Nikolai Dobrolyubov - biography, information, personal life. Nikolay Dobrolyubov “The Real Life and Nature of Children...”

(25 years)

Nikolay Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov(January 24 (February 5), Nizhny Novgorod - November 17 (29), St. Petersburg) - Russian literary critic of the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, poet, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous nicknames -bov And N. Laibov, did not sign with his full real name.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 1

✪ N.A. Nekrasov - In Memory of Dobrolyubov (read by Y. Smolensky) // Pages of Russian poetry of the 18th-20th centuries

Subtitles

Biography

Born into the family of the priest of the Nizhny Novgorod St. Nicholas Verkhne Posad Church, Alexander Ivanovich Dobrolyubov (1812-08/06/1854), known for secretly marrying P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky. Mother - Zinaida Vasilievna, née Pokrovskaya (1816-03/08/1854).

From the age of eight, seminarian of the philosophical class M.A. Kostrov studied with him, who later married his student’s sister. Since childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry, so at the age of thirteen I translated Horace.

Having received good home training, in 1847 he was immediately admitted to the last year of the fourth grade of theological school. Then he studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary (1848-1853). Among the characteristics given to him by his mentors at that time: “Differentiated by quietness, modesty and obedience,” “zealous in worship and behaved approximately well,” “distinguished by tirelessness in his studies.”

In March 1854, Dobrolyubov’s mother died, and in August, his father. And Dobrolyubov experienced a spiritual turning point, which he called a “feat of remaking” himself. In December 1854, his first political poem was written - “On the 50th anniversary of N. I. Grech”; The first clashes began with the administration of the institute in the person of director I. I. Davydov. From that time on, Dobrolyubov began to share radical anti-monarchist, anti-religious and anti-serfdom views, which was reflected in his numerous “seditious” works of that time in poetry and prose, including in handwritten student magazines: in 1855 he began publishing the illegal newspaper “Rumors” , in which he published his poems and notes of revolutionary content.

At the beginning of the summer of 1856, Dobrolyubov met N. G. Chernyshevsky; On July 24, 1856, his first article was published in the St. Petersburg Gazette, signed Nikolai Alexandrovich; then his article “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” appeared in Sovremennik. From 1857 he headed the critical and bibliographic department of Sovremennik, and from 1859 he led the satirical department of Whistle.

In 1857, N. A. Dobrolyubov brilliantly graduated from the institute, but for freethinking he was deprived of a gold medal. For some time he was a home tutor for Prince Kurakin; in 1858 he became a tutor in Russian literature in the 2nd cadet corps.

In May 1860, he went abroad to treat his worsening tuberculosis; lived in Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy. In July 1861 he returned to his homeland, hopelessly ill.

Death

N. A. Dobrolyubov is buried at the Volkovsky cemetery next to the grave of Vissarion Belinsky. Later, part of the cemetery around their burials became a popular resting place for other Russian writers and literary critics, receiving the name “Literary Bridges” and currently becoming one of the most prestigious burial places in St. Petersburg for outstanding figures of science and culture.

Journalism

Dobrolyubov's short life was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, from a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), was published in N. A. Nekrasov’s magazine “Contemporary” with a number of historical and especially literary critical works; his closest collaborator and like-minded person was N. G. Chernyshevsky. In one year, 1858, he published 75 articles and reviews.

Some of Dobrolyubov’s works (both fundamentally illegal, especially directed against Nicholas I, and those intended for publication, but not passed by the censorship at all or in the author’s edition) remained unpublished during his lifetime.

Dobrolyubov’s works, published under the guise of purely literary “critics”, reviews of natural science works or political reviews of foreign life (Aesopian language), contained sharp socio-political statements. According to Dmitry Svyatopolk-Mirsky

Although everything he wrote was devoted to fiction, it would be extremely unfair to consider it literary criticism. True, Dobrolyubov had the rudiments of an understanding of literature, and the choice of things that he agreed to use as texts for his sermons was, in general, successful, but he never tried to discuss their literary side: he used them only as maps or photographs modern Russian life as a pretext for social preaching.

For example, a review of Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” entitled “” contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “” about Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” and “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” about Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” became an example of a democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation of an artistic style was first used by Dobrolyubov - the article “On the degree of participation of the people in development of Russian literature"), and in the USSR and Russia were included in the school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the rejection of “art for art’s sake” and subjecting pure lyricists to destructive criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The dying trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov’s political radicalism and led to the abandonment of the idea of an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.

Philosophy

Dobrolyubov’s philosophical views were also revealed in a number of articles. At the center of his system is man, who is the last stage in the evolution of the material world and is harmoniously connected with nature. He considered the equality of people to be the “natural state” of human nature (the influence of Rousseauism), and oppression as a consequence of an abnormal structure that must be destroyed. He asserted the absence of a priori truths and the material origin of all ideas born in the human mind from external experience (materialism, empiricism), advocated the comprehension of the material principles of the world and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Like Chernyshevsky, he advocated reasonable egoism.

Poetry

Dobrolyubov was also a satirist poet, a witty parodist, the soul of the literary supplement “Whistle” published under Sovremennik. In it, Dobrolyubov the poet performed under three parody masks - the “accuser” Konrad Lilienschwager, the Austrian “patriot” Jacob Ham and the “enthusiastic lyricist” Apollo Kapelkin (the masks were aimed primarily at Rosenheim, Khomyakov and Maykov, respectively, but were also of a more general nature) . Dobrolyubov also wrote serious poetry (the most famous is “Dear Friend, I am Dying...”), translated by Heine.

Pedagogical ideas

Dobrolyubov's pedagogical views are similar in many ways to the views of N. G. Chernyshevsky.

Criticism of the existing education system. He was against the education of humility, blind obedience, suppression of the individual, and servility. He criticized the current education system, which kills the “inner man” in children, causing the child to grow up unprepared for life.

Dobrolyubov considered a genuine reform of the educational system impossible without a radical restructuring of the entire social life in Russia, believing that in the new society a new teacher would appear, carefully protecting the dignity of human nature in the pupil, possessing high moral convictions, and comprehensively developed.

He also criticized the theory of “free education” of L. N. Tolstoy.

Tasks of education. Raising a patriot and a highly ideological person, a citizen with strong convictions, a comprehensively developed person. To develop integrity, to correctly and as fully as possible develop “the personal independence of the child and all the spiritual forces of his nature”; - cultivate unity of thoughts, words, actions.

Contents and methods of education. He opposed early specialization and favored general education as a prerequisite for special education. The principle of visualization of learning and the formulation of conclusions after analyzing judgments are important. Education through work, since work is the basis of morality. Religion should be banished from schools. Women should receive equal education as men.

About school textbooks and children's books. Textbooks, Dobrolyubov said, are so imperfect that they deprive them of any opportunity to study seriously. Some textbooks present material in a deliberately false and distorted form; in others, if a lie is not maliciously reported, then there are many private, small facts, names and titles that do not have any significant significance in the study of a given subject and obscure the main thing. Textbooks should create in students correct ideas about the phenomena of nature and society, Dobrolyubov said. Simplification, let alone vulgarization, should not be allowed in the presentation of facts, description of objects and phenomena; it must be accurate and truthful, and the textbook material must be presented in a simple, clear language understandable to children. Definitions, rules, laws in the textbook must be given on the basis of scientifically reliable material.

According to his conclusion, the situation was no better with children's books for reading. Fantasy, devoid of a real basis, cloying moralizing, poverty of language - these are the characteristic features of books intended for children's reading. Dobrolyubov believed that truly useful children's books can only be those that simultaneously embrace the entire being of a person. A children's book, in his opinion, should captivate the child's imagination in the right direction. At the same time, a book should provide food for thought, awaken a child’s curiosity, introduce him to the real world and, finally, strengthen his moral sense without distorting it with the rules of artificial morality.

Discipline. He opposed the use of means that degrade human dignity. He considered the teacher’s caring attitude towards the student and the teacher’s example to be a means of maintaining discipline. He strongly condemned physical punishment. He spoke out against the inconsistency of N.I. Pirogov in the use of physical punishment.

Views on the activities of the teacher. He spoke out against the humiliating financial and legal situation of the teacher. He stood for the teacher to be a supporter of the progressive ideas of his time. He attached great importance to the beliefs and moral character of the teacher. The teacher must be a role model for children and have clear “understandings about the art of teaching and upbringing.” A teacher must be distinguished by clarity, firmness, infallibility of convictions, and extremely high all-round development.

Pedagogical works.

“On the importance of authority in education” (1853-1858)
“Basic Laws of Education” (1859)
“Essay on the direction of the Jesuit order, especially as applied to the education and training of youth” (1857)
“All-Russian illusions destroyed by rods” (1860-1861)
“A teacher should serve as an ideal...”

Contribution to the development of pedagogy. Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky developed a doctrine about the content and methodology of educational work, about the essence of pedagogical conscious discipline, and the cultivation of independent thought in students. Dobrolyubov formulated the main directions of a new type of education, which was designed to resist official pedagogy, which leveled the uniqueness of the individual.

Apologetics and criticism of Dobrolyubov’s work

Dobrolyubov was buried at the Volkovsky cemetery next to Vissarion Belinsky; It was with the appearance of his grave that the Literary Bridges began to take shape. The personality of Dobrolyubov (along with Belinsky and another early-dead sixties critic, Pisarev) became the banner of the revolutionary movement of the 1860s and subsequent years (starting with the first biography of Dobrolyubov, written by Chernyshevsky), and was later surrounded by official veneration in the USSR.

On the other hand, some eminent contemporaries criticized his philosophical approach. So, A.I. Herzen saw in him a revolutionary fanatic. F. M. Dostoevsky accused Dobrolyubov of neglecting the universal significance of art in favor of the social. On the contrary, Pisarev, from an extreme left-wing position, criticized Dobrolyubov for being too enthusiastic about aesthetics. However, they all recognized his talent as a publicist.

Nekrasov dedicated the following lines to “the blessed memory of Nikolai Dobrolyubov” (the mythologization of the hero’s image is obvious in them, for example, the characteristic idea of asceticism and rejection of worldly love in the name of love for the Motherland is introduced, while the real Dobrolyubov did not “keep purity” for three years, in 1856-1859, he lived with the “fallen woman” Teresa Karlovna Grunwald, to whom he dedicated poems):

You were harsh; in your youth you knew how to subordinate passion to reason, you taught to live for glory, for freedom, but more than that you taught to die. You consciously rejected worldly pleasures, you preserved purity, You did not quench the thirst of your heart; Like a woman, you loved your homeland, You gave your works, hopes, thoughts to her; You won her honest hearts. Calling for a new life, And a bright paradise, and pearls for a crown You were preparing for a harsh mistress, But your hour struck too early, And the prophetic feather fell from your hands. What a lamp of reason has gone out! What heart has stopped beating! The years have passed, the passions have subsided, And you have risen high above us... Cry, Russian land! but also be proud - Since you stand under the heavens, You have not given birth to such a son, And you have not taken yours back into the depths: Treasures of spiritual beauty Were combined in him with grace... Mother Nature! If you didn’t sometimes send such people to the world, the field of life would die out...

Museums, monuments, names in honor of Dobrolyubov

In Nizhny Novgorod there is the only museum of the famous critic in Russia (); includes a historical and literary exhibition in the former apartment building of the Dobrolyubov family, as well as a house-museum in the wing of the Dobrolyubov estate, where the critic spent his childhood and youth.

Monuments to the writer were erected in the following cities:

St. Petersburg - at the intersection of Bolshoi Prospekt PS and Rybatskaya Street.
Nizhny Novgorod - on Bolshaya Pokrovskaya, sculptor P. I. Gusev.

Named after the writer:

Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University is named after N. A. Dobrolyubov (the name was assigned by Decree of the USSR Government in 1961);
streets in many settlements of the former USSR (see list), alleys in Nikolaev (Ukraine), Perm, Yekaterinburg, Irkutsk,

Russian literature of the 19th century

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

Biography

DOBROLYUBOV, NIKOLAI ALEXANDROVICH (1836−1861), Russian critic, publicist. Born on January 24 (February 5), 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a priest. The father was a well-educated and respected man in the city, a member of the consistory. Dobrolyubov, the eldest of eight children, received his primary education at home under the guidance of a seminarian teacher. A huge home library contributed to an early introduction to reading. In 1847 Dobrolyubov entered the last class of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological School, and in 1848 he entered the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. He was the first student at the seminary and, in addition to the books necessary for study, “read everything that came to hand: history, travel, discussions, odes, poems, novels, most of all novels.” The register of books read, which Dobrolyubov kept, recording his impressions of what he read, contains several thousand titles in 1849-1853. Dobrolyubov also kept diaries, wrote Notes, Memoirs, poetry (“In the world everyone lives by deception..., 1849, etc.), prose (Adventures at Maslenitsa and its consequences (1849), and tried his hand at drama.

Together with his fellow student Lebedev, he published the handwritten magazine “Akhineya”, in which in 1850 he published two articles about Lebedev’s poems. He sent his own poems to the magazines “Moskvityanin” and “Son of the Fatherland” (they were not published). Dobrolyubov also wrote articles for the newspaper Nizhny Novgorod Provincial Gazette, collected local folklore (more than a thousand proverbs, sayings, songs, legends, etc.), compiled a dictionary of local words and a bibliography for the Nizhny Novgorod province.

In 1853 he left the seminary and received permission from the Synod to study at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. However, upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he passed exams at the Main Pedagogical Institute at the Faculty of History and Philology, for which he was dismissed from his clergy. During his years of study at the institute, Dobrolyubov studied folklore, wrote Notes and additions to the collection of Russian proverbs by Mr. Buslaev (1854), On the poetic features of Great Russian folk poetry in expressions and phrases (1854), and other works.

In 1854, Dobrolyubov experienced a spiritual turning point, which he called a “feat of remaking” himself. Disappointment in religion was facilitated by the almost simultaneous deaths of Dobrolyubov’s mother and father, as well as the situation of social upsurge associated with the death of Nicholas I and the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Dobrolyubov began to fight the abuses of the institute authorities; a circle of opposition-minded students formed around him, discussing political issues and reading illegal literature. For a satirical poem in which Dobrolyubov denounced the Tsar as a “sovereign master” (On the 50th anniversary of His Excellency Nik.Iv.Grech, 1854), he was put in a punishment cell. A year later, Dobrolyubov sent Grech a freedom-loving poem on February 18, 1855, which the addressee sent to the III department. In his poetic pamphlet to the Duma at Olenin’s tomb (1855), Dobrolyubov called for “the slave... to raise the ax against the despot.”

In 1855, Dobrolyubov began publishing the illegal newspaper “Rumors”, in which he published his poems and notes of revolutionary content - Secret societies in Russia 1817−1825, Debauchery of Nikolai Pavlovich and his close favorites, etc. In the same year he met N. G. Chernyshevsky , in which he was shocked by the presence of “a mind, strictly consistent, imbued with love for truth.” Chernyshevsky attracted Dobrolyubov to collaborate in the Sovremennik magazine. Dobrolyubov signed articles published in the magazine with pseudonyms (Laibov and others). In an article that attracted public attention, Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word (1856), he denounced the “dark phenomena” of the autocracy. Dobrolyubov’s articles appeared in Sovremennik A few words about education regarding Mr. Pirogov’s “Questions of Life” (1857), Works by gr. V. A. Sollogub (1857), etc. In 1857, at the suggestion of Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov headed the criticism department of Sovremennik.

In 1857, Dobrolyubov brilliantly graduated from the institute, but was deprived of a gold medal for freethinking. For some time he worked as a home tutor for Prince. Kurakin, and from 1858 he became a tutor in Russian literature in the 2nd Cadet Corps. He continued to work actively in Sovremennik: in 1858 alone he published about 75 articles and reviews, the story Delets and several poems. In his article On the degree of participation of nationalities in the development of Russian literature (1958), Dobrolyubov assessed Russian literature from a social point of view.

By the end of 1858, Dobrolyubov already played a central role in the combined department of criticism, bibliography and modern notes of Sovremennik, and influenced the selection of works of art for publication. His revolutionary democratic views, expressed in the articles Literary trifles of last year (1859), What is Oblomovism? (1859), The Dark Kingdom (1859) made him an idol of the various intelligentsia.

In his program articles 1860 When will the real day come? (analysis of the novel by I. Turgenev The day before, after which Turgenev broke off relations with Sovremennik) and A ray of light in the dark kingdom (about the drama by A. N. Ostrovsky The Thunderstorm) Dobrolyubov directly called for the liberation of the homeland from the “internal enemy,” which he considered the autocracy. Despite the numerous censorship notes, the revolutionary meaning of Dobrolyubov’s articles was obvious.

Dobrolyubov also wrote for “Whistle” - a satirical supplement to “Contemporary”. He worked in the genres of poetic parody, satirical review, feuilleton, etc., hiding behind the images of the “bard” Konrad Lilienschwager, the “Austrian chauvinist poet” Jacob Ham, the “young talent” Anton Kapelkin and other fictional characters.

Due to intense work and an unsettled personal life, Dobrolyubov’s illness intensified. In 1860 he treated tuberculosis in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and France. The political situation in Western Europe, meetings with famous figures of the revolutionary movement (Z. Serakovsky and others) were reflected in the articles Incomprehensible Strangeness (1860) and others, in which Dobrolyubov doubted the possibility of an “instant, miraculous disappearance of all centuries-old evil” and called for more attention to look closely at what life itself suggests for a way out of an unjust social system. Unhappy love for an Italian woman by I. Fiocchi brought to life the poems of 1861 There is still a lot of work in life..., No, I’m not fond of him either, our majestic north... and others.

In 1861 Dobrolyubov returned to St. Petersburg. In September 1861, Sovremennik published his last article, Downtrodden People, dedicated to the work of F. M. Dostoevsky. In the last days of Dobrolyubov’s life, Chernyshevsky visited him daily, and Nekrasov and other like-minded people were nearby. Feeling the proximity of death, Dobrolyubov wrote a courageous poem: Let me die - there is little sadness...

Dobrolyubov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836-1861) - Russian critic and publicist. Born in Nizhny Novgorod on January 24 (February 5), 1836. His father was a priest and member of the consistory. There were 8 children in the family, and Nikolai was the eldest. At first he was taught by a seminarian teacher at home. In 1847, N. Dobrolyubov began studying in the last class of a theological school in his hometown, and in 1848 he entered the Nizhny Novgorod Seminary. During his studies 1849-1853. Nikolai read several thousand books, the impressions of which he carefully recorded in his special notebook. N. Dobrolyubov also kept diaries throughout his life, in which he wrote memoirs, poetry, and prose.

A little later, together with Lebedev, he issued a handwritten periodical “Akhineya”. In this magazine in 1850 he published two critical articles about the poems of his colleague. He tried unsuccessfully to publish his poems in the magazines “Moskvityanin” and “Son of the Fatherland.” He published some articles in the Nizhny Novgorod Provincial Gazette newspaper.

In 1853, N. Dobrolyubov was recommended by the Synod to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. But he was deprived of his clergy title after the best seminarian entered the history and philology department of the Main Pedagogical Institute, from which he successfully graduated in 1857. During his studies, he stubbornly and fearlessly fought against the leadership of the institute and was part of a group of opposition students. For the verse “On the 50th anniversary of His Excellency Nick. Iv. Buckwheat" (1854) N. Dobrolyubov was even arrested, but after his release he returned to his activities.

In 1855, he began illegally publishing the newspaper “Rumors”, where his revolutionary works were published, and at the same time wrote articles for the magazine “Sovremennik” under various pseudonyms (Laibov and others), and after 2 years he headed the criticism department in this publication, earning praise from superiors. In 1858 alone, N. Dobrolyubov published several poems in the magazine, the story “The Businessman,” 75 articles and reviews, in many of which he actively opposed the monarchy. By the end of this year, he played an important role in Sovremennik in choosing works for publication.

In 1860, the critic left for European countries to cure tuberculosis. A year later, he returns to his native St. Petersburg and publishes the article “Forgotten People,” which turned out to be his last work. Dobrolyubov died on November 17 (29), 1861 in St. Petersburg.

All our hope is for future generations.

N. A. Dobrolyubov

The relationship between the leading critic of the Sovremennik magazine and his contemporaries, including those who would later leave their memoirs, was far from simple. They were determined, as is always the case when it comes to an outstanding person, not only by personal qualities, but also by the direction and content of his activity. Convinced of the inevitability and necessity of the revolutionary transformation of Russia, who saw in literature a powerful means of awakening public self-awareness, Dobrolyubov was not capable of compromise in the sphere of his private life. The ideas that he preached, the power of his words, the nobility and restrained passion of his nature made him an ideal for some; the same qualities contributed to the complete rejection of his personality and activities by others.

“They say that my path - bold truth - will someday lead me to destruction. This may very well be; but I will not be able to die in vain" (Dobrolyubov N.A. Collected works in 9 volumes, vol. 9 M. -L., Goslitizdat, 1964, p. 254). The words of the young man Dobrolyubov, and they were spoken when he was barely twenty years old, again, already with the consciousness of a fulfilled premonition, sounded in his dying poem:

Dear friend, I'm dying
Because I was honest;
But to my native land,
That's right, I'll be famous.

The poem, with its pathos of selflessness in the name of a high goal, cannot be treated only as a manifestation of individual sentiment. This same pathos determined the fate of many, many who saw Dobrolyubov as a Teacher in the highest sense of the word. Having given their lives for the sake of the future of their country, they were convinced that the time was not far off when Dobrolyubov would be fairly appreciated, who helped them “look without fear and trembling into this future”: after all, they themselves all took part in the struggle for it “victory” (Bibikov P. A. About the literary activity of N. A. Dobrolyubov. St. Petersburg, 1862, p. 110.). For them, Dobrolyubov was - and remained forever - one of those unforgettable people, the very memory of whom ennobles. “A philosopher, critic, publicist, poet, deep thinker and caustic satirist - he undoubtedly belonged to the highest category of “chosen natures” - natures marked with the stamp of genius” (Sixties. Materials on the history of literature and social movements. M . --L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1940, p. 226.), - wrote the revolutionary populist P. N. Tkachev in the early 1880s. The memories of like-minded people and followers of Dobrolyubov, if they knew him personally, are colored with a feeling of admiring and often reverent respect.

Others, while highly appreciating Dobrolyubov's talent above all, regretted the direction in which he used it. Their attitude towards Dobrolyubov - regardless of whether they liked or did not like him as a person - is determined by confidence in his talent and doubt about the correctness of Dobrolyubov’s chosen path, sympathy for the fact that one of the galaxy of brilliant Russian critics and - at the same time - rejection of his views. This position is most definitely expressed in Turgenev’s letter dated December 11/23, 1861. “I regretted the death of Dobrolyubov,” he wrote to I.P. Borisov, “although I did not share his views: he was a gifted man - young... It’s a pity for the lost, wasted strength!” (Turgenev I.S. Complete collection of works and letters in 28 volumes, Letters, vol. 4, M. -L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962, p. 316.)

And, finally, there were those for whom Dobrolyubov’s personality, his activities as a revolutionary, critic, publicist turned out to be unacceptable to the point of hostility, to the point of embittered denial of all his merits. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes veiledly, a similar attitude can be seen in the memoirs.

Collected together, the memories of Dobrolyubov, precisely because they are so different from each other in character, not only enable us to imagine the features of a living person, but also help to restore the tense atmosphere of the era in which Dobrolyubov acted, gaining friends and enemies.

The brevity of the life of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov, only twenty-five years old (born January 24/February 5, 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod, and died November 17/29, 1861 in St. Petersburg), could not help but leave a specific imprint on the memoirs, and even on the their number. It is relatively small, and, with some exceptions, this collection exhausts them. It is possible that new materials will be found, but it is unlikely to be extensive.

Among the surviving books, there are no large-scale memoir books dedicated only to Dobrolyubov, such as exist, for example, about L.N. Tolstoy. Memories of Dobrolyubov are most often brief and fragmentary, which is also associated with some features of his life path. His life can be clearly divided into several areas; the existence within each of them was sufficiently closed to limit the number of persons with whom Dobrolyubov communicated. Father's priestly house, seminary, Main Pedagogical Institute, time spent in Italy. Only the years of cooperation in Sovremennik significantly expanded the circle of Dobrolyubov’s personal connections and acquaintances, but given his secretive nature, this “expansion” was very relative. Dobrolyubov had a wide readership and a narrow circle of close people.

Taken together, the memoirs of his contemporaries about Dobrolyubov chronologically cover his entire life, and the collection is structured in accordance with its most important stages: “In Nizhny Novgorod”, “In St. Petersburg. At the Main Pedagogical Institute”, “Contemporary”. Trip to Staraya Russa. Abroad", "Return to St. Petersburg. Illness and death."

There is one more significant feature of the memoir material about Dobrolyubov. In many cases it was not written spontaneously. A huge role in its collection and appearance was played by Dobrolyubov’s comrade-in-arms, his elder friend (By the way, we note that the age difference between them - only 8 years - therefore seemed significant to them (and later to us), because both were young in time of their acquaintance. Had Dobrolyubov lived longer, it would undoubtedly have smoothed out.) - N. G. Chernyshevsky. He clearly and accurately formulated his understanding of Dobrolyubov’s significance for Russia in the words of his obituary: “He was only 25 years old. But for four years already he stood at the head of Russian literature, - no, not only Russian literature, - at the head of the entire development of Russian thought ".

And in that part of the obituary, which at one time could not be published, Chernyshevsky exclaimed: “Oh, how he loved you, people! His word did not reach you, but when you become what he saw you as, you will know, how much this brilliant young man, the best of your sons, has done for you.”

Two months after Dobrolyubov’s death, Chernyshevsky published in the first issue of Sovremennik for 1862 an “appeal” to people who knew Dobrolyubov. “I appeal to all former comrades of Nikolai Alexandrovich and his friends,” wrote Chernyshevsky, “with a request: tell me your memories of him and give me for a while those of his letters and papers that they have preserved. I dare to assure that I will use all the memories and documents communicated to me for printing only to the extent that I am permitted by the person who reported this material" (Contemporary, 1862, No. 1, p. 319.).

In the same Sovremennik, Chernyshevsky places the first “Materials for the biography of N. A. Dobrolyubov” he collected, providing them with his notes, which are of great historical, literary, social and psychological value, since they reflected not only an understanding of the role and the meaning of Dobrolyubov as a critic, publicist, but also the understanding of Dobrolyubov as a person. Chernyshevsky’s notes, in particular to the excerpts from Dobrolyubov’s diary he published, belong to those few memoirs that reveal to us the inner world of Dobrolyubov, inaccessible to outsiders, and the depth and struggle of his feelings.

Having begun work on the biography of Dobrolyubov in 1862, Chernyshevsky continued it upon his return from exile, more than two decades after the death of his friend and comrade-in-arms.

Significant aspects of Dobrolyubov’s life are covered by Chernyshevsky in documents of various forms. These include not only “Materials...”, but also “Memories of the beginning of my acquaintance with N. A. Dobrolyubov.” Written in 1886, they represent a letter to A. N. Pypin. “Memories of Turgenev’s relationship with Dobrolyubov and the breakdown of friendship between Turgenev and Nekrasov” is a memoir essay, a valuable source of information about the Sovremennik circle and its figures in the late 50s and early 60s of the 19th century. Dobrolyubov’s place in this circle and the last years of the critic’s life are outlined by the memoirist vividly and expressively, although Chernyshevsky had to keep silent about many things, in particular about Dobrolyubov’s revolutionary activities; (See: Priyma F. Ya. N. A. Dobrolyubov and the Russian liberation movement. - Russian literature, 1963, No. 4.) some details have been erased in Chernyshevsky’s memory over the years and can be to some extent restored by articles, notes and letters from Chernyshevsky that are not included in this collection, also of a memoir nature: “As an expression of gratitude,” a letter to T.K. Grunwald dated February 10, 1862, letters to O.S. Chernyshevskaya, in which the name is mentioned more than once Dobrolyubova. “I loved him,” Chernyshevsky wrote to his wife in 1878 from Vilyuysk, “more than Sasha or Misha... (Chernyshevsky’s sons.) Be offended for them. But, as far as I can make out my feelings, it’s like this: then I loved them less than him" (Chernyshevsky N. G. Complete collected works and letters in 16 volumes, vol. 15. M., Goslitizdat, 1950, p. 292.).

In essence, the image of Levitsky in the novel “Prologue” is also a “memoir”. Chernyshevsky did not hide how many features of Dobrolyubov he had, even events from his life.

Already in the 80s, Chernyshevsky, having returned from Siberia, asked Dobrolyubov’s sisters and brother to send everything that could help in continuing work on Dobrolyubov’s biography. “... In tens of years,” he wrote to V. A. Dobrolyubov, “when our personal interests disappear and the interest in the history of Russian life of that period, the leader of which was your brother, comes into its full rights, the Russian public will be grateful to you for Your work is in its full extent" (Ibid., p. 837.).

The difficult circumstances of the last years of Chernyshevsky’s life did not allow him to complete his plans and did not give him the opportunity to write a biography of his late friend. But what Chernyshevsky managed to do is priceless.

The influence of Dobrolyubov’s ideas, his critical articles and the literary process was so significant, such pressing issues of Russian reality were touched upon by the critic in the course of analyzing works of art, the conclusions to which he led the reader were so radical and bold that the articles signed by one of Dobrolyubov’s pseudonyms: Bov, Laibov, etc. (he did not sign his name) invariably aroused enormous public interest and became an event even for the critic’s opponents. In January 1860, A. N. Pleshcheev reported to Dobrolyubov: “I am beginning to notice that despite the hostility of Moscow publicists to Sovremennik, they are terribly interested in your personality. Everyone is asking what Dobrolyubov is like... how is he, what he?" (Russian Thought, 1913, No. 1, p. 140.)

F. M. Dostoevsky, who did not share many of Dobrolyubov’s views, his opponent when it came to understanding the purpose and purpose of art, wrote in the article “Mr. , since Mr. Bov collaborates in it, they are cut from the first, at a time when almost no one reads critics - this alone clearly testifies to Mr. Bov’s literary talent. power that comes from conviction" (Dostoevsky F.M. Complete collected works in 30 volumes, vol. 18. Leningrad, Nauka, 1978, p. 81.).

Almost every article by Dobrolyubov either itself caused a polemical storm, or was, in turn, participation in it. Of course, this left a certain imprint on the perception of Dobrolyubov’s personality by his contemporaries, and significantly distorted it. Polemical articles, as usual, could not do without personal attacks, and if we collect those statements about Dobrolyubov that they contain, then we would have an image of a fanatical and at the same time dry person, devoid of weaknesses and attachments. Such an erroneous opinion was widespread among writers and journalists, so D. V. Grigorovich in his “Literary Memoirs” wrote without a shadow of a doubt about Sovremennik: “At the head of the magazine, as a critic who gave a tuning fork to the direction, was Dobrolyubov, a very talented young a person, but cold and withdrawn" (Grigorovich D. V., Literary Memoirs.<М.>, Goslitizdat, 1961, p. 158.).

And it is absolutely no coincidence that, refuting such judgments, the statement runs like a red thread through all Chernyshevsky’s memories of Dobrolyubov: “He was an extremely impressionable, passionate person, and his feelings were very impetuous, deep, ardent.”

In literary works, with more or less thoroughness and objectivity, Dobrolyubov’s creative path is comprehended and his biography is studied. The very passage of time finally indicated the place that Dobrolyubov occupies in Russian culture, in Russian history. But the value of memoirs remained eternal. When reading the memoirs, one senses the attitude of contemporaries towards Dobrolyubov, not yet covered with a “textbook gloss”. They include information that is not contained in official documents. This helps us restore the individual appearance of a person, the peculiarities of his speech, habits, those “little things” of life that give the idea of it a specific character. Dobrolyubov’s thought is deeply true: “A dozen living modern features will explain a whole period to a historian much better than twenty years of research in archival dust...” (Dobrolyubov N.A. Collected works in 9 volumes, vol. 1, p. 109 .)

Dobrolyubov highly valued the memoir genre, believing that they equally provide a lot for understanding society and understanding a person. Society, because only knowledge of the past contributes to a truly multifaceted view of the present and future; a person - because the story about what he really experienced, about his inner life enriches the understanding of the complex world of the human soul. Dobrolyubov himself kept a diary. From his candid notes, it becomes clear how seriously he took life, how much hope he placed in it, and with what ardor he responded to everything that touched him: be it Turgenev’s poetry-filled prose or the events of his friendly circle. This youthful diary reveals the origins of feelings and thoughts, from which Dobrolyubov’s special style of articles was subsequently formed - a fusion of the emotional and rationalistic.

Dobrolyubov attached such great importance to the content of the memoir narrative that any reductions in it seemed to him unlawful, leading to losses, the significance of which is difficult to foresee. “This kind of abbreviation can be made in mediocre dramas for the stage and in light works of fiction,” he wrote. “But in a true historical narrative, every detail can be useful on occasion, if not for one, then for another” (Dobrolyubov N.A. Sobr . op. in 9 volumes, vol. 2, p. 296.).

Dobrolyubov believed that “the simple truth... of memories” (Ibid., p. 294.) should ultimately triumph over fiction, slander, and the desire to distort reality.

To what extent do the memories of himself justify Dobrolyubov’s hopes? Who were the people who left them?

It would be natural to assume that the majority would be those who were engaged in literary work. Indeed, among the memoirists are writers, critics, and publicists: M. A. Antonovich, D. V. Averkiev, P. I. Weinberg, M. Vovchok, N. N. Zlatovratsky, N. A. Nekrasov, N. Ya. Nikoladze, A.V. Nikitenko, P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, A.Ya. and I.I. Panaevs, A.P. Pyatkovsky, N.V. Shelgunov...

Many of those with whom Dobrolyubov studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute became teachers and officials, including people close to him such as M. I. Shemanovsky and B. I. Stsiborsky.

Interesting information and observations are contained in the “notes” of the prominent scientist, literary critic A. N. Pypin, and actor M. N. Samsonov. A special place is occupied by the memories of Dobrolyubov’s relatives and his student N.A. Tatarinova-Ostrovskaya. There are many “details” of Dobrolyubov’s life, appearance, behavior in everyday life, his attitude towards close people and strangers that are difficult to find in other memoirists.

Those who wrote about Dobrolyubov belonged to different ideological directions; the level of their moral requirements also differs; What unites them, perhaps, is one thing - no matter what class they belong to by origin - their further life, with rare exceptions, is the life of the working Russian intelligentsia, which, in essence, was led by Dobrolyubov himself. In this sense, the materials in the collection are quite homogeneous, which also distinguishes it from memoir collections dedicated, for example, to I. S. Turgenev, L. N. Tolstoy or M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, bringing it closer, on the contrary, to the collections “V. G. Belinsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries" (to a lesser extent) and "N. G. Chernyshevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries" (to a large extent).

In this case, we are, of course, not talking about the quality of the memoir material as a whole, but about its social aspect, which, of course, is important for characterizing and understanding the content of the collection.

Dobrolyubov was among the first commoners who not only appeared in the arena of public life, but also led the revolutionary movement in it. Its correlation with this activity, either explicitly or in subtext, runs through almost all memories, giving them a kind of emotional tension, even drama. In addition, for some of the memoirists who knew Dobrolyubov in childhood and youth, it was only after his death that it was discovered that Bov was Dobrolyubov. Then the special feeling with which they looked back at the past becomes clear, wanting to find in it a proclamation of the future unusual fate of Dobrolyubov.

Thus, for various reasons, significant and not so significant, we will not find “calm” memories in this collection. The scale of Dobrolyubov’s personality and activities did not allow dispassion.

Already in the memoirs of his early years, what stands out first of all to those who write is what distinguished Dobrolyubov from his peers. In this one senses a very, very understandable, in general even traditional, desire of memoirists to see in retrospect what seemed to indicate from the very beginning the “chosenness” of the hero of the memoirs (By the way, the denial of “outstanding” personality traits in childhood, in the end, would serve the same purpose.), on the “predestination” of his outstanding role in the future. And, of course, there were certain reasons for this. Dobrolyubov’s early awakening mind, his extraordinary erudition, even in childhood, and seriousness, unusual for a child, inspired interest and respect for him on the part of adults and peers at the district theological school and at the seminary. “His talented nature,” noted Dobrolyubov’s teacher, and later his sister’s husband M.A. Kostrov, “began to show itself early.”

The atmosphere of his home, Dobrolyubov’s father and mother, if they could not greatly contribute, did not interfere with the development of their son. People are simple and kind, but without education; they, according to the testimony of Dobrolyubov’s relatives and his teachers, were proud of their son’s talent. “The death of his parents and especially, it seems, his mother, in whose arms he grew up until the age of seventeen without being separated from her, for whom he was a beloved son, and not only a son, but also his best friend, because his father was most often absent in his service, and which he himself loved, as no one else will be able to love so much, was such a blow for him from which he did not come to his senses until his death,” writes Kostrov. Even Dobrolyubov’s atheism connects Kostrov with the loss of the young men’s father and mother, with their early, unexpected death.

Caring for his two orphaned brothers and five sisters made Dobrolyubov an adult early on.

From the memoirs of Dobrolyubov’s comrades at the Main Pedagogical Institute, it is clear that they all quickly realized those features of Dobrolyubov’s personality that made him the center of a friendly circle: self-esteem, readiness to help his comrades, kindness and impeccable decency. Memoirists note the integrity of Dobrolyubov’s nature, which allowed him to early determine his path. “In general, he never thought about choosing a road, but walked straight, openly, honestly,” recalled one of Dobrolyubov’s closest friends, Shemanovsky. “Waiting for an opportune moment, acting slowly and carefully was not in his character. The thought of dangers, "It seems that the possibility of ruining his career did not even occur to him when he was still a student. Here he feared more for others than for himself, and in these fears there was something friendly, kindred, brotherly."

Some of Dobrolyubov’s classmates, who subsequently took hostile, “protective” positions, expressing doubts about the fruitfulness of Dobrolyubov’s critical activity, nevertheless forever preserved the memory of the moral impact of his personality. Thus, A. A. Radonezhsky wrote: “A considerable share in the good beginnings brought out of student life by Nikolai Alexandrovich’s comrades was taken from his beautiful, gifted, noble soul, beloved by us all to the point of passion.”

The years at the Main Pedagogical Institute were not easy for Dobrolyubov. Petty supervision, nitpicking, in a word, what Sciborsky rightly noted in his memoirs: “There are situations in life about which there is nothing to tell due to the microscopic nature of the phenomena taking place in it... meanwhile, these trifles in the aggregate, continuously repeating themselves, they produce such a stupefying, heavy impression, form such a suffocating atmosphere that, having freed yourself from it, you yourself are surprised how it was possible to endure for four years the whole burden of the most vulgar constraints, the most absurd demands.”

In addition, there is frequent malnutrition and lack of essentials. Sciborsky recalled how “terribly it was... in the bitter St. Petersburg frosts in a cold government overcoat” to “travel from Vasilyevsky Island to the Public Library and back.”

Dobrolyubov not only endured this life, but was also able to resist it. The circle that united around him was alive with ideological and literary interests: they read the works of Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, and “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature” by Chernyshevsky. “Questions about the fate of our homeland absorbed all our thoughts and feelings,” recalled one of the circle participants. They also published a handwritten newspaper, “Rumors,” which contained all the information about abuses and political events that were not published by the official press. Dobrolyubov was an active editor and author of the newspaper.

During the same institute years, Dobrolyubov’s literary activity began. He tries himself in prose and poetry. Among the latter, even then there were many satirical ones. Many of the poems - "On the anniversary of N. I. Grech", "Ode on the death of Nicholas I" and others - were circulated in lists throughout St. Petersburg.

While still a student, Dobrolyubov met Chernyshevsky and began collaborating in the Sovremennik magazine. Dobrolyubov’s article “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” served as the beginning of the first polemic in his critical activity (with A.D. Galakhov) and showed that a new, promising critic had come to the magazine. “Who is Mr. Laibov, the author of the article about the “Interlocutor”? - Turgenev asks V.P. Botkin from Paris in a letter dated October 25 / November 6, 1856. And about the same thing - October 29 / November 10 - I. I. Panaeva: “... Laibov’s article is very sensible (who is this Laibov)”? (Turgenev I. S. Complete collection of works and letters in 28 volumes. Letters, vol. 3, p. 23 , 27.)

The few years that Dobrolyubov still had were filled with work for the Sovremennik magazine. Naturally, the most diverse and quantitatively superior to other sections are the memoirs associated with this very important stage of Dobrolyubov’s life.

Having become the head of the criticism and bibliography department of the magazine, Dobrolyubov steadily and passionately defends, in his own words, “the party of the people in literature.” The ideological struggle he wages determines not only the pathos, but also the style of his articles and polemically sharpens his statements. “In his opinion,” Antonovich testifies, “the journal should take for bibliography only those works that either disagree or agree with its direction; in the first case, it has the opportunity to refute hostile thoughts, undermine, ridicule, humiliate them, in the second case, he is given an excuse to repeat his own thoughts, remind them of them, clarify, confirm or strengthen them.

Dobrolyubov had no doubts about the correctness of the chosen path, no voluntary or involuntary deviations from it, much less any contradictions between word and deed. One cannot think, however, that he was not familiar with internal torment. Dobrolyubov’s poems and his confessions to friends speak of how tormented he was by the thought of the enormity of the goal he had set for himself and the lack of strength to fulfill it. Meanwhile, what struck his contemporaries most of all about his personality was, as Shelgunov admitted, “his concentrated, closed strength.” Reflecting on what set Dobrolyubov apart from the circle of his contemporaries, among whom there were many remarkable people, Antonovich wrote: “But what especially elevated him above ordinary outstanding people, what constituted his characteristic distinctive feature, what aroused in me surprise, almost even awe to him - this is a terrible power, unyielding energy and uncontrollable passion of his convictions. His whole being was, so to speak, electrified by these convictions, ready to burst out every minute and shower sparks and blows on everything that blocked the path to the implementation of his practical convictions. He was even ready to lay down his life for their implementation."

No personal relationship could force Dobrolyubov to change what he considered true. The revolutionary convictions of the critic, his ideas about the purpose of literature could not but lead to irreconcilable conflicts with some of the Sovremennik employees, in particular, with one of the most remarkable of them, Turgenev.

The conflict between Dobrolyubov and Turgenev, the latter’s break with Sovremennik under the pretext of dissatisfaction with Dobrolyubov’s article “When will the real day come?” memoirists pay a lot of attention. Some of them are looking for the roots of the gap in the psychological incompatibility, as we would now say, of Dobrolyubov and Turgenev, but most contemporaries understood: the true reasons are ideological in nature, that although “everyone... equally desires the best and strives for improvements, but ideas about these improvements" and the ways to achieve them "are very different." Antonovich notes in this regard: “... it could seem, as it seemed to many, that Dobrolyubov, with his irreverence, his harshness and insolence, was a bone of discord and the main culprit of the split between the old and young generations of writers both in Sovremennik itself and outside him. But this is completely untrue. The reasons for the split lay much deeper and were much more serious than personal relations between writers. A split would inevitably have occurred even if Dobrolyubov had been exquisitely courteous and loyally respectful with senior writers."

Subsequently, Turgenev wrote in his memoirs that he “highly valued” Dobrolyubov “as a person and as a talented writer.” And there is no reason to doubt this. Time took away the severity of the disagreements, and Turgenev realized that the article “When will the real day come?” was “the most outstanding” (Turgenev I, S. Complete collected works and letters in 28 volumes. Works, vol. 14, p. 99, 304.) among all the critical reviews of the novel “On the Eve”.

The memoirs of contemporaries cannot, of course, exhaust the fullness and complexity of Dobrolyubov’s relations with the writers of his time. So, we learn from the notes of N.D. Novitsky about Ostrovsky’s visits to the critic, about the words of gratitude spoken by the playwright to Dobrolyubov, but Novitsky’s story is so short that, obviously, it needs additions. After all, it was already clear to Dobrolyubov’s contemporaries: “what Belinsky was for Gogol, Dobrolyubov was for Ostrovsky” (Bibikov P.A. About the literary activity of N.A. Dobrolyubov, p. 48.). The Petrashev poet A. N. Pleshcheev, touching on the role of Dobrolyubov in Russian criticism and readers’ understanding of the works of Ostrovsky and Turgenev, wrote in 1860: “... we dare to consider Mr. Bov the best of our modern critics. It seems to us that it is impossible to analyze more deeply and more accurately the characters in the novel “On the Eve” or Ostrovsky’s comedies, as Mr. Bov did” (Notes about something. - Moskovsky Vestnik, 1860, No. 42.).

The memoirs contain information about Dobrolyubov’s meetings with I. A. Goncharov, D. V. Grigorovich, A. F. Pisemsky, P. V. Annenkov and many other writers, poets, critics who were in the editorial office of Sovremennik. Memoirists provide interesting details and observations, but in order to get a more complete understanding of Dobrolyubov’s complex, multifaceted relationships with many of his outstanding contemporaries, careful additional research is required, turning to other sources: letters of that era, articles, etc. Sometimes there was no or There were almost no personal contacts, but connections - and important ones - did take place. This was, for example, a kind of “exchange” of articles between Dostoevsky and Dobrolyubov: “Mr. Bov and the question of art” - “Downtrodden people.” Relations with Herzen were of a similar nature. Even at the Main Pedagogical Institute, Dobrolyubov’s Herzen editions were found. Herzen belonged to the people most revered by Dobrolyubov. From his youth, Dobrolyubov was interested in the works of Herzen. It is from the memoirs of contemporaries that we learn that Dobrolyubov was one of the correspondents of "Kolokol", from them - about the shock experienced by the critic when he read Herzen's article "Very dangerous!!!", directed against Dobrolyubov, and about the subsequent clarification of positions Sovremennik and Kolokol in a dispute. However, the complexity of the relationship between Dobrolyubov and Herzen, of course, cannot be comprehended only from memoirs.

The memoirs of contemporaries - and this is understandable - speak extremely mutely about Dobrolyubov’s revolutionary activities; memoirists often resort to “Aesopian language,” which, however, was clear to everyone then. And when Nekrasov emphasized that Dobrolyubov “consciously saved himself for the cause,” it was clear that not just a “deed,” but a revolutionary cause.

Memoirists don’t know much about Dobrolyubov’s stay in Italy at the end of 1860 - beginning of 1861, although there is evidence that he was interested in the Italian liberation movement.

There are also other areas of Dobrolyubov’s life that are little covered by memoirists. His critical articles in Sovremennik, parodies in Iskra and Whistle - all this was visible and accessible. But personal matters - given Dobrolyubov’s reserved character - often remained hidden even from such close people as Chernyshevsky. We know a little about Dobrolyubov’s “life of the heart”; In any case, she was not happy. Two or three female names. And there is always separation...

Dobrolyubov rarely revealed his inner world, rarely let anyone into it. Dobrolyubov - critic, publicist, Dobrolyubov the teacher emerges quite clearly from the memories; One can well imagine Dobrolyubov in everyday communication: in the editorial office of Sovremennik, with classmates, with relatives. But what was behind this, what feelings and moods - they can be partly judged from his poems, from letters, from some pages of articles, from the few testimonies of people, like A. Ya. Panaeva, who managed to come closer to Dobrolyubov than others, to win his trust , hear his confession. In Panaeva’s memoirs, we see Dobrolyubov, resisting literary squabbles, neglecting his everyday life, a caring brother, a man who was drawn to the warmth of his heart and received very little of it in his short life.

Dobrolyubov's last months were tragic. A new wave of political reaction was approaching the country; the hope for revolution, which Dobrolyubov was passionately awaiting, collapsed. Censorship mercilessly mutilated articles. “In the circles close to Dobrolyubov, there was commotion and despondency reigned,” recalled Antonovich. “The most dismal news was spread: the prohibition of articles, the change of lenient censors, searches, arrests, exiles, etc.”

The first political process under Alexander II began. His hero and victim turned out to be the poet and critic M. L. Mikhailov, close to Dobrolyubov. The writers wrote a letter in defense of Mikhailov addressed to the Minister of Education. The letter had 31 signatures, including Dobrolyubov, Nekrasov, and Pisemsky. The letter was not taken into account by the government: Mikhailov was imprisoned in a fortress, then exiled to hard labor.

The threat of arrest also hung over Dobrolyubov himself. “The literary horizon darkened more and more,” the memoirist recalls, “the social atmosphere became more and more suffocating and had a detrimental effect on the painful sensitivity of the generally extremely susceptible Dobrolyubov.”

Dobrolyubov was fading away. According to his brother, “silently, without complaining to anyone, without disturbing anyone, without making any difficulties, without seeking consolation from anyone, without deceiving himself.”

Only one thing, Panaeva recalls, did Dobrolyubov regret: “Dying with the consciousness that I didn’t have time to do anything... Nothing! How evilly fate mocked me! If only she had sent me death earlier!.. If only my life had lasted another two years, I would have time to do at least something useful... Now nothing, nothing!”

Such was the self-esteem of a man who, in fact, belonged to the most remarkable representatives of Russian social thought, one of those about whom F. Engels wrote: “The country that produced two writers of the caliber of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, two socialist Lessings, will not perish...” (Marx K . and Engels F. Works, vol. 18, p. 522.) Dobrolyubov, Lenin emphasized, is dear to “all educated and thinking Russia” as a writer who “passionately hated tyranny and passionately awaited a popular uprising...” (Lenin V.I. Complete collection of works, vol. 5, p. 370.).

Does what the memoir material provides correspond to the historical significance of Dobrolyubov? To what extent was it recognized by his contemporaries?

A review of memories, it seems, allows us to answer the first question in the affirmative; As for the second, it is necessary to recognize a significant difference between Chernyshevsky’s visionary words about the significance of Dobrolyubov’s activities and the notes of V. I. Gloriantov, for example, or D. V. Averkiev, who were unable to understand the meaning of the quest of their great contemporary.

The memoirs included in the collection represent different genres: epistolary (letters from memoirists to Chernyshevsky, A.N. Pypin); fragments that talk about Dobrolyubov from more extensive memoirs (by M. A. Antonovich, A. Ya. and I. I. Panaev, A. N. Pypin, N. N. Zlatovratsky, N. V. Shelgunov, N. Ya. Nikoladze, V. A. Obrucheva); diary entries (A. V. Nikitenko); notes (P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, D.V. Averkiev), memoir essays (M.E. Lebedev, I.M. Sladkopevtsev, M.I. Shemanovsky). Memoir material is also contained in obituaries. Moreover, not only the personal, but the general attitude of the leading part of Russian society is reflected in them and in numerous poems dedicated to Dobrolyubov. Some poems were set to music and sung in circles of revolutionary-minded youth many years after Dobrolyubov’s death.

Memoirs written at different times - some immediately after Dobrolyubov’s death, others much time later - with some significant differences, are united by one thing - recognition of the spiritual height of his personality. Here we will not find exceptions or reservations. All his works, his whole life bear its stamp. “... The best representative of the country’s consciousness, the most honest defender of its interests, throughout the entire continuation of his activities never veered from the straight, honest path, never once agreed to any deal to the detriment of his convictions” (Bibikov P. A. About literary activities of N. A. Dobrolyubov, p. 5.), wrote the author of one of the first monographs about Dobrolyubov, his like-minded person P. A. Bibikov.

Memoirs of contemporaries help us imagine those living human feelings, thoughts, events that stood behind the lines of the articles created by Dobrolyubov, help us understand why, even decades after his death, he remained - at different stages of the history of his homeland, for its different people - - “titanium” (Garin-Mikhailovsky N.G. Collected works in 5 volumes, vol. 1. M., Goslitizdat, 1957, p. 485.). And it remains so even now, not in the memory of contemporaries, in the consciousness of posterity. Chernyshevsky turned out to be right, and that half-forgotten contemporary of Dobrolyubov was right, who predicted back in 1862: “... the material prepared by Dobrolyubov will last for many years, and more than one generation will recognize him as their teacher and mentor” (Bibikov P.A. O literary activity N, A. Dobrolyubova, p. 168).

Dobrolyubov’s literary critical assessments, which he gave more than a hundred years ago to the works of many authors, have retained their accuracy; His belief that he would be understood and appreciated by future generations was also justified.

G. Elizavetina

Russian literary critic, poet, publicist, revolutionary democrat

Nikolay Dobrolyubov

short biography

Nikolay Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov(February 5, 1836, Nizhny Novgorod - November 29, 1861, St. Petersburg) - Russian literary critic of the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, poet, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous nicknames -bov And N. Laibov, did not sign with his full real name.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov with his father. 1854. Photo by I. F. Alexandrovsky.

A.L. Katansky, who studied at the same seminary, recalled: “Dob-v amazed us with his appearance as a very well-bred young man, modest, graceful, always well dressed, with a gentle, handsome face. He looked like a red girl..." in 1853, "he came to St. Petersburg without completing the full seminar course, although his biographers claim that he completed it<…>N.A. actually strove to go to university, but his father did not want this, and therefore he chose St. Petersburg. academy. Arriving in St. Petersburg,<…>I learned that at the same time (from August 17) entrance exams to the Pedagogical Institute are being held,<…>that the institute is a higher educational institution, no worse than a university, with full government support. He decided to try to take exams there. He was admitted to them without documents.<…>After passing his college exams, he began to work hard to obtain documents from the academy.” Several outstanding professors taught at the institute at that time - Lorenz, Blagoveshchensky, Sreznevsky.

At the beginning of the summer of 1856, Dobrolyubov met N. G. Chernyshevsky; On July 24, 1856, his first article was published in St. Petersburg Gazette, signed Nikolai Alexandrovich; then his article “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word” appeared in Sovremennik. From 1857 he headed the critical and bibliographic department of Sovremennik, and from 1859 he headed the satirical department of Whistle.

In May 1860, he went abroad to treat his worsening tuberculosis; lived in Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy. In July 1861 he returned to his homeland, hopelessly ill.

Death

He died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled a lot around Europe. Shortly before his death, he asked to rent a new apartment for himself, so as not to leave an unpleasant aftertaste in the houses of his friends after his own death. I was conscious until the very last minute. N.G. Chernyshevsky sat hopelessly in the next room.

According to the memoirs of A. Ya. Panaeva, a few days before his death, N. A. Dobrolyubov said: “To die with the consciousness that I did not have time to do anything... nothing! How evilly fate laughed at me! If only death had sent me earlier!.. If only my life had lasted another two years, I would have had time to do at least something useful... now nothing, nothing!”

N. A. Dobrolyubov is buried at the Volkovskoye cemetery next to the grave of Vissarion Belinsky. Later, the part of the cemetery around their burials became a popular resting place for other Russian writers and literary critics, receiving the name “Literary Bridges” and now becoming one of the most prestigious burial places in St. Petersburg for outstanding figures of science and culture.

Journalism

N. A. Dobrolyubov. 1857

Dobrolyubov's short life was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, from a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), was published in N. A. Nekrasov’s magazine “Sovremennik” with a number of historical and especially literary critical works; his closest collaborator and like-minded person was N. G. Chernyshevsky. In one year, 1858, he published 75 articles and reviews.

Some of Dobrolyubov’s works (both fundamentally illegal, especially directed against Nicholas I, and those intended for publication, but not passed by censorship at all or in the author’s edition) remained unpublished during his lifetime.

Dobrolyubov’s works, published under the guise of purely literary “critics,” reviews of natural science works or political reviews of foreign life (Aesopian language), contained sharp socio-political statements. According to Dmitry Svyatopolk-Mirsky

Although everything he wrote was devoted to fiction, it would be extremely unfair to consider it literary criticism. True, Dobrolyubov had the rudiments of an understanding of literature, and the choice of things that he agreed to use as texts for his sermons was, in general, successful, but he never tried to discuss their literary side: he used them only as maps or photographs modern Russian life as a pretext for social preaching.

N. A. Dobrolyubov in Naples.
May 1861.

For example, a review of Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” entitled “When will the real day come?” contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” and “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” about Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” became an example of a democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation of an artistic style was first used by Dobrolyubov - the article “On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature” ), and in the USSR and Russia they were included in the school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the rejection of “art for art’s sake” and subjecting pure lyricists to destructive criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The dying trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov’s political radicalism and led to the abandonment of the idea of an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.

Philosophy

Poetry

Pedagogical ideas

Dobrolyubov’s pedagogical views are similar in many ways to the views of N. G. Chernyshevsky.

He also criticized the theory of “free education” of L. N. Tolstoy.

Pedagogical works.

“On the importance of authority in education” (1853-1858)
“Basic Laws of Education” (1859)
“Essay on the direction of the Jesuit order, especially as applied to the education and training of youth” (1857)
“All-Russian illusions destroyed by rods” (1860-1861)
“A teacher should serve as an ideal...”

Apologetics and criticism of Dobrolyubov’s work

Dobrolyubov was buried at the Volkovskoye cemetery next to Vissarion Belinsky; It was with the appearance of his grave that the Literary Bridge began to take shape. The personality of Dobrolyubov (along with Belinsky and another early-dead sixties critic, Pisarev) became the banner of the revolutionary movement of the 1860s and subsequent years (starting with the first biography of Dobrolyubov, written by Chernyshevsky), and was later surrounded by official veneration in the USSR.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. Born on January 24 (February 5), 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod - died on November 17 (November 29), 1861 in St. Petersburg. Russian literary critic of the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most famous pseudonyms are Bov and N. Laibov, he did not sign his full real name.

Born in Nizhny Novgorod into the family of a famous priest in the city (his father secretly married Melnikov-Pechersky). Since childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry. Having received good home preparation, he was immediately admitted to the last year of the fourth grade of theological school. Then he studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. Among the characteristics given to him by his mentors at that time: “Differentiated by quietness, modesty and obedience,” “zealous in worship and behaved approximately well,” “distinguished by tirelessness in his studies.” In the fall of 1853, with a recommendation for admission to the Theological Academy, Dobrolyubov traveled to St. Petersburg where he entered the Main Pedagogical Institute. From the age of 17 in St. Petersburg, he studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, studied folklore, and from 1854 (after the death of his parents) he began to share radical anti-monarchist, anti-religious and anti-serfdom views, which was reflected in his numerous “seditious” works of that time in poetry and prose, in including in handwritten student journals.

Dobrolyubov's short life was accompanied by great literary activity. He wrote a lot and easily (according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, from a pre-prepared logical outline in the form of a long ribbon wound around the finger of his left hand), he was published in the Sovremennik magazine with a number of historical and especially literary critical works; was his closest collaborator and like-minded person. In one year, 1858, he published 75 articles and reviews.

For example, a review of the novel “On the Eve” entitled “When will the real day come?” contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about the novel “Oblomov” and “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” about Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” became an example of a democratic-realistic interpretation of literature (the term realism itself as a designation of an artistic style was first used by Dobrolyubov - the article “On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature”) , and in the USSR and Russia they were included in the school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily from the social side and more than once declaring the rejection of “art for art’s sake” and subjecting pure lyricists to destructive criticism, Dobrolyubov often nevertheless highly valued from an aesthetic point of view the poems of authors who were not politically close to him (Yulia Zhadovskaya, Yakov Polonsky). The dying trip to Europe somewhat softened Dobrolyubov’s political radicalism and led to the abandonment of the idea of an immediate revolution and the need to find new ways.

Dobrolyubov’s pedagogical views are similar in many ways to the views of N. G. Chernyshevsky.

He was against the education of humility, blind obedience, suppression of the individual, and servility. He criticized the current education system, which kills the “inner man” in children, causing them to grow up unprepared for life.

He also criticized the theory of “free education”.

Raising a patriot and a highly ideological person, a citizen with strong convictions, a comprehensively developed person. To develop integrity, to correctly and as fully as possible develop “the personal independence of the child and all the spiritual forces of his nature”; - cultivate unity of thoughts, words, actions.

He opposed early specialization and favored general education as a prerequisite for special education. The principle of visualization of learning and the formulation of conclusions after analyzing judgments are important. Education through work, since work is the basis of morality. Religion should be banished from schools. Women should receive equal education as men.

Textbooks, Dobrolyubov said, are so imperfect that they deprive them of any opportunity to study seriously. Some textbooks present material in a deliberately false and distorted form; in others, if a lie is not maliciously reported, then there are many private, small facts, names and titles that do not have any significant significance in the study of a given subject and obscure the main thing. Textbooks should create in students correct ideas about the phenomena of nature and society, Dobrolyubov said. Simplification, let alone vulgarization, should not be allowed in the presentation of facts, description of objects and phenomena; it must be accurate and truthful, and the textbook material must be presented in simple, clear, understandable language for children. Definitions, rules, laws in the textbook must be given on the basis of scientifically reliable material.

Discipline: opposed the use of means degrading human dignity. The caring attitude of the teacher towards the student and the example of the teacher were considered a means of maintaining discipline. Strong condemnation of physical punishment. He spoke out against the inconsistency of N.I. Pirogov in the use of physical punishment.

Views on the activities of the teacher. He spoke out against the humiliating financial and legal situation of the teacher. They stood for the teacher to be a supporter of the progressive ideas of his time. He attached great importance to the beliefs and moral character of the teacher. The teacher must be a role model for children and have clear “understandings about the art of teaching and upbringing.” Teachers must be distinguished by clarity, firmness, infallibility of convictions, and extremely high all-round development.

Pedagogical works of Dobrolyubov:

“On the importance of authority in education” (1853-1858)
“Basic Laws of Education” (1859)
“Essay on the direction of the Jesuit order, especially as applied to the education and training of youth” (1857)
“All-Russian illusions destroyed by rods” (1860-1861)
“The teacher must serve as an ideal...”

He died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled a lot around Europe. Shortly before his death, he asked to rent a new apartment for himself, so as not to leave an unpleasant aftertaste in the homes of his friends after his own death. I was conscious until the very last minute. N.G. Chernyshevsky sat hopelessly in the next room.

N.A. Dobrolyubov is buried at the Volkovsky cemetery.