Kostareva Valeria
The theme of the "superfluous man" in Russian literature... Who is the "superfluous man"? Is it appropriate to use this term? My student is trying to talk about this
Download:
Preview:
Municipal budgetary educational institution secondary comprehensive school №27
Images of “superfluous people” in Russian literature
Completed by student: 10B class
Kostareva Lera
Head: teacher of Russian language and literature
Masieva M.M.
Surgut, 2016
1. Introduction. Who is the “extra person”?
2. Evgeny Onegin
3. Grigory Pechorin
4. Ilya Oblomov
5. Fyodor Lavretsky
6. Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov
7. Conclusion
8. Literature
Introduction
Russian classic literature recognized all over the world. It is rich in many artistic discoveries. Many terms and concepts are unique to it and unknown to world literature.
In literary criticism, as in any other science, there are various classifications. Many of them relate to literary heroes. Thus, in Russian literature, for example, the “Turgenev type of girl” stands out, etc. But the most famous and interesting, provocative greatest number disputes, the group of heroes are probably the “extra people”. This term is most often applied to literary heroes of the 19th century.
Who is the “extra person”? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero, who, for various reasons (both external and internal), was unable to realize himself and his capabilities. " Extra person“looks for the meaning of life, purpose, but does not find it. Therefore, he wastes himself on the little things of 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.
Lonely, rejected by society, or having rejected this society himself, the “superfluous man” was not a figment of the Russian imagination writers of the XIX century, it was seen by them as a painful phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by the crisis of the social system. The personal destinies of the heroes, who are usually called “superfluous people,” reflected the drama of the advanced nobility
The most famous “superfluous people” in Russian literature were Eugene Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” and Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". But the gallery of “extra people” is quite extensive. Here are Chatsky from Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", and Fyodor Lavretsky from Turgenev's novel " Noble Nest" and many others.
The purpose of this study: to provide a rationale for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using the term “extra people”
Tasks:
To trace the development of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century;
Reveal the role of “extra people” in specific works;
Find out the significance of these characters for Russian literature;
In my work I sought to answer the questions:
Who is the "extra person"?
Is it necessary, is it useful to the world?
Subject of research: images of “extra people” in Russian literature
Object of study: works of Russian writers of the 19th century
I believe that the relevance of this topic is undeniable. The great works of Russian classics not only teach us about life. They make you think, feel, empathize. They help you understand meaning and purpose. human life. They are not only relevant now, they are immortal. No matter how much has been written about authors and heroes, there are no answers. There are only eternal questions of existence. The so-called “superfluous people” have raised more than one generation of people, pushing them by their own example to the eternal search for truth, awareness of their place in life.
Eugene Onegin
The founder of the type of “superfluous people” in Russian literature is considered to be Evgeniy Onegin from novel of the same name A.S. Pushkin. In terms of its potential, Onegin is one of the best people of its time.
He grew up and was brought up according to all the rules." good manners" Onegin shone in the light. He led a bohemian lifestyle: balls, walks along Nevsky Prospect, visiting theaters. His pastime was no different from the life of the “golden youth” of that time. But Onegin got tired of all this very quickly. He became bored both at the balls and in the theater: “No, the feelings in him cooled down early, He was bored with the noise of the world...”. This is the first touch to the portrait of the “extra person”. The hero began to feel superfluous in high society. He becomes alien to everything that has surrounded him for so long.
Onegin is trying to engage in some useful activity (“yawning, he took up his pen”). But the lordly perception and lack of habit of work played their role. The hero does not complete any of his undertakings. In the village, he tries to organize the life of the peasants. But, having carried out one reform, he happily gives up this occupation too. And here Onegin turns out to be superfluous, unadapted to life.
Evgeny Onegin is superfluous and in love. At the beginning of the novel he is unable to love, and at the end he is rejected, despite spiritual rebirth hero. Onegin himself admits that “in love he is disabled,” unable to experience deep feelings. When he finally realizes that Tatyana is his happiness, she cannot reciprocate the hero’s feelings.
After a duel with Lensky, Onegin, in a depressed state, leaves the village and begins to wander around Russia. In these travels, the hero overestimates his life, his actions, his attitude towards the surrounding reality. But the author does not tell us that Onegin began to engage in some useful activity and became happy. The ending of “Eugene Onegin” remains open. We can only guess about the fate of the hero.
V.G. Belinsky wrote that Pushkin was able to capture the “essence of life” in his novel. His hero is the first genuine national character. The work “Eugene Onegin” itself is deeply original and has an enduring hysterical and artistic value. His hero is a typical Russian character.
Onegin's main problem is his separation from life. He is smart, observant, unhypocritical, and has enormous potential. But his whole life is suffering. And society itself, the very structure of life, doomed him to this suffering. Evgeniy is one of many typical representatives of his society, his time. A hero similar to him, Pechorin, is placed in the same conditions.
Grigory Pechorin
The next representative of the “extra people” type is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time".
Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin is a representative of his era, or rather, the best part of the noble intelligentsia of the 20s of the 19th century. But he also cannot find himself, his place in life. Initially, Grigory Alexandrovich was endowed with great abilities. He is smart, educated, talented. Throughout the entire novel we observe the life, thoughts, and feelings of this hero. He vaguely feels that social life with its empty entertainment does not suit him. But Pechorin does not realize what he wants from life, what he wants to do.
What prevents this hero from living most is boredom. He fights her as best he can. One of the main entertainments for Grigory Alexandrovich is love adventures. But not a single woman can give meaning to Pechorin’s life. The only woman What the hero truly values is Vera. But Pechorin cannot be happy with her either, because he is afraid to love, he does not know how to do it (like Evgeny Onegin).
Grigory Alexandrovich is prone to introspection and reflection much more than Onegin. Pechorin analyzes his inner world. He is trying to find the reason for his unhappiness, the aimlessness of life. The hero fails to come to any comforting conclusion. He squandered all his strength, his soul, in empty amusements. Now he has no strength to powerful emotions, experiences, interest in life. In the end, the hero dies, following his own predictions.
He brings misfortune to all the people whom the hero’s fate encounters, violating the moral laws of society. He cannot find a place for himself anywhere, no use for his remarkable strengths and abilities, therefore Pechorin is superfluous wherever fate throws him.
In the image of Pechorin, Belinsky saw a truthful and fearless reflection of the tragedy of his generation, generation advanced people 40s. A man of extraordinary fortitude, proud and courageous, Pechorin wastes his energy in cruel games and petty intrigues. Pechorin is a victim of that social system that could only suppress and cripple everything that is best, advanced and strong.
V.G. Belinsky ardently defended the image of Pechorin from the attacks of reactionary criticism and argued that this image embodied the critical spirit of “our century.” Defending Pechorin, Belinsky emphasized that “our century” abhors “hypocrisy.” He speaks loudly about his sins, but is not proud of them; exposes his bloody wounds, and does not hide them under the beggarly rags of pretense. He realized that awareness of his sinfulness is the first step to salvation.
Belinsky writes that at their core, Onegin and Pechorin are the same person, but each chose a different path in their own case. Onegin chose the path of apathy, and Pechorin chose the path of action. But in the end, both lead to suffering.
Ilya Oblomov
The next link that continues the gallery of “extra people” is the hero of the novel by I. A. Goncharov, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a kind, gentle, kind-hearted person, capable of experiencing a feeling of love and friendship, but not able to step over himself - get up from the couch, do something activities and even settle their own affairs.
So why does such an intelligent and educated person not want to work? The answer is simple: Ilya Ilyich, just like Onegin and Pechorin, does not see the meaning and purpose of such work, such life. “This unresolved question, this unsatisfied doubt depletes strength, ruins activity; a person gives up and gives up work, not seeing a goal for it,” wrote Pisarev.
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic, apathetic nature, disconnected from real life: "Lying... was his normal state." And this feature is the first thing that distinguishes him from Pushkin’s and, especially, Lermontov’s heroes.
The life of Goncharov's character is rosy dreams on a soft sofa. Slippers and a robe are integral companions of Oblomov’s existence and bright, accurate artistic details, revealing the inner essence and external way of life of Oblomov. Living in an imaginary world, fenced off by dusty curtains from real reality, the hero devotes his time to making unrealistic plans and does not bring anything to fruition. Any of his undertakings suffers the fate of a book that Oblomov has been reading for several years on one page.
Main storyline in the novel are the relationships between Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya. It is here that the hero reveals himself to us the best side, his most cherished corners of his soul are revealed. But, alas, in the end he acts like the characters already familiar to us: Pechorin and Onegin. Oblomov decides to break off relations with Olga for her own good;
They all leave their beloved women, not wanting to hurt them.
Reading the novel, you involuntarily ask the question: why is everyone so drawn to Oblomov? It is obvious that each of the heroes finds in him a piece of goodness, purity, revelation - everything that people so lack.
Goncharov in his novel showed different types people, they all passed in front of Oblomov. The author showed us that Ilya Ilyich has no place in this life, just like Onegin and Pechorin.
The famous article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” (1859) appeared immediately after the novel and in the minds of many readers seemed to have merged with it. Ilya Ilyich, Dobrolyubov argued, is a victim of that common inability for noble intellectuals to be active, unity of word and deed, which is generated by their “external position” as landowners living off forced labor. “It is clear,” the critic wrote, “that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person looking for something, thinking about something. But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery.”
The main reason for the defeat of the hero of "Oblomov", according to Dobrolyubov, was not in himself and not in the tragic laws of love, but in "Oblomovism" as a moral and psychological consequence of serfdom, dooming noble hero to flabbiness and apostasy when trying to bring their ideals to life.
Fyodor Lavretsky
This hero of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “The Noble Nest” continues the gallery of “extra people”. Fyodor Ivanovich Lavretsky. - a deep, intelligent and truly decent person, driven by the desire for self-improvement, the search for useful work in which he could apply his mind and talent. Passionately loving Russia and aware of the need to get closer to the people, he dreams of useful activity. But his activity is limited only to some reconstructions on the estate, and he does not find use for his powers. All his activities are limited to words. He only talks about business without getting down to it. Therefore, “school” literary criticism usually classifies him as a “superfluous person” type. The uniqueness of Lavretsky’s nature is emphasized by comparison with other characters in the novel. His sincere love for Russia is contrasted with the condescending disdain shown by the socialite Panshin. Lavretsky's friend, Mikhalevich, calls him a bobak, who has been lying around all his life and is just getting ready to work. Here a parallel arises with another classical type of Russian literature - Oblomov by I.A. Goncharov.
The most important role in revealing the image of Lavretsky is played by his relationship with the heroine of the novel, Liza Kalitina. They feel the commonality of their views, understand that “they both love and dislike the same thing.” Lavretsky's love for Lisa is the moment of his spiritual rebirth, which occurred upon his return to Russia. The tragic outcome of love - the wife he thought was dead suddenly returns - does not turn out to be an accident. The hero sees in this retribution for his indifference to public duty, for the idle life of his grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Gradually, a moral turning point occurs in the hero: previously indifferent to religion, he comes to the idea of Christian humility. In the epilogue of the novel, the hero appears aged. Lavretsky is not ashamed of the past, but also does not expect anything from the future. “Hello, lonely old age! Burn out, useless life! - he says.
The ending of the novel is very important, which is a kind of conclusion life's quest Lavretsky. After all, his words of welcome at the end of the novel to unknown young forces mean not only the hero’s refusal of personal happiness (his union with Lisa is impossible) and its very possibility, but also sound like a blessing to people, faith in man. The ending also defines Lavretsky’s entire inconsistency, making him a “superfluous person.”
Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov
The problem of “superfluous” people in society is reflected in the works of many Russian writers. Researchers are still scratching their heads about some heroes. Can Chatsky and Bazarov be considered “superfluous people”? And is it necessary to do this? Based on the definition of the term “extra people,” then probably yes. After all, these heroes are also rejected by society (Chatsky) and are not sure that society needs them (Bazarov).
In the comedy A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit" the image of the main character - Alexander Chatsky - is an image advanced person 10 - 20 years of the 19th century, which in its beliefs and views is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with moral principles Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in Chatsky’s behavior. He expresses his opinion on various issues, coming into conflict with many representatives of the Moscow nobility.
First of all, Chatsky himself is noticeably different from all the other heroes of the comedy. This is an educated person with an analytical mind; he is eloquent, gifted imaginative thinking, which elevates him above the inertia and ignorance of the Moscow nobility. Chatsky’s clash with Moscow society occurs on many issues: this is the attitude to serfdom, to public service, To national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not please, flatter his superiors, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.
Let’s compare Chatsky, the hero of Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” with the image of an extra person.
Seeing the vices Famusov society, rejecting his inert foundations, mercilessly denouncing the veneration of rank, the patronage reigning in official circles, the stupid imitation of French fashion, the lack of real education, Chatsky turns out to be an outcast among the counts Khryumin, Khlestov and Zagoretsky. He is considered “strange”, and in the end he is even recognized as crazy. So Griboyedov’s hero, like extra people, comes into conflict with the imperfect world around him. But if the latter only suffer and are inactive, then “they are embittered; thoughts” of Chatsky “one can hear a healthy urge to action...”. “He feels what he is dissatisfied with,” because his ideal of life is completely defined: “freedom from all the chains of slavery that bind society.” Chatsky’s active opposition to those “whose enmity towards free life irreconcilable,” allows us to believe that he knows the ways to change life in society. In addition, Griboyedov’s hero, having passed long haul quest, having traveled for three years, finds a goal in life - “to serve the cause”, “without demanding either places or promotion to rank”, “to focus the mind hungry for knowledge into science.” The hero’s desire is to benefit the fatherland, to serve for the benefit of society, which is what he strives for.
Thus, Chatsky is undoubtedly a representative of an advanced society, people who do not want to put up with relics, reactionary orders and are actively fighting against them. Superfluous people, unable to find a worthy occupation for themselves, to realize themselves, do not join either conservatives or revolutionary-minded circles, keeping in their souls disappointment in life and wasting unclaimed talents.
The image of Chatsky caused numerous controversy in criticism. I. A. Goncharov considered the hero Griboyedov a “sincere and ardent figure”, superior to Onegin and Pechorin.
Belinsky assessed Chatsky completely differently, considering this image almost farcical: “...What kind of a deep person is Chatsky? This is just a loudmouth, a phrase-monger, an ideal buffoon, profaning everything sacred he talks about. ...This is a new Don Quixote, a boy on a stick on horseback, who imagines that he is sitting on a horse... Chatsky’s drama is a storm in a teacup.” Pushkin assessed this image in approximately the same way.
Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared crazy. Old world fights Chatsky’s free speech using slander. Chatsky’s struggle with an accusatory word corresponds to that early period the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and limited themselves to oral speeches.
“Chatsky was broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength,” - this is how I. A. Goncharov defined the meaning of Chatsky.
Evgeny Bazarov
Can Bazarov be called an “extra” person?
Evgeny Bazarov, probably to a lesser extent than Onegin or Pechorin, belongs to the category of “superfluous people,” however, he cannot self-realize in this life. He is afraid to think about the future because he does not see himself in it.
Bazarov lives one day at a time, which makes even his scientific studies meaningless. Adhering to the ideas of nihilism, rejecting everything old, he nevertheless has no idea what will subsequently form in the cleared place, hoping for the manifestation of the will of other people. Naturally, scientific experiments Bazarov gets bored pretty soon, since activities devoid of purpose quickly come to naught. Returning home to his parents, Evgeniy stops doing research and falls into a deep depression.
His tragedy lies in the fact that he, who considers himself to some extent a superman, suddenly discovers that nothing human is alien to him. Nevertheless, Russia could not do without such people at all times. Despite his views, Bazarov cannot be accused of lacking education, intelligence or insight. He, while remaining a materialist, nevertheless, if he set the right goals, could bring many benefits to society, for example, treat people or discover new physical laws. In addition, by fiercely opposing prejudices, he encouraged the people around him to move forward in their development, to look at some things in a new way.
So, it is clear that the image of Bazarov in some places fits into the concept of “extra people”. Therefore, in part, Bazarov can be called this way, given that “an extra person” is practically equated with a “hero of his time.” But all this is very controversial issue. We cannot say that he lived his life in vain.He knew where to use his strength. He lived for a high purpose. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether this Evgeniy is “superfluous”. Everyone has their own opinion on this matter.
DI. Pisarev notes some bias of the author towards Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev experiences involuntary antipathy towards his hero, towards the direction of his thoughts. But the general conclusion about the novel does not come down to this. The author's critical attitude towards Bazarov is perceived by Dmitry Ivanovich as an advantage, since from the outside the advantages and disadvantages are more visible and criticism will be more fruitful than servile adoration. The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev, is that there are actually no favorable conditions for the present case, and therefore the author, not being able to show how Bazarov lives and acts, showed how he dies.
Conclusion
All the heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Oblomov, Lavretsky, and Chatsky are similar in many ways. They noble origin, are naturally endowed with remarkable abilities. They are brilliant gentlemen, social dandies who break women's hearts (Oblomov will probably be an exception). But for them this is more a matter of habit than a true need. In their hearts, the heroes feel that they don’t need this at all. They vaguely want something real, sincere. And they all want to find applications for their great capabilities. Each of the heroes strives for this in their own way. Onegin is more active (he tried writing, farming in the village, traveling). Pechorin is more inclined to reflection and introspection. Therefore o inner world We know much more about Grigory Alexandrovich than about Onegin’s psychology. But if we can still hope for the revival of Eugene Onegin, then Pechorin’s life ends tragically (he dies of illness along the way), however, Oblomov also does not give up hope.
Each hero, despite his success with women, does not find happiness in love. This is largely due to the fact that they are big egoists. Often the feelings of other people mean nothing to Onegin and Pechorin. For both heroes, it costs nothing to destroy the world of others, people who love them, to trample on their lives and destiny.
Pechorin, Onegin, Oblomov and Lavretsky are similar in many ways, but differ in many ways. But their main common feature is the inability of the heroes to realize themselves in their time. Therefore they are all unhappy. Having big internal forces, they could not benefit either themselves, or the people around them, or their country. This is their fault, their misfortune, their tragedy...
Does the world need “extra people”? Are they useful? It is difficult to give an absolutely correct answer to this question; one can only speculate. On the one hand, it seems to me that no. At least that's what I thought at one time. If a person cannot find himself in life, then his life is meaningless. Then why waste space and consume oxygen? Give way to others. This is the first thing that comes to mind when you start thinking. It seems that the answer to the question lies on the surface, but it is not so. The more I worked on this topic. the more my views changed.
A person cannot be superfluous, because by his nature he is unique. Each of us comes into this world for a reason. Nothing happens for nothing, everything has a meaning and an explanation. If you think about it, every person can make someone happy by his very existence, and if he brings happiness to this world, then he is no longer useless.
Such people balance the world. With their lack of composure, indecision, slowness (like Oblomov) or, conversely, their wandering, searching for themselves, searching for the meaning and purpose of their life (like Pechorin), they excite others, make them think, reconsider their view of their surroundings. After all, if everyone were confident in their desires and goals, then it is unknown what would happen to the world. No person comes into this world aimlessly. Everyone leaves their mark on someone's hearts and minds. There are no unnecessary lives.
The topic of “extra” people is still relevant today. There have always been people who have not found a place in the world, and our time is no exception. On the contrary, I believe that right now not everyone can decide on their goals and desires. Such people have been and will always be, and this is not bad, it just happened that way. Such people need to be helped; many of them could have become great if not for a combination of circumstances, sometimes tragic.
Thus, we can conclude that every person who comes into this world is needed, and the term “extra people” is not fair.
Literature
1. Babaev E.G. Works of A.S. Pushkin. – M., 1988
2. Batyuto A.I. Turgenev the novelist. – L., 1972
3. Ilyin E.N. Russian literature: recommendations for schoolchildren and applicants, "SCHOOL-PRESS". M., 1994
4. Krasovsky V.E. History of Russian literature of the 19th century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 2001
5. Literature. Reference materials. Book for students. M., 1990
6. Makogonenko G.P. Lermontov and Pushkin. M., 1987
7. Monakhova O.P. Russian literature XIX century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 1999
8. Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit": Commentary. – M., 1983
9. Shamrey L.V., Rusova N.Yu. From allegory to iambic. Terminological dictionary-thesaurus in literary criticism. – N. Novgorod, 1993
10. http://www.litra.ru/composition/download/coid/00380171214394190279
11.
http://lithelper.com/p_Lishnie_lyudi_v_romane_I__S__Turgeneva_Otci_i_deti
12. http://www.litra.ru/composition/get/coid/00039301184864115790/
Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, Russian society matured new type, new hero time, which became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person light hand Belinsky is usually called the “superfluous man” type. In Russian literature there is a long series of such heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin, Oblomov and some others. The named heroes have both common features, and the differences. The general properties of the type include, first of all, origin: all the named heroes are nobles, and wealthy enough to not have to earn a living. Secondly, these are extraordinary people, naturally gifted with intelligence, talent, and soul. They don't fit in ordinary life nobility of their time, are burdened by aimless and a meaningless life and try to find a business for themselves that would allow them to open up. But thirdly, all the heroes, for various reasons, remain “superfluous”; their richly gifted natures do not find use in society. Belinsky believed that society, its social and political organization, are to blame for the appearance of “superfluous people,” since an autocratic serfdom state does not need people with feeling, intelligence, and initiative. Dobrolyubov noted another side of the problem - subjective: the heroes themselves carry in themselves such properties that exclude their fruitful activity for the benefit of society: they are, as a rule, weak-willed, not accustomed to work, spoiled by an idle life and laziness and therefore prefer to indulge in dreams rather than to undertake energetically some useful task. Disregarding the social meaning of the “extra people” type, one can notice another important similarity between them: they are all in one way or another searching for their purpose, tormented by their inaction, but they can’t do anything, because they don’t know for sure why act. For the most part, these are more or less tragic characters, people who have not found their happiness, although in their evolution the features of the comic are increasingly visible, which is clearly visible, for example, in the image of Oblomov.
Despite all the similarities, these heroes are still different, and the common state of dissatisfaction for all is caused by not exactly the same reasons and has a unique coloring for each. Thus, Onegin, probably the most tragic figure, experiences cold boredom and “the blues.” Having had enough social life, tired of love adventures Having not found anything good in the village, cut off from his national roots, he no longer seeks the meaning of existence, a goal in life, since he is firmly convinced that there is no such goal and cannot be, life is initially meaningless and its essence is boredom and satiety. Onegin, “having killed a friend in a duel, / Having lived without a goal, without work / Until he was twenty-six, / Languishing in the inactivity of leisure / Without service, without a wife, without business, / Could not do anything.” Onegin’s “Russian blues” is a heavy “voluntary cross of the few.” He is not, contrary to Tatyana’s opinion, a “parody”; no, his feeling of disappointment is sincere, deep and difficult for him. He would be glad to awaken to an active life, but he cannot, at twenty-six years old he feels like a very old man. One can say that Onegin is constantly teetering on the brink of suicide, but this exit is also forbidden to him by the same laziness, although, without a doubt, he would greet death with relief. In the person of Onegin we see the tragedy of a man who can still do everything, but no longer wants anything. And “... he thinks, clouded with sadness: Why wasn’t I wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man, like this poor tax farmer? Why, like a Tula assessor, am I not lying in paralysis? Why don’t I feel even rheumatism in my shoulder? - ah, creator, I am young, life in me is strong; what should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!..” (“Excerpts from Onegin’s Journey”).
Not at all like Lermontov’s Pechorin. Like the lyrical hero of Lermontov’s poetry, Pechorin furiously wants to live, but to live, and not to vegetate. To live means to do something great, but what exactly? And one goal does not seem indisputable to Pechorin; any value raises doubts. Pechorin's throwing is, in essence, a search for something that the hero himself, with a clear conscience, could put above himself, his personality and his freedom. But this “something” turns out to be elusive, forcing Pechorin to doubt the existence of transpersonal values and to put himself above all else. And yet Pechorin thinks with bitterness that “it’s true that I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul... But I didn’t guess this purpose.” Pechorin's ideological and moral searches are tragic character, since by the very structure of things they are doomed to failure, but his internal character is far from tragic, but, on the contrary, romantic and heroic. If Pechorin had found himself in the appropriate situation, been inspired by some great goal, he would undoubtedly have committed a heroic deed. He is not Onegin, who is cold and bored with living everywhere; Pechorin is hot-tempered, and it’s boring for him to live only that petty and vain life that he is forced to lead, and he is not given another... Of all the “superfluous people” Pechorin in to the greatest extent endowed with the energy of action, he is, so to speak, the least “extra”.
Subsequently, the “superfluous person” type degrades; traits of lethargy, apathy, lack of will, and inability to do anything become more and more apparent. Turgenevsky Rudin is still looking for a business, speaks of the need for high social activity, although he believes that at the time in which he lives, “ good word- also a matter." But Goncharov’s Ilya Ilyich Oblomov no longer even thinks about any activity, and only love for Olga Ilyinskaya can move him from his cozy sofa, and even then, in essence, not for long. Oblomov, who became a type of enormous general significance, echoed the line, according to Dobrolyubov, under the development of the type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature. Oblomov still retains the positive qualities that are so highly valued by Russian writers - a sensitive soul, an extraordinary mind, tenderness of feeling, etc. - but inertia, “Oblomovism” reduces these qualities to nothing, and talking about Oblomov as a hero of the time, perhaps, no need to. Moreover, in the middle of the 19th century, a new type entered the Russian historical scene, a hero of the new time - a democrat commoner.
How did the image of the “extra person” appear? The appearance history is as follows: romantic hero, who is not accepted by society, is placed in reality. Everyone stops admiring the romantic; no one is seduced by the torment that occurs in the soul of a loner. Writers understand this and show the true essence of the hero.
Who are considered “superfluous people”?
Who are the “extra people”? They have enormous capabilities, a talent that cannot be put to use. They cannot see the future, so they often go out to have fun to avoid boredom. It’s unlikely to get any simpler or easier. Idle entertainment will only destroy them. They lead to gambling, duels. Some people who have researched this problem, Alexander Chatsky is considered a pioneer in this regard. This character took place in the play “Woe from Wit,” written by Griboyedov. Remnants mean nothing to him, and in the play this nobleman talks a lot, but does little.
Onegin is the brightest representative
(Painting by Yu. M. Ignatiev based on the novel "Eugene Onegin")
The most prominent representative of the image of “superfluous people” is Eugene Onegin, about whom Pushkin wrote. The nobleman is young, educated. He's spinning in secular society, but has no specific goals. He started to do something, but could not finish it. Onegin is unhappy, he does not succeed either in friendship or in love. Belinsky compared Onegin with Russian society, which is described in poetry. Nicholas Russia was often represented by nobles who were disillusioned with life and tired of it.
Pechorin, Oblomov, Bazarov
(Grigory Pechorin)
Many may ask the question: “Have they really forgotten about Bazarov, Oblomov, Pechorin?” They also represent the “extra people,” each of whom has certain characteristics. As for Pechorin, he is distinguished by his penchant for reflection and presence of mind. However, this does not help him realize himself. This hero is self-destructing. But, if we compare Pechorin and Onegin, then the first is in search of the cause of his own suffering.
Oblomov, who is the hero of the novel written by Goncharov, is capable of making friends, loving, has kind heart. But he prefers to stay at home, he is apathetic and lethargic. Researchers say that this particular hero is the culmination of the era of “extra people.”
(Bazarov in disputes with Kirsanov Pavel Petrovich)
If we are talking about Evgeny Bazarov, the novel “Fathers and Sons,” then everything is different here. This hero is not of noble blood. He sets goals for himself and does science. However, Bazarov cannot find a place in society. He moves away from everything old, not realizing that it is necessary to create something instead. That is why he is classified as “superfluous people”.
The role of extra people in works
It should be noted that it is the “extra people” who are the heroes of Russian literature who are remembered most by readers. Why? The authors show an individual person, his soul, vices, motives. At the same time, there are no moralizing or educational attitudes. The work contains to some extent an analysis of the psychological direction.
IN early XIX centuries, works appear 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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.
The term “extra person” is probably familiar to everyone. But where did he come from in Russian literature? And what is behind this definition, on what basis of this or that literary hero can be classified as “superfluous” people?
It is believed that the concept of “extra person” was first used by I.S. Turgenev, who wrote “The Diary of an Extra Man.” However, also A.S. Pushkin, in the draft version of Chapter VIII of “Eugene Onegin,” wrote about his hero: “Onegin stands as something superfluous.” In my opinion, the “extra person” is an image that is typical of the work of many Russian writers and poets of the 19th century century. Each of them reinterpreted it in accordance with the spirit of their time. At the same time, the “extra person” was not the fruit of creative imagination - his presence in Russian literature testified to spiritual crisis in certain strata of Russian society.
Any high school student, answering the question of which of the heroes of Russian literature fits the definition of “superfluous man,” will without hesitation name Eugene Onegin and Grigory Pechorin. Undoubtedly, both of these characters are the brightest representatives of the camp of “extra” people. Taking a closer look at them, we will be able to answer the question: who is he—an extra person?
So, Evgeny Onegin. A.S. Already in the first chapter of his novel, Pushkin draws a complete image of the secular young man. He is no better and no worse than others: educated, savvy in matters of fashion and pleasant manners, he is characterized by a secular gloss. Idleness and petty vanity, empty conversations and balls - this is what fills his monotonous life, brilliant on the outside, but devoid of inner content.
Very soon he begins to understand that his life is empty, that there is nothing behind the “external tinsel,” and that slander and envy reign in the world. Onegin tries to find an application for his abilities, but the lack of need for work leads to the fact that he does not find something to do to his liking. The hero moves away from the world, goes to the village, but here the same blues overtake him. The love of sincere Tatyana Larina, not spoiled by the light, does not cause any emotional movements in him. Out of boredom, Onegin takes care of Olga, which arouses the jealousy of his casual friend Lensky. Everything, as we know, ends tragically.
V.G. Belinsky wrote about Eugene Onegin: “The powers of this rich nature were left without application: life without meaning, and the novel without end.” These words can equally be attributed to the main figure of the novel, M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” - Grigory Pechorin. It is no coincidence that critics call him “Onegin’s younger brother.”
Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, like Onegin, belongs to the noble circle. He is rich, successful with women and, it would seem, should be happy. However, Pechorin is constantly worried acute feeling dissatisfaction with himself and those around him, every business very soon becomes boring for him, even love tires him. Being in the rank of ensign, he does not strive for more, which indicates his lack of ambition, as well as his attitude towards service.
Onegin and Pechorin are separated by only ten years, but what!.. Pushkin began writing his novel before the Decembrist uprising, and finished it at a time when society had not yet fully comprehended the lessons of this event. Lermontov “sculpted” his Pechorin during the years of the most severe reaction. Perhaps it is precisely for this reason that what is only outlined in Onegin’s character develops fully in Pechorin. So, if Onegin does not even realize that he brings misfortune to the people around him, then Pechorin perfectly understands that his actions do not bring good to people. He is responsible for the death of Grushnitsky, and because of him the Circassian woman Bela dies. He provokes (albeit unwittingly) the death of Vulich, because of him Princess Mary Ligovskaya becomes disillusioned with life and love.:..
Both Onegin and Pechorin are essentially egoists; they are consumed by a common disease - “Russian blues”. Both of them are distinguished by “an embittered mind, seething in empty action,” and a soul corrupted by the light. Onegin and Pechorin despised the society in which they were forced to live, and therefore loneliness became their lot.
Thus, the “superfluous person” is a hero rejected by society or rejected by it himself. It seems to him that society limits his freedom, and he cannot stand dependence, and therefore tries to enter into conflict with it. The result is known: the “extra person” remains lonely. At the same time, he understands that the reasons for his lack of freedom lie in himself, in his soul, and this makes him even more unhappy.
Traits of an extra person can also be found in other heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov. Such, for example, is Dubrovsky: having been insulted, he lights up with a thirst for revenge, however, having taken revenge on the offender, he does not feel happy. In my opinion, Lermontov’s Demon also corresponds to the image of the “superfluous person,” although in relation to the “spirit of exile” this may sound somewhat paradoxical.
The demon is bored with evil, but he cannot do good. And his love dies along with Tamara:
And again he remained, arrogant,
Alone, as before in the universe.
The main features of the “superfluous man” were developed in the characters of the heroes of Turgenev, Herzen, and Goncharov. I think that today these images are interesting for us as characters that have not disappeared from reality to this day. For example, Zilov from Alexander Vampilov’s play “Duck Hunt” seems to me to be the “superfluous man.” In my opinion, sometimes it doesn’t hurt to compare yourself with such people - it helps to straighten your own character (get rid of selfishness) and, in general, better understand life.