Literature lessons for the education of the capable - bazaars and rahmets as role models. Literature and Russian language: Images of raznochintsy in the novel by I.S.

Images of commoners in the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Children" and in the novel by N.G. Chernyshevsky "What to do?".

I.S. Turgenev and N.G. Chernyshevsky writers of the second half of the XIX century. Both authors were engaged in social and political activities, were employees of the journals Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski. N.G. Chernyshevsky was an ideological leader, an opponent of serfdom. In their works, the writers advocated the liberation of the people. The main characters of these two novels are E. Bazarov and Rakhmetov - raznochintsy revolutionaries. It should be noted that one of them comes from a noble family - this is Rakhmetov, who, for the sake of his principles, sells the inheritance he received and fully devotes himself to achieving a great, in his opinion, goal. Rakhmetov could not and did not want to put up with the lack of a habit of work and with the limited interests of the nobles. He devoted himself entirely to the Russian people. The hero constantly developed his strength, loaded his body with physical exercises: he chopped wood, slept on nails, because he knew that in order to achieve his goal he would have to endure quite a few trials. His closeness to the people also emphasizes the nickname Nikitushka Lemov bestowed on him by the Russian people. Possessing great courage, Rakhmetov refuses love and happiness, because he knows that his vocation is different - he wants to see the people happy and free. Yevgeny Bazarov is somewhat similar to the revolutionary Rakhmetov. But the second hero does not love the Russian people so much. In the novel "Fathers and Sons" P.P. Kirsanov accuses Bazarov of a bad attitude towards people. To which the nihilist replies: "Well, if he deserves contempt." Eugene considers Russian people dark, with limited intelligence, but he advocates a revolution that should force the nobles to work and destroy serfdom. It should be noted that Bazarov also refuses love, like Rakhmetov, he generally denies any feelings, calling it all "romanticism" - "nonsense". Rakhmetov and Bazarov are very educated people. Eugene took a course in medical sciences, which taught him to trust only his own experience. And Rakhmetov is also a medical student, he reads a lot and develops his mental horizons. People of this breed are completely dedicated to the achievement of their principles, which are for them the goal of historical importance. I.S. Turgenev and N.G. Chernyshevsky showed people who led Russia to a great and bright future, they are full of strength - all worthy qualities. Bazarov and Rakhmetov are a new generation, spokesmen for progressive ideas and thoughts, opposing the oppressed people. No wonder Turgenev wrote that: "In our young generation, all our hope. "

June 23 2010

At first, soberly assessing the nihilist Bazarov, the critic subsequently accepts his point of view, bringing it to its logical limit. One of the obstacles to the establishment of a realistic worldview is "aesthetics", which was associated with those movements of the inner world in which it cannot give itself a clear and strict account and which cannot be assessed from the standpoint of benefit and harm. Natural sciences instill healthy sober thinking, and aesthetics, according to the critic, lack of accountability, routine ...

This position was explained by the fact that in the 60s aesthetics as a “pure” perception of beauty and enjoyment of art, not clouded by the dirt of reality, were proclaimed by liberals and reactionaries. Democrats stood up for journalistic criticism and opposed aestheticism. They proceeded from the fact that it should be included in the struggle for the transformation of life directly, arousing anger and indignation, revealing the baseness of living conditions unworthy of a person. Art should put forward a human fighter, an active nature, calling to follow its example. This is how Pisarev saw, for example, Chatsky ... The main thing is that the hero be a “knight of the past” or “a knight of the future”.

There was one significant miscalculation in these principles of materialistic criticism: the maximalist Pisarev proposed not only contemporary literature, but also the heritage of the past, to be measured by the standards of compliance with the needs of reality in the 60s. In A Walk Through the Gardens of Russian Literature, the critic spoke with certainty, posing the question: “Should we read Pushkin at the present moment, or can we put him on the shelf, as we did with Lomonosov, Derzhavin and Zhukovsky?” In search of an answer, the critic departs from taking into account the historical conditions in which Pushkin worked, “is eliminated”, in his own words, from the “historical point of view”2. The critic is consistently unhistorical: just as liberals and aesthetes falsified the image of Pushkin, adapting it to the "sample" of their program, Pisarev debunked (the poet (meaning the weakening of the position of his opponents), ^ proving Pushkin's inconsistency with the spirit of the new era. | What does the consonance of time mean? Now, if Pushkin sang about the rights and duties of a person, about striving for a brighter future, about the shortcomings of modern (Pisarev. - E.V.) reality, about the struggle of the human mind with age-old delusions, about conscious love for the fatherland and humanity, - he would have turned out to be close to the moods of the era of the 1960s. But this is exactly what the critic does not find in Pushkin, because, according to the correct remark of B.F. battles of a different era and full compliance with the spirit of new battles were already manifested by Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.

Pisarev strengthened the anti-historical normativity in the approach to Pushkin's work. He did not find a response from the poet to the ideas that agitated the generation of the 60s. At the same time, anti-historicism was combined with an openly utilitarian approach to creativity: the critic was looking for a direct response from the poet, who lived in the first quarter of the century, to the problems of a different time. Not finding any, moreover, proving the poet's inconsistency with the new requirements, the critic directly deduced his "harmfulness" for the younger generation. Since the legacy of the poet does not awaken thought in the direction assumed by the critic, then, consequently, it teaches young people to “treat with sparrow levity” to the most serious issues that absorb all the strength of the best people. Therefore, “to educate young people on Pushkin means to prepare drones or ... sybarites from them.” The critic re-read Pushkin in his own way, from his own standpoint, explaining why Belinsky gave the poet such a high rating.

Here is how, for example, the well-known “October 19, 1825”, one of the cycle of lyceum anniversaries dedicated to memory, is interpreted2. What is this poem about? It reveals Pushkin's worldly philosophy, in which there is no place for big and bright ideas of significant social resonance. Could such ideas excite a person for whom “the whole world is a foreign land” and “the fatherland is Tsarskoye Selo”? Pisarev concludes further that reflections on social problems are generally alien to Pushkin, that the poem proves his monarchical inclinations: after all, it glorifies the tsar and pays tribute to fellow lyceum students who have occupied major posts in the state. Thus, the critic accepts the toast to the tsar, which sounds ironic in the context of the poem, but in Pisarev's interpretation, taken out of context, serves as proof that Pushkin is Alexander's praiser.

No less significant example is the poem "Slanderers of Russia". In 1831, the poet asserted his view of Russian-Polish relations in line with the views shared by the Decembrists, in specific historical conditions and on a specific occasion (in response to speeches in the French Chamber calling for armed intervention in Russian-Polish hostilities). This explains the position of the poet, his conviction that "the dispute of the Slavs among themselves, Home, an old dispute, already weighed by fate ..."

Thirty years later, in the mid-60s, the democratic revolutionaries could not agree with this for quite objective reasons: they had sympathy for the liberation movement of the Poles, and the tsarist government in 1863 brutally cracked down on the participants in the uprising, imprisoned the leaders in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Pushkin's position did not meet the new requirements. The critic came to this conclusion, shifting the projection of the vision and assessment of historical events in poetry. Not finding an echo of the social, Pisarev' concluded that the poems have no value, like other Pushkin's creations, hopelessly outdated.

The critic derives Pushkin's aesthetic views from the poem "The Mob" (now called "The Poet and the Crowd"), where they are allegedly expressed in the most complete and complete form. Noting lines:

Not for worldly excitement, Not for self-interest, not for battles. We were born for inspiration, For sweet sounds and prayers, -

the critic blames Pushkin for the dissemination of "pure art", on the rapid flowering of which the poet allegedly had a significant influence. Pisarev argues that the decline in the social line in poetry from Delvig to Yazykov, from Fet to Polonsky and the transition of poets to intimate, asocial themes was also predetermined by Pushkin. If so, concludes Pisarev, such a pernicious influence that weakens the power of art must be fought. The critic on this path is inexhaustibly sarcastic, sparkles with irony, wit...

Many of the provisions of his anti-Pushkin concept Pisarev deduced by developing and bringing to extreme expression the weakest and most inconsistent judgments about the poet Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. He focused attention and in his own way, pointedly, continued their provisions that Pushkin is a poet of "form" par excellence, that social thinking is alien to the poet, that after 1825 Pushkin moved away from the Decembrist ideas and reconciled with the Nikolaev reality, finally, that the new era The 60s is consonant with Gogol, and Pushkin belongs to the past.

The novels “Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev and “What Is to Be Done?” Chernyshevsky were written almost at the same time. "Fathers and Sons" in 1861, and "What is to be done?" in 1862.

This is the era of the rise of the raznochinsk movement, the period of action. The 60s of the 19th century, after the defeat in the Crimean War and the Nikolaev repressions, were a crisis for Russia and, one might say, almost revolutionary. About these years, V. I. Lenin wrote: “The revival of the democratic movement in Europe ... the demand for political reforms by the entire press and all the nobility, the distribution of the Bells throughout Russia, the mighty sermon of Chernyshevsky, student unrest - under such conditions, the most cautious and sober the politician had to recognize a revolutionary explosion as quite possible and a peasant uprising as a very serious danger.”

This era could not but be reflected in the literature of that time, which is why such works as “Fathers and Sons” and “What Is to Be Done?” appeared. The images of the main characters were dictated by life itself and embodied the worldview of the Raznochinskaya intelligentsia. In these works one can find much in common, but also many differences, due to the fact that I. S. Turgenev and N. G. Chernyshevsky held different political views. Turgenev was a liberal nobleman, while Chernyshevsky was a democratic revolutionary. But, despite this, we can notice that many of Bazarov's statements are similar to the thoughts of Chernyshevsky's heroes. Bazarov, like Rakhmetov, preaches the principle of utility. Bazarov says: “We act by virtue of what we recognize as useful,” and Chernyshevsky argued: “Only what is useful for a person in general is recognized as true good.” Now let's try to establish what unites Chernyshevsky and Turgenev. First of all, the main characters of the novels Fathers and Sons and What Is to Be Done? - these are “new people”, which differ sharply from the characters previously known in literature. People who live on the means earned by their labor: “... Bazarov emerged from this school of labor and deprivation as a strong and stern man”; Lopukhov and Kirsanov "... got used to making their way with their breasts, without any support."

Bazarov and Chernyshevsky's heroes are also united by the fact that they all know life, the real relationships of people. Just like the “new people”, Bazarov recognizes the influence of society on the fate of a person: “Fix society, and there will be no disease.”

Bazarov and the heroes of Chernyshevsky were enlightened, educated people. The 60s in Russia were characterized by the rise of the natural sciences, and it is not by chance that the main characters of both novels are doctors. Their views are similar to those of the Russian naturalists Sechenov, Baikin, and others. Bazarov's political views are somewhat similar to the political views of the "new people." They deny the old principles of the liberal nobles, criticize their aristocracy and nobility.

But Bazarov seeks only to "make room" for new life. He does not pose the question: what will this new life be like and what must be done to achieve it? The “new people”, on the contrary, are united by a common desire to make the people free and happy. Bazarov, like the "new people", considered himself a "particle" of the people. He proudly emphasized his connection with the people: “My grandfather plowed the land. Ask any of your peasants, in which of us - in you or in me - he would rather recognize a compatriot. You don't even know how to talk to him." But Bazarov did not believe in the strength of the people. In contrast to him, the "new people" believe in the strength of the people and believe that it "should only be awakened, inspired, armed with the meaning of a great goal." And we see that these are not only beautiful words. The "new people" are doing everything possible to enlighten, spiritually enrich, help find work, make life easier for the people. Bazarov does not believe that he is needed: “Russia needs me... No, apparently not. And who is needed? The "new people" would never express such pessimistic thoughts. They believed that they were needed by the people and that their ideas would certainly come true in the future life. There is also a difference in the fact that Bazarov is a nihilist and denies everything: art, the eternity of nature, love. And the “new people” are people of high ideals, aspirations, they are not only pragmatists, but also romantics. And in conclusion, we can say about the main, in my opinion, difference between the heroes of Chernyshevsky and Bazarov. Bazarov was alone in his thoughts and aspirations, although many tried to imitate him, and the “new people” were no longer “disappointed loners”. They supported each other, were like a small team of like-minded people. The “new people” combine personal benefit with the public interest, and this makes it possible to create in their environment a pure, bright moral atmosphere in which it is easier to breathe and live easier.”

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://ilib.ru/

The hero of his novel, he thereby rejected the attempt to perceive Litvinov as a failed this time spokesman for progressive social views. Chapter 3 3.1. Rakhmetov as a positive hero of the new time The real hero of the "new" time was discovered by N. G. Chernyshevsky in a work with a deeply symbolic title "...

Political Literature, M., 1972. PROTECTION Dear chairman and members of the state commission, the work presented to your attention is devoted to the topic “Philosophy and ethics of positivism in the novel by N.G. Chernyshevsky "What to do". This topic becomes more relevant if you pay attention to the fact that the above-mentioned author, his social activities, ...

... "geniuses" before whom comrades completely bow down ... "Moreover, in each class there was also a spiritual, intellectual leader - one who is "smarter than everyone." Chernyshevsky easily became such a leader. According to the recollections of his schoolmates, " Nikolai Gavrilovich deliberately came to class earlier than was necessary, and was engaged in translation with his comrades. A group of 5-10 people will come up, he will translate difficult ...

If he doubts, suffers and suffers, then Yevgeny Vasilyevich is like a flint. Bazarov does not look like other Turgenev characters either. The writer himself admitted this fact. With Rudin, Insarov, the hero of "Fathers and Sons" cannot be compared. Let's see who he is. "A man must be fierce," Bazarov cites "an excellent Spanish proverb" in a conversation with Kirsanov. And he's all in it. Turgenev repeatedly emphasizes...

The novels Fathers and Sons by Turgenev and What Is to Be Done? Chernyshevsky were written in almost one hour. "Fathers and Sons" in 1861, and "What is to be done?" in 1862.

This is the time of the rise of the raznochinsk movement, the period of validity. The 60s of the XIX century, after the defeat in the Crimean War and the Nikolaev repressions, were a crisis for the Russian Federation and, one might say, almost revolutionary. About these years, V. I. Lenin wrote: "The revival of the democratic
movements in Europe ... the demand for political reforms by the entire press and all the nobility, the distribution of the "Bells" throughout the Russian Federation, the powerful sermon of Chernyshevsky, student riots - under such conditions, the most cautious and sober politician had to recognize a revolutionary explosion as completely possible and a peasant uprising as a danger very serious."

This time could not but be reflected in the literature of that time, which is why such works as "Fathers and Sons" and "What Is to Be Done?" appeared. The images of the primary heroes were dictated by life itself and embodied the worldview of the Raznochinskaya intelligentsia. In these works one can find much in common, but also many differences, due to the fact that I. S. Turgenev and N. G. Chernyshevsky held different political views. Turgenev was a liberal nobleman, while Chernyshevsky was a democratic revolutionary. But, despite this, we can notice that many of Bazarov's statements are similar to the thoughts of Chernyshevsky's heroes. Bazarov, like Rakhmetov, preaches the principle of utility. Bazarov says: "We act by virtue of what we recognize as useful," and Chernyshevsky argued: "Only what is useful for a person in general is recognized as true good." Now let's try to establish what unites Chernyshevsky and Turgenev. First of all, the main characters of the novels "Fathers and Sons" and "What Is to Be Done?" - these are "new people", which differ sharply from the characters previously known in literature. People who live on the means earned by their labor: "... Bazarov emerged from this school of labor and deprivation as a strong and stern man"; Lopukhov and Kirsanov "... got used to making their way with their breasts, without any support."

Bazarov and Chernyshevsky's heroes are also united by the fact that they all know life, the real relationships of people. Just like the "new people", Bazarov recognizes the influence of society on the fate of a person: "Fix society, and there will be no illness."

Bazarov and the heroes of Chernyshevsky were enlightened, educated people. The 60s in the Russian Federation were characterized by the rise of the natural sciences, and it is no coincidence that the main characters of both novels are doctors. Their views are similar to those of the Russian naturalists Sechenov, Baikin, and others. Bazarov's political views are somewhat similar to the political views of the "new people." They deny the old principles of the liberal nobles, criticize their aristocracy and nobility.

But Bazarov seeks only to "make room" for a new life. He does not put before himself the question: what will this new life be like, and what must be done to achieve it? The "new people", on the contrary, are united by a common desire to make the people free and happy. Bazarov, like the "new people", considered himself a "particle" of the people. He proudly emphasized his connection with the people: "My grandfather plowed the land. Ask any of your men which of us - you or me - he would rather recognize as a compatriot. You don't even know how to talk with him." But Bazarov did not believe in the strength of the people. In contrast to him, the "new people" believe in the strength of the people and believe that it "should only be awakened, inspired, armed with the meaning of a great goal." And we see that these are not only beautiful words. "New people" are doing everything possible to enlighten, spiritually enrich, help find work, make life easier for the people. Bazarov does not believe that he is needed: "The Russian Federation needs me... No, apparently not. And who is needed?" The "new people" would never express such pessimistic thoughts. They believed that they were needed by the people and that their ideas would certainly come true in the future life. There is also a difference in the fact that Bazarov is a nihilist and denies everything: art, the eternity of nature, love. And the "new people" are people of high ideals, aspirations, they are not only pragmatists, but also romantics. And in conclusion, I can report on the main, in my opinion, difference between the heroes of Chernyshevsky and Bazarov. Bazarov was alone in his thoughts and aspirations, although many tried to imitate him, and the "new people" were no longer "disappointed loners." They supported a comrade of a friend, they were, as it were, a small team of like-minded people. The "new people" combine personal benefit with the public interest, and this makes it possible to create in their environment a pure, bright moral atmosphere in which it is easier to breathe and live easier.

Works on literature: Bazarov and the heroes of Chernyshevsky The novels Fathers and Sons by Turgenev and What Is to Be Done? Chernyshevsky were written almost at the same time. "Fathers and Sons" in 1861, and "What is to be done?" in 1862. This is the era of the rise of the raznochinsk movement, the period of action. The 60s of the XIX century, after the defeat in the Crimean War and the Nikolaev repressions, were for Russia Crisis and, one might say, almost revolutionary. About these years, V. I. Lenin wrote: "The revival of the democratic movement in Europe ...

the demand for political reforms by the entire press and all the nobility, the distribution of the Bell throughout Russia, Chernyshevsky's powerful sermon, student unrest - under such conditions, the most cautious and sober politician had to recognize a revolutionary explosion as quite possible and a peasant uprising as a very serious danger. "This era could not but be reflected in the literature of that time, which is why such works as "Fathers and Sons" and "What is to be done?" appeared. The images of the main characters were dictated by life itself and embodied the worldview of the Raznochinskaya Intelligentsia. In these works one can find a lot common, but also many different, due to the fact that I. S. Turgenev and N. G. Chernyshevsky held different political views Turgenev was a liberal nobleman, and Chernyshevsky was a democratic revolutionary.

But, despite this, we can notice that many of Bazarov's statements are similar to the thoughts of Chernyshevsky's heroes. Bazarov, like Rakhmetov, preaches the principle of utility. Bazarov says: "We act by virtue of what we recognize as useful," and Chernyshevsky argued: "Only that which is useful for Man in general is recognized as true good." Now let's try to establish what unites Chernyshevsky and Turgenev. First of all, the main characters of the novels "Fathers and Sons" and "What is to be done?" - these are "new people", which differ sharply from the characters previously known in literature. People who live on the means earned by their labor: "... Bazarov emerged from this school of labor and deprivation as a strong and stern man"; Lopukhov and Kirsanov "... got used to making their way with their breasts, without having any support."

Bazarov and Chernyshevsky's heroes are also united by the fact that they all know life, the real relationships of people. Just like the "new people", Bazarov recognizes the influence of society on the fate of a person: "Fix society, and there will be no illness." Bazarov and the heroes of Chernyshevsky were enlightened, educated people. The 60s in Russia were characterized by the rise of the natural sciences, and it is no coincidence that the main characters of both novels are doctors. Their views are similar to those of the Russian naturalists Sechenov, Baikin, and others. Bazarov's political views are somewhat similar to the political views of the "new people." They deny the old principles of the Liberal nobles, criticize their aristocracy and nobility.

But Bazarov seeks only to "make room" for a new life. He does not pose the question: what will this new life be like and what must be done to achieve it? The "new people", on the contrary, are united by a common desire to make the people free and happy. Bazarov, like the "new people", considered himself a "particle" of the people. He proudly emphasized his connection with the people: "My grandfather plowed the land. Ask any of your peasants which of us - you or me - he would rather recognize as a compatriot. You don’t even know how to talk with him." But Bazarov did not believe in the strength of the people.

Unlike him, the "new people" believe in the strength of the people and believe that it "should only be Awakened, inspired, armed with the meaning of a great goal." And we see that these are not only beautiful words. "New people" are doing everything possible to enlighten, spiritually enrich, help find work, make life easier for the people. Bazarov does not believe in his need: "Russia needs me ...

No, apparently not needed. And who is needed?" "New people" would never have expressed such pessimistic thoughts. They believed that they were needed by the people and that their ideas would certainly be embodied in a future life. Also, the difference is that Bazarov is a nihilist and denies everything: art, the eternity of nature, love. And the "new people" are people of high ideals, aspirations, they are not only pragmatists, but also romantics. And in conclusion, we can say about the main, in my opinion, difference between the heroes of Chernyshevsky and Bazarov.

Bazarov was alone in his thoughts, Aspirations, although many tried to imitate him, and the "new people" were no longer "disappointed loners." They supported each other, were like a small team of like-minded people. The "new people" combine personal benefit with the public interest, and this makes it possible to create in their environment a pure, bright moral atmosphere in which it is easier to breathe and live easier.