What does a word from literature a little man mean? "Little man" in Russian literature

The "little man" is a type of literary hero, usually a petty official, who falls prey to the arbitrariness of the authorities or harsh life circumstances. Tsarist injustice and cruel time forced the "little people" to withdraw into themselves, to withdraw, becoming the subject of ridicule by their more successful colleagues, they lived imperceptibly and died imperceptibly, and sometimes went crazy. But just such heroes, having experienced a strong shock, began to appeal for justice and even fight against the powerful.

The first were the heroes of A.S. Pushkin: Eugene from the poem "The Bronze Horseman" and Samson Vyrin from the story. But it is the heroes of Gogol's works, especially his "Petersburg Tales", who are rightfully considered the embodiment of this type. FM Dostoevsky will say afterwards: “We all left Gogol's" Overcoat ", meaning that Russian writers, including Dostoevsky himself, will refer to this topic constantly, and Gogol's heroes will become role models.

Gogol himself, finding himself in St. Petersburg, was shocked by the greatness of the city, which met young man unkindly. He faced a world of social catastrophes. I saw the brilliance and poverty of the capital, behind the front facade of which vulgarity triumphs and talents perish. After the collision with St. Petersburg, Pushkin's heroes went crazy.

In Gogol's Petersburg Tales, the desire of the “little man” to gain dignity leads to rebellion and the liberation of ghostly forces, which makes this cycle fantastic. Critics admit that the entire cycle of stories is an expression of indignation against the tragic disorder of life and against those who vulgarized it, made it inhuman and unbearable.

In "Notes of a Madman" the narration is carried out on behalf of the minor official Poprishchina. Sitting in the office of the department director, he sharpens feathers and takes notes, dreaming of marrying his daughter and making a career. Having overheard the conversation of two dogs Fidel and Medzhi (there is a fantasy in all the stories of this cycle), he learns about their correspondence and, taking possession of the pieces of paper, learns all the ins and outs of his boss and his daughter. He is shocked: why is the world so unfair? Why is he, Aksenty Poprishchin, only a titular adviser at 42?

In his inflamed mind, the thought arises that he may be someone else, but after the madness, his human dignity also grows. He begins to look at the world in a different way, as he refuses slavish crawling before the so-called "masters of life." He suddenly begins to consider himself the king of Spain, which gives him the right not to stand in front of his superiors and even sign with Ferdinand VIII. Poprishchin clearly imagines how "all the clerical bastard", including the director, will humiliately bow down in front of him. This demarche ends with a psychiatric hospital, where his recordings finally lose all meaning, but the story reveals the severity of social conflict.

The story "The Overcoat" describes not just a case from the life of the "little man" Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin. The whole life of the hero appears before the reader: he is present at his birth, when he is named after him, he finds out where he served, why he needs an overcoat so much and why he died. The hero lives in his own little world where nothing happens. If it hadn't happened in his life incredible story with an overcoat, there would be nothing to tell about him.

Akaki Akakievich does not strive for luxury: sewing a new overcoat is a vital necessity. The thought of a new thing fills the life of the hero with a new meaning, which is why his appearance even changes: "He has become somehow more alive, even stronger in character." When he reached the limit of his dreams, making a splash among colleagues who constantly mocked him, the overcoat was stolen. But this is not the reason for the death of poor Bashmachkin: “ significant person", To whom the official turns for help," scolds "him for disrespecting his superiors and kicks him out.

So disappears from the face of the earth "a creature that is not interesting to anyone", because no one even noticed his death. The ending is fantastic, but it brings justice. The ghost of a former official rips off his greatcoats from rich and noble persons, and Bashmachkin rises to unprecedented heights, overcoming the poor notions of rank.

• "Portrait", analysis of Gogol's story, composition
• "Dead Souls", analysis of the work of Gogol

Continuation

« Bronze Horseman"- this is one of the first works where the author tries to describe the" little man ". Pushkin begins his creation odically. He glorifies the city of Peter, the "greatness" of St. Petersburg, admires the capital of Russia. In my opinion, the author does this in order to show the power of the capital and everything the Russian state... Then the author begins his story. The main character is Eugene, he is an impoverished nobleman, has neither a high rank, nor a noble name: "By the night light and rumor, his name is forgotten." Eugene lives a calm measured life, "shuns the noble", provides for himself, working hard. Eugene does not dream of high ranks, he only needs simple human happiness. But grief bursts into this measured course of his life, his beloved dies during a flood. Eugene, realizing that he is powerless in the face of the elements, still tries to find those to blame for the fact that his hope for happiness has collapsed. And he finds it. Eugene blames Peter I for his troubles, who built the city in this place, which means that he blames the entire state machine, thereby entering into the first battle; and Pushkin shows this through the revitalization of the monument to Peter I. Of course, in this battle, Eugene, weak person, is defeated due to enormous grief and inability to fight the state, the main character dies.

Pushkin vividly described the "little man", this man not only had his personal opinion but also tried to prove it.

In the story "The Overcoat" Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin is the main character, all the rest characters create the background.

The novella "The Overcoat" is one of the best in Gogol's work. In it, the writer appears before us as a master of detail, satirist and humanist. The hero of "The Overcoat" Akaki Akakievich is no longer a nobleman, he is an official of the lowest class - a titular councilor, a person who is insistently bullied and made fun of, thereby humiliating him. In the story of the life of a petty official, Gogol was able to create an unforgettable vivid image"Little man" with his joys and troubles, difficulties and worries. A hopeless need surrounds Akaki Akakievich, but he does not see the tragedy of his position, as he is busy with business. Bashmachkin is not burdened by his poverty, because he does not know another life. He was so accustomed to his humiliating position that even his speech became incomplete - he could not finish the sentence and instead used pronouns, interjections, prepositions, etc. This style of speech in itself made a person humiliated in front of everyone else, even equal to him on the basis of class. Akaki Akakievich not only did not oppose the state (as Yevgeny tried to do), he cannot even defend himself in front of equal people. And when he has a dream: a new overcoat, he is ready to endure any hardships, just to bring the implementation of his plan closer.

The overcoat becomes a kind of symbol of a happy future, a beloved child, for the sake of which Akaki Akakievich is ready to work tirelessly. The author is quite serious when he describes his hero's enthusiasm for the realization of a dream: the overcoat is sewn! Bashmachkin was completely happy. But for how long? When an overcoat was stolen from Bashmachkin, it was a grief for him, equivalent to the loss of Parasha from Eugene. But what did he do? Bashmachkin appeals to various authorities, but it is not difficult to refuse him, because he is insignificant in his position, and most importantly, in his soul. This is proved by the fact that Bashmachkin never dreamed of anything, could not stand up for himself, did not defend his human dignity.

The "little man" is not destined to be happy in this unjust world. And only after death is justice done. Bashmachkin's “soul” finds peace when it returns to itself a lost thing.

Akaki Akakievich dies, but Gogol revives him. Why is he doing this? It seems to me that Gogol revived the hero in order to further show the insignificance of the soul of the "little man" So).

Depicting the persecution of a poor official by his colleagues, Gogol protests against violence against a defenseless person who saw the "whole world" not in the lives of people and nature, but in the words and letters of official correspondence. Gogol defends the "little man" against social injustice. He decries the social order that oppresses the disadvantaged.

Bashmachkin is not only a poor man, he is a crushed, downtrodden person, he is one of those people who are enslaved and humiliated in their human dignity by other people who are in vain pride in their high position in society.

Gogol evokes in the reader sincere sympathy and pity for the personality of an inconspicuous, modest worker who is crushed to such an extent that he no longer seems to have any heartfelt feelings and aspirations. But who, nevertheless, finally finds some object for his secret heart affection, for the almost disappeared thirst, tenderness and participation.

"The Overcoat" is permeated with bitter meditation about "how much inhumanness in a person, how much humble rudeness is hidden, in a refined, educated secularity." "Overcoat" - short description the life of a poor titular advisor, “a creature not protected by anyone, not dear to anyone,” a life so insignificant and imperceptible that even buying a new overcoat is a whole event in it.

Bashmachkin resignedly and submissively endures the ridicule of his comrades, who "joked at him with as much clerical wit as was enough." But even in this downtrodden creature, Gogol tried to see a person, showing how embarrassed one of the officials was by Bashmachkin's timid objection: "Leave me, why are you offending me?" - an objection in which "there was something so pitying."

Not great, but rather a pitiful object that brought Akaky Akakievich out of his mental torpor: not love, not some other sublime feeling, but everyday and ordinary - a new overcoat "on thick cotton wool, on a strong lining without demolition." And, nevertheless, we deeply sympathize with Gogol's hero, seeing his dedication and, as it were, being present at his awakening from spiritual torpor. For the sake of his greatcoat, Bashmachkin learned to starve, but on the other hand he learned to eat spiritually, “carrying in his thoughts eternal idea future overcoat ".

Gogol showed not only the life of the "little man", but also his protest against injustice. Let this "rebellion" be timid, almost fantastic, but the hero stands up for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.

Maikov wrote: "Both Gogol and Dostoevsky represent real society." But “for one individual, he is important as a representative of a certain circle; for another, society itself is interesting, according to its influence on the personality of the individual. The collection of Gogol's works can definitely be called the artistic statistics of Russia. " In Dostoevsky, however, any images of society are completely absorbed by the enormity of psychological interest. Talking about artistic manner Dostoevsky, Maikov had in mind a special psychologism. It was, of course, about social psychology- the influence that society has on the human personality, but which Dostoevsky studies with an original speed that has never occurred to anyone.

In the work "Poor People" the main character is also a small man, a scribe Makar Devushkin. In Poor People, the writer stops at the bottom of the social ladder and talks about people who are almost or not completely poor, only in order to look closer into the depths of all the spreading evil. The topic of poverty is not the main one here, it is subordinated to a broader social theme. That is why the novel speaks of both poor (unsecured) people and all kinds of people who, according to Dostoevsky's conviction, are always poor, no matter how well-off they are.

The department in which Makar Alekseevich serves, and the boundaries of which the temporal and spatial chapters of the world are closed for him, is divided into two unequal parts. One is all “they”, “enemies” of Makar Alekseevich and “evil people”. The other part - he himself, "meek", "quiet", "kind". Because of these virtues, explains Makar Alekseevich, “evil people” were “found” to destroy him. But if all the hardships of Makar Alekseevich are due to the fact that he is "meek," "quiet," "kind," then the question arises, what force prevents him from changing his character? Only one is the force of circumstances. After all, the hero is not just Makar Alekseevich - that poor Makar, at whom all the bumps fall and at whom a departmental proverb mockingly hinted. It is poverty that distinguishes the hero from all others. And the sorrow lies not so much in the fact that he is "meek", "quiet", "kind", but in the fact that he cannot be anything else: he is a "little man", he is a "poor man", not a "bird of prey" ", But a modest bird. Instead of pride, self-dignity, which God and nature have endowed with the best of their creations, there arises ambition, a sick and abnormal feeling - a bad distortion of good principles in a badly organized society. Ambition inspires a poor person with a persistent desire, absorbing all his strength, to prove to himself and others that he is exactly like them, that he is no worse than them.

These "they", "others", occupy the feelings and thoughts of Makar Alekseevich constantly: after all, he needs to not differ from "them". And since the "difference" to him here is innate (due to poverty, due to pernicious circumstances), then "they", these "others", take possession of the heart and mind of a poor person with all inevitability. Makar Alekseevich lives with a constant eye: what will others say? what will they think? And the opinion of these "others" is more important for him than his own.

Before us is the "eternal titular adviser", capable only of writing papers, trained with copper money, meek and downtrodden. Makar Alekseevich Devushkin, no less than Gogol's Bashmachkin, is humiliated and despised in the service. He, too, was bullied at work, but by nature he is a completely different person, different from Akaki Akakievich. To the answers of the insults of colleagues and offenders, the "little man" grumbled: he felt like a person, being capable not only of humility, not only of taking care of himself.

Makara worries about problems human dignity, he reflects on literature and his position in society. After reading "The Overcoat", Makar was outraged that Gogol described the life of an official with great accuracy, Makar recognized himself in Akaki Akakievich, but was outraged that Gogol portrayed the official as worthless person... After all, he himself is capable of deeply feeling, loving, which means that he was no longer at all insignificant, but a person, albeit put by society on a low level.

That which Gogol in "The Overcoat" remained in the shadows - the self-consciousness of a downtrodden man - Dostoevsky made the main theme of his work.

The tragic end of the whole story - the departure of Varenka with the hated, wealthy landowner Bykov - only emphasizes the weakness and helplessness of the poor people, the hopelessness of their suffering.

In the image of Devushkin, Dostoevsky for the first time staged a very important for him moral problem- the tragedy of goodness, genuine humanity in the world of those who regard the ability to “make money” as the only civic virtue.

By showing the well-meaning Makar Devushkin, Dostoevsky accurately depicted the spiritual oppression of the poor man, his conservatism, and narrow-mindedness. public conscience, the ability to come to terms with powerlessness and adapt to it.

Dostoevsky's hero not only suffers and complains about his fate, but also begins to reason like a citizen. Devushkin, as he says, "has recently been forming a syllable." In fact, before our eyes, there is a process of straightening the personality of the "little man", who begins to think about the mutual responsibility of people, about human egoism, not being able to help each other.

Thus, we see that with the development of literature, the image of the "little man" also developed. At first he could love, respect himself, but he was powerless in front of the state machine. Then he could not love, not respect, and he could not even think about the struggle against the state. After that, the "little man" acquires a sense of his own dignity, the ability to love, and at the same time acutely feels his insignificant position. But the most important thing is that he is no longer insignificant in his soul! d) The theme of the "little man" in the drama of A. N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"

Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev is another "little man" among the heroes of Russian literature. His "literary pedigree" contains the heroes of Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky. The image of Karandyshev by Ostrovsky is masterfully written, with psychological accuracy. The character of this "poor official" is perhaps even more complex and interesting than the "brilliant master" Paratov.

The very combination of the name of the Roman Emperor Julius with the prosaic patronymic Kapitonych and the humiliating surname Karandyshev contains a contradiction, perhaps a parodic one.

And indeed, "already, isn't he a parody" of the same Paratov, say? We get the first information about Karandyshev from Vozhevatov, who, with his characteristic irony, but very aptly explains to Knurov, “where did this Karandyshev come from?” nothing came of it, only made everyone laugh. " Having become Larisa's fiancé, Karandyshev “shines like an orange put on glasses for some reason, but never wore them before and never heard him, and now everything is“ I, yes, I, I want, I want ”.

It seems that in the future, from the first appearance with Larisa on the boulevard to the "triumphant" dinner, Yuliy Kapitonych fully justifies his reputation as a man "insignificant, but proud and envious." He brags to Larissa as an expensive, but well-bought thing, constantly reproaches her with her home “gypsy camp”. Even at dinner, making a toast in honor of Larisa, Yuliy Kapitonych sings a praise to "myself, my beloved": "Yes, Larisa Dmitrievna knows how to distinguish gold from tinsel. She understood me, appreciated and preferred me to everyone."

And yet Karandyshev, in the words of Larisa herself, has "only one, but an expensive dignity" - he loves her.

After Larissa's flight, this “little man” collapses all illusions, comes an epiphany: “I am a funny person I know myself that I am a funny person. Are people executed for being ridiculous? Laugh at me - I'm worth it. But break ya chest funny person, rip out the heart, throw it under your feet and trample it! Oh! How can I live! " In this scene, Yuliy Kapitonich is not funny, but pathetic and terrible.

V last scene of the fourth act, Karandyshev is no longer the same person as on the boulevard in the morning, although only a few hours have passed. It is Karandyshev who utters the word "thing", throws it in Larisa's face. But he loves her, “forgives, forgives everything”, agrees to everything, tries to take Larisa away, realizing that there is no one to leave her to. Yes, he loves and treats Larisa, like Paratov, Vozhevatov and Knurov, as a thing.

And, perhaps, Karandyshev's insane shot from a "fake" pistol is "the only genuine human" gesture "against the background of the prudent calculation of the other three." It is not for nothing that the only time in her life Larissa turns to her fiancé with tenderness, calling him “cute”.

The "little man" Julius Kapitonich Karandyshev, as Ostrovsky sees him, turns out to be the most complex and dramatic figure from the entire male environment of the dying seagull Larisa Ogudalova.

Having considered the image of the "little man" in the novel "The Overcoat" by Nikolai Gogol and FM Dostoevsky "Poor People", as well as in Ostrovsky's drama "The Dowry", we can conclude that these writers pay attention to the spiritual scarcity and limitations of such type of people. And even the presence of genuine humanity, kindness and morality in the character of Makar Devushkin does not save him from humiliation in the society of the "powerful of this world." And the image of Yuliy Kapitonych Karandyshev is valuable, in my opinion, also because it is in it that further opportunities for the development of the image of a “little man” are outlined, which are closely related to the problems that such people have in society. A. N. Ostrovsky shows how the desire to take a worthy place in society among "little people" is reborn in the pursuit of the "powerful of this world" limitations.

e) Connection of the theme of the "little man" with the theory of "strong personality" in the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

The human soul is an abyss, Dostoevsky argued; the depths of the subconscious of the individual remain unknown to herself. The ideal of beauty and goodness has an undeniable effect on people, but to an immeasurably greater extent they are in the grip of the ideal of Sodom. The power of the dark, unchanging, cruel, manifesting itself in the inner life of a person, in his actions, extreme manifestations of selfishness, sensuality, cynicism, spiritual emptiness, Dostoevsky painted with great artistic truthfulness, while avoiding all naturalism.

The "little man", sinking into the abyss of his consciousness, giving free rein to the power of everything "dark, terrible, vile" that has accumulated for years in a suffering and tormented soul, becomes capable of the most monstrous crimes. Dostoevsky, an artist with ingenious skill, was able to portray a dynamic connection between both spheres of our consciousness. When disgust prevails over individualistic ideas, for example in Raskolnikov, they, being displaced into the subconscious, are reinforced there by the drive to destroy and influence the behavior of their carrier. The passion for self-destruction, justified by the hero's "mind", by theory, is also rooted in the dark depths of the human "I". Nature itself appears to be extremely contradictory, and therefore false views feed on some of its sometimes very hidden features. Raskolnikov's thirst for individual superiority over people and contempt for the "trembling creature" are a manifestation of not only thought, but also his emotional and psychological sphere.

The theoretical constructions of the hero, revealed in dialogical communications with others, do not exhaust, however, the entire “composition” of his personality. The theory of the hero, associated with a subconscious drive for "destruction" and "self-denial", comes into conflict with the deepest core of the personality, which is understood by the writer as a spiritual substance. Internal socio-psychological conflict is the main subject of depiction in Dostoevsky's novels. Moreover, the conflict is far from a static opposition of false individualistic views and partly subconscious moral feelings. Internal conflict is extremely contradictory and dynamic, because consciousness is not separated from the unconscious by an impenetrable wall, in turn, the conscious sometimes goes into the subconscious depth. At the same time, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are convinced that spiritual freedom, which constitutes the essence of man, manifests itself conditioned, historically. Socially determined. Therefore, the “ideological nature” of their characters is not self-controlling. It expresses mainly in the consciousness of the will as free and therefore morally responsible.

For the heroes of Dostoevsky's characters, the leading is the idea: they perform actions under the influence of "theory", but the "theory" itself is refuted by the whole structure of their internal moral and spiritual organization. For example, Raskolnikov's theory is not accepted by the irrational core of his personality. The writer shows the tragedy of a person who believes in the omnipotence of false thought and is therefore doomed to internal discord. The idea, the degree of its truth, is tested by the moral sense of the hero, and therefore the internal conflict, born of the influence of the social outside world, is the focus of the writer's attention.

Dostoevsky was worried about the fate of poor people who had come to a dead end of hopeless suffering, complete despair. creative activity until the end of days.

Leaving the university, Raskolnikov broke with the world, "like a spider, huddled in his corner." Only in complete loneliness, in an "irritable and tense state", he was able to surrender to his "ugly dream." She was born in the conditions of the Petersburg “stuffiness, hustle and bustle,” “a special summer stench,” in a “closet” that “looked more like a closet than an apartment,” in poverty and even poverty. “In poverty, you still retain your nobleness of innate feelings, in poverty, never and no one,” explained Marmeladov to Raskolnikov.

Extreme poverty is characterized by "nowhere else to go". The motive of hopelessness is the most central and “end-to-end”: “Do you understand, do you understand, my dear sir,” says Marmeladov to Raskolnikov in the tavern, “what does it mean when there is nowhere else to go?”

Raskolnikov's thought about the extraordinary personality of commanders, conquerors, legislators, violating the ancient law to introduce a new one, in his own words, is not new: "This has been printed and read a thousand times." This refers to the book by Max Stirner "The One and His Property", published in 1844 in Germany, as well as the book of Napoleon !!! "The Story of Julius Caesar". But unlike the ideologues of the asserting bourgeoisie, Raskolnikov acts with contempt for the "good of mankind" as the highest conscious goal of the heroes. In the same conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, a forensic investigator, Raskolnikov reveals his concept of crime, all concerned with the conscience of “extraordinary people who carry ideas that may save the whole of humanity. He recognizes the heroes' right to shed human blood according to their conscience ", that is," not an official right ", but an internal one," the right to allow their conscience to step over other obstacles "and only if the fulfillment of the saving idea requires it. Razumikhin noticed something new that distinguishes Raskolnikov's theory from the previous ones - this is the moral permission to shed the blood of hundreds of thousands of people for the establishment of improvement. However, it should be noted right away that Raskolnikov argued differently in different ways “in time”, in different situations of his life. In the first conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, the motive of "conscience blood" is highlighted. But this recognition of the immutability of the moral law is then replaced by the understanding of life as an absurdity, as an absurdity. Confessing to Sonya his crime, Raskolnikov gives himself up to individualistic fervor, becomes an exponent of individualistic rebellion, a nihilistic denial of the moral meaning of life: this absurdity, it's easy to take - easily shake everything by the tail to hell! I wanted to dare and killed. " It was not for nothing that Sonya exclaimed at these blasphemous words of Raskolnikov: "You have departed from God, and God has struck everything, betrayed the devil." In her religious language and in terms of religious thinking, Sonya accurately determined the meaning of Raskolnikov's philosophical judgment. He is convinced that "people will not change and no one will remake them", that slavery and domination are the law human life that for the most part people are "trembling creatures" and therefore, "who is strong and strong in mind, he has power over them", "who can spit for more, that is their legislator." This arrogant, contemptuous attitude towards the "ordinary" determines the mode of action. He "guessed that" power "is given only to those who dare to tilt and take it." According to the author, Sonya realized that "this gloomy catechism became his faith and law."

Raskolnikov's compassion for people and contempt for them are reflected in the theory of a "ruler" who changes the world, saving poor people from "poverty, from decay, from death, from debauchery, from venereal hospitals." Dreaming of a "ruler" who acts in the interests of the "trembling creature", Raskolnikov wanted to be one, Mission, to pave the way for the kingdom of goodness and truth through crime.

It should be noted that Raskolnikov's anarchist protest is associated with acute pity for the poor, suffering, helpless, with a desire to create social well-being for them. We must not forget that the initial and central situation in the novel - the extreme impoverishment of the urban poor - explains Raskolnikov's tragedy.

On the way from the old usurer, to whom Raskolnikov felt "irresistible disgust" at first glance, he went into a poor tavern and thought hard: "A terrible thought pecked in his head like a chicken out of an egg, and very, very much interested him." From the old woman, therefore, he "brought out the embryo of his thought" about the possibility of using the right of the strong and shedding the blood of this evil and insignificant usurer in order to use her capital and "then devote himself to the service of the whole human and common cause." "One hundred thousand good deeds and undertakings that can be arranged and corrected for the old women 's money doomed to the monastery." The student's speech, addressed to the officer, becomes, as it were, the inner monologue of Raskolnikov himself, according to which in the name of the best, that is, the salvation of a thousand people, one death is possible: "One death and a hundred lives in return - but after all, there is arithmetic." From the standpoint of Calculation, this mental dialectic seems invulnerable.

The story of Raskolnikov's self-awareness is unfolding: he must understand his thought about the moral right to bloody violence, check true violence, check the truth of the theory with practice own life and draw the final conclusions. At the same time, he sees internal barriers that he must “cross” in order to “have the right”. In this sense, the intended crime becomes a moral and psychological experiment on oneself. Murder, “elimination” of the ugly old woman-money-lender in his eyes of the theoretician and activist is just a “test” of his own strength, just a test and an answer to the question, what category of humanity does he belong to?

For Tolstoy, everything in man is clarified, both superficial and root, and therefore the most intimate in him was revealed with an exhaustive completeness. To Dostoevsky, like Turgenev, the deep foundation of the human personality seemed mysterious, enigmatic, not amenable only to external completely involuntary movements, in some accidentally dropped words of the hero, in the drawing of his behavior, in those momentary states that are almost not commented on by the writer. That is why dialectical processes mental life Dostoevsky conveyed not by depicting the spiritual process, the "dialectic of the soul", but by his own means, as a struggle of opposing principles in the personality of the hero - the character. The passion for self-destruction, sometimes awakening under the influence of false theories, i.e., ultimately, of the social environment, is faced with a protest of moral feeling. Moreover, the passion for self-destruction, although it finds reinforcement in the mind of the hero, in his theoretical ideas, is also rooted in the dark subconscious depth of the human "I".

The killer feels a protest in himself human nature he "wanted to drop everything and leave." The second unforeseen bloody violence against the unrequited Lizaveta finally plunges him into a feeling of some kind of detachment and despair, he becomes, as it were, an unconscious guide evil force... According to the author's remark, if at that moment Rodion could see and reason correctly, then he “would have dropped everything and immediately would have gone on to himself to declare only horror and disgust at what he did. Disgust especially rose and grew in him with every minute. " Later in his confession, he explains to Sonya: “Did I kill the old woman? I killed myself, not the old woman! And here he smacked himself up forever. " The crime is committed according to a theory that has been invented, which has acquired an unusual force, having met with support from the passion for destruction lurking in the depths of the subconscious.

A crime begins not from the moment of its implementation, but from the moment of its inception in a person's thoughts. The very plot of murder that flared up in the mind of Raskolnikov in the tavern after visiting the disgusting usurer already infects him with all the poisons of egoistic self-assertion and puts him in conflict with spiritual potential. He failed to defeat the "glamor" despite desperate internal resistance. Before last minute he did not believe in his ability to “overstep”, although “the whole analysis, in the sense of a moral solution to the issue, was already finished by him: his casuistry had been sharpened like a razor, and he no longer found conscious objections in himself”.

Dostoevsky shows Raskolnikov in a state of extreme moral decline, self-destruction, self-denial, and in the perspective of "restoration", "self-preservation and repentance", gaining freedom as one's spirituality. With the same inevitability with which Raskolnikov commits a crime, retribution comes, self-exposure unfolds. Weighed down by all sorts of circumstances, Raskolnikov turned out to be a slave to an "ugly dream", but, according to the writer, he was obliged to resist it and submit to the already higher necessity, expressing the transcendental forces of life.

Raskolnikov's path to overcoming spiritual slavery is difficult. For a long time he blamed himself for the "absurdity of cowardice", for "unnecessary shame", for a long time he suffered from wounded pride, from his "baseness and mediocrity", from the thought that "he could not stand the first step." But inevitably he comes to moral self-condemnation. It is Sonya who, first of all, reveals to him the soul and conscience of the people. Sony's word is so effective because it receives support from the hero himself, who has felt a new content in himself. It was this content that turned him to overcoming pride, selfish self-assertion.

The history of Raskolnikov's self-awareness is a struggle between two principles: tempting power and resurrection. Through the abyss of evil, he goes to the consciousness of good, the truth of moral feeling. This is the story of a "little man" who rebelled against the injustice of the world.

e) Chekhov as a writer completing the gallery of "little people" in his work

Gogol urged to love and feel sorry for the "little man" as he is. Dostoevsky - to see a person in him. Chekhov turns everything upside down. He is looking for someone to blame not in the state, but in the person himself. This completely new approach gives completely unexpected results: the reason for the humiliation of the "little man" is himself.

Especially given a new twist on the old theme in the story "The Death of an Official". This is evidenced by many details of the story. Firstly, this is a comic story and it is the official himself who makes fun of it. For the first time Chekhov offers to laugh at the "little man", but not at his poverty, misery, cowardice. Laughter turns into tragedy when we finally understand what nature is and what life principles this official. Chekhov tells us that Tchervyakov finds true pleasure in humiliation. At the end of the story, the general himself turns out to be offended, and the dying Chervyakov is not at all sorry.

Investigating the life incident that happened to the hunter, Chekhov comes to the conclusion: Chervyakov is a slave by nature. And I just want to add to these words: not a man, but a reptile. It is in this line, it seems to me, that Chekhov sees the most real evil. This is not the death of a person, but of some kind of worm. Chervyakov is not dying of fear and not because he could be suspected of unwillingness to grovel. The general forgave him. And because he was deprived of this sweetness of crawling, as if he was deprived of his beloved work.

Sank down, turned into a limited bourgeoisie and "little man" Belikov, the hero of the story "The Man in a Case." Belikov is afraid of real life and seeks to hide from it. In my opinion, he is an unhappy person who denies not only himself, but also those around him. He understands only the circulars, and all sorts of permissions cause doubts and fear in him: "No matter how something happens."

He oppresses all teachers with his "case considerations", under his influence the city began to be afraid of everything: people are afraid to speak loudly, to get acquainted, to read books, they are afraid to help the poor, to teach literacy. And this is the danger of the Belikovs for society: they strangle all living things. In "Belikovshchina" inertia, aspirations to stop life, to envelop everything in the web of philistinism were embodied.

Belikov could find his ideal only after passing away. And he leaves, and only in the coffin does his face acquire a pleasant, meek, even cheerful expression, as if Belikov is glad that he has fallen into a case, from which it is no longer necessary to get out of it.

Although Belikov died, his death did not rid the city of "Belikovism". Life has remained the same as it was - "not banned circularly, but not completely permitted."

And if you remember Doctor Startsev? At the beginning of his life, a young doctor has a variety of interests that are characteristic of an intelligent young man. He feels the beauty of nature, is interested in art, literature, methods of getting closer to people. He can love, worry, dream. But gradually Startsev loses everything human, spiritually sinks and closes himself in his little world, in which now only money, cards and a well-fed dinner are important.

What led Startsev to this? Chekhov asserts: the philistine environment, vulgar and insignificant, destroys the best that is in a person, if in the person himself there is no "antidote" and internal conscious protest. Startsev's story makes us think about what turns a person into a spiritual monster. In my opinion, the worst thing in life is the fall of the individual into the quagmire of philistine and vulgar philistinism. Chekhov saw evil in his heroes, which is ineradicable and gives rise to new evil: slaves give birth to masters.

Meanwhile, Chekhov's need for broad social generalizations is maturing, he seeks to portray the mood, life of entire classes, strata of society. We needed a genre that would provide such an opportunity. This genre was drama for Chekhov.

In the first play "Ivanov" the writer again turns to the theme of the "little man". In the center of the play is the tragic breakdown of an intellectual who built large life plans and in the impotence of one who bent down before the obstacles that the order of life put before him. Ivanov is a “little man”, “torn apart” in the world, and from an addicted, active worker turned into a sick, internally broken loser. And further, in the plays "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters", the main conflict develops in the clash of morally pure, bright personalities with the world of ordinary people, with their greed, vulgarity, rude cynicism. And the seemingly vulgarity, personified in Natalya Ivanovna and Captain Solen, triumphs over pure, sensitive people. Are there people who are replacing these, who are stuck in dishonest everyday affairs? There is! These are Anya and Petya Trofimov from the play “ The Cherry Orchard"A. Chekhov.

After all, not all "little people" turn into narrow-minded and small people; from among the "little people", raznochintsy-democrats, whose children became revolutionaries, also appeared. As you might guess, Petya Trofimov, an "eternal student", belongs to the student movement, which gained a large scale in those years. It is no coincidence that Petya hid with Ranevskaya for several months. This young man is smart, proud, honest. He knows what a difficult situation the people are in, and thinks that this situation can be corrected only by continuous work. Trofimov lives by faith in the bright future of the Motherland, but Petya does not yet see clear ways of changing the life of society. The image of this hero is quite contradictory, however, like most of Chekhov's images. Trofimov considers love to be unnecessary at the moment. “I am above love,” he says to Anya. Petya is proud of his disdain for money, he is not offended by the nickname “ shabby gentleman". Petya Trofimov has a great influence on the formation of the life views of Anya, the daughter of Ranevskaya. She is beautiful in her feelings and moods.

We perceive Petya and Anya as new, progressive people. And with this faith in the new and the best, I would like to say that a person should not be “small”. AND keen eye artist Chekhov, noticing the hypocrisy, stupidity, limitedness of people, saw another - beauty good man: “My God, how rich Russia is good people! " Such is, for example, Dr. Dymov - the hero of the story "Jumping". A man who lives for the happiness of others, a humble doctor with kind heart and a beautiful soul.

The image of the "little man" in foreign literature

The theme of the "little man" is reflected not only in the works of Russian writers, but also in the works of foreign writers.

In his understanding of art and the role of the artist, Stendhal came from the enlighteners. He always strived for the accuracy and truthfulness of the reflection of life in his works.

First great romance Stendhal's "Red and Black" came out in 1830, the year of the July Revolution. Its name alone speaks of a deep social sense novel, about the collision of two forces - revolution and reaction. As an epigraph to the novel, Stendhal took Danton's words: "True, harsh truth!" and, following it, the writer put true action at the basis of the plot.

The title of the novel also emphasizes the main features in the character of Julien Sorel, the main character of the work. Surrounded by people hostile to him, he challenges fate. Defending the rights of his personality, he is forced to mobilize all forces and resources to fight the world around him.

Julien Sorel comes from a peasant environment. This defines the social sound of the novel.

Julien Sorel is a commoner, a plebeian, wants to take a place in the society to which he has the right by his origin. It is on this basis that the struggle against society arises. Julien himself well defines the meaning of this struggle in the scene at the court, when he is given the last word... Thus, Julien is aware that he is not being judged so much for really committed crime how much for that, a hundred, he dared to cross the line separating him from high society, tried to enter the world to which he has no right to belong. For this attempt, the jury must sentence him to death.

But Julien Sorel's struggle is not only for a career, for personal well-being; the question in the novel is much more complicated. He wants to establish himself in society, "to become people, to take one of the first places in it, but on condition that this society recognizes in him a full-fledged personality, an outstanding, talented, gifted, intelligent, strong person."

He does not want to give up these qualities, to give them up. But an agreement between Sorel and the world of the Recals is possible only on the condition of the young man's full adaptation to their tastes. This is the main point of Julien Sorel's struggle with the world around him.

Julien is doubly stranger in this environment; both as a native of the social bottom, and as a highly gifted person who does not want to remain in the world of mediocrity.

Stendhal convinces the reader that this struggle, which Julien Sorel is waging with the surrounding society, is waged by him for life and death. But in bourgeois society there is no place for these talents. Napoleon, whom Sorel dreams of, is already the past, instead of heroes came hucksters, self-righteous shopkeepers - that's who became a true "hero" in the time in which he lives. For these people, outstanding talents and heroism are ridiculous - everything that is so dear to Julien.

Julien's struggle develops great pride and heightened ambition in him.

Possessed by these feelings, Sorel subordinates all other aspirations and affections to them. Even love ceases to be joy for him.

Not hiding negative sides character of his hero, Stendhal at the same time justifies him.

First, the difficulty of the struggle he is waging; having stood alone against all, Julien is forced to use any weapon. But the main thing that, according to the author, justifies the hero is the nobility of his heart, generosity, purity - features that he did not lose even in the moments of the most cruel struggle.

An episode in prison is very important in the development of Julien's character. Until then, ambition was the only incentive that guided all his actions that limited his good motives. But in prison, he becomes convinced that ambition has led him in the wrong way. At the same time, in prison there is a reassessment of Julien's feelings for Madame de Renal and for Matilda.

These two images, as it were, signify the struggle of two principles in the soul of Julien himself.

And there are two beings in Julien; he is proud, ambitious and at the same time - a man with a simple heart, almost a childish, spontaneous soul. As he overcame ambition and pride, he estranged himself from the equally proud and ambitious Matilda. And the frank Madame de Renal, whose love was deeper than that of Matilda, is especially close to him.

Overcoming ambition and the victory of real feelings in Julien's soul leads him to death.

Julien gives up trying to save herself. Life seems to him unnecessary, aimless, he no longer cherishes it and prefers death on the guillotine.

Thus, we can observe that this ending of the novel is indicative.

Stendhal was unable to solve the question of how the hero, who overcame his delusions, but remained in bourgeois society, should have rebuilt his life. This is how the "little man" dies, having overcome the "slave" in himself.

Thus, it is clear that the image of the "Little Man" has undergone significant changes in the writers' work. The origins of this theme were laid by the work of N. Karamzin, and also due to the social political development of Russia and the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to eliminate inequality of people by eradicating prejudices.

For the first time, the image of the "Little Man" can be found in the works of Alexander Pushkin "Belkin's Tale", " Captain's daughter", As well as" The Bronze Horseman. In the work of M. Yu. Lermontov, the image of the "Little Man" is reflected in the story "Princess Ligovskaya". Having considered the images of "Little People" in the works of Pushkin and Lermontov, we can conclude that all the characters evoke sympathy and pity, and the authors are guided in creating the images of "Little People" by the principles of humanism, trying to draw attention to the problem of the "humiliated and insulted". Continuing the theme of "The Little Man" N. V. Gogol, who in his story "The Overcoat" for the first time shows the spiritual stinginess, squalor of poor people and, like Pushkin in "The Bronze Horseman", draws attention to the ability of the "Little Man" to revolt and for this , like Pushkin, introduces elements of fiction into his work. Based on the tendency of "Little Man" to rebel, one can conclude that the theme of "Little Man" is close to the theory of "strong personality" and understand the origins of the individualistic rebellion of the "Little Man" against injustice and his desire to become " Strong personality”, Which manifests itself in the image of R. Raskolnikov.

The gallery of "Little People" is completed by images from the stories of A.P. Chekhov, which make it possible to understand the inability of the "Little Man" for great deeds, his isolation from society and the spiritual world in general, a wretched existence, cynicism, vulgarity, lack of spirituality. Chekhov shows how "little people" turn into little people.

Having examined the gallery of "little people" in creativity writers XIX century, I conclude that this topic occupied a significant place in Russian literature. The problem of the "little man", his troubles and aspirations, his views on the world and vital needs, vividly worried the writers of the 19th century, and although each of them in his own way reveals the image of the "little man", or evoking sympathy and pity from readers and forcing them to think about problems of such people, or exposing the spiritual poverty, squalor of "poor people", the humiliation of their existence in order to help them change, nevertheless, one cannot agree with A.P. Chekhov, who argued that "this topic has outlived its worth." This topic is relevant in our time, when the problems of "little people" appear in modern society.

In the course of the work done, I learned:

Analyze the material read;

Summarize and systematize the data obtained during the research;

Compare and contrast both characters and individual works;

I learned to find the sources and reasons for the emergence of new concepts in the literature; to more clearly represent the course of the historical and literary process;

Also draw conclusions and generalizations.

Anikin A. A. The definition of "little man" is a true long-liver in school and university literary studies. Devoid of scientific dryness, it is also convenient for exam topics. Therefore, it is natural that a certain semantic and emotional stereotype has developed that accompanies this expression. Even themselves literary heroes frankly and recommend themselves: "I, sir, a little man" (Kuligin from the play by AN Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm"), with a natural addition: "You can offend me!". That, it would seem, is the whole simple meaning of this name. But this is clearly a crafty simplicity, which, due to its many years, or even centuries of existence, turns out to be completely unproductive both for literary analysis and for a living, sensible composition. This apparent simplicity is aggravated by the fact that the image of the “little man”, out of compassion or something, is usually rejuvenated: good, when its pedigree is from “Poor Liza” N.M. Karamzin, otherwise they will be thrown away for another half a century and will be given the title of “fathers” by N.V. Gogol with the story "The Overcoat". If we look at it with an open mind, not through established dogmas, we will see a different picture. First, not every poor person depicted will fit this theme. The same Kuligin is filled with such pretentious pathos that the definition of "little man" is more a mask than an authenticity. He wants to "command the thunder with the mind", he will reject all natural laws and invent "perpetu mobile", the notorious perpetual motion machine, a symbol of human pride; he sees himself as a rich man, the owner of a million, a judge and benefactor of the people, almost a herald of God (in the final remark “she is now before a judge who is more merciful than you”), and it is hardly possible to “offend” him: too annoying and defiant of him demands to "finance" him, Kuligin's inventive whims ... Secondly, already from a short assessment of Kuligin, it is clear that the content of the image with the emblem of the "little man" is far from monotonous, rather paradoxical, and that is what makes this topic interesting and lively, despite the well-known costs of any stable expression. In short, the prevailing pattern is that the "little man" is seen as a victim of certain public relations: if he is good (suppose, like Samson Vyrin), then society unfairly keeps him in the fourteenth, the last of his class; if he is bad, like a ninth grade official Akaki Bashmachkin, then society is to blame for his shortcomings (remember that N.G. , 5, 323). To reveal a topic in such a spirit is not only vulgar or uninteresting, but the main thing is not to understand the text, but to adjust it to an ideological scheme that remains tenacious, despite the apparent change in social ideologies. So, in the future we will turn to the same images of Pushkin and Gogol, but emphasize that to build social protection their heroes are not included in the author's position, and this, however, does not negate the motive of compassion: the authors see their heroes not in socio-political coordinates, but rather put them before God, before eternity, before the essence of human existence (vivid symbolic episodes: parable about the prodigal son, choice of name, death and transformation, etc.).

The theme of the image of the "little man" is not new in Russian literature. N.V. Gogol, F.M.Dostoevsky, A.P. Chekhov and others paid much attention to the problem of man. The first writer who opened to us the world of “little people” was N.M. Karamzin. The greatest influence on subsequent literature was his story "Poor Liza". The author initiated a huge cycle of works about "little people", took the first step into this previously unknown topic. It was he who opened the way for such writers of the future as Gogol, Dostoevsky and others.

A.S. Pushkin was the next writer whose sphere of creative attention began to include the whole vast Russia, its vast expanses, the life of villages, Petersburg and Moscow were opened not only from a luxurious entrance, but also through the narrow doors of poor houses. For the first time, Russian literature so piercingly and clearly showed the distortion of the personality by a hostile environment. Samson Vyrin ("The Stationmaster") and Eugene ("The Bronze Horseman") just represent the petty bureaucracy of that time. But AS Pushkin points us to the "little man" whom we must notice.

Lermontov opened this topic even deeper than Pushkin. Naive charm popular character recreated the poet in the image of Maksim Maksimych. Lermontov's heroes, his "little people", differ from all the previous ones. This is no longer passive people like in Pushkin, and not illusory, like in Karamzin, these are people in whose soul the soil is already ready for a cry of protest to the world in which they live.

N. V. Gogol purposefully defended the right to depict the "little man" as an object literary research... In N. V. Gogol, a person is completely limited by his social status. Akaky Akakievich gives the impression of a man not only downtrodden and pathetic, but also quite narrow-minded. He certainly has feelings, but they are small and boil down to the joy of owning a greatcoat. And only one feeling in him is huge - this is fear. In this, according to Gogol, the system of social structure is to blame, and his "little man" dies not from humiliation and insult, but more from fear.

For FM Dostoevsky, the "little man" is, first of all, a personality, undoubtedly deeper than Samson Vyrin or Akaki Akakievich. FM Dostoevsky calls his novel Poor People. The author invites us to feel, experience everything together with the hero and brings us to the idea that “little people” are not only personalities in the full sense of the word, but their personal feeling, their ambition is much greater even than that of people with a position in society. “Little people” are the most vulnerable, and it is scary for them that everyone else will not see their spiritually rich nature. Makar Devushkin considers his help to Varenka to be some kind of charity, thereby showing that he is not a limited poor man who thinks only about collecting and keeping money. He, of course, does not suspect that this help is motivated not by the desire to stand out, but by love. But this once again proves to us the main idea of ​​Dostoevsky - the "little man" is capable of high deep feelings. We find a continuation of the theme of the “little man” in FM Dostoevsky's first big problematic novel “Crime and Punishment”. The most important and new thing, in comparison with other writers who disclosed this topic, is the ability of Dostoevsky's downtrodden person to look into himself, the ability of introspection and appropriate actions. The writer subordinates the heroes to detailed introspection, no other writer in essays, stories, sympathetically depicting the life and customs of the urban poor, had such a leisurely and concentrated psychological penetration and depth of depicting the characters of the characters.

The theme of the "little man" is especially vividly revealed in the work of A. P. Chekhov. Exploring the psychology of his heroes, Chekhov discovers a new psychological type- a slave by nature, a creature to the liking and spiritual needs of the reptile. Such is, for example, Chervyakov, who finds real pleasure in humiliation. The reasons for the humiliation of the "little man", according to Chekhov, are himself.

The text of the work is placed without images and formulas.
The full version of the work is available in the "Work files" tab in PDF format

Introduction

In this study, we must find out what defines the expression "Little man" and find examples in the works that are familiar to all.
Target research - to find out the true meaning of this statement, and also try to find this type of people in the literature, and then in your environment.
The material used can be used in literature and Russian lessons.
Research methods: search, selective, semantic, informational, analysis and synthesis method.

1. The concept of "Little man".

So who is this small man? This is not at all the one whose height is less than average. A small person is a type of person who is not distinguished by willpower or self-confidence. Usually, this is a squeezed, closed person who does not like conflicts and causing harm to others. In literary works, such people usually belong to the lower classes of the population and do not represent any value. Such is psychological characteristic this hero in literary works. However, their writers showed not for the same that everyone was convinced of their insignificance, but in order to tell everyone that this "little man" also has Big world understandable to every reader. His life resonates with our souls. He deserves that the world around him turn to face him.

2. Examples in works

Let us consider how the image of the “little man” appeared and developed in Russian literature, make sure that he has his own history and his own future.

N.M. Karamzin "Poor Liza"

In this work, an excellent representative of a little person can become main character- peasant woman Lisa, which is obliged to provide its own life. She is kind, naive, chaste, which is why she is quickly absorbed by her love for Erast. Having spun her head, he soon realizes that he was not in love with Lisa, and all his feelings were only a temporary effect. With these thoughts, he marries a rich widow, without burdening Lisa with explanations of his loss. Finally, upon learning that her beloved has betrayed her, unable to contain such a strong torment, she is thrown into the river. Lisa shows herself as a small person not only because of her status, but also because of a lack of strength to withstand refusal and learn to live with the pain in her heart.

N.V. Gogol "Overcoat"

This character, like no one else, can show the nature of a little person in all details. The main character this story is soft, simple-minded, living a completely mediocre life. He was small in height, ability, and social status. He suffered from humiliation and mockery of his personality, but preferred to keep quiet. Akaki Akakievich before the acquisition of the overcoat, he remained an inconspicuous commoner. And after buying the desired thing, he dies of grief, not having time to enjoy the work done because of the loss of his overcoat. It is his closeness from the world, from people and his unwillingness to change something in his life that this character became famous as a little man.

A.S. Pushkin "Station keeper"

A striking example of a small person can be a hero. Samson Vyrin, who showed himself as a benevolent, good-natured character, trusting and simple-minded. But later - the loss of his daughter was not easy for him, because of longing for Duna and all-consuming loneliness, Samson, in the end, died without seeing her because of the indifference of others.

F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

Marmeladov in this work showed himself as an extraordinary person suffering from inaction. Due to his addiction to alcohol, he constantly lost his job, because of which he could not feed his family, which is one of the confirmations of his small nature. Mr. Marmeladov himself considers himself a "pig", "beast", "cattle" and "scoundrel" who should not be pitied. This shows that he is perfectly aware of his position, but is not going to change absolutely anything.

Maxim Maksimovich is a nobleman. However, he belongs to an impoverished family, moreover, he does not have influential connections. The hero presented his weakness and his vices as a drama of a universal scale. In the end, his weakness and spinelessness ruined him - unable to get rid of alcohol addiction, while spoiling his health (they said about him: “with a yellow, even greenish face swollen from constant drunkenness and with swollen eyelids”), he gets into intoxicated under horses and from his injuries dies almost on the spot. This hero perfectly shows a little man who has driven himself into a hopeless situation on his own.

"Little man" in the literature of the 20th century.

V.G. Belinsky said that all our literature came from Gogol's "Overcoat". You can confirm this fact by taking almost any work written later. In "The Overcoat" Gogol showed us that sometimes it is important to convey not the situation itself, but how the situation affects the person, his the inner world and sensations overwhelming to the very head. What is important and what happens inside, not only outside.
Thus, we want to give examples of a little person living between the lines in more modern works of the 20th century (mostly Soviet), showing that in the subsequent development of literature, the topic of inner experiences did not lose its importance, still settling in plot of any story.

L.N. Andreev " Petka in the country"

Such an example is the work "Petka in the Countryside", where this time the main character is a simple errand boy. He dreams of a simple life where one day would not be the same. But nobody listens to Petya, doesn't even take a single word seriously, just continuing to shout "Boy, water!" One day, luck smiles at him, and he goes to the dacha, where he realizes that this is exactly the place where he would like to run away without looking back. However, fate plays with him again cruel joke, and Petya is sent back to the dullness of weekdays. Having returned, he still warms himself with memories of the country house, where the peak of his happy days froze.
This work shows us that even a child can be a small person, whose opinion, in the opinion of adults, is not at all necessary to reckon with. Indifference and misunderstanding on the part of the rest simply squeezes the boy, forcing him to bend under unwanted circumstances.

V.P. Astafiev "Horse with pink mane»

This story may bolster early arguments. The story "Horse with a Pink Mane" also tells the story of a boy who dreamed of a gingerbread with a horse covered with pink glaze. Grandmother promised him to buy this gingerbread if he picked up a tues of berries. Having collected them, the protagonist, by means of ridicule and taking "weakly", made them eat, which is why, in the end, there was only a small handful of berries. After his trick, Vitya does not have time to tell grandmother about the lie, she leaves. All the time that she was away from home, the boy reproached himself for the perfect act and mentally realized that he did not deserve the promised carrot.
Again, we can say that harassment from others, ridicule of someone's weakness, ultimately lead to disappointment, self-loathing and regret.

Conclusion

On the basis of the research obtained, we can finally draw a conclusion about who, after all, such a "little man", and what he is.
First, it must be said that the theme of the "little man", from the moment of its introduction by the first works (such as "The Stationmaster;" The Overcoat ") has become one of the most important and relevant even to this day. There is not a single book where the theme of the feelings and experiences of the heroes is not now touched upon, where the whole importance inner storm of emotions, raging daily in an ordinary person living in due time. So who, after all, is the "little man"?

He may be a person who was driven into the abyss of loneliness and longing. external circumstances or surroundings. And also there may be someone who himself did not bother to save himself from the overtaken trouble. A small person usually does not represent something important. He doesn't have a high social status, a big fortune or a huge line of connections. His destiny can be obtained in a variety of ways.
But in the end, every little person is a whole personality... With their problems, with their experiences. Do not forget how you can easily lose everything and become just the same oppressed by life. This is the same person who also deserves salvation or at least a simple understanding. Regardless of privilege.

Bibliography

1) A.S. Pushkin - " Station Overseer". // www.ilibreri.ru

2) N. V. Gogol - "The Overcoat". // N.V. Gogol "Tale". - M, 1986, p. 277 - 305.
3) F. M. Dostoevsky - "Crime and Punishment". - v. 5, - M., 1989

4) N. M. Karamzin - "Poor Liza". - M., 2018
5) L. N. Andreev - "Petka at the dacha" // www. ilibreri.ru
6) V.P. Astafiev - "Horse with a pink mane" // litmir.mi
8) "http: // fb .ru / article / 251685 / tema -malenkogo -cheloveka -v -russkoy -literature --- veka -naibolee -yarkie -personaji"

Application

List of analyzed characters:
Liza - N.M. Karamzin "Poor Liza"

Akaki Akakievich (Bashmachkin) - N.V. Gogol "Overcoat"
Samson Vyrin - A.S. Pushkin "Station Keeper"

Maxim Maksimovich (Marmeladov) - F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"

Petka - L.N. Andreev "Petka in the country"
Vitya - V. P. Astafiev "Horse with a pink mane"