The humanistic pathos of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

THE HUMANIST PATHOS OF THE NOVEL

In the alleged decision of the fate of the main novelistic characters - Elena and Langovoi - in the interpretation of the difficult relationship between Vladimir Grigorievich and Martemyanov, the author's humanistic pathos was fully manifested. Of course, in the humanistic aspect, the author also solved the images of underground workers and partisans, "ordinary" people losing loved ones in the terrible meat grinder of war (the scene of the death and funeral of Dmitry Ilyin); the author's passionate denial of cruelty colored the descriptions of the death throes of Ptashka-Ignat Saenko, who was tortured to death in the White Guard dungeon. This is described in monographs about the writer A. Bushmin, L. Kiseleva, S. Zaika and others. We want to emphasize that, contrary to the theory of "socialist humanism", Fadeev's humanistic pathos extended to the heroes of the opposite ideological camp.

Vsevolod Langovoy was rightly brought closer to Alexei Turbin: "The words - motherland, honor, oath were not just words for Langovoy." He cared about "Russian dignity and honor", "prepared himself for great and glorious deeds" and won the right to power over people "by personal valor, intelligence, devotion to duty - as he understood it."

Fate wanted to make him a punisher...

As for every great writer, for Fadeev the class criterion in evaluating a person was not decisive. Langovoi's human charm, his devotion to his beloved woman, and even human weaknesses (in the episode with the "fatal woman" - Markevich's wife) - all this adds up to a living, artistic image.

Fadeev made another attempt to assess the events civil war from a universal standpoint. This is a picture of Canopy Curly's dream, although it smacks of some deliberateness and tinsel. In the confusion of a dream, Senya meets with a cadet whom he had once arrested: “Then, in living life, Senya felt nothing but anger towards the junker, and almost stabbed him, but now, in a dream, Senya ran up to him on the platform and brandished his bayonet - and suddenly he saw that the junker was not at all scary, but he was very young and very frightened, and his face was as simple as that of a shepherd's.He was so frightened and young, this cadet, and he looked so much like a shepherd's boy, that it was impossible to prick him at all, he had to be stroked on the head. Senya even held out his hand but he still could not forget that this was a cadet, and not a shepherd. "No, it's dangerous for us," he said to himself, pulling his hand away. "What's dangerous? - he suddenly thought painfully. - Yes, it's dangerous to sleep!

Nevertheless, this was also the position of the writer, who found the courage to truly romanticize the white officer Langovoy.

THEME UDEGE

In Fadeev's plan, the theme of udege from the very beginning was an integral part of the theme of revolutionary transformation. Far East, but his declarations remained unfulfilled: apparently, the artist's instinct, who dreamed of "closing the day before yesterday and tomorrow of mankind," forced him to delve more and more into the description of the patriarchal world of the Udege. This fundamentally distinguishes his work from the numerous ephemera of the 1930s, the authors of which were in a hurry to talk about the socialist transformation of the national outskirts. Specification modern aspect The idea was outlined by Fadeev only in 1932, when he decides to add to the six planned parts of the novel (only three were written) an epilogue telling about the socialist novelty. However, in 1948 he abandoned this plan, chronologically limiting the idea of ​​the novel to the events of the civil war.

Modern in artistically"Udege pages" of Fadeev's novel can be presented separate edition and, of course, will find its reader. As is known from the confessions of Fadeev himself, the idea of ​​the novel was born under the great influence of F. Engels' book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" and on the basis of the author's personal observations of the life of the indigenous population of the Ussuri region. In part, this theme was traditional. The poetic side of primitive communism, which did not know exploitation and oppression, attracted the attention of many writers and readers, including Cooper's admirers. What Fadeev wrote is a poetic history of the Udege tribes over many generations: their features nomadic life, bonfires of war, years remembered for special successes or misfortunes: the year of smallpox, the year of drought, the year of scurvy ...

In an effort to inscribe the life of a small obscure tribe in world history, into the life of all mankind, Fadeev resorts to the Tolstoyan construction of the phrase, conveying the complex temporal connection of events with the complexity of the syntactic construction:

“In the very year when the Aachen Congress sealed the “Holy Alliance” ... in that very year, in the cold autumn, among people who did not know that anything like this was happening in the world, he was born on the banks of the fast mountain river Columbus, in a cedar yurt Kora, the boy Masenda, the son of the woman Sale and the warrior Aktan from the Gyalondik clan.

This phrase, given by us in a significant reduction, but in fact occupying a whole page, was the subject of the writer's special attention and had numerous variants. She was full of crossed out lines, then again increased due to the introduction of new historical facts and names. Fadeev names Sand, Kotzebue, Maeterlinck, Shelley, Marx, Darwin, Hugo, Monroe, Sheremetiev, Morozov, Napoleon, Owen, Beethoven, Denis Davydov, matching the facts of their life with 1815. Against such a historical background, the writer shows the "age of Masenda", as if emphasizing the involvement of the life of his hero - a representative of an obscure tribe - in the great life of the world.

The tradition and history of the people are connected with the image of Masenda. In his image, the author emphasizes the most traditional milestones in the life of a man and a warrior: the memory of the warm breast of the mother (the Udege breastfed up to seven years); early betrothal(the Udege bride is still in the carriage); trials of hunger, thirst, the danger of a hunting life for seven days and seven nights; kidnapping the girl you like and getting married. Masenda is the personification of the age-old wisdom of the udege, whose voice is listened to by fellow tribesmen. He does not interfere with the new, although he cannot be an active builder of it, like Sarl. In the meeting scene we have already mentioned, Masenda "became a little animated after such a long speech, but immediately his eyes grew dim." This detail is also significant: as soon as Sarl imagined Masenda cultivating the land, his hands dropped.

Unlike Masenda, Sarl is not only the personification of a new generation of udege, but also outstanding personality. He differed from his fellow tribesmen in that he saw every thing, every deed and every person from that special inner side from which others did not see them. That is why Yanched's grandmother, the healer of the Udege people, predicted him to be a healer, and he himself "felt in himself this invisible, seeking and greedy - the most human of all forces - the power of talent, only he considered it divine ..." Similar to the so-called cultural hero ancient epic songs (this likeness is especially noticeable in the rough drafts for the novel), Sarl is obsessed with what was revealed to him in one of his sleepless starry nights and was supposed to change the whole way of life of his people: "Land work no - all Udege die!" More than once in the novel there is a feeling of deep anxiety for the fate of a people doomed to extinction, to lose its own face. "Look at you," he pointed with excitement at a group of basins. .

With deep emotion, Sarl passes through the valley where his people used to live, now driven into the mountains by the Honghuz. For him, these places still kept the memory of the camp with the barking of dogs, of the thin cry of children in the night, of the embroidered Udege caftans flickering in the bushes.

As critics have rightly noted, the image of Sarl is Fadeev’s undoubted success, a truly artistic type, deeply expressing social entity time, the desire of the Udege people to rise to the next step historical development. Sarl responded vividly to the revolutionary events, linking with them the fate of the Udege, their transition to a new settled way of life. Therefore, the hero was able to rise above the interests of only his tribe: he went to reconnaissance on behalf of the Gladkikhs, participated with his detachment in the capture of the coastal city of Olga, he was keenly interested in Martemyanov's message about the upcoming Congress of Soviets. Although the issues that occupy him - the transition to agriculture, the development of gardening, the dream of a hand mill - are almost a thousand years behind the issues of Russian industrial and agricultural production, but they are also a revolution in the life of a nomadic primitive tribe. Solving them requires heroic efforts from Sarl: "He spoke about this matter with that creative excitement, which was probably experienced by the first person who tamed the sacred fire to cook food, and the first person who invented the steam engine." But a positive solution to these issues depended not only on general revolutionary changes, which, unlike other writers of the 1930s, was convincingly shown by Fadeev. In response to the assurances of Martemyanov, representative of the revolutionary government, that the Udege would have land, Sarl excitedly exclaimed: "I tell (Masenda, Kimuk and other elders - L.E.) the land must be worked, do not understand it. Bad, bad!"

The writer wanted to hope that the seeds of Sarl would fall on fertile ground, but involuntarily for himself he captured a situation that can be correctly assessed only taking into account subsequent historical experience: "The earth must work, the mill must work, it must!" These are the words that, according to Sarl, Martemyanov should say to the older generation of the Udege (that is why Sarl says "must" with special emphasis). Now knowing tragic fate small peoples of the Soviet North, the Far East, we enter into a dialogue with the writer, resisting the persistence with which the revolutionary government interfered in the original hunting life, artificially translating the arrows of historical time. Fadeev did not have an understanding of the perniciousness of all the consequences of this "transfer", an understanding that many generations of sarls were needed so that people of his kind could enter a new historical phase. But Fadeev objectively and artistically expressive showed the initial situation, and this is his merit. He wanted to show dramatic fate a small nation caught in the whirlpool of a civil war in the Far Eastern region, as evidenced by the following entry: "When the hunghuzi exterminate the last freedom-loving clans and Sarl dies in battle, his wife, pretending to be dead and covering her son with her body, remains alive and saves her son. Day and the night she carries him in her hands to the north, to relatives ... - she carries the last warrior from the Udege tribe.

SKILLS OF DISCLOSURE OF INO-NATIONAL CHARACTER

The same events in the life of the Udege are covered by Fadeev with different parties, giving the narrative a certain polyphony, and the narrator does not directly declare himself. This polyphony comes through especially brightly because the author has taken three "sources" of illumination of life, which in their totality creates a full-blooded idea of ​​reality. First of all, this is the perception of Sarl - the son of a tribe, standing at a prehistoric stage of development; his thinking, despite the changes that have taken place in consciousness, bears the imprint of mythology. The second stylistic layer in the work is associated with the image of the experienced and rude Russian worker Martemyanov, who understood the soul, ingenuous and trusting, of the Udege people. Finally, a significant role in revealing the world of udege is Sergei Kostenetsky, an intelligent young man with a romantic perception of reality and the search for the meaning of life.

The first two facets of the prism, which form the reader's perception, are easily seen in the episode of rescuing the wounded Martemyanov, who, in an unconscious state, was brought to the Udege camp by Masenda. Here is Sarla's recollection of how Martemyanov was picked up and brought back to life:

“The body lies lifeless by the fire. From under the embroidered hem, heavy, coarse Russian boots stick out ridiculously. People run from the yurts: half-naked boys with goose knees from the cold, narrow-shouldered women, rustling shirts. A restrained voice is heard:

- Yancheda... after grandma Yancheda... run after Yancheda..."

The author is impressed by the poetic thinking of udege. It is characteristic that Sarl recalls the past of the people, "all surrendering to the transparent and light flow of images and feelings, cleared of concepts, colored by the whisper of water and the rhythm of blood." The voice of our contemporary, as it were, merges with the voice of a man who came out of the depths of centuries and brought to the world his most humane. The romantic pathos of the description is felt in its special poetic syntax: "From dark water a tongue-tied bonfire arose - it burned, it burned, it overgrown with people, this distant bonfire of youth.

The story about the same Martemyanov is a tale that conveys the most significant in the events: “I woke up quite at night ... I’m lying, you know, by the fire, the sky is dark, some kind of old woman is near me ... This old man is theirs, Masenda, was in Shimyn.On the way back, he sees - the patrol at the pass ... All day he watched them and just saw everything ... He picked me up and brought me to his people in a boat ... So I tormented with them: and to hunt, and to beam fish, and to fight against the Khunguz!" (From his further story, the reader will learn that, having received someone else's passport, Martemyanov took him with him to the Sarla mine, but he missed the mine for a year and a half and fled).

Romantically excited perception of udege as ancient, warlike people is revealed in the novel thanks to the image of Sergei Kostenetsky. This is largely (but not entirely) autobiographical image. Like Seryozha, Fadeev, together with the deputy pre-revolutionary committee Martynov (in the novel - Martemyanov), in the summer of 1919 went through the villages and villages of the liberated Olginsky district to prepare the First District Congress of Soviets and drew material for the novel primarily from his personal memories. And even from the impressions of adolescence: "Hiking with an overnight stay in makeshift huts (...). Forest fires. Floods. Typhoons. Hunguzes. Golds and udege. A huge wonderful open world." The image of Kostenetsky, however, did not become the alter ego of the author, as is usually the case in a romantic work. The author was well aware that the truth, while understood by Sergei Kostenetsky6, is not the whole truth of the civil war. But in solving the topic of udege, Sergey has a leading role. The following remark of the author-narrator is significant: for more than a month Seryozha wandered around the villages and camps, wandered "in essence, not being interested in them (people - L.E.), considering them as something external, which was created in order to decorate his life The author emphasizes that Kostenetsky is still looking towards the people, not noticing them (unlike Martemyanov, who lived with the Udege for eight years). At the same time, the author is more interested in his perception than perception of Martemyanov. And the point here is not only the autobiographical character of the image, but also the fact that Sergei's first visit to the camp allows us to convey the immediacy, freshness of his perception. In addition, in terms of the way of thinking and upbringing, Kostenetsky was just a hero who made it possible to reveal the look of a European to the exotics of the East.

The constant struggle in the soul of Serezha of romantic moods, interest in the ancient mysterious tribe and, on the other hand, the squeamish attitude of a European intellectual to certain specific aspects of someone else's life is striking in its realistic authenticity and depth of psychological contrasts. Seryozha's night dreams after Martemyanov's story are characteristic: the young man is surrounded by images that have become "as if a continuation of everything that Seryozha saw during the campaign, but not what he considered the most interesting and promising, but just what he tried not to notice, but what, apart from his will, entered his consciousness ... "

The writer has done great job to study the life of the Udege, accumulating material under the following headings: features of appearance, clothing, social structure and family; beliefs, religious beliefs and rituals; explanation of the words of the Udege tribe. The manuscripts of the novel show that Fadeev achieved the maximum accuracy of ethnographic coloring, although in some cases, according to his own admission and the observations of readers, he deliberately deviated from it. He focused not so much on an accurate picture of life, namely given people- udege, how much for a generalized artistic depiction of everyday life and the inner appearance of a person tribal system in the Far Eastern Territory: "... I considered myself entitled, when depicting the Udege people, to also use materials about the life of other peoples," said Fadeev, who at first intended to give the novel the title "The Last of the Tazes."

In the novel, Udege rituals, songs, and beliefs recreate the special atmosphere of tribal life with its characteristic ritual. The fusion of everyday ethnographic materials with the plot and images of the work is organic. "Sarl takes Seryozha around the village and shows him everything - this makes it possible to give a number of ethnographic information" - these lines from Fadeev's notebook reflect the search for the most optimal solution to the problem with the help of the traditional "foreigner motive". Impressive is the depth of disclosure of other national life, predetermined by the peculiarities of multi-ethnic perception.

So Sergei Kostenetsky, who first came to the Udege camp, could not at first even distinguish men from women, “thanks to their identical clothes and pronounced typical features of the face (...). Gradually looking closer, he began to distinguish women. more high cheekbones, almost pentagonal faces, with a more pronounced Mongolian fold of the eyelids and in more colorful clothes.

Unlike the European, who first of all drew attention to racial signs of appearance, the son of this tribe, Sarl, allows the author to note even in a group portrait individual characteristics at least some figures. Saying that the men "sat, mostly with pipes, and some with guns, in pointed leather caps with squirrel tails and red cords, but some without caps and naked to the waist, mostly thin and of medium height", the author singles out the mocker Lurl - with muscles, as if woven from willow, olive from the sun and dirt back. He spoke imperturbably calmly, without a single gesture; after each of his words, people, dropping their pipes, rolled with laughter. He also singles out old Masenda, towering headlong above the rest, not releasing his pipe from petrified lips and laughing with his eyes alone.

But Sarl, however, does not notice such details that have become familiar to him, which, on the contrary, are emphasized in the portrait, filed through the perception of Sergei. Sarl only noted that the women who fussed around the dead animal were in long leather shirts patterned along the side and hem, while Kostenetsky notes that “light knee pads and armlets were patterned with spiral circles depicting birds and animals; on the chest, on the hem and the sleeves were sewn with bright buttons, shells, bells, various copper trinkets, which is why when walking, a quiet rustling ringing came from the clothes.

Sarl does not arouse any enthusiasm for Lyurl's appearance with his "ugly, straight, like a Russian nose, but it arouses Sergey's admiration: his attention was attracted by "a slender copper-faced udege with a flexible and strong waist, silently entering the circle, with thin, obliquely set predatory eyebrows ... With his copper profile with a straight - with trembling nostrils - nose, he evoked in the memory of Serezha (who had read the novels of Cooper - L.E.) a half-forgotten image of an Indian warrior.

Accordingly, Monguli's movements - wild, absurd, funny, even humiliating in the eyes of Serezha - were perceived by the udege with an invariably serious, impassive and concentrated expression.

What was a kind of exotic for the Russian, for Sarl (in his memoirs) becomes a source of deeply poetic feelings, behind which there is a hot filial love to your tribe. This poetry is deeply conveyed both by the music of the phrase itself and by the individual poetic details that complete the description: index fingers, on their hats squirrel tails are golden and the red wind coming from the fire sways the spring foliage over them ... "

The same versatility portrait characteristics characteristic of individual portraits even episodic characters. So, twice in the novel is given a portrait of Sarl's wife - Yanseli. For the first time, he appears before the eyes of a loving Sarl, who has approached the dwelling after a long separation from his wife for the people of his tribe. In his perception, the appearance of a woman merges with the memories of youth. The excitement of Sarl, who listened with ancient reverence full of love and pity the voice of his girlfriend, for a long time he does not dare to enter his home, is conveyed by the author and in a special poetic intonation: Timid and fragile, like a girl, his wife Yanseli from the Kimunk family, with thin black eyebrows open, with an earring in her nose, all humbled with beads that played in an oblique sunbeam cut into squares, squatted on her haunches, pushing her sharp knees apart, and, singing, rhythmically swayed the child in the carriage ... "

When a few days later, Yanseli saw Seryozha, her portrait in his perception was impassive and simply informative: an elderly woman with high cheekbones was squatting, with thin black eyebrows and an earring in her nose.

Leading artistic principle author of "The Last of the Udege" - revealing the pathos of the novel through an analysis of the psychological states of its characters. Russian Soviet literature adopted the Tolstoyan principle of a multifaceted and psychologically convincing depiction of a person of a different nationality, and The Last of the Udege was a significant step in this direction, continuing Tolstoy's traditions (Fadeev especially appreciated Hadji Murad).

The writer recreated the originality of thinking and feelings of a person who is almost at a primitive stage of development, as well as the feelings of a European who fell into a primitive patriarchal world. (By the way, the motive of a stranger, as a form of revealing the national identity of the world depicted by the writer, is updated and modern literary criticism). The plot vicissitudes characteristic of the psychological novel (the meeting of Martemyanov and Seryozha with Sarl, the election of Udege delegates to the insurgent congress) not only satisfy the reader's interest in the development of events, but also explain the psychological nuances and inner experiences of the characters. Thus, the mutual excitement and joy at the meeting of Martemyanov and Sarl, described in the first part, become clear only from the memoirs of Sarl, and even more - later, from the story of Martemyanov, which is again preceded by an exciting meeting between Martemyanov and Masenda. The plot in the novel develops retrospectively, and we are witnessing the plot-conditioned "self-disclosure" of the characters. Sarl's sleepless night, spent alone on the river bank, where his tribe once lived, his memories are understandable: after all, Sarl met Martemyanov the day before. As for Martemyanov, his memories of the same episode - when the Udege rescued him, wounded, could arise much later, during a visit to the village, which vividly recalled the details of the past, and were "fueled" by the need to speak out to his only interlocutor - Sergei Kostenetsky .

Let us trace the return of the narrative to the plot link, which was mentioned earlier. First, a close-up portrait of the main character, Sarl, is given. The development of his portrait characteristics is also determined by the psychology of perception of a European. At first, Sergei, frightened by an unexpected meeting, notices the incredulous look of long slanting eyes and Chinese clothes. The clothes were familiar to Sergei, and a fleeting glance was enough for him to notice a round hat with a thread button on the top, wide trousers made of blue Chinese daba, shod in Chinese ulas, with belts to the knees.

More detailed description The writer gives the appearance of the stranger a little later, when Seryozha was able to examine Sarl in detail. Fadeev depicts not a portrait of the Udege in general, but precisely an individual, only this person's inherent expression of the eyes, a smile, the seal of a firm and proud character. Sarl "was already in years, but still far from old, with strong cheekbones, sparkling dark green eyes, sharp as a sedge, with thin moving lips, now folding into a childish smile, instantly illuminating his bony bronze face, then taking on the former firm and proud expression.

In the future, many portrait features of the heroes become leading in the reconstruction of their image. Sarl's long slanting eyes, his smile, childish, dazzling, instantly illuminating his bony, bronzed face, twitching of his cheek - a sign of a nervous nature, unusual for the people of his tribe, are mentioned by the author more than once. Fadeev, however, is not limited to repeating the original portrait of the character. It seemed that the author, together with his hero, saw everything in Sarl during the first meeting with him, but now Sarl reappears on the pages of the novel, and Fadeev draws a new portrait of him: "braids folded in half, tightly laced, grabbed below the back of the head with a leather jumper and released forward over the collarbones, like two stumps."

The portrait characteristics of the heroes under the pen of Fadeev becomes a means psychological analysis. The "fluidity" of the Udege portrait reflects the change in his moods, thoughts, and feelings. Sarl smiles like a child, recognizing Martemyanov, his courageous face lit up with a dazzling childish smile once again - when talking about his one-year-old son; but as soon as he started talking about the disdainful attitude of whites towards Asians, "the former proud wrinkle - only more dangerous and firmer - appeared in the corners of his lips."

Thus, the portrait of the heroes conveyed the complexity and inconsistency of their character: “Despite the liveliness, even the nervousness that was guessed in him (Sarlet-L.E.), by the way he fiddled with the laces of his shirt with his fingers, and by how nervously his cheek twitched from time to time - he was evidently restrained and cautious.

Big role in disclosure inner world udege plays the gesture. Having learned about the appearance of the Honghuzi, Sarl, out of excitement, began to tie the bag, without noticing it himself; pitying the Russian, who was leaving for the hunghuz, he could not calm down for a long time, he said "tsk-tsk" and shook his head. And after a while, Sarl, remembering the Russian, took a deep breath. Sarl’s excitement in a conversation with Martemyanov (it was about his most cherished dream) is again conveyed by a series of gestures: “Oh, I understand!” Sarl exclaimed, trembling his cheek, and grabbed a button on his shirt with thin, mobile fingers (.. .) He shook his head and gesticulated strongly, fearing that Martemyanov would not understand him - would not understand this cherished deed of his life ... "

The features of Sarl's thinking are superbly revealed, behind which whole generations have lived their lives in close unity with nature, having adopted from her the skills of "reading" the environment. Sarl, frightened at first by the footprint of a horseshoe, immediately realized that if the horse had been close, the boars would not have dared to pass this road. Fadeev conquers Sarl's perfect knowledge of the natural world. Sarl's thought process does not turn into something self-sufficient, the author immediately returns us to the plastic image of the hero living in a certain space and time: The man studying the footprints sighed in relief and wiped his sweaty forehead with his sleeve.

The event did not threaten him or his people."

Fadeev's psychological analysis skillfully connects everyday scenes with the "dialectic of the soul", or rather, reveals this connection. Unlike simple everyday life, which leads to the "overpopulation" of the work with images and paintings, the artistic recreation of psychology and everyday life in their unity strengthens the images, makes them more weighty and typical. Deep knowledge of the life of the Udege people, penetration into their psychology helped the author to thoroughly illuminate the life of a foreign world. The artistic discovery of the writer largely predetermined the development of both Russian and other Soviet literature, opening up new ways in depicting the national identity of characters.

It unites four collections of the poet "Goloseevskaya Autumn" - "A Flock of Veselikov", "In the Shadow of a Lark", "Winter Recordings". For the writer's lyrics recent years characterized by simplicity, clarity, philosophical depth. Not only nature (the collection "Roses and Grapes"), but also the beauty of the human soul excited the artist. , writes M. Rylsky, without a sense of poetry, art cannot be truly happy. Which one should be able to excite a contemporary? In the collection "In the shadow of the lark" in the verse " poetic art' provides an answer to this question:

• Only reaching the slope of the century,
• I understand poetry.
• How great is the simplicity
• Such a unity of exact words.
• When no vain gilding,
• Not any subtle tricks
• There is no place like meanness,
• In a pure and ardent heart.

The problem of man and science has become quite popular in Ukrainian literature since about the 60s. Rylsky, as a poet-philosopher, was also interested in this problem. He often wondered whether scientific discoveries were necessary. top level what role poetry should play in the times of scientific and technical progress. , like our parents, was a witness to the spacewalk of the first man - Yuri Alekseevich Gagarin. After this event, the worldview began to change significantly. It was at the present time that the discussion of lyricists and physicists began. Rylsky, a participant in the discussion, when asked whether the art of the time of space discoveries is necessary, said:

• And I'll add: you can love
• Poetry in the time of rockets.
• Since the strange thing is: every man
• To some extent a poet.
• ("Poem to Album")

Rylsky was embarrassed by the fact that some people left poetry and art at the mercy of technocratic, and even pragmatic, consumerist tendencies, and he, as a humanist poet, fought for the art that contributed to the harmonious development of the individual. In the verse "Dialogue" the poet writes:

• How miserable are you?
• Why did you fall into such decline, tell me,
• What's in the bottom of a space rocket
• The nightingale is unable to understand?

The inner world of man in all its beauty is sung by the author in Goloseevskaya Autumn. According to the poet, the defining feature of an intellectual person should be spirituality. Poetry collection, as they say literary critics, turned towards the inner world, the spiritual life of a person and contributed to the development of this genre, its themes, genres and motives.

The traditional theme of the difficult burden of the past years and its transformation into the praise of life also takes place in the collection. In the verse "How to Forget" the poet wrote:

• It's a pity for the past, a well-known thing,
• Yes, the present will eventually pass...
• But let them beat those teeth on edge
• Who will curse spring in winter.

The last collection of the poet "Winter Recordings" (1964). It strikes the reader with the extraordinary power of the thoughts and feelings expressed in it. As noted by the literary, reading the poems of this collection, the reader immediately plunges into the world of the poet - “pure, quiet”, light crystal. In the verses of the collection - a confession about how he lived, was sick and rejoiced at his restless and restless soul in his declining years. And not bitterly permeated lines of the poet. His heart embraces the joy of what is not lived intentionally. "It smells of snow, hay, horse lot" the artist is excited that, unfortunately, modern man begins to lose touch with nature,” and warns:

• Understand, people, one thing -
• That my tongue cannot lie
• My grandson loves the fragrance of gasoline,
• Well, I'm still not used to it.

In the lyrics of recent years, in particular the last collection "Winter Notes", M. Rylsky, as a real poet-citizen, shames the bearers of those vices that took place in life:

• Brother sellers with white hands
• and with black hearts - here they are,
• What was sent by anonymous letters
• Road to career and ranks!

The final verse of the collection "Traces of small feet in wet snow" is an instant impression of the footprints of a small child seen in the snow. They bring back memories. Especially where an elderly person is acutely aware. These small traces of children's feet in the author's artistic sense became the basis for asserting the eternity of rye. M. T. Rylsky is a poet with a capital letter.

One of the most enchanting childhood memories is the pleasure I experienced when our first grade teacher read aloud to us in class "The Captain's Daughter". These were happy moments, there are not so many of them, and therefore we carefully carry them through our whole lives. Happy is the man who is lucky with his first teacher. I'm lucky.

Alexandra Ivanovna, my first teacher, I carried love and gratitude to her through my whole life.

Already mature man I read Marina Tsvetaeva's notes about Pushkin. It follows from them that the future rebellious poetess, reading The Captain's Daughter, with mysterious pleasure all the time was waiting for the appearance of Pugachev. I had something completely different. I waited with the greatest pleasure all the time for the appearance of Savelich.

This hare sheepskin coat, this reckless love and devotion to his Petrusha. Incredible touch. Is Savelich a slave? Yes, he really is the master of the situation! Petrusha is defenseless against Savelich's all-encompassing despotic love and devotion to him. He is helpless against her because he good man and understands that despotism comes from love and devotion to him.

Still almost a child, listening to the reading " captain's daughter”, I felt the comic inversion of the psychological relationship between the master and the servant, where the servant is the true master. But precisely because he is infinitely devoted and loves his master. Love is the most important thing.

It is evident that Pushkin himself longed for such love and devotion, perhaps nostalgically dressed Arina Rodionovna in Savelich's clothes.

The main and invariable sign of the success of a work of art is the desire to return to it, re-read it and repeat the pleasure. Due to life circumstances, we may not return to our favorite work, but the very hope, the dream of returning to it warms the heart, gives vitality.

How easy it is to rob, deceive a cultured person in life, so much more difficult to rob him in spiritually. Having lost a lot, almost everything, a cultured person, in comparison with an ordinary person, is stronger in resisting life circumstances. His riches are stored not in a capsule, but in a bank of the world spirit. And having lost a lot, he can say to himself and says to himself: I can still listen to Beethoven, re-read The Cossacks and Tolstoy's War and Peace. Not all is lost.

Reading Dostoevsky in his youth made a tremendous impression. I still believe that a person who has read Crime and Punishment is much less capable of killing another person than a person who has not read this novel. And the point is not that Dostoevsky speaks of the fair punishability of a crime.

The fact is that Dostoevsky in this novel unfolds before our eyes the grandiose mental complexity of man. The more clearly we understand the psychic complexity of a living being, the more difficult it is to destroy it.

A normal person can cut down a tree, in a way feeling pity for it, with an even greater feeling of pity, but overcoming it, he can slaughter an animal in order to use its meat, but before killing a person for normal person an invisible but well-felt wall rises - this is the very mental complexity of a person. Man is too complex to be killed. When you kill a person, you kill too much along with him, and above all your soul.

Killing a person is, in miniature, the destruction of life on Earth. The professional killer himself is mentally primitive, almost like an animal, and therefore he does not see much difference between killing a person and an animal.

Once I asked our famous priest and theologian Father Alexander Men, who was later brutally murdered with an ax:

Have you ever had to kill?

Once I killed a bumblebee, - he said with regret, - was annoyed, and he stuck to me too much.

He was a man of great religious and secular culture.

A few more words about Dostoevsky. The faces of his heroes are, as it were, faintly illuminated by the still distant, but already begun fire of a worldwide catastrophe. And they, his heroes, intuitively feel the approach of this catastrophe, rush, choke, tear themselves up, quarrel, trying to save their souls or trying, like Father Karamazov, to enjoy life before this catastrophe. The impending catastrophe strengthens the feeling of life in his heroes a hundredfold. Brilliant insights coexist with a garbage stream of words. Dostoevsky's heroes have too little time to speak concisely, aphoristically. Too little time is left before the catastrophe, too many questions have not yet been resolved, and the state of pre-catastrophic truth dooms his heroes to choking verbosity. Otherwise, it would not be true enough.

This is the basis of Dostoevsky's style. The pre-catastrophic state of the heroes. Dostoevsky's life itself: the scaffold, hard labor, the expectation of seizures worked out his furious pre-catastrophic style.

In general, one's own style is the absolute, the only, final truth every true writer.

No matter how clever or eloquent this or that writer may be, but if we do not feel him own style, which picks us up, means that this writer does not have the highest spiritual truth, for the sake of which he writes. The presence of his own style, his own handwriting of the writer invariably makes any of his fantasies true. The absence of his own style invariably makes any of his truths an empty fantasy. Style cannot be worked out artificially, just as a sail cannot be worked out by the wind that blows it. A writer can, like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, say a thousand contradictory things, but if all this is carried along in line with his style, then it is all true.

In this connection, I recall an episode recorded by Gorky of his conversation with Leo Tolstoy. I only vouch for the meaning.

That woman is terrible, - said Tolstoy, - who holds her husband by the soul.

But in the Kreutzer Sonata,” Gorky recalled, hinting at a completely different matter given to us in sensations, “you had in mind the exact opposite place.

I am not a finch to sing the same song all the time,” Tolstoy answered.

Before that, they were talking about finches.

All world literature I divide into two types - the literature of the home and the literature of homelessness. The literature of achieved harmony and the literature of longing for harmony. Of course, while the quality literary work depends not on what type of literature this is, but on the strength of the artist's talent.

Interestingly, in Russian literature, these two types of artists often appeared in the form of a double, almost simultaneously.

So Pushkin and Lermontov - achieved harmony (Pushkin) and great longing in harmony (Lermontov). The same pair: Tolstoy - Dostoevsky. In the twentieth century, the most striking couple: Akhmatova - Tsvetaeva.

Literature at home has that simple human feature that one would like to live next to its heroes, you are under the roof of a friendly home, you are sheltered from world storms, you are next to friendly, sweet hosts. And here, in a hospitable and comfortable house, you can think with the owner of the house both about the fate of the world and about the actions of world storms.

The literature of homelessness has no walls, it is open to world storms, it seems to test you in the conditions of a real tragedy, you are fascinated, drawn in by the vision of the abyss of life, but you do not want to always live next to this abyss. However, this largely depends on the nature of the reader.

Literature at home is predominantly wisdom (Pushkin, Tolstoy). The literature of homelessness is predominantly mind (Lermontov, Dostoevsky).

Wisdom immediately embraces the whole environment, but does not see very far, because it is not necessary to see far, because, seeing everything around, wisdom is convinced that a person is a person everywhere and the passions of a person around are the same.

The mind has a narrower horizon, but sees much further. So, Dostoevsky saw the distant demons and rushed at them in a rage, like a bull at a red rag.

Literature at home is always much more detailed, because here the world is a home and one cannot help touching and naming the housewares dear to the creator's heart.

The literature of homelessness does not detail anything, except for the diversity of its homelessness, and what kind of dear details of life can be when there is no home.

On the other hand, the literature of homelessness is much more dynamic, it greedily seeks harmony and in search of this harmony constantly speeds up its steps, turning into a run, and sometimes, taking off from the ground, flies.

Dostoyevsky's insane unrestraint - and Tolstoy's powerful slow rhythm. How dynamic Tsvetaeva and how static Akhmatova! Both are great poets. Akhmatova - literature at home. Tsvetaeva - literature of homelessness. And immediately, from early youth, she was designated as such, although she was born and lived in a comfortable professorial house.

Both poets are people of tragic fate. But one of them immediately became a poet at home, and the other a poet of homelessness.

To a certain extent, Akhmatova and Tsvetaeva act in the twentieth century as Pushkin and Lermontov. And we kind of guess that if it weren’t for fatal circumstances, Pushkin would have lived long life and would die a natural death. Lermontov, too, would have lived much longer, but his tragic end was a foregone conclusion.

Of course, in perfect pure form these two types of literature are almost non-existent. But as two powerful tendencies, they are real. They need each other and will coexist forever.

There are mysterious phenomena in the history of the development of world culture. One of these phenomena I consider the presence in the Mohammedan world great poetry but the absence, at least until recently, of great prose.

We, for example, know how rich Persian poetry is, but where is the prose? Where is the great psychological novel?

I think it's a Christian thing European art. Although Tolstoy wrote that all religions say the same thing, yet each has its own essential connotation.

Christianity places the utmost importance on life human soul. The whole person is a soul. Either a person, by the purity of his soul, achieves its immortality, or destroys his soul with a sinful life, or, having realized his sin, through repentance he achieves the recovery of the soul. Christianity at its core in the Gospel has already considered all the combinations of a person's spiritual life and the way of its salvation.

Christian culture in literary development could not but be imbued with this basis of Christian thought. But how can the state of the human soul be expressed in a story or in a novel? The only means is to depict the mental life of a person. Outside of the image of a person's mental life, it is impossible to understand his soul. Gradually this became a literary tradition, and in the nineteenth century it reached its full development in the European and Russian psychological novel or short story. And already talented, but atheistically minded writers could not do without a deep depiction of the mental life of a person. Such is our Chekhov. Being an atheist, he purely musically caught and superbly recorded the action of the gospel story on common man. And all serious Russian and European literature is an endless commentary on the gospel. And this comment will never end. All pseudo-innovative attempts to do without ethical tension, without understanding where is up, where is down, where is good, where is evil, are doomed to failure and oblivion, because the artist’s job is to draw a clear meaning from the chaos of life with the will to good, and not to add to the chaos of life the chaos of his own own soul.

We say: this picture is poetic, this story or poem is poetic. But what does it mean? Of course, this means that they are talented. But what is the essence of the talent itself? Talent is inexplicable, like God, but God is explainable by the inexplicability of talent.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that true talent can illuminate this or that picture of life with the light of eternity, knows how to tear it out of life and show it against the background of eternity. We rejoice in such a work of art, often without realizing the reason for the joy. We say to ourselves: “How alive! How accurate! How true!

And all this is true, but not completely. In fact, we admire this liveliness, truthfulness, accuracy, because all this shines through eternity. We are pleased and encouraged by the duality of its existence. The picture pleases us here, because at the same time there. She is just as happy here as she is there.

We feel that beauty is eternal, that the soul is immortal, and our own soul rejoices at this chance. The artist comforts us with the truth of his art. Art has two themes: appeal and consolation. But in the final analysis, the call is also a form of consolation.

If it is easy to understand why Tolstoy's Natasha fascinates us as eternal femininity, it would seem more difficult to understand why such a swindler as Nozdryov also pleases us in his own way, we laugh at how truthfully Gogol draws him.

We feel that human absurdity in the person of Nozdryov is also eternal and doomed to eternal artistic, and not just fable exposure.

Several times in my life, when I met an absurd crook who tried to foist something on me, I began to explode with indignation and suddenly remembered: Lord, this is Nozdryov, how exactly he repeats it!

And strange as it may seem, the strength of the indignation weakened, I only tried to move away from him, which was also not easy, because the newly-minted Nozdryov himself did not understand that I had already guessed Nozdryov in him. All this became ridiculous, because the newly appeared Nozdryov, not realizing that he had already been exposed, persisted, and the more he persisted in fraud, the more phenomenal his resemblance to Nozdrev, already described, became phenomenal.

The ingenious creator of human types, as it were, guesses the eternal chemical composition of this type, forcing him to act in the same way in any historical circumstances. Lord, we think there serfdom, and here socialism or capitalism, and Nozdryov is still the same.

Our knowledge of Gogol is part of our culture and, as we see, knowledge of culture is comforting. We say to ourselves: this is Nozdryov, and Nozdryov cannot act otherwise. And this same culture tells us how illusory any social experiments are, in which the alleged Nozdryovs will disappear. Social criticism of that time quite erroneously decided that Gogol created a satire on feudal Russia. In fact, Gogol, if in " Dead souls"and created a satire, then this is a satire on all of humanity, although human types Naturally, like a Russian writer, he has a national physiognomy. We feel the eternity in which Gogol placed his heroes as a mighty moral sky, under which his heroes are seen as especially flattened and ridiculous. But the reader all the time feels this mighty moral heaven inside Gogol's works and ultimately laughs, but also pities them.

In our other famous satirist, Zoshchenko, we do not feel, and he himself does not see, any moral sky above the heads of his heroes. Therefore, his works are perceived as very thinly fictionalized scientific essays, something like anti-Darwinism, incredibly funny stories about the transformation of a man into a monkey. Zoshchenko's hopelessness is so great that it ceases to be even pessimism, which, regretting the remoteness of man from the pole of good, nevertheless recognizes his bipolarity.

I want to make a suggestion that may seem paradoxical. The genius of the nation gives the most flourishing appearance to the weakest, most backward forms of national life. This, perhaps, subconsciously affects the noble pathos of the treatment of the nation, if this is at all possible.

I think that in the general historical perspective it is possible. The great humanistic pathos of the Russian classical literature generally recognized. Thomas Mann called Russian literature a saint. But isn't this the reaction of a national genius to cruelty? Russian life, trying to treat her?

Great German philosophy and great german music, the most celestial forms of culture, is it not a reaction to the too practical, mundane German life?

The famous sober French mind, what Blok called "a sharp Gallic sense", is not it a reaction to French frivolity?

The national genius, as it were, says to his nation: “Get up! It's possible. I have shown that it is possible!”

You can say to the average person of any nation: “Tell me who your national genius is, and I will tell you who you are. Just the opposite."

National genius has another paradoxical property. How the French influenced Pushkin - we know. We know how Schiller influenced Dostoevsky. We know how Dostoevsky influenced all the latest world literature.

To ripen the great national writer, it needs to be cross-pollinated. It turns out that a preliminary condition for in-depth national self-knowledge is the knowledge of someone else's, the inoculation of someone else's. The existence of a national genius proves that peoples must strive for rapprochement. What liberal politics(the idea of ​​​​rapprochement of peoples) seeks to prove rhetorically, culture has long proved in practice.

The poet's word has a mysterious, mystical power over him and his destiny. Remembering the poems of Russian poets of the first row, I cannot name a single one who would write about suicide. Nobody but Mayakovsky, Yesenin and Tsvetaeva. And all three committed suicide.

What is the connection between the poetic word and the poet's life? Apparently, it is huge, but we cannot fully understand it. Materialistically, this can be explained as follows: these tragic poets too often hung over the abyss and sooner or later, according to the theory of probability, had to fall into it. And they broke. I think this explanation is not convincing enough. A more tragic fate than Dostoevsky's is hard to imagine. He not only sometimes, but all his life consciously hovered over the abyss, but he never sought to end his life. He passionately studied the abyss, knowing for sure that humanity itself would soon hang over it. And he, studying the abyss, was looking for a means to save him.

A poet, like any person, may experience unbearable pain, disgust for life, a desire to end this pain.

But, apparently, there is a grandiose difference between the desire to end this life and its fixation in a poetic work. The devil grabs this poem and runs to his superiors, as if with a certificate: “Here is his signature! He wanted to!" The devil generally loves references.

The poet's word is the essence of his work. Having fixed in the poem the desire to leave this life and continuing to live, the poet subconsciously turns into a shameful defaulter of his debt. And conscience explodes sooner or later: I write one thing, but I live differently. There is only one way out: the penitential curse of that fatal poem, but the curse is also fixed in the poetic work.

And it is even better never to poetically record the desire for death either to relatives, or to the homeland, to anyone. Even if such a desire arises.

It turns out that I oppose the sincerity of the poet? Yes, I oppose the poet's sinful sincerity. Insincerity is always disgusting. But sometimes sincerity is disgusting if it is sinful.

If life seems impossible, there is a more courageous solution than ending life. A person must say to himself: if life is really impossible, then it will stop by itself. And if it does not stop, then it is necessary to endure the pain.

So destined. Everyone who has endured great pain knows with what amazing freshness life is revealed to him after that. This is a gift of life itself for loyalty to it, and maybe even an approving nod from God.

In connection with all this, I would like to say a few words about the so-called Silver Age of Russian literature. We have it now immeasurably praised. Of course, the great Blok lived at that time, the great Bunin, who, by the way, had a prophetic disgust for this silver age, there were other talented writers.

But silver Age brought to our culture, to our people immeasurably more evil than good. It was a time of the most unbridled passion for permissiveness, for insignificant mysticism, for savoring human weaknesses, and most importantly, an all-devouring curiosity for evil, even supposedly self-sacrificing calls to the devilish power, which will appear and destroy everything.

Bryusov's most sincere and probably most powerful poem, The Coming Huns, perfectly demonstrates the ideology of the Silver Age.

Where are you, future Huns,

What cloud hung over the world?

I hear your cast-iron clatter

Through the yet undiscovered Pamirs.

And the poem ends like this:

Perhaps disappear without a trace

What was known to us alone.

But you, who will destroy me,

I greet you with a welcoming anthem!

What a suicidal anthem, what a complicated man, many readers of that time enthusiastically thought. But Bryusov is a man, although talented, quite uncomplicated, but on the contrary, primitive and even with a primitive cunning that the Huns will take into account his anthem. And the Huns, having appeared, really took this hymn into account and spared Bryusov himself and even slightly exalted him.

Let's talk about disgust. This topic is especially relevant in today's Russia. Where did she even come from?

Imagine a missionary in a savage camp. He has already mastered the fire and is so civilized that he eats fried meat. He greedily sends smoking pieces to the family. Either from the smoke, or from a cold, his nose suddenly ran. The savage felt an unpleasant tickling under his nose and, in order to relieve this tickling, without interrupting the pleasant occupation, smeared another piece of meat under his nose and put it in his mouth.

And then our missionary tries to explain to him that he is not doing well. He plucks a lop-eared leaf from a nearby bush, brings it closer to his own nose (the handkerchief is too difficult) and shows how it should have been done. The savage listens attentively to him, and suddenly, with crushing intelligence, says:

But this does not change the taste of fried meat!

Indeed, the missionary is forced to admit that for a savage, this does not change the taste of roasted meat.

Disgust is the fruit of civilization and culture. This is easily confirmed by the example of a child. Small child in a state of semi-rationality, like a small savage, he pulls into his mouth everything that comes to his hand. Later, taught by the people around him, he learns the level of disgust of his time.

How obvious that the physical disgust of a person develops along with civilization, and what a drama of mankind, that moral disgust develops much more slowly, although its very development may seem controversial to many.

But I suppose that moral squeamishness in man developed along with religion and culture. Are we not most indebted to the gospel for our disgust with betrayal? The image of Judas has become a household word. And although the flow of denunciations is still powerful enough, would it not be even more powerful if people did not shudder, likening themselves to Judas?

The present piece of art can not do without ethical tension. Reading real literature, we not only enjoy beauty, but also unwittingly develop moral muscles in ourselves. And this, roughly speaking, is the practical use of culture.

But culture is fraught with its own tragedy. To those who need it most, to the broad masses of the people, it reaches slowly, too slowly. It seems that the smallest dose of culture creates a saturated solution among the people and everything else precipitates. Culture is mainly used cultured people, and it turns out that culture devours itself. This is her tragedy.

How to overcome it is a question of tremendous complexity, which society as a whole and the state must try to solve. Technical development the human mind has burst forward, has broken away from culture and threatens humanity with death either at the hands of terrorists, or at the hands of an insane dictator who has mastered atomic weapons. Or simply from the new barbarism of the permissiveness of pseudo-culture, which the people are stuffed with stupid books and means mass media and which the people actively absorb both because it is primitive and because it encourages base human instincts. Showing moral squeamishness, we must already today fight this pseudo-culture more mercilessly.

The position of the people is even more dramatic than the position of culture itself. The peoples of the world are losing the moral norms of their traditions, developed over thousands of years, and, as I have already said, they are hardly assimilating a true universal culture. It is no coincidence that terrorism in the world has assumed an international character. I am sure that dashing militants played a role in this. Peoples are leaving their folk culture and do not come to the universal. To the question: "Can you read?" - one of Faulkner's heroes replies: “I can print it. And so no.

It has long been observed that complete illiteracy is morally superior to semi-literacy. This also applies to the intelligentsia.

... In connection with the upcoming rudeness. A small example, as the leader liked to say. As far as I remember from the literature, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the word "impudence" had a negative connotation.

They said: “The cook got cheeky. I had to send him to the stable."

Already in Dahl, of course, in connection with the development of a living language, this word has two almost opposite meanings. Audacity is extraordinary courage. Insolence - extraordinary arrogance and rudeness.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the positive meaning of this word has essentially become the only one. The more rudeness won in life, the more beautiful this word looked in literature. And it is already impossible for him to return the original meaning. Sometimes people don't notice comic effect, contrast this word with its original meaning. “Insolent, but how impudent,” is sometimes said, not without admiration.

Thus, the word "impertinence" is a small philological victory for great rudeness.

Here is the mathematical definition of talent. Talent is the number of contact points of contact with the reader per unit of literary space. The Onegin stanza gives us the largest number contact points, and that is why "Eugene Onegin" is the most brilliant poem of Russian literature.

Pushkin gave us an amazingly accurate description of the very state of inspiration. But where it comes from, he did not say.

I will say simply: inspiration is the reward for the exacting honesty of an artist. The believer would clarify - the reward of God. An atheist would say: the reward of our moral nature. To which a believer might ask: where did your moral nature come from? But this debate is eternal.

When we have a truly talented work in front of us, it is always subjectively honest, but the scope of the truth depends on the strength of talent, and knowledge of the subject, and the ideal of honesty that has been developed by this writer. Inspiration throws the writer to the pinnacle of his ideal. But the peaks of Leo Tolstoy's ideal, or simply good writer Pisemsky are on different levels, and here our own honesty in measuring their achievements must take this into account. Tolstoy sees everyone from his height and is therefore visible to everyone. It's just that a gifted writer from his height also sees something and is visible to some people. Moreover, some parts of the opening landscape can be seen by a gifted writer. better than a genius. Only I am afraid that this consolation of mine would not have stopped Salieri. Extreme.

Inspiration may err, but it cannot lie. To be more precise, everything truly inspired is always truly truthful, but the addressee may be false. Imagine a poet who wrote a brilliant poem about the life-giving rationality of the movement of the luminary from west to east. Can we enjoy such a poem knowing that it does not conform to the laws of astronomy? Of course we can! We enjoy the plasticity of the description summer day, we even enjoy the charm of the poet's gullibility: as he sees, so he sings!

Such mistakes do happen, but they are relatively rare, because inspiration in general is an obsession with truth, and at the moment of inspiration the artist sees the truth in all its fullness. But the obsession with truth most often comes to those who think about it the most.

I will say this: there is a miserable prejudice that when you sit down to write, you must write honestly. If we sit down to write with the thought of writing honestly, we are too late to think about honesty: the train has already left.

I think that for a writer, as, apparently, for any artist, the first major act of creativity is his very life. Thus, the writer, sitting down to write, only adds to what has already been written by his life. Written by his personal life has already determined the plot and the hero in the first act of his work. Then you can only add.

The writer not only, like any other person, creates in his head an image of his worldview, but invariably reproduces it on paper. He cannot reproduce anything else. Everything else is stilts or someone else's inkwell. This is immediately evident, and we say - this is not an artist.

That's why real artist intuitively, and then consciously, builds his worldview as a will to goodness, as an endless process of self-purification and purification environment. And this is the build-up of ethical pathos, earned own life. And the writer simply has no other source of energy.

Viktor Shklovsky wrote somewhere that an ordinary person simply physically could not rewrite War and Peace so many times in his entire life. Of course he couldn't, because ordinary person there was no such first grandiose act of creativity as the life of Tolstoy, which gave rise to this energy.

It is natural for a living person to err, to stumble. Naturally, the same is true for the writer. Can the writer's life, which in the first act of life itself passed as a mistake and delusion, become the subject of depiction in the second act of creation on paper?

Maybe only if the second act is a repentant description of this delusion. The sincerity of repentance generates the energy of inspiration. I would have nothing against a pre-planned delusion, but this is an empty number, and no creative energy is released.

One of the most harmonious poets of the world, Pushkin, lived in Russia. Never again repeated among us - the great and wise Pushkin's balance. However, harmony in Russian life has not yet succeeded in any way. And never succeeded. Was, they say, Peter the Great. Maybe a genius, but as a person the embodiment of the most extreme extremes. And there was not a single harmonic king, not to mention general secretaries.

However, it seems that under Catherine there was some kind of balance: she exhausted her husband, but introduced potatoes. This our scientist Gretchen was very fond of military leaders and greatly brought them closer to her. In general, under Catherine, every brave military man had a chance to be very close. Perhaps that is why, they say, Russia under Catherine waged the most successful wars. She introduced the principle of self-interest into the army. No, Pushkin's wise balance does not work here either.

How so? There was the greatest harmonic poet in Russia, but there never was harmony. But since Pushkin was in Russia, it means that harmony in Russia is, in principle, possible. Why is she not? It turns out that we did not read Pushkin well. Especially politicians.

I would suggest, as a joke, similar to the truth, that the future politicians of Russia, with their hand on a volume of Pushkin, take an oath to the people that before every serious political decision they will re-read Pushkin in order to bring themselves into a state of wise Pushkin balance.

In the poem "Monument" (1836), Pushkin sets out a kind of creative program, indicates what his pathos was aimed at.

I erected a monument to myself not made by hands, A folk path will not overgrow to it ...

Pushkin in the very first lines proclaims the main value and measure of the work of any poet - nationality. What exactly the nationality consists of, Pushkin reveals further.

And for a long time I will be so kind to the people, That I awakened good feelings with my lyre, That in my cruel age I glorified freedom And called mercy to the fallen.

These lines affirm the humanistic idea of ​​creativity. The poet, according to Pushkin, should try to make people better, not reproach them for ignorance and darkness, but indicate where they should move. And here the artist must listen only to the dictates of his own heart:

By the command of God, oh, muse, be obedient, Do not be afraid of resentment, not demanding a crown, Accept praise and slander with indifference And do not dispute the fool.

Characteristic in this regard is the poem "The Poet and the Crowd" (1928), where Pushkin shows his antipode, a poet who does not want to condescend to the people.

The poet on the lyre with an inspired hand rattled with an absent-minded hand.

And the stupid mob explained: “Why does he sing so sonorously? Striking the ear in vain, To what end does it lead us? What is he babbling about? what does it teach us? Why does the heart worry, torment, Like a wayward sorcerer? Like the wind, its song is free, But, like the wind, it is fruitless: What use is it to us? »

Be silent, senseless people, Laborer, slave of need, worries! ..

To the poet's reproaches, the mob replies:

No, if you are chosen from heaven, Your gift, divine messenger, Use for our good: Correct the hearts of your brothers, We are cowardly, we are treacherous, Shameless, evil, ungrateful;

Vices nest in us in a club. You can, loving your neighbor, Give us bold lessons, And we will listen to you.

To this the poet replies:

Go away - what does the Peaceful Poet care about you! In debauchery, stone boldly, "The voice of the lyre will not revive you!

Not for worldly excitement, Not for self-interest, Not for battles,

We were born for inspiration, For sweet sounds and prayers.

Pushkin argues with the point of view of the poet. "Mobile" in the understanding of the poet-antipode in this poem differs sharply from the views of Pushkin himself and is opposite to them. Ignorance, the darkness of the people, according to Pushkin, is not a vice. This state of the people is not the result of a conscious choice, the people do not have the opportunity to be enlightened, to improve their morals, which is why he asks the poet to show him the right path. The "rabble" in Pushkin's understanding is, first of all, the one who deliberately remains in the dark, who makes a choice in favor of vice, who deliberately does evil. It is here that Pushkin's "secular mob" belongs, which has the opportunity to be enlightened, which is perfectly aware of what is moral and what is immoral, but consciously makes a choice in favor of immorality. The poet, according to Pushkin, is always ahead of his contemporaries, they are not able to fully understand him. The crowd is subject to the trends of the time, fashion and so on. That is why the poet is initially doomed in his ministry to loneliness and should not expect rewards for his ministry. He himself, sensitively listening to the world around him, is the measure of the truth of his creative search. illustrative example to that - the poem "To the Poet" (1830), written in the form of a sonnet:

Poet! do not value the love of the people. Enthusiastic praise will pass a moment's noise; You will hear the court of a fool and the laughter of the cold crowd, But you remain firm, calm and gloomy. You are the king: live alone. Go along the free path, where the free mind leads you, Improving the fruits of your favorite thoughts, Not demanding rewards for the noble. They are in you. You are your own highest court;

You know how to appreciate your work more strictly.

Are you satisfied with them?

Demanding artist?

Satisfied? So let the crowd scold him

And spits on the altar where your fire burns

And in childish playfulness your tripod shakes.

However, awareness of one's vocation, one's firm belief in the correctness of the chosen path is not all. Pushkin is tormented by doubts about how tangible and real the impact of the prophet (poet) on people. Periods of optimism are replaced by moments of despair, when the poet sees that people are still stagnant in evil and unrighteousness. Typical example- the poem "Liberty sower of the desert ...", written in 1823:

Desert sower of freedom, I went out early, before the star; With a pure and innocent hand Into the enslaved reins I threw a life-giving seed - But I only lost time, Good thoughts and labors ... Graze, peaceful peoples! The cry of honor will not wake you up. Why do the herds need the gifts of freedom? They must be cut or sheared. Their legacy from generation to generation is Yarmo with rattles and a scourge.

The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment", like most of the other works of this author, can be attributed to the most complex works of Russian literature. Events develop slowly, but the author keeps the reader in constant suspense, forcing him to delve into scrupulous psychological research.

Dostoevsky creates a terrible picture of the life of people in Russia in the middle of the nineteenth century. His heroes are disappointed, driven, crushed by their own impotence and lack of rights. Main character The novel sees that worthy people live in poverty, and scoundrels enjoy all the blessings of life.

Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that he is allowed to transgress the moral laws of society and commit murder, which he justifies with the aim of helping the destitute.

But everything changes when feelings are added to the voice of reason. Raskolnikov did not take into account the main thing - the warehouse of his own character and the fact that murder is contrary to the very nature of man. From the moment when the first doubt arose in the soul of the hero, a gradual but persistent debunking of Raskolnikov's idea begins.

Raskolnikov is not a cold-blooded killer, but a criminal philosopher, doubting and suffering. So, the dream he saw before the crime reveals to the reader the true state of mind of Rodion. dream hero, a little boy, becomes a witness to the beating of a nag by a cruel owner. Dostoevsky thickens and intensifies to the extreme the emotions that tear apart the soul of an unfortunate student. Waking up and remembering the planned murder, Raskolnikov himself is horrified by his thoughts. Even then he understands that he will not stand it, that it is disgusting and disgusting. But, on the other hand, he wants to rise above the owners of the poor nag, become stronger than them and restore justice.

Almost giving up the idea of ​​murder, he returns to her again, having heard the conversation between a student and an officer in a tavern. Raskolnikov is struck by the similarity of his own thoughts with the thoughts of a student, and the words about the number of sufferers who can be helped by killing the old pawnbroker leave a special impression. And then Raskolnikov takes up the axe. Punishment for this follows immediately. He, having raised his weapon against evil and in the name of the unfortunate, lowers it on the head of the unfortunate one. Lizaveta is just that destitute, defenseless, who did not raise her hands to protect her face, for whose happiness he is fighting. Not remembering himself, Rodion returns home, and does not go to the police, and thereby dooms himself to additional suffering. Begins new stage in his life - alienation from people. Having crossed moral laws, Raskolnikov acutely feels the impossibility of staying with people. The difficult situation of Raskolnikov, his terrible loneliness, is aggravated by the fact that the fallacy of his theory begins to open to him. While this happens only on a subconscious level, but what the hero only feels, the writer openly tells us.

Raskolnikov's theory is exposed in conversations with the investigator, who already understood what happened and psychologically figured out the killer. Here the student has to defend his idea for the first time. This task for Raskolnikov is complicated by the fact that his confidence in his own rightness has already noticeably shaken. Porfiry Petrovich drives the killer into a corner, cleverly and ironically ridicules. He convinces him that in order to become famous, one should not belittle others: “... it's about yourself. Become the sun, everyone will see you. In other words, the achievement of lofty goals should be based only on the bright, kind, humane. Suffering, Porfiry Petrovich believes, is the main source of redemption.

The embodiment of this idea in the novel was Sonya. She is not able to understand the philosophical research of the hero, but she understands the main thing - he is unhappy, and he needs her. Raskolnikov sees a saint in Sonya and kisses her feet, saying that he bows to all human suffering. She teaches him the faith: they read the Gospel together, and Raskolnikov accepts the faith as Sonya understands it.

Their only salvation is in love for each other, for God, for their neighbors. Having been ill with Bonapartism, Raskolnikov returns to the people, feeling that they need him. This is only the beginning of the happiness that awaits them with Sonya. The writer says that he will still have to pay a big price for him, and promises to devote another book to the birth of a new man.

The novel, which tells about the murder and suffering of people, has an unexpectedly bright end. A person who, it would seem, has descended to the most terrible, having taken the theory that presupposes the destruction of other people as the basis of his existence, experienced a strong shock and was transformed. The main idea of ​​the novel is Christian: even a small inhumanity is terrible and will certainly lead to inhumanity in a larger one, therefore the main principle of everyone's life should be love. Only then will people be able to acquire a truly human appearance and become happy.