|
|
- Sergey Rosedkin - |
|
||
|
|
About d about with t about e in with to about m |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Main | News | Cut-away | fotobio | Prose | About Dostoevsky | J. Roberts | Humour | Non-fikshn | Criticism | Naked Teens |
||||
|
|
||||
|
The bulletin TGU, 1998. Vyp. 2. |
Underground person DostoevskyAs the person Only I have deduced the tragic element of an underground consisting in suffering, In self-execution, in consciousness of the best and impossibility to reach It and, the main thing, in bright belief this unfortunate, As all are that, and so, it is not necessary and to be corrected! F. M.Dostoevsky 1About Dostoevsky's creativity the large quantity critical and literaturovedcheskih jobs is written. All products of the writer are disassembled and investigated repeatedly, and the images created by it, are defined and explained. It is possible to assume safely, that the majority of competent people liking the literature distinctly and zrimo imagine, who such unfortunate "experimenter" Rodion Raskolnikov, the "is positive-perfect" prince the Lion Nikolaevich Myshkin, old voluptuous Feodor Pavlovich Karamazov, the kindest Makar Alekseevich Devushkin or even mysterious Sergey Vsevolodovich Stavrogin … it is difficult to argue with these settled characteristics of heroes of Dostoevsky. In this plan like and the person of the infamous Underground person is already characterised for a long time. "Close relative" to the prince Valkovsky, Svidrigajlovu, to father Karamazov, Versilovu — dirty, awful, cynical, ugly, disgusting, disgusting, low, degenerate, disdained, the being is moral ugly and with obvious signs of a pathology... But also it yet all. Has somehow become a habit at some researchers not to identify almost the Underground person with Feodor Mihajlovichem Dostoevsky. The known researcher of creativity of Dostoevsky B.I.Bursov specified in it still : «Dostoevsky, undoubtedly, fine understood, on what risk goes, unmasking the underground person. It could accept for deviation from humanism principles. Really, in such spirit of the critic also wrote about« Notes from an underground ». During more later time its other researchers, in particular, L.Shestov, sang to it praise for as if the renunciation of former humanistic ideals it has risen to new art tops, still unknown to the world literature. According to SHestova,« Notes from an underground »meant for Dostoevsky« public — though also not opened — renunciation of the past ». For SHestovym, misinterpreted «Notes from an underground», the whole chain of the Soviet researchers has followed. It L.P. Grossman , Ampere-second. Dolinin, V.L.Komarovich. Accepting shestovskoe understanding of the remarkable story of Dostoevsky, they, unlike SHestova, have negatively estimated it: Grossman has seen in it product of "egoistical and immoral individualism», according to Dolinin, it is «a severe parody» Dostoevsky on own ideals which inspired him in years 40 and in years 60; Komarovich considered, that this story Dostoevsky has defamed dreams about heroic to service to mankind ». In general, on one product of the writer (excluding unless, the novel "Demons") there were no so much spiteful attacks from critics. Here, for example, that could write one of "dostoevskovedov" to M.S.Gus : «Dostoevsky, having created ²podpolnogo the person ², has found out a spiritual and ideological hell in itself. From pages of this story pahnulo such spiritual stench, such cynicism, that A.Suslov asked it: ²chto you for the scandalous story write ² and named ²zapiski from an underground ² a cynical thing». Before us — extremely bright sample of the set, tendentious sight at product, also is thus given the reference to the person, which has understood nothing in this story. The explanation of this fact of E.I.Kijko which in comments to the story is remarkable seems to me more objective and is surprisingly thin has noticed, that «not being the adherent of the hero, Dostoevsky has allocated reasonings with its such force ²dokazatelnosti ² what monologue Raskolnikova subsequently differed, Stavrogina and brothers Karamazovyh. This reception was so unusual to contemporaries, what even tempted in questions of the literature and well knowing Dostoevsky A.P. Suslov has not understood it and, having read the first part ²zapisok from an underground ², wrote to their author: ²chto you for the scandalous story write … To me it is not pleasant, when you write tsinicheskie things. It to you somehow does not go ²...» The characteristic given to the Underground person And is widely known. M.Gorkim in performance at congress of writers: «Dostoevsky posesses glory of the person which in the name of the hero ²zapisok from an underground ² with exclusively bright perfection of painting of a word has given type egotsentrista, type of the social degenerate. With a celebration of the insatiable avenger for the personal hardship and sufferings, for hobbies of the youth Dostoevsky a figure of the hero has shown, before what mean squeal the individualist from the environment of young men XIX-XX who have come off a life of centuries» can live. But accusation of the Underground person as vile type is only one party of a medal. From the moment of publication «Notes from an underground» in 1864 as it was already spoken, at once there was a tendency at some critics to compare the character of the story with the author and to speak about it as about self-evident. Still N.K.Mihajlovsky with conviction wrote: «the Underground person not simply underground person, and to a certain extent Dostoevsky». Hundred with superfluous years this thought varies in the critic, accepting colouring that regrets (for Dostoevsky!), contempt (to Dostoevsky!) obvious rage — it is enough to recollect late letters Strahova to Tolstoy. And here is how pathetically, with a shade of not clear self-flagellation still rather recently wrote one of notorious Soviet literary critics: «In the face of all mankind we should recognise Dostoevsky's role in this moral crime (it is a question of an episode with Lizoj. — N. N) heavy». Very interestingly, it seems to me, to pay attention to a little inconsistent treatment of this question M.M.Bakhtin: «it is much more difficult to give an integral image of own exterior in the autobiographical hero of verbal product (earlier it was a question of self-portraits of painters. — N. N) where it resulted in versatile fabulnoe movement, should cover all person. The finished attempts of this sort in a considerable work of art are unknown to me, but it is a lot of partial attempts; here some of them: Pushkin, Irtenyev Tolstoy's children's self-portrait, its Levin, the person from Dostoevsky's underground, etc.». Here so, the Underground person is the autobiographical and autoportrait hero, same as Nikolenka Irtenyev at Tolstoy, neither is more nor less. It would be possible and not to be surprised to such strange statement of the dear literary critic if hardly earlier, in the same job, M.M.Bakhtin has not written: « The everyday occurrence, even in serious and diligent historico-literary work, is — to scoop a biographic material from products, and back — to explain the biography the given product, and absolutely sufficient it is represented purely actual justifications: that is simply coincidence of the facts of a life of the hero and the author, are made samples applying to have any sense, whole the hero and whole the author also the most essential moment - the form of the relation to event, the form of its experience as a whole a life and the world thus is absolutely ignored. Especially wild such actual comparisons and vzaimoobjasnenija outlooks of the hero and the author are represented: the otvlechenno-substantial party of separate thought compare with corresponding thought of the hero... ». I am not going to to prove, that between the Underground person and Dostoevsky there is nothing the general. Undoubtedly, that in this story (as well as in many other things Dostoevsky's products) there are nature strokes. But ordinary affirms, that the hero is similar to the author or is close to it, and here to an accurate side between them, like, was not spent yet. Here also it would be desirable to consider more detailed — whether so the Underground person is bad and than it is really similar to the author, and than is not present. Most (but not in all) the conclusions made B.I.Bursovym in already mentioned book "Person Dostoevsky" are close to me . It is difficult to disagree, that all persons created by Dostoevsky, in something are close to its own person, but are completely not identical from it; - That the Underground person makes dirty tricks not because really so harms at heart, and for much deeper reasons; That in a self-portrait of the hero it is a lot of self-slander, and it was inherent also in Dostoevsky; - That it is a lot of in samooplevanii the Underground person narochitosti and facades; - That the main martyr in the story the hero... But also. I.Bursov, unfortunately, or has disregarded essential lines of an image of the Underground person (mind, talent, pride, bashfulness and so forth), or has put accents not there where followed (as, for example, concerning an ill-fated episode with tea). 2Once again I will underline, that in the centre of my attention - the person of the hero and a question on degree of its affinity to the author, therefore such important point in the story as polemic with democratic camp, will not be mentioned. However, from this party all is clear also divergences at critics few. Dostoevsky was "pochvennik", had serious claims to theories of revolutionary democrats and has stated them in a number of the products, including in «Notes from an underground». But, being based on it, as an inexcusable error will consider, as if the author has pushed aside the hero and has started talking outright on its own behalf, that all spiteful attacks against Chernyshevsky and its supporters are said by Dostoevsky. Here it is not taken also into consideration by other researchers, namely - indissoluble communication of the form of product with its maintenance. As is known, «only in the given form the work of art has the psychological influence». After all it is impossible to present «Notes from an underground» differently, as in ispovedalnoj to the form. Be conducted the story from the third party, and, undoubtedly, the scandalous, cynical thing with the description of causeless nasty things and mucks would turn out. Dostoevsky in preparatory materials and intended to name this story — "Confession", attaching to it huge significance. It is not necessary to forget, that the Underground person not simply person, and — the writer. There are such writers-homunculi in the literature — Belkin with its stories, Petchorin who has written the magazine, CHulkaturin, the author of "the Diary of the superfluous person», professor Sergey Stepanovich, the founder of "Boring history» … the Underground person — from this number. As a whole and uproshchenno it is possible to present it in the form of a nested doll where "I" of the hero am completely covered "I" of the hero-author: "author" deduces in «Notes...» The hero who makes only a part of its essence, it, "author", knows about the hero more, and much more, than we know. After all when the person writes the personal diary, always there is a part, and a considerable part, his lives, character traits, incidents «behind a shot». That is, he about itself(himself) knows more than it is possible to learn about him, having read its diary. And here. This it is artificial the created writer (talented, and even very much, the writer — who will deny) itself generates the heroes: first of all — itself, and also servant Apollo, Lizu etc . It is necessary to notice, that there are cases when the writer does not create in product of other author, and as though duplicates itself (as, for example, Bitter in the autobiographical trilogy, or Garin-Mihajlovsky in the tetralogy), here again, of course, does not raise the doubts identity almost full between them in the main character traits and acts. It, first, absolutely other literary reception, and, secondly, it is visible at once to any tempted reader. So, strangely enough it sounds, «Notes from an underground» are written not to Dostoevskys. The same as «boring history» not Chekhov. It is possible to name this reception by transformation, performance of the writer under a mask, but also these definitions a little ogrubljajut and simplify, in my opinion, an essence of the matter. Will tell more correctly, that at the moment of creation «Notes from an underground» were not Dostoevsky, and there was an Underground person — the writer-homunculus. Even it is possible to assert, that Dostoevsky here posesses only a role of the editor-censor. It is difficult to assume, that else the Underground person if has not been invented"(Dostoevsky's statement) would tell, that is, is captured some kind of the frameworks which are not depending not so from its will. The underground person — the clever, formed, widely-read, conceiving, not indifferent person. About it speak also the text of its notes, questions and the aspects of a life mentioned in them, and judgements of this author. «At least, from a civilisation the person became if is no more blood-thirsty, already, likely, worse, gazhe is blood-thirsty, than before. Before he saw justice in bloodshed and with pokojnoju conscience exterminated whom followed; now we though consider bloodshed by muck, nevertheless in this muck we are engaged, moreover more than before …» «And, who knows (it to be charged it is impossible), maybe, as all purpose on the earth to which the mankind aspires, only and consists in one this continuousness of process of achievement, differently to tell - in the life...» «In a word, all it is possible to tell about a world history, everything, that only to the most upset imagination in a head can come. One only it is impossible to tell, - that is reasonable …» Here only small part of problems over which the Underground person puzzles. It is familiar with philosophical concepts of the Edging, SHtirnera, Schopenhauer, he reads Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov, Gogol, Goncharov, Pushkin, Byron, Heine … Yes, however, even it is boring — to prove it, that it the formed and uncommon person. It — is obvious. And here such conceiving individual since the earliest childhood receives from a life only sorrows and insults. «<...> all the evening long pressed me memoirs on unbearable years of my school life, and I could not get rid of them. I was put in this school by my distant relatives on whom I depended and about which since then had no concept, — have put lonely, already hammered by their reproaches, already reflecting, silent and wildly on all looking around. Companions have met me spiteful and ruthless sneers that I to anybody from them was not similar. <...> They tsinicheski laughed at my person, over my baggy figure; and meanwhile such silly they had persons! <...> in sixteen years I am gloomy on them marvelled; me and then amazed a trifle of their thinking, nonsense of their employment, games, conversations. <...> to relieve itself of their sneers, I have purposely begun as it is possible to study is better and have made the way in number of the very first. It has inspired to them. Besides all of them have started pomalenku to understand, that I already read such books which they could not read, and understood such things (not a part of our special course) about which they and did not hear … » These pressing memoirs its plait and force to come back time and again to them: «I, maybe, and on service in other department have passed for this purpose not to be together with them (companions on school. — N. N) and at once to cut off with all hated my childhood. A damnation on this school, on these awful unbearable years!» And quite naturally this person has come eventually to a conclusion, that conscious leaving from people — a unique way of protection against the sufferings arising from dialogue with people. Here pertinently to recollect the belief of Dostoevsky stated by it in interesting thereupon «Winter notes summer impressions":" And so I that the clever person when that was, under any circumstances, could not find to itself business <...> do not understand. It is impossible to pass versts so pass only hundred steps, nevertheless it is better, all is closer to the purpose if to the purpose you go … »the Underground clever person, at all not having the firm purpose, and has found to itself what any business — he writes, it shows to us (and is even more correct — showed to contemporaries) the hero of the person who is searching for the purpose and not believing in it. In a word, if he in literal sense also does not go towards the aim (that is, to« a crystal palace ») explains and helps to understand — paternal it and thousand to it similar were hammered into an underground. And, you see, that is clear, with that it is possible to struggle, it is possible to avoid it. The underground person in any measure warned people against leaving in an underground, and it it, undoubtedly, business useful to then mankind. Now it is necessary to pay attention on following, usually ignored by researchers, but rather essential moment. If attentively to read XI th chapter of the first part it is necessary to notice an explicit statement of "author", that its manuscript is intended at all for the press. And for what? He explains: «There are in memoirs of any person such things which it opens not everything, and unless only to friends. There is also such which it and to friends will not open, and unless only to itself(himself), and that under a secret. But is, at last, and such which even person to open is afraid, and such things at any decent person will enough collect. <...> now I wish to test: whether it is possible though with itself absolutely to be frank and not to be afraid all truth. <...> Besides: can be, I from recording will really receive simplification … » Here two principal causes of occurrence of these notes: some kind of experiment (it is familiar with Russo's "Confession" and scornfully responds about degree of its sincerity), on the other hand, — intolerable already melancholy from awful underground conscious loneliness. Allow, can mind to me, it is the ordinary literary reception used by Dostoevsky. But I just also stand up for correct understanding of literary reception. If it is possible to understand and accept the statement, that «Notes...» The Underground person then and it is clearly perfect wrote, that he really did not intend them to publish. And that we these «Notes...» Have read, it it is necessary to be grateful to Dostoevsky. Being guided by it, we, in the same way, as the hero «Notes...» Looks at Russo's "Confession" (and he considers, that self-slanders make its considerable part), should and even are obliged to look and at the given confession. The person dreaming something such, to something aspiring in youth, brought up on books and imaginations, unexpectedly, but has naturally failed in "underground". It starts to reflect, do conclusions, to search for the reasons of the, so to say, falling and, naturally, is inclined all to exaggerate, including the lacks. The most important line of its character that, that it «is hypochondriac and sensitive, as the humpback or the dwarf». Through a prism of suspiciousness it involuntarily both the world around, and itself sees in awfully deformed kind. And what sincere bends also pose force it to make pride and vanity! That it is necessary an episode with the officer from a billiard room, or a scene with Lizoj at it on apartment, or duels with servant Apollo. And under the influence of the offended pride, too aggravated vulnerability, shame the cynicism acts on a surface. «The person in shame ordinary starts to become angry and is inclined to cynicism», — Dostoevsky will formulate later such property of human character in "Demons". And the most important thing that all cynicism, all disgrace is affected and deliver most of all sufferings to the Most underground person. «Yes in that all piece also consisted, the greatest muck consisted in that and, that I constantly, even a minute of the most strongest bile, shamefully understood in myself, that I not only not malicious, but even not embittered person...» «The main martyr was, of course, I because quite understood all disgusting meanness of my spiteful nonsense, at the same time could not keep itself …» in any way «It (Liza. — N.N.) has understood from all it that the woman always first of all will understand if sincerely likes, namely: that I am unhappy …» Already on these groans of soul clearly, that the Underground person the degenerate and the cynic who represents in the story is not that. But it is necessary to draw attention to one extremely essential detail: in the second part of product it is mentioned, that Notes are created «...» In sixteen years after described events. I do not wish to tell, that here napridumano, but in no event it is impossible to dismiss all these sixteen underground years. Though and in 24 years it was the gloomy and lonely official, but — the official. He lived among people, it has received yet everything, released to it a life, a portion of humiliations and insults, there were no as early as these most important sixteen years when it all has digested it, has comprehended and has become covered by an external armour of rage and bile. After all for certain this underground forty-year person from a certain sort thinking has retold those old events, having passed them preliminary through the already much more more affirmed opinion on a life. More shortly, it to impossibility has exaggerated, and it does not raise the doubts. By the way, and about a notorious episode with tea. How much time repeats this cry of the Underground person and try to give out this ugly cry for essence of the person. Even B.I.Bursov confirms: «paradoksalist... Even is more uncompromising, than Dissenters as prefers that light if only to it have submitted a tea glass» has failed. It is amazing, as try not to notice, that these words were pulled out at the person who is in a hysterics. It is not necessary to be the physician or the psychologist, that the nobility: the person, being in a hysterics condition, is not responsible for the words. Researchers also absolutely lose sight, that if, on the one hand, the Underground person ranks with Belkin, Petchorin and other heroes - "authors", that, with another, it is very close to Chatsky, Oneginu, Beltovu, to the same Petchorin... It is a superfluous person of time, but from other environment. By the way, it is quite possible to assume, that the Underground person — coeval Petchorin and was formed-grew during absolutely one time with it. Though, under the statement Underground, it also should be younger Petchorin's than generation for a decade, but he so often and persistently exclaims-repeats about forty years of an underground, that the thought involuntarily arises — after all not from the cradle it has become that! However, it not an essence important; it is important, that it — "superfluous". This consciousness of the "lishnosti", senselessly lived life, vegetation at such possibilities of soul and mind — one more reason of all-consuming irritation, nervousness, affected rage. Yes put Petchorin or Chatsky in position of the Underground person, in position humiliated and offended, poor and ugly and from them would fly their romantic chajld-garoldovskie attires, and they for certain would call fastidiousness, irritation, humiliating pity. Dostoevsky the writer-homunculus has shown «the superfluous person» from the lowest category of the Russian formed people. Petchorin has appeared before us, so to say, in absolutely new light and an appearance, and we have not learnt it and a steel unichizhat — the degenerate, paradoksalist, the cynic!. Interestingly in this connection to result Dostoevsky's statement: «In Petchorin it (type of" the superfluous person ». — N.N.) has reached tireless bilious rage and to strange, extremely in an original way Russian contrast of two diverse elements: egoism to self-adoration and at the same time spiteful self-disrespect. And all the same thirst of true and activity and all the same eternal ²nechego to do ²!» Considering through such glass essence of underground "writer", naturally, accent from a question — why it such? — It is necessary to transfer on a question: why it became such? And now that really is similar at Feodor Mihajlovicha Dostoevsky with the author-hero «Notes from an underground». It is similar to scissors where there is a contact moment, there is a general point at the ends, but they look every which way. Underground "writer" — Dostoevsky's antipode. They are polarly opposite, but have also a part of the general. From this general one, the Underground person, is directed, speaking to mathematical language, to a minus; the second, Dostoevsky, — to plus. In the Underground person it has accumulated, generated and there was an essence all that, is not excluded, could be and in Dostoevsky, not be it the genius and throw at the very beginning of a way purpose and meaning of the life searches. Does not raise the doubts, that a lot of autobiographical in the description of school years of the Underground person. In more details the writer has depicted these years later in the novel "Teenager", entering the reader in board Tushara atmosphere. Was in Dostoevsky and many hyphens of character which is making related it with the Underground person. On Anna Grigorevny's memoirs, wives of the writer, the contemporaries close knowing Dostoevsky, we know, that it was and is hypochondriac, both is closed, and is irritable... «At all warmth, even fervours of heart, — recollected D. V.Grigorovich who studied with Dostoevsky in Engineering school, — it in school, in our close, almost children's circle, differed nesvojstvennoju to age concentration and reserve...» (Notice — at all warmth, even fervours!) «In me there are many lacks and many defects. I mourn over them especially some, and would wish, that on my conscience it was easier», — Dostoevsky recognised. But these lacks, certainly, are exaggerated (here still a hyphen which is pulling together the writer with the Underground person, — propensity to self-slanders), it only strokes. In cardinal, inherently, Dostoevsky and its hero - "author" were sharp antipodes. «<...> despite all losses, I like a life hotly; I like a life for a life, and, seriously, even more often I am going to to begin my life. <...> here the main line of my character; can be, and activity», — Dostoevsky in O.A.Kozlovoj's album writes down in 1873 . «I never could understand thoughts, that only the one tenth share of people should receive the higher development, and the others of nine tenth should serve only to it as a material and means, and to remain in a gloom. I do not wish to think and live differently as with belief, that all ours of ninety millions Russian (or how much they then will arise) all will be sometime formed, humanised and happy …» This thought Dostoevsky repeatedly varied in the records. «The brother! I am not sad and have not lost courage. A life everywhere a life, a life in ourselves, instead of in the external. Beside me there will be people, and to be the person between people and to remain it for ever, in any misfortunes, not unyt and not to fall — here in what a life, in what its problem. I soznal it. This idea was included into a flesh and my blood …» Such if it is possible to tell, the motto was formulated by Dostoevsky before sending on penal servitude in 1849 and followed it throughout all life. Here that baron A. E.Vrangel close knowing the writer in Semipalatinsk recollected : «Remarkably, that, despite all heavy tests of destiny; penal servitude, the reference, awful illness and incessant material need, in shower F.M. The most light, widest human feelings unextinguishably glimmered. And this surprising, despite of everything, mildness always especially amazed me in Dostoevsky …» Similar citations from Dostoevsky's letters and memoirs on him can be resulted in tens. Yes, there are at the Underground person and Dostoevsky things in common, but from it one all were more deeply dug in in an underground, and the second all above rose on height of the decision of world questions, becoming the master of thoughts, the defender humiliated and offended... As their affairs which as all clever people, have found they to themselves, and the outlook and their world view are in general various or opposite are various. And in the end — about a nickname "paradoksalist". The majority of critics have picked up this label because Dostoevsky has used it in an epilogue to the story. But after all abundantly clear from «Notes...», from tone with what this word "is said" by the writer, that such ironic nickname with an offensive shade is given Dostoevskys from a name and a voice of narrow-minded crowd. On behalf of those "misters" to whom the Underground person addresses in the end: «That actually to me concerns, after all I only lead up in my life excessively that you did not dare to lead up and to half, moreover the cowardice accepted for prudence, and in that were consoled, deceiving myself. So I, perhaps, still« zhivee »you leave …» It in their opinion the Underground person — paradoksalist. After all we do not name purely on its own behalf prince Myshkin the idiot or Quixote — to madwomen so why here, in a similar case, we suppose the similar! 3So: - The underground person if to look at it as on the person, not such is the rascal, the degenerate and the cynic who represents at first sight and as he said. - The underground person is the writer, the independent author created by force of genius Dostoevsky. - The underground person concerns type of "superfluous people» in Russian literature, but absolutely new by the position and a place in a society. - And, at last, the Underground person is Dostoevsky's antipode … «Notes from an underground» — critical product in creativity of the writer. It is approach to its most considerable novels, many philosophical concepts developed in «great pjatiknizhii», roots leave in this story. Reading it, it is necessary to remember Dostoevsky's credo as the writer: «it is exact as though hiding defect and a gloomy aspect of life, you will hide from the reader that defect and a gloomy aspect of life exists. No, the author will not hide this gloomy party, regularly lowering it before the reader but only will suspect itself before it of insincerity, in inveracity. And whether it is possible to write one light paints?. About light we have concept only because there is a shade …» 1978 |
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
© Rosedkin Sergey Nikolaevich, 2001 |
||||
|
E-mail: emp-reports@fustercluck.com |
||||
