Analysis of style and draft editions of the work (“Burmist” by I. S. Turgenev)

During practical classes on Russian literature of the 19th century. We also talk with students about the style of works of art. In the process of work, students begin to understand “style” as a phenomenon of individualized speech. For a writer, the stylistic coloring of words is a visual means that always reflects the author’s attitude towards what is depicted. Students will find significant assistance in understanding style from B.V. Tomashevsky’s article “Language and Style.”
The researcher believes it is possible to define the concept of style only by turning to the work of realist writers. “Changing stylistic colors has become as much a means of narrative movement and idea development as the real-logical meaning of words. This was a change of different assessments of the depicted reality, different understandings of it. Stylistic coloring complemented the meaning of the word and gave the word a depth that writers of the past did not know. As life is varied, so is style. This new role of stylistics reflects a new understanding of the tasks of literature, characteristic of realism.” According to V.V. Vinogradov’s definition, “the individual style of a writer is a system of individual-aesthetic use of means of verbal expression characteristic of a given period of development of fiction.”
Style, combining, along with composition, plot, etc., various components of a work, helps to penetrate into the author’s intention, into the general mood of the work. The style reflects the individual characteristics and creative style of the writer.
There are many definitions of style. The issue of style is considered in a variety of aspects: “the style of the era” (common features in the art of an entire historical period), “national style” (the national specificity of the art of any people), the style of a certain movement or school in art - the “style of the Wanderers”, “the style of the romantic school” and, finally, “individual style”, the individual manner of the artist. This selection of aspects is very conditional, since the individual style reflects the style of the era, the national style, and the style of the direction. “A work can be considered a stylistic whole only if it reflects not only itself, but reveals a world beyond its boundaries, that is, the world of the poet. At the same time, this is the world of society, the public, the nation, since it is just as difficult to isolate a person as a work,” writes M. Wehrli. V.V. Vinogradov draws attention to the correctness of this understanding of style. According to his definition, individual style is a system of using means of verbal expression characteristic of a given period of development of fiction.
In foreign literary criticism, style is now given exceptional importance. Even a stylistic trend in criticism has emerged, the slogan of which is “the art of reading,” “stylistic-critical study, first of all, of an individual work.”
Of course, the writer's style must be studied in the system of other means of expression and in connection with the writer's entire creativity. From the large and controversial problem of style, we single out only one issue - the reflection in the style of a work of art of the writer’s attitude to the depicted.
Let’s take I. S. Turgenev’s story “The Burmist” and try to identify in the diverse and at the same time stylistic forms that unite the entire narrative the complex attitude of the author to the depicted. Students will have to encounter this story at school, and its analysis in practical classes will provide them with significant help, because the existing methodological literature does not provide a comprehensive analysis of this story that would contribute to the development of students’ independent thinking. The surviving draft manuscript helps to penetrate the writer’s creative laboratory and see the evolution of the plan.
The story “The Burmister” is told from the perspective of a hunter, Penochkin’s neighbor on the estate. The narrator's disapproval of Penochkin is clear from the very beginning. We learn that despite the apparent improvement of the estate and the benevolence of the owner, “you are reluctant to go to him.”
But the condemnation of Penochkin is only one side of the author’s complex position in this story. It is not enough for Turgenev to expose Penochkin’s posturing and cruelty, which for him are not a special case, but a fact of social evil, reflecting the entire system of social relations. The debunking of this system is the content of the story. It is no coincidence that the story is called not “Penochkin”, but “The Burmister”.
There is a certain contradiction between the title “The Burmist” and the theme of the story (the relationship between Penochkin and the peasants). Turgenev achieves this deliberately, emphasizing the similarity of the attitude towards the people between the landowner and his protege. The refined Penochkin and the rude Sofron are equally inhuman and selfish. In this comparison (Penochkin - mayor) - the decline of Penochkin, the debunking of his imaginary benevolence and good nature towards the peasants. In the original title - “Breed” - the idea of ​​​​the rapprochement between the landowner and the mayor, about the existence of a certain type of people hostile to the people, came out even more sharply. The two-dimensionality of the central image is clearly expressed in the style of the story.
In the characterization of Peichkin, with which the story begins, there are two stylistic streams, two attitudes towards Penochkin: the author’s disapproval and Penochkin’s admiration for himself. The narrator's speech includes statements about Penochkin from people in his circle or himself. “Arkady Pavlych,” in his own words, “is strict, but fair...” “The ladies are crazy about him and especially praise his manners.” An ironic attitude towards Penochkin’s “merits” arises immediately, since the narrator, a progressive-minded person, condemns him, and approval comes from people like Penochkin or even from himself.
Two contradictory relationships, expressed in the style of the story, create the unity of Penochkin’s character with his desire to appear enlightened and humane, while remaining essentially uneducated and barbarically cruel. This comparison of assessments, like the alternation of light and shadow, gives the image depth, volume, and relief.
Turgenev illuminates the reader alternately with the outer and inner side of Penochkin’s appearance. When Turgenev shows us Penochkin from the outside, he seems to temporarily eliminate the narrator and “objectify” the presentation. This is the portrait of Penochkin: “He is small in stature, dapperly built, very good-looking...”, etc. The inner side of Penochkin’s character contrasts all the more sharply with this image.
In the construction of the phrase one can feel the connection between the two sides of the image, which is invisible at first glance. Turgenev achieves this by constructing a proposal according to Gogol’s principle of “refutation.” At the beginning of the phrase, he expresses praise for Penochkin, which is refuted at the end. The methods for this refutation are different. Sometimes the author indicates the motive for Penochkin’s behavior (“He absolutely disdains bad company - he’s afraid to be compromised”), sometimes he inserts a comparison (“He behaves surprisingly well, is as careful as a cat”). Penochkin’s reduction is also achieved by comparing various facts from his life or opinions. The very principle of comparison is emphasized by the connecting words “but”, “although”: “... but in a cheerful hour he declares himself a fan of Epicurus, although in general he speaks badly of philosophy, calling it the foggy food of German minds, and sometimes just nonsense.” In the comparison of Penochkin’s book and colloquial statements about philosophy, one can see his desire to seem like an educated, enlightened person (“the foggy food of German minds”) and the self-confidence of an ignoramus (“nonsense”).
The comic effect of constructing such a phrase is that the praise is expressed in a categorical and generalized form, which requires explanation, but instead it is followed by a refutation: “He loves music too; at the cards he sings through clenched teeth, but with feeling.”
The duality of Penochkin’s appearance is revealed not only in the author’s characterization, but also in the episodes of the story. Here style also acts as a connecting link between the “two” Penochkins. The complex psychological content of the scene with unheated wine is revealed in the author's remarks, which emphasize in Penochkin the contradiction between internal feeling and its external expression. These remarks outline Penochkin's transition from discontent to cold-blooded cruelty. The deeper Penochkin’s cruelty takes hold, the more subtle its manifestation becomes, the less outwardly it resembles cruelty.
Penochkin made only two sincere movements: he “suddenly frowned” and asked the valet “in a rather harsh voice.” Then the game begins.
Penochkin portrays offended virtue, although in fact he enjoys the valet's fear. He “lowered his head and looked thoughtfully at him [the valet] from under his brows.” Then he turned to the narrator “with a pleasant smile,” although a cruel decision had already matured in him. Finally, Penochkin decided to show that this decision was a “sad necessity” for him, he portrayed hesitation, doubt: “after a short silence, he raised his eyebrows and called.” The more inhumane he acts, the colder and more reserved he looks outwardly. So, “About Fedor... make arrangements,” Penochkin said “in a low voice and with perfect composure.” Is such a fact really a “sad necessity” for Penochkin, says the end of the scene, when, pleased with himself, Penochkin “sang a French romance.”
It was this contradiction between decency of manners and inhumanity, drawn with subtle skill by Turgenev, that attracted the attention of V. I. Lenin to this scene. Exposing liberalism, Lenin wrote: “Before us is a civilized, educated landowner, cultured, with mild forms of address, with a European gloss. The landowner treats the guest to wine and conducts lofty conversations. “Why isn’t the wine heated?” he asks the footman. The footman is silent and turns pale. The landowner calls and, without raising his voice, says to the servant who came in: “About Fyodor... make arrangements.” “...Turgenev’s landowner is also a “humane” person... in comparison with Saltychikha, for example, he is so humane that he does not go to the stable himself to see if Fyodor was flogged well. He is so humane that he does not care about soaking the rods with which Fyodor is flogged in salt water. He, this landowner, will not allow himself to hit or scold a lackey, he only “gives orders” from afar, like an educated person, in soft and humane forms, without noise, without scandal, without “public display.”
The technique of “refutation,” which forms the stylistic core of Penochkin’s image, extends into the composition. The story compares not only the actions and opinions of the characters, but also the “styles” of speech of the characters and the author. Thus, in the characterization of the mayor Sofron, three stylistic “layers” contrast: the speech of the mayor himself, the author’s story and the review of the peasant Anpadist. They refute the positive opinion about the mayor expressed by Penochkin at the beginning of the story: “The mayor is a great guy there, line forte tete, a statesman!”
Sofron seems to be trying to support the master’s opinion of him, portraying devotion and love for Penochkin. But his falsehood and hypocrisy are visible both in the author’s remarks, and in the construction of Sofron’s speech, and in its tone and vocabulary. Commenting on Sofron’s speech, Turgenev seems to discover the “technique” of playing out feelings, showing the “scaffolding” behind which the dilapidated building of ostentatious love is hidden. The bailiff speaks either “with such tenderness on his face that it seemed as if tears would flow,” then “as if again carried away by a rush of feeling (moreover, drunkenness was taking its toll),” then finally, “he began to sing more than ever.”
The comic impression of the mayor’s speech is created by a transparent, easily detectable “folk etymology”. Sophron connects words unfamiliar to him with completely different words in his everyday life. Here one can see both the desire to use the “lordly word” and the “practicality” of the mayor. So, he says: “the mediator was satisfied and” instead of “the mediator was satisfied,” apparently connecting the meaning of the word “mediator” with the word “means” (with the help of which something can be achieved), and the word “satisfied” with the word “convenience” (they placed the mediator in circumstances convenient for him). Sometimes Sofron uses his technique, apparently deliberately, since he gives the mayor’s speech a meaning that is flattering for Penochkin: “they deigned to enlighten our village (instead of “visit”).” Sophron “sweets” his speech, agreeing with the pronoun “you” (a form of polite address) to a plural noun: “But you, our fathers, you are merciful...”
The story about the “actions” of the mayor is also built on the principle of “refutation”. The senseless actions on which the peasants spend a lot of effort and labor make the mayor’s economic undertakings absurd: “In addition to the useful, Sofron also took care of the pleasant: he lined all the ditches with broom, laid paths between the stacks on the threshing floor and sprinkled them with sand, built a weather vane in the form of bear with an agape mouth and a red tongue, he stuck something like a Greek pediment to the brick barnyard and under the pediment in whitewash he inscribed: “Built in the whole of Shipilovka in a thousand years in the year of Sarak. This cattle dfor.” Here you can see how Sofron imitates the tastes of his master, giving the peasant farm the external gloss of a master's estate. The senseless wastefulness of the efforts and funds spent on this cannot be unclear to Sofron.
However, the writer needs not only to expose Sofron, but to brand him. He conveys the final description of the bailiff to the peasant Anpadist. This is how another stylistic layer appears in the story - the rudely incorrect peasant speech: “shameless swindler, dog, forgive, Lord, my sin.” The harshness of this characterization is set off by the neutral final phrase of the narrator: “We went hunting.” It becomes clear why Turgenev rejected the original ending of the story, in which the quiet and sad thoughtfulness of the author involuntarily softened the just harshness of the peasant’s words. Turgenev wanted to leave the reader impressed by these words.
Turgenev's stylistic work on the draft manuscript of the story clarifies for us the writer's intent, the author's attitude towards his characters, and thereby the inner meaning of the story.
You can invite one of the students to familiarize themselves with the draft manuscript of “The Burmist” and the article by M. Clement and report their conclusions in class.
The story “The Burmist” was written by June 1843. Turgenev returned to revising the manuscript in August of the same year. The direction in which work on the story was going was indicated by Turgenev himself, putting the date under the story in 1880: “July 1847, Silesia,” the time when the writer lived in Salzbrunn with V.G. Belinsky. The original text of the story had already been written by this time. According to P.V. Annenkov, Belinsky really liked the story, who, referring to Penochkin, exclaimed: “What a bastard with delicate tastes!”
The draft manuscript of “Burmistra” bears traces of double corrections. Some were made by Turgenev while writing the manuscript in ink in the margins, between the lines. They emphasize Penochkin’s anti-Russian, anti-people traits. So, for example, in the phrase: “...he didn’t want to let me go without breakfast,” the following is inserted: “in the English manner.” Penochkin’s shoes were initially described as “small beautiful”, then Turgenev put them as “Chinese yellow”. The manuscript shows that Turgenev consciously emphasized the cosmopolitan appearance of Penochkin, as well as his lack of taste, and his love of pose. Turgenev paid a lot of attention to Penochkin’s gestures and movements. So, in the description of Penochkin who arrived in the village, Turgenev wrote the phrase: “Mr. Penochkin stood up, picturesquely threw off his cloak and got out of the carriage, looking around affably.” Turgenev replaced the word “looking around” with another: “looking around.” The writer emphasized Penochkin’s cold arrogance (“looked” instead of “looked”). In combination with the picture of the village emptying as Penochkin approaches, this word gives the description an ironic connotation: Penochkin has no one to turn his generous attention to - everyone has fled, so he “looks around”, as if looking for someone to show himself to.
Penochkin looks funny because he “poses” even “in empty space.”
Turgenev, correcting the manuscript, increasingly emphasized the deliberate prudence of Penochkin’s movements and gestures, the artificiality and unnaturalness of his manners. In the phrase: “he said with a pleasant smile, turning to me,” Turgenev inserted, crossing out the last words: “touching my knee in a friendly manner, and again staring at the valet.” The writer and Penochkin's speech were corrected. “He spoke with emphasis,” Turgenev initially wrote; “in a soft and pleasant voice” is the final version. Penochkin's address: “Hey, Vasily!” - replaced by a more appropriate Penochkin: “Hey, who’s there?” After all, Penochkin does not want to know or call his serfs by name. Initially, Penochkin tried to influence the peasants who were timid before him with the words: “Don’t you know how to speak?” In the final version, he says rudely and imperiously: “Don’t you have any languages?” - and condescendingly contemptuous: “Don’t be afraid, fool.”
The pencil corrections were apparently made by Turgenev later. As a result, Turgenev made his denial of serfdom more categorical and confirmed his rejection of all forms of serfdom. The story originally ended with the phrase: “I confess that while hunting that day I thought more about the conveniences and benefits of a quitrent arrangement than about grouse.” Turgenev crossed out this phrase, and instead wrote in pencil what we now see in the story: “We went hunting.” He conveyed his thoughts about the benefits of quitrent to Penochkin.
Turgenev's irony goes into a broader socio-political plane due to the fact that it is aimed not only at the events described in the story, but often also refers to similar, widespread phenomena in life.
Turgenev, inheriting the Gogol tradition, expresses on a specific occasion his generalized idea of ​​Russian reality. Thus, in the story, peculiar lyrical digressions appear, which allow us to speak not only about the image of the narrator, on whose behalf the story is told, but also about the image of the author, who sees and knows more than his hunter. The image of the author arises from the entire figurative system of the story, its construction, attitude towards the characters, but it is also created by direct statements. A. Tvardovsky wrote: “...among all the heroes of the book, invisibly, but clearly, there lives one more knowledgeable, vigilant and memorable hero - its author - even if the author’s “I” is not in the narrative. It is the personality of the author that determines the merits of the work as an artistic whole.”
Students can be instructed to follow the characteristic features of the author’s appearance through lyrical digressions, complementing and enriching with their observations the image of the author that they developed in the process of analyzing the style of the story.

Popular site articles from the “Dreams and Magic” section

Ivan Turgenev spent the entire summer and autumn of 1846 on his estate, where, as an avid hunter, he hunted and observed the life of the local population. After the writer returned to St. Petersburg, his collaboration with the editors of the famous Sovremennik magazine began. It was the proposal to fill out a section of the magazine that caused the appearance of interesting stories, which were later combined into the collection “Notes of a Hunter.”

Turgenev wrote the story “The Burmist” in July 1847. After the release of the work, society noted the writer’s talent to an even greater extent.

The work “The Burmister” is a clear demonstration of the bleak situation of the peasant population during the existence of serfdom.

Good relationships with loved ones;

The true appearance of Arkady, who actually has a very tough and dangerous character.

Society is confident that Arkady Pavlych has a strict character, but at the same time he strives for fair and progressive management of the estate.

Excerpt;

High level of culture;

Ideal education;

Impeccable parenting.

Penochkin made the peasants dependent on the evil and cruel mayor Sofron. Despite this, Arkady does not even try to understand the specifics of the protagonist’s plight. Penochkin notes that he does not even care about the fate of the family of the elderly man Antip. The most important task remains to make payments correctly and avoid complaints.

The serfs are afraid of Penochkin's reprisals. This becomes the basis of the entire plot of the story. The most revealing scene is the scene of the meeting with the valet Fyodor and the master’s arrival in Shipilovka.

So, how does the story “The Burmist” develop? How does Turgenev reveal the plight of the entire people?

The story, as you might already guess, is primarily dedicated to Arkady Pavlovich Penochkin. This landowner is the main character and the center of the developing events. Arkady received a decent upbringing and entered high society. Despite his good manners and modesty, Arkady has cruelty, which is interestingly combined with prudence. Harsh interactions with serfs lead to various situations, which are described in detail in the story. The whole plot is based on the fact that Penochkin is the owner of the entire village of Shipilovka, the serfs of which had to regularly pay quitrent. The situation is aggravated due to the fact that the mayor Sofron Yakovlevich received the right to dispose of the village. Penochkin got along with the mayor, since it was thanks to the latter that all the peasants lived in fear and paid their rent on time, no matter what. In fact, local residents went bankrupt and could even become recruits if relations with officials deteriorated. Penochkin did not investigate residents’ complaints, considering them unworthy of his attention.

A special link in the story is the fate of the elderly man Antip, who turned to Penochkin to complain about the mayor Sofron. As it turned out, Antipas' two sons were among the recruits. Moreover, Sophron took away the third and last son, removed all the cows from the yard and brutally beat Antipas’s wife. Despite this, Penochkin does not help the elderly man and reproaches him for having decided to file a complaint. It soon became clear that the mayor once paid an arrears for Antipas, and this became the reason for reproaches for the laziness of the elderly man.

After a while, the son of Antipas noticed that the mayor Sofron was oppressing many village residents. It was in this that Penochkin noticed incitement to rebellion. The presence of a stranger, in front of whom Penochkin strove for intelligence, became the reason for refraining from fist violence against Antip’s son. This situation became one of the most striking in the plot of the story.

The work “The Burmist” is a story that vividly represents the plight of peasants during serfdom. The story focuses not on humanity, but on cruelty. High society, shown in the person of Penochkin, and its executive power, represented by Sofron, are so bitter that they do not even try to understand the problems of the lower stratum, the peasants. It can be assumed that the less educated landowners were ready for fist reprisals against the peasants. It is not surprising that the meaning of the plot is revealed through vivid circumstances that demonstrate the difficult times of serfdom.

Analysis of the story “The Burmist”

The main characters of the story are the landowner Penochkin and the mayor Sofron. These characters have completely different personalities. Despite the difference in upbringing, the refined Penochkin and the rude Sofron treat the serfs with the same cruelty, supported by cynicism and selfishness.

Ivan Turgenev compares the two characters in order to reveal the ostentatious intelligence and kindness of Arkady Pavlych. Representatives of high society can be the same as ordinary murderers. It is not surprising that literary critics often call Penochkin “a bastard with subtle tastes.”

The image of Sophron is compiled based on the opinions of three characters:

Narrator;

Penochkin;

Peasant Antip.

Sofron's brightest talent is his ability to fleece serfs like crazy. The dependent position of the people does not allow them to begin to actively express dissatisfaction with the current situation. The well-being of the mayor Sofron is built on the ruin of the villagers and the sweet deception of Penochkin. At the very end, the simple peasant Antip characterizes Sofron with vivid and truthful words: “a shameless swindler, a dog.”

To leave the reader in thought, Turgenev did not give a personal assessment of Antipas’ reasoning. He ended the story with the neutral phrase “We went hunting.”

The role of the collection “Notes of a Hunter”

“Notes of a Hunter” is a famous collection dedicated to the peasant people and Russian nature. Stories about serf villagers occupy a special position in the literary mastery of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev.

Positive heroes are one with nature. At the same time, negative characters are in conflict with natural forces. In the story “The Burmister” there are no positive characters, so beautiful descriptions of landscapes are not used. Throughout the entire work one can find only meager sketches of descriptions of the countryside. Symbolism is hidden even in the mention of a dirty puddle, next to which the petitioners stand in front of Penochkin.

The collection “Notes of a Hunter” is a cycle of works representing the Russian provinces in the late 40s. Each story, including “The Burmister,” becomes a reflection of Russian reality. Writing skill, deep images, a special approach to describing ordinary people allowed Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev to become a great Russian writer who finds understanding among readers even in the 21st century, decades after the publication of his stories.