What does "extra person" mean? The image of the "superfluous man" in Russian literature

“Superfluous people” in literature are images characteristic of Russian prose of the mid-nineteenth century. Examples of such characters in works of art- topic of the article.

Who coined this term?

“Extra people” in literature are characters that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is unknown who exactly introduced this term. Perhaps Herzen. According to some information - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. After all, the great Russian poet once said that his Onegin was “an extra man.” One way or another, this image was firmly established in the works of other writers.

Every schoolchild, even if he has not read Goncharov’s novel, knows about someone like Oblomov. This character is a representative of the outdated landowner world, and therefore cannot adapt to the new one.

General signs

“Superfluous people” are found in the works of such classics as I. S. Turgenev, M. Yu. Lermontov. Before considering each of the characters that can be classified in this category, it is worth highlighting the common features. “Extra people” in literature are contradictory heroes who are in conflict with the society to which they belong. As a rule, they are deprived of both fame and wealth.

Examples

“Extra people” in literature are characters introduced by the author into an environment alien to them. They are moderately educated, but their knowledge is unsystematic. The “superfluous man” cannot be a deep thinker or scientist, but he has the “ability of judgment”, the gift of eloquence. AND main feature this literary character- disdainful attitude towards others. As an example, we can recall Pushkin’s Onegin, who avoids communication with his neighbors.

“Superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century were heroes who were able to see vices modern society, but do not know how to resist them. They are aware of the problems of the world around them. But, alas, they are too passive to change anything.

Causes

Characters about we're talking about in this article, began to appear on the pages of the works of Russian writers in the Nicholas era. In 1825 there was a Decembrist uprising. For the next decades, the government was in fear, but it was at this time that a spirit of freedom and a desire for change emerged in society. The policy of Nicholas I was quite contradictory.

The tsar introduced reforms designed to make life easier for the peasants, but at the same time did everything to strengthen the autocracy. Various circles began to appear, whose participants discussed and criticized the current government. The landowner lifestyle was despised by many educated people. But the trouble is that the participants in various political associations belonged to the society towards which they suddenly became inflamed with hatred.

The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature lie in the emergence in society of a new type of person who was not accepted by society and did not accept it. Such a person stands out from the crowd, and therefore causes bewilderment and irritation.

As already mentioned, the concept of “superfluous person” was first introduced into literature by Pushkin. However, this term is somewhat vague. Characters in conflict with the social environment have been encountered in literature before. The main character of Griboyedov's comedy has the traits inherent in this type of character. Can we say that Chatsky is an example of a “superfluous person”? In order to answer this question, a brief analysis of comedy should be done.

Chatsky

Griboyedov's hero rejects the inert foundations of Famus society. He denounces veneration and blind imitation This does not go unnoticed by representatives of Famus society - the Khlestovs, the Khryumins, the Zagoretskys. As a result, Chatsky is considered strange, if not crazy.

Griboyedov's hero is a representative of an advanced society, which includes people who do not want to put up with reactionary orders and remnants of the past. Thus, we can say that the theme of the “superfluous person” was first raised by the author of “Woe from Wit.”

Eugene Onegin

But most literary scholars believe that this particular hero is the first “extra person” in the prose and poetry of Russian authors. Onegin is a nobleman, “heir to all his relatives.” He received a very passable education, but does not have any deep knowledge. Writing and speaking French, behaving at ease in society, reciting a few quotes from the works of ancient authors - this is enough to create a favorable impression in the world.

Onegin is a typical representative of aristocratic society. He is not able to “work hard”, but he knows how to shine in society. He leads an aimless, idle existence, but this is not his fault. Evgeniy became like his father, who gave three balls every year. He lives the way most representatives of the Russian nobility exist. However, unlike them, at a certain moment he begins to feel tired and disappointed.

Loneliness

Onegin is an “extra person.” He is languishing from idleness, trying to occupy himself useful thing. In the society to which he belongs, idleness is the main component of life. Hardly anyone from Onegin’s circle is familiar with his experiences.

Evgeniy tries to compose at first. But he is not a writer. Then he begins to read enthusiastically. However, Onegin does not find moral satisfaction in books either. Then he retires to the house of his deceased uncle, who bequeathed his village to him. Here the young nobleman seemingly finds something to do. He makes life easier for the peasants: he replaces the yoke with a light quitrent. However, even these good initiatives lead nowhere.

The type of “superfluous person” appeared in Russian literature in the first third of the nineteenth century. But by the middle of the century this character acquired new features. Pushkin's Onegin is rather passive. He treats others with contempt, is depressed and cannot get rid of conventions and prejudices, which he himself criticizes. Let's look at other examples of the “extra person” in literature.

Pechorin

Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to the problems of a rejected person, spiritually not accepted by society. Pechorin, like Pushkin’s character, belongs to high society. But he is tired of the mores of aristocratic society. Pechorin does not enjoy attending balls, dinners, or festive evenings. He is depressed by the tedious and meaningless conversations that are customary to have at such events.

Using the examples of Onegin and Pechorin, we can complement the concept of “superfluous person” in Russian literature. This is a character who, due to some alienation from society, acquires such traits as isolation, selfishness, cynicism and even cruelty.

"Notes of an Extra Man"

And yet, most likely, the author of the concept of “extra people” is I. S. Turgenev. Many literary scholars believe that it was he who introduced this term. According to their opinion, Onegin and Pechorin were subsequently classified as “superfluous people,” although they have little in common with the image created by Turgenev. The writer has a story called “Notes of an Extra Man.” The hero of this work feels alien in society. This character calls himself such.

Whether the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is a “superfluous person” is a controversial issue.

Bazarov

Fathers and Sons depicts society in the mid-nineteenth century. Violent political disputes had reached their climax by this time. In these disputes, on one side stood the liberal democrats, and on the other, the revolutionary commoner democrats. Both of them understood that changes were needed. Revolutionary-minded democrats, unlike their opponents, were committed to rather radical measures.

Political disputes have penetrated into all spheres of life. And, of course, they became the theme of artistic and journalistic works. But there was another phenomenon at that time that interested the writer Turgenev. Namely, nihilism. Adherents of this movement rejected everything related to the spiritual.

Bazarov, like Onegin, is a deeply lonely person. This trait is also characteristic of all characters whom literary scholars classify as “superfluous people.” But, unlike Pushkin’s hero, Bazarov does not spend his time in idleness: he is engaged in the natural sciences.

The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” has successors. He is not considered crazy. On the contrary, some heroes try to adopt Bazarov’s oddities and skepticism. Nevertheless, Bazarov is lonely, despite the fact that his parents love and idolize him. He dies, and only at the end of his life does he realize that his ideas were false. Is in life simple joys. There is love and romantic feelings. And all this has a right to exist.

Rudin

It’s not uncommon to encounter “extra people.” The action of the novel "Rudin" takes place in the forties. Daria Lasunskaya, one of the heroines of the novel, lives in Moscow, but in the summer she travels out of town, where she organizes musical evenings. Her guests are exclusively educated people.

One day, a certain Rudin appears at Lasunskaya’s house. This person is prone to polemics, extremely passionate, and captivates listeners with his wit. The guests and the hostess of the house are enchanted by Rudin’s amazing eloquence. Lasunskaya invites him to live in her house.

In order to give a clear description of Rudin, Turgenev talks about facts from his life. This man was born into a poor family, but never had the desire to earn money or get out of poverty. At first he lived on the pennies his mother sent him. Then he lived at the expense of rich friends. Even in his youth, Rudin was distinguished by his extraordinary oratory skills. He was a fairly educated man, because he spent all his leisure time reading books. But the trouble is that nothing followed his words. By the time he met Lasunskaya, he had already become a man fairly battered by life’s hardships. In addition, he became painfully proud and even vain.

Rudin is an “extra person.” Many years of immersion in the philosophical sphere led to the fact that ordinary emotional experiences seemed to have died out. This Turgenev hero is a born orator, and the only thing he strived for was to conquer people. But he was too weak and spineless to become a political leader.

Oblomov

So, the “extra person” in Russian prose is a disillusioned nobleman. The hero of the novel Goncharov is sometimes classified as this type literary heroes. But can Oblomov be called a “superfluous person”? After all, he misses, yearns for his father’s house and everything that made up the landowner’s life. And he is in no way disappointed in the way of life and traditions characteristic of representatives of his society.

Who is Oblomov? This is a descendant of a landowner family who is bored with working in an office, and therefore does not leave his sofa for days. This is a generally accepted opinion, but it is not entirely correct. Oblomov could not get used to life in St. Petersburg, because the people around him were entirely calculating, heartless individuals. The main character of the novel, unlike them, is smart, educated and, most importantly, has high spiritual qualities. But why doesn’t he want to work then?

The fact is that Oblomov, like Onegin and Rudin, does not see the point in such work, such life. These people cannot work only for material well-being. Each of them requires a high spiritual goal. But it doesn’t exist or it turned out to be insolvent. And Onegin, and Rudin, and Oblomov become “superfluous”.

Goncharov contrasted Stolz, his childhood friend, with the main character of his novel. This character initially creates a positive impression on the reader. Stolz is a hardworking, purposeful person. The writer endowed this hero German origin not by chance. Goncharov seems to be hinting that only Russian people can suffer from Oblomovism. And in the last chapters it becomes clear that there is nothing behind Stolz’s hard work. This person has neither dreams nor high ideas. He acquires sufficient means of subsistence and stops, not continuing his development.

The influence of the “extra person” on others

It is also worth saying a few words about the heroes who surround the “extra person”. mentioned in this article are lonely and unhappy. Some of them end their lives too early. In addition, “extra people” cause grief to others. Especially women who had the imprudence to love them.

Pierre Bezukhov is sometimes counted among the “superfluous people.” In the first part of the novel, he is in continuous melancholy, searching for something. He spends a lot of time at parties, buys paintings, and reads a lot. Unlike the above-mentioned heroes, Bezukhov finds himself; he does not die either physically or morally.

Extra person

"The Extra Man", a socio-psychological type embodied in Russian literature of the 1st half of the 19th century; its main features: alienation from official Russia, from his native environment (usually the nobility), a feeling of intellectual and moral superiority over it and at the same time, mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed. Name "L. h." came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850) by I. S. Turgenev; the type itself was formed earlier: the first complete incarnation was Onegin (“Eugene Onegin” by A. S. Pushkin), then Pechorin (“Hero of Our Time” by M. Yu. Lermontov), ​​Beltov (“Who is to Blame?” by A. I. Herzen ), Turgenev characters: Rudin (“Rudin”), Lavretsky (“The Noble Nest”), etc. Traits of the spiritual appearance of “L. h." (sometimes in a complicated and modified form) can be traced in the literature of the 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. (in the works of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, L. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Chekhov, up to A. I. Kuprin, V. V. Veresaev, M. Gorky). Typology "L. h." was reflected in the lyrics (Lermontov, N.P. Ogarev). In Western European literature “L. h." to a certain extent, close to the hero brought to life by a “long hangover” (see K. Marx, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd edition, volume 8, p. 122) after the bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. , disappointment in social progress (“Adolphe” by B. Constant, “Confession of a son of the century” by A. de Musset). However, the contradictions of Russian reality, the contrast of “civilization and slavery” (see A.I. Herzen, Collected Works, vol. 7, 1956, p. 205), underdevelopment public life nominated "L. h." to a more prominent place, led to increased drama and intensity of his experiences. At the turn of the 50s-60s. revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov sharply criticized “L. h.”, his indecision and passivity, at the same time unlawfully reducing the content of the problem “L. h." to the topic of liberalism. With revaluation of “L. h." F. M. Dostoevsky also spoke out, condemning his individualism and isolation from the people’s soil. Literary image "L. h.”, arising as a rethinking romantic hero(J. Byron, Pushkin), developed under the sign of realistic portraiture, identifying the difference between the character and the author. Essential in the topic “L. h." there was a rejection of educational principles in the name of an impartial analysis of the “history of the human soul” (Lermontov), ​​which created the basis for deep psychologism and the subsequent gains of realism.

Lit.: Chernyshevsky N. G., Russian man on rendez-vous, Complete. collection soch., vol. 5, M., 1950; Goncharov I. A., “A million torments.” Collection soch., vol. 8, M., 1952.

Yu. V. Mann.

Wikipedia

Extra person

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

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

Extra people often bring trouble not only to themselves, but also female characters who have the misfortune to love them. Negative side superfluous people, associated with their displacement outside the social-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. In "War and Peace" in the position of an extra man at the beginning of the century for a long time Pierre Bezukhov stays:

Pierre experienced the unfortunate ability of many, especially Russian people - the ability to see and believe in the possibility of good and truth, and to see too clearly the evil and lies of life in order to be able to take a serious part in it. Every area of ​​labor in his eyes was associated with evil and deception. Whatever he tried to be, whatever he undertook, evil and lies repelled him and blocked all paths of activity for him. Meanwhile, I had to live, I had to be busy. It was too scary to be under the yoke of these insoluble questions of life, and he gave himself up to his first hobbies just to forget them. He traveled to all sorts of societies, drank a lot, bought paintings and built, and most importantly read.

Superfluous people" in literature are images characteristic of Russian prose of the mid-nineteenth century. Examples of such characters in works of fiction are the topic of the article. Who coined this term? “Extra people” in literature are characters that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is unknown who exactly introduced this term. Perhaps Herzen. According to some information - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. After all, the great Russian poet once said that his Onegin is “an extra man.” One way or another, this image was firmly established in the works of other writers. Every schoolchild, even if he has not read Goncharov’s novel, knows about such a literary hero as Oblomov. This character is a representative of the outdated landowner world, and therefore cannot adapt to the new one. General signs“Superfluous people” are found in the works of such classics as I. S. Turgenev, M. Yu. Lermontov.

Before considering each of the characters that can be classified in this category, it is worth highlighting the common features.

“Extra people” in literature are contradictory heroes who are in conflict with the society to which they belong. As a rule, they are deprived of both fame and wealth.

“Extra people” in literature are characters introduced by the author into an environment alien to them. They are moderately educated, but their knowledge is unsystematic.

The “superfluous man” cannot be a deep thinker or scientist, but he has the “ability of judgment”, the gift of eloquence.

And the main characteristic of this literary character is his disdainful attitude towards others.

As an example, we can recall Pushkin’s Onegin, who avoids communication with his neighbors. “Superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century were heroes who were able to see the evils of modern society, but did not know how to resist them. They are aware of the problems of the world around them. But, alas, they are too passive to change anything.

Causes

The characters discussed in this article began to appear on the pages of the works of Russian writers in the Nicholas era. In 1825 there was a Decembrist uprising. For the next decades, the government was in fear, but it was at this time that a spirit of freedom and a desire for change emerged in society. The policy of Nicholas I was quite contradictory. The tsar introduced reforms designed to make life easier for the peasants, but at the same time did everything to strengthen the autocracy. Various circles began to appear, whose participants discussed and criticized the current government. The landowner lifestyle was despised by many educated people. But the trouble is that the participants in various political associations belonged to the society towards which they suddenly became inflamed with hatred. The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature lie in the emergence in society of a new type of person who was not accepted by society and did not accept it. Such a person stands out from the crowd, and therefore causes bewilderment and irritation. As already mentioned, the concept of “superfluous person” was first introduced into literature by Pushkin. However, this term is somewhat vague. Characters in conflict with the social environment have been encountered in literature before.

The main character of Griboedov's comedy has the traits inherent in this type of character. Can we say that Chatsky is an example of a “superfluous person”? In order to answer this question, a brief analysis of comedy should be done. Chatsky Griboedov's hero rejects the inert foundations of Famus society. He denounces veneration for rank and blind imitation of French fashion. This does not go unnoticed by representatives of Famus society - the Khlestovs, Khryumins, Zagoretskys. As a result, Chatsky is considered strange, if not crazy. Griboyedov's hero is a representative of an advanced society, which includes people who do not want to put up with reactionary orders and remnants of the past. Thus, we can say that the theme of the “superfluous person” was first raised by the author of “Woe from Wit.”

Eugene Onegin

But most literary scholars believe that this particular hero is the first “extra person” in the prose and poetry of Russian authors. Onegin is a nobleman, “heir to all his relatives.” He received a very passable education, but does not have any deep knowledge. Writing and speaking French, behaving at ease in society, reciting a few quotes from the works of ancient authors - this is enough to create a favorable impression in the world. Onegin is a typical representative of aristocratic society. He is not able to “work hard”, but he knows how to shine in society. He leads an aimless, idle existence, but this is not his fault. Evgeniy became like his father, who gave three balls every year. He lives the way most representatives of the Russian nobility exist. However, unlike them, at a certain moment he begins to feel tired and disappointed. Loneliness Onegin is an “extra person.” He is languishing from idleness, trying to occupy himself with useful work. In the society to which he belongs, idleness is the main component of life. Hardly anyone from Onegin’s circle is familiar with his experiences. Evgeniy tries to compose at first. But he is not a writer. Then he begins to read enthusiastically. However, Onegin does not find moral satisfaction in books either. Then he retires to the house of his deceased uncle, who bequeathed his village to him. Here the young nobleman seemingly finds something to do. He makes life easier for the peasants: he replaces the yoke with a light quitrent. However, even these good initiatives lead nowhere. The type of “superfluous person” appeared in Russian literature in the first third of the nineteenth century. But by the middle of the century this character acquired new features. Pushkin's Onegin is rather passive. He treats others with contempt, is depressed and cannot get rid of conventions and prejudices, which he himself criticizes. Let's look at other examples of the “extra person” in literature.

Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to the problems of a rejected person, spiritually not accepted by society. Pechorin, like Pushkin’s character, belongs to high society. But he is tired of the mores of aristocratic society. Pechorin does not enjoy attending balls, dinners, or festive evenings. He is depressed by the tedious and meaningless conversations that are customary to have at such events. Using the examples of Onegin and Pechorin, we can complement the concept of “superfluous person” in Russian literature. This is a character who, due to some alienation from society, acquires such traits as isolation, selfishness, cynicism and even cruelty. “Notes of an extra person” And yet, most likely, the author of the concept of “extra people” is I. S. Turgenev. Many literary scholars believe that it was he who introduced this term. According to their opinion, Onegin and Pechorin were subsequently classified as “superfluous people,” although they have little in common with the image created by Turgenev. The writer has a story called “Notes of an Extra Man.” The hero of this work feels alien in society. This character calls himself such. Whether the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is a “superfluous person” is a controversial issue.

Fathers and Sons depicts society in the mid-nineteenth century. Violent political disputes had reached their climax by this time. In these disputes, on one side stood the liberal democrats, and on the other, the revolutionary commoner democrats. Both of them understood that changes were needed. Revolutionary-minded democrats, unlike their opponents, were committed to rather radical measures. Political disputes have penetrated into all spheres of life. And, of course, they became the theme of artistic and journalistic works. But there was another phenomenon at that time that interested the writer Turgenev. Namely, nihilism. Adherents of this movement rejected everything related to the spiritual. Bazarov, like Onegin, is a deeply lonely person. This trait is also characteristic of all characters whom literary scholars classify as “superfluous people.” But, unlike Pushkin’s hero, Bazarov does not spend his time in idleness: he is engaged in the natural sciences. The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” has successors. He is not considered crazy. On the contrary, some heroes try to adopt Bazarov’s oddities and skepticism. Nevertheless, Bazarov is lonely, despite the fact that his parents love and idolize him. He dies, and only at the end of his life does he realize that his ideas were false. There are simple joys in life. There is love and romantic feelings. And all this has a right to exist.

“Extra people” are often found in Turgenev’s works. The action of the novel "Rudin" takes place in the forties. Daria Lasunskaya, one of the heroines of the novel, lives in Moscow, but in the summer she travels out of town, where she organizes musical evenings. Her guests are exclusively educated people. One day, a certain Rudin appears at Lasunskaya’s house. This person is prone to polemics, extremely passionate, and captivates listeners with his wit. The guests and the hostess of the house are enchanted by Rudin’s amazing eloquence. Lasunskaya invites him to live in her house. In order to give a clear description of Rudin, Turgenev talks about facts from his life. This man was born into a poor family, but never had the desire to earn money or get out of poverty. At first he lived on the pennies his mother sent him. Then he lived at the expense of rich friends. Even in his youth, Rudin was distinguished by his extraordinary oratory skills. He was a fairly educated man, because he spent all his leisure time reading books. But the trouble is that nothing followed his words. By the time he met Lasunskaya, he had already become a man fairly battered by life’s hardships. In addition, he became painfully proud and even vain. Rudin is an “extra person.” Many years of immersion in the philosophical sphere led to the fact that ordinary emotional experiences seemed to have died out. This Turgenev hero is a born orator, and the only thing he strived for was to conquer people. But he was too weak and spineless to become a political leader.

So, the “extra person” in Russian prose is a disillusioned nobleman. The hero of Goncharov's novel is sometimes classified as this type of literary hero. But can Oblomov be called a “superfluous person”? After all, he misses, yearns for his father’s house and everything that made up the landowner’s life. And he is in no way disappointed in the way of life and traditions characteristic of representatives of his society. Who is Oblomov? This is a descendant of a landowner family who is bored with working in an office, and therefore does not leave his sofa for days. This is a generally accepted opinion, but it is not entirely correct. Oblomov could not get used to life in St. Petersburg, because the people around him were entirely calculating, heartless individuals. The main character of the novel, unlike them, is smart, educated and, most importantly, has high spiritual qualities. But why doesn’t he want to work then? The fact is that Oblomov, like Onegin and Rudin, does not see the point in such work, such life. These people cannot work only for material well-being. Each of them requires a high spiritual goal. But it doesn’t exist or it turned out to be insolvent. And Onegin, and Rudin, and Oblomov become “superfluous”. Goncharov contrasted Stolz, his childhood friend, with the main character of his novel. This character initially creates a positive impression on the reader. Stolz is a hardworking, purposeful person. It was not by chance that the writer endowed this hero with German origin. Goncharov seems to be hinting that only Russian people can suffer from Oblomovism. And in the last chapters it becomes clear that there is nothing behind Stolz’s hard work. This person has neither dreams nor high ideas. He acquires sufficient means of subsistence and stops, not continuing his development. The influence of the “extra person” on others It is also worth saying a few words about the heroes who surround the “extra person”.

The literary characters discussed in this article are lonely and unhappy. Some of them end their lives too early. In addition, “extra people” cause grief to others. Especially women who had the imprudence to love them. Pierre Bezukhov is sometimes counted among the “superfluous people.” In the first part of the novel, he is in continuous melancholy, searching for something. He spends a lot of time at parties, buys paintings, and reads a lot. Unlike the above-mentioned heroes, Bezukhov finds himself; he does not die either physically or morally.

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 think about the images of extra people in XIX literature 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 my work, the main literature was N. A. Dobrolyubov’s critical article “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.

The “superfluous person” is a social and psychological type that 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 such a turn 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 a very strange person, and this strangeness, it seems to me, arose 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 all sincere manifestations of 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, sharing 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, Vera is the only woman who loves and understands the hero, this is the 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, more valuable 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 for what it made of him " 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 stranger, 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 imperishable, 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 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 new type person, a new character that directly reflected the influence historical era on the 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 came in, 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 beautifully defined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and narrow, as if he had grown out of it." Nothing seemed to be in his favor. But very soon those present felt 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 the house and against her mother’s wishes to unite her 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, 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 his joy of 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 happened with both teaching activities and agronomic changes 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 of her loving heart, hopes for understanding and support from her loved one, for his bold and desperate step, for 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 friend of Oblomov Andrei Stolts into the plot, as well as a love conflict, in the center of which is the captivating image of Olga Ilyinskaya, seem to bring the character of the title character out of a state of hibernation, help him to open up in dynamics and, thus, revive and even idealize drawn in part I satirical portrait Oblomov. 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 of 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.

Druzhinin also noted that at least two significant topics are being developed in it. 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 the real personality of 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 only child in the family they spoiled him and forgave him everything. 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 life. adult life, 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 great person, a poet, a dreamer, but he is limited only to 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 still, this does not prevent Oblomov from communicating, not making friends, but 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 person, not life thinker 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 such an act, says that work is already hard work, and here you still need to 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 is why he does not seek to tie Olga with any ties, he just wants 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.

The most important question of the novel is: “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,” which means their souls, their external world is it the same too? 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 fate.

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 attractiveness to the reader, they will be lost ideological meaning works. 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.

Introduction

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

“Deep changes in the socio-political and spiritual life of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, associated with two significant events - Patriotic War 1812 and the Decembrist movement - determined the main dominants of Russian culture of this period." Development of realism in Russian literature: In 3 volumes - M., 1974. - T. 1. P. 18.. Realistic works appear in which writers explore the problem of relationships between the individual and society at a higher level. Now they are no longer interested in the individual striving to be free from society. The subject of research by word artists is “the influence of society on personality, self-worth human personality, her right to freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of her abilities" Literary dictionary. - M., 1987. - P. 90. .

This is how one of the themes of classical Russian literature arose and developed - the theme of the “superfluous man”.

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

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

1) we study the issues of the origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature;

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

The origin and development of the theme of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature

the odd man out Russian literature

IN mid-18th century century the dominant trend throughout artistic culture became classicism. The first national tragedies and comedies appear (A. Sumarokov, D. Fonvizin). The most striking poetic works were created by G. Derzhavin.

At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, the decisive influence on the development of literature, in particular on the emergence of the theme of the “superfluous man,” was exerted by historical events era. In 1801, Tsar Alexander I came to power in Russia. The beginning of the 19th century was felt by everyone as new period in the history of the country. Later, Pushkin wrote in verse: “The days of Alexandrov are a wonderful beginning” Pushkin A.S. Collection op. V. 10 vol. - M., 1977. - T. 5, P. 212.. Indeed, it encouraged many and many and seemed wonderful. A number of restrictions in the field of book publishing were lifted, a liberal censorship Charter was adopted and censorship was relaxed. New educational institutions were opened: gymnasiums, universities, a number of lyceums, in particular the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum (1811), which played a big role in the history of Russian culture and statehood: it was from its walls that the greatest poet of Russia, Pushkin, and its most outstanding statesman XIX century - future chancellor Prince A. Gorchakov. A new European standard was established for more than rational system government institutions - ministries, in particular the Ministry of Public Education. Dozens of new magazines have appeared. The journal “Bulletin of Europe” (1802-1830) is especially characteristic. It was created and initially published by the remarkable figure of Russian culture N.M. Karamzin. The magazine was conceived as a conductor of new ideas and phenomena European life. Karamzin followed them in his writing, establishing such a direction as sentimentalism (the story “Poor Liza”), with its idea of ​​equality of people, however, only in the sphere of feelings: “even peasant women know how to love.” At the same time, it was Karamzin who, already in 1803, began work on the “History of the Russian State,” which clarifies the special role of Russia as a historically developed organism. It is no coincidence that the enthusiasm with which the volumes of this history were received upon their publication. The discoveries helped greatly in understanding this role of Russia early XIX century in the history of Russian culture (the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was found and published in 1800) and Russian folk art (“Songs of Kirsha Danilov” was published - 1804).

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

The War of 1812, called the Patriotic War, played a huge role in the life of Russia and in its understanding of its place in the world. “The year 1812 was a great era in the life of Russia” Quote. from: Development of realism in Russian literature: In 3 volumes - T. 2. P. 90. - wrote great critic and thinker V.G. Belinsky. And the point is not only in external victories, which ended with the entry of Russian troops into Paris, but precisely in the internal awareness of itself as Russia, which found expression, first of all, in literature.

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

Here is the hero of the comedy A.S. Griboedova (1795-1829) “Woe from Wit” Chatsky. His image reflected typical features Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, freedom-loving. But his views are far from real life. Griboyedov, the creator of the first realistic play, it was quite difficult to cope with my task. Indeed, unlike his predecessors (Fonvizin, Sumarokov), who wrote plays according to the laws of classicism, where good and evil were clearly separated from each other, Griboyedov made each hero an individual, a living person who tends to make mistakes. The main character of the comedy, Chatsky, turns out to be, with all his intelligence and positive qualities, a man superfluous to society. After all, a person is not alone in the world, he lives in society and constantly comes into contact with other people. Everything that Chatsky believed in - in his mind and advanced ideas - not only did not help win the heart of his beloved girl, but, on the contrary, pushed her away from him forever. In addition, it is precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions that Famus society rejects him and declares him crazy See: Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. - M., 1978. .

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

“Russia’s heart will not forget you, like its first love!..” Quote. by: Skaftymov A.P. Moral quests of Russian writers. - M., 1972. - P. 12.. A lot has been said over more than one and a half centuries of wonderful words about Pushkin the man and about Pushkin the poet. But perhaps no one said it so poetically sincerely and so psychologically accurately as Tyutchev did in these lines. And at the same time, what is expressed in them in the language of poetry is completely consistent with the truth, confirmed by time, by the strict court of history.

The first Russian national poet, the founder of all subsequent Russian literature, the beginning of all its beginnings - such is the recognized place and significance of Pushkin in the development of the Russian art of speech. But to this we should add one more and very significant one. Pushkin was able to achieve all this because for the first time - at the highest aesthetic level he achieved - he raised his creations to the level of “enlightenment of the century” - European spiritual life of the 19th century and thereby rightfully introduced Russian literature as another and most significant national literature. original literature into the family of the most developed literatures of the world at that time.

Throughout almost the entire 1820s, Pushkin worked on his greatest work, the novel Eugene Onegin. This is the first realistic novel in the history of not only Russian, but also world literature. “Eugene Onegin” is the pinnacle of Pushkin’s creativity. Here, as in none of Pushkin’s works, Russian life is reflected in its movement and development, the change of generations and at the same time the change and struggle of ideas. Dostoevsky noted that in the image of Onegin, Pushkin created “the type of Russian wanderer, a wanderer to this day and in our days, the first to guess him with his brilliant instinct, with his historical destiny and with his enormous significance in our group destiny...” Quote. by: Berkovsky I.Ya. On the global significance of Russian literature. - L., 1975. - P. 99..

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

At the end of the novel, the hero comes to a terrifying conclusion: all his life he was “a stranger to everyone...” Pushkin A.S. Collection op. V. 10 vol. - T. 8. P. 156.. What is the reason for this? The answer is the novel itself. From its first pages, Pushkin analyzes the process of formation of Onegin’s personality. The hero receives a typical upbringing for his time under the guidance of a foreign tutor, he is separated from national environment, it’s not for nothing that he even knows Russian nature from walks in Summer Garden. Onegin perfectly studied the “science of tender passion” Ibid. - P. 22., but it gradually replaces in him the ability to feel deeply. Describing Onegin’s life in St. Petersburg, Pushkin uses the words “dissemble”, “appear”, “appear” Ibid. - P. 30, 45.. Yes, indeed, Evgeniy very early understood the difference between the ability to appear and to be in reality. If Pushkin’s hero were an empty man, perhaps he would have been satisfied with spending his life in theaters, clubs and balls, but Onegin is a thinking man, he quickly ceases to be satisfied with secular victories and “everyday pleasures” Ibid. - P. 37.. The “Russian blues” takes possession of him. Ibid. - P. 56.. Onegin is not accustomed to work, “languishing with spiritual emptiness” Ibid. - P. 99., he tries to find entertainment in reading, but does not find in books anything that could reveal to him the meaning of life. By the will of fate, Onegin ends up in the village, but these changes also do not change anything in his life.

“Whoever lived and thought cannot help but despise people in his soul” Ibid. - P. 138. - Pushkin leads us to such a bitter conclusion. Of course, the trouble is not that Onegin thinks, but that he lives in a time when thinking man inevitably doomed to loneliness, he turns out to be an “extra person.” He is not interested in what mediocre people live with, but he cannot find use for his powers, and he does not always know why. The result is the complete loneliness of the hero. But Onegin is lonely not only because he was disappointed in the world, but also because he gradually lost the ability to see the true meaning in friendship, love, and the closeness of human souls.

A superfluous person in society, “a stranger to everyone,” Onegin is burdened by his existence. For him, proud in his indifference, there was nothing to do; he “didn’t know how to do anything” Ibid. - P. 25.. The absence of any goal or work that makes life meaningful is one of the reasons for Onegin’s inner emptiness and melancholy, so brilliantly revealed in his reflections on his fate in excerpts from “The Journey”:

“Why wasn’t I wounded by a bullet in the chest?

Why am I not a frail old man?

How is this poor tax farmer?

Why, as the Tula assessor,

Am I not lying in paralysis?

Why can’t I feel it in my shoulder?

Even rheumatism? - ah, Creator!

I am young, the life in me is strong;

What should I expect? melancholy, melancholy! Right there. - P. 201..

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

Onegin's tragedy is the tragedy of a lonely man, but not a romantic hero running away from people, but a man who is cramped in a world of false passions, monotonous entertainment and empty pastime. And therefore, Pushkin’s novel becomes a condemnation not of the “superfluous man” Onegin, but of the society that forced the hero to live exactly such a life.

Onegin and Pechorin (the image of Pechorin’s “superfluous man” will be discussed in more detail below) are the heroes in whose image the features of the “superfluous man” were embodied most clearly. However, even after Pushkin and Lermontov this topic continued its development. Onegin and Pechorin begin a long series of social types and characters generated by Russian historical reality. These are Beltov, and Rudin, and Agarin, and Oblomov.

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

According to Goncharov, the life of any person depends on his upbringing and on his heredity. Oblomov was brought up in a noble family with patriarchal traditions. His parents, like his grandfathers, lived a lazy, carefree and carefree life. They did not need to earn their living, they did not do anything: the serfs worked for them. With such a life, a person plunges into a deep sleep: he does not live, but exists. After all, in the Oblomov family everything came down to one thing: eat and sleep. The peculiarities of the life of Oblomov’s family also influenced him. And although Ilyushenka was a living child, the constant care of his mother, which saved him from the difficulties that arose in front of him, his weak-willed father, his constant sleep in Oblomovka - all this could not help but affect his character. And Oblomov grew up as sleepy, apathetic and unadapted to life as his fathers and grandfathers. As for heredity, the author accurately captured the character of the Russian person with his laziness and careless attitude towards life.

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

So, at the very beginning of life, a program was laid down for the main characters: vegetation, sleep - for the “superfluous man” Oblomov, energy and vital activity - for Stolz.

The main part of Oblomov’s life was spent on the sofa, in a robe, inactive. Undoubtedly, the author condemns such a life. Oblomov's life can be compared with the life of people in Paradise. He does nothing, everything is brought to him on a silver platter, he doesn’t want to solve problems, he sees wonderful dreams. He is taken out of this Paradise first by Stolz, and then by Olga. But Oblomov cannot stand real life and I.A. Goncharov dies. Oblomov. - M., 1972. .

The traits of an “extra person” also appear in some of L.N.’s heroes. Tolstoy (1828 - 1910). Here it is necessary to take into account that Tolstoy, in his own way, “builds action on spiritual turning points, drama, dialogues, disputes” Linkov V.Ya. The world and man in the works of L. Tolstoy and I. Bunin. - M., 1989. - P. 78. . It is appropriate to recall the reasoning of Anna Zegers: “Long before the masters of modernist psychologism, Tolstoy was able to convey in all spontaneity the stream of vague, half-conscious thoughts of the hero, but with him this did not come to the detriment of the integrity of the picture: he recreated the spiritual chaos that takes possession of one or another character at one time or another. acutely dramatic moments of life, but he himself did not succumb to this chaos” Quote. by: Tarasov B.N. Analysis of bourgeois consciousness in the story by L.N. Tolstoy “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” // Questions of Literature. - 1982. - No. 3. - P. 15. .

Tolstoy is a master of depicting the “dialectics of the soul” Shepeleva Z. The art of creating a portrait in the works of L. Tolstoy. - In the book: Mastery of Russian classics: Sat. Art. - M., 1959. - P. 190.. He shows how sharp a person’s discovery of himself can be (“The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, “Posthumous Notes of Elder Fyodor Kuzmich”). From the point of view of Leo Tolstoy, egoism is not only evil for the egoist himself and those around him, but a lie and disgrace. Here is the plot of the story “The Death of Ivan Ilyich.” This plot, as it were, unfolds the entire spectrum of inevitable consequences and properties of an egoistic life. The hero's impersonality, the emptiness of his existence, indifferent cruelty towards his neighbors and, finally, the incompatibility of egoism with reason are shown. “Egoism is madness” Tolstoy L.N. Collection cit.: In 14 volumes - M., 1952. - T. 9. P. 89. . This idea, formulated by Tolstoy in his Diary, is one of the main ones in the story and clearly manifested itself when Ivan Ilyich realized that he was dying.

Knowledge of life's truth, according to Tolstoy, requires from a person not intellectual abilities, but courage and moral purity. A person does not accept evidence not out of stupidity, but out of fear of the truth. The bourgeois circle to which Ivan Ilyich belonged developed a whole system of deception that hides the essence of life. Thanks to her, the heroes of the story are not aware of injustice social order, cruelty and indifference to others, emptiness and meaninglessness of one’s existence. The reality of social, public, family and any other collective life can only be revealed to a person who really accepts the essence of his personal life with its inevitable suffering and death. But it is precisely such a person who becomes “superfluous” to society.

Tolstoy continued his criticism of the selfish way of life, begun by The Death of Ivan Ilyich, in The Kreutzer Sonata, focusing exclusively on family relationships and marriage. As is known, he gave great value family in life, both personal and public, being convinced that “the human race develops only in the family.” Not a single Russian writer XIX centuries we will not find as many bright pages depicting a happy family life as in Tolstoy.

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

Tolstoy is a staunch opponent of individualism. He depicted and assessed in his works the private existence of a person, which is in no way connected with the universal world, as defective. The idea of ​​the need for man to suppress the animal nature of Tolstoy after the crisis was one of the main ones both in journalism and in artistic creativity. The selfish path of a person who directs all efforts to achieve personal well-being, in the eyes of the author of “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” is deeply erroneous, completely hopeless, never, under any circumstances, achieving the goal. This is one of those problems that Tolstoy pondered over many years with amazing tenacity and persistence. “To consider one’s life as the center of life is for a person madness, insanity, an aberration” Ibid. - P. 178. . The conviction that personal happiness is unattainable by an individual lies at the heart of the book “On Life.”

The resolution of the deeply personal experience of the inevitability of death is accomplished by the hero in an ethical and social act, which became the main feature of Tolstoy’s works last period. It is no coincidence that “Notes of a Madman” remained unfinished. There is every reason to assume that the story did not satisfy the writer with the idea itself. The prerequisite for the hero's crisis were the special qualities of his personality, which manifested themselves in early childhood when he was unusually acutely aware of manifestations of injustice, evil, and cruelty. Hero -- special person, not like everyone else, superfluous to society. And the sudden fear of death experienced by him, a thirty-five-year-old healthy man, is assessed by others as a simple deviation from the norm. The unusual nature of the hero one way or another led to the idea of ​​the exclusivity of his fate. The idea of ​​the story was losing its universal significance. The uniqueness of the hero became the flaw through which the reader escaped the circle of the writer’s arguments.

Tolstoy's heroes are absorbed primarily in the search for personal happiness, and they come to world problems, common ones, only if their logic of seeking personal harmony leads to them, as was the case with Levin or Nekhlyudov. But, as Tolstoy wrote in his Diary, “you cannot live for yourself alone. This is death." Ibid. - T. 11. P. 111. . Tolstoy reveals the failure of egoistic existence as a lie, ugliness and evil. And this gives his criticism a special power of persuasiveness. “...If a person’s activity is sanctified by the truth,” he wrote on December 27, 1889 in his Diary, “then the consequences of such activity are good (good for both oneself and others); the manifestation of goodness is always beautiful” Ibid. - P. 115..

So, beginning of XIX century - the time of the emergence of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature. And then, throughout the “golden age of Russian culture,” we find in the works of great poets and writers vivid images of heroes who became superfluous to the society in which they lived. One of such vivid images is the image of Pechorin.