Report: Superfluous people in the works of Turgenev. The problem of the superfluous man in Turgenev’s work The theme of the superfluous man in Turgenev’s prose

The concept of a “superfluous person” was introduced into Russian literature by Turgenev, and he gave an analysis of this remarkable phenomenon in Russian life in the 30s and 40s of the last century.

The stories “The Diary of an Extra Man,” “Correspondence,” and “Yakov Pasynkov” are united by the theme of the “extra man.”

The writer himself considered “The Diary of an Extra Man” a successful work. “For some reason I imagine that the Diary is a good thing...” he wrote to Kraevsky. But in this story with a characteristic title, Turgenev does not yet give a socio-historical explanation for the type of “superfluous person”; its social and ideological connections and relationships are not deeply revealed.

The symptoms of the disease are identified and described, but its causes and treatment are not determined. The author of the “Diary”, the loser Chulkaturin, bears the traits
“an extra person,” but he does not yet have that moral and intellectual superiority over those around him, which Turgenev would later note in Nezhdanov and Rudin. “The Diary” is only the first draft of the “extra person” type. The composition of the story, going back to Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time,” corresponded to the image of a reflective hero. But the hero himself is placed in that ridiculous and pitiful position that reduced the tragedy of his fate.
In the stories of 1853-1855, further development of the features of Turgenev’s new artistic style is noticeable - the merging of lyricism with the objectivity of the depiction of reality, a deeper revelation of the inner world of the characters. Turgenev's successful work on the story directly led him to the creation of a novel. This was a trend not only in the creative development of the writer, but also in all contemporary Russian and Western literature.
At the end of the 40s, writers of the natural school turned to the novel. Herzen’s novels “Who’s to Blame?” were a huge success. and Goncharov “Ordinary History”. The problem of the novel about modernity attracts Turgenev’s close attention.

He attributes his stories and even his early novels to the “old manner” of writing, which he wants to change, wanting to “move forward.” In the spring of 1852, he conceived the novel “Two Generations”; This idea was written in the summer of 1855 in Spassky, “Rudin”. According to Turgenev, he worked on it “with love and deliberation.”

Like the novels “Eugene Onegin” by Pushkin and “Heroes of Our Time” by Lermontov, Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” captured an entire historical period in the development of Russian society: the content of the novel dates back to the late 40s.
In the tradition of critical realism, Turgenev depicts the noble province. The idle life of a rich manor house with many serf servants, tutors and hangers-on, the provincial “salon” of a bored lady, a county “lioness”

Rudin dreams of the good of humanity, of useful, fruitful activity, believes in the triumph of ideal principles... For what should a person fight and work? What is the content of life's ideals? The qualities of a person, his usefulness are at the center of all Rudin’s reasoning. A person is useful and valuable only when he has knowledge, believes in science, philosophy, art. People who deny knowledge have no faith in themselves. “...Together with systems,” Rudin proves to Pigasov, “people deny knowledge in general, science and faith in it, and therefore faith in themselves, in their own strengths. And people need this faith... Skepticism has always been characterized by sterility and impotence...” Based on knowledge and having a strong character, a person can be useful to society

Rudin is opposed by Natalya Lasunskaya. She is passionate about the romantic ideals and freedom-loving preaching of Rudin. He awakens in her a thirst for activity, a desire for a life filled with a high purpose, although the ideal of this poetry is not yet clear to her.
Natalya rises to the understanding of the need for self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. “...Whoever strives for a great goal should no longer think about himself; but isn't a woman able to appreciate such a person? It seems to me, on the contrary, that a woman would rather turn away from an egoist... Believe me, a woman is not only able to understand self-sacrifice: she herself knows how to sacrifice herself,” she says. In Rudin, Natalya saw a full-fledged person, a hero not only of her heart, but also a leading public figure. She herself strives for him, his ideals are dear to her, she fell in love with him for all this. She believed in his strength, in his ability to do great things. All the more bitter was her disappointment.
While highlighting Rudin's weaknesses, Turgenev at the same time points out that the Rudins and Pokorskys played a positive role in the social life of their times*! “Eh! It was a glorious time then, and I don’t want to believe that it was wasted!” - says Lezhnev about his student years, in Pokorekiy’s circle.

Tikhomirov V.N., Doctor of Philology. Sc., professor Zaporozhye National University The article analyzes the images of “superfluous people” in the works of I.S. Turgenev and A.P. Chekhov. The center of the analysis is the article by I.S. Turgenev “Hamlet and Don Quixote”, in which the great writer develops thoughts about the irony of Hamlet. Key words: tradition, irony, “superfluous people”, idealization. Tikhomirov V.M. “ZAVIY PEOPLE” IN THE WORKS OF I.S. TURGENEV AND A.P. CHEKHOV / Zaporizhzhya National University, Ukraine The article “Zavy people” in the works of I.S. Turgenev and A.P. Chekhov” analyzes the images of “kinky people” in creativity of I.S. Turgenev and A.P. Chekhov. The center of the analysis is the article by I.S. Turgenev “Hamlet and Don Quixote”, which great writer develops thoughts about the irony of Hamlet. Key words: traditions, irony, “lousy people”, idealization. Tihomirov V.N. IMAGE OF “SUPERFLUOUS PEOPLE” IN THE WORKS OF I. TURGENEV AND A. CHEKHOV / Zaporizhzhya national university, Ukraine.The article is dedicated to analyzing the image of “superfluous people” in the works of I. Turgenev and A. Chekhov. The article of I. Turgenev “Hamlet and Don Quixote”, where the great writer develops thoughts about irony of Hamlet, is in the center of analysis. Key words: “superfluous people”, tradition, irony, idealization. The problem of the “superfluous man” covers all world literature; from Shakespeare (the tragedy "Hamlet") to the luminaries of Russian literature: Pushkin, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Chekhov. The subject of research in this article was I. S. Turgenev’s story “The Diary of an Extra Man,” the novels “Rudin” and “Nov,” the article “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” as well as the works of A. P. Chekhov “Lights,” “The Story of an Unknown man", "Duel" and others." The works of Turgenev and Chekhov, of course, are constantly in the field of view of literary scholars. Much attention is also paid to the problem of the hero, for example, in the works of such modern authors as P. Chudakov, G.B. Kurlyandskaya, E.V. Tyukhova, V.Ya. Minkov, V. Sakharov However, the question of comparing “superfluous people” in the works of I.S. Turgenev and A.P. Chekhov is either not raised or is on the periphery of scientific research. Therefore, taking into account the undeveloped nature of the problem, the proposed article aims to compare the images of superfluous people in the works of two outstanding Russian writers and determine the degree of Turgenev’s influence on Chekhov’s aesthetics. The “Literary Encyclopedia of Terms and Concepts” gives the following definition of this type: Social typological type, imprinted in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century; its main features: alienation from official Russia, from his native environment (usually noble), a feeling of intellectual and moral superiority over it, and at the same time - mental fatigue, deep skepticism, discord between word and deed. The name “superfluous man” came into general use after I.S. Turgenev’s “Diary of an Extra Man.” About the “superfluous man” the Russian scientist V.E. Khalizev writes the following: “Another personal series was made up of heroes who claim the status of an individual, but are not realized as such, although they have bright inclinations and broad capabilities (the so-called “extra people” from Onegin to Versilin).” Traits of spiritual appearance “ “superfluous person” are sometimes traced in a complicated form in the literature of the 2nd half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Already modern criticism in the person of A. Druzhinin and A. Grigoriev recognized the typicality of the image of Turgenev’s Chelkaturin. A. Grigoriev wrote that the story is a deep, sincere confession of a painful and emotional moment experienced by many, perhaps an entire generation. However, the note to the story indicates that A. Druzhinin and A. Grigoriev failed to reveal the true socio-historical the meaning of ''The Diary of an Extra Man''. The merit of I.S. Turgenev is that he was able to reveal the psychology of this sick type, which was recognized by subsequent Russian writers, including A.P. Chekhov. Analyzing the psychology of his sick soul, Chelkaturin, as a descendant of Hamlet, notes his '' unnaturalness'' and ''tension'', the desire to analyze every movement of my experiences: “I analyzed myself to the last thread, compared myself with others, recalled the slightest glances, smiles, words of people... Entire days passed in this painful, fruitless work'' . This introspection, especially after the duel with the prince, brings Chelkaturin to a kind of pleasure: “Only after my expulsion from the Ozhogins’ house did I painfully learn how much pleasure a person can derive from the contemplation of his own misfortune. In the novels “Rudin”, “Nobility” nest'', ''New'' I.S. Turgenev deepens the image of the ''superfluous man'' with socio-political and philosophical features. The result of Turgenev’s thoughts on this topic was his famous article “Hamlet and Don Quixote”. It is no coincidence that Chekhov recommended this article in his letter to M.P. Chekhov in 1879. Turgenev’s traditions in the depiction of the “superfluous man” are manifested in Chekhov in a variety of forms - from direct influence in the stories “Duel”, “The Story of an Unknown Man”, “Lights”, etc., to the use of ideas of this type in a complicated and modified form. Turgenev, following Chernyshevsky’s article “Russian man at a rendezvous,” developed this situation. This problem was also developed by Chekhov in his works “On the Way” and “Lights”. Already contemporaries noted the tradition of Turgenevsky’s “Rudin” in the story “On the Way.” For example, G. Korolenko noted that Chekhov very correctly noted the old type of Rudin in “new skin,” “new appearance,” so to speak. I. Ladozhsky wrote: “The figure of Don Quixote, perhaps Rudin, rises before the reader [cit. according to 9: v.5, 674]. Like Turgenev in “Rudin,” Chekhov depicts the wandering, barren life of Likharev: “All my life I did not know what “peace” was. I languished from hard, trouble-free work, suffered hardships, was in prison five times, dragged around the Arkhangelsk and Tambov provinces. Like Rudin, he has the gift of oratory, captivating Ilovaiskaya. In the tradition of Turgenevsky’s “Rudin,” their meeting does not develop into love. The story “Lights” “was created in a significant year for Chekhov, 1888, which is rightly considered a turning point for his work. Thoughts about the frailty of life and the insignificance of man, about the inevitability of death that became the center of the story, were close to Turgenev. This is also typical for his stories “Ghosts” and “Enough”. But the main thing that brings these stories closer to other works of Chekhov of this period is the solution to Turgenev’s theme “Russian man at a rendezvous.” Trying to solve this problem, the hero, in the spirit of “extra people,” endlessly reflects, analyzes his feelings and, finally, shamefully runs away from his beloved Kisochka. True, this Turgenev theme is developed by Chekhov in a different key. Here, first of all, one should keep in mind the difference in eras that explain the difference in the characters of “superfluous people” between Turgenev and Chekhov. Ananyev, a character in Chekhov’s story, criticizing “our generation of superfluous people” for their virtuosity of thoughts, sees in this the disease of the century: “This Our generation brought virtuosity and play with serious thought into literature and politics. And with virtuosity it introduced its coldness, boredom, one-sidedness.” Turgenev’s Chelkaturin, this “superfluous man” of the previous era, also dismantles himself to the “last thread,” even finding pleasure in it. True, Turgenev focuses on the socio-psychological reason for Chelkaturin’s failures: “Throughout my entire life, I constantly found my place occupied between my feelings and thoughts” “...,” there was some kind of meaningless, incomprehensible and insurmountable obstacle. Turgenev notes the romantic, an ideal aspect of the relationship between a man and a woman, although the dramatic ending of this love is far from the ideal aspect. Unlike Turgenev, Chekhov not only does not idealize Ananyev’s attitude towards Kisochka, but also transfers them into a more prosaic, everyday setting. Chekhov, describing Ananyev’s appearance, calls him “a man in his prime,” emphasizing his physical health and self-confidence: “His tanned, thick-nosed face and muscular neck seemed to say: I am well-fed, healthy, satisfied with myself.” Having met Kisochka, he feels natural habits, wanting to have an affair with her: “I followed her, admired her delicate neck and shoulders. I was pleased that she was married. For fleeting romances, married women are more suitable material than young ladies. I was also pleased that my husband was not at home.” He seduces Kisochka rudely and unceremoniously: “Without asking her consent, he prevented her from speaking and forcibly dragged her to his hotel.” Unlike Ananyev, Kisochka fell in love passionately and deeply. “What for me was an ordinary love impromptu, for her it was a whole revolution in life,” says Ananyev. Like a true “son” of Hamlet, he begins to seek out and analyze Kisotchka’s shortcomings: “I was a little jarred by the thought that, passing on, an honest and suffering woman so easily, in just three or four hours, became the mistress of the first person she met. You see, I, as a decent person, didn’t like this.” Kisochka’s declaration of love seems to him sentimental, cloying and stupid. In all his experiences, he, as he put it, “sought, first of all, the depth of thought.” “Having fulfilled his duty” towards her, he returned to his room and fell asleep in the sound, “tranquil sleep of a tourist.” A faithful “son” of Hamlet, Ananyev continues to analyze the motives of his behavior, especially his flight from Kisochka. Moreover, unlike Turgenev’s “superfluous people,” he does not hide his “vile flight” from himself: “As you can see, my thinking did not prevent me from falling into a vile, treacherous flight,” he reflects. He continues to analyze his action from the point of view of moral standards, the conscience of a decent person: “I was left alone with my conscience, it became clear to me that I had committed an evil tantamount to murder.” True, he tries to drown out this moral feeling with the thought, “That everything is nonsense and vanity, that Kisochka and I will die and disappear, that her grief is nothing in comparison with death.” This gave reason to accuse Chekhov himself of pessimism. By the way, after the release of “Enough” and “Ghosts” Turgenev was also accused of pessimism. V.Ya. Minkov in the book “The Artistic World of A.P. Chekhov’s Prose” quite rightly notes: “Until quite recently, the ideological essence of many of Chekhov’s works was wrongfully deduced directly from the statements of the characters, which led to a distortion of this essence.” True, the researcher speaks rather vaguely on this matter, arguing that it is necessary to establish specifically in each individual case what the hero’s words are for the hero himself, for what purpose he pronounces them, to whom they are addressed. This idea is by no means original, for it has already been noted by our scientists. Of course, when analyzing the author’s position, one must take into account, first of all, the logic of plot development and the relationships of the characters. At the center of the narrative is the symbolic image of lights that “haunts” the story from beginning to end: “The lights were moving. In them, in the silence and dull foam of the telegraph, something common was felt. It seemed that some important secret was buried under the embankment, and only the lights, the stove and the wires knew about it.” And at the end of the story, summing up the experience, Ananyev admits that he he took with him not a single resolved issue and from “the whole conversation now in the morning, in my memory, as if on a filter, only the lights and the image of Kisochka remained.” It is no coincidence that Ananyev leaves these two images in his memory. They are the ones who lead the story. In his letter, Chekhov refers to the authority of Socrates and Voltaire regarding the philosophy of pessimism (“you can’t understand anything in this world”). As for Kisochka, her image for Ananyev is also associated with lights: “The most varied thoughts piled up one on top of another in disorder, got confused, interfered with each other, and I, a thinker, staring at the ground with my forehead, did not understand anything.” Despite the moral judgment of evil tantamount to murder, it awakened thoughts in him - “the sword of analysis,” as I. S. Turgenev noted about Hamlet: “He is aware of his weakness, but all self-awareness is strength,” Turgenev wrote in the article “Hamlet and Don Quixote." This is where his irony stems, the opposite of Don Quixote’s enthusiasm.” Turgenev’s article “Hamlet and Don Quixote” occupies one of the central places in Chekhov’s worldview. Turgenev's thoughts about the irony of Hamlet were reflected in many of his works, especially in the stories "Lights" and "The Tale of an Unknown Man." In this regard, an interesting observation is contained in the article by S.B. Rubina "The Nature of Chekhov's Irony". Having analyzed Chekhov’s story “Lights,” Rubina concludes: “Not everything in the world can be known or explained; moreover, the essence of things is closed to the knowing consciousness. Hence the nature of Chekhov's irony." However, according to the author of the article, Chekhov’s irony is not limitless: “Despite the fact that the writer asserts the fundamental impossibility for a person to understand the logic of existence, to find harmony in the world, he is not left with the feeling that this harmony exists, the premonition of the creator to whom this logic is known." And yet, Rubina, arguing that Chekhov’s irony is not limitless, does not bother to specifically understand the fact that this irony is not limitless. Indeed, if the story “Lights” provides the basis for the conclusions of the author of the article, then such works as “Steppe”, “House” with a mezzanine”, “Lady with a Dog” do not fit into this scheme. The story “The Story of an Unknown Man” is very complex and contradictory, in particular the personality of the ego of the character Orlov, whose irony is aimed at criticizing Turgenev’s novels, especially “On the Eve”. Orlov ironically states: “All his life he rejected the role of a hero, he always hated Turgenev’s novels. And further: “Turgenev teaches in his works that every lofty, honestly-minded girl went with her beloved man to the ends of the earth and served the ego’s idea,” said Orlov, ironically narrowing his eyes. Orlov does not limit himself to ironic criticism of Turgenev. The entire modern life becomes the object of irony: “It was a familiar, old-fashioned irony, and lately it was shown on the face without any participation of the will, as if by reflex.” Throughout the development of the plot of the story, Orlov’s personality does not evoke the sympathy of the reader. And the author calls his irony on any occasion “porridge.” His philosophy of love, which he demonstrates in front of Zinaida Fedorovna, fails: “I, first of all, look at love as a need of my body, unchanging and hostile to my spirit.” In this philosophy, the category for a long time, which Turgenev professes, is completely absent. Orlov hides from his beloved in the most undignified way. And after her death, he arranges for his own daughter to go to a boarding school. Chekhov was aware that the irony “without shores” in Orlov’s interpretation could lead a person to the moral impasse of nihilism. Here he could repeat the words of F. Nietzsche: “The habit of irony (...) spoils character, it gradually gives him the power of malevolent superiority (...), begins to resemble an evil dog that, while biting, has also learned to laugh ". Nietzsche developed the same idea in Blok’s article “Irony,” characterizing irony as “a symptom of the loss of humanity in man.” And yet, while condemning the cynicism of Orlov’s irony, Chekhov does not exhaust his negative attitude towards him. It was Chekhov who chose the ego as a tool for criticizing the great Russian writer Turgenev, whom he had previously mourned in the story “In the Landau.” This paradox of Chekhov to some extent explains the letter to O.L. Knipper-Chekhova: “I’m reading Turgenev. After this, the writer will be left with one eighth or one tenth of what he wrote. Everything else will go into the archives in 25-35 years” [cit. according to 9: v. 10, 195]. Of course, this statement can be left “on the conscience” of Chekhov, because his “prophecy” was not confirmed. And it was written in 1902 before the writer’s death. Unexpectedly, in a letter to the same O.L. Knipper-Chekhova in 1903, Chekhov states: “Never before have I been so drawn to Turgenev as now” [cit. according to 9: v. 11, 473]. As you can see, Chekhov was entirely created from ironic paradoxes, which were especially evident on the eve of his death. The story “Duel,” according to the fair opinion of researchers, is one of the most “literary” works of Chekhov [cited from 9 : t.7, 692]. The characters in the story, especially Laevsky, compare themselves and quote the heroes of Pushkin, Lermontov, Turgenev, Tolstoy, etc. But more often than others, Chekhov turns to Turgenev, who described the dramatic fate of the “superfluous man.” Laevsky certifies himself as follows: “For our loser brother and the “superfluous man,” all salvation is in conversations.” He is clearly trying, not without the influence of Turgenev’s article “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” to explain the psychology of this type: “I must generalize my every action, I must find an explanation and justification for my absurd life in someone else’s theories, literary types, for example “that we, nobles, are degenerating and so on.” Although Laevsky refers to the authority of Leo Tolstoy, Turgenev addressed the problem of the “superfluous man” more than others in his novels and the article “Hamlet and Don Quixote.” Von Karen calls Laevsky “a copy of Rudin.” The same Laevsky chooses Shakespeare’s Hamlet as his allies: “With my indecisiveness, I resemble Hamlet,” Laevsky thought on the way. - How correctly Shakespeare noticed! Oh, how true!” Laevsky’s frequent appeal to the classics of world literature is also explained by the fact that he “was once at the philological faculty.” However, Turgenev’s image of the “superfluous man” in the person of Laevsky appears in a clearly reduced and even parodic version: “He drank a lot and played cards at the wrong time, despised his service, lived beyond his means, and often used obscene expressions in conversation.” The critic and antipode of Laevsky in the story is the zoologist Von Karen. From his words, Laevsky accuses Turgenev of his inactivity, having invented a loser and a “superfluous man.” In the same company with Turgenev’s heroes, Von Karen includes Onegin, Pechorin and even Byron’s Cain. The mutual hostility of Von Karen and Laevsky leads to a duel, although without a fatal outcome. The duel scene is described with explicit reference to Turgenev and Lermontov: “Gentlemen, who remembers how Lermontov described it,” asked Von Karen, laughing. “Turgenev also had Bazarov shoot with someone.” In general, Von Karen, Turgenev’s critic in Chekhov’s story “The Duel,” resembles Orlov from the story “The Story of an Unknown Man.” So, the connection between Chekhov’s characters and “superfluous people,” especially in the story “Duel,” is beyond doubt. V.Ya. Minkov writes: “The intention to give us new editions of the “superfluous person” is evident in the whole story.” True, according to Minkov, these traditions in the story “Duel” seem to go in the opposite direction. Minkov identifies the following differences between Chekhov's characters and the heroes of the classic novel about “extra people” in the depiction of love in connection with other characters, perhaps in the main thing: “The hero of the Onegin type is a social type of a social scale, by which his social value is measured. Chekhov’s character’s behavior is not strictly determined by either social status, level of culture, or theoretical views.” Minkov concludes: “The reader treats her hero as a representative of something common (culture, ideology, class), but as an individual person.” Minkov’s observations deserve attention, although they are not without shortcomings - in contrast to Chekhov’s individual character, individual and social, typical. Minkov defines the features of Chekhov’s art as the “disease of time”: “It was the deep awareness of the disease of time and its opposition that largely determined the innovation and originality of the writer’s work.” The conversation between Volkov and Vladimir Ivanovich in the story “The Diary of an Extra Man” about the dramatic fate of the younger generation is very characteristic: “ Why are we at the beginning so passionate, brave, noble, believers, and by the age of 31-35 we become completely bankrupt? Why does one waste away in consumption, another puts a bullet in the forehead, a third seeks oblivion in vodka and cards." Unlike Volkov, Vladimir Ivanovich, tired of life, still looks more optimistically at the fate of the younger generation: "I want to play a prominent independent noble role, I want make history." And here Chekhov himself agrees with him in many of his, especially his last works: “Life is given once and you want to live it cheerfully, meaningfully - especially in your last works.” In the story “Verochka” (1887) Chekhov uses the traditional Turgenev theme "Russian man at a rendezvous." Already contemporaries wrote about Verochka’s similarity with Asya, the heroine of Turgenev’s story of the same name [cit. according to 9: t. 6, 638]. V. Albov, in the spirit of Chernyshevsky, sharply criticized Ognev, the hero of the story: “Obviously, Ognev is a flabby nature, burned with moral insanity” [cit. according to 9: v.6, 639]. They also noted Turgenev’s traditions in describing nature: “His description of nature is somewhat reminiscent of Turgenev’s traditions.” The heroine of the story Verochka, with her spiritual beauty, resembles Turgenev’s women who expect help from a man in her rejection of the “well-fed” environment and “colorless” life: “I can’t stand constant peace and meaningless life, I can’t stand our colorless and poor people,” she says to Ognev.” For her there is no higher happiness than to see him, to follow him, even now, wherever he wants, to be his wife and assistant. Verochka’s words take him by surprise, excite his deadened feelings: “He was angry, banged his fists, cursed his coldness,” writes the author. The reflection of the “superfluous person” comes into force, which “eaten” Turgenev’s hero, in particular, Rudin in his communication with Natalya. True, unlike Turgenev, Chekhov “dilutes” Ognev’s experiences with prosaic psychological details. Thus, Verochka’s outpourings of love seem feigned and frivolous to him: “He felt compassion for Verochka, pain and regret that a good person was suffering because of him.” Already contemporaries noted the psychologization of Chekhov’s style in his stories of this period, in particular in the story “ Verochka." D.G. Grigorovich noted that “he captures the motive of love in all its subtlest and most intimate experiences” [cit. according to 9: t. 6, 638-639]. True, unlike Turgenev, Chekhov criticizes the “superfluous man” much more clearly and rationally: “No matter what Ognev said, everything to the last word seemed disgusting and flat to him. The feeling of guilt grew in him with every step... Trying to excite himself, he looked at Verochka’s beautiful figure, at her braid... But all this only touched, but did not irritate his soul.” As we have seen, comparing “extra people” Chekhov and Turgenev’s Rudin make the most sense, based on the story “The Diary of an Extra Man.” No less promising is a comparison of him with the heroes of Turgenev’s “going to the people” novel “Nov”. In the novel “Nov” Turgenev certifies Nezhdanov as the brightest representative of the Hamlet family, also burdened with the heredity of “romance of realism” (as the author calls him). Already at the beginning of the novel, Paklin, who plays an important role, characterizing Nezhdanov, calls him the Russian Hamlet. Like no other of Turgenev’s “superfluous people,” Nezhdanov approaches this role. In his famous article “Hamlet and Don Quixote,” Turgenev writes: “He is a skeptic - and always fusses and fusses with himself. Doubting everything, Hamlet, of course, does not spare himself. Hamlet exaggeratedly scolds himself, constantly observing himself, always looking inside himself, he knows all his shortcomings down to the subtleties, looks at them, looks at himself.” In this characteristic, we should especially note the spirit of doubt and self-criticism in Hamlet. It was not by chance that Turgenev chose the Russian Hamlet as a critic of the anti-humanistic orders of autocratic Russia. Already in his first appearance on the pages of the novel, Nezhdanov castigates these orders: “Half of Russia is dying of hunger, espionage, oppression, denunciations, lies and falsehood are everywhere.” The culmination of his critical thought is his poem "Sleep": Everyone is sleeping! The one who hits and the one who is beaten sleeps! The motherland, Holy Rus', sleeps in a deep sleep! Throughout the development of the plot, Nezhdanov is torn between his calling to do something and his lack of faith in this matter. A poem about death sounds like a sharp dissonance to the poem “Dream”: “Dear friend, when I die, this is my order.” . “This skepticism, this indifference, this frivolity, unbelief - how to reconcile all this with his principles,” he is tormented. Turgenev tries to define Nezhdanov’s tossing as a “romance of realism”: “They yearn for the real and strive for it, like the former romantics for the ideal. They are passive, distorted and are tormented by this very distortion as the thing itself that comes to their work.” At the end of the novel, Saplin gives this characterization of Nezhdanov. In his self-flagellation, Nezhdanov, not without pleasure, likens himself to Hamlet: “Oh, Hamlet, Hamlet, Danish prince, how to get out of your shadow? How can I stop imitating you in everything, even in the shameful pleasure of self-flagellation?” Trying to “go among the people,” Nezhdanov strives to “simply”, to get out of the role of Hamlet: “And you, unknown to us, but loved by us with all our being, with all the blood of our heart , Russian people, accept us and teach us what we should expect from you." As in previous works about “superfluous people,” Turgenev again develops the theme of “a man at a rendezvous,” however, he solves it on a fundamentally different level. We are talking about the relationship between Nezhdanov and Marianna. Unlike Turgenev’s previous women, having learned about the preparations for “going to the people,” she without hesitation agrees to take part in them. Their love is depicted by Turgenev using high romantic means of expression: “This wonderful girl - Marianna - at that moment became for Nezhdanov the embodiment of the homeland, happiness, struggle, freedom.” If Nezhdanov foresees the tragic consequences of “going to the people,” then Marianne, despite his thoughts about death, is “ignited” with the desire to give all of herself for the happiness of the people: “You’re right! But maybe we will survive, you will see, we will be useful." Next comes the central scene of the plot of the novel - “going to the people.” Nezhdanov admits about his tragic “simplicity” in a letter to his friend Silin: “For two weeks now I have been going to the people - and, she-she, she can’t imagine anything more stupid. Marianna believes... She even wears shoes I tried to sew it for myself... And her face was all pink and bright, as if she had found a treasure, as if the sun had shone on her.” For Nezhdanov, “going to the people” ends with a tragic scene in a tavern. This scene finally, according to Nezhdanov, “proved me my inconsistency.” “Marianna, I must tell you that I no longer believe in this matter that united us,” he says before his death.” Turgenev also adds a natural factor to the social origins of Nezhdanov’s tragedy: “I was born dislocated, I wanted to straighten myself out, “Yes, I dislocated myself even worse,” he admits to Marianne.” In the situation of a “Russian man at a rendezvous,” the “extra person” tragically begins to see the light, and Marianne devotes herself to serving the people’s ideals. Turgenev here uses his traditional theme, however, he solves it in a broader aspect. The innovation of this novel was recognized by Leo Tolstoy: “The best thing is Nov: something real is brought out here, corresponding to life.” But in Rudin, Lavretsky, Bazarovo - there is nothing. What Bazarov says is only good. And nothing could have happened: after all, those movements of which Rudin and Lavretsky are representatives were carried out only in the mental sphere and did not turn into actions. That’s why they couldn’t give content to a work of art, whereas Nov’ could” [cit. according to 8: t. 12, 543]. It was no coincidence that L. Tolstoy, who so valued the communication of his heroes with the people, singled out “Nov” among Turgenev’s other works. The “real” Russian woman - Tatyana - calls the heroes “simple” for their desire to merge with the people. Chekhov, in some of his works, also depicts the desire to merge with the masses. In this regard, his story “My Life” (1896) is characteristic, in which the dramatic story of the narrator and Masha, their desire to “sorry” are reminiscent of Turgenev’s situation in the novel “Nov”. The narrator becomes familiar with the village way of life: “I got up early, at dawn, and immediately started doing some work. I repaired carts, laid paths in the garden, dredged ridges, painted the roof of the house. When the time came to sow oats, I tried to double, speed, sow." And yet, like Turgenev’s hero, he cannot break his “urban nature”: “I did not know agriculture, and did not love it, and purely urban blood flowed in my veins.” However, unlike Turgenev’s Nezhdanov with his “aesthetic” heredity, Chekhov’s hero believes in rural life with greater freedom. At the same time, Masha cannot wean herself from her usual aristocratic life: “She was indignant, but scum was gathering in her soul, and meanwhile I was getting used to men, and I was increasingly drawn to them. In fact, there was dirt, drunkenness, stupidity, and deception. But, with all this, however, it was felt that a peasant’s life rests on some strong, healthy core.” He sees this people’s core in the “sense of truth,” which is not in Masha and her circle. This is how Masha’s “sobering up” gradually sets in, her disappointment in her attempts to “settle down.” Disappointment also begins in the beloved: “How could she, so united, well-mannered, open, end up in this pitiful, provincial wasteland..., and how could she forget herself to such an extent that she became carried away by one of these people and was for more than six months his wife." At the end of the story, in her farewell letter to the narrator, she renounces her “simplification” and asks to break the thread, “which still holds on, connecting me and you,” she tells the narrator. Unlike Turgenev’s Marianne, she breaks off her connection with the past without regret and with Russia, he leaves “there to freedom, to America.” After parting with Masha, the narrator loses interest in his aspirations to merge with the people and fulfills his duties without any enthusiasm. He compares his new life to a ring on which it is written: “Nothing passes.” “What I experienced was not in vain. I became a worker already accustomed. And nothing terrible will come of the fact that, with the body of a nobleman, I carry buckets of paint and insert glass.” Masha’s “simplification” did not take place; she now lives abroad, the narrator says. The heroine of the story clearly falls out of typological connections with Turgenev’s women, in particular Marianna from the novel “New”. The story “The Bride” (1903) is written in Turgenev’s traditions about “new people”. The story reveals Chekhov's skepticism and uncertainty, which was noted by the writer's contemporaries. First of all, in connection with the image of the heroine of the novel, Nadya. M. Gertenzon wrote: “The ‘new’ Nadya is almost nowhere to be seen. What revolution took place in her soul is difficult to guess from the few external signs that the artist gave [cit. according to 9: t. 10, 472]. Contemporaries saw the dignity of the story in the major mood of its ending: “A vigorous, strong chord. sounds like a victory cry, like a triumph over dead boredom and completely gray, monotonous everyday life" [cit. on 9: v.10, 474]. Turgenev's traditions are resolved here in a revised Chekhovian style. This is, first of all, manifested in the images of the main characters - Sasha and Nadya. Nadya’s teacher and mentor, Sasha, in Chekhov’s story is deprived of “Turgenev’s intellectual aura.” It evokes a feeling of something ridiculous in Nadya’s mind. But there is so much beauty in this absurdity that “as soon as she thought about going to study, her whole heart, her whole chest was filled with a chill, filled with a feeling of joy and delight.” Sasha’s calls to action, his advice to “turn her life around” ignite her. She leaves the house and leaves to “act.” However, the first disappointment in Sasha’s life awaits her after visiting his apartment in Moscow: “His room was smoky, spit on, and there were a lot of dead flies on the table and on the floor. And here it was clear from everything that Sasha arranged his personal life sloppily, lived as he had to, with complete disdain for convenience.” The ending of the story, which describes Nadiv’s arrival at home, is imbued with sad lyricism as a farewell to the past and hope for a bright future: “... It seemed to her that in the city everything had long since grown old, become obsolete and everything was just waiting for either the end or the beginning of something.” something young, fresh. Oh, if only this new, clear life would come soon.” And the description of Sasha’s death at the end of the story does not change Nadya’s hope for a bright future: “Farewell, dear Sasha!”, she thought. And a new life was ahead of her. wide, spacious. And this life, still unclear, full of secrets, captivated and beckoned her. Of course, Nadya’s ideas about a new life are full of romantic illusions and mysteries, which was already noted as a drawback by Chekhov’s contemporaries. In the story “The Bride,” Chekhov’s search for positive and even ideal foundations of life, which were outlined in the stories “The Story of an Unknown Man” and “Duel,” ends. In this search, he is close to Turgenev, and especially in his late work (the novel “New”, “Prose Poems”, “Threshold”). True, ideal tendencies in Turgenev’s artistic contemplation manifested themselves more deeply than in Chekhov’s skepticism and objectivity. And yet, both Turgenev and Chekhov, turning to the depiction of the bright, universal aspects of life that are on the eve of the future, turned to romantic stylistic means. Turgenev found these ideal impulses in the activities of “new people”, Chekhov - in the universal human aspirations of the individual on the eve of the revolution of 1905. Chekhov was clearly aware of the Turgenev tradition in his story: “I am writing a story for a magazine for everyone, in the old manner, in the manner of the 70s.” x years." Poking around in the 70s, Chekhov probably had in mind the stories, tales and novels of that time about girls and women leaving home, like Turgenev in his prose poem “The Threshold”. As noted in the note to the story, “The Bride "collected works of Chekhov, he thought for a long time and leafed through the ending of the story about the possibility of Nadya joining the revolution. In this regard, Veresaev’s memories of reading this story in the presence of him and Gorky are interesting. Veresaev spoke very characteristically: “And girls like your Nadya do not join the revolution,” his (Chekhov’s - V.T.) eyes looked with stern wariness. - There are different ways to get there [cit. 9: v. 10, 466]. As we see, in response to Nadya’s romantic, vague hesitations about her future fate, Chekhov did not at all rule out her path to the revolution. Here his position is reminiscent of Turgenev’s, set out in her famous prose poem “The Threshold.” In his drama, Chekhov often turns to Turgenev’s traditions, especially in the drama “Ivanov” (1899). In the image of the main character, the traditions of the “second Hamlet” are visible. Like Shakespeare’s hero and Turgenev’s “superfluous man,” he has a complex and contradictory psychology: “Each of us has too many wheels, screws and valves for us to judge each other by a first impression or by two or three external signs... And We don’t understand ourselves,” he says to Doctor Lvov. His emotional tossing is aggravated due to love experiences. His wife, Anna Petrovna, accuses him of treason: “Dishonest, low. You lied to me about the truth, about goodness, about bright, honest plans." She accuses him of wanting to take possession of his beloved Sasha for monetary reasons. According to Sasha, Ivanov is “a good, unhappy, incomprehensible person” whom she wants to put on his feet and fulfill his task. Sasha’s love seems to his tormented soul as a “mockery of his feelings”: “It’s time to come to your senses. “I played Hamlet, and you played a sublime girl - and that’s enough for us,” he assures Sasha. In his last monologue, he actually repeats the classic arguments of the “superfluous man”: “I was young, ardent, sincere, not stupid; loved, hated, fought with mills, banged his forehead against walls, without measuring his strength, without reasoning, without knowing his life. And this is how cruelly the life with which I fought takes revenge on me.” True, in this statement the social motives of his duality clearly sound in a weakened form and the love motives are strengthened. In critics' reviews of the uniqueness of the Ivanov type, this type was placed “in the ranks of the heroes of our time - the Onegins, Pechorins, Beltovs and Rudins” [cit. according to 9: t. 12, 352]. And Chekhov himself in a letter to V.G. Korolenko noted that in his attitude towards Ivanov “he lacked Turgenev’s subtle irony” [cit. according to 9: v. 12, 343]. Turgenev’s influence was especially fruitful in Chekhov’s “The Seagull” (1896). This influence is felt in the image of the publicist, the famous writer Trigorin. It is he who is the initiator of the Turgenev theme in drama. Assessing his writing activity in front of Nina Zarechnaya, he says: “Nice, but far from Tolstoy.” Or “Wonderful thing. But Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons is better.” And further - on his grave he would inscribe the following words: “Here lies Trigorin. He was a good writer, but he wrote worse than Turgenev.” His beloved, Nina Zarechnaya, was undoubtedly influenced by him. Like Turgenev's girls, she breaks with home and goes to Moscow, to the big world, and becomes an actress. But unlike the heroines, Turgeneva does not find happiness, either in Trigorin’s love or in provincial theatrical life. Her farewell monologue, filled with dramatic lyricism, clearly echoes Rudin’s farewell words: “It’s good for the one who is now sitting under the roof of the house, who has a warm corner. Yes... Turgenev. And may God help all homeless wanderers,” she says. Chekhov created the comedy “The Cherry Orchard” during the period of Russia’s preparation for the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905. “Russia is buzzing like a beehive,” wrote Chekhov, “so I would like to catch this cheerful mood, write a play, a cheerful play.” “So much strength, energy, faith in the people,” says Chekhov E.P. Karpov [cit. according to 9: v. 13, 492]. This mood was reflected, first of all, in the images of the “eternal student” Trofimov and sixteen-year-old Anya. The union of Trofimov and Anya is reminiscent of similar situations in Turgenev’s works, albeit in a more romanticized vein than Turgenev’s: “Forward! We are moving uncontrollably towards a bright star that is burning there in the distance. Forward! Don't lag behind, friends! He is trying, with his incendiary speeches, to educate Anya in the spirit of freedom and social inequality: “Your mother, you, and uncle no longer notice that you live in debt, at someone else’s expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not allow beyond the front door.” From criticism of social inequality, Trofimov moves on to a premonition of impending social changes: “My soul is full of inexplicable forebodings. I have a presentiment of happiness, Anya, I already see it,” he says. The authors of the notes to “The Cherry Orchard” indicate: “The Cherry Orchard gave criticism the opportunity to again raise the question of Chekhov as the successor of Turgenev and Tolstoy” [cit. according to 9: t. 13, 513]. In the same notes, the tradition of the theme of impoverishment of the nobility was associated with the comedies of Turgenev’s “A Month in the Country,” “Gogol’s Dead Souls,” “The Forest” by Ostrovsky, etc. In the comedy “A Month in the Country,” this theme is not identified as clearly and objectively as in "The Cherry Orchard". Nevertheless, under the pen of Turgenev, the tendency of the decline of the nobility is clearly felt in the general concept, the figurative system of the main characters. In the original plan, Turgenev wanted to name the comedy after the main character Belyaev - “Student”. However, based on the claims of the caesura, Turgenev eliminated the too obvious signs of a common student, thereby shifting the emphasis from social issues to psychological ones. The “vagrant” motive of rivalry between two women in love prevailed. In this rivalry, Turgenev initially gave first place to Natalya Petrovna. After the huge success, Savina recognized her in the role of Verochka. And yet, despite changing the name of the comedy, he left Belyaev as the main “herald” of anti-noble criticism, as he later did to Bazarov in “Fathers and Sons.” It is no coincidence that two women competing with each other, Natalya Petrovna and Verochka, also fall under his influence. In the dynamics of the comedy, Belyaev says: “It’s like I brought a plague into this house. Everyone is running away from here. It's stuffy here, I want some air. I’ll return to Moscow to my comrades and start working.” In these words of Belyaev, every word carries a symbolic ideological load: escape from the noble house, and fresh air, and, finally, Moscow, as a symbol of working life. And Chekhov’s “Sisters” strive for Moscow from their vulgar, philistine life. The stories “Lights”, “The Story of an Unknown Man” and especially “Duel” provide rich material for discussing the originality of Chekhov’s poetics. And Chudakov wrote: “Chekhov very early abandoned the narrow social determination of character and external signs of ‘typicality’.” And further: “Chekhov’s artistic system captures, first of all, the illegal, the optional, i.e. actually accidental, expanding the possibilities of art. The rejection of the poetics of classical realism testifies to the complexity and inconsistency of its authors in the world of the 20th century, of which A. Chekhov was a representative. “The depicted world looks naturally chaotic, thereby demonstrating the complexity of the world of reality, about which no final judgment can be made,” writes Chudakov. In these stories, Chekhov’s appeal to “random” episodes is especially characteristic, for example, in “The Story of an Unknown Man.” Vladimir Ivanovich, rushing about in search of the meaning of life, comes to the conclusion at the end of the story that this meaning lies in selfless love for one’s neighbor. And in the finale, he utters words familiar from the story “Duel”: “I believe that it will be easier and clearer for the next generations. Our experience will be at their service. Life is given once and you want to live it cheerfully, meaningfully, beautifully.” In the story “Duel,” Von Karen demonstrates his contempt for the weak Laevsky, and suddenly generously reconciles with him: “Today you are the winner of the greatest of humanity’s enemies - pride.” Chekhov’s freedom-loving sentiments fit into the sentiments of the Russian literary period, on the eve of the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905 of the year. In 1908, A. Blok made a characteristic note: “Write a report on the only possible way to overcome loneliness - joining the people’s soul and developing social activities.” Similar thoughts about Chekhov were expressed by K.S. Stanislavsky: “As the atmosphere thickened and the matter approached revolution, it became more and more decisive.” In a letter to A.P. Chekhov in 1886, he states: “It is best to avoid describing the mental state of the heroes; we must try to make it clear from the actions of the heroes” [cit. according to 9: t.248]. And Chudakov believes that this statement does not reflect Chekhov’s entire approach to depicting the hero’s psychology. Indeed, in his stories and tales, Chekhov takes the position of complicating the psychological experiences of the characters. The story "Duel" is especially characteristic in this regard. Chekhov realized that it was acquiring new genre, novel forms. The complexity of the characters and their relationships required the introduction of new psychological motivations. It is no coincidence that some researchers noted the complexity of Chekhov’s psychological mastery, especially when depicting Laevsky’s intimate experiences. Already at the beginning of the story, he is tormented by an insoluble question with which he turns to Samoilenko: “Suppose you fell in love with a woman and got along with her; you lived with her for more than two years and then. fell out of love with her and began to feel that she was a stranger to you [.During the development of the plot, the same Samoilenko, Von Karen and Nadezhda Fedorovna, who had bored him, “interfere” in Laevsky’s experiences. What prevents him from understanding his experiences and taking a decisive step is the nature of a “superfluous man” and a loser, which he inherited from the heroes of Russian classical literature, first of all, from Turgenev: “For our brother, a loser and a “superfluous man,” all salvation is in conversations,” says He. - I have to generalize my every action, I find explanations and justifications for my ridiculous life in someone’s theories, literary types. My indecisiveness reminds me of Hamlet.” All these arguments of Laevsky are strongly reminiscent of Turgenev’s “superfluous people.” Zoologist Von Karen is an irreconcilable critic of Laevsky: “We need to hang a lamp in front of Laevsky, because he is a fatal victim of time, trends, heredity and other things.” Of course, not everything in Von Karen’s remarks about Laevsky should be taken as truth. According to him, “Laevsky is certainly harmful, and also dangerous to society as the cholera microbe. Drowning him is a merit.” Military doctor Samoilenko appears more lenient towards Laevsky in the story. For him, he is “a kind fellow, a good fellow, with whom you could drink and laugh and have a heart-to-heart talk.” As for Laevsky’s spiritual needs (“...studies at the Faculty of Philosophy, subscribes to 2 thick magazines, speaks intelligently.”), Samoilenko did not understand this, but considered Laevsky higher than himself and respected him. As always, in Chekhov, everyday details wedge themselves into the experiences of the characters : “He went to his office, lay down on the sofa and covered his face with a handkerchief so that the flies would not bother him. Sluggish, viscous thoughts about this and that continued in his brain, like a long train on a stormy autumn evening.” Describing the mental processes of his characters, Chekhov constantly emphasizes the dependence of these processes on the philistine everyday environment. However, thoughts about breaking up with his mistress are replaced by the voice of conscience, coming from Samoilenko’s advice: “It seemed to him that he was guilty before Nadezhda Feodorovna and her husband, and that her husband died through his fault.” Laevsky’s vices, which Von Karen speaks of, torment him conscience. In his words, “he longs for his renewal.” True, his rebirth occurs by chance, contrary to the logic of the development of his character. Most likely, Chekhov himself comes into his own here with his belief in the coming rebirth of man. In “The Duel” this revival is not only illogical, but even paradoxical. True, Laevsky does not immediately demonstrate a decisive step. At the beginning, he prepares this step with a feeling of pity for his wife: “After he finally decided to leave and leave Nadezhda Fedorovna, she began to arouse in him pity and feelings of guilt. He felt a little ashamed in her presence, as in the presence of a sick and old horse that they decided to kill.” Chekhov still translates Laevsky's experiences into everyday language, in this case, a comparison of his wife with an old horse. The next link in these experiences is the story of the money that Laevsky wants to borrow from Samoilenko in order to leave Nadezhda Fedorovna for St. Petersburg. Laevsky realizes that this story entails the deception of Samoilenko, Nadezhda Fedorovna and even her mother, from whom he must borrow money. Nadezhda Feodorovna's betrayal with officer Kirilin becomes an emotional breakdown for him. However, this sexy story does not end with a dramatic outcome. Here comes an episode that caused criticism from Chekhov's contemporaries. This refers to the moral revival of Laevsky, which is reminiscent of the revival of the heroes of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Pleshcheev wrote: “The end of it (the story - V.T.) is completely unclear to me; . what motivates this sudden change in the relationships of these characters. In my opinion, the story ended too arbitrarily" [cit. according to 9: v.7, 704]. True, in modern science the attitude of scientists towards “unexpected” episodes in Chekhov’s works has changed. Perhaps this point of view is expressed most consistently by A. Chudakov. It should be recognized that Chekhov’s “unexpected” episodes have their own logic. The same Laevsky endlessly rushes between duty and feeling in his experiences. And the fact that Chekhov, as always, maintains a neutral position in describing these experiences complicates the problem. It should also be taken into account that Laevsky’s personality is weak, unlike the heroes of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, susceptible to the influence of circumstances. This must be kept in mind when explaining the last episodes of the story. Chekhov's story is called "Duel". And all of Laevsky’s experiences are connected with this dramatic event. On the eve of the duel, feeling the approach of death, he wants to reconsider his previous living conditions in St. Petersburg and start a new life. He turns to God for forgiveness: “Looking at her silently (Nadezhda Feodorovna), Laevsky mentally asked for her forgiveness and thought that if the sky is not empty and there really is a God there, then he will save her.” Although Laevsky turns to God for help occasionally, one cannot ignore the latter in the hero’s rebirth. Moreover, following this scene, Laevsky, having listened to Nadezhda Fedorovna’s repentance, forgives her. In the structure of Chekhov’s story, the duel occupies a central place. On the eve of this event, its participants began to discuss the strangeness and unusualness of the duel in modern conditions. They began to recall examples from the past: “It turned out that of all those present, not one had ever been in a duel in his life, and no one knew exactly how to stand and what the seconds should say and do.” But then Boyko remembered, and, smiling, began to explain: “Gentlemen, who remembers how Lermontov described it, asked Von Karen, laughing. “At Turgenev’s, Bazarov also fought with someone there.” It is no coincidence that Von Karen remembers Turgenev’s Bazarov. Apparently, when painting this scene, Chekhov was influenced by a similar scene from the Russian writer, especially in its humorous design. In this design, Turgenev plays a large role in the “improved” servant Peter, whom Bazarov appointed “something like a second.” During the fight, Peter hid somewhere: “He did not understand his (Bazarov - V.T.) words and did not move from his place. Pavel Petrovich slowly opened his eyes. “It’s over,” whispered Peter and began to be baptized.” In Chekhov, a similar role is played by the deacon, who hides in the corn during a duel: “I almost died of fear in the corn,” he says.” However, for all their external comedy, Peter and the deacon, especially the latter, play different roles. It was he who, with his desperate cry from the corn, interrupted Von Karen’s murder of Laevsky: “How disgusting this is in human nature! - the deacon sighed. But you had such a face that I thought you would certainly kill him.” And the peace that reigned between Von Karen and Laevsky is interpreted by him as a just intervention of the right hand of God. Remembering that Laevsky turns to God for help through him: “Know that today you have defeated the greatest of humanity’s enemies - pride,” he says to Von Karen.” The comedy of his words is expressed in the abundance of biblical expressions with which he asserts his position: “ What kind of winners are we? The winners are looking with heads. And he is pathetic, timid, downtrodden,” says Von Karen about Laevsky. However, one cannot agree with Von Karen on everything. Laevsky, even at the cost of moral humiliation because of Von Karen's act, managed to defeat the greatest of humanity's enemies - pride. And again we need to pay special attention to the ending of the story, where Laevsky pronounces his symbolic words about the meaning of life. He compares it (life - V.T.) with a boat struggling in the waves. The words of the story “no one knows the real truth” have a special meaning. And although the main participants in the duel (Laevsky, Von Karen) in the epilogue do not know the real truth, they have come closer to it. Von Karen managed to overcome his maximalism and intolerance towards Laevsky’s actions. Laevsky, not without the participation of Samoilenko, forgives Von Karen. Apparently, the weak “superfluous man,” and not the uncompromising Von Karen, was subjectively close to Chekhov himself. It is these “average people” that Laevsky speaks of in his last monologue: “Suffering, mistakes and the boredom of life throw them back. But the desire for truth and stubborn will drive forward and forward.” The evolution of the “superfluous man” type in Chekhov’s work largely influenced the originality of his poetic system, his departure from the classical Turgenev model. The spirit of analysis, the power of self-awareness, which determined the weakness and strength of Hamlet’s “superfluous man” mentality, collided with new trends. This is felt in “The Duel” and in “The Story of an Unknown Man,” especially in “The Duel” - Chekhov’s most literary work. The assimilation and repulsion from Turgenev’s traditions is also manifested in Chekhov’s dramaturgy. In the drama “Ivanov” the tradition of Hamlet is described, in the drama “The Seagull” the Turgenev tradition is manifested in the image of the publicist Trigorin and his beloved Nina Zarechnaya. LITERATURE Chudakov A.P. Chekhov's world: emergence and approval / A.P. Chudakov. - M.: Soviet writer, 1986. - 350 p. Kurlyandskaya, G.B. The aesthetic world of I.S. Turgenev - Orel: OGTRK Publishing House, 1994. - 343 p. Minkov V.Ya. The artistic world of A.P.’s prose Chekhov. - M.: MSU, 1982. - 163 p. Tyukhova E. V. ""The Noble Nest" by Turgenev and "House with a Mezzanine" by Chekhov (on the issue of traditions). // Spassky Bulletin. - 2000 - No. 7. - C 43-50. Sakharov V. Height of view (Turgenev and Chekhov)// Access mode - www.ostrovok.de/old/prose/saharov/essay010.htmLiterary encyclopedia of terms and concepts / Chief editor A.N. Nikolyukin. - M.: NPK "Intelvak", 2001. - 1595 pp. Khalizev V.E. Theory of Literature / V.E. Halizev. - M.: Higher School, 1999. - 398 pp. Turgenev I.S. Complete Works and letters in 28 volumes / I. S. Turgenev - M.: Nauka, 1964. Chekhov A. P. Complete works and letters in 30 volumes / A. P. Chekhov - M.: Nauka, 1977. Rubina S.B. The nature of Chekhov's irony / Interuniversity collection of scientific articles edited by S.A. Golubkov, M.A. Perelygin and others - Samara: 2004. - pp. 152-159. Nietzsche F. Collection works: in 2 volumes - 2nd ed. - M.: 1989.

Before reading, refresh your memory with a brief retelling (“Rudin”, “Fathers and Sons”)

In novels, the action usually takes place dynamically, over several months and sometimes weeks. The reader's attention is occupied by the main character alone, who is surrounded by a small number of minor ones. The author shows him at critical moments in his life, which form the basis of the story. The basis of Turgenev's novels is the ideological struggle, the clash of people with different, often irreconcilably hostile views.

The main thing that distinguishes the composition of the novel "Rudin" , is its unusual simplicity, the absence of any kind of effect. The action in the novel proceeds sequentially, with a clear motivation for each situation, but without unnecessary episodes and details. At the same time, Turgenev is not carried away by quick descriptions, which was typical for a significant part of the prose of the 40s. The writer pays main attention not to the psychology of the characters, but to their spiritual life. The novel is full of discussions on philosophical and scientific topics, disputes about art, education, and morality.

The conflict at the heart of the novel "Fathers and Sons" , is the struggle of the new with the old, the “battle” of the democrat commoner Bazarov with the nobles Kirsanovs. The main compositional device of “Fathers and Sons” is antithesis, opposition. Turgenev constructs the novel in such a way that the two struggling forces are always in the center of the reader's attention. A special place is given to Bazarov: there are 28 chapters in the novel, and only in two of them does Bazarov not appear. Bazarov dies - the novel ends, and Turgenev, in a short afterword, fluently explaining the further fate of the remaining heroes, devotes the last, deeply felt lines to Bazarov.

The ideological face of the heroes of Turgenev's novels appears most clearly in disputes. Turgenev's novels are filled with controversy. And this is by no means accidental. The Rudins and Lavretskys - people of the 40s, heroes of Turgenev's first novels - grew up in the spiritual atmosphere of Moscow circles, where there was a constant struggle of opinions and where the ideological debater was a typical, historically characteristic figure. In “Fathers and Sons” they are reflected in disputes, “fights” between the Kirsanovs and Bazarov. Therefore, dialogue-argument acquires the most important significance in the novel.

It is also necessary to say about the integral inclusion of landscape in the composition, which can be noted in all of Turgenev’s works. He has a special role in the novel “Fathers and Sons” (reflecting the social state of Russia at that time, contrasting with the actions or with the mood and experiences of the hero).

Question 41. The problem of the “extra person” in creativity and. S. Turgeneva

The term “L.h.” itself received wide circulation after the publication of “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850) by I. S. Turgenev.

Let's now call thematic characteristics of our hero - the “extra man”. Most often this is an almost young creature. Only Dmitry Rudin will be a long-liver here, and even then his life in adulthood is given only in outline. This hero is, of course, without a family (including a dysfunctional relationship with his parents), and also unhappy in love. His position in society is marginal (unstable, contains displacements and contradictions): he is always at least in some way connected with the nobility, but - already in the period of decline, fame and wealth are rather a memory, there is no class activity, he is placed in an environment, so or otherwise alien to him: a higher or lower environment, a motive of alienation, not always immediately lying on the surface. The hero is moderately educated, but this education is either incomplete, or unsystematic, or unclaimed and even forgotten; in a word, he is not a deep thinker, not a scientist, but a person with the “ability to judge”, to draw quick but immature conclusions. The crisis of religiosity is very important, but also the preservation of the memory of religious concepts, often the fight against churchism, but also hidden uncertainty, the habit of the name of God. There is always some pretension to be a judge and even a leader of one's neighbors; a hint of hatred is required. Often - the gift of eloquence, writing skills, note-taking, or even writing poetry. A developed inner world, feverish and inhabited by chimeras, which, however, with general chaos, becomes the hero’s “shelter” as opposed to conflicts in relations with his neighbors.

Theme "l.ch." was widely reflected in the works of Turgenev, the superfluous man includes: Dmitry Rudin (Rudin), Chulkaturin (Diary of a Superfluous Man), Bazarov (Fathers and Sons), Hamlet (Hamlet of Shchigrovsky District), Alexey Nezhdanov (Nove), Fyodor Lavretsky (Noble Nest ), Yakov Pasynkov (Yakov Pasynkov), Alexey Petrovich (Correspondence), Insarov (On the Eve).

Let's look at some of them:

Bazarov . Bazarov is superfluous in the spirit of his time. It is filled with marginality, is entirely focused on one’s self, has extremely narrowed the field of perception of life, a critical or skeptical attitude towards people turns into the notorious nihilism, expressed in the denial of the meaningfulness of human existence, the significance of generally accepted moral and cultural values, and non-recognition of any authorities.

Evgeny Bazarov studies natural sciences, works a lot in medical practice, and is sure that this gives him the right to treat with disdain those who experience life from other positions. He is often harsh, cynical, even arrogant with people, including those who strive to imitate him, who consider themselves his students. Since Bazarov’s followers do not have their own convictions, they are ready to imitate him, repeat everything that the idol does or says. Bazarov turns out to be a “superfluous” person, not in demand in society. This is a tragic figure: he, like many in this era, did not find his purpose, did not have time to do anything necessary and important for Russia, and, having made a mistake in his medical practice, dies young. In the novel, Bazarov is a very lonely person, since he has no true followers and like-minded people, which means that in nihilism, as in love, he failed.

The hero's shocking and harshness is explained by the fact that he himself does not know how to change what he does not like and what he rejects. This was also a phenomenon of the era when the aristocrats could no longer change anything, do anything, and the democrats would like to, but did not yet know what the path of development of Russia should be.

Gradually, Bazarov emerges as an actor in life, but not a true participant, activist or thinker. Depression, depression, and complete denial of one’s role appear sharply in Bazarov. The apotheosis of the “superfluous man” line in the novel will, of course, be the remark: “Russia needs me... No, apparently I don’t.” In the epilogue of the novel, Turgenev will show that neither the life nor the death of Bazarov had any impact on the fate of the heroes, on the fate of Russia. No one follows his path, no one honors him as a leader - they only remember the unfortunate man. Here a purely Turgenev motive is born: there is no living presence of Bazarov, but the memory of him overestimates his role, the face of death turns Bazarov from a “giant” into a tragic legend.

Rudin . A different twist on our theme can be seen in Turgenev’s earlier novel “Rudin”. Usually the “superfluous person” is quite decisive in behavior and actions, but Rudin mainly reflects in this topic that our hero is a hero of word, and not of deed. The longer they know Rudin, the sharper the hostility towards him becomes apparent. They expect genuine revelations from Rudin's eloquence; if not activity, then action, but the hero is limited only by bright pathos with a very unclear meaning. General discussions about the good, the development of abstract categories and concepts are Rudin’s favorite style. The verbal element is a powerful medium in its own way, it envelops a person, wants to be a substitute for the big world, but creates a world of tense chimeras. This can be seen in Turgenev’s love stories: at one time, Rudin literally disfigured Lezhnev’s love with his reasoning; Having in his mind the concept of love (“word”), Rudin strains himself to love, but his soul always remains empty: “I’m happy. Yes, I’m happy,” he repeated, as if wanting to convince himself.” Obstacles in love make Rudin cowardly and easily backtracking on his words. The emptiness of the word for Turgenev is precisely a property of a marginal character.

Turgenev, in this novel, shows how memory, time, and finally the death of the hero change the attitude towards him: the further he is from Rudin, the more powerless he is, the better feelings he evokes towards himself. Lezhnev speaks of Rudin, whom he knew from university, with picky dislike when he is nearby, and he can also captivate the charming Alexandra Lipina; when Rudin is almost forgotten, expelled, and Lipina becomes Lezhneva, lofty words are spoken about Rudin.

Unable to find a use for his strength, intelligence and talent, feeling unnecessary in Russia, he dies with a red banner in his hands in Paris during the revolutionary events of 1848. Rudin's pain lies in the realization of his fate; he condemns himself to oblivion. “Barricades” is a desperate step, it even superficially resembles a duel: knowing himself, Rudin chooses death.

The “extra person” is always unhappy. He does not know life at all, and his reflection is too highly developed, which entails weakness, powerlessness, and inability to act decisively. The hero is very focused on himself. The form of his self-expression in the work is a diary, confession, monologue, letter. The “extra person” always has an ideal, a dream. But there is always a conflict between the ideal and the real world, which makes the hero unhappy. I.S. Turgenev subjects his heroes to various tests, showing their failure and indecision before the important actions that reality requires of them. But the writer is not indignant, he rather sympathizes with his hero, since his fate is tragic, he is deprived of down-to-earth ideas that would reconcile him with reality and is forced to suffer, since there is no place for romance in harsh reality.

“Superfluous people” in the works of I. S. Turgenev

The definition of “superfluous person” in Russian literature means a certain socio-psychological type, the main character traits of which can be called dissatisfaction, mental fatigue, melancholy and disappointment in everything that life has to offer. The “superfluous person,” as a rule, cannot find a place for himself in society: secular entertainment only brings boredom to him; he sees no point in public service, where the main virtue can be called respect for rank;

He also doesn’t see the meaning in love. Literature owes the emergence of this term to I. S. Turgenev, the author of “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850).

The critic V. G. Belinsky, in his article dedicated to A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin,” writes about “superfluous people” that they “are often gifted with great moral advantages, great spiritual powers; They promise a lot, deliver little or do nothing. It is not up to them; here there is a fatum, which lies in reality, with which they are surrounded, like air, and from which it is not possible and not in the power of man to free himself.”

Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin” develops the image of a “bored” man of noble origin, not just satiated, but dissatisfied with life, unable to realize himself, at odds with both society and himself. This is how the image of the “superfluous person” was born in literature, which would later be developed by M. Yu. Lermontov in the novel “Hero of Our Time,” as well as by I. S. Turgenev in the story “Asya” and the novel “Fathers and Sons.”

Herzen, in the article “Very dangerous!!!”, published in the magazine “Kolokol” in 1859, wrote: “The Onegins and Pechorins were completely true, they expressed the real sorrow and fragmentation of the then Russian life. The sad fate of a superfluous, lost person, only because he developed into a person, appeared then not only in poems and novels, but on the streets and in living rooms, in villages and cities. […] But the time of the Onegins and Pechorins has passed. Now in Russia there are no extra people; now, on the contrary, there are not enough hands to deal with these huge stench. Whoever now doesn’t find anything to do has no one to blame; he is truly an empty person, a whiner or a lazy person.” That is, a change in historical conditions also required a change in the minds of the public. If earlier people who could not find a place for themselves in society were, as it were, a kind of reproach to this society, then in the 50s and 60s, during the rise of social democratic forces and pre-revolutionary excitement in Russia, reality demanded active, thinking , extraordinary, and most importantly ideological and at the same time active people.

Against the background of these new historical conditions, on the eve of the most important transformations in the structure of the country, Turgenev writes the novel “Fathers and Sons” and the story “Asya”, where he perfectly reveals the images of “superfluous people” and their inconsistency.

In both heroes of the story “Asya” (in Gagin and in N.N.), the reader can easily discern features that have already been encountered in the images of Onegin, Pechorin and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. These are educated, secular people, but unable to realize themselves, people with some kind of internal flaw. “It was just a Russian soul, truthful, honest, simple, but, unfortunately, a little sluggish, without tenacity and inner heat,” says N.N. about Gagina. Turgenev with unsurpassed skill depicted the features of the “superfluous man” in this artist, who does not have a single completed work. Also very characteristic is the episode when Gagin and N.N. got together - one to sketch, the other to read, but instead “they reasoned quite intelligently and subtly about how exactly it should work.”

The story of N.N.’s love for Asya perfectly characterizes him as an extra person: he does not dare to love Asya, thinks that he cannot connect his life with a seventeen-year-old girl “with her character,” and is afraid to make an important decision and responsibility for it.

Comparing N.N. with other “superfluous” literary heroes, one can probably draw an analogy with Onegin, but Eugene at least did not love Tatyana, unlike N.N., who already in his declining years said: “... a feeling aroused in To me Asey, that burning, tender, deep feeling never happened again.”

The critic N. G. Chernyshevsky reacted to the appearance of the story “Asya” with the article “Russian man at rendez-vous”, in which he completely criticized the behavior and way of thinking of the main character - N. N. Since Chernyshevsky’s article was written on the eve of serious social changes, in a time when revolutionary democrats expected a popular revolution, it represents a letter that is largely categorical. The critic understood that Turgenev, in his own words, painted images of “the best of the nobles,” but despite this, he realized that they, incapable of large-scale public action, would give up at the decisive moment, that they were not ready to take on the transformation of the national future, because they are afraid of responsibility.

The image of the superfluous person in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is embodied in Pavel Kirsanov, who, both in his “principles” and in his life story, is very similar to the “superfluous people” whom the reader has already met on the pages of “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time”: not without reason Bazarov calls it an “archaic phenomenon” in the fourth chapter. Kirsanov abandoned his career for the sake of a woman, despite the admonitions of his colleagues and superiors; for ten years he chased the “incomprehensible, almost meaningless,” mysterious, like a sphinx, Princess R. When he learned of her death, he stopped appearing in society, went to live in the village, where “he arranged his life according to English tastes, rarely saw neighbors and only went out to vote.” The elder Kirsanov, unlike his brother, was not interested in the life of young people, new trends in the social life of the country, and did not seek to get closer to representatives of the new generation, allowing them to “consider him a proud man.”

Kirsanov is deeply convinced that “aristocratism is a principle, and without principles only immoral or empty people can live in our time,” he also believes that the English aristocrats, whom he, apparently, considers the standard, “do not give up an iota of their rights , and therefore they respect the rights of others; they demand the fulfillment of duties in relation to them, and therefore they themselves fulfill their duties. The aristocracy gave freedom to England and maintains it.” According to his views, moral standards created by aristocrats dictate life principles to all humanity.

Kirsanov believes that only immoral people can live without principles. At the same time, we see that his principles do not correlate in any way with his deeds: the life of a typical representative of an aristocratic society passes in idleness and thought.

Turgenev believed that “to accurately and powerfully reproduce the truth, the reality of life, is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies,” he was sure that the poet must be “a psychologist, but a secret one, he must know and feel norms of phenomena, but to represent only the phenomena themselves - in their flourishing or fading.” Therefore, he very rarely allowed himself a specific authorial assessment of an action, character or phenomenon; he allowed himself, perhaps, only once, speaking about Pavel Petrovich after the duel: “... a beautiful, emaciated head lay on a white pillow, like a dead man’s head. Yes, he was a dead man.” This should be understood as a statement that a change in concepts has already occurred, that the era of the elder Kirsanov is ending. The fact that he “left Moscow abroad” soon after the duel emphasizes the fact that he himself understood his uselessness in his native country, understood that life goes on besides him, it is hard for him, “harder than he himself suspects,” although, as it seemed to him, he remembered his roots, since “on his desk there is a silver ashtray in the shape of a peasant’s bast shoe.” It is no coincidence that in his parting words to his loved ones he remembers saying goodbye “forever.”

Glossary:

• What new did Turgenev introduce into the characterization of the type of superfluous person?
• who is the extra person
• extra people Turgenev

Other works on this topic:

1. Plan Introduction What does Oblomov have in common with “extra people”? Love of a “superfluous man” Is Oblomov a superfluous man? Introduction Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” is a socio-psychological novel written in...
2. Almost simultaneously with people like Chatsky, a new type was maturing in Russian society, a new hero of the time, who became dominant in the post-Decembrist era. This type of person...
3. I liked his features, his involuntary devotion to dreams, his inimitable strangeness, and his sharp, chilled mind. I was embittered, he was gloomy; We both knew the game of passion, Life was tormenting...
4. An amazing, incomprehensible, inexplicable paradox: the most brilliant, truly dazzling, most active, most fruitful of the 19th century. Russia gave birth to images of strange, suffering, inactive people in its literature. Turgenev...

Composition

“The rapidly changing physiognomy of Russian people of the cultural stratum” is the main subject of artistic depiction by this writer. Turgenev is attracted to the “Russian Hamlets” - a type of nobleman-intellectual captured by the cult of philosophical knowledge of the 1830s - early 1840s, who went through the stage of ideological self-determination in philosophical circles. That was the time of the formation of the writer’s personality, so the appeal to the heroes of the “philosophical” era was dictated by the desire not only to objectively evaluate the past, but also to understand oneself, to rethink the facts of one’s ideological biography.

Among his tasks, Turgenev identified two of the most important ones. The first is to create an “image of the time,” which was achieved by a careful analysis of the beliefs and psychology of the central characters who embodied Turgenev’s understanding of the “heroes of the time.” The second is attention to new trends in the life of the “cultural layer” of Russia, that is, the intellectual environment to which the writer himself belonged. The novelist was primarily interested in single heroes, who especially fully embodied all the most important trends of the era. But these people were not as bright individualists as the true “heroes of the time.”

One way or another, all this was reflected in Turgenev’s first novel “Rudin” (1855). The prototype of the main character Dmitry Nikolaevich Rudin was a member of N.V. Stankevich’s circle M.A. Bakunin. Knowing very well people of the “Rudin” type, Turgenev hesitated for a long time in assessing the historical role of the “Russian Hamlets” and therefore revised the novel twice. Rudin ultimately turned out to be a contradictory person, and this was largely the result of the author’s contradictory attitude towards him.

What kind of person was Rudin, the hero of Turgenev’s first novel? We meet him when he appears in the house of Daria Mikhailovna Lasunskaya, a “rich and noble lady”: “A man of about thirty-five, tall, somewhat stooped, curly-haired, with an irregular face, but expressive and intelligent, entered... with a liquid shine in the fast dark -blue eyes, with a straight wide nose and beautifully defined lips. The dress he was wearing was not new and tight, as if he had grown out of it.” So far everything is quite ordinary, but very soon everyone present at Lasunskaya’s will feel the sharp originality of this new personality for them. At first, Rudin easily and gracefully destroys Pigasov in an argument, revealing his wit and habit of polemics. He then shows a lot of knowledge and erudition. But this is not what captivates his listeners: “Rudin possessed perhaps the highest secret - the music of eloquence. He knew how, by striking one string of hearts, he could make all the others ring dimly...” Listeners are also influenced by his passion for exclusively higher interests. A person cannot and should not subordinate his life only to practical goals, concerns about existence, Rudin argues. Enlightenment, science, the meaning of life - this is what Rudin speaks about so inspiredly and poetically. The power of Rudin’s influence on listeners, his persuasion in words, is felt by everyone. Having burst into the inert society of provincial nobles, he brought with him the breath of world life, the spirit of the era and became the most striking personality among the heroes of the novel. It follows from this that Rudin is the exponent of the historical task of his generation as interpreted by the writer.

The characters in the novel are like a system of mirrors, reflecting in their own way the image of the main character. Natalya Lasunskaya was immediately overcome by a feeling that was still unclear to her. Basistov looks at Rudin as a teacher, Volyntsev pays tribute to Rudin’s eloquence, Pandalevsky assesses Rudin’s abilities in his own way - “a very clever man!” Only Pigasov is embittered and does not recognize Rudin’s merits - out of envy and resentment for losing the dispute.

In relations with Natalya, one of the main contradictions of Rudin’s character is revealed. Just the day before, Rudin spoke so inspiredly about the future, about the meaning of life, and suddenly we see a man who has completely lost faith in himself. True, the surprised Natalya’s objection is enough - and Rudin reproaches himself for cowardice and again preaches the need to do good.

Rudin's lofty thoughts, his truly quixotic selflessness and dedication are combined with practical unpreparedness and amateurism. He takes on agronomic transformations from the owner of vast estates, dreams of “various improvements, innovations,” but, seeing the futility of his attempts, he leaves, losing his “daily piece of bread.” Rudin's attempt to teach at the gymnasium also ends in failure. It was not only his lack of knowledge that affected him, but also his free way of thinking. A hint of Rudin’s clash with social injustice is contained in another episode. “I could tell you,” Rudin tells Lezhnev, “how I ended up as a secretary to a dignitary and what came of it; but that would take us too far...” This silence is significant.

The following words of Lezhnev, Rudin’s antagonist, about the reasons for the isolation of the protagonist’s ideals from concrete reality are also significant: “Rudin’s misfortune is that he does not know Russia...”.

Yes, it is precisely this isolation from life, the lack of down-to-earth ideas that makes Rudin a “superfluous person.” And his fate is tragic, first of all, because from a young age this hero lives only by complex impulses of the soul, groundless dreams.

Turgenev, like many authors who touched on the topic of the “superfluous person,” tests his main character with a “set of life criteria”: love, death. Turgenev's contemporary critics interpreted Rudin's inability to take the decisive step in his relationship with Natalya as a sign of not only the spiritual, but also the social failure of the protagonist. And the final scene of the novel - the death of Rudin on the barricades in rebellious Paris - only emphasized the tragedy and historical doom of the hero, who represented the “Russian Hamlets” of a bygone romantic era.

The second novel, “The Noble Nest” (1858), strengthened Turgenev’s reputation as a public writer, an expert on the spiritual life of his contemporaries, and a subtle lyricist in prose. And, if in the novel “Rudin” Turgenev denotes the disunity of the contemporary progressive noble intelligentsia with the people, their ignorance of Russia, lack of understanding of concrete reality, then in “The Noble Nest” the writer is primarily interested in the origins and reasons for this disunity. Therefore, the heroes of “The Noble Nest” are shown with their “roots”, with the soil on which they grew up.

There are two similar heroes in this novel: Lavretsky and Liza Kalitina. What are the life beliefs of the heroes - they are looking for an answer, first of all, to the questions that their fate poses to them. These questions are as follows: about duty to loved ones, about personal happiness, about one’s place in life, about self-denial. Often, the discrepancy between life positions leads to ideological disputes between the main characters. Typically, an ideological dispute occupies a central place in a novel. Lovers become participants in such a dispute. For example, for Lisa, the source of the only correct answers to any “damned” questions is religion, as a means of resolving the most painful contradictions of life. Lisa is trying to prove to Lavretsky that her beliefs are right. According to her, he just wants to “plow the land... and try to plow it as best as possible.” A fatalistic attitude towards life determines its character. Lavretsky does not accept “Liza’s” morality. He refuses humility and self-denial. Lavretsky is trying to find the vital, popular, as he puts it, truth. The truth must lie “first of all in its recognition and humility before it... in the impossibility of leaps and arrogant alterations of Russia from the heights of bureaucratic self-awareness - alterations that are not justified either by knowledge of the native land or by real faith in the ideal...”.

Like Lisa, Lavretsky is a person with “roots” going back to the past. His genealogy has been mentioned since the 15th century. Lavretsky is not only a hereditary nobleman, but also the son of a peasant woman. His “peasant” traits: extraordinary physical strength, lack of refined manners always remind him of his peasant origin. Thus, he is close to the people. It is in everyday peasant work that Lavretsky tries to find answers to any questions for himself: “Here, only he is lucky who makes his own path slowly, like a plowman plows a furrow with a plow.”

The ending of the novel is a kind of result of Lavretsky’s life quest. It defines Lavretsky’s entire inconsistency and makes him a “superfluous person.” Lavretsky’s welcoming words at the end of the novel to unknown young forces mean not only the hero’s refusal of personal happiness, but its very possibility. It should be noted that Turgenev’s very point of view on the “superfluous man” is quite peculiar. Turgenev gives the same arguments as Herzen to justify Rudin and “superfluous people” in general. However, these arguments differ in determining the degree of their guilt. Turgenev rejects the path of salvation, “extra people” through violence, believing that no political changes can free a person from the power of the forces of history and nature.

Unlike Turgenev, Herzen condemns “superfluous people” because they, having broken away from their environment, did not respond to violence with violence. Because they did not go all the way in saving the world and themselves. Dobrolyubov took a middle position in this dispute. He defined the situation of Rudin and Lavretsky as truly tragic, because they are faced with “concepts and morals with which the struggle, indeed, should frighten even an energetic and courageous person.”