kruciferskaya is distinguished by her nobility of nature, inner independence and purity of motives. Herzen portrays her with great sympathy and sincere sympathy. her situation was sad. The saddest thing is that she cannot change her fate: circumstances are stronger than her. The Russian woman of that time was deprived of even those few rights that a man had. To change her situation, it was necessary to change the very system of relations in society. The tragedy of Lyubonka’s situation is due to this historical lack of rights.
The heroine of the novel, in spiritual communication with Beltov, was able to understand that the purpose of a person is not limited to those responsibilities imposed by the narrow world of a provincial town. She was able to imagine a wide world of social activity and herself in it - in science, or in art, or in any other service to society. Beltov called her there - and she was ready to rush after him. But what exactly should you do? What should you put your energy into? Beltov himself did not know this for sure. Oi himself rushed about and, as Herzen noted with bitterness, “did nothing.” And no one else could tell her this.
She felt great possibilities within herself, but they were doomed to destruction. And therefore Lyubonka realizes the hopelessness of her situation. But this did not give rise to a gloomy hostility towards people, causticity or bile in her - and this is what distinguishes her from many other characters in the novel. She, a person of high soul, is also characterized by sublime feelings - a sense of justice, participation and attention to others. Lyubonka feels sincere love for her poor but beautiful homeland; she feels a kinship with the oppressed, but spiritually free people.
Need a cheat sheet? Then save - "Characteristics of the heroes of Herzen's novel "Who is to Blame?" . Literary essays!Both in theory and in practice, Herzen consistently and purposefully brought journalism and fiction closer together. He is infinitely far from a calm, unperturbed image of reality. Herzen the artist constantly intrudes into the narrative. Before us is not a dispassionate observer, but a lawyer and a prosecutor in one and the same person, for if the writer actively defends and justifies some characters, he exposes and condemns others, without hiding his subjective biases. The author's consciousness in the novel is expressed directly and openly.
The first part of the novel consists mainly of detailed biographies of the characters, which is emphasized even by the title of individual sections: “Biographies of Their Excellencies”, “Biography of Dmitry Yakovlevich”. In the second part, a more consistent plot narrative unfolds with numerous inserted episodes and the author's journalistic digressions. In general, the entire literary text is connected by the unity of the author’s idea and is built primarily on the basis of a clear and consistent development of the author’s thought, which has become the most important structure-forming and style-forming factor. The author's speech occupies a central place in the overall course of the narrative. It is often imbued with irony - sometimes soft and good-natured, sometimes striking and scourging. At the same time, Herzen brilliantly uses the most diverse styles of the Russian language, boldly combining forms of vernacular with scientific terminology, generously introducing literary quotations and foreign words, neologisms, unexpected and therefore immediately attention-grabbing metaphors and comparisons into the text. This creates an idea of the author as an excellent stylist and encyclopedic educated person, with a sharp mind and observation, capable of capturing the most diverse shades of the reality he depicts - funny and touching, tragic and insulting human dignity.
Herzen's novel is distinguished by its wide coverage of life in time and space. The biographies of the heroes allowed him to develop the narrative over a large time range, and Beltov’s trips made it possible to describe the noble estate, provincial cities, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and talk about his impressions abroad. A deep analysis of the uniqueness of Herzen the writer is contained in Belinsky’s article “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847.” The main strength of the author of the novel “Who is to Blame?” the critic saw in the power of thought. “With Iskander (the pseudonym of Alexander Herzen), Belinsky wrote, his thought is always ahead, he knows in advance what he is writing and why; he depicts with amazing fidelity the scene of reality only in order to say his word about it, to carry out judgment.” As the critic deeply notes, “such talents are as natural as purely artistic talents.” Belinsky called Herzen “primarily a poet of humanity”; in this he saw the pathos of the writer’s work, the most important social and literary significance of the novel “Who is to Blame?” The traditions of Herzen's intellectual novel were picked up and developed by Chernyshevsky, as indicated by the direct roll call of the titles: “Who is to blame?” - "What to do?"
Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (March 25 (April 6) 1812, Moscow - January 9 (21), 1870, Paris) - Russian publicist, writer, philosopher, teacher, one of the most prominent critics of the feudal Russian Empire.
(Natural school is the conventional name for the initial stage of development of critical realism in Russian literature of the 1840s, which arose under the influence of the work of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Turgenev and Dostoevsky, Grigorovich, Herzen, Goncharov, Nekrasov, Panaev, Dahl, Chernyshevsky were considered the “natural school” , Saltykov-Shchedrin and others)
Issues
The composition of the novel “Who is to Blame?” very original. Only the first chapter of the first part has the actual romantic form of exposition and the beginning of the action - “A retired general and teacher, deciding on the place.” This is followed by: “Biography of Their Excellencies” and “Biography of Dmitry Yakovlevich Krutsifersky”. Chapter “ Living life” is a chapter from the correct narrative form, but it is followed by “ Biography of Vladimir Beltov" Herzen wanted to compose a novel from this kind of individual biographies, where “in the footnotes one can say that so-and-so married so-and-so.” “For me, a story is a frame,” said Herzen. He painted mostly portraits; he was most interested in faces and biographies. “A person is a track record in which everything is noted,” writes Herzen, “a passport on which visas remain.” At visible fragmentation of the narrative, when the story from the author is replaced by letters from the heroes, excerpts from the diary, biographical digressions, Herzen's novel is strictly consistent.
He saw his task not in resolving the issue, but in identifying it correctly. Therefore, he chose a protocol epigraph: “And this case, due to the non-discovery of the guilty, should be handed over to the will of God, and the case, having been considered unresolved, should be handed over to the archives. Protocol". But he did not write a protocol, but a novel in which investigated not “a case, but a law of modern reality”" That is why the question posed in the title of the book resonated with such force in the hearts of his contemporaries. The critic saw the main idea of the novel in the fact that the problem of the century receives from Herzen not a personal, but a general meaning: “It is not we who are to blame, but the lies in whose networks we have been entangled since childhood.”
But Herzen occupied the problem of moral self-awareness and personality. Among Herzen's heroes there are no villains who would consciously and deliberately do evil to their neighbors . His heroes are children of the century, no better and no worse than others; rather, even better than many, and some of them contain the promise of amazing abilities and opportunities. Even General Negros, the owner of “white slaves”, a serf owner and a despot due to the circumstances of his life, is depicted as a man in whom “life has crushed more than one opportunity.” Herzen's thought was social in essence; he studied the psychology of his time and saw a direct connection between a person's character and his environment. Herzen called history a “ladder of ascension”" This idea meant first of all spiritual elevation of the individual above the living conditions of a certain environment. So, in his novel “Who is to Blame?” only there and then the personality declares itself when it separates from its environment; otherwise it is consumed by the emptiness of slavery and despotism.
“Who is to blame? - an intellectual novel. His heroes are thinking people, but they have their own “woe from their minds.” And it lies in the fact that with all their brilliant ideals they were forced to live in a gray world, which is why their thoughts were seething “in empty action.” Even genius does not save Beltov from this “millions of torments,” from the consciousness that the gray light is stronger than his brilliant ideals, if his lonely voice is lost among the silence of the steppe. This is where it comes from feeling depressed and bored:“Steppe - go wherever you want, in all directions - free will, but you won’t get anywhere...”
“Who is to blame? - a question that did not give a clear answer. It is not without reason that the search for an answer to Herzen’s question occupied the most prominent Russian thinkers - from Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The novel “Who is to Blame?” predicted the future. It was a prophetic book. Beltov, like Herzen, not only in the provincial city, among officials, but also in the capital’s chancellery, found “utter melancholy” everywhere, “dying of boredom.” “On his native shore” he could not find a worthy business for himself. But slavery also established itself “on the other side.” On the ruins of the revolution of 1848, the triumphant bourgeois created an empire of property owners, discarding good dreams of fraternity, equality and justice. And again a “most perfect emptiness” formed, where thought died of boredom. And Herzen, as predicted by his novel “Who is to Blame?”, like Beltov, became “a wanderer around Europe, a stranger at home, a stranger in a foreign land.” He did not renounce either the revolution or socialism. But he was overcome by fatigue and disappointment. Like Beltov, Herzen “made and lived through the abyss.” But everything he experienced belonged to history. That is why his thoughts and memories are so significant. What Beltov was tormented by as a mystery became for Herzen modern experience and insightful knowledge. Again the same question arose before him with which it all began: “Who is to blame?”
Beltov's image
Beltov’s image contains a lot of unclear, seemingly contradictory, sometimes given only by hints. This was reflected both by the creative subjectivity of Herzen, who created the character of the hero according to the fresh traces of his own ideological development, and even more so by the censorship conditions that did not allow him to speak directly about many things. This also determined the incorrect understanding of Beltov’s character on Belinsky’s part. In the “backstory” of the hero, the critic only drew attention to the fact that Beltov has “a lot of intelligence”, that his “nature” is spoiled by “false upbringing”, “wealth”, and therefore he does not have “a special vocation for any kind of activity “that he was “condemned to languish ... with the anguish of inaction.” In the main part of the novel, the character of the hero, according to the critic, is “arbitrarily changed by the author,” and Beltov “suddenly appears before us as some kind of higher, genius nature, for whose activity reality does not represent a worthy field...”. “This is no longer Beltov, but something like Pechorin.” The last opinion is correct: the matured Beltov has something in common with Pechorin. But this is not their “genius” and their tragic relationship with society. However, Belinsky was mistaken in assessing the character of young Beltov. Already in his youth, Beltov was not just a spoiled gentleman. And then there were more romantic impulses in him than “melancholy of inaction.” As for his transition to the skepticism of a mature understanding of life, this transition looks sudden because the author could not talk about it in detail. This change is not taking place at the discretion of the author, and as a result of the “power of circumstances" This time Herzen's hero is a Russian nobleman and even the son of a serf peasant woman. Unlike Chatsky, Onegin and Pechorin, who received the capital's, secular-aristocratic education, Beltov, like Turgenev’s heroes (Lezhnev, Lavretsky, etc.), was brought up in the estate, and from there he got into the circle of students at Moscow University. A characteristic feature of Beltov’s ideological development is his early emergence pursuit of romantic ideals. Drawing on his own experience, Herzen connects these aspirations with reading Plutarch and Schiller, with strong impressions of revolutionary movements in the West.
… Beltov's development took place in the context of Russian social life in the early 1830s. Herzen speaks briefly and deliberately vaguely about a “friendly circle of five or six young men,” but emphasizes that the ideas of this circle were “alien to the environment” and that “the young people drew colossal plans for themselves,” which were far from being realized. In this Beltov differs sharply from Pechorin. Pechorin, created by temperament for active social struggle, longs for “storms and battles,” but exchanges his strength in random everyday clashes. Beltov, brought up more abstractly, draws up “colossal plans” for himself, but wastes his time in carrying out private practical tasks, which he always undertakes to solve alone, with “desperate courage of thought.” This is, first of all, Beltov’s service in department e, which the aristocrat Pechorin would never agree to. Beltov undoubtedly set himself a “colossal” and naively romantic task: alone to fight injustice and overcome it. No wonder the officials were indignant at the fact that he “runs around with all sorts of rubbish, gets excited, like his own father... they are cutting him down, but he saves”... No wonder the minister himself vainly made him “gentle” suggestions, and then simply thrown out of service for obstinacy. Such is the passion Beltova medicine. And here he would like to benefit people, trying to solve difficult scientific problems with “desperate courage of thought,” and was defeated. Even in his painting classes, the young man’s civic and romantic interests were reflected. Summing up the failures of his hero in the first part of the novel, asking a “sophisticated question” about their causes, Herzen correctly believes that the answer must be sought not in “the mental structure of a person,” but, as he deliberately vaguely says, “in the atmosphere, in the environment, in influences and contacts..." Beltov himself later objected well to Krupov, who explained his idleness by wealth, that there are “quite strong incentives to work” and “besides hunger,” at least “the desire to speak out.” Pechorin would not have said that. This is the self-assessment of "a man of the 1840s"" And in this respect, Beltov can be compared not with Pechorin, but with Rudin. Beltov realized the reason for his failures only during his wanderings in the West. The author emphasizes many times that before leaving abroad his hero, due to his romantic upbringing, “did not understand reality.” Now he understood something about her. In his own words, he “lost his youthful beliefs” and “acquired a sober look, perhaps bleak and sad, but true.” Calling Beltov’s new views “bleak” but “true,” Herzen undoubtedly has in mind the ideological crisis that the most advanced people in Russia experienced in the early 40s during the transition from philosophical idealism to materialism. ..... This is exactly what Herzen emphasizes in Beltov, saying that Beltov “lived a lot in thought,” that he now has “bold, sharp thinking” and even “a terrible breadth of understanding,” that he is internally open to “all modern issues.” It is interesting, however, that Herzen, not content with this, scattered hints in the novel about some of Beltov’s activities abroad, which apparently led him to new views and moods. You can try to bring these hints into one whole, at least hypothetically.
45. Who is to blame? A.I. Herzen. V.G. Belinsky about the novel.
Composition of the novel“Who is to blame?” very original. Only the first chapter of the first part has the actual romantic form of exposition and the beginning of the action - “A retired general and teacher, deciding on the place.” This is followed by: “Biography of Their Excellencies” and “Biography of Dmitry Yakovlevich Krutsifersky”. The chapter “Life and Being” is a chapter from the correct form of narration, but it is followed by “Biography of Vladimir Beltov”.
Herzen wanted to compose a novel from this kind of individual biographies, where “in the footnotes one can say that so-and-so married so-and-so.” “For me, a story is a frame,” said Herzen. He painted mostly portraits; he was most interested in faces and biographies. “A person is a track record in which everything is noted,” writes Herzen, “a passport on which visas remain.”
Despite the apparent fragmentation of the narrative, when the story from the author is replaced by letters from the characters, excerpts from the diary, and biographical digressions, Herzen’s novel is strictly consistent. “This story, despite the fact that it will consist of separate chapters and episodes, has such integrity that a torn page spoils everything,” writes Herzen.
He saw his task not in resolving the issue, but in identifying it correctly. Therefore, he chose a protocol epigraph: “And this case, due to the non-discovery of the guilty, should be handed over to the will of God, and the case, having been considered unresolved, should be handed over to the archives. Protocol".
But he did not write a protocol, but a novel, in which he explored not “a case, but a law of modern reality.” That is why the question posed in the title of the book resonated with such force in the hearts of his contemporaries. The critic saw the main idea of the novel in the fact that the problem of the century receives from Herzen not a personal, but a general meaning: “It is not we who are to blame, but the lies in whose networks we have been entangled since childhood.”
But Herzen was interested in the problem of moral self-awareness and personality. Among Herzen's heroes there are no villains who would consciously and deliberately do evil to their neighbors. His heroes are children of the century, no better and no worse than others; rather, even better than many, and some of them contain the promise of amazing abilities and opportunities. Even General Negros, the owner of “white slaves”, a serf owner and a despot due to the circumstances of his life, is depicted as a man in whom “life has crushed more than one opportunity.” Herzen's thought was social in essence; he studied the psychology of his time and saw a direct connection between a person's character and his environment.
Herzen called history a “ladder of ascension.” This thought meant, first of all, the spiritual elevation of the individual above the living conditions of a certain environment. So, in his novel “Who is to Blame?” only there and then does the personality declare itself, when it is separated from its environment; otherwise it is consumed by the emptiness of slavery and despotism.
And so Krutsifersky, a dreamer and romantic, confident that there is nothing accidental in life, enters the first step of the “ladder of ascension.” He gives his hand to Lyuba, Negrov’s daughter, and helps her rise. And she rises after him, but one step higher. Now she sees more than he does; she understands that Krutsifersky, a timid and confused person, will not be able to take another step forward and higher. And when she raises her head, her gaze falls on Beltov, who was much higher on the same stairs than she was. And Lyuba herself extends her hand to him...
“Beauty and in general strength, but it acts according to some kind of selective similarity,” writes Herzen. The mind also operates by selective similarity. That is why Lyubov Krutsiferskaya and Vladimir Beltov could not help but recognize each other: they had this similarity. Everything that was known to her only as a sharp guess was revealed to him as complete knowledge. This was a nature “extremely active inside, open to all modern issues, encyclopedic, gifted with bold and sharp thinking.” But the fact of the matter is that this meeting, accidental and at the same time irresistible, did not change anything in their lives, but only increased the severity of reality, external obstacles, and aggravated the feeling of loneliness and alienation. The life they wanted to change with their ascent was motionless and unchanging. It looks like a flat steppe in which nothing moves. Lyuba was the first to feel this when it seemed to her that she and Krutsifersky were lost among the silent expanses: “They were alone, they were in the steppe.” Herzen deploys the metaphor in relation to Beltov, deriving it from the folk proverb “Alone in the field is not a warrior”: “I am like a hero of folk tales... I walked along all the crossroads and shouted: “Is there a man alive in the field?” But a man is not alive responded... My misfortune!.. And one in the field is not a warrior... I left the field...” The “ladder of ascension” turned out to be a “humpbacked bridge”, which raised him to a height and released him on all four sides.
“Who is to blame?” - an intellectual novel. His heroes are thinking people, but they have their own “woe from their minds.” And it lies in the fact that with all their brilliant ideals they were forced to live in a gray world, which is why their thoughts were seething “in empty action.” Even genius does not save Beltov from this “millions of torments,” from the consciousness that the gray light is stronger than his brilliant ideals, if his lonely voice is lost among the silence of the steppe. This is where the feeling of depression and boredom arises: “Steppe - go wherever you want, in all directions - free will, but you won’t get anywhere...”
There are also notes of despair in the novel. Iskander wrote the story of the weakness and defeat of a strong man. Beltov, as if with peripheral vision, notices that “the door that opened closer and closer was not the one through which the gladiators entered, but the one through which their bodies were carried out.” Such was the fate of Beltov, one of the galaxy of “superfluous people” of Russian literature, the heir of Chatsky, Onegin and Pechorin. From his sufferings grew many new ideas that found their development in Turgenev’s “Rudin” and in Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”.
In this narrative, Herzen spoke not only about external obstacles, but also about the internal weakness of a person brought up in conditions of slavery.
“Who is to blame?” - a question that did not give a clear answer. It is not without reason that the search for an answer to Herzen’s question occupied the most prominent Russian thinkers - from Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
The novel “Who is to Blame?” predicted the future. It was a prophetic book. Beltov, like Herzen, not only in the provincial city, among officials, but also in the capital’s chancellery, found “utter melancholy” everywhere, “dying of boredom.” “On his native shore” he could not find a worthy business for himself.
But slavery also established itself “on the other side.” On the ruins of the revolution of 1848, the triumphant bourgeois created an empire of property owners, discarding good dreams of fraternity, equality and justice. And again a “most perfect emptiness” formed, where thought died of boredom. And Herzen, as predicted by his novel “Who is to Blame?”, like Beltov, became “a wanderer around Europe, a stranger at home, a stranger in a foreign land.”
He did not renounce either the revolution or socialism. But he was overcome by fatigue and disappointment. Like Beltov, Herzen “made and lived through the abyss.” But everything he experienced belonged to history. That is why his thoughts and memories are so significant. What Beltov was tormented by as a mystery became for Herzen modern experience and insightful knowledge. Again the same question arose before him with which it all began: “Who is to blame?”
Belinsky: To see in the author “Who is to blame?” an extraordinary artist means not understanding his talent at all. True, he has a remarkable ability to accurately convey the phenomena of reality, his essays are definite and sharp, his paintings are bright and immediately catch the eye. But even these very qualities prove that his main strength is not in creativity, not in artistry, but in thought, deeply felt, fully conscious and developed. The power of this thought is the main strength of his talent; the artistic manner of correctly capturing the phenomena of reality is a secondary, auxiliary strength of his talent. Take the first one away from him, and the second one will turn out to be too untenable for original activity. Such talent is not something special, exceptional, or accidental. No, such talents are as natural as purely artistic talents. Their activity forms a special sphere of art, in which fantasy comes second and intelligence comes first. Little attention is paid to this difference, and therefore there is terrible confusion in the theory of art. They want to see in art a kind of mental China, sharply separated by precise boundaries from everything that is not art in the strict sense of the word. Meanwhile, these boundary lines exist more hypothetically than actually; at least you can’t point them out with your finger, like on a map of state boundaries. Art, as it approaches one or another of its borders, gradually loses something of its essence and takes into itself from the essence of what it borders on, so that instead of a dividing line there is an area that reconciles both sides.
It all started in childhood. Krupov was the son of a deacon, and he was being prepared to take his place someday. There was such a boy Levka in the village, Senka’s (Krupov) only friend. Levka was blessed, he didn’t understand a damn thing and didn’t love anyone except Senka and his dog. Levka lived an amazing life: he found food for himself, communicated with nature, didn’t attack anyone, but everyone offended him. In short, the man was happy, but everyone was bothering him. Senka was interested in how this could happen. Why do people think he's crazy? And he came to the conclusion that “the reason for all the persecution of Levka is that Levka is stupid in his own way - and others are completely stupid.” Krupov also decided: “in this world of social injustice and hypocrisy, Krupov is convinced, the so-called “crazy” are “essentially no more stupid and no more damaged than everyone else, but only more original, focused, independent, more original, one might even say, which is more brilliant than those." But still, Senka wanted to explore all this from a scientific point of view. He wanted to go to university, but his father did not allow him. Then he went to the master, but the master did not accept him. As a result, after the death of his father, Senka ended up in it. University and enrolled in general psychiatry. And so, after years of practice with psychotics, Krupov drew his conclusions about the signs of disorders:
A) in incorrect, but also involuntary consciousness of surrounding objects
C) stupid pursuit of unrealistic goals and omission of real goals.
And so he began to adjust people to these signs and it turned out that EVERYONE was nuts.
He had a bourgeois ward who closed a vicious circle herself: she bought wine for her husband, he drank, beat her, and left. day all over again... Krukpov tells her: don’t buy wine. And she told him: why the hell shouldn’t I bring wine to my lawful husband? Krupov: then why are you arguing with your legal husband? She: this freak is not my husband, fuck him... Then she loved her child strangely. She hunched over at work all day to buy him new clothes, but if he got it dirty, she beat the child. Further. All officials are complete psychos: they do meaningless work all day long. What about the landowners? Two people lived in a legal marriage, but they hated each other terribly and wished each other death. Krupov suggested: just loosen your grip on the estates, everything will be better. And they: yes, now, I was born and raised in a pious family, I know the laws of decency! Or there was another stingy landowner who starved everyone to death. But when a high-ranking official arrived, he ran and almost on his knees asked him to dine with him. And then I spent so much money on it that my dear mother. The whole system of life looks “damaged”, in which people working “day and night” “did not produce anything, and those who did nothing continuously produced nothing, and those who did nothing continuously produced, and a lot.” ".And look at the history of mankind! History is caused by a universal pathology.
And so the doctor says that he no longer has anger at people, but only gentle condescension towards the patient.
The originality of satire:
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Here's what Lotman says:
Reflections on the interconnection of various social phenomena and the causes of social evil led the best progressive representatives of critical realism to the perception of the ideas of utopian socialism. They are reflected in Saltykov’s story. The circle of Petrashevites, ideologically connected with Belinsky, was actively involved in the promotion of these ideas. Meetings of the Petrashevsky circle were attended by many writers of the Gogol school. In The Holy Family, Marx formulated the idea of the contact between revolutionary humanism and materialism of the 19th century and socialist ideas as follows: “It does not require great wit to see the connection between the teaching of materialism about the innate tendency towards goodness, about the equality of the mental abilities of people, about the omnipotence of experience, habits, upbringing, the influence of external circumstances on a person, the high importance of industry, the moral right to enjoyment, etc. - both communism and socialism. If a person draws all his knowledge, sensations, etc. from the sensory world and the experience received from this world, then it is necessary, therefore, to arrange the world around us in such a way that a person recognizes what is truly human in it, so that he gets used to cultivating human properties in it. If correctly understood interest constitutes the principle of all morality, then it is necessary, therefore, to strive to ensure that the private interest of an individual coincides with the general human interests ... If a person's character is created by circumstances, then it is necessary, therefore, to make circumstances
humane. If man, by nature, is a social being, then he, therefore, can only develop his true nature in society, and the strength of his nature must be judged not by individual individuals, but by the whole society.”
Speaking about the absurdity of the modern social structure in the story “Doctor Krupov,” Herzen criticized society from a socialist position. Through the mouth of his hero, the writer declared: “In our city there were five thousand inhabitants; Of these, about two hundred people were plunged into tedious boredom from the lack of any activity, and four thousand seven hundred people were plunged into tedious activity from the lack of any rest. Those who worked day and night produced nothing, and those who did nothing produced continuously and a lot.” 2
Herzen seemed to be developing the idea of Gogol’s St. Petersburg stories, especially “Notes of a Madman,” about the madness of society, about the abnormality of relationships that are recognized in modern society as the “norm,” and at the same time his story was sharply different from Gogol’s stories. Unlike Gogol, Herzen took the position of a revolutionary; he was a socialist and saw the possibility of correcting society through revolutionary means.
And one more thing:
The famous artist in “The Thieving Magpie” said bitterly: “There are crazy people all around.” But it was like a random phrase. Dr. Krupov develops his theory of “comparative psychiatry” in detail and in detail. At every step he sees how people waste their lives “in the pain of madness.” From observations of modern life, Krupov moved on to studying history, re-reading ancient and modern authors - Titus Livy. Tacitus, Gibbon, Karamzin - and found clear signs of madness in the deeds and speeches of kings, monarchs, and conquerors. “History,” writes Dr. Krupov, “is nothing more than a coherent story of generic chronic madness and its slow cure.”
The philosophical essence of the story lies in overcoming Hegel’s “beautiful” theory that “everything that is real is reasonable, and everything that is reasonable is real,” a theory that was the basis of “reconciliation with reality.” Dr. Krupov saw in this theory a justification of existing evil and was ready to assert that “everything that is real is insane.” “It was not pride and disdain, but love that led me to my theory,” says Krupov.
In order for the monsters of madness to disappear, the atmosphere must change, Dr. Krupov proves. Vemlya was once trampled by mastodons, but the composition of the air changed, and they disappeared. “In some places the air becomes cleaner, mental illnesses are tamed,” writes Krupov, “but generic madness is not easily processed in the human soul.”
47. The Thieving Magpie of A.I. Herzen in the literary and social struggle of the 1840s.
This retelling is from the site of Herzen fans, but you couldn’t write it better:
Three people are talking about the theater: a “Slav” with a short haircut, a “European” with “no haircut at all”, and a young man standing outside the party, with a buzz cut (like Herzen), who proposes a topic for discussion: why there are no good people in Russia actresses Everyone agrees that there are no good actresses, but each explains this according to his own doctrine: the Slav speaks about the patriarchal modesty of the Russian woman, the European speaks about the emotional underdevelopment of Russians, and for the man with a close-cropped hair, the reasons are unclear. After everyone has had time to speak out, a new character appears - a man of art and refutes the theoretical calculations with an example: he saw a great Russian actress, and, which surprises everyone, not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in a small provincial town. The artist's story follows (his prototype is M. S. Shchepkin, to whom the story is dedicated).
Once in his youth (at the beginning of the 19th century), he came to the city of N, hoping to enter the theater of the rich Prince Skalinsky. Talking about the first performance seen at the Skalinsky Theater, the artist almost echoes the “European”, although he shifts the emphasis in a significant way:
“There was something tense, unnatural in the way the courtyard people<…>represented lords and princesses." The heroine appears on stage in the second performance - in the French melodrama “The Thieving Magpie” she plays the maid Aneta, unfairly accused of theft, and here in the play of the serf actress the narrator sees “that incomprehensible pride that develops on the edge of humiliation.” The depraved judge offers her to “buy freedom with the loss of honor.” The performance, the “deep irony of the face” of the heroine especially amazes the observer; he also notices the prince’s unusual excitement. The play has a happy ending - it is revealed that the girl is innocent and the thief is a magpie, but the actress in the finale plays a creature mortally tortured.
The audience does not call the actress and outrages the shocked and almost in love narrator with vulgar remarks. Behind the scenes, where he rushed to tell her about his admiration, they explain to him that she can only be seen with the permission of the prince. The next morning, the narrator goes for permission and in the prince’s office he meets, among other things, the artist, who had been playing the lord for three days, almost in a straitjacket. The prince is kind to the narrator because he wants to get him into his troupe, and explains the strictness of the rules in the theater by the excessive arrogance of the artists, accustomed to the role of nobles on stage.
“Aneta” meets a fellow artist as if she were a loved one and confesses to him. To the narrator, she seems like a “statue of graceful suffering,” he almost admires how she “perishes gracefully.”
The landowner, to whom she belonged from birth, seeing her abilities, provided every opportunity to develop them and treated her as if she were free; he died suddenly, and did not bother to write out vacation pay for his artists in advance; they were sold at public auction to the prince.
The prince began to harass the heroine, she evaded; Finally, an explanation occurred (the heroine had previously read aloud “Cunning and Love” by Schiller), and the offended prince said: “You are my serf girl, not an actress.” These words had such an effect on her that soon she was already in consumption.
The prince, without resorting to gross violence, pettyly annoyed the heroine: he took away the best roles, etc. Two months before meeting the narrator, she was not allowed from the yard to the shops and was insulted, suggesting that she was in a hurry to see her lovers. The insult was deliberate: her behavior was impeccable. “So is it to preserve our honor that you lock us up? Well, prince, here is my hand to you, my word of honor that within a year I will prove to you that the measures you have chosen are insufficient!”
In this novel of the heroine, in all likelihood, the first and last, there was no love, but only despair; she said almost nothing about him. She became pregnant, and what tormented her most was that the child would be born a serf; she only hopes for a quick death for herself and her child by the grace of God.
The narrator leaves in tears, and, having found at home the prince’s offer to join his troupe on favorable terms, he leaves the city, leaving the invitation unanswered. Then he learns that “Aneta” died two months after giving birth.
The excited listeners are silent; the author compares them to a “beautiful gravestone group” for the heroine. “That’s all right,” the Slav said, getting up, “but why didn’t she get married secretly?..”
Literary and social struggle of the 1840s:
The character of this period of Russian literature was directly influenced by the ideological movement that, as stated, manifested itself in the mid-thirties in Moscow circles of young idealists. Many of the greatest luminaries of the forties owe their first development to them. In these circles, the basic ideas arose that laid the foundation for entire directions of Russian thought, the struggle of which revived Russian journalism for decades. When the influence of the idealistic German philosophy of Hegel and Schelling was joined by a passion for French romantic radicalism (V. Hugo, J. Sand, etc.) , a strong ideological ferment appeared in literary circles: they either converged on many points they had in common, then diverged to the point of outright hostile relations, until, finally, two bright literary trends were defined: Westernism, St. Petersburg, with Belinsky And Herzen at the head, which put at the forefront the foundations of Western European development, as an expression of universal human ideals, and the Slavophile, Moscow, in the person of the brothers Kireevskikh, Aksakov And Khomyakova, trying to find out the special paths of historical development that corresponded to a very specific spiritual type of a known nation or race, in this case the Slavic one. In their passion for struggle, passionate by temperament adherents of both directions very often went to extremes, sometimes denying all the bright and healthy aspects of national life in the name of exaltation of the brilliant mental culture of the West, then trampling on the results developed by European thought, in the name of unconditional admiration for the insignificant, sometimes even insignificant, but national characteristics of their historical life.
However, during the forties, this did not prevent both directions from converging on some basic, common and obligatory provisions for both, which had the most beneficial effect on the growth of public self-awareness. This common thing that connected both warring groups was idealism, selfless service to the idea, devotion to the people's interests in the broadest sense of the word, no matter how differently the paths to achieving possible ideals were understood.
Of all the figures of the forties, one of the most powerful minds of that era best expressed the general mood - Herzen, whose works harmoniously combined the depth of his analytical mind with the poetic softness of sublime idealism. Without venturing into the realm of fantastic constructions, which Slavophiles often indulged in, Herzen, however, recognized many real democratic foundations in Russian life (for example, the community).
Herzen deeply believed in the further development of the Russian community and at the same time analyzed the dark sides of Western European culture, which were completely ignored by pure Westerners. Thus, in the forties, literature for the first time put forward clearly expressed directions of social thought. She strives to become an influential social force. Both warring trends, the Westernizer and the Slavophile, equally categorically pose the tasks of civil service for literature.
"The Thieving Magpie" is Herzen's most famous story with a very complex
internal theatrical structure. First three appear on stage
The persons talking are “Slavic”, “European” and “author”. Then to them
a “famous artist” joins. And immediately, as if in the depths of the stage,
the second curtain rises and a view of the Skalinsky Theater opens up. Moreover
the "famous artist" moves to this second stage as an actor
faces But that's not all. The Skalinsky Theater has its own stage, on which,
in the very depths and in the center of this triple perspective, a figure arises
the main character playing the role of Ayeta from the play famous in those years
"The Thieving Magpie" [The play was written by Quenier and d'Aubigny in 1816
"The Thieving Magpie", and in 1817 G. Rossini created an opera based on this
The story was written at the height of the disputes between Westerners and
Slavophiles. Herzen brought out the ah aa scene as the most characteristic types of time.
And gave everyone the opportunity to speak according to their character
and beliefs. Herzen, like Gogol, believed that the disputes between Westerners and
Slavophiles are the “passions of the mind” raging in abstract spheres, while
how life goes its own way; and while they argue about national character and
whether it is decent or indecent for a Russian woman to be on stage, somewhere in the wilderness,
A great actress dies in a serf theater, and the prince shouts to her: “You are mine.”
a serf girl, not an actress."
The story is dedicated to M. Shchepkin, he appears on the “stage” under the name
"famous artist" This gives The Thieving Magpie a special edge.
After all, Shchepkin was a serf; his case delivered from slavery. And the whole story about the serf actress was a variation
on the theme "Thieving Magpies", a variation on the theme of the guilty 6ez guilt...
Aneta from "The Thieving Magpie" in her character and in her destiny is very
Total y...
History of Russian literature (1)
Sample program... (1826 – 1855 yy.) 2.1. Generalcharacteristicliteraryprocess Nicholas era and literary-public... literaryprocess second quarter of the 19th century 2.1.1. 1826 – 1842 yy. The role of A. S. Pushkin and his legacy in literaryprocess 1830s yy ...
However, it contains great content. It outgrows the family and everyday conflict within the framework of the plot action: the characters get to know each other, meet, argue, fall in love, realize the need to separate, and at the same time points to the general processes of Russian life, comprehends the circumstances of the formation of characters, explains the reasons why the heroes of the novel are unhappy... Describing the actions and thoughts of his characters during those six to seven months while Beltov was in the provincial city, Herzen turns to the past in many digressions, goes to the origins of events, and depicts the impressions of the childhood years of the life of the main characters. The digressions also reveal the social meaning of social relations in Russia and explain the ideological and moral quests of the heroes.
Herzen himself noted the main compositional feature of the novel: it is structured as a combination of many essays, biographies and digressions with reflections on Russia. This construction of the novel allowed him to create an unusually broad picture of Russian life over many decades. It was created by an artist whose main strength, according to Belinsky, is the power of his thoughts and his research approach to what is depicted. Herzen, describing people and events, analyzes them, penetrates deeply into the essence of what is happening and finds a vivid, precise detail to express his conclusions.
Herzen's narrative requires a lot of attention. Individual details serve to express larger generalizations. You have to think about them - and then the image acquires, as it were, an additional meaning: the reader, through hints or indirect remarks of the author, seems to be directly saying something unspoken or completing a barely outlined picture. For example, Beltov, who had just arrived in the provincial town, noticed something that must have seemed strange and even wild to him: “An exhausted worker with a yoke on her shoulder, barefoot and exhausted, climbed up the mountain on black ice, gasping and stopping; a fat and friendly-looking priest, wearing a homely cassock, sat in front of the gate and looked at her.” The reader guesses: the city is located on a steep bank, there is no trace of running water, barefoot workers, turned into draft power, spend their health giving water to “fat and friendly priests.”
Beltov also noticed (a visiting person has a fresh look) that the provincial city is strangely deserted: only officials, policemen, and landowners come across him on the streets. The reader cannot help but wonder: where is the rest of the population? After all, noble elections should not take place in a deserted city! The impression is as if everyone fled or hid when danger approached. Or as if a horde of conquerors drove the working people away and imprisoned them somewhere.
In the silence of the cemetery no voices can be heard. Only in the evening came the “thick, lingering sound of a bell” - as a funeral accompaniment to Beltov’s fading hopes, as a harbinger of impending misfortune, as a promise of a tragic denouement of the novel... After this, Herzen concluded: “Poor victim of a century full of doubt, you will not find peace in NN ! And this conclusion is, in essence, a new preview of what is about to happen, and at the same time a new impetus for reflection: it directly promises failure to Beltov’s undertakings and calls him a victim of the century, connecting his tossing and searching with the general contradictions of the spiritual life of those years.
Irony is one of the most effective means in Herzen's artistic system. Ironic remarks, clarifications and definitions when describing characters make the reader either an evil or a sad smile. Negroes, for example, “were taught day and night by the words and hands of the coachman.” It’s funny to imagine a general teaching a coachman the art of driving horses, but it’s sad to think that his verbal instructions are, apparently, always accompanied by punches.
Lyubonka in the Negrovs' house withdraws into silent alienation, so as not to aggravate the falsity of her position as a “ward”; Glafira Lvovna, who considers herself her benefactor, is unpleasant, and “she called her an icy Englishwoman, although the Andalusian properties of the general’s wife were also subject to great doubt,” Herzen ironically notes. The allusion to Carmen should be considered implied from her contrasting herself with Lyubonka: “an icy Englishwoman” is some kind of flaw that Glafira Lvovna does not notice in herself. But it’s funny to imagine this fat, doughy lady - “a baobab among women,” as Herzen casually noted - in the role of an ardent Spaniard. And at the same time, it’s sad to imagine the powerless Lyubonka in complete dependence on her “benefactor.”
Officials of the provincial city justify their spontaneous hatred of Beltov by the fact that he “read harmful little books at a time when they were studying useful maps.” The irony here lies in the absurdity of contrasting a useful activity with wasting time.
The prudent and prudent Doctor Krupov is characterized by the following detail: “Krupov pulled out of his pocket something between a wallet and a suitcase.” Well, what was the pocket that contained such a wallet, where business papers are stored, “resting in the company of crooked scissors, lancets and probes”? The reader will ask himself this question and smile. But it won't be an evil or mocking smile. It’s another matter when Herzen endowed one of the passing figures with eyes of “garbage color”: this caustic epithet expresses not the color of the eyes, but the essence of the soul, from the bottom of which all the vices of human nature rise.
Krupov more than once makes the reader smile, but it is always mixed with anxious anticipation or acute sadness. Thus, he builds a complex “multi-layered” one when he paints in front of Dmitry Krutsifersky a picture of his future family life with Lyubonka: he no longer points to poverty, but to the dissimilarity of characters. “Your bride is not a match for you, so what do you want - these eyes, this complexion, this trepidation that sometimes runs across her face - she is a tiger cub who does not yet know her strength; and you - what are you? You are the bride; you, brother, are German; you will be a wife - well, is that suitable?
Here Lyubonka Negrova and Krutsifersky are simultaneously characterized along with their parents, who are accustomed to suffer, humble themselves and obey. And at the same time, Krupov defined himself - with his dark irony and soberness of view, turning into hopeless pessimism.
Krupov judges and prophesies with comical self-confidence. However, he really foresaw the fate of the young people he loved. Krupov knew Russian reality too well: personal things are impossible for a person in a society doomed to suffering. It took a truly miraculous confluence of circumstances so that the Kruciferskys, having isolated themselves from the environment, could live in peace, prosperity and not suffer at the sight of other people’s misfortunes. But Doctor Krupov did not believe in miracles, and that is why he promised a tragic ending with such confidence at the beginning of the novel.
The character embodied in the image of Krupov interested Herzen as an expression of one of the most original types of Russian life. Herzen met people who were strong, of extraordinary courage and internally free. They had suffered so much themselves and had seen enough of the suffering of others that nothing could scare them anymore. For the most part, everyday “prudence” was not characteristic of them. Herzen recalled about one of these people - a factory doctor in Perm - in Past and Thoughts: “All his activities turned to persecuting officials with sarcasms. He laughed at them in their eyes, he said the most offensive things to their faces with grimaces and antics... He made a social position for himself with his attacks and forced a spineless society to endure the rods with which he whipped them without rest.”
Need a cheat sheet? Then save - » Compositional feature of the novel “Who is to Blame?” . Literary essays!