“Hero of our time” M. Yu

In the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” Lermontov poses to the reader a question that worries everyone: why do the most worthy, intelligent and energetic people of his time not find use for their remarkable abilities and wither at the very beginning of life’s impulse without a fight? The writer answers this question with the life story of the main character Pechorin. Lermontov masterfully paints the image of a young man who belongs to the generation of the 30s of the 19th century and who generalizes the vices of this generation. The era of reaction in Russia left its mark on people's behavior. The tragic fate of the hero is the tragedy of an entire generation, a generation of unrealized possibilities. The young nobleman had to either lead the life of a social slacker, or be bored and wait for death. Pechorin’s character is revealed in his relationships with various people: mountaineers, smugglers, Maxim Maksimych, the “water society”. In clashes with the mountaineers, the “oddities” of the protagonist’s character are revealed. Pechorin has many things in common with the people of the Caucasus. Like the mountaineers, he is determined and brave. His strong will knows no barriers. The goal he sets is achieved by any means, at any cost. “That’s the kind of man he was, God knows!” - Maxim Maksimych says about him. But Pechorin’s goals themselves are petty, often meaningless, always selfish. Among ordinary people living according to the customs of their ancestors, he brings evil: he pushes Kazbich and Azamat onto the path of crimes, mercilessly destroys the mountain woman Bela only because she had the misfortune of liking him. In the story “Bela,” Pechorin’s character still remains a mystery. True, Lermontov slightly reveals the secret of his behavior. Pechorin admits to Maxim Maksimych that his “soul is spoiled by the light.” We begin to guess that Pechorin's egoism is the result of the influence of the secular society to which he belongs from birth. In the story “Taman” Pechorin again interferes in the lives of strangers. The mysterious behavior of the smugglers promised an exciting adventure. And Pechorin embarked on a dangerous adventure with the sole purpose of “getting the key to this riddle.” Dormant forces awoke, will, composure, courage and determination emerged. But when the secret was revealed, the aimlessness of Pechorin’s decisive actions was revealed. And again boredom, complete indifference to the people around me. “Yes, and I don’t care about human joys and misfortunes, I, a traveling officer, and even on the road for official reasons!” - Pechorin thinks with bitter irony. Pechorin's inconsistency and duality appear even more clearly when he is compared with Maxim Maksimych. The staff captain lives for others, Pechorin lives only for himself. One is instinctively drawn to people, the other is closed in on himself, indifferent to the fate of those around him. And it is not surprising that their friendship ends dramatically. Pechorin's cruelty towards the old man is an external manifestation of his character, and underneath this external lies a bitter doom for loneliness. The social and psychological motivation for Pechorin’s actions clearly appears in the story “Princess Mary”. Here we see Pechorin in a circle of officers and nobles. “Water society” is the social environment to which the hero belongs. Pechorin is bored in the company of petty envious people, insignificant intriguers, devoid of noble aspirations and basic decency. A disgust for these people, among whom he is forced to stay, is brewing in his soul. Lermontov shows how a person’s character is influenced by social conditions and the environment in which he lives. Pechorin was not born a “moral cripple.” Nature gave him a deep, sharp mind, a kind, sympathetic heart, and a strong will. However, in all life's encounters, good, noble impulses ultimately give way to cruelty. Pechorin learned to be guided only by personal desires and aspirations. Who is to blame for the fact that Pechorin’s wonderful talents perished? Why did he become a “moral cripple”? Society is to blame, the social conditions in which the young man was brought up and lived are to blame. “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the world,” he admits, “my best qualities, fearing ridicule, I kept in the depths of my heart; they died there.” But Pechorin is an extraordinary person. This person rises above those around him. “Yes, this man has fortitude and willpower, which you don’t have,” Belinsky wrote, addressing critics of Lermontov’s Pechorin. “In his very vices something magnificent flashes, like lightning in black clouds, and he is beautiful, full of poetry even in those moments when human feeling rises up against him: he has a different purpose, a different path than you. His passions are storms that cleanse the sphere of the spirit...” When creating “A Hero of Our Time,” unlike his previous works, Lermontov no longer imagined life, but painted it as it really was. This is a realistic novel. The writer found new artistic means of depicting persons and events. Lermontov demonstrates the ability to structure action in such a way that one character is revealed through the perception of another. Thus, the author of travel notes, in which we guess the features of Lermontov himself, tells us the story of Bela from the words of Maxim Maksimych, and he, in turn, conveys Pechorin’s monologues. And in “Pechorin’s journal” we see the hero in a new light - the way he was alone with himself, the way he could appear in his diary, but would never open up in public. Only once do we see Pechorin as the author sees him. The brilliant pages of “Maxim Maksimych” leave a deep imprint on the reader’s heart. This story evokes deep sympathy for the deceived captain and at the same time indignation towards the brilliant Pechorin. The illness of the duality of the protagonist makes us think about the nature of the time in which he lives and which nourishes him. Pechorin himself admits that two people live in his soul: one commits actions, and the other judges him. The tragedy of the suffering egoist is that his mind and his strength do not find worthy use. Pechorin’s indifference to everything and everyone is not so much his fault as a heavy cross. “The tragedy of Pechorin,” wrote Belinsky. “First of all, in the contradiction between the loftiness of nature and the pitifulness of actions.” It must be said that the novel “A Hero of Our Time” has the properties of high poetry. Accuracy, capacity, brilliance of descriptions, comparisons, metaphors distinguish this work. The writer's style is distinguished by the brevity and sharpness of his aphorisms. This style is brought to a high degree of perfection in the novel. The descriptions of nature in the novel are unusually flexible. Depicting Pyatigorsk at night, Lermontov first describes what the eye notices in the darkness, and then the ear hears: “The city was asleep, only lights flickered in some windows. On three sides there were black crests of cliffs, the branches of Mashuk, on the top of which lay an ominous cloud; the moon was rising in the east; In the distance, snowy mountains sparkled like silver fringes. The shouts of the sentries were interspersed with the noise of hot springs being released for the night. Sometimes the sonorous clatter of a horse could be heard along the street, accompanied by the creaking of a Nagai cart and a mournful Tatar chorus.” Lermontov, having written the novel “Hero of Our Time,” entered world literature as a master of realistic prose. The young genius revealed the complex nature of his contemporary. He created a truthful, typical image that reflected the essential features of an entire generation. “Admire what the heroes of our time are like!” - the content of the book tells everyone. The novel “A Hero of Our Time” became a mirror of the life of Russia in the 30s, the first Russian socio-psychological novel.

A hero in literature is an artistic image, a character in a work of art. The great Russian writers of the 19th century portrayed their heroes, who became no less famous, reflecting their era, morals, customs, problems, and traditions. Heroes have their own advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, like all people. But it is in the works of Russian classics of the 19th century that we see new, different, completely different, but at the same time surprisingly similar heroes.

Before starting work, we set ourselves the goal of analyzing and comparing the images of the most significant and memorable heroes of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were identified:

2. Understand their characters and views on the world, society, friendship and love.

3. Compare the heroes, identifying the features of their characters.

4. Determine the reasons that determined the appearance of similar ones in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.

The subject of the study was the heroes of works of art of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. (

The novelty of this work is determined by the fact that a study was conducted between the works of Schelling, Tyutchev and Pascal.

The following research methods and tools were used in the work on the project: theoretical methods of scientific research (deduction, comparative historical and systems analysis, synthesis); empirical methods (observation, analysis of materials).

Means: collecting theoretical material, studying the material, analysis, analysis, i.e. drawing up a conclusion.

In the research work, the author tests the hypothesis put forward: the problem of society in the first half of the 19th century in Russia lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive ones; and the way to overcome this tragedy is that the meaning of the hero’s life (and the person himself) lies in the ability to serve for the good of society and the people, and not to satisfy the selfish interests of the individual.

To refute or confirm this assumption, works of art and their main characters of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century were studied in detail.

The practical outcome of the work can be its use by teachers in preparation for optional and elective classes, and it can also serve as a guide for students and everyone who wants to better understand the literary process of the first half of the 19th century.

1. Characteristics of the historical and literary process of the first half of the 19th century in Russia.

The beginning of the 19th century brought with it a truly revolutionary breakdown of all previous ideas about the course of development of human society. It was then that a view of society began to take shape as an organism continuously changing, developing, progressing according to certain general laws, that is, a historical view. The 19th century itself receives the public name “historical” in contrast to the “enlightenment” 18th century.

The 19th century was the heyday of Russian literature, the “golden age”, it was then that Lermontov, Pushkin, Gogol and others reached the heights of fame.

But the beginning of the century was not a time of peace. 1806-1807 - foreign campaigns of the Russian army, 1812 - war with Napoleon. These events naturally reflected in literature, the rise of patriotism (“Hussar Denis Davydov”). Further, in December 1825, Russian revolutionaries rebelled against autocracy and serfdom. The Decembrists (named after the month of the uprising) were noble revolutionaries; their class limitations left their mark on the movement, which, according to slogans, was anti-feudal and associated with the maturing preconditions for a bourgeois revolution in Russia. The goal of the rebels was to destroy the autocracy, introduce a Constitution and abolish serfdom.

The Decembrist uprising excited not only the country, but also the literary world, where writers immediately began to express their attitude on this matter more often with hints (“Woe from Wit”, A. S. Griboyedov). This was followed by a period of reaction (link by A.S. Pushkin).

And finally, the 30s were a period of crisis for gifted people, needed by the country, but not by society (“Hero of Our Time”, M. Yu. Lermontov).

The Great French Revolution (1789-1793) Opening of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum. Patriotic War of 1812. The emergence of Decembrist organizations.

The secular nature of literature. Development of European cultural heritage. Increased attention to Russian folklore and folk legends. Decline of classicism. The birth of romanticism. The rise of journalism. Literary societies and circles

The growth of revolutionary and national liberation movements in Europe. The emergence of secret societies in Russia (1821-1822). Decembrist uprising (1825).

The dominant movement is romanticism. Literature of the Decembrists. Publishing almanacs. Romantic aspirations in the works of Pushkin 1812-1824.

1826 - first half of the 50s.

Defeat of the Decembrist uprising. "New censorship regulations." Persecution of free thought in Russia. The deepening crisis of serfdom, public reaction. Strengthening democratic tendencies. Development of the ideas of revolution and utopian socialism.

Fidelity to the ideas of Decembrism and realism in the works of Pushkin (1826-1837). The heyday of Lermontov's romanticism. The transition to realism and social satire in Gogol. Replacement of poetry by prose. The 1830s are the heyday of the story. Publication of the first volume of Dead Souls (1842). The growing influence of advanced journalism on public life. The struggle of progressive and democratic forces in journalism.

Revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 1848-1855 - the period of the “dark seven years”. The defeat of the Petrashevites. Defeat of Russia in the Crimean War. The rise of the democratic movement and peasant unrest. The crisis of autocracy and the propaganda of the ideas of the peasant revolution. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Confrontation between liberals and democrats. The beginning of bourgeois transformations in the country. Development of natural and mathematical sciences.

Increased censorship in literature. Formation of the “Buturlinsky” committee for press affairs. Exile of Saltykov-Shchedrin to Vyatka, and Turgenev to Spasskoye-Lutovinovo. 1855 - death of Nicholas I. Weakening of censorship oppression. The rise of democratic journalism and its opposition to conservative journalism. Materialistic aesthetics of Chernyshevsky. The leading role of the Sovremennik magazine. Literature is a means of transforming reality on a humanistic basis. Development of Russian drama. The beginning of the heyday of the Russian realistic novel. New themes and problems in literature: commoner heroes, passivity of the peasantry, showing the hard life of workers. "Soilism". Approval of realism in literature. Realism and truthfulness in the depiction of life in the works of L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Leskov. “Dialectics of the soul” and deep psychologism in their works. High artistic skill of romantic poets (Fet, Tyutchev, A.K. Tolstoy, Maikov, Polonsky, etc.).

2. A hero of his time in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.

In literature, as in life, there is always a place for heroism and heroes. Only in contrast to reality, in the fascinating diversity of the fictional but instructive world of the book, the hero is the main character, the protagonist, and not the hero as a figure who performs feats, although the feat has the right to life. A hero in literature is an artistic image; character in the work.

Today we will get acquainted with literary heroes of the first half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 50s. Our heroes have their own weaknesses, shortcomings that drag them down, but there are also positive qualities that help heroes in life; But first things first.

In my work I will try to consider eight fictional literary characters. They are all men and lived around the same time. From this one could make a hasty conclusion that they are all similar, the same. The characters are indeed somewhat similar, but not all and only a little. The first hero (we will consider them in the order they go through the school curriculum) is the main character of the immortal comedy “Woe from Wit”, our famous writer and diplomat, one of the most poisonous people of his time, Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, - Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

Chatsky’s youth falls during the reign of Alexander I, the expectation of change and reform. Chatsky’s struggle with an accusatory word corresponds to the early period of the Decembrist movement, when they believed that much could be achieved with words, and were limited only to oral speeches. However, appeals alone do not lead to victory. In Chatsky, Griboedov embodied many of the qualities of a leading man of his era. According to his beliefs, he is close to the Decembrists. The fact is that “Woe from Wit” was written during the years of the creation of the secret revolutionary organizations of the Decembrists. The comedy reflects the struggle of progressive-minded people with an inert society that professed servility, the struggle of the present century with the past century, of a new worldview with the old. Griboyedov's comedy clearly shows always sensitive topics: the confrontation between fathers and children, a love triangle where passions boil over. But I still want to focus on the relationship between the young Chatsky and the more experienced Famusov.

The reason for the conflict between them is a different mentality, a different worldview, a different mindset. The heroes have different points of view on the world and society (this is evidenced by their monologues). Famusov approves of the past century, but is not satisfied with the present (“at fifteen years old, teachers will teach”). He is convinced that a person’s intelligence is expressed in the ability to adapt to the requirements of superiors on the career (social) ladder. For Famusov, the personification of intelligence is flattery and servility. He approves of Molchalin, who indulges him. Together with Molchalin, who personifies obedience and servility, he believes that even if there is one’s own opinion, then it is not worth voicing it, that there can only be one correct opinion - the opinion of society, which should be adhered to.

Chatsky, on the contrary, cannot and does not want to fawn at the right moment. He scolds both his own and Famus’s time, and this is evident from his attitude towards Molchalin (“nowadays they love the dumb.”), to society (“after all, nowadays laughter is frightening and keeps shame in check.”), to service (“I would like to serve I’m glad, it’s sickening to be waited on.”).

The mind in the understanding of the main character is the ability to think progressively, soberly assess the situation and express one’s position. Intelligence implies honor, nobility. No wonder that in 1823 “Woe from Wit” began to circulate. All the young people are delighted, and the old ones are clutching their heads!

Griboedov's hero proclaims humanity, respect for the common man, service to the cause, not to individuals, freedom of thought. He affirms the progressive ideas of modernity, the prosperity of science and art, respect for the national language and culture, and education. He sees the meaning of life not in subservience to higher ranks, but in serving the people, the Motherland.

The character of the work is a personality, and one of which there are very few (both then and now). He is not afraid to go against public opinion, he is smart and knows his worth. As you know, such people are not liked in society, especially in a limited one. Chatsky did nothing, but he spoke, and for this he was declared crazy (“he is not in harmony with his mind”).

The old world fights Chatsky’s free speech using slander. The old world is still so strong that it defeats the main character, who runs away from Famusov’s house and from Moscow. But Alexander Andreevich’s flight from Moscow cannot be perceived as a defeat. Griboyedov's hero is an undisputed winner in moral terms.

For 24 years, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky manages to quite annoy the Famus society. Even if it forces him to leave, he still did not give in, did not change his credo, although he somehow has to be spat upon by people who are no match for him.

As our famous writer I. A. Goncharov said: “against the background of hundreds of Molchalins there is a couple of Chatskys, and as long as they are there, we will be there too. “,” Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength. "

Pierre Bezukhov.

The main character of the largest work of Russian literature of the entire 19th century, the famous epic novel by L. N. Tolstoy, is Pierre Bezukhov.

In his work, the writer raises the most important questions not only of his time, but of all human life. He acts as a psychologist and philosopher, considering many moral and moral problems, depicting the difficult and thorny path of his heroes in search of truth and the meaning of life, in search of themselves, their destiny. Almost all the main characters of the novel go through this path. But I would like to dwell in more detail on the ideological quest of Pierre Bezukhov, one of Tolstoy’s most interesting and controversial characters.

Pierre is the illegitimate son of the wealthy and influential Count Bezukhov in the society of St. Petersburg and Moscow. The father supports his stepson, sends him to study abroad, feeds and clothes him. But unexpectedly, just before the death of the old Count, Pierre returns from abroad and suddenly (not only for society, but even for himself) the hero becomes the heir to a huge fortune, millions and the new legitimate Count Bezukhov.

Society's attitude towards the hero changes dramatically. Moving from patronizing and a little dismissive to servile and saccharine. For society, Tolstoy's hero is a bag of money, a lazy bumpkin who can always lend money for free.

The hero of the novel is very different from people belonging to high society, both in appearance: “a massive and fat young man in glasses with a cropped head” with “an observant and natural look”; so internally: a kind and gentle disposition is combined with absolute impracticality (destructive absent-mindedness and indifference for a rich count in the capital). Taking advantage of Pierre's naivety, the greedy and selfish Kuragin family catches the hero in their net and forces him to marry Helen.

The newly minted Countess Bezukhova is young, beautiful, easy to talk to and feels at home in high society. But despite this, the count is unhappy with her. He understands that she is a terrible, depraved woman for whom nothing is sacred, and breaks off relations with her. This marriage brings only misfortune to Bezukhov. He soon realizes that he has connected his life with a low woman and plunged into the vulgar environment to which she belongs, full of deception, flattery and falsehood. The hero blames himself for making such a cruel mistake and marrying without love to the vile Helen (“she is a depraved woman. I asked her once if she felt signs of pregnancy. She laughed contemptuously and said that she was not a fool to want to have children , and that she won’t have children from me”).

The duel with his wife's lover does not bring relief to Pierre. He breaks up with Helen. Bezukhov was always oppressed by injustice and human meanness. Tolstoy's hero is an addicted person, a man endowed with a soft and weak character, kindness and trustfulness, but at the same time subject to violent outbursts of anger (episodes of quarrels and explanations with Helen after the duel; explanations with Anatol Kuragin after his attempt to take Natasha away). Good and reasonable intentions constantly come into conflict with the passions that overcome the hero, and often lead to great trouble, as in the case of a revelry in the company of Dolokhov and Kuragin, after which he was expelled from St. Petersburg.

In search of truth, the meaning of life, Tolstoy's hero goes through many hobbies and disappointments, replacing each other. Pierre is a seeking person who, above all, wants to live his life not in vain. The main character of the novel is smart, and, of course, has a penchant for philosophical reasoning, analyzes his life, looking for mistakes.

The hero is in search of the meaning of life. His admiration for Napoleon gives way to Freemasonry. Spiritual life, values, independence give way to the delights, splendor and conveniences of secular life. But soon spiritual impotence and idleness are replaced by aversion to the world and people belonging to this circle. Suddenly, a deep love for the people, a dream of heroism and the murder of Napoleon (former idol) awakens in Bezukhov’s soul.

The hero of the novel makes mistakes, wasting his energy on revelry in the company of Dolokhov and Anatoly Kuragin. Having received a fortune and a title, the hero leads an idle, meaningless life surrounded by “golden youth”. But at the same time, he always sought to defend his opinion and come to an understanding of the truth. The young hero rushes about in search of priorities and values ​​(“with all his soul he wanted to create a republic in Russia, then to be Napoleon himself, then a philosopher, then a tactician, the winner of Napoleon”). Ultimately, Bezukhov comes to the ideas of the Decembrists.

Once in the Masonic lodge, the hero calms down for a while, it seems to him that he has found the truth, support, and ideal. The hero of the novel adheres to the ideas of equality, brotherhood and love. One of Pierre’s main aspirations is the desire to confront the evil “reigning in the world.” However, after a while, Bezukhov begins to realize that the ideals of secular life that he hates flourish among the Freemasons: careerism, hypocrisy and hypocrisy. The Count's desire to help people selflessly is alien to them. During the period of fascination with the ideas of Freemasonry, the hero, seemingly having found life guidelines, is trying to reorganize the life of his peasants (“I lived for myself and ruined my life. And only now, I try to live for others, only now I understood all the happiness of life”). However, Count Bezukhov's reforms fail due to his gullibility and impracticality.

Having become completely disillusioned with Freemasonry, Tolstoy’s hero breaks off relations with this society. Once again his dreams, desires and aspirations fail. The hero is already beginning to doubt whether happiness and truth can be found in this world full of disappointment and deception, and whether it exists at all. However, a new impulse from the hero’s soul, like a light at the end of the tunnel, a way out of the labyrinth of disappointments, appears in the life of Count Natasha Rostov. Love for her penetrates deeper and deeper into the hero’s heart. The feelings of Pierre in love, full of purity and poetry, elevate him above those around him and give him a very clear, real hope of finding long-awaited happiness after so many years of disappointment.

The hero's peaceful life is interrupted by war. Count Bezukhov decides to stay in Moscow and takes part in the war, not yet fully understanding what it is. Remaining in the half-burnt capital to kill Napoleon, Bezukhov is captured, where he experiences not only physical hardships, but also spiritual torment (execution of prisoners, worries about the fate of the people). In fact. with which the brain of every Russian soldier, partisan, peasant, and person in general was saturated. That patriotism that had not found an outlet in the count until now. Accustomed to luxury and freedom, the main character strongly feels spiritual and physical suffering, but they strengthen the hero’s faith and fortitude. He begins to appreciate what he would not have paid attention to before, and appreciates the smallest joys of life.

There, in captivity, Pierre meets with a soldier, an exponent of “people's thought” Platon Karataev. Karataev remains optimistic in any situation, backed by fortitude. It was this meeting that largely contributed to the fact that Count Bezukhov begins to see “the eternal and infinite in everything.”

Platon Karataev is a people, Pierre Bezukhov is an individual, and therefore the latter strives to “unite in his soul the meaning of everything.” This helps Tolstoy's hero find harmony with the world.

While in captivity, the main character of the novel rethinks his life, gains spiritual confidence and is reborn morally. Bezukhov comes to the conclusion that “man was created for happiness.” But personal happiness for Tolstoy’s hero is inextricably linked with public happiness, and the people are unhappy. The hero cannot look with indifference at the manifestation of injustice, social evil (“Theft is in the courts, there is only one stick in the army, shagists, settlements, they torture the people, they stifle education. What is young, honestly, is ruined”).

Pierre is happy, he has found his place in life, he married the woman he loves (Natasha Rostova), he has a loving and strong family. But the author makes us understand that this is not the end at all, and the main thing is yet to come. After all, the hero continues to strive for goodness, truth and social well-being.

L.N. Tolstoy shows us his hero’s difficult path to revival and renewal. This path is a series of ups and downs. Life hits Bezukhov painfully: an unsuccessful marriage, the death of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky's best friend, war, captivity. But despite all the difficulties, Pierre tries to resist the vicissitudes of fate. The difficult fate did not break him. The hero sees his main purpose in life in serving people, not only in his own interests, but also in public utility. The Count joins a secret political society and opposes autocracy and serfdom. While the people suffer, the hero’s moral quest and desire for complete self-realization, fulfillment of his dreams, mission will not end.

L.N. Tolstoy shows us in his novel the epic of an atypical hero in atypical circumstances. And even in the epilogue we see Count Pierre Bezukhov surrounded by his family and his beloved wife. The hero is a happy husband and father. It would seem that this is really a happy ending? So unusual for Russian classical literature. No! Tolstoy's hero has found personal happiness, but he will still fight for public happiness. In a dispute with Nikolai Rostov, Pierre expresses his beliefs, and we understand that before us is the future Decembrist

Eugene Onegin

Eugene Onegin from the novel of the same name by the great Pushkin is a brilliant metropolitan aristocrat, the last scion of a noble noble family and therefore “the heir of all his relatives” (one of them is an elderly uncle, to whose village Eugene Onegin goes at the very beginning of the novel). He leads an idle, carefree, independent life, full of exquisite pleasures and various entertainments (“the fun and luxury of a child.”), he is content with home education and does not burden himself with service.

The crisis of the mid-1820s. Indifference to rank and career, the cult of idleness, graceful pleasure and personal independence, and finally, political freethinking form an internally unified complex characteristic of the generation of the 1820s and imprinted in the image of Eugene Onegin. Of course, one can speak only in hints about the hero’s free-thinking, about his involvement in the near-Decembrist circle. But these hints are significant and eloquent. Eugene Onegin’s critical attitude towards high society and landowner neighbors, voluntary rural hermitage, alleviating the lot of serfs (a gesture quite “Decembrist” in spirit), reading Adam Smith, who was popular among the Decembrists, long conversations and debates with Lensky on the most pressing topics of our time finally, a direct comparison of Onegin with the freethinker, the philosopher Chaadaev, a mention of the hero’s acquaintance with the dashing hussar, the Decembrist Kaverin, a story about his friendship with the hero-author, a disgraced poet, and Onegin’s readiness to accompany him in his escape abroad - all this testifies to the true the scale of the personality of Eugene Onegin, about his belonging to the heroes of the time, who acutely felt their historical destiny and social lack of demand, painfully solving the problem of their life's path.

Onegin is characterized by a certain demonism (“an arrogant demon”), which increasingly manifests itself in him as the plot develops in the novel, and, in the end, leads him to disaster. In the novel, the hero goes through a path consisting of a number of tests (relationship with society, friendship, and, of course, love), but Onegin does not withstand any of the tests. Deeply despising his neighbors - landowners, ignoramuses and serf owners, the main character nevertheless fears their judgment and accepts the challenge to a duel with Lensky (Onegin said “that he is always ready”). Subsequently, Onegin will kill his friend. But to the credit of Pushkin’s hero, he acts nobly with Tatyana, who is in love with him. He does not feed the heart of a young and inexperienced girl with the illusion of hope, but rather simply explains that they cannot be together (“I love you with the love of a brother,” “learn to control yourself, not everyone, like me, will understand you, inexperience leads to disaster.” ).

But six long years after the duel with Lensky and the explanation of Tatyana, a girl, in love with Onegin, Onegin again meets the already married, blossoming Tatyana, a woman. Not having fallen in love with Tatyana, a girl, Onegin passionately falls in love with Tatyana, a woman (“what stirred in the depths of a cold and lazy soul? Annoyance? Vanity? Or again the care of youth? Love”). And Tatyana, in turn, still loves Evgeniy passionately (“and he excited her heart”, “she dreams of someday completing the humble path of life with him”). It would seem that here it is - happiness, at a distance of an outstretched palm.

Fate punishes the hero of the work for neglecting the feelings of women earlier, for a wild life and for not seeing in Tatyana the girl her stunning, incomparable, pure inner world. In addition to ordinary physical life, there is a moral and aesthetic category. Tatyana cannot leave, run away from her husband, not because she is sorry for her position in society and condition, but because she is highly moral, morally pure, and if she took an oath before the altar, then she will follow it and will not fall into temptation , will be faithful to her husband. Love was missed (“what did I find in your heart? What answer? Just severity!”, and happiness was so possible, so close! But my fate is already decided. “).

Hopeless love for Tatyana leads Onegin to the brink of death. However, what is important to Pushkin is precisely the fundamental possibility of Onegin’s moral revival, since the true hero of the novel is not he, but a certain “superhero” - modern man in general.

Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin.

The failure of the Decembrist uprising, the unfulfilled hopes of the best part of society for the liberation of Russia. Pechorin's generation did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia. The third hero is also a hero of his time - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin from the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”.

Pechorin is a nobleman, and by no means from the poor, he is young, handsome, and popular with women. It would seem, what else is needed for happiness? But he is deeply unhappy. But the point here is that Pechorin, despite his youth, is tired of life (“sometimes I specifically look for death under bullets”). Having received a secular upbringing, Pechorin was tired of chasing secular entertainment. Then he will be disappointed, attempts to engage in science and a cooling towards them. Pechorin is bored with living (“Well? To die is to die! The loss for the world is small, and I myself am quite bored”). He is indifferent to the light and experiences deep dissatisfaction with life (“His eyes did not laugh when he laughed. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness”). Pechorin is quite experienced, he has already seen a lot. But his main problem is oppressive loneliness, boredom, disappointment in life and love. Pechorin did not achieve happiness either in love or friendship. According to him, he is not capable of friendship. In it, again according to Grigory Alexandrovich, “one is invariably the slave of another.” In different chapters we see different people who help us understand the character of Lermontov's hero. Pechorin had friends, but he never became friends with any of them: his colleague Maxim Maksimych, his peer Grushnitsky, his intellectually similar Doctor Werner, or the complete opposite - Lieutenant Vulich. Pechorin does not want to make anyone “his slave.”

Everyone around the protagonist is inferior to him in intelligence, and is not distinguished by sensitivity, insight, or strength of character. Lermontov's hero is distinguished by one very rare quality - the ability and inclination for internal introspection. Pechorin combines sobriety of mind with a thirst for activity and willpower. Pechorin feels immense strength in himself (“I feel immense strength in myself”), but squanders it on trifles, on love affairs, without doing anything useful (“I was carried away by the lures of empty and ungrateful passions, from their crucible I emerged as hard and cold as iron, but lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life”).

But the hero of the novel has one more terrible property. He makes the people around him unhappy (“my love did not bring happiness to anyone”). He is smarter than the others, but internally empty and disappointed. Grigory Alexandrovich lives out of curiosity, not with his heart, but with his head.

The paradox of Pechorin’s personality is his inner world, introspection. The hero carefully rummages through the storeroom of his own mind and heart. Pechorin is aware of his bad deeds (the game of love with Princess Mary, the failure with Vera, the conquest of Bela), and it is precisely because of this awareness of what happened that it is so hard for him. Pechorin suffers, but deservedly suffers.

As V.A. Belinsky wrote: “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but scorched earth. ” and something could have grown on this land if not for the incessant “self-draining” of our hero. Lermontov's hero crushes everything human in himself, his eyes are calm when there is a volcano inside. He does not realize the value of human life, does not value either his own life or someone else’s (duel with Grushnitsky).

The character of the work combines the incongruous: sensitivity (the hero cries about the lost love of Vera; it’s hard for him when Maxim Maksimych mentions Bel) and the most terrible cold-blooded cruelty (a duel with Grushnitsky, “I wanted to give myself every right not to spare him”), an amazing feature to go against fate, to enter into eternal confrontation with society (“water society”).

The hero is an egoist, and he realizes this, he is incredibly disgusted with himself, out of boredom he tries to entertain himself (“but you live out of curiosity: you expect something new. It’s funny and annoying!”), sometimes at the cost of broken destinies (Princess Mary , Vera), and even someone’s death (Grushnitsky). It’s scary to say, but Bela’s death is the best ending, both for her and for Pechorin. Grigory Alexandrovich knows how to hate, but does not know how to love. He seeks happiness only for himself (“I loved for myself, for my own pleasure, I only satisfied the strange need of the heart, greedily absorbing their feelings, their joys, their suffering - and could never get enough”), and in love, as is known , one cannot be happy: either both are happy or neither is happy. Both then and now - this is the reality of life, which the hero understood perfectly. Probably the only way out for the hero of the novel is to work on himself; his problem is that he saw his vices and mistakes, but did not correct them!

So, Lermontov’s hero is unhappy both in love and in friendship through his own fault. His loneliness is depressing. He is selfish and proud, but most importantly, he is honest with himself, and this quality is lacking in very, very many people. He can offend, knows how to hate, is loved, but does not love (“like an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret.”), and as a result, he is unhappy. In my opinion, the inactive protagonist who does not constantly seek happiness is no longer Pechorin, not the hero of the 30s of the 19th century. The complex aspects of the hero's mental life interest Lermontov.

The main character painfully searches for a way out, thinks about the role of fate, and seeks understanding among people of a different circle. And he doesn’t find an environment for activity or use for his powers. He searches for himself, rushes about in search of happiness, realizes his vices, but does not change; this is his tragedy, the tragedy of both the generation of the 30s and our time

Lermontov helps in “A Hero of Our Time” to recall the ideological and spiritual life of Russian society in the 30s of the 19th century. The hero's hopelessness is directly related to the socio-political situation in Russia at that time. The failure of the Decembrist uprising, the unfulfilled hopes of the best part of society for the liberation of Russia. Pechorin's generation did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia. Pechorin's tragedy is the tragedy of many of his contemporaries, similar to him in their way of thinking and position in society.

Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov.

The 1840s in Russia were marked by a severe crisis of the entire feudal-serf system.

N.V. Gogol shows us a new hero of the time. On the pages of “Dead Souls” he appears as Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov - a new type of adventurer-acquirer for Russian literature, the main character of the poem, fallen, betrayed his true destiny, but capable of purification and resurrection with his soul. Even the name Pavel, given to the hero by Gogol, indicates this possibility of spiritual resurrection. It was not given by the author by chance, in honor of the Apostle Paul, who at first was a persecutor of Christ, but then ardently believed in him; the idea of ​​rebirth. Pavel is the one who was able to rise. Gogol clearly shows us this new man (the main character), describing in detail the life of Pavel Ivanovich in Chapter II.

As a child, Pavlusha religiously followed his father’s instructions to “save a penny!” The father, sending his son to study, gives him a tiny amount of money, which the son saves carefully, painstakingly, wisely, constantly increasing his capital. For example, during a break he buys a bun, then during class, when other students are hungry, he sells it at a speculative price. Still persistent, smart and, of course, cunning, Pavlusha bought a mouse cheaply, which he trained for a long time and patiently, and, as a result, sold it at a profit.

The whole life of Gogol's hero is a series of ups and downs. The character of the work works very successfully at customs. First, he gains the trust of his superiors (“and indeed, he showed unheard-of self-sacrifice, patience and limitation of needs”), then he begins to collaborate with smugglers, but his friend rats him out, but the main character gets away with it.

So, Chichikov is a new hero, a hero of his time. The goals of Gogol's hero are to take care only of himself, to seek benefit for himself in everything, to please people who are useful to him, to choose a richer wife. He doesn't know what inconvenience is. He is never uncomfortable at all. The hero of the poem is relevant to this day, because in every team there is still a person who gets his way not by knowledge, but by diligence, servility (“Chichikov suddenly comprehended the spirit of the boss and what behavior should consist of,” “as soon as the bell rang, he rushed headlong and handed the teacher a three-piece, first of all; having handed the three-piece, he was the first to leave the class and tried to get caught by him three times on the road, constantly taking off his hat.” This hero was like that from a young age.

Pavel Ivanovich is active, but he directs his mind and cunning in the wrong direction, not for the benefit of society, but for his own profit. Chichikov is a wonderful psychologist. The ability to approach people correctly helps Chichikov in his brilliant scam with “dead” souls.

Disposing, polite on the outside, rotten on the inside: this is the image of the new man in Rus'.

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.

“Oblomov” appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and was of great importance in the struggle of the advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. In the novel, Goncharov criticized the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf order, which gave rise to Oblomovism: “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn into jelly before their time.”[ The essence and origin of Oblomovism are revealed in the novel from an anti-serfdom, democratic point of view. The author seeks to prove that Oblomov was turned into jelly, into a “kvass” by the serf environment.

Oblomov Ilya Ilyich - a nobleman “32-33 years old, pleasant in appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any specific goal, any concentration in his facial features; gentleness was the dominant and main expression of the whole soul.”

Ilya Ilyich was born and grew up until the age of twenty in provincial Oblomovka. As a child, everyone instilled in Oblomov the idea of ​​his exclusivity. He studied at a boarding school, but was unable to serve. As a boy, Ilyusha, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, grew up kind and good-natured. But from a very young age, the hero did nothing, everything was done for him (Ilyusha rarely went to the boarding house, and if he was there, his friend Stolz worked for him, but at home there were servants for everything). Goncharov's hero is accustomed to receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, and this developed apathetic immobility in him. This habit plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery. This slavery is closely intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship. Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in the appearance of Ilya Ilyich - a pampered, flabby man beyond his years who has “slept his ailments.”

The hero lies on his couch all day long, doing nothing. He is not only unable to manage his estate, but even to get ready and go to a party. All this presents great difficulty for him. It is important to note what inaction is - a conscious choice of the hero: “Life: life is good!” there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the council and society!

In the hero of the novel, a living mind, purity, kindness, truthfulness, a tendency to introspection and self-criticism, and a sense of justice are ruined. The hero is mired in the swamp of egoism, which sweeps away all the good qualities that Oblomov does not feel the need to develop in himself. It soon becomes clear to the reader that Oblomov depends on Zakhar more than Zakhar depends on him.

The horror of the protagonist’s situation also lies in the fact that he did not ask himself questions about “his relationship to the world and to society,” taking advantage of his rights, he did not think about his responsibilities, and therefore “was burdened and bored by everything he had to do.” “Work and boredom were synonymous for him,” and Oblomov explained his inactivity and worthlessness by the fact that he was a nobleman.

Impracticality and helplessness are the characteristic features of Goncharov’s hero: “I don’t know what corvée is, what rural labor is, what a poor man means, what a rich man means; I don’t know what a quarter of rye or oats means, what it costs, what month it is, what they sow and reap, how and when they sell it, I don’t know anything.” This ignorance was a typical feature of the majority of the noble intelligentsia of the 40s. Oblomov's whole life is a depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment of the human personality, a voluntary death of his own soul.

We learn the ideal of Ilya Ilyich’s life from the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream.” The hero dreams of his childhood in his native Oblomovka: calm, peaceful, idle, filled with love and warmth.

“Oblomov’s Dream” is not a fairy tale about heavenly life, as it might seem at first glance. Here the social and simply human ugliness of Oblomov’s existence is clearly visible. The hero is accustomed to inaction. “Three hundred Zakharovs” kill all activity in the boy. Oblomovka’s patriarchal isolation, at first touching, cheerfully surprising with its exclusivity, then frightens. Oblomov’s gentleness in the complex world of social inequality turns into very real evil.

Ilya Ilyich's doing nothing is not an innocent thing at all. As Dobrolyubov noted: “As long as he’s lying alone, it’s nothing; and when Tarantyev, Zaterty comes, Ivan Matveich, what disgusting nasty things begin around Oblomov. They eat him up, get him drunk, get him drunk, ruin him in the name of the peasants. He endures all this in silence.” The critic concludes: “No, you can’t flatter the living like that, but we are still alive, we are still Oblomovs. Oblomovism never left us.”

Oblomov’s path is a typical path of provincial nobles of the early 19th century. O. served in the department, did routine work, and waited for a promotion from year to year. But the hero did not need such a worthless life. He chose to lie on the sofa and contemplate the vices of his time from the outside. He studied at the university, was interested in literature, then served, even conceived a scientific work dedicated to Russia, but it all ended in Oblomovism. “His life was on its own, and his science was on its own. His knowledge was dead. His head represented a complex archive of dead affairs, persons, eras, figures, religions. It was as if a library consisting of only scattered volumes on different parts of knowledge.”

But the soul of the hero of the novel is not devoid of dreaminess. He is a lyricist who can feel deeply. But his lifestyle muted this spiritual feature of the hero. Only her old friend, Stolz, can wake her up for a short time. Goncharov's hero was not completely deprived of spiritual and moral life; he had some good aspirations and qualities (moral purity, a meek soul).

Love for Olga temporarily changes the hero beyond recognition: “A fever of life, strength, and activity appeared in him.” But “the further direction, the very thought of life, the deed, remains in intentions.” This is not surprising: Oblomov is not capable of active love, which requires self-improvement. Only Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna was able to create an ideal life for him with a feeling of care, warmth, and idleness.

Goncharov himself treats his hero with a considerable amount of sympathy when Oblomov awakens to the consciousness of his gradual fall. Goncharov conveys his internal monologue: “He painfully felt that some good, bright beginning was buried in him, as in a grave, perhaps now dead, or it lay like gold in the bowels of a mountain, and it was high time this gold should be a walking coin. But the treasure is buried deep and heavily with rubbish and alluvial debris.”

The melancholy that sometimes overcame Oblomov testified that he had real human feelings, sometimes resisting the inexorable Oblomovism, which nevertheless turned out to be stronger. Lack of will, lack of inner core, fading of the mind, all this cannot be saved even by the pure soul of the hero and the active Stolz. The best qualities of Ilya Ilyich fade away, and with them the hero himself.

Dmitry Nikolaevich Rudin.

“Rudin” (1855) is Turgenev’s first novel, which captured a whole period in the development of Russian society in the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. The main thing in “Rudin” is not the description of everyday life, but the reconstruction of the ideological picture of the era. The characters' characters are revealed primarily through debates about philosophy, education, and morality. This became one of the most characteristic features of the Russian novel of the 19th century.

In the novel of the same name “Rudin” I. S. Turgenev examines the history of the so-called “superfluous man”. The author repeatedly notes the inconsistency of his hero: enthusiasm, the desire to act in the name of achieving ideals is combined in him with ignorance of “living life”, the inability to translate into reality everything that he talks about so eloquently.

Turgenev's hero dreams of the good of humanity, makes fiery speeches about the high calling of man, about the importance of education and science. However, being a student of the philosophical idealism of the 30s (the novel tells in detail about Pokorsky’s circle, in which contemporaries easily guessed the circle of N.V. Stankevich), Rudin, like other noble intellectuals, turns out to be very far from the correct perception of reality. Ideal ideas fail when confronted with real life.

Highly appreciating the hero, Turgenev nevertheless repeatedly emphasizes in Rudin the sharp gap between word and deed, which emphasizes the test of love. The hero cannot stand it. In front of the sincere and loving Natalya, he turns out to be a weak-willed person, unable to accept the burden of responsibility for her fate (“The first obstacle - and I completely fell apart; I was simply afraid of the responsibility that fell on me, and therefore I am definitely unworthy of you”).

The epilogue of the novel was intended to elevate Rudin, to prove his ability to perform heroic deeds. However, even on the Parisian barricades the hero still turns out to be an eternal wanderer. His feat is useless, his figure itself is somewhat theatrical: “In one hand he held a red banner, in the other a crooked and blunt saber.” The rebels did not even know who Rudin was, they considered him a Pole. This is how Dmitry Rudin passes away from life from the pages of the novel.

In the image of Dmitry Rudin, Turgenev captured the era of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Hence the death of the hero on the barricades in Paris during the revolution of 1848: he dies with the end of his era.

Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov.

Russian reality of the early 60s put forward a new type of “nihilist”, calling for a decisive struggle against the entire old world, its way of life, customs, culture, without making exceptions for anyone, without experiencing the slightest regret. The writer's honesty and truthfulness predetermined in many cases the objective portrayal of the commoner hero, his moral victory over noble liberalism, in particular over the Kirsanov brothers.

Bazarov's youth fell on the difficult period of the 60s of the 19th century. The rise of the democratic movement and peasant unrest. The crisis of autocracy and the propaganda of the ideas of the peasant revolution. Abolition of serfdom in 1861. Confrontation between liberals and democrats. The beginning of bourgeois transformations in the country. Development of natural and mathematical sciences.

The image of Turgenev's hero is riddled with contradictions. Evgeny Bazarov denies love. This can be seen in his attitude towards a woman and eternal feelings (“romantic nonsense”, “rotten”), but at the same time, Eugene is a romantic at heart. He passionately falls in love with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova.

Bazarov is a nihilist, denies science and art, does not listen to other people’s opinions, and treats everything from a critical point of view. There are no authorities for the hero.

Bazarov's nihilism has nothing to do with fashion or imitation. For this reason, Sitnikov and Kukshin were introduced into the plot of the novel, so that against their background, Bazarov’s deep conviction in the correctness of the views that form the basis of his worldview would be more clearly manifested.

Turgenev's hero has his own convictions (“reading Pushkin is a waste of time, playing music is ridiculous, romanticism is nonsense, Raphael is not worth a penny”) and expresses them, but absolutely does not accept other people’s “principles.” Bazarov also does not accept empty talk. The hero strives to act “because of what is useful.”

Evgeny Bazarov belongs to the new social camp - revolutionary democrats (raznochinets).

The hero, representing Russian democratic youth with all its advantages and disadvantages, strength and weakness, marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of Russian literature. In many works of subsequent decades, the artistic elaboration of the problems, images, and motifs first raised by Turgenev will continue. Dostoevsky in 1863 mentioned with sympathy "the restless and yearning Bazarov (a sign of a great heart), despite his egoism."

But, despite the destructive power of Bazarov’s nihilism, it is worth noting that the hero does not advance in his beliefs beyond denial. After all, among the people the hero of the novel sees only ignorance and darkness. Bazarov believes that it is necessary to separate popular interests from popular prejudices.

It is not contempt for the people that is heard in the speeches of the “nihilist,” but criticism of darkness, downtroddenness and backwardness. The problem of “Bazarov and the People” is very acute and has not yet been fully clarified. There are episodes in the novel that testify not only to Bazarov’s strength, but also to his weakness and isolation from the people.

The hero denies everything, but we cannot call him narrow-minded and limited. He acts on the principle: “they will tell me the case and I will agree.”

To reveal the image of the main character, Turgenev compares him with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Kirsanov is an aristocrat, the complete opposite of Bazarov. Even Bazarov’s appearance sharply separated him from the brothers Kirsanov and Arkady: a long robe with tassels, red hands, long hair, which at that time was a demonstrative sign of freethinking. And Bazarov’s speech testifies to the sympathy with which his image is drawn. Of all the characters in the novel, it is Bazarov who is endowed with the simplest and clearest Russian language, it is he who is able to appropriately use a folk saying or proverb, he turns out to be a master of winged, precise characteristics.

Pavel Petrovich reveres family, religiosity, patriarchy, the peasant community, cannot live without faith, loves nature and music. P.P. Kirsanov and Bazarov constantly argue, which leads to their duel, which, fortunately, is not dangerous.

However, Bazarov’s clash with noble heroes and noble culture should not be perceived unambiguously as a complete and unconditional victory of the “nihilist.” Shortly before the end of the novel, Turgenev wrote: “since the time of the ancient tragedy, we already know that real clashes are those in which both sides are to a certain extent right.” This is what happens in the novel. It is impossible not to take into account that Turgenev’s “fathers,” for all their liberalism, are bearers of certain life values; they are characterized by aesthetic sensitivity and a culture of feelings. And in some moments, Bazarov, in comparison with them, reveals not only strength, but also weakness.

Turgenev confronts his hero with serious life trials, as a result of which the hero has to give up a number of beliefs. It displays traits of skepticism and pessimism. One of these tests is the hero’s love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. The commoner Bazarov feels awkward in front of the aristocrat Odintsova; he gradually discovers within himself a feeling whose existence he previously denied.

Anna Sergeevna Odintsova could understand Bazarov. Odintsova sees Evgeny’s soul, and not his external prickliness and constant denial of everything. The hero of the novel respects Odintsova because she does not boast of her origins (before her marriage she barely made ends meet and raised her sister (“and ate our bread”). Bazarov falls in love with Anna Sergeevna, but she mercilessly rejects him.

The views of Bazarov and the other heroes on life, society, people, and the political system are diametrically opposed. Therefore, Turgenev’s hero is lonely, he is an “extra person” who is in opposition to society.

Turgenev's position manifests itself gradually, as the image itself is revealed, in the hero's monologues, his disputes with other characters: with his friend Arkady Kirsanov, with his father and uncle Pavel Petrovich. At first, the hero of the novel is confident in his abilities, in the work he is doing; he is a proud, purposeful person, a bold experimenter and a denier.

Turgenev's hero suffers defeat in love. Ultimately, he remains alone, but even now Bazarov does not want to open himself to simple, natural feelings. He is cold and demanding of his parents, as well as of everyone around him. Only in the face of death does Evgeny Vasilyevich begin to vaguely understand the value of such manifestations of life as poetry, love, beauty.

Bazarov is an “extra person,” but despite all the misfortunes and disappointments in life, he can still be useful to society.

Turgenev's hero is true to his ideals, devoted to his work, and self-confident. Such people are necessary in Russian society, because the rest of the “superfluous people” are inactive. Onegin and Pechorin strive to assert themselves, to realize their capabilities, but do not find use for them.

Oblomov and Rudin love to think, but are absolutely incapable of practical activity, all their projects fail, while Bazarov promotes social development, moving forward, and destroys old foundations. According to Evgeniy Vasilyevich, “the new cannot establish itself without the destruction of the old.” Turgenev's hero sincerely tries to benefit society through his activities.

The hero of the novel is valuable to society, brings with him a wave of changes, but society is not ready for them. Bazarov’s time has not yet come, so Turgenev, not knowing what to do, “kills” him. Bazarov’s beliefs are not an artistic exaggeration; the characteristic features of representatives of the democratic youth of the 60s are reflected in the image of the hero.

Rakhmetov.

Rakhmetov is the central character of N. G. Chernyshevsky’s utopian novel “What is to be done?” The hero led “the most severe lifestyle”, “was involved in other people’s affairs or no one’s affairs in particular”, in the “gathering points” of his friends “he only met people who had influence on others”, “he was little at home, he kept walking and driving around.” A “special person” differs from “new people” in many ways. By origin, he is not a commoner, but a nobleman, “from a family known since the 13th century”; It is not circumstances, but only the strength of his convictions that forces him to go against secular society. He remakes both his mental and physical nature. Completely renounces personal benefits and intimate life, so that the struggle for complete enjoyment of life is a struggle “only according to principle, and not out of passion, out of conviction, and not out of personal need.

Chernyshevsky’s hero consciously cultivated strength of character, accuracy and punctuality in himself, since he knew that these qualities were necessary for an underground revolutionary. At the same time, he was not a dry and callous person, although with his refusal of all pleasures and entertainment he impressed his friends as a “gloomy monster.” Having gotten to know him better, Vera Pavlovna appreciated “what a gentle and kind person he is.”

Rakhmetov devoted himself entirely to the cause of the revolution. Personal life, in the usual sense, does not exist for him. Friends call the hero a “rigorist,” that is, a person who with unwavering firmness follows the rules he has adopted and refuses all pleasures for the sake of his business. The hero of the novel believes that people who devote themselves to the struggle for human happiness must testify with their lives that they demand happiness “not to satisfy their personal passions, not for themselves personally, but for man in general.”

Work for the revolution became his personal matter, the only one that completely absorbs him. Therefore, he learned to be very careful with his time: he makes only “necessary” acquaintances, reads only “original” books, that is, those in which important thoughts are fully and clearly stated.

Rakhmetov tries to be as close as possible to the common people, closely studying their life. He knows that people respect strong people, so he persistently does gymnastics, a variety of physical labor, and eats simple food. He mastered various working professions: “he was a plowman, a carpenter, a carrier and a worker in all kinds of healthy trades; once he even walked as a barge hauler across the entire Volga, from Dubovka to Rybinsk,” demonstrating such extraordinary strength that his fellow haulers dubbed him Nikitushka Lomov, after the famous barge hauler-hero who walked along the Volga fifteen to twenty years ago.

The revolutionary activity of the hero can be judged only by individual hints: his trips, meetings, and some matters that “do not concern him personally” are mentioned. Chernyshevsky did not have the opportunity to say more, but he emphasizes Rakhmetov’s authority among progressive youth and makes it clear that the hero is the leader and educator of revolutionaries.

The writer calls on young people to follow Rakhmetov along the path of revolutionary struggle. This path is difficult and dangerous. People who have declared a life-or-death war on the existing system know that once they fall into the hands of the authorities, they will receive no mercy. Therefore, Chernyshevsky's hero tests his ability to withstand torture. After spending the night on the points of nails, he says to Kirsanov: “Test. Need to. ; Implausible, of course; however, it is necessary just in case. I see I can." Chernyshevsky himself was well aware that the need for such training was not at all so “implausible”: after all, he wrote the chapter on Rakhmetov precisely during his grueling hunger strike. There are very few people like Rakhmetov, the “lady in mourning” and her husband, but their significance is enormous. “This is the color of the best people, these are the engines of engines, this is the salt of the earth.” The whole book is filled with forebodings of the revolution and predictions of its coming.

It is also important that Rakhmetov’s closest literary predecessor is Bazarov from Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” While maintaining some stylistic continuity, Chernyshevsky at the same time showed that his hero differs from Bazarov in having a positive point of application of his strength and has the opportunity to act among like-minded people.

The image of Rakhmetov is built on a paradoxical combination of the incongruous. The extreme chronological specificity of his biography, which serves as a starting point for many other events in the book, is adjacent to significant event gaps; a secondary character, he turns out to be “more important than all of them put together”; an extreme materialist in his views, he lives and fights only for an idea.

The image of Chernyshevsky’s hero, as befits any hagiographic image, gave rise to many imitations. He became the standard of a professional revolutionary, as D.I. Pisarev pointed out in his article “The Thinking Proletariat” (1865), calling Rakhmetov a “historical figure”: “In the general movement of events, there are moments when people like Rakhmetov are necessary and irreplaceable.” .

He lives in the general, abandoning the personal. He loved one lady, but deliberately abandoned his love, because it would limit him. He admits that he wants to live like everyone else, but he cannot afford it. Rakhmetov represents a special, new person, in whom we see the ideal image of a revolutionary.

3. Comparative characteristics of the heroes of the first half of the 19th century. *

At first glance, all the characters are completely different, but if you look closely, we will see both striking differences and impressive similarities.

The relationship of heroes with society.

So, we see that most of the heroes are in conflict with the society of their time. The progressive-minded Chatsky is not accepted in society. The Famusov society slanders Alexander Andreevich, spreading rumors about his madness, but the hero cannot be broken, he is the undisputed winner in moral terms.

Also in moral terms, in the spiritual aspect, Count Pierre Bezukhov is superior to other heroes and society. For whom the ideal of life is service to the people, the public good, just like Chatsky.

Pushkin's hero Eugene Onegin has a critical attitude towards high society and his landowner neighbors. Grigory Pechorin also treats society a little condescendingly. But it is important to note that Onegin, despising the world, is afraid of its opinion and accepts the challenge of his friend Lensky to a duel.

Pechorin, on the other hand, is absolutely not interested in what they think about him. He himself does what he wants with society (conflict with the water society, duel with Grushnitsky and the death of the latter).

Turgenev’s hero, Evgeny Bazarov, also disdains society. A nihilist is not interested in what they will say about him. But the hero is in conflict with P.P. Kirsanov because of the “incompatibility” of views on life, the state structure, etc.

Oblomov experiences complete social apathy; the hero does not care what is happening outside the window of his room.

Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov does everything for his own benefit, and if he needs company, then he gains trust, flatters and gets along well in any society.

Dmitry Rudin, in turn, does not get along anywhere for long. Rudin’s superiority over the hypocritical landowner Lasunskaya, her hanger-on Pandelevsky, and the denier Pigasov is obvious, but Turgenev’s hero’s word is at odds with his deed, the latter “trailing along somewhere far behind.”

Rakhmetov goes against his environment not due to circumstances, but solely due to the strength of his convictions, only by principle, and not by passion, by conviction, and not by personal need.

Some heroes can be classified as “superfluous people” (Onegin, Pechorin), individuals who were ahead of their time (Bazarov, Rakhmetov), ​​characters living “outside” of time - fallen out of their time (Rudin, Oblomov). And they all conflict with society.

But only one of them, the deceitful and resourceful Chichikov, lives happily ever after, gradually making a fortune by deceiving “dead” souls. Unfortunately, only Gogol’s hero, who pleases all useful people for himself, functions calmly in Russian society in the 40s of the 19th century.

Society (even from the 60s and 30s) is not ready for Bazarov and Chatsky and Rakhmetov. Pechorin and Onegin do not know how to realize their powers. Oblomov is sorely lacking in practical activity, just like Rudin. But Turgenev’s hero loves to engage in polemics on absolutely any topic, and Goncharov’s hero only occasionally has weak insights.

Only the hero of L.N. Tolstoy is useful to society in practice (he fights, donates money to those in need), understands his purpose and his place in society.

The attitude of the heroes towards friendship.

So, the heroes basically fail the test of friendship.

Chatsky's Griboyedov doesn't show any friends at all.

Pechorin has no friends due to his own conviction that “in friendship, one is invariably the slave of the other.”

Chichikov does not see it as useful for himself to have friends. Pavel Ivanovich has only useful acquaintances through whom he can benefit. Both Pechorin and Chichikov are egoists. They only take, but do not give.

In his friendship with the poet V. Lensky, Onegin treats the “young heat” with patronizing, condescending attitude. But soon, as a result of a quarrel, a duel occurs between the friends. Evgeniy is afraid of public opinion and accepts the challenge to a duel, then kills Lensky. Pushkin's hero did not succeed in friendship.

Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov was also not happy in his friendship, who also treated his friend Arkady Kirsanov patronizingly. But there is no friendship without mutual understanding. Being representatives of the same generation, Evgeny Bazarov and Arkady Kirsanov ultimately cannot find a common language. The friendship of two completely different people in character and outlook on life also takes place.

Friendship between the apathetic Oblomov and the active Stolz. The characters' characters are so different that many critics agreed: Stolz is a kind of “antidote” to Oblomov. As a result, the sluggish and lazy Oblomov is unhappy, but his active friend is the opposite.

The characters are also different in Turgenev’s novel of the same name “Rudin”. Rudin talks a lot, but does little; his friend Lezhnev is the opposite. As a result - unhappiness in the life of the first, happiness of the second.

Chernyshevsky does not show Rakhmetov as friends, only friends, but they all, of course, respect the hero.

And finally, the friendship of Pierre Bezukhov and Andrei Bolkonsky. The heroes are united by their search for truth in life; they are both at a crossroads. Disagreeing with each other, they recognize the right of everyone to their own judgments, to their own choice. The friendship of the heroes is imbued with respect.

We see that Pechorin, Chichikov and Onegin are selfish and unhappy in their friendship. Bazarov has no mutual understanding with his friend Arkady. Oblomov and Rudin are passive. Chatsky and Rakhmetov’s friends are not depicted. Only Count Pierre Bezukhov is happy in his friendship, because, unlike other heroes, he is not selfish and respects the opinion and right to choose of his friend.

Test of love.

And again our heroes are unhappy.

Chatsky’s chosen one, Sophia, is closed with the hero, spreads gossip about his madness and, in my opinion, is not worthy of Griboyedov’s honest and open hero.

Pushkin's Onegin fails in love. Fate punishes the hero of the work for neglecting the feelings of women earlier, for a wild life and for not seeing in Tatyana the girl her stunning, incomparable, pure inner world. Love is missed

Pechorin is an egoist (“I loved for myself, for my own pleasure, I only satisfied the strange need of my heart, greedily absorbing their feelings, their joys, their suffering - and could never get enough”).

Gogol's hero does not know what love is, he simply does not think about it. Chichikov loves no one and nothing except himself and money, although he would be glad to find a richer wife.

Oblomov and Rudin love each other in words. Heroes are not capable of active love, where actions need to be performed.

Evgeny Bazarov also fails in love. The commoner Bazarov feels awkward in front of the aristocrat Odintsova. The heroine rejects the nihilist.

Rakhmetov deliberately refuses happiness for the sake of a social, revolutionary idea.

The only one who is happy in marriage is Pierre Bezukhov. But at what cost! After many years of torment in his marriage to the dishonest Helen Kuragina, the hero, after the unexpected death of his wife, still finds the desired happiness by meeting Natasha Rostova. In the epilogue, Pierre Bezukhov is depicted as a happy husband and father.

So, heroes are used to only taking, but not giving, and in love this is tantamount to death. After all, what, besides suffering, did Pechorin, Rudin, Onegin, Oblomov give to their beloved!? Chatsky is unhappy through no fault of his own; Chichikov does not even think about eternal feelings. Oblomov gives in to fate. Rakhmetov consciously avoids personal happiness. Only exhausted by the failures of his marriage with Helen, Bezukhov will find his happiness.

Attitude to the Motherland, the political situation in the country.

In relation to the political situation and the political system, the opinions of the heroes differ.

Chatsky and Bezukhov see the purpose of life in serving the people, “the cause, not individuals,” in the public good.

Pierre cannot look indifferently at the manifestation of injustice, social evil, and opposes autocracy and serfdom. The heroes are close in their beliefs to the Decembrists. Bezukhov even joins a secret society, and in “Woe from Wit” there is a hint of a secret circle.

Eugene Onegin is also close to the ideas of Decembrism. Pushkin speaks of the hero’s freethinking, of his participation in the near-Decembrist era only in hints. But these hints are significant and eloquent. Alleviating the plight of the serfs (a gesture quite “Decembrist” in spirit), reading Adam Smith, who was popular among the Decembrists, long conversations and debates with Lensky on the most pressing topics of our time, finally, a direct comparison of Onegin with the freethinker, the philosopher Chaadaev, mention of the hero’s acquaintance with the dashing hussar, the Decembrist Kaverin, a story about his friendship with the hero-author, a disgraced poet, and Onegin’s willingness to accompany him in his escape abroad.

Pechorin is an egoist, seeking personal, not public, happiness.

Oblomov is passive to the political situation, lives in his own fenced, closed world.

Rudin has many ideas and plans to improve life in the country, but these projects remain just projects. The hero lacks practical activity, the matter does not move beyond words.

Chichikov directs his energies not to state prosperity, but to his own needs (a scam with “dead” souls).

Turgenev's hero finds himself in a conflict between fathers and sons. An old opinion collides with a new belief.

Rakhmetov represents a special, new person, in whom we see the ideal image of a revolutionary.

So, the active, preaching Chatsky, gifted, albeit inactive heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Bazarov, Rudin are not accepted in Russian society of the 19th century. The generation of these heroes did not know how to realize their plans to transform Russia.

Oblomov's strength is in thinking, but the hero is inactive and useless to society. And the negative hero is active - Chichikov. Gogol's hero feels in the society of the 19th century like a fish in water. Greed and selfishness reign in society. That is why Chichikov does not belong to the “superfluous” group. He is active and his activities are successful, but they are aimed at deception.

For Pierre Bezukhov and Rakhmetov, their activities are directed in a positive direction (Tolstoy’s hero fights, donates funds for the victims; Chernyshevsky’s hero understands public affairs). But even in the epilogue, depicting the happy family man Pierre, L.N. Tolstoy shows us that this is far from the end, and we understand that we have before us the future Decembrist. Rakhmetov is a revolutionary.

III. CONCLUSION. The meaning of images of literary heroes of the first half of the 19th century.

So, let’s try to draw conclusions; to do this, let’s define the concepts.

“SUPERSONAL MAN” is a term used to designate literary characters who are in opposition to the social order, endowed with the knowledge of their uselessness, suffering from the lack of a clearly realized goal in life. It is believed that the concept of “superfluous people” implies the impossibility of “incorporating” heroes of this type into real social practice, their “social uselessness.”

By “HERO OF HIS TIME” we mean the hero of a work of art that reflects the main conflict of society in a certain period of time (at the time of creation of the work or the “life” of this character).

Griboyedov’s merit is that the hero, the society opposing him, and the conflictual relationships between them receive a realistic embodiment in the comedy “Woe from Wit.”

Pushkin's Onegin in the novel is presented as a progressive, nationally unique phenomenon of great social significance. Pushkin gave a multifaceted characterization of Onegin, revealed his contradictory essence, and pointed out the positive and negative significance of this social phenomenon. Through the image of Onegin, Pushkin encouraged other writers of the 19th century to express their words about the “heroes of their time.”

Widely using the traditions of previous literature, M. Yu. Lermontov in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” creates his own special type of hero. The writer begins to solve the most difficult task - to show a fundamentally new type of personality, to create the image of a gifted and thinking person, but crippled by secular education and cut off from the life of the people. Pechorin was a kind of “result” of the author’s reflections on the essence of the “hero of his time” - a phenomenon of enormous social significance.

“A Hero of Our Time” is considered the first “personal” novel in Russian prose, the ideological and plot core of which is not an external biography, but rather the personality of the character.

It is recognized that the main psychological “nerve” in Pechorin’s character, the main internal spring guiding his life, motives and actions is individualism, which is not just a characteristic feature of the generation of the 30s, but also the world’s perception of the hero, the philosophy of his life.

The inconsistency of Pechorin's skepticism as a worldview is obvious, but its deeply progressive significance should also be noted. Pechorin's denial puts the hero significantly above the “wise people”, brings Pechorin closer to the best, progressive people of Lermontov’s era, thereby making it possible to consider Pechorin truly a Hero of the Time.

The tragedy of the hero's fate is inevitable. Pechorin’s trouble is not his inability, but the impossibility of fulfilling his “high destiny,” for “the path that Pechorin could take has not yet been identified.”

Most researchers believe that the meaning and content of the image of the Hero of the Time of the 20s and 30s consists of a forced, historically conditioned renunciation of activity. The characters of this period, possessing extraordinary intelligence and energy, cannot act due to objective reasons: living conditions in feudal Russia, oppression by the government, underdeveloped social relations - all this did not provide the opportunity for fruitful activity. Therefore, the energy of the heroes was wasted on satisfying individualistic desires.

However, their advanced social significance is not in their actual activities, but in the level and quality of their consciousness in comparison with the environment. Rejection of existing living conditions, protest in the form of non-participation in public activities determine the “advanced” position of the heroes in the era of noble revolutionism and the reaction that followed it. This is probably why some scientists are inclined to classify Onegin and Pechorin as the vanguard of the social movement, to see in them heroes of the Decembrist sense.

In the 40-50s, with changes in socio-historical conditions, the type of hero of his time also changed.

After seven years of reaction, broader opportunities for “action” appear, and the goals and objectives of the struggle become clearer. At this time, the hero becomes “an ideologist par excellence”: he promotes advanced ideas and influences the minds of people. But nevertheless, he does not cease to remain “superfluous” due to the impossibility of combining word and deed into a single word. This is manifested primarily in the inability of “superfluous people” to engage in real activity when it is actually possible.

I. S. Turgenev develops the theme of the “hero of his time” widely and comprehensively. The writer explores the psychological options of the hero of the time type from different angles, trying to create truthful portraits of his contemporaries - representatives of the “cultural layer” of the Russian nobility.

The logical result of the writer’s reflections on the historical drama of the hero of his time was the novel “Rudin”. The main character of the work - an intelligent, well-educated person, a brilliant speaker and propagandist - is defeated when confronted with real life. Turgenev sees the reasons for Rudin's drama in his abstract, abstract approach to reality, in his ignorance of the pressing problems of Russian life, in his “philosophical idealism.”

Rudin's special place is determined by the fact that he is a person who lives in public interests, his aspirations are aimed at the common, not personal, good. His passionate speeches awaken thought and inspire hope, therefore the leading word of the hero is his “historical deed.”

People like Rudin, having risen to the point of denying evil and injustice, influenced the minds and hearts of those who, unlike them, were full of strength and could join the fight in the future. The time of the “Rudins” has passed, but it was through their efforts that the road was paved for the “new people” following them; it was the “Rudins” who did everything possible to make them appear.

The sixties brought fundamental changes to the hierarchy of literary heroes. The origin and appearance on the historical arena of a new social force - the revolutionary-democratic intelligentsia - clarifies the aspects and directions of possible individual activity.

A necessary condition for the “usefulness” of an individual is its inclusion in real social practice. This “requirement of the time” was reflected in a number of programmatic publications of the 60s (“Russian man on renduz-vous” by N. G. Chernyshevsky; “What is Oblomovism?” N. A. Dobrolyubova; “Bazarov”, “Realists” D.I. Pisareva and others). Their authors stated an indisputable fact: the “hero of his time” sometimes turned out to be “below” the tasks of his time.

However, N.G. Chernyshevsky, and N.A. Dobrolyubov, and D.I. Pisarev, noting the numerous weaknesses and shortcomings of typical representatives of this time, paid tribute to everything positive that these heroes carried within themselves. “They were introducers of new ideas into a well-known circle, educators, propagandists. their work was difficult, honorable and beneficial,” said N. A. Dobrolyubov. “The time of the Beltovs, Chatskys, Rudins has passed. but we, the newest realists, feel our blood relationship with this outdated type. We recognize our predecessors in him, we respect and love our teachers in him, we understand that without them we could not exist,” wrote D.I. Pisarev.

The tragedy of Russia in the first half of the 19th century lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive (Onegin and Pechorin; Chatsky and Rudin, Bazarov and Rakhmetov), ​​but their strength lies in reflection. But, unfortunately, in Russia, in Russian society, they turn out to be unclaimed, while the negative hero (Chichikov) feels like a fish in water in the society of the 19th century. Greed and self-interest reign in Russia. He is active and his activities are successful, but they are aimed at deception. Chichikov uses the imperfections of the political system exclusively for his own benefit. Gogol wanted to create a positive hero in the third volume of “Dead Souls,” but could not do this, because, unfortunately, Rus' and a positive hero are incompatible things. Russia rushed towards the abyss, filled its eyes with fog, and set off along the wrong path.

Only Pierre Bezukhov (the hero of L.N. Tolstoy’s epic “War and Peace”), having gone through the harsh trials of fate, comes to understand his destiny - serving society and the people.

Thus, we confirmed our hypothesis: the problem of society in the first half of the 19th century in Russia lies in the rejection of smart, gifted, positive heroes, albeit inactive ones; and the way to overcome this tragedy is that the meaning of the hero’s life (and the person himself) lies in the ability to serve for the good of society and the people, and not to satisfy the selfish interests of the individual.

It is important to note that all writers believed in the possibility of a spiritual and moral revival of the Russian nation. And our duty is to love Russia tenderly (actively), to begin the transformation of society by changing ourselves, to cleanse ourselves of sins, to believe in God and in the strength of our people. After all, the soul is immortal. We just need to be able to resurrect it, and with it a society where thinkers are superfluous, and adventurers are their own. A better future for the Motherland is not only our main responsibility, but also our most sacred duty.

The introduction of the image of the main character into the novel, which reflects the reality in which the author lives, is one of the hallmarks of romanticism in literature. But since the main romantic conflict is a conflict between the individual and society, the main character in such works almost always turns out to be superfluous and incomprehensible in his time.

Heroes of Griboedov's time

The first romantic work in Russian literature was comedy by A.S. Griboyedova Woe from Wit, written in 1824. The main character, Chatsky, enters into constant disputes with representatives of the previous generation, the era of Catherine. Chatsky is a classic representative of his time, when the thoughts of young people were already moving towards the liberal development of Russia, secret societies were functioning and a coup was being planned.

Chatsky actively opposes the existing order in society, but no one listens to him: Chatsky turns out to be a preacher at the ball, inappropriate and incomprehensible. Chatsky is lonely, he has no family or close friends, the only path for him is the path of the Decembrist, as for many intellectual people of that time.

Heroes of Pushkin's time

The image of the hero of the times continues to develop A.S. Pushkin in the novel Eugene Onegin, which was completed in 1830. The main character is a bored young man, selfish and mocking, but at the same time he is Onegin - a modern hero. Pushkin presents him as a superman who imagines himself above others, but cannot really realize himself. Society does not understand him, Onegin turns out to be superfluous.

At first, his whole life is pure entertainment, but then secular fun bothers him. He begins to get bored, and out of boredom provokes a duel, in which he kills the young poet Lensky. Then he decides to court the already married Tatiana and, most likely, the life of the extra person will end tragically: he may well be challenged to a duel and killed by Tatiana’s husband.

Heroes of Lermontov's time

This image is further developed M.Yu. Lermontov, who in 1840 did not beat around the bush and called his novel simply and eloquently - Hero of our time, revealing the main meaning of the novel's title. Lermontov shows how a person as smart, talented and towering above others as Onegin becomes redundant due to difficult circumstances. If Onegin’s troubles were his own fault: he had opportunities for self-realization, he just didn’t want to use them, preferring to mope, then Pechorin, a man of a different era, is a victim of circumstances and time.

This novel no longer describes the liberal Alexander era, but the strict years of the reign of Nicholas I, when censorship was tightened and control over society was strengthened. Pechorin has no choice, only service in the penalty position. He tries to control his own destiny, kills Grushnitsky, who irritated him, in a duel, but this does not save the hostage of the situation. The image of Pechorin is truly tragic - he has no choice, no prospects, and society and the authorities are to blame for this.

Hero of Gogol's time

Introduces a new image of the hero of time N.V. Gogol in the poem Dead Souls(1842), which differs significantly from previous novels. The intent of Dead Souls here is different. The main character is a swindler who deceives everyone he meets. But this is also a man of a new era, a type previously unknown in Russian literature - the owner-acquirer.

The main goal of his life is to accumulate more, he is going to rise above others due to his ability to save a penny (thus the theme of the superman continues). However, Chichikov does not consider himself superfluous, because his plans are very simple and realistic, he does not conflict with society.

The need for a typical hero of the times

Analyzing these works, as well as the historical and literary situation in Russia in the first half of the 19th century, we can conclude that the need for the image of a typical hero of the time arises when the author himself feels somehow out of place in the existing society. Particularly expressive in this regard is Lermontov’s hero, who has the most autobiographical features.

It is also worth noting that the image of the hero of time is a detail of romantic literature. By the end of the 1840s, romanticism in Russian literature was gradually fading away, giving way to realism, therefore, the extra hero of the time was no longer needed. However, the desire of authors to describe characters typical of their time is absolutely natural; it will remain in literature until the twentieth century.

Need help with your studies?

Composition

Classical Russian literature has always been a reflection of the life around us, a concentrated story about the problems facing Russian society at turning points in history. Thanks to the works of A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”, M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”, N. V. Gogol “Dead Souls”, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Lord Golovlevs” and the works of other talented writers, we can see a truthful, vivid portrait of their contemporaries, trace the evolution of the development of Russian society.

From the passive and disillusioned slacker Eugene Onegin to Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, who is vainly trying to find his place in life, to the adventurer and money-grubber Chichikov and the completely degraded Judushka Golovlev, who has lost his human appearance, Russian writers of the 19th century take us. They reflected on the time, the ways of development of their contemporary society, tried to convey a collective portrait of a generation through artistic means, to emphasize its individuality, its characteristic difference from previous ones, thereby creating a chronicle of time, and in general they obtained a truthful and imaginative picture of the death of the noble class, which once brought progress to Russia , culture, and subsequently became the main obstacle in its movement forward. Reading works of art of the 19th century, you observe not only the events that played a major role in certain periods of time, but you learn about the people who, in one way or another, shaped our history. The movement of time cannot be stopped, it flows inexorably, changing us, our ideas about life, our ideals. The change of formations does not occur on its own, without human participation and struggle, but it also changes people, since every time has “its own heroes”, reflecting the moral principles and goals to which they strive. It is very interesting to trace this “evolution” through works of art of the 19th century. To see what the hero “lost” or “found” as a result of this forward movement. If we move on to a specific conversation about a character who, as if in a drop of water, reflected an entire generation, then I would like to dwell on Eugene Onegin, who stands almost at the origins of the formation of Russian bourgeois society. And what does the portrait look like? Not very attractive, although the hero is beautiful in appearance. Similar to the windy Venus, When, wearing a man's outfit, the Goddess goes to a masquerade. His inner world is poor. He read a lot, “all to no avail,” “he was gloomy.” He who lived and thought cannot help but despise people in his soul... Leaving for the village does not console Eugene, as he had hoped. Boredom accompanies idleness everywhere equally. Onegin mechanically does good to the peasants, but does not think about them. Alone, among his possessions, Just to pass the time, Our Eugene first decided to establish a new order. In his wilderness, a desert sage, He replaced the ancient corvée with an easy quitrent with a yoke; And the slave blessed fate. The habit of not bothering himself with anything makes Eugene Onegin lonely, and then completely unhappy. He refuses Tatyana Larina’s love, explaining his action this way: “But I was not created for bliss; My soul is alien to him; Your perfections are in vain: I am not worthy of them at all.” But Onegin is also incapable of sincere friendship. Having killed a friend in a duel, he leaves to wander, suffering from the long life to which he is doomed. Onegin, with a look of regret, looks at the smoky streams and thinks, clouded with sadness: Why am I not wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man? I am young, my life is strong; What should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!.. And the end of the novel follows completely logical, when, having met Tatyana in the world, Onegin fell in love with her sincerely and deeply, but hopelessly: she is married and will never respond to Eugene’s feelings. I love you (why lie?). But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever. Onegin did not discern his destiny, laziness of mind or spiritual callousness prevented him from understanding Tatyana at the first acquaintance, he pushed away pure and sincere love, now he pays with a lack of happiness, a joyless passage of years. The image of Eugene Onegin, created by the genius of Pushkin, began the gallery of “superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century, which was worthily continued by other writers.

"A Hero of Our Time" is certainly one of the masterpieces of Russian literature of the 19th century. It became the first Russian psychological novel. As the author writes in the preface, the novel depicts “the history of the human soul.” And indeed it is. The entire novel centers around the personality of the main character Pechorin. “A Hero of Our Time” is structured in such a way that readers learn about Pechorin’s character gradually, see the hero from different sides, in different situations, listen to his characteristics from the lips of a variety of characters (and even the officer-narrator himself, who accidentally meets Pechorin in the chapter "Maksim Maksimych") Thus, in the end the reader should have his own opinion about the “hero of the time”.
In addition, the novel raises a number of important philosophical questions - about the boundaries of what is permitted, about life and death, about human will and predestination (most clearly in the story “Fatalist”). Lermontov also manages to reliably depict in the novel several worlds of his contemporary era - the life of mountaineers and Caucasian officers, the life of secular society on the waters.
The most interesting and mysterious person is the main character of the novel, Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin. All the other characters in the novel immediately notice his originality, courage, and caustic mind. People who are mediocre and shallow (like Grushnitsky and the dragoon captain) feel hostility towards him. People who are smart and insightful (like Dr. Werner) or simply good (like Maxim Maksimych) become strongly attached to Pechorin, recognizing his superiority. Much in Pechorin’s actions seems unusual, too risky. Sometimes he behaves like a cold and cruel person. For example, having fallen in love with the Circassian Bela, he quickly cools off towards her and seriously wounds her heart. A simple game for him is to compete with Grushnitsky for Princess Mary. He kills Grushnitsky in a duel, and then coldly admits to the princess that he does not love her at all.
The author does not justify his hero. But he finds an opportunity to show the reader why his soul “withered.” From the very beginning of his life's journey, Pechorin found himself in an unfriendly world where no one understood him - and he was forced to defend himself, mercilessly burying half of his soul. In a monologue before the duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin says that he did not guess his purpose, squandered his immense spiritual strength on empty and ignoble passions and lost “the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life.”
In Pechorin, despite the realistic nature of his character, the traits of a romantic hero are visible. He is also lonely, opposed to the whole world and even fate, he restlessly wanders around the world.
There are many other interesting or mysterious personalities in the novel - Kazbich from Bela, Yanko from Taman, Doctor Werner from Princess Mary, Vulich from Fatalist, even the officer-narrator who published Pechorin’s diary. But they are all psychological doubles of Pechorin. It is customary to call psychological “doubles” heroes in whose image the author identifies some trait that is characteristic of Pechorin himself. For example, in Kazbich - a passionate heart, in Yanko - mystery and courage, in Doctor Werner - a sharp mind... When compared with his “doubles”, Pechorin’s personal qualities, the special properties of his character, the depth of his reflection - all those traits thanks to which Pechorin became a “hero of the time.” Only Grushnitsky is not a “double”, but a parody of Pechorin. What constitutes the essence of Pechorin’s soul (disappointment, contempt for secular society, wit) in Grushnitsky becomes simple posturing.