For a century and a half, representatives of an educated Russian society, participating either in the liberal or in the communist movement, studying with interest the well-known controversy between V. G. Belinsky and N. V. Gogol, gave preference to the arguments of the first.
literary criticism
After 1917, the dispute of these great men was included in the general education course. However, only the point of view that Belinsky V. G. adhered to was stated in the textbooks. The letter to Gogol reflected his attitude to reality, showed the solidarity of his thoughts with liberal democratic ideas. Nikolai Vasilyevich, on the other hand, belonged to the conservatives. IN revolutionary Russia Gogol the thinker was not only unnecessary, but even harmful. All the judgments that came from him were allowed, at best, to be interpreted, while changing them beyond recognition. For many decades, official literary criticism characterized Gogol from only one side. He acted as a critic of "the society in which he lived." He was shown as a writer whose work only strove to illustrate. negative sides the existing bourgeois landlord world, the anti-people essence of the autocracy. The spiritual side of Nikolai Vasilyevich remained in the shadows.
Reason for dispute
On December 31, 1846, it was published. It was called "Selected passages from correspondence with friends." The enraged Belinsky writes a letter to Gogol almost immediately. In it, he calls the book "vile", accuses its author of ignorance of reality. The work was eventually withdrawn from circulation for a long time and placed in closed storage. Russians were allowed to read "Inspector", " Dead Souls"," Viya "," Nevsky Prospekt "and other fiction. However, the author himself called "Selected Places ..." his only practical book. Currently, it has been returned to readers.
Public opinion
The book of 1846 aroused a wave of indignation in progressive Russian society. During these years, many authors put forward the most different reasons that prompted Gogol to write it. Some said that this was a grave and bitter delusion of the author, who had lost a correct idea of the reality that surrounded him. Others believed that the book reflected his weakness not only as a thinker, but also as a person in general. Still others said that Gogol was frightened by the conclusions that followed from his other works of art. Still others believed that the book showed the ideological hesitations of the author, who himself found himself in the trap of religious prejudices and reactionary utopias.
Belinsky's letter to Gogol: summary
It is believed that it summed up the literary activity of the critic, since it was written shortly before his death. Lenin believed that Belinsky's letter to Gogol was one of outstanding works democratic uncensored press. Its significance persisted for a long time. At first, the book "Selected Places ..." was raised like a banner, having met with a positive reaction from a part of society. However, Belinsky's letter to Gogol gave her a resolute rebuff. What was the critic talking about? In his lines, he gave a merciless characterization of the writer. The critic called him "a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals." Belinsky's letter to Gogol summary which was retold by the Petrashevites and all progressive circles of society, expressed the interests and thoughts of the serf people against the autocracy. The critic said that earlier the writer denounced tsarism, ridiculed the landowners, and fought against serfdom. The revolutionary circle accepted Gogol. He made the whole country laugh at the Plyushkins, Sobakevichs, Khlestakovs, which, undoubtedly, greatly facilitated the fight against them. In an objective sense, he condemned serfdom. Belinsky's letter to Gogol reminds Nikolai Vasilievich of the old days. The critic speaks of his respect and love for him, as a person who is vitally connected with his country, who acted as one of the leaders on the path of progress. After the publication of the book "Selected Places ..." Belinsky gave an extremely negative review in Sovremennik. At that time, his appeal to Nikolai Vasilyevich could not be published, but nevertheless it was widely disseminated. The advanced part of society without any difficulty understood the essence of Belinsky's letter to Gogol. The critic rebelled against the preaching of "immorality and lies under the auspices of religion and the whip." Belinsky pointed out in a letter to the atheistic nature of the Russian people. At the same time, he recognized the historicity of Christ and his teachings about freedom, brotherhood and equality. Belinsky's letter to Gogol, in short, became the manifesto of a thinking and progressive Russia. "The name of the critic was known to every representative of the progressive youth," said Aksakov.
Belinsky's letter to Gogol: analysis
Lenin gave an extremely high appraisal to the words of the critic. At that time, the government persecuted those who kept and read it. According to the responses of the agent of the third department and the Petrashevites, the words of the critic produced general delight. Belinsky's letter speaks the most important monument social thought. The critic spoke of Nikolai Vasilievich now not as an advanced artist, but as a reactionary publicist. His book defended the Nikolaev autocracy, supported serfdom. N.V. Gogol praised the landowner, proclaimed him "the father of the peasants", pointed out the need to obey him. He called the serf himself "an unwashed snout." The landowner, Gogol, taught to profit more from the work of the peasant, called for obedience to the tsar and his officials, the fulfillment of the traditions of antiquity. All this caused sharp criticism. Belinsky declared that the salvation of Russia is not in asceticism, mysticism and pietism, but in the successes of humanity, enlightenment and civilization. He categorically opposed sermons, calling for the awakening of feelings in the people dignity, which for centuries has been trampled into rubbish and dirt.
In his letter to Gogol, Belinsky pointed out the writer's misconceptions about reality. The critic said that the public would not be able to forgive such a disregard for freedoms, which was expressed in the book. Speaking against serfdom, Belinsky brightly illuminated all its humiliation. After reading "Selected Places ...", the critic was struck by the change that took place in the thoughts of the author. More recently, the Inspector General and Dead Souls came out from under his pen, denouncing the landlord system, ridiculing it. I must say that at the time of writing his book Gogol was abroad. This became another argument in criticism. Belinsky said that it was impossible, being far from the country, to understand the situation. Meanwhile, the critic, hoping that all these thoughts of the writer were the result of his delusions, recommends that he create a counterbalance work that would neutralize the effect of his book.
Important points of the message
Belinsky was struck by Gogol's words about the uselessness and even harmfulness of literacy for the common people. The words of Nikolai Vasilyevich that perhaps his book is a delusion are categorically rejected. Belinsky says that this line of thought has been known in Russia for a long time. Moreover, the critic points to the absence of any mind and talent in the work. He says that this does not fit in any way with those creations that were created by him earlier. Belinsky resolutely rejects the conclusion that the book was the fruit of Gogol's mental disorder. He explains this by the fact that writing it was carried out not for one or two days, but, perhaps, for years.
Nikolay Vasilievich's answer
As mentioned above, the critic published an article about the new book "Selected Places ..." in Sovremennik. Offended by her, Gogol wrote a letter to Belinsky. In it, he says that the criticism of his book is most likely caused by a personal attitude. Meanwhile, Belinsky fell seriously ill. While in Russia, he could not answer Nikolai Vasilyevich, since censorship was strict at that time. But illness forced him to go abroad. From there, he sent an angry reply.
N. Gogol's letter to Belinsky was sent on 10 August. In it, the writer is deeply shocked by the public reaction to his book. He says that he received about 50 reviews, and they were all different. Nikolai Vasilyevich admits that, indeed, he did not understand the current situation well. However, Gogol's letter to Belinsky cannot be called repentance for "Selected Places ...". Moreover, it can be said that he did not recognize the fallacy of his opinions, conclusions, words and ideas. He only says that you should come to Russia, see and learn again everything that is in it. Last letter Gogol Belinsky testifies to the author's unwillingness to create something new before he visits the country. At the same time, the author believes that even those people who are in Russia cannot fully understand the whole situation. Turning to Vissarion Grigoryevich, he points out that he, for his part, cannot know many things that are known to him. Accordingly, there can be no complete understanding of the reasons that prompted the creation of "Selected Places ...". Gogol's letter to Belinsky does not promote anything, does not call for anything. Nikolai Vasilyevich is trying to justify himself in some way, to explain the superficial state of affairs. At the same time, he understands that, most likely, his words will not find a response from the critic.
Gogol's letter to Belinsky reflects the state of the author. He was suppressed and almost destroyed by criticism. The advanced circles greeted his work with indignation, but they enthusiastically discussed Vissarion Grigoryevich's answer to it. Despite the support given to his book by the government, Gogol did not experience the satisfaction he expected. In his response, he does not indicate criticism true reasons that prompted me to write the book. Gogol's letter to Belinsky seems fuzzy and blurry in comparison with the critic's message. However, he admits to focusing too much on himself. At the same time, he points out to Belinsky that he was unnecessarily "scattered." He says that the critic neglects the need to know all that he himself knows in order to understand his motives and thoughts. Gogol's letter to Belinsky in 1847 ends with a wish for good health. Nikolai Vasilievich reminds Vissarion Grigorievich that only in the absence of illness can one do reasonable deeds in any field.
conclusions
Belinsky pointed out to Gogol that far from Russia the situation seemed to be quite prosperous. However, up close it will not be so beautiful. Gogol acknowledges this. However, along with this, it also indicates that the critic himself cannot know many things. But, unlike Belinsky, Gogol indicates that he is ready to admit his mistakes and work on them. At the same time, he does not see the same desire in the critic, which, of course, greatly disappoints him. He says that Russia is on the verge of great events that require people to consider life from all sides, without rushing headlong into the revolution. Perhaps Gogol was indeed influenced by religious teachings. The perception he had directed his thoughts towards autocracy. He spoke about the spiritual connection between the people and the king, the need to preserve it further. This contrasted sharply with the ideas he had previously followed. However, from his answer to Belinsky it follows that he does not intend to give up his thoughts at all. He is only ready to re-study Russia and the state of affairs in it. But this, most likely, was necessary for him to further assert his ideas.
Communication figures
Belinsky and Gogol were once good friends and supporters of the same ideas. The first, as a critic, put forward decisive social and political demands to the government, insisting on meeting the urgent needs of the peasant masses who were under the yoke of serfdom. He attributed the abolition of punishments, the introduction of strict enforcement of all existing laws, to the most pressing issues of our time. The key requirement was the overthrow of the serfdom. Gogol, in turn, as a writer was a detractor of landlords, officials, autocracy. This is where the views of these people converged. Belinsky, highlighting the humiliation of the situation of the peasants, wrote that Russia was becoming a terrible country in which there was human trafficking. In the state there were not only any guarantees for property, honor, personality, but also a police order. Belinsky considered the destruction of serfdom to be a priority. Literary activity, in his opinion, was a guide for the people. In writers, he saw the leaders of the new system. Among them, Gogol enjoyed special respect and love both for Belinsky himself and for other representatives of progressive society. But, having gone abroad, he publishes a book that turns all ideas about him upside down.
Conclusion
Responding to criticism, Gogol does not give any arguments in his favor. He is only stating the facts. There is no desire in his letter to correct himself, "to change his mind", to apologize, in the end, to the public. His book was not recognized at that time by the advanced sections of society. This was mainly due to the fact that the desire for a new, free life, which the autocracy was not able to provide, was already firmly rooted among the people.
Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol
LETTERS 1836-1841
M. P. POGODIN
January 18, 1836. St. Petersburg
Hey brother! you completely forgot me. I was waiting for a letter from you to my letter, and I stopped waiting. Sorry for not posting yet<ю>comedy for you. It was completely finished and rewritten, but I must certainly, as I now see, redo several phenomena. This will not slow down, because in any case I decided to give it to Holy holiday. She will be completely ready for the post, and during the post the actors will have time to completely learn their roles. Yes, tell me, please, you did not notify me how you disposed of the 90 copies of Mirgorod sent to you back in May. If they haven't been sold yet, and if you need the 500 rubles I took, I'll try to send it to you, because I must get something for the comedy. Yes, do me a favor, send me my "Nose". Now I desperately need it. I want to remake it a bit and put it in a small collection that I'm preparing to publish. Thank you very much for your gifts: Pretender, Russian History and Lectures on Guerin.
I really like the pretender. He does not move on stage intrigue, but nevertheless he makes up a complete, full of truth, and therefore a historical and poetic picture. Your history is remarkable phenomenon, but it has the following drawback. It looks more like an essay assigned to be a topic for a university professor, and not for a gymnasium course. It is too concise, perhaps even a lot is packed into a tight framework. Moreover, in it, it seems to me, it would be necessary for you to develop precisely the sketch that you placed in the Observer. I really like him. This is, up to Peter himself, an extremely complete exposition, clear, full of far-sighted correct conclusion. That's right, you wrote your sketch after. However, in any case, your “History” will remain the best, and I will be very glad if it is introduced into general use and expels [Next was: countless] incessantly distorted notes, compiled at the beginning by God knows who, not verified by intelligence and observation. It's a pity that I can't see you. I would like to talk to you about a lot of things.
By the way, about history! I was told that Polevoy's childhood story good essay. I took it in my hands, but saw that the apple did not fall far from the tree. Fortunately, I got yours and took a little soul.
Goodbye! can you dig me something about the Slavs? Do me a favor. Maybe you compiled some extracts from various rubbish, and especially something about ancient and new Galicia. Is there somewhere some description of the rites, their customs, etc.?
Goodbye. I kiss you several times. I would very much like to visit Moscow now, but I don't know if I can manage it before the summer.
Your Gogol.
M. I. GOGOL
St. Petersburg. February 10, 1836
I received both your letters, but I hesitated to answer them, because I was waiting for an answer from Prince Repnin on the case of Pavel Osipovich, which, unfortunately, contains a refusal.
I approve of your intention to include in the order. God grant that this helps you to be calmer and makes it possible to manage your household affairs more successfully. It was in vain that you only had displeasure with me, as I saw from your first letter; it is also even more useless for you to accept for pure money the words I said to Tatyana Ivanovna or to anyone else. Can't you see that I was joking? I said to one when they asked me if I would be soon, that I would be in five years, to another - in ten. I told you the closest thing to my thoughts at that time; because I really thought then in two years to come again to Vasilyevka for a week and a year later for three months, having returned from abroad. I am writing to you after seeing off the carnival, which was not so noisy here, because it was embarrassed by the unfortunate adventure. During the performance, the booth with all the spectators burned down, of which barely half could be saved. This greatly interfered with the general gaiety that always happens at this time. The sisters are healthy; study, as they say, not badly. Annette is preparing some big present for you.
Farewell, precious mother! convey my bow to all our relatives and friends.
Your obedient son Nicholas.
N. D. BELOZERSKY
You and I, Nikolai Danilovich, seem to have decided to completely stop all communication and correspondence. God knows which of us is to blame. Perhaps I should have written to you first. But in any case, it is necessary for both sides to always correct such a mistake - all the more so since between us, as between people who are completely unprincipled and insubordinate, the word late does not have any indecency in itself and proves only to the noble<ю>our tendency to be lazy.
First of all, how is your health? then, how are your circumstances? I am interested in the second question because<что>here rumours, which I would with all the participation of my heart wish were false. They say your house burned down. It was very unpleasant for me to hear about this, knowing how dear your father's nest is to you. Please do me a favor and let me know. Other news also came to me, also very, very unpleasant for me, as if the Nezhin Lyceum had burned down. I confess that this upset me as much as the news of my own father's house burned down would not have upset me. And when I remembered how ruthlessly fate dealt with me, or maybe some kind of predestination, or maybe I myself - but not the me that I am in the depths of my soul, but I, annoyed, traveling, angry stationmasters- then, I confess, an inexpressible reproach boils in me. And, as luck would have it, what a beautiful morning it was then! one of those that belong to our irrevocable youth. After that, I was also confused with you and did not meet you with such clarity. You will notify me as soon as possible; maybe this is not true, and a terrible Leman fire gave rise to all this long history fires only in words.
Let us know what's new in our parties. All of us are behaving quite well and have not changed in anything. Bozhko finally decided to go completely deeper into the abyss of wisdom and a solid, orderly life. He keeps asking me to read books, and although he hasn't read anything yet, he will be able to in time. Doesn't pick up cards at all; only twice, when I went to see him, did he punt, but even then he lost no more than four hundred rubles. Sharzhinsky, as you know, is sharpening his skis at Radzivilov as a postmaster, and will probably soon get away from there again to Petersburg, unless some Polish woman rides on his blue glasses. Romanovich married a widow who had traveled to Italy, who could make four Romanovichs and who was almost older than he was in years. Simonovsky, as usual, is resolutely dissatisfied with everything. Danilevsky bows to you; Prokopovich too; the undersigned too.
Belinsky's widely known letter to Gogol about his last book "Selected places from correspondence with friends" was written July 15, 1847 in the German city of Salzbrunn, where Belinsky was undergoing treatment. The letter was a kind of testament of the critic and represented, in fact, not so much a literary as a political fact. It is not for nothing that the "Letter" subsequently became a real manifesto of the revolutionary democracy of Russia, and the Petrashevites even intended to use it for the purposes of anti-government propaganda.
IN letter to Belinsky dated June 20, 1847 Gogol reproaches him for such a harsh review of the book. “You looked at my book through the eyes of an angry person,” writes Gogol. He is puzzled by such a militant rejection of his new book, which the writer considered the best of all he had written. Gogol was so sure of success that at the end of July 1846 he sent the publisher P.A. Pletnev in Petersburg the manuscript of "Selected Places ...", advised to stock up on paper for the second edition, which, in his opinion, should have followed immediately.
"Selected places..." were met with strong condemnation. Even closest friends Gogol from Slavophil camp S.T. and K.S. The Aksakovs rated it negatively.
Despite the flurry of criticism, there were also positive responses to Gogol's book. The literary side and language of "Selected Places ..." appreciated Chaadaev. I.S. Aksakov noted that Gogol was right as a "Christian artist". Apollon Grigoriev and P.A. Vyazemsky praised the book in their articles.
Gogol remained dissatisfied with all these critical statements. He expected not petty nit-picking, not indiscriminate denial and equally indiscriminate acceptance and praise, but an objective, thoughtful and impartial analysis of the book. In the preface to "Selected Places ..." he wrote: "... I apologize to my readers if in this very book there is something unpleasant and offending one of them. I ask them not to harbor innermost wrath against me, but instead, nobly expose all the shortcomings that they can find in this book, both the shortcomings of the writer and the shortcomings of the person ... "
Belinsky worked on the letter for three days, as P.V., who was with him in Salzbrunn, noted. Annenkov. Without a doubt, the critic took this material seriously, was sincere and fair, as far as his democratic convictions allowed him to be fair, and fully surrendered to his “indignation and rage”, about which, writing criticism of V.P. Botkin in a letter. Subsequently, having moved to Paris, Belinsky read his work here to Herzen, who saw in it "the testament of a great critic."
In the "Letter" Belinsky develops his philosophical and aesthetic ideas, emphasizes progressive role Russian literature, highly raises the moral authority of the writer. main task He sees Russian literature in enlightening the people, in preparing them for the struggle for their liberation. From this follows his attitude to Gogol. Still highly honoring in it the author of The Inspector General and dead souls», Belinsky mercilessly criticizes Gogol- Author of Correspondence. He regrets that Gogol did not justify the hopes of the progressive public.“Yes, I loved you with all the passion with which a person who is blood connected with his country can love her hope, honor, glory, one of her great leaders on the path of consciousness, development, progress,” the critic exclaims pathetically.
The purpose of art, according to Gogol, is to serve as an "invisible step towards Christianity", since a person at present, "is not able to meet directly with Christ." According to Gogol, literature should fulfill the same task as the writings of spiritual shepherds, that is, to enlighten the soul, to lead it to perfection. He sincerely believed in the omnipotence of the word, in the fact that the word can correct a person who is mired in sin. The writer must fight not with man himself, but with sin.
Belinsky does not perceive anything of the kind, he refuses the author of "Selected Places ..." even a literary talent. “What a great truth it is that when a person is completely given over to lies, his mind and talent leave him! If your name had not been put on your book and those places where you speak of yourself as a writer were excluded from it, who would have thought that this inflated and unkempt hype of words and phrases was the work of the pen of the author of The Inspector General and Dead Souls "?"
With all the fury of a true democratic revolutionary Belinsky attacks serfdom: "The most alive, modern national issues in Russia now: the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction of the strictest possible implementation of at least those laws that already exist. Most of all, Belinsky is outraged by the fact that Gogol defends serfdom in his book., declares it unshakable, sent down by God himself and therefore fair. Gogol generalizes, taking the position Orthodox Church, and declares all power just, including royal. From this follows the denial of all struggle and violent, revolutionary transformations. However, this does not mean at all that Gogol denies progressive evolutionary progress and stands on the positions of prehistoric obscurantism. Gogol teaches the landowner to manage in a civilized way, not to beat the peasants, to respect the economic peasant and to force the drunkard and lazy person to work. He offers as an example to the landowner himself to work together with the peasants, A before starting work and at the end - put them a treat and do not hesitate to sit down with them at the same table. In a word, he advises the landowner to become a kind of "father" to his peasants, a kind of rural "king-father", which is quite justified and quite in the spirit of the traditions of the Russian people. Naturally, Belinsky could not like this, he would have liked it more if Gogol, for example, called on the peasant to take up the axe, to start a new Pugachevism. According to Gogol, all transformations should take place within the framework of existing laws, gradually and painlessly, and everyone should look first of all at himself and, without thinking about the transformation of all of Russia, put things in order, first of all, “at home”.
Belinsky is indignant at the fact that Gogol, " great writer, who, with his marvelously artistic, deeply true creations, so powerfully contributed to the self-consciousness of Russia, "now teaches the barbarian landowner to profit from the peasants more money and scold them more. He assures that even if Gogol had intended to kill him, even then he would not have hated him as much as for these "shameful lines." According to Belinsky, if Gogol had really been filled with the truth of Christ, and not the "devil's teaching", he would have advised the landowner to set his peasants free, since they are all brothers in Christ, and a brother cannot be his brother's slave. Belinsky still defends the same radical path of development. Ratuet for universal happiness, for equality and the sooner the better. Neither historical and economic conditions, nor national characteristics doesn't count for him.
Gogol writes in the chapter “Russian landowner”: “The scoundrels and drunkards were ordered to show them (exemplary peasants) the same respect as if they were an elder, a clerk, a priest, or even you yourself ... and who would dare to show him (an exemplary to the peasant, the owner) some disrespect ... then scold him right there in front of everyone; tell him: “Oh, you unwashed snout! He himself has healed all over in soot, so that you can’t even see your eyes, and you don’t even want to show honor to an honest one! From this passage it clearly follows that Gogol does not at all call on the landlord to insult and humiliate all his serfs without exception, but stands up for the suppression and eradication of rudeness, ignorance and other vices that manifested themselves in the Russian countryside during the years of the 1917 revolution and subsequent collectivization, when all this rural poor (mostly drunkards and lazybones) dispossessed exemplary peasants, masters.
Belinsky, on the other hand, reinterprets the meaning of what Gogol wrote in his own way: “And the expression: “Oh, you unwashed snout!” But from what Nozdryov, from what Sobakevich did you overhear it in order to pass it on to the world as a great discovery for the benefit and edification of peasants who ... do not wash themselves because, having believed their bars, they do not consider themselves to be people?
Indeed, one gets the impression that the polemicists speak different languages. Belinsky argues from the point of view of materialistic philosophy as a realist and pragmatist, for whom the momentary obscures the eternal, while Gogol takes an idealistic position and speaks like a mystic who has risen above the momentary fuss and looked into otherworldly distances. Belinsky in his “Letter” writes: “Either you are sick - and you need to rush to be treated, or ... I don’t dare to finish my thought! ..” Then he returns to theme of Gogol's madness based on the opinions of others. “Some have stopped at the thought that your book is the fruit of a mental disorder close to positive insanity,” Belinsky subtly hints and then cites another common gossip of the St. tutors to the son of the heir to the throne. Belinsky argues that as soon as the writer turns away from the liberal direction and takes the path of the reactionary official nationality, formulated by S.S. Uvarov, as soon as his popularity falls and the public turns away from him. “A striking example of Pushkin, who had to write only two or three loyal poems, and put on a chamber junker livery, in order to suddenly lose people's love!” Belinsky writes.
But Gogol did not need " folk love", since in his book he acted not as a writer - a favorite of the public - but, first of all, as a thinker on a national scale, striving for the best arrangement of the country, for such an order of things in which everyone does his duty in his place. All questions of life: everyday, public, state, literary have for Gogol a deep religious and moral meaning. Recognizing and accepting the existing order of things, he seeks not to transform society as a whole, but above all, to the transformation of man himself. Gogol advocates the need for an internal reorganization of everyone, which, ultimately, should serve as a guarantee of the reorganization and transformation of the entire country. In order to change a person, according to Gogol, it is necessary to return to the foundations of the Christian dogma, to cleanse him of the harmful accretions of the present century.
But also in this Belinsky disagree with Gogol. He thinks to save First of all, Russia is needed, that is, the whole people as a whole, and not a person in particular. Salvation of Russia Belinsky sees not in mysticism and asceticism, but in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, humanity. He is hot denies the religiosity of the Russian people. On this occasion, he proves to Gogol: “According to you, the Russian people are the most religious in the world: a lie ... a Russian person pronounces the name of God, scratching himself here and there ... Take a closer look, and you will see that this is a deeply atheistic people by nature . There is still a lot of superstition in him, but there is not even a trace of religiosity ... Religiosity has not taken root in him even among the clergy, for a few individual exceptional individuals, distinguished by such cold ascetic contemplation, do not prove anything.
In fact, Gogol criticizes the decline of morals of the same name, the confession by the people of the purely external, ritual side of Christianity, the oblivion of the basic biblical commandments. In the chapter “Bright Sunday,” Gogol bitterly writes: “Christian! They drove Christ out onto the street, to infirmaries and hospitals, instead of calling Him to their homes, under their own roof, and they think that they are Christians!”
Belinsky angrily denounces the Russian clergy, calling them "vile" and, like a Westerner, opposes them to the Catholic clergy. In his opinion, if the Catholic clergy at the time of its inception carried some kind of positive beginning, then the Russian Orthodox clergy "never was anything but a servant and slave of secular power." It has always been in Russia in general contempt. The Russian people told obscene tales about priests.
Belinsky criticizes Gogol for praising the autocracy, for negative attitude to the enlightenment of the people, reproaches hypocrisy and hypocrisy and ends his letter with the words: “If you had the misfortune to renounce your truly great works with proud humility, then now you must renounce your last book with sincere humility and atone for the grave sin of publishing it in the world new creations that would remind your former ones.
Gogol was stunned by the unfairness of many reproaches and, in his vehemence, wrote Belinsky a long and indignant letter, but did not send it. In another letter, more calm and reasonable, Gogol acknowledged some of the criticisms. His spiritual strength was undermined by the failure of "Selected Places ..." Gogol tried to return to artistic creativity, began to write the second volume of Dead Souls, but was dissatisfied with his work and burned the manuscript.
WITH light hand Belinsky in Russian society, the opinion about latest work Gogol "Selected passages from correspondence with friends" as a harmful, reactionary book praising serfdom and autocracy. Without reading the "Correspondence" itself, many judged it by Belinsky's "Letter" and, just as he angrily condemned it. IN Soviet time Belinsky's point of view was elevated to the rank of official, and "Letter to Gogol" was included in the list of obligatory literature for study in all educational institutions countries along with party documents and works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
However, there were other opinions about latest book Gogol. So, Leo Tolstoy, who at first sharply condemned and did not accept Correspondence, later said: "I try with all my might to say what Gogol said as news."
Now there is no doubt that in Selected Places... Gogol raised the deepest questions of Russian life, which Dostoevsky later called "cursed". Life has confirmed the correctness of many of the writer's statements, putting everything in its place. Gogol's book has not lost its relevance even today, when humanity, set thoughtless and unrestrained technical progress to the brink of self-destruction, feels an ever greater craving for spirituality, for deepening his knowledge of the world and man, for a correct understanding of the laws of nature and the cosmos.
Herzen. Aksakov! Have some coffee!
Aksakov _ (speaks_ with_ an_ official_ look)._ I wanted to tell you personally that all relations between us are over. Sorry, but there's nothing to be done. Of course, you understand that we can no longer meet in a friendly way. I wanted to shake your hand and say goodbye.
Herzen_allows_to shake_his_hand._Aksakov_goes_back._
Herzen. What is it with everyone?
Ogarev. Aksakov, why are you dressed up like that?
Aksakov _(turns angrily)._Because I am proud that I am Russian!
Ogarev. But people think you're Persian.
Aksakov. You, Ogarev, I have nothing to say. In fact, I have nothing against you - unlike your friends with whom you wandered around Europe ... because you were not chasing false gods, but after a false ...
Ogarev _ (speaks_hotly)._ You should be more careful, dear sir, otherwise it won’t be long ...
Herzen _ (quickly interfering)._ Well, enough of these talk!
Aksakov. You Westerners ask for passports for medical treatment, and then you go to Paris to drink water...
Ogarev_begins_to_boil again._
Turgenev _ (softly)._ Not at all. You can't drink Parisian water.
Aksakov. Go to France for your ties, if you like. But why should you go there for ideas?
Turgenev. Because they are on French. In France, you can print anything, it's just amazing.
Aksakov. Well, what is the result? Skepticism. Materialism. Triviality.
Ogarev_still_in_fury,_interrupting_
Ogarev. Repeat what you said!
Aksakov. Skepticism-materialism.
Ogarev. Before!
Aksakov. Censorship is not at all harmful to the writer. It teaches us precision and Christian patience.
Ogarev _ (to Aksakov)._ Who was I chasing the fake?
Aksakov _(does_not_pay_attention)._France is a moral garbage dump, but for that you can publish anything you want there. And now you are already blinded and do not see that the Western model is a bourgeois monarchy for the townsfolk and speculators.
Herzen. Why are you telling me this? You tell them.
Ogarev_leaves._
Aksakov _(to Herzen)._Oh, I heard about your socialist utopia. Well, why is it for us? Here is Russia ... _ (to Granovsky.) _ We don’t even have a bourgeoisie.
Granovsky. Why are you telling me this? You tell him.
Aksakov. Yes, all of you ... Jacobins and German sentimentalists. Destroyers and dreamers. You have turned away from your own people, from real Russian people, abandoned a hundred and fifty years ago by Peter the Great Westerner! But you cannot agree on what to do next.
Enter_Ogarev._
Ogarev. I demand that you finish what you started to say!
Aksakov. I no longer remember what it was.
Ogarev. No, you remember!
Aksakov. Chasing a fake beard?... No... A fake coin?...
Ogarev_leaves._
Need to reunite with common people, from which we broke away when we began to wear silk knickers and powdered wigs. Not too late. We can still find our special Russian way of development. Without socialism or capitalism, without the bourgeoisie. With our own culture, not corrupted by the Renaissance. And with our own church, not corrupted by the papacy or the Reformation. Maybe our calling is to unite all Slavic peoples and bring Europe to Right way. This will be the age of Russia.
Catcher. You forgot about our own astronomy, not corrupted by Copernicus.
Herzen. Why don't you put on a peasant shirt and bast shoes, if you want to represent true Russia, instead of dressing up in this costume? There was no culture in Russia before Peter the Great. Life was disgusting, poor and wild. The history of other nations is the history of emancipation. The history of Russia was moving backwards, towards serfdom and obscurantism. The church that your icon painters paint exists only in their inflamed imagination, but in fact it is a company of tavern priests and courtiers, shiny with fat, on the payroll of the police. Such a country will never see the light if we give up on it. And the light is over there. _(Pointing.)_In the West. _(Pointing_in_the_opposite_direction.)_But he's not here.
Aksakov. Well, then you go there, and we go here. Farewell. _(Leaving,_meets_Ogaryov, who has burst in.)_We have lost Pushkin... _(Pretends_to_shoot_with_a_pistol.),_we have lost Lermontov..._(Again_“shoots.”)_Ogaryov, we must not lose. I ask your forgiveness.
Bows_to_Ogarev_and_leaves._Herzen_embraces_Ogarev_by_the_shoulders._
Herzen. He's right, Nick.
Granovsky. And not only in this.
Herzen. Granovsky ... when Natalie returns, let's not quarrel.
Granovsky. I don't quarrel. He's right, we don't have our own ideas, that's all.
Herzen. And where do they come from if we have no history of thought, if nothing is passed on to posterity, because nothing can be written, read or discussed? No wonder Europe looks at us as a barbarian horde at its gates. Huge country, which accommodates both reindeer herders, and camel drivers, and divers for pearls. Nor is there a single original philosopher. Not a single contribution to world political thought.
Catcher. Eat! One! Intelligentsia!
Granovsky. What is it?
Catcher. That new word I was talking about.
Ogarev. Terrible word.
Catcher. Agree. But our own, Russian debut in dictionaries.
Herzen. What does it mean?
Catcher. It means us. Exclusively Russian phenomenon. Intellectual opposition, perceived as a social force.
Granovsky. Well!..
Herzen. Ah... intelligentsia!
Ogarev. And Aksakov intelligentsia?
Catcher. That's the point - we don't have to agree with each other.
Granovsky. The Slavophiles are not entirely mistaken about the West, Herzen.
Herzen. I'm sure they are absolutely right.
Granovsky. Materialism…
Herzen. Triviality.
Granovsky. First of all, skepticism.
Herzen. First of all. I don't argue with you. Bourgeois monarchy for the townsfolk and speculators.
Granovsky. However, it does not follow from this that our own bourgeoisie will have to follow this path.
Herzen. No, it should.
Granovsky. And how can you know about it?
Herzen. I am nowhere. It was you and Turgenev who were there. And they never gave me a passport. I applied again.
Catcher. By illness?
Herzen _ (laughs)._ Because of Kolya ... Natalie and I want to show him to the best doctors ...
Ogarev _(looks around)._Where is Kolya?...
Catcher. I am a doctor myself. He is deaf. _(Shrugs_shoulders.)_Sorry.
Ogarev, _not_paying_attention,_leaves_to look for_Kolya._
Turgenev. There is not only one philistinism. The only thing that will save Russia is western culture brought here by people like us.
Catcher. No, she will be saved by the Spirit of History, the irresistible Force of Progress...
Herzen _(giving_vent_to_his_anger)._Damn those yours capital letters! Deliver me from the conceited thought that we are all acting in a play from the life of abstract concepts!
Catcher. Ah, so this is my vanity?
Herzen _ (to Granovsky)._ I do not look at France with tears of tenderness. The idea that you can sit in a cafe with Louis Blanc or Ledru-Rollin, that you can buy La Reform still damp from paint in a kiosk and walk along the Place de la Concorde - this thought, I confess, pleases me like a child. But Aksakov is right - I don't know what to do next. Where should we sail? Who has the card? We study ideal societies... And they are all amazingly harmonious, fair and efficient. But the only one main question Why should someone obey someone else?
Granovsky. Because without it there can be no society. Why should we wait to be enslaved by our own industrial Huns? Everything that is dear to us in our civilization, they will smash to smithereens on the altar of equality... barracks equality.
Herzen. you judge about ordinary people after they were turned into beasts. But by their very nature they are worthy of respect. I believe in them.
Granovsky. Without faith in something higher man is no different from an animal.
Herzen_forgets_to restrain himself,_and_Granovsky_begins_to_answer_him_in_tone,_until_a_quarrel_begins_between_them._
Herzen. You mean - without superstitions.
Granovsky. Superstition? Is that what you call it?
Herzen. Yes, superstition! A sanctimonious and pitiful belief in something that exists outside. Or at the top. Or God knows where else, without which a person cannot acquire his own dignity.
Granovsky. Without this, as you say, "above", all scores will be settled here, "below". This is the whole truth about materialism.
Herzen. How can you, how dare you dismiss your self-respect? You, man, can decide for yourself what is good and what is bad, without looking back at the ghost. But you free man, Granovsky, there is no other kind of people.
Natalie_enters_quickly._She_is_terrified._Her_disorder_is_misunderstood_at first._She_runs_to_Alexander_and_embraces_him._There_are_some_mushrooms_in_her_basket._
Natalie. Alexander…
Herzen _ (apologising_ tone)._ We argued here ...
Granovsky _ (addressing_ to_ Natalie)._ With deep regret, I must leave the house, where I have always been met with such a warm welcome. _(Going to_leave.)_
Natalie. The gendarme came, he was in the house - I saw.
Herzen. Gendarme?
The servant_leaves_the_house,_the_gendarme_overtakes_him._
Oh my God, again... Natalie, Natalie...
Gendarme. Which one of you is Herzen?
Herzen_opens_the_envelope_and_reads_the_letter._
Natalie _(gendarme)._I will go with him.
Gendarme. I don't know anything about this...
Granovsky _(to Herzen,_changes_tone)._Forgive me...
Herzen. No, everything is okay. _(Announces.)_After twelve years of police surveillance and exile, Count Orlov kindly informs me that I can apply for a trip abroad! ..
The rest_surround_him_with_relief_and_congratulations.
Catcher. You will see Sazonov again.
Granovsky. He has changed.
Turgenev. And with Bakunin...
Granovsky. This one is the same, I'm afraid.
Natalie. "... To go abroad for the treatment of your son Nikolai Alexandrovich ..."
Herzen _(picks up_and_lifts_her)._Paris, Natalie!
Her_basket_falls,_mushrooms_scatter._
Natalie _(crying_of_joy)._Kolya!.. _(Running away.)_
Herzen. Where is Nick?
Gendarme. So, good news?
Herzen_understands_the_hint_and_gives_him_tea._The_gendarme_leaves_._
Natalie _(returns)._Where is Kolya?
Herzen. Kolya? Don't know. And what?
Natalie. Where is he? _(Running away, _calls_him_by_name.)_
_(Behind the scene.)_Kolya! Kolya!
Herzen _ (hurries_after_her)._He can't hear you...
Turgenev_runs_out_after_them._Alarmed_Granovsky_and_Katcher_leave_following_After_a pause,_during_which_Natalie’s_voice_is_heard_from a distance,_there_is_silence._
Distant_peals_of_thunder._
Sasha_enters_from_the_other_side,_turns_around_and_looks_back._Goes_forward_and_notices_the_scattered_mushrooms,_straightens_the_basket._Ogarev_enters_slowly._He_carries_Sasha_rod_and_a_can,_looks_back._
Ogarev _ (calling)._ Kolya, let's go!
Sasha. He doesn't hear you.
Ogarev. Let's go soon!
Sasha. He doesn't hear.
Ogarev_goes_back_towards_Kolya._Distant_thunder._
Ogarev. Here you see. Heard. _(Exits.)_
Sasha_starts_picking_mushrooms_in_a_basket._
July 1847
Salzbrunn,_a_resort_town_in_Germany._Belinsky_and_Turgenev_rent_rooms_on_the_first_floor_of_a_small_wooden_house_on_the_main_street._They_use_a_canopy_in_the_yard._as_a_summer_gazebo._
Both_are_reading:_Belinsky_ – _a story,_a_Turgenev_ –_a_long_letter._While_reading_from_time_to_time_sip_mineral_water_from_cups_with_spouts. _a_massive_cane, on which_he_leans_when_walking._Turgenev_finishes_first._Puts_the_letter_on_the_table._He_waits_when_Belinsky_finishes,_in the meantime_drinks_from_a_cup,_grimacing._Belinsky_finishes_reading_and_gives_the_manuscript_to_Turgenev._Turgenev_waits, _until_Belinsky_expresses_his_opinion._Belinsky_nods_thoughtfully,_drinks_from_a_cup._
Belinsky. Hm. Why don't you say what you think about it yourself?
Turgenev. What I think? What does the reader have to do with this?
Belinsky_laughs,_coughs,_knocks_on_the_ground with a stick,_comes_to_himself._
Belinsky. I mean, what do you think of my letter to Gogol?
Turgenev. Well… it seems unnecessary to me.
Belinsky. Look, cabin boy, I'll put you in a corner.
Turgenev. You have already said everything you wanted to say about this book in Sovremennik. Is this the future literary criticism: first a devastating review, then an offensive letter to the author?
Belinsky. The censorship cut out at least a third of my article. But that's not the point. Gogol obviously thinks that I scolded his book only because he attacks me in it. I can't leave it like this. He must understand that I took his book as a personal insult from the first to last page! I love him. It was I who opened it. And now this madman, this tsar's henchman, the defender of serfdom, flogging, censorship, ignorance and obscurant piety, believes that I butchered him to a nut because of a stupid insult. His book is a crime against humanity and civilization.
Turgenev. No, it's just a book... A stupid book, but written with all the sincerity of a religious fanatic. But why completely drive him crazy. You would take pity on him.
Belinsky_angrily_hit_with a stick._
Belinsky. This is too serious for pity ... In other countries, everyone tries to contribute to the improvement of morals to the best of their ability. And in Russia there is no division of labor. Literature has to deal with it alone. It was a hard lesson, cabin boy, but I learned it. When I first started, it seemed to me that art was aimless - pure spirituality. I was a young provincial bully with the artistic views of a Parisian dandy. Do you remember Gauthier's? – “Fools! Cretins! A novel is not a pair of boots!”
Turgenev. “A sonnet is not a syringe! A play is not a railroad!”
Belinsky _(picks_up_to_Turgenev)._"A play is not a railway!" But we don't have railroads. Here is another thing for literature - to reveal this country. Are you laughing at me, cabin boy? I heard a minister say that railways they will, they say, push the people, who are supposed to sit in one place, to idle travels, which is why anything can happen. That's what we have to deal with.
Turgenev. I am not a pure spirit, but I am not a mentor to society either. No, captain! People complain that I don't have my stories in my stories. own attitude. The reader is puzzled. What does the author agree with, and what does he condemn? Do I want them to sympathize with this character or that one? Who is to blame that the peasant drinks - we or he? Where is the position of the writer? Why does he avoid answering? Maybe I'm wrong, but will I write better if I answer? What does it matter? _(Raises_voice.)_And why are you attacking me? Because you know I'm not well. I mean, I'm not as sick as you. _(Hurry.)_Although you'll get better, don't worry. Sorry. But since I’m sitting in this swamp, so that you don’t get bored ... is it really impossible to avoid talking about art and society while mineral water gurgles in my kidneys ... _(Belinsky,_who_has been coughing_for_some_time,_suddenly_goes_in_a_attack._Turgenev_rushes_to_help_him.)_Easy, captain! Take it easy…
July 1847
Salzbrunn, spa town in Germany. Belinsky and Turgenev rent rooms on the first floor of a small wooden house on the main street. They use the canopy in the yard as a summer gazebo.
Both read: Belinsky - a story, and Turgenev - a long letter. While reading, from time to time they drink mineral water from cups with spouts. Belinsky is 36 years old, he has left to live less than a year. He is pale, his face is swollen. Next to him is a massive cane, on which he leans when walking. Turgenev finishes reading first. Puts the letter on the table. He waits for Belinsky to finish reading, meanwhile he drinks from a cup, wincing. Belinsky finishes reading and gives the manuscript to Turgenev. Turgenev is waiting for Belinsky to express his opinion. Belinsky nods thoughtfully, sips from his cup.
Belinsky. Hm. Why don't you say what you think about it yourself?
Turgenev. What I Think? What does the reader have to do with this?
Belinsky laughs, coughs, bangs his stick on the ground, comes to his senses.
Belinsky. I mean, what do you think of my letter to Gogol?
Turgenev. Well… it seems unnecessary to me.
Belinsky. Look, cabin boy, I'll put you in a corner.
Turgenev. You have already said everything you wanted to say about this book in Sovremennik. Is this really the future of literary criticism: first a devastating review, then an offensive letter to the author?
Belinsky. The censorship cut out at least a third of my article. But that's not the point. Gogol obviously thinks that I scolded his book only because he attacks me in it. I can't leave it like this. He must understand that I took his book as a personal insult from the first to the last page! I love him. It was I who opened it. And now this madman, this tsar's henchman, the defender of serfdom, flogging, censorship, ignorance and obscurant piety, believes that I butchered him to a nut because of a stupid insult. His book is a crime against humanity and civilization.
Turgenev. No, it's just a book... A stupid book, but written with all the sincerity of a religious fanatic. But why completely drive him crazy. You would take pity on him.
Belinsky angrily strikes with a stick.
Belinsky. This is too serious for pity ... In other countries, everyone tries to contribute to the improvement of morals to the best of their ability. And in Russia there is no division of labor. Literature has to deal with it alone. It was a hard lesson, cabin boy, but I learned it. When I first started, it seemed to me that art was aimless - pure spirituality. I was a young provincial bully with the artistic views of a Parisian dandy. Do you remember Gauthier's? – “Fools! Cretins! A novel is not a pair of boots!”
Turgenev. “A sonnet is not a syringe! A play is not a railroad!”
Belinsky (picks up Turgenev's tone).“A play is not a railroad!” But we don't have railroads. Here is another thing for literature - to reveal this country. Are you laughing at me, cabin boy? I heard a minister say that the railways would, they say, encourage the people who are supposed to sit in one place to idle travel, from which anything can happen. That's what we have to deal with.
Turgenev. I am not a pure spirit, but I am not a mentor to society either. No, captain! People complain that I don't have my own attitude in my stories. The reader is puzzled. What does the author agree with, and what does he condemn? Do I want them to sympathize with this character or that one? Who is to blame that the peasant drinks - we or he? Where is the position of the writer? Why does he avoid answering? Maybe I'm wrong, but will I write better if I answer? What does it matter? (Raises voice.) And why are you attacking me? Because you know I'm not well. I mean, I'm not as sick as you. (Hurry.) Though you'll get better, don't worry. Sorry. But since I’m sitting in this swamp, so that you don’t get bored ... can’t you avoid talking about art and society while mineral water gurgles in my kidneys ... (Belinsky, who has been coughing for some time, suddenly goes into a seizure. Turgenev rushes to help him.) Take it easy, captain! Take it easy…
Belinsky (comes to himself). Salzbrunn water is not an elixir of life. It is not clear where all these places get such a reputation. Everyone can see that people here are dying like flies.
Turgenev. Let's run away! Come with me to Berlin. Friends are leaving for London, I promised to see them off.
Belinsky. I don't like opera... You go.
