- Essays
- On literature
- Pushkin
- Criticism about the novel Eugene Onegin
Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" became a striking literary event in 1833, when it was first published as a separate edition. It immediately attracted the attention of critics from various directions. Contemporaries vigorously argued about the artistic value of the published novel, about Pushkin’s talent and about the new literary direction - realism.
A detailed article about the novel “Eugene Onegin” was written by the famous Russian critic V.G. Belinsky. He was very interested in Pushkin’s work, which was the reason for creating a whole series of articles. In an article dedicated to Eugene Onegin, Belinsky discusses the basic principles of realism embodied in the novel. Belinsky calls the most important features of the novel its nationality and historicity. Moreover, the critic understands nationality broadly: it is a simple and understandable language for everyone, and an image of Russian folk life, and the inclusion of elements of folk art. At the same time, the historicity of Eugene Onegin does not lie in the fact that it depicts any historical figures or events, but in the fact that the novel represents a certain stage in the development of Russian society. Belinsky believed that Pushkin’s novel reflected a wide panorama of social life, therefore the novel has an encyclopedic character.
N.A. gave a positive assessment of Pushkin’s novel. Polevoy in the article “Eugene Onegin”. He agreed with Belinsky that this work is imbued with the folk spirit. Polevoy also noted that the novel “Eugene Onegin” is the most striking embodiment of Russian national literature.
The wise man I.V. gave a controversial assessment in his article. Kireyevsky. He said that the first five chapters of the novel are empty, meaningless, and overly reek of the Byronic spirit. But at the same time, Kireevsky noted the picturesqueness, thoughtfulness and carelessness of Pushkin’s manner, and he considered the character of Tatyana Larina to be one of the best ever created by the poet.
However, there were also negative reviews. So, I.I. Nadezhdin in his article spoke negatively about the novel “Eugene Onegin”. He did not agree with the opinion of Belinsky and Polevoy that the novel was built on the principles of nationality and historicity. Nadezhdin rejected the idea that the work was realistic. On the contrary, he believed that “Eugene Onegin” is “the fruit of leisure fantasy”, just a parody of life. The critic called it a fake novel; it lacks the integrity of the plot and concept.
Thus, contemporaries of A.S. Pushkin reacted vividly to the release of the novel “Eugene Onegin”. Overall, critical responses were positive, emphasizing the strength of Pushkin's talent. “Eugene Onegin” is one of the first works of Russian realism.
Option 2
The opinions of his contemporaries were divided - some vehemently criticized Pushkin's work, others, on the contrary, praised him. But both of them noted the poet’s talent.
But everyone was actively reading. We were waiting for new chapters to appear. They noted the charm of the poet's poems, but they did not like some of his carelessness. They believed that he was doing this on purpose to annoy them.
Some critics noted the lack of any plan. They did not like the poet's numerous digressions. They found them tiresome. In general, they said that they wrote everything that came to mind, without straining their imagination at all.
They call Pushkin the Raphael of poetry, and immediately complain that he distracts readers from the idea of presentation.
They note the ease of Pushkin’s verse in Russian and the sound of the rhyme. They recognize the poet's exceptional talent, his victory over syntax. And then they “bite” for negligence and the use of common words and expressions.
One of the critics noted that Pushkin felt Onegin’s inner emptiness. And therefore, I did not briefly introduce readers to him. He did not give a specific description of the portrait. But thousands of young people of that time can recognize themselves in Onegin. The image is so collective.
The critic Nadezhdin called Pushkin’s poems a “new pearl” in Russian literature. He notes that each chapter of “Eugene Onegin” represents an entire era. But the novel ends “almost violently.” A whole chapter is missing. ABOUT.
But I think, on the contrary, it’s more interesting to read. I read the chapter and finished the thought. After some time, you start reading a new one, and you don’t have to remember what was there in the previous chapter.
Even the famous Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz also decided to criticize Pushkin in some French magazine. But the criticism is good, positive. He compares him with Byron, that the poet presents the novel to the readers in separate chapters, just like Byron in his “Don Juan”.
At the beginning of Eugene Onegin, Pushkin strongly imitates him. And at the end of the novel he finds his own style, becomes original. Mickiewicz notes the realism of the novel's characters.
In the magazine “Library for Reading”, in a review of “Eugene Onegin”, the fact is noted that it is read in all the nooks and crannies of vast Russia. It is read by people of all classes who can read. Some phrases, in modern language, have “gone to the people.” Everyone remembers several quatrains by heart.
The critic Belinsky is a historical poem, although the reader does not meet a single specific historical person. This is a sad, contradictory piece.
Onegin is a young man with enormous spiritual potential. But already at 30 he looks like an old man, lifeless, uninterested in anything. At the end of the novel he seems to come back to life a little.
"Eugene Onegin" is a novel for the people and about the people. Belinsky notes the realism of the novel. His famous phrase about the novel as “an encyclopedia of Russian life” makes it a folk work.
Tatyana and Lensky are wonderful examples of people. Noble, but that is precisely why they are alien to the people around them. They are not spiritually connected to them. Among their own they are enemies, at home they are like in an enemy camp. Therefore, they die. One physically, the other mentally.
Belinsky considers the novel “a poem of unfulfilled hopes.”
They didn’t understand the novel, but they still waited for it and quickly read it, reread it, and criticized it. The younger generation, which grew up reading Eugene Onegin, finally began to understand the deep meaning of the novel.
The significance of the novel is considered in the context of the history of literary types and in the history of Pushkin’s work. The novel is an accurate reflection of the life of Russia of that particular era. And through the novel and its heroes, Pushkin conveys to readers his views on life.
Belinsky characterizes Onegin, one might say that he stands up for him. The public rated Onegin one-sidedly as a cold, dry egoist. You can't judge people that way. Onegin has not lost his human feelings, he is simply a restrained, hidden nature. By myself. In a word - introvert.
Lensky, according to Belinsky, is the complete opposite of Onegin. Head in the clouds.
Some critics compare “Eugene Onegin” to music. With a certain type of work called “capriccio”.
In my opinion, the best criticism of the novel, or rather Onegin, is “a naughty man with a mind, a flighty man with a heart, we know him, we love him.” Critics recognize themselves in Onegin. They are the same rakes and lovers of women's legs. They are simply offended that Pushkin did not write about them. They envy Onegin.
Speaking about the novel as a whole, Belinsky notes its historicism
in the reproduced picture of Russian society. “Eugene Onegin,” the critic believes, is a historical poem, although among its heroes there is not a single historical figure.
Next Belinsky calls the nationality
novel. In the novel “Eugene Onegin” there is more nationality than in any other Russian folk work... If it is not recognized by everyone as national, it is because a strange opinion has long been rooted in us, as if a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset are no longer Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is zipun, bast shoes, fusel and sauerkraut. “The secret of the nationality of every people lies not in its clothing and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.”
A deep knowledge of everyday philosophy made Onegin and Woe from Wit original and purely Russian works.
According to Belinsky, the digressions made by the poet from the story, his appeal to himself, are filled with sincerity, feeling, intelligence, and acuity; the personality of the poet in them is loving and humane. “Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” says the critic.
Critic points out realism
“Eugene Onegin”
“Pushkin took this life as it is, without distracting from it only its poetic moments; took it with all its coldness, with all its prose and vulgarity,” notes Belinsky. “Onegin” is a poetically true picture of Russian society in a certain era.”
In the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, according to the critic, Pushkin depicted Russian society in one of the phases of its formation, its development.
The critic speaks of the enormous importance
novel for the subsequent literary process. Together with Griboyedov’s contemporary brilliant creation, “Woe from Wit,” Pushkin’s poetic novel laid a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature.
Together with Pushkin’s “Onegin”... “Woe from Wit”... laid the foundation for subsequent literature, were the school from which Lermontov and Gogol came.
Belinsky characterized the images of the novel. This is how I characterize Onegin
, he notes:
“Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, seeing in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly!.. Social life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments... Onegin did not like to get lost in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open up to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature, therefore only by people, but also by itself.”
Onegin is a kind fellow, but at the same time a remarkable person. He is not fit to be a genius, he does not want to be a great person, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him. Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an involuntary egoist, Belinsky believes, in his egoism one should see what the ancients called rock, fate.
In Lenskoye
Pushkin portrayed a character completely opposite to the character of Onegin, the critic believes, a completely abstract character, completely alien to reality. This was, according to the critic, a completely new phenomenon.
Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, “he was an ignoramus at heart,” always talking about life, but never knew it. “Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his imagination,” writes Belinsky. He fell in love with Olga, and adorned her with virtues and perfections, ascribed to her feelings and thoughts that she did not have and about which she did not care. " Olga
she was charming, like all “young ladies” before they became “ladies”; and Lensky saw in her a fairy, a selfide, a romantic dream, not at all suspecting the future lady,” writes the critic
People like Lensky, with all their undeniable merits, are not good in that they either degenerate into perfect philistines, or, if they retain their original type forever, they become these outdated mystics and dreamers, who are just as unpleasant as ideal old maids, and who are more enemies of all progress than people who are simply, without pretensions, vulgar. In a word, these are now the most intolerable, empty and vulgar people.
Tatiana
, according to Belinsky, is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle. With the happiness of reciprocity, the love of such a woman is an even, bright flame; otherwise, it is a stubborn flame, which willpower may not allow it to break out, but which is the more destructive and burning the more it is compressed inside. A happy wife, Tatyana would calmly, but nevertheless passionately and deeply love her husband, would completely sacrifice herself for the children, but not out of reason, but again out of passion, and in this sacrifice, in the strict fulfillment of her duties, she would find her greatest pleasure, his supreme bliss “This marvelous combination of coarse, vulgar prejudices with a passion for French books and respect for the profound creation of Martin Zadeka is possible only in a Russian woman. Tatiana’s entire inner world consisted of a thirst for love, nothing else spoke to her soul, her mind was asleep…” the critic wrote.
According to Belinsky, for Tatyana there was no real Onegin, whom she could neither understand nor know, which is why she understood and knew herself just as little as Onegin.
“Tatyana could not fall in love with Lensky, and even less could she fall in love with any of the men she knew: she knew them so well, and they provided so little food for her exalted, ascetic imagination...” reports Belinsky.
“There are creatures whose fantasy has much more influence on the heart... Tatyana was one of such creatures,” says the critic.
After the duel, Onegin’s departure and Tatyana’s visit to Onegin’s room, “she finally understood that there are interests for a person, there are suffering and sorrows, except for the interest of suffering and the sorrow of love... And therefore, a book acquaintance with this new world of sorrows, even if it was a revelation for Tatyana the revelation made a heavy, bleak and fruitless impression on her. Home visits
Onegin and reading his books prepared Tatyana for the rebirth from a village girl into a society lady, which so surprised and amazed Onegin.” “Tatiana does not like light and would consider leaving it for the village forever for happiness; but as long as she is in the world, his opinion will always be her idol and the fear of his judgment will always be her virtue... But I was given to someone else - just given, not given away! Eternal fidelity to such relationships, which constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships, not sanctified by love, are extremely immoral... But with us somehow it all sticks together: poetry - and life, love - and marriage of convenience, life with the heart - and strict fulfillment of external duties, internally violated every hour. a woman cannot despise public opinion, but she can sacrifice it modestly, without phrases, without self-praise, understanding the greatness of her sacrifice, the full burden of the curse that she takes upon herself,” writes Belinsky.
- V. G. Belinsky. Articles 8 and 9
Belinsky about Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”
Belinsky about Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” Speaking about the novel, in general Belinsky notes its historicism in the reproduced picture of Russian society. “Eugene Onegin,” the critic believes, is a historical poem, although there is not a single historical person among its heroes. Next, Belinsky names the novel’s nationality. In the novel “Eugene Onegin” there is more nationality than in any other Russian folk work... If it is not recognized by everyone as national, it is because a strange opinion has long been rooted in us, as if a Russian in a tailcoat or a Russian in a corset are no longer Russians and that the Russian spirit makes itself felt only where there is zipun, bast shoes, fusel and sauerkraut. “The secret of the nationality of every people lies not in its clothing and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding things.” A deep knowledge of everyday philosophy made Onegin and Woe from Wit original and purely Russian works. According to Belinsky, the digressions made by the poet from the story, his appeal to himself, are filled with sincerity, feeling, intelligence, and acuity; the personality of the poet in them is loving and humane. “Onegin can be called an encyclopedia of Russian life and an eminently folk work,” says the critic. The critic points to the realism of “Eugene Onegin”: “Pushkin took this life as it is, without distracting from it only its poetic moments; took it with all its coldness, with all its prose and vulgarity,” notes Belinsky. “Onegin” is a poetically true picture of Russian society in a certain era.” In the person of Onegin, Lensky and Tatyana, according to the critic, Pushkin depicted Russian society in one of the phases of its formation, its development. The critic speaks of the enormous significance of the novel for the subsequent literary process. Together with Griboyedov’s contemporary brilliant creation, “Woe from Wit,” Pushkin’s poetic novel laid a solid foundation for new Russian poetry, new Russian literature. Together with Pushkin’s “Onegin” ... “Woe from Wit” ... laid the foundation for subsequent literature, were the school from which Lermontov and Gogol came. Belinsky characterized the images of the novel. Characterizing Onegin in this way, he notes: “Most of the public completely denied the soul and heart in Onegin, saw in him a cold, dry and selfish person by nature. It is impossible to understand a person more erroneously and crookedly!.. Social life did not kill Onegin’s feelings, but only cooled him to fruitless passions and petty entertainments... Onegin did not like to get lost in dreams, he felt more than he spoke, and did not open up to everyone. An embittered mind is also a sign of a higher nature, therefore only by people, but also by itself.” Onegin is a kind fellow, but at the same time a remarkable person. He is not fit to be a genius, he does not want to be a great person, but the inactivity and vulgarity of life choke him. Onegin is a suffering egoist... He can be called an involuntary egoist, Belinsky believes, in his egoism one should see what the ancients called rock, fate. In Lensky, Pushkin portrayed a character completely opposite to the character of Onegin, the critic believes, a completely abstract character, completely alien to reality. This was, according to the critic, a completely new phenomenon. Lensky was a romantic both by nature and by the spirit of the times. But at the same time, “he was an ignoramus at heart,” always talking about life, but never knew it. “Reality had no influence on him: his sorrows were the creation of his fantasy,” writes Belinsky. He fell in love with Olga, and adorned her with virtues and perfections, ascribed to her feelings and thoughts that she did not have and about which she did not care. “Olga was charming, like all “young ladies” before they became “ladies”; and Lensky saw in her a fairy, a selfide, a romantic dream, not at all suspecting the future lady,” writes the critic. People like Lensky, with all their undeniable merits, are not good in that they either degenerate into perfect philistines, or, if they retain their original type forever, they become these outdated mystics and dreamers, who are just as unpleasant as ideal old maids, and who are more enemies of all progress than people who are simply, without pretensions, vulgar. In a word, these are now the most intolerable, empty and vulgar people. Tatyana, according to Belinsky, is an exceptional being, a deep, loving, passionate nature. Love for her could be either the greatest bliss or the greatest disaster of life, without any conciliatory middle. With the happiness of reciprocity, the love of such a woman is an even, bright flame; otherwise, it is a stubborn flame, which willpower may not allow it to break out, but which is the more destructive and burning the more it is compressed inside. A happy wife, Tatyana would calmly, but nevertheless passionately and deeply love her husband, would completely sacrifice herself for the children, but not out of reason, but again out of passion, and in this sacrifice, in the strict fulfillment of her duties, she would find her greatest pleasure, his supreme bliss “This marvelous combination of coarse, vulgar prejudices with a passion for French books and respect for the profound creation of Martin Zadeka is possible only in a Russian woman. Tatiana’s entire inner world consisted of a thirst for love, nothing else spoke to her soul, her mind was asleep…” the critic wrote. According to Belinsky, for Tatyana there was no real Onegin, whom she could neither understand nor know, which is why she understood and knew herself just as little as Onegin. “Tatyana could not fall in love with Lensky, and even less could she fall in love with any of the men she knew: she knew them so well, and they provided so little food for her exalted, ascetic imagination...”, Belinsky reports. “There are creatures whose fantasy has much more influence on the heart... Tatyana was one of such creatures,” says the critic. After the duel, Onegin’s departure and Tatyana’s visit to Onegin’s room, “she finally understood that there are interests for a person, there are suffering and sorrows, except for the interest of suffering and the sorrow of love... And therefore, a book acquaintance with this new world of sorrows, even if it was a revelation for Tatyana the revelation made a heavy, bleak and fruitless impression on her. Visits to Onegin’s house and reading his books prepared Tatyana for the rebirth from a village girl into a society lady, which so surprised and amazed Onegin.” “Tatiana does not like light and would consider leaving it for the village forever for happiness; but as long as she is in the world, his opinion will always be her idol and the fear of his judgment will always be her virtue... But I was given to someone else - just given, not given away! Eternal fidelity to such relationships, which constitute a profanation of the feelings and purity of femininity, because some relationships, not sanctified by love, are extremely immoral... But for us somehow it all sticks together: poetry - and life, love - and marriage of convenience, life with the heart - and strict fulfillment of external duties, internally violated every hour. A woman cannot despise public opinion, but she can sacrifice it modestly, without phrases, without self-praise, understanding the greatness of her sacrifice, the full burden of the curse that she takes upon herself,” writes Belinsky. Literature: V. G. Belinsky. Articles 8 and 9.
The topic is vast
