Type of superfluous person in the literature of the 19th century. The problem of the "superfluous person" in Russian literature of the 19th century

20-50s of the 19th century.

Features of an extra person

The main features of the “superfluous person” include alienation from the official life of Nikolaev Russia, departure from the native social environment (almost always noble), awareness of one’s significant abilities, intellectual and moral superiority, compared with other representatives of one’s class.

Also, the "Short Literary Encyclopedia" in the article about the "superfluous person" notes such qualities as "mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed, and, as a rule, social passivity."

Finding no realization of his talents in higher circles, the hero spends his life in idle hobbies or tries to overcome boredom with duels, love affairs, gambling, adventurous adventures, participation in hostilities, and so on.

Representatives in literature

The very term “extra person” became widespread after the publication of I.S. Turgenev in 1850, but the formation of this type took place already from the beginning of the 19th century.

The first and most prominent representatives of "superfluous people" are considered to be Eugene Onegin from the novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" (1823-1831) and Grigory Pechorin from the novel "A Hero of Our Time" by M.Yu. Lermontov (1839–1840). They were replaced by Beltov (“Who is to blame?” A.I. Herzen, 1841–1846), then Agarin (“Sasha” by N.A. Nekrasova, 1856) and a whole string of Turgenev’s heroes: Chulkaturin (“The Diary of an Extra Man”, 1850), Rudin ("Rudin", 1856), Lavretsky ("Noble Nest", 1859) and others. It is also customary to classify I.I. Oblomov (“Oblomov” I.A. Goncharov, 1859), but this point of view does not find unanimity in literary works, and therefore is still controversial. Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

"An extra person" in the literary process

The theme of the “superfluous person” appeared and became widespread in Russian literature not by chance. The “extra person” was not a “fiction” of the authors, it was a type that really existed and acted in the society of the early 19th century, the “extra person” was a “hero of his time”. A.S. Pushkin noted: "... Indifference to life and its pleasures, ... premature old age of the soul ... became the hallmarks of the youth of the 19th century." A.I. also spoke about the modern generation. Herzen: "... We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, Onegins, but we do not prefer to be officials or landlords."

As noted by A. Lavretsky in the "Literary Encyclopedia", the appearance of "superfluous people" was associated with the inconsistency of the Western European education they received with the realities of life in Russia, as well as the oppression of the Nikolaev reaction after the defeat of the Decembrists. The oppression of despotism, serfdom, and the underdevelopment of social life pushed the theme of the "superfluous man" to a more prominent place in comparison with Western European literature. Its significance also increased because it reflected the awakening of the personal principle, moral self-consciousness and the independence of the individual. Hence the heightened drama of the theme of the "superfluous person" in Russian literature, the growing intensity of the hero's moral and ideological quest.

The historical and literary role of the theme of the "superfluous person" was also great. Having arisen as a rethinking of the romantic hero, the type of "superfluous person" developed under the sign of realistic typification, revealing the "difference" (Pushkin) between the hero and his creator. Significant in this topic was the rejection of educational, moralizing attitudes in the name of the most complete and impartial analysis, reflection of the dialectics of life (this explained the rejection of the images of the “superfluous person” by many romantics, in particular, the rejection of Eugene Onegin by the Decembrists). Finally, it was important in the topic of "extra man" and the assertion of the value of an individual person, personality, interest in the "history of the human soul" (Lermontov; from the preface to Pechorin's Journal), which created the ground for fruitful psychological analysis and prepared the future conquests of Russian realism .

Introduction

The origin and development of the theme of "extra man" in Russian literature

Conclusion

Introduction

Fiction cannot develop without looking back at the path it has traveled, without commensurating its creative achievements of today with the frontiers of past years. Poets and writers at all times were interested in people who can be called strangers to everyone - "superfluous people". There is something fascinating and attractive in a person who is able to oppose himself to society. Of course, the images of such people have undergone significant changes in Russian literature over time. At first they were romantic heroes, passionate, rebellious natures. They could not stand dependence, not always realizing that their lack of freedom is in themselves, in their soul.

"Profound changes in the socio-political and spiritual life of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, associated with two significant events - the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Decembrist movement - determined the main dominants of Russian culture of this period." Realistic works are born, in which writers explore the problem of the relationship between the individual and society at a higher level. Now they are no longer interested in a person striving to be free from society. The subject of the study of the artists of the word is "the influence of society on the personality, the intrinsic value of the human personality, its right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of one's abilities."

Thus, one of the themes of classical Russian literature was born and developed - the theme of "an extra person".

The purpose of this work is to study the image of the superfluous person in Russian literature.

To implement this topic, we will solve the following work tasks:

1)we explore the issues of the origin and development of the theme of "extra man" in Russian literature;

2)let us analyze in detail the image of the “extra person” using the example of the work of M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time".

1. The origin and development of the theme of "extra person" in Russian literature

extra person russian literature

In the middle of the 18th century, classicism became the dominant trend in the entire artistic culture. The first national tragedies and comedies appear (A. Sumarokov, D. Fonvizin). The most striking poetic works were created by G. Derzhavin.

At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, the historical events of the era had a decisive influence on the development of literature, in particular, on the emergence of the theme of the “superfluous person”. In 1801, Tsar Alexander I came to power in Russia. The beginning of the 19th century was felt by everyone as a new period in the history of the country. Later, Pushkin wrote in verse: "The days of the Alexandrovs are a wonderful beginning." Indeed, it gave hope to many people and seemed wonderful. A number of restrictions in the field of book publishing were lifted, a liberal censorship Charter was adopted, and censorship was relaxed. New educational institutions were opened: gymnasiums, universities, a number of lyceums, in particular the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (1811), which played an important role in the history of Russian culture and statehood: it was from its walls that the greatest poet of Russia - Pushkin and its most prominent statesman of the 19th century - came out. future Chancellor Prince A. Gorchakov. A new more rational system of state institutions, adopted in Europe, was established - ministries, in particular the Ministry of Public Education. Dozens of new magazines have appeared. The journal Vestnik Evropy (1802-1830) is especially characteristic. It was created and at first published by the remarkable figure of Russian culture N.M. Karamzin. The magazine was conceived as a conductor of new ideas and phenomena of European life. Karamzin followed them in his writing, asserting such a direction as sentimentalism (the story "Poor Lisa"), with his idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe equality of people, however, only in the sphere of feelings: "peasant women know how to love." At the same time, it was Karamzin who, already in 1803, began work on the History of the Russian State, which clarifies the special role of Russia as a historically developed organism. It is no coincidence that the enthusiasm with which the volumes of this story were received upon their publication. The discovery of the beginning of the 19th century in the history of Russian culture (the Tale of Igor's Campaign was found and published in 1800) and Russian folk art (Kirsha Danilov's Songs were published - 1804) greatly helped to clarify this role of Russia.

At the same time, serfdom remained inviolable, albeit with some concessions: for example, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land. The autocracy, with all its strengths and weaknesses, has also been fully preserved. The centralization of the multi-component country was ensured, but the bureaucracy grew and arbitrariness persisted at all levels.

An enormous role in the life of Russia and in its awareness of its place in the world was played by the war of 1812, called the Patriotic War. “1812 was a great epoch in the life of Russia,” wrote the great critic and thinker V.G. Belinsky. And the point is not only in external victories, which ended with the entry of Russian troops into Paris, but precisely in the internal awareness of itself by Russia, which found expression, first of all, in literature.

The most remarkable phenomenon in Russian literature of the early 19th century was Enlightenment realism, which reflected the ideas and views of the Enlightenment with the greatest completeness and consistency. The embodiment of the ideas of the rebirth of a person meant the closest attention to the inner world of a person, the creation of a portrait based on a penetrating knowledge of the psychology of the individual, the dialectics of the soul, the complex, sometimes elusive life of his inner self. After all, a person in fiction is always conceived in the unity of personal and social life. Sooner or later, every person, at least in certain moments of life, begins to think about the meaning of his existence and spiritual development. Russian writers clearly showed that human spirituality is not something external, it cannot be acquired through education or imitation of even the best examples.

Here is the hero of the comedy A.S. Griboyedov (1795-1829) "Woe from Wit" Chatsky. His image reflected the typical features of the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life. Griboedov, the creator of the first realistic play, found it rather difficult to cope with his task. After all, unlike his predecessors (Fonvizin, Sumarokov), who wrote plays according to the laws of classicism, where good and evil were clearly separated from each other, Griboyedov made each hero an individual, a living person who tends to make mistakes. The main character of the comedy, Chatsky, turns out, for all his intelligence and positive qualities, to be a person who is superfluous for society. After all, a person is not alone in the world, he lives in society and constantly comes into contact with other people. Everything that Chatsky believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that the Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy.

The immortal image of Onegin, created by A.S. Pushkin (1799-1837) in the novel "Eugene Onegin", is the next step in the development of the image of the "superfluous person".

"You, as the first love, Russia's heart will not forget! ..". A lot has been said over more than a century and a half of wonderful words about Pushkin the man and Pushkin the poet. But no one, perhaps, said so poetically sincerely and so psychologically accurately as Tyutchev in these lines. And at the same time, what is expressed in them in the language of poetry is fully consistent with the truth, confirmed by time, by the strict judgment of history.

The first Russian national poet, the founder of all subsequent Russian literature, the beginning of all its beginnings - such is the recognized place and significance of Pushkin in the development of the domestic art of the word. But there is one more important thing to add to this. Pushkin was able to achieve all this because for the first time - at the highest aesthetic level he had achieved - he raised his creations to the level of "enlightenment of the century" - the European spiritual life of the XIX century and thereby fully introduced Russian literature as another and most significant national-original literature in the family of the world's most advanced literatures by that time.

Almost throughout the 1820s, Pushkin worked on his greatest work, the novel Eugene Onegin. This is the first realistic novel in the history of not only Russian but also world literature. "Eugene Onegin" - the pinnacle of Pushkin's creativity. Here, as in none of Pushkin's works, Russian life is reflected in its movement and development, the change of generations and, along with it, the change and struggle of ideas. Dostoevsky noted that in the image of Onegin, Pushkin created "a type of Russian wanderer, a wanderer to this day and in our day, the first to guess him with his genius instinct, with his historical fate and with his great significance in our group fate ... ".

In the image of Onegin, Pushkin showed the duality of the worldview of a typical noble intellectual of the 19th century. A man of high intellectual culture, hostile to the vulgarity and emptiness of the environment, Onegin at the same time bears the characteristic features of this environment.

At the end of the novel, the hero comes to a terrifying conclusion: all his life he was "a stranger to everyone ...". What is the reason for this? The answer is the novel itself. From its first pages, Pushkin analyzes the process of formation of Onegin's personality. The hero receives a typical upbringing for his time under the guidance of a foreign tutor, he is separated from the national environment, it is not for nothing that he even knows Russian nature from walks in the Summer Garden. Onegin perfectly studied the "science of tender passion", but it gradually replaces in him the ability to feel deeply. Describing Onegin's life in St. Petersburg, Pushkin uses the words "to be hypocritical", "to appear", "to appear". Yes, indeed, Eugene understood very early the difference between the ability to seem and to be in reality. If Pushkin's hero were an empty man, perhaps he would be satisfied that he spent his life in theaters, clubs and balls, but Onegin is a thinking person, he quickly ceases to be satisfied with secular victories and "everyday pleasures." He is seized by the "Russian melancholy". Onegin is not accustomed to work, "languishing with spiritual emptiness", he tries to find entertainment in reading, but does not find in books that which could reveal to him the meaning of life. By the will of fate, Onegin ends up in the village, but these changes also do not change anything in his life.

“Whoever lived and thought cannot but despise people in his soul,” Pushkin leads us to such a bitter conclusion. Of course, the trouble is not that Onegin thinks, but that he lives at a time when a thinking person is inevitably doomed to loneliness, turns out to be "an extra person." He is not interested in what mediocre people live, but he cannot find application for his strength, and he does not always know why. As a result - the complete loneliness of the hero. But Onegin is lonely not only because he was disappointed in the world, but also because he gradually lost the opportunity to see the true meaning in friendship, love, the closeness of human souls.

An extra person in society, “a stranger to everyone,” Onegin is burdened by his existence. For him, proud in his indifference, there was no business, he "did not know how to do anything." In the absence of any goal or work that makes life meaningful, this is one of the reasons for Onegin's inner emptiness and longing, revealed with such brilliance in his reflections on his fate in excerpts from Journey:

“Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest?

Why am I not a frail old man,

How is this poor farmer?

Why, as a Tula assessor,

Am I paralyzed?

Why can't I feel in my shoulder

Even rheumatism? - ah, Creator!

I am young, my life is strong;

What should I expect? longing, longing!

Onegin's skeptical-cold worldview, devoid of an active life-affirming principle, could not indicate a way out of the world of lies, hypocrisy, emptiness in which the heroes of the novel live.

The tragedy of Onegin is the tragedy of a lonely person, but not a romantic hero running away from people, but a person who is cramped in a world of false passions, monotonous entertainment and empty pastime. Therefore, Pushkin's novel becomes a condemnation not of Onegin's "superfluous person", but of the society that forced the hero to live just such a life.

Onegin and Pechorin (the image of Pechorin's "extra person" will be described in more detail below) are the heroes in whose image the features of the "extra person" were embodied most prominently. However, even after Pushkin and Lermontov, this topic continued to develop. Onegin and Pechorin begin a whole long series of social types and characters generated by Russian historical reality. This is Beltov, and Rudin, and Agarin, and Oblomov.

In the novel "Oblomov" I.A. Goncharov (1812-1891) presented two types of life: life - in motion and life - in a state of rest, sleep. It seems to me that the first type of life is characteristic of people with a strong character, energetic and purposeful. And the second type is for natures calm, lazy, helpless in the face of life's difficulties. Of course, the author, in order to more accurately portray these two types of life, slightly exaggerates the character traits and behavior of the characters, but the main directions of life are indicated correctly. I believe that both Oblomov and Stolz live in every person, but one of these two types of characters still prevails over the other.

According to Goncharov, the life of any person depends on his upbringing and on his heredity. Oblomov was brought up in a noble family with patriarchal traditions. His parents, like their grandfathers, lived a lazy, carefree and carefree life. They did not need to earn their living, they did nothing: the serfs worked for them. With such a life, a person plunges into an unawakening sleep: he does not live, but exists. Indeed, in the Oblomov family, everything boiled down to one thing: eat and sleep. The peculiarities of the life of the Oblomov family also influenced him. And although Ilyushenka was a living child, the constant guardianship of his mother, relieving him of the difficulties that arose before him, the weak-willed father, the constant sleep in Oblomovka - all this could not but affect his character. And Oblomov grew up as sleepy, apathetic and not adapted to life, like his fathers and grandfathers. As for heredity, the author accurately captured the character of a Russian person with his laziness, careless attitude to life.

Stolz, on the contrary, came from a family belonging to the most lively and efficient class. His father was the manager of a rich estate, and his mother was an impoverished noblewoman. Therefore, Stoltz had great practical ingenuity and diligence as a result of his German upbringing, and from his mother he received a rich spiritual inheritance: a love of music, poetry, and literature. His father taught him that the main thing in life is money, rigor and accuracy. And Stolz would not have been the son of his father if he had not achieved wealth and respect in society. Unlike the Russian people, the Germans are characterized by extreme practicality and accuracy, which is constantly manifested in Stolz.

So at the very beginning of life, a program was laid for the main characters: vegetation, sleep - for Oblomov's "extra person", energy and vital activity - for Stolz.

The main part of Oblomov's life was spent on the couch, in a dressing gown, inactive. Undoubtedly, the author condemns such a life. Oblomov's life can be compared with the life of people in Paradise. He does nothing, everything is brought to him on a “silver platter”, he does not want to solve problems, he sees wonderful dreams. He is led out of this Paradise, first by Stolz, and then by Olga. But Oblomov cannot stand real life and dies.

The features of the “superfluous person” are also manifested in some of the heroes of L.N. Tolstoy (1828 - 1910). Here it must be taken into account that Tolstoy, in his own way, "builds the action on spiritual fractures, drama, dialogues, disputes." It is appropriate to recall the reasoning of Anna Zegers: “Long before the masters of modernist psychologism, Tolstoy was able to convey in all immediacy the stream of vague, semi-conscious thoughts of the hero, but with him this did not go to the detriment of the integrity of the picture: he recreated the spiritual chaos that took possession of one or another character in one or another acutely dramatic moments of life, but he himself did not succumb to this chaos.

Tolstoy is a master of the image of the "dialectics of the soul". He shows how sharp a person’s discovery of himself can be (“The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, “Posthumous Notes of the Elder Fyodor Kuzmich”). From the point of view of Leo Tolstoy, egoism is not only evil for the egoist himself and those around him, but lies and disgrace. Here is the plot of the story "The Death of Ivan Ilyich." This plot, as it were, unfolds the entire spectrum of inevitable consequences and properties of egoistic life. The impersonality of the hero, the emptiness of his existence, indifferent cruelty to his neighbors and, finally, the incompatibility of egoism with reason are shown. "Egoism is madness." This idea, formulated by Tolstoy in the Diary, is one of the main ones in the story and was clearly manifested when Ivan Ilyich realized that he was dying.

The knowledge of the truth of life, according to Tolstoy, requires from a person not intellectual abilities, but courage and moral purity. A person does not accept evidence, not out of stupidity, but out of fear of the truth. The bourgeois circle to which Ivan Ilyich belonged worked out a whole system of deceit that concealed the essence of life. Thanks to her, the heroes of the story do not realize the injustice of the social system, cruelty and indifference to their neighbors, the emptiness and meaninglessness of their existence. The reality of social, social, family and any other collective life can be revealed only to a person who really accepts the essence of his personal life with its inevitable suffering and death. But it is precisely such a person who becomes “superfluous” for society.

Tolstoy continued the critique of the selfish lifestyle begun by The Death of Ivan Ilyich in The Kreutzer Sonata, focusing exclusively on family relationships and marriage. As you know, he attached great importance to the family in both personal and social life, being convinced that "the human race develops only in the family." In no other Russian writer of the 19th century can we find so many bright pages depicting a happy family life as in Tolstoy.

The heroes of L. Tolstoy always interact, influence each other, sometimes decisively, change: moral efforts are the highest reality in the world of the author of The Death of Ivan Ilyich. A person lives a true life when he does them. The misunderstanding that separates people is considered by Tolstoy as an anomaly, as the main reason for the impoverishment of life.

Tolstoy is a staunch opponent of individualism. He portrayed and evaluated in his works the private existence of a person, in no way connected with the world of the universal, as flawed. The idea of ​​the need for man to suppress the animal nature in Tolstoy after the crisis was one of the main ones both in journalism and in artistic creativity. The egoistic path of a person who directs all efforts towards achieving personal well-being, in the eyes of the author of The Death of Ivan Ilyich, is deeply erroneous, completely hopeless, never, under any circumstances, reaching the goal. This is one of those problems that Tolstoy pondered over the years with amazing tenacity and perseverance. "To regard one's life as the center of life is for a person madness, insanity, an aberration." The conviction that personal happiness is unattainable by an individual lies at the heart of the book On Life.

The resolution of a deeply personal experience of the inevitability of death is performed by the hero in an ethical and social act, which has become the main feature of Tolstoy's works of the last period. It is no coincidence that “Notes of a Madman” remained unfinished. There is every reason to believe that the story did not satisfy the writer by the very idea. The prerequisite for the crisis of the hero was the special qualities of his personality, which manifested themselves in early childhood, when he unusually acutely perceived manifestations of injustice, evil, cruelty. The hero is a special person, not like everyone else, superfluous for society. And the sudden fear of death experienced by him, a thirty-five-year-old healthy person, is assessed by others as a simple deviation from the norm. The singularity of the hero somehow led to the thought of the exclusivity of his fate. The idea of ​​the story lost its general validity. The exclusivity of the hero became the flaw due to which the reader left the circle of the writer's arguments.

Tolstoy's heroes are primarily absorbed in the search for personal happiness, and they come to world problems, common only if they are led to them by the logic of the search for personal harmony, as was the case with Levin or Nekhlyudov. But, as Tolstoy wrote in his Diary, “it is impossible to live for oneself alone. This is death." Tolstoy reveals the failure of egoistic existence as a lie, ugliness and evil. And this gives his criticism a special power of persuasiveness. “... If a person’s activity is sanctified by the truth,” he wrote on December 27, 1889 in his Diary, “then the consequences of such activity are good (good for oneself and others); the manifestation of goodness is always beautiful.

So, the beginning of the 19th century is the time of the birth of the image of the “superfluous person” in Russian literature. And then, throughout the entire "golden age of Russian culture", we find in the works of great poets and writers vivid images of heroes who have become superfluous for the society in which they lived. One of such vivid images is the image of Pechorin.

The image of the "superfluous person" in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"

A vivid image of a superfluous person was created by M.Yu. Lermontov (1814-1841) in the novel A Hero of Our Time. Lermontov is the pioneer of psychological prose. His "Hero of Our Time" is the first prose socio-psychological and philosophical novel in Russian literature. "A Hero of Our Time" absorbed the traditions laid down by Griboyedov ("Woe from Wit") and Pushkin ("Eugene Onegin").

Lermontov defines the disease of his time - existence outside the past and future, the lack of connections between people, the spiritual fragmentation of man. The author collects a whole "mournful house" in the novel, both literally and symbolically. So, Mary is being treated for something on the waters, Grushnitsky and Werner are lame, the smuggler girl behaves like a mentally ill person ... And among them Pechorin involuntarily becomes a “moral cripple”, incapable of ordinary human feelings and impulses. Pechorin's world has a typically romantic divergence into two spheres: the main character and everything that is outside him and opposes him. The image of Pechorin expressed Lermontov's attitude to his contemporary generation, which the author considered inactive, existing without a goal at a time when it was necessary to transform society. Pechorin is an outstanding personality, standing out from the environment; at the same time, in his character, Lermontov notes the typical features of a secular person: emptiness, spiritual callousness, vanity.

The image of Pechorin embodied both the artistic and philosophical reflections of Lermontov on these problems, and the specific historical content. In Pechorin, the process of development of public and personal self-consciousness in Russia in the 30s of the 19th century is captured. The restrictions imposed by the post-December reaction on social activity contributed to a certain self-deepening of the personality, a turn from social problems to philosophical ones. However, in conditions of alienation from active social self-realization, this process of deepening and complication often turned out to be dangerous for the individual. Painful individualism, hypertrophied reflection, moral split - these are the consequences of the disturbed balance between the internal and external capabilities of a person, between contemplation and activity. Moral split, reflection, individualism - all these features that characterize the type of "extra person", the type to which Pechorin is attributed.

Proudly, Pechorin's mind always opens up some kind of dark depth that eludes his understanding. Of course, much is given to him in the process of self-knowledge. But with all this, Pechorin remains not completely unraveled, not only by Maxim Maksimych, but also by himself. Lermontov reveals in the novel one of the root diseases of the people of his generation, which has a purely spiritual source. The “love of wisdom” of the 1830s was fraught with the danger of the “arrogance” of the mind, the pride of the human mind. When you read the novel carefully, you involuntarily notice that a significant part of Pechorin's spiritual world all the time "runs away" from his self-knowledge, the mind does not quite cope with his feelings. And the more self-confident the hero's claims to full knowledge of himself and people, the sharper his clash with the mystery that reigns both in the world around and in his soul.

At the moment of the last explanation with Princess Mary, the self-satisfied mind tells Pechorin that he does not seem to have any heartfelt feelings for his victim: “the thoughts were calm, the head was cold.” But in the process of explaining, a surge of unknown, uncontrollable feelings shakes Pechorin's inner world. “It became unbearable, another minute and I would have fallen at her feet. So, you see for yourself,” I said in as firm a voice as I could and with a forced smile, “you see for yourself that I cannot marry you.”

Pechorin's mind is unable to know the full depth of feelings that elude him. And the more intense, the bolder the autocratic pretensions of reason, the more irreversible is the process of the hero's mental devastation. There is some significant flaw in the very quality of Pechorin's mind. Worldly wisdom reigned in Pechorin's mind, his mind was proud, proud and sometimes envious. Weaving a network of intrigues around Princess Mary, entering into a thoughtful love game with her, Pechorin says: “But there is immense pleasure in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul! She is like a flower whose best fragrance evaporates towards the first ray of the sun, it must be plucked at that moment and, after breathing it to its fullest, leave it on the road: maybe someone will pick it up. I feel in myself this insatiable greed that consumes everything that comes my way, I look at the suffering and joy of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.

Pechorin's intellect, as we see, is oversaturated with the energy of a destructive, inquisitive mind. Such a mind is far from selfless. Pechorin does not conceive of cognition without the egoistic possession of a cognizable object. Therefore, his intellectual games with people bring them only misfortune and grief. Vera suffers, Princess Mary is offended in her best feelings, Grushnitsky is killed in a duel. Such an outcome of the “games” cannot but puzzle Pechorin: “Is it really, I thought, that my only purpose on earth is to destroy other people's hopes? Since I have been living and acting, fate has somehow always led me to the denouement of other people's dramas, as if without me no one could die or despair. I was the necessary face of the fifth act, involuntarily I played the pitiful role of an executioner or a traitor. What purpose did fate have for this?

It is no coincidence that the worldview of the “ancient and wise” people does not leave Pechorin alone, his proud mind and devastated heart disturb him. Remembering the “wise people”, laughing at their belief that “the luminaries of heaven take part” in human affairs, Pechorin nevertheless remarks: “But what strength of will gave them the confidence that the whole sky with its countless inhabitants on them looks with participation, although mute, but unchanged! .. And we, their miserable descendants, wandering the earth without conviction and pride, without pleasure and fear, except for that involuntary fear that squeezes the heart at the thought of an inevitable end, we are no longer capable of great sacrifices neither for the good of mankind, nor even for our own happiness, because we know its impossibility and indifferently pass from doubt to doubt, as our ancestors rushed from one error to another, having, like them, neither hope, nor even that indefinite, although the true pleasure that the soul meets in any struggle with people or with fate.

Here Lermontov comes to an explanation of the deepest ideological sources that feed Pechorin's individualism and egoism: they are contained in his unbelief. It is this that is the ultimate cause of the crisis experienced by Pechorin's humanism. Pechorin is a man left to himself, who imagines himself the creator of his own destiny. "I" for him is the only god who can be served and who involuntarily becomes on the other side of good and evil. The fate of Pechorin shows the tragedy of a modern humanist who imagines himself a "self-legislator" of morality and love. But, being captured by its contradictory, darkened nature, such “humanism” sows grief and destruction around, and leads its soul to devastation and self-incineration. Giving a philosophical and religious meaning to the conflict of the novel in The Fatalist, Lermontov extends his hand to Dostoevsky, whose heroes, through the temptation of absolute freedom and self-will, come to the discovery of the eternal truth through the temptation of absolute freedom: “If there is no God, then everything is allowed.” Pechorin attracts the reader by the fact that the bitter truths that he discovers in the process of testing the possibilities of his proud, inquisitive mind bring the hero not reassurance, not complacency, but burning suffering, which grows more and more as the novel moves to the finale.

It is noteworthy that in the finale of the novel, Pechorin decides to check the correctness of his thoughts with the opinion of Maxim Maksimych. He, like a Russian, “does not like metaphysical debates” and declares about fatalism that this, of course, is “a rather tricky thing.” Is it by chance that the novel opens and ends with the words of Maxim Maksimych? What makes it possible for Lermontov to separate himself from Pechorin and look at him from the outside? What life-giving forces of Russian life remained alien to Pechorin, but intimately close to Lermontov?

According to Lermontov's philosophy, people are always likened to a place of residence. His constant comparisons are not accidental (like a cat, like a wild chamois, like rivers), but the world of the writer's images is comprehensive, so all his people, and the novel itself, are similar to the "arrangement" of the Earth (first the surface and only then lava, core and nucleolus ). What "lies" on the surface of the work? Undoubtedly, the whole novel is defined by the three words that make up the title (“A Hero of Our Time”). Moreover, Lermontov, as a brilliant philologist, beats them in all possible meanings. “A hero” for him and “a man outstanding for his courage, valor, selflessness” (but isn’t Pechorin like that? Isn’t he brave, stealing Bela, fighting smugglers ... and simply challenging fate? Isn’t he valiant, no wonder Bela notices him the only one among all the "oncoming and transverse" at the wedding? Isn't he selfless? How he longs for the fulfillment of his whims, how he "sacrifices" for himself).

The hero is “the protagonist of a dramatic work” (already in the first preface, Pechorin is compared with “tragic and romantic villains”, which gives rise to an associative connection with the drama, which throughout the novel becomes more and more important; for example, the motif of drapery and dressing permeates the whole work (Pechorin “dresses up” for a greater psychological effect of parting with Bela, Grushnitsky “dresses” in a gray overcoat in order to better play his role, Princess Mary and her mother are dressed in fashion: “nothing superfluous ...”), and the costume is always Lermontov symbolizes the inner state of a person at a certain moment, it is no coincidence that Mary’s leg, tied at the ankle, is said to be “so cute”, and this description echoes her subsequent “light” and “charming” movements); the motive of the mask and the game is also important, and Lermontov again beats him in all meanings, starting with the card, love, life and ending with the game with fate, Pechorin himself is the director of such a multi-level action (“There is a plot!” He exclaims. - Oh denouement of this comedy, we will pat).

It is interesting that even five stories resemble five acts of drama, and the narrative itself is completely built on action and dialogue, all the characters immediately appear on the stage, and the concept of the character system is unusual (the main character appears as an off-stage character, but acting on the stage, and only in the second story becomes real, and then only in the memoirs, the rest never appear at all, except for Maxim Maksimych, of course, but arise only from the words of the narrators). Even the landscape, which does not change throughout one story, resembles theatrical scenery. And finally, for the writer, the hero is "a person who embodies the characteristic features of the era ...".

It turns out that time is divided into two spheres (external and internal), but the question arises: in which of these spheres does Lermontov talk about “his time”, that is, about the relationship of people in his era, because this is the main question of the novel . Undoubtedly, the time "acting" in the book is internal; there is no external at all as such (past, present and future are mixed up and, it seems, not observed at all). Let's pay attention to the tenses of the verbs (by the way, this is another “hypostasis” of the word in the work): in the descriptions, the verbs are used in the past tense (I “ride”, “the sun has already begun”, “I laughed internally”, “the scene was repeated”), but as soon as the narrative acquires a dialogic character, our awareness of what is happening is transferred from the past to the present (“you know”, “I want”), Pechorin’s “present” after death is especially strange. It is possible that even the past and future in the novel are the present, in philosophical terms, of course, because there is no time in eternity, which is why time in the novel swirls and does not “unfold” linearly.

Thus, it turns out that not only the main theme (modernity) is already outlined in the title, but the plot and purpose of the hero are generally defined.

The stories are arranged chronologically incorrectly. According to the period of Pechorin's life, which is presented in the novel, it would be more correct to arrange them like this: "Taman" - "Princess Mary" - "Bela" or "Fatalist" - "Maxim Maksimych". However, in the life of Pechorin there are moments when his time disappears and the hero himself disappears into space. And in general, regarding his subjective time in Bel, Pechorin is much younger than, for example, in Taman. By the way, isn’t it strange that, leaving for the Caucasus, Pechorin buys a cloak in St. Petersburg, and it’s also unknown from whom he receives a dagger as a gift. It turns out that for some reason Lermontov needs a “confused” chronology. What emerges is not the sequence of Pechorin's life, but the sequence of events in the life of the narrator (the wandering officer). Thus, Pechorin is at the center of the novel (a symbol of modernity and time, even as a philosophical concept, for he is also divided into “inner” and “outer man, also objective, real and subjective”).

So, how does Lermontov reveal his task, set in the preface (to show the illness of his generation)? Pechorin and other characters are shown in the writer’s usual concept of portraying a person (the opinion of others about him - a portrait - thoughts and inner world), this is how we learn about Pechorin first from the lips of Maxim Maksimych (he becomes the narrator of Bela), then we see through his eyes of a wandering officer and, finally, we read his own thoughts and feelings, we plunge into the most terrible circles of his soul. Azamat also appears (Maxim Maksimych talks about him, then his portrait is given, and only after that he reveals his "feelings" when talking with Kazbich), Bela (Maxim Maksimych's thoughts about her - a portrait - her thoughts and actions), Kazbich, princess Mary, Werner... However, even with such a detailed examination of the characters, it is still impossible to penetrate into the very "nucleolus" of their souls, to fully understand them. Therefore, Pechorin does not become understandable at all even at the end of the novel, an interesting proportional dependence arises in the disclosure of his image (the closer to the core, to the inner world, the more incomprehensible).

In general, the composition is not aimed at explaining the hero. Pechorin is shown from several angles at once; different facets of his soul coexist at the same time. Such a double composition and "double" heroes "make" the antithesis the main literary device of the work. Undoubtedly, it fits perfectly with the thoughts of both Pechorin, the wandering officer, and Lermontov himself. The very first line in the book (“the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing”) begins a chain of antitheses, both semantic and intonational and phonetic. Lermontov’s antithesis splits all phenomena into two opposite concepts and at the same time, as it were, combines them into one whole, transforms “incompatibilities” into “joint”, that is, the very meaning of the antithesis is already ambiguous (to separate and combine at the same time). It is according to this principle that the system of characters in the novel is built. On the one hand, they are all Pechorin's twin characters, both in terms of the internal perception of the world and in terms of appearance (this is especially evident in the portrait antitheses of the characters), on the other hand, they are independent, because they carry a certain semantic load in the novel. This duality is the disease of time, according to Lermontov. His heroes are contradictory both in action, in appearance, and in thoughts, therefore they do not have an inner core.

Note that in Pechorin's soul there was no place for that system of thoughts and feelings, which was reflected in Lermontov's "Borodino" and "Motherland", "Song about the merchant Kalashnikov ..." and "Cossack lullaby", "Prayer" and "Palestine Branch" . Does this motif of Pechorin's tragic alienation from the indigenous, Orthodox foundations of Russian life enter into the text of the novel? It certainly enters, and it is connected precisely with the image of Maxim Maksimych. Usually, the role of an ingenuous staff captain is reduced to the fact that this hero, not understanding the depth of Pechorin's character, is called upon to give him the first, most approximate description. It seems, however, that the significance of Maxim Maksimych in the system of images of the novel is more weighty and significant. Even Belinsky saw in him the embodiment of Russian nature. This is the "purely Russian" type. With his heartfelt, Christian love for his neighbor, Maxim Maksimych vividly sets off the brokenness and painful splitting of Pechorin's character, and at the same time the entire “water society”. “The picture comes out especially bright thanks to the architectonics of the novel,” A.S. Dolinin. - Maxim Maksimych was drawn earlier, and when the characters from Pechorin's Diary pass later, they are constantly confronted by his magnificent figure in all its purity, unconscious heroism and humility - with those features that found their further deepening in Tolstoy in Platon Karataev , Dostoevsky in humble images from The Idiot, The Teenager, The Brothers Karamazov. The Russian intellectual hero of the second half of the 19th century will discover in these “humble” people religious depth and resources for his renewal. Lermontovsky Pechorin - "an extra person" - met with such a person and - passed by.

The significance of Lermontov's work in the history of Russian literature is enormous. In his lyrics, he opened up space for introspection, self-deepening, for the dialectics of the soul. These discoveries would later be used by Russian poetry and prose. It was Lermontov who solved the problem of "poetry of thought", which was mastered with such difficulty by the "wise-minded" and poets of Stankevich's circle. In his lyrics, he opened the way to a direct, personally colored word and thought, placing this word and thought in a specific life situation and in direct dependence on the spiritual and spiritual state of the poet at every given moment. Lermontov's poetry threw off the burden of ready-made poetic formulas of the school of harmonic accuracy, which had exhausted themselves by the 1830s. Like Pushkin, but only in the sphere of introspection, reflection, psychologism, Lermontov opened the way for a direct objective word that accurately conveys the state of the soul in a given dramatic situation.

In the novel A Hero of Our Time, Lermontov achieved great success in the further development and improvement of the language of Russian prose. Developing the artistic achievements of Pushkin's prose, Lermontov did not discard the creative discoveries of romanticism, which helped him in his search for means of psychological depiction of a person. Refusing the annoying metaphorization of language, Lermontov still uses words and expressions in prose in a figurative, metaphorical sense, helping him to convey the mood of the character.

Finally, the novel A Hero of Our Time opened the way for the Russian psychological and ideological novel of the 1860s, from Dostoevsky and Tolstoy to Goncharov and Turgenev. Developing Pushkin's tradition in depicting the "superfluous person". Lermontov not only complicated the psychological analysis in describing his character, but also gave the novel an ideological depth, a philosophical sound.

Conclusion

All Russian literature of the 19th century is about love and the meaning of life. These two themes torment every writer, and everyone is looking for a way to understand and explain them. At the beginning of the 19th century, realistic literary works appeared in which writers explore the problem of the relationship between the individual and society at a higher level. The closest attention in the works of writers of the 19th century is paid to the inner world of man. Griboyedov and Pushkin, Lermontov and Tolstoy - they and many other great Russian poets and writers reflected on the meaning of human life. And with all the individual characteristics of their work, they sought to show that man is an active force that decisively influences social development. The true meaning of life lies in the promotion of urgent tasks of social development, in creative work and socially transformative activity.

Russian literature of the 19th century is characterized by the creation of a portrait based on a penetrating knowledge of the psychology of the individual, the dialectics of the soul, the complex, sometimes elusive life of his inner self. After all, a person in fiction is always conceived in the unity of personal and social life. Sooner or later, every person, at least in certain moments of life, begins to think about the meaning of his existence and spiritual development. Russian writers clearly showed that human spirituality is not something external, it cannot be acquired through education or imitation of even the best examples.

The heroes of Griboyedov, Pushkin, Lermontov, with all their positive qualities, are not in demand by society, alien to it and superfluous in it. The disease of the society of that time was the lack of connections between people, the spiritual fragmentation of a person. The “superfluous person” is outside this society and opposes it.

Of course, attempts to divide people into "necessary" and "superfluous" are inherently vicious, because their implementation inevitably gives rise to arbitrariness, leading to the degradation of both man and society. The value of the human person is, in a certain sense, higher than anything that this person does or says. It cannot be reduced to work or creativity, to recognition by society or a group of people. At the same time, a person, although he lives in the historical, and not the natural world, is deprived of the opportunity to consciously solve common problems - state and public: after all, history develops according to laws unknown to man, according to the will of Providence. This inevitably leads to the rejection of the moral assessment of the activities of the state, social phenomena and historical events. It is in this sense that one must understand the image of the “superfluous person” - a person who is looking for and not finding his place in the society in which he lives.

List of used literature

1)Berkovsky I.Ya. On the global significance of Russian literature. - L., 1975.

)Bushmin A.S. Continuity in the development of literature. - L., 1975.

3)Vinogradov I.I. On a Living Trail: Spiritual Quests of Russian Classics. Literary-critical articles. - M., 1987.

)Ginzburg L. Ya. About a literary hero. - L., 1979.

5)Goncharov I.A. Oblomov. - M., 1972.

6)Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. - M., 1978.

)Izmailov N.V. Essays on Pushkin's work. - L., 1975.

8)Lermontov M.Yu. Sobr. op. V. 4 vol. - M., 1987.

9)Linkov V.Ya. The world and man in the works of L. Tolstoy and I. Bunin. - M., 1989.

)Literary dictionary. - M., 1987.

)Pushkin A.S. Sobr. op. V. 10 t. - M., 1977.

)The development of realism in Russian literature: In 3 volumes - M., 1974.

13)Skaftymov A.P. Moral quests of Russian writers. - M., 1972.

)Tarasov B.N. Analysis of bourgeois consciousness in L.N. Tolstoy "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" // Questions of Literature. - 1982. - No. 3.

Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, a new type was maturing in Russian society, a new hero of the time, which became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person with the light hand of Belinsky is usually called the type of "extra person". In Russian literature, a long line of such heroes is built: Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin, Oblomov and some others. The named characters have both common features and differences. The general properties of the type include, first of all, the origin: all the named heroes are nobles, and they are wealthy enough not to have to earn a living. Secondly, these are outstanding people, gifted by nature with intelligence, talent, and soul. They do not fit into the ordinary life of the nobility of their time, they are burdened by an aimless and meaningless life and try to find a business for themselves that would allow them to open up. But thirdly, for various reasons, all the heroes remain “superfluous”, their richly gifted natures do not find application in society. Belinsky believed that society, its social and political organization, is to blame for the appearance of "superfluous people", since an autocratic-feudal state does not need people with feeling, intelligence, initiative. Dobrolyubov noted the other side of the problem - the subjective one: the heroes themselves carry such properties that exclude their fruitful activity for the benefit of society: they, as a rule, are weak-willed, not accustomed to work, spoiled by an idle life and laziness, and therefore prefer to indulge in dreams, rather than be taken energetically to some useful work. Disregarding the social meaning of the type of “superfluous people”, one can notice another important similarity between them: in one way or another they are all looking for their destiny, tormented by their inaction, but they can’t do anything, because they don’t know for sure in the name of what act. For the most part, these are more or less tragic characters, people who have not found their happiness, although the features of the comic are increasingly showing through in their evolution, which is clearly seen, for example, in the image of Oblomov.

Despite the similarity, these characters are still different, and the general state of dissatisfaction for all is caused by not quite the same reasons and each has a peculiar coloring. So, Onegin - the most probably tragic figure - experiences cold boredom and "spleen". Fed up with secular life, tired of love adventures, not finding anything good in the village, cut off from national roots, he no longer looks for the meaning of existence, the goal in life, because he is firmly convinced that there is no such goal and cannot be, life is initially meaningless and its essence is boredom and satiety. Onegin, “having killed a friend in a duel, / Having lived without a goal, without labor / Until the age of twenty-six, / Languishing in idleness of leisure / Without service, without a wife, without work, / He did not know how to do anything.” Onegin's "Russian blues" is a heavy "few voluntary cross". He is not, contrary to Tatyana's opinion, a "parody", no, his feeling of disappointment is sincere, deep and hard for himself. He would be glad to wake up to an active life, but he cannot, at twenty-six years old feeling like a deep old man. It can be said that Onegin always balances on the verge of suicide, but this exit was ordered to him by the same laziness, although, no doubt, he would have met death with relief. In the person of Onegin, we have before us the tragedy of a man who can still do everything, but no longer wants anything. And “... he thinks, clouded with sadness: Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man, Like this poor farmer? Why, as a Tula assessor, I am not paralyzed? Why don't I feel even rheumatism in my shoulder? - ah, creator, I am young, life is strong in me; what should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!..” (“Excerpts from Onegin's Journey”).

Not at all - Lermontov's Pechorin. Like the lyrical hero of Lermontov's poetry, Pechorin passionately wants to live, but it is to live, and not to vegetate. To live is to do something great, but what exactly? And one goal does not seem indisputable to Pechorin, any value raises doubts. Throwing Pechorin is, in fact, a search for something that the hero himself, with a clear conscience, could put above himself, his personality and his freedom. But this “something” turns out to be elusive, forcing Pechorin to doubt the existence of transpersonal values ​​in general and put himself above all else. And yet, Pechorin thinks bitterly that “it’s true, I had a high appointment, because I feel immense strength in my soul ... But I didn’t guess this appointment.” Pechorin's ideological and moral searches are tragic in nature, since the very arrangement of things is doomed to failure, but he himself is far from being tragic inwardly, but, on the contrary, romantic and heroic. If Pechorin got into the appropriate situation, inspired by some great goal, he would undoubtedly have performed a heroic deed. He is not Onegin, who is cold and bored of living everywhere; Pechorin is hot, and it is boring for him to live only that petty and vain life that he is forced to lead, and he is not given another ... Of all the "superfluous people", Pechorin is most endowed with the energy of action, he is, so to speak, the least "superfluous".

In the future, the type of “extra person” degrades, the features of lethargy, apathy, lack of will, and inability to do anything are more and more manifest in it. Turgenevsky Rudin is still looking for a business, speaks of the need for high social activity, although he believes that at the time in which he lives, "a good word is also a Deed." But Goncharovsky Ilya Ilyich Oblomov no longer thinks of any activity, and only love for Olga Ilyinskaya can move him from a cozy sofa, and even then, in fact, not for long. Oblomov, who became a type of great generalizing significance, drew a line, according to Dobrolyubov, under the development of the type of "superfluous person" in Russian literature. In Oblomov, the positive qualities that are so highly valued by Russian writers are still preserved - a subtly feeling soul, an extraordinary mind, tenderness of feeling, etc. - but inertia, "Oblomovism" nullifies these qualities, and talking about Oblomov as a hero of the time, perhaps, do not have to. Moreover, in the middle of the 19th century, a new type appeared on the Russian historical scene, a hero of the new time - a raznochinets-democrat.

Kostareva Valeria

The theme of "an extra person" in Russian literature.... Who is an "extra person"? Is this term appropriate? My student is trying to talk about this

Download:

Preview:

Municipal budgetary educational institution secondary school No. 27

Images of "superfluous people" in Russian literature

Completed by a student: 10B class

Kostareva Lera

Head: teacher of Russian language and literature

Masieva M.M.

Surgut, 2016

1. Introduction. Who is the "extra person"?

2. Eugene Onegin

3. Grigory Pechorin

4. Ilya Oblomov

5. Fyodor Lavretsky

6. Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov

7. Conclusion

8. Literature

Introduction

Russian classical literature is recognized all over the world. It is rich in many artistic discoveries. Many terms and concepts are unique to it and are unknown to the world literature.

In literary criticism, as in any other science, there are various classifications. Many of them are literary characters. So, in Russian literature, for example, the “Turgenev type of a girl” stands out, etc. But the most famous and interesting group of heroes that causes the most controversy is probably the “superfluous people”. This term is applied most often to literary heroes of the 19th century.
Who is this "extra person"? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero who, for various reasons (both external and internal), could not realize himself, his capabilities. The "superfluous person" is looking for the meaning of life, the goal, but does not find it. Therefore, he wastes himself on life's trifles, on entertainment, on passions, but does not feel satisfaction from this. Often the life of an "extra person" ends tragically: he dies or dies in the prime of life.

The lonely "superfluous person", rejected by society or who himself rejected this society, was not a figment of the imagination of Russian writers of the 19th century, he was seen by them as a painful phenomenon of the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by the crisis of the social system. The personal fates of the heroes, who are usually called "superfluous people", reflected the drama of the advanced nobility

The most famous "superfluous people" in Russian literature were Eugene Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" and Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time". But the gallery of "superfluous people" is quite extensive. Here and Chatsky from Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", and Fyodor Lavretsky from Turgenev's novel "The Noble Nest" and many others.

The purpose of this study: to provide a rationale for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the use of the term "extra people"

Tasks:

To trace the development of the image of the "superfluous person" in Russian literature of the 19th century;

To reveal the role of "superfluous people" in specific works;

Find out the meaning of these characters for Russian literature;

In my work, I tried to answer the following questions:

Who is the "extra person"?

Is it useful to the world?

Subject of research: images of "superfluous people" in Russian literature

Object of study: works of Russian writers of the 19th century

I believe that the relevance of this topic is undeniable. The great works of Russian classics not only teach us about life. They make you think, feel, empathize. They help to understand the meaning and purpose of human life. They are not only relevant now, they are immortal. No matter how much has been written about the authors, heroes, but there are no answers. There are only eternal questions of being. The so-called "superfluous people" have brought up more than one generation of people, by their own example pushing them to the eternal search for truth, the awareness of their place in life.

Eugene Onegin

The founder of the type of "superfluous people" in Russian literature is Evgeny Onegin from the novel of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. In terms of his potential, Onegin is one of the best people of his time.

He grew up and was brought up according to all the rules of "good manners". Onegin shone in the light. He led a bohemian lifestyle: balls, walks along Nevsky Prospekt, visits to theaters. His pastime was no different from the life of the "golden youth" of that time. But Onegin got tired of all this very quickly. He became bored both at balls and in the theater: “No sooner the feelings in him cooled down, He was bored with the noise of light ...”. This is the first touch to the portrait of the "superfluous person". The hero began to feel superfluous in high society. He becomes alien to everything that surrounded him for so long.
Onegin is trying to do some useful activity (“yawning, he took up the pen”). But the lordly perception and lack of habit of work played a role. The hero does not complete any of his undertakings. In the village, he tries to organize the life of the peasants. But, having carried out one reform, he safely abandons this occupation. And here Onegin turns out to be superfluous, unadapted to life.
Superfluous Eugene Onegin and in love. At the beginning of the novel, he is unable to love, and at the end he is rejected, despite the spiritual rebirth of the hero. Onegin himself admits that “he is disabled in love”, unable to experience deep feelings. When he finally realizes that Tatyana is his happiness, she cannot reciprocate the hero.
After a duel with Lensky, in a depressed state, Onegin leaves the village and begins to wander around Russia. In these journeys, the hero overestimates his life, his actions, his attitude to the surrounding reality. But the author does not tell us that Onegin began to engage in some useful activity, became happy. The finale of "Eugene Onegin" remains open. We can only guess about the fate of the hero.
V.G. Belinsky wrote that Pushkin was able to capture "the essence of life" in his novel. His hero is the first true national character. The work "Eugene Onegin" itself is deeply original and has enduring hysterical and artistic value. His hero is a typical Russian character.
Onegin's main trouble is separation from life. He is smart, observant, not hypocritical, has huge inclinations. But his whole life is suffering. And society itself, the very structure of life, doomed him to this suffering. Eugene is one of many typical representatives of his society, his time. A hero like him - Pechorin - was placed in the same conditions.

Grigory Pechorin

The next representative of the type of "superfluous people" is Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time".
Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin is a representative of his era, or rather, the best part of the noble intelligentsia of the 20s of the 19th century. But he cannot find himself, his place in life. Initially, Grigory Alexandrovich was endowed with great abilities. He is smart, educated, talented. Throughout the novel, we observe the life, thoughts, feelings of this hero. He vaguely feels that social life with its empty entertainment does not suit him. But Pechorin does not realize what he wants from life, what he wants to do.
Most of all, boredom prevents this hero from living. He fights her the best he can. One of the main entertainments for Grigory Alexandrovich is love adventures. But not a single woman can give meaning to Pechorin's life. The only woman that the hero truly appreciates is Vera. But even with her, Pechorin cannot be happy, because he is afraid to love, he does not know how to do this (like Eugene Onegin).
Grigory Alexandrovich is much more prone to self-analysis, reflections than Onegin. Pechorin analyzes his inner world. He is trying to find the cause of his unhappiness, the aimlessness of life. The hero fails to come to any comforting conclusion. In empty amusements he squandered all his strength, his soul. Now he does not have the strength for strong emotions, experiences, for an interest in life. In the end, the hero dies, following his own predictions.
To all the people with whom the fate of the hero collides, he brings misfortune, violating the moral laws of society. He cannot find a place for himself anywhere, application of his remarkable strengths and abilities, therefore Pechorin is superfluous wherever fate throws him.
In the image of Pechorin, Belinsky saw a truthful and fearless reflection of the tragedy of his generation, the generation of progressive people of the 40s. A man of extraordinary fortitude, proud and courageous, Pechorin wastes his energy in vain, in cruel amusements and petty intrigues. Pechorin is a victim of that social system, which could only jam and cripple all the best, advanced and strong.
V.G. Belinsky ardently defended the image of Pechorin from the attacks of reactionary criticism and argued that this image embodied the critical spirit of "our age." Defending Pechorin, Belinsky emphasized that "our age" abhors "hypocrisy." He speaks loudly of his sins, but is not proud of them; exposes his bloody wounds, and does not hide them under the beggarly rags of pretense. He realized that the consciousness of his sinfulness is the first step to salvation.. Belinsky writes that, in essence, Onegin and Pechorin are one and the same person, but each has chosen a different path in his case. Onegin chose the path of apathy, and Pechorin - the path of action. But in the end, both lead to suffering.

Ilya Oblomov

The next link that continues the gallery of "superfluous people" is the hero of the novel by I. A. Goncharov, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a kind, gentle, kind-hearted person who is able to experience a feeling of love and friendship, but is not able to step over himself - get up from the couch, do some activities and even handle their own affairs.

So why is such a smart and educated person not willing to work? The answer is simple: Ilya Ilyich, just like Onegin and Pechorin, does not see the meaning and purpose of such work, such a life. “This unresolved question, this unsatisfied doubt exhausts the forces, destroys activity; a person drops his hands, and he gives up work, not seeing a goal for him, ”wrote Pisarev.

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic, apathetic nature, divorced from real life: "Lying ... was his normal state." And this feature is the first thing that distinguishes him from Pushkin's and, especially, Lermontov's heroes.

The life of Goncharov's character is rosy dreams on a soft sofa. Slippers and a dressing gown are indispensable companions of Oblomov's existence and bright, precise artistic details that reveal Oblomov's inner essence and outer lifestyle. Living in a fictional world, fenced off by dusty curtains from reality, the hero devotes his time to building unrealizable plans, does not bring anything to the end. Any of his undertakings suffers the fate of a book that Oblomov has been reading for several years on one page.

The main storyline in the novel is the relationship between Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya. It is here that the hero reveals himself to us from the best side, his most cherished corners of the soul are revealed. But, alas, in the end he acts like the characters already familiar to us: Pechorin and Onegin. Oblomov decides to break off relations with Olga for her own good;

They all leave the women they love, not wanting to hurt them.

Reading the novel, one involuntarily asks the question: why is everyone so drawn to Oblomov? It is obvious that each of the heroes finds in him a piece of goodness, purity, revelation - all that people lack so much.

Goncharov in his novel showed different types of people, they all passed in front of Oblomov. The author showed us that Ilya Ilyich has no place in this life, just like Onegin, Pechorin.

The famous article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” (1859) appeared immediately after the novel and, in the minds of many readers, seemed to grow together with it. Ilya Ilyich, Dobrolyubov argued, was a victim of that general inability for noble intellectuals to be active, the unity of word and deed, which were generated by their "external position" of landowners who live off forced labor. “It is clear,” the critic wrote, “that Oblomov is not a dull, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person looking for something, thinking about something. But the vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery.

The main reason for the defeat of the hero of Oblomov, according to Dobrolyubov, was not in himself and not in the tragic laws of love, but in Oblomovism as a moral and psychological consequence of serfdom, dooming the noble hero to flabbiness and apostasy when trying to embody his ideals in life.

Fyodor Lavretsky

This hero of I.S. Turgenev's novel "The Nest of Nobles" continues the gallery of "superfluous people". Fyodor Ivanovich Lavretsky. - a deep, intelligent and truly decent person, driven by the desire for self-improvement, the search for a useful business in which he could apply his mind and talent. Passionately loving Russia and realizing the need for rapprochement with the people, he dreams of useful activities. But his activity is limited only to some reconstructions in the estate, and he does not find application for his forces. All his activities are limited to words. He only talks about things without getting down to them. Therefore, "school" literary criticism usually classifies him as a "superfluous person." The uniqueness of Lavretsky's nature is emphasized by comparison with other characters in the novel. His sincere love for Russia is countered by the condescending disdain shown by socialite Panshin. Lavretsky's friend, Mikhalevich, calls him a bobak, who lies all his life and is only going to work. This suggests a parallel with another classical type of Russian literature - Oblomov I.A. Goncharova.

The most important role in revealing the image of Lavretsky is played by his relationship with the heroine of the novel, Lisa Kalitina. They feel the commonality of their views, they understand that "they both love and dislike the same thing." Lavretsky's love for Lisa is the moment of his spiritual rebirth, which came upon his return to Russia. The tragic ending of love - the wife whom he considered dead suddenly returns - does not turn out to be an accident. The hero sees in this retribution for his indifference to public duty, for the idle life of his grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Gradually, a moral turning point occurs in the hero: previously indifferent to religion, he comes to the idea of ​​Christian humility. In the epilogue of the novel, the hero appears aged. Lavretsky is not ashamed of the past, but neither does he expect anything from the future. “Hello, lonely old age! Burn down, useless life!" he says.

The ending of the novel is very important, which is a kind of result of Lavretsky's life searches. After all, his welcoming words at the end of the novel to unknown young forces mean not only the hero’s refusal of personal happiness (his connection with Lisa is impossible) of her very possibility, but also sound like a blessing to people, faith in a person. The finale also determines the whole inconsistency of Lavretsky, making him an "extra man".

Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov

The problem of "superfluous" people in society is reflected in the work of many Russian writers. Regarding some heroes, researchers are still "breaking spears". Can Chatsky and Bazarov be classified as "superfluous people"? And should it be done? Based on the definition of the term "superfluous people", then probably yes. After all, these heroes are also rejected by society (Chatsky) and are not sure that they need him (Bazarov).

In comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" the image of the main character - Alexander Chatsky - is the image of an advanced person of the 10-20s of the XIX century, who, in his convictions and views, is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with the moral principles of the Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in the behavior of Chatsky. He expresses his opinion on various issues, coming into conflict with many representatives of the Moscow nobility.

First of all, Chatsky himself is noticeably different from all the other heroes of the comedy. This is an educated person with an analytical mindset; he is eloquent, gifted with imaginative thinking, which elevates him above the inertia and ignorance of the Moscow nobility. Chatsky's clash with Moscow society occurs on many issues: this is the attitude to serfdom, to public service, to domestic science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that "I would be glad to serve - it's sickening to serve." This means that he will not, for the sake of his career, please, flatter his superiors, and humiliate himself. He would like to serve “the cause, not the persons” and does not want to seek entertainment if he is busy with business.

Let's compare Chatsky, the hero of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", with the image of a superfluous person.
Seeing the vices of the Famus society, rejecting its inert foundations, mercilessly denouncing servility, patronage reigning in official circles, stupid imitation of French fashion, lack of real education, Chatsky turns out to be an outcast among the counts Khryumins, Khlestovs and Zagoretskys. He is considered "strange", and in the end even recognized as a madman. So Griboedov's hero enters, like superfluous people, into conflict with the imperfect world around him. But if the latter only suffer and do nothing, then “in an embittered; thoughts” of Chatsky “one hears a healthy urge to work ...”. “He feels that he is dissatisfied,” because his ideal of life is quite definite: “freedom from all the chains of slavery that fetter society.” Chatsky's active opposition to those "whose hostility to a free life is irreconcilable" allows us to believe that he knows the ways of changing life in society. In addition, Griboyedov's hero, having gone a long way of searching, having traveled for three years, acquires a goal in life - “to serve the cause”, “without demanding either places or promotion”, “to put the mind hungry for knowledge into science”. The desire of the hero is to benefit the fatherland, to serve for the benefit of society, which is what he aspires to.
Thus, Chatsky is undoubtedly a representative of an advanced society, people who do not want to put up with the remnants, reactionary orders and are actively fighting them. Unnecessary people, unable to find a worthy occupation for themselves, to fulfill themselves, do not join either conservatives or revolutionary-minded circles, keeping disappointment in life in their souls and wasting unclaimed talents.
The image of Chatsky caused numerous controversies in criticism. I. A. Goncharov considered the hero Griboedov "a sincere and ardent figure", superior to Onegin and Pechorin.
Belinsky assessed Chatsky in a completely different way, considering this image almost farcical: “... What kind of deep person is Chatsky? This is just a screamer, a phrase-monger, an ideal jester who profanes everything sacred that he talks about. ... This is a new Don Quixote, a boy on a stick on horseback, who imagines that he is sitting on a horse ... Chatsky's drama is a storm in a teacup. Pushkin also assessed this image in approximately the same way.
Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared insane. The old world is fighting Chatsky's free word, using slander. Chatsky's struggle with accusatory words corresponds to that early period of the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and limited themselves to oral speeches.
"Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength," - this is how I.A. Goncharov defined the meaning of Chatsky.

Evgeny Bazarov

Can Bazarov be called an "extra" person?

Evgeny Bazarov, probably to a lesser extent than Onegin or Pechorin, belongs to the category of "superfluous people", however, he cannot fulfill himself in this life either. He is afraid to think about the future, because he does not see himself in it.
Bazarov lives one day, which makes even his scientific studies meaningless. Adhering to the ideas of nihilism, rejecting everything old, he nevertheless has no idea what will subsequently be formed in the cleared place, hoping for the manifestation of the will of other people. Naturally, scientific experiments soon bother Bazarov, since activity devoid of a goal quickly fades away. Returning home to his parents, Eugene stops doing research and falls into a deep depression.
His tragedy lies in the fact that he, who considers himself to some extent a superman, suddenly discovers that nothing human is alien to him. Nevertheless, without such people Russia could not do at all times. Despite his views, Bazarov cannot be accused of lacking education, intelligence, or insight. He, remaining a materialist, nevertheless, if he set the right goals, could bring many benefits to society, for example, heal people or discover new physical laws. In addition, fiercely speaking out against prejudice, he encouraged the people around him to move forward in his development, to look at some things in a new way.

So, it is clear that the image of Bazarov in some places fits into the concept of "extra people". Therefore, in part, Bazarov can also be called that, given that the "extra person" is practically equated with the "hero of his time." But all this is a very controversial issue. We cannot say that he lived his life in vain.He knew where to apply his powers. He lived for a higher purpose. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether this Eugene is “superfluous”. Everyone has their own opinion on this.

DI. Pisarev notes a certain bias of the author in relation to Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev experiences an involuntary antipathy towards his hero, towards the direction of his thoughts. But the general conclusion about the novel does not boil down to this. The critical attitude of the author to Bazarov is perceived by Dmitry Ivanovich as a virtue, since from the outside the advantages and disadvantages are more visible and criticism will be more fruitful than servile adoration. The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev, is that there are actually no favorable conditions for the present case, and therefore the author, not being able to show how Bazarov lives and acts, showed how he dies.

Conclusion

All the characters: Onegin, and Pechorin, and Oblomov, and Lavretsky, and Chatsky are in many ways similar. They are of noble origin, naturally endowed with remarkable abilities. They are brilliant gentlemen, secular dandies who break women's hearts (the exception, probably, will be Oblomov). But for them, this is more a matter of habit than a true need. In their hearts, the heroes feel that they do not need it at all. They vaguely want something real, sincere. And they all want to find applications for their great potential. Each of the characters strives for this in their own way. Onegin acts more (he tried to write, manage in the village, traveled). Pechorin, on the other hand, is more prone to reflection and introspection. Therefore, we know much more about the inner world of Grigory Alexandrovich than about the psychology of Onegin. But if we can still hope for the revival of Eugene Onegin, then Pechorin's life ends tragically (he dies of illness on the way), however, Oblomov also leaves no hope.
Each hero, despite success with women, does not find happiness in love. This is largely due to the fact that they are big egoists. Often the feelings of other people for Onegin and Pechorin mean nothing. For both heroes, it costs nothing to destroy the world of other people who love them, to trample on their life and fate.
Pechorin, Onegin, Oblomov and Lavretsky are similar in many ways, they differ in many ways. But their main common feature is the inability of the characters to realize themselves in their time. Therefore they are all unhappy. Having great internal strength, they could not benefit either themselves, or the people around them, or their country. This is their fault, their misfortune, their tragedy...

Does the world need "extra people"? Are they helpful? It is difficult to give an absolutely correct answer to this question, one can only argue. On the one hand, I don't think so. At least I thought so at one time. If a person cannot find himself in life, then his life is meaningless. Then why waste space and consume oxygen? Make way for others. This is the first thing that comes to mind when you start thinking. It seems that the answer to the question lies on the surface, but it is not. The more I worked on this topic. the more my views changed.

A person cannot be superfluous, because by nature he is unique. Each of us comes into this world for a reason. Nothing happens just like that, everything has a meaning and an explanation. If you think about it, every person can make someone happy by his very existence, and if he brings happiness to this world, then he is no longer useless.

Such people balance the world. With their incoherence, indecision, slowness (like Oblomov) or, conversely, throwing, searching for themselves, searching for the meaning and purpose of their life (like Pechorin), they excite others, make them think, reconsider their view of the environment. After all, if everyone were confident in their desires and goals, then it is not known what would become of the world. No person comes into this world aimlessly. Everyone leaves their mark on the hearts and minds of someone. There are no unnecessary lives.

The theme of "extra" people is relevant to this day. There have always been people who have not found a place in the world, and our time is no exception. On the contrary, I think that just now not everyone can decide on goals and desires. Such people have always been and will always be, and this is not bad, it just happened. Such people need to be helped, many of them could become great if it were not for a combination of circumstances, sometimes tragic.

Thus, we can conclude that every person who comes into this world is needed, and the term "extra people" is not fair.

Literature

1. Babaev E.G. Creativity of A.S. Pushkin. - M., 1988
2. Batyuto A.I. Turgenev the novelist. - L., 1972
3. Ilyin E.N. Russian literature: recommendations for schoolchildren and entrants, "SCHOOL-PRESS". M., 1994
4. Krasovsky V.E. History of Russian literature of the XIX century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 2001
5. Literature. Reference materials. Book for students. M., 1990
6. Makogonenko G.P. Lermontov and Pushkin. M., 1987
7. Monakhova O.P. Russian literature of the 19th century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 1999
8. Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit": Commentary. - M., 1983
9. Shamrey L.V., Rusova N.Yu. From allegory to iambic. Terminological dictionary-thesaurus on literary criticism. - N. Novgorod, 1993

10. http://www.litra.ru/composition/download/coid/00380171214394190279
11. http://lithelper.com/p_Lishnie_lyudi_v_romane_I__S__Turgeneva_Otci_i_deti
12. http://www.litra.ru/composition/get/coid/00039301184864115790/

Extra person- a literary type characteristic of the works of Russian writers of the 1840s and 1850s. Usually this is a person of considerable ability who cannot realize his talents in the official field of Nikolaev Russia.

Belonging to the upper classes of society, the superfluous person is alienated from the nobility, despises bureaucracy, but, having no other prospect of self-realization, mostly spends time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to alleviate his boredom, leading to duels, gambling, and other self-destructive behaviors. Typical features of the superfluous person include "mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed, and, as a rule, social passivity."

The name "superfluous man" was assigned to the type of disillusioned Russian nobleman after the publication in 1850 of Turgenev's story The Diary of a Superfluous Man. The earliest and classic examples are Eugene Onegin A. S. Pushkin, Chatsky from "Woe from Wit", Pechorin M. Lermontov - go back to the Byronic hero of the era of romanticism, to Rene Chateaubriand and Adolphe Constant. The further evolution of the type is represented by Herzen Beltov (“Who is to blame?”) and the heroes of Turgenev's early works (Rudin, Lavretsky, Chulkaturin).

Superfluous people often bring trouble not only to themselves, but also female characters who have the misfortune to love them. The negative side of superfluous people, associated with their displacement outside the social and functional structure of society, comes to the fore in the works of literary officials A.F. Pisemsky and I.A. Goncharov. The latter opposes the “hovering in the skies” idlers of practical businessmen: Aduev Jr. - Aduev Sr., and Oblomov - Stolz.

Who is this "extra person"? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero (man), who, for various reasons (both external and internal), could not realize himself, his capabilities. The "superfluous person" is looking for the meaning of life, the goal, but does not find it. Therefore, he wastes himself on life's trifles, on entertainment, on passions, but does not feel satisfaction from this. Often the life of an "extra person" ends tragically: he dies or dies in the prime of life.

Examples of "extra people":

The ancestor of the type of "superfluous people" in Russian literature is considered Eugene Onegin from the novel of the same name by A.S. Pushkin. In terms of his potential, Onegin is one of the best people of his time. He has a sharp and penetrating mind, broad erudition (he was interested in philosophy, astronomy, medicine, history, etc.) Onegin argues with Lensky about religion, science, morality. This hero even strives to do something real. For example, he tried to alleviate the fate of his peasants (“He replaced the corvee with an old dues with a light one with a yoke”). But all this was wasted for a long time. Onegin was just burning through his life, But he got bored very soon. The bad influence of secular Petersburg, where the hero was born and raised, did not allow Onegin to open up. He did nothing useful not only for society, but also for himself. The hero was unhappy: he did not know how to love and, by and large, nothing could interest him. But throughout the novel, Onegin changes. It seems to me that this is the only case when the author leaves hope to the “extra person”. Like everything in Pushkin, the novel's open ending is optimistic. The writer leaves his hero hope for a revival.

The next representative of the type of "superfluous people" is Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time". This hero reflected a characteristic feature of the life of society in the 30s of the 19th century - the development of social and personal self-consciousness. Therefore, the hero, the first in Russian literature, tries to understand the reasons for his misfortune, his difference from others. Of course, Pechorin has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways. But he does not find the use of his forces. Like Onegin, Pechorin indulged in all serious things in his youth: secular revels, passions, novels. But as a non-empty person, the hero very soon got bored with all this. Pechorin understands that secular society destroys, dries up, kills the soul and heart in a person.

What is the reason for the life restlessness of this hero? He does not see the meaning of his life, he has no purpose. Pechorin does not know how to love, because he is afraid of real feelings, afraid of responsibility. What is left for the hero? Only cynicism, criticism and boredom. As a result, Pechorin dies. Lermontov shows us that in the world of disharmony there is no place for a person who, with all his soul, albeit unconsciously, strives for harmony.

The next in the line of "superfluous people" are the heroes of I.S. Turgenev. First of all, this Rudin- the main character of the novel of the same name. His worldview was formed under the influence of philosophical circles of the 30s of the 19th century. Rudin sees the meaning of his life in serving high ideals. This hero is a great orator, he is able to lead, ignite the hearts of people. But the author constantly checks Rudin "for strength", for viability. The hero of these checks does not stand up. It turns out that Rudin is only able to speak, he cannot put his thoughts and ideals into practice. The hero does not know real life, cannot assess the circumstances and his strength. Therefore, he is "out of business."
Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov stands out from this orderly line of heroes. He is not a nobleman, but a commoner. He had, unlike all previous heroes, to fight for his life, for his education. Bazarov is well aware of reality, the everyday side of life. He has his "idea" and implements it as best he can. In addition, of course, Bazarov is a very intellectually powerful person, he has great potential. But the point is that the very idea that the hero serves is erroneous and pernicious. Turgenev shows that it is impossible to destroy everything without building anything in return. In addition, this hero, like all other "superfluous people", does not live the life of the heart. He gives all his potential to mental activity.

But man is an emotional being, a being with a soul. If a person knows how to love, then there is a high probability that he will be happy. Not a single hero from the gallery of "superfluous people" is happy in love. This speaks volumes. All of them are afraid to love, afraid or cannot come to terms with the surrounding reality. All this is very sad, because it makes these people unhappy. The enormous spiritual strength of these heroes and their intellectual potential are being wasted. The unviability of "superfluous people" is evidenced by the fact that they often die untimely (Pechorin, Bazarov) or vegetate, wasting themselves in vain (Beltov, Rudin). Only Pushkin gives his hero hope for rebirth. And this inspires optimism. So, there is a way out, there is a way to salvation. I think that he is always inside the personality, you just need to find strength in yourself.

The image of the "little man" in Russian literature of the 19th century

"Small 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.

The theme of the "little man" is one of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature, which was constantly addressed by writers of the 19th century. A.S. Pushkin was the first to mention it in the story “The Stationmaster”. The successors of this theme were N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov and many others.

This person is small precisely in social terms, since he occupies one of the lower rungs of the hierarchical ladder. His place in society is little or completely invisible. A person is considered "small" also because the world of his spiritual life and claims is also extremely narrow, impoverished, filled with all sorts of prohibitions. For him there are no historical and philosophical problems. He lives in a narrow and closed circle of his vital interests.

The best humanistic traditions are associated with the theme of the "little man" in Russian literature. Writers invite people to think about the fact that every person has the right to happiness, to their own outlook on life.

Examples of "little people":

1) Yes, Gogol in the story "The Overcoat" characterizes the protagonist as a poor, ordinary, insignificant and inconspicuous person. In life, he was assigned the insignificant role of a copyist of departmental documents. Brought up in the sphere of subordination and execution of orders of superiors, Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin not accustomed to reflect on the meaning of his work. That is why, when he is offered a task that requires the manifestation of elementary ingenuity, he begins to worry, worry, and in the end comes to the conclusion: “No, it’s better to let me rewrite something.”

The spiritual life of Bashmachkin is in tune with his inner aspirations. The accumulation of money to buy a new overcoat becomes for him the goal and meaning of life. The theft of a long-awaited new thing, which was acquired through hardship and suffering, becomes a disaster for him.

And yet Akaky Akakievich does not look like an empty, uninteresting person in the mind of the reader. We imagine that there were a great many such small, humiliated people. Gogol urged society to look at them with understanding and pity.
Indirectly, this is demonstrated by the surname of the protagonist: diminutive suffix -chk-(Bashmachkin) gives it the appropriate shade. "Mother, save your poor son!" - the author will write.

Calling for justice the author raises the question of the need to punish the inhumanity of society. As compensation for the humiliation and insults suffered during his lifetime, Akaky Akakievich, who rose from the grave in the epilogue, comes through and takes away their overcoats and fur coats. He calms down only when he takes away the outer clothing of the "significant person" who played a tragic role in the life of the "little man".

2) In the story Chekhov "Death of an official" we see the slavish soul of an official whose understanding of the world is completely distorted. There is no need to talk about human dignity here. The author gives his hero a wonderful last name: Chervyakov. Describing the small, insignificant events of his life, Chekhov seems to look at the world with Chervyakov's eyes, and these events become huge.
So, Chervyakov was at the performance and “felt on top of bliss. But suddenly ... sneezed. Looking around like a "polite person", the hero was horrified to find that he had sprayed a civilian general. Chervyakov begins to apologize, but this seemed not enough to him, and the hero asks for forgiveness again and again, day after day ...
There are a lot of such little officials who know only their little world and it is not surprising that their experiences are made up of such small situations. The author conveys the whole essence of the official's soul, as if examining it under a microscope. Unable to bear the cry in response to the apology, Chervyakov goes home and dies. This terrible catastrophe of his life is the catastrophe of his limitations.

3) In addition to these writers, Dostoevsky also addressed the theme of the “little man” in his work. The main characters of the novel "Poor people" - Makar Devushkin- a half-impoverished official, crushed by grief, want and social lawlessness, and Varenka- a girl who has become a victim of social ill-being. Like Gogol in The Overcoat, Dostoevsky turned to the theme of the disenfranchised, immensely humiliated "little man" who lives his inner life in conditions that trample on the dignity of man. The author sympathizes with his poor heroes, shows the beauty of their soul.

4) Theme "poor people" develops as a writer in the novel "Crime and Punishment". One by one, the writer reveals before us pictures of terrible poverty, which humiliates the dignity of a person. The scene of the work becomes Petersburg, and the poorest district of the city. Dostoevsky creates a canvas of immeasurable human torment, suffering and grief, peers penetratingly into the soul of the “little man”, discovers in him deposits of enormous spiritual wealth.
Family life unfolds before us Marmeladov. These are people crushed by reality. He drinks himself with grief and loses his human appearance official Marmeladov, who has "nowhere else to go." Exhausted by poverty, his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna dies of consumption. Sonya is released into the street to sell her body in order to save her family from starvation.

The fate of the Raskolnikov family is also difficult. His sister Dunya, wanting to help her brother, is ready to sacrifice herself and marry the rich Luzhin, whom she feels disgusted with. Raskolnikov himself conceives a crime, the roots of which, in part, lie in the sphere of social relations in society. The images of “little people” created by Dostoevsky are imbued with the spirit of protest against social injustice, against the humiliation of people and faith in their high calling. The souls of the "poor" can be beautiful, full of spiritual generosity and beauty, but broken by the hardest conditions of life.

6. The Russian world in the prose of the 19th century.

For lectures:

Depiction of Reality in Russian Literature of the 19th Century.

1. Landscape. Functions and types.

2. Interior: detail problem.

3. The image of time in a literary text.

4. Motif of the road as a form of artistic development of the national picture of the world.

Scenery - not necessarily an image of nature, in literature it may involve a description of any open space. This definition corresponds to the semantics of the term. From French - country, area. In French art theory, the landscape description includes both the depiction of wildlife and the depiction of man-made objects.

The well-known typology of landscapes is based on the specifics of the functioning of this text component.

Firstly, landscapes stand out, which are the background of the story. These landscapes, as a rule, indicate the place and time against which the depicted events take place.

The second type of landscape- a landscape creating a lyrical background. Most often, when creating such a landscape, the artist pays attention to meteorological conditions, because this landscape should first of all influence the emotional state of the reader.

Third type- a landscape that creates/becomes a psychological background of existence and becomes one of the means of revealing the character's psychology.

Fourth type- a landscape that becomes a symbolic background, a means of symbolic reflection of the reality depicted in a literary text.

The landscape can be used as a means of depicting a particular artistic time or as a form of presence of the author.

This typology is not the only one. The landscape can be expositional, dual, etc. Modern critics isolate Goncharov's landscapes; it is believed that Goncharov used the landscape for an ideal representation of the world. For a person who writes, the evolution of the landscape skill of Russian writers is fundamentally important. There are two main periods:

· pre-Pushkin, during this period the landscapes were characterized by the completeness and concreteness of the surrounding nature;

· post-Pushkin period, the idea of ​​an ideal landscape has changed. It assumes the stinginess of details, the economy of the image and the accuracy of the selection of details. Accuracy, according to Pushkin, involves identifying the most significant feature perceived in a certain way by feelings. This idea of ​​Pushkin, then will be used by Bunin.

Second level. Interior - image of the interior. The main unit of the interior image is a detail (detail), attention to which was first demonstrated by Pushkin. The literary test of the 19th century did not show a clear boundary between the interior and the landscape.

Time in a literary text in the 19th century becomes discrete, intermittent. Heroes easily go into memories and whose fantasies rush into the future. There is a selectivity of the attitude to time, which is explained by the dynamics. Time in a literary text in the 19th century has a convention. The most conditional time in a lyrical work, with the predominance of the grammar of the present tense, for lyrics, the interaction of different time layers is especially characteristic. Artistic time is not necessarily concrete, it is abstract. In the 19th century, the depiction of historical color became a special means of concretizing artistic time.

One of the most effective means of depicting reality in the 19th century was the motif of the road, becoming part of the plot formula, a narrative unit. Initially, this motif dominated the travel genre. In the 11th-18th centuries, in the genre of travel, the motif of the road was used, first of all, to expand ideas about the surrounding space (cognitive function). In sentimentalist prose, the cognitive function of this motif is complicated by evaluativeness. Gogol uses travel to explore the surrounding space. The renewal of the functions of the road motif is associated with the name of Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov. "Silence" 1858

For our tickets:

The 19th century is called the "Golden Age" of Russian poetry and the century of Russian literature on a global scale. It should not be forgotten that the literary leap that took place in the 19th century was prepared by the entire course of the literary process of the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century is the time of the formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin.
But the 19th century began with the heyday of sentimentalism and the formation of romanticism. These literary trends found expression primarily in poetry. Poetic works of poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykov. Creativity F.I. Tyutchev's "Golden Age" of Russian poetry was completed. However, the central figure of this time was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.
A.S. Pushkin began his ascent to the literary Olympus with the poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila" in 1920. And his novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" was called an encyclopedia of Russian life. Romantic poems by A.S. Pushkin's "The Bronze Horseman" (1833), "The Fountain of Bakhchisaray", "Gypsies" opened the era of Russian romanticism. Many poets and writers considered A. S. Pushkin their teacher and continued the traditions of creating literary works laid down by him. One of these poets was M.Yu. Lermontov. Known for his romantic poem "Mtsyri", poetic story "Demon", a lot of romantic poems. Interestingly, Russian poetry of the 19th century was closely connected with the social and political life of the country. Poets tried to comprehend the idea of ​​their special purpose. The poet in Russia was considered a conductor of divine truth, a prophet. The poets urged the authorities to listen to their words. Vivid examples of understanding the role of the poet and influence on the political life of the country are the poems of A.S. Pushkin "Prophet", ode "Liberty", "The Poet and the Crowd", a poem by M.Yu. Lermontov "On the Death of a Poet" and many others.
The prose writers of the beginning of the century were influenced by the English historical novels of W. Scott, whose translations were very popular. The development of Russian prose of the 19th century began with the prose works of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin, influenced by English historical novels, creates story "The Captain's Daughter" where the action takes place against the backdrop of grandiose historical events: during the Pugachev rebellion. A.S. Pushkin did an enormous job, exploring this historical period. This work was largely political in nature and was directed to those in power.
A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol identified the main artistic types that would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is the artistic type of the “superfluous person”, an example of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called type of "little man", which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story "The Overcoat", as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story "The Stationmaster".
Literature inherited its publicism and satirical character from the 18th century. In a prose poem N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls" the writer in a sharp satirical manner shows a swindler who buys up dead souls, various types of landowners who are the embodiment of various human vices(the influence of classicism affects). Comedy is in the same vein. "Inspector". The works of A. S. Pushkin are also full of satirical images. Literature continues to satirically depict Russian reality. The tendency to portray the vices and shortcomings of Russian society is a characteristic feature of all Russian classical literature . It can be traced in the works of almost all writers of the 19th century. At the same time, many writers implement the satirical trend in a grotesque form. Examples of grotesque satire are the works of N.V. Gogol "The Nose", M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin "Gentlemen Golovlevs", "History of one city".
Since the middle of the 19th century, Russian realistic literature has been developing, which is created against the background of the tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. The crisis of the feudal system is brewing, the contradictions between the authorities and the common people are strong. There is a need to create a realistic literature that sharply reacts to the socio-political situation in the country. Literary critic V.G. Belinsky marks a new realistic trend in literature. His position is being developed by N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky. A dispute arises between Westernizers and Slavophiles about the paths of Russia's historical development.
Writers address to the socio-political problems of Russian reality. The genre of the realistic novel is developing. Their works are created by I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov. Socio-political and philosophical problems prevail. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism.
people.
The literary process of the late 19th century discovered the names of N. S. Leskov, A.N. Ostrovsky A.P. Chekhov. The latter proved to be a master of a small literary genre - a story, as well as an excellent playwright. Competitor A.P. Chekhov was Maxim Gorky.
The end of the 19th century was marked by the formation of pre-revolutionary sentiments. The realist tradition was beginning to fade. It was replaced by the so-called decadent literature, the hallmarks of which were mysticism, religiosity, as well as a premonition of changes in the socio-political life of the country. Subsequently, decadence grew into symbolism. This opens a new page in the history of Russian literature.

7. Literary situation at the end of the 19th century.

Realism

The second half of the 19th century is characterized by the undivided dominance of the realistic trend in Russian literature. basis realism as an artistic method is socio-historical and psychological determinism. The personality and fate of the depicted person appear as the result of the interaction of his character (or, more deeply, universal human nature) with the circumstances and laws of social life (or, more broadly, history, culture - as can be seen in the work of A.S. Pushkin).

Realism of the 2nd half of the 19th century. often call critical, or socially accusatory. Recently, in modern literary criticism, there have been more and more attempts to abandon such a definition. It is both too wide and too narrow; it levels the individual characteristics of the writers' creativity. The founder of critical realism is often called N.V. Gogol, however, in Gogol's work, social life, the history of the human soul is often correlated with such categories as eternity, supreme justice, the providential mission of Russia, the kingdom of God on earth. Gogol's tradition to one degree or another in the second half of the 19th century. picked up by L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, partly N.S. Leskov - it is no coincidence that in their work (especially later) there is a craving for such pre-realistic forms of comprehension of reality as a sermon, a religious and philosophical utopia, a myth, a life. No wonder M. Gorky expressed the idea of ​​the synthetic nature of Russian classical realism, about its non-delimitation from the romantic direction. At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. the realism of Russian literature not only opposes, but also interacts in its own way with the emerging symbolism. The realism of the Russian classics is universal, it is not limited to the reproduction of empirical reality, it includes a universal content, a “mystical plan”, which brings realists closer to the search for romantics and symbolists.

Socially accusatory pathos in its purest form appears most in the work of writers of the second row - F.M. Reshetnikova, V.A. Sleptsova, G.I. Uspensky; even N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, with all their closeness to the aesthetics of revolutionary democracy, are not limited in their work posing purely social, topical issues. Nevertheless, a critical orientation towards any form of social and spiritual enslavement of a person unites all realist writers of the second half of the 19th century.

XIX century revealed the main aesthetic principles and typological properties of realism. In Russian literature of the second half of the XIX century. It is conditionally possible to single out several directions within the framework of realism.

1. The work of realist writers who strive for the artistic recreation of life in the "forms of life itself." The image often acquires such a degree of reliability that literary heroes are spoken of as living people. I.S. belong to this direction. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, partly N.A. Nekrasov, A.N. Ostrovsky, partly L.N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov.

2. Bright in the 60s and 70s the philosophical-religious, ethical-psychological direction in Russian literature is outlined(L.N. Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky). Dostoevsky and Tolstoy have amazing pictures of social reality, depicted in the "forms of life itself." But at the same time, writers always start from certain religious and philosophical doctrines.

3. Satirical, grotesque realism(in the 1st half of the 19th century, it was partly represented in the works of N.V. Gogol, in the 60-70s it unfolded in full force in the prose of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). The grotesque does not appear as hyperbole or fantasy, it characterizes the method of the writer; he combines in images, types, plots what is unnatural, and is absent in life, but is possible in the world created by the creative imagination of the artist; similar grotesque, hyperbolic images emphasize certain patterns that prevail in life.

4. Completely unique realism, "hearted" (Belinsky's word) by humanistic thought, presented in art A.I. Herzen. Belinsky noted the “Voltaireian” warehouse of his talent: “talent went into the mind”, which turns out to be a generator of images, details, plots, biographies of a person.

Along with the dominant realistic trend in Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century. the direction of the so-called "pure art" also developed - it is both romantic and realistic. Its representatives eschewed "damned questions" (What to do? Who is to blame?), but not reality, by which they meant the world of nature and the subjective feeling of a person, the life of his heart. They were excited by the beauty of life itself, the fate of the world. A.A. Fet and F.I. Tyutchev can be directly comparable with I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. The poetry of Fet and Tyutchev had a direct influence on the work of Tolstoy in the era of Anna Karenina. It is no coincidence that Nekrasov discovered F.I. Tyutchev to the Russian public as a great poet in 1850.