Character(with gr. - literal line) - this is a set of psychological properties that make up the image of a literary character.

Individual details of the image, manifested in action, behavior, in certain circumstances, create a multifaceted world of the hero.

The concept of “character” refers to the category of content of a work. It is appropriate to use this term when an analysis of the idea of ​​a work is given and its pathos is determined. In the broad sense of this term all images and heroes of any text inevitably have a typical character.

In antiquity, long before the emergence of a special science about man (anthropology, ethics, physiognomy), main theme literature was the involvement of man in the sphere of uncompromising laws of fate. In the epic, the hero is still entirely dependent on the deity: he cannot act independently; he, in the words of B. Snell, “may be a character, but not yet a personality.” The hero has the same qualities as the gods, but he is a victim of those properties of which he is the bearer. This explains the designation of character with a mask in the ancient theater.

IN In modern literature, character is a personality structure formed by individual and typological traits and manifested in behavioral characteristics and distinctive properties of nature.

In antiquity, on the contrary, character is a “stamp”, a “frozen mask”.

Literary type - an image of human individuality, the most possible, typical for a particular society.

The concept of “literary type” first appears in Hegel’s Aesthetics .

In literary theory, “type” and “character” are close, but not interchangeable.;

“Character” reveals to a greater extent typical personality traits, its psychological properties, A " “type” is a generalization of certain social phenomena associated with typical features.

For example, Maxim Maksimych is a typical Russian soldier, “just a decent person,” as L.N. Tolstoy said about him, while Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin is a type of “suffering egoist,” the embodiment of “the vices of an entire generation in their full development.” The concept of “typing” includes the process of creating a holistic picture of the world and is the basis of the creative process. Recognizing typification as an internal need and a law of art, writers realize that the typical is not a copy of reality, but an artistic generalization. In Moliere, Harpagon and Tartuffe are typical characters, but these are not social, but psychological types, illustrating neglect of moral requirements. If we want to call someone a miser or a hypocrite, we use these proper names as common nouns. The strict hierarchy of genres of classicism also gives rise to the normalization of literary types. Social conflicts appear in the work reflected in the souls of the heroes.

The division of characters into positive and negative in classic aesthetics is natural. There should be no intermediate types, since art is charged with the task of correcting vices and glorifying the virtues of an ideal person. The psychology of the “little man” was outlined by Pushkin in “The Station Agent” (“Belkin’s Tale”) in all the evidence of his social existence. An equally significant aspect of the topic is the analysis of dramatic family relationships.

Pushkin’s concept becomes the source of subsequent literary generalizations, predetermines the plots of Gogol (“The Overcoat”), Dostoevsky (Poor People) and Tolstoy about “unhappy families,” conflict situations where “each family is unhappy in its own way.” The “little man” becomes the dominant type in the “natural school.” L. M. Lotman wrote that “man appeared to the writers of the “natural school” as a cast of a social form that distorts human nature.” The further evolution of the literary type of the “little man” is associated with a shift in emphasis, in the words of M. M. Bakhtin, “from the environment to the person.” Already in his early work “Poor People,” F. M. Dostoevsky focuses on spiritual world hero, although dependence on social circumstances still determines the misfortunes of Makar Devushkin. Dobrolyubov in his article “Downtrodden People” noted: “In Dostoevsky’s works we find one common feature, more or less noticeable in everything he wrote: this is pain about a person who admits that he is unable or, finally, does not even have the right to be a person.” a real, complete, independent person, in himself.”

The novel “Poor People” combines two views on the “little man” - Pushkin’s and Gogol’s; Makar Devushkin, after reading both stories, comes to the conclusion that “we are all Samson Vyrins.” This recognition points to a dramatic discovery - the tragedy is predetermined, there is no way to fight circumstances that are insurmountable. Famous phrase Dostoevsky: “We all came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat”” - implies not so much apprenticeship as the continuation and development of the theme of mercy, immeasurable love for a person rejected by society. Akakiy Akakievich's world is confined to the dream of an overcoat, Makar Devushkin's world is caring for Varenka. Dostoevsky represents the type of dreamer who is content with little, and all his actions are dictated by the fear of losing the modest gift of fate. Thematic similarity is found between “Poor People” and the story “White Nights,” the hero of which gives himself a derogatory description: “A dreamer is not a person, but, you know, some kind of creature of the neuter kind. For the most part, he settles somewhere in an inaccessible corner, as if he was hiding in it even from daylight».

Dostoevsky reconsiders the well-known type of romantic hero, who plunges into the world of an ideal dream, despising reality. Dostoevsky's heroes doomedly preach humility in life, which leads them to death. Another twist on the theme of the little man is associated with the writer’s interest in the topic of drunkenness as an allegory of rebellion against public morality. In the novel “Crime and Punishment,” this type of vice is viewed not as a consequence of social evil, but as a manifestation of selfishness and weakness. Oblivion in drunkenness does not save a person who has “nowhere else to go”; it destroys the destinies of loved ones: Sonya Marmeladova is forced to go to the panel, Katerina Ivanovna goes crazy, and, if not for chance, her children would have faced inevitable death. Chekhov does not express compassion for the “little man,” but shows the real “smallness” of his soul. The story “The Death of an Official” examines the problem of the voluntariness of social obligations undertaken by a person. It is resolved in a grotesque manner. Chervyakov dies not as a “humiliated and insulted” person, but as an official who has lost his natural appearance out of fear. Chekhov proved with all his creativity that a person should not conform his potentialities to the limits allowed by society. The spiritual needs of the individual must triumph over vulgarity and insignificance: “A person needs not three arshins of land, but the entire globe.” The isolation of “case life,” the writer insists, is harmful. The story “The Man in a Case” creates a frightening image of Belikov, an apologist for protective morality. His entire behavior is permeated with the fear that “something might not happen.” The writer exaggerates the image of a defender of social morality; a black suit, glasses, galoshes, and an umbrella are expressive details of the image that create an expressive portrait of a frightening social phenomenon. Belikov's death may seem to bring relief to people who fear the zealous guardian of morality, but an optimistic solution to a tragic collision is alien to Chekhov. The writer sadly admits that hopes to correct people who differ from Belikov in their lifestyle, but not in their inner self-awareness, are vain. At the end of the story, a symbolic emphasis is placed to make sure that protective ideas remain alive. The scene of Belikov’s funeral is framed in the image of rain, and everyone present opens their umbrellas; this is read as the inevitability of what the fearful teacher actually stood for.

Type

The concept of "literary type" first appears in Hegel's Aesthetics. In literary theory, “type” and “character” are close, but not interchangeable; “character” to a greater extent reveals the typical personality traits, its psychological properties, and “type” is a generalization of certain social phenomena and is associated with typical traits. For example, Maxim Maksimych is a typical Russian soldier, “just a decent person,” as L.N. Tolstoy said about him, while Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin is a type of “suffering egoist,” the embodiment of “the vices of an entire generation in their full development.”

Concept "typing" includes the process of creating a holistic picture of the world and is the basis of the creative process. Recognizing typification as an internal need and a law of art, writers realize that the typical is not a copy of reality, but an artistic generalization.

In Moliere, Harpagon and Tartuffe are typical characters, but these are not social, but psychological types, illustrating neglect of moral requirements.

If we want to call someone a miser or a hypocrite, we use these proper names as common nouns.

V. G. Belinsky in the article “On the Russian story and the stories of Mr. Gogol” defines typifying features literary hero: “Don’t say: here is a man with a huge soul, with ardent passions, with an extensive mind, but a limited mind, who loves his wife so madly that he is ready to strangle her with his hands at the slightest suspicion of infidelity - say more simply and briefly: here is Othello !.. Don’t say: here is an official who is vile by conviction, malicious with good intentions, criminal in good faith - say: here is Famusov!”

The schematism of classic images is associated with the intentional intention of the authors to use the example of a particular character to illustrate ethical and aesthetic principles. That is why the image, reduced to a theoretical premise, is marked by maximum typicality. However, an image that bears any one dominant feature, while winning in typicality, often loses in artistry.

The aesthetics of classicism are based on the principles of rationalism. Classicists affirm the view of a work of art as a creation that is consciously created, intelligently organized, and logically provable. Having put forward the principle of “imitation of nature,” classicists consider compliance with known rules and restrictions to be an indispensable condition. The goal of art is the artistic transformation of nature, the transformation of nature into a beautiful and ennobled aesthetic reality.

The strict hierarchy of genres of classicism also gives rise to the normalization of literary types. Social conflicts appear in the work reflected in the souls of the heroes. The division of characters into positive and negative in classic aesthetics is natural. There should be no intermediate types, since art is charged with the task of correcting vices and glorifying the virtues of an ideal person.

Playwrights of the era of classicism turn to Aristotle, who argued that tragedy “seeks to depict the best people than existing ones." The heroes of classic plays are forced to struggle with circumstances that, as in the tragedy of antiquity, cannot be prevented. In the classic version of the conflict, the resolution of the tragic situation now depends not on fate, but on the titanic will of the hero, personifying the ideal of the author.

According to the poetics of the genre, the heroes of the tragedy could be mythological characters, monarchs, generals, persons who determined by their will the fate of many people and even an entire nation. It is they who embody the main requirement - to sacrifice selfish interests in the name of the common good. As a rule, the content of character in a tragedy comes down to one essential trait. It determined the moral and psychological appearance of the hero. Thus, in the tragedies of Sumarokov, Kiy ("Khorev"), Mstislav ("Mstislav") are depicted by the playwright only as monarchs who violated their duty to their subjects; Khorev, Truvor, Vysheslav are like heroes who know how to control their feelings and subordinate them to the dictates of duty. Character in classicism is not depicted on its own, but is given in relation to the opposite property. The conflict between duty and feeling, caused by a dramatic combination of circumstances, made the characters of the heroes of the tragedies similar, and sometimes indistinguishable.

In the works of classicism, especially in comedy, the main character trait of the hero is fixed in his behavior and in his name. For example, the image of Pravdin cannot show at least any flaw, and Svinin cannot show the slightest dignity. Vice or virtue take a specific figurative form in Fonvizin’s comedies: the prude Zhekhvat, the braggart Verkholet.

In the literature of sentimentalism, the emphasis is transferred from the environment to the person, to the sphere of his spiritual life. Preference is given to characters in which “sensitivity” predominates. Sentimentality, according to G. Pospelov’s definition, “is a more complex state, caused mainly by the ideological understanding of a certain inconsistency in the social characters of people. Sensitivity is a personal psychological phenomenon, sentimentality has a general cognitive meaning.” Sentimentality of experience is the ability to realize the external insignificance of other people’s lives, and sometimes in one’s own own life something intrinsically significant. This feeling requires the hero’s mental reflection (emotional contemplation, the ability of introspection). A striking example of a sentimental character is Werther Goethe. The title of the novel is symptomatic - “The Sorrows of Young Werther.” In Goethe's work, suffering is perceived not as a chain of unfortunate events, but as a spiritual experience that can cleanse the hero's soul and ennoble his feelings. The author did not idealize his hero. At the end of work on the novel, Goethe wrote that he portrayed “a young man immersed in extravagant dreams” who “perishes ... as a result of unhappy passions.”

After a century of “thinking” (as Voltaire called the Age of Enlightenment), authors and readers felt that thought, a logically proven idea does not exhaust the potential of the individual: you can put forward a spectacular idea for improving the world, but this is not enough to correct a vicious world. The era of romanticism is coming. In its content, art reflects the rebellious spirit of man. The romantic theory of genius crystallizes in literature. “Genius and villainy are two incompatible things” - this phrase from Pushkin defines the main types of characters in romanticism. Poets discovered the unusual complexity, depth of the spiritual world of man, the inner infinity of the individual.

Intense interest in strong feelings and secret movements of the soul, in the mysterious side of the universe, gives rise to an exceptionally intense psychologism of images. The craving for the intuitive encourages writers to imagine heroes in extreme situations and to persistently comprehend the hidden sides of nature. The romantic hero lives by imagination, not reality. Special psychological types are emerging: rebels who oppose a high ideal to a triumphant reality; philistines (“simply good people” living surrounded by everyday life and content with their position. Novalis wrote that this type of people “is not capable of rebellion, will never escape from the kingdom of vulgarity”); villains who tempt man with omnipotence and omniscience; musicians (gifted people capable of penetrating the world of ideas). Many Romantic heroes become literary myths, symbolizing the thirst for knowledge (Faust), uncompromising devotion (Quasimodo) or absolute evil (Cain). In romanticism, as in sentimentalism, the extra-class value of a person is decisive in assessing the character of a literary hero. That is why the authors deliberately weaken the fact of a person’s dependence on circumstances caused by social conflicts. The lack of motivation of character is explained by its predetermination and self-sufficiency. “One but fiery passion” guides the actions of the heroes.

At the center of romantic aesthetics is a creative subject, a genius who rethinks reality, or a villain who is convinced of the infallibility of his vision of reality. Romanticism professes the cult of individualism, emphasizing not the universal, but the exclusive.

The basis of the literary characterology of realism is the social type. The psychological discoveries of romanticism are supported in realism by a broad social and historical analysis and ideological motivation for the hero’s behavior. The character, as a rule, is determined by circumstances and environment.

In Russian realistic literature, types of literary heroes emerge that have common characterological features, their behavior is determined by similar circumstances, and the disclosure of the image in the text is based on traditional plot collisions and motives. The most striking were the “extra man,” “little man,” and “simple man.”

The literary type of the “superfluous man” arose as a rethinking of the phenomenon of the chosenness of the romantic hero. The name of the type came into general use after I. S. Turgenev wrote the story “The Diary of an Extra Man.” Previously, the concept of “strange person” existed in literature. This was how the character of a hero who was capable of abandoning the “norms of social life” was determined. Lermontov gives this name to one of his dramas. Interest in the “history of the human soul” in the works of A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, A. I. Herzen, I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov determined the specific characterology of the “superfluous man” type. This is an extraordinary personality, which is reflected in both his appearance and actions; the character tragically realizes the unrealization of his own strengths, deception by fate and unwillingness to change anything. The lack of specific goals causes the hero to flee from circumstances that require decisive action.

Question: “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born?” remains open. A hero of this type is characterized by a contemptuous attitude towards the world, which is explained by knowledge of human weaknesses. Feeling moral superiority and deep skepticism characterizes the egocentric personality (“we regard everyone as zeros, and ourselves as ones”), in which rich intellectual abilities and aversion to “hard work” are contradictorily combined. Reflection, constant dissatisfaction with oneself and the world, loneliness are explained by the hero’s refusal of sincere friendship, reluctance to lose “hateful freedom”; the desire to share your spiritual experience with someone collides with the conviction that “it is impossible to love forever - for a while it is not worth the effort.” The sad result: spiritual or physical death, not heroic, but senseless death.

The evolution of the image of the “superfluous man” reveals the futility of this literary type, which was already noted by critics of the mid-19th century. D.I. Pisarev talks about Onegin’s doom. I. A. Goncharov writes about the weakness of the natures of Pechorin and Onegin. A.V. Druzhinin points to the gradual transformation of the “superfluous person” into the “hospital type”. New “heroes of the century” are emerging, capable of overcoming the weaknesses of their predecessors. The inconsistency of “superfluous people” was shown by Turgenev (Rudin and Lavretsky), Goncharov (Oblomov and Raisky), Chekhov (Laevsky and Ivanov).

The concept of “little man” appears in literature before the type of hero itself takes shape. He was born in the era of sentimentalism. At first, this concept designated representatives of the third estate, who began to interest writers due to the democratization of literature. Many “turned over” stories appeared, where the main character acted as a rogue or a victim. G. I. Chulkov's story "The Pretty Cook" based on Russian material represents the plot of D. Defoe's novel "Mole Flanders", and the adventures of the adventurer attract the reader no less than Sumarokov's tragedies. Gradually, the rogue heroes are replaced by the suffering heroes of sentimentalism.

N. M. Karamzin in “Poor Liza” embodied the main thesis of sentimentalism about the extra-class value of a person - “even peasant women know how to love.” The classical scheme, which extremely expressively reveals the character of the “little man” in the works of sentimentalism, is practically unchanged: the idyllic pictures of the life of “natural people” are disrupted by the invasion of representatives of a vicious civilization.

A new impetus will be given to this topic by realistic literature. “Belkin’s Tales” by Pushkin, “The Overcoat” by Gogol, “Poor People” by Dostoevsky, Chekhov’s stories will present the type of “little man” in a multifaceted way, artistically formulate the characterological features of the literary type: ordinary appearance, age from thirty to fifty years; limited existential possibilities; the wretchedness of material existence; the hero’s conflict with a high-ranking official or offender; the collapse of a lifelong dream; spontaneous rebellion of the character; tragic outcome.

Of course, the discovery of the “little man” type belongs to Pushkin. M. M. Bakhtin noted that Belinsky “overlooked” Samson Vyrin and did not make him the main source of the “little man” theme. The explanation for this may be the successful resolution of the conflict. Dunya is happy, despite the logic of social relations. Samson Vyrin assumed that his daughter would have to take revenge on the streets, but she quite happily married Minsky. Pushkin deliberately moves away from depicting the social arguments of the tragedy of the unfortunate official and creates a utopian picture of relations between representatives of different social strata, which is not devoid of sentimentality. Be that as it may, the psychology of the “little man” was outlined by Pushkin in all the evidence of his social existence. An equally significant aspect of the topic is the analysis of dramatic family relationships. Pushkin's concept becomes the source of subsequent literary generalizations, predetermines the stories of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy about “unhappy families”, conflict situations where “each family is unhappy in its own way.”

The "little man" becomes the dominant type in the "natural school". L. M. Lotman wrote that “man appeared to the writers of the “natural school” as a cast of a social form that distorts human nature.”

The further evolution of the literary type of the “little man” is associated with a shift in emphasis, according to M. M. Bakhtin, “from Wednesday per person.” Already in the early work “Poor People,” F. M. Dostoevsky focuses his main attention on the spiritual world of the hero, although dependence on social circumstances still determines the misfortunes of Makar Devushkin. Dobrolyubov, in his article “Downtrodden People,” noted: “In Dostoevsky’s works we find one common feature, more or less noticeable in everything he wrote: this is pain about a person who recognizes himself as unable or, finally, not even entitled to be a human being.” a real, complete, independent person, in himself."

The novel "Poor People" combines two views on the "little man" - Pushkin's and Gogol's; Makar Devushkin, after reading both stories, comes to the conclusion that “we are all Samson Vyrins.” This recognition points to a dramatic discovery - the tragedy is predetermined, there is no way to fight circumstances that are insurmountable. Dostoevsky’s famous phrase: “We all came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat”” - implies not so much apprenticeship as the continuation and development of the theme of mercy, immeasurable love for a person rejected by society.

The world of Akakiy Akakievich is confined to the dream of an overcoat, the world of Makar Devushkin is caring for Varenka. Dostoevsky represents a type of dreamer who is content with little, and all his actions are dictated by the fear of losing the modest gift of fate. Thematic similarity is found between “Poor People” and the story “White Nights”, the hero of which gives himself a derogatory description: “A dreamer is not a person, but, you know, some kind of creature of the neuter kind. He mostly settles somewhere in an inaccessible corner, as if hidden in it even from daylight." Dostoevsky reconsiders the well-known type of romantic hero, who plunges into the world of an ideal dream, despising reality. Dostoevsky's heroes doomedly preach humility in life, which leads them to death.

Another twist on the theme of the little man is associated with the writer’s interest in the topic of drunkenness as an allegory of rebellion against public morality. In the novel "Crime and Punishment" this type of vice is viewed not as a consequence of social evil, but as a manifestation of selfishness and weakness. Oblivion in drunkenness does not save a person who has “nowhere else to go”; it destroys the destinies of loved ones: Sonya Marmeladova is forced to go to the panel, Katerina Ivanovna goes crazy, and, if not for chance, her children would have faced inevitable death.

Chekhov does not express compassion for the “little man,” but shows the real “smallness” of his soul. The story “The Death of an Official” examines the problem of the voluntariness of social obligations undertaken by a person. It is resolved in a grotesque manner. Chervyakov dies not as a “humiliated and insulted” person, but as an official who, out of fear, has lost his natural character.

Chekhov proved with all his creativity that a person should not conform his potentialities to the limits allowed by society. The spiritual needs of the individual must triumph over vulgarity and insignificance: “A person needs not three arshins of land, but the entire globe.” The isolation of “case life,” the writer insists, is harmful.

In the story "The Man in a Case" a frightening image of Belikov, an apologist for protective morality, is created. His entire behavior is permeated with the fear that “something might not happen.” The writer exaggerates the image of a defender of social morality; a black suit, glasses, galoshes, and an umbrella are expressive details of the image that create an expressive portrait of a frightening social phenomenon. Belikov's death may seem to bring relief to people who fear the zealous guardian of morality, but an optimistic solution to a tragic collision is alien to Chekhov. The writer sadly admits that hopes to correct people who differ from Belikov in their lifestyle, but not in their inner self-awareness, are vain. At the end of the story, a symbolic emphasis is placed to make sure that protective ideas remain alive. The scene of Belikov’s funeral is framed in the image of rain, and everyone present opens their umbrellas; this is read as the inevitability of what the fearful teacher actually stood for.

F. Sologub, M. Bulgakov will present in their satirical works the already terrifying type of “petty demon”, where “triumphant vulgarity” will be brought to the level of an image-symbol.

In modern literary criticism, along with traditional social literary types of realism, attention is paid to psychological types that are not carriers of any ideology, but are important for characterizing the depicted era.

The source of the “common man” type was sentimentalism with its concept of the extra-class value of a person. In romantic literature, the “simple man” personifies “immaculate nature.” The Circassian woman in Pushkin ("Prisoner of the Caucasus"), the Georgian woman in Lermontov ("Mtsyri") embody the ideas of harmony of the world and man, which the rebellious hero lost in his soul. In realistic literature, the image of a “common man” reflects the idea of ​​an ordered life based on the laws of patriarchal existence.

N. Strakhov called Pushkin's story "The Captain's Daughter" a family chronicle. Pushkin does not idealize “simple Russian families” who keep “the habits of deep antiquity.” The author also shows the serf character traits of Andrei Petrovich Grinev, and does not hide the cruelty of Captain Mironov, who is ready to torture the Bashkir. But the author’s focus is completely different: in the world of the Grinevs and Mironovs, he finds, first of all, what Gogol clearly outlined when speaking about “The Captain’s Daughter”: “The simple greatness of ordinary people.” These people are attentive to each other, live according to their conscience, and are true to their sense of duty. They do not crave majestic achievements or personal glory, but are able to act decisively and boldly in extreme circumstances. These Pushkin characters are attractive and strong because they live in a world of domestic traditions and customs, which are basically folk.

From this series of Pushkin's heroes threads stretch to a great variety of characters in subsequent Russian literature. These are Lermontov's Maxim Maksimych, Gogol's old-world landowners, L.N. Tolstoy's Rostovs, Leskov's "righteous people". This type of literary hero is called differently in literary criticism. Since it is impossible to identify clear social criteria, this is rather a psychological type: these images are not carriers of the main idea of ​​the text, the author’s full attention is not focused on them. An exception is Gogol's story "Old World Landowners". V. E. Khalizev calls characters of this kind “supertypes.” Similar images, according to the researcher, were present in different artistic aesthetics. V. E. Khalizev calls a complex of stable qualities: “This is, first of all, a person’s rootedness in close reality with its joys and sorrows, with communication skills and everyday affairs. Life appears as the maintenance of a certain order and harmony - both in the soul of this particular person, and Around him".

A. Grigoriev called such heroes “humble” and contrasted them with “predatory”, “proud and passionate” characters. Then the concepts of “ordinary person” and “eccentric” appear. M. Bakhtin classified them as “social and everyday heroes”, not endowed with ideological implications. The type of “common man” cannot exhaust its possibilities, since it is a reflection of the world of an ordinary person, but it will constantly transform depending on the priorities of aesthetic theories. Thus, in the literature of existentialism this main image was the artist’s challenge to the inhuman world. The heroes of Camus, Kafka, Sartre lose their names, merging with the crowd of indifferent people, becoming “strangers” to others and to themselves.

Type (from the Greek typos - imprint, model, sample). At the beginning of Part 4 of The Idiot, Dostoevsky says that writers try to take “types that are extremely rarely encountered in reality in their entirety, and which are nevertheless almost more real than reality itself.” Types, according to Dostoevsky, “scurry and run in front of us every day, but as if in a somewhat liquefied state,” “the typicality of faces is, as it were, diluted with water.”

The word type produces adjectives that are directly opposite in meaning. Everyone is familiar, for example, with typical, that is, standard, construction. Most often, “typical” is impersonal. On the contrary, typical, typical means the manifestation of the general in the individual, in the characteristic, in the particular. People, wrote Dostoevsky, “even before Gogol knew that these friends were like Podkolesin, but they just didn’t know it yet.

that’s what they’re called.” Indeed, this is basically what we notice in life. for which we know names: those who do not know what a frieze or architrave is in a building almost does not see them. perceives the building only as a whole, in general, without specific features. The artist’s task is to see and name, define life phenomena - to give them certainty, to show the general in the individual. Tatyana Larina is uniquely individual, but it is precisely because of this that she expresses the typically Russian national character of a certain time (at other times, “I was given to another” was interpreted by Belinsky in the spirit of “ women's issue", which did not exist for Pushkin) and serves as a prototype of the classical female characters in Russian literature: both Turgenev’s women and Natasha Rostova. and to some extent the heroines of Dostoevsky and Chekhov. Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin, Oblomov are unique, but in their characters Dobrolyubov discovered the development of one type - a young noble intellectual in an era of gradual loss of the nobility's leading role in society.

Until the 19th century typicality usually turned out to be universal: a specific person embodied, according to writers, the common features of the entire human race. In the realism of modern times, the general character is colored by signs of class, class, social environment and era, but previously this coloring was not at all recognized as significant. From the point of view of typification, it was not so important that Hamlet was a prince, and Lear was a king, and even the king of the ancient Briggs, who did not own either objects of material culture or the concepts of Shakespearean heroes (the high gender was important only in terms of genre: for the hero of the tragedy supposed to be noble). That is why it was later possible to see Lady Macbeth in Mtsensk, Hamlet in Shchigrovsky district, and King Lear in the steppe estate of Oryol region.

“Universalist” characters often revealed extreme forms of typification: either a desire for the “typical” - various rigid roles, or a passion for the exclusivity of the hero with his special beauty, strength, nobility, etc. One did not reject the other, the opposites converged. After all, if the hero was distinguished almost exclusively by nobility (the noble characters of the mannerists and classicists) or, conversely, by only stinginess (philistines) and hypocrisy (monks), then this exceptional, exaggerated trait formed the supposedly “typical” images of ideal lovers , misers and bigots. However, such identification of the “typical” and the individual did not always lead to depersonalizing standardization. In modern French, the miser is called a harpagon - after the personal name of Moliere’s character. Artistic individuality may consist precisely in the absence of human individuality. You can’t confuse Shchedrin’s Brudasty with anyone, his “I’ll ruin him!” and “I will not tolerate it!”, although these two threats exhaust almost all of his personality. This means that here we are dealing with the typical, and not with the “typical” - anti-artistic. For dramatic, satirical, allegorical, fairy-tale and fantasy works, this form of typification is even the most convenient. For example, in plays that should be compact, there is no need for other conventions - long speeches by minor characters that clarify the situation and characters of the main ones; they are already clear without detailed backstories. In satire, a similar typification leads to a sharpening of the image, in allegorical fables and fairy tales it creates an extremely clear conflict: again, there is no need to describe every time a timid person and a strong, evil and treacherous person - everyone knows what the relationship is between a hare and a wolf. So Shchedrin wrote fairy tales not because he was smart, but because censorship was stupid.

The strange, surprising, and illogical can also be typical. In Dead Souls, Chichikov was mistaken for Napoleon in disguise. Fantastic fabrication? No. P. Vyazemsky said that after the war of 1812, a portrait of Napoleon hung at one of the post stations. To the question: “Why are you keeping this scoundrel on the wall? “And then,” the caretaker answers, “so that if he comes to the station under a false name and asks for horses on someone else’s track, he will be detained by the force of the sign...” Russian reality itself was so rich in alogisms and absurdities that the typical the writer could find absurdity literally on the road.

Of course, pre-realistic images, and in the 19th-20th centuries. and modernist literature is in greater danger of losing its typicality. But “universalism” also has big advantage- direct manifestation in the character of the hero of the most important universal human properties, which sometimes leads to the creation of so-called eternal images. In the literature of the 19th-20th centuries, whose great achievement lies in its socio-historical specificity, the individual, taken on his own, outside the problematics of the whole work, embodies the universal only to the extent that it is inherent in a certain social stratum in a certain historical period. Therefore, modern literature does not give rise to such global types that are capable of breaking away from “their” work and existing independently of it, such as Faust and Hamlet. Don Quixote, Don Juan, Baron Munchausen. More precisely, they appear, but on a different scale, in completely different functions - in works of non-historical, “universalist”, in their fundamentals, children's literature (Buratino, Cipollino, Dunno...). Great literature in this regard has moved far from its childhood and adolescence, but any progress, as we know, is accompanied by losses.

The means of creating a typical image are also different. There are many writers’ statements, including Gogol, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Gorky, that for this it is necessary to observe in the lives of many people who are somewhat similar to each other. According to Goncharov, in general only something massive can be typical, and what is actually just emerging is atypical. Turgenev believed otherwise, taking into account the perspective of the development of life phenomena. He always accurately grasped the barely emerging but viable sprouts of the new. Turgenev, Dostoevsky. Leskov often created typical images, starting from one specific prototype. There is a lot of individual and uniqueness in their heroes, which did not give rise to supporters of the typical as a mass character to reproach these writers for the atypicality of their heroes, for deviating from realism. But Chernyshevsky considered the most fruitful typification through deep penetration into the essence of a single bright character. And his predecessor Belinsky recognized both possibilities.

Of course, both methods have a right to exist. However, the second of them is still to some extent based on the first. It’s not for nothing that they argue about Bazarov’s prototypes. This is the doctor Dmitriev, as the writer himself testified, but also Dobrolyubov, and in general the revolutionary democrats known to Turgenev. It is impossible to even select a bright type in life without having a “point of reference,” an initial idea of ​​the typical as widespread or spreading. The writer is a humanist in the sense that, by getting to know a person, he recognizes and in many ways already knows people and society in advance. After all, this is the essence of artistic typification, the recreation of the general in the individual.

The literature of socialist realism began precisely with “anticipated” types. V. Borovsky considered the image of Nilovna atypical, reflecting a then rare phenomenon. Gorky saw the future. “There aren’t enough of you after all!” - Sergeant Kvach says to Sintsov in “Enemies”. “There will be a lot... wait!” - he answers. But many more heroes of Soviet literature of the 1920-30s. They were by no means mass heroes. This is Korchagin: if everyone or the majority in his time had been Korchagins, his personal fate would not have been so heroic and dramatic. In modern literature, “ordinary” people receive great attention, even when it comes to war: the heroes of modern military prose no longer mow down enemies like grass. Works appear about people who could not directly participate in the transformation of social reality and were not at all of interest to writers before, for example, about village old women (V. Astafiev, V. Belov, V. Rasputin). Let us remember the words of A.N. Tolstoy about his reluctance to end “Peter the Great” with the end of Peter’s reign: “I don’t want the people in it to grow old. What am I going to do with them, the old ones?” But Peter died at 53...

Typification is a broader concept than type, typical character. Characters, circumstances, relationships, connections between characters and circumstances are typical. It is sometimes argued that typification also covers plot, artistic expression, genre, etc. If typical characters, and sometimes typical circumstances, were characteristic of “universalist” literature, then the typical connection between them - social determinism - is recreated only by realistic art.

Updated: 2015-10-23

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

.

Useful material on the topic

In the classification, literary types are distinguished within the literary genus. Stand out:

epic literary types

A NOVEL is a large narrative work of art with a complex plot, in the center of which is the fate of an individual.

EPIC - a major work of fiction telling about significant historical events. In ancient times - a narrative poem of heroic content. In the literature of the 19th and 20th centuries, the genre of the epic novel appeared - this is a work in which the formation of the characters of the main characters occurs during their participation in historical events.

A STORY is a work of art that occupies a middle position between a novel and a short story in terms of volume and complexity of the plot. gravitating towards a chronicle plot, reproducing the natural course of life. In ancient times, any narrative work was called a story.

STORY - a work of fiction small size, which is based on an episode, an incident from the life of the hero.

TALE - a work about fictional events and characters, usually involving magical, fantastic forces.

A FABLE (from “bayat” - to tell) is a narrative work in poetic form, small in size, of a moralizing or satirical nature.

lyrical (poem),

ODA (from Greek “song”) is a choral, solemn song.

HYMN (from Greek “praise”) is a solemn song based on programmatic verses.

EPIGRAM (from Greek “inscription”) is a short satirical poem of a mocking nature that arose in the 3rd century BC. e.

ELEGY is a genre of lyrics dedicated to sad thoughts or a lyric poem imbued with sadness. Belinsky called elegy “a song of sad content.” The word "elegy" is translated as "reed flute" or "plaintive song." Elegy arose in Ancient Greece in the 7th century BC e.

MESSAGE - a poetic letter, an appeal to a specific person, a request, a wish, a confession.

SONNET (from the Provençal sonette - “song”) is a poem of 14 lines, which has a certain rhyme system and strict stylistic laws. The sonnet originated in Italy in the 13th century (the creator was the poet Jacopo da Lentini), in England it appeared in the first half of the 16th century (G. Sarri), and in Russia in the 18th century. The main types of sonnet are Italian (from 2 quatrains and 2 tercets) and English (from 3 quatrains and a final couplet).

lyroepic

POEM (from Greek poieio - “I do, I create”) is a large poetic work with a narrative or lyrical plot, usually on a historical or legendary theme.

BALLAD - a plot song with dramatic content, a story in verse.

dramatic

TRAGEDY (from Greek tragos ode - “goat song”) is a dramatic work depicting an intense struggle of strong characters and passions, which usually ends with the death of the hero.

COMEDY (from Greek komos ode - “funny song”) is a dramatic work with a cheerful, funny plot, usually ridiculing social or everyday vices.

DRAMA (“action”) is a literary work in the form of dialogue with a serious plot, depicting an individual in his dramatic relationship with society. Varieties of drama can be tragicomedy or melodrama.

VAUDEVILLE is a genre type of comedy; it is a light comedy with singing verses and dancing.

Farce is a genre variety of comedy; it is a theatrical play of a light, playful nature with external comic effects, designed for rough tastes.

Literary types differ from each other according to various criteria - volume, number of plot lines and characters, content, function. One view in different periods literary history can appear in the form of different genres - for example, a psychological novel, a philosophical novel, a social novel, a picaresque novel, a detective novel. The theoretical division of works into literary types was started by Aristotle in his treatise “Poetics”; the work was continued in modern times by Gotthold Lessing and Nicolas Boileau.

Topic 19. The problem of the literary hero. Character, character, type

I. Dictionaries

Hero and character (plot function) 1) Sierotwiński S. Słownik terminów literackich. “ Hero. One of the central characters in a literary work, active in incidents that are fundamental to the development of the action, focusing attention on himself. Main hero. The literary character most involved in the action, whose fate is in the center of the plot” (S. 47). “The character is literary. A bearer of a constructive role in a work, autonomous and personified in the imagination (this can be a person, but also an animal, plant, landscape, utensil, fantastic creature, concept), involved in the action (hero) or only occasionally indicated (for example, a person, important for characterizing the environment). Taking into account the role of literary characters in the integrity of the work, we can divide them into main (foreground), secondary (secondary) and episodic, and from the point of view of their participation in the development of the plot - into incoming (active) and passive” (S. 200). 2) Wilpert G. von. Character (lat. figura - image)<...>4. anyone speaking in poetry, esp. in epic and drama, a fictitious person, also called a character; however, one should prefer the area of ​​“literary P.” in contrast to natural personalities and from often only outline characters” (S. 298). “ Hero, original embodiment of heroic deeds and virtues, which, thanks to exemplary behavior, evokes admiration, so in heroic poetry, epic, song And saga, repeatedly stemming from the ancient cult of heroes and ancestors. He assumes due to conditions of rank ändeklausel> high social origin. With the bourgeoisification of lit. in 18th century a representative of the social and characteristic turns into a genre role, so today in general the area for the main characters and roles of drama or epic poetry is the center of action without regard to social origin, gender or person. properties; therefore, also for unheroic, passive, problematic, negative G. or - antihero, which in modern lit. (with the exception of trivial literature and socialist realism) replaced the shining G. of early times as a sufferer or victim. - positive G., - protagonist, - negative G., - Antihero “(S. 365 - 366). 3) Dictionary of World Literary Terms / By J. Shipley. “ Hero. The central figure or protagonist in a literary work; a character with whom the reader or listeners sympathize” (p. 144). 4) The Longman Dictionary of Poetic Terms / By J. Myers, M. Simms. “ Hero(from Greek "protector") - originally a male - or female - heroine - whose supernatural abilities and character elevate him - or her - to the level of a god, demigod, or warrior king. The most common modern understanding of the term also implies a high moral character of a person whose courage, exploits and nobility of purpose make him or her uniquely admired. The term is also often incorrectly used as a synonym for the main character in literature” (p. 133). “ Protagonist(from Greek "first lead") in Greek classical drama, the actor who plays the first role. The term has come to mean the main or central character in a literary work, but one who may not be the hero. The protagonist confronts the one with whom he is in conflict, the antagonist” (p. 247). “ Minor hero(deuteragonist) (from Greek "minor character") is a character of secondary importance to the main character (protagonist) in classical Greek drama. Often a minor character is antagonist” (p. 78). 5) Cuddon J.A. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. “ Antihero. The "non-hero", or the antithesis of the old-fashioned hero, was capable of heroic deeds, dashing, strong, brave and resourceful. It is a little doubtful whether such a hero has ever existed in any quantity in fiction, with the exception of some pulp fiction and romance novels. However, there are many literary heroes who exhibit noble qualities and signs of virtue. An antihero is a person who is endowed with a tendency to fail. The antihero is incompetent, unsuccessful, tactless, clumsy, stupid and ridiculous” (p. 46). “ Hero and heroine. The main male and female characters in a literary work. In criticism, these terms do not have connotations of virtue or honor. Negative characters can also be central” (p. 406). 6) Chernyshev A. Character // Dictionary of literary terms. P. 267. “ P. (French personnage, from Latin persona - personality, face) - a character in a drama, novel, story and other works of art. The term "P." more often used in relation to minor characters.” 7) KLE. A) Baryshnikov E.P. Literary hero. T. 4. Stlb. 315-318. “L. G. - the image of a person in literature. The concepts “character” and “character” are often used unambiguously with L.G. Sometimes they are delimited: L. g. are called characters(characters) drawn more multifaceted and more significant for the idea of ​​the work. Sometimes the concept "L. G." refer only to characters close to the author’s ideal of a person (the so-called “positive hero”) or embodying the heroic. beginning (see Heroic in literature). It should be noted, however, that in lit. criticism of these concepts, along with the concepts character, type and image are interchangeable.” “From the point of view. The figurative structure of a literary form combines character as the internal content of the character and his behavior and actions (as something external). Character allows us to consider the actions of the person depicted as natural, going back to some vital reason; he is the content and the law ( motivation) behavior of L. g.” “Detective, adventure novel<...>- an extreme case, when the literary character becomes the main character, an unfilled shell, which merges with the plot, turning into its function.” b) Shopkeeper E.B. Character // T. 5. Stlb. 697-698. “ P. (French personage from Latin persona - face, personality) - in the usual meaning the same as literary hero. In literary studies, the term “P.” used in a narrower, but not always the same sense.<...>Most often, P. is understood as an actor. But here, too, two interpretations differ: 1) a person represented and characterized in action, and not in descriptions; then the concept of P. most of all corresponds to the heroes of drama, the images-roles.<...>2) Any actor, subject of action in general<...>In this interpretation, the protagonist is opposed only to the “pure” subject of experience appearing in the lyrics<...>That's why the term "P."<...>not applicable to the so-called “lyrical hero”: you cannot say “lyrical character”. P. is sometimes understood only as a minor person<...>In this interpretation, the term “P.” correlates with the narrowed meaning of the term “hero” - center. face or one of the center. persons of the work. On this basis, the expression “episodic P.” (and not “episodic hero”!)”. 8) LES. A) Maslovsky V.I. Literary hero. P. 195. “L. G., artist image, one of the designations of the integral existence of a person in the art of words. The term "L. G." has a double meaning. 1) It emphasizes dominance. the position of the character in the work (as main hero compared to character), indicating that the person bears the main problem-thematic load.<...>In some cases, the concept of “L. G." used to designate any character in a work. 2) Under the term “L. G." is understood holistic the image of a person - in the totality of his appearance, way of thinking, behavior and mental world; The term “character”, which is similar in meaning (see. Character), if you take it narrowly and not widen. meaning, denotes internal. psychol. cross-section of personality, her natural properties, in kind.” b) [ B.a.] Character. P. 276. “ P. <...>usually the same as literary hero. In literary studies, the term “P.” used in a narrower, but not always the same sense, which is often revealed only in context.” 9) Ilyin I.P. Character // Modern foreign literary criticism: Encyclopedic Dictionary. pp. 98-99. “ P. - fr. personnage, English character, German person, figur - according to ideas narratology, a complex, multi-component phenomenon located at the intersection of various aspects of the communicative whole that is the artist. work. As a rule, P. has two functions: action and storytelling. Thus, it fulfills either the role actor, or the narrator- narrator”. Character and type (“content” of the character) 1) Sierotwiński S. Słownik terminów literackich. Wroclaw, 1966. “ Character. 1. Literary character, highly individualized, as opposed to type<...>” (S. 51). “ Type. A literary character presented in a significant generalization, in his most outstanding features” (S. 290). 2) Wilpert G. von. Sachwörterbuch der Literatur. “ Character(Greek - imprint), in literary criticism in general, every character , performing in drama. or a narrative work that copies reality or is fictional, but stands out due to its individual characteristics with its personal identity against the backdrop of a bare, vaguely outlined type”(S. 143). 3) Dictionary of World Literary Terms / By J. Shipley. “ Type. A person (in a novel or drama) who is not a complete single image, but demonstrates character traits a certain class of people” (p. 346). 4) The Longman Dictionary of Poetic Terms / By J. Myers, M. Simms. “ Character(from the Greek “to make excellent”) is a person in a literary work whose distinguishing characteristics are easily recognizable (though sometimes quite complex) moral, intellectual and ethical qualities” (p. 44). 5) Blagoy D. Type // Dictionary of literary terms: B 2 vol. T. 2. Column. 951-958. “...in the broad sense of the word, all images and faces of any work of art inevitably have a typical character, are literary types.” “...not all characters in poetic works fit the concept of a literary type in its proper meaning, but only images of heroes and persons with realized artistry, that is, those who have enormous generalizing power...” “...in addition to typical images, we find in literary works there are images-symbols and images-portraits.” “While portrait images carry an excess of individual traits to the detriment of their typical meaning, in symbolic images the breadth of this latter completely dissolves their individual forms.” 6) Dictionary of literary terms. A) Abramovich G. Literary type. pp. 413-414. "T. l.(from the Greek typos - image, imprint, sample) - an artistic image of a certain individual, which embodies the features characteristic of a particular group, class, people, humanity. Both sides that make up the organic unity - the living individuality and the universal significance of literary T. - are equally important...” b) Vladimirova N. The character is literary. pp. 443-444. "X. l.(from the Greek charakter - trait, feature) - an image of a person in a verbal art, determining the originality of the content and form work of art" “A special type of Ch. l. is narrator's image(cm.)". 7) KLE. A) Baryshnikov E.P. Type // T. 7. Stlb. 507-508. “ T. (from the Greek tupoV - sample, imprint) - an image of human individuality, the most possible, typical for a particular society.” “The category T. took shape in the Roman “epic of private life” precisely as a response to the need of the artist. knowledge and classification of the varieties of the common man and his relations to life.” “...class, professional, local circumstances seemed to “complete” the personality of the lit. character<...>and with this “completeness” they questioned its vitality, that is, its ability for unlimited growth and improvement.” b) Tyupa V.I. Literary character // T. 8. Stlb. 215-219. “ X. l. - an image of a person, outlined with a certain completeness and individual certainty, through which they are revealed as conditioned by a given socio-historical. situation type of behavior (actions, thoughts, experiences, speech activity), and the moral and aesthetic nature inherent in the author. human concept. existence. Lit. H. is an artist. integrity, organic unity general, repetitive and individual, unique; objective(nek - paradisesocially - psychological . realityhuman . life , which served as a prototype for lit. X.) and subjective(comprehension and evaluation of the prototype by the author). As a result, lit. X. appears as a “new reality”, artistically “created” by a person, representing a real person. type, clarifies it ideologically.” 8) [ B.a.]. Type // Les. P. 440: “ T. <...>in literature and art - a generalized image of human individuality, the most possible, characteristic of a certain society. environment."

II. Textbooks, teaching aids

1) Farino J. Introduction to literary criticism. Part 1. (4. Literary characters. 4.0. General characteristics). “...by the concept of “character” we will mean any person (including anthropomorphic creatures) who receives in a work the status of an object of description (in a literary text), image (in painting), demonstration (in a drama, performance, film)” . “Not all anthropomorphic creatures or persons appearing in the text of a work are present in it in the same way. Some of them have the status of objects of the world of this work. These are, so to speak, “characters-objects”. Others are given only as images, but the works themselves do not appear in the world. These are “image characters”. And others are just mentioned, but are not displayed in the text either as present objects or even as images. These are the "missing characters". They should be distinguished from references to persons who, according to the convention of a given world, cannot appear in it at all. The “absent” ones are not excluded by the convention, but, on the contrary, are allowed. Therefore, their absence is noticeable and thus - significant” (p. 103).

III. Special studies

Character and type 1) Hegel G.V.F. Aesthetics: In 4 volumes. T. I. “We proceeded from universal substantial forces of action. For their active implementation they need human individuality, in which they act as the driving force pathos. The general content of these forces must close in itself and appear in individual individuals as integrity And singularity. Such integrity is a person in his specific spirituality and subjectivity, an integral human individuality as character. The gods become human pathos, and pathos in concrete activity is human character” (p. 244). “Only such versatility gives the character a lively interest. At the same time, this completeness should appear merged into a single subject, and not be scattered, superficial and simply diverse excitability<...>Epic poetry is most suitable for depicting such an integral character, less dramatic and lyrical” (pp. 246-247). “Such versatility within the framework of a single dominant definiteness may seem inconsistent if you look at it with the eyes of reason<...>But for one who comprehends the rationality of a holistic and therefore living character within himself, this inconsistency precisely constitutes consistency and coherence. For man is distinguished by the fact that he not only bears within himself the contradiction of diversity, but also endures this contradiction and remains equal and true to himself in it” (pp. 248-249). “If a person does not have such single center, then the various aspects of its diverse inner life disintegrate and appear devoid of any meaning.<...>On this side, firmness and determination are important point ideal portrayal of character” (p. 249). 2) Bakhtin M.M. Author and hero in aesthetic activity // Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. “ Character we call this form of interaction between the hero and the author, which carries out the task of creating the whole of the hero as a specific personality<...>the hero is given as a whole from the very beginning<...>everything is perceived as a moment of characterization of the hero, has a characterological function, everything comes down to and serves as an answer to the question: who is he” (p. 151). “Character building can go in two main directions. We will call the first classic character building, the second romantic. For the first type of character building, the basis is artistic value fate...“ (p. 152). “Unlike the classical romantic character, he is self-initiated and value-intensive<...>The value of fate, which presupposes gender and tradition, is unsuitable for artistic completion here.<..>Here the hero’s individuality is revealed not as fate, but as an idea, or, more precisely, as the embodiment of an idea” (pp. 156-157). “If character is established in relation to the latest values ​​of the worldview<...>expresses the cognitive and ethical attitude of a person in the world<...>, then the type is far from the boundaries of the world and expresses a person’s attitude towards values ​​already specified and limited by the era and environment, to benefits, that is, to a meaning that has already become being (in the act of character, meaning for the first time becomes being). Character in the past, type in the present; the character's environment is somewhat symbolized, the objective world around the type is inventory. Type - passive position of the collective personality” (p. 159). “The type is not only sharply intertwined with the world around it (objective environment), but is depicted as conditioned by it in all its moments, the type is a necessary moment of some environment (not a whole, but only a part of the whole).<...>The type presupposes the superiority of the author over the hero and his complete non-involvement in the world of the hero; hence the author is completely critical. The hero’s independence in the type is significantly reduced...” (p. 160). 3) Mikhailov A.V. From the history of character // Man and culture: Individuality in the history of culture. “...character gradually reveals its orientation “inward” and, as soon as this word comes into contact with the “inner” person, it builds this inner from the outside - from the external and superficial. On the contrary, the new European character is built from the inside out: “character” refers to the basis or basis laid down in human nature, the core, as if the generative scheme of all human manifestations, and the differences can only concern whether “character” is the deepest in a person, or in its interior has an even deeper beginning” (p. 54). Hero and aesthetic appreciation 1) Fry N. Anatomy of criticism. Essay first / Trans. A.S. Kozlov and V.T. Oleynik // Foreign aesthetics and theory of literature of the 19th-20th centuries: Treatises, articles, essays / Comp., total. ed. G.K. Kosikova. “The plot of a literary work is always a story about how someone does something. "Someone," if it is a person, is the hero, and the "something" he succeeds or fails to accomplish is determined by what he can or might do, depending on the author's intention and the resulting expectations of the audience.<...>1. If the hero is superior to people and their environment in quality, then he is a deity and the story about him is myth in the usual sense of the word, i.e. a story about God<...>2. If the hero is superior to people and his environment in terms of degrees, then this is a typical hero of a legend. His actions are wonderful, but he himself is portrayed as a man. The hero of these tales is transported to a world where the normal laws of nature are partially suspended<...>Here we move away from myth in the proper sense of the word and enter the realm of legend, fairy tale, Märchen and their literary derivatives. 3. If a hero is superior to other people in degree, but is dependent on the conditions of earthly existence, then this is a leader. He is endowed with power, passion and power of expression, but his actions are still subject to the criticism of society and are subject to the laws of nature. This is a hero high mimetic mode, first of all, a hero of epic and tragedy<...>4. If the hero is not superior to either other people or his own environment, then he is one of us: we treat him as an ordinary person, and demand that the poet observe those laws of verisimilitude that correspond to our own experience. And this is the hero low mimetic mode, first of all - comedy and realistic literature.<...>At this level, it is often difficult for the author to preserve the concept of “hero,” which is used in the above modes in its strict meaning.<...>5. If the hero is below us in strength and intelligence, so that we have the feeling that we are looking down on the spectacle of his lack of freedom, defeats and the absurdity of existence, then the hero belongs ironic mode. This is also true in the case when the reader understands that he himself is or could be in the same position, which, however, he is able to judge from a more independent point of view” (pp. 232-233). 2) Tyupa V.I. Modes of artistry (lecture series outline) // Discourse. Novosibirsk 1998. No. 5/6. pp. 163-173. “The method of such development (artistic integrity. - N.T.) - for example, glorification, satirization, dramatization - and acts as a mode of artistry, an aesthetic analogue of the existential mode of personal existence (the way the “I” is present in the world)” (p. 163). “Heroic<...>represents a certain aesthetic principle of meaning generation, consisting in combining the internal givenness of being (“I”) and its external givenness ( role-playing border that connects and demarcates the personality with the world order). Basically, the heroic character “is not separated from his fate, they are united, fate expresses the extra-personal side of the individual, and his actions only reveal the content of fate” (A.Ya. Gurevich)” (p. 164). “ Satire is the aesthetic mastery of the incompleteness of the personal presence of the “I” in the world order, that is, such a discrepancy between the personality and its role in which the internal reality of individual life turns out to be narrower than the external given and is unable to fill one or another role boundary” (p. 165). “ Tragedy- a transformation of heroic artistry that is diametrically opposed to satire<...>A tragic situation is a situation of excessive “freedom of the “I” within oneself” (Hegel’s definition of personality) regarding one’s role in the world order (fate): an excessively “broad man”<...>The tragic guilt, contrasting with the satirical guilt of imposture, lies not in the act itself, which is subjectively justified, but in its personality, in the unquenchable thirst to remain oneself” (p. 167). “The considered modes of artistry<...>united in their pathetic attitude towards the world order. Fundamentally different aesthetic nature, unpathetic comic, whose penetration into high literature (from the era of sentimentalism) brought “a new mode of relationships between man and man” (Bakhtin), formed on the basis of carnival laughter.” “The laughter attitude brings a person subjective freedom from the bonds of objectivity<...>and, taking living individuality beyond the limits of the world order, establishes “free familiar contact between all people” (Bakhtin)<...>" “The comic gap between the inner and outer sides of the self-in-the-world, between the face and the mask<...>can lead to the discovery of true individuality<...>In such cases we usually talk about humor, making eccentricity (personal uniqueness of self-manifestations) a meaning-generating model of the presence of “I” in the world.<...>However, comic effects can also be revealed by the absence of a face under the mask, where there may be an “organ”, “stuffed brains”<...>This kind of comedy can appropriately be called sarcasm <...>Here the masquerade of life turns out to be a lie not of an imaginary role in the world order, but of an imaginary personality” (pp. 168-169). Hero and text 1) Ginzburg L. About a literary hero. (Chapter three. The structure of a literary hero). “A literary character is, in essence, a series of successive appearances of one person within a given text. Throughout one text, the hero can appear in a variety of forms.<...>The mechanism of gradual increase in these manifestations is especially obvious in large novels with a large number of characters. A character disappears, gives way to others, only to reappear a few pages later and add another link to the growing unity. Repeating, more or less stable features form the properties of a character. It appears as one-quality or multi-quality, with qualities unidirectional or multidirectional” (p. 89). “The hero’s behavior and his characterological characteristics are interconnected. Behavior is a reversal of its inherent properties, and properties are stereotypes of behavioral processes. Moreover, a character’s behavior is not only actions, but also any participation in the plot movement, involvement in ongoing events, and even any change in mental states. The properties of a character are reported by the author or narrator; they arise from his self-characterization or from the judgments of other characters. At the same time, the reader himself is left to determine these properties - an act similar to the everyday stereotyping of the behavior of our acquaintances, which we carry out every minute. An act that is similar and at the same time different, because the literary hero is given to us by someone else’s creative will - as a task with a predicted solution” (pp. 89-90). “The unity of a literary hero is not a sum, but a system, with its dominants organizing it.<...>It is impossible, for example, to understand and perceive in its structural unity the behavior of Zola’s heroes without the mechanism of biological continuity or Dostoevsky’s heroes without the prerequisite of the need for a personal solution to the moral and philosophical question of life” (p. 90). 2) Bart R. S/Z / Per. G.K. Kosikov and V.P. Murat. “At the moment when identical semes, having permeated the proper name several times in a row, are finally assigned to it, - at that moment a character is born. The character, then, is nothing more than a product of combinatorics; Moreover, the resulting combination is distinguished by both relative stability (for it is formed by repeating semes) and relative complexity (for these semes are partly consistent and partly contradict each other). This complexity precisely leads to the emergence of a character’s “personality,” which has the same combinatorial nature as the taste of a dish or a bouquet of wine. A proper name is a kind of field in which magnetization occurs; virtually such a name is correlated with a specific body, thereby involving this configuration of semes in the evolutionary (biographical) movement of time” (p. 82). “If we start from a realistic view of character, believing that Sarrazin (the hero of Balzac's novella. - N.T.) lives outside of a piece of paper, then we should start looking for the motives for this suspension (the hero’s inspiration, unconscious rejection of the truth, etc.). If we proceed from a realistic view of discourse, considering the plot as a mechanism whose spring must completely unfold, then we should recognize that the iron law of the narrative, which presupposes its non-stop unfolding, requires that the word “castrato” not be uttered. Although both of these views are based on different and in principle independent (even opposite) laws of likelihood, they still reinforce each other; as a result, a general phrase arises in which fragments of two different languages ​​are unexpectedly combined: Sarrazine is intoxicated, because the movement of the discourse should not be interrupted, and the discourse, in turn, gets the opportunity to develop further because the intoxicated Sarrazine does not hear anything, but only speaks himself . Two chains of patterns turn out to be “unsolvable.” Good narrative writing represents precisely this kind of embodied undecidability” (pp. 198-199).

QUESTIONS

1. Consider and compare various definitions of the concepts “character” and “hero” in reference and educational literature. What criteria are used to usually distinguish a hero from other characters in a work? Why are “character” and “type” usually opposed to each other? 2. Compare the definitions of the concept of “character” in reference literature and in Hegel’s “Lectures on Aesthetics.” Point out the similarities and differences. 3. How does Bakhtin’s interpretation of character differ from Hegel’s? Which of them is closer to the definition of the concept given by A.V. Mikhailov? 4. How does Bakhtin’s interpretation of type differ from the one we find in reference literature? 5. Compare the solutions to the problem of classifying the aesthetic “modes” of the hero in N. Frei and V.I. Tyups. 6. Compare the judgments about the nature of a literary character expressed by L.Ya. Ginzburg and Roland Barthes. Point out the similarities and differences.