Nikolai Skatov is a Russian genius. Stingrays

On May 2, Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov, director of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences from 1987 to 2007, turned 80 years old.

On May 2, in the Great Hall of the State Academic Chapel of St. Petersburg, an Easter celebration was held dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the outstanding literary critic, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov, who was awarded the highest award of the Easter Festival, the Golden Badge “For Merit and Spiritual Enlightenment.” The chief director of the Easter Festival, Valery Pavlov, delivered a welcoming speech. Congratulatory telegrams were read out from the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the North-Western District I.I. Klebanov, Chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Sergei Mironov, Chairman of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg V. Tyulpanov. The hero of the day was congratulated by his colleagues, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education A.S. Zapesotsky, Rector of the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions, S.M. Nekrasov, director of the All-Union Museum A.S. Pushkin, the celebration began with festive Easter chants in 14 languages ​​by the children's church choir of the Prince Vladimir Cathedral. A pleasant surprise was the performance of works by Astor Piazzolla by young participants of the Easter Festival. Music and songs performed by the State Orchestra of Folk Instruments and the Choir of the Singing Chapel. St. Petersburg under the direction of Vladislav Chernushenko to the words of the beloved poets of the hero of the day Koltsov and Nekrasov, brought both himself and the public great pleasure.

Deputies and residents of the village of Komarovo join in the congratulations heard in the Chapel hall. Family N.N. Skatova recently settled in the village, but immediately fit into its aura. Nikolai Nikolaevich's wife, Skatov Rufina Nikolaevna, whom he met in Kostroma, daughter Natalya and granddaughter, who graduated from the Faculty of International Relations, are all related to the literary interests of the head of the family. Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov himself, through his service to the great Russian language, earned the right to be among the world-famous people who lived and are now living in Komarovo.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov was born on May 2, 1931 in Kostroma. Graduated from the Kostroma Pedagogical Institute and graduate school at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. Since 1962, he worked at the Department of Russian Literature of the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen. From 1987 to 2005, he was director of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. From 2005 to the present - Advisor to the Russian Academy of Sciences.

N. N. Skatov - Doctor of Philology, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a major expert in the field of the history of Russian literature, the author of more than 300 scientific and literary critical works, including 23 books. : “Koltsov”, “Nekrasov”, “I dedicated the lyre to my people: about the work of N.A. Nekrasov”, “Pushkin. Russian genius”, “Contemporaries and successors” Author of collections of historical and literary articles “Poets of the Nekrasov School”, “Far and Close”, “Literary Essays”, “On Culture”.

He is the author and editor of school and university textbooks. N. N. Skatov is a member of the editorial board and editorial councils of a number of literary and scientific publications: “University Book”, “Literature at School”, “Aurora”, “Our Heritage” and others.

He has been for many years a member of the pardon commission under the governor of St. Petersburg.

In 1999, by decision of the board of directors of the Russian Bibliographic Institute, in the category “Culture” in 2000, he was awarded the title “Person of the Year”. In 2001, by decision of the Academic Council of the Russian State Pedagogical University on March 29, he was awarded the title “Honorary Professor of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen.”

Member of the Presidium of the St. Petersburg Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Deputy Chairman of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. Member of the scientific council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Editor-in-Chief of the magazine “Russian Literature. Co-founder of the public foundation "Our City".

Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov(born May 2, 1931, Kostroma) - Russian philologist and literary critic. Doctor of Philology, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Skatov was born on May 2, 1931 in Kostroma. Graduated from the Kostroma Pedagogical Institute and graduate school at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. Since 1962, he worked at the Department of Russian Literature of the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen. In 1987-2005 - Director of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. From 2005 to the present - Advisor to the Russian Academy of Sciences.

N. N. Skatov - Doctor of Philology, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a major expert in the field of the history of Russian literature, the author of more than 300 scientific and literary critical works, including 23 books.

He is the author and editor of school and university textbooks. N. N. Skatov is a member of the editorial board and editorial councils of a number of literary and scientific publications: “University Book”, “Literature at School”, “Aurora”, “Our Heritage” and others.

He has been for many years a member of the pardon commission under the governor of St. Petersburg.

In 1999, by decision of the board of directors of the Russian Bibliographic Institute, in the category “Culture” in 2000, he was awarded the title “Person of the Year”. In 2001, by decision of the Academic Council of the Russian State Pedagogical University on March 29, he was awarded the title “Honorary Professor of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen.”

Currently, he is a lecturer at the Department of Fundamentals of Public Administration, a member of the Academic Council of the Faculty of Law of the St. Petersburg State University of Water Communications.

He is married to Rufina Nikolaevna Skatova, whom he met in Kostroma. He also has a daughter, Natalya Skatova, and a granddaughter, Tatyana Chernova, who graduated from the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University.

Awards

Awarded state awards:

• Medal "For Labor Distinction"
• Pushkin Medal
• Order of Honor
• Order of Friendship of Peoples
• “Great Literary Prize of Russia” from the Union of Writers of Russia (2001) for the book “Pushkin. Russian genius"

Church awards:

• Order of the Holy Blessed Prince Daniel of Moscow, III and IV degrees.

Categories: Personalities by alphabet , Scientists by alphabet , Knights of the Order of Honor , Born in 1931 , Knights of the Order of Friendship of Peoples , Writers by alphabet , Writers of Russia , Russian writers , Corresponding Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences , Writers of the USSR ,

Nikolay Skatov

H. H. Strakhov

Strakhov N. N. Literary criticism / Enter. article, compiled N. N. Skatova, note. N. N. Skatova and V. A. Kotelnikova. - M.: Sovremennik, 1984. - (B-ka "For Lovers of Russian Literature"). OCR Bychkov M. N. In the history of social consciousness in general and in the history of literature in particular, there are figures who, although outwardly seemingly not coming to the fore, play a much more significant role than is usually thought. Thus, it is unlikely that the second half-century in the development of Russian literature of the 19th century, with its central figures of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, can be comprehensively understood without taking into account the life and work of Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov. “Yes, half of my views are your views” (Biography, letters and notes from F. M. Dostoevsky’s notebook. St. Petersburg, 1883, p. 238), Dostoevsky told Strakhov. True, Strakhov himself reported this. But the possible suspicion of exaggeration disappears if we take into account at least what his other great contemporary wrote to Strakhov, although to a lesser extent than Dostoevsky, a comrade-in-arms, but perhaps even more of a friend - Leo Tolstoy: “Today I told my wife that one of the happinesses for which I am grateful to fate is that there is N.N. Strakhov" (Tolstoy L.N. Collected works in 20 volumes, vol. 17. M., 1965, p. 89.). This was written shortly after their acquaintance in 1871 (Tolstoy’s correspondence with Strakhov began a little earlier), namely in September 1873. Four years later, Tolstoy would call Strakhov his only spiritual friend (See: ibid., p. 461.). And this is understandable: after all, many years later, almost twenty years later, he will again talk about rapprochement with Strakhov “from the very foundations” (Ibid., vol. 18, p. 78.). A man of staunchly conservative views, who took an active part in the stormy magazine polemics of the 60s of the last century, Strakhov, then and later, invariably occupied right-wing positions, acting as a constant opponent of revolutionary-democratic critics. By the way, his relations with Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were also by no means idyllic, they suggested differences, sometimes long-lasting, and gave rise to disputes, sometimes sharp. Strakhov's activities were varied, but he is known primarily as a literary critic. This criticism, naturally, is closely related to his general ideological foundations and the position he occupied in the social struggle of that time. What did Strakhov contribute to Russian criticism? What makes it possible to see and understand in the socio-political battles and literary clashes of the past era, what is interesting and instructive about his literary critical activity? Russian literature at the time of the formation of national consciousness after 1812 gave birth to a number of enormous generalizing phenomena. This happened in a variety of spheres and at different levels: Krylov in fables, Griboyedov in drama, Koltsov in song. And of course, the one who somehow brings everything to himself and covers everything is Pushkin. Pushkin also determined the further development of Russian literature, already containing all of it, albeit sometimes in grain, in embryo, in outline, in himself. “He,” wrote Strakhov, “alone is a complete image of the Russian soul, but only in an outline, without colors, which only later appear within its outlines” (In the book: Works of Apollo Grigoriev, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1876. p. VIII.). Subsequent artistic development will be more complex, more fragmented, and more contradictory. In the Pushkin era, all truly great writers generally stand on the same side. In the post-Pushkin period, such confrontations emerged when we often see divorced people on many counts, for example, Nekrasov and Fet. Dobrolyubov’s understanding and interpretation of the novel “On the Eve” written by Turgenev strongly disagrees with Turgenev himself. Dostoevsky turns out to be an energetic opponent of Dobrolyubov, etc., etc. Nevertheless, the same Nekrasov and Fet are aware of the same genealogy going back to Pushkin, each, not without reason, claims to be part of Pushkin’s heritage. Something similar, of course, in a different form and degree, but still took place in Russian criticism. At the beginning of the new Russian criticism, the great criticism of great literature, stands the colossal figure of Belinsky. He became for our criticism what Pushkin was for Russian literature, he was the Pushkin of our criticism. Many phenomena of Russian critical thought turned out to be divorced and opposed at the time of intensified social struggle in the middle of the century. It’s easier to understand the position of critics who are clearly reactionary, sometimes downright reptilian. But everything becomes more complicated when we approach such figures as Strakhov or Druzhinin, we approach with the desire to understand, in particular, their attitude towards Belinsky. Naturally and rightly, we see Belinsky’s heirs and continuers of Belinsky’s work primarily in Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. They themselves were clearly aware of this and confirmed it with energetic propaganda of Belinsky’s ideas, his name, his image - just recall the series of articles by Chernyshevsky “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature”, which is devoted mostly to Belinsky. But many figures, not only not belonging to the revolutionary democrats, but opposing them, also claimed loyalty to Belinsky’s memory, the right to inherit him. It is not for nothing that Turgenev demonstratively dedicated his novel, Fathers and Sons, which was supposed to be directed against Sovremennik, with its updated democratic edition, to the memory of Belinsky. Of course, many of the confessions of some liberal figures related to Belinsky had their own self-interest, a desire to adapt Belinsky to themselves, to overshadow themselves with his name, to interpret him in their own spirit, sometimes directly distorting him. But not only. Sometimes critics of this kind actually inherited Belinsky. In what, where and when? For example, behind the opposition of Pushkin to Gogol, which arose in criticism of the middle of the last century, the real confrontation of social forces is clearly visible. By the fifties, the living, topical content of Pushkin’s poetry began to be felt less. But its enormous, seemingly timeless scale began to emerge more and more clearly - comparisons with Shakespeare and Goethe flashed more and more often and ceased to cause surprise. All this gave rise to additional enthusiasm for some and a comparative cooling of others, which later reached the point of outright denial of Pushkin (in D. Pisarev, V. Zaitsev). The immensity of the content of Pushkin’s works has sometimes come to be understood as their emptiness. And Belinsky himself will be attacked, for example, by Pisarev, primarily in the article “Pushkin and Belinsky,” for dealing with the “meaningless” Pushkin. Already Chernyshevsky’s articles about Pushkin, with enormous respect for the poet and recognition of his merits, are quite restrained. This, obviously, forced Nekrasov to write to Druzhinin: “I am terribly sorry that these articles (Druzhinin’s articles about Pushkin. - H.Sk.) did not get into Sovremennik - they could have been in it even with Chernyshevsky’s articles, which in front of them, however, would have faded greatly (Nekrasov N.A. Complete collection of works and letters: In 12 vols. M ., 1952, vol. 10, p. 230.). At the same time, Nekrasov announced these articles by Druzhinin in print; “These are the articles we would like as much as possible, this is what Russian criticism should be like” (Ibid., vol. 9, p. 291). At the same time, speaking about Druzhinin’s understanding of Gogol, the same Nekrasov will write: “Druzhinin is simply lying and hopelessly lying” (Ibid., vol. 10, p. 247). In his desire, relying on the “eternal,” “absolute” meaning of Pushkin’s poetry, to belittle the living, topical content of the real modern literary movement, Druzhinin directly declares himself the position of a liberal who is afraid of such a movement and is fencing himself off from it. But in understanding and feeling the “eternal,” “absolute” meaning of Pushkin’s poetry itself, Druzhinin was largely right. And here he actually inherited Belinsky, and in some ways, for example, in understanding the late Pushkin and his global significance, he tried to go further. In any case, Belinsky taught our very different critics a lot: to understand Gogol... to understand Pushkin... Strakhov believed that the true creator of Russian criticism was Apollo Grigoriev. But Grigoriev himself thought about it differently. The only Russian writer to whom he attached the word “genius” was Pushkin. And the only critic - Belinsky - is a “man of genius”, “called” . “Literature was for him, justified his doctrines, because he himself guessed it, defined its aspirations with amazing sensitivity, explaining it like Gogol and Lermontov. Speaking about our literature - and for a long time it was, I repeat, the only focus of all our highest interests, - you are constantly forced to talk about him. A high destiny, given by fate to a few of the critics! - hardly, with the exception of Lessing, given to more than one Belinsky. And this destiny was given by fate absolutely rightfully" (Grigoriev Ap. Works. St. Petersburg, 1876, vol. 1, pp. 578-579.). The comparison of Belinsky with Lessing is arresting, especially since Engels, as is known, also called Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov socialist Lessings. It is interesting that Grigoriev will sense precisely the extraordinary breadth of the range of Belinsky’s activity: “If Belinsky had lived until our time, he would still stand at the head of critical consciousness, for the reason that he would have retained the highest property of his nature: the inability to ossify in theory, against art and life" (Grigoriev A. Works, vol. 1, p. 679.). Belinsky, like Pushkin, especially in the “Pushkin” thirties, synthesizes, concludes, and still unites in himself much that will soon be separated. It is not for nothing that Grigoriev often puts the names of Pushkin and Belinsky side by side, for example, in connection with the first stories of Gogol, which were understood, “firstly, Pushkin, and secondly, the author of “Literary Dreams,” that is, Belinsky. By the way, a follower and Grigoriev’s student, Strakhov, also insisted on the need to turn not only to Pushkin, but also to Belinsky (in the 1861 article “Something about Polemics” he names only these two names among those few who “understood everything”) and he himself essentially in a number of points repeated Belinsky in his Pushkin articles; Is Strakhov the heir of Belinsky? Yes, within certain limits and primarily in the case of Pushkin. Like his opponents Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov - in others, of course, broader and more multifaceted relations. But to a certain extent Strakhov is the heir of the great critic and in his best articles about Turgenev, Dostoevsky and, of course, Leo Tolstoy. And this despite the fact that Strakhov, like his teacher Apollo Grigoriev, of course, turned out to be an opponent of many things Belinsky, both in principle and in specific assessments, especially in Belinsky at the end of the 40s, Belinsky was a revolutionary democrat and materialist. Much in Strakhov the critic, in Strakhov the thinker, is revealed by his life itself, outwardly seemingly devoid of turbulent events. Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov was born on October 16, 1828 in Belgorod, which was then part of the Kursk province. His father, a priest, was a master of theology and a professor at the Belgorod Seminary, where he taught literature. He died when Strakhov was six or seven years old. Soon after the death of his father, the boy was taken to his uncle, the rector of the seminary, in Kamenets-Podolsky. In 1839, he followed his uncle to Kostroma, where he was transferred by the rector of the local seminary. B Kostroma Strakhov Seminary and entered the study in 1840, initially in the department of rhetoric, and then philosophy. Thus, primary education (and even the most elementary one - Strakhov studied for one year in Belgorod at the local theological school) was purely religious - both in the family and at school. The seminary was located in the Kostroma Epiphany Monastery. Strakhov said in his autobiography: “It was the poorest and almost deserted monastery: there were, it seems, no more than eight monks, but it was an ancient monastery, founded in the 15th century. Its walls were peeling, the roofs were torn off in places, but it there were high fortress walls that could be reached, with towers at the corners, with battlements and loopholes along the entire upper edge. Everywhere there were signs of antiquity: a cramped cathedral church with dark icons, long cannons lying in a heap under a low open arch, bells with ancient inscriptions. And our life was a direct continuation of this antiquity: these monks with their prayers, and these five or six hundred teenagers who gathered here for their mental studies. Even if all this was poor, lazy, weak; but all this had a very definite meaning and character, the stamp of a unique life lay on everything. The meager life, if it, as befits life, has internal integrity and originality, must be preferred to the richest accumulation of life elements, if they are not organically connected and not subordinated to one common principle" (Nikolsky V V. Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov. St. Petersburg, 1896, p. 4; In the following, the autobiography is quoted from this book.). Strakhov, unlike many graduates of the seminary, who so abundantly joined the ranks of materialists and atheists in the middle of the last century, always remained a person devoted to religious dogmas. Precisely dogmas. This faith, apparently, was unshakable, some kind of school-seminar faith, drilled into it in a Bursatian style and remained forever like that - unconditional, indisputable and without question. Even what seems to be his only special work, “The Doctrine of God according to the Principles of Reason,” is not original, but abstract in nature; it is an exposition of Aristotle and Leibniz, Descartes and Kant. Faith itself is placed before all evidence. It is not for nothing that Strakhov writes: “All existing philosophical proofs of the existence of God do not have the nature of proof in the exact meaning of the word, they all already presuppose what they want to prove: the existence in our spirit of the idea of ​​​​God” (Strakhov N. The doctrine of God according to the principles of reason. M ., 1893, p. 33.). Religion, again judging by everything written by Strakhov, unlike, for example, Dostoevsky, was never experienced by him from the inside. Something like monasticism, by the way, later determined Strakhov’s entire external way of life, its rhythm and style. In one of his letters, at the end of his life, he instructs one of his young addressees: “...You not only write well and have great flexibility of mind, but... moreover, you are feverishly excited and eager for the truth and to immediately declare your thoughts... Why should you waste your energy in impulsive writing and reading? If it were in my power, I would prescribe to you, firstly, a regular lifestyle, and secondly, reading a good German philosophical book "Real education and real maturity of thought are not achieved in 3-4 years, but only in decades." Strakhov himself led such a “regular lifestyle” for decades - unfamilyd, undistracted and undistracted by anything, devoted only to books - especially since 1873, when he began working in the Public Library. “When it happened,” Strakhov recalled, “it happened to me to announce my rank of state councilor, it always made a favorable impression, when it later turned out that I I serve as a librarian, this significantly cooled the attention aroused by my rank" (Strakhov N. Memoirs and excerpts. St. Petersburg, 1892, pp. 2-3.). His apartment itself resembled almost a cell in its simplicity and poverty. Everything is quite meager the content went into books, which finally made up a unique library (See: Belov S., Belodubrovsky E. Library of N. N. Strakhov. - In the book: Cultural Monuments: New Discoveries. Yearbook 1976. M., 1977, p. 134- -141.).When Strakhov was awarded a star upon his retirement, he, according to the recollections of his contemporaries, exclaimed sadly: “Well, where can I find 60 rubles?” (for the order). Like another famous librarian (N. Fedorov) another famous library (Rumyantsevskaya), Strakhov was a knight of the book, its devotee. From the seminary Strakhov also took away a deep patriotic feeling. Perhaps it was also reflected in the fact that Kostroma has long been revered as one of the centers of Russian patriotism, since 1612, since Susanin’s times, naturally, in different ways by different people: officially - monarchically and unofficially, for example, Decembrist. “In our remote monastery we grew up, one might say, children of Russia,” Strakhov wrote. “There was no doubt, there was no possibility of doubt that she gave birth to us and nourishes us, that we are preparing to serve her and must give her every fear and all love... The real, deep source of patriotism is devotion, respect, love - the normal feelings of a person growing in natural unity with his people... Good or bad, much or little, but it was these feelings that our poor seminary cultivated in us ". It was precisely the unconditionality of faith in Russia and love for Russia that distinguished Strakhov’s patriotism. He often, at different times and on different occasions, quoted Tyutchev's poems: You cannot understand Russia with your mind, you cannot measure it with a common arshin: It has become special - You can only believe in Russia. But, unlike the religious one, Strakhov’s patriotic feeling was tested: “Since childhood, I was raised in feelings of boundless patriotism, I grew up far from the capitals, and Russia has always appeared to me as a country full of great strength, surrounded by incomparable glory; the first country in the world, so that in the exact sense of the word I thanked God for being born Russian. Therefore, for a long time afterwards I could not even fully understand the phenomena and thoughts that contradicted these feelings; when I finally began to be convinced of Europe’s contempt for us, that she sees us as a semi-barbaric people and that it is not only difficult, but simply impossible for us to make her think differently, then this discovery was inexpressibly painful to me, and this pain resonates to this day. But I never thought of giving up my patriotism and preferring the spirit of any country to my native land and its spirit (Biography..., p. 248.). Strakhov was not an apologist for official patriotism or a calloused nationalistic attitude to life. He knew how to look soberly at Russian reality, came into conflict with both the dogmas of official Russophilism of the Katkov type, and with the dogmas of non-official and therefore, perhaps, less harsh, but more naive Slavophilism. Finally, from his childhood, Strakhov brought out the greatest respect for science and devotion to it. He himself, by the way, did not attribute this to his own account, but again to the account of the same wretched seminary: “It is strange for me to remember, however, that despite our inaction, despite the general laziness to which both students and teachers indulged, some then the living mental spirit did not leave our seminary and communicated to me. There was the greatest respect for intelligence and science; pride in this field flared up and competed incessantly; we began to speculate and argue at every convenient occasion: sometimes poems and arguments were written, stories about amazing feats were passed on mind, performed by bishops, in academies, etc. In a word, a very lively love for learning and profundity reigned among us, but, alas, love was almost completely platonic, only admiring its subject from afar.” However, young Strakhov quickly made efforts to ensure that this love ceased to be platonic, and independently became seminary to prepare for the university exam. In 1843, he entered the chamber (we would now say law) faculty of St. Petersburg University, but already in the summer of that year, after the entrance exam, he transferred to the mathematics department. Strakhov’s attraction to exact sciences, especially natural sciences, was determined very early. “I actually wanted to study natural sciences, but I enrolled in mathematics as the closest subject in order to be able to receive a scholarship, and I received it - 6 rubles a month.” However, Strakhov also turned to the natural sciences for, so to speak, “metaphysical” reasons. Already at the university, the young man plunged into that student-raznochin environment, which nourished the ideas of revolutionism, atheism, materialism and, in turn, was fed by them: “In the famous university corridor, I heard that argument that faith in God is an unforgivable mental weakness , then praise for the Fourier system and assurances of its inevitable implementation. And petty criticism of religious concepts and the existing order was a daily occurrence. Professors rarely allowed themselves free-thinking hints and made them extremely restrained, but my comrades immediately explained to me the meaning of the hints. One of my university friends "was a very good leader of mine in this area. He explained to me the directions of the magazines, explained the meaning given to the poem “Forward, without fear and doubt,” told me the opinions and speeches of more mature people, from whom he himself learned this freethinking." Thus, we can say that by his origin, by education, by his connections, Strakhov was a typical raznochinets, but by no means according to the ideology that later often began to be called raznochinsky and which, in its most radical expression, appeared as revolutionary-democratic. Very early on, Strakhov’s position was defined for himself as anti-nihilistic. Moreover, the term “nihilism” in Strakhov, as well as in most conservative criticism and journalism, takes on a varied meaning: it is, in general, any European socio-political and intellectual movement based on the ideas of revolution, socialism, even simply on the principles of liberality and progress, but first of all, of course, it is Russian revolutionary democracy. Strakhov tried to substantiate his position scientifically and not only in the sphere of abstract constructions: “Denial and doubt, into the sphere of which I fell, in themselves could not have much power. But I immediately saw that behind them there is a positive and very firm authority on which they rely, namely, the authority of the natural sciences. References to these sciences were made continuously: materialism and all kinds of nihilism were presented as direct conclusions of natural science, and in general the conviction was firmly professed that only naturalists are on the right path of knowledge and can correctly judge the most important issues. So, if I wanted to “be on an equal footing with the times” and have independent judgment in the controversies that occupied me, I needed to become acquainted with the natural sciences. That’s what I decided to do, never deviated from my decision and little by little brought it into execution. Although the mathematics department is the closest to the natural sciences, I was very sorry for such a deviation from the straight line. But then things got better." Outwardly, however, "things got better" in a peculiar way. At first it was completely upset. As a result of a quarrel with his uncle, the young man, upon his complaint to the trustee, lost both his housing and his scholarship and, finally, was forced to leave the university, or rather, move to the Main Pedagogical Institute on state support. In comparison with the university, the physics and mathematics cycle was combined here with natural subjects. Moreover, at the end of the 40s, a group of prominent people worked at the Main Pedagogical Institute (and Strakhov entered there in January 1848 natural scientists. After graduating from the institute, Strakhov wrote and, a few years later, published his first and only scientific work in mathematics, “Solution of inequalities of the 1st degree.” The scientific activity itself was temporarily interrupted, because it was necessary to work off the institute’s “government allowance” in teacher for eight years.Since 1851, Strakhov taught physics and mathematics at the Odessa gymnasium, and since 1852, natural science at the 2nd St. Petersburg gymnasium. Nevertheless, during this service, he managed to pass his master's exams and in 1857 defended his dissertation in zoology “On the carpal bones of mammals” (In general, one of the curious phenomena of the middle of the last century is that in journal polemics people with a humanitarian education were often supporters of materialism (Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev), and in the role of defenders of “aesthetics”, idealism in general and religious views in particular - natural scientists: D. Averkiev, N. Solovyov, the same Strakhov. However, something similar takes place in the further struggle of idealism with materialism both at the beginning of the 20th century and in our time, when some outstanding natural scientists of the West, not to mention clergy, try to interpret the very achievements of the natural sciences in an idealistic spirit and even in the spirit of a direct affirmation of religious principles. ). Strakhov invariably acted as an active promoter of natural science knowledge. “The natural sciences,” he wrote, “have a threefold interest: as useful in practice, as satisfying the special theoretical needs of the mind, and, finally, as nourishing the aesthetic feeling” (Strakhov N. On the method of natural sciences and their significance in general education. St. Petersburg, 1865, p. 130.). Strakhov's own work in this area is varied. The “theoretical needs of the mind” were satisfied primarily in the works “The World as a Whole” and “On the Basic Concepts of Physiology and Psychology.” Since the late 50s, for a number of years, Strakhov has been leading the “News of Natural Sciences” department in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”. Later, from 1874, as a member of the scientific committee of this ministry, Strakhov was supposed to review everything new that appeared in the field of natural history - in fact, this was his service in the committee. He also translated many books on natural science, both of a special nature, such as “Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine” by Claude Vernard, and more general and popular ones - “The Life of Birds” by Brem and others. Studying the exact sciences, and especially the natural ones, or rather, the need to constantly monitor their development, to be “in the know,” determined a lot in Strakhov’s appearance. He assigned a clear, fairly limited area to such sciences, Not believing that they provide a solution to the general problems of existence. Later, Strakhov acted, in particular, as an opponent of Darwinism, considering it as a mechanistic understanding of development, for which “heredity is not the inheritance of development, but only the transfer of particles that can change accidentally” (Strakhov N. On the basic concepts of psychology and physiology. St. Petersburg, 1886, p. 313.). Without denying the importance of Darwin’s specific activities as a great naturalist-observer, Strakhov skeptically assessed Darwinism as a general theory of natural science, and even more so as a general theory of life, and such attempts to interpret Darwin’s teachings, by the way, took place then, even to the point of entering the field astronomy. Of course, behind Strakhov’s dispute with Darwinism, his more general dispute with materialism in general is clearly visible. A fierce debate about Darwinism occurred later between Strakhov and Timiryazev. Strakhov was here, however, firstly, he was not alone (thus, he was strongly supported, although without entering into direct polemics, by L. Tolstoy; Ushinsky and some others turned out to be a categorical opponent of Darwinism) and, secondly, he was not very original. In general, possessing colossal erudition, Strakhov, in fact, did not create anything like a general system of views either in philosophy or in natural science. Perhaps this is why Strakhov’s own works are characterized by a certain mosaic quality. At the same time, each of these “mosaics” is distinguished by extreme finishing and completeness. No wonder Dostoevsky told Strakhov: “You are all trying to complete the collection of your works!” (Biography..., p. 220.) And indeed, later he published his works as separate books. Strakhov transferred journal publications there almost without changes. They are already, as it were, prepared for books. In general, his books are, in fact, collections of articles, and not a presentation of some complete positive teaching; it is a critical examination of what others have created rather than one's own creation. In the sense of criticism of others, Fear is perhaps the most consistent type of critic in our literature, and here he also opposes our revolutionary democrats, whose articles are not only criticism, but also constant creation and preaching. Obviously, this circumstance also contributed to the fact that progressive critics invariably gained the upper hand in the polemical clashes of the 60s. The denial and skepticism of the conservative were then invariably overcome by the affirmation and enthusiasm of the progressives. It is not for nothing that Strakhov himself once admitted in a letter to Tolstoy that he always took on a “negative task” (Same in the case of Darwinism: his views were rather partly a development, partly a presentation of the views of N. I. Danilevsky, a famous botanist and philosopher, at one time even the director of the famous Nikitsky Botanical Garden. We will still have to turn to this characteristic figure, who played a very significant role in the development of the views of Strakhov, and not only Strakhov. A graduate of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, a Fourierist in his youth, Danilevsky was involved in the work of his Lyceum Petrashevsky's classmate. However, he soon devoted all his attention to the natural sciences, mastering them for four years as a volunteer student at St. Petersburg University. N. Ya. Danilevsky studied world literature on Darwinism for a number of years, planning to write a three-volume study to refute it. In 1883 he completed only the first volume. Death prevented Danilevsky from completing his work. His work “Darwinism. A Critical Study” was published by H. N. Strakhov.). On the other hand, Strakhov’s skepticism was also directed against the use of natural sciences to support everything he considered quackery. In this sense, the position taken by Strakhov on the issue of so-called spiritualism, which at one time became widespread even in academic circles, where such prominent scientists as the chemist Butlerov, paid tribute to this hobby, is interesting. “It was sad to think that into this citadel of science,” Strakhov wrote about St. Petersburg University then, “an obvious enemy of scientific concepts had crept in and gained a foothold in it” (Strakhov N. On Eternal Truths: My Dispute about Spiritualism. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. IX.). It is obvious that Tolstoy’s “Fruits of Enlightenment” are connected with the struggle waged against spiritualism by Strakhov, who polemicized, in particular, with Butlerov, for Tolstoy, who sympathized with Strakhov, was constantly aware of this controversy (In general, Strakhov’s relations with scientists were almost always relations of dispute, controversy, confrontation. Probably Strakhov's very skepticism, turning out to be a kind of verification, attracted such scientists. This was the case with Timiryazev, this was the case with Butlerov, this was the case with Mendeleev, with whom, being long-time “acquaintances,” according to Strakhov, they “ they argued until they quarreled." This was the case with Danilevsky, who was seemingly so close to Strakhov, with whom they "disagreeed on many things.") In general, constant studies in the natural sciences contributed to the fact that Strakhov developed a distinctly sober view of things, a desire to strictly scientific approach; his very skepticism seemed to receive constant support and found ground in the face of strict scientific methods. Perhaps this is why Strakhov, in fact, never encroached on a full, consistent presentation of his positive views. It turned out to be a rather strange thing. On the one hand, we are clearly dealing with a religious person. But it is difficult to call Strakhov a religious writer or a religious thinker in the proper sense, because, while keeping this principle in mind, he, in fact, never expounded it, did not directly defend it, did not preach it. Also, being generally a supporter of state, monarchical, “historical” power, Strakhov did not promote it. Having been dealing with problems of philosophy throughout almost his entire life, Strakhov did not leave behind what could be called a general theory of knowledge, a more or less integral philosophical system. Constantly fighting against materialism, he failed and was unable to oppose it with any developed positive teaching, and here he tried to limit himself to “negative tasks.” “Although they usually call me a philosopher,” he wrote, “my friends like Dostoevsky and Maikov all encouraged me to criticize.” Strakhov's philosophical studies were numerous, and in this sense it is clear why he was usually called a philosopher. It should be noted that, among other things, he was a translator of abundant and varied philosophical literature. Strakhov first translated and in 1863 published in the magazine "Anchor" "Introduction to the Philosophy of Mythology" by Schelling. He made first-class translations of the four-volume “History of New Philosophy” by Cuno Fischer, his “Bacon of Verulem”, “On Mind and Knowledge” by Taine, and “History of Materialism” by Lange. True, this literature itself was not always first-class: V. I. Lenin pointed out the poor presentation of Hegel’s philosophy in Fischer (See: Lenin V. I. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 29, p. 158.). But even here, in philosophy, Strakhov was indeed, first of all, a critic, mastering what was alien and examining it critically. This is also Strakhov’s only truly philosophical work, “Philosophical Essays.” Having gone through the school of classical German philosophy, primarily Hegelianism, Strakhov took from it the ability for clear dialectical considerations and historicism of thinking, which, of course, greatly contributed to strengthening the critical, analytical principle in him. It was in this school that his views on the nature of art, the role of the artist, etc. were formed to a large extent. It was there that his ideas about the great importance of reason and the powerful power of knowledge were formed and strengthened. In this sense, Strakhov always remained a rationalist. At the same time, the mind was assigned a rather limited platform and a rather passive role in the face of the general elements of life. In this sense, Strakhov always remained an anti-rationalist, and here also lies one of the origins of Strakhov’s opposition to the Enlightenment with its cult of reason and the universalization of the meaning of reason. “You,” Strakhov addresses the enlighteners, rationalists, “theorists,” as he called them, “and them (agriculture. - N. Sk.) turn around in your dreams at random. You imagined that it was completely in your power, that it was worth take it into your head - and it will flourish; and if it doesn’t prosper, it’s because it wasn’t taken into account” (Strakhov N. From the history of literary nihilism: 1861--1866, Petersburg, 1890, p. 99.). Strakhov, while remaining a rationalist, went the entire path of anti-rationalism, reaching the philosophy of Schopenhauer, which fascinated him, as well as his closest friends - Leo Tolstoy, Afanasy Fet. At the same time, like Leo Tolstoy (but not Fet), the skeptic Strakhov rejected the final “skeptical”, that is, deeply pessimistic, conclusions of this philosophy "It makes a terrible sense in my eyes to deny everything that is solid in morality," he wrote about the philosophy of Schopenhauer. But Strakhov contrasted it with only religion, only faith, again departing from the actual philosophical ground, or rather, not even trying to stand on it. It is interesting that, obviously, it was skepticism that allowed Strakhov to feel so closely the related element of skepticism in Herzen. Herzen's skepticism and pessimism, his struggle with the West and faith in Russia - all this should have attracted and attracted the attention of Strakhov and allowed him to write many strong and insightful pages about Herzen. In the book “The Struggle with the West in Our Literature,” he dwelled in detail on the activities of skeptics and anti-rationalists of the West (Renan, Mill, etc.), and he began the book with a detailed examination of Herzen - this, according to Strakhov’s characterization, “a desperate Westerner.” Strakhov saw in Herzen “one of the biggest names in our literature” and with great force felt and expressed what he calls pessimism in Herzen. Let us remember that Lenin defined Herzen’s state after 1848 as “deep skepticism and pessimism.” But Lenin saw and explained, first of all, their socio-historical origins: “Herzen’s spiritual drama was the creation and reflection of that world-historical era when the revolutionary spirit of bourgeois democracy was already dying (in Europe), and the revolutionary spirit of the socialist proletariat had not yet matured” (Lenin V. I. Complete collected works, vol. 21, p. 256.). Strakhov, however, is not able to give social, socially significant explanations of Herzen’s position; he sees the origins of such pessimism in the original nature of Herzen’s personality and talent and therefore, as they say now, extrapolates pessimism to all stages and all aspects of his activity: “In his entire mental structure, in his feelings and view of things, Herzen was a pessimist from the beginning to the end of his career, that is, the dark side of the world was revealed to him more clearly than the light... This is where the key to unraveling Herzen’s literary activity is, this is where you need to look for its main advantages and shortcomings" (Strakhov N. The fight against the West in our literature. Kyiv, 1897, vol. 1, p. 3.). To do this, Strakhov had to perform another artificial operation: to separate and contrast Herzen, the writer-thinker, and the Herzen whom he calls an agitator and propagandist. However, upon closer and specific examination, the critic had to admit: “But besides the Russian heart, it seems to us, Herzen was also helped by his mind, his theoretical views. Feuerbachism and socialism in the strict, deep form in which Herzen held them is incorrect, but still an extremely high point of view" (Strakhov N. The fight against the West in our literature, p. 98.). Strakhov called the final chapter-addition of his work on Herzen “Prediction.” It cannot be said that he was distracted from history, but his view is, so to speak, an expression of historical pessimism: “...Herzen foresaw the future role of Bismarck, foresaw the invasion of learned barbarians on Latin classical Europe (Italy and France) and predicted that it will be terrible in terms of the extent of the murder and will be the punishment of France for its moral decline. Herzen generally looked at things gloomily: he expected trouble everywhere, he expected death. We see, however, that this gloomy look did not come from the gloomy mood that it contains there is a great amount of truth in itself: ominous prophecies are coming true" (Ibid., p. 137.). It is impossible not to see that many of the characteristics of Herzen’s skepticism and pessimism in Strakhov are nothing more than an expression of his own skepticism and pessimism. V.I. Lenin examined the final stage in Herzen’s development from the position of historical optimism. Based on “Letters to an Old Comrade,” he wrote: “For Herzen, skepticism was a form of transition from the illusions of “above-class” bourgeois democracy to the harsh, unyielding, invincible class struggle of the proletariat” (Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works, vol. 21, p. 257). In the light of this assessment, Strakhov’s skepticism, sometimes so universal that, as we see, he knew how to take a skeptical attitude even towards himself, can hardly be considered only as a kind of psychological phenomenon. Here, first of all, the position of the conservative manifested itself. It manifested itself very clearly in literary criticism itself. Strakhov is a writer in the narrow sense, Strakhov - a literary critic and journalist - began in the circle of the Dostoevsky brothers. At the end of 1859, Strakhov began attending the literary Tuesdays of his colleague A.P. Milyukov, the de facto head of the Svetoch magazine. “From the first Tuesday, when I appeared in this circle, I considered myself as if finally accepted into the society of real writers and was very interested in everything. The main guests of A.P. turned out to be the Dostoevsky brothers, Fyodor Mikhailovich and Mikhail Mikhailovich, longtime friends of the owner... Conversations in the circle occupied me extremely. It was a new school that I had to go through, a school that in many ways diverged from the opinions and tastes that I had formed. Until that time, I also lived in a circle, but in my own, not public and literary, but completely private. There was great worship of science, poetry, music, Pushkin, Glinka; the mood was very serious and good. And then the views with which I entered into a purely literary circle were formed. At that time I was studying zoology and philosophy and therefore, of course, diligently followed the Germans, I saw them as leaders of enlightenment... The writers turned out to be different... The direction of the circle was formed under the influence of French literature; political and social issues were in the foreground here and absorbed purely artistic interests" (Biography..., pp. 180--183.). It was Dostoevsky, according to Strakhov, who first of all saw a writer in him. "Although I already had a small success in literature and attracted some attention from M. N. Katkov and A. A. Grigoriev, yet I must say that most of all I owe in this regard to F. M. Dostoevsky, who has distinguished me since then, constantly approved and supported me more diligently than anyone, he stood up for the merits of my writings to the end." Immediately after Dostoevsky founded his journal "Time", Strakhov was invited to join it as one of the main employees. The journal work captured him so much that he even published it in 1861 year resigned. This journal activity continued for many years, although it was not marked by external successes. After the cessation of Dostoevsky Strakhov's journals in 1867, he edited "Domestic Notes" - until they were handed over by the publisher A. A. Kraevsky in 1868 to Nekrasova. For two years, again without much success, he headed the Zarya magazine, which closed in 1872. In fact, this was the end of his journal work. “I saw,” Strakhov writes in his autobiography, “that I had nowhere to work. “Russian Messenger” was the only place, but Katkov’s despotic arbitrariness was unbearable for me. I decided to enter the service and in August 1873 accepted the position of librarian of the Public libraries for the legal department." During the entire period of Strakhov’s collaboration in “Time” and in “Epoch”, which continued it after its closure, the social and literary movement took shape quite clearly, which received the name “pochvennichestvo” and which in the Dostoevsky journal was primarily represented by articles by F. M. Dostoevsky, Ap. Grigoriev and N. N. Strakhov - the main ideologists of Vremya. Denouncing the isolation of educated society from the people, the pochvenniki advocated rapprochement with the people, with the “soil”, in which they saw the true expression of the Russian national character. At the same time, pochvenism was distinguished by hostility towards bourgeois progress and, accordingly, a sharply negative attitude towards the bourgeois West, despite an excellent knowledge of Western culture. The Pochvenniks did not accept the revolution, nor revolutionary ideas, nor their bearers. In the revolution and revolutionaries they saw only a destructive beginning, and in the desire to instill revolutionism on Russian soil - the fruit of armchair theorizing, a fruitless, although by no means harmless, utopianism. Largely in connection with this whole range of problems, questions about the place of art, its tasks, the role of the artist, etc. were resolved, and certain specific assessments were also given. Naturally, relations with revolutionary-democratic publications, with Sovremennik itself, initially defined as a cautious, even benevolent probing (Nekrasov celebrated the publication of the first Dostoevsky magazine with friendly, humorous poems and handed over to him for publication some of his poems, which were no longer at all humorous), soon became wary and finally turned hostile. The controversy, which began under Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, continued later (from the side of Sovremennik it was led primarily by Saltykov-Shchedrin and Antonovich). Strakhov wrote his polemical articles under the pseudonym “N. Kositsa”, a pseudonym that was not accidental, but a former demonstrative statement of Strakhov’s position: “I had the audacity to choose as a model Feofilakt Kosichkin"(Biography..., p. 236.), that is, Pushkin, who signed his articles directed against Bulgarin this way. It must be said that in this polemic, unlike even Dostoevsky, Strakhov primarily solved “negative problems”, developing a positive program to the least extent, taking upon himself the actual criticism and, naturally, drawing fire from his opponents. In the conditions of an ever-increasing public struggle, in the face of powerful propaganda, even under strict censorship conditions, carried out by Sovremennik, Strakhov’s position was not successful. Moreover, direct polemics with revolutionary-democratic criticism and the literary assessments and characteristics associated with it (later Strakhov combined almost all materials of this kind in the book “From the History of Literary Nihilism”) is, of course, the most unattractive page in Strakhov’s writings. Strakhov himself understood this partly later. “What did I do?” he wrote. “I began to laugh at them, began to stand up for logic, for Pushnin, for history, for philosophy. My jokes were hardly understandable to many and only covered my name with shame” (Correspondence of L N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 447). The point, however, was not only in “logic”, in “philosophy”. Perhaps a lot of things here were really only clear to a few at that time. However, many understood something else: the conservatism and anti-revolutionary nature of the critic’s position. That's where the "shame" came from. In literary criticism itself, Strakhov considered himself the heir of Ap. Grigoriev, with whom he was quite close, whom he published and promoted. It was Grigoriev who Strakhov considered the creator of Russian criticism, and the principle of “organic criticism” developed by Ap. Grigoriev, the main principle of critical consideration, because art itself is vital, organic, in contrast to analytical science, synthetic, natural. It seems that a constant commitment to natural science and reflection on the essence of organic nature gave Strakhov’s principle of organic criticism additional originality. The strongest aspects of Strakhov's critical activity were not realized in the journal and polemical battles of the early sixties. True, even then he wrote one of his best critical works - an article about Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” The idea of ​​the novel, as Strakhov expressed it, was apparently common to the figures of Vremya. All this gives the insurance article additional interest, and this is what it is. It is known that the novel attracted the close attention of Dostoevsky and Dostoevsky wrote about it to Turgenev. Turgenev considered this review the best criticism of the novel and the deepest understanding of it. Dostoevsky’s letter has been lost; we can judge its revocation only from indirect evidence, in particular from the testimony of Turgenev: “You captured so completely and subtly what I wanted to express to Bazarov that I only spread my arms out of amazement - and pleasure It’s as if you entered my soul and even felt what I did not consider necessary to say” (Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of works and letters: In 28 volumes. Letters. M.-L., 1962 , vol. 4, p. 358.). It is possible to restore the main idea of ​​Dostoevsky’s review on the basis of at least “Winter Notes on Summer Impressions,” where Dostoevsky wrote about the restless and yearning Bazarov (“a sign of a great heart”). It is in this vein that the image of Bazarov is considered in Strakhov’s article on Turgenev’s novel, which was usually understood, with the exception of Pisarev’s article, either as a caricature of the new generation in general and of Dobrolyubov in particular (by Chernyshevsky and Antonovich in Sovremennik), or as an apologetics of new people ( mostly conservative criticism). The tragedy of Bazarov—that’s what Strakhov and Dostoevsky, who was standing next to him at the time, saw. Many of Strakhov's original critical principles, having been applied to Turgenev's novel, finally turned out to be their strong point. Thus, an understanding of the organicity and fullness of life allowed the critic to see both the vitality of the hero and the dramatic attitude in which he stood towards life as a whole: “...for all the harshness and artificiality of his manifestations, Bazarov is a completely alive person, not a phantom, not fiction, but real flesh and blood. He denies life, and yet lives deeply and strongly... Looking at the picture of the novel calmer and at some distance, we will easily notice that although Bazarov is head taller than other people... there is, however But, something that, on the whole, stands above Bazarov. What is this? Looking more closely, we will find that this highest is not some persons, but the life that inspires them... Those who think, that for the sake of deliberately condemning Bazarov, the author contrasts him with one of his own persons, for example, Pavel Petrovich, or Arkady, or Odintsov - they are strangely mistaken. All these persons are insignificant in comparison with Bazarov. And, nevertheless, their life, the human element of their feelings - are not insignificant... The general forces of life - that is what he is directed towards (Turgenev. - N. Sk.) attention. He showed us how these forces are embodied in Bazarov, in the very Bazarov who denies them... Bazarov is a titan who rebelled against his mother earth; no matter how great his strength, it only testifies to the greatness of the force that gave birth to and nourishes him, but is not equal to his mother’s strength" (Strakhov N. Critical articles about I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy: 1862--1885. Kiev, 1901, vol. 1, pp. 28, 34, 37.) The idea of ​​the “eternal”, “absolute” nature of art allowed the critic to see in the novel a meaning born of a certain time, but far beyond its scope: “To write a novel with a progressive or retrograde direction is not a difficult thing. Turgenev had the pretensions and audacity to create a novel that had all kinds directions... he had in mind the proud goal of pointing out the eternal in the temporal and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, eternal... If Turgenev did not portray all fathers and sons, or those fathers and children, such as others would like, then at all fathers and at all He portrayed children and the relationship between these two generations excellently" (Strakhov N. Critical articles about I.S. Turgenev and L.N. Tolstoy, vol. 1, p. 33.) Strakhov very deeply understood precisely the tragic side of relationships Bazarov with art. Quoting Pisarev’s article, in which he considers Bazarov’s denial of art as inconsistency, Strakhov writes precisely about Bazarov’s consistency, sees in this not Bazarov’s inconsistency, but his integrity and loyalty to himself: “Obviously, Bazarov does not look at things like that , like Mr. Pisarev. G. Pisarev apparently recognizes art, but in fact he rejects it, that is, he does not recognize its real meaning. Bazarov directly denies art, but denies it because he understands it more deeply... In this respect, Turgenev’s hero is incomparably higher than his followers. In Schubert's melody and Pushkin's poems, he clearly hears hostile principles; he senses their all-encompassing power and therefore arms himself against them" (Ibid., pp. 14-15.) Finally, a keen sense of national life allowed Strakhov to see in Bazarov not only a social phenomenon, a social character, but also a national type, a feeling, which, obviously, Dostoevsky and Turgenev himself experienced when perceiving Bazarov, who, as is known, compared Bazarov with Pugachev. Strakhov raised the very force of Bazarov’s denial of art as a sign of the times to a more general degree: “Of course, art is invincible and contains inexhaustible, ever-renewing strength; nevertheless, the breath of the new spirit, which was revealed in the denial of art, has, of course, deep significance. It is especially clear for us Russians. Bazarov in this case represents the living embodiment of one of the sides of the Russian spirit. In general, we are not very inclined towards the elegant: we are too sober for that, too practical. Quite often you can find people among us for whom poetry and music seem something either cloying or childish. Enthusiasm and grandiloquence are not to our liking; we prefer simplicity, caustic humor, and ridicule. And on this score, as can be seen from the novel, Bazarov himself is a great artist..." (Ibid., p. 16.) "Everything in him unusually suits his strong nature. It is quite remarkable that he, so to speak, more Russian, than all the other faces in the novel. His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy, mockery and a completely Russian style. In the same way, among the characters in the novel, he is the easiest to get close to the people, he knows how to behave better with them." Chernyshevsky's "new people" and even paid tribute to them. In the article "Happy People", published in 1865 in the "Library for Reading", he wrote about the novel "What to do": "The novel would not have been possible if it had not been for the reality of something corresponding... So, these new people exist... The German physiologist really made a mistake in their characteristics; There is a human type that does not fit what has hitherto been called man. He appeared recently, appeared on our land, and perhaps the Germans and French will never see such people among themselves, although these people are brought up on German and French books. It's not about the books, it's about the blood. Isn’t a particle of Russian strength audible in this type?” (Strakhov N. From the history of literary nihilism, p. 340.) All this is by no means a confession filtered through clenched teeth. The original text of the article “Happy People”, intended for publication in “Epoch” , and written back in 1863, shortly after the appearance of Chernyshevsky’s novel, obviously contained even higher ratings, for censorship demanded a softening of the “special praises of the novel” (See about this: Nechaeva V.S. Journal of M.M. and F. M. Dostoevsky "Epoch". 1864--1865. M., 1975, pp. 209--212.) The author does not at all share the ideas about happiness that the author and the heroes of the novel have, but treats them to the highest degree seriously. When Dobrolyubov died, Strakhov responded in Vremya with an obituary that was not only heartfelt, but also in many ways insightful and instructive for the matter of understanding Dobrolyubov’s articles. Assessing Dobrolyubov’s activities as independent, but “negative” And“one-sided,” in contrast to Belinsky, who was “strongly connected with all the best that grew on Russian soil in his era,” Strakhov nevertheless admits: “Only in the time of Dobrolyubov, Sovremennik was the only magazine whose critical department had weight and who together constantly and jealously followed literary phenomena" (Strakhov N. Critical Articles, vol. 2. Kiev, 1902, p. 291.). It seems that behind all this there is a sensitive feeling that the articles of our great critics, revolutionary democrats are really not only an assessment of this or that work. They are criticism, but also something more. They are creativity in itself. One can imagine a type of article that has meaning and value only in relation to the work in question. The best articles by Belinsky or Dobrolyubov - and irrespective of value. In this sense, they are different from most of the articles of the same Strakhov, most often only a critic, not a creator. Even among his opponents, Strakhov could not help but see this creative element and could not help but talk about it. No wonder he wrote about Dobrolyubov: “If he had remained alive, we would have heard a lot from him.” Later, Strakhov assessed differently, that is, much more negatively, both the type of “nihilist” as a social phenomenon and the literature that captured it, in particular the novel “Fathers and Sons.” All this is true. But he did not stop there either, although the matter did not happen without outside intervention, namely from L. Tolstoy, who decisively and angrily condemned the attacks on the “nihilists” and immediately saw the essence of the matter behind the words; in response to Strakhov’s excuses that he was only denying denial, Tolstoy said: “I say that to deny what life does means not to understand it. You repeat, What deny denial. I repeat that to deny negation means not to understand that in the name of which negation occurs. How I ended up with you, I cannot understand. You find disgrace. And I find it. But you find it in the fact that people deny ugliness, and I in the fact that there is ugliness... Until now, the ugliness of slavery, the inequality of people has become clear, and humanity has freed itself from it, and now the ugliness of statehood, wars, courts, property is becoming clear , and humanity is all working to recognize and free itself from these deceptions" (Correspondence of L.N. Tolstoy with N.N. Strakhov, p. 294.) "Relative to my nAndgilism,-- Strakhov justified himself, “You are right: all my writing has a one-sided appearance and can be mistaken for scolding the nihilists.” This is how many understood it; refraining from any judgment about the existing order and not refraining from a variety of judgments about nihilism, I certainly fall into lawyerly tricks, into the slyness of newspapermen; yes, silence is better than speaking" (Ibid., p. 280). Even later, Strakhov wrote to Tolstoy: "Nihilism and anarchism are very serious phenomena in comparison with the chatter that constitutes the height of human dignity for the Grigorovichs and Fetov ". And this was not just an adjustment to Tolstoy. For he shared with the already straightforward and extremely conservative Rozanov: “It was a general movement, a stream of negation that captured almost all of literature. Of course, the basis is moral demands, the desire for the common good, and in this sense we can say that the nihilists gave literature a serious mood, raised all the questions" (Rozanov V. Literary exiles. St. Petersburg, 1913, vol. I, p. 236 --239.). This was written in 1890, relatively shortly before his death. While unconditionally denying all revolutionary programs, both past and present, Strakhov was extremely honestly admitted that there was no program whatsoever behind Strakhov’s own soul. And the closer to the end, the more powerfully it was felt. In this sense, and in many others, Strakhov’s correspondence with Tolstoy is a remarkable human document. It is not without reason that Tolstoy himself considered his letters to two persons the most interesting: S. S. Urusov and N. N. Strakhov. Not without reason S. A. Tolstaya, after the death of her husband, repeatedly notes in the “Diary”: read... read... read... letters from N. N. Strakhov and Lev Nikolaevich (See: Tolstaya S. A. Diaries: In 2 volumes M., 1976, vol. 2, pp. 385, 339, 401, etc.). Confessing (it is difficult to call it another word for the usually rather reserved Strakhov) to Tolstoy, Strakhov writes: “In the era of the greatest development of strength (1857-1867) I not only lived, but succumbed to life, submitted to temptations; but I was so exhausted, that then I gave up life forever. What did I actually do then and then, and what am I doing now? What obsolete people, old people do. I beware, I tried not to look for anything, but only to avoid the evils that surround a person on all sides. And especially me beware morally... And then - I served, worked, wrote - everything was just enough so as not to depend on others, so that I would not be ashamed in front of my comrades and acquaintances. During my literary career, I remember how I stopped immediately as soon as I saw that I had made enough money. To create a position for myself, property - I never cared about this. So all the time I did not live, but only took life as it came... For this, as you know, I am fully punished. I have no family, no property, no position, no circle - nothing, no connections that would connect me with life. And besides that, or perhaps as a result of that, I don’t know what to think. Here is my confession to you, which I could make incomparably more bitter" (Correspondence of L. N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov, pp. 165--166.) In response to Tolstoy’s convictions and evidence that this position is impossible, since It is impossible to live in it, Strakhov summed it up: “I don’t live” (Ibid., p. 171). From all this, of course, it does not follow that Strakhov was an unidealized person. Positive principles, as he understood them, are about the program in the sense of the program of actions and their propaganda in the literal sense, there is no need to speak - they were located primarily in two spheres: in the more earthly and real - Russia, in the more ideal and metaphysical - religion. Strakhov was often called and is called a Slavophile. Not too accurately Although Strakhov is united with the Slavophiles by a categorical rejection of the West, especially the bourgeois one, and faith in the original path of development of Russia, nevertheless, to many things in the Slavophil ideology, both earlier and later, he was critical. Such a critical attitude towards Slavophilism was characteristic of all Pochvenniks already in the 50s and 60s. Later, Strakhov’s ideas about Russia, its place, characteristics and role in world history acquired a certain theoretical justification. But again, not original, Strakhov: he again yours found at another. Both in the field of natural science (in the criticism of Darwinism) and in the field of historical constructions, Strakhov relied on the ideas of N. Ya. Danilevsky, in the latter case developed in the work “Russia and Europe”. Danilevsky’s concept of historical development was based on the idea that human history is not the progress of some general series, a single civilization, but the existence of private civilizations, the development of individual cultural and historical types. Among them there is such as the Slavs. All this, in fact, already removed the question of the messianic role of the Slavs in general, and Russia in particular. Nevertheless, it was in Russia that Danilevsky saw the first and most complete, using his terminology, “four-basic” (that is, synthesizing, harmonizing four principles: religion, culture, politics, economics) type. True, it’s more likely a possibility, but one for which the nation is ripe: “The Russian people and Russian society in all its strata are capable of accepting and withstanding every dose of freedom” (Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. St. Petersburg, 1888. p. 537.). Strakhov, in the spirit of N. Ya. Danilevsky, considered Russia as an original phenomenon and a special type of spiritual life. However, Strakhov looked very critically at the nature of the country’s spiritual development, in particular at the development of our literature. “Our literature is poor” is Strakhov’s rather stable critical refrain, which finally gave the title to the whole large essay “The Poverty of Our Literature.” However, “the feeling of our spiritual failure is not yet proof of such failure.” That’s why “our first poverty is poverty of consciousness our spiritual life" (Strakhov N. Poverty of our literature. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 3.) That is why Strakhov gives such sharply negative assessments of Turgenev's "Smoke" (in a special article about this novel): "... not everything is Russian smoke.” And first of all, for Potugin’s attacks on Russia: “In general, Mr. Potugin’s remarks are sometimes witty, but on the whole they are surprisingly petty and superficial and prove that Russian life can seem like smoke only to those who do not live this life, who does not participate in any of her interests. Dark, poor Russian life - who says! But this makes it difficult and difficult for Russian people, as living people, to live, and they do not fly in the wind with the ease of smoke. In the very vacillations and hobbies that Mr. Turgenev apparently wants to punish with his story, we are very serious, we bring the matter to the end, often pay dearly for it and, therefore, prove that we live and want to live, and We don’t rush wherever the wind blows" (N. Strakhov. Critical articles, vol. 1, p. 60). But does Strakhov have any arguments in favor of such seriousness and thoroughness of “Russian life”, despite its poverty and darkness "Strakhov's sober, skeptical and strict mind involved turning to indisputable evidence and to such that he himself could judge quite competently. Evidence was taken from the sphere of Russian art, Russian literature. By the way, Danilevsky later used the same argumentation. Speaking about the past of Russian literature, he takes the following comparisons: “To find a work that could stand alongside Dead Souls, it must rise to Don Quixote” (Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe, p. 548). And speaking about its present, he can no longer find any comparisons: “Let them point us to a similar work (we are talking about “War and Peace.” - N. Sk.) in any European literature" (Ibid., p. 550). It is characteristic that in the article about "Smoke" in a dispute with Potugin - Turgenev (for Strakhov in relation to Russia almost unites the hero with the author - this closeness, like it is known that Turgenev himself did not deny) Strakhov addresses Glinka. A passionate music lover, Strakhov was a great connoisseur of Russian and Western musical art: “We, for example, love Glinka’s music; a serious, strict musical taste is developing in our public; there are composers with original, genuine talents; we greet them with delight, and the future of Russian music seems undoubted to us. And they say to us: “Oh, wretched barbarian fools, for whom there is no continuity of art!.. That is, how, they say, do you hope that you will have Russian music when it doesn’t exist yet? Funny reasoning! After all, The only thing you can hope for is what doesn’t exist yet. But it exists, Russian music! Sozont Ivanovich himself says that Glinka almost “founded Russian opera.” But what, how did he actually founded it and are you mistaken? How are you Then your nose will remain long! Is it a joke - Russian opera! (Strakhov N. Critical articles, vol. 1, p. 60.). True, some of the most important aspects in the development of Russian art turned out to be almost completely closed to Strakhov. That's how it was in music. While loving and understanding Glinka, Strakhov did not understand and did not love Mussorgsky and clearly expressed this misunderstanding and this dislike in two article-letters “Boris Godunov on Stage” addressed to the editor of “Citizen” F. M. Dostoevsky. Strakhov remained alien to the musical form of the opera, in particular the desire for recitative, and the libretto’s deviation from Pushkin’s text (here he agreed with music critics - C. Cui, for example). But the main thing is that the new musical direction as a whole, its spirit, its “philosophy”, turned out to be alien to him; he saw in Mussorgsky’s opera only “accusation”, similar to what he saw, for example, in Nekrasov’s poetry. We are no longer talking about names, but about the whole direction of new Russian art. In relation to Nekrasov himself, Strakhov went far back even in comparison with his teacher Ap. Grigoriev and comrade F. Dostoevsky. Of course, the fact that Nekrasov also played a role stood at the head of the journals, with which Strakhov almost invariably led polemics. In 1870, Strakhov published an article “Nekrasov and Polonsky” in the magazine “Zarya”. From it it is especially clear that we are talking about direction. Strakhov even calls the poetry of Nekrasov and poets close to Nekrasov’s Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski “directional”. Already at the end of the article, the critic made an interesting general remark: “Poets! Listen to your inner voice and, please, do not listen to critics. This is the most dangerous and harmful people for you. They are all trying to be judges, when they should only be your interpreters But interpreting poetry is difficult, but judging it is easy and surprising" (Strakhov N. Notes on Pushkin and other poets. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 176.). But, in essence, it was precisely this path that Strakhov himself took. He “judges” Nekrasov’s poetry, without essentially “interpreting” it; the article turned out to be mainly devoted to Polonsky. More precisely, he judges the direction, however, highlighting Nekrasov from this very direction: “We would be extremely unfair to Mr. Nekrasov if we looked at him as some Mr. Minaev of large size, although Mr. Nekrasov himself looks at himself this way , although in Minaevism he places all his glory. In the city of Nekrasov there is something more that is not in the city of Minaev and in the entire direction that they both serve" (Strakhov N. Notes on Pushkin and other poets, p. 153.) . As a result, Strakhov did not write about the “lesser” that he saw in Nekrasov (“It is especially tempting to write such criticism on the town of Nekrasov. The article could have been poisonous..."), nor about the "more" that he felt in him ("We are postponing Mr. Nekrasov until another time... we, in fact, are going praise our most widely read poet. So, someday we will praise Mr. Nekrasov..."). Almost all of Strakhov's judgments about Nekrasov are marked by this duality. The point here is not only ideological bias, but also the inability to understand and accept the new aesthetic system. One remark about poem “Frost, Red Nose,” written by Strakhov in “Epoch” back in 1864. Polemicizing with “Russian Word,” which spoke of the impossibility of bright pictures of peasant life, as they appeared in Daria’s dying dream, Strakhov wrote: “What a delight! You write out these poems with pleasure. What fidelity, brightness and simplicity in every feature" (N. Strakhov. From the history of literary nihilism, p. 535). And yet: "...despite the streams of true poetry, on the whole the poem presents a strange ugliness" (cf. similar review in a letter to Tolstoy about Mussorgsky's opera - “an unimaginable monster”), and the very title of the poem is humorous for him (!): “...why a humorous title in this sad idyll? Why is there a red nose here?" (Ibid., pp. 553-554.) The ear of the music lover Strakhov does not hear Mussorgsky. The ear of the poetry connoisseur Strakhov does not hear the dramatic counterpoint in the poetic word of Nekrasov. It is known that after the death of Nekrasov, Dostoevsky, in his words, “I took all three volumes of Nekrasov and began to read from the first page.” “All that night,” the writer recalls, “I read almost two-thirds of everything that Nekrasov wrote, and literally for the first time I realized how much Nekrasov as a poet occupied a place in my life! As a poet, of course" (Nekrasov in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 1971, p. 432.) At the same time Strakhov reported to Tolstoy: "And Nekrasov is dying - do you know? This worries me very much. When he called for dinner (in connection with negotiations on the possibility of publishing “Anna Karenina” in Otechestvennye Zapiski). N. Sk.), I didn’t go, but I will go to the funeral. His poems began to sound different to me - what power..." (Correspondence of L. N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov, pp. 115--116.) It’s truly true, according to the prophetic word of the poet: “And only seeing his corpse, how much he did, they will understand." The same as about Strakhov’s attitude towards Nekrasov can be said to an even greater extent about his attitude towards many other phenomena of new art, which was primarily distinguished by progressive thought, clear, directed. Especially unfair and Strakhov invariably receives evil characteristics from Shchedrin, one of his main opponents in the magazine struggle since the 60s. Noting Shchedrin’s “undoubted talent,” Strakhov nevertheless tried to create, for example, in a later article in 1883, “A Look at Current Literature.” "A clearly caricatured image of the great satirist. Strakhov spoke with great insistence about the poverty of our literature: “Our literature is poor” - however, adding: “But we have Pushkin” (Strakhov N. Poverty of our literature, p. 54.) Whether disputes about the essence of Russian life and its possibilities, or doubts about the richness of Russian literature and its future, forced Strakhov to resort to one indisputable, all-defeating and absolute argument - to Pushkin. Essentially, N. Strakhov said not much new about Pushkin himself, repeating Ap. Grigoriev in the main idea of ​​his Pushkin articles and Belinsky in a number of both more significant and more specific points. But these articles were given special strength by the fact that the first of them were born in a situation where the name of Pushkin aroused indifference, and sometimes even came under direct attack, for example from the “Russian Word” (primarily Pisarev). “There is,” wrote Strakhov, “something insane... there is something amazingly insane in many of the judgments and interpretations to which Pushkin was subjected... First of all, you are struck by the immense disproportion between the subject of these judgments and the powers and techniques of those judging. On the one hand on the other hand, you see a huge, deep phenomenon, expanding into infinity... on the other hand, you see people with microscopically narrow and blind views, with incredibly short standards and compasses designed to measure and evaluate a great phenomenon... In our many-minded century, misunderstanding of the great often also goes as a sign of intelligence; meanwhile, in essence, does not this misunderstanding constitute a striking proof of mental weakness" (Strakhov N. Notes on Pushkin and other poets, pp. 17--18.). On the other hand, Pushkin as a phenomenon of the new post-Petrine life and even a direct consequence of Peter’s deeds (in the famous words of Herzen, Russia responded to the challenge posed by Peter a hundred years later with the enormous appearance of Pushkin) clearly contradicts Slavophile concepts. “...It is no secret to anyone,” Strakhov wrote, “the coldness of our Slavophiles towards our Pushkin. It has been manifested for a long time and constantly... Treasuring the understanding of the main features of it (Russian life. - N. Sk.) spirit, they indifferently, without pain, reject a native phenomenon that interferes with this understanding, destroying, as a sharp exception, their sacredly respected theory." The very power of Pushkin's denial in the 60s increased Strakhov's strength of his affirmation. Later Strakhov enthusiastically accepted Pushkin's speech Dostoevsky as a confirmation of the correctness of his view of Pushkin, as well as the correctness of the point of view of Pushkin of the entire pochvenniki party, which he even calls Pushkin's. Much converged for Strakhov in Pushkin. In Pushkin, Strakhov saw a living and, perhaps, the only real and indisputable the guarantee of Russian life and the Russian national character. The one-sided, non-creative theorist Strakhov was drawn with irresistible force to the "complete" creator Pushkin, finding there the outcome and resolution of his own incompleteness, theoreticality and one-sidedness. With Pushkin, the skeptic Strakhov could finally leave his " negative tasks" and become an "affirmer", an enthusiast and a preacher, for Strakhov's Pushkin articles are, so to speak, a continuous sermon of Pushkin - "the main treasure of our literature." True, there is no need to talk about Strakhov’s more or less complete consideration of Pushkin’s work. It is no coincidence that Strakhov, when later combining his articles on Pushkin into a book, called it “Notes” and specifically stipulated this nature of the book. But it's not just about the genre. Strakhov turns a blind eye to many things in Pushkin himself - willingly or unwillingly. Thus, Strakhov correlated “The History of the Village of Goryukhina” (Gorokhina, in the then well-known censored title) with Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State.” But the correlation between “The History of the Village of Goryukhin” and Shchedrin’s satire, for example, “The History of a City,” which is indisputable for us now, obviously would have seemed blasphemous to Strakhov and, of course, was impossible for him himself. But in general terms, he rightly wrote: “We now find that, despite the many, apparently, new paths that Russian literature has followed since then, these paths were only a continuation of the roads that had already been started or completely blazed by Pushkin.” (Strakhov N. Notes about Pushkin and other poets, p. 36.) But, in any case, Strakhov the critic correlated one of these paths of new Russian literature with Pushkin. In his “Notes” he only said: “The importance of the “Chronicle” (that is, “The History of the Village of Goryukhin.” - N. Sk.) is already evident from the fact that with it a turn in Pushkin’s activity begins, and he writes a series of stories from Russian life, ending with “The Captain’s Daughter.” There is hardly a more important point in the development of Russian literature; here we limit ourselves only to pointing out this point" (Ibid., p. 54). From everything written by Strakhov, it is clear why "this point" is so important: from it begins the movement in Russian literature that culminated in "War and Peace" ". In the new Russian literature, Leo Tolstoy turned out to be the same phenomenon for Strakhov as Pushkin in the past. And the same reasons, external and internal, that attracted Strakhov to Pushkin, pushed him to Tolstoy. This again was the outcome of his own internal incompleteness, theoreticality, insufficiency. That is why Strakhov wrote to Tolstoy about what was necessary for him "burning mutual interestma lot of noise."(Correspondence between L. N. Tolstoy and N. N. Strakhov, p. 305.) This was again an unconditional confirmation of the mighty vitality of Russia. Russian life and Russian literature once again declared themselves powerfully and irresistibly in Tolstoy: “As long as our poetry is alive and well, until then there is no reason to doubt the deep health of the Russian people...” (Strakhov N. Critical Articles, vol. 1, p. 309.) It was in relation to Tolstoy that the famous insurance ability of attention manifested itself with full force. He was not a creator, but he showed with great power the ability to understand such a type of creator as Leo Tolstoy, and such a type of creativity as Tolstoy’s. I discovered it by going on my own, so to speak, “by contradiction.” However, in Tolstoy Strakhov also saw confirmation of many of the theoretical principles of “organic” criticism: "Faith in life- recognition of a greater meaning behind life than what our mind is capable of grasping - is diffused throughout the entire work (we are talking about “Slaughter and Peace.” - N. Sk.) Count L.N. Tolstoy; and one could say that this entire work was written on this topic... The mysterious depth of life is the thought of “War and Peace” (Strakhov N. Critical Articles, vol. 1, pp. 215--216.). The very clash between Napoleon and Kutuzov in War and Peace, in which Strakhov saw the expression of two opposing life types - “predatory” and “peaceful”, simple - he interpreted in the spirit of Ap. Grigorieva. Strakhov even believed that in general it was he who discovered in criticism Tolstoy, whom, according to him, not only was not understood, but was not even talked about at all. However, in stating this at the end of the 60s, Strakhov should have remembered that Chernyshevsky “discovered” Tolstoy in a series of his articles about him in the mid-50s. Even then, Chernyshevsky wrote: “... a person who knows how to understand true beauty, true poetry, sees in Count Tolstoy a real artist, that is, a poet with remarkable talent. ... We predict that everything that Count Tolstoy has given to our literature so far is only pledges of what he will do later, but how rich and beautiful these pledges are!” (Chernyshevsky N.G. Letters without an address. M., 1979, p. 140.) It is not without reason that back in the 19th century one of the authors called the right Strakhov attributed to himself to discover Tolstoy “an arrogant injustice” (Goltsev V.N.N. Strakhov as an art critic. - In the book: Goltsev V. About artists and critics. M., 1899, p. 121.). Nevertheless, as for the late Tolstoy, at least from War and Peace, here Strakhov revealed amazing understanding and insight. The honor of discovery and approval in the criticism of this Tolstoy in many respects really remains with him. Strakhov even called his articles on War and Peace a critical poem in four songs. Strakhov, almost the only critic at that time, in fact, immediately took the attitude towards “War and Peace”, which he himself later formulated in the preface to his articles on “War and Peace”, published in a separate book in 1871: “War and peace" is also an excellent touchstone of all critical and aesthetic understanding, and at the same time a cruel stumbling block for all stupidity and all impudence. It seems easy to understand that "War and Peace" will not be valued by your words and opinions, but you will be judge by what you say about “War and Peace” (Strakhov N. Critical Articles, vol. 1, p. 312--313.). It was precisely on this understanding that, obviously, arose the trust that Tolstoy himself quickly imbued and constantly felt in relation to Strakhov. Thus, when preparing “War and Peace” for publication as part of the collected works of 1873, Tolstoy, in essence, opened a carte blanche to Strakhov, who took part in it. “Another request,” Tolstoy wrote to Strakhov on March 25, 1873, that is, just two years after they met, “I began to prepare War and Peace for the second edition and erase what is superfluous - what needs to be completely erased, what needs to be taken out, printing separately. Give me advice... if you remember what is not good, remind me... If, having remembered what needs to be changed, and having looked at the last 3 volumes of reasoning, you would write to me, this and this should be changed and reasoning from the page throw out such and such a page, you would really, really oblige me.” There are few fears and caution, but Tolstoy really ruled, in particular the style - where grammatical irregularities arose - Gallicisms. Leaving aside the actual textual side of the matter, let us pay attention to the very degree of trust that Tolstoy had in Strakhov. Another example. Sending the article “On Public Education” to the editors of Otechestvennye Zapiski, Tolstoy, in a letter dated August 30, 1874, addressed the publisher of the magazine N. A. Nekrasov: “... I beg you to order the proofs to be sent to Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (Public Library) and any change made by him shall be accepted as if mine" (italics mine.-- N. Sk.). Strakhov, firstly, established the direct connection that exists between Pushkin and Tolstoy, namely between The Captain's Daughter and War and Peace. Secondly, he established the difference between Tolstoy's early works and War and Peace. Finally - and most importantly - Strakhov was the first in criticism to reveal the meaning of "War and Peace" as a Russian heroic epic: "The artist gave us a new Russian formula heroic life."(Strakhov N. Critical articles, vol. 1, p. 281.) This formula is based, according to Strakhov, on the understanding of the Russian ideal, which for the first time after Pushkin declared itself so clearly - the spirit that Tolstoy himself formulated as the spirit of simplicity, goodness and truth. From this angle, the famous Platon Karataev not only does not fall out of Russian formula of heroic life, but in a certain sense he reduces it to himself. It is not without reason that it is in connection with Karataev that they repeat several times at A thick word about the spirit of kindness and simplicity. Pierre's image of Karataev the soldier is naturally and directly connected with the image of other soldiers and with the general image of the war as a people's war. “In the person of Karataev,” noted Strakhov, “Pierre saw how the Russian people think and feel in the most extreme disasters, what great faith lives in their simple hearts.” Strakhov also calls this type of heroism “quiet heroism” (it is carried by Kutuzov, Konovnitsyn, Tushin, and Dokhturov), in contrast to “active”, which, however, is visible not only in the French, but also in many Russian people ( Ermolov, Miloradovich, Dolokhov). “Generally speaking, it is impossible to deny that... the Russian people do not give birth to people who give scope to their personal views and strengths...” According to Strakhov, this type of heroism in our country has not yet completely found its poet-expressor. We can only just begin to see it. Tolstoy, first of all, expressed something else: “We are strong by all the people strong by the strength that lives in the simplest and most humble personalities - that’s what gr. L.N. Tolstoy, and he is absolutely right." But the point is not only in quantitative strength, so to speak, in external victory. "If the question is about strength, then it is decided by which side has victory, but simplicity, goodness and truth They are dear and dear to us in themselves, no matter whether they win or not... A huge picture of gr. L.N. Tolstoy is a worthy image of the Russian people. This is truly an unheard of phenomenon - an epic in modern forms of art." One can dispute one or another generalizing formula of Strakhov, but one cannot help but see that he was the first to say about "Slaughter and Peace" as a people's book. The poverty of Russian literature is now already there is no need to talk and Strakhov does not talk about it: “If now foreigners ask us about our literature ... we will directly point to War and Peace as the mature fruit of our literary movement, as a work before which we ourselves bow.” , which is dear and important to us for lack of the best, but because it belongs to the greatest, the best, creations of poetry that we only know and can imagine... Western literatures at the present time do not represent anything equal or even anything close to what we now possess" ( Strakhov N. Critical articles, vol. 1, p. 303.) Already in 1870, Strakhov confidently said: “War and Peace” will soon become a reference book for every educated Russian, a classic reading for our children” (Ibid., p. 309. ). It would seem that the limits of recognition and the highest ratings have been reached. And yet they are growing in Strakhov, and this, of course, is also due to the fact that Tolstoy’s book continues to live in its, as they now say, functional meaning. It develops like a living organism, receiving the same thing, and it is different. In 1887, Strakhov wrote to Tolstoy about his book as a thing already detached from the author, as a completely independent phenomenon, living its own life, communication with which can be instructive for the author, acting as a reader of his own book: “If you haven’t read for a long time "War and Peace", then I earnestly ask and advise Bam - re-read it carefully... An incomparable book! Until now, I have not been able to appreciate it properly, and you don’t know how either - so it seems to me.” But we need to see another side to Strakhov’s relationship with Tolstoy. For Strakhov, Tolstoy was the bearer of powerful vital forces. “I have long called you the most integral and consistent writer, but you are also the most integral and consistent person,” Strakhov wrote. And a little earlier: “You have stretched your mind and heart across the entire width of earthly life.” So understood, Tolstoy’s life should have seemed to Strakhov completely unconditional and true in its development. Therefore, Strakhov enthusiastically accepted Tolstoy’s later religious quests. It seems that Tolstoy, unwittingly, of course, determined the additional complexity of Strakhov’s relationship with Dostoevsky. These relations were precisely deprived, despite long-term closeness, of the utmost trust and - especially - simplicity that distinguish Strakhov's relationship with Tolstoy. This complex story has repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers. The facts are as follows: Strakhov was associated with Dostoevsky for decades, both, so to speak, at work, and as friends and family. He published one of the most interesting articles about the novel Crime and Punishment in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1867. After the death of Dostoevsky, Strakhov wrote “Memoirs” about him, which retained the value of both documentary evidence and general understanding. They became the introduction to the first complete collection of the writer's works. Meanwhile, some time later, in a letter to Tolstoy dated November 28, 1883, he wrote very angry words about Dostoevsky and made clearly unfair, even terrible, accusations. This letter was published in 1913, that is, many years after Strakhov’s death in 1896. Dostoevsky’s widow Anna Grigorievna reacted sharply to him, who, comparing the public “Memoirs” with this private letter, was the first to speak about Strakhov’s hypocrisy (Obviously, A.G. Dostoevskaya would have been more restrained if she had known about similar accusations, but this time against Strakhov, made earlier by Dostoevsky in one of the entries, and that, while sorting through Dostoevsky’s archive, Strakhov apparently became acquainted with it (see: Rosenblum L. M. Creative diaries of Dostoevsky. In the book: Literary Heritage. M., 1971, v. 83). And they still write about his hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the situation is clearly more complicated... "He (Dostoevsky. - N. Sk.),- Strakhov reports to Tolstoy, “he was my most zealous reader, he understood everything very subtly” (Correspondence of L. N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov, p. 273.). A. G. Dostoevskaya recalls (even before meeting Strakhov’s letter to Tolstoy) , how F. M. Dostoevsky treasured conversations with him (See: Dostoevskaya A. G. Memoirs. M., 1971, p. 319.) On the other hand, Dostoevsky, again in a private letter, speaks about Strakhov: " This is a bad seminarian and nothing more" (Dostoevsky F.M. Letters. M.-L., 1934, vol. 3, p. 155). In a notebook “for himself” Dostoevsky writes: “H. H.<Страхов>he said in his articles bluntly, about, circled around without touching the core. His literary career gave him 4 readers, I think, no more, and a thirst for fame" (Literary Heritage, vol. 83, p. 619). And in a letter to Strakhov, Dostoevsky writes: "In the end, I consider you to be the only representative our present criticism, to which the future belongs" (Dostoevsky F. M. Letters, vol. 3, pp. 166--167.). What is this, hypocrisy? Obviously, there was a complexity of relationships and mutual perception: friendship, intimacy, and divergence and clashes, ever intensifying. In "Memoirs" about Dostoevsky, Strakhov did not lie, but in them he, according to his own words spoken in "Memoirs", renewed "some of the best feelings" and, according to the words already spoken in a letter to Tolstoy , “leaned on the literary side...”: “Personally, about Dostoevsky, I only tried to highlight his merits, but I did not attribute to him qualities that he did not have” (Correspondence of L. N. Tolstoy with N. N. Strakhov, p. 310 .). In the letter, speaking about Dostoevsky, he calls him evil, and envious, and depraved, draws, in his words, the other side, gives a commentary on the biography, without canceling the biography he wrote himself - “but let this truth will die." Moreover: “I cleaned up Dostoevsky, but I myself am certainly worse.” At the same time, in his letters, he speaks with great frankness (and more than in “Memoirs”) about what Dostoevsky was for him personally: “... the feeling of terrible... emptiness has not left me from that moment, how I learned about Dostoevsky's death. It was as if half of Petersburg had failed or half of literature had died out. Although we had not been getting along all the time lately, then I felt what significance he had for me" (Ibid., p. 266.). “Memories” captures “meaning.” The letters contain not only this, but also the fact that they “didn’t get along.” The point, however, is not just the complexity of the relationship. It seems that what appeared and was understood as a certain phenomenon of hypocrisy arose on a more fundamental basis, namely on a religious basis. At one time, a researcher of Dostoevsky’s work, A. S. Dolinin, wrote: “Dostoevsky’s views are really “half views” expressed by the early Strakhov... All these thoughts, if taken in isolation, of course, are highly unoriginal: any “father “he made similar speeches from the church pulpit more than once... In the Diary of a Writer, especially in the Teachings of Elder Zosima, he repeats them almost verbatim” (Sixties. M.-L., 1940, p. 244 , 247--248.). A modern researcher rightly disputes this characterization: “The great artist-humanist in the same “Notes from the Underground” conducts an internal debate with Strakhov’s “recipe” for reorganizing the world on “idealistic” principles. To Strakhov, on the contrary, everything is clear, difficult problems, in essence, do not exist for him, he seems to know in advance all possible solutions (Guralnik U. N. N. Strakhov - literary critic. - Questions of Literature, 1972, No. 7, p. 142 .). It seems that Strakhov’s orthodox religiosity was tempted and irritated by Dostoevsky’s quests; It is not without reason that the further they went, the more their differences became apparent. He wants to interpret Dostoevsky, and especially “The Brothers Karamazov,” in a purely traditional Christian spirit, and yet he does not always dare to do this, and even directly writes in “Memoirs” about the uncertainty of Dostoevsky the writer’s “principles and principles.” It was not for nothing that Dostoevsky said that he went through the crucible of trials, that his “hosanna” was hard for him. The writer tested and questioned the very principle of religion, of God. Tolstoy’s search for the principle itself did not call this into question. All this repelled Strakhov from Dostoevsky and attracted him to Tolstoy in this area. They, too, could argue - and Strakhov sharply condemned much of Tolstoy here, but this was already a dispute between like-minded people. That is why Tolstoy, disputing Strakhov’s assessments of Dostoevsky the artist (his thesis about the relationship between the author and heroes, etc.), almost not paying attention to all the negative characteristics of Dostoevsky the man already given by Strakhov, recognizing the enormous merits of Dostoevsky as a writer-thinker , yet reproaches(in a letter dated December 5, 1883) Strakhov for exaggeration them the role of Dostoevsky as a prophet: “It seems to me that you were the victim of a false, false attitude towards Dostoevsky, not by you, but by everyone - exaggeration of his significance and exaggeration according to the template, elevation to a prophet and a saint - a man who died in the hottest trial "The internal struggle between good and evil. He is touching and interesting, but you cannot put on a monument as a lesson to posterity a man who is all about struggle." Tolstoy himself was “all about struggle.” But for Strakhov it was a struggle within the framework of faith itself: he could approve of something in this struggle, and disapprove of something. But he approved, welcomed, encouraged such a struggle, although he tried to interpret it in his own spirit: “... a large share of Tolstoy’s worldwide fame should be attributed not to his artistic works, but precisely to the religious and moral revolution that took place in him and the meaning of which he sought to express both with his writings and his life" (Strakhov N. Memoirs and excerpts, p. 135.). Under the sign of this beginning, Strakhov speaks less and less about Tolstoy the artist. His later articles about Tolstoy are, first of all, an examination of the writer from the standpoint of the religious and moral revolution that took place in him. Dostoevsky wrote to Strakhov surprisingly broadly, accurately, boldly and generously: “By the way, have you noticed one fact in our Russian criticism? Every wonderful critic of ours (Belinsky, Grigoriev) entered the field without fail, as if relying on some advanced writer, i.e. ... seemed to devote his entire career to explaining this writer... Belinsky declared himself not by revising literature and names, not even by an article about Pushkin, but by relying on Gogol, whom he worshiped in his youth. Grigoriev came out, explaining Ostrovsky and fighting for him. You have had an endless, immediate sympathy for Leo Tolstoy ever since I have known you. True, after reading your article in Zarya, my first attraction was that she necessary and what do you need to express yourself as much as possible, otherwise it would be impossible to start with Leo Tolstoy, i.e. from his last composition"(Dostoevsky F.M. Letters. M.-L., 1930, vol. 2, pp. 136--167.). Strakhov wrote a lot and about many people. His best articles about Pushkin, Turgenev, Dostoevsky still retain their significance. Moreover. The modern reader will easily notice how organically some of Strakhov’s thoughts and observations have entered into our present-day understanding of these writers. First of all, this, of course, applies to Tolstoy. Strakhov really became something of a special critic, already, as it were, completely absorbed in Tolstoy, especially with Tolstoy, for Tolstoy and about Tolstoy. “After all,” he writes relatively shortly before his death, “you are to blame a lot for my philosophy and for the fact that I neglect Russian literature.” Tolstoy eclipsed much for Strakhov the critic. But the sobriety of his views, which so distinguished his best assessments, did not completely change Strakhov: “Recently I re-read something and read something again: Garshin, Korolenko, Chekhov - but this is serious literature - not like Zola...” (Correspondence between L. N. Tolstoy and N. N. Strakhov, p. 444.) The great literature of Russian realism again called, promised, and encouraged the old critic: “As long as our poetry is alive and well, until then there is no reason to doubt the deep health of the Russian people.”

Russian poets of the second half of the 19th century Orlitsky Yuri Borisovich

N. Skatov A. Koltsov. "Forest"

N. Skatov

A. Koltsov. "Forest"

In January 1837, Pushkin was killed. Mikhail Lermontov wrote “The Death of a Poet” these days, and Alexey Koltsov wrote the poem “Forest”. The voice of contemporaries here became the voice of descendants, and the recent living figure of Russian literature, Pushkin, turned out to be its hero.

Taken together, the poems of Lermontov and Koltsov cemented for posterity the colossal scale of Pushkin’s personality.

The poet is dead! - slave of honor -

Fell, slandered by rumor,

With lead in my chest and a thirst for revenge,

Hanging his proud head!..

“Slave” is a captive (directly and figuratively: “slave of honor” is a formula from Pushkin’s first southern poem) and more: an avenger, a “proud man”, Aleko, finally, the Demon, Pechorin - already Lermontov’s heroes. “Bova the Enchanted Strongman” is a Koltsovo image. But both of them turned out to be applicable to Pushkin, and Pushkin included both. This is how the final reference points, the borders of an infinitely extended country, whose name is Pushkin, were designated. These definitions—“slave of honor,” on the one hand, and “Bova the strongman,” on the other—express the evolution of the poet. Dostoevsky perceived it sensitively and spoke about it with great force, although in many ways interpreting it arbitrarily. Much has been written about the “reconciliation” of the late Pushkin (even Belinsky). Actually, Lermontov was the first to say in his poems that the “proud man” never humbled himself in Pushkin. But this man did not exclude another who bowed to the truth of people's life. It’s precisely this “something,” as Dostoevsky said, “akin to the people really”, perhaps completely involuntarily, and even more so undoubtedly felt and expressed by Koltsov. Drank. I cried. On March 13, 1837, Koltsov wrote a letter to A. A. Kraevsky: “Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin has died; We no longer have it!.. As soon as the Russian sun rose, it barely illuminated the wide Russian land with heavenly brilliance, fire with life-giving power; Mighty Rus' barely resounded with the harmonious harmony of heavenly sounds; The magical songs of the dear bard, the nightingale prophet, were barely heard..."

Already here the speech, still prosaic, is brought close to verse. And indeed, then she, as if unable to restrain herself, breaks into rhythm, into poetry: “The sun is shot through. The face darkened and fell to the ground like an ugly lump! The blood, gushing out in a stream, smoked for a long time, filling the air with the holy inspiration of an unlived life! Gather in a crowd of agreement, friends, lovers of art, priests of inspiration, messengers of God, prophets of the earth! Swallow that air where the blood of the Russian bard with his last life flowed to the ground, flowed and smoked! Collect that blood, put it in a vessel in a luxurious vessel. Place that vessel on the grave where Pushkin lies.” Following this, Koltsov directly speaks in verse:

Oh, flow, flow in streams

You, bitter tears from my eyes:

There is no more Pushkin between us, -

Our immortal Pushkin has faded away!

It is not difficult to see the difference between “verses” in the first case and verses in the second. Perhaps in the second case one should put quotation marks. After all, correspondences to “The Forest” are established not in these smooth, student-like iambs, but in a rhymeless amphibrach, still presented in prose, but folk song in essence. It was the folk song element that turned out to be clearly connected with the feeling of genius as an element that underlies the poem “Forest”.

The poem has a dedication. But this is no longer the subtitle “Pushkin” or even “Pushkin”, not “dedicated to Pushkin”, but “Dedicated to the memory of A.S. Pushkin”. The author not only brings us closer to Pushkin, but, by extending the dedication and introducing mediation (of memory), distances us from him and from the possibility of directly allegorical interpretations. In Lermontov's poem, dedication is not necessary: ​​the work contains the image of the poet himself. Koltsov does not have an image of Pushkin, but there is an image of a forest and there is no direct personification: Pushkin is a forest. The relationships here are infinitely more complex than in the case of allegory, and the associations generated are infinitely richer. The image of the forest does not remain only the image of the forest, but also does not become the image of Pushkin. Dedication, precisely in the form in which it is given, is necessarily part of the poem itself, directing the flow of associations, sometimes very distant.

“Forest” is a folk song, and the image created here is an image characteristic of folk poetry, not in the sense that analogies can be found in folk poetry (these analogies will turn out to be the most external and approximate, such as: “Don’t make noise, green mother oak tree..." or "You stop, my grove, stop, don't bloom...", if we turn to the songs recorded by Koltsov himself). This connection is deeper and more organic. It is no coincidence that Belinsky invariably names “Forest” among Koltsov’s songs, singling it out, perhaps, only by the degree of significance.

Koltsovskaya song is a folk song based on the character of the hero, or rather, based on his absence, because the character itself is not this, individual character. And in Koltsov’s poems it is always not this man, not this peasant, no this a girl, like, for example, Nekrasov or even Nikitin, but in general a person, a peasant in general, a girl in general. Of course, there is also individualization (a lazy peasant or a wild fellow), and a variety of positions and situations. But even when individualizing, Koltsov’s characters never reach the point of individuality. Koltsov’s only case of seemingly extreme individualization - his own name only confirms this: Likhach Kudryavich. Already the name of the hero carries a certain general element of national character. The characteristics of folk poetry given by Hegel can be fully attributed to Koltsov’s songs: “The general features of lyrical folk poetry can be compared with the features of the primitive epic from the point of view that the poet as a subject does not stand out, but is lost in his subject. Although, in connection with this, the concentrated soulfulness of the soul can find its expression in a folk song, what is recognized here is not an individual individual with his own subjective originality of artistic representation, but a nationwide feeling that completely, completely absorbs the individual, since the individual for himself does not have an internal idea and a feeling dissociated from the nation, its life and interests... this direct originality gives the folk song a freshness of radical concentration and radical truthfulness, alien to any speculation, such freshness can cause a strong impression, but at the same time such a song often turns out to be something fragmentary, fragmentary, insufficient intelligible..."

Of course, Koltsov’s song differs from folk songs proper in its “artistry, which should mean integrity, unity, completeness, completeness and consistency of thought and form.” This happens because, as Belinsky said, Koltsev’s poems are “works of folk poetry that have already passed through themselves and touched the highest spheres of life and thought.” But in essence, it remains precisely a “work of folk poetry,” regardless of how many and what features of folk poetry proper we find in it. In another literary work there may be more such signs, and yet it is further from folk poetry than the Koltsovo song, in which they may not exist.

And if Lermontov created the image of not only an individual, but, perhaps, even an individualist (in the high, Byronian sense), then Koltsov wrote “The Forest”. “Forest,” according to the subtle remark of Yu. Aikhenvald, is an expression of the elements, a collective creature. But the fact is that Pushkin opened up the possibility of such a perception.

The very image of the forest was both an accurate expression of Koltsov’s inner attitude towards Pushkin, and, perhaps, an accurate expression of the attitude of his poetry towards Pushkin’s poetry. Koltsov, with his spontaneity and freedom from literary bias, should have perceived Pushkin in special purity and integrity. Belinsky wrote that Pushkin was a “deity” for him. “Les” testifies that Belinsky did not misspoke. Koltsov’s attitude towards Pushkin’s genius was an attitude towards “divinity” as something unconditional, elemental. In general, this type of perception of genius in art is quite common. Pushkin in his poems “To the Sea” compared the sea with Byron (not Byron with the sea). But Pushkin has precisely a literary comparison. Koltsov has no comparison. His images are close to folklore anthropomorphizations. In the image of the forest, he found the expression of that elemental heroic power, that unconditional “divine” principle that he saw in Pushkin. Belinsky wrote later, comparing different types of nationality and genius as expressions of nationality: “Pushkin is a folk poet, and Koltsov is a folk poet, but the distance between both poets is so enormous that it is somehow strange to see their names placed side by side. And this difference between them lies not in the volume of talent alone, but also in the nationality itself. In both respects, Koltsov relates to Pushkin, just as a bright and cold spring gushing from a mountain relates to the Volga, which flows through most of Russia and feeds millions of people... Pushkin’s poetry reflected all of Rus', with all its substantial elements, all diversity, all the versatility of its national spirit." Belinsky is interested in these very comparisons with the natural phenomena of poetic creativity as something organic, unconditional, spontaneous, which arose, perhaps, not without the influence of the muse of Koltsov himself, who also through images of nature reveals the elemental power and versatility of Pushkin’s genius. The forest is an element, it is plurality in unity. This is how one should have felt the poetic power of Pushkin and Koltsov - an exponent of only one principle, a poet whose “powerful talent,” as Belinsky said, “cannot escape the magic circle of popular spontaneity.” Elsewhere the critic called this circle “enchanted.”

But, embodying the principles of folk poetry, Koltsov, as a professional writer, brings them to perfection.

The composition “Forests” is three-part. This tripartiteness is clearly defined by the question that arises three times, which also takes on the character of an introduction, a lyrical lament. Only at the very beginning the question was repeated twice. This fully corresponds to the significance that the first stanza, which contains in the embryo, in the grain, in fact, the entire poem, acquired within the framework of the first part (five stanzas). This is an introduction, an overture, containing in a condensed form the main themes of the entire, truly heroic symphony and the main development:

What, a dense forest,

Got thoughtful

Dark sadness

Foggy?

All three types of literature can be found here in particular concentration. And the lyrics: a question-song, and an epic with the image of a dense forest, and a dramatic collision: the forest is a cloud-storm, although the latter is only outlined here musically.

Already here the entire complexity of the image of the forest, a multi-associative image, is determined, already here the complex interaction of two principles is revealed: human and natural, animate and inanimate, a bizarre play and mutual transitions of meanings that folk poetry with its direct animations and simpler anthropomorphizations does not know. That is why the poet, calling the familiar “dense forest,” immediately destroys this image and creates it anew. “Thinking about it” is already animated, although it is still animated in the usual way. And the poet reinforces this animation, strengthens, renews and individualizes with “dark sadness.” This combination is both consistent with folk tradition and new. Both elements lie separately within the framework of folk usage (“ sadness- melancholy", on the one hand, and, on the other - " dark melancholy fell on my chest"). The author does not leave the word “sadness” alone, which in this case, that is, in a folk song, and even when applied to the forest, would turn out to be false and sentimental, and defines “sadness” the way folk art defines melancholy: “sadness dark." While remaining within the boundaries of folk tradition, the combination also acquired a purely individual, literary twist. In addition, “dark” is a definition that is very organically included in the general composition of the stanza and because it also preserves and carries the sign of a forest (from “dark forest”). A " clouded nilas" (with an internal movement of the meaning of inanimateness to the meaning of animation), rhyming with "with thought about it"(where the animate is transferred to the inanimate), serves to further blur the boundaries between one and the other, reveals all the instability of meanings, removes transitions, creating a holistic impression of a forest-man, where the forest does not remain only a forest, but also a person himself, as would be the case in an allegory , does not become.

Speaking of rhyme. Belinsky wrote: “The dactylic ending of iambs and trochees and half-rhyme instead of rhyme, and often the complete absence of rhyme, as consonance of a word, but instead there is always a rhyme of the meaning or the whole speech, the whole corresponding phrase - all this brings the size of Koltsov’s songs closer to the size of folk songs.” . And in the first line in question, the rhyme “at thought - confused"was a rhyme of meanings, but also an interesting internal rhyme. There are sound and semantic echoes in the first and third lines. Already in this stanza the dramatic meaning of the story is emphasized and expressed by the collision of two sounds: e belongs to the forest here; at- a phonetic expression of another, hostile principle, which will sound very strongly later. “Dark,” although as a member of a sentence syntactically refers only to the word “sadness,” phonetically and as a part of speech it gravitates toward the word “forest,” also relying on an unnamed analogy: dense forest - dark forest.

The second stanza introduces a directly human image - Bova. In general, the poem has three plans, three images: the forest - Bova - Pushkin. Two of them are named. The third one is only guessed at all the time. Everything relates to it, but it never directly arises. It is revealed through the interaction of the first two. The “image” of Pushkin is created not directly through the interaction of images: the forest - Pushkin, but through the interaction of images: the forest - Bova, as representing him, replacing each other, competing for the right of such representation. By humanizing the forest, the image of Bova brings us unusually closer to another, unnamed person, to Pushkin, but also separates us from him and distances us, turning out to be a new mediation.

At the same time, the fairy-tale image of Bova itself gives the song an epic scope, transforms the song into an epic song, into an epic song. The size of Koltsov’s poem indicates precisely this. The song is written in a complex literary meter. Generally speaking, this is a trochee, but a trochee that has acquired a song character to the maximum extent. “In a song,” wrote I. N. Rozanov, “the run-up, the beginning, is very important. The most melodious of the sizes is the anapest. It should be noted that in popular trochaic songs the first verse often has an unstressed first foot.” And in Koltsov’s “Forest” the trochee loses its first stress. At the same time, although this is close to a song anapest, it is still an “epic” trochee: in Koltsov, anapests are common in poems that have become songs proper, but in his work, as one of the folklorists who studied Koltsov’s poetry notes, we find trochees in his poems , “bookish in essence, but built on a folklore basis; it is in songs for readers.” It can also be noted that song dactylic endings in “The Forest” alternate with strong masculine endings and, so to speak, are restrained by them. Thus, the size is directly related to the special genre of “The Forest” as an epic song, a semi-epic about heroism and the hero.

That Bova is a strongman

Bewitched

With uncovered

Head in battle...

Carlyle said of Burns's poems that they cannot be set to music, for they are music itself. The same can be said about Koltsov (which, of course, does not contradict the fact that composers wrote music to the words of “Forests” - V. Prokunin, D. Usatov, as well as to the words of Burns - Mendelssohn, Schumann). Musical elements reign in Koltsov’s work. They not only express the theme, but also anticipate it. More will be said about Bova’s heroism with all the traditional signs of a knight (cloak, helmet), but even in the stanza just given, a solid, literally cast figure of a hero is created due to a holistic musical sound. The word “Bova” is continued in the internal rhymes of the second line (“bewitched”) and the fourth (“head”). Even deeper connections can be pointed out. The word “bewitched” unites the first and fourth lines not only by rhyming ov (ova-ova-ova), but also by vocalization on l(“a strong man enchanted” – “with his head”). Finally, the final “in battle” with his in bo takes us back to the beginning, to “Bova,” but with phonetic counterpoint: “Bova - in battle.”

And all these lines, creating a single musical flow, are “cut” by the third line: “uncovered”. This line conveys the exhaustion and defenselessness of mighty heroism. It seems that even without knowledge of the language, due to the mere sound of such a verse, one could talk about some other, contrasting semantic meaning. At the same time "uncovered" oh" rhymes with "head in b oh", which holds the verse in the stanza, does not allow this contrasting line to completely break out of the general order.

The image of the “cloud-storm”, only outlined in the first stanza (“back at malsya – gr at stu – zat at beckoned" - an alarming buzzing on at), and again he develops in a dramatic struggle with another principle: a hero, a knight, a warrior. This is another end-to-end phonetic beginning - ra– opens the topic and ends it:

You stand - drooping,

And not p A you're fussing

With fleeting Yu

T at someone's at roar?

G at metropolitan

Your green helmet

B at a whirlwind tore off -

And scattered it in R Oh.

Cloak at fell at his feet

And r A poured out...

You stand - drooping,

And not p A you're fussing.

As for the semantic content of the images, the image of the enemy was also created in the traditions of folk poetry, although the appearance of the compound “cloud-storm”, so characteristic of this poetry, has a purely literary impulse. In its first printed form, the poem was preceded by an epigraph from Pushkin: “Again the clouds are above me // Gathered in silence. // Fate, envious of misfortune // Threatens me again.” It is unlikely that the epigraph was removed by accident. With him, the poem began to approach direct allegory.

The second part of the poem also begins with a question. The newly arisen question intensified the lyrical emotion and brought new heights to the theme of heroism. Belinsky’s words about the heroic power of the Koltsovo “Forest” can be interpreted literally - the image of a hero is created here:

Where did it go?

Speech is high

Proud strength

Royal valor?

Tripleness, tripartiteness determines everything in this work. In developing it, Koltsov on one side drew closer to folk art (a question that arises three times, for example), on the other, he approached a complex three-part composition as a whole, a sonata, symphonic form. And if the first part about the defeated hero is a mournful part, then the second is major, solemn. The unusual grammatical form of the introduction: “where did it go?” turned out to be very appropriate. In itself, this use of “where” in the meaning of “where” is a feature of southern Russian dialects. Koltsov, as you know, widely used local words, vernaculars, sometimes very local ones. There are quite a few of them in “The Forest,” but—a remarkable feature—here the vernacular themselves are used only when they are, so to speak, universally understandable. Such are “bad weather”, and “timelessness”, and “chilling”. Actually, the Ryazan “mayat” (“mayal with battles”) is also known to other dialects. All this creates an indescribable folk flavor, as does “green power,” for example, which is not just a synonym for power and, of course, not the usual “mochen,” but a kind of combination of both. This “power” is polysemantic in the same way as in Tyutchev, for example, the word “helpless” becomes polysemantic by changing just one emphasis: “Alas, that our ignorance is even more helpless...”. “Helpless” means: not only without help, but also without power.

Due to the definition of “green” Koltsov’s “power” also acquires a connotation of a kind of pantheism (cf. “green noise” in Nekrasov, where there is also a return to syncretic perception). In the same row is the definition: “noisy voice.” It is directly related to the peculiarity of southern Russian dialects, where the usual use of “make noise” means “to call”, “to shout”. However, in Koltsov, due to the general context (the “forest is rustling”), it receives a special aesthetic meaning, becoming almost refined in its impressionism, and as a result begins to be justified, perhaps even as a literary norm. Koltsov’s popular sayings are strictly conditioned artistically. Such is the form of “where did it go”, which by its very unusualness, as if archaic, delays, stops, sets the theme, prepares the “big royal exit”.

Hence the solemn triplicity of definitions (“high speech, proud power, royal valor”), associated both with the tradition of folk poetry and with the tradition of three-part prayer formulas. And again it will be repeated three times: “Did you have…”:

Did you have

On a silent night

Song of the Flood

Nightingale?..

Did you have

Days are luxury, -

Your friend and foe

Cooling off?..

Did you have

Late evening

Terrible with a storm

The conversation will go on.

“Pushkin is our everything” is the theme of this second part: day and night, a love song and a battle anthem, “not for everyday excitement,” and “in my cruel age I glorified freedom.” The sameness of the introductions, which are repeated three times according to the canons of folk poetics, unites all the stanzas, and each time gives birth to a new picture, receiving a different musical expression.

First: a night song, the entire melody of which is determined by sonorants, arising on a wave of widely and freely flowing vowels, supported, moreover, by internal rhyme ah-ah:

At your place l, would l O,

IN n very helpless l openly

Behind l ive dog n b

Co l sheep

Another is day: all other sounds are pushed aside by hissing sounds, which here I would like to call effervescent. It’s like Pushkin’s “hissing of foamy glasses and blue flames of punch”, translated by the folk - “cooling off”:

Did you have

Days are luxurious w nature, -

Your friend and foe

Cool and are given?..

And finally, the third theme—of struggle—enters with a menacing roar. (h, g, p):

Did you have

By h bottom of the meeting R ohm

G different from boo R by her

Ra zg the thief will go.

This topic is the main one. It’s not for nothing that she took up six stanzas in a row. Here heroism found direct and genuine expression:

She will open

Black cloud

Will surround you

Wind-cold.

“Go back!

Keep me close!”

She will spin

It will play out...

Your chest will tremble,

You will stagger;

Started up,

You'll get angry:

The storm will cry

We go crazy, like a witch, -

And carries his

Clouds beyond the sea.

The entire battle scene is developed in the tradition of folk poetics. Here there are straight-up fabulous images (“goblin”, “witch”), and characteristic composites (“wind-cold”), and common people’s sayings (“oboyet”), and finally, a daring, coachman’s cry: “Turn back! Keep me close!” Each of these six stanzas carries the theme of either a forest (first, third, fifth) or a storm (second, fourth, sixth): he, she, he, she, he, she. There is a menacing dialogue and clash going on. There is a struggle going on: forests and storms, darkness and light, good and evil, but it is a struggle, a struggle of equals, with varying success, mutual victories, and finally with the apotheosis and triumph of the winner.

The third part begins again with a question:

Where is yours now?

Maybe green?

You've turned all black

Got foggy...

The third part is the finale, the outcome, the resolution, the “death of the gods.” It is not for nothing that the last question also includes the question of the second part (“where did it go”), although here this “where” in the meaning of “where” is more familiar, more literary (“where is yours now”) and returns to the question of the first with its “foggy” .

Again sharply contrasting phonetic sounds give different expressions to different themes:

ABOUT ran wild, deputy O OK…

T O only in the afternoon O year

IN O eat sting O boo

To timelessness.

ABOUT, repeated in every word almost strictly rhythmically ( O in the first syllables of three lines in a row echoes at the endings of each verse), merges into a continuous “howl”, a groan. And the word “timelessness” against this sound background acquires special expressiveness. Timelessness, autumn is a motivation, an explanation, a path to a conclusion. And conclusions appear, results are summed up. The comparison “so-and-so” does not remain only a comparison, but takes on the character of such a conclusion, a result: “So-and-so” forest, “so-and-so” and Bova, “so-and-so” and... Again we are as close as possible to the main, but unnamed to the hero, as much as possible - because this is the last explanation.

So, dark forest,

Bogatyr Bova!

You all your life

It was full of battles.

Didn't master it

you are strong,

So I finished cutting it

Autumn is black.

Again, the human and landscape planes are musically fused with an internal rhyme. And only the “cutting” finally humanizes the picture. Murder in Lermontov: “his killer” instead of the original “his opponent”. Murder at Koltsov’s: “finished it” – robbery.

Koltsov’s folk poetic images express the same meaning as Lermontov’s political invective:

Know while you sleep

To the unarmed

Enemy forces

They surged.

An old folk legend is resurrected (it exists not only among the Slavs, but in Roman and Germanic epics) about the murder of an unarmed sleeping hero, which was not accidentally used by Koltsov. Again, we are talking about murder. And one more thing. After all, it is here that the absolutely strong turns out to be absolutely powerless. Hence these antonymous images:

Alexey Koltsov Ring Song I'll light a candle for Yarov's wax, I'll unsolder the ring of Milolov's friend. Light up, flare up, Fatal fire, melt, melt pure gold. Without it, for me you are not needed; Without it on your hand - A stone on your heart. Every time I look, I sigh, I feel sad, and