The odd man out in world literature. “The type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature of the 19th century

Municipal educational institution

Kazachinskaya secondary school"

Abstract on literature

"The extra man type"

Ivanova Daria

Work checked: ,

With. Kazachinskoe

1. Introduction.

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

2.1. Spiritual drama of the young Petersburger Evgeny Onegin.

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

2.3. The wandering fate of Rudin.

3. List of references used

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

The nineteenth century is a rebellious, strict century -

He goes and says: “Poor man!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No: his feelings cooled down early;

He was tired of the noise of the world;

The beauties didn't last long

The subject of his usual thoughts;

The betrayals have become tiresome;

I'm tired of friends and friendship...

He tries to find something he likes, but the search drags on for many years.

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

Onegin locked himself at home,

Yawning, he took up the pen,

I wanted to write - but hard work

He was sick...

He lined the shelf with a group of books,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushkin on the manuscript of “Eugene Onegin”.

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

Illustration for the novel “Hero of Our Time.”

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

Rudin at Lasunsky.

Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, Russian society matured new type, a new hero of the time who became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person light hand Belinsky is usually called the “superfluous man” type. In Russian literature there is a long series of such heroes: Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin, Oblomov and some others. The named heroes have both common features, and the differences. TO general properties The type relates primarily to origin: all the named heroes are nobles, and wealthy enough to not have the need to earn a living. Secondly, these are extraordinary people, naturally gifted with intelligence, talent, and soul. They don't fit in ordinary life The nobility of their time are burdened by an aimless and meaningless life and try to find a business for themselves that would allow them to open up. But thirdly, all the heroes, for various reasons, remain “superfluous”; their richly gifted natures do not find use in society. Belinsky believed that society, its social and political organization, are to blame for the appearance of “superfluous people,” since an autocratic serfdom state does not need people with feeling, intelligence, and initiative. Dobrolyubov noted another side of the problem - subjective: the heroes themselves carry in themselves such properties that exclude their fruitful activity for the benefit of society: they are, as a rule, weak-willed, not accustomed to work, spoiled by an idle life and laziness and therefore prefer to indulge in dreams rather than to undertake energetically some useful task. Disregarding the social meaning of the “extra people” type, one can notice another important similarity between them: they are all in one way or another searching for their purpose, tormented by their inaction, but they can’t do anything, because they don’t know for sure why act. For the most part, these are more or less tragic characters, people who have not found their happiness, although in their evolution the features of the comic are increasingly visible, which is clearly visible, for example, in the image of Oblomov.

Despite all the similarities, these heroes are still different, and the common state of dissatisfaction for all is caused by not exactly the same reasons and has a unique coloring for each. Thus, Onegin, probably the most tragic figure, experiences cold boredom and “the blues.” Fed up with social life, tired of love adventures Having not found anything good in the village, cut off from his national roots, he no longer seeks the meaning of existence, a goal in life, since he is firmly convinced that there is no such goal and cannot be, life is initially meaningless and its essence is boredom and satiety. Onegin, “having killed a friend in a duel, / Having lived without a goal, without work / Until he was twenty-six, / Languishing in the inactivity of leisure / Without service, without a wife, without business, / Could not do anything.” Onegin’s “Russian blues” is a heavy “voluntary cross of the few.” He is not, contrary to Tatyana’s opinion, a “parody”; no, his feeling of disappointment is sincere, deep and difficult for him. He would be glad to awaken to an active life, but he cannot, at twenty-six years old he feels like a very old man. One can say that Onegin is constantly teetering on the brink of suicide, but this exit is also forbidden to him by the same laziness, although, without a doubt, he would greet death with relief. In the person of Onegin we see the tragedy of a man who can still do everything, but no longer wants anything. And “... he thinks, clouded with sadness: Why wasn’t I wounded by a bullet in the chest? Why am I not a frail old man, like this poor tax farmer? Why, like a Tula assessor, am I not lying in paralysis? Why don’t I feel even rheumatism in my shoulder? - ah, creator, I am young, the life in me is strong; what should I expect? melancholy, melancholy!..” (“Excerpts from Onegin’s Journey”).

Not at all like Lermontov’s Pechorin. Like the lyrical hero of Lermontov’s poetry, Pechorin frantically wants to live, but to live, and not to vegetate. To live means to do something great, but what exactly? And one goal does not seem indisputable to Pechorin; any value raises doubts. Pechorin's throwing is, in essence, a search for something that the hero himself, with a clear conscience, could put above himself, his personality and his freedom. But this “something” turns out to be elusive, forcing Pechorin to doubt the existence of transpersonal values ​​and to put himself above all else. And yet Pechorin thinks with bitterness that “it’s true that I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul... But I didn’t guess this purpose.” Pechorin’s ideological and moral searches are tragic in nature, since by the very structure of things they are doomed to failure, but his internal character is far from tragic, but, on the contrary, romantic and heroic. If Pechorin had found himself in the appropriate situation, been inspired by some great goal, he would undoubtedly have committed a heroic deed. He is not Onegin, who is cold and bored with living everywhere; Pechorin is hot, and it is boring for him to live only that petty and vain life that he is forced to lead, and he is not given another... Of all the “superfluous people,” Pechorin is most endowed with the energy of action, he is, so to speak, the least “superfluous.”

Subsequently, the “superfluous person” type degrades; traits of lethargy, apathy, lack of will, and inability to do anything become more and more apparent. Turgenevsky Rudin is still looking for a business, speaks of the need for high social activity, although he believes that at the time in which he lives, “ good word- also a matter." But Goncharov’s Ilya Ilyich Oblomov no longer even thinks about any activity, and only love for Olga Ilyinskaya can move him from his cozy sofa, and even then, in essence, not for long. Oblomov, who became a type of enormous general significance, echoed the line, according to Dobrolyubov, under the development of the type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature. Oblomov still retains the positive qualities that are so highly valued by Russian writers - a sensitive soul, an extraordinary mind, tenderness of feeling, etc. - but inertia, “Oblomovism” reduces these qualities to nothing, and talking about Oblomov as a hero of the time, perhaps, no need to. Moreover, in the middle of the 19th century in Russian historical scene a new type emerged, a hero of the new time - a democrat commoner.

Extra person

"The Extra Man", a socio-psychological type embodied in Russian literature of the 1st half of the 19th century; its main features: alienation from official Russia, from their native environment (usually noble), a feeling of intellectual and moral superiority over it and at the same time ≈ mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed. Name "L. h." came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850) by I. S. Turgenev; the type itself was formed earlier: the first completed incarnation was Onegin (“Eugene Onegin” by A. S. Pushkin), then Pechorin (“Hero of Our Time” by M. Yu. Lermontov), ​​Beltov (“Who is to Blame?” by A. I. Herzen ), Turgenev characters: Rudin (“Rudin”), Lavretsky (“The Noble Nest”), etc. Traits of the spiritual appearance of “L. h." (sometimes in a complicated and modified form) can be traced in the literature of the 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. (in the works of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, L. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Chekhov, up to A. I. Kuprin, V. V. Veresaev, M. Gorky). Typology "L. h." was reflected in the lyrics (Lermontov, N.P. Ogarev). In Western European literature “L. h." to a certain extent, close to the hero brought to life by a “long hangover” (see K. Marx, in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd edition, volume 8, p. 122) after the bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. , disappointment in social progress (“Adolphe” by B. Constant, “Confession of a son of the century” by A. de Musset). However, the contradictions of Russian reality, the contrast of “civilization and slavery” (see A.I. Herzen, Collected Works, vol. 7, 1956, p. 205), underdevelopment public life nominated "L. h." to a more prominent place, led to increased drama and intensity of his experiences. At the turn of the 50s-60s. revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov sharply criticized “L. h.”, his indecision and passivity, at the same time unlawfully reducing the content of the problem “L. h." to the topic of liberalism. With revaluation of “L. h." F. M. Dostoevsky also spoke out, condemning his individualism and isolation from the people’s soil. Literary image "L. h.”, arising as a rethinking romantic hero(J. Byron, Pushkin), developed under the sign of realistic portraiture, identifying the difference between the character and the author. Essential in the topic “L. h." there was a rejection of educational principles in the name of an impartial analysis of the “history of the human soul” (Lermontov), ​​which created the basis for deep psychologism and the subsequent gains of realism.

Lit.: Chernyshevsky N. G., Russian man on rendez-vous, Complete. collection soch., vol. 5, M., 1950; Goncharov I. A., “A million torments.” Collection soch., vol. 8, M., 1952.

Yu. V. Mann.

Wikipedia

Extra person

Extra person - literary hero, characteristic of the works of Russian writers of the 1840s and 1850s. Usually this is a person of significant abilities who cannot realize his talents in the official field of Nikolaev Russia.

Belonging to the upper classes of society, the superfluous person is alienated from noble class, despises bureaucracy, but, having no prospect of other self-realization, mostly spends his time in idle entertainment. This lifestyle fails to relieve his boredom, leading to dueling, gambling, and other self-destructive behavior. Typical traits of a superfluous person include “mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed, and, as a rule, social passivity.”

The name "superfluous man" was assigned to the type of disillusioned Russian nobleman after the publication of Turgenev's story "The Diary of a Superfluous Man" in 1850. The earliest and classic examples- Eugene Onegin by A.S. Pushkin, Chatsky from “Woe from Wit”, Pechorin by M. Lermontov - go back to the Byronic hero of the era of romanticism, to Rene Chateaubriand and Adolphe Constant. The further evolution of the type is represented by Herzen’s Beltov (“Who is to blame?”) and the heroes early works Turgenev (Rudin, Lavretsky, Chulkaturin).

Extra people often bring trouble not only to themselves, but also female characters who have the misfortune to love them. The negative side of superfluous people, associated with their displacement outside the social and functional structure of society, comes to the fore in the works of literary officials A.F. Pisemsky and I.A. Goncharov. The latter contrasts the idlers “hovering in the skies” with practical businessmen: Aduev Jr. with Aduev Sr., and Oblomov with Stolz. In "War and Peace" in the position of an extra man at the beginning of the century for a long time Pierre Bezukhov stays:

Pierre experienced the unfortunate ability of many, especially Russian people - the ability to see and believe in the possibility of good and truth, and to see too clearly the evil and lies of life in order to be able to take a serious part in it. Every area of ​​labor in his eyes was associated with evil and deception. Whatever he tried to be, whatever he undertook, evil and lies repelled him and blocked all paths of activity for him. Meanwhile, I had to live, I had to be busy. It was too scary to be under the yoke of these insoluble questions of life, and he gave himself up to his first hobbies just to forget them. He traveled to all sorts of societies, drank a lot, bought paintings and built, and most importantly read.

An extra person... Who is this - the one who no one needs? The one who does not find a place for himself in his country, in his time? Someone who can't achieve anything?

These images are somehow similar friend on each other and at the same time different, appeared in the texts of writers at the beginning of the 19th century. Onegin from the novel in verse by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, Pechorin from the novel by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, Chatsky from the comedy by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov... Isn’t it true, there is something in common in these three images?

The first of them is in chronological order- Chatsky. Let us remember: he returns to Famusov’s house after a long, many-year absence. Even before he appears on stage, we already know about sharp mind and the evil language of this hero (Sophia speaks about this). And, appearing on stage, he justifies her words. During his absence, Chatsky changed and became wiser, but society did not change and did not become wiser! And a conflict is brewing: society and Chatsky do not accept each other. And seeing that he does not have the slightest opportunity to express (and find those who understand!) his thoughts, his feelings and ideals here, Chatsky breaks with society. He is declared crazy and, indeed, blinkered secular people should have perceived the trends of the new worldview in exactly this way. The true conflict of the play is not in betrayed love, but in the clash of two different worldviews, where the power is obviously on the side of the more inert and older.

The next character is Evgeny Onegin. Since childhood, he has been poisoned by the hypocrisy of high society; he denies everything he can see. Unlike Chatsky, Onegin has neither aspirations nor lofty ideals. The ideal - love - comes to him only later, when everything has already been lost. But Onegin is an active person at his core. And if we sympathize with Chatsky, then Onegin at the end of the novel is capable of moral regeneration, the “late” Onegin is in some ways close to Griboyedov’s hero, it is no coincidence that Pushkin mentions this, comparing them as if in passing: “... and he ended up like Chatsky from the ship to the ball...,” he writes about Onegin. Last character from the gallery of “extra” people - Pechorin.

This image, in my opinion, is the most tragic. After all, if Chatsky initially strives for some ideals and believes in something, if Onegin comes to spiritual rebirth through suffering, then in Pechorin’s soul there is only emptiness and pain from unused potential. Pechorin sows evil, often deliberately (as in the case of the seduction of Princess Mary). In love he is incompetent (remember Vera), in creativity he is incapable of anything, although in his diaries he gives an unusually poetic description of nature...

So, the image of an extra person undergoes certain changes over time. If Chatsky is somewhere cheerful and cheerful, if Some kind of future can await Onegin, then Pechorin has no future...

The inability to use their powers is not the heroes' fault. It's the fault of time, the fault historical course events... These images inevitably had to appear in Russian literature of the early 19th century.

To some extent, this theme is the opposite of the depiction of the “little man”: if there one sees a justification for the fate of everyone, here, on the contrary, there is a categorical impulse “one of us is superfluous,” which can both relate to the assessment of the hero and come from the hero himself , and usually these two “directions” not only do not exclude each other, but also characterize one person: the “superfluous” one is the accuser of his neighbors.

"Extra person" is also a certain literary type. Literary types (types of heroes) are a collection of characters who are similar in their occupation, worldview and spiritual appearance. The spread of a particular literary type may be dictated by the very need of society to depict people with some stable set of qualities. The interest and favorable attitude towards them on the part of critics, the success of books in which such people are depicted, stimulate writers to “repeat” or “variate” any literary types. Often a new literary type arouses the interest of critics, who give it a name (“ noble robber", "Turgenev's woman", "an extra person", " small man", "nihilist", "tramp", "humiliated and insulted").

The main thematic features of "extra people". This is, first of all, a person potentially capable of any social action. She does not accept the “rules of the game” proposed by society, and is characterized by disbelief in the possibility of changing anything. “An extra person” is a contradictory personality, often in conflict with society and its way of life. This is also a hero who, of course, has a dysfunctional relationship with his parents, and is also unhappy in love. His position in society is unstable, contains contradictions: he is always at least in some way connected with the nobility, but - already in the period of decline, fame and wealth are rather a memory. He is placed in an environment that is somehow alien to him: a higher or lower environment, there is always a certain motive of alienation, which does not always immediately lie on the surface. The hero is moderately educated, but this education is rather incomplete, unsystematic; in a word, this is not a deep thinker, not a scientist, but a person with the “ability of judgment” to draw quick but immature conclusions. The crisis of religiosity is very important, often a struggle with churchliness, but often internal emptiness, hidden uncertainty, a habit of the name of God. Often - the gift of eloquence, writing skills, note-taking, or even writing poetry. There is always some pretension to be the judge of one's fellow men; a hint of hatred is required. In a word, the hero is a victim of life's canons.

However, despite all the seemingly apparent definiteness and clarity of the above criteria for assessing the “extra person,” the framework that allows us to speak with absolute certainty about the belonging of a particular character to a given thematic line is greatly blurred. It follows from this that the “superfluous person” cannot be “superfluous” entirely, but he can be considered both in line with other topics and merged with other characters belonging to other literary types. The material of the works does not allow us to evaluate Onegin, Pechorin and others only from the point of view of their social “benefit”, and the type of “superfluous person” itself is rather the result of understanding the named heroes from certain social and ideological positions.

This literary type, as it developed, acquired more and more new features and forms of display. This phenomenon is quite natural, since every writer saw the “extra person” as he was in his mind. All masters artistic word, who ever touched upon the theme of the “superfluous man”, not only added a certain “breath” of their era to this type, but also tried to unite all the contemporary social phenomena, and most importantly, the structure of life, in one image - the image of a hero of time. All this makes the type of “extra person” universal in its own way. This is precisely what allows us to consider the images of Chatsky and Bazarov as heroes who had a direct impact on this type. These images, undoubtedly, do not belong to the type of “superfluous person,” but at the same time they perform one important function: Griboyedov’s hero, in his confrontation with Famus’s society, makes it impossible peaceful resolution conflict between an extraordinary personality and an inert way of life, thereby pushing other writers to highlight this problem, and the image of Bazarov, the final (from my point of view) type of “superfluous person”, was no longer so much a “carrier” of time as its “side” phenomenon.

But before the hero himself could certify himself as a “superfluous person,” a more hidden appearance of this type had to occur. The first signs of this type were embodied in the image of Chatsky, the main character immortal comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". “Griboyedov is a “man of one book,” V.F. Khodasevich once remarked. “If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.” And, indeed, although in the history of drama Griboyedov is spoken of as the author of several wonderful and funny comedies and vaudevilles in their own way, written in collaboration with the leading playwrights of those years (N.I. Khmelnitsky, A.A. Shakhovsky, P.A. Vyazemsky), but it was “Woe from Wit” that turned out to be a one-of-a-kind work. This comedy for the first time broadly and freely depicted modern life and thus opened a new, realistic era in Russian literature. Creative history This play is extremely complex. Her plan apparently dates back to 1818. It was completed in the fall of 1824; censorship did not allow this comedy to be published or staged. Conservatives accused Griboedov of exaggerating satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author’s “brawling patriotism,” and in Chatsky they saw a clever “madman,” the embodiment of the “Figaro-Griboyedov” philosophy of life.

The above examples of critical interpretations of the play only confirm the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical issues, indicated in the very title of the comedy: “Woe from Wit.” Problems of intelligence and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and acting are posed and solved by Griboyedov using a variety of everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all characters, including minor, episodic and off-stage ones, are drawn into a discussion of questions about the relationship to the mind and various forms stupidity and madness. The main figure around whom all the diversity of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated was the smart “madman” Chatsky. The interpretation of his character and behavior, relationships with other characters depended overall rating author's intention, issues and artistic features comedies. The main feature of the comedy is the interaction of two plot-shaping conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sophia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house. I would like to note that for the hero himself, the paramount importance is not socio-ideological, but love conflict. After all, Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sophia, finding confirmation of his former love and, perhaps, getting married. It is interesting to see how the hero’s love experiences exacerbate Chatsky’s ideological confrontation Famusov society. At first, the main character does not even notice the usual vices of the environment where he finds himself, but sees only the comic aspects in it: “I am an eccentric of another miracle / Once I laugh, then I forget...”.

But Chatsky is not an “extra person.” He is only the forerunner of "superfluous people." This is confirmed, first of all, by the optimistic sound of the comedy's finale, where Chatsky remains with the right of historical choice given to him by the author. Consequently, Griboyedov’s hero can find (in the future) his place in life. Chatsky could have been among those who went out on December 14, 1825 Senate Square, and then his life would have been predetermined 30 years in advance: those who took part in the uprising returned from exile only after the death of Nicholas I in 1856. But something else could have happened. An irresistible disgust for the “abominations” of Russian life would have made Chatsky an eternal wanderer in a foreign land, a man without a homeland. And then - melancholy, despair, alienation, bile and, what is most terrible for such a hero-fighter - forced idleness and inactivity. But these are just readers’ guesses.

Chatsky, rejected by society, has the potential to find a use for himself. Onegin will no longer have such an opportunity. He is a “superfluous person” who has failed to realize himself, who “silently suffers from his striking resemblance to children this century"But before answering why, let's turn to the work itself. The novel "Eugene Onegin" is a work of amazing creative destiny. It was created over seven years - from May 1823 to September 1830. The novel was not written “in one breath”, but was composed of stanzas and chapters created at different times, in different circumstances, in different periods creativity. The work was interrupted not only by the twists of Pushkin’s fate (exile to Mikhailovskoe, the Decembrist uprising), but also by new plans, for the sake of which he more than once abandoned the text of “Eugene Onegin.” It seemed that history itself was not very kind to Pushkin’s work: from a novel about a contemporary and modern life how Pushkin conceived "Eugene Onegin", after 1825 it became a novel about a completely different historical era. And, if we take into account the fragmentation and intermittency of Pushkin’s work, then we can say the following: for the writer the novel was something like a huge “notebook” or a poetic “album”. Within seven seconds extra years these notes were replenished with sad “notes” of the heart, “observations” of a cold mind. extra person image literature

But “Eugene Onegin” is not only “a poetic album of living impressions of a talent playing with its wealth,” but also a “novel of life,” which has absorbed a huge amount of historical, literary, social and everyday material. This is the first innovation of this work. Secondly, what was fundamentally innovative was that Pushkin, largely relying on A.S. Griboedov’s work “Woe from Wit,” found a new type of problematic hero - the “hero of the time.” Evgeny Onegin became such a hero. His fate, character, relationships with people are determined by the totality of circumstances modern reality, extraordinary personal qualities and the range of “eternal”, universal problems that he faces. It is necessary to immediately make a reservation: Pushkin, in the process of working on the novel, set himself the task of demonstrating in the image of Onegin “that premature old age of the soul, which became the main feature younger generation". And already in the first chapter the writer notes social factors, which determined the character of the main character. The only thing in which Onegin “was a true genius,” that “he knew more firmly than all sciences,” as the Author notes, not without irony, was “the science of tender passion,” that is, the ability to love without loving, to imitate feelings, while remaining cold and calculating. However, Onegin is still interesting to Pushkin not as a representative of a common social and everyday type, the whole essence of which is exhausted positive characteristic, issued by secular rumor: “N.N. wonderful person"It was important for the writer to show this image in movement and development, so that later each reader would draw the proper conclusions and give a fair assessment of this hero.

First chapter - crucial moment in the fate of the main character, who managed to abandon stereotypes secular behavior, from the noisy, but internally empty “rite of life”. Thus, Pushkin showed how, out of a faceless crowd that demanded unconditional obedience, a bright, extraordinary personality suddenly emerged, capable of overthrowing the “burden” of secular conventions and “getting behind the bustle.”

For writers who paid attention to the theme of the “superfluous man” in their work, it is typical to “test” their hero with friendship, love, a duel, and death. Pushkin was no exception. The two tests that awaited Onegin in the village - the test of love and the test of friendship - showed that external freedom does not automatically entail liberation from false prejudices and opinions. In his relationship with Tatyana, Onegin showed himself to be a noble and mentally sensitive person. And you can’t blame the hero for not responding to Tatyana’s love: as you know, you can’t order your heart. Another thing is that Onegin listened not to the voice of his heart, but to the voice of reason. To confirm this, I will say that even in the first chapter, Pushkin noted in the main character a “sharp, chilled mind” and an inability to strong feelings. And it was precisely this mental disproportion that became the reason for the failed love of Onegin and Tatyana. Onegin also could not stand the test of friendship. And in this case, the cause of the tragedy was his inability to live a life of feeling. It is not without reason that the author, commenting on the hero’s state before the duel, notes: “He could have discovered his feelings, / Instead of bristling like an animal.” Both at Tatiana’s name day and before the duel with Lensky, Onegin showed himself to be a “ball of prejudice,” “a hostage to secular canons,” deaf to both the voice of his own heart and Lensky’s feelings. His behavior at the name day is the usual “secular anger”, and the duel is a consequence of the indifference and fear of the evil tongue of the inveterate brethren Zaretsky and the neighboring landowners. Onegin himself did not notice how he became a prisoner of his old idol - “public opinion”. After the murder of Lensky, Evgeny changed simply radically. It is a pity that only tragedy was able to open to him a previously inaccessible world of feelings.

Thus, Eugene Onegin becomes a “superfluous man.” Belonging to the light, he despises it. All he can do, as Pisarev noted, is “to give up on the boredom of secular life as an inevitable evil.” Onegin does not find his true purpose and place in life; he is burdened by his loneliness and lack of demand. In the words of Herzen, “Onegin... is an extra person in the environment where he is, but, not possessing the necessary strength of character, he cannot break out of it.” But, according to the writer himself, the image of Onegin is not finished. After all, the novel in verse essentially ends with the following question: “What will Onegin be like in the future?” Pushkin himself leaves the character of his hero open, thereby emphasizing Onegin’s very ability to abruptly change value guidelines and, I note, a certain readiness for action, for action. True, Onegin has practically no opportunities for realizing himself. But the novel does not answer the above question, it asks the reader it.

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

Bibliography:

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