The story “Musk Ox” by N. S. Leskov, as a reflection of social life...: ingvar_anastas - LiveJournal. Essay “Essay on Leskov’s story “Musk Ox” Education and career

The story of N. S. Leskov “Musk Ox”, as a reflection social life Russian society of the 60s, XIX century

Public and literary life Russia in the sixties of the last century was marked by one of major events in the history of Russian society. The progressive forces of that time suffered an ideological split, the consequences of which are felt to this day. The general democratic camp of the Russian public split into moderate liberals and revolutionary democrats. Despite the commonality of goals, both of them, the views on the development of society, and therefore the ways of changing it, were diametrically opposed.
If revolutionary-minded democrats called for revolutionary transformation in everything and everyone, then moderate liberals were inclined to the evolutionary path of improving life. The most prominent exponents of these two democratic camps were the magazines: “Sovremennik” and “Otechestvennye zapiski”. Until recently, the assessment of these directions was quite unambiguous: the revolutionary aspirations of reorganizing the world were seen as the only true ones in public life and their literary and journalistic expressions always turned out to be “more correct” and were the most advanced than other views on history and methods of changing it.
Since the time of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, the epithet “liberal” to this day carries the meaning of an unworthy social phenomenon, rooted in reactionary renegadeism. At the same time, using this term, publicists of the 60s. in the polemical fervor, they completely ignored his modern (at that time) meaning of a “gradualist”, i.e., a person who did not share the views on the accelerated path of development of society. At times, the vulgarly exaggerated use of the term “liberal”, and moreover “moderate”, directly meant a “reactionary” living by the principle “in relation to meanness”. Such an unacceptable confusion of different concepts under the same term obscured the democratic, positive goals of moderate liberals (in particular I.S. Leskov) of the 60s, putting them on a par with retrograde-reactionary serf owners.
The polemical battles that unfolded in connection with the emerging split captured all thinking layers of Russian society. “Sovremennik” had to conduct polemics with “Russkiy Vestnik”, and with “Otechestvennye zapiski”, and with “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, and with many other periodical publications. Again, the voices of writers and critics of the “gradualists” found themselves on the same side of the barricade with the complete reactionaries (N.N. Katkov, etc.), which aggravated negative attitude public to moderate liberals.
The situation was not saved even by the fact that the journalism of the so-called liberals (and N.S. Leskov belonged precisely to this wing social thought) showed itself from the very best side: convincing argumentation, ability to rely on real facts social life, firmness and consistency of defended truths, humor.
Leskov's own fate is such that he comes to fiction from journalism, through the difficult vicissitudes of one’s own fate. Events associated with the feuilleton “A few words about the doctors of recruiting presences” (Modern Medicine. 1860 N 36) under the pseudonym Freishitz and the article “Police Doctors in Russia”, N 48, 1860, directly and quite negatively affect the fate of the writer. (As was later the notorious article about the St. Petersburg fires).
As a journalist and critic, N.S. Leskov left a great and remarkable journalistic legacy: in particular, articles about public importance literature and art; about Russian literature; about theater, painting; various literary portraits and memoirs.
And in the dispute between revolutionary democrats and moderate liberals, N.S. Leskov took an active part. His article “On the remarkable, but not beneficial direction of some modern writers"in the weekly "Russian Speech and Moskovsky Vestnik", 1861, No. 52 (pseudonym V. Peresvetov) aimed at the "nihilism" of some speeches of the Sovremennik magazine so seriously exposed the idealized pseudo-"populism" and the inability and unwillingness of individual publicists to time to delve into the essence of the issues raised, which caused an immediate and sharp rebuff from the magazine “ Russian word”, and the journalistic activity of Leskov himself, in “Notes of the Fatherland”, was noted by Chernyshevsky in the manuscript of the “second collection of “Polemical beauties” in the “List of persons whose polemical articles against Sovremennik” (...) is happy to place “Sovremennik” on his pages."
The views of N. S. Leskov, as a “gradualist,” were not based at all on armchair speculative conclusions about the development of society and good dreams, but were built on examples from life, common sense and real knowledge of Russia. Now one can only regret that the public, blinded by the catchiness of phrases and the carnival brightness of the intentions of the revolutionary democrats, was unable to discern the true “fruits” of this path. It is noteworthy that life, which provided food for the writer’s creativity, only confirmed what Leskov the publicist was talking about.
Artistic ideas and real events were in contact. The literature of N. S. Leskov is a true touchstone of reality, highlighting and emphasizing those key points, on which the writer’s views on the state of affairs in his contemporary society were based.
For society as a whole, the philosophical significance of artistic representation and knowledge of reality has always seemed to be a higher level of understanding of existence than journalism that is operational in terms of responding to events. Everything momentary, random, atypical, caught in the perspective of journalism must pass the test of time, and only after passing through the crucible of artistic embodiment does it crystallize into images that create this or that time, this or that era. Only the fundamental, typical remains.
The theoretical philosophizing of a publicist about a phenomenon and the same phenomenon reflected through the means of art are perceived differently and have different meanings. The falsity of incorrect arguments and conclusions in work of art cannot be hidden by moralizing and other theoretical syllogisms.
Being a true creator, Leskov, already at a relatively early stage of his work, was able to artistically show the true state of affairs in the field of revolutionary and pseudo-revolutionary activities in Russia late XIX century. The novel “Nowhere” and “On Knives” had not yet been written, but in 1863 the story “Musk Ox” appeared before the reader (Leskov himself defines this work as a story). The hero of the work, Vasily Petrovich Bogoslovsky (nicknamed “Musk Ox”), is a man of high moral principles. To illustrate this, the writer introduces several characteristic accentological episodes into the fabric of the narrative, where such traits of the Musk Ox as decency, honesty, directness, and a sense of compassion for people are fully revealed (the scene of the conflict between the Musk Ox and the barchuk in a noble estate; the hero’s meeting with a party of young Jewish children -recruits).
The meaning of Bogoslovsky’s life is in serving people: “...My people, my people! What would I not do for you?.. My people, my people! What would I not give to you?.. - with these words Vasily Petrovich defines in chapter three its ethical and moral purpose.
Traditionally, researchers tend to view the image of the Musk Ox as a kind of conglomerate of a commoner, a populist, a forerunner of revolutionaries, who has not yet realized the “correct” path of struggle for the freedom and happiness of the people, and therefore fails on the path of individual preaching. From this position, the image of the Musk Ox is considered by both B. Yu. Troitsky and I. V. Stolyarova. The last researcher, relying on the conclusions of literary scholars who preceded her, gave a certain quintessence of Bogoslovsky’s characteristics, concisely expressed in two theses: first, the Musk Ox is a bearer of humanism and revolutionism.
It’s strange: if this is an associative pair, then the conflict of what other concepts in the hero’s soul leads him to his own death?
Regarding this combination, what comes to mind is an incident that occurred during the meeting of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin with the then minister and fabulist Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriev at the Moscow English Club, when I. I. Dmitriev pointed out to the poet the strangeness of the combination of words in the name “Moscow English Club”, to which A.S. Pushkin laughed and replied: “And there is something even stranger, Your Excellency: “The Imperial Humane Society.”
This kind of terminological confusion and deep semantic shift comes from a time when everything good and progressive was attributed only to the words “revolution”, etc., and everything negative to their antonyms.
The second thesis: the hero’s ideological impasse and subsequent suicide. The emphasis in this thesis is on the ideological impasse of the hero himself, turning a blind eye to the impasse of the ideas of the revolutionary “impatients”, i.e. dead end general idea the use of revolution to those historical moments when evolution is necessary for the benefit of the cause. For the sake of truth, it is worth mentioning that Russian reality also knew another extreme in the choice of means of social development, this is the so-called theory of small benefit, as well as the theory of reasonable egoism of the French materialists of the 18th century - Holbach, Helvetius, Diderot, of which Chernyshevsky was an adept and preacher. What is worse for society - the constant revolutionization of reality or the constant emphasis on evolution - is difficult to judge, although the fruits of the revolutionary upheavals of the 17th century echo in the 21st century. It is no coincidence that there is now a tendency in certain circles of society to see the root of all the troubles of our time in the unreasonable revolutionism that comes from the common democrats. From the heights of our time, it is objectively easier to judge the positions of thinkers of the last century, but do not judge, lest you be judged. But as a lesson warning against going too far, it’s never too late to accept this.
It’s hard not to agree with N. S. Leskov’s statement about the presence of common sense in the works literary critics of that time: “For us, it’s probably over with Belinsky... Dobrolyubov and Pisarev were very widely read, but, of course, they were not “oracles of common sense and reason.”
In my opinion, the conclusion about the subjects of the struggle of the Musk Ox (in the image of Alexander Ivanovich, as this opponent) is determined by researchers tendentiously. One of the arguments in defense of the emerging capitalist class, as a force that the revolutionary-minded individualist Bogoslovsky cannot cope with, is a quote from his letter to the author of the story: “...There is nowhere to go. Everything is the same everywhere. You cannot jump over the Aleksandrov Ivanovichs.”
Yes, capitalism, with its stranglehold on the entrepreneur, poses a certain threat to the good dreams of the “makers of happiness” of humanity, but in none of the works was it possible to encounter an attempt by literary scholars, relying on the narrative, to analyze the goals that the Musk Ox was striving for and the dangers that he foresees. But the writer directly gives the answer to the question posed in chapter three, in the main character’s program monologue:
“...troubled days are coming, troubled ones. You can’t delay for an hour, otherwise false prophets will come, and I hear their cursed and hateful voice. In the name of the people they will catch you and destroy you...”
Such a subtle psychologist and stylist as I. S. Leskov could not treat his own text carelessly and without any purpose put into the mouth of the taciturn and withdrawn Vasily Petrovich a relatively long monologue with sincere, painful spiritual questions.
Until recently, the object of stigmatization was (and sometimes still is) the class of exploiters, and it very organically followed from this that the hero of the story, when faced with the first representatives of capital, de facto lost to them. “Finding himself in an ideological impasse, being an honest and integral person, he commits suicide.” - writes I. B. Stolyarova, turning a blind eye to the fact that the categories “honesty” and “integrity of character” are concepts of ethics and with ideologicalness they can be at different poles human soul. There are many examples of moral scoundrels, but with very strong ideological principles. We have to talk about the inconsistency of moral ideals at the basis of the ethical beliefs of Musk Ox and Alexander Sviridov, but not about their social opposition. Sviridov has no fear of what for Musk Ox is equal to fiery hell: “the coming false prophets” with their “in the name of the people” trapping and destroying people.
In addition to these sociological approaches to the story “Musk Ox,” all researchers, without exception, point to the artistic perfection of the work. This is undeniable. Chapter four is a completely independent and original essay about the monastic towns of the Oryol province, where the writer, with a rich linguistic palette, conveys not only the appearance of the holy places, but also the spirit and beauty of the surrounding nature.
The novices of one of the monasteries tell their stories about wondrous divas and robbers in an almost folkloric manner, their speech is like speech fairy tale characters appeared in real world and enchanted the narrator in his childhood. In passing, it should be noted how artistic feature, that first-person narration is one of the most difficult forms, along with skaz, masterfully developed by N. S. Leskov.
The monologues and dialogues of the Musk Ox in chapter three are inimitable in their power of expression; in them, in these thoughts and sufferings, this ascetic of serving people is revealed.
In the genre decoration of the story, N. S. Leskov did not ignore the epistolary, examples of which not only serve as an excellent example of the beauty of the syllable (Chapter 10), but also serve to deeper reveal the artistic and ideological concept of the work (Chapter 12).
Such stylistic mastery of the author becomes even more significant if we do not forget that the story “Musk Ox” began with creative path Leskov the writer. He will also create large literary forms, the brilliant “iconostasis” of the righteous is still ahead and Leskov will thereby leave one of the significant traces in Russian literature, rising in depth to the revelation of the Russian national character, rightfully on a par with such great writers and his contemporaries as F. M. Dostoevsky and L. N. Tolstoy.

-----------
Gorelov A. A. Leskov and folk culture. L., 1988. pp. 54-60;
Right there. p. 85;
Leskov N. S. Collected works. in 5 volumes. T. 2, M., 1981. p. 24;
Troitsky V. Yu. Leskov-artist. M., 1974; Stolyarova I.V. In search of the ideal. Creativity N.S. Leskova. L., 1978;
A. S. Pushkin in jokes. Bitter. 1990. p. 7;
Leskov N. S. Literary rabies - Historical Bulletin, 1883, T. XII, pp. 155-156;
Leskov N. S. Collection. op. in 5 volumes. T. 2. M., 1981. p. 56;
Right there. page 24;
Stolyarova I.V. In search of the ideal. Creativity of N. S. Leskov. L., 1978. p. 47.
----------
Used literature:

1. Leskov N. S. Collected works. in 5 volumes. T.2. M., 1981.
2. Leskov N. S. About literature and art. L., 1984.
3. Gorelov A. A. N. S. Leskov and folk culture. L., 1988.
4. A. S. Pushkin in jokes / Comp. L. Rytov. Gorky-N. Novgorod. 1990.
5. Stolyarova I. V. In search of the ideal. Creativity of N. S. Leskov. L., 1978.
6. Troitsky B. Yu. Leskov the artist. M., 1974.

N.S. Leskov

It feeds on grass, and if there is a lack of it, it feeds on lichens.

From zoology.

CHAPTER ONE

When I met Vasily Petrovich, he was already called “Musk Ox”. This nickname was given to him because his appearance was unusually reminiscent of a musk ox, which can be seen in the illustrated guide to zoology by Julian Simashka. He was twenty-eight years old, but looked much older. He was not an athlete, not a hero, but a very strong and healthy man, short, stocky and broad-shouldered. Vasily Petrovich's face was gray and round, but only one face was round, and the skull presented a strange ugliness. At first glance, it seemed to resemble a somewhat Kaffir skull, but, peering and studying this head more closely, you could not fit it under any phrenological system. He wore his hair as if he deliberately wanted to mislead everyone about the figure of his “top floor.” At the back, he cut the entire back of his head very short, and in front, from his ears, his dark brown hair ran in two long and thick braids. Vasily Petrovich usually twisted these braids, and they constantly lay in curled rollers on his temples, and curled up on his cheeks, reminiscent of the horns of the animal in honor of which he received his nickname. Vasily Petrovich most of all owed his resemblance to a musk ox to these braids. However, there was nothing funny in the figure of Vasily Petrovich. The person who met him for the first time saw only that Vasily Petrovich, as they say, was “poorly tailored, but tightly sewn,” and looking into his brown, widely spaced eyes, it was impossible not to see in them a healthy mind, will and determination. The character of Vasily Petrovich had a lot of originality. His distinctive feature was his evangelical carelessness about himself. The son of a rural sexton, who grew up in bitter poverty and, in addition, was orphaned at an early age, he never cared not only about the lasting improvement of his existence, but it seems he never even thought about tomorrow. He had nothing to give, but he was able to take off his last shirt and assumed the same ability in each of the people with whom he came in contact, and he usually called everyone else briefly and clearly “pigs.” When Vasily Petrovich didn’t have boots, that is, if his boots, as he put it, “completely opened his mouth,” then he would come to me or to you, without any ceremony he would take your spare boots if they somehow fit his feet , and left his notes for you as a souvenir. Whether you were at home or not, it didn’t matter to Vasily Petrovich: he made himself at home with you, took what he needed, always in the smallest possible quantity, and sometimes when they met he said that he took tobacco, or tea, or boots, and more often it happened that he didn’t say anything about such trifles. New literature he hated it and read only the Gospels and the ancient classics; he could not hear any conversation about women, considered them all to be fools, and very seriously regretted that his old mother was a woman, and not some kind of sexless creature. Vasily Petrovich's selflessness had no boundaries. He never showed any of us that he loved anyone; but everyone knew very well that there was no sacrifice that the Musk Ox would not make for each of his relatives and friends. It never occurred to anyone to doubt his readiness to sacrifice himself for his chosen idea, but this idea was not easy to find under the skull of our Musk Ox. He did not laugh at many of the theories in which we then fervently believed, but he deeply and sincerely despised them.

The Musk Ox did not like conversations, he did everything in silence, and did exactly what you could least expect from him at that moment.

How and why did he become friends with the small circle to which I belonged during my short stay in our provincial town, - I don't know. Muskox completed a course at the Kursk seminary three years before my arrival. His mother, who fed him with crumbs collected for the sake of Christ, was impatiently waiting for her son to become a priest and live in the parish with his young wife. But the son had no thought about his young wife. Vasily Petrovich did not have the slightest desire to marry. The course was over; the mother kept asking about the brides, but Vasily Petrovich remained silent and one fine morning disappeared to God knows where. Only six months later he sent his mother twenty-five rubles and a letter in which he notified the old mendicant woman that he had come to Kazan and entered the theological academy there. How he reached Kazan, having traveled more than a thousand miles, and how he got twenty-five rubles - this remained unknown. The musk ox did not write a word to his mother about this. But before the old woman had time to rejoice that her Vasya would someday be a bishop and she would then live with him in a bright room with a white stove and drink tea with raisins twice every day, Vasya seemed to have fallen from the sky - he suddenly appeared again in Kursk. They asked him a lot: what is it? How? why did he come back? but we learned little. “I didn’t get along,” Musk Ox answered briefly, and they couldn’t get anything more out of him. Only to one person did he say a little more; “I don’t want to be a monk,” but no one else got anything from him.

The man to whom Musk Ox said more than to everyone else was Yakov Chelnovsky, a kind, good fellow, incapable of hurting a fly and ready to do any service to his neighbor. Chelnovsky was a relative of mine in some distant tribe. It was at Chelnovsky’s that I met the stocky hero of my story.

This was in the summer of 1854. I had to take care of the process that was carried out in the Kursk government offices.

I arrived in Kursk at seven o’clock in the morning in May, straight to Chelnovsky. At that time he was preparing young people for university, gave lessons in the Russian language and history in two women's boarding houses and lived not poorly: he had a decent apartment with three rooms in the front, a sizeable library, upholstered furniture, several pots of exotic plants and a bulldog, Box, with bared teeth, a very indecent bustle and a gait that slightly resembled a cancan.

Chelnovsky was extremely happy about my arrival and made me promise to definitely stay with him for the entire duration of my stay in Kursk. He himself usually spent the whole day running around to his lessons, and I either visited the civil chamber or wandered aimlessly around Tuscari or the Diet. You won’t find the first of these rivers on many maps of Russia, and the second is famous for its especially tasty crayfish, but it gained even greater fame through the lock system built on it, which absorbed huge capital without freeing the Seimas from its reputation as a river “inconvenient for navigation.” .

Born on February 4 (February 16), 1831 in the village of Gorokhov, Oryol province, in the family of an investigator and the daughter of an impoverished nobleman. They had five children, Nikolai was the eldest child. The writer spent his childhood in the city of Orel. After his father left office, the family moved from Orel to the village of Panino. This is where Leskov’s study and knowledge of the people began.

Education and career

In 1841, at the age of 10, Leskov entered the Oryol gymnasium. The future writer’s studies did not work out - in 5 years of study he completed only 2 classes. In 1847, Leskov, thanks to the help of his father’s friends, got a job in the Oryol Criminal Chamber of the court as a clerical employee. At the age of sixteen, tragic events occurred that are worth mentioning even in short biography Leskova - his father died of cholera, and all his property was burned in a fire.

In 1849, Leskov, with the help of his uncle-professor, was transferred to Kyiv as an official of the state chamber, where he later received the position of chief of staff. In Kyiv, Leskov developed an interest in Ukrainian culture and great writers, painting and architecture of the old city.

In 1857, Leskov left his job and entered commercial service in the large agricultural company of his English uncle, on whose business he traveled throughout most of Russia in three years. After the closure of the company, he returned to Kyiv in 1860.

Creative life

The year 1860 is considered the beginning of Leskov’s creative writing, at which time he wrote and published articles in various magazines. Six months later he moves to St. Petersburg, where he plans to engage in literary and journalistic activities.

In 1862, Leskov became a permanent contributor to the Northern Bee newspaper. Working as a correspondent there, he visited Western Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Poland. The life of the Western sister nations was close and attractive to him, so he delved into the study of their art and life. In 1863 Leskov returned to Russia.

Having studied and observed the life of the Russian people for a long time, sympathizing with their sorrows and needs, from the pen of Leskov came the stories “The Extinguished Cause” (1862), the stories “The Life of a Woman”, “Musk Ox” (1863), “Lady Macbeth” Mtsensk district” (1865).

In the novels “Nowhere” (1864), “Bypassed” (1865), “On Knives” (1870), the writer revealed the theme of Russia’s unpreparedness for revolution. Maxim Gorky said “...after the evil novel “On Knives” literary creativity Leskova immediately becomes a bright painting or, rather, iconography - he begins to create for Russia an iconostasis of its saints and righteous people.”

Having disagreements with the revolutionary democrats, Leskova refused to publish many magazines. The only one who published his works was Mikhail Katkov, editor of the Russian Messenger magazine. It was incredibly difficult for Leskov to work with him; the editor edited almost all of the writer’s works, and even refused to publish some of them.

In 1870 - 1880 he wrote the novels “The Soborians” (1872), “A Seedy Family” (1874), where he revealed national and historical issues. The novel “A Seedy Family” was not completed by Leskov due to disagreements with the publisher Katkov. Also at this time he wrote several stories: “The Islanders” (1866), “The Enchanted Wanderer” (1873), “The Sealed Angel” (1873). Fortunately, “The Captured Angel” was not affected by Mikhail Katkov’s editorial edits.

In 1881, Leskov wrote the story “Lefty” (The Tale of the Tula oblique Lefty and about steel flea) - an ancient legend about gunsmiths.

The story “The Hare Remise” (1894) was the writer’s last great work. In it he criticized political system Russia at that time. The story was published only in 1917 after the Revolution.

Leo Tolstoy spoke of Nikolai Semenovich Leskov as "the most Russian of our writers", Anton Chekhov, along with Ivan Turgenev, considered him one of his main mentors.

Writer's personal life

The personal life in the biography of Nikolai Leskov was not very successful. The writer's first wife in 1853 was the daughter of a Kyiv merchant, Olga Smirnova. They had two children - the first-born, son Mitya, who died in infancy, and daughter Vera. The wife fell ill with a mental disorder and was treated in St. Petersburg. The marriage broke up.

In 1865, Leskov lived with the widow Ekaterina Bubnova. The couple had a son, Andrei (1866-1953). He separated from his second wife in 1877.

New feature! The average rating this biography received. Show rating

“Musk Ox” is a story of twelve chapters. Main character– Vasily Petrovich, who has the nickname “Musk Ox” because of his appearance, deserves pity due to his naivety and inconsistency of ideas and actions.

He is only twenty-eight years old, although he looks older. At his age, he had no intention of getting married and never even wanted to hear anything about women. He considered them all fools, and wished that his mother was some kind of sexless creature.

Vasily Petrovich communicated with few people, but if necessary, he could come to his friends without any warning, and behaved in their house as in his own. Most of all, Musk Ox trusted Yakov Chelnovsky, who was very gentle in character and kind person. It was in Chelnovsky’s house that the author of the story met Musk Ox.

Vasily Petrovich’s mother dreamed that after graduating from the Kursk seminary, her son would serve as a priest and live with his young wife, but these were useless dreams. Her life ended in an almshouse. And Musk Ox became a monastic novice. Before this, he was still forced to get married in order to be able to get into service in the courtyard. Family life it didn’t work out, it didn’t live up to his hopes. And the musk ox became a novice.

While serving in the monastery, Vasily Petrovich loved to wander at night, as cell life often bored him.

Soon Musk Ox was expelled from the monastery because he decided to conduct interviews with pilgrims. And he came to his friend, the author of the story, but seeing his mother and sister on the porch, he refused to go into the house to spend the night. The narrator promised to find Muskox a new place where he could work and live. A friend arranged for him to live with his friends in Barkov Khutor. There he oversaw the felling of the forest and received a considerable salary.

After some time, Musk Ox committed suicide by hanging. He was not always lucky in life, since he was an extraordinary person who looked for everything, but never found his place in this life. He could give society a lot, but he never saw the desire of society to accept his knowledge. He was not like everyone else, they often laughed at him, not realizing that without such people, the world would be boring. Vasily Petrovich was not afraid to be different, to stand out from the herd.

Essay on literature on the topic: Summary of Musk Ox Leskov

Other writings:

1. In the 60s of the last century in Russian literature, as if apart, there was the work of the wonderful Russian writer-storyteller Nikolai Semenovich Leskov. Apart because he did not accept with his soul the aspirations of contemporary literature, marked by nihilistic, revolutionary sentiments. He was against nihilism. Performed with Read More......
2. Robbery The heroes of this story: Mikhail - a boy of 19 years old, Ivan Leontyevich - his uncle, mother and her sister, the story consists of 17 chapters. Mikhail lives in Russia XIX century in the city of Orel with my mother and aunt, god-obedient old women who did not Read More ......
3. Nowhere Two young girls, “poplar and birch,” Lizaveta Grigorievna Bakhareva and Evgenia Petrovna Glovatskaya are returning from Moscow after graduating from college. On the way, they stop at the monastery to visit Bakhareva’s aunt, Abbess Agnia, where Lisa demonstrates new views on the role of women in Read More ......
4. Cathedral People The subject of the story is the “life-being” of the representatives of the Stargorod “cathedral priest”: Archpriest Savely Tuberozov, priest Zakhary Benefaktov and deacon Achilla Desnitsyn. Childless Tuberozov retains all the ardor of his heart and all the energy of youth. Benefaktov’s personality is the embodiment of meekness and humility. Deacon Achilles the hero and Read More......
5. On knives B county town Iosaf Platonovich Vislenev returns, convicted in the past in a political case. He is met by his sister Larisa, ex-fiancee Alexandra Ivanovna, who later unexpectedly married General Sintyanin, about whom there is a “terrible reputation.” Among those greeting also Major Forov, Read More......
6. The Enchanted Wanderer On the way to Valaam on Lake Ladoga, several travelers meet. One of them, dressed in a novice cassock and looking like a “typical hero,” says that, having “God’s gift” for taming horses, he, according to his parents’ promise, died all his life and Read More ......
7. Odnodum Childhood and youth of Alexander Ryzhov During the reign of Catherine II, in the town of Soligalich, Kostroma province, a son, Aleksashka, was born into the family of a small clerical servant Ryzhov. Having lost his father at a young age, he was raised by his mother, who sold homemade pies at the market. The boy learned to read and write Read More ......

Summary Muskox Leskov

In the 60s of the last century in Russian literature, as if apart, there was the work of the wonderful Russian writer-storyteller Nikolai Semenovich Leskov. Apart because he did not accept with his soul the aspirations of contemporary literature, marked by nihilistic, revolutionary sentiments. He was against nihilism. He criticized Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?”. Leskov did not evaluate the heroes of this novel in the same way as, for example, the revolutionary democrats. He considered them "harmless and apolitical, who bear neither fire nor sword."

Thus, in the conditions of the then struggle for the ideals of revolutionary democrats, Leskov did not rely on their ideas or on any ideas at all. A unique case! What is this? Pure artist? Misunderstanding of society's aspirations? I think the reasons were much more complex. The writer, like all progressive society, sought to resolve painful problems of reality, but did it in his own way. Naturally, his dislike of politicking affected his work.

Already in early story"Musk Ox" showed strong and weaknesses creativity of the writer. The hero of the story, Vasily Bogoslovsky, stubbornly seeks ways to change reality. At first it seemed to me that there was something in him from “new people” like Turgenev’s Bazarov. He, just like the “new people,” is honest, hates parasitic nobles, persistently agitates the people against the rich and protects the poor.

But Leskov’s hero is nevertheless far from Bazarov, in whose image Turgenev captured the typical mood of the era. The musk ox, perhaps, deserves only pity because of the naivety and inconsistency of his actions and ideas. There are undoubtedly quite a lot of such people in life. Apparently, Leskov proceeded from considerations of bringing the hero as close as possible to reality. As a result, the artistic side of the works was strengthened, but the ideological side was weakened.

Let's return to the Musk Ox. Having exhausted all the possibilities and means of joining life, he left it. Although the story does not at all boil down to polemics with revolutionary democrats, it conveyed thoughts about the futility of the struggle of the “new people” against the injustices of life. In fact, this is not even Leskov’s idea. It has lived since the time when human society began to perceive itself as socially differentiated.

The Musk Ox is endowed with the features of a “Leskovsky” hero, a unique person, somehow attractive, accepting the suffering of the people, at the same time sympathetic to the author himself and distant from him, which expands the artistic possibilities of the writer.

Leskov’s merit in the process of revolutionary transformations is that, no matter how he views the ideas of revolutionary democrats, he objectively shows the tossing-up of people who are not yet ready to perceive progressive ideas. He also depicted the dedication of these heroes, reaching the point of self-denial, the sacrifice of representatives of the new generation, who, in his opinion, “have nowhere to go.”

Assessing his past, Leskov will write: “I wandered and returned, and became myself - what I am. Much of what I have written is really unpleasant to me, but there is no lie anywhere - I have always and everywhere been straightforward and sincere... I was simply mistaken - I did not understand, sometimes I was influenced by..."

Leskov saw his mistake in the fact that he wanted to “stop the violent impulse,” which to him, wise by experience, would already seem like a “natural phenomenon.”

Knowing Leskov’s works well, I have no doubt at all that, despite all his delusions and erroneous views, humanism and internal spontaneous democracy, “thirst for light” have always been the wonderful qualities of this artist.