This presentation is used in a literature lesson in 10th grade when studying the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
Raskolnikov's doubles and antipodes.... "The eternal dispute between the Angel and the Demon takes place in our own conscience, and the worst thing is that sometimes we do not know which of them we love more, who we wish to win more..." D. S. Merezhkovsky
Download:
Preview:
To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com
Slide captions:
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky Novel “Crime and Punishment”
Raskolnikov's doubles “The eternal dispute between the Angel and the Demon takes place in our own conscience, and the worst thing is that sometimes we don’t know which of them we love more, who we want to win more...” D. S. Merezhkovsky
You say that Dostoevsky described himself in his heroes, imagining that all people were like that. And what! The result is that even in these exceptional persons, not only we, people related to him, but foreigners recognize themselves, their souls. Leo Tolstoy
A double is a person who has complete resemblance to another. An antipode is a person who is opposite to someone in terms of beliefs, properties, tastes, and views. - Who, in your opinion, belongs to Raskolnikov’s doubles, and who to antipodes?
Old woman-pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna What do we know about her? What does she do? What feeling does it evoke? How does Raskolnikov see her? How does Alena Ivanovna characterize her attitude towards Lizaveta? Can we call her Raskolnikov’s “double”?
Why does Luzhin appear in the novel? Why would Luzhin take a dowryless woman as his wife? Why is Luzhin’s appearance in the novel delayed? Why does the author pit Luzhin against Sonya? How does Luzhin reveal himself in the words “a business man listens and eats, and then eats”? Can we call him Raskolnikov’s “double”? Raskolnikov and Luzhin
Luzhin Petr Petrovich Why is Luzhin afraid of the police? Like his theory, expressed in the words: “Love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest. If you love yourself alone, then you will do your affairs properly...” - is it related to Raskolnikov’s theory?
Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - What is the complexity and inconsistency of this image? - Why is the appearance of Svidrigailov connected with Luzhin? -What do we learn about his past? - Who is to blame for the fact that a strong man became a criminal? - Why does Svidrigailov attract Raskolnikov? - How to explain his attitude towards Dunya and Marmeladov’s children? - Why does he commit suicide? Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov
Who is Lebezyatnikov? When and under what circumstances did you meet Luzhin? Why does Luzhin decide to stay with Lebezyatnikov in St. Petersburg? How did Lebezyatnikov “develop” Sonya and why did it stop? Which " newest directions ours” represents Lebezyatnikov? What ideas of socialists sound like caricatures in the mouth of Lebezyatnikov? What is Lebezyatnikov’s vulgarity? When do Lebezyatnikov’s best qualities appear? How does he save Sonya? Lebezyatnikov
Razumikhin What is the relationship between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin? Why does Raskolnikov, having conceived a crime, then decide to go to Razumikhin? Why, given the same financial situation, does Razumikhin not come up with ideas similar to Raskolnikov’s thoughts? Antipodes
How does Razumikhin react to Raskolnikov’s article? Why does he say his theory is worse than allowing blood by law? How and how did Razumikhin help Raskolnikov? How is his last name used in the novel?
Raskolnikov and Porfiry Petrovich
"Three meetings of Porfiry with Raskolnikov - genuine and wonderful polyphonic dialogues." M. M. Bakhtin Polyphonism - harmonious polyphony Porfiry Petrovich
Why does Raskolnikov go to Porfiry Petrovich for the first time? After what events did he decide to have a dialogue with the investigator? Re-read the characters’ dialogue: “So you still believe in the New Jerusalem? “I believe,” Raskolnikov answered firmly... “And-and-and do you believe in God?... And-and do you believe in the resurrection of Lazarus?” - I believe... - Literally believe? - Literally." Why did Raskolnikov hesitate while answering one of the investigator’s questions? When else will the name of Lazarus be heard on the pages of a novel?
Can the second meeting with the investigator be considered the culminating one? How does the theme of suffering that arose in the first conversation begin to “sound” in this meeting? Why did the last meeting take place at the initiative of the investigator? Why did he himself come to the protagonist’s closet? What new will we learn about Porfiry Petrovich’s attitude to Raskolnikov’s idea and to the hero himself?? What way out of the deadlock does Porfiry suggest? Does the main character follow his advice?
Thank you for your attention!
The conductor of Dostoevsky’s philosophy in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is Sonya Marmeladova, whose whole life is self-sacrifice. With the power of her love, the ability to endure any torment, she elevates Raskolnikov to herself, helps him overcome himself and resurrect.
Sonya Marmeladova is a kind of antipode to Raskolnikov. Her “solution” consists in self-sacrifice, in the fact that she has “overstepped” herself, and her main idea is the idea of the “uncrossableness” of another person, because to step over another means for her to destroy herself. ik communicate with doubles, and if he sees a true event in his life.
The evolution that Raskolnikov undergoes to the epilogue of “Crime and Punishment” reflects the writer’s thought about the need for suffering not only to atone for sin, but also to find true happiness. At first, the hero is tormented by the fear that those around him know about his crime, that he is suspected and is about to be captured. The turning point in Raskolnikov’s soul begins when Sonya Marmeladova first introduces him to the New Testament. He asks her to find and read the story of the resurrection of Lazarus (beginning of Chapter 11 of the Gospel of John). In the soul of Rodion Romanovich there is already a subconscious hope for such a resurrection in relation to himself.
Sonya does not yet know that Raskolnikov is a murderer, but she feels in her heart that he is “outside life.” Raskolnikov fully regains his sight only in the epilogue of the novel, when Sonya comes to him in Siberia. He turns again to the Gospel. Love for Sonya helps him turn to the Christian faith and fully accept the truth of the Gospel. The seven years of his hard labor are likened to the seven days of creation, when a new man, a new Adam, will be created. Dostoevsky left outside the work the story of the hero’s future spiritual feat, but left no doubt in the reader’s mind that Raskolnikov is now ready for such a feat. The punishment is over for him, it has already brought its results, led to the moral degeneration of the criminal. The essence of Raskolnikov’s spiritual resurrection is the acquisition of “living life”, love, and faith in God through suffering.
Conclusion. At the end of the novel, Raskolnikov comes to spiritual resurrection not as a result of renouncing an idea, but through suffering, faith and love. The Gospel parable about the resurrection of Lazarus is intricately refracted in the destinies of Sonya and Raskolnikov. “They were resurrected by love, the heart of one contained the endless sources of life of the heart of the other.” In the epilogue, the writer leaves the heroes on the threshold of a new, unknown life. The prospect of endless spiritual development opens up before Raskolnikov. This demonstrates the humanist writer’s faith in a person – even in a murderer! - the belief that humanity has not yet said its most important word. Everything is ahead!
Raskolnikov and Luzhin. Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin is a distant relative of Marfa Petrovna Svidrigailova, a lawyer, court adviser, is going to open a public law office in St. Petersburg, “he studied with copper money” and is proud that he “paved the way for himself.” Having made his way “into the people” from insignificance, he got used to highly valuing “his mind and abilities.” Vanity and narcissism are developed in him to the point of painfulness. Luzhin is a middle-class entrepreneur, a “little man” who has become rich, who really wants to become a “big man”, to turn from a slave into the master of life. Most of all, Luzhin values money obtained “by any means possible.” Raskolnikov and Luzhin coincide in their desire to become higher than the position assigned to them in their social life, and thereby rise above people. Raskolnikov arrogates to himself the right to kill the moneylender, and Luzhin to destroy Dunya, since they both proceed from the incorrect premise that they are better than other people. Access to “high society,” where Luzhin strives with all his might, can be greatly facilitated by marrying a “charming, virtuous and educated” woman. Almost on his first meeting with Dunya, he sets out his second “theory” - “about the advantage of wives taken from poverty and blessed by their husbands.”
Relying too much on his power over Dunya and Pulcheria Alexandrovna and on the “helplessness of his victims,” Luzhin perceives the “sudden, ugly break” of relations with him “like a thunderclap.” Kicked out by Raskolnikov and feeling hatred towards him, he tries to quarrel between Raskolnikov and his sister and mother and provoke a scandal. To do this, Luzhin decides to discredit Sonya in their eyes, to whose fate Raskolnikov is not indifferent. During the wake for Marmeladov, Luzhin invites Sonya to his room and, giving ten rubles, slips a hundred-ruble note into her pocket, and then publicly exposes the “thief” and accuses her of theft. Caught by Lebezyatnikov in a lie, Luzhin, nevertheless, resorting to “impudence”, avoids paying for his vile act and is forced to retreat shamefully.
Luzhin's main goal was to achieve success and fame at any cost. Therefore, he “loved” himself alone, violating the Christian commandment. He was so selfish that he could step over people without the slightest remorse. Business man Luzhin, with his “economic theories” that justify the exploitation of man, built on profit and calculation, highlights the unselfishness of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. And although the theories of both lead to the idea that one can “shed blood according to one’s conscience,” Raskolnikov’s motives are noble, hard-earned from the heart, he is driven not just by calculation, but by delusion, “cloudness of mind.”
Raskolnikov sees with horror how close his theory is to the worldview of the scoundrel Luzhin. Hating Luzhin, not accepting his views, Raskolnikov approaches a refutation of his own theory, feeling its similarity with the principles of this man.
Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov. Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov appears in the novel as Raskolnikov’s double; he embodies one of the possibilities for the practical implementation of the hero’s “idea” - moral cynicism. The moral cynic Svidrigailov, who despises any ideas about good and evil and lives by the principle “everything is permitted,” becomes a double of the ideological cynic Raskolnikov, who committed a crime by renouncing moral norms. Therefore, Svidrigailov, who lacks moral consciousness, sheds blood without feeling remorse. He does not need moral justification for his crimes. He is sure that everything is allowed to him: violence, murder, debauchery. In the image of Svidrigailov one sees the embodiment of Raskolnikov’s “idea” in its complete form: with the assertion of the right to blood, with a cynical attitude towards everyone and everything, militant egoism and the justification of any meanness by the right of the strong.
Svidrigailov wants to feel like a person for whom there is no morality in the world at all. He has a number of serious crimes on his conscience: the suicide of a fourteen-year-old girl and servant Philip, who was insulted by him, the death of his wife: a deaf-mute teenage girl, “cruelly insulted” by Svidrigailov, committed suicide; supposedly the lackey Philip hanged himself from his ridicule; he hastened the death (from apoplexy) of his wife Marfa Petrovna. Svidrigailov finds Raskolnikov’s concepts of honor and decency funny. He is annoyed that Raskolnikov not only does not abandon the demands of honor at all, but also feels like a “citizen and a man.”
“Eternity” appears to Svidrigailov not as “something huge” or as “an idea that cannot be understood,” he “sees it” as “one room, sort of like a village bathhouse, smoky, and there are spiders in all the corners, and that’s all.” eternity". These words of Svidrigailov about eternity as a smoky village bathhouse with spiders shocked Raskolnikov, since he was very clearly able to imagine the logical end of the path that he followed, killing the old woman, so expressively described by Svidrigailov. After such a moral disintegration of the soul, no rebirth of man is possible. After this, only suicide is possible. The final point in Raskolnikov’s opinions is put by the suicide of Svidrigailov, who thus admitted his defeat in the face of life and is trying to atone for his sins before death. Svidrigailov performs charitable deeds “simply, humanly.” He places Katerina Ivanovna’s children in “better orphanages”: Polechka, Kolya, Lenya. Before his death, Svidrigailov releases Dunya. Svidrigailov committed a lot of crimes due to the depravity of his own nature. He does not believe in mercy, justice and decency, does not see the difference between honor and dishonor, between good and evil. Svidrigailov has already despaired and cannot get rid of the feeling of endless melancholy and boredom, which further devastates his soul. Arkady Ivanovich does not see a way out and with his deep mind understands that he will no longer find it. Unable to bear the deal with his conscience, Svidrigailov decides to commit suicide. For Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky leaves open the possibility of resurrection.
Conclusion: according to Dostoevsky, every person, choosing hell, has the opportunity to be reborn. But the fate of the three characters who entered into an alliance with the devil is different: Raskolnikov is reborn to human life Svidrigailov, unable to bear the hell in his soul, commits suicide, and Luzhin continues to live calmly, absolutely confident that he is right. Evil is still ineradicable.
Petersburg by Dostoevsky. Unlike Pushkin and Gogol, Dostoevsky gravitates more towards the essayistic and everyday life side of the image of St. Petersburg (detailing, topographical accuracy, increased attention to detail). Petersburg is not an impersonal background, but a participant in events, the most important image in the novel, influencing a person, giving rise to sick characters and tragic plots; "yellow" city. Petersburg as a city-reality and a city-dream, phantasmagoria.
Dostoevsky inherited from Gogol not only the literary principle, but also a special spiritual and mystical “dimension” of the image of St. Petersburg: the city in his novels appears not only as the focus of the socio-economic problems of all of Russia at that time, but also as a kind of enchanted place, a “mirage” city. This is the background and conditions in which phantasmagoric theories are born, leading their authors to the brink of insanity.
It is emphasized that Petersburg – symbol of Russia, that in this city all Russian incongruities are presented in concentrated form. Dostoevsky's St. Petersburg color scheme is dominated by yellow, which has many symbolic meanings. One of them is gold, money. The power of money, wealth and poverty, individual social figures (usurer, prostitute, bankrupt nobleman or tradesman).
Dostoevsky's Petersburg is sick, and most of the characters in his works are sick, some morally, some physically. The characteristic by which we recognize the environment and people affected by the disease is the irritating, intrusive unhealthy color yellow. Yellow wallpaper and yellow wood furniture in the room of the old pawnbroker, Marmeladov’s yellow face from constant drunkenness, Raskolnikov’s yellow closet, “like a closet or a chest,” a suicidal woman with a yellow, worn-out face. These details reflect the hopeless atmosphere of the existence of the main characters of the work and are harbingers of bad events.
An important symbol in Dostoevsky is the St. Petersburg climate (the beginning of the novel). It is not only a background, an “environment,” but also an undoubted symbol of internal mental states.
For Dostoevsky, Petersburg is the place where “European and Russian civilization” came together, it is a city built by force, unnaturally created. Therefore, Petersburg is a city of poor, unhappy people, a city of poverty and a city of extreme wealth. The meaning of the name Peter explains Dostoevsky’s perception of this city. The name Peter means stone, so Petersburg is a bag of stones, a dead, faceless, cold, scary city. The image of the bronze horseman, taken from Pushkin, symbolizes the power and strength of this terrible city. For Dostoevsky, this power lies in the power of the city’s influence on people. It is no coincidence that Petersburg was built on the site of a swamp, the bronze horseman is a symbol of St. Petersburg, that is, for Dostoevsky, Petersburg is a bronze horseman in the middle of a swamp.
The originality of psychologism. The image is not ordinary, neutral psychological states, but mental life in its extreme manifestations, in moments of greatest psychological tension; heroes - on the verge of a nervous breakdown, hysteria, delirium, sudden confession; painful psychological states. Exposing the contradictory unity in the human soul of the abyss of good and evil; constant psychological fluctuations from one extreme to another (Raskolnikov is either going to denounce himself, or freezes in submissive humility, etc.); contradictory behavior as the basis of the heroes’ lives (“to spite oneself” is the defining motive of action), the inexplicability of many actions (“a strange feeling”, “some kind of involuntary sensation”); awareness of the complexity of the characters’ internal states and the impossibility of accurately describing them (clauses “as if”, “as if”, “almost”, etc.). Creating a psychological atmosphere by selecting epithets that characterize the internal state of the characters (“in terrible anguish”; “caustic hatred”, etc.), repeating certain details of the outside world (description of Raskolnikov’s closet); use color symbolism(predominance of irritating, depressing yellow color).
Equal authenticity of the depiction of delusional visions and real pictures, the absence of a sharp boundary between dreams, delusions and reality. Dreams and visions as one of the most important forms psychological image. Characters' statements psychological analysis(monologues of Porfiry Petrovich), minimal attention to the discussion of events, conversations of the characters about the internal, the imprinting of a certain emotional state in them (confusion of speech, parallel trains of thought, repetitions, unfinished constructions, exclamations). Interpenetration different forms speeches: third-person narration, improperly direct speech, forms of external and internal monologue; imitation of speech features of an internal monologue (double train of thought, fragmentation, pauses, etc.).
M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin
Saltykov-Shchedrin is a satirist writer. Satire- flagellation of vices with the weapon of laughter. It denies the ridiculed phenomenon in order to contrast it with the ideal. Basic satirical devices :
1. The language of allegories and allegories is Aesopian language. This artistic speech, revealing hidden meaning through allegory, implication, understatement.
2. Irony is a method of ridicule with a hidden assessment, when the true meaning is not direct, but implied.
3. Sarcasm is extremely caustic, caustic irony that exposes particularly dangerous phenomena.
4. Parody - partial imitation with ridicule of the meaning and style of the original.
Expressive means used by satirists: contrast, antithesis, paradox; hyperbola; grotesque (ultimate hyperbole, acquiring a fantastic character; a combination of the fantastic and the real).
“Fairy tales” by Saltykov-Shchedrin were created during the years 1869 – 1886 during the era of reaction. The form of a fairy tale was chosen because this genre is most understandable and close to the common reader. The full title is “Fairy Tales for Children of a Fair Age”: these children are adults in need of instruction. The form of the tale corresponded to the writer's objectives. In a veiled form, one could draw attention to the most pressing issues of public life and stand up for the defense of people's interests. The task of “Fairy Tales” is to expose vices, illuminate topical issues of Russian reality, express popular ideals and progressive ideas.
Peculiarities: the writer puts on the mask of a storyteller, a good-natured, ingenuous joker. Behind the mask lies the sarcastic grin of a man wise in bitterness. life experience. The fairy tale genre serves the writer as a kind of magnifying glass, allowing the reader to clearly present his many years of life observations. Fiction is a form that a satirist fills with specific content taken from real life. Both fantasy and Aesopian speech serve to realize the task he set for himself.
Fairy tale "The Wise Minnow". The question of the meaning of being, the purpose of man is acutely raised. The hero of the fairy tale “got too smart”, devoting his life only to himself. Moral and social ideals, from the point of view of which the minnow's vegetation is exposed, were infinitely dear to Shchedrin. Therefore, with a bitter smile, he makes this “sage” understand the meaninglessness of his life.
Common features fairy tales:
1) In Saltykov-Shchedrin’s fairy tales there is a noticeable connection with folklore: fairy tale beginnings, folklore images, proverbs, sayings.
2) Saltykov-Shchedrin’s tales are always allegorical, built on allegories. In some fairy tales, the characters are representatives of the animal world (bear, fish, hare...), drawn zoologically correctly, but at the same time being allegorical characters, personifying certain class relations in modern society. In other fairy tales, the heroes are people, but even here the allegory remains. Therefore, such tales as “The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals” or “The Wild Landowner” do not lose their allegorical meaning.
3) In Shchedrin’s fairy tales, details of real life and elements of miracles and fantasy are intertwined and become indistinguishable.
4) Fairy tales are built on sharp social contrasts, in almost each of them representatives of antagonistic classes come face to face (“Tales...” - generals and a peasant, in “The Wild Landowner” - a landowner and peasants).
5) The entire fairy tale cycle is permeated by the element of laughter, in some fairy tales the comic predominates (“The Wise Minnow”), in others the comic is intertwined with the tragic (in “The Tale...” - bitterness for the people, the great power, without which the ruling classes are nothing, but the people do not realize their strength, the man twists the rope for himself).
6) The language of fairy tales is mainly folk (Shchedrin knew Russian peasant speech perfectly), using journalistic vocabulary, clerical jargon, archaisms and foreign words.
7) Saltykov-Shchedrin’s tales do not just depict evil and good people, the struggle between good and evil, like most folk tales of those years, they reveal the class struggle in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, during the era of the formation of the bourgeois system.
Novel "The History of a City". Shchedrin's work by genre is a satirical novel, a phantasmagoria, written in the form of a historical chronicle - a chronicle of the history of the fictional provincial town of Foolov, which has had 22 mayors in 95 years. The very form of the work parodies an official historical monograph like Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”: from a general historical sketch to a biography of individual rulers.
Everything in the novel is absurd: the city governors are absurd, stupid and headless, greedy and depraved, cruel martinets, whose main occupations are gluttony, adultery, collection of arrears and flogging; the deaths of the mayors are absurd and ridiculous: one was eaten by bedbugs, another was broken in half by a storm, the third died from overeating during a general famine, the fourth was eaten himself; The unquestioning obedience of the Foolovites, whose ancestors - blockheads - founded a city in a swamp in prehistoric times, voluntarily exchanging freedom for princely power, is also absurd; finally, the calmly measured and serious style of the chroniclers’ narration about the idiocy and lawlessness going on in Foolov looks absurd, which speaks of a habit of everything and the ability not to be surprised by any incredible thing.
Tragic fate Foolovtsev is natural. They have been living in this absurd and terrible city for centuries. The conclusion that the author comes to at the end of the novel is clear and understandable: the time has come for the population of Foolov to be ashamed of their senseless and disastrous failure, but, having ceased to be Foolovites, it is necessary to start a new, non-Foolovian life.
The author's “Aesopian language” brings the narrative to the point of grotesquery. By mixing traits and signs, Shchedrin paints not just a picture of the life of a crazy city, but a satirical generalized image of all of Russia. Having transferred the action to recent history, the author mourns the times of the present and future.
When both liberal and reactionary critics accused the writer of ridiculing the people and mocking their history, the satirist replied: “By depicting life under the yoke of madness, I hoped to arouse bitter feelings in the reader, not fun.” It is not Shchedrin who mocks history, but history who mocks the people. But it is not only the authorities who are to blame for the people’s misfortunes, the people themselves are to blame, passive, agreeing to everything, over and over again voluntarily exposing themselves to the next “sections”.
The writer’s warnings turned out to be prophetic: the historical sin of passivity still weighs on our people. Shchedrin's novel is a parody of Russian life, which remains unchanged under the yoke of any madness.
Depiction of the Russian national character in N. S. Leskov’s story “The Enchanted Wanderer”
The life and fate of Ivan Flyagin – the spiritual growth of a person: life in the manor’s house; raising a girl; captivity; return; Pear; in soldiers; the road to people for the atonement of sin; self-judgment. The hero of the story is a generalized image of a folk character.
Throughout his career, Leskov was interested in the theme of the people. In his works, he repeatedly addresses this topic, revealing the character and soul of the Russian person. At the center of his works are always noble people with unique destinies. Strength, spontaneity, spiritual purity and kindness are the main features of Ivan Severyanych Flyagin. We meet him during the author's travels around Lake Ladoga. The author notes Flyagin’s similarity with the legendary hero of epics Ilya Muromets: “He was a man of enormous stature, with a dark, open face and thick hair. wavy hair lead-colored: his graying cast was so strange... he was in the full sense of the word a hero, and, moreover, a typical, simple-minded, kind Russian hero, reminiscent of grandfather Ilya Muromets...” This is a kind of key to understanding this image.
Ivan Flyagin firmly believes in the unshakable power of predestination and all his life he is looking for his place among people, his calling. His life is a search for harmony between originality, the elemental strength of the individual and the demands of life itself, its laws. There is a deep meaning in the wandering itself; the motive of the road becomes the leading one. “You can’t outrun your path,” says Flyagin. Every stage of it life path becomes a new step in moral development. The first stage is life in the master's house. A youthful mischief is alive in him and in the excitement of driving fast, without wanting it, he kills an old monk he accidentally met (while playing, he hit him with a whip and killed him), who fell asleep on a cart of hay. At the same time, young Ivan is not particularly burdened by the misfortune that has occurred, but the murdered monk appears to him every now and then in his dreams and pesters him with his questions, predicting for the hero the trials that he still has to endure. Ivan feels in his soul that someday he will have to atone for this sin, but he brushes aside these thoughts, believing that the time to atone for his sins has not yet come.
But at the same time, he is faithful and devoted to his masters. He saves them from imminent death when traveling to Voronezh, when the cart almost falls into the abyss. He does this not for the sake of some personal gain or reward, but because he cannot help but help those who need his help. The second stage is raising a girl. Behind the external rudeness is hidden the enormous kindness inherent in the Russian people. Serving as a nanny, he takes the first steps in mastering the world of his own and others’ souls. For the first time he experiences compassion and affection, for the first time he understands the soul of another person. When he encounters the girl’s mother, two feelings fight within him: the desire to give the child to the mother and a sense of duty. For the first time, he makes a decision not in his favor, but out of mercy and gives the child to the mother, without fear of the father’s anger.
Then fate throws Ivan into captivity among the Tatars for ten years. Here new feelings are revealed to him: longing for his native land and hope for return. Ivan cannot merge with someone else's life or take it seriously. Therefore, he always strives to escape and easily forgets his wives and children. In captivity, he is oppressed not by the wretchedness of his material life, but by the poverty of his impressions. Russian life is incomparably fuller and richer spiritually. Memories return Flyagin to holidays and everyday life, to native nature. And the opportunity to escape presented itself to him. He reached his native land, and Holy Rus', to which he so yearned, met him with whips. Flyagin almost dies from drunkenness, but an accident saves the hero and turns his whole life upside down, giving it a new direction.
Thanks to his meeting with the gypsy Grusha, the “wanderer” discovers “the beauty of nature, perfection,” the magical power of talent and feminine beauty over the human soul. This is not passion, but a shock that elevates the human soul. The purity and greatness of his feeling is that it is free from pride and possessiveness. He lives not only for himself, but also for another person. He himself realizes that this love has reborn him. To save the soul of his loved one, he helps Grusha commit suicide by pushing her off a cliff into the river. After the death of a loved one, there is a road again, but this road is to people for the atonement of sin. Ivan becomes a soldier, changing his fate with a man he has never seen, taking pity on the grief-stricken old men, whose son is threatened with conscription. Service in the Caucasus becomes another test for him. After his feat at the crossing, he is forced to talk about himself, to reveal his “former existence and rank.” He himself makes a harsh judgment on himself and his past life, realizing himself as a “great sinner.” Ivan Severyanovich grew spiritually, bearing personal responsibility for his life before God and people. At the end of the story, Ivan Flyagin becomes a monk. But even the monastery will not be a quiet haven for him, the end of his journey. He is ready to go to war, because he “really wants to die for the people.”
The image of the “enchanted hero” created by the author contains a broad generalization of the people’s character and shows main idea, the moral meaning of a person’s life is to live for others, giving all of himself, all his strength, talent, opportunities to his neighbors, his people, his land.
Roman L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"
The main action of the book covers seven and a half years. Two wars, 1805 and 1812, are compositionally correlated. The 1st, 3rd and 4th volumes cover six months each. Circle problems the novel is very broad. It reveals the reasons for the military failures of 1805-1806, using the examples of Kutuzov and Napoleon to show the role of individuals in military events and in history; with extraordinary artistic expression pictures of guerrilla warfare are drawn; reflects the great role of the Russian people, who decided the outcome of the Patriotic War of 1812.
At the same time with historical problems era of the Patriotic War of 1812, the novel also reveals current issues of the 60s. 19th century about the role of the nobility in the state, about the personality of a true citizen of the Motherland, about the emancipation of women, etc. Therefore, the novel reflects the most significant phenomena of the political and social life of the country, various ideological movements (Freemasonry, legislative activity of Speransky, the emergence of the Decembrist movement in the country). Pictures of transformations in the village by Pierre Bezukhov, scenes of the rebellion of Bogucharovsky peasants, episodes of indignation of urban artisans reveal the character social relations, village life and the life of the urban lower classes.
Title of the novel figuratively conveys its meaning. “Peace” is not only a peaceful life without war, but also that community, that unity to which people should strive. The world is a peasant gathering that started a riot in Bogucharovo. The world is a “pool”, “nonsense and confusion” of everyday interests, which, unlike abusive life, so they prevent Nikolai Rostov from being a “wonderful person” and so annoy him when he comes on vacation and does not understand anything in this “stupid world.” Peace is the immediate environment that a person always carries with him, wherever he is, in war or in peaceful life. But the world is also the whole light, the Universe; Pierre speaks about him, proving to Prince Andrei the existence of the “kingdom of truth.” Peace is a brotherhood of people, regardless of national and class differences. The world is life.
“War” is not only bloody battles and battles that bring death, but also the separation of people, their enmity. In the ordinary, everyday life of people separated by social and moral barriers, conflicts and clashes are inevitable. Fighting with Prince Vasily for the inheritance of the dying Count Bezukhov, Anna Mikhailovna Drubetskaya is conducting military operations.
The antithesis contained in the title determines the grouping of images in the novel. Some heroes (Bolkonsky, Rostov, Bezukhoy, Kutuzov) are “people of peace” who hate not only war in its literal sense, but also the lies, hypocrisy, and selfishness that divide people. Other heroes (Kuragin, Napoleon, Alexander I) are “people of war”, bringing disunity, enmity, selfishness, and criminal immorality.
Genre."An epic novel." “Novel” features: plot development, interaction of the environment with the character of the hero, development of this character. Signs of an epic - theme (the era of major historical events); ideological content– “the moral unity of the narrator with the people in their heroic activities, patriotism, glorification of life, optimism; complexity of the composition; the author’s desire for a national-historical generalization.” This is a book about the life of an entire people, a nation.
Evening at the Scherer salon. The novel clearly shows which standards of life Tolstoy affirms and which he denies. The action of the novel begins in July 1805 in A.P.’s salon. Scherer. These scenes introduce us to representatives of the court aristocratic environment: maid of honor Sherer, minister Prince Vasily Kuragin, his children - the soulless beauty Helen, the “restless fool” Anatole and the “calm fool” Hippolyte, Princess Liza Bolkonskaya, etc. A negative attitude towards Tolstoy’s heroes was manifested in The fact that the author shows how false everything is in them does not come from a pure heart, but from the need to maintain decency. Tolstoy denies the norms of life of high society and, behind its external decency, grace, and secular tact, reveals the emptiness, selfishness, greed and careerism of the “cream” of society. To expose the falseness and unnaturalness of these people, Tolstoy uses the method of “tearing off all kinds of masks.” Pierre's smart and timid, observant and natural gaze, a grimace of boredom on the handsome face of Prince Andrei. Already from the portraits it is clear that they are strangers here. From the very moment of their appearance in the salon, the conflict of Pierre and Prince Andrei with the aristocratic environment is felt. Anna Pavlovna greeted Pierre with a bow “appropriate for people of the lowest hierarchy in her salon,” and treated him with fear. Only Pierre does not take his “joyful, friendly eyes” off Bolkonsky, and Prince Andrei, who looked at everyone in the living room with a “tired, bored look,” smiled only at Pierre with an “unexpectedly kind and pleasant smile.” If Pierre has not yet realized his opposition to secular society, then Prince Andrei deeply despises the light. This is manifested in his demeanor, in his open sympathy for Pierre, who preaches freedom-loving views, and in his harsh statements about the empty and base interests of the court aristocracy.
Feature of portraits from Tolstoy:
1) the naturalness of the first acquaintance with the hero through his appearance, as happens in life;
2) deep psychological content of the portrait, expression through it of changes in feelings and moods;
3) highlighting 1-2 permanent signs (the bright expression of Prince Vasily’s flat face; Anna Pavlovna’s enthusiastic, as if glued-on smile; Pierre’s smart and timid look.)
The Rostov family. The world of the Rostovs is the world whose norms are affirmed by Tolstoy for their simplicity and naturalness, purity and cordiality; evokes admiration and patriotism of the “Rostov breed”. In the Rostov family there is simplicity and cordiality, natural behavior, cordiality, mutual love in the family, nobility and sensitivity, closeness in language and customs to the people and at the same time their observance of a secular way of life and secular conventions, behind which, however, there is no calculation and self-interest. Tolstoy seems to emphasize: the Rostovs and Scherer are people of the same class, but of a different “breed.” So in the storyline of the Rostov family, Tolstoy reflects the life and work landed nobility. We were presented with a variety of psychological types: the good-natured, hospitable slacker Count Rostov, the countess who tenderly loves her children, the judicious Vera, the charming Natasha; sincere Nikolai, cautious and prudent Boris Drubetskoy, etc. In contrast to the Scherer salon, in the Rostov house there is an atmosphere of fun, joy, happiness, and sincere concern for the fate of the Motherland.
Bolkonsky family. The life of the Bolkonsky family in Bald Mountains is similar in some elements to the life of the Rostovs: the same mutual love of family members, the same deep cordiality, natural behavior, like the Rostovs, greater closeness to the people. There are also differences between these families. The Bolkonskys are distinguished from the Rostovs by their deep work of thought, the high intelligence of all family members: the old prince, Princess Marya, and her brother Andrei. In addition, a characteristic feature of the Bolkonsky “breed” is pride.
Starting from the pre-war situation and the atmosphere of the brewing conflict, Tolstoy in part 2 came to a description of the clash between Russia and the West. The narrative moves to the battlefields of Austria, many new heroes appear: Alexander I, the Austrian Emperor Franz, Napoleon, the commanders of the armies Kutuzov and Mack, the military leader Bagration, ordinary commanders, staff officers and the bulk - soldiers: Russian, Austrian, French, Denisov's hussars, infantry (Timokhin's company), artillerymen (Tushin's battery), guards. Such versatility is one of the features of Tolstoy’s style.
The Russian government entered the war out of fear of the spread of revolutionary ideas and a desire to prevent aggressive policy Napoleon. Tolstoy successfully chose the scene of the review in Braunau for the initial chapters about the war. There is an inspection of people and equipment. What will he show? Is the Russian army ready for war? A complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the war and the relationship with the allies and the enemy is revealed. Close-up The image of Kutuzov stands out. By scheduling a review in the presence of Austrian generals, Kutuzov wanted to convince the latter that the Russian army was not ready for a campaign and should not join the army of General Mack. For Kutuzov, this war was not a sacred and necessary matter, so his goal was to keep the army from fighting.
Kutuzov: 1) senile appearance (heavy gait, weak voice, plump face disfigured by a wound); 2) knowledge of old colleagues, the ability to simply talk with them (Timokhin); 3) understanding of the soldier’s needs (“boots and tucks – he looked at everything”); 4) love for the Russian soldier and the reciprocal love and respect of the soldiers; 5) a negative attitude towards this war and the desire to keep the army from fighting.
home feature of the image of war in the novel, the writer deliberately shows the war not in a heroic way, but focuses on the “blood, suffering, death” that accompany the war. Emphasizing the cruelty of war, Tolstoy does not deny all war. The theme of the War of 1812, where the author, describing the bloodiness of the massacre, asserts its necessity. If an enemy has attacked you and is encroaching on your fatherland, take the first club that comes into your hands and beat the enemy, because he is a criminal.
Battle of Shengraben, undertaken on the initiative of Kutuzov, gave the Russian army the opportunity to connect with its units coming from Russia. The history of this battle once again confirms the experience and strategic talent of Kutuzov the commander. His attitude towards the war during this period, as well as during the inspection of the troops in Braunau, remained the same: Kutuzov considered the war unnecessary; but here we were talking about saving the army. This “great feat,” as Kutuzov called it, was needed to save the entire army, and therefore Kutuzov, who was so protective of people, went for it. Timokhin's entire company showed heroism. In conditions of confusion, when the troops taken by surprise fled, Timokhin’s company “alone in the forest remained in order and, having sat down in a ditch near the forest, unexpectedly attacked the French.” Tolstoy sees the heroism of the company in their courage and discipline. Quiet and seemingly awkward before the battle, company commander Timokhin managed to keep the company in order. The company rescued the rest, took prisoners and trophies. Unlike Timokhin, after the battle Dolokhov alone boasted of his merits and wounds. His courage is ostentatious; he is characterized by self-confidence and pushing himself to the fore. True heroism is accomplished without calculation and without exaggerating one’s exploits.
Battery Tushin. In the hottest area, in the center of the battle, Tushin’s battery was located without cover. No one had a more difficult situation in the Battle of Shengraben, while the battery’s firing results were the greatest. In this difficult battle, Captain Tushin did not experience the slightest fear. In Tushino, the writer discovers a wonderful person. Modesty, selflessness, on the one hand, determination, courage, on the other, based on a sense of duty, this is Tolstoy’s norm of human behavior in battle, which determines true heroism.
Andrey Bolkonsky goes to war to achieve glory, in which he saw the meaning of life. A military feat that would lead him out of the ranks of unknown officers and open up his first path to glory - this was Prince Andrei’s initial idea of his place in battle and the nature of the feat. Participation in the Battle of Shengraben makes Prince Andrei look at things differently. With calm courage he is in the most dangerous areas of the battle. But a meeting with Tushin before the battle and at his battery, and then after the battle in Bagration’s hut made him see real heroism and military feat in a different light. Tushin not only did not demand glory for himself, but did not even know how to stand up for himself in the face of an unfair accusation from his superiors, and his feat generally remained unrewarded. He has not yet given up his idea of a feat, but everything he experienced that day makes him think.
Battle of Austerlitz(Part 3, Ch. 11-19). This is the compositional center; all the threads of the inglorious and unnecessary war go to it. Conclusion: the lack of moral incentive for waging war, the incomprehensibility and alienness of its goals to the soldiers, distrust between the allies, confusion in the troops - all this was the reason for the defeat of the Russians. According to Tolstoy, it was in Austerlitz that the true end of the war of 1805-1807 occurred, because Austerlitz expresses the essence of the campaign. “The era of our failures and our shame” - this is how Tolstoy himself defined this war. Austerlitz became an era of shame and disappointment not only for all of Russia, but also for individual heroes. Prince Andrei lies on Pratsenskaya Mountain with a feeling of great disappointment in Napoleon, who used to be his hero. Napoleon appeared to him as a small, insignificant man, “with an indifferent, limited look and happy at the misfortune of others.” True, the wound to Prince Andrei brought not only disappointment in the futility and insignificance of exploits in the name of personal glory, but also the discovery of a new world, a new meaning of life. The immeasurably high, eternal sky, the blue infinity, opened a new system of thoughts in him, and he would like people to “help him and return him to life, which seemed so beautiful to him, because he understood it so differently now.”
The overall result of the first volume is a feeling of disappointment in life as a result of realizing the mistakes made by the heroes. Next to the Austerlitz battle scenes there are chapters telling about Pierre's marriage to Helen. For Pierre, this is his Austerlitz, the era of his shame and disappointment. General Austerlitz - this is the result of volume 1. Started for the sake of glory, for the sake of the ambitious interests of Russian court circles, the war was incomprehensible and not needed by the people and therefore ended with Austerlitz.
The desired peace, beloved and loving people, Russian winter, entertainment, music, balls greet Nikolai Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov and others who returned from the war. This is the life that Nikolai Rostov, for example, dreamed of. But it turns out that not everything is peaceful in this world. It begins not only with joy, but also with failures: the duel of Pierre and Dolokhov, the loss of Nikolai Rostov, the unsuccessful matchmaking of Denisov to Natasha and Dolokhov to Sonya, and the great grief of Prince Andrei - the death of his wife. Tolstoy’s picture of peaceful life is not smooth and calm; it has its own troubles, but with the power of life they can be overcome.
Principles of depiction by Tolstoy goodies. Human nature, according to Tolstoy, is multifaceted, most people have good and bad, human development depends on the struggle of these principles, and character is determined by what comes first. Drawing Dolokhov, Tolstoy shows him not only as a cruel breter (an old man who is ready to fight a duel for any reason, even insignificant) and a calculating person, but also as a gentle son and brother, dreaming of a big female love. Pierre is kind, but hot-tempered to the point of rage. He is smart, but inexperienced in everyday affairs, he has a lot of inner strength, and, nevertheless, he often goes with the flow. Heroes make mistakes, suffer from this, know upward impulses and succumb to the influence of low passions. Pierre's life has been full of such contradictions, heights and breakdowns since his return to Russia. Prince Andrei experiences hobbies and disappointments more than once. And with all these contradictions, positive heroes always remain dissatisfied with themselves, lack of complacency, and a continuous search for the meaning of life and their real place in it. “Calmness is spiritual meanness,” wrote L. Tolstoy.
Spiritual quests, those. the search for the true place in the life of Pierre Bezukhov and Andrei Bolkonsky. Pierre's entry into the Masonic society falls during a difficult period of his life, associated with his marriage to Helen Kuragina. “What’s wrong? What well? What should you love, what should you hate? Why do you need to live and what am I? What is life, what is death? What force controls everything? - the hero asks himself. These reflections on the meaning of life are characteristic of Tolstoy's positive heroes. And how does Pierre answer the questions posed? He does not want to see a way out of the impasse in solving social problems. It seems to financially secure Pierre that it’s not about money. Therefore, he finds the meaning of life in moral self-improvement as a means of eliminating evil in himself and in the world. This goal is suggested to him by the Mason Bazdeev, who met him on the road. Pierre, being an atheist and considering religion “unfair,” enters the Masonic society.
Pierre perceived in Freemasonry not the religious, but the moral side of it. This decision gave him for a time the illusion of a way out of the impasse caused by the feeling of the purposelessness of existence. It opened the way for him to the activity for which he yearned. Over time, Pierre becomes convinced that many Masons entered the society in order to acquire connections with strong and wealthy people, of whom there were many. Pierre feels sadness again. Closed in the world of moral problems and his own experiences, he again finds himself in a dead end, from which only 1812 takes him out. Such a desire for useful activity- one of the manifestations of the intellectual and moral life of the advanced Russian nobility in early XIX century.
Disappointment in the desire for glory, for feat, the collapse of the Napoleonic cult - this is the result of the search for Andrei Bolkonsky at the end of Volume I. He felt guilty for the death of his wife, Princess Lisa, and this aggravated his crisis, forced him to withdraw and withdraw into himself. His experiences made him a skeptic. Subsequently, an argument with Pierre, a meeting with Natasha and the influence of spring nature awaken a living soul in Prince Andrei, and he also joins in social life. Those things that Pierre was unable to complete were completed by Prince Andrei. The undertakings of Prince Andrei were of a progressive nature (some of the peasants were listed as free cultivators, corvee was replaced by quitrent, etc.). Prince Andrei was engaged in drawing up new military projects and was the head of the department of the commission for drafting laws, but he soon saw that this work was idle. Just like Pierre, Prince Andrei, having begun his social work with enthusiasm, became disillusioned with his social activities because he did not see its deep meaning.
The disappointments of both heroes are caused by the depth of their aspirations. Only those activities will satisfy them in which they find a combination of interests for themselves and for others.
Nature in people's lives from Tolstoy's point of view. In nature, a person is affected by the power of life, eternal renewal. Beauty, poetry, greatness, eternity and infinity of nature, its naturalness - this is what Tolstoy sees and appreciates in nature. (scene of conversation between Natasha and Sonya moonlit night, a green oak tree that Andrei Bolkonsky sees).
Life of the local nobility and the “life of the heart” of the novel’s heroes. Scenes of hunting, Christmas entertainment, a trip to see his uncle, Natasha’s dance, the Rostovs’ home life. Uncle’s singing and Natasha’s dancing reflect their closeness to the people, their understanding of the Russian spirit and character (but not as an understanding of the needs of the people. Tolstoy solves the problem: is mutual understanding possible between different layers of society (“peace”, “harmony” between them) - and answers that it is possible. In the Rostov family there is still cordiality, warmth, sensitivity, naturalness, hospitality, purity of moral character. In all scenes, Tolstoy emphasizes the closeness of the local nobility to nature and the common people. This is what allows Tolstoy to see positive heroes in the Rostovs.
Image of the heroes' love. Not only the main characters: Andrei, Pierre, Natasha - experience a feeling of love at this time, but also secondary characters: Dolokhov, Denisov, Nikolai Rostov, Sonya, Berg, B. Drubetskoy, etc. Without love there is no life. Helen Kuragina has never loved anyone, her heart is dead. She doesn’t just get carried away and make mistakes, moving from admirer to admirer, but this is her conscious line of behavior. It is precisely because depravity and evil appear that she has no heart, but only base instincts. The love of Berg and Vera Rostova does not elevate them; it also does not come from the heart. Tolstoy shows that people of high society are guided by material interests when entering into marriages.
The beginning of the love between Natasha Rostova and Prince Andrei. The charm of this love is created by its moral purity. Prince Andrei was attracted to Natasha by her poetry, her fullness of life, purity, and spontaneity. The desire for happiness inherent in her awakens the strength of other people. Her singing gives Prince Andrei pleasure; he is amazed by Natasha’s sensitivity, ability to guess someone else’s mood, and understand everything perfectly. And Natasha fell in love with Prince Andrei, feeling his inner strength and nobility.
The power of Natasha’s repentance is great, the moral consequences of her betrayal for her and others are grave, and the grief she caused Prince Andrei is great. But Natasha’s passion for Anatole does not come from the depravity of her nature, but from her youth, overcrowding with life and inexperience. For her, this is not a habitual line of behavior, as for Helen, but a mistake that she will soon understand, but will not soon forgive herself. Love occupies one of the important places in the lives of heroes, helping the best of them to understand and love life, to find their place in it. The only real feeling is one that is free from calculations, deep and sincere.
The “world” of the heroes is collapsing. Firstly, the world is destroyed by war; it does not provide the opportunity to live calmly and brightly. Secondly, the author leads the heroes to an internal crisis because not one of them yet has unity with the people, each has his own goals. None of them have yet found a connection with the general life of the people. In search of their true place in life and true happiness, the heroes will go through the Patriotic War, experience a lot, and understand.
Philosophy of history according to Tolstoy (views on the origin, essence and change of historical events). The writer is convinced that it is impossible to explain the origin of historical events by individual actions of individual people. The will of an individual historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or unwillingnesses of a mass of people. This means that history is made not by individuals, but by the people. Historical events occur when the interests of the people coincide.
Correctly considering that personality, and even historical, i.e. one who stands high “on the social ladder” does not play a leading role in history, that she is connected with the interests of everyone who stands below her and next to her, Tolstoy incorrectly asserts that the individual does not and cannot play any role in history . According to Tolstoy, the spontaneity of the movements of the masses cannot be guided, and therefore the historical figure can only obey the direction of events prescribed from above. This is how Tolstoy comes to the idea of submission to fate and reduces the task of a historical figure to following events.
In Volumes III – IV we see a person as a particle of mass. Tolstoy's main idea is that only then does an individual person find his final, real place in life when he becomes a part of the people.
Image of the War of 1812. In the scene of the crossing of the Neman, the author depicts Napoleon and his army at the very beginning of the campaign to Russia. In the French army, it turns out, there is also unity - both among the soldiers and between them and their emperor. This unity was selfish, the unity of the invaders. But this unity is fragile, it falls apart at the decisive moment. The unity of the Russian people is based on something else - on hatred of the invaders, on love and affection for their native land and the people living on it.
Tolstoy conveys a sense of the inhumanity of war, which brings ruin and death. And under these conditions, the “hidden warmth of patriotism” of the Russian people manifests itself. Old Bolkonsky also “decided” not to retreat, gathered and armed the militia to defend himself to the end. The abandonment of Moscow by its inhabitants, the behavior of the Rostovs, the patriotism of Pierre, who equipped a regiment with his own money. These are all examples that prove the unity of patriotic behavior of the Russian people. Tolstoy shows that this unity was not universal and that light, high society remained outside general requirements life. The author emphasizes the contrast between people striving to merge with the people in their destiny, and “drones” frozen in selfishness and calculation.
Revolt of Bogucharov's men. The men refuse to leave the invasion. Distrust of the masters, disunity of the peasants, their obedience are features inherent in the Russian peasantry. The revolt of the Bogucharov men was caused by their dream of “pure” will, eternal distrust and hatred of the masters. The revolt is natural, but it is an untimely revolt, and the peasants cannot be justified. This is Tolstoy’s point of view. Without uniting at the moment with other peasants and with the masters (and the Bolkonskys deserved this), the peasants of Bogucharov could thereby unite with their enemies. Only chance prevented this.
Battle of Borodino. This is the culmination of the whole action, because... firstly, the Battle of Borodino was a turning point, after which the French offensive fizzled out; secondly, this is the intersection point of the destinies of all the heroes. Wanting to prove that the Battle of Borodino was only a moral victory for the Russians, Tolstoy introduces a battle plan into the novel. Most of the scenes before and during the battle are shown through the eyes of Pierre Bezukhov, because Pierre, who understands nothing about military affairs, perceives the war from a psychological point of view and can observe the mood of the participants, and this, according to Tolstoy, is the reason for victory. Prince Andrei expresses the main idea for understanding the war: we are not talking about an abstract living space, but about the land in which our ancestors lie, for this land soldiers go into battle. And under these conditions you can neither “pity yourself” nor “be generous” with the enemy. Prince Andrei, who once condemned the horrors of war, is now calling for brutal reprisals against the enemy. Tolstoy recognizes and justifies the defensive and liberation war, the war for the lives of fathers and children. War is “the most disgusting thing in life,” the author concludes through the lips of Prince Andrei. But when they want to kill you, deprive you of your freedom, you and your land, then take a club and defeat the enemy.
Battery Raevsky(Ch. 31-32). The soldiers and officers of the battery perform their duty; Everyone is busy all the time: bringing shells, loading guns, doing it with panache; Everyone is animated all the time, everyone is joking: at Pierre, at themselves, at the grenade. And this is not lightness, but a manifestation of perseverance and endurance. And Pierre, who was watching them, also wanted to become a participant in the battle and offered his services as a carrier of shells. Tormented by the fact that the bloodiness of the battle frightened him, Pierre again turns his thoughts to the soldiers. “And they... they were firm and calm all the time until the end... They don’t talk, but they do.”
The behavior of Napoleon and Kutuzov in the battle(Ch. 33-35). One of them, leading, as it seems to him, the battle, gives a lot of orders, reasonable in themselves, but such “that either had already been executed before he made them, or could not be and were not executed,” i.e. To. The situation changed and the order became incorrect. Slender masses of French troops were returning from the battlefield in “frustrated, frightened crowds,” and Napoleon felt that the terrible scope of his arm was falling powerless. And Kutuzov only monitors the spirit of the army and leads it as best he can. He gives only those orders that can support or strengthen the strength of the army: he orders to notify about tomorrow's offensive.
Related information.
content:
Dostoevsky - creator polyphonic novel, according to Bakhtin. Polyphony is polyphony. His characters seem to be calling each other out. The author surrounds Raskolnikov with people who vary certain thoughts of the protagonist. At the same time, the negative elements of his theory reflect “doubles”, and the positive ones - “antipodes”. The surname Raskolnikov is symbolic for Dostoevsky; it speaks of a split in the hero’s soul. The author surrounds Raskolnikov with people who vary in their minds certain thoughts of the protagonist, while the negative elements of his theory are reflected by the so-called “doubles” (Luzhin, Lebezyatnikov, Svidrigailov), they are located on the left side of the slide, and the positive ones are antipodes (Razumikhin, Porfiry Petrovich, Sonya).
Luzhin cultivates in himself the theory of “reasonable egoism,” which underlies Raskolnikov’s “arithmetic constructions.” Being an adherent of “economic truth,” this businessman very rationally rejects sacrifice for the sake of the common good, asserts the helplessness of “individual generosity” and believes that concern for one’s own well-being is concern for “general prosperity.” In Luzhin’s calculations, the intonations of Raskolnikov’s voice are quite perceptible, who, like his double, is not satisfied with “single” help that does not decide anything overall. Both of them “reasonably” find a victim to achieve their goals and at the same time theoretically justify their choice: a worthless old woman, as Raskolnikov believes. will die anyway, and the fallen Sonya, according to Luzhin, will still - sooner or later - steal. True, Luzhin’s idea does not lead him to the axe, but Raskolnikov easily completes the concept of his double: “But bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that people can be slaughtered.” Luzhin cleanses Raskolnikov’s “arithmetic” of active compassion and altruistic orientation.
Raskolnikov’s antipode in relation to people is the altruist Razumikhin. It is necessary to make a reservation: he is rather the antipode not of Raskolnikov, but of Luzhin, standing at the opposite pole. The next “double” is the progressive Lebezyatnikov. He varies Raskolnikov’s nihilistic attitude towards the existing world order, moral and social foundations. Enthusiastically speaking out against such “prejudice” as “chastity and female modesty”, calling for the creation of communes, advocating the destruction of marriage ties, Lebezyatnikov discredits the ideas of the revolutionary democratic movement, the meaning of which he reduces to “warming up protest” in Russian life : “We have gone further in our beliefs. We are in denial no more!”
Porfiry Petrovich opposes the riot. In Lebezyatnikov, Raskolnikov’s rebellious element, rebelling against the unjust structure of the world, turns into a thin stream of meaningless and vulgar denials. Lebezyatnikov is a caricature of the main character. In Lebezyatnikov, the cult of protest takes the form of militant stupidity and compromises the rebellious spirit chosen by Raskolnikov. What Raskolnikov has in common with Porfiry Petrovich is that the main character denies the “Napoleons” the right to grumble against the existing world order; Porfiry Petrovich also opposes rebellion.
Svidrigailov goes the furthest: by stepping over other people’s lives, he also steps over his own conscience, that is, he fully corresponds to Raskolnikov’s idea of a strong personality. But Svidrigailov crashes. “Arithmetic” is refuted by Svidrigailov’s “experiments”: he has more good deeds than other heroes of the novel, but, firstly, the good he has done cannot justify the crimes of the past, and secondly, it is not capable of reviving his sick soul. The conscience driven into the subconscious is eventually released and gives rise to suffocating nightmares. Svidrigailov is... this is the chosen one who “overstepped” without moral torment, but at the same time did not become Napoleon. Svidrigailov’s life outcome is not only his suicide, but also the death of Raskolnikov’s idea, revealing the hero’s monstrous self-deception. Sonya Marmeladova offers the hero a path of repentance, a return to his native land, which he desecrated. She hands him a cypress cross - a symbol of return to faith. By isolating the components of Raskolnikov’s idea, reflected in the consciousness of the doubles and their “shifters,” we can imagine the system of images of heroes in the form of three pairs. Moreover, in each pair the central place will be occupied by that part of Raskolnikov’s idea that combines certain opposite principles.
The first “troika” is Luzhin, Raskolnikov, Razumikhin. They solve issues related to human activities. Here the poles are egoism - altruism. Luzhin's rational egoism degenerates in Raskolnikov's mind into reasonable, and Razumikhin's altruism becomes singular.
The second “troika” is Lebezyatnikov, Raskolnikov, Porfiry. They look at social problems. If Lebezyatnikov denies moral and state norms, then Porfiry affirms the defense of the state and morality. And Raskolnikov, as always, “splits”: he asserts the right to protest of an extraordinary person and obedience to a “trembling creature”
Svidrigailov - Raskolnikov - Sonya consider universal human problems. If Svidrigailov professes inactivity, individualism, the cult of a strong personality, then Sonya professes deep faith, Christian humility, and philanthropy. Raskolnikov, as always, is somewhere in the middle: on the one hand, he preaches individualism and rebellion, and on the other, he seeks faith, and it is not for nothing that he asks Sonya to read lines from the Gospel.
The antagonist characters enter into dialogue through Raskolnikov’s consciousness. Through the consciousness of the protagonist, the heroes can look into each other: Sonya and Svidrigailov, each separately, expresses their point of view to Raskolnikov, thanks to which the reader sees their polarity. The consciousness of the central character becomes a kind of conductor of thoughts from one moral pole to another. Each pair of doubles and antipodes in the novel corresponds to a range of problems. For example, in the Luzhin-Razmuikhin series questions related to human activity for humans are raised. “I am for myself,” says Luzhin. “I am for others,” Razumikhin convinces. This dispute is a reflection of the main character’s split on a personal level - between selfishness and altruism. The next row is Lebezyatnikov-Porfiry Petrovich. Here the writer takes a close look at social problems: the denial of certain social and moral foundations is opposed to their defense. In Raskolnikov’s world, this confrontation is manifested in the hero’s vacillation between rebellion against the existing order and humility before it.
The problem of the third row of Svidrigailov - Sonya - is philosophical, universal. “Extraordinary” people are not the property of a certain era, they are born throughout the development of mankind. The code of permissiveness is relevant in all ages. The dispute between faith and unbelief, which began from time immemorial, continues to this day. Such a vertical construction makes the line of spiritual split of the protagonist immeasurable: Raskolnikov enters into a dispute with himself, the state and humanity - this is where the powerful scope of his conflict with the world comes from.
In Raskolnikov’s world, everything is brought to its extreme expression: Lebezyatnikov’s harmless protest degenerates into a terrible anarchic rebellion, Razumikhin’s individual goodness reaches an all-human scale, Luzhin’s petty “arithmetic” grows into a theory that pushes him to the axe. There is “too much” of everything in Raskolnikov: from the extreme degree of poverty to the monstrous power of a self-sufficient idea.
Mirror image of the hero
In Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's doubles are a number of heroes. Reading a work for the first time, we cannot understand all the nuances and subtleties of the content. The detective story completely captures our imagination. A closer look at the writer's intentions raises a number of questions. It seems incomprehensible that some personalities appear on the pages of the book, whose history and fate are far from the life of the main character. In fact, Dostoevsky does not have a single extra character. Each of the characters carries its own meaning and serves to more fully reveal the personality of the main character. The theme of duality in the novel “Crime and Punishment” is very important.
Of course, at the center of the novel is the gloomy figure of Rodion Raskolnikov. It is no coincidence that the author gave his hero a telling surname. Personality young man contradictory and, like a mosaic, consists of disparate, seemingly unconnected parts. Each of them has its own mirror image in the novel in the form of a separate hero. Let's get to know them in more detail.
Doubles of Rodion Raskolnikov
The only friend
According to the plot of the story, the first of the hero's doubles is Dmitry Razumikhin. The young man is the opposite of the main character. He is active, sociable and cheerful. The student endures the blows of fate, makes plans and does not fall into despair. His friend, on the contrary, is gloomy and taciturn, does not know how to cope with life problems. Against the background of Razumikhin’s optimism, Raskolnikov’s apathy becomes brighter and more understandable to the reader. “Scoundrel man! And the one who considers him a scoundrel is a scoundrel!” - the young man is convinced. F. M. Dostoevsky also points out the similarities of the heroes. They are young and smart, decent and noble. Both dream of a great future, but they choose different paths to achieve their goals. Razumikhin works tirelessly, trying to cope with poverty, and the impatient Raskolnikov commits a crime for the sake of an idea.
Honorable groom
IN mirror image main character, we will notice another double. This is the happy chosen one of Sister Raskolnikov, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin. A hypocritical person who tries to appear honest and noble, in fact has a vile and deceitful nature. What character trait of our hero is clearly depicted in this image? Luzhin, going towards his goal, is guided by the principle: “All means are good.” He takes advantage of Dunya’s plight, slanderes Sonya, caring only about his own well-being. Raskolnikov, testing his theory, acts in the same way. The image of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin helps to understand the egoistic essence of the main character's idea.
Gloomy Svidrigailov
The mysterious figure of Svidrigailov evokes hostility from the reader. This is a vicious person for whom there are no laws of morality and ethics. He is capable of murder, molesting young children, cheating on his wife and other disgusting acts. But his phrase: “We are birds of a feather,” addressed to Raskolnikov, makes us understand that the heroes have similar traits. Rodion Raskolnikov, just like the mysterious Mr. Svidrigailov, commits a crime. People are dying because of him, but he feels no remorse. Such behavior makes him similar to this negative character. The figure of Svidrigailov is full of contradictions, just like the image of the main character. He is capable of noble deeds: he helps Marmeladov’s orphaned children, gives money to Sonya Marmeladova. But this does not change his disgusting essence. Getting to know him shows what terrible consequences denial of the commandments of Christianity and impunity can lead to.
Lebezyatnikov Andrey Semyonovich
This hero, according to the author, in a grotesque form reflects the passion of young people for new theories. He is a parody of Raskolnikov's obsession with his theory. Lebezyatnikov is stupid, but kind and harmless. Luzhin's meanness is as unpleasant to him as to Rodion Raskolnikov.
Wise investigator
Porfiry Petrovich, to some extent, can also be classified as a double of the main character. A person with experience and experience understands the confused student and sincerely sympathizes with him. He himself managed to stop in time and understand the fashionable modern theories and now he’s trying to save Raskolnikov: “Become the sun, everyone will see you!” The sun, first of all, must be the sun!”
Female counterparts of the hero
Certain character traits of the young man are reflected in the heroines of the story. Describing Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, the writer points to her external resemblance with his brother, draws attention to their soul mates. The girl is smart, proud and independent, just like her brother. But unlike him, these character traits help her choose the right path in life, understand people and not make fatal mistakes.
The most important person in the hero’s life is Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova. A believer in God, kind Sonya differs from Raskolnikov. But they also have something in common: both committed a crime, broke the law, became outcasts. Only Sonya considers herself a sinner and longs to accept suffering in order to atone for her guilt, while Rodion Raskolnikov is confident that he is right. In the image of Sonya F.M. Dostoevsky tried to convey to the reader the main idea of the work and finally debunk Raskolnikov’s inhuman theory.
The role of doubles in the novel
Raskolnikov's doubles in Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment help to understand the complex character of the main character, to examine individual character traits, as if through a magnifying glass. Thanks to this technique, we understand the motives of actions and realize the inevitability of punishment for the crime committed.
Work test
Exploring Raskolnikov’s idea, creating its living, full-blooded image, wanting to show it from all sides, Dostoevsky surrounds Raskolnikov with a system of doubles, each of whom embodies one of the facets of Raskolnikov’s idea and nature, deepening the image of the protagonist and the meaning of his moral experiences. Thanks to this, the novel turns out to be not so much a trial of a crime, but (and this is the main thing) a trial of personality, character, human psychology, which reflected the features of Russian reality of the 60s of the last century: the search for truth, truth, heroic aspirations, “vacillation” , "misconceptions".
Pamphletizing in a novel is a technique of introducing characters into the work who represent, to one degree or another, a portrait of the main character’s appearance and behavior. These characters become Raskolnikov's doubles.
Raskolnikov's spiritual doubles are Svidrigailov and Luzhin. The role of the first is to convince the reader that Raskolnikov’s idea leads to a spiritual dead end, to the spiritual death of the individual. The role of the second is the intellectual decline of Raskolnikov's idea, such a decline that will turn out to be morally unbearable for the hero.
Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov is the darkest and at the same time the most controversial figure in the novel. This character combines a dirty slut and a sensitive judge of moral virtues; a sharper who knew beatings of his partners, and a strong-willed merry fellow, fearlessly standing at the point of a revolver pointed at him; a man who has worn a mask of self-satisfaction all his life - and all his life he is dissatisfied with himself, and the more his dissatisfaction eats away at him, the deeper he tries to drive it under the mask.
In Svidrigailov, who trampled moral and human laws, Raskolnikov sees the full depth of his possible fall. What they have in common is that they both challenged public morality. Only one managed to completely free himself from the torment of conscience, the other cannot. Seeing Raskolnikov’s torment, Svidrigailov remarks: “I understand what questions are on your mind: moral or what? Questions of a citizen and a person? And you are at their side: why do you need them now? Heh, heh! Then what is still a citizen and a person? And if that’s the case, then there was no need to meddle: there’s no point in minding your own business.” . In the novel there is no direct indication of Svidrigailov’s atrocities; we learn about them from Luzhin. Luzhin talks about the allegedly murdered Marfa Petrovna ( “I am sure that he was the cause of the death of the late Marfa Petrovna” ) , about a footman and a deaf-mute girl driven to suicide (“... a deaf-mute girl of about fifteen or even fourteen... was found hanged in the attic... however, a denunciation came that the child had been cruelly insulted by Svidrigailov,” “they also heard about the story of the man Philip, who died from torture, about six years ago, still during serfdom... the continuous system of persecutions and penalties of Mr. Svidrigailov forced him, or better to say, persuaded him to a violent death"). Raskolnikov, having learned this about Svidrigailov, does not stop thinking: this is what a person who has crossed all laws can become!
Thus, Raskolnikov’s theory about the possibility of standing above people, despising all their laws, did not find its support in the fate of Svidrigailov. Even an inveterate villain cannot completely kill his conscience and rise above the “human anthill”. Svidrigailov realized this too late, when life had already been lived, renewal was unthinkable, the only human passion– rejected. His awakened conscience forced him to save Katerina Ivanovna’s children from starvation, pull Sonya out of the abyss of shame, leave money to his bride and kill himself at the end of his ugly existence, thereby showing Raskolnikov the impossibility of any other path for a person who has transgressed the moral laws of society except self-condemnation.
Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin is another Raskolnikov double. He is not capable of murder, does not profess any ideas that undermine bourgeois society; on the contrary, he is entirely in favor of the dominant idea in this society, the idea of “reasonably-egoistic” economic relations. Luzhin's economic ideas - the ideas on which bourgeois society stands - lead to the slow murder of people, to the rejection of goodness and light in their souls. Raskolnikov understands this well: “... is it true that you told your bride... at the very hour when you received her consent that you are most glad that... that she is a beggar... because it is more profitable to take a wife out of poverty in order to then rule over her... and reproach those that she has benefited you?..” .
Luzhin is a middle-class entrepreneur, he is a “little man” who has become rich, who really wants to become a “big man”, to turn from a slave into the master of life. Thus, Raskolnikov and Luzhin coincide precisely in their desire to rise above the position assigned to them by the laws of social life, and thereby rise above people. Raskolnikov arrogates to himself the right to kill the moneylender, and Luzhin to destroy Sonya, since they both proceed from the incorrect premise that they are better than other people, in particular those who become their victims. Only Luzhin’s understanding of the problem itself and methods are much more vulgar than Raskolnikov’s. But that's the only difference between them. Luzhin vulgarizes and thereby discredits the theory of “reasonable egoism.”
Only his own benefit, career, success in the world worries Luzhin. He is by nature no less inhuman than an ordinary murderer. But he will not kill, but will find a lot of ways to crush a person with impunity - cowardly and vile ways (accusing Sonya of stealing money at a wake).
This double character was developed by Dostoevsky as the personification of the world that Raskolnikov hates - it is the Luzhins who push the conscientious and helpless Marmeladovs to death and awaken rebellion in the souls of people who do not want to be crushed by the economic ideas of bourgeois society.
Confronting Raskolnikov with his double heroes, the author debunks the theory of the right to crime, proves that there is and cannot be a justification for the theory of violence and murder, no matter how noble the goals it is argued for.
Antipodes of Raskolnikov. The content of the hero's disputes with them. The ideological and compositional meaning of the image of Sonya Marmeladova.
The antipodes (“people with opposite views, beliefs, characters”) of the main character are intended to show the disastrousness of Raskolnikov’s theory - to show both the reader and the hero himself.
Thus, by bringing all the characters in the novel into relation with the main character, Dostoevsky achieves his main goal - to discredit the misanthropic theory born of the unjust world itself.
The antipodes in the novel are, on the one hand, people close to Raskolnikov: Razumikhin, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Dunya, - on the other hand, those with whom he will meet - Porfiry Petrovich, the Marmeladov family (Semyon Zakharych, Katerina Ivanovna, Sonya), Lebezyatnikov.
People close to Raskolnikov personify the conscience rejected by him; they have not stained themselves in any way by living in the criminal world, and therefore communication with them is almost unbearable for Raskolnikov.
Razumikhin combines a merry fellow and a hard worker, a bully and a caring nanny, a quixote and a deep psychologist. He is full of energy and mental health. He judges the people around him comprehensively and objectively, willingly forgiving them minor weaknesses and mercilessly castigating self-righteousness, vulgarity and selfishness. The feeling of camaraderie is sacred to him. He immediately rushes to Raskolnikov’s aid, brings a doctor, sits with him as he wanders. But he is not inclined to forgiveness and reprimands Raskolnikov: “Only a monster and a scoundrel, if not a madman, could have done to them the way you did; and therefore, you are crazy...”
Common sense and humanity immediately told Razumikhin that his friend’s theory was very far from correct: “What outrages me most of all is that you decide on blood according to your conscience.”
Unlike Raskolnikov, Razumikhin’s refusal of individual will raised objections: “...they demand complete impersonality, and in this they find the most relish! How could I not be myself, how could I be less like myself! This is what they consider the highest progress.”
Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova gets into an argument with her brother almost from the first minutes of the meeting. Raskolnikov, speaking about the money given the day before by Marmeladov, tries to condemn himself for frivolity:
“-... To help, you must first have this right, not like: “Crevez, chiens, si vousn’еtes pas contents!” (“Die, dogs, if you are unhappy!”) He laughed. - Is that so, Dunya?
“No, it’s not like that,” Dunya answered firmly.
- Bah! Yes, and you... with intentions! – he muttered, looking at her almost with hatred and smiling mockingly. “I should have figured that out... Well, that’s commendable; It’s better for you... And you reach such a line that if you don’t step over it, you’ll be unhappy, but if you step over it, maybe you’ll be even more unhappy...”
And Dunya really faces a choice. She could have killed Svidrigailov in self-defense, without breaking the law, and freed the world from the scoundrel. But Dunya cannot “transgress,” and this reveals her highest morality and Dostoevsky’s conviction that there is no situation where murder can be justified.
Dunya condemns her brother for a crime: “But you shed blood! – Dunya screams in despair.”
The next antipode of Raskolnikov is Porfiry Petrovich. This insightful and caustic investigator is trying to hurt Raskolnikov’s conscience more painfully, to make him suffer by listening to frank and harsh judgments about the immorality of the crime, no matter what goals it is justified. At the same time, Porfiry Petrovich convinces Raskolnikov that his crime is not a secret to those leading the investigation, and therefore there is no point in hiding anything. Thus, the investigator conducts a merciless and thoughtful attack, as if from two ends, realizing that in this case he can only count on the painful state of the victim and his morality. While talking with Raskolnikov, the investigator saw that this man is one of those who deny the foundations modern society and considers himself entitled to at least single-handedly declare war on this society. And in fact, Raskolnikov, irritated by Porfiry Petrovich’s ridicule, and, wary only of not giving himself away with any evidence, confirms the investigator’s suspicions, completely betraying himself ideologically:
“-... I allow blood. So what? After all, society is too well endowed with exile, prisons, judicial investigators, hard labor - why worry? And look for the thief!..
- Well, what if we find it?
- That’s where he belongs.
- You are logical. Well, sir, what about his conscience?
- What do you care about her?
- Yes, that’s right, out of humanity, sir.
- Whoever has it, suffer, since he recognizes the mistake. This is his punishment—except hard labor.” .
Porfiry expressed his attitude to Raskolnikov’s theory clearly: “... I do not agree with you in all your convictions, which I consider it my duty to state in advance.” . He speaks directly about Raskolnikov: “... he killed, but he considers himself an honest man, he despises people, he walks around like a pale angel...”
However, despite the harshest reviews of Raskolnikov, Porfiry Petrovich understands that this is not a criminal who has coveted other people’s property. The worst thing for the society whose foundations are protected by the investigator is precisely that the criminal is guided by theory, driven by conscious protest, and not by base instincts: “It’s also good that you just killed the old woman. But if you had come up with another theory, then, perhaps, you would have made the thing a hundred million times uglier!”
Semyon Zakharych Marmeladov spoke with Raskolnikov before the crime. In essence, this was Marmeladov’s monologue. There was no argument out loud. However, Raskolnikov could not have a mental dialogue with Marmeladov - after all, both of them were painfully thinking about the possibility of getting rid of suffering. But if for Marmeladov hope remained only in the other world, then Raskolnikov had not yet lost hope of resolving the issues that tormented him on earth.
Marmeladov firmly stands on one point, which can be called the “idea of self-abasement”: beatings “not only bring pain, but also pleasure,” and he trains himself to not pay attention to the attitude of those around him like a clown, and to spend the night he is already used to where he has to be... The reward for all this is the picture of the “Last Judgment” that appears in his imagination, when the Almighty will accept Marmeladov and similar “pigs” and “rugs” into the kingdom of heaven precisely because not a single one of them « I didn’t consider myself worthy of this.”
It is not a righteous life, but the absence of pride that is the key to salvation, Marmeladov believes. And his words are addressed to Raskolnikov, who has not yet decided to kill. Raskolnikov, listening carefully, understands that he does not want to self-deprecate, and the problems of the afterlife do not bother him. Thus, despite the contrasting ideas of these heroes, Marmeladov not only did not dissuade, but, on the contrary, further strengthened Raskolnikov in his intention to commit murder in the name of rising above the “trembling creature” and for the sake of saving the lives of several noble, honest people.
Katerina Ivanovna meets with Raskolnikov four times. He never entered into lengthy conversations with her, and he listened with half an ear, but he still caught that in her speeches they alternately sounded: indignation at the behavior of others, a cry of despair, the cry of a person who has “nowhere else to go”; and suddenly boiling vanity, the desire to rise in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of listeners to a height unattainable for them. Katerina Ivanovna is characterized by the idea of self-affirmation.
Katerina Ivanovna’s desire for self-affirmation echoes Raskolnikov’s thoughts about the right of the “chosen ones” to a special position, about power “over the entire anthill.”
Even Lebezyatnikov is the antipode of Raskolnikov. He talks about communes, freedom of love, civil marriage, the future structure of society and much more. Lebezyatnikov claims that he does not agree with the revolutionary democrats: “We want to start our own commune, a special one, but only on broader grounds than before. We have gone further in our beliefs. We are in denial no more! If Dobrolyubov had risen from his grave, I would have argued with him. And Belinsky would have been killed!” .
But be that as it may, Lebezyatnikov is alien to baseness, meanness, and lies.
Lebezyatnikov's reasoning in some things coincides with Raskolnikov's reasoning. Raskolnikov sees in humanity a faceless mass, an “anthill” (excluding “extraordinary” people), Lebezyatnikov says: “everything comes from the environment, but man himself is nothing”. The only difference is that Raskolnikov needs power over this “anthill,” while Lebezyatnikov seeks to facelessly dissolve in it himself.
Sonya Marmeladova is the antipode of Raskolnikov. She believes that a person can never be a “trembling creature and a louse.” It is Sonya who, above all, personifies Dostoevsky’s truth. If you define Sonya’s nature in one word, then this word will be “loving.” Active love for one's neighbor, the ability to respond to someone else's pain (especially deeply manifested in the scene of Raskolnikov's confession of murder) make the image of Sonya a piercingly Christian image. It is from a Christian position, and this is Dostoevsky’s position, that in the novel the verdict is pronounced on Raskolnikov.
For Sonya Marmeladova, all people have the same right to life. No one can achieve happiness, his own or someone else's, through crime. A sin remains a sin, no matter who commits it and for what purpose. Personal happiness cannot be a goal. This happiness is achieved through self-sacrificing love, humility and service. She believes that you need to think not about yourself, but about others, not about ruling over people, but about serving them sacrificially.
Sonechka’s suffering is the spiritual path of a person trying to find his place in an unfair organized world. Her suffering provides the key to a sympathetic understanding of other people's suffering, other people's grief, making him morally more sensitive and more experienced and seasoned in life. Sonya Marmeladova feels that she too is to blame for Raskolnikov’s crime, takes this crime to heart and shares his fate with the one who “crossed over” it, since she believes that every person is responsible not only for his own actions, but also for every evil that occurs in the world .
In a conversation with Sonya Raskolnikova, he himself begins to doubt his position - it is not for nothing that he so wants to receive an affirmative answer to his not entirely clearly expressed statement - the question of whether it is possible to live without paying attention to the suffering and death of others.
Yes, Raskolnikov himself suffers, suffers deeply. “The most excellent mood” dissipates like fog at the first contact with reality. But he doomed himself to suffering - Sonya suffers innocently, paying with moral torment not for her sins. This means that she is immeasurably superior to him morally. And that’s why he is especially drawn to her - he needs her support, he rushes to her “not out of love,” but as providence. This explains his utmost sincerity.
“And it wasn’t money, the main thing, that I needed, Sonya, when I killed; I didn’t need money so much as I needed something else... I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and quickly find out, whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross, or will I not be able to? Do I dare to bend down and take it, or not? Am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right?
- Kill? Do you have the right? – Sonya clasped her hands.”
The thought of Raskolnikov terrifies her, although just a few minutes ago, when he confessed to her the murder, she was overwhelmed with ardent sympathy for him: “As if not remembering herself, she jumped up and, wringing her hands, reached the room; but she quickly returned and sat down next to him again, almost touching him shoulder to shoulder. Suddenly, as if pierced, she shuddered, screamed and threw herself, without knowing why, on her knees in front of him.
- What have you done to yourself! “she said desperately and, jumping up from her knees, threw herself on his neck, hugging him, and squeezing him tightly with her hands.”
In the furious argument between Raskolnikov and Sonya, the ideas of Katerina Ivanovna’s self-affirmation and Semyon Zakharych’s self-abasement are heard anew.
Sonechka, who also “transgressed” and ruined her soul, the same humiliated and insulted that they were, are and will always be as long as the world exists, condemns Raskolnikov for contempt for people and does not accept his rebellion and the ax that, as it seemed to Raskolnikov, was raised for her sake, for the sake of saving her from shame and poverty, for the sake of her happiness. Sonya, according to Dostoevsky, embodies the national Christian principle, the Russian folk element, Orthodoxy: patience and humility, immeasurable love for God and man.
“Do you have a cross on you? - she suddenly asked unexpectedly, as if she had suddenly remembered...
- No, isn't it? Here, take this one, the cypress one. I still have another one, a copper one, Lizavetin.”
The clash between the atheist Raskolnikov and the believer Sonya, whose worldviews are opposed to each other as the ideological basis of the entire novel, is very important. The idea of a “superman” is unacceptable to Sonya. She tells Raskolnikov : “Go now, this very minute, stand at the crossroads, bow down, first kiss the ground that you have desecrated, and then bow to the whole world, on all four sides, and tell everyone out loud: “I killed!” Then God will send you life again.”. Only the Orthodox people represented Marmeladova Sonya can condemn Raskolnikov’s atheistic, revolutionary rebellion, force him to submit to such a court and go to hard labor “accept suffering and atone for himself with it.”
It is thanks to the all-forgiving love of Sonechka and the Gospel that Raskolnikov repents. She contributed to the final collapse of his inhuman idea.
- 8. Epilogue of the novel and its significance for understanding the work.
The epilogue of the novel “Crime and Punishment” is important for understanding the work. In the epilogue, Dostoevsky shows that in the future Raskolnikov will be resurrected by Sonechka’s love, the faith received from her, and hard labor. “They were both pale and thin; but in these sick and pale faces the dawn of a renewed future, a complete resurrection in new life. They were resurrected by love, the heart of one contained endless sources of life for the other... he was resurrected, and he knew it, he felt his completely renewed being...".
It is known that Dostoevsky often endowed his heroes with their own spiritual experience. In Raskolnikov's penal servitude there is a lot from Dostoevsky, his convict experience. Hard labor became a salvation for Raskolnikov, just as it saved Dostoevsky in its time, since it was there that the story of the rebirth of his beliefs began for him. Dostoevsky believed that it was hard labor that gave him the happiness of direct contact with the people, a feeling of fraternal union with them in a common misfortune, gave him knowledge of Russia, an understanding of the people's truth. It was at hard labor that Dostoevsky formed a symbol of faith for himself, in which everything was clear and sacred to him.
Raskolnikov will also take the saving path from atheism and unbelief to the people’s truth in the name of Christ in the epilogue of the novel, because “under his pillow lay the Gospel”, and the thought of Sonya shone in my mind with the light of hope: “Can her beliefs not now also be my beliefs? Her feelings, her aspirations at least...". Sonya, this convict mother of God, will help Raskolnikov to join people again, because the feeling of isolation and disconnection from humanity has tormented him.
In hard labor, the side of Raskolnikov that was obsessed with vanity, arrogance, pride and disbelief dies. For Raskolnikov “a new history begins, the history of the gradual renewal of man, the history of his gradual rebirth, gradual transition from this world to another, acquaintance with a new, hitherto completely unknown reality”.
In the epilogue, the final trial of Raskolnikov is carried out by the Russian people. The convicts hated him and once attacked Raskolnikov, accusing him of “You are an atheist!” The People's Court expresses the religious idea of the novel. Raskolnikov stopped believing in God. For Dostoevsky, atheism inevitably turns into humanity. If there is no God, I am God myself. The “strong man” longed for liberation from God - and achieved it; freedom turned out to be limitless. But in this infinity, death awaited him: freedom from God was revealed as pure demonism; renunciation of Christ is like slavery to fate. Having traced the paths of godless freedom, the author brings us to religious basis your worldview: there is no other freedom except freedom in Christ; he who does not believe in Christ is subject to fate.
- 9. Polyphonic and monologue in the structure of the novel.
MM. Bakhtin noted that Dostoevsky created a special type of artistic thinking - polyphonic (poly - many, background - voice). Dostoevsky's novel “Crime and Punishment” can be considered polyphonic, i.e. polyphonic. The heroes of the novel are in search of justice, they conduct heated political and philosophical debates, reflect on damn questions Russian society. The writer allows people with very different beliefs and with very different life experiences to speak with complete frankness. Each of these people is driven by their own truth, their own beliefs, which are sometimes completely unacceptable to others. In the clash of different ideas and beliefs, the author strives to find that highest truth, that only true idea that can become common to all people.
Speaking about the polyphony of a novel, we mean not only that people with very different beliefs have a voice in them, but also that the thoughts and actions of the characters in the novel exist in close connection, mutual attraction and mutual repulsion, each character expresses one or the other. a different course or shade of the author's thought, each is needed by the writer in his search for the only true idea. It is impossible to trace the development of the author's thought without close attention to each of the characters in the novel. Dostoevsky's heroes reveal the course of the author's thought in all its turns, and the author's thought makes the world he depicts unified and highlights the main thing in the ideological and moral atmosphere of this world.
The monologue can also be seen in the structure of the novel. This is the author's thought, which is expressed in the ideological position of the heroes.
In addition, the monologue can be traced in Raskolnikov’s lonely monologues and reflections. Here he becomes stronger in his idea, falls under its power, and gets lost in its ominous vicious circle. After committing a crime, these are monologues in which he is tormented by conscience, fear, loneliness, and anger at everyone.
Genre of the novel.
The novel "Crime and Punishment" is based on the detective genre form. Criminal-adventurous intrigue appears on the surface of the plot (murder, interrogations, false accusations, confession in a police office, hard labor), then hides behind guesses, hints, analogies. And yet the classic detective plot is, as it were, displaced: there is no mystery to the crime, the author immediately introduces the criminal. The stages of the plot are determined not by the investigation, but by the protagonist’s movement towards repentance.
The love story of Sonya and Raskolnikov runs through the entire work. In this sense, “Crime and Punishment” can be classified as a genre love-psychological novel. Its action takes place against the backdrop of the appalling poverty of the inhabitants of the attics and basements of the aristocratic Petersburg. The social environment described by the artist gives reason to call it “Crime and Punishment” social novel.
Pondering Raskolnikov’s thoughts before and after the murder, analyzing the struggle of passions in the soul of Svidrigailov or the mental anguish of the old man Marmeladov, we feel the great power of Dostoevsky the psychologist, who convincingly connected the psychology of the heroes with their social status. In “Crime and Punishment” there are also visible features socio-psychological novel.
Raskolnikov is not a simple murderer from poverty, he is a thinker. He tests his idea, his theory, his philosophy of life. In the novel, the forces of Good and Evil are tested in the theories of Svidrigailov, Sonya, Luzhin, which defines Dostoevsky’s work as philosophical novel.
Raskolnikov's theory makes us think about the most acute political problems, thus formulating ideological the direction of the work.