A picture of the life of a little person. The theme of the little man in Russian literature of the 19th century

Continuation

“The Bronze Horseman” is one of the first works where the author tries to describe the “little man”. Pushkin begins his work odicly. He glorifies the city of Petra, the “greatness” of St. Petersburg, and admires the capital of Russia. In my opinion, the author does this in order to show the power of the capital and the entire Russian state. Then the author begins his story. The main character is Eugene, he is an impoverished nobleman, he has neither a high rank nor a noble name: “By night light and rumor, his name is forgotten.” Evgeniy lives a calm, measured life, “shies away from the nobles,” and provides for himself by working hard. Evgeniy does not dream of high ranks, he only needs simple human happiness. But grief breaks into this measured course of his life; his beloved dies during a flood. Evgeny, realizing that he is powerless in the face of the elements, still tries to find those to blame for the fact that his hope for happiness has collapsed. And he finds it. Eugene blames Peter I, who built the city in this place, for his troubles, which means he blames the entire state machine, thereby entering into the first battle; and Pushkin shows this through the revival of the monument to Peter I. Of course, in this battle, Eugene, a weak man, is defeated due to enormous grief and inability to fight the state, the main character dies.

Pushkin vividly described the “little man”; this man not only had his own opinion, but also tried to prove it.

In the story “The Overcoat,” Akakiy Akakievich Bashmachkin is the main character, but all the other characters create the background.

The story “The Overcoat” is one of the best in Gogol’s work. In it, the writer appears before us as a master of detail, a satirist and a humanist. The hero of "The Overcoat" Akaki Akakievich is no longer a nobleman, he is an official of the lowest class - a titular councilor, a person who is strongly mocked and made fun of, thereby humiliating him. In the story about the life of a minor official, Gogol was able to create an unforgettable, vivid image of a “little man” with his joys and troubles, difficulties and worries. Hopeless need surrounds Akaki Akakievich, but he does not see the tragedy of his situation, since he is busy with business. Bashmachkin is not burdened by his poverty because he does not know any other life. He became so accustomed to his humiliating position that even his speech became inferior - he could not finish a sentence and instead used pronouns, interjections, prepositions, etc. This style of speech in itself made the person humiliated in front of everyone else, even equal to him in terms of class. Akaki Akakievich not only did not resist the state (as Evgeniy tried to do), he cannot even defend himself in front of equal people. And when he has a dream: a new overcoat, he is ready to endure any hardships, just to bring the realization of his plans closer.

The overcoat becomes a kind of symbol of a happy future, a beloved brainchild, for which Akaki Akakievich is ready to work tirelessly. The author is quite serious when he describes his hero’s delight at realizing his dream: the overcoat is sewn! Bashmachkin was completely happy. But for how long? When Bashmachkin’s overcoat was stolen, it was a grief for him, equivalent to the loss of Parasha from Evgeniy. But what did he do? Bashmachkin appeals to various authorities, but it is not difficult to refuse him, because he is insignificant in his position, and most importantly, in his soul. This is proven by the fact that Bashmachkin did not dream of anything, could not stand up for himself, did not defend his human dignity.

The “little man” is not destined to be happy in this unjust world. And only after death is justice done. Bashmachkin’s “soul” finds peace when he regains his lost item.

Akaki Akakievich dies, but Gogol revives him. Why is he doing this? It seems to me that Gogol revived the hero in order to further show the insignificance of the soul of the “little man”, and even having come to life, he changed only on the outside, but in his soul he still remained only a “little man” (at least, it seems to me that this is exactly So).

Depicting the persecution of a poor official by his colleagues, Gogol protests against violence against a defenseless man who saw “the whole world” not in the lives of people and nature, but in the words and letters of government correspondence. Gogol comes to the defense of the “little man” against social injustice. He condemns social orders that oppress the disadvantaged.

Bashmachkin is not only a poor man, he is a downtrodden, downtrodden man, he is one of those people who are enslaved and humiliated in their human dignity by other people who are in vain proud of their high position in society.

Gogol evokes in the reader sincere sympathy and pity for the personality of an inconspicuous, modest worker who is suppressed to such an extent that he no longer seems to have any heartfelt experiences and aspirations. But who still, finally, finds some object for his hidden heartfelt affection, for his almost disappeared thirst, tenderness and participation.

“The Overcoat” is permeated with a bitter reflection on “how much inhumanity there is in man, how much humble rudeness is hidden in refined, educated secularism.” “The Overcoat” is a brief description of the life of a poor titular councilor, “a creature protected by no one, dear to no one,” a life so insignificant and unnoticeable that even the purchase of a new overcoat is a whole event.

Bashmachkin resignedly and obediently endures the ridicule of his comrades, who “made jokes at him as much as clerical wit was enough.” But even in this downtrodden creature, Gogol tried to see a person, showing how embarrassed one of the officials was by Bashmachkin’s timid objection: “Leave me alone, why are you offending me?” - an objection in which “one could hear something inclining to pity.”

It is not great, but rather pitiful, the object that brought Akaki Akakievich out of his spiritual stupor: not love, not any other sublime feeling, but everyday and ordinary - a new overcoat “with thick cotton wool, on a strong lining without demolition.” And, nevertheless, we deeply sympathize with Gogol’s hero, seeing his selflessness and, as it were, being present at his awakening from spiritual torpor. For the sake of the overcoat, Bashmachkin learned to starve, but he learned to eat spiritually, “carrying in his thoughts the eternal idea of ​​the future overcoat.”

Gogol showed not only the life of the “little man”, but also his protest against injustice. Even if this “rebellion” is timid, almost fantastic, the hero stands for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.

Maikov wrote: “Both Gogol and Dostoevsky depict real society.” But “for one the individual is important as a representative of a certain circle; for another, society itself is interesting because of its influence on the personality of the individual. The collected works of Gogol can definitely be called the artistic statistics of Russia.” In Dostoevsky, any images of society are completely absorbed by the enormity of psychological interest. Speaking about Dostoevsky’s artistic style, Maikov had in mind a special psychologism. It was, of course, about social psychology - the influence that society has on the human personality, but which Dostoevsky studies with an original speed that never occurred to anyone.

In the work “Poor People” the main character is also a small man, the scribe Makar Devushkin. In “Poor People,” the writer stops at the bottom of the social ladder and talks about people who have little or no property, only to take a closer look at the depths of the spreading evil on everyone. The theme of poverty is not the main one here; it is subordinated to a broader social theme. That is why the novel talks about poor (unsecured) people, and about all sorts of people who, according to Dostoevsky, are always poor, no matter how wealthy they are.

The department in which Makar Alekseevich serves, and whose boundaries enclose the temporal and spatial boundaries of the world for him, is divided into two unequal parts. One is all “they”, “enemies” of Makar Alekseevich and “evil people”. The other part is himself, “humble,” “quiet,” “kind.” Because of these virtues, explains Makar Alekseevich, “evil people were found” to harm him. But if all of Makar Alekseevich’s misfortunes occur because he is “meek,” “quiet,” “kind,” then the question arises, what force is preventing him from changing his character? There is only one - the force of circumstances. After all, the hero is not just Makar Alekseevich - that poor Makar, on whom all the big shots fall and to whom the departmental proverb mockingly hinted. It is poverty that distinguishes the hero from all others. And the grief is not so much that he is “humble”, “quiet”, “kind”, but that he cannot be anything else: he is a “little man”, he is a “poor man”, not a “bird of prey” ”, but a modest bird. Instead of pride, self-esteem, which God and nature endowed with the best of their creations, ambition arises, a sick and abnormal feeling - a bad distortion of good principles in a poorly organized society. Ambition instills in a poor man a persistent desire, absorbing all his strength, to prove to himself and others that he is exactly like them, that he is no worse than them.

These “they”, “others”, constantly occupy the feelings and thoughts of Makar Alekseevich: after all, he needs not to be different from “them”. And since the “difference” is innate to him here (due to poverty, due to harmful circumstances), then “they,” these “others,” take possession of the heart and mind of the poor person with all inevitability. Makar Alekseevich lives with a constant glance: what will others say? what will they think? And the opinion of these “others” is more important to him than his own.

Before us is an “eternal titular adviser”, capable only of copying papers, trained with copper money, meek and downtrodden. Makar Alekseevich Devushkin, no less than Gogol’s Bashmachkin, is humiliated and despised in the service. He was also bullied at work, but by nature he is a completely different person, different from Akaki Akakievich. In response to the insults of his colleagues and offenders, the “little man” grumbled: he felt like an individual, being capable not only of humility, not only of taking care of himself.

Makar is concerned about problems of human dignity, he reflects on literature and his position in society. Having read “The Overcoat,” Makar was outraged that Gogol described with very great accuracy the life of an official. Makar recognized himself in Akaki Akakievich, but was outraged that Gogol portrayed the official as an insignificant person. After all, he himself was capable of deeply feeling and loving, which means he was no longer a nonentity at all, but a person, albeit one placed on a low level by society.

What Gogol left in the shadows in “The Overcoat” - the self-awareness of a downtrodden person - Dostoevsky made the main theme of his work.

The tragic end of the whole story - Varenka's departure with the hated, rich landowner Bykov - only emphasizes the weakness and helplessness of poor people, the hopelessness of their suffering.

In the image of Devushkin, Dostoevsky first posed a very important moral problem for him - the tragedy of goodness, true humanity in the world of those who consider the ability to “make money” to be the only civic virtue.

By showing the well-meaning Makar Devushkin, Dostoevsky accurately depicted the spiritual downtroddenness of a poor man, his conservatism, limited social consciousness, and ability to come to terms with lawlessness and adapt to it.

Dostoevsky's hero not only suffers and complains about his fate, but also begins to think like a citizen. Devushkin, as he says, “has been developing a syllable recently.” In fact, before our eyes there is a process of straightening the personality of the “little man”, who begins to think about the mutual responsibility of people, about human selfishness, and the inability to help each other.

Thus, we see that with the development of literature, the image of the “little man” also developed. At first he could love and respect himself, but he was powerless before the state machine. Then he could not love, not respect, and could not even think about fighting the state. Afterwards, the “little man” acquires self-esteem, the ability to love, and at the same time acutely feels his insignificant position. But the most important thing is that he is no longer insignificant in his soul! d) The theme of the “little man” in A. N. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry”

Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev is another “little man” among the heroes of Russian literature. His “literary pedigree” includes heroes of Pushkin, Gogol, and Dostoevsky. The image of Karandyshev was written masterfully by Ostrovsky, with psychological authenticity. The character of this “poor official” is perhaps even more complex and interesting than the “brilliant gentleman” Paratov.

Already in the very combination of the name of the Roman Emperor Julius with the prosaic patronymic Kapitonich and the humiliating surname Karandyshev there is a contradiction, perhaps a parody.

And indeed, “already, isn’t he a parody” of the same Paratov, let’s say? We receive our first information about Karandyshev from Vozhevatov, who, with his characteristic irony, but very aptly explains to Knurov, “where this Karandyshev came from”: “He’s been hanging around in their house for a long time, they held him for three years, slightly smoothed him, Once he wanted to shoot himself, yes nothing came of it, I just made everyone laugh.” Having become Larisa’s fiancé, Karandyshev “shines like an orange, for some reason he put on glasses, but he had never worn them before and had never heard of him, but now it’s all “I, yes I, I want, I wish.”

It seems that in the future, from the first appearance with Larisa on the boulevard to the “triumphant” dinner, Yuliy Kapitonich fully justifies his reputation as a person “insignificant, but proud and envious.” He brags about Larisa as an expensive, but well-purchased item, and constantly reproaches her for being a domestic “gypsy camp.” Even at dinner, when he makes a toast in honor of Larisa, Yuliy Kapitonich sings a praise to “himself, my beloved”: “Yes, sir, Larisa Dmitrievna knows how to distinguish gold from tinsel. She understood me, appreciated me and preferred me to everyone.”

And yet Karandyshev, in the words of Larisa herself, has “only one, but expensive dignity” - he loves her.

After Larisa’s escape, all illusions of this “little man” collapse, an epiphany sets in: “I am a funny person. I know myself that I am a funny person. Do people really get executed for being funny? Laugh at me - I'm worth it. But to break the chest of a funny man, tear out his heart, throw him under his feet and trample him! Oh! How can I live! In this scene, Yuliy Kapitonich is not funny, but pitiful and scary.

In the last scene of the fourth act, Karandyshev is no longer the same person as on the boulevard in the morning, although only a few hours have passed. It is Karandyshev who pronounces the word “thing” and throws it in Larisa’s face. But he loves her, “forgives, forgives everything,” agrees to everything, tries to take Larisa away, realizing that there is no one to leave her with. Yes, he loves and treats Larisa, like Paratov, Vozhevatov and Knurov, as a thing.

And, perhaps, Karandyshev’s crazy shot from a “fake” pistol is “the only genuine human “gesture” against the backdrop of the prudent calculation of the other three.” It is not for nothing that for the only time in her life Larisa addresses her fiancé with tenderness, calling him “darling.”

The “little man” Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev, as Ostrovsky sees him, turns out to be the most complex and dramatic figure of the entire male environment of the dying seagull Larisa Ogudalova.

Having examined the image of the “little man” in the story “The Overcoat” by N.V. Gogol and “Poor People” by F.M. Dostoevsky, as well as in Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry,” we can conclude that these writers pay attention to the spiritual poverty and limitations of such type of people. And even the presence of genuine humanity, kindness and morality in the character of Makar Devushkin does not save him from humiliation in the society of the “powers of this world.” And the image of Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev is also valuable, in my opinion, because it outlines further possibilities for developing the image of the “little man”, which are closely related to the problems that such people face in society. A. N. Ostrovsky shows how the desire to take a worthy place in society among “little people” degenerates into a pursuit of the “powers of this world”; this gives rise, on the one hand, to the ability of the “little man” to rebel, and on the other hand leads to vulgarization and limitations.

e) The connection between the theme of the “little man” and the theory of the “strong personality” in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”

The human soul is an abyss, Dostoevsky argued; the depths of the individual’s subconscious remain unknown to her. The ideal of beauty and goodness has an undoubted impact on people, but to an immeasurably greater extent they are in the power of the ideal of Sodom. The power of the dark, unchanging, cruel, affecting the inner life of a person, in his actions, extreme manifestations of selfishness, sensuality, cynicism, spiritual emptiness, Dostoevsky painted with enormous artistic truthfulness, while avoiding any naturalism.

The “little man,” descending into the abyss of his consciousness, giving free rein to the power of everything “dark, terrible, vile” that has accumulated for years in a suffering and tormented soul, becomes capable of the most monstrous crimes. Dostoevsky, an artist with brilliant skill, was able to depict the dynamic connection between both spheres of our consciousness. When disgust takes precedence over individualistic ideas, for example in Raskolnikov, they are repressed into the subconscious and are reinforced there by the desire to destroy and influence the behavior of their bearer. The passion for self-destruction, justified by the hero’s “mind”, theory, also has its roots in the dark depths of the human “I”. Nature itself is extremely contradictory, and therefore false views are nourished by some of its sometimes very hidden features. Raskolnikov’s thirst for individuality, superiority over people and contempt for the “trembling creature” is a manifestation of not only thought, but also his emotional and psychological sphere.

The theoretical constructions of the hero, revealed in dialogical communications with others, do not exhaust, however, the entire “composition” of his personality. The theory of the hero, associated with the subconscious attraction to “destruction” and “self-denial,” comes into conflict with the deepest core of the personality, which is understood by the writer as a spiritual substance. Internal socio-psychological conflict is the main subject of depiction in Dostoevsky’s novels. Moreover, the conflict is far from a static opposition between false individualistic views and a partially subconscious moral sense. Internal conflict is extremely contradictory and dynamic, because consciousness is not separated from the unconscious by an impenetrable wall; in turn, the conscious sometimes goes into the subconscious depths. At the same time, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are convinced that spiritual freedom, which constitutes the essence of man, manifests itself in a conditioned, historical way. Socially determined. Therefore, the “ideologicalness” of their characters is not self-possessing. It expresses mainly the consciousness of the will as free and therefore morally responsible.

For Dostoevsky’s characters, the leading idea is: they perform actions under the influence of “theory,” but the “theory” itself is refuted by the entire structure of their internal moral and spiritual organization. For example, Raskolnikov's theory is not accepted by the irrational core of his personality. The writer shows the tragedy of a person who believed in the omnipotence of false thought and was therefore doomed to internal discord. The idea, the degree of its truth, is tested by the moral sense of the hero, and therefore the internal conflict, born of the influence of the social external world, is the focus of the writer’s attention.

The fate of poor people, who had reached a dead end of complete despair and hopeless suffering, worried Dostoevsky from the very beginning of his creative activity and until the end of his days.

Having left the university, Raskolnikov broke with the world, “like a spider, he hid in his corner.” Only in complete solitude, in an “irritable and tense state,” was he able to surrender to his “ugly dream.” She was born in the conditions of St. Petersburg “stuffiness, crowding”, “a special summer stench”, in a “closet” that “looked more like a closet than an apartment”, in poverty and even destitution. “In poverty you still retain your nobility of innate feelings, but in poverty no one ever does,” Marmeladov explained to Raskolnikov.

Extreme poverty is characterized by having “nowhere else to go.” The motif of hopelessness is the most central and “cross-cutting”: “Do you understand, do you understand, dear sir,” Marmeladov says to Raskolnikov in the tavern, “what does it mean when there is nowhere else to go?”

Raskolnikov’s idea about the extraordinary personality of commanders, conquerors, legislators who violate the ancient law to introduce a new one, in his own words, is not new: “This has been printed and read a thousand times.” This refers to Max Stirner’s book “The One and His Property,” published in 1844 in Germany, as well as Napoleon’s book!!! "The History of Julius Caesar". But unlike the ideologists of the establishing bourgeoisie, Raskolnikov speaks with contempt for the “good of humanity” as the highest conscious goal of the heroes. In the same conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, the forensic investigator, Raskolnikov, revealing his concept of crime, is all concerned about the conscience of “extraordinary people who carry ideas that may be salutary for all humanity. He recognizes the heroes’ right to shed human blood according to their conscience,” that is, “not an official right,” but an internal one, “the right to allow their conscience to step over other obstacles,” and only if the fulfillment of the saving idea requires it. Razumikhin noticed something new that distinguishes Raskolnikov’s theory from previous ones - this is the moral permission to shed the blood of hundreds of thousands of people to bring about improvement. However, it should immediately be noted that Raskolnikov argued the need for crime in different ways “over time”, in different situations of his life. In the first conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, the motive of “blood according to conscience” stands out. But this recognition of the immutability of the moral law is then replaced by an understanding of life as an absurdity, as an absurdity. Confessing his crime to Sonya, Raskolnikov surrenders to individualistic fervor, becomes an exponent of individualistic rebellion, a nihilistic denial of the moral meaning of life: “It suddenly seemed clear to me, like the sun, that how come not a single person has dared and still does not dare, passing by all It’s easy to take this absurdity - you can easily shake everything to hell by the tail! I wanted to dare and killed.” It is not for nothing that Sonya exclaimed to these blasphemous words of Raskolnikov: “You have departed from God, and God has struck everything down and handed it over to the devil.” In her religious language and in terms of religious thinking, Sonya accurately defined the meaning of Raskolnikov’s philosophical judgment. He is convinced that “people will not change and no one can change them”, that slavery and domination are the law of human life, that for the most part people are “trembling creatures” and therefore “whoever is strong and strong in mind has power over them “,” “Whoever can spit on more is their legislator.” This arrogant, contemptuous attitude towards the “ordinary” determines the way of action. He "guessed that 'power' is given only to those who dare to bend and take it." According to the author, Sonya realized that “this gloomy catechism had become his faith and law.”

Raskolnikov’s combination of compassion for people and contempt for them was reflected in the theory of a “sovereign” changing the world, saving poor people from “poverty, from decay, from death, from debauchery, from venereal hospitals.” Dreaming of a “lord” who acts in the interests of the “trembling creature,” Raskolnikov wanted to be united, a Mission, to pave the way for the kingdom of goodness and truth through crime.

It should be noted that Raskolnikov’s anarchic protest is associated with acute pity for the poor, suffering, helpless, and with the desire to create social well-being for them. We must not forget that the initial and central situation in the novel—the extreme impoverishment of the urban poor—explains Raskolnikov’s tragedy.

On the way from the old moneylender, for whom Raskolnikov at first sight felt an “insurmountable disgust,” he went into one bad tavern and thought deeply: “A terrible thought pecked into his head, like a chicken from an egg, and it really, really occupied him.” From the old woman, therefore, he “brought out the germ of his thought” about the possibility of taking advantage of the right of the strong and shedding the blood of this evil and insignificant usurer in order to take advantage of her capital and “later devote himself to serving all human and common causes.” “One hundred thousand good deeds and undertakings that can be arranged and the old woman’s money doomed to the monastery can be used.” The student’s speech addressed to the officer becomes, as it were, an internal monologue of Raskolnikov himself, according to which in the name of the best, that is, the salvation of a thousand people, one death is possible: “One death and a hundred lives in return - but this is arithmetic.” From the perspective of Calculation, this mental dialectic seems invulnerable.

The story of Raskolnikov's self-awareness unfolds: he must understand his thoughts about the moral right to bloody violence, test true violence, test the truth of the theory by the practice of his own life and draw the final conclusions. At the same time, he sees internal barriers that he must “transgress” in order to “have the right.” In this sense, the planned crime becomes a moral and psychological experiment on oneself. The murder, the “elimination” of the nasty old pawnbroker in his eyes as a theorist and activist is just a “test” of his own strength, just a test and answer to the question, what category of humanity does he belong to?

For Tolstoy, everything in a person was clarified, both superficial and fundamental, and therefore the most secret things in him were revealed with exhaustive completeness. To Dostoevsky, like Turgenev, the deep basis of human personality seemed mysterious, enigmatic, not amenable only to external, completely involuntary movements, to some accidentally dropped words of the hero, to the pattern of his behavior, to those momentary states that are almost not commented on by the writer. That is why Dostoevsky conveyed the dialectical processes of mental life not by depicting the mental process, the “dialectics of the soul,” but by his own means, as the struggle of opposite principles in the personality of the hero - the character. The passion for self-destruction, sometimes awakening under the influence of false theories, that is, ultimately, the social environment, faces the protest of moral feeling. Moreover, the passion for self-destruction, although it finds reinforcement in the hero’s mind, in his theoretical ideas, also has its roots in the dark subconscious depths of the human “I”.

The killer feels the protest of human nature within himself; he “wanted to give up everything and leave.” The second unexpected bloody violence against the unrequited Lizaveta finally plunges him into a feeling of some kind of detachment and despair, he becomes, as it were, an unconscious conductor of evil force. According to the author, if at that moment Rodion could see and reason correctly, he “would have given up everything and immediately gone to himself to declare only horror and disgust for what he had done. Disgust especially rose and grew in him with every minute.” Later in his confession, he explains to Sonya: “Did I kill the old woman? I killed myself, not the old woman! And then, all at once, I killed myself forever.” The crime is committed according to the invented theory, which has acquired unusual power, having met with support from the passion for destruction hidden in the depths of the subconscious.

A crime begins not from the moment it is committed, but from the moment it originates in a person’s thoughts. The very idea of ​​murder, which flared up in Raskolnikov’s mind in the tavern after visiting the disgusting moneylender, already infects him with all the poisons of egoistic self-affirmation and puts him in conflict with his spiritual potential. He failed to defeat the “obsession” despite desperate internal resistance. Until the last minute, he did not believe in his ability to “transcend”, although “the entire analysis, in the sense of a moral resolution of the issue, was already over with him: his casuistry was sharpened like a razor, and he no longer found conscious objections in himself.”

Dostoevsky shows Raskolnikov in a state of extreme moral decline, self-destruction, self-denial, and in the prospect of “restoration”, “self-preservation and repentance”, gaining freedom as his spirituality. With the same inevitability with which Raskolnikov commits a crime, retribution comes and self-exposure unfolds. Burdened by all sorts of circumstances, Raskolnikov found himself a slave of an “ugly dream,” but, according to the writer, he was obliged to resist it and submit to the highest necessity, expressing the transcendental forces of life.

Raskolnikov's path to overcoming spiritual slavery is difficult. For a long time he blamed himself for the “absurdity of cowardice”, for “unnecessary shame”, for a long time he still suffered from wounded pride, from his “baseness and mediocrity”, from the thought that “he could not stand the first step.” But inevitably he comes to moral self-condemnation. It is Sonya, first of all, who reveals to him the soul and conscience of the people. Sonya’s word is so effective because it receives support from the hero himself, who has sensed new content in himself. This content turned him to overcoming pride and egoistic self-affirmation.

The history of Raskolnikov’s self-awareness is a struggle between two principles: tempting power and resurrection. Through the abyss of evil he goes to the consciousness of goodness, the truth of moral feeling. This is the story of a “little man” who rebelled against the injustice of the world.

e) Chekhov as a writer completing the gallery of “little people” in his work

Gogol called for loving and pitying the “little man” as he is. Dostoevsky - see the personality in him. Chekhov turns everything upside down. He looks for the culprit not in the state, but in the person himself. This completely new approach gives completely unexpected results: the reason for the humiliation of the “little man” is himself.

Especially a new twist on an old theme is given in the story “The Death of an Official.” This is evidenced by many details of the story. Firstly, this is a comic story and it is the official himself who is being ridiculed in it. For the first time, Chekhov suggests laughing at the “little man,” but not at his poverty, destitution, and cowardice. Laughter turns into tragedy when we finally understand what the nature and life principles of this official are. Chekhov tells us that Chervyakov finds true pleasure in humiliation. At the end of the story, the general himself turns out to be offended, and the dying Chervyakov is not at all sorry.

Investigating a life incident that happened to his hero, Chekhov comes to the conclusion: Chervyakov is a slave by nature. And I just want to add to these words: not a person, but a reptile. It is in this line, it seems to me, that Chekhov sees real evil. This is not the death of a person, but of some kind of worm. Chervyakov dies not from fear or because he might be suspected of not wanting to grovel. The general forgave him. And because he was deprived of this reptile sweetness, it was as if he was deprived of his favorite activity.

The “little man” Belikov, the hero of the story “The Man in a Case,” descended and turned into a narrow-minded philistine. Belikov is afraid of real life and seeks to hide from it. In my opinion, he is an unhappy person who denies not only himself, but also those around him. Only the circulars are clear to him, and any permissions cause him doubts and fear: “No matter what happens.”

He oppresses all teachers with his “case considerations”; under his influence, people in the city began to be afraid of everything: people are afraid to speak loudly, make acquaintances, read books, are afraid to help the poor, teach them to read and write. And this is the danger of the Belikovs for society: they strangle all living things. “Belikovism” embodied inertia, the desire to stop life, to envelop everything in a web of philistinism.

Belikov could find his ideal only by passing away. And he leaves, and only in the coffin does his face acquire a pleasant, meek, even cheerful expression, as if Belikov is glad that he has found himself in a case from which he never has to get out.

Although Belikov died, his death did not rid the city of “Belikovism.” Life remained the same as it was - “not circularly prohibited, but not completely permitted.”

And if we remember Dr. Startsev? At the beginning of his life's journey, the young doctor has various interests characteristic of an intelligent young man. He feels the beauty of nature, is interested in art, literature, and methods of getting closer to people. He can love, worry, dream. But gradually Startsev loses everything human, descends spiritually and withdraws into his own little world, in which now only money, cards and a full dinner are important.

What led Startsev to this? Chekhov states: the philistine environment, vulgar and insignificant, destroys the best that is in a person if there is no “antidote” and internal conscious protest in the person himself. Startsev's story makes us think about what turns a person into a spiritual monster. In my opinion, the worst thing in life is the fall of the individual into the quagmire of philistinism and vulgar philistinism. Chekhov saw in his heroes an evil that is ineradicable and gives rise to new evil: slaves give birth to masters.

Meanwhile, Chekhov has a growing need for broad social generalizations; he strives to depict the mood and life of entire classes and strata of society. We needed a genre that would provide such an opportunity. This genre was drama for Chekhov.

In the first play, “Ivanov,” the writer again addresses the theme of the “little man.” At the center of the play is the tragic breakdown of an intellectual who made big life plans and bowed helplessly in front of the obstacles that the order of life placed in front of him. Ivanov is a “little man” who has “strained himself” in the world, and from an enthusiastic, active worker has turned into a sick, internally broken loser. And further, in the plays “Uncle Vanya”, “Three Sisters”, the main conflict develops in the clash of morally pure, bright personalities with the world of ordinary people, with their greed, vulgarity, and crude cynicism. And it seems that vulgarity, personified in Natalya Ivanovna and Staff Captain Solen, is winning over pure, sensitive people. Are there people who are replacing these people who are stuck in dishonest everyday affairs? Eat! These are Anya and Petya Trofimov from the play “The Cherry Orchard” by A. Chekhov.

After all, not all “little people” turn into narrow-minded and petty people; common democrats, whose children became revolutionaries, also emerged from among the “little people.” As you might guess, Petya Trofimov, the “eternal student,” belongs to the student movement, which gained great momentum in those years. It was no coincidence that Petya hid with Ranevskaya for several months. This young man is smart, proud, honest. He knows what a difficult situation the people live in, and he thinks that this situation can only be corrected by continuous work. Trofimov lives with faith in the bright future of the Motherland, but Petya does not yet see clear ways to change the life of society. The image of this hero is quite contradictory, however, like most of Chekhov's images. Trofimov believes that love is an unnecessary activity at the moment. “I am above love,” he says to Anya. Petya is proud of his disdain for money; he is not offended by the nickname “shabby gentleman.” Petya Trofimov has a great influence on the formation of the life views of Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. She is beautiful in her feelings and moods.

We perceive Petya and Anya as new, progressive people. And with this faith in the new and better, I really want to say that a person should not be “small”. And the keen eye of the artist Chekhov, noticing the hypocrisy, stupidity, and narrow-mindedness of people, saw something else - the beauty of a good person: “My God, how rich Russia is in good people!” Such, for example, is Doctor Dymov, the hero of the story “The Jumper”. A man who lives for the happiness of others, a humble doctor with a kind heart and a beautiful soul.

The image of the “little man” in foreign literature

The theme of the “little man” is reflected not only in the works of Russian writers, but also in the works of foreign writers.

In his understanding of art and the role of the artist, Stendhal followed the Enlightenment. He always strived for accuracy and truthfulness in the reflection of life in his works.

Stendhal's first great novel, The Red and the Black, was published in 1830, the year of the July Revolution. Its title already speaks of the deep social meaning of the novel, of the clash of two forces - revolution and reaction. Stendhal took Danton’s words as the epigraph to the novel: “The truth, the harsh truth!” and, following it, the writer based the plot on true action.

The title of the novel also emphasizes the main features in the character of Julien Sorel, the main character of the work. Surrounded by people hostile to him, he challenges fate. Defending the rights of his personality, he is forced to mobilize all his strength and means to fight the world around him.

Julien Sorel comes from a peasant background. This determines the social sound of the novel.

Julien Sorel is a commoner, a plebeian, wants to take a place in society to which he has rights by his origin. On this basis, the struggle with society arises. Julien himself well defines the meaning of this struggle in the scene at the trial, when he is given the last word. Thus, Julien realizes that he is being judged not so much for the crime he actually committed, but for the fact that he dared to cross the line separating him from high society, tried to enter that world to which he has no right to belong. For this attempt, the jury should sentence him to death.

But Julien Sorel’s struggle is not only for his career, for personal well-being; The question in the novel is posed much more complexly. He wants to establish himself in society, “to go out into the world, to take one of the first places in it, but on condition that this society recognizes in him a full-fledged personality, an extraordinary, talented, gifted, intelligent, strong person.”

He does not want to give up these qualities, give them up. But an agreement between Sorel and the world of the Recals is possible only on the condition that the young man fully adapts to their tastes. This is the main meaning of Julien Sorel's struggle with the outside world.

Julien is doubly a stranger in this environment; both as a person from the lower social classes, and as a highly gifted person who does not want to remain in the world of mediocrity.

Stendhal convinces the reader that this struggle that Julien Sorel is waging with the surrounding society is not a life-or-death struggle. But in bourgeois society there is no place for these talents. The Napoleon that Sorel dreams of is already the past; instead of heroes, traders and self-satisfied shopkeepers came - that’s who became the true “hero” at the time in which he lives. For these people, outstanding talents and heroism are ridiculous - all that is so dear to Julien.

Julien's struggle develops in him great pride and increased ambition.

Possessed by these feelings, Sorel subordinates all other aspirations and attachments to them. Even love ceases to be a joy for him.

Without hiding the negative aspects of his hero's character, Stendhal at the same time justifies him.

Firstly, the difficulty of the struggle he is waging; Having acted alone against everyone, Julien is forced to use any weapon. But the main thing that, in the author’s opinion, justifies the hero is the nobility of his heart, generosity, purity - traits that he did not lose even in the moments of the most brutal struggle.

The episode in prison is very important in the development of Julien's character. Until then, the only incentive that guided all his actions, limiting his good motives, was ambition. But in prison he becomes convinced that ambition has led him down the wrong path. At the same time, in prison there is a reassessment of Julien’s feelings for Madame de Renal and Matilda.

These two images seem to mark the struggle of two principles in the soul of Julien himself.

And in Julien there are two beings; he is proud, ambitious and at the same time a man with a simple heart, an almost childlike, spontaneous soul. When he overcame ambition and pride, he moved away from the equally proud and ambitious Matilda. And the sincere Madame de Renal, whose love was deeper than Matilda’s, was especially close to him.

Overcoming ambition and the victory of true feeling in Julien’s soul leads him to death.

Julien gives up trying to save himself. Life seems unnecessary and aimless to him; he no longer values ​​it and prefers death on the guillotine.

Thus, we can notice that this ending of the novel is indicative.

Stendhal was unable to resolve the question of how a hero who had overcome his errors but remained in bourgeois society should have rebuilt his life. This is how the “little man” perishes, having overcome the “slave” in himself.

Thus, it is clear that the image of the “Little Man” underwent significant changes in the works of writers. The origins of this topic were laid by the work of N. Karamzin, and also due to the social and political development of Russia and the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau of eliminating human inequality by eradicating prejudices.

For the first time, the image of the “Little Man” can be found in the works of A. S. Pushkin “Belkin’s Tale”, “The Captain’s Daughter”, and also “The Bronze Horseman. In the works of M. Yu. Lermontov, the image of the “Little Man” is reflected in the story “Princess Ligovskaya”. Having examined the images of the “Little People” in the works of Pushkin and Lermontov, we can conclude that all the heroes evoke sympathy and pity, and the authors are guided in creating the images of the “Little People” by the principles of humanism, trying to draw attention to the problem of the “humiliated and insulted.” Continuing the theme of “The Little Man” is N.V. Gogol, who in his story “The Overcoat” for the first time shows the spiritual stinginess, squalor of poor people and, like Pushkin in “The Bronze Horseman”, draws attention to the ability of the “Little Man” to rebel and for this , just like Pushkin, introduces elements of fantasy into his work. Based on the "Little Man's" tendency to revolt, we can conclude that the theme of "The Little Man" is close to the theory of the "strong personality" and understand the origins of the individualistic rebellion of the "Little Man" against injustice and his desire to become a "Strong Personality", which is manifested in the image R. Raskolnikova.

The “Little People” gallery is completed by images from the stories of A.P. Chekhov, which make it possible to understand the “Little Man’s” inability to do great things, his isolation from society and the spiritual world as a whole, his miserable existence, cynicism, vulgarity, and lack of spirituality. Chekhov shows how “little people” turn into little people.

Having examined the gallery of “little people” in the works of writers of the 19th century, I conclude that this topic occupied a significant place in Russian literature. The problem of the “little man,” his troubles and aspirations, his views on the world and urgent needs, vividly worried the writers of the 19th century, and although each of them reveals the image of the “little man” in his own way, or evoking sympathy and pity among readers and forcing them to think about problems of such people, or exposing the spiritual poverty, squalor of “poor little people,” the humiliation of their existence in order to help them change, nevertheless, one cannot agree with A.P. Chekhov, who argued “that this topic has outlived its usefulness.” This topic is relevant in our time, when the problems of “little people” appear in modern society.

In the course of this work, I learned:

Analyze the material read;

Summarize and systematize the data obtained during research;

Compare and contrast both characters and individual works;

Learned to find sources and reasons for the emergence of new concepts in literature; more clearly understand the course of the historical and literary process;

Also draw conclusions and generalizations.

Bogachek A., Shiryaeva E.

Project "The image of the "little man" in the literature of the 19th-20th centuries."

Download:

Preview:

MBOU "Orangereininskaya Secondary School"

Project on the topic: “The image of the “little man” in the literature of the 19th – early 20th centuries”

Completed by students of grade 10 “B”

Bogachek Alexandra

Shiryaeva Ekaterina

Teacher

Mikhailova O.E.

2011-2012 academic year.

Plan:

“The Little Man” is a literary hero of the era of realism.

“Little Man” - a man from the people...became...a hero of Russian literature.

From Pushkin's Samson Vyrin to Gogol's Akaki Akakievich.

Contempt for the “little man” in the works of A.P. Chekhov.

The talented and selfless “little man” in the works of N.S. Leskova.

Conclusion.

Used Books.

Target : Show the diversity of ideas about the “little man” of writers of the 19th – early 20th centuries.

Tasks : 1) study the works of writers of the 19th – early 20th centuries;

3) draw conclusions.

The definition of “little man” is applied to the category of literary heroes of the era of realism, usually occupying a rather low place in the social hierarchy: a minor official, a tradesman, or even a poor nobleman. The image of the “little man” turned out to be all the more relevant the more democratic literature became. The very concept of “little man” was most likely introduced into use by Belinsky (1840 article “Woe from Wit”). The theme of the “little man” is raised by many writers. It has always been relevant because its task is to reflect the life of an ordinary person with all its experiences, problems, troubles and little joys. The writer takes on the hard work of showing and explaining the lives of ordinary people. “The little man is a representative of the entire people. And each writer represents him in his own way.

The image of a little man has been known for a long time - thanks, for example, to such mastodons as A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol or A.P. Chekhov and N.S. Leskov - and inexhaustible.

N.V. Gogol was one of the first who spoke openly and loudly about the tragedy of the “little man,” oppressed, humiliated and therefore pitiful.

True, the palm in this still belongs to Pushkin; his Samson Vyrin from “The Station Agent” opens a gallery of “little people”. But Vyrin’s tragedy is reduced to a personal tragedy, its reasons lie in the relationship between the station superintendent’s family - father and daughter - and are in the nature of morality, or rather immorality on the part of Dunya, the superintendent’s daughter. She was the meaning of life for her father, the “sun” with whom the lonely, elderly man felt warm and comfortable.

Gogol, remaining faithful to the traditions of critical realism, introducing his own Gogolian motives into it, showed the tragedy of the “little man” in Russia much more widely; the writer “realized and showed the danger of degradation of society, in which cruelty and indifference of people to each other are increasing more and more.”

And the pinnacle of this villainy was Gogol’s Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin from the story “The Overcoat,” his name became a symbol of the “little man” who feels bad in this strange world of servitude, lies and “blatant” indifference.

It often happens in life that cruel and heartless people who humiliate and insult the dignity of other people often look more pathetic and insignificant than their victims. The same impression of spiritual meagerness and fragility from the offenders of the petty official Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin remains with us after reading Gogol’s story “The Overcoat”. Akaki Akakievich is a real “little man”. Why? Firstly, he stands on one of the lowest steps of the hierarchical ladder. His place in society is not noticeable at all. Secondly, the world of his spiritual life and human interests is extremely narrowed, impoverished, and limited. Gogol himself characterized his hero as poor, mediocre, insignificant and unnoticed. In life, he was assigned an insignificant role as a copyist of documents for one of the departments. Brought up in an atmosphere of unquestioning submission and execution of orders from his superiors, Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin was not used to reflecting on the content and meaning of his work. Therefore, when he is offered tasks that require the manifestation of elementary intelligence, he begins to worry, worry, and ultimately comes to the conclusion: “No, it’s better to let me rewrite something.” Bashmachkin's spiritual life is also limited. Collecting money for a new overcoat becomes for him the meaning of his whole life, filling it with happiness in anticipation of the fulfillment of his cherished desire. The theft of a new overcoat, acquired through such hardships and suffering, becomes truly a disaster for him. Those around him laughed at his misfortune, and no one helped him. The “significant person” shouted at him so much that poor Akaki Akakievich lost consciousness. Almost no one noticed his death. Despite the uniqueness of the image created by the writer, he, Bashmachkin, does not look lonely in the minds of readers, and we imagine that there were a great many of the same humiliated people who shared the lot of Akaki Akakievich. Gogol was the first to talk about the tragedy of the “little man,” respect for whom depended not on his spiritual qualities, not on education and intelligence, but on his position in society. The writer compassionately showed the injustice and oppressiveness of society in relation to the “little man” and for the first time called on this society to pay attention to the inconspicuous, pitiful and funny people, as it seemed at first glance. It’s not their fault that they are not very smart, and sometimes not smart at all. But they don’t harm anyone, and this is very important. So why then laugh at them? Maybe you can't treat them with more respect, but you can't offend them. They, like everyone else, have the right to a decent life, to the opportunity to feel like full-fledged people.

“The Little Man” is constantly found on the pages of A.A. Chekhov’s works. This is the main character of his work. Chekhov's attitude towards such people is especially clear in his satirical stories. And this attitude is unambiguous. In the story “The Death of an Official,” the “little man” Ivan Dmitrievich Chervyakov constantly and obsessively apologizes to General Brizzhalov for accidentally spraying him when he sneezed. “I sprayed him!” thought Chervyakov. “Not my boss, a stranger, but still awkward. I need to apologize.” The key word in this thought is “boss”. Chervyakov probably wouldn’t endlessly apologize to an ordinary person. Ivan Dmitrievich has a fear of his superiors, and this fear turns into flattery and deprives him of self-respect. A person has already reached the point where he allows himself to be trampled into the dirt; moreover, he himself helps to do this. We must give the general his due; he treats our hero very politely. But the common man was not accustomed to such treatment. Therefore, Ivan Dmitrievich thinks that he was ignored and comes to ask for forgiveness several days in a row. Brizzhalov gets fed up with this and finally yells at Chervyakov. “Get out!” the general, suddenly blue and shaking, barked.

“What, sir?” Chervyakov asked in a whisper, dying of horror.

Go away!! - the general repeated, stamping his feet.

Something came off in Chervyakov’s stomach. Seeing nothing, hearing nothing, he backed away to the door, went out into the street and trudged... Arriving mechanically home, without taking off his uniform, he lay down on the sofa and... died." This is what fear of higher ranks, eternal admiration and humiliation before them. To more fully reveal the image of his hero, Chekhov used a “speaking" surname. Yes, Ivan Dmitrievich is small, pitiful, like a worm, he can be crushed without effort, and most importantly, he is just as unpleasant.

In the story “The Triumph of the Winner,” Chekhov presents us with a story in which a father and son humiliate themselves before their boss so that the son can get a position.

“The boss was telling the story and, apparently, wanted to seem witty. I don’t know if he said anything funny, but I just remember that my dad pushed me in the side every minute and said:

Laugh!…

... - Yes, yes! - Dad whispered. - Well done! He looks at you and laughs... This is good; Maybe he’ll actually give you a job as an assistant clerk!”

And again we are faced with admiration for superiors. And again this is self-deprecation and flattery. People are ready to please the boss to achieve their insignificant goal. It doesn’t even occur to them to remember that there is simple human dignity that cannot be lost under any circumstances. A.P. Chekhov wanted all people to be beautiful and free. “Everything in a person should be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts.” Anton Pavlovich thought so, therefore, ridiculing primitive man in his stories, he called for self-improvement. Chekhov hated self-humiliation, eternal servility and admiration for officials. Gorky said about Chekhov: “His enemy was vulgarity, and he fought against it all his life.” Yes, he fought against it with his works, he bequeathed to us to “squeeze the slave out of ourselves drop by drop.” Perhaps such a vile lifestyle of his “little people”, their low thoughts and unworthy behavior are the result of not only personal character traits, but also their social position and the order of the existing political system. After all, Chervyakov would not have apologized so zealously and lived in eternal fear of officials if he had not been afraid of the consequences. The characters in the stories “Chameleon”, “Thick and Thin”, “Man in a Case” and many others have the same unpleasant character traits.

Anton Pavlovich believed that a person should have a goal, the fulfillment of which he will strive, and if there is none or it is completely small and insignificant, then the person becomes just as small and insignificant. A person must work and love - these are two things that play a major role in the life of any person: small and not small.

Nikolai Semenovich Leskov’s “little man” is a completely different person than his predecessors... In order to understand this, let’s compare the heroes of three works by this writer: Lefty, Ivan Severyanovich Flyagin and Katerina Izmailova. All three of these characters are strong personalities, and each is talented in their own way. But all the energy of Katerina Izmailova is aimed at creating personal happiness by any means. To achieve her goals, she resorts to crime. And therefore this type of character is rejected by Leskov. He sympathizes with her only when she turns out to be cruelly betrayed by her lovers.

Lefty is a talented man from the people who cares about his homeland more than the king and courtiers. But he is ruined by a vice that is so familiar to the Russian people - drunkenness and the reluctance of the state to help its subjects. He could have done without this help if he had been a strong man. But a drinking person cannot be a strong person. Therefore, for Leskov, this is not the hero who should be given preference.

Among the heroes belonging to the category of “little people,” Leskov singles out Ivan Severyanovich Flyagin. Leskov's hero is a hero in appearance and spirit. “He was a man of enormous stature, with a dark, open face and thick, wavy, lead-colored hair: his gray hair was so strangely cast... This new companion of ours, who later turned out to be a very interesting person, looked like he was in his mid-fifties; but he was in in the full sense of the word, a hero, and, moreover, a typical, simple-minded, kind Russian hero, reminiscent of grandfather Ilya Muromets... But with all this kind simplicity, it did not take much observation to see in him a person who has seen a lot and, as they say, “experienced.” He He behaved boldly, self-confidently, although without unpleasant abandon, and spoke in a pleasant bass voice with a demeanor." He is strong not only physically, but also spiritually. Flyagin's life is an endless test. He is strong in spirit, and this allows him to overcome such difficult life vicissitudes. He was on the verge of death, saved people, and fled for his life. But in all these tests he improved. Flyagin, at first vaguely, and then more and more consciously, strives for heroic service to the Motherland; this becomes the spiritual need of the hero. In this he sees the meaning of life. The kindness inherent in Flyagin initially, the desire to help the suffering, ultimately becomes a conscious need to love his neighbor as himself. This is a simple person with his own merits and demerits, gradually eradicating these shortcomings and coming to an understanding of God. Leskov portrays his hero as a strong and brave man with a huge heart and a big soul. Flyagin does not complain about fate, does not cry. Leskov, describing Ivan Severyanovich, makes the reader proud of his people, of his country. Flyagin does not humiliate himself before the powers that be, like Chekhov’s heroes, does not become an alcoholic because of his insolvency, like Dostoevsky’s Marmeladov, does not sink to the bottom of life, like Gorky’s characters, does not wish harm to anyone, does not want to humiliate anyone, does not wait for help from others, does not sit idly by. This is a person who recognizes himself as a human being, a real person, who is ready to defend his rights and the rights of other people, who does not lose self-esteem and is confident that a person can do anything.

III.

The idea of ​​the “little man” changed throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Each writer also had his own personal views on this hero.

You can find commonality in the views of different writers. For example, writers of the first half of the 19th century (Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol) treat the “little man” with sympathy. Griboyedov stands apart, he looks at this hero differently, which brings his views closer to the views of Chekhov and partly Ostrovsky. Here the concept of vulgarity and self-humiliation comes to the fore. In the minds of L. Tolstoy, N. Leskov, A. Kuprin, a “little man” is a talented, selfless person. Such a diversity of views of writers depends on the characteristics of their worldview and on the diversity of human types that surrounds us in real life.

Used Books:

1. Gogol N.V. Collected works in 4 volumes. Publishing house "Prosveshcheniye", M. 1979

2. Pushkin A.S. “Stories by I.P. Belkina. Dubrovsky, Queen of Spades. Publishing house "Astrel, AST" 2004

3. Chekhov A.P. Stories. Publishing house "AST". 2010

4. Leskov N.S. All works by Nikolai Leskov. 2011

5. Gukovsky G.A. Gogol's realism - M., 1959

“The Little Man” is a type of literary hero that emerged in the era of realism in the first half of the 19th century. Usually he is a minor official, a citizen with a quiet, inconspicuous life. He occupies a low level in society and has a meager spiritual world, not endowed with important life goals. The theme of the “little man” is one of the most important themes in Russian literature, to which writers of the 19th century constantly turned.

So, N.V. Gogol in the story “The Overcoat” describes the life of a poor, insignificant and inconspicuous official, whose role is to rewrite documents. Having spent his life subordinate to his superiors and doing simple “automatic” work, Bashmachkin did not have the opportunity to think much about work. And when he is offered a task that requires little mental effort, he decides: “No, better let me rewrite something.”

His life has meager aspirations: accumulating money for a new overcoat through hardship and suffering becomes the meaning of life, and its theft takes on the dimensions of a catastrophe. There are quite a few such “little people” in society, and Gogol calls for treating them with pity and understanding.

In addition, in Chekhov’s story “The Death of an Official” the life of another “little” person is presented - a minor official. His surname Chervyakov hints at the size of his world commensurate with the size of this animal. All minor events take on large proportions in his eyes. So, the fact that he sprayed the general in the theater, for whom it was a trifle, was of great importance for our hero. As a result of repeated apologies, Chervyakov died.

This catastrophe in his life is a consequence of limitation and emptiness. And there are a huge number of such people, fixated on their own little world and worrying about little things.

The theme of little people is also revealed by Dostoevsky in the novel Crime and Punishment. The scene is a poor area of ​​St. Petersburg. A picture of the life of the Marmeladovs, crushed by reality, opens before us. The official Marmeladov is drinking himself to death from his aimless life and grief. His wife Ekaterina Ivanovna also dies in poverty. And Sonya is forced to sell her body in order to escape starvation. Dunya, Raskolnikov's sister, wanting to help her brother, is ready to marry Luzhin, whom she is disgusted with. Raskolnikov himself commits a crime, the reason for which lies in the stratification of society. Dostoevsky's heroes protest against injustice in the world. He proves that the souls of poor “little” people can be beautiful and full of kindness, but broken by difficult living conditions.

Thus, the problem of the “little” person, raised by writers of the 19th century, is no less relevant today, when there are a huge number of such people with an empty life, routine work and a meager spiritual world, and, basically, this is the result of the influence of society on them.

Updated: 2018-03-05

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

The image of the “little man” in Russian literature

The very concept of “little man” appears in literature before the type of hero itself takes shape. At first, this was a designation for people of the third estate, which became of interest to writers due to the democratization of literature.

In the 19th century, the image of the “little man” became one of the cross-cutting themes of literature. The concept of “little man” was introduced by V.G. Belinsky in his 1840 article “Woe from Wit.” Originally it meant a “simple” person. With the development of psychologism in Russian literature, this image acquires a more complex psychological portrait and becomes the most popular character in democratic works of the second half XIX century.

Literary Encyclopedia:

“Little Man” is a number of diverse characters in Russian literature of the 19th century, united by common characteristics: low position in the social hierarchy, poverty, insecurity, which determines the peculiarities of their psychology and the plot role - victims of social injustice and a soulless state mechanism, often personified in the image "significant person" They are characterized by fear of life, humility, meekness, which, however, can be combined with a feeling of injustice of the existing order of things, with wounded pride and even a short-term rebellious impulse, which, as a rule, does not lead to a change in the current situation. The type of “little man”, discovered by A. S. Pushkin (“The Bronze Horseman”, “The Station Agent”) and N. V. Gogol (“The Overcoat”, “Notes of a Madman”), is creative and sometimes polemical in relation to tradition , rethought by F. M. Dostoevsky (Makar Devushkin, Golyadkin, Marmeladov), A. N. Ostrovsky (Balzaminov, Kuligin), A. P. Chekhov (Chervyakov from “The Death of an Official,” the hero of “Thick and Thin”), M. A. Bulgakov (Korotkov from “The Diaboliad”), M. M. Zoshchenko and other Russian writers of the 19-20 centuries.

“The little man” is a type of hero in literature, most often he is a poor, inconspicuous official occupying a small position, whose fate is tragic.

The theme of the “little man” is a “cross-cutting theme” of Russian literature. The appearance of this image is due to the Russian career ladder of fourteen steps, at the bottom of which petty officials, poorly educated, often single or burdened with families, worthy of human understanding, worked and suffered from poverty, lack of rights and insults, each with their own misfortune.

Little people are not rich, invisible, their fate is tragic, they are defenseless.

Pushkin "Station Warden". Samson Vyrin.

Hard worker. Weak person. He loses his daughter and is taken away by the rich hussar Minsky. Social conflict. Humiliated. Can't stand up for himself. Got drunk. Samson was lost in life.

One of the first to put forward the democratic theme of the “little man” in literature was Pushkin. In “Belkin’s Tales,” completed in 1830, the writer paints not only pictures of the life of the nobility (“The Young Lady-Peasant”), but also draws the readers’ attention to the fate of the “little man.”

The fate of the “little man” is shown here realistically for the first time, without sentimental tearfulness, without romantic exaggeration, shown as a result of certain historical conditions, the injustice of social relations.

The plot of “The Station Agent” itself conveys a typical social conflict and expresses a broad generalization of reality, revealed in the individual case of the tragic fate of an ordinary person, Samson Vyrin.

There is a small postal station somewhere at the crossroads of roads. Here live 14th grade official Samson Vyrin and his daughter Dunya - the only joy that brightens up the difficult life of a caretaker, full of shouts and curses from passers-by. But the hero of the story, Samson Vyrin, is quite happy and calm, he has long adapted to the conditions of service, his beautiful daughter Dunya helps him run a simple household. He dreams of simple human happiness, hoping to babysit his grandchildren and spend his old age with his family. But fate is preparing a difficult test for him. A passing hussar, Minsky, takes Dunya away without thinking about the consequences of his action.

The worst thing is that Dunya left with the hussar of her own free will. Having crossed the threshold of a new, rich life, she abandoned her father. Samson Vyrin goes to St. Petersburg to “return the lost sheep,” but he is kicked out of Dunya’s house. The hussar "grabbed the old man by the collar with a strong hand and pushed him onto the stairs." Unhappy father! How can he compete with a rich hussar! In the end, he receives several banknotes for his daughter. “Tears welled up in his eyes again, tears of indignation! He squeezed the pieces of paper into a ball, threw them on the ground, stamped them with his heel and walked ... "

Vyrin was no longer able to fight. He “thought, waved his hand and decided to retreat.” Samson, after the loss of his beloved daughter, became lost in life, drank himself to death and died in longing for his daughter, grieving over her possible pitiable fate.

About people like him, Pushkin writes at the beginning of the story: “We will, however, be fair, we will try to enter into their position and, perhaps, we will begin to judge them much more leniently.”

The truth of life, sympathy for the “little man”, insulted at every step by bosses higher in rank and position - this is what we feel when reading the story. Pushkin cares about this “little man” who lives in grief and need. The story, which so realistically depicts the “little man,” is imbued with democracy and humanity.

Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". Eugene

Evgeniy is a “little man.” The city played a fatal role in fate. Loses his fiancée during a flood. All his dreams and hopes for happiness were lost. Lost my mind. In sick madness, the Nightmare challenges the “idol on a bronze horse”: the threat of death under the bronze hooves.

The image of Evgeniy embodies the idea of ​​confrontation between the common man and the state.

“The poor man was not afraid for himself.” "The blood boiled." “A flame ran through my heart,” “It’s for you!” Evgeny’s protest is an instant impulse, but stronger than Samson Vyrin’s.

The image of a shining, lively, lush city is replaced in the first part of the poem by a picture of a terrible, destructive flood, expressive images of a raging element over which man has no control. Among those whose lives were destroyed by the flood is Eugene, whose peaceful concerns the author speaks of at the beginning of the first part of the poem. Evgeny is an “ordinary man” (“little” man): he has neither money nor rank, “serves somewhere” and dreams of setting up a “humble and simple shelter” for himself in order to marry the girl he loves and go through life’s journey with her.

…Our hero

Lives in Kolomna, serves somewhere,

Avoids nobles...

He does not make great plans for the future; he is satisfied with a quiet, inconspicuous life.

What was he thinking about? About,

That he was poor, that he worked hard

He had to deliver to himself

Both independence and honor;

What could God add to him?

Mind and money.

The poem does not indicate the hero's surname or his age; nothing is said about Eugene's past, his appearance, or character traits. Having deprived Evgeny of individual characteristics, the author turns him into an ordinary, typical person from the crowd. However, in an extreme, critical situation, Eugene seems to awaken from a dream, and throws off the guise of a “nonentity” and opposes the “brass idol”. In a state of madness, he threatens the Bronze Horseman, considering the man who built the city on this ruinous place to be the culprit of his misfortune.

Pushkin looks at his heroes from the outside. They do not stand out for their intelligence or their position in society, but they are kind and decent people, and therefore worthy of respect and sympathy.

Conflict

Pushkin for the first time in Russian literature showed all the tragedy and intractability of the conflict between the state and state interests and the interests of the private individual.

Plot-wise, the poem is completed, the hero died, but the central conflict remained and was conveyed to the readers, unresolved and in reality itself, the antagonism of the “upper” and “lower”, the autocratic government and the dispossessed people remained. The symbolic victory of the Bronze Horseman over Eugene is a victory of strength, but not of justice.

Gogol “The Overcoat” Akaki Akikievich Bashmachkin

"The Eternal Titular Advisor." Resignedly endures the ridicule of his colleagues, timid and lonely. Poor spiritual life. The author's irony and compassion. The image of a city that is scary for the hero. Social conflict: “little man” and the soulless representative of power “significant person”. The element of fantasy (ghost) is the motive of rebellion and retribution.

Gogol opens to the reader the world of “little people”, officials in his “Petersburg Tales”. The story “The Overcoat” is especially significant for revealing this topic; Gogol had a great influence on the further movement of Russian literature, “echoing” Dostoevsky in the works of its most diverse figures and Shchedrin to Bulgakov and Sholokhov. “We all came out of Gogol’s overcoat,” wrote Dostoevsky.

Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin - “eternal titular adviser.” He meekly endures the ridicule of his colleagues, he is timid and lonely. The senseless clerical work killed every living thought in him. His spiritual life is meager. He finds his only pleasure in copying papers. He lovingly wrote out the letters in a clean, even handwriting and completely immersed himself in his work, forgetting the insults caused to him by his colleagues, and the need, and worries about food and comfort. Even at home, he only thought that “God will send something to rewrite tomorrow.”

But the man in this downtrodden official also woke up when the goal of life appeared - a new overcoat. The development of the image is observed in the story. “He somehow became more lively, even stronger in character. Doubt and indecision naturally disappeared from his face and from his actions...” Bashmachkin does not part with his dream for a single day. He thinks about it like another person thinks about love, about family. So he orders himself a new overcoat, “...his existence has somehow become fuller...” The description of the life of Akaki Akakievich is permeated with irony, but there is also pity and sadness in it. Introducing us into the spiritual world of the hero, describing his feelings, thoughts, dreams, joys and sorrows, the author makes it clear what happiness it was for Bashmachkin to acquire an overcoat and what a disaster its loss turns into.

There was no happier person than Akaki Akakievich when the tailor brought him an overcoat. But his joy was short-lived. When he was returning home at night, he was robbed. And none of those around him takes part in his fate. In vain did Bashmachkin seek help from a “significant person.” He was even accused of rebelling against his superiors and “higher ones.” The upset Akaki Akakievich catches a cold and dies.

In the finale, a small, timid person, driven to despair by the world of the powerful, protests against this world. Dying, he “blasphemes” and utters the most terrible words that follow the words “your excellency.” It was a riot, albeit in a dying delirium.

It is not because of the overcoat that the “little man” dies. He becomes a victim of bureaucratic “inhumanity” and “ferocious rudeness,” which, as Gogol argued, lurks under the guise of “refined, educated secularism.” This is the deepest meaning of the story.

The theme of rebellion finds expression in the fantastic image of a ghost that appears on the streets of St. Petersburg after the death of Akaki Akakievich and takes off the overcoats of the offenders.

N.V. Gogol, who in his story “The Overcoat” for the first time shows the spiritual stinginess and squalor of poor people, but also draws attention to the ability of the “little man” to rebel and for this purpose introduces elements of fantasy into his work.

N.V. Gogol deepens the social conflict: the writer showed not only the life of the “little man”, but also his protest against injustice. Even if this “rebellion” is timid, almost fantastic, the hero stands for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.

Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” Marmeladov

The writer himself noted: “We all came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat.”

Dostoevsky’s novel is imbued with the spirit of Gogol’s “The Overcoat” "Poor people And". This is a story about the fate of the same “little man”, crushed by grief, despair and social lack of rights. The correspondence of the poor official Makar Devushkin with Varenka, who has lost her parents and is being pursued by a pimp, reveals the deep drama of the lives of these people. Makar and Varenka are ready to endure any hardship for each other. Makar, living in extreme need, helps Varya. And Varya, having learned about Makar’s situation, comes to his aid. But the heroes of the novel are defenseless. Their rebellion is a “revolt on their knees.” Nobody can help them. Varya is taken away to certain death, and Makar is left alone with his grief. The lives of two beautiful people are broken, crippled, shattered by cruel reality.

Dostoevsky reveals the deep and strong experiences of “little people.”

It is interesting to note that Makar Devushkin reads “The Station Agent” by Pushkin and “The Overcoat” by Gogol. He is sympathetic to Samson Vyrin and hostile to Bashmachkin. Probably because he sees his future in him.

F.M. told about the fate of the “little man” Semyon Semyonovich Marmeladov. Dostoevsky on the pages of the novel "Crime and Punishment". One after another, the writer reveals to us pictures of hopeless poverty. Dostoevsky chose the dirtiest part of strictly St. Petersburg as the location for the action. Against the backdrop of this landscape, the life of the Marmeladov family unfolds before us.

If in Chekhov the characters are humiliated and do not realize their insignificance, then in Dostoevsky the drunken retired official fully understands his uselessness and uselessness. He is a drunkard, an insignificant person from his point of view, who wants to improve, but cannot. He understands that he has doomed his family, and especially his daughter, to suffering, he worries about this, despises himself, but cannot help himself. “To pity! Why pity me!” Marmeladov suddenly screamed, standing up with his hand outstretched... “Yes! There’s nothing to pity me for! Crucify me on the cross, not pity him! But crucify him, judge, crucify him, and, having crucified him, have pity on him!”

Dostoevsky creates the image of a real fallen man: Marmelad’s annoying sweetness, clumsy florid speech - the property of a beer tribune and a jester at the same time. Awareness of his baseness (“I am a born beast”) only strengthens his bravado. He is disgusting and pathetic at the same time, this drunkard Marmeladov with his florid speech and important bureaucratic bearing.

The mental state of this petty official is much more complex and subtle than that of his literary predecessors - Pushkin's Samson Vyrin and Gogol's Bashmachkin. They do not have the power of self-analysis that Dostoevsky's hero achieved. Marmeladov not only suffers, but also analyzes his state of mind; as a doctor, he makes a merciless diagnosis of the disease - the degradation of his own personality. This is how he confesses in his first meeting with Raskolnikov: “Dear sir, poverty is not a vice, it is the truth. But...poverty is a vice - p. In poverty you still retain all the nobility of your innate feelings, but in poverty no one ever does... for in poverty I am the first to be ready to insult myself.”

A person not only dies from poverty, but understands how spiritually he is becoming empty: he begins to despise himself, but does not see anything around him to cling to that would keep him from the disintegration of his personality. The ending of Marmeladov's life is tragic: on the street he was run over by a dandy gentleman's carriage drawn by a pair of horses. Throwing himself at their feet, this man himself found the outcome of his life.

Under the writer's pen, Marmeladov becomes a tragic figure. Marmeladov’s cry - “after all, it is necessary that every person can go somewhere at least” - expresses the final degree of despair of a dehumanized person and reflects the essence of his life drama: there is nowhere to go and no one to go to.

In the novel, Raskolnikov has compassion for Marmeladov. The meeting with Marmeladov in the tavern, his feverish, delirious confession gave the main character of the novel, Raskolnikov, one of the last proofs of the correctness of the “Napoleonic idea.” But not only Raskolnikov has compassion for Marmeladov. “They have already felt sorry for me more than once,” Marmeladov says to Raskolnikov. The good general Ivan Afanasyevich took pity on him and accepted him into service again. But Marmeladov could not stand the test, started drinking again, drank away his entire salary, drank it all away and in return received a tattered tailcoat with a single button. Marmeladov in his behavior reached the point of losing his last human qualities. He is already so humiliated that he does not feel like a human being, but only dreams of being a human among people. Sonya Marmeladova understands this and forgives her father, who is able to help her neighbor and sympathize with someone who so needs compassion

Dostoevsky makes us feel sorry for those unworthy of pity, to feel compassion for those unworthy of compassion. “Compassion is the most important and, perhaps, the only law of human existence,” Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky believed.

Chekhov "Death of an Official", "Thick and Thin"

Later, Chekhov would draw a unique conclusion to the development of the theme; he doubted the virtues traditionally sung by Russian literature - the high moral virtues of the “little man” - a petty official. Voluntary groveling, self-abasement of the “little man” - this is the turn of the theme proposed by A.P. Chekhov. If Chekhov “exposed” something in people, then, first of all, their ability and willingness to be “small.” A person should not, does not dare, make himself “small” - this is Chekhov’s main idea in his interpretation of the theme of the “little man.” Summarizing all that has been said, we can conclude that the theme of the “little man” reveals the most important qualities of Russian literature XIX century - democracy and humanism.

Over time, the “little man,” deprived of his own dignity, “humiliated and insulted,” arouses not only compassion but also condemnation among progressive writers. “You live a boring life, gentlemen,” Chekhov said through his work to the “little man” who had come to terms with his situation. With subtle humor, the writer ridicules the death of Ivan Chervyakov, from whose lips the lackey “Yourness” has never left his lips.

In the same year as “The Death of an Official,” the story “Thick and Thin” appears. Chekhov again speaks out against philistinism, against servility. The collegiate servant Porfiry giggles, “like a Chinese,” bowing obsequiously, when he meets his former friend, who has a high rank. The feeling of friendship that connected these two people has been forgotten.

Kuprin “Garnet Bracelet”. Zheltkov

In A.I. Kuprin’s “Garnet Bracelet” Zheltkov is a “little man”. Once again the hero belongs to the lower class. But he loves, and he loves in a way that many in high society are not capable of. Zheltkov fell in love with the girl and throughout his entire life he loved only her alone. He understood that love is a sublime feeling, it is a chance given to him by fate, and it should not be missed. His love is his life, his hope. Zheltkov commits suicide. But after the death of the hero, the woman realizes that no one loved her as much as he did. Kuprin's hero is a man of an extraordinary soul, capable of self-sacrifice, able to truly love, and such a gift is rare. Therefore, the “little man” Zheltkov appears as a figure towering above those around him.

Thus, the theme of the “little man” underwent significant changes in the work of writers. Drawing images of “little people”, writers usually emphasized their weak protest, downtroddenness, which subsequently leads the “little man” to degradation. But each of these heroes has something in life that helps him endure existence: Samson Vyrin has a daughter, the joy of life, Akaky Akakievich has an overcoat, Makar Devushkin and Varenka have their love and care for each other. Having lost this goal, they die, unable to survive the loss.

In conclusion, I would like to say that a person should not be small. In one of his letters to his sister, Chekhov exclaimed: “My God, how rich Russia is in good people!”

In XX century, the theme was developed in the images of the heroes I. Bunin, A. Kuprin, M. Gorky and even at the end XX century, you can find its reflection in the works of V. Shukshin, V. Rasputin and other writers.

Anikin A. A. The definition of “little man” is a true long-liver in school and university literary criticism. Devoid of scientific dryness, it is also convenient for exam topics. Therefore, it is natural that a certain semantic and emotional stereotype has developed that accompanies this expression. Even the literary heroes themselves openly recommend themselves this way: “I, sir, am a little man” (Kuligin from A.N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”), with the natural addition: “You can offend me!” This, it would seem, is the whole simple meaning of this name. But this is clearly a crafty simplicity, which, due to its many years, or even centuries of existence, turns out to be completely unproductive both for literary analysis and for living, explanatory writing. This apparent simplicity is aggravated by the fact that the image of the “little man,” out of compassion, is usually made younger: good, when his pedigree is traced back to “Poor Lisa” N.M. Karamzin, otherwise they’ll throw back another half century and give N.V. as a “father.” Gogol with the story “The Overcoat”. If we look impartially, not through established dogmas, we will see a different picture. First, not every poor person depicted will respond to this theme. The same Kuligin is filled with such pretentious pathos that the definition of “little man” is more a mask than authenticity. He wants to “command thunder with his mind,” he will reject all natural laws and invent the “perpeta mobile,” the notorious perpetual motion machine, a symbol of human pride; he sees himself as a rich man, the owner of a million, a judge and benefactor of the people, almost a mouthpiece of God (in the final remark “she is now before a judge who is more merciful than you”), and it is hardly possible to “offend” him: they are too annoying and defiant to him demands to “finance” it, Kuligin’s inventive whims... Secondly, already from Kuligin’s short assessment it is clear that the content of the image with the “little man” emblem is far from monotonous, rather paradoxical, and this is what makes this topic interesting and lively, despite known costs of any stable expression. In short, the prevailing pattern is that the “little man” is viewed as a victim of one or another social relationship: if he is good (let’s say, like Samson Vyrin), then society unfairly keeps him in the fourteenth, last class; if he is bad, like ninth-grade official Akakiy Bashmachkin, then society is to blame for his shortcomings (remember that N.G. Chernyshevsky called Akakiy Akakievich nothing less than an “idiot”: “a complete ignoramus and a complete idiot, incapable of anything” , 5, 323). To discuss a topic in such a spirit is not only vulgar or uninteresting, but the main thing is that it does not mean understanding the text, but fitting it into an ideological scheme that remains tenacious, despite the seeming change of social ideologies. So, in the future we will turn to the same images of Pushkin and Gogol, but we will emphasize that building the social protection of their heroes is not part of the author’s position, and this, however, does not at all negate the motive of compassion: the authors do not see their heroes in socio-political coordinates , but rather put them before God, before eternity, before the essences of human existence (vivid symbolic episodes: the parable of the prodigal son, the choice of name, death and transfiguration, etc.).