In this chapter, various definitions of the concept of "little man" will be considered, the evolution of the image in Russian and American literature, and the features characteristic of this type will be identified. The chapter devoted to the works of John Updike will present a brief biography of the writer, consider the author's stylistic features and present the views of foreign and Russian critics on his work.
The term "little man". History and nature of the concept
The concept of "little man" is by no means new. The "Literary Encyclopedia of Terms and Concepts" speaks of the international spread of the theme of the "little man", it was first discovered in neo-Attic comedy. Until recently, the concept of "little man" was not defined terminologically. Obviously, this explains the assignment to the category of "little people" of some literary characters who do not belong to it at all. The designation "little man" should be understood as a group of "rather heterogeneous heroes", united by the fact that they "occupy one of the lowest places in the social hierarchy and that this circumstance determines their psychology and social behavior."
Other definitions of the term "little man" belong mainly to Russian scientists. V.M. Markovich in his study "Gogol's St. Petersburg Tales" said that "little people" are typical representatives of the general mass, people "who can be considered average in any respect,<.>heroic officials, mired in routine, but worthy of a better fate” [Markovich 1989: 10].
As the researcher A.A. Anikin in his work “The Theme of the Little Man in Russian Classics”, the definition of “little man” is a true long-liver of the Russian literary tradition. It is not surprising that a certain semantic and emotional stereotype has developed that accompanies this term. Even the literary heroes themselves frankly recommend themselves this way: “I, sir, am a little man” (Kuligin from A.N. Ostrovsky’s play “Thunderstorm”). However, if you look at it with an open mind, the picture may appear in a different light. The same Kuligin is filled with such pretentious pathos that the definition of "little man" is more like a mask than authenticity. Robert Rozhdestvensky already in the 20th century plays with this concept: “On the Earth there lived a mercilessly small man, there was a small man ...”, but he ends up much more sublimely: “... there was not enough marble on the whole Earth to knock out a guy in full growth!” [Rozhdestvensky 2004: 72].
According to A.G. Zeitlin, by the 20-30s of the 19th century, there was a whole tradition of choosing poor officials as heroes of their works, drawing their life and psychology. So, the researcher believes, many writers of the "natural school" "pick up" and develop the image of the poor secretary Molchalin from the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". A prominent place in the life stories dedicated to poor officials is occupied by F.V. Bulgarin. From the humorous genre of his narrations, Zeitlin notes, Gogol's "Overcoat" will later appear [Tseitlin 1968: 104].
Not a single study by Soviet literary critics dedicated to The Stationmaster and The Bronze Horseman A.S. Pushkin, "Petersburg stories" N.V. Gogol, early works of F.M. Dostoevsky and the work of the writers of the "natural school" of the 40s of the XIX century, could not do without mentioning the "poor official", suffering from the injustice of the reality surrounding him.
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, V.V. Vinogradov.
In the following decades, the image of the “little man” in the work of A.C. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, writers of the "natural school" was studied by a number of major literary critics: Sahakyan P.T., Zeitlin A.G., Rudenko V.F.
The point of view of A.A. Anikin, who proposes to consider the Bible, especially the Gospel, as the primary source for the theme of the "little man" in Russian literature. He notes that the person depicted in the Gospel is precisely “small”, less before God, and not before earthly power, or strength, or wealth. Moreover, the earthly meaning of a person and his appearance before God do not coincide. Christ is first of all addressed to the "lowly and offended": "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). Let's give a few more capacious gospel verses that define the semantic core of our topic: "What you did to one of my younger brothers, you did to me" (Matt., 25, 40 - 45); “He who is least among you will be great” (Luke 9:48); “Whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant; whoever wants to be first, let him be your slave” (Matt. 20:26); “Be careful not to despise any of these little ones” (Matthew 18:10). So, the evangelical person is small in his spirit, humiliated, vicious and weak, but aspiring to God, waiting for the highest judgment, being transformed, despite earthly humiliation (“the last will be the first”) [Anikin: Electronic resource].
A.A. Anikin in his work “The Theme of the Little Man in Russian Classics” notes: “In the 18th century, literature in the tradition of Radishchev seemed to have exhausted faith in the earthly well-being of the “little man”, returning to the tragic pathos of the Gospel with a sense of earthly suffering that will never be overcome, which gave impetus to comparatively the rapid development of the theme from Samson Vyrin to Platon Karataev, and the tragic pathos also determines the philosophical deepening of the hero. The insufficiency and even inappropriateness of sympathy for earthly suffering, the understanding of the impossibility of fully establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth (and the impossibility for a “little man” to fully understand the Word of God) only increased the artistic appeal of the theme. On the contrary, the revolutionary pathos of saving the “little man”, bright and attractive in itself, turned out to be unproductive for the depth of the artistic depiction of the personality” [Anikin: Electronic resource].
This image, as already noted, has become very characteristic of Russian classics. One can recall the textbook, “school” works: “The Stationmaster” by A.S. Pushkin, "Overcoat" N.V. Gogol, "A Hero of Our Time" by M.Yu. Lermontov, "Crime and Punishment" by F.M. Dostoevsky, "War and Peace" by L.N. Tolstoy (the image of Platon Karataev). In addition, there are a number of “borderline” images that allow one to appreciate the nuances of the theme, contrasting deviations from it, already transferring the characters to a different category (for example, Evgeny from The Bronze Horseman, Chichikov, Karandyshev, the heroes of A.N. Ostrovsky’s Thunderstorm, finally - a number of Chekhov's characters, on which the actual theme of the little man is interrupted: Chekhov "destroys" the little man, striving not so much for approval as for the rebirth of such a hero). In general, the theme of the “little man” in its pure form, without developing into a completely different topic (for example, the participation of a small man in a great cause, as in the article by M. Gorky “On small people and their great work”, or an overestimation of the spirituality of a small person: small in society, but great in soul, etc.), will turn out to be one of the specific themes of precisely the classics of the 19th century, where, despite the presence of common thematic features, the philosophy of the “little man” will nevertheless conceptually develop, but precisely around the gospel parable.
The little man was and remains a literary hero. L.N. Dmitrievskaya notes: “When we say “little man”, we somehow remove him from ourselves, we pity him condescendingly, condescendingly. But if we have a MAN in front of us, then the approach to him is already different. And in this case, the image of the hero makes us no longer think about whether it is worth pitying him or not - he demands that we think about ourselves, about our human essence" [Dmitrievskaya 2009: 3].
The study of the problem of the “little man” in the light of the Christian tradition led to the fact that the concept under study, previously defined as a “petty official”, “poor man”, suffering from his own ambition, constant humiliation and insults due to his low origin or social status, changes its usual meaning when faced with the author's view of the hero's poverty problem.
Moreover, this literary image is sometimes called the most important and fundamental in Russian literature. Mikhail Epshtein, in his work “The Little Man in a Case: The Bashmachkin-Belikov Syndrome,” argues: “It is widely believed that all Russian literature came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat”. There is reason to say that many characters in Russian literature came out of Gogol's Bashmachkin. Usually a small person is treated as a separate type - humiliated, humble, resigned, and Bashmachkin is put on a par with Pushkin's Semyon Vyrin and Makar Devushkin of F. Dostoevsky. But Akaki Bashmachkin can also be placed in a completely different, widely divergent series of his unrecognized descendants and heirs in Russian literature” [Epshtein 2005: 18]. Such a noticeable literary trend could not but affect foreign literature. Correctly identified P.L. Weil in his work "Map of the Motherland": "The little man from the great Russian literature is so small that it cannot be further reduced. Changes could only go in the direction of increase. This is what the Western followers of our classical tradition have done. Out of our Little Man came the heroes of Kafka, Beckett, Camus, who have grown to global proportions […]. Soviet culture threw off the Bashmachkin overcoat - on the shoulders of the living Little Man, who, of course, did not go anywhere, simply got off the ideological surface, died in literature" [Vail 2007: 32].
The concept of "little man" as such is inextricably linked with the concepts of humanism and morality. It is love for a person as a thinking and free being that allows the reader not only to sympathize, but also to understand and sympathize with the “little people”. From the Christian-based ideas of Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Renaissance philosopher, to the atheistic humanists of the twentieth century, the value of the individual human person has been cultivated. Erasmus proceeded from the humanistic idea of man as a noble living being, for the sake of which alone this delightful mechanism of the world was built by God. He, recognizing, in accordance with Christian teaching, that the source and outcome of eternal salvation depend on God, he believed, however, that the course of affairs in earthly human existence depends on a person and on his free choice under given conditions, which is a prerequisite for moral responsibility. The “little man”, driven into the harsh framework of poverty, social class, or even his own weak character, deserves to be called a person, based on the values of humanism.
The twentieth century brings new ideas, a new look at man. However, the ideas of humanism and the value of the individual are just as relevant. Atheist Jean-Paul Sartre presents his work "Existentialism is a Humanism".
Sartre proceeds from the fact that "existence precedes essence." From his point of view, it is difficult to immediately define a person, because at first he does not represent anything. A man becomes a man only later, when he makes himself. In this, Sartre sees the most important, even the first principle of existentialism, which he associates with subjectivity. It is obvious that these ideas of Sartre have something in common with humanism. For him, “a person is, first of all, a project that is experienced subjectively. Nothing exists prior to this project, there is nothing in the intelligible sky, and man will become what his project of being is. Not the way he wants” [Sartre 2010: 284].
Such a responsibility of a person for himself is determined, from the point of view of Sartre, by the fact that “man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, and yet free, because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does ... ”[Sartre 2010: 288]. According to Sartre, a person is responsible not only for his rational actions, but also for his passions. Man exists only insofar as he realizes himself. He is, therefore, nothing but the totality of his actions, nothing but his own life.
In this regard, he considers two different meanings of the word "humanism".
In the first of the meanings he singled out, a person is understood as a goal and as the highest value. With this approach, according to Sartre, a cult of humanity is formed, which "can be worshiped in the manner of Auguste Comte." From Sartre's point of view, such humanism is absurd, so it must be abandoned.
Sartre proposes to understand humanism in a different sense. His project of humanism includes the concept of the active character of man, for whom "there is no other legislator but himself." According to Sartre, a person "in a situation of abandonment" decides his own fate, turning to the search for goals that are outside of him. According to Sartre's existentialism, the liberation of a person occurs through his concrete self-realization, focused on activity and freedom, on responsibility for himself in an organization with others.
Obviously, despite Sartre's expansion of the meaning of Humanism, the idea of the value of man remains immutable. However, freedom becomes the main idea of humanism in the period of existentialism. The internal rebellion described by Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus determines the value of a reasonable person. However, this is not yet the formation of personality. The idea of a small person, overwhelmed by internal contradictions, was created and developed by existentialists as the idea of freedom in general. Another characteristic feature of humanism in existentialism is the absence of God. Thus, the essential difference between the ideas of Camus and Sartre from the ideas of the Renaissance was what determines the value of a single person - moral responsibility or freedom of consciousness.
American literature has not left this image without attention. In the eternal search for the American Dream, there are inevitably winners and losers. Mark Twain in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn explored the problem not only of slavery, in the book the author analyzes many topics that remain relevant to this day. Ernest Hemingway noted that "All American literature came out of one book by Mark Twain, from his Huckleberry Finn ... We don't have a better book." Huck - this poor, homeless boy, fleeing from his always drunk father, from the insipid charity that disgusted him - does not sail through the Mississippi alone. He is the very "scoundrel and scoundrel" who, despite the danger, dares to "shelter" a runaway slave on a raft. And not only to shelter, but also to share with him your meager supplies of food, to help him hide. He pities and loves old Jim, considers him his friend. Jim for Huck is better, more honest, more caring than his own father, who did not hesitate to rob his son clean, kept him starving, and even “thrashed him with anything” every day.
Mark Twain does not think that his hero is such a brave fighter against injustice, he does not touch Huck, but simply says that the friendship of these two good, courageous people is as common as the friendship of Huck with Tom Sawyer or Tom with his girlfriend Becky Thatcher. Jim for the writer and for his little hero is not "also a man", but a real man, like any other. It was Mark Twain who laid down in American literature a humanistic approach to man, to the individual, regardless of his position in society.
Another American writer, Theodore Dreiser, did not bypass this image. In his work Tragic America, he argues: “Let the speed of cars, the power of cars, the height of skyscrapers built in record time be as high as possible, the run of trains through the tunnels of the subway as dizzying as possible! More cities, more business, more business and worries - as if it were we, of all peoples, who were called upon not only to mechanize, but also to populate the whole world! But why is all this being done? For some specific purpose? For the sake of creating some higher spiritual values? It seems to me that, on the contrary, in such an environment a person inevitably fizzles out both physically and morally; and with millions of people it has either already happened or is about to happen in the near future. They live and die without having experienced anything worth living for. The life of the average person has turned into continuous torment: it is so insignificant and meaningless, to such an extent he himself is confused and doomed to defeat in advance! [Dreiser 1952: 10]. The crisis of lack of spirituality in a purely commercial environment overtakes both Clyde Griffith in An American Tragedy and Sister Kerry. Like Updike, in all his novels, Dreiser gives a broad picture of the customs and life of the environment he depicts. Dreiser is a moralist, in his novels the desire for enrichment at the expense of spirituality is punished, but this does not mean that the author does not sympathize with his heroes. Like Jack London, who is filled with sympathy for his Martin Eden just when his hero is a poor uneducated sailor, a small man. But Martin himself is aware of what he has lost: “He was striving for the stars, but fell into a fetid quagmire” [London 2009: 552].
Herman Melville dedicates a short philosophical story to the image - Scribe Bartleby. Bartleby is a typical little person, very similar to similar types of Russian literature. The hero of the story is a petty clerk, a copyist of court papers in a private law office in New York, an American colleague of Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin. For reasons that remain unclear ("an irreparable loss to literature," Melville states, either mockingly or puzzled), the scribe Bartleby, a sullen, homeless young man, announces something like a boycott of the society in which he lives. He refuses to work, refuses to leave the premises of the office where he works, refuses to be fired for dereliction of duty, and refuses to give an explanation for his actions. However, at the end of the story, the narrator, Bartleby's former boss, comes up with a truly humanistic thought: “For the first time in my life, I was seized by a feeling of painful, aching sadness ... Brother's sadness! After all, Bartleby and I were both sons of Adam” [Melville 1988: 110].
Another typical small person in the United States is introduced in 1949 by Arthur Miller. The play "Death of a Salesman" again raises the problem of loneliness and lack of spirituality in the world of commerce. The central problem in the play is the problem of the "American dream", that is, the problem of a small person dreaming of becoming a big person. Willy Loman, an aging salesman, never goes beyond his type. He often thinks about his dream, but he cannot be called ambitious: “All I need is some boards and peace of mind” [Miller 2011: 298].
The second half of the 20th century brings many technological discoveries, but it also raises no fewer questions. As E.A. Stetsenko: “Man has fallen into a twilight, crisis era, in which he is forced to wait for a new light, a new day and a new self-consciousness.” But the personality and its value in society still has a literary value. E.A. Stetsenko refers to K. Popper: “The concrete history of mankind, if there was such, should be the history of all people. It should be the story of all human hopes, efforts and sufferings. Because there is not a single person who would be more important than another person” [Stetsenko 2009: 150].
Later literary currents were also interested in the role of man in the big world. K. Kesey in the novel "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" represents a whole series of types who prefer seclusion in a mental hospital to the real world. For the rebel McMurphy, it becomes a shock that people have abandoned society and self-realization of their own free will. In addition to patients with clearly expressed deviations, there are real little people in the clinic, frightened by reality. However, as the protagonist notes: “Loneliness only increases the feeling of uselessness” [Kesi 2009: 237].
John Updike continues the traditions of American literature and makes it possible to trace the evolution of the image at the end of the 20th century. In the wake of an increased interest in postmodernism, avant-garde and experimental literature, Updike remains true to the quest of the middle class, the values of ordinary people who can easily be imagined living in the neighborhood. In his work, the humanistic principle is akin to Dreiser's, his heroes rush about in their little worlds, but do not stop thinking about the eternal questions of being. Updike's little man is a product of the environment, and although Updike can hardly be called a moralist, he nevertheless shows the results of a crisis of lack of spirituality.
1. Introduction p.3
2. Main body
2.1. The history of the concept of "little man" page 4
2.2. The image of the "little man" in the works of A. S. Pushkin ("The Stationmaster") pp. 4 - 5
2.3. Reflection of the theme of the "little man" in the "Overcoat" pp. 5 - 6
N. V. Gogol.
2.4. The image of the "little man" in the work of pp. 6 - 7
Dostoevsky.
2.5. Reflection of the "little man" theme in the stories pp. 7 - 9
V.M. Shukshin and M.M. Zoshchenko
3. Conclusion page 9
4. References p. 10
Introduction.
The words are well known: - “We all came out of Gogol's Overcoat, although their authorship and
the circumstances of the pronunciation are still being discussed. But the meaning itself is attractive:
Gogol was able to tell about something that was then deepened, developed, developed
other writers, he brought out the human type that has always been and always will be.
Or maybe - "we" are ordinary people who have visited Bashmachkin's place more than once?
"Little man" - a type of literary hero that arose in Russian
literature with the advent of realism, that is, in the 20-30s of the XIX century.
This image was of interest to writers, and many works help
convey to us the high value of "small" people.
The concept of the "little man" has changed throughout the 19 -
20 centuries. Each writer had his own personal views on this hero.
In my work, I tried to reveal the significance of each character in individual
works of classics and writers of the 19th - 20th centuries.
Relevance (significance) of this topic: behind the whole routine of our life, we do not notice a number of "little people", their existence in society. Usually a small person is treated as a separate type - humiliated, humble, uncomplaining. Has this little man's life changed over the years? Apparently not. In the same way, he is defenseless against passers-by, swindlers, bosses, offices, departments, organizations, authorities, the state, fate, circumstances, and how many more offenders do the unfortunate have? The authors - and we, along with them - mourn not only the untimely death of a little man, but the loss of the very title of a man, when people are divided into significant and insignificant, when they neglect the timid, weak, patient, offend and indifferently take away from them the most precious thing, therefore the relevance of the theme of the “little” person does not fade even today.
Research problem: evolution of the image of a "little" person in the works of Russian writers.
Object of study: creativity of Russian writers.
Subject of study: image of a "little" person.
Purpose of the study: identification and comparison of the symbolic nature
"little man" in literature, the evolution of the image.
Research objectives:
1. Summarize and compare critical literature on the topic.
2. Analyze works,
3. To trace the development of the theme of the "little man" in Russian literature.
Research hypothesis: the image of the "little man" is found in the literature of the XIX-XX centuries. in connection with the historical events of that time and evolves as the situation in social circles changes.
Research methods:
Analysis of the material read;
- generalization and systematization of the data obtained during the research;
- comparison and comparison of heroes;
- use of Internet resources.
Main part.
The history of the concept of "little man".
The first period of Russian literature, as we know, is ancient Russian literature, the heroes of which were princes, saints, wars. Only at the end of the period of existence of ancient Russian literature is a simple person “allowed” into it, not a hero, not a saint, not a ruler. Then classicism comes to literature from the West, this direction corresponded to the needs of that time. Peter I built a "strong" state. The classicists were worried about the needs of the state and a citizen who was useful to his country. Only with the advent, again from Western literature, to Russian literature of sentimentalism, did writers become interested in the personal needs and experiences of people. The first writer to discover the world of "little people" was Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. The greatest influence on subsequent literature was his story "Poor Liza". The narrator tells about the fate of the heroine with sadness and sympathy. It was essential for the sentimentalist writer to address social issues. The social inequality of the heroes and the natural complexity of the human soul become an obstacle to Liza's happiness. The author does not convict Erast of Liza's death: the young man is just as unhappy as the peasant girl. But this is especially important: Karamzin was perhaps the first to discover in Russian literature the “living soul” in the “little man”, in the representative of the “lower” class. “And peasant women know how to love” - this phrase became a catch phrase in Russian literature for a long time. This is where another tradition of Russian literature begins: sympathy for the “little man”, his joys and troubles. Protecting the weak, the oppressed and the voiceless - this is the main moral task of the artists of the word. Humanity, the ability to sympathize and be sensual turned out to be very in tune with the trend of the times, when literature moved from the civil theme, characteristic of the Enlightenment, to the theme of a person’s personal, private life, and the inner world of an individual became the main object of its attention. Karamzin laid the foundation for a huge cycle of works about "little people", took the first step in the study of a previously unknown topic. It was he who opened the way for such writers as Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky.
The image of the "little man" in Russian literature
The very concept of "little man" appears in literature before the very type of hero is formed. Initially, this is the designation of people of the third estate, which became of interest to writers due to the democratization of literature.
In the 19th century, the image of the "little man" becomes one of the cross-cutting themes of literature. The concept of "little man" was introduced by V.G. Belinsky in his 1840 article "Woe from Wit". Initially, it meant a "simple" person. With the development of psychologism in Russian literature, this image acquires a more complex psychological portrait and becomes the most popular character in the democratic works of the second half. XIX century.
Literary Encyclopedia:
"Little Man" is a number of diverse characters in Russian literature of the 19th century, united by common features: a low position in the social hierarchy, poverty, insecurity, which determines the peculiarities of their psychology and plot role - victims of social injustice and a soulless state mechanism, often personified in the image "significant person". They are characterized by fear of life, humiliation, meekness, which, however, can be combined with a sense of the injustice of the existing order of things, with wounded pride and even a short-term rebellious impulse, which, as a rule, does not lead to a change in the current situation. The type of "little man", discovered by A. S. Pushkin ("The Bronze Horseman", "The Stationmaster") and N. V. Gogol ("The Overcoat", "Notes of a Madman"), creatively, and sometimes polemically in relation to tradition , rethought by F. M. Dostoevsky (Makar Devushkin, Golyadkin, Marmeladov), A. N. Ostrovsky (Balzaminov, Kuligin), A. P. Chekhov (Chervyakov from "The Death of an Official", the hero of "Tolstoy and Thin"), M. A. Bulgakov (Korotkov from the Diaboliad), M. M. Zoshchenko and other Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries.
“Little man” is a type of hero in literature, most often it is a poor, inconspicuous official who occupies a small position, his fate is tragic.
The theme of the "little man" is a "cross-cutting theme" of Russian literature. The appearance of this image is due to the Russian career ladder of fourteen steps, on the lower of which small officials worked and suffered from poverty, lack of rights and insults, poorly educated, often lonely or burdened with families, worthy of human understanding, each with his own misfortune.
Little people are not rich, invisible, their fate is tragic, they are defenseless.
Pushkin "The Stationmaster" Samson Vyrin.
Hard worker. Weak person. He loses his daughter - she is taken away by the rich hussar Minsky. social conflict. Humiliated. Can't take care of himself. Got drunk. Samson is lost in life.
Pushkin was one of the first to put forward the democratic theme of the “little man” in literature. In Belkin's Tales, completed in 1830, the writer not only draws pictures of the life of the nobility and county ("The Young Lady-Peasant Woman"), but also draws the attention of readers to the fate of the "little man".
The fate of the "little man" is shown here realistically for the first time, without sentimental tearfulness, without romantic exaggeration, as a result of certain historical conditions, the injustice of social relations.
In the very plot of The Stationmaster, a typical social conflict is conveyed, a broad generalization of reality is expressed, revealed in the individual case of the tragic fate of an ordinary man Samson Vyrin.
There is a small postal station somewhere at the crossroads of carriageways. The 14th grade official Samson Vyrin and his daughter Dunya live here - the only joy that brightens up the hard life of the caretaker, full of shouting and cursing passing people. But the hero of the story - Samson Vyrin - is quite happy and calm, he has long adapted to the conditions of service, the beautiful daughter Dunya helps him run a simple household. He dreams of simple human happiness, hoping to babysit his grandchildren, spend his old age with his family. But fate prepares a difficult test for him. The passing hussar Minsky takes away Dunya, not thinking about the consequences of his act.
The worst thing is that Dunya left with the hussar of her own free will. Having crossed the threshold of a new, rich life, she abandoned her father. Samson Vyrin goes to St. Petersburg to "return the lost lamb", but he is kicked out of Dunya's house. The hussar "with a strong hand, grabbing the old man by the collar, pushed him onto the stairs." Unhappy father! Where can he compete with a rich hussar! In the end, for his daughter, he receives several banknotes. “Tears again welled up in his eyes, tears of indignation! He squeezed the papers into a ball, threw them on the ground, stamped them with his heel and went ... "
Vyrin was no longer able to fight. He "thought, waved his hand and decided to retreat." Samson, after the loss of his beloved daughter, got lost in life, drank himself and died in longing for his daughter, grieving about her possible deplorable fate.
About people like him, Pushkin writes at the beginning of the story: “Let us, however, be fair, we will try to enter into their position and, perhaps, we will judge them much more condescendingly.”
Life truth, sympathy for the "little man", insulted at every step by the bosses, standing higher in rank and position - that's what we feel when reading the story. Pushkin cherishes this "little man" who lives in grief and need. The story is imbued with democracy and humanity, so realistically depicting the “little man”.
Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". Eugene
Eugene is a "little man". The city played a fatal role in fate. During the flood, he loses his bride. All his dreams and hopes for happiness perished. Lost my mind. In sick madness, he challenges the "idol on a bronze horse" Nightmare: the threat of death under bronze hooves.
The image of Eugene embodies the idea of confrontation between the common man and the state.
"The poor man was not afraid for himself." "The blood boiled." “A flame ran through the heart”, “Already for you!”. Yevgeny's protest is an instant impulse, but stronger than that of Samson Vyrin.
The image of a shining, lively, magnificent city is replaced in the first part of the poem by a picture of a terrible, destructive flood, expressive images of a raging element over which a person has no power. Among those whose lives were destroyed by the flood is Eugene, whose peaceful cares the author speaks at the beginning of the first part of the poem. Eugene is an “ordinary man” (“small” man): he has neither money nor ranks, he “serves somewhere” and dreams of making himself a “humble and simple shelter” in order to marry his beloved girl and go through life with her.
…Our hero
Lives in Kolomna, serves somewhere,
The nobles shy away…
He does not make great plans for the future, he is satisfied with a quiet, inconspicuous life.
What was he thinking about? About,
That he was poor, that he labored
He had to deliver
And independence, and honor;
What could God add to him
Mind and money.
The poem does not indicate either the hero's surname or his age, nothing is said about Yevgeny's past, his appearance, character traits. By depriving Yevgeny of individual features, the author turns him into an ordinary, typical person from the crowd. However, in an extreme, critical situation, Eugene seems to wake up from a dream, and throws off the guise of "insignificance" and opposes the "copper idol". In a state of madness, he threatens the Bronze Horseman, considering the man who built the city on this dead place to be the culprit of his misfortune.
Pushkin looks at his heroes from the side. They do not stand out either in intelligence or in their position in society, but they are kind and decent people, and therefore worthy of respect and sympathy.
Conflict
Pushkin for the first time in Russian literature showed all the tragedy and insolubility of the conflict between the state and state interests and the interests of the private individual.
The plot of the poem is completed, the hero died, but the central conflict remained and was transferred to the readers, not resolved and in reality itself, the antagonism of the “tops” and “bottoms”, the autocratic power and the destitute people remained. The symbolic victory of the Bronze Horseman over Eugene is a victory of strength, but not of justice.
Gogol "Overcoat" Akaki Akikievich Bashmachkin
"Eternal titular adviser". Resignedly takes down the ridicule of colleagues, timid and lonely. poor spiritual life. Irony and compassion of the author. The image of the city, which is terrible for the hero. Social conflict: "little man" and soulless representative of the authorities "significant person". The element of fantasy (casting) is the motive of rebellion and retribution.
Gogol opens the reader to the world of "little people", officials in his "Petersburg Tales". The story "The Overcoat" is especially significant for the disclosure of this topic, Gogol had a great influence on the further movement of Russian literature, "responding" in the work of its most diverse figures from Dostoevsky and Shchedrin to Bulgakov and Sholokhov. “We all came out of Gogol's overcoat,” wrote Dostoevsky.
Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin - "eternal titular adviser." He resignedly endures the ridicule of his colleagues, he is timid and lonely. The senseless clerical service killed every living thought in him. His spiritual life is poor. The only pleasure he finds in the correspondence of papers. He lovingly drew the letters in a clean, even handwriting and completely immersed himself in work, forgetting the insults caused to him by his colleagues, and the need, and worries about food and comfort. Even at home, he only thought that "God will send something to rewrite tomorrow."
But even in this downtrodden official, a man woke up when the goal of life appeared - a new overcoat. In the story, the development of the image is observed. “He became somehow more alive, even firmer in character. Doubt, indecision disappeared by itself from his face and from his actions ... ”Bashmachkin does not part with his dream for a single day. He thinks about it, as another person thinks about love, about family. Here he orders a new overcoat for himself, “... his existence has become somehow fuller ...” The description of Akaky Akakievich’s life is permeated with irony, but there is both pity and sadness in it. Introducing us into the spiritual world of the hero, describing his feelings, thoughts, dreams, joys and sorrows, the author makes it clear what happiness it was for Bashmachkin to acquire an overcoat and what a disaster its loss turns into.
There was no happier person than Akaky Akakievich when the tailor brought him an overcoat. But his joy was short-lived. When he returned home at night, he was robbed. And none of those around him takes part in his fate. In vain Bashmachkin sought help from a "significant person." He was even accused of rebellion against superiors and "higher". Frustrated Akaki Akakievich catches a cold and dies.
In the finale, a small, timid man, driven to despair by the world of the strong, protests against this world. Dying, he "badly blasphemes", utters the most terrible words that followed the words "your excellency." It was a riot, albeit in a deathbed delirium.
It is not because of the overcoat that the “little man” dies. He becomes a victim of bureaucratic "inhumanity" and "ferocious rudeness", which, according to Gogol, lurks under the guise of "refined, educated secularism." This is the deepest meaning of the story.
The theme of rebellion finds expression in the fantastic image of a ghost that appears on the streets of St. Petersburg after the death of Akaky Akakievich and takes off his overcoats from offenders.
N.V. Gogol, who in his story "The Overcoat" for the first time shows the spiritual stinginess, squalor of poor people, but also draws attention to the ability of the "little man" to rebel and for this he introduces elements of fantasy into his work.
N. V. Gogol deepens the social conflict: the writer showed not only the life of the “little man”, but also his protest against injustice. Let this "rebellion" be timid, almost fantastic, but the hero stands up for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.
Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" Marmeladov
The writer himself remarked: "We all came out of Gogol's Overcoat."
Dostoevsky's novel is imbued with the spirit of Gogol's "Overcoat" "Poor people and". This is a story about the fate of the same "little man", crushed by grief, despair and social lawlessness. The correspondence of the poor official Makar Devushkin with Varenka, who lost her parents and is persecuted by a procuress, reveals the deep drama of the life of these people. Makar and Varenka are ready for each other for any hardships. Makar, living in extreme need, helps Varya. And Varya, having learned about the situation of Makar, comes to his aid. But the heroes of the novel are defenseless. Their rebellion is "rebellion on their knees." Nobody can help them. Varya is taken away to certain death, and Makar is left alone with his grief. Broken, crippled life of two wonderful people, broken by cruel reality.
Dostoevsky reveals the deep and strong experiences of "little people".
It is curious to note that Makar Devushkin reads Pushkin's The Stationmaster and Gogol's The Overcoat. He is sympathetic to Samson Vyrin and hostile to Bashmachkin. Probably because he sees his future in him.
F.M. told about the fate of the “little man” Semyon Semyonovich Marmeladov. Dostoevsky on the pages of the novel "Crime and Punishment". One by one, the writer reveals before us pictures of hopeless poverty. Dostoevsky chose the dirtiest part of strictly St. Petersburg as the scene of action. Against the background of this landscape, the life of the Marmeladov family unfolds before us.
If Chekhov's characters are humiliated, do not realize their insignificance, then Dostoevsky's drunken retired official fully understands his uselessness, uselessness. He is a drunkard, insignificant, from his point of view, a person who wants to improve, but cannot. He understands that he has condemned his family, and especially his daughter, to suffering, worries about this, despises himself, but cannot help himself. “Pity! Why pity me!” Marmeladov suddenly yelled, standing up with his hand outstretched… “Yes! There’s nothing to pity me for! Crucify me on the cross, and don’t pity me!
Dostoevsky creates the image of a real fallen person: Marmelad's importunate sweetness, clumsy ornate speech - the property of a beer tribune and a jester at the same time. Awareness of his baseness (“I am a born cattle”) only strengthens his bravado. He is disgusting and pitiful at the same time, this drunkard Marmeladov with his ornate speech and important bureaucratic posture.
The state of mind of this petty official is much more complex and subtle than that of his literary predecessors - Pushkin's Samson Vyrin and Gogol's Bashmachkin. They do not have the power of introspection, which the hero of Dostoevsky achieved. Marmeladov not only suffers, but also analyzes his state of mind, he, as a doctor, makes a merciless diagnosis of the disease - the degradation of his own personality. Here is how he confesses in his first meeting with Raskolnikov: “Dear Sir, poverty is not a vice, it is the truth. But ... poverty is a vice - p. In poverty, you still retain all the nobility of innate feelings, but in poverty, never anyone ... for in poverty I myself am the first ready to offend myself.
A person not only perishes from poverty, but understands how he is spiritually devastated: he begins to despise himself, but does not see anything around him to cling to, which would keep him from the decay of his personality. The finale of Marmeladov's life fate is tragic: on the street he was crushed by a dandy gentleman's carriage drawn by a pair of horses. Throwing himself under their feet, this man himself found the outcome of his life.
Under the pen of the writer Marmeladov becomes a tragic way. Marmelad's cry - "after all, it is necessary that every person could at least go somewhere" - expresses the last degree of despair of a dehumanized person and reflects the essence of his life drama: there is nowhere to go and no one to go to.
In the novel, Raskolnikov sympathizes with Marmeladov. Meeting with Marmeladov in a tavern, his feverish, as if delirious, confession gave the protagonist of the novel Raskolnikov one of the last proofs of the correctness of the “Napoleonic idea”. But not only Raskolnikov sympathizes with Marmeladov. “More than once they have already pitied me,” says Marmeladov to Raskolnikov. The good general Ivan Afanasyevich also took pity on him, and again accepted him into the service. But Marmeladov could not stand the test, he took to drink again, drank all his salary, drank everything, and in return received a tattered tailcoat with a single button. Marmeladov in his behavior reached the point of losing the last human qualities. He is already so humiliated that he does not feel like a man, but only dreams of being a man among people. Sonya Marmeladova understands and forgives her father, who is able to help her neighbor, to sympathize with those who so need compassion
Dostoevsky makes us feel sorry for the unworthy of pity, to feel compassion for the unworthy of compassion. "Compassion is the most important and, perhaps, the only law of human existence," said Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
Chekhov "Death of an official", "Thick and thin"
Later, Chekhov would sum up a peculiar result in the development of the theme, he doubted the virtues traditionally sung by Russian literature - the high moral merits of the "little man" - a petty official. Chekhov. If Chekhov “exposed” something in people, then, first of all, it was their ability and readiness to be “small”. A person should not, does not dare to make himself "small" - this is Chekhov's main idea in his interpretation of the "little man" theme. Summing up all that has been said, we can conclude that the theme of the "little man" reveals the most important qualities of Russian literature. XIX century - democracy and humanism.
Over time, the "little man", deprived of his own dignity, "humiliated and insulted", causes not only compassion, but also condemnation among progressive writers. “Your life is boring, gentlemen,” Chekhov said with his work to the “little man”, resigned to his position. With subtle humor, the writer ridicules the death of Ivan Chervyakov, from whose lips the lackey “Yourself” has not left his lips all his life.
In the same year as "The Death of an Official", the story "Thick and Thin" appears. Chekhov again opposes philistinism, servility. The collegiate servant Porfiry giggles, "like a Chinese", bowing in an obsequious bow, having met his former friend, who has a high rank. The feeling of friendship that connected these two people is forgotten.
Kuprin "Garnet bracelet".Zheltkov
In AI Kuprin's "Garnet Bracelet" Zheltkov is a "little man". Once again, the hero belongs to the lower class. But he loves, and he loves in a way that many of the highest society are not capable of. Zheltkov fell in love with a girl and for the rest of his life he loved only her alone. He understood that love is a sublime feeling, it is a chance given to him by fate, and it should not be missed. His love is his life, his hope. Zheltkov commits suicide. But after the death of the hero, the woman realizes that no one loved her as much as he did. The hero of Kuprin is a man of an extraordinary soul, capable of self-sacrifice, able to truly love, and such a gift is a rarity. Therefore, the "little man" Zheltkov appears as a figure towering above those around him.
Thus, the theme of the "little man" underwent significant changes in the work of writers. Drawing images of "little people", writers usually emphasized their weak protest, downtroddenness, which subsequently leads the "little man" to degradation. But each of these heroes has something in life that helps him endure existence: Samson Vyrin has a daughter, the joy of life, Akaky Akakievich has an overcoat, Makar Devushkin and Varenka have their love and care for each other. Having lost this goal, they die, unable to survive the loss.
In conclusion, I would like to say that a person should not be small. In one of his letters to his sister, Chekhov exclaimed: “My God, how rich Russia is in good people!”
In XX century, the theme was developed in the images of the heroes of I. Bunin, A. Kuprin, M. Gorky, and even at the end XX century, you can find its reflection in the work of V. Shukshin, V. Rasputin and other writers.
Continuation
"The Bronze Horseman" is one of the first works where the author tries to describe the "little man". Pushkin begins his creation odically. He glorifies the city of Petra, the "greatness" of St. Petersburg, admires the capital of Russia. In my opinion, the author does this in order to show the power of the capital and the entire Russian state. Then the author begins his story. The main character is Eugene, he is an impoverished nobleman, he has neither a high rank nor a noble name: "The name is forgotten by night light and rumor." Eugene lives a calm, measured life, "shy of the nobles", provides for himself by working hard. Eugene does not dream of high ranks, he only needs simple human happiness. But grief bursts into this measured course of his life, his beloved dies during a flood. Eugene, realizing that he is powerless before the elements, is still trying to find those responsible for the collapse of his hope for happiness. And finds. Eugene blames Peter I for his troubles, who built the city in this place, which means he blames the entire state machine, thereby entering into the first fight; and Pushkin shows this through the revival of the monument to Peter I. Of course, in this fight, Eugene, a weak man, is defeated due to great grief and inability to fight the state, the main character dies.
Pushkin vividly described the "little man", this man not only had his own opinion, but also tried to prove it.
In the story "The Overcoat" Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin is the main character, all the rest of the characters create the background.
The story "The Overcoat" is one of the best in Gogol's work. In it, the writer appears before us as a master of detail, a satirist and a humanist. The hero of the "Overcoat" Akaki Akakievich is no longer a nobleman, he is an official of the lowest class - a titular adviser, a person who is strongly mocked and made fun of, thereby humiliating him. In the story about the life of a petty official, Gogol was able to create an unforgettable vivid image of a “little man” with his joys and troubles, difficulties and worries. Hopeless need surrounds Akaky Akakievich, but he does not see the tragedy of his position, as he is busy with business. Bashmachkin is not burdened by his poverty, because he does not know another life. He was so accustomed to his humiliating position that even his speech became inferior - he could not finish the sentence and instead used pronouns, interjections, prepositions, etc. This style of speech in itself made a person humiliated in front of everyone else, even equal to him in class. Akaky Akakievich not only did not oppose the state (as Yevgeny tried to do), he cannot even defend himself before equal people. And when he has a dream: a new overcoat, he is ready to endure any hardships, if only to bring the implementation of his plans closer.
The overcoat becomes a kind of symbol of a happy future, a favorite brainchild, for which Akaki Akakievich is ready to work tirelessly. The author is quite serious when he describes the delight of his hero about the realization of a dream: the overcoat is sewn! Bashmachkin was completely happy. But for how long? When Bashmachkin's overcoat was stolen, it was grief for him, equivalent to the loss of Parasha from Yevgeny. But what did he do? Bashmachkin appeals to various authorities, but it is not difficult to refuse him, because he is insignificant in his position, and most importantly, in his soul. This is proved by the fact that Bashmachkin did not dream of anything, could not stand up for himself, did not defend his human dignity.
The "little man" is not destined to be happy in this unfair world. And only after death is justice done. Bashmachkin's "soul" finds peace when he returns his lost thing.
Akaky Akakievich dies, but Gogol revives him. Why is he doing this? It seems to me that Gogol revived the hero in order to show even more the insignificance of the soul of the “little man”, and even when he came to life, he changed only on the outside, but in his soul he still remained only a “little man” (at least, it seems to me that this is precisely So).
Depicting the persecution of a poor official by his colleagues, Gogol protests against violence against a defenseless person who saw the "whole world" not in the life of people and nature, but in the words and letters of official correspondence. Gogol defends the "little man" against social injustice. He condemns the social order that oppresses the disadvantaged.
Bashmachkin is not only a poor man, he is a crushed, downtrodden person, he is one of those people who are enslaved and humiliated in their human dignity by other people who are needlessly proud of their high position in society.
Gogol evokes in the reader sincere sympathy and pity for the personality of an inconspicuous, modest worker, who is crushed to such an extent that he no longer seems to have any heartfelt feelings and aspirations. But who, nevertheless, finally finds some object for his secret heartfelt affection, for the thirst, tenderness and participation that has almost disappeared.
"The Overcoat" is permeated with bitter reflection about "how much inhumanity there is in man, how much humble rudeness is hidden, in refined, educated secularism." “The Overcoat” is a brief description of the life of a poor titular adviser, “a being protected by no one, dear to no one”, a life so insignificant and inconspicuous that even buying a new overcoat is a whole event in it.
Bashmachkin meekly and humbly endures the ridicule of his comrades, who "tricked him as much as clerical wit was enough." But even in this downtrodden creature, Gogol tried to see a person, showing how embarrassed one of the officials was by Bashmachkin’s timid objection: “leave me, why are you offending me?” - an objection in which "something so pitiful was heard."
Not great, but rather a pathetic object that brought Akaky Akakievich out of his spiritual stupor: not love, not any other sublime feeling, but everyday and ordinary - a new overcoat "on thick cotton wool, on a strong lining without demolition." And, nevertheless, we deeply sympathize with Gogol's hero, seeing his selflessness and, as it were, being present at his awakening from spiritual stupor. For the sake of the overcoat, Bashmachkin learned to starve, but on the other hand he learned to eat spiritually, "carrying in his thoughts the eternal idea of the future overcoat."
Gogol showed not only the life of the "little man", but also his protest against injustice. Let this "rebellion" be timid, almost fantastic, but the hero stands up for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.
Maikov wrote: "Both Gogol and Dostoevsky depict a real society." But “for one individual is important as a representative of a certain circle; for another, society itself is interesting, in terms of its influence on the personality of the individual. Gogol's collected works can definitely be called the artistic statistics of Russia. In Dostoevsky, however, any images of society are completely absorbed by the immensity of psychological interest. Speaking about the artistic style of Dostoevsky, Maykov had in mind a special psychologism. It was, of course, about social psychology - the influence that society has on the human personality, but which Dostoevsky studies with an original speed that never occurred to anyone.
In the work "Poor People" the main character is also a small man, scribe Makar Devushkin. In "Poor People" the writer stops at the bottom of the social ladder and talks about people with little or no property, only to look closer into the depths of the spreading evil. The theme of poverty is not the main one here, it is subordinated to a broader social theme. That is why the novel also speaks of poor (insecure) people, and of all kinds of people who, according to Dostoevsky, are always poor, no matter how well-off they are.
The department in which Makar Alekseevich serves, and whose borders close the temporal and spatial aisles of the world for him, is divided into two unequal parts. One is all “they”, “enemies” of Makar Alekseevich and “evil people”. The other part is himself, “quiet”, “quiet”, “kind”. Because of these virtues, explains Makar Alekseevich, "evil people" were "found" to his detriment. But if all the misfortunes of Makar Alekseevich are due to the fact that he is “meek”, “quiet”, “kind”, then the question is, what force prevents him from changing his character? Only one is the force of circumstances. After all, the hero is not just Makar Alekseevich - that poor Makar, on whom all the bumps fall down and on whom the departmental proverb mockingly hinted. It is poverty that distinguishes the hero from all others. And the grief is not so much in the fact that he is “meek”, “quiet”, “kind”, but in the fact that he cannot be any other: he is a “little man”, he is a “poor man”, not a “bird of prey ", but a modest bird. Instead of pride, dignity, with which God and nature endowed the best of their creations, ambition arises, a sick and abnormal feeling - a bad distortion of good principles in a badly organized society. Ambition instills in the poor man a persistent desire, absorbing all his strength, to prove to himself and to others that he is exactly like them, that he is no worse than them.
These “they”, “others”, occupy the feelings and thoughts of Makar Alekseevich constantly: after all, he needs not to differ from “them”. And since “distinction” is innate to him here (due to poverty, due to pernicious circumstances), then “they”, these “others”, take possession of the heart and mind of a poor person with all inevitability. Makar Alekseevich lives with a constant eye: what will others say? what will they think? And the opinion of these "others" is more important for him than his own.
Before us is the “eternal titular adviser”, capable only of copying papers, trained on copper money, meek and downtrodden. Makar Alekseevich Devushkin, no less than Gogol's Bashmachkin, is humiliated and despised in the service. He was also subjected to bullying at work, but by nature he is already a completely different person, different from Akaky Akakievich. In response to insults from colleagues and offenders, the “little man” grumbled: he felt like a person, being capable not only of humility, not only of taking care of himself.
Makar is concerned about the problems of human dignity, he reflects on literature and his position in society. After reading The Overcoat, Makar was outraged that Gogol described the life of an official with great accuracy, Makar recognized himself in Akaky Akakievich, but was outraged that Gogol portrayed an official as an insignificant person. After all, he himself is able to deeply feel, love, which means that he was no longer a nonentity at all, but a person, although put on a low level by society.
What Gogol left in the shadows in The Overcoat - the self-consciousness of a downtrodden person - Dostoevsky made the main theme of his work.
The tragic end of the whole story - the departure of Varenka with the hated, rich landowner Bykov - only emphasizes the weakness and helplessness of poor people, the hopelessness of their suffering.
In the image of Devushkin, Dostoevsky for the first time posed a very important moral problem for him - the tragedy of goodness, genuine humanity in the world of those who consider the ability to “make money” to be the only civic virtue.
Showing the well-intentioned Makar Devushkin, Dostoevsky accurately described the spiritual downtroddenness of a poor person, his conservatism, limited social consciousness, ability to come to terms with lawlessness and adapt to it.
Dostoevsky's hero not only suffers and complains about his fate, but also begins to reason like a citizen. In Devushkin, as he says, "the syllable has been forming recently." In fact, before our eyes there is a process of straightening the personality of the “little man”, who begins to think about the mutual responsibility of people, about human selfishness, and the inability to help each other.
Thus, we see that with the development of literature, the image of the “little man” also developed. At first he could love, respect himself, but he was powerless before the state machine. Then he could not love, not respect, and he could not even think of fighting the state. After that, the “little man” acquires a sense of dignity, the ability to love, and at the same time acutely feels his insignificant position. But the most important thing is that he is no longer insignificant in his soul! d) The theme of the "little man" in the drama of A. N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"
Julius Kapitonych Karandyshev is another "little man" among the heroes of Russian literature. In his "literary pedigree" are the heroes of Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky. The image of Karandyshev Ostrovsky is written masterfully, with psychological authenticity. The character of this "poor official" is perhaps even more complex and interesting than the "brilliant gentleman" Paratov.
Already in the very combination of the name of the Roman emperor Julius with the prosaic patronymic Kapitonych and the humiliating surname Karandyshev contains a contradiction, parodic, perhaps.
And indeed, "already, isn't he a parody" of the same Paratov, say? We receive the first information about Karandyshev from Vozhevatov, who, with his characteristic irony, but very aptly explains to Knurov, “where this Karandyshev came from”: “He has been spinning in their house for a long time, they held him for three years, slightly smoothed him, Once he wanted to shoot himself, yes nothing came of it, it just made everyone laugh." Having become Larisa's fiancé, Karandyshev "shines like an orange put on glasses for some reason, but he had never worn them before and it was not to hear him, and now everything is" I, yes I, I want, I want.
It seems that in the future, from the first appearance with Larisa on the boulevard to the "triumphant" dinner, Julius Kapitonych fully justifies his reputation as a person "insignificant, but proud and envious." He boasts of Larisa as an expensive, but well-purchased thing, constantly reproaches her with a homely "gypsy camp". Even at dinner, when he makes a toast in honor of Larisa, Julius Kapitonych sings a dithyramb “to himself, to his beloved”: “Yes, sir, Larisa Dmitrievna knows how to distinguish gold from tinsel. She understood me, appreciated and preferred me to everyone.”
And yet Karandyshev, according to Larisa herself, has “only one, but expensive dignity” - he loves her.
After Larisa's flight, this “little man” loses all illusions, an epiphany sets in: “I am a funny person. I know myself that I am a funny person. Do people get executed because they are funny? Laugh at me - I'm worth it. But to break the chest of a ridiculous man, tear out his heart, throw it under his feet and trample him! Oh! How can I live! In this scene, Julius Kapitonych is not funny, but pitiful and terrible.
In the last scene of the fourth act, Karandyshev is no longer the same person that he was on the boulevard in the morning, although only a few hours have passed. It is Karandyshev who pronounces the word "thing", throws it in Larisa's face. But he loves her, “forgives, forgives everything”, agrees to everything, tries to take Larisa away, realizing that there is no one to leave her to. Yes, he loves and treats Larisa, like Paratov, Vozhevatov and Knurov, as with a thing.
And, perhaps, Karandyshev's insane shot from a "fake" pistol is "the only genuine human" gesture "against the prudent calculation of the other three." Not without reason, for the only time in her life, Larisa tenderly addresses her fiancé, calling him "dear".
The "little man" Julius Kapitonych Karandyshev, as Ostrovsky sees him, turns out to be the most complex and dramatic figure from the entire male environment of the perishing seagull Larisa Ogudalova.
Having examined the image of the “little man” in the story “The Overcoat” by N. V. Gogol and “Poor People” by F. M. Dostoevsky, as well as in Ostrovsky’s drama “The Dowry”, we can conclude that these writers pay attention to the spiritual type of people. And even the presence of genuine humanity, kindness and morality in the character of Makar Devushkin does not save him from humiliation in the society of the “powerful ones”. And the image of Yuliy Kapitonych Karandyshev is valuable, in my opinion, also because it outlines further possibilities for developing the image of the “little man”, which are closely related to the problems that such people face in society. A. N. Ostrovsky shows how the desire to take a worthy place in society among "little people" degenerates into the pursuit of "the powers that be", this gives rise, on the one hand, to the ability of the "little man" to rebel, and on the other hand, leads to vulgarization and limitations.
e) The connection between the theme of the "little man" and the theory of "strong personality" in the novel "Crime and Punishment" by F. M. Dostoevsky
The human soul is an abyss, Dostoevsky argued; the depths of the subconscious of the individual remain unknown to herself. The ideal of beauty and goodness has an undoubted effect on people, but they are immeasurably more dominated by the Sodom ideal. The power of the dark, unchanging, cruel, which manifests itself in the inner life of a person, in his actions, extreme manifestations of selfishness, sensuality, cynicism, spiritual emptiness, Dostoevsky painted with great artistic truthfulness, while avoiding any naturalism.
The “little man”, descending into the abyss of his consciousness, giving vent to the power of all the “dark, terrible, vile” that has accumulated in a suffering and tormented soul for years, becomes capable of the most monstrous crimes. Dostoevsky, an artist with brilliant skill, managed to depict a dynamic connection between both spheres of our consciousness. When disgust takes over individualistic ideas, for example, in Raskolnikov, they are forced out into the subconscious, reinforced there by the desire to destroy and influence the behavior of their carrier. The passion for self-destruction, justified by the "mind" of the hero, the theory, also has its roots in the dark depths of the human "I". Nature itself is extremely contradictory, and therefore false views are fed by some of its sometimes very hidden features. The thirst for individuality of superiority over people and contempt for the "trembling creature" in Raskolnikov is a manifestation not only of thought, but also of his emotional and psychological sphere.
The theoretical constructions of the hero, which are revealed in dialogic interactions with others, do not exhaust, however, the entire "composition" of his personality. The theory of the hero associated with the subconscious attraction to "destruction" and "self-denial" conflicts with the deepest core of the personality, which is understood by the writer as a spiritual substance. The internal socio-psychological conflict is the main subject of depiction in Dostoevsky's novels. Moreover, the conflict is far from a static opposition of false individualistic views and partially subconscious moral feelings. The internal conflict is extremely contradictory and dynamic, because consciousness is not separated from the unconscious by an impenetrable wall, in turn, the conscious sometimes goes into the subconscious depth. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, at the same time, are convinced that spiritual freedom, which is the essence of man, manifests itself conditioned, historically. socially determined. Therefore, the "ideological" nature of their characters is not self-possessing. It expresses mainly in consciousness the will as free and therefore morally responsible.
For the heroes of Dostoevsky's characters, the leading idea is: they perform actions under the influence of "theory", but the "theory" itself is refuted by the whole structure of their internal moral and spiritual organization. For example, Raskolnikov's theory is not accepted by the irrational core of his personality. The writer shows the tragedy of a man who believes in the omnipotence of false thought and is therefore doomed to internal discord. The idea, the degree of its truth, is tested by the hero's moral sense, and therefore the internal conflict, born of the influence of the social external world, is at the center of the writer's attention.
The fate of poor people, who had reached a dead end of complete despair of hopeless suffering, worried Dostoevsky from the very beginning of his creative activity and until the end of his days.
Leaving the university, Raskolnikov broke with the world, "like a spider, he hid in his corner." Only in complete solitude, in an "irritable and tense state," he was able to surrender to his "ugly dream." She was born in the conditions of St. Petersburg's "stuffiness, crush", "a special summer stink", in a "closet", which "looked more like a closet than an apartment", in poverty and even poverty. “In poverty, you still retain your nobility of innate feelings, but in poverty, never anyone,” Marmeladov explained to Raskolnikov.
Extreme poverty is characterized by "nowhere else to go". The motive of hopelessness is the most central and “cross-cutting”: “Do you understand, do you understand, dear sir,” Marmeladov says to Raskolnikov in a tavern, “what does it mean when there is nowhere else to go?”
Raskolnikov's idea about the extraordinary personality of commanders, conquerors, legislators who violate the ancient law to introduce a new one, in his own words, is not new: "This has been printed and read a thousand times." This refers to the book by Max Stirner "The Only One and His Property", published in 1844 in Germany, as well as the book of Napoleon!!! "History of Julius Caesar". But unlike the ideologists of the asserting bourgeoisie, Raskolnikov speaks with contempt for the “good of mankind”, the highest conscious goal of the heroes. In the same conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, the judicial investigator, Raskolnikov, revealing his concept of a crime, is all in worries about the conscience of “extraordinary people, carrying ideas that may be saving for all of humanity. He recognizes for the heroes the right to shed human blood according to their conscience”, i.e. “not an official right”, but an internal one, “the right to allow their conscience to step over other obstacles” and only if the fulfillment of the saving idea requires it. Razumikhin noticed something new that distinguishes Raskolnikov's theory from the previous ones - this is the moral permission to shed the blood of hundreds of thousands of people to establish improvement. However, it should be immediately noted that Raskolnikov argued the necessity of the crime in different ways “in time”, in different situations of his life. In the first conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, the motive of "blood according to conscience" stands out. But this recognition of the immutability of the moral law is later replaced by an understanding of life as an absurdity, as an absurdity. Confessing to Sonya his crime, Raskolnikov surrenders to individualistic enthusiasm, becomes the spokesman for individualistic rebellion, a nihilistic denial of the moral meaning of life: this absurdity, it's easy to take - easily shake everything by the tail to hell! I wanted to dare and killed.” It was not for nothing that Sonya exclaimed to these blasphemous words of Raskolnikov: “You have departed from God, and God has struck everything, betrayed the devil.” In her religious language and in terms of religious thinking, Sonya accurately defined the meaning of Raskolnikov's philosophical judgment. He is convinced that “people will not change and no one will remake them”, that slavery and domination are the law of human life, that for the most part people are “trembling creatures” and therefore, “whoever is strong and strong in mind, is over them and powerful.” ”, “who can spit on more, that is their legislator.” This arrogant, contemptuous attitude towards the "ordinary" determines the mode of action. He "guessed that 'power' is only given to those who dare to bend and take it." According to the author, Sonya realized that "this gloomy catechism became his faith and law."
Compassion for people and contempt for them, combined in Raskolnikov, were reflected in the theory of the "ruler" changing the world, saving poor people from "poverty, from decay, from death, from debauchery, from venereal hospitals." Dreaming of a “ruler” who acts in the interests of a “trembling creature”, Raskolnikov wanted to be one, a Mission, through crime to pave the way for the kingdom of goodness and truth.
It should be noted that Raskolnikov's anarchist protest is associated with an acute pity for the poor, suffering, helpless, with a desire to create social well-being for them. We must not forget that the initial and central situation in the novel - the extreme impoverishment of the urban poor - explains the tragedy of Raskolnikov.
On the way from the old usurer, to whom Raskolnikov felt "an insurmountable disgust" at first sight, he went into one poor tavern and thought hard: "A terrible thought pecks in his head, like a chicken from an egg, and very, very occupied him." From the old woman, therefore, he "carried out the germ of his thought" about the possibility of using the right of the strong and shedding the blood of this evil and worthless usurer in order to take advantage of her capital and "later devote himself to the service of all human and common cause." "One hundred thousand good deeds and undertakings that can be arranged and corrected for the old woman's money doomed to the monastery." The speech of the student, addressed to the officer, becomes, as it were, an internal monologue of Raskolnikov himself, according to which, in the name of the best, that is, the salvation of a thousand people, one death is possible: "One death and a hundred lives in return - but there is arithmetic here." From the point of view of Calculus, this mental dialectic appears to be invulnerable.
The story of Raskolnikov's self-consciousness unfolds: he must clarify his idea of the moral right to bloody violence, test true violence, test the truth of the theory by the practice of his own life and draw the last conclusions. At the same time, he sees internal barriers that he must “transgress” in order to “have the right to have”. In this sense, the planned crime becomes a moral and psychological experiment on oneself. The murder, the "elimination" of a nasty old money-lender in his eyes as a theoretician and activist is just a "test" of his own strength, just a test and answer to the question, what category of humanity does he belong to?
For Tolstoy, everything in a person is clarified, both superficial and fundamental, and therefore the most secret in him was revealed with exhaustive fullness. To Dostoevsky, as well as to Turgenev, the deep foundation of the human personality seemed mysterious, enigmatic, defying only in external completely involuntary movements, in some randomly dropped words of the hero, in the pattern of his behavior, in those momentary states that the writer almost does not comment on. That is why Dostoevsky conveyed the dialectical processes of mental life not by depicting the mental process, the “dialectics of the soul”, but by his own means, as a struggle of opposite principles in the personality of the hero-character. Passion for self-destruction, sometimes awakening under the influence of false theories, i.e., ultimately, the social environment, collides with the protest of the moral sense. Moreover, the passion for self-destruction, although it finds reinforcement in the mind of the hero, in his theoretical ideas, also has its roots in the dark subconscious depth of the human "I".
The killer feels in himself the protest of human nature, he "wanted to drop everything and leave." The second unforeseen bloody violence against the unrequited Lizaveta finally plunges him into a feeling of some kind of detachment and despair, he becomes, as it were, an unconscious conductor of an evil force. According to the author, if at that moment Rodion could see and reason correctly, then he “would have abandoned everything and immediately went to himself to declare only horror and disgust at what he had done. Disgust especially rose and grew in him with every minute. Later, in his confession, he explains to Sonya: “Did I kill the old woman? I killed myself, not the old woman! Here, all at once, I slammed myself forever. The crime is committed according to a concocted theory, which has acquired unusual strength, having met with support from the passion for destruction hiding in the depths of the subconscious.
Crime does not begin from the moment of its implementation, but from the moment of its inception in a person's thoughts. The very idea of the murder that flared up in Raskolnikov's mind in the tavern after visiting the disgusting usurer already infects him with all the poisons of selfish self-assertion and puts him in conflict with spiritual potential. He failed to defeat the "delusions" despite desperate internal resistance. Until the last minute, he did not believe in his ability to "cross over", although "the whole analysis, in the sense of the moral resolution of the issue, was already over for him: his casuistry has been sharpened like a razor, and in himself he no longer finds conscious objections."
Dostoevsky shows Raskolnikov in a state of extreme moral decline, self-destruction, self-denial, and in the perspective of "restoration", "self-preservation and repentance", gaining freedom as one's spirituality. With the same inevitability with which Raskolnikov commits a crime, retribution comes, self-disclosure unfolds. Burdened with all sorts of circumstances, Raskolnikov turned out to be a slave of an “ugly dream”, but, according to the writer, he was obliged to resist it and obey the highest necessity, which expresses the transcendent forces of life.
Raskolnikov's path to overcoming spiritual slavery is difficult. For a long time he blamed himself for the "absurd cowardice", for "unnecessary shame", for a long time he suffered from wounded pride, from his "baseness and mediocrity", from the thought that "he could not stand the first step." But inevitably he comes to moral self-condemnation. It is Sonya, first of all, who opens the soul and conscience of the people to him. Therefore, Sonya's word is so effective because it receives support from the hero himself, who has felt a new content in himself. This content turned him to overcoming pride, selfish self-affirmation.
The history of Raskolnikov's self-consciousness is a struggle between two principles: tempting power and resurrection. Through the abyss of evil, he goes to the consciousness of goodness, the truth of moral feeling. This is the story of a "little man" who rebelled against the injustice of the world.
e) Chekhov as a writer who completes the gallery of "little people" in his work
Gogol urged to love and pity the "little man" for what he is. Dostoevsky - to see a personality in him. Chekhov puts everything upside down. He is looking for someone to blame not in the state, but in the individual himself. Such a completely new approach gives completely unexpected results: the reason for the humiliation of the "little man" is himself.
Especially given is a new twist on an old theme in the story "The Death of an Official". There are many details in the story about this. Firstly, this is a comic story and it is the official himself that is ridiculed in it. For the first time, Chekhov offers to laugh at the "little man", but not at his poverty, poverty, cowardice. Laughter turns into tragedy when we finally understand what the nature and what are the life principles of this official. Chekhov tells us that Chervyakov finds true pleasure in humiliation. At the end of the story, the general himself is offended, and the dying Chervyakov is not at all sorry.
Exploring a life incident that happened to his hero, Chekhov comes to the conclusion: Chervyakov is a serf by nature. And I just want to add to these words: not a man, but a reptile. It is in this line, it seems to me, that Chekhov sees the real evil. This is not the death of a person, but of some kind of worm. Chervyakov dies not from fear and not from the fact that he might be suspected of unwillingness to grovel. The general forgave him. But because he was deprived of this sweetness of groveling, as if he had been deprived of his beloved work.
The “little man” Belikov, the hero of the story “The Man in the Case”, went down, turned into a narrow-minded bourgeois. Belikov is afraid of real life and seeks to hide from it. In my opinion, he is an unhappy person, denying not only himself, but also those around him. Only circulars are clear to him, and all kinds of permissions cause him doubts and fear: “No matter how something happens.”
He oppresses all teachers with his "case considerations", under his influence in the city they began to be afraid of everything: people are afraid to speak loudly, to get acquainted, to read books, they are afraid to help the poor, to teach literacy. And this is the danger of the Belikovs for society: they strangle all living things. Inertia, the desire to stop life, to envelop everything in a web of philistinism, were embodied in "Belikovshchina".
Belikov could find his ideal only after passing away. And he leaves, and only in the coffin does his face acquire a pleasant, meek, even cheerful expression, as if Belikov rejoices that he has fallen into a case from which he will never have to get out.
Although Belikov died, his death did not save the city from "Belikovism". Life has remained the same as it was - "not forbidden circularly, but not completely resolved either."
And if you remember Dr. Startsev? At the beginning of his life, a young doctor has a variety of interests that are characteristic of an intelligent young man. He feels the beauty of nature, is interested in art, literature, methods of rapprochement with people. He can love, worry, dream. But gradually, Startsev loses everything human, spiritually descends and closes in his little world, in which only money, cards and a hearty dinner are now important.
What led Startsev to this? Chekhov argues: the philistine environment, vulgar and insignificant, destroys the best that is in a person if there is no "antidote" and internal conscious protest in the person himself. Startsev's story makes us think about what turns a person into a spiritual freak. In my opinion, the worst thing in life is the fall of the individual into the quagmire of narrow-mindedness and vulgar philistinism. Chekhov saw in his heroes an evil that is ineradicable and gives rise to a new evil: serfs give birth to masters.
Meanwhile, Chekhov's need for broad social generalizations is ripening, he strives to depict the mood, the life of entire classes, strata of society. We needed a genre that would give such an opportunity. Drama was this genre for Chekhov.
In the first play "Ivanov", the writer again refers to the theme of the "little man". In the center of the play is the tragic breakdown of an intellectual who made big life plans and, helplessly, bowed down before the obstacles that the order of life put before him. Ivanov is a “little man” who has “overstrained himself” in the world, and has turned from an enthusiastic, active worker into a sick, internally broken loser. And further, in the plays "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters", the main conflict develops in the clash of morally pure, bright personalities with the world of the townsfolk, with their greed, vulgarity, and gross cynicism. And it seems that vulgarity, personified in Natalya Ivanovna and Staff Captain Solen, triumphs over pure, sensitive people. Are there people who are going to replace these people who are bogged down in dishonest everyday affairs? There is! These are Anya and Petya Trofimov from the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A. Chekhov.
After all, not all "little people" turn into narrow-minded and small people, raznochintsy-democrats, whose children became revolutionaries, appeared from among the "little people". As you might guess, Petya Trofimov, the “eternal student”, belongs to the student movement, which gained momentum in those years. It was not by chance that Petya hid at Ranevskaya's for several months. This young man is smart, proud, honest. He knows in what a difficult situation the people live, and he thinks that this situation can be corrected only by continuous work. Trofimov lives by faith in the bright future of the Motherland, but Petya does not yet see clear ways to change the life of society. The image of this hero is rather contradictory, however, like most of Chekhov's images. Trofimov considers love an unnecessary occupation at the moment. “I am above love,” he says to Anya. Petya is proud of his disregard for money, he is not offended by the nickname "shabby gentleman." Petya Trofimov has a great influence on the formation of the life views of Anya-daughter Ranevskaya. She is beautiful in her feelings and moods.
We perceive Petya and Anya as new, progressive people. And with this faith in the new and better, I so want to say that a person should not be “small”. And the keen eye of the artist Chekhov, noticing the hypocrisy, stupidity, narrow-mindedness of people, saw something else - the beauty of a good person: “My God, how rich Russia is in good people!” Such, for example, is Dr. Dymov, the hero of the story "The Jumper". A person who lives for the happiness of others, a humble doctor with a kind heart and a beautiful soul.
The image of the "little man" in foreign literature
The theme of the "little man" is reflected not only in the work of Russian writers, but also in the works of foreign writers.
In his understanding of art and the role of the artist, Stendhal came from the enlighteners. He always strived for the accuracy and truthfulness of the reflection of life in his works.
Stendhal's first major novel, Red and Black, was published in 1830, the year of the July Revolution. Already its name speaks of the deep social meaning of the novel, of the clash of two forces - revolution and reaction. The epigraph to the novel Stendhal took the words of Danton: "True, harsh truth!" and, following it, the writer put the true action at the basis of the plot.
The title of the novel also emphasizes the main features in the character of Julien Sorel, the protagonist of the work. Surrounded by people hostile to him, he defies fate. Defending the rights of his personality, he is forced to mobilize all the forces and means to fight the world around him.
Julien Sorel comes from a peasant environment. This determines the social sound of the novel.
Julien Sorel is a commoner, a plebeian, who wants to take a place in the society to which he has the right by his origin. On this basis, a struggle with society arises. Julien himself well defines the meaning of this struggle in the scene at the court, when he is given the last word. Thus, Julien realizes that he is being judged not so much for the crime actually committed, but for the fact that he dared to cross the line that separates him from high society, tried to enter that world to which he has no right to belong. For this attempt, the jury must pass a death sentence on him.
But the struggle of Julien Sorel is not only for a career, for personal well-being; the question in the novel is much more complicated. He wants to establish himself in society, “to reach the people, take one of the first places in it, but on condition that this society recognizes in him a full-fledged personality, an outstanding, talented, gifted, intelligent, strong person.”
He does not want to give up these qualities, to refuse them. But an agreement between Sorel and the world of Recals is possible only on the condition of a complete adaptation of the young man to their tastes. This is the main meaning of Julien Sorel's struggle with the outside world.
Julien is doubly alien in this milieu; and as a native of the social lower classes, and as a highly gifted person who does not want to remain in the world of mediocrity.
Stendhal convinces the reader that this struggle that Julien Sorel is waging with the surrounding society is waged by him not for life, but for death. But in bourgeois society there is no place for these talents. Napoleon, whom Sorel dreams of, is already the past, instead of heroes came merchants, self-satisfied shopkeepers - that's who became a true "hero" at the time in which he lives. For these people, outstanding talents and heroism are ridiculous - all that is so dear to Julien.
Julien's struggle develops in him great pride and heightened ambition.
Obsessed with these feelings, Sorel subordinates to them all other aspirations and affections. Even love ceases to be joy for him.
Without hiding the negative aspects of the character of his hero, Stendhal at the same time justifies him.
First, the difficulty of the struggle he is waging; standing alone against all, Julien is forced to use any weapon. But the main thing that, according to the author, justifies the hero is the nobility of his heart, generosity, purity - features that he did not lose even in moments of the most cruel struggle.
In the development of Julien's character, the episode in prison is very important. Until then, the only stimulus that guided all his actions, limiting his good intentions, was ambition. But in prison, he is convinced that ambition led him the wrong way. At the same time, in prison, Julien's feelings for Madame de Renal and Matilda are reassessed.
These two images, as it were, mark the struggle of two principles in the soul of Julien himself.
And Julien has two beings; he is proud, ambitious and at the same time - a man with a simple heart, almost a childish, direct soul. When he overcame ambition and pride, he moved away from the equally proud and ambitious Matilda. And the sincere Madame de Renal, whose love was deeper than that of Matilda, is especially close to him.
Overcoming ambition and the victory of real feelings in Julien's soul leads him to death.
Julien gives up trying to save himself. Life seems to him unnecessary, aimless, he no longer values it and prefers death on the guillotine.
Thus, we can see that this ending of the novel is indicative.
Stendhal could not resolve the issue of how the hero, who overcame his delusions, but remained in bourgeois society, should rebuild his life. This is how the “little man” perishes, having overcome the “slave” in himself.
Thus, it is clear that the image of the "Little Man" has undergone significant changes in the work of writers. The origins of this topic were laid by the work of N. Karamzin, and also due to the social political development of Russia and the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to eliminate the inequality of people by eradicating prejudices.
For the first time, the image of the "Little Man" can be found in the works of A. S. Pushkin "Tales of Belkin", "The Captain's Daughter", and also "The Bronze Horseman. In the work of M. Yu. Lermontov, the image of the "Little Man" is reflected in the story "Princess Ligovskaya". Having examined the images of "Little People" in the works of Pushkin and Lermontov, we can conclude that all the characters evoke sympathy and pity, and the authors are guided in creating the images of "Little People" by the principles of humanism, trying to draw attention to the problem of "humiliated and offended". N.V. Gogol continues the theme of “The Little Man”, who in his story “The Overcoat” for the first time shows the spiritual stinginess, squalor of poor people and, like Pushkin in The Bronze Horseman, draws attention to the ability of the “Little Man” to rebel and for this , like Pushkin, introduces elements of fantasy into his work. Based on the propensity of the “Little Man” to rebellion, one can conclude that the theme of “The Little Man” is close to the theory of “strong personality” and understand the origins of the individualistic rebellion of the “Little Man” against injustice and his desire to become a “Strong Personality”, which is manifested in the image R. Raskolnikov.
The gallery of “Little People” is completed by images from the stories of A.P. Chekhov, which make it possible to understand the inability of the “Little Man” to do great things, his isolation from society and the spiritual world as a whole, a miserable existence, cynicism, vulgarity, lack of spirituality. Chekhov shows how "little people" turn into small people.
Having examined the gallery of "little people" in the works of writers of the 19th century, I conclude that this topic occupied a significant place in Russian literature. The problem of the “little man”, his troubles and aspirations, his views on the world and urgent needs, vividly worried the writers of the 19th century, and although each of them reveals the image of the “little man” in his own way, or causing sympathy and pity from readers and making you think about the problems of such people, or exposing the spiritual poverty, squalor of "poor people", the humiliation of their existence in order to help them change, nevertheless, one cannot agree with A.P. Chekhov, who argued that "this topic has become obsolete." This topic is relevant in our time, when the problems of "little people" appear in modern society.
In the course of my work, I have learned:
Analyze the material read;
Summarize and systematize the data obtained during the research;
Compare and contrast both heroes and individual works;
Learned to find the sources and causes of the emergence of new concepts in the literature; more clearly represent the course of the historical and literary process;
Also draw conclusions and generalizations.
"Little man" - a type of literary hero, usually a petty official, who becomes a victim of the arbitrariness of the authorities or cruel life circumstances. Tsarist injustice and cruel times forced the “little people” to withdraw into themselves, to become isolated, becoming the subject of ridicule of more successful colleagues, they lived unnoticed and died unnoticed, and sometimes went crazy. But it was precisely such heroes who, having experienced a strong shock, began to appeal for justice and even fight against the powers that be.
The first were the heroes of A.S. Pushkin: Eugene from the poem "The Bronze Horseman" and Samson Vyrin from the story. But it is precisely the heroes of Gogol's works, especially his "Petersburg Tales", that are rightfully considered the embodiment of this type. F. M. Dostoevsky will later say: “We all came out of Gogol's Overcoat, bearing in mind that Russian writers, including Dostoevsky himself, will constantly turn to this topic, and Gogol's heroes will become role models.
Gogol himself, once in Petersburg, was shocked by the greatness of the city, which met the young man unkindly. He faced a world of social catastrophes. I saw the splendor and poverty of the capital, behind the front facade of which vulgarity triumphs and talents perish. The heroes of Pushkin went crazy after the collision with St. Petersburg.
In Gogol's Petersburg Tales, the desire of the "little man" to gain dignity leads to rebellion and the release of ghostly forces, which makes this cycle fantastic. Critics admit that the whole cycle of stories is an expression of indignation against the tragic disorder of life and against those who vulgarized it, made it inhuman and unbearable.
In "Notes of a Madman" the story is told on behalf of a petty official Poprishchin. Sitting in the office of the director of the department, he sharpens pens and takes notes, dreaming of marrying his daughter and making a career. Having overheard the conversation of two dogs Fidel and Medzhi (fiction is in all the stories of this cycle), he learns about their correspondence and, having taken possession of the papers, finds out all the ins and outs of his boss and his daughter. He is shocked: why is the world so unfair? Why is he, Aksenty Poprishchin, at 42 only a titular adviser?
In his inflamed mind, the thought arises that he can be someone else, but after madness, his human dignity also grows. He begins to look at the world differently, as he refuses to slavishly crawl before the so-called "masters of life." He suddenly begins to consider himself the king of Spain, which gives him the right not to stand in front of his superiors and even sign Ferdinand VIII. Poprishchin clearly imagines how "all the clerical bastard", including the director, will humiliately bow before him. This demarche ends with a psychiatric hospital, where his notes finally lose all meaning, but the story reveals the acuteness of the social conflict.
The story "The Overcoat" describes not just a case from the life of the "little man" Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin. The whole life of the hero appears before the reader: he is present at his birth, naming him by his name, finds out where he served, why he needs an overcoat so much and why he died. The hero lives in his little world, where nothing happens. If an incredible story with an overcoat had not happened in his life, there would be nothing to tell about him.
Akaki Akakievich does not strive for luxury: sewing a new overcoat is a vital necessity. The thought of a new thing fills the hero's life with new meaning, which even changes his appearance: "He somehow became more alive, even firmer in character." When he reached the limit of his dreams, making a splash among colleagues who constantly mocked him, the overcoat is stolen. But this is not what causes the death of poor Bashmachkin: the “significant person”, whom the official turns to for help, “scolds” him for disrespect for his superiors and kicks him out.
This is how “a creature of no interest to anyone” disappears from the face of the earth, because no one even noticed his death. The ending is fantastic, but restores justice. The ghost of a former official rips off the overcoats from rich and noble people, and Bashmachkin rises to unprecedented heights, overcoming miserable ideas about rank.
- "Portrait", analysis of Gogol's story, essay
- "Dead Souls", analysis of Gogol's work
