"Eugene Onegin": three ways of reading and understanding ‒ from science, personality psychology, philosophy of art

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

In absentia, on the Internet, I met Alexander Minkin, whose article "Tender Soul" with an analysis of Chekhov's "Cherry Orchard", seemed interesting to me ^[4]. A little later, I read his most famous book "Mute Onegin" ^[5]. The reviews on it are ambiguous: excellent by Dmitry Bykov, Mikhail Weller, Lyudmila Ulitskaya and less benevolent, but perhaps more objective, ordinary readers. Here are the last two.

Xellina. "An interesting study, especially at first. I started reading in chunks in MK, then in the book version. It seems to me that it is better to read in parts, repetitions and lengthiness are not so noticeable. There are several interesting ironic moments, the same "cross" of Tatiana (Minkin begins his research with proof that Tatiana, upon hearing Onegin's arrival, did not just go to the garden, but made a real "cross-country. In a dress up to the heels, in a corset, in shoes (not sneakers). Three versts! And "instantly"? Pushkin created the illusion of instantaneity by putting the whole track in two lines" ? V.R.). Plus, thanks to this book, I watched an ambiguous, but very impressive performance of the Vakhtangov Theater. However, it seemed to me that the author was too busy admiring himself. The fact that he always exposes Nabokov with his Onegin comments to be somewhat narrow-minded didn't bother me, I don't really like him myself. But the endless “preening”, in the style of “here, Pushkin was a genius, and no one, except me, understands his brilliant plan,” irritated me more and more as I read. And the last chapters are about nothing at all, it feels like the author's sheets got any water" ^[7].            

Black Margo. "Life will never be the same... I saw it in a bookstore and immediately bought it. And it doesn't matter that the children and I have already finished reading the novel. Before that, I read Natalia Dolinina's essay “Let's read Onegin together.” And yet the female point of view is closer to me. Dolina does not have Minkin's vulgarity, and she dissects the text carefully. Minkin believes that Tatiana's husband was twice her age, although Pushkin does not have a word about it. And Minkin... A phrase from the middle of the book: “Is it a pity that Tanya didn't give her Wife?”just killed. Yes, Pushkin is shown in all the shamelessness of the truth ? he was not a saint. But perhaps the most painful feeling for me is disappointment in the “greats”. For me, a great man should be great in everything, you can't justify his weaknesses. And the importance of loyalty for Pushkin flashed only towards the end of “Onegin". How did he, the “great one”, not know about it?! In general, the book is good - it is written with humor, easily, the dialogue with the reader turned out. And I learned a lot about the text of “wonderful discoveries”, despite the lyrical digressions...

P.S. After this analysis, I began to hate Pushkin's novel. I will never reread it" ^[7].

The question is whether Minkin, when publishing his research, counted on such an effect ("I began to hate Pushkin's novel after this analysis")? But I found Minkin's polemic especially interesting, not with his readers, but with the critic Vladimir Kozarovetsky ("How Pushkin played a Joke on Minkin" ^{[1; 2]}), who refers "literary hoaxes" to the genre of art. So "Eugene Onegin", according to Kozarovetsky's deep conviction, is a literary hoax of Pushkin.

Minkin, Kozarovetsky notes, considers Pushkin to be "a womanizer, a libertine, an immoral type." Like most of those who write about Pushkin in this way (and there are countless of them now), Minkin was deceived by Pushkin, who deliberately created such an image, mystifying readers, and increased interest in himself, increasing his popularity. His “don juan list” nine-tenths consists of the names of women with whom he had nothing but his infatuation, most often unrequited. According to M.N. Volkonskaya's correct remark about Pushkin, "as a poet, he considered it his duty to be in love with all the pretty women and girls he met" ^[1].

Kozarovetsky literally went his separate ways with Minkin: the main "narrator" in the poem is not Pushkin, but Onegin, Pushkin's poem and not the encyclopedia of Russian life (Belinsky) and not an artistic reflection of Pushkin's life path and personality (as it turns out with Minkin), but a conscious drawing of the reading public. Let 's compare:

Minkin. "Onegin is a phantom: not a word (Minkin, counting the number of words uttered in the poem by Onegin, concludes that Eugene, figuratively speaking, is almost mute. ? V.R.), no business, but Pushkin walks, eats oysters, drinks with friends, remembers a love adventure.

Pushkin travels, and it is called “Onegin's Travels". So the whole “Eugene Onegin” is not about Eugene Onegin, but about Pushkin. Sometimes an autobiography, sometimes a diary, where (for the sake of a joke and in order to avoid catastrophic scandals and insults) a double is inserted ? a doll devoid of intelligence, poetic gift, a secular dandy, a jeweler, a mask <...>

For a while, Onegin was the Author's favorite mask. Then the mask began to weigh down. Then Pushkin dropped the mask forever. So the fairy prince sheds the frog skin. And if you want realism — so the butterfly leaves the old cracked cocoon forever. It's just a pity that in the case of Pushkin, this realism needs to be clarified: forever, but, alas, not for long. To the Black River.

Blessed is he who celebrates life early

Left without finishing to the bottom

A glass full of wine,

Who hasn 't read her novel

And suddenly he knew how to part with it,

As I am with Onegin the mute" ^[6].

Kozarovetsky. «It followed from this that in both cases the narrator was not the author; Shklovsky could only name this stylistic device used in Onegin: the transfer of the role of the narrator to the acting character.  He did not do this, he named him after 75 years A.N.Barkov in his book “Walking with Evgeny Onegin” <...> Thus, by an obvious analogy, "Eugene Onegin" is a parody of an archaic poet who conceived of writing a novel in verse in which he intended to impersonate Pushkin – a novel directed against Pushkin and his entourage. He is vindictive towards Pushkin and his friends, towards the woman who rejected him and to whom he is taking revenge by publishing her letter, which, from the point of view of elementary decency, he has no right to…

His main feature – vindictiveness – was brought to absolute embodiment by Pushkin. He kills a friend in cold blood – and no matter how he tries to justify the behavior of his hero by the rules of the duel and the attitude of the world towards them, he is a murderer, it will forever remain on his conscience, and Pushkin predicts these future torments for him. And with this duel, the main idea of the novel, so simple and so important, was brought to absolute embodiment by Pushkin: mediocrity is a talent killer"^[2].            

At the same time, both Onegin's interpretative authors are sure that their interpretation is the only correct one. Minkin because he conducts objective research: attracts scientific knowledge (psychological, for example, assessing Tatiana's love experiences as a borderline, deviant state of her consciousness), knowledge about culture, showing that Pushkin is not talking about serfs, but about poorly educated noblemen, knowledge about Pushkin's personality;  he sets up some kind of experiments (for example, he figures out which way, meeting Onegin, Tatiana could run). And Kozarovetsky, because he just believes in his version.

"When Pushkin," Kozarovetsky explains his position, "started his brilliant game, only a few people knew who the narrator was in the novel. So they lived, read, not understanding how the novel works, and so dozens of generations, hundreds of millions of readers went astray, and thousands of articles and books, hundreds of dissertations were written about the novel. And now the moment of solution has come – and all this is happening before our eyes. Readers (buyers) have a choice... and who has no choice? – Pushkinists and literary critics have no choice. It was their unraveling of the Pushkin hoax that put them in a difficult situation. You either have to admit to many years of mistakes, or continue to live with the feeling that you are living in deception. This is a very difficult choice. I am sometimes told: you're a destroyer. And even my friends tell me this. Yes, I understand, I am a destroyer – but a destroyer of what? The epigraph of my book “The Secret of Pushkin”: “The only creation is the destruction of illusions.” But after all, I also have no choice, because Pushkin bequeathed the answers to his hoaxes to future generations, that is, to us. And if I do not insist on Pushkin's “point”, I will act against Pushkin's will and against my own conscience. So as long as I'm alive, I'm standing on that and I can't do otherwise."^[2]             

It seems that spears are breaking about the understanding of literature, but how does this resemble the current political situation in Russia: supporters and opponents of the special military operation in Ukraine are also absolutely confident in their vision and reality. Reasonable arguments and facts each have their own, in fact, opposite, excluding each other.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to accept both versions of Onegin's reading. If you believe Kozarovetsky, we are facing a hoax, but in this case, it is very unfortunate, because only after two hundred years someone guessed about it, and this someone in his solution of the mystery of Pushkin can not convince others in any way. And the reconstruction of facts for this almost cospirological idea is not proof, but only "the art of interpretation"; as you know, a master with such competence can prove anything. Kozarovetsky owns the art of interpretation perfectly. Reading:

"Minkin undertakes to judge the novel, being himself in the general mainstream of his misunderstanding. As a result, he easily perceives in direct reading – as uttered by Pushkin – the absolute cynicism of Onegin, and then draws to this appearance everything he misunderstood in the text of the novel – in full accordance with his ideas about how Pushkin understood morality, honor and dignity.  "Minkin quotes from the novel:                                

The ardor of the heart torments us early.   

And Chateaubriand says:   

It is not nature that teaches us love,    

And the first dirty novel 

– And summarizes: This confession is not Onegin does, but Pushkin does. No, that's the whole point, that Onegin makes this confession, not Pushkin: this is the narrator's speech. (Read Pushkin's poems; they teach love, not Onegin's confessions.)                                  

So people (I'm the first to repent)

There's nothing to do from friends.

But there is no friendship between us.

All prejudices are destroyed,

We honor everyone with zeros,

And units – themselves.

Minkin: "Pushkin repents, yeah." And Onegin does not repent – aha, and Pushkin does not repent here, this is Onegin's monologue.                                     

 We all look at the Napoleons;

There are millions of bipedal creatures

There is only one weapon for us;

We feel wild and funny.

Minkin: "Note: this is all not Onegin says. This is Pushkin in “Onegine is "talking about himself." Well, yes: so, and the words "Who has lived and thought, he cannot / In his soul not despise people" also "Pushkin ... is talking about himself"?! With what contempt one must treat Pushkin in order to seriously issue such conclusions!" ^[2].            

I can't resist objecting to Kozarovetsky. In my article about Pushkin, I come to conclusions close to those made by Minkin. "Alexander Sergeevich would also have noticed that among the overwhelming stupidity and deceit, which was a common place for Russia at that time, an intelligent person cannot but be cynical and, in part, even duplicitous, but that such behavior is not immorality, but rather a life tactic. In this sense, Pushkin's review of Chatsky is interesting. "In the comedy 'Woe from Wit,'" Pushkin asks, "who is the clever actor? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what a Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with an intelligent man (namely Griboyedov) and imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom is he saying all this? Famusov? A cliffhanger? At a ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? ? It's unforgivable. ”The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with and not to throw beads in front of the Rehearsals." This is exactly what Alexander Sergeevich did: he tried not to tell the unpleasant truth to the person he needed or loved one. In January 1825, he wrote to P.A. Vyazemsky: “Savelov is a big scoundrel. I am sending a friendly letter to him... I am willing to excuse and understand him.

                                        But a smart man

                                       he can't be anything but a cheat!”

    Or here is another letter to my brother (written in 1822) regarding the poetry of his close friend, P.A. Pletnev: “... My opinion is that Pletnev is more decent in prose than poetry ? he has no feeling, no liveliness ? his syllable is pale as a dead man. Bow to him from me (that is, to Pletnev ? not to his syllable) and assure him that he is our Goethe.”

   Pushkin would have added perplexities to these considerations. And what exactly is so unusual about his behavior. Isn't that how everyone lives: in his youth, a person of his circle doesn't think twice, takes everything possible from life, and then, starting from thirty, he settles down, starts a family. In a letter to N. Krivtsov dated February 10, 1831, Pushkin writes: “I am over 30 years old. At thirty, people usually get married ? I act like people, and I probably won't regret it.” And the attitude towards women is ordinary, Alexander Sergeevich would add: and we are not averse and beautiful ladies themselves fly to the fire" ^{[9, p. 114]}.

However, one can also understand Kozarovetsky: history and cultural reality are currently read by many scientists and politicians as conspiracies and transformed forms of consciousness (myths, simulacra, fakes). Secrets and conspiracies are the normal discourse of our time.

But Minkin's explanation, in my opinion, is lame. After all, Pushkin is not a scientist, but a poet. It is important in science to have an object of study and to obtain knowledge about it that claims either truth or a model. And what about Pushkin? Let's take the example Minkin starts with.

That's closer! they jump... and into the yard

Eugene! "Ah!" ? and lighter shadows

Tatiana jumped into the other vestibule,

From the porch to the yard, and straight into the garden,

Flying, flying; take a look back

She doesn't dare; she ran around in a flash

Curtains, bridges, meadow,

The alley to the lake, the forest,

I broke the bushes of sirens,

Through the flower beds flying to the stream

And gasping for breath, on the bench

Fell…

According to Minkin ? this is a physical process three versts long. But Pushkin, as a poet, does not talk about a three-mile cross, but about the state of Tatiana, gripped by the expectation and fear of meeting her lover, this includes physical action, but also as a moment of state. Physical process and state of mind!  "Flies", "does not dare to look", "suffocates", "does not see that he is running through the flowers", "falls on the bench" ? all this is not measured in meters and time, but by living, as the initiator of the humanitarian discourse V. Diltey would specify, "the integrity of life"! And so on throughout the text. Pushkin tells us something about himself, Onegin, Tatiana, immerses us in "artistic reality" ? in the world of events, forcing us to live them, and Minkin interprets these events scientifically as objective facts. By the way, he thinks scientifically about Pushkin's world and the vicissitudes of his life.

With the exception, perhaps, only of the last period, when Pushkin, as I show in the article "Two Lives of Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin", under the influence of Chaadaev, close friends and his own awareness, experienced a real spiritual revolution. He radically revises his former life, assessing it negatively. Decides to change it, abandoning cynicism, cards and seduction of beautiful ladies. Takes on the tasks that Chaadaev pointed out to him.

"The main points of his tactical program," writes Y. Gordin about the last years of Pushkin, "were clear to him back in 1831. To influence the sovereign so that he restricts the bureaucratic aristocracy and puts forward a true aristocracy, an enlightened family nobility with irrevocable hereditary privileges, a nobility that would represent the entire people at the throne and which would limit the autocracy. The sovereign, under the pressure of public opinion, must go to limit his own power. To mobilize public opinion, the intellectual movement of the Russian nobility should be directed accordingly, and its duty should be explained to it" ^{[3, p. 43]}.

It was for this purpose that "Boris Godunov", "The Bronze Horseman", "The Captain's Daughter", "The Story of Pugachev" were written, work was underway on "The Story of Peter" ^{[9, p. 124]}.

As I suppose, one of Chaadaev's letters played an important role in the awareness that prepared the coup. In March-April 1829 Chaadaev wrote to Pushkin:

 "There is no more deplorable spectacle in the spiritual world than a genius who did not understand his age and his vocation. When you see that the person who is supposed to dominate the minds is bowing to the opinion of the crowd, you feel that you yourself are stopping on the way. You ask yourself: why does the person who should show me the way prevent me from going forward? Really, it happens to me every time I think about you, and I think about you so often that I'm tired of it. Give me the opportunity to go forward, I beg you. If you do not have the patience to follow everything that is happening in the world, go deep into yourself and your inner world and find the light that certainly lies in all souls like yours. I am convinced that you can bring endless benefits to the unfortunate, misguided Russia. Do not change your destiny, my friend" ^{[8, pp. 44, 394]}.

Minkin characterizes the last period of Pushkin's life no longer scientifically, but rather as an artist.

"He was changing," Minkin writes, "with terrible speed. From a libertine, a bully, a brawler, a preacher of morality came out.

Oh, a lot of events and persons (for example, Mickiewicz) influenced and changed him. Views are changing and not only political. Views on faith, the tsar and the fatherland. And on yourself

I see in idleness, in frenzied feasts,

In the madness of disastrous freedom,

In captivity, poverty, exile, in the steppes

My lost years.

Memory. 1828

He has already completely left behind all the excesses… I remember how one talker, thinking, of course, to please him, reminded him of one of his biblical poems ("The Gabriel." ? A.M.) and began to read an excerpt from it; Pushkin flushed, such pain was reflected on his face that he understood and fell silent. After Pushkin said how much he would have given to take back some of the poems he wrote in his first frivolous youth. And if immoderate passions still sometimes broke out in him, then his worldview has already changed completely and irrevocably. He was already a deeply religious man.

 M. V. Yuzefovich. Memories of Pushkin.

 Sanctity and the cruelest moral imperative for Pushkin is a reality. He recognizes them unconditionally, although he violates them; man is weak. <…>

Pushkin ? P. A. Pletnev

February 24, 1831. Moscow

I am married—and happy. This state is so new to me that it seems I have been reborn.

... Here is the real plot of "Onegin": from the cheerful carefree debauchery of the First chapter to complete selflessness in the finale" ^[2].

Here I would agree with Minkin: if we talk about the artistic reality of "Eugene Onegin", then yes, one of the storylines of the poem is exactly like that. But only one, there are others. Actually, Pushkin in an artistic form reflects on all the main topics that worried him for 8-10 years, while he was writing his brilliant work. These topics are not revealed directly, as a scientist would describe them in knowledge, but through the events, life and deeds of the heroes.

It is worth returning to the question of who these heroes are, more precisely, who is the narrator in the poem, because through him Pushkin reveals (asks) the events of the artistic reality of "Eugene Onegin". In my opinion, there are four such main narrators ? Pushkin himself (Minkin is close to the truth here), Onegin, Tatiana and a whole crowd of other heroes (Lensky, Tatiana's nanny, etc.). The distribution of roles seems to be like this. Pushkin as a hero-narrator talks about what excites him as a person in life. Onegin makes it possible to understand how Pushkin's life could (should) have gone if a spiritual revolution had not happened to him.  Using the example of Tatiana's fate, Pushkin discusses the problems of Russian spiritual love, as well as the dilemma of love and marriage ("I love you, why lie? / But I am given to another / And I will be faithful to him forever"). The rest of the narrators were given other problems and topics that worried Pushkin.

At the same time, in my opinion, it is important to understand three things. First. The narrators in Pushkin's poem take on other "loads" besides the main one indicated here. Second. They often exchange their paintings and ideas. For example, Pushkin built the artistic reality of the poem in such a way that, being a narrator, he transmits his experiences, distinctions and images to Onegin, and sometimes (especially at the beginning of the poem) the opposite happens. This is achieved through a number of techniques for constructing a poetic form. For example, a poetic text begins with Onegin and then smoothly transitions to Pushkin's impressions; Onegin and Pushkin are placed in one communication space and others. At the same time, the problems and themes that concern Pushkin in the artistic reality of "Eugene Onegin" are presented not in the form of knowledge (and in this regard objectively), but as events of art, i.e. allowing idealization, exaggeration, harmonization, distortion, irony, ridicule, etc.   

XXXV

What about my Onegin? Half asleep

He 's going to bed from the ball:

And Petersburg is restless

Already awakened by the drum.

The merchant gets up, the peddler goes,

A cabman is drawn to the stock exchange,

Ohtenka is in a hurry with a jug,

Morning snow crunches under it.

Woke up in the morning the noise is pleasant.

Shutters are open; pipe smoke

The pillar rises blue,

And the bread maker, the German is neat,

In a paper cap, more than once

He was already opening his vasisdas…

XLV

Conditions of light, overthrowing the burden,

How is he, lagging behind the hustle and bustle,

I became friends with him at that time.

I liked his features,

Involuntary devotion to dreams,

Inimitable strangeness

And a sharp, chilled mind.

I was angry, he was sullen;

We both knew the passion game;

Life tormented both of us;

In both hearts, the heat faded;

Malice awaited both

Blind Fortune and People

In the very morning of our days.

The third. It is important that although the narrators are different, but since they exchange their contents, events filled with life are built. Although formally Onegin says very little, Pushkin speaks for him a lot and intelligently. Although Pushkin is not Onegin, but Onegin's fate threatens Pushkin as well. Although Tatiana loves Onegin, her decision to remain faithful to her husband also concerns Pushkin, because Onegin and Pushkin are narrators who exchange thoughts and experiences.   

            Let's take a closer look at the concept of "narrator" in Pushkin. It is clearly not simple, with a double bottom. For example, in the seventh chapter we read how Tatiana, after the duel and Onegin's departure, came to his house, looked through the books he had read, and gradually began to understand who her lover was.

             XXIV

And starts a little bit

My Tatiana understand

Now it's clearer ? thank God —

The one she sighs for

Condemned by an imperious fate:

A sad and dangerous weirdo,

Creation of hell or heaven,

This angel, this arrogant demon,

What is he? Is it imitation,

An insignificant ghost, or else

Muscovite in Harold's Raincoat,

Interpretation of other people 's quirks,

A full vocabulary of fashionable words?..

Is he a parody?

               XXV

Has she solved the riddle?

Has the word been found?

The clock is running; she forgot,

That they have been waiting for her at home for a long time…

I think Pushkin understood that only a naive reader (he, of course, counted on such, but mainly on "enlightened readers") would take at face value that Onegin's solution (he is just an imitation, a parody of Western culture, a simulacrum) ? Tatiana's merit (although she is smart, she is still not used to serious intellectual work and, according to her upbringing, hardly has a tendency to think about such topics). An enlightened reader will easily understand that it was not Tatiana who deciphered Onegin, but Pushkin. Just as the reader, reading the poem for a long time, realized that Pushkin had drawn him into serious work involving the separation of the characters and the author in different directions, understanding what the author wanted to say through the mouths of his heroes. Pushkin's narrator in Eugene Onegin resembles Proteus: sometimes he speaks for himself, following his character and nature, then on behalf of other narrators, hiding behind their looks and speeches. It is also necessary to understand this poetic masquerade: to separate the author from the heroes, to understand where the author is the author, and where he is the hero and the narrator, where the heroes speak from themselves, and where from Pushkin and what? Having built such an artistic reality, forcing the reader to work, solving the author's constructions, reflecting on his life, Pushkin acted as a real innovator of art.

At the same time, on the one hand, Alexander Sergeevich looked at his life, trying to make sense of it, to understand what was happening to him (Minkin is right here), on the other ? as an artist, imagining and imagining, he created himself and Tatiana and Onegin. The question is, did you work in what direction, what, trying to say and understand? Minkin thinks that in the direction of "from the cheerful carefree debauchery of the First chapter to complete selflessness in the finale," and yours truly ? in the direction of thinking through the evolution and meaning of life (and his, Pushkin's, and other people).

It is worth emphasizing: an enlightened reader is only one type of readers, significantly more "readers of their time" who understand Pushkin, based on their culture and education, following their personality. There are also readers who are confused by this masquerade staged by our great poet and his interpreters (let's remember the end of the second response ? "After this analysis, I began to hate Pushkin's novel. I will never reread it"). And, of course, a lot of people just read and enjoy Pushkin, without turning on their heads.

From the point of view of such an interpretation of "Eugene Onegin", Minkin's version is, of course, preferable to a kind of Kozarovetsky conspiracy theory. The latter replaced Alexander Sergeevich with his own version, which has nothing in common with the work that Pushkin guided the reader to. Minkin realized that it was necessary to focus on Pushkin, but he was let down by the scientific methodology of understanding works of art (which can be seen in his other works, for example, the interpretation of Chekhov's "Cherry Orchard"). Minkin correctly understood that Pushkin presented his life path in Eugene Onegin, but it is unlikely that the interpretation of Onegin as Pushkin's mask was correct. Onegin is Pushkin's life in the given conditions ? as if Pushkin's hedonistic and cynical nature had won, and the spiritual revolution had not occurred. In the real life of our poet, events, however, developed in the opposite way, however, in art the artist is free to recreate and survive any of their course. This allows you to better (sometimes for the first time) understand the nature of life and develop the right attitude to it. And, of course, to live this artistic reality, without which art simply does not exist.