“A real writer is the same as an ancient prophet: he sees more clearly than ordinary people” (A.P. Chekhov).
« Real Writer the same as ancient prophet: he sees more clearly than ordinary people"(A.P. Chekhov). (Based on one or more works of Russian literature XIX century)
“A poet in Russia is more than a poet,” this idea has long been familiar to us. Indeed, Russian literature, starting from the 19th century, became the bearer of the most important moral, philosophical, ideological views, and the writer began to be perceived as a special person, a prophet. Already Pushkin defined the mission of a real poet in this way. In his programmatic poem, which is also called “The Prophet”, he showed that in order to fulfill his task, the poet-prophet is endowed with very special qualities: the sight of a “frightened eagle”, a hearing capable of listening to “the trembling of the sky”, a language similar to the sting of a “wise snake ". Instead of the usual human heart the messenger of God, the "six-winged seraph", who prepares the poet for a prophetic mission, puts "coal burning with fire" into his chest cut with a sword. After all these terrible, painful changes, the chosen one of Heaven is inspired on his prophetic path by God himself: "Rise up, prophet, and see, and listen, / Be done by my will ...". This is how the mission of a true writer, who brings to people the word inspired by God, has been determined since then: he must not entertain, not give aesthetic pleasure with his art, and not even promote some, albeit the most wonderful ideas; his job is to “burn the hearts of people with the verb.”
How difficult the mission of the prophet was already realized by Lermontov, who, following Pushkin, continued to fulfill the great task of art. His prophet, “ridiculed” and restless, persecuted by the crowd and despised by it, is ready to flee back to the “desert”, where, “preserving the law of the Eternal”, nature heeds his messenger. People often do not want to listen to the prophetic words of the poet, he sees too well and understands what many would not like to hear. But Lermontov himself, and those Russian writers who, after him, continued the fulfillment of the prophetic mission of art, did not allow themselves to show cowardice and abandon the heavy role of a prophet. Often suffering and sorrow awaited them for this, many, like Pushkin and Lermontov, died untimely, but others took their place. Gogol in digression from the UE of the chapter of the poem " Dead Souls”openly told everyone how difficult the path of a writer, looking into the very depths of the phenomena of life and striving to convey to people the whole truth, no matter how unattractive it may be. They are ready not only to praise him as a prophet, but to accuse him of all possible sins. “And, only seeing his corpse, / How much he did, they will understand, / And how he loved while hating!” this is how another Russian poet-prophet Nekrasov wrote about the fate of the writer-prophet and the attitude of the crowd towards him.
Now it may seem to us that all these wonderful Russian writers and poets, who make up the "golden age" domestic literature, have always been as highly revered as in our time. But after all, even now recognized throughout the world as a prophet of future catastrophes and a harbinger of the highest truth about man, only at the very end of his life did Dostoevsky begin to be perceived by his contemporaries as greatest writer. Indeed, "there is no prophet in his own country"! And, probably, now somewhere near us lives someone who can be called a “real writer”, similar to an “ancient prophet”, but do we want to listen to someone who sees and understands more than ordinary people, this is main question.
Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov was not a fashionable poet, but was a favorite author for many. Yes, it was and still is loved by modern readers, albeit a few, but I am one of them. The amazing lines of Nekrasov's lyrics were forever imprinted in my soul: “Why are you looking eagerly at the road?” (here is the whole tragic fate), “There are women in Russian villages, with a calm importance of faces, with beautiful power in movements, with a gait, with the eyes of queens ”(before us is the song of the“ majestic Slav ”),“ As if drenched in milk, cherry orchards stand, quietly rustling ”(and here, with one or two most expressive strokes, a dear picture of central Russia - the Motherland great poet). "Quietly"! So soft and amazing vernacular snatched by the poet from the thick folk life from its deepest layers.
The melodious, sincere, wise poems of Nekrasov, often similar to folk song(and many who have become songs), draw the whole world Russian life, complex and multicolored, lost over time and continuing today. What strikes me most in Nekrasov's poetry? First of all, this is his ability to feel, understand and take on the pain of another person, “the wounded heart of the poet”, about which F. M. Dostoevsky spoke so penetratingly: “This never-healing wound of him was the source of all the passionate, suffering his poetry."
Reading Nekrasov's poems, you are convinced that his talent was inspired great power love for the Russian people and the incorruptible conscience of the poet, you understand that his poems are not intended for entertainment and thoughtless admiration, since they reflect the struggle of the “humiliated and offended”, the struggle of the Russian people for better life, for the liberation of the worker from bondage and oppression, for purity and truthfulness, for love between people.
How can your heart not tremble when you read the famous poems about Petersburg street scenes, it would seem, such a distant past, the past nineteenth century! But no! Painfully sorry for the unfortunate nag, slaughtered in front of the amusing crowd, sorry for the young peasant woman, hacked with a whip on Sennaya Square, sorry for that young serf woman Grusha, whose fate was mutilated by the gentlemen.
It seems that A. S. Pushkin, speaking about his successors in poetry, prophetically pointed to Nekrasov as a poet called into the world in order to express in his work the full depth of human suffering:
And a poignant verse
poignantly sad,
Hit on the hearts
With unknown strength.
Yes, that's right, that's right!
Pushkin, as you know, rarely resorted to epithets, but in this case they are abundant and all-encompassing in defining the lyrics of this future poet: Nekrasov’s verse turned out to be “deeply suffering”, “piercingly dull”, but on the other hand, grasping the heart, “directly for his Russian strings.
I was called to sing of your suffering,
Patience amazing people!
These lines of Nekrasov could be taken as an epigraph to my reflection on the poet's lyrics, if I were not aware of other motives of his poetry.
His Muse is the Muse of anger and sadness. The author's anger was caused by the world of evil and injustice. And the poet's contemporary life provided plenty of reasons for the poet's indignation, sometimes it was enough for him to look out the window to be convinced of this. So, according to the memoirs of Avdotya Panaeva, one of the the best works- "Reflections at the front door." How much love and sympathy for the peasant walkers for the truth, how much deep respect for these fair-haired, meek village people! And how deadly bilious his anapaest becomes, as if nailed to pillory"the owner of luxurious chambers" - for his indifference, "deafness to good", for his useless, wingless, well-fed and calm life!
I took the book, having risen from sleep,
And I read in it:
There were worse times,
But there was no meanness!..
I threw the book away.
Are we with you
Such a century sons
O friend, my reader?
When I read these lines filled with anger, I suddenly realized that Nekrasov was not at all outdated, as many interpret today. No and no! Isn't it about our crazy time that a nineteenth-century author, a prophet-poet, said:
I fell asleep. I dreamed of plans
About going to pockets
Blessed Russians...
God! Why, this is about the endless bursting "MMM", Northern and other banks that deceived our parents and other gullible workers!
Noisy in the ears
Like bells are ringing
homeric kush,
Million dollar cases
fabulous salaries,
shortfall, division,
Rails, sleepers, banks, deposits -
You won't understand anything...
Strikingly modern are the lines from Nekrasov's poem "Listening to the horrors of war ..." - about the grief of a mother who lost her son:
Among our hypocritical deeds
And all the vulgarity and prose
Alone I spied in the world
Holy, sincere tears -
Those are the tears of poor mothers!
They can't forget their children
Those who died in the bloody field,
How not to raise weeping willow
Of their drooping branches.
And this, unfortunately, is also the bitter truth of today - the tears of orphaned mothers, whether Georgian, Russian or Chechen ... "everything hurts."
It seems that the poet, as if from a mosaic creating a terrible face of this world, finds it difficult to breathe from anger, recalls the fair lines of K. Balmont that Nekrasov is “the only one who reminds us that while we are all breathing here, there are people who are suffocating ... ". This intonation of righteous anger against the unjust order of the world is permeated with his short poem about the desired storm:
Stuffy! Without happiness and will
The night is infinitely dark.
There would be a storm, right?
The rimmed bowl is full!
Often contemporary to the poet life seemed to him "darkness" when the beast "prowls freely" and the man "wanders fearfully"; he passionately desired to hasten a happy time, but, realizing the futility of the dream, he lamented:
The only pity is to live in this beautiful time
You won't have to, neither me nor you.
But Nekrasov's disappointment in the possibility of happiness did not extinguish his faith in happy life in my soul. I'm with great joy I take with me on a long journey of life his poems, which teach me to be a thinking, compassionate, fair, sympathetic person. My soul according to the poet echoes when I read the lines from his "Bear Hunt":
There is no holiday life
Who does not work on a weekday ...
So - do not dream of glory,
Don't be a sucker for money
Work hard and wish
So that labor is forever sweet.
The Russian people have endured enough...
Will endure whatever the Lord sends!
Will endure everything - and wide, clear
He will pave the way for himself with his chest ...
Yes, "one must live, one must love, one must believe." How else to live?
Composition on the topic: “A real writer is the same as an ancient prophet: he sees more clearly than ordinary people” (A.P. Chekhov)
“A real writer is the same as an ancient prophet: he sees more clearly than ordinary people” (A.P. Chekhov). (Based on one or more works of Russian literature of the 19th century)
“A poet in Russia is more than a poet,” this idea has long been familiar to us. Indeed, Russian literature, starting from the 19th century, became the bearer of the most important moral, philosophical, ideological views, and the writer began to be perceived as a special person, a prophet. Already Pushkin defined the mission of a real poet in this way. In his programmatic poem, which is also called “Prophet”, he showed that in order to fulfill his task, the poet-prophet is endowed with very special qualities: the sight of a “frightened eagle”, a hearing capable of listening to “the trembling of the sky”, a language similar to the sting of a “wise snake ". Instead of an ordinary human heart, the messenger of God, the "six-winged seraphim", who prepares the poet for a prophetic mission, puts "coal burning with fire" into his chest cut with a sword. After all these terrible, painful changes, the chosen one of Heaven is inspired on his prophetic path by God himself: "Rise up, prophet, and see, and listen, / Be done by my will ...". This is how the mission of a true writer, who brings to people the word inspired by God, has been determined since then: he must not entertain, not give aesthetic pleasure with his art, and not even promote some, albeit the most wonderful ideas; his job is to “burn the hearts of people with the verb.”
How difficult the mission of the prophet was already realized by Lermontov, who, following Pushkin, continued to fulfill the great task of art. His prophet, “ridiculed” and restless, persecuted by the crowd and despised by it, is ready to flee back to the “desert”, where, “preserving the law of the Eternal”, nature heeds his messenger. People often do not want to listen to the prophetic words of the poet, he sees too well and understands what many would not like to hear. But Lermontov himself, and those Russian writers who, after him, continued the fulfillment of the prophetic mission of art, did not allow themselves to show cowardice and abandon the heavy role of a prophet. Often suffering and sorrow awaited them for this, many, like Pushkin and Lermontov, died untimely, but others took their place. Gogol, in a lyrical digression from the UE of the chapter of the poem "Dead Souls", openly told everyone how difficult the path of a writer who looks into the very depths of the phenomena of life and strives to convey to people the whole truth, no matter how unattractive it may be. They are ready not only to praise him as a prophet, but to accuse him of all possible sins. “And, only seeing his corpse, / How much he did, they will understand, / And how he loved while hating!” this is how another Russian poet-prophet Nekrasov wrote about the fate of the writer-prophet and the attitude of the crowd towards him.
Now it may seem to us that all these wonderful Russian writers and poets, who constitute the "golden age" of Russian literature, have always been as highly revered as they are in our time. But after all, even now recognized throughout the world as a prophet of future catastrophes and a harbinger of the highest truth about man, Dostoevsky began to be perceived by his contemporaries as the greatest writer only at the very end of his life. Indeed, "there is no prophet in his own country"! And, probably, now somewhere near us lives someone who can be called a “real writer”, similar to an “ancient prophet”, but do we want to listen to someone who sees and understands more than ordinary people, this is main question.
Share on social networks!
In the nineties, the following definition appeared in our literary criticism: “unclaimed talent”.
"Unclaimed" by time, era, readers. This definition can rightfully be attributed to M.A. Bulgakov. Why
but the powerful, peculiar, perspicacious talent of the writer turned out to be out of favor with his contemporaries? What is the mystery of today
universal admiration for the work of Bulgakov? Polls public opinion, the novel "The Master and Margarita"
named the best Russian novel of the 20th century.
The point is, first of all, that it was in Bulgakov's work that a type of person was formed who actively opposed himself to the system with its demand to completely obey and serve the totalitarian government. In an atmosphere of general fear and lack of freedom, such human type, of course, turned out to be dangerous and unnecessary, this type was destroyed in the very literally this word. But today he has been rehabilitated and has finally taken his place in history and literature. So Bulgakov found a second life, turned out to be one of our most widely read writers. And we saw in the era depicted by Bulgakov, not only the panorama of a certain segment of history, but, more importantly, the most acute problem human life: Will a person survive, will he retain his human beginnings, if culture is reduced to nothing, destroyed.
The era of Bulgakov is a time of aggravation of the conflict between power and culture. The writer himself fully experienced all the consequences of this clash of culture and politics: bans on publications, productions, creativity and free thinking in general. Such is the atmosphere of life, and, consequently, of many of the artist's works and, above all, of his novel The Master and Margarita.
The central theme of The Master and Margarita is the fate of a bearer of culture, an artist, a creator in a world of social trouble and in a situation of the destruction of culture as such. The new intelligentsia is sharply and satirically depicted in the novel. Cultural figures of Moscow - employees of MASSOLIT - are engaged in the distribution of dachas and vouchers. They are not interested in issues of art, culture, they are occupied with completely different problems: how to successfully write an article or a short story in order to get an apartment or at least a ticket to the south. Creativity is alien to all of them, they are art bureaucrats, nothing more. This is the environment, this is new reality in which there is no place for the Master. And the Master is actually outside of Moscow, he is in a "psychiatric hospital". It is inconvenient for the new "art" and therefore isolated. What is inconvenient? First of all, because he is free, he has a power that can undermine the foundations of the system. This is the power of free thought, the power of creativity. The master lives by his art, cannot imagine life without not! go. Bulgakov is close to the image of the Master, although it would be a mistake to identify the hero of the novel with its author. The master is not a fighter, he accepts only art, but not politics, he is far from it. Although he perfectly understands: freedom of creativity, freedom of thought, insubordination of the personality of the artist state system Violence is an integral part of any creativity. In Russia, a poet, a writer is always a prophet. This is the tradition of the Russian classical literature so beloved by Bulgakov. Peace, power, the state, destroying their prophet, do not gain anything, but lose a lot: reason, conscience, humanity.
This idea was especially clearly and clearly manifested in the Master's novel about Yeshua and Pontius Pilate. Behind Pilate modern reader free to see anyone, any leader of a totalitarian state, invested with power, but deprived of personal freedom. Another thing is important: the image of Yeshua is read as the image of a contemporary of Bulgakov, who was not broken by power, who did not lose his human dignity hence doomed. Before Pilate stands a man who is able to penetrate into the deepest recesses of the soul, who preaches equality, the common good, love for one's neighbor, that is, something that does not exist and cannot exist in totalitarian state. And the most terrible thing, from the point of view of the procurator as a representative of power, is Yeshua's reflections that "... every power is violence against people" and that "the time will come when there will be no power of either Caesars or any other power. A person will pass into the realm of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all. Apparently, this is what Boo himself thought! lgakov, but it is even more obvious that Bulgakov was tormented by the dependent position of the artist. The writer invites those in power to listen to what the artist says to the world, for the truth is not always on their side. No wonder the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, was left with the impression that he “didn’t finish something with the convict, or maybe he didn’t listen to something.” So the truth of Yeshua remained “unclaimed”, just as the truth of the Master and Bulgakov himself was not “claimed”.
What is this truth? It lies in the fact that any strangulation of culture, freedom, dissent by power is disastrous for the world and power itself, in that only free man able to bring a living stream into the world. Bulgakov's main idea is that the world from which the artist is expelled is doomed to perish. Perhaps that is why Bulgakov is so modern that this truth is revealed to us only now.
The story of M. A. Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog" is undoubtedly one of the best in the writer's work. The decisive factor in the story "Heart of a Dog" is satirical pathos (by the mid-20s, M. Bulgakov had already proved himself to be a talented satirist in stories, feuilletons, stories "Deviliad" and "Fatal Eggs").
IN " dog heart"The writer, by means of satire, denounces the complacency, ignorance and blind dogmatism of other representatives of power, the possibility of a comfortable existence for" labor "elements of dubious origin, their impudence and a sense of complete permissiveness. The views of the writer fell out of the mainstream generally accepted then, in the 20s. However, in the end, the satire of M. Bulgakov, through ridicule and denial of certain social vices, carried the assertion of enduring moral values. Why did M. Bulgakov need to introduce metamorphosis into the story, to make the transformation of a dog into a man a spring of intrigue? If only Klim Chugunkin's qualities are manifested in Sharikov, then why shouldn't the author "resurrect" Klim himself? But before our eyes, the “gray-haired Faust”, busy looking for means to restore youth, creates a person not in a test tube, but by turning from a dog. Dr. Bormenthal is a student and assistant to the professor, and, as befits an assistant, he keeps notes, fixing all the stages of the experiment. Before us is a strict medical document, in which only the facts. However, soon the emotions that overwhelm the young scientist will begin to be reflected in the change in his handwriting. In the diary, the doctor's assumptions about what is happening appear. But, being a professional, Bormenthal is young and full of optimism, he does not have the experience and insight of a teacher.
What are the stages of formation new person”, which was recently not only nobody, but a dog? Even before the full transformation, on January 2, the creature scolded its creator for the mother, by Christmas, its vocabulary was replenished with all swear words. The first meaningful reaction of a person to the creator's remarks is "get off, nit." Dr. Bormenthal hypothesizes that "we have before us Sharik's unfolded brain", but we know, thanks to the first part of the story, that swearing was not in the dog's brain, and we accept skeptically the possibility "to develop Sharik into a very high mental personality”, expressed by Professor Preobrazhensky. Smoking is added to the swearing (Sharik did not like tobacco smoke); seeds; balalaika (and Sharik did not approve of music) - moreover, balalaika at any time of the day (evidence of attitude towards others); untidiness and bad taste in clothes. Sharikov's development is rapid: Philip Philipovich loses the title of deity and turns into a "dad". These qualities of Sharikov are joined by a certain morality, more precisely, immorality ("I'll take it into account, but to fight - shish with butter"), drunkenness, theft. Crown this process of transformation "from the cutest dog into scum" a denunciation of the professor, and then an attempt on his life.
Talking about the development of Sharikov, the author emphasizes the remaining dog features in him: affection for the kitchen, hatred for cats, love for a well-fed, idle life. A man catches fleas with his teeth, barks and yelps indignantly in conversations. But not external manifestations dog nature disturb the inhabitants of the apartment on Prechistenka. Insolence, which seemed sweet and harmless in a dog, becomes unbearable in a person who, with his rudeness, terrorizes all the residents of the house, by no means intending to "learn and become at least an acceptable member of society." His morality is different: he is not a NEP man, therefore, a hard worker and has the right to all the blessings of life: this is how Sharikov shares the idea of “sharing everything” that is captivating for the mob. Sharikov took the worst, most terrible qualities from both a dog and a person. The experiment led to the creation of a monster that, in its baseness and aggressiveness, will not stop at meanness, betrayal, or murder; who understands only strength, ready, like any slave, to take revenge on everything to which he obeyed, at the first opportunity. A dog must remain a dog, and a man must remain a man.
Another participant in the dramatic events in the house on Prechistenka is Professor Preobrazhensky. The famous European scientist is looking for means to rejuvenate the human body and has already achieved significant results. The professor is a representative of the old intelligentsia and professes the old principles of life. Everyone, according to Philipp Philippovich, in this world should do his own thing: in the theater - to sing, in the hospital - to operate, and then there will be no devastation. He rightly believes that material well-being, life benefits, position in society is possible only through labor, knowledge and skills. It is not origin that makes a person a person, but the benefit that he brings to society. The conviction is not driven into the head of the enemy with a club: "Terror can not do anything." The professor does not hide his dislike for the new order, which turned the country upside down and brought it to the brink of disaster. He cannot accept new rules (“divide everything”, “who was nobody, he will become everything”), depriving true workers normal conditions work and life. But the European luminary still compromises with the new government: he returns her youth, and she provides him with tolerable living conditions and relative independence. To stand in open opposition to the new government - to lose both the apartment and the opportunity to work, and maybe even life. The professor has made his choice. In some ways, this choice is reminiscent of Sharik's choice. The image of the professor is given by Bulgakov extremely ironically. In order to provide for himself, Philip Philipovich, who looked like french knight and the king, is forced to serve scum and lechers, although he tells Dr. Bormental that he does this not for the sake of money, but out of scientific interests. But, thinking about improving the human race, Professor Preobrazhensky so far only transforms depraved old people and prolongs their opportunity to lead a dissolute life.
The professor is omnipotent only for Sharik. The scientist is guaranteed security as long as he serves those in power, as long as the authorities need him, he can afford to openly express dislike for the proletariat, he is protected from the lampoons and denunciations of Sharikov and Shvonder. But his fate, like the fate of all the intelligentsia, who are trying to fight against the stick with words, was guessed by Bulgakov and predicted in Vyazemskaya’s story: “If you weren’t a European luminary and people who, I’m sure, we still Let's be clear, you should have been arrested." The professor is worried about the collapse of culture, which manifests itself in everyday life (the history of the Kalabukhov house), in work and leading to devastation. Alas, Philip Philippovich's remarks are too modern that the devastation is in the minds, that when everyone goes about their business, "the devastation will end by itself." Having received an unexpected result of the experiment (“a change in the pituitary gland does not give rejuvenation, but complete humanization”), Philip Philipovich reaps its consequences. Trying to educate Sharikov with a word, he often loses his temper from his unheard-of rudeness, breaks into a scream (he looks helpless and comical - he no longer convinces, but orders, which causes even more resistance from the pupil), for which he reproaches himself: “We must still restrain himself ... A little more, he will teach me and will be absolutely right. I can't control myself." The professor cannot work, his nerves are torn, and the author's irony is increasingly replaced by sympathy.
Turns out it's easier the most complicated operation than to re-educate (rather than educate) an already formed “person”, when he does not want, does not feel an inner need to live the way he is offered. And again one involuntarily recalls the fate of the Russian intelligentsia, who prepared and practically accomplished socialist revolution, but somehow forgot that it is necessary not to educate, but to re-educate millions of people, who tried to defend culture, morality and paid with her life for illusions embodied in reality.
Having received an extract of the sex hormone from the pituitary gland, the professor did not assume that there were many hormones in the pituitary gland. Oversight, miscalculation led to the birth of Sharikov. And the crime, against which the scientist Dr. Bormenthal warned, was nevertheless committed, contrary to the views and convictions of the teacher. Sharikov, clearing his place under the sun, does not stop either at the denunciation or at the physical elimination of the "benefactors". Scientists are no longer forced to defend their beliefs, but their lives: “Sharikov himself invited his death. He raised left hand and showed Philipp Philippovich a bitten cone with an unbearable cat smell. And then right hand at the address of the dangerous Bormental, he took out a revolver from his pocket. Forced self-defence, of course, somewhat softens in the eyes of the author and the reader the responsibility of scientists for the death of Sharikov, but we Once again we are convinced that life does not fit into any theoretical postulates. The genre of the fantastic story allowed Bulgakov to safely resolve the dramatic situation. But the author's thought about the responsibility of the scientist for the right to experiment sounds warning. Any experiment must be thought through to the end, otherwise its consequences can lead to disaster.
