At the beginning of the 19th century, works appeared in Russian literature, central problem which is the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And, as a result, a new image is created - the image of an “extra” person, a stranger among his own, rejected by his environment. The heroes of these works are people of inquisitive minds, gifted, talented, who had the opportunity to become real “heroes of their time” - writers, artists, scientists - and who, in Belinsky’s words, became “smart useless people”, “suffering egoists”, “reluctant egoists” . Image " extra person"changed as society developed, acquired new qualities, until, finally, it reached full expression in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov".
The first in the gallery of “extra” people are Onegin and Pechorin - heroes who are characterized by cold matter-of-factness, an independent character, a “sharp, chilled mind”, where irony borders on sarcasm. These are extraordinary people, and therefore, rarely satisfied with themselves, dissatisfied with an easy, carefree existence. They are not satisfied with the monotonous life of the “golden youth”. It’s easy for heroes to answer with certainty what doesn’t suit them, but it’s much more difficult to answer what they need from life. Onegin and Pechorin are unhappy, “lost interest in life”; they move in a vicious circle, where every action implies further disappointment. Dreamy romantics in their youth, they turned into cold cynics, cruel egoists, as soon as they saw the “light”. Who or what is the reason that smart, educated people have turned into “superfluous” people who have not found their place in life? It would seem that everything was in their hands, so this means that this is the heroes’ own fault? We can say that they themselves are to blame for how their fate turned out, but I am still inclined to believe that no one and nothing can change a person as much as society, the social environment, the conditions in which this or that person finds himself. It was the “light” that turned Onegin and Pechorin into “moral cripples.” Pechorin admits in his diary: “...My soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable...” But if the rebellious nature of Pechorin, a man of the 30s of the 19th century, thirsts for activity, seeks food for the mind, painfully reflects on the meaning of life, about one’s role in society, then Onegin’s nature of the 20s was, to one degree or another, characterized by mental apathy and indifference to the world around him. The main difference between Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin is the final result to which both heroes arrive: if Pechorin managed to defend his convictions, denied secular conventions, did not exchange himself for petty aspirations, that is, he completely retained his moral integrity, despite internal contradictions, Then Onegin squandered the spiritual strength that prompted him to act. He lost the ability to actively fight and, “having lived without a goal, without work until he was twenty-six years old ... he did not know how to do anything.” Lermontov portrays to us more a strong character, rather than Pushkin, but together they show how the surrounding reality and secular society destroy a gifted person.
In Goncharov's novel we have the story of a man who does not have the makings of a determined fighter, but has all the data to be a good, decent person. “Oblomov” is a kind of “book of results” of the interaction between the individual and society, moral beliefs and social conditions in which a person is placed. And if from the works of Lermontov and Pushkin we can study the anatomy of one human soul, with all its contradictions, then in Goncharov’s novel a whole phenomenon can be traced public life- Oblomovism, which collected the vices of one of the types of noble youth of the 50s of the 19th century. In his work, Goncharov “wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before us was elevated to a type, giving it a generic and permanent meaning,” wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov. Oblomov is not a new face in Russian literature, “but before he was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel.”
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic nature, divorced from real life. "Lying... was his normal state." Oblomov's life is a pink nirvana on a soft sofa: slippers and a robe are integral companions of Oblomov's existence. Living in a narrow world of his own creation, fenced off from the bustling real life by dusty curtains, the hero loved to make unrealistic plans. He never brought anything to completion; any of his undertakings suffered the fate of a book that Oblomov had been reading for several years on one page. However, Oblomov’s inaction was not raised to such an extreme degree as, for example, Manilov from “Dead Souls,” and Dobrolyubov was right when he wrote that “... Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is looking for something in his life, thinking about something...” Like Onegin and Pechorin, Goncharov’s hero in his youth was a romantic, thirsting for an ideal, burning with the desire for activity, but, like previous heroes, “the color of life blossomed and did not bear fruit.” Oblomov became disillusioned with life, lost interest in knowledge, realized the futility of his existence and lay down on the sofa, believing that in this way he could preserve his moral integrity. So he “laid away” his life, “slept through” love and, as his friend Stolz said, “his troubles began with the inability to put on stockings and ended with the inability to live.” So the main difference
I see Oblomov from Onegin and Pechorin in the fact that if the last two heroes denied social vices in the struggle, in action, then the first one “protested” on the sofa, believing that this is the best way of life. Therefore, it can be argued that the “smart useless people” Onegin and Pechorin and the “superfluous” person Oblomov are completely different people. The first two heroes are “moral cripples” due to the fault of society, and the third is due to the fault of their own nature, their own inaction.
Based on the peculiarities of life in Russia in the 19th century, we can say that if “extra” people were found everywhere, regardless of the country and political system, then Oblomovism is a purely Russian phenomenon, generated by the Russian reality of that time. It is no coincidence that Pushkin in his novel uses the expression “Russian blues,” and Dobrolyubov sees in Oblomov “our indigenous folk type.”
Many critics of that time, and even the author of the novel himself, saw in the image of Oblomov a “sign of the times,” arguing that the image of a “superfluous” person is typical only for feudal Russia of the 19th century. They saw the root of all evil in the country's state structure. But I cannot agree that the “suffering egoist” Pechorin, the “smart uselessness” Onegin, the apathetic dreamer Oblomov are the product of the autocratic-serf system. Our time, the 20th century, can serve as proof of this. And now there is a large group of “superfluous” people, and in the 90s of the 20th century, many find themselves out of place and do not find the meaning of life. At the same time, some turn into mocking cynics, like Onegin or Pechorin, others, like Oblomov, kill the best years of their lives, lying on the sofa. So Pechorin is a “hero” of our time, and Oblomovism is a phenomenon not only of the 19th century, but also of the 20th century. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous” person continues, and more than one will say with bitterness: “My soul is spoiled by light...” Therefore, I believe that it is not serfdom, but a society in which true values are distorted, and vices often wear the mask of virtue, where a person can be trampled by a gray, silent crowd.
Literature. There is so much beauty and mystery in this seemingly simple word.
Many people mistakenly believe that literature is not the most useful and interesting form of art, others assume that simply reading books and what literature teaches us are the same thing, but I cannot agree with this.
Literature is “food” for the soul, it helps a person think about what is happening in the world, society, relate the past and the present, and, finally, it teaches a person to understand himself: his feelings, thoughts and actions. Literature reflects the lives of past generations, enriching our life experience.
This essay is only the first part of my research, and in it I tried to reflect on the images of superfluous people in the literature of the 19th century. Next year I intend to continue my work and compare the “extra people” of different eras, or rather these images in the understanding of writers classical literature XIX century and authors of postmodern texts of the XX - XXI centuries.
I chose this particular topic because, I believe, it is relevant in our time. After all, even now there are people similar to my heroes, they also do not agree with the way society lives, some despise and hate it; There are people who feel alien and lonely in this world. Many of them can also be called “superfluous people”, since they do not fit into the general way of life, they recognize different values than the society in which they live. It seems to me that such people will always exist, since our world and our society are not ideal. We neglect each other's advice, we despise those who are not like us, and until we change, there will always be people like Oblomov, Pechorin and Rudin. After all, we ourselves probably contribute to their appearance, and our inner world requires something unexpected, strange, and we find it in others who differ from us in at least some way.
The purpose of my work on the essay was to identify the similarities and differences between the characters in 19th-century literature, called “superfluous people.” Therefore, the tasks that I set for myself this year are formulated as follows:
1. Get to know in detail all three heroes of the works of M. Yu. Lermontov, I. A. Turgenev and I. A. Goncharov.
2. Compare all the characters according to certain criteria, such as: portrait, character, attitude to friendship and love, self-esteem; find similarities and differences between them.
3. Generalize the image of the “superfluous person”, in the understanding of the authors of the 19th century; and write an essay on the topic “The type of superfluous person in the literature of the 19th century.”
Working on an essay on this topic is difficult, since you need to take into account not only your opinion, but also the opinion of famous critics and literary publications. Therefore, for me when doing work main literature become critical article N.A. Dobrolyubova “What is Oblomovshchina,” which helped me understand Oblomov’s character and fully look at his problems from all sides; book "M. Y. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, which showed me the character and characteristics of Pechorin; and the book by N. I. Yakushin “I. S. Turgenev in life and work,” she helped me rediscover the image of Rudin.
Definition of the type of “Superfluous Man” in Russian literature of the 19th century.
The “superfluous person” is a social and psychological type that became widespread in Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century: this is, as a rule, a nobleman who received appropriate education and upbringing, but did not find a place for himself in his environment. He is lonely, disappointed, feels his individual and moral superiority over the society around him and alienation from it, does not know how to get down to business, feels the gap between “immense forces” and “the pitifulness of actions.” His life is fruitless, and he usually fails in love.
Already from this description it is clear that such a hero could have originated in the romantic era and is associated with conflicts characteristic of its hero.
The very concept of “an extra person” came into literary use after I. S. Turgenev’s “Diary of an Extra Man” was published in 1850. Usually this term is used to refer to characters in novels by Pushkin and Lermontov.
The hero is in acute conflict with society. Nobody understands him, he feels alone. Those around him condemn him for his arrogance (“Everyone stopped their friendship with him. “Everything is yes and no; he will not say yes, sir, or no, sir.” That was the general voice”).
Disappointment is, on the one hand, the mask of a romantic hero, on the other hand, it is a real sense of self in the world.
“Extra people” are characterized by inactivity, the inability to change anything in their own lives and in the lives of other people.
The conflict of the “extra person” is, in a sense, hopeless. It is conceptualized not only and not so much as cultural and political, but as historical and cultural existential.
Thus, having originated in the depths of romanticism, the figure of the “superfluous man” becomes realistic. Early plots of Russian literature dedicated to the fate of the “superfluous person”, first of all, opened up the opportunity for the development of psychologism (Russian psychological novel).
The originality of the composition of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”
"A Hero of Our Time" is the first lyrical and psychological novel in Russian prose. Therefore, the psychological wealth of the novel lies, first of all, in the image of the “hero of the time.” Through the complexity and inconsistency of Pechorin, Lermontov affirms the idea that everything cannot be fully explained: in life there is always something high and secret, which is deeper than words and ideas.
Hence, one of the features of the composition is the increasing revelation of the secret. Lermontov leads the reader from Pechorin's actions (in the first three stories) to their motives (in stories 4 and 5), that is, from riddle to solution. At the same time, we understand that the secret is not Pechorin’s actions, but his inner world, psychology.
In the first three stories ("Bela", "Maksim Maksimych", "Taman") only the actions of the hero are presented. Lermontov demonstrates examples of Pechorin's indifference and cruelty towards the people around him, shown either as victims of his passions (Bela) or as victims of his cold calculation (poor smugglers).
Why is the hero's fate so tragic?
The answer to this question is the last story "Fatalist". Here the problems being solved are not so much psychological as philosophical and moral.
The story begins with a philosophical dispute between Pechorin and Vulich about predestination human life. Vulich is a supporter of fatalism. Pechorin asks the question: “If there are definitely predestination, then why were we given will, reason?” This dispute is verified by three examples, three mortal battles with fate. Firstly, Vulich’s attempt to kill himself with a shot to the temple, which ended in failure; secondly, the accidental murder of Vulich on the street by a drunken Cossack; thirdly, Pechorin’s brave attack on the Cossack killer. Without denying the very idea of fatalism, Lermontov leads to the idea that one cannot resign oneself, be submissive to fate. With this turn of the philosophical theme, the author saved the novel from a gloomy ending. Pechorin, whose death is unexpectedly announced in the middle of the story, in this last story not only escapes from a seemingly certain death, but also for the first time commits an act that benefits people. And instead of a funeral march, at the end of the novel there are congratulations on the victory over death: “the officers congratulated me - and there was definitely something to it.”
“He was a nice guy, just a little strange”
One of the heroes of my work is an extraordinary and strange person - Pechorin. He has a very unusual fate; he is characterized by a critical attitude not only to the world around him, but also to himself.
Pechorin was a very strange person, and this strangeness, it seems to me, arose in the early stages of his life. Pechorin was formed as a personality in those circles of the noble intelligentsia, where it was fashionable to ridicule all sincere manifestations of selfless humanity. And this left an imprint on the formation of his character. This crippled him morally, killed all his noble impulses: “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the world; Fearing ridicule, I buried my best feelings in the depths of my heart; they died there. I became a moral cripple: one half of my soul did not exist, it dried up, evaporated, died, I cut it off and threw it away.”
Outwardly, in particular his face, Pechorin looks more like a dead man than a living person. The deathly pale features of his face tell us about the dullness, heaviness and routine of his life, and his white, tender white hands tell us completely the opposite: about the easy, calm and carefree life of a master. His lordly gait is majestic, but at the same time timid, this can be seen in the hero’s hands: while walking, his hands are always pressed to his body and do not allow himself to behave imposingly, and this is the first sign that the owner of this gait is hiding something, or he's just shy and timid. Pechorin always dressed with taste: everything in his outfit said that he was from a noble family, and this really amazed me, because Pechorin despises society, its foundations, and traditions, and in clothes he, on the contrary, imitates it. But still, later, after analyzing Pechorin’s character, I came to the conclusion that the hero is afraid of society, afraid of being funny.
Pechorin's external world, to match the portrait, is very contradictory. On the one hand, he appears to us as an egoist, crushing the world under himself. It seems to us that Pechorin can use someone else’s life and love for his own pleasure. But, on the other hand, we see that the hero does not do this intentionally, he realizes that he brings only misfortune to those around him, but he cannot be alone. It is difficult for him to experience loneliness; he is drawn to communicate with people. For example, in the chapter “Taman” Pechorin wants to unravel the mystery of the “peaceful smugglers”, without knowing what they are doing. He is attracted to everything unknown. But the attempt at rapprochement turns out to be in vain for Pechorin: the smugglers cannot recognize him as one of their people, trust him, and the solution to their secret disappoints the hero.
Pechorin becomes furious from all this and admits: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him.” After these words, we really feel sorry for him, we see him as a victim, and not as the culprit of the circumstances.
The contradiction between desires and reality became the cause of Pechorin’s bitterness and self-irony. He craves too much from the world, but reality turns out to be much worse than illusion. All the hero’s actions, all his impulses, admiration are wasted due to his inability to act. And all these incidents make Pechorin think; he is worried that his only purpose is to destroy other people's hopes and illusions. He is even indifferent to his own life. Only curiosity, the expectation of something new excites him, only this makes him live and wait for the next day.
Ironically, Pechorin always finds himself in unpleasant and dangerous adventures. So, for example, in the chapter “Taman” he is placed in a house closely associated with smugglers, and Pechorin, oddly enough, recognizes this, and he is attracted by his acquaintance with these people. But they do not accept him, fearing for their lives, and swim away, leaving the helpless old woman and the blind boy alone.
Further, if you follow the plot, Pechorin ends up in Kislovodsk - this is a quiet provincial town, but even there Pechorin manages to find adventures. He meets his old acquaintance, whom he met in the active detachment, Grushnitsky. Grushnitsky is a very narcissistic person, he wants to look like a hero in the eyes of others, especially in the eyes of women. It is here that Pechorin finally meets a person who is interesting and close in judgment and views: Doctor Werner. Pechorin reveals his whole soul to Werner, shares his opinion about society. The hero is interested in him, they have become true friends, because only with friends can you share the most precious things: your feelings, thoughts, your soul. But most importantly, Pechorin in this chapter regained his true love- I believe. You might be asking; But what about Princess Mary and Bela? He perceived Princess Mary as “material” that he needed in an experiment: to find out how strong his influence was on the hearts of girls inexperienced in love. The game started out of boredom led to tragic consequences. But awakened feelings turned Mary into a kind, gentle, loving woman who meekly accepted her fate and resigned herself to the circumstances: “My love did not bring happiness to anyone,” says Pechorin. With Bela everything is much more difficult. Having met Bela, Pechorin was no longer that naive youth who could be deceived by the girl from “Taman”, the same one from the camp of “peaceful smugglers” who attracted Pechorin. He knew love, he foresaw all the pitfalls of this feeling, he assured himself that “he loved for himself, for his own pleasure he satisfied a strange
8 the need of the heart, greedily devouring their joys and sufferings.”
And Bela fell in love with a man for the first time. Pechorin’s gifts softened Bela’s frightened heart, and the news of his death accomplished what no gifts could do: Bela threw herself on Pechorin’s neck and sobbed: “he often dreamed of her in her dreams and no man had ever made such an impression on her.” . It seemed that happiness had been achieved: her loved one and Maxim Maksimych were nearby, caring for her in a fatherly way. Four months flew by, and discord began to emerge in the relationship between the two heroes: Pechorin began to leave home, became thoughtful, and sad. Bela was ready for drastic measures: “If he doesn’t love me, then who’s stopping him from sending me home?” How could she know what was going on in Pechorin’s soul: “I was wrong again: the love of a savage is little better than the love of a noble young lady, the ignorance and simplicity of one is as annoying as the coquetry of the other.” How to explain to a girl in love that this capital officer is bored with her. And perhaps death was the only solution in which the honor and dignity of the young savage could be preserved. Kazbich’s robber blow not only deprived Bela of his life, but also deprived Pechorin of peace for the rest of his life. He loved her. But still, Vera is the only woman who loves and understands the hero, this is the woman whom, years later, Pechorin still loves and cannot imagine being left without her. She gives him strength and forgives everything. In her heart lives a great, pure feeling that brings a lot of suffering; Pechorin is completely bitter without her love. He is confident that Vera exists and will always be, she is his guardian angel, his sun and fresh wind. Pechorin is jealous of Vera’s husband, not hiding his resentment. After a long separation from Vera, Pechorin, as before, heard the trembling of his heart: the sounds of her sweet voice revived feelings that had not cooled down over the years. And, having said goodbye to her, he realized that he had not forgotten anything: “My heart sank painfully, as after the first parting. Oh, how I rejoiced at this feeling!” Pechorin hides his pain, and only in his diary admits to himself how dear this feeling is to him: “Doesn’t youth want to come back to me again, or is this just her farewell glance, the last souvenir?” Vera is the only one who understands the tragedy of his alienation and forced loneliness. Vera’s farewell letter killed hope in him, deprived him of his reason for a moment: “With the possibility of losing her forever, Vera became dearer to me than anything in the world, more valuable than life, honor, happiness." Tears of despair raise in the eyes of readers Vera, a modest woman who managed to reach the heart of Pechorin, whose “soul became weak and his mind became silent” after her departure.
Pechorin is the prototype of the “superfluous man” of his time. He was dissatisfied with society, or rather, he hated it because it made him a “moral cripple.” He must live, no, rather, exist in this world, as he himself calls it: “The land of masters, the land of slaves.”
The hero of the novel through the eyes of an outsider, a traveling officer, is seen at a difficult moment for Pechorin: his feelings seemed to have left his face, he was tired of life, of eternal disappointments. And yet this portrait will not be the main one: everything important that was hidden from the people who surrounded him, who lived next to him, who loved him, was betrayed by Pechorin himself. How can one not exclaim here:
why didn't the world understand
The Great One, and how he didn’t find it
Hello friends and love
Didn't bring him hope again?
He was worthy of her.
Many years will pass, and the unsolved Pechorin will excite the hearts of readers, awaken their dreams and force them to act.
Heroes of Turgenev's novel. Time in the novel.
The center of I. S. Turgenev’s novels becomes a person belonging to the Russian people of the cultural layer - educated, enlightened nobles. Therefore, Turgenev’s novel is also called personal. And since he was an artistic “portrait of the era,” the hero of the novel, as part of this portrait, also embodied the most characteristics of his time and his class. Such a hero is Dmitry Rudin, who can be regarded as a type of “extra people”.
In the writer’s work, the problem of the “extra person” will occupy a fairly large place. No matter how harshly Turgenev wrote about the character of the “superfluous man,” the main pathos of the novel lay in the glorification of Rudin’s unquenchable enthusiasm.
It is difficult to say which time dominates the novels. Ultimately, everything described in Turgenev’s novels was believed to be imperishable, eternal, everlasting, while historical time revealed the “urgent, necessary, urgent” in the mood of Russian life and made the writer’s works acutely topical.
"The first obstacle and I fell apart"
The novels of I. S. Turgenev contain a unique half-century history of the Russian intelligentsia. The writer quickly guessed new needs, new ideas introduced into the public consciousness, and in his works he certainly paid attention (as much as circumstances allowed) to the issue that was on the agenda and was already vaguely “beginning to worry society.”
Turgenev's novels are full of facts of ideology, culture, art - with them the artist marked the movement of time. But the main thing for Turgenev always remained new type person, new character, which directly reflected the influence historical era on the human personality. The search for a hero is what guided the novelist in depicting different generations of the Russian intelligentsia.
Turgenev's hero is taken in the most striking manifestations. Love, activity, struggle, the search for the meaning of life, in tragic cases, death - this is how the character of the hero is revealed at the most significant moments and his human value is determined.
Rudin makes the first impression of a “remarkable” and extraordinary person. This cannot be attributed to his appearance: “A man of about thirty-five, tall, somewhat stooped, curly-haired, dark-skinned, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent, with a liquid sparkle in quick dark blue eyes, with a straight wide nose and handsome outlined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and tight, as if he had grown out of it.” Nothing seemed to be in his favor. But very soon those present sense the sharp originality of this new personality for them.
Introducing the reader to the hero for the first time, Turgenev introduces him as an “experienced talker” with “the music of eloquence.” In his speeches, Rudin stigmatizes laziness, speaks of the high destiny of man, and dreams of Russia being an enlightened country. Turgenev notes that his hero “did not look for words, but the words themselves obediently came to his lips, each word poured straight from the soul, glowing with the heat of conviction.” Rudin is not only an orator and improviser. The listeners are influenced by his passion exclusively for higher interests. A person cannot and should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, concerns about existence, Rudin argues. Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. All the characters in the novel feel the power of Rudin’s influence on listeners and his persuasion through words. Rudin is occupied exclusively with the highest questions of existence, he talks very intelligently about self-sacrifice, but, in essence, is focused only on his “I”.
Rudin, like all Turgenev's heroes, goes through the test of love. In Turgenev, this feeling is sometimes bright, sometimes tragic and destructive, but it is always a force that reveals the true nature of a person. This is where the “heady”, far-fetched nature of Rudin’s hobby is revealed, his lack of naturalness and freshness of feelings. Rudin does not know either himself or Natalya, initially mistaking her for a girl. As very often in Turgenev, the heroine is placed above the hero in love - with integrity of nature, spontaneity of feeling, recklessness in decisions. Natalya, at eighteen years old, without any life experience, is ready to leave home and, against her mother’s wishes, join fate with Rudin. But in response to the question: “What do you think we should do now?” - she hears from Rudin: “Of course, submit.” Natalya throws a lot of bitter words at Rudin: she reproaches him for cowardice, cowardice, for the fact that his lofty words are far from reality. “How pitiful and insignificant I was before her!” - Rudin exclaims after an explanation with Natalya.
In Rudin's first conversation with Natalya, one of the main contradictions of his character is revealed. Just the day before, Rudin spoke so inspiredly about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly he appears before us as a tired man who does not believe in his own strength or in the sympathy of people. True, an objection from the surprised Natalya is enough - and Rudin reproaches himself for cowardice and again preaches the need to get things done. But the author has already cast doubt in the reader’s soul that Rudin’s words are consistent with deeds, intentions with actions.
The development of the relationship between Rudin and Natalya is preceded in the novel by Lezhnev’s love story, in which Rudin played an important role. Rudin's best intentions led to the opposite result: by taking on the role of Lezhnev's mentor, he poisoned his joy of first love. After telling about this, the reader is prepared for the ending of the love between Natalya and Rudin. Rudin cannot be accused of pretense - he is sincere in his passion, just as he will later be sincere in repentance and self-flagellation. The trouble is that “with one head, no matter how strong it may be, it is difficult for a person to even know what is happening in himself.” And so a story unfolds in which the hero of the novel temporarily loses his heroic traits.
The writer describes an episode from the hero’s life when he wanted to make the river navigable. However, nothing worked out for him, since the owners of the mills failed his plan. Nothing happened with both teaching activities and agronomic transformations in the village. And all of Rudin’s failures are because at the most crucial moments he “gives up” and fades into the background, afraid to make any serious decisions, to act actively. He gets lost, loses heart, and any obstacle makes him weak-willed, unsure of himself, and passive.
A particularly striking feature of Rudin is manifested in the episode of his last meeting with Natalya Lasunskaya, who, with all her ardor, loving hearts hopes for understanding and support from a loved one, for his bold and desperate step, for the same response. But Rudin cannot appreciate her feelings; he is unable to justify her hopes, is afraid of responsibility for someone else’s life and advises her to “submit to fate.” By his action, the hero once again confirms Lezhnev’s idea that in fact Rudin is “cold as ice” and, playing a dangerous game, “doesn’t put a hair at stake - but others put their souls.” As for the fragile, eighteen-year-old Natalya, whom everyone considered still young, almost a child, and inexperienced, she turned out to be much stronger and more intelligent than Rudin, and managed to unravel his essence: “So this is how you apply in practice your interpretations about freedom, about victims. "
Turgenev portrayed in the novel a typical representative of the young noble intelligentsia, pointing out that these are talented, honest people with extraordinary abilities. However, according to the author, they are not yet able to solve complex historical problems; they do not have enough willpower and confidence to leave a significant mark on the revival of Russia.
Creative history of the novel "Oblomov"
According to Goncharov himself, Oblomov’s plan was ready back in 1847, that is, virtually immediately after the publication of Ordinary History. Such is the peculiarity of Goncharov’s creative psychology that all his novels seemed to simultaneously grow from a common artistic core, being variants of the same collisions, a similar system of characters, similar characters.
Part I took the longest time - until 1857 - to be written and finalized. At this stage of work, the novel was called “Oblomovshchina.” Indeed, both in genre and style, Part I resembled an extremely drawn-out composition of a physiological essay: a description of one morning of a St. Petersburg gentleman “baibak”. There is no plot action in it, there is a lot of everyday and morally descriptive material. In a word, “Oblomovism” is brought to the fore in it, Oblomov is left in the background.
The next three parts, introducing the antagonist and friend of Oblomov Andrei Stolts into the plot, as well as a love conflict, in the center of which is the captivating image of Olga Ilyinskaya, seem to bring the character of the title character out of a state of hibernation, help him to open up in dynamics and, thus, revive and even idealize the satirical portrait of Oblomov drawn in Part I. It is not without reason that only with the appearance of Stolz’s and especially Olga’s images in the draft manuscript, work on the novel began by leaps and bounds: “Oblomov” was roughly completed in just 7 weeks during Goncharov’s trip abroad in the summer - autumn of 1857.
“There must be a good person, simplicity”
The next hero of my work is Ilya Ilyich Oblomov from novel of the same name I. A. Goncharova.
Mine main novel Goncharov built it as a slow, thorough development of Oblomov’s character. One after another, leading themes arise in it and then expand, sounding more and more insistently, absorbing more and more new motives and their variations. Famous for his picturesqueness and plasticity, Goncharov in the composition and semantic movement of his novels surprisingly accurately follows the laws of musical construction. And if “Ordinary History” is like a sonata, and “Precipice” is like an oratorio, then “Oblomov” is a real instrumental concert, a concert of feelings.
Druzhinin also noted that at least two significant topics are being developed in it. The critic saw two Oblomovs. There is Oblomov, “moldy, almost disgusting,” “a greasy, awkward piece of meat.” And there is Oblomov, in love with Olga and “himself destroying the love of the woman he has chosen and crying over the ruins of his happiness,” Oblomov, who is “deeply touching and sympathetic in his sad comedy.” Between these Oblomovs there is a gulf and at the same time intense interaction, the struggle of “Oblomovism” with the “true active life of the heart,” that is, with the real personality of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.
Well, first things first.
Oblomov was born on his family estate - Oblomovka. His parents loved him very much, even too much: his mother always overprotected her son, did not let him take a step without supervision, holding back all his youthful excitement inside. He was the only child in the family and he was spoiled and everything was forgiven. But no matter how hard the parents tried, they could not give their son the much-needed qualities that would be useful to him in adulthood; apparently they were so in love with their own son that they were afraid of overloading, offending or upsetting their child. As a child, Oblomov heard only the orders given by his parents to the servants, he did not see their actions, and therefore the phrase lurked in the head of little Oblomov: “Why do anything if others can do it for you.” And so our hero grows up, and this phrase still haunts him.
We meet Oblomov in his apartment on Gorokhovaya Street. Ilya Ilyich appears before us as a man of about thirty-two or three, lying on the sofa. His apartment is in disarray everywhere: books are scattered and dusty, dishes have apparently not been washed for several days, dust is everywhere. This does not bother Oblomov; the main thing for him is peace and serenity.
He lies on the sofa in his shabby, beloved robe and dreams. Goncharov took the image of this robe from real life: his friend, they sing P. A. Vyazemsky, having received a referral to the Warsaw office of Novosiltsev and, parting with his Moscow life, wrote a farewell ode to his robe. For Vyazemsky, this robe personified personal independence, so valued by the freedom-loving poet and aristocrat. Is this why Oblomov values his robe? Doesn’t he see in this robe some half-erased symbol of inner freedom - despite the futility and lack of freedom of the surrounding reality? Yes, for Oblomov this is a symbol of a certain freedom that reigned somewhere in his inner world, far from ideal, this is a kind of protest to society: “A robe made of Persian fabric, a real oriental robe, without the slightest hint of Europe, without tassels, without velvet, without waist, very roomy, so that Oblomov could wrap himself in it twice.”
The robe was quite succinctly combined with the hero’s appearance: “He was a man of thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea. Thought walked like a free bird across his face, fluttered into his eyes and then completely disappeared, and then an even light of carelessness glowed throughout her face.” The very image of Oblomov instills boredom and serenity in the reader. The hero’s entire lifestyle is reflected on his face: he only thinks, but does not act. Inside Oblomov great person, poet, dreamer, but he is limited only by his inner world, he does practically nothing to rally the realization of his goals and ideas.
Oblomov does not understand society, does not understand these small talk, which bring nothing useful except rumors, these dinner parties, where everyone is in sight of each other and everyone strives to humiliate the other in some way. But even so, this does not prevent Oblomov from communicating, not from being friends, but from communicating with secular people, such as Volkov, Sudbinsky or Alekseev. All these people are so different and so different from Oblomov that their acquaintance seems strange. For example, Volkov is a secular man who cannot imagine life without balls and social dinners, and Sudbinsky is a man obsessed with service, who has forgotten his personal life for the sake of his career. Oblomov, surprised at this act, says that work is already hard work, but here you still need spend your energy and time on career growth, well, no. But Sudbinsky assures that the purpose of his life is work.
But still, there is a person truly close and dear to Oblomov - this is Stolz, a strange, ideal person and because of this it seems unreal. Critic N.D. Akhsharumov spoke about him like this: “In everything that concerns Stolz, there is something ghostly. Look from afar - how full his life seems!
Works and worries, vast enterprises and undertakings, but come closer and take a closer look, and you will see that all this is pouf, castles in the air, built on credit from the foam of an imaginary contradiction. In essence, he only needed contrast, and then what’s the problem, what’s against will a shadow appear of the material being?” By asserting the unreality of Stoltz, Akhsharumov leads us to think that Stoltz is not another dream of Oblomov. After all, Stolz united in himself everything that Oblomov strived for: a prudent, sober mind, universal love and admiration. Oblomov felt sympathy and admiration only for Stoltz, and why, for example, not for Volkov? at some internal level?
We are helped to understand Oblomov’s character by the people with whom he communicates, each of them has their own requests and problems, and thanks to this we can observe Oblomov from different sides, which in turn gives us the most complete picture of the character of the main character. So, for example, Sudbinsky helps us understand Oblomov’s attitude towards career and work: Ilya Ilyich does not understand how one can sacrifice everything for the sake of career growth.
I consider “Oblomov’s Dream” to be one of the most important parts of the novel; it is in it that the hero sees his true self, in it we understand the origins of Oblomov and “Oblomovism.” Ilya Ilyich falls asleep with a painful, insoluble question: “Why am I like this?” Reason and logic were powerless to answer it. In a dream, he is answered by memory and affection for the house that gave birth to him. Under all the layers of Oblomov’s existence there is a source of living and pure humanity of this world. From the source of this flow the main properties of Oblomov’s nature. This source, the moral and emotional core of Oblomov’s world is Oblomov’s mother. “Oblomov, seeing his long-dead mother, trembled in his sleep with joy, with ardent love for her: in his sleepy state, two warm tears slowly floated out from under his eyelashes and became motionless.” Now we have before us the best, purest, true Oblomov.
This is how he remains in his love for Olga Sergeevna. That is why he does not seek to tie Olga with any ties, he simply wants a strong and pure love. That is why Oblomov writes to Olga Farewell letter, in which she says that her feelings for him are just a mistake of an inexperienced heart. But Olga is disingenuous. She is not as simple and naive as the hero initially seems. She interprets Oblomov’s letter in her own way, completely differently: “In this letter, as in a mirror, you can see your tenderness, your caution, care for me, fear for my happiness, everything that Andrei Ivanovich showed me about you, and that I fell in love with, Why I forget your laziness and apathy You spoke out there involuntarily: you are not an egoist Ilya Ilyich, you did not write at all in order to break up - you didn’t want that, but because you were afraid to deceive me - this was honesty speaking.”
These words contain the truth that Olga hid in order to arouse the energy of feeling and activity in Oblomov. However, Oblomov’s feeling for Olga is completely different from what the heroine expects and expects. Oblomov loved his mother first and most of all. He is faithful to this love and to this day is unconsciously looking for his mother in Olga. It is no coincidence that in her feelings he catches and notes shades of maternal tenderness towards him. But he will find his ideal woman not in Olga, but in Agafya Matveevna, who is naturally endowed with the ability for maternal selflessness and all-forgiving love. Around her, Oblomov creates the entire atmosphere of his home, where his mother reigned in the past. This is how a new Oblomovka emerges.
The most important question of the novel is: “Go forward or stay?” - a question that for Oblomov was “deeper than Hamlet’s.”
Comparison of all three heroes of the essay.
All the heroes of my work belong to the type of “extra people”. This is what brings them together. They are very similar to each other. Their faces are always thoughtful, it is clear from them that there is a constant struggle going on inside the heroes, but they do not show it. Their eyes are always bottomless, looking at them, a person drowns in the ocean of serenity and indifference, as they say: “The eyes are the mirror of the soul,” does that mean their souls, their outer world are also the same? They all suffer because of love, love for women with whom they are not destined to be due to fateful circumstances or the will of evil fate.
All characters are critical of themselves, they see flaws in themselves, but cannot change them. They blame themselves for their weaknesses and want to overcome them, but this is impossible, since without these flaws they will lose attractiveness to the reader, they will be lost ideological meaning works. They are not capable of any actions, except for Pechorin, only he crosses this genre bar. All the heroes are looking for the meaning of life, but they never find it, because it doesn’t exist, the world is not yet ready to accept such people, their role in society has not yet been determined, since they appeared too early.
They condemn and despise the society that gave birth to them; they do not accept it.
But still there are several differences between them. So, for example, Oblomov finds his love, even if it’s not the one he dreamed of. And Pechorin, unlike other heroes, does not suffer from an inability to act, on the contrary, he tries to do as much as possible in life, his words do not disagree with his thoughts, but he has one character trait that distinguishes him from other characters: he is very curious , and this is what makes Pechorin act.
But still, the most important similarity between them is that they all end up dying ahead of schedule, since, no matter how hard they try, they cannot live in this world, in this society. The world is not ready to accept such radically new people.
Extra person- a literary type characteristic of the works of Russian writers of the 1840s and 1850s. Usually this is a person of significant abilities who cannot realize his talents in the official field of Nikolaev Russia.
Belonging to the upper classes of society, the superfluous person is alienated from the noble class, despises bureaucracy, but, having no prospect of other self-realization, mostly spends his time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to relieve his boredom, leading to dueling, gambling, and other self-destructive behavior. Typical traits of a superfluous person include “mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed, and, as a rule, social passivity.”
The name “superfluous man” was assigned to the type of disillusioned Russian nobleman after the publication of Turgenev’s story “The Diary of a Superfluous Man” in 1850. The earliest and classic examples are Eugene Onegin by A. S. Pushkin, Chatsky from “Woe from Wit”, Pechorin by M. Lermontov - go back to the Byronic hero of the era of romanticism, to Rene Chateaubriand and Adolphe Constant. Further evolution type represent Herzen’s Beltov (“Who is to blame?”) and the heroes of Turgenev’s early works (Rudin, Lavretsky, Chulkaturin).
Extra people often bring trouble not only to themselves, but also female characters who have the misfortune to love them. The negative side of extra people, associated with their displacement outside the socio-functional structure of society, comes to the fore in the works of literary officials A.F. Pisemsky and I.A. Goncharov. The latter contrasts the idlers “hovering in the skies” with practical businessmen: Aduev Jr. with Aduev Sr., and Oblomov with Stolz.
Who is the “extra person”? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero (man), who, for various reasons (both external and internal), was unable to realize himself and his capabilities. The “superfluous person” is looking for the meaning of life, a goal, but does not find it. Therefore, he wastes himself on the little things in life, on entertainment, on passions, but does not feel satisfaction from this. Often the life of an “extra person” ends tragically: he dies or dies in the prime of his life.
Examples of “extra people”:
The ancestor of the type of “extra people” in Russian literature is considered Eugene Onegin from the novel of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. In terms of his potential, Onegin is one of the best people of his time. He has a sharp and insightful mind, broad erudition (he was interested in philosophy, astronomy, medicine, history, etc.) Onegin argues with Lensky about religion, science, morality. This hero even strives to do something real. For example, he tried to make the lot of his peasants easier (“He replaced the ancient corvée with an easy rent”). But all this was wasted for a long time. Onegin was just wasting his life, but he very soon got bored with it. The bad influence of secular Petersburg, where the hero was born and raised, did not allow Onegin to open up. He did nothing useful not only for society, but also for himself. The hero was unhappy: he did not know how to love and, by and large, nothing could interest him. But throughout the novel Onegin changes. It seems to me that this is the only case when the author leaves hope to the “extra person”. Like everything in Pushkin, open ending the novel is optimistic. The writer leaves his hero hope for revival.
The next representative of the “extra people” type is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". This hero reflected a characteristic feature of the life of society in the 30s of the 19th century - the development of social and personal self-awareness. Therefore, the hero, the first in Russian literature, himself tries to understand the reasons for his misfortune, his difference from others. Of course, Pechorin has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways. But he also finds no use for his powers. Like Onegin, Pechorin in his youth indulged in all sorts of bad things: social revelry, passions, novels. But as a non-empty person, the hero very soon got bored with all this.
Pechorin understands that secular society destroys, dries up, and kills the soul and heart in a person. What is the reason for this hero’s restlessness in life? He does not see the meaning of his life, he has no goal.
Pechorin does not know how to love, because he is afraid of real feelings, afraid of responsibility. What remains for the hero? Only cynicism, criticism and boredom. As a result, Pechorin dies. Lermontov shows us that in a world of disharmony there is no place for a person who with all his soul, albeit unconsciously, strives for harmony. Next in the line of “extra people” are the heroes of I.S. Turgenev. First of all, this Rudin
- the main character of the novel of the same name. His worldview was formed under the influence of philosophical circles of the 30s of the 19th century. Rudin sees the meaning of his life in serving high ideals. This hero is a magnificent speaker, he is able to lead and ignite the hearts of people. But the author constantly tests Rudin “for strength”, for viability. The hero cannot stand these tests. It turns out that Rudin is only able to talk; he cannot put his thoughts and ideals into practice. The hero does not know real life, cannot assess circumstances and his own strengths. Therefore, he also finds himself “out of work.” Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov stands out from this orderly row of heroes. He is not a nobleman, but a commoner. He had, unlike all previous heroes, to fight for his life, for his education. Bazarov knows reality very well, the everyday side of life. He has his own “idea” and implements it as best he can. In addition, of course, Bazarov is a very powerful person intellectually; he has great potential. But the point is that
But man is an emotional being, a being with a soul. If a person knows how to love, then there is a high probability that he will be happy. Not a single hero from the gallery of “extra people” is happy in love. This says a lot. They are all afraid to love, afraid or cannot come to terms with surrounding reality. All this is very sad because it makes these people unhappy. The enormous spiritual strength of these heroes and their intellectual potential are wasted. The unviability of “superfluous people” is evidenced by the fact that they often die untimely (Pechorin, Bazarov) or vegetate, wasting themselves (Beltov, Rudin). Only Pushkin gives his hero hope for revival. And this gives us optimism. This means there is a way out, there is a path to salvation. I think that it is always within the individual, you just need to find the strength within yourself.
Image " little man"in Russian literature of the 19th century
"Small man"- a type of literary hero that arose in Russian literature with the advent of realism, that is, in the 20-30s of the 19th century.
The theme of the “little man” is one of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature, to which writers of the 19th century constantly turned. A.S. Pushkin was the first to touch upon it in the story “ Stationmaster" This theme was continued by N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov and many others.
This person is small precisely in social terms, since he occupies one of the lower steps of the hierarchical ladder. His place in society is small or completely unnoticeable.
A person is considered “small” also because the world of his spiritual life and aspirations is also extremely narrow, impoverished, filled with all kinds of prohibitions. For him there are no historical and philosophical problems.
He remains in a narrow and closed circle of his life interests.
The best humanistic traditions are associated with the theme of the “little man” in Russian literature. Writers invite people to think about the fact that every person has the right to happiness, to their own view of life. Examples of “little people”: 1) Yes, Gogol in the story “The Overcoat” I’m not used to thinking about the meaning of my work. That is why, when he is offered a task that requires the manifestation of elementary intelligence, he begins to worry, worry and ultimately comes to the conclusion: “No, it’s better to let me rewrite something.”
Bashmachkin's spiritual life is in tune with his inner aspirations. Accumulating money to buy a new overcoat becomes the goal and meaning of life for him. The theft of a long-awaited new thing, which was acquired through hardship and suffering, becomes a disaster for him.
And yet Akaki Akakievich does not look like an empty, uninteresting person in the reader’s mind. We imagine that there were a great many such small, humiliated people. Gogol called on society to look at them with understanding and pity.
This is indirectly demonstrated by the name of the main character: diminutive suffix -chk-(Bashmachkin) gives it the appropriate shade. “Mother, save your poor son!” - the author will write.
Calling for justice the author raises the question of the need to punish the inhumanity of society. As compensation for the humiliations and insults suffered during his life, Akaki Akakievich, who rose from the grave in the epilogue, appears and takes away their overcoats and fur coats. He calms down only when he takes away the outer clothing from the “significant person” who played a tragic role in the life of the “little man.”
2) In the story Chekhov's "Death of an Official" we see the slave soul of an official whose understanding of the world is completely distorted. There is no need to talk about human dignity here. The author gives his hero a wonderful surname: Chervyakov. Describing the small, insignificant events of his life, Chekhov seems to look at the world through the eyes of a worm, and these events become huge.
So, Chervyakov was at the performance and “felt at the height of bliss. But suddenly... he sneezed.” Looking around like a “polite man,” the hero discovered with horror that he had sprayed a civilian general. Chervyakov begins to apologize, but this seemed not enough to him, and the hero asks for forgiveness again and again, day after day...
There are a lot of such little officials who know only their own little world, and it is not surprising that their experiences consist of such small situations. The author conveys the entire essence of the official’s soul, as if examining it under a microscope. Unable to bear the scream in response to the apology, Chervyakov goes home and dies. This terrible disaster
3) In addition to these writers, Dostoevsky also addressed the theme of the “little man” in his work. The main characters of the novel “Poor People” - Makar Devushkin- a semi-impoverished official, oppressed by grief, poverty and social lack of rights, and Varenka– a girl who became a victim of social disadvantage. Like Gogol in The Overcoat, Dostoevsky turned to the theme of the powerless, immensely humiliated “little man” living his inner life in conditions that violate human dignity. The author sympathizes with his poor heroes, shows the beauty of their soul.
4) Theme "poor people"
develops by the writer and in the novel "Crime and Punishment". One after another, the writer reveals to us pictures of terrible poverty that degrades human dignity. The setting of the work is St. Petersburg, and the poorest district of the city. Dostoevsky creates a canvas of immeasurable human torment, suffering and grief, keenly peers into the soul of the “little man”, discovers in him deposits of enormous spiritual wealth.
Family life unfolds before us Marmeladovs. These are people crushed by reality. The official Marmeladov, who has “nowhere else to go,” drinks himself to death out of grief and loses his human appearance. Exhausted by poverty, his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna dies of consumption. Sonya is released onto the streets to sell her body in order to save her family from starvation.
The fate of the Raskolnikov family is also difficult. His sister Dunya, wanting to help her brother, is ready to sacrifice herself and marry the rich Luzhin, whom she feels disgusted with.
Raskolnikov himself conceives a crime, the roots of which, in part, lie in the sphere of social relations in society. The images of “little people” created by Dostoevsky are imbued with the spirit of protest against social injustice, against the humiliation of man and faith in his high calling. The souls of the “poor” can be beautiful, full of spiritual generosity and beauty, but broken by the most difficult living conditions.
6. Russian world in prose of the 19th century.
By lectures:
Depiction of reality in Russian literature of the 19th century.
1. Landscape. Functions and types.
2. Interior: problem of detailing.
3. Depiction of time in a literary text.
4. The road motif as a form of artistic development of the national picture of the world. Scenery wildlife, and images of human-made objects.
The well-known typology of landscapes is based on the specific functioning of this text component.
Firstly, the landscapes that form the background of the story stand out. These landscapes usually indicate the place and time against which the events depicted take place.
Second type of landscape- landscape creating a lyrical background. Most often, when creating such a landscape, the artist pays attention to meteorological conditions, because this landscape should first of all influence the emotional state of the reader.
Third type- a landscape that creates/becomes the psychological background of existence and becomes one of the means of revealing the psychology of the character.
Fourth type- a landscape that becomes a symbolic background, a means of symbolically reflecting the reality depicted in an artistic text.
Landscape can be used as a means of depicting a special artistic time or as a form of the author’s presence.
This typology is not the only one. The landscape can be expositional, dual, etc. Modern critics isolate Goncharov’s landscapes; it is believed that Goncharov used the landscape for perfect performance about the world. For a person who writes, the evolution of the landscape skills of Russian writers is fundamentally important. There are two main periods:
· Dopushkinsky, during this period landscapes were characterized by the completeness and concreteness of the surrounding nature;
· post-Pushkin period, the idea of an ideal landscape changed. It assumes a parsimony of details, economy of image and precision in the selection of parts. Accuracy, according to Pushkin, involves identifying the most significant feature perceived in a certain way of feelings. This Pushkin idea will later be used by Bunin.
Second level. Interior - image of the interior. The main unit of an interior image is a detail (detail), attention to which was first demonstrated by Pushkin. The literary test of the 19th century did not demonstrate a clear boundary between interior and landscape.
Time in a literary text in the 19th century becomes discrete and intermittent. The characters easily retreat into memories and their fantasies rush into the future. A selectivity of attitude towards time appears, which is explained by dynamics. Time in a literary text in the 19th century is conventional. Time in a lyrical work is as conventional as possible, with the predominance of present tense grammar; lyricism is especially characterized by the interaction of different time layers. Artistic time not necessarily concrete, it is abstract. In the 19th century, the depiction of historical color became a special means of concretizing artistic time.
One of the most effective means of depicting reality in the 19th century was the road motif, which became part of the plot formula, a narrative unit. Initially, this motif dominated the travel genre. In the 11th-18th centuries, in the travel genre, the road motif was used primarily to expand ideas about the surrounding space (cognitive function). In sentimentalist prose, the cognitive function of this motive is complicated by evaluativeness. Gogol uses travel to explore the surrounding space. The update of the functions of the road motif is associated with the name of Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov. "Silence" 1858
With our tickets:
The 19th century is called the “Golden Age” of Russian poetry and the century of Russian literature on a global scale. We should not forget that the literary leap that took place in the 19th century was prepared by the entire course of the literary process of the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century is the time of formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin.
But the 19th century began with the heyday of sentimentalism and the emergence of romanticism. These literary trends found expression primarily in poetry. The poetic works of poets E.A. come to the fore. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykova. The creativity of F.I. Tyutchev's "Golden Age" of Russian poetry was completed. However, the central figure of this time was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.
A.S. Pushkin began his ascent to the literary Olympus with the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila” in 1920. And his novel in verse “Eugene Onegin” was called an encyclopedia of Russian life. Romantic poems by A.S. Pushkin " Bronze Horseman"(1833), "Bakhchisarai Fountain", "Gypsies" ushered in the era of Russian romanticism. Many poets and writers considered A.S. Pushkin their teacher and continued the traditions of creating literary works laid down by him. One of these poets was M.Yu. Lermontov. His romantic poem “Mtsyri” is well known. poetic story “Demon”, set. romantic poems Interestingly, Russian poetry of the 19th century was closely related with the social and political life of the country. Poets tried to comprehend the idea of their special purpose. The poet in Russia was considered a conductor of divine truth, a prophet. The poets called on the authorities to listen to their words. Vivid examples understanding the role of the poet and influence on political life
countries are poems by A.S. Pushkin “Prophet”, ode “Liberty”, “Poet and the Crowd”, poem by M.Yu. Lermontov “On the Death of a Poet” and many others. Prose writers of the beginning of the century were influenced by English historical novels V. Scott, whose translations were extremely popular. The development of Russian prose of the 19th century began with the prose works of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin, under the influence of English historical novels, creates story "»,
Captain's daughter where the action takes place against the backdrop of grandiose historical events: during the Pugachev rebellion. A.S. Pushkin produced a colossal work, exploring this historical period
. This work was largely political in nature and was aimed at those in power. A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol outlined the main
art types
, which would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is the artistic type of “superfluous man”, an example of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called “little man” type, which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story “The Overcoat”, as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story “The Station Agent”. Literature inherited its journalistic and satirical character from the 18th century. In a prose poem N.V. Gogol's "Dead Souls" the writer, in a sharp satirical manner, shows a swindler who buys, dead Souls various types of landowners who are the embodiment of various human vices (the influence of classicism is evident). The comedy is based on the same plan"Inspector". Full satirical images and works by A.S. Pushkin. Literature continues to satirically depict Russian reality. The tendency to depict vices and shortcomings Russian society
. It can be traced in the works of almost all writers of the 19th century. At the same time, many writers implement the satirical tendency in a grotesque form. Examples of grotesque satire are the works of N.V. Gogol “The Nose”, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs”, “The History of a City”.
WITH mid-19th century, the formation of Russian realistic literature, which is created against the backdrop of the tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. A crisis is brewing in the serf system, and there are strong contradictions between the authorities and the common people. There is an urgent need to create realistic literature that is acutely responsive to the socio-political situation in the country.
Literary critic V.G. Belinsky denotes a new realistic direction in literature. His position is developed by N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky. A dispute arises between Westerners and Slavophiles about the paths of historical development of Russia.
Writers appeal to the socio-political problems of Russian reality.
The genre of the realistic novel is developing. His works are created by I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov. The socio-political, philosophical issues. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism.
people.
The literary process of the late 19th century revealed the names of N.S. Leskov, A.N. Ostrovsky A.P. Chekhov. The latter proved himself to be a master of small things literary genre- a storyteller, as well as an excellent playwright. Competitor A.P. Chekhov was Maxim Gorky.
The end of the 19th century was marked by the emergence of pre-revolutionary sentiments. The realistic tradition began to fade away. It was replaced by the so-called decadent literature, the distinctive features of which were mysticism, religiosity, as well as a premonition of changes in the socio-political life of the country. Subsequently, decadence developed into symbolism. This opens a new page in the history of Russian literature.
7. Literary situation at the end of the 19th century.
Realism
The 2nd half of the 19th century is characterized by the undivided dominance of the realistic trend in Russian literature. basis realism How artistic method is socio-historical and psychological determinism. The personality and fate of the person depicted appears as the result of the interaction of his character (or, more deeply, universal human nature) with the circumstances and laws of social life (or, more broadly, history, culture - as can be observed in the works of A.S. Pushkin).
Realism 2nd half of the 19th century V. often call critical, or socially accusatory. Recently in modern literary criticism Attempts to abandon such a definition are increasingly being observed. It is both too broad and too narrow; it neutralizes the individual characteristics of writers’ creativity. Founder critical realism often called N.V. Gogol, however, in Gogol’s works, social life, the history of the human soul is often correlated with such categories as eternity, highest justice, the providential mission of Russia, the kingdom of God on earth. Gogolian tradition to one degree or another in the 2nd half of the 19th century. picked up by L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, and partly N.S. Leskov - it is no coincidence that in their work (especially late) a craving for such pre-realistic forms of comprehension of reality as preaching, religious and philosophical utopia, myth, and hagiography is revealed. No wonder M. Gorky expressed the idea of the synthetic nature of Russian classical
realism, about its non-delimitation from the romantic direction. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the realism of Russian literature not only opposes, but also interacts in its own way with the emerging symbolism. The realism of Russian classics is universal, it is not limited to the reproduction of empirical reality, it includes universal human content, a “mysterious plan”, which brings realists closer to the searches of romantics and symbolists. Socially accusatory pathos in pure form appears most in the works of writers of the second row - F.M. Reshetnikova, V.A. Sleptsova, G.I. Uspensky; even N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, despite their closeness to the aesthetics of revolutionary democracy, are not limited in their creativity posing purely social, topical issues.
Nevertheless, a critical orientation towards any form of social and spiritual enslavement of a person unites all realist writers of the 2nd half of the 19th century. The 19th century revealed the main aesthetic principles and typological properties of realism
. In Russian literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century. Conditionally, several directions can be distinguished within the framework of realism. 1. The work of realist writers who strive for the artistic recreation of life in the “forms of life itself.” The image often acquires such a degree of authenticity that literary heroes
2. The 60s and 70s are bright the philosophical-religious, ethical-psychological direction in Russian literature is outlined(L.N. Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky). Dostoevsky and Tolstoy have stunning pictures of social reality, depicted in the “forms of life itself.” But at the same time, writers always start from certain religious and philosophical doctrines.
3. Satirical, grotesque realism(in the 1st half of the 19th century it was partly represented in the works of N.V. Gogol, in the 60-70s it unfolded with all its might in the prose of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). The grotesque does not appear as hyperbole or fantasy, it characterizes the writer’s method; he combines in images, types, plots what is unnatural and absent in life, but is possible in the world created by the creative imagination of the artist; similar grotesque, hyperbolic images emphasize certain patterns that dominate life.
4. Completely unique realism, “heartened” (Belinsky’s word) with humanistic thought, represented in creativity A.I. Herzen. Belinsky noted the “Voltairean” nature of his talent: “the talent went into the mind,” which turns out to be a generator of images, details, plots, and personal biographies.
Along with the dominant realistic trend in Russian literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century. The direction of so-called “pure art” also developed - it is both romantic and realistic. His representatives shunned " damn questions"(What to do? Who is to blame?), but not real reality, by which they meant the world of nature and the subjective feelings of man, the life of his heart. They were excited by the beauty of existence itself, the fate of the world. A.A. Fet and F.I. Tyutchev can be directly comparable to I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. The poetry of Fet and Tyutchev had a direct influence on Tolstoy’s work during the Anna Karenina era. It is no coincidence that Nekrasov revealed F.I. Tyutchev to the Russian public as a great poet in 1850.
Municipal educational institution
Kazachinskaya secondary school"
Abstract on literature
"The extra man type"
Ivanova Daria
Work checked: ,
With. Kazachinskoe
1. Introduction.
2. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century.
2.1. Spiritual drama of the young Petersburger Evgeny Onegin.
2.2. The tragedy of the “hero of our time” - Pechorin.
2.3. The wandering fate of Rudin.
3. List of references used
In Russian literature early XIX century, the concept of “the type of extra person” appeared. A “superfluous person” is a person of significant ability, moderately educated, but without a certain good complete education. He is unable to realize his talents in public service. Belonging to the upper classes of society, he mainly spends his time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to relieve his boredom, leading to dueling, gambling, and other self-destructive behavior. The appearance of this literary type was associated with the rebellious situation in the country, since the 19th century was the time of the establishment of capitalism in Russia:
The nineteenth century is a rebellious, strict century -
He goes and says: “Poor man!
What are you thinking about? take a pen and write:
There is no creator in creations, there is no soul in nature...()
The topic of the “extra person” is still relevant today, since, firstly, it cannot be called fully studied. Literary scholars have still not come to a consensus on the typical qualities inherent in the “superfluous person.” Each writer endowed his hero with special qualities characteristic of his time.
It is not known exactly who and when the image of the “extra man” was created. Some believe that he created it. Others consider him to be the author of the concept. In the draft version of Chapter VIII of “Eugene Onegin,” he himself calls his hero “superfluous”: “Onegin stands as something superfluous.” But there is also a version that the type of “superfluous man” introduced into Russian literature. Secondly, even today you can meet people who do not fit into the general way of life of society and recognize other values.
The purpose of this work is to show the evolution of the “extra person” type using the example of works from school curriculum: “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time”. The novel “Rudin” was studied independently.
The story of the creation of “Eugene Onegin” is amazing. worked on it for over eight years. The novel consisted of stanzas and chapters written in different time. Belinsky said about it that this is “Pushkin’s most sincere work, the most beloved child of his imagination. Here is all his life, all his soul, all his love; here are his feelings, concepts, ideals.”
Evgeny Onegin is the main character of the work, a young man, fashionable, who fits perfectly into the social life of St. Petersburg, studied “something and somehow.” He is not accustomed to serious, consistent work. His appearance in society happened quite early, so he was tired of high society. Eugene masterfully portrayed feelings in order to succeed in secular society. But, having become a virtuoso in this game, having reached the limit, he involuntarily went beyond it and was disappointed. This happened because adaptation to almost any system of relationships is accompanied by a certain reaction: “In short: the Russian blues / Little by little took possession of him.”
Onegin's conflict became a kind of expression of protest against the laws of society that suppress personality in a person, which deprive him of the right to be himself. Vacancy secular society made the main character's soul empty:
No: his feelings cooled down early;
He was tired of the noise of the world;
The beauties didn't last long
The subject of his usual thoughts;
The betrayals have become tiresome;
I'm tired of friends and friendship...
He tries to find something he likes, but the search drags on for many years.
So, in search of Onegin, he ends up in the village. Here:
Onegin locked himself at home,
Yawning, he took up the pen,
I wanted to write - but hard work
He was sick...
He lined the shelf with a group of books,
I read and read, but to no avail...
Then Onegin takes on the management of his uncle’s estate, but he quickly gets bored with this too. Two tests awaited Onegin's village. The test of friendship and the test of love showed that, despite external freedom, the main character never freed himself from false prejudices and opinions. In his relationship with Tatyana, on the one hand, Onegin acted nobly: “But he did not want to deceive/The gullibility of an innocent soul,” and was able to adequately explain himself to the girl. You cannot blame the hero for not responding to Tatyana’s love, because everyone knows the saying: “You can’t order your heart.” Another is that he acted according to his sharp, chilled mind, and not his feelings.
The quarrel with Lensky was invented by Evgeni himself. He was well aware of this: “Having called himself to a secret trial,/He accused himself of many things...”. For the fear of whispers and laughter behind his back, he paid with the life of his friend. Onegin himself did not notice how he again became a prisoner of public opinion. After Lensky’s death, a lot changed in him, but it’s a pity that only tragedy could open his eyes.
Thus, Eugene Onegin becomes a “superfluous man.” Belonging to the light, he despises it. Onegin does not find his place in life. He is lonely and unclaimed. Tatyana, with whom Eugene will fall in love, finding her a noble society lady, will not reciprocate his feelings. Life brought Onegin to the logical conclusion of his youth - this is a complete collapse, which can only be survived by rethinking his previous life. It is known that in the last, encrypted chapter, Pushkin brings his hero to the camp of the Decembrists.
Following this, he showed the image of a new “extra person”. Pechorin became him. In his novel “Hero of Our Time,” M. Yu. Lermontov depicted the 30s of the 19th century in Russia. These were difficult times in the life of the country. Having suppressed the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I sought to turn the country into a barracks - everything living, the slightest manifestation of free thought, was mercilessly persecuted and suppressed.
The novel “A Hero of Our Time” consists of five chapters, each of which has a complete plot and an independent system of characters. We learn about Pechorin’s character gradually from the words of different people. First, staff captain Maxim Maksimych talks about him, then the author, and finally, the main character himself talks about himself.
The main character of the work is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, an extraordinary, intelligent, strong-willed person. He has a broad outlook, high education and culture. He quickly and accurately judges people and life in general.
The complexity of the protagonist’s personality is the duality and inconsistency of his character, which the simple-minded Maxim Maksimych notices: “... in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired - but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; knock on the shutter, he will tremble and turn pale, but with me he went to hunt a wild boar one on one...” This inconsistency is also manifested in the portrait of Pechorin: “Despite the light color of his hair, his mustache and eyebrows were black - a sign of the breed in a person”; “ his eyes did not laugh when he laughed.” The author gives two explanations for this: “This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep sadness.”
Pechorin himself accurately summarizes: “It’s like there are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him.” It follows from this that Pechorin is a contradictory person, and he himself understands this: “... I have an innate passion to contradict; “My whole life has been nothing but a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or reason.”
In addition, he is distinguished by a constant desire for action. Pechorin cannot stay in one place, surrounded by the same people. Having left the care of his family, he set out in pursuit of pleasure. But very quickly I became disillusioned with all this. Then Pechorin tries to do science and read books. But nothing brings him satisfaction, and in the hope that “boredom does not live under Chechen bullets,” he goes to the Caucasus.
However, wherever Pechorin appears, he becomes “an ax in the hands of fate,” “an instrument of execution.” He disrupts the life of “peaceful” smugglers, kidnaps Bela, thereby destroying the life of not only the girl herself, but also her father and Kazbich, achieves Mary’s love and refuses it, kills Grushnitsky in a duel, predicts the fate of Vulich, undermines old man Maxim Maksimych’s faith in younger generation. Why is Pechorin doing this?
Unlike “Eugene Onegin”, the plot, which is built as a system of testing the hero with moral values: friendship, love, freedom, in “A Hero of Our Time” Pechorin himself tests all the main spiritual values, conducting experiments on himself and others.
We see that Pechorin does not take into account the feelings of other people, practically does not pay attention to them. We can say that this person's actions are deeply selfish. They are all the more selfish because he justifies himself by explaining to Mary: “...this has been my fate since childhood! Everyone read on my face signs of bad qualities that were not there; but they were assumed - and they were born... I became secretive... I became vindictive... I became envious... I learned to hate... I began to deceive... I became a moral cripple...”
But it seems to me that one cannot blame only Pechorin himself for the fact that he “became a moral cripple.” Society is also to blame for this, in which there is no worthy use best qualities hero. The same society that bothered Onegin. So Pechorin learned to hate, to lie, he became secretive, he “buried his best feelings in the depths of his heart, and there they died.”
Thus, we can say that a typical young man of the 30s XIX century, on the one hand, is not devoid of intelligence and talents, “immense powers” lurk in his soul, and on the other hand, he is an egoist who breaks hearts and destroys lives. Pechorin is both an “evil genius” and at the same time a victim of society.
In Pechorin’s diary we read: “...My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me; to arouse feelings of love, devotion and fear - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power.” His attention to women, the desire to achieve their love is the need of his ambition, the desire to subjugate those around him to his will.
This is evidenced by his love for Vera. After all, there was a barrier between Pechorin and Vera - Vera was married, and this attracted Pechorin, who sought to achieve his goal despite any circumstances.
But Pechorin’s love is still more than just intrigue. He is really afraid of losing her: “I jumped out onto the porch like crazy, jumped on my Circassian, who was being driven around the yard, and set off at full speed on the road to Pyatigorsk. I mercilessly drove the exhausted horse, which, snoring and covered in foam, rushed me along the rocky road.” There was faith the only woman, which Pechorin truly loved. At the same time, only Vera knew and loved Pechorin, not the fictional one, but the real one, with all his advantages and disadvantages. “I should hate you... You gave me nothing but suffering,” she says to Pechorin. But, as we know, such was the fate of most people with whom Pechorin came close...
In a moment of sadness, Pechorin reasons: “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born? And, it’s true, it existed, and, it’s true, there was a high purpose for me, because I feel immense strength in my soul. But I did not guess my purpose, I was carried away by the lures of empty and ignoble passions.” And in fact, did Pechorin have a “high purpose”?
Firstly, Pechorin is a hero of his time, because the tragedy of his life reflected the tragedy of an entire generation of young talented people who did not find a worthy use for themselves. And secondly, the protagonist’s doubts about all the values firmly defined for other people are what dooms Pechorin to loneliness, what makes him “an extra person,” “Onegin’s younger brother.” sees similarities between Onegin and Pechorin in many qualities. He says about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” But are there any differences between them?
There are, and quite significant ones. Onegin, as Belinsky writes: “in the novel is a man who was killed by upbringing and social life, to whom everything took a closer look, everything became boring. Pechorin is not like that. This person does not indifferently, not automatically, bear his suffering: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he bitterly blames himself for his errors. Internal questions are incessantly heard within him, they disturb him, torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution: he spies on every movement of his heart, considers every thought.” Thus, he sees the similarities between Onegin and Pechorin in their typicality for their time. But Onegin turns the search for himself into an escape from himself, and Pechorin wants to find himself, but his search is full of disappointments.
Indeed, time does not stand still, and the development of the “superfluous man theme” has not stood still either. She found her continuation in creativity. The main subject artistic image This writer has “the rapidly changing physiognomy of Russian people of the cultural stratum.” The writer is attracted to the “Russian Hamlets” - a type of nobleman-intellectual captured by the cult of philosophical knowledge of the 1830s - early 1840s. One of these people appeared in the first novel “Rudin”, created in 1855. He became the prototype of the main character Dmitry Rudin.
Dmitry Rudin appears at the estate of the rich lady Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya. The meeting with him becomes an event that attracted the most interested attention of the inhabitants and guests of the estate: “A man of about thirty-five, tall, somewhat stooped, curly-haired, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent, entered... with a liquid sparkle in his quick dark blue eyes, with straight wide nose and beautifully defined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and tight, as if he had grown out of it.”
Rudin's character is revealed in words. He is a brilliant orator: “Rudin possessed perhaps the highest secret - the music of eloquence. He knew how, by striking one string of hearts, he could make all the others vaguely ring and tremble.” Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. The statements of the main character of the work inspire and call for renewal of life, for heroic achievements. Everyone feels the power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion through words. Only Pigasov is embittered and does not recognize Rudin’s merits - out of envy and resentment for losing the dispute. However, behind the unusually beautiful speeches there is a hidden emptiness.
In his relationship with Natalya, one of the main contradictions in Rudin’s character is revealed. Just the day before he spoke with inspiration about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly we see a man who has completely lost faith in himself. Rudin’s inability to take the last step was evident when at Avdyukhin’s pond, in response to Natalya’s question: “What do we need to do now?” he replied: “Submit to fate...”.
Rudin's lofty thoughts are combined with practical unpreparedness. He undertakes agronomic reforms, but, seeing the futility of his attempts, leaves, losing his “daily piece of bread.” An attempt to teach at a gymnasium and serve as a secretary for a dignitary ended in failure. “Rudin’s misfortune is that he doesn’t know Russia...” Lezhnev, who was completely opposite to Rudin, once said. Indeed, it is precisely this isolation from life that makes Rudin a “superfluous person.” The hero lives only by impulses of the soul and dreams. So he wanders, not finding a task that he can complete. And a few years later, having met Lezhnev, Rudin reproaches himself: “But I’m not worth the shelter. I ruined my life and did not serve thoughts as I should.” His wandering fate is echoed in the novel by a mournful and homeless landscape: “And in the yard the wind rose and howled with an ominous howl, heavily and angrily hitting the ringing glass. A long autumn night has arrived. It’s good for the one who sits under the roof of the house on such nights, who has a warm corner... And may the Lord help all homeless wanderers!”
The ending of the novel is tragic and heroic at the same time. Rudin dies on the barricades of Paris. All they will say about him is: “They killed a Pole.”
Rudin reflects the tragic fate of a man of Turgenev’s generation: He has enthusiasm; and this is the most precious quality in our time. We have all become unbearably reasonable, indifferent and lethargic; we fell asleep, we froze, and thanks to the one who will stir us up and warm us at least for a moment.”
Rudin is a different version of the “superfluous man” type compared to Onegin and Pechorin. The heroes of the novels, by their position in life, are individualists and “reluctantly selfish,” and Rudin is not only a hero of another, later time, but also a different hero. Unlike his predecessors, Rudin strives for socially useful activities. He is not just alienated from the environment, but makes attempts to somehow change it. This significant difference between Rudin and Pechorin is indicated by: “One is an egoist, not thinking about anything other than his personal pleasures; the other is an enthusiast, completely forgetting about himself and being completely absorbed in general questions; one lives for his passions, the other for his ideas. These are people different eras, different natures."
So, the theme of the “extra person” comes to an end. In the 20th century, some writers returned to it. But the return is no longer a discovery: the 19th century discovered and exhausted the theme of the “superfluous man.”
Bibliography.
1. Eremina on literature. 9th grade: educational and methodological manual. – M.: Publishing House “Exam”, 2009.
2. Lermontov. Hero of our time. - M.: Publishing house of children's literature "VESELKA", Kyiv, 1975.
3. Pushkin Onegin. A novel in verse. Preface, note. And he will explain. Articles by S. Bondi. – M.: “Children’s Literature”, 1973.
4. Turgenev (Rudin. Noble nest. The day before. Fathers and sons.) Note. A. Tolstyakova. – M.: “Moscow Worker”, 1974.
5. Shalaev’s reference book for high school students. – M.: Philol. Slovo Island: OLMA-PRESS Education, 2005.
https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image002_160.jpg" width="507" height="507 src=">
Pushkin on the manuscript of “Eugene Onegin”.
https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image004_117.jpg" width="618" height="768 src=">
Illustration for the novel “Hero of Our Time.”
https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image006_91.jpg" width="607" height="828 src=">
Rudin at Lasunsky.
Head: Maltseva Galina Sergeevna.
MAOU "Secondary School No. 109" Perm.
The expression “an extra person” came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man.” So who is he? Head: Maltseva Galina Sergeevna.
Maintaining.
The expression “superfluous man” came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850) by I.S. Turgenev. This is what it says in Literary encyclopedic dictionary"(1987).
But the first epithet “superfluous” was applied by Pushkin to Onegin, the hero of the novel “Eugene Onegin,” in one of his rough sketches. Almost simultaneously with Pushkin in 1831, Lermontov in the drama “ A strange man” puts the same definition into the mouth of Vladimir Arbenin: “Now I’m free! Nobody...nobody...exactly, positively no one values me on earth...I’m superfluous!..” These are the words of V. Manuylov in the book “Novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time.” Commentary” (1975).
IN " Literary Dictionary“It is said that the “extra person” is a socio-psychological type imprinted in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. Why did it happen that smart and thirsty people were doomed to forced inaction and became victims of their time?
The outstanding historian V.O. Klyuchevsky has an article on this topic, it is called “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors,” in which he explains the reasons that made people who received a European education “superfluous in their country.” The “cultural and psychological curiosity” is that, giving their children a European education, their ancestors offered a country frozen in slavery, therefore “in Europe they saw him as a Tatar dressed in European style, but in their eyes he seemed like a Frenchman born in Russia.”
Although Klyuchevsky’s words were spoken about Onegin, they apply no less to Chatsky. Chatsky’s drama lies precisely in the fact that he is torn apart by the contract between civilization and slavery, the underdevelopment of social life in Russia.
Chatsky could not admit that Sophia, in their enlightened age, was still at that low stage of moral development at which Famusov and his entourage were. Her idea of valor and honor is no different from the views of those around her: “Compliant, modest, quiet in her face, not a shadow of concern...”
And already Famusov presents a whole program for a successful life in society to this “prodigal son,” but the essence of success is very simple:
When do you need to help yourself?
And he bent over...
This “moral” position has been verified by practice, is convenient, and reliable. The educated and intelligent Chatsky states with surprise the bitter truth: “Silent people are blissful in the world.” But there is no place for him here: “I’ll go look around the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling.” Chatsky is alone before us. And that says a lot. There were many Decembrist and pro-Decembrist-minded people, but the feeling of social loneliness was quite familiar to almost every leading person of that time.
The social and literary development of Russia was so rapid that the image of Chatsky did not satisfy either Pushkin or Belinsky.
Pushkin is not satisfied with Chatsky’s traditional approach to depicting a hero, in which the main character turns into a mouthpiece for the author’s ideas. Pushkin begins work on the novel “Eugene Onegin”, creating a new hero. Belinsky notes: “First of all, in Onegin we see a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society, taken at one of the most interesting moments of its development.” As a result of the reform of Peter the Great, a society was to be formed in Russia, completely separated from the mass of the people in its way of life.
Nevertheless, Pushkin asks the most important question: “But was my Eugene happy?” It turns out that many people of the world are not satisfied with him. Onegin does not immediately come to terms with his bitter disappointment, with the feeling of his uselessness:
Onegin locked himself at home,
Yawning, I took up my pen,
I wanted to write, but it’s hard work
He was sick...
In Onegin, his mind, conscience, and dreams are alive, but he does not have the ability to act. Onegin does not need anything, he has no goal, no ideal - this is his tragedy.
If Chatsky and Onegin were given a historical opportunity to reach Senate Square in 1825, together with the most educated representatives of his class, who hoped with one impetuous onslaught to move the rock that stood in the way of civilization, then Pechorin, the hero of Lermontov’s novel, did not have such an opportunity. He appeared later and this was enough for a certain psychological and moral barrier to form between them. Critics, comparing Pechorin with Onegin, said: “If Onegin is bored, then Pechorin suffers deeply.” This is explained by the fact that the “hero of our time” lives during the brutal persecution of everything progressive that began after the defeat of the Decembrists. Lermontov in the preface directly said that he gives “a portrait made up of the vices of our generation in their full development.” Pechorin withdrew into himself, just as all of the most educated Russia withdrew after the terrible upheavals associated with the suppression of the Decembrist uprising.
In his tragic life, Lermontov found a task for himself - to understand and explain to his contemporaries themselves, without hiding or embellishing anything. The novel “A Hero of Our Time”, when published, caused conflicting opinions among readers. The novel contains tendencies towards condemnation of both society and the hero. Recognizing the guilt of society for giving birth to Pechorin, the author, however, does not believe that the hero is right. The central task of the novel is to reveal the depth of Pechorin’s image. The central task of the novel is to reveal the depth of Pechorin’s image. Already from the very composition of the novel, we can see the aimlessness of his life, the pettiness and inconsistency of his actions. Placing the hero in different conditions, into different surroundings, Lermontov wants to show that they are alien to Pechorin, that he has no place in life, no matter what situation he finds himself in.
The theme of the “superfluous man” is characteristic of Lermontov’s work. For example, the same “superfluous person” is the hero of the drama “Strange Man” - Vladimir Arbenin. His whole life is a challenge to society.
In 1856, Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” was published in the Sovremennik magazine. In the image of Rudin, Turgenev shows that the progressive people of the 40s, who received the bitter, but in their own way fair name of “superfluous people,” tried to save them from discord with the social conditions of life by going into philosophy and art. In the personality of Rudin, Turgenev collected both positive and negative features of this generation. Having gone through the difficult path of spiritual quest, he himself cannot reduce the whole meaning of human life to businesslike activity that is not inspired by a higher idea. And from the point of view of the historical progress of Rudina, according to Turgenev, - true heroes era, as they are admirers of ideals, guardians of culture, and serve the progress of society.
Conclusion.
In our literature, a type of people has emerged whose existence is purely internal. They do not strive to achieve wealth, fame, or position in society; they do not set themselves political, social, or everyday goals.
"Extra People" Russian literature They look for happiness not outside, but inside themselves. Initially, they are “laid” with that high ideal, which dooms them to eternal dissatisfaction with reality, to an eternal search for a life goal. Their souls, like Lermontov’s sail, are rebellious, “looking for storms.”
Bibliography.
1. V.O. Klyuchevsky “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors” (in the book “Literary Portraits” 1991)
2. V.Yu. Proskurina “Dialogues with Chatsky” (in the book “Centuries will not be erased...” Russian classics and their readers, 1988)
3. N.G. Valley “Let’s honor Onegin together”
4. N.G. Valley "Pechorin and our time"
5. P. G. Paustovsky “I. Turgenev - artist of words”
6. I.K. Kuzmichev “Literature and moral education personality."
7. L. Urban " Secret Platonov" Article “Rereading again.”