“The type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century. Type of superfluous person in literature of the 19th century

Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, a new type was maturing in Russian society, a new hero of the time, who became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person, with the light hand of Belinsky, is usually called the type of “superfluous person.” 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 don't fit in ordinary life The nobility of their time 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, for various reasons, 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.” Having had enough social life, tired of love adventures, not finding anything good in the village, cut off from his national roots, he no longer seeks the meaning of existence, a goal 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, “a good word is also a Business.” 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 in Russian historical scene a new type emerged, a hero of the new time - a democrat commoner.

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

Belonging to the upper classes of society, the superfluous person is alienated from the noble class, despises the bureaucracy, but, having no prospect of other self-realization, mostly spends his time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to relieve his boredom, leading to dueling, gambling, and other self-destructive behavior. Typical traits of a superfluous person include “mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed, and, as a rule, social passivity.”

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

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

Who is the “extra person”? This is a well-educated, intelligent, talented and extremely gifted hero (man), who, for 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.

Examples of “extra people”:

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

The next representative of the “extra people” type is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". This hero reflected a characteristic feature of the life of society in the 30s of the 19th century - the development of social and personal self-awareness. Therefore, the hero, the first in Russian literature, himself tries to understand the reasons for his misfortune, his difference from others. Of course, Pechorin has enormous personal powers. He is gifted and even talented in many ways. But he also finds no use for his powers. Like Onegin, Pechorin in his youth indulged in all sorts of bad things: social revelry, passions, novels. But as a non-empty person, the hero very soon got bored with all this. Pechorin understands that secular society destroys, dries up, kills the soul and heart in a person.

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

Next in the line of “extra people” are the heroes of I.S. Turgenev. First of all, this Rudin- the main character of the novel of the same name. His worldview was formed under the influence of philosophical circles of the 30s of the 19th century. Rudin sees the meaning of his life in serving high ideals. This hero is a magnificent speaker, he is able to lead and ignite the hearts of people. But the author constantly tests Rudin “for strength”, for viability. The hero cannot stand these tests. It turns out that Rudin is only able to talk; he cannot put his thoughts and ideals into practice. The hero does not know real life, cannot assess circumstances and his own strengths. Therefore, he also finds himself “out of work.”
Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov stands out from this orderly row of heroes. He is not a nobleman, but a commoner. He had, unlike all previous heroes, to fight for his life, for his education. Bazarov knows reality very well, the everyday side of life. He has his own “idea” and implements it as best he can. In addition, of course, Bazarov is a very powerful person intellectually; he has great potential. But the point is that the very idea that the hero serves is erroneous and destructive. Turgenev shows that it is impossible to destroy everything without building something in its place. In addition, this hero, like all other “superfluous people,” does not live the life of the heart. He devotes all his potential to mental activity.

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

Image " little man"in Russian literature of the 19th century

"Small man"- a type of literary hero that arose in Russian literature with the advent of realism, that is, in the 20-30s of the 19th century.

The theme of the “little man” is one of the cross-cutting themes of Russian literature, to which writers of the 19th century constantly turned. It was first touched upon by A.S. Pushkin in the story “The Station Warden.” This theme was continued by N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov and many others.

This person is small precisely in social terms, since he occupies one of the lower steps of the hierarchical ladder. His place in society is small or completely unnoticeable. A person is considered “small” also because the world of his spiritual life and aspirations is also extremely narrow, impoverished, filled with all kinds of prohibitions. For him there are no historical and philosophical problems. He remains in a narrow and closed circle of his life interests.

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

Examples of “little people”:

1) Yes, Gogol in the story “The Overcoat” characterizes the main character as a poor, ordinary, insignificant and unnoticed person. In life, he was assigned an insignificant role as a copyist of departmental documents. Brought up in the field of subordination and execution of orders from superiors, Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin I’m not used to thinking about the meaning of my work. That is why, when he is offered a task that requires the manifestation of elementary intelligence, he begins to worry, worry and ultimately comes to the conclusion: “No, it’s better to let me rewrite something.”

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

And yet Akaki Akakievich does not look like an empty, uninteresting person in the reader’s mind. We imagine that there were a great many such small, humiliated people. Gogol called on society to look at them with understanding and pity.
This is indirectly demonstrated by the name of the main character: diminutive suffix -chk-(Bashmachkin) gives it the appropriate shade. “Mother, save your poor son!” - the author will write.

Calling for justice the author raises the question of the need to punish the inhumanity of society. As compensation for the humiliations and insults suffered during his life, Akaki Akakievich, who rose from the grave in the epilogue, appears and takes away their overcoats and fur coats. He calms down only when he takes away his outerwear from " significant person”, who played a tragic role in the life of the “little man”.

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

3) In addition to these writers, Dostoevsky also addressed the theme of the “little man” in his work. The main characters of the novel “Poor People” - Makar Devushkin- a semi-impoverished official, oppressed by grief, poverty and social lack of rights, and Varenka– a girl who became a victim of social disadvantage. Like Gogol in The Overcoat, Dostoevsky turned to the theme of the powerless, immensely humiliated “little man” living his inner life in conditions that violate human dignity. The author sympathizes with his poor heroes, shows the beauty of their soul.

4) Theme "poor people" develops by the writer and in the novel "Crime and Punishment". One after another, the writer reveals to us pictures of terrible poverty that degrades human dignity. The setting of the work is St. Petersburg, and the poorest district of the city. Dostoevsky creates a canvas of immeasurable human torment, suffering and grief, keenly peers into the soul of the “little man”, discovers in him deposits of enormous spiritual wealth.
Family life unfolds before us Marmeladovs. These are people crushed by reality. The official Marmeladov, who has “nowhere else to go,” drinks himself to death out of grief and loses his human appearance. Exhausted by poverty, his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna dies of consumption. Sonya is released onto the streets to sell her body in order to save her family from starvation.

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

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

By lectures:

Image of reality in Russian XIX literature century.

1. Landscape. Functions and types.

2. Interior: problem of detailing.

3. Depiction of time in a literary text.

4. The road motif as a form of artistic development national picture peace.

Scenery - not necessarily an image of nature; in literature it can involve a description of any open space. This definition corresponds to the semantics of the term. From French - country, locality. In French art theory, landscape description includes both the image of wild nature and the image of objects created by man.

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

Firstly, the landscapes that form the background of the story stand out. These landscapes usually indicate the place and time against which the events depicted take place.

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

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

Fourth type- a landscape that becomes a symbolic background, a means of symbolically reflecting the reality depicted in an artistic text.

Landscape can be used as a means of depicting a special artistic time or as a form of the author’s presence.

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

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

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

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

Time in a literary text in the 19th century becomes discrete and intermittent. The characters easily retreat into memories and their fantasies rush into the future. A selectivity of attitude towards time appears, which is explained by dynamics. Time in a literary text in the 19th century is conventional. Maximum conditional time in lyrical work, with the predominance of present tense grammar, the lyrics are especially characterized by the interaction of different time layers. Artistic time not necessarily concrete, it is abstract. In the 19th century, the depiction of historical color became a special means of concretizing artistic time.

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

With our tickets:

The 19th century is called the “Golden Age” of Russian poetry and the century of Russian literature on a global scale. We should not forget that the literary leap that took place in the 19th century was prepared by the entire course of the literary process of the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century is the time of formation of the Russian literary language, which took shape largely thanks to A.S. Pushkin.
But the 19th century began with the heyday of sentimentalism and the emergence of romanticism. Specified literary trends found expression primarily in poetry. Come to the fore poetic works poets E.A. Baratynsky, K.N. Batyushkova, V.A. Zhukovsky, A.A. Feta, D.V. Davydova, N.M. Yazykova. The creativity of F.I. Tyutchev's "Golden Age" of Russian poetry was completed. However, the central figure of this time was Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin.
A.S. Pushkin began his ascent to the literary Olympus with the poem “Ruslan and Lyudmila” in 1920. And his novel in verse “Eugene Onegin” was called an encyclopedia of Russian life. Romantic poems by A.S. Pushkin " Bronze Horseman"(1833), "Bakhchisarai Fountain", "Gypsies" ushered in the era of Russian romanticism. Many poets and writers considered A.S. Pushkin their teacher and continued the traditions of creating literary works laid down by him. One of these poets was M.Yu. Lermontov. His romantic poem “Mtsyri” is well known. the poetic story “The Demon”, many romantic poems. Interestingly, Russian poetry of the 19th century was closely related with the social and political life of the country. Poets tried to comprehend the idea of ​​their special purpose. The poet in Russia was considered a conductor of divine truth, a prophet. The poets called on the authorities to listen to their words. Vivid examples of understanding the role of the poet and influence on the political life of the country are the poems of A.S. Pushkin “The Prophet”, ode “Liberty”, “Poet and the Crowd”, poem by M.Yu. Lermontov “On the Death of a Poet” and many others.
Prose writers of the beginning of the century were influenced by the English historical novels of W. Scott, the translations of which were extremely popular. The development of Russian prose of the 19th century began with the prose works of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin, under the influence of English historical novels, creates story " Captain's daughter», where the action takes place against the backdrop of grandiose historical events: in times Pugachev revolt. A.S. Pushkin produced a colossal work, exploring this historical period . This work was largely political in nature and was aimed at those in power.
A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol outlined the main art types , which would be developed by writers throughout the 19th century. This is the artistic type of “superfluous man”, an example of which is Eugene Onegin in the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the so-called “little man” type, which is shown by N.V. Gogol in his story “The Overcoat”, as well as A.S. Pushkin in the story “The Station Agent”.
Literature inherited its journalistic and satirical character from the 18th century. In a prose poem N.V. Gogol's "Dead Souls" the writer, in a sharp satirical manner, shows a swindler who buys up dead souls, Various types landowners who are the embodiment of various human vices(the influence of classicism is evident). The comedy is based on the same plan "Inspector". The works of A. S. Pushkin are also full of satirical images. Literature continues to satirically depict Russian reality. The tendency to depict vices and shortcomings Russian society- a characteristic feature of all Russian classical literature . It can be traced in the works of almost all writers of the 19th century. At the same time, many writers implement the satirical tendency in a grotesque form. Examples of grotesque satire are the works of N.V. Gogol “The Nose”, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs”, “The History of a City”.
WITH mid-19th century, the formation of Russian realistic literature takes place, which is created against the backdrop of the tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. A crisis is brewing in the feudal system; there are strong contradictions between the authorities and common people. There is an urgent need to create realistic literature that is acutely responsive to the socio-political situation in the country. Literary critic V.G. Belinsky denotes a new realistic direction in literature. His position is developed by N.A. Dobrolyubov, N.G. Chernyshevsky. A dispute arises between Westerners and Slavophiles about the ways historical development Russia.
Writers appeal to the socio-political problems of Russian reality. The genre of the realistic novel is developing. His works are created by I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, I.A. Goncharov. Socio-political and philosophical issues predominate. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism.
people.
Literary process the end of the 19th century discovered the names of N.S. Leskov, A.N. Ostrovsky A.P. Chekhov. The latter proved himself to be a master of small things literary genre- a storyteller, as well as an excellent playwright. Competitor A.P. Chekhov was Maxim Gorky.
The end of the 19th century was marked by the emergence of pre-revolutionary sentiments. The realistic tradition began to fade away. It was replaced by the so-called decadent literature, the distinctive features of which were mysticism, religiosity, as well as a premonition of changes in the socio-political life of the country. Subsequently, decadence developed into symbolism. This opens a new page in the history of Russian literature.

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

Realism

The 2nd half of the 19th century is characterized by the undivided dominance of the realistic trend in Russian literature. basis realism as an artistic method is socio-historical and psychological determinism. The personality and fate of the person depicted appears as the result of the interaction of his character (or, more deeply, universal human nature) with the circumstances and laws of social life (or, more broadly, history, culture - as can be observed in the works of A.S. Pushkin).

Realism 2nd half of the 19th century V. often call critical, or socially accusatory. IN Lately V modern literary criticism Attempts to abandon such a definition are increasingly being observed. It is both too broad and too narrow; it neutralizes the individual characteristics of writers’ creativity. Founder critical realism often called N.V. Gogol, however, in Gogol’s work social life, history human soul often correlates with such categories as eternity, supreme justice, the providential mission of Russia, the kingdom of God on earth. Gogolian tradition to one degree or another in the 2nd half of the 19th century. picked up by L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, and partly N.S. Leskov - it is no coincidence that in their work (especially late) a craving for such pre-realistic forms of comprehension of reality as preaching, religious and philosophical utopia, myth, hagiography is revealed. No wonder M. Gorky expressed the idea of ​​​​the synthetic nature of Russian classical realism, about its non-delimitation from the romantic direction. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the realism of Russian literature not only opposes, but also interacts in its own way with the emerging symbolism. The realism of Russian classics is universal, it is not limited to the reproduction of empirical reality, it includes universal human content, a “mysterious plan”, which brings realists closer to the quests of romantics and symbolists.

Socially accusatory pathos in its pure form appears most in the works of second-line writers - F.M. Reshetnikova, V.A. Sleptsova, G.I. Uspensky; even N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, despite their closeness to the aesthetics of revolutionary democracy, are not limited in their creativity posing purely social, topical issues. Nevertheless, a critical orientation towards any form of social and spiritual enslavement of a person unites all realist writers of the 2nd half of the 19th century.

The 19th century revealed the basic aesthetic principles and typological properties of realism. In Russian literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century. Conditionally, several directions can be distinguished within the framework of realism.

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

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

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

4. Absolutely unique realism, “heartened” (Belinsky’s word) with humanistic thought, represented in creativity A.I. Herzen. Belinsky noted the “Voltairean” nature of his talent: “the talent went into the mind,” which turns out to be a generator of images, details, plots, and personal biographies.

Along with the dominant realistic trend in Russian literature of the 2nd half of the 19th century. the direction of the so-called “ pure art" - it is both romantic and realistic. Its representatives avoided “damned questions” (What to do? Who is to blame?), but not real reality, by which they meant the world of nature and the subjective feelings of man, the life of his heart. They were excited by the beauty of existence itself, the fate of the world. A.A. Fet and F.I. Tyutchev can be directly comparable to I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. The poetry of Fet and Tyutchev had a direct influence on Tolstoy’s work during the Anna Karenina era. It is no coincidence that Nekrasov revealed F.I. Tyutchev to the Russian public as a great poet in 1850.

Literature. There is so much beauty and mystery in this seemingly simple word.

Many people mistakenly believe that literature is not the most useful and interesting view art, others suggest that simply reading books and what literature teaches us are the same thing, but I cannot agree with this.

Literature is “food” for the soul, it helps a person think about what is happening in the world, society, relate the past and present, and, finally, it teaches a person to understand himself: his feelings, thoughts and actions. Literature reflects the lives of past generations, enriching our life experience.

This essay is only the first part of my research, and in it I tried to reflect on the images of superfluous people in the literature of the 19th century. On next year I intend to continue my work and compare “extra people” from different eras, or rather, these images as understood by writers of classical literature of the 19th century and authors of postmodern texts of the 20th – 21st centuries.

I chose this particular topic because, I believe, it is relevant in our time. After all, even now there are people similar to my heroes, they also do not agree with the way society lives, some despise and hate it; There are people who feel alien and lonely in this world. Many of them can also be called “superfluous people”, since they do not fit into the general way of life, they recognize different values ​​than the society in which they live. It seems to me that such people will always exist, since our world and our society are not ideal. We neglect each other's advice, we despise those who are not like us, and until we change, there will always be people like Oblomov, Pechorin and Rudin. After all, we ourselves probably contribute to their appearance, and our inner world requires something unexpected, strange, and we find it in others who differ from us in at least some way.

The purpose of my work on the essay was to identify the similarities and differences between the characters in 19th-century literature, called “superfluous people.” Therefore, the tasks that I set for myself this year are formulated as follows:

1. Get to know in detail all three heroes of the works of M. Yu. Lermontov, I. A. Turgenev and I. A. Goncharov.

2. Compare all the characters according to certain criteria, such as: portrait, character, attitude to friendship and love, self-esteem; find similarities and differences between them.

3. Generalize the image of the “superfluous person”, in the understanding of the authors of the 19th century; and write an essay on the topic “The type of superfluous person in the literature of the 19th century.”

Working on an essay on this topic is difficult, since you need to take into account not only your own opinion, but also the opinion of famous critics and literary publications. Therefore, for me when doing work main literature became the critical article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovshchina,” which helped me understand Oblomov’s character and fully look at his problems from all sides; book "M. Y. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, which showed me the character and characteristics of Pechorin; and the book by N. I. Yakushin “I. S. Turgenev in life and work,” she helped me rediscover the image of Rudin.

Definition of the type of “Superfluous Man” in Russian literature of the 19th century.

“Extra person” - socially – psychological type, which became widespread in Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century: this is, as a rule, a nobleman who received appropriate education and upbringing, but did not find a place for himself in his environment. He is lonely, disappointed, feels his individual and moral superiority over the society around him and alienation from it, does not know how to get down to business, feels the gap between “immense forces” and “the pitifulness of actions.” His life is fruitless, and he usually fails in love.

Already from this description it is clear that such a hero could have originated in the romantic era and is associated with conflicts characteristic of its hero.

The very concept of “an extra person” came into literary use after I. S. Turgenev’s “Diary of an Extra Man” was published in 1850. Usually this term is used to refer to characters in novels by Pushkin and Lermontov.

The hero is in acute conflict with society. Nobody understands him, he feels alone. Those around him condemn him for his arrogance (“Everyone stopped their friendship with him. “Everything is yes and no; he won’t say yes, sir, or no, sir.” That was the general voice”).

Disappointment is, on the one hand, the mask of a romantic hero, on the other hand, it is a real sense of self in the world.

“Extra people” are characterized by inactivity, the inability to change something in own life and in the lives of other people.

The conflict of the “extra person” is, in a sense, hopeless. It is conceptualized not only and not so much as cultural and political, but as historical and cultural existential.

Thus, having originated in the depths of romanticism, the figure of the “superfluous man” becomes realistic. Early plots of Russian literature dedicated to the fate of the “superfluous person”, first of all, opened up the opportunity for the development of psychologism (Russian psychological novel).

The originality of the composition of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”

"A Hero of Our Time" is the first lyrical and psychological novel in Russian prose. Therefore, the psychological wealth of the novel lies, first of all, in the image of the “hero of the time.” Through the complexity and inconsistency of Pechorin, Lermontov affirms the idea that everything cannot be fully explained: in life there is always something high and secret, which is deeper than words and ideas.

Hence, one of the features of the composition is the increasing revelation of the secret. Lermontov leads the reader from Pechorin's actions (in the first three stories) to their motives (in stories 4 and 5), that is, from riddle to solution. At the same time, we understand that the secret is not Pechorin’s actions, but his inner world, psychology.

In the first three stories ("Bela", "Maksim Maksimych", "Taman") only the actions of the hero are presented. Lermontov demonstrates examples of Pechorin's indifference and cruelty towards the people around him, shown either as victims of his passions (Bela) or as victims of his cold calculation (poor smugglers).

Why is the hero's fate so tragic?

The answer to this question is last story"Fatalist". Here the problems being solved are not so much psychological as philosophical and moral.

The story begins with a philosophical dispute between Pechorin and Vulich about the predestination of human life. Vulich is a supporter of fatalism. Pechorin asks the question: “If there are definitely predestination, then why were we given will, reason?” This dispute is verified by three examples, three mortal battles with fate. Firstly, Vulich’s attempt to kill himself with a shot to the temple, which ended in failure; secondly, the accidental murder of Vulich on the street by a drunken Cossack; thirdly, Pechorin’s brave attack on the Cossack killer. Without denying the very idea of ​​fatalism, Lermontov leads to the idea that one cannot resign oneself, be submissive to fate. With this turn of the philosophical theme, the author saved the novel from a gloomy ending. Pechorin, whose death is unexpectedly announced in the middle of the story, in this last story not only escapes from a seemingly certain death, but also for the first time commits an act that benefits people. And instead of a funeral march, at the end of the novel there are congratulations on the victory over death: “the officers congratulated me - and there was definitely something to it.”

“He was a nice guy, just a little strange”

One of the heroes of my work is an extraordinary and strange person - Pechorin. He has a very unusual fate; he is characterized by a critical attitude not only to the world around him, but also to himself.

Pechorin was very strange man, and this strangeness, it seems to me, originated in the early stages of his life. Pechorin was formed as a personality in those circles of the noble intelligentsia, where it was fashionable to ridicule everything sincere manifestations selfless humanity. And this left an imprint on the formation of his character. This crippled him morally, killed all his noble impulses: “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the light; Fearing ridicule, I buried my best feelings in the depths of my heart; they died there. I became a moral cripple: one half of my soul did not exist, it dried up, evaporated, died, I cut it off and threw it away.”

Outwardly, in particular his face, Pechorin looks more like a dead man than a living person. The deathly pale features of his face tell us about the dullness, heaviness and routine of his life, and his white, tender white hands tell us exactly the opposite: about the easy, calm and carefree life of a master. His gait is majestic and majestic, but at the same time timid, this can be seen in the hero’s hands: while walking, his hands are always pressed to his body and do not allow himself to behave imposingly, and this is the first sign that the owner of this gait is hiding something, or he's just shy and timid. Pechorin always dressed with taste: everything in his outfit said that he was from a noble family, and this really amazed me, because Pechorin despises society, its foundations, and traditions, and in clothes he, on the contrary, imitates it. But still, later, after analyzing Pechorin’s character, I came to the conclusion that the hero is afraid of society, afraid of being funny.

Pechorin's external world, to match the portrait, is very contradictory. On the one hand, he appears to us as an egoist, crushing the world under himself. It seems to us that Pechorin can use someone else’s life and love for his own pleasure. But, on the other hand, we see that the hero does not do this intentionally, he realizes that he brings only misfortune to those around him, but he cannot be alone. It is difficult for him to experience loneliness; he is drawn to communicate with people. For example, in the chapter “Taman” Pechorin wants to unravel the mystery of the “peaceful smugglers”, without knowing what they are doing. He is attracted to everything unknown. But the attempt at rapprochement turns out to be in vain for Pechorin: the smugglers cannot recognize him as one of their people, trust him, and the solution to their secret disappoints the hero.

Pechorin becomes furious from all this and admits: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him.” After these words, we really feel sorry for him, we see him as a victim, and not as the culprit of the circumstances.

The contradiction between desires and reality became the cause of Pechorin’s bitterness and self-irony. He craves too much from the world, but reality turns out to be much worse than illusion. All the hero’s actions, all his impulses, admiration are wasted due to his inability to act. And all these incidents make Pechorin think; he is worried that his only purpose is to destroy other people's hopes and illusions. He is even indifferent to his own life. Only curiosity, the expectation of something new excites him, only this makes him live and wait for the next day.

Ironically, Pechorin always finds himself in unpleasant and dangerous adventures. So, for example, in the chapter “Taman” he is settled in a house closely associated with smugglers, and Pechorin, oddly enough, recognizes this, and he is attracted by his acquaintance with these people. But they do not accept him, fearing for their lives, and swim away, leaving the helpless old woman and the blind boy alone.

Further, if you follow the plot, Pechorin ends up in Kislovodsk - this is a quiet provincial town, but even there Pechorin manages to find adventures. He meets his old acquaintance, whom he met in the active detachment, Grushnitsky. Grushnitsky is a very narcissistic person, he wants to look like a hero in the eyes of others, especially in the eyes of women. It is here that Pechorin finally meets a person who is interesting and close in judgment and views: Doctor Werner. Pechorin reveals his whole soul to Werner, shares his opinion about society. The hero is interested in him, they have become true friends, because only with friends can you share the most precious things: your feelings, thoughts, your soul. But most importantly, Pechorin in this chapter rediscovered his true love - Vera. You might be asking; But what about Princess Mary and Bela? He perceived Princess Mary as “material” that he needed in an experiment: to find out how strong his influence was on the hearts of girls inexperienced in love. The game started out of boredom led to tragic consequences. But awakened feelings turned Mary into a kind, gentle, loving woman, who meekly accepted her fate and resigned herself to the circumstances: “My love did not bring happiness to anyone,” says Pechorin. With Bela everything is much more difficult. Having met Bela, Pechorin was no longer that naive youth who could be deceived by the girl from “Taman”, the same one from the camp of “peaceful smugglers” who attracted Pechorin. He knew love, he foresaw all the pitfalls of this feeling, he assured himself that “he loved for himself, for his own pleasure he satisfied a strange

8 the need of the heart, greedily devouring their joys and sufferings.”

And Bela fell in love with a man for the first time. Pechorin’s gifts softened Bela’s frightened heart, and the news of his death accomplished what no gifts could do: Bela threw herself on Pechorin’s neck and sobbed: “he often dreamed of her in her dreams and no man had ever made such an impression on her.” . It seemed that happiness had been achieved: her loved one and Maxim Maksimych were nearby, caring for her in a fatherly way. Four months flew by, and discord began to emerge in the relationship between the two heroes: Pechorin began to leave home, became thoughtful, and sad. Bela was ready for drastic measures: “If he doesn’t love me, then who’s stopping him from sending me home?” How was she supposed to know what was going on in Pechorin’s soul: “I was wrong again: the love of a savage is for few better than love noble young lady, the ignorance and simplicity of one are as boring as the coquetry of the other.” How to explain to a girl in love that this capital officer is bored with her. And perhaps death was the only solution in which the honor and dignity of the young savage could be preserved. Kazbich’s robber blow not only deprived Bela of his life, but also deprived Pechorin of peace for the rest of his life. He loved her. But still, Faith is the only woman, who loves and understands the hero, is a woman whom, years later, Pechorin still loves and cannot imagine being left without her. She gives him strength and forgives everything. There is a big life in her heart, pure feeling which brings a lot of suffering; Pechorin is completely bitter without her love. He is confident that Vera exists and will always be, she is his guardian angel, his sun and fresh wind. Pechorin is jealous of Vera’s husband, not hiding his resentment. After a long separation from Vera, Pechorin, as before, heard the trembling of his heart: the sounds of her sweet voice revived feelings that had not cooled down over the years. And, having said goodbye to her, he realized that he had not forgotten anything: “My heart sank painfully, as after the first parting. Oh, how I rejoiced at this feeling!” Pechorin hides his pain, and only in his diary admits to himself how dear this feeling is to him: “Doesn’t youth want to come back to me again, or is this just her farewell glance, the last souvenir?” Vera is the only one who understands the tragedy of his alienation and forced loneliness. Vera’s farewell letter killed hope in him, deprived him of his reason for a moment: “With the possibility of losing her forever, Vera became dearer to me than anything in the world, dearer than life, honor, happiness.” Tears of despair raise in the eyes of readers Vera, a modest woman who managed to reach the heart of Pechorin, whose “soul became weak and his mind became silent” after her departure.

Pechorin is the prototype of the “superfluous man” of his time. He was dissatisfied with society, or rather, he hated it because it made him a “moral cripple.” He must live, no, rather, exist in this world, as he himself calls it: “The land of masters, the land of slaves.”

The hero of the novel through the eyes of an outsider, a traveling officer, is seen at a difficult moment for Pechorin: his feelings seemed to have left his face, he was tired of life, of eternal disappointments. And yet this portrait will not be the main one: everything important that was hidden from the people who surrounded him, who lived next to him, who loved him, was betrayed by Pechorin himself. How can one not exclaim here:

why didn't the world understand

The Great One, and how he didn’t find it

Hello friends and love

Didn't bring him hope again?

He was worthy of her.

Many years will pass, and the unsolved Pechorin will excite the hearts of readers, awaken their dreams and force them to act.

Heroes of Turgenev's novel. Time in the novel.

The center of I. S. Turgenev’s novels becomes a person belonging to the Russian people of the cultural layer - educated, enlightened nobles. Therefore, Turgenev’s novel is also called personal. And since he was an artistic “portrait of the era,” the hero of the novel, as part of this portrait, also embodied the most characteristic features of his time and his class. Such a hero is Dmitry Rudin, who can be regarded as a type of “extra people”.

In the writer’s work, the problem of the “superfluous man” will take up quite a lot great place. No matter how harshly Turgenev wrote about the character of the “superfluous man,” the main pathos of the novel lay in the glorification of Rudin’s unquenchable enthusiasm.

It is difficult to say which time dominates the novels. Ultimately, everything described in Turgenev’s novels was believed to be timeless, eternal, everlasting, while historical time revealed the “urgent, necessary, urgent” in the mood of Russian life and made the writer’s works acutely topical.

"The first obstacle and I fell apart"

The novels of I. S. Turgenev contain a unique half-century history of the Russian intelligentsia. The writer quickly guessed new needs, new ideas introduced into the public consciousness, and in his works he certainly paid attention (as much as circumstances allowed) to the issue that was on the agenda and was already vaguely “beginning to worry society.”

Turgenev's novels are full of facts of ideology, culture, art - with them the artist marked the movement of time. But the main thing for Turgenev always remained a new type of person, a new character that directly reflected the influence historical era on human personality. The search for a hero is what guided the novelist in depicting different generations of the Russian intelligentsia.

Turgenev's hero is taken in the most striking manifestations. Love, activity, struggle, the search for the meaning of life, in tragic cases, death - this is how the character of the hero is revealed at the most significant moments and his human value is determined.

Rudin makes the first impression of a “remarkable” and extraordinary person. This cannot be attributed to his appearance: “A man of about thirty-five, tall, somewhat stooped, curly-haired, dark-skinned, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent, with a liquid sparkle in quick dark blue eyes, with a straight wide nose and handsome outlined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and tight, as if he had grown out of it.” Nothing seemed to be in his favor. But very soon those present sense the sharp originality of this new personality for them.

Introducing the reader to the hero for the first time, Turgenev introduces him as an “experienced talker” with “the music of eloquence.” In his speeches, Rudin stigmatizes laziness, speaks of the high destiny of man, and dreams of Russia being an enlightened country. Turgenev notes that his hero “did not look for words, but the words themselves obediently came to his lips, each word poured straight from the soul, glowing with the heat of conviction.” Rudin is not only an orator and improviser. The listeners are influenced by his passion exclusively for higher interests. A person cannot and should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, concerns about existence, Rudin argues. Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. All the characters in the novel feel the power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion through words. Rudin is exclusively occupied with the highest questions of existence, he talks very intelligently about self-sacrifice, but, in essence, is focused only on his “I”.

Rudin, like all Turgenev's heroes, goes through the test of love. In Turgenev, this feeling is sometimes bright, sometimes tragic and destructive, but it is always a force that reveals the true nature of a person. This is where the “heady”, far-fetched nature of Rudin’s hobby is revealed, his lack of naturalness and freshness of feelings. Rudin does not know either himself or Natalya, initially mistaking her for a girl. As very often in Turgenev, the heroine is placed above the hero in love - with integrity of nature, spontaneity of feeling, recklessness in decisions. Natalya, at eighteen years old, without any life experience, is ready to leave home and, against her mother’s wishes, join fate with Rudin. But in response to the question: “What do you think we should do now?” - she hears from Rudin: “Of course, submit.” Natalya throws a lot of bitter words at Rudin: she reproaches him for cowardice, cowardice, and for the fact that his lofty words are far from reality. “How pitiful and insignificant I was before her!” - Rudin exclaims after an explanation with Natalya.

In Rudin's first conversation with Natalya, one of the main contradictions of his character is revealed. Just the day before, Rudin spoke so inspiredly about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly he appears before us as a tired man who does not believe in his own strength or in the sympathy of people. True, an objection from the surprised Natalya is enough - and Rudin reproaches himself for cowardice and again preaches the need to get things done. But the author has already cast doubt in the reader’s soul that Rudin’s words are consistent with deeds, intentions with actions.

The development of the relationship between Rudin and Natalya is preceded in the novel by Lezhnev's love story, in which Rudin played an important role. Rudin's best intentions led to the opposite result: by taking on the role of Lezhnev's mentor, he poisoned the joy of his first love. After telling about this, the reader is prepared for the ending of the love between Natalya and Rudin. Rudin cannot be accused of pretense - he is sincere in his passion, just as he will later be sincere in repentance and self-flagellation. The trouble is that “with one head, no matter how strong it may be, it is difficult for a person to even know what is happening in himself.” And so a story unfolds in which the hero of the novel temporarily loses his heroic traits.

The writer describes an episode from the hero’s life when he wanted to make the river navigable. However, nothing worked out for him, since the owners of the mills failed his plan. Nothing worked with pedagogical activity, and with agronomic transformations in the village. And all of Rudin’s failures are because at the most crucial moments he “gives up” and fades into the background, afraid to make any serious decisions, to act actively. He gets lost, loses heart, and any obstacle makes him weak-willed, unsure of himself, and passive.

Rudin’s especially pronounced trait is manifested in the episode of his last meeting with Natalya Lasunskaya, who, with all the fervor and loving heart, hopes for understanding and support from her loved one, for his courageous and desperate step, to the same response. But Rudin cannot appreciate her feelings; he is unable to justify her hopes, is afraid of responsibility for someone else’s life and advises her to “submit to fate.” By his action, the hero once again confirms Lezhnev’s idea that in fact Rudin is “cold as ice” and, playing a dangerous game, “doesn’t put a hair at stake - but others put their souls.” As for the fragile, eighteen-year-old Natalya, whom everyone considered still young, almost a child, and inexperienced, she turned out to be much stronger and more intelligent than Rudin, and managed to unravel his essence: “So this is how you apply in practice your interpretations about freedom, about victims. "

Turgenev portrayed in the novel a typical representative of the young noble intelligentsia, pointing out that these are talented, honest people with extraordinary abilities. However, according to the author, they are not yet able to solve complex historical problems; they do not have enough willpower and confidence to leave a significant mark on the revival of Russia.

Creative history of the novel "Oblomov"

According to Goncharov himself, Oblomov’s plan was ready back in 1847, that is, virtually immediately after the publication of Ordinary History. Such is the peculiarity of Goncharov’s creative psychology that all his novels seemed to simultaneously grow from a common artistic core, being variants of the same collisions, a similar system of characters, similar characters.

Part I took the longest time - until 1857 - to be written and finalized. At this stage of work, the novel was called “Oblomovshchina.” Indeed, both in genre and style, Part I resembled an extremely drawn-out composition of a physiological essay: a description of one morning of a St. Petersburg gentleman “baibak”. There is no plot action in it, there is a lot of everyday and morally descriptive material. In a word, “Oblomovism” is brought to the fore in it, Oblomov is left in the background.

The next three parts, introducing the antagonist and Oblomov’s friend Andrei Stolts into the plot, as well as a love conflict in the center of which captivating image Olga Ilyinskaya, as it were, brings the character of the title character out of a state of hibernation, helps him to open up in dynamics and, thus, enliven and even idealize the satirical portrait of Oblomov drawn in Part I. It is not without reason that only with the appearance of Stolz’s and especially Olga’s images in the draft manuscript, work on the novel began by leaps and bounds: “Oblomov” was roughly completed in just 7 weeks during Goncharov’s trip abroad in the summer - autumn of 1857.

“There must be a good person, simplicity”

The next hero of my work is Ilya Ilyich Oblomov from the novel of the same name by I. A. Goncharov.

Mine main novel Goncharov built it as a slow, thorough development of Oblomov’s character. One after another, leading themes arise in it and then expand, sounding more and more insistently, absorbing more and more new motives and their variations. Famous for his picturesqueness and plasticity, Goncharov in the composition and semantic movement of his novels surprisingly accurately follows the laws musical construction. And if " An ordinary story"is like a sonata, and "The Break" is like an oratorio, then "Oblomov" is a real instrumental concert, a concert of feelings.

That it is developing at least two significant topics, Druzhinin also noted. The critic saw two Oblomovs. There is Oblomov, “moldy, almost disgusting,” “a greasy, awkward piece of meat.” And there is Oblomov, in love with Olga and “himself destroying the love of the woman he has chosen and crying over the ruins of his happiness,” Oblomov, who is “deeply touching and sympathetic in his sad comedy.” Between these Oblomovs there is a gulf and at the same time intense interaction, the struggle of “Oblomovism” with the “true active life of the heart,” that is, with real personality Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.

Well, first things first.

Oblomov was born on his family estate - Oblomovka. His parents loved him very much, even too much: his mother always overprotected her son, did not let him take a step without supervision, holding back all his youthful excitement inside. He was the only child in the family and he was spoiled and everything was forgiven. But no matter how hard the parents tried, they could not give their son the much-needed qualities that would be useful to him in adulthood; apparently they were so in love with their own son that they were afraid of overloading, offending or upsetting their child. As a child, Oblomov heard only the orders given by his parents to the servants, he did not see their actions, and therefore the phrase lurked in the head of little Oblomov: “Why do anything if others can do it for you.” And so our hero grows up, and this phrase still haunts him.

We meet Oblomov in his apartment on Gorokhovaya Street. Ilya Ilyich appears before us as a man of about thirty-two or three, lying on the sofa. His apartment is a mess everywhere: books are scattered and all dusty, dishes, apparently, have not been washed for several days, dust is everywhere. This does not bother Oblomov; the main thing for him is peace and serenity.

He lies on the sofa in his shabby, beloved robe and dreams. Goncharov took the image of this robe from real life: his friend, they sing P. A. Vyazemsky, having received a referral to the Warsaw office of Novosiltsev and, parting with his Moscow life, wrote a farewell ode to his robe. For Vyazemsky, this robe personified personal independence, so valued by the freedom-loving poet and aristocrat. Is this why Oblomov values ​​his robe? Doesn’t he see in this robe some half-erased symbol of inner freedom - despite the futility and lack of freedom of the surrounding reality? Yes, for Oblomov this is a symbol of a certain freedom that reigned somewhere in his inner world, far from ideal, this is a kind of protest to society: “A robe made of Persian fabric, a real oriental robe, without the slightest hint of Europe, without tassels, without velvet, without waist, very roomy, so that Oblomov could wrap himself in it twice.”

The robe was quite succinctly combined with the hero’s appearance: “He was a man of thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea. Thought walked like a free bird across his face, fluttered into his eyes and then completely disappeared, and then an even light of carelessness glowed throughout her face.” The very image of Oblomov instills boredom and serenity in the reader. The hero’s entire lifestyle is reflected on his face: he only thinks, but does not act. Inside Oblomov is a great man, a poet, a dreamer, but he is limited only by his inner world, he does practically nothing to rally the realization of his goals and ideas.

Oblomov does not understand society, does not understand these small talk, which bring nothing useful except rumors, these dinner parties, where everyone is in sight of each other and everyone strives to humiliate the other in some way. But even so, this does not prevent Oblomov from communicating, not making friends, namely communicating with secular people such as Volkov, Sudbinsky or Alekseev. All these people are so different and so different from Oblomov that their acquaintance seems strange. For example, Volkov is a secular man who cannot imagine life without balls and social dinners, and Sudbinsky is a man obsessed with service, who has forgotten his personal life for the sake of his career. Oblomov, surprised by this act, says that work is already hard work, but here you still need spend your energy and time on career, well, I do not. But Sudbinsky assures that the purpose of his life is work.

But still, there is a person truly close and dear to Oblomov - this is Stolz, a strange, ideal person and because of this it seems unreal. Critic N.D. Akhsharumov spoke about him like this: “In everything that concerns Stolz, there is something ghostly. Look from afar - how full his life seems!

Works and worries, vast enterprises and undertakings, but come closer and take a closer look, and you will see that all this is pouf, castles in the air, built on credit from the foam of an imaginary contradiction. In essence, he only needed contrast, and then what’s the problem, what’s against will a shadow appear of the material being?” By asserting the unreality of Stoltz, Akhsharumov leads us to think that Stoltz is not another dream of Oblomov. After all, Stolz united in himself everything that Oblomov strived for: a prudent, sober mind, universal love and admiration. Oblomov felt sympathy and admiration only for Stoltz, and why, for example, not for Volkov? at some internal level?

We are helped to understand Oblomov’s character by the people with whom he communicates, each of them has their own requests and problems, and thanks to this we can observe Oblomov from different sides, which in turn gives us the most complete understanding of the character of the main character. So, for example, Sudbinsky helps us understand Oblomov’s attitude towards career and work: Ilya Ilyich does not understand how one can sacrifice everything for the sake of career growth.

I consider “Oblomov’s Dream” to be one of the most important parts of the novel; it is in it that the hero sees his true self, in it we understand the origins of Oblomov and “Oblomovism.” Ilya Ilyich falls asleep with a painful, insoluble question: “Why am I like this?” Reason and logic were powerless to answer it. In a dream, he is answered by memory and affection for the house that gave birth to him. Under all the layers of Oblomov’s existence there is a source of living and pure humanity of this world. From the source of this flow the main properties of Oblomov’s nature. This source, the moral and emotional core of Oblomov’s world is Oblomov’s mother. “Oblomov, seeing his long-dead mother, trembled in his sleep with joy, with ardent love for her: in his sleepy state, two warm tears slowly floated out from under his eyelashes and became motionless.” Now we have before us the best, purest, true Oblomov.

This is how he remains in his love for Olga Sergeevna. That’s why he doesn’t seek to tie Olga with any ties, he just wants a strong and pure love. That is why Oblomov writes Olga a farewell letter, in which he says that her feelings for him are just a mistake of an inexperienced heart. But Olga is disingenuous. She is not as simple and naive as the hero initially seems. She interprets Oblomov’s letter in her own way, completely differently: “In this letter, as in a mirror, you can see your tenderness, your caution, care for me, fear for my happiness, everything that Andrei Ivanovich showed me about you, and that I fell in love with, Why I forget your laziness and apathy You spoke out there involuntarily: you are not an egoist Ilya Ilyich, you wrote not at all in order to break up - you didn’t want that, but because you were afraid to deceive me - this was honesty speaking.”

These words contain the truth that Olga hid in order to arouse the energy of feeling and activity in Oblomov. However, Oblomov’s feeling for Olga is completely different from what the heroine expects and expects. Oblomov loved his mother first and most of all. He is faithful to this love and to this day is unconsciously looking for his mother in Olga. It is no coincidence that in her feelings he catches and notes shades of maternal tenderness towards him. But he will find his ideal woman not in Olga, but in Agafya Matveevna, who is naturally endowed with the ability for maternal selflessness and all-forgiving love. Around her, Oblomov creates the entire atmosphere of his home, where his mother reigned in the past. This is how a new Oblomovka emerges.

Most main question the novel sounds like this: “Go forward or stay?” - a question that for Oblomov was “deeper than Hamlet’s.”

Comparison of all three heroes of the essay.

All the heroes of my work belong to the type of “extra people”. This is what brings them together. They are very similar to each other. Their faces are always thoughtful, it is clear from them that there is a constant struggle going on inside the heroes, but they do not show it. Their eyes are always bottomless, looking at them, a person drowns in the ocean of serenity and indifference, as they say: “The eyes are the mirror of the soul,” does that mean their souls, their outer world are also the same? They all suffer because of love, love for women with whom they are not destined to be due to fatal circumstances or by the will of evil rock.

All characters are critical of themselves, they see flaws in themselves, but cannot change them. They blame themselves for their weaknesses and want to overcome them, but this is impossible, since without these flaws they will lose their attractiveness to the reader, and the ideological meaning of the work will be lost. They are not capable of any actions, except for Pechorin, only he crosses this genre bar. All the heroes are looking for the meaning of life, but they never find it, because it doesn’t exist, the world is not yet ready to accept such people, their role in society has not yet been determined, since they appeared too early.

They condemn and despise the society that gave birth to them; they do not accept it.

But still there are several differences between them. So, for example, Oblomov finds his love, even if it’s not the one he dreamed of. And Pechorin, unlike other heroes, does not suffer from an inability to act, on the contrary, he tries to do as much as possible in life, his words do not disagree with his thoughts, but he has one character trait that distinguishes him from other characters: he is very curious , and this is what makes Pechorin act.

But still, the most important similarity between them is that they all end up dying ahead of schedule, since no matter how hard they try, they cannot live in this world, in this society. The world is not ready to accept such radically new people.

(369 words) The story of the appearance of the extra person began something like this: a romantic hero, lonely and misunderstood by society, is suddenly placed by the authors in reality. There was no one else to admire the romantic; the mental torment of a loner no longer attracted anyone. Realizing this, the writers decided to show the true essence of the former hero.

Who are they? People of great potential who cannot find a use for their talents. Not seeing any prospects, they try to avoid boredom through idle entertainment. It doesn’t get any easier; they are drawn to self-destruction: duels and gambling. At the same time, they do nothing. Some researchers consider the first representative of “superfluous people” to be Alexander Chatsky from Griboyedov’s play “Woe from Wit.” He does not want to put up with the remnants, but throughout the entire action of the play the nobleman is eloquent, but not active.

The brightest representative of “superfluous people” is considered Pushkinsky Evgeniy Onegin. Educated young nobleman, spoiled secular society, doesn't know what he wants from life. Even having given up idleness, he did not bring a single task to completion. We see an extra person in love, friendship, where he is also unhappy. Belinsky wrote that “Eugene Onegin” is “a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society.” Tired and disappointed nobles were a noticeable phenomenon in Nicholas Russia.

“What about Pechorin, Oblomov, Bazarov?” - you may ask. Of course, they are also classified as “extra people”, but each of them has its own characteristics. For example, Grigory Pechorin from Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time” is smart, prone to reflection, but cannot realize himself in life. He is also prone to self-destruction. But, unlike Onegin, he is looking for the reasons for his suffering. Ilya Oblomov, the hero of Goncharov’s novel, is kind-hearted, capable of love and friendship. What distinguishes him greatly from other representatives is that he is a lethargic and apathetic homebody. Therefore, researchers believe that the image of Oblomov is the culmination of the development of the “extra people” type. With the hero of Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” Yevgeny Bazarov, everything is not so simple, because he is not a nobleman. It is also impossible to say that he has no goal in life - he is busy with science. But Bazarov does not find his place in society, rejects everything old, having no idea what to create in return, which allows him to be classified as superfluous people.

It is curious that it was the “extra people” who became the most memorable heroes of Russian literature. This happened due to the fact that the authors showed the soul individual person, his motives, vices, without educational, moralizing attitudes. The works began to resemble psychological analysis, and this already prepared readers for the future of Russian realism.

20–50s of the 19th century.

Traits of an extra person

The main features of the “superfluous person” include alienation from official life Nicholas Russia, leaving their native social environment (almost always noble), awareness of their significant abilities, intellectual and moral superiority, compared to other representatives of their class.

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

Unable to find fulfillment of his talents in high circles, the hero spends his life in idle hobbies or tries to overcome boredom with duels, love affairs, gambling, adventurous adventures, participation in hostilities, and so on.

Representatives in literature

The term “extra person” itself became widespread after the release of “The Diary of an Extra Person” by I.S. Turgenev in 1850, but the formation of this type took place already from the beginning of the 19th century.

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

"The extra person" in the literary process

It is no coincidence that the theme of the “superfluous man” appeared and became widespread in Russian literature. The “superfluous man” was not a “fiction” of the authors, it was a type that really existed and acted in society at the beginning of the 19th century, the “superfluous man” was a “hero of his time.” A.S. Pushkin noted: “...Indifference to life and its pleasures,... premature old age of the soul... became the distinctive features of the youth of the 19th century.” A.I. also spoke about the modern generation. Herzen: “...We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, Onegin, but we do not prefer to be officials or landowners.”

As noted by A. Lavretsky in “ Literary Encyclopedia“The appearance of “superfluous people” was associated with the discrepancy between the Western European education they received and the realities of life in Russia, as well as the oppression of the Nikolaev reaction after the defeat of the Decembrists. The oppression of despotism, serfdom, and the underdevelopment of social life brought the theme of the “superfluous man” to a more prominent place in comparison with Western European literature. Its significance also increased because it reflected the awakening of the personal principle, moral self-awareness and independence of the individual. Hence the increased dramatism of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature, the increasing intensity of the hero’s moral and ideological quest.

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