Kostareva Valeria
The theme of the "superfluous man" in Russian literature.... Who is " extra person"? 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 classical literature is recognized throughout 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, “Turgenev’s type of girl,” etc. stands out. But the most famous and interesting group of heroes, which causes 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 of 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 imagination of Russian writers of the 19th century; he was seen by them as a painful phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, caused by a 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 Griboedov'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 eternal search truth, awareness of one’s place in life.
Eugene Onegin
The founder of the type of “extra people” in Russian literature is considered to be Evgeny 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 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 out of place 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 true national character. The work “Eugene Onegin” itself is deeply original and has enduring hysterical and artistic value. His hero is a typical Russian character.
Onegin's main 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 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. He squandered all his strength, his soul, in empty amusements. Now he does not have the strength for strong emotions, experiences, or 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 the moral laws of 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 order, which 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 doesn’t such an intelligent and educated person 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, divorced from real life: “Lying... was his normal state.” And this feature is the first thing that distinguishes him from Pushkin’s and, especially, Lermontov’s heroes.
The life of Goncharov's character is rosy dreams on a soft sofa. Slippers and a 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 real 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.
Main storyline in the novel are the relationships 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 people, they all passed in front of 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 the noble hero to flabbiness and apostasy when trying to realize his ideals in 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 the moral principles of the Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civil 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, 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 domestic 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 gone through a long path of quest, traveling for three years, finds a goal in life - “to serve the cause,” “without demanding either places or promotion to rank,” “to focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge.” 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 kind of a deep person is 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 that early period the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and limited themselves to oral speeches.
"Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting on it, 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 makes even his scientific studies meaningless. 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 Bazarov gets bored pretty soon, since activities devoid of purpose quickly come to naught. Returning home to his parents, Evgeniy stops doing research and falls into 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 the “extra person” is practically equated with the “hero of his time.” But this is all a very controversial issue. We cannot say that he lived his life in vain.He knew where to use his strength. He lived for a high purpose. 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, we know much more about the inner world of Grigory Alexandrovich than about the psychology of Onegin. But if we can still hope for the revival of Eugene Onegin, then Pechorin’s life ends tragically (he dies of illness 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– this 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 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 in 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/
IN early XIX centuries, works appear in Russian literature, the central problem of which is the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And, as a result, it is created new image- the image of a “superfluous” person, a stranger among his own, rejected by his environment. The heroes of these works are people of inquisitive minds, gifted, talented, who had the opportunity to become real “heroes of their time” - writers, artists, scientists - and who, in Belinsky’s words, became “smart useless people”, “suffering egoists”, “reluctant egoists” . The image of the “superfluous person” changed as society developed, acquiring new qualities, until, finally, it reached full expression in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov".
The first in the gallery of “extra” people are Onegin and Pechorin - heroes who are characterized by cold prosaicism, independent character, “a sharp, chilled mind,” where irony borders on sarcasm. These are extraordinary people, and therefore, rarely satisfied with themselves, dissatisfied with an easy, carefree existence. They are not satisfied with the monotonous life of the “golden youth”. It’s easy for heroes to answer with certainty what doesn’t suit them, but it’s much more difficult to answer what they need from life. Onegin and Pechorin are unhappy, “lost interest in life”; they move in a vicious circle, where every action implies further disappointment. Dreamy romantics in their youth, they turned into cold cynics, cruel egoists, as soon as they saw the “light”. Who or what is the reason that smart, educated people have turned into “superfluous” people who have not found their place in life? It would seem that everything was in their hands, so is this the heroes’ own fault? We can say that they themselves are to blame for how their fate turned out, but I am still inclined to believe that no one and nothing can change a person as much as society, the social environment, the conditions in which this or that person finds himself. It was the “light” that turned Onegin and Pechorin into “moral cripples.” Pechorin admits in his diary: “...My soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable...” But if the rebellious nature of Pechorin, a man of the 30s of the 19th century, thirsts for activity, seeks food for the mind, painfully reflects on the meaning of life, about one’s role in society, then Onegin’s nature of the 20s was, to one degree or another, characterized by mental apathy and indifference to the world around him. The main difference between Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin is the final result to which both heroes arrive: if Pechorin managed to defend his convictions, denied secular conventions, did not exchange himself for petty aspirations, that is, he completely retained his moral integrity, despite internal contradictions, Then Onegin squandered the spiritual strength that prompted him to act. He lost the ability to actively fight and, “having lived without a goal, without work until he was twenty-six years old ... he did not know how to do anything.” Lermontov portrays to us more a strong character, rather than Pushkin, but together they show how the surrounding reality and secular society destroy a gifted person.
In Goncharov's novel we have the story of a man who does not have the makings of a determined fighter, but has all the data to be a good, decent person. “Oblomov” is a kind of “book of results” of the interaction between the individual and society, moral beliefs and social conditions, in which a person is placed. And if from the works of Lermontov and Pushkin we can study the anatomy of one human soul, with all its contradictions, then in Goncharov’s novel we can trace a whole phenomenon of social life - Oblomovism, which collected the vices of one of the types of noble youth of the 50s of the 19th century. In his work, Goncharov “wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before us was elevated to a type, given it a generic and constant value"- wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov. Oblomov is not a new face in Russian literature, “but before he was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel.”
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic nature, divorced from real life. "Lying... was his normal state." Oblomov's life is a pink nirvana on a soft sofa: slippers and a robe are integral companions of Oblomov's existence. Living in a narrow world of his own creation, fenced off from the bustling real life by dusty curtains, the hero loved to make unrealistic plans. He never brought anything to completion; any of his undertakings suffered the fate of a book that Oblomov had been reading for several years on one page. However, Oblomov’s inaction was not raised to such an extreme degree as, for example, with Manilov from “ Dead souls“, and Dobrolyubov was right when he wrote that “...Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is looking for something in his life, thinking about something...” Like Onegin with Pechorin, Goncharov’s hero in his youth was a romantic, thirsting for an ideal, burning with the desire for activity, but, like previous heroes, “the flower of life blossomed and did not bear fruit.” Oblomov became disillusioned with life, lost interest in knowledge, realized the futility of his existence and lay down on the sofa, believing that in this way he could preserve his moral integrity. So he “laid away” his life, “slept through” love and, as his friend Stolz said, “his troubles began with the inability to put on stockings and ended with the inability to live.” So the main difference
I see Oblomov from Onegin and Pechorin in the fact that if the last two heroes denied social vices in the struggle, in action, then the first “protested” on the sofa, believing that this best image life. Therefore, it can be argued that the “smart useless people” Onegin and Pechorin and the “superfluous” person Oblomov are completely different people. The first two heroes are “moral cripples” due to the fault of society, and the third is due to the fault of their own nature, their own inaction.
Based on the characteristics of life Russia XIX century, we can say that if “superfluous” people were found everywhere, regardless of the country and political system, then Oblomovism is a purely Russian phenomenon, generated by the Russian reality of that time. It is no coincidence that Pushkin in his novel uses the expression “Russian blues,” and Dobrolyubov sees in Oblomov “our indigenous folk type.”
Many critics of that time, and even the author of the novel himself, saw the image of Oblomov as a “sign of the times,” arguing that the image of a “superfluous” person is typical only for feudal Russia of the 19th century. They saw the root of all evil in state structure countries. But I cannot agree that the “suffering egoist” Pechorin, the “smart uselessness” Onegin, the apathetic dreamer Oblomov are the product of the autocratic-serf system. Our time, the 20th century, can serve as proof of this. And now there is a large group of “superfluous” people, and in the 90s of the 20th century, many find themselves out of place and do not find the meaning of life. Some at the same time turn into mocking cynics, like Onegin or Pechorin, others, like Oblomov, kill best years life, lying on the sofa. So Pechorin is a “hero” of our time, and Oblomovism is a phenomenon not only of the 19th century, but also of the 20th century. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous” person continues, and more than one will say with bitterness: “My soul is spoiled by light...” Therefore, I believe that it is not the fault of the “unnecessary” people. serfdom, and that society in which true values, and vices often wear a mask of virtue, where the individual can be trampled underfoot by a gray, silent crowd.
The image of a bored hero in the works of Russian literature
classics
XIXV.
With all the diversity of literary
types in Russian classics of the 19th century, the image of a bored hero stands out clearly.
It is often correlated with the image of an “extra person”
"Extra person", "extra people" -
where did this term come from in Russian literature? Who first used it so successfully
him, that he firmly and for a long time established himself in the works of Pushkin, Lermontov,
Turgenev, Goncharova? Many literary scholars believe that it was invented by A.I.
Herzen. According to another version, Pushkin himself in draft form VIII chapters
“Eugene Onegin” called his hero superfluous: “Onegin stands as something superfluous.”
In addition to Onegin, many critics XIX centuries and
Some literary scholars of the twentieth century classify Pechorin, the heroes
novels by I.S. Turgenev Rudin and Lavretsky, as well as Oblomov I.A. Goncharov.
What are the main thematic
signs of these characters, “extra people”? It is first and foremost a personality
potentially capable of any social action. She does not accept offers
society “rules of the game”, characterized by disbelief in the possibility of changing anything.
“An extra person” is a contradictory personality, often in conflict with society and
his way of life. This is also a hero who is definitely dysfunctional in
relationships with parents, and unhappy in love. His position in society
unstable, contains contradictions: it is always connected with at least some aspect
nobility, but - already in the period of decline, fame and wealth are rather a memory. He
placed in an environment that is somehow alien to him: a higher or lower environment,
there is always a certain motive of alienation, which does not always immediately lie on the
surfaces. The hero is moderately educated, but this education is rather incomplete,
unsystematic; in a word, this is not a deep thinker, not a scientist, but a person with
the “power of judgment” to make quick but immature conclusions. often
inner emptiness, hidden uncertainty. Often - the gift of eloquence,
skills in writing, note-taking, or even writing poetry. Always some
the claim to be the judge of one's neighbors; a hint of hatred is required. In a word,
the hero is a victim of life's canons.
Novel "Eugene Onegin"
- a work of amazing creative destiny. It was created over seven
years - from May 1823 to September 1830.
Pushkin, in the process of working on
novel, set himself the task of demonstrating in the image of Onegin “that
premature old age of the soul, which has become the main feature of the young
generations." And already in the first chapter the writer notes social factors,
determined the character of the main character. This is belonging to the upper class
nobility, upbringing, training, usual for this circle, first steps in the world,
experience of a “monotonous and motley” life for eight years. Life of the "free"
a nobleman not burdened with service - vain, carefree, full of entertainment
And romance novels, – fits into one tiringly long day..
In a word, Onegin in his early youth is “a child of fun and luxury.” By the way, on this
Onegin’s life span is an original, witty, “scientific” person
small”, but still quite ordinary, obediently following the secular “decorum”
crowd." The only thing in which Onegin “was a true genius” was that “he knew more firmly
of all sciences,” as the Author notes, not without irony, was “the science of tender passion,” then
there is the ability to love without loving, to imitate feelings while remaining cold and
prudent.
First chapter - crucial moment V
the fate of the main character, who managed to abandon the stereotypes of the secular
behavior, from a noisy but internally empty “rite of life.” Thus Pushkin
showed how from a faceless crowd, but demanding unconditional obedience, suddenly
appeared bright extraordinary personality, capable of overthrowing the “burden” of secular
conventions, “get behind the hustle and bustle.”
Onegin's seclusion - his
an undeclared conflict with the world and with the society of village landowners - only
at first glance seems like a “fad” caused by purely individual
reasons: boredom, “Russian blues”. This new stage hero's life. Pushkin
emphasizes that this conflict of Onegin, “Onegin’s inimitable
strangeness" became a kind of spokesman for the protagonist’s protest against
social and spiritual dogmas that suppress a person’s personality, depriving him of his rights
To be youreself. And the emptiness of the hero’s soul became a consequence of the emptiness and
the emptiness of social life. Onegin is looking for new spiritual values: in
Petersburg and in the village he reads diligently and tries to write poetry. This search for him
new life truths stretched out for many years and remained unfinished.
The internal drama of this process is also obvious: Onegin is painfully freed
from the burden of old ideas about life and people, but the past does not let him go.
It seems that Onegin is the rightful owner own life. But that's only
illusion. In St. Petersburg and in the village he is equally bored - he still cannot
overcome mental laziness and dependence on “ public opinion».
The consequence of this was that the best inclinations of his nature were killed by secular
life. But a hero cannot be considered only a victim of society and circumstances. Having replaced
way of life, he accepted responsibility for his destiny. But having given up idleness
and the vanity of the world, alas, did not become an activist, but remained just a contemplator.
The feverish pursuit of pleasure gave way to solitary reflections
Main character.
For writers who devoted their time
creativity, attention to the theme of the “superfluous person”, it is characteristic to “test” one’s
hero through friendship, love, duel, death. Pushkin was no exception. Two
the trials that awaited Onegin in the village -
the test of love and the test of friendship - showed that external freedom automatically
does not entail liberation from false prejudices and opinions. In a relationship
With Tatiana, Onegin showed himself to be a noble and mentally sensitive person. AND
one cannot blame the hero for not responding to Tatiana’s love: to the heart, as
you know, you can’t order it. Another thing is that Onegin did not listen to his own voice
hearts, but the voices of reason. To confirm this, I will say that even in the first chapter
Pushkin noted in the main character a “sharp, chilled mind” and an inability to
strong feelings. And it was precisely this mental disproportion that became the reason for the failed
love of Onegin and Tatiana. Onegin also could not stand the test of friendship. And in this
In this case, the cause of the tragedy was his inability to live a life of feeling. No wonder
the author, commenting on the hero’s state before the duel, notes: “He could have feelings
discover / And not bristle like an animal.” And on Tatiana’s name day, and before
In a duel with Lensky, Onegin showed himself to be a “ball of prejudice”, “a hostage
secular canons”, deaf both to the voice of one’s own heart and to the feelings
Lensky. His behavior at the name day is the usual “secular anger”, and the duel is
a consequence of the indifference and fear of evil-tonguing of the inveterate breter Zaretsky and
neighboring landowners. Onegin himself did not notice how he became a prisoner of his old
idol – “public opinion”. After Lensky's murder, Evgeniy changed
just radically. It's a pity that only tragedy could reveal to him first
inaccessible world of feelings.
Onegin in a depressed state of mind
leaves the village and begins wandering around Russia. These travels give him
an opportunity to look at life more fully, to reevaluate oneself, to understand how
He wasted a lot of time and energy fruitlessly in empty pleasures.
In the eighth chapter, Pushkin showed a new
stage in spiritual development Onegin. Having met Tatiana in St. Petersburg, Onegin
completely transformed, there was nothing left in him from the old, cold and
a rational person - he is an ardent lover, not noticing anything except
the object of his love (and in this way he is very reminiscent of Lensky). He experienced for the first time
a real feeling, but it turned into a new one love drama: now Tatyana
could not respond to his belated love. And, as before, in the foreground in
characterization of the hero - the relationship between reason and feeling. Now it's reason
was defeated - Onegin loves, “without heeding the strict penalties.” However, the text completely lacks the results of the spiritual
development of a hero who believed in love and happiness. This means that Onegin again did not achieve
desired goal, there is still no harmony between reason and feeling.
Thus, Evgeny Onegin
becomes a “superfluous person.” Belonging to the light, he despises it. He likes
noted Pisarev, all that remains is to “give up on the boredom of social life,
as a necessary evil." Onegin does not find his true purpose and place in
life, he is burdened by his loneliness and lack of demand. Speaking in words
Herzen, “Onegin... an extra person in the environment where he is, but without possessing
the necessary strength of character, he just can’t break out of it.” But, in his own opinion
writer, the image of Onegin is not complete. After all, a novel in verse is essentially
ends with the following question: “What will Onegin be like in the future?” Myself
Pushkin leaves the character of his hero open, thereby emphasizing the
Onegin’s ability to abruptly change value orientations and, I note,
a certain readiness for action, for action. True, opportunities for
Onegin has practically no self-realization. But the novel doesn't answer
the above question, he asks it to the reader.
After Pushkin's hero And Pechorin, actor novel
M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, showed himself to be a type of “superfluous man.”
The bored hero appears before the reader again, but he is different from Onegin.
Onegin has indifference, passivity,
inaction. Not so Pechorin. “This man is not indifferent, not apathetic
suffering: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he accuses bitterly
yourself in your delusions." Pechorin is characterized by bright individualism,
painful introspection, internal monologues, the ability to impartially evaluate
myself. “Moral cripple,” he will say
About Me. Onegin is simply bored, he is characterized by skepticism and disappointment.
Belinsky once noted that “Pechorin is a suffering egoist,” and “Onegin is
bored". And to some extent this is true.
Pechorin from boredom, from dissatisfaction in life
conducts experiments both on himself and on people. So, for example, in “Bela” Pechorin
for the sake of gaining a new spiritual experience, without hesitation he sacrifices both the prince and
Azamat, and Kazbich, and Belaya herself. In “Taman” he allowed himself out of curiosity
interfere in the lives of “honest smugglers” and forced them to flee, leaving their house, and
at the same time a blind boy.
In “Princess Mary” Pechorin intervenes in the ensuing
the romance of Grushnitsky and Mary bursts like a whirlwind into Vera’s improved life. To him
it’s hard, he’s empty, he’s bored. He writes about his longing and attractiveness
“possessing the soul” of another person, but never once thinks about where it came from
his right to this possession! Pechorin’s reflections in “Fatalist” about faith and
unbelief relate not only to the tragedy of the loneliness of modern man in
world. Man, having lost God, has lost the main thing - moral guidelines, firm and
a certain system moral values. And no experiments will give
Pechorin the joy of being. Only faith can give you confidence. And deep faith
ancestors was lost in the age of Pechorin. Having lost faith in God, the hero also lost faith in
himself - this is his tragedy.
It is surprising that Pechorin, understanding all this, at the same time
time does not see the origins of its tragedy. He reflects as follows: “Evil
creates evil; The first suffering gives the concept of pleasure in tormenting another...”
It turns out that the whole world surrounding Pechorin is built on the law of the spiritual
slavery: torture in order to gain pleasure from the suffering of another. AND
the unfortunate man, suffering, dreams of one thing - to take revenge on the offender. Evil begets evil
not in itself, but in a world without God, in a society where moral
laws where only the threat of legal punishment somehow limits revelry
permissiveness.
Pechorin constantly feels his moral
inferiority: he talks about two halves of the soul, that the best part of the soul
“dried up, evaporated, died.” He “became a moral cripple” - here
the true tragedy and punishment of Pechorin.
Pechorin is a controversial personality,
Yes, he himself understands this: “...I have an innate passion to contradict; my whole one
life was just a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions of the heart or mind.”
Contradiction becomes the formula for the hero’s existence: he recognizes in himself
“high purpose” and “immense powers” - and exchanges life in “passions
empty and ungrateful." Yesterday he bought a carpet that the princess liked, and
Today, having covered my horse with it, I slowly led it past Mary’s windows... The rest of the day
comprehended the “impression” he made. And this takes days, months, life!
Pechorin, unfortunately, remained
until the end of life as “smart uselessness.” People like Pechorin were created
socio-political conditions of the 30s XIX centuries, times of gloomy reaction and
police supervision. He is truly alive, gifted, brave, smart. His
tragedy is the tragedy of an active person who has no business.
Pechorin craves activity. But the opportunities to use these souls
He has no desire to put them into practice, to realize them. Exhausting feeling of emptiness
boredom, loneliness pushes him to various kinds adventures (“Bela”, “Taman”,
"Fatalist"). And this is the tragedy not only of this hero, but of the entire generation of the 30s
years: “As a crowd of gloomy and soon forgotten, / We will pass over the world without noise and
a trace, / Without abandoning to the centuries a single fertile thought, / Nor a work begun by the genius...”
“Gloomy”... This is a crowd of disunited loners, not bound by unity of goals,
ideals, hopes...
I didn’t ignore the topic of “extra
people" and I.A. Goncharov, creating one of the outstanding novels XIX centuries, - "Oblomov." His central character, Ilya
Ilyich Oblomov is a bored gentleman lying on the sofa, dreaming of transformations
And happy life surrounded by family, but doing nothing to make dreams come true
reality. Undoubtedly, Oblomov is a product of his environment, a unique
the result of the social and moral development of the nobility. For the noble intelligentsia
The time of existence at the expense of serfs did not pass without a trace. All this
gave rise to laziness, apathy, absolute inability to be active and
typical class vices. Stolz calls this “Oblomovism.”
Critic Dobrolyubov in the image of Oblomov
saw first of all a socially typical phenomenon, and the key to this image
considered the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream”. The hero’s “dream” is not quite like a dream. This
A fairly harmonious, logical picture of Oblomovka’s life with an abundance of details.
Most likely, this is not a dream itself, with its characteristic illogicality, but
conditional dream. The task of “Sleep,” as V.I. Kuleshov noted, is to provide “preliminary
story, an important message about the hero’s life, his childhood... The reader receives important
information, thanks to what upbringing the hero of the novel became a couch potato... receives
the opportunity to realize where and in what way this life “broke off”. What is it like
Oblomov's childhood? This is a cloudless life in the estate, “the fullness of the satisfied
desires, meditation of pleasure."
Is it much different from the one
which Oblomov leads in a house on Gorokhovaya Street? Although Ilya is ready to contribute to this
The idyll will undergo some changes, but its fundamentals will remain unchanged. He's completely
The life that Stolz leads is alien: “No! Why make craftsmen out of nobles!” He
has absolutely no doubt that the peasant must always work for
master
And Oblomov’s trouble, first of all, is that
that the life he rejects does not itself accept him. Alien to Oblomov
activity; his worldview does not allow him to adapt to life
landowner-entrepreneur, find his path, as Stolz did.All this makes Oblomov a “superfluous person.”
How did the image of the “extra person” appear? The appearance history is as follows: romantic hero, who is not accepted by society, is placed in reality. Everyone stops admiring the romantic; no one is seduced by the torment that occurs in the soul of a loner. Writers understand this and show the true essence of the hero.
Who are considered “superfluous people”?
Who are the “extra people”? They have enormous capabilities, a talent that cannot be put to use. They cannot see the future, so they often go out to have fun to avoid boredom. It’s unlikely to get any simpler or easier. Idle entertainment will only destroy them. They lead to gambling and duels. Some people who have studied this problem consider Alexander Chatsky to be a pioneer in this regard. This character took place in the play “Woe from Wit,” written by Griboyedov. Remnants mean nothing to him, and in the play this nobleman talks a lot, but does little.
Onegin is the brightest representative
(Painting by Yu. M. Ignatiev based on the novel "Eugene Onegin")
The most prominent representative of the image of “superfluous people” is Eugene Onegin, about whom Pushkin wrote. The nobleman is young, educated. He's spinning in secular society, but has no specific goals. He started to do something, but could not finish it. Onegin is unhappy, he does not succeed either in friendship or in love. Belinsky compared Onegin with Russian society, which is described in poetry. Nicholas Russia was often represented by nobles who were disillusioned with life and tired of it.
Pechorin, Oblomov, Bazarov
(Grigory Pechorin)
Many may ask the question: “Have they really forgotten about Bazarov, Oblomov, Pechorin?” They also represent the “extra people,” each of whom has certain characteristics. As for Pechorin, he is distinguished by his penchant for reflection and presence of mind. However, this does not help him realize himself. This hero is self-destructing. But, if we compare Pechorin and Onegin, then the first is in search of the cause of his own suffering.
Oblomov, who is the hero of the novel written by Goncharov, is capable of making friends, loving, has kind heart. But he prefers to stay at home, he is apathetic and lethargic. Researchers say that this particular hero is the culmination of the era of “extra people.”
(Bazarov in disputes with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov)
If we are talking about Evgeny Bazarov, the novel “Fathers and Sons,” then everything is different here. This hero is not noble blood. He sets goals for himself and does science. However, Bazarov cannot find a place in society. He moves away from everything old, not realizing that it is necessary to create something instead. That is why he is classified as “superfluous people”.
The role of extra people in works
It should be noted that it is precisely the “extra people” who are the heroes of Russian literature who are remembered most by readers. Why? The authors show an individual person, his soul, vices, motives. At the same time, there are no moralizing or educational attitudes. The work contains to some extent an analysis of the psychological direction.
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 (“The 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... have become distinctive features youth of the 19th century." ABOUT modern generation A.I. also spoke out. 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 rethinking of the romantic hero, the type of “superfluous person” developed under the sign of 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 fruitful psychological analysis and prepared the future achievements of Russian realism.
