Dobrolyubov articles. Nikolai Dobrolyubov. Philosophical and social views of N.A. Dobrolyubova

The relevance of Dobrolyubov’s ideas today

Modern Russia needs to create a strong national idea, which must be based on both the past and the present. Separately within the framework of this issue is the problem of educating the younger generation. It is the authority of the teacher that is the key to the successful education of pupils, and it is currently at a low level. Schoolchildren do not respect teachers, teachers quietly hate schoolchildren, conniving with them because they do not want to delve into the problems of the new generation.

In domestic pedagogy, scientific understanding of the educational ideal in order to identify new approaches to upbringing and education was undertaken back in the 19th century. Many of their endeavors were successful. They had a great influence on Russian education.

Outstanding Russian thinkers of this period, such as V.G. Belinsky, N.I. Pirogov, K.D. Ushinsky, P.F. Kapterev, N.A. Dobrolyubov, argued that the educational ideal reflects the system of pedagogical views of the people, which was formed in its historical development on the basis of its worldview, its worldview, its national self-awareness.

Biography of Dobrolyubov N.A.

Dobrolyubov N.A. was one of the prominent thinkers of the 19th century. His biography is very interesting and rich. Dobrolyubov N.A. left his mark not only in pedagogy, but also in literature, philosophy and social science. First biography of N.A. Dobrolyubov, compiled on the basis of the “Materials” collected by N.G. Chernyshevsky, was published in 1862 in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov was born in 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a priest. Severity reigned in the Dobrolyubov family. The future writer and philosopher was kind to his mother. He avoided his father. Dobrolyubov was interested in poetry since childhood and began writing poetry early.

Having received good home training, N.A. Dobrolyubov was accepted immediately into the last year of the fourth grade of theological school in 1847. Afterwards, he studied at the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. Among the characteristics given to him by his mentors at that time: “He is distinguished by his quietness, modesty and obedience,” “he is diligent in worship and behaved approximately well,” “he is distinguished by his tirelessness in his studies.”

Portrait of N.A. Dobrolyubov

In 1853 N.A. Dobrolyubov came to St. Petersburg and entered the Institute. Already in 1857 he successfully graduated from the Main Pedagogical Institute. During his studies he became interested revolutionary ideas. Against this background, he headed the opposition student circle. In 1855 N.A. Dobrolyubov published an illegal handwritten newspaper "Rumors". An important stage in his development was his acquaintance in 1856 with N.G. Chernyshevsky and with N.A. Nekrasov.

In 1859-1861, being the compiler, editor and main author of the satirical section of Sovremennik "Whistle", he published feuilletons and poetic parodies. In 1857-1859, simultaneously with his work in Sovremennik, he was published in the Magazine for Education.

N.A. Dobrolyubov fell ill with tuberculosis, which only progressed in the conditions of St. Petersburg weather. In May 1860, at the insistence of friends, Dobrolyubov went abroad for treatment of tuberculosis. N.A. Dobrolyubov lived in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, but failed to cure tuberculosis. In July 1861, Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov returned to St. Petersburg, where on November 29 (old style - November 17), 1861, he died.

Philosophical and social views of N.A. Dobrolyubova

Dobrolyubov’s social, philosophical, literary and aesthetic views are distinguished by “peasant democracy.” Whatever he wrote about, he always thought about the people, fought for them with his ideological opponents. “Indigenous Russia does not lie in you and me, gentlemen, wise men. We can hold on only because there is solid ground beneath us - the real Russian people; and in ourselves we constitute a completely inconspicuous part of the great Russian people,” in this polemical true statement - the basis of Dobrolyubov’s worldview.

In his views on the development of pedagogy and education N.A. Dobrolyubov largely relied on the opinion of V. G. Belinsky and N. G. Chernyshevsky.

Your method artistic analysis he called "real criticism". Guided by this method, he sought to “... interpret the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work, without, however, imposing on the author any pre-conceived ideas and tasks.”

Features of the critical art of N.A. Dobrolyubova’s skill lies in the ability to combine aesthetic analysis of the images created by the artist with the study of the truth of life that gave birth to these images.

With all the strength of his talent, Dobrolyubov defended the principles of realism and nationality of literature, defended the idea of its high citizenship. Public service was for him the highest criterion of an artist's activity. He condemned and ridiculed art, devoid of progressive social content, which became the property of “idle sloths.” A passionate polemicist, Dobrolyubov used a variety of critical genres and satirical techniques in the fight against superficial accusatory literature, epigonic poetry, and reactionary journalism.

Dobrolyubov Nikolai Alexandrovich was utopian socialist and educator, but his utopianism was combined with a desire for practical action. If you read Dobrolyubov’s letters, it becomes obvious that he was involved in the underground revolutionary work that began in Russia. His enlightenment was of an active nature.

Unlike official science, Dobrolyubov in his historical works did not reduce history to the actions of princes, kings and generals and saw its main driving force V the masses. He recognized the pattern historical development, but interpreted historical progress idealistically, reducing it mainly to the spiritual enrichment of humanity. He understood the class struggle as the eternal antagonism between “aristocracy” and “democracy” and saw “the destruction of parasites and the exaltation of labor” as a constant trend of history. In addition, he noted that over the course of thousands of years, “... only the form of exploitation changes and becomes more dexterous and sophisticated; but the essence still remains the same, as long as the possibility of exploitation remains.”

Dobrolyubov about the goals and objectives of education

In their pedagogical views of N.A. Dobrolyubov relied on the views of Chernyshevsky. He was categorically against the education of humility, blind obedience, suppression of the individual and servility. In his works, Dobrolyubov actively criticized the education system in force at that time. In his opinion, she killed in children" inner man", which is why they grew up unprepared for life.

In his classic work“What is Oblomovism? Dobrolyubov showed that Oblomov’s behavior is determined by social relations, the social structure, that laziness, apathy, lack of will and other qualities characteristic of Oblomov are not innate in him, but acquired in conditions of a serf-dominated environment and upbringing.

Of great importance for the development of Russian pedagogy, in particular preschool, and the correct organization of the practice of raising children in the family and preschool institutions was treatise by N. A. Dobrolyubov “On the importance of authority in education”, written in 1857. This work reveals the reactionary, anti-scientific foundations of the feudal system of raising children and brilliantly sets out a new theory of education in the spirit of revolutionary democracy, showing an example of a dialectical approach to solving complex, fundamental pedagogical problems.

Dobrolyubov was an opponent of both providing children with unlimited freedom and blindly subordinating them to the authority of adults.

N.A. Dobrolyubov recognized the need for reasonable guidance from elders to younger ones, and from educators to students. Standing on the position of materialism, Dobrolyubov argued that authoritarian education is a product of serfdom, is in conflict with the interests of the liberation movement of Russia and hinders its further development. Dobrolyubov said that in order to educate people capable of waging a revolutionary struggle against autocracy and serfdom, a new pedagogical theory is needed that corresponds to the tasks of reorganizing society, emancipating the individual, and his all-round development.

N.A. Dobrolyubov insisted that children from an early age be taught to think independently, to be aware of their actions, to act not just because they were ordered to do so and not only out of respect for the person who ordered it, but out of their own conviction in the correctness of their actions . Unquestioning obedience, killing the courage and independence of the manifestations of a child's mind, heart, will, has a harmful effect on their development.

Dobrolyubov N.A. about family and public education

According to the revolutionary democrats, to whom N.A. belonged. Dobrolyubov, extremely The role of the mother in the family is great. She must not only realize her maternal instinct, but also listen to the feelings and tendencies in the child’s development in order to guide him.

The mother must “accustom the child to think about and weigh her requests and orders, which little by little should change their character and turn into advice and instructions...”.

A child's daily life is a series of events through which he gains life experience. It is for this reason that the task of the family is to ensure that the experience acquired by the child has a positive direction for development. The family must intelligently guide the child's development.

For N.A. Dobrolyubov, as a supporter of revolutionary democrats, was very important aesthetic education . He believed that it is the desire for beauty that is initially inherent in a person. That is why proper aesthetic education allows a person to become an individual.

N.A. Dobrolyubov agreed with the opinion of N.G. Chernyshevsky, according to which aesthetic education begins with the child’s first impressions, therefore it is necessary to pay attention to the environment that surrounds him in the first years of life. The impressions received awaken the aesthetic sense, influence the development of aesthetic concepts, and stimulate the imagination. The aesthetic sense develops in games, in the first attempts at children's creativity, in children's favorite activities.

In his work “Robert Owen and his attempts at social reforms N. A. Dobrolyubov expressed his positive attitude to the experience of working with young children in institutions created by the English social utopian in New Lanark.

Dobrolyubov also considered Owen’s great merit that “he invented and established, in accordance with the principles of a rational system of society, children’s schools, in which the new higher system of external environment, acting on the formation of young characters, produced in them peacefully favorable habits and inclinations and animated their love for everyone." In his other works, he strongly supported the idea of public education of children.

N. A. Dobrolyubov did not approve of the current education of girls. He believed that the current education of girls is very narrowly focused, as it prepares them only for the role of wife and mother. It lacks the development of creative thinking and free will.

In the literary and journalistic articles of revolutionary democrats of the 60s of the XIX century. reflected their advanced views on children's literature as part of general literature, there are also their statements about educational books for children.

N.A. Dobrolyubov did not approve of those works of children's literature that supported serfdom and religious-monarchical ideas. Dobrolyubov, like other revolutionary democrats, criticized children's books that embellished reality and did not show social contradictions and the struggles that permeate public life. Revolutionary democrats fought for children's books to be a “textbook of life” for children, to show the truth of life, and to contain answers to questions that they could not get from adults in the family and school.

N.A. Dobrolyubov on the authority of the teacher

N.A. pays great attention to his pedagogical works. Dobrolyubov paid attention to the problem of the authority of the teacher. He pointed out that the requirement of unquestioning obedience is not a guarantee of respect from children, and certainly does not increase authority. N.A. Dobrolyubov pointed out the erroneousness of the way that educators often use when raising children, demanding from them unconditional, rather than reasonable, obedience. The success of education, in his deep conviction, lies in observing reasonableness, and this reasonableness should be known not only to the teacher, but also to the child himself.

The main thing in education, according to N.A. Dobrolyubov, this is the teacher’s respect “for the human race in the child, the presentation of free, normal development to him.”

In his works “On the Importance of Authority in Education,” “Organic Development of Man in Connection with His Mental and Moral Activity,” Dobrolyubov has a great conversation about the goals and methods of education. He stands up for the diversified development and education of a person, he opposes unnecessary supervision in learning, and against the suppression of independence. "We demand that educators show more respect for human nature and tried to develop, and not suppress the inner man in their pupils, and so that education strives to make a person moral - not out of habit, but out of consciousness and conviction." To educate a citizen in the spirit of " true goodness and truth" - Dobrolyubov called his readers to this.

N.A. Dobrolyubov understood well that no matter how good textbooks, reading books and other means of teaching (and education) were, main role the teacher plays. In his writings, he devoted many wonderful lines to revealing the purpose and nature of teaching work, the qualities that, from his point of view, a teacher should have, and, finally, protecting the financial and legal status of a teacher, especially a rural one.

For N.A. Dobrolyubov’s pedagogical skills played a big role. Dobrolyubov was of the opinion that every teacher should think and work in the direction that the highest level of excellence is ensured in each lesson, both in terms of content and form.

Teaching and educating the younger generation is the main, but not the only, responsibility of a teacher. N.A. Dobrolyubov believed that a teacher who correctly understood his purpose, as an activist called with all his strength and abilities to serve the good of the homeland and the people, cannot limit himself to classes with children, he will certainly devote himself in his free time from these classes to the dissemination of knowledge and enlightenment among the population.

In conclusion, I would like to specifically highlight the fact that Dobrolyubov paid a lot of attention to the study of Russian and European literature. His critical works left a deep imprint on the study literary trends XIX century.

Returning to the pedagogical views of N.A. Dobrolyubov, it should be noted that he advocated the need to take into account in education the laws of child development established by the natural sciences. He said that official pedagogy overlooks one very important circumstance - real life and the nature of children and those raised in general. He insisted that educators, knowing the peculiarities of children's nature and relying on them, should intelligently guide the development of children, providing them with the freedom necessary to manifest those qualities that an advanced person should have.

N.A. Dobrolyubov not only developed the pedagogical views of A.N. Radishcheva, V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen and substantiated a harmonious system of teaching about education and pedagogy. He more fully developed the doctrine of the content and methodology of the educational work of the school, the educational significance of school subjects, the cultivation of independent thought in students in the learning process, the essence of conscious discipline, and much more. Pedagogical thoughts of N.A. Dobrolyubov had a great influence on the development of progressive pedagogy and school education in Russia. Much of this pedagogical heritage has not lost its relevance in our time.

Literature

Dobrolyubov N. A. Collected works in three volumes Volume one. Articles, reviews and notes (1853-1858) Compilation and introductory article by Yu. G. Burtin - M.: Fiction, 1986.
Dobrolyubov N.A. Mind and heart: Thoughts on education. – M.: Politizdat, 1986
Dobrolyubov N.N. Collected Works T.6 – M.: State Publishing House of Fiction. 1950
History of social pedagogy / Author-ed. M. A. Galaguzova, Yu. N. Galaguzova, V. A. Degterev, T. S. Dorokhova, B. M. Igoshev, L. V. Mardakhaev, I. V. Nevolina / Ed. Galaguzova M.A – M: Vlados, 2011
Krasnov G. V. N. A. Dobrolyubov. Materials for lectures and conversations - M.: Gorky Publishing House, 1962.
Dobrolyubov N. And in the memoirs of contemporaries. Entry article by G. Elizavetina / Compiler of the text and commentator S. Reiser - M.: Fiction. -1986

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (January 24 (February 5), 1836, Nizhny Novgorod - November 17 (November 29), 1861, St. Petersburg) - Russian literary critic of the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, publicist, revolutionary democrat. The most known aliases-bov and N. Laibov, did not sign with his full real name. Born in Nizhny Novgorod into the family of a famous priest in the city (his father secretly married Melnikov-Pechersky). House No. 5 on Pozharsky Street, where Nikolai was born, was demolished in beginning of XXI century. Since childhood, I read a lot and wrote poetry. From the age of 17 in St. Petersburg, he studied at the Main Pedagogical Institute, studied folklore, 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 (he died of tuberculosis at the age of 25, a year before his death he was treated abroad and traveled extensively throughout Europe) 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. Although everything he wrote was dedicated fiction, consider it literary criticism it would be extremely unfair. 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 “When will the real day come?” contained minimally veiled calls for social revolution. His articles “What is Oblomovism?” about Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” and “Ray of Light in 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 artistic style Dobrolyubov was the first to use it - the article “On the degree of participation of the nationality in the development of Russian literature”), and in the USSR and Russia they were included in school curriculum. Interpreting works primarily with social side and more than once declaring the denial 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 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.

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. O literary activity N. A. Dobrolyubova. 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 Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1940, p. 226.), - wrote the revolutionary populist P. N. Tkachev in the early 1880s. The memories of like-minded people and followers of Dobrolyubov, if they knew him personally, are colored 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 Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 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, 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 due to some of the 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,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “with a request: tell me your memories of him and give me for a while those of his letters and papers that they have preserved. I dare to assure 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 something inaccessible to prying eyes. inner world Dobrolyubov, the depth and struggle of his feelings.

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

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 restored to some extent 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 Vilyuisk, “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 collection of 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.).

Difficult circumstances recent years Chernyshevsky’s life did not allow him to complete his plans, they 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 during the analysis 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, becoming an event even for opponents of the critic. 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 is 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. Bov and the Question of Art”: “... critical articles Sovremennik, since Mr. Bov collaborates in it, has been cut from the first, at a time when almost no one reads critics - this alone clearly testifies to Mr. Bov’s literary talent. His talent has strength 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 about Sovremennik without a shadow of a doubt: “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, it is meaningful creative path Dobrolyubov, his biography has been 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 his 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 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.

The content of the memoir narrative was given by Dobrolyubov as follows: great value, that any cuts in it seemed to him to be 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 contemporaries" (to a lesser extent) and "N. G. Chernyshevsky in the memoirs of 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 contents of the collection.

Dobrolyubov was among the first commoners who not only performed in the arena 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 memories of him early years First of all, the writers highlight 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 his unusual seriousness 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 he was seventeen years old, inseparable from her, for whom he was a beloved son, and not only a son, but also best friend, because his father was most often absent in his service, and which he himself loved, as no one else could 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 Bonfires 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, the possibility of ruining his career, it seems, 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 Jubilee 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 distinguished Dobrolyubov from the circle of his contemporaries, among whom there were many remarkable people, Antonovich wrote: “But what especially elevated him above ordinary outstanding people, what constituted his characteristic distinctive feature What aroused in me surprise, almost even reverence for him was the 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: real reasons are ideological in nature, that although “everyone... equally desires the best and strives for improvements, the ideas about these improvements” and the methods of achieving 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 But this is completely untrue. The reasons for the split lay much deeper and were much more serious than the personal relationships between the writers. The split would inevitably have occurred even if Dobrolyubov had been exquisitely courteous and loyally respectful to the older writers."

Subsequently, Turgenev wrote in his memoirs that he “highly valued” Dobrolyubov “as a person and as 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 collection of works and letters in 28 -mi volumes. Works, vol. 14, pp. 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.” Similar character had a relationship with Herzen. 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, confronting 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. Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 5, p. 370.).

Does what the memoir material provides correspond to historical significance Dobrolyubova? 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.

Written in different times Memories - some immediately after Dobrolyubov's death, others a long 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. "... Best Representative consciousness of the country, the most honest defender of its interests, who throughout his entire career has never veered from the straight, honest path, never once agreed to any deal to the detriment of his conviction" (Bibikov P. A. About the literary activity of N. A. Dobrolyubova , 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 articles created by Dobrolyubov, help us understand why, even decades after his death, he remained - on different stages the history of his homeland, for its different people - a “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

Dobrolyubov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836-1861), literary critic and publicist.

Born on February 5, 1836 in Nizhny Novgorod in the family of a priest. He studied at the theological seminary (1848-1853). In 1857 he graduated from the Main Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg.

While still a student, he organized an illegal circle, published a handwritten newspaper “Rumors”, and led student protests against the government. In 1856, he met N. G. Chernyshevsky, then N. A. Nekrasov, and the following year began full-time work in the Sovremennik magazine: he wrote journalistic articles, feuilletons and poetic parodies.

He also collaborated in the “Magazine for Education” (1857-1859). By conviction, Dobrolyubov was a utopian socialist, and by spirit an educator. In 1858, he published articles in which he outlined his literary, aesthetic, philosophical and historical views: “On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature”, “The first years of the reign of Peter the Great”, “Russian civilization, composed by Mr. Zherebtsov”.

In 1859-1860 literary critical articles appeared “What is Oblomovism?” (about I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”), “The Dark Kingdom” and “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (about A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”), “When will the real day come?” (about I. S. Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve”). In these articles, Dobrolyubov uses the method he developed “ real criticism": "...to interpret the phenomena of life itself on the basis of a literary work, without, however, imposing on the author any pre-conceived ideas and tasks."

The peculiarity of Dobrolyubov as a critic is his ability to combine aesthetic analysis literary images with a study of the real life that gave rise to these images. Dobrolyubov defended the principles of realism and nationality, put forward the idea of citizenship of literature: public service is the highest criterion of an artist’s activity. A brilliant critic, he used various artistic techniques: ironic praise, caustic parody in verse and prose, feuilleton, etc.

In May 1860, Dobrolyubov went abroad to treat tuberculosis. He lived in Germany, Switzerland, France, and more than six months in Italy, where he wrote a series of articles in support of the liberation movement of G. Garibaldi (“Incomprehensible Strangeness”, “Father Alexander Gavazzi and his Sermons”, “The Life and Death of Count Camillo Benzo Cavour” ).

In July of the following year, Dobrolyubov returned to his homeland without improving his health, and very soon an acute tuberculosis process and hard work brought him to the grave. Died on November 29, 1861 in St. Petersburg.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836–1861) headed the literary-critical department of the Sovremennik publication since 1857.

Being a successor of ideas, the critic, however, assessed phenomena in literature more sharply - he tightened the requirements for literature and, as the main criterion for the ideological nature of works, considered the degree to which they contain:

ideas of the oppressed classes;
critics of the ruling class.

Critical activity of Dobrolyubov - themes, ideas, questions

The concept of "nationality"

In his work “On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature” (1858), dedicated to the theory of radical criticism, he took up his own interpretation of the concept in literature.

Yes, in my work

Only folklore considers a truly popular phenomenon,
believes that more late literature serves the interests of the ruling class,
ignores the principle of historicism in literature, ridiculing Karamzin and Lomonosov for their detachment from the ideals of “nationality”,
notes the works of Koltsov, and Shchedrin as the most “folk” among the works of his contemporaries.

This interpretation of the concept formed the basis of the accusatory motives of this critic’s critical articles.

The role of citizenship

Unlike Chernyshevsky, the author believed that the final result of the author’s creativity is more important than his ideological preferences and civic position, i.e. The main thing for a critic is not what the author intended to say, but what is in the final result.

Similarly, he pointed out the importance of work literary critic, which is intended to reveal that same “unconscious creativity” in the work. That is, the critic points out the need to reveal social problems, involuntary hints of which can be found in this or that work.
Dobrolyubov, in his criticism, turned to the analysis of diverse works:

"Dark Kingdom" was dedicated to
“What is Oblomovism?” – ,
"Downtrodden people" - .

At the same time, he was prone to broad generalizations, which is why in Dobrolyubov’s various articles one can often find extremely similar conclusions, boiling down to a statement of the depravity of the political system in Russia.

Dobrolyubov's critical methodology

The writer based his critical method on a socio-psychological typology, within the framework of which the author distributed the characters according to the degree of their compliance with the concept of “new man”.

As part of the author’s criticism, not only the merchants of Ostrovsky and Shchedrin “got it,” but also Beltov, Rudin, Pechorin and Onegin, whose behavior the author classified as “Oblomovism.” The skepticism of Rudin and Pechorin, according to the author, is alien to the ideals of progressive development, and against their background he even wins, since he is extremely honest in his inaction.

Criticizing Oblomov, Dobrolyubov considered imperfection social system as the main reason for “Oblomovism”. Moreover, he noted that the depravity of this very system led to the fact that even Goncharov himself believed in the demise of Oblomov’s model, but this is not so.

“Oblomovka,” writes the critic, “is our direct homeland... and it’s too early to write a funeral eulogy for us.”

In addition to the ideological component, the critic Dobrolyubov took into account the individual artistic specificity works and talent of the writer. Proof of this can be the author’s criticism of the works of V. Sollogub and M. Rozengeim on the pages of the satirical newspaper “Whistle”.

The writer's criticism was also based on an analysis of the author's language, which made it possible to better reveal the inner world of the characters. The paucity of speeches of Golyadkin and Devushkin in Dostoevsky’s early works, against the backdrop of their self-awareness, demonstrated the futility of their struggle against psychological oppression. Because of Dostoevsky’s love for his heroes – “downtrodden people” – the critic forgave the author minor aesthetic shortcomings in his works.

These works confirmed the critic’s idea of the difference between Russian literature and world artistic examples and the inadmissibility of their evaluation according to general cultural criteria.

Search for a “new hero”

He was not lucky enough to meet critics during his lifetime, so in his search for new heroes he settled on. In her Dobrolyubov saw a character protesting against injustices “ dark kingdom", Elena from the work "On the Eve" by Turgenev, he also considered susceptible to social changes.

At the same time, domestic literature in general, as the author believed, she was not yet ready to understand and reflect on the necessary changes, and, consequently, to the birth of the corresponding heroes.

Work “When will the real day come?” became the reason that Dobrolyubov himself became the object of criticism from his colleagues, and a conflict broke out among the authors of the Sovremennik magazine.

Turgenev condemned the critic for the harshness of his judgments, believing that Nikolai Alexandrovich’s work distorted the idea of the novel “On the Eve,” and L. Tolstoy, Botkin and Turgenev himself left the magazine’s staff.

in 1859-1860 A. Herzen published the article “Very dangerous!” in Kolokol, as well as the work “ Extra people and Zhelchevikov,” in which he also condemned Dobrolyubov for an unfair assessment of the 1840s.

Try to guess the thematic crossword about the work of this writer on our website

Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share it