Comic techniques in I.A. Krylov’s comedy “A Lesson for Daughters”

It is known that the basis of the comic is some kind of inconsistency, a violation of the natural course of things. Inconsistency in literature is conveyed at the linguistic level (slip of the tongue, imitation of an accent or speech impediment, ambiguity, abuse of borrowings, dialectal or colloquial vocabulary), at the level of the plot situation (misunderstanding, one character is mistaken for another), and at the level of the character’s character (contradiction between the produced impression and self-esteem, between word and deed). In plays, an obvious comic effect is often produced by the speech of the characters, since there are practically no words from the author; in a more veiled form, comic techniques are used in the plots and characters. Often, even the names of the characters are not invented by chance, but for comic purposes. Play by I.A. Krylov's "Lesson for Daughters" repeats the plot scheme of Moliere's "Funny Primitive Women". In both cases, the plot is the same: a servant who appears in the house of cutesy young ladies pretends to be a nobleman, and in the end he is exposed, and the girls are put to shame, since their “enlightenment” is nothing more than antics. Krylov skillfully transferred this plot to Russian soil, ridiculing the gallomania of the contemporary Russian nobility, while the interpretation of the main character also underwent some changes. The servant Mascarille in Moliere's play is a caricature, and appears in the house of the simpers at the instigation of his master, a rejected groom, who decided to teach the girls a lesson in this way. Krylov's hero, the footman Semyon, independently invents the role of a French marquis, wanting to arrange his own marriage to one of the maids. From the point of view of genre, this play by Krylov is a so-called “comedy of a lesson”, based on the ideas of education, and very popular in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, it combines the features of a sitcom, in which unforeseen coincidences of circumstances are required, provoking funny situations, and the features of a comedy of characters, in which the source of the funny is the wretched inner essence of the morals and characters of high society. Let us list the main techniques used by I.A. Krylov in his play to achieve comic effect. Comic-level techniquesplot As in other comedy-lessons of that time, the author focused on combining the issues of instilling virtue in the family with the idea of ​​​​establishing everything truly Russian in public and private life, which was dominant in an enlightened society. Plot plot The comedy is built on the collision of two ideological systems, expressed in the actions and words of the characters - the landowner Velkarov and his daughters Fekla and Lukerya. The comic situation is initially set by the author, when sisters brought up in the French manner find themselves in a provincial town among admirers of landowner antiquity. The main guardian of national traditions is the deaf nanny Vasilisa, who is assigned to ensure that the sisters speak exclusively in Russian. As often happens in comedies, funny situations are seen as such only on one side, and for some characters turn into tragic ones. This usually occurs when ethical concepts clash. The contrast between the morals in Velkarov’s house and the morals brought by his daughters is exceptionally strong. To the sisters, this situation seems simply catastrophic, but in the retelling of their maid Dasha, it causes nothing but laughter: Dasha: ... their father finally came to Moscow and wanted to take his daughters for himself - so that he could admire them before marriage. Well, to tell the truth, they consoled the old man. As soon as they entered the priest’s house, they turned the house upside down; All his relatives and old acquaintances were driven away with rudeness and ridicule. The master doesn’t know languages, and they invited such non-Russians into the house, among whom the poor old man wandered like about Tower of Babel without understanding a word of what they are saying and what they are laughing at....He took his daughters here to repentance....and guess how you decided to punish them....? He forbade them to speak French! Having learned that "poor young ladies without the French language, like without bread, dry out..." The cunning Semyon arranges a classic change of image for comedies: he pretends to be a French marquis in order to pity the girls and get money to marry Dasha. The scene of the sisters waiting for the false marquis looks comical. Not yet being acquainted, they bow before him in advance, only because of his belonging to the French nation, and try to show off their eyes to the best of their understanding: Thekla : How should we accept it? - As if we don’t know anything!... Let’s get to work. Lukerya: Dasha! Give us some work.... Dasha: What kind of work, madam? You never work... Lukerya: Oh no!... Do you know what, sister? Let's sit down as if we were reading something... Thekla: ...Very good, Dasha, what about the books? Dasha: Books, madam? Have you forgotten that you only had books and a fashion magazine?... No less comical is the scene of the conversation between the footman Semyon and the young ladies, when they locked up their matron, nanny Vasilisa, in order to have a good conversation with the “Marquis” in French, and the unfortunate false Marquis runs around the room from them, vainly trying to hide his ignorance of the language. in a word, what he gave to the owner of the house (speak only in Russian): Lukerya (chasing):Barbare (cruel)! Semyon (running away): I won’t hear! Thekla (chasing): I don’t understand! Lukerya (chasing):Impitoyable (relentless)! Semyon (running away): I don’t understand. The ending of Krylov's comedy is different from Moliere's: although Semyon's tricks are revealed, he is not humiliated or punished (Moliere's servants were beaten with sticks by their own masters). The landowner Velkarov turns out to be able to laugh at himself and the current situation, and even promises Semyon money so that he can marry Dasha. But he does not abandon his intention to teach his daughters proper manners, leaving the nanny Vasilisa to educate and protect their morality: Nanny Vasilisa (following them) Mother young ladies, if you please, spin around in Russian. Comic techniques at the character level The images of servants, which is not uncommon in Krylov’s comedies, remind us of the characters of the commedia dell’arte. Dasha and Semyon are resourceful, courageous and exceptionally sensible people; their ability to make reasonable judgments is to be envied. The same cannot be said about sister-housewives, and this traditional contrast of smart servants with stupid masters always produces a comic effect. In the persons of Fekla and Lukerya, Krylov ridiculed the type of cutesy and sentimental noble ladies who hated everything Russian and traditional, so unloved by him. Sisters' ideas about perfect image We learn about the life of a young girl from Lukerya’s monologue: -... in the morning, as soon as you have time to make the first toilet, teachers will appear: dance, drawing, guitar, ... from them you will immediately learn a thousand wonderful things: here is an affair, there a wife left her husband, some get divorced, others reconcile. ... Then you’ll wander through the fashionable shops; there you will meet everything that is best and kind in the whole city; you will notice a thousand dates; I'll have something to talk about this week... And further in the same spirit: empty pastime, collecting rumors and gossip, cruel jokes on old women and desperate coquetry with gentlemen. Krylov ridicules the sisters’ admiration for everything foreign, putting the phrase into Fekla’s mouth: - Ah! I would have been tormented, I would have died of melancholy, if Jaco, our parrot, who alone in the whole house I listen to with pleasure, had not consoled me... And all the advantages of a parrot lie in its imitation of French speech. For these young ladies, the main thing is not to be, but to appear, so they stage the performance already mentioned above, just to present themselves to the visiting Frenchman as educated and knowledgeable in secular circulation. In their blind adoration of the foreign, they reach the grotesque, discussing their new acquaintance, the pseudo-marquis: Lukerya (following Semyon): What a mind! What a sharpness! Thekla : What nobility, what sensitivity! Dasha (special): Thanks to the Marquis. Lukerya : How dexterity is visible in every finger of the marquis! Thekla : Something unusual and attractive is noticeable in every joint. It should be noted that the landowner Velkarov is not exactly a comedic character here. Yes, he represents the traditional theatrical image of a strict father, but nothing he says or does has any comic effect. The behavior of the daughters, which the viewer observes, confirms the justice of parental anger. Through Velkarov, Krylov expresses his own ideas about the respectable upbringing of Russian people, the need for respect for elders and the inadmissibility of cosmopolitanism. Techniquescomic at the level of vocabulary and style The names of comedy heroes are traditionally “talking”, the same applies to the characters in “A Lesson for Daughters”. The landowner's surname "Velkarov" comes from the name "Velkar" - a character in A.P. Sumarokov's tragedy "Khorev". Velkar was the confidant of Horev, brother Prince of Kyiv Kiya; The tragedy took place at the end of the 6th - beginning of the 7th century, which immediately characterizes Velkarov as a Russian nobleman of the “old school”, a fan of antiquity and national traditions. The names of his daughters - Fekla and Lukerya - are emphatically common, which immediately causes dissonance in the viewer when comparing such names with the gallomania of their bearers. The name of a certain French Madame Grigri, who raised the girls so “wonderfully”, mentioned more than once by the heroes, in French is consonant with the word “cricri”, which translates as “cricket”. It is obvious that Krylov ironically compares the incoherent words of her students to the meaningless chirping of a cricket. The characters' speech also contributes to the comic effect. Semyon's imaginative and witty comparisons (" It’s not your tongue in your mouth, it’s a pendulum" ; " I can at least get some sleep in my pockets - there's so much space" ) amusingly contrast with his attempts to portray the Russian speech of a Frenchman with an accent, while expressing himself in cliches from sentimental novels, and trying to please the young ladies: - I can’t sleep in French, I can’t imagine it! I would have died. - Fi! How ignoble this is! We all, who are more knowledgeable, do not read anyone. - There are many wonderful exercises, besides books, for a young, noble man, for example: you can do nothing, you can walk, you can sing, you can play a comedy... An example of a grotesque reduction to achieve a comic effect is the remark of the nanny Vasilisa: “So, my dears, I looked at you, looked, and I was overcome with grief: I remembered my grandson Yegorka, who was given up as a recruit for drunkenness; well, he was as handsome as his lordship! The exaggerated-sentimental sighs and worries of the Velkarov girls about certain sad circumstances of the false marquis (which he cannot tell the young ladies in any way) evoke in the “down-to-earth” nanny only an association with a drunken nephew who was shaved into the army. It is known that the play “A Lesson for Daughters” was very popular among his contemporaries. This success is well deserved, because Krylov managed to create such a moralizing comedy in which traditional classical didacticism gave way to natural, life morals. The almost vaudeville lightness of the action, the comedy of positions and characters, expressive speech, and at the same time an obvious moral message make this work a brilliant example of Russian satirical comedy.

Ivan Andreevich Krylov

"Lesson for daughters"

Thekla and Lukerya, daughters of the nobleman Velkarov, were raised by their aunt by the governess Madame Grigri “in the latest manner.” The father came from his service to Moscow and decided to take his daughters with him. The fashionistas angered the old man by “discouraging his relatives and friends with rudeness and ridicule” and constantly inviting “non-Russians” to their house. Velkarov’s patience ran out and he brought his daughters to the village.

Here the father forbids Thekle and Lukerier to speak French, which is the greatest punishment for them. And even Velkarov orders all his guests to speak only Russian. To prevent his daughters from disobeying, Velkarov assigns an old nanny, Vasilisa, to them, who monitors the girls’ every move.

The young ladies have a maid, Dasha. Back in Moscow, she was going to marry Semyon, but neither the groom nor the bride had money. The wedding was postponed until money became available. While serving with the nobleman Cheston, Semyon traveled with him to St. Petersburg. There Cheston went bankrupt and was forced “at the easiest speed” to go to the army “to beat the Busurmans.” The ill nobleman stopped in the village of Velkarova, and Semyon went to see Dasha. The bride and groom tell each other what has happened since the day of separation. It turns out that neither one nor the other has any more money. Dasha tells the groom that her young ladies are generous, but only to foreigners. Semyon hatches a plan...

Nanny Vasilisa feels sorry for the young ladies who hear French only from a parrot. The nanny persuades Velkarov to lift the ban on the French language, but he is adamant. The young ladies recall life in the city with regret: teachers of drawing, music and dance visited them there, Fyokla and Lukerya went to fashion shops, dinners and balls, they knew all the city rumors and gossip. After that country life seems unbearably boring to them. And their father also reads for them suitors from among the local nobles: Khoprov and Tanin, people “worthy, sensible, sedate and, moreover, rich.” But the girls have already refused many suitors; They are going to do the same with Khoprov and Tanin.

The servant reports to Velkarov that a certain Frenchman is standing at his door, and, moreover, a marquis, who is going to Moscow on foot. The hospitable Velkarov agrees to accept him. Thekla and Lukerya are beside themselves with joy. They are worried: will they be able to meet the Marquis with dignity? The father allows them to speak French if the guest does not speak Russian.

But, to the great chagrin of Thekla and Lukerya, the Frenchman speaks Russian. And no wonder: it’s actually Semyon, posing as a marquis. The young ladies kindly greet the imaginary Frenchman, and in a conversation with him they confess their aversion to the Russian language and love for French. Thekle and Lukerye are interesting to hear about

France... However, the false marquis can only report that “in France, all cities are built on high roads.” But the sisters are delighted with this too. When asked about literature, Semyon replies that reading is not an activity for noble people. And most importantly, the “marquis” wants to tell that many misfortunes happened to him: he, noble man, travels on foot and needs money. The young ladies, hearing about this, cry with pity. Looking at them, nanny Vasilisa also cries: she remembers her grandson Yegorka, who was sent to be a recruit for drunkenness.

Velkarov is pleased that the “marquis” can speak Russian. To celebrate, he sends the “Frenchman” new pair dresses and two hundred rubles of money. Fyokla and Lukerya are horrified at the sight of the dress: it has “half a pound of braid alone.” But the “marquis,” oddly enough, is happy.

Thekla and Lukerya are delighted with the “Marquis”, his “nobility and sensitivity.” They grieve over their fate, not wanting to be majors or assessors. At the same time, the same thought occurs to them: maybe either Thekle or Lukerya will manage to become a “Marquise”...

The clerk Sidorka wants to write down in the expense book that the “Frenchman” received two hundred rubles. He asks Semyon to give his name. But he, as luck would have it, doesn’t know a single one French name. He has a book about the adventures of the Marquis Glagol, and he decides to call himself the same. Semyon hopes to receive another two hundred rubles from the young ladies, and then by the evening he will “surrender his marquessship,” marry Dasha, say goodbye to his master and immediately go to Moscow. There he will open “either a barber shop or a shop with powder, lipstick and perfume.”

Fyokla and Lukerya write letters to Khoprov and Tanin, where they are flatly refused and even forbidden to come to visit. They lock the nanny Vasilisa in their room. The girls are trying to force Semyon to speak French, but he does not meet them halfway, referring to the word given to Velkarov. The false marquis no longer knows what to do with the insistence of the young ladies, but then, fortunately, the nanny Vasilisa appears.

Velkarov is angry with his daughters: he managed to intercept their letters to Khoprov and Tanin. But Thekla and Lukerya throw themselves on their knees in front of him: they confess their hopes that at least one of them will marry a Frenchman. Velkarov promises to teach the girls a lesson.

Sidorka announces that the room for the Marquis Glagol is ready. This name confuses everyone. Velkarov realizes the deception and demands that the imaginary marquis tell in French about his misadventures. Semyon has no choice but to admit to being an impostor. He tells his story, talks about his love for Dasha. Velkarov is angry at first: “Your back will pay me dearly for this.” Semyon and Dasha beg for forgiveness. And Velkarov forgives Semyon for the lesson he taught Fyokla and Lukerya. He allows Semyon to go with Dasha anywhere, and even gives them money for the trip.

And Velkarov promises his daughters that he will remain in the village until they give up “all nonsense”, learn “modesty, politeness and meekness” and stop “wincing at the Russian language.” The sisters only utter sorrowful exclamations in French. But nanny Vasilisa is ready: “Mother young ladies, if you please, spin around in Russian.”

Thekla and Lukerya were raised in Moscow by their aunt, the governess Madame Grigri. When the father returned from service, he decided to take the girls to his village. He does not allow the sisters to speak French. He assigns them a nanny, Vasilisa, who is supposed to look after them.

The girls have a maid - Dasha, who was going to marry Semyon, but, having no money, the young people postponed the wedding. Having learned about the generosity of Fekla and Lukerya towards foreigners, Semyon creates a plan with which he can earn money to start a family with Dasha.

Nanny Vasilisa, sympathizing with the young ladies that French is forbidden for them, tries to change Velkarov’s decision, but tries in vain. The girls suffer and yearn for life in the city: beautiful fashionable shops, drawing and singing teachers. At the same time, the father offers his daughters local nobles as grooms: Khoprov and Tanin. The girls, who refused many, did not make an exception.

A certain Frenchman comes to the house. The girls are immensely happy to have a guest. Considering his inability to speak Russian, his father allows the young ladies to show their abilities in speaking French.

But it turns out that Semyon pretended to be a foreigner, and he speaks Russian perfectly. Thekla and Lukerya pepper the Marquis with questions about France, but he answers quite briefly. But the girls are happy with every word. Semyon talks about his misfortunes, trying to evoke pity, and he succeeds.

Velkarov gives the Frenchman new dresses and two hundred rubles. The guest enthusiastically thanks the owner.

The girls have an idea to attract the attention of the Marquis and perhaps someone will manage to become his wife.

The clerk Sidorka asks the guest's name, but he does not know a single French name. That’s why Semyon calls himself Verb, remembering the book he read. Semyon dreams of earning another two hundred rubles from the young ladies, and in the evening getting married to Dasha and leaving with her for Moscow. In the letter, the girls refuse the grooms chosen by their father and forbid them even to come to visit. They lock their nanny in the room.

The father, having learned about his daughters' intentions to marry a French guest, decides to teach them a lesson. Hearing the marquis's false name, the owner realizes the deception. He asks Semyon to talk to him in his native language, and the guy admits to his invented plan. The lovers pray for the owner's forgiveness. And the father forgives Semyon, realizing that in this way he will teach his girls a lesson. He gives the young people money and allows them to leave.

The upset young ladies are ordered to stay in the village until they learn to behave modestly, as befits Russian girls.

However, it contains great content. It outgrows a family conflict within the framework of the plot action: the characters get to know each other, meet, argue, fall in love, realize the need to separate, and at the same time points to general processes Russian life, comprehends the circumstances of the formation of characters, explains the reasons why the heroes of the novel are unhappy... Describing the actions and thoughts of his characters during those six to seven months while Beltov was in provincial town, Herzen, in many digressions, turns to the past, goes to the origins of events, depicts the impressions of the childhood years of the life of the main characters. The social meaning is also revealed in digressions. public relations in Russia, the ideological and moral quests of the heroes are explained.

Herzen himself noted the main compositional feature of the novel: it is structured as a combination of many essays, biographies and digressions with reflections on Russia. This construction of the novel allowed him to create an unusual big picture Russian life for many decades. It was created by an artist whose main strength, according to Belinsky, is the power of his thoughts and his research approach to what is depicted. Herzen, describing people and events, analyzes them, penetrates deeply into the essence of what is happening and finds a bright, exact detail to express your conclusions.

Herzen's narrative requires a lot of attention. Individual details serve to express larger generalizations. You have to think about them - and then the image acquires, as it were, an additional meaning: the reader, through hints or indirect remarks of the author, seems to be directly saying something unspoken or completing a barely outlined picture. For example, Beltov, who had just arrived in the provincial town, noticed something that must have seemed strange and even wild to him: “An exhausted worker with a yoke on her shoulder, barefoot and exhausted, climbed up the mountain on black ice, gasping and stopping; a fat and friendly-looking priest, wearing a homely cassock, sat in front of the gate and looked at her.” The reader guesses: the city is located on a steep bank, there is no trace of running water, barefoot workers, turned into draft power, spend their health giving water to “fat and friendly priests.”

Beltov also noticed (a visiting person has a fresh look) that the provincial city is strangely deserted: only officials, policemen, and landowners come across him on the streets. The reader cannot help but wonder: where is the rest of the population? After all, noble elections should not take place in a deserted city! The impression is as if everyone fled or hid when danger approached. Or as if a horde of conquerors drove the working people away and imprisoned them somewhere.

In the silence of the cemetery no voices can be heard. Only in the evening came the “thick, lingering sound of a bell” - as a funeral accompaniment to Beltov’s fading hopes, as a harbinger of impending misfortune, as a promise of a tragic denouement of the novel... After this, Herzen concluded: “Poor victim of a century full of doubt, you will not find peace in NN ! And this conclusion is, in essence, a new preview of what is about to happen, and at the same time a new impetus for reflection: it directly promises failure to Beltov’s undertakings and calls him a victim of the century, connecting his tossing and searching with the general contradictions of the spiritual life of those years.

Irony is one of the most effective means in Herzen's artistic system. Ironic remarks, clarifications and definitions when describing characters make the reader either an evil or a sad smile. Negroes, for example, “were taught day and night by the words and hands of the coachman.” It’s funny to imagine a general teaching a coachman the art of driving horses, but it’s sad to think that his verbal instructions are, apparently, always accompanied by punches.

Lyubonka in the Negrovs' house withdraws into silent alienation, so as not to aggravate the falsity of her position as a “ward”; Glafira Lvovna, who considers herself her benefactor, is unpleasant, and “she called her an icy Englishwoman, although the Andalusian properties of the general’s wife were also subject to great doubt,” Herzen ironically notes. The allusion to Carmen should be considered implied from her contrasting herself with Lyubonka: “an icy Englishwoman” is some kind of flaw that Glafira Lvovna does not notice in herself. But it’s funny to imagine this fat, doughy lady - “a baobab among women,” as Herzen casually noted - in the role of an ardent Spaniard. And at the same time, it’s sad to imagine the powerless Lyubonka in complete dependence on her “benefactor.”

Officials of the provincial city justify their spontaneous hatred of Beltov by the fact that he “read harmful little books at the time when they were engaged in useful maps" The irony here lies in the absurdity of the opposition useful activity waste of time.

The prudent and prudent Doctor Krupov is characterized by the following detail: “Krupov pulled out of his pocket something between a wallet and a suitcase.” Well, what was the pocket that contained such a wallet, where business papers are stored, “resting in the company of crooked scissors, lancets and probes”? The reader will ask himself this question and smile. But it won't be an evil or mocking smile. It’s another matter when Herzen endowed one of the passing figures with eyes of “garbage color”: this caustic epithet expresses not the color of the eyes, but the essence of the soul, from the bottom of which all the vices of human nature rise.

Krupov more than once makes the reader smile, but it is always mixed with anxious anticipation or acute sadness. So, he builds a complex “multi-layered” one when he paints a picture of the future for Dmitry Krutsifersky family life with Lyubonka: he no longer points to poverty, but to the dissimilarity of characters. “Your bride is not a match for you, so what do you want - these eyes, this complexion, this trepidation that sometimes runs across her face - she is a tiger cub who does not yet know her strength; and you - what are you? You are the bride; you, brother, are German; you will be a wife - well, is that suitable?

Here Lyubonka Negrova and Krutsifersky are simultaneously characterized along with their parents, who are accustomed to suffer, humble themselves and obey. And at the same time, Krupov defined himself - with his gloomy irony and soberness of view, turning into hopeless pessimism.

Krupov judges and prophesies with comical self-confidence. However, he really foresaw the fate of the young people he loved. Krupov knew Russian reality too well: personal things are impossible for a person in a society doomed to suffering. It took a truly miraculous confluence of circumstances for the Krutsiferskys, having fenced themselves off from environment, could live in peace, prosperity and not suffer at the sight of other people’s misfortunes. But Doctor Krupov did not believe in miracles, and that is why he promised a tragic ending with such confidence at the beginning of the novel.

The character embodied in the image of Krupov interested Herzen as an expression of one of the most original types of Russian life. Herzen met people who were strong, of extraordinary courage and internally free. They had suffered so much themselves and had seen enough of the suffering of others that nothing could scare them anymore. Everyday "prudence" for the most part it was not typical for them. Herzen recalled about one of these people - a factory doctor in Perm - in Past and Thoughts: “All his activities turned to persecuting officials with sarcasms. He laughed at them in their eyes, he said the most offensive things to their faces with grimaces and antics... He made himself social status with his attacks and forced a spineless society to endure the rods with which he lashed them without rest.”

Need a cheat sheet? Then save - » Compositional feature of the novel “Who is to Blame?” . Literary essays!

45. Who is to blame? A.I. Herzen. V.G. Belinsky about the novel.

Composition of the novel"Who is guilty?" very original. Only the first chapter of the first part has the actual romantic form of exposition and the beginning of the action - “A retired general and teacher, deciding on the place.” This is followed by: “Biography of Their Excellencies” and “Biography of Dmitry Yakovlevich Krutsifersky”. The chapter “Life and Being” is a chapter from the correct form of narration, but it is followed by “Biography of Vladimir Beltov”.

Herzen wanted to compose a novel from this kind of individual biographies, where “in the footnotes one can say that so-and-so married so-and-so.” “For me, a story is a frame,” said Herzen. He painted mostly portraits; he was most interested in faces and biographies. “A person is a track record in which everything is noted,” writes Herzen, “a passport on which visas remain.”

Despite the apparent fragmentation of the narrative, when the story from the author is replaced by letters from the characters, excerpts from the diary, and biographical digressions, Herzen’s novel is strictly consistent. “This story, despite the fact that it will consist of individual chapters and episodes, has such integrity that a torn sheet spoils everything,” writes Herzen.

He saw his task not in resolving the issue, but in identifying it correctly. Therefore, he chose a protocol epigraph: “And this case, due to the non-discovery of the guilty, should be handed over to the will of God, and the case, having been considered unresolved, should be handed over to the archives. Protocol".

But he did not write a protocol, but a novel, in which he explored not “a case, but a law of modern reality.” That is why the question posed in the title of the book resonated with such force in the hearts of his contemporaries. Critics saw the main idea of ​​the novel in the fact that the problem of the century in Herzen is not personal, but general meaning: “It is not we who are to blame, but the lies in whose networks we have been entangled since childhood.”

But Herzen was interested in the problem of moral self-awareness and personality. Among Herzen's heroes there are no villains who would consciously and deliberately do evil to their neighbors. His heroes are children of the century, no better and no worse than others; rather, even better than many, and some of them contain the promise of amazing abilities and opportunities. Even General Negros, the owner of “white slaves”, a serf owner and a despot due to the circumstances of his life, is depicted as a man in whom “life has crushed more than one opportunity.” Herzen's thought was social in essence; he studied the psychology of his time and saw a direct connection between a person's character and his environment.

Herzen called history a “ladder of ascension.” This thought meant, first of all, the spiritual elevation of the individual above the conditions of life specific environment. So, in his novel “Who is to Blame?” only there and then does the personality declare itself, when it is separated from its environment; otherwise it is consumed by the emptiness of slavery and despotism.

And so Krutsifersky, a dreamer and romantic, confident that there is nothing accidental in life, enters the first step of the “ladder of ascension.” He gives his hand to Lyuba, Negrov’s daughter, and helps her rise. And she rises after him, but one step higher. Now she sees more than he does; she understands that Krutsifersky, a timid and confused person, will not be able to take another step forward and higher. And when she raises her head, her gaze falls on Beltov, who was much higher on the same stairs than she was. And Lyuba herself extends her hand to him...

“Beauty and in general strength, but it acts according to some kind of selective similarity,” writes Herzen. The mind also operates by selective similarity. That is why Lyubov Krutsiferskaya and Vladimir Beltov could not help but recognize each other: they had this similarity. Everything that was known to her only as a sharp guess was revealed to him as complete knowledge. This was a nature “extremely active inside, open to all modern issues, encyclopedic, gifted with bold and sharp thinking.” But the fact of the matter is that this meeting, accidental and at the same time irresistible, did not change anything in their lives, but only increased the severity of reality, external obstacles, and aggravated the feeling of loneliness and alienation. The life they wanted to change with their ascent was motionless and unchanging. It looks like a flat steppe in which nothing moves. Lyuba was the first to feel this when it seemed to her that she and Krutsifersky were lost among the silent expanses: “They were alone, they were in the steppe.” Herzen expands the metaphor in relation to Beltov, deriving it from the folk proverb “Alone in the field is not a warrior”: “I am definitely a hero folk tales... walked along all the crossroads and shouted: “Is there a man alive in the field?” But the living man did not respond... My misfortune!.. And one in the field is not a warrior... I left the field...” The “staircase of ascent” turned out to be a “humpbacked bridge” that lifted us to a height and released us on all four sides.

"Who is guilty?" - an intellectual novel. His heroes are thinking people, but they have their own “woe from their minds.” And it lies in the fact that with all their brilliant ideals they were forced to live in a gray world, which is why their thoughts were seething “in empty action.” Even genius does not save Beltov from this “millions of torments,” from the consciousness that the gray light is stronger than his brilliant ideals, if his lonely voice is lost among the silence of the steppe. This is where the feeling of depression and boredom arises: “Steppe - go wherever you want, in all directions - free will, but you won’t get anywhere...”

There are also notes of despair in the novel. Iskander wrote a history of weakness and defeat strong man. Beltov, as if with peripheral vision, notices that “the door that opened closer and closer was not the one through which the gladiators entered, but the one through which their bodies were carried out.” Such was the fate of Beltov, one of the galaxy “ extra people” Russian literature, the heir of Chatsky, Onegin and Pechorin. From his sufferings grew many new ideas that found their development in Turgenev’s “Rudin” and in Nekrasov’s poem “Sasha”.

In this narrative, Herzen spoke not only about external obstacles, but also about the internal weakness of a person brought up in conditions of slavery.

"Who is guilty?" - a question that did not give a clear answer. It is not without reason that the search for an answer to Herzen’s question occupied the most prominent Russian thinkers - from Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

The novel “Who is to Blame?” predicted the future. It was a prophetic book. Beltov, like Herzen, not only in the provincial city, among officials, but also in the capital’s chancellery, found “utter melancholy” everywhere, “dying of boredom.” “On his native shore” he could not find a worthy business for himself.

But slavery also established itself “on the other side.” On the ruins of the revolution of 1848, the triumphant bourgeois created an empire of property owners, discarding good dreams of fraternity, equality and justice. And again a “most perfect emptiness” formed, where thought died of boredom. And Herzen, as predicted by his novel “Who is to Blame?”, like Beltov, became “a wanderer around Europe, a stranger at home, a stranger in a foreign land.”

He did not renounce either the revolution or socialism. But he was overcome by fatigue and disappointment. Like Beltov, Herzen “made and lived through the abyss.” But everything he experienced belonged to history. That is why his thoughts and memories are so significant. What Beltov was tormented by as a mystery became for Herzen modern experience and insightful knowledge. Again the same question arose before him with which it all began: “Who is to blame?”

Belinsky: To see in the author “Who is to blame?” an extraordinary artist means not understanding his talent at all. True, he has a remarkable ability to accurately convey the phenomena of reality, his essays are definite and sharp, his paintings are bright and immediately catch the eye. But even these very qualities prove that his main strength is not in creativity, not in artistry, but in thought, deeply felt, fully conscious and developed. The power of this thought is the main strength of his talent; the artistic manner of correctly capturing the phenomena of reality is a secondary, auxiliary strength of his talent. Take the first one away from him, and the second one will turn out to be too untenable for original activity. Such talent is not something special, exceptional, or accidental. No, such talents are as natural as purely artistic talents. Their activity forms a special sphere of art, in which fantasy comes second and intelligence comes first. Little attention is paid to this difference, and this is why there is terrible confusion in the theory of art. They want to see in art a kind of mental China, sharply separated by precise boundaries from everything that is not art in the strict sense of the word. Meanwhile, these boundary lines exist more hypothetically than actually; at least you can’t point them out with your finger, like on a map of state boundaries. Art, as it approaches one or another of its borders, gradually loses something of its essence and takes into itself from the essence of what it borders on, so that instead of a dividing line there is an area that reconciles both sides.

It all started in childhood. Krupov was the son of a deacon, and he was being prepared to take his place someday. There was such a boy Levka in the village, Senka’s (Krupov) only friend. Levka was blessed, he didn’t understand a damn thing at all and didn’t love anyone except Senka and his dog. Levka lived an amazing life: he found food for himself, communicated with nature, didn’t attack anyone, but everyone offended him. In short, the man was happy, but everyone was bothering him. Senka was interested in how this could happen. Why do people think he's crazy? And he came to the conclusion that “the reason for all the persecution of Levka is that Levka is stupid in his own way - and others are completely stupid.” Krupov also decided: “in this world of social injustice and hypocrisy, Krupov is convinced, the so-called “crazy” are “essentially no more stupid or more damaged than everyone else, but only more original, focused, independent, more original, one might even say, what is more brilliant than those." But still, Senka wanted to explore all this with scientific point vision. I wanted to go to university, but my father didn’t allow him. Then he went to the master, but the master did not accept him. As a result, after the death of his father, Senka ended up at the University and enrolled in general psychiatry. And so began years of practice with psychos. Krupov made his conclusions about the signs of disorders:

A) in incorrect, but also involuntary consciousness of surrounding objects

C) stupid pursuit of unrealistic goals and omission of real goals.

And so he began to adjust people to these signs and it turned out that EVERYONE was nuts.

He had a bourgeois ward who closed a vicious circle herself: she bought wine for her husband, he drank, beat her, and left. day all over again... Krukpov tells her: don’t buy wine. And she told him: why the hell shouldn’t I bring wine to my lawful husband? Krupov: then why are you arguing with your legal husband? She: this freak is not my husband, fuck him... Then she loved her child strangely. She hunched over at work all day to buy him new clothes, but if he got it dirty, she beat the child. Further. All officials are complete psychos: they do meaningless work all day long. What about the landowners? Two people lived in a legal marriage, but they hated each other terribly and wished each other death. Krupov suggested: just loosen your grip on the estates, everything will be better. And they: yes, now, I was born and raised in a pious family, I know the laws of decency! Or there was another stingy landowner who starved everyone to death. But when it arrived dignitary, then he ran and almost on his knees asked him to dine with him. And then I spent so much money on it that my dear mother. The whole system of life looks “damaged”, in which people working “day and night” “did not produce anything, and those who did nothing continuously produced nothing, and those who did nothing continuously produced, and a lot.” ".And look at the history of mankind! History is caused by a universal pathology.

And therefore the doctor says that he no longer has anger towards people, but only gentle condescension towards the patient.

The originality of satire:

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Here's what Lotman says:

Reflections on the relationship between various social phenomena and causes social evil brought the best progressive representatives critical realism to the perception of the ideas of utopian socialism. They are reflected in Saltykov’s story. The circle of Petrashevites, ideologically connected with Belinsky, was actively involved in the propaganda of these ideas. Meetings of the Petrashevsky circle were attended by many writers of the Gogol school. In The Holy Family, Marx formulated the idea of ​​the contact between revolutionary humanism and materialism of the 19th century and socialist ideas as follows: “It does not require great wit to see the connection between the teaching of materialism about the innate tendency towards goodness, about the equality of the mental abilities of people, about the omnipotence of experience, habits, upbringing, the influence of external circumstances on a person, high value industry, about the moral right to enjoyment, etc. - both communism and socialism. If a person draws all his knowledge, sensations, etc. from the sensory world and the experience received from this world, then it is necessary, therefore, to arrange the world around us in such a way that a person recognizes what is truly human in it, so that he gets used to cultivating human properties in it. If correctly understood interest constitutes the principle of all morality, then it is necessary, therefore, to strive to ensure that private interest individual person coincided with universal human interests ... If a person's character is created by circumstances, then it is necessary, therefore, to make circumstances

humane. If man, by nature, is a social being, then he, therefore, can only develop his true nature in society, and the strength of his nature must be judged not by individual individuals, but by the whole society.”

Speaking about the absurdity of the modern social structure in the story “Doctor Krupov,” Herzen criticized society from a socialist position. Through the mouth of his hero, the writer declared: “In our city there were five thousand inhabitants; Of these, two hundred people were plunged into tedious boredom from the lack of any activity, and four thousand seven hundred people were plunged into tedious activity from the lack of any rest. Those who worked day and night produced nothing, and those who did nothing produced continuously and a lot.” 2

Herzen seemed to be developing the idea of ​​Gogol’s St. Petersburg stories, especially “Notes of a Madman,” about the madness of society, about the abnormality of relationships that are recognized in modern society as the “norm,” and at the same time his story was sharply different from Gogol’s stories. Unlike Gogol, Herzen took the position of a revolutionary; he was a socialist and saw the possibility of correcting society through revolutionary means.

And one more thing:

The famous artist in “The Thieving Magpie” said bitterly: “There are crazy people all around.” But it was like a random phrase. Dr. Krupov develops his theory of “comparative psychiatry” in detail and in detail. At every step he sees how people waste their lives “in the pain of madness.” From observations of modern life, Krupov moved on to studying history, re-reading ancient and modern authors - Titus Livy. Tacitus, Gibbon, Karamzin - and found clear signs of madness in the deeds and speeches of kings, monarchs, and conquerors. “History,” writes Dr. Krupov, “is nothing more than a coherent story of generic chronic madness and its slow cure.”

The philosophical essence of the story lies in overcoming Hegel’s “beautiful” theory that “everything that is real is reasonable, and everything that is reasonable is real,” a theory that was the basis of “reconciliation with reality.” Dr. Krupov saw in this theory a justification of existing evil and was ready to assert that “everything that is real is insane.” “It was not pride and disdain, but love that led me to my theory,” says Krupov.

In order for the monsters of madness to disappear, the atmosphere must change, Dr. Krupov proves. Vemlya was once trampled by mastodons, but the composition of the air changed, and they disappeared. “In some places the air becomes cleaner, mental illnesses are tamed,” writes Krupov, “but generic madness is not easily processed in the human soul.”

47. The Thieving Magpie of A.I. Herzen in the literary and social struggle of the 1840s.

This retelling is from the site of Herzen fans, but you couldn’t write it better:

Three people are talking about the theater: a “Slav” with a buzz cut, a “European” with “no haircut at all”, and a young man standing outside the party, with a buzz cut (like Herzen), who proposes a topic for discussion: why there are no good people in Russia actresses Everyone agrees that there are no good actresses, but each explains this according to his own doctrine: the Slav speaks about the patriarchal modesty of the Russian woman, the European speaks about the emotional underdevelopment of Russians, and for the man with a close-cropped hair, the reasons are unclear. After everyone has had time to speak, appears new character- a man of art and refutes theoretical calculations with an example: he saw a great Russian actress, and, which surprises everyone, not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in a small provincial town. The artist's story follows (his prototype is M. S. Shchepkin, to whom the story is dedicated).
Once upon a time in my youth (in early XIX c.) he came to the city of N, hoping to enter the theater of the rich Prince Skalinsky. Talking about the first performance seen at the Skalinsky Theater, the artist almost echoes the “European”, although he shifts the emphasis in a significant way:
“There was something tense, unnatural in the way the courtyard people<…>represented lords and princesses." The heroine appears on stage in the second performance - in the French melodrama “The Thieving Magpie” she plays the maid Aneta, unjustly accused of theft, and here in the play of the serf actress the narrator sees “that incomprehensible pride that develops on the edge of humiliation.” The depraved judge offers her to “buy freedom with the loss of honor.” The performance, the “deep irony of the face” of the heroine especially amazes the observer; he also notices the prince’s unusual excitement. The play has a happy ending - it is revealed that the girl is innocent and the thief is a magpie, but the actress in the finale plays a creature mortally tortured.
The audience does not call the actress and outrages the shocked and almost in love narrator with vulgar remarks. Behind the scenes, where he rushed to tell her about his admiration, they explain to him that she can only be seen with the permission of the prince. The next morning, the narrator goes for permission and in the prince’s office he meets, among other things, the artist, who had been playing the lord for three days, almost in a straitjacket. The prince is kind to the narrator because he wants to get him into his troupe, and explains the strictness of the rules in the theater by the excessive arrogance of the artists, accustomed to the role of nobles on stage.
"Aneta" meets a fellow artist as loved one and confesses to him. To the narrator she seems like a “statue of graceful suffering,” he almost admires how she “perishes gracefully.”
The landowner, to whom she belonged from birth, seeing her abilities, provided every opportunity to develop them and treated her as if she were free; he died suddenly, and did not bother to write out vacation pay for his artists in advance; they were sold at public auction to the prince.
The prince began to harass the heroine, she evaded; Finally, an explanation occurred (the heroine had previously read aloud “Cunning and Love” by Schiller), and the offended prince said: “You are my serf girl, not an actress.” These words had such an effect on her that soon she was already in consumption.
The prince, without resorting to gross violence, pettyly annoyed the heroine: he took away best roles etc. Two months before meeting the narrator, she was not allowed into the shops from the yard and was insulted, suggesting that she was in a hurry to meet her lovers. The insult was deliberate: her behavior was impeccable. “So is it to preserve our honor that you lock us up? Well, prince, here's my hand, my word of honor, that closer to a year I will prove to you that the measures you have chosen are insufficient!”
In this novel of the heroine, in all likelihood, the first and last, there was no love, but only despair; she said almost nothing about him. She became pregnant, and what tormented her most was that the child would be born a serf; she only hopes for a quick death for herself and her child by the grace of God.
The narrator leaves in tears, and, having found at home the prince’s offer to join his troupe on favorable terms, he leaves the city, leaving the invitation unanswered. Then he learns that “Aneta” died two months after giving birth.
The excited listeners are silent; the author compares them to a “beautiful gravestone group” for the heroine. “That’s all right,” the Slav said, getting up, “but why didn’t she get married secretly?..”

Literary and social struggle of the 1840s:

The character of this period of Russian literature was directly influenced by the ideological movement that, as stated, manifested itself in the mid-thirties in Moscow circles of young idealists. Many of the greatest luminaries of the forties owe their first development to them. In these circles, the basic ideas arose that laid the foundation for entire directions of Russian thought, the struggle of which revived Russian journalism for decades. When the influence of the idealistic German philosophy of Hegel and Schelling was joined by a passion for French romantic radicalism (V. Hugo, J. Sand, etc.) , a strong ideological ferment manifested itself in literary circles: they either converged on many points they had in common, then diverged to the point of outright hostile relations, until, finally, two bright literary trends: Western, St. Petersburg, with Belinsky And Herzen at the head, which put at the forefront the foundations of Western European development, as an expression of universal human ideals, and the Slavophile, Moscow, in the person of the brothers Kireevskikh, Aksakovs And Khomyakova, trying to find out special ways historical development, corresponding to a very specific spiritual type of a known nation or race, in in this case Slavic In their passion for struggle, passionate adherents of both directions very often went to extremes, either denying all the bright and healthy aspects of national life in the name of exalting the brilliant mental culture of the West, or trampling on the results developed by European thought in the name of unconditional admiration for the insignificant, sometimes even insignificant, but national characteristics of his historical life.
However, during the forties, this did not prevent both directions from converging on some basic, common and obligatory provisions for both, which had the most beneficial effect on the growth of public self-awareness. This common thing that connected both warring groups was idealism, selfless service to the idea, devotion to the people's interests in the very in a broad sense this word, no matter how differently the paths to achieving possible ideals are understood.
Of all the figures of the forties, he expressed it best general mood one of the most powerful minds of that era - Herzen, whose works harmoniously combined the depth of his analytical mind with the poetic softness of sublime idealism. Without venturing into the realm of fantastic constructions, which Slavophiles often indulged in, Herzen, however, recognized many real democratic foundations in Russian life (for example, the community).
Herzen deeply believed in the further development of the Russian community and at the same time analyzed dark sides Western European culture, which were completely ignored by pure Westerners. Thus, in the forties, literature for the first time put forward clearly expressed directions social thought. She strives to become an influential social force. Both warring trends, the Westernizer and the Slavophile, equally categorically pose the tasks of civil service for literature.

"The Thieving Magpie" is Herzen's most famous story with a very complex

internal theatrical structure. First three appear on stage

The persons talking are “Slavic”, “European” and “author”. Then to them

a “famous artist” joins. And immediately, as if in the depths of the stage,

the second curtain rises and a view of the Skalinsky Theater opens up. Moreover

the "famous artist" moves to this second stage as an actor

faces But that's not all. The Skalinsky Theater has its own stage, on which,

in the very depths and in the center of this triple perspective, a figure arises

the main character playing the role of Ayeta from the play famous in those years

"The Thieving Magpie" [The play was written by Quenier and d'Aubigny in 1816

"The Thieving Magpie", and in 1817 G. Rossini created an opera based on this

The story was written at the height of the disputes between Westerners and

Slavophiles. Herzen brought out the ah aa scene as the most characteristic types of time.

And gave everyone the opportunity to speak according to their character

and beliefs. Herzen, like Gogol, believed that the disputes between Westerners and

Slavophiles are the “passions of the mind” raging in abstract spheres, while

How Life is going in your own way; and while they argue about national character and

whether it is decent or indecent for a Russian woman to be on stage, somewhere in the wilderness,

dies in the fortress theater great actress, and the prince shouts to her: “You are mine

a serf girl, not an actress."

The story is dedicated to M. Shchepkin, he appears on the “stage” under the name

"famous artist" This gives The Thieving Magpie a special edge.

After all, Shchepkin was a serf; his case delivered from slavery. And the whole story about the serf actress was a variation

on the theme "Thieving Magpies", a variation on the theme of the guilty 6ez guilt...

Aneta from "The Thieving Magpie" in her character and in her destiny is very

characteristic

History of Russian literature (1)

Sample program

... (1826 – 1855 yy.) 2.1. Generalcharacteristicliteraryprocess Nicholas era and literary-public... literaryprocess second quarter of the 19th century 2.1.1. 1826 – 1842 yy. The role of A. S. Pushkin and his legacy in literaryprocess 1830s yy ...

The ideological and artistic originality of Herzen’s novel “Who is to Blame?”, the problems of the stories “Doctor Krupov” and “The Thieving Magpie”

The writer worked on the novel “Who is to Blame” for six years. The first part of the work appeared in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1845-1846, and both parts of the novel were published as a separate edition as a supplement to Sovremennik in 1847.

In his novel, Herzen touched on many important issues: the problem of family and marriage, the position of women in society, the problem of education, the life of the Russian intelligentsia. He resolves these issues in the light of the ideas of humanism and freedom. Belinsky defined Herzen’s sincere thought in his novel as “the thought of human dignity, which is humiliated by prejudice, ignorance and humiliated either by man’s injustice to his neighbor, or by his own voluntary distortion of himself.” This sincere thought was anti-serfdom. The pathos of the fight against serfdom as the main evil of Russian life of that time permeates from beginning to end.

The plot of the novel is based on the difficult drama experienced by husband and wife Krutsifersky: the dreamy, deeply focused illegitimate daughter of the landowner Negrov Lyubonka and the enthusiastic idealist, son of a doctor, candidate at Moscow University, Negrov’s home teacher Dmitry Krutsifersky. Second story line The novel is connected with the tragic fate of Vladimir Beltov, who occupied a prominent place in the gallery of Russian “superfluous people.” Talking about the tragic situation of a commoner - teacher Dmitry Krutsifersky, his wife Lyubov Alexandrovna, who fell in love young nobleman Beltova, the writer reveals all the confusion and painful confusion that ruined the lives of these people, ruined them. He wants the reader to know who is to blame for the tragic fate heroes of the novel. Taking as the epigraph to the novel the words of some court ruling: “And this case, due to the failure to discover the guilty, should be handed over to the will of God, and the matter, having been considered resolved, should be handed over to the archives,” Herzen, with the entire course of his novel, seems to want to declare: “The culprit has been found, the case must be taken up.” from the archive and re-decide for real.” The autocratic-serf system, the terrible kingdom, is to blame dead souls.

Beltov is a typical face of his era. A talented, lively and thinking person, he became an intelligent irrelevance in a feudal society. “I’m like the hero of our folk tales... I walked along all the crossroads and shouted: “Is there a man alive in the field?” But the living man did not respond... my misfortune... and one in the field is not a warrior... So I left the field,” Beltov says to his Genevan teacher. Following Pushkin and Lermontov, Herzen paints the image of a “superfluous person,” showing the clash of a gifted and intelligent individual with the surrounding environment, which is backward but strong in its inertness. However, Chernyshevsky, comparing Beltov with Onegin and Pechorin, said that he was completely different from his predecessors, that he had personal interests secondary importance. Dobrolyubov singled out Beltov in the gallery of “superfluous people” as “the most humane among them,” with truly high and noble aspirations.

The novel ends in tragedy. Lyubonka, broken by moral torment, withdraws into her own after Beltov’s departure. inner world to take hidden dreams and love to the grave.

Herzen's novel was new and original not only in its richness of ideas and images, but also in artistic manner. Belinsky, analyzing “Who is to blame?”, compared Herzen with Voltaire. The peculiarity of the style of Herzen's novel lies, first of all, in the complex interweaving of various techniques of artistic writing. The author makes excellent use of satire when talking about Negros, about the vulgarity of the inhabitants of the “uniform” city of NN. Here he continues Gogolian tradition ridicule of dead souls and the theme of denunciation of serfdom gives a new force, full of revolutionary negation. Gogol's laughter sounded through his tears. Herzen's eyes are dry.

The compositional structure of the novel “Who is to Blame?” is peculiar. Herzen's work is not actually a novel, but a series of biographies, masterfully written and originally linked into one whole. At the same time, these biographies are excellent artistic portraits.

The novel is deeply original. Herzen once said with good reason: “My language.” Behind each of his phrases there is a deep intelligence and knowledge of life. Herzen freely introduced into colloquial speech, was not afraid to complicate his style with proverbial expressions of Russian and foreign speech, and abundantly introduced literary quotes, historical images that suddenly evoke entire paintings.

The story “Krupov” is a bright satirical pamphlet, partly reminiscent of Gogol’s ““. The story was written as an excerpt from the autobiography of the old materialist doctor Krupov. Many years of medical practice lead Krupov to the conclusion that human society it hurts with madness. According to the doctor’s observation, in a world of social injustice, in a society where man is a wolf to man, where the power of the rich exists and poverty and lack of culture reign, those recognized as “crazy” “are essentially no more stupid or more damaged than everyone else, but only more original, more focused, more independent.” , more original, even, one might say, more brilliant than those.”

Herzen's satire extends not only to the autocratic-serf system of Russia, but also to bourgeois relations in Europe. Krupov notes in his journal that madness is committed both in the East and in the West (pauperism, etc.).

The cycle of works of art in Herzen’s work of the 40s is completed by the story “The Thieving Magpie,” written in 1846, which appeared in Sovremennik in 1848. The plot of “The Thieving Magpie” is based on M. S. Shchepkin’s story about the sad story of a serf actress from the theater of the depraved tyrant serf owner S. I. Kamensky in Orel. The story of Shchepkin, who appears in the story under the name famous artist, Herzen raised it to the level of great social generalization.

Both in the novel “Who is to Blame?” and in the story “The Thieving Magpie” Herzen touches on a question very acutely posed in Western European literature by George Sand - the question of the rights and status of women. In the story, this issue is illuminated as applied to the tragic fate of a serf woman, a talented actress.

Drawing the unusually rich personality of Aneta, Herzen shows the horror of her slavish dependence on the insignificant “bald celadon” of Prince Skalinsky. Her situation becomes tragic from the moment when Aneta decisively and boldly rejected the prince’s encroachments.

Her suffering is warmed by the author’s emotional attitude towards his heroine. A tragic note is heard in the thoughts of the artist-storyteller: “Poor artist!.. What kind of crazy, what kind of criminal person thrust you into this field without thinking about your fate! Why did I wake you up?.. Your soul would sleep in underdevelopment, and a great talent unknown to you yourself would not torment you; Maybe sometimes an incomprehensible sadness would rise from the bottom of your soul, but it would remain incomprehensible.”

These words emphasize the deep drama of the Russian popular intelligentsia, rising from the darkness of serf life. Only freedom could open wide path people's talents. The story “The Thieving Magpie” is imbued with the writer’s boundless faith in the creative powers of his people.

Of all the stories of the 40s, “The Thieving Magpie” stands out for its sharpness and courage in revealing the contradiction between “baptized property” and its owners. Irony, as in early works, serves to expose the hypocrisy of the wealthy serf-owner landowner, “a passionate lover of art.” The stories of the artist and the actress herself are deeply lyrical and emotional. This contributed to awakening in the reader sympathy for the serf actress, whose stunning story reflects the tragedy of the Russian people under the autocratic serfdom. This is exactly how he perceived it when he noted that “Herzen was the first in the 40s to boldly speak out against serfdom in his story “The Thieving Magpie.”

You have read the finished development: The ideological and artistic originality of Herzen’s novel “Who is to Blame?”, the problems of the stories “Doctor Krupov” and “The Thieving Magpie”

Textbooks and thematic links for schoolchildren, students and anyone involved in self-education

The site is addressed to students, teachers, applicants, and students of pedagogical universities. The student's handbook covers all aspects of the school curriculum.