Female images in Russian literature (i version). Development of Russian literature and culture in the second half of the XIX

In the literature of 1850-1860, a whole series of novels emerged, which were called novels about "new people".
What criteria is used to classify a person as a “new people”? First of all, the emergence of "new people" is due to the political and historical situation of society. They are representatives of a new era, therefore, they have a new perception of time, space, new tasks, new relationships. Hence the prospect of the development of these people in the future. So, in literature, “new people” “begin” with Turgenev’s novels “Rudin” (1856), “On the Eve” (1859), “Fathers and Sons” (1962).
At the turn of the 30s and 40s, after the defeat of the Decembrists, fermentation took place in Russian society. One part of him was seized by despair and pessimism, the other - scrupulous activity, expressed in attempts to continue the work of the Decembrists. Soon, public thought takes a more formalized direction - the direction of propaganda. It was this idea of ​​society that Turgenev expressed in the type of Rudin. At first, the novel was called "Genius Nature". In this case, "genius" means illumination, striving for truth (the task of this hero is, indeed, rather moral than social), his task is to sow "reasonable, good, eternal", and he fulfills this with honor, but he lacks nature , lack of strength to overcome obstacles.
Turgenev also touches on such a painful issue for Russians as the choice of activity, activity that is fruitful and useful. Yes, every time has its own heroes and tasks. For the society of that time, Rudin's enthusiasts and propagandists were needed. But no matter how harshly the descendants accused their fathers of "vulgarity and doctrinaire", the Rudins are people of the moment, of a specific situation, they are rattles. But when a person grows up, there is no need for rattles ...
The novel "On the Eve" (1859) is somewhat different, it can even be called "intermediate". This is the time between Rudin and Bazarov (again a matter of time!). The title of the book speaks for itself. On the eve of ... what? .. Elena Stakhova is in the center of the novel. She is waiting for someone .., someone must fall in love ... Whom? Elena's inner state reflects the situation of the time; she embraces the whole of Russia. What does Russia need? Why did neither the Shubins nor the Bersenievs, who seem to be worthy people, attract her attention? And this happened because they did not have enough active love for the Motherland, full surrender of themselves to it. That is why he attracted Elena Insarov, who is fighting for the liberation of his land from Turkish oppression. Insarov's example is a classic example, a man for all times. After all, there is nothing new in it (for failure-free service to the Motherland is not at all new!), But it was precisely this well-forgotten old that Russian society lacked ...
In 1862, Turgenev's most controversial, most poignant novel, Fathers and Sons, was published. Of course, all three novels are political, dispute novels, and controversial novels. But in the novel "Fathers and Sons" this is especially well noted, for it is manifested specifically in the "battles" between Bazarov and Kirsanov. The "skirmishes" turn out to be so irreconcilable, because they represent the conflict of two eras - the noble and the raznochin.
The novel's sharp political character is also shown in the concrete social conditioning of the “new man” type. Evgeny Bazarov is a nihilist, collective type. His prototypes were Dobrolyubov, Preobrazhensky, and Pisarev.
It is also known that nihilism was very fashionable among young people of the 50-60s of the XIX century. Of course, denial is the path to self-destruction. But what caused it, this is an unconditional denial of all living life, Bazarov gives a very good answer to this:
“And then we realized that chatting, just chatting about our ulcers was not worth the trouble, that it only leads to vulgarity and doctrinaire; we saw that our clever people, the so-called progressive people and accusers, are worthless, that we are doing nonsense ... when it comes to daily bread ... "So Bazarov got down to obtaining" daily bread ". No wonder he does not tie his
profession with politics, but becomes a doctor and "fiddles with people." There was no activity in Rudin; this activity appeared in Bazarov. That is why he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the novel. Because he found himself, raised himself, and did not live the life of an empty flower, like Pavel Petrovich, and even more so, did not "see off day after day" like Anna Sergeevna.
The question of time and space is posed in a new way. Bazarov says: "Let it (time) depend on me." Thus, this stern man turns to such a universal human idea: "Everything depends on a person!"
The idea of ​​space is shown through the inner liberation of the personality. After all, personal freedom is, first of all, going beyond the framework of one's own “I”, and this can only happen when giving oneself to something. Bazarov devotes himself to the cause, the Motherland ("Russia needs me ..."), feeling.
He feels enormous forces, but he cannot do something the way he wants. That is why he withdraws into himself, becomes bilious, irritated, gloomy.
While working on this work, Turgenev gave great progress to this image and the novel acquired a philosophical meaning.
What did this "iron man" lack? Not only general education was lacking, Bazarov did not want to come to terms with life, did not want to accept it for what it is. He did not recognize human impulses in himself. This is his tragedy. It crashed on people - this is the tragedy of this image. But it is not for nothing that the novel has such a reconciling end, it is not for nothing that Yevgeny Bazarov's grave is holy. There was something natural and deeply sincere in his actions. This is what gets through to Bazarov. The direction of nihilism has not justified itself in history. It formed the basis of socialism ... a continuation novel, a response novel to Turgenev's work became the novel "What is to be done?" N. G. Chernyshevsky.
If Turgenev created collective types generated by social cataclysms, showed their development in this society, then Chernyshevsky not only continued them, but also gave a detailed answer, creating a programmatic work "What is to be done?"
If Turgenev did not outline the background of Bazarov, then Chernyshevsky gave a complete story of the lives of his heroes.
What distinguishes Chernyshevsky's “new people”?
First, they are common democrats. And they, as you know, represent the period of the bourgeois development of society. The nascent class creates its own new, creates a historical foundation, hence - new relations, new perception. The theory of “reasonable egoism” was the expression of these historical and moral tasks.
Chernyshevsky creates two types of "new people". These are people "special" (Rakhmetov) and "ordinary" (Vera Pavlovna, Lopukhov, Kirsanov). Thus, the author solves the problem of reorganizing society. Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Rodalskaya rebuild it with creative, constructive, harmonious work, through self-education and self-education. Rakhmetov - "revolutionary", although this path is shown vaguely. That is why the question of time immediately arises. That is why Rakhmetov is a man of the future, and Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna are people of the present. Chernyshevsky's “new people” are in first place inner freedom personality. "New people" create their own ethics, solve moral and psychological issues. Self-analysis (unlike Bazarov) is the main thing that distinguishes them. They believe that the power of reason will bring up "good and eternal" in a person. The author examines this issue in the formation of the hero from the initial forms of struggle against family despotism to preparation and "change of scenery".
Chernyshevsky argues that a person should be harmonious personality... So, for example, Vera Pavlovna (the issue of emancipation), being a wife, a mother, has the opportunity for social life, the opportunity to study, and most importantly, she has nurtured a desire for work.
The "new people" of Chernyshevsky "in a new way" and relate to each other, that is, the author says that these are quite normal relations, but in the conditions of that time they were considered special and new. The heroes of the novel treat each other with respect, delicately, even if you have to step over yourself. They are above their ego. And that "theory of reasonable egoism", which they created, is only a deep introspection. Their selfishness is public, not personal.
Rudin, Bazarov, Lopukhov, Kirsanovs. There were - and no. Let each of them have their own shortcomings, their own theories, which have not been justified by time. But these people gave themselves to the Motherland, Russia, they rooted for it, suffered, therefore they are “new people”.

And he was alone in the world.
J. G. Byron

… And these beings are often endowed with great moral advantages, great spiritual powers, they promise a lot, fulfill little or do nothing. It is not from themselves; here is the fatum, which consists in reality, with which they are surrounded, like air, and from which it is neither in the power nor in the power of man to free himself.
V.G. Belinsky

The peculiarity of the "superfluous person" is not only that he never takes the side of the government, but also that he never knows how to take the side of the people ...
A.I. Herzen

To some extent, this theme is the opposite of the image " little man": if there is a justification for the fate of everyone, then here - on the contrary, the categorical urge" one of us is superfluous ", which can refer to the evaluation of the hero, and come from the hero himself, and usually these two" directions "not only do not exclude each other, but they also characterize one person: the accuser of his neighbors turns out to be “superfluous.” “Superfluous person” is also a certain literary type. The spread of a particular literary type may be dictated by the very need of society to depict people with some stable complex of qualities.The interest and benevolence towards them on the part of critics, the success of books in which such people are portrayed, stimulates writers to "repeat" or "variations" of some literary types. Often a new literary type arouses the interest of critics, who give it its name (" robber "," Turgenev woman "," superfluous person "," little man "," nihilist "," tramp "," humiliated and insulted "). "Superfluous person", "superfluous people" - where did this term come from in Russian literature? Who was the first to use it so successfully that it firmly and for a long time was firmly established in the works of Pushkin, Lermontov, Turgenev, Goncharov? Many literary scholars believe that it was invented by A.I. Herzen. According to another version, Pushkin himself, in the draft version of Chapter VIII of Eugene Onegin, called his hero superfluous: "Onegin is worth something superfluous."
In addition to Onegin, many critics of the 19th century and some literary critics of the 20th century classify Pechorin as the type of "superfluous person", the heroes of the novels by I.S. Turgenev Rudin and Lavretsky, as well as Oblomov I.A.Goncharov.

What are the main thematic features of these characters, "extra people"? First of all, it is a person who is potentially capable of some kind of social action. She does not accept the "rules of the game" proposed by society; she does not believe in the possibility of changing anything. A "superfluous person" is a contradictory personality, often in conflict with society and its way of life. This is also a hero, of course, dysfunctional in relations with his parents, and unhappy in love. His position in society is unstable, contains contradictions: he is always at least in some way connected with the nobility, but - already in the period of decline, about fame and wealth - rather a memory. He is 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 surface. The hero is moderately educated, but this education is rather incomplete, unsystematic; in a word, he is not a deep thinker, not a scientist, but a person with the "capacity of judgment" to make quick but immature conclusions. The crisis of religiosity is very important, often the struggle with churchliness, but often internal emptiness, latent insecurity, the habit of using the name of God. Often - the gift of eloquence, writing skills, taking notes, or even writing poetry. There is always some pretense to be the judge of your fellow man; a tinge of hatred is required. In a word, the hero is a victim of the canons of life.
However, for all the seemingly apparent certainty and clarity of the above criteria for assessing the "extra person", the framework allowing one to speak with absolute certainty about the belonging of a particular character to this thematic line is very vague. It follows from this that the "extra person" cannot be "superfluous" as a whole, but he can be considered both in the mainstream of other topics and merge with other characters belonging to the rest of the literary types. The material of the works does not allow one to evaluate Onegin, Pechorin and others only from the point of view of their social "usefulness", and the type of "superfluous person" itself is rather the result of understanding the named heroes from certain social and ideological positions.
This literary type, as it developed, acquired more and more new features and forms of display. This phenomenon is quite natural, since every writer saw a "superfluous person" as he was in his mind. All the masters of the artistic word who have ever touched upon the topic of the "superfluous person" not only added a certain "breath" of their era to this type, but also tried to combine all contemporary social phenomena, and most importantly the structure of life, in one image - the image of the hero of the time ... All this makes the type of "superfluous person" universal in its own way. This is precisely what allows us to consider the images of Chatsky and Bazarov as heroes who had a direct impact on this type. These images, no doubt, do not belong to the type of "superfluous person", but at the same time they perform one important function: the Griboyedov hero in his confrontation with the Famus society makes it impossible to peacefully resolve the conflict between an outstanding personality and an inert way of life, thereby pushing other writers to illuminate this problem, and the image of Bazarov, completing (from my point of view) the type of "superfluous person", was no longer so much a "carrier" of time as its "side" phenomenon. But before the hero himself could qualify himself as a "superfluous person", a more hidden appearance of this type had to take place. The first signs of this type were embodied in the image of Chatsky, the protagonist of A.S. Griboyedov's immortal comedy "Woe from Wit". "Griboyedov is" a man of one book, "VF Khodasevich once remarked." If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would not have had any place at all in Russian literature. " And, indeed, although in the history of drama, Griboyedov is spoken of as the author of several, in his own way, wonderful and funny comedies and vaudeville, written in collaboration with the leading playwrights of those years (N.I. Khmelnitsky, A.A. Shakhovsky, P.A. Vyazemsky), but it was Woe from Wit that turned out to be the only work of its kind. This comedy for the first time broadly and freely depicted modern life and thus opened a new, realistic era in Russian literature. The creative history of this play is extremely complex. Her design apparently dates back to 1818. It was completed in the fall of 1824; the censorship did not allow this comedy to be published or staged on stage. The conservatives accused Griboyedov of exaggerating satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author's "scolding patriotism", and in Chatsky they saw a clever "madman", the embodiment of the "figaro-Griboyedov" philosophy of life. But the Decembrist-minded part of society greeted this comedy with enthusiasm. A. Bestuzhev wrote: "The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and place it among the first folk creations ...". The comedy's approval, however, was far from unanimous. Some contemporaries who were very benevolently disposed towards Griboyedov noted many errors in "Woe from Wit". For example, a longtime friend of the playwright PA Katenin gave the following assessment of the comedy: "The mind is like a ward in it, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and knocked down ...". A.S. Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play, noting that the playwright succeeded most of all in "characters and a sharp picture of morals." The Poet reacted critically to Chatsky: “What is Chatsky? is he all this? Famusov? Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? Skalozub? This is unforgivable. The first sign smart person- at first glance, know who you are dealing with, and not throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like. "Here Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky's behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position. Belinsky, just as decisively as Pushkin, refused Chatsky in practical mind, calling it "the new Don Quixote." According to the critic, the main character comedy is a completely ridiculous figure, a naive dreamer. However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, stressing that "Woe from Wit" is "the noblest, humanistic work, an energetic (at the same time, the first) protest against the vile racial reality." It is characteristic that the previous condemnation was not canceled by the critic, but only replaced by a completely different approach of Belinsky, who assessed the comedy from the standpoint moral significance protest of the central character. And for the critic A.A. Grigoriev, Chatsky is "the only hero, that is, the only one who fights positively in the environment where fate and passion have thrown him."
The above examples of critical interpretations of the play only confirm all the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical issues, indicated in the very title of the comedy: "Woe from Wit". The problems of mind and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and hypocrisy were posed and solved by Griboyedov on the basis of diverse everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all characters, including minor, episodic and non-stage ones, are embroiled in discussions about attitudes towards the mind and various forms of stupidity and insanity. The clever "madman" Chatsky became the main figure around whom all the variety of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated. The general assessment of the author's intention, problematics and artistic features comedy. The main feature of the comedy is the interaction of two plot-forming conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sophia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky collides with the conservatives gathered in Famusov's house. I want to note that for the hero himself, it is not socio-ideological, but love conflict... After all, Chatsky arrived in Moscow with sole purpose- to see Sophia, to find confirmation of the old love and, possibly, to get married. It is interesting to trace how the hero's love experiences exacerbate Chatsky's ideological opposition to Famus society. At first, the protagonist does not even notice the usual vices of the environment where he found himself, but sees only comic sides in it: "I am in eccentrics to another miracle / Once I laugh, then I will forget ...". But when Chatsky is convinced that Sophia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Remarks and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed without malice. This moment is key in the play. Because from that moment on, the image of Chatsky begins to unfold right before our eyes; he delivers monologues covering all the most pressing issues modern era: the question of what a real service is, problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, national identity. These convictions of his were born of the spirit of change, that "present century", which tried to bring closer many sensible and ideologically close people to Chatsky. Consequently, Chatsky is not only a person with an established worldview, a system of life values ​​and morality. It is also new type person acting in the history of Russian society. Its main idea is civil service. Such heroes are called upon to bring meaning into social life, to lead to new goals. The most hated for him is slavery in all its manifestations, the most desirable is freedom. Such a philosophy of life places this hero outside the society gathered in Famusov's house. In the eyes of these people, accustomed to living the old-fashioned way, Chatsky is a dangerous man, a "carbonarian" who violates the harmony of their existence. But here it is important to distinguish between the objective meaning of the rather moderate enlightenment judgments of the hero and the effect they produce in the conservative society, for whom the slightest dissent is regarded as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life sanctified by the "fathers". Thus, Chatsky, against the background of the unshakable conservative majority, gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave "madman" who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold. But Chatsky is not a "superfluous person". He is only the forerunner of "superfluous people". This is confirmed, first of all, by the optimistic sound of the comedy finale, where Chatsky remains with the right of historical choice given to him by the author. Consequently, Griboyedov's hero can find (in the future) his place in life. Chatsky could have been among those who came out on December 14, 1825 to Senate Square, and then his life would have been a foregone conclusion 30 years ahead: those who took part in the uprising returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856. But something else could have happened. An irresistible aversion to the "abominations" of Russian life would make Chatsky an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - melancholy, despair, alienation, acrimony and, what is most terrible for such a hero-fighter, forced idleness and inactivity. But this is just the guesses of the readers. Chatsky, rejected by society, has the potential to find a use for himself. Onegin will no longer have such an opportunity. He is a "superfluous person" who has not been able to realize himself, who "suffers deafly from a striking resemblance to the children of this century." But before answering why, let's turn to the work itself. The novel "Eugene Onegin" is a work of amazing creative destiny... It was created for more than seven years - from May 1823 to September 1830. The novel was not written "in one breath", but was formed from stanzas and chapters created at different times, in different circumstances, in different periods creativity. The work was interrupted not only by the twists and turns of Pushkin's fate (exile to Mikhailovskoe, the Decembrist uprising), but also new ideas, for the sake of which he more than once dropped the text of Eugene Onegin. It seemed that history itself was not very supportive of Pushkin's work: from a novel about a contemporary and contemporary life, as Pushkin conceived of Eugene Onegin, after 1825 it became a novel about a completely different historical era. And, if we take into account the fragmentation and discontinuity of Pushkin's work, then we can say the following: for the writer, the novel was something like a huge "notebook" or a poetic "album". For more than seven years, these records were replenished with sad "notes" of the heart, "observations" of a cold mind. But "Eugene Onegin" is not only "a poetic album of living impressions of a talent playing with his wealth", but also a "novel of life", which has absorbed a huge amount of historical, literary, social and everyday material. This is the first innovation of this work. Secondly, it was fundamentally innovative that Pushkin, relying largely on the work of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit", found a new type of problematic hero - the "hero of the time." Eugene Onegin became such a hero. His fate, character, relationships with people are determined by the totality of the circumstances of modern reality, outstanding personal qualities and the range of "eternal", universal problems that he faces. It is necessary to immediately make a reservation: Pushkin, in the process of working on the 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 younger generation." And already in the first chapter, the writer notes the social factors that determined the character of the protagonist. This is belonging to the upper stratum of the nobility, the usual upbringing, training for this circle, the first steps in society, the experience of a "monotonous and variegated" life for eight years. The life of a "free" nobleman, not burdened with service, is vain, carefree, full of entertainment and love stories, - fits into one tiresome long day. In a word, Onegin in his early youth is "a child of fun and luxury." By the way, in this period of his life Onegin is a person in his own way, an original, witty, "learned fellow", but still quite ordinary, dutifully following the secular "dignified crowd". The only thing in which Onegin "was a true genius", that "he knew more firmly than all sciences", as the Author notes, not without irony, was "the science of tender passion", that is, the ability to love without loving, to imitate feelings, while remaining cold and calculating. However, Pushkin is interested in Onegin not as a representative of a widespread social and everyday type, the whole essence of which is exhausted positive characteristics, issued by the secular rumor: "N.N. is a wonderful man." It was important for the writer to show this image in movement, development, so that later each reader would draw the proper conclusions, would give a fair assessment of this hero.
The first chapter is a turning point in the fate of the protagonist, who managed to abandon stereotypes of secular behavior, from a noisy, but internally empty "rite of life". Thus, Pushkin showed how from a faceless crowd, but demanding unconditional submission, a bright, outstanding personality suddenly appeared, capable of overthrowing the "burden" of secular conventions, "lagging behind the vanity." Onegin's seclusion - his undeclared conflict with the world and with the society of rural landowners - only at first glance seems like a "whim" caused by purely individual reasons: boredom, "Russian blues". This is a new stage in the life of the hero. Pushkin emphasizes that this Onegin conflict, "Onegin's inimitable strangeness" has become a kind of expression of the protagonist's protest against social and spiritual dogmas that suppress a person's personality, depriving him of the right to be himself. And the emptiness of the hero's soul was the result of the emptiness and meaninglessness of secular life. Onegin is looking for new spiritual values: in St. Petersburg and in the countryside, he reads diligently, tries to write poetry. This his search for new life truths stretched out for many years and remained unfinished. The inner drama of this process is also obvious: Onegin painfully frees himself 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 master of his own life. But this is only an illusion. In St. Petersburg and in the countryside, he is equally bored - he still cannot overcome mental laziness and dependence on "public opinion" in himself. The consequence of this was that the best inclinations of his nature were killed by social life. But the hero cannot be considered only a victim of society and circumstances. Changing his lifestyle, he took responsibility for his destiny. But having renounced the idleness and vanity of the world, alas, he did not become a doer, but remained only a contemplator. The feverish pursuit of pleasure was replaced by the solitary reflections of the protagonist.

It is typical for writers who have devoted their work to the theme of the "superfluous person" to "test" their hero with friendship, love, duel, and death. Pushkin was no exception. Two tests that awaited Onegin in the village - a test of love and a test of friendship - showed that external freedom does not automatically entail liberation from false prejudices and opinions. In relations with Tatiana Onegin, he showed himself as a noble and mentally delicate person. And you can't blame the hero for not responding to Tatyana's love: as you know, you can't command your heart. Another thing is that Onegin listened not to the voice of his heart, but to the voice of reason. In support of this, I will say that even in the first chapter, Pushkin noted in the protagonist "a sharp, chilled mind" and an inability to feel strong. And it was this mental imbalance that became the reason for the failed love of Onegin and Tatiana. Onegin also did not stand the test of friendship. And in this case, the cause of the tragedy was his inability to live a life of feeling. It is not for nothing that the author, commenting on the state of the hero before the duel, notes: "He could discover feelings, / And not bristle like a beast." Both at Tatyana's birthday and before the duel with Lensky, Onegin showed himself to be a "ball of prejudice," "a hostage of secular canons," deaf to both the voice of his own heart and to Lensky's feelings. His behavior on name days is the usual "secular anger", and the duel is a consequence of indifference and fear of the evil-speaking of the inveterate breeder Zaretsky and the landlord neighbors. Onegin himself did not notice how he became a prisoner of his old idol - "public opinion". After the murder of Lensky, Yevgeny changed dramatically. It is a pity that only tragedy was able to open to him a previously inaccessible world of feelings. In a depressed state of mind, Onegin leaves the village and begins wandering around Russia. These wanderings give him the opportunity to look at life more fully, to overestimate himself, to understand how fruitlessly and how much he wasted 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 was completely transformed, nothing remained of the old, cold and rational person in him - he is an ardent lover, noticing nothing except the object of his love (and this is very reminiscent of Lensky). For the first time he experienced a real feeling, but it turned into a new love drama: now Tatyana could not answer his belated love. And, as before, in the foreground in the characterization of the hero is the relationship between reason and feeling. Now reason has been defeated - Onegin loves, "mind not heeding strict penalties." However, the text completely lacks the results of the spiritual development of the hero who believed in love and happiness. This means that Onegin again did not achieve the desired goal, there is still no harmony in him between reason and feeling. Thus, Eugene Onegin becomes a "superfluous person". Belonging to the light, he despises it. He, as noted by Pisarev, only has to "give up on the boredom of secular life, as an inevitable evil." Onegin does not find his true purpose and place in life, he is burdened by his loneliness, lack of demand. In the words of Herzen, "Onegin ... is an extra person in the environment where he is, but, not possessing the necessary strength of character, he cannot escape from it." But, according to the writer himself, the image of Onegin is not complete. After all, the novel in verse essentially ends with the following question: "What will Onegin be in the future?" Pushkin himself leaves the character of his hero open, thus emphasizing Onegin's very ability to abruptly change values ​​and, I note, a certain willingness to act, to act. True, Onegin has practically no opportunities for self-realization. But the novel does not answer the above question, it asks the reader.
Following Pushkin's hero, Pechorin, the protagonist of M.Yu. Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time", was a type of "superfluous person." But first, let's take a quick look at the novel itself, its composition. It is rather complicated, since the creative history of "A Hero of Our Time" is almost not documented. The history of the creation of this work shows that the concept of the novel posed a number of complex artistic problems for Lermontov, primarily the problem of genre. The point is this: many writers of the 1830s tried to create a novel about modernity, but this task was never solved. Their experience suggested to Lermontov that the most promising way to truthfully depict reality is the cyclization of works of "small genres": stories, short stories, and essays. All these genres, as well as individual scenes and sketches, united in a cycle, obeyed a new creative task- a novel appeared, a large epic form. It should be noted that the boundaries between the collection of novellas, short stories, essays and the novel in the 1830s were not always clearly felt. For example, the editorial board of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, which published the future novel, presented Lermontov's work "as a collection of stories." And, indeed, each of the stories in the "Hero of Our Time" can be read as quite independent work, because they all have a complete plot, an independent system of characters. In "Bela", "Taman", "Princess Mary", "Fatalist" the writer deliberately varies the themes set by the literary tradition, in his own way interprets the already known plot and genre models. For example, Bela has developed a popular romantic plot about the love of a European brought up by civilization for a "savage" who grew up among the "children of nature" and lives according to the laws of her tribe. The story "Taman" uses the plot scheme of the adventurous story. In "Princess Mary" Lermontov was guided by the tradition of the "secular" story. "Fatalist" reminds one of a romantic novella on a philosophical theme: in the center of the heroes' actions and reflections was predestination, fate. The only thing that unites all these stories, creating not the plot, but the semantic center of the novel, is the central character, Pechorin. The acute situations in which Pechorin finds himself (a clash with "honest smugglers", secular intrigue, a mortal risk in a battle with fate) were comprehended by him, became facts of his self-awareness and moral self-determination. It is noteworthy that in each story he appears in a new perspective, and in general the novel is a combination of various aspects of the image of the protagonist, complementing each other. Such an image of Pechorin's character, revealed in his actions, in his relationships with people and in his notes - "confessions", makes "The Hero of Our Time" not a "collection of stories", but a socio-psychological and philosophical novel.
Another feature of the composition of the novel is that the author has rejected a consistent story about the fate of Pechorin, which means that he has rejected the chronicle plot, traditional for the novel, "biography". Let's trace this in the text. As the plot develops, the characterization of the protagonist deepens: in Bela we hear about Pechorin; in "Maxim Maksimych" we see him; in "Taman" and "Princess Mary" the hero speaks of himself. From the external psychologism of the first chapters, the author leads us to the emotional experiences of the hero and further to "The Fatalist", the chapter of the novel, in which we get acquainted with the philosophy of Pechorin. All this gives the hero a certain aura of mystery, ambiguity: "... and maybe I will die tomorrow! .. and not a single creature will remain on earth that would understand me completely. Some will say: he was a good fellow, others - a scoundrel. Both will be false ... "- and substantiates the author's interest in the psychology and personality of the hero:" The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is almost more curious and not more useful than the history of an entire people, especially when it is a consequence of observations of a mature mind over by yourself ... ". However, neither in the novel as a whole, nor in "Pechorin's Journal" there is a story of the soul of the protagonist: everything that would indicate the circumstances in which his character was formed and developed is omitted. Thus, the author subtly hinted to the reader that spiritual world the hero, as he appears in the novel, has already been formed, and everything that happens to Pechorin does not lead to changes in his worldview, morality, and psychology.
Thus, the artistic goal set by Lermontov determined not only the intermittent nature of the depiction of Pechorin's fate, but also a certain complexity, inconsistency of his nature. The complexity of the personality of the protagonist is given by a certain ambiguity of Pechorin, which is noticed by the same simple-minded Maksim Maksimych (for him these are inexplicable "oddities"), it also manifests itself in the portrait of the protagonist: the author notes the eyes that do not laugh when laughing and gives two contradictory explanations: a sign - either of an evil disposition, or of deep constant sadness. " Pechorin himself, with his characteristic intellectual precision, generalizes: "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 personality, and he himself understands this: "... I have an innate passion to contradict; my whole life was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or reason." Contradiction becomes a formula for the hero's existence: he realizes in himself a "high purpose" and "immense forces" - and exchanges life in "empty and ungrateful passions." Yesterday he bought a carpet, which the princess liked, and today, having covered his horse with it, he slowly led her past Mary's windows ... The rest of the day he pondered the "impression" he had made. And it takes days, months, life! Pechorin has a clearly expressed attraction and interest in people - and the impossibility of connecting with them. Wherever the main character appears, he brings only misfortunes to those around him: Bela (“Bela”) dies, Maksim Maksimych (“Maksim Maksimych”) is disappointed in friendship, leaves their home " honest smugglers "(" Taman "), Grushnitsky was killed, a deep spiritual wound was inflicted on Princess Mary, Vera does not know happiness (" Princess Mary "), officer Vulich (" Fatalist ") was hacked to death by a drunken Cossack. Moreover, Pechorin understands well his thankless role:" How many times I have already played the role of an ax in the hands of fate! As an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret ... "Why does Pechorin do this? In contrast to Eugene Onegin, the plot in which is built as a system of testing the hero with the moral values ​​of friendship, love, freedom, in "A Hero of Our Time" Pechorin himself subjects all the main spiritual values ​​to a total test, experimenting on himself and others. "Taman" as "secular" - in "Princess Mary." external belonging of a person to a certain social circle.Pechorin tries to get to the inner foundations of the human personality, to check the possibility of relations with a person in general. That is, when they are forced to act not automatically, according to the prescribed laws of traditional morality, but freely, proceeding from the law of their own passions and moral ideas (for example, the scene of a duel with Grushnitsky). At the same time, Pechorin is merciless not only to others, but also to himself. And this ruthlessness to himself, and deep indifference to the results of a cruel experiment, partly justify Pechorin. Doubts of the protagonist in all values ​​firmly defined for other people ("I love to doubt everything!") - this is what condemns Pechorin to loneliness in the world, to individualistic confrontation. This is what makes him "an extra person", "Onegin's younger brother." I wonder if there are any differences between the two? According to Belinsky, "A Hero of Our Time" is "a sad thought about our time ...", and Pechorin is "This is Onegin of our time, a hero of our time ... Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onego and Pechora ...". But there are still differences in their characters, worldview. Onegin has indifference, passivity, inaction. Not Pechorin. "This man is not indifferent, not apathetically suffering: he is frantically chasing life, looking for it everywhere; he bitterly blames himself for his delusions." Pechorin is characterized by vivid individualism, painful introspection, internal monologues, the ability to impartially assess oneself. "A moral cripple," he would say about himself. Onegin is simply bored, skepticism and disappointment are inherent in him. Belinsky once noted that "Pechorin is a suffering egoist," and "Onegin is a bored one." And to some extent this is so. Pechorin, unfortunately, remained "clever uselessness" until the end of his life. People like Pechorin were created by the socio-political conditions of the 30s of the XIX century, the times of gloomy reaction and police supervision. He is truly lively, gifted, brave, smart. His tragedy is the tragedy of an active person who has no business. Pechorin thirsts for activity. But opportunities to apply these spiritual aspirations in practice, to implement them, he does not have. The exhausting feeling of emptiness, boredom, loneliness pushes him on 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: "In a gloomy crowd and soon forgotten, / We will pass over the world without noise and a trace, / Without abandoning a fertile thought for centuries, / Not the genius of the work begun ..." ... "Gloomy" ... This is a crowd of isolated loners, not bound by the unity of goals, ideals, hopes ...
It should be noted that while working on the novel, Lermontov set himself the task of creating an image that would become a mirror image of the era contemporary to the author himself. And he did a great job with her.

The theme of "superfluous people" found its continuation in the works of I.S. Turgenev. "The rapidly changing physiognomy of the Russian people of the cultural stratum" is the main subject artistic image from this writer. Turgenev is attracted by "Russian Hamlets" - a type of intellectual nobleman, captured by the cult of philosophical knowledge of the 1830s - early 1840s, who passed the stage of ideological self-determination in philosophical circles. That was the time of the formation of the personality of the writer himself, therefore, the appeal to the heroes of the "philosophical" era was dictated by the desire not only to objectively assess the past, but also to understand oneself, to rethink the facts of his ideological biography. Among his tasks, Turgenev singled out two of the most important. The first is to create an "image of time", which was achieved by a careful analysis of the beliefs and psychology of the central characters who embodied Turgenev's understanding of the "heroes of the time." The second is attention to new trends in the life of the "cultural stratum" of Russia, that is, the intellectual environment to which the writer himself belonged. The novelist was primarily interested in lone heroes, who especially fully embodied all the most important tendencies of the era. But these people were not as bright individualists as the true "heroes of the time." One way or another, but all this was reflected in the first Turgenev novel "Rudin" (1855). The prototype of the protagonist Dmitry Nikolaevich Rudin was a member of the circle of N.V. Stankevich M.A. Bakunin. Knowing very well the people of the "Rudin" type, Turgenev hesitated for a long time in assessing the historical role of the "Russian Hamlets" and therefore twice revised the novel. Rudin, on the other hand, ultimately turned out to be a contradictory person, and this was largely the result of the contradictory attitude of the author towards him.
What kind of person was Rudin, the hero of Turgenev's first novel? We get to know him when he appears in the house of Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya, "a rich and noble lady": "A man of about thirty-five entered, tall, somewhat stooped, curly, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent ... with a liquid sheen in fast dark blue eyes, with a straight wide nose and beautifully outlined lips. The dress he wore was not new and narrow, as if he had grown out of it. "So far, everything is quite normal, but very soon everyone present at Lasunskaya's will feel the sharp originality of this new personality for them. At first, Rudin easily and gracefully destroys Pigasov in a dispute, revealing wit and the habit of polemics. Then he shows a lot of knowledge and erudition. But this is not what he conquers the audience: "Rudin owned almost the highest secret - the music of eloquence. He was able, striking one strings of hearts, to make vaguely ring all the others ... ". His enthusiasm for exclusively higher interests also affects the listeners. A person cannot, should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, worries about existence, Rudin asserts. Enlightenment, science , the meaning of life - this is what Rudin talks about so inspired and poetically. Everyone feels the power of Rudin's influence on the audience, conviction in a word. Bursting into the inert society of provincial nobles, he brought with him the breath of world life, the spirit of the era and became the brightest personality among the heroes From this it follows that Rudin is the spokesman for the historical task of his generation as interpreted by the writer.
The characters in the novel are like a system of mirrors, reflecting in their own way the image of the protagonist. Natalya Lasunskaya was immediately seized by a feeling that was still unclear to her. Bassistov looks at Rudin as a teacher, Volyntsev pays tribute to Rudin's eloquence, Pandalevsky evaluates Rudin's abilities in his own way - "a very clever person!" Only Pigasov is embittered and does not recognize Rudin's merits - out of envy and resentment for defeat in the dispute.
In relations with Natalia, one of the main contradictions of the Rudin character is revealed. Just the day before, Rudin spoke with such inspiration about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly we have a man who has completely lost faith in himself. True, the objection of the surprised Natalya is enough - and Rudin reproaches himself for his cowardice and again preaches the need to do good. Lofty thoughts of Rudin, his truly quixotic selflessness and selflessness are combined with practical unpreparedness, amateurism. He undertakes agronomic transformations from the owner of vast estates, dreams of "various improvements, innovations," but seeing the failure of his attempts, he leaves, losing his "daily piece of bread". Rudin's attempt to teach at the gymnasium also ends in failure. Affected not only by the lack of knowledge, but also by the free way of his thoughts. Another episode also contains a hint of Rudin's clash with public injustice. “I could tell you,” says Rudin to Lezhnev, “how I got into secretaries to a dignitary and what came of it; but it would have taken us too far ...”. This silence is significant. The following words of Lezhnev, the Rudinsky antagonist, about the reasons for the isolation of the ideals of the protagonist from concrete reality are also significant: "Rudin's misfortune lies in the fact that he does not know Russia ...". Yes, it is the isolation from life, the lack of mundane ideas that makes Rudin "an extra person." And his fate is tragic, first of all, because from a young age this hero lives only with complex impulses of the soul, groundless dreams. Turgenev, like many authors who touched on the topic of "an extra person", tests his protagonist with a "set of life criteria": love, death. Rudin's inability to take a decisive step in relations with Natalia was interpreted by criticism still contemporary to Turgenev as a sign of not only spiritual, but also social failure of the protagonist. A final scene the novel - the death of Rudin on the barricades in rebellious Paris - only emphasized the tragedy and historical doom of the hero, representing the "Russian Hamlets" of the bygone romantic era.
The second novel, The Noble Nest (1858), strengthened Turgenev's reputation as a public writer, an expert on the spiritual life of his contemporaries, and a subtle lyric poet in prose. And, if in the novel "Rudin" Turgenev denotes the disunity of his contemporary progressive aristocratic intelligentsia from the people, their ignorance of Russia, a lack of understanding of concrete reality, then in the Noble Nest the writer is primarily interested in the origins and causes of this disunity. Therefore, the heroes of the "Noble Nest" are shown with their "roots", with the soil on which they grew up. There are two such heroes in this novel: Lavretsky and Liza Kalitina. These heroes are looking for answers, first of all, to the questions that their fate puts before them - about personal happiness, about duty to loved ones, about self-denial, about their place in life. And the inconsistency in life positions often leads to ideological disputes between the main characters. Moreover, in the novel, an ideological dispute occupies a central place and for the first time lovers become its participants. What are the life beliefs of the heroes? Liza Kalitina is a deeply religious person, religion for her is the source of the only correct answers to any "damned" questions, a means of resolving the most painful contradictions in life. She seeks to prove to Lavretsky the correctness of his convictions, since, according to her, he only wants to "plow the land ... and try to plow it as best as possible." Its character is determined by a fatalistic attitude towards life, it seems to be taking on the burden of the historical guilt of a long series of previous generations. Lavretsky, however, does not accept the Lysine morality of humility and self-denial. This hero is busy looking for the life, folk, in his expression, the truth, which consists "first of all in its recognition and humility before her ... in the impossibility of leaps and arrogant alterations of Russia from the height of bureaucratic consciousness - alterations that are not justified by knowledge native land, nor real faith in the ideal ... ". Lavretsky, like Liza, is a man with" roots "going back into the past. he never forgets about this, feeling in himself "peasant" features: extraordinary physical strength, lack of refined manners. Thus, the hero is close to the people both by his origin and by his personal qualities. for himself the answers to any questions that life asks him: "Here is only good luck for those who make their own path slowly, like a plowman plowing a furrow."
The ending of the novel is very important, which is a kind of result of Lavretsky's life searches. After all, his welcoming words at the end of the novel to unknown young forces mean not only the hero's refusal of personal happiness (his connection with Lisa is impossible), her very possibilities, but also sound like a blessing to people, faith in a person. The finale also defines the entire inconsistency of Lavretsky, makes him a "superfluous person."
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the very point of view of Turgenev on the "superfluous person" was quite peculiar. In justifying Rudin and the "superfluous people" in general, the writer cites the same arguments as Herzen, but disagrees with him in determining the degree of their guilt. Herzen condemns "superfluous people" for the fact that they, having broken away from their environment, did not respond to violence with violence, did not go to the end in saving the world and themselves. Turgenev rejects this path of salvation, believing that no political changes can free a person from the power of the forces of history and nature. The writer also believed that the "superfluous person" could fulfill his duty more rationally, devoting all his strength to the preparation of gradual transformations, which are historically ripe and the need for which many were aware. Dobrolyubov, on the other hand, took a middle position in this discussion, defining the position of Rudin and Lavretsky as truly tragic, because they are faced with "such concepts and morals with which the struggle should really frighten even an energetic and courageous person."

So, the theme of the "superfluous person" comes to its end in a completely different capacity, having passed a difficult evolutionary path: from the romantic pathos of rejection of life and society to the acute rejection of the "extra person" himself. And the fact that this term can be applied to the heroes of the works of the 20th century does not change anything: the meaning of the term will be different and it will be possible to call it "superfluous" on completely different grounds. There will be returns to this theme (for example, the image of the "superfluous person" Levushka Odoyevtsev from A. Bitov's novel "Pushkin House"), and proposals that there are no "superfluous" ones, but there are only various variations of this theme. But the return is no longer a discovery: the 19th century discovered and exhausted the topic of the "superfluous person".

Bibliography:

1. Babaev E.G. The works of A.S. Pushkin. - M., 1988.
2. Batuto A.I. Turgenev is a novelist. - L., 1972.
3. Ilyin E.N. Russian literature: recommendations for schoolchildren and applicants, "SCHOOL-PRESS". M., 1994.
4. Krasovsky V.E. History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 2001.
5. Literature. Reference materials. Book for students. M., 1990.
6. Makogonenko G.P. Lermontov and Pushkin. M., 1987.
7. Monakhova O.P. Russian literature of the XIX century, "OLMA-PRESS". M., 1999.
8. Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit": Commentary. - M., 1983.
9. Shamrey L.V., Rusova N.Yu. From allegory to iambic. Terminological dictionary-thesaurus on literary criticism. - N. Novgorod, 1993.

The theme of the "little man" is traditional for Russian literature of the 19th century. A.S. Pushkin is considered the first writer to touch upon and develop this topic. In the story "The Stationmaster" he "displays" his hero - the "little man" Samson Vyrin, who serves as the stationmaster. Immediately Pushkin draws attention to the fact that in the outwardly stupid and ingenuous performance of this man's duties lies a difficult, often thankless job, full of troubles and worries. Few of those passing by are interested in the life of station keepers, and as a rule, each of them has a difficult fate, in which tears, suffering and grief are abundant. The life of Samson Vyrin was no different from the life of those like him, the station keepers, who, in order to have the most necessary for the maintenance of their family, were ready to listen silently and just as silently endure endless insults and reproaches in their address. True, Samson Vyrin's family was small: he and his beautiful daughter Dunya. Samson's wife died, and he lived only for Dunya's sake. At the age of fourteen, the daughter was a real assistant to her father: to clean up the house, prepare dinner, serve the traveler - for everything she was a craftswoman, everything was arguing in her hands. Looking at Dounin's beauty, even those who made rough treatment of the station keepers as a rule became kinder and more merciful. In the first part of the story, Samson Vyrin looked "fresh and cheerful", despite the hard work and the rough, unfair treatment of people passing by. However, how grief can change a person! Just a few years later, the narrator, having met with Samson, sees an old man in front of him, unkempt, prone to drunkenness, vegetating in his abandoned home. His Dunya, his hope, the one that gave strength to live, left with an unfamiliar hussar. And not with the father's blessing, as is customary among honest people, but secretly. Samson was scared to think that his dear child, his Dunya, whom he, as best he could, protected from all dangers, did this to him and, most importantly, to herself - she had become not a wife, but a mistress. Pushkin sympathizes with his hero and treats him with respect: honor for Samson is above everything, above wealth and money. More than once fate beat this man, but nothing made him sink so low, so stop loving life, like the act of a beloved daughter. Material poverty for Samson is nothing compared to the emptiness of the soul. Pictures depicting history hung on the wall in Samson Vyrin's house prodigal son... The caretaker's daughter repeated the act of the hero of the biblical legend. And, most likely, like the father of the prodigal son depicted in the pictures, the stationmaster was waiting for his daughter, ready to forgive. But Dunya did not return. And my father could not find a place for himself out of despair, knowing how such stories often end: “There are a lot of them in St. Petersburg, young fools, today in satin and velvet, and tomorrow, you will see, they sweep the street, along with the barn. How do you sometimes think that Dunya, perhaps, disappears right there, so you will sin against your will and wish her a grave ... ”The attempt of the station superintendent to return his daughter home did not end well. After that, having washed down with despair and grief even more, Samson Vyrin died. Nikolai Gogol's story "The Overcoat" is consistently connected with Pushkin's story, written a decade earlier. But, revealing the tragedy of the "little man", Gogol introduced one very important feature into his story. He pushed the "little man" Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin against the state machine and showed how hostile it was to his interests. In Gogol, public, social motives sound stronger than in Pushkin. What is the "little man" according to Gogol? It is about a person who is small in social terms, because he is not rich, has no voice in society, is not remarkable in any way. He is just a petty official with a meager salary. But this person is also "small" because his inner world is very limited. Gogol's hero is insignificant and invisible. Even his name is translated from Greek as "the most humble". Akaky Akakievich is very executive, but at the same time he does not even think about what he is doing. That is why the hero begins to get very worried when he needs to show at least a little quick wits. But the most interesting thing is that Bashmachkin has lost faith in himself so much that he does not even try to change, improve. He just repeats over and over again: "No, better let me rewrite something." The only meaning of the hero's life is collecting money to buy an overcoat. He is insanely happy from just the thought of fulfilling this desire. It is not surprising that the theft of a wonderful greatcoat, acquired with such difficulty, became a real tragedy for Bashmachkin. The people around Akaki Akakievich only laughed at his misfortune. Nobody even tried to understand this person, let alone help him. The worst thing, in my opinion, is that no one noticed Bashmachkin's death, no one remembered him after. The episode of the resurrection of Akaki Akakievich in the epilogue of the story is fantastic. Now this hero allegedly wanders around Petersburg and rips off his greatcoats and fur coats from passers-by. Such is Bashmachkin's revenge. He calms down only when he rips off the overcoat from the "significant person", which greatly influenced the fate of the hero. Only now Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin is growing up in his own eyes. According to Gogol, even in the life of the most insignificant person there are moments when he can become a strong person who can stand up for himself. FM Dostoevsky continues the literary traditions of Pushkin and Gogol. The theme of "poor people", "humiliated and insulted" becomes the main theme in his work. The writer tells us that every person, whoever he is, no matter how low he is on the social ladder, has the right to sympathy and compassion. Already in his first novel, Poor People, Dostoevsky turns to the theme of the “little man”. The main character of the work is Makar Devushkin - a half-impoverished official, crushed by grief, need and social lack of rights, and his beloved, Varenka, is a girl who has become a victim of social distress. Like Gogol in the story "The Overcoat", FM Dostoevsky turned to the topic of the powerless, immensely humiliated "little man" who lives his own inner life in conditions that grossly violate human dignity. Dostoevsky himself wrote: "We all left Gogol's Overcoat." Thus, the theme of the "little" person is a cross-cutting one in Russian literature of the 19th century. Major writers have addressed this topic, interpreting and developing it in their own way. Pushkin emphasized the personal humility of his hero, Gogol - on the indifference of society, Dostoevsky raised this issue to a higher, spiritual aspect. But all these artists, following the humanistic tradition of Russian classical literature, focused on the soul of their heroes, on their inner world. All writers urged to see in the "little man" a personality worthy, if not respect, then sympathy and understanding.

There has always been a special attitude towards women in Russian literature, and until a certain time the main place in it was occupied by a man - a hero, with whom the problems posed by the authors were associated. Karamzin was one of the first to draw attention to the fate of poor Liza, who, as it turned out, also knew how to love selflessly. And Pushkin portrayed Tatyana Larina, who knows how not only to love very much, but also to abandon her feelings, when the fate of a loved one depends on it.

The situation changed radically in the second half of the nineteenth century, when, due to the growth of the revolutionary movement, many traditional views on the place of women in society changed. Writers of different views saw the role of women in life in different ways.

One can speak of a kind of polemic between Chernyshevsky and Tolstoy using the example of the novels "What is to be done?" and “War and Peace”.

Chernyshevsky, being a revolutionary democrat, advocated the equality of men and women, appreciated the mind in a woman, saw and respected a man in her. Vera Pavlovna is free in her right to love the one she chooses. She works along with men, does not depend financially on her husband. Her workshop is proof of her viability as an organizer and entrepreneur. Vera Pavlovna is in no way inferior to men: neither in the ability to think logically, nor in a sober assessment of the social situation in the country.

This was supposed to be a woman in the mind of Chernyshevsky, and indeed of all those who professed the ideas of revolutionary democracy.

But as many supporters of women's emancipation existed, there were as many opponents of it, one of whom was L.N. Tolstoy.

In the novel Anna Karenina, the author also raised the problem of free love. But if Vera Pavlovna did not have children, then Tolstoy showed a heroine who must think not only about her happiness, but also about the well-being of her children. Anna's love for Vronsky negatively affected the fate of Seryozha and the newborn girl, who was legally considered Karenina, but was Vronsky's daughter. The mother's deed fell like a dark stain on the lives of the children.

Tolstoy showed his ideal in the image of Natasha Rostova. For him, it was she who was a true woman.

Throughout the novel, we follow how a playful little girl becomes a real mother, a loving wife, a homemaker.

From the very beginning, Tolstoy emphasizes that there is not an ounce of falsehood in Natasha, she feels unnaturalness and lies more sharply than anyone. By appearing on a name day in a living room full of semi-official ladies, she violates this atmosphere of pretense. All her actions are subject to feelings, not reason. She even sees people in her own way: Boris is gray, narrow, like a mantel clock, and Pierre is rectangular, red-brown. For her, these characteristics are enough to understand who is who.

Natasha is called “living life” in the novel. With her energy, she inspires those around her to a new life. With support and understanding, the heroine practically saves her mother after the death of Petrusha. Prince Andrey, who had time to say goodbye to all the joys of life, having seen Natasha, felt that all was not lost for him. And after the betrothal, the whole world for Andrey was divided into two parts: one - she, where everything is light, the other - everything else, there is darkness. “What does it matter to me what the sovereign says in the Council? Will it make me happier? ” - says Bolkonsky.

Natasha can be forgiven for her hobby for Kuragin. This was the only time her intuition let her down. All her actions are subject to momentary impulses that cannot always be explained. She did not understand Andrey's desire to postpone the wedding for a year. Natasha strove to live every second, and the year for her was equal to eternity.

Tolstoy endows his heroine with all the best qualities, moreover, she rarely evaluates her actions, more often relying on an inner moral feeling.

Like all his beloved heroes, the author sees Natasha Rostova as part of the people. He emphasizes this in the scene with his uncle, when “the countess, brought up by a French emigrant,” danced no worse than Agafya. This feeling of unity with the people, as well as true patriotism, pushes Natasha to give carts for the wounded when leaving Moscow, leaving almost all things in the city.

Even the highly spiritual Princess Marya, who at first did not love the pagan Natasha, understood her and accepted her as she is.

Natasha Rostova was not very smart, and even that was not important for Tolstoy. “Now, when he (Pierre) was telling all this to Natasha, he experienced that rare pleasure that women give when listening to a man - not smart women who, listening, try to remember what they are told in order to enrich their mind and retell the same on occasion; but the pleasure that real women, gifted with the ability to choose and absorb in themselves all the best that are only in the manifestations of a man, give.

Natasha realized herself as a mother, wife. Tolstoy emphasizes that she herself raised all her children (an impossible thing for a noblewoman), but for the author this is absolutely natural.

Despite the diversity of female characters in Russian literature, they are united by the fact that around them they are trying to create harmony of feelings and peace for their loved ones.

Rereading Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy, we again and again experience together with Tatyana Larina, Natalia Lasunskaya, Natasha Rostova. They set an example pure love, devotion, loyalty, self-sacrifice. These images live in us, sometimes answering many of our questions, helping us not to make mistakes, to take the only right step. In these images, there is not only external beauty, but also the beauty of the soul, which calls on us to improve spiritually.

FEMALE IMAGES IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (II option)

It is impossible to imagine world literature without the image of a woman. Even without being the main character of the work, she brings some special character to the story. Since the beginning of the world, men have admired the representatives of the beautiful half of humanity, idolized and worshiped them. Already in the myths of Ancient Greece, we meet the gentle beauty Aphrodite, wise Athena, insidious Hera. These women-goddesses were recognized as equal to men, their advice was obeyed, they were trusted with the fate of the world, they were feared.

And at the same time, the woman was always surrounded by mystery, her actions led to confusion and bewilderment. To delve into the psychology of a woman, to understand her is the same as solving one of the most ancient mysteries of the Universe.

Russian writers have always assigned a special place to women in their works. Everyone, of course, saw her in his own way, but for everyone she was a support, hope, an object of admiration. Turgenev sang the image of a staunch, honest girl, capable of making any sacrifices for love; Nekrasov admired the image of a peasant woman who “will stop a galloping horse and enter a burning hut”; for Pushkin, the main virtue of a woman was her marital fidelity.

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy in the epic "War and Peace" created unforgettable images of Natasha Rostova, Princess Marya, Helen, Sonya. They are all different in their characters, outlook on life, attitude towards loved ones.

Natasha Rostova ... This is a fragile, gentle girl, but she has strong character... In it, one can feel that closeness to the people, nature, sources, which the author so appreciated. He admired Natasha's ability to feel someone else's grief, pain.

Loving, Natasha gives all of herself, a loved one replaces her - relatives and friends. Natasha is natural, she, with her charm and charm, returns to Prince Andrey the desire to live.

A difficult test for her was a meeting with Anatol Kuragin. All her hopes are lost, dreams are shattered, Prince Andrei will never forgive betrayal, although she is simply entangled in her feelings.

Some time after the death of Prince Andrei, Natasha realizes that she loves Pierre, and she is ashamed. She believes that she is betraying the memory of her lover. But Natasha's feelings often prevail over her mind, and this is also her charm.

Another female character that caught my attention in the novel is Princess Marya. This heroine is so beautiful internally that her appearance does not matter. Her eyes radiated such light that her face lost its ugliness.

Princess Marya sincerely believes in God, she believes that only He has the right to forgive and have mercy. She scolds herself for unkind thoughts, for disobeying her father and tries to see only good in others. She is proud and noble, like her brother, but her pride does not offend, because kindness - an integral part of her nature - softens this sometimes unpleasant feeling to others.

In my opinion, the image of Maria Volkonskaya is the image of a guardian angel. She protects everyone for whom she feels even the slightest responsibility. Tolstoy believes that such a person as Princess Marya deserves much more than an alliance with Anatol Kuragin, who did not understand what treasure he had lost; however, he had completely different moral values.

In War and Peace, the author, admiring the courage and resilience of the Russian people, praises Russian women as well. Princess Marya, who feels offended at the mere thought that the French will be on her estate; Natasha, who is ready to leave the house in what she was, but give all the carts for the wounded.

But the author not only admires the woman. Helen Bezukhova in the work is the personification of vice. She is beautiful, but her beauty does not attract, because inwardly she is simply ugly. She has no soul, she does not understand the suffering of another person. Having a child from her husband is something terrible for her. She pays dearly for Boris choosing her.

Helen evokes only contempt and pity.

Tolstoy's attitude to women is ambiguous. In the novel, he emphasizes that outer beauty- not the main thing in a person. The spiritual world and inner beauty mean much more.

Kuprin also believes that appearance can be deceiving and a woman is able to use her attractiveness to achieve the goals she needs.

Shurochka Nikolaeva from the story "Duel" is a complex nature. She does not love her husband, but lives with him and forces him to study, because only he is able, having entered the academy, to pull her out of the boondocks in which they live. She leaves her loved one only because he is weaker than her, unable to give her what she wants. She, without any regret, stifles in herself the feeling that people have been waiting for all their lives. But she does not command either respect for her strong will or admiration.

Shurochka uses Yuri Romashov because she knows about his love for her. She is so immoral that she is able to persuade Romashov not to shoot, knowing full well that he will die tomorrow. And all for his own sake, for he loves himself more than anyone else. Her main goal is to create the best living conditions for herself, while the methods do not matter. She steps over people and does not feel guilty.

The image of Shurochka does not attract, although she is beautiful, her business qualities are repulsive: there is no true femininity in her, which, in my opinion, implies warmth, sincerity, sacrifice.

Both Tolstoy and Kuprin are unanimous in their opinion that a woman should remain a woman. Many writers transferred the character traits of their loved ones to the images of the main heroines of their works. I think that is why the image of a woman in Russian literature is so striking in its brightness, originality, strength of emotional experience.

Beloved women have always served as a source of inspiration for men. Female ideal everyone has their own, but at all times the representatives of the stronger sex admired female devotion, the ability to sacrifice, patience.

A true woman will forever remain inextricably linked with family, children, home.

And men will not cease to be amazed at women's whims, to seek explanations for women's actions, to fight for women's love.

FEMALE IMAGES IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (III option)

For the first time, a bright female image in the center of the work appeared in Karamzin's "Poor Liza". Before that, female images, of course, were present in the works, but their inner world was not given enough attention. And it is natural that the female image for the first time clearly manifested itself in sentimentalism, because sentimentalism is an image of feelings, and a woman is always full of emotions and she is characterized by the manifestation of feelings.

The female image and its image changed with the development of literature. In different directions of literature, it was different, but as literature developed, and psychologism deepened - the psychologically female image, like all images, became more complex and the inner world became more significant. If in medieval novels the ideal of the female image is a noble virtuous beauty and that's all, then in realism the ideal becomes more complicated, and the inner world of a woman takes on a significant role.

The female image is most clearly manifested in love, jealousy, passion; and, in order to more vividly express the ideal of the female image, the author often puts a woman in conditions where she fully expresses her feelings, but, of course, not only to portray the ideal, although this also plays a role.

A woman's feelings determine her inner world, and often, if a woman’s inner world is ideal for the author, he uses a woman as an indicator, i.e. her attitude to this or that hero corresponds to the attitude of the author.

Often, through the ideal of a woman in a novel, a person is “purified” and “reborn”, as, for example, in FM Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”.

The development of the ideal of the female image in Russian literature can be traced back to the works of the 19th century.

In my essay, I want to consider the ideal of the female image of the 1st half of the XIX c, in Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin" - Tatyana Larina and the ideal of the second half of the 19th century, in Leo Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" - to Natash Rostov.

What is Pushkin's ideal in general? Of course it's harmony human soul and just harmony. At the beginning of his creative work, Pushkin wrote the poem "The Beauty Who Smelled Tobacco", which in a joking manner depicts the problem that confronts Pushkin in the future - the lack of harmony.

Of course, the ideal of the female image for Pushkin is, first of all, a harmonious woman, calm and close to nature. In the novel "Eugene Onegin", of course, this is Tatyana Larina.

Leo Tolstoy's ideal is a natural life and a person who lives a natural life. Natural life is life in all its manifestations, with all natural senses inherent in man - love, hate, friendship. And of course, the ideal of the female image in the novel War and Peace is Natasha Rostova. She is natural, and this naturalness is contained in her from birth.

If you look at the appearance of Natasha and Tatiana, they seem completely different.

Pushkin describes Tatyana as follows.

So, she was called Tatiana.
Not her sister's beauty.
Not the freshness of her ruddy.
She would not have attracted the eyes.
Dika, sad, silent.
As a forest doe is fearful,
She is in her own family.

She seemed like a stranger to a girl.
She did not know how to caress
To his father, nor to his mother;
Child herself, in a crowd of children
I didn't want to play and jump.
And often all day alone
She sat silently by the window.

The complete opposite of Tatyana is a lively, cheerful Natasha: “Black-eyed, with a big mouth, an ugly, but lively girl ...” And Natasha’s relations with relatives are completely different: “Having turned away from her father, she (Natasha) ran to her mother and, not paying any attention to her stern remark, hid her flushed face in the lace of her mother's mantilla and laughed (...), she fell on her mother and burst out laughing so loudly and loudly that everyone, even the prim guest, laughed against her will ”. Different families, characters, relationships, appearance ... What can be in common between Tatyana and Natasha?

But the most important thing is that both Tatiana and Natasha are both Russian souls. Tatyana spoke and wrote poorly in Russian, read foreign literature, but still:

Tatiana (Russian soul),
Without knowing why,
With her cold beauty
She loved the Russian winter.

About Natasha, Tolstoy writes: “Where, how, when she sucked into herself from the Russian air that she breathed - this decanter, brought up by an emigrant Frenchwoman, this spirit, where did she get these techniques that should have long ago supplanted education? But the spirit and the methods were the same, inimitable, unstudied, Russian, which her uncle had expected from her ”. This Russian spirit is embedded in Natasha and Tatyana, and therefore they are harmonious.

Both Natasha and Tatiana yearn for love. And when Prince Andrey began to visit the Rostovs after the ball, it seemed to Natasha, “that even when she first saw Prince Andrey in Otradnoye, she fell in love with him. She seemed to be frightened by this strange, unexpected happiness that the one whom she had chosen back then (she was firmly convinced of this), that he met her again, and, it seems, was not indifferent to her. " Tatyana has:

Tatiana listened with annoyance
Such gossip, but secretly
With inexplicable joy
I involuntarily thought about:
And thought was born in the heart;
The time has come, she fell in love. (...)
(...) Long sincere heartache
Her young breasts were pressed against her;
The soul was waiting ... for someone.
And she waited ... Eyes were opened;
She said: it's him!

Natasha wanted to be noticed, to be chosen to dance at the ball; and when Prince Andrew “chooses” her, Natasha decides that she herself chose him and fell in love at first sight. Natasha really wants it to be true love.

Tatiana also chooses Onegin purely intuitively: she saw him only once before she decided that she was in love.

Although both Natasha and Tatyana were waiting for “someone”, nevertheless, in my opinion, Natasha wanted to love and be loved, and Tatyana only wanted to love. And Natasha decides that she loves the one with whom she is already loved; and Tatiana, completely not knowing Onegin, not knowing his feelings, fell in love with him.

Natasha and Tatiana wanted to be happy, and, of course, they want to know what the future holds for them. Both girls are fortune-telling at Christmas time; but neither Tatyana nor Natasha saw anything in the mirror when they were guessing, and both were afraid to guess in the bathhouse. Natasha is very surprised that she does not see anything in the mirror, but believes that she is to blame. Tatiana tries all fortune-telling: one after another, but none of them portends her happiness. For Natasha, fortune-telling did not bode well either. Of course, what Sonya invented, looking in the mirror, seemed possible and true to Natasha. When a person loves, he naturally tries to find out what will be, whether he will be happy; so are Natasha and Tatiana.

It is characteristic that when both heroines find themselves in almost the same situation, they behave differently. After Onegin, having rejected Tatyana's love, leaves, Tatyana cannot live as before:

And alone cruel
Stronger her passion burns,
And about Onegin distant
Her heart speaks louder.

As for Natasha, at a time when Prince Andrew is leaving for his father, and Natasha decides that he has abandoned her, then: “The next day after this conversation, Natasha put on that old dress, which she was especially aware of for the one delivered to him in the morning gaiety, and in the morning she began her old way of life, from which she lagged behind after the ball. " Of course, Natasha was worried and waited for Prince Andrei, but this state is not always characteristic of such a lively and cheerful Natasha.

It is characteristic of both girls that they love not an ideal at all, but a real person. Tatiana, when she, after spending many hours in Onegin's "cell", realized what he really was, she did not stop loving him. Natasha knew Pierre for a long time and quite well, but still she loved him, and not some ideal.

It is interesting that Natasha, being married, does not take any place in secular society... And Tatyana, who could have stayed only in the village, becomes a real secular lady. And although they both remain harmonious in their souls, Natasha also lives happily. And Tatiana:

How Tatiana has changed!
How firmly she entered her role!
Like an oppressive dignity
Accepted receptions soon!
Who would dare to look for a gentle girl
In this stately, in this careless
Legislator Hall?

Natasha also changed, but she became a woman completely opposite to Tatyana. Natasha melted into her family, and she didn't just have time for social events. It is possible that if Tatyana found her happiness in the family, she would not be so famous in society either.

In my opinion, the situation most clearly characterizes the heroines is when they understand that they love one person, but are connected with another. This is how Tatyana, being married, meets Onegin; and when Onegin confesses his love to her, she says:

I love you (why dissemble?),
But I am given to another;
And I will be faithful to him forever.

As for Natasha, after the engagement with Prince Andrey, she meets Anatol Kuragin and decides that she is in love and succumbs to his persuasion to flee with him. Since Natasha is natural from birth, she cannot love one person and be the bride of another. For her, it is so natural that a person can love and stop loving.

For Tatyana, it is impossible to destroy the marriage, because this would destroy her spiritual harmony.

What are the similarities between Natasha and Tatiana?

They are both harmonious, close to nature and love nature, they have a Russian soul, and they both wanted to love, and, of course, they are natural in their own way.

Tatyana cannot be as natural as Natasha, she has her own moral foundations, the violation of which will lead to a violation of harmony in her soul.

For Natasha, the right thing is when she is happy, if she loves, then she should be with this person, and this is natural.

As a result, the ideals of the female image of Tolstoy and Pushkin are different, although they intersect.

For Tolstoy's ideal, it is very important to find your place in life and live a natural life, but for this all the harmony of the human soul is also needed.

Pushkin's ideal must be harmonious; harmony of the soul is the main thing, and you can live a natural life without harmony of the soul (for example, the parents of Tatiana Larina).

The ideal of the female image ... How many of them have already been and there will be more. But ideals are not repeated in works of genius, they only intersect or are completely opposite.

FEMALE IMAGES IN THE WORKS OF A. S. PUSHKIN AND L. N. TOLSTOY

Russian women ... When you hear these words, extraordinary images emerge from the novels of A.S. Pushkin, I.S. Turgenev, L.N. Tolstoy. And it is not at all necessary that they perform feats. The heroines of Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy are unusually sweet and attractive. They are all strong and remarkable in their spiritual qualities. They know how to love and hate in full force, without reservations. They are strong, whole individuals.

The image of Tatyana Larina, as the main heroine of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", is the most perfect among the other female characters of the novel.

A great influence on Tatyana and the formation of her character was exerted by the impressions of her native nature and her closeness to the nanny Filipyevna. The parents and the community of local nobles that surrounded the Larin family in the village did not have a significant impact on her. Pushkin pays special attention to Tatiana's participation in Christmas divination, which was part of the Russian folk life of that time:

Tatiana believed in legends
Common folk antiquity.
And dreams, and card fortune-telling,
And the predictions of the moon.

Tatiana not only understands Russian folk speech well, but she herself uses elements of vernacular in her speech: "I feel sick", "What do I need?"

One should not deny the usual at that time and in that environment, influences of an alien nature (French, Western novels). But they also enrich Tatyana's personality, find echoes in her heart, and the French language gives her the opportunity to convey her feelings most strongly, which, as it seems to me, corresponds to Pushkin's attitude to foreign culture as a culture that contributes to the enrichment of Russian. But it does not drown out the national basis, but reveals and makes it possible for the primordially Russian to open up. Perhaps that is why Pushkin emphasizes the national basis of the character of the heroine, “the Russian soul”. This is the basis of his love for her, which shines through throughout the story and does not allow a single drop of irony on the part of the author.

In relation to Onegin, the main features of Tatyana's personality are revealed with the greatest completeness. She writes and sends a letter - a declaration of love. This is a bold step, completely unacceptable from the point of view of morality. But Tatiana is “an exceptional being”. Falling in love with Onegin, she obeys only her feelings. She speaks about her love immediately, without any tricks and decorations. It is impossible to find another beginning of the letter that would express with such immediacy what these words say:

I am writing to you - what more?
What else can I say?

In this letter, she reveals to Onegin all her “trusting soul”.

Unrequited love for Onegin, the duel and death of Lensky, the departure of Onegin - Tatiana deeply experiences all these events. A dreamy, enthusiastic girl turns into a woman seriously pondering over life.

In the last chapter of the novel, Tatiana is a secular woman, but inside she remains the same. And she rejects Onegin not because she does not love, but because she does not want to betray herself, her views, her high understanding of the word "loyalty."

But along with such female images there are others. To highlight them, the authors show other women who are far inferior to them in moral and spiritual qualities.

The complete opposite of Tatiana is her sister Olga. Despite the same upbringing and the environment surrounding the Larins sisters, they grew up very different. Olga is careless and windy. And Onegin, a connoisseur of the female soul, gives her the following description:

Olga has no life in her features.
Just like in the Madonna of Vendice ...

She does not seem to notice Lensky's feelings. And even in the last hours before the duel, he dreams of Olga's loyalty. But he is greatly mistaken in the sincerity of her feelings for him. She quickly forgets him after meeting the young lancer she is marrying.

There are many more heroines in Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. And for Tolstoy, inner and outer beauty is important in them.

Like Tatyana Larina, Natasha Rostova is a whole person. She is very far from intellectual life, lives only by feelings, sometimes she makes mistakes, sometimes logic refuses her. She is naive, wants everyone to be happy, everyone is good.

We don't even know if she's smart or not. But that doesn't matter. Tolstoy shows that her dignity is not in her mind, but in something else. Tolstoy confronts her with Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov (their favorite characters), and both fall in love with her. And this is no coincidence.

Natasha is Tolstoy's ideal woman, she is a reflection of Pushkin's Tatyana. At the end of the novel, she becomes what Tolstoy wants to see her. And the “female” is a praise for her, as it is a symbol of a caring mother. Down - good. Indeed, according to Tolstoy, a woman's vocation is family, children. Examples of the opposite are Anna Karenina, Helen Kuragina.

Helene is a secular beauty who grew up in society, unlike Tatyana, Natasha, Princess Marya. But it was the light that corrupted her, made her soulless. Tolstoy calls her entire family just that - “a soulless breed”. There is nothing behind her good looks. She gets married only because her husband has a lot of money. She is not interested in spiritual values, she does not admire the beauty of nature. Helene is an immoral and selfish woman.

Princess Marya Volkonskaya is another matter. She is very ugly, her gait is heavy, but Tolstoy immediately draws our attention to her beautiful radiant eyes. And the eyes are the “mirror of the soul”. And Princess Marya's soul is deep, primordially Russian, capable of sincere feelings. And this is what unites her with Natasha Rostova, with Tatyana Larina. Naturalness is important in them.

Tolstoy continues the traditions of Pushkin in revealing the human character in all its complexity, contradiction and diversity.

In the images of his heroines, Tolstoy pays great attention to their portrait. He usually emphasizes in them any detail, a line, persistently repeating it. And thanks to this, this person is engraved in the memory and is no longer forgotten.

It is also interesting that Helene almost always speaks only French, and Natasha and Marya resort to it only when they get into the atmosphere of high-society salons.

Smiles, glances, gestures and facial expressions perfectly convey the complex emotional experiences of Marya and Natasha, Helen's empty conversations.

As we can see, the beloved heroines of the works of AS Pushkin and LN Tolstoy are sincerely feeling, “natures are deep, loving, passionate”. One cannot help but admire such women, one cannot help but love them as sincerely as they love people, life, and the Fatherland.

TWO KATERINAS (Katerina Izmailova and Katerina Kabanova)

Terrible manners in our city, sir.

A. N. Ostrovsky

The history of numerous interpretations of "Lady Macbeth ..." by Leskov has a tendency to constant convergence of the images of Katerina Izmailova and Katerina Kabanova from Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm". Moreover, this rapprochement does not occur according to literary features, and in the context of the interpretation of the image of Katerina by Dobrolyubov in his famous article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom." However, reading these works today, you hardly notice the similarities of these heroines. Of course, they are, but they are hardly significant. These are:

First: their habitat. The unhappy merchant life of the Russian hinterland;

Secondly: the heroines have the same names. They are both Catherine;

Third: each is unfaithful to her merchant husband;

Fourth: the suicide of the heroines;

Fifth: the geography of their death is the greatest and most Russian of the rivers - the Volga River.

And this is where not only the formal, but also the substantive similarity of both the heroines and the works in general ends. As for the portrait resemblance, here Ostrovsky does not say anything about the appearance of his Katerina, allowing the reader and viewer to conjecture the image themselves. It is only known that she is very beautiful. The portrait of Izmailova was drawn by Leskov in sufficient detail. He keeps big number infernal signs. Here and black hair, and dark eyes, and unusual, superhuman strength, with a graceful and fragile physique. They both dislike their husbands. But betrayal for Katerina from The Storm is a moral crime, a deep personal drama. Izmailova is cheating on her husband out of boredom. I was bored for five years, on the sixth I decided to have fun. Ostrovsky lacks the main component of adultery - carnal, physiological passion. Katerina says to Boris: "If I had my own will, I would not go to you." Varvara understands this too. It is not for nothing that she whispers coldly afterwards: "I got it right!"

For Katerina Izmailova, an unreasonable Asian passion is the main content of the world. Katerina in "The Thunderstorm" personifies man's humility, his involvement in the fateful movements of fate.

Izmailova herself draws the lines of life. And what a simple Russian person can do in his freedom, Leskov knows very well: “He (this person) lets loose all his bestial simplicity, begins to be silly, to scoff at himself, at people, at feelings. Not particularly gentle, and without that, he becomes especially angry. " Katerina Kabanova cannot offend a living being. Her image is a bird flying away to the Volga region. She expects punishment and reckoning for imaginary and real sins. Watching the thunderstorm, she says to her husband: "Tisha, I know who she will kill." The image of imminent, inevitable death is always with her, and she always speaks and thinks about this. She is a truly tragic figure in the drama.

Izmailov Leskov cannot even think about repentance. Her passion swept away all moral notions and religious imperatives from her soul. Going to set up a samovar and kill a person are the same actions, but a mortal sin is an ordinary job. Katerina suffers from Ostrovsky. Her painful life seems to be weighed down by a primordial, primordial fall. And before her betrayal, she tests herself with deep metaphysical doubts. Here she shares her thoughts about death with Varvara. She is scared not to die, she is scared that "death will find you with all your sins, with all the evil thoughts."

And her suicide is not a crime. She, like a bird from the New Testament parable, flew away to the beautiful, paradise lands of the Trans-Volga region. "Good for you, Katya!" - says Tikhon over the corpse of his wife. We will not find anything like this in the image of Izmailova. Where there is no depth of thought, the depth of feeling is impossible. After three atrocities, Katerina kills herself, not out of repentance, but for another murder. Nothing Christian, nothing evangelical - no humility, no forgiveness.

And yet now, a century later, when the social layer described by the authors has slipped into historical oblivion, the images of these women seem to be reflected in each other's rays. And the abyss hidden behind them does not seem so fatal, attracting the eyes of the modern reader and viewer.

THE THEME OF LOVE IN THE WORKS OF I. S. TURGENEV AND F. M. DOSTOEVSKY

The theme of love in the novels of the second half of the 19th century is one of the leading: almost all authors touch on it in one way or another, but each has his own attitude to this problem. The difference in perceptions can be explained by the fact that each author, being primarily a human being, has encountered different manifestations of this feeling throughout his life. Here we can assume that F. M. Dostoevsky (the first author whose work we will consider), being a tragic personality, considers love from the position of suffering: love for him is almost always associated with torment.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, as a great master psychologist, described people, their thoughts and experiences in a "vortex" stream; his characters are constantly in dynamic development. He chose the moments of the most tragic, the most significant. Hence the universal, universal problem of love, which his heroes are trying to solve. Rodion Raskolnikov, having committed the murder, “cut himself off with scissors” from people. Violation of one commandment (Thou shalt not kill) entailed ignoring all the others, therefore, he could not “love his neighbor as himself,” since he is special, he is a sovereign.

In the opinion of Sonechka, this holy and righteous sinner, it is precisely the absence of love for one's neighbor (Raskolnikov calls humanity an “anthill,” “a trembling creature”) that is its principal cause of sin. This is the difference between them: his sin is a confirmation of his “exclusivity”, his greatness, his power over every louse (be it mother, Dunya, Sonya), her sin is a sacrifice in the name of love for her relatives: to her father- a drunkard, a consumptive stepmother, her children, whom Sonya loves more than her pride, more than her pride, more life, finally. His sin is the destruction of life, hers is the salvation of life.

At first, Raskolnikov hates Sonya, since he sees that he, the Sovereign and “God”, loves this little downtrodden creature, despite everything, loves and regrets (things are interconnected) - this fact strikes a powerful blow to his invented theory. Moreover, the love of his mother for him, his son, also, in spite of everything, “torments him”, Pulcheria Alexandrovna constantly makes sacrifices for the sake of “beloved Rodenka”.

Dunya's sacrifice is agonizing for him, her love for her brother is another step to refutation, to the collapse of his theory.

What is the attitude of other heroes of "Crime and Punishment" to the problem of "love for one's neighbor." PP Luzhin, as Raskolnikov's double, fully agrees with the provisions of the theory of "man-god". His opinion is clearly expressed in the following words: "Science says: love, first of all, yourself, for everything in the world is based on personal interest."

Another double - Svidrigailov, this "voluptuous spider", until the last moment, piously believed in the absence of love at all. But the moment has come: a sudden love for Duna leads this person, devastated by voluptuousness, to complete ruin; the result is death. This is the relationship of Svidrigailov and Luzhin with the theme of love in the novel.

What is the final position of Raskolnikov? Much later, in hard labor, Rodion Romanovich will free himself from hatred for Sonya, he will appreciate her mercy to him, he will be able to understand all the sacrifices that were made for him and for all of them; he will love Sonya. As a terrible infection he will perceive the pride that has filled many hearts, he will find God anew, and through him and through his sacrifice - love for all.

A truly universal, universal perception of love is in this distinctive feature Dostoevsky and his heroes.

Thus, speaking of the difference between the perception of love by Dostoevsky and Turgenev, one must first of all bear in mind the scale.

In the image of Bazarov, we can see all the same pride as in the image of Raskolnikov. But his views do not have such an absolute relationship with the events taking place. He influences others, but his views do not lead to specific disregard for moral and ethical laws. All action is not outside of him: he commits crimes within himself. Hence his tragedy is not universal, but purely personal. This is practically where the differences end (the differences are fundamental on this issue). The similarities remain: what are they?

Bazarov, like the hero of Crime and Punishment, had a “theory of its own kind” - nihilistic views that were fashionable at that time. Like Raskolnikov, Eugene became proud, inventing the absence of any norms, any principles, piously believing that he was right.

But, according to Turgenev, this is only a purely personal delusion: in other words, his views do not lead to any serious consequences for those around him.

He lives practically without breaking the basic commandments. Nevertheless, when a meeting with Odintsova makes E.V. Bazarov believe in the existence of love, thereby admitting the wrongness of his beliefs, Bazarov, in the author's opinion, must die.

Here we can say about one more difference between the two classics - this time the differences are that Dostoevsky, with his “dirt” and torment, gives vent to his hero; at the same time, Turgenev, this poet, does not forgive his “beloved hero” the elementary delusion of youth and denies the right to life. Hence Bazarov's love for Anna Sergeevna is only a step towards devastation and death.

In the tragedy of the finale, Bazarov is somewhat similar to Svidrigailov: at first they both perceived love as sensuality. But there is also a huge difference between them: realizing the incorrectness of their ideas, one dies, and this is explained by all the terrible evil that he committed, the other is an absolutely normal person, and love could show him a new right path. But, according to Turgenev, the most natural outcome is to bury your hero in the grave, with all his experiences, with the newly born storm of thoughts and doubts.

From all of the above, we can conclude: the main similarity in views of love is the portrayal of it as a means by which the author shows the delusions of the heroes. The difference lies in the positions in which the heroes are given: the moral quest of the murderer in Crime and Punishment and the moral quest of an absolutely normal person in Fathers and Children.

THE MOTIF OF UNHAPPY LOVE IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE XIX CENTURY

One of the most important themes in many 19th century novels is the theme of love. As a rule, it is the core of the entire work, around which all events take place. Love is the cause of various conflicts, the development of the storyline. It is feelings that rule events, life, the world; because of them, a person performs this or that action, and it does not matter - whether it is love for oneself or another person. It happens that the hero goes to a crime or commits some immoral act, motivating his actions with passionate love and jealousy, but, as a rule, such feelings are false and destructive.

Between different heroes- different love, one cannot say that it is one and the same, but it is possible to determine its main directions, which will be common.

Doomed love, tragic This is the love of “extremes”. It captures either the strong or the fallen. For example, Bazarov. He never thought about true love, but when he met Anna Sergeevna Odintsova, he realized what it was. Having fallen in love with her, he saw the world from a different angle: everything that seemed insignificant turns out to be important and significant; life becomes something mysterious; nature attracts and is a particle of man himself, lives inside him. From the very beginning, it is clear that the love of Bazarov and Odintsova is doomed. These two passionate and strong natures cannot love each other, they cannot create a family. Anna Sergeevna Odintsova understands this and partly because of this refuses Bazarov, although she loves him no less than he loves her. Odintsova proves this by visiting him in the village when Bazarov is dying. She does not love him, why do that? And if so, then the news of his illness shook the soul, and Bazarov is not indifferent to Anna Sergeevna. This love ends in nothing: Bazarov dies, and Anna Sergeevna Odintsova remains to live as she did before, but this is a fatal love, because it is partly destroying Bazarov. Another example of tragic love is the love of Sonya and Nikolai (“War and Peace”). Sonya was madly in love with Nikolai, but he constantly hesitated: he thought he loved her, then he didn't. This love was incomplete and could not be otherwise, since Sonya is a fallen woman, she is one of those people who are not able to start a family and are doomed to live “on the edge of someone else's nest” (and it happened). In fact, Nikolai never loved Sonya, he only wanted to love her, it was a deception. When real feelings awakened in him, he immediately understood it. Only when he saw Marya, Nikolai fell in love. He felt like he had never before with Sonya or with someone else. That's where it was true love... Of course, Nikolai had some feelings for Sonya, but it was only pity and a memory of the old days. He knew that Sonya loved and loved him truly and, understanding her, he could not strike such a strong blow - to reject their friendship. Nikolai did everything to mitigate her misfortune, but nevertheless Sonya was unhappy. This love (of Nikolai and Sonya) caused unbearable pain to Sonya, ending not as she expected; and opened my eyes to Nikolai, making it clear what are false and what are real feelings, and helped to understand myself.

The most tragic love of Katerina and Boris ("The Thunderstorm"). She was doomed from the start. Katerina is a young girl, kind, naive, but with an unusually strong character. She did not have time to find out true love, as she was married to a rude, boring Tikhon. Katerina sought to know the world, she was absolutely interested in everything, so it is not surprising that she was immediately drawn to Boris. He was young, handsome. He was a man from another world, with different interests, new ideas. Boris and Katerina immediately noticed each other, since both stood out from the gray homogeneous mass of people in the city of Kalinov. The inhabitants of the city were boring, monotonous, lived with old values, the laws of "Domostroi", false faith and debauchery. Katerina was so eager to know true love and, only by touching it, she died, this love ended before it could begin.

WHAT IS LOVE? (Based on the works of Russian literature of the XIX century)

In the second half of the 19th century, many works of a wide variety of genres were written in Russia: novels, stories, and plays. In many (especially classical) works, an important role is played by a love conflict, “It was just such a time,” we might think. But no, this is not so - in fact, love and happiness are, one might say, “eternal” themes that worried people in ancient times, passed through the centuries and excite writers to this day. To the question "what is love?" it is impossible to answer unequivocally: everyone understands it in their own way. There are many points of view on this score, and their amazing variety can be traced on the example of only two works, for example, "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky and "Fathers and Children" by Turgenev.

In "Crime and Punishment" one of the minor characters is Svidrigailov - a scoundrel, a sharper, a vicious person who has committed many atrocities. He is the embodiment of lust. On the night before suicide, pictures of the past appear to him. One of the recollections is the corpse of a fourteen-year-old drowned girl: “she was only fourteen years old, but it was already a broken heart, and it ruined itself, offended by the insult, which horrified and surprised this young child's consciousness ... who pulled out the last cry of despair, not heard, but one who was impudently mocked in the dark night, in the darkness, in the cold, in the damp thaw, when the wind howled. " Voluptuousness and lust - these are the feelings that overwhelmed Svidrigailov while committing violence. Can these feelings be called love? From the point of view of the author, no. He believes that love is self-sacrifice, embodied in the image of Sonya, Dunya, mother - after all, it is important for the author to show not only the love of a woman and a man, but also the love of a mother for her son, brother for sister (sister for brother).

Dunya agrees to marry Luzhin for the sake of her brother, and the mother understands perfectly well that she is sacrificing her daughter for the sake of her firstborn. Dunya hesitated for a long time before making a decision, but in the end she made up her mind: “... before making a decision, Dunya did not sleep all night, and, believing that I was already asleep, got out of bed and walked all night and forward across the room, finally knelt down and prayed long and fervently in front of the icon, and in the morning she announced to me that she had made up her mind. "

Sonia immediately, without hesitation, agrees to give all of herself, all her love to Raskolnikov, to sacrifice herself for the well-being of her beloved: "Come to me, I will put a cross on you, pray and go." Sonya happily agrees to follow Raskolnikov anywhere, to accompany him everywhere. “He met her restless and painfully caring look on him ...” - here is Sonin's love, all her dedication.

Another love that cannot be ignored is love for God, the echo of which runs through the entire work. We cannot imagine Sonya without her love for God, without religion. "What would I be without God?" - Sonya is perplexed. Indeed, religion is the only consolation for the “humiliated and insulted” in their poverty, which is why moral purity is so important for them ...

As for another understanding of love, in order to see it, we will have to analyze another work - for example, "Fathers and Sons" by I. S. Turgenev. In this novel, the conflict between "fathers" and "children" encompasses all aspects of life, views, beliefs. A person's worldview subconsciously guides his actions and feelings, and if for Arkady, by virtue of his principles, family happiness, a prosperous, calm life is possible, then for Bazarov it is not.

It is worth remembering the views of Turgenev himself about love, happiness. He believes that happiness is harmony, and other feelings, experiences, violent emotions, jealousy are disharmony, which means that where love is passion, there can be no happiness.

Bazarov himself perfectly understands the dissimilarity of their natures with Arkady. He says to the young man: “You are not created for our bitter, tart, mongrel life ...” His comparison of Arkady with a jackdaw is very appropriate: “Here you are! - study! Jackdaw is the most respectable family bird. An example for you! "

Although Arkady is a “son” by age, his worldview is clearly paternal, and Bazarov's nihilism alien to him, feigned. The ideal of his love is the same as that of Nikolai Petrovich - harmonious relationships, calm and long love until old age.

Bazarov is a completely different person. He comes from a different social environment, he has a completely different system of views from Arkady, and his experiences are much deeper. His convictions include the fact that love is "rubbish, unforgivable nonsense, and chivalrous feelings are ugliness, illness," but he himself has an "animal" passion for Anna Odintsova, but she turns out to be a cold woman, and a painful period in Bazarov's life begins: his postulates like “knocking out a wedge by a wedge” (this concerns women) are powerless, and he loses power over himself. His love - "a passion similar to malice and, perhaps, akin to it" - pours out for Bazarov in a genuine tragedy.

All these characters: Arkady, and Bazarov, and Sonya - differ from each other in worldview, outlook on life, and their love is also different.

Love-passion of Bazarov and love-happiness of Katya and Arkady, love-self-sacrifice of Sonya, Dunya, mother - how many semantic shades have been put by the authors in one single word - love! What different feelings can sometimes be expressed in one word! Each character has his own perception of the world, his ideals, which means that already on the basis of the subconscious, different people have different sensations. Probably, in the world as there have not yet been two identical people, so love has never been repeated. And different writers, putting different meanings into this concept and depicting love in different types, are gradually coming to the solution of one of the philosophical, “eternal” questions - stumbling blocks: “what is love? "

THE THEME OF LOVE IN THE RUSSIAN NOVEL OF THE II HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY (Based on the novels of I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”) (I version)

I loved you....

The theme of love is traditional for world literature, in particular, for Russian literature it is one of the “eternal” ethical problems of our world. They say all the time that it is impossible to answer questions about concepts that cannot be defined: about life and death, love and hate, envy, indifference, etc. But, probably, unsolvable questions and tasks have a strange charm: they are like a magnet, attract people, their thoughts; therefore, many art workers tried to express in their work what is difficult to convey in words, music, paint on canvas, that which every person vaguely feels, and love takes a significant place in the life of people, in their world, and therefore in their creations ...

In Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, the author creates several plot lines related to the theme of love. But the most striking among them is the storyline of the love of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky and Natasha Rostova. There are many opinions about their relationship: someone says that Natasha did not love Prince Andrei, proving this by the fact that she cheated on him with Anatol Kuragin; someone says that Prince Andrey did not like Natasha, since he could not forgive her, and someone says that there are few examples of such high love ... And it seems to me that this was probably the strangest love that I read about in Russian literature at the end of the 19th century. I am sure that they were created for each other: how Natasha felt the night in Otradnoye (“After all, such a lovely night has never, never happened ... So she would have squatted down, grabbed herself under her knees ... and flew away. .. ”), so Prince Andrew saw the sky above Austerlitz (“ ... Everything is empty, everything is deception, except for this endless sky ... there is nothing but silence, tranquility ... ”); as Natasha was waiting for the arrival of Prince Andrei, so he wanted to return to her ... But on the other hand, what could have happened if they had got married? At the end of the novel, Natasha becomes a “female” - a woman who only cares about her family; Before the war, Prince Andrey wanted to become a good master in his village Bogucharovo; so maybe it would be a great couple. But then they would have lost the main thing that, in my opinion, was in them: their restless striving for something distant and strange, their search for spiritual happiness. For someone, the life of Pierre and Natasha after the wedding, the life of Olga Ilyinskaya and Andrei Stolz, etc., may be ideal - everything is very calm and measured, rare misunderstandings do not spoil the relationship; But won't such a life become the second variant of Oblomovism? Oblomov is lying on the couch. His friend Stolz comes to him and introduces him to the charming girl Olga Ilyinskaya, who sings in such a way that Oblomov is crying with happiness. Time passes, and Oblomov realizes that he is in love. What is he dreaming about? To rebuild the estate, sit under the trees in the garden, listen to the birds and see Olga, surrounded by children, leave the house and head towards him ... In my opinion, this is very similar to what Andrei Stolts and Olga Ilyinskaya, Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova, Nikolai Rostov and Princess Marya, Arkady and Katya in the novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". It seems that this is some kind of strange irony: Natasha, who was madly in love with Prince Andrei, Princess Marya, agitated by romantic dreams before meeting with Anatol Kuragin, Nikolai Rostov, who performed a noble deed on the model of medieval knights (the princess's departure from the estate) - all these strong and unusual personalities end up at the same conclusion - a happy family life in a distant estate. There is a similar storyline in Ivan Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" - Arkady's love for Katya Odintsova. Meeting, hobbies of Arkady Anna Sergeevna, Katya's wonderful singing, wedding and ... life on the estate of Arkady. One could say that everything is returning to normal. But in the novel "Fathers and Sons" there is another storyline - this is Bazarov's love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova, it seems to me, even more beautiful than the love of Prince Andrei and Natasha Rostova. At the beginning of the novel, Bazarov believes that “Raphael is not worth a dime”, denies art and poetry, thinks that “in this atom, at this mathematical point [he himself], the blood turns, thought works, wants something too ... What a disgrace! What a nonsense! ” - Bazarov is a person who calmly denies everything. But he falls in love with Odintsova and tells her: “I love you stupidly, madly,” Turgenev shows how “passion beat strong and heavy in him - a passion similar to malice, and perhaps akin to it ...” However their fate did not work out, perhaps because they met too late, when Madame Odintsova had already come to the conviction that "calm is still the best." The idea of ​​a quiet life is present to varying degrees in many novels of Russian literature and in different storylines. This is not only Oblomov, who does not want to get up from his couch, but also the Bergi and the Rostov family, where they do not like to deviate from traditions, and the Bolkonsky family, where life moves according to the once established order. Because of his love of peace, his unwillingness to quarrel with his son, Nikolai Petrovich did not immediately marry Fenechka (one of the secondary plot lines of the novel "Fathers and Sons").

However, it would be wrong to associate the theme of love only with the relationship between men and women. The old Countess of Rostov and Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky love their children, and the children love their parents (Arkady, Bazarov, Natasha, Princess Marya, etc.). There is also love for the homeland (Prince Andrei, Kutuzov), for nature (Natasha, Arkady, Nikolai Petrovich), etc. Probably, it is impossible to say firmly that someone loves someone, since only the author knew this exactly, to Moreover, in the complex characters of the heroes, various feelings struggle, and therefore one can only conventionally say that this or that expression (words) is true in relation to any hero. In any case, I think that as long as people live, they will feel: love, rejoice, sadness, be indifferent - and they will always try to understand what is happening to them, and try to explain it in words, so the theme of feelings and love will always be present in art.

THE THEME OF LOVE IN THE RUSSIAN NOVEL OF THE II HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY (Based on the novels of I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”) (version II)

From ancient times to the present day, nothing excites the minds of writers and poets like the theme of love. She is one of the key in the entire world of fiction. However, despite the fact that in most books there is a love intrigue, each time the author finds some new twist on this topic, because until now love is one of those concepts that a person cannot describe with a standard phrase or definition. As in a landscape - the lighting or the season changes and perception changes, so in the theme of love: a new writer appears, and with him other heroes, and the problem appears before him in a different guise.

In many works, the theme of love is closely related to the basis of the plot and conflict, serves as a means of revealing the character of the main characters.

In the novels of Russian classics of the second half of the 19th century, the love theme is not the main one, but at the same time it plays one of the important roles in the works. As one of the famous English writers A. Christie said already in the XX century, “the one who never loved anyone, never lived”, and Russian prose writers, not yet knowing this phrase, but unconditionally understanding that in the life of every person there is love something that helps to most fully reveal his inner world and the main character traits, of course, could not help but refer to this topic.

In the works of the 19th century, echoes of the previous era of “romantic” love are heard: Oblomov can be called a romantic: the symbol of their love with Olga is a branch of lilac, which was once plucked by a girl while walking in the garden. For all the time of their relationship, Oblomov often mentally returns to this flower in a conversation, and often the minutes of love that leave and never return, he compares with a faded lilac. The feelings of the other couple - Arkady and Katya from "Fathers and Children" can only be called romantic. There is no suffering or torment here, only pure, light, serene love, which in the future will turn into the same pleasant and calm family life, with a bunch of children, common dinners and big holidays with friends and relatives. They can be called an ideal family: the spouses live in mutual understanding and boundless love, about such a life the hero of another work, Oblomov, dreams of. His idealistic reflections echoed those of Nikolai Rostov about his wife and marriage: “... a white hood, a wife at a samovar, a wife’s carriage, children ...” - these ideas about the future gave him pleasure. However, such pictures are not destined to come true (at least for those heroes who dream about it), they have no place in the real world. But the fact that there is no idyll, as Nikolai and Oblomov imagine it, does not mean that there is no happy family life in the world: each of these writers in their works draws pictures of an ideal married couple: Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova, Marya Volkonskaya and Nikolai Rostov , Stolz and Olga Ilyinskaya, Arkady and Katya. Harmony and mutual understanding based on love and devotion reign in these families.

But, of course, reading these works, one cannot speak only about the happy side of love: there is suffering, and torment, and heavy passion, and unrequited love.

The theme of love suffering is most closely associated with the protagonist of Fathers and Children, Yevgeny Bazarov. His feeling is a heavy, all-consuming passion for a woman who is not able to love him, the thought of her does not leave Bazarov until his death, and love remains in him until the last minutes. He resists the feeling, because this is what Bazarov considers romance and nonsense, but he cannot fight it.

Suffering is brought not only by unrequited love, but also by the understanding that happiness with the person you love and loved yourself is impossible. Sonechka put her whole life on the card of her love for Nikolai, but she is a "barren flower", and she is not destined to start a family, the girl is poor, her happiness with Rostov is at first prevented by the countess, and later Nikolai meets a creature that was higher than Sonya and even himself - Marya Volkonskaya, falls in love with her and, realizing that he is loved, marries. Sonia, of course, is very worried, her heart will always belong only to Nikolai Rostov, but she is unable to do anything.

But Natasha Rostova experiences incomparably greater grief in depth and meaning: first, when, due to her passion for Kuragin, she parted with Prince Andrei, the man she loved for the first time in her life, then when she lost him for the second time due to the death of Bolkonsky. For the first time, her suffering is aggravated by the fact that she realizes that she lost her fiancé only through her own fault; the break with Bolkonsky leads Natasha to a deep mental crisis. Natasha's life is a series of trials, through which she came to her ideal - to family life, which is based on the same strong connection as her soul and body.

On the example of Rostova Tolstoy, one of the few writers, traces the path of development of love from childhood love and flirting to something solid, fundamental, eternal. Like Tolstoy, Goncharov draws various stages of Olga Ilyinskaya's love, but the difference between these two heroines is that Natasha is able to really love more than once (and she has no doubts that this may be abnormal), because the essence of her life is love - to Boris, mother, Andrei, brothers, Pierre, while Olga is tormented, thinking that her feelings for Oblomov were genuine, but if so, what does she feel for Stolz? .. If Olga fell in love after Oblomov, then for many other heroes of Russian literature this feeling arises only once in a lifetime: so, Marya Volkonskaya at first glance understood that Nikolai was the only one for her, and Anna Sergeevna Odintsova remained forever in Bazarov's memory.

Important in revealing the theme of love is how people change under its influence, how they pass the “test of love”. In the psychological novel by I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov” the influence of feelings on the protagonist could not be ignored. Olga wants to change her lover, pull him out of “Oblomovism”, prevent him from falling, she makes him do what was not typical of Oblomov before: get up early, walk, climb mountains, but he does not pass the test of love, nothing can change him, and Olga's hands give up, she knows that; there are sprouts of beauty in him, but he is mired in the usual “Oblomov way of life”.

Love is many-sided and multifaceted, beautiful in all its manifestations, but not many Russian writers of the second half of the 19th century were “researchers of love,” with the exception of Goncharov. Basically, the theme of love was presented as a material on the basis of which the character of the heroes can be built, although, meanwhile, this does not prevent the writers from revealing this topic from different angles and admiring the romantic feelings of the heroes and empathizing with their sufferings.

MOTIVES OF KNIGHT'S SERVICE TO WOMAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (I option)

First, I would like to reveal the concept of "chivalry". A knight is not necessarily a man in armor and with a sword, sitting on a horse and fighting monsters or enemies. A knight is a person who forgets himself in the name of something, a person who is disinterested and honest. Speaking of knightly service to a woman, we mean a person who is ready to sacrifice for her, the one and only.

The most striking example of this, in my opinion, would be Pavel Petrovich - the hero of Ivan Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons".

He was a hereditary nobleman, brilliantly educated, who, like many representatives of his social circle, had high moral qualities. A brilliant career awaited him, as he had extraordinary abilities. Nothing foreshadowed failure. But he met Princess R., as the author called her. At first, she, too, treated him favorably, but then ... Princess R. broke Pavel Petrovich's heart, but he did not, in word or deed, want to offend her or take revenge on her. He, like a real knight, set off in pursuit of his beloved, sacrificing his career. Not every person is capable of this. Therefore, we can safely say that Pavel Petrovich is a representative of a wonderful galaxy of knights in Russian literature.

I would like to mention one more knight. Chatsky, the hero of AS Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit," loved Sophia so much that, I think, he deserves this title. He sacrificed his feelings for the happiness of his beloved woman.

With this I would like to finish my essay. Much can be written about chivalry, but it is not interesting to read a lot of the same, the only thing I would like to add is the wish that there were more knights, because over the centuries they disappear, as we see.

Of course, I do not want to say that they have disappeared altogether, but for some reason there are very few of them, although this is strange in connection with the peculiar mentality of the Russian nation. In the Russians, it seems to me, chivalry should be inherent in the blood. Russians should be the same knights and dreamers like Lensky, who madly loved Olga and sacrificed his life for her.

MOTIVES OF KNIGHT'S SERVICE TO WOMAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (II option)

Russian literature is very diverse. And one of these varieties is the direction in which, whether a writer or a poet, touches upon the themes of love and, in particular, the motives of chivalrous service to a woman.

Women are like flowers on ice. They adorn him and the life of everyone on earth. For example, A.S. Pushkin during his life met many women and loved many, both good and bad. And many of his poems and poems are dedicated to his beloved. And everywhere he speaks of them with warmth and elevates their beauty, both external and internal. All of them are beautiful for him, give him strength, energy, they, in most cases, are the source of his inspiration. It turns out that love is one of the main motives of chivalrous service to a woman. Love can change any person, and then he worships his chosen one, she will become an ideal for him, the meaning of life. Will this not entail a violent surge of emotions, will it not inspire a man to devote poetry or novels to his beloved? And no matter what the woman is, love will still prevail over the consciousness of the person whose heart will submit to her. Such an example is the Russian poet M. Yu. Lermontov. He fell in love many times, but very often his lovers did not reciprocate. Yes, he was very worried, but still this did not prevent him from dedicating his poems to them, written from pure heart, albeit with chest pain. For some, love is destructive, but for others it is the salvation of the soul. All this is confirmed again and again in the works of famous Russian writers and poets.

One of the main motives is nobility. Often it appears only after a person has fallen in love. This, of course, is good, but nobility should be shown in all cases. And it is not at all necessary to love a woman in order to treat her wisely. Some men cultivate this feeling in themselves from their youth, and it remains with them for life. Others do not recognize him at all. Let's look at an example. In Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin" the main character acted nobly with Tatiana. He did not take advantage of her feelings for him. He did not love Tatiana, but a sense of nobility was in his blood, and he would never have treated her disrespectfully. But in the case of Olga, he, of course, showed himself from the other side. And Lensky, Olga's admirer, could not resist, his pride was hurt, and he challenged Onegin to a duel. He acted nobly, trying to protect Olga's honor from such a playboy as Onegin. Pushkin's views are somewhat similar to those of his heroes. After all, he died only because rumors about his wife were spread. And his nobility did not allow him to remain silent in silence. So nobility is also one of the motives of chivalrous service to women in Russian literature.

Hatred of a woman and at the same time admiration for her beauty is another motive. Take, for example, M. Yu. Lermontov. As I already wrote, he was often rejected. And it was natural that in his soul a certain amount of hatred arose towards them. But, thanks to his admiration for them, he managed to overcome the barrier of anger and dedicated many of his poems to precisely those women, hatred for whom was mixed with admiration, maybe character, figure, face, soul, mind or something else.

Respect for a woman, as a mother, as a homemaker, is also a motive.

Women were and always will be the most beautiful and revered on earth, and men will always serve them chivalrously.

THE THEME OF A LITTLE MAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE XIX CENTURY

The theme of the little man is one of the traditional themes in Russian literature of two last centuries... This topic first appeared in Russian literature in the 19th century (in “Poor Liza” by Karamzin). Probably, the reasons for this can be called the fact that the image of a small person is characteristic, first of all, of realism, and this artistic method finally took shape only in the 19th century. However, this topic, in my opinion, could be relevant in any historical period, since, among other things, it presupposes a description of the relationship between man and power, and these relationships have existed since ancient times.

The next (after “Poor Liza”) significant work on this topic can be considered “The Station Keeper” by A. Pushkin. Although for Pushkin this was hardly a characteristic theme.

One of the maximum manifestations of the theme of the little man found in the work of N. V. Gogol, in particular in his story "The Overcoat". Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin (the protagonist of the story) is one of the most typical little people. This is an official, "not that very wonderful." He, a titular councilor, is extremely poor, even for a decent overcoat he has to save up for a long time, denying himself everything. The overcoat, obtained after such labors and torments, is soon taken away from him on the street. It would seem that there is a law that will protect him. But it turns out that no one can and does not want to help the robbed official, even those who would simply have to do it. Akaki Akakievich is absolutely defenseless, he has no prospects in his life - due to his low rank, he is completely dependent on his superiors, he will not be promoted in service (after all, he is an “eternal titular adviser”).

Gogol calls Bashmachkin “one official”, and Bashmachkin serves in “one department,” and he is the most ordinary person. All this allows us to say that Akaki Akakievich is an ordinary little man, hundreds of other officials are in his position. This position of the servant of power characterizes the power itself in a corresponding way. Power is heartless and ruthless.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's little man is shown as defenseless in his novel Crime and Punishment.

Here, like Gogol's, an official is represented as a small man - Marmeladov. This man was at the very bottom. For drunkenness he was kicked out of service, and after that nothing could stop him. He drank everything that he could drink, although he perfectly understood what he was driving his family to. He says about himself: "I have an animal image."

Of course, he is most to blame for his situation, but it is also noteworthy that no one wants to help him, everyone laughs at him, only a few are ready to help him (for example, Raskolnikov, who gives the last money to the Marmeladov family). The little man is surrounded by a soulless crowd. “For this I drink, that in this drink I seek compassion and feelings ...”, - says Marmeladov. “To be sorry! why feel sorry for me! " - he exclaims and immediately admits: "There is nothing to feel sorry for me!"

But his children are not to blame for the fact that they are beggars. And the society, which does not care, is probably also to blame. The chief is also to blame, to whom the appeals of Katerina Ivanovna were addressed: “Your Excellency! Protect the orphans! ” The entire ruling class is also to blame, because the carriage that crushed Marmeladov was "awaiting some significant person," and therefore this carriage was not detained.

Sonia, daughter of Marmeladov, and a former student of Raskolnikov also belong to little people. But what is important here is that these people retained their human qualities - compassion, mercy, self-esteem (despite the downtroddenness of the Hundred, the poverty of Raskolnikov). They are not yet broken, they are still able to fight for life. Dostoevsky and Gogol depict the social position of little people in approximately the same way, but Dostoevsky, unlike Gogol, also shows the inner world of these people.

The theme of the little man is also present in the works; M.E.Saltykova-Shchedrin. Take, for example, his tale “Med-; after all in the voivodeship ”. All the characters are presented here in a grotesque form, this is one of the features of the tales of Saltykov-Shchedrin. In the fairy tale in question there is a small, but very informative, episode concerning the theme of small people. Toptygin “I ate Chizhik”. I ate it just like that, for no reason, without understanding. And although he was immediately laughed at by the entire forest society, the very possibility of unreasonable harm by the boss to the little person is important.

Little people are shown in the "History of a city", and they are shown in a very peculiar way. Here they are typical inhabitants. As time goes on, mayors are replaced, but the townsfolk do not change. They remain the same gray mass, they are completely dependent, weak-willed and stupid. The mayors take the city of Foolov by storm, go on campaigns to it. But ordinary people are used to it. They only want the mayors to praise them more often, call them “guys”, and make optimistic speeches. The organ says: “I will not tolerate it! I will ruin! " And for ordinary people, this is normal. Then, the townsfolk understand that the “former scoundrel” Gloom-Grumblev personifies “the end of everything”, but silently climb to stop the river when he orders: “Drive! "

A. P. Chekhov presents a completely new type of little person to the reader. Chekhov's little man "grew larger", is no longer so defenseless. This is evident in his stories. One of these stories is “The Man in the Case”. Teacher Belikov can be attributed to the number of small people, he does not live in vain according to the principle: "No matter how something happens." He is afraid of the authorities, although, of course, his fear is greatly exaggerated. But this little man “put the case” on the whole city, made the whole city live according to the same principle. It follows that a small person can have power over other small people.

This can be seen in the other two stories "Unter Prishibeev" and "Chameleon". The hero of the first of them - Sergeant Prishibeev - keeps the whole neighborhood in fear, tries to force everyone not to turn on the lights in the evenings, not to sing songs. This is none of his business, but he cannot be stopped. And he, too, is a small person, if he is brought to trial and even sentenced. In "Chameleon" a little man, a policeman, not only subordinates, but also obeys, as a little man should.

Another feature of Chekhov's little people is the almost complete absence of positive qualities in many of them. In other words, the moral degradation of the personality is shown. Belikov is a boring, empty person, his fear borders on idiocy. Thuja prishibeev and stubborn. Both of these heroes are socially dangerous, because for all their qualities they have moral power over people. Bailiff Ochumelov (the hero of "The Chameleon") is a little tyrant who humiliates those who depend on him. But in front of the authorities, he grovels. This hero, unlike the two previous ones, has not only moral, but official power, and therefore is doubly dangerous.

Considering that all the considered works were written in different years of the XIX century, we can say that the little man still changes in time. For example, the dissimilarity of Bashmachkin and Belikov is obvious. It is also possible that this arises as a result of a different vision of the authors of the problem, different ways of portraying it (for example, caustic satire in Saltykov-Shchedrin and clear sympathy in Gogol).

Thus, in Russian literature of the 19th century, the theme of the little man is revealed by depicting the relationship of little people both with the authorities and with other people. At the same time, through the description of the situation of small people, the power standing over them can also be characterized. Little man may belong to different categories population. Not only the social position of little people can be shown, but also their inner world. Little people are often to blame for their own troubles, because they do not try to fight.

PUSHKIN'S REMINISCENCES IN THE POEM “DEAD SOULS” by NV GOGOL.

The poem "Dead Souls" is the most significant creation of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Uniquely unique and originals of the share, it is nevertheless associated with many literary traditions. This applies to both the content and the formal aspects of the work, in which everything is organically interconnected. Dead Souls was published after the death of Pushkin, but the beginning of work on the book coincided with the time when the writers came close. This could not but be reflected in "Dead Souls", the plot of which, according to Gogol's own admission, was presented to him by Pushkin. However, it's not just personal contacts. BV Tomashevsky in his work "The Poetic Legacy of Pushkin" noted the influence of his artistic system, which was experienced by all subsequent literature "in general, and, perhaps, prose writers are more poets." Gogol, by virtue of his talent, was able to find his own path in literature, in many respects different from Pushkin's. This must be taken into account when analyzing Pushkin's reminiscences in Gogol's poem. The following questions are important here: what is the role of Pushkin's reminiscences in Dead Souls? what meaning do they have for Gogol? what is their meaning? Answers to these questions will help to understand more deeply the peculiarity of Gogol's poem, to note some historical and literary patterns. The most general conclusion that can be drawn / on the topic under consideration is as follows: Gogol's reminiscences reflect the influence of Pushkin on him. Our task is to understand the results of this influence. By Pushkin's reminiscences in Dead Souls, we mean everything that leads to comparison with Pushkin's work, reminds of him, as well as a direct echo of Pushkin's expressions. In other words, Gogol's question of Pushkin's reminiscences is a question of the connections between the original creative worlds of two Russian writers who were in a relationship of continuity. In the light of the stated guidelines, let us take a close look at the work of Gogol itself.

First of all, we pay attention to the author's genre definition. We know that it was fundamental for Gogol. He emphasized this in his own cover for the first edition of the book. Why is the work, in form reminiscent of an adventure novel, and even rich big amount satirical sketches, yet called a poem? The meaning of this was correctly captured by VG Belinsky, noting the "prevalence of subjectivity", which, "penetrating and animating the whole of Gogol's poem, reaches high lyrical pathos and covers the soul of the reader with illuminating waves ...". Before the reader of the poem, pictures of the provincial town, landowners' estates unfold, and behind them rises "all Russia", the Russian reality of that time. The emotional coloring of the narrative, manifested in the author's increased interest in what he depicts, the very subject of the image - the modern life of Russian life - leads us to compare the central work of Gogol with the central work of Pushkin. Both in "Eugene Onegin" by Pushkin, and in "Dead Souls" by Gogol, there are clearly expressed lyrical and epic principles. Both works are unique in terms of genre. At first, Pushkin intended to call his novel in verse a poem. (“I am now writing a new poem,” he wrote in a letter to Delvig in November 1823. A little later he wrote to A. I. Turgenev: “... I am writing a new poem at my leisure, Eugene Onegin, where I choke on bile.”) The final genre definition of "Eugene Onegin" reflected Pushkin's awareness of his artistic discovery: the transfer of trends inherent in prose to poetry. Gogol, on the other hand, transferred an agitated lyric note to prose. The noted thematic and genre crossings of “Eugene Onegin” and “Dead Souls” are supported by a large number of different kinds of reminiscences, which we are going to review.

One more preliminary note. We will consider the first volume of Dead Souls as an independent work, not forgetting about its three-part concept, realized only partially.

A close look at the text of Dead Souls reveals many analogies with Pushkin's novel. Here are the most notable ones. In both works, the same scheme is seen: the central hero from the city enters the countryside, the description / his stay in which is given the main place. The end of the story, the hero comes in the same place where it starts. The hero returns to the clan, from which he then soon leaves, like Chatsky. Let's remember that Pushkin leaves his hero

In a minute, angry for him.

The protagonists themselves are comparable. Both of them stand out against the background of the society around them. Their characteristics are similar. This is how the author says about Chichikov: “The newcomer somehow knew how to find himself in everything and showed himself an experienced socialite. Whatever the conversation was, he always knew how to support it ... "Onegin, who had a happy talent, speaks as" an experienced socialite "

Without coercion in conversation
Touch everything lightly
With a learned air of a connoisseur ...

It is precisely “with a learned air of a connoisseur” that Chichikov talks about a horse farm, good dogs, judicial tricks, billiard games, virtue, making hot wine, about customs overseers and officials. For this, everyone declares him to be a "smart" man, "learned", "respectable and amiable" and so on. About Onegin

The light has decided.
That he is smart and very nice.

Then Gogol reveals the “strange quality of the hero”. For Pushkin, Onegin is a “strange companion,” an eccentric in the eyes of those around him. Along the way, one can note the non-random correspondences of the names of the authors and their main characters: Pushkin - Onegin, Chichikov - Gogol. In two works, the main character's travel motive is important. However, if Onegin is driving out of boredom, then Chichikov has no time to be bored. It is the parallelism of situations and images, given by reminiscences, that underlines the essential differences. Let us explain this textually. Pushkin's reminiscences clearly sound in the description of Chichikov's preparation for the governor's party, which "took more than two hours of time." The main semantic detail here - "such attentiveness to the toilet, which is not even seen everywhere" - goes back to Pushkin's poems:

He's three hours at least
I spent in front of the mirrors
And came out of the restroom
Like windy Venus ...

Let us point out the continuation of the reminiscences: “Having dressed in this way, he rolled in his own carriage along the endlessly wide streets, illuminated by meager illumination from here and there flickering windows. However, the governor's house was so illuminated, even if only for a ball; a carriage with lanterns, in front of the entrance there are two gendarmes, posters' shouts in the distance - in a word, everything is as it should be ”. The above quotation is an echo of verses XXVII stanza of the first chapter of "Eugene Onegin":

We'd better hurry to the ball.
Where headlong in the pit carriage
Already my Onegin galloped.
Before the faded houses
Along the sleepy street in rows
Double carriage lights
Merry light is pouring out
Littered with bowls all around
The magnificent house shines ...

And tightness, and shine, and joy,
And I'll give you a thoughtful outfit.

Chichikov, leaving the hall, "had to close his eyes for a minute, because the sparkle from candles, lamps and ladies' dresses was terrible." Before us is like a retelling of the first chapter of Onegin. But what kind of retelling, or rather an arrangement? Whereas in Pushkin the image of the ball evokes enthusiastic memories, pouring out into the inspired lines “I remember the sea before the storm ...” etc., Gogol, in a similar place in the story, gives a long comparison of “black tailcoats” with flies on sugar as a digression. A similar relationship can be seen in almost all reminiscences.

Perfume in faceted crystal;
Combs, steel nail files,
Straight scissors, curves
And brushes of thirty kinds
For nails and teeth

are replaced by the second hero with soap (with which he rubs both cheeks for an extremely long time, “propping them up from the inside with your tongue”) and a towel (with which he wipes his face, “starting from behind his ears and snorting twice into the very face of the tavern servant”). To top it off, he plucked two hairs out of his nose in front of the mirror. It is already difficult for us to imagine him “like windy Venus”, “the second Chaadaev”. This is a completely new hero. Reminiscences show its continuity. If Onegin carries in himself “an illness for which it is high time to find a cause”, then with Chichikov, Gogol seems to be trying to reveal this “ailment” more deeply in order to get rid of it later. The motive of the hardening of the human heart resounds in Dead Souls with increasing force.

The decline, reaching the level of parody, plays an important semantic role. It is curious to note that the "diminished" hero Chichikov goes to the evening in his own carriage, and the noble Onegin - in a Yamskaya carriage. Maybe Chichikov claims to be the “hero of his time”? Whether Gogol sees evil irony in this is difficult to say. One thing is clear, he caught the redistribution of positions in Russian life and reflected this redistribution. In his other work - "Theatrical passing after the presentation of a new comedy", he says about it directly: "It is worth looking closely around. Everything changed a long time ago in the world ... Do not they now have more electricity, money capital, a profitable marriage, than love? " The fact that in Pushkin's novel was a kind of background - an ordinary noble-landlord environment - came to the fore in Gogol's work.

The landowners that Chichikov visits are in many ways reminiscent of the Larins' neighbors who gathered for Tatiana's name day. Instead of the “strange companion” of Pushkin, who was even on friendly terms with him (“I made friends with him at that time”), the “scoundrel” hero appears on the stage. The author's element in Dead Souls is very reminiscent of the lyrical digressions of Eugene Onegin. Gogol, like Pushkin, continuously conducts a conversation with the reader, addressing him, commenting on events, giving characteristics, sharing his thoughts .. Let us recall, for example, the beginning of chapter six, where the author writes: “Before, long ago, in the years of my youth, in the years of my childhood irrevocably flashed, it was fun for me to drive up for the first time to an unfamiliar place ... O my youth! oh my freshness! " Do not echoes of Pushkin's poetry sound in this passage?

In those days when in the gardens of the Lyceum
I blossomed serenely ...

Elements of Pushkin's poetics are felt in Dead Souls. Let us point out some of the literary devices characteristic of Eugene Onegin. First of all, this is irony. Gogol's words have a direct and hidden meaning. Just like Pushkin, Gogol does not hide the conventions of his story. For example, he writes: "It is very doubtful that the hero we have chosen will be liked by the readers." In Pushkin:

I was already thinking about the form of the plan
And as a hero I will name.

There is no long exposition, the action begins immediately (the heroes move at the very first moment: Onegin “flies to the post office,” Chichikov drives into the hotel gate in a chaise). Much in the heroes is revealed only later (Onegin's office in the seventh chapter, the biography of Chichikov in the eleventh). Gogol's Pushkin technique of special enumeration appears in descriptions. “Meanwhile, the chaise turned into more deserted streets ... Now the pavement ended, and the barrier, and the city back ... And again, on both sides of the pole track, they rested again to write miles, station keepers, wells, carts, gray villages with samovars , broads and a lively bearded master ... the song will drag on in the distance, pine tops in the fog, bells disappearing far away, crows like flies, and the horizon without end ... ”Compare:

Along Tverskaya
The carriage rushes through the bumps.
They flash past the booth, women,
Boys, benches, lamps.
Palaces, gardens, monasteries,
Bukharians, sleighs, vegetable gardens,
Merchants, hovels, peasants.
Balconies, lions at the gates
And flocks of jackdaws on the crosses.

The reminiscences noted above testify to Gogol's assimilation of Pushkin's creative experience.

BV Tomashevsky, in the work already mentioned, noted the possibility of the appearance of yet another kind of reminiscences from Pushkin - those associated not with the laws of literary specifics, but with the personal perception of impressions from Pushkin's speech, containing apt and varied characteristics. We would attribute the following textual convergence to this genus: "His appearance at the ball produced an extraordinary effect."

Meanwhile, Onegin's appearance
The Larins produced
Everyone was impressed.

From the point of view of Pushkin's reminiscences, the letter written to Chichikov is interesting. On the whole, it is perceived as a parody of Tatyana Onegin's letter, but the words “leave forever the city where people in stuffy fences do not use the air” refer us to the poem “Gypsies”:

Whenever you imagine
Bondage of stuffy cities!
There are people in heaps behind the fence
They do not breathe the morning coolness ...

This reminiscence contains not one Pushkin motive, but, touching upon various elements of Pushkin's world, as it were, creates his generalized representation. In Gogol's situation, he seems vulgar. Gogol apparently felt by the artist's intuition what Belinsky categorically expressed in 1835 when he declared him the head of literature. Pushkin's time, it was necessary to understand, is over. The Gogol period in literature carried a completely different flavor. Pushkin's heroes in the new situation could not be taken seriously. Pushkin also did not ignore the problem of a new hero like Chichikov. Even before Gogol's character in The Queen of Spades, Hermann was brought out, for whom the passion for achieving wealth overshadows everything human. "He has the profile of Napoleon, and the soul of Mephistopheles." In the fourth chapter of Pushkin's story, we read about Hermann: “He sat at the window with folded hands and a menacing frown. In this position, he remarkably resembled a portrait of Napoleon. " In "Dead Souls" at the council of officials "they found that Chichikov's face, if he turns and turns sideways, is very much like a portrait of Napoleon." This extremely important reminiscence connects the image of Chichikov with the image of Hermann and helps to understand the essence of the former with the help of the latter. The analogy between Hermann and Chichikov (who must also have the soul of Mephistopheles) is enhanced by a comparison (through Napoleon) with the Antichrist. Someone said that "Napoleon is the Antichrist and keeps on a stone chain ... but after that he will break the chain and take over the whole world." Thus, various reminiscences form a synthetic image of a new hero, based on the understanding of Pushkin's literary tradition... Another component of this tradition was difficultly rethought by Gogol in The Tale of Captain Kopeikin. Captain Kopeikin is forced to take the path of robbery by the most serious life circumstances. The situation is largely reminiscent of Dubrovsky. The story, which had a complex creative history, in the initial edition contained in the finale a clear plot reminiscence from Dubrovsky; having saved up money, Kopeikin leaves abroad, from where he writes a letter to the emperor with a request to forgive his accomplices. The parallel between Kopeikin (who is associated with Chichikov) and Dubrovsky is important for understanding the “robber” element in Chichikov. It is difficult to divide this element into a romantic-complacent and a criminal-villainous side. In "The Tale of Captain Kopeikin" Pushkin's verses from "The Bronze Horseman", dedicated to St. Petersburg, responded in a peculiar way. “There is some sort of spitz in the air; the bridges hang there like a devil, you can imagine, without any, that is, touch. " What a stunning parody of Pushkin's magnificent anthem, which has the following words:

Bridges hung over the waters; and light
Admiralty needle.

In the Petersburg story of Pushkin, a “little” man dies. In Gogol's inserted story, another “little” person finds the strength to withstand. Pushkin's plot is more tragic, but it retains, along with artlessness and simplicity, a kind of sublime outlook on things. Gogol's world is completely different. Reminiscences highlight this distinction. However, in the main - in thinking about the future of Russia - the two great writers turn out to be consonant. “Aren't you, Russia, that a brisk, unattainable troika, rushing? .. Eh, horses, horses, what kind of horses!., Together and at once strained copper breasts and, almost without touching the ground with hooves, turned into only elongated lines. .. Russia, where are you rushing? Give an answer ".

And what a fire in this horse!
Where are you galloping, proud horse,
And where will you drop your hooves?
O powerful lord of Destiny!
Aren't you right above the abyss itself?
Has he reared Russia?

In conclusion, let us note one more Pushkin's reminiscence when describing Chichikov's arrival in Manilovka: “The view was revived by two women who ... walked up their knees in the pond ... Even the weather itself was very helpful: the day was either clear or gloomy .. To complete the picture, there was no lack of a rooster, a harbinger of changeable weather ... "Elements of this landscape make us remember" Count Nulin ": ........

The turkeys were screaming
Following the wet cock;
Three ducks were gargling in a puddle;
A woman walked through a dirty yard,
The weather was getting worse ...

Thus, Pushkin's reminiscences in Gogol's Dead Souls reflected his creative assimilation of Pushkin's artistic experience, which gave a tremendous impetus to the development of Russian literature.

"NEW PEOPLE" IN THE LITERATURE OF THE XIX CENTURY

In the literature of 1850-1860, a whole series of novels emerged, which were called novels about “new people”.

What criteria is used to classify a person as “new people”? First of all, the emergence of "new people" is due to the political and historical situation of society. They are representatives of a new era, therefore, they have a new perception of time, space, new tasks, new relationships. Hence the prospect of the development of these people in the future. So, in literature, “new people” “begin” with Turgenev’s novels “Rudin” (1856), “On the Eve” (1859), “Fathers and Sons” (1862).

At the turn of the 30-40s, after the defeat of the Decembrists, fermentation took place in Russian society. One part of him was seized by despair and pessimism, the other - scrupulous activity, expressed in attempts to continue the work of the Decembrists. Soon, public thought takes a more formalized direction - the direction of propaganda. It was this idea of ​​society that Turgenev expressed in the type of Rudin. At first, the novel was called "Genius Nature". In this case, “genius” means illumination, striving for truth (the task of this hero, indeed, is more moral than social), his task is to sow “reasonable, good, eternal”, and he fulfills this with honor, but he lacks nature , lack of strength to overcome obstacles.

Turgenev also touches on such a painful issue for Russians as the choice of activity, activity that is fruitful and useful. Yes, every time has its own heroes and tasks. For the society of that time, Rudin's enthusiasts and propagandists were needed. But no matter how harshly the descendants accused their fathers of "vulgarity and doctrinaire", the Rudins are people of the moment, of a specific situation, they are rattles. But when a person grows up, there is no need for rattles ...

The novel "On the Eve" (1859) is somewhat different, it can even be called "intermediate". This is the time between Rudin and Bazarov (again a matter of time!). The title of the book speaks for itself. On the eve of ... what? .. Elena Stakhova is in the center of the novel. She is waiting for someone ... she must love someone ... Whom? Elena's inner state reflects the situation of the time; she embraces the whole of Russia. What does Russia need? Why did not the Shubins or the Bersenievs, who seem to be worthy people, attract her attention? And this happened because they did not have enough active love for the Motherland, full surrender of themselves to it. That is why he attracted Elena Insarov, who is fighting for the liberation of his land from Turkish oppression. Insarov's example is a classic example, a man for all times. After all, there is nothing new in it (for failure-free service to the Motherland is not at all new!), But it was precisely this well-forgotten old that Russian society lacked ...

In 1862, Turgenev's most controversial, most poignant novel, Fathers and Sons, was published. Of course, all three novels are political, dispute novels, and controversial novels. But in the novel "Fathers and Sons" this is especially well noted, for it is manifested specifically in the "battles" of Bazarov with Kirsanov. The “skirmishes” turn out to be so irreconcilable, because they represent the conflict of two eras - the noble and the raznochin.

The novel's acute political character is also shown in the concrete social conditioning of the “new man” type. Evgeny Bazarov is a nihilist, collective type. His prototypes were Dobrolyubov, Preobrazhensky, and Pisarev.

It is also known that nihilism was very fashionable among young people of the 50-60s of the XIX century. Of course, denial is the path to self-destruction. But what caused it, this is an unconditional denial of all living life, Bazarov gives a very good answer to this:

“And then we realized that chatting, just chatting about our sores was not worth the trouble, that it only leads to vulgarity and doctrinaire; we saw that our clever people, the so-called progressive people and accusers, are worthless, that we are engaged in nonsense ... when it comes to daily bread ... ”So Bazarov got busy getting“ daily bread ”. It is not for nothing that he does not associate his profession with politics, but becomes a doctor and “fiddles with people”. There was no activity in Rudin; this activity appeared in Bazarov. That is why he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the novel. Because he found himself, raised himself, and did not live the life of an empty flower, like Pavel Petrovich, and even more so, did not “see off day after day” like Anna Sergeevna.

The question of time and space is posed in a new way. Bazarov says: "Let it (time) depend on me." Thus, this stern man turns to such a universal human idea: "Everything depends on a person!"

The idea of ​​space is shown through the inner liberation of the personality. After all, personal freedom is, first of all, going beyond the framework of one's own “I”, and this can happen only when giving oneself to something. Bazarov devotes himself to the cause, the Motherland (“Russia needs me ...”), feeling.

He feels enormous forces, but he cannot do something the way he wants. That is why he withdraws into himself, becomes bilious, irritated, gloomy.

While working on this work, Turgenev gave great progress to this image and the novel acquired a philosophical meaning.

What did this "iron man" lack? Not only general education was lacking, Bazarov did not want to come to terms with life, did not want to accept it for what it is. He did not recognize human impulses in himself. This is his tragedy. It crashed on people - this is the tragedy of this image. But it is not for nothing that the novel has such a reconciling end, it is not for nothing that Yevgeny Bazarov's grave is holy. There was something natural and deeply sincere in his actions. This is what gets through to Bazarov. The direction of nihilism has not justified itself in history. It formed the basis of socialism ... A continuation novel, a response novel to Turgenev's work was the novel What Is to Be Done? N. G. Chernyshevsky.

If Turgenev created collective types generated by social cataclysms, showed their development in this society, then Chernyshevsky not only continued them, but also gave a detailed answer, creating a programmatic work "What is to be done?"

If Turgenev did not outline the background of Bazarov, then Chernyshevsky gave a complete story of the lives of his heroes.

What distinguishes Chernyshevsky's “new people”?

First, they are common democrats. And they, as you know, represent the period of the bourgeois development of society. The nascent class creates its own new, creates a historical foundation, hence - new relations, new perception. The theory of “reasonable egoism” was the expression of these historical and moral tasks.

Chernyshevsky creates two types of “new people”. These people are “special” (Rakhmetov) and “ordinary” (Vera Pavlovna, Lopukhov, Kirsanov). Thus, the author solves the problem of reorganizing society. Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Rodalskaya rebuild it with creative, constructive, harmonious work, through self-education and self-education. Rakhmetov - "revolutionary", although this path is shown vaguely. That is why the question of time immediately arises. That is why Rakhmetov is a man of the future, and Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna are people of the present. In Chernyshevsky's “new people”, in the first place is the inner freedom of the individual. “New people” create their own ethics, solve moral and psychological issues. Self-analysis (unlike Bazarov) is the main thing that distinguishes them. They believe that the power of reason will bring up “good and eternal” in a person. The author examines this issue in the formation of the hero from the initial forms of struggle against family despotism to preparation and "change of scenery".

Chernyshevsky argues that a person should be a harmonious person. So, for example, Vera Pavlovna (the issue of emancipation), being a wife, a mother, has the opportunity for social life, the opportunity to study, and most importantly, she has nurtured a desire for work.

Chernyshevsky's “new people” treat each other “in a new way”, that is, the author says that these are quite normal relations, but in the conditions of that time they were considered special and new. The heroes of the novel treat each other with respect, delicately, even if you have to step over yourself. They are above their “ego”. And that "theory of reasonable egoism", which they created, is only a deep introspection. Their selfishness is public, not personal.

Rudin, Bazarov, Lopukhov, Kirsanovs. There were - and no. Let each of them have their own shortcomings, their own theories, which have not been justified by time. But these people gave themselves to their Motherland, Russia, they rooted for it, suffered, therefore they are “new people”.

The 19th century is one of the most significant in Russian literature. It was this era that gave the world the names of the great classics who influenced not only Russian, but also world culture. The main ideas inherent in the literature of this time are the growth of the human soul, the struggle between good and evil, the triumph of morality and purity.

Difference from the previous century

Giving a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century, it can be noted that the previous century was distinguished by a very calm development. Throughout the previous century, poets and writers glorified the dignity of man, tried to instill high moral and ethical ideals. And only at the end of the century, more daring and daring works began to appear - the authors began to focus on human psychology, his experiences and feelings.

The reasons for the flourishing

In the process of working on homework or a report on the topic "General characteristics of Russian literature of the 19th century", a student may have a logical question: what caused these changes, why literature was able to achieve this high level development? The reason for this was social events - this is the war with Turkey, and the invasion of Napoleonic troops, and the abolition of serfdom, and the public reprisal against the opposition. All this served to the fact that completely new stylistic devices... Working on a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century, it is worth mentioning that this era rightfully went down in history as the "Golden Age".

Direction of literature

Russian literature of that time was distinguished by a very bold formulation of questions about the meaning of human existence, about the most pressing socio-political, moral and ethical problems. She takes the significance of these questions far beyond the limits of her historical epoch. Preparing a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century, one must remember that it became one of the most powerful means of influencing both Russian readers and foreign ones, gaining the fame of an influential force in the development of enlightenment.

Phenomenon of the era

If you need to give a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century briefly, it can be noted that a common feature of this era was such a phenomenon as "literary centrism." This means that literature has become a way of communicating ideas and opinions in political debates. It turned into a powerful tool for expressing ideology, defining values ​​and ideals.

It is impossible to say unequivocally whether this is good or bad. Of course, giving a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century, one can reproach the literature of that time for being too “preaching”, “instructive”. Indeed, it is often said that the desire to become a prophet can lead to inappropriate guardianship. And this is fraught with the development of intolerance to dissent of any kind. Of course, there is some truth in such reasoning, however, giving a general description of Russian literature of the 19th century, it is necessary to take into account the historical realities in which the writers, poets and critics of that time lived. AI Herzen, when he found himself in emigration, described this phenomenon as follows: "For the people who have been deprived of freedom of speech and expression, literature remains almost the only outlet."

The role of literature in society

Practically the same thing was said by N. G. Chernyshevsky: "Our literature still concentrates the entire mental life of the people." Here it is worth paying attention to the word "bye". Chernyshevsky, who argued that literature is a textbook of life, still admitted that the mental life of the people should not be constantly concentrated in it. However, “for now,” in those conditions of Russian reality, it was she who assumed this function.

Modern society should be grateful to those writers and poets who, in the most difficult social conditions, despite persecution (it is worth remembering the same N.G. spiritual principle, adherence to principles, active opposition to evil, honesty and mercy. Considering all this, one can agree with the opinion expressed by N. A. Nekrasov in his letter to Leo Tolstoy in 1856: "The role of a writer in our country is, first of all, the role of a teacher."

Common and excellent in the representatives of the "Golden Age"

Preparing materials on the topic "General characteristics of Russian classical literature of the 19th century", it should be said that all representatives of the "Golden Age" were different, their world was unique and peculiar. It is difficult to bring the writers of that time under any one general image. After all, everyone true artist(this word is understood as a poet, a composer, and a painter) creates his own world, guided by personal principles. For example, Leo Tolstoy's world is not like Dostoevsky's. Saltykov-Shchedrin perceived and transformed reality differently than, for example, Goncharov. However, the representatives of the "Golden Age" and common feature- this is responsibility to the reader, talent, a high idea of ​​the role that literature plays in a person's life.

General characteristics of Russian literature of the 19th century: table

The "Golden Age" is the time of writers of completely different literary trends. To begin with, we will consider them in a pivot table, after which each of the directions will be considered in more detail.

Russian literature of this era was a reflection of the leap that was made in the previous century. The "Golden Age" began mainly with the flowering of two currents - sentimentalism and romanticism. Since the middle of the century, the direction of realism is gaining more and more power. This is the general characteristic of Russian literature of the 19th century. The sign will help the student to navigate the main trends and representatives of the "Golden Age". In the process of preparing for the lesson, it should be mentioned that the further socio-political situation in the country is becoming more and more tense, the contradictions between the oppressed classes and common people... This leads to the fact that in the middle of the century the development of poetry dies down somewhat. And the end of the era is accompanied by revolutionary sentiments.

Classicism

This direction is worth mentioning, giving a general description of Russian literature of the early 19th century. After all, classicism, which arose a century ago before the beginning of the "Golden Age", primarily refers to its beginning. This term, translated from Latin, means "exemplary" and is directly related to the imitation of classical images. This trend arose in France in the 17th century. At its core, it was associated with an absolute monarchy and the establishment of the nobility. It is characterized by ideas of high civic themes, strict adherence to the norms of creativity, established rules. Classicism reflects real life in ideal images that gravitate towards a specific pattern. This direction strictly adheres to the hierarchy of genres - the highest place among them is occupied by tragedy, ode and epic. It is they who illuminate the most important problems for society, are designed to reflect the highest, heroic manifestations of human nature. As a rule, “high” genres were opposed to “low” ones - fables, comedies, satirical and other works that also reflected reality.

Sentimentalism

Giving a general description of the development of Russian literature in the 19th century, one cannot fail to mention such a direction as sentimentalism. The voice of the narrator plays an important role in it. This direction, as indicated in the table, is distinguished by increased attention to a person's experiences, to his inner world. This is the innovation of sentimentalism. In Russian literature, a special place among the works of sentimentalism is occupied by "Poor Liza" by Karamzin.

Remarkable are the words of the writer who can characterize this direction: "And peasant women know how to love." Many have argued that the common man, commoner and peasant, is morally superior in many ways to a nobleman or a representative of high society. Landscape plays an important role in sentimentalism. This is not just a description of nature, but a reflection of the inner experiences of the heroes.

Romanticism

This is one of the most controversial phenomena of Russian literature in the "Golden Age". For more than a century and a half, there have been disputes about what lies at its basis, and no one has yet given any recognized definition to this trend. The representatives themselves this direction focused on the originality of the literature of each individual nation. One cannot but agree with this opinion - in every country romanticism acquires its own features. Also, giving a general description of the development of Russian literature in the 19th century, it is worth noting that almost all representatives of romanticism fought for social ideals, but they did it in different ways.

Representatives of this movement dreamed not of improving life in its particular manifestations, but of a complete resolution of all contradictions. Many romantics in their works are dominated by the mood of the fight against evil, protest against the injustice reigning in the world. Also, romantics tend to turn to mythological, fantasy, folk tales. In contrast to the direction of classicism, a serious influence is given to the inner world of a person.

Realism

The purpose of this direction is a truthful description of the surrounding reality. It is realism that matures on the basis of a tense political situation. Writers are beginning to turn to social problems, to objective reality. The three main realists of this era are Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Turgenev. The main theme of this direction is everyday life, customs, events from the life of ordinary people from the lower classes.