Hero of time... What is he like? Russian classical writers of the nineteenth century often pondered this question. A.S. Griboyedov, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy in his works painted images of heroes who embodied the characteristic features of the people of the era.
Such characters, as a rule, are extraordinary and bright personalities, have extraordinary abilities and a developed mind, thanks to which they stand out among those around them, who in most cases do not understand or accept them. In the works of classical writers, these are the heroes that attract me. I always wanted to delve deeper into the secrets of their characters, to understand why people who could have become useful to their contemporaries turned out to be unnecessary to society.
The novels “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time” are considered the pinnacles of Russian classics. Readers of different generations turn to these works at different stages of life. The problem of the hero of his time touched upon in both books is also interesting to thinking people of the twenty-first century. There is a huge reassessment of values, our ideals are changing. And we continue to look for answers to “eternal” questions from classical writers.
Onegin is a typical nobleman of the twenties of the nineteenth century. The upbringing and education of Pushkin's hero was rather superficial. However, he still received the minimum knowledge necessary to shine in the world: he spoke French, knew how to dance the mazurka and “bowed naturally”... Onegin led the usual lifestyle for the nobles of that time: he went to balls, visited the theater, and attended social events. Enjoyment of life and success among women initially attracted the main character of the novel.
But Evgeny is smart, and therefore, over time, he simply got bored with the idle and empty life - “the Russian blues took possession of him.” He does not find any meaning in any activity. Tatiana's love does not save her from obsessive boredom. Onegin rejects the feelings of the girl in love with him: he is “not created for bliss.” Indifference to life and inner emptiness turned out to be very strong. Subsequently, the punishment for this will be loneliness.
In Pushkin’s hero, despite all his shortcomings, there is “straight nobility of soul.” It is no coincidence that he is so sincerely and tenderly attached to young Lensky. However, Onegin himself destroys his friend by shooting him in a duel. And, sad as it may be, the reason for Lensky’s senseless death is Onegin’s “blues.”
V.G. Belinsky notes that a certain part of readers mistakenly interpreted the image of Onegin, seeing in him only an ordinary secular dandy, a “cold egoist.” As the critic puts it, Onegin is a “reluctant egoist,” and society made him that way. He belongs to a generation that does not know where to apply its sometimes remarkable strength. I almost completely share Belinsky’s opinion. However, I believe that Onegin’s misfortunes should not be blamed solely on society. It is hardly possible to remove responsibility from Pushkin’s hero himself. He does not set any life goals for himself, because he does not want to work in order to achieve them.
M.Yu. Lermontov is a writer of “a completely different era,” although they are separated from Pushkin by no more than a decade. Pechorin became the “hero” of time - or rather, timelessness - of the 30s. On the one hand, he is a skeptic disappointed in life, who lives solely “out of curiosity,” but on the other hand, he subconsciously craves life and activity. In Pechorin, rationality and feelings, mind and heart are in conflict. “I weigh and analyze my own passions and actions,” says Lermontov’s hero, “with strict curiosity, but without participation.”
Before the duel, replaying his own life in his memory, Pechorin reflects on why he lived and for what purpose he was born. “Oh, it’s true, it existed,” he writes in his journal, “and, it’s true, I had a high purpose...” Pechorin did not find his “high purpose”. He spends his energy on actions that are unworthy of him and sometimes meaningless: he destroys the lives of unfortunate “honest smugglers”, kidnaps the Circassian Bela, makes Mary fall in love with him and then abandons her, kills Grushnitsky... This is the fateful and terrible contradiction: “the immense powers of the soul "- and small actions; he dreams of “loving the whole world” - and brings only evil.
Belinsky saw the embodiment of the spirit of the times in the image of Pechorin and rated Lermontov’s hero quite highly. “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but earth dried up from the heat of fiery life...” wrote the critic. Belinsky also pointed out the differences between Onegin and Pechorin, which are “much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.”
So, before us are two heroes, two representatives of their difficult time. V.G. Belinsky did not put an equal sign between them, but he did not see a huge gap between them. Their images really have a lot in common, from their character traits to the life situations in which they were destined to find themselves. However, the conflict between the individual and society in “A Hero of Our Time” is sharper than in “Eugene Onegin”: Pechorin “chases after life”, receiving nothing from it, and Onegin just “goes with the flow.”
“Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time” can, without exaggeration, be considered striking artistic documents of the era. Their main characters by their existence prove the futility of trying to live in society and at the same time be free from it.
So, the main character of literary works - the hero of the time, who, as a rule, is the “extra person” of his era, becomes a unique expression of social problems, the bearer of new ideas and trends in Russian life. Russian literature of the 19th century presented a whole gallery of people of this type. The predecessor of Onegin and Pechorin can be called Griboyedov's Chatsky. The traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov in depicting the “hero of the time” were continued in the works of A.I. Herzen (“Who is to blame?”), I.S. Turgenev (“Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”), I.A. Goncharova (“Oblomov”). Chichikov, a character in Gogol’s poem “Dead Souls,” can also be called a “hero” of the new, capitalist era. We find the traits of the heroes of the time in the characters of the epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” by Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov.
Writers of the 20th century also addressed the problem of the hero of time. One of the striking examples is the image of the “superfluous man” Levushka Odoevtsev from A. Bitov’s novel “ Pushkin House" At the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, works appeared that again turned to the theme of a new generation, and therefore to the image of the hero of the time. In 1998, V. Makanin’s novel “Underground, or a Hero of Our Time” was published. In 2006, S. Minaev’s book “Duhless: The Tale of an Unreal Man” aroused great interest among readers. Already in the very titles of the works one can feel the desire of the writers to show the heroes of the time, and a echo of the traditions of Pushkin and Lermontov.
This means that even now there are people like Onegin and Pechorin. These are modern “superfluous people” who, at first glance, possess all the qualities necessary for success in life, and at the same time are in conflict with society.
Each era gives rise to a new hero, and the task of a real writer is to discern such a character and truthfully portray him in a work of art. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why writers have been turning to the theme of the hero of time for the past two centuries.
"A Hero of Our Time" is certainly one of the masterpieces of Russian literature of the 19th century. He became the first Russian psychological novel. As the author writes in the preface, the novel depicts “the history of the human soul.” And this is true. The entire novel centers around the personality of the main character Pechorin. “A Hero of Our Time” is structured in such a way that readers learn about Pechorine’s character gradually, see the hero from different sides, in different situations, listen to his characteristics from the lips of the most different characters(and even the officer-narrator himself, who accidentally meets Pechorin in the chapter “Maksim Maksimych”). Thus, in the end the reader should have his own opinion about the “hero of the time”.
In addition, the novel raises a number of important philosophical questions - about the boundaries of what is permitted, about life and death, about human will and predestination (most clearly in the story “Fatalist”). Lermontov also manages to reliably depict in the novel several worlds of his contemporary era - the life of mountaineers and Caucasian officers, the life of secular society on the waters.
The most interesting and mysterious person is the main character of the novel, Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin. All the other characters in the novel immediately notice his originality, courage, and caustic mind. People who are mediocre and shallow (like Grushnitsky and the dragoon captain) feel hostility towards him. People who are smart and insightful (like Dr. Werner) or simply good (like Maxim Maksimych) become strongly attached to Pechorin, recognizing his superiority. Much in Pechorin’s actions seems unusual, too risky. Sometimes he behaves like a cold and cruel person. For example, having fallen in love with the Circassian Bela, he quickly cools off towards her and seriously wounds her heart. A simple game for him is to compete with Grushnitsky for Princess Mary. He kills Grushnitsky in a duel, and then coldly admits to the princess that he does not love her at all.
The author does not justify his hero. But he finds an opportunity to show the reader why his soul “withered.” From the very beginning of his life's journey, Pechorin found himself in an unfriendly world where no one understood him - and he was forced to defend himself, mercilessly burying half of his soul. In a monologue before the duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin says that he did not guess his purpose, squandered his immense spiritual strength on empty and ignoble passions and lost “the ardor of noble aspirations - best color life."
In Pechorin, despite the realistic nature of his character, the traits of a romantic hero are visible. He is also lonely, opposed to the whole world and even fate, he restlessly wanders around the world.
There are many other interesting or mysterious personalities in the novel - Kazbich from Bela, Yanko from Taman, Doctor Werner from Princess Mary, Vulich from Fatalist, even the officer-narrator who published Pechorin’s diary. But they are all psychological doubles of Pechorin. It is customary to call psychological “doubles” heroes in whose image the author identifies some trait that is characteristic of Pechorin himself. For example, in Kazbich - a passionate heart, in Yanko - mystery and courage, in Doctor Werner - a sharp mind... When compared with his “doubles”, Pechorin’s personal qualities, the special properties of his character, the depth of his reflection - all those traits thanks to which Pechorin became a “hero of the time.” Only Grushnitsky is not a “double”, but a parody of Pechorin. What constitutes the essence of Pechorin’s soul (disappointment, contempt for secular society, wit) in Grushnitsky becomes simple posturing.
Composition
Classical Russian literature has always been a reflection of the life around us, a concentrated story about the problems facing Russian society at turning points in history. Thanks to the works of A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”, M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, N. V. Gogol “ Dead Souls", M.E. Saltykova - Shchedrin's "Lord Golovlevs" and the works of other talented writers, we can see a truthful, vivid portrait of their contemporaries, trace the evolution of the development of Russian society.
From the passive and disillusioned slacker Eugene Onegin to Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, who is vainly trying to find his place in life, to the adventurer and money-grubber Chichikov and the completely degraded Judushka Golovlev, who has lost his human appearance, Russian writers of the 19th century take us. They reflected on the time, the ways of development of their contemporary society, tried to convey a collective portrait of a generation through artistic means, to emphasize its individuality, its characteristic difference from previous ones, thereby creating a chronicle of time, and in general they obtained a truthful and imaginative picture of the death of the noble class, which once brought progress to Russia , culture, and subsequently became the main obstacle in its movement forward. Reading works of art of the 19th century, you observe not only the events that played main role during certain periods of time, and you learn about the people who, in one way or another, made our history. The movement of time cannot be stopped; it flows inexorably, changing us, our ideas about life, our ideals. The change of formations does not occur on its own, without human participation and struggle, but it also changes people, since every time has “its own heroes”, reflecting the moral principles and goals to which they strive. It is very interesting to trace this “evolution” through works of art of the 19th century. To see what the hero “lost” or “found” as a result of this forward movement. If we move on to a specific conversation about a character who, as if in a drop of water, reflected an entire generation, then I would like to dwell on Eugene Onegin, who stands almost at the origins of the formation of Russian bourgeois society. And what does the portrait look like? Not very attractive, although the hero is beautiful in appearance. Similar to the windy Venus, When, wearing a man's outfit, the Goddess goes to a masquerade. His inner world is poor. He read a lot, “all to no avail,” “he was gloomy.” He who lived and thought cannot help but despise people in his soul... Leaving for the village does not console Eugene, as he had hoped. Boredom accompanies idleness everywhere equally. Onegin mechanically does good to the peasants, but does not think about them. Alone, among his possessions, Just to pass the time, Our Eugene first decided to establish a new order. In his wilderness, a desert sage, He replaced the ancient corvée with an easy quitrent with a yoke; And the slave blessed fate. The habit of not bothering himself with anything makes Eugene Onegin lonely, and then completely unhappy. He refuses Tatyana Larina’s love, explaining his action this way: “But I was not created for bliss; My soul is alien to him; Your perfections are in vain: I am not worthy of them at all.” But Onegin is also incapable of sincere friendship. Having killed a friend in a duel, he leaves to wander, suffering from the long life to which he is doomed. Onegin, with a look of regret, looks at the smoky streams and thinks, clouded with sadness: Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man? I am young, my life is strong; What should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!.. And the end of the novel follows completely logical, when, having met Tatyana in the world, Onegin fell in love with her sincerely and deeply, but hopelessly: she is married and will never respond to Eugene’s feelings. I love you (why lie?). But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever. Onegin did not discern his destiny, laziness of mind or spiritual callousness prevented him from understanding Tatyana when he first met, he pushed away pure and sincere love, now he pays with a lack of happiness, a joyless passage of years. The image of Eugene Onegin, created by the genius of Pushkin, began the gallery of “superfluous people” in Russian XIX literature century, worthy continued by other writers.
Russian classical literature of the 19th century is a literature of search. Russian writers sought to answer the eternal questions of existence: about the meaning of life, about happiness, about the Motherland, about human nature, about the laws of life and the Universe, about God. They were also concerned about what was happening in Russia, where its development was heading, what future awaited it.
In this regard, Russian writers were inevitably concerned with the question of the “hero of the time” - the person with whom all the hopes and aspirations of the Russian intelligentsia were pinned. This collective image was, as it were, the face of a generation, its typical spokesman.
So, A.S. Pushkin in his novel “Eugene Onegin” portrays a young St. Petersburg aristocrat - a hero of the 20s of the 19th century.
We will learn about the upbringing, education, and lifestyle of Eugene Onegin. This hero did not receive a deep education. He is a fan of fashion, makes and reads only what he can show off at a reception or dinner party.
The only thing that interested Onegin and in which he achieved perfection was “the science of tender passion.” The hero learned early to be a hypocrite, to pretend, to deceive in order to achieve his goal. But his soul always remained empty, amused only by his pride.
In search of the meaning of life, Onegin tried to read various books, to compose, but nothing could truly captivate him. An attempt to forget myself in the village was also unsuccessful. The hero tried to carry out peasant reforms and ease the work of the serfs, but all his endeavors soon came to nothing.
In my opinion, Onegin's problem was the lack of true meaning in life. Therefore, nothing could bring him satisfaction.
Despite all this, Evgeny Onegin had great potential. The author characterizes him as a man of great intelligence, sober and calculating, capable of much. The hero is frankly bored among his nearby village neighbors and avoids their company by all means. He is able to understand and appreciate the soul of another person. This happened with Lensky, and this happened with Tatyana.
In addition, Onegin is capable of noble deeds. He did not take advantage of Tatyana’s love after her letter, but explained to her like a decent person. But, unfortunately, at that time Onegin himself was not capable of experiencing deep feelings.
On the other hand, the hero is a “slave of public opinion.” That is why he goes to a duel with Lensky, where he kills the young poet. This event turns out to be a strong shock for Onegin, after which his strong internal changes begin.
Evgeniy flees the village. We learn that he wandered for some time, moved away from high society, and changed greatly. Everything superficial is gone, only a deep, ambiguous personality remains, capable of sincerely loving and suffering.
Thus, initially Onegin is a deep and interesting personality. But high society"served him badly." Only by moving away from his surroundings does the hero “return to himself” again and discover in himself the ability to deeply feel and sincerely love.
The character of the novel M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” is a man of another era (30s of the 19th century). That is why Pechorin has a different mindset, he is concerned about other problems.
This hero is disappointed in the modern world and in his generation: “We are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness.” Pechorin lost faith in man, in his significance in this world: “We are quite indifferent to everything except ourselves.” Such thoughts lead the character to boredom, indifference and even despair.
Inevitable boredom gives rise to disbelief in love and friendship in the hero. These feelings may have appeared at a certain point in his life, but still did not bring Pechorin happiness. He only tormented women with doubts, sadness, shame. Pechorin often played with the feelings of others, without thinking about what was causing them pain. This is what happened to Bela, this is what happened to Princess Mary.
Pechorin feels like an “extra” person in his society, in general, an “extra” in life. Of course, this hero has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways, but does not find use for his abilities. That is why in the finale of the novel Pechorin dies - Lermontov considered this the logical conclusion of the life of a “hero of his time.”
The search for a modern hero continued in the literature of the second half of the 19th century. The portrait of the hero captured in the works of this period testifies to significant changes that took place in society.
Thus, Evgeny Bazarov, the main character of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons", representative of the new, younger generation in the novel. He is the personification of the changes that took place in society in the 60s of the 19th century.
Bazarov is a commoner. He is not rich, he earns his own education. The hero studies natural sciences and plans to become a practicing doctor. We see that this profession fascinates Bazarov. He is ready to work to achieve results, that is, to help people and improve their lives.
Having found himself in the “noble family” of the Kirsanovs, Evgeny Bazarov shocks the “fathers” with his views. It turns out that he is a nihilist - “a person who does not bow to any authority, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respectful this principle may be.”
And indeed, Bazarov denies everything that was accumulated before him by previous generations. Especially his heart “rebels” against everything immaterial: art, love, friendship, soul.
Evgeny Bazarov sees only one destruction as the goal of his life. He believes his generation's goal is to "clear up space."
Turgenev did not agree with the philosophy of his hero. He debunks Bazarov's worldview, putting him through tests that the hero cannot withstand. As a result, Bazarov becomes disappointed in himself, loses faith in his views and dies.
Thus, all Russian literature of the 19th century can be called the literature of the search for the Hero. Writers sought to see in a contemporary a person capable of serving his homeland, bringing benefit to it with his deeds and thoughts, and also simply capable of being happy and harmonious, developing and moving forward. Unfortunately, Russian writers practically failed to find such a person.
She, referring to the writer Olga Slavnikova, argues that in a rapidly changing world, it is really impossible to understand the image of the hero of time as “also a person, only for some reason immortal”, as “the existence of a secret network of “special agents” sent from literature into reality.”
There is another point of view. For example, critic Nikolai Krizhanovsky writes about the absence of a hero in modern Russian literature and assures that “the real hero of our time, like any other, for Russian literature is a person who is able to sacrifice himself for the sake of his neighbors, who is able to “lay down his soul for his friends” and is ready serve God, Russia, family..." According to the critic, the hero of our time in literature can be “a career military man saving conscript soldiers from a military grenade, an entrepreneur who does not want to live only for enrichment and his own pleasures and recklessly went to fight in Novorossiya, a family man raising his children in national traditions , a schoolboy or student capable of a great and selfless act, an elderly rural teacher who still keeps a cow and does not sell it, but distributes milk to her poor neighbors, a priest who sells his apartment in order to complete the construction of a temple, and many other of our contemporaries.”
In search of a “hero of our time,” Vera Rastorgueva turns to the works of so-called media writers, that is, actively published and widely quoted by the press writers. Nikolai Krizhanovsky, in addition to media ones, names several names from his circle. Rastorgueva really describes the “hero of our time” found in modern works. Krizhanovsky assures that there are few real heroes left in modern literature, that “there is a process of deheroization of domestic literature and that, finally, “the dominant tendency in modern literature towards the emasculation of the positive hero is being gradually overcome today” through the efforts of some writers.
There is also a point of view that blames postmodernism for the disappearance of the heroic from modern literature. The same critic Krizhanovsky believes that “the penetration of postmodernism into Russian literature leads to the disappearance of the hero in the original sense of the word.”
However, none of the above points of view seems convincing, and for several reasons at once. First of all, it is necessary to point out the conceptual confusion: when saying “hero of our time”, many researchers mean “heroic”, understood as selflessness, courage, selflessness, nobility, etc. But the concept of “hero of our time” refers us, of course, to M.Yu. Lermontov. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov deliberately stipulates that “a hero of our time” is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” There, in the preface, Lermontov ironically notes that the public tends to take every word literally and that he himself calls his contemporary a “hero of our time,” or rather, the most common type of modern person. And if the image of Pechorin turned out to be unattractive, then it is not the author’s fault.
In other words, “hero of our time” is not at all synonymous with “heroic.” Thus, since the time of Lermontov, it has been customary to call an image that has absorbed the typical features of the era, reflecting the spirit of the time, which does not necessarily have to be associated with heroism, nobility and selflessness. Therefore, research into the “hero of our time” and the “heroic” should go in two different directions. Replacing one concept with another not only does not clarify anything, but only multiplies the confusion.
Misunderstandings also contribute to the same confusion. creative process, when critics innocently declare the need to describe engineers, doctors and teachers more. Let's try, for example, to imagine a modern work of art written in the spirit and truth of the Early Middle Ages. It is clear that at best it will be comical, and at worst it will be pitiful, because modern man professes different truths and is moved by a different spirit. To portray a “hero of our time,” that is, according to Lermontov, a modern person who is too often encountered, can be guided by the spirit and truth of his time. But in this case, engineers, teachers and doctors will not necessarily turn out to be “positively wonderful people.”
Each era creates its own picture of the world, its own culture, its own art. The expression “they don’t write like that now” is appropriate precisely in those cases when the artist tries to create in the spirit of a time alien to him. And we are not talking about the situation, but about the artist’s ability to feel his time and convey these feelings in images. Even when working on a historical work, a sensitive and talented artist will make it understandable to his contemporaries, without vulgarizing or simplifying anything. This means that the artist will be able to convey the spirit of a time alien to him in images understandable to his contemporaries.
Art changes with the era, so ancient art differs from medieval art, and modern Russian art differs from Soviet art. In works of culture, a person always reflects himself and his era; the creative act does not exist in isolation from culture, and culture does not exist in isolation from the era. That is why the researcher of a work is able to identify the features and originality human type of one era or another. Based on this, it is logical to assume that if contemporary art does not offer heroic images, then the heroic is not characteristic, or rather, not typical of our era. And this is not a matter of abandoning realistic writing.
It’s easier, of course, to blame writers who don’t want to describe the characters. But it will be appropriate to do this only if the writers, fulfilling the order, deliberately de-heroize literature. If we are talking about a direct creative act, then it would be much more accurate to explore the era through works, rather than try to turn literature into a “By Requests” program.
In addition, in order to obtain more or less objective results, it is necessary to study the creativity of not only media authors. The fact is that modern Russian literature very reminiscent of an iceberg with a relatively small visible part and a completely unpredictable invisible part. The visible, or media, part is, as a rule, the literature of projects. Such literature should not be good or bad in terms of the quality of the text. It simply must exist, consisting of printed books and authors, whose names, thanks to frequent and repeated mention in all kinds of media, gradually become brands. So, even without reading the works, people know very well: this is a fashionable, famous writer. There is such a concept as “pop taste”, that is, a preference not for the good, but for the successful, that which is replicated, broadcast and discussed. Modern project literature is designed specifically for the “pop taste”, but the purposes of its existence are very different - from commercial to political. The author of a series of articles on the modern literary process, writer Yuri Miloslavsky, analyzing the features of modern art, notes that, among other things, “the professional art industry, by its very nature, could not operate successfully in conditions of changeability, unpredictability and arbitrariness of individual creative achievements, actual struggle creative groups etc.” That is why “complete and absolute man-madeness (ersatz, imitation) of artistic and/or literary success has gradually been achieved.” In other words, that same media literature, or the literature of projects, is an artificially created space, characterized by Yuri Miloslavsky as “artificial cultural context", where "the best, highest quality will be declared in at the moment the fact that the art industry, based on someone’s orders, strategic or tactical calculations and according to its own calculations formed on the basis of these calculations, produced, acquired and designated for subsequent implementation. Today, this “best” can be assigned anything. Absolutely everything." In addition, Yuri Miloslavsky refers to data from a survey conducted from 2008 to 2013 by the Megapinion Internet project. The survey participants, who turned out to be over twenty thousand people, were asked the question “Which of these writers have you read?” and a list of nine hundred writers' names. It turned out that the percentage of those who actually read the works of media writers ranges from approximately 1 to 14. The Russian reader, it turns out, still gives preference to classics or entertaining (mainly detective) reading.
Perhaps the main consumers of media literature are researchers who undertake, for example, to find out what he is like - a “hero of our time.” But this kind of research concerns only writers and critics, without affecting the ordinary reader. After all, if the reader is familiar with modern literature, mainly at the level of names and newspaper praises, then the influence of such literature on him will be very insignificant. At the same time, research based on media literature seems incomplete and does not tell us anything, since media literature is, as was said, only the tip of the iceberg and it is not possible to judge the block as a whole from it. Building a study of literature solely on its public component is the same as studying the opinions of citizens of a country by interviewing pop stars.
Understanding the “hero of our time” can be approached not only through the study of works of literature, but also from the theoretical side. Let's ask ourselves a simple question: which person is more common than others in our time - a selfless daredevil, a restless intellectual or a gambling consumer? Of course, you can meet any person, and each of us has wonderful friends and loving relatives. And yet, who is more typical of our time: Governor Khoroshavin, analysis specialist Rodchenkov, some “hyped” artist with dubious merits or, in the words of the critic Krizhanovsky, “a priest selling his apartment in order to complete the construction of a temple”? Let us repeat: you can meet absolutely any person, especially in the Russian expanses, but in order to understand who the “hero of our time” is, it is important to identify the typical, to find an exponent of the spirit of the time.
Would it not be correct to assume that the typical representative of our era is a person who prefers the material to the ideal, the mundane to the sublime, the perishable to the eternal, earthly treasures to all other treasures? And if this assumption is correct, then Judas can safely be called a “hero of our time.” His image becomes clear through the choice he made. Therefore, it is important to understand not why and why he betrayed, but what exactly he chose. By his betrayal, Judas abandoned Christ and what Christ offered. The sum of thirty pieces of silver was so small that Judas could hardly be tempted by it. But he was faced with a choice: a symbolic sum, meaning a rejection of the Teacher, or the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, it is precisely the material against the ideal, the mundane against the sublime, the sublime against the heavenly. Judas turned out to be the prototype of a “consumer society”, for which, just like for Judas, it is impossible, while remaining oneself, to remain faithful to high ideals.
There really is little heroic in modern literature. But this is precisely because the heroic has ceased to be typical. Alas, not in every era are defenders of the Motherland, space explorers and honest workers more common than others. There are eras when consumers of goods scurry around everywhere, turning from ideals to comfort.
Meanwhile, the heroic is necessary. At least as an example to follow, a reason for pride, a model for education. But what heroes in the country of optimistic patriotism! Only those who, in the absence of money, lasted the longest. Or those who gave more kicks to English drunks, shouting louder than others: “Russia, forward!” The authorities have no one to propose as heroes, and society has no one to nominate. There remain isolated cases of heroism shown by ordinary citizens, but this does not become typical. The critic Krizhanovsky writes about these cases, classifying, among other things, simply decent people as heroes.
And yet there is nothing heroic in the hero of our time, that is, in the contemporary we meet more often than others. But, as M.Yu. noted. Lermontov, God save us from trying to correct human vices. In the end, humanity is just clay in the hands of history. And who knows what features it will take in the next decade.
As for recommendations on how and what to write about, I think it’s worth trying to write interestingly and in good language.
Svetlana ZAMLELOVA
Hero in literature - artistic image, a character in a work of art. The great Russian writers of the 19th century depicted their own, who became no less famous heroes, reflecting their era, morals, customs, problems, traditions. Heroes have their own advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, like all people. But it is in the works of Russian classics of the 19th century that we see new, different, completely different, but at the same time surprisingly similar heroes.
Before starting work, we set ourselves a goal - to analyze and compare the images of the most significant and memorable heroes of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century century.
To achieve this goal, the following tasks were identified:
2. Understand their characters and views on the world, society, friendship and love.
3. Compare the heroes, identifying the features of their characters.
4. Determine the reasons that determined the appearance of similar ones in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.
The subject of the study was the heroes of works of art of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. (
The novelty of this work is determined by the fact that a study was conducted between the works of Schelling, Tyutchev and Pascal.
The following research methods and tools were used in the work on the project: theoretical methods of scientific research (deduction, comparative historical and systems analysis, synthesis); empirical methods (observation, analysis of materials).
Means: collecting theoretical material, studying the material, analysis, analysis, i.e. drawing up a conclusion.
In the research work, the author tests the hypothesis put forward: the problem of society in the first half of the 19th century in Russia lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive ones; and the way to overcome this tragedy is that the meaning of the life of the hero (and the person himself) lies in the ability to serve for the good of society and the people, and not to satisfy the selfish interests of the individual.
To refute or confirm this assumption, works of art and their main characters of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century were studied in detail.
The practical outcome of the work can be its use by teachers in preparation for optional and elective classes, and it can also serve as a guide for students and everyone who wants to better understand the literary process of the first half of the 19th century.
1. Characteristics of the historical and literary process of the first half of the 19th century in Russia.
The beginning of the 19th century brought with it a truly revolutionary breakdown of all previous ideas about the course of development of human society. It was then that a view of society began to take shape as an organism continuously changing, developing, progressing according to certain general laws, that is, a historical view. The 19th century itself receives the public name “historical” in contrast to the “enlightenment” 18th century.
The 19th century was the heyday of Russian literature, the “golden age”, it was then that Lermontov, Pushkin, Gogol and others reached the heights of fame.
But the beginning of the century was not a time of peace. 1806-1807 - foreign campaigns of the Russian army, 1812 - war with Napoleon. These events naturally reflected in literature, the rise of patriotism (“Hussar Denis Davydov”). Further, in December 1825, Russian revolutionaries rebelled against autocracy and serfdom. The Decembrists (named after the month of the uprising) were noble revolutionaries, their class limitations left their mark on the movement, which, according to slogans, was anti-feudal and associated with the maturation of preconditions bourgeois revolution in Russia. The goal of the rebels was to destroy the autocracy, introduce a Constitution and abolish serfdom.
The Decembrist uprising excited not only the country, but also literary world, where writers immediately began to use hints more often to express their attitude on this matter (“Woe from Wit”, A. S. Griboyedov). This was followed by a period of reaction (link by A.S. Pushkin).
And finally, the 30s were a period of crisis for gifted people who were needed by the country, but not by society (“Hero of Our Time”, M. Yu. Lermontov).
The Great French Revolution (1789-1793) Opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Patriotic War 1812. The emergence of Decembrist organizations.
The secular nature of literature. Development of European cultural heritage. Increased attention to Russian folklore and folk legends. Decline of classicism. The birth of romanticism. The rise of journalism. Literary societies and circles
The growth of revolutionary and national liberation movements in Europe. The emergence of secret societies in Russia (1821-1822). Decembrist uprising (1825).
The dominant movement is romanticism. Literature of the Decembrists. Publishing almanacs. Romantic aspirations in the works of Pushkin 1812-1824.
1826 - first half of the 50s.
Defeat of the Decembrist uprising. "New censorship regulations." Persecution of free thought in Russia. The deepening crisis of serfdom, public reaction. Strengthening democratic tendencies. Development of the ideas of revolution and utopian socialism.
Fidelity to the ideas of Decembrism and realism in the works of Pushkin (1826-1837). The heyday of Lermontov's romanticism. The transition to realism and social satire in Gogol. Replacement of poetry by prose. The 1830s are the heyday of the story. Release of the first volume " Dead souls"(1842). The growing influence of advanced journalism on social life. The struggle of progressive and democratic forces in journalism.
Revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 1848-1855 - the period of the “dark seven years”. The defeat of the Petrashevites. Defeat of Russia in the Crimean War. The rise of the democratic movement and peasant unrest. The crisis of autocracy and the propaganda of the ideas of the peasant revolution. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Confrontation between liberals and democrats. The beginning of bourgeois transformations in the country. Development of natural and mathematical sciences.
Increased censorship in literature. Formation of the “Buturlinsky” committee for press affairs. Exile of Saltykov-Shchedrin to Vyatka, and Turgenev to Spasskoye-Lutovinovo. 1855 - death of Nicholas I. Weakening of censorship oppression. The rise of democratic journalism and its opposition to conservative journalism. Materialistic aesthetics of Chernyshevsky. The leading role of the Sovremennik magazine. Literature is a means of transforming reality on a humanistic basis. Development of Russian drama. The beginning of the heyday of the Russian realistic novel. New themes and problems in literature: commoner heroes, passivity of the peasantry, showing the hard life of workers. "Soilism". Approval of realism in literature. Realism and truthfulness in the depiction of life in the works of L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Leskov. “Dialectics of the soul” and deep psychologism in their works. High artistic skill of romantic poets (Fet, Tyutchev, A.K. Tolstoy, Maikov, Polonsky, etc.).
2. A hero of his time in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.
In literature, as in life, there is always a place for heroism and heroes. Only in contrast to reality, in the fascinating diversity of the fictional but instructive world of the book, the hero is the main character, the protagonist, and not the hero as a figure who performs feats, although the feat has the right to life. A hero in literature is an artistic image; character in the work.
Today we will get acquainted with literary heroes of the first half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 50s. Our heroes have their own weaknesses, shortcomings that drag them down, and there are positive qualities, helping heroes in life; but first things first.
In my work I will try to consider eight fictional literary characters. They are all men and lived around the same time. From this one could make a hasty conclusion that they are all similar, the same. The characters are indeed somewhat similar, but not all and only a little. The first hero (we will consider them in the order they go through the school curriculum) is the main character of the immortal comedy “Woe from Wit”, our famous writer and diplomat, one of the most poisonous people of his time, Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov, - Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Chatsky’s youth falls during the reign of Alexander I, the expectation of change and reform. Chatsky’s struggle with an accusatory word corresponds to the early period of the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and were limited only to oral speeches. However, appeals alone do not lead to victory. In Chatsky, Griboyedov embodied many qualities advanced person of his era. According to his beliefs, he is close to the Decembrists. The fact is that “Woe from Wit” was written during the years of the creation of the secret revolutionary organizations of the Decembrists. The comedy reflects the struggle of progressive-minded people with an inert society that professed servility, the struggle of the present century with the past century, of a new worldview with the old. In Griboyedov's comedy, the hot topics: confrontation between fathers and sons, love triangle, where passions boil over the edge. But I still want to focus on the relationship between the young Chatsky and the more experienced Famusov.
The reason for the conflict between them is a different mentality, a different worldview, a different mindset. At the heroes different points view of the world, society (this is evidenced by their monologues). Famusov approves of the past century, but is not satisfied with the present (“at fifteen years old, teachers will teach”). He is convinced that a person’s intelligence is expressed in the ability to adapt to the requirements of superiors on the career (social) ladder. For Famusov, the personification of intelligence is flattery and servility. He approves of Molchalin, who indulges him. Together with Molchalin, who personifies obedience and servility, he believes that even if there is one’s own opinion, then it is not worth voicing it, that there can only be one correct opinion - the opinion of society, which should be adhered to.
Chatsky, on the contrary, cannot and does not want to fawn at the right moment. He scolds both his own and Famusov’s time, and this can be seen in his attitude towards Molchalin (“Nowadays they love the dumb.”), to society (“after all, nowadays laughter is scary and keeps shame in check.”), to service (“I would like to serve I’m glad, it’s sickening to be served.”).
Intelligence in the understanding of the main character is the ability to think progressively, soberly assess the situation and express one’s position. Intelligence implies honor, nobility. No wonder that in 1823 “Woe from Wit” began to circulate. All the young people are delighted, and the old ones are clutching their heads!
Griboyedov's hero proclaims humanity, respect for the common man, service to the cause, not to individuals, freedom of thought. He affirms the progressive ideas of modernity, the prosperity of science and art, respect for national language and culture, to enlightenment. He sees the meaning of life not in servility to higher ranks, but in serving the people, the Motherland.
The character of the work is a personality, and one of which there are very few (both then and now). He is not afraid to go against public opinion, he is smart and knows his worth. As you know, such people are not liked in society, especially in a limited one. Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared crazy (“he is not in harmony with his mind”).
The old world fights Chatsky’s free speech using slander. The old world is still so strong that it defeats the main character, who runs away from Famusov’s house and from Moscow. But Alexander Andreevich’s flight from Moscow cannot be perceived as a defeat. Griboedov's hero is an undisputed winner in moral terms.
For 24 years, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky manages to quite annoy the Famus society. Even if it forces him to leave, he still did not give in, did not change his credo, although he somehow has to be spat upon by people who are no match for him.
As our famous writer I. A. Goncharov said: “against the background of hundreds of Molchalins there is a couple of Chatskys, and as long as they are there, we will be there too. “,” Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength. "
Pierre Bezukhov.
The main character of the most ambitious work of Russian literature of the entire 19th century, the famous epic novel by L. N. Tolstoy, is Pierre Bezukhov.
In his work, the writer raises the most important questions not only of his time, but of all human life. He acts as a psychologist and philosopher, considering many moral and moral problems, depicting the difficult and thorny path of his heroes in search of the truth and meaning of life, in search of himself, his destiny. Almost all the main characters of the novel go through this path. But I would like to dwell in more detail on the ideological quest of Pierre Bezukhov, one of Tolstoy’s most interesting and controversial characters.
Pierre is the illegitimate son of the wealthy and influential Count Bezukhov in the society of St. Petersburg and Moscow. The father supports his stepson, sends him to study abroad, feeds and clothes him. But unexpectedly, just before the death of the old Count, Pierre returns from abroad and suddenly (not only for society, but even for himself) the hero becomes the heir to a huge fortune, millions and the new legitimate Count Bezukhov.
Society's attitude towards the hero changes dramatically. Moving from patronizing and a little dismissive to servile and saccharine. For society, Tolstoy's hero is a bag of money, a lazy bumpkin who can always lend money for free.
The hero of the novel is very different from people belonging to high society, both in appearance: “a massive and fat young man in glasses with a cropped head” with an “observant and natural look”; so internally: a kind and gentle disposition is combined with absolute impracticality (destructive absent-mindedness and indifference for a rich count in the capital). Taking advantage of Pierre's naivety, the greedy and selfish Kuragin family catches the hero in their net and forces him to marry Helen.
The newly-crowned Countess Bezukhova is young, beautiful, easy to talk to and feels at home in high society. But despite this, the count is unhappy with her. He understands that she is a terrible, depraved woman for whom nothing is sacred, and breaks off relations with her. This marriage brings only misfortune to Bezukhov. He soon realizes that he has connected his life with a low woman and plunged into the vulgar environment to which she belongs, full of deception, flattery and falsehood. The hero blames himself for making such a cruel mistake and marrying without love to the vile Helen (“she is a depraved woman. I asked her once if she felt signs of pregnancy. She laughed contemptuously and said that she was not a fool to want to have children , and that she won’t have children from me”).
The duel with his wife's lover does not bring relief to Pierre. He breaks up with Helen. Bezukhov was always oppressed by injustice and human meanness. Tolstoy's hero is a captivating nature, a man endowed with a soft and weak character, kindness and trustfulness, but at the same time subject to violent outbursts of anger (episodes of quarrels and explanations with Helen after the duel; explanations with Anatoly Kuragin after his attempt to take Natasha away). Good and reasonable intentions constantly come into conflict with the passions that overcome the hero, and often lead to great trouble, as in the case of a revelry in the company of Dolokhov and Kuragin, after which he was expelled from St. Petersburg.
In search of truth, the meaning of life, Tolstoy's hero goes through many hobbies and disappointments, replacing each other. Pierre is a seeking nature, who, first of all, wants to live his life not in vain. The main character of the novel is smart, and, of course, has a penchant for philosophical reasoning, analyzes his life, looking for mistakes.
The hero is in search of the meaning of life. His admiration for Napoleon gives way to Freemasonry. Spiritual life, values, independence give way to the delights, splendor and conveniences of secular life. But soon spiritual impotence and idleness are replaced by aversion to the world and people belonging to this circle. Suddenly, a deep love for the people, a dream of heroism and the murder of Napoleon (former idol) awakens in Bezukhov’s soul.
The hero of the novel makes mistakes, wasting his energy on revelry in the company of Dolokhov and Anatoly Kuragin. Having received a fortune and a title, the hero leads an idle, meaningless life surrounded by “golden youth”. But at the same time, he always sought to defend his opinion and come to an understanding of the truth. The young hero rushes about in search of priorities and values (“with all his soul he wanted to create a republic in Russia, then to be Napoleon himself, then a philosopher, then a tactician, the winner of Napoleon”). Ultimately, Bezukhov comes to the ideas of the Decembrists.
Once in Masonic lodge, the hero calms down for a while, it seems to him that he has found the truth, support, ideal. The hero of the novel adheres to the ideas of equality, brotherhood and love. One of Pierre’s main aspirations is the desire to confront the evil “reigning in the world.” However, after a while, Bezukhov begins to realize that ideals he hates are flourishing among the Freemasons. social life: careerism, hypocrisy and hypocrisy. The Count's desire to help people selflessly is alien to them. During the period of fascination with the ideas of Freemasonry, the hero, seemingly having found life guidelines, is trying to reorganize the life of his peasants (“I lived for myself and ruined my life. And only now, I try to live for others, only now I understood all the happiness of life”). However, Count Bezukhov's reforms fail due to his gullibility and impracticality.
Having become completely disillusioned with Freemasonry, Tolstoy’s hero breaks off relations with this society. Once again his dreams, desires and aspirations fail. The hero is already beginning to doubt whether happiness and truth can be found in this world full of disappointment and deception, and whether it exists at all. However, a new impulse from the hero’s soul, like light at the end of the tunnel, a way out of the labyrinth of disappointments, appears in the life of Count Natasha Rostov. Love for her penetrates deeper and deeper into the hero’s heart. The feelings of Pierre in love, full of purity and poetry, elevate him above those around him and give him a very clear, real hope of finding long-awaited happiness after so many years of disappointment.
The hero's peaceful life is interrupted by war. Count Bezukhov decides to stay in Moscow and takes part in the war, not yet fully understanding what it is. Remaining in the half-burnt capital to kill Napoleon, Bezukhov is captured, where he experiences not only physical hardships, but also spiritual torment (execution of prisoners, worries about the fate of the people). In fact. with which the brain of every Russian soldier, partisan, peasant, and person in general was saturated. That patriotism that had not found an outlet in the count until now. Accustomed to luxury and freedom, the main character strongly feels spiritual and physical suffering, but they strengthen the hero’s faith and fortitude. He begins to appreciate what he would not have paid attention to before, and appreciates the smallest joys of life.
There, in captivity, Pierre meets with a soldier, an exponent of “people's thought” Platon Karataev. Karataev remains optimistic in any situation, backed by fortitude. It was this meeting that largely contributed to the fact that Count Bezukhov begins to see “the eternal and infinite in everything.”
Platon Karataev is a people, Pierre Bezukhov is an individual, and therefore the latter strives to “unite in his soul the meaning of everything.” This helps Tolstoy's hero find harmony with the world.
While in captivity, the main character of the novel rethinks his life, gains spiritual confidence and is reborn morally. Bezukhov comes to the conclusion that “man was created for happiness.” But personal happiness for Tolstoy’s hero is inextricably linked with public happiness, and the people are unhappy. The hero cannot look with indifference at the manifestation of injustice, social evil (“Theft is in the courts, there is only one stick in the army, shagists, settlements, they torture the people, they stifle education. What is young, honestly, is ruined”).
Pierre is happy, he has found his place in life, he married the woman he loves (Natasha Rostova), he has a loving and strong family. But the author makes us understand that this is not the end at all, and the main thing is yet to come. After all, the hero continues to strive for goodness, truth and social well-being.
L.N. Tolstoy shows us his hero’s difficult path to revival and renewal. This path is a series of ups and downs. Life hits Bezukhov painfully: an unsuccessful marriage, the death of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky's best friend, war, captivity. But despite all the difficulties, Pierre tries to resist the vicissitudes of fate. The difficult fate did not break him. The hero sees his main purpose in life in serving people, not only in his own interests, but also in public utility. The Count joins a secret political society and opposes autocracy and serfdom. While the people suffer, the hero’s moral quest and desire for complete self-realization, fulfillment of his dreams, mission will not end.
L.N. Tolstoy shows us in his novel the epic of an atypical hero in atypical circumstances. And even in the epilogue we see Count Pierre Bezukhov surrounded by his family and his beloved wife. The hero is a happy husband and father. It would seem that this is really a happy ending? So unusual for Russian classical literature. No! Tolstoy's hero has found personal happiness, but he will still fight for public happiness. In a dispute with Nikolai Rostov, Pierre expresses his beliefs, and we understand that before us is the future Decembrist
Evgeny Onegin
Eugene Onegin from the novel of the same name by the great Pushkin is a brilliant metropolitan aristocrat, the last scion of a noble noble family and therefore “the heir of all his relatives” (one of them is an elderly uncle, to whose village Eugene Onegin goes at the very beginning of the novel). He leads an idle, carefree, independent life, full of exquisite pleasures and various entertainments (“the fun and luxury of a child.”), he is content with home education and does not burden himself with service.
The crisis of the mid-1820s. Indifference to rank and career, the cult of idleness, graceful pleasure and personal independence, and finally, political freethinking form an internally unified complex characteristic of the generation of the 1820s and imprinted in the image of Eugene Onegin. Of course, one can speak only in hints about the hero’s free-thinking, about his involvement in the near-Decembrist circle. But these hints are significant and eloquent. Evgeniy Onegin's critical attitude towards high society and neighboring landowners, voluntary village hermitage, alleviating the lot of serfs (a gesture quite “Decembrist” in spirit), reading Adam Smith, who was popular among the Decembrists, long conversations and debates with Lensky on the most pressing topics of our time, and finally, a direct comparison of Onegin with freethinker, philosopher Chaadaev, the mention of the hero’s acquaintance with the dashing hussar, the Decembrist Kaverin, the story of his friendship with the hero-author, a disgraced poet, and Onegin’s willingness to accompany him in his escape abroad - all this testifies to the true scale of Eugene Onegin’s personality, about his belonging to the heroes of the time, acutely aware of their historical destiny and social lack of demand, painfully solving the problem of their life path.
Onegin is characterized by a certain demonism (“an arrogant demon”), which increasingly manifests itself in him as the plot develops in the novel, and, in the end, leads him to disaster. In the novel, the hero goes through a path consisting of a number of tests (relationship with society, friendship, and, of course, love), but Onegin does not withstand any of the tests. Deeply despising his neighbors - landowners, ignoramuses and serf owners, the main character nevertheless fears their judgment and accepts the challenge to a duel with Lensky (Onegin said “that he is always ready”). Subsequently, Onegin will kill his friend. But to the credit of Pushkin’s hero, he acts nobly with Tatyana, who is in love with him. He does not feed the heart of a young and inexperienced girl with the illusion of hope, but rather simply explains that they cannot be together (“I love you with the love of a brother,” “learn to control yourself, not everyone, like me, will understand you, inexperience leads to disaster.” ).
But six long years after the duel with Lensky and the explanation of Tatyana, a girl, in love with Onegin, Onegin again meets the already married, blossoming Tatyana, a woman. Not having fallen in love with Tatyana, a girl, Onegin passionately falls in love with Tatyana, a woman (“what stirred in the depths of a cold and lazy soul? Annoyance? Vanity? Or again the care of youth? Love”). And Tatyana, in turn, still loves Evgeniy passionately (“and he excited her heart”, “she dreams of someday completing the humble path of life with him”). It would seem that here it is - happiness, at a distance of an outstretched palm.
Fate punishes the hero of the work for neglecting the feelings of women earlier, for a wild life and for not seeing in Tatyana the girl her amazing, incomparable, pure inner world. In addition to ordinary physical life, there is a moral and aesthetic category. Tatyana cannot leave, run away from her husband, not because she is sorry for her position in society and condition, but because she is highly moral, morally pure, and if she took an oath before the altar, then she will follow it and will not fall into temptation , will be faithful to her husband. Love was missed (“what did I find in your heart? What answer? Just severity!”, and happiness was so possible, so close! But my fate is already decided. “).
Hopeless love for Tatyana leads Onegin to the brink of death. However, what is important to Pushkin is precisely the fundamental possibility of Onegin’s moral revival, for the true hero of the novel is not he, but a certain “superhero” - modern man at all.
Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin.
The failure of the Decembrist uprising, the unfulfilled hopes of the best part of society for the liberation of Russia. Pechorin's generation did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia. The third hero is also a hero of his time - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”.
Pechorin is a nobleman, and by no means from the poor, he is young, handsome, and popular with women. It would seem, what else is needed for happiness? But he is deeply unhappy. But the point here is that Pechorin, despite his youth, is tired of life (“sometimes I specifically look for death under bullets”). Having received a secular upbringing, Pechorin was tired of chasing secular entertainment. Then he will be disappointed, attempts to engage in science and a cooling towards them. Pechorin is bored with living (“Well? To die is to die! The loss for the world is small, and I myself am quite bored”). He is indifferent to the light and experiences deep dissatisfaction with life (“His eyes did not laugh when he laughed. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness”). Pechorin is quite experienced, he has already seen a lot. But his main problem- oppressive loneliness, boredom, disappointment in life, love. Pechorin did not achieve happiness either in love or friendship. According to him, he is not capable of friendship. In it, again according to Grigory Alexandrovich, “one is invariably the slave of another.” In different chapters we see different people, helping us understand the character of Lermontov's hero. Pechorin had friends, but he never became friends with any of them: his colleague Maxim Maksimych, his peer Grushnitsky, his intellectually similar Doctor Werner, or the complete opposite - Lieutenant Vulich. Pechorin does not want to make anyone “his slave.”
Everyone around the protagonist is inferior to him in intelligence, and is not distinguished by sensitivity and insight, or strength of character. Lermontov's hero is distinguished by one very rare quality - the ability and tendency to internal introspection. Pechorin combines sobriety of mind with a thirst for activity and willpower. Pechorin feels immense strength in himself (“I feel immense strength in myself”), but wastes it on trifles, on love adventures, without doing anything useful (“I was carried away by the lures of empty and ungrateful passions, from their crucible I emerged hard and cold as iron, but I lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life”).
But the hero of the novel has one more terrible property. He makes the people around him unhappy (“my love did not bring happiness to anyone”). He is smarter than the others, but internally empty and disappointed. Grigory Alexandrovich lives out of curiosity, not with his heart, but with his head.
The paradox of Pechorin’s personality is his inner world, introspection. The hero carefully rummages through the storeroom of his own mind and heart. Pechorin is aware of his bad deeds (the game of love with Princess Mary, the failure with Vera, the conquest of Bela), and it is precisely because of this awareness of what happened that it is so hard for him. Pechorin suffers, but deservedly suffers.
As V.A. Belinsky wrote: “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but scorched earth. ” and something could have grown on this land if not for the incessant “self-draining” of our hero. Lermontov's hero crushes everything human in himself, his eyes are calm when there is a volcano inside. He does not realize the value of human life, does not value either his own life or someone else’s (duel with Grushnitsky).
The character of the work combines the incongruous: sensitivity (the hero cries about the lost love of Vera; it’s hard for him when Maxim Maksimych mentions Bel) and the most terrible cold-blooded cruelty (a duel with Grushnitsky, “I wanted to give myself every right not to spare him”), an amazing feature to go against fate, to enter into eternal confrontation with society (“water society”).
The hero is an egoist, and he realizes this, he is incredibly disgusted with himself, out of boredom he tries to entertain himself (“but you live out of curiosity: you expect something new. It’s funny and annoying!”), sometimes at the cost of broken destinies (Princess Mary , Vera), and even someone’s death (Grushnitsky). It’s scary to say, but Bela’s death is the best ending, both for her and for Pechorin. Grigory Alexandrovich knows how to hate, but does not know how to love. He seeks happiness only for himself (“I loved for myself, for my own pleasure, I only satisfied the strange need of the heart, greedily absorbing their feelings, their joys, their suffering - and could never get enough”), and in love, as is known , one cannot be happy: either both are happy or neither is happy. Both then and now - this is the reality of life, which the hero understood perfectly. Probably the only way out for the hero of the novel is to work on himself; his problem is that he saw his vices and mistakes, but did not correct them!
So, Lermontov’s hero is unhappy both in love and in friendship through his own fault. His loneliness is depressing. He is selfish and proud, but most importantly, he is honest with himself, and this quality is lacking in very, very many people. He can offend, knows how to hate, is loved, but does not love (“like an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret.”), and as a result, he is unhappy. In my opinion, the inactive protagonist who does not constantly seek happiness is no longer Pechorin, not the hero of the 30s of the 19th century. The complex aspects of the hero's mental life interest Lermontov.
The main character painfully searches for a way out, thinks about the role of fate, and seeks understanding among people of a different circle. And he doesn’t find an environment for activity or use for his powers. He searches for himself, rushes about in search of happiness, realizes his vices, but does not change; this is his tragedy, the tragedy of both the generation of the 30s and our time
Lermontov helps in “A Hero of Our Time” to recall the ideological and spiritual life of Russian society in the 30s of the 19th century. The hero's hopelessness is directly related to the socio-political situation in Russia at that time. The failure of the Decembrist uprising, the unfulfilled hopes of the best part of society for the liberation of Russia. Pechorin's generation did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia. Pechorin's tragedy is the tragedy of many of his contemporaries, similar to him in their way of thinking and position in society.
Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov.
The 1840s in Russia were marked by a severe crisis of the entire feudal-serf system.
N.V. Gogol shows us a new hero of the time. On the pages of “Dead Souls” he appears as Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov - a new type of adventurer-acquirer for Russian literature, the main character of the poem, fallen, betrayed by his true destiny, but capable of purification and resurrection with his soul. Even the name Pavel, given to the hero by Gogol, indicates this possibility of spiritual resurrection. It was not given by the author by chance, in honor of the Apostle Paul, who at first was a persecutor of Christ, but then ardently believed in him; the idea of rebirth. Pavel is the one who was able to rise. Gogol clearly shows us this new man (the main character), describing in detail the life of Pavel Ivanovich in Chapter II.
As a child, Pavlusha religiously followed his father’s instructions to “save a penny!” The father, sending his son to study, gives him a tiny amount of money, which the son saves carefully, painstakingly, wisely, constantly increasing his capital. For example, during a break he buys a bun, then during class, when other students are hungry, he sells it at a speculative price. Still persistent, smart and, of course, cunning, Pavlusha bought a mouse cheaply, which he trained for a long time and patiently, and, as a result, sold it at a profit.
The whole life of Gogol's hero is a series of ups and downs. The character of the work works very successfully at customs. First he gains the trust of his superiors (“and indeed, he showed unheard-of self-sacrifice, patience and limitation of needs”), then he begins to collaborate with smugglers, but his friend rats him out, but the main character gets away with it.
So, Chichikov is a new hero, a hero of his time. The goals of Gogol's hero are to take care only of himself, to seek benefit for himself in everything, to please people who are useful to him, to choose a richer wife. He doesn't know what inconvenience is. He is never uncomfortable at all. The hero of the poem is relevant to this day, because in every team there is still a person who gets his way not by knowledge, but by diligence, servility (“Chichikov suddenly comprehended the spirit of the boss and what behavior should consist of,” “as soon as the bell rang, he rushed headlong and handed the teacher a three-piece, first of all; having handed the three-piece, he was the first to leave the class and tried to get caught by him three times on the road, constantly taking off his hat.” This hero was like that from a young age.
Pavel Ivanovich is active, but he directs his mind and cunning in the wrong direction, not for the benefit of society, but for his own profit. Chichikov is a wonderful psychologist. The ability to approach people correctly helps Chichikov in his brilliant scam with “dead” souls.
Disposing, polite on the outside, rotten on the inside: this is the image of the new man in Rus'.
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.
“Oblomov” appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and was of great importance in the struggle of the advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. In the novel, Goncharov criticized the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf order, which gave rise to Oblomovism: “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn into jelly before their time.”[ The essence and origin of Oblomovism are revealed in the novel from an anti-serfdom, democratic point of view. The author seeks to prove that Oblomov was turned into jelly, into a “kvass” by the serf environment.
Oblomov Ilya Ilyich is a nobleman “32-33 years old, pleasant in appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any specific goal, any concentration in his facial features; gentleness was the dominant and main expression of the entire soul.”
Ilya Ilyich was born and grew up until the age of twenty in provincial Oblomovka. As a child, everyone instilled in Oblomov the idea of his exclusivity. He studied at a boarding school, but was unable to serve. As a boy, Ilyusha, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, grew up kind and good-natured. But from a very young age, the hero did nothing, everything was done for him (Ilyusha rarely went to the boarding house, and if he was there, his friend Stolz worked for him, but at home there were servants for everything). Goncharov's hero is accustomed to receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, and this developed apathetic immobility in him. This habit plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery. This slavery is closely intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship. Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in the appearance of Ilya Ilyich - a pampered, flabby man beyond his years who has “slept his ailments.”
The hero lies on his couch all day long, doing nothing. He is not only unable to manage his estate, but even to get ready and go to a party. All this presents great difficulty for him. It is important to note what inaction is - a conscious choice of the hero: “Life: life is good!” there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the council and society!
In the hero of the novel, a living mind, purity, kindness, truthfulness, a tendency to introspection and self-criticism, and a sense of justice are ruined. The hero is mired in the swamp of egoism, which sweeps away all the good qualities that Oblomov does not feel the need to develop in himself. It soon becomes clear to the reader that Oblomov depends on Zakhar more than Zakhar depends on him.
The horror of the protagonist’s situation also lies in the fact that he did not ask himself questions about “his relationship to the world and to society,” taking advantage of his rights, he did not think about his responsibilities, so he “was burdened and bored by everything he had to do.” “Work and boredom were synonymous for him,” and Oblomov explained his inactivity and worthlessness by the fact that he was a nobleman.
Impracticality and helplessness are the characteristic features of Goncharov’s hero: “I don’t know what corvée is, what rural labor is, what a poor man means, what a rich man means; I don’t know what a quarter of rye or oats means, what it costs, what month it is, what they sow and reap, how and when they sell it, I don’t know anything.” This ignorance was typical feature the majority of the noble intelligentsia of the 40s. Oblomov's whole life is a depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment of the human personality, a voluntary death of his own soul.
We learn the ideal of Ilya Ilyich’s life from the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream.” The hero dreams of his childhood in his native Oblomovka: calm, peaceful, idle, filled with love and warmth.
“Oblomov’s Dream” is not a fairy tale about heavenly life, as it might seem at first glance. Here the social and simply human ugliness of Oblomov’s existence is clearly visible. The hero is accustomed to inaction. “Three hundred Zakharovs” kill all activity in the boy. Oblomovka’s patriarchal isolation, at first touching, cheerfully surprising with its exclusivity, then frightens. Oblomov's kindness in complex world social inequality turns into very real evil.
Ilya Ilyich's doing nothing is not an innocent thing at all. As Dobrolyubov noted: “As long as he’s lying alone, it’s nothing; and when Tarantyev, Zaterty comes, Ivan Matveich, what disgusting nasty things begin around Oblomov. They eat him up, get him drunk, get him drunk, ruin him in the name of the peasants. He endures all this in silence.” The critic concludes: “No, you can’t flatter the living like that, but we are still alive, we are still Oblomovs. Oblomovism never left us.”
Oblomov’s path is a typical path of provincial nobles of the early 19th century. O. served in the department, did routine work, and waited for a promotion from year to year. But the hero did not need such a worthless life. He chose to lie on the sofa and contemplate the vices of his time from the outside. He studied at the university, was interested in literature, then served, and even planned scientific work, dedicated to Russia, but it all ended in Oblomovism. “His life was on its own, and his science was on its own. His knowledge was dead. His head represented a complex archive of dead affairs, persons, eras, figures, religions. It was as if a library consisting of only scattered volumes on different parts of knowledge.”
But the soul of the hero of the novel is not devoid of dreaminess. He is a lyricist who can feel deeply. But his lifestyle muted this spiritual feature of the hero. Only her old friend, Stolz, can wake her up for a short time. Goncharov's hero is not completely devoid of spiritual and moral life, he had some good aspirations and qualities (moral purity, a meek soul).
Love for Olga temporarily changes the hero beyond recognition: “A fever of life, strength, and activity appeared in him.” But “the further direction, the very thought of life, the deed, remains in intentions.” This is not surprising: Oblomov is not capable of active love, which requires self-improvement. Only Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna was able to create an ideal life for him with a feeling of care, warmth, and idleness.
Goncharov himself treats his hero with a considerable amount of sympathy when Oblomov awakens to the consciousness of his gradual fall. Goncharov conveys his internal monologue: “He painfully felt that some good, bright beginning was buried in him, as in a grave, perhaps now dead, or it lay like gold in the bowels of a mountain, and it was high time this gold should be a walking coin. But the treasure is buried deep and heavily with rubbish and alluvial debris.”
The melancholy that sometimes overcame Oblomov testified that he had real human feelings, sometimes resisting the inexorable Oblomovism, which nevertheless turned out to be stronger. Lack of will, lack of inner core, fading of the mind, all this cannot be saved even by the pure soul of the hero and the active Stolz. The best qualities of Ilya Ilyich fade away, and with them the hero himself.
Dmitry Nikolaevich Rudin.
“Rudin” (1855) is Turgenev’s first novel, which captured a whole period in the development of Russian society in the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. The main thing in “Rudin” is not the description of everyday life, but the reconstruction of the ideological picture of the era. The characters' characters are revealed primarily through debates about philosophy, education, and morality. This became one of the most characteristic features of the Russian novel of the 19th century.
IN novel of the same name“Rudin” I. S. Turgenev examines the history of the so-called “superfluous man.” The author repeatedly notes the inconsistency of his hero: enthusiasm, the desire to act in the name of achieving ideals is combined in him with ignorance of “living life”, the inability to translate into reality everything that he talks about so eloquently.
Turgenev's hero dreams of the good of humanity, makes fiery speeches about the high calling of man, about the importance of education and science. However, being a student of the philosophical idealism of the 30s (the novel describes in detail the Pokorsky circle, in which contemporaries easily guessed the circle of N.V. Stankevich), Rudin, like other noble intellectuals, turns out to be very far from the correct perception of reality. Ideal performances crash when colliding with real life.
Highly appreciating the hero, Turgenev nevertheless repeatedly emphasizes in Rudin the sharp gap between word and deed, which emphasizes the test of love. The hero cannot stand it. Before sincere and loving Natalya he turns out to be a weak-willed person, unable to accept the burden of responsibility for her fate (“The first obstacle - and I completely fell apart; I was simply afraid of the responsibility that fell on me, and therefore I am definitely unworthy of you”).
The epilogue of the novel was intended to elevate Rudin, to prove his ability to perform heroic deeds. However, even on the Parisian barricades the hero still turns out to be an eternal wanderer. His feat is useless, his figure itself is somewhat theatrical: “In one hand he held a red banner, in the other a crooked and blunt saber.” The rebels did not even know who Rudin was, they considered him a Pole. This is how Dmitry Rudin passes away from the pages of the novel.
In the image of Dmitry Rudin, Turgenev captured the era of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Hence the death of the hero on the barricades in Paris during the revolution of 1848: he dies with the end of his era.
Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov.
Russian reality of the early 60s put forward a new type of “nihilist”, calling for a decisive struggle against the entire old world, its way of life, customs, culture, without making exceptions for anyone, without experiencing the slightest regret. The writer's honesty and truthfulness predetermined in many cases the objective portrayal of the commoner hero, his moral victory over noble liberalism, in particular over the Kirsanov brothers.
Bazarov's youth fell on the difficult period of the 60s of the 19th century. The rise of the democratic movement and peasant unrest. The crisis of autocracy and the propaganda of the ideas of the peasant revolution. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Confrontation between liberals and democrats. The beginning of bourgeois transformations in the country. Development of natural and mathematical sciences.
The image of Turgenev's hero is riddled with contradictions. Evgeny Bazarov denies love. This can be seen in his attitude towards a woman and eternal feelings (“romantic nonsense”, “rotten”), but at the same time, Eugene is a romantic at heart. He passionately falls in love with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova.
Bazarov is a nihilist, denies science and art, does not listen to other people’s opinions, and treats everything from a critical point of view. There are no authorities for a hero.
Bazarov's nihilism has nothing to do with fashion or imitation. This is why Sitnikov and Kukshin were introduced into the plot of the novel, so that against their background, Bazarov’s deep conviction in the correctness of the views that form the basis of his worldview would be more clearly manifested.
Turgenev's hero has his own convictions (“read Pushkin - wasted time, playing music is ridiculous, romanticism is nonsense, Raphael is not worth a penny”) and expresses them, but absolutely does not accept other people’s “principles.” Bazarov also does not accept empty talk. The hero strives to act “because of what is useful.”
Evgeny Bazarov belongs to the new social camp - revolutionary democrats (raznochinets).
The hero, representing Russian democratic youth with all its advantages and disadvantages, strength and weakness, marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of Russian literature. In many works of subsequent decades, the artistic elaboration of the problems, images, and motifs first raised by Turgenev will continue. Dostoevsky in 1863 mentioned with sympathy "the restless and yearning Bazarov (a sign of a great heart), despite his egoism."
But, despite the destructive power of Bazarov’s nihilism, it is worth noting that the hero does not advance in his beliefs beyond denial. After all, among the people the hero of the novel sees only ignorance and darkness. Bazarov believes that it is necessary to separate popular interests from popular prejudices.
It is not contempt for the people that is heard in the speeches of the “nihilist,” but criticism of darkness, downtroddenness and backwardness. The problem of “Bazarov and the People” is very acute and has not yet been fully clarified. There are episodes in the novel that testify not only to Bazarov’s strength, but also to his weakness and isolation from the people.
The hero denies everything, but we cannot call him narrow-minded and limited. He acts on the principle: “they will tell me the case and I will agree.”
To reveal the image of the main character, Turgenev compares him with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Kirsanov is an aristocrat, the complete opposite of Bazarov. Even Bazarov’s appearance sharply separated him from the brothers Kirsanov and Arkady: a long robe with tassels, red hands, long hair, which at that time were a demonstrative sign of freethinking. And Bazarov’s speech testifies to the sympathy with which his image is drawn. Of all the characters in the novel, it is Bazarov who is endowed with the simplest and clearest Russian language, it is he who is able to appropriately use a folk saying or proverb, he turns out to be a master of winged, precise characteristics.
Pavel Petrovich respects family, religiosity, patriarchy, peasant community, cannot live without faith, loves nature and music. P.P. Kirsanov and Bazarov constantly argue, which leads to their duel, which, fortunately, is not dangerous.
However, Bazarov’s clash with noble heroes and noble culture should not be perceived unambiguously as a complete and unconditional victory of the “nihilist.” Shortly before the end of the novel, Turgenev wrote: “since the time of the ancient tragedy, we already know that real clashes are those in which both sides are to a certain extent right.” This is what happens in the novel. It is impossible not to take into account that Turgenev’s “fathers,” for all their liberalism, are bearers of certain life values; they are characterized by aesthetic sensitivity and a culture of feelings. And in some moments, Bazarov, in comparison with them, reveals not only strength, but also weakness.
Turgenev confronts his hero with serious life trials, as a result of which the hero has to give up a number of beliefs. It displays traits of skepticism and pessimism. One of these tests is the hero’s love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. The commoner Bazarov feels awkward in front of the aristocrat Odintsova; he gradually discovers within himself a feeling whose existence he previously denied.
Anna Sergeevna Odintsova could understand Bazarov. Odintsova sees Evgeny’s soul, and not his external prickliness and constant denial of everything. The hero of the novel respects Odintsova because she does not boast of her origins (before her marriage she barely made ends meet and raised her sister (“and ate our bread”). Bazarov falls in love with Anna Sergeevna, but she mercilessly rejects him.
The views of Bazarov and the other heroes on life, society, people, and the political system are diametrically opposed. Therefore, Turgenev’s hero is lonely, he is an “extra person” who is in opposition to society.
Turgenev's position manifests itself gradually, as the image itself is revealed, in the hero's monologues, his disputes with other characters: with his friend Arkady Kirsanov, with his father and uncle Pavel Petrovich. At first, the hero of the novel is confident in his abilities, in the work he is doing; he is a proud, purposeful person, a bold experimenter and a denier.
Turgenev's hero suffers defeat in love. Ultimately, he remains alone, but even now Bazarov does not want to open himself to simple, natural feelings. He is cold and demanding of his parents, as well as of everyone around him. Only in the face of death does Evgeniy Vasilyevich begin to vaguely understand the value of such manifestations of life as poetry, love, beauty.
Bazarov is an “extra person,” but despite all the misfortunes and disappointments in life, he can still be useful to society.
Turgenev's hero is true to his ideals, devoted to his work, and self-confident. Such people are necessary in Russian society, because the rest of the “superfluous people” are inactive. Onegin and Pechorin strive to assert themselves, to realize their capabilities, but do not find use for them.
Oblomov and Rudin love to think, but are absolutely incapable of practical activity, all their projects fail, while Bazarov promotes social development, moving forward, and destroys old foundations. According to Evgeniy Vasilyevich, “the new cannot establish itself without the destruction of the old.” Turgenev's hero sincerely tries to benefit society through his activities.
The hero of the novel is valuable to society, brings with him a wave of changes, but society is not ready for them. Bazarov’s time has not yet come, so Turgenev, not knowing what to do, “kills” him. Bazarov's beliefs are not artistic exaggeration, the image of the hero reflects the characteristic features of representatives of the democratic youth of the 60s.
Rakhmetov.
Rakhmetov - central character Utopian novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky “What to do?” The hero led “the most severe lifestyle”, “was involved in other people’s affairs or no one’s affairs in particular”, in the “gathering points” of his friends “he only met people who had influence on others”, “he was little at home, he kept walking and driving around.” A “special person” differs from “new people” in many ways. By origin, he is not a commoner, but a nobleman, “from a family known since the 13th century”; It is not circumstances, but only the strength of his convictions that forces him to go against secular society. He remakes both his mental and physical nature. Completely renounces personal benefits and intimate life, so that the struggle for complete enjoyment of life is a struggle “only according to principle, and not out of passion, out of conviction, and not out of personal need.
Chernyshevsky’s hero consciously cultivated strength of character, accuracy and punctuality in himself, since he knew that these qualities were necessary for an underground revolutionary. At the same time, he was not a dry and callous person, although with his refusal of all pleasures and entertainment he impressed his friends as a “gloomy monster.” Having gotten to know him better, Vera Pavlovna appreciated “what a gentle and kind person he is.”
Rakhmetov devoted himself entirely to the cause of the revolution. Personal life, in the usual sense, does not exist for him. Friends call the hero a “rigorist,” that is, a person who with unwavering firmness follows the rules he has adopted and refuses all pleasures for the sake of his business. The hero of the novel believes that people who devote themselves to the struggle for human happiness must testify with their lives that they demand happiness “not to satisfy their personal passions, not for themselves personally, but for man in general.”
Work for the revolution became his personal matter, the only one that completely absorbs him. Therefore, he learned to be very careful with his time: he makes only “necessary” acquaintances, reads only “original” books, that is, those in which important thoughts are fully and clearly stated.
Rakhmetov tries to be as close as possible to the common people, closely studying their life. He knows that people respect strong people, so he persistently does gymnastics, a variety of physical labor, and eats simple food. He mastered various working professions: “he was a plowman, a carpenter, a carrier and a worker in all kinds of healthy trades; once he even walked as a barge hauler across the entire Volga, from Dubovka to Rybinsk,” demonstrating such extraordinary strength that his fellow haulers dubbed him Nikitushka Lomov, after the name of the famous barge hauler-hero who walked along the Volga fifteen to twenty years ago.
The revolutionary activity of the hero can be judged only by individual hints: his trips, meetings, and some matters that “do not concern him personally” are mentioned. Chernyshevsky did not have the opportunity to say more, but he emphasizes Rakhmetov’s authority among progressive youth and makes it clear that the hero is the leader and educator of revolutionaries.
The writer calls on young people to follow Rakhmetov along the path of revolutionary struggle. This path is difficult and dangerous. People who have declared a life-or-death war on the existing system know that once they fall into the hands of the authorities, they will receive no mercy. Therefore, Chernyshevsky's hero tests his ability to withstand torture. After spending the night on the points of nails, he says to Kirsanov: “Test. Need to. ; Implausible, of course; however, it is necessary just in case. I see I can." Chernyshevsky himself was well aware that the need for such training was not at all so “implausible”: after all, he wrote the chapter on Rakhmetov precisely during his grueling hunger strike. There are very few people like Rakhmetov, the “lady in mourning” and her husband, but their significance is enormous. "This is the color the best people, these are the engines of the engines, they are the salt of the earth.” The whole book is filled with forebodings of the revolution and predictions of its coming.
It is also important that Rakhmetov’s closest literary predecessor is Bazarov from Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” While maintaining some stylistic continuity, Chernyshevsky at the same time showed that his hero differs from Bazarov in having a positive point of application of his strength and has the opportunity to act among like-minded people.
The image of Rakhmetov is built on a paradoxical combination of the incongruous. The extreme chronological specificity of his biography, which serves as a starting point for many other events in the book, is adjacent to significant event gaps; a secondary character, he turns out to be “more important than all of them put together”; an extreme materialist in his views, he lives and fights only for an idea.
The image of Chernyshevsky’s hero, as befits any hagiographic image, gave rise to many imitations. He became the standard of a professional revolutionary, as D.I. Pisarev pointed out in his article “The Thinking Proletariat” (1865), calling Rakhmetov a “historical figure”: “In the general movement of events, there are moments when people like Rakhmetov are necessary and irreplaceable.” .
He lives in the general, abandoning the personal. He loved one lady, but deliberately abandoned his love, because it would limit him. He admits that he wants to live like everyone else, but he cannot afford it. Rakhmetov represents a special, new person, in whom we see the ideal image of a revolutionary.
3. Comparative characteristics of the heroes of the first half of the 19th century. *
At first glance, all the heroes are completely different, but if you look closely, we will see both striking differences and impressive similarities.
The relationship of heroes with society.
So, we see that most of the heroes are in conflict with the society of their time. The progressive-minded Chatsky is not accepted in society. The Famusov society slanders Alexander Andreevich, spreading rumors about his madness, but the hero cannot be broken, he is the undisputed winner in moral terms.
Also, in moral terms, in the spiritual aspect, Count Pierre Bezukhov is superior to other heroes and society. For whom the ideal of life is service to the people, the public good, just like Chatsky.
Pushkin's hero Eugene Onegin has a critical attitude towards high society and his landowner neighbors. Grigory Pechorin also treats society a little condescendingly. But it is important to note that Onegin, despising the world, is afraid of its opinion and accepts the challenge of his friend Lensky to a duel.
Pechorin, on the other hand, is absolutely not interested in what they think about him. He himself does what he wants with society (conflict with the water society, duel with Grushnitsky and the death of the latter).
Turgenev’s hero, Evgeny Bazarov, also disdains society. A nihilist is not interested in what they will say about him. But the hero is in conflict with P.P. Kirsanov because of the “incompatibility” of views on life, the state structure, etc.
Oblomov experiences complete social apathy; the hero does not care what is happening outside the window of his room.
Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov does everything for his own benefit, and if he needs company, then he gains trust, flatters and gets along well in any society.
Dmitry Rudin, in turn, does not get along anywhere for long. Rudin’s superiority over the hypocritical landowner Lasunskaya, her hanger-on Pandelevsky, and the denier Pigasov is obvious, but Turgenev’s hero’s word is at odds with his deed, the latter “trailing along somewhere far behind.”
Rakhmetov goes against his environment not due to circumstances, but solely due to the strength of his convictions, only by principle, and not by passion, by conviction, and not by personal need.
Some heroes can be classified as “superfluous people” (Onegin, Pechorin), personalities who were ahead of their time (Bazarov, Rakhmetov), characters living “outside” of time - fallen out of their time (Rudin, Oblomov). And they all conflict with society.
But only one of them, the deceitful and resourceful Chichikov, lives happily ever after, gradually making a fortune by deceiving “dead” souls. Unfortunately, only Gogol’s hero, who pleases all useful people for himself, functions calmly in Russian society in the 40s of the 19th century.
Society (even from the 60s and 30s) is not ready for Bazarov and Chatsky and Rakhmetov. Pechorin and Onegin do not know how to realize their powers. Oblomov is sorely lacking in practical activity, just like Rudin. But Turgenev’s hero loves to engage in polemics on absolutely any topic, and Goncharov’s hero only occasionally has weak insights.
Only the hero of L.N. Tolstoy is useful to society in practice (he fights, donates money to those in need), understands his purpose and his place in society.
The attitude of the heroes towards friendship.
So, the heroes basically fail the test of friendship.
Chatsky's Griboyedov doesn't show any friends at all.
Pechorin has no friends due to his own conviction that “in friendship, one is invariably the slave of the other.”
Chichikov does not see it as useful for himself to have friends. Pavel Ivanovich has only useful acquaintances through whom he can benefit. Both Pechorin and Chichikov are egoists. They only take, but do not give.
In his friendship with the poet V. Lensky, Onegin treats the “young heat” with patronizing, condescending attitude. But soon, as a result of a quarrel, a duel occurs between the friends. Evgeniy is afraid of public opinion and accepts the challenge to a duel, then kills Lensky. Pushkin's hero did not succeed in friendship.
Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov was also not happy in his friendship, who also treated his friend Arkady Kirsanov patronizingly. But there is no friendship without mutual understanding. Being representatives of the same generation, Evgeny Bazarov and Arkady Kirsanov ultimately cannot find a common language. The friendship of two completely different people in character and outlook on life also takes place.
Friendship between the apathetic Oblomov and the active Stolz. The characters' characters are so different that many critics agreed: Stolz is a kind of “antidote” to Oblomov. As a result, the sluggish and lazy Oblomov is unhappy, but his active friend is the opposite.
The characters are also different in Turgenev’s novel of the same name “Rudin”. Rudin talks a lot, but does little; his friend Lezhnev is the opposite. As a result - unhappiness in the life of the first, happiness of the second.
Chernyshevsky does not show Rakhmetov as friends, only friends, but they all, of course, respect the hero.
And finally, the friendship of Pierre Bezukhov and Andrei Bolkonsky. The heroes are united by their search for truth in life; they are both at a crossroads. Disagreeing with each other, they recognize the right of everyone to their own judgments, to their own choice. The friendship of the heroes is imbued with respect.
We see that Pechorin, Chichikov and Onegin are selfish and unhappy in their friendship. Bazarov has no mutual understanding with his friend Arkady. Oblomov and Rudin are passive. Chatsky and Rakhmetov’s friends are not depicted. Only Count Pierre Bezukhov is happy in his friendship, because, unlike other heroes, he is not selfish and respects the opinion and right to choose of his friend.
Test of love.
And again our heroes are unhappy.
Chatsky’s chosen one, Sophia, is closed with the hero, spreads gossip about his madness and, in my opinion, is not worthy of Griboyedov’s honest and open hero.
Pushkin's Onegin fails in love. Fate punishes the hero of the work for neglecting the feelings of women earlier, for a wild life and for not seeing in Tatyana the girl her stunning, incomparable, pure inner world. Love is missed
Pechorin is an egoist (“I loved for myself, for my own pleasure, I only satisfied the strange need of my heart, greedily absorbing their feelings, their joys, their suffering - and could never get enough”).
Gogol's hero does not know what love is, he simply does not think about it. Chichikov loves no one and nothing except himself and money, although he would be glad to find a richer wife.
Oblomov and Rudin love each other in words. Heroes are not capable of active love, where actions need to be performed.
Evgeny Bazarov also fails in love. The commoner Bazarov feels awkward in front of the aristocrat Odintsova. The heroine rejects the nihilist.
Rakhmetov consciously refuses happiness for the sake of a social, revolutionary idea.
The only one who is happy in marriage is Pierre Bezukhov. But at what cost! After many years suffering in a marriage with the dishonest Helen Kuragina, the hero, after the unexpected death of his wife, still finds the desired happiness by meeting Natasha Rostova. In the epilogue, Pierre Bezukhov is depicted as a happy husband and father.
So, heroes are used to only taking, but not giving, and in love this is tantamount to death. After all, what, besides suffering, did Pechorin, Rudin, Onegin, Oblomov give to their beloved!? Chatsky is unhappy through no fault of his own; Chichikov does not even think about eternal feelings. Oblomov gives in to fate. Rakhmetov consciously avoids personal happiness. Only exhausted by the failures of his marriage with Helen, Bezukhov will find his happiness.
Attitude to the Motherland, the political situation in the country.
In relation to the political situation and state system The characters' opinions differ.
Chatsky and Bezukhov see the purpose of life in serving the people, “the cause, not individuals,” in the public good.
Pierre cannot look indifferently at the manifestation of injustice, social evil, and opposes autocracy and serfdom. The heroes are close in their beliefs to the Decembrists. Bezukhov even joins a secret society, and in “Woe from Wit” there is a hint of a secret circle.
Eugene Onegin is also close to the ideas of Decembrism. Pushkin speaks about the hero’s freethinking, about his participation in the near-Decembrist era only in hints. But these hints are significant and eloquent. Alleviating the plight of the serfs (a gesture quite “Decembrist” in spirit), reading Adam Smith, who was popular among the Decembrists, long conversations and arguments with Lensky on the most pressing topics of our time, finally, a direct comparison of Onegin with the freethinker, the philosopher Chaadaev, mention of the hero’s acquaintance with the dashing hussar, the Decembrist Kaverin, a story about his friendship with the hero-author, a disgraced poet, and Onegin’s willingness to accompany him in his escape abroad.
Pechorin is an egoist, seeking personal, not public, happiness.
Oblomov is passive to the political situation, lives in his own fenced, closed world.
Rudin has many ideas and plans to improve life in the country, but these projects remain just projects. The hero lacks practical activity, the matter does not move beyond words.
Chichikov directs his energies not to state prosperity, but to his own needs (a scam with “dead” souls).
Turgenev's hero finds himself in a conflict between fathers and sons. An old opinion collides with a new belief.
Rakhmetov represents a special, new person, in whom we see the ideal image of a revolutionary.
So, the active, preaching Chatsky, gifted, albeit inactive heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Bazarov, Rudin are not accepted in Russian society of the 19th century. The generation of these heroes did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia.
Oblomov's strength is in thinking, but the hero is inactive and useless to society. And the negative hero is active - Chichikov. Gogol's hero feels in the society of the 19th century like a fish in water. Greed and selfishness reign in society. That is why Chichikov does not belong to the “superfluous” group. He is active and his activities are successful, but they are aimed at deception.
For Pierre Bezukhov and Rakhmetov, their activities are directed in a positive direction (Tolstoy’s hero fights, donates funds for the victims; Chernyshevsky’s hero understands public affairs). But even in the epilogue, depicting the happy family man Pierre, L.N. Tolstoy shows us that this is far from the end, and we understand that we have before us the future Decembrist. Rakhmetov is a revolutionary.
III. CONCLUSION. The meaning of images of literary heroes of the first half of the 19th century.
So, let’s try to draw conclusions; to do this, let’s define the concepts.
“EXTRA MAN” is a term used to designate literary characters who are in opposition to social order, endowed with the knowledge of their uselessness, suffering from the lack of a clearly realized purpose in life. It is believed that the concept of “superfluous people” presupposes the impossibility of “incorporating” heroes of this type into real social practice, their “social uselessness.”
By “HERO OF HIS TIME” we mean a hero work of art, reflecting the main conflict of society in a certain period of time (at the time of the creation of the work or the “life” of a given character).
Griboyedov’s merit is that the hero, the society opposing him, and the conflictual relationships between them receive a realistic embodiment in the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
Pushkin's Onegin in the novel is presented as a progressive phenomenon, nationally unique, great social significance. Pushkin gave a multifaceted characterization of Onegin, revealed his contradictory essence, and pointed out the positive and negative significance of this social phenomenon. Through the image of Onegin, Pushkin encouraged others to express their words about the “heroes of their time” writers of the XIX century.
Widely using the traditions of previous literature, M. Yu. Lermontov in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” creates his own special type of hero. The writer begins to solve the most difficult task - to show a fundamentally new type of personality, to create the image of a gifted and thinking person, but crippled by secular education and cut off from the life of the people. Pechorin was a kind of “result” of the author’s reflections on the essence of the “hero of his time” - a phenomenon of enormous social significance.
“A Hero of Our Time” is considered the first “personal” novel in Russian prose, the ideological and plot core of which is not an external biography, but rather the personality of the character.
It is recognized that the main psychological “nerve” in Pechorin’s character, the main internal spring guiding his life, motives and actions is individualism, which is not just a characteristic feature of the generation of the 30s, but also the world’s perception of the hero, the philosophy of his life.
The inconsistency of Pechorin's skepticism as a worldview is obvious, but its deeply progressive significance should also be noted. Pechorin's denial puts the hero significantly above the “wise people”, brings Pechorin closer to the best, progressive people of Lermontov’s era, thereby making it possible to consider Pechorin truly a Hero of the Time.
The tragedy of the hero's fate is inevitable. Pechorin’s trouble is not his inability, but the impossibility of fulfilling his “high destiny,” for “the path that Pechorin could take has not yet been identified.”
Most researchers believe that the meaning and content of the image of the Hero of the Time of the 20s and 30s consists of a forced, historically conditioned renunciation of activity. The characters of this period, possessing extraordinary intelligence and energy, cannot act due to objective reasons: living conditions in feudal Russia, oppression by the government, underdeveloped social relations - all this did not provide the opportunity for fruitful activity. Therefore, the energy of the heroes was wasted on satisfying individualistic desires.
However, their advanced social significance is not in their actual activities, but in the level and quality of their consciousness in comparison with the environment. Rejection of existing living conditions, protest in the form of non-participation in public activities determine the “advanced” position of the heroes in the era of noble revolutionism and the reaction that followed it. This is probably why some scientists tend to classify Onegin and Pechorin as avant-garde social movement, to see in them heroes of the Decembrist sense.
In the 40-50s, with changes in socio-historical conditions, the type of hero of his time also changed.
After seven years of reaction, broader opportunities for “action” appear, and the goals and objectives of the struggle become clearer. At this time, the hero becomes “an ideologist par excellence”: he promotes advanced ideas and influences the minds of people. But nevertheless, he does not cease to remain “superfluous” due to the impossibility of combining word and deed into a single word. This is manifested primarily in the inability of “superfluous people” to engage in real activity when it is actually possible.
I. S. Turgenev develops the theme of the “hero of his time” widely and comprehensively. The writer explores the psychological options of the hero of the time type from different angles, trying to create truthful portraits of his contemporaries - representatives of the “cultural layer” of the Russian nobility.
The logical result of the writer’s reflections on the historical drama of the hero of his time was the novel “Rudin”. The main character of the work - an intelligent, well-educated person, a brilliant speaker and propagandist - is defeated when confronted with real life. Turgenev sees the reasons for Rudin's drama in his abstract, abstract approach to reality, in his ignorance of the pressing problems of Russian life, in his “philosophical idealism.”
Rudin's special place is determined by the fact that he is a person who lives in public interests, his aspirations are aimed at the common, not personal, good. His passionate speeches awaken thought and inspire hope, therefore the leading word of the hero is his “historical deed.”
People like Rudin, having risen to the point of denying evil and injustice, influenced the minds and hearts of those who, unlike them, were full of strength and could join the fight in the future. The time of the “Rudins” has passed, but it was through their efforts that the road was paved for the “new people” following them; it was the “Rudins” who did everything possible to make them appear.
The sixties brought fundamental changes to the hierarchy of literary heroes. The origin and appearance on the historical arena of a new social force - the revolutionary-democratic intelligentsia - clarifies the aspects and directions of possible individual activity.
A necessary condition for the “usefulness” of an individual is its inclusion in real social practice. This “requirement of the time” was reflected in a number of programmatic publications of the 60s (“Russian man on renduz-vous” by N. G. Chernyshevsky; “What is Oblomovism?” N. A. Dobrolyubova; “Bazarov”, “Realists” D.I. Pisareva and others). Their authors stated an indisputable fact: the “hero of his time” sometimes turned out to be “below” the tasks of his time.
However, N.G. Chernyshevsky, and N.A. Dobrolyubov, and D.I. Pisarev, noting the numerous weaknesses and shortcomings of typical representatives of this time, paid tribute to everything positive that these heroes carried within themselves. “They were introducers of new ideas into a well-known circle, educators, propagandists. their work was difficult, honorable and beneficial,” said N. A. Dobrolyubov. “The time of the Beltovs, Chatskys, Rudins has passed. but we, the newest realists, feel our blood relationship with this outdated type. We recognize our predecessors in him, we respect and love our teachers in him, we understand that without them we could not exist,” wrote D.I. Pisarev.
The tragedy of Russia in the first half of the 19th century lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive (Onegin and Pechorin; Chatsky and Rudin, Bazarov and Rakhmetov), but their strength lies in reflection. But, unfortunately, in Russia, in Russian society, they turn out to be unclaimed, while bad guy(Chichikov) feels like a fish in water in 19th-century society. Greed and self-interest reign in Russia. He is active and his activities are successful, but they are aimed at deception. Chichikov uses the imperfections of the political system exclusively for his own benefit. Gogol wanted to create a positive hero in the third volume of “Dead Souls,” but could not do this, because, unfortunately, Rus' and a positive hero are incompatible things. Russia rushed towards the abyss, filled its eyes with fog, and set off along the wrong path.
Only Pierre Bezukhov (the hero of L.N. Tolstoy’s epic “War and Peace”), having gone through the harsh trials of fate, comes to understand his destiny - serving society and the people.
Thus, we confirmed our hypothesis: the problem of society in the first half of the 19th century in Russia lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive ones; and the way to overcome this tragedy is that the meaning of the life of the hero (and the person himself) lies in the ability to serve for the good of society and the people, and not to satisfy the selfish interests of the individual.
It is important to note that all writers believed in the possibility of a spiritual and moral revival of the Russian nation. And our duty is to love Russia tenderly (actively), to begin the transformation of society by changing ourselves, to cleanse ourselves of sins, to believe in God and in the strength of our people. After all, the soul is immortal. We just need to be able to resurrect it, and with it a society where thinkers are superfluous, and adventurers are their own. The better future of the Motherland is not only our main responsibility, but also our most sacred duty.
Russian classical literature of the 19th century is a literature of search. Russian writers sought to answer the eternal questions of existence: about the meaning of life, about happiness, about the Motherland, about human nature, about the laws of life and the Universe, about God. They were also concerned about what was happening in Russia, where its development was heading, what future awaited it.
In this regard, Russian writers were inevitably concerned with the question of the “hero of the time” - the person with whom all the hopes and aspirations of the Russian intelligentsia were pinned. This collective image was, as it were, the face of a generation, its typical
Expressor.
Thus, A.S. Pushkin in his novel “Eugene Onegin” portrays a young St. Petersburg aristocrat - a hero of the 20s of the 19th century.
We will learn about the upbringing, education, and lifestyle of Eugene Onegin. This hero did not receive a deep education. He is a fan of fashion, makes and reads only what he can show off at a reception or dinner party.
The only thing that interested Onegin and in which he achieved perfection was “the science of tender passion.” The hero learned early to be a hypocrite, to pretend, to deceive in order to achieve his goal. But his soul always remained empty, amused only by his pride.
In search of the meaning of life, Onegin tried to read various books and compose, but nothing could truly captivate him. An attempt to forget myself in the village was also unsuccessful. The hero tried to carry out peasant reforms and ease the work of the serfs, but all his endeavors soon came to nothing.
In my opinion, Onegin's problem was the lack of true meaning in life. Therefore, nothing could bring him satisfaction.
Despite all this, Evgeny Onegin had great potential. The author characterizes him as a man of great intelligence, sober and calculating, capable of much. The hero is frankly bored among his nearby village neighbors and avoids their company by all means. He is able to understand and appreciate the soul of another person. This happened with Lensky, and this happened with Tatyana.
In addition, Onegin is capable of noble deeds. He did not take advantage of Tatyana’s love after her letter, but explained to her like a decent person. But, unfortunately, at that time Onegin himself was not capable of experiencing deep feelings.
On the other hand, the hero is a “slave of public opinion.” That is why he goes to a duel with Lensky, where he kills the young poet. This event turns out to be a strong shock for Onegin, after which his strong internal changes begin.
Evgeniy flees the village. We learn that he wandered for some time, moved away from high society, and changed greatly. Everything superficial is gone, only a deep, ambiguous personality remains, capable of sincerely loving and suffering.
Thus, initially Onegin is a deep and interesting personality. But high society “served him badly.” Only by moving away from his surroundings does the hero “return to himself” again and discover in himself the ability to deeply feel and sincerely love.
The character in M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time” is a man of another era (30s of the 19th century). That is why Pechorin has a different mindset, he is concerned about other problems.
This hero is disappointed in the modern world and in his generation: “We are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness.” Pechorin lost faith in man, in his significance in this world: “We are quite indifferent to everything except ourselves.” Such thoughts lead the character to boredom, indifference and even despair.
Inevitable boredom gives rise to disbelief in love and friendship in the hero. These feelings may have appeared at a certain point in his life, but still did not bring Pechorin happiness. He only tormented women with doubts, sadness, shame. Pechorin often played with the feelings of others, without thinking about what was causing them pain. This is what happened to Bela, this is what happened to Princess Mary.
Pechorin feels like an “extra” person in his society, in general, an “extra” in life. Of course, this hero has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways, but does not find use for his abilities. That is why in the finale of the novel Pechorin dies - Lermontov considered this the logical conclusion of the life of a “hero of his time.”
The search for a modern hero continued in the literature of the second half of the 19th century. The portrait of the hero captured in the works of this period testifies to significant changes that took place in society.
Thus, Evgeny Bazarov, the main character of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” is a representative of the new, younger generation in the novel. He is the personification of the changes that took place in society in the 60s of the 19th century.
Bazarov is a commoner. He is not rich, he earns his own education. The hero studies natural sciences and plans to become a practicing doctor. We see that this profession fascinates Bazarov. He is ready to work to achieve results, that is, to help people and improve their lives.
Having found himself in the “noble family” of the Kirsanovs, Evgeny Bazarov shocks the “fathers” with his views. It turns out that he is a nihilist - “a person who does not bow to any authority, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respectful this principle may be.”
And indeed, Bazarov denies everything that was accumulated before him by previous generations. Especially his heart “rebels” against everything immaterial: art, love, friendship, soul.
Evgeny Bazarov sees only one destruction as the goal of his life. He believes his generation's goal is to "clear up space."
Turgenev did not agree with the philosophy of his hero. He debunks Bazarov's worldview, putting him through tests that the hero cannot withstand. As a result, Bazarov becomes disappointed in himself, loses faith in his views and dies.
Thus, all Russian literature of the 19th century can be called the literature of the search for the Hero. Writers sought to see in a contemporary a person capable of serving his homeland, bringing benefit to it with his deeds and thoughts, and also simply capable of being happy and harmonious, developing and moving forward. Unfortunately, Russian writers practically failed to find such a person.
- Russian classical literature is recognized throughout the world. It is rich in many artistic discoveries. One of these discoveries is the image of the “extra person”...
- “Gradual penetration into the inner world of the hero... In all the stories there is one thought, and this thought is expressed in one person, who is...
- The problem of the hero of his time was one of the most acute in the literature of the 19th century. All major writers, one way or another, tried...
- The theme of the “little man” has been known to Russian writers since pre-Petrine times. Thus, in the “Tale” created in the 17th century by an anonymous author...
- The intelligentsia is the most vulnerable class of society, or rather, not even a class, but a stratum. It is precisely because the intelligentsia consists of people from...
- Russian classical literature is multifaceted and unusually deep. The topics and problems raised in it cover all spheres of human life, all aspects...
- “Byronic” refers to those heroes who resemble the characters in the romantic poems of Lord Byron, especially the wanderer Childe Harold. The first such hero in Russian...
- The theme of the “little man” is traditional for Russian literature of the 19th century. The first writer to touch upon and develop this topic is considered to be A. S. Pushkin....
- Russian classical literature (literature of the 19th century) is known throughout the world as the literature of the soul, the literature of subtle psychologism, moral and philosophical quests....
- Pushkin is a great Russian poet, the founder of Russian realism, the creator of the Russian literary language. One of his greatest works is the novel “Eugene...
- The theme of the “little man” is one of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature, to which writers of the 19th century constantly turned. The first to touch her...
- A component of high significance in the Russian mentality and in Russian culture is the experience of space. Space is a phenomenon, both geographical and spiritual...
- A “hero” of his time should probably be called a person who reflected in his personality and his worldview the main features of the era. It seems to me that...
- Turgenev’s “fathers” and “sons” are precisely the nobles and commoners, their irreconcilable contradictions were reflected in his romance with such...
- The problem of “fathers and sons” is an eternal problem. There are known inscriptions on ancient papyri, created before our era, that young...
- The novel by I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons” shows Russian society at the end of the 1850s. This time in Russia was marked by stormy...
- (Based on the works of M. Gorky) At the end of the 19th century, a new hero appeared in Russian literature - a tramp, a person rejected by society, an outcast,...
- The story “Asya” by I. A. Turgenev is one of the best works of Russian literature. The writer’s work of the late 50s of the 19th century is permeated...
- Many cruel reproaches await you, Labor days, lonely evenings: You will rock a sick child, Wait for your violent husband to come home, Cry, work -...
- Andrei Bitov himself called his work a “dotted line novel.” The novel really traces the life of the main character Alexei Monakhov in a dotted manner. And with dotted lines... ...Love jumped out in front of us, like a murderer jumps out from around a corner, and instantly struck both of us at once... M. Bulgakov Love is high,... Prejudice is the most harmful feeling in a person, from which something depends and which should about anything...
- Evgeny Onegin and Grigory Pechorin - two heroes, two eras, two destinies. One is the result of disappointment in previous ideals...
New literary heroes of our time The appearance of a new folk hero on the pages of a book is a miracle, the same as the birth of a child. After all, we are not talking about another Avdotya Evlampievna from a paperback detective story, one of those that we leave in a subway car after reading halfway through because there is nothing to do. We are talking about a real folk hero, whose adventures are told to each other over a cup of coffee. About the one who is believed to be alive, even more: because he or she, this fictional literary character, is much more real in our minds than the neighbor in the stairwell, the employee from the accounting department or the man of our dreams 10 years ago. The hero is always near us - a book about his adventures fits in our purse. But most importantly, it is in our heads. He supports us and inspires us. We use his thoughts and actions to justify our own decisions. Thanks to his mistakes, we forgive ourselves for our sins. Moreover, which is typical, such a character is one for all. Everyone knows about him, everyone somehow relates themselves to him, everyone quotes him, and from the laughter in an unfamiliar company at the given quote they understand: that’s where they belong, because he finds it funny and understands the same thing as me. He is a point of internal, spiritual contact for all of us. This character, a folk hero, becomes part of our common, folk memory, and this is his value.
That is why the birth and appearance of such a character is a miracle. But miracles often don't happen. Over the past 20 years, for example, only three of these were born in the world. Only three new folk heroes. Harry Potter, Carrie Bradshaw and Bridget Jones. And in Russia there is only one, national one - Erast Fandorin. What unites them all?
First: they were all born precisely as literary characters, and only then became screen heroes.
Second: everyone knows them.
Third: each of them managed to become a New People's Hero not because the author who invented him created a literary masterpiece.
Have you tried reading the book Sex and the City? It's not just boring. It's very boring. Fandorin’s opuses by Akunin are also not all equivalent from the point of view great literature. But (and this is the most remarkable thing!) the literary quality of the text has absolutely no meaning here. The main thing that the authors of all four books managed to do was create a Hero. The one with whom thousands, millions of readers associate themselves, who is played in cinema and theater. And in 200 years, scientists will try to understand what was in our heads, analyzing not us, but the literary heroes of our time. They are now trying to build psychological portrait a renaissance man based on the plays of Shakespeare or analyze the worldviews and moods of a Russian nobleman based on the works of Pushkin and Griboyedov? So it is with you and me, it is quite possible that our great-great-great-grandchildren will try to understand something for themselves by cataloging complexes and bad habits Bridget Jones, trying on the mental tossing and physical quest of Carrie Bradshaw, admiring the character of Harry Potter, or wondering how the detective could become a new folk hero of Russia with its, to put it mildly, harsh experience of the twentieth century.
So, who are these new literary heroes of our time?
Harry Potter
The classic “good guy next door” is his own, understandable, very familiar in human manifestations. Never a hero in the old, classical sense of the word, when a hero was called someone who is not afraid, does not doubt, makes the only correct decision in a second when it is impossible to make a decision in principle, and in general is entirely made of bronze. Here, in the case of Harry Potter, the opposite is true. This somewhat inhibited and not without quirks boy is as human as you and I. He is indecisive and often does not know what to do. He doesn't even always study well. He's just very good. Inside, in its very essence - good. Honest, kind, curious, brave. (As, fortunately, psychologists have already explained to us, a brave person is not one who is not afraid. A brave person is one who overcomes his fear and begins to act). And he's also unhappy. He is an orphan who is abused by his adoptive parents. He doesn't have his own home. Not everything is going smoothly at school either. And in general, he experiences some discomfort when communicating with the outside world, just like us. But for all his similarity to us, he has something that we are deprived of. He's a wizard! Voldemort himself could not kill him. He knows magic spells and has an invisibility cloak. But even if he didn’t have all this magical paraphernalia, we would really like to have such a childhood friend, or for our son or brother to be like him. To have someone like this nearby - reliable, quirky, talented, wonderful person. To consult with him or cry into his vest. So that he would come and at the decisive moment overcome all our enemies. And then we would sit with him by the fireplace, drink hot tea and go to our rooms.
It is not known whether consciously or not, but JK Rowling, when creating Potter, made him asexual. Probably, of course, there are girls who are in love with the screen Potter (especially since Daniel Radcliffe, who played Potter, is already an adult young man by the last part. He’s in his early twenties, and he’s already reached the time when you can, in principle, fall in love with him). But the book Potter is a boy who has barely begun to mature in the last two parts. A boy, and that is why he is perceived by the bulk of readers as a friend, and not as a lover. Maybe this is also why Potter was accepted by the entire male part of the planet’s population: they don’t want to compete with him. I want to be friends with him.
Carrie Bradshaw
Not the first youth and not the most successful female destiny, naive and smart, and due to this combination - an original thinker. Perceiving the world not with templates, but discovering it anew each time. Carrie Bradshaw is such a “funny girl,” a friend whom, even though you’ve known for a hundred years, you’re still surprised by her - she’s unpredictable, and she makes mistakes, but she’s so alive, so spontaneous that you won’t get bored with her! And all her torment and suffering about the Man of Her Dreams is so familiar from a hundred similar stories in our real environment. And her passion for buying shoes, especially when she’s in a bad mood, is also known to us; don’t we ourselves return ourselves to a normal state with meaningless purchases? And her laziness, and the fact that she loves to sleep in the morning, and every time she has such sincere hopes that this one (met yesterday) is certainly forever! And the fact that she is not an ideal at all: not an ideal of morality (where is that!), not an ideal of femininity, not an ideal of a businesswoman (What does she have? A rented small apartment, no stable income and no guarantees).
But how she knows how to make friends! How he knows how to listen and empathize! And due to the fact that she lives alone, and she has neither a child nor even a dog, you can call her at one in the morning and talk about everyone and everything, without hiding anything. Carrie Bradshaw is an ideal friend: she doesn't annoy women, and men like her just the same. This is precisely the secret of this character’s global success.
Bridget Jones
This is about the same as Carrie Bradshaw, only younger and more unhappy. That’s why they’re even more willing to work on her than on the heroine of “Sex in big city", the men chuckle, and the women feel sorry for her with even greater pleasure. Absurd, all consisting of complexes, bad habits, all one big unfulfilled hope. Bridget, as a character, is extremely flattering to the reader: she is worse than him in everything. Her life is easy to analyze (of course, because her life consists of almost nothing but mistakes, and she is embarrassed and ashamed of herself almost all the time), it is easy for her to give advice, it is easy to condemn her... An ideal victim, that’s who Bridget Jones is!
The laughing stock of the whole office, the town fool, 22 misfortunes, a sunny idiot. Only you always want to return to her diary, because behind the description of her mistakes, the kilograms she gained, the cigarettes she smoked and the alcohol she drank, there is a soul. The trembling, unprotected soul of a young woman who wants to be happy. She wants to be close to the man she loves. Wants a family. He wants happiness. And who among us doesn’t want this? Our brightest and truest, primordially feminine dream, wrapped in a candy wrapper of humor, self-irony and self-criticism - this is the phenomenon of the global success of a character named Bridget Jones. And that is why we return to her again and again in our thoughts, consoling ourselves (And it was like that for her, and nothing happened, everything worked out!), deceiving ourselves (That’s what she is, Cinderella, the ugly one, and yet the prince came to her! ). Why? Yes, because the appearance of this character gave us the right to recognize ourselves as we are, with all our oddities, mistakes and sins. At the same time, do not deny yourself the right to a Dream. And let everyone laugh at us, but we will buy coffee to go, sit in the park and dream our dreams. And it will definitely come true. After all, Bridget Jones's dream came true!
Erast Fandorin
But this character is a real hero! First of all, because we, the readers, always look at him a little from the bottom up. We admire his determination, are amazed at his intelligence, envy his connections, like other characters in this Akunin epic, we always find ourselves unprepared for his next action. In a word, he is beyond our reach. And at the same time desperately attractive. It is no coincidence, by the way, that Fandorin has been most successfully played in films so far by an actor who possesses precisely these two qualities, inaccessibility and attractiveness - Oleg Menshikov. Fandorin is attractive as a man, he has sexuality, and whatnot! The sexuality of an adult, experienced, free man with some tragic experience behind him. Well, what woman can resist his gray temples, his slightly mocking gaze, straight into the soul, his insinuating voice and all his outlandish, Japanese surroundings. Besides, he has a Case. That's right - The point is in capital letters (tea, he doesn't wipe his pants in the office! He saves Russia every time!). But a real man must have a job. Without it, it somehow becomes smaller. So it turns out that Fandorin is actually a kind of ideal man from the point of view of women (and what’s wonderful is when you see Fandorin, even when he is played by Menshikov, he somehow ceases to be an ideal man, but when you read about him, he continues to be). Whether this hero retains his irresistibility for men is not known. But the history of Fandorin’s rapid popularity in Russia proves that men accepted him, just as they once accepted Pechorin. How Oleg Dahl’s characters were later received. Because with this it’s not scary to go on reconnaissance. Because that’s how you want to be yourself - smart, mysterious and absolutely irresistible. What do they say about the latest “Sherlock Holmes” with Robert Downey Jr.? Is thinking very sexy? So, Akunin, and with him the Russians, who chose Fandorin as their new folk hero, realized this much earlier than everyone else.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3
Chapter 1. The problem of the hero of time in Russian literature……………………3
Chapter 2. Types of extra people in the novels of Pushkin and Lermontov………….4
2.1. Onegin - a contemporary of Pushkin and the Decembrists…………………………4
2.2. Pechorin - a hero of his time……………………………………………………11
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15
References……………………………………………………………15
Applications………………………………………………………………………………16
Introduction
How fast is the passage of time! More than 150 years have separated us from the heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov. But again and again we turn to them, to their feelings, thoughts, reflections, we look for and find in them what is close and necessary for us, the children of the turbulent 21st century. Literature has always been closely connected with the life of society and reflected in artistic form the most exciting problems of its time. Pushkin’s novels “Eugene Onegin” and Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” interested me, and I decided to write an essay.
The purpose of my essay is to present the images of Evgeny Onegin and Grigory Pechorin as heroes of their time.
· get to know literary term"extra people";
· identify such heroes in works of literature of the 19th century;
· study additional and critical literature on the topic of the essay;
· conduct a comparative analysis of the images of the main characters of the works;
· learn to draw conclusions in work;
· learn how to write an abstract;
· Prepare for oral defense.
The practical significance of the work lies in the fact that it can be used in preparation for literature lessons, during class hours, and during the defense of scientific and educational complex.
Chapter 1. The problem of the hero of time in Russian literature.
The problem of the hero of time has always worried, worries and will worry people. It was staged by classic writers, and it is still relevant today. A.S. Pushkin's novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" and Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time" are the pinnacles of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. At the center of these works are people who, in their development, are superior to the society around them, but who do not know how to find application for their rich strengths and abilities. That's why such people are called "superfluous".
Lonely, rejected by society, or having rejected this society himself, the “superfluous man” was not a figment of the imagination of Russian writers of the 19th century; he was noted as a painful phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by the crisis of the social system. The appearance of “Superfluous People” was explained by their inconsistency with Western European education in the conditions of Russian life. By the mid-30s, all these phenomena reach their culmination point. During these years of economic and political depression, a new generation appeared on the stage - “timelessness” - which was a burden to themselves and others. Timelessness is what made the people of this generation.
The image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature is very diverse. The romantic heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov are passionate, rebellious natures. They cannot stand dependence, while at the same time realizing that their lack of freedom is in themselves, in their soul. They think it makes them dependent society, in which they live, however, having entered into conflict with it, they become lonely.
The novel “Eugene Onegin” was created earlier than “A Hero of Our Time,” which means that Lermontov had a lot to learn from. By portraying Pechorin's fate as typical of his contemporary generation, Lermontov continued the tradition begun by Pushkin's famous novel in verse. Also in the novel, he created the principle of artistic knowledge and reproduction of reality - realistic creative method. Lermontov, the psychologist, achieved remarkable success in “A Hero of Our Time.” Both in depicting the hero’s immediate experiences and in analyzing his psyche, the writer discovered new ways of depiction. According to the conclusion of N.G. Chernyshevsky, in some cases he came close to reproducing the “dialectics of the soul” of the hero, to that method of psychological analysis that would be developed in the most consistent form by L. Tolstoy. And it is not surprising that Pechorin’s inner world was shown psychologically in a much more detailed and subtle way than Onegin’s.