An extra person... Who is this - the one who no one needs? The one who does not find a place for himself in his country, in his time? Someone who can't achieve anything?
These images are somehow similar friend on each other and at the same time different, appeared in the texts of writers at the beginning of the 19th century. Onegin from the novel in verse by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, Pechorin from the novel by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, Chatsky from the comedy by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov... Isn’t it true, there is something in common in these three images?
The first of them - in chronological order - is Chatsky. Let us remember: he returns to Famusov’s house after a long, many-year absence. Even before he appears on stage, we already know about sharp mind and the evil language of this hero (Sophia speaks about this). And, appearing on stage, he justifies her words. During his absence, Chatsky changed and became wiser, but society did not change and did not become wiser! And a conflict is brewing: society and Chatsky do not accept each other. And seeing that he does not have the slightest opportunity to express (and find those who understand!) his thoughts, his feelings and ideals here, Chatsky breaks with society. He is declared crazy and, indeed, blinkered secular people should have perceived the trends of the new worldview in exactly this way. The true conflict of the play is not in devoted love, but in the clash of two different worldviews, where power is obviously on the side of the more inert and older.
The next character is Evgeny Onegin. Since childhood, he has been poisoned by the hypocrisy of high society; he denies everything he can see. Unlike Chatsky, Onegin has neither aspirations nor lofty ideals. The ideal - love - comes to him only later, when everything has already been lost. But Onegin is an active person at his core. And if we sympathize with Chatsky, then Onegin at the end of the novel is capable of moral regeneration, the “late” Onegin is in some ways close to Griboyedov’s hero, it is no coincidence that Pushkin mentions this, comparing them as if in passing: “... and he ended up like Chatsky from the ship to the ball...,” he writes about Onegin. The last character from the gallery of “extra” people is Pechorin.
This image, in my opinion, is the most tragic. After all, if Chatsky initially strives for some ideals and believes in something, if Onegin comes to spiritual rebirth through suffering, then in Pechorin’s soul there is only emptiness and pain from unused potential. Pechorin sows evil, often deliberately (as in the case of the seduction of Princess Mary). In love he is incompetent (remember Vera), in creativity he is incapable of anything, although in his diaries he gives an unusually poetic description of nature...
So, the image of an extra person undergoes certain changes over time. If Chatsky is somewhere cheerful and cheerful, if Some kind of future can await Onegin, then Pechorin has no future...
The inability to use their powers is not the heroes' fault. This is the fault of time, the fault of the historical course of events... These images inevitably had to appear in Russian literature early XIX century.
Kostareva Valeria
The theme of the "superfluous man" in Russian literature... Who is the "superfluous man"? Is it appropriate to use this term? My student is trying to talk about this
Download:
Preview:
Municipal budget educational institution average comprehensive school №27
Images of “superfluous people” in Russian literature
Completed by 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. Evgeny Onegin
3. Grigory Pechorin
4. Ilya Oblomov
5. Fyodor Lavretsky
6. Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov
7. Conclusion
8. Literature
Introduction
Russian classic literature recognized all over the world. It is rich in many artistic discoveries. Many terms and concepts are unique to it and unknown to world literature.
In literary criticism, as in any other science, there are various classifications. Many of them relate to literary heroes. Thus, in Russian literature, for example, the “Turgenev type of girl”, etc. stands out. But the most famous and interesting group of heroes, causing the most controversy, are probably the “extra people”. This term is most often applied to literary heroes of the 19th century.
Who is the “extra person”? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero who, due to his various reasons(both external and internal) was unable to realize himself and his capabilities. The “superfluous person” is looking for the meaning of life, a goal, but does not find it. Therefore, he wastes himself on the little things in life, 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 his life.
Lonely, rejected by society, or having rejected this society himself, the “superfluous man” was not a figment of the Russian imagination writers of the XIX century, it was seen by them as a painful phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by the crisis social system. The personal destinies 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 Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". But the gallery of “extra people” is quite extensive. Here are Chatsky from Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit", and Fyodor Lavretsky from Turgenev's novel " Noble Nest" and many others.
The purpose of this study: to provide a rationale for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using the term “extra people”
Tasks:
To trace the development of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century;
Reveal the role of “extra people” in specific works;
Find out the significance of these characters for Russian literature;
In my work I sought to answer the questions:
Who is the "extra person"?
Is it necessary, is it useful to the world?
Subject of research: images of “extra 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 you understand meaning and purpose. human life. They are not only relevant now, they are immortal. No matter how much has been written about authors and heroes, there are no answers. There is only eternal questions being. The so-called "superfluous people" have raised more than one generation of people, by example pushing towards the eternal search for truth, awareness of one’s place in life.
Eugene Onegin
The founder of the type of “superfluous people” in Russian literature is considered to be Evgeniy Onegin from novel of the same name A.S. Pushkin. In terms of its potential, Onegin is one of the best people of its 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 Prospect, visiting 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 the balls and in the theater: “No, the feelings in him cooled down early, He was bored with the noise of the world...”. This is the first touch to the portrait of the “extra person”. The hero began to feel superfluous in high society. He becomes alien to everything that has surrounded him for so long.
Onegin is trying to engage in some useful activity (“yawning, he took up his pen”). But the lordly perception and lack of habit of work played their 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 happily gives up this occupation too. And here Onegin turns out to be superfluous, unadapted to life.
Evgeny Onegin is superfluous and in love. At the beginning of the novel he is unable to love, and at the end he is rejected, despite spiritual rebirth hero. Onegin himself admits that “in love he is disabled,” unable to experience deep feelings. When he finally realizes that Tatyana is his happiness, she cannot reciprocate the hero’s feelings.
After a duel with Lensky, Onegin, in a depressed state, leaves the village and begins to wander around Russia. In these travels, the hero overestimates his life, his actions, his attitude towards the surrounding reality. But the author does not tell us that Onegin began to engage in some useful activity and became happy. The ending 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 genuine national character. The work “Eugene Onegin” itself is deeply original and has an enduring hysterical and artistic value. His hero is a typical Russian character.
Onegin's main problem is his separation from life. He is smart, observant, unhypocritical, and has enormous potential. But his whole life is suffering. And society itself, the very structure of life, doomed him to this suffering. Evgeny is one of many typical representatives of his society, his time. A hero similar to him, Pechorin, is placed in the same conditions.
Grigory Pechorin
The next representative of the “extra people” type is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time".
Grigory Aleksandrovich 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 also cannot find himself, his place in life. Initially, Grigory Alexandrovich was endowed with great abilities. He is smart, educated, talented. Throughout the entire novel we observe the life, thoughts, and 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.
What prevents this hero from living most is boredom. He fights her as 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 What the hero truly values is Vera. But Pechorin cannot be happy with her either, because he is afraid to love, he does not know how to do it (like Evgeny Onegin).
Grigory Alexandrovich is prone to introspection and reflection much more than Onegin. Pechorin analyzes his inner world. He is trying to find the reason for his unhappiness, the aimlessness of life. The hero fails to come to any comforting conclusion. In empty entertainment he wasted all his strength, his soul. Now he has no strength to powerful emotions, experiences, interest in life. In the end, the hero dies, following his own predictions.
He brings misfortune to all the people whom the hero’s fate encounters, violating moral laws society. He cannot find a place for himself anywhere, no use for 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, generation advanced people 40s. A man of extraordinary fortitude, proud and courageous, Pechorin wastes his energy in cruel games and petty intrigues. Pechorin is a victim of that social system that could only suppress and cripple everything that is 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 century.” Defending Pechorin, Belinsky emphasized that “our century” abhors “hypocrisy.” He speaks loudly about 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 awareness of his sinfulness is the first step to salvation.
Belinsky writes that in their essence Onegin and Pechorin are the same person, but each chose a different path in their own case. Onegin chose the path of apathy, and Pechorin chose the path of action. But in the end, both lead to suffering.
Ilya Oblomov
The next link that continues the gallery of “extra people” is the hero of the novel by I. A. Goncharov, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a kind, gentle, kind-hearted person, capable of experiencing a feeling of love and friendship, but not able to step over himself - get up from the couch, do something activities and even settle their own affairs.
So why does such an intelligent and educated person not want to work? The answer is simple: Ilya Ilyich, just like Onegin and Pechorin, does not see the meaning and purpose of such work, such life. “This unresolved question, this unsatisfied doubt depletes strength, ruins activity; a person gives up and gives up work, not seeing a goal for it,” wrote Pisarev.
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic, apathetic nature, disconnected from real life: “Lying... was his normal condition" 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 robe are integral companions of Oblomov’s existence and bright, accurate artistic details, revealing the inner essence and external image Oblomov's life. Living in an imaginary world, fenced off by dusty curtains from reality, the hero devotes his time to making unrealistic plans and does not bring anything to fruition. Any of his undertakings suffers the fate of a book that Oblomov has been reading for several years on one page.
The main plot line in the novel is the relationship between Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya. It is here that the hero reveals himself to us the best side, his most cherished corners of his 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 their beloved women, not wanting to hurt them.
Reading the novel, you involuntarily ask 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 - everything that people so lack.
Goncharov in his novel showed different types of people, all of them passed before Oblomov. The author showed us that Ilya Ilyich has no place in this life, just like Onegin and 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 have merged with it. Ilya Ilyich, Dobrolyubov argued, is a victim of that common inability for noble intellectuals to be active, unity of word and deed, which is generated by their “external position” as landowners living off forced labor. “It is clear,” the critic wrote, “that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person looking for something, thinking about something. But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful 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 noble hero to flabbiness and apostasy when trying to bring their ideals to life.
Fyodor Lavretsky
This hero of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “The Noble Nest” continues the gallery of “extra people”. Fyodor Ivanovich Lavretsky. - a deep, intelligent and truly decent person, driven by the desire for self-improvement, the search for useful work in which he could apply his mind and talent. Passionately loving Russia and aware of the need to get closer to the people, he dreams of useful activities. But his activity is limited only to some reconstructions on the estate, and he does not find use for his powers. All his activities are limited to words. He only talks about business without getting down to it. Therefore, “school” literary criticism usually classifies him as a “superfluous person” type. The uniqueness of Lavretsky’s nature is emphasized by comparison with other characters in the novel. His sincere love for Russia is contrasted with the condescending disdain shown by the socialite Panshin. Lavretsky’s friend, Mikhalevich, calls him a bobak, who has been lying around all his life and is just getting ready to work. Here a parallel arises with another classical type of Russian literature - Oblomov by I.A. Goncharov.
The most important role in revealing the image of Lavretsky is played by his relationship with the heroine of the novel, Liza Kalitina. They feel the commonality of their views, understand that “they both love and dislike the same thing.” Lavretsky's love for Lisa is the moment of his spiritual rebirth, which occurred upon his return to Russia. The tragic outcome of love - the wife he thought was 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 also does not expect anything from the future. “Hello, lonely old age! Burn out, useless life! - he says.
The ending of the novel is very important, which is a kind of conclusion life's quest Lavretsky. After all, his greetings at the end of the novel, unknown young forces not only mean the hero’s refusal of personal happiness (his union with Lisa is impossible) and its very possibility, but also sound like a blessing to people, faith in man. The ending also defines Lavretsky’s entire inconsistency, making him a “superfluous person.”
Alexander Chatsky and Evgeny Bazarov
The problem of “superfluous” people in society is reflected in the works of many Russian writers. Researchers are still scratching their heads about some heroes. Can Chatsky and Bazarov be considered “superfluous people”? And is it necessary to do this? Based on the definition of the term “extra people,” then probably yes. After all, these heroes are also rejected by society (Chatsky) and are not sure that society needs them (Bazarov).
In the comedy A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit” the image of the main character - Alexander Chatsky - is the image of a progressive person of the 10th - 20th years of the 19th century, who, in his beliefs and views, is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with moral principles Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in Chatsky’s behavior. 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 analytical warehouse mind; he is eloquent, gifted 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 national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not please, flatter his superiors, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.
Let’s compare Chatsky, the hero of Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” with the image of an extra person.
Seeing the vices of Famus society, rejecting its inert foundations, mercilessly denouncing the veneration of rank, the patronage reigning in official circles, the stupid imitation of French fashion, the lack of real education, Chatsky turns out to be an outcast among the counts Khryumin, Khlestov and Zagoretsky. He is considered “strange”, and in the end he is even recognized as crazy. So Griboyedov’s hero, like extra people, comes into conflict with the imperfect world around him. But if the latter only suffer and are inactive, then “they are embittered; thoughts” of Chatsky “one can hear a healthy urge to action...”. “He feels what he is dissatisfied with,” because his ideal of life is completely defined: “freedom from all the chains of slavery that bind society.” Chatsky’s active opposition to those “whose hostility to free life is irreconcilable” allows us to believe that he knows ways to change life in society. In addition, Griboyedov’s hero, having passed long haul quest, having traveled for three years, finds a goal in life - “to serve the cause”, “without demanding either places or promotion to rank”, “to focus the mind hungry for knowledge into science.” The hero’s desire is to benefit the fatherland, to serve for the benefit of society, which is what he strives for.
Thus, Chatsky is undoubtedly a representative of an advanced society, people who do not want to put up with relics, reactionary orders and are actively fighting against them. Superfluous people, unable to find a worthy occupation for themselves, to realize themselves, do not join either conservatives or revolutionary-minded circles, keeping in their souls disappointment in life and wasting unclaimed talents.
The image of Chatsky caused numerous controversy in criticism. I. A. Goncharov considered the hero Griboyedov a “sincere and ardent figure”, superior to Onegin and Pechorin.
Belinsky assessed Chatsky completely differently, considering this image almost farcical: “...What the deep man Chatsky? This is just a loudmouth, a phrase-monger, an ideal buffoon, profaning everything sacred 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 assessed this image in approximately the same way.
Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared crazy. Old world fights Chatsky’s free speech using slander. Chatsky’s struggle with an accusatory word corresponds to the early period of the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and limited themselves to oral speeches.
"Chatsky is broken by the number old power, inflicting on her in turn, death blow 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 self-realize in this life. He is afraid to think about the future because he does not see himself in it.
Bazarov lives one day at a time, which deprives even him of meaning. scientific studies. Adhering to the ideas of nihilism, rejecting everything old, he nevertheless has no idea what will subsequently form in the cleared place, hoping for the manifestation of the will of other people. Naturally, scientific experiments soon bore Bazarov, since activities devoid of purpose quickly come to naught. Returning home to his parents, Evgeniy 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, Russia could not do without such people at all times. Despite his views, Bazarov cannot be accused of lacking education, intelligence or insight. He, while remaining a materialist, nevertheless, if he set the right goals, could bring many benefits to society, for example, treat people or discover new physical laws. In addition, by fiercely opposing prejudices, he encouraged the people around him to move forward in their 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 be called this way, given that “an extra person” is practically equated with a “hero of his time.” But all this is very controversial issue. We cannot say that he lived his life in vain.He knew where to use his strength. He lived in the name high goal. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether this Evgeniy is “superfluous”. Everyone has their own opinion on this matter.
DI. Pisarev notes some bias of the author towards Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev experiences involuntary antipathy towards his hero, towards the direction of his thoughts. But the general conclusion about the novel does not come down to this. The author's critical attitude towards Bazarov is perceived by Dmitry Ivanovich as an advantage, 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 heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Oblomov, Lavretsky, and Chatsky are similar in many ways. They noble origin, are naturally endowed with remarkable abilities. They are brilliant gentlemen, social dandies, smashing women's hearts(Oblomov will probably be an exception). But for them this is more a matter of habit than a true need. In their hearts, the heroes feel that they don’t need this at all. They vaguely want something real, sincere. And they all want to find applications for their great capabilities. Each of the heroes strives for this in their own way. Onegin is more active (he tried writing, farming in the village, traveling). Pechorin is more inclined to reflection and introspection. Therefore o inner world We know much more about Grigory Alexandrovich than about Onegin’s psychology. But if we can still hope for the revival of Eugene Onegin, then Pechorin’s life ends tragically (he dies of illness along the way), however, Oblomov also does not give up hope.
Each hero, despite his 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 mean nothing to Onegin and Pechorin. For both heroes, it costs nothing to destroy the world of others, people who love them, to trample on their lives and destiny.
Pechorin, Onegin, Oblomov and Lavretsky are similar in many ways, but differ in many ways. But their main common feature is the inability of the heroes to realize themselves in their time. Therefore they are all unhappy. Having big internal forces, 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 useful? It is difficult to give an absolutely correct answer to this question; one can only speculate. On the one hand, it seems to me that no. At least that's what I thought at one time. If a person cannot find himself in life, then his life is meaningless. Then why waste space and consume oxygen? Give way to 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 so. The more I worked on this topic. the more my views changed.
A person cannot be superfluous, because by his nature he is unique. Each of us comes into this world for a reason. Nothing happens for nothing, 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 lack of composure, indecision, slowness (like Oblomov) or, conversely, their wandering, searching for themselves, searching for the meaning and purpose of their life (like Pechorin), they excite others, make them think, reconsider their view of their surroundings. After all, if everyone were confident in their desires and goals, then it is unknown what would happen to the world. No person comes into this world aimlessly. Everyone leaves their mark on someone's hearts and minds. There are no unnecessary lives.
The topic of “extra” people is still relevant today. There have always been people who have not found a place in the world, and our time is no exception. On the contrary, I believe that right now not everyone can decide on their goals and desires. Such people have been and will always be, and this is not bad, it just happened that way. Such people need to be helped; many of them could have become great if 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. Works 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 applicants, "SCHOOL-PRESS". M., 1994
4. Krasovsky V.E. History of Russian literature of the 19th 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. Griboedov'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/
Superfluous people" in literature are images characteristic of Russian prose of the mid-nineteenth century. Examples of such characters in works of art- topic of the article. Who coined this term? “Extra people” in literature are characters that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is unknown who exactly introduced this term. Perhaps Herzen. According to some information - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. After all, the great Russian poet once said that his Onegin is “an extra man.” One way or another, this image was firmly established in the works of other writers. Every schoolchild, even if he has not read Goncharov’s novel, knows about such a literary hero as Oblomov. This character is a representative of the outdated landowner world, and therefore cannot adapt to the new one. General signs“Superfluous people” are found in the works of such classics as I. S. Turgenev, M. Yu. Lermontov.
Before considering each of the characters that can be classified in this category, it is worth highlighting common features.
“Extra people” in literature are contradictory heroes who are in conflict with the society to which they belong. As a rule, they are deprived of both fame and wealth.
“Extra people” in literature are characters introduced by the author into an environment alien to them. They are moderately educated, but their knowledge is unsystematic.
The “superfluous man” cannot be a deep thinker or scientist, but he has the “ability of judgment”, the gift of eloquence.
AND main feature this literary character - disdain to others.
As an example, we can recall Pushkin’s Onegin, who avoids communication with his neighbors. “Superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century were heroes who were able to see vices modern society, but do not know how to resist them. They are aware of the problems of the world around them. But, alas, they are too passive to change anything.
Causes
Characters about we're talking about in this article, began to appear on the pages of the works of Russian writers in the Nicholas era. In 1825 there was a Decembrist uprising. For the next decades, the government was in fear, but it was at this time that a spirit of freedom and a desire for change emerged in society. The policy of Nicholas I was quite contradictory. The tsar introduced reforms designed to make life easier for the peasants, but at the same time did everything to strengthen the autocracy. Various circles began to appear, whose participants discussed and criticized the current government. The landowner lifestyle was despised by many educated people. But the trouble is that the participants in various political associations belonged to the society towards which they suddenly became inflamed with hatred. The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature lie in the emergence in society of a new type of person, not accepted by society and did not accept it. Such a person stands out from the crowd, and therefore causes bewilderment and irritation. As already mentioned, the concept of “superfluous person” was first introduced into literature by Pushkin. However, this term is somewhat vague. Characters in conflict with the social environment have been encountered in literature before.
The main character of Griboyedov's comedy has the traits inherent in this type of character. Can we say that Chatsky is an example of a “superfluous person”? In order to answer this question, a brief analysis of comedy should be done. Chatsky Griboedov's hero rejects the inert foundations of Famus society. He denounces veneration and blind imitation of French fashion. This does not go unnoticed by representatives of Famus society - the Khlestovs, Khryumins, Zagoretskys. As a result, Chatsky is considered strange, if not crazy. Griboyedov's hero is a representative of an advanced society, which includes people who do not want to put up with reactionary orders and remnants of the past. Thus, we can say that the theme of the “superfluous person” was first raised by the author of “Woe from Wit.”
Eugene Onegin
But most literary scholars believe that this particular hero is the first “extra person” in the prose and poetry of Russian authors. Onegin is a nobleman, “heir to all his relatives.” He received a very passable education, but does not have any deep knowledge. Writing and speaking French, behaving at ease in society, reciting a few quotes from the works of ancient authors - this is enough to create a favorable impression in the world. Onegin is a typical representative of aristocratic society. He is not able to “work hard”, but he knows how to shine in society. He leads an aimless, idle existence, but this is not his fault. Evgeniy became like his father, who gave three balls every year. He lives the way most representatives of the Russian nobility exist. However, unlike them, at a certain moment he begins to feel tired and disappointed. Loneliness Onegin is an “extra person.” He is languishing from idleness, trying to occupy himself with useful work. In the society to which he belongs, idleness is the main component of life. Hardly anyone from Onegin’s circle is familiar with his experiences. Evgeniy tries to compose at first. But he is not a writer. Then he begins to read enthusiastically. However, Onegin does not find moral satisfaction in books either. Then he retires to the house of his deceased uncle, who bequeathed his village to him. Here the young nobleman seemingly finds something to do. He makes life easier for the peasants: he replaces the yoke with a light quitrent. However, these good initiatives also lead to nothing. The type of “superfluous person” appeared in Russian literature in the first third of the nineteenth century. But by the middle of the century this character acquired new features. Pushkin's Onegin is rather passive. He treats others with contempt, is depressed and cannot get rid of conventions and prejudices, which he himself criticizes. Let's look at other examples of the “extra person” in literature.
Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to the problems of a rejected person, spiritually not accepted by society. Pechorin, like Pushkin’s character, belongs to high society. But he is tired of the mores of aristocratic society. Pechorin does not enjoy attending balls, dinners, or festive evenings. He is depressed by the tedious and meaningless conversations that are customary to have at such events. Using the examples of Onegin and Pechorin, we can complement the concept of “superfluous person” in Russian literature. This is a character who, due to some alienation from society, acquires such traits as isolation, selfishness, cynicism and even cruelty. “Notes of an extra person” And yet, most likely, the author of the concept of “extra people” is I. S. Turgenev. Many literary scholars believe that it was he who introduced this term. According to their opinion, Onegin and Pechorin were subsequently classified as “superfluous people,” although they have little in common with the image created by Turgenev. The writer has a story called “Notes of an Extra Man.” The hero of this work feels alien in society. This character calls himself such. Whether the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is a “superfluous person” is a controversial issue.
Fathers and Sons depicts society in the mid-nineteenth century. Violent political disputes had reached their climax by this time. In these disputes, on one side stood the liberal democrats, and on the other, the revolutionary commoner democrats. Both of them understood that changes were needed. Revolutionary-minded democrats, unlike their opponents, were committed to rather radical measures. Political disputes have penetrated into all spheres of life. And, of course, they became the theme of artistic and journalistic works. But there was another phenomenon at that time that interested the writer Turgenev. Namely, nihilism. Adherents of this movement rejected everything related to the spiritual. Bazarov, like Onegin, is a deeply lonely person. This trait is also characteristic of all characters whom literary scholars classify as “superfluous people.” But, unlike Pushkin's hero Bazarov does not spend his time in idleness: he is engaged in the natural sciences. The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” has successors. He is not considered crazy. On the contrary, some heroes try to adopt Bazarov’s oddities and skepticism. Nevertheless, Bazarov is lonely, despite the fact that his parents love and idolize him. He dies, and only at the end of his life does he realize that his ideas were false. There are simple joys in life. There is love and romantic feelings. And all this has a right to exist.
“Extra people” are often found in Turgenev’s works. The action of the novel "Rudin" takes place in the forties. Daria Lasunskaya, one of the heroines of the novel, lives in Moscow, but in the summer she travels out of town, where she organizes musical evenings. Her guests are exclusively educated people. One day, a certain Rudin appears at Lasunskaya’s house. This person is prone to polemics, extremely passionate, and captivates listeners with his wit. The guests and the hostess of the house are enchanted by Rudin’s amazing eloquence. Lasunskaya invites him to live in her house. In order to give a clear description of Rudin, Turgenev talks about facts from his life. This man was born into a poor family, but never had the desire to earn money or get out of poverty. At first he lived on the pennies his mother sent him. Then he lived at the expense of rich friends. Even in his youth, Rudin was distinguished by his extraordinary oratory skills. He was a fairly educated man, because he spent all his leisure time reading books. But the trouble is that nothing followed his words. By the time he met Lasunskaya, he had already become a rather shabby man life's adversities. In addition, he became painfully proud and even vain. Rudin is an “extra person.” Many years of immersion in the philosophical sphere led to the fact that ordinary emotional experiences seemed to have died out. This Turgenev hero is a born orator, and the only thing he strived for was to conquer people. But he was too weak and spineless to become a political leader.
So, the “extra person” in Russian prose is a disillusioned nobleman. The hero of the novel Goncharov is sometimes classified as this type literary heroes. But can Oblomov be called a “superfluous person”? After all, he misses, yearns for why home and everything that made up the life of a landowner. And he is in no way disappointed in the way of life and traditions characteristic of representatives of his society. Who is Oblomov? This is a descendant of a landowner family who is bored with working in an office, and therefore does not leave his sofa for days. This is a generally accepted opinion, but it is not entirely correct. Oblomov could not get used to life in St. Petersburg, because the people around him were entirely calculating, heartless individuals. The main character of the novel, unlike them, is smart, educated and, most importantly, has high spiritual qualities. But why doesn’t he want to work then? The fact is that Oblomov, like Onegin and Rudin, does not see the point in such work, such life. These people cannot work only for material well-being. Each of them requires a high spiritual goal. But it doesn’t exist or it turned out to be insolvent. And Onegin, and Rudin, and Oblomov become “superfluous”. Goncharov contrasted Stolz, his childhood friend, with the main character of his novel. This character initially creates a positive impression on the reader. Stolz is hardworking, goal-oriented person. The writer endowed this hero German origin not by chance. Goncharov seems to be hinting that only Russian people can suffer from Oblomovism. And in the last chapters it becomes clear that there is nothing behind Stolz’s hard work. This man has neither dreams nor high ideas. He acquires sufficient means of subsistence and stops, not continuing his development. The influence of the “extra person” on others It is also worth saying a few words about the heroes who surround the “extra person”.
The literary characters discussed in this article are lonely and unhappy. Some of them end their lives too early. In addition, “extra people” cause grief to others. Especially women who had the imprudence to love them. Pierre Bezukhov is sometimes counted among the “superfluous people.” In the first part of the novel, he is in continuous melancholy, searching for something. He spends a lot of time at parties, buys paintings, and reads a lot. Unlike the above-mentioned heroes, Bezukhov finds himself; he does not die either physically or morally.
The problem of “superfluous” people in society is reflected in the works of many Russian writers. For example, in the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".
Alexander Chatsky is an image of a progressive person of the 10th – 20th years of the 19th century, who, in his beliefs 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 Chatsky’s behavior. 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 mind; he is eloquent and 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 national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not please, flatter his superiors, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.
Moscow nobles are irritated by those qualities of the protagonist’s personality that are precisely positive: his education and desire for knowledge, the ability to think independently and thirst for justice, the desire to serve the Fatherland, but with benefit for progress and with the goal of reforming the existing socio-political system. And the transformations Famusov society“didn’t want to allow it, so people like Chatsky were considered dangerous, they didn’t want to be seen in high society, and they became “superfluous people.”
Chatsky is alone in the crowd of Famusov’s guests representing Moscow society, where “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of everything foreign reigns and one hears “a mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod.” Chatsky is a patriot, he would like to be proud of his country and people, but in the morals of the nobles, in their way of life, the hero notes the degeneration of everything Russian, national.
Undoubtedly, patriotism is one of the most worthy qualities of a person, and Chatsky’s spiritual image deserves high praise. But there are some features that somewhat violate the integrity positive image. Perhaps, due to inexperience, youth and ardor, the hero does not understand that it is inappropriate to pronounce accusatory monologues at Famusov’s reception. Moreover, no one wants to listen to Chatsky’s opinion, no one cares about his experiences. It evokes negative emotions in others, since direct condemnation of the morals and beliefs of officials and landowners does not contribute to mutual understanding with them. The hero should have understood that Famusov and his guests are not a society where it is worth revealing your soul and sharing thoughts about modern reality. Sophia, like her father, easily classifies Chatsky as crazy, wanting to take revenge on him for ridiculing Molchalin. The hero is forced to leave the Famusovs' house, where his mind, his critical views on life were so unpleasant to those around him. He did not make friends or like-minded people here, but only experienced disappointment, felt insulted and was ready to flee from here in order to muffle his mental pain.
Was there such a place in Russia where Griboyedov’s hero could find “a corner for offended feelings”? Probably Chatsky should go to where they already existed secret societies future Decembrists, where they appreciated smart people, ready to use their knowledge and strength for urgent transformations in the Fatherland. In the understanding of the advanced nobles, the mind should be free, “free”, which means that freethinking was not for the Decembrists swear word or the definition of a vice, a dangerous illness, or vice versa. It is clear that Griboyedov’s courage was highly appreciated by his contemporaries with progressive beliefs, since his hero Chatsky was close in spirit to the future Decembrists. He aroused sympathy because he felt the need to fight inertia, ignorance, cruelty, injustice and other vices, and wanted to participate in reforms. When communicating with representatives of the Moscow nobility, he saw a misunderstanding, a hostile attitude towards himself, in addition, his situation was complicated by a tragedy in love and loneliness. Therefore, A.S. Griboyedov defined Chatsky’s condition as “woe from mind,” since the hero felt “superfluous” in the society of Moscow nobles.
In the works of A.S. Pushkin we will find the theme of the “superfluous person”, for example, in the poem “Gypsies”.
Aleko, the hero of the poem, fled from the “captivity of stuffy cities” to a gypsy camp, hiding from prosecution for a crime he had committed. Aleko did not find his destiny, living in the familiar world, and he was quite happy with gypsy freedom. Secular entertainment, the idleness and luxury of his former life, intrigue and gossip irritate him, but Aleko cannot fill his life with meaning, become useful and necessary to society; it is easier for him to wander aimlessly with the gypsies. However, in the camp, as in high society, he turns out to be a “superfluous person.” The hero did not want to come to terms with Zemfira’s betrayal; he killed the girl along with her new lover. And the gypsies reject the stranger:
Leave us proud man!
...You only want freedom for yourself...
In the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" main character also becomes “superfluous” in high society, although his position manifested itself somewhat differently than that of Chatsky or Aleko.
The environment where such personalities as Evgeny Onegin are formed is presented secular salons, raising “young rakes.” Endless dinners, balls, entertainment, and playing cards gave rise to a desire for luxury and determined the needs and principles of these people. The monotony of social life (“and today is the same as yesterday”) explains why boredom, gossip, envy, and slander arise and reign in the world. Tatyana (the heroine of the novel) gives all this precise definition: “the hateful life is tinsel.”
The novel "Eugene Onegin" reflects many problems of the time. One of them is an “extra” person in society. To show typical characters for a given time (10-20s of the nineteenth century), it is necessary to note the circumstances and origins of their occurrence. And Pushkin touches on the themes of upbringing, education, family relations. The hero of the novel, as often happened in noble families, receives a superficial education under the guidance of a French tutor. Absence useful activities and proper attention from parents in childhood, then an idle social life - all this was typical for the “golden youth” of St. Petersburg, where the main character was born and raised.
It is impossible to explain everything in Onegin’s fate, but significant changes are taking place in his life, as well as in his character. Dissatisfaction with oneself began back in those days when a young rake, bored and disappointed in everything, feeling unnecessary, tries to find something to do, strives to find meaning in life. He leaves the world and settles in the village. The most powerful shock of that time was the murder of Lensky, who became his friend and trusted him with secrets of his heart. Onegin could not forgive himself for the terrible mistake he made because of his own selfishness, unwillingness to explain himself to a person, to be more sensitive and attentive to his young friend and to people in general. This first led him to suffering, to the “anguish of heartfelt remorse,” which forced the hero to rush around the world.
The next test was unexpected love. We can say that the very ability to love speaks of Onegin’s rebirth. He is no longer an egoist if for him the woman he loves becomes more valuable than life. IN morally he is now cleaner, higher, as he is able to draw deep conclusions:
So that my life may last
I have to be sure in the morning
That I will see you during the day.
Onegin, having experienced suffering, learned to understand the feelings of other people, he knew the pain of loss, the pain of unrequited love and the inability to be near the woman he loved. He understands that he is being punished by life for his past frivolity, for “playing at love” when he tested his skills in practice “in the science of tender passion.” And as a result, for his previous reluctance to start a family, for his desire to preserve freedom (now “hateful”), Evgeniy receives suffering and loneliness. He realized how important it is in life to just be around dear person. It turned out that true bliss lies in the opportunity to love and be loved! Onegin started talking about the soul. And this, of course, is a huge achievement in the moral improvement of the hero.
The hero has passed difficult path spiritual evolution, he is ready to serve society and can become one of those who, joining the secret alliances of future Decembrists, thought about reforms in Russia.
The theme of the “superfluous man” is continued in M.Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time.”
Pechorin, the hero of the novel, on the night before his duel with Grushnitsky, recalling his life, comes to sad conclusions: “...why did I live? For what purpose was I born?.. And, it’s true, it existed, and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul.” Pechorin understands that he did not find something very important for himself and “was carried away by the lures of passions, empty and ungrateful.”
Lermontov did not show his hero in any business or in creativity (with the exception of some mentions of dangerous service in the Caucasus associated with the risk of life and keeping a diary). Before serving in the mountain fortress, Pechorin was busy for the most part secular idleness, so he sometimes needs thrill. Like many representatives of the “golden youth,” the young officer liked his own superiority over “barely blossoming souls”: he could easily “pick a flower and throw it away” without any remorse. Pechorin experienced “the greatest triumph of power,” about which he spoke like this: “...my first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me, to arouse for myself a feeling of love, devotion and fear.”
In his diary (“Pechorin’s Journal”), the hero, prone to reflection, reflects on his life and finds an explanation for many of his actions: “evil begets evil,” and therefore the suffering he endured in his youth gave him the concept of “the pleasure of torturing another.” However, not every young man, as a result of suffering, becomes a tormentor for another person, that is, a villain. Usually suffering makes the soul purer, more sublime, and a person understands the pain of others. Pechorin is not like that, he is an egoist by nature. The hero himself calls himself “an ax in the hands of fate,” as he brings misfortune to many who find themselves next to him.
In many cases, Pechorin acts as typical hero time. It is clear that the formation of his personality was influenced by the peculiarities of the post-Decembrist era, the decline in the social movement and the apathy that set in during the years of reaction, but the person who has good moral inclinations can think about ways to solve problems, both personal and public. Pechorin cynically claims that society made him this way: “They insulted me - I became vindictive..., I told the truth - they didn’t believe me: I learned to deceive.” And social intrigue, victories over women and other meaningless entertainments that filled the emptiness of life became the main occupation in his life.
Pechorin is able to “take on a deeply touched look” in order to fool a pretty girl and arouse her compassion for himself, explaining his coldness and selfishness by the injustices of fate that made him a moral cripple. This is what he does with Mary, playing with her feelings, seeking her love, so that he can then dramatically declare his inability to love. And again, he is not at all concerned about the suffering, pain, broken fate of another person, although Pechorin admits that he often realized that he was an executioner in relation to those with whom fate brought him together. He felt “immense forces” in his soul, but “the forces of this rich nature remained unused, life without meaning...”, as in the story of Onegin in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin.” But in the previous era, the hero had the opportunity to join the Decembrists, but Pechorin does not have such a prospect, but he does not look like a person who thinks about the fate of Russia and the people. He remains a “superfluous person,” and his life ends too early. The image of the hero of the time, created by M.Yu. Lermontov, helps to understand what the tragedy of fate is extraordinary personality in an unhealthy society.
In I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” the “superfluous person” is the nihilist Bazarov.
Trying to contradict the entire world of aristocrats, nihilists refused to accept their morals, political principles, art, and literature. In polemical fervor, like grimacing schoolchildren wanting to challenge society, they denied everything, intending to “clear the place first,” and then let others create something. Most likely, these new fighters and thinkers vaguely imagined a future that someone would have to build on the ruins of the civilization inherited from the nobles.
The hero of Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" Evgeniy Bazarov studies natural Sciences, works a lot in medical practice, and is sure that this gives him the right to treat with disdain those who experience life from other positions. He is often harsh, cynical, even arrogant with people, including those who strive to imitate him, who consider themselves his students. Since Bazarov’s followers do not have their own convictions, they are ready to imitate him, repeat everything that the idol does or says. These people, who have not found anything to do in the Russian social movement, look like a pathetic and absurd parody of fighters for freedom and progress. They cannot be called like-minded people of Bazarov, so the author calls them his students. In reality, these are splinter people who have been scattered by a storm in an era of change, and they are ready to wash up on at least some shore. But the main character, Bazarov, turns out to be a “superfluous” person, not in demand in society. This is a tragic figure: he, like many in this era, did not find his purpose, did not have time to do anything necessary and important for Russia, and, having made a mistake in his medical practice, dies young. In the novel, Bazarov is a very lonely person, since he has no true followers and like-minded people, which means that in nihilism, as in love, he failed.
Of course, one can not take seriously the “attacks” of the nihilist Bazarov against the “principles” of the aristocrat Kirsanov (Pavel Petrovich), especially his absurd opinion about the uselessness and uselessness of music, poetry, and art in general for humanity (“Raphael is not worth a penny”). But upon closer acquaintance with this hero, an understanding comes: his shockingness and harshness are explained by the fact that he himself does not know how to change what he does not like and what he rejects. This was also a phenomenon of the era when the aristocrats could no longer change anything, do anything, and the democrats would like to, but did not yet know what the path of development of Russia should be.
I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” is also dedicated to the theme of the “superfluous man”, the hero of which (Dmitry Rudin), having become a fighter for justice and democratic transformation at the call of his heart, is forced to leave his homeland. Unable to find a use for his strength, intelligence and talent, feeling unnecessary in Russia, he dies with a red banner in his hands in Paris during the revolutionary events of 1848.
In the novel “Crime and Punishment” by F.M. Dostoevsky, the main character also does not find his place in public life countries.
Raskolnikov, who does not want to put up with injustice in society and the imperfection of life, comes up with his own theory, which, in his opinion, will help him find the meaning of life and confidence in life. tomorrow. Rodion, rejected by society, a “superfluous man,” protests against the fate of the humiliated and insulted “ little man“, and therefore wants to assert himself through crime. However, after the murder of the pawnbroker, there were no changes for the better in his life and the lives of those who suffered from the activities of the greedy old woman. And Rodion gradually comes to realize the falsity of the theory of “blood according to conscience”, about special people who are allowed a lot for the sake of great goals. Raskolnikov does not know how to change society so that every person feels “not superfluous,” but he understands that through repentance and turning to faith he can return to the life of an ordinary citizen.
In I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” the hero completely withdraws from the problems of society and from the struggle for a better future.
Probably, Oblomov and “Oblomovism” have their supporters and defenders. After all, Ilya Ilyich had a “beautiful soul, pure as crystal”; he remained faithful to the patriarchal way of life of the noble class, loved his parents, honest, simple, warm-hearted people, and preserved the memory of them; he did not harm anyone and did not waste his soul “on trifles”; he saved national traditions and culture. In essence, Oblomov sought to avoid vanity and excessive, sometimes unnatural thirst for activity. But this desire caused sleep of the soul and led to the abandonment of real life.
Credit to I.A. Goncharov to Russian society not only in the fact that he created a true picture of reality, but also in the fact that the phenomenon depicted by the writer makes one think about the influence of “Oblomovism” on every person, regardless of the era and belonging to any class. N.A. Dobrolyubov also spoke about this in his article on the novel “Oblomov”: “Oblomovism never left us...”. The image of the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, quite naturally continued the gallery of “extra people”. Like Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov and others, Goncharov’s hero is “infected” with the inability to find a job in his contemporary world; he is unable to realize his dreams and plans.
Oblomov’s path is a dead end: he cannot serve, because he does not want to achieve promotion through unworthy means; He doesn’t want to be “in society” because he’s too lazy. And the servility, servility, insincerity or dishonesty, and selfishness of some people interfere with communication and friendship. This makes him sad, depressing and burdens his sensitive nature, which causes a desire to withdraw, live in isolation, solitude, increasingly feeling his uselessness, uselessness and loneliness. The typical complex of the “superfluous person” in Oblomov becomes paradoxical, since it leads not only to denial existing reality, but also to the death of the individual. The hero tried to escape from reality at least through dreams, went into the world of dreams, into sleep, and left life altogether.
Thus, in Russian literature the theme of the “superfluous man” is reflected fully and multifacetedly by writers of different eras.
Reviews
Hello Zoya! I read your article with great pleasure, and I remember now when our teacher went over this topic with us, and what is typical is that your arguments are almost word for word. However, when she said about Onegin that he was tired of one thing every day and also balls, theaters and all the high society tinsel, and the comparison was made in the direction of a scientist who also carries out experiments day after day and it would seem that a person too should not enjoy his life. And then she asked the class a question - what is the difference between these two people Naturally, we couldn’t say anything. Then she herself explained to us that a scientist has a goal - to get a result, and over and over again, when performing experiments, he thinks and strives to get closer to what he is looking for, but for Onegin it all comes down to how to kill time, he, as a thinking person, does not may not see this. But, as I understand it, Bazarov got into this company through a misunderstanding, that is, Turgenev placed the accents too sharply, in life such extremes are rarely encountered, but here you just need to get into the skin of the hero - if he It seems that there is no other way out except to destroy everything first, maybe if in those days we had imagined that there would have been the Internet, then Bazarov would not have become so categorical, but we also sometimes feel superfluous in this white light, and I’ll take a collection of my coins and watch a movie or a show on the Internet, it seems that you’ll be distracted from all sorts of apocaplectic thoughts, otherwise I don’t know. Maybe now there’s no problem with extra people, Americans generally believe that the planet is overpopulated, and at least 2/3 need to be thrown into the furnace of war for the sake of the strong this world, and talk beyond the boundaries of good and evil. Thank you again for interesting article, I will continue to visit your page.
Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, Russian society matured new type, new hero time, which became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person light hand Belinsky is usually called the “superfluous man” type. In Russian literature there is a long series of such heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin, Oblomov and some others. The named heroes have both common features and differences. TO general properties The type relates primarily to origin: all the named heroes are nobles, and wealthy enough to not have the need to earn a living. Secondly, these are extraordinary people, naturally gifted 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, all the heroes are various reasons they remain “superfluous”, their richly gifted natures do not find use in society. Belinsky believed that society, its social and political organization, are to blame for the appearance of “superfluous people,” since an autocratic serfdom state does not need people with feeling, intelligence, and initiative. Dobrolyubov noted another side of the problem - subjective: the heroes themselves carry in themselves such properties that exclude their fruitful activity for the benefit of society: they are, as a rule, weak-willed, not accustomed to work, spoiled by an idle life and laziness and therefore prefer to indulge in dreams rather than to undertake energetically some useful task. Disregarding the social meaning of the “extra people” type, one can notice another important similarity between them: they are all in one way or another searching for their purpose, tormented by their inaction, but they can’t do anything, because they don’t know for sure why act. For the most part, these are more or less tragic characters, people who have not found their happiness, although in their evolution the features of the comic are increasingly visible, which is clearly visible, for example, in the image of Oblomov.
Despite all the similarities, these heroes are still different, and the common state of dissatisfaction for all is caused by not exactly the same reasons and has a unique coloring for each. Thus, Onegin, probably the most tragic figure, experiences cold boredom and “the blues.” Fed up with social life, tired of love affairs, having not found anything good in the village, cut off from his national roots, he no longer seeks the meaning of existence, a purpose in life, since 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 work / Until he was twenty-six, / Languishing in the inactivity of leisure / Without service, without a wife, without business, / Could not do anything.” Onegin’s “Russian blues” is a heavy “voluntary cross of the few.” He is not, contrary to Tatyana’s opinion, a “parody”; no, his feeling of disappointment is sincere, deep and difficult for him. He would be glad to awaken to an active life, but he cannot, at twenty-six years old he feels like a very old man. One can say that Onegin is constantly teetering on the brink of suicide, but this exit is also forbidden to him by the same laziness, although, without a doubt, he would greet death with relief. In the person of Onegin we see the tragedy of a man who can still do everything, but no longer wants anything. And “... he thinks, clouded with sadness: Why wasn’t I wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man, like this poor tax farmer? Why, like a Tula assessor, am I not lying in paralysis? Why don’t I feel even rheumatism in my shoulder? - ah, creator, I am young, the life in me is strong; what should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!..” (“Excerpts from Onegin’s Journey”).
Not at all like Lermontov’s Pechorin. Like the lyrical hero of Lermontov’s poetry, Pechorin frantically wants to live, but to live, and not to vegetate. To live means to do something great, but what exactly? And one goal does not seem indisputable to Pechorin; any value raises doubts. Pechorin's throwing is, in essence, 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 and to put himself above all else. And yet Pechorin thinks with bitterness that “it’s true that I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul... But I didn’t guess this purpose.” Pechorin's ideological and moral searches are tragic character, since by the very structure of things they are doomed to failure, but his internal character is far from tragic, but, on the contrary, romantic and heroic. If Pechorin had found himself in the appropriate situation, been inspired by some great goal, he would undoubtedly have committed a heroic deed. He is not Onegin, who is cold and bored with 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.”
Subsequently, the “superfluous person” type degrades; traits of lethargy, apathy, lack of will, and inability to do anything become more and more apparent. 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, “ good word- also a matter." But Goncharov’s Ilya Ilyich Oblomov no longer even thinks about any activity, and only love for Olga Ilyinskaya can move him from his cozy sofa, and even then, in essence, not for long. Oblomov, who became a type of enormous general significance, echoed the line, according to Dobrolyubov, under the development of the type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature. Oblomov still retains the positive qualities that are so highly valued by Russian writers - a sensitive soul, an extraordinary mind, tenderness of feeling, etc. - but inertia, “Oblomovism” reduces these qualities to nothing, and talking about Oblomov as a hero of the time, perhaps, no need to. Moreover, in the middle of the 19th century, a new type entered the Russian historical scene, a hero of the new time - a democrat commoner.
