Studying the writers and their work at school, we understand that many of them did not want and could not keep silent about the events of the time in which they lived. Each tried to convey to the readers the truth and his own vision of reality. They wanted us to be able to learn all aspects of life in their time, and made the right conclusions for ourselves. Solzhenitsyn was one of these writers who expressed his position as a citizen, despite the totalitarian regime. The writer was not silent while creating his works. Among them is Solzhenitsyn's story One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, whose brief we will do below.

One day of Ivan Denisovich analysis of the work

Analyzing the work of the author, we see different issues raised. These are political and social issues, ethical and philosophical problems, and most importantly, in this work, the author raises the forbidden topic of the camps, where millions fell, and where they dragged out their existence, serving their term.

So the main character Ivan Denisovich Shukhov got to the camp. At one time, fighting for his homeland, he was captured by the Germans, and when he fled, he fell into his hands. Now he has to live in prison, serving a term in hard labor, since the hero is accused of treason. The ten-year term in the camp drags on slowly and monotonously. But in order to understand the life and life of prisoners, where they are left to themselves only during sleep, breakfast, lunch and dinner, it is enough to consider only one day from early morning to late evening. One day is enough to get acquainted with the laws and procedures established in the camp.

The story One day by Ivan Denisovich is a small work written in an understandable simple language, without metaphors and comparisons. The story is written in the language of a simple prisoner, so we can come across thieves' words, which are expressed by prisoners. In his work, the author acquaints readers with the fate of a prisoner of the Stalinist camp. But, describing one day of a specific person, the author tells us about the fate of the Russian people who became victims of Stalin's terror.

Heroes of the work

Solzhenitsyn's work One day Ivan Denisovich introduces us to different characters. Among them, the main character is a simple peasant, a soldier who was captured, and later fled from him to get into the camp. This was reason enough to accuse him of treason. Ivan Denisovich is a kind, hardworking, calm and resilient person. Other characters are also described in the story. They all behave with dignity, all of them, like the behavior of the protagonist, can be admired. This is how we get to know Gopchik, Alyosha the Baptist, Brigadier Tyurin, Buinovsky, film director Caesar Markovich. However, there are also characters that are difficult to admire. The main character condemns them too. These are people like Panteleev, who is in the camp, in order to knock on someone.

The story is told from the third person and read in one breath, where we understand that most of the prisoners did not succumb to the dehumanization process and remained people even in the conditions of camp life.

Plan

1. Ivan Denisovich is a state criminal.
2. Ivan and his thoughts about the war, about German captivity, about the escape and how he ends up in a concentration camp.
3. The hero remembers the village. His thoughts on why no one sends anything to the hero.
4. The author introduces the characters and their images.
5. A detailed description of all the details of life in the camp for one day.
6. The described picture is the hero's lucky day.

One day of Ivan Denisovich. Analysis of the story, outline

What grade will you give?

Lermontov, analysis of the work Song about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, a young oprichnik and daring merchant Kalashnikov, Plan Analysis of the poem "All day she lay in oblivion ..." Tyutchev Essay on the topic: One day of vacation

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is a writer and publicist who entered Russian literature as an ardent opponent of the communist regime. In his work, he regularly touches on the topic of suffering, inequality and insecurity of people in front of the Stalinist ideology and the current state system.

We present to your attention an updated version of the review of Solzhenitsyn's book -.

The work that A.I. Solzhenitsyn's popularity, became the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich." True, the author himself later made an amendment, saying that in terms of genre specifics, this is a story, albeit on an epic scale, reproducing the gloomy picture of Russia at that time.

Solzhenitsyn A.I. in his story, he acquaints the reader with the life of Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, a peasant and a military man who ended up in one of the many Stalinist camps. The whole tragedy of the situation is that the hero went to the front the very next day after the attack of Nazi Germany, was captured and miraculously escaped from him, but when he reached his own, he was recognized as a spy. This is what the first part of the memoirs is devoted to, which also includes a description of all the hardships of the war, when people had to feed on the cornea from the hooves of dead horses, and the command of the Red Army, without a reproach of conscience, threw ordinary soldiers to die on the battlefield.

The second part shows the life of Ivan Denisovich and hundreds of other people staying in the camp. Moreover, all the events of the story take only one day. However, the narrative contains a large number of references, retrospections and mentions of the life of the people, as if by chance. For example, the correspondence with my wife, from which we learn that the situation in the village is no better than in the camp: there is no food or money, the residents are starving, and the peasants survive by dyeing fake carpets and selling them to the city.

In the course of reading, we learn why Shukhov was considered a saboteur and a traitor. Like most of those in the camp, he was convicted without guilt. The investigator forced him to confess to treason, who, by the way, could not even think of what task the hero was doing, supposedly helping the Germans. At the same time, Shukhov had no choice. If he refused to admit what he had never done, he would have received a "wooden pea coat", and since he went to meet the investigation, then "at least you will live a little more."

Numerous images also take an important part of the plot. These are not only prisoners, but also warders, who differ only in how they treat the inmates. For example, Volkov carries with him a huge and thick whip - one blow of it tears a large area of \u200b\u200bskin to blood. Another bright, though minor character - Caesar. This is a kind of authority in the camp, who previously worked as a director, but was repressed without filming his first film. Now he is not averse to talking with Shukhov about contemporary art and throwing in a small work.

In his story, Solzhenitsyn reproduces the life of prisoners with utmost accuracy, their gray life and hard work. On the one hand, the reader does not encounter blatant and bloody scenes, but the realism with which the author approaches the description makes him horrified. People are starving, and the whole meaning of their life is to get themselves an extra slice of bread, since it is impossible to survive in this place on soup made of water and frozen cabbage. The prisoners are forced to work in the cold, and they have to work in a race to “pass the time” before sleeping and eating.

Everyone is forced to adapt to the realities, find a way to deceive the guards, steal or secretly sell something. For example, many inmates make small knives out of tools, then exchange them for food or tobacco.

Shukhov and everyone else in these terrible conditions look like wild animals. They can be punished, shot, beaten. It remains only to be smarter and smarter than armed guards, try not to lose heart and be true to your ideals.

The irony is that the day, which is the time of the story, is quite successful for the protagonist. He was not put in a punishment cell, he was not forced to work with a team of builders in the cold, he managed to get a portion of porridge at lunchtime, they did not find a hacksaw with him in the evening, and he also earned some money from Caesar and bought tobacco. True, the tragedy is that three thousand six hundred fifty-three such days have accumulated over the entire period of imprisonment. What's next? The term is coming to an end, but Shukhov is sure that the term will either be extended or, worse, will be sent into exile.

Characteristics of the main character of the story "One Day in Ivan Denisovich"

The main character the work is a collective image of a simple Russian person. He is about 40 years old. He hails from an ordinary village, which he recalls with love, noting that it was better before: they ate potatoes "with whole pans, porridge - with cast iron ...". He spent 8 years in prison. Before entering the camp, Shukhov fought at the front. He was wounded, but after recovering he returned to the war.

Character appearance

There is no description of his appearance in the text of the story. The emphasis is on clothing: mittens, pea jacket, felt boots, wadded trousers, etc. Thus, the image of the protagonist becomes depersonalized and becomes the personification of not only an ordinary prisoner, but also a modern inhabitant of Russia in the mid-20th century.

He is distinguished by a sense of pity and compassion for people. He worries about the Baptists, who received 25 years in the camps. He regrets the degraded Fetikov, noting that “he will not live up to his term. He does not know how to put himself. " Ivan Denisovich even sympathizes with the guards, because they have to be on duty on the towers in frost or strong winds.

Ivan Denisovich understands his plight, but does not stop thinking about others. For example, he refuses parcels from home, forbidding his wife to send food or things. The man realizes that his wife has a very hard time - she alone raises children and monitors the economy in the difficult war and post-war years.

A long life in a convict camp did not break him. The hero sets certain boundaries for himself, which in no case can be violated. It's trite, but makes sure not to eat fish eyes in the stew or always take off the cap while eating. Yes, he had to steal, but not from his comrades, but only from those who work in the kitchen and mock inmates.

Ivan Denisovich is distinguished by honesty. The author points out that Shukhov never took or gave a bribe. Everyone in the camp knows that he never shies away from work, always tries to earn extra money and even sews slippers for other prisoners. In prison, the hero becomes a good bricklayer, mastering this profession: "with Shukhov, you can't dig into distortions or seams." In addition, everyone knows that Ivan Denisovich is a jack of all trades and can easily get down to any business (he patches quilted jackets, pours spoons from an aluminum wire, etc.)

Positive image Shukhova is created throughout the story. His habits of a peasant, an ordinary worker, help him overcome the severity of imprisonment. The hero does not allow himself to humiliate himself in front of the guards, lick dishes or denounce others. Like any Russian person, Ivan Denisovich knows the price of bread, tremblingly keeping it in a clean rag. He accepts any work, loves it, is not lazy.

What, then, is such an honest, noble and hardworking person doing in a prison camp? How did he and several thousand other people get here? It is these questions that arise from the reader as he gets acquainted with the main character.

The answer to them is quite simple. It's all about an unjust totalitarian regime, the consequence of which is that many worthy citizens find themselves prisoners of concentration camps, forced to adapt to the system, live away from their families and be doomed to long torments and hardships.

Analysis of A.I. Solzhenitsyn "One day of Ivan Denisovich"

To understand the idea of \u200b\u200ba writer, it is necessary to pay special attention to the space and time of the work. Indeed, the story depicts the events of one day, even describing in great detail all the everyday moments of the regime: getting up, breakfast, lunch, dinner, divorce to work, the road, the work itself, the constant search by the guards and many others. etc. This also includes the description of all prisoners and guards, their behavior, life in the camp, etc. For people, real space turns out to be hostile. Every prisoner does not like open places, tries to avoid meeting the guards and quickly hide in the barracks. The prisoners are not limited to barbed wire only. Even the opportunity to look at the sky is not available to them - the searchlights are constantly blinded.

However, there is also another space - internal. This is a kind of memory space. Therefore, the most important are constant references and memories, from which we learn about the situation at the front, suffering and countless deaths, the disastrous situation of peasants, and also that those who survived or escaped from captivity, who defended their homeland and their citizens, often in the eyes of the government they become spies and traitors. All these local themes form a picture of what is happening in the country as a whole.

It turns out that the artistic time and space of the work is not closed, not limited to only one day or the territory of the camp. As it becomes known at the end of the story, there are already 3653 such days in the life of the hero, and how many will be ahead is completely unknown. This means that the name "one day of Ivan Denisovich" can be easily perceived as an allusion to modern society. A day in the camp is impersonal, hopeless, becomes for the prisoner the personification of injustice, powerlessness and withdrawal from everything individual. But is all this characteristic only for this place of detention?

Apparently, according to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, Russia at that time is very similar to a prison, and the task of the work becomes, if not to show deep tragedy, then at least to categorically deny the position of what is described.

The author's merit is that he not only describes what is happening with amazing accuracy and with a lot of details, but also refrains from open display of emotions and feelings. Thus, he achieves his main goal - he gives the reader his own assessment of this world order and understand all the senselessness of the totalitarian regime.

The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe story "One day of Ivan Denisovich"

In his work A.I. Solzhenitsyn recreates the main picture of life in that Russia when people were doomed to incredible torment and hardship. Before us opens a whole gallery of images that personify the fate of millions of Soviet citizens who were forced for faithful service, hard and diligent work, faith in the state and adherence to ideology to pay with imprisonment in terrible concentration camps scattered throughout the country.

In his story, he portrayed a situation typical for Russia, when a woman has to take on the cares and responsibilities of a man.

Be sure to read the banned in the Soviet Union novel by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which explains the reasons for the author's disillusionment with the communist system.

In a short story, the list of injustices of the state system is disclosed very accurately. For example, Ermolaev and Klevshin went through all the hardships of the war, were captured, worked underground, and received 10 years in prison as a reward. Gopchik, a young boy who recently turned 16, is proof that repression is indifferent even to children. The images of Alyoshka, Buinovsky, Pavel, Caesar Markovich and others are no less revealing.

Solzhenitsyn's work is saturated with hidden, but evil irony, exposing the other side of the life of the Soviet country. The writer touched upon an important and urgent problem, which has been banned all this time. At the same time, the story is imbued with faith in the Russian person, his spirit and will. Having condemned the inhuman system, Alexander Isaevich created a truly realistic character of his hero, who is able to withstand all the torments with dignity and not lose his humanity.

Features of the story "One day of Ivan Denisovich"

In October 1961, Solzhenitsyn transferred to Novy Mir through Lev Kopelev the manuscript of One Day in Ivan Denisovich (originally the story was called Sch - 854). By that time, Solzhenitsyn was already the author of a number of completed works. Among them were stories - "A village is not worth a righteous man (later called" Matryonin's yard ") and" Shch-854 ", plays (" The Deer and Shalashovka "," The Feast of the Winners "), the novel" In the First Circle "(later revised ). Solzhenitsyn could have presented any of these works to the editors of Novy Mir, but he chose One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

Not only to publish, but simply to show the novel In the First Circle, Solzhenitsyn did not dare - this would happen only after a long acquaintance with Tvardovsky. Choosing between " Matryona's yard"And" One Day in the Day of Ivan Denisovich "was then obvious to Solzhenitsyn.

The most important topic for the writer was the topic of the camps, which no one ever spoke about. After the final recovery from cancer, Solzhenitsyn decides that there is a higher meaning in his recovery, namely: after leaving the camp alive and having survived the illness, he must write about those and for those who were in the camps. This is how the idea of \u200b\u200bthe future book "The Gulag Archipelago" was born. The writer himself called this book the experience of artistic research. But the "GULAG Archipelago" could not suddenly appear in literature that never knew the theme of the camp.

Deciding to get out of the underground, Solzhenitsyn presented to Novy Mir a story about one day of one prisoner, because it was necessary to open the camp to the readers, to reveal at least part of the truth that would then come to the already prepared readers in the Gulag Archipelago. In addition, it is this story, through the main character, the peasant Shukhov, that shows the tragedy of the people. In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn will compare the camp system to the metastases that permeate the country's body. Therefore, the camp is a disease, a tragedy for the entire people. For this reason, Solzhenitsyn did not choose the novel In the First Circle - it is about himself, about the intelligentsia, about a more closed, atypical and “privileged” island of the camp world - sharashka.

There were other, less important reasons. Solzhenitsyn hoped that the editor-in-chief A.T. Tvardovsky and N.S. Khrushchev will not remain indifferent, since both are close to the peasant, folk nature of the protagonist - Shukhov.

The main character of the story is Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, a simple peasant who participated in the war and was captured by the Germans. He escapes captivity, but "his own" immediately arrested him and accused of espionage. Naturally, the "spy" Ivan Denisovich had to carry out some task of the Germans, but “what a task - neither Shukhov himself could think of, nor the investigator. So they left it simply - the task ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 33]. After the investigation, the unjustly accused Shukhov was sent to a camp for 10 years.

Shukhov is an image of a real Russian peasant, about whom the author says: “Whoever knows two things with his hands will pick up ten more things” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 45]. Shukhov is a craftsman who can also tailor, in the camp he mastered the profession of a bricklayer, he can fold the stove, cast a spoon from a wire, carve a knife, sew slippers.

Shukhov's belonging to the people and to Russian culture is emphasized by his name - Ivan. In the story he is called differently, but in conversations with the Latvian Kildigs, the latter invariably calls him Vanya. And Shukhov himself refers to Kildigs as “Vanya” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 28], although the Latvian name is Jan. This mutual appeal seems to emphasize the closeness of the two peoples, their identical roots. At the same time, it speaks of Shukhov's belonging not just to the Russian people, but to its deeply rooted history. Shukhov feels affection for both the Latvian Kildigs and the two Estonians. Ivan Denisovich says about them: “And no matter how many Estonians Shukhov has seen - bad people he did not come across ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 26]. This warm attitude reveals the feeling of brotherhood of close peoples. And this instinct betrays the bearer of this very folk culture in Shukhov. According to Pavel Florensky, "the most Russian name is Ivan", "Of the short names, on the border with good simplicity, Ivan."

Despite all the hardships of the camp, Ivan Denisovich managed to remain human and retain his inner dignity. FROM life principles Shukhov, which allow him to survive, the author introduces the reader from the very first lines: “Shukhov firmly remembered the words of his first foreman Kuzemin:“ Here, guys, the law is taiga. But people live here too. In the camp, this is who dies: who licks the bowls, who hopes for the medical unit, and who goes to knock on the godfather ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 9]. In addition to the fact that Shukhov observes these unwritten laws, he retains his human appearance also thanks to his work. Sincere pleasure in the work being done turns Shukhov from a prisoner into a free master, whose craft ennobles him and allows him to preserve himself.

Shukhov perfectly feels the people around him and understands their characters. About the cavtorang Buinovsky he says: “The cavtorang secured the stretcher like a kind gelding. A cavtorang is already falling off his feet, but pulling. Shukhov had such a gelding even before the collective farm, Shukhov kept it, but he cut himself off in the hands of others "[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 47]," according to Shukhov, it is correct that the captain was given porridge. The time will come, and the captain will learn to live, but for now he cannot ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 38]. Ivan Denisovich sympathizes with the cavtorang, at the same time feeling his inexperience in camp life, a certain defenselessness, which manifests itself in the readiness to carry out the assigned to the end, the inability to preserve himself. Shukhov gives precise and sometimes rough characteristics: Fetyukov, a former big boss, is called a jackal, and Der's foreman is a bastard. However, this does not mean his anger, rather the opposite: in the camp Shukhov managed to maintain his kindness to people. He regrets not only the cavtorang, but also Alyoshka the Baptist, although he does not understand the latter. He feels respect for the foreman, Kildigs, the half-deaf Senka Klevshin, even 16-year-old Gopchik Shukhov admires: “Gopchik the boy was forced to beat him down. Climbs, devil, shouts from above ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 30],“ He (Gopchik - E.R.) - the calf is affectionate, fawns on all the peasants ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 30]. Shukhov is imbued with pity even for Fetyukov, whom he despises: “I’m so sorry for him. He will not live out the deadline. He does not know how to present himself ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 67]. Feel sorry for Caesar, who does not know the camp laws.

Along with kindness, another feature of Ivan Denisovich's character is the ability to listen to and accept someone else's position. He does not seek to teach anyone about life or to explain any truth. So, in a conversation with Alyosha the Baptist, Shukhov does not try to convince Alyosha, but simply shares his experience without wanting to impose it. Shukhov's ability to listen and observe others, his flair allows, along with Ivan Denisovich himself, to show a whole gallery of human types, each of which exists in its own way in the camp world. Each of these people not only realizes in a different way in the camp, but also experiences the tragedy of separation from the outside world and placement in the camp space in different ways.

The language of the story and of Ivan Denisovich in particular is curious: it is a mixture of the camp and live, spoken Russian. In the preface to the story by A.T. Twardowski seeks to deflect attacks on the language in advance: “Perhaps the author's use of<…> those words and utterances of the milieu where his hero spends his working day, will cause objections of a particularly fastidious taste ”[Tvardovsky 1962: 9]. Indeed, in the letters and some reviews, dissatisfaction was expressed with the presence of vernacular and slang words (albeit disguised as “butter and fujaslitsa” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 41]). However, this was the very living Russian language that many had lost the habit of over the years of reading Soviet magazines and newspapers written in stereotyped and often meaningless phrases.

Speaking about the language of the story, you should pay attention to two speech lines. The first is connected with the camp, the second - with the peasant Ivan Denisovich. Sounds in the story and a completely different speech, the speech of such prisoners as Caesar, X-123, "an eccentric with glasses" [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 59], Pyotr Mikhailovich from the queue for the parcel. All of them belong to the Moscow intelligentsia, and their language is very different from the speech of the "camp" and "peasant". But they are a small island in the sea of \u200b\u200bthe camp tongue.

The camp language is distinguished by an abundance of rude words: jackal, bastard, etc. This also includes the phrases “butter and fujaslitsa” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 41], “ascends - fuims” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 12], which do not alienate the reader, but, on the contrary, bring him closer to the speech that is often used by many. These words are taken more ironically than seriously. This makes the speech real, close and understandable to many readers.

The second category is Shukhov's colloquial speech. Words such as “Don't touch! " [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 31], “ their object, the zone is healthy - until you go through the whole "[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 28]," two hundred now to push, tomorrow morning five hundred and fifty crank up, take four hundred to work - zhituha!"[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 66]," the sun and zakrykom the upper ones left ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 48],“ a month, father, he frowned crimsonly, he had already crawled out into the sky. AND be damaged, kes, just started ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 49]. Characteristic feature Shukhov's language is also inverted: “The foreman's pockmarked face is lit from the oven” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 40], “In Polomna, our parish, there is no richer priest” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 72].

In addition, it abounds in Russian words that are not included in the literary language, but live in colloquial speech. Not everyone understands these words and requires reference to the dictionary. So, Shukhov often uses the word "kes". Dahl's dictionary explains: “Kes or Kest is the union of Vlad. moscow ryaz. tamb. it seems, it seems, it seems, it seems, it seems, it seems. kes in heaven wants to frown. " The word “chalabuda, made of heaps of wood” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 34], with which Ivan Denisovich describes the camp production kitchen, is interpreted as “hut, hut”. “Someone has a clean mouth, and someone else has a gunky one” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 19] - says Ivan Denisovich. According to Vasmer's dictionary, the word "gunny" has two interpretations: "bald from the disease", and the word gunba is "a small rash in the mouth of babies." In Dahl's dictionary "gunba" is ambiguous, one of the interpretations is "dirty, untidy swearing." The introduction of such words makes Shukhov's speech truly popular, returning to the origins of the Russian language.

The spatio-temporal organization of the text also has its own characteristics. The camp is like hell: most of the day is night, constant cold, limited light. It is not only short daylight hours. All the sources of heat and light that are encountered throughout the story - a stove in a barrack, two small stoves at a thermal power station under construction - never give enough light and heat: “The coal has heated up little by little, now it gives a steady heat. Only near the stove you can smell it, and all over the room - the cold, as it was ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 32],“ then I dived into the mortar room. There, after the sun, it seemed completely dark to him and not warmer than outside. Somehow damp ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 39].

Ivan Denisovich wakes up at night in a cold barrack: “the windows are frozen in two fingers.<…> outside the window everything was the same as in the middle of the night, when Shukhov got up to the parasha, there was darkness and darkness. " [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 9] The first part of his day passes in the night - his personal time, then a divorce, a search and going to work under escort. Only at the moment of going to work does it start to get light, but the cold does not diminish: “At sunrise, the greatest frost happens! - the cavtorang announced. "Because this is the last point of night cooling." [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 22] The only time during the whole day Ivan Denisovich not only gets warm, but he gets hot, is when he is working at the thermal power station, the masonry of the wall: “Shukhov and other bricklayers stopped feeling the frost. From quick, exciting work, the first heat passed through them - that heat from which it gets wet under a pea jacket, under a quilted jacket, under the top and bottom shirts. But they did not stop for a moment and drove the masonry further and further. And an hour later, a second heat broke through them - the one from which the sweat dries up ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 44]. The coldness and darkness leave at the very moment when Shukhov gets involved in work and becomes a master. His health complaints disappear - now he will remember this only in the evening. The time of day coincides with the state of the hero, the space changes in the same relationship. If before the moment of work it had hellish features, then at the moment of laying the wall it seems to cease to be hostile. Moreover, before that, the entire surrounding space was closed. Shukhov woke up in the barracks, covered himself with his head (he didn’t even see, but only heard what was happening around), then he moved to the warden’s room, where he washes the floor, then - the medical unit, breakfast in the barrack. The hero leaves the confined spaces only for work. The CHP plant where Ivan Denisovich works is without walls. Namely: where Shukhov is laying the wall, the height of the bricks is only three rows. The room, which should be closed, is not completed when the master appears. Throughout the story, both at the beginning and at the end of the work, the wall is not completed - the space remains open. And this seems to be no coincidence: in all the other rooms Shukhov is a prisoner, deprived of his freedom. During masonry, he turns from a forced prisoner into a master who creates from the desire to create.

The masonry of the wall is the peak of the work, and time and space, and the hero himself change and affect each other. The time of day becomes light, cold is replaced by heat, space moves apart and becomes open from closed, and Shukhov himself from not free becomes internally free.

As the working day diminishes and fatigue accumulates, the landscape also changes: “Yes, the sun is setting. With redness, it enters the fog, seemingly gray. The cold is gaining degrees ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 47]. The next episode - taking off from work and returning to the camp area - already under the starry sky. Later, while checking the barracks, Shukhov calls the month a “wolf sun” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 70], which also endows the night with hostile features. At the moment of returning from work, Shukhov is already entering his usual role of a prisoner, who is under escort, protects a piece of cloth for a knife, stands in line for a parcel for Caesar. So not only space and time are in a natural ring of night-day-night, but the hero himself changes in accordance with this routine. Chronotope and hero are interdependent, thanks to which they influence and change each other.

Not only natural time, but also historical time (within the framework of life) of Shukhov has its own characteristics. While in the camp, he lost his threefold sense of time: past, present, future. In the life of Ivan Denisovich there is only the present, the past has already gone and seems to be a completely different life, but he does not think about the future (about life after the camp), because he does not represent it: “Ivan Denisovich has lost the habit of laying out what tomorrow, what in a year and what to feed the family with ”[Solzhenitsyn 1962: 24].

In addition, the camp itself turns out to be a place without time, since there are no clocks anywhere here: “prisoners are not supposed to have clocks, the authorities know the time for them” [Solzhenitsyn 1962: 15]. So human time in the camp ceases to exist, it is no longer divided into past and future.

A person, torn out of the general stream of human life and placed in a camp, changes and adapts. The camp either breaks a person, or shows his true nature, or gives freedom to those negative traits that lived before, but did not receive development. The camp itself, as a space, is closed within itself, it does not let outside life inside. In the same way, a person who gets inside is deprived of everything external and appears in his true character.

The story shows many human types, and including this diversity helps to show the tragedy of the people. The people belong not only to Shukhov himself, who carries a peasant culture close to nature and land, but also all the other prisoners. The story contains the "Moscow intelligentsia" (Caesar and the "eccentric with glasses"), there are former bosses (Fetyukov), brilliant military men (Buinovsky), there are believers - Alyoshka the Baptist. Solzhenitsyn even shows those people who seem to be "on the other side of the camp" - these are guards and a convoy. But they are also influenced by camp life (Volkova, Tatarin). One story contains so many human destinies and characters that it could not fail to find a response and understanding among the overwhelming majority of readers. They wrote letters to Solzhenitsyn and to the editor not only because they reacted to the novelty and acuteness of the topic, but also because this or that hero turned out to be close, recognizable.

Ch. 1. The system of characters in the story of A. I. Solzhenitsyn "One day of Ivan Denisovich"

"One day of Ivan Denisovich" is associated with one of the facts of the author's own biography - the Ekibastuz special camp, where in the winter of 1950-51. on general works this story was created. In this story, the author, on behalf of his hero, tells about only one day out of three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days of Ivan Denisovich's term. But even this day will be enough to understand what kind of situation reigned in the camp, what orders and laws existed. The camp is a special world that exists separately, parallel to ours. Life in the zone is shown not from the outside, but from the inside by a person who knows about it not by hearsay, but from his own personal experience. That is why the story is striking in its realism. So, A. Solzhenitsyn shows the life of the brigade and each person from the brigade separately. There are 24 people in the 104th brigade, but fourteen people are singled out from the general mass, including Shukhov: Andrei Prokofievich Tyurin - foreman, Pavlo - assistant foreman, Cavtorang Buinovsky, former film director Caesar Markovich, "jackal" Fetyukov, Baptist Alyosha, former prisoner of Buchenwald Senka Klevshin, the informer Panteleev, the Latvian Jan Kildigs, two Estonians, one of whom is called Eino, sixteen-year-old Gopchik and the "hefty Siberian" Ermolaev.

Almost all characters (except collective image Shukhov) have real prototypes: behind each of them, according to the author, stands a true prisoner of the Ekibastuz camp, in which the writer was serving his sentence in the early 50s. The names of the prototypes have been changed, sometimes slightly. So, the prototype of Buinovsky's cavalry rank was Boris Vasilyevich Burkovsky - in the 60s the head of the branch of the Central Naval Museum on the cruiser "Aurora", a retired captain of the second rank; the prototype of Caesar Markovich is the director Lev Grossman; the chief of the Volkovoi regime - Rabbids; the foreman Der - Baer, \u200b\u200bKolya Vdovushkina - Nikolay Borovikov, etc.

The surnames of Solzhenitsyn's characters cannot be called "speaking", but nevertheless, some of them reflect the character traits of the heroes: the surname Volkova belongs to the brutally cruel, vicious chief of the regime (“... otherwise, like a wolf, Volkova does not look. Dark, yes long, yes frowning - and is worn quickly "); the name of Shkuropatenko is a prisoner zealously acting as a guard, in a word, "skin". Alyosha is called a young Baptist completely absorbed in thinking about God (here one cannot exclude an allusional parallel with Alyosha Karamazov from Dostoevsky's novel), Gopchik is a clever and roguish young prisoner, Caesar is a metropolitan intellectual who imagines himself to be an aristocrat, who has risen above ordinary hard workers. The surname Buinovsky is a match for a proud prisoner who is ready to rebel at any moment - in the recent past, a "ringing" naval officer. One-brigade members often call Buinovsky a cavtorang, a captain, less often they address him by his last name, and never by his first name and patronymic (only Tyurin, Shukhov and Caesar are honored with such an honor). In the camp, Buinovsky has not yet adapted, he still feels like a naval officer. That is why, apparently, he calls his one-brigadiers "Red Navy men", Shukhov - "sailor", Fetyukov - "salaga". Buinovsky does not hear the warden Kurnossenky, shouting out his camp number - Shch-311, but immediately responds to his last name. Not only Shukhov is endowed with unique portrait features in the work of A. Solzhenitsyn, but also all the other prisoners singled out from the general mass. So, for Caesar - "the mustache is black, merged, thick"; Baptist Alyosha - "clean, washed out", "eyes, like two candles glowing"; Brigadier Tyurin - "he is healthy in his shoulders and he has a wide image", "face in large mountain ash, from smallpox", "the skin on the face is like oak bark"; Estonians - “both white, both long, both thin, both with long noses, with big eyes"; Latvian Kildigs - "red-faced, well-fed", "ruddy", "thick-cheeked"; Gopchik - "rosy as a pig"; Shkuropatenko - "the pole is crooked, stared like a thorn." The portrait of a prisoner, the old convict Ju-81, is the most individualized and the only one presented in the story.

A similar pattern applies to the characters representing the camp attendants: "the red face of the cook appeared"; Head the dining room - "a well-fed reptile, a head like a pumpkin"; the cook's hands are “white, sleek and hairy, healthy. A pure boxer, not a cook ”; the head of the barrack - "with the muzzle - urka"; camp artist - "an old man with a gray beard", etc. The camp bosses, guards, overseers, also have individual differences: overseer One and a half Ivan - "a thin and long sergeant with black eyes"; the warden Tatarin has a “hairless, crumpled face”; warden Kurnosenky - "a very small boy with a ruddy face"; the head of the camp is "pot-bellied".

Buinovsky embodies a type of behavior that, in the conditions of a prison camp, provides (in contrast to Shukhov, who provides internal, morally, resistance) open protest, direct resistance. Faced with the arbitrariness of the guards, the cavalry officer boldly says to them: “You are not Soviet people. You are not communists! " and at the same time refers to the 9th article of the Criminal Code, which prohibits bullying of prisoners. The critic Bondarenko, commenting on this episode, calls the cavtorang a “hero”, writes that he “feels himself as a person and behaves like a person”, “in case of personal humiliation, he rises and is ready to die” Bondarenko V. Core literature: On the prose of Alexander Solzhenitsyn // Lit. Russia. - 1989. - No. 21. - P.11. etc. But at the same time he loses sight of the reason for the character's “heroic” behavior, does not notice why he “rebelles” and even “is ready to die”. And the reason here is too prosaic to be a reason for a proud uprising and even more heroic death: when a column of prisoners leaves the camp in the working area, the guards write down at Buinovsky's (in order to force them to hand over their personal belongings to the storeroom in the evening) “a waistcoat or some kind of napkin. Buinovsky - in the throat<…>". The critic did not feel a certain inadequacy between the statutory actions of the guards and such a violent reaction of the cavtorang, he did not catch the humorous tone with which he looks at what is happening main mountain, generally sympathetic to the captain. The mention of the "napuznik", because of which Buinovsky entered into a clash with the head of the regime, Volkov, partly removes the "heroic" halo from the act of the cavtorang. The price of his "vest" riot turns out to be, in general, senseless and disproportionately expensive - the cavtorang ends up in a punishment cell, about which it is known: “Ten days of the local punishment cell<…> it means losing your health for life. Tuberculosis, and you can't get out of hospitals. And those who have served a strict fifteen days are damp in the ground. "

Solzhenitsyn, however, accompanies this protest with an ironic comment - both from himself and from Shukhov: “They have, they know. You don't know it yet, brother. " And the quiet poor fellow Senka Klevshin said: "There was no need to pamper!"<…> You will be pissed off<…> you will be lost! " When the warden Kurnossenky comes to the barracks to take the "enthusiast" Buinovsky to the punishment cell, Shukhov sympathetically watches how the brigadier "darkens", hiding Buinovsky ("I have illiterate ...", "if you remember the numbers of the dog"). And the sudden appearance of Buinovsky at the very first shout of the warden: "Is there Buinovsky?" - causes both pity and contempt: "So the fast louse is always the first to hit the comb."

But from these assessments there is a huge distance to the destructive conclusion of Shalamov: the daredevil Buinovsky with his truth-seeking is the first candidate for the role of Fetyukov the jackal! He, too, will lick bowls, tell "novels" to thieves, scratch their "godfathers", "Sevochka", "Fedechka" heels before going to bed! Such a rebel will quickly swim to the last limits of humiliation. However, Shalamov's judgments are not confirmed by the real fate of the person who served as the prototype for this artistic image.

Solzhenitsyn is not only more forgiving, kinder towards the cavtorang, he still hopes for him. But for now, he has to gradually turn "from an imperious, sonorous naval officer into a sedentary, circumspect convict, only this inactivity and able to overcome the twenty-five years in prison that have been opened to him."

Both Shukhov, with his common sense, and Buinovsky, with his impracticality, are opposed by those who do not "take the blow", "who evade him." First of all, this is the film director Caesar Markovich. So he settled down like this: everyone's hats are worn out, old, and he has a new fur hat, sent from outside (“Caesar greased someone, and they allowed him to wear a clean new city hat. And from others, even frayed front-line ones were stripped off and given camp , pig fur "); everyone is working in the cold, but Caesar is warm, sitting in the office. Shukhov does not blame Caesar: everyone wants to survive. But the fact that Caesar, for granted, takes the services of Ivan Denisovich, does not decorate him. Shukhov brought him lunch to the office, “cleared his throat, embarrassed to interrupt the educated conversation. Well, he didn't need to stand here either. Caesar turned, stretched out his hand for the porridge, at Shukhov and did not look, as if the porridge itself had come by air ... ”. "Educated conversation" is one of the hallmarks of Caesar's life. He is an educated person, an intellectual. The cinema that Caesar is engaged in is a game, that is, an invented, fake life (especially from the point of view of a prisoner). Caesar himself is also busy with a game of mind, an attempt to distance himself from camp life. Even in the way he smokes, "in order to arouse a strong thought in himself, there is an elegant aestheticism, far from gross reality."

Caesar's conversation with convict X-123, a wiry old man, about Eisenstein's film Ivan the Terrible is noteworthy: “Objectivity requires us to admit that Eisenstein is a genius. John the Terrible! Isn't it brilliant? The dance of the guardsmen with a mask! Scene in the cathedral! " says Caesar. "Antics! ... There is so much art that it is no longer art. Pepper and poppy instead of daily bread! " - the old man answers.

But Caesar is primarily interested in “not what, but how,” he is more interested in how it is done, he is carried away by a new technique, an unexpected montage, an original joint of frames. The aim of art in this is a secondary matter; "<…> the most disgusting political idea - justification of one-man tyranny ”(this is how the film X-123 characterizes) turns out to be not at all so important for Caesar. He ignores the remark of his opponent about this "idea": "Mockery of the memory of three generations of the Russian intelligentsia." Trying to justify Eisenstein, and most likely himself, Caesar says that only such an interpretation would be missed. “Oh, would you? - the old man explodes. - So don't say you're a genius! Say that we are sycophant, the dog fulfilled the order. Geniuses do not adjust the interpretation to the taste of tyrants! "

So it turns out that "mind play", a work in which there is too much "art" - is immoral. On the one hand, this art serves the "taste of tyrants", thus justifying the fact that both the wiry old man, Shukhov, and Caesar himself are sitting in the camp; on the other hand, the notorious “how” will not awaken the second thoughts, “good feelings”, and therefore it is not only unnecessary, but also harmful.

For Shukhov, a silent witness to the conversation, all this is "educated conversation." But Shukhov understands well about "good feelings" - whether it is "about the brigadier being" in a good heart "or about how he himself" worked "for Caesar. “Good feelings” are the real properties of living people, and Caesar’s professionalism is, as Solzhenitsyn himself will later write, “education”.

Cinema (Stalinist, Soviet cinema) and life! Caesar cannot but inspire respect for being in love with his work, passion for his profession, but one cannot get rid of the thought that the desire to talk about Eisenstein is largely due to the fact that Caesar sat warm all day, smoked a pipe, and did not even go to the dining room. He lives far from real camp life.

Caesar slowly approached his brigade, waiting for when after work it would be possible to go to the zone:

How are you, captain?

Greta frozen cannot understand. An empty question - how are you?

But how? - the captain shrugs his shoulders. - I have worked hard, I straightened my back.

Caesar in the brigade "adheres to one cavalry rank, he has no one else to take his soul with." Yes, Buinovsky looks at scenes from "Battleship ..." with completely different eyes: "... Worms crawl over meat just like rainwater. Were they really like that? I think it would have brought meat to our camp instead of our shitty fish, but not mine, without scraping, they would have hooted into the cauldron, so we would ... "

The reality remains hidden from Caesar. Shukhov sometimes regrets Caesar: "I suppose he thinks a lot about himself, Caesar, and does not understand at all in life."

In one of his publicistic speeches, A. Solzhenitsyn spoke about the degree of "hopelessness" and the degree of "hope." The writer balances the "degree of hopelessness" with the "degree of hope" for the quality of the people that overpowers any evil force. This quality is inner freedom. The standard of inner freedom, its genetic embodiment is the tall old man Ju-81, against whom Ivan Denisovich turned out to be at dinner.

Shukhov knew that “he is in camps and prisons innumerable, and not a single amnesty touched him, and as one tenth ended, they immediately pushed a new one to him,” but he examined him closely for the first time. According to V.A. Chalmaev “This is the best portrait of Varlam Shalamov in the camp! - the living embodiment of the surviving reason, dignity, adherence to the commandment not expressed aloud:

Bondage will make you walk through the mud

Pigs can only swim in it ... ”. Chalmaev V.A. A. Solzhenitsyn: life and work: a book for students. - M .: Education, 1994 .-- P.65.

What struck Shukhov with that old man who "finished speaking" and expressed without words his clever dignity? The fact that in him, as it were, did not break, did not bend, did not crumble into dust, the "inner vertical", the command of God, the will to live not through lies.

“Of all the hunched backs of the camp, his back was excellent and straight, and at the table it seemed as if he had put something on top of the bench. There was nothing to cut on his head naked for a long time - all the hair had come out from the good life. The old man’s eyes didn’t follow everything that was going on in the dining room, but over Shukhov, unseen, they rested on their own. He regularly ate the empty gruel with a chipped wooden spoon, but he did not go headlong into the bowl, like everyone else, but carried the spoons high to his mouth. He had no teeth, neither above nor below, not a single one: ossified gums chewed bread by their teeth. His face was all worn out, but not to the extent of the weakness of the disabled wick, but to the written, dark stone. And on the big hands in the cracks and blackness, it was evident that not much had fallen to him for all the years to sit out like an idiot. But he stays in it, he will not reconcile: he does not put his three hundred grams, like everyone else, on an unclean table with splashes, but on a washed rag ”. This verbal portrait allows you to look beyond the limits of human resilience and feel the power of absolute immunity to violence.

The honest community of prisoners is confronted by the soulless world of the camp authorities. It ensured itself a comfortable existence by turning the prisoners into their personal slaves. The overseers treat them with contempt, being fully confident that they themselves live like human beings. But it is this world that has a bestial appearance. Such is the warden Volkova, who can beat a person with a whip for the slightest offense. Such are the guards who are ready to shoot a Moldavian "spy" who was late for the roll call, who fell asleep from fatigue at the workplace. Such is the well-fed cook and his henchmen, who use a crutch to drive prisoners away from the dining room. It was they, the executioners, who violated human laws and thereby excluded themselves from human society.

The work of A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in Ivan Denisovich" has a special place in literature and public consciousness. The story, written in 1959 (and conceived back in the camp in 1950), was originally called "Shch-854 (One day of one prisoner)". Solzhenitsyn wrote about the idea of \u200b\u200bthe story: “It was just such a camp day, hard work, I was carrying a stretcher with my partner and I thought: how I should describe the whole camp world - in one day ... it is enough to assemble it in one day as in fragments, it is enough to describe only one day of one average, unremarkable person from morning to evening. And everything will be. " The genre of the story was determined by the writer himself, emphasizing the contrast between the small form and the deep content of the work. He called the story “One Day ...” by A.T. Tvardovsky, realizing the significance of Solzhenitsyn's creation.

The image of Ivan Denisovich was formed on the basis of character a real person, the soldier Shukhov, who fought with the author in the Soviet-German war (and never sat), the general experience of prisoners and the author's personal experience in the Special Camp as a bricklayer. The rest of the faces are all from camp life, with their true biographies.

Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is one of many who fell into the Stalinist meat grinder, who became faceless "numbers". In 1941, he, a simple man, a peasant who fought honestly, was surrounded, then captured. Escaping from captivity, Ivan Denisovich falls into the Soviet counterintelligence. The only chance to stay alive is to sign a confession that he is a spy. The absurdity of what is happening is emphasized by the fact that even the investigator cannot think of what task was given to the "spy". So they wrote, just a "task". “Shukhov was beaten a lot in counterintelligence. And Shukhov's calculation was simple: if you don't sign - a wooden pea coat, you sign - at least will you live yet a little. Signed. " And Shukhov ends up in the Soviet camp. “... And the column went out into the steppe, directly against the wind and against the blushing sunrise. Bare white snow lay to the edge, to the right and to the left, and there was not a single tree in the whole steppe. A new year began, the fifty-first, and in it Shukhov had the right to two letters ... "So begins - after the exposition, the scene of the rise of prisoners in the cold barracks, the hasty absorption of an empty gruel, the renewal of the camp number" Shch-854 "on a padded jacket - a working day a prisoner peasant, a former soldier Shukhov. There is a column of people in pea jackets, with rags wrapped around their bodies, this wretched protection from the icy wind - washed footcloths with slits, masks of bondage on their faces. How can you find a human face among closed numbers, most often zeros? It seems that a person has disappeared in it forever, that everything personal is drowning in an impersonal element.

The column goes not just among the bare white snow, against the reddening sunrise. She walks in the midst of hunger. The descriptions of the feeding of the column in the dining room are not accidental: “Zavstolova does not bow to anyone, and all the prisoners are afraid of him. He holds thousands of lives in one hand ... ”; "We've got the brigades packed up ... and they're going to the fortress"; "... the crowd is swaying, suffocating - to get the gruel."

The camp is an abyss into which the unfortunate fatherland of Solzhenitsyn's heroes fell. A gloomy, bestial deed of self-destruction, the "simplicity" of devastation, is going on here. The accusatory force of Solzhenitsyn's work lies in the depiction of the routine of what is happening, the habit of inhuman conditions.

Ivan Denisovich from the breed of "natural", "natural" people. He resembles Tolstoy's Platon Karataev. Such people value first of all spontaneous life, existence as a process. It seems that everything in Shukhov is focused on one thing - just to survive. But how to survive and remain human? Ivan Denisovich succeeds in this. He did not succumb to the process of dehumanization, resisted, retained a moral foundation. The "almost happy" day did not bring any particular troubles, this is already happiness. Happiness is the absence of unhappiness in conditions that you cannot change. They didn't put me in a punishment cell, I didn't get caught on the hunt, I bought tobacco, I didn't get sick - what else? If such a day is happy, then what are the unlucky ones?

Shukhov lives in harmony with himself, he is far from introspection, from painful reflections, from questions: why? why? This wholeness of consciousness largely explains its vitality, adaptability to inhuman conditions... "Naturalness" of Ivan Denisovich is associated with the high moral character of the hero. They trust Shukhov, because they know: he is honest, decent, lives by conscience. Shukhov's adaptability has nothing to do with adaptability, humiliation, loss of human dignity. Shukhov remembers the words of his first brigadier, the old camp wolf Kuzemin: "In the camp, that's who dies: who licks the bowls, who hopes for the medical unit, and who goes to knock on the godfather." Shukhov and in the camp works conscientiously, as if at liberty, at his own collective farm. For him in this work - the dignity and joy of a master who owns his work. While working, he feels a surge of energy and strength. There is a practical peasant thrift in him: he hides the trowel with touching care. Work is life for Shukhov. The Soviet government did not corrupt him, could not force him to cheat, to take time off. The way of peasant life, its age-old laws turned out to be stronger. Common sense and a sober outlook on life help him survive.

The author writes with sympathy about those who “take the blow”. These are Senka Klevshin, Latvian Kildigis, Cavtorang Buinovsky, assistant to brigadier Pavlo and brigadier Tyurin. They do not drop themselves and do not drop words in vain, like Ivan Denisovich. Brigadier Tyurin is a “father” for everyone. The life of the brigade depends on how the "interest" is closed. Tyurin himself knows how to live, and thinks for others. "Impractical" Buinovsky is trying to fight for his rights and gets "ten days of strict". Shukhov does not approve of Buinovsky's deed: “Grunt and rot. But if you resist, you will break. " Shukhov with his common sense and Buinovsky with his "inability to live" are opposed by those who "do not take the blow", "who evade him." First of all, this is the film director Caesar Markovich. He has a fur hat, sent from outside: "Caesar greased someone, and they allowed him to wear a clean city hat." Everyone is working in the cold, and Caesar is sitting in the office warmly. Shukhov does not blame Caesar: everyone wants to survive. One of the hallmarks of Caesar's life is "educated conversation." The cinema, which Caesar was engaged in, is a game, i.e. fictitious, fake life, from the point of view of a prisoner. The reality remains hidden to Caesar. Shukhov even feels sorry for him: "I suppose he thinks a lot about himself, and does not understand at all in life."

Solzhenitsyn singles out another hero, not named by name - "a tall, silent old man." He sat in prisons and camps for an uncountable number of years, and not a single amnesty touched him. But he did not lose himself. “His face was worn out, but not to the extent of the weakness of the disabled wick, but to the hewn, dark stone. And on the hands, large, in cracks and blackness, it was evident that not much had fallen to him for all the years to sit out like an idiot. " The "idiots" - camp "aristocrats" - lackeys: orderlies in the barracks, foreman Der, "observer" Shkuropatenko, a hairdresser, an accountant, one of the KVCh - "the first bastards who sat in the zone, these hard workers considered these hard workers to be lower than shit.

In the person of the “gentle,” patient Ivan Denisovich, Solzhenitsyn recreated the image of the Russian people, capable of enduring unprecedented suffering, deprivation, bullying and at the same time maintaining kindness to people, humanity, condescension to human weaknesses and intransigence to moral vices. In the finale of "One Day ..." Shukhov, not without mockery of the seeker of truth, Baptist Alyosha, will appreciate his call: "Of all earthly and mortal things, the Lord bequeathed to us only for our daily bread:" Give us this day our daily bread. " “Solder, then? Shukhov asked. "

One Day of Ivan Denisovich grows to the limits of a whole human life, to the scale of people's destiny, to the symbol of an entire era in the history of Russia.