1. V. G. Belinsky. Article "Hero of our time".
"... Most of the public completely denied Onegin's soul and heart, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly! This is not enough: many good-naturedly believed and still believe that the poet himself wanted to portray Onegin as cold This already means having eyes to see nothing. Savor did not kill feelings in Onegin, but only cooled to fruitless passions and petty entertainments. "" Connection with Lensky, this young dreamer, which our public liked so much, speaks loudest of all against the imaginary soullessness of Onegin.
“Remember how Onegin was brought up, and you will agree that his nature was too good if such an upbringing did not completely kill her. A brilliant young man, he was carried away by the world, like many; but soon got bored with them and left him, as too few do. A spark of hope smoldered in his soul - to be resurrected and refreshed in the quiet of solitude, in the bosom of nature; but he soon saw that a change of place does not change the essence of some irresistible circumstances that do not depend on our will.
"Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an egoist involuntarily; one should see in his egoism what the ancients called "fatum".
"Onegin was so smart, subtle and experienced, he understood people and their hearts so well that he could not help but understand from Tatyana's letter that this a poor girl gifted with a passionate heart, hungry for fatal food, that her passion is childishly ingenuous and that she is not in the least like those coquettes who are so tired of him with their feelings, sometimes light, sometimes fake. In his letter to Tatyana, he says that, noticing a spark of tenderness in her, he did not want to believe her (that is, he forced himself not to believe), did not give way to a sweet habit and did not want to part with his hateful freedom.
“And the more natural, simpler Onegin’s suffering, the farther it is from any showiness, the less it could be understood and appreciated by the majority of the public. such an unconditional denial, without going through any convictions: this is death! But Onegin was not destined to die without tasting from the cup of life: a strong and deep passion immediately aroused the forces of his spirit that were dormant in anguish.
"Onegin is a real character, in the sense that there is nothing dreamy, fantastic in him, that he could be happy and unhappy only in reality and through reality."
"Tatiana is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle."
"A visit to Onegin's house and reading his books prepared Tatyana for the rebirth of a village girl into a secular lady, which surprised and amazed Onegin so much."
"In fact, Onegin was to blame before Tatyana for not loving her then, as she was younger and better and loved him! After all, for love, only youth, beauty and reciprocity are needed! A dumb village girl with childhood dreams - and a secular woman, experienced by life and suffering, who found a word to express her feelings and thoughts: what's the difference! And yet, according to Tatyana, she was more capable of inspiring love then than now, because then she was younger and better !"
2. D. N. Ovsyanikov-Kulikovskii.
"Onegin is first of all a representative of an educated society, ... a man who only slightly rises above the average level of secular, then educated and affected by the ideas of the age of young people. He is smart, but in his mind there is neither depth of thought, nor sublimity ... Russian coldness , poor performance, inability to get carried away by any business or idea, and a great ability to get bored - these are the characteristic features of Onegin ... "
“Onegin ... can be called an ordinary person, spoiled, incapable of work, serious business, etc., but cannot be called spiritually empty. He led an empty life at first, but she bored him precisely with her emptiness - he was dissatisfied with it. "
"Pushkin finds something attractive in the bored, apathetic, degraded Onegin, something not quite ordinary, by no means vulgar and seemingly significant."
"The board of spiritual loneliness pursues Onegin everywhere. Escaping from longing, he is looking not so much for new impressions, which are all boring, but for at least some food for the mind."
3. Onegin is not at all an egoist, as it might seem at first glance. His biggest trouble and at the same time dignity is the directness and frankness that came to him along with spiritual emptiness. He knew how to be hypocritical, but he decided to break with the past and did not want to pretend to be sweet and naive girl confessing her love to him.
Tatyana fell in love with Eugene, not yet knowing and not understanding him. This is youthful love, idealizing and romantic, but Eugene needed such feelings. He was already looking not for adoration, but for understanding, not for romanticism, but for real, mature feelings. He will see all this in Tatyana later, when he meets her, changed and beautiful, knowing and understanding him now.
Tatyana Larina, brought up in a truly Russian spirit, could never leave her lawful husband even for the sake of the person she loves. She regrets the past, about the time when she was free, when there was the possibility of happiness. She did not manage to stop loving Onegin, but for the sake of this love she will not destroy the happiness of another person. Suffering herself, Tatyana does not want to be a source of suffering for people who do not deserve it.
Moreover, contemporary criticism lagged behind him. If the first chapters of "Eugene Onegin" were accepted by her rather sympathetically, then the latter met with almost unanimous condemnation.
In any case, it is important that Russian criticism recognized the vitality of the heroes of the novel. Bulgarin declared that he met “Onegins” in St. Petersburg by “dozens”. Polevoy recognized in the hero a "familiar" person, inner life whom he "felt", but, without the help of Pushkin, "could not explain". Many other critics say the same in different ways. Even the famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote a curious article "Eugene Onegin and his ancestors", where the hero Pushkin's novel dismantled as a historical type.
The question of the "nationality" of Pushkin's novel in Russian criticism
It is also important that with regard to the novel, the question arose of what “nationality” is in literature. Some critics recognized the significance of the "national" work behind the novel, others saw in it an unsuccessful imitation of Byron. From the dispute it turned out that the first people saw the “nationality” not where it should have been seen, and the second overlooked the originality of Pushkin. None of the critics rated this work as "realistic", but many attacked its form, pointed out the shortcomings of the plan, the frivolity of the content ...
Polevoy's review of "Eugene Onegin"
Of the most serious reviews an article about the novel must be recognized Field. He saw in the novel a "literary capriccio", an example of a "joking poem", in the spirit of Byron's "Beppo", appreciated the simplicity and liveliness of Pushkin's story. Polevoi was the first to call Pushkin's novel "national": "we see our own, we hear our own folk sayings, we look at our quirks, which we all were not alien to at one time. This article sparked a lively controversy. In the image of Tatyana, only one of the then critics saw the complete independence of Pushkin's work. He put Tatyana above the Circassian, Maria and Zarema.
The question of "Byronism" in the novel
Critics who argued that "Eugene Onegin" is an imitation of Byron's heroes, all the time argued that Byron was higher than Pushkin, and that Onegin, "an empty, insignificant and ordinary being," was lower than his prototypes. In essence, in this review of Pushkin's hero, there was more praise than blame. Pushkin painted a "live" image without idealizing it, which cannot be said about Byron.
Nadezhdin's review of "Eugene Onegin"
Nadezhdin did not attach serious importance to the novel, the best work Pushkin, in his opinion, remained the poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila". He offered to look at Pushkin's novel as a "brilliant toy" that should neither be exalted too much nor condemned too much.
June 23 2010
The critic approached "Eugene Onegin" with such attitudes. Pisarev opposed the thoughtless admiration of the layman with the sober approach of the “realist”. Just as a natural scientist dissects living body to study its structure, the critic dissected with a sharp scalpel the logical analysis of art. He translated poetry into prose, trying to determine in retelling what benefit can be derived from the work for development. mental abilities contemporaries. What purpose did he pursue, carefully writing out the details of that noble life: Onegin's beaver collar, on which frost sparkles, objects in the office of a noble undergrowth? This is as useless for a contemporary of Pisarev as acquaintance with lines in which the poet admires the legs of ballerinas. And if so, then the position of the author of the novel in verse, his artistic idea. Wrong choice.
Why portray such an "insignificant vulgar, treacherous traitor and cruel tyrant of ladies' hearts"? How will the generation of acute social cataclysms be enriched if it gets acquainted with this likeness of Mitrofanushka Prostakov of a different formation? The idle person corrupted the hero, because “to live in the language of Onegin means to walk along the boulevard, dine at the Talon, go to theaters and balls. To think is to criticize Didelot's ballets and to scold the moon as a fool for being very round...”. Such a hero cannot be the inspirer of a new generation, and therefore is useless, the critic concludes.
Debunking the protagonist and Pushkin's novel in verse as a whole, Pisarev refutes Belinsky, who highly appreciated Eugene Onegin. Moreover, it does not so much refute as explain the reasons why Belinsky was such a connoisseur) of the "encyclopedia of Russian life." It turns out that it was not Pushkin who "gave rise to his works" wonderful thoughts expressed in eleven "excellent articles" (Pisarev), but they belonged to Belinsky himself. It turns out, according to the words, that "Belinsky loved that Pushkin, whom he created for himself." According to the correct remark of V. V. Prozorov, these words can rightly be attributed to Pisarev himself: “He furiously overthrew Pushkin, whom he “created for himself.”
After explaining Belinsky's position and debunking the former idol, the authority for several generations of readers, the critic led to a convincing conclusion that seemed to many: “Pushkin can only have historical meaning, but for those people who have no time and no reason to study the history of literature, it doesn’t even matter at all”3.
Pisarev's nihilistic statements remained essentially unanswered. Published in 1869 in " Domestic notes»an article by Skabichevsky (who showed that it was precisely the rejection of historicism that prevented critics from distinguishing in the heroes of Pushkin, and in particular his novel, advanced people of its time) could not be compared with the effect that Pisarev's articles produced. The lack of rebuff and a worthy reaction to the attack of the "prophet younger generation”(N. Shelgunov) testified to the invulnerability of his positions.
All this had a sad effect on the literary and reader generation that followed Pisarev. Interest in Pushkin fell even more than before the beginning of the 60s .. Not without Pisarev's influence, according to a contemporary, the fascination with poetic form also faded: Ya. light hand interest in poetry faded away, no one read poems aloud.
Most strong impression articles were produced for young people. Much later, when she first read Pisarev’s reviews of Pushkin, Marietta Shaginyan recalled: “Pushkin early childhood became my god. And this deity - Pushkin - faded in front of me from page to page ... I was in the greatest, in elemental confusion, I experienced that "vasodilation", which happens physically from taking heart medicine,
and mentally it was expressed in the pleasure of overthrowing authorities.
As time passed, the attention of readers was attracted by one or the other features of Pisarev's reading of Pushkin. The ideas of the critic are not forgotten to this day. The phenomenon of Pisarev's nihilism is being sought for explanations, the motives of his review of the poet, the origins of his views, as well as the consequences of the articles - both immediate and more distant, attract more interest. “Who will agree with Pisarev's interpretation of Pushkin's work? And along with those who reject her historical value? After all, without it there is no Pisarev, it is typical for Pisarev, for his time, for cultural life Russia in the 60s,” notes D.S. Likhachev, reflecting on the principles of the historical approach to the perception of art.
Any striking cultural and historical fact of the assessment of a classic is ambiguous. The effect of his influence on the public is sometimes the opposite of the intentions of the author. The outflow of the masses of readers from Pushkin, literally a decade and a half later, was replaced by a new surge of attention to the poet. It is possible and paradoxical that by his extreme nihilistic position the critic to a certain extent prepared the reorientation of sympathies towards Pushkin that followed in the early 1980s. Perhaps this is not a paradox at all, but a kind of "experiment" by Pisarev?
After all, he himself clearly formulated his own credo, stating that “only that which is rotten is afraid of the touch of criticism, which, as Egyptian mummy, disintegrates into dust from the movement of air. A living idea, like a fresh flower from the rain, grows stronger and grows, withstanding the test of skepticism. Before the spell of sober analysis, only ghosts disappear; and existing objects, subjected to this test, prove to them the reality of their existence. If you have items that have never been touched by criticism, you would do well to give them a good shake to make sure that you are storing a real treasure, and not decayed rubbish.
The critic "shaken up" Pushkin's legacy and offered his own conclusions. Objectively, the poet withstood this test with an all-destroying skepticism and an ahistorical approach. The wisdom of Pushkin, the artistic perfection of his works, as well as general meaning heritage for Russian culture, have become even more obvious. The experience of interpreting Pushkin was expanded by an attempt at debunking, which at first blinded readers, but soon convinced them of the inconsistency of such operations.
The vitality and all-conquering topicality of Pushkin's heritage were more frankly manifested. Pisarev's position in relation to the poet emphasized this side of his objective meaning, revealing at the same time weak sides views. Belinsky and other social democrats in interpreting the role of the classic. Pisarev provoked a test of Pushkin's creativity for viability in new historical conditions. Is it not for this reason that, having infinitely appreciated Pushkin, in a letter to Ogarev it was precisely the articles “Pushkin and Belinsky” and “Bazarov” that Pisarev called “the most wonderful things”?
If we return to the time when the articles appeared, then the boiling of passions around them was not too long. The positions of the critic were refuted in the most effective way - by life. The opening of the monument to Pushkin in Moscow determined the revision of ideas, including those of Pisarev, contributed to new discussions about the role of the poet in the spiritual life of Russia.
Need a cheat sheet? Then save it - " Criticism of Pisarev about the novel "Eugene Onegin". Literary writings!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 put 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 possible, as well as highlighting the image main character Tatyana, focusing on 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, departing from romantic creativity to 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 highlights the novel as the beginning newest stage Russian poetry, distinguished by picturesqueness, carelessness, special thoughtfulness, poetic simplicity and expressiveness, however, at the same time, the critic does not realize main point works, 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. 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 deciphering 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, different from prose novels and romantic poems. The reviewer points to the use by the poet of a huge number of unknown words, quotations, phraseological units
Particularly noteworthy is the article by N.A. Polevoy, who evaluates the novel as a living, simple Pushkin's creation, which is distinguished by the signs of a joke poem, while being a true national work, in which the features inherent in the Russian people are clearly traced. But at the same time, the critic negatively accepts the first chapters of the novel, pointing out the details in the descriptions and focusing on the lack of an important idea and meaning.
Many reviewers distinguish the work as a folk creation, but some of them find signs of an unsuccessful imitation of Byron in the content of the novel, not recognizing the original author's reading, which portrayed the protagonist not as an ideal, but as a living human image.
According to Baratynsky E.A., each reader of the novel understands it 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 considered the novel modern tragedy and called it a sad work.
The meaning of the novel "Eugene Onegin" was revealed to the reader gradually. Each new generation, unlike Pushkin's contemporaries, saw in the image of the protagonist more and more facets of his character. For history literary types and for the history of world literature, the novel "Eugene Onegin" is of tremendous importance. It opens the veil for our contemporaries and they can at least partially understand the worldview of the greatest poet, having studied in detail the characteristics of the heroes of the novel and analyzing their actions. In the novel "Eugene Onegin" you can see the reflection of life separate era- writes R. V. Ivanov-Rozumnik in his article in 1909.
I. V. Kireevsky characterized the main character work of the same name, as "an ordinary and completely insignificant creature." However, Tatyana's character was praised by Kireevsky and named the best creation of the poet.
Pushkin when writing the novel "Eugene Onegin" used literary device not very clear to his contemporaries. The descriptions and dialogues of the critics of that time were considered too simple and “folk”, almost bordering on primitive turns. Deliberate lightness and carelessness of presentation in the novel and mixing by the poet literary words with folk aroused righteous anger among his contemporaries. However, all contemporaries read "Eugene Onegin" and the heroes of this work did not leave anyone indifferent contemplators of all the passions described in the novel.
This fact proves the skill of the great writer to evoke the reader's ability to empathize with the heroes of his novel. The images of Onegin and Tatyana did not leave both Pushkin's contemporaries and readers without a gamut of emotions. different eras, including today.
Some interesting essays
- What does Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment make you think about?
What does Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment" make you think about? The great philosopher, psychologist of the seventeenth century is, of course, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who, having written famous novel"Crime and Punishment"
- Prince Vereisky characteristic, image in Pushkin's novel Dubrovsky
Who knows what the fate of Maria Kirillovna Troekurova would have been if one day Prince Vereisky had not looked into his estate, which was next to the Troekurov estate. It was his first visit to his estate, and he came straight from abroad.
- Analysis of the play Last Summer in Chulimsk by Vampilova
Alexander Vampilov's play "Last Summer in Chulimsk" is one of recent works author.
Winter is the coldest of all seasons. However, many are looking forward to it. Biting frosts ice the rivers, forming a skating rink.
IN modern world Few people can imagine their life without a computer or the Internet. We are used to the fact that we have access to the network around the clock, that we can get an answer to our question at any time, but this was not always the case.
Scientific research of the novel "Eugene Onegin"
Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" is one of the most inexhaustible and deep works Russian literature, which confirms 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 general expression for the nature of his poetry, which received so much various kinds". 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 connection with this “one more important quality in the nature of his poetry - 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. A nation that consists in freedom from alien influences and "in the fidelity of the image of 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 in the highest degree folk art."
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”, - V. Bryusov wrote about the genius-prophet and, on the basis of this, put forward the main requirement for contemporary poet: the offering of a “sacred sacrifice” “not only with verses, but with every hour of one’s life, with every feeling ...” “Creativity consists not only in the rattling of an absent hand on the lyre, but also in the painful labor of translating images into words,” critics of the beginning rightly wrote XX century F. Sologub and Ivanov-Razumnik about the enormous work done by Pushkin during the creation of the 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. appeared individual editions"Eugene Onegin", equipped with brief comments 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. Bondi. 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 the creative history of the novel in unity with the evolution of the hero. Despite the fact that the author pays attention mainly to general textual comments, rather than particulars, his work provides readers of Pushkin's novel with 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.
Commenting on "Eugene Onegin" was repeatedly addressed and foreign authors. 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 equipped with a 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 work and in particular the novel "Eugene Onegin" was the fundamental research of 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 contributed to Pushkin studies by raising big problem"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 the present time, the problem is becoming more relevant real place 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 vitality, 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.
