Initially, the publisher of Chekhov's story "The Intruder" was "Petersburgskaya Gazeta" - it was there that this work appeared in the summer of 1885. This story continues a line of miniatures known for making the reader “laugh through tears.” Now we will do brief analysis the story "The Intruder" by Chekhov, which is small in volume, but very informative in idea and problems.

Plot of the story

Before we briefly consider the plot of the story, we note that thanks to this work we better understand what kind of relationships developed at that time between the peasants and ruling class, and their problems.

So, main character the story “The Attacker,” which we are analyzing, is answering in court. His name is Denis Grigoriev, he is dressed very simply, like a peasant, and stands barefoot. And despite the fact that his mind is not sharp, Grigoriev is ready to assert and prove his innocence. What is he accused of?

This simple man was just trying to unscrew the nuts from the railway rails in order to make weights for the seine. It turns out that the seine itself does not sink, and accordingly, it is very difficult for them to catch fish. What does the court say to this? Of course, it is difficult for the judge to accept such arguments, and he explains to Grigoriev that due to loosened nuts, a train crash could occur and then people would die. But Denis Grigoriev assures the judge that he could not have such intent, it’s all in the net.

And it soon becomes clear that Grigoriev is not alone. Almost the entire village of men does the same thing, and what’s more, the gentlemen buy ready-made seines from them. What can a judge do? He orders the man to be sent back to the cell, and Grigoriev’s surprise knows no bounds, they say, how can this be, why?

Analysis of the story "Intruder" - the idea of ​​the work

Chekhov in his work shows well the negligence of the Russian people, which was and remains eternal problem. But whose fault is it that village men have to unscrew the nuts from the rails, and the result of such actions is a train wreck? Of course, when we read the story and analyze it, it is clearly visible that the main character has no malicious intent to destroy people. For example, it was not without reason that Chekhov presented Grigoriev barefoot - he is a poor man, and he feeds only thanks to this net.

Therefore, by looking at the problem not with a superficial glance, but deeply, we understand who is really to blame for this situation. That is, the attacker is not a village man. This is what becomes clear thanks to the analysis of the story “The Intruder”: ordinary men make seines with nuts, and they are encouraged to do this by the gentlemen who willingly buy these products. Is it really not clear to gentlemen where the nuts on fishing tackle come from? They all understand perfectly well, but prefer to remain silent.

The peculiarity of the work we are considering is its realistic orientation, because Chekhov described what was actually happening in Russia at the end of the 19th century. Let us not omit another important detail of the analysis of the story “The Intruder”. Its composition is such that the author seems to snatch a moment from the events taking place - this is the trial of Grigoriev. But we know neither the beginning of this story nor its ending. And Chekhov does not report the verdict, from which it follows that the author leaves this to the discretion of the reader.

So, to summarize, we can say that the work raises one of the most pressing problems of Russian society - negligence and its real culprits.

In this short article we have made a brief analysis of the story “The Malefactor” by Chekhov, and we hope that it has helped you better understand the work and its main idea. Check back often for our literary blog, where you'll find hundreds of articles with reviews, analysis, and character profiles.

Humorous story by A.P. Chekhov's "The Intruder" was first published in 1885 and continued the author's series of ironic stories. The main problem that Chekhov considers in his work is the class contradictions between peasants and masters in Russia at that time. The main idea of ​​the story is to reveal the problem of negligence, which has always, in any historical era, been so characteristic of our country. Is it the Russian peasant’s fault that he is poor, despite the fact that he works tirelessly? And is he such a terrible criminal if, in search of a livelihood, he pulls nuts from the railroad in order to make seines and then sell them? Of course, this act is worthy of reproach and all condemnation, because because of this, trains go off the rails and people die. But is this unfortunate man really guilty enough to call him a criminal? Who is to blame for this situation?

Reading the story, you don’t feel contempt or hatred for Denis, because he had no intention of harming people. He appears barefoot before the court; he does not have money to buy even the cheapest shoes. Is it his fault that he earns his own food? After all, he never had a desire to kill people.

In the story, the author clearly formulates the problem of who is the true culprit of the negligent attitude towards the lives of innocent people. From the plot it becomes clear who Chekhov calls the real attacker. After all, anyone who agrees to buy gear made by village peasants understands perfectly well what consequences such an activity can lead to. But they prefer to remain silent and continue to buy seines with nuts from the railway. They do not care about the fate of people who can die at any moment and who do not know what fate is in store for them with the light hand of enterprising gentlemen.

The story “The Intruder” can be safely attributed to the direction of realism, since it reflects the picture of Russian reality of that time. The work has an unusual structure because it does not have an introduction or ending. The outcome of the trial remains unknown. The author would like the reader to draw his own conclusions and make his own verdict.

Analysis 2

A wonderful writer, who once said: “brevity is the sister of talent,” an experienced doctor, an excellent person by nature, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, often raises the problem of the “little man” in his works. The story “The Intruder” is no exception, because in it Chekhov continues to reveal the complexities and difficulties of Russian life, different views of people on one thing. It was written in 1885 and published in the Petersburg Newspaper.

The work “The Intruder” evokes both joy and sadness after reading. Laughter comes from the situation that happens in the book: people discussing one thing look at and interpret the incident in their own way. The hero, whose name is Denis Grigoriev, stands trial. He was guilty and was caught for his act: he was unscrewing the bolts that hold the rails in place and allow the train to pass. The judge argues that such an action is not healthy, since people on the train could get hurt, the rails have the ability to move from their specific position if they are deprived of such support as bolts. Grigoriev denies his guilt, because he believes that this action was committed only because of the hero’s plight. On the one hand, the judge has his own truth: the defendant is guilty of stealing the accessories used to fasten the rails. Many lives could have been taken by death if the train had deviated and gone off course. But on the other hand: Denis Grigoriev tried to survive. The situation in the country is terribly tragic, due to which there is no means of livelihood. This is the problem, because theft begins when the government limits the people in something they need.

What makes you sad and despondent after reading the story? The point lies in the lack of education of the defendant. He doesn't realize how much harm he could have caused to so many people. The losses would be incalculable, but the hero cannot understand this fact. It's sad that obvious things aren't presented in character. When it is revealed to him that he is guilty, he only asks the question: “for what?” It’s really scary when a person is not able to realize what his offense is. It seems so accessible and permissible to him to perform a certain action that he forgets about the negative impact on others. And this is a tragedy!

Denis Grigoriev, while in court, tries to convey to the investigator that his act was thought out to the smallest detail, that the character does everything “with his head.” However, the essence of the hero is immediately revealed. Defending their rights, like peasants in historical times, it becomes clear that anything can be expected from the hero, his steps will be completely unpredictable, because the character cares only about his own interests, and the benefits that he can get from this or that action. Denis Grigoriev is worried about how he will live further, on what means he can exist. Therefore, it is not surprising that he goes beyond what is permitted. The hero is of such a nature that he cannot be changed.

In addition to the fact that Anton Pavlovich draws the attention of readers to the authorities that have made a crowd out of the people, forcing them to blindly follow the leader, the writer points out to us the negligence and recklessness of people who, pretending to be “fools,” dream of finding a way out of the current predicament. Isn’t this really happening in our lives now?

5, 6, 7 grade

Several interesting essays

• Analysis of the novel Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, grade 10

  Dostoevsky Fyodor Mikhailovich is a great Russian writer, poet, philosopher, publicist, famous correspondent. The works of Fyodor Mikhailovich are included in the golden fund of Russian art

• Essay on the painting Forest Bells Zholtok, grade 5

  Zholtok’s painting “Forest Bells” amazes with the abundance of flowers and colors, which is probably why, looking at it, such a pleasant feeling is created. It seems that everything is extremely simple: an ordinary village window

People quite often promise each other, give each other their “word of honor” that they will come, return or fulfill. Even more often, all this is not done. It happened in childhood when talking with elders, they promise to fulfill your request or they themselves offer something

• Review of the novel Fathers and Sons of Turgenev

  Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev is famous writer. his works formed the basis of Russian classical literature. Rightfully one of his famous and best creations is the novel “Fathers and Sons.” A review of this work is presented in this article.

Since early childhood, I liked the profession of designer. What I like most about it is that I can show my full creative potential to the fullest.

The theme of Chekhov's "The Intruder"? and got the best answer

Answer from GALINA[guru]
The story clearly showed all the features of Chekhov’s humor:
laconicism and accuracy in creating images, the ability to use several
to outline in strokes a problem sometimes on an all-Russian scale.
The writer reveals the problem
Russian national character: negligence, hope
on the off chance, the desire to get out in every possible way
ways; explains darkness, ignorance, lack of education
man, the logic of survival in those social conditions,
in which a person turns into a wild, absurd, downtrodden creature.

Answer from Kirill Semenov[guru]
The miniature story raises the topic of negligence, which has always existed in Russia. Who is to blame for the fact that men pull nuts out of the railroad, resulting in train accidents and people dying? While reading the work, one does not get the impression at all that Denis had such intent and that he is a malicious violator of the law. He appears before the court barefoot, which means he is poor, and the net is his way of survival. Can you really blame him for getting his own food? After all, he has no intention of killing innocent people.
The story very clearly articulates the problem of who is the real culprit of this negligence and the real attacker. The gentlemen to whom the village men sell these tackles know very well where the nuts on the seines come from. And they are certainly much smarter than men and understand perfectly well what such “handicraft” of men can lead to. But they are silent. They remain silent and continue to buy seines with nuts from rails.
The story is written in a realistic direction, as it specifically paints pictures of Russian reality at the end of the 19th century. The work is unusual in its composition, since it has neither beginning nor end: a part of Denis’s trial seems to have been torn out of the general course of the investigation. The verdict remains unknown: Chekhov wanted the reader to make it himself.
Very short in content, but capacious in terms of ideas, A.P. Chekhov’s story “The Intruder” makes the reader think about the topic of negligence in Russia and its true culprits.
link

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: The theme of Chekhov's "The Intruder"?

Essay on literature. Condemnation of everyday vulgarity and servility on the pages of the stories of A.P.

During the lesson, students will consider the features of A.P.’s humor. Chekhov, get acquainted with the content of the story “The Intruder”, determine its main idea and problems.

Subject: From literature of the 19th century century

Lesson: Story by A.P. Chekhov's "Intruder"

In 1880, the first publications of Anton Pavlovich’s humorous stories appeared in the magazine “Dragonfly” (Fig. 1). He publishes his humoresques under a variety of funny pseudonyms: Baldastov, My Brother's Brother, The Man Without a Spleen, Antosha Chekhonte.

Chekhov is also published in various publications, where his stories are accepted, but still gives preference to the magazine “Oskolki”, where a special department was created for him called “Fragments of Moscow Life”.

Rice. 1. Magazine "Dragonfly" ()

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is known as a master of the short story. His ability to find the exact artistic detail, his talent for reflecting the subtlest emotional experiences of the characters earned him fame in many countries around the world. “...Humor is the wit of deep feeling...” - This wonderful definition fits Chekhov's stories perfectly. Here humor not only makes you laugh, but also “scratches” your heart to tears.

It is important to understand and feel that humor is not a separate part of Chekhov’s work, it is his view of the world, his vision of life, inseparable from irony and a tragic smile. The writer could not ignore the unrest and wrongness of life, but everything written in his works received a tragicomic sound, such are the features of Chekhov’s talent.

So, mixture of comic and tragic. It is this feature of Chekhov’s humor that we will consider using the example of the story “The Intruder.”

Analysis of the story “Intruder”

The story was first published in 1885 in the Petersburg Newspaper, and then included in the collection “Motley Stories”. Already during the writer’s lifetime, the story “The Intruder” was recognized as a masterpiece. So, for example, L.N. Tolstoy admitted: “I’ve read it a hundred times.”

The story clearly demonstrated all the features of Chekhov’s humor: laconicism and precision in creating images, the ability to outline a problem, sometimes on an all-Russian scale, in a few strokes.

Meaning of the name

The word "malicious" is formed by merging the stems of the words evil And intent. About what malice is it in the story?

Rice. 2. Illustration for the story “Intruder” ()

A simple peasant from Klimovsk peasants, Denis Grigoriev, stands in front of a forensic investigator (Fig. 2). He was caught doing a very unsightly thing: he was trying to unscrew a nut from the rails, so that he could later use it to make a sinker. The story is based on a dialogue between the investigator and the attacker. Their conversation evokes both laughter and pity. After all, the peasant cannot understand that such actions are criminal, since unscrewing the nut from the rails can lead to a train crash, and therefore the death of innocent people.

Heroes of the story “Intruder”

In the story two heroes, representatives of 2 social strata, so far from each other that there is no mutual understanding between them. This is an investigator on the one hand and a little man on the other.

Chekhov does not specify the name or appearance of the investigator. This makes the hero faceless and at the same time gives the image collecting. We imagine a typical official, a man in uniform, sitting at a table, taking notes on an interrogation. Before us is a dry lawyer, confident that every peasant knows the entire criminal code. This belief is expressed in the words of the investigator:

“Listen... Article 1081 of the Penal Code says that for any damage to the railway caused with intent, when it could endanger the transport following along this road and the culprit knew that the consequence of this should be a misfortune... do you understand? knew! And you couldn’t help but know what this unscrewing leads to... he is sentenced to exile to hard labor.”

There is only one thing that is comical about the investigator: his sincere bewilderment at the man’s ignorance.

It is the little man who is the main character in the story. We learn his name - Denis Grigoriev - and read a fairly detailed description of his appearance: “A small, extremely skinny man in a motley shirt and patched ports. His hairy and rowan-eaten face and eyes, barely visible because of thick, overhanging eyebrows, have an expression of gloomy severity. On his head there is a whole cap of unkempt, tangled hair that has long been unkempt, which gives him even greater, spider-like severity. He's barefoot." In his description, Chekhov emphasizes not just the man’s poverty, but his savagery and neglect. He looks like a primitive man. After such a description, we expect aggression and anger from the hero, because Chekhov uses the epithet “severe” twice. However, in a conversation with the investigator, the little man shows opposite qualities: harmlessness, good nature, naivety. He admits to unscrewing the nuts from the rails, and is sincerely perplexed as to what his crime is:

"- Well! For how many years the whole village has been unscrewing the nuts and God preserved them, and then there was a crash... people were killed... If I had taken away the rail or, let’s say, put a log across the track, well, then, perhaps, the train would have deflected, otherwise. ..ugh! screw!"

What is Chekhov making fun of in his story? Darkness, ignorance, lack of education of a man. His illiterate speech says more about the hero than the author could say in a description of his life. In order to understand Denis Grigoriev, you need to do vocabulary work that will help translate the man’s illiterate speech into literary Russian.

Vocabulary work:

faq - what;

obviously - of course, naturally;

something - perhaps;

tokmo - only;

her - her;

then - then;

let's go - let's go;

go - go;

it seems - it seems.

Main character's speech amazes with its illiteracy and illogicality. His head is a mess: he talks at the same time about fishing, and about his village, and about the railway guard who caught him in the act of crime. At first we get the impression that the man is simply being cunning, trying to evade responsibility, and we share the opinion of the investigator: “What a fool he is pretending to be! It’s like he was born yesterday or fell from the sky.” However, the author soon makes it clear to us that the man really does not realize all the consequences of his crime. He is completely sincerely indignant:

“- To prison... If there was a reason, I would have gone, otherwise... you live so well... For what? And he didn’t steal, it seems, and he didn’t fight...”

The story ends with the man being taken to a cell, and he accuses the investigator of injustice:

“- Judges... We must judge skillfully, not in vain... Even if you flog, but for the cause, according to your conscience...”

This last line makes me think. Is the man really to blame? Yes, according to the law, he committed a crime. But why did he do this? Why is the whole village unscrewing the screws? For fun or with malicious intent? From the man’s incoherent remarks we can still piece together a sad picture of his life: oppression by the headman, arrears, arbitrariness of the authorities. To feed themselves, the whole village fishes. This is how people live. And for fishing you have to unscrew the nuts and use them as a sinker. Why nuts? Is there really nothing else? And the hero gives an exhaustive answer to this question:

“You won’t find lead on the road, you have to buy it, but a carnation is no good. You couldn’t find a better nut... It’s heavy, and there’s a hole.”

The people have their own logic, the logic of survival in those social conditions in which a person turns into a wild, absurd, downtrodden creature.

“You're disturbing me... Hey, Semyon! - the investigator shouts. - Take him away! - this is the solution to the problem that Chekhov shows us. Is this fair? Of course not.

Thus, in his story, Chekhov humorously describes a situation that really seems funny at first glance. But the main thing the writer sought was to make the reader doubt the fairness of the verdict, arouse sympathy for the peasant and condemn a system that is indifferent to the people’s grief and avoids solving social problems.

In the critical review “About Everything”, published in the magazine “Russian Wealth” in 1886, it was written about “The Intruder”: “Small strokes, sometimes in one word, paint both life and the situation so clearly that you are only surprised at this skill - to bring into one tiny focus all the necessary details, only the most necessary, and at the same time excite your feelings and awaken your thought: in fact, take a deeper look at this investigator and this man, because these are two worlds, separated from one and the same life; both are Russian, both are not essentially evil people, and both do not understand each other. Just think about it, and you will understand the depth of content in this tiny story, presented on two and a half pages.”

Bibliography

1. Korovina V.Ya. Didactic materials on literature. 7th grade. — 2008.
2. Tishchenko O.A. Homework on literature for grade 7 (for the textbook by V.Ya. Korovina). — 2012.
3. Kuteinikova N.E. Literature lessons in 7th grade. — 2009.
4. Korovina V.Ya. Textbook on literature. 7th grade. Part 1. - 2012.
5. Korovina V.Ya. Textbook on literature. 7th grade. Part 2. - 2009.
6. Ladygin M.B., Zaitseva O.N. Textbook-reader on literature. 7th grade. — 2012.
7. Kurdyumova T.F. Textbook-reader on literature. 7th grade. Part 1. - 2011.
8. Phonochrestomathy on literature for the 7th grade for Korovina’s textbook.

1. FEB: Dictionary of literary terms ().
2. Dictionaries. Literary terms and concepts ().
3. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language ().
4. A.P. Chekhov. Attacker().
5. A.P. Chekhov. Biography and creativity ().
6. Biography and creativity of A.P. Chekhov ().

Homework

1. Try to adapt Denis Grigoriev's speech using words from the notes. What changes in the story?
2. What does the story make you think about?
3. What is the peculiarity of A.P.’s humor? Chekhov? Support your answer with examples from the story “The Intruder.”
4. What Chekhov stories have you read? What can you say about their author?

Valentin KOROVIN

“Intruder” A.P. Chekhov and the originality of the “Russian world”

IN In 1885, a story by A.P. was published in the Petersburg Newspaper. Chekhov's "The Intruder", which was later included in the collection "Motley Stories". Already during the writer’s lifetime, the story was recognized as a masterpiece. D.P. Makovitsky wrote down the words of L.N. in the Diary. Tolstoy about “The Intruder”: “I’ve read it a hundred times.” In the list of stories noted by L.N. Tolstoy and reported to Chekhov I.L. Tolstoy, “Intruder” was classified as “1st grade”. Critics also singled out the story among Chekhov's works of that time. In the critical review “About Everything”, published in the magazine “Russian Wealth”, L.E. Obolensky wrote about “The Intruder”: “Small strokes, sometimes in one word, depict both life and the situation so clearly that you are only surprised at this skill - to bring into one tiny focus all the necessary details, only the most necessary, and at the same time excite your feelings and awaken your thoughts: in fact, look deeper at this investigator and this man, because these are two worlds, separated from the same life, both are Russian, both are not essentially evil people, and both do not understand; each other. Just think about this, and you will understand the depth of content in this tiny story, presented on two and a half pages" (Russian Wealth, 1886. No. 12. P. 171). Another critic, K. Arsenyev, in the article “Fiction Writers of Recent Times” also praised the story: “In “The Malefactor”, a peasant who became a criminal without knowing it or understanding it is extremely vividly depicted” (“Bulletin of Europe”, 1887. No. 12. P. 770).

Critics immediately felt that in the story the single national world was split into “two worlds” between which there is no understanding, no agreement, and the characters not only cannot establish mutual understanding and harmony now, they have no opportunity to find them in the future. L.N. Tolstoy responded so sharply to Chekhov’s story because the idea of ​​the contradictions of Russian life, that the “body” and “mind” of the nation formed two different, and sometimes hostile, poles, had long worried and haunted him. It is already present in War and Peace, but it appears especially clearly in the writer’s later works. Indeed, Chekhov's story completes an entire tradition in Russian literature, giving the thought that previously underlay, for example, the genre of the novel, an extremely compressed, condensed form. At the same time, Chekhov’s thought does not become naked, naked, but becomes overgrown with the flesh of living paintings and scenes.

So, in one world two coexist almost independently. When they don't collide, life flows peacefully. But as soon as one world crosses the “border” of another, friction and conflicts arise between them, up to threats to the very life of each of them and both together. In this case, the blame was usually placed on the investigator, as an educated person, but unable to delve into the soul of a man. L.N. Tolstoy angrily said: “They are also judges.” Meanwhile, Chekhov does not seek to condemn anyone, although both are guilty and innocent, both are voluntary or involuntary criminals. From the point of view of the peasant world, Denis Grigoriev is not a criminal, but from the point of view of the intelligentsia, he is a criminal. On the contrary, in the eyes of a peasant, the investigator looks like a criminal, condemning an innocent person, but in the eyes of a civilized society, he looks like an executor of the law and, therefore, is not guilty.

The story is not about the social system (it is still touched upon indirectly), but about the fundamental, fundamental foundations of the “Russian world,” which are deeper and more significant than any social or other structure. The story features heroes who inherit different historical experiences, different moralities, and different concepts about life.

D For convenience of analysis, let’s call the world of the investigator an educated, intelligentsia, civilized, “Russian-European” world, and the world of a peasant – unenlightened, peasant, uncivilized, “Russian-patriarchal”. The story of how two worlds were formed in one goes back centuries. In Chekhov's story, the reader is presented with two not at all stupid and not evil people. And yet, each of them has their own way of life, their own morality, their own concepts of conscience and justice.

Here is the forensic investigator. He acts within the framework of a legally initiated case. Unscrewing the nuts that fasten the sleepers to the rails on the railway track is a crime for which, according to the article of the Penal Code, punishment is subject to exile and hard labor. And the investigator is formally and factually right: such damage on the railway leads to disasters in which hundreds and thousands of people can die. The investigator reasonably recalls: “Last year a train derailed here... I understand!” As an educated person, the actions of Denis Grigoriev and other peasants are wild and incomprehensible to him. Having established the fact that a man unscrewed the nuts (and not just one, but several), the investigator tries to find out the reason: “... why did you unscrew the nut?” From this moment on he fails. He refuses to understand and accept the reasons why Denis Grigoriev desperately needed nuts. It seems to the investigator that the man is lying, giving an absurd reason, that he is pretending to be an idiot, that he “could not have known where this unscrewing was leading...” The motives called by Denis Grigoriev do not fit into the consciousness of the investigator, because they lie in areas of life, in that way of life, in that morality, which are unknown to the investigator and which are inaccessible and inaccessible to him.

The range of ideas of the investigator is typical for an intelligent person, for a “Russian European” who received a legal education.

As a “Russian European,” he immediately creates a distance between himself and the person being interrogated, bearing in mind not only the difference in positions at the moment, but also the difference in class. He immediately takes on an official tone and addresses Denis Grigoriev on a first-name basis (“Come closer and answer my questions”). This was accepted in Russia, but not in Europe. Another Russian peculiarity is that the investigator is prejudiced in advance, before starting the interrogation. He does not believe the peasant, because, according to the old Russian tradition, the peasant is cunning, secretive and always ready to deceive the master or master around his finger, pretending to be ignorant or a fool, and then he himself will brag about how cleverly and easily he deceived the foolish master. This game between a master and a peasant has been going on for centuries with varying success and is well known from the classical works of Russian culture, where a peasant and a gentleman constantly changed places: either a smart gentleman will turn into a fool, or a fool-peasant will turn into a smart guy. This game, always filled with social and moral meaning, dates back to ancient times and is perfectly reflected in our folklore. It’s exactly the same in Chekhov’s story. “Listen, brother, don’t pretend to be an idiot to me, but speak clearly,” the investigator gets angry at Denis Grigoriev when he sincerely explains to him that the nuts are needed as a sinker (“We make sinkers out of nuts”). He is convinced that Denis Grigoriev talks about the sinker, and the shilishper, and about fishing in general with sly intent, hoping to ward off the guilt that he cannot help but admit in his soul, but does not want to admit out loud: “What a fool he is pretending to be! Just like yesterday.” was born or fell from the sky. Don’t you understand, stupid head, what this unscrewing leads to?” But the investigator thinks that he knows the man’s tricks, that he sees right through the man with the naked eye and therefore calls him a “stupid head,” although, of course, he does not consider him a fool, because otherwise he would not accuse him of attempting to deliberately deceive.

ABOUT However, the investigator is not only a “Russian European”, but also a “Russian European”. He thinks in clear categories inherent in formal law, based on contractual relations between society, the state and the individual. The first thing he does is establish the fact of the crime itself, that is, unscrewing the nuts. For this purpose, he sets out the essence of the incident and shows Denis Grigoriev the nut taken from him at the scene of the incident: “Here it is, this nut!.. With which nut he detained you. Was it so?” Next, the investigator, as required by law, finds out the motive for the crime: “... why did you unscrew the nut?” And then it becomes clear: the motive is so ridiculous and absurd, so childishly ingenuous, naive and everyday truthful, that it cannot be believed if one compares the gravity of the crime and the reason that gave rise to it. Finally, the investigator cannot wrap his head around the fact that Denis Grigoriev, an adult peasant, has no idea about the direct and immediate connection between the unscrewing of the nut and the train crash. He doesn’t understand why the man sitting in front of him stubbornly talks about fishing and refuses to talk about railroad accidents. The investigator regards the everyday logic of Denis Grigoriev, shared by all village residents, as a subterfuge and a lie, a desire to avoid answering and divert the conversation away from the right direction: “Tell me about the shilishper!” the investigator smiles.

Having never established the motive, the cause of the crime, the investigator turns to Denis Grigoriev’s moral sense, to his conscience: “If the watchman had not looked, the train could have gone off the rails, people would have been killed! You would have killed people!” But here, too, failure awaits him: the man denies any villainous intent and swears that his conscience is clear: “Glory to the Lord, good sir, you lived your life and not only killed, but there were no such thoughts in your head... Save and have mercy, Queen of Heaven... What are you talking about!” The man understood the investigator in such a way that it was as if, while unscrewing the nut, he had an evil intention in his mind and wanted to take people’s lives of his own free will. Meanwhile, the man had no such intention; his conscience in this regard was absolutely clear. One can say even more decisively: in the mind of Denis Grigoriev, the nut had nothing to do with the railway and the movement of trains, except for one thing: a man could only get a good sinker in the form of a nut on the railway. Otherwise, the railway was of no interest to him.

Desperate to influence Denis Grigoriev’s conscience, the investigator again turned to his mind: “Listen... Article 1081 of the Penal Code says that for any damage to the railway caused with intent, when it could endanger the transport following along this road and the culprit knew that the consequence of this should be a misfortune... do you understand? I knew ! And you couldn’t help but know what this unscrewing leads to... he is sentenced to exile to hard labor.” It is no coincidence that Chekhov forces the investigator to repeat three times the words that the man knew about the possibility of a train crash. The forensic investigator persistently convinces Denis Grigoriev of this idea (“And you couldn’t help but know...”). From now on, the whole question is whether he knew or did not know. The investigator no longer insists on intent, having realized that he will achieve nothing here. The text of the article of the code cited in the story sounds very humane: the accused is considered guilty if it is established that he knew about the consequences of the injuries. If the interrogator comes to the conclusion that the person being interrogated did not know what his action would lead to, he, presumably, was exempt from punishment. However, Denis Grigoriev’s knowledge or ignorance of the consequences of unscrewing the nut remains unclear. The investigator is convinced that the man knew and, therefore, understood that a catastrophe could happen. Denis Grigoriev, on the contrary, claims that he did not know, did not guess and did not think. Here one voice argues with another, and the truth cannot be obtained in such a confrontation. But since the crime has been committed and the culprit has been captured, the investigator has every reason to prepare a decree of arrest and detention. As for the requirement of the law to indispensably establish the criminal’s knowledge and understanding of a possible future misfortune as a result of his actions, the investigator acted on the principle of analogy: every reasonable person, the “judicial investigator” considered, should understand and undoubtedly understands that unscrewing the nuts leads to a crash trains; Denis Grigoriev is a reasonable person, and, therefore, he knew and understood what he was doing. If so, then he is guilty. “I have to take you into custody and send you to prison,” the investigator tells the man.

H the reader of the story understands that the investigator is both right and wrong. A crime has been committed, but the perpetrator should not be punished because he did not know the consequences of his action. The law in such cases exempted from punishment. The investigator made a mistake and, having taken into custody a person who was innocent according to the law, he himself became a criminal. During the course of the story, the accused and the interrogator do not exactly change places, but simultaneously exist in two qualities - guilty and innocent. What, however, was the reason for the mistake, why did the investigator not believe the man? Not only because they lead different lifestyles, that the life of Denis Grigoriev is unfamiliar to the investigator, but that the heroes are at different levels of education, upbringing, morality, at different levels of the social ladder. The deep reasons lie not only and not even so much in this. The story with extraordinary artistic persuasiveness demonstrates the absolute impossibility of understanding and agreement between a man and an investigator, the reason for which is that the man and the investigator have different “systems” of thinking, different morality, different logic, different attitudes to reality, which have their origins in the dark centuries ago.

The investigator is portrayed by Chekhov as not a villain at all. He does not build traps for Denis Grigoriev, does not torture him and does not seek to “knock” a confession out of his mouth. Yes, this is not necessary: ​​the man admitted that he unscrewed the nuts. But the investigator cannot understand why the peasant is inaccessible to the simple truth that unscrewing the nuts threatens train crashes and the death of many people. And this happens due to the fact that the investigator is a rationalist, a “Russian European” who has adopted legal and moral European norms. He extends them to the entire society, regardless of who is in front of him - a peasant or an intellectual, an enlightened person or an uneducated person, wealthy or poor.

European law, as adopted by Russia, presupposes that everyone is equal before the law - rich and poor, educated and uneducated, and so on. The articles of the law do not make exceptions for citizens of different classes. And this, of course, is correct, since otherwise the entire orderly system of law and order will collapse and hopeless chaos will reign in its place. But the same European system turns to certain layers of the Russian people with its formal side. It turns out to be completely alien and hostile to them, because they have a different logic, a different system of moral values, other ideas about justice, truth and, therefore, other, unwritten, but rooted in consciousness, in blood and flesh, legal norms with which they they are in no hurry and do not want to part. These norms originate in patriarchal-communal times and have undergone almost no changes since then. That is why the Russian investigator and the Russian peasant cannot understand each other. Peasant Denis Grigoriev does not know about European law, and the investigator is not familiar with any patriarchal morals. The united “Russian world” has long been split, and European, relatively speaking, post-Petrine Russia is incomprehensible to patriarchal, pre-Petrine Russia, as well as vice versa. This is the paradox of Russian life, here lies all its troubles, so sharply and aptly captured by Chekhov in his short story.

It is known that, trying to overcome this contradiction in reality, in reality, the writer suffered an unfortunate failure. Popular in those years, essayist and journalist V.A. Gilyarovsky, in his note “The plot of the story “The Intruder”,” spoke about Chekhov’s meeting in the dacha town of Kraskovo near Moscow and his acquaintance with the peasant Nikita Pantyukhin (Lame). Nikita Pantyukhin was a “great master of burbot fishing” and used railroad nuts as sinkers. V.A. Gilyarovsky wrote: “A.P. tried to explain to Nikita that it is impossible to unscrew the nuts, that because of this a train wreck could occur, but this was completely incomprehensible to the man: “Why am I unscrewing all the nuts? In one place one, in another - another... We don’t understand what’s allowed and what’s not!”

R Denis Grigoriev contrasts national logic based on law, which presupposes formal law, with “law of conscience,” religious-patriarchal law that arose in Ancient Rus'. From this point of view, his train of thought is very interesting.

Initially, it may seem that Denis Grigoriev does not understand the investigator due to the hopeless darkness, lack of enlightenment, and lack of education. One might think that he has not yet reached the level of civilization in which the investigator and all literate Russia reside. This idea, of course, is created in the story, but it is not the main thing. The point is that Denis Grigoriev lives well in his own patriarchal world and he does not at all feel any inferiority in his condition. He doesn’t know European civilization and doesn’t want to know. So, for example, he is indignant at the watchman, who, like Denis Grigoriev himself, has no idea and cannot have ("and the watchman is the same guy, without any idea, grabs him by the collar and drags him"), but begins to reason in a new way (“You judge, and then drag! It’s said – a man, a man and a mind...”) and without any correct (the watchman was initially deprived of it) reasoning he used force (“... he hit me twice in the teeth and in the chest "). At first glance, it seems that Denis Grigoriev received some vague information about civil law, that it is impossible to beat a person even during arrest. In fact, this episode has nothing to do with European law. Denis Grigoriev immediately divided the law into two parts: he gave “reasoning” to the investigator and all educated people who have a “concept”, and left “conscience” to himself and to men like him. In other words, the peasant cannot “reason,” that is, think logically, and refuses. This does not mean that he is stupid or incapable of thinking at all. He just has a different mind than the investigator. The investigator is endowed with a rational mind, the man is endowed with a “peasant” mind. These are two completely different minds that cannot come to an agreement, but give rise to disputes. From this point of view, it is quite clear why it was “the watchman Ivan Semenov Akinfov” who aroused the special hostility of Denis Grigoriev: in his opinion, the watchman mixed two roles - a peasant and an enlightened person. He acted in a way that was unbecoming of either a peasant or an educated gentleman: immediately, without reasoning, he found him guilty and dragged him to the investigator. Having recognized the peasant as a criminal, he did not show a drop of peasant intelligence, because such recognition is possible only after “reasoning.” If he could “reason”, he would understand that Denis Grigoriev is not a criminal: he did not have any malicious intent and, therefore, was not guilty. But since the watchman is a man, he is not able to “reason.” The watchman, therefore, made a big mistake: having found Denis Grigoriev guilty, he tried to “judge” what was due not to him, but to an enlightened person, but since he is a man, he naturally was not able to “judge.”

From this scene it is clear that Denis Grigoriev interpreted the investigator’s words about the reasons for the train crash “last year” (“Now it’s clear why...”, “Now, I say, it’s clear why the train derailed last year... I understand !") wrongly and to your advantage. He is confident not only that the investigator will consider him innocent, but also that he has correctly separated the mind of the investigator and the mind of the peasant: the investigator is given the ability to “reason”, to think logically (“That’s why you are educated, to understand, our dears.. . The Lord knew to whom he gave the concept... You have judged"), it is given to a peasant to think like a peasant. The watchman broke this rule. At the same time, another thought lives in the mind of Denis Grigoriev: he hopes that the truth of enlightened people and the truth of peasants can find harmony, agreement, that the logic of a peasant and the logic of an investigator are not always hostile to each other. The man believed that the investigator judged correctly, that he understood Denis Grigoriev. This means that the dream of national unity is shared not only by people from the educated class, but also by peasants. She is close to all the people.

D Enis Grigoriev was mistaken: the official did not at all think of releasing him, but, acting in accordance with the law, intends to take him into custody and send him to prison. The peasant, convinced of the investigator’s fair trial, initially looks for the reason not in him, but in some strangers: in the headman, who made a mistake “about arrears,” in his brother, who does not pay and for whom he, Denis, has to answer, although brother is not responsible for brother. And only then does he accuse the judges, that is, the investigator: “We must judge skillfully, not in vain... Even if you flog, but for the cause, according to your conscience...” And then, as a righteous judge, he remembered the bearer of the old patriarchal law: “ Judges! The dead gentleman general has died, the Kingdom of Heaven, otherwise he would have shown you, the judges...” Patriarchal law was connected in the mind of Denis Grigoriev with conscience. It was personal in nature, there was no formal impersonality in it, which is now interpreted as an inability to judge. Thus, to judge rationally, “according to the mind,” according to European law, although Denis Grigoriev does not know this concept, means “not being able to judge,” and to judge “according to one’s conscience” means “being able to judge.” Denis Grigoriev’s hopes that the laws of “mind” and “conscience” would coincide, as already said, were destroyed and have not yet been brought to agreement. The peasant rejects the new law and recognizes only the old, patriarchal one. What does judging “according to conscience” amount to in his mind?

First of all, Denis Grigoriev believes that it is necessary to judge “for the cause”, for an actual misdeed, for a real crime (“Even though you flog, but for the cause, in good conscience...”). The accusation that he unscrewed the nuts is, of course, not such a serious “matter.” This conviction formed in the head of Denis Grigoriev because from time immemorial all the peasants of the described area led the same unchanged way of life - in particular, they looked for and found sinkers for fishing. This is a guy's everyday activity. And where a man gets a sinker and what he uses it for is no one’s business. The railway - an achievement of European technical thought - did not introduce into the peasant minds any new attitude towards old occupations. But it was useful to the peasants for their usual and long-standing practical purposes: it became easier for them to obtain sinkers, for which the nuts were very well adapted. When the investigator objects to the man: “But for the sinker you could have taken lead, a bullet... some kind of nail...” - Denis Grigoriev reasonably replies: “You won’t find lead on the road, you have to buy it, but a nail is not good. Better than a nut and can’t be found... It’s heavy, and there’s a hole.” The peasant and the investigator live in different dimensions, they have different life . The investigator cannot understand the life of a peasant, and the peasant cannot understand the investigator. The difference in lifestyle is described in the story in the very first lines. The investigator is an official, he is wearing a uniform, and his portrait is clear. But Chekhov draws the peasant in detail: “... a small, extremely skinny man in a motley shirt and patched ports. His hairy and rowan-eaten face and eyes, barely visible because of thick, overhanging eyebrows, have an expression of gloomy severity. On his head a whole cap of long-untied, tangled hair, which gives him even greater, spider-like severity. He is barefoot.” The writer focuses not only on the poverty, darkness of the peasant, on his difficult life, on the serious illnesses he suffered - the portrait drawn by Chekhov indicates that Denis Grigoriev seemed to have come to the writer’s contemporary time from the distant past: he is wearing a motley shirt, which worn by peasants in ancient times; Thick, overhanging eyebrows, unkempt, tangled hair resemble a man from an era of savagery and barbarism. The peasant’s appearance was distinguished by “sullen severity,” like the ancient people, although from the further narrative the reader learns that the peasant’s disposition is kind and meek. Chekhov, however, twice writes about the “severity” of the peasant and even calls it “spider-like,” hinting at the closeness of the peasant to the animal world, and to the most ancient and resilient kingdom - the kingdom of insects. Finally, the occupation of Denis Grigoriev, like other Klimov men, fishing, has been known since time immemorial. The peasant knows everything about fishing and willingly tells the investigator about sinkers, crawlers, live bait, bleaks, minnows, perches, pikes, burbots, shilishpers, chubs and all other prey. He is sure that the investigator, who has no idea about fishing in particular and about peasant life in general, is only interested in why he needed the sinker. He condescendingly explains to the investigator that it is impossible to fish without a sinker, and even adds that some gentlemen have already learned this wisdom: “Our gentlemen fish like that too.” Only fools are capable of fishing without a sinker, because “the law is not written for a fool...” And here he really doesn’t lie, because he has no need to lie. Besides, he “has never lied since birth.” He, in his opinion, frankly explained to the investigator why he needed a sinker and why the most suitable object for a sinker was a railway nut. The man's logic is impeccable. It is rooted in the centuries-old experience of patriarchal life, when the peasant could freely use the gifts of nature, land, forest, water, if they were common, they belonged to the whole “world.” In modern times, he treats with the same freedom the railway that ran through his native place. Finally, he, it seems to him, convinces the investigator that the lead for the sinker “needs to be bought” (there is a double meaning here: not only that there is no money, that he, Denis Grigoriev, is poor, but also that he is not at all fool: why buy when there are a lot of nuts on the railway track, and it passes through the land on which my ancestors lived from ancient times, now other peasants live, I live, and, therefore, the nuts are common, belonging to everyone, including me; and in fact, the nuts are unscrewed by the men of the whole village - from young to old), “but a nail is no good,” while a nut is the best sinker: “It’s both heavy and there’s a hole.”

D Enis Grigoriev has exhausted all the arguments, and the investigator still considers the man guilty. And when he finally understands that because of the nut he can become a murderer as a result of a train crash, he sincerely does not understand the logic of the investigator. This does not fit in the peasant’s mind, and not only because he is dark and uneducated. The peasant’s head is designed in such a way that if you take away the small from the big, the big will not decrease, it will not become smaller, and perhaps nothing bad will happen: “If I took away the rail or, let’s say, put a log across its path, well, then, perhaps, it would turn train, otherwise... ugh! So, according to Denis Grigoriev, a nut is, firstly, such a small object that it cannot cause any harm to anyone or anything. A nut is not a log or a rail. Besides, one nut doesn’t mean anything (“We don’t unscrew everything... we leave it... We don’t do it crazy... we understand..."). Secondly, everyday experience convinced the man and the whole village that nothing could happen by unscrewing the nuts:

“Denis grins and narrows his eyes at the investigator in disbelief.

- Well! For how many years now the whole village has been unscrewing the nuts, and God preserved, and then there was a crash... I killed people..."

He ignores the investigator’s words about the train crash last year, not attaching any significance to them and not connecting them with unscrewing the nuts. And when the investigator announces to the peasant that he is taking him into custody and sending him to prison, Denis Grigoriev is sincerely surprised: “Denis stops blinking and, raising his thick eyebrows, looks questioningly at the official.” He is perplexed, because he told everything truthfully and was justified in everything, and the official only distracts him from the real matter: “That is, what about going to prison? Your Honor! I don’t have time, I need to go to the fair; I can get three rubles from Yegor for lard. ..” He is convinced that the investigator is putting him in prison in vain and unfairly: “To prison... If only there was a reason, I would have gone, otherwise... you live a great life... And why didn’t you steal, it seems? and didn't fight..."

In fact, the investigator does not accuse the man of theft or any other unseemly act. He accuses him of something that, according to Denis Grigoriev, is not a crime. Thefts and fights are “legal” offenses; they are committed against “conscience.” Unscrewing nuts is not a misdemeanor because no one has ever heard of it. It lies outside the laws of “conscience”. Finally, the man denies theft (“he didn’t steal”), but after unscrewing the nut, he appropriated it, that is, turned it into personal property and used it for his needs. According to European law, this is precisely theft, and the most real one at that: what does not personally belong to a given person, but is turned into his own property, is considered stolen, except in cases where a small amount of what is stolen from the public domain does not harm other people or society. For example, a bucket of water taken from a river and consumed in a personal household cannot be called theft. But the theft of a brick brought for renovation of a house is already classified as theft. The fact that a man catches fish from a river that does not belong to him and at the same time belongs to him as a member of the whole society, of course, cannot be considered theft, because there is no direct and immediate harm to other people, and the fact that he unscrews the nut is the most real theft, because although the railroad does not belong to him personally and at the same time belongs to him, being a common property with everyone, unscrewing the nuts causes damage to everyone and threatens murder. But for a man there is no difference between catching fish and “catching” nuts. He is used to considering everything as common property, that is, no one’s and his own. What does not personally belong to another person may be taken. Moral feeling in this case is silent. A man recognizes theft only when he secretly takes from his neighbor something that is exclusively someone else’s property. Meanwhile, Denis Grigoriev was unscrewing the nuts, like all the men, in front of everyone, and the whole village knew where the peasants got the sinkers from. Thus, there was no secret abduction, just as, if you follow peasant logic and peasant conscience, there was no theft - the nuts were not anyone’s personal property. It’s not for nothing that Denis Grigoriev uses the characteristic word “carried away” (not “stole”, namely “carried away”): “If I took the rail away...” (Already in our time the words “nesun”, “nesuny” appeared, which began to mean thieves stealing food or other items from state enterprises. This also shows an echo of the patriarchal moral norm. The people did not call the “nonsense” thieves, but called them by a different name, remembering that in their moral ideas the difference between a thief and a nonsense, between the law, still lives. European and patriarchal law, rational-formal law and the law “according to conscience”. )

N The most important thing is that Denis Grigoriev had no malicious intent. European law judges on the basis of the fact itself, taking into account, of course, an important circumstance: whether the act was intentional or not. The degree of inevitable punishment depends on it. For patriarchal law, it is not so much the fact of the accomplished act that is important, but the presence of intent. Anyone who had no intention may be acquitted, forgiven, released from punishment, pardoned, or, in any case, have the right to count on significant leniency. The accused himself, if he had no intent, does not consider himself guilty. His conscience turns out to be clear. According to patriarchal law, the one who conceived the murder and instigated it is more to blame than the one who killed, acting at the instigation of someone else’s criminal will. They always tend to justify a murderer, citing the fact that he was deceived by his friends, lured into their networks, seduced, while he did not think and did not want to kill, and therefore is not a villain by nature.

Denis Grigoriev wants the investigator to judge him and judge him “according to his conscience.” This means that he does not see any crime behind him and does not understand that he has become a criminal, regardless of his will. If we proceed from patriarchal law, he did not commit any crime, because he did not know about the consequences of unscrewing the nuts, he did not have villainous intent and desire to destroy people. If we proceed from European law, then Denis Grigoriev, not even knowing about the fatal consequences of unscrewing the nuts and not suspecting that trains can go off the rails and people can suffer cruelly, is guilty and subject to punishment. But such a trial will be a trial “according to the mind,” and not “according to conscience.” The man insists that he be judged by those moral laws that have existed since time immemorial, which he absorbed with his mother’s milk, and not by those new, European, enlightened ones that were introduced by educated people, which are alien to his heart and his mind, his whole image his life and which he does not understand or accept.

WITH Therefore, the story is not so much about education and darkness, but about different, incompatible moral ideas. A peasant’s concepts of morality are in no way inferior in quality to those of an investigator, but they are different both in time and in essence. Denis Grigoriev does not accept the investigator’s judgment and is offended, believing that the investigator judges unfairly, “in vain.” The investigator, in turn, cannot take the point of view of patriarchal morality and patriarchal law and declares the man guilty. However, this, whether he wants it or not, makes him guilty, because he refuses to understand the man in advance and imposes his moral standards on him. In other words, the investigator, like the peasant, does not understand that he involuntarily becomes a criminal. This is the tragic paradox of the “Russian world”, presented in Chekhov’s story in a short and impressive scene. L. Tolstoy unconditionally took the side of the peasant, the side of patriarchal consciousness. For him, the investigator and the judges are primarily to blame. Chekhov the writer “objectively” conveys the conflict and balances the views of the investigator and Denis Grigoriev. As a man of European thought, he cannot completely join either the investigator or the peasant. In this regard, he partly agrees with L. Tolstoy, but to a greater extent he is still polemically inclined towards him. His position boils down, perhaps, to the following.

The “Russian world” split into two, and a moral chasm formed between them. In order to bridge this gap, it is necessary to “enlighten” both the peasant and the intellectual. It is absolutely clear that the result of mutual movement towards each other cannot be predicted with accuracy, since the people as a whole do not accept the European path. One road leads towards Europe. Russia entered it a long time ago, from the time of Peter I. The other road is away from Europe, into the patriarchal past. Enlightened Russia left her, but her people did not leave. Part of the Russian intelligentsia, seeing and understanding this, sympathized with the people’s aspirations to find a special, “third” path (not purely Western and not purely Asian), “Russian” and even encouraged the people to such searches. However, there is no “third” way, and looking for it is a futile effort. And yet, as long as the patriarchal way of life still lives in the popular consciousness, still exists in everyday life, everyday life and public life, as long as patriarchal morality and the law based on it live and exist. Therefore, the task is to bring closer together, if possible take into account and combine rational European laws with laws “in accordance with conscience”.

M The main path of Russia for Chekhov was not to take the side of an intelligent, rooted in the usual world order and worldly adapted, but patriarchal, saturated with prejudices and superstitions, dark man, forgetting and discarding the European, and not to order the people to urgently Europeanize , consigning to oblivion the patriarchal, even if outdated, but to gradually move towards Europeanization, without neglecting the nationally special and without ignoring it. Ultimately, the “Russian world” will inevitably become European and at the same time retain its national identity, just as other countries that we consider to belong to the civilization and culture of the European continent have preserved it in their unique historical experience.