Schiller's most famous works. Brief biography of Friedrich Schiller. Biography score

Actor system. In the first and second expositional chapters of the novel, Rudin is depicted in a small circle of characters, household members, neighbors, children of the rich lady Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya - this is her secular village salon. Unlike Goncharov, a master of objective portraiture, Turgenev makes you feel the author’s attitude towards the character. The characterization of Daria Mikhailovna is imbued with subtle irony. The narrator ironically asks: “...Reader, have you noticed that a person who is unusually absent-minded in a circle of subordinates is never absent-minded with higher-ups? Why would this be? The sly “remark to the side” is directly related to Lasunskaya. In her address one can see “a shade of contempt of the capital’s lioness for those around her.”<…>dark and small creatures." The author reports that in her youth Lasunskaya was very beautiful and enjoyed great success in the world - “poets wrote poems to her, young people fell in love with her, important gentlemen trailed after her.” But the beauty that once overshadowed her human essence disappeared; over the years, “not a trace remained of the former charms.” But Daria Mikhailovna continues to crave the worship of others. And since the previous “scale” is inaccessible to her, she “reigns” in the narrow circle of her living room.

The young Bassist teacher arouses sympathy. Human weaknesses (“he loved to eat, he loved to sleep”) only add to the attractiveness: “The bassist was a tall fellow, with a simple face, a large nose, large lips and piggy eyes, ugly and awkward, but kind, honest and straightforward. He dressed casually, did not cut his hair - not out of panache, but out of laziness<…>but loved<…>a good book, a heated conversation..."

To understand Turgenev's characters, one must take them not in isolation, but in constant comparison. The leisurely description ends on a “shock” note: “And I hated Pandalevsky with all my soul.” They are revealed in contrast, or in relation to each other. Both of them are poor, living as servants in someone else's rich house. It seemed that they should behave the same way. But it is enough to compare the teacher’s carelessness with Pandalevsky’s “neat and graceful figure,” for whom attractive appearance is one of the means of success in life.

Basistov’s “awkwardness” is contrasted with Pandalevsky’s helpfulness, ready to forget about everything just to please his benefactress. In the guise of a young teacher, everything is clear, sincere, independent - “with everyone<…>“He was on the short side in the house, which the hostess didn’t quite like, no matter how she talked about the fact that prejudices don’t exist for her.” In the description of the living creature, on the contrary, the unsteady, shapeless, chameleon-like predominates. Pandalevsky speaks with an accent, “although it was difficult to determine which one.” He himself “called Odessa his homeland,” despite the fact that he “was brought up in Belarus.”

We have already met a character similar to him in the first of Goncharov’s novels - Anton Ivanovich took root. There is a difference in the depiction of the heroes. The point is not that Goncharov’s character wanders from neighbor to neighbor, but Pandalevsky firmly “took root” on the estate of his only benefactor. Anton Ivanovich from “Ordinary History” - lived “for all times,” as Goncharov noted. This can be found in any rich estate in any era. Whereas Konstantin Diomidych could appear precisely in this house of a society lady, which claims to be sophistication. And precisely in this era.

With one detail, Turgenev sketches the everyday background surrounding the character of the forties. The author makes him admire “the beneficial old man Roksolan Mediarovich Ksandryk.” Under this transparent and at the same time mocking allegory, the author hid the name of Alexander Skarlatovich Sturdza. Sturdza was a well-known reactionary in his time, a constant target of Pushkin’s epigrams. Ridiculing loyalty and servility, the poet called him “monarchical” Sturdza. Pandalevsky imitates his ideal in sycophancy and flattery. He obviously dreams of making a dizzying career.

At the same time, Pandalevsky is not without signs of external gloss and sophistication. It’s not for nothing that he serves the lady for whom the lyres once “clanged”! For her sake, he practices Thalberg's etudes on the piano. Again, a true trait, both historical and personal-psychological. The Austrian pianist Sigismund Thalberg, the author of light, thoughtless, but very popular musical creations, toured Russia in those years. His music cannot satisfy true connoisseurs like young Natalya Lasunskaya, daughter of Daria Mikhailovna, as it will become clear later to the main character of the novel: “First Natalya<...>I listened with attention, then went back to work.” Despite his good manners and social brilliance, Pandalevsky turns out to be capable of meanness. It is his actions that predetermine the rapid outcome of the relationship between the main characters.

Among Lasunskaya's regular guests is her neighbor, African Semenovich Pigasov. Ultimately, he plays the role of a jester, intruding with his stupid paradoxes into the highly intelligent speeches of Daria Mikhailovna. Life presented obstacles to him everywhere. I wanted to become a scientist - and was “cut off” by a less talented, but more prepared student. He wanted to become a successful official - and he went too far. He married favorably - but his wife left him. The surname itself alludes to the winged horse Pegasus, who once fell from Olympus. Now the aged Pigasov makes furious speeches, blaming women, philosophy, and Ukrainian literature. Everything that hits the tongue. And what? He doesn’t notice that with his bitterness and desire to make fun of everyone, he himself becomes funny.

Introducing the characters, Turgenev simultaneously initiates us into the relationships between them. We watch how Pandalevsky unsuccessfully tries to court the lovely Alexandra Pavlovna. We learn that Volyntsev has had feelings for Natalya for a long time. The girl treats him with restraint. Trying to start a conversation, Volyntsev inquires:

What did you read?

“I read… the history of the Crusades,” Natalya said with a slight hesitation. Volintsev looked at her.

A! - he said finally, - this should be interesting.

Natalya does not look like an ordinary provincial young lady. Her area of ​​interest includes “the whole of Pushkin,” serious scientific publications. Whereas Volyntsev, judging by his exclamation, has never read such books, although he is embarrassed to admit it. Later we learn that “Volyntsev did not feel any attraction to literature, and was simply afraid of poetry.” A “stammer” in a conversation speaks of the girl’s delicacy. The younger Lasunskaya is afraid of inadvertently offending her inexperienced interlocutor. In this respect, and in many others, Natalya appears to be the opposite of her arrogant mother.

Composition

Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev began work on “Rudin” in 1855. At first the novel was called “Nature of Brilliant.” By “genius” Turgenev understood the ability to convince and enlighten people, a versatile mind and broad education, and by “nature” - firmness of will, a keen sense of the needs of public life. But as the work progressed, this name ceased to satisfy Turgenev, since in relation to Rudin it sounded ironic: there was little “nature” in him, there was not enough will for practical work, although there was “genius” in him. On the manuscript there is an author's note: “Rudin. It began on June 5, 1855, on Sunday, in Spassky, and ended on July 24, 1856, on Sunday, in the same place, at 7 weeks. Published with large additions in the January and February books of Sovremennik for 1856.”

By “major additions,” Turgenev means his revisions of individual chapters of the novel and the addition of new ones when preparing “Rudin” for publication, when, after reading the novel in the editorial circle (and it took place in the very first days of the writer’s arrival in St. Petersburg in October 1855) with Turgenev’s friends there were wishes that he would highlight the figure of the main character more clearly. Friendly advice helped Turgenev understand a lot. His constant willingness to test himself was reflected, in particular, in the fact that he rarely published his works without listening to the opinions of those he trusted. First of all, he began to rework the pages dedicated to the youthful years of Lezhnev and Rudin, and then the epilogue of the novel.

From time to time he read chapters and pages written anew to Nekrasov, and met with warm approval from him. Reporting on Turgenev’s work on the epilogue, Nekrasov predicted in one of his letters that “a wonderful thing will come out. Here for the first time Turgenev appears as himself... This is a man capable of giving us ideals, as far as they are possible in Russian life.” The appearance of the novel in print caused a lot of speculation and controversy in literary circles and among readers. The critic of "Notes of the Fatherland" viewed Rudin only as a pale copy of previous heroes of Russian literature - Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov. But Chernyshevsky objected to him in Sovremennik, noting that Turgenev was able to show in the image of Rudin a man of a new era of social development. Comparing Rudin with Beltov and Pechorin, Chernyshevsky emphasized that “these are people of different eras, different natures - people who form a perfect contrast to one another.”

After the novel was published, Nekrasov expressed confidence that for Turgenev “a new era of activity is beginning, that his talent has acquired new strength, that he will give us works even more significant than those with which he earned in the eyes of the public first place in our newest literature after Gogol " In a letter to Turgenev, Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov spoke about the vitality of the image of the Rudin type and noted that the novel “raises many small questions and reveals the deep secrets of the spiritual nature of man.” Speaking about the recognition of the novel among the populist intelligentsia, one cannot ignore the words of V.N. Figner: “It seems to me that the whole novel is taken directly from life, and Rudin is the purest product of our Russian reality, not a parody, not a mockery, but a real tragedy that has not died at all, that is still alive, still going on...” “In every educated person of our time there is a piece of Dmitry Rudin,” wrote Stepnyak-Kravchinsky. The main character of the novel is largely autobiographical: he is a man of the Turgenev generation who received a good philosophical education abroad. Rudin's character is revealed in words.
“Rudin possessed perhaps the highest secret - the secret of eloquence. He knew how, by striking one string of hearts, he could make all the others vaguely ring and tremble.” In his philosophical speeches about the meaning of life, about the high purpose of man, Rudin is simply irresistible. A person cannot and should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, concerns about existence, he argues. Without the desire to find “general principles in the particular phenomena” of life, without faith in the power of reason, there is no science, no enlightenment, no progress, and “if a person does not have a strong principle in which he believes, there is no ground on which he stands firmly, how can he give himself an account of the needs, the meaning, the future of his people? Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. He tells a legend about a bird that flew into a fire and disappeared again into the darkness.

It would seem that a person, like this bird, appears from oblivion and, after living a short life, disappears into obscurity. Yes, “our life is fast and insignificant; but everything great is accomplished through people.” His statements inspire and call for a renewal of life, for extraordinary, heroic achievements. The power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion in words, is felt by everyone. And everyone admires Rudin for his “extraordinary mind.” Only Pigasov does not recognize Rudin’s merits - out of resentment for his defeat in the dispute. But in Rudin’s very first conversation with Natalya, one of the main contradictions of his character is revealed. After all, only the day before he spoke so enthusiastically about the future, about the meaning of life, about the purpose of man, and suddenly he appears as a tired man who does not believe in his own strength or in the sympathy of people.

True, one 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, and intentions with actions. The writer subjects the contradictory character of his hero to a serious test - love. Turgenev’s feeling is sometimes bright, sometimes tragic and destructive, but it is always a force that reveals the soul, the true nature of a person. This is where Rudin's true character is revealed. Although Rudin's speeches are full of enthusiasm, years of abstract philosophical work have dried up the living springs of his heart and soul. The preponderance of the head over the heart is already noticeable in the scene of the first love confession. The first obstacle that arose on his way - Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya's refusal to marry her daughter to a poor man - leads Rudin into complete confusion. In response to the question: “What do you think we should do now?” - Natalya hears: “Of course, submit.” And then 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. And Rudin feels pathetic and insignificant in front of her. He fails the test of love, revealing his human inferiority. In the novel, Lezhnev is opposed to the main character, openly and straightforwardly. Rudin is eloquent - Lezhnev is usually a man of few words.

Rudin cannot understand himself - Lezhnev understands people perfectly and without further ado helps his loved ones, thanks to his emotional tact and sensitivity. Rudin does nothing - Lezhnev is always busy with something. But Lezhnev is not only Rudin’s antagonist, he is the hero’s interpreter. Lezhnev's assessments are not the same at different moments, even contradictory, but on the whole they inspire the reader with an understanding of the complex character of the hero and his place in life. Thus, the highest assessment of Rudin is given by his antagonist, a man of a practical nature.

Maybe he is the true hero of the novel? Lezhnev was awarded both intelligence and understanding of people, but his activities are limited by the existing order of things. The author constantly emphasizes its everyday life. He is businesslike, but for Turgenev it is impossible to reduce the whole meaning of life to businesslike activity that is not inspired by a higher idea. Rudin reflects the tragic fate of a man of Turgenev’s generation. A retreat into abstract thinking could not but entail negative consequences: speculativeness, poor familiarity with the practical side. People like Rudin, bearers of high ideals, guardians of culture, serve the progress of society, but are clearly devoid of practical potential. An ardent opponent of serfdom, Rudin turned out to be absolutely helpless in realizing his ideal. In Russian life he is destined to remain a wanderer. The ending of the novel is heroic and tragic at the same time. Rudin dies on the barricades of Paris. I remember the words from Rudin’s letter to Natalya: “I will end up sacrificing myself for some nonsense that I won’t even believe in...”.

Other works on this work

About Turgenev's novel "Rudin"

Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev began work on “Rudin” in 1855.

At first the novel was called “Nature of Brilliant.” By “genius” Turgenev understood the ability to convince and enlighten people, a versatile mind and broad education, and by “nature” - firmness of will, a keen sense of the needs of public life. But as the work progressed, this name ceased to satisfy Turgenev, since in relation to Rudin it sounded ironic: there was little “nature” in him, there was not enough will for practical work, although there was “genius” in him.

On the manuscript there is an author's note: “Rudin. It began on June 5, 1855, on Sunday, in Spassky, and ended on July 24, 1856, on Sunday, in the same place, at 7 weeks. Published with large additions in the January and February books of Sovremennik for 1856.”

By “major additions,” Turgenev means his revisions of individual chapters of the novel and the addition of new ones when preparing “Rudin” for publication, when, after reading the novel in the editorial circle (and it took place in the very first days of the writer’s arrival in St. Petersburg in October 1855) with Turgenev’s friends there were wishes that he would highlight the figure of the main character more clearly. Nekrasov and some other writers were clear about the subtext of the novel, the complexity of the historical background against which the plot unfolded, and the significance of the activities of those individuals who served as the author’s prototype (Bakunin, Stankevich, etc.).

Friendly advice helped Turgenev understand a lot. His constant willingness to test himself was reflected, in particular, in the fact that he rarely published his works without listening to the opinions of those he trusted.

First of all, he began to rework the pages dedicated to the youthful years of Lezhnev and Rudin, and then the epilogue of the novel. From time to time he read chapters and pages written anew to Nekrasov, and met with warm approval from him. Reporting on Turgenev’s work on the epilogue, Nekrasov predicted in one of his letters that “a wonderful thing will come out. Here for the first time Turgenev appears as himself... This is a man capable of giving us ideals, as far as they are possible in Russian life.”

The appearance of the novel in print caused a lot of speculation and controversy in literary circles and among readers.

The critic of Otechestvennye Zapiski viewed Rudin only as a pale copy of previous heroes of Russian literature - Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov. But Chernyshevsky objected to him in Sovremennik, noting that Turgenev was able to show in the image of Rudin a man of a new era of social development. Comparing Rudin with Beltov and Pechorin, Chernyshevsky emphasized that “these are people of different eras, different natures - people who form a perfect contrast to one another.”

After the novel was published, Nekrasov expressed confidence that for Turgenev “a new era of activity is beginning, for his talent has acquired new strength, that he will give us works even more significant than those with which he earned in the eyes of the public first place in our newest literature after Gogol "

In a letter to Turgenev, Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov spoke about the vitality of the image of the Rudin type and noted that the novel “raises many small questions and reveals the deep secrets of the spiritual nature of man.”

Speaking about the recognition of the novel among the populist intelligentsia, one cannot ignore the words of V.N. Figner: “It seems to me that the whole novel is taken directly from life, and Rudin is the purest product of our Russian reality, not a parody, not a mockery, but a real tragedy that has not died at all, that is still alive, still going on...” “In every educated person of our time there is a piece of Dmitry Rudin,” wrote Stepnyak-Kravchinsky.

The main character of the novel is largely autobiographical: he is a man of the Turgenev generation who received a good philosophical education abroad.

Rudin's character is revealed in words. This is a brilliant speaker. “Rudin possessed perhaps the highest secret - the secret of eloquence. He knew how, by striking one string of hearts, he could make all the others vaguely ring and tremble.” In his philosophical speeches about the meaning of life, about the high purpose of man, Rudin is simply irresistible. A person cannot and should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, concerns about existence, he argues. Without the desire to find “general principles in the particular phenomena” of life, without faith in the power of reason, there is no science, no enlightenment, no progress, and “if a person does not have a strong principle in which he believes, there is no ground on which he stands firmly, how can he give himself an account of the needs, the meaning, the future of his people?”

Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so passionately, inspiredly and poetically. He tells a legend about a bird that flew into a fire and disappeared again into the darkness. It would seem that a person, like this bird, appears from oblivion and, after living a short life, disappears into obscurity. Yes, “our life is fast and insignificant; but everything great is accomplished through people.”

His statements inspire and call for a renewal of life, for extraordinary, heroic achievements. The power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion in words, is felt by everyone. And everyone admires Rudin for his “extraordinary mind.” Only Pigasov does not recognize Rudin’s merits - out of resentment for his defeat in the dispute.

But in Rudin’s very first conversation with Natalya, one of the main contradictions of his character is revealed. After all, only the day before he spoke so enthusiastically about the future, about the meaning of life, about the purpose of man, and suddenly he appears as a tired man who does not believe in his own strength or in the sympathy of people. True, one 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, and intentions with actions.

The writer subjects the contradictory character of his hero to a serious test - love. Turgenev’s feeling is sometimes bright, sometimes tragic and destructive, but it is always a force that reveals the soul, the true nature of a person. This is where Rudin's true character is revealed. Although Rudin's speeches are full of enthusiasm, years of abstract philosophical work have dried up the living springs of his heart and soul. The preponderance of the head over the heart is already noticeable in the scene of the first love confession.

The first obstacle that arose on his way - Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya's refusal to marry her daughter to a poor man - leads Rudin into complete confusion. In response to the question: “What do you think we should do now?” - Natalya hears: “Of course, submit.” And then 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. And Rudin feels pathetic and insignificant in front of her. He fails the test of love, revealing his human inferiority.

In the novel, Lezhnev is opposed to the main character - openly, straightforwardly. Rudin is eloquent - Lezhnev is usually a man of few words. Rudin cannot understand himself - Lezhnev understands people perfectly and without further ado helps his loved ones, thanks to his emotional tact and sensitivity. Rudin does nothing - Lezhnev is always busy with something.

But Lezhnev is not only Rudin’s antagonist, he is the hero’s interpreter. Lezhnev's assessments are not the same at different moments, even contradictory, but on the whole they inspire the reader with an understanding of the complex character of the hero and his place in life.

Thus, the highest assessment of Rudin is given by his antagonist, a man of a practical nature. Maybe he is the true hero of the novel? Lezhnev was awarded both intelligence and understanding of people, but his activities are limited by the existing order of things. The author constantly emphasizes its everyday life. He is businesslike, but for Turgenev it is impossible to reduce the whole meaning of life to businesslike activity that is not inspired by a higher idea.

Rudin reflects the tragic fate of a man of Turgenev’s generation. A retreat into abstract thinking could not but entail negative consequences: speculativeness, poor familiarity with the practical side. People like Rudin, bearers of high ideals, guardians of culture, serve the progress of society, but are clearly devoid of practical potential. An ardent opponent of serfdom, Rudin turned out to be absolutely helpless in realizing his ideal.

In Russian life he is destined to remain a wanderer. His fate is echoed by another image of a wanderer, the image of the immortal Don Quixote.

The ending of the novel is heroic and tragic at the same time. Rudin dies on the barricades of Paris. I remember the words from Rudin’s letter to Natalya: “I will end up sacrificing myself for some nonsense that I won’t even believe in...”.