Home > Brake system > The history of the creation of the notes of the hunter Turgenev is brief. Publication of "Notes of a Hunter" in the Soviet Union. On the question of the time when the idea of ​​the cycle arose. Initial stage: from “Khorya and Kalinich” to “Lgov”

The history of the creation of the notes of the hunter Turgenev is brief. Publication of "Notes of a Hunter" in the Soviet Union. On the question of the time when the idea of ​​the cycle arose. Initial stage: from “Khorya and Kalinich” to “Lgov”

Publication:

1852 (separate edition)

in Wikisource

Notes of a hunter- a series of stories by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, published in 1847-1851 in the Sovremennik magazine and published as a separate edition in 1852. Three stories were written and added by the author to the collection much later.

List of stories

The collection received its final composition only in the 1874 edition: the author included three new stories, written on the basis of early plans that at one time remained unrealized.

Below, after the title of the story, the first publication is indicated in brackets.

  • Khor and Kalinich (Contemporary, 1847, No. 1, department “Mixture”, pp. 55-64)
  • Ermolai and the miller's wife (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, section I, pp. 130-141)
  • Raspberry water (Contemporary, 1848, No2, part I, pp. 148-157)
  • District doctor (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 157-165)
  • My neighbor Radilov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, section I, pp. 141-148)
  • Odnodvorets Ovsyannikov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, department I, pp. 148-165)
  • Lgov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, department G, pp. 165-176)
  • Bezhin meadow (Contemporary, 1851, No. 2, section I, pp. 319-338)
  • Kasyan with a Beautiful Sword (Contemporary, 1851, No. 3, section I, pp. 121-140)
  • Burmister (Contemporary, 1846, No. 10, department I, pp. 197-209)
  • Office (Contemporary, 1847, No. 10, department I, pp. 210-226)
  • Biryuk (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 166-173)
  • Two landowners (Notes of a hunter. Work by Ivan Turgenev. M., 1852. Parts I-II. pp. 21-40)
  • Lebedyan (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 173-185)
  • Tatyana Borisovna and her nephew (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 186-197)
  • Death (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2. section I, pp. 197-298)
  • Singers (Contemporary, 1850, No. 11, section I, pp. 97-114)
  • Petr Petrovich Karataev (Contemporary, 1847, No. 2, section I, pp. 197-212)
  • Date (Contemporary, 1850, No. 11, department I, pp. 114-122)
  • Hamlet of Shchirgovsky district (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, department I, pp. 275-292)
  • Tchertophanov and Nedopyuskin (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, section I, pp. 292-309)
  • The end of Chertopkhanov (Bulletin of Europe, 1872, No. 11, p. 5-46)
  • Living relics (Skladchina. Literary collection, compiled from the works of Russian writers in favor of those affected by famine in the Samara province. St. Petersburg, 1874. - pp. 65-79)
  • Knocking! (Works by I. S. Turgenev (1844-1874). M.: publishing house of the Salaev brothers, 1874. Part I. - P. 509-531)
  • Forest and steppe (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, section I, pp. 309-314)

There are 17 more known plans of Turgenev related to the “Notes of a Hunter” cycle, but which remained unfulfilled for various reasons. Turgenev began developing one of them in 1847-1848; two fragments have survived: “The Reformer and the Russian German” (6 pages of text in the modern collected works) and “The Russian German” (1.5 pages of text).

During the Soviet era, “children’s” editions of the collection were widespread, which included only selected stories (less than half of the canonical composition). Their textual analysis has never been carried out. In its entirety, “Notes of a Hunter” was published only in the collected works of Turgenev (which, however, were published in colossal editions).

The most correct from the point of view of textual criticism are two Soviet academic editions of “Notes of a Hunter”:

  • Turgenev I. S. Complete collection works and letters in twenty-eight volumes (thirty books): Works in fifteen volumes. T. 4. Notes of a hunter. 1847-1874. - M.: Nauka, 1963. 616 p. 212,000 copies.
  • Turgenev I. S. Complete collection of works and letters in thirty volumes: Works in twelve volumes. Second edition, corrected and expanded. T. 3. Notes of a hunter. 1847-1874. - M.: Science, 1979.

Notes

Film adaptations

  • 1935 - Bezhin Meadow - film by S. Eisenstein, lost
  • 1971 - The life and death of the nobleman Tchertopkhanov (based on the stories “Tchertopkhanov and Nedopyuskin” and “The End of Tchertopkhanov”)

Links

  • Notes of a hunter in the library of Maxim Moshkov

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Notes of a Hunter” is in other dictionaries:

    Jarg. school Joking. 1. Student’s notebook. VMN 2003, 52. 2. Diary. /i> Based on the name of the collection of stories by I. S. Turgenev. Maksimov, 148 ...

    Notes of a Hunter (Turgenev)- Under this title, a collection of stories by T appeared in 1852 as a separate edition, published in Sovremennik 1847-1851 and entitled From the Notes of a Hunter. This title was invented by one of the co-publishers of the magazine, I. I. Panaev, in the opinion of T... ... Dictionary of literary types

    Notes on fishing (Aksakova)- The first edition of Notes (M. 1847) sold out terribly hard. According to S. T., the book, praised in all magazines, sold no more than 15 copies in five years. 2nd ed. M. 1854 3rd M. 1856 Notes delivered to Aksakov literary name … Dictionary of literary types

    Notes of a rifle hunter of the Orenburg province (Aksakov)- started in 1850; the first edition appeared in 1852 (Moscow). I. S. Turgenev wrote about this widely read and much-loved book in Sovremennik: anyone who loves nature in all its diversity, in all its beauty and power, anyone who... ... Dictionary of literary types

    Stories and memories of a hunter about different hunts (Aksakova)- appeared in a separate publication in 1855. Initially, these stories were intended for the Hunting collection conceived by A. in 1853. This collection, according to S. T., should have been published annually according to a broad program. A. thought about participating in the publication... ... Dictionary of literary types

    Notes of a hunter. Jarg. school Joking. 1. Student’s notebook. VMN 2003, 52. 2. Diary. /i> Based on the name of the collection of stories by I. S. Turgenev. Maksimov, 148. Notes of a madman. 1. Jarg. school Joking. Student's notebook. VMN 2003, 52. 2. Jarg. school Shuttle... ... Big dictionary Russian sayings

    Famous writer. Genus. October 28, 1818 in Orel. It is difficult to imagine a greater contrast than the general spiritual appearance of T. and the environment from which he directly came. His father Sergei Nikolaevich, a retired cuirassier colonel, was... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Lukina Valentina Aleksandrovna. Creative history of "Notes of a Hunter" by I. S. Turgenev: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 St. Petersburg, 2006 187 p. RSL OD, 61:06-10/388

Introduction

Chapter I. When was “Khor and Kalinich” written?

1.1. The question of the origins of “Notes of a Hunter” in modern Turgen studies

1.2. On the approaches to "Notes of a Hunter". “Khor and Kalinich” 27

Chapter P. The main stages of the formation of the nickname “Notes of a Hunter”

II. 1. Programs “Notes of a Hunter” 52

11.2. On the question of the time when the idea of ​​the cycle arose. Initial stage: from “Khor and Kalinich” to “Lgov” 60

11.3. To the history of the creation of "Burmistra" 66

P.3.1. On the history of the origin of the idea for the story “Tchertophanov and Nedopyuskin” 81

11.4. Completion of the cycle in 1849. On the history of the creation of “Hamlet 86 of the Shchigrovsky district”

11.5. Expansion of the cycle in the 1850s. A separate edition of “Notes of a Hunter” from 1852. Inclusion in the cycle of the story “Petr Petrovich Karataev”

Chapter III. Final design of the cycle (1870s)

III. 1. Background to the resumption of the cycle

Sh.2. Stories from the 1870s in connection with literary creativity Turgenev of this time

Conclusion

List of used literature

Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III

Introduction to the work

"Notes of a Hunter" - central work I. S. Turgenev, rightly called by himself in one of his letters to P. V. Annenkov (albeit with some degree of irony) as his “mite contributed to the treasury of Russian literature.”1 Stories highly appreciated by contemporaries as they appeared in Sovremennik, having been collected together and published in 1852 as a separate book, brought its author unconditional recognition both in Russia and in Western Europe, and after a short time they were allowed to talk about them as a complete work, which, for all its artlessness and apparent lightness, represented an outstanding phenomenon that reflected characteristic features Russian society. The persecution to which the author of “Notes of a Hunter” was subjected only confirmed the public resonance and historical significance of the work.

In November 1952, when the centenary of the publication of the first separate edition of “Notes of a Hunter” was celebrated, a special scientific session was held in Orel, the writer’s homeland, entirely devoted to the problems of studying Turgenev’s book. The reports read at this session formed the basis for the anniversary collection “Notes of a Hunter” by I.S. Turgenev. (1852-1952)", published in 1955 and which has not lost its scientific value to this day. In the preface to the collection, M.P. Alekseev, telling the story of its appearance, wrote: “...Despite the fact that “Notes of a Hunter” are reprinted in thousands of copies and are studied in secondary schools and universities, scientific literature information about this book is small, difficult to access, and much of it is already outdated.”2

Several decades later, having already celebrated the 150th anniversary of “Notes of a Hunter,” we are still forced to say that our knowledge of the work with which it began worldwide fame writer, there are a significant number of “blank spots”.

It cannot be said that “Notes of a Hunter” attracted little attention from Turgenev scholars; on the contrary, they were studied to a greater or lesser extent by such outstanding researchers as B. M. Eikhenbaum, N. L. Brodsky, M. K. Kleman, Yu. G. Oksman , M. P. Alekseev, V. A. Gromov, O. Ya. Samochatova and many others.3 However, the long and difficult nature of the very history of the creation of “Notes of a Hunter”, which continued throughout almost the entire creative life Turgenev, caused many of the difficulties that researchers had to face. First of all, it should be pointed out that most of the manuscripts of the “Notes of a Hunter” were lost. Autographs were especially affected. early stories: today we have no idea about the whereabouts of the white and draft manuscripts of the first five stories that appeared in early 1847 on the pages of the transformed Sovremennik. The fate of these manuscripts still remains unknown.4 This fact is all the more distressing since the initial stage of Turgenev’s work on “Notes of a Hunter” is the least documented. The surviving letters of Turgenev from this time are rare and do not give any idea of ​​how the work on “Khorem and Kalinich”, “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife”, “My Neighbor Radilov”, “Odnodvorets Ovsyanikov” and “Lgov” unfolded. Testimony from Turgenev himself about the origin of the “Notes of a Hunter” is also scarce and for the most part relates to much more late period. The retrospective nature and some inconsistency of the author's evidence force us to treat the information contained in them with a great degree of caution and return again to the question of when Turgenev began working on “Notes of a Hunter.”

Only fifteen draft autographs have survived, and one of them (the autograph of the story “Bezhin Meadow,” kept in the Russian State Archive of Literature) is incomplete; only seven Belovs are known. Most of the surviving manuscripts of “Notes of a Hunter” (16 autographs) are stored in the manuscript department of the Russian National Library (OR RNL) in fund No. 795 (I. S. Turgenev). Here are draft and white autographs of the stories “Tchertop-hanov and Nedopyuskin” (OR RNB. F. 795. No. 10, 11), “Forest and Steppe” (No. 12, 13), “Singers” (No. 14, 15), “Date "(No. 16, 17), draft autographs of the stories "The Burmaster" (No. 3), "The Office" (No. 4), "Two Landowners" (No. 5), "The District Doctor" (No. 6), "Raspberry Water" ( No. 7), “Death” (No. 8), “Hamlet of Shchigrovsky District” (No. 9) and the white autograph “Bezhin Meadows” (No. 18). Some of the manuscripts of “Notes of a Hunter,” which at one time remained in Turgenev’s Parisian archive, are now kept in the Paris National Library. Photocopies of some of these autographs were transferred in 1962 to the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Russian Literature, among them the rough and white autographs of the story “Living Relics” (ROIRLI. P.I. Op. 29. No. 251), as well as the rough autographs of the stories “The End of Chertopkhanov” (#169, 255 (cover)) and "Knocking!" (No. 170, No. 259 (cover)). In addition, the Paris National Library contains a white autograph of the story “The End of Tchertopkhanov” and several autographs of the story “The Reformer and the Russian German” (which remained unfinished), photocopies of which are also available in RO IRLI (RO IRLI. R. I. Op. 29. No. 230). In addition to draft and white autographs, authorized copies of the stories “Singers” (TIM) and “Living Relics” (RO IRLI) have been preserved, as well as the censored manuscript of “Notes of a Hunter,” which was prepared for the first separate edition in 1852 and is currently in two archival repositories (the first part is in RGALI, the second part is in Moscow State University). See also about this: 30 PSSiP (2). pp. 436-437; 301991. pp. 657-663. A visual representation of the handwritten collection of the “Notes of a Hunter” is given by Appendix III.

Considerable difficulty in studying “Notes of a Hunter” is presented by the extremely complicated history of the text. In textual terms, “Notes of a Hunter” is distinguished by one feature: each of the twenty-five stories that make up the cycle has several printed sources, to which, in some cases, are also added draft manuscripts, with their extremely small and illegible handwriting, with copious corrections made by the author in many cases in pencil, and with numerous notes. Reconciling all these sources with each other is an extremely labor-intensive process.

The most superficial review of the editions of “Notes of a Hunter” undertaken since 1917 shows how ambiguously the issue of choosing a definitive text was resolved. So, the basis of the first Soviet edition, undertaken by B. M. Eikhenbaum in 1918, two editions were published - a separate edition in 1852 and an edition by N. Osnovsky in 1860 (the stories of the 1870s were given from first-print sources).5 In the first scientific collection of Turgenev’s works, edited K. I. Khalabayev and B. M. Eikhenbaum, the texts of “Notes of a Hunter” were already published according to the stereotypical edition of 1880, but with some corrections made according to autographs, journal publications and the text of the editions of 1852 and 1874 (ZO 1929). In the 1949 edition, the main source was the text of the 1883 edition (including editions of 1874 and 1880).6 The same source served as the main source in preparing the 1953 edition.7

In general, several generations of researchers have done a great deal of work studying the “Notes of a Hunter.” The result can be considered the publication of the 4th volume of the first academic Complete Works and Letters of I. S. Turgenev in 1963.8 It should, however, be recognized that, despite significant efforts in preparing this edition, it turned out to be flawed. In a textual note to the volume with “Notes of a Hunter,” A. L. Grishunin indicated that “this edition of “Notes of a Hunter” is the first prepared based on the study of all handwritten and printed sources of the text of the work, including draft autographs.” At the same time, the texts of the draft manuscripts themselves were not reproduced in the first academic edition for unknown reasons. Their publication was promised in one of the collections complementing the publication,10 which began to appear the following year, 1964. In the preface to the first “Turgenev Collection”, when work on completing the first academic edition was in full swing, M. P. Alekseev once again repeated his promise to publish the texts of the draft manuscripts in the near future,11 however, they were not included in any of the five collections appeared. It can be said with a certain degree of probability that the texts of some manuscripts were being prepared for publication for the third “Turgenev Collection”, but for some reason their publication did not take place this time either.

Meanwhile, the importance of the surviving manuscripts of “Notes of a Hunter” for elucidating the actual history of the creation of this work cannot be overestimated. For the first time, Mikhail Karlovich Kleman turned to their systematic study, who carried out painstaking work to identify the autographs of the so-called “programs” of the “Notes of a Hunter” preserved in the margins of some of them. The work of M. K. Kleman was continued by his student A. P. Mogilyansky, who prepared the texts of the programs for the first academic publication. However, despite the enormous importance of the work done in this area, some problems have not been resolved, which prompts us to return to this issue again.

Enough detailed description The surviving manuscripts of “Notes of a Hunter” (including white and censored ones) were given by R. B. Zaborova (autographs stored in the Russian National Library) and M. A. Shelyakin (autographs located in Moscow archives). The particular value of this work was determined by the fact that for the first time it provided data on inscriptions, drawings, dates, names and other valuable information contained in the margins and not sufficiently disclosed, but this description was far from complete, since not all records could be deciphered .

A large number of materials related to the history of the “Notes of a Hunter” were put into circulation when A. Mazon’s description of Turgenev’s Paris archive appeared.14 Subsequently, after part of the archive described by Mazon was acquired by the Parisian Museum in the 1950s National Library, a significant proportion of new materials were published in Turgenev’s volumes of “Literary Heritage”, in particular, the unfinished story “The Russian German and the Reformer”, preserved in two editions.15

It would seem that the significant material accumulated should have contributed to the speedy publication of the draft manuscripts of “Notes of a Hunter,” however, the autographs of the stories were not included in the second academic edition. Meanwhile, the lack of a scientific description of the surviving manuscripts impoverishes the understanding of the mechanism for realizing the author’s plan and makes it difficult to study the progress of Turgenev’s work on individual stories, and in some cases leads to the accumulation of erroneous judgments around “Notes of a Hunter.”

The first attempt to make the draft editions public was made in the latest scientific edition of “Notes of a Hunter,” published in the series “ Literary monuments" in 1991 (ZO 1991). A whole layer of new materials introduced in this edition, however, needs further understanding, and often clarification. It should also be noted that, unfortunately, the inclusion of draft editions of “Notes of a Hunter” by the compilers in this edition was not adequately reflected in the comments, which essentially repeat the comments of the same authors in the first and second academic editions.

We have to admit that, despite significant successes achieved in the development of specific issues, in modern Turgen studies there is no complete picture of all stages of the creation of “Notes of a Hunter”. Despite the presence of a number of studies devoted to the problem of the origin of “Notes of a Hunter,” as well as a significant number of works that touch upon it in one way or another, most researchers are forced to admit that the creative history of “Notes of a Hunter” still remains poorly understood in many respects. At the same time, much of what has been achieved needs to be rethought, especially in view of the predominance for a long time of a socially conditioned, ideologically charged approach to this work of Turgenev.

In addition, over the past few decades, not only in Russia, but also in other countries, a large number of publications and studies have appeared that have significantly expanded the understanding of such a little-studied period of the writer’s biography and work, which is the second half of the 1840s. Newly discovered materials pose a number of problems for researchers, both of a purely factual nature and of a more general nature. So, the following questions still remain unresolved: how and when did Turgenev approach the creation of “Notes of a Hunter”? Were they originally conceived as a cycle or did they appear “by chance”, thanks to the unexpected success of “Khorya and Kalinich”? How and for what reasons did Turgenev’s creative tasks change during the formation of the so-called main cycle? And finally, why in the 1870s did Turgenev return to work on “Notes of a Hunter” and add three new stories to them? Attempts to answer these questions constitute the content of the ongoing research.

On the approaches to "Notes of a Hunter". "Khor and Kalinich"

The question of the time of origin and implementation of the plan of “Khor and Kalinich” still remains one of the most “obscure” and at the same time key episodes in creative history"Notes of a Hunter." The solution is significantly complicated by the absence of autographs, as well as any mention of work on the story relating directly to this period. The only direct detailed author's evidence known to us about the history of the creation of “Khor and Kalinich”, contained in “Memoirs of Belinsky” (1869), is retrospective in nature and separated from the time of creation of the story itself by a time interval of more than twenty years.42

Returning to the events of the late 1840s and the role that Belinsky played in his development as a writer, Turgenev wrote: “As for me, I must say that he is Belinsky. - V.L., after the first greeting made by my literary activity, very soon - and quite rightly - lost interest in her; he could not have encouraged me in composing those poems and poems to which I then indulged. However, I soon realized for myself that there was no need to continue such exercises, and I had the firm intention of leaving literature altogether; Only as a result of the requests of I. I. Panaev, who did not have anything to fill the mixture section in the 1st issue of Sovremennik, I left him an essay entitled “Khor and Kalinich.” (The words: “From the notes of a hunter” were invented and added by the same I. I. Panaev in order to incite the reader to indulgence.) The success of this essay prompted me to write others; and I returned to literature” (PSSiP (2). Works. T. 11. P. 46. Emphasis added by me. - V.L.).

This testimony of Turgenev was unconditionally accepted by the majority of researchers and for a long time served as the main (and often the only) source for reconstructing the history of the creation of the first story “Notes of a Hunter”, and after it the entire cycle. “So, the appearance of “Khorya and Kalinich” was almost accidental,” concluded B. Eikhenbaum, according to Turgenev, in “Notes” to the first scientific publication“Notes of a Hunter,” and, moreover, at a moment when Turgenev least expected success. For the editors of Sovremennik, as well as for Turgenev himself, this essay was not at all the beginning great work and did not even belong to the genre of fiction itself; it was not for nothing that it was published as a petit in the “Mixture” department.”43 It seems that the circumstances of the appearance of “Khorya and Kalinich” are extremely clear: being dissatisfied with the results of his literary activity, Turgenev decides to leave it, and only Panaev’s insistent request forces him to write or submit for “Mixture” something from the materials available in stock - this “something” turns out to be the story “Khor and Kalinich”, and neither Turgenev nor Panaev then, as follows from “Memoirs” about Belinsky,” they didn’t attach any importance to this small work special meaning. Subsequently, Turgenev goes abroad, where he is caught by unexpected news about the success of Khor and Kalinich, and he decides to continue stories of the same kind; This is how “Notes of a Hunter” appeared, and Turgenev himself returned to literary activity.

However, upon closer examination, many of the facts cited by Turgenev in “Memoirs of Belinsky” do not find documentary confirmation. Even M.K. Clement drew attention to the fact that this testimony of Turgenev about the circumstances of the appearance in print

“Khorya and Kalinich” and about the origin of the idea for the cycle of stories “not entirely accurate.” Sleman proceeded from the fact that the earliest known mention of the initial sketch of “Notes of a Hunter” dated December 14 (26), 1846, which cast doubt on certain details in Turgenev’s story. We were talking about the mention contained in the letter of N.A. Nekrasov, who reported to A.V. Nikitenko: “I forward short story Turgenev - for "Mixture" 1st No. - in my extreme understanding - completely innocent."44 Based on this letter, Clement came to the conclusion that the manuscript of "Khor and Kalinich" was transferred by Turgenev to the editorial office of the magazine no later than the first half of December, long before leaving abroad, which took place on January 12 (24), 1847.45 However, as R.B. Zaborova later discovered, the first printed mention of “The Choir and Kalinich” appeared even earlier: in the eleventh issue of Sovremennik for 1846, in the announcement of the publication of the magazine in 1847 (censorship permission on November 1 (13), 1846).46 Consequently, already in October 1846, Turgenev finally confirmed his intention to place “Khor and Kalinich” in the first issue of the transformed Sovremennik .

At the same time, M. K. Kleeman thought it unlikely that Turgenev’s claim that the subtitle “From the Notes of a Hunter” was attributed to I. I. Panaev without the author’s knowledge. The “personal friendship” between Turgenev and Panaev was, as we know, “quite superficial.”48 Let us also recall Turgenev’s active participation in the preparation of the first issue of Sovremennik: in addition to “Khor and Kalinich,” it published his poetic cycle “ Village", review of the tragedy of N.V. Kukolnik "Lieutenant General Patkul" and the feuilleton "Modern Notes". It is difficult to imagine that the writer did not know in what form his things appeared in Sovremennik.49 The episode with Panaev’s participation in the appearance of the first story “Notes of a Hunter” is not confirmed in indirect sources. It was not reflected either in Panaev’s own “Literary Memoirs” or in his correspondence.5

On the question of the time when the idea of ​​the cycle arose. Initial stage: from “Khorya and Kalinich” to “Lgov”

Based on Turgenev’s retrospective testimony about the “accidental” origin of ZO, given in “Memoirs of Belinsky,” the idea was established in Turgenev studies that only in the spring of 1847 the writer came up with the idea of ​​​​creating a cycle of stories. Moreover, it is believed that not only the execution, but also the concept of the four stories that followed the first “excerpt” from the Zoo and published in the fifth issue of Sovremennik for 1847 (“Ermolai and the miller’s wife”, “My neighbor Radilov”, “The One-Dvorets” Ovsyanikov" and "Lgov"), should be dated to the early spring of 1847.

The history of the issue again brings us back to the name of M. K. Clement, whose point of view was subsequently unconditionally supported by the majority of Turgenev scholars. According to Clement, the very history of the publication of ZO’s first stories in Sovremennik confirmed Turgenev’s message that the intention to write a cycle of interconnected stories arose in him only after the success of Khor and Kalinich. As evidence, the researcher pointed to the fact that the first two stories of the future cycle - the stories “Khor and Kalinich” and “Petr Petrovich Karataev”19 - were not marked with serial numbers. The numbering began only with the third story, “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife,” published (together with three other stories) in the fifth issue of Sovremennik.20 In addition, Clement considered the break of several months that separated the appearance of “Khor and Kalinich” (in January book) from the publication of the next four stories (in the May book).

V. A. Gromov considered the May book of Sovremennik a “notable milestone” in the creative history of ZO, who believed that it was in it that the cyclization of “passages” under a consolidated title was first begun. Gromov also connected the emergence of the first ZO programs with the fifth issue: “On the surviving draft autograph of “Burmistra”, completed in Salzbrunn, where Turgenev arrived with Belinsky on May 22 (June 3), 1847 and where, obviously, he received the fifth issue of the magazine , for the first time, so-called “programs” appear, i.e., outline plans future book and even the first version of it title page.. . ".23

However, the facts on which the idea that Turgenev first began to think about the cycle only in the spring of 1847 is based do not provide grounds for such a categorical interpretation.

Firstly, the story “Petr Petrovich Karataev” appeared in the February book not only without a number, but also without the subtitle (“From the Notes of a Hunter”), which was provided with “Khor and Kalinich” and all subsequent stories. The subtitle here was the word: “Story.”24 It is also important that the decision to introduce “Petr Petrovich Karataev” in 30 was made by Turgenev only in 1850, when the main composition of the cycle had already been determined and the writer was considering the composition of the future separate publication. Under the title “Rusak”, it was included as number 24 in Program X, which is a project for a separate publication, closest to the publication of ZO 1852. Until that moment, the story had not been designated in any of the known programs. An important fact is also that “Rusak” was not included in Program X right away: initially, under number 24, Turgenev drew a wavy line, which, apparently, meant that the writer was not sure which story to put here.

Secondly, the story “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife” that appeared in the May book was labeled number II, not III. And although it was immediately (for example, in an academic publication) stipulated that Turgenev’s intention “was not to first include the story “Petr Petrovich Karataev” in the cycle,” it was on this basis that the conclusion was made that the decision to create a cycle of stories was finally formed only in the spring of 1847.2 L.N. Smirnova a priori concluded that “work on the story “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife,” the second in the cycle, could have begun no earlier than mid-January 1847.”

In fact, the work on the stories that appeared in Sovremennik under numbers II-V is dated by researchers to February-March 1847 only by the time of their submission to the editors of the magazine. It should be noted that at one time M. K. Clement did not exclude “the possibility that all four essays, that is, stories that appeared in the fifth issue of Sovremennik.” “V.L. were written much earlier, and in February and March 1847 they were only finished and whitewashed,” although he considered this assumption implausible. The researcher’s remark was then ignored, but the above arguments force us to once again return to the history of the creation and publication of the first stories from the Zoo. First of all, it is necessary to turn to the circumstances of the appearance of the story “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife.” We do not have exact information about its writing. Only Nekrasov’s response letter dated February 15 (27), 1847 is known, in which he thanks Turgenev for sending “Yermolai and the Miller’s Woman”: “Thank you both for the memory of us and for the memory of Sovremennik.” I read your story - it is very good, without exaggeration: simple and original. Tomorrow I’ll give it to Belinsky - he’ll probably say the same thing.”29 From this letter it follows that by mid-February the story was at the disposal of the Sovremennik editors. Consequently, Turgenev had to complete its finishing (in order to have time to produce the white manuscript) at the end of January - at the latest in early February, i.e., before the first written responses about the success of Panaev’s “Khor and Kalinich” began to reach him , Belinsky and Nekrasov himself. As follows from the same letter from Nekrasov, when sending the manuscript of “Yermolai and the Miller’s Wife,” Turgenev apparently reported that he was working hard on the continuation of ZO, and promised to deliver another story in the near future, “My Neighbor Radilov.” “Work, if you work, it’s a good thing,” Nekrasov wrote in response, “... I will wait impatiently for Radilov; These stories of yours really struck a chord with me.” Obviously, the promise was fulfilled and soon “My Neighbor Radilov” was sent to Nekrasov, since at the beginning of March the story was already at the disposal of the editors. This is confirmed by a letter from Belinsky, who wrote on March 17 Art. Art. about his impression of reading “Radilov” to V.P. Botkin: “He is Turgenev. - V.L sent the storyteller (3rd excerpt from “Notes of a Hunter”) - not bad....”31 The fact that Belinsky calls the story “My Neighbor Radilov” the third excerpt means that, firstly, he did not identify with ZO the story “Petr Petrovich Karataev”, and, secondly, the serial numbers of the stories, in all likelihood, were placed in the manuscripts by Turgenev himself (this assumption is also supported by the fact that the numbers were invariably put down by Turgenev in the later Belov and in most draft autographs).

On the history of the origin of the idea for the story “Tchertophanov and Nedopyuskin”

Particular attention should be paid to the above-mentioned mysterious title of the story from Program I, which is listed in it under No. 11 as “The Landowner Ivan Bessonny.” He also appears in Program III under the abbreviation “P. I.B." M. K. Kleman connected it with the idea of ​​the story “The Reformer”.59 Guided by the testimony of N. A. Ostrovskaya about the content last story, Clément suggested that “the characterization of one of the landowners seems to authorize the identification of The Reformer with the earlier design of The Landowner Ivan Bessonny.” This guess, in his opinion, was confirmed by the fact that the idea for the essay “The Reformer” appeared in the programs simultaneously with the disappearance of “Landowner Ivan Bessonny” from them. However, after the publication of the surviving autograph of the story “The Reformer and the Russian German,” which remained unknown to Clement, the researcher’s assumption was removed from the agenda. The essence of the plan of “Landowner Ivan Bessonny” remained unclear.

Meanwhile, the concept of story number 19 in Program V, where the title “Landowner Chertaphanov so!” first appears, attracts attention. and the nobleman Nedopyuskin” (later changed, apparently during the censorship of the story, to: “Tchertop-hanov and Nedopyuskin”). The entry has undergone significant changes, the sequence of which is extremely difficult to restore, and has the following form: puskin Nedo Noble Landowner and. [Ivan Ivanovich] [Landowner] [Nobleman] Chertaphanov

First, Turgenev, apparently, wrote down “Ivan Ivanovich” under number 19, then crossed it out, wrote next to it: “Landlord” and crossed it out again. Perhaps the crossed out word “Landowner” refers to the “Chertaphanov” added below, then the second option should read: “Landowner Chertaphanov” (this is also indicated by the fact that L. 1 of the draft edition is marked with the initials “Landowner Chertaphanov”, l. 2 - “Continuation of the landowner Chert Aphanov and the nobleman Ned Opyuskin”).61 Then, probably, under the crossed out words “Ivan Ivanovich” the following was written: “Nobleman”, crossed out again62 and written above them: “Landowner”, 63 as a result we read: “Landowner Chertaphanov.” Subsequently, the ladder was added: “and Nobleman Nedopyuskin.” The final version, which is found in the draft and white autographs: “Landowner Chertaphanov and Nobleman Nedopyuskin.”64

Of particular interest is the initial layer of the entry: “Ivan Ivanovich,” which stands out in the academic publication as an unrealized independent plan.65 Several hypotheses were put forward regarding the possible content of the story “Ivan Ivanovich,” none of which was further developed. A.P. Mogilyansky put forward two assumptions according to which the name “Ivan Ivanovich” could be 1) the original title of the future story “Chertop-hanov and Nedopyuskin” (ZOPSSiP (I). P. 476; repeated: ZOPSSiP (2). P. 386) ; 2) a variant of the title “Landowner Ivan Bessonny”, recorded in previous programs (Programs I and III). A. L. Grishunin also suggested that the idea of ​​“Ivan Ivanovich” could be associated with the personality of I. I. Lutovinov and was partially realized in the story “Bezhin Meadow”.

The sequence that emerges: “Landowner Ivan Bessonny” - “Ivan Ivanovich” - “Landowner Chertaphanov and Nobleman Nedopyuskin” - did not arise even at the level of hypothesis. At the same time, there are good reasons to believe that the idea for the story “Tchertop-hanov and Nedopyuskin” arose from the original title “Landowner Ivan Bessonny”.

A strong argument in favor of this assumption is the results of local history research about one of the possible prototypes of the hero of the story - Pantelei Ereemeyich Tchertopkhanov. According to the assumption made by V. A. Novikov, Turgenev “copied” his hero from his neighbor on the estate, Alexander Afanasyevich Bessonov.67 Like the hero of Turgenev’s story, who served for a very short time in the army and retired “due to trouble,” with the same rank , about which the opinion spread that a chicken is not a bird” (ZOPSiP (2). P. 277), A. A. Bessonov was “dismissed from service due to domestic circumstances” with the rank of warrant officer. His dismissal, however, was preceded by “trouble”, as a result of which he was put under investigation “with endurance in the guardhouse” for slandering an officer of his unit and some wild trick. After retiring, Bessonov settled on his father’s small estate, but his position was so unenviable that in 1842 he offered to sell half of his estate to V.P. Turgeneva, which she informed her son about in a letter dated July 25, 27, 1842. The owner of Bessonov (or Bessonovka), like Turgenev’s hero, was endowed with “extravagant courage” and “violent character.” The fact that in character and behavior he could resemble Pantelei Yeremeich Tchertopkhanov, who was known in Turgenev’s story “in the whole neighborhood as a dangerous and extravagant man, proud and a bully of the first hand” (ZO PSSiP (2). P. 277), says, for example, one archival document from early 1844. On the eve of the noble elections, N. N. Turgenev (the writer’s uncle), who was at that time the Chernsky leader of the nobility, presenting to the provincial representative the lists of nobles who were on trial and investigation, mentioned A. A. Bessonov, who, as it turns out, was prosecuted by the district zemstvo court for a drunken riot in the estate of his neighbor Cheremisinov and for taking away a horse from an employee of the Chern tradesman Pyotr Sitnikov.69

Background to the resumption of the cycle

Among the reasons why Turgenev stopped working on ZO in 1848, perhaps, was the writer’s strengthened desire to try himself in other, more major genres. At this time, he is actively working on dramatic things (“Where it is thin, there it breaks,” “Party,” “Freeloader,” “Bachelor”), seriously thinks about the path of a critic and is busy thinking about creating a novel. In the aforementioned letter from Nekrasov dated December 17 (29), 1848 to Turgenev, in which he notifies about the receipt of “Forest and Steppe”, there are the following lines: “Write the name of your novel so that it can be announced if you want to give it us, which is what I hope for.”105 Obviously, they were talking about the novel “Two Generations,” original version the title of which, “Boris Vyazovnin,” is preserved in the manuscript of “Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky District.”107

Intensified creative searches for a new direction and new forms are evident in the correspondence of this period with Pauline Viardot. The contents of these letters indicate Turgenev’s increased interest in theatrical productions in Paris, his disappointment in modern dramaturgy and an appeal to the works of great artists of the past (hence the fascination with Calderon, the mention of the names of Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Goethe), as well as intensive reading historical works. The conclusion he draws about the condition modern literature, sounds disappointing: “Meanwhile, in the critical and transitional time that we are experiencing, all artistic or literary works represent, at most, only vague and contradictory reflections, only the eclecticism of their authors; life has become scattered; now there is no longer a powerful all-encompassing movement, with the possible exception of industry... . As soon as the social revolution is accomplished - long live new literature! Until then, we will have only ponsards and Hugos, or, at most, powerful but restless prophets like George Sand” (PSiP (2). Letters. Vol. 1. P. 379).

In 1850, Turgenev returned to Russia and soon returned to work on the Zoo. In the autumn of 1850, “Singers” and “Date” came out from his pen, and in the winter of 1850-1851, “Bezhin Meadow” and “Kasyan with a Beautiful Sword” were created. These stories, as well as the question of their place and meaning in the Zoo, have more than once become the object of attention of researchers. At one time, M. K. Kleeman noted that the nature of the final essays of ZO is approaching a psychological novel. He believed that events French Revolution 1848, which subjected the liberal attitudes of the writer to significant tests, led to the fact that the “liberation tendencies” in later episodes faded significantly.108 This point of view received the most complete expression in the works of V. A. Kovalev, who argued that in the stories of the ZO of the 1850s years Turgenev solved a completely different creative problem. In the center of the new passages of the Zoo, according to the researcher, was the reflection of “the national identity of the Russian people.” “In these essays,” wrote V. A. Kovalev, “Turgenev focused entirely on the ethical “rehabilitation” of the peasantry.” Following Klement and Kovalev, the heterogeneity of the ZO stories, which was especially clearly visible in the stories added to them in the 1850s, was noted by M. M. Klochikhina. The researcher saw in them some elements of the so-called “new manner” of Turgenev, expressed in the writer’s desire to deepen psychological characteristics characters, to strengthening the internal dynamism and development of the plot, to strict adherence to the “sense of proportion” and “objectivity” of the narrative, to cleansing the language of stories from dialect words and provincialisms.110 A modern researcher, analyzing the story “Bezhin Meadow” also writes that in 1850s “to Turgenev’s discoveries in the field of folk themes and the theme of nature was added the extraordinary psychologism of the character portraits he created.” l1

Despite the noted differences between the new ZO stories and those created in the late 1840s, an important point seems to be that Turgenev made the decision to resume the ZO immediately upon his return to Russia in the summer of 1850. We would venture to assume that after a protracted stay in Europe, acquaintance with the new realities of rapidly changing Russian life prompted the writer to continue stories about the Russian people.

This in no way canceled the focus on a full-blooded description of Russian reality in the previous stories, but rather related to the increased skill of Turgenev the artist.

The writer spoke openly on this topic in a review of the translation of William Tell. Behind the aphoristic form of the statement, no doubt, hid a hard-won conviction: “the highest happiness for an artist is to express the innermost essence of his people” (PSSiP (2). Works. T. 1.S. 190).

The completion of four new stories marked the final stage in the formation of the main ZO cycle. Already in the course of working on the first story “Singers” added to the Zoo in the 1850s, Turgenev returned to the idea of ​​collecting all the stories and publishing them as a separate book. In the margins of the draft autograph of “The Singers” (L. 3), in which it is designated under its original title “Pitynny Zucchini,” there is the last of the ZO programs known to us, which deserves the closest attention.

The entry represents a detailed working draft of a separate edition 30, closest to the edition of ZO 1852. First, Turgenev, apparently, sketched out a list of stories already completed and published by that time in Sovremennik, the total number of which was 16. After this, he assigned the names of new stories , intended for inclusion in a separate publication, marking with a wavy line those of them that had yet to be completed. Among those added to the first sixteen stories were: “A Tavern Tavern”, “Two Landowners”, “Date”, “Russian German and Reformer” and “Bezhin Meadow”. The absence of a wavy line next to the stories “The Sticky Tavern” and “Two Landowners” meant that these stories were completed at the time the program was compiled.

Obviously, Turgenev did not immediately decide on the total number of stories for a separate publication. At first, he apparently intended to divide the book into two parts of ten stories each, and indicated this by crossing out under the story “Biryuk”, but later decided to expand the cycle to twenty-four stories, thus the crossing out moved two positions lower. This is also confirmed by the counting under the line, where the number 10 turned out to be transferred to 12. At the same time, Turgenev was initially not sure which stories he would place under numbers 23 and 24. This place was left empty by him, and only some time later the titles filled in the gaps “Mad” and “Rusak” (the original title was “Petr Petrovich Karataev”).

Report 7th grade.

In January 1847, a significant event occurred in the cultural life of Russia and in the creative destiny of Turgenev. In the updated Sovremennik magazine, which passed into the hands of N.A. Nekrasov and I.I. Panaev, the essay “Khor and Kapynich” was published. His success exceeded all expectations and prompted Turgenev to create a whole book called “Notes of a Hunter.” Belinsky was the first to point out the reasons for the popularity of Turgenev’s essay: “It is not surprising that this little play was such a success: in it the author approached the people from a side from which no one had ever approached them before.”

With the publication of “Khor and Kalinich,” Turgenev made a revolution in the artistic solution to the theme of the people. In two peasant characters, he showed the fundamental forces of the nation that determine its viability, the prospects for its further growth and formation. In the face of the practical Khor and the poetic Kalinich, the image of their master, the landowner Polutyka na, faded. It was in the peasantry that Turgenev found “the soil that preserves the vital juices of all development,” and he made the significance of the personality of the “statesman,” Peter I, directly dependent on his connection with it. “From our conversations with Khor, I came away with one conviction, which readers probably do not expect, the conviction that Peter the Great was primarily a Russian man, Russian precisely in his transformations.” Even Nekrasov did not approach the peasantry from this angle in the late 40s. Relatively speaking, this was a new approach to the peasant: Turgenev found in the life of the people that significance, that national meaning that Tolstoy later laid as the basis art world epic novel"War and Peace".

Turgenev’s observations of the characters of Khor and Kapynich are not an end in themselves: the “people's thought” here verifies the viability or worthlessness of the “top”. From Khor and Kapinich this thought rushes to the Russian people, to Russian statehood. “The Russian man is so confident in his strength and strength that he is not averse to breaking himself: he pays little attention to his past and boldly looks forward. What is good is what he likes, what is reasonable - give him that...” And then Turgenev takes his heroes to nature: from Khor and Kalinich - to the Forest and Steppe. Khor is immersed in an atmosphere of forest isolation: his estate was located in the middle of the forest in a cleared clearing. And Kapinich, with his homelessness and spiritual breadth, is akin to the expanses of the steppe, the soft outlines of gentle hills, the gentle and clear evening sky.

In “Notes of a Hunter,” two Russias collide and argue with each other: official, feudal, deadening life, on the one hand, and folk-peasant, living and poetic life, on the other. And all the characters inhabiting this book, in one way or another, gravitate towards these two poles - “dead” or “alive”. The character of the landowner Polutykin is depicted in “Chorus and Kapinich” with light touches: mention is made of his French kitchen, of the office that he abolished.

Portraying folk heroes, Turgenev also goes beyond the boundaries of “private” individuals to the national forces and elements of life. The characters of Khor and Kapynich, like two poles of a magnet, begin to attract all subsequent heroes of the collection “Notes of a Hunter”. Some of them gravitate towards the poetic, spiritually soft Kalinich, others - towards the businesslike and practical Khor.

Lively, complete image people's Russia Nature crowns Turgenev's book. The best heroes“Notes of a Hunter” are not simply depicted “against the backdrop” of nature, but act as a continuation of its elements: from the play of light and shadow in a birch grove, the poetic Akulina is born in “Rendezvous”; from a stormy stormy haze, torn apart by the phosphorescent light of lightning, the mysterious figure of Biryuk appears . Turgenev depicts in “Notes of a Hunter” the mutual connection of everything in nature, hidden from many: man and river, man and forest, man and steppe. Living Russia in “Notes of a Hunter” moves, breathes, develops and grows. Little is said about Kalinich’s closeness to nature. Turgenev's collection poetizes the readiness for self-sacrifice, selfless help to a person in trouble. This trait of the Russian character reaches its culmination in the story “Death”: Russian people “die amazingly,” because in the hour of the last test they think not about themselves, but about others, about their neighbors. This helps them to accept death with steadfastness and courage.

The theme of the musical talent of the Russian people grows in the book. Many of Turgenev's heroes: Kapinich, Yakov Turka and others - do not just sing, but feel the music, the song. This is how Yakov sings from the story “The Singers”: “He sang, and from every sound of his voice there was a breath of something familiar and vastly wide, as if the familiar steppe was opening up before you, going into an endless distance.”

In “Notes of a Hunter,” Turgenev first felt Russia as a unity, as a living artistic whole. His book opens the 60s in the history of Russian literature and anticipates them. Direct roads from “Notes of a Hunter” go not only to “Notes from House of the Dead Dostoevsky, “Provincial Sketches” by Saltykov-Shchedrin, but also to the epic “War and Peace” by Tolstoy.

In 1852, “Notes of a Hunter” by I.S. Turgenev were published as a separate publication and immediately attracted attention. The essential significance and dignity of “Notes of a Hunter” lies primarily in the fact that Turgenev “managed, in the era of serfdom, to illuminate peasant life and highlight its poetic aspects,” in the fact that he found “more good than bad” in the Russian people. Yes, Turgenev knew how to see the beauty of a man’s soul, and it was this beauty that was the writer’s main argument against the ugliness of serfdom.

We can say that “Notes of a Hunter” was opened to the Russian reader new world- the peasant world. Ivan Sergeevich describes the peasants with great warmth, adhering to his main principle - the authenticity of the image. He often painted from life, his images had real prototypes. And this emphasized naturalism makes Turgenev’s stories especially valuable and interesting for us.

Questions about the report:

2) What are the two types? folk characters brought out I.S. Turgenev in his story “Khor and Kalinich”?

3) In what year was “Notes of a Hunter” published as a separate edition?

4) What kind of world do the stories of I.S. open to the reader? Turgenev from the collection “Notes of a Hunter”?

5) Why is the collection of I.S. Turgenev's "Notes of a Hunter" was very popular among readers?

Published in 1847-1851 in the Sovremennik magazine and released as a separate edition in 1852. Three stories were written and added by the author to the collection much later.

List of stories

The collection received its final composition only in the 1874 edition: the author included three new stories, written on the basis of early plans that at one time remained unrealized.

Below, after the title of the story, the first publication is indicated in brackets.

  • Khor and Kalinich (Contemporary, 1847, No. 1, department “Mixture”, pp. 55-64)
  • Ermolai and the miller's wife (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, section I, pp. 130-141)
  • Raspberry water (Contemporary, 1848, No2, part I, pp. 148-157)
  • District doctor (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 157-165)
  • My neighbor Radilov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, section I, pp. 141-148)
  • Odnodvorets Ovsyannikov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, department I, pp. 148-165)
  • Lgov (Contemporary, 1847, No. 5, department G, pp. 165-176)
  • Bezhin meadow (Contemporary, 1851, No. 2, section I, pp. 319-338)
  • Kasyan with a Beautiful Sword (Contemporary, 1851, No. 3, section I, pp. 121-140)
  • Burmister (Contemporary, 1846, No. 10, department I, pp. 197-209)
  • Office (Contemporary, 1847, No. 10, department I, pp. 210-226)
  • Biryuk (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 166-173)
  • Two landowners (Notes of a hunter. Work by Ivan Turgenev. M., 1852. Parts I-II. pp. 21-40)
  • Lebedyan (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 173-185)
  • Tatyana Borisovna and her nephew (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2, section I, pp. 186-197)
  • Death (Contemporary, 1848, No. 2. section I, pp. 197-298)
  • Singers (Contemporary, 1850, No. 11, section I, pp. 97-114)
  • Petr Petrovich Karataev (Contemporary, 1847, No. 2, section I, pp. 197-212)
  • Date (Contemporary, 1850, No. 11, department I, pp. 114-122)
  • Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, department I, pp. 275-292)
  • Tchertophanov and Nedopyuskin (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, section I, pp. 292-309)
  • The end of Chertopkhanov (Bulletin of Europe, 1872, No. 11, p. 5-46)
  • Living relics (Kladchina. Literary collection compiled from the works of Russian writers in favor of those affected by famine in the Samara province. St. Petersburg, 1874. - P. 65-79)
  • Knocking! (Works by I. S. Turgenev (1844-1874). M.: publishing house of the Salaev brothers, 1874. Part I. - P. 509-531)
  • Forest and steppe (Contemporary, 1849, No. 2, section I, pp. 309-314)

There are 17 more known plans of Turgenev related to the “Notes of a Hunter” cycle, but which remained unfulfilled for various reasons. Turgenev began developing one of them in 1847-1848; two fragments have survived: “The Reformer and the Russian German” (6 pages of text in the modern collected works) and “The Russian German” (1.5 pages of text).

During the Soviet era, “children’s” editions of the collection were widespread, which included only selected stories (less than half of the canonical composition). Their textual analysis has never been carried out. In its entirety, “Notes of a Hunter” was published only in the collected works of Turgenev (which, however, were published in colossal editions).

The most correct from the point of view of textual criticism are two Soviet academic editions of “Notes of a Hunter”:

  • Turgenev I. S. Complete collection of works and letters in twenty-eight volumes (thirty books): Works in fifteen volumes. T. 4. Notes of a hunter. 1847-1874. - M.: Nauka, 1963. 616 p. 212,000 copies.
  • Turgenev I. S. Complete collection of works and letters in thirty volumes: Works in twelve volumes. Second edition, corrected and expanded. T. 3. Notes of a hunter. 1847-1874. - M.: Nauka, 1979.

Film adaptations

  • 1935 - Bezhin Meadow - film by S. Eisenstein, lost
  • 1971 - The life and death of the nobleman Tchertopkhanov (based on the stories “Tchertopkhanov and Nedopyuskin” and “The End of Tchertopkhanov”)

Painting by L. I. Kurnakov “Turgenev on the hunt”

Very briefly

Wandering with a gun and a dog, the narrator writes down short stories about the customs and life of the surrounding peasants and his neighboring landowners.

The story is told from the perspective of a landowner and an avid hunter, a middle-aged man.

While visiting a Kaluga landowner, the narrator met two of his men - Khorem and Kalinich. Khor was a rich man “on his own mind”, he did not want to buy his freedom, he had seven giant sons and got along with the master, whom he saw right through. Kalinich was a cheerful and meek man, kept bees, practiced medicine and revered the master.

The narrator was interested in watching the touching friendship of the practical rationalist Khor and the romantic idealist Kalinich.

The narrator went hunting with Ermolai, the serf of his neighboring landowner. Ermolai was a carefree slacker, unfit for any work. He always got into trouble, from which he always came out unharmed. Ermolai treated his wife, who lived in a dilapidated hut, rudely and cruelly.

The hunters spent the night at the mill. Waking up at night, the narrator heard Ermolai calling the beautiful miller Arina to live with him and promising to kick his wife out. Once Arina was a maid for the count's wife. Having learned that the girl was pregnant by a footman, the countess did not allow her to get married and sent her to a distant village, and gave the footman a soldier. Arina lost her child and married a miller.

While hunting, the narrator stopped at the Raspberry Water spring. Two old men were fishing nearby. One was Stepushka, a man with a dark past, taciturn and troublesome. He worked for food for a local gardener.

Another old man, nicknamed Fog, was a freedman and lived with the owner of the inn. Previously, he served as a footman for a count, famous for his feasts, who went bankrupt and died in poverty.

The narrator started a conversation with the old people. The fog began to remember his count's mistresses. Then an upset man Vlas approached the spring. His adult son died, and he asked the master to reduce his exorbitant rent, but he became angry and kicked the man out. All four talked for a while and went their separate ways.

Returning from a hunt, the narrator fell ill, stopped at a county hotel and sent for a doctor. He told him a story about Alexandra, the daughter of a poor widow landowner. The girl was terminally ill. The doctor lived in the landowner's house for many days, trying to cure Alexandra, and became attached to her, and she fell in love with him.

Alexandra confessed her love to the doctor, and he could not resist. They spent three nights together, after which the girl died. Time passed, and the doctor married a lazy and evil merchant's daughter with a large dowry.

The narrator was hunting in a linden garden that belonged to his neighbor Radilov. He invited him to dinner and introduced him to his old mother and was very beautiful girl Ole. The narrator noticed that Radilov - uncommunicative, but kind - was overwhelmed by one feeling, and in Olya, calm and happy, there was no mannerism of a county girl. She was a sister deceased wife Radilov, and when he remembered the deceased, Olya got up and went out into the garden.

A week later, the narrator learned that Radilov had abandoned his old mother and left with Olya. The narrator realized that she was jealous of Radilov’s sister. He never heard from his neighbor again.

At Radilov's, the narrator met Ovsyannikov, a nobleman who, with his intelligence, laziness and tenacity, resembled a boyar. Together with his wife, he helped the poor and resolved disputes.

Ovsyannikov invited the narrator to dinner. They talked for a long time about old times and remembered mutual friends. Over tea, Ovsyannikov finally agreed to forgive his wife’s unlucky nephew, who left the service, composed requests and slander for the peasants, believing that he “stands for the truth.”

The narrator and Ermolai were hunting ducks near the large village of Lgov. While looking for the boat, they met the freedman Vladimir, educated person, who served as a valet in his youth. He volunteered to help.

Ermolai took the boat from a man nicknamed Suchok, who served as a fisherman on a nearby lake. His mistress, an old maid, forbade him to marry. Since then, Suchok has changed many jobs and five owners.

During the hunt, Vladimir had to scoop water out of an old boat, but he got carried away and forgot about his duties. The boat capsized. Only in the evening did Ermolai manage to lead the narrator out of the swampy pond.

While hunting, the narrator got lost and ended up in a meadow that the locals called Bezhin. There the boys were herding horses, and the narrator asked to spend the night by their fire. Pretending to be asleep, the narrator listened until dawn as the children told stories about brownies, goblins and other evil spirits.

On the way back from hunting, the narrator's cart axle broke. To fix it, he got to Yudin settlements, where he met the dwarf Kasyan, who moved here with the Beautiful Sword.

Having fixed the axle, the narrator decided to hunt wood grouse. Kasyan, who followed him, believed that it was a sin to kill a forest creature and firmly believed that he could take the game away from the hunter. The dwarf lived by catching nightingales, was literate and treated people with herbs. Under the guise of a holy fool, he traveled all over Russia. From the coachman the narrator learned that childless Kasyan was raising an orphan girl.

The narrator's neighbor, a young retired officer, was educated, sensible and punished his peasants for their own good, but the narrator did not like to visit him. One day he had to spend the night with a neighbor. In the morning, he undertook to accompany the narrator to his village, where a certain Sofron served as mayor.

That day the narrator had to give up hunting. The neighbor completely trusted his mayor, bought him land and refused to listen to the complaint of the peasant, whom Sofron took into bondage, exiling all his sons as soldiers. Later the narrator learned that Sofron had taken possession of the entire village and was robbing his neighbor.

While hunting, the narrator fell into the cold rain and found shelter in the office of a large village belonging to the landowner Losnyakova. Thinking that the hunter was sleeping, the clerk Eremeich freely decided on his affairs. The narrator learned that all the landowner’s transactions go through the office, and Eremeich takes bribes from merchants and peasants.

To take revenge on the paramedic for unsuccessful treatment, Eremeich slandered his fiancee, and the landowner forbade her to marry. Later, the narrator learned that Losnyakova did not choose between the paramedic and Eremeich, but simply exiled the girl.

The narrator was caught in a thunderstorm and took refuge in the house of a forester nicknamed Biryuk. He knew that the forester, strong, dexterous and incorruptible, did not allow even a bundle of brushwood to be taken out of the forest. Biryuk lived poorly. His wife ran away with a passing tradesman, and he raised two children alone.

In the presence of the narrator, the forester caught a man in rags trying to cut down a tree in the master's forest. The narrator wanted to pay for the tree, but Biryuk himself let the poor man go. The surprised narrator realized that Biryuk was in fact a nice fellow.

The narrator often hunted on the estates of two landowners. One of them is Khvalynsky, a retired major general. He is not a bad person, but he cannot communicate with poor nobles as equals, and he even loses at cards to his superiors without complaint. Khvalynsky is greedy, but manages his household poorly, lives as a bachelor, and his housekeeper wears elegant dresses.

Stegunov, also a bachelor, is a hospitable and joker, willingly receives guests, and manages the household in the old fashioned way. While visiting him, the narrator discovered that the serfs loved their master and believed that he was punishing them for their deeds.

The narrator went to the fair in Lebedyan to buy three horses for his chaise. In a coffee shop, he saw the young prince and retired lieutenant Khlopakov, who knew how to please the Moscow rich and lived at their expense.

The next day, Khlopakov and the prince prevented the narrator from buying horses from a horse dealer. He found another seller, but the horse he bought turned out to be lame, and the seller was a fraud. Driving through Lebedyan a week later, the narrator again found the prince in a coffee shop, but with another companion, who had replaced Khlopakov.

The fifty-year-old widow Tatyana Borisovna lived on a small estate, had no education, but did not look like a small-scale lady. She thought freely, communicated little with landowners and received only young people.

Eight years ago, Tatyana Borisovna took in her twelve-year-old orphan nephew Andryusha - handsome boy with insinuating manners. An acquaintance of the landowner, who loved art but did not understand it at all, found the boy’s talent for drawing and took him to St. Petersburg to study.

A few months later, Andryusha began to demand money, Tatyana Borisovna refused him, he returned and stayed with his aunt. Over the course of a year, he gained weight, all the surrounding young ladies fell in love with him, and his former acquaintances stopped visiting Tatyana Borisovna.

The narrator went hunting with his young neighbor, and he persuaded him to wrap his oak forest, where trees that died in the frosty winter were cut down. The narrator saw how a contractor was crushed to death by a falling ash tree, and thought that the Russian man was dying as if he was performing a ritual: cold and simple. He remembered several people whose deaths he had witnessed.

The tavern "Prytynny" was located in the small village of Kolotovka. Wine was sold there by a respected man who knew a lot about everything that was interesting to a Russian person.

The narrator ended up in a tavern when a singing competition was being held there. It was won by the well-known local singer Yashka Turok, whose singing sounded like a Russian soul. In the evening, when the narrator left the tavern, Yashka’s victory was celebrated there.

The narrator met the bankrupt landowner Karataev on the road from Moscow to Tula, when he was waiting for replacement horses at the post station. Karataev spoke about his love for the serf Matryona. He wanted to buy her from her owner - a rich and scary old woman - and get married, but the lady flatly refused to sell the girl. Then Karataev stole Matryona and lived happily with her.

One winter, while riding in a sleigh, they met an old lady. She recognized Matryona and did everything to bring her back. It turned out that she wanted to marry Karataev to her companion.

In order not to destroy her beloved, Matryona voluntarily returned to her mistress, and Karataev went bankrupt. A year later, the narrator met him, shabby, drunk and disappointed in life, in a Moscow coffee shop.

One autumn the narrator fell asleep in a birch grove. Waking up, he witnessed a meeting between the beautiful peasant girl Akulina and the spoiled, sated lordly valet Viktor Alexandrovich.

It was theirs last meeting- the valet was leaving for St. Petersburg with the master. Akulina was afraid that she would be passed off as an unloved woman, and wanted to hear a kind word from her beloved goodbye, but Viktor Aleksandrovich was rude and cold - he did not want to marry an uneducated woman.

The valet left. Akulina fell on the grass and cried. The narrator rushed to her and wanted to console her, but the girl got scared and ran away. The narrator remembered her for a long time.

While visiting a wealthy landowner, the narrator shared a room with the man who told him his story. He was born in Shchigrovsky district. At the age of sixteen, his mother took him to Moscow, enrolled him in university and died, leaving her son in the care of his uncle, a lawyer. At 21, he discovered that his uncle had robbed him.

Leaving the freedman to manage what was left, the man went to Berlin, where he fell in love with the daughter of a professor, but was afraid of his love, ran away and wandered around Europe for two years. Returning to Moscow, the man began to consider himself a great original, but soon ran away from there because of gossip started by someone.

The man settled in his village and married the daughter of a widow colonel, who three years later died of childbirth along with the child. Having been widowed, he went into service, but soon retired. Over time, he became an empty place for everyone. He introduced himself to the narrator as the Hamlet of Shchigrovsky district.

Returning from a hunt, the narrator wandered onto the lands of the impoverished landowner Tchertopkhanov and met him and his friend Nedopyuskin. Later, the narrator learned that Tchertop-hanov came from an old and wealthy family, but his father left him only the mortgaged village because he left the army service “due to trouble.” Poverty embittered Tchertopkhanov, he became a quarrelsome bully and proud.

Nedopyuskin's father was a fellow nobleman who became a nobleman. He died in poverty, having managed to get his son a job as an official in the office. Nedopyuskin, a lazy sybarite and gourmet, retired, worked as a majordomo, and was a parasite of the rich. Tchertophanov met him when he received an inheritance from one of Nedopyuskin’s patrons, and protected him from bullying. Since then they have not parted.

The narrator visited Tchertopkhanov and met his “almost wife,” the beautiful Masha.

Two years later, Masha left Tchertopkhanov - the gypsy blood flowing in her awakened. Nedopyuskin was ill for a long time, but Masha’s escape finally crushed him, and he died. Tchertop-hanov sold the estate left over from his friend, and his affairs went very badly.

Once Tchertop-hanov saved a Jew who was being beaten by men. For this, the Jew brought him a wonderful horse, but the proud man refused to accept the gift and promised to pay for the horse in six months. Two days before his due date, Malek-Adel was kidnapped. Tchertop-hanov realized that his former owner had taken him away, so the horse did not resist.

Together with the Jew, he went in pursuit and a year later returned with a horse, but it soon became clear that this was not Malek-Adel at all. Tchertop-hanov shot him, took to drinking, and died six weeks later.

The narrator took refuge from the rain on an abandoned farm that belonged to his mother. In the morning, in a wicker shed in the apiary, the narrator discovered a strange, dried-out creature. It turned out to be Lukerya, the first beauty and singer for whom the sixteen-year-old narrator sighed. She fell off the porch, injured her spine and began to dry out.

Now she hardly eats, doesn’t sleep because of the pain and tries not to remember - this way time passes faster. In the summer it lies in a shed, and in the winter it is transferred to a warm place. One day she dreamed of death and promised that she would come for her after the petrovkas.

The narrator marveled at her courage and patience, because Lukerya was not yet thirty. In the village they called her “Living Relics”. Soon the narrator learned that Lukerya died, and just on Petrovka’s day.

The narrator ran out of shot, and the horse went lame. To travel to Tula for shot, we had to hire the peasant Filofey, who had horses.

On the way, the narrator dozed off. Filofey woke him up with the words: “It’s knocking!.. It’s knocking!” And indeed, the narrator heard the sound of wheels. Soon a cart with six drunken people overtook them and blocked the road. Philotheus believed that these were robbers.

The cart stopped at the bridge, the robbers demanded money from the narrator, received it and sped away. Two days later, the narrator learned that at the same time and on the same road, a merchant was robbed and killed.

The narrator is not only a hunter, but also a nature lover. He describes how wonderful it is to meet the dawn while hunting, to wander through the forest on a hot summer day; how beautiful frosty winter days are, fabulous golden autumn or the first breath of spring and the song of the lark.


We also recommend