How to distinguish drunk from hungry? (To the interpretation of N.A. Nekrasov's poem "Philanthropist")

Vei Sin'i PhD in Philology Postgraduate student, Department of the History of Russian Literature of the XIX Century, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 518100, Kitai, spetsial'nyi raion, g. Shen'chzhen', ul. Tsin'syue, Raion Nan'shan', Tszin'lun, kv. C— 503, sinjivei@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The poem "Philanthropist" (1853) attracted the attention of non-racial scholars mainly of the "Soviet period". Among the most prominent scientists who made important comments about this work or dedicated a separate work to it, it is necessary to name K. I. Chukovsky^[1], B.Ya. Bukhshtaba^[2], M.M. Gin^[3], A.M. Garkavi^[4].  At the same time, central attention was paid to the establishment of the correct main text of the work, the establishment of the prototype of the title character, the real context of the poem (in particular, the connection between Nekrasov and the "Society of Visiting the Poor"). At the same time, practically no attention was paid to the actual "reading" of the text, its interpretation: the meaning, apparently, seemed simple and unambiguous, the poem was seen as a denunciation of "liberal philanthropists" and philanthropy as such, as presumably something deliberately false and artificial, allowing the ruling classes to turn a blind eye to genuine social problems and ways to solve them^[2]. Such an understanding, as we will show in our work, is extremely inaccurate, based on a priori ideological ideas about Nekrasov as a "revolutionary poet" ^[5].

Unfortunately, in the post-Soviet period, there was practically nothing opposed to these interpretations of the "Philanthropist". The poem practically did not attract the attention of either non-racial scholars or specialists in Russian literature of the second half as a whole. Thus, in a recent monograph by M.S. Makeev, the "Philanthropist" is spoken very fluently and in essence repeats the idea of the "skepticism" reflected in him regarding Russian charity [6: 193-194]. The monographs of V.I. Melnik ^[7] and G.Y. Filipovsky ^[8] "Philanthropist", which are of significant importance for modern non-racial studies, are attracted to consideration "episodically". Little attention is paid to this text in the recent dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences "The ideological and artistic concept of righteousness in the poetry of N.A. Nekrasov" by T.A. Zhitova ^[9]. The poem in S.N. Makarova's dissertation "The Ideal of Man in N.A. Nekrasov's lyrics in the light of the Orthodox tradition" is also briefly considered ^[10]. Like Nekrasov's work in general, this poem practically does not attract foreign researchers. Perhaps the only exception is the monograph dedicated to the great Russian poet by the Swiss researcher Annette Luisier, however, little attention is paid to the Philanthropist in this book, and the author generally relies on the ideas of Soviet literary critics ^[11].

Thus, the poem "Philanthropist", despite the dramatic change in the scientific paradigm, despite the ongoing revision of the understanding of Nekrasov's views on society and man (see, for example, the block of articles dedicated to the 200th anniversary in the journal "Russian Literature" ^[12],[13] and ^[14]), remains read "in the Soviet way." This is the reason for the relevance of this work, the task of which is to offer a reading of the text that would be most adequate to the author's idea and would not be based on a priori ideological ideas about the poet's work. This reading ultimately aims to make a feasible contribution to the beginning revision of ideas about Nekrasov's public views, his position on benevolence and public education.

At the same time, we accept the idea, which has become almost axiomatic for modern literary criticism, of the inevitability of the presence of a subjective beginning in any reading of any text (see: ^[15]), however, we rely in our analysis on the works of such literary theorists who, on the one hand, recognize that the meaning of the text is realized only in its reading and therefore it depends on a kind of "co-creation" of the reader, on the other hand, they show that this co-creation itself is not absolute arbitrariness, but is limited to elements immanently inherent in the text itself. Stanley Fish ^[16] and Michel Riffaterre ^[17] undoubtedly belong to such theorists. It is the Riffaterian concept of the autoreference of the text, which allows a competent reader to identify significant elements of the text and thereby verify their intuitions that arise when reading it (accepting true and discarding erroneous, arbitrary ones - see also ^[18]) that is the basis of the methodology of this work. The poem "Philanthropist" is quoted according to the latest most authoritative edition of the work of N.A. Nekrasov ^[19].

There is no doubt that any reading of "Philanthropist" cannot fail to take into account, not to proceed from the fact that before us "satire" is an accusatory poem. It is also clear that the object of the accusation is the title character. However, it is not so easy to understand what the main character is accused of. Let's start with the fact that whoever served as the prototype of the title character (V.F. Odoevsky, as most Nekrasov scholars believe, or V.I. Dahl, as Nekrasov himself claimed), this character is obviously different from a real landowner or bureaucrat, indifferent to the fate of the people (compare him, for example, with the "gentleman" from the poem "The Forgotten village" or the nobleman from "Reflections at the front door"). He, being a major official and a rich man, is really engaged in educational activities, publishing books as popular science:

About public education,

Competing, General

In the popular presentation

He wrote eight volumes.

Sold in large quantities

They are cheaper than a nickel,

Talk some sense into electricity

In them, trying to man ...

and of an edifying and moralizing nature:

Preaching patience to us,

How Socrates is eloquent.

(Nekrasov himself will soon take quite a sympathetic part in educational activities ^[20]). The benefits brought by this activity are beyond doubt neither by the author nor by the narrator (although the reader can also hear the irony in its description: does a peasant need to know about electricity). The "philanthropist", unlike other satirical characters of Nekrasov's poetry, accepts the poor man and is ready to listen to him. The narrator himself speaks unintelligibly and incoherently and causes reasonable suspicion that he appeared drunk. The incident thus resembles rather an incident in which almost the petitioner himself is to blame: he could not get together, prepare, clearly and briefly state the essence of his request. The only thing, it seems, that the narrator can reproach "his excellency" with is that he cannot distinguish "hungry from drunk." This reproach, however, does not look very clear: why is it necessary to be able to distinguish a drunk from a hungry one?

Researchers usually overlook another important nuance, important for understanding the poem. The fact is that from what the retired official tells about "his excellency", it does not follow in any way that the general is engaged in some kind of practical charity. And, judging by the speech prepared, but not spoken, the narrator addresses the general not as a philanthropist and philanthropist (he is not going to ask him for material assistance), but precisely as a "general" who has power, perhaps able to rehabilitate him and restore him to service:

...I'm woe-weeping,

I work for two,

But not with a cup — with your book

I strengthen a weak spirit,

Protect!...

In fact, a retired official is not looking for "charity", but patronage, patronage from an important person, that is, he acts in a bureaucratic way, similar to those that he himself had previously neglected.

Having taken all this into account, we can return to the "incident" itself. His archetypal character, so to speak, catches the eye. It can be said, therefore, that the collision of the narrator and his excellency is in fact not an episode of the relationship between a philanthropist and a poor man seeking help from him, but quite a traditional and typical scene for the bureaucratic bureaucratic world of a subordinate's appeal to his superiors. The episode goes back to the situation of a meeting between an important boss and a poor official ("little man"), which is common in Russian literature. It is easy to recall, first of all, N.V. Gogol's novel "The Overcoat", which was present in Nekrasov's mind when creating "Philanthropist"^[1]. Here we see the chief, the general, scolding the poor official in order to show his friend how strict he is and how everyone is afraid of him. The situation resembles (and perhaps goes back to it) also the famous episode from the well-known Nekrasov (he was actually the one who first saw the talent of his author) of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Poor People", in which Makar Devushkin, thanks to a torn button, made a strong and touching impression on his excellency and instead of punishment he received a hundred rubles from a boss touched by his position ^[2]. Dostoevsky (we will by no means pretend to an exhaustive interpretation of this most complex episode here) describes a very important change in the mood of the authorities, or, more precisely, in the way they treat a minor official: from the bureaucratic to the human. It is important that in both works the reaction of the authorities arises in a situation, so to speak, of the silence of the subordinate. Neither Bashmachkin nor Makar Devushkin are able to say anything in their defense, both because of their tongue-tied and timidity. The authorities themselves decide, according to the appearance of a minor official, their mood, their general inclination, how to behave in this situation: pardon or roughly "chastise".

In Nekrasov's poem we see as if "an intermediate case between the "Overcoat" and "Poor People". The narrator, addressing the general as a bearer of power, and because he is a bearer of power due to his high position on the service ladder, in this particular case hopes to enter into a relationship that goes beyond simple bureaucratic ones. Obviously, the general himself gave him such a right with his writings, in which human dignity is placed above position in society and rank, and "commitment to good" is affirmed:

As if conversing with equals,

He is courteous to beggars too...

The main character decides to turn to the "philanthropist", having heard about him and his activities, having read some of the books (he not only knows their contents, but they have served him as a moral support in his misfortune, one can say they inspire him). Being an "atypical official" himself, he saw "his Excellency" as an "atypical general". A person who has achieved high ranks and great influence, but has not lost a sense of equality with humanity, a person for whom honesty and justice matter more than rank and the presence of awards. It can be said that in the general the narrator saw the triumph of his principles, hostile to bureaucratic bureaucracy, but corresponding to high moral, Christian requirements.

At the same time, the official himself, it seems, could not stand such a title of just a person, was not ready to be with the count as an equal. He was frightened, no doubt, by the arrival of such a significant person:

Here comes his Excellency,—

I'm scared; I'm almost alive;

I fell into a stupid confusion

And I forgot all my speech.

He rubbed both his forehead and the bridge of his nose,

He squinted at the ceiling,

Mumbled only nonsense,

And about the case — no aza!

The philanthropist general behaves, of course, not like a similar character in "Overcoat". For him, the hierarchical position of the interlocutor is clearly not the only criterion determining the modality of his behavior. He does not act as a tyrant, basing his attitude to his neighbor on rank and position. However, he does not rise to the level of Dostoevsky's hero. As in "Poor People", a minor official does not give his superiors a chance to hear himself, his explanations. Dostoevsky, however, shows that the "wordlessness" of a subordinate is not necessarily an absolute obstacle to understanding for a humane boss. The appearance of Makar allows you to see in him not a negligent drinking official who deserves punishment, but a "poor man". Little is said about the appearance of the narrator in "Philanthropist" - it is only said that he, going to the general, "cleaned his uniform", therefore, appeared in a rather decent form, not in practically rags, like Devushkin. That's why the general couldn't identify the poor man by his clothes. However, the despair itself, which could not fail to manifest itself in gestures, in tears and, even if incoherent, but obviously touching words of the visitor, could become a revelation for him, the key to the true position of the person who came to him.

The Nekrasov general, however, did not see this situation. This is precisely the meaning of the reproach, this is the defect of the general's vision, which is meant in the verses "And hungry from drunk / They don't know how to distinguish...". It's not that the general doesn't have some special "knack" required by a real philanthropist to distinguish the hungry from the drunk (obviously, this is often easy to do). The problem is that he does not love and does not know a person, a human heart, and in a difficult, unclear situation that requires a close and loving, initially sympathetic and accepting look, he prefers to simplify it by reducing it to the easiest: it is easier to see a person's vice and his own guilt than innocent suffering.

Let's draw conclusions from what has been said. Our reading allows us to show that the poem "Philanthropist" is not a satire on the educational activities of the ruling classes, especially on charity as such. Such a reading of the work, canonized in Soviet literary criticism, leads away from the true author's intention. In fact, in his work Nekrasov poses a much broader and more important problem of the inability of even an obviously kind person to go beyond formal relations between people. In "Philanthropist" one must first of all see the exposure of the terrible power of such relations, which has subjugated the entire Russian society from top to bottom.