An extra person... Who is this - the one who no one needs? The one who does not find a place for himself in his country, in his time? Someone who can't achieve anything?
These images, somewhat similar to each other and at the same time different, appeared in the texts of writers at the beginning of the 19th century. Onegin from the novel in verse by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, Pechorin from the novel by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, Chatsky from the comedy by Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov... Isn’t it true, there is something in common in these three images?
The first of them is in chronological order- Chatsky. Let us remember: he returns to Famusov’s house after a long, many-year absence. Even before his appearance on stage, we already know about the sharp mind and evil tongue of this hero (Sophia speaks about this). And, appearing on stage, he justifies her words. During his absence, Chatsky changed and became wiser, but society did not change and did not become wiser! And a conflict is brewing: society and Chatsky do not accept each other. And seeing that he does not have the slightest opportunity to express (and find those who understand!) his thoughts, his feelings and ideals here, Chatsky breaks with society. They declare him crazy and, indeed, blinkered secular people should have perceived the trends of the new worldview in exactly this way. The true conflict of the play is not in devoted love, but in the clash of two different worldviews, where power is obviously on the side of the more inert and older.
The next character is Evgeny Onegin. Since childhood he has been poisoned by hypocrisy high society, he denies everything he can see. Unlike Chatsky, Onegin has neither aspirations nor lofty ideals. The ideal - love - comes to him only later, when everything has already been lost. But Onegin is an active person at his core. And if we sympathize with Chatsky, then Onegin at the end of the novel is capable of moral regeneration, the “late” Onegin is in some ways close to Griboyedov’s hero, it is no coincidence that Pushkin mentions this, comparing them as if in passing: “... and he ended up like Chatsky from the ship to the ball...,” he writes about Onegin. The last character from the gallery of “extra” people is Pechorin.
This image, in my opinion, is the most tragic. After all, if Chatsky initially strives for some ideals and believes in something, if Onegin comes to spiritual rebirth through suffering, then in Pechorin’s soul there is only emptiness and pain from unused potential. Pechorin sows evil, often deliberately (as in the case of the seduction of Princess Mary). In love he is incompetent (remember Vera), in creativity he is incapable of anything, although in his diaries he gives an unusually poetic description of nature...
So, the image extra person undergoes certain changes over time. If Chatsky is somewhere cheerful and cheerful, if Some kind of future can await Onegin, then Pechorin has no future...
The inability to use their powers is not the heroes' fault. This is the fault of time, the fault of the historical course of events... These images inevitably had to appear in Russian literature early XIX century.
At the beginning of the 19th century, works appeared in Russian literature, the central problem of which was the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And, as a result, it is created new image- the image of a “superfluous” 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” . The image of the “superfluous person” changed as society developed, acquiring 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, 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 a stronger character than Pushkin, but together they show how a gifted person is destroyed surrounding reality, secular society.
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, sluggish 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 with 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 flower 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 “protested” on the sofa, believing that this best image 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 characteristics of life Russia XIX century, we can say that if “extra” people were found everywhere, regardless of 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 the image of Oblomov as 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 state structure countries. 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. Some at the same time turn into mocking cynics, like Onegin or Pechorin, others, like Oblomov, kill best years life, 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 the fault of the “unnecessary” people. serfdom, and that society in which true values, and vices often wear a mask of virtue, where the individual can be trampled underfoot by a gray, silent crowd.
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-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 now Famusov is presenting a whole program successful life in society this " to the 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.
Public and literary development Russia was moving so fast that the image of Chatsky did not satisfy either Pushkin or Belinsky.
Pushkin is not satisfied with Chatsky’s traditional approach to depicting the hero, in which the main thing is actor 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 in one of most interesting moments 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, the 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 character of Rudin, Turgenev shows that advanced people The 40s, who received the bitter, but in their own way fair name, “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 a difficult path of spiritual quest, he himself cannot bring together the whole meaning human life to efficiency, 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 character. 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 eternal searches. 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.”
"Extra person" is socio-psychological type, imprinted in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century; its main features: alienation from official Russia, from their native environment (usually noble), a feeling of intellectual and moral superiority over it and at the same time - mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed. The name “Superfluous Man” came into general use after I.S. Turgenev’s “Diary of a Superfluous Man” (1850), but the type itself had developed earlier: the first vivid incarnation was Onegin (“Eugene Onegin”, 1823-31, A.S. Pushkin ), then Pechorin (“Hero of Our Time”, 1839-40, M.Yu. Lermontov), Beltov (“Who is to Blame?”, 1845 by A.I. Herzen), Turgenev’s characters - Rudin (“Rudin”, 1856), Lavretsky (" Noble Nest", 1859), etc. The features of the spiritual appearance of the "Superfluous Man" (sometimes in a complicated and modified form) can be traced in the literature of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. IN Western European literature“The Superfluous Man” is to a certain extent close to the hero, disillusioned with social progress (“Adolphe”, 1816, B. Constant; “Son of the Century”, 1836, A. de Musset). However, in Russia, the contradictions of the social situation, the contrast between civilization and slavery, the oppression of reaction, brought the “Superfluous Man” to a more prominent place and determined the increased drama and intensity of his experiences.
At the turn of the 1850s-60s, criticism (N.A. Dobrolyubov), leading an attack on the liberal intelligentsia, sharpened the weaknesses of “The Superfluous Man” - half-heartedness, inability to actively intervene in life, however, the theme of “The Superfluous Man” was wrongfully reduced to the theme of liberalism , And his historical background- to lordship and “Oblomovism”. The relationship between the typology of the “Superfluous Man” as a cultural problem and literary text, in which - in the most difficult cases- the stability of the psychological complex of character turned out to be problematic: thus, Onegin’s mental fatigue and indifference was replaced in the final chapter of Pushkin’s novel by youthful passion and enthusiasm. In general, in the broader context of the literary movement, the “Extra Man” type emerged as a rethinking romantic hero, developed under the sign of a more versatile and mobile characterology. Significant in the theme of “The Superfluous Man” was the rejection of educational, moralizing attitudes in the name of the most complete and impartial analysis, reflection of the dialectics of life. It was also important to affirm the value of the individual person, personality, interest in the “history of the human soul” (Lermontov), which created the ground for fruitful psychological analysis and prepared the future achievements of Russian realism and post-realistic artistic movements.
Introduction
Fiction cannot develop without looking back at the path traveled, without measuring its creative achievements today with the milestones of past years. Poets and writers at all times have been interested in people who can be called strangers to everyone - “superfluous people.” There is something fascinating and attractive about a person who is able to oppose himself to society. Of course, the images of such people have undergone significant changes in Russian literature over time. At first these were romantic heroes, passionate, rebellious natures. They could not stand dependence, not always understanding that their lack of freedom was in themselves, in their soul.
“Deep changes in the socio-political and spiritual life of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, associated with two significant events - Patriotic War 1812 and the Decembrist movement - determined the main dominants of Russian culture of this period." Development of realism in Russian literature: In 3 volumes - M., 1974. - T. 1. P. 18.. Realistic works are born, in which writers explore the problem of the relationship between the individual and society for more high level. Now they are no longer interested in the individual striving to be free from society. The subject of research by word artists is “the influence of society on personality, self-worth human personality, her right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of her abilities" Literary dictionary. - M., 1987. - P. 90. .
This is how one of the themes of classical Russian literature arose and developed - the theme of the “superfluous man”.
The purpose of this work is to study the image of the superfluous person in Russian literature.
To implement this topic, we will solve the following work tasks:
1) we study the issues of the origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature;
2) let us analyze in detail the image of the “superfluous person” using the example of the work of M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time".
The origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature
the odd man out Russian literature
In the middle of the 18th century, the dominant trend throughout artistic culture became classicism. The first national tragedies and comedies appear (A. Sumarokov, D. Fonvizin). The brightest poetic works created by G. Derzhavin.
At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries decisive influence influenced the development of literature, in particular, the emergence of the theme of the “superfluous man” historical events era. In 1801, Tsar Alexander I came to power in Russia. The beginning of the 19th century was felt by everyone as a new period in the history of the country. Later, Pushkin wrote in verse: “The days of Alexandrov are a wonderful beginning” Pushkin A.S. Collection op. V. 10 vol. - M., 1977. - T. 5, P. 212.. Indeed, it encouraged many and many and seemed wonderful. A number of restrictions in the field of book publishing were lifted, a liberal censorship Charter was adopted and censorship was relaxed. New ones were opening educational establishments: gymnasiums, universities, a number of lyceums, in particular the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (1811), which played a big role in the history of Russian culture and statehood: it was from its walls that the most great poet Russia - Pushkin and its most outstanding statesman figure XIX century - the future chancellor Prince A. Gorchakov. A new, more rational system of government institutions, ministries, and in particular the Ministry of Public Education, adopted in Europe, was established. Dozens of new magazines have appeared. The journal “Bulletin of Europe” (1802-1830) is especially characteristic. It was created and initially published by the remarkable figure of Russian culture N.M. Karamzin. The magazine was conceived as a conductor of new ideas and phenomena of European life. Karamzin followed them in his writing, establishing such a direction as sentimentalism (the story “ Poor Lisa"), with his idea of equality of people, however, only in the sphere of feelings: "even peasant women know how to love." At the same time, it was Karamzin who, already in 1803, began work on the “History of the Russian State,” which clarified the special role of Russia as a historically developed organism. It is no coincidence that the enthusiasm with which the volumes of this history were received upon their publication. The understanding of this role of Russia was greatly helped by the discoveries of the early 19th century in the history of Russian culture (the Tale of Igor’s Campaign was found and published in 1800) and Russian folk art(published “Songs of Kirsha Danilov” - 1804).
At the same time, serfdom remained unshakable, albeit with some concessions: for example, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land. The autocracy with all its strong and weaknesses. The centralization of the multi-component country was ensured, but the bureaucracy grew and arbitrariness remained at all levels.
The War of 1812, called the Patriotic War, played a huge role in the life of Russia and in its understanding of its place in the world. "The year 1812 was great era in the life of Russia" Quoted. from: Development of realism in Russian literature: In 3 volumes - T. 2. P. 90. - wrote great critic and thinker V.G. Belinsky. And the point is not only in external victories, which ended with the entry of Russian troops into Paris, but precisely in the internal awareness of itself as Russia, which found expression, first of all, in literature.
The most remarkable phenomenon in Russian literature of the early nineteenth century was educational realism, which reflected the ideas and views of the Enlightenment with the greatest completeness and consistency. The embodiment of the ideas of the rebirth of man meant the most close attention To inner world of a person, creating a portrait based on insightful knowledge of the psychology of the individual, the dialectics of the soul, the complex, sometimes elusive life of his inner self. After all, a person in fiction always thought of in the unity of personal and public life. Sooner or later, every person, at least at certain moments in life, begins to think about the meaning of his existence and spiritual development. Russian writers clearly showed that human spirituality is not something external; it cannot be acquired through education or imitation of even the best examples.
Here is the hero of the comedy A.S. Griboedova (1795-1829) “Woe from Wit” Chatsky. His image reflected typical features Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life. Griboedov, the creator of the first realistic play, found it quite difficult to cope with his task. Indeed, unlike his predecessors (Fonvizin, Sumarokov), who wrote plays according to the laws of classicism, where good and evil were clearly separated from each other, Griboyedov made each hero an individual, a living person who tends to make mistakes. The main character of the comedy, Chatsky, turns out, with all his intelligence and positive qualities, a person superfluous to society. After all, a person is not alone in the world, he lives in society and constantly comes into contact with other people. Everything that Chatsky believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. Moreover, it was precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions Famusov society rejects him and declares him crazy See: Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. - M., 1978. .
Immortal image Onegin, created by A.S. Pushkin (1799-1837) in the novel “Eugene Onegin” is the next step in the development of the image of the “superfluous man”.
“Russia’s heart will not forget you, like its first love!..” Quote. by: Skaftymov A.P. Moral quest Russian writers. - M., 1972. - P. 12. A lot has been said in more than one and a half years more than a century wonderful words about Pushkin the man and Pushkin the poet. But perhaps no one said it so poetically sincerely and so psychologically accurately as Tyutchev did in these lines. And at the same time, what is expressed in them in the language of poetry is completely consistent with the truth, confirmed by time, by the strict court of history.
The first Russian national poet, the founder of all subsequent Russian literature, the beginning of all its beginnings - such is the recognized place and significance of Pushkin in the development of the Russian art of speech. But to this we should add one more and very significant one. Pushkin was able to achieve all this because for the first time - at the highest aesthetic level he achieved - he raised his creations to the level of “enlightenment of the century” - European spiritual life XIX century and thereby rightfully introduced Russian literature as another and most significant nationally distinctive literature into the family of the most developed literatures of the world by that time.
Throughout almost the entire 1820s, Pushkin worked on his greatest work, the novel Eugene Onegin. This is the first realistic novel in the history of not only Russian, but also world literature. "Eugene Onegin" - peak Pushkin's creativity. Here, as in no other Pushkin's works, Russian life is reflected in its movement and development, the change of generations and at the same time the change and struggle of ideas. Dostoevsky noted that in the image of Onegin, Pushkin created “the type of Russian wanderer, a wanderer to this day and in our days, the first to guess him with his brilliant instinct, with his historical destiny and with his enormous significance in our group destiny...” Quote. by: Berkovsky I.Ya. On the global significance of Russian literature. - L., 1975. - P. 99..
In the image of Onegin, Pushkin showed the duality of the worldview of a typical noble intellectual of the 19th century. A person of high intellectual culture, hostile to vulgarity and emptiness environment, Onegin at the same time carries within himself character traits this environment.
At the end of the novel, the hero comes to a terrifying conclusion: all his life he was “a stranger to everyone...” Pushkin A.S. Collection op. V. 10 vol. - T. 8. P. 156.. What is the reason for this? The answer is the novel itself. From its first pages, Pushkin analyzes the process of formation of Onegin’s personality. The hero receives a typical upbringing for his time under the guidance of a foreign tutor; he is separated from the national environment; it is not for nothing that he even knows Russian nature from walks in the Summer Garden. Onegin perfectly studied the “science of tender passion” Ibid. - P. 22., but it gradually replaces in him the ability to feel deeply. Describing Onegin’s life in St. Petersburg, Pushkin uses the words “dissemble”, “appear”, “appear” Ibid. - P. 30, 45.. Yes, indeed, Evgeniy very early understood the difference between the ability to appear and to be in reality. If Pushkin’s hero were an empty man, perhaps he would have been satisfied with spending his life in theaters, clubs and balls, but Onegin is a thinking man, he quickly ceases to be satisfied with secular victories and “everyday pleasures” Ibid. - P. 37.. The “Russian blues” takes possession of him. Ibid. - P. 56.. Onegin is not accustomed to work, “languishing with spiritual emptiness” Ibid. - P. 99., he tries to find entertainment in reading, but does not find in books anything that could reveal to him the meaning of life. By the will of fate, Onegin ends up in the village, but these changes also do not change anything in his life.
“Whoever lived and thought cannot help but despise people in his soul” Ibid. - P. 138. - Pushkin leads us to such a bitter conclusion. Of course, the trouble is not that Onegin thinks, but that he lives in a time when a thinking person is inevitably doomed to loneliness and turns out to be a “superfluous person.” He is not interested in what mediocre people live with, but he cannot find use for his powers, and he does not always know why. As a result - complete loneliness hero. But Onegin is lonely not only because he was disappointed in the world, but also because he gradually lost the ability to see the true meaning in friendship, love, and the closeness of human souls.
A superfluous person in society, “a stranger to everyone,” Onegin is burdened by his existence. For him, proud in his indifference, there was nothing to do; he “didn’t know how to do anything” Ibid. - P. 25.. The absence of any goal or work that makes life meaningful is one of the reasons for Onegin’s inner emptiness and melancholy, so brilliantly revealed in his reflections on his fate in excerpts from “The Journey”:
“Why wasn’t I wounded by a bullet in the chest?
Why am I not a frail old man?
How is this poor tax farmer?
Why, as the Tula assessor,
Am I not lying in paralysis?
Why can’t I feel it in my shoulder?
Even rheumatism? - ah, Creator!
I am young, the life in me is strong;
What should I expect? melancholy, melancholy! Right there. - P. 201..
Onegin's skeptical and cold worldview, deprived of an active life-affirming principle, could not indicate a way out of the world of lies, hypocrisy, and emptiness in which the heroes of the novel live.
Onegin's tragedy is the tragedy of a lonely man, but not a romantic hero running away from people, but a man who is cramped in a world of false passions, monotonous entertainment and empty pastime. And therefore, Pushkin’s novel becomes a condemnation not of the “superfluous man” Onegin, but of the society that forced the hero to live exactly such a life.
Onegin and Pechorin (the image of Pechorin’s “superfluous man” will be discussed in more detail below) are the heroes in whose image the features of the “superfluous man” were embodied most clearly. However, even after Pushkin and Lermontov this topic continued its development. Onegin and Pechorin begin a long series of social types and characters generated by Russian historical reality. These are Beltov, and Rudin, and Agarin, and Oblomov.
In the novel “Oblomov” I.A. Goncharov (1812-1891) presented two types of life: life in motion and life in a state of rest, sleep. It seems to me that the first type of life is typical for people with strong character, energetic and purposeful. And the second type is for calm, lazy natures, helpless in the face of life’s difficulties. Of course, the author, in order to more accurately depict these two types of life, slightly exaggerates the character traits and behavior of the heroes, but the main directions of life are indicated correctly. I believe that both Oblomov and Stolz live in every person, but one of these two types of characters still prevails over the other.
According to Goncharov, the life of any person depends on his upbringing and on his heredity. Oblomov was brought up in a noble family with patriarchal traditions. His parents, like his grandfathers, lived a lazy, carefree and carefree life. They did not need to earn their living, they did not do anything: the serfs worked for them. With such a life, a person plunges into a deep sleep: he does not live, but exists. After all, in the Oblomov family everything came down to one thing: eat and sleep. The peculiarities of the life of Oblomov’s family also influenced him. And although Ilyushenka was a living child, the constant care of his mother, which saved him from the difficulties that arose in front of him, his weak-willed father, his constant sleep in Oblomovka - all this could not help but affect his character. And Oblomov grew up as sleepy, apathetic and unadapted to life as his fathers and grandfathers. As for heredity, the author accurately captured the character of the Russian person with his laziness and careless attitude towards life.
Stolz, on the contrary, came from a family belonging to the most lively and efficient class. The father was the manager of a rich estate, and the mother was an impoverished noblewoman. Therefore, Stolz had great practical ingenuity and hard work as a result of his German upbringing, and from his mother he received a rich spiritual inheritance: a love of music, poetry, and literature. His father taught him that the main thing in life is money, rigor and accuracy. And Stolz would not have been his father’s son if he had not achieved wealth and respect in society. Unlike Russian people, Germans are characterized by extreme practicality and accuracy, which is constantly manifested in Stolz.
So, at the very beginning of life, a program was laid down for the main characters: vegetation, sleep - for the “superfluous man” Oblomov, energy and vital activity - for Stolz.
The main part of Oblomov’s life was spent on the sofa, in a robe, inactive. Undoubtedly, the author condemns such a life. Oblomov's life can be compared with the life of people in Paradise. He does nothing, everything is brought to him on a silver platter, he doesn’t want to solve problems, he sees wonderful dreams. He is taken out of this Paradise first by Stolz, and then by Olga. But Oblomov cannot stand real life and I.A. Goncharov dies. Oblomov. - M., 1972. .
The traits of an “extra person” also appear in some of L.N.’s heroes. Tolstoy (1828 - 1910). Here it is necessary to take into account that Tolstoy, in his own way, “builds action on spiritual turning points, drama, dialogues, disputes” Linkov V.Ya. The world and man in the works of L. Tolstoy and I. Bunin. - M., 1989. - P. 78. . It is appropriate to recall the reasoning of Anna Zegers: “Long before the masters of modernist psychologism, Tolstoy was able to convey in all spontaneity the stream of vague, half-conscious thoughts of the hero, but with him this did not come to the detriment of the integrity of the picture: he recreated the spiritual chaos that takes possession of one or another character at one time or another. acutely dramatic moments of life, but he himself did not succumb to this chaos” Quote. by: Tarasov B.N. Analysis of bourgeois consciousness in the story by L.N. Tolstoy “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” // Questions of Literature. - 1982. - No. 3. - P. 15. .
Tolstoy is a master of depicting the “dialectics of the soul” Shepeleva Z. The art of creating a portrait in the works of L. Tolstoy. - In the book: Mastery of Russian classics: Sat. Art. - M., 1959. - P. 190.. He shows how abrupt a person’s discovery of himself can be (“The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, “ Posthumous notes Elder Fyodor Kuzmich"). From the point of view of Leo Tolstoy, egoism is not only evil for the egoist himself and those around him, but a lie and disgrace. Here is the plot of the story “The Death of Ivan Ilyich.” This plot, as it were, unfolds the entire spectrum of inevitable consequences and properties of an egoistic life. The hero's impersonality, the emptiness of his existence, indifferent cruelty towards his neighbors and, finally, the incompatibility of egoism with reason are shown. “Egoism is madness” Tolstoy L.N. Collection cit.: In 14 volumes - M., 1952. - T. 9. P. 89. . This idea, formulated by Tolstoy in his Diary, is one of the main ones in the story and was clearly manifested when Ivan Ilyich realized that he was dying.
Cognition life truth, according to Tolstoy, requires from a person not intellectual abilities, but courage and moral purity. A person does not accept evidence not out of stupidity, but out of fear of the truth. The bourgeois circle to which Ivan Ilyich belonged developed a whole system of deception that hides the essence of life. Thanks to her, the heroes of the story are not aware of injustice social order, cruelty and indifference to others, emptiness and meaninglessness of one’s existence. The reality of social, public, family and any other collective life can only be revealed to a person who really accepts the essence of his personal life with its inevitable suffering and death. But it is precisely such a person who becomes “superfluous” to society.
Tolstoy continued his criticism of the selfish way of life, begun by The Death of Ivan Ilyich, in The Kreutzer Sonata, focusing exclusively on family relationships and marriage. As you know, he attached great importance to the family in both personal and public life, being convinced that “the human race develops only in the family.” Not a single Russian writer XIX centuries we will not find so many bright pages depicting a happy family life, like Tolstoy.
L. Tolstoy's heroes always interact, influence each other, sometimes decisively, change: moral efforts - ultimate reality in the world of the author of The Death of Ivan Ilyich. Man lives true life when he does them. The misunderstanding that divides people is considered by Tolstoy as an anomaly, as main reason impoverishment of life.
Tolstoy is a staunch opponent of individualism. He depicted and assessed in his works the private existence of a person, which is in no way connected with the universal world, as defective. The idea of the need for man to suppress the animal nature of Tolstoy after the crisis was one of the main ones both in journalism and in artistic creativity. The selfish path of a person who directs all efforts to achieve personal well-being, in the eyes of the author of “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” is deeply erroneous, completely hopeless, never, under any circumstances, achieving the goal. This is one of those problems that Tolstoy pondered over many years with amazing tenacity and persistence. “To consider one’s life as the center of life is for a person madness, insanity, an aberration” Ibid. - P. 178. . The conviction that personal happiness is unattainable by an individual lies at the heart of the book “On Life.”
The resolution of the deeply personal experience of the inevitability of death is accomplished by the hero in an ethical and social act, which has become main feature works of Tolstoy last period. It is no coincidence that “Notes of a Madman” remained unfinished. There is every reason to assume that the story did not satisfy the writer with the idea itself. The prerequisite for the hero's crisis were the special qualities of his personality, which manifested themselves in early childhood when he was unusually acutely aware of manifestations of injustice, evil, and cruelty. Hero -- special person, not like everyone else, superfluous to society. And the sudden fear of death experienced by him, a thirty-five-year-old healthy man, is assessed by others as a simple deviation from the norm. The unusual nature of the hero one way or another led to the idea of the exclusivity of his fate. The idea of the story was losing its universal significance. The uniqueness of the hero became the flaw due to which the reader escaped the circle of the writer’s arguments.
Tolstoy's heroes are absorbed primarily in the search for personal happiness, and they come to world problems, common ones, only if their logic of seeking personal harmony leads to them, as was the case with Levin or Nekhlyudov. But, as Tolstoy wrote in his Diary, “you cannot live for yourself alone. This is death." Ibid. - T. 11. P. 111. . Tolstoy reveals the failure of egoistic existence as a lie, ugliness and evil. And this gives his criticism a special power of persuasiveness. “...If a person’s activity is sanctified by the truth,” he wrote on December 27, 1889 in his Diary, “then the consequences of such activity are good (good for both oneself and others); the manifestation of goodness is always beautiful” Ibid. - P. 115..
So, the beginning of the 19th century is the time of the emergence of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature. And then, throughout the “golden age of Russian culture,” we find in the works of great poets and writers vivid images of heroes who became superfluous to the society in which they lived. One of these bright images- image of Pechorin.