MY SITE AFORISMY.RU - LITERARY SITE OF GENNADY VOLOVOY
www.aphorisms.ru
It contains best authors modern Russian literature, aphorisms, anecdotes.
For the first time, only the most talented works of Runet are collected on a single portal.
For the first time, a literary community is being created, which has expelled graphomaniacs and mediocrity from its ranks.

"EVGENY ONEGIN" A.S. PUSHKIN - THE MYSTERY OF THE NOVEL (CRITIQUE) - GENNADY VOLOVOY

“The new truth inevitably looks crazy, and the degree of this craziness is proportional to its greatness. It would be idiotic to constantly recall the biographies of Copernicus, Galileo and Pasteur and at the same time forget that the next innovative scientist will look as hopelessly wrong and crazy as they looked in their time.

(Hans Selye - Nobel Prize winner)

My site on the Internet: www.aphorisms.ru - literary site of Gennady Volovoy (The best prose in Runet, aphorisms of a bitch, goof, aphorisms of love)

Pushkin is still the most popular poet in Russia. His significance is so great that all his creations are declared the most outstanding works in Russian literature. Each new generation of writers and critics considers it their duty to declare Pushkin a bearer of the highest morality and a model of an unattainable literary form. The poet, like a guiding star, accompanies them through the thorny
the paths of creativity, its prayers also live young men who make the first “pas” and old people, whitened with gray hair and tired of honorary titles. The rest of the people imprint Pushkin in three things that they study at school - “The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish”, “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands” and “Eugene Onegin”.

They prefer not to remember that the first is a talented interpretation of a folk tale, completely giving authorship to the poet. Second - what an idea miraculous monument does not belong to Pushkin at all, but to Horace, who literally said: "I erected a monument that is more durable than bronze." Pushkin modestly developed this idea in relation to his own personality and the significance of himself in present and future Russia. And the third ... "What did he also borrow from someone?" - An angry Pushkinist will exclaim. No, we do not dispute Pushkin's authorship here. We only note that it was very difficult for Pushkin to create his own work without a guiding idea. I had to change both the plot and the composition.

The novel "Eugene Onegin" stands at the pinnacle of the poet's work. And, of course, it is an innovative work, unsurpassed in the boldness of the creative concept. No one has yet managed to create a novel in the form of poetry. No one has been able to repeat Pushkin's ease of writing and the breadth of the material covered.

However, despite the fact that Pushkin acted as a brilliant poet, in this work, in compositional and dramatic development, there is weak sides. And this is the unfortunate oversight that Pushkin made. What, in our opinion, is the secret of the novel "Eugene Onegin"? Is there a secret plan of the poet, similar to the one we considered in Lermontov and Turgenev? No, the poet did not set such a task, and there is no plot hidden in the subtext, just as there are no secret actions of the characters that eluded the reader. So what's the secret? What is the purpose of this study? Before answering this question, let's remember how many chapters the novel consists of. Of course, it consists of nine chapters and the tenth unfinished. The last chapter was burned by Pushkin for God alone reasons. There are suggestions about the political reasons that made the poet do this. We will return to this later and try to answer this question, the main thing is that the end of the novel was supposed by Pushkin in the next tenth, and not the ninth chapter.

The tenth chapter is considered as a kind of appendix to the main action of the novel, which ends with Tatyana's rebuke in the ninth chapter: "But I am given to another and I will be faithful to him for a century", a hymn of abandoned women who reproach their former lovers. The secret of the novel "Eugene Onegin" in our opinion is precisely in this in this unfinished ending. Why did Pushkin complete his work in this way? Why did the plot end abruptly? dramatic action, is it possible to finish works of art in this way?
Traditionally, it is believed that such an ending to the novel is the height of the perfection of Pushkin's genius.

It is assumed that Onegin had to break on the marble-ice block of duty and honor of Tatyana, who gave the final answer about the impossibility of their relationship. All this novel is exhausted, the action is completed, the dramatic denouement has come. However, we are not afraid to say that Pushkin deftly tricked the audience with such an ending, in other words, he fooled. He hid the true ending of the novel, because its continuation became unprofitable for him and could spoil his reputation.

He did not complete the novel, although the finale may have been, just completed in the burned tenth chapter, in any case, the poet did not want to present it to the public. To this day, no one has understood what trick Pushkin did and why he did it. We will try to solve the mystery of the novel "Eugene Onegin".
What arguments can we bring in favor of Pushkin's hidden ending of the novel?
First, Pushkin stopped the action at the most exciting moment. He understands very well that the question may arise, why? - and therefore - Pushkin answers:

"Blessed is he who celebrates life early
Left without drinking to the bottom,
Glasses of full wine
Who has not finished reading her novel
And suddenly he knew how to part with him,
As I am with my Onegin.

Maybe someone is “blissful” not knowing exactly how the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana will develop further, but a real playwright will never stop the action at a dramatic denouement, he will give it a complete logical conclusion. If the hand of the villain is already raised above the victim, it must also fall and the last cry of the unfortunate must reach the viewer, listener or reader. If only Homer had finished his Odysseus' travels at the moment when he arrived at Ithaca and found out that a crowd of suitors were besieging his wife. What would readers ask next? And he would have answered like Pushkin - blessed is the husband, having learned that numerous applicants are seeking his wife and therefore the time has come to stop the story and leave Odysseus ...

In the above passage, there is a very important confession of the incompleteness of Pushkin himself. Life is compared to a novel that has not been read. This is a direct projection onto the unfinished novel itself. Pushkin justifies himself, trying to find arguments for such a denouement. He interrupts in advance the perplexed question of the reader and imposes his view.

Secondly, the existence of the tenth chapter. Pushkin wrote that he managed to part with Onegin. What made him change plans and return to his hero again? This is nonsense for literary work when the author says that this is the end and soon returns to his work. Probably, Pushkin understood that his novel had no ending, no ending. As a brilliant poet, he realized his mistake and decided to correct it, but still ultimately refused. We will present our assumptions as to why this happened a bit later.

Thirdly, did Pushkin want to present Tatyana in a different light, to tear her away from the prevailing stereotype? If it were to show the final denouement, then it would have to be done. Tatyana, no matter how she led, remained faithful to duty and honor, or accepted Onegin's love, would lose her former attractiveness in the eyes of society. Onegin in the first case would have appeared as an annoying loser lover, and Tatiana as a ruthless guardian of secular principles. And in the second case, she acted as a traitor to the family hearth, a traitor to her husband and a stupid woman who abandoned her rich husband and position in society for the sake of her lover.

Let us now briefly trace the events that preceded last conversation characters in order to understand the logic of the further behavior of the characters after the author left them.
From Tatyana's letter to Onegin, an active relationship between the heroes begins. The letter crosses the line accepted in society and testifies to the desire of the girl to meet her beloved. She endows Onegin with the features of an ideal man.

"My whole life has been a pledge
Faithful goodbye to you;
I know you were sent to me by God
Until the grave, you are my keeper ... "

Sincere impulse of feeling frank confession made Tatyana perfect new heroine, which has not yet been. She is devoid of natural female cunning, she speaks directly about her feelings and wants to find understanding in this. Pushkin here puts difficult circumstances before Onegin. He must understand this young girl, he must appreciate her impulse, and if he has grown to a true understanding of love, then he will accept it. However, this does not happen. Onegin rejects the girl's love. You can justify the hero, who, by the way, they only do what they condemn for it. In fact, he was not in love with Tatyana, for him she was one of the many county young ladies, and he, spoiled by secular beauties, did not expect to meet his chosen one in the wilderness. And Tatyana's reproach for this later is also unfair. He is not in love and therefore he is right. You can’t blame the hero for not responding even to a sincere feeling, you have to respond in the same way, but he doesn’t have this.

The point is different. He did not have the maturity that came much later. He did not attach much importance to the feelings and union of two people in love. For him it was an empty phrase. Only later, after the tragedy with Lensky, after wandering, does he realize that he needs this particular girl, this recognition, which now acquires special value for him. Onegin's mistake lies in his immaturity. If he had a new acquired experience, then, of course, he would not automatically fall in love with Tatiana, but he would not have rejected her, he would have allowed his feeling to develop, he would have waited for that cherished hour when his feelings would flare up. By the time he realized it was already too late. Tatyana was married. She couldn't be as accessible as before.

Pushkin brilliantly developed the situation here. He showed how the hero gains the painful experience of true love. Now Onegin is really in love. He is madly in love. And the point is not at all how the hero is reproached for Tatyana's inaccessibility, but that he understood the value of love in a person's life. Having spent a stormy youth, disappointed in everything and everything. He found life in love. This is the highest comprehension of character made by Pushkin. And what a pity that Pushkin's genius was not able to endure and bring this character to the end.

“Lonely and superfluous in his environment, he now more and more acutely felt the need for another person. The loneliness cultivated by romanticism, the enjoyment of his suffering weighed heavily on him after the journey. Thus he was reborn to love” (1).

Of course, it is very important to analyze what nevertheless caused Onegin's love. Blagoy and some researchers believe that Onegin's love is connected with the fact that Tatyana is inaccessible: “In order to fall in love with Tatyana, Onegin needed to meet her “not this girl, timid, in love, poor and simple, but an indifferent princess, but an unapproachable goddess of luxury, gift Not you". If he had seen her again not in the magnificent, brilliant frame of high-society salons, if not the “stately” and “careless” “legislator of the halls” appeared before him, but the “poor and simple” appearance of the “tender girl” - the former Tatiana, appeared again, it is safe to say that he would again indifferently pass by her ”(2).

Yes, and Pushkin himself, it seems, also confirms this: “What is given to you does not attract.” If this is so, then there was no spiritual revival of Onegin, he remained a secular darling, to whom only the inaccessible excites interest. Yes, the character becomes smaller ... No, Pushkin only chuckles and says that the inaccessible helped Onegin understand the depth of his mistake. Blagoy is wrong, believing that if Tatyana met again in the form of a rural young lady, Onegin would turn away. No, it was already a different Eugene, he was already looking at the world with “spiritual eyes”.

But Tatyana, despite all his courtship, does not show any attention to him. Onegin cannot deal with this. “But he is stubborn, does not want to lag behind. Still hopeful, busy.” However, all his efforts come to nothing. He still does not understand that Tatyana already knows the world well and knows that many then only drag themselves in order to then expose the object of their desires in a ridiculous way. She does not believe Onegin. He has not yet said something that would open his soul. Onegin decides to speak openly and frankly about his feelings. She must understand, because she herself was in the same position quite recently. He speaks to Tatyana in her own language. He writes her a letter. There were many words of praise for the poetic nature of Tatyana's letter, behind this it is often forgotten that Onegin's letter is in no way inferior in depth and strength of feeling.

"When would you know how terrible
Longing for love,
Blaze and mind all the time
To kill the excitement in the blood;
Want to hug your knees
And crying at your feet
Pour out prayers, confessions, penalties,
Everything, everything that I could express.

What can I say - this is true poetry. This is a great example of a declaration of love between a man and a woman. Love spiritualized, pure and passionate. How can these confessions be compared with falsely sugary, with a pompous desire to preserve the peace of the beloved woman, written by the same Pushkin

"I loved you: love may still be
In my soul it has not completely died out;
But don't let it bother you anymore;
I don't want to make you sad."

No, Onegin is persistent in his passion, he does not want to be content with the “peace” of a woman, he is ready to go ahead. He carries out that program of actions which really proves love to the woman. Here it beats true African passion Pushkin himself. If Tatyana's message is soft, poetic, disturbing. That message of Onegin is power, it is love, it is repentance...

"Your hateful freedom
I didn't want to lose.
……
I thought freedom and peace
replacement for happiness. My God!
How wrong I was, how punished!”

Yes, here it happened the spiritual rebirth of the hero. Here he realized the value of being, found the meaning of his own existence.
Onegin is a subtle psychologist, he cannot accept and cannot believe that the feeling he once caused has passed without a trace. He cannot believe that his letter will not find a response in the soul of the woman he loves. Therefore, he is so unpleasantly surprised by Tatyana's behavior.

“U! as now surrounded
Epiphany cold she
…….
Where, where is confusion, compassion?
Where are the stains of tears?.. They are not, they are not!
On this face there is only a trace of anger ... "

For Onegin, this is a collapse. This is a confirmation that only ashes remained from love for him. He didn't find any external signs love. Meanwhile, in fact, he did not yet know this, his letters evoked the most lively response. If this had not happened, even in the form of sympathy, a terrible evolution would have occurred, the light would have killed Tanya's beautiful soul, fortunately this did not happen. But with all her appearance, she makes it clear that she does not want to accept love. She sees the futility of their relationship for herself and makes it clear about the termination. This is well accepted by the researchers. She is both in loyalty to her convictions, in loyalty to her affections. She is in pursuit of the ideal, in high moral principles, V moral purity. She is in need of true love, based on a deep and strong feeling.

Tatyana must remain within the bounds of decency. Duty conquers love, and this is the strength of a Russian woman. But is it really good or bad, we will reflect a little later, and now we will return to Onegin, who, having retired, continues to suffer and be reborn. Still, suffering is beneficial. Suffer - this is the evolution of the hero, this is when he becomes deeply tragic, and the writer who created him is truly great. Pushkin is great, he created a living hero and made him live and suffer with real earthly passions.
Now Onegin has already come to repeat the path of Tatyana. He reads a lot, he becomes spiritualized.

All his thoughts of Onegin are now focused on Tatyana. He cannot refuse her, although he knows that she is married, and even to a friend of his youth, to a general. He strives for it, because he realized what a priceless thing he lost through his own fault. Tatyana went to his friend, the same, probably in the past, a womanizer, but who managed to discern and not abandon the rural young lady. For Onegin to realize this is doubly insulting. But here it is important to emphasize the following - he does not think about his comrade, he does not remember him, even in his soul Onegin has no excuses for him._ At first glance, this can be regarded as a manifestation of egoism. But on the other hand, it can be assumed that he knows very well the true "price" of his friend and distant relative.

Indeed, what is Tatiana's husband? How could it be that she did not fall in love with a battle general who had been mutilated in battle? The general was old, he was with black skin, and she fell in love with him, because there was a reason, what was stopping her, because the general was a copy of her Onegin in her youth? So he didn't have positive qualities that could make her love.

Indeed, Tatyana's husband made a good career, he took part in military operations, but he faithfully served the regime. Unlike Onegin, he went to the royal service and reached significant heights in it. Guns have a negative attitude towards him, he believes that the general is not worthy of Tatyana's love.

And raised his nose and shoulders
The general who entered with her.

No, Tanya does not love her husband, not because she still has an everlasting love for Onegin, but because the general did not turn out to be the person who met her ideal. He needs this light, this he needs to show everyone his beautiful, clever wife and amuse his vanity. It is he who does not want to move away from the court, because awards, honors, and money are important to him. He tortures his wife. It is better for Tatyana to be back in the rural wilderness, the general does not want to hear the spiritual impulse of his wife. She cannot admit, just like Onegin, that she does not want to shine in the world, that she has other ideals. Her husband will not want to understand, she is his hostage. He wants the light to become as necessary to her as he needs it, and if this does not happen, he obliges Tatyana to live in his world.

Therefore, according to Pushkin, and we agree with him, Onegin does not bear any moral obligations to him. He is not worthy of Tatyana's love. If this were not so, then the poet would emphasize that for the sake of his own feelings, Onegin is ready to trample on the happiness of a friend. Therefore, only Tatyana appears in Onegin's thoughts. No, this is not another affair, this is not the hero's hurt pride. This is an understanding that Tatyana’s place is not in a society where: “Lukerya Lvovna is always whitening, Lyubov Petrovna is always lying, Ivan Petrovich is just as stupid, Semyon Petrovich is just as stingy, Pelageya Nikolaevna still has the same friend Monsieur Finmush, and the same spitz, and the same husband. Not at balls, where she is “everywhere surrounded by a vulgar crowd of fools, liars, empty and greedy for gossip, before dinner, to rich brides, regulars in Moscow living rooms” (3).

The love that flared up in Onegin's soul flares up every day: “Onegin is “like a child, in love” with Tatyana. “Like a child” - with all spontaneity, with all purity and faith in another person. Onegin's love for Tatyana - as it is revealed in the letter - is a thirst for another person. Such love could not separate a person from the world - it firmly connected with him, opened the way to an active and beautiful life ”(4).

With the onset of spring, feelings are more strongly played out in Onegin's soul, and he again rushes to storm Tatiana. He needs a refusal, he needs an insult, he needs to expel this demonic image from his soul, which has fettered his entire soul and mind. He hurries to Tatyana

"Striving Onegin? you in advance
You already guessed; exactly:
Rushed to her, to his Tatyana
My uncorrected eccentric…”

Let's pay attention - Onegin does not want to put up with the loss of Tatiana. He remains an "uncorrected eccentric"! A very important characteristic of the hero for further evaluation of his possible actions. In addition, Pushkin predicts the expectations of the reader, who is sure that the main explanation has not yet happened. Tatyana had to clarify herself - who she became, remained the same Tanya, or became a socialite.

Could Pushkin allow Tatyana's evolution? If this happened, if she became his pillar, then it would be the collapse of not only Tatyana and the novel itself. Then Onegin had to run away, as Chatsky did.
Yes, Pushkin led his hero along the thorny path of suffering, but Onegin did not yet know that an even more bitter lesson lay ahead of him. Onegin comes home and takes Tatyana by surprise - she was not ready for an unexpected meeting.

"The princess is alone in front of him,
Sitting, untidy, pale,
Reading a letter
And quietly tears flow like a river,
Rest your cheek on your hand."

Yes, the old Tanya came to life in her, who, however, did not die, but was only slightly powdered with secular life.

"A pleading look, a mute reproach,
She understands everything. simple maiden,
With dreams, the heart of the old days,
Now they are resurrected in it again"

Now the test fell on the lot of Tatyana. And she proves that the light did not spoil her soul, that she retained her best features. And this is terrible for Onegin, he has nothing to be disappointed in. It would be easier for him to realize that he was completely out of love, but now he clearly sees that he is loved and loved with all his heart and soul.

The action starts to unfold. The reader is captivated and intrigued. What will be next? He already expects to expect a stormy declaration of love, then quarrels and a break with her husband, then the flight of lovers from the world that condemns them. But Pushkin offers an unexpected twist. Pushkin has a different plan of action.

“What is her dream now?
There is a long silence,
And finally she is quiet:
"Enough; get up. I must
You can be frank."

Tatyana begins to teach a lesson to Onegin. She kept an unhealed wound in her soul for a long time and now splashes out her reproaches not to Onegin.
Here Pushkin shows a subtle understanding of the female character. His heroine demonstrates the manifestation of the female character in its purest form. She expresses everything that she has accumulated over the years. And although in many ways Tatyana's reproaches are unfair in her "accusatory" speech, she is beautiful.

This shows the most lively and most faithful character of the heroine. Only Pushkin could know a woman like that, the peculiarities of her behavior. And not only to know, but also to idolize, and lovingly protect, and accept reproaches. That is why Pushkin does not accuse Tatyana of the unfairness of reproaches, he lets her speak out.

"Onegin, I was younger then,
I seem to be better
And I loved you; and what?
What have I found in your heart?
What answer? One severity.
Isn't it true? You weren't news
Humble girls love?
And now - God! - the blood freezes
As soon as I remember the cold look
And this sermon… But you.”

Where did Tatyana see the severity in Onegin's teachings, when did he have a cold look? Tatyana behaves according to female logic. She continues to reproach, although she already knows that Onegin is persecuting her not because she is “rich and noble”, not because:

“... that my shame,
Now everyone would be noticed.
And could bring in society
A seductive honor for you?"

She knows that all this is not so, she knows that Onegin's soul has honor, there is dignity, but she continues to speak. And here Pushkin points to a very interesting detail. Tatyana says that her husband was wounded during the battles, and: “what caresses the court for that?” The court?.. but this is a clear indication of the insignificance of the husband, the general, who became a faithful courtier. He earned the favor of the royal court. But one should not question the attitude of Pushkin himself towards such a general. He is not the kind of person Tatyana could love. She would rather fall in love with a general who would retire from the court, who would not like balls and masquerades. As we noted above.

In general, in Tatyana's reproaches, a living and unimagined woman appeared. With all the inherent weaknesses and prejudices of women. Tatyana herself understands the injustice of her reproaches, she needs to justify her attacks and she ends her accusatory speech with words.

"How with your heart and mind
To be the feelings of a petty slave?

Of course, she recognizes in him both the mind and heart in Onegin, as she recognizes, but only in words, a petty affair in his actions. In fact, she believes in Onegin's sincerity and cannot endure a pretentious tone for a long time. She becomes again a simple and sweet Tanya.

“And to me, Onegin, this splendor,
Hateful life tinsel,
My progress in a whirlwind of light
My fashion house and evenings
What's in them? give away now
I'm glad All this masquerade rags
All this brilliance, and noise, and fumes
For a shelf of books, for a wild garden,
For our poor home
For those places where for the first time,
Onegin, I saw you
Yes, for a humble cemetery,
Where is now the cross and the shadow of the branches
Over my poor nanny ... "

The memory of the nanny speaks of Tatyana's good-heartedness. Here, in a whirlwind of masquerade, she remembers her first teacher and this shows the extraordinary height of her soul. Yes, Tatyana realized that everything that surrounds her is alien to her. False brilliance and unnecessary tinsel ruin her soul. She understands that her real life is in her past. She would love to go back there, but she can't.

And happiness was so possible
So close!.. But my fate
Already decided"

But what prevents happiness? .. What prevents you from returning back to the beautiful past? What obstacles and why stop Tatyana? After all, here is happiness nearby in the face of Onegin, sensitive, attentive, loving, sharing her views and beliefs. It seems to lend a hand and the best dreams will come true. She gives an explanation.

"I got married. You must,
I ask you to leave me;
I know there is in your heart
And pride and direct honor.
I love you (why lie?),
But I am given to another;
And I will be faithful to him for a century

It turns out Tatyana is married. Onegin did not know this. Now that he is aware of this, he, of course, will rush away with all his might. Which, by the way, he did to the delight of Pushkin and readers, who were concerned about the possible moral fall of their beloved heroine. Whether Onegin did the right thing or not about this a little later, but first, let's take a closer look at what Tatyana did and what she said.

Oddly enough, it has not yet been said that there are two diametrically opposed opinions on the statement of the heroine. Moreover, they exist in a completely peaceful relationship, although they completely exclude each other. And here is the point of view on the act of Tatyana Belinsky, which also justifies her, but in a very strange inconsistent way:

“This is the true pride of female virtue! But I have been given to another - I have been given, and not given! Eternal fidelity - to whom and in what? Loyalty to such relationships, which constitute a profanation of the feeling and purity of femininity, because some relationships that are not sanctified by love are immoral in the highest degree ... ”(5).

So, according to Belinsky, Tatiana acted in the highest degree immoral? It turns out that yes ... But the critic is in a hurry to disagree immediately with his own judgment. He declares that: "Tatyana is a type of Russian woman ...", which takes into account public opinion. “That’s a lie: a woman cannot despise public opinion…” and after thinking she adds the exact opposite: “but she can sacrifice them modestly, without phrases, without self-praise, realizing all the greatness of her sacrifice, all the burden of the curse that she takes upon herself, obeying another higher law - the law of her nature, (and again returns to her previous point of view) and her nature is love and self-denial ... "(6).

A woman can sacrifice public opinion. Tatyana does not. But maybe Pushkin is right moral ideal Russian woman - to go to self-sacrifice in the name of duty? Let's see how other Russian writers solve this moral problem. Is there any of the greats besides Pushkin who would justify the act of a woman who rejected love for the sake of secular decency.

“The more clearly Anna’s love for Vronsky and hatred for her husband comes through and grows stronger, the deeper the conflict between Anna and high society becomes ... The more Anna feels the need to lie in this world of falsehood and hypocrisy” (7). Anna Karenina is not afraid to challenge secular society for love. She was able to go abroad and throw off the burden of forced lies and hypocrisy. Could Tolstoy's heroine have done otherwise? Could she do what Tatyana did? No. It can be assumed that Anna is the same Tatyana, but in the continuation of the development of feelings for Onegin.

Katerina Ostrovsky, in her striving for happiness, breaks the shackles that bind her: “A decisive, integral character ... appears in Ostrovsky in the female type” (8), writes Dobrolyubov. He believes that such a woman should be "full of heroic selflessness." She yearns for a new life. Nothing can hold her back - not even death. (And for Tatyana, false obligations are above all!)

She, as in her time, Tatyana was told that: "every girl needs to get married, they showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she went for him, remaining completely indifferent to this step." Their situation is completely equal: both got married at the insistence of their relatives for an unloved person. However, if Pushkin forces his heroine to renounce love, then Ostrovsky endows his heroine with spiritual and moral strength, which: “will stop at nothing - law, kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of inner attraction ; she does not spare herself and does not think about others” (8). (Emphasis mine. G. V. V.).

Tatyana could not overcome only two points, which are far from being so difficult as, for example, violation of the law or kinship. So who is the true type of Russian woman: Katerina and Tatyana? Both the one and the other - the researchers say sweetly. One goes to a feat, and the other gives in to difficult circumstances. Both the one and the other - they nod their heads. One sacrifices her life for freedom, the other is doomed to forever bear the yoke of the hateful light. Both the one and the other - they say with Christmas folded hands on their chests. The hypocrites are the true face of these researchers. They know they have to choose one. They do not do this, because the face is important for them, decency is important, their own reputation is important. And how many of them stuck to the great Russian literature! The time has come to clean the bottom of the great ship from their stuck shells and shells, from their rotting stench.

Quite interestingly, Chekhov solved the problem of love of the triangle. His characters do not dare to confess their feelings for a long time.
"I tried to understand the secret of the young, beautiful, smart woman, which goes beyond uninteresting person, almost like an old man (her husband was over forty years old), has children from him - to understand the secret of this uninteresting good-natured person, simpleton, ... who believes in his right to be happy ”(10).

The love that has matured in Alekhine for years finally breaks through during the last meeting:
“When here, in the compartment, our eyes met, spiritual strength left us both, I hugged her, she pressed her face against my chest, and tears flowed from her eyes; I kiss her face, her shoulders, her hands, wet with tears - oh, how unhappy we were with her! - I confessed my love to her, and with a burning pain in my heart, I realized how unnecessary, petty and how deceptive was everything that prevented us from loving. I realized that when you love, then in your reasoning about this love you need to start from something higher, from something more important than happiness or unhappiness, sin or virtue in their current sense, or you don’t need to reason at all” (11).

Here the position is viewed from the side of the man. And this is all the more interesting, because in Onegin's claims to the married Tatyana one can see a manifestation of selfishness. Is Onegin really doing the right thing when he persuades a woman to cheat, bombarding her with love messages, pursuing her? It is these questions that Chekhov's hero is tormented by: how can their love break "the happy course of the life of her husband, children, this whole house" (12).

Alekhin's situation is much more complicated - his woman has children, and this is already a big reproach to the desire to destroy the family. Tatyana, as you know, had no children. And yet the hero understands that everything must be sacrificed for the sake of love. He himself could not overcome it. He has just matured to understand true love. Onegin has no such doubts, and in this he is much higher than Alekhine. No, Onegin is not driven by selfishness at all, but by true love, and he knows that for the sake of such love one must be able to sacrifice everything.

So who is right? Pushkin or the Ostrovsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov we have cited? One and the same problem is solved in the most opposite way. Of course, Tolstoy, and Ostrovsky, and Chekhov acted as true artists, they revealed the ugliness and injustice of the false position of a woman who is forced to live in a marriage without love. They protest against this order of things, against this legalized slavery. Love is the only connection that should bind a man and a woman.

Now let's think. Is Tatyana really the guardian of secular morality? Is Pushkin really ready to admit that love has no power over his heroine, that in the future she will also be able to resist the onslaughts of Onegin so stoically? Let's assume that Onegin did not back down, how long will the heroine have the patience to remain indifferent and virtuous? .. We think that Tatyana will act in exactly the same way as Katerina and Anna Karenina did. She will show a higher understanding of love and, like a real woman, will give up everything that interferes with her happiness. If this happens, something terrible will happen... terrible for Pushkin. Readers will smash his dear Tatiana, his example of purity and morality to smithereens ...

Pushkin was afraid of such an outcome. He decided not to develop the character of Tatyana, because he understood well what his heroine would lead to. After all, he was a genius and could not manipulate the characters, as Flaubert did with a pure tear of shamelessness in his novel Madame Bovary. One of the most famous French novels in Russia.

On the example of this novel, one can illustrate the author's arbitrariness in relation to the characters. When a writer invents a plot for the sake of his own idea of ​​how the hero should act in certain circumstances, not in accordance with his own set character. The idea of ​​the novel is the desire to please everyone, women who are disappointed in love and who do not love their own husbands, public morality, which requires them to be unconditionally faithful. At the same time, for the sake of old and jealous husbands, as a warning to unfaithful wives. With a word, Flaubert bowed to everyone, to whom he could. Everyone in this novel will find their own. The ability to please everyone creates the most benevolent opinion about a literary work, but disfigures and makes the work of art itself vitally untrue.

The story of Madame Bovary is typical for women for whom love is the highest value. She wants to love, but she cannot, because her husband does not meet her ideals. From the very beginning of the novel, Flaubert took a line on the image ideal husband indulging all the whims of his wife. He has angelic patience and an absolute lack of vision for the spiritual life of his wife. For the time being, Flaubert is on the side of his heroine, but only until she begins not to make unacceptable mistakes from the point of view of so-called public morality. Flaubert begins to implicitly condemn his heroine. She cheats on her husband, but does not find love. She is abandoned by her lover, she is betrayed by a young rake. A moral lesson has been taught - in love you will be deceived and will be abandoned. Conclusion - do not leave your husband, the husband will remain, and the lovers will disappear.

What leads to the collapse of a poor woman, for what offense does the author decide to send her to the next world? Lovers become the reason? Not really. Waste. Here is a terrible sin that public morality is unable to forgive a woman. Madame Bovary squanders her husband's money. She secretly takes bail money. And that's when it becomes impossible to hide the deceit and the poor husband must find out that he is completely ruined. Here, the anger of society should reach its climax. Flaubert catches him with a sensitive ear and administers a cruel court. Madame Bovary takes mouse poison.

Public morality will wave its hand to the writer approvingly, because it can forgive everything - debauchery, betrayal, betrayal, but not waste of money. This supreme value in society. That's the reason Flaubert made the poor woman poison herself.

But Flaubert feels that this is not enough, he has not yet taught the lesson of public spanking to an unfaithful wife well enough. He begins to look for plot moves that visibly showed all the evil that Madame Bovary brought with her rash acts, so that she herself would be horrified by her delusions. He immediately sends her angel husband to the next world, who dies of grief. But this is still not enough for Flaubert, and then he recalls the children who were taken into care by the old woman - mother Bovary.

No, the writer decides, she did not love her husband, she must be punished by those whom she loved, otherwise there will be female souls who will justify her: well, her husband died from her, could not bear the suffering, but she did not love him, she was not to blame for this? And then the writer finishes off such reasoning with an argument that already deprives poor Madame Bovary of all excuses.

Grandmother quickly goes to the other world, and the poor children end up in an orphanage, where they live in poverty and are forced to beg. This is where there is no forgiveness for a woman who doomed her children to vegetation. They lived in a prosperous wealthy family, and now they have lost their parents and lead a beggarly existence.

The anger of public morality is inexorable - since all the events led to a similar ending - there is no forgiveness for this woman - she is a criminal.
Pushkin was dependent on the opinion of the society of his time. He wrote with care. After each chapter, he heard one or another opinion about his characters and adjusted the plot accordingly. He decided not to spoil the established public consciousness the reputation of his heroine. But as the proverb says: one fool threw a stone into the well - forty wise men do not know how to get it out of there. Researchers are also lost in conjectures, not understanding where the true ending of the novel is: “Hence the natural question: is the text that has been in front of Russian readers for a century and a half the finally completed creation of Pushkin? Or was it a compromise for the author? (13).

The finale of the novel was intentionally omitted from the novel by Pushkin. He deliberately interrupted the story. But here one can object. Perhaps Tatyana would really behave like the heroines of Ostrovsky and Tolstoy. But after all, Onegin himself did not want this, therefore Pushkin interrupted the story, that the hero himself refused and went on a trip.

Who refused Onegin? He, who in a dream and in reality raved about Tatyana, who re-read mountains of literature, who was ready for anything for the sake of his beloved woman? Pushkin perfectly understood what a beneficial rebirth took place in the soul of his hero. He knew perfectly well that Onegin would stop at nothing, therefore, in the most voluntaristic way, he deprives his hero of speechlessness. He does not give him the opportunity to personally express his love to Tatyana. First, he falls at her feet. Then "A long silence passes." Then comes Tatyana's long monologue, her reproaches and admonitions. Onegin a true gentleman cannot interrupt him. Then she leaves - he does not even try to call out to her, he came here without any hope and suddenly found out that he was also loved. Pushkin objects, but this was so unexpected for him that he could not immediately find what to say.

“She left. Worth Eugene,
As if struck by thunder.
In what a storm of sensations
Now he is heartbroken."

That is, from the shock, he went into himself so much that he began to lead like a young girl who first heard a declaration of love. But Pushkin foresees that the reader will ask, but when the shock will pass at Onegin, he will rush after Tatyana, he will begin to dissuade her, he will begin to swear in love. If he pursued her for so long without any hope, then now he must explain his feelings ... No matter how, Pushkin quickly forces Tatyana's husband to appear. When Onegin pursued her at balls, her husband did not appear, he stood in the shade and waited in the wings to appear at the right moment. Well, he arrived in time ... So it was possible to pull the donkey by the ears, if only he would play the right role. Now, in the presence of an unwanted witness, Onegin can no longer say anything. Pushkin carefully and unceremoniously throws him out of Tatyana's house. One would like to exclaim with the words of the poet: “Ah yes Pushkin, ah yes son of a bitch ...”, you manipulate the characters well in the direction you need. And then the author rejoices at the end of the novel.

"And here is my hero,
In a minute, evil for him,
We will now leave the reader
For a long time... forever. Behind him
Pretty we are one way
Wandering around the world."

Pushkin left his hero, and so that the reader does not doubt that the novel has finished, he adds that he left it forever. But after all, the hero remained with seething passions in his heart. Or maybe he made a scandal and challenged Tatyana's husband to a duel. Or maybe he began to court with even greater zeal. Pushkin deprives his hero of the word that he could not express what he thinks, how he should act.

Tatyana said what she had to say at that moment, but it is important for the reader to know what Onegin will say. He saw the tears of his beloved woman, he heard her declaration of love. Of course, Pushkin understands how stupid and silly Onegin's consent to leave and not to persecute would sound, which, as it were, is implied. These words are impossible in the mouth of a fiery lover, so Pushkin chooses a clever position - he silences his hero.

I wonder why readers so gullible allow themselves to be led by the nose, this is not permissible for anyone, even such a genius as Pushkin. Well, it was impossible to deprive Onegin of the word, according to all the rules dramatic art he needed to speak up.

Pushkin is afraid that the hero will wake up and begin to convince, tell Tatyana that there is no for the sake of "seductive honor", not for the sake of discrediting, not because of petty feelings, but for the sake of true love, for the sake of happiness, he came here. And of course he offered his hand and heart, and of course the husband found out about this and a new duel, and ... In a word, Pushkin decided not to mess with his heroes anymore and left them to their fate. But in the name of what does the author manipulate his hero? Why did he need such an incomprehensible and complex combination? Why does he violate the logic of the hero's behavior, why does he change his character at a decisive moment for him?

By all rules literary genre Onegin was obliged to explain himself to Tatyana, to give his explanation in the new circumstances that had opened up for him. Pushkin did not want this, or rather he was afraid in the same way as Gagin was afraid to let N.N. explain himself to Asya. This is what Pushkin does with his hero. He does not give a word, he does not want Onegin to pursue Tanya any more, and what if he achieves the desired result, and Tanya, the bearer of pure morality, the model of a Russian woman, will fall in the eyes of the public ... That's what Pushkin was afraid of. He decided that the best thing is to interrupt the novel. Pushkin stops the novel at the most interesting place, he will violate one of the important elements of the work of art - he does not give a decisive denouement.

And all this in the name of the same world, before the opinion of which the great genius broke down. In the subsequent act, Tatyana was to cheat on her husband, and the poet could not do anything about this. After all, he is not Flaubert, who turns his characters upside down, he understands the logic of character development, and understands that he cannot get out of this logic. Onegin will certainly continue to pursue the woman he loves and new explanations will follow, and there will be betrayal, and there will be a duel. No, Pushkin was afraid of his heroes. That is why Pushkin so unexpectedly decides to finish the novel.
Tatyana's fall in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of the reading public... yes, this is impossible... Defenders of traditional morality will rush to defend their beloved ideal. No, they wail, Tatyana would never go back on her words, never let them have an affair, never became Onegin's mistress. Come on, gentlemen, if you put Tatyana's behavior like that in valor, then for Pushkin this means the failure of her heroine. “The life of a woman is predominantly concentrated in the life of the heart; to love means to live for her, and to sacrifice means to love, writes Belinsky, but immediately stipulates: “Nature created Tatyana for this role; but society has recreated it…” (14).

No no and one more time no. Society did not re-create Tatyana. She remained a true woman capable of loving and capable of sacrificing for the sake of this love. All she needed was to finally be convinced of the strength of Onegin's feelings, that he would not throw her on the floor of the Path, as Boris did with Katerina, as Mr. N. N. carelessly did.

This is Pushkin, who deprives her of happiness with her loved one, it is he who does not give a way out and leaves her to suffer for the rest of her life, it is he who breaks Tatyana's happiness. And for what? In order not to condemn his heroine, so that he would not be condemned in society, - this clearly manifested the hypocrisy and cowardice of the singer of the "cruel age". But time, as the saying goes, fair man. Sooner or later, it delivers its verdict, alas, far from consoling for the great poet.

This is the secret of the novel "Eugene Onegin". Pushkin deceived the public, but did he deceive himself? He, who knew women well, he, who, as if by din, split the composition of his works. No. Soon Pushkin realized what a stupidity he had committed, how hypocritically and unworthily he completed his truly great work. He could not leave himself, just like Onegin, who pushed Tatyana away, and then returned to her. Pushkin returns to the novel! He does an incredible act of courage.

The fact of writing the tenth chapter testifies to Pushkin's recognition of his mistake in the haste to complete the novel. He finds the courage to start writing the novel again. He already sees its worthy end. In the tenth chapter, Pushkin expected to reflect the entire spectrum of social and political life from the time of the war of 1812 to the Decembrist uprising.
“Only encrypted fragments have survived, the places of which in overall composition chapters are not always clear. However, these passages testify to the acute political content destroyed chapter. A bright and sharp characterization of the “ruler of the weak and crafty” - Alexander I, a brilliant picture of the development of political events in Russia and Europe (the war of 1812, the revolutionary movement in Spain, Italy, Greece, European reaction, etc.) , - this gives grounds to assert that, in terms of artistic merit, the tenth chapter was one of best chapters novel." (15).

Onegin was probably supposed to become a member of the Senate uprising. And, of course, the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana would continue. There is no doubt that the relationship would have led to a break with her husband, a new duel, Onegin's participation in the uprising and exile to Siberia, where Tatyana would follow like the wives of the Decembrists. A fitting end to a great work.

This is how Pushkin ended the action of the novel, or in a slightly different way, we will never know, because here Pushkin does something that forever dishonored his name. He burns the tenth chapter... It's scary to think about it, he didn't hide it, didn't postpone it, but, worrying about his own fate, he destroyed it. Even Galileo, as the legend says, in the face of the Inquisition, forced to abandon his mathematical calculations, exclaimed, but still it spins. And no one persecuted Pushkin, no one drove iron needles under his nails, no one exiled him to Siberia ...

Fear of losing his position in society, fear of spoiling relations with the authorities, fear for his own future pushed Pushkin to a fatal step. Pushkinists, as flattering courtiers of the powerful shah, announced this step as a manifestation of supreme wisdom and courage: “No matter how much suffering it costs Pushkin to burn the tenth chapter and destroy the eighth, the decision will still say goodbye to his hero and novel, which sounds with such force in the last stanzas and with the same force is enshrined in the memory and consciousness of generations of Russian readers - this decision of Pushkin was firm, recklessly bold! (16).

Yes, our great genius acted in the most insignificant, most unworthy way, he disgraced himself. But everyone is silent about it. No one can say that manuscripts don't burn if the writers themselves don't burn them. Pushkin is the first Russian writer who burned his work. He always subtly felt the line that could not be crossed in his "freedom-loving" poems, so as not to repeat the fate of the Decembrists.

Pushkin was never able to grow up, he could not get rid of his own prejudices, which ultimately led him to his death. He was not able to end up as great writer. Nevertheless, he entered Russian literature as an innovator, as the creator of the as yet unsurpassed novel in verse. He remained in his works the same as he was in life, and nothing can be done about it - this is our genius and we accept him with all his weaknesses and shortcomings, and the novel "Eugene Onegin" remains a great work, although without a worthy conclusion.
Pushkin is a genius, but a genius not without flaws, he is the sun of Russian poetry, but the sun is not without spots...

LITERATURE

1. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's ooman "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. S. 7.
2. D.B.Blagoy. Pushkin's skill. Soviet writer. M. 1955. S. 194-195.
3. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. S. 101.
4. G. Makogonenko. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". Hood. Lit. M., 1963. S. 122.
5. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. S. 424.
6. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. S. 424.
7. V. T. Plakhotishina. Mastery of Tolstoy novelist., 1960., "Dnipropetrovsk book publishing house". S. 143.
8. N. A. Dobrolyubov. Collected works in three volumes. T. 3. “Thin. Lit. M., 1952. S. 198.
9. Ibid. S. 205.
10. A. P. Chekhov. Stories. "Dagestan book publishing house". Makhachkala. 1973. S. 220.
11. Ibid. S. 222.
12. Ibid. S. 220.
13. A.S. Pushkin. The novel "Eugene Onegin. M. Hood. Lit. 1976. In the foreword by P. Antokolsky. S. 7.
14. V.G. Belinsky. Collected works, vol. 6. Hood. Lit. M., 1981. S. 424.
15. B. Meilakh. A.S. Pushkin. Essays on life and creativity. Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M., 1949. S. 116.
16. A.S. Pushkin. The novel "Eugene Onegin. M. Hood. Lit. 1976. In the foreword by P. Antokolsky. pp. 7-8.

G.V. Volovoy
THREE SECRETS OF THREE RUSSIAN GENIUS
ISBN 9949-10-207-3 EBook in Microsoft Reader (*.lit) format.

The book is dedicated to the disclosure of encrypted works of Russian writers. New interpretation Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time", Turgenev's story "Asya", Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", made it possible to get closer to the true author's intention. For the first time, the analysis of the composition, the plot, the actions of the characters are considered in artistic unity. This book offers a largely unexpected and fascinating read. classical works Russian literature.

My site on the Internet: Aphorisms.Ru - Literary site of Gennady Volovoy
www.aphorisms.ru

The work of the poet, from the moment of its publication to the present, is subjected to serious study and comprehension not only by readers, but also by professional critics.

Since the publication of the novel was carried out as the poet wrote the next chapter, the first reviews of critics periodically changed depending on the assessment of the work as a whole.

Basic quality complex analysis works are carried out by the domestic critic Belinsky V.G., who in his treatise gives detailed characteristics of the novel, calling it an encyclopedia of Russian life and evaluating the main characters as people placed by life in certain conditions. The critic praises the work depicting Russian society of the modern period, considering the human revival of the protagonist in the person of Onegin as possible, as well as highlighting the image of the main character Tatiana, emphasizing the integrity, unity of her life, deep, loving nature. The reviewer brings to the consciousness of readers the poet's achievement of freedom-loving artistic forms, moving away from romantic creativity to a realistic presentation.

Reviews about the novel are also given by many contemporaries of the poet, such as Herzen A.I., Baratynsky E.A., Dobrolyubov N.A., Dostoevsky F.M., emphasizing the revolutionary mood of the work, revealing the concept extra person in society. However, from the point of view of Dostoevsky F.M. the image of Onegin looks like a tragic hero who feels like an outcast in the existing life.

Goncharov I.A. expresses a positive characterization of the novel, giving special attention in the description by the poet of two types of representatives of Russian women, sisters Tatyana and Olga, revealing their opposite girlish natures in the form of a passive expression of reality and, on the other hand, the ability to originality and reasonable self-consciousness.

From the point of view of the poets belonging to the Decembrist movement, in the person of Bestuzhev A.A., Ryleev K.F., who pay tribute to the great poetic talent of the author, they planned to see in the image of the main character an exceptional person, different from the crowd, and not a cold dandy.

Reviewer Kireevsky I.V. systematically considers the development of Pushkin's creativity and highlights the novel as the beginning newest stage Russian poetry, which is distinguished by picturesqueness, carelessness, special thoughtfulness, poetic simplicity and expressiveness, however, the critic does not realize the main meaning of the work, as well as the nature of the main characters.

A negative attitude towards the work is expressed by Pisarev D.I., who enters into a critical dispute with Belinsky V.G., who is a supporter of pure art and an adherent of nihilist views, who considers Onegin a worthless person, incapable of movement and development, and equates the image of Tatiana to that spoiled by romantic books essence. Having ridiculed the heroes of the work, the critic tries to prove the discrepancy visible only to him between the presentation of the sublime content of the novel in a reduced form. However, the literary critic is forced to recognize the great style of Pushkin's forms of Russian versification.

Among the indignant critics, scolding the poet for numerous digressions, for not completely revealed character Onegin, and careless attitude to the Russian language, Bulgarin F.V., who adheres to conservative literary views and is a representative of the ruling power, is especially distinguished. The critic does not accept a work written in the style of realism, demanding from literature an exalted character and charm, not wanting to plunge into the details of describing the life of an ordinary people.

IN Soviet period literary critics also closely study the work, giving an artistic assessment of the poetic idea and means of its expression. Among the critical works, the works of A.G. Zeitlin and G.A. Gukovsky deserve special attention. and Lotman Yu.M., who studied the novel as a new literary genre and deciphered for modern readers the meanings of obscure expressions and phrases, as well as the author's hidden hint. From the point of view of Yu.M. Lotman, the novel is a complex and paradoxical creation in the form of an organic world, while light verse and familiar content demonstrate the creation of a new genre, different from prose novels and romantic poems. The reviewer points to the use by the poet of a huge number of unknown words, quotations, phraseological units

Particularly noteworthy is the article by N.A. Polevoy, who evaluates the novel as a living, simple Pushkin’s creation, distinguished by the signs of a joke poem, while being a true national work, in which the features inherent in the Russian people are clearly traced. But at the same time, the critic negatively accepts the first chapters of the novel, pointing out the details in the descriptions and focusing on the lack of an important idea and meaning.

Many reviewers distinguish the work as a folk creation, but some of them find signs of an unsuccessful imitation of Byron in the content of the novel, not recognizing the original author's reading, which portrayed the protagonist not as an ideal, but as a living human image.

According to Baratynsky E.A., each reader understands the novel from his own point of view and, despite different reviews, the work has a huge number of people who want to read it.

Multi-faceted criticism distinctive feature novel, the presence of unresolved contradictions in it, as well as numerous dark places that give the work an unfinished philosophy.

Despite numerous critical articles containing both flattering, positive reviews and negative criticism, all literary critics unanimously evaluate the poet's work as a work of historical and national value for Russian poetry, expressing true Russian traits folk character.

Option 2

Pushkin worked on the novel "Eugene Onegin" for eight whole years. In letters to Vyazemsky, Alexander Sergeevich with a share of irony reports that writing an ordinary novel in prose and writing a novel in verse is a diabolical difference. This novel was written in a difficult time for Pushkin - this work symbolizes a kind of transition from romanticism in the work of the great writer to realism.

"Eugene Onegin" was a very readable work at the time. Reviews about him were very peculiar - the novel was scolded and praised, a flurry of criticism fell upon the work, but all of Pushkin's contemporaries read them. The society discussed the literary heroes from "Eugene Onegin" and argued over the interpretation of the images of the characters.

The protagonist himself seemed to readers in different ways. Some people did not see anything outstanding in the image of Eugene Onegin. For example, Bulgarin said that he met people like Onegin in St. Petersburg "in batches." Not each of the critics could fully imbue the spirit of the novel of that time and appreciate the literary find of A. S. Pushkin, as well as delve into the peculiarities of writing this literary work. Pushkin wrote this work with deliberate carelessness, which caused not admiration, but censure of some critics. Some of the critics and writers, for example, Polevoy and Mitskevich, immediately convicted Pushkin of "Byronism" and attributed the novel to a "literary capriccio" - a playful poem. Belinsky considered the novel modern tragedy and called it a sad work.

The meaning of the novel "Eugene Onegin" was revealed to the reader gradually. Each new generation, unlike Pushkin's contemporaries, saw in the image of the protagonist more and more facets of his character. For history literary types and for the history of world literature, the novel "Eugene Onegin" is of tremendous importance. It opens the veil for our contemporaries and they can at least partially understand the worldview of the greatest poet, having studied in detail the characteristics of the heroes of the novel and analyzing their actions. In the novel "Eugene Onegin" one can see a reflection of the life of a separate era - R.V. Ivanov-Rozumnik writes in his article in 1909.

I. V. Kireevsky characterized the main character work of the same name, as "an ordinary and completely insignificant creature." However, Tatyana's character was praised by Kireevsky and named the best creation of the poet.

Pushkin when writing the novel "Eugene Onegin" used literary device not very clear to his contemporaries. The descriptions and dialogues of the critics of that time were considered too simple and “folk”, almost bordering on primitive turns. The deliberate lightness and carelessness of presentation in the novel and the poet's mixing of literary words with folk caused righteous anger among his contemporaries. However, all contemporaries read "Eugene Onegin" and the heroes of this work did not leave anyone indifferent contemplators of all the passions described in the novel.

This fact proves the skill of the great writer to evoke the reader's ability to empathize with the heroes of his novel. The images of Onegin and Tatiana did not leave without a gamut of emotions both Pushkin's contemporaries and readers of different eras, including today.

Some interesting essays

• What does Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment make you think about?

  What does Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment" make you think about? The great philosopher, psychologist of the seventeenth century, is, of course, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who, having written the famous novel "Crime and Punishment"

Winter is the coldest of all seasons. However, many are looking forward to it. Biting frosts ice the rivers, forming a skating rink.

• Prince Vereisky characteristic, image in Pushkin's novel Dubrovsky

  Who knows how the fate of Maria Kirillovna Troekurova would have developed if one day Prince Vereisky had not looked into his estate, which was next to Troekurov's estate. It was his first visit to his estate, and he came straight from abroad.

In the modern world, few people can already imagine their life without a computer or the Internet. We are used to the fact that we have access to the network around the clock, that we can get an answer to our question at any time, but this was not always the case.

• Analysis of the play Last Summer in Chulimsk by Vampilova

  Alexander Vampilov's play "Last Summer in Chulimsk" is one of recent works author.

June 23 2010

The critic approached "Eugene Onegin" with such attitudes. Pisarev opposed the thoughtless admiration of the layman with the sober approach of the “realist”. Just as a natural scientist dissects living body to study its structure, the critic dissected with a sharp scalpel the logical analysis of art. He translated poetry into prose, trying to determine in retelling what benefit can be derived from the work for development. mental abilities contemporaries. What purpose did he pursue, carefully writing out the details of that noble life: Onegin's beaver collar, on which frost sparkles, objects in the office of a noble undergrowth? This is as useless for a contemporary of Pisarev as acquaintance with lines in which the poet admires the legs of ballerinas. And if so, then the position of the author of the novel in verse, his artistic idea, are recognized as erroneous. Wrong choice.

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

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

After explaining Belinsky’s positions and debunking the former idol, authority for several generations of readers, the critic led to a convincing conclusion that seemed to many: “Pushkin can only have historical significance, but for those people who have no time and no reason to deal with the history of literature, it doesn’t even matter at all” 3.

Pisarev's nihilistic statements remained essentially unanswered. Published in 1869 in " Domestic notes»an article by Skabichevsky (who showed that it was precisely the rejection of historicism that prevented critics from distinguishing in the heroes of Pushkin, and in particular his novel, advanced people of its time) could not be compared with the effect that Pisarev's articles produced. The lack of rebuff and a worthy reaction to the attack of the "prophet younger generation”(N. Shelgunov) testified to the invulnerability of his positions.

All this had a sad effect on the literary and reader generation that followed Pisarev. Interest in Pushkin fell even more than before the beginning of the 60s .. Not without Pisarev's influence, according to a contemporary, the fascination with poetic form also faded: Ya. light hand interest in poetry faded away, no one read poems aloud.

The articles made the strongest impression on young people. Much later, when she first read Pisarev’s reviews of Pushkin, Marietta Shaginyan recalled: “Pushkin early childhood became my god. And this deity - Pushkin - faded in front of me from page to page ... I was in the greatest, in elemental confusion, I experienced that "vasodilation", which happens physically from taking heart medicine,

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

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

Any striking cultural and historical fact of the assessment of a classic is ambiguous. The effect of his influence on the public is sometimes the opposite of the intentions of the author. The outflow of the masses of readers from Pushkin, literally a decade and a half later, was replaced by a new surge of attention to the poet. It is possible and paradoxical that by his extreme nihilistic position the critic to a certain extent prepared the reorientation of sympathies towards Pushkin that followed in the early 1980s. Perhaps this is not a paradox at all, but a kind of "experiment" by Pisarev?

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

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

The vitality and all-conquering topicality of Pushkin's heritage were more frankly manifested. Pisarev's position in relation to the poet emphasized this side of his objective meaning, while revealing the weaknesses of his views. Belinsky and other social democrats in interpreting the role of the classic. Pisarev provoked a test of Pushkin's creativity for viability in the new historical conditions. Is it not for this reason that, having infinitely appreciated Pushkin, in a letter to Ogarev it was precisely the articles “Pushkin and Belinsky” and “Bazarov” that Pisarev called “the most wonderful things”?

If we return to the time when the articles appeared, then the boiling of passions around them was not too long. The positions of the critic were refuted in the most effective way - by life. The opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow determined the revision of ideas, including those of Pisarev, contributed to new discussions about the role of the poet in the spiritual life of Russia.

Ilyina Maria Nikolaevna

The novel "Eugene Onegin" is studied at school in the 9th grade. The genre of the work is very difficult - a novel in verse. Therefore, immediately after the publication, a stream of different opinions, both positive and negative, fell upon him. Within the framework of the school curriculum, only the article by V. G. Belinsky is studied. Immediately after reading the novel, the student became interested in the opinions of other critics. To work on the abstract, a plan was drawn up, the necessary material was selected. Articles, opinions of critics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were analyzed. The most interesting thing is that the controversy around the novel has not subsided in our time, and will never subside as long as the novel is alive, as long as there are people who are interested in our literature and culture in general. The essay was appreciated, the student received a diploma for her work.

Download:

Preview:

Department of Education

Pochinkovsky district, Nizhny Novgorod region

Municipal budgetary educational institution

Gas pipeline secondary school

Essay

Topic: "The novel "Eugene Onegin" in Russian criticism."

Ilyina Maria

Nikolaevna,

11 "a" class student

Supervisor:

Zaitseva

Larisa Nikolaevna.

Pochinki

2013

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… p. 3

Chapter 1. The novel "Eugene Onegin" - general characteristics……………………..p. 3

Chapter 2. Criticism of the novel "Eugene Onegin" 6

2.1. Review of a contemporary of A. S. Pushkin V. G. Belinsky………………….p. 7

2.2. A look at "Eugene Onegin" decades later in the face of D. Pisarev ... p. 9

Yu. Lotman’s assessment……………………………………………………………p. 10

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..p. 12

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..p. 13

Applications

Introduction

For the third century, the novel by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" has attracted the minds of a large number of people both in Russia and abroad. Different approaches to research this work numerous reviewers and critics. Ordinary people perceive the novel differently.

Question - who are you "Eugene Onegin"? remains relevant to this day from the moment of his birth after the release of the novel during the life of A. S. Pushkin.

Why isn't the novelhas lost its relevance so far? The fact is that based on the ideas of historicism and nationality, Pushkin raised in his work the fundamental questions that worried the poet's contemporaries and subsequent generations.

Russia was captured in the works of Pushkin in the amazing richness of its history, reflected in the fates and characters of the central images - types - Peter 1, B. Godunov, Pugachev, Onegin, Tatiana, etc.

“Pushkin's poetry,” wrote Belinsky, “is surprisingly true to Russian reality, whether it depicts Russian nature or Russian characters; on this basis, a common voice called him a Russian national, folk poet ... "

Realizing himself as a poet of reality, Pushkin drew the content of his work from the depths of life. Subjecting reality to criticism, he at the same time found in it ideals close to the people, and condemned it from the height of these ideals.

Thus, the beautiful was extracted by Pushkin from life itself. The poet combined the truth of the image and the perfection of form.

Pushkin's work is understandable to the broadest readership. The general accessibility of his poetry is the result of an enormous effort of creative will and tireless work.

Pushkin deeply felt and brilliantly reflected in his work "Eugene Onegin" all human states. In fact, his work is a reflection spiritual path a person, with all the ups and downs, mistakes, deceptions, delusions, but also with the eternal desire to know the world and oneself. Therefore, it attracts readers and critics so much and remains relevant in our time.

Chapter 1. The novel "Eugene Onegin" - general characteristics.

The novel "Eugene Onegin", despite being very peculiar, unconventional for epic work end (end "without end"), is a holistic, closed and complete artistic organism. Artistic originality novel, its innovative character was determined by the poet himself. In the dedication to P. A. Pletnev, with which the novel opens, Pushkin called it "a collection of motley chapters."

Elsewhere we read:

And the distance of free romance

I'm through the magic crystal

Haven't made a clear distinction yet.

At the end of the first chapter, the poet admits:

I was already thinking about the shape of the plan

And as a hero I will name;

While my romance

I finished the first chapter;-

Revisited it all rigorously:

There are a lot of contradictions

But I don't want to fix them.

What does "free romance" mean? What is "free" from? How should one understand the author's definition: "a collection of motley chapters"? What contradictions does the poet have in mind, why does he not want to correct them?

The novel "Eugene Onegin" is "free" from the rules by which works of art were created in the time of Pushkin, it is "in conflict" with them. The plot of the novel includes two plot lines: the history of the relationship between Onegin and Tatyana, Lensky and Olga. In terms of composition, they can be considered as two parallel event lines: the novels of the heroes of both lines did not take place.

From the point of view of the development of the main conflict on which the plot of the novel rests, the Lensky-Olga plot line does not form its own plot line, even if it is a secondary one, since their relationship does not develop (where there is no development, movement, there is no plot).

The tragic denouement, the death of Lensky, is not due to their relationship. The love of Lensky and Olga is an episode that helps Tatiana understand Onegin. But why, then, Lensky is perceived by us as one of the main characters of the novel? Because he is not only a romantic young man in love with Olga. The image of Lensky is an integral part of two more parallels: Lensky - Onegin, Lensky - Narrator.

Second compositional feature novel: the main character in it is the Narrator. He is given, firstly, as Onegin's satellite, now approaching him, now diverging; secondly, as the antipode of Lensky - the poet, that is, as the poet Pushkin himself, with his views on Russian literature, on his own poetic work.

Compositionally, the Narrator is presented as actor lyrical digressions. Therefore, lyrical digressions should be considered as an integral part of the plot, and this already indicates the universal nature of the entire work. Lyrical digressions perform a plot function also because they accurately mark the boundaries of the novel's time.

The most important compositional plot feature The novel is that the image of the Narrator pushes the boundaries of personal conflict and the Russian life of that time in all its manifestations enters the novel. And if the plot of the novel fits into the framework of the relationship between only four persons, then the development of the plot goes beyond this framework, due to the fact that the Narrator acts in the novel.

"Eugene Onegin" was written over the course of seven years and even more - given the amendments that Pushkin made to the text after 1830. During this time, much has changed in Russia, and in Pushkin himself. All these changes could not but be reflected in the text of the novel. The novel was written as if "in the course of life." With each new chapter, it became more and more like an encyclopedic chronicle of Russian life, its peculiar history.

Verse speech is an unusual form and to a certain extent conditional. In everyday life, poetry is not spoken. But poetry, more than prose, allows you to deviate from everything familiar, traditional, because they themselves are a kind of deviation. In the world of poetry, Pushkin feels freer in a certain respect than in prose. In the novel, some connections and motivations can be omitted in verse, and transitions from one topic to another are easier. For Pushkin, this was the most important thing. The novel in verse was for him first of all free novel- Free in the nature of the narrative, in composition.

Friends of Lyudmila and Ruslan!

With the hero of my novel

Without preamble, this very hour

Let me introduce you.

Tatiana, dear Tatiana!

With you now I shed tears;

You are in the hands of a fashion tyrant

I have given up my fate.

Departing from the story about the main events of the novel, the author shares his memories. The author does not lead the poetic narrative itself calmly, but agitated, rejoicing or grieving, sometimes embarrassed:

And now for the first time I muse

I bring to the social event:

On the charms of her steppe

I look with jealous timidity.

The author in the novel "Eugene Onegin" is perceived by us as a living person. It seems that we not only feel and hear, but also see it. And he seems to us smart, charming, with a sense of humor, with moral outlook on things. The author of the novel stands before us in all the beauty and nobility of his personality. We admire him, we rejoice in meeting him, we learn from him.

An important role in Pushkin's novel is played not only by the main characters, but also by episodic characters. They are also typical and help the author to present as fully as possible the living and diverse historical picture. episodic characters do not take part (or take little) in the main action, in some cases they have little to do with the main characters of the novel, but they push its limits, expand the narrative. Thus, the novel not only better reflects the fullness of life, but also becomes like life itself: just as seething, many-sided, many-voiced.

... She is between business and leisure

Revealed the secret as a spouse

Self-rule.

And then everything went to become.

She traveled to work.

Salted mushrooms for the winter.

Conducted expenses, shaved foreheads.

I went to the bathhouse on Saturdays

She beat the maids, getting angry

All this without asking the husband.

The poet draws his poetic and historical pictures, sometimes smiling, sometimes sympathizing, sometimes ironically. He reproduces life and history, as he always liked to do it, "at home", close, unforgettable.

All elements of the form of a novel, as is the case in a truly artistic work, are subordinated to ideological content and ideological author's tasks. In solving the main task that Pushkin set himself when he wrote "Eugene Onegin" - to portray modern life widely, on the scale of history - lyrical digressions help him. In Pushkin's novel in verse, they have a special character.

Here, surrounded by its oak forest,

Petrovsky castle. He is gloomy

Proud of recent glory.

Napoleon waited in vain

Intoxicated with last happiness,

Moscow kneeling

With the keys of the old Kremlin:

No, my Moscow did not go

To him with a guilty head.

Not a holiday, not an accepting gift,

She was preparing a fire

An impatient hero.

Pushkin depicts in the novel mainly representatives of the nobility, their life is shown in the novel in the first place. But this does not prevent the novel from being popular. It is not important who the writer portrays, but how he portrays. Pushkin evaluates all phenomena of life and all heroes from the point of view of the whole people. This is what earned Pushkin's novel the name of the people.

Finally, the very form of free storytelling, artistically verified by the author of Eugene Onegin, was of great importance in the development of Russian literature. It can even be said that this free form determined " Russian face»both the Russian novel and works of genres close to the novel.

Chapter 2. Criticism of the novel "Eugene Onegin".

The novel "Eugene Onegin" because of its features, numerous mysteries and half-hints becomes an object for various kinds of reviews, criticism, articles after its release in the 19th century.

“Only that which is rotten, that, like an Egyptian mummy, disintegrates into dust from the movement of air, is afraid of the touch of criticism. A living idea, like a fresh flower from the rain, grows stronger and grows, withstanding the test of skepticism. Before the spell of sober analysis, only ghosts disappear, and existing objects subjected to this test prove the effectiveness of their existence, ”wrote D.S. Pisarev.[8]

A lot has been written about the presence of "contradictions" and "dark" places in the novel. Some researchers believe that so much time has passed since the creation of the work that its meaning is unlikely to ever be unraveled (in particular, Yu. M. Lotman); others try to give "incompleteness" some philosophical meaning. However, the “unsolved” nature of the novel has a simple explanation: it was simply read inattentively.

2.1. Review of a contemporary of A. S. Pushkin V. G. Belinsky.

V. G. Belinsky is an unsurpassed researcher and interpreter of the work of A. S. Pushkin. He owns 11 articles about the great Russian poet, of which the 8th and 9th are devoted to the analysis of the novel in verse. Critical articles were successively published in 1844 - 1845 in the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Belinsky set himself the goal: “To reveal, as far as possible, the relation of the poem to the society that it depicts,” and he was very successful in this.

Belinsky believes that "Eugene Onegin" is "the most important, significant work of the poet."

“Onegin” is Pushkin’s most sincere work, the most beloved child of his imagination, and there are too few creations in which the poet’s personality would be reflected with such fullness, light and clearly, as Pushkin’s personality was reflected in Eugene Onegin. Here is all life, all soul, all love, here are his feelings, concepts. ideals. To evaluate such a work means to evaluate the poet himself in the entire scope of his creative activity. [ 2 ]

Belinsky emphasizes that Onegin is of great historical and social significance for Russians: “In Onegin we see a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society, taken from the most interesting moments of its development. From this point of view, "Eugene Onegin" is a historical norm, although there is not a single one among its heroes. historical person". [ 3 ]

“Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” says Belinsky. He refers to "nationality" as feature of this novel, believing that there are more nationalities in "Eugene Onegin" than in any other folk Russian composition. - If not everyone recognizes it as national, then this is because we have long had a strange opinion that a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset are no longer Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is a zipun, bast shoes, sivuha and sauerkraut. The secret of the nationality of every nation lies not in its clothes and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.

Belinsky believes that "the poet did very well, choosing characters from high society". He could not fully explain this idea for censorship reasons: to show the life of the noble society from which the Decembrists emerged, to show how dissatisfaction and protest were brewing in the advanced nobility, it was very important. The critic gave a description of the images of the novel, and especially paid much attention to the main character - Onegin, his inner world, the motives of his actions.

Describing Onegin, he remarks: “Most of the public completely denied Onegin’s soul and heart, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly! .. Savor did not kill feelings in Onegin, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments ... Onegin did not like to blur in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open himself to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature…”. Onegin does not claim to be a genius, he does not climb into great people, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life stifle him.

“Onegin is a suffering egoist ... He can be called an egoist involuntarily,” Belinsky believes, “what the ancients called “fatum” should be seen in his egoism. This explains the understanding of Onegin as the character of the "incomplete", whose fate is tragic due to this incompleteness. Belinsky does not agree with those critics who considered Onegin a "parody", finding in him a typical phenomenon of Russian life.

Belinsky deeply understands the tragedy of Onegin, who was able to rise to the denial of his society, to a critical attitude towards him, but could not find his place in life, use his abilities, could not take the path of fighting the society that he hated. “What a life! Here it is true suffering ... At 26 years old, to go through so much, having tempted life, to be so exhausted, tired, to do nothing, to reach such an unconditional denial, without going through any convictions: this is death!

Rather simple and clear seems to Belinsky the character of Lensky - typical of the era of "ideal" existence, "torn off from reality." It was, in his opinion, a completely new phenomenon. Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, "he was ignorant at heart," always talking about life, never knowing it.

“Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his fantasy,” writes Belinsky. Lensky fell in love with Olga and adorned her with virtues and perfections, attributed to her feelings and thoughts that she did not have and about which she did not care. “Olga was charming, like all “ladies”, while they had not yet become ladies; and Lensky saw in her a fairy, a selfie, a romantic dream, not at all suspecting the future mistress, ”the critic writes.

“People like Lensky, with all their undeniable virtues, are not good in that they either degenerate into perfect philistines, or, if they retain their original type forever, they become these outdated mystics and dreamers who are just as unpleasant as the ideal old maids, and who are more enemies of any progress than people simply without pretensions, vulgar ... In a word, these are now the most intolerable empty and vulgar people”, Belinsky concludes his reflections on the character of Lensky. [ 3 ]

“Pushkin’s feat is great, that he was the first to poetically reproduce in his novel Russian society of that time, and in the person of Onegin and Lensky, he showed his main, that is, the male side; but the feat of our poet is almost higher in that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.

Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is “an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest misfortune of life, without any conciliatory middle ground. With the happiness of reciprocity, the love of such a woman is an even, bright flame; otherwise, a stubborn flame, which willpower may not allow to break out, but which is the more destructive and burning, the more it is squeezed inside. A happy wife, Tatyana, calmly, but nevertheless passionately and deeply, would love her husband, would completely sacrifice herself to her children, but not out of reason, but again out of passion, and in this sacrifice, in the strict fulfillment of her duties, she would find her greatest pleasure, his supreme bliss." “This wondrous combination of coarse, vulgar prejudices with a passion for French books and respect for the profound work of Martyn Zadeka is possible only in a Russian woman. The whole inner world of Tatyana was in the thirst for love, nothing else spoke to her soul, her mind was asleep ... ”, the critic wrote. According to Belinsky, for Tatyana there was no real Onegin. She could neither understand nor know him, because she understood and knew herself just as little. “There are creatures whose fantasy has much more influence on the heart… Tatiana was one of those creatures,” says the critic.

Belinsky gives a magnificent socio-psychological study of the position of a Russian woman. He sends unflattering remarks to Tatyana, who did not give herself up, but is given away, but he blames for this not on Tatyana, but on society. It was this society that recreated her, subordinated her whole and pure nature to the "calculations of prudent morality." “Nothing is so subject to the severity of external conditions as the heart, and nothing requires an unconditional will so much as the heart.” It is in this contradiction that the tragedy of Tatyana's fate lies, ultimately submitting to these "external conditions." And yet, Tatiana is dear to Pushkin in that she remained herself, remained faithful to her ideals, her moral ideas, her popular sympathies.

Summing up the analysis of the novel, Belinsky wrote: “Let time goes by and brings with it new needs, new ideas, let Russian society grow and overtake Onegin: no matter how far it goes, it will always love this poem, it will always stop its eyes full of love and gratitude.

In the above critical articles, Belinsky took into account and at the same time resolutely rejected all those petty and flat interpretations of Pushkin's novel, which critics sinned from the moment its first chapter appeared until the publication of Belinsky's articles. The analysis of these articles allows us to understand the true meaning and price of the immortal, "truly national" work.

2.2. A look at "Eugene Onegin" decades later in the face of D. Pisarev.

Twenty years later, D. I. Pisarev entered into a dispute with Belinsky. In 1865, Pisarev published two articles, grouped under common name: "Pushkin and Belinsky". These two articles of criticism give a sharply polemical, biased assessment of the poet's work. Pisarev's articles on Pushkin caused a noisy response when they appeared. They fascinated some with their straightforward conclusions, others repelled them as a mockery of the work of the great poet. It would, of course, be completely wrong to regard them as ordinary literary-critical articles.

Pisarev suggested that almost all the art of the past be archived - it is "useless" in the economic and spiritual transformation of Russia in the 1860s. Pushkin was no exception for him. “I do not in the least blame Pushkin for being more imbued with those ideas that did not exist in his time or could not be accessible to him. I will ask myself and decide only one question: should we read Pushkin at the present moment, or can we put him on the shelf, just as we have already done with Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin and Zhukovsky?

Pisarev was ready to destroy everything. All that was not, in his opinion, useful "at the present moment." And what will follow this minute, he did not think.

In Tatyana, he saw a creature whose consciousness was spoiled by reading romantic books, with a sickly imagination, without any merit. He considers Belinsky’s enthusiasm unfounded: “Belinsky completely forgets to inquire about whether there was a sufficient amount of brain in her beautiful head, and if so, in what position was this brain. If Belinsky had asked himself these questions, he would have immediately realized that the amount of brain was very small, that this small amount was in the most deplorable state, and that only this deplorable state of the brain, and not the presence of the heart, explains the sudden explosion of tenderness that manifested itself. in writing a wild letter."

Pisarev in his article on "Eugene Onegin" brings to the extreme the discrepancy between the sublime content of the work and its emphatically reduced arrangement. It is known that everything can be ridiculed, even the most sacred. Pisarev ridiculed Pushkin's heroes in order to deprive them of the sympathy of readers, in order to "make room" for attention to new heroes, to the raznochintsy of the sixties. The critic wrote: “You will not see the historical picture; you will only see the collection vintage costumes and hairstyles, old price lists and posters, old furniture and old antics ... but that's not enough; to draw a historical picture, one must be not only an attentive observer, but also, in addition, a wonderful thinker.

On the whole, Pisarev's assessment of Pushkin represents a serious step backward in comparison with Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, and Dobrolyubov. In this sense, it is interesting how Pisarev, for example, “translates into his own language” Belinsky’s well-known thought that Pushkin first showed the dignity of poetry as an art, that he gave it “the ability to be an expression of any direction, any contemplation” was an artist par excellence. [ 9 ]

For Belinsky, this statement meant that Pushkin, having achieved complete freedom of artistic form, created the necessary conditions for the further development of realism in Russian literature. For Pisarev, it turns out to be tantamount only to the assertion that Pushkin was a "great stylist" who perfected the forms of Russian verse.

2.3. Roman in verse "Eugene Onegin" after almost two centuries.

Yu. Lotman's estimate.

"Eugene Onegin" is a difficult work. The very lightness of the verse, the familiarity of the content, familiar to the reader from childhood and emphatically simple, paradoxically create additional difficulties in understanding Pushkin's novel in verse. The illusory notion of the "comprehensibility" of the work hides from consciousness modern reader a huge number of unfamiliar words. expressions, phraseological units, allusions, quotations. Thinking about a verse that you know from childhood seems to be unjustified pedantry. However, it is enough to overcome this naive optimism of an inexperienced reader to make it obvious how far we are from even a simple textual understanding of the novel. Specific structure Pushkin's novel in verse, in which any positive statement of the author can immediately imperceptibly be turned into an ironic one, and the verbal fabric seems to slide, passing from one speaker to another, makes the method of forcible extraction of quotations especially dangerous. To avoid this threat, the novel should be viewed not as a mechanical sum of the author's statements on various issues, a kind of anthology of quotations, but as an organic artistic world, parts of which live and receive meaning only in relation to the whole. A simple list of problems that Pushkin "poses" in his work will not introduce us into the world of Onegin. The artistic idea implies a special type of life transformation in art. It is known that for Pushkin there was a "devilish difference" between poetic and prosaic modeling of the same reality, even while maintaining the same themes and issues. [ 6 ]

The absence of traditional genre features in "Eugene Onegin": the beginning (the exposition is given at the end of the seventh chapter), the end, the traditional features of the novel plot and the usual characters - was the reason that the contemporary author's criticism did not see the innovative content. The principle of contradictions became the basis for constructing the text of Onegin. Pushkin declared: “I reviewed all this strictly; There are a lot of contradictions, but I don’t want to correct them.”

At the level of characters, this led to the inclusion of the main characters in contrasting pairs, and the antitheses Onegin - Lensky, Onegin - Tatyana, Onegin - Zaretsky, Onegin - the author, etc. give different and sometimes difficult to compatible looks of the title character. Moreover, Onegin of different chapters (and sometimes of one chapter, for example, the first one - before and after stanza 14) appears before us in a different light and accompanied by opposite author's assessments.

So, for example, the categorical condemnation of the hero in the 7th chapter, given on behalf of the narrator, whose voice is merged with the voice of Tatyana, "beginning to understand" Onegin's riddle ("imitation, an insignificant ghost", "interpretation of other people's whims ..."), is almost verbatim repeated in the 8th, but already on behalf of "conceited insignificance", "prudent people", and refuted by the whole tone of the author's narration. But, giving a new assessment of the hero, Pushkin does not remove (and does not cancel) the old one either. He prefers to keep and clash both, as, for example, in Tatyana's characterization: "Russian in soul", "she knew Russian poorly ... and spoke with difficulty in her native language").

Behind such a construction of the text lay the idea of ​​the fundamental incompatibility of life with literature, of the inexhaustibility of possibilities and the infinite variability of reality. Therefore, the author, having deduced in his novel the decisive types of Russian life: the “Russian European”, a man of mind and culture and at the same time a dandy, tormented by the emptiness of life, and a Russian woman who connected the nationality of feelings and ethical principles with European education, and the prosaic nature of secular existence with spirituality the whole structure of life, did not give the plot an unambiguous development. Such is the general view of Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin" by Y. Lotman.

Conclusion.

A. S. Pushkin was a genius. A genius that time cannot destroy. Pushkin's actions are subordinated to his unique nature. Not an exception, but rather the rule, is his novel "Eugene Onegin". V. G. Belinsky called it "an encyclopedia of Russian life ...".

Pushkin's works are still being discussed. One of the most discussed works is "Eugene Onegin". Moreover, this regularity is not exhausted by the criticism of the 19th century. The 21st century has become the heir of endless research and questions on the novel.

The main conclusions of the study are as follows:

1. The form of the novel speaks of the complex torments of both the author himself and the characters described in it;

2. The subtle play of endless meanings in the novel is only an attempt to resolve numerous contradictions real life from Pushkin;

3. Both Belinsky and Pisarev are right in their assessments of the novel;

4. The appearance of diametrically opposed criticism of the novel in the person of Belinsky and Pisarev was predetermined by the desires of Pushkin himself;

5. The criticisms of the novel by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" presented in the study outlined the framework for future statements in relation to the novel as a whole.

Each of the critics is right in assessing the novel and its characters, as it was predetermined by the desires of Pushkin himself. Each of the evaluations of the novel deepened the understanding of "Eugene Onegin", but narrowed its meaning and content.

For example, Tatyana correlated exclusively with the Russian world, and Onegin - with the European one. It followed from the arguments of the critics that the spirituality of Russia entirely depends on Tatyana, whose moral type is salvation from the Onegins alien to the Russian spirit. It is not difficult, however, to see that for Pushkin both Tatyana and Onegin are equally Russian people, capable of inheriting national traditions and combining them with the brilliance of Russian noble, enlightened Western and universal culture.

"Eugene Onegin" captured the spiritual beauty of Pushkin and the living beauty of Russian folk life, which was discovered by the author of a brilliant novel.

When a person faces the problem of moral perfection, questions of honor, conscience, justice, turning to Pushkin is natural and inevitable.

F. Abramov wrote: “It was necessary to go through trials, through rivers and seas of blood, it was necessary to understand how fragile life is in order to understand the most amazing, spiritual, harmonious, versatile person that Pushkin was.”

Bibliography

1. Belinsky V. G. Complete works, vol. 7, M. 1955

2. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin, M. 1984, p. 4-49

3. Belinsky V. G. Works of Alexander Pushkin. (Articles 5, 8, 9), Lenizdat, 1973.

4. Viktorovich V. A. Two interpretations of "Eugene Onegin" in Russian criticism of the 19th century.

Boldin Readings. - Gorky: VVKI, - 1982. - p. 81-90.

5.Makogonenko G.P. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". M., 1963

6. Meilakh B. S. "Eugene Onegin". Pushkin. Results and problems of the study. M., L.: Nauka, 1966. - p. 417 - 436.

7. Pisarev D. I. Collected works in 4 volumes. M., 1955 - 1956.

8. Pisarev D. I. Literary criticism: in 3 vols. L., 1981.

9. Pisarev D. I. Historical Sketches: Selected Articles. M., 1989.

10. Pushkin A. S. Lyrics. Poems. Tales. Dramatic works. Eugene Onegin. 2003.

11. Russian criticism from Karamzin to Belinsky: Sat. articles. Compilation, introduction and comments by A. A. Chernyshov. - M., Children's literature, 1981. - p. 400

Criticism of the novel "Eugene Onegin"

On the presence of "contradictions" and "dark" places in the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" written a lot. Some researchers believe that so much time has passed since the creation of the work that its meaning is unlikely to ever be unraveled (in particular, Yu.M. Lotman); others try to give "incompleteness" some philosophical meaning. However, the “unsolved” nature of the novel has a simple explanation: it was simply read inattentively.

Feedback from Pushkin's contemporary Belinsky

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

Further, Belinsky calls the nationality of the novel. In the novel "Eugene Onegin" there are more nationalities than in any other folk Russian composition. If not everyone recognizes it as national, it is because we have long had a strange opinion that a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset is no longer Russian and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is a zipun, bast shoes, sivuha and sour cabbage. “The secret of the nationality of every nation lies not in its clothes and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.”

According to Belinsky, the digressions made by the poet from the story, turning it to himself, are full of sincerity, feeling, intelligence, wit; the personality of the poet in them is loving and humane. “Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” the critic says. The critic points to the realism of Eugene Onegin.

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

The critic speaks of the great significance of the novel for the subsequent literary process. Together with contemporary brilliant creation Griboyedov - "Woe from Wit", Pushkin's poetic novel laid a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature.

Belinsky gave a description of the images of the novel. Describing Onegin in this way, he notes: “Most of the public completely denied Onegin’s soul and heart, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly! .. Secular life did not kill Onegin's feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments ... Onegin did not like to blur in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open himself to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature, therefore only by people, but also by oneself.

In Lensky, according to Belinsky, Pushkin portrayed a character completely opposite to Onegin's character, a completely abstract character, completely alien to reality. It was, according to the critic, a completely new phenomenon.

Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, "he was ignorant at heart," always talking about life, never knowing it. “Reality had no influence on him: his and his sorrows were the creation of his fantasy,” writes Belinsky.

“Pushkin’s great feat was that he was the first in his novel to poetically reproduce the Russian society of that time and, in the person of Onegin and Lensky, showed its main, that is, the male side; but the feat of our poet is almost higher in that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.

Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest misfortune of life, without any conciliatory middle ground.