Amazing thing - a classic! Re-reading the works of masters of words at a new stage of your life, you never cease to be amazed at what is rediscovered in the process of reading. An example would be Chekhov's stories. They make it possible to evaluate the current time, the criteria that determine vital interests, actions, when material assets take precedence over spirituality when a person does not even spare himself for the sake of profit. The story “Ionych” is especially interesting in this regard. It was written in the 90s of the 19th century. In this decade, motifs of movement and change are increasingly heard in Chekhov’s work.
Chekhov's heroes are tested by their involvement in life, by their ability to hear time, to understand the issues of time, and are determined by the quality of their dreams and the ways of realizing them. But these are all problems of our time. Therefore, approaches to studying the story “Ionych” and understanding the essence of the main character may be different. If we evaluate each work of art from the standpoint of the unity of content and form, then, speaking about the content, we can set the following goal: to trace how a person climbs the steps up the stairs material well-being, slides even faster down to moral devastation; trace how his attitude towards people changes; see pictures of the fall of man, so as not to repeat his mistakes.
The events are recounted in chronological sequence, they are separated by insignificant periods of time, but during these small periods of time big changes occur in the life and appearance of the hero. The plot develops all the faster because the background (the city of S. and the Turkin family), on which the action unfolds, remains completely motionless from beginning to end. Time goes by, and life in the Turkins’ house stands as if enchanted, as if time is passing them by.
Already in the first chapter, the author’s remark about the main character is alarming, that he succumbs to the general hobby, appreciating the skill of Kotik. It seems that nothing yet portends a collapse, but this word involuntarily attracts attention, like the author’s other remarks: he did not yet have his own horses; “When I had not yet drunk tears from the cup of existence...” (lines from the romance). There will be horses, and a troika with bells, and a coachman in a velvet vest, and there will be tears. But that comes later. In the meantime, he is young, healthy, he has interesting work, a noble goal is to help the suffering, to serve the people. He is full of hope, expectation of happiness, and does not feel tired. This is what is called the scent of youth. Although the epigraph for the entire narrative is best suited to be the words of Ionych himself: “How are we doing here? No way. We get old, we get fatter, we get worse.”
The hero will say them a little later, when he has not yet lost the ability to give an honest assessment of his actions. In Chekhov's stories there are often interesting characteristics life: sleepy, short, wingless, colorless. It seems that they all accurately express the process that took place with the young doctor. If in the first chapter, which can be called an exposition, only a hint is given, then in the second he is already a victim, although death is still far away. The scene of the failed date in the cemetery makes it clear that the illusion is over. “I’m tired,” he says, and the reader becomes sad, offended and sorry for Startsev, who just recently returned home smiling. We don’t want to forgive him either his prudence or his solidity, and it becomes a shame that he has lost his former freshness and spontaneity.
Chapter 3 is new and turning point in the life of a doctor: the beginning of the decline of his youth and emerging commercialism, when he thinks not about his beloved, but about the dowry, when he betrays his youthful dream and the idea inherent in his profession (“Besides, if you marry her,< … >then her relatives will force you to quit your zemstvo service and live in the city... Well, then? In the city, so in the city"). The author also draws attention to how Startsev was dressed (“Dressed in someone else’s tailcoat and a stiff white tie, which somehow kept puffing up and wanted to slide off his collar, he was sitting in a club at midnight...”), The author does not spare Startsev because that he no longer loves his hero, who has entered a new phase of his life. His words about love, spoken to Kotik, did not at all agree with the thoughts about the dowry that were spinning in his head when he paid a visit to the Turkins to propose.
Startsev suffered after Kotik’s refusal for only three days: “His heart stopped beating restlessly and, apparently, forever.” The next four years (four in total!) brought Startsev a lot of practice, three horses with bells. He does not walk among people, but rides past them. In Panteleimon, as in a mirror, Startsev is vaguely reflected: the more (Panteleimon) grew in width, the sadder he sighed - wasn’t the same thing happening with Startsev?
Only Startsev was silent, did not sigh or complain - there was no one to complain to, and there was even no one to simply talk to. When visiting, “Startsev avoided conversation, but only had a snack and played screw, and when he found him in some house family holiday and he was invited to eat, he sat down and ate in silence, looking at the plate; and everything that was said at that time was uninteresting, unfair, stupid. He felt irritated and worried, but remained silent.”
What are his new entertainments, if he avoided the theater and concerts? The most powerful pastime, besides cards, was one that he got involved in unnoticed: in the evenings he took out pieces of paper from his pockets, obtained through practice. Seven lines - and what a picture of the moral decline of man! And what is the smell of money! There is grief, and suffering, and tears, and anxiety, and hope, and death. He saves money, not experiences in life. He doesn't read the pages human destinies, he counts them. This is complete alienation from people. And it's scary. What is still left of the old Startsev?
Of course, it is his intelligence that sets him apart from the common people; convictions remained, but he buried them in the depths of his soul; hard work remained, but it was now stimulated not by noble aspirations, but by the interests of profit, which he himself speaks of as follows: “Profit in the day, club in the evening.” The treatment of rural patients became secondary; here he received them in a hurry, and most importantly - urban patients who paid in cash. There was energy left, but it turned into vanity in pursuit of profit (he left every morning and returned home late at night). The ability to enjoy remains. But with what? In his youth - by nature, conversations with Kitty, love for her, later - by comforts, and now by vices: playing cards and acquisitiveness.
Does Startsev understand what is happening to him? Does he give an account of his actions? Perhaps yes. When Kotik, returning from Moscow, began to say that she was a failure, that she lived in illusions, and he had a real job, a noble goal in life, that she remembered how he loved to talk about his hospital, that it was happiness to be a zemstvo doctor, to help to the sufferers, to serve the people, he remembered the pieces of paper that he took out of his pockets with such pleasure in the evenings, and the light in his soul went out. Now definitely forever.
IN last chapter the author shows us how much Startsev has changed not only externally, but also internally. He has lost all respect for people, he is unceremonious when he walks around a house scheduled for auction, when he shouts at patients and hits the floor with a stick. Tenth-graders understand well why he bought two houses and is looking at a third.
But not everyone can answer the question of whether the work of a doctor and commerce in the form shown through Ionych are compatible, since today’s children do not see the disadvantages in such a union. And Chekhov, back in the 90s of the 19th century, made us think about an active civic position, about a person’s responsibility for his work, profession, place in life and society. Gorky understood this well and wrote to Chekhov: “You are doing a great job with your little stories - arousing in people disgust for this sleepy, half-dead life...” The story “Ionych” is relevant in all respects. The work of a doctor and profit are incompatible concepts.
This should be so, although our life today provides many counter-examples. Hence the indifference that reaches the point of callousness, callousness to the point of cruelty, rudeness to the point of rudeness. In the era of current changes, you can see everything, and the teacher’s task is to ensure that students understand and appreciate not only the hero, not only his principles, but also relate them to what is encountered in life more and more often.
But when understanding the story “Ionych”, you can think about another aspect related to its artistic originality, basing the conversation on the study of time. The category of time can even be singled out as the main one. If the student understands the movement of time, then he will also understand everything that happens to Startsev.
So, the time used in the story is 10 years. On the surface one can clearly see a seemingly progressive movement: young hero - maturity - old age. And deep down there is a reverse movement: from living reactions to mortification, the loss of normal human feelings.
And the title foreshadows the ending. The story is narrated in chapter V, the last, in the present tense, and in chapters
I-IV - in the past. This compositional structure is also interesting, since it is in Chapter V that the temporal center of the narrative is located. Here the author's attitude towards the hero is most clearly expressed. IN chapters I-IV- an excursion into the past, where the situation of life is analyzed and
Doctor Startsev’s internal resources, which led him to Ionych.
Words are constantly repeated in the story: more, already, before, now, situations, actions, movements and thoughts are repeated. For example, time leaves its mark on appearance Vera Iosifovna; Ivan Petrovich does not change at all, he is frozen both physically and spiritually. Kotik’s relationship with time turned out to be more complex: both her appearance and her inner world are changing, and a reassessment of values has occurred. She was able to understand her ordinariness, but her attitude towards Startsev was the same: what was desired was taken as reality.
Why is the main character subjected to the greatest test of time? Startsev does not stand the test of time, does not
withstands tests of resistance to the case environment, although he believes that he is not like the inhabitants (chapter IV: “Startsev visited different houses and met many people, but did not get close to anyone. The inhabitants were annoying with their conversations, views on life, and even their appearance him." And at the end of Chapter IV - about the Turkins family: "All this irritated Startsev. Sitting in the carriage and looking at the dark house and garden, which were so dear and dear to him once, he remembered everything at once - and Vera’s novels. Iosifovna, and the noisy play of Kotik, and the wit of Ivan Petrovich, and the tragic poses of Pava, and I thought that if the most talented people the whole city is so mediocre, then what should the city be like).
Did he have the right to such an opinion in Chapter 1? Yes. In Chapter 1, the author’s attitude to what is happening coincides with Startsev’s attitude. He does not feel intoxicated in relation to the Turkins. He has his own ideals and dreams. But in Chapter IV, Startsev loses this right; he only distinguishes himself by inertia. He sees no change in himself. He freezes in time, just like Ivan Petrovich’s puns. It is during this period of life that Startsev undergoes the test of love. Of the entire stream of time allotted for Startsev’s life (10 years), the author singles out two days, pages from chapters 2-3, where he talks about the hero’s love.
It was on these two days that those qualities of nature manifested themselves that could have taken him out from among ordinary people, and those that could not resist (“I haven’t seen you for a whole week,< … >and if you only knew what suffering this is!< … >I haven't heard from you for so long."). I crave, I long for your voice.” “She delighted him with her freshness, the naive expression of her eyes and cheeks... she seemed very smart to him... With her he could talk about literature, about art, about anything...” And in the same chapter a little further: “... Is it becoming for him, a zemstvo doctor, an intelligent, respectable man, to sigh... to do stupid things...
Where will this novel lead? What will your comrades say when they find out? When a person starts asking such questions, it means that something in the relationship is not as it should be if it is love. And the ending of Chapter 2 is not surprising: “I’m tired... Oh, I shouldn’t get fat!” The chapter is not long, but how succinctly it is said about the changes in Doctor Startsev, about the emerging contradictions. In chapters 2-3 the author carefully examines climax, associated with the love of the hero, because for Chekhov's heroes It is love that often becomes a test of strength, of the title of personality. Love is a way out into the world, since in love a person becomes more attentive to life in general. So the lover Startsev begins to worry about philosophical questions and the state of his soul. He not only opens the world, but he himself is accessible to the world. But the light goes out.
5 / 5. 1
Characteristics of the hero
When you read later stories A.P. Chekhov, you involuntarily pay attention to the fact that they are permeated with some kind of sadness, but in them lives a dream of unattainable harmony, sharply contrasting with a wretched and awkward life. This motif sounds with particular force in the wonderful story “Ionych”.
The plot of this little masterpiece is a sad story of a young zemstvo doctor who turned into a disgusting, evil and selfish creature. How and why does such a metamorphosis happen to the hero? The writer helps to find the answer to this question, as if placing milestones on Startsev’s life path: “more than a year has passed,” “four years have passed,” “several more years have passed.” Each period of time is perceived as a kind of milestone, showing the changes that occur in inner world hero. The environment into which this young doctor finds himself is of great importance in the spiritual degradation of Dmitry Startsev.
The beginning of Chekhov's story introduces the reader to a boring and monotonous environment. provincial town S., which, however, was brightened up by its attraction - the Turkin family, which all city residents unanimously considered the most educated and cultured. Indeed, each member of this family has some kind of talent. Ivan Petrovich Turkin tirelessly entertains guests with his jokes and charades. His wife Vera Iosifovna writes novels, which she reads to guests, finding grateful listeners in them. The Turkins' daughter Katerina Ivanovna, according to others, is a talented pianist, so she firmly decides to study at the conservatory in order to achieve fame and glory. The list of talents of this gifted family is certainly impressive, but let us remember how Chekhov describes the Turkin family, showing it in the perception of a new person - Dmitry Ionych Startsev. Somewhat alarming is the phrase that through long exercises in wit, Ivan Petrovich developed his extraordinary language. In my opinion, wit is an innate quality of a person - it cannot be developed. This natural conclusion is immediately confirmed by typical examples of Turkin wit (“I’m sorry, thank you,” “hello, please,” etc.), which, moreover, are repeated a year later, and several years later, just like a phrase from Shakespeare’s “Othello.” , which is pronounced first by a servant boy, and then by a mature, stalwart young man. Everything convinces us that the Turkins, alas, are mediocre. This is evidenced by Vera Iosifovna’s soporific novel and by Kotik’s playing, which struck the keys with such force as if it wanted to drive them deep into the piano. In any case, this is exactly the impression her performance made on Dr. Startsev. But he, along with everyone else, admires Kotik’s talent, speaks approvingly of the mistress of the house’s romance, and laughs at Ivan Petrovich’s jokes. The internal state of a “fresh” person clearly contrasts with the unnatural, posturing “intelligence” of this very cultured family. If the most talented people in the city are so untalented, then what about the rest! Thus, depicting close up the Turkin family, the author thereby characterizes the low educational and cultural level of the urban intelligentsia. It becomes clear into what kind of environment the young, active doctor found himself, who at first differs favorably from the townsfolk with his honesty, hard work, dedication, and desire to do useful, noble work.
For a long time, ordinary people irritated him with their conversations, views on life, and even their appearance. He soon came to the conclusion that with such people one could only play cards, have a snack and talk about the most ordinary everyday things, without touching the spheres of politics or science. The emerging conflict of an intelligent, educated, hardworking person with a wretched philistine environment, however, does not find further development in the story. Perhaps this comes from the fact that Startsev, for the first time in his life, passionately and passionately falls in love with Katerina Ivanovna Turkina. This feeling pushes all other problems into the background, forcing young man idealize this pretty, intelligent girl, fulfill all her whims and caprices. Although common sense tells Startsev that Kotik will not be a good assistant or friend for him, it is she who the hero wants to see as his wife. He has little doubt that his proposal will be accepted, wondering how his life will turn out after marriage. And here, in his dreams and thoughts, somewhat alarming thoughts clearly appear that they will probably give a lot of dowry, that he will have to move from Dyalizh to the city and engage in private practice.
This means that Doctor Startsev, passionate about working in the zemstvo hospital, receiving patients there on Sundays and holidays, in the event of marriage, is ready, without any doubts or regrets, to part with his life’s work. This dangerous symptom suggests that the popular ideas, under the influence of which the young intellectual goes to serve the people, have not become his convictions. Therefore, it cannot be said that Startsev changed his views: he simply did not have them. It is noteworthy that the hero very easily makes compromises and deals with his conscience. He is incapable of even experiencing real suffering. After all, after Kotik’s refusal, Startsev was worried and tormented for exactly three days, and then his life returned to its previous rut. Even memories of a beloved girl are limited to the lazy phrase: “How much trouble, however.”
Thus, Chekhov already here debunks his hero, revealing the amazing indifference and callousness of his soul, in which there is a clear tendency towards complete death. Therefore, in my opinion, there is nothing surprising or unexpected in the subsequent transformation of the hero. Having said goodbye to his only love and dream of noble service to people, Startsev narrows his circle of interests. The only real pleasure he gets is from playing vint and counting his daily wages. During a meeting with Kotik four years later, under the influence of her tenderness, care, and love, a light began to glimmer in Dmitry Ionych’s soul; he felt the need to talk about himself. Sincere bitterness can be heard in his words addressed to Katerina Ivanovna: “How are we doing here? No way. We are getting old, getting fatter, getting worse. Day and night - a day away, life passes dullly, without impressions, without thoughts... Profit during the day, and in the evening a club, a society of gamblers, alcoholics, wheezing people, whom I can’t stand. What’s good?” This means that Startsev understands perfectly well that he is sinking and degrading, but he has neither the desire nor the strength to fight the vulgar philistine environment. He passively obeys her, and a few years later, at the end of the story, we already see a plump, red, shortness of breath man, who unceremoniously throwing open the doors, inspects the house scheduled for sale, although he already has two houses in the city and an estate in Dyalizh. He is completely alone, nothing interests him. Life path hero is completed. His soul was completely deadened, everything had evaporated from it except his progressive possessive interest.
A person, initially opposed to the vulgar philistine environment, becomes its terrible symbol. With this story, the author wanted to say a lot: about the wretched, unspiritual atmosphere that kills high noble impulses in young people, and about those intellectuals who are devoid of will, perseverance, purposefulness, incapable of fighting and defending their life positions. But the main thing, in my opinion, is that Chekhov makes the reader think about what prevents people from living fully, rich life, work creatively, love sincerely and strongly. After all, the writer dreamed of just such a life, of a perfect, harmonious person in whom “everything should be beautiful.” Therefore, Chekhov’s wonderful story remains relevant today, helping us to notice the traits of Ionych in ourselves and those around us and fight them.
Novel by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov “ An ordinary story” was one of the first Russian realistic works telling about everyday life ordinary people. The novel depicts pictures of Russian reality in the 40s of the 19th century, typical circumstances of human life at that time. The novel was published in 1847. It tells about the fate of the young provincial Alexander Aduev, who came to St. Petersburg to visit his uncle. On the pages of the book, an “ordinary story” happens to him - the transformation of a romantic, pure young man into a calculating and cold businessman. But from the very beginning, this story is told from two sides - from the point of view of Alexander himself and from the point of view of his uncle, Pyotr Aduev. From their first conversation it becomes clear how opposite natures these are. Alexander is characterized by a romantic view of the world, love for all humanity, inexperience and a naive belief in “eternal vows” and “pledges of love and friendship.” The cold and alienated world of the capital is strange and unusual for him, where people live together in a relatively small space. huge amount people who are completely indifferent to each other. Even family relations in St. Petersburg are much drier than those to which he was accustomed in his village. Alexander's exaltation makes his uncle laugh. Aduev Sr. constantly, and even with some pleasure, plays the role of a “tub of cold water” when he moderates Alexander’s enthusiasm: he either orders him to cover the walls of his office with poetry, or throws out the “material pledge of love” out the window. Peter Aduev himself is a successful industrialist, a man of a sober, practical mind, who considers any “sentiments” unnecessary. And at the same time, he understands and appreciates beauty, knows a lot about literature, theater arts. He contrasts Alexander’s beliefs with his own, and it turns out that they are not without their truth. Why should he love and respect a person just because this person is his brother or nephew? Why encourage the poetry of a young man who clearly has no talent? Isn't it better to show him another path in time? After all, raising Alexander in his own way, Pyotr Aduev tried to protect him from future disappointments. Three love stories, which Alexander falls into, prove this. Each time, the romantic heat of love in him cools more and more, coming into contact with cruel reality. So, any words, actions, actions of an uncle and nephew are, as it were, in a constant dialogue. The reader compares and compares these characters, because it is impossible to evaluate one without looking at the other. But it also turns out to be impossible to choose which of them is right? It would seem that life itself is helping Pyotr Aduev to prove that he is right to his nephew. After just a few months of living in St. Petersburg, Aduev Jr. has almost nothing left of his beautiful ideals - they are hopelessly broken. Returning to the village, he writes to his aunt, Peter’s wife, bitter letter, where he sums up his experience, his disappointments. This letter mature man, who lost many illusions, but retained his heart and mind. Alexander learns a cruel but useful lesson. But is Pyotr Aduev himself happy? Having rationally organized his life, living according to calculations and firm principles of a cold mind, he tries to subordinate his feelings to this order. Having chosen a lovely young woman as his wife (here is a taste for beauty!), he wants to raise her as a life partner according to his ideal: without “stupid” sensitivity, excessive impulses and unpredictable emotions. But Elizaveta Alexandrovna unexpectedly takes the side of her nephew, sensing a kindred spirit in Alexander. She cannot live without love, all these necessary “excesses”. And when she gets sick, Pyotr Aduev realizes that he can’t help her in any way: she is dear to him, he would give everything, but he has nothing to give. Only love can save her, but Aduev Sr. does not know how to love. And, as if to further prove the dramatic nature of the situation, Alexander Aduev appears in the epilogue - bald and plump. He, somewhat unexpectedly for the reader, has learned all his uncle’s principles and is making a lot of money; he is even going to marry “for the money.” When his uncle reminds him of his past words. Alexander just laughs. At that moment when Aduev Sr. realizes the collapse of his slender life system, Aduev Jr. becomes the embodiment of this system, and not its best version. It was as if they had switched places. The trouble, even the tragedy, of these heroes is that they remained the poles of worldviews, they could not achieve harmony, the balance of those positive principles that were in both of them; they lost faith in high truths, because life and the surrounding reality did not need them. And, unfortunately, this is a common story. The novel made readers think about the acute moral issues posed by Russian life of that time. Why did the process of degeneration of a romantically inclined young man into a bureaucrat and entrepreneur take place? Is it really necessary, having lost illusion, to free ourselves from sincere and noble human feelings? These questions still concern the reader today. I.A. Goncharov gives us answers to all these questions in his wonderful work
Contradictions between the abstractness of the general laws of science (including history) and concrete life ordinary people served as the basis for the search for new approaches in historical knowledge. History reflects the general, abstracting from particulars, paying attention to laws and general development trends. To the common man with his specific circumstances and details of life, with the peculiarities of his perception and experience of the world, there was no place left, he was absent. The individualized daily life of a person, the sphere of his experiences, and the specific historical aspects of his existence fell out of the field of view of historical scientists.
Historians have turned to the study of everyday life as one of the possible ways to resolve the above-mentioned contradiction. The current situation in history also contributes to this.
Modern historical science is undergoing a deep internal transformation, which is manifested in a change in intellectual orientations, research paradigms, and the very language of history. The current situation in historical knowledge is increasingly characterized as postmodern. Having experienced the “offensive of structuralism”, which became the “new scientism” in the 60s, and the “linguistic turn” or “semiotic explosion” in the 80s of the twentieth century, historiography could not help but experience the impact of the postmodern paradigm, which spread its influence to all areas of humanities. The situation of crisis, the peak of which Western historical science experienced in the 70s of the 20th century, domestic science is experiencing today.
The very concept of “historical reality” is being revised, and with it the historian’s own identity, his professional sovereignty, the criteria for the reliability of the source (the boundaries between fact and fiction are blurred), faith in the possibility of historical knowledge and the desire for objective truth. Trying to resolve the crisis, historians are developing new approaches and new ideas, including turning to the category of “everyday life” as one of the options for overcoming the crisis.
Modern historical science has identified ways to approach the understanding of the historical past through its subject and bearer - the person himself. A comprehensive analysis of the material and social forms of a person’s daily existence - his life microcosm, stereotypes of his thinking and behavior - is considered as one of the possible approaches in this regard.
In the late 80s - early 90s of the XX century, following Western and domestic historical science, there was a surge of interest in everyday life. The first works appear that mention everyday life. A series of articles are published in the almanac “Odyssey”, where an attempt is made to theoretically comprehend everyday life. These are articles by G.S. Knabe, A.Ya. Gurevich, G.I. Zverevoy. Interests are also the reasoning of S.V. Obolenskaya in the article “A certain Joseph Schaefer, a soldier of Hitler’s Wehrmacht” about methods of studying the history of everyday life using the example of considering the individual biography of a certain Joseph Schaefer. A successful attempt at a comprehensive description of the everyday life of the population in the Weimar Republic is the work of I.Ya., published in 1990. Bisca. Using an extensive and diverse source base, he quite fully described the daily life of various segments of the population of Germany during the Weimar period: socio-economic life, morals, spiritual atmosphere. He provides convincing data, specific examples, describes food, clothing, living conditions, etc. If in the articles of G.S. Knabe, A.Ya. Gurevich, G.I. Zvereva is given a theoretical understanding of the concept of “everyday life”, then the articles by S.V. Obolenskaya and monograph by I.Ya. Bisca is historical works, where the authors, using specific examples, try to describe and define what “everyday life” is.
The beginning was a turn of attention of domestic historians to the study of everyday life in recent years has decreased because there are not enough sources and serious theoretical understanding of this problem. It should be remembered that one cannot ignore the experience of Western historiography - England, France, Italy and, of course, Germany.
In the 60-70s. XX century interest arose in research related to the study of man, and in this regard, German scientists were the first to begin to study the history of everyday life. The slogan sounded: “From the study of public policy and the analysis of global public structures and processes, let us turn to the small worlds of life, to the everyday life of ordinary people.” The direction “history of everyday life” (Alltagsgeschichte) or “history from below” (Geschichte von unten) arose. What was and is understood by everyday life? How do scientists interpret it?
It makes sense to name the most important German historians of everyday life. A classic in this field, of course, is such a historical sociologist as Norbert Elias with his works “On the Concept of Everyday Life”, “On the Process of Civilization”, “Court Society”; Peter Borscheid and his work “Conversations about the history of everyday life”. I would definitely like to name a historian dealing with issues of modern times - Lutz Neuhammer, who works at the University of Hagen, and very early, already in 1980, in an article in the journal “Historical Didactics” (“Geschichtsdidaktik”), he studied the history of everyday life. This article was called "Notes on the History of Everyday Life". His other work is known " Life experience and collective thinking. Practice "Oral History".
And a historian like Klaus Tenfeld deals with both theoretical and practical issues of the history of everyday life. His theoretical work is called "Difficulties with the Everyday" and is a critical discussion of the everyday historical movement with an excellent list of references. The publication by Klaus Bergmann and Rolf Scherker, “History in Everyday Life - Everyday Life in History,” consists of a number of theoretical works. Also, the problem of everyday life is dealt with both theoretically and practically by Dr. Peukert from Essen, who has published a number of theoretical works. One of them " New story everyday life and historical anthropology". The following works are known: Peter Steinbach “Daily Life and History of the Village”, Jurgen Kokka “Classes or Cultures? Breakthroughs and dead ends in work history", as well as Martine Broszat's comments on the work of Jürgen Kock, and her interesting work on the problems of the history of everyday life in the Third Reich. There is also a general work by J. Kuscinski “The History of Everyday Life of the German People. 16001945" in five volumes.
A work such as “History in Everyday Life - Everyday Life in History” is a collection of works by various authors dedicated to everyday life. Are being considered following problems: everyday life of workers and servants, architecture as a source of the history of everyday life, historical consciousness in the everyday life of modern times, etc.
It is very important to note that a discussion on the problem of the history of everyday life was held in Berlin (October 3-6, 1984), which on the final day was called “History from below - history from the inside.” And under this title, the materials of the discussion were published under the editorship of Jürgen Kock.
Representatives of the Annales school became the spokesmen for the latest needs and trends in historical knowledge at the beginning of the 20th century - Marc Bloch, Lucien Febvre and, of course, Fernand Braudel. "Annals" in the 30s. XX century turned to the study of the working man, the subject of their study becomes the “history of the masses” as opposed to the “history of the stars”, a history visible not “from above”, but “from below”. “Human geography” was developed, history material culture, historical anthropology, social psychology and others that had previously remained in the shadow of the direction of historical research.
Marc Bloch was concerned with the problem of the contradiction between the inevitable schematism of historical knowledge and the living fabric of the real historical process. His activities were aimed at resolving this contradiction. He, in particular, emphasized that the focus of a historian’s attention should be on man, and immediately hastened to correct himself - not man, but people. In Blok’s field of vision there are typical, predominantly mass-like phenomena in which repeatability can be detected.
The comparative typological approach is the most important in historical research, but in history the regular appears through the particular, the individual. Generalization is associated with simplification, straightening, the living fabric of history is much more complex and contradictory, therefore Blok compares the generalized characteristics of a particular historical phenomenon with its variants, shows them in individual manifestations, thereby enriching the study, making it rich in specific variants. Thus, M. Blok writes that the picture of feudalism is not a set of features abstracted from living reality: it is confined to real space and historical time and is based on evidence from numerous sources.
One of Blok’s methodological ideas was that the historian’s research does not begin with the collection of material, as is often imagined, but with the formulation of the problem, with the development of a preliminary list of questions that the researcher wants to ask the sources. Not content with the fact that the society of the past, say the medieval one, decided to communicate about itself through the mouths of chroniclers, philosophers, and theologians, the historian, by analyzing the terminology and vocabulary of surviving written sources, is able to make these monuments say much more. We pose new questions to a foreign culture, which it has not asked itself, we look for answers to these questions in it, and the foreign culture answers us. In a dialogical meeting of cultures, each of them retains its integrity, but they are mutually enriched. Historical knowledge is such a dialogue of cultures.
The study of everyday life involves the search for fundamental structures in history that determine the order of human actions. This search begins with the historians of the Annales school. M. Blok understood that under the cover of phenomena understood by people lie hidden layers of deep social structure, which determines the changes occurring on the surface public life. The task of the historian is to make the past “talk out”, that is, to say what it was not aware of or was not going to say.
Writing a story in which living people act is the motto of Blok and his followers. Collective psychology also attracts their attention because it expresses the socially determined behavior of people. A new issue for historical science at that time was human sensitivity. You cannot pretend to understand people without knowing how they felt. Outbursts of despair and rage, reckless actions, sudden mental breakdowns - cause a lot of difficulties for historians, who are instinctively inclined to reconstruct the past according to the schemes of the mind. M. Blok and L. Febvre saw their “reserved lands” in the history of feelings and ways of thinking and enthusiastically developed these themes.
M. Blok has outlines of the theory of “long time”, subsequently developed by Fernand Braudel. Representatives of the “Annals” school are primarily concerned with long-term time, that is, they study the structures of everyday life that change very slowly over time or actually do not change at all. At the same time, the study of such structures is the main task any historian, since they show the essence of a person’s daily existence, the stereotypes of his thinking and behavior that regulate his daily existence.
The direct thematization of the problem of everyday life in historical knowledge is usually associated with the name of Fernand Braudel. This is quite natural, because the first book of his famous work “Material Economy and Capitalism of the 15th-18th Centuries.” It’s called: “Structures of Everyday Life: Possible and Impossible.” He wrote about how one can experience everyday life: “Material life is people and things, things and people. Studying things - food, housing, clothing, luxury items, tools, money, plans of villages and cities - in a word, everything that serves a person - this is the only way to experience his daily existence." And the conditions of everyday existence, the cultural and historical context against which a person’s life, his history unfolds, have a decisive influence on people’s actions and behavior.
Fernand Braudel wrote about everyday life: “The starting point for me was,” he emphasized, “everyday life - that side of life in which we find ourselves involved without even realizing it - habit, or even routine, these thousands of actions taking place and ending as if by themselves, the implementation of which does not require anyone’s decision and which, in truth, occurs almost without affecting our consciousness. I believe that more than half of humanity is immersed in this kind of everyday life. Countless actions, passed down by inheritance, accumulating without any order. Repeated ad infinitum, before we came into this world, help us live - and at the same time subjugate us, deciding a lot for us during our existence. Here we are dealing with impulses, impulses, stereotypes, techniques and modes of action, as well as various types of obligations that compel action, which sometimes, more often than one might assume, go back to the most immemorial times.
Further, he writes that this ancient past is pouring into modernity and he wanted to see for himself and show others how this past, a barely noticeable history - like a compacted mass of everyday events - over the long centuries of previous history entered the flesh of the people themselves, for whom experience and the errors of the past have become commonplace and a daily necessity, escaping the attention of observers.
The works of Fernand Braudel contain philosophical and historical reflections on the marked routine of material life, on the complex interweaving of various levels of historical reality, on the dialectic of time and space. The reader of his works is faced with three different plans, three levels in which the same reality is grasped in different ways, its substantive and spatio-temporal characteristics change. It's about about fleeting event-political time at the highest level, much longer-term socio-economic processes at a deeper level, and almost timeless natural-geographical processes at the deepest level. Moreover, the distinction between these three levels (in fact, F. Braudel sees several more levels in each of these three) is not an artificial dissection of living reality, but a consideration of it in different refractions.
In the lowest layers of historical reality, as in the depths of the sea, permanence, stable structures dominate, the main elements of which are man, earth, and space. Time passes so slowly here that it seems almost motionless. At the next level - the level of society, civilization, the level that socio-economic history studies, time of average duration operates. Finally, the most superficial layer of history: here events alternate like waves in the sea. They are measured in short chronological units - this is political, diplomatic and similar “event” history.
For F. Braudel, the sphere of his personal interests is the almost motionless history of people in their close relationship with the land on which they walk and which feeds them; the history of a continuously repeating dialogue between man and nature, as persistent as if it were beyond the reach of the damage and blows inflicted by time. Until now, one of the problems of historical knowledge remains the attitude towards the statement that history as a whole can only be understood in comparison with this vast space of almost motionless reality, in identifying long-term processes and phenomena.
So what is everyday life? How can it be determined? Attempts to give an unambiguous definition were unsuccessful: everyday life is used by some scientists as a collective concept for the manifestation of all forms privacy, others understand by this the daily repetitive actions of the so-called “gray everyday life” or the sphere of natural unreflective thinking. German sociologist Norbert Elias noted in 1978 that there is no precise, clear definition of everyday life. The way this concept is used in sociology today includes a very diverse scale of shades, but they still remain unidentified and incomprehensible to us.
N. Elias attempted to define the concept of “everyday life”. He had been interested in this topic for a long time. Sometimes he himself was counted among those who dealt with this problem, since in his two works, “Courtly Society” and “On the Process of Civilization,” he considered issues that could easily be classified as problems of everyday life. But N. Elias himself did not consider himself a specialist in everyday life and decided to clarify this concept when he was invited to write an article on this topic. Norbert Elias has compiled preliminary lists of some of the uses of this concept that appear in the scientific literature.
Composition
Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov’s novel “An Ordinary Story” was one of the first Russian realistic works telling about the everyday life of ordinary people. The novel depicts pictures of Russian reality in the 40s of the 19th century, typical circumstances of human life at that time.
The novel was published in 1847. It tells about the fate of the young provincial Alexander Aduev, who came to St. Petersburg to visit his uncle. On the pages of the book, an “ordinary story” happens to him - the transformation of a romantic, pure young man into a calculating and cold businessman.
But from the very beginning, this story is told from two sides - from the point of view of Alexander himself and from the point of view of his uncle, Pyotr Aduev. From their first conversation it becomes clear how opposite natures these are. Alexander is characterized by a romantic view of the world, love for all humanity, inexperience and a naive belief in “eternal vows” and “pledges of love and friendship.” The cold and alienated world of the capital, where a huge number of people who are absolutely indifferent to each other coexist in a relatively small space, is strange and unusual for him. Even family relations in St. Petersburg are much drier than those to which he was accustomed in his village.
Alexander's exaltation makes his uncle laugh. Aduev Sr. constantly, and even with some pleasure, plays the role of a “tub of cold water” when he moderates Alexander’s enthusiasm: he either orders him to cover the walls of his office with poetry, or throws out the “material pledge of love” out the window. Peter Aduev himself is a successful industrialist, a man of a sober, practical mind, who considers any “sentiments” unnecessary. And at the same time, he understands and appreciates beauty, knows a lot about literature and theatrical art. He contrasts Alexander’s beliefs with his own, and it turns out that they are not without their truth.
Why should he love and respect a person just because this person is his brother or nephew? Why encourage the poetry of a young man who clearly has no talent? Isn't it better to show him another path in time? After all, raising Alexander in his own way, Pyotr Aduev tried to protect him from future disappointments.
The three love stories that Alexander finds himself in prove this. Each time, the romantic heat of love in him cools more and more, coming into contact with cruel reality. So, any words, actions, actions of an uncle and nephew are, as it were, in a constant dialogue. The reader compares and compares these characters, because it is impossible to evaluate one without looking at the other. But it also turns out to be impossible to choose which of them is right?
It would seem that life itself is helping Pyotr Aduev to prove that he is right to his nephew. After just a few months of living in St. Petersburg, Aduev Jr. has almost nothing left of his beautiful ideals - they are hopelessly broken. Returning to the village, he writes a bitter letter to his aunt, Peter’s wife, where he sums up his experience and his disappointments. This is a letter from a mature man who has lost many illusions, but has retained his heart and mind. Alexander learns a cruel but useful lesson.
But is Pyotr Aduev himself happy? Having rationally organized his life, living according to calculations and firm principles of a cold mind, he tries to subordinate his feelings to this order. Having chosen a lovely young woman as his wife (here is a taste for beauty!), he wants to raise her as a life partner according to his ideal: without “stupid” sensitivity, excessive impulses and unpredictable emotions. But Elizaveta Alexandrovna unexpectedly takes the side of her nephew, sensing a kindred spirit in Alexander. She cannot live without love, all these necessary “excesses”. And when she gets sick, Pyotr Aduev realizes that he can’t help her in any way: she is dear to him, he would give everything, but he has nothing to give. Only love can save her, but Aduev Sr. does not know how to love.
And, as if to further prove the dramatic nature of the situation, Alexander Aduev appears in the epilogue - bald and plump. He, somewhat unexpectedly for the reader, has learned all his uncle’s principles and is making a lot of money; he is even going to marry “for the money.” When his uncle reminds him of his past words. Alexander just laughs. At the moment when Aduev Sr. realizes the collapse of his harmonious life system, Aduev Jr. becomes the embodiment of this system, and not its best version. It was as if they had switched places.
The trouble, even the tragedy, of these heroes is that they remained the poles of worldviews, they could not achieve harmony, the balance of those positive principles that were in both of them; they lost faith in high truths, because life and the surrounding reality did not need them. And, unfortunately, this is a common story.
The novel made readers think about the acute moral questions posed by Russian life at that time. Why did the process of degeneration of a romantically inclined young man into a bureaucrat and entrepreneur take place? Is it really necessary, having lost illusion, to free ourselves from sincere and noble human feelings? These questions still concern the reader today. I.A. Goncharov gives us answers to all these questions in his wonderful work
