Eugene Onegin in criticism and literary criticism. Statements of critics about the novel "Eugene Onegin

MY SITE AFORISMY.RU - LITERARY SITE OF GENNADY VOLOVOY
www.aphorisms.ru
It contains the best authors of 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 the bearer of the highest morality and a model of the 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”.

About the fact that the first is a talented interpretation folk tale prefer not to remember, completely giving authorship to the poet. The second is that the idea of ​​a 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, there are weaknesses in this work in compositional and dramatic development. 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 speculations about political reasons who made the poet do it. 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? It is nonsense for a 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.

Now let's briefly trace the events preceding the last conversation of the 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 ... "

A sincere impulse of feeling, a frank confession made Tatyana completely 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 it has grown to true understanding love, 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 everyone. 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 awful
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 found no outward signs of 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. It is in the pursuit of the ideal, in high moral principles, in 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 did not have those positive qualities that could inspire her love.

Indeed, Tatyana's husband did 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 wonderful 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 Tatyana. 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 suggests unexpected turn. 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 indictment 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 reach out and fulfill best dreams. 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 it, 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 ...", who takes into account public opinion. “This is a lie: a woman cannot despise public opinion…” and, having realized herself, 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. Such is the moral ideal of a 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 makes his heroine 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 a young, beautiful, intelligent woman who marries an uninteresting person, almost an old man (her husband was over forty years old), has children from him, - to understand the secret of this uninteresting person, a good-natured, simpleton, ... who believes in his right 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 own husbands, public morality, which requires them to unconditional fidelity. 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 mental life wives. 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 is 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 was to interrupt the novel. Pushkin stops the novel at the very interesting place, it will break one of the important elements artwork- does not give a decisive outcome.

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 proverb says, is an honest 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 the overall composition of the chapter 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, revolutionary movement in Spain, Italy, Greece, European reaction, etc.) - all this gives reason to assert that, in terms of artistic merit, the tenth chapter was one of the best chapters of the 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 Electronic book in Microsoft Reader format (*.lit).

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 achievement of freedom-loving poets art 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 exceptional person, different from the crowd, not a cold dandy.

Reviewer Kireevsky I.V. systematically considers the development of Pushkin's creativity and singles out the novel as the beginning of the newest stage of Russian poetry, 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 to 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 Tatyana to a creature spoiled by romantic books. 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 the Soviet period, literary critics also closely study the work, giving an artistic assessment of the poetic idea and the 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 contemporary 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 that differs from novels in prose 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, which is distinguished by the signs of a joke poem, while being true national product, 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 work of the poet 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 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 very readable work while. 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. Discussed in society literary heroes from "Eugene Onegin" and argued over the interpretation of the images of the characters.

Myself main character readers see it differently. 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, on the other hand, considered the novel a 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 the history of 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 protagonist of the work of the same name as "an ordinary and completely insignificant creature." However, Tatyana's character was praised by Kireevsky and named best creation 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.

Everything depends on perspective. It is true that dreams are nothing more than wishes that serve the prominent ego in each of us and distract us from our relationship with the whole world. However, on the other hand, dreams can inspire a person

Scientific research of the novel "Eugene Onegin"

Roman A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" is one of the most inexhaustible and profound works of Russian literature, which is confirmed by a huge amount of research by modern literary critics on the form, genre of the novel in verse, the essence of the idea and its embodiment, ideological, aesthetic, moral and philosophical issues novel. These studies were initiated by the critical works of the 19th and 20th centuries. “The author of the first philosophical review of our literature” I.V. Kireevsky was one of the first to give a serious critical appraisal Pushkin's activities, despite the fact that, in his opinion, "it is difficult ... to find a general expression for the nature of his poetry, which took on so many different forms." However, the critic spoke quite unambiguously about the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin": " Distinctive features its essence: picturesqueness, some kind of carelessness, some kind of special thoughtfulness, and, finally, something inexpressible, understandable only to the Russian heart. The critic also spoke about the poet's desire for originality, which, according to him, is found in the work. In conclusion, speaking of “the strong influence that the poet has on his compatriots”, Kireevsky noted in this regard “another important quality in the nature of his poetry is correspondence with his time” .

The question of the national and world significance of Pushkin was first raised by V.G. Belinsky. "Pushkin was the perfect expression of his time ... the world of his day, but the Russian world, but Russian humanity." In the article "Literary Dreams" the critic revealed the main question literary life- the problem of nationality in literature. Nationality, which consists in freedom from alien influences and "in the fidelity of the image of the pictures of Russian life", acts, as Belinsky rightly points out, as a criterion national importance Pushkin. In the fundamental work of Belinsky - a cycle of 11 articles under the general title "Works of Alexander Pushkin" (1843-1846) - there is a well-known formula about "Eugene Onegin" as "an encyclopedia of Russian life and a highly folk work."

Critic A.V. Druzhinin in his article “A.S. Pushkin and the last edition of his works” (1855) approached Pushkin’s work “from the standpoint of the “absolute” principles of art, its “eternal” principles, and naturally, the supra-historical meaning of Pushkin’s creativity, which is already far beyond of his time". “Onegin,” the critic wrote, “on the whole seems to be one of the most entertaining novels ever thought of by the most highly gifted writers.” Druzhinin noted such features of the novel as "slimness", "masterful combination of the story with lyricism", "surprise denouement" and "influence on the reader's curiosity". A. Grigoriev, the author of the famous formula “Pushkin is our everything,” believed that “the best that was said about Pushkin” in contemporary criticism “was reflected in Druzhinin’s articles.” He himself rightly spoke of the poet as "the only complete sketch of our people's personality", "a nugget". Pushkin, in his opinion, is “our original type, which has already measured itself with other European types, passed in consciousness those phases of development that they went through, but fraternized with them in consciousness.” The nature of the Russian genius, according to A. Grigoriev, responded to everything "to the best of the Russian soul." This statement anticipated the words of F.M. Dostoevsky about Pushkin's "worldwide responsiveness": "He shares this ... the main ability of our nationality with our people, and that, most importantly, he is a people's poet" .

Criticism of Russian symbolism saw in Pushkin a prophet, a spiritual standard and moral guide artist. “Pushkin ... with a sensitive ear foresaw the future trembling of our modern soul,” wrote V. Bryusov about the genius-prophet and, on the basis of this, put forward the main requirement for the modern poet: offering a “sacred sacrifice” “not only with poems, but every hour of his life, every feeling ... " "Creativity consists not only in rattling with an absent-minded hand on the lyre, but also in the painful work of translating images into words," critics of the early 20th century F. Sologub and Ivanov-Razumnik rightly wrote about the enormous work done by Pushkin during the creation novel in verse "Eugene Onegin".

The history of commenting on the novel "Eugene Onegin" is interesting. After all, as soon as Pushkin's novel stepped over its time and became the property of a new readership, much in it required additional explanation. In the 20th century, the first post-revolutionary editions of Pushkin's works generally refused to comment on Eugene Onegin. Separate editions of "Eugene Onegin" appeared, provided with brief comments by G.O. Vinokur and B.O. Tomashevsky and designed mainly for a wide range of readers. We note the essential importance of brief footnotes and explanatory articles to the school edition of "Eugene Onegin", carried out by S.M. Bondy. These comments also had an impact on the scientific understanding of "Eugene Onegin". In 1932, a new commentary was created by N.L. Brodsky. On the goals and objectives of his book "Eugene Onegin". Roman A.S. Pushkin" Brodsky wrote in the preface to the third edition, stating that the task arose to describe the time that determined the fate and psychology of the main characters of the novel, to reveal the circle of ideas of the author himself in a constantly changing reality. Book N.L. Brodsky was addressed, in particular, to a language teacher, whose level of knowledge about "Eugene Onegin" depends on the presentation of his students. In this sense, the significance of Brodsky's work is very great. However, recognizing Pushkin's novel as the pinnacle of literature of the 19th century, Brodsky considers it primarily as a work that has forever receded into the past and belongs to him.

In 1978, "Eugene Onegin" came out with comments by A.E. Tarkhov. The goal set by the author is to analyze creative history novel in unity with the evolution of the hero. Despite the fact that the author pays attention mainly to general textual comments, and not to particulars, his work gives readers Pushkin's novel detailed and based on the previous scientific tradition material for understanding "Eugene Onegin".
One of the most significant events in the modern interpretation of "Eugene Onegin" was the publication in 1980 of Yu.M. Lotman, addressed, like the work of N. L. Brodsky, to the teacher's audience. In the book "Eugene Onegin". Commentary” includes “Essay on the noble life of the Onegin era” - a valuable tool in the study of not only “Eugene Onegin”, but in general all Russian literature of Pushkin's time. The construction of the book is designed, as the researcher himself notes, for parallel reading with Pushkin's text. Yu.M. Lotman is a deep textological work. The commentary gives two types of explanations: textual, intertextual and conceptual (the author gives historical-literary, stylistic, philosophical interpretations). The task set by the researcher - "to bring the reader closer to the semantic life of the text" - is solved in this book on the very high level.

Foreign authors have repeatedly turned to commenting on "Eugene Onegin". Among the most famous can be called an extensive commentary by V.V. Nabokov, characterized by detailed explanations of numerous details of the text of Pushkin's novel. Here, an important place is occupied by lengthy excursions into the history of literature and culture, versification, as well as the translator's notes and comparisons with previous attempts to translate "Eugene Onegin" into English language. The writer explains the realities that are incomprehensible primarily to a foreign-language reader. There are also some costs in his work: excessively detailed arguments, sometimes too sharp polemics with predecessors. Nevertheless, this commentary is a significant achievement of Western Pushkin studies - primarily in terms of the thoroughness and scope of commenting on the text of the novel by A.
In 1999, the Moscow publishing house "Russian Way" published the "Onegin Encyclopedia" in 2 volumes, in the creation of which such researchers as N.I. Mikhailova, V.A. Koshelev, N.M. Fedorova, V.A. Viktorovich and others. The encyclopedia differs from previously created commentaries on Eugene Onegin by a special principle of organization: it combines articles of different genres (small studies, literary essays, brief explanations to the text of the novel). The encyclopedia is supplied with rich illustrative material. A big plus of the publication is its addressing both to specialists and a wide range readers. We can say that the compilers of the encyclopedia approached a new comprehension of the novel due to the wide coverage of the material.

A productive stage in the study of Pushkin's creativity and in particular the novel "Eugene Onegin" was fundamental research S.G. Bocharova ("Poetics of Pushkin", "Form of Plan"), who pays attention to the stylistic world of the novel, its language, speaks of the author's poetic evolution. N.N. Skatov (the author of the large-scale work "Pushkin. Russian genius", numerous essays on the life and work of the poet) explores the poetics of Pushkin's works, speaks about the enduring significance of the poet's work as the highest, ideal exponent of Russian national consciousness. I. Surat made her contribution to Pushkin studies by raising the large-scale problem of “art and religion” and expressing the idea that Pushkin embodied poetry itself in its ontological essence (“Pushkin as a religious problem”). The opinion about Pushkin as an ontological, ethical and aesthetic phenomenon is also expressed by such modern literary critics as V.S. Nepomniachtchi, Yu.N. Chumakov, S.S. Averintsev, V.K. Kantor and many others. They develop questions about the meaning of the novel "Eugene Onegin" as a unique phenomenon of world art, about its influence on Russian literature of the 19th century and subsequent eras. The attention of researchers is focused on the disclosure of the ontological phenomenology of Pushkin's novel in the context of world literature.
At present, the problem of the real place of genius in national history, its role in the spiritual self-awareness of the people, in the fate of the nation, i.e. its exceptional mission, a special historical task. Following the religious-philosophical criticism turn XIX-XX centuries (D.S. Merezhkovsky, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank), who asserted the idea that “in the Holy Spirit ... that combination of grace and freedom takes place, which we see in Pushkin’s work”, Pushkin’s phenomenon as a philosophical and methodological category is considered in his works by V.S. Nepomniachtchi. According to the literary critic, "in order for Pushkin's genius to appear before us in all its brightness and fullness of life, it is necessary to consider it ... in an ontological context as a phenomenon of being."

So, each era "highlighted" in the novel the levels closest to it, which was reflected in the stages scientific study. Modern researcher Yu.N. Chumakov rightly believes that now is the time to read the novel "against the background of universality." The universal content of "Eugene Onegin" reveals itself in the picture of the world, presented as a system of values, as a constantly evolving, "eternally moving" set of ideas about reality.

"Eugene Onegin" - a novel in verse by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, written in the 30s years XIX century. The work of the great poet and now speaks about one of the most significant works of Russian literature, immortal literary monument. Of course, the work evoked numerous responses from contemporaries who analyzed the novel in different ways, finding in it their own characteristics and traits. Of all the critical articles, only a few stand out with particular cultural resonance.
Two articles by V. G. Belinsky"Eugene Onegin" (articles eight and ninth) were published in 1844-1845 in the magazine " Domestic notes". The well-known characteristic is given by the critic to the novel in them. V.G. Belinsky calls the work "an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work”, pointing to the historicism of “Eugene Onegin”, presented in the novel even without the introduction historical persons. The critic believes that Pushkin reflected the reality of Russian society, represented in the heroes themselves, which was contemporary to the poet; once again indicates the nationality, the nationality of this novel.
D. I. Pisarev, on the contrary, speaks of Pushkin's great work as "useless", speaks of the need to put it on the shelf, like Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin and Zhukovsky. (article "A walk through the gardens of Russian literature") The critic doubted the immortality of the Onegin type, he considers him nothing more than Mitrofanushka Prostakov, "dressed and combed in the capital's fashion." Gives doubt to Pisarev and the opinion of V.G. Belinsky (no wonder the critical article about the novel is called "Pushkin and Belinsky"). The critic begins his reflection with the words of Belinsky himself: "Onegin, is Pushkin's most sincere work, ... Here is all his life, all his soul, all his love; here are his feelings, concepts, ideals ..." (Works by Belinsky, vol. VIII, p. 509). This thesis is, as it were, put at the head of the table for its refutation. In addition, Pisarev applied in his article on "Eugene Onegin" a principle well known for a special genre of satire called burlesque: he 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. Takova main feature DI. Pisarev as a nihilist, a literary critic who rejects old principles, no matter how "respect" these principles are surrounded.
The position of V. G. Belinsky is closer to me, since the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" did not set itself the goal of any influence on society, did not containanti-democratic thoughts that young nihilists so despise, in a word, did not main task become the first postulate of Russian society, however, the work can accurately show the realities of life in Russia in the 20s - 30s of the XIX century, depicting all sectors of society, ridiculing the vices of man and showing the reader that world with the help of author's digressions and artistic details. The novel seems to contain the very life of Russian society in its real guise.

About the statement of V. Nepomniachtchi

The thoughts of the Pushkinist V. Nepomniachtchi vividly illustrate the idea of ​​what kind of blunders are obtained when a person knows in advance what result he should get, as a result of which he adjusts the entire study to a given formula. Nowhere in Eugene Onegin do we find any mention of religion. Naturally, all the heroes of the novel are believers, at least formally performing church rites. But it is absolutely incomprehensible on what basis the Pushkinist V. Nepomniachtchi ascribes to Pushkin the formulation of the religious problem as the main problem of the novel.

Pisarev and Belinsky

Comparing the views on Eugene Onegin of two famous critics - Belinsky and Pisarev, we must immediately note the following: what Pisarev says is true, but very narrow and vicious. This critic is far from a calm consideration of the character, he is bursting with distrust and hostility towards him. Naturally, in such a situation, Onegin has little chance of justifying himself.

Belinsky's criticism is much more intelligent and insightful. Vissarion Grigorievich subtly notes the psychological features of the character in question and his relationship with the outside world. His approach to Onegin can be called dialectical, that is, taking into account the totality of factors in their mutual connection and sequence.

Onegin is not a frozen picture, he lives and develops, so what was possible for him at the beginning of the novel may be impossible at the end. Pisarev does not see this at all, ignoring the direct instructions of A. S. Pushkin himself on the internal struggle of his hero. Any statement of Pisarev, being a partial, limited truth, with further development, expansion of thought, will inevitably come to a much deeper understanding of Belinsky.