Research work “The Superfluous Man” in Russian Literature

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 ones were opening educational establishments: 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 most great poet Russia - Pushkin and its most outstanding statesman figure XIX century - the 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 activity, affirming 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 special role 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(published “Songs of Kirsha Danilov” - 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 strong and weaknesses. 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 great era in the life of Russia" Quoted. 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 most fully and consistently reflected the ideas and views of the Enlightenment. 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 the typical features of the Decembrist: Chatsky is ardent, dreamy, and 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. Moreover, it was precisely because of his freedom-loving opinions Famusov 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 in more than one and a half years more than a century wonderful words about Pushkin the man and 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 Russian art words. 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 no other Pushkin's works, reflected Russian life 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 carries within himself character traits 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 the 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 “hypocrite”, “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 disillusioned with the world, but also because he gradually lost the ability to see true meaning in friendship, love, 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. A whole long series begins with Onegin and Pechorin 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 manifested 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 immediacy 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 was clearly manifested 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 of the 19th century can find so many bright pages depicting a happy family life, like 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 has become main feature works of Tolstoy of the 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. A hero is a special person, not like everyone else, superfluous to society. And the sudden fear of death experienced by him, thirty-five years old healthy person, 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.

At the beginning of the 19th century, works appeared in Russian literature, the central problem of which was the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And, as a result, it is created new image- the image of a “superfluous” person, a stranger among his own, rejected by his environment. The heroes of these works are people of inquisitive minds, gifted, talented, who had the opportunity to become real “heroes of their time” - writers, artists, scientists - and who, in Belinsky’s words, became “smart useless people”, “suffering egoists”, “reluctant egoists” . The image of the “superfluous person” changed as society developed, acquiring new qualities, until, finally, it reached full expression in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov".
The first in the gallery of “extra” people are Onegin and Pechorin - heroes who are characterized by cold matter-of-factness, an independent character, a “sharp, chilled mind”, where irony borders on sarcasm. These are extraordinary people, and therefore, rarely satisfied with themselves, dissatisfied with an easy, carefree existence. They are not satisfied with the monotonous life of the “golden youth”. It’s easy for heroes to answer with certainty what doesn’t suit them, but it’s much more difficult to answer what they need from life. Onegin and Pechorin are unhappy, “lost interest in life”; they move in a vicious circle, where every action implies further disappointment. Dreamy romantics in their youth, they turned into cold cynics, cruel egoists, as soon as they saw the “light.” Who or what is the reason that smart, educated people Have you turned into “superfluous” people who have not found their place in life? It would seem that everything was in their hands, so this means that this is the heroes’ own fault? We can say that they themselves are to blame for how their fate turned out, but I am still inclined to believe that no one and nothing can change a person as much as society, the social environment, the conditions in which this or that person finds himself. It was the “light” that turned Onegin and Pechorin into “moral cripples.” Pechorin admits in his diary: “...My soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable...” But if the rebellious nature of Pechorin, a man of the 30s of the 19th century, thirsts for activity, seeks food for the mind, painfully reflects on the meaning of life, about one’s role in society, then Onegin’s nature of the 20s was, to one degree or another, characterized by mental apathy and indifference to the world around him. The main difference between Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin - in the final result to which both heroes come: if Pechorin was able to defend his convictions, denied secular conventions, did not exchange himself for petty aspirations, that is, he completely retained his moral integrity, despite internal contradictions, then Onegin wasted mental strength motivating to action. He lost the ability to actively fight and, “having lived without a goal, without work until he was twenty-six years old ... he did not know how to do anything.” Lermontov portrays to us a stronger character than Pushkin, but together they show how a gifted person is destroyed surrounding reality, secular society.
In Goncharov's novel we have the story of a man who does not have the makings of a determined fighter, but has all the data to be a good, decent person. “Oblomov” is a kind of “book of results” of the interaction between the individual and society, moral beliefs and social conditions, in which a person is placed. And if from the works of Lermontov and Pushkin we can study the anatomy of one human soul, with all its contradictions, then in Goncharov’s novel we can trace a whole phenomenon of social life - Oblomovism, which collected the vices of one of the types of noble youth of the 50s of the 19th century. In his work, Goncharov “wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before us was elevated to a type, giving it a generic and permanent meaning,” wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov. Oblomov is not a new face in Russian literature, “but before he was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel.”
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic nature, divorced from real life. "Lying... was his normal state." Oblomov's life is a pink nirvana on a soft sofa: slippers and a robe are integral companions of Oblomov's existence. Living in a narrow world of his own creation, fenced off from the bustling real life by dusty curtains, the hero loved to make unrealistic plans. He never brought anything to completion; any of his undertakings suffered the fate of a book that Oblomov had been reading for several years on one page. However, Oblomov’s inaction was not raised to such an extreme degree as, for example, Manilov from “ Dead souls“, and Dobrolyubov was right when he wrote that “...Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is looking for something in his life, thinking about something...” Like Onegin with Pechorin, Goncharov’s hero in his youth was a romantic, thirsting for an ideal, burning with the desire for activity, but, like previous heroes, “the flower of life blossomed and did not bear fruit.” Oblomov became disillusioned with life, lost interest in knowledge, realized the futility of his existence and lay down on the sofa, believing that in this way he could preserve his moral integrity. So he “laid through” his life, “slept through” love and, as his friend Stolz said, “his troubles began with the inability to put on stockings and ended with the inability to live.” So the main difference
I see Oblomov from Onegin and Pechorin in the fact that if the last two heroes denied social vices in the struggle, in action, then the first one “protested” on the sofa, believing that this is the best way of life. Therefore, it can be argued that the “smart unnecessary” Onegin and Pechorin and the “superfluous” person Oblomov are completely various people. The first two heroes are “moral cripples” due to the fault of society, and the third is due to the fault of their own nature, their own inaction.
Based on the characteristics of life Russia XIX century, we can say that if “superfluous” people were found everywhere, regardless of the country and political system, then Oblomovism is a purely Russian phenomenon, generated by the Russian reality of that time. It is no coincidence that Pushkin in his novel uses the expression “Russian blues,” and Dobrolyubov sees in Oblomov “our indigenous folk type.”
Many critics of that time, and even the author of the novel himself, saw in the image of Oblomov a “sign of the times,” arguing that the image of a “superfluous” person is typical only for feudal Russia of the 19th century. They saw the root of all evil in state structure countries. But I cannot agree that the “suffering egoist” Pechorin, the “smart uselessness” Onegin, the apathetic dreamer Oblomov are the product of the autocratic-serf system. Our time, the 20th century, can serve as proof of this. And now there is a large group of “superfluous” people, and in the 90s of the 20th century, many find themselves out of place and do not find the meaning of life. At the same time, some turn into mocking cynics, like Onegin or Pechorin, others, like Oblomov, kill the best years of their lives, lying on the sofa. So Pechorin is a “hero” of our time, and Oblomovism is a phenomenon not only of the 19th century, but also of the 20th century. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous” person continues, and more than one will say with bitterness: “My soul is spoiled by light...” Therefore, I believe that it is not the fault of the “unnecessary” people. serfdom, but a society in which true values ​​are distorted, and vices often wear the mask of virtue, where a person can be trampled by a gray, silent crowd.

Municipal educational institution

Kazachinskaya secondary school"

Abstract on literature

"The extra man type"

Ivanova Daria

Work checked: ,

With. Kazachinskoe

1. Introduction.

2. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century.

2.1. Spiritual drama of the young Petersburger Evgeny Onegin.

2.2. The tragedy of the “hero of our time” - Pechorin.

2.3. The wandering fate of Rudin.

3. List of references used

In Russian literature of the early 19th century, the concept of “the type of superfluous person” appeared. A “superfluous person” is a person of significant ability, moderately educated, but without a certain good complete education. He is unable to realize his talents public service. Belonging to the upper classes of society, he mainly spends his time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to relieve his boredom, leading to dueling, gambling, and other self-destructive behavior. The appearance of this literary type was associated with the rebellious situation in the country, since the 19th century was the time of the establishment of capitalism in Russia:

The nineteenth century is a rebellious, strict century -

He goes and says: “Poor man!

What are you thinking about? take a pen and write:

There is no creator in creations, there is no soul in nature...()

The topic of the “extra person” is still relevant today, since, firstly, it cannot be called fully studied. Literary scholars have still not come to a consensus on the typical qualities inherent in the “superfluous person.” Each writer endowed his hero with special qualities characteristic of his time.

It is not known exactly who and when the image of the “extra man” was created. Some believe that he created it. Others consider him to be the author of the concept. In the draft version of Chapter VIII of “Eugene Onegin,” he himself calls his hero “superfluous”: “Onegin stands as something superfluous.” But there is also a version that the type of “superfluous man” introduced into Russian literature. Secondly, even today you can meet people who do not fit into the general way of life of society and recognize other values.

The purpose of this work is to show the evolution of the “extra person” type using the example of works from school curriculum: “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time”. The novel “Rudin” was studied independently.

The story of the creation of “Eugene Onegin” is amazing. worked on it for over eight years. The novel consisted of stanzas and chapters written in different time. Belinsky said about it that this is “Pushkin’s most sincere work, the most beloved child of his imagination. Here is all his life, all his soul, all his love; here are his feelings, concepts, ideals.”

Eugene Onegin - main character works, a young man, fashionable, perfectly fitting into the social life of St. Petersburg, studied “something and somehow.” He is not accustomed to serious, consistent work. His appearance in society happened quite early, so he was tired of high society. Eugene masterfully portrayed feelings in order to succeed in secular society. But, having become a virtuoso in this game, having reached the limit, he involuntarily went beyond it and was disappointed. This happened because adaptation to almost any system of relationships is accompanied by a certain reaction: “In short: the Russian blues / Little by little took possession of him.”

Onegin's conflict became a kind of expression of protest against the laws of society that suppress personality in a person, which deprive him of the right to be himself. Vacancy secular society made the main character's soul empty:

No: his feelings cooled down early;

He was tired of the noise of the world;

The beauties didn't last long

The subject of his usual thoughts;

The betrayals have become tiresome;

I'm tired of friends and friendship...

He tries to find something he likes, but the search lasts for long years.

So, in search of Onegin, he ends up in the village. Here:

Onegin locked himself at home,

Yawning, he took up the pen,

I wanted to write - but hard work

He was sick...

He lined the shelf with a group of books,

I read and read, but to no avail...

Then Onegin takes on the management of his uncle’s estate, but he quickly gets bored with this too. Two tests awaited Onegin's village. The test of friendship and the test of love showed that, despite external freedom, the main character never freed himself from false prejudices and opinions. In his relationship with Tatyana, on the one hand, Onegin acted nobly: “But he did not want to deceive/The gullibility of an innocent soul,” and was able to adequately explain himself to the girl. You cannot blame the hero for not responding to Tatyana’s love, because everyone knows the saying: “You can’t order your heart.” Another is that he acted according to his sharp, chilled mind, and not his feelings.

The quarrel with Lensky was invented by Evgeni himself. He was well aware of this: “Having called himself to a secret trial,/He accused himself of many things...”. For the fear of whispers and laughter behind his back, he paid with the life of his friend. Onegin himself did not notice how he became a prisoner again public opinion. After Lensky’s death, a lot changed in him, but it’s a pity that only tragedy could open his eyes.

Thus, Eugene Onegin becomes a “superfluous man.” Belonging to the light, he despises it. Onegin does not find his place in life. He is lonely and unclaimed. Tatiana, with whom Eugene will fall in love, finding her noble socialite, will not reciprocate his feelings. Life brought Onegin to the logical conclusion of his youth - this is a complete collapse, which can only be survived by rethinking his previous life. It is known that in the last, encrypted chapter, Pushkin brings his hero to the camp of the Decembrists.

Following this, he showed the image of a new “extra person”. Pechorin became him. In his novel “Hero of Our Time,” M. Yu. Lermontov depicted the 30s of the 19th century in Russia. These were difficult times in the life of the country. Having suppressed the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I sought to turn the country into a barracks - everything living, the slightest manifestation of free thought, was mercilessly persecuted and suppressed.

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” consists of five chapters, each of which has a complete plot and an independent system of characters. We learn about Pechorin’s character gradually from the words different people. First, staff captain Maxim Maksimych talks about him, then the author, and finally, the main character himself talks about himself.

The main character of the work is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, an extraordinary, intelligent, strong-willed person. He has a broad outlook, high education and culture. He quickly and accurately judges people and life in general.

The complexity of the protagonist’s personality is the duality and inconsistency of his character, which the simple-minded Maxim Maksimych notices: “... in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired - but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; knock with a shutter, he will tremble and turn pale, but with me he went to hunt a wild boar one on one...” This inconsistency is also manifested in the portrait of Pechorin: “Despite light color his hair, his mustache and eyebrows were black - a sign of the breed in a person”; "his eyes didn't laugh when he laughed." The author gives two explanations for this: “This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep sadness.”

Pechorin himself accurately summarizes: “It’s like there are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him.” It follows from this that Pechorin is a contradictory person, and he himself understands this: “... I have an innate passion to contradict; “My whole life has been nothing but a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or reason.”

In addition, he is distinguished by a constant desire for action. Pechorin cannot stay in one place, surrounded by the same people. Having left the care of his relatives, he set out in pursuit of pleasure. But very quickly I became disillusioned with all this. Then Pechorin tries to do science and read books. But nothing brings him satisfaction, and in the hope that “boredom does not live under Chechen bullets,” he goes to the Caucasus.

However, wherever Pechorin appears, he becomes “an ax in the hands of fate,” “an instrument of execution.” He disrupts the life of “peaceful” smugglers, kidnaps Bela, thereby destroying the life of not only the girl herself, but also her father and Kazbich, achieves Mary’s love and refuses it, kills Grushnitsky in a duel, predicts the fate of Vulich, undermines old man Maxim Maksimych’s faith in younger generation. Why is Pechorin doing this?

Unlike “Eugene Onegin”, the plot, which is built as a system of testing the hero with moral values: friendship, love, freedom, in “A Hero of Our Time” Pechorin himself tests all the main spiritual values, conducting experiments on himself and others.

We see that Pechorin does not take into account the feelings of other people, practically does not pay attention to them. We can say that this person's actions are deeply selfish. They are all the more selfish because he justifies himself by explaining to Mary: “... this has been my fate since childhood! Everyone read on my face signs of bad qualities that were not there; but they were expected - and they were born... I became secretive... I became vindictive... I became envious... I learned to hate... I began to deceive... I became moral cripple...»

But it seems to me that one cannot blame only Pechorin himself for the fact that he “became a moral cripple.” Society is also to blame for this, in which there is no worthy use best qualities hero. The same society that bothered Onegin. So Pechorin learned to hate, to lie, he became secretive, he “buried his best feelings in the depths of his heart, and there they died.”

Thus, we can say that a typical young man of the 30s of the 19th century, on the one hand, is not devoid of intelligence and talents, “immense forces” lurk in his soul, and on the other hand, he is an egoist who breaks hearts and destroys lives. Pechorin is both an “evil genius” and at the same time a victim of society.

In Pechorin’s diary we read: “...My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me; to arouse feelings of love, devotion and fear - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power.” His attention to women, the desire to achieve their love is the need of his ambition, the desire to subjugate those around him to his will.

This is evidenced by his love for Vera. After all, there was a barrier between Pechorin and Vera - Vera was married, and this attracted Pechorin, who sought to achieve his goal despite any circumstances.

But Pechorin’s love is still more than just intrigue. He is really afraid of losing her: “I jumped out onto the porch like crazy, jumped on my Circassian, who was being driven around the yard, and set off at full speed on the road to Pyatigorsk. I mercilessly drove the exhausted horse, which, snoring and covered in foam, rushed me along the rocky road.” Vera was the only woman whom Pechorin truly loved. At the same time, only Vera knew and loved Pechorin, not the fictional one, but the real one, with all his advantages and disadvantages. “I should hate you... You gave me nothing but suffering,” she says to Pechorin. But, as we know, this was the fate of most people with whom Pechorin came close...

In a moment of sadness, Pechorin reasons: “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born? And, it’s true, it existed, and, it’s true, there was a high purpose for me, because I feel immense strength in my soul. But I did not guess my purpose, I was carried away by the lures of empty and ignoble passions.” And in fact, did Pechorin have a “high purpose”?

Firstly, Pechorin is a hero of his time, because the tragedy of his life reflected the tragedy of an entire generation of young people talented people, which have not found a worthy use. And secondly, the protagonist’s doubts about all the values ​​firmly defined for other people are what dooms Pechorin to loneliness, what makes him “an extra person,” “Onegin’s younger brother.” sees similarities between Onegin and Pechorin in many qualities. He says about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” But are there any differences between them?

There are, and quite significant ones. Onegin, as Belinsky writes: “in the novel is a man who was killed by upbringing and social life, to whom everything took a closer look, everything became boring. Pechorin is not like that. This person does not indifferently, not automatically, bear his suffering: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he bitterly blames himself for his errors. Internal questions are incessantly heard within him, they disturb him, torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution: he spies every movement of his heart, examines his every thought.” Thus, he sees the similarity of Onegin and Pechorin in their typicality for their time. But Onegin turns the search for himself into an escape from himself, and Pechorin wants to find himself, but his search is full of disappointments.

Indeed, time does not stand still, and the development of the “superfluous man theme” has not stood still either. She found her continuation in creativity. Main subject artistic image This writer has “the rapidly changing physiognomy of Russian people of the cultural stratum.” The writer is attracted to the “Russian Hamlets” - a type of nobleman-intellectual captured by the cult of philosophical knowledge of the 1830s - early 1840s. One of these people appeared in the first novel “Rudin”, created in 1855. He became the prototype of the main character Dmitry Rudin.

Dmitry Rudin appears at the estate of the wealthy lady Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya. The meeting with him becomes an event that attracted the most interested attention of the inhabitants and guests of the estate: “A man of about thirty-five, tall, somewhat stooped, curly-haired, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent, entered... with a liquid sparkle in his quick dark blue eyes, with straight wide nose and beautifully defined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and tight, as if he had grown out of it.”

Rudin's character is revealed in words. He is a brilliant orator: “Rudin possessed perhaps the highest secret - the music of eloquence. He knew how, by striking one string of hearts, he could make all the others vaguely ring and tremble.” Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. The statements of the main character of the work inspire and call for renewal of life, for heroic achievements. The power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion through words, is felt by everyone. Only Pigasov is embittered and does not recognize Rudin’s merits - out of envy and resentment for losing the dispute. However, for the unusual beautiful speeches there is a hidden emptiness.

In his relationship with Natalya, one of the main contradictions in Rudin’s character is revealed. Just the day before he spoke with inspiration about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly we see a man who has completely lost faith in himself. Rudin’s inability to take the last step was evident when at Avdyukhin’s pond, in response to Natalya’s question: “What do we need to do now?” he replied: “Submit to fate...”.

Rudin's lofty thoughts are combined with practical unpreparedness. He undertakes agronomic reforms, but, seeing the futility of his attempts, leaves, losing his “daily piece of bread.” An attempt to teach at a gymnasium and serve as a secretary for a dignitary ended in failure. “Rudin’s misfortune is that he doesn’t know Russia...” Lezhnev, who was completely opposite to Rudin, once said. Indeed, it is precisely this isolation from life that makes Rudin a “superfluous person.” The hero lives only by impulses of the soul and dreams. So he wanders, not finding a task that he can complete. And a few years later, having met Lezhnev, Rudin reproaches himself: “But I’m not worth the shelter. I ruined my life and did not serve thoughts as I should.” His wandering fate is echoed in the novel by a mournful and homeless landscape: “And in the yard the wind rose and howled with an ominous howl, heavily and angrily hitting the ringing glass. A long autumn night has arrived. It’s good for the one who sits under the roof of the house on such nights, who has a warm corner... And may the Lord help all homeless wanderers!”

The ending of the novel is tragic and heroic at the same time. Rudin dies on the barricades of Paris. All they will say about him is: “They killed a Pole.”

Rudin reflects the tragic fate of a man of Turgenev’s generation: He has enthusiasm; and this is the most precious quality in our time. We have all become unbearably reasonable, indifferent and lethargic; we fell asleep, we froze, and thanks to the one who will stir us up and warm us at least for a moment.”

Rudin is a different version of the “superfluous man” type compared to Onegin and Pechorin. Heroes of novels and in their own way life position an individualist and a “reluctant egoist,” and Rudin is not only a hero of another, later time, but also a different hero. Unlike his predecessors, Rudin strives for socially useful activities. He is not just alienated from the environment, but makes attempts to somehow change it. This significant difference between Rudin and Pechorin is indicated by: “One is an egoist, not thinking about anything other than his personal pleasures; the other is an enthusiast, completely forgetting about himself and completely absorbed in general issues; one lives for his passions, the other for his ideas "These are people of different eras, different natures."

So, the theme of the “extra person” comes to an end. In the 20th century, some writers returned to it. But the return is no longer a discovery: the 19th century discovered and exhausted the theme of the “superfluous man.”

Bibliography.

1. Eremina on literature. 9th grade: educational and methodological manual. – M.: Publishing House “Exam”, 2009.

2. Lermontov. Hero of our time. - M.: Publishing house of children's literature "VESELKA", Kyiv, 1975.

3. Pushkin Onegin. A novel in verse. Preface, note. And he will explain. Articles by S. Bondi. – M.: “Children’s Literature”, 1973.

4. Turgenev (Rudin. Noble nest. The day before. Fathers and sons.) Note. A. Tolstyakova. – M.: “Moscow Worker”, 1974.

5. Shalaev’s reference book for high school students. – M.: Philol. Slovo Island: OLMA-PRESS Education, 2005.

https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image002_160.jpg" width="507" height="507 src=">

Pushkin on the manuscript of “Eugene Onegin”.

https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image004_117.jpg" width="618" height="768 src=">

Illustration for the novel “Hero of Our Time.”

https://pandia.ru/text/78/016/images/image006_91.jpg" width="607" height="828 src=">

Rudin at Lasunsky.

20–50s of the 19th century.

Traits of an extra person

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

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

Not finding fulfillment of his talents in high circles, the hero spends his life in idle hobbies or tries to overcome boredom with duels, love affairs, gambling, adventurous adventures, participation in hostilities, and so on.

Representatives in literature

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

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

"The extra person" in the literary process

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

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

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

The image of a bored hero in the works of Russian literature
classics XIXV.

With all the diversity of literary
types in Russian classics of the 19th century, the image of a bored hero stands out clearly.
It is often correlated with the image of an “extra person”

"Extra person", "extra people" -
where did this term come from in Russian literature? Who first used it so successfully
him, that he firmly and for a long time established himself in the works of Pushkin, Lermontov,
Turgenev, Goncharova? Many literary scholars believe that it was invented by A.I.
Herzen. According to another version, Pushkin himself in draft form VIII chapters
“Eugene Onegin” called his hero superfluous: “Onegin stands as something superfluous.”

In addition to Onegin, many critics XIX centuries and
Some literary scholars of the twentieth century classify Pechorin, the heroes
novels by I.S. Turgenev Rudin and Lavretsky, as well as Oblomov I.A. Goncharov.

What are the main thematic
signs of these characters, “extra people”? It is first and foremost a personality
potentially capable of any social action. She does not accept offers
society “rules of the game”, characterized by disbelief in the possibility of changing anything.
“An extra person” is a contradictory personality, often in conflict with society and
his way of life. This is also a hero who is definitely dysfunctional in
relationships with parents, and unhappy in love. His position in society
unstable, contains contradictions: it is always connected with at least some aspect
nobility, but - already in the period of decline, fame and wealth are rather a memory. He
placed in an environment that is somehow alien to him: a higher or lower environment,
there is always a certain motive of alienation, which does not always immediately lie on the
surfaces. The hero is moderately educated, but this education is rather incomplete,
unsystematic; in a word, this is not a deep thinker, not a scientist, but a person with
the “power of judgment” to make quick but immature conclusions. often
inner emptiness, hidden uncertainty. Often - the gift of eloquence,
skills in writing, note-taking, or even writing poetry. Always some
the claim to be the judge of one's neighbors; a hint of hatred is required. In a word,
the hero is a victim of life's canons.

Novel "Eugene Onegin" - a work of amazing creative destiny. It was created over seven
years - from May 1823 to September 1830.

Pushkin, in the process of working on
novel, set himself the task of demonstrating in the image of Onegin “that
premature old age of the soul, which has become the main feature of the young
generations." And already in the first chapter the writer notes social factors,
determined the character of the main character. This is belonging to the upper class
nobility, upbringing, training, usual for this circle, first steps in the world,
experience of a “monotonous and motley” life for eight years. Life of the "free"
a nobleman not burdened with service - vain, carefree, full of entertainment
And romance novels, – fits into one tiringly long day..

In a word, Onegin in early youth- “fun and luxury child.” By the way, on this
Onegin’s life span is an original, witty, “scientific” person
small”, but still quite ordinary, obediently following the secular “decorum”
crowd." The only thing in which Onegin “was a true genius” was that “he knew more firmly
of all sciences,” as the Author notes, not without irony, was “the science of tender passion,” then
there is the ability to love without loving, to imitate feelings while remaining cold and
prudent.

The first chapter is a turning point in
the fate of the main character, who managed to abandon the stereotypes of the secular
behavior, from a noisy but internally empty “rite of life.” Thus Pushkin
showed how from a faceless crowd, but demanding unconditional obedience, suddenly
appeared bright extraordinary personality, capable of overthrowing the “burden” of secular
conventions, “get behind the hustle and bustle.”

Onegin's seclusion - his
an undeclared conflict with the world and with the society of village landowners - only
at first glance seems like a “fad” caused by purely individual
reasons: boredom, “Russian blues”. This is a new stage in the hero's life. Pushkin
emphasizes that this conflict of Onegin, “Onegin’s inimitable
strangeness" became a kind of spokesman for the protagonist’s protest against
social and spiritual dogmas that suppress a person’s personality, depriving him of his rights
To be youreself. And the emptiness of the hero’s soul became a consequence of the emptiness and
vacuity social life. Onegin is looking for new spiritual values: in
Petersburg and in the village he reads diligently and tries to write poetry. This search for him
new life truths stretched out for many years and remained unfinished.
The internal drama of this process is also obvious: Onegin is painfully freed
from the burden of old ideas about life and people, but the past does not let him go.
It seems that Onegin is the rightful owner own life. But that's only
illusion. In St. Petersburg and in the village he is equally bored - he still cannot
overcome mental laziness and dependence on “public opinion”.
The consequence of this was that the best inclinations of his nature were killed by secular
life. But a hero cannot be considered only a victim of society and circumstances. Having replaced
way of life, he accepted responsibility for his destiny. But having given up idleness
and the vanity of the world, alas, did not become an activist, but remained just a contemplator.
The feverish pursuit of pleasure gave way to solitary reflections
Main character.

For writers who devoted their time
creativity, attention to the theme of the “superfluous person”, it is characteristic to “test” one’s
hero through friendship, love, duel, death. Pushkin was no exception. Two
the trials that awaited Onegin in the village -
the test of love and the test of friendship - showed that external freedom automatically
does not entail liberation from false prejudices and opinions. In a relationship
with Tatyana Onegin showed himself to be noble and sincere thin man. AND
one cannot blame the hero for not responding to Tatiana’s love: to the heart, as
you know, you can’t order it. Another thing is that Onegin did not listen to his own voice
hearts, but the voices of reason. To confirm this, I will say that even in the first chapter
Pushkin noted in the main character a “sharp, chilled mind” and an inability to
strong feelings. And it was precisely this mental disproportion that became the reason for the failed
love of Onegin and Tatiana. Onegin also could not stand the test of friendship. And in this
In this case, the cause of the tragedy was his inability to live a life of feeling. No wonder
the author, commenting on the hero’s state before the duel, notes: “He could have feelings
discover / And not bristle like an animal.” And on Tatiana’s name day, and before
In a duel with Lensky, Onegin showed himself to be a “ball of prejudice”, “a hostage
secular canons”, deaf both to the voice of one’s own heart and to the feelings
Lensky. His behavior at the name day is the usual “secular anger”, and the duel is
a consequence of the indifference and fear of evil-tonguing of the inveterate breter Zaretsky and
neighboring landowners. Onegin himself did not notice how he became a prisoner of his old
idol – “public opinion”. After Lensky's murder, Evgeniy changed
just radically. It's a pity that only tragedy could reveal to him first
inaccessible world of feelings.

Onegin in a depressed state of mind
leaves the village and begins wandering around Russia. These travels give him
an opportunity to look at life more fully, to reevaluate oneself, to understand how
He wasted a lot of time and energy in empty pleasures.

In the eighth chapter, Pushkin showed a new
stage in Onegin's spiritual development. Having met Tatiana in St. Petersburg, Onegin
completely transformed, there was nothing left in him from the old, cold and
a rational person - he is an ardent lover, not noticing anything except
the object of his love (and in this way he is very reminiscent of Lensky). He experienced for the first time
a real feeling, but it turned into a new one love drama: now Tatyana
could not respond to his belated love. And, as before, in the foreground in
characterization of the hero - the relationship between reason and feeling. Now it's reason
was defeated - Onegin loves, “without heeding the strict penalties.” However, the text completely lacks the results of the spiritual
development of a hero who believed in love and happiness. This means that Onegin again did not achieve
desired goal, there is still no harmony between reason and feeling.

Thus, Evgeny Onegin
becomes a “superfluous person.” Belonging to the light, he despises it. Him, how
noted Pisarev, all that remains is to “give up on the boredom of social life,
as a necessary evil." Onegin does not find his true purpose and place in
life, he is burdened by his loneliness and lack of demand. Speaking in words
Herzen, “Onegin... an extra person in the environment where he is, but without possessing
the necessary strength of character, he just can’t break out of it.” But, in his own opinion
writer, the image of Onegin is not complete. After all, a novel in verse is essentially
ends with the following question: “What will Onegin be like in the future?” Myself
Pushkin leaves the character of his hero open, thereby emphasizing the
Onegin’s ability to abruptly change value orientations and, I note,
a certain readiness for action, for action. True, opportunities for
Onegin has practically no self-realization. But the novel doesn't answer
the above question, he asks it to the reader.

Following Pushkin's hero and Pechorin, actor novel
M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, showed himself to be a type of “superfluous man.”
The bored hero appears before the reader again, but he is different from Onegin.

Onegin has indifference, passivity,
inaction. Not so Pechorin. “This man is not indifferent, not apathetic
suffering: he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere; he accuses bitterly
yourself in your delusions." Pechorin is characterized by bright individualism,
painful introspection, internal monologues, the ability to impartially evaluate
myself. “Moral cripple,” he will say
About Me. Onegin is simply bored, he is characterized by skepticism and disappointment.
Belinsky once noted that “Pechorin is a suffering egoist,” and “Onegin is
bored". And to some extent this is true.

Pechorin from boredom, from dissatisfaction in life
conducts experiments both on himself and on people. So, for example, in “Bela” Pechorin
for the sake of gaining a new spiritual experience, without hesitation he sacrifices both the prince and
Azamat, and Kazbich, and Belaya herself. In “Taman” he allowed himself out of curiosity
interfere with life" honest smugglers” and forced them to flee, leaving the house, and
at the same time a blind boy.

In “Princess Mary” Pechorin intervenes in the ensuing
the romance of Grushnitsky and Mary bursts like a whirlwind into Vera’s improved life. To him
it’s hard, he’s empty, he’s bored. He writes about his longing and attractiveness
“possessing the soul” of another person, but never once thinks about where it came from
his right to this possession! Pechorin’s reflections in “Fatalist” about faith and
unbelief relate not only to the tragedy of the loneliness of modern man in
world. Man, having lost God, has lost the main thing - moral guidelines, firm and
a certain system moral values. And no experiments will give
Pechorin the joy of being. Only faith can give you confidence. And deep faith
ancestors was lost in the age of Pechorin. Having lost faith in God, the hero also lost faith in
himself - this is his tragedy.

It’s surprising that Pechorin, understanding all this, at the same time
time does not see the origins of its tragedy. He reflects as follows: “Evil
creates evil; The first suffering gives the concept of pleasure in tormenting another...”
It turns out that the whole world surrounding Pechorin is built on the law of the spiritual
slavery: torture in order to gain pleasure from the suffering of another. AND
the unfortunate man, suffering, dreams of one thing - to take revenge on the offender. Evil begets evil
not in itself, but in a world without God, in a society where moral
laws where only the threat of legal punishment somehow limits revelry
permissiveness.

Pechorin constantly feels his moral
inferiority: he talks about two halves of the soul, that best part souls
“dried up, evaporated, died.” He “became a moral cripple” - here
the true tragedy and punishment of Pechorin.

Pechorin is a controversial personality,
Yes, he himself understands this: “...I have an innate passion to contradict; my whole one
life was just a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions of the heart or mind.”
Contradiction becomes the formula for the hero’s existence: he recognizes in himself
“high purpose” and “immense powers” ​​- and exchanges life in “passions
empty and ungrateful." Yesterday he bought a carpet that the princess liked, and
Today, having covered my horse with it, I slowly led it past Mary’s windows... The rest of the day
comprehended the “impression” he made. And this takes days, months, life!

Pechorin, unfortunately, remained
until the end of life as “smart uselessness.” People like Pechorin were created
socio-political conditions of the 30s XIX centuries, times of gloomy reaction and
police supervision. He is truly alive, gifted, brave, smart. His
tragedy is tragedy active person, who has no business.
Pechorin craves activity. But the opportunities to use these souls
He has no desire to put them into practice, to realize them. Exhausting feeling of emptiness
boredom and loneliness pushes him into all sorts of adventures (“Bela”, “Taman”,
"Fatalist"). And this is the tragedy not only of this hero, but of the entire generation of the 30s
years: “As a crowd of gloomy and soon forgotten, / We will pass over the world without noise and
a trace, / Without abandoning to the centuries a single fertile thought, / Nor a work begun by the genius...”
“Gloomy”... This is a crowd of disunited loners, not bound by unity of goals,
ideals, hopes...

I didn’t ignore the topic of “extra
people" and I.A. Goncharov, creating one of the outstanding novels XIX centuries, - "Oblomov." His central character, Ilya
Ilyich Oblomov is a bored gentleman lying on the sofa, dreaming of transformations
and a happy life with family, but doing nothing to make dreams come true
reality. Undoubtedly, Oblomov is a product of his environment, a unique
the result of the social and moral development of the nobility. For the noble intelligentsia
The time of existence at the expense of serfs did not pass without a trace. All this
gave rise to laziness, apathy, absolute inability to be active and
typical class vices. Stolz calls this “Oblomovism.”

Critic Dobrolyubov in the image of Oblomov
saw first of all a socially typical phenomenon, and the key to this image
considered the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream”. The hero’s “dream” is not quite like a dream. This
A fairly harmonious, logical picture of Oblomovka’s life with an abundance of details.
Most likely, this is not a dream itself, with its characteristic illogicality, but
conditional dream. The task of “Sleep,” as V.I. Kuleshov noted, is to provide “preliminary
story, an important message about the hero’s life, his childhood... The reader receives important
information, thanks to what upbringing the hero of the novel became a couch potato... receives
the opportunity to realize where and in what way this life “broke off.” What is it like
Oblomov's childhood? This is a cloudless life in the estate, “the fullness of the satisfied
desires, meditation of pleasure."

Is it much different from the one
which Oblomov leads in a house on Gorokhovaya Street? Although Ilya is ready to contribute to this
The idyll will undergo some changes, but its fundamentals will remain unchanged. He's completely
The life that Stolz leads is alien: “No! Why make craftsmen out of nobles!” He
has absolutely no doubt that the peasant must always work for
master

And Oblomov’s trouble, first of all, is that
that the life he rejects does not itself accept him. Alien to Oblomov
activity; his worldview does not allow him to adapt to life
landowner-entrepreneur, find his path, as Stolz did.All this makes Oblomov a “superfluous person.”