Rated the book
Congratulate me: I read everything 3 "About" Goncharova - “Oblomov”, “An Ordinary Story” and now “The Cliff”! You really should congratulate me, because for the sake of the last achievement I went through thorns - I read “The Cliff” for a month, with difficulty, with laziness, and that’s why the assessment is appropriate. This novel was written over 20 years, and I want to read it just as long. Reading turns you into a mode of measured idleness, spread out in time and space, the main reasons for which are the almost complete absence of a plot (1) and an excessive number of pages (2).
1) The whole plot is that Raisky comes to Malinovka, and “Santa Barbara” begins there. An endless mess involving a dozen characters, each of whom manages to contact everyone, have a long and often meaningless conversation with them, and even fall in love.
2) 850. Yes, not a record. But I read the same “Karamazovs” very quickly and enthusiastically. But the “Cliff” did not end and did not end. This book was like a huge sugary cake in the refrigerator - and you can’t eat it at once and it’s a pity to throw it away. It was as if I had been sucked into a deep cliff, and I could not get out of it. I've already cursed my principle always finish a book and don’t read 2 books at the same time(and realized that all rules exist to be broken).
Probably, it was not so much the principles as the image of Raisky that forced me to read to the end. Where, by the way, severe disappointment awaited me, because... I expected from him significant metamorphoses, a change in life positions, but all I got was another hobby. You see, I myself am very similar to Raisky. Yes, you read this a hundred times a day, they say, “The hero (heroine) and I have so much in common!”, but here I will back it up with arguments. Raisky: an artistic nature, a non-artist, a non-musician, a non-writer, a newly minted sculptor, a connoisseur of female beauty, a “superfluous person.” Me: I tried to write prose (I gave up), I want to learn to play the piano (not being implemented), I love painting (and am too lazy to study it in more detail); in women I see examples of the highest beauty (I didn’t understand what I said, but the feeling is sincere), I’m very amorous, I search for beauty in everyday things, and at the same time, I don’t really do anything, I don’t have anything to do. Well, I teach kids, and that’s all.
Aduev, Oblomov and Raisky are birds of a feather, and each of them appeals to me in their own way. Perhaps, if all three could be combined into one - let's call him Adlomsky - then an ideal/brilliant person would come out, embodying the virtues of each of the three. There is something hidden in the names of the characters: one is from “hell”, the other is “from heaven”, the third is in the middle - but I can’t make out what exactly...
The book didn't go completely unnoticed. Some people believe that the right book falls into their hands at the right time. So, perhaps, it was this book that gave me the idea: like Raisky, go to the village for a month in the summer and try to write a novel (or story). Boris and I even have similar village names: Malinovka and Romanovka (and very close to it there is also Maryanovka), and some intersection of book and, if I may, real realities is still observed. But I was expecting that Raisky and Vera would be together, and if not, that he, having gone through pain and suffering, would find happiness and peace. And he... Got carried away again. And I'm sure that after a while he will get bored again. So, I don’t know whether to copy such a trip (which I was thinking about even before reading), and I’ll make a decision closer to the summer.
I am to a large extent angry with this book - it discourages the desire to read in general, to read any literature, dragging you into the abyss of psychological battles and fitting you into the slow course of Malinov’s life. During this month, due to the fault of The Precipice, I, as you can see, have almost forgotten how to write good reviews. Yes, and I feel sorry for you! You have just read 850 pages of tedious prose, and now you are also forced to read an equally sluggish long review... Therefore, let's wrap it up!
It would be better if, instead of 20 years of poring over “The Cliff,” Goncharov wrote on the heels of other novels, something like: “Deception,” “Collapse,” “Cloud,” “Resentment” or “Resident Evil.”
Rated the book
And behind them stood and attracted him more strongly to her - another, gigantic figure, another great “grandmother” - Russia.
Discovery novel. There aren't even words. Now I’ll try to put my thoughts together, and you, dear readers of my review, will help me with this, right? All I can say for sure is that “The Cliff” is an unconditional five stars! Well, or with the new 10 points system. So, let's start the analysis.
The main character... And who is the main character here? We feel like the central character Raisky precisely because we see what is happening through his eyes, his perception of the past. But Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov wonderfully able to reveal ALL characters. Every line, every character, portrait is drawn out amazingly clearly, starting from Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova and ending with the servant Yegorka. Each character, even if he is ten-degree, is complete, and not one of these sketches made the plot more overloaded or heavier. This is not just talent, this is genius!!!
Paradise - a man of feelings and passions. Of course, as it turned out, these passions were seething at every step and in the souls of a good half of the heroes, but, as is the case in real life, at first glance everything is covered up, everything is orderly. As soon as Raisky reveals his tossing to the reader from the first pages. Who is he? Painter, writer, sculptor, performer... Little by little of everything. There are many people like Boris in the world, passionate, lively, sincere, who still don’t understand why it takes years to draw busts at the Academy instead of immediately creating a masterpiece of the century. It’s impossible not to sympathize with Raisky, how It is impossible to turn away from a person into whose soul you were able to look.
Goncharov was generally able to make me sympathize and empathize with each character. And not even because I found myself in someone. Not at all. Although often this is what incites us to unite with a book character. In the case of “The Precipice,” the secret of empathy is that Goncharov managed to capture the soul of each character and show it to the reader. But if you understand, then you are already half in love.
Mark Volokhov, this is one of the central characters that could cause my indignation, because the most striking feature of his everyday relationships is precisely what I dislike most in people. Namely, demonstrative ostentatious impudence. We see her immediately, before Mark himself, even from Leonty’s letter. And it’s impossible not to be indignant: after all, he just like that, without the slightest reason, tears up books from Raisky’s luxurious library! May the inhabitants of livelib understand me and my anger. Mark prefers to drive through the window rather than enter the door, to steal rather than to take what is offered... A kind of a rebel, a freethinker, a revolutionary who openly despises servility, bribery, and exploitation. However, in this, Boris Raisky is his friend and comrade (it’s worth remembering his conversations with Belovodova, for example).
Women's images in the novel are endlessly pleasant and surprising. Grandmother - Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova, a stalwart noblewoman, a little despotic, but so fair, pliable, wise... Well, how can you not love her? And after all, with all her noble behavior, she also turned out to be a lady not without passions in her heart.
Marfenka and Vera. Two sisters, but how different they are, huh? Marfenka is pure, open, simple-minded, and Vera is “with ideas”, on her own mind, a kind of woman of the modern era, who not only wanted to live by her own mind, but also managed to put it into practice. Marfenka, a bright angel, created for family comfort and warmth, is capable of bringing people exceptional joy, but she is not the guiding star of a creative person. Who is closer to me personally? Hard to tell. I can't say that I see myself in one or the other. No. But you know, against the backdrop of fatigue from common problems in my own life, I would now prefer to be Marfenka and no dramas from Vera.
Tushin Ivan Ivanovich. What can I say? I fell in love! Well, can there be flaws in someone you are in love with?)) Are you smiling? Did the joke go wrong? Well, maybe it’s in vain, after all, he is a real man, and the only one of the primary “male” heroes who did not behave unreasonably or incorrectly, following the lead of weakness. (Yes, I remember how the moral lesson Boris taught ended Ulenka. The situation was terrible, in my opinion.)
The central story of all-consuming passion (I’m not naming names for the sake of intrigue) can be approached in different ways. Was it worth the heroine to enter into this relationship? What do they give, is it just a destructive force that burns from the inside? Or maybe this is fertile ground for something new? And without this passion and struggle with oneself and the world there could be no further development? You can guess about all this, because for each of the readers the answers will be different, we all feel and experience each scene of the novel in our own way.
The worst thing is that my review goes beyond the boundaries of reasonable length, and I really want to talk more and about Kozlov and his wife, Polina Karpovna, about Tita Nikonich, about Marina and Saveliy, about Vikentiev, about Tychkov... This is where what I wrote at the beginning is manifested: even heroes far from the central line ask for review , because they are bright.
I still can’t help but remember one sweet event. She giggled all the time when Raisky, with his vacillations to leave or stay, almost every thirty to forty pages ordered Yegorka to prepare a suitcase from the attic for departure. Poor Yegorka!
In total, we have an interesting, twisted plot with secrets, betrayals, intrigues, written in a lively, beautiful language with very subtle humor. Brilliant! I haven't felt THIS excited about a book in a long time.
And how nice it is that this is OUR, Russian classic!
Rated the book
For a long time, Goncharov remained for me only the author of " Oblomov" - a novel that during my school years seemed to me inexpressibly boring and therefore unread; the trace of this rejection was semi-automatically transferred to the entire work of the author. And therefore, although I knew about " Precipice", and about " Frigate "Pallada""yes and oh" Ordinary history"I knew too, but I haven't read any of these books. True" Oblomov“Several years ago I finally mastered it, and to my sincere amazement, the novel as a whole made a completely satisfactory impression on me. In general, having recently caught myself trying to patch up holes and tears in the reader’s caftan, I was the first” patch"precisely planned" Break“- my choice was not determined by anything special, I just had to start somewhere...
Over the past few years, I have read quite a large number of classical books. And many of them seemed to me interesting and meaningful and topical and so on. But almost all of them were read with a cold heart - in the sense that all my reading experiences were mainly of a mental, rational nature. But here's the reading" Cliff“pulled me out of the calm channel - and my heart beat tremblingly impulsively and with the grace of a ping-pong ball, and my fists passionately shook my own knees, and a couple of times the bitter-salty treacherous moisture rolled out unbidden, forcing me to secretly turn my face to the wall so that next living and present people did not rush in with questions - what and how... I don’t know why, but the story of the awkward diagonal-cross love of the tetrahedron of the main characters - Vera, Ivan Ivanovich Tushin, Mark Volokhov and Boris Raisky was powerfully and enthusiastically hooked, and the experiences of others no less than the main characters of this novel also became both the occasion and cause of almost cataclysmic movements of the soul.
Having poured out the full force of your emotional response to what you read in the previous paragraph, you can now try to approach this wonderful book more evenly and calmly. The first thing that struck my consciousness was the almost psychodiagnostic accuracy of the portraits created by the genius of Goncharov. Already from the first descriptions of the behavior and actions of Boris Raisky, we clearly and expressively see not just a psychotype, but a separate Personality - first maturing in a boy and a teenager, and then in a young man. And all the other characters in the novel, who are not at all secondary or non-main characters, were also created by the authors with filigree skill and scrupulous accuracy. Not a single action or phrase of any of the characters in the book falls outside the limits of reliability and psychological conditioning - all these phrases, views and beliefs, actions, and type of activity, everything fits exactly into the external situation and social features of that time, and the main trends of the conditions proposed by Goncharov. Probably the whole greatness of this novel lies in its acute social topicality, in the fact that the author highlighted the main and most disturbing phenomena and trends for the Russian public of those years and decades...
To describe something based on the characters and their actions means repeating what was written by previous readers and reviewers - many of them wrote everything that I could write (if I had enough words, because many wrote both accurately and beautifully and juicily), so I’ll just express my THANKS to all those who also highly appreciated this book!
Well, now it's time to " An ordinary story“, and then there’s other Goncharov stuff...
Boris Pavlovich Raisky, 35 years old, talks in his St. Petersburg apartment with Ivan Ivanovich Ayanov, a 40-year-old official. Friends are going to visit Sofya Nikolaevna Belovodova, Raisky’s second cousin.
Belovodova is a 24-year-old widow. Her mother died before her daughter’s marriage, and her father spent his fortune on women. Sophia lives with two rich aunts who love to play cards with Ayanov while Raisky talks with his cousin.
Raisky is bored. He observes the deep calm of his cousin, like a painting or a statue, and wants to understand whether she has feelings and passions. Boris persuades Sophia to live not according to the rules of her ancestors, but to live her own life, to love, to suffer. Raisky wants to paint a portrait of Sophia, and he is also planning a serious matter - writing a novel.
Raisky has been living in St. Petersburg for about 10 years. He is a retired college secretary. Raisky left his service as soon as he entered it. He was raised by a guardian. At school he loved to read and draw, he loved music, but he played it not from notebooks, but by ear. A German teacher characterizes him this way: “his abilities are amazing, but his laziness is even more amazing.”
After entering the university, Raisky went on vacation to his great-aunt Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova. The grandmother managed the estate of Raisky’s parents in the village of Malinovka near the Volga and raised her orphaned cousins, 6 and 5 years old, Verochka and Marfinka. Next to her parents’ old house, her grandmother ordered a new one to be built, in which she and Marfinka lived. Vera lived alone in an old house.
Raisky is hospitably greeted and treated like a host. Boris seemed to have a mother, sisters, and a kind uncle. This uncle is grandmother’s friend Vatutin Tit Nilych. He is a retired military man who bought a house in the city. There was a rumor that in their youth, grandmother and Vatutin loved each other, but they wanted to marry her off to someone else, which is why she remained an old girl.
Boris is attracted by the cliff above the Volga, from which a beautiful view opens. During the life of his parents, the jealous man killed his wife and lover on this cliff, and then stabbed himself to death and was buried right there. There is a gazebo below, now abandoned.
After staying there, Raisky returned to the university. It was difficult for him to study because he could not reason about anything, but saw images. He became close to the poor man Leonty Kozlov, the son of a deacon, who knew Greek and Latin and introduced Raisky to ancient authors. Raisky began writing poetry and prose.
After graduating from the university, Raisky entered the ranks of a cadet. He lived like all the “golden youth”. Then he applied for a transfer to the civil service, but did not stay there long either and began going to the art academy, but rarely attended classes. Six months later he painted “Hector’s Farewell to Andromache.” The professors appreciated the artist’s talent, but advised him to study for another 3 years, and Raisky wanted immediate fame.
Raisky switched to the novel. He rereads and edits several autobiographical chapters of his future novel. It describes how Natasha, who fell in love with Raisky two years ago, dies. He became bored with her devotion and did not marry. Raisky began to sketch out the beginning of a new novel.
Raisky decided to complete the portrait of Sophia. Ayanov thought the portrait was too revealing, and the artist Kirilov didn’t like the portrait either: one arm is shorter than the other. Kirilov proposes to draw a praying figure and turn the portrait into a harlot.
Boris brings the portrait to Sophia and declares his love to her. Sophia believes that the portrait embellishes the original and offers friendship. Raisky suspects that she is in love with the Italian Count Milari. As soon as Sophia rejects Raisky, his passion fades away.
Part two
At the request of his grandmother, Raisky comes to his Malinovka estate for the summer. He is not interested in accounts and management reports; he admits that he tore them up in St. Petersburg. Boris wants to give the estate to his sisters Marfinka and Verochka. The grandmother does not agree, the girls have their own dowry, but, in the end, she undertakes to manage the estate further, fearing that Raisky will pawn it or sell it. Under her management, the estate is in complete order.
Raisky meets with Marfinka, a blond, plump, cheerful girl of about 20. Vera is with a priest friend across the Volga.
Raisky examines the city, which seems to him like a cemetery or desert. The city is a good setting for his future novel. Marfinka may become the center of the novel, but there is not enough passion: Marfinka is obedient to her grandmother and fearful, she did not go to the cliff with Raisky.
In the city, Raisky finds a student friend, Leonty Kozlov, a gymnasium teacher. Leonty is immersed in ancient books. Raisky helped him settle in a city near his estate and transferred books from his library to his care. In the letter, Kozlov wrote that several books were damaged by Mark Volokhov. Leonty compiled a catalog of library books from the Raisky estate. Later it turns out that Vera helped him. Raisky gives Kozlov his library and reproaches him for being out of touch with life.
Ugly Kozlov is married to Ulinka, the daughter of the steward of a government institution, where the students dined. Ulinka is still very good, her head reminds Kozlov of an antique statue. 5 years after graduation, Leonty took her from Moscow from her aunt, where she ended up after the death of her father and was seriously ill. Later, Ulyana admits to Raisky that she does not love Kozlov, she got married only because he called.
The grandmother believes that her grandson got away with it and that fate will punish him. Boris and Tatyana Markovna reach a truce and decide that everyone will live as they please. From Raisky’s point of view, the grandmother is torn between common sense and legends.
Marfinka is a happy child under her grandmother’s protection. Raisky wants to awaken passion in her, but he fails. Marfinka does not understand his hints, but she is excited and embarrassed by his conversations, and does not even say anything to her grandmother. Raisky draws a portrait of Marfinka and corrects the essay about Natasha in order to insert it into the novel.
On the estate, Raisky observes a drama: the peasant Savely punishes his wife Marina for fornication. The grandmother admits that the servants are all sinners, but Marina is especially promiscuous in her relationships. Passion for love adventures also happens among landowners. Grandmother's guest Polina Karpovna Kritskaya, a widow, likes someone to be in love with her, she flirts with all the young people, with Raisky, but she doesn't go beyond words.
Raisky meets Mark Volokhov, whom he found climbing into the window of Leonty Kozlov. Mark is inclined to break traditions and even the law. Boris invites Mark to have dinner at his grandmother's. In the conversation, Mark calls Raisky a loser.
Raisky is overcome by boredom. Vera comes from the priest. The sisters are as different as day and night. Raisky leaves Marfinka, who has shown no hope of transforming from a child into a woman, and watches the dark-haired beauty Vera. He is indifferent to everything except beauty.
The landowner Vikentyev, 23 years old, Marfinka’s friend, comes to visit. They suit each other very well: lively and cheerful. Other guests arrive, each with their own character and story.
Raisky is bored. He draws the servants, goes to the city, visits Kozlov, but finds his wife with her lover. From there he goes to Mark Volokhov. Mark makes a bet with Paradise that in 2 weeks Boris will fall in love.
Vera avoids Raisky. He can't stop thinking about her. They explain themselves. Vera says that if she doesn’t feel free, she will leave. Raisky wonders who emancipated her. Raisky and Vera agree on friendship.
Part three
In order not to think about Vera, Raisky is engaged in imaginary activities: he goes to the fields, promises to go with his grandmother on visits. Guests arrive on Sunday. Nil Andreevich Tychkov (a well-known person in the city, chairman of the chamber, an example of morality) laughed rudely at Kritskaya. Raisky accuses him of insulting a woman and recalls the old story of how Tychkov once robbed his own niece and locked him in an insane asylum. Tatyana Markovna kicked out Nil Andreevich. Raisky, delighted with her act, kisses her.
Tychkov's authority has been undermined. His grandmother respected him for 40 years and kicked him out one day. Raisky draws a portrait of his grandmother. His relationship with Vera is improving. She is calmly indifferent to him, but allows him to talk to her.
A month has passed since the bet was made. Raisky is eager to leave. When he comes to say goodbye to Leonty, he finds Mark with him. Mark teases him that he won't finish the novel because he's a loser, and that he's in love.
Raisky asks Vera to show the letter she is reading. Boris suspects that Vera hid the letter on blue paper. Raisky, who thought that his feelings for Vera had subsided, is jealous of Vera for the author of the letter.
Raisky is forced to paint a portrait of Kritskaya and drives her to exhaustion. He wants to find out from Vera who the letter is from. Vera announces that she loves someone else.
Raisky, at the request of Mark, who, living in the city under police surveillance, gave him forbidden books to read, takes the blame upon himself and goes to explain himself to the governor.
Vera leaves again for the priest. Paradise is lonely. He asks his grandmother who Vera might be in love with. Grandmother assumes that he is a forester. This is the nickname of the landowner Ivan Ivanovich Tushin, with whom Vera is friends. Tushin has a steam saw factory, he sells timber and lives in its thicket with his sister.
Raisky spends a lot of time with Kritskaya, there is even a rumor in the city that he is in love. Boris comes to Kozlov to reason with his wife, who is constantly cheating on her husband. His persuasion ends in a love scene. Raisky is amazed by his own lack of will.
Vera admits to Raisky that her hero is not Tushin. To protect her, her grandmother orders a moral novel to be read aloud. After reading it, Vikentyev makes an offer to Marfinka, which she tells her grandmother about. The next day, Vikentyev’s mother arrived and the matchmaking ceremony took place.
Preparations for the wedding are underway in the house. Raisky talks to Vera. She believes that he does not love her, but is carried away by her, as he was carried away by other women.
Raisky, walking in the garden, is mistaken by Vera for someone else. This is how he finds out about Vera’s upcoming date. But he doesn’t know that this is a date with Mark, whom Vera met last summer when he was stealing apples from her garden.
Part four
Vera met Mark in an old gazebo. They have very different views on life, although they love each other. Vera asks not to give prohibited books to young people, to be quiet. Mark accuses her of wanting to get married, and he is looking for a comrade in her. They decide to break up.
Vera was unable to break off her relationship with Mark. She again leaves for the Volga to the priest. From there, Raisky receives friendly or mocking letters. As it turned out later, Vera and the priest wrote them one by one as a joke. One of the notes called on Raisky to help someone in need. Raisky sent him 220 rubles. Subsequently, it turned out that Vera did not know anything about this note; it was written by Mark, who already owed Raisky 80 rubles and threatened that he would not give them back.
Kozlov fell ill, and his wife and Frenchman Charles left him. The grandmother offers to take Leonty to her place.
Raisky receives a letter from Ayanov, from which he learns that Sophia was compromised by a note to Count Milari, and the Count himself emigrated to Paris, where he, it turns out, has a fiancee-cousin.
Raisky is saddened by Vera's departure, but suddenly she appears when he is pining over a cliff. She doesn't look like herself. She says passion changed her. When asked who she loves, Vera replies that Raisky. He doesn't believe her, he thinks she's crazy. Vera asks Raisky to help her: to hold her by force, not to let her go onto the cliff.
Vera, hearing the shot (conventional signal), ran to the cliff. Raisky detained her, but she begged “for Christ’s sake” for 5 minutes.
Vera and Mark in the gazebo decide to part forever. Vera insists that love is not an animal attraction, but a duty; Mark does not promise eternal love and is not going to get married. All year Vera wanted to influence Mark, but did not achieve her goal. Mark, although he overcame Vera’s heart, did not overpower his mind and will. When parting, Mark warns that if Vera turns around, she will be his. Vera turned around and shouted: “Mark, goodbye!”
Raisky waited for Vera until 11. He is in despair: for 5 months their relationship has not been defined. Raisky decides to spy on who Vera’s chosen one is. When Raisky found out everything, he was furious. He rudely pushes Kritskaya away in the garden, who was looking for a date with him, and waits until the morning for Vera to look into her eyes. Arriving home, Vera collapses.
Part five
Vera forgives Raisky for his ignoble act, tells the story of her relationship with Mark and asks him to pass everything on to his grandmother. The grandmother pretends not to notice anything, but she feels that Vera is in great grief and tells Raisky about this.
Vera finds the strength to go out to the guests who came for Marfinka’s name day. In the garden, Tushin proposes to her, but Vera, thinking that he has found out everything, hurries to tell him about her fall.
Marfinka leaves to visit the groom's mother. Raisky tells his grandmother about Vera and Mark. Grandmother wanders through the fields like crazy for three days. On the third day she becomes seriously ill. The servants make vows in the hope of her recovery. The devout Savely promises to light a large gilded candle, and Varvara promises to go on foot to Kyiv. She was later released from her vow by a priest.
Raisky is amazed by the greatness of his grandmother’s personality. On the same day that her grandmother fell ill, Vera began to develop a fever and delirium. Hearing that Vera is sick, her grandmother goes to her, takes care of her and forgives her. Faith is confessed to grandmother.
Marfinka's name day passed quietly. Grandmother is affectionate with Vera and spends the night with her. Having gone to the city, Tatyana Markovna talked about something with Vatutin, after which he hastily left for his village. Grandma wants to confess her sin to Vera, but Vera dissuades her. Grandma accepts this as God's forgiveness. She takes Vera to her house.
Faith finds joy in work. Marfinka, having returned for a short while and succumbing to general sadness, leaves again for the groom’s estate in Kolchino before the wedding, scheduled for October. Raisky went to pick up Titus Nilych, who happily returned to his home in the city.
Vera received a second letter from Mark. She read it along with the first one, which came earlier, the day after the last date. Mark writes that he is ready to get married and asks for a meeting. Vera began to trust people. She decides to let Tushin, whom she asks in a letter, to come, and her grandmother into everything, showing her Mark’s letters. The grandmother orders the destruction of the gazebo - the meeting place. Tushin gives Mark Vera’s note about the breakup. Mark reluctantly promises to leave. Suddenly he realizes that Vera’s cry at the foot of the mountain was not a call, but a cry for help. Soon Kozlov brings the news that Mark Volokhov is going to his aunt in the Novgorod province, and then wants to ask to become a cadet and go to the Caucasus.
Raisky stayed with Tushin, a wonderful host, for a week, but was suddenly called by his grandmother on urgent business. Tushin is traveling with Raisky.
The grandmother told Boris that Tychkov and Kritskaya spread a rumor about Vera’s relationship with either Raisky or Tushin. Tushin is ready to say that he asked for marriage and was refused, so Vera and Grandma were upset, they even got sick. Tushin wants to marry Vera, but his grandmother advises him to wait with the proposal until Vera recovers.
Raisky tells Kritskaya that he saw Tushin propose to Vera on a cliff, but she refused and told her to wait a year. Raisky learns about his grandmother's love story, which happened 40 years ago. Her date with Vatutin in the greenhouse was discovered by the count who wooed her. Tit Nilych almost killed him for slapping him in the face. They agreed that the count would remain silent about what happened, and Vatutin would not marry Tatyana Markovna. The gardener witnessed this drama. His wife found out about what happened from him, and she is spreading gossip now, 40 years later.
Marfinka's wedding was modest, only 50 guests. The estate was empty: Marfinka went to her husband, grandmother and Vera went to their grandmother’s estate Novoselovo, while Tushin hired an architect to restore the old house in Malinovka; Kozlov returned home. In winter, grandmother and Vera are going to invite Titus Nilych to stay. Raisky completed portraits of Vera and grandmother. The city is gossiping about the upcoming wedding of Vera and Tushin, but Vera knows nothing about it.
Raisky begins his novel about Vera, but things do not go beyond the epigraph and dedication. He is obsessed with a new idea - to go to Italy to “sculpt”. In January, Raisky leaves with Kirilov for Dresden, then to England and Paris, and in the spring to Switzerland and Italy. From everywhere he is drawn home, to Vera, Marfinka and grandmother. Behind these figures there is another “grandmother” – Russia.
- “Breakage”, analysis of Goncharov’s novel
- “Oblomov”, a summary of the chapters of Goncharov’s novel
- “An Ordinary Story”, a summary of the chapters of Goncharov’s novel
Goncharov’s novel “The Precipice” is the third and final part of the famous trilogy, which also includes the books “Ordinary History” and “Oblomov”. In this work, the author continued his polemic with the views of the socialists of the sixties. The writer was worried about the desire of some people to forget about duty, love and affection, to leave their family and go to a commune for the sake of a bright future for all humanity. Such stories happened often in the 1860s. Goncharov's novel "screams" about the severance of primordial ties by nihilists, which in no case should be forgotten. The history of creation and a brief summary of this work will be discussed in this article.
Concept
Goncharov's novel "The Cliff" took almost twenty years to create. The idea for the book came to the writer in 1849, when he once again visited his native Simbirsk. There, childhood memories came flooding back to Ivan Alexandrovich. He wanted to make the Volga landscapes dear to his heart the setting for the new work. This is how the creation story began. Goncharov's "break", meanwhile, has not yet been embodied on paper. In 1862, Ivan Alexandrovich had the opportunity to meet an interesting person on a ship. He was an artist - an ardent and expansive nature. He easily changed his life plans and was forever in captivity of his creative fantasies. But this did not stop him from feeling the grief of others and providing help at the right time. After this meeting, Goncharov had the idea to create a novel about the artist and his artistic complex nature. So, gradually the plot of the famous work arose on the picturesque banks of the Volga.
Publications
Goncharov periodically brought to the attention of readers individual episodes from the unfinished novel. In 1860, a fragment of the work entitled “Sofya Nikolaevna Belovodova” was published in Sovremennik. And a year later, two more chapters from Goncharov’s novel “The Precipice” appeared in “Notes of the Fatherland” - “Portrait” and “Grandmother”. The work underwent final stylistic revision in France in 1868. The full version of the novel was published the following year, 1869, in the journal Vestnik Evropy. A separate edition of the work was published within a few months. Goncharov often called “The Precipice” the favorite child of his imagination and gave it a special place in his literary work.
The image of Raisky
Goncharov's novel "The Cliff" begins with the characteristics of the main character of the work. This is Raisky Boris Pavlovich - a nobleman from a wealthy aristocratic family. He lives in St. Petersburg, while his estate is managed by Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova (a distant relative). The young man graduated from the university, tried himself in military and civil service, but was disappointed everywhere. At the very beginning of Goncharov’s novel “The Cliff,” Raisky is in his early thirties. Despite his decent age, he “has not yet sown or reaped anything.” Boris Pavlovich leads a carefree life, not fulfilling any responsibilities. However, he is naturally endowed with a “divine spark.” He has extraordinary talent as an artist. Raisky, contrary to the advice of his relatives, decides to devote himself entirely to art. However, banal laziness prevents him from self-realization. Possessing a lively, active and impressionable nature, Boris Pavlovich strives to kindle serious passions around himself. For example, he dreams of “awakening life” in his distant relative, the socialite beauty Sofya Belovodova. He devotes all his leisure time in St. Petersburg to this activity.
Sofia Belovodova
This young lady is the personification of a woman-statue. Despite the fact that she has already been married, she does not know life at all. The woman grew up in a luxurious mansion, its marble solemnity reminiscent of a cemetery. Secular upbringing drowned out “feminine instincts of feeling” in her. She is cold, beautiful and submissive to her fate - to keep up appearances and find herself the next worthy match. To kindle passion in this woman is Raisky’s cherished dream. He paints her portrait and has long conversations with her about life and literature. However, Sophia remains cold and unapproachable. In her face, Ivan Goncharov paints the image of a soul crippled by the influence of light. “The Break” shows how sad it is when the natural “decrees of the heart” are sacrificed to generally accepted conventions. Raisky’s artistic attempts to revive the marble statue and add a “thinking face” to it fail miserably.
Provincial Rus'
In the first part of the novel, Goncharov introduces the reader to another place of action. “The Cliff,” a brief summary of which is described in this article, paints a picture of provincial Rus'. When Boris Pavlovich comes to his native village of Malinovka for the holidays, he meets his relative there, Tatyana Markovna, whom everyone for some reason calls grandma. In fact, she is a lively and very beautiful woman of about fifty. She runs all the affairs of the estate and raises two orphan girls: Vera and Marfenka. Here the reader first encounters the concept of “cliff” in its literal meaning. According to local legend, at the bottom of a huge ravine located not far from the estate, a jealous husband once killed his wife and rival, and then stabbed himself to death. The suicide seemed to have been buried at the crime scene. Everyone is afraid to visit this place.
Going to Malinovka for the second time, Raisky fears that “people don’t live there, people grow” and there is no movement of thought. And he is wrong. It is in provincial Rus' that he finds violent passions and real dramas.
Life and love
The doctrines of the nihilists fashionable in the 1960s are challenged by Goncharov’s “Cliff.” An analysis of the work shows that even in the construction of the novel this polemic can be traced. It is common knowledge that, from the socialist point of view, the world is ruled by class struggle. With the images of Polina Karpova, Marina, and Ulyana Kozlova, the author proves that life is driven by love. It is not always prosperous and fair. A sedate man Savely falls in love with the dissolute Marina. And the serious and correct Leonty Kozlov is crazy about his empty wife Ulyana. The teacher inadvertently tells Raisky that everything necessary for life is in books. And he is wrong. Wisdom is also passed down from the older generation to the younger. And to see it means to understand that the world is much more complex than it seems at first glance. This is what Raisky does throughout the novel: he finds extraordinary mysteries in the lives of the people closest to him.
Marfenka
Goncharov introduces the reader to two completely different heroines. “The Precipice,” the brief summary of which, although it gives an idea of the novel, does not allow us to fully experience the depth of the work, first introduces us to Marfenka. This girl is distinguished by her simplicity and childish spontaneity. It seems to Boris Pavlovich to be woven from “flowers, rays, warmth and colors of spring.” Marfenka loves children very much and impatiently prepares herself for the joy of motherhood. Perhaps her circle of interests is narrow, but not at all as closed as the “canary” world of Sofia Belovodova. She knows a lot of things that her older brother Boris cannot: how to grow rye and oats, how much forest is needed to build a hut. In the end, Raisky realizes that “developing” this happy and wise creature is pointless and even cruel. His grandmother also warns him about this.
Faith
Faith is a completely different type of female nature. This is a girl with progressive views, uncompromising, determined, searching. Goncharov diligently prepares the appearance of this heroine. At first, Boris Pavlovich only hears reviews about her. Everyone portrays Vera as an extraordinary person: she lives alone in an abandoned house and is not afraid to go down into the “terrible” ravine. Even her appearance is fraught with mystery. There is no classical severity of lines and “cold radiance” of Sophia in it, there is no childish breath of freshness of Marfenka, but there is some kind of secret, “unspoken charm.” Raisky's attempts to penetrate Vera's soul as a relative are met with rebuff. “Beauty also has the right to respect and freedom,” says the girl.
Grandmother and Russia
In the third part of the work, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov focuses all the reader’s attention on the image of the grandmother. “The Break” portrays Tatyana Markovna as an apostolically convinced guardian of the foundations of the old society. She is the most important link in the ideological development of the novel's action. In his grandmother, the writer reflected the powerful, strong, conservative part of Rus'. All her shortcomings are typical for people of the same generation as her. If we discard them, then the reader is presented with a “loving and tender” woman, happily and wisely ruling the “small kingdom” - the village of Malinovka. It is here that Goncharov sees the embodiment of earthly paradise. No one sits idle on the estate, and everyone gets what they need. However, everyone has to pay for their mistakes on their own. Such a fate, for example, awaits Savely, whom Tatyana Markovna allows to marry Marina. Reckoning over time also comes to Vera.
A very funny episode is in which the grandmother, in order to warn her pupils against disobeying their parents, takes out a moralizing novel and arranges an edifying reading session for all members of the household. After this, even the submissive Marfenka shows self-will and explains herself to her longtime admirer Vikentyev. Tatyana Markovna later notices that what she warned her young people against, they did at that very moment in the garden. The grandmother is self-critical and laughs at her clumsy educational methods: “These old customs are not suitable everywhere!”
Fans of Vera
Throughout the novel, Boris Pavlovich collects and disassembles his travel suitcase several times. And every time curiosity and wounded pride stop him. He wants to unravel the mystery of Vera. Who is her chosen one? It could be her longtime admirer, Tushin Ivan Ivanovich. He is a successful timber merchant, a business man, personifying the “new” Russia according to Goncharov. On his Dymki estate, he built a nursery and a school for ordinary children, established a short working day, and so on. Among his peasants, Ivan Ivanovich himself is the first worker. Over time, Raisky also understands the significance of this figure.
However, as the reader learns from the third part of the novel, the apostle of nihilistic morality Mark Volokhov becomes the chosen one of the Faith. In the town they say terrible things about him: he enters the house only through the window, never pays off debts and is going to hound the police chief with his dogs. The best traits of his nature are independence, pride and affection for his friends. Nihilistic views seem to Goncharov incompatible with the realities of Russian life. The author is repulsed in Volokhov by the mockery of old customs, defiant behavior and preaching of free sexual relations.
Boris Pavlovich, on the contrary, is very attracted to this man. In the dialogues of the characters, a certain commonality can be traced. The idealist and the materialist are equally far from reality, only Raisky declares himself above it, and Volokhov tries to go as “lower” as possible. He lowers himself and his potential lover to a natural, animal existence. There is something bestial in Mark’s very appearance. Goncharov in “The Precipice” shows that Volokhov reminds him of a gray wolf.
Fall of Faith
This moment is the culmination of the fourth part, and indeed the entire novel as a whole. Here the “cliff” symbolizes sin, the bottom, hell. First, Vera asks that Raisky not let her into the ravine if he hears a shot from there. But then she begins to struggle in his arms and, promising that this date with Mark will be her last, breaks free and runs away. She's not lying at all. The decision to leave is absolutely right and true, the lovers have no future, but when leaving, Vera turns around and remains with Volokhov. Goncharov depicted something that the strict novel of the 19th century did not yet know - the fall of his beloved heroine.
Enlightenment of heroes
In the fifth part, the author shows the rise of Vera from the “cliff” of new, nihilistic values. Tatyana Markovna helps her with this. She understands that her granddaughter’s sin can only be atone for by repentance. And the “grandmother’s journey with the burden of misfortune” begins. It’s not just Vera she’s worried about. She is afraid that along with the happiness and peace of her granddaughter, life and prosperity will leave Malinovka. All participants in the novel, witnesses to the events, go through the cleansing fire of suffering. Tatyana Markovna eventually confesses to her granddaughter that in her youth she committed the same sin and did not repent before God. She believes that now Vera should become a “grandmother”, manage Malinovka and devote herself to people. Tushin, sacrificing his own pride, goes to meet Volokhov and informs him that the girl no longer wants to see him. Mark begins to understand the depth of his delusions. He returns to military service in order to then transfer to the Caucasus. Raisky decides to devote himself to sculpture. He feels the strength of a great artist and thinks to develop his abilities. Vera begins to come to her senses and understand the real value of the feelings that Tushin feels for her. At the end of the story, each hero of the novel gets a chance to change his destiny and start a new life.
Goncharov painted a true picture of the views and morals of noble Russia in the mid-19th century in his novel “The Cliff.” Reviews from literary critics indicate that the writer has created a real masterpiece of Russian realistic prose. The author's reflections on the transitory and the eternal are relevant today. Everyone should read this novel in the original. Happy reading!
On January 1, 1867, Goncharov was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir, 3rd degree, “for excellent and diligent service.” However, this award, in essence, summed up the writer’s career. Obviously, he informed his superiors in advance that he was going to resign in 1867. In addition to the order, his retirement was also marked by a four-month vacation abroad, which the novelist desperately needed to complete The Precipice. “The Precipice” is Goncharov’s last novel, completing his novel trilogy. It was published in 1869 on the pages of the magazine “Bulletin of Europe”, where it was published from January to May in every issue. When “The Precipice” was actively being written, Goncharov was already over 50 years old. And when I finished it, I was already 56. The last novel is marked by an unusual height of ideas, even for Goncharov, and an unusual breadth of problems. The novelist was in a hurry to pour out in the novel everything that he had experienced and changed his mind during his life. "The Precipice" was to become his main novel. The writer, obviously, sincerely believed that his best novel should now come out from his pen, which would put him on the pedestal of the first novelist in Russia. Although the best novel in terms of artistic execution and plastic intuition, Oblomov, was already behind us.
The idea for the novel arose back in the late 1840s in his native Simbirsk; Goncharov was 37 years old at that time. “Here,” he reported in the article “Better late than never,” “old familiar faces rushed towards me in a crowd, I saw the patriarchal life that had not yet revived and together new shoots, a mixture of young and old. Gardens, the Volga, the cliffs of the Volga region, native air, childhood memories - all this got into my head and almost prevented me from finishing “Oblomov”... I took away the new novel, took it around the world and in the program, carelessly written on scraps...” Goncharov wanted to finish almost the novel “Oblomov” had already been drawn in my head, but instead I spent the summer “in vain” in Simbirsk and began sketching a new novel on my favorite “scraps”. Something strong must have intervened in his life. Love for Varvara Lukyanova? A piercing feeling of love for your native provincial Russia, seen after a 15-year break? Probably both. Goncharov had already written “Oblomov’s Dream,” where his native Volga region was presented in the spirit of a classical ancient idyll and, at the same time, not without irony. But suddenly a different perception of familiar places awoke: they were all illuminated by the light of intense passion, bright colors, music. It was a completely different homeland, a completely different Russia. He must write not only the good-natured but sleepy Oblomovites, not only the thousand-year-old dream and the thousand-year-old secret of these places! He must write a living, seething life, today, love, passion! The garden, the Volga, a cliff, the fall of a woman, the sin of Faith and the awakened memory of Grandmother’s sin (the spiritual law of life since the fall of Adam and Eve!), a difficult and painful return to oneself, to the chapel with the image of Christ on the bank of the cliff - that’s what now attracted him irresistibly... Oblomov began to hide in some kind of fog, moreover, it became clear that this hero could not do without love, otherwise he would not wake up, the depth of his drama would not be revealed... And 37-year-old Goncharov rushed to his “shreds”, trying to capture the overwhelming feeling, the very atmosphere of love, passion, provincial kindness, serious severity, as well as provincial ugliness in people’s relationships, in the living of life... Being already a somewhat experienced artist, he knew that it was the atmosphere of place and time that would evaporate first of all from memory, important details, smells, images will disappear. And he wrote and wrote, still without thinking, without a plan. The plan grew by itself from the details dear to the heart. The atmosphere of the work was gradually determined: if in “An Ordinary History” the typical plot about the arrival of a provincial to the capital hides the imperceptible immersion of the human soul in the cold of death, in despair, in the “whitening of the soul”, if in “Oblomov” it was an attempt to rise from this despair, wake up, comprehend yourself and your life, then here, in the “Precipice”, there will be the most precious thing - awakening, resurrection of the soul, the impossibility for a living soul to finally fall into despair and sleep. On this trip to his native Simbirsk, Goncharov felt like some kind of Antey, whose strength increases from touching the earth. The main character, Raisky, is such an Antaeus in his novel.
The novel “The Precipice” is conceived more broadly and succinctly than the previous “Ordinary History” and “Oblomov”. Suffice it to say that the novel ends with the word “Russia”. The author openly declares that he is talking not only about the fate of the hero, but also
about the future historical destinies of Russia. This revealed a significant difference from previous novels. The principle of a simple and clear “artistic monograph” in its structure in “The Precipice” is replaced by other aesthetic principles: by its nature, the novel is symphonic. It is distinguished by its relative “crowdliness” and multi-subjectness, complex and dynamic development of the plot, in which the activity and decline in the mood of the characters “pulsate” in a peculiar way. The artistic space of Goncharov’s novel has also expanded. In its center were, in addition to the capital Petersburg, the Volga, the district town, Malinovka, a coastal garden and the Volga cliff. There is much more here that can be called “variegation of life”: landscapes, birds and animals, visual images in general. In addition, the novel is permeated with symbolism. Goncharov here turns to images of art more often than before, and more widely introduces sound and light images into the poetics of the work.
The novel gives a broad, “stereoscopic” picture of modern Russia. Goncharov remains true to himself and contrasts the morals of the capital and the provinces. At the same time, it is curious that all the writer’s favorite characters (Granny, Vera, Marfenka, Tushin) are representatives of the Russian hinterland, while in the capital there is not a single remarkable hero. The St. Petersburg characters of “The Precipice” make you think about a lot; the writer needs them and in many ways explains the main character, Raisky, but the novelist does not feel a cordial, warm relationship with them. A rare case in a writer's practice! It is obvious that by the time he wrote “The Precipice,” Goncharov had already experienced serious changes in his assessments of the surrounding reality and, more broadly, of human nature. After all, his provincial heroes live primarily in their hearts and are distinguished by their integrity of nature, while, depicting the St. Petersburg secular environment, the writer notes the soullessness, arrogance and emptiness of the life of the cold St. Petersburg aristocrats and the highest noble-bureaucratic circles. Pakhotin, Belovodova, Ayanov - in all these people there is no internal moral search so dear to Goncharov, which means there is no search for the meaning of life, no awareness of one’s duty... Here everything is frozen in petrified immobility. Complex questions of human life are replaced by an empty form. For the Pakhotins - aristocracy, for Ayanov - a thoughtless and non-binding “service”, etc. An empty form creates the illusion of real existence, a found niche in life, a found meaning of life. The main thing that Goncharov has been talking about for many years is that the high society has not known their country for a long time, lives in isolation from the Russian people, does not speak Russian, selfishness and cosmopolitan sentiments dominate in this environment. This depiction of high society directly echoes the novels of L. Tolstoy. But Goncharov develops the topic and shows that the lack of spirituality and fossilization of the “pillars of society” is one of the reasons for another Russian illusion: nihilism, the thirst for “freedom” from rules and laws. The metropolitan world, alien to Russian soil, is contrasted in the novel with a province filled with warm and lively, although sometimes ugly, figures. However, it also has its own “illusions”, its own self-deception, its own lies. Raisky’s grandmother endured this lie in her life for many years, but it was revealed when the main event of the novel took place: the “break” of her granddaughter Vera. Tychkov, the courtyard woman Marina, the Kozlovs, etc. have their own lies. However, in the provincial part of the novel, events take place dynamically, the spiritual state of people is subject to change, it does not freeze forever. Raisky is forced to admit that in St. Petersburg people seek the truth with a cold mind, reflectively, but in the provinces, heartily living people find it “for free”: “Grandma! Tatyana Markovna! You stand at the heights of development, mental, moral and social! You are a completely ready, developed person! And how was this given to you for nothing, when we are busy and busy!”
The first attempt to finish “The Precipice” dates back to 1860. And again it was connected with a trip to her beloved Marienbad. At the beginning of May, Goncharov, together with the Nikitenko family, went by boat from Kronstadt to Stettin, and from there by train to Berlin, then to Dresden, where he examined the famous gallery for the second time, and finally to Marienbad. On June 3, he already writes to Nikitenko’s sisters, Ekaterina and Sophia, about working on “The Precipice”: “I felt cheerfulness, youth, freshness, I was in such an extraordinary mood, I felt such a surge of productive force, such a passion to express myself that I had not felt since 1957.” . Of course, this was not in vain for the future (if there is one) of the novel: it all unfolded in front of me ready for two hours, and I saw a lot of things there that I had never dreamed of. For me now the meaning of the second hero, Vera’s lover, has only become clear; suddenly a whole half has grown to it, and the figure emerges alive, bright and popular; a living face also appeared; all the other figures passed before me in this two-hour poetic dream, as if on show, all of them are purely folk, with all the features, colors, flesh and blood of the Slavs...” Yes, the novel may have unfolded all ready, but only for a couple hours. It turned out to be not so simple. By this time, approximately 16 printed sheets had already been written by Goncharov’s hand, and yet the novel as a whole still remained in the fog, only individual bright scenes, images, and paintings clearly appeared in the mind. There was no main thing - a unifying plot and hero! Hence the complaint in the letter to Nikitenko the father: “Faces, figures, pictures appear on the stage, but I don’t know how to group them, find the meaning, the connection, the purpose of this drawing, I can’t... and the hero does not come yet, does not appear...” From these figures in the foreground, as Goncharov’s letters from this time show, are Mark and Marfenka. Raisky was not given to Goncharov, although it was a largely autobiographical image. By the end of June, it became clear that the situation was very bad: “I froze on the 16th sheet... No, I was not lazy, I sat for 6 hours, wrote until I felt faint on the third day, and then suddenly it seemed to break, and instead of hunting there was despondency, heaviness , blues..."
Goncharov complains that he works a lot, but does not create, but composes, and therefore comes out “bad, pale, weak.” Maybe it will be better to write in France? Goncharov leaves for Boulogne, near Paris. But it’s no better there either: there’s a lot of noise around, and most importantly, the hero is still in the fog. In August, Goncharov was forced to admit: “The hero absolutely does not come out, or something comes out wildly, unimaginatively, incompletely. It seems that I have taken upon myself the impossible task of depicting the insides, the guts, the scenes of the artist and art. There are scenes, there are figures, but overall there is nothing.” It was only when he returned to Dresden in September that one chapter of the novel was written. Not a lot for a four-month vacation! He had to admit to himself that in 1860 he still did not see the whole, that is, the novel itself.
However, the writer stubbornly pursues his goal. Goncharov already sensed the unusual and alluring “stereoscopicity” of his new work, felt that he was already succeeding or almost succeeding in the main thing: a height of ideals that was unusual even for Russian literature. Such a height was only possible for Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov... Work on the novel could not be abandoned under any circumstances! And he stubbornly continued to produce scene after scene, picture after picture. The novel was fairly “overexposed” during the 13 years of work on it. Moreover, the plan grew and was constantly becoming clearer with greater breadth and specificity. Upon arriving home at the end of September, Goncharov again turned to “The Precipice”, even publishing one chapter in “Notes of the Fatherland”. By the end of 1861, three of the five parts of “The Precipice” were written. But the actual drama of the action, the unusual play of passions, the very essence of the novel - all this was still untouched! All this will unfold only in the last two parts, raising the novel to new heights.
For almost twenty years, the plan for the “Cliff” was mulled over. It turned out to be so extensive that it no longer fit into the framework of a linear “novel of education” (“Ordinary History”), “novel-life” (“Oblomov”). Some new form had to be born, some new novel, not at all linear, not in the form of a lonely alley in the garden: no, here the garden should be divided into many lonely and clumps of trees, into many shady alleys and sunny meadows, on symmetrically and disorderly flower beds with different flowers... Here the most important impressions and results of life should have been laid out: faith, hope, love, Russia, art, woman... How to combine the vivid impressions of a thirty-seven-year-old lover and the stern, wise, fatherly in spirit reflections of an elderly man, almost fifty year old man?
Be that as it may, in the early 1860s the novel remained unfinished. Goncharov, who was about to retire, continues to serve. In September 1862, he was appointed editor of the official newspaper of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Northern Mail. A few months ago, representatives of revolutionary democracy D.I. Pisarev, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. were arrested. Serno-Solovyevich. The publisher of Sovremennik, Nekrasov, breaks with the “liberal camp”: Turgenev, Goncharov, Druzhinin, Pisemsky. Turgenev, in letters to Herzen and Dostoevsky, calls Nekrasov, with whom he had recently been friends, “a dishonest man,” “a shameless mazurik.” Nekrasov is forced to restrain Sovremennik employees from publishing attacks on Turgenev. Goncharov never broke off personal relationships with people whose views did not coincide with his own. For many decades, he maintained smooth, friendly relations with Nekrasov. If the novelist realized that Herzen’s foreign activities turned out to be useful for Russia, then could he judge his old acquaintance Nekrasov cruelly and with personal feeling? True, he decided not to give his novel to Nekrasov’s magazine. In 1868, Nekrasov asked to publish “The Break” in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, which took a clearly democratic position, but received the answer: “I don’t think that the novel could be suitable for you, although I will not offend either the old or the younger generation in it.” , but its general direction, even the idea itself, if it does not directly contradict, then does not completely coincide with those, not even extreme, principles that your magazine will follow. In a word, it will be a stretch.”
Consent to an appointment to the official “Northern Post Office” during a period of intensified ideological struggle in society is a demonstrative step. In this situation, Goncharov becomes a “guardian” in the eyes of many. The writer understood this perfectly well, and if he nevertheless went for it, then, therefore, he had some serious motives of his own, because, as before in censorship, he in no way sacrificed his fundamental convictions. So, he was hoping for something. For what? In November 1862, he submitted a memorandum to the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev “On methods of publishing the Northern Post.” The note outlines a project to reorganize the newspaper. Wanting to make the newspaper more public than other official and unofficial newspapers, Goncharov demands more freedom in discussing “the most remarkable phenomena of public life and government actions.” “We need to allow more courage, I’m not talking about political courage; let political convictions remain within the limits of government instructions, I am talking about greater freedom to speak publicly about our internal, public and domestic affairs, about the removal of those decencies in the press that lie on it not because of once urgent, now past necessities, but as a result of a long time. the prevailing fear of censorship, which left a long trace of certain habits - on the one hand, not to speak, on the other, not to allow talking about many things that could be said out loud without harm.” Expresses the intention “to bring the language in the newspaper to the degree of correctness and purity to which modern literature and society have placed it.” This is what Goncharov wanted to make from the police newspaper! Of course, it was a utopian dream, although it would seem that Goncharov was not at all inclined towards utopia. Yes, apparently, the rapidly advancing reforms of Alexander II stirred up his natural idealism, which had been successfully extinguished during a quarter of a century of service in various “departments.” Goncharov served at Northern Post for less than a year, never overcoming the inertia of newspaper officialdom. On June 14, 1863, the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev petitioned Alexander II to designate Goncharov as a member of the Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs for Printing Affairs and to award him an active state councilor with a salary of 4,000 rubles per year. This was already a general’s position, for which many, and especially writers, did not forgive Goncharov. Even Nikitenko, who favored Goncharov, wrote in his diary: “My friend I. A. Goncharov will try in every possible way to receive his four thousand regularly and act carefully, so that both the authorities and the writers are happy with him.” However, everything turned out to be completely different from what Nikitenko expected, who deep down considered Goncharov to be a “too prosperous” person. In fact, the novelist always performed his service, trying not to compromise his fundamental personal opinions. And this had its own drama. It was not for nothing that Goncharov constantly complained about his unbearable position in the Press Council, about intrigues, and about narrow-minded censorship policies. In general, looking at Goncharov’s approach to service, you clearly realize that in his official activities the main role is played, essentially, not by belonging to any party (liberals, security guards), but by true patriotism and broad-mindedness. But loneliness is dramatic in nature...
Goncharov spent his summer holidays in 1865 and 1866 at the European resorts he had already mastered (Baden-Baden, Marienbad, Boulogne and others), trying to get the “Cliff” off the ground. But the writing was sluggish. In a letter to S.A. Nikitenko from Marienbad dated July 1, 1865, he admitted: “I started going through my notebooks, writing, or, better said, scratching and scribbled two or three chapters, but... But nothing will come of it... “Why won’t it work?” - you ask again, - and because, as it seemed to me, all that remained was to cross the river in order to be on the other side, and when now I approached the river, I saw that it was not a river, but a sea, that is, in other words, I thought that I had already written half of the novel in rough form, but it turned out that I had only collected the material and that the other, main half was everything and that to overcome it you needed, in addition to talent, a lot of time.”
Going on vacation abroad in 1867, Goncharov secretly hoped that the “Marienbad miracle” would repeat itself, like ten years ago, when the novel “Oblomov” was completed in three months of quick and energetic work. However, each novel has its own destiny and its own character. “The Precipice” was much broader in concept than “Oblomov,” and the passing years did not add freshness and energy... On May 12, 1867, Goncharov arrived in the resort town of Marienbad, where he had visited several times, and stayed at the Stadt Brussel Hotel. He spent a month working on the novel. That very month about which nothing is known at all in his life: he did not even write a single letter and did not receive a single line from anyone. One can imagine how he sat himself down at the table every morning and tried to renew his old plan. However, nothing worked out for him. A little embarrassed to admit even to old acquaintances his defeat, he lies in a letter to A.B. Nikitenko dated June 15: “I was hoping to get healthier, not jokingly speaking, to freshen up, but I only lost my health and became moldy in spirit; I wanted to get down to old, forgotten work, took with me the notebooks, yellowed with time, and did not touch them from the suitcase. Neither health nor work succeeded, and the question of work is resolved negatively forever. I’m throwing down the pen.”
Of course, Goncharov could not give up his pen: too much had already been invested in the last novel, and most importantly, it should have contained Goncharov’s parting love and warnings to Russia and the Russian people on the eve of serious historical trials. However, on this vacation the novelist really won’t pick up his pen. He tries to unwind, changes his places of stay: he visits Baden-Baden, Frankfurt, Ostend, meets with Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and the critic Botkin. In Baden-Baden, Turgenev reads his novel “Smoke” to him, but Goncharov did not like the novel. And besides, I didn’t like the fact that Turgenev, having taken on a theme that echoed his “Precipice,” did not put into “Smoke” a single drop of love for Russia and the Russian people, while he himself is tormented by what he tries and cannot express precisely the love that will ultimately permeate his entire novel: every image, every landscape, every scene. In a letter to A.G. Troinitsky dated June 25, he said: “The first scenes outrage me not because the Russian pen is hostile to the Russian people, mercilessly executing them for emptiness, but because this pen has betrayed the author, the art. It sins with some kind of dull and cold anger, it sins with infidelity, that is, with a lack of talent. All these figures are so pale that they seem to have been invented, composed. Not a single living stroke, not a clear feature, nothing resembling a physiognomy, a living face: just a stenciled bunch of nihilists.” But it was no coincidence that Goncharov showed in “The Precipice” that grandmother Tatyana Markovna (and is she Markovna by chance?), although she scolds, loves and pities “Markushka” Volokhov. The writer himself loved everyone he depicted in his last novel, including the nihilist Volokhov. Why? Yes, because he treats Volokhov in the gospel way - as a “prodigal son,” lost, but his own child. In general, there is so much love in “The Precipice” that there was not even in “Oblomov,” where Goncharov truly loves only two characters: Ilya Ilyich and Agafya Pshenitsyna. In “An Ordinary Story,” there is even less love coming from the core of the writer’s being: the novel is very smart and not devoid of warmth of feeling. Why did everything change so much in “The Precipice”? Not because Goncharov grew up as an artist (although this is a fact!), but for the simple reason that he simply aged, warmed up, softened in soul: the novel revealed an unspent paternal feeling, in which fatherly love is mixed with wisdom, self-sacrifice and the desire to protect young life from all evil. In the early novels, this feeling of fatherhood has not yet matured to such an extent. In addition, by the time he wrote “The Precipice,” the writer, wise from the experience of traveling around the world and endless reflections, was already clearly aware of Russia’s special place in the world. He saw thousands of shortcomings in her life and did not at all object to transferring many good things to Russian soil from Europe, but he loved the main thing in her, that which could not be destroyed by any borrowing: her extraordinary sincerity and inner freedom, which had nothing to do with parliamentarism or the constitution... Russia-Robin is for him the keeper of an earthly paradise, in which every little thing is precious, where there is peace and a peace unimaginable in earthly life, where there is a place for everything and everyone. Here Raisky comes to Malinovka: “What an Eden opened up to him in this corner, from where he was taken as a child... The garden is vast... with dark alleys, a gazebo and benches. The further from the houses, the more neglected the garden was. Near a huge spreading elm tree, with a rotten bench, there were crowds of cherry and apple trees: there was rowan; There was a bunch of linden trees there, they wanted to form an alley, but suddenly they went into the forest and fraternally got mixed up with a spruce forest, a birch forest... Near the garden, closer to the house, there were vegetable gardens. There are cabbage, turnips, carrots, parsley, cucumbers, then huge pumpkins, and in the greenhouse there are watermelons and melons. Sunflowers and poppies, in this mass of greenery, made bright, conspicuous spots; Turkish beans hovered near the stamens... Swallows hovered near the house, making nests on the roof; in the garden and grove there were robins, orioles, siskins and goldfinches, and nightingales clicked at night. The yard was full of all kinds of poultry and assorted dogs. In the morning they went to the field and returned in the evening, the cows and the goat with two friends. Several horses stood almost idle in the stables. Bees, bumblebees, dragonflies hovered over the flowers near the house, butterflies fluttered their wings in the sun, cats and kittens huddled in the corners, basking in the sun. There was such joy and peace in the house!” The general feeling from such a description is a colorful excess of life, overflowing over the edges of a warm and sun-soaked vessel. A real paradise! And next to the small sunny house, Goncharov depicts a gloomy and gloomy old house, and next to his grandmother’s “Eden” is a cliff, from which poisonous fumes seem to rise and where evil spirits and ghosts live, where no good person will set foot. The cliff has already approached close to grandmother’s peaceful garden, which becomes all the more dear because danger looms over it. Dear garden! It is worth loving, it is worth cherishing, it must be protected! It is with these feelings that “The Precipice” was written: with filial love for Russia and with a fatherly warning against the mistakes of Russian youth.
On September 1, Goncharov returned from his vacation abroad without completing the novel, and at the very end of the year, on December 29, he retired. Goncharov was assigned a general's pension: 1,750 rubles per year. However, it wasn't that much. In one of his letters to Turgenev, he admits: “The pension, thanks to God and the Tsar, assigned to me, gives me the means to exist, but without any bliss...” Having finally become free, Goncharov again rushes to his novel. Already in February, he reads “The Precipice” in the house of the historian and journalist Evgeny Mikhailovich Feoktistov, and in March - in the house of Count Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy, the author of “Prince Silver” and a dramatic trilogy from the times of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Tolstoy and his wife, Sofya Andreevna, played a significant role in the fact that “The Precipice” was finally completed. Like any artist, Goncharov needed friendly participation, praise, support - and the Tolstoy family turned out to be an indispensable support for Goncharov in 1868. The novelist wrote about Tolstoy: “Everyone loved him for his intelligence, his talent, but most of all for his kind, open, honest and always cheerful character. Everyone clung to him like flies; there was always a crowd in their house - and since the count was even and equally kind and hospitable to everyone, people of all conditions, ranks, minds, talents, among other things, gathered with him in a beau monde manner. The Countess, a subtle and intelligent, developed woman, educated, reads everything in four languages, understands and loves the arts, literature - in a word, one of the few women with education.” At some times, Goncharov visited the Tolstoys almost every day.
Alexei Tolstoy turned out to be an artist very close in spirit to Goncharov. His lyrics are inspired by the omnipresence of God, to whom the poet composes joyful, bright hymns. Even Tolstoy's love lyrics are imbued with the thought of the salvation of the human soul, of the highest meaning of human life. The fact that Goncharov became friends with him during the completion of “The Precipice” is very characteristic. It seems that in conversations about modern nihilism they had serious points of contact.
A. Tolstoy, in turn, is actively worried about the fate of Goncharov’s novel. On November 24, Goncharov receives a letter from A.K. and S.A. Tolstoy. The letter expresses an approving attitude towards the work on preparing the novel “The Cliff” for publication. Moreover, Alexey Tolstoy somehow participated in the work on Goncharov’s novel. Goncharov - apparently with the consent or even at the suggestion of the poet - placed in the 5th part of “The Precipice” his translation of Heine’s poem:
Enough! It's time for me to forget this nonsense! It's time to return to reason! Enough with you, like a skilled actor, I played the drama as a joke. The scenes were colorfully painted, I recited so passionately; And the robes shine, and there is a feather on the hat, And the feeling - everything was wonderful! Now, even though I threw away this rag, At least there is no theatrical rubbish, My heart still hurts just the same, It's like I'm playing a drama. And what kind of fake pain did I think That pain turned out to be alive - Oh God, I was wounded to death - I was playing, Gladiator death representing!
To the preface to the novel “The Precipice” (November 1869), Goncharov made a note: “I consider it my duty to gratefully state that the excellent translation of Heine’s poem, placed in the 5th part as an epigraph to Raisky’s novel, belongs to Count A.K. Tolstoy, author of the dramas “The Death of Ivan the Terrible” and “Theodore Ioannovich.”
The increasingly trusting friendship of A. Tolstoy and Goncharov ended with the death of the poet in September 1875. But even after this, the author of “The Precipice” retains a very warm memory of A. Tolstoy.
At the very first reading of “The Precipice” by Tolstoy, on March 28, 1868, the editor of “Bulletin of Europe” M. M. Stasyulevich was present, who shared his impressions with his wife: “This is a high-caliber charm. What profound talent! One scene is better than the other... “The Herald of Europe” will jump high if he manages to take “Marfenka” into his hands.” Throughout April, Stasyulevich fought for the manuscript of “The Precipice” - and finally achieved his goal: on April 29, Goncharov promised that after finishing the novel he would give it to Vestnik Evropy.
Well, the novel itself rushed forward with renewed vigor. Praise had an encouraging effect on Goncharov, as on any artist. On May 25, Goncharov confesses to his “secretary friend” Sofya Aleksandrovna Nikitenko: “Stasyulevich energetically knows how to stir the imagination with smart, sober, conscious criticism and has a very subtle effect on pride. Imagine that under the influence of this, in conversations with him, my nerves and imagination began to play, and suddenly the end of the novel stood before me clearly and distinctly, so that it seems that I would sit down and write everything now.” And the next day he writes to Stasyulevich himself: “Now everything is boiling in me, as if in a bottle of champagne, everything is developing, becoming clearer in me, everything is easier, further, and I almost can’t stand it, alone, sobbing like a child, and with an exhausted hand I hasten to celebrate somehow, in disarray... everything that was before is awakening in me, which I considered dead.”
Goncharov did not like to stay in dusty summer St. Petersburg at all, and simply could not engage in creative work. He finished his great novels in European resorts. The next day, May 27, 1868, Goncharov travels abroad. From Kissingen he writes: “I have two small, cozy rooms near the source and the Kurhaus... A corner and perfect silence, and one or two familiar faces - that’s what I need now to sit down and finish in two or three sittings.” True, the novelist prefers to hide from “familiar faces” and devotes all his energy to seclusion and creating in silence. However, there was still no “ideal silence”, and it is precisely this that is the main condition for creativity for Goncharov: “In my work, I need a simple room with a desk, an easy chair and bare walls, so that nothing even entertains the eyes, and most importantly, there is no external sound penetrated... and so that I could peer, listen to what was happening in me, and write down.” Let us note that, in addition to silence, Goncharov needed well-warmed, dry summer air, pleasant weather: his artistic body was very capricious, the pen easily fell out of his hands, and the “blues” attacked. And all the nerves! This summer, the nervous mood swings characteristic of Goncharov somehow manifested themselves especially strongly: from depression to creative exhilaration. In fact, the speed of work is the same as in Marienbad: despite his uneven mood, he processes, cleans and completes ten printed sheets a week! So June and July pass, and on August 5 he writes to the Stasyulevichs that he is approaching the end of the novel: “Today or tomorrow, or I don’t know when, I need to write the night scene of the grandmother with Vera.” The entire novel was roughly finished by September. Stasyulevich was already triumphant, but it was too early! He didn’t know Ivan Alexandrovich’s character well. Goncharov was again attacked by doubts, especially about the first chapters of the novel. In a letter to A.A. He writes to Muzalevskaya at the end of September: “I began to work diligently in the summer, brought my old work to an end and even persuaded one editor to publish it. Yes, I lacked patience. The beginning has been stale and is now old, and what was written again needs a lot of finishing, and I gave up and threw it away.” Stasyulevich and Alexei Tolstoy had to start all over again. Long persuasion and negotiations ended in complete success. In January 1869, “Break” began to be published in the “Bulletin of Europe”. But the novelist did not calm down: while the novel was being published, Goncharov continued to proofread it, which completely exhausted the magazine editor.
According to Goncharov, he put into “The Precipice” all his “ideas, concepts and feelings of goodness, honor, honesty, morality, faith - everything that ... should constitute the moral nature of a person.” As before, the author was concerned with “general, global, controversial issues.” In the preface to “The Precipice,” he himself said: “Questions about religion, about the family union, about a new structure of social principles, about the emancipation of women, etc., are not private, subject to decision of this or that era, of this or that nation, of one generation or another. These are general, global, controversial issues, running in parallel with the general development of mankind, on the solution of which every era, all nations have worked and are working... And not a single era, not a single nation can boast of the final victory of any of them...”
The fact that “The Precipice” was conceived soon after the writing of “An Ordinary History” and almost simultaneously with the publication of “Oblomov’s Dream” testifies to the deep unity of Goncharov’s novel trilogy, as well as the fact that this unity concerns primarily the religious basis of Goncharov’s novels. Hence the obvious pattern in the naming of the main characters: from Ad-uev through Oblomov - to Rai-sky. Goncharov's autobiographical hero is looking for the right attitude towards life, God, and people. The movement goes from hell to heaven.
This evolution goes from the problem of “returning to God the fruit from the grain thrown by Him” to the problem of “debt” and “human purpose.” Let’s make a reservation right away that Goncharov will never draw an absolute ideal. Yes, he will not attempt to create his own “idiot” in search of the absolute, as F. Dostoevsky did. Goncharov thinks of a spiritually ideal hero within the limits of the possible earthly and, moreover, fundamentally worldly. His hero is fundamentally imperfect. He is a sinner among sinners. But he is endowed with spiritual impulses and aspirations, and thereby shows the possibility of spiritual growth not for a select few, but for every person. Note that, with rare exceptions, all the other main figures of the novel are “sinners”: Vera, Grandmother. All of them, passing through their “cliff”, come to repentance and “resurrection”.
The Christian theme of the novel resulted in the search for the “norm” of human love. Boris Raisky himself is looking for this norm. The plot core of the work, in fact, was Raisky’s search for the “norm” of female love and female nature (“poor Natasha,” Sofya Belovodova, provincial cousins Marfenka and Vera). Babushka, Mark Volokhov, and Tushin are looking for this norm in their own way. Faith is also searching, which, thanks to the “instincts of self-awareness, originality, initiative,” stubbornly strives for the truth, finding it in falls and dramatic struggle.
At first glance, the theme of love and Raisky’s “artistic” quest seems valuable in itself, occupying the entire space of the novel. But Goncharov’s search for the “norm” is carried out from a Christian position, which is especially noticeable in the fate of the main characters: Raisky, Vera, Volokhov, Babushka. This norm is “love-duty”, impossible for the author outside of a Christian attitude to life. Thus, in comparison with the previous “Ordinary History” and “Oblomov”, the novelist’s creative range, ideological and thematic scope and variety of artistic techniques are significantly expanded. It is no coincidence that some researchers say that Goncharov’s last novel paves the way for 20th-century novelism.
The title of the novel is ambiguous. The author also talks about the fact that in the turbulent 60s of the 19th century, a “break” in the connection of times was discovered, a “break” in the connection between generations (the problem of “fathers and children”) and a “break” in women’s fate (“the fall” of women, the fruits of "emancipation"). Goncharov intensely, as in previous novels, reflects on the “cliffs” between feeling and reason, faith and science, civilization and nature, etc.
“The Precipice” was written in conditions when Goncharov, together with the entire liberal wing of Russian society, had to feel what fruit liberalism had brought over the decades of its existence in Russia. In the novel, Goncharov secretly and openly opposes his contemporary positive worldview, open atheism, and vulgar materialism. Religion (and love as its fundamental manifestation in human nature) is opposed to all this in “The Precipice.” Goncharov still advocates progress, but emphasizes the inadmissibility of breaking new ideas with traditions and eternal ideals of humanity. This concept is artistically embodied primarily in the love story of Vera and the nihilist Mark Volokhov. Volokhov, distinguished by a certain directness and honesty, a thirst for clarity and truth, is looking for new ideals, abruptly cutting off all ties with traditions and universal human experience.
The Volokhovs appealed to science and contrasted it with religion. It was another Russian illusion. The writer seriously followed the development of science. In the preface to “The Precipice,” he noted: “Serious practical sciences cannot be sacrificed to craven fears of an insignificant part of the harm that can occur from the freedom and breadth of scientific activity. Let there be among young scientists those whose study of natural or exact sciences would lead to the conclusions of extreme materialism, denial, etc. Their convictions will remain their personal destiny, and science will be enriched by their scientific efforts.” Goncharov, judging by his review letter, agrees, in any case, with the fact that religion and science should not oppose each other. He states: “Faith is not embarrassed by any “I don’t know” - and gets for herself in the vast ocean everything she needs. She has one and only all-powerful weapon for the believer - feeling.
The (human) mind has nothing except the first knowledge necessary for home, earthly use, that is, the alphabet of omniscience. In a perspective that is very vague, uncertain and distant, the daring pioneers of science have the hope of one day reaching the secrets of the universe through the reliable path of science.
Real science flickers with such a weak light that for now it only gives an idea of the depth of the abyss of ignorance. She, like a balloon, barely flies above the earth’s surface and falls back powerless.” In the preface to the novel “The Precipice,” the writer formulated his understanding of the problem of the relationship between science and religion: “... Both paths are parallel and endless!”
The novelist was quite well versed in the new teaching. While serving in the censorship, he read a lot of materials from the magazine “Russian Word”, whose task was to popularize the ideas of positivists in Russia, and, undoubtedly, deeply delved into the essence and even the genesis of this teaching. Goncharov wrote censor reviews of such significant works by D. I. Pisarev, popularizing the teachings of positivists, as “Historical Ideas of Auguste Comte” and “Popularizers of Negative Doctrines.” Having read the article “Historical Ideas of Auguste Comte,” intended for the 11th issue of “Russian Word” for 1865, Goncharov, as a censor, insisted on announcing a second warning to the magazine, since he saw in Pisarev’s article “an obvious denial of the sanctity of the origin and significance of the Christian religion.” Is this why in the preface to the novel “The Precipice” one can detect a hidden polemic with Pisarev? Later, in “An Extraordinary History,” he formulated his claims to positivist ethics as follows: “All good or bad manifestations of psychological activity are brought under laws subordinate to nervous reflexes, etc.” Good and evil as a derivative of “nervous reflexes” - this anti-positivist theme brings Goncharov closer to the author of The Brothers Karamazov. In Dostoevsky’s novel, Mitya and Alyosha discuss this positivist theory of man: “Imagine, it’s there in the nerves, in the head, that is, in the brain these nerves... there are these sort of tails, these nerves have tails, and as soon as they tremble there ... that is, I will look at something with my eyes, like this, and they will tremble, the tails, and when they tremble, then the image appears... that’s why I contemplate, and then I think, because the tails, and not at all because that I have a soul..."
The militant positivist in “The Precipice” is Mark Volokhov, who sincerely believes that it is in physiology that the answer to man lies. He turns to Vera with the words: “Are you not an animal? spirit, angel - immortal creature? In this question from Mark one can hear an echo of the definition of man that was characteristic of the positivists. Thus, in 1860, P. L. Lavrov formulated: “Man (homo) is a zoological genus in the category of mammals... a vertebrate animal...” Similar views were developed by M. A. Bakunin. Of course, Goncharov could not agree with such an understanding of human nature. In his opinion, Volokhov “debunked man into one animal organism, taking away from him the other, non-animal side.” Goncharov’s polemics with positivists on the question of whether man is only an “animal” or whether he also has a “soul” determined many of the features of the novel “The Precipice” and, in particular, the abundance of animalistic images, which was uncharacteristic of Goncharov’s earlier works. The novelist himself sees a lot of “bestial” in man, but, unlike the positivists, he does not simply state this fact, but gives it an appropriate assessment, shows the struggle between the “bestial” and the “spiritual” in man and hopes for his humanistic “humanization.” "and return to Christ. Goncharov’s entire ethical doctrine, starting with the works of the 1840s, is based on this hope. Indeed, already in “Letters from a Capital Friend to a Provincial Groom” the concept of a gradual ascent from the “beast” to the true “man” is clearly visible. In “The Precipice,” Goncharov felt a threat not only to religion, to traditional morality, but also to morality as such, because positivism abolished and ignored the very task of moral improvement of man. After all, for a “vertebrate animal” it is impossible - there is simply no need for it. For Mark Volokhov, “people... crowd like midges in hot weather in a huge pillar, collide, restless, multiply, feed, warm themselves and disappear in the stupid process of life, in order to make room for another similar pillar tomorrow.
“Yes, if this is so,” thought Vera, “then you shouldn’t work on yourself in order to become better, purer, more truthful, kinder by the end of your life. For what? For everyday use for several decades? To do this, you need to stock up, like an ant with grains for the winter, with everyday life skills, with such honesty, which is synonymous with dexterity, with enough grains to last a life, sometimes a very short one, to be warm and comfortable... What are the ideals for ants? We need ant virtues... But is this so?
The teaching that Volokhov adheres to seems to leave an imprint on his appearance and behavior. In it, by the will of the author, a beast, an animal, is constantly visible. His very name suggests a wolf. “You are a straight wolf,” Vera says about him. During the climactic conversation with her, Mark shook his head, “like a shaggy animal,” “walked... like a rebellious animal running away from prey,” “like an animal, he rushed into the gazebo, carrying away his prey.” In “The Precipice,” not only Mark Volokhov, but also many other characters are presented in animalistic lighting. Leonty Kozlov even has a telling surname. Kozlov’s wife, Ulyana, looks at Raisky with a “mermaid’s gaze.” Tushin resembles a fairy-tale bear. “When a thunderstorm hits you, Vera Vasilievna,” he says, “flee beyond the Volga, into the forest: there lives a bear who will serve you... as they say in fairy tales.” And in Raisky there is not only a “fox”. In his justification for the pain he caused, he tells Vera: “It was not me, not a man: the beast committed a crime.” The storm of passion and jealousy “drowned out everything human in him.” Marina, Savely's wife, is compared in the novel to a cat. It is even said about Marfenka that she loves the summer heat “like a lizard.”
Goncharov also polemicizes with utilitarian ethics, which naturally follows from the “zoological” understanding of man. A person who lives by the needs of not only the “body”, but also the “soul”, lives only with the “body” and his ethics are inevitably selfish. It is known that in the 1860s, in connection with the publication in Russia of the works of Bentham’s follower J. S. Mill, debates about utilitarian ethics flared up in the press with renewed vigor. In a conversation with Raisky, Volokhov clarifies his ethical guidelines with the utmost frankness: “What is honesty, in your opinion?.. It is neither honest nor dishonest, but useful for me.”
Finally, Goncharov shows that the third principle of positivist ethics, “lack of free will,” is also manifested in the behavior of Mark Volokhov. In the philosophy of positivism, “the mind and its functions turn out to be pure mechanics, in which there is not even free will! Man is not guilty, therefore, of either good or evil: he is a product and a victim of the laws of necessity... This is... what the newest century, in the person of its newest thinkers, reports to the old century.” Vulgar materialism and positivism really defended the idea of the cruelest determinism and even “historical fatalism.” What was it like to perceive this as an old admirer of Pushkin, who proclaimed the principle of “human independence”!
Another important theme of Goncharov’s latest novel is the theme of trust in God. Undoubtedly, in the years that have passed since Ordinary History and Oblomov, Goncharov has changed a lot. Pyotr Aduev and Stolz constantly sense the shortcomings of human nature and propose radical measures to remake it. These are hero-transformers who have difficulty hearing life itself, its organics, its natural rhythm. In “The Precipice,” Goncharov finally comes to the conclusion that listening to the depths of nature is more important than reshaping it. Now he is much more sober and careful. If I may say so, he began to trust God more, to believe more in God's Providence for man. The writer is sure that every person is endowed with certain gifts from God, that there are simply no “talented” people in the world. It’s another matter that a person himself rejects these gifts and moves away from God. Nature should not be remade, but the potential inherent in it should be developed! In Oblomov, the enlightener Stolz argued that man was created to “change his nature.” It’s a completely different matter - Tushin: “But Tushin stays at his height and does not leave it. The talent given to him - to be a man - he does not bury, but puts into circulation, not losing, but only gaining from the fact that he was created by nature, and did not make himself the way he is.” In the writer’s reasoning, thoughts unfamiliar to us from the first novels begin to flash about the actual limits in the possibilities of human self-remake: “The conscious achievement of this height - through torment, sacrifice, the terrible work of a lifetime on oneself - of course, without the help of outside, advantageous circumstances, is given to so few, which, one might say, is not given to almost anyone, and yet many, tired, despairing or bored with the battles of life, stop halfway, turn aside and, finally, completely lose sight of the task of moral development and stop believing in it.” This statement was impossible either in Ordinary History or in Oblomov. In “The Precipice,” the author’s confidence in the “natural” in man is noticeably greater than before. Here, more than ever, there are many heroes who are distinguished by natural harmony, and not by harmony acquired in the course of self-remaking. In addition to Tushin, one should mention, for example, Tatyana Markovna, about whom Raisky reflects: “I fight... to be humane and kind: grandmother never thought about this, but she is humane and kind... grandmother’s whole principle... is in her nature!” In the province depicted by Goncharov, in general “no one had any pretension to appear to be something different, better, higher, smarter, more moral; and yet in reality it was higher, more moral than it seemed, and almost smarter. There, in a crowd of people with developed concepts, they struggle to be simpler, but they don’t know how - here, without thinking about it, everyone is simple, no one went out of their way to fake simplicity.”
Like Tushin, Marfenka has natural harmony. True, this harmony is very specific, the author is not inclined to consider it exemplary. But he believes that there is no need to “redo” anything in Marfenka: this can only upset the balance established in her nature. It’s not for nothing that her name is Martha: her life’s journey passes under the protection of this gospel saint. Although Martha in the Gospel is opposed to Mary, she is not rejected, her path of salvation is not rejected: serving her neighbors. The sensitive Raisky correctly understood that attempts at alteration, made even with good intentions, would destroy this fragile harmony. He does the only right thing when he abandons Marfenka, asking her the question: “Don’t you want to be someone else?” - and received the answer: “Why?.., I’m from here, I’m all made of this sand, this grass!” I don’t want to go anywhere...” For Paradise, the path of salvation lies in the words of the Gospel: “Push around and it will be opened to you.” For Marfenka, this is a completely different path, the path of happy and quiet family harmony among many children.
Throughout the action taking place in Malinovka, Raisky significantly changes his ideas about the “naturally given” in man. The first thought that appears to him upon arriving at Grandmother’s is: “No, this all needs to be redone.” But in the end, he is forced to recognize a more significant force than persistent self-education, which only leads rare people to the heights of moral development - the force of a happy nature: “Grandma! Tatyana Markovna! You stand at the pinnacle of development... I refuse to re-educate you..."
Actually, at the center of the novel is the love story of Mark Volokhov and Vera. But Goncharov is interested not only in a single story, but also in the philosophy of love as such. That is why all the loves of the fickle Raisky are shown (Natasha, reminiscent of “poor Liza” Karamzin, Sofia Belovodova, Vera, Marfenka), the love of the armchair man Kozlov for his frivolous wife, the young love of Marfenka and Vikentyev, etc., etc. “The Break” can be generally read as a kind of encyclopedia of love. Love had previously played a big role in the works of Goncharov, who inherited Pushkin’s principle of testing his hero primarily with love. Turgenev believed that a person cannot lie about two things: in love and death. In Turgenev's stories and novels, few men pass the test of female love. The situation is similar in Goncharov’s novels. Alexander Aduev does not stand this test, Pyotr Aduev, Oblomov, even Stolz do not rise to the level of moral requirements.
For Goncharov, the problem of love has always been a subject of very deep reflection. According to him, love is the “Archimedes lever” of life, its main foundation. Already in “Oblomov” he shows not only different types of love (Olga Ilyinskaya, Agafya Pshenitsyna, Oblomov, Stolz), but also historically established archetypes of love feelings. Goncharov is harsh in his verdict: all these epoch-making stylized images of love are lies. For true love does not fit into fashion and into the image of the era. He gives these reasonings - rightfully or not, that’s another matter - to his Stolz: “When asked: where is the lie? - in his imagination, colorful masks of the present and the past stretched out. With a smile, now blushing, now frowning, he looked at the endless procession of heroes and heroines of love: at the Don Quixotes in steel gloves, at the ladies of their thoughts with fifty years of mutual fidelity in separation; at the shepherdesses with ruddy faces and simple-minded bulging eyes and at their Chloe with the lambs.
Powdered marquises in lace appeared before him, with eyes twinkling with intelligence and with a depraved smile, then Werthers who shot themselves, hanged themselves and hanged themselves, then withered maidens with eternal tears of love, with a monastery, and the mustachioed faces of recent heroes with violent fire in their eyes, naive and conscious Don Juans, and wise men, trembling suspicions of love and secretly adoring their housekeepers... everything, everything! True feeling hides from bright light, from the crowd, is comprehended in solitude: “... those hearts that are illuminated by the light of such love,” Stolz further thinks, “are shy: they are timid and hide, not trying to challenge the smart people; maybe they feel sorry for them, forgive them in the name of their happiness, that they trample a flower into the mud for lack of soil, where it could take deep roots and grow into a tree that would overshadow all life.” It is not often that Goncharov discusses love so openly in his novels, but many pages of his letters are devoted to a detailed expression of his own point of view on this delicate subject. To Ekaterina Maykova, who, having read the latest books, unexpectedly left the family, leaving her children, to live with a student teacher, the novelist wrote, as necessary, capaciously and concisely, dwelling on the main thing and exposing the primitive and very widespread opinion about this life-forming feeling: “... Love... settled down into the best years of your life. But now you seem to be ashamed of this, although completely in vain, because it is not love that is to blame, but your understanding of love. Instead of giving life movement, it gave you inertia. You considered it not a natural need, but some kind of luxury, a holiday of life, while it is a powerful lever that moves many other forces. It is not lofty, not heavenly, not this, not that, but it is simply an element of life, developed in subtle, humanely developed natures to the degree of some other religion, to the point of a cult, around which all life is concentrated... Romanticism built temples of love, sang hymns to her, imposed an abyss of the stupidest symbols and attributes on her - and made a stuffed animal out of her. Realism has reduced it to a purely animal sphere... And love, as a simple force, acts according to its own laws..."
In “The Precipice,” love is no longer only a means of testing, a moral test of the heroes. Love, the “heart” in “The Precipice” are equal in rights with the “mind”, which has an absolute advantage in public moral practice. Goncharov discusses this in the novel: “And while people are ashamed of this power, valuing “snake wisdom” and blushing at “dove simplicity,” referring the latter to naive natures, while they will prefer mental heights to moral ones, until then achieving this height is unthinkable, therefore , true, lasting, human progress is unthinkable.” The writer calls on a person to “have a heart and value this power, if not higher than the power of the mind, then at least on an equal basis with it.” Before “The Precipice,” Goncharov maintained the balance of “mind” and “heart,” sensing a lack of “mind” in a society transitioning to capitalism. In the last novel, balance is established with a clear deficit of “heart”, a deficit of “idealism” felt by the author.
According to the original plan, the novel was to be called “The Artist.” It is generally accepted that in this name Goncharov put his thought about the artistic character of Raisky - and nothing more. Quite a lot has been written about this, and it has already become a common place. However, the name “Artist” - in the context of Goncharov’s religious thought - was also ambiguous - and, moreover, too pretentious. Goncharov did not dare to accept it. The artist is not only and not so much the One of Paradise, but rather the Creator Himself, God. And Goncharov’s novel is about how the Creator, step by step, creates and prepares a human personality for the Kingdom of Heaven, and also about the fact that every person is, first of all, the creator (artist) of his spiritual life. In fact, the main thing that Raisky does in the novel is that he “forges” his soul, tries to create a new person in himself. This is a spiritual, evangelical work: “He transferred his artistic requirements to life, mixing them with universal human ones, and painted the latter from life, and then, involuntarily and unconsciously, he put into practice the ancient wise rule, “knew himself,” peered with horror and listened to the wild impulses of the animal, blind nature, he himself wrote her execution and drew new laws, destroyed the “old man” in himself and created a new one.” This is the colossal “artistic” work that Raisky, the hero who bears a clearly telling surname, does in the novel! Depicting Raisky's introspection, Goncharov tries to translate patristic ideas about the action of the Holy Spirit in man into the language of artistic and psychological analysis: “He, with a beating heart and the trembling of pure tears, eavesdropped, among the dirt and noise of passions, on the underground quiet work in his human being, which -that of a mysterious spirit, which sometimes died down in the crackling and smoke of an unclean fire, but did not die and woke up again, calling him, first quietly, then louder and louder, to difficult and never-ending work on himself, on his own statue, on the ideal of man. He trembled joyfully, remembering that it was not the lures of life, not cowardly fears that called him to this work, but a selfless desire to seek and create beauty in himself. The spirit beckoned him along with him, into the bright, mysterious distance, as a person and as an artist, to the ideal of pure human beauty. With a secret, breathtaking horror of happiness, he saw that the work of pure genius does not collapse from the fire of passions, but only stops, and when the fire passes, it moves forward, slowly and slowly, but everything goes on - and that in the soul of a person, regardless of artistic there is another creativity hidden, there is another living thirst other than the animal one, another strength other than the strength of the muscles. Running mentally through the entire thread of his life, he recalled what inhuman pains tormented him when he fell, how slowly he got up again, how quietly the pure spirit woke him up, called him again to endless work, helping him to get up, encouraging, comforting, restoring his faith in beauty truth and goodness and strength - to rise, to go further, higher... He was reverently horrified, feeling how his strength came into balance and how the best movements of thought and will went there, into this building, how easier and freer it was for him when he heard this secret work and when he himself makes an effort, movement, gives stone, fire and water. From this consciousness of creative work within himself, even now the passionate, caustic Vera disappeared from his memory, and if she came, then only so that he would prayerfully call her there, to this work of the secret spirit, to show her the sacred fire inside him and awaken him in her, and beg him to protect, cherish, nourish him in herself.” Here the novelist talks about the main thing in the search for Paradise:
about “other creativity”, “independent of artistic”, about the “secret work” of the Spirit in man.
Yes, like every person, Raisky is weak and sinful. He stumbles and falls (like other heroes of the novel, like Vera, like Grandmother), but everything moves forward, strives for the purity of the “image of God” in himself (or, as it is said in the novel, for the “ideal of pure human beauty”). Unlike the Artist-Creator, Raisky is an amateur artist, an imperfect artist, like all earthly artists. But in this case, it’s not about the result, but about the desire. Imperfection is forgiven. Lack of striving for perfection - no.
Raisky, in his religious basis, was conceived by Goncharov as a person undoubtedly superior to both Alexander Aduev and Ilya Oblomov. All three novels coexisted in the writer’s mind back in the 1840s and could not help but correct the overall plan. And this idea was: to build a global Christian ideal of man in modern conditions, to show the ways of spiritual growth of the individual, various options for “salvation” and “struggle with the world.” This was the idea that came closest in Russian literature to Gogol’s religious aspirations. The author of “Dead Souls” and “Correspondence with Friends” also directed all the efforts of his soul not to the particular problems of human life and society, but to the development of the main problem: the religious transformation in Christ of modern Russian man. But, unlike Gogol, Goncharov does not declare his thoughts, and fundamentally does not go beyond the depiction of a seemingly completely ordinary life. Both the vices and the virtues of the modern Russian person are given to them not in a semi-fantastic light, not in a satirical or pathetic depiction. It is more important for Goncharov to show the ordinary course of life, in which the conflicts of the gospel plan are constantly reproduced. It can be said that if Gogol brings a magnifying glass to the personality of modern man and judges the human soul in the light of the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church, recognizing the terrible abysses of sin behind ordinary manifestations and being horrified by this, then Goncharov appeals only to the Gospel, only to the words of Christ about man and his free choice between good and evil.
Paradise is not an absolutely positive image, not far-fetched, not exceptional. He is not Hamlet, not Don Quixote, not a “positively wonderful person”, not a fighter at all. It's not his job to change lives. Many, many things he will do is try to artistically embrace her with his thoughts and imagination. But, as far as his strength allows him, he fights to remake his life. He influenced many people in the novel. It was he who woke up Grandmother, who had previously put up with the rogue and hypocrite Tychkov and others like him all her life. His role in the novel between Volokhov and Vera is not only comic and suffering. Vera unwittingly uses Raisky's argumentation in her spiritual duel with Volokhov. Unlike Alexander Aduev and 06-lomov, Raisky is the person who not only does not want, but is no longer able to give up his high ideals.
The grain of Christian thought in this image lies not in the fact that Raisky has achieved “paradise”, but in the fact that in all circumstances of life, always, everywhere, despite any of his imperfections and falls, without despondency and despair, he strives for the embodiment of the Christian ideal. This is the only realistically possible task for a modern layman - this is what Goncharov believes.
Yes, Raisky is as weak as the heroes of the first two novels, but he has a desire for “creativity” on his own personality, in fact, he is more religious. That is why Goncharov calls him Paradise: despite all the failures and falls, he does not abandon his desire for heaven, he actively preaches goodness, despite his own imperfections.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you put on a cassock and suddenly start preaching...
And I won’t be surprised,” said Raisky, “even though I don’t put on a cassock, I can preach - and sincerely, wherever I notice lies, pretense, anger - in a word, the absence of beauty, there is no need that I myself am ugly ...
Goncharov considers it unnatural for a layman to dress up in a monastic robe, withdraw from the world, and “pedal” Christianity in worldly activities, including art. Therefore, next to the amateur Raisky, he places another “artist” - Kirilov. It is not enough for Kirilov to simply be a Christian. In the article “Intentions, tasks and ideas of the novel “The Precipice””, Goncharov reveals the intention of this image: “In contrast to such amateur artists, in my first part there is a silhouette of the ascetic artist, Kirilov, who wanted to leave life and fell into another extreme, he devoted himself to monasticism, went into an artistic cell and preached a dry and strict worship of art - in a word, a cult. Such artists fly to the heights, to the sky, forgetting the earth and people, and the earth and people forget them. There are no such artists now. This was partly our famous Ivanov, who was exhausted in fruitless efforts to draw what cannot be drawn - the meeting of the pagan world with the Christian world, and who drew so little. He moved away from the direct goal of plastic art - to depict - and fell into dogmatism.”
Compared to “An Ordinary Story” (1847) and “Oblomov” (1859), “The Cliff” is a more intense and dramatic work. The heroes no longer slowly plunge into a sucking vulgar life, but make obvious major mistakes in life and suffer moral failures. The novel's multifaceted issues focus on such global themes as Russia, faith, love... In the 1860s, Goncharov himself was experiencing a deep ideological crisis. Without completely breaking with liberal-Western sentiments, he considers the problem of Russia and Russian leaders within the framework of Orthodoxy, seeing in the latter the only reliable remedy against the social decay observed in the country and in the human person.
The main plot of the novel is grouped around the figures of Vera and Mark. “The Precipice” depicts an open spiritual struggle, as never before in Goncharov. This is a fight for the soul of Vera and for the future of Russia. The author, without going beyond realism, is for the first time ready to introduce “demons” and “angels” into the work in their struggle for the human soul. By the way, Goncharov not only does not deny the mystical, but also tries to reproduce it using realistic art. Of course, the novelist did not fantasize and, like Gogol, depict the demon in its pure form, with a tail and horns, but resorted to another means: a clear parallel with M. Yu. Lermontov’s poem “The Demon.” Such a parallel was supposed to emphasize the author’s thought about the spiritual essence of Mark Volokhov.
The scene where Mark and Vera meet is structured like a biblical mythology, which already contains an indication of the demonic role of Volokhov. Volokhov offers Vera... an apple. And at the same time he says: “You probably haven’t read Proudhon... What does Proudhon say, don’t you know?.. This divine truth goes around the whole world. Would you like me to bring Proudhon? I have it". So the tempting apple offered to Vera turned into... a newfangled theory. It is quite obvious that in the Grandmother’s garden (“Eden”) the mythology of the seduction of Eve by Satan, who took the form of a serpent, is reproduced. Goncharov does this completely deliberately. His entire novel is filled with Christian images and myths. All this is very reminiscent of the speeches of Goethe’s demon, the conversations of Bulgakov’s Woland, and the thoughts of Pechorin. From the same demonic height, Mark Volokhov tries to look at the life surrounding Vera, at “grandmother, provincial dandies, officers and stupid landowners”, at the “gray-haired dreamer” Raisky, at the “stupidity ... of grandmother’s beliefs”, “authorities, learned concepts” etc. He proves to Vera that she “does not know how to love without fear,” and therefore is not capable of “true happiness.” By the way, it would be a mistake to think that Goncharov does not love his hero. Volokhov is also a child of Russia, only a sick child, a lost son. This is what the author of the novel proceeds from. In a letter to E.P. Maykova at the beginning of 1869, he writes: “Or maybe you will scold me for one person: this is for Mark. It has something modern and something unmodern in it, because at all times and everywhere there have been people who do not sympathize with the prevailing order. I don’t insult him, he’s honest with me and only true to himself to the end.”
What is the parallel with Lermontov and why does Goncharov need it? In the poem “The Demon,” Tamara, listening to the demon, “pressed herself to her protective breast, // Drowning out the horror with prayer.” After receiving a letter from Volokhov, Vera is also looking for whose “protective breast” to cling to. She finds protection in Tushin, partly in Babushka and Paradise: “She found protection from her despair on the chests of these three people.” It was Tushin who was chosen by her to play the role of guardian angel to meet Mark. He must protect her from the “evil sorcerer.” Lermontov's situation in The Precipice is undeniable. She dictates figurative parallels. Not only Mark Volokhov is similar in some fundamentally important ways to Lermontov’s Demon. The same similarities can be found between Tamara and Vera. In Tamara, only a brief outline of what unfolds with all the force and detail of Goncharov’s psychological analysis in Vera. The seduction could not have taken place if not for the pride of Tamara, who responded to the proud call of the Demon and his crafty complaint:
Me to goodness and heaven You could return it again. Your love is a holy cover Dressed, I would appear there...
The problem of women's pride has long interested Goncharov. Let us at least remember Olga Ilyinskaya, who dreams with her own strength to completely change the life of Ilya Oblomov, his soul: “And she will do all this miracle, so timid, silent, to whom no one has listened until now, who has not yet begun to live! She is the culprit of such a transformation!.. To bring a person back to life - how much glory to the doctor... And to save a morally perishing mind, soul?.. She even shuddered with proud, joyful trepidation...” About Vera, Grandmother says: “It was not God who put this pride in you " Both the characters and the author talk a lot about Vera’s pride in the novel. She herself says, getting closer to Olga Ilyinskaya: “I thought of defeating you with another force... Then... I took it into my head... that... I often told myself: I will do it so that he will value his life.”
Then Tamara’s “fall” naturally follows. This is the same pattern of Vera’s behavior in “The Precipice.” Vera turns to the image of the Savior in the chapel for the first time only in the fifteenth chapter of the third part of the novel. The intensity of her spiritual and religious life increases as the denouement in her relationship with Mark approaches. The closer to the “fall”, the more often you can see Faith in front of the image of the Savior. She asks Christ about what to do. She “looked for strength, participation, support, and a call again in the gaze of Christ.” But Vera’s pride does not give her pure, cleansing prayer, the outcome of the struggle is practically already predetermined: “Paradise did not read either prayer or desire on her face.” Several times in the novel Vera says: “I can’t pray.”
Faith gradually replaces Raisky in the novel, occupying a central place in his ideological and psychological conflict.
Raisky worries about Vera, is ready to provide her with all kinds of support and advice, but he acts in the novel and resists unbelief - namely, and first of all, she. It is she, like Grandmother, who will go through the classic Christian path: sin - repentance - resurrection.
We are talking about finding ways to overcome the “cliffs” in modern life and modern personality. Goncharov purposefully builds images of heroes, leading them from fall to repentance and resurrection. Vera is experiencing a drama characteristic of modern man. The whole question is whether she will stand firm in her faith. Faith is an individual, which means it must be tested through its own experience and only after that consciously accept the fundamental principles of the Grandmother. Her independence in everything is noticeable from childhood, but along with independence, self-will is naturally present. Goncharov is not afraid of the doubts that Vera experiences. What is she asking for? What does Vera want? After all, she believes that a woman was created “for the family... first of all.” The girl does not doubt the truth of Christianity for a minute. This is not doubt, but a arrogant attempt, like Tamara’s in Lermontov’s “Demon,” to reconcile Mark Volokhov with God - through her love. Looking at the extraordinary figure of Volokhov, having fallen in love with him, Vera did not doubt God for a minute. She only made a mistaken sacrifice - herself - hoping for the spiritual and moral rebirth of her hero.
Faith was not seduced by the new teaching that Volokhov brought with him. She was attracted not by Mark’s ideas, but by his personality, so different from others. She was struck by the refraction of these ideas in the personality of Mark, who aptly and correctly struck at the shortcomings of the “decrepit” society in which Vera lived. Flaws that she noticed herself. Vera's experience, however, was not enough to understand: there is a huge distance from correct criticism to a correct positive program. The new ideas themselves were not able to divert her from faith in God, from an understanding of moral principles. Doubting and checking, Vera shows herself to be a morally healthy person who must inevitably return to tradition, although she may lose ground under her feet for some time. In Christ for Vera there is “eternal truth,” to which she dreamed of leading the nihilist Mark Volokhov: “Where is the “truth”? - he did not answer this Pilate’s question. “Over there,” she said, pointing back to the church, “where we were now!.. I knew this before him...”
The image of Vera, who went through demonic temptation, turned out to be a real artistic victory in Goncharov’s work. In terms of psychological persuasiveness and realistic authenticity, he took place immediately after Ilya Oblomov, somewhat inferior to him in plasticity and the degree of generalization, but surpassing him in romance and ideal aspiration. Faith is infinitely higher than Olga Ilyinskaya, about whom H.A. Dobrolyubov said at one time: “Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that a Russian artist can now evoke from present-day Russian life.” This was, after all, a tendentious assessment of a revolutionary democrat and supporter of women's emancipation, who saw a ray of light in the dark kingdom and in the image of Katerina from A. N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm". In Faith there is a struggle with passions, there is repentance, and these are the most important components of a person’s true spiritual life. This is not the case with Olga. The image of Vera in its symbolic content is close to the prototype of the repentant Magdalene. Vera is truly depicted as a repentant sinner who fell first into spiritual errors, into pride, and then into carnal sin. This is truly “the harlot at the feet of Christ.” In the draft version of the novel, the Grandmother prays: “Have mercy on us, on our weakness... we did not... lie, we loved... sinful creatures... and we both humble ourselves under Your wrath... Have mercy on this child, have mercy... she is purified, repentant, according to Your word, better many righteous women now... dearer to You than your sinless sister, Your pure lamp...". And in fact, Faith is deeper and “sweeter” to God than the sinless Marfenka, because Marfenka is not tempted, that is, her virtue costs her nothing, she had no struggle with herself. In this sense, she resembles Raisky’s St. Petersburg cousin, Sofya Belovodova. “There,” says Raisky, “there is a wide picture of cold slumber in marble sarcophagi, with gold emblems sewn on velvet on the coffins; here is a picture of a warm summer dream, in the greenery, among flowers, under a clear sky, but all sleep, deep sleep!” Marfenka is, according to Goncharov, “an unconditional, passive expression of the era, a type that is cast, like wax, into a ready-made, dominant form.” Vera, unlike her sister, endures temptation - thus her faith in Christ only strengthens.
Only by outlining the living figure of a Christian woman who not only talks about her duty, but also tries to practically fulfill it (albeit not without mistakes), could Goncharov put into the mouth of Raisky pathetic words about man and especially about woman as “an instrument of God”: “ We are not equal: you are above us, you are strength, we are your tool... We are external figures. You are the creators and educators of people, you are the direct, best instrument of God.”
In The Precipice, evangelical logic undoubtedly dominates. Moreover, this time Goncharov allows himself much more noticeable authorial accents and even direct references to the Bible. Moreover, Goncharov also mentions the Holy Fathers of the Church in his novel “The Cliff”. Nothing like this could have happened in the first two novels, which were created not in conditions of fierce controversy, but in a relatively calm social environment.
Goncharov's latest novel is full of biblical reminiscences. Paradise reminds Sofya Belovodova of the biblical covenant to “be fruitful, multiply and populate the earth.” The novel mentions such Old Testament characters as Jacob, Jonah, Joachim, Samson and others. Goncharov uses the Old Testament and the Gospel primarily to develop “parable” situations. Mark Volokhov is portrayed as a “seducer from straight paths” in The Precipice. “Doesn’t like the straight road!” - says Raisky about him. At the pole of “faith”, the extreme right position is, of course, occupied by grandmother Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova, who therefore bears a surname associated with the word “shore” (as well as with the words “take care”, “takes care”). Marfenka stands firmly on this shore; she will never disobey Grandma. But a thinking Faith must go through doubts and experience. The psychological core of the novel is precisely hidden in the spiritual tossing of Faith between the traditional morality of Grandmother and the “new religion” of Mark Volokhov. Vera's name emphasizes what the most important debates in the novel are about. Goncharov now connects the further historical destinies of Russia with faith, with Orthodoxy. Where Vera goes - a lot depends on this.
The storylines in the novel "The Precipice" are very tense - and this is no coincidence. Every situation, every plot move, every character, the name of the hero, etc. - all of this is symbolic in nature in the novel; in all of this, the author’s extreme desire to generalize the main problems of our time is hidden. This gave the novel some congestion and heaviness. The key problem in the novel is spiritual. It is no longer connected only with the fate of the hero (as it was in “An Ordinary History” and “Oblomov”), but also with the fate of Russia.
Goncharov compares Vera and Marfenka with the biblical Mary and Martha and at the same time with Tatyana and Olga Larin from Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”. But the comparison of Vera with the night, and Marfenka with the sun, brings a special flavor to the novel: “What a contrast with my sister: that ray, warmth and light; this whole thing is twinkling and mystery, like night - full of darkness and sparks, charm and miracles!” This comparison of “night” and “day” is not only poetic. It is also spiritual. Marfenka is simple, pure, understandable. Looking at her, I remember the Gospel: “Be like children”... To Marfenka, the Kingdom of Heaven is given as if without labor and special temptations. This is the lot of “ordinary” people. Raisky, who once almost decided to seduce Marfenka, suddenly felt the unnaturalness of his desires: the girl reacted so innocently to his brotherly caresses. Realizing her childish purity, he says: “You are all a ray of sunshine!.. and let him be damned who wants to throw unclean grain into your soul!” Grandmother calls Marfenka “a pure lamp.” It is clear that the heroine embodies the idea of light.
The image of sunlight, a ray of sunlight in the novel turned out to be a symbol of virgin purity, the unthinkability of female and spiritual fall. Unlike Vera, full of “charm” (not only feminine, but also spiritual, for Vera succumbs for some time to the deception of the “magician-sorcerer” Volokhov), Marfenka cannot fall. If Marfenka is only sunlight, then Vera is given by the writer in chiaroscuro. She is more prominent, but also more “torn”, tormented by doubts and struggles with herself and Mark, ultimately she is less whole. Her image is dramatic because it is associated with repentance. Marfenka is not mistaken and she has nothing to repent of. Faith is a dramatically repentant image, more alive and real. From here the association with the biblical saint Job again characteristically emerges. Based on the Old Testament story about the suffering of the righteous Job and how his closest friends treated him, seeing him as if abandoned by God, Goncharov raises in “The Precipice” the important question that one judgment is with people, and the other with God. He writes about the “sinful” Vera, abandoned by everyone: “She is a beggar in her native circle. Her neighbors saw her fallen, came and, turning away, covered her with clothes out of pity, proudly thinking to themselves: “You will never get up, poor thing, and stand next to us, accept Christ for our forgiveness.”
The novel is built on a stable basis of the Orthodox worldview. In Christianity, human life is divided into three main periods: sin - repentance - resurrection in Christ (forgiveness). We find this model in all major works of Russian classics (let us recall, for example, “Crime and Punishment” by F. M. Dostoevsky!). It is also reproduced in “The Precipice”. Moreover, the topic is connected primarily with the fate of Vera.
For the first time in Goncharov's novel, not only sin is shown, but also repentance and the resurrection of the human soul. “The Precipice” completes the novel trilogy, in which the characters of the main characters are not only related and partly similar to each other, but also develop from novel to novel in an ascending line: from Ad-uev to Rai-sky. For Goncharov himself, who insisted on a certain unity of the three novels, the unifying dominant was the religious idea of human salvation in Christ. The idea of the hero’s ever-increasing participation in the life of society and getting rid of Oblomovism was undoubtedly secondary. The hero of “An Ordinary Story”, in essence, betrays his youthful dreams, his ideals. Ilya Oblomov no longer compromises his humane ideals, but still does not bring them to life. Raisky is constantly trying to practically translate his ideals into real life. And although he fails to do this, he is good because of his desire for this. Goncharov showed that in Raisky, as a representative of the outgoing class of Russian life, the moral possibilities of the nobility have been exhausted. In "The Precipice" the noble hero reached possible moral heights - he had nowhere to go further. Further, the writer’s spiritual aspirations were expressed in the dramatically depicted female image. Goncharov had to fully show not only the fall (precipice-sin), not only repentance, but also the “resurrection” of his hero. When depicting a socially active male hero, a “worker” in Russian society, Goncharov inevitably had to go into utopia (“The Idiot”). He didn't want this. Therefore, he transfers the center of gravity of the novel to a moral plane. The fall of woman is a story connected not only with the “latest teachings”, it is an eternal story. This is why Vera occupies a central place in the novel.
Raisky is Vera’s spiritual “mentor” in the novel: “From this consciousness of creative work within himself, even now the passionate, caustic Vera disappeared from his memory, and if she came, it was only so that he would beggingly call her there, to this work secret spirit, show her the sacred fire inside herself and awaken it in her, and beg her to protect, cherish, nourish it within herself.” Vera recognizes this teaching role in Raisky, saying that if she overcomes her passion, she will come to him first for spiritual help. His surname is associated with ideas not only about the Garden of Eden (Eden-Robin), but also about the gates of heaven, for his sincere desire to remake his life evokes the Gospel expression: “Push around and it will be opened to you” (to the gates of heaven). It cannot be said that Raisky completely managed to shed the “old man” from himself. But he set such a task for himself and tried to accomplish it as best he could. In this sense, he is not only the son of Alexander Aduev and Ilya Oblomov, but also a hero who managed to overcome a certain inertia within himself and enter into an active, although not completed, struggle against sin.
In “The Precipice” the main expectation is the expectation of the Creator’s mercy. All the heroes who connect their lives with God are waiting for him: Grandma is waiting, wanting to atone for her sin, but not knowing how and with what. Vera, who has suffered a catastrophe in life, is waiting. Paradise awaits, endlessly falling and rising from sin. It becomes clear that Goncharov’s heroes are divided in the novel into those who express a desire to be with God, and those who consciously move away from Him. The first ones are by no means holy. But God, as the proverb says, “even kisses for intention.” Grandmother, Vera, and Raisky want to be with God and arrange their lives under His guidance. They are not at all immune from mistakes and falls, but the main thing is not this, not sinlessness, but that their consciousness and will are directed towards Him, and not vice versa. Thus, Goncharov does not demand actual holiness from his heroes. Their salvation does not lie in decisionlessness, but in the direction of their will - towards God. The work of their salvation must be completed by God's mercy. If we compare a work of art with a prayer, then the novel “The Precipice” is a prayer “Lord, have mercy!”, appealing to God’s mercy.
Goncharov will never become a writer-prophet, an artist like Kirilov. The author of “The Precipice” is alien to absolute aspirations, he does not prophesy, does not look into the abyss of the human spirit, does not look for ways to universal salvation in the bosom of the Kingdom of God, etc. He does not absolutize any principle, any idea, he looks at everything soberly , calmly, without the apocalyptic moods, premonitions, and impulses into the distant future characteristic of Russian social thought. This outwardly visible “calmness” was noted by Belinsky: “He is a poet, an artist - nothing more. He has neither love nor enmity for the persons he creates, they neither amuse him nor make him angry, he does not give any moral lessons...” The already mentioned letter to S. A. Nikitenko (June 14, 1860) about the fate of Gogol (“he did not know how to come to terms with his plans... and died") indicates that Goncharov followed a fundamentally different, non-prophetic path in his work. Goncharov wants to remain within the framework of art; his Christianity is expressed more like Pushkin than Gogol. Gogol-Kirilov is not his path in art, or even in religion.
The novel “The Break” sharply increased the circulation of the magazine “Bulletin of Europe”, in which it was published. The editor of the magazine, M. M. Stasyulevich, wrote to A. K. Tolstoy on May 10, 1869: “There are all kinds of rumors about Ivan Alexandrovich’s novel, but still it is read and many read it. In any case, only they can explain the terrible success of the magazine: last year, for the entire year, I gained 3,700 subscribers, and now, on April 15, I crossed the magazine’s pillars of Hercules, that is, 5,000, and by
On May 1 it was 5200.” “The Precipice” was read with bated breath, passed from hand to hand, and entries were made about it in personal diaries. The public rewarded the author with well-deserved attention, and Goncharov from time to time felt the crown of real glory on his head. In May 1869, he wrote to his friend Sofya Nikitenko from Berlin: “The “precipice” has reached here too... At the very border, I received the most cordial welcome and farewell to him. The director of the Russian customs rushed into my arms, and all its members surrounded me, thanking me for the pleasure! I mentioned that on the way back I would also like to travel separately, quietly, alone in a special room. “Whatever you want,” they said, “just let me know when you return.” And in St. Petersburg, the head and assistant of the station were kind and sat me in a special corner, and wrote my name on the window, with the inscription occupied. All this touches me deeply.” The images of Grandmother, Vera and Marfenka, painted with extraordinary love, immediately became household names. On the eve of the 50th anniversary of Goncharov’s writing, he was visited by a delegation of women, who, on behalf of all women in Russia, presented him with a watch decorated with bronze figurines of Vera and Marfenka. The novel was supposed to bring the author another triumph. However, the situation in society and journalism has changed. Almost all leading magazines by that time took radical positions and therefore were acutely critical of Goncharov’s negatively outlined image of the nihilist Volokhov. In the June issue of the magazine “Domestic Notes” for 1869, an article by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Street Philosophy” was published, in which the famous writer gave a sharply negative review of the novel and reproached Goncharov for not understanding the advanced aspirations of the younger generation. The great satirist was smart, very smart, but he was still mistaken in expecting good things for Russia from young nihilists. The revolutionary democrat N. Shelgunov also gave a devastating review of the novel in the article “Talented mediocrity.” Both critics reproached Goncharov for his caricature of Mark Volokhov. Actually, this was not criticism, but a reason to “get angry”.
In a letter to M. M. Stasyulevich, the novelist wrote: “As much as I hear, they attack me for Volokhov, that he is slandering the younger generation, that there is no such person, that he was made up. Then why be angry? One would say that this is a fictitious, false personality - and turn to other persons in the novel and decide whether they are true - and analyze them (which is what Belinsky would have done). No, they lose their temper over Volokhov, as if it’s all about the novel in him!” And yet, after some time, one wise writer was found who, although he sympathized with the notorious “young generation,” turned out to be broader than narrow party tendencies and expressed a calm, well-established view of Goncharov’s work and, in particular, of his “Precipice”: “ Volokhov and everything connected with him will be forgotten, just as Gogol’s “Correspondence” will be forgotten, and the figures he created will long rise above the old irritation and old disputes.” This is what Vladimir Galaktionovich Korolenko wrote in the article “I. A. Goncharov and the “young generation”.
A. K. Tolstoy praised the novel extremely highly: he, like Goncharov himself, felt the conspiracy of “advanced” magazines against “The Precipice”, especially since a critical article about the novel appeared even in ... “Bulletin of Europe”, which had just finished publishing Goncharov’s work. It was something new, unpleasant and indecent, not previously encountered in Russian journalism. A. Tolstoy could not resist expressing his feelings to Stasyulevich: “In your latest (November - V.M.) issue there is an article by your brother-in-law, Mr. Utin, about disputes in our literature. With all my respect for his mind, I cannot, with my frankness, help but notice that he is doing a strange service to the younger generation, recognizing the figure of Mark as his representative in the novel... After all, this... is called the thief’s cap!” As best he could, Tolstoy tried to console his acquaintance. In 1870 he wrote the poem “I. A. Goncharov":
Don't listen to the noise Talk, gossip and troubles, Think your own mind And go ahead. You don't care about others Let the wind carry them barking! What has matured in your soul - Clothe it in a clear image! Black clouds loomed - Let them hang - the hell with it! Live only in your thoughts, The rest is bullshit!
Goncharov really had no choice but to go deeper and withdraw into himself: critics seemed to write not about his novel, but about some completely different work. Our thinker V. Rozanov remarked on this matter: “If you re-read all the critical reviews that appeared ... about “The Precipice”, and all the analyzes of some contemporary and long-forgotten work, then you can see how much the second was approved more ... than the novel Goncharova. The reason for this hostility here was that without these talents (like Goncharov. - V.M.), current criticism might still hesitate in the consciousness of its uselessness: by the weakness of all literature it could justify its weakness... But when there existed in literature artistic talents and she did not know how to connect a few meaningful words about them; when society became engrossed in their works, despite the critics’ hostile attitude towards them, and no one read the novels and stories they approved, it was impossible for criticism not to feel the complete futility of its existence.” Nevertheless, hastily and very tendentiously written articles about the novel painfully wounded Goncharov. And precisely because “The Precipice” contained the most hidden, deepest ideas of the novelist. In none of his novels did Goncharov try to so concentratedly express his worldview, its Christian basis. The main thing is that the novel depicted a real homeland, permeated with warmth and light, depicted heroes who, being ordinary people, at the same time carried within themselves the traits of the highest spirituality. V.V. Rozanov saw the origins of this in Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter.” But “advanced” journalism did not even notice the main thing in the novel, did not see the love that the novelist put into the description of a Russian woman, a Russian province, did not see his anxiety for Russia and the height of the ideal from which Goncharov looks at Russian life. She was only interested in narrow party solidarity with the nihilist portrayed negatively in the novel. They were unable to admit the complete artistic objectivity of this image. But to this day, when they talk about nihilists in Russian literature of the 19th century, the first thing that comes to mind is
Mark Volokhov is a vividly and, by the way, not at all lovingly depicted figure of a young man who has succumbed to yet another Russian illusion. The rejection of “The Precipice” became for the writer not an ordinary literary fact, but a personal drama. Meanwhile, his novel also predicted the drama of all of Russia. And the writer turned out to be right: old Russia did not overcome another historical “cliff”.
All three illusions - romantic self-deception, aestheticized lazy irresponsibility and destructive nihilism - are connected in Goncharov's mind. This is a “childhood disease” of the national spirit, a lack of “maturity” and responsibility. The writer in his novels looked for an antidote to this disease. On the one hand, he portrayed people of systematic work and adult responsibility for their actions (Peter Aduev, Stolz, Tushin). But in these people, too, he saw and showed imprints of the same disease, for in systemic work lies only external salvation. The same childish irresponsibility remains in these people: they are afraid to ask themselves simple questions about the ultimate meaning of their life and activity and, thus, are content with the illusion of action. On the other hand, Goncharov offers his personal recipe: this is the growth of a person in spirit, from the Ad-Uevs to the Rai-skys. This is constant intense work on oneself, listening to oneself, which Raisky felt in himself, who only tried to help the “work of the spirit” that was going on in him, independently of himself. The writer, of course, was talking about the divine nature of man, about the work of the Holy Spirit in him. This is how a person differs from an animal! Goncharov set himself a colossal artistic task: to remind man that he was created “in the image and likeness of God.” It’s as if he takes his reader by the hand and tries to rise with him to the heights of the spirit. It was a unique artistic experiment in its own way. Goncharov devoted his entire conscious creative life to it. But big things are seen from a distance. His colossal plan turned out to be misunderstood in all its depth not only by his one-day ideological opponents, who could judge the work of art only on the basis of narrow party logic, but also by completely sympathetic people. Only individual images and fragments of a huge artistic canvas were seen and appreciated, the wide scope and meaning of which will become more and more clear with time.
The day in St. Petersburg is drawing to a close, and the “secular people,” who are accustomed to spending their evenings playing cards at each other’s houses, are beginning to prepare for their next visits. Two friends, Ivan Ayanov and Boris Raisky, are also planning to spend the upcoming evening at the Pakhotins’, where, in addition to the owner himself, his unmarried sisters live, as well as his daughter Sophia, an attractive widow who interests Raisky most of all.
At the same time, Ivan Ayanov is not used to burdening himself with special thoughts; for him, everything is usually simple, and he makes visits only for the sake of an extra game of cards. But for Boris Pavlovich Raisky, the situation is completely different; he seeks to captivate and stir up Sophia, who is his distant relative, wanting to turn the “ice statue” into a real, living woman with feelings and passions.
Raisky himself has many hobbies, he does a little painting and music, tries himself in literary creativity, and he really puts his whole soul into his studies. But this is not enough for Boris; he strives to ensure that the life around him is just as full of life, in which he dreams of actively participating. However, he is already more than 30 years old, but Raisky has not yet managed to create, sow, or reap anything, he only continues to make plans for the future. Arriving in the capital from his parents’ estate, Boris Pavlovich studied various types of activities, but could not see his true calling in anything, concluding only that art still came first for him.
In a state of complete uncertainty about the future and his own place in life, Raisky goes for the summer to the estate run by Boris’s great-aunt Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova. Once in her youth, she failed to marry her lover Tit Vatutin, and Tatyana Markovna remained lonely. Tit Nikonovich also did not marry any woman and continues to visit his old friend, constantly bringing gifts to both her and the orphan girls under her care, Marfenka and Verochka.
Upon arrival in Malinovka, as Raisky’s property is called, Boris feels that he is in a truly blessed place, everything here really makes him happy. The only thing that scares the local residents is the nearby cliff; according to one of the legends, it was at its bottom that a terrible tragedy once occurred.
Tatyana Markovna greets her grandson very warmly, she tries to teach him the basics of housekeeping, but Raisky remains completely indifferent to these issues. The people with whom his grandmother wants to introduce him also do not arouse Boris Pavlovich’s interest, because they in no way correspond to his poetic and idealized ideas about life.
At the end of the holidays, the young man returns to St. Petersburg and begins his studies. At the university he makes a new friend, a certain Leonty Kozlov, a timid young man from a poor family. It would seem that there is nothing in common between them, but the students become closest comrades.
Finally, Raisky’s student time is completely over. His friend Leonty immediately leaves for the province, while Boris is still unable to find a real business for himself, making only amateurish attempts to create something in various forms of art. Cousin Sophia, who still behaves reservedly and distantly with him, remains in the eyes of Raisky the main goal; the young man never ceases to dream of “awakening” a real thirst for life in her. He spends evening after evening at her father’s house, but the situation does not change at all, Sophia is still absolutely indifferent to him.
Summer comes again, and Boris Pavlovich’s grandmother again calls him to Malinovka. At the same time, a letter arrives from Leonty, who also lives not far from the Raisky estate. The young man, deciding that fate itself is sending him to these parts, willingly goes to the estate, because he is simply tired of useless efforts in relation to Sophia.
In the family estate, Boris immediately meets a charming young girl, Marfenka, who arouses his sympathy much more than the cold, secular beauties of St. Petersburg. Tatyana Markovna is still trying to captivate her grandson with concerns about the estate, but Raisky is not at all interested in the farm now. Moreover, he is even inclined to give the village to Marfenka and Vera, which causes an extremely negative reaction from the grandmother.
Boris Pavlovich discovers that his old friend Kozlov is successfully teaching local children, moreover, he even managed to marry a certain Ulenka. Tatyana Markovna proudly introduces her grown and mature grandson to her acquaintances and friends, and from this day a peaceful and calm village life begins for Raisky. True, Vera is staying late visiting her friend, the priest’s wife, but at this time Boris is intensively talking with Marfenka about painting, music, and literature.
By coincidence, Raisky makes a new acquaintance, Mark Volokhov, who is under police surveillance. Tatyana Markovna is horrified by just the name of this man, but Boris Pavlovich enjoys communicating with him, he is interested in Volokhov’s ideas about awakening people to fight for their own happiness. But it is at this moment that Vera finally arrives at the estate again.
The girl behaves completely differently than Boris initially expected; she keeps herself withdrawn and does not want to have any frank conversations that he was counting on. Raisky constantly watches his cousin, trying to figure out what she is hiding from others, and trying to understand her.
Meanwhile, Tatyana Markovna has the idea of marrying her grandson to the daughter of the local tax farmer, but Boris himself absolutely does not want such a turn of fate. One day, Vera quite sharply asks him to stop spying on her and leave her alone. From this day on, relations between the young people become more even and friendly, they talk about books and views on life, although this is not enough for Raisky himself.
During a dinner party attended by all of Boris's grandmother's friends, the man is unable to contain his negative emotions and firmly expresses his true attitude to one of them. Tatyana Markovna unexpectedly takes his side, and Vera, impressed by Raisky’s honesty and directness, finally decides to kiss him. However, this does not change the real situation, and Boris is already thinking about leaving for St. Petersburg.
But Raisky still lingers on the estate, while Vera again goes to visit her friend. In her absence, Boris tries to find out from his grandmother what kind of person this girl really is, and Tatyana Markovna reveals to him that she deeply and sincerely loves Vera and that there is a person nearby who has long dreamed of wooing her, but does not dare to take the appropriate step , we are talking about the forester Tushin.
The moment comes when Marfenka becomes the official bride of her beloved Vikentyev, while Vera is actually in love with Mark Volokhov and secretly meets with him in a cliff. But Raisky still has no idea who his cousin’s chosen one is.
Leonty's wife runs away from him with a French teacher, Boris's friend falls into despair, and Raisky tries to somehow help his friend. At the same time, he receives a letter from Ayanov, which says that Sophia had a not very pleasant incident with one of the visitors to her father’s house, but this news no longer makes any impression on Boris, he now thinks only about Vera.
On the eve of Marfenka's planned engagement, the girl goes off into the cliff again, while Raisky is waiting for her on the edge, knowing exactly who the girl went to and why. Without hesitation, he throws a bouquet of flowers intended for tomorrow’s holiday through Vera’s window.
The next morning, Vera feels completely sick, realizing that she needs to confess everything to her grandmother, but she does not have enough mental strength for this, because there are many guests in the house, today Marfenka must finally move in with her groom. But she still decides to have a frank conversation with Raisky, and he talks to Tatyana Markovna instead of her.
The elderly woman is truly horrified by what she hears, but then begins to diligently care for Vera, who is in a state of fever. When the girl feels a little better, her grandmother tells her about what happened to herself in her youth. An unloved man saw her in the greenhouse with her lover Titus and insisted that she promise never to marry.
