All our hope is for future generations.
N. A. Dobrolyubov
The relations between the leading critic of the Sovremennik magazine and his contemporaries, including those who later left their memoirs, were far from simple. They were determined, as is always the case when it comes to an outstanding person, not only by personal qualities, but also by the direction and content of his activity. Convinced of the inevitability and necessity of the revolutionary transformation of Russia, who saw in literature a powerful means of awakening public self-consciousness, Dobrolyubov was incapable of compromise even in the sphere of his private life. The ideas that he preached, the power of his words, the nobility and restrained passion of nature made him an ideal for some; the same qualities contributed to the complete rejection of his personality and activities for others.
"They say that my path - bold truth - will someday lead me to death. It may very well be; but I will be able to die for good reason" (Dobrolyubov N.A. Sobr. Op. in 9 volumes, v. 9 M.-L., Goslitizdat, 1964, p. 254.). The words of the young man Dobrolyubov, and they were said when he was barely twenty years old, again, already with the consciousness of a premonition that had come true, sounded in his dying poem:
Dear friend, I'm dying
Because I was honest;
But to the native land,
That's right, I'll be known.
The poem, with its pathos of self-sacrifice in the name of a lofty goal, cannot be treated only as a manifestation of an individual mood. The same pathos determined the fate of many, many who saw in Dobrolyubov a Teacher in the highest sense of the word. Giving their lives for the sake of the future of their country, they were convinced that “the time when Dobrolyubov will be justly appreciated” is not far off, helping them “look without fear and trembling into this future”: after all, they all themselves took part in the struggle for it. "victory" (Bibikov P.A. On the literary activity of N.A. Dobrolyubov. St. Petersburg, 1862, p. 110.). For them, Dobrolyubov was - and remained forever - one of those unforgettable people, the very memory of which ennobles. "Philosopher, critic, publicist, poet, deep thinker and caustic satirist - he undoubtedly belonged to the highest category of" selected natures "- natures marked with the stamp of a genius" (Sixties. Materials on the history of literature and social movement. M - L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1940, p. 226.), - wrote the revolutionary populist P. N. Tkachev in the early 1880s. The memories of like-minded people and followers of Dobrolyubov, if they knew him personally, are colored by a feeling of admiring, and often reverent respect.
Others, appreciating above all Dobrolyubov's talent, regretted the direction in which he used it. Their attitude towards Dobrolyubov - regardless of whether they liked or disliked him as a person - is determined by confidence in his talent and doubt about the correctness of the path chosen by Dobrolyubov, sympathy for the fact that one of the galaxy of brilliant Russian critics "burned out" so quickly and - at the same time - rejection of his views. This position is most definitely expressed in Turgenev's letter dated December 11/23, 1861. “I regretted the death of Dobrolyubov,” he wrote to I.P. Borisov, “although I did not share his views: the man was gifted - young ... Sorry for the lost, wasted strength!” (Turgenev I. S. Complete collection of works and letters in 28 volumes, Letters, vol. 4, M.-L., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962, p. 316.)
And, finally, there were those for whom the personality of Dobrolyubov, his activities as a revolutionary, critic, and publicist turned out to be unacceptable to the point of hostility, to the bitter denial of all his merits. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes veiledly, a similar attitude can be traced in the memoirs.
Collected together, memories of Dobrolyubov, precisely because they differ so much from each other in their character, not only enable us to imagine the features of a living person, but also help to restore the tense atmosphere of the era in which Dobrolyubov acted, gaining friends and enemies.
The short life of Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov, only twenty-five years old (born January 24/February 5, 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod, and died November 17/29, 1861 in St. Petersburg), could not but leave a specific imprint on memoirs, and even on the very their number. It is comparatively small, and, with a few exceptions, this collection exhausts them. It is possible that new materials will be found, but hardly extensive.
Among the surviving memoirs there are no large volumes dedicated only to Dobrolyubov, such as exist, for example, about L. N. Tolstoy. Memories of Dobrolyubov are most often brief, fragmentary, which is also associated with some features of his life path. His life can be clearly divided into several spheres; the existence within each of them was closed enough to limit the number of persons with whom Dobrolyubov communicated. Father's house of priests, seminary, Main Pedagogical Institute, time spent in Italy. Only the years of cooperation in Sovremennik significantly expanded the circle of Dobrolyubov's personal connections and acquaintances, but given his secretive nature, even this "expansion" was very relative. Dobrolyubov had an extensive readership - and a narrow circle of close people.
Collectively, the memoirs of contemporaries about Dobrolyubov chronologically cover his entire life, and the collection is built in accordance with its most important stages: "In Nizhny Novgorod", "In St. Petersburg. At the Main Pedagogical Institute", "Contemporary". Trip to Staraya Russa. Abroad", "Return to St. Petersburg. sickness and death."
There is another significant feature of the memoir material about Dobrolyubov. In many cases it was not written spontaneously. A huge role in its collection and appearance was played by Dobrolyubov's colleague, his older friend (By the way, we note that the age difference between them is only 8 years - that's why it seemed significant to them (and later to us) because both were young in time of their acquaintance. If Dobrolyubov had lived longer, she would undoubtedly have smoothed out.) - N. G. Chernyshevsky. He clearly and accurately formulated his understanding of the significance of Dobrolyubov for Russia in the words of an obituary: "He was only 25 years old. But for four years he had been at the head of Russian literature - no, not only Russian literature - at the head of the entire development of Russian thought ".
And in that part of the obituary, which at one time could not be printed, Chernyshevsky exclaimed: “Oh, how he loved you, people! how much this brilliant young man, the best of your sons, has done for you."
Two months after Dobrolyubov's death, Chernyshevsky published in the first issue of Sovremennik for 1862 an "appeal" to people who knew Dobrolyubov. “I appeal to all former comrades of Nikolai Alexandrovich and to his friends,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “with a request: tell me your memories of him and give me for a while those of his letters and papers that they have preserved. I dare to assure you that I will use all the memoirs and documents communicated to me for printing only as far as I am allowed by the person who reported this material "(Sovremennik, 1862, No 1, p, 319.).
In the same "Sovremennik" Chernyshevsky places the first "Materials for the biography of N. A. Dobrolyubov" collected by him, supplying them with his own notes, which are of great historical, literary, social and psychological value, since they reflected not only an understanding of the role and values Dobrolyubov-critic, publicist, but also the understanding of Dobrolyubov-man. Chernyshevsky's notes, in particular to the excerpts he published from Dobrolyubov's diary, belong to those few memoirs that reveal to us the inner world of Dobrolyubov, inaccessible to outsiders, the depth and struggle of his feelings.
Having begun work on the biography of Dobrolyubov in 1862, Chernyshevsky continued it upon his return from exile, more than two decades after the death of his friend and colleague.
The essential aspects of Dobrolyubov's life are covered by Chernyshevsky in documents of various forms. These include not only "Materials ...", but also "Memories of the beginning of acquaintance with N. A. Dobrolyubov." Written in 1886, they are a letter to A. N. Pypin. "Memories of Turgenev's relationship with Dobrolyubov and the break in friendship between Turgenev and Nekrasov" is a memoir, a valuable source of information about Sovremennik's circle and its leaders in the late 50s and early 60s of the 19th century. The place of Dobrolyubov in this circle, the last years of the critic's life are outlined by the memoirist vividly and expressively, although Chernyshevsky had to keep silent about many things, in particular about Dobrolyubov's revolutionary activities; (See: Priyma F. Ya. N. A. Dobrolyubov and the Russian Liberation Movement. - Russian Literature, 1963, No 4.) Some of the details have been erased in Chernyshevsky's memory over the years and can be restored to some extent by articles, notes and letters of Chernyshevsky not included in this collection, also having a memoir character: "In gratitude", a letter to T.K. Grunwald dated February 10, 1862, letters to O.S. Dobrolyubova. “I loved him,” Chernyshevsky wrote to his wife in 1878 from Vilyuisk, “more than Sasha or Misha ... (Chernyshevsky’s sons.) Take offense for them. But as far as I can make out my feelings, it’s like this: then I loved them less than him" (Chernyshevsky N. G. Complete collection of works and letters in 16 volumes, vol. 15. M., Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 292.).
In essence, the "memoir" and the image of Levitsky in the novel "Prologue". Chernyshevsky did not hide how many features of Dobrolyubov were in him, even events from his life.
Already in the 80s, Chernyshevsky, returning from Siberia, asked the sisters and brother of Dobrolyubov to send everything that could help in continuing work on the biography of Dobrolyubov. “... Dozens of years later,” he wrote to V. A. Dobrolyubov, “when our personal interests disappear and the interest in the history of Russian life of the period your brother was a figure in, the Russian public will be grateful to you for Your work in its full size "(Ibid., p. 837.).
The difficult circumstances of the last years of Chernyshevsky's life did not allow him to complete his plan, did not give him the opportunity to write a biography of his deceased friend. But even what Chernyshevsky managed to do is priceless.
The influence of Dobrolyubov's ideas, his critical articles on the literary process was so significant, such acute questions of Russian reality were touched upon by the critic in the course of the analysis of works of art, the conclusions to which he led the reader were so radical and bold that the articles signed by one of Dobrolyubov's pseudonyms: Bov, Laibov, etc. (he did not sign his name) invariably aroused great public interest, becoming an event even for the opponents of the critic. In January 1860, A. N. Pleshcheev informed Dobrolyubov: “I begin to notice that despite the hostility of Moscow publicists to Sovremennik, they are terribly interested in your personality. what he?" (Russian Thought, 1913, No 1, p. 140.)
Not sharing many of the views of Dobrolyubov, his opponent, when it came to understanding the purpose and purpose of art, F. M. Dostoevsky, wrote in the article "Mr. Bov and the question of art": "... critical articles of Sovremennik" , since Mr. Bov has been collaborating in it, are cut from the first, at a time when almost no one reads criticism - this alone clearly indicates the literary talent of Mr. - Bov. power that comes from conviction" (Dostoevsky F. M. Complete collection of works in 30 volumes, vol. 18. L., Nauka, 1978, p. 81.).
Almost every article by Dobrolyubov either provoked a polemical storm itself or was, in turn, a participation in it. Of course, this left a certain imprint on the perception of Dobrolyubov's personality by his contemporaries, and to a large extent distorting it. Polemical articles, as usual, did not do without personal attacks, and if we collect those statements about Dobrolyubov that they contain, then we would have an image of a fanatical and at the same time dry man, devoid of weaknesses and affections. Such an erroneous opinion was widespread among writers and journalists, therefore D.V. Grigorovich in his Literary Memoirs wrote without a shadow of a doubt about Sovremennik: a man, but cold and withdrawn" (Grigorovich D.V., Literary Memoirs.<М.>, Goslitizdat, 1961, p. 158.).
And it is no coincidence that, refuting such judgments, the following statement runs like a red thread through all Chernyshevsky's memories of Dobrolyubov: "He was an extremely impressionable, passionate person, and his feelings were very impulsive, deep, ardent."
In literary works, with more or less thoroughness and objectivity, the creative path of Dobrolyubov is comprehended, his biography is studied. The very course of time, finally, indicated the place that Dobrolyubov occupies in Russian culture, in Russian history. But the value of memoirs remains unchanged. When reading the memoirs, one feels the attitude of contemporaries to Dobrolyubov, not yet covered with "textbook gloss". They include information that is not contained in official documents. This helps us to restore the individual appearance of a person, the features of his speech, habits, those "little things" of life that give a concrete idea of his idea. Dobrolyubov’s thought is profoundly true: “A dozen living modern features will explain a whole period to the historian much better than twenty years of research in archival dust ...” (Dobrolyubov N.A. Sobr. soch. in 9 volumes, vol. 1, p. 109 .)
Dobrolyubov highly valued memoir genres, believing that they give equally much for understanding society and for understanding a person. Society, because only knowledge of the past contributes to a truly multifaceted view of the present and future; a person - because the story of what he really experienced, about his inner life, enriches the idea of \u200b\u200bthe complex world of the human soul. Dobrolyubov himself kept a diary. From frank notes it becomes clear how seriously he took life, how many hopes he placed on it, and with what fervor he responded to everything that offended him: whether it was Turgenev’s poetic prose or the events of a friendly circle. This youthful diary reveals the origins of feelings and thoughts, from which a special style of Dobrolyubov's articles was subsequently formed - a fusion of the emotional and the rationalistic.
Dobrolyubov attached such great importance to the content of the memoir narrative that any cuts in it seemed unlawful to him, leading to losses, the significance of which is difficult to foresee. “This kind of reduction can be made in mediocre dramas for the stage and in light works of fiction,” he wrote. “But in a true historical narrative, every detail can be useful on occasion, if not to that, then to another” (Dobrolyubov N. A. Sobr op. in 9 volumes, vol. 2, p. 296.).
Dobrolyubov believed that "the simple truth ... of memories" (Ibid., p. 294.) should finally triumph over fiction, slander, and the desire to distort reality.
To what extent do memories of himself justify Dobrolyubov's hopes? Who were the people who left them?
It would be natural to assume that the majority will be those who were engaged in literary work. Indeed, among the memoirists there are writers, critics, publicists: M. A. Antonovich, D. V. Averkiev, P. I. Weinberg, M. Vovchok, N. N. Zlatovratsky, N. A. Nekrasov, N. Ya. Nikoladze, A. V. Nikitenko, P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky, A. Ya. and I. I. Panaev, A. P. Pyatkovsky, N. V. Shelgunov...
Many of those with whom Dobrolyubov studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, including such people close to him as M. I. Shemanovsky and B. I. Stsiborsky, became teachers and officials.
Interesting information and observations are contained in the "notes" of a prominent scientist, literary critic A. N. Pypin, actor M. N. Samsonov. A special place is occupied by the memoirs of the relatives of Dobrolyubov and his student N. A. Tatarinova-Ostrovskaya. There are many such "details" of life, appearance, Dobrolyubov's behavior in everyday life, his relationship with close people and strangers that are difficult to find in other memoirists.
Those who wrote about Dobrolyubov belonged to different ideological trends; the level of their moral requirements also differs; what unites them, perhaps, is one thing - no matter what class they belong to by their origin - their further life, with rare exceptions, is the life of the working Russian intelligentsia, which, in essence, was led by Dobrolyubov himself. In this sense, the materials of the collection are quite homogeneous, which also distinguishes it from memoir collections dedicated, for example, to I. S. Turgenev, L. N. Tolstoy or M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, bringing it closer, on the contrary, to the collections "V. G Belinsky in the memoirs of contemporaries" (to a lesser extent) and "N. G. Chernyshevsky in the memoirs of contemporaries" (to a large extent).
In this case, of course, we can not talk about the quality of the memoir material as a whole, but about its social aspect, which, of course, is important for characterizing and understanding the content of the collection.
Dobrolyubov was among the first raznochintsy who not only spoke in the arena of public life, but also led the revolutionary trend in it. Correlating it with this activity, explicitly or in the subtext, runs through almost all memories, giving them a kind of emotional tension, even drama. In addition, for some of the memoirists who knew Dobrolyubov in childhood and youth, it was revealed only after his death that Bov was Dobrolyubov. Then it becomes clear the special feeling with which they looked back at the past, wanting to find in it the proclamation of the future unusual fate of Dobrolyubov.
Thus, for various reasons, significant and not very important, we will not find "calm" memories in this collection. The scale of Dobrolyubov's personality and activities did not allow dispassion.
Already in the memoirs of his early years, what distinguishes Dobrolyubov from his peers is primarily distinguished by the writers. In this one senses a very, very understandable, in general even traditional, desire of memoirists in retrospect to see what seemed to indicate from the very beginning that the hero of memories was "chosen" (By the way, the denial of "outstanding" personality traits in childhood, after all, would serve the same.), on the "destiny" of his prominent role in the future. And there were certain reasons for this, of course. The early awakened mind of Dobrolyubov, his outstanding, already in childhood, erudition, unusual seriousness for a child, inspire interest and respect for him from adults and peers in the district theological school and in the seminary. "His talented nature," noted the teacher Dobrolyubov, and later the husband of his sister M. A. Kostrov, "began to show itself early."
The atmosphere of the home, Dobrolyubov's father and mother, if they could not greatly contribute, then did not interfere with the development of their son. Simple and kind people, but without education, they, according to Dobrolyubov's relatives and his teachers, were proud of their son's giftedness. The death of his parents, and especially, it seems, of his mother, in whose arms he grew up until the age of seventeen, inseparably from her, for whom he was a beloved son, and not only a son, but also a best friend, because his father was most often absent from his service, and whom he himself loved, how could another not be able to love like that, was such a blow to him, from which he did not come to his senses until his death, ”writes Kostrov. Even Dobrolyubov's atheism connects Kostrov with the loss of his father and mother, with their early, unexpected death.
Caring for the two orphaned brothers and five sisters made Dobrolyubov an adult early.
From the memoirs of Dobrolyubov’s comrades at the Main Pedagogical Institute, it is clear that they all quickly enough realized those features of Dobrolyubov’s personality that made him the center of a friendly circle: self-esteem, willingness to help comrades, kindness and impeccable decency. The memoirists note the integrity of Dobrolyubov's nature, which allowed him to determine his path early. “In general, he never thought about choosing a road, but walked straight, openly, honestly,” recalled one of Dobrolyubov’s closest friends, Shemanovsky. “It was not in his nature to wait for an opportune moment, to act slowly and carefully. the possibility of spoiling his career did not occur, it seems, to his mind when he was still a student. Here he feared more for others than for himself, and in these fears there was something friendly, kindred, fraternal. "
Some of Dobrolyubov's classmates, who subsequently took up hostile, "protective" positions, expressing doubts about the fruitfulness of Dobrolyubov's critical activity, nevertheless forever preserved the memory of the moral impact of his personality. So, A. A. Radonezhsky wrote: "The comrades of Nikolai Alexandrovich borrowed a considerable share of the good principles taken from student life from his beautiful, gifted, noble soul loved by us all to the passion."
The years at the Main Pedagogical Institute were not easy for Dobrolyubov. Petty supervision, nit-picking, in a word, what Stsiborsky rightly noted in his memoirs: “There is such a situation in life that there is nothing to tell about due to the microscopic nature of the phenomena occurring in it ... meanwhile, these trifles in the aggregate, constantly repeating themselves, they make such a stupefying heavy impression, form such a suffocating atmosphere that, freed from it, you yourself are surprised how it was possible to endure for four years the whole burden of the most vulgar constraints, the most ridiculous demands.
In addition - frequent malnutrition, lack of the most necessary. Stsiborsky recalled how "terribly it was necessary ... in the bitter cold of St. Petersburg in a cold government overcoat" "to travel from Vasilyevsky Island to the Public Library and back."
Dobrolyubov not only endured this life, but was able to resist it. The circle united around him lived with ideological and literary interests: the works of Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky's Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature were read. "Questions about the fate of our homeland consumed all our thoughts and feelings," recalled one of the members of the circle. They also published a handwritten newspaper, Rumors, which contained all the information about abuses, about political events that were not published by the official press. Dobrolyubov was an active editor and author of the newspaper.
In the same institute years, Dobrolyubov's literary activity began. He tries himself in prose and poetry. Among the latter even then there were quite a few satirical ones. Many of the poems - "On the anniversary of N.I. Grech", "Ode on the death of Nicholas I" and others - went on the lists in St. Petersburg.
While still a student, Dobrolyubov met Chernyshevsky and began to collaborate in the Sovremennik magazine. Dobrolyubov's article "Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word" served as the beginning of the first polemic in his critical activity (with A. D. Galakhov) and showed that a new, promising critic had come to the journal. “Who is Mr. Laibov, the author of the article about the Interlocutor?” Turgenev asks V.P. I. I. Panaeva: "... Laibov's article is very sensible (who is this Laibov)"? (I. S. Turgenev. Complete collection of works and letters in 28 volumes. Letters, vol. 3, p. 23 , 27.)
Those few years that Dobrolyubov still had were filled with work for the Sovremennik magazine. Naturally, the most diverse and quantitatively superior to other sections are memoirs related to this, the most important, stage of Dobrolyubov's life.
Having become the head of the department of criticism and bibliography of the journal, Dobrolyubov steadfastly and passionately defends, in his own words, "the party of the people in literature." The ideological struggle that he wages determines not only the pathos, but also the style of his articles, polemically sharpens his statements. “In his opinion,” Antonovich testifies, “the journal should take for bibliography only such works that either disagree or agree with his direction; in the first case, he has the opportunity to refute hostile thoughts, undermine, ridicule, humiliate them, in the second case, he is given an excuse to repeat his own thoughts, to recall them, to clarify, confirm or strengthen them.
Dobrolyubov did not know the doubts about the correctness of the chosen path, he did not know voluntary or involuntary deviations from it, and even more so the contradictions between word and deed. One cannot think, however, that he was not familiar with inner torments. Dobrolyubov's poems, his confessions to friends speak of how tormented he was by the thought of the grandiosity of the goal he had set for himself and the lack of strength to fulfill it. Meanwhile, contemporaries were most struck by his personality, according to Shelgunov, "concentrated, closed power." Reflecting on what distinguished Dobrolyubov from the circle of his contemporaries, among whom there were many remarkable people, Antonovich wrote: “But what especially elevated him above ordinary outstanding people, what constituted his characteristic distinguishing feature, what aroused in me surprise, almost even reverence to him—it is a terrible force, the unyielding energy, and the uncontrollable passion of his convictions.His whole being was, so to speak, electrified by these convictions, ready to burst forth at any moment and shower with sparks and blows everything that barred the way to the realization of his practical convictions. He was even ready to lay down his life for their realization.
No personal relationship could force Dobrolyubov to change what he considered true. The revolutionary convictions of the critic, his ideas about the purpose of literature, could not but lead to irreconcilable conflicts with some of the Sovremennik collaborators, in particular, with one of the most remarkable of them, Turgenev.
The conflict between Dobrolyubov and Turgenev, the latter's rupture with Sovremennik under the pretext of dissatisfaction with Dobrolyubov's article "When will the real day come?" memoirists pay a lot of attention. Some of them are looking for the roots of the gap in the psychological incompatibility, as we would now say, of Dobrolyubov and Turgenev, but most of their contemporaries understood that the true reasons are of an ideological nature, that although "everyone ... equally desires the best and strives for improvements, but ideas about these improvements" and how they are achieved are "very different". Antonovich notes in this connection: "... it could seem, as it seemed to many, that Dobrolyubov, with his irreverence, his harshness and impudence, was a bone of contention and the main culprit in the split between the old and young generation of writers both in Sovremennik itself and outside him. But this is completely untrue. The reasons for the split lay much deeper and were much more serious than personal relations between writers. A split would inevitably occur even if Dobrolyubov had been exquisitely kind and devoutly respectful with older writers. "
Subsequently, Turgenev wrote in his memoirs that he "highly appreciated" Dobrolyubov "as a person and as a talented writer." And there is no reason to doubt it. Time took away the sharpness of disagreements, and Turgenev realized that the article "When will the real day come?" was "the most outstanding" (Turgenev I, S. Complete. collected works and letters in 28 volumes. Works, vol. 14, p. 99, 304.) among all critical reviews of the novel "On the Eve".
The memoirs of contemporaries cannot, of course, exhaust the fullness and complexity of Dobrolyubov's relations with the writers of his time. So, we learn from the notes of N. D. Novitsky about the visits of the critic Ostrovsky, about the words of gratitude spoken by the playwright to Dobrolyubov, but Novitsky's story is so short that it obviously needs to be supplemented. After all, it was already clear to Dobrolyubov's contemporaries: "What Belinsky was for Gogol, Dobrolyubov was for Ostrovsky" (Bibikov P.A. On the literary activity of N.A. Dobrolyubov, p. 48.). The Petrashevist poet A.N. Pleshcheev, referring to the role of Dobrolyubov in Russian criticism and readers’ understanding of the works of Ostrovsky and Turgenev, wrote in 1860: “... we dare to consider Mr. Bov the best of our contemporary critics. It seems to us that one cannot more deeply and more accurately analyze the characters in the novel "On the Eve" or Ostrovsky's comedies, as did Mr. - bov "(Notes on something. - Moscow Bulletin, 1860, No. 42.).
The memoirs contain information about Dobrolyubov's meetings with I. A. Goncharov, D. V. Grigorovich, A. F. Pisemsky, P. V. Annenkov and many other writers, poets, critics who were in the editorial office of Sovremennik. Curious details and observations are cited by the memoirists, but in order to get a more complete picture of Dobrolyubov’s complex, multifaceted relations with many of his prominent contemporaries, careful additional research is needed, an appeal to other sources: letters of that era, articles, etc. Sometimes there were no or there were almost no personal contacts, but connections - and important ones - did take place. Such was, for example, a kind of "exchange" of articles between Dostoevsky and Dobrolyubov: "Mr. Bov and the Question of Art" - "The Downtrodden People". Relations with Herzen were of a similar nature. Even at the Main Pedagogical Institute, Herzen's publications were found in the possession of Dobrolyubov. Herzen belonged to the people most revered by Dobrolyubov. From his youth, Dobrolyubov was interested in the works of Herzen. It is from the memoirs of contemporaries that we learn that Dobrolyubov was one of the correspondents of Kolokol, and from them - about the shock experienced by the critic when he read Herzen's article "Very dangerous !!!" directed against Dobrolyubov, and about the subsequent clarification of positions "Contemporary" and "Bells" in dispute. However, the complexity of the relationship between Dobrolyubov and Herzen, of course, cannot be comprehended only from memoirs.
The memoirs of contemporaries - and this is understandable - speak extremely dully about the revolutionary activities of Dobrolyubov, memoirists often resort to "Aesopian language", which, however, was understandable to everyone at that time. And when Nekrasov emphasized that Dobrolyubov "deliberately saved himself for the cause," it was clear that it was not just a "cause," but a revolutionary cause.
Memoirists do not know much about Dobrolyubov's stay in Italy in late 1860 - early 1861, although there is evidence that he was interested in the Italian liberation movement.
There are other spheres of Dobrolyubov's life, little covered by memoirists. His critical articles in Sovremennik, parodies in Iskra and Whistle—all this was visible and accessible. But personal affairs - with the isolation of Dobrolyubov's character - often remained hidden even from such close people as Chernyshevsky was. We know little about the "life of the heart" of Dobrolyubov; anyway, she wasn't happy. Two or three female names. And always - separation ...
Dobrolyubov rarely opened his inner world, rarely let anyone into it. Dobrolyubov - critic, publicist, Dobrolyubov the teacher emerges quite clearly from the memories; one can well imagine Dobrolyubov in everyday communication: in the editorial office of Sovremennik, with classmates, with relatives. But what was behind this, what feelings and moods - they can be partly judged by his poems, by letters, by some pages of articles, by the few testimonies of people, like A. Ya. Panaeva, who managed to get closer than others to Dobrolyubov, win his trust to hear his confession. In the memoirs of Panaeva, we see Dobrolyubov, opposing near-literary squabbles, neglecting his life, a caring brother, a man who was drawn to the warmth of the heart and received very little of it in his short life.
The last months of Dobrolyubov were tragic. A new wave of political reaction was approaching the country, the hope for a revolution, which Dobrolyubov was passionately waiting for, collapsed. Censorship ruthlessly mutilated articles. "In circles close to Dobrolyubov there was a commotion and despondency reigned," Antonovich recalled.
The first political process under Alexander II began. His hero and victim was the poet and critic M. L. Mikhailov, who was close to Dobrolyubov. The writers wrote a letter in defense of Mikhailov addressed to the Minister of Education. There were 31 signatures under the letter, including Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, and Pisemsky. The letter was not taken into account by the government: Mikhailov was imprisoned in a fortress, then exiled to hard labor.
The threat of arrest also hung over Dobrolyubov himself. “The literary horizon was darkened more and more,” recalls the memoirist, “the social atmosphere became more and more suffocating and had a detrimental effect on the painful sensitivity of the generally extremely receptive Dobrolyubov.”
Dobrolyubov faded away. According to his brother, "silently, without complaining to anyone, without disturbing anyone, without complicating anything, without seeking consolation from anyone, without deceiving oneself."
Only one thing, recalls Panaeva, Dobrolyubov regretted: “To die with the consciousness that I had not had time to do anything ... Nothing! How evil fate mocked me! I could do at least something useful ... Now nothing, nothing!"
Such was the self-assessment of a man who actually belonged to the most remarkable representatives of Russian social thought, one of those about whom F. Engels wrote: "A country that has put forward two writers of the caliber of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, two socialist Lessings, will not perish ..." (Marx K. and Engels F. Works, vol. 18, p. 522.) Dobrolyubov, Lenin emphasized, is dear to "the whole of educated and thinking Russia" as a writer who "passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising ..." (Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works, vol. 5, p. 370.).
Does what the memoir material give correspond to the historical significance of Dobrolyubov? To what extent was it recognized by his contemporaries?
A review of memories, I think, allows us to answer the first question in the affirmative; As for the second, it is necessary to recognize a significant difference between Chernyshevsky's visionary words about the significance of Dobrolyubov's activities and the notes of V. I. Gloriantov, for example, or D. V. Averkiev, who failed to understand the meaning of the quest of their great contemporary.
The memoirs included in the collection represent different genres: epistolary (letters from memoirists to Chernyshevsky, A. N. Pypin); fragments that deal with Dobrolyubov from more extensive memoir narratives (by M. A. Antonovich, A. Ya. and I. I. Panaev, A. N. Pypin, N. N. Zlatovratsky, N. V. Shelgunov, N. Ya. Nikoladze, V. A. Obruchev); diary entries (A. V. Nikitenko); notes (P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky, D. V. Averkiev), memoirs (M. E. Lebedev, I. M. Sladkopevtsev, M. I. Shemanovsky). The memoir material is also contained in obituaries. Moreover, not only the personal, but the general attitude of the advanced part of Russian society is reflected in them and in numerous poems dedicated to Dobrolyubov. Some poems were set to music and sung in circles of revolutionary youth many years after Dobrolyubov's death.
The memoirs written at different times - some immediately after the death of Dobrolyubov, others much later - with some significant differences, are united by one thing - the recognition of the spiritual height of his personality. Here we will not find exceptions, reservations. All his works, all his life bear its stamp. "... The best representative of the country's consciousness, the most honest defender of its interests, in the entire course of his activity, he never turned off the straight, honest path, never agreed to any deal to the detriment of his conviction" (Bibikov P. A. On literary activities of N. A. Dobrolyubov, p. 5.), - wrote the author of one of the first monographs about Dobrolyubov, his associate P. A. Bibikov.
The memories of contemporaries help us to imagine those living human feelings, thoughts, events that were behind the lines of the articles created by Dobrolyubov, help us understand why even decades after his death he remained - at different stages of the history of his homeland, for its different people - - "titanium" (Garin-Mikhailovsky N. G. Collected works in 5 volumes, vol. 1. M., Goslitizdat, 1957, p. 485.). And it remains even now not in the memory of contemporaries, in the minds of descendants. Chernyshevsky turned out to be right, and that half-forgotten contemporary of Dobrolyubov was also right, who predicted back in 1862: "... the material prepared by Dobrolyubov will be for many years, and more than one generation will recognize him as his teacher and mentor" (Bibikov P. A. O literary activity of N, A. Dobrolyubov, p. 168.).
The literary-critical assessments of Dobrolyubov, given by him more than a hundred years ago to the works of many authors, have retained their accuracy; justified itself and his belief that he will be understood and appreciated by future generations.
G. Elizabeth
Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836–1861) headed the literary-critical department of the Sovremennik publication from 1857.
Being a successor of ideas, the critic, however, assessed the phenomena in literature more sharply - he tightened the requirements for literature and considered the degree of presence in them as the main criterion for the ideological content of works:
The concept of "nation"
In his work "On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature" (1858), devoted to the theory of radical criticism, he took up his own interpretation of the concept in literature.
Yes, in my work
Such an interpretation of the concept formed the basis of the accusatory motives of the critical articles of this critic.
The role of citizenship
Unlike Chernyshevsky, the author believed that the end result of the author's work is more important than his ideological preferences and civic position, i.e. the main thing for the critic is not what the author intended to say, but what is in the final result.
In a similar way, he pointed out the importance of the work of a literary critic, who is called upon to reveal that very “unconscious creativity” in a work. That is, the critic points out the need to disclose social problems, involuntary hints of which can be found in this or that work.
Dobrolyubov, in his criticism, turned to the analysis of diverse works:
At the same time, he was prone to broad generalizations, therefore, in various articles by Dobrolyubov, one can often find extremely similar conclusions, which amount to a statement of the viciousness of the political system in Russia.
The writer based his critical method on a socio-psychological typology, within which the author distributed the heroes according to the degree of their correspondence to the concept of “new man”.
Within the framework of the author's criticism, not only the merchants of Ostrovsky and Shchedrin were “gotten”, but also Beltov, Rudin, Pechorin and Onegin, whose behavior the author classified as “Oblomovism”. The skepticism of Rudin and Pechorin, according to the author, is alien to the ideals of progressive development, and against their background he even wins, since he is extremely honest in his inaction.
Criticizing Oblomov, Dobrolyubov considered the imperfection of the social system as the main reason for Oblomovism. Moreover, he noted that the viciousness of this very system led even Goncharov himself to believe in the death of the Oblomov model, but this was not so.
"Oblomovka," writes the critic, "is our direct homeland... and it's too early to write us a tombstone."
In addition to the ideological component, the critic Dobrolyubov took into account the individual artistic specificity of the works and the talent of the writer. The author's criticism of the works of V. Sollogub and M. Rosenheim on the pages of the satirical newspaper "Whistle" can serve as proof of this.
At the heart of the writer's criticism was also an analysis of the author's language, which made it possible to better reveal the inner world of the characters. The paucity of Golyadkin's and Devushkin's speeches in Dostoevsky's early works, against the background of their self-consciousness, demonstrated the futility of their struggle against psychological oppression. For Dostoevsky's love for his heroes - "downtrodden people" - the critic forgave the author for minor aesthetic flaws in his works.
These works confirmed the critic's idea about the difference between Russian literature and world art samples and about the inadmissibility of their evaluation according to general cultural criteria.
The search for a "new hero"
Criticism during his lifetime was not lucky enough to catch, so in his search for new heroes, he settled on. In it, Dobrolyubov saw a character protesting against the injustices of the "dark kingdom", he also considered Elena from Turgenev's "On the Eve" to be susceptible to social change.
At the same time, Russian literature as a whole, as the author believed, was not yet ready for the realization and reflection of the necessary changes, and, consequently, for the birth of the corresponding heroes.
The work "When will the real day come?" became the reason that Dobrolyubov himself became the object of criticism from his colleagues, and a conflict broke out among the authors of the Sovremennik magazine.
Try to guess the thematic crossword puzzle about the work of this writer on our website
Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - shareNikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (January 24 (February 5), 1836, Nizhny Novgorod - November 17 (November 29), 1861, St. Petersburg) - Russian literary critic at the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous pseudonyms are Bov and N. Laibov, he did not sign his full real name. Born in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a well-known priest in the city (his father secretly married Melnikov-Pechersky). House number 5 on Pozharsky Street, where Nikolai was born, was demolished at the beginning of the 21st century. From childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry. From the age of 17 in St. Petersburg, he studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, studied folklore, from 1854 (after the death of his parents) began to share radical anti-monarchist, anti-religious and anti-serfdom views, which was reflected in his numerous "seditious" writings of that time in poetry and prose, in including handwritten student journals.
The short life of Dobrolyubov (he died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled extensively in Europe) was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, according to a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), was published in N. A. Nekrasov’s journal Sovremennik with a number of historical and especially literary-critical works; N. G. Chernyshevsky was his closest collaborator and like-minded person. In 1858 alone, he published 75 articles and reviews. Some of Dobrolyubov's works (both fundamentally illegal, especially those directed against Nicholas I, and intended for publication, but not censored at all or in the author's edition) remained unpublished during his lifetime.
Dobrolyubov's writings, published under the guise of purely literary "critics", reviews of natural science works or political reviews from foreign life (Aesopian language), contained sharp socio-political statements. Although everything he wrote is devoted to fiction, it would be extremely unfair to consider this literary criticism. True, Dobrolyubov had the beginnings of an understanding of literature, and the choice of things that he agreed to use as texts for his sermons was, in general, successful, but he never tried to discuss their literary side: he used them only as maps or photographs. modern Russian life as a pretext for social preaching.
For example, a review of Turgenev's novel "On the Eve" entitled "When will the real day come?" contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" and "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" about Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" became an example of a democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation of artistic style was first used by Dobrolyubov - the article "On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature" ), and in the USSR and Russia were included in the school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the denial of "art for art's sake" and subjecting pure lyricists to devastating criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The death trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov's political radicalism, led to the rejection of the idea of an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.
Dobrolyubov was also a poet-satirist, a witty parodist, the soul of the literary supplement Whistle published under Sovremennik. In it, Dobrolyubov the poet performed under three parodic masks - the "denunciator" Konrad Lilienschwager, the Austrian "patriot" Jacob Ham and the "enthusiastic lyricist" Apollon Kapelkin (the masks were aimed primarily at Rosenheim, Khomyakov and Maikov, respectively, but were also of a more general nature) . Dobrolyubov also wrote serious poetry (the most famous is “Dear friend, I am dying ...”), translated by Heine.
Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. Born January 24 (February 5), 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod - died November 17 (November 29), 1861 in St. Petersburg. Russian literary critic at the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous pseudonyms are Bov and N. Laibov, he did not sign his full real name.
Born in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a well-known priest in the city (his father secretly married Melnikov-Pechersky). From childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry. Having received good home preparation, he was accepted immediately to the last year of the fourth grade of the spiritual school. Then he studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. Among the characteristics given to him by the then mentors: "Distinguished by quietness, modesty and obedience", "zealous in worship and behaved approximately well", "distinguished by indefatigability in studies." In the autumn of 1853, with a recommendation for admission to the Theological Academy, Dobrolyubov went to St. Petersburg, where he entered the Main Pedagogical Institute. From the age of 17 in St. Petersburg, he studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, studied folklore, from 1854 (after the death of his parents) began to share radical anti-monarchist, anti-religious and anti-serfdom views, which was reflected in his numerous "seditious" writings of that time in poetry and prose, in including handwritten student journals.
Dobrolyubov's short life was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, according to a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), was published in the Sovremennik magazine with a number of historical and especially literary-critical works; his closest collaborator and like-minded person was. In 1858 alone, he published 75 articles and reviews.
Some of Dobrolyubov's works (both fundamentally illegal, especially those directed against Nicholas I, and intended for publication, but not censored at all or in the author's edition) remained unpublished during his lifetime.
Dobrolyubov's writings, published under the guise of purely literary "critics", reviews of natural science works or political reviews from foreign life (Aesopian language), contained sharp socio-political statements.
For example, a review of the novel "On the Eve" entitled "When will the real day come?" contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about the novel "Oblomov" and "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" about Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" became an example of a democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation of artistic style was first used by Dobrolyubov - the article "On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature") , and in the USSR and Russia were included in the school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the denial of "art for art's sake" and subjecting pure lyricists to devastating criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The death trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov's political radicalism, led to the rejection of the idea of an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.
Dobrolyubov's philosophical views also appeared in a number of articles. At the center of his system is man, who is the last stage in the evolution of the material world and is harmoniously connected with nature. He considered the equality of people as the "natural state" of human nature (the influence of Rousseauism), and oppression as the result of an abnormal device that must be destroyed. He asserted the absence of a priori truths and the material origin of all ideas that are born in the human mind, from external experience (materialism, empiricism), advocated the comprehension of the material principles of the world and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Like Chernyshevsky, he advocated reasonable egoism.
The pedagogical views of Dobrolyubov are similar in many respects to the views of N. G. Chernyshevsky.
He was against the upbringing of humility, blind obedience, suppression of the individual, servility. He criticized the current system of education, which kills the “inner man” in children, from which he grows up unprepared for life.
Dobrolyubov considered it impossible to truly reform the educational system without a radical restructuring of the entire social life in Russia, believing that a new teacher would appear in the new society, carefully protecting the dignity of human nature in the pupil, possessing high moral convictions, comprehensively developed.
He also criticized the theory of "free education".
The upbringing of a patriot and a highly ideological person, a citizen with strong convictions, a comprehensively developed person. To develop adherence to principles, correctly and as fully as possible to develop "the personal independence of the child and all the spiritual forces of his nature"; - educate the unity of thoughts, words, actions.
He opposed early specialization and favored general education as a precondition for special education. The principle of visualization of training, the formulation of conclusions after the analysis of judgments is important. Education through labor, since labor is the basis of morality. Religion should be banished from schools. Women should receive equal education with men.
Textbooks, said Dobrolyubov, are so imperfect that they deprive them of any opportunity to study seriously. In some textbooks, material is given in a deliberately false, perverted form; in others, if no falsehood is reported maliciously, then there are many private, petty facts, names and titles that do not have any significant significance in the study of a given subject and obscure the main and the main. Textbooks should create in students the correct ideas about the phenomena of nature and society, Dobrolyubov said. It is impossible to allow simplification and, even more so, vulgarization in the presentation of facts, the description of objects and phenomena, that it must be accurate and truthful, and the material of the textbook should be presented in a simple, clear, understandable language for children. Definitions, rules, laws in the textbook should be given on the basis of scientifically reliable material.
No better, he concluded, was the case with children's books to read. Fantasy, devoid of a real basis, sugary moralization, poverty of language - these are the characteristic features of books intended for children's reading. Dobrolyubov believed that truly useful children's books can only be those that simultaneously cover the entire human being. A children's book, in his opinion, should take the child's imagination in the right direction. At the same time, the book should give food for thought, awaken the child's curiosity, acquaint him with the real world, and, finally, strengthen his moral sense without distorting it with the rules of artificial morality.
Discipline: opposed the use of degrading means. The caring attitude of the teacher to the student, the teacher's example, was considered a means of maintaining discipline. Strong condemnation of physical punishment. He opposed the inconsistency of N. I. Pirogov in the application of physical punishment.
Views on the activities of the teacher. He spoke out against the humiliating material and legal position of the teacher. They stood for the fact that the teacher was a supporter of the advanced ideas of his time. He attached great importance to the convictions and moral character of the teacher. The teacher should be a model for children, have clear "concepts about the art of teaching and education." Teachers should be distinguished by clarity, firmness, infallibility of convictions, extremely high all-round development.
Dobrolyubov's pedagogical works:
"On the Importance of Authority in Education" (1853-1858)
"Basic Laws of Education" (1859)
"Essay on the direction of the Jesuit order, especially in application to the upbringing and education of youth" (1857)
"All-Russian illusions destroyed by rods" (1860-1861)
"The teacher should serve as an ideal ...".
He died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled a lot in Europe. Shortly before his death, he asked to rent a new apartment for himself, so as not to leave an unpleasant aftertaste in the houses of his friends after his own death. Until the very last minute, he was conscious. N. G. Chernyshevsky sat hopelessly in the next room.
According to the memoirs of A. Ya. Panaeva, a few days before her death, N. A. Dobrolyubov said: “To die with the consciousness that I did not have time to do anything ... nothing! How wickedly fate has mocked me! If only death had sent me earlier!.. If only my life had lasted another two years, I could have done at least something useful... now nothing, nothing!
N. A. Dobrolyubov was buried at the Volkovsky cemetery.
