Literary hero. “Extra” and “strange” heroes of Russian literature
Copyright Competition -K2
The word "hero" ("heros" - Greek) means a demigod or deified person.
Among the ancient Greeks, heroes were either half-breeds (one of the parents is a god, the other is a human), or outstanding men who became famous for their deeds, for example, military exploits or travel. But, in any case, the title of hero gave a person a lot of advantages. They worshiped him and composed poems and other songs in his honor. Gradually, the concept of “hero” migrated to literature, where it has stuck to this day.
Now, in our understanding, a hero can be either a “noble man” or a “worthless man” if he acts within the framework of a work of art.
The term “hero” is adjacent to the term “character”, and often these terms are perceived as synonyms.
In ancient Rome, a persona was a mask that an actor put on before a performance - tragic or comic.
A hero and a character are not the same thing.
A LITERARY HERO is an exponent of plot action that reveals the content of the work.
A CHARACTER is any character in a work.
The word “character” is characteristic in that it does not carry any additional meanings.
Take, for example, the term “actor.” It is immediately clear that it must act = perform actions, and then a whole bunch of heroes do not fit this definition. Starting from Papa Pippi Longstocking, the mythical sea captain, and ending with the people in “Boris Godunov”, who, as always, are “silent”.
The emotional and evaluative connotation of the term “hero” implies exclusively positive qualities = heroism\heroism. And then even more people will not fall under this definition. Well, how about, say, calling Chichikov or Gobsek a hero?
And so literary scholars are fighting with philologists - who should be called a “hero” and who a “character”?
Time will tell who will win. For now we will count in a simple way.
A hero is an important character for expressing the idea of a work. And the characters are everyone else.
A little later we’ll talk about the character system in a work of fiction, we’ll talk about the main (heroes) and secondary (characters).
Now let's note a couple more definitions.
LYRICAL HERO
The concept of a lyrical hero was first formulated by Yu.N. Tynyanov in 1921 in relation to the work of A.A. Blok.
A lyrical hero is an image of a hero in a lyrical work, whose experiences, feelings, thoughts reflect the author’s worldview.
The lyrical hero is not an autobiographical image of the author.
You cannot say “lyrical character” - only “lyrical hero”.
THE IMAGE OF A HERO is an artistic generalization of human properties, character traits in the individual appearance of the hero.
LITERARY TYPE is a generalized image of human individuality, most characteristic of a certain social environment at a certain time. It connects two sides - the individual (single) and the general.
Typical does not mean average. The type concentrates in itself everything that is most striking, characteristic of an entire group of people - social, national, age, etc. For example, the type of Turgenev girl or a lady of Balzac's age.
CHARACTER AND CHARACTER
In modern literary criticism, character is the unique individuality of a character, his inner appearance, that is, what distinguishes him from other people.
Character consists of diverse traits and qualities that are not combined by chance. Every character has a main, dominant trait.
Character can be simple or complex.
A simple character is distinguished by integrity and staticity. The hero is either positive or negative.
Simple characters are traditionally combined into pairs, most often based on the opposition “bad” - “good”. The contrast accentuates the merits of positive heroes and diminishes the merits of negative heroes. Example - Shvabrin and Grinev in “The Captain’s Daughter”
A complex character is the hero’s constant search for himself, the hero’s spiritual evolution, etc.
A complex character is very difficult to label as “positive” or “negative.” It contains inconsistency and paradox. Like Captain Zheglov, who almost sent poor Gruzdev to prison, but easily gave food cards to Sharapov’s neighbor.
STRUCTURE OF A LITERARY CHARACTER
A literary hero is a complex and multifaceted person. It has two appearances - external and internal.
To create the appearance of the hero they work:
PORTRAIT. This is a face, a figure, distinctive body features (for example, Quasimodo’s hump or Karenin’s ears).
CLOTHING, which can also reflect certain character traits of the hero.
SPEECH, the features of which characterize the hero no less than his appearance.
AGE, which determines the potential possibility of certain actions.
PROFESSION, which shows the degree of socialization of the hero, determines his position in society.
LIFE STORY. Information about the origin of the hero, his parents/relatives, the country and place where he lives, gives the hero sensually tangible realism and historical specificity.
The internal appearance of the hero consists of:
WORLDVIEW AND ETHICAL BELIEF, which provide the hero with value guidelines, give meaning to his existence.
THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES that outline the diverse life of the hero’s soul.
FAITH (or lack thereof), which determines the presence of the hero in the spiritual field, his attitude towards God and the Church.
STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS, which indicate the results of the interaction of the soul and spirit of the hero.
The hero can not only reason and love, but also be aware of emotions, analyze his own activities, that is, reflect. Artistic reflection allows the author to identify the hero’s personal self-esteem and characterize his attitude towards himself.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
So, a character is a fictional animate person with a certain character and unique external characteristics. The author must come up with this data and convincingly convey it to the reader.
If the author does not do this, the reader perceives the character as cardboard and is not included in his experiences.
Character development is a rather labor-intensive process and requires skill.
The most effective way is to write down on a separate sheet of paper all the personality traits of your character that you want to present to the reader. Straight to point.
The first point is the hero’s appearance (fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc.). The second point is age. The third is education and profession.
Be sure to answer (first of all, to yourself) the following questions:
- how does the character relate to other people? (sociable\closed, sensitive\callous, respectful\rude)
- how does the character feel about his work? (hardworking/lazy, creative/routine, responsible/irresponsible, proactive/passive)
- How does the character feel about himself? (has self-esteem, self-critical, proud, modest, arrogant, vain, arrogant, touchy, shy, selfish)
- how does the character feel about his things? (neat/sloppy, careful with things/careless)
The selection of questions is not random. The answers to them will give a FULL picture of the character's personality.
It is better to write down the answers and keep them before your eyes throughout the entire work on the work.
What will it give? Even if in the work you do not mention ALL QUALITIES of a personality (for minor and episodic characters it is not rational to do this), then all the same, the author’s FULL understanding of his characters will be transmitted to the reader and will make their images three-dimensional.
ARTISTIC DETAIL plays a huge role in creating/revealing character images.
An artistic detail is a detail that the author has endowed with significant semantic and emotional load.
A bright detail replaces entire descriptive fragments, cuts off unnecessary details that obscure the essence of the matter.
An expressive, successfully found detail is evidence of the author’s skill.
I would especially like to note such a moment as CHOOSING A CHARACTER NAME.
According to Pavel Florensky, “names are the essence of categories of personal cognition.” Names are not just named, but actually declare the spiritual and physical essence of a person. They form special models of personal existence, which become common to each bearer of a certain name. Names predetermine a person’s spiritual qualities, actions and even fate.
The existence of a character in a work of fiction begins with the choice of his name. It is very important what you name your hero.
Compare the options for the name Anna - Anna, Anka, Anka, Nyura, Nyurka, Nyusha, Nyushka, Nyusya, Nyuska.
Each of the options crystallizes certain personality qualities and provides the key to character.
Once you have decided on a character name, don’t change it (unnecessarily) as you go along, as this can confuse the reader’s perception.
If in life you tend to call your friends and acquaintances diminutively and disparagingly (Svetka, Mashulya, Lenusik, Dimon), control your passion in writing. In a work of art, the use of such names must be justified. Numerous Vovkas and Tankas look terrible.
CHARACTER SYSTEM
A literary hero is a clearly individual person and at the same time clearly collective, that is, he is generated by the social environment and interpersonal relationships.
It is unlikely that your work will feature only one hero (although this has happened). In most cases, the character is at the intersection of three rays.
The first is friends, associates (friendly relationships).
The second is enemies, ill-wishers (hostile relations).
Third – other strangers (neutral relationships)
These three rays (and the people in them) create a strict hierarchical structure or CHARACTER SYSTEM.
Characters are divided by the degree of author's attention (or the frequency of depiction in the work), the purposes and functions that they perform.
Traditionally, there are main, secondary and episodic characters.
The MAIN CHARACTER(s) are always at the center of the work.
The main character actively masters and transforms artistic reality. His character (see above) predetermines events.
Axiom - the main character must be bright, that is, his structure must be spelled out thoroughly, no gaps are allowed.
SECONDARY CHARACTERS are located, although next to the main character, but somewhat behind, in the background, so to speak, of the artistic depiction.
The characters and portraits of minor characters are rarely detailed, more often they appear dotted. These heroes help the main characters to open up and ensure the development of the action.
Axiom - a secondary character cannot be brighter than the main one.
Otherwise, he will pull the blanket over himself. An example from a related area. Film "Seventeen Moments of Spring". Remember the girl who pestered Stirlitz in one of the last episodes? (“They say about us mathematicians that we are terrible crackers.... But in love I am Einstein...”).
In the first edition of the film, the episode with her was much longer. Actress Inna Ulyanova was so good that she stole all the attention and distorted the scene. Let me remind you that there Stirlitz was supposed to receive important encryption from the center. However, no one remembered about the encryption; everyone reveled in the bright clownery of an EPISODIC (completely passable) character. Ulyanov, of course, is sorry, but director Lioznova made the absolutely right decision and cut out this scene. An example to think about, though!
EPISODIC HEROES are on the periphery of the world of the work. They may have no character at all, acting as passive executors of the author's will. Their functions are purely official.
POSITIVE and NEGATIVE HEROES usually divide the system of characters in a work into two warring factions (“red” - “white”, “ours” - “fascists”).
The theory of dividing characters according to ARCHETYPES is interesting.
An archetype is a primary idea expressed in symbols and images and underlying everything.
That is, each character in the work should serve as a symbol of something.
According to the classics, there are seven archetypes in literature.
So, the main character could be:
- The protagonist – the one who “accelerates the action”, the real Hero.
- An antagonist - completely opposite to the Hero. I mean, a Villain.
- Guardian, Sage, Mentor and Helper - those who assist the Protagonist
Minor characters are:
- A bosom friend – symbolizes support and faith in the Main Character.
- Skeptic - questions everything that happens
- Reasonable – makes decisions based solely on logic.
- Emotional – reacts only with emotions.
For example, Rowling’s Harry Potter novels.
The main character is undoubtedly Harry Potter himself. He is opposed by the Villain - Voldemort. Professor Dumbledore=Sage appears periodically.
And Harry's friends are the reasonable Hermione and the emotional Ron.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about the number of characters.
When there are many of them, this is bad, since they will begin to duplicate each other (there are only seven archetypes!). Competition among the characters will cause discoordination in the minds of the readers.
The most reasonable thing is to stupidly check your heroes by archetypes.
For example, in your novel there are three old women. The first is cheerful, the second is smart, and the third is just a lonely grandmother from the first floor. Ask yourself – what do they represent? And you will understand that a lonely old woman is superfluous. Her phrases (if there are any) can easily be conveyed to the second or first (old ladies). This way you will get rid of unnecessary verbal noise and concentrate on the idea.
After all, “The idea is the tyrant of the work” (c) Egri.
© Copyright: Copyright Competition -K2, 2013
Certificate of publication No. 213010300586
reviews
Literary heroes don't like to work. They love to either idle or create, but most of all they love to get into all sorts of troubles, fall in love and travel. But to work monotonously; doing the very work that provides food - no, this is not for a literary hero. Moreover, I would say that often the reluctance of a literary hero to work receives an ideological justification in literature, and is elevated to a principle by the literary hero. Let's see how this happens.
I’ll start, perhaps, with Nils Holgersson from Selma Lagerlöf’s fairy tale. Nils, as noted, is an extremely lazy boy, plus he is also a very bad, angry boy, for which he was bewitched by the brownie and turned into a midget. And so, as fate would have it, Nils sets off on a journey in the same harness with the wild geese. What does this now very little boy dream about:
“Before falling asleep, he dreamed: if the geese took him with them, he would immediately get rid of eternal reproaches for his laziness. Then you’ll be able to kick ass all day long, with no worries – except maybe about food. But he needs so little these days!
Nils mentally painted wonderful pictures for himself. What won't he see? What kind of adventures will befall him! It’s not like at home, where you just have to work and strain yourself.
“If only I could fly with the wild geese, I wouldn’t be the least bit sad that I was bewitched,” thought the boy.
Now Nils was afraid of only one thing: that he might be sent home.” (Selma Lagerlöf. “The Amazing Journey of Nils Holgersson with Wild Geese in Sweden.” III. in the park of Evedskloster Castle).
“I sent a messenger to the brownie who bewitched you, with instructions to tell him how nobly you behaved with us. At first, the brownie didn’t even want to hear about lifting the spell from you, but I sent messenger after messenger, and he changed his anger to mercy. The brownie asked me to tell you: come home and you will become a human again.
How happy the boy was when the wild goose began her speech! But as she spoke, his joy faded. Without saying a word, he turned away and cried bitterly.
- What is it? – Akka asked. “It seems you expected an even greater reward from me?”
And the boy thought about carefree days, about fun, about free life, about adventures and travels high, high above the earth. He won't see them again!
- I don’t want to be human! he whined. – I want to fly with you to Lapland.
“I’m warning you,” said Akka, “this brownie is very capricious.” I'm afraid if you don't come home now, it will be difficult to beg him again.
This boy was bad after all! Everything he did at home seemed simply boring to him!” (ibid.).
Anything, just not home, just not to study, just not to “wherever you know, work, work hard.” And “I don’t want to be a man,” of course, should be read - I don’t want to study and work, I want to be a free bird. Every person dreams of flying, and Nils succeeds in the most literal sense of the word. Naturally, the impression of the flight is incomparable. Only the one who flies lives. True, literary heroes are masters of not only soaring to the skies, but also falling into the darkest abysses.
But even here, it’s better to fall into the abyss than to simply, as befits a normal person, maintain one’s existence. A striking illustration in this regard is provided by a comparison of two heroes of Crime and Punishment - Raskolnikov and Razumikhin. Both of these young men were faced with the most unpleasant side of life in St. Petersburg. There is no money, there are no special prospects, they were both “asked” from the institute. How do they behave in these difficult circumstances? Raskolnikov has completely lost heart, lies in his little coffin room and indulges in the darkest thoughts, which will ultimately lead him to murder “according to theory.” Well, as are the thoughts, so are the theories... And what about Razumikhin?
“He was an unusually cheerful, sociable guy, kind to the point of simplicity. However, underneath this simplicity there was also depth and dignity. The best of his comrades understood this, everyone loved him. He was very intelligent, although indeed sometimes simple-minded... Razumikhin was also remarkable because no failures ever embarrassed him and no bad circumstances seemed to be able to crush him. He could even live on the roof, endure hellish hunger and extraordinary cold. He was very poor and, completely alone, supported himself, earning money by doing some work. He knew an abyss of sources from which he could draw, of course by earning money. Once he went a whole winter without heating his room at all and claimed that it was even more pleasant because he slept better in the cold. At present, he, too, was forced to leave the university, but not for long, and with all his might he hurried to improve the circumstances so that he could continue.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment”. Part 1. IV).
In general, we see that Razumikhin’s circumstances are very similar to Raskolnikov’s, but he behaves in these circumstances, by all accounts, an order of magnitude more worthy. And what? And the fact is that in the foreground of the novel we see precisely the “undeservable” Raskolnikov, who lies, does nothing, and fantasizes, and not the worthy, active and resilient Razumikhin. One can, of course, give more than one reason why this is so; in this case, we see that Raskolnikov prefers to sit idle altogether rather than simply survive; Razumikhin would not understand such a formulation of the question at all. How so? If you find yourself in difficult circumstances, move on and earn a penny. But Raskolnikov does not need pennies, as they say elsewhere in the novel, he needs “all capital.”
“What can you do with a penny? - he continued reluctantly, as if answering his own thoughts.
- Would you like all the capital at once?
He looked at her strangely.
“Yes, all the capital,” he answered firmly, after a pause.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment.” Part. 1. III).
All capital, and naturally in such a way that there is no need to “earn” this capital. Among Dostoevsky's heroes, the situation with Prince Myshkin is clearly indicative - in the sense of work, or rather, taking work “out of the brackets”. At the beginning of the novel, we see a man without a livelihood, and it is not very clear how he will obtain these funds, because the prince clearly does not have practicality. Then it suddenly turns out (during a conversation with General Epanchin) that the prince has abilities, and what is there - a real talent as a calligrapher.
"- Wow! Yes, what kind of subtleties do you go into,” the general laughed, “but you, father, are not just a calligrapher, you are an artist, huh?” Ganya?
“It’s amazing,” said Ganya, “and even with the consciousness of his purpose,” he added, laughing mockingly.
“Laugh, laugh, but this is a career,” said the general. “Do you know, Prince, to whom we will now give you papers to write?” Yes, you can just put thirty-five rubles a month, right from the first step.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “The Idiot.” Part 1. III).
Let us note that right away, even in the matter of earning money, we are faced with not just a supposed earner of livelihood, but an “artist” - this is extremely significant. But then everything becomes even more significant, because the prince is spared from this “creativity for the sake of earning money” thanks to the inheritance that fell on his head. Thirty-five rubles a month would be nice, but it’s all pennies, and it takes up time, but here – get capital right away, so you don’t have to think about your daily bread:
“It’s a sure thing,” Ptitsyn finally announced, folding the letter and handing it to the prince. “You receive, without any hassle, according to your aunt’s indisputable spiritual will, an extremely large capital.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “The Idiot.” Part 1. XVI).
That’s right, “without any hassle.” All sorts of troubles are simply “put out of the equation.” And now the prince can completely calmly idle around, that is, mainly engage in walking back and forth and keep abreast of all the events taking place. Cook in a cauldron of passions boiling around him. This is the case for a literary hero. (Footnote - Here is another example of “taking the work out of brackets”: “Having re-read what was written, I see that it may seem that I only lived then with the events of these three evenings, separated by intervals of several weeks. In fact, these were for me only random episodes of an eventful summer, and at that time, in any case, they occupied me incomparably less than my personal affairs).
First of all, I worked." (Fitzgerald F.S. “The Great Gatsby”. Chapter III). You see how it turns out: seemingly vital work evaporates from the pages of a literary work, and random episodes form the essence of the story). This very technique - “inheritance” or winning the lottery, in general, when a lot of money suddenly falls on the hero out of nowhere, of course, is used by more than one Dostoevsky. Let's remember the Master from Bulgakov's novel, he just won the lottery, which allowed him to sit down to write the novel. This decision itself is described by Bulgakov in a brilliantly laconic manner: “I quit my job at the museum and began writing a novel about Pontius Pilate.” (M.A. Bulgakov. “The Master and Margarita”. Part 1. Chapter 13). As if there could be no other solution other than to quit the service and do something really worthwhile. (Footnote: And here is an even more striking illustration from another book by Bulgakov: “Serve in the Shipping Company all your life? You’re laughing!
Every night I lay there, staring into the pitch darkness, and repeated - “this is terrible.” If you were to ask me, what do you remember about your time working at Shipping Company? - I would answer with a clear conscience - nothing.
Dirty galoshes on the hanger, someone’s wet hat with the longest ears on the hanger - and that’s all.” (M. A. Bulgakov. “Notes of a Dead Man.” Chapter 3).
Of course, we must take into account the difference between eras. Let’s say, in those days when the aristocracy still existed, it was natural that representatives of this class might not “work”... but, by the way, is the difference really that big from the point of view of literary heroes? Truly literary heroes are the same aristocracy of the spirit. What does the aristocracy actually do, what is its business? Love and war. Either they (aristocrats) are at war with someone, or they are in love with someone.
Moreover, it must be said that in any class a dilemma arises (or may arise) - “do business” or... something else, something not so prosaic. And this is also reflected in literature. The most typical example here, I think, is the story of the suffering of young Werther. What is Werther's main concern throughout this sad story? - His main concern is his love for Lotte. At the same time, by the will of fate, Werther had to work a little (we note, however, that the essence of his work is not described in any way - the work turns out to be unworthy of description) - his brief work epic is described at the beginning of the second book. And with whatever words Werther curses the situation in which he finds himself:
“And you are all to blame for this; because of your persuasion and ranting about the benefits of work, I was harnessed to this yoke! Work! Yes, the one who plants potatoes and transports grain to the city for sale does much more than me; if I’m wrong, I’m ready to work for another ten years on the galley to which I’m now chained.” (Goethe. “The Sorrows of Young Werther.” Book 2. December 24).
Here it is as if Werther is dissatisfied not only with the work itself, but with the aimlessness of his work. However, the Werthers are the Werthers to be dissatisfied with the work, no matter what it is. And, of course, one should not take words about potatoes and grain seriously, because Werther himself, of course, will not plant any potatoes. For him, even writing papers is a “galley”, what a potato.
“We’ve had disgusting weather for a week now, and that only makes me happy; Since I’ve been here, there hasn’t been a single fine day that someone hasn’t spoiled or poisoned me.” (ibid.)
Yes, this is work. This is the general order of things. Bad weather and poison. And of course, Werther would not have been able to stand it for long. And I couldn’t stand it. The reason for his resignation was a violation of secular decency, but this is all from the same opera aria. Because the most indecent thing is “not to serve”, not to work, not to occupy some place. That's how it was before, and that's how it is now. In this sense, not much has changed.
Let us remember the famous Famusov - “And, most importantly, go ahead and serve.” The main thing is exactly what is important. Chatsky’s answer is also characteristic: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” Very much in the spirit of Werther and essentially also incorrect. It’s unlikely, oh, Chatsky can hardly be happy about his service. And whatever service you offer him, he will almost certainly consider it “service.” No, it’s best to slam the door, shout “Give me a carriage, give me a carriage,” and drive away wherever you look.
And now I will turn to my favorite illustration on this topic, and this will be an illustration from Astrid Lindgren’s fairy tale “Roni, the Robber’s Daughter.” Nobody in this fairy tale works, Roni’s dad is engaged in robbery, and Roni is left to herself and spends her days on exciting walks in the forest, which, of course, cannot be compared with the boring school studies that could have awaited her if she hadn’t daughter of a robber. The children go to a prose school, and Roni goes to the poetic lake:
“Roni followed the path straight into the forest and eventually found herself on the shore of a forest lake. She can’t go any further, that’s what Mattis said. The black mirror of the lake was surrounded by dark pine trees, and only water lilies swayed on the water like white lights. Roni, of course, did not know that these were white lilies, but she looked at them for a long time and laughed quietly because they were there.
She spent the whole day by the lake and enjoyed everything as never before. She threw pine cones into the water for a long time and laughed with joy when she noticed that as soon as she splashed her feet in the water even a little, the cones floated away. She had never had so much fun. And her legs have never felt so free.” (Astrid Lindgren. “Roni, the daughter of a robber.” 2).
Well, it’s a big deal, many will say – children always like to play more than to study. But isn’t it just the same for adults who enjoy creating more than working? To some, such reasoning may seem infantile and naive, but their naivety lies mainly in the plane of arguments like: “But everyone can’t create, someone has to work.” The specificity of literature in this case is that here this argument is not at all founded, since there is no “everyone” in a literary work, and the writer has every right to focus specifically on those who play and create, and not study and work. So, returning to Roni, let us remember that her father’s occupation was not to her liking at all, and she, and then her friend-brother-lover Birk, swore that they would not be robbers when they grew up. But what will they do then, how will they get food for themselves? The solution to this difficult question is truly delightful: the old robber Bald Feather reveals a secret to Roni:
“And she told Birk the secret about the silver mountain, which the little gray dwarf showed to Bald Feather in gratitude for saving his life.
“He said there were silver nuggets the size of boulders there,” Roni said. “And who knows, maybe that’s how it is.” Bald Per swore that this was the truth. I know where this mountain is." (Astrid Lindgren. “Roni, the daughter of a robber.” 18).
That is, if you live not by robbery, then by nuggets, but certainly not by ordinary work - this thought does not even occur to anyone! There is no such idea on the agenda. All problems are again solved through one form or another of “inheritance” that falls on the literary hero’s head.
So, so far we have seen how literary heroes avoid work, preferring games, creativity or idleness. However, on occasion, they can work, in the sense of working hard. Let us remember Konstantin Levin. He certainly doesn’t shy away from work. Moreover, he mows along with the men. But here we almost immediately understand some dubiousness in considering this work of his as the normal work of a peasant. Konstantin Levin remains a gentleman who suddenly wanted to work - yes, unlike other bars, this is not a whim for him, and he really gets involved in work, he really works on an equal basis with the men. But he remains a master at the same time. It is enough to turn to the origins of his work motivation:
“... having arrived one day for mowing and getting angry with the clerk, Levin used his means of calming down - he took the peasant’s scythe and began to mow.
He liked this work so much that he began mowing several times; I mowed the entire meadow in front of the house and this year, since spring, I have made a plan for myself - to mow with the men all day long.” (L.N. Tolstoy. “Anna Karenina”).
But for a peasant, his work is not a means of calm, and a peasant would never understand such a view on the subject. As a result, mowing a man turns for Konstantin Levin again into a kind of adventure, and not work, into a way to find out the limits of his physical capabilities. Plus, at the same time, for Konstantin this is also a way to experience a moment of unity with the people. But this is not work in the normal sense. Not work at all. I can give another similar example:
“The commotion continued all night. We moved things from place to place...Never before have I had to work so hard at Admiral Benbow.
I was already as tired as a dog when, just before dawn, the boatswain began to play the pipe and the crew began to raise the anchor.
However, even if I were twice as tired, I would not have left the deck. Everything was new and exciting for me - the abrupt orders, the sharp sound of the whistle, and the people fussily working in the dim light of the ship’s lanterns.” (R. L. Stevenson. “Treasure Island.” Chapter X).
This is also a very remarkable passage. Jim Hawkins works hard with joy, because everything is new and exciting for him. This is the joy from the work of a person who is not attached to work and does not depend on it. But the sailors, one might assume, are also full of enthusiasm. Of course, since their thoughts are about treasures, and not about everyday income. In this sense, both the “good” and “bad” characters of “Treasure Island” find themselves in the same boat, that is, on the same schooner. In other ways, they show significant differences. So the pirates, once on the island, as noted: “from the very beginning of the mutiny they never sobered up.” (ibid. Ch. XXV). “Good” characters demonstrate the ability to maintain discipline. This is worth noting in the sense that reluctance to work is still not synonymous with idleness, slacking off, drinking, etc. It’s up to each literary character to decide for himself whether to drink, kill the old woman, or behave more decently. At the same time, it is still worth noting a certain bias, a tendency towards idleness or what is most similar to idleness. As already mentioned, the most normal “activities” for literary heroes are love, war and travel. Traveling Niels and loving Werthers. The best illustration about war is given by the same Tolstoy:
“Biblical tradition says that the absence of work - idleness was a condition for the bliss of the first man before his fall. The love for idleness remained the same in fallen man, but the curse still weighs on man, and not only because we must earn our bread by the sweat of our brow, but because, due to our moral properties, we cannot be idle and calm. A secret voice says that we must be guilty of being idle. If a person could find a state in which, being idle, he would feel useful and fulfilling his duty, he would find one side of primitive bliss. And this state of obligatory and impeccable idleness is enjoyed by a whole class - the military class. This obligatory and impeccable idleness was and will be the main attraction of military service.
Nikolai Rostov fully experienced this bliss, after 1807 he continued to serve in the Pavlograd regiment, in which he already commanded the squadron received from Denisov. (L.N. Tolstoy. “War and Peace.” vol. 2. part 4. I).
This passage is extremely valuable from the point of view of contrasting, on the one hand, idleness with business, and on the other, one business with another business. War is a definite thing, but it’s also “not really” a thing. It's a strange thing. From the point of view of a “business” or working person, all this is, at best, sheer idleness, and at worst, absolute harm. It's the same with love. After all, you can’t call love a thing! And at the same time, try calling it idleness. And they say that relationships are “built” - a direct “working” analogy. And how much time and nerves it takes! For many, love generally becomes the main event in life. So with love, as with war, it’s both business and no business. Not a job, that's for sure. Not a service. Pastime. Let’s put it this way: a pastime very suitable for literature, for literary heroes. But not for a normal working person who works to earn a living. If you fight, you don’t work, if you love, you don’t work, if you create, you don’t work. If you think, you don’t work; there is another striking literary example of this:
“Before, you say, you went to teach children, but now why don’t you do anything?
“I do...” Raskolnikov said reluctantly and sternly.
- What are you doing?
- Work...
- What kind of job?
“I think,” he answered seriously, after a pause.
Nastasya burst out laughing...
- Do you think it’s a lot of money? “she was finally able to say.” (F.M. Dostoevsky. “Crime and Punishment.” Part. 1. III).
So Werther, of course, made some money while he was in love with Lotte. But that’s not what he’s thinking about, he’s thinking about Lotte. He does his incomprehensible “work”.
As a counterexample (as it may seem), we can consider the situation with one of the most famous literary heroes - Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin. Now he is a worker in the full sense of the word, and a sufficient amount of time is devoted to his work in “The Overcoat,” and this description is essential to the entire narrative:
“It is unlikely that anywhere one could find a person who would live like this in his position. It is not enough to say: he served zealously - no, he served with love. There, in this copying, he saw his own diverse and pleasant world. Pleasure was expressed on his face; he had some favorite letters, which if he got to, he was not himself and laughed, and winked, helped with his lips, so that in his face, it seemed, one could read every letter that his pen wrote.” (N.V. Gogol. “The Overcoat”).
Bashmachkin is not just a worker, he is someone directly opposite to the type of creator, he is an ideal performer, incapable of showing initiative, which is also especially emphasized in the text:
“One director, being a kind man and wanting to reward him for his long service, ordered that he be given something more important than ordinary rewriting; It was precisely from the already completed case that he was ordered to make some kind of connection to another public place; the only thing was to change the title title and change here and there the verbs from the first person to the third. This gave him such work that he became completely sweaty, rubbed his forehead and finally said: “No, better let me rewrite something.” Since then they left it to be rewritten forever. Outside of this rewriting, it seemed that nothing existed for him.” N.V. Gogol. "Overcoat")
So, it turns out that the work in its immediate essence occupies a completely legitimate place within the framework of a significant literary work? Eh, let’s see who Gogol “wrote” in the end? And he wrote a person who cannot possibly be. Yes, you can feel sorry for Bashmachkin, yes, it’s a sin to laugh at Bashmachkin, but no, being Bashamchkin is absolutely impossible. A person is not born a human in order to end up as a Bashmachkin. Creative abilities are not given to a person in order to be a copyist of papers, and even to find in this some kind of “his own varied and pleasant world.” Yes, Bashmachkin is such a literary hero that you really want to attach the prefix anti, and say that Gogol created the greatest literary anti-hero of all times. (Footnote: But I will not do this, because this will require a conceptual distinction between a literary hero and an anti-hero, and such a distinction within the framework of these discussions will bring nothing but confusion. Therefore, let Bashmachkin be the same hero as anyone else. He is a hero literary work? - a hero. Well, that’s all, then. However, I’ll clarify that in the course of these discussions, I consider the hero of a literary work to be any character who is in the foreground in a literary work. Bashamchkin is in the foreground - that means, for sure, a hero) . Well, it is very typical that this anti-heroic hero is busy with work and thinks of nothing but work. They will say that his work (specifically, Bashmachkin’s) is meaningless. But I will repeat it at least a hundred more times - let the creator depict a work, and he will depict it as something meaningless. And it will always turn into “ordinary rewriting.” The absurdity of Bashmachkin’s life is also a hymn to the absurdity of the world of work. At the same time, let’s not forget that in “The Overcoat” the plot still makes a bend and ultimately centers on a non-“working” event.
Finally, I will turn to one painful, terrible, but very valuable story-parable by Saltykov-Shchedrin - “The Horse”. In the context of the theme of the work, this is one of the key works, without consideration of which the theme could not be considered fully developed. This verse is valuable primarily because it seems to derive the very concept of work, embodied in a specific living creature - a horse.
“The horse is an ordinary man’s belly, tortured, beaten, narrow-chested, with protruding ribs and burnt shoulders, with broken legs. Horse holds his head down; the mane on his neck was matted; mucus oozes from the eyes and nostrils; my upper lip hung down like a pancake. You won't earn much on such a beast, but you have to work. Day after day the horse does not come out of the clamp. In summer, the earth is worked from morning to evening; in winter, right up to the thaw, he carries the “works.” (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. “Horse”).
Yes, this is not Konstantin Levin - the horse does not work for pleasure, not for “adventure” and, of course, not for peace. A horse is not a gentleman, a horse is a man. And the main thing that can be understood from this whole painful narrative is the complete hopelessness of the world of work. This story is another literary anti-worker anthem:
“No end to work! Work exhausts the whole meaning of his existence; for her he was conceived and born, and outside of her he is not only of no use to anyone, but, as prudent owners say, he is a detriment. The entire environment in which he lives is aimed solely at preventing that muscular force, which exudes from itself the possibility of physical labor, from freezing in him. Both food and rest are measured out to him just enough so that he is able to complete his lesson. And then let the field and the elements cripple him - no one cares how many new wounds have appeared on his legs, on his shoulders and on his back. It is not his well-being that is needed, but a life that can endure the yoke and work. How many centuries he has been carrying this yoke - he does not know; He doesn’t calculate how many centuries he will have to carry it ahead. He lives as if he is plunging into a dark abyss, and of all the sensations available to a living organism, he knows only the aching pain that work gives.” (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. “Horse”). (Footnote: The hopeless image of Konyaga is contrasted with the image of a well-fed, contented and idle Pustoplyas... What is this image of a literary hero? No, not at all. Pustoplyas is an image of Society, or rather social injustice, and literary heroes have their own special scores to settle with Society... but this is a separate talk).
Well, here we have looked at three examples when literary heroes are really busy with work. One is Bashmachkin, the other is Konstantin Levin; the third, most perfect working image is Horse. Bashmachkin works and finds some kind of pleasure in it, which cannot be considered adequate; Konstantin Levin works, but is not a full-fledged resident of the world of work; he is still a stranger, or at least “not his own” among the peasants; finally, Konyaga is the literary “working bone” in its purest form. And what a terrible image! No, if you start reading literature, then the world of work seems to be either a world alien to the literary hero or a downright scary world. Raise all the sails and sail away towards adventure and love - this is the life of a literary hero))
Russian literature has given us a cavalcade of both positive and negative characters. We decided to remember the second group. Beware, spoilers.
20. Alexey Molchalin (Alexander Griboedov, “Woe from Wit”)
Molchalin is the hero “about nothing”, Famusov’s secretary. He is faithful to his father’s behest: “to please all people without exception - the owner, the boss, his servant, the janitor’s dog.”
In a conversation with Chatsky, he sets out his life principles, which consist in the fact that “at my age I should not dare to have my own judgment.”
Molchalin is sure that you need to think and act as is customary in “Famus” society, otherwise people will gossip about you, and, as you know, “evil tongues are worse than pistols.”
He despises Sophia, but in order to please Famusov, he is ready to sit with her all night long, playing the role of a lover.
19. Grushnitsky (Mikhail Lermontov, “Hero of Our Time”)
Grushnitsky has no name in Lermontov's story. He is the “double” of the main character - Pechorin. According to Lermontov’s description, Grushnitsky is “... one of those people who have ready-made pompous phrases for all occasions, who are not touched by simply beautiful things and who are importantly draped in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering. Producing an effect is their pleasure...”
Grushnitsky loves pathos very much. There is not an ounce of sincerity in him. Grushnitsky is in love with Princess Mary, and at first she responds to him with special attention, but then falls in love with Pechorin.
The matter ends in a duel. Grushnitsky is so low that he conspires with his friends and they do not load Pechorin’s pistol. The hero cannot forgive such outright meanness. He reloads the pistol and kills Grushnitsky.
18. Afanasy Totsky (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Idiot”)
Afanasy Totsky, having taken Nastya Barashkova, the daughter of a deceased neighbor, as his upbringing and dependent, eventually “became close to her,” developing a suicidal complex in the girl and indirectly becoming one of the culprits of her death.
Extremely averse to the female sex, at the age of 55 Totsky decided to connect his life with the daughter of General Epanchin Alexandra, deciding to marry Nastasya to Ganya Ivolgin. However, neither one nor the other case burned out. As a result, Totsky “was captivated by a visiting Frenchwoman, a marquise and a legitimist.”
17. Alena Ivanovna (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”)
The old pawnbroker is a character who has become a household name. Even those who have not read Dostoevsky’s novel have heard about it. Alena Ivanovna, by today’s standards, is not that old, she is “about 60 years old,” but the author describes her like this: “... a dry old woman with sharp and angry eyes with a small pointed nose... Her blond, slightly gray hair was greasy with oil. Some kind of flannel rag was wrapped around her thin and long neck, similar to a chicken leg...”
The old woman pawnbroker is engaged in usury and makes money from people's misfortune. She takes valuable things at huge interest rates, bullies her younger sister Lizaveta, and beats her.
16. Arkady Svidrigailov (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”)
Svidrigailov is one of Raskolnikov’s doubles in Dostoevsky’s novel, a widower, at one time he was bought out of prison by his wife, he lived in the village for 7 years. A cynical and depraved person. On his conscience is the suicide of a servant, a 14-year-old girl, and possibly the poisoning of his wife.
Due to Svidrigailov's harassment, Raskolnikov's sister lost her job. Having learned that Raskolnikov is a murderer, Luzhin blackmails Dunya. The girl shoots at Svidrigailov and misses.
Svidrigailov is an ideological scoundrel, he does not experience moral torment and experiences “world boredom,” eternity seems to him like a “bathhouse with spiders.” As a result, he commits suicide with a revolver shot.
15. Kabanikha (Alexander Ostrovsky, “The Thunderstorm”)
In the image of Kabanikha, one of the central characters of the play “The Thunderstorm,” Ostrovsky reflected the outgoing patriarchal, strict archaism. Kabanova Marfa Ignatievna, “a rich merchant’s wife, widow,” mother-in-law of Katerina, mother of Tikhon and Varvara.
Kabanikha is very domineering and strong, she is religious, but more outwardly, since she does not believe in forgiveness or mercy. She is as practical as possible and lives by earthly interests.
Kabanikha is sure that the family way of life can be maintained only through fear and orders: “After all, out of love your parents are strict with you, out of love they scold you, everyone thinks to teach you good.” She perceives the departure of the old order as a personal tragedy: “This is how the old times come to be... What will happen, how the elders will die... I don’t know.”
14. Lady (Ivan Turgenev, “Mumu”)
We all know the sad story about how Gerasim drowned Mumu, but not everyone remembers why he did it, but he did it because a despotic lady ordered him to do so.
The same landowner had previously given the washerwoman Tatyana, with whom Gerasim was in love, to the drunken shoemaker Capiton, which ruined both of them.
The lady, at her own discretion, decides the fate of her serfs, without regard at all to their wishes, and sometimes even to common sense.
13. Footman Yasha (Anton Chekhov, “The Cherry Orchard”)
The footman Yasha in Anton Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is an unpleasant character. He openly worships everything foreign, but at the same time he is extremely ignorant, rude and even boorish. When his mother comes to him from the village and waits for him in the people’s room all day, Yasha dismissively declares: “It’s really necessary, she could come tomorrow.”
Yasha tries to behave decently in public, tries to seem educated and well-mannered, but at the same time alone with Firs he says to the old man: “I'm tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die soon.”
Yasha is very proud that he lived abroad. With his foreign polish, he wins the heart of the maid Dunyasha, but uses her location for his own benefit. After the sale of the estate, the footman persuades Ranevskaya to take him with her to Paris again. It is impossible for him to stay in Russia: “the country is uneducated, the people are immoral, and, moreover, boredom...”.
12. Pavel Smerdyakov (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov”)
Smerdyakov is a character with a telling surname, rumored to be the illegitimate son of Fyodor Karrmazov from the city holy fool Lizaveta Smerdyashchaya. The surname Smerdyakov was given to him by Fyodor Pavlovich in honor of his mother.
Smerdyakov serves as a cook in Karamazov’s house, and he cooks, apparently, quite well. However, this is a “foulbrood man.” This is evidenced at least by Smerdyakov’s reasoning about history: “In the twelfth year there was a great invasion of Russia by Emperor Napoleon of France the First, and it would be good if these same French had conquered us then, a smart nation would have conquered a very stupid one and annexed it to itself. There would even be completely different orders.”
Smerdyakov is the killer of Karamazov's father.
11. Pyotr Luzhin (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “Crime and Punishment”)
Luzhin is another one of Rodion Raskolnikov’s doubles, a business man of 45 years old, “with a cautious and grumpy physiognomy.”
Having made it “from rags to riches,” Luzhin is proud of his pseudo-education and behaves arrogantly and primly. Having proposed to Dunya, he anticipates that she will be grateful to him all her life for the fact that he “brought her into the public eye.”
He also wooes Duna out of convenience, believing that she will be useful to him for his career. Luzhin hates Raskolnikov because he opposes his alliance with Dunya. Luzhin puts one hundred rubles in Sonya Marmeladova's pocket at her father's funeral, accusing her of theft.
10. Kirila Troekurov (Alexander Pushkin, “Dubrovsky”)
Troekurov is an example of a Russian master spoiled by his power and environment. He spends his time in idleness, drunkenness, and voluptuousness. Troekurov sincerely believes in his impunity and limitless possibilities (“This is the power to take away property without any right”).
The master loves his daughter Masha, but marries her to an old man she doesn’t love. Troekurov's serfs are similar to their master - Troekurov's hound is insolent to Dubrovsky Sr. - and thereby quarrels old friends.
9. Sergei Talberg (Mikhail Bulgakov, “The White Guard”)
Sergei Talberg is the husband of Elena Turbina, a traitor and an opportunist. He easily changes his principles and beliefs, without much effort or remorse. Talberg is always where it is easier to live, so he runs abroad. He leaves his family and friends. Even Talberg’s eyes (which, as we know, are the “mirror of the soul”) are “two-story”; he is the complete opposite of Turbin.
Thalberg was the first to wear the red bandage at the military school in March 1917 and, as a member of the military committee, arrested the famous General Petrov.
8. Alexey Shvabrin (Alexander Pushkin, “The Captain's Daughter”)
Shvabrin is the antipode of the main character of Pushkin’s story “The Captain’s Daughter” by Pyotr Grinev. He was exiled to the Belogorsk fortress for murder in a duel. Shvabrin is undoubtedly smart, but at the same time he is cunning, impudent, cynical, and mocking. Having received Masha Mironova’s refusal, he spreads dirty rumors about her, wounds him in the back in a duel with Grinev, goes over to Pugachev’s side, and, having been captured by government troops, spreads rumors that Grinev is a traitor. In general, he is a rubbish person.
7. Vasilisa Kostyleva (Maxim Gorky, “At the Depths”)
In Gorky's play "At the Bottom" everything is sad and sad. This atmosphere is diligently maintained by the owners of the shelter where the action takes place - the Kostylevs. The husband is a nasty, cowardly and greedy old man, Vasilisa’s wife is a calculating, resourceful opportunist who forces her lover Vaska Pepel to steal for her sake. When she finds out that he himself is in love with her sister, he promises to give her up in exchange for killing her husband.
6. Mazepa (Alexander Pushkin, “Poltava”)
Mazepa is a historical character, but if in history Mazepa’s role is ambiguous, then in Pushkin’s poem Mazepa is definitely a negative character. Mazepa appears in the poem as an absolutely immoral, dishonest, vindictive, evil person, as a treacherous hypocrite for whom nothing is sacred (he “does not know the sacred,” “does not remember charity”), a person accustomed to achieving his goal at any cost.
The seducer of his young goddaughter Maria, he puts her father Kochubey to public execution and - already sentenced to death - subjects her to cruel torture in order to find out where he hid his treasures. Without equivocation, Pushkin also denounces Mazepa’s political activity, which is determined only by the lust for power and the thirst for revenge on Peter.
5. Foma Opiskin (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants”)
Foma Opiskin is an extremely negative character. A hanger-on, a hypocrite, a liar. He diligently pretends to be pious and educated, tells everyone about his supposedly ascetic experience and sparkles with quotes from books...
When he gains power, he shows his true nature. “A low soul, having come out from under oppression, oppresses itself. Thomas was oppressed - and he immediately felt the need to oppress himself; They broke down over him - and he himself began to break down over others. He was a jester and immediately felt the need to have his own jesters. He boasted to the point of absurdity, broke down to the point of impossibility, demanded bird's milk, tyrannized beyond measure, and it came to the point that good people, not yet having witnessed all these tricks, but listening only to stories, considered all this to be a miracle, an obsession, were baptized and spat..."
4. Viktor Komarovsky (Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago)
Lawyer Komarovsky is a negative character in Boris Pasternak's novel Doctor Zhivago. In the destinies of the main characters - Zhivago and Lara, Komarovsky is an “evil genius” and a “gray eminence”. He is guilty of the ruin of the Zhivago family and the death of the protagonist's father; he cohabits with Lara's mother and Lara herself. Finally, Komarovsky tricks Zhivago into separating him from his wife. Komarovsky is smart, calculating, greedy, cynical. Overall, a bad person. He understands this himself, but this suits him quite well.
3. Judushka Golovlev (Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, “The Golovlev Lords”)
Porfiry Vladimirovich Golovlev, nicknamed Judas and Blood Drinker, is “the last representative of an escapist family.” He is hypocritical, greedy, cowardly, calculating. He spends his life in endless slander and litigation, drives his son to suicide, and at the same time imitates extreme religiosity, reading prayers “without the participation of the heart.”
Toward the end of his dark life, Golovlev gets drunk and runs wild, and goes into the March snowstorm. In the morning, his frozen corpse is found.
2. Andriy (Nikolai Gogol, “Taras Bulba”)
Andriy is the youngest son of Taras Bulba, the hero of the story of the same name by Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. Andriy, as Gogol writes, from early youth began to feel the “need for love.” This need fails him. He falls in love with the lady, betrays his homeland, his friends, and his father. Andriy admits: “Who said that my homeland is Ukraine? Who gave it to me in my homeland? The Fatherland is what our soul is looking for, what is dearer to it than anything else. My fatherland is you!... and I will sell, give away, and destroy everything that I have for such a fatherland!”
Andriy is a traitor. He is killed by his own father.
1. Fyodor Karamazov (Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov”)
He is voluptuous, greedy, envious, stupid. By maturity, he became flabby, began to drink a lot, opened several taverns, made many fellow countrymen his debtors... He began to compete with his eldest son Dmitry for the heart of Grushenka Svetlova, which paved the way for the crime - Karamazov was killed by his illegitimate son Pyotr Smerdyakov.
“Superfluous people” in literature are images characteristic of Russian prose of the mid-nineteenth century. Examples of such characters in works of fiction are the topic of the article.
Who coined this term?
“Extra people” in literature are characters that appeared at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is unknown who exactly introduced this term. Perhaps Herzen. According to some information - Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. After all, the great Russian poet once said that his Onegin is “an extra man.” One way or another, this image was firmly established in the works of other writers.
Every schoolchild, even if he has not read Goncharov’s novel, knows about someone like Oblomov. This character is a representative of the outdated landowner world, and therefore cannot adapt to the new one.
General signs
“Superfluous people” are found in the works of such classics as I. S. Turgenev, M. Yu. Lermontov. Before considering each of the characters that can be classified in this category, it is worth highlighting the common features. “Extra people” in literature are contradictory heroes who are in conflict with the society to which they belong. As a rule, they are deprived of both fame and wealth.
Examples
“Extra people” in literature are characters introduced by the author into an environment alien to them. They are moderately educated, but their knowledge is unsystematic. The “superfluous man” cannot be a deep thinker or scientist, but he has the “ability of judgment”, the gift of eloquence. And the main characteristic of this literary character is his disdainful attitude towards others. As an example, we can recall Pushkin’s Onegin, who avoids communication with his neighbors.
“Superfluous people” in Russian literature of the 19th century were heroes who were able to see the evils of modern society, but did not know how to resist them. They are aware of the problems of the world around them. But, alas, they are too passive to change anything.
Causes
The characters discussed in this article began to appear on the pages of the works of Russian writers in the Nicholas era. In 1825 there was a Decembrist uprising. For the next decades, the government was in fear, but it was at this time that a spirit of freedom and a desire for change emerged in society. The policy of Nicholas I was quite contradictory.
The tsar introduced reforms designed to make life easier for the peasants, but at the same time did everything to strengthen the autocracy. Various circles began to appear, whose participants discussed and criticized the current government. The landowner lifestyle was despised by many educated people. But the trouble is that the participants in various political associations belonged to the society towards which they suddenly became inflamed with hatred.
The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature lie in the emergence in society of a new type of person who was not accepted by society and did not accept it. Such a person stands out from the crowd, and therefore causes bewilderment and irritation.
As already mentioned, the concept of “superfluous person” was first introduced into literature by Pushkin. However, this term is somewhat vague. Characters in conflict with the social environment have been encountered in literature before. The main character of Griboyedov's comedy has the traits inherent in this type of character. Can we say that Chatsky is an example of a “superfluous person”? In order to answer this question, a brief analysis of comedy should be done.
Chatsky
Griboyedov's hero rejects the inert foundations of Famus society. He denounces veneration for rank and blind imitation. This does not go unnoticed by representatives of Famus society - the Khlestovs, the Khryumins, the Zagoretskys. As a result, Chatsky is considered strange, if not crazy.
Griboyedov's hero is a representative of an advanced society, which includes people who do not want to put up with reactionary orders and remnants of the past. Thus, we can say that the theme of the “superfluous person” was first raised by the author of “Woe from Wit.”
Eugene Onegin
But most literary scholars believe that this particular hero is the first “extra person” in the prose and poetry of Russian authors. Onegin is a nobleman, “heir to all his relatives.” He received a very passable education, but does not have any deep knowledge. Writing and speaking French, behaving at ease in society, reciting a few quotes from the works of ancient authors - this is enough to create a favorable impression in the world.
Onegin is a typical representative of aristocratic society. He is not able to “work hard”, but he knows how to shine in society. He leads an aimless, idle existence, but this is not his fault. Evgeniy became like his father, who gave three balls every year. He lives the way most representatives of the Russian nobility exist. However, unlike them, at a certain moment he begins to feel tired and disappointed.
Loneliness
Onegin is an “extra person.” He is languishing from idleness, trying to occupy himself with useful work. In the society to which he belongs, idleness is the main component of life. Hardly anyone from Onegin’s circle is familiar with his experiences.
Evgeniy tries to compose at first. But he is not a writer. Then he begins to read enthusiastically. However, Onegin does not find moral satisfaction in books either. Then he retires to the house of his deceased uncle, who bequeathed his village to him. Here the young nobleman seemingly finds something to do. He makes life easier for the peasants: he replaces the yoke with a light quitrent. However, even these good initiatives lead nowhere.
The type of “superfluous person” appeared in Russian literature in the first third of the nineteenth century. But by the middle of the century this character acquired new features. Pushkin's Onegin is rather passive. He treats others with contempt, is depressed and cannot get rid of conventions and prejudices, which he himself criticizes. Let's look at other examples of the “extra person” in literature.
Pechorin
Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to the problems of a rejected person, spiritually not accepted by society. Pechorin, like Pushkin’s character, belongs to high society. But he is tired of the mores of aristocratic society. Pechorin does not enjoy attending balls, dinners, or festive evenings. He is depressed by the tedious and meaningless conversations that are customary to have at such events.
Using the examples of Onegin and Pechorin, we can complement the concept of “superfluous person” in Russian literature. This is a character who, due to some alienation from society, acquires such traits as isolation, selfishness, cynicism and even cruelty.
"Notes of an Extra Person"
And yet, most likely, the author of the concept of “extra people” is I. S. Turgenev. Many literary scholars believe that it was he who introduced this term. According to their opinion, Onegin and Pechorin were subsequently classified as “superfluous people,” although they have little in common with the image created by Turgenev. The writer has a story called “Notes of an Extra Man.” The hero of this work feels alien in society. This character calls himself such.
Whether the hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is a “superfluous person” is a controversial issue.
Bazarov
Fathers and Sons depicts society in the mid-nineteenth century. Violent political disputes had reached their climax by this time. In these disputes, on one side stood the liberal democrats, and on the other, the revolutionary commoner democrats. Both of them understood that changes were needed. Revolutionary-minded democrats, unlike their opponents, were committed to rather radical measures.
Political disputes have penetrated into all spheres of life. And, of course, they became the theme of artistic and journalistic works. But there was another phenomenon at that time that interested the writer Turgenev. Namely, nihilism. Adherents of this movement rejected everything related to the spiritual.
Bazarov, like Onegin, is a deeply lonely person. This trait is also characteristic of all characters whom literary scholars classify as “superfluous people.” But, unlike Pushkin’s hero, Bazarov does not spend his time in idleness: he is engaged in the natural sciences.
The hero of the novel “Fathers and Sons” has successors. He is not considered crazy. On the contrary, some heroes try to adopt Bazarov’s oddities and skepticism. Nevertheless, Bazarov is lonely, despite the fact that his parents love and idolize him. He dies, and only at the end of his life does he realize that his ideas were false. There are simple joys in life. There is love and romantic feelings. And all this has a right to exist.
Rudin
It’s not uncommon to encounter “extra people.” The action of the novel "Rudin" takes place in the forties. Daria Lasunskaya, one of the heroines of the novel, lives in Moscow, but in the summer she travels out of town, where she organizes musical evenings. Her guests are exclusively educated people.
One day, a certain Rudin appears at Lasunskaya’s house. This person is prone to polemics, extremely passionate, and captivates listeners with his wit. The guests and the hostess of the house are enchanted by Rudin’s amazing eloquence. Lasunskaya invites him to live in her house.
In order to give a clear description of Rudin, Turgenev talks about facts from his life. This man was born into a poor family, but never had the desire to earn money or get out of poverty. At first he lived on the pennies his mother sent him. Then he lived at the expense of rich friends. Even in his youth, Rudin was distinguished by his extraordinary oratory skills. He was a fairly educated man, because he spent all his leisure time reading books. But the trouble is that nothing followed his words. By the time he met Lasunskaya, he had already become a man fairly battered by life’s hardships. In addition, he became painfully proud and even vain.
Rudin is an “extra person.” Many years of immersion in the philosophical sphere led to the fact that ordinary emotional experiences seemed to have died out. This Turgenev hero is a born orator, and the only thing he strived for was to conquer people. But he was too weak and spineless to become a political leader.
Oblomov
So, the “extra person” in Russian prose is a disillusioned nobleman. The hero of Goncharov's novel is sometimes classified as this type of literary hero. But can Oblomov be called a “superfluous person”? After all, he misses, yearns for his father’s house and everything that made up the landowner’s life. And he is in no way disappointed in the way of life and traditions characteristic of representatives of his society.
Who is Oblomov? This is a descendant of a landowner family who is bored with working in an office, and therefore does not leave his sofa for days. This is a generally accepted opinion, but it is not entirely correct. Oblomov could not get used to life in St. Petersburg, because the people around him were entirely calculating, heartless individuals. The main character of the novel, unlike them, is smart, educated and, most importantly, has high spiritual qualities. But why doesn’t he want to work then?
The fact is that Oblomov, like Onegin and Rudin, does not see the point in such work, such life. These people cannot work only for material well-being. Each of them requires a high spiritual goal. But it doesn’t exist or it turned out to be insolvent. And Onegin, and Rudin, and Oblomov become “superfluous”.
Goncharov contrasted Stolz, his childhood friend, with the main character of his novel. This character initially creates a positive impression on the reader. Stolz is a hardworking, purposeful person. It was not by chance that the writer endowed this hero with German origin. Goncharov seems to be hinting that only Russian people can suffer from Oblomovism. And in the last chapters it becomes clear that there is nothing behind Stolz’s hard work. This person has neither dreams nor high ideas. He acquires sufficient means of subsistence and stops, not continuing his development.
The influence of the “extra person” on others
It is also worth saying a few words about the heroes who surround the “extra person”. mentioned in this article are lonely and unhappy. Some of them end their lives too early. In addition, “extra people” cause grief to others. Especially women who had the imprudence to love them.
Pierre Bezukhov is sometimes counted among the “superfluous people.” In the first part of the novel, he is in continuous melancholy, searching for something. He spends a lot of time at parties, buys paintings, and reads a lot. Unlike the above-mentioned heroes, Bezukhov finds himself; he does not die either physically or morally.
Soviet literary criticism has well mastered the idea that the transition from
ancient Russian literature to the literature of modern times falls on the XVII
V. Some scientists attribute this transition to the end of the 17th century, others - to its
the middle or even the first half of the 17th century, but that he
happened precisely in the 17th century, there is no dispute.
It would seem that such a favorable situation with the issue of transition
ancient Russian literature into the new excludes him from the circle of regular and
the most pressing research topics of modern Soviet
literary studies. However, this turns out to be far from being the case.
prosperous when we try to understand for ourselves what, in fact,
literary scholars see the purely literary essence of this
transition. Once upon a time, literary scholars reduced the whole matter to a change of influences:
Byzantine influences were replaced by Western ones, Russian writers,
imitating the Byzantine ones, began to write according to the Western model. It seemed
It would be necessary to show how this Western “model” differed from
Byzantine, but this question has not been studied. Meanwhile, if he
was studied, it would become clear that a turning point in the literature cannot be
reduced only to a “change of influences” (although the very fact of strengthening in the 17th century.
Western influences cannot be doubted) that the matter lies in
a new understanding of the tasks of literature, in new methods of artistic
generalizations, in a different understanding of a person, plot, genre, etc.
The very nature of literary creativity is changing due to
significant changes in the attitude of writers to literature and to itself
reality.
The purpose of this chapter is to point out some of those purely literary
phenomena that indicate a new direction in development
Russian literature of the 17th century, to trace the influence of the turning point that took place
using just one example: the example of changes in the attitude of writers and
readers to the name of the person depicted.
If, without fear of the broadest generalizations, we combine into a single whole
extremely complex and constantly changing literary facts of all
the first seven centuries of the development of Russian literature and try to highlight in
all of them are different from the literature of modern times, then the first
and the most important difference falls on the very methods of artistic
generalizations."
I'll try to be brief. Ancient Russian literature, like everything else
truly artistic creativity, captivates and inspires knowledge
reality, contemporary to the writer or although a thing of the past,
but continues to excite minds, explaining the phenomena of our time. This
knowledge in Ancient Rus' was distinguished by extreme scrupulousness towards
individual historical facts, the desire to accurately follow external
given, although without truly reproducing the inner essence of these
Ancient Russian literature did not know an openly fictional hero. All
characters in Russian literary works from the 11th to the beginning of the 17th century
c. - historical or claiming to be historic: Boris and Gleb,
Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Igor Svyatoslavich, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry
Donskoy or Metropolitan Cyprian - all these are princes, saints, hierarchs
churches, people who existed, high in their position in society,
participants in major events in political or religious life. Writers
XI-XVI centuries looking for significant people for their works, significant
events - not in a literary, but in a purely historical sense.
They strive to write about real-life persons, events,
took place in a specific historical and geographical setting,
resort to reference to the testimony of contemporaries, to material
traces of the activities of their heroes. At the same time, everything is fantastic, wonderful
is thought of as objectively real, historically accomplished.
If there are fictitious persons in ancient Russian works, then
the ancient Russian writer seeks to assure his reader that
these faces were still there. Fiction - miracles, visions coming true
prophecies - the writer presents them as real facts, and he himself to a great extent
in most cases he believes in their reality.
Literature has difficulty recognizing clearly fictitious translated characters
works - characters in parables and allegories or Stefanite and
Ihnilata in the same name
"The experience of identifying the characteristic features of the literary process of the 197th centuries.
made by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz in the “Conclusion” to the second part of volume 2
“History of Russian Literature” (M.; Leningrad, 1948. pp. 430-431, 436-437). Cm.
also: Likhachev D.S. Seventeenth century in Russian literature, // XVII century
in world literary development. M., 1969. G. 299-328.
tell them stories. However, it is significant that, allowing the parable to be translated
works, Russian literature does not create its own original
parables, and translated parables seek to introduce them into a historical setting.
Russian authors love to present moral teachings to their readers in a direct manner.
form, without resorting to allegory and fiction.
Despite the historicity of each name of a literary hero, literature
depicted not only isolated facts. In each of the depicted
historical figures, the authors tried to embody the ideals of the era
(directly, positively or indirectly, negatively), that is
everything that was considered absolutely good or especially negative in
this era. Therefore, in the images of Alexander Nevsky or Mercury
Smolensky’s authors depicted not so much those features that were
characteristic of these real persons (although real features are mostly or
at least present in them), how many of those qualities,
which they should have as representatives of a certain
social group or a certain category of saints (martyr saint,
warrior saint, ascetic saint, etc.). Medieval historicism requires
idealization (in the broad sense of the word), and it is in this idealization and
an artistic generalization of the Middle Ages is revealed. Old Russian
the writer in his historical heroes strives to portray the true
prince, a true saint and even a true enemy of the Russian land,
true villain, etc. Artistic generalization in ancient Russian
literature is therefore normative in nature, and this
the circumstance, as we see, is closely connected with her
medieval historicism.
To one degree or another, the assessment of the actor was always present in
work - an unveiled, direct assessment, expressed by the author.
These assessments, present in lives, and in teaching literature, and in
historical literature, brought literature closer to journalism.
The image of a person appeared not only in his actions, in his actions, but
and in the direct description that the author gave him in his
work.
Unfortunately, Old Russian writing did not know compositions specifically
dedicated to literary creativity, in which all these principles were
would be systematically presented. In ancient Russian literature there are
only random slips of writers about the tasks of their work.
Statements about art in general in Ancient
There are more Russians, and they are very helpful in understanding the principles of literary
creativity of the XI-XVI centuries. Extremely devoted to these statements
valuable article by Yu. N. Dmitriev ". From the materials of the article by Yu. N. Dmitriev
it is clearly visible that art in Ancient Rus' had requirements
accurate depiction of reality. But from here it would be wrong
conclude that he was given demands for a realistic depiction
reality. Meanwhile, this is precisely the conclusion drawn from the materials
the so-called Small Collection, the author of a rare brochure published in
Kazan in 1917, Vl. Sokolov2- Differences between medieval
historicism to realism are primarily determined by the difference in understanding
reality itself and the difference in the writer’s understanding of his tasks.
Hence, completely different methods in reproducing this
reality. In the XI-XVI centuries. there is, for example, no idea about
individual and unique psychology, limited ideas about
the inner life of a person and there is no concept of character. From here
external, visual, description of a person. Hence the amazing
the confidence of the compilers of iconographic originals that the similarity
images with reality can be conveyed in words by listing it
external signs:
“brada of Basil of Caesarea, or in short” or “brada for two
swung", "riza hook", "Dorimedont young, like George", "Feodosia
the tsar sits like Vladimir, in short, Vladimirovich, etc.
From the point of view of the compilers of iconographic originals, everything in the world
repeatable, and therefore a person is a combination of qualities,
which can be listed, reproduced by pointing to other known
samples, just as the architectural structure was adopted
create “from a sample” of existing ones3.
Signs by which a particular person is identified, taken together
form a kind of ideogram. Event of sacred history or
the life of the saint is reproduced
1 Dmitriev Yu. N. Theory of art and views on art in
writings of ancient Rus'. C TODRL. T. IX, 1953.
2 Sokolov V l. Realism in Old Russian icon painting C Readings in the Church
Historical and Archaeological Society of the Kazan Diocese. Vol. 1-3. 1917.
"Voronin N.N. Essays on the history of Russian architecture of the XVIXVI! centuries. M.;
L., 1934. P. 73; Voronin N. N. Architectural monument as historical
source // Soviet archeology. 1954, vol. XIX. pp. 62-63.111
were carried out according to the “signs”: with exact observance of all details, about
which the text mentioned. Hence the concern for the immutability of types,
compositions, the desire to codify texts and iconographic originals,
what was seen as a guarantee of their historical authenticity, by no means
as we see, not of the realistic type.
It is not difficult to see that artistic generalization was in the grip
immutable rule - to depict only historical, realistic
existing persons and events. Medieval historicism demanded
images of only historically significant events in life historically
a significant person. At the same time, everything household was excluded as small and
unworthy of attention. The character could not be generalized to
true typicality, since the artist could only talk about those
significant facts that were in full view of his contemporaries, and
only on their basis to idealize the image he created. I was embarrassed
normative system of artistic generalization.
Of course, during the six centuries of its dominance in literature, the medieval
Historicism has undergone significant changes. Historical names
"Russian Chronograph" are documentary to a different extent than historical
names of the Novgorod first chronicle. Different attitudes towards historical
the names of the characters in the “Degree Book” and in the “Kazan History”, in
military story of the XII-XIII centuries. and in the legend of the 16th century. Relation to names
The characters vary across centuries and genres. In this task
This chapter does not, however, include a discussion of this issue. Chapter Topic
forces us to look back to the last decades of dominance
medieval historicism, when the monumental historicism of previous
centuries, certain elements of historicism are finally becoming a thing of the past
begin to give way to new ways of artistic vision
reality, free from documentation.
In the context of the anti-feudal movements of the “rebellious” 17th century, the growth
public consciousness of the democratic strata of the Russian population and
entry into literature of new, democratic writers and huge
masses of new, democratic readers, literature is moving quickly
forward and strives to free itself from the former constraint of historical
themes, and primarily the historical name of the literary hero.
Medieval historicism was, however, very strong; it seemed
unshakable, weighed heavily on all artistic
worldview of the people of the era of feudalism, and the departure from it was extremely
difficult, was accomplished slowly, came as if from below - from the working masses
people and their art. Before being openly admitted to
literature and artistic fiction penetrated into it through various roundabout
ways, inventively justified his appearance in literary
works with more and more new artistic techniques. Below we
Let us show some of the techniques that were gradually introduced into
literature fictitious names of literary heroes who replaced
historical.
Sharp division of literature in the 17th century. on the literature of the feudal elite
and democratic literature, the emergence of democratic satire,
exposing the negative phenomena of the social system of the 17th century, were
events of extreme importance that entailed the development of new,
ever more advanced forms of artistic generalization.
As literature became more and more democratized,
in literary works the average ordinary appears more and more often
a person, an “everyday personality” is by no means a historical figure. Clear,
that the “historical” name of the character no longer corresponded
tasks of this democratic literature. A new literary
the hero is unknown, has nothing in the historical life of the country
remarkable, attracting attention only because the reader could
recognizing many people in him, including sometimes himself, is interesting,
in other words, by its characteristic character for the era. His position on
the ladder of feudal relations does not determine the way it is depicted.
Often he does not occupy a certain social position at all: then
this is a merchant’s son who has abandoned his parents’ occupations (Savva
Grudtsyn, a fine fellow in “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, a merchant in “The Tale of
merchant who bought a dead body"), then this is dissatisfied with his position
a choirboy (in “Poem about the life of the patriarchal singers”), then a drunken monk, etc.
d. It is by no means accidental that a huge
the number of losers or, on the contrary, heroes who, as they say,
lucky, dodgers like Frol Skobeev, or noble seekers
adventures, like Eruslan Lazarevich. These people become sons-in-law
boyars, they easily marry the king’s daughters and receive them as a dowry
half the kingdom, they may find themselves on a desert island, moving
from state to state. History doesn't concern them. Neither the author nor
the reader is not interested in where they live and in what historical
situation there are all these countless deaths, wars, kidnappings,
actions of robbers, etc.
These changes in the literature seem to coincide in time with
similar changes in folklore, and even more likely, to a certain extent
they go after the last ones. We know very little folklore of the 17th century, and therefore
this question cannot yet be fully investigated, but some
signs convince us that in the 17th century. such
namely folklore genres, in which the undivided dominance of historicism
could no longer take place: a lyrical (and at the same time not ritual) song and
fairy tale.
The fact that the departure from historicism, as we will see,
outlined primarily in the democratic literature of the 17th century, inspires
confidence that oral folk art really played a role
here the leading role. Using an example related to the names of characters
literature borrowed from proverbs, we will see this below
finally.
There is no doubt, however, that folklore only facilitated the process that
inevitably had to happen with the advent of literature
democratic segments of the population. With the advent of acting in literature
persons of average or low social status, in which the names
the characters could not be widely known or were quickly forgotten,
The line between a historical name and a fictitious one blurred by itself.
The historical name gradually lost its
“documentary”-historical meaning began to be perceived
by readers as fictional. This process was closely related to the development
in fictional literature in general. The more fictional episodes penetrated
into a literary work, the more its historical
character, the more easily the historical meaning of the hero’s name was lost,
even if it was.
Let's look at some examples. “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”, which with reservations
can be called the first Russian novel, still retains the appearance
historical truth. The action takes place in precisely defined years,
The places of events are precisely indicated, and Savva himself is told where he was from
family and that his generation “to this day in that city
attracted." Similar information in the stories about Karp is less historical.
Sutulov and Frol Skobeev. It is characteristic that in all the stories
only the appearance of historicity is preserved. "Historicity" in stories about
Savva Grudtsyna, Karp Sutulov and Frol Skobeev, apparently, have already
just a peculiar technique. In any case, due to historical
the insignificance of the characters in these stories and those depicted in them
events they could not be filled with the content that was
characteristic of the heyday of medieval historicism, when the most
the choice of plot was dictated by its historical significance. No doubt,
for example, that of all the characters in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn” for
its author, had he lived a century earlier, the main thing would have been that
occupies the highest social position: rather boyar B.M.
Shein than his subordinate Savva, and the basis of the plot would be
historical events, and not events in Savva’s personal life.
Researchers of these stories, out of habit developed in classical
monuments of ancient Russian literature, did not doubt the historical
reliability of the text instructions, making the appropriate
genealogical research. Around the genealogy of Savva Grudtsyn
even a heated debate flared up", forcing one to think about
stencils not only of the most ancient Russian literature, but also caused by
their research.
So, the historical name of the hero became a clear obstacle in the development
literature, in its movement towards realistic fiction. Writers of the 17th century
strive to get rid of the historical name of the character, however
overcome the centuries-old belief that in literary
the work is only interested in what is genuine, what really happened and
historically significant, it was not so easy. It was even more difficult
take the path of open fiction. And so it begins in literature
a long streak of searching for a way out of a difficult situation, searching,
which ultimately led to the creation of an imaginary hero
literature of modern times, a hero with a fictitious name, with a fictitious
biography. This is an average, non-historical, “everyday” person, about whom
maybe
"Baklanova N.A. On the issue of dating “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”, / I
TODRL. T. IX; K a l a c h e v a S. V. Once again about the dating of “The Tale of
Savva Gruyatsyn." // TODRL. M., T. XI. 1955.
but it was possible to write everything, obeying only the internal logic of the image itself,
recreating this image in its most typical positions. About him
there was no longer any need to reason from the outside, publicly recommending it
to the reader by no means with figurative characteristics.
One of the most significant transitional phenomena was the emergence
anonymity of the characters. A whole period begins in literature,
when the heroes of many literary works, mainly
who came from a democratic environment turned out to be nameless individuals -
individuals who are called in works simply “well done” or
“poor”, “rich”, “naked and poor man”, “hawk moth”,
“peasant son”, “maiden”, “certain merchant”, “jealous men”,
“spevaks”, etc. Nameless heroes act in such works as
like “Shemyakin Court”, “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, “The ABC of Naked and
a poor man", "The Tale of Hawk Moth", "The Tale of a Young Man and
girl”, “The Tale of the Merchant Who Found a Dead Body”, “Poem about Life
patriarchal singers" and in many others.
The namelessness of the hero in itself meant that a discovery had occurred
new, completely different than before, ways of artistic generalization.
At the same time, the hero’s namelessness, in turn, made the path easier
fiction, the path to creating typical, not at all idealized
images
Another important transitional form to artistic fiction, often
combined with the anonymity of the characters, appeared so
widespread in the 17th century. parody. The point is that in fiction
the medieval reader was frightened by lies; everything that is not “historical”, that is not
It was in reality a deception, and deception was from the devil. But it's open
a recognized fiction is not a lie, especially if this fiction is covered up
as a joke. This is where the possibility of fiction in parody comes from as one of
transitional forms to new principles of artistic generalization. Together with
the parody gave vent to popular dissatisfaction not with individual
historical figures, but the social structure itself. She allowed widely
generalize life phenomena, which was especially needed in opposition
determined representatives of the settlement and the peasantry.
The fact that the parody served in the 17th century. means of generalization
precisely phenomena snatched from the very
the thick of life, can be seen at least from the fact that the objects of parodies were
not literary genres, but business documents: paintings about
dowry", ABCs 2, petitions 3, medical books 4, court cases w",
road workers6, church service 7, etc. They were ridiculed, therefore,
life phenomena as such, and not literary forms.
Along with parody, parody also served as a means of typifying life phenomena.
another form of “open lie” is fables that penetrated literature under
influence of folk art. The fable stated as usual that
was just unusual in life, and thereby emphasized
abnormality of the usual state of affairs. Among such fables in
literature includes “The Tale of Luxurious Living and Fun.” Hero and
here the nameless one is a certain “kind and honest nobleman,” but he himself is not
plays a special role in the work. Most likely, the hero of the story is
the reader himself, whose poverty is exposed to those addressed to him
an invitation to go and enjoy the “there” in a fictional country
peace and fun." “And whoever deigns to see such joys and coolness there,
joy and fun to go, and take with you vats and teapots, and with
vats, barrels and barrels, ladles and ladles, brothers and brothers,
dishes and saucers, bowls and bowls, spoons and spoons, glasses and
glasses, cups, knives, knives and forks, blades and clubs, sticks, poles
and stakes, lumber, birthing, shafts and stones, throwing and breaking, sabers and
swords and horzas, bows, sideks and arrows, reeds, arquebuses and pistols,
self-propelled guns, rifles and brooms - it would be something to keep flies away
| “Painting about the dowry of the evil groom.”
2 “ABC about a naked and poor man”, “ABC about hops”, “ABC book
about a beautiful maiden."
3 "Kalyazin petition". Petitioners are parodied in “The Tale of Ruff”
and etc.
4 “Treatment book for foreigners.”
5 In addition to “The Tale of Ruff” - “The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”.
6 “The Tale of Luxurious Living and Fun.”
7 “Service to the Tavern”, “The Tale of a Peasant Son”. The only thing
possible exception: “As a literary parody, perhaps (discharge
my d. L.), one should consider the mysterious, conventionally called
publisher of "The Tale of the Young Man, the Horse and the Saber", preserved in an excerpt in
manuscripts from the Pogodin collection, b 1773. Hyperbolic description of the horse and
weapons of the “good fellow” may parody those that came into fashion in the 17th
V. adventure novels-fairy tales such as “Bova of the Prince”, “Eruslana”
Lazarevich" (see: Adrianova-Peretz V.P. Russian Democratic
satire of the 17th century. M.; L., 1954. P. 169, note).
fan yourself." Then the legend gives a comic route "before that
fun" and reports about the fees that are taken from the traveler: "from the arc
one horse at a time, a person at a time, and a person at a time for all the baggage trains.”2
The literary work here seems to be entirely addressed to the
the reader, reminding him of his poverty and making him look funny
a pipe dream of a happy and prosperous life.
Along with parody and fables on the same rights in the literature of the 17th century. from
Animal epic permeates folklore. This is the same frankly admitted
fiction, about which the reader is, as it were, warned in advance, the same
transitional and typical for literature of the 17th century. phenomenon.
From this point of view, one of the most interesting attempts of the late 16th century -
beginning of the 17th century break out of the confines of the constraining medieval
“historicism” - the famous “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich” 3.
Before us is the transfer of a folk animal epic into literature. Author
story, trying to depict the judicial order and people of modest
provisions, transferred the action of his work to the world of fish -
inhabitants of Russian rivers and lakes. He doesn't seem to dare to do anything else
their very ordinary heroes are people of low position, deprived
"historical" names. Without a name, but not a person either; or name - obviously
fictional, “fish”: Ruff Ershovich, Beluga Yaroslavl, Salmon
Pereyaslavskaya, boyar and voivode Sturgeon of the Khvalynsk Sea,
Pike-trembling, Bream with comrades, etc. In these obviously fantastic
names, one senses a transitional phenomenon. But this is already a transitional phenomenon
gave a new type of generalization. Showing people in animal forms allowed
endow them with characteristics common in animal epic and not yet
have become common in writing. The same phenomenon can be noted
in another work - in “The Tale of the Chicken and the Fox”.
“The Tale of Ruff” is notable for one more feature:
| Adrianova-Peretz V.P. Russian democratic satire of the 17th century. WITH.
41-42. In literary terms, this combination of ordinary
names of items used for food and those derived from them
diminutives, as if emphasizing the need to be “fully armed”
enjoy the dishes - eating a lot and at the same time savoring small ones
in pieces. An unexpected move to arms against sweet food addicts
flies emphasizes the mocking nature of the list. "Oslops" and "clubs"
as if they were not intended for flies, for which they are, of course, too
great, but for the stupidest reader.
2 Ibid. P. 42.
3 Baklanova N.A. On the dating of “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich” C TODRL. T. X.
1954.
typical of literature that has transcended its limitations
artistic generalizations of the Middle Ages. It contains an artistic generalization
achieved through a parody of the trial. And in this too
there is a noticeable desire for “fiction without deception”, for fiction warned,
previously declared. The author does not seem to want to deceive. He just
jokes around and breaks down.
Parodying legal proceedings allowed the author of the story to give direct
characteristics of Ersha and other characters, artistically
justified by the very form of judicial petitions, testimony and decisions. These
direct characteristics were no longer given on behalf of the author, as before, but from
faces of witnesses and judges - the characters in the story.
These characteristics turned out to be purely secular, which was
important moment in the secularization of literature.
In “The Tale of Ruff” (as in “The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”) one cannot help but
note the important role of the court in developing new ideas about a person:
an extremely interesting phenomenon, quite comparable with the role of zemstvo
cathedrals of the early 17th century, in the emergence of new ideas about the character
major historical figures."
No matter how successful the solution to the problem of artistic generalization in
“The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, nevertheless, a method of generalization open here, how
and the method of generalization in parody and fable could not be a common way
literature. This was a special case. Moreover, in “The Tale of Ruff” it is clear
the old connection with “historicism” was felt: the story gave
surprisingly “accurate” information about Ruff - where he comes from, about his
possessions with “accurate” references to real geographical names, with
numbers and calculations - in the absence of truly historical persons and
historical events in their former significance for literature.
The phenomena of literary style are closely related to each other. WITH
changing one artistic principle changes all the others -
if not in its essence, then in its function. So it is in “The Tale of Ruff”
Ershovich." In fact, it alone could show most
changes that took place in democratic literature on the verge
XVI and XVII centuries in connection with the departure of literature from historical themes and
historical
I See about this in Chapter 1, “The Problem of Character in Historical
works of the early 17th century."
the Chinese name of a literary hero. One thing will happen to us now
particularly interested. The story told about the adventures of Ruff, about his
tricks. Ruff is a hero similar in meaning to
historical-literary trial on Lazarillo from Tormes. By his side
reader sympathy. The reader was delighted with his pranks.
What are the personal adventures of the hero (Ruff, Savva Grudtsyn, the fellow from
“The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune”, Frol Skobeev, etc.) from the point of view
development of methods of artistic generalization in the 17th century? Adventures,
if only they come in a whole chain, successful for the hero, or, on the contrary,
unsuccessful for him, reveal the fate of life to the reader
hero. Ideas about the fate of the character invariably went alongside
developing ideas about his character. Why was it so difficult
have yet to explain precisely, but apparently the understanding of human
character in the 17th century. was peculiar and has not yet separated from
ideas about fate.
As the human personality becomes more emancipated, the very ideas about
fate underwent strong changes.
A study of popular ideas about “fate-share” shows that
ideas of the clan society about the common clan, innate destiny,
which arose in connection with the cult of ancestors, are subsequently replaced by the idea
personal fate, fate individually inherent in this or that person,
fate not innate, but as if inspired from the outside, in character
which the bearer himself is to blame for.
In Russian book literature of the previous time (XIXVI centuries) were reflected
advantageously remnants of the ideas of innate destiny, the destiny of the race. This
the generic idea of fate was rarely personified, rarely
acquired individual contours. These ideas about ancestral fate
served as a means of artistic generalization in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
“The Word” characterizes the grandchildren of their grandfather. Image of many grandchildren
embodied in one grandfather. Olgovichi are characterized through Oleg
Gorislavich, Polotsk Vseslavichs through Vseslav of Polotsk. It was
a technique that was simple and understandable to contemporaries, but caused confusion
researchers of the Lay in the 19th and 20th centuries, who suggested in the passage
“Words” about Vseslav of Polotsk randomly inserts a “song about Vseslav”, and in
the attention paid by the author of the Lay to Oleg Gorislavich -
its conditionality due to some special sympathies of the author of the Lay for
Chernigov Olgovichs. In fact, the author of the Lay resorted to
image
the study of ancestors to characterize the princes - their descendants; and
to characterize their common fate -
their "restlessness".
In the 17th century with the development of individualism, the fate of man turns out to be his
personal destiny. The fate of man is now perceived as something
inspired from the outside, “sticking” to a person, like his second being and
often separated from the person himself, personified. This
personification occurs when an internal conflict in a person
- the conflict between passion and reason reaches its highest strength. Fate
is by no means innate to man. That is why in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”
Savva's fate appears before him in the form of a demon tempting him to
various detrimental actions for him. Demon in “The Tale of Savva Grudtsyn”
appears suddenly, as if growing out of the ground when Savva
ceases to control himself when he is completely, contrary to reason,
passion takes over. Savva carries “great sorrow” within himself, with it he
“thin your flesh,” he cannot overcome the passion that attracts him. Demon
- the product of his own desire, he appears just at that
the moment when Savva thought:
“...if only I could have intercourse with her wife, I would have served
to the devil."
The demon takes from Savva the “handwriting” (“fortress”), symbolizing
the hero's enslavement to his fate.
In “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” the fate of the young man is embodied in the image of Grief,
haunting him relentlessly. Born of nightmares, grief is soon
then appears before the fellow in reality, at the moment when the fellow,
Driven to despair by poverty and hunger, he tries to drown himself in the river.
It requires the young man to bow down to the “damp earth” and from this
for minutes he relentlessly follows the young man. Grief is shown as a creature
living its own special life, like a powerful force that has “become too wise”
people who are both “wiser” and “more idle” than the young man. Well done fighting with himself
but cannot overcome his own lack of will and his own passions, and
this feeling of being driven by something extraneous, contrary to the voice of reason,
gives birth to Grief. To get rid of grief, to be freed from the demon is possible only with
through divine intervention. Saves a young man from grief
monastery, Savva Grudtsyn - a miracle that happened to him in the church.
The desire to broadly generalize life phenomena, and, moreover, completely
in a new way, not as before, makes “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” one
one of the most interesting
phenomena of Russian literature of the 17th century. Having discovered the artistic method
generalizations of a new type, the author strives to take full advantage of his
discovery and provide a generalization of unprecedented scope. Biography
the nameless young man is portrayed as a typical example of a bleak life
of the entire human race, and the image of Grief becomes the image of the human
fate in general. That is why the story begins literally from Adam -
the ancestor of all humanity." The homely life of a homely hero
is perceived as human life in general.
in the work this time there is not a single proper name at all, nor
one mention of cities or rivers familiar to Russian people; V
in the story one cannot find a single, even indirect, hint of
any historical circumstances that would allow
determine its duration. Everything here is summarized and summarized to
extreme limits, focused on one thing: on the fate of the young man, his
internal, psychological drama, on his character. At the same time the story
does not shy away from descriptions of everyday life, mainly the lowest, tavern life.
Before us is the complete opposite of what the old literary
tradition: there is a single “historical” hero, here - the whole
the human race, summarized in an unknown fellow;
there - representatives of the very top of feudal society, here - a hero
from its lower classes, a nameless fellow, wandering without purpose or occupation in
“Gunka tavern”, in whose ears “robbery roars”; there - ignoring
everyday life, here is a purely everyday environment, although depicted only
hints; there - abstraction, here - concreteness, complex, internal
life of a hero.
“The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” is not an isolated phenomenon in the field of such
kind of generalizations. Close to “The Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune” is “The ABC of
naked and poor man", where almost the same hero, but only without
the grief that haunts him.
The anonymity of the character opened up opportunities for the broadest
generalizations. The authors try to make generalizations on a global scale (this
clearly seen from the "Tale of the Mountain of Misfortune"), although in fact they reach
| In this case, the relic that we noted above still remains.
medieval technique of characterizing descendants according to their ancestor.
©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-13
