A man of Russian literature of the 19th century. Literature of the late XIX - early XX centuries

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

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

One can speak about the peculiar polemics of Chernyshevsky and Tolstoy using the example of the novels “What is to be done?” and “War and Peace”.

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

This was what a woman should have been like in the minds of Chernyshevsky, and everyone who professed the ideas of revolutionary democracy.

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

In the novel “Anna Karenina” the author also raised the problem of free love. But if Vera Pavlovna did not have children, then Tolstoy showed a heroine who should think not only about her happiness, but also about the well-being of her children. Anna's love for Vronsky negatively affected the fate of Seryozha and the newborn girl, who was legally considered Karenina, but was Vronsky's daughter. Mother's act dark spot laid down on the lives of children.

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

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

From the very beginning, Tolstoy emphasizes that there is not an ounce of falsehood in Natasha; she senses unnaturalness and lies more acutely than anyone else. With her appearance at the name day in a living room full of official ladies, she disrupts this atmosphere of pretense. All her actions are subordinated to feelings, not reason. She even sees people in her own way: Boris is gray, narrow, like a mantel clock, and Pierre is rectangular, red-brown. For her, these characteristics are enough to understand who is who.

Natasha is called “living life” in the novel. With her energy, she inspires those around her to a new life. With support and understanding, the heroine practically saves her mother after the death of Petrusha. Prince Andrei, who managed to say goodbye to all the joys of life, seeing Natasha, felt that all was not lost for him. And after the engagement, the whole world for Andrei was divided into two parts: one - she, where everything is light, the other - everything else, where there is darkness. “Why should I care what the sovereign says in the Council? Will this make me any happier? - says Bolkonsky.

Natasha can be forgiven for her passion for Kuragin. This was the only time her intuition failed her. All her actions are subject to momentary impulses, which cannot always be explained. She did not understand Andrei’s desire to postpone the wedding for a year. Natasha tried to live every second, and a year for her was equal to eternity.

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

Like all his favorite heroes, the author sees Natasha Rostova as part of the people. He emphasizes this in the scene at his uncle’s, when “the countess, raised by a French emigrant,” danced no worse than Agafya. This feeling of unity with the people, as well as true patriotism they push Natasha to give carts to the wounded when leaving Moscow, leaving almost all her things in the city.

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

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

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

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

Rereading Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy, we experience it again and again together with Tatyana Larina, Natalya Lasunskaya, Natasha Rostova. They show an example of pure love, devotion, fidelity, self-sacrifice. These images live in us, sometimes answering many of our questions, helping us not to make mistakes, to take the only right step. These images contain not only external beauty, but also the beauty of the soul, calling us to improve spiritually.

FEMALE IMAGES IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (II version)

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

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

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

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

Natasha Rostova... This is a fragile, gentle girl, but she has a strong character. It feels that closeness to the people, nature, and origins that the author so valued. He admired Natasha’s ability to feel someone else’s grief and pain.

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

A difficult test for her was the meeting with Anatoly Kuragin. All her hopes are lost, her dreams are broken, Prince Andrei will never forgive the betrayal, although she is simply confused in her feelings.

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

Another female character that caught my attention in the novel is Princess Marya. This heroine is so beautiful inside that her appearance doesn't matter. Her eyes emitted such light that her face lost its ugliness.

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

In my opinion, the image of Maria Volkonskaya is the image of a guardian angel. She protects everyone for whom she feels even the slightest responsibility. Tolstoy believes that a person like Princess Marya deserves much more than an alliance with Anatoly Kuragin, who never understood what treasure he had lost; however, he had completely different moral values.

In the work “War and Peace,” the author, admiring the courage and resilience of the Russian people, also extols Russian women. Princess Marya, who feels offended at the mere thought that the French will be on her estate; Natasha, who was ready to leave home in whatever she was wearing, but give up all the carts for the wounded.

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

Helen evokes only contempt and pity.

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

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

Shurochka Nikolaeva from the story “The Duel” is a complex nature. She does not love her husband, but she lives with him and forces him to study, because only he is able, by entering the academy, to get her out of the outback in which they live. She leaves her loved one only because he is weaker than her, unable to give her what she wants. Without any regret, she stifles in herself the feeling that people wait for their whole lives. But she evokes neither respect for her strong will nor admiration.

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

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

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

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

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

And men will never cease to be surprised by women’s whims, seek explanations for women’s actions, and fight for women’s love.

FEMALE IMAGES IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (III version)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my essay I want to consider the ideal of the female image of the 1st half of the 19th century, in Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” - Tatyana Larina and the ideal of the 2nd half of the 19th century, in L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” - Natasha Rostova .

What exactly is Pushkin’s ideal? Of course it's harmony human soul and just harmony. At the beginning of his work, Pushkin wrote the poem “The Beauty Who Sniffed Tobacco,” which humorously depicts the problem that Pushkin faced in the future - the lack of harmony.

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

The ideal of L.N. Tolstoy is a natural life and a person who lives a natural life. Natural life is life in all its manifestations, with all the natural feelings inherent in man - love, hatred, friendship. And of course, the ideal female image in the novel “War and Peace” is Natasha Rostova. She is natural, and this naturalness is contained in her from birth.

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

Pushkin describes Tatyana like this.

So, she was called Tatyana.
Not your sister's beauty.
Nor the freshness of her rosy complexion.
She wouldn't attract anyone's attention.
Dick, sad, silent.
Like a forest deer is timid,
She is in her own family.

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

The complete opposite of Tatyana is the lively, cheerful Natasha: “Black-eyed, with a big mouth, an ugly, but lively girl...” And Natasha’s relationship with her relatives is completely different: “Turning away from her father, she (Natasha) ran up to her mother and, without paying any attention, attention to her stern remark, hid her flushed face in the lace of her mother’s mantilla and laughed (...), she fell on her mother and laughed so loudly and loudly that everyone, even the prim guest, laughed against their will.” Different families, characters, relationships, appearance... What could Tatiana and Natasha have in common?

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

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

About Natasha, Tolstoy writes: “Where, how, when did this countess, raised by a French emigrant, suck into herself from that Russian air that she breathed, this spirit, where did she get these techniques that education should have long ago supplanted? But these spirits and techniques were the same, inimitable, unstudied, Russian ones that her uncle expected from her.” This Russian spirit is embedded in Natasha and Tatiana, and therefore they are harmonious.

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

Tatyana listened with annoyance
Such gossip, but secretly
With inexplicable joy
I couldn't help but think about this:
And a thought arose in the heart;
The time has come, she fell in love. (...)
(...) Long-time heartache
Her young breasts were tight;
The soul was waiting... for someone.
And she waited... The eyes opened;
She said: it's him!

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

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

Although both Natasha and Tatyana were waiting for “someone,” still, in my opinion, Natasha wanted to love and be loved, and Tatyana only wanted to love. And Natasha decides that she loves the one by whom she is already loved; and Tatyana, completely unaware of Onegin, unaware of his feelings, fell in love with him.

Natasha and Tatyana wanted to be happy, and, of course, they want to know what awaits them in the future. Both girls are telling fortunes for Christmas; but neither Tatyana nor Natasha saw anything in the mirror when they were telling fortunes, and both were afraid to tell fortunes in the bathhouse. Natasha is very surprised that she doesn’t see anything in the mirror, but she believes that she is to blame. Tatyana tries all the fortune-telling: one after another, but not a single one bodes well for her happiness. Natasha’s fortune telling also did not bode well. Of course, what Sonya invented while looking in the mirror seemed possible and true to Natasha. When a person loves, he naturally tries to find out what will happen, whether he will be happy; so are Natasha and Tatyana.

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

And in cruel loneliness
Her passion burns more intensely,
And about distant Onegin
Her heart speaks louder.

As for Natasha, at the time when Prince Andrei leaves for his father, and Natasha decides that he abandoned her, then: “The next day after this conversation, Natasha put on that old dress, which she was especially famous for the clothes he delivered in the morning cheerfulness, and in the morning she began her old way of life, from which she fell behind after the ball.” Of course, Natasha was worried and waited for Prince Andrei, but this state is not typical for the always so lively and cheerful Natasha.

What is characteristic of both girls is that they love not an ideal at all, but a real person. Tatyana, when she, having spent many hours in Onegin’s “cell,” realized what he really was like, she did not stop loving him. Natasha knew Pierre for quite a long time and quite well, but still she loved him, and not some kind of ideal.

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

How Tatyana has changed!
How firmly she stepped into her role!
Like an oppressive rank
Accepted appointments soon!
Who would dare to look for a tender girl
In this majestic, in this careless
Legislator's hall?

Natasha also changed, but became a woman completely opposite to Tatyana. Natasha disappeared into her family, and she simply did not have time for social events. It is possible that if Tatyana had found her happiness in her family, she would not have been so famous in society either.

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

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

As for Natasha, after her engagement to Prince Andrei, she meets Anatoly Kuragin and decides that she is in love and succumbs to his persuasion to run away with him. Since Natasha is natural from birth, she cannot love one person and be the bride of another. For her it is so natural that a person can love and fall out of love.

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

How are Natasha and Tatyana similar?

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

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

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

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

For Tolstoy’s ideal, finding one’s place in life and living a natural life is very important, but for all this, the harmony of the human soul is also needed.

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

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

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

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

The image of Tatyana Larina, as the main character of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin,” is the most perfect among the other female characters in the novel.

Tatyana and the formation of her character were greatly influenced by the impressions of her native nature and her closeness to nanny Filipyevna. Parents and the society of local nobles that surrounded the Larin family in the village did not have a significant influence on it. Special attention Pushkin pays attention to Tatyana’s participation in Christmas fortune telling, which were part of Russian folk life of that time:

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

Tatyana not only understands Russian folk speech well, but also uses elements of vernacular language in her speech: “I’m sick,” “What do I need?”

One should not deny the influences of a foreign nature that were common at that time and in that environment (French language, Western novels). But they also enrich Tatyana’s personality, find echoes in her heart, and the French language gives her the opportunity to most strongly convey her feelings, which, as it seems to me, corresponds to Pushkin’s attitude towards foreign culture as a culture that contributes to the enrichment of Russian. But it does not drown out the national basis, but reveals and gives the opportunity to reveal the primordially Russian. Perhaps this is why Pushkin emphasizes the national basis of the heroine’s character, the “Russian soul.” This is the basis of his love for her, which runs throughout the entire narrative and does not allow for a drop of irony on the part of the author.

In relation to Onegin, the main personality traits of Tatyana are revealed most fully. She writes and sends a letter - a declaration of love. This is a bold step, completely unacceptable from a moral point of view. But Tatyana is “an exceptional creature.” Having fallen in love with Onegin, she obeys only her feelings. She speaks about her love right away, without any tricks or embellishments. It is impossible to find another beginning of a letter that would express with such immediacy what these words say:

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

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

Unrequited love for Onegin, the duel and death of Lensky, Onegin's departure - Tatyana deeply worries about all these events. A dreamy, enthusiastic girl turns into a woman seriously thinking about life.

In the last chapter of the novel, Tatyana is a society woman, but inside she remains the same. And she rejects Onegin not because she doesn’t love him, but because she doesn’t want to betray herself, her views, her high understanding of the word “loyalty.”

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

The complete opposite of Tatyana is her sister Olga. Despite the same upbringing and the environment surrounding the Larin sisters, they grew up very different. Olga is careless and flighty. And Onegin, the expert female soul, gives it the following characteristics:

Olga has no life in her features.
Exactly like Vandice's Madonna...

She doesn’t seem to notice Lensky’s feelings. And even in the last hours before the duel he dreams of Olga’s loyalty. But he is greatly mistaken in the sincerity of her feelings for him. She quickly forgets him after meeting a young lancer, whom she marries.

There are many more heroines in Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”. And for Tolstoy, internal and external beauty is important in them.

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

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

Natasha is Tolstoy's ideal woman, she is a reflection of Pushkin's Tatyana. At the end of the novel she becomes what Tolstoy wants her to be. And “female” is a praise for her, since it is a symbol of a caring mother. It went down - good. After all, according to Tolstoy, a woman’s calling is family, children. Examples of the opposite are Anna Karenina, Helen Kuragina.

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

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

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

In the images of their heroines great attention Tolstoy gives them a portrait. He usually emphasizes some detail or feature in them, persistently repeating it. And thanks to this, this face is etched in the memory and is no longer forgotten.

It is also interesting that Helen almost always speaks only French, and Natasha and Marya resort to it only when they find themselves in the atmosphere of high society salons.

Smiles, glances, gestures and facial expressions convey complex soul feelings Marya and Natasha, empty talk from Helen.

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

TWO KATERINA (Katerina Izmailova and Katerina Kabanova)

Terrible morals in our city, sir.

A. N. Ostrovsky

The history of numerous interpretations of “Lady Macbeth...” by Leskov tends to constantly bring together the images of Katerina Izmailova and Katerina Kabanova from Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. Moreover, this rapprochement occurs not on literary grounds, but in the context of Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of the image of Katerina in his famous article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” However, reading these works today, it is difficult to notice the similarities between these heroines. Of course they exist, but they are hardly significant. The following are listed:

Firstly: their habitat. The sad life of a merchant in the Russian hinterland;

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

Thirdly: each cheats on her merchant husband;

Fourth: suicide of heroines;

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

And this is where not only the formal, but also the substantive similarity of both the heroines and the works as a whole ends. As for the portrait resemblance, here Ostrovsky says nothing about the appearance of his Katerina, allowing the reader and viewer to imagine the image themselves. All we know is that she is very beautiful. The portrait of Izmailova was drawn by Leskov in sufficient detail. It stores a large number of infernal signs. There's black hair and dark eyes, and unusual, superhuman strength, with an elegant and fragile physique. Both of them do not love their husbands. But betrayal for Katerina from “The Thunderstorm” is a moral crime, a deep personal drama. Izmailova cheats on her husband out of boredom. I was bored for five years, but on the sixth I decided to have some fun. Ostrovsky lacks the main component of adultery - carnal, physiological passion. Katerina says to Boris: “If I had my own will, I would not have gone to you.” Varvara understands this too. No wonder she coldly whispers after her: “I got the job done!”

For Katerina Izmailova, unreasonable, Asian passion is the main content of the world. Katerina in “The Thunderstorm” personifies the humility of a person, his involvement in the fatal movements of fate.

Izmailova herself draws the lines of life. And what a simple Russian person can do in his freedom, Leskov knows very well: “He (this man) unleashes all his bestial simplicity, begins to act stupidly, mocks himself, people, and feelings. Not particularly gentle anyway, he becomes extremely angry.” Katerina Kabanova cannot imagine offending a living being. Her image is a bird flying away to the Volga region. She awaits punishment and retribution for imaginary and real sins. Watching the thunderstorm, she says to her husband: “Tisha, I know who he will kill.” The image of imminent, inevitable death is always with her, and she always talks and thinks about it. She is a truly tragic figure in the drama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At first, Raskolnikov hates Sonya, because he sees that this little downtrodden creature loves him, the Lord and “God”, in spite of everything, loves and pities (things are interrelated) - this fact deals a strong blow to his fictitious theory. Moreover, his mother’s love for him, her son, also, in spite of everything, “torments him,” Pulcheria Alexandrovna constantly makes sacrifices for the sake of “beloved Rodenka.”

Dunya’s sacrifice is painful for him, her love for her brother is another step towards a refutation, towards the collapse of his theory.

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

Another double, Svidrigailov, this “voluptuous spider,” until the last moment firmly believed in the absence of love at all. But the moment has come: sudden love for Dunya leads this personality devastated by voluptuousness to complete ruin; the result is death. This is the relationship between Svidrigailov and Luzhin with the theme of love in the novel.

What is Raskolnikov's final position? Much later, in hard labor, Rodion Romanovich will be freed from hatred of Sonya, he will appreciate her mercy towards him, he will be able to understand all the sacrifices that were made for him and for the sake of all of them; he will love Sonya. He will perceive the pride that has filled many hearts as a terrible infection, he will rediscover God, and through him and through his sacrifice - love for everyone.

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

Thus, when talking about the difference between the perception of love by Dostoevsky and Turgenev, first of all you need to keep in mind the scale.

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

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

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

He lives practically without violating the basic commandments. However, when a meeting with Odintsova forces E.V. Bazarov to believe in the existence of love, thereby admitting the incorrectness of his beliefs, Bazarov, according to the author, must die.

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

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

From all of the above, we can conclude: the main similarity in views on love is its depiction as a kind of means by which the author shows the delusions of the heroes. The difference lies in the positions in which the heroes are given: the moral quest of the murderer in “Crime and Punishment” and the moral quest of absolutely normal person in "Fathers and Sons".

MOTIF OF UNHAPPY LOVE IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY

One of the most important topics Many 19th century novels have a theme of love. As a rule, it is the core of the entire work, around which all events take place. Love causes various conflicts to arise and the development of the storyline. It is feelings that rule events, life, the world; because of them, a person performs this or that action, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s love for himself or another person. It happens that a hero commits a crime or commits some immoral act, motivating his actions with passionate love and jealousy, but, as a rule, such feelings are false and destructive.

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

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

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

WHAT IS LOVE? (Based on works of Russian literature of the 19th century)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is worth remembering Turgenev’s own views on love and happiness. He believes that happiness is harmony, and other feelings, experiences, violent emotions, jealousy are disharmony, which means that where love is passion, there cannot be happiness.

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

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

Bazarov is a completely different person. He comes from a different social environment, he has a completely different system of views from Arkady, and his experiences are much deeper. His beliefs include that love is “nonsense, unforgivable nonsense, and chivalrous feelings are ugliness, a disease,” but he himself experiences an “animal” passion for Anna Odintsova, but she turns out to be a cold woman, and a painful period begins in Bazarov’s life: his postulates like “knock out fire with fire” (this applies to women) turn out to be powerless, and he loses power over himself. His love - “a passion similar to malice and, perhaps, akin to it” - results in a real tragedy for Bazarov.

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

The love-passion of Bazarov and the love-happiness of Katya and Arkady, the love-self-sacrifice of Sonya, Dunya, mother - how many shades of meaning the authors put into one single word - love! What different feelings can sometimes be expressed in one word! Each character has his own perception of the world, his own ideals, which means that, based on the subconscious, different people have different feelings. Probably, just as there have never been two identical people in the world, love has never been repeated. And different writers, putting different meanings into this concept and depicting love in different forms, are gradually approaching the solution to one of the philosophical, “eternal” questions - stumbling blocks: “what is love? ”

THE THEME OF LOVE IN THE RUSSIAN NOVEL OF THE II HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY (Based on the novels by I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”) (I version)

I loved you....

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

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

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

THE THEME OF LOVE IN THE RUSSIAN NOVEL OF THE II HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY (Based on the novels by I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”) (II version)

From ancient times to the present day, nothing excites the minds of writers and poets more than the theme of love. It is one of the key ones in all world fiction. However, despite the fact that most books contain love affair, each time the author finds some new twist on this topic, because until now love is one of those concepts that a person cannot describe with a standard phrase or definition. Just as in a landscape, the lighting or season changes and perception changes, so in the theme of love: a new writer appears, and with him other characters, and the problem appears before him in a different guise.

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

In the novels of Russian classics of the second half of the 19th century, love is not the main theme, but at the same time it plays one of the important roles in the works. As one of the famous English writers A. Christie said already in the 20th century, “he who has never loved anyone has never lived,” and Russian prose writers, not yet knowing this phrase, but certainly understanding that in the life of every person there is love something that helps to most fully reveal his inner world and basic character traits, of course, could not help but address this topic.

IN works of the XIX century, echoes of the previous era of “romantic” love can be heard: Oblomov can be called a romantic: the symbol of his love with Olga becomes a lilac branch, which a girl once picked while walking in the garden. Throughout their relationship, Oblomov mentally returns to this flower more than once in conversation, and often he compares moments of love that go away and never return to faded lilacs. The feelings of another couple - Arkady and Katya from “Fathers and Sons” cannot be called anything other than romantic. There is no suffering or torment here, only pure, bright, serene love, which in the future will turn into an equally pleasant and calm family life, with a bunch of children, common dinners and big holidays with friends and loved ones. They can be called an ideal family: the spouses live in mutual understanding and boundless love, something like the life the hero of another work, Oblomov, dreams of. His idealistic thoughts echo Nikolai Rostov’s thoughts about his wife and marriage: “... a white hood, a wife at the samovar, his wife’s carriage, children...” - these ideas about the future gave him pleasure. However, such pictures are not destined to come true (at least for those heroes who dream about it), they have no place in real world. But the fact that there is no idyll, as Nikolai and Oblomov imagine it, does not mean that there is no happy family life in the world: each of these writers in their works paints pictures of an ideal married couple: Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova, Marya Volkonskaya and Nikolai Rostov , Stolz and Olga Ilyinskaya, Arkady and Katya. Harmony and mutual understanding based on love and devotion reign in these families.

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

The theme of love suffering is most closely associated with the main character of “Fathers and Sons” Evgeny Bazarov. His feeling is a heavy, all-consuming passion for a woman who is not capable of loving him, the thought of her does not leave Bazarov until his death, and love remains in him until the last minutes. He resists the feeling, because this is what Bazarov considers romance and nonsense, but he is unable to fight it.

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

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

Using Rostova as an example, Tolstoy, one of the few writers, traces the path of the development of love from childhood love and flirting to something solid, fundamental, eternal. Like Tolstoy, Goncharov depicts the various stages of Olga Ilyinskaya’s love, but the difference between these two heroines is that Natasha is capable of really loving more than once (and she has no doubt that this may not be normal), because the essence of her life is love - to Boris, mother, Andrey, brothers, Pierre, while Olga is tormented, thinking that her feeling for Oblomov was genuine, but if this is so, then what does she feel for Stolz?.. If Olga fell in love after Oblomov, then for many other heroes of Russian literature this feeling arises only once in a lifetime: for example, Marya Volkonskaya realized at first sight that Nikolai was the only one for her, and Anna Sergeevna Odintsova remains forever in Bazarov’s memory.

What is also important in revealing the theme of love is how people change under its influence, how they pass the “test of love.” IN psychological novel I. A. Goncharov’s “Oblomov” could not fail to consider the influence of feelings on the main character. Olga wants to change her lover, pull him out of “Oblomovism”, not let him sink, she forces him to do what was previously not typical for Oblomov: get up early, take a walk, climb mountains, but he does not pass the test of love, nothing can change him, and Olga gives up, she knows that; there are sprouts of beauty in him, but he is mired in the usual “Oblomov way of life.”

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

MOTIVES OF KNIGHTY SERVICE TO WOMAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (I version)

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

The most striking example of this, in my opinion, would be Pavel Petrovich - the hero of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”.

He was a hereditary nobleman, brilliantly educated, and, like many representatives of his social circle, had high moral qualities. Ahead was waiting for him brilliant career, since he had extraordinary abilities. There was no sign of failure. But he met Princess R., as the author called her. At first, she also treated him favorably, but then... Princess R. broke Pavel Petrovich’s heart, but he did not want to offend her or take revenge on her in any word or deed. He, like a real knight, set off in pursuit of his beloved, sacrificing his career. Not every person is capable of this. Therefore, we can safely say that Pavel Petrovich is a representative of a remarkable galaxy of knights in Russian literature.

I would like to mention one more knight. Chatsky, the hero of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” loved Sophia so much that I think he is worthy of this title. He sacrificed his feelings for the happiness of the woman he loved.

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

Of course, I don’t want to say that they disappeared completely, but for some reason there are very few of them, although this is strange in connection with the peculiar mentality of the Russian nation. For Russians, it seems to me, chivalry should be in their blood. Russians should be the same knights and dreamers as Lensky, who madly loved Olga and sacrificed his life for her.

MOTIVES OF KNIGHTY SERVICE TO WOMAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (II version)

Russian literature is very diverse. And one of these diversity is the direction in which either a writer or a poet touches on the themes of love and, in particular, the motives of knightly service to a woman.

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

One of the main motives is nobility. Often it manifests itself only after a person has fallen in love. This is, of course, good, but nobility should be demonstrated in all cases. And you don’t have to love a woman to treat her wisely. Some men cultivate this feeling in themselves from youth, and it remains with them throughout their lives. And others don’t recognize him at all. Let's look at an example. In Pushkin's novel “Eugene Onegin” main character acted nobly with Tatyana. He didn't take advantage of her feelings for him. He didn't love Tatyana, but a sense of nobility was in his blood, and he would never disrespect her. But in the case of Olga, he, of course, showed a different side of himself. And Lensky, Olga’s admirer, could not resist, his pride was hurt, and he challenged Onegin to a duel. He acted nobly, trying to defend Olga's honor from such a playboy as Onegin. Pushkin's views are somewhat similar to the views of his heroes. After all, he died only because rumors about his wife were spread. And his nobility did not allow him to remain silent and remain on the sidelines. So nobility is also one of the motives of knightly service to a woman in Russian literature.

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

Respect for a woman, as a mother, as a keeper of the home, is also a motive.

Women have been and will always be the most beautiful and revered on earth, and men will always serve them in a knightly manner.

THE THEME OF THE LITTLE MAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY

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

The next (after “Poor Liza”) significant work devoted to this topic can be considered “The Station Agent” by A. S. Pushkin. Although this was hardly a typical theme for Pushkin.

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

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

F. M. Dostoevsky’s little man is shown just as defenseless in his novel “Crime and Punishment.”

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

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

But it’s not his children’s fault that they are poor. And society, which doesn’t care, is probably also to blame. The boss, to whom Katerina Ivanovna’s calls were addressed: “Your Excellency! Protect the orphans!” The entire ruling class is also to blame, because the carriage that crushed Marmeladov “was expected by some significant person,” and therefore this carriage was not detained.

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

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

Little people are also shown in “The Story of a City,” and they are shown in a very unique way. Here they are typical inhabitants. Time passes, mayors change, but the townsfolk do not change. They remain the same gray mass, they are completely dependent, weak-willed and stupid. The mayors take the city of Foolov by storm and go on campaigns against it. But ordinary people are used to it. They only want city leaders to praise them more often, call them “guys,” and make optimistic speeches. The organ says: “I won’t tolerate it! I’ll ruin you!” But for ordinary people this is normal. Then, the townsfolk understand that the “former scoundrel” Gloomy-Burcheev personifies the “end of everything,” but they silently climb to stop the river when he orders: “Drive! ”

A completely new type of little person is presented to the reader by A.P. Chekhov. Chekhov's little man has “grown larger” and is no longer so defenseless. This shows in his stories. One of these stories is “The Man in the Case.” Teacher Belikov can be considered one of the little people; it’s not in vain that he lives by the principle: “No matter what happens.” He is afraid of his superiors, although, of course, his fear is greatly exaggerated. But this little man “put the case” on the whole city, the whole city was forced to live by the same principle. It follows that a small person can have power over other small people.

This can be seen in two other stories, “Unter Prishibeev” and “Chameleon”. The hero of the first of them - non-commissioned Prishibeev - keeps the entire neighborhood in fear, trying to force everyone not to turn on the lights in the evenings, not to sing songs. It's none of his business, but he can't be stopped. But he is also a small person if he is brought to trial and even sentenced. In “Chameleon,” the little man, the policeman, not only subdues, but also obeys, as a little man should.

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

Considering that all the works considered were written in different years of the 19th century, we can say that the little man still changes over time. For example, the dissimilarity between Bashmachkin and Belikov is obvious. It is also possible that this arises as a result of the authors' different visions of the problem, in various ways her images (for example, caustic satire in Saltykov-Shchedrin and obvious sympathy in Gogol).

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

PUSHKIN REMINISTRATIONS IN N. V. GOGOL’S POEM “DEAD SOULS”.

The poem “Dead Souls” is the most significant creation of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Uniquely original and original, it is nevertheless associated with many literary traditions. This applies to both the content and formal aspects of the work, in which everything is organically interconnected. “Dead Souls” was published after Pushkin’s death, but the beginning of work on the book coincided with the time of close rapprochement between the writers. This could not but be reflected in “Dead Souls,” the plot of which, by Gogol’s own admission, was given to him by Pushkin. However, it's not just about personal contacts. B.V. Tomashevsky in his work “The Poetic Heritage of Pushkin” noted the influence of his artistic system, which was experienced by all subsequent literature “in general, and perhaps prose writers more than poets.” Gogol, due to his talent, was able to find his own path in literature, in many ways different from Pushkin’s. This must be taken into account when analyzing Pushkin’s reminiscences found in Gogol’s poem. The following questions are important here: what is the role of Pushkin’s reminiscences in “Dead Souls”? what meaning do they have in Gogol? what is their meaning? The answers to these questions will help to better understand the peculiarities of Gogol’s poem and note some historical and literary patterns. The most general conclusion that can be drawn on the topic under consideration is the following: Gogol’s reminiscences reflect the influence of Pushkin on him. Our task is to understand the results of this influence. By Pushkin’s reminiscences in “Dead Souls” we will understand everything that suggests comparison with Pushkin’s work, reminds of him, as well as a direct echo of Pushkin’s expressions. In other words, the question of Pushkin’s reminiscences in Gogol is a question of the connections between original creative worlds two Russian writers who were in a relationship of succession. In the light of the stated attitudes, let's look carefully at Gogol's work itself.

First of all, we pay attention to the author’s genre definition. We know that it was fundamental for Gogol. He emphasized this in the cover he prepared for the first edition of the book. Why is a work, in form reminiscent of an adventure novel, and even saturated with a large number of satirical sketches, still called a poem? The meaning of this was correctly grasped by V. G. Belinsky, noting the “predominance of subjectivity,” which, “penetrating and animating Gogol’s entire poem, reaches high lyrical pathos and covers the reader’s soul with illuminating waves...”. Before the reader of the poem, pictures of a provincial town and landowners' estates unfold, and behind them stands “all of Rus',” the Russian reality of that time. The emotional coloring of the narrative, manifested in the author’s increased interest in what he depicts, the very subject of the image - the modern way of life in Russian life - lead us to compare Gogol’s central work with the central a work by Pushkin. Both Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin” and Gogol’s “Dead Souls” contain clearly expressed lyrical and epic principles. Both works are unique in terms of genre. Pushkin initially intended to call his novel in verse a poem. (“I’m now writing a new poem,” he wrote in a letter to Delvig in November one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three. A little later he wrote to A.I. Turgenev: “... I’m writing a new poem in my spare time, Eugene Onegin, where I’m choking on bile.”) The final genre definition of “Eugene Onegin” reflected Pushkin’s awareness of his artistic discovery: the transference into poetry of tendencies characteristic of prose. Gogol, on the contrary, transferred an excited lyrical note into prose. The noted thematic and genre echoes of “Eugene Onegin” and “Dead Souls” are supported by a large number of different kinds of reminiscences, which we begin to review.

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

A careful look at the text of “Dead Souls” reveals many analogies with Pushkin’s novel. Here are the most notable ones. In both works, the same scheme is visible: the central character from the city ends up in the countryside, the description of his stay in which is given the main place. The end of the story, the hero, comes in the same place where it begins. The hero returns to the clan, from which he then soon leaves, like Chatsky. Let us remember that Pushkin leaves his hero

In a moment that is evil for him.

The main characters themselves are comparable. Both of them stand out from the society around them. Their characteristics are similar. This is what the author says about Chichikov: “The newcomer somehow knew how to find himself in everything and showed himself to be an experienced socialite. Whatever the conversation was about, he always knew how to support it...” An “experienced socialite” is Onegin, who had a lucky talent

No coercion in conversation
Touch everything lightly
With the learned air of an expert...

It is “with the learned air of an expert” that Chichikov discusses the horse farm, good dogs, judicial tricks, billiard games, virtue, making hot wine, about customs overseers and officials. For this, everyone declares him a “smart”, “learned”, “respectable and amiable” person, and so on. About Onegin

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

Gogol further reveals the “strange quality of the hero.” In Pushkin, Onegin is a “strange companion,” an eccentric in the eyes of others. Along the way, we can note the non-random correspondence between the names of the authors and their main characters: Pushkin - Onegin, Chichikov - Gogol. In two works, the motive of the protagonist’s journey is important. However, if Onegin travels out of boredom, then Chichikov has no time to be bored. It is the parallelism of situations and images, given by reminiscences, that emphasizes the significant differences. Let's explain this textually. Pushkin's reminiscences are clearly heard in the description of Chichikov's preparations for the governor's party, which “took more than two hours of time.” The main semantic detail here - “such attentiveness to the toilet, which is not even seen everywhere” - goes back to Pushkin’s poems:

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

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

We better hurry to the ball.
Where to headlong in a Yamsk carriage
My Onegin has already galloped.
In front of the faded houses
Along the sleepy street in rows
Double carriage lights
Cheerful ones pour out light,
Dotted with bowls all around,
A magnificent house sparkles...

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

Chichikov, entering the hall, “had to close his eyes for a minute, because the shine from the candles, lamps and ladies’ dresses was terrible.” Before us is as if a retelling of the first chapter of “Onegin”. But what kind of retelling, or rather transposition, is this? If in Pushkin the image of the ball evokes enthusiastic memories, resulting in the inspired lines “I remember the sea before the thunderstorm...”, etc., then Gogol in a similar place in the story gives, as a digression, a long comparison of “black tailcoats” with flies on sugar. A similar ratio can be seen in almost all reminiscences.

Perfume in cut crystal;
Combs, steel files,
Straight scissors, curved
And brushes of thirty kinds
For both nails and teeth

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

The reduction, reaching the point of parody, plays an important semantic role. It is interesting to note that the “reduced” hero Chichikov goes to the evening in his own carriage, and the noble Onegin - in a Yamsk carriage. Maybe Chichikov claims to be a “hero of his time”? It is difficult to say whether Gogol sees evil irony in this. One thing is clear: he grasped the redistribution of positions in Russian life and reflected this redistribution. In another of his works, “Theatrical Tour after the Presentation of a New Comedy,” he speaks about this directly: “It’s worth taking a close look around. Everything changed a long time ago in the world... Don’t people now have more power, money capital, and a profitable marriage than love?” What was a kind of background in Pushkin’s novel - the ordinary environment of the nobility and landowners - came to the fore in Gogol.

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

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

In “Dead Souls” one can feel elements of Pushkin’s poetics. Let us point out some literary techniques characteristic of “Eugene Onegin”. First of all, this is irony. Gogol's words have a direct and hidden meaning. Just like Pushkin, Gogol does not hide the conventions of his story. For example, he writes: “It is very doubtful that the readers will like the hero we have chosen.” From Pushkin:

I was already thinking about the form of the plan
And I’ll call him a hero.

There is no long exposition, the action begins immediately (the characters move at the very first moment: Onegin “flies on a post office”, Chichikov drives a chaise through the gates of the hotel). Much about the characters is revealed only later (Onegin’s office in the seventh chapter, Chichikov’s biography in the eleventh). Pushkin's method of special enumeration in descriptions appears in Gogol. “Meanwhile, the britzka turned into more deserted streets... Now the pavement was over, and the barrier, and the city behind... And again, on both sides of the main path, the miles, station guards, wells, carts, gray villages with samovars began to appear again. , women and a lively bearded owner... a song will linger in the distance, pine tops in the fog, the ringing of bells disappearing in the distance, crows like flies, and the endless horizon...” Compare:

That's right along Tverskaya
The cart rushes over potholes.
The booths and women flash past,
Boys, benches, lanterns.
Palaces, gardens, monasteries,
Bukharians, sleighs, vegetable gardens,
Merchants, shacks, men.
Balconies, lions on the gates
And flocks of jackdaws on crosses.

The reminiscences noted above indicate that Gogol assimilated Pushkin’s creative experience.

B.V. Tomashevsky, in the work already mentioned, noted the possibility of the appearance of another kind of reminiscences from Pushkin - not related to laws literary specificity, but with a personal perception of the impressions of Pushkin’s speech, containing apt and varied characteristics. We would attribute the following textual convergence to this type: “His appearance at the ball produced an extraordinary effect.”

Meanwhile, Onegin's phenomenon
The Larins produced
Everyone is very impressed.

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

When would you imagine
The captivity of stuffy cities!
There are people in heaps behind the fence
They don't breathe the morning cool...

This reminiscence contains more than one Pushkin motif, but, touching on various elements of Pushkin’s world, it seems to create a generalized representation of it. In Gogol's situation he seems vulgarized. Gogol, apparently, felt with the artist’s intuition what Belinsky categorically expressed in 1835, declaring him the head of literature. Pushkin's time, it was necessary to understand, has passed. The Gogol period in literature had a completely different flavor. Pushkin's heroes new situation could not be taken seriously. Pushkin also did not ignore the problem of a new hero like Chichikov. Even before Gogol’s character in “The Queen of Spades,” Hermann was introduced, for whom the passion for achieving wealth overshadows everything human. “He has the profile of Napoleon, and the soul of Mephistopheles.” In the fourth chapter of Pushkin’s story we read about Hermann: “He sat on the window, arms folded and frowning menacingly. In this position, he surprisingly resembled a portrait of Napoleon.” In “Dead Souls,” at a council of officials, “they found that Chichikov’s face, if he turns and stands sideways, looks very much like a portrait of Napoleon.” This extremely important reminiscence connects the image of Chichikov with the image of Hermann and helps to understand the essence of the first with the help of the second. The analogy between Hermann and Chichikov (who must also have the soul of Mephistopheles) is strengthened by the comparison (through Napoleon) with the Antichrist. Someone said that “Napoleon is the Antichrist and is held on by a stone chain... but later he will break the chain and take possession of the whole world.” Thus, various reminiscences form a synthetic image of a new hero, based on the understanding of Pushkin’s literary tradition. Another component of this tradition was complexly reinterpreted by Gogol in “The Tale of Captain Kopeikin.” Captain Kopeikin is forced to take the path of robbery by the most serious life circumstances. A situation that is in many ways reminiscent of “Dubrovsky”. The story, which had a complex creative history, in the original edition contained in the finale a clear plot reminiscence from “Dubrovsky”; Having saved up money, Kopeikin goes abroad, from where he writes a letter to the sovereign asking him to forgive his accomplices. The parallel between Kopeikin (who is correlated with Chichikov) and Dubrovsky is important for understanding the “robber” element in Chichikov. This element is complexly divided into romantic-benign and criminal-villainous sides. “The Tale of Captain Kopeikin” uniquely echoes Pushkin’s poems from “The Bronze Horseman” dedicated to St. Petersburg. “There’s some kind of spitz in the air; the bridges there hang like hell, you can imagine, without any, that is, touching.” What an amazing parody of Pushkin’s magnificent hymn, which contains the following words:

Bridges hung over the waters; and bright
Admiralty needle.

In Pushkin’s St. Petersburg story, a “little” man dies. In Gogol’s insert story, another “little” man finds the strength to endure. Pushkin's plot is more tragic, but he retains, along with artlessness and simplicity, some kind of sublime view of things. Gogol's world is completely different. Reminiscences highlight this difference. However, in the main thing - in thinking about the future of Russia - the two great writers are in tune. “Aren’t you, Rus', like a brisk, unstoppable troika, rushing?.. Eh, horses, horses, what kind of horses!.., together and at once tensed their copper breasts and, almost without touching the ground with their hooves, turned into just elongated lines. .. Rus', where are you going? Give an answer ".

And what fire there is in this horse!
Where are you galloping, proud horse?
And where will you put your hooves?
O mighty lord of Fate!
Aren't you right above the abyss?
Raised Russia on its hind legs?

In conclusion, we note one more Pushkin reminiscence when describing Chichikov’s arrival in Manilovka: “The view was enlivened by two women who... were wandering knee-deep in a pond... Even the weather itself was very helpful: the day was either clear or gloomy... To complete the picture there was no shortage of a rooster, a harbinger of changeable weather...” Elements of this landscape make us remember “Count Nulin”: ........

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

Thus, Pushkin’s reminiscences in Gogol’s “Dead Souls” reflected his creative assimilation artistic experience Pushkin, who gave a huge impetus to the development of Russian literature.

“NEW PEOPLE” IN 19TH CENTURY LITERATURE

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” (1862).

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 Genius.” Under “genius” in in this case it implies insight, a 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, does not have enough 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 “battles” 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 specific social conditioning type of “new man”. 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 trouble, that it only leads to vulgarity and doctrinaire; We saw that our wise men, the so-called progressive people and accusers, are no good, that we are engaged in nonsense... when it comes to our daily bread...” That’s getting “ daily bread” and Bazarov got busy. It is not for nothing that he does not connect 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 “What is to be done?” became a continuation novel, a novel-response to Turgenev’s work. 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, therefore they are “new people”.

“IN RUSSIA, EVERY WRITER WAS TRULY AND STRONGLY INDIVIDUAL” (M. Gorky)

The 19th century is rightly called the “golden age of Russian literature.” No literature in the world has produced such a number of works in such a short period of time, touching on a variety of problems of Russian reality. The names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Nekrasov, Chekhov and other great literary artists constituted the pride and glory of our literature, the main feature of which is its close connection with the liberation movement in Russia. The main problem considered by every writer is the problem of personal liberation, the desire to see a person free, liberated, independent. Over time, it was solved by different writers in different ways. But nevertheless, each artist approached this problem based on his own worldview. Individuality is the totality of those traits that distinguish a particular person. The individuality of the writers of the 19th century was manifested in the fact that they were all very different in mentality, in character, each had their own socio-political position and, in accordance with this, approached the problem of personal liberation, serving their Fatherland in their own way. The individuality of the person is reflected in the works.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin is called “the Sun of our poetry.” Pushkin was a very bright, cheerful, optimistic person. Hence the originality of his poetry and prose. He passionately wanted to see people free, with his works he called for struggle, and called on him to give all his strength for the good of the Motherland:

My friend, let’s dedicate our Souls’ beautiful impulses to the Fatherland!

The uniqueness of his personality and the connection of his work with the first period of the Russian liberation movement were revealed in Pushkin’s works.

Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov entered Russian literature 15 years later than Pushkin, but this slight difference in time led to a great difference in their works. Lermontov had a very difficult life; that time we call reaction time. He very clearly reflected in his work the moods and thoughts of his generation. Time did not allow the personality to fully reveal itself. Let us remember the words of Pechorin: “Apparently, I had a high purpose, for I feel immense strength in my soul.” Lermontov is ready to take responsibility for the fate of the generation; in the poem “Duma” instead of the pronoun “they” he uses “we”. But Lermontov’s skepticism cannot in any way be considered pessimism. He believed in the liberation of man, and the rejection of society is his protest. While serving the Fatherland, Lermontov pointed out the shortcomings of the generation and called for struggle. His individuality was also evident in his innovation of form. “A Hero of Our Time” is written in crystal clear words, built from individual stories, not even arranged in chronological order. As a person and as an artist, Lermontov was truly individual.

Now let us turn our attention to the writers of the second period of the liberation movement. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev was not a revolutionary at all, he stood in the position of the liberal nobility. It was this position that became the reason for his disagreements with Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov and his departure from the Sovremennik magazine. But in his works Turgenev truthfully depicted Russian life, in particular the problem of human emancipation. The hero of his novel “Fathers and Sons” Evgeny Bazarov is a free, independent person. And it was true; we can truly call Bazarov a portrait of a generation. With the works of Turgenev, a type of beautiful female character entered literature - Turgenev girls, such as Elena Stakhova from the novel “On the Eve” and Liza Kalitina from the novel “The Noble Nest”. Turgenev is a magnificent master of landscape: how many pictures of Russian nature we see in his works! He correctly showed Russian life, Russian characters, Russian nature. This is his service to the Fatherland.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky is a contemporary of Turgenev. But his public position was completely different. A bright personality, Chernyshevsky was the leader of revolutionary democracy.

He wrote a program of action for the revolutionaries - the novel “What is to be done?”, in which he gave answers to questions about the active forces of the revolution, about the leader of the uprising, about people capable of leading, and indicated ways to transform the country. This is Chernyshevsky’s individuality, his service to the Motherland.

Great problems were posed by the literature of the 19th century, and each writer deeply individually, in his own colorful and profound way tried to solve and solved these problems. The cheerful, uniquely light and musical pen of the great Pushkin, the noble bile of the strict “judge and citizen” Lermontov, the beautiful landscapes of Turgenev, the high dream of the ascetic Chernyshevsky about the society of the future, the penetration into the recesses of the human soul of Dostoevsky, the powerful talent of Tolstoy - all this amazes and delights not only readers of Russia, but also of the whole world. The individuality of each of the literary artists determined the wealth that allows us to call the 19th century “the golden age of Russian literature.”

THE THEME OF THE MOTHERLAND IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE

The theme of the Motherland is traditional for Russian literature; every artist turns to it in his work. But, of course, the interpretation of this topic is different every time. It is determined by the personality of the author, his poetics, and the era, which always leaves its mark on the artist’s work.

The theme of the Motherland sounds especially poignant in critical times for the country. Dramatic story Ancient Rus' brought to life such works full of patriotism as “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land”, “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu”, “Zadonshchina” and many others. Separated by centuries, they are all dedicated to the tragic events of ancient Russian history, full of sorrow and at the same time pride for their land, for its courageous defenders. The poetics of these works is unique. To a large extent, it is determined by the influence of folklore, and in many ways by the pagan worldview of the author. Hence the abundance of poetic images of nature, a close connection with which is felt, for example, in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, vivid metaphors, epithets, hyperboles, parallelisms. How to artistic expression all this will be comprehended in literature later, but for now we can say that for the unknown author of the great monument, this is a natural way of storytelling, which he does not recognize as a literary device.

The same can be seen in “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu,” written already in the thirteenth century, in which the influence of folk songs, epics, legends. Admiring the courage of the warriors defending the Russian land from the “filthy”, the author writes: “These are winged people, they do not know death... riding on horses, they fight - one with a thousand, and two with ten thousand.”

The enlightened eighteenth century gives birth to a new literature. The idea of ​​strengthening Russian statehood and sovereignty dominates poets as well. The theme of the Motherland in the works of V.K. Trediakovsky and M.V. Lomonosov sounds majestic and proud.

“It’s in vain to look at Russia through distant countries,” Trediakovsky glorifies its high nobility, pious faith, abundance and strength. His Fatherland for him is “the treasure of all good things.” These “Poems in praise of Russia” are replete with Slavicisms:

All your people are Orthodox
And they are famous everywhere for their courage;
Children deserve such a mother,
Everywhere they are ready for you.

And suddenly: “Vivat Russia!” The viva is different!” This Latinism is a trend of the new, Peter the Great era.

In Lomonosov's odes, the theme of the Motherland takes on an additional perspective. Glorifying Russia, “shining in the light,” the poet paints an image of the country in its real geographical outlines:

Look at the high mountains.
Look into your wide fields,
Where is the Volga, Dnieper, where the Ob flows...

According to Lomonosov, Russia is a “vast power”, covered with “everlasting snow” and deep forests, inspires poets, gives birth to “our own Platos and quick-witted Newtons.”

A. S. Pushkin, who in general moved away from classicism in his work, in this topic is close to the same sovereign view of Russia. In “Memoirs in Tsarskoe Selo” an image of a mighty country is born, which was “crowned with glory” “under the scepter of a great wife.” The ideological closeness to Lomonosov is reinforced here at the linguistic level. The poet organically uses Slavicisms, giving the poem a sublime character:

Be comforted, mother of cities Russia,
Behold the death of the stranger.
Today they are weighed down on their arrogant heights.
The avenging right hand of the creator.

But at the same time, Pushkin introduces into the theme of the Motherland a lyrical element that is not characteristic of classicism. In his poetry, the Motherland is also a “corner of the earth” - Mikhailovskoye, and his grandfather’s possessions - Petrovskoye and the oak groves of Tsarskoye Selo.

The lyrical beginning is clearly felt in the poems about the Motherland by M. Yu. Lermontov. The nature of the Russian village, “plunging the thought into some kind of vague dream,” dispels the spiritual anxieties of the lyrical hero.

Then the anxiety of my soul is humbled, Then the wrinkles on my brow disappear, And I can comprehend happiness on earth, And in heaven I see God!..

Lermontov’s love for the Motherland is irrational, it is “strange love,” as the poet himself admits (“Motherland”). It cannot be explained by reason.

But I love - why don’t I know?
Its steppes are coldly silent.
Its boundless forests sway.
Its river floods are like seas...

Later, F.I. Tyutchev will say aphoristically about his similar feeling for the Fatherland of Posts:

You can't understand Russia with your mind,
A common arshin cannot be measured...

But there are other colors in Lermontov’s attitude towards the Motherland: love for its boundless forests and burnt stubble is combined in him with hatred for the country of slaves, the country of masters (“Farewell, unwashed Russia”).

This motif of love-hate will be developed in the works of N. A. Nekrasov:

Who lives without sadness and anger
He does not love his homeland.

But, of course, this statement does not exhaust the poet’s feeling for Russia. It is much more multifaceted: it also contains love for its boundless distances, for its open space, which he calls healing.

All the rye is all around, like a living steppe.
No castles, no seas, no mountains...
Thank you, dear side,
For your healing space!

Nekrasov’s feelings for the Motherland contain pain from the awareness of its wretchedness and at the same time deep hope and faith in its future. So, in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” there are the lines:

You're miserable too
You are also abundant
You are mighty

And there are also these:

In a moment of despondency, O Motherland!
My thoughts fly forward.
You are still destined to suffer a lot,
But you won't die, I know.

A similar feeling of love, bordering on hatred, is also revealed by A. A. Blok in his poems dedicated to Russia:

My Rus', my life, shall we suffer together?
Tsar, yes Siberia, yes Ermak, yes prison!
Eh, isn’t it time to separate and repent...
To a free heart what is your darkness for?

In another poem he exclaims: “O my Rus', my wife!” Such inconsistency is characteristic not only of Blok. It clearly expressed the duality of consciousness of the Russian intellectual, thinker and poet of the early twentieth century.

In the works of such poets as Yesenin and Tsvetaeva, familiar motifs of nineteenth-century poetry are heard, interpreted, of course, in a different historical context and different poetics. But just as sincere and deep is their feeling for the Motherland, suffering and proud, unhappy and great.

TRAVEL AROUND RUSSIA

My homeland, my motherland, my Fatherland...

There is nothing hotter, deeper or deeper in life

feelings are more sacred than love for you.

A. K. Tolstoy

Rus! My homeland! Russia! Mighty and majestic Motherland! How can I not love your gardens, fields and fields! After all, you are immense and incomparable. I love your seas and rivers, mountains and plains, endless fields and fields, cities and villages. How pleasant it is to hear the gentle ringing of the bells of the Old Moscow monasteries!

Russia! How many difficult days you had to endure, but you survived, remained proud and majestic.

This is my homeland. What was Russia like in the nineteenth century? How did people live there, how were cities built?

Thanks to poets, writers, composers, and artists, it is easy for us to recreate the image of Russia at that time.

The nineteenth century is the golden age of Russian literature and the heyday of culture and art. Russia has become a powerful power and strengthened its economic position.

But the fate of the poor, dispossessed people and Russia, groaning under the feet of the insatiable masters, could not help but worry the hearts and souls of progressive people of that time. True patriots could not sit idly by in a world where black was said to be white, where arbitrariness, lawlessness, and lies reigned.

I propose to begin our journey through nineteenth-century Russia with the lines of the great Pushkin. All his work is permeated with love for the Motherland, for the Russian people, and faith in the great future of the Fatherland. Belinsky called the novel in verse by Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” “an encyclopedia of Russian life and highest degree folk work." And how right he is: the fact is that the novel says so much about the life of Russia that if we knew nothing about this era and only read “Eugene Onegin,” we would still learn a lot...

The poet showed the real life of Russia, including the nobility. Among ordinary, ordinary, uninteresting people there were those who sought to step out of the framework of everyday life. Pushkin showed that new people appeared in Russia. But they were “superfluous” for their era, they were not understood.

And what kind of love are filled with Pushkin’s poems about nature:

Under blue skies
Magnificent carpets.
Glistening in the sun, the snow lies,
The transparent forest alone turns black.
And the spruce turns green through the frost.
And the river glitters under the ice.

Is it possible, together with the poet, not to admire the beauty of Russian nature!..

Lermontov was a worthy successor to Pushkin. The theme of love for the Motherland ran through the entire work of the poet. In the poem “Motherland,” he calls his love for Russia “strange,” but it is Lermontov, as Dobrolyubov wrote, “who understands love for the Fatherland truly, sacredly and rationally.” The life of the “sad villages”, located among the steppes and forests, is hard. However, the poet believes in the strength of the people, admires their life, their work.

Against the backdrop of majestic nature, the image of the people clearly appears before us...

Nekrasov dedicated his entire life to the people. All his poetry is permeated with hatred for the “rejoicing, idly chattering,” for the idle oppressors and great respect for work that strengthens the soul and educates. In the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” the poet showed a village that no one knew better than him. Rus' seemed to him not only “poor”, but also “abundant”, “mighty”.

You're miserable too
You are also abundant
You are powerful too.
You are also powerless, Mother Rus'!

Nekrasov saw among the people not only the “exemplary slave Yakov the faithful,” but also people of a different type - rebels like Yermil, heroes like old Savely, conscious fighters for the people’s happiness, like Grisha Dobrosklonov.

How truthfully Nekrasov describes the life of peasant builders in the poem “Railroad”!

We struggled under the heat, under the cold,
With an ever-bent back,
They lived in dugouts, fought hunger,
They were cold and wet and suffered from scurvy.

Under hard labor conditions, the Russian serf appears to us as a bearer of high moral qualities, nurtured in him by his working life...

In the epic “War and Peace” Tolstoy, the great master of words, showed the patriotism of the Russian people. The word “retreat” was difficult for everyone. After all, to retreat means to give up part of the sacred Russian land to the enemy, leaving native villages and hamlets to the invaders. We travel around Russia together with the heroes of the epic, admire the beauty of Russian nature together with Natasha Rostova, look through the eyes of Andrei Bolkonsky at blue sky and a branchy oak...

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the formation of capitalist relations took place. In an atmosphere of stagnation and degeneration of the noble class, the Chichikovs appear. Cunning, crafty people, groveling before the power of money, they were the embodiment of their era. An era that stood at the turning point of two stages of development of society: the outdated feudal-serfdom and the new, emerging capitalist one. Let's continue our journey in Chichikov's chaise. From the dusty window you can see the vast expanses of Russia. We pass through cities and villages, admiring the dense Russian forests and golden fields.

How wonderful!

It is very difficult for me to understand how vile and vile people like Chichikov can be born in such a great country.

How vast and incomparable our Motherland is! Gogol believed in the happiness of Russia and predicted a great future for it: “Eh, troika! bird-three, who invented you? to know, you could only have been born among a lively people, in that land that does not like to joke... Rus', where are you rushing?.. The bell rings out with a wonderful ringing; ...everything that is on earth flies past, and, looking askance, other peoples and states step aside and give way to it.”

How did the merchants live in the nineteenth century?

To find out, let's go to the city of Kalinov. How powerless a woman is! She is completely subservient to her husband and mother-in-law.

In his works, Ostrovsky showed life “beyond high fences, behind heavy locks,” where women’s tears flow, where dark things happen.”

The life of the city of Kalinov flowed sleepily from year to year. Nothing seemed to disturb her calm. And suddenly... How! A powerless, downtrodden woman cheated on her husband! Let's quickly leave this city, where it is so stuffy.

Katerina decided: death is better than slavery in a hateful house. I really want to help this woman, take her away from the “dark kingdom of tyrants”...

Progressive people of the nineteenth century criticized and exposed the shortcomings of Russian life, but were also proud of the fact that they were born in such a great country.

Much has changed in the life of Russia. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of abomination and disgust in the world. There are many vile people who poison the lives of ordinary people. working people. But I believe that the time will come and Peace, Friendship and Happiness will reign on our beautiful land!

Will it come soon? this time? I don’t know, but I believe in the great future of my incomparable Motherland. And I really want all people to believe in this.

So our journey through our native land with the great writers of Russia has ended...

Is it possible not to love and admire my Motherland?!

A TRIP THROUGH ST. PETERSBURG IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY WITH A. S. PUSHKIN, N. V. GOGOL AND F. M. DOSTOEVSKY.

Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad, St. Petersburg - the northern capital of Russia, the city on the Neva with its straight streets and wide squares, majestic palaces and magnificent parks, the city of white nights - “Peter's creation”!

Let's turn to the writers and poets who glorified St. Petersburg of the nineteenth century in their works. The first, of course, was A.S. Pushkin. Onegin was brought up in St. Petersburg, in St. Petersburg Hermann suffered from poverty, consumed by a thirst for power, fame and wealth, in St. Petersburg Alexander Sergeevich himself spent his last hours in a house on the Moika. The appearance of St. Petersburg is depicted by Pushkin with a feeling of patriotic pride and admiration, the poet’s imagination is amazed by the unprecedented beauty of the northern capital, its “strict, slender appearance,” the marvelous ensemble of squares and palaces, the Neva, clad in granite, and white nights. But in the poem “The Bronze Horseman” it is also a city of social contrasts and contradictions, reflected in the ill-fated fate of Eugene and his beloved Parasha, who are not protected in any way from the vicissitudes of life and become victims of an amazing city created, it would seem, for the happiness of people. Pushkin created “The Bronze Horseman” at the same time when Gogol began writing St. Petersburg stories. Pushkin also calls his poem a Petersburg story. The author solves the problems of St. Petersburg in the poem from a historical and philosophical perspective. One of the main ideas of the work is the idea that the autocracy, which played a role under Peter progressive role in the development of Russia, subsequently turned into an anti-national force, delaying any movement forward. In the introduction to the poem, a majestic image of Peter the Transformer appears, carrying out a great national cause - strengthening the Russian state on the shores of the Baltic Sea “in spite of its arrogant neighbor.” Peter appears as the conqueror of nature itself, its elements, as the embodiment of the victory of culture and civilization over savagery and backwardness, which previously reigned “on the shores of the desert waves.” Pushkin creates a political hymn to the mighty power of the mind, will and creative work of man, capable of realizing such a miracle as the construction of a great and beautiful city “out of the darkness of forests and swamps of cronyism.” On the other hand, this great and beautiful city becomes a grave for the “little man.” The symbol of the city, the magnificent monument to Peter, Pushkin’s most beloved, most revered autocrat, pursues Eugene himself, trying to crush him:

And all night long the poor madman,
Wherever you turn your feet,
Behind him is the Bronze Horseman everywhere
He galloped with a heavy stomp.

Having visited modern city, having stood at the monument to Peter, and now you feel the greatness, enormity and cruelty of Peter’s creation. No wonder Pushkin wrote: “The difference between the state institutions of Peter the Great and his temporary decrees is worthy of surprise... The first were for eternity, or at least for the future, the second were wrested from the impatient, autocratic landowner.”

The contradictions of St. Petersburg, its contrasts continue in N.V. Gogol’s depiction of the city. “Our nineteenth century,” he wrote in “Portrait,” “has long ago acquired the boring face of a banker enjoying his millions in the form of numbers displayed on paper.” The triumph of “coldly terrible egoism” and the mercantile spirit of these new relationships frighten the writer. Gogol dreams of “the beauty of the human soul”, of his high purpose. “We have a wonderful gift,” he wrote, “to make everything insignificant.” Gogol’s St. Petersburg cycle opens with “Nevsky Prospekt”. The image of the city is given here in contrasts. Nevsky Prospekt is a symbol of St. Petersburg life, “universal communication,” the capital’s human marketplace, where selfish interests come first, where “greed, selfishness and need are expressed on those walking and flying in carriages and droshky,” where vulgarity reigns. The brilliantly vulgar appears on Nevsky Prospekt after twelve o'clock. “At this blessed time, from two to three o’clock in the afternoon,” writes Gogol, “which can be called the moving capital of Nevsky Prospect, the main exhibition of all the best works of man takes place. One shows a dandy frock coat with the best beaver, another - a beautiful Greek nose, a third - has excellent sideburns, a fourth - a pair of pretty eyes and an amazing hat, a fifth - a ring with a talisman on a dandy little finger, a sixth - a foot in a charming shoe, a seventh - a tie that excites surprise, eighth - a mustache that plunges into amazement.” Resorting to a satirical device, Gogol does not give portraits and faces in his description of Nevsky Prospect, but shows only moving sideburns, ties and other external signs that characterize the impersonality of a person. Gogol emphasizes that there is nothing human, true in the entire society walking on Nevsky Prospekt. In modern St. Petersburg, on Nevsky Prospekt, there is a crowd of people selling and buying, carrying and loitering, but the feeling of Gogol’s moving mass: sideburns, ties and other external signs still characterizes the impersonality of a person in the modern bureaucratic world. “No sharp features! No sign of individuality!” Just like the hero of the story of the St. Petersburg cycle, the artist Chartkov, who, striving for wealth, adapts to the tastes of customers, becomes an artisan and ruins his talent, so modern city rulers, adapting to the tastes of those who have money, rent historical Buildings, ancient and cultural monuments are rented to commercial companies for stores of American and European goods. The majestic city turns into a series of “lifeless fashionable paintings.” Art is doomed where the terrible power of gold reigns. The story “Portrait” really emphasizes the merchant spirit of the city, exposes the contradictions and poverty populated by the human “fractions and trifles” of the outskirts of St. Petersburg, where “the future does not go.” The ominous figure of the moneylender is depicted in relief.

The theme of usury and the “little man” in the huge city pressing on him is continued by F. M. Dostoevsky. Fog, slush. Rain pours or sleet falls from a gloomy, hostile sky. The wind howls in the dark. In summer, a hot stuffiness hangs over the earth, it smells of lime, dust, the special summer stench of the city... This is the world in which Dostoevsky’s heroes live. Its fogs, twilight and drizzling rains oppress the reader with a living weight. But together with Dostoevsky you begin to love this melancholy with some special, painful love. Raskolnikov stands on the Nikolaevsky Bridge. The sky was without the slightest cloud, and the water was almost blue, which is so rare on the Neva. One restless and unclear thought now occupied Raskolnikov exclusively. He happened, perhaps a hundred times, to stop at this very spot, gaze intently at this truly magnificent panorama, and each time he was almost surprised by one unclear and insoluble impression of his. An inexplicable chill always blew over him from this magnificent panorama. This magnificent picture was full of a dark and deaf spirit for him... Every time he marveled at his gloomy and mysterious impression.” Dostoevsky's Petersburg is a painful, gloomy city. This is a gloomy, painful, hostile city to humans. This is the Petersburg of narrow, cramped streets, inhabited by artisans and impoverished officials. A city of dirty courtyards, wells, in which everyday tragedies are played out. For a modern admirer of the city of St. Petersburg, Dostoevsky does not present such a gloomy picture that we see in the novels themselves. Having gone up to Raskolnikov’s room, looking at the courtyards-wells, we will not experience the feelings that the heroes of the novel “Crime and Punishment” experience, but we better begin to understand the power of the genius of Dostoevsky, who, when implementing his idea, uses such artistic media that make the reader see the city through the eyes of Raskolnikov, Sonya Marmeladova, Svidrigailov and other heroes.

Traveling around the city of St. Petersburg, you involuntarily recall the pages of your favorite works by A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol and F. M. Dostoevsky.

HISTORICAL THEME IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY (I version)

Interest in history always arises especially acutely during periods of rising national self-awareness. The 19th century in Russian history refers precisely to such periods. At the beginning of it with “History of the Russian State” he entered historical science D. I. Karamzin. He also enriched Russian literature with the novel “Marfa Posadnitsa”. We, unfortunately, do not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the historical Russian novel of the 19th century in full, since many of the works of the authors listed above belong to bibliographic manuscripts, but judging by the available historical works of A. S. Pushkin, A. K. Tolstoy, N.V. Gogol, we can say that the historical theme developed in Russian literature of the 19th century on the basis of overcoming romantic ideas about the role of a strong personality in the historical process. The idea of ​​an enlightened monarchy, which dominated the minds of Russian enlighteners, was overcome by Pushkin already in the drama “Boris Godunov”. The people in this drama are “silent,” but their attitude towards those adventurers who take turns reigning during the period of troubled times is silently threatening. In “The Captain's Daughter” A.S. Pushkin goes even further. For the first time in a Russian historical story, he deduces that the leader of the popular uprising is Pugachev - a native of the common people - and proves that it is impossible for a nobleman to unite his fate with such a leader of the popular uprising. Grinev is close to Pushkin and the reader in that he has a firm understanding of noble honor and duty and cannot be a traitor, like Shvabrin. However, the closeness of Grinev and Pugachev is felt in that depth, which will later become the subject of the image of L. N. Tolstoy. Grinev and Pugachev are close in that they share the same traits of the Russian national character: breadth of soul, rejection of betrayal, firmness of conviction, kindness (they both remember good things for a long time), and perseverance in the face of danger. Thus, Tolstoy did not sin against historical truth when in the novel “War and Peace” he made his heroes, the future Decembrists, close to the people in the best manifestations of their national character. The Decembrists did not separate the interests of the people from the national interests in their representation.

Grinev would never have sided with Pugachev also because Pugachev, a simple man, declares himself a king and his entourage copies all the features of the royal court, turning them into a caricature. Pushkin is closer to something else: not a rebellion similar to a palace coup, when the lowest becomes the highest, but a deeper democratic transformation, which presupposes the absence of a royal court at all:

An autocratic villain.
I hate you, your throne,
Your death, the death of children
I see it with cruel joy.

In fact, L. N. Tolstoy wrote about what A. S. Pushkin did not have time to write about in the unfinished novel “Roslavlev or the Russians in 1812,” conceived as a polemic with Zagoskin’s novel, which bears the same name. Both Tolstoy and Pushkin understood very well that in the general course of history, an individual person plays a significant role only when he has the ability to merge with the people in the pursuit of truth and justice, when he, regardless of whether he is a nobleman or a common man , moral. The feeling of patriotism is of particular moral value for both Tolstoy and Pushkin. In Pushkin’s novel “Roslavlev or the Russians in 1812,” Polina, like Tatyana in “Eugene Onegin,” is truly “Russian in soul.” It is in her that true patriotism is manifested, in contrast to the rest of secular society - the “secular mob”, the “monkeys of enlightenment” - the descendants of Korsakov and the contemporaries of Count Nulin, to whom “love of the fatherland seemed pedantry”, who “spoke about everything Russian with contempt and indifference” , and after the start of the war they became jingoistic “patriots”. We see a similar picture in Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”. All those heroes who hate the light, are bored in it, do not accept it - they are all genuine heroes, although they are also characterized by delusions and illusions.

We see the overcoming of romanticism in relation to determining the role of the individual in history in Tolstoy’s novel in the example of Andrei Bolkonsky, Pierre Bezukhov and other heroes. The writer especially clearly shows the insignificance of Napoleon, who was the idol of Prince Andrei and Pierre at the beginning of the novel.

In Tolstoy’s depiction, Napoleon is small, bald, with many unpleasant physiological details: a hairy chest, “fat thighs of short legs,” “a white plump neck,” “broad thick shoulders.” His appearance is not that of a hero, whom millions of people around the world admired and still admire. Although Napoleon came from a poor family, with his intelligence, his courage he achieved everything: fame, honor, power, and only for this he is worthy of respect, Tolstoy believes in his own way. For him, Napoleon is a poseur, imagining that he is making history, who does not forget about it for a minute (this is especially clearly shown in the scene with the portrait of his son). Describing the battles that Napoleon leads, Tolstoy assures us that he is only an outside observer, that everything happens by itself. The writer claims that Napoleon (or any other military leader) cannot lead the battle, if only because events happen too quickly and rapidly, and he cannot follow their progress. Tolstoy portrays Napoleon so sharply negatively because for him he is the personification of the evil forces of the historical process, when the evil will of people, going to kill, rob and exterminate other people, was concentrated at one point. Himself insignificant, he expresses the insignificance of their aspirations.

Kutuzov also does not in any way influence the course of events, but he concentrates in himself the forces of good, forcing all people to resist the force of evil, the “invasion of the French.” Kutuzov knows how to behave in such a way as to prevent everything harmful and not interfere with everything useful. On the Borodino field, when it occurred to one of the adjutants to say out loud that the French were pushing back our troops, Kutuzov, although he knew that this might be true, shouted at him irritably, realizing the tactlessness of this adjutant, with his inappropriate fear causing panic. Tolstoy argued that man unwittingly makes history. The more unconsciously he lives, the more he will participate in the historical process. At first glance, Kutuzov acts unconsciously, but his actions always correspond to the national spirit. According to Tolstoy, he felt the “spirit of the army,” and this is precisely what determines his ability to direct it to where it is most needed at the moment. It was the spirit of the army that determined the defeat at Austerlitz and the victory of the Battle of Borodino.

But still, Tolstoy says that it was not Kutuzov who won the war and it was not Napoleon who lost it. The main character in history in general and in war in particular is a person in whose soul either a good or an evil principle predominates. History is driven only by the “total will of the masses.” To confirm this idea, the author also shows us ordinary people.

One of them is Captain Tushin. There is nothing military in his appearance, there is even something somewhat comical. But it is his battery that decides the outcome of the Battle of Shengraben, when the captain makes the only right decision. In the commanders’ tent, “Tushin... imagined in all his horror his guilt and shame in the fact that he, while still alive, lost two guns.” He does not say that there was no cover, that the battery was forgotten, that these guns could only be saved at the cost of many lives. Tushin not only does not feel like a hero, but also cannot shake off the consciousness of guilt. Modesty, internal moral responsibility for everything that happens, according to Tolstoy, is one of the traits of the national character of the Russian person at its best.

However, in war, other people are needed, such as Tikhon Shcherbaty. At first he seems to be the best guerrilla, but it turns out that he is extremely cruel. Tolstoy believes that you cannot do without such people in a war, but they are not the ones who win it. It can be assumed that the fusion of the wills of precisely such people as Shcherbaty and Dolokhov causes wars of conquest.

According to Tolstoy, everyone unconsciously and constantly creates history, but true heroes are ordinary people who are not aware of their heroism.

Tolstoy believed that contemporaries cannot fully evaluate and understand any historical event, that only descendants have the right to do this, that only they, having realized all the consequences, can pass their verdict. Tolstoy himself does not care about history as such, what is important to him is the psychological, moral correctness of history. For him, the main thing is to discover the relationship between history and human existence. He comes to the conclusion that an individual does not determine the course of history, that the main character is the “totality of the will of the masses” that moves humanity. L.N. Tolstoy took a new step in highlighting historical themes not only in Russian, but also in world literature.

HISTORICAL THEME IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (II version)

A Russian person is characterized by an attentive attitude to the history of his people. Thinking people at all times have sought to find answers in the past to the questions posed to them by the present. In Russian literature, much attention was also paid to the historical theme. In this sense, I am especially interested in the first half of the 19th century. At this time, people felt involved in the great events taking place in the world and felt the course of history. This mood is wonderfully expressed in the works of A. S. Pushkin, who more than once turned to history. He authored such works as “The Blackamoor of Peter the Great”, the drama “Boris Godunov”, the novel “The Captain’s Daughter”, as well as whole line poems that in one way or another touch on the theme of history and the past. In the historical theme, Pushkin was most interested in the problem of the relationship between human life and the historical process. Man and history - this is the theme to which Pushkin’s historical works are devoted, both prosaic (for example, in “The Captain’s Daughter” he wanted to show history “in a homely way”, through the perception of the heroes), and poetic, in which he manages to express surprisingly laconicly and elegantly your attitude to this issue.

How does Pushkin the poet answer the question about the role of man in history? Let us recall the lines from the poem “It was time: our holiday is young...”, written for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Lyceum:

What, what were we witnesses to!
Games of a mysterious game.
Confused peoples rushed about,
And kings rose and fell.

We see that the lyrical hero of the poem feels part of history. He is a witness to great events, and this role is no less important and majestic than even participation in them.

The poem was written in 1836, but the poet came to such thoughts long before that. For the first time he poses this problem in the drama “Boris Godunov”. On its pages we encounter two approaches to the role of man in history. The bearers of these positions are Father Pimen and Grigory Otrepyev.

The first chooses for himself the role of an impassive witness, the second - the role of a direct participant in history. Grishka longs for real life; he cannot bear to be locked within the monastery walls. He wants to be in the thick of things, wants to be a participant, and therefore he so passionately complains about his fate, turning to Father Pimen:

How fun you spent your youth!
You fought under the towers of Kazan,
You reflected the army of Lithuania under Shuisky,
You have seen the court and luxury of John!
Happy! and I from adolescence
I wander around my cells, poor monk!
Why shouldn’t I have fun in battles?
Not to feast at the royal meal? .

To this Pimen replies:

Don’t complain, brother, that you left the sinful light early...

<...>

I lived a long time and enjoyed a lot.
But since then I have only known bliss.
How the Lord brought me to the monastery.

Pimen does not seek to participate in events; he sees his high purpose in observing the course of history and conveying to posterity the chronicle of the affairs of “bygone days”:

The duty commanded by God has been fulfilled
To me, a sinner...

<...>

May the descendants of the Orthodox know
The native land has a past fate,
They remember their great kings...

The chronicler Pimen entrusts himself with a very important mission. He is preparing the court of history. By recording human deeds, “listening indifferently to good and evil,” he tells his descendants the truth about the “dark” past. Gregory understands this. Mentally turning to Tsar Boris, he exclaims:

Meanwhile, the hermit in a dark cell
Here a terrible denunciation is written against you
And you will not escape the judgment of the world,
How can you not escape God's judgment!

Grigory understands the greatness of Pimen, but still strives for freedom, for real life. His dream is allowed to come true: Grishka escapes from the monastery to Poland, gathers an army, leads it to Moscow and ultimately seizes the royal throne. From a “poor monk” he becomes “the mighty of this world”, gaining power and greatness. He imagines pictures of his own power, he craves power. But, having fallen in love, Gregory suddenly realizes that his goal, the royal throne, is losing its former attractiveness for him. In a passionate monologue addressed to his beloved Marina Mnishek, Grigory says:

What about Godunov? Is Boris in power?
Your love, my one bliss?
No no. Now I look indifferently
To his throne, to royal power.
Your love... What is my life without it.
And the glory and the Russian state?

We see that for Pushkin’s heroes, and for the poet himself, human life, its joys and sorrows are more important and dearer than the world where “kings rise and fall.” Pushkin sees, as it were, three layers of existence. Firstly, this is the world of ordinary people, their private life with its small and large events. Secondly, this is the world of “those in power,” where passions run high and blood flows too often. And, finally, thirdly, the highest layer, where the Judgment of God and the Judgment of man are carried out, in other words, the court of history. Pimen belongs to this world, who feels the measured tread of Time. In that high world there are such categories as Truth, Time, History, People.

The problem of people's participation in great events is one of the main problems of “Boris Godunov”. Pushkin was perhaps the first writer to recognize the important role of the people in history. N. M. Karamzin, to whom the poet dedicated his drama, viewed history as a chain of actions of princes and kings, denying commoners any influence on the course of events. Pushkin, on the contrary, pointed to the involvement of the people in the historical process. He speaks about this through the lips of Pimen:

We angered God and sinned:
Ruler for himself the regicide
We named it.

This “we” places the blame on the entire people, on every person who stood on the Maiden Field in the winter of 1598, when Boris Godunov was elected to the throne. Those who indifferently and thoughtlessly shouted “Long live Boris!” are guilty, without considering whether they are calling a righteous man a tsar. At the beginning of the drama, the people do not care about the fate of the royal throne: .

The boyars know that they are no match for us.

Once again the people take the stage at the very end of the drama, when the Pretender enters Moscow and kills Godunov's family. At first, people also behave indifferently, repeating “Long live Demetrius!” and “Let the family of Boris Godunov perish!” after the boyars. But the moment the new sovereign stains his hands with blood, the people no longer mindlessly shout “Long live!” He is silent because Pimen has already pronounced his sentence: “...We... have sinned, because the holy fool has already told Boris: “You cannot pray for King Herod - the Mother of God does not command.” The silence of the people means the awakening in them of a sense of responsibility for the fate of their state, a sense of involvement in the course of history. Pushkin proves to us that man is the most important character in history. Let's remember the poem from 1836:

The whole world revolves around man...

Personal participation in history is very important for a poet. It is not for nothing that he included the boyar Pushkin, apparently his ancestor, among the characters in “Boris Godunov.” The author feels a connection with the past. This connection with history is carried out through ancestors, through ancestral memory. Pushkin is very attentive and careful about the history of his family, proud of both his six-hundred-year-old nobility and the fact that on his mother’s side he descended from Ibrahim Hannibal, taken by Peter I from Africa. Pushkin's works include works dedicated to the history of his ancestors. This, of course, is both “The Blackamoor of Peter the Great” and the poem “My Genealogy”, in which the poet surveys the entire Pushkin family:

My ancestor Racha with the brane muscle
Served St. Nevsky;
His offspring are crowned with wrath,
Ivan IV spared.

Pushkin is proud of the independence of his ancestors:

My grandfather did not sell pancakes.
I didn’t wax the royal boots...

<...>

I am indomitable to my relatives.
My ancestor didn’t get along with Peter
And he was hanged for that.

Paying tribute to his ancestors, the poet does not try to give greatness to his person at the expense of the deeds of his ancestors. He is also proud and independent.

I am literate and a poet, -
I'm just Pushkin, not Musin.
I am not a rich man, not a courtier,
I'm big myself: I'm a tradesman.

We see that in history, for A.S. Pushkin, what is most important is the human personality, the mutual influence of human life and history. Therefore, in his work he pays great attention to the fate of man against the background of history.

Pushkin continued the theme of man and history by writing “The Captain’s Daughter.” In this novel, the story is shown through the events of the private lives of the characters.

This understanding of the historical theme is typical for Russian literature. Pushkin’s tradition was continued by Leo Tolstoy and writers of the 20th century, who showed how the fate of a particular person is intertwined with the fate of the people, country, and state.

THE THEME OF WAR IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE

A person differs from an animal in the ability to think and act in accordance with his opinion. However, his decisions often do not coincide with the desires of others, which is a typical basis for conflict situations. In this case, a person faces a choice between agreement and conflict, and a stronger aggressive principle forces him to follow a very effective path of moral or physical elimination of opponents. This process underlies the social phenomenon of wars. War is a quick and brutal means of resolving ideological, social, historical, political and religious conflicts.

Wars between societies and individuals are waged not only in the material, but also in the ideological spheres of life. During such wars, a personality manifests itself most fully and multifacetedly; there is a struggle of ideas and principles, which has traditionally attracted and continues to attract writers of different eras.

The founder of the literature of ideological confrontations can be considered A. S. Griboyedov, who in his comedy “Woe from Wit” transforms the state of conflict into an ideological war, where all means are good for the moral suppression of Chatsky’s new ideas and thoughts.

“Chatsky: ...The legend is fresh, but hard to believe;
As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;...
Famusov: ...Ah! My God! he's a carbonari!..
...A dangerous person!..
...He wants to preach freedom!..
...Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!..
Sofia: ...He's out of his mind.”

Chatsky ideologically defeats his opponents, but this victory costs him too much. The war between the two worlds is not over, only one battle has been won.

A similar conflict is described by Turgenev in the novel “Fathers and Sons.” The social and ideological war of generations was a typical theme in the literature of this period. Commoners and nobles fight for their ideals and for their place in the world. Their disputes affect various aspects of life: science and culture, economics and agriculture. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, an exponent of the views of the liberal nobility, respects personality, principles, poetry and art. Bazarov rejects all this. His ideas bring destruction and anarchy to the minds of people. Bazarov dies, but his ideas will find a response later. There can be no winner in his war, because it harms everyone. This ideological war is on the verge between philosophical reflections and real actions.

Ideological wars and clashes often lead to material wars. Against the backdrop of grandiose historical events, difficult battles take place between instincts and principles in the minds of the heroes. Thus, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, the hero of Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace,” conquers his selfish aspirations and impulses after visiting the Battle of Austerlitz. Thus, Nikolai Turbin, the hero of Bulgakov’s “The White Guard,” overestimates his life and ideals. Ideological wars are “cleansing” in nature. Their result is usually the discovery of new truths by the hero, the price for which is sometimes life.

Of course, a huge layer of literature studies the mutual influence and collision of human thoughts, but the basic, familiar concept of war is not so much ideological as material. Each literary era creates its own typical image of war. The heroes of works about wars bear the typical features of their contemporaries; events are conveyed in chronological order. Actual historical images appear on the pages of the works.

The era of romanticism brought the image of a people's war. In the works of Pushkin “Poltava” and Lermontov “Borodino” the war reveals the heroism and courage of soldiers, the wisdom of the king and generals. The works are deeply patriotic, they raise national consciousness and Spirit.

But the moment of victory is close, close.
Hooray! we break; The Swedes are bending.
O glorious hour! oh glorious view!
Another push and the enemy flees...
...It was getting dark. Were everyone ready
Start a new fight tomorrow morning
And stand until the end...
The drums began to crack and the infidels retreated.
Then we began to count the wounds.
Count comrades...

The works of Pushkin and Lermontov are based on the feeling of a winner after victory in the War of 1812. They are of a historical-heroic nature and do not contain a deep psychological analysis of the heroes. However, the theme of the Patriotic War attracted Tolstoy precisely because of the opportunity to most accurately determine the closeness of his heroes to the people, which characterized the person’s compliance with the author’s ideals. Any historical event, according to Tolstoy, is the result of an unconscious “swarm desire”. The war becomes a consequence of the need to move peoples from West to East and subsequent countermovement from East to West. In the midst of this movement, he places his heroes in order to understand them, to understand their aspirations. Tolstoy's war is the “litmus test of life.” Tolstoy outlined the historical aspects of the war with meticulous accuracy, providing them with his own philosophical comments. His War of 1812 is a historical study of his contemporary, the descendants of its participants - the future Decembrists.

19th century writers explored the topic of war primarily to study human beings. To this end, the authors took various historical events and viewed them through the prism of human relationships. The theme of war has never moved away from the theme of man and his spiritual quest. For the most vivid and complete disclosure of the theme of war, the authors used plot and compositional means, colorful epithets and metaphors, but the main thing was always their ability to see the human soul behind the cruelty, blood and battles.

Throughout history, man has shown a rare desire for self-destruction. His life always hung by a thread, and literature, creating various images and situations, warned him about the danger of losing not only his physical shell in wars, but also its content.

MOTIVES OF A. A. FET’S LYRICS IN “WAR AND PEACE” l. n. thick

Leo Tolstoy met A. A. Fet in the mid-fifties, arriving in St. Petersburg after participating in the defense of Sevastopol. Of all the St. Petersburg writers who warmly greeted Tolstoy as a new talented author and hero of the Crimean War (Nekrasov, Goncharov, Grigorovich, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Aksakovs, Chernyshevsky), Fet turned out to be closest to Tolstoy. They carried their friendship throughout their lives. Fet and his wife (M. P. Botkina) often visited Yasnaya Polyana, the Tolstoys visited Fet. There was intense correspondence between the writers, the main part of which was the discussion of creative ideas.

When you read Fet’s lyrics, you are struck by the deeply felt and conveyed atmosphere of Yasnaya Polyana. Thus, the famous poem “The night shone. The garden was full of the moon...” was inspired by the singing of Tolstoy’s sister-in-law, Tatyana Andreevna Bers. The special musical atmosphere of Yasnaya Polyana has always been akin to Fet, who drew inspiration from it. Music for Fet and for Tolstoy is not just a favorite form of art. Despite Tolstoy’s famous words that music is indifferent to ethics, neither moral nor immoral, but immoral, Tolstoy resorts to some special, “musical” characteristics of his favorite heroes, and not only at the time of writing “War and Peace” . Saying that Petya Rostov was as musical as Natasha, and more than Nikolai, Tolstoy gives not only a description of the musical abilities of the brothers and sister, but also a holistic description of their inner world, the ability, as Fet said, to “love” and “cry.” Petya's music, which he hears in his magical dream, is a premonition of harmony and love throughout the world. The same is the music, “quiet”, “whispering”, as if breaking through from another world, in the dying visions and sensations of Andrei Bolkonsky.

Tolstoy's favorite heroes are supremely gifted with this super-musicality, even regardless of whether they can sing or play the instrument. musical instruments. It is significant to compare Prince Andrei, who reacts painfully to Lisa’s false secular behavior, with a musician who hears a false note. Bolkonsky’s mood, listening to Natasha’s singing, completely coincides with the feelings expressed in Fetov’s famous “The Night Was Shining...”. In a later work, “The Living Corpse,” Tolstoy shows Fedya Protasov, in love with gypsy singing, as a man for whom the consciousness of falsehood in his relationships with his wife and others is intolerable. In Russian poetry, Fet was one of the most musical poets, a “poet-musician.” When Turgenev said that he expected Fet to write a poem, the last lines of which would have to be conveyed “with the silent movement of his lips,” he was not exaggerating. Words in Fet's poetry really turn into notes. It is not for nothing that romances and “melodies” are so common among Fet’s poems.

It was not only the musical perception of the world that brought Fet and Tolstoy together. They were also united by a special sense of nature. In spring, Fet always felt especially keenly the awakening of the vital forces of nature; his spring poems not only convey admiration for the beauty of the world, they are a kind of prayer to the creative forces of nature. Unlike Pushkin's autumn motifs, Fet's spring moods are perhaps less philosophical, but more vivid and spontaneous. Fet greets the Christian holiday of March 9 (the day of the Forty Martyrs) with very non-Christian sentiments:

What a delight! .
We've already arrived
You evangelists of flowers.
I hear trills in the sky
Above the white tablecloth of snow...
And the Forty Martyrs themselves
I will be the envy of heaven.

Leo Tolstoy and Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya especially loved this poem. Every spring, Fet and Tolstoy had a lively correspondence discussion of observations of the signs of the spring resurrection of nature. Tolstoy was waiting for Fet to send new poems. “May Night”, “The willow is all fluffy...” Tolstoy could not read without tears. The accuracy and vigilance of Fet's poetic vision invariably aroused Tolstoy's admiration. And of course, not only Tolstoy’s letters are filled with responses to Fet’s lyrics, but also “War and Peace,” written at the time of the closest communication with the poet. Tolstoy's heroes, who are most sensitive to music, are also endowed with an extraordinary sense of nature or a religious feeling. Such are Prince Andrei, Natasha, and Princess Marya.

The parallel between such poems as “Lonely Oak”, “Learn from them - from the oak, from the birch”, and the description of the spring oak in “War and Peace” suggests itself. And the conclusions of the writers are similar - a person draws energy from nature, learns from it to endure the storms and cold of life. Natasha’s expressed desire to fly resulted in a feeling of looseness and even some loss of “ground under her feet” - she took the fatal step of becoming carried away by Anatole. But without the landscape of a moonlit night in Otradnoye, “War and Peace” is impossible to imagine, just as it is impossible to imagine Fet’s poetry without the feeling of flight, without the light of the moon and stars.

On a haystack at night in the south
I lay facing the firmament
And the choir shone, lively and friendly,
Spread over me, trembling...

This is the feeling of Natasha ready to fly away to the stars, these are the dreams of Prince Andrei on the field of Austerlitz. Let us also remember Pierre in captivity, feeling that no one is able to set a limit to his immortal soul. In the poem “To Faded Stars,” Fet says:

Maybe you are not under those lights,
The ancient era extinguished you,
So after death I will fly to you in poetry,
To the ghosts of the stars I will be a ghost of a sigh.

For Fet, poetry is the “ghost of a sigh,” and the human soul is immortal, but not in a Christian way, but rather pantheistically dissolves in all that exists. This was also the idea of ​​Tolstoy’s soul, at least close to it. After all, Christian philosophers found the death of Prince Andrey insufficiently Christian, calling Bolkonsky’s ideas vague “philosophical pantheism” (K. Leontyev). Be that as it may, the noted parallels can be multiplied, and about the lyrics of Fet, Tyutchev, and partly Nekrasov, we can say that they are all permeated with the motifs of the Russian novel, or rather, they are all the inspiration for the beautiful lyrical pages of Russian novelism of the second half of the 19th century.

“A POET IN RUSSIA IS MORE THAN A POET” (E. Yevtushenko)

Russian literature has never been only art. Poets and writers felt like prophets, denouncers of the vices of society and its individual representatives, fighters for “high moral ideas.” This was especially clearly reflected in the works of F. M. Dostoevsky and L. N. Tolstoy. In their works, these authors study in detail the inner world of people and try to understand complex human relationships. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky prove that people who do not have high moral ideals are not capable of spiritual development. Writers lead such characters either to death or to the collapse of all their endeavors.

According to the authors, only those people who strictly adhere to high moral standards are able to live in the human world and improve spiritually. Only such heroes can truly love. Only they are able to know the truth.

These ideas were reflected especially clearly in the novels “Crime and Punishment” and “War and Peace.” In the work of F. M. Dostoevsky, the main character, Rodion Raskolnikov, transgressed the basic moral laws of life. He trampled all moral principles in order to rise above people, to become the arbiter of their destinies. “I wanted to dare...” But Rodion himself did not realize his tragedy. Raskolnikov was blinded by the idea of ​​how to benefit humanity: “Kill her and take her money, so that with their help you can then devote yourself to serving all of humanity...” But he himself did not notice how the goal was changed. In fact, Raskolnikov wanted to try and find out: “Am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right...” Throughout the entire novel, the author argues with Raskolnikov, with his Napoleonic idea of ​​a strong personality, permissiveness. Dostoevsky proves to the main character that even the most pitiful creature has the right to life, that one cannot be guided only by personal interests, that, living for oneself, a person cannot bring happiness to others. After committing the crime, Raskolnikov begins to experience mental anguish. He cannot forget what he did. This happens because the main character still retains such a human quality as the ability to compassion. Raskolnikov helps a drunken girl and is deeply worried about the news of his sister’s marriage. And the other character in this work, Svidrigailov, does not experience mental anguish. He committed murder, raped a girl, but was able to forgive himself for it. Svidrigailov has forgiven himself for his sins, but even he does not live happily. He is tormented by terrible loneliness and emptiness, which drive him to suicide. In the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky, there is another character who lives only for himself - Luzhin. He is only interested in himself. He doesn't care about other people's problems. Even performing, at first glance, a noble act, marrying Duna, he pursues a selfish goal - to dispose of his wife as he wants. This man has never done anything good to others.

Luzhin is somewhat reminiscent of Doctor Startsev from A.P. Chekhov’s story “Ionych”. Both of these characters pursue the same goal - to accumulate capital. By acquiring wealth, they both lose the person in themselves. If Luzhin’s principles can ultimately lead to Raskolnikov’s theory of the right to crime, then the same theory in its development will inevitably degenerate into Svidrigailovism and lead to the complete moral decay of the individual.

In L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” we can also meet people for whom personal good is most important. One of them is Napoleon. This man has set himself the goal of world domination and is moving towards it, regardless of anyone’s interests. This man is hypocritical, deceitful, and cowardly. His spiritual development has stopped. Napoleon abandons his army and troops to save his life. He is terrible in his desire for personal well-being, because he throws entire nations into battle to their death! But he does not achieve his goal. All of Napoleon's undertakings failed. By this, the author proves the direction of Napoleonic life ideals, shows that all endeavors are doomed to failure, and a person who accepts such morality comes to spiritual death.

Thus, we can conclude that it is impossible to live guided by the principles of personal gain and permissiveness, since this is the path to spiritual degradation.

According to writers, only deeply religious, highly moral, kind people are capable of creating in this world; spiritual growth is possible only when a person renounces everything personal, when he stops thinking only about himself. Therefore, only through repentance and awareness of the selfishness of one’s goals is the revival of Rodion Raskolnikov and Andrei Bolkonsky possible. Prince Andrei bowed to Napoleon. He saw him as a great man. “Napoleon as a great man on the Arcole Bridge, in the hospital in Jaffa, where he offers his hand to the plague victims...” The wounded Bolkonsky sees only an insignificant, petty person who was his idol, against the backdrop of the high sky, personifying the ideal to which they should strive all people. Bolkonsky realizes the depravity of his ideas and renounces them. “All his interests seemed so insignificant at that moment... in comparison with that high, fair and kind sky...” From this moment his long path to spiritual recovery begins. But for Raskolnikov it begins only in the epilogue of the novel. “But here a new story begins, the story of the gradual renewal of man...” But it would not have been possible without the help of Sonya Marmeladova. She helps Raskolnikov to be reborn spiritually, she follows him everywhere, she sacrifices herself, her interests for his sake. Sonya is the personification of a “high moral idea,” spiritual strength and beauty in the novel “Crime and Punishment.” Her whole life is aimed at helping the people around her. She sells herself, but her family lives on this money, she follows Raskolnikov to hard labor to help him. Thus, we can say that Sonya is the author’s ideal. She was able to survive in this world thanks to her deepest faith, sacrificial love, thanks to her idea of ​​​​forgiveness.

In the novel “War and Peace,” the author’s ideal is the Bezukhov family. Pierre Bezukhoe, a pure, kind, open person, sometimes reminiscent of a child, has no selfish goals. He never acts for his own benefit, he never harmed anyone. Pierre strives to see only the good in people. He even found a good quality in Napoleon - service to the idea: “I see the greatness of the soul in the fact that Napoleon was not afraid to take responsibility for this act.” But he soon parted with the idea of ​​the greatness of Napoleon's soul. Pierre remains in Moscow to kill the French emperor, as he understands that Napoleon brings only evil. In captivity, Bezukhov meets with Platon Karataev, who helps him survive in very harsh conditions. Communication with Karataev brings Pierre back to life, he finds “agreement with himself.” Bezukhov learned to truly love life. He understood how important it is to maintain the independence of one’s moral state from the external conditions of life and peace of mind, despite any blows of fate. Natasha Rostova calls him “pure” - this is the ideal woman for Tolstoy. She loves the world around her with all her heart. Natasha lives only by feelings. She constantly feels the need to love someone, so when Prince Andrei leaves her, Natasha falls in love with Anatoly Kuragin. At the end of the novel, we see that Natasha is completely dissolved in her husband: she thinks only about Pierre and her family, no thoughts about herself, only about her husband and children. In addition, Natasha is a person with a highly developed sense of patriotism. When the French approached Moscow, she insisted that her family leave their property and give carts for the wounded. Morality, inner decency, kindness, love, the feeling of the people that Natasha carries within herself help her and Pierre to withstand and endure difficult trials.

“High moral idea” the works of other Russian writers are also noted: N. A. Nekrasov, N. G. Chernyshevsky, A. M. Gorky. They all called for serving public duty, serving the Motherland, freedom, spirituality, and high life ideals. These writers and poets made great contributions to the development of literature. Therefore, Russian literature has no equal in the world to this day.

TRADITIONS OF A. S. GRIBOEDOV IN “EUGENE ONEGIN” BY A. S. PUSHKIN AND “WAR AND PEACE” BY L. N. TOLSTOY

Pushkin, as a contemporary of Griboyedov, could respond to “Woe from Wit” directly in allusions and reminiscences in “Eugene Onegin”. Tolstoy, while depicting noble Moscow at the beginning of the century, could have used some of Griboedov’s images consciously, but the concept of the author of “Woe from Wit” underwent a serious rethinking. Griboyedov's reminiscences in Pushkin and Tolstoy can be considered in a narrower and broader meaning. The first will include the direct echo of the poems “Woe from Wit”. To the second - everything that evokes the memory of “Woe from Wit” leads to comparison with it. If both of these moments are characteristic of Pushkin, then for Tolstoy the second will be predominant. This difference can be explained by several reasons. Firstly, by the fact that Pushkin’s work is poetic, and Tolstoy’s is prosaic. Secondly, by the fact that if Pushkin is characterized by equality (and at an early stage even predominance) in the use of literary material along with material taken from life itself, then for Tolstoy as largest representative Russian realism is characterized by an orientation towards life material and criticism of “literariness”, under which even Shakespeare fell under it. In addition, Griboyedov and Pushkin were contemporaries, and Tolstoy lived in a different era. In “Eugene Onegin” and “War and Peace” there are themes on which the reflection of Griboyedov’s themes seems to fall. First of all, this applies to pictures of Moscow society. The most noticeable echoes of “Woe from Wit” are in the seventh chapter of “Eugene Onegin.” One of the epigraphs to it directly indicates a connection with Griboyedov’s comedy. Let us dwell on the meaning of this epigraph. Chatsky, finding himself in Moscow after a long absence, says:

What new will Moscow show me?
Yesterday there was a ball, and tomorrow there will be two.
He made a match - he succeeded, but he missed.

All the same sense, and the same poems in the albums. This is followed by the words included in the epigraph, after which comes Chatsky’s monologue, angrily ridiculing Moscow bars. Thus, the epigraph refers to Griboyedov’s satirical picture and sets the mood in the same mood. And indeed, the Moscow in which Tatyana finds herself is strikingly reminiscent of Griboyedov’s Moscow. The stanzas of the seventh chapter of “Eugene Onegin” are literally filled with Griboyedov’s reminiscences.

But no change is visible in them, everything in them is the same as before

It brings to mind Griboyedov’s “same meaning.” “The same poems in albums” - this favorite stream of “home poetry” turns into Pushkin’s elegy, which he is preparing

Tanya is some kind of buffoon, leaning against the wall,
And he’s a good member of the club

refers us to Chatsky’s words about Famusov: .

Well, what about your father? all English Club
An ancient, faithful member to the grave?

The ironic mention of the “chamber of the English Club”, where “the discussions about the kamas” take place, was contained in the eighth chapter of the original edition of “Eugene Onegin” and was reminiscent of Famusov’s words about those Moscow old men who

And sometimes they talk about the government like this...
It’s not like they were introducing anything new...
...and they’ll find fault
To this, to that, and more often to nothing...

The old Count Ilya Andreich Rostov was also a member of the English club and even its foreman. This is not the only thing that brings him closer to Famusov. Let us remember the name day in the Rostov house, when the count, receiving visits, repeats words of gratitude and an invitation to dinner “with the same expression... to everyone without exception or change.” Doesn't this remind you of Famus's

You know, I'm happy for everyone.

If we remember it “in front of relatives, where we meet, crawling,” then it is easy to see the connection of this moment with Tanya’s affectionate meetings at relative dinners with bread and salt. In “War and Peace” Griboyedov’s line echoed:

What kind of aces live and die in Moscow!

She perfectly conveys everything connected with the “famous rich and handsome man of Catherine’s time, Count Bezukhov”! Tolstoy also used the word “aces” in precisely this meaning. Describing a dinner at an English club in honor of Bagration, Tolstoy noted: “The aces, the most honorable members of the club, surrounded the newcomers.” If Tolstoy's images of Griboyedov turn out to be devoid of a satirical shade, then Pushkin retains it in his depiction of Moscow types. In this he follows Griboyedov and does not hide it. The mention in stanza XIV of the seventh chapter of the princess’s aunt, Monsieur Finmouche, a spitz, makes us remember Aunt Sophia, “whose house is full of pupils and pugs,” the old woman Khlestova’s spitz, Guillaume, who had every chance of becoming not only a friend, but also a husband. The stanza, even in its character, is very reminiscent of Chatsky’s monologue, beginning with the words included in the epigraph. To continue the comparison, we can talk about negative type matching.

He himself is fat, his artists are skinny...
Semyon Petrovich is also stingy....
And he also eats and drinks for two.
The enemy of books...
Ivan Petrovich is just as stupid.

Line: “And I pulled my ears like that!” an almost literal repetition of Khlestova’s words about Chatsky: “I pulled his ears.” Just as Moscow society is alien to Chatsky, so it is alien to Tatyana. But in Pushkin, “innocent conversations garnished with light slander” do not occupy such an important place in the action as they are assigned to in Griboyedov. Pushkin’s satirical side does not overshadow other aspects of Moscow, in which he notices both monuments of Russian glory and a unique architectural appearance. Griboyedov’s idea about the emptiness of Moscow secular society was not alien to Tolstoy.

“Here in Moscow we are more busy with dinners and gossip than with politics,” says Boris Drubetskoy and repeats this thought several times. Secular society has its own authorities. Famusov says to Griboyedov:

What about the ladies? anyone, try it, master it;
Judges are everywhere, there are no judges above them.
Order the command in front of the front!
Send them to the Senate to be present!

This description fits Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova perfectly well, whom all of Moscow knew and whom “everyone, without exception, respected and feared.” In addition to important people, there are irreplaceable people who, as it were, personify society itself. Zagoretsky plays this role in the comedy. A similar role is played in “Eugene Onegin” by Zaretsky, whose episodic appearance occurs in the second half of the development of the plot. Zagoretsky appears in a similar way.

The noted cases do not exhaust all the reminiscences of “Woe from Wit,” but confirm the fact of the influence of Griboedov’s comedy on the creative searches of Pushkin and Tolstoy. It is quite appropriate to ask the question: what role do Griboyedov’s reminiscences play in the works under consideration? Let's try to figure this out.

When Pushkin was faced with the task of depicting Moscow society in a novel, he did not ignore Griboyedov’s experience. The direction of the comedy, apparently, turned out to be close to one of the particular problems that Pushkin solved. His use of reminiscences from Griboyedov’s comedy can be considered as a means of creating in the most laconic way generalized images of the peripheral characters of the novel. The reader could know more about them than is said in the novel, completing the image based on his development in “Woe from Wit,” as if falling into the structure novel. This penetration is confirmed by the following quote:

He returned and disappeared
Like Chatsky, from the ship to the ball.

Pushkin himself once applied to Chatsky’s position, arriving in Moscow after a long absence. This may have strengthened his perception of comedy, which was used in his work several years later.

If in “Eugene Onegin” the memory of “Woe from Wit” increases, as if adding “depth of field” to the image due to its own elements, then in “War and Peace” echoes of the comedy seem to narrow the picture, reminding of characteristic situations. But in Tolstoy these positions become more complex and more realistic. His reminiscences take on the character of starting points, which are always followed by the development of their theme. Having analyzed Griboyedov’s reminiscences in “Eugene Onegin” and “War and Peace,” we can conclude that the assimilation of Griboyedov’s experience and pushing away from his traditions was an important point in the creation of innovative works of Russian literature.

“A WRITER IS NOT A JUDGE, BUT ONLY AN IMPARTIAL WITNESS OF LIFE” (A.P. Chekhov)

The surest way to avoid a short circuit is to never touch the wires.

John Fowles

Many perceive the writer as a representative of a free profession, writing out of idleness and inability to occupy himself with a more serious matter, many - as a moralist and denouncer of vices, others - as an impartial, but necessary “witness of life”. In fact, the earliest written work that has survived to this day is “The Tale of Bygone Years” - a chronicle written as impartially and objectively as possible in the 11th century. Over 9 centuries, the attitude towards the writer and his role in the life of society changed as he reflected on this problem. Two-thirds of the work of at least some significant and thoughtful authors is devoted not to describing reality, but to understanding the role of the poet and poetry and their place in the history of mankind, from which the author himself sees himself separated by the talent and “omniscience of the prophet.” M. Yu. Lermontov at the beginning of his work sees himself not in the role of a judge of society, but also not a witness to its life. “The earthly creature is submissive to me // And the stars listen to me.” The poet sees himself as a great messenger, sent to earth “to proclaim pure teachings of love and truth.”

“Who will tell me my thoughts? //I am either God or no one!” - this leads the lyrical hero Lermontov and himself to loneliness, alienation and rejection by those to whom he carried divine truths. His life and the talent devoted to it are wasted, and he understands that “between people there is neither a slave nor a master.” And his main mistake (to go towards it all his life, but it is still important to realize it) is that Lermontov, wanting to teach people something, “follows the crowd, although he does not share his soul with it.” It is important not to persecute people by shouting loud, generally confused words, but to give them your soul. On the other side...

A.S. Pushkin was not only a philosopher and “prophet,” but also a fighter against autocracy and serfdom. He was not a bystander social struggle, and a friend and inspirer of the Decembrists. When they were condemned, “both the feeder and the swimmer died,” the poet was “thrown ashore by a thunderstorm.” He was able to write in freedom, continue the fight and “sing the old hymns.” But, if the Decembrists paid with their lives for their speech, then this will not leave such a deep mark on Pushkin’s fate, and now he is already “drying his wet robe in the sun under a rock.” He turned out to be an impartial witness and got the opportunity to write about everything to “coming” generations, but the question is: didn’t he feel like a traitor, even for a good purpose? (J. Fowles).

How to distinguish distance from the events of time for greater objectivity from weakness and betrayal?! On the one hand, there are writers who impose their point of view on the reader, breaking other people’s life position and worldview. “Even if he were Rembrandt himself, he has no right to ruin someone else’s life”? But maybe this is strength of character, will, genius! A striking example is Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. In his works he does not prove, but indicates to the reader what is true and what is false, what is vital and what is adapted to life, and what is temporary and transitory. The spontaneity, impressionability and liveliness of Natasha Rostova - everything that attracts the reader in her is momentary. And the simple truth of life is her ability and “duty” to be a mother. Anna Karenina should not evoke sympathy in us, but pity, because she neglected her duty. This is contrary to human feelings, but in accordance with the highest morality. At the same time, Turgenev and Chekhov, from the very beginning of their work, do not identify themselves with their heroes, but separate them from themselves and, in accordance with the laws of realistic prose, maintain an ambiguous attitude towards their characters.

Evgeny Bazarov, on the one hand, is called upon to prove the inconsistency of fashionable nihilism, but, on the other hand, he evokes sympathy and understanding. As I. S. Turgenev in “Fathers and Sons” and I. A. Goncharov in “Oblomov” do not demonstrate their ideals to the reader, but push him to search for the ideal in the synthesis of two extremes. It seems that this is exactly what V. G. Belinsky had in mind when speaking about “truly folk works”: to open the reader’s eyes to the reality surrounding him and the writer equally so that he himself sees the shortcomings in it and in himself and alone sets about eternal search for the best. “People are like trees in the forest; not a single botanist will study each individual birch tree.” - this is Bazarov’s mistake. Let everyone accept in their own way the soul of the writer put into the work. The experience and knowledge of mankind are not homogeneous, but consist of mistakes and searches of many. Perhaps only a few will understand an objectively written book, while only weak-willed people will be able to impose their point of view, while the strong and thoughtful will disdainfully reject other people’s morality and judgment. The ability to see what others do not notice does not give the right to judge and does not deprive oneself of the prospect of being judged. "Judge not lest ye be judged". We will be, but not contemporaries who imagine themselves to have the right...

Beliefs, tossing, contempt, hatred and anger - what is all this for, if at the end of life one is suddenly given the opportunity to realize what is clear from the very beginning: “In this life, dying is not new, // But living, of course, is not new.” And all ideals are inherently false.

Could it be that the poet is “just a dreamer” and not “an impartial witness of life”?

A.P. Chekhov refutes these doubts with all his creativity. Short stories, stories, plays, every detail that makes up them - are aimed at a clear depiction of reality, not always modern, but often future. In the story “Ward No. 6” or in any other, in the monologues of the heroes we will never find a specific author's position. The social landscape, its “sad, cursed appearance, which we only have in hospital and prison buildings,” the antithesis of sick-healthy, hospital-prison helps us find the right solution, pushes us towards this search. But Chekhov trusts his reader too much to express to him his unambiguous attitude towards their own fictional characters. Unlike Chekhov's heroes, M. Gorky's heroes directly express their position, which sounds like a statement: “All people are equal from birth!”, “Education is nonsense, the main thing is talent.” This is probably correct. But this is what Gorky came to through his life experience in the reality surrounding him. That is why his works are more topical than historical, devoid of the future and the prospect of reflection. Works that prevent the reader from developing through search. “Anger and hatred are a luxury we simply cannot afford these days.” The role of the writer is too important in the context of Eternity for him to waste himself on emotions. Perhaps he “was born for happiness, for hopes, for peaceful inspirations,” but, having chosen the path of “an impartial witness of life,” he must follow it in everything and to the end.

I. S. TURGENEV AND A. P. CHEKHOV: CONTINUITY OR INNOVATION?

Chekhov, already at the very beginning of his creative career, was persistently compared with Turgenev, and soon these comparisons became a kind of common place both in the reviews of critics and in the reaction of the reading public. The poet A. N. Pleshcheev wrote about Chekhov’s collection of stories “At Twilight”: “The shadow of I. S. Turgenev hovered invisibly before me. The same pacifying poetry of words, the same wonderful description of nature.” A. A. Andreeva, in a letter to Chekhov, spoke enthusiastically about his “House with a Mezzanine”: “There is so much subtle poetic charm, such Turgenevian features...” Chekhov was annoyed that they always wanted to see him against the backdrop of Turgenev. In a conversation with Bunin, he complained that he was constantly pestered with “Turgenev notes.” Chekhov, who understood and defended his originality, was surprised that his contemporaries did not want to notice it: “They write strangely about me. Never just about Chekhov. Always about Chekhov in comparison with someone else.”

How did Chekhov himself feel about Turgenev’s creative heritage? Some critics argue that this attitude came down to the fact that Chekhov tried to overcome and even parodied the artistic ideas of his predecessor, who created the literary style of that phase of the development of fiction, which by the time of Chekhov had ended. Chekhov carefully studied Turgenev's legacy, and many Turgenev themes sounded in Chekhov's works, sometimes receiving parodic coverage, but there was no “evil” intent on his part. For it was not of his own free will that he entered into a polemic with Turgenev, who gave a deep picture of Russian life and outlined the most important types of his contemporaries, and Russian life itself, of which Chekhov was always the artist, demanded that he continue and develop. And in this he followed precisely Turgenev’s requirement to depict “only life - “pieces of life”, without intrigue and rough adventures.” For this, Chekhov received high praise from Tolstoy, who called him “an artist of life.”

The types created by Turgenev could no longer absorb all the diversity of the new Russia. At the end of his life, Turgenev understood that a new type of writers was needed, who would reflect all the changes that had taken place. Chekhov's Russia was populated not only by greatly changed Rudins and Bazarovs, but also by Ionychs, Dushechki and hundreds of other typical creatures that did not fit into the previous typology. Therefore, Chekhov, highly appreciating Turgenev’s novels, understands that “something else is needed.” At the same time, he reveals continuity with the basic creative principle of Turgenev, who said: “During my writing career, I never started from ideas, but always from images...” Chekhov also asserted the same thing, only in other words: “ Living, truthful images are created by thought, but thought will not create images.” Both writers point to what unites them, an unshakable foundation - classical realism, the depiction of life in the forms of life itself.

Chekhov worked in the era of the heyday of the literature of Russian decadence, the brightest representatives of which tried to make Chekhov “one of their own”, saw in him a “symbolist” and even the founder of literature of the 20th century. However, Chekhov himself treated such attempts with irony, defending his connection with the classical tradition, and called Merezhkovsky a “greenhouse plant.” Defending the classical tradition, Chekhov could not simply continue the work of Tolstoy and Turgenev; he had to start all over again, with new assessments, and often reassessments of what had been achieved. Therefore, without abandoning Turgenev’s legacy, he strictly looks at it from a certain historical distance and takes from him only what remains viable. Chekhov, alien to sentimentality, emphatically sober and restrained, calmly watched as the “nests of the nobility” collapsed, as the old way of life died. In Chekhov’s story “With Friends” (1898), he says about his hero: “This poetry has become obsolete for him... Dates on moonlit nights, and white figures with thin waists, and mysterious shadows, and towers, and estates have become obsolete.” This emphasized calm, far from both gloating and romantic sadness, is especially felt in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, where in the “noble nest”, instead of the poetic Liza Kalitina, lives the ordinary, prosaic Ranevskaya, who is funny with her feigned deceitful dreaminess. Here we see a view not from the side, but “from above,” from a certain height, which is accessible only to those who are so elevated that, in the words of F. Nietzsche, “laughs at every tragedy - both on stage and in life.” It is no coincidence that Chekhov called “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy and was annoyed and outraged when it was interpreted as a tragedy! Chekhov the playwright did not break away from the present, but rose so above it that the darkest collisions - from the point of view of his contemporaries, who blindly identified with their present - lost their tragedy.

Chekhov created a whole world populated by hundreds of characters. The German writer Thomas Mann wrote: “All his work is a rejection of epic monumentality, and yet it embraces the vastness of Russia.”

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

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

The theme of a national 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. The study used critical literature, as well as the works of writers and poets of the 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 - a new, smart, developed person - is contrasted with 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 the “Famus society” of 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 open positive hero in Griboedov's comedy. But one cannot call him exceptional and lonely. He is young, romantic, ardent, he has like-minded people: for example, professors of the Pedagogical Institute, who, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, “practice in schisms and lack of faith,” these are “crazy people” inclined to study, this is the princess’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, “ chemist and 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 the “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 at the last moment of the reign of Alexander I, on the eve of the uprising on St. 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”, which was forever given to “a gloomy ignorant... and the slaves bore their 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.

The central place 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 reaction period. 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, a characteristic feature of 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!

The theme of a lonely person, permeated with sadness, unsurpassed in the beauty of its execution, can be clearly seen in Lermontov’s lyrics, determined by his feelings and the society around him.

In the famous novel by 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, a young man belonging to the generation of the 30s of the 19th 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 interesting and useful than the history of an entire people...”.

In this novel, Lermontov reveals the theme of the “superfluous man,” because Pechorin is the “superfluous man.” His behavior is incomprehensible to those around him, because it does not correspond to their everyday point of view on life, common in noble society. 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 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 manifests itself in a deep mind, strong passions and the steel will of Pechorin. 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 of either an evil disposition, 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, typical representative of its 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 with people's destinies, 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 stands among the eternal images of 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 true meaning life in 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 motifs of Russian folk songs come to life. In Katerina’s worldview, the spring of primordially Russian song culture beats and Christian beliefs take on new life. 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 entered into the flesh and blood of the Russian folk character awaken, deep layers are revealed Slavic culture.

But in the Kabanovs’ house, Katerina finds herself in a “ dark kingdom"spiritual lack of freedom. “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 last 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, the main character is 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 fair, 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 - greeted 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 dishes they ate Russian cabbage soup, and for French words a fine was imposed.

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 at Braunau, and during the 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 his own for Russia, dear person, he is a bearer of 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. Amazing with their moral fortitude defenders of General Raevsky's battery. Tolstoy shows extraordinary tenacity and courage of soldiers and the best part of officers. At the center of the narrative about the partisan war is the image of Tikhon Shcherbaty, who embodies the best national traits of the 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: their native land was cleared by the 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 relationships, 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 a lack of 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 the strong fire of the human soul can be extinguished only by 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. These are 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 of the life positions of Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. She is honest, beautiful in her feelings and behavior. With such pure feelings, with faith in the future, a person should no longer 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 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.

List of used literature

1.M.Yu. Lermontov, “Selected Works”, 1970.

2.A.S. Pushkin, “Collected Works”, 1989.

.A.S. Griboyedov, “Woe from Wit”, 1999.

.A.P. Chekhov, “Collected Works”, 1995.

.M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Gentlemen Golovlevs”, 1992.

.L.N. Tolstoy, “War and Peace”, 1992.

.F.M. Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”, 1984.

.ON THE. Nekrasov, “Collection of poems”, 1995.

.A.N. Ostrovsky, “Collected Works”, 1997.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

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 a lonely and superfluous person in a secular society in the poetry and prose of M.Yu. Lermontov

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

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

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

The theme of society in the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin Lord 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; personality was opposed to society (Woe from Wit by A.S. Griboyedov), the problem of an extra (lonely) person was demonstrated (Eugene Onegin by A.S. Pushkin, Hero of Our Time by M.Yu. Lermontov), ​​a poor person (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. The study used critical literature, as well as the works of writers and poets of the Silver Age.

The problem of the new man in Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit

Consider, for example, the comedy by A.S. Griboyedova 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 advanced ideas and true culture. In the image of the main character of Chatsky's comedy, Griboedov, for the first time in Russian literature, showed a new person, inspired by sublime ideas, rebelling against a reactionary society in defense of freedom, humanity, intelligence and culture, cultivating a new morality, developing a new view of the world and human relations.

The image of Chatsky - a new, smart, developed person - is contrasted with Famus society. In Gora Out of Mind, 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 the Famus society of 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 of the Pedagogical Institute, who, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, practice schisms and lack of faith, these are crazy people inclined to study, this is the princess’s nephew Prince Fyodor, a chemist and 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 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, its 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 at the last moment of the reign of Alexander I, on the eve of the uprising on St. 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

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

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

The theme of a national 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. The study used critical literature, as well as the works of writers and poets of the 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 advanced ideas and true culture. In the image of the main character of Chatsky's comedy, Griboedov for the first time in Russian literature showed a “new man”, inspired by lofty ideas, raising a rebellion against a reactionary society in defense of freedom, humanity, intelligence and culture, cultivating a new morality, developing a new view of the world and human relationship.

The image of Chatsky - a new, smart, developed person - is contrasted with 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 the “Famus society” of 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 of the Pedagogical Institute, who, according to Princess Tugoukhovskaya, “practice in schisms and lack of faith,” these are “crazy people” inclined to study, this is the princess’s nephew, Prince Fyodor, “ chemist and 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 the “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, its 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 at the last moment of the reign of Alexander I, on the eve of the uprising on St. 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.

The central place 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. The lyrical hero of the famous “Duma” is hopelessly lonely, but he is also concerned about the fate of the 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, a characteristic feature of 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 the famous novel by 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 of their life’s journey? Lermontov answers this question with the life story of Pechorin, a young man belonging to the generation of the 30s of the 19th 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 interesting and useful than the history of an entire people...”.

In this novel, Lermontov reveals the theme of the “superfluous man,” because Pechorin is the “superfluous man.” His behavior is incomprehensible to those around him, because it does not correspond to their everyday point of view on life, common in noble society. 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 of either an evil disposition, 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 with people's destinies, 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 of “a lost man, crushed unfairly by the 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 stands among the eternal images of 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 motifs of Russian folk songs come to life. In Katerina’s worldview, the spring of primordially Russian song culture beats and Christian beliefs take on new life. 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, the main character is 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. The most important events of the novel are 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 fair, 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 - greeted 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 at Braunau, and during the 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.” For Russia, Kutuzov is one of his own, a dear person, he is a bearer of 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 narrative about the partisan war is the image of Tikhon Shcherbaty, who embodies the best national traits of the 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: their native land was cleared by the 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 relationships, 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 a lack of 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 the strong fire of the human soul can be extinguished only by 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. These are 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, an 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 of the life positions of Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. She is honest, beautiful in her feelings and behavior. With such pure feelings, with faith in the future, a person should no longer 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, a 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 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.