New man in 19th century literature. Topic: The theme of the “little man” in Russian literature of the 19th century

Plan

Introduction

The problem of the “new man” in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

The theme of a strong man in the works of N.A. Nekrasova

The problem of being lonely and extra person"in secular society in poetry and prose by M.Yu. Lermontov

The problem of the “poor man” in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

Subject folk character in the tragedy of A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"

The theme of the people in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

The theme of society in the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs”

The problem of the “little man” in the stories and plays of A.P. Chekhov

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

people society Russian literature

Russian literature of the 19th century brought the whole world the works of such brilliant writers and poets as A.S. Griboyedov, A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, N.V. Gogol, I.A. Goncharov, A.N. Ostrovsky, I.S. Turgenev, N.A. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov and others.

In many works of these and other Russian authors of the 19th century, themes of man, personality, and people developed; the individual was opposed to society (“Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedov), the problem of the “superfluous (lonely) person” was demonstrated (“Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin, “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov), ​​“ poor man" (“Crime and Punishment” by F.M. Dostoevsky), problems of the people (“War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy) and others. In most of the works, within the framework of the development of the theme of man and society, the authors demonstrated the tragedy of the individual.

The purpose of this essay is to consider the works of Russian authors of the 19th century, to study their understanding of the problems of man and society, and the peculiarities of their perception of these problems. During the study we used critical literature, as well as works of writers and poets silver age.

The problem of the “new man” in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”

Consider, for example, the comedy by A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, which played an outstanding role in the socio-political and moral education of several generations of Russian people. She armed them to fight violence and tyranny, meanness and ignorance in the name of freedom and reason, in the name of the triumph of progressive ideas and true culture. In the image of the main character of Chatsky's comedy, Griboyedov for the first time in Russian literature showed a “new man”, inspired by sublime ideas, raising a rebellion against a reactionary society in defense of freedom, humanity, intelligence and culture, cultivating in himself a new morality, developing A New Look on the world and on human relations.

The image of Chatsky - new, smart, developed person- is opposed to the “Famus society”. In "Woe from Wit" all of Famusov's guests simply copy the customs, habits and outfits of French milliners and rootless visiting crooks who made a living on Russian bread. They all speak “a mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod” and are dumbfounded with delight at the sight of any visiting “Frenchman from Bordeaux.” Through the lips of Chatsky, Griboedov with the greatest passion exposed this unworthy servility to others and contempt for one’s own:

So that the unclean Lord destroys this spirit

Empty, slavish, blind imitation;

So that he would plant a spark in someone with a soul.

Who could, by word and example

Hold us like a strong rein,

From pathetic nausea, on the stranger's side.

Chatsky loves his people very much, but not “ Famusov society"landowners and officials, but the Russian people, hardworking, wise, powerful. The distinctive feature of Chatsky as a strong man, in contrast to the prim Famus society, is the fullness of his feelings. In everything he shows true passion, he is always ardent in soul. He is hot, witty, eloquent, full of life, impatient. At the same time, Chatsky is the only openly positive hero in Griboyedov’s comedy. But one cannot call him exceptional and lonely. He is young, romantic, ardent, he has like-minded people: for example, professors Pedagogical Institute, who, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, “practice in schisms and lack of faith,” these are “mad people” inclined to study, this is the princess’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, “a chemist and a botanist.” Chatsky defends human rights to freely choose his own activities: travel, live in the countryside, “focus his mind” on science or devote himself to “creative, high and beautiful arts.”

Chatsky defends " folk society"and ridicules the "Famus society", its life and behavior in his monologue:

Aren't these rich in robbery?

They found protection from the court in friends, in kinship.

Magnificent building chambers,

Where they spill out in feasts and extravagance.

We can conclude that Chatsky in the comedy represents the young thinking generation of Russian society, his the best part. A. I. Herzen wrote about Chatsky: “The image of Chatsky, sad, restless in his irony, trembling with indignation, devoted to a dreamy ideal, appears in last moment reign of Alexander I, on the eve of the uprising in Isaac's Square. This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter the Great and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...”

The theme of a strong man in the works of N.A. Nekrasova

The theme of a strong man is found in the lyrical works of N.A. Nekrasov, whose work many call an entire era of Russian literature and public life. The source of Nekrasov’s poetry was life itself. Nekrasov positions the problem of the moral choice of a person, a lyrical hero in his poems: the struggle between good and evil, the interweaving of the lofty, heroic with the empty, indifferent, ordinary. In 1856, Nekrasov’s poem “The Poet and the Citizen” was published in the Sovremennik magazine, in which the author asserted the social significance of poetry, its role and Active participation in life:

Go into the fire for the honor of the Fatherland,

For conviction, for love...

Go and die flawlessly

You won’t die in vain: the matter is solid,

When blood flows underneath.

Nekrasov in this poem simultaneously shows the power of high ideas, thoughts and duty of a citizen, man, fighter, and at the same time secretly condemns a person’s retreat from duty, service to the homeland and people. In the poem “Elegy” Nekrasov conveys the most sincere, personal sympathy for the people in their difficult lot. Nekrasov, knowing the life of the peasantry, saw true strength in the people and believed in their ability to renew Russia:

Will bear everything - and a wide, clear

With his breast he will pave the way for himself...

An eternal example of service to the Fatherland were people like N.A. Dobrolyubov (“In Memory of Dobrolyubov”), T.G. Shevchenko (“On the Death of Shevchenko”), V.G. Belinsky (“In Memory of Belinsky”).

Nekrasov himself was born in a simple serf-dominated village, where “something was pressing,” “my heart ached.” He remembers with pain his mother with her “proud, stubborn and beautiful soul,” who was forever given to “a gloomy ignorant... and the slaves bore her lot in silence.” The poet praises her pride and strength:

With your head open to the storms of life

All my life under an angry thunderstorm

You stood - with your chest

Protecting beloved children.

Central location in the lyrics of N.A. Nekrasov is occupied by a “living”, active, strong person, to whom passivity and contemplation are alien.

The problem of the “lonely and superfluous person” in secular society in the poetry and prose of M.Yu. Lermontov

The theme of a lonely person who struggles with society is well explored in the works of M.Yu. Lermontov (Valerik):

I thought: “Pitiful man.

What does he want!”, the sky is clear,

There's plenty of room for everyone under the sky,

But incessantly and in vain

He is the one who is at enmity- For what?"

In his lyrics, Lermontov strives to tell people about his pain, but all his knowledge and thoughts do not satisfy him. The older he gets, the more complex the world seems to him. He connects everything that happens to him with the fate of an entire generation. Lyrical hero of the famous “Duma” is hopelessly lonely, but he is also concerned about the fate of his generation. The more keenly he peers into life, the clearer it becomes for him that he himself cannot be indifferent to human troubles. It is necessary to fight evil, not run from it. Inaction reconciles with existing injustice, while simultaneously causing loneliness and the desire to live in a closed world of one’s own “I”. And, worst of all, it creates indifference to the world and people. Only in struggle does a person find himself. In “Duma,” the poet clearly says that it was inaction that destroyed his contemporaries.

In the poem “I look at the future with fear...” M.Yu. Lermontov openly condemns a society alien to feelings, an indifferent generation:

I look sadly at our generation!

Its coming- or empty, or dark...

Shamefully indifferent to good and evil,

At the beginning of the race we wither without a fight...

The theme of a lonely person in Lermontov’s work is by no means determined only by personal drama and difficult fate, but it largely reflects the state of Russian social thought during the period of reaction. That is why in Lermontov’s lyrics a lonely rebel, a Protestant, at war with “heaven and earth”, fighting for the freedom of the human person, anticipating his own premature death, occupied a significant place.

The poet contrasts himself, the “living” one, with the society in which he lives - with the “dead” generation. The author’s “life” is determined by the fullness of feelings, even simply the ability to feel, see, understand and fight, and the “death” of society is determined by indifference and narrow-minded thinking. In the poem “I go out alone on the road...” the poet is full of sad hopelessness; in this poem he reflects how far the disease of society has gone. The idea of ​​life as “a smooth path without a goal” gives rise to a feeling of the uselessness of desires - “what is the use of wishing in vain and forever?..” The line: “Both we hate and we love by chance” logically leads to the bitter conclusion: “For a while - not It costs work, but it’s impossible to love forever.”

Further, in the poem “Both Boring and Sad...” and in the novel “Hero of Our Time,” the poet, speaking about friendship, about higher spiritual aspirations, about the meaning of life, about passions, seeks to explore the reasons for dissatisfaction with his destiny. For example, Grushnitsky belongs to a secular society, characteristic feature which is lack of spirituality. Pechorin, accepting the conditions of the game, is, as it were, “above society,” knowing full well that there “are flashing images of soulless people, decently pulled masks.” Pechorin is not only a reproach to all the best people of the generation, but also a call to civic feat.

A strong, independent, lonely and even free personality is symbolized by the poem by M.Yu. Lermontov "Sail":

Alas!- he is not looking for happiness

And he’s not running out of happiness!

IN famous novel M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” solves the problem of why smart and active people do not find use for their remarkable abilities and “wither without a fight” at the very beginning life path? Lermontov answers this question with the life story of Pechorin, young man, belonging to the generation of the 30s of the XIX century. In the image of Pechorin, the author presented an artistic type that absorbed a whole generation of young people at the beginning of the century. In the preface to “Pechorin’s Journal,” Lermontov writes: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more curious and not more useful than history a whole people..."

In this novel, Lermontov reveals the theme of the “superfluous man,” because Pechorin is the “superfluous man.” His behavior is incomprehensible to others, because it does not correspond to their everyday life, common in noble society point of view on life. With all the differences in appearance and character traits, Eugene Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the hero of the comedy A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” Chatsky, and Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov belong to the type of “superfluous people,” that is, people for whom there was neither place nor work in the society around them.

Are there obvious similarities between Pechorin and Onegin? Yes. They are both representatives of high secular society. Much in common can be noted in the history and youth of these heroes: first, the pursuit of secular pleasures, then disappointment in them, an attempt to engage in science, reading books and cooling off from them, the same boredom that possesses them. Like Onegin, Pechorin is intellectually superior to the nobles surrounding him. Both heroes are typical representatives of thinking people of their time, critical of life and people.

Then their similarities end and their differences begin. Pechorin differs from Onegin in his spiritual way of life; he lives in different socio-political conditions. Onegin lived in the 20s, before the Decembrist uprising, at a time of socio-political revival. Pechorin is a man of the 30s, when the Decembrists were defeated, and the revolutionary democrats as a social force had not yet declared themselves.

Onegin could have gone to the Decembrists, Pechorin was deprived of such an opportunity. Pechorin's situation is all the more tragic because he is by nature more gifted and deeper than Onegin. This talent is manifested in Pechorin's deep mind, strong passions and steely will. The hero’s sharp mind allows him to correctly judge people, about life, and be critical of himself. The characteristics he gives to people are quite accurate. Pechorin's heart is capable of feeling deeply and strongly, although outwardly he remains calm, since “the fullness and depth of feelings and thoughts does not allow wild impulses.” Lermontov shows in his novel a strong, strong-willed personality, thirsty for activity.

But for all his talent and wealth of spiritual strength, Pechorin, according to his own fair definition, is a “moral cripple.” His character and all his behavior are distinguished by extreme inconsistency, which even affects his appearance, which, like all people, reflects the inner appearance of a person. Pechorin's eyes "did not laugh when he laughed." Lermontov says that: “This is a sign or evil temper, or deep, constant sadness..."

Pechorin, on the one hand, is skeptical, on the other, he has a thirst for activity; the mind in him struggles with feelings; He is both an egoist and at the same time capable of deep feelings. Left without Vera, unable to catch up with her, “he fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.” Lermontov shows in Pechorin the tragedy of an individual, a “moral cripple,” an intelligent and strong person, whose most terrible contradiction lies in the presence of “immense powers of the soul” and at the same time committing small, insignificant actions. Pechorin strives to “love the whole world,” but brings people only evil and misfortune; his aspirations are noble, but his feelings are not high; he longs for life, but suffers from complete hopelessness, from the awareness of his doom.

To the question of why everything is this way and not otherwise, the hero himself answers in the novel: “My soul is spoiled by the light,” that is, by the secular society in which he lived and from which he could not escape. But the point here is not only in the empty noble society. In the 20s, the Decembrists left this society. But Pechorin, as already mentioned, is a man of the 30s, a typical representative of his time. This time presented him with a choice: “either decisive inaction, or empty activity.” Energy is seething within him, he wants active action, he understands that he could have a “high purpose.”

The tragedy of noble society is again in its indifference, emptiness, and inactivity.

The tragedy of Pechorin’s fate is that he never found the main goal worthy of his life, since it was impossible to apply his strength to a socially useful cause in his time.

The problem of the “poor man” in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

Let us now turn to the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". In this work, the author draws the reader’s attention to the problem of the “poor man.” In the article “Downtrodden People” N.A. Dobrolyubov wrote: “In the works of F.M. Dostoevsky we find one common feature, more or less noticeable in everything he wrote. This is pain about a person who recognizes himself as unable or, finally, not even entitled to be a person, a real, complete independent person in himself.”

F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” is a book about the life of disadvantaged poor people, a book that reflects the writer’s pain for the desecrated honor of a “little” person. Readers are presented with pictures of the suffering of “little” people. Their lives are spent in dirty closets.

Well-fed Petersburg looks coldly and indifferently at its disadvantaged people. Tavern and street life interferes in the destinies of people, leaving an imprint on their experiences and actions. Here is a woman throwing herself into the canal... And here is a drunk fifteen-year-old girl walking along the boulevard... A typical shelter for the capital's poor is the miserable room of the Marmeladovs. Seeing this room and the poverty of the inhabitants, the bitterness with which Marmeladov several hours ago told Raskolnikov the story of his life, the story of his family, becomes understandable. Marmeladov's story about himself in a dirty tavern is a bitter confession " dead person, crushed by the unfair pressure of circumstances.”

But Marmeladov’s very vice is explained by the immensity of his misfortunes, the awareness of his deprivation and humiliation that poverty brings him. “Dear sir,” he began almost solemnly, “poverty is not a vice, it is the truth. I know that drunkenness is not a virtue, and this is even more so. But poverty, dear sir, poverty is a vice, sir. In poverty you still retain your nobility of innate feelings, but in poverty, no one ever does.” Marmeladov is a poor man who has “nowhere to go.” Marmeladov slides further and further down, but even in his fall he retains the best human impulses, the ability to feel strongly, which are expressed, for example, in his plea for forgiveness to Katerina Ivanovna and Sonya.

All her life, Katerina Ivanovna has been looking for what and how to feed her children, enduring poverty and deprivation. Proud, passionate, adamant, left a widow with three children, she, under the threat of hunger and poverty, was forced, “crying and sobbing and wringing her hands,” to marry a nondescript official, a widower with a fourteen-year-old daughter Sonya, who, in turn, married Katerina Ivanovna out of a feeling of pity and compassion. Poverty overwhelms the Marmeladov family, but they fight, although without a chance. Dostoevsky himself says about Katerina Ivanovna: “And Katerina Ivanovna was not one of the downtrodden, she could be completely killed by circumstances, but it was impossible to kill her morally, that is, to scare her and subjugate her will.” This desire to feel like a full-fledged person forced Katerina Ivanovna to organize a luxurious wake.

Next to the feeling of self-respect, another bright feeling lives in Katerina Ivanovna’s soul - kindness. She tries to justify her husband, saying: “look, Rodion Romanovich, she found a gingerbread cockerel in his pocket: he’s walking dead drunk, but he remembers about the children”... She, holding Sonya tightly, as if with her own breast wants to protect her from Luzhin’s accusations , says: “Sonya! Sonya! I don’t believe it!”... She understands that after the death of her husband, her children are doomed to starvation, that fate is unkind to them. So Dostoevsky refutes the theory of consolation and humility, which supposedly leads everyone to happiness and well-being, just as Katerina Ivanovna rejects the consolation of the priest. Her end is tragic. Unconscious, she runs to the general to ask for help, but “their lordships are having dinner” and the doors are closed in front of her, there is no longer hope for salvation, and Katerina Ivanovna decides to take the last step: she goes to beg. The scene of the poor woman's death is impressive. The words with which she dies, “they drove away the nag,” echo the image of a tortured, beaten to death horse that Raskolnikov once dreamed of. The image of a strained horse by F. Dostoevsky, N. Nekrasov’s poem about a beaten horse, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s fairy tale “The Horse” - this is the generalized, tragic image of people tortured by life. The face of Katerina Ivanovna captures a tragic image of grief, which is a vivid protest of the author’s free soul. This image fits in line eternal images world literature, the tragedy of the existence of the outcast is embodied in the image of Sonechka Marmeladova.

This girl also has nowhere to go and run in this world, according to Marmeladov, “how much can a poor but honest girl earn by honest labor.” Life itself answers this question in the negative. And Sonechka goes to sell herself in order to save her family from hunger, because there is no way out, she has no right to commit suicide.

Her image is contradictory. On the one hand, he is immoral and negative. On the other hand, if Sonya had not violated moral standards, she would have doomed the children to starvation. Thus, the image of Sonya turns into a generalizing image of eternal victims. Therefore Raskolnikov exclaims these famous words: “Sonechka Marmeladova! Eternal Sonechka...

F.M. Dostoevsky shows Sonechka’s humiliated position in this world: “Sonya sat down, almost trembling with fear, and timidly looked at both ladies.” And it is this timid, downtrodden creature who becomes a strong moral mentor, F.M. speaks through his lips. Dostoevsky! The main thing in Sonya's character is humility, all-forgiving Christian love for people, and religiosity. Eternal humility and faith in God give her strength and help her live. Therefore, it is she who forces Raskolnikov to confess to the crime, showing that the true meaning of life is suffering. The image of Sonechka Marmeladova was the only light of F.M. Dostoevsky in the general darkness of hopelessness, in the same empty noble society, in the entire novel.

In the novel “Crime and Punishment” by F.M. Dostoevsky creates an image of pure love for people, an image of eternal human suffering, an image of a doomed victim, each of which is embodied in the image of Sonechka Marmeladova. Sonya's fate is the fate of a victim of abominations, deformities of the proprietary system, in which a woman becomes an object of purchase and sale. A similar fate was in store for Duna Raskolnikova, who had to follow the same path, and Raskolnikov knew it. In very detail, psychologically correctly depicting the “poor people” in society, F.M. Dostoevsky pursues the main idea of ​​the novel: we cannot continue to live like this. These “poor people” are Dostoevsky’s protest to that time and society, a bitter, difficult, courageous protest.

The theme of a national character in the tragedy of A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"

Let us further consider the tragedy of A.N. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm". Before us is Katerina, who alone is given the opportunity in “The Thunderstorm” to retain the fullness of the viable principles of folk culture. Katerina’s worldview harmoniously combines Slavic pagan antiquity with Christian culture, spiritualizing and morally enlightening old pagan beliefs. Katerina’s religiosity is unthinkable without sunrises and sunsets, dewy grasses in flowering meadows, birds flying, butterflies fluttering from flower to flower. In the heroine’s monologues, familiar Russian motifs come to life folk songs. In Katerina’s worldview, the spring of primordially Russian song culture beats and acquires new life Christian beliefs. The heroine experiences the joy of life in the temple, bows to the sun in the garden, among the trees, grass, flowers, morning freshness, awakening nature: “Or early in the morning I’ll go to the garden, the sun is just rising, I’ll fall on my knees, I pray and cry, and I don’t know what I’m praying for and why I’m crying; That’s how they’ll find me.” In Katerina’s consciousness, ancient pagan myths that have become part of the flesh and blood of the Russian folk character awaken, and deep layers of Slavic culture are revealed.

But in the Kabanovs’ house, Katerina finds herself in the “dark kingdom” of spiritual unfreedom. “Everything here seems to be from under captivity,” a stern religious spirit has settled here, democracy has evaporated here, the cheerful generosity of the people’s worldview has disappeared. The wanderers in Kabanikha’s house are different, from among those bigots who “due to their weakness did not walk far, but heard a lot.” And they talk about the “end times”, about the coming end of the world. These wanderers are alien to Katerina’s pure world, they are in the service of Kabanikha, and that means they can have nothing in common with Katerina. She is pure, dreaming, a believer, and in the Kabanovs’ house “she almost can’t breathe”... It becomes difficult for the heroine, because Ostrovsky shows her as a woman who is alien to compromise, who longs for universal truth and will not agree to anything less.

The theme of the people in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Let us also remember that in 1869, from the pen of L.N. Tolstoy published one of the brilliant works of world literature - the epic novel War and Peace. In this work main character- not Pechorin, not Onegin, not Chatsky. The main character of the novel “War and Peace” is the people. “For a work to be good, you must love the main, fundamental idea in it. In “War and Peace” I loved popular thought, as a result of the War of 1812,” said L.N. Tolstoy.

So, the main character of the novel is the people. The people who rose up in 1812 to defend their Motherland and defeated a huge enemy army led by a hitherto invincible commander in the war of liberation. Major events The novel is assessed by Tolstoy from a popular point of view. The writer expresses the popular assessment of the war of 1805 in the words of Prince Andrei: “Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz?.. We had no need to fight there: we wanted to leave the battlefield as quickly as possible.” The Patriotic War of 1812 for Russia was a just, national liberation war. Napoleonic hordes crossed the borders of Russia and headed towards its center - Moscow. Then the whole people came out to fight the invaders. Ordinary Russian people - the peasants Karp and Vlas, the elder Vasilisa, the merchant Ferapontov, the sexton and many others - met the Napoleonic army with hostility and showed due resistance to it. The feeling of love for the Motherland gripped the entire society.

L.N. Tolstoy says that “for the Russian people there could be no question whether things would be good or bad under the rule of the French.” The Rostovs leave Moscow, giving the carts to the wounded and leaving their home to the mercy of fate; Princess Marya Bolkonskaya leaves her native nest Bogucharovo. Dressed in a simple dress, Count Pierre Bezukhov arms himself and remains in Moscow, intending to kill Napoleon.

With all this, not all people united in the face of war. Individual representatives of the bureaucratic-aristocratic society, who in the days of national disaster acted for selfish and selfish purposes, evoke contempt. The enemy was already in Moscow, when court life in St. Petersburg was going on as before: “There were the same exits, balls, the same French theater, the same interests of service and intrigue.” The patriotism of the Moscow aristocrats lay in the fact that instead of the French They ate Russian cabbage soup, and for speaking French they were fined.

Tolstoy angrily denounces the Moscow governor-general and commander-in-chief of the Moscow garrison, Count Rostopchin, who, due to his arrogance and cowardice, was unable to organize reinforcements for Kutuzov’s heroically fighting army. The author speaks with indignation about careerists - foreign generals like Wolzogen. They gave all of Europe to Napoleon, and then “they came to teach us - glorious teachers!” Among the staff officers, Tolstoy identifies a group of people who want only one thing: “... the greatest benefits and pleasures for themselves... The drone population of the army.” These people include Nesvitsky, Drubetsky, Berg, Zherkov and others.

To these people L.N. Tolstoy contrasts the common people, who played the main and decisive role in the war against the French conquerors. The patriotic feelings that gripped the Russians gave rise to the general heroism of the defenders of the Motherland. Talking about the battles near Smolensk, Andrei Bolkonsky rightly noted that Russian soldiers “fought there for the Russian land for the first time,” that the troops had such a spirit as He (Bolkonsky) never saw that Russian soldiers “repelled the French for two days in a row, and that this success increased our strength tenfold.”

“People's thought” is felt even more fully in those chapters of the novel that depict heroes close to the people or striving to understand them: Tushin and Timokhin, Natasha and Princess Marya, Pierre and Prince Andrei - all those who can be called “Russian souls.”

Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov as a man who embodied the spirit of the people. Kutuzov is a truly people's commander. Thus, expressing the needs, thoughts and feelings of the soldiers, he appears during the review near Braunau, and during Battle of Austerlitz, and especially during the Patriotic War of 1812. “Kutuzov,” writes Tolstoy, “with all his Russian being knew and felt what every Russian soldier felt.” Kutuzov is one of our own for Russia, a dear person, he is the bearer folk wisdom, an exponent of popular feelings. He is distinguished by “an extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of occurring phenomena, and its source lies in the national feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength.” Only his recognition of this feeling made the people choose him, against the will of the tsar, as commander-in-chief of the Russian army. And only this feeling brought him to the height from which he directed all his strength not to kill and exterminate people, but to save and feel sorry for them.

Both soldiers and officers are all fighting not for the crosses of St. George, but for the Fatherland. The defenders of General Raevsky’s battery are amazing with their moral fortitude. Tolstoy shows extraordinary tenacity and courage of soldiers and the best part of officers. At the center of the story guerrilla warfare stands the image of Tikhon Shcherbaty, who embodies the best national traits Russian people. Standing next to him is Platon Karataev, who in the novel “personifies everything that is Russian, folk, and good.” Tolstoy writes: “... good for those people who, in a moment of trial... with simplicity and ease, pick up the first club they come across and nail it with it until in their soul the feelings of insult and revenge are replaced by contempt and pity.”

Speaking about the results of the Battle of Borodino, Tolstoy calls the victory of the Russian people over Napoleon a moral victory. Tolstoy glorifies the people, who, having lost half the army, stood just as menacingly as at the beginning of the battle. And as a result, the people achieved their goal: motherland was cleared by Russian people from foreign invaders.

The theme of society in the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Gentlemen Golovlevs”

Let us also recall such a novel about public life as “The Golovlevs” by M.E. Satykova-Shchedrin. The novel presents a noble family, which reflects the decay of bourgeois society. As in bourgeois society, in this family all moral relations, family ties, and moral standards of behavior collapse.

At the center of the novel is the head of the family, Arina Petrovna Golovleva, an imperious landowner, a purposeful, strong housewife, spoiled by her power over her family and those around her. She herself single-handedly disposes of the estate, dispossessing the serfs, turning her husband into a “hanger-on,” crippling the lives of “hateful children” and corrupting her “favorite” children. She increases wealth without knowing why, implying that she does everything for the family, for the children. But she constantly repeats about duty, family, children, rather in order to hide her indifferent attitude towards them. For Arina Petrovna, the word family is just an empty sound, although it never left her lips. She took care of her family, but at the same time forgot about it. The thirst for hoarding, greed killed the instincts of motherhood in her, all she could give to her children was indifference. And they began to answer her in kind. They did not show her gratitude for all the work that she did “for them.” But, always immersed in troubles and calculations, Arina Petrovna forgot about this thought.

All this, together with time, morally corrupts all the people close to her, like herself. The eldest son Stepan became an alcoholic and died a failure. The daughter, whom Arina Petrovna wanted to turn into a free accountant, ran away from home and soon died, abandoned by her husband. Arina Petrovna took her two little twin girls to live with her. The girls grew up and became provincial actresses. Also left to their own devices, they ended up being embroiled in a scandalous lawsuit, and subsequently one of them poisoned herself, the second did not have the courage to drink the poison, and she buried herself alive in Golovlevo.

Then the abolition of serfdom dealt a strong blow to Arina Petrovna: knocked off her usual rhythm, she becomes weak and helpless. She divides the estate between her favorite sons Porfiry and Pavel, leaving only capital for herself. The cunning Porfiry managed to defraud his mother of capital. Then Paul soon died, leaving his property to his hated brother Porfiry. And now we see clearly that everything for which Arina Petrovna subjected herself and her loved ones to hardship and torment all her life turned out to be nothing more than a ghost.

The problem of the “little man” in the stories and plays of A.P. Chekhov

A.P. also speaks about the degradation of man under the influence of the passion for profit. Chekhov in his story “Ionych,” which was written in 1898: “How are we doing here? No way. We get old, we get fatter, we get worse. Day and night - a day away, life passes dimly, without impressions, without thoughts...”

The hero of the story “Ionych” is a familiar, narrow-minded fat man, whose peculiarity is that he is smart, unlike many others. Dmitry Ionych Startsev understands how insignificant the thoughts of the people around him are, who happily talk only about food. But at the same time, Ionych didn’t even have the thought that he had to fight this way of life. He didn't even have the desire to fight for his love. In fact, it is difficult to call his feeling for Ekaterina Ivanovna love, because it passed three days after her refusal. Startsev thinks with pleasure about her dowry, and Ekaterina Ivanovna’s refusal only offends him, and nothing more.

The hero is possessed by mental laziness, which gives rise to absence strong feelings and experiences. Over time, this mental laziness evaporates all that is good and sublime from Startsev’s soul. Only the passion for profit began to possess him. At the end of the story, it was the passion for money that extinguished the last light in Ionych’s soul, lit by the words of the already adult and intelligent Ekaterina Ivanovna. Chekhov writes with sadness that a strong light human soul It can only extinguish the passion for money, simple pieces of paper.

A.P. writes about a person, about a little person. Chekhov in his stories: “Everything in a person should be beautiful: his face, his clothes, his soul, and his thoughts.” All writers of Russian literature treated the little man differently. Gogol called for loving and pitying the “little man” as he is. Dostoevsky - to see the personality in him. Chekhov looks for the guilty not in the society that surrounds a person, but in the person himself. He says that the reason for the little man’s humiliation is himself. Consider Chekhov's story "The Man in a Case." His hero Belikov himself has sunk because he is afraid of real life and runs away from it. He is an unhappy person who poisons the lives of both himself and the people around him. For him, prohibitions are clear and unambiguous, but permissions cause fear and doubt: “No matter what happens.” Under his influence, everyone began to be afraid to do something: speak loudly, make acquaintances, help the poor, etc.

With their cases, people like Belikov kill all living things. And he was able to find his ideal only after death; it is in the coffin that his facial expression becomes cheerful, peaceful, as if he had finally found that case from which he could no longer get out.

The insignificant philistine life destroys everything good in a person if there is no internal protest in him. This is what happened with Startsev and Belikov. Next, Chekhov strives to show the mood, the life of entire classes, layers of society. This is what he does in his plays. In the play "Ivanov" Chekhov again turns to the theme of the little man. The main character of the play is an intellectual who made huge life plans, but helplessly lost to the obstacles that life itself put in front of him. Ivanov is a little man who, as a result of an internal breakdown, turns from an active worker into a broken loser.

In the following plays by A.P. Chekhov's "Three Sisters", "Uncle Vanya" the main conflict develops in the clash of morally pure, bright personalities with the world of ordinary people, greed, avarice, cynicism. And then people appear who replace all this everyday vulgarity. This is Anya and Petya Trofimov from the play " The Cherry Orchard" In this play A.P. Chekhov shows that not all little people necessarily turn into broken, small and limited people. Petya Trofimov, eternal student, belongs to the student movement. He has been hiding with Ranevskaya for several months. This young man is strong, smart, proud, honest. He believes that he can correct his situation only through honest, constant work. Petya believes that his society and homeland have a bright future, although he does not know the exact lines of change in life. Petya is only proud of his disdain for money. The young man influences the formation life positions Ani, daughter of Ranevskaya. She is honest, beautiful in her feelings and behavior. With such pure feelings, with faith in the future, a person no longer has to be small, this already makes him big. Chekhov also writes about good (“great”) people.

So, in his story “The Jumper” we see how Doctor Dymov, good man, a doctor who lives for the happiness of others dies while saving someone else's child from illness.

Conclusion

This essay examined such works of Russian writers of the Silver Age as “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky, “Hero of Our Time” by Lermontov, “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin, “War and Peace” by Tolstoy, “Crime and Punishment” by Dostoevsky and others. The theme of man and people in the lyrics of Lermontov, Nekrasov, and Chekhov's plays is explored.

To summarize, it should be noted that in Russian literature of the 19th century the theme of man, personality, people, society is found in almost every work of the great writers of that time. Russian authors write about the problems of the extra, new, small, poor, strong, different people. Often in their works we encounter the tragedy of a strong personality or a small person; with the opposition of a strong “living” personality to an indifferent “dead” society. At the same time, we often read about the strength and hard work of the Russian people, to whom many writers and poets are especially touching.

In the literature of the 1850-1860s, a whole series of novels emerged, called novels about “new people”.
By what criteria is a person classified as a “new people”? First of all, the emergence of “new people” is determined by the political and historical situation of society. They are representatives of a new era, therefore, they have a new perception of time, space, new tasks, new relationships. Hence the prospect for the development of these people in the future. So, in literature, “new people” “begin” with Turgenev’s novels “Rudin” (1856), “On the Eve” (1859), “Fathers and Sons” (1962).
At the turn of the 30s and 40s, after the defeat of the Decembrists, ferment occurred in Russian society. One part of him was overcome by despair and pessimism, the other by scrupulous activity, expressed in attempts to continue the work of the Decembrists. Soon public thought takes a more formalized direction - a propaganda direction. It was this idea of ​​society that Turgenev expressed in the type of Rudin. At first the novel was called “Nature of Brilliant.” “Genius” in this case means insight, the desire for truth (the task of this hero is, indeed, more moral than social), his task is to sow “reasonable, good, eternal”, and he fulfills this with honor, but he lacks nature , lack the strength to overcome obstacles.
Turgenev also touches on such a painful issue for Russians as the choice of activity, fruitful and useful activity. Yes, every time has its own heroes and tasks. The society of that time needed Rudina enthusiasts and propagandists. But no matter how harshly the descendants accuse their fathers of “vulgarity and doctrinaire,” the Rudins are people of the moment, of a specific situation, they are rattles. But when a person grows up, there is no need for rattles...
The novel “On the Eve” (1859) is somewhat different; it can even be called “intermediate”. This is the time between Rudin and Bazarov (again a matter of time!). The title of the book speaks for itself. On the eve of... what?.. Elena Stakhova is at the center of the novel. She is waiting for someone... she must love someone... Who? Elena's internal state reflects the situation of the time; it covers the whole of Russia. What does Russia need? Why did neither the Shubins nor the Bersenyevs, seemingly worthy people, attract her attention? And this happened because they lacked active love for the Motherland, complete dedication to it. That is why Elena was attracted to Insarov, who was fighting for the liberation of his land from Turkish oppression. Insarov's example is a classic example, a man for all times. After all, there is nothing new in it (for unfailing service to the Motherland is not new at all!), but it is precisely this well-forgotten old thing that Russian society lacked...
In 1862, Turgenev's most controversial, most poignant novel, Fathers and Sons, was published. Of course, all three novels are political, novels of debate, novels of controversy. But in the novel “Fathers and Sons” this is especially well noticed, for it manifests itself specifically in the “fights” of Bazarov with Kirsanov. “Fights” turn out to be so irreconcilable because they present the conflict of two eras - the noble and the common.
The acute political nature of the novel is also shown in the specific social conditioning of the “new man” type. Evgeny Bazarov is a nihilist, a collective type. Its prototypes were Dobrolyubov, Preobrazhensky, and Pisarev.
It is also known that nihilism was very fashionable among young people of the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. Of course, denial is the path to self-destruction. But what caused it, this unconditional denial of all living life, Bazarov gives a very good answer to this:
“And then we realized that chatting, just chatting about our ulcers, is not worth the effort, that it only leads to vulgarity and doctrinaire; we saw that our clever people, the so-called progressive people and accusers, are no good, that we are engaged in nonsense... when it comes to our daily bread...” So Bazarov took up the task of obtaining “daily bread.” It's not for nothing that he doesn't tie his
profession with politics, but becomes a doctor and “tinkers with people.” In Rudin there was no efficiency; in Bazarovo this efficiency appeared. That's why he is head and shoulders above everyone else in the novel. Because he found himself, raised himself, and did not live the life of an empty flower, like Pavel Petrovich, and, moreover, he did not “spent day after day,” like Anna Sergeevna.
The question of time and space is posed in a new way. Bazarov says: “Let it (time) depend on me.” Thus, this stern man turns to such a universal idea: “Everything depends on the person!”
The idea of ​​space is shown through the internal liberation of the individual. After all, personal freedom is, first of all, going beyond one’s own “I”, and this can only happen by giving oneself to something. Bazarov devotes himself to the cause, the Motherland (“Russia needs me...”), and feeling.
He feels enormous strength, but he cannot do something the way he wants. That's why he withdraws into himself, becomes bilious, irritated, gloomy.
While working on this work, Turgenev gave great progress to this image and the novel acquired a philosophical meaning.
What was this “iron man” missing? Not only was there not enough general education, Bazarov did not want to come to terms with life, did not want to accept it as it is. He did not recognize human impulses in himself. This is his tragedy. He crashed against people - that’s the tragedy of this image. But it’s not for nothing that the novel has such a reconciling ending, it’s not for nothing that Evgeniy Bazarov’s grave is holy. There was something natural and deeply sincere in his actions. This is what comes to Bazarov. The direction of nihilism has not justified itself in history. It formed the basis of socialism... The novel-continuation, the novel-response to Turgenev’s work was the novel “What is to be done?” N. G. Chernyshevsky.
If Turgenev created collective types generated by social cataclysms and showed their development in this society, then Chernyshevsky not only continued them, but also gave a detailed answer, creating a programmatic work “What is to be done?”
If Turgenev did not indicate the background of Bazarov, then Chernyshevsky gave a complete story of the life of his heroes.
What distinguishes Chernyshevsky’s “new people”?
Firstly, these are commoner democrats. And they, as you know, represent the period of bourgeois development of society. The emerging class creates its own new, creates a historical foundation, and therefore new relationships, new perceptions. The theory of “reasonable egoism” was an expression of these historical and moral tasks.
Chernyshevsky creates two types of “new people”. These are “special” people (Rakhmetov) and “ordinary” (Vera Pavlovna, Lopukhov, Kirsanov). Thus, the author solves the problem of reorganizing society. Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Rodalskaya reorganize it with creative, constructive, harmonious work, through self-education and self-education. Rakhmetov - “revolutionary”, although this path is shown vaguely. That is why the question of time immediately arises. That is why Rakhmetov is a man of the future, and Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna are people of the present. For Chernyshevsky’s “new people”, internal personal freedom comes first. “New people” create their own ethics, solve moral and psychological issues. Self-analysis (unlike Bazarov) is the main thing that distinguishes them. They believe that the power of reason will instill in a person “the good and the eternal.” The author looks at this issue in the formation of the hero from the initial forms of struggle against family despotism to preparation and “change of scenery.”
Chernyshevsky argues that a person must be a harmonious person. So, for example, Vera Pavlovna (the issue of emancipation), being a wife, mother, has the opportunity for social life, the opportunity to study, and most importantly, she has cultivated in herself a desire to work.
Chernyshevsky’s “new people” relate to each other “in a new way,” that is, the author says that these are completely normal relationships, but in the conditions of that time they were considered special and new. The heroes of the novel treat each other with respect, delicately, even if they have to step over themselves. They are above their ego. And the “theory of rational egoism” that they created is only deep introspection. Their selfishness is public, not personal.
Rudin, Bazarov, Lopukhov, Kirsanovs. There were - and there were no. Let each of them have their own shortcomings, their own theories that time has not justified. But these people gave themselves to their Motherland, Russia, they rooted for it, suffered, so they are “new people.”

"Truly, this was the Golden Age of our literature,

the period of her innocence and bliss!.."

M. A. Antonovich

M. Antonovich in his article called the “golden age of literature” early XIX century - the period of creativity of A. S. Pushkin and N. V. Gogol. Subsequently, this definition began to characterize the literature of the entire 19th century - right up to the works of A.P. Chekhov and L.N. Tolstoy.

What are the main features of Russian classical literature this period?

Sentimentalism, fashionable at the beginning of the century, gradually fades into the background - the formation of romanticism begins, and from the middle of the century realism rules the roost.

New types of heroes appear in literature: the “little man”, who most often dies under the pressure of the accepted foundations of society, and the “superfluous man” - this is a string of images, starting with Onegin and Pechorin.

Continuing the traditions of satirical depiction, proposed by M. Fonvizin, in the literature of the 19th century, satirical depiction of vices modern society becomes one of the central motives. Satire often takes grotesque forms. Vivid examples— Gogol’s “The Nose” or “The History of a City” by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Another one distinguishing feature literature of this period had an acute social orientation. Writers and poets are increasingly turning to socio-political topics, often plunging into the field of psychology. This leitmotif permeates the works of I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy. Appears new form- Russian realistic novel, with its deep psychologism, severe criticism of reality, irreconcilable hostility with existing foundations and loud calls for renewal.

Well main reason, which prompted many critics to call the 19th century the golden age of Russian culture: the literature of this period, despite a number of unfavorable factors, had a powerful influence on the development of world culture as a whole. Absorbing all the best that was offered world literature, Russian literature was able to remain original and unique.

Russian writers of the 19th century

V.A. Zhukovsky- Pushkin’s mentor and his Teacher. It is Vasily Andreevich who is considered the founder of Russian romanticism. We can say that Zhukovsky “prepared” the ground for Pushkin’s bold experiments, since he was the first to expand the scope poetic word. After Zhukovsky, the era of democratization of the Russian language began, which Pushkin so brilliantly continued.

Selected poems:

A.S. Griboyedov went down in history as the author of one work. But what! Masterpiece! Phrases and quotes from the comedy “Woe from Wit” have long become popular, and the work itself is considered the first realistic comedy in the history of Russian literature.

Analysis of the work:

A.S. Pushkin. He was called differently: A. Grigoriev argued that “Pushkin is our everything!”, F. Dostoevsky “a great and still incomprehensible Forerunner,” and Emperor Nicholas I admitted that, in his opinion, Pushkin is “the most clever man in Russia." Simply put, this is a Genius.

Pushkin's greatest merit is that he radically changed Russian literary language, saving him from pretentious abbreviations like “mlad, breg, sweet”, from the absurd “zephyrs”, “Psyches”, “Cupids”, so revered in pompous elegies, from the borrowings that then abounded in Russian poetry. Pushkin brought colloquial vocabulary, craft slang, and elements of Russian folklore to the pages of printed publications.

A. N. Ostrovsky pointed out another important achievement of this brilliant poet. Before Pushkin, Russian literature was imitative, stubbornly imposing traditions and ideals alien to our people. Pushkin “gave the Russian writer the courage to be Russian,” “revealed the Russian soul.” In his stories and novels, the theme of morality is raised so vividly for the first time. social ideals that time. And with the light hand of Pushkin, the main character now becomes an ordinary “little man” - with his thoughts and hopes, desires and character.

Analysis of works:

M.Yu. Lermontov- bright, mysterious, with a touch of mysticism and an incredible thirst for will. All his work is a unique fusion of romanticism and realism. Moreover, both directions do not oppose at all, but rather complement each other. This man went down in history as a poet, writer, playwright and artist. He wrote 5 plays: the most famous is the drama “Masquerade”.

And among prose works A real gem of creativity was the novel “A Hero of Our Time” - the first realistic novel in prose in the history of Russian literature, where for the first time a writer tries to trace the “dialectics of the soul” of his hero, mercilessly subjecting him to psychological analysis. This innovative creative method Lermontov will be used in the future by many Russian and foreign writers.

Selected works:

N.V. Gogol known as a writer and playwright, but it is no coincidence that one of his most famous works is " Dead Souls"is considered a poem. There is no other such Master of Words in world literature. Gogol's language is melodious, incredibly bright and imaginative. This was most clearly manifested in his collection "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka."

On the other hand, N.V. Gogol is considered the founder of the “natural school”, with its satire bordering on the grotesque, accusatory motives and ridicule of human vices.

Selected works:

I.S. Turgenev- the greatest Russian novelist who established the canons classic novel. He continues the traditions established by Pushkin and Gogol. He often turns to the theme of the “extra person,” trying to convey the relevance and significance of social ideas through the fate of his hero.

Turgenev’s merit also lies in the fact that he became the first propagandist of Russian culture in Europe. This is a prose writer who opened the world of the Russian peasantry, intelligentsia and revolutionaries to foreign countries. And the string of female characters in his novels became the pinnacle of the writer’s skill.

Selected works:

A.N. Ostrovsky- outstanding Russian playwright. I. Goncharov most accurately expressed Ostrovsky’s merits, recognizing him as the creator of the Russian folk theater. The plays of this writer became a “school of life” for playwrights of the next generation. And the Moscow Maly Theater, where most of the plays of this talented writer were staged, proudly calls itself the “House of Ostrovsky.”

Selected works:

I.A.Goncharov continued to develop the traditions of the Russian realistic novel. The author of the famous trilogy, who was able to describe like no other major vice Russian people are lazy. With the light hand of the writer, the term “Oblomovism” appeared.

Selected works:

L.N. Tolstoy- a real block of Russian literature. His novels are recognized as the pinnacle of the art of writing novels. L. Tolstoy's style of presentation and creative method are still considered the standard of the writer's skill. And his ideas of humanism had a huge influence on the development of humanistic ideas throughout the world.

Selected works:

N.S. Leskov- a talented successor to the traditions of N. Gogol. Made a huge contribution to the development of new genre forms in literature, such as pictures from nature, rhapsodies, incredible events.

Selected works:

N.G. Chernyshevsky — outstanding writer And literary critic, who proposed his theory about the aesthetics of the relationship between art and reality. This theory became the standard for the literature of the next several generations.

Selected works:

F.M. Dostoevsky — brilliant writer, whose psychological novels are known all over the world. Dostoevsky is often called the forerunner of such cultural movements as existentialism and surrealism.

Selected works:

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin — greatest satirist, who brought the art of denunciation, ridicule and parody to the heights of mastery.

Selected works:

A.P. Chekhov. With this name, historians traditionally end the era of the golden age of Russian literature. Chekhov was recognized throughout the world during his lifetime. His stories have become the standard for short story writers. And Chekhov's plays had a huge influence on the development of world drama.

Selected works:

TO end of the 19th century The centuries-old tradition of critical realism began to gradually fade away. In a society thoroughly permeated with pre-revolutionary sentiments, mystical, partly even decadent, sentiments came into fashion. They became the forerunners of the emergence of a new literary direction- symbolism and marked the beginning of a new period in the history of Russian literature - the Silver Age of poetry.

During the transitional period, the manifestation of the heroic in the “ordinary” for writers who wanted to preserve the traditions of Chernyshevsky and not lose the “track” had quite stable forms. The organization of free schools and especially Sunday schools for adults, the establishment of labor associations and partnerships, propaganda activities among workers and artisans, “going to the people” as a paramedic or a rural teacher - these are the few options for socially useful activities that were offered by literature at that time .

Of course, a little time will pass and some of these “small things” will cease to be the ideal of public life. Historically promising will be the participation of “new people” in organizational and propaganda work with factory workers (G. Uspensky, “Devastation”; I. Omulevsky, “Step by Step”; K. Stanyukovich, “No Exodus”; V. Bervi- Flerovsky, “For Life and Death”, etc.).

The undoubted merit of democratic fiction was the exposure of the political betrayal of bourgeois-liberal figures, the logical consequence of which was the advent of the era “ white terror"(N. Blagoveshchensky, "Before Dawn"; I. Kushchevsky, "Nikolai Negorev, or the Prosperous Russian", etc.). At the turn of the 60-70s. some writers were alarmed by the adventurist actions of the Bakuninists - “flash-starters”, not supported by painstaking menial activities among the peasantry (N. Bazhin, “Calling”).

In the conditions of the most complex literary and social situation that developed at the turn of the 60s and 70s, the work of N. G. Chernyshevsky, exiled to Siberia, on the novel “Prologue” was timely and relevant.

The new work of the revolutionary writer took into account the changing socio-political situation in the country and abroad, the danger of Bakunin’s secret calls to arouse unprepared peasant uprisings and focused the attention of the younger generation of fighters on political aspects fight against tsarism.

The plot-compositional structure of the novel consists of two parts, of which the second part, pushed “outward from its frame, from the first part,” is “directly addressed to the present” of the 70s. (from A. V. Karyakina’s observations on the composition of “Prologue”).

However, it is not only Levitsky’s Diary that directs the reader to search for “chances of the future.” In general, the entire novel, which retrospectively comprehends the experience of the collapse of hopes for social change in Russia during the first revolutionary situation, was programmatic for the coming decade.

This circumstance is due to genre structure"Prologue", and new conflict situations in its plot, and different from "What to do?" typological solutions to the image of a revolutionary, providing for other accents in the artistic interpretation of the “special” and “ordinary”.

Different creative ideas writer, conditioned by the historical circumstances of the activities of Russian revolutionaries, led to the creation of two novels that were not similar in genre terms. In the conditions of the maturing revolutionary situation of the early 60s.

Chernyshevsky turns to the genre of the socio-philosophical novel (“What is to be done?”), and during the period of the collapse of the revolutionary situation, when there were no longer opportunities for carrying out a social revolution, when, despite this, among the populist youth the course for an immediate peasant revolution continued to be pursued (“rebellion”), he deliberately rearranges the ideological and artistic accents, creating a novel of a slightly different genre - a historical and political novel.

Using historical experience ten years ago, the writer this time - in the novel "Prologue" - brings to the fore the events of the political struggle, refusing artistic development socio-economic conflicts and the idea of ​​immediate social revolution.

This explains the fundamental differences between the underground revolutionary Rakhmetov, who is preparing a revolution in illegal conditions (under which meetings and ideological clashes with “enlightened men” are excluded), and public figure Volgin, who, under legal conditions, leads an open political struggle against high-ranking opponents.

All this ultimately determined the ideological and artistic originality of Rakhmetov and Volgin, the external dissimilarity between the “exceptionalism” of a “special person” and the “ordinariness” of a family-man journalist endowed with “simple human qualities.”

Volgin’s path of political activity, which turned out to be most suitable at a time when there is no open revolutionary action masses, however, cannot be canonized as the only and obligatory one in all rapidly changing circumstances of the liberation struggle.

Chernyshevsky in the “Prologue” does not lose sight of Rakhmetov’s version. He foresees the arrival of a new revolutionary situation, when the need for professional underground revolutionaries like Rakhmetov will be acute again.

A correct understanding of Volgin's views on the prospects of a social movement sheds additional light on the somewhat mysterious figure of Levitsky, a Rakhmetov-type revolutionary who apparently failed in his attempt to lead a spontaneous peasant revolt (which proved Volgin's foresight in their disputes). The relationship between Volgin and Levitsky is developing towards the implementation of the revolutionary program of the first of them, providing for the unity of political and social actions.

Volgin's skepticism regarding the prospects of the revolutionary movement in Russia is temporary and local in nature. It goes back directly only to the next, and not the final, stage of the political struggle on the peasant question.

The nobility and liberals have so far managed to postpone the threat of the peasant revolution for some time, until the people are convinced that they are being deceived. Consequently, the political struggle aimed at exposing the predatory nature of the tsarist reform takes on primary importance. The new “disappointment of society” is one of the “chances of the future.”

When determining the objective historical patterns of the new revolutionary upsurge in Russia, Volgin, in addition to taking into account the political situation in Russian society, also has in mind revolutionary events V Western Europe. Strengthening revolutionary ties with Europe is the second “chance of the future.”

This program of the relationship between advanced Russia and the Western European revolutionary movement, put forward at the turn of the 60s and 70s, introduces a qualitatively new moment in the evolution of the image of the revolutionary from Rakhmetov to Volgin. It was historically justified by the rise of the proletarian movement in Western Europe (in particular, in France), the activities of the First International and the interest in all these events that Chernyshevsky’s students from the Russian Section of the International showed.

Considering it taking into account the new tasks that faced the “new people” at the turn of the 60s and 70s, we will see in this evolution not an expression of the crisis of Chernyshevsky’s revolutionary democratic ideology, but, on the contrary, the desire of the author of “Prologue” to raise it on new level, outline the prospects for social upsurge in the country.

Chernyshevsky’s focus on strengthening and expanding the political forms of struggle against tsarism and strengthening ties with the revolutionary West was precisely creative development revolutionary-democratic ideology of the sixties at the turn of the 60s and 70s.

The evolution of the image of a revolutionary from Rakhmetov to Volgin is relative. It does not mean a rejection of the ideological and artistic achievements of the novel “What is to be done?” Ideally, a new type of revolutionary should combine Rakhmetov’s and Volgin’s principles.

However, in Russian revolutionary movement social and political action long time were carried out in isolation from each other, and this did not provide vital prerequisites for creating such a synthetic image. And yet, the trends in the artistic embodiment of the heroic, “exceptional” in the “ordinary” (with different combinations of “Rakhmetov” and “Volgin” typological varieties) in the democratic literature of the 70-80s. were quite noticeable.

The search for a hero of modern times during the heyday of revolutionary populism took place in difficult social and literary conditions. After the failures caused by “going to the people” (1873-1875), advanced democratic fiction had to overcome two trends that were far from artistic traditions Chernyshevsky: on the one hand, the idealization of communal village orders and the elevation to the rank of real heroes of people with “hearts of gold”, empty-handed romantic dreamers; on the other hand, the revival of the Turgenev type of intellectual with Rudin’s eloquence and Hamlet’s duality.

Democratic writers in their works reflected the collapse of illusions inspired by the Lavrists and Bakuninists (P. Zasodimsky, “Chronicle of the Village of Smurin”; A. Osipovich-Novodvorsky, “An Episode from the Life of Neither a Peahen nor a Crow”; V. Bervi-Flerovsky, “On life and death" - the third part of the book). Dialectical understanding of “historical illusions” allowed new heroes to free themselves from confusion and despondency, states characteristic of people of the “neither peahen nor crow” type, and to look for effective ways of struggle.

In this process of overcoming the crisis caused by the failure of “going to the people”, it turned out to be salutary artistic method Chernyshevsky. The ideal of a person of the Rakhmetov type inspires Vera Neladova (V.L., “On Different Roads”, 1880) and the revolutionary “bride” Zhenichka (A. Osipovich-Novodvorsky, “Auntie”, 1880) to struggle and hardship. The heroes of A. Osipovich-Novodvorsky, Iv. go to the revolutionary underground. Ivanovich (Svedentsov), S. Smirnova, O. Shapir, K. Stanyukovich, P. Zasodimsky.

Rakhmetov continued to be a literary and artistic reference point for many “seventies” writers during the second revolutionary situation. And this corresponded to the revolutionary practice of the “landers” and “People’s Volunteers”, among whom stood out the organizers of the Rakhmetov warehouse - Dmitry Lizogub, Alexander Mikhailov, Stepan Khalturin, Sofya Perovskaya, Andrei Zhelyabov - artistically captured by S. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky in “Underground Russia” precisely in Rakhmetov's version.

“In a novel that aspires to modern significance, a positive hero must be heroic, or rather, he will certainly be so,” states the revolutionary Alexei Ivanovich in A. Osipovich-Novodvorsky.

At the same time, in embodiment heroic character democratic (populist) fiction at the turn of the 70s-80s. strengthened the “feeling of sacrifice, doom and loneliness.”30 The heroic was combined with the tragic, the romantic principle intensified in conveying the unequal duel of lone heroes with the autocracy (“Andrei Kozhukhov” by S. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky).

The aesthetic revaluation of the concept of the heroic is socially and psychologically justified by the revolutionary practice of the “People's Will”, divorced from the mass popular movement.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.