The meaning of the hunter's notes. Methodological developments

Mayakovsky is a great poet of tragic love. The love line in his lyrics is included in the social conflict of the era. Mayakovsky's works dedicated to the theme of love are characterized by the epic scale of lyrical situations.
One of the eternal themes in literature - the theme of love - runs through all of his work. “Love is the heart of everything. If it stops working, everything else dies off, becomes superfluous, unnecessary. But if the heart works, it cannot but manifest itself in everything,” the poet wrote in a letter to L. Brik. These lines contain Mayakovsky’s whole life, with all its joys and sorrows, pain, despair. The poet's works tell about his love and what it was like. Love-suffering, love-torment haunted his lyrical hero. The place of love lyrics in his work is evidenced by such poems as “Cloud in Pants”, “Spine Flute”, “Man”, “I Love”, “About This”.
There were many women in Mayakovsky’s life, there were serious love interests, fleeting romances, and just flirting. But only three love interests turned out to be long and deep enough to leave a mark on his poetry." We are, of course, talking about Lila Brik - the heroine of almost all of the poet’s lyrics; Tatyana Yakovleva, to whom two excellent poems are dedicated, and Maria Denisova, who became one from the prototypes of Maria “Clouds in Pants”.
The relationship between Vladimir Mayakovsky and Lily Brik was very difficult, many stages of their development were reflected in the works of the poet; in general, the poem “Lilichka!” can be indicative of these relationships. It was written in 1916, but was first published with the title-dedication “Lilichka” only in 1934.
Mayakovsky and Tatyana Yakovleva immediately fell in love with each other. From the very first day of their acquaintance, a new “fire of the heart” arose, and the “lyric tape” of new love lit up. This was immediately seen and understood by those who were close to Mayakovsky and who were direct witnesses to this event. During the month of their acquaintance, Mayakovsky wrote two poems dedicated to T. A. Yakovleva: “Letter to Comrade Kostrov from Paris about the essence of love” and “Letter to Tatyana Yakovleva.” These were the first love letters (since 1915) dedicated not to Lila Yuryevna Brik. Both of these poems ("Letter to Comrade Kostrov..." and "Letter to Tatyana Yakovleva") are about love, but comparing them, you understand how different they are, although they were written approximately in the same period. If the first is more global, even, in some places, philosophical in nature, then the second is more personal.
Let us open the poem “A Cloud in Pants” (1914), and we are immediately, from the first lines, overwhelmed by an alarming feeling of great and passionate love. The poet himself points to the veracity of those experiences described in the poem:
Do you think it's malaria that's raving? It was, it was in Odessa, “I’ll come at four,” Maria said.
But a feeling of exceptional strength brings not joy, but suffering. And the whole horror is not that love is unrequited, but that love is generally impossible in this terrible world where everything is bought and sold. Behind the personal, intimate, the big world of human relationships shines through, a world hostile to love. And this world, this reality took away the poet’s beloved, stole his love. And Mayakovsky exclaims:
“You can’t love!” But he could not help but love. No more than a year has passed, and the heart is again torn by the pangs of love.
These feelings of his are reflected in the poem “Flute-Spine”. And again, not the joy of love, but despair sounds from the pages of the poem. In the first place are the poet’s personal feelings and experiences, and not a revolutionary spirit, as was commonly believed fifteen years ago.
The fact that even then the poet did not find celebration or happiness in love is evidenced by other works of Mayakovsky of 1916 - 1917. In the poem “Man,” which sounds like a hymn to the human creator, love appears in images that express only suffering. In the twenties, Mayakovsky wrote one after another the poems “I Love” (1922), “About This” (1923). The poem “I Love” is a lyrical and philosophical reflection on love, its essence and place in human life. The poet contrasts venal love with true, passionate, faithful love, which neither quarrels nor miles can wash away. In general, in my opinion, “I Love” is the brightest poem by V.V. Mayakovsky, full of love and cheerfulness. There is no place for gloomy moods in it. In this way, it is perhaps very different from all other works of the poet.
But already in the poem “About This” the lyrical hero appears before the readers again restless, suffering, tormented by unsatisfied love. The poet is deeply worried that the joys of life have not touched him.
Of course, one cannot equate the lyrical hero of the poem with the author. But the fact that in the poem “About This” its lyrical hero bears the real features of the author is undoubtedly evidenced by many details of the poem. After the appearance of the poem “About This,” Mayakovsky began to be accused of “subjectivist immersion in the world of individual feelings and experiences.” The poem “About This” could not help but receive the most negative assessment on the pages of Proletcult publications. Proletkult theorists saw in lyrics only “a relic of bourgeois individualistic art.” They argued that they were not interested in an individual person, but in “traits common to millions.”
The poet's heart longed for love, but love did not come. “Somehow live and bask alone,” the poet writes in one of his poems. There is so much bitterness in these words, bitterness that Mayakovsky drank to the fullest. But he could not agree with the unrealizability of love, its transcendence.
In the poet's love lyrics there are also lines that seem to deny and ridicule this feeling. “Come on! Forget it! Spit on rhymes, and arias, and the rosebush, and other mere crap from the arsenals of the arts...” Most likely, in these and similar lines we are not talking about the denial of love and love lyrics - this is an attack against outdated forms in art and insincere, superficial relationships, everyday life and vulgarity. Such a denial of love is aimed, it seems to me, at the affirmation of true love; all of Mayakovsky's poetry is aimed at sincere relationships.
For Mayakovsky, the personal and the poetic do not exist on their own; they are closely connected, intertwined, one turns into the other. Poetry is made from simple, real life, exists in this life itself, is born from it.
No matter how dramatically the poet’s life develops, the reader cannot help but be shocked by the power of this love, which, despite everything, affirms the invincibility of life.

“Notes of a Hunter” irrefutably convinced the reader of the need to destroy serfdom as the basis of the social system in Russia; in this sense, they are closest to Radishchev’s “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” The significance of “Notes of a Hunter” in Turgenev’s artistic life is immeasurably great. After the publication of this book, he became the generally recognized head of Russian literature.

Turgenev's first stories and essays were written and published during the years of relative revival in the public life of Russia, when even government circles were thinking about abolishing serfdom. But at the beginning of 1848, a revolution broke out in France, and Nicholas I, who never forgot what a coward he celebrated on December 14, 1825, immediately decided to stop any liberal efforts. The punishers undertook a genuine campaign against literature. Naturally, first of all, they paid attention to the most advanced magazine - Sovremennik. Nekrasov and Panaev were summoned to the Third Department, where they were given a suggestion and explanation about Siberia. Turgenev, whose works were one of the most important components of the success of Sovremennik, was also taken under suspicion. They were just waiting for an opportunity to deal with him. Such an opportunity soon presented itself. Turgenev wrote a short, heated article on Gogol's death, which the chairman of the St. Petersburg censorship committee banned on the grounds that Gogol was a “lackey writer.” Then Turgenev sent the article to Moscow, and there it was published through the efforts of his friends - Botkin and Feoktistov. An investigation was immediately ordered, as a result of which Turgenev (by order of Nicholas 1) was arrested on April 28, 1852.

Even at that time the punishment seemed too cruel; It was natural to assume that the note about Gogol was not the only fault of the writer.

After his release from arrest, Turgenev had to immediately go to his place of exile - Spasskoye-Lutovinovo. In his involuntary seclusion, Turgenev summed up the most important results of his work. Now he was finally convinced that not a single topic in literature could be more or less satisfactorily resolved without directly or indirectly relating it to the elements of people's life. This also concerned the topic of personality, a topic that, in the real conditions of Russian social development in the first half of the 19th century, was inextricably linked with the question of the fate of the noble intelligentsia.

The criterion of nationality deepened the theme of the noble intelligentsia with a new understanding of the idea of ​​duty. A developed, and even more so gifted, personality must strive to realize the possibilities inherent in it; this is her duty, a duty to herself, to the idea of ​​​​Humanity. Without access to the wide world of Humanity, the Motherland, and the world of people's life, a noble intellectual is doomed to the collapse of his personality. A hero was needed who decided to take this step. Apparently, in order to present such a person, stories of the usual scale and form for Turgenev were no longer suitable. This theme of entering the wide world of activity - activity on the scale of the whole of Russia - required a great story, as Turgenev often said, that is, it required a novel.

The publications also turned out to be important for the history of Russian literature, in particular for the history of the distribution of “Notes of a Hunter” among Russian readers. No attention has yet been paid to the fact that the widest distribution and popularity of this book by Turgenev is in various Western European literatures. It is no coincidence that Turgenev himself was very interested in the impression that “Notes of a Hunter” made in these countries - due to the fame of the critics who first turned their sympathetic attention to “Notes” here, and due to the opportunity to personally contribute to the correct interpretation of his book. We will try below to fill in some gaps from history with the speed of the victorious dissemination of “Notes of a Hunter” abroad, without, however, claiming to be exhaustive; Further study of this issue is certainly necessary, but it will require many more long-term joint efforts before the complex and lively picture that interests us can appear before us in all its diversity and brightness, but with the main images of its foreground clearly identified.

In the literature about Turgenev, there is a belief that he was first noticed in France. There is no doubt that the first French translations of “Notes of a Hunter” played a decisive role in the dissemination of this book throughout the world; this was explained not so much by the ubiquity of the French language in the middle of the 19th century, but by the central position and the important role that advanced French literature of that time played in the world literary process, until it later gave way to Russian literature. A book translated into French and received the approval of French critics could count on being noticed everywhere; French magazines were read in the Old and New Worlds; Foreign books were often translated from French into other languages ​​in the West and the Middle East.

The appearance in Paris in 1854 of the first French edition of “Notes of a Hunter” translated by E. Charrière was reported earlier than others in the Russian press by the same Wiedert, and one must think that it was from him that Turgenev himself received this translation. A letter from Turgenev to Wiedert from St. Petersburg, sent to Berlin on April 5, 1855, has been preserved; This letter confirms that Turgenev valued information about. the fate of “Notes of a Hunter” abroad, which Wiedert shared with him: “I’m going to the village tomorrow... - and only yesterday I received your letter,” wrote Turgenev. “Thank you for sending reviews, which are just too flattering - this should be attributed to the news of the subject and imagined life. Nekrasov; now in his village - he will be with me in May, and in the fall he will certainly come abroad. With it I will send you all the promised books. The opportunity I was hoping for has burst, and in general it’s now difficult to send anything. Now, if we make peace, that’s a different matter! But this is all in the darkness of the future. If possible, send the 2nd part of your translation (“Notes of a Hunter”) to Panaev (i.e., to the editors of Sovremennik). Write to me and I will write to you. Bow to all your good friends, not forgetting Peach..."

The friendly tone of this letter, gratitude for the service rendered by Wiedert, mention of mutual friends, interest in the German translation of “Notes of a Hunter” (Turgenev was expecting the second part, therefore, he had already received the first earlier) confirm that Turgenev was widely privy to Wiedert’s literary plans and good;) knew the history of the first German edition of “Notes of a Hunter” that he had been preparing for a long time. Moreover, there is every reason to assume that Turgenev had a high opinion of this translation, which was distinguished by truly significant literary merits.

An entry dated August 6, 1856 in Farnhagen’s diary reads: “Ivan Turgenev came to me accompanied by Wiedert - welcome! Even today he travels further, to Paris, then to Rome. He talked about himself, about his month-long arrest and two-year exile caused by the appearance of “Notes of a Hunter.” Gave detailed information about the state of Russia. Two main issues are the growth of sectarianism and serfdom... Emperor Nicholas, limited and cruel, was by nature a mere police agent. The nature of his reign, the painful disintegration, the rotting of the state,” etc. Wiedert himself, no doubt, gave similar explanations to “Notes of a Hunter” to his German literary friends.

Despite all this, Wiedert’s translation of “Notes of a Hunter” did not play the pan-European role that the translator apparently hoped for: after all, Wiedert was the first to translate this Russian book, and this translation was a success and earned him approval. The reasons that this translation was not sufficiently appreciated were of a general nature:; THEY have already been indicated above. The significance of the century-old translation, which remained for a number of years in German literature, was exclusively local.

“Notes of a Hunter” aroused much greater attention throughout Europe when they were published in French translation in the same 1854 in Paris. With considerable, quite natural annoyance, Wiedert got acquainted with this translation by E. Charrière, which was destined for a more brilliant fate: “I looked at Charrière’s translation and, unfortunately, on every page I had to make sure that the translator was absolutely not in able to convey this work,” Wiedert wrote in correspondence with Moskovskie Vedomosti, reporting, by the way, examples of the “nonsense” that some French writers wrote about this translation.

The first translation of “Notes of a Hunter” into French appeared in Paris only in April 1854 under a changed title and without Turgenev’s name on the cover and title page of the book. This was a translation by Ernest Charrière, which earned notorious fame in Russia: “Memoirs of a noble Russian master or a picture of the state of the nobility and peasantry in the Russian provinces at the present time.”

Turgenev’s name, however, was mentioned by the translator in the “Introduction,” where Charrière wrote: “The book of Ivan Turgenev offered to the reader in translation was published in Russian in Moscow in 1852 under the title “Notes of a Hunter,” which we considered necessary to change. If in our translation the book began to be called “Memoirs of a Noble Russian Master,” this was done in order to give it the character of a testimony of the Russian aristocracy regarding the actual situation in the country where it dominates,” etc.

It is interesting to note that it was Charrière who initiated it. Having released his translation of “Notes of a Hunter,” he immediately sent a copy of the book to Merimee with a request to respond to it in print; Charrière considered such an article not only flattering for himself, but also especially important for the success of his publication: Mérimée was already widely known in France not only as a writer, but also as a translator of Pushkin and Gogol. P. Merimee’s response letter to E. Charrière is dated May 20, 1854. “I read with great interest your translation of “Notes of a Hunter,” wrote Merimee, “and thank you for giving me the opportunity to get acquainted with such a wonderful work... As soon as I can have a little leisure, I propose to write a critical analysis of it for the Revue deux Mondes and say there all the good things that I think about this work.”

Merimee was able to keep his promise only a month later: in the July 1, 1854 issue of the said magazine, his article about “Notes of a Hunter,” entitled “Literature and Serfdom in Russia,” appeared. This article belonged to a writer whose name spoke for itself, and could not help but attract the widest attention. True, it is not free from some tendentious exaggerations of the war year, since the author wanted to make it poignant and politically relevant for contemporary French readers.

Municipal educational institution Krasninskaya secondary school

Literature message:

Completed by 10th grade student Ivan Arzamastsev.

Pre-revolutionary Russian literary criticism assessed the great Russian writers primarily from the point of view of local interests, personal tastes, and inaccurate and subjective research methods. The question of the global significance of Russian classical literature as a whole complex of ideas, artistic method, style, and creative orientation was almost never raised; they spoke only mainly about the “successes” in disseminating Russian literature in various foreign countries. The actual historical role that the work of many Russian writers played abroad was either not realized at all, or they spoke uncertainly, timidly, not yet grasping the patterns in scattered facts, selected at random, without strict and deliberate criteria. In essence, they knew little about the truly global significance of Pushkin, Gogol, even L.N. Tolstoy, without generalizing the known data, without trying to bring them together in one picture that would have a common ideological meaning and a single principle of its construction. However, of all the writers mentioned, Turgenev has long seemed to critics to be one of those whose significance was the most undeniable. The worldwide glory of Pushkin was revealed only recently; Regarding Gogol, we have long believed that he could well be appreciated only in his homeland or only by those readers who can read him in the original; Therefore, for many years, we have exaggerated the obscurity of many of the best representatives of Russian literature and the lack of attention to them outside our country. This kind of mistake was not made specifically in relation to Turgenev. On the contrary, at one time we had the opinion that it was he who “discovered” Russian. such literature for many foreign countries of the Western world, that it was Turgenev who greatly contributed to the dissemination of the works of Pushkin, Gottl, and L. Tolstoy there, being a tireless propagandist of them and many other Russian writers in all the literatures of Europe.

« Notes of a Hunter"are deeply rooted in Russian life and Russian literature. Turgenev's book was written at a time when all issues boiled down to the abolition of serfdom; it was the answer to this central question of the era, in the resolution of which the vast majority of the Russian people were vitally interested. In Belinsky’s letter to Gogol I saw a reflection of the sentiments of the serfs, their hatred of serfdom. Belinsky’s famous letter was the basis of Turgenev’s views in the 40s, during the period when “Notes of a Hunter” was created. In Turgenev’s own words, this letter contained his entire religion.

It is quite obvious that Turgenev’s book also absorbed the sentiments of the serfs, their burning dissatisfaction with serfdom, their protest. This is the nationality of “Notes of a Hunter”. Literary historians have talked a lot about all sorts of literary influences that allegedly gave rise to this book, as well as Turgenev’s general interest in the peasant question. The influence of Russian life itself was not taken into account at all. To promote the turn of public interests towards living social issues - Turgenev saw this as the most important national task of advanced Russian people. Speaking about the Russian people, Turgenev described them in the quoted review as “a young and strong people who believe and have the right to believe in their future...”

Turgenev’s book “Notes of a Hunter” has always been especially valued by all foreign readers for the very reason that has always aroused their specific interest in Russian literature: it was not only an exemplary work of art, but also a vivid document of Russian social thought. Those artistic qualities with the help of which she reflected the Russian social struggle at a certain stage of Russian historical life made her a monument of world literature.

Turgenev never rose to the heights of his revolutionary democratic ideas, nevertheless, following Belinsky, the author of “Notes of a Hunter” affirmed the great possibilities of the Russian people, “a young and strong people”; following Belinsky, he rejected cosmopolitanism. Together with Belinsky, Turgenev demanded that thinking Russian people shift their attention from “small contradictions in their own lives” to the great contradictions in the life of humanity and society, to social issues and tasks.

It is also important that many peasant characters in “Notes of a Hunter” turned out to be not only carriers of excellent spiritual qualities; the positive heroes of the peasant environment are depicted as bearers of the best features of the Russian national character. This, first of all, was Turgenev’s protest against serfdom and the social significance of his book. Turgenev, in connection with “Notes of a Hunter,” was more than once reproached for idealizing the peasantry and deviating from realism.

The publications also turned out to be important for the history of Russian literature, in particular for the history of the distribution of “Notes of a Hunter” among Russian readers. No attention has yet been paid to the fact that the widest distribution and popularity of this book by Turgenev is in various Western European literatures. It is no coincidence that Turgenev himself was very interested in the impression that “Notes of a Hunter” made in these countries - due to the fame of the critics who first turned their sympathetic attention to “Notes” here, and due to the opportunity to personally contribute to the correct interpretation of his book. We will try below to fill in some gaps from history with the speed of the victorious dissemination of “Notes of a Hunter” abroad, without, however, claiming to be exhaustive; Further study of this issue is certainly necessary, but it will require many more long-term joint efforts before the complex and lively picture that interests us can appear before us in all its diversity and brightness, but with the main images of its foreground clearly identified. In the literature about Turgenev, there is a belief that he was first noticed in France. There is no doubt that the first French translations of “Notes of a Hunter” played a decisive role in the dissemination of this book throughout the world; this was explained not so much by the ubiquity of the French language in the middle of the 19th century, but by the central position and the important role that advanced French literature of that time played in the world literary process, until it later gave way to Russian literature. A book translated into French and received the approval of French critics could count on being noticed everywhere; French magazines were read in the Old and New Worlds; Translations of foreign books were often made from French into other languages ​​in the West and the Middle East. The appearance in Paris in 1854 of the first French edition of “Notes of a Hunter” translated by E. Charrière was reported earlier than others in the Russian press by the same Wiedert, and one must think that it was from him that Turgenev himself received this translation.

A letter from Turgenev to Wiedert from St. Petersburg, sent to Berlin on April 5, 1855, has been preserved; This letter confirms that Turgenev valued information about. the fate of “Notes of a Hunter” abroad, which Wiedert shared with him: “I’m going to the village tomorrow... - and only yesterday I received your letter,” wrote Turgenev. “Thank you for sending reviews, which are just too flattering - this should be attributed to the news of the subject and imagined life. Nekrasov; now in his village - he will be with me in May, and in the fall he will certainly come abroad. With it I will send you all the promised books. The opportunity I was hoping for has burst, and in general now it’s difficult to send anything.

Now, if we make peace, that’s a different matter! But this is all in the darkness of the future. If possible, send the 2nd part of your translation (“Notes of a Hunter”) to Panaev (i.e., to the editors of Sovremennik). Write to me and I will write to you. Bow to all your good friends, not forgetting Peach...” The friendly tone of this letter, gratitude for the service rendered by Wiedert, mention of mutual friends, interest in the German translation of “Notes of a Hunter” (Turgenev was expecting the second part, therefore, he had already received the first earlier) confirm that that Turgenev was widely privy to Wiedert’s literary plans and was good;) knew the history of the first German edition of “Notes of a Hunter” that he had long been preparing. Moreover, there is every reason to assume that Turgenev had a high opinion of this translation, which was distinguished by truly significant literary merits. An entry dated August 6, 1856 in Farnhagen’s diary reads: “Ivan Turgenev came to me accompanied by Wiedert - welcome! Even today he travels further, to Paris, then to Rome. He talked about himself, about his month-long arrest and two-year exile caused by the appearance of “Notes of a Hunter.” Gave detailed information about the state of Russia. Two main issues are the growth of sectarianism and serfdom... Emperor Nicholas, limited and cruel, was by nature a mere police agent. The nature of his reign, the painful disintegration, the rotting of the state,” etc. Wiedert himself, no doubt, gave similar explanations to “Notes of a Hunter” to his German literary friends. Despite all this, Wiedert’s translation of “Notes of a Hunter” did not play the pan-European role that the translator apparently hoped for: after all, Wiedert was the first to translate this Russian book, and this translation was a success and earned him approval. The reasons that this translation was not sufficiently appreciated were of a general nature:; THEY have already been indicated above. The significance of the century-old translation, which remained for a number of years in German literature, was exclusively local. “Notes of a Hunter” aroused much greater attention throughout Europe when they were published in French translation in the same 1854 in Paris. With considerable, quite natural annoyance, Wiedert got acquainted with this translation by E. Charrière, which was destined for a more brilliant fate: “I looked at Charrière’s translation and, unfortunately, on every page I had to make sure that the translator was absolutely not in able to convey this work,” Wiedert wrote in correspondence with Moskovskie Vedomosti, reporting, by the way, examples of the “nonsense” that some French writers wrote about this translation. The first translation of “Notes of a Hunter” into French appeared in Paris only in April 1854 under a changed title and without Turgenev’s name on the cover and title page of the book. This was a translation by Ernest Charrière, which earned notorious fame in Russia: “Memoirs of a noble Russian master or a picture of the state of the nobility and peasantry in the Russian provinces at the present time.” Turgenev’s name, however, was mentioned by the translator in the “Introduction,” where Charrière wrote: “The book of Ivan Turgenev offered to the reader in translation was published in Russian in Moscow in 1852 under the title “Notes of a Hunter,” which we considered necessary to change. If in our translation the book began to be called “Memoirs of a noble Russian master,” then this was done in order to give it the character of a testimony of the Russian aristocracy regarding the actual situation in the country where it dominates,” etc. It is interesting to note that its initiator it was Charrière. Having released his translation of “Notes of a Hunter,” he immediately sent a copy of the book to Merimee with a request to respond to it in print; Charrière considered such an article not only flattering for himself, but also especially important for the success of his publication: Mérimée was already widely known in France not only as a writer, but also as a translator of Pushkin and Gogol. P. Merimee’s response letter to E. Charrière is dated May 20, 1854. “I read with great interest your translation of “Notes of a Hunter,” wrote Merimee, “and thank you for giving me the opportunity to get acquainted with such a wonderful work... As soon as I can have a little leisure, I propose to write a critical analysis of it for the Revue deux Mondes and say there all the good things that I think about this work.” Merimee was able to keep his promise only a month later: in the July 1, 1854 issue of the said magazine, his article about “Notes of a Hunter,” entitled “Literature and Serfdom in Russia,” appeared. This article belonged to a writer whose name spoke for itself, and could not help but attract the widest attention. True, it is not free from some tendentious exaggerations of the war year, since the author wanted to make it poignant and politically relevant for contemporary French readers.