The concept of human personality in the late works of N. Gogol

Gogol, as a person, represents such a complex and mysterious mental organization in which the most heterogeneous and sometimes directly opposite principles collide and intertwine. Gogol himself was aware of this mystery and complexity of his mental world and repeatedly expressed this consciousness in his letters.

“I am considered a mystery to everyone, no one has completely solved me” (From Gogol’s letters).

Gogol, as a person, represents such a complex and mysterious mental organization in which the most heterogeneous and sometimes directly opposite principles collide and intertwine. Gogol himself was aware of this mystery and complexity of his mental world and repeatedly expressed this consciousness in his letters. Even in his youth, at school, in one of his letters to his mother, he declared himself this way: “I am considered a mystery to everyone; no one has figured me out completely.” “Why God,” he exclaims in another letter, “having created a heart, perhaps the only one, at least rare in the world, a pure soul, flaming with hot love for everything high and beautiful, why did He give it all such a rough shell ? Why did He dress all this in such a strange mixture of contradiction, stubbornness, daring self-confidence and the most abject humility? Gogol was such an unbalanced, incomprehensible nature in his youth, and he remained so in his subsequent life. “A lot seemed to us in him,” we read in Arnoldi’s “Memoirs of Gogol,” “inexplicably mysterious.” How, for example, can we reconcile his constant striving for moral perfection with his pride, which we have all witnessed more than once? his amazing, subtle, observant mind, visible in all his works, and, at the same time, in ordinary life - some kind of stupidity and lack of understanding of the simplest and most ordinary things? We also remembered his strange manner of dressing and his ridicule of those who dressed funny and without taste, his religiosity and humility, and sometimes too strange impatience and little condescension towards his neighbors; in a word, they found an abyss of contradictions that seemed difficult to combine in one person.” And, in fact, how to combine in one person the naive idealist of the beginning of his literary activity with the crude realist of later times - the cheerful, harmless humorist Rudy Panko, who infected all readers with his laughter; - with a formidable, merciless satirist, from whom all classes got it, - a great artist and poet, creator of immortal works, with an ascetic preacher, author of the strange “Correspondence with Friends”? How to reconcile such opposing principles in one person? Where are the explanations for this complex interweaving of a wide variety of mental elements? Where, finally, is the solution to the psychic riddle that Gogol posed with his entire existence? We are told that “the answer to Gogol may lie in the psychology of that complex, vast whole that we call by the name of the “great man.” But what is a “great man” and what does he have to do with Gogol? What are the special laws governing the soul of a “great man?” - In our opinion, the answer to Gogol should be sought not in the psychology of a great man in general, but in the psychology of Gogol’s greatness, combined with extreme self-abasement, - Gogol’s mind, combined with a strange “misunderstanding of things” the simplest and most ordinary - Gogol's talent, combined with ascetic self-denial and painful impotence - in a word, in the psychology of the only, exceptional specially Gogol personality.

So, what is Gogol’s personality like? Despite the complexity and diversity of his inner world, despite the many contradictions contained in his personality, upon closer acquaintance with Gogol’s character one cannot help but notice two main trends, two predominant sides, absorbing all other mental elements: This, firstly , a side that is directly related to Gogol as a person, and is expressed in his penchant for constant moral introspection, moral self-exposure and denunciation of others; and, secondly, the other side, which characterizes Gogol as a writer and consists in the visual power of his talent, artistically and comprehensively reproducing the world of reality around him as it is. These two sides of personality can always be easily distinguished in Gogol. Thus, he appears before us as Gogol the moralist and as Gogol the artist, as Gogol the thinker and as Gogol the poet, as Gogol the man and as Gogol the writer. This duality of his nature, which is reflected in him very early and which can be traced in him from the beginning of his life to the end of it, this division of his “I” into two “I,” constitutes a characteristic feature of his personality. His whole life, with all its vicissitudes, contradictions and oddities, is nothing more than the struggle between these two opposite principles with an alternating preponderance of one side or the other, or rather with a preponderance of first predominantly one side, and then the other; his final, tragic fate is nothing more than the final triumph of Gogol the moralist over Gogol the artist. The task of a psychologist-biographer should be to trace in various phases this complex psychological process, which gradually led the cheerful humorist beekeeper Rudy Panko to sharp, painful asceticism, and the formidable satirist-writer to self-denial and denial of everything that he lived, and that it was written to them earlier. Without taking upon ourselves to resolve this difficult and complex task, in this essay we want to outline only the main points of this process and at least outline the general outline of Gogol’s personality.

The son of the somewhat famous writer Vasily Afanasyevich Gogol-Yanovsky and his somewhat exalted wife Marya Ivanovna, Gogol naturally inherited outstanding literary talent and an impressionable, receptive nature. His father, the author of several comedies from Little Russian life, who had a cheerful and good-natured character, who had a strong passion for theater and literature, undoubtedly had a very beneficial influence during his life on the development of his son’s literary talent and on the formation of his sympathies. Having seen from childhood an example of respect for books and a passionate love for the stage, Gogol very early became addicted to reading and acting. At least in the Nizhyn gymnasium, soon after Gogol entered it, we meet him as the initiator and main figure in the organization of the gymnasium theater, in the organization of amateur reading of books for self-education, and finally, in the publication of the student magazine “Stars”. He retained this passion for literature and theater, instilled in him as a child, throughout his life. But at this time, just as the father could and undoubtedly had a beneficial influence on the development of his son’s literary talent, his religiously-minded and extremely pious mother had a strong influence on education moral personality Gogol. She tried in her upbringing to lay a solid foundation for the Christian religion and good morality. And the impressionable soul of the child did not remain deaf to these mother’s lessons. Gogol himself subsequently notes this influence of his mother on his religious and moral development. With a special sense of gratitude, he later recalls these lessons, when, for example, his mother’s stories about the Last Judgment “shocked and awakened all his sensitivity and subsequently gave rise to the highest thoughts.” One should also look at the fact that a fiery spirit awakened in Gogol very early as a fruit of maternal upbringing. thirst for moral benefit, which he dreams of providing to humanity. Under the influence of this desire to be useful, he very early, while still at school, stops thinking “on justice,” thinking; that here he can provide the greatest benefit to humanity. “I saw,” he writes from Nezhin to his uncle Kosyarovsky, “that there is more work here than anything else, that here only I can be a blessing, here only I will be truly useful for humanity. Injustice, the greatest misfortune in the world, tore my heart more than anything else. I vowed not to lose a single minute of my short life without doing good.” Gogol retained this desire for moral benefit, a passionate thirst for achievement, until the end of his life, changing his view only on types of activity, and this trait should be recognized as the true expressive of his moral physiognomy. His hatred of everything vulgar, self-righteous, insignificant was a manifestation of this trait of his character. And Gogol, indeed, hated all this as much as he could, and pursued vulgarity with special passion, pursued it wherever he found it, and pursued it as only a well-aimed, caustic word of Gogol could pursue.

But along with the good seeds, the mother for the first time threw some tares into the receptive soul of her son, which later, having grown greatly, bore bitter fruits. Loving her “Nikosha” to the point of oblivion, she, with her immoderate adoration, gave rise to extreme conceit and an exaggerated assessment of her personality in him. Later, Gogol himself realized this extreme of maternal upbringing. “You made every effort,” he writes in one of his letters to his mother, “to raise me as best as possible; but, unfortunately, parents are rarely good educators of their children. You were still young then, for the first time you had children, for the first time you dealt with them, and so could you - did you know how to proceed, what was needed? I remember: I didn’t feel anything strongly, I looked at everything as if it were something created to please me .

Along with this conceit and, perhaps, as a direct result of it, the desire for teaching and reasoning is evident in Gogol very early on. Already in his youthful letters from Nizhyn to his mother we find clear traces of this trait. He often addresses his mother in them with reproaches, advice, instructions, teachings, and their tone often takes on a rhetorical, pompous tone. The further you go, the more prominent this feature becomes. He begins to teach and instruct in his letters not only his mother and sisters, but also his scientists, his more educated friends and acquaintances - Zhukovsky, Pogodin, etc. This desire for teaching, together with self-conceit, in the end served Gogol a disservice: it paved the way for his so famous “Correspondence with Friends”...

All these traits - the desire for moral benefit, extreme conceit and passion for teaching - conditioning and complementing each other and gradually intensifying, later received predominant significance in Gogol’s soul and over time formed him into that strange and sharp teacher - moralist as he appears to us at the end of his life.

But, along with this side of Gogol’s personality, another side gradually developed, matured and strengthened in him: his great artistic talent, combined with an outstanding gift of observation. The extraordinary impressionability and receptivity of his nature did him a great service: they awakened his feelings, nourished his mind and tempered his talent. Impressions of the reality around him early began to sink into the soul of the gifted boy: nothing escaped his observant gaze, and what the latter noted was long and firmly stored in his soul. This is how Gogol himself testifies to this feature of his spiritual nature. “First,” he says about himself in Chapter VI. I vol. Dead Souls, - long ago, in the years of my youth, in the years of my irrevocably flashed childhood, it was fun for me to drive up for the first time to an unfamiliar place: it didn’t matter whether it was a village, a poor provincial town, a village, a settlement – a child’s curious gaze revealed a lot of curious things in him. Every structure, everything that bore the imprint of some noticeable feature, everything stopped me and amazed me... Nothing escaped fresh, subtle attention and, sticking my nose out of my traveling cart, I looked at the hitherto unprecedented cut of some a frock coat and wooden boxes with nails, with sulfur, yellowing in the distance, with raisins and soap, flashing from the doors of a greengrocer's shop along with jars of dried Moscow sweets; I looked at the infantry officer walking to the side, brought from God knows which province - to the boredom of the district, and at the merchant who flashed in Siberia in a racing droshky - and was carried away mentally after them into their poor life. A district official walked past - and I was already wondering where he was going.”... “Approaching the village of some landowner,” Gogol, in his house, in the garden, in everything around him, “tried to guess who the landowner himself was,” etc. d. This property of Gogol’s mind determined the fact that in his works he could reproduce only what he saw and heard, what he observed directly in life. The creative reproduction of the real world, determined by this feature of its nature, informed and should have informed Gogol’s talent realistic direction.“I have never created anything in my imagination,” he says about himself, in the Author’s Confession, “and did not have this property. The only thing that worked out well for me was what was taken from reality, from what was known to me. “ These traits - poetic observation and artistic creativity were of great importance for Gogol as a writer. His subtle observation, looking into the very depths of the human soul, helped him find and guess the characteristic features of his contemporary society, and his artistic creativity gave him the opportunity to embody these features in a whole collection of the most real and truthful types - types not only of Little Russia - which was his homeland poet, but also Great Russia, whom he hardly knew. They formed him into that great realist artist who was the most expressive writer of contemporary life and with his creations had a powerful influence on contemporary society.

In May 1821, Gogol, a twelve-year-old boy, entered the Nizhyn Gymnasium of Higher Sciences. This gymnasium belonged to that type of old school in which, in Pushkin’s words, they studied “little by little,” “something and somehow.” It was a time when students were in many ways ahead of their teachers and found it possible to ridicule their backwardness almost to their faces. In addition, the Nizhyn gymnasium, during Gogol’s studies there, was in particularly unfavorable conditions. It had just been opened and needed to organize and put in order all aspects of its teaching and educational work. Many of the subjects taught there during this time were so poorly taught that they could not provide students with any preparation. Among such subjects was, by the way, the history of Russian literature. Prof. Nikolsky, who taught this subject, according to the testimony of one of Gogol’s school friends, “had no understanding of ancient and Western literatures.” In Russian literature, he admired Kheraskov and Sumarokov, found Ozerov, Batyushkov and Zhukovsky not quite classical, and Pushkin’s language and thoughts trivial.” Such was the school of that time, such were the professors and such was the state of education. And if Pushkins, Gogols, Redkins, Kukolniki and many others came out of such schools. etc., then they owed all their acquisitions not so much to the school as to their own talents and initiative. True, there was, however, one good side to the schools of that time, which had a beneficial effect on the development of their pupils. Precisely: these schools, if they didn’t give anything to their students, at least. nothing was taken from them. They did not restrict the freedom of their students, allocated a spacious circle for their amateur activities and thus, although negatively, contributed to the development of their individuality and the disclosure of natural talents.

If we, along with the general shortcomings of the school of that time, take into account the properties related to Gogol as a student, namely, that he was indifferent to the subjects taught and was considered a lazy and sloppy pet, then the veracity of Gogol’s testimony about himself, which we find in his Author's Confession. “It must be said,” he testifies here, “that I received a rather poor upbringing at school, and therefore it is no wonder that the idea of ​​​​learning came to me in adulthood. I started with such initial books that I was ashamed to even show them and hid all my studies.”

“The school, according to the statement of one of his mentors, namely Mr. Kulzhinsky, taught him only a certain logical formality and consistency of concepts and thoughts, and he does not owe us anything else. This was a talent that was not recognized by the school, and, to tell the truth, that did not want or was not able to admit to the school.” True, he later sought to fill these gaps in education; in his “Confession” he speaks of reading and studying “books of legislators, spiritualists and observers of human nature,” but his writings, both artistic and journalistic (“Correspondence”) do not confirm this evidence, and even reading learned books without prior preparation could hardly bring him significant benefit. Thus, he was forced to remain for the rest of his life with pitiful scraps of the simple wisdom of the Nezhin school... Therefore, without being a prophet, it would not be difficult to predict that no matter how great a man he later became in the field of art, he certainly had to be a mediocre thinker and a bad moralist.

But then Gogol finishes school and enters life. He is beckoned and attracted to St. Petersburg, service, glory. School - “after all, this is not life yet,” argues one of Gogol’s heroes, who (i.e. Gogol) at that time had a lot in common with him, “it is only preparation for life: real life in the service: there are exploits!” And according to the custom of all ambitious people, Gogol notes about this hero, “he rushed to St. Petersburg, where, as we know, our ardent youth strives from all sides.” Gogol is horrified at this time by the thought of a traceless existence in the world. “To be in the world and not signify your existence,” he exclaims, “is terrible for me.” His gigantic spiritual forces ask out, rush to “mean his life with one good deed, one benefit to the fatherland” and push him “into the active world.” He is in a hurry to determine his calling, changes many positions and places one after another, and nowhere can he find peace for his restless soul. Either he is an official of the Department of Destinations, then he is a history teacher at the Patriotic Institute, then it seems to him that his calling is the stage, then he thinks of devoting himself entirely to painting. Finally, the publication of his “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka” decides his fate and determines his vocation. His short stories from Little Russian life, published under this title, evoke universal sympathy from both critics and the public. Pushkin himself was “amazed by this curious literary novelty.” Now before us is Gogol the poet, Gogol the writer. From now on, everything that his artistic inspiration dictates to him will be significant, beautiful, great.

But “Evenings” were only the first experience of his literary activity, a test of his strength and pen. Other plans flash in Gogol’s head, other thoughts are ripening in his soul. “Evenings” do not satisfy him, and he wants to create something greater and more significant than these “fairy tales and sayings.” “Let them be doomed to obscurity,” he writes about them shortly after their publication to M.P. Pogodin, “until something weighty, great, artistic comes out of me.” Soon, indeed, “The Inspector General” (1836) appears, and five or six years later “Dead Souls” (I volume). In these works, the power of Gogol's rich literary talent unfolded in all its breadth and power. Everything vulgar and self-satisfied in its vulgarity, everything insignificant and arrogant in its insignificance, “all the injustices that are committed in those places and in those cases where justice is most required from a person,” all this was collected in these works “in one heap.” and branded with the seal of bitterly poisonous laughter, deep hatred and the greatest contempt. There is no need to dwell on how widely the Russian life of the author’s time with its social phenomena is captured in them and how deeply the soul of the contemporary man is revealed in its most intimate recesses: history has already managed to appreciate these works, and has paid due tribute to the surprise of gratitude to the genius their author. Suffice it to say that Gogol appeared in them completely at the height of his calling - to be an artist exposing the vices of his contemporary society and the shortcomings of the social system - and conscientiously fulfilled the duty that he was called to fulfill.

Meanwhile, while Gogol’s great works were ready to make a radical revolution not only in the literary world, but also in public life, while both Gogol’s friends and enemies had already counted him among the leading people of his contemporary society, - in this time, his worldview continues to remain at the same level as it was in the days of his conscious childhood and in the years of his youth that followed. Apparently, St. Petersburg did not have any noticeable influence in this case. The Pushkin circle, which Gogol joined soon after his arrival in the capital, if it could have a beneficial effect on him, it was only in an artistic and literary sense; all other aspects of Gogol's spiritual development remained outside the scope of this influence. It is also not clear that Gogol’s trips abroad brought him any significant benefit. His worldview—if only this name can be used to describe the stock of everyday views and traditional beliefs he learned from his home upbringing and school education—even in St. Petersburg remains completely untouched and completely virgin. Warm, immediate faith in the field of religious matters, ardent love for the motherland and respectful recognition of the existing order of social life as it is - not subject to any critical analysis - in the field of political and social questions - these are the features that should be noted, as essential, in this primitive, somewhat patriarchal worldview. But with such views, a characteristic and typical feature of Gogol’s personality was, as we noted, a passionate desire for moral benefit for the fatherland, a fiery thirst for moral achievement. This feature of his personality constantly pushed Gogol onto the path of practical activity and informed his worldview active, character. It was this that brought Gogol, as a person and a citizen, into a collision with the other side of his activity, with Gogol as a writer.

While Gogol’s youthful ardor was strong, while Pushkin, that good genius of his, was alive, Gogol had the opportunity to devote himself inseparably to artistic creativity. But over the years, with the appearance of various illnesses and with other adversities of life that came to his head, the thought of a fruitlessly lived life more and more troubled his mind, more and more often confused his conscience. It began to seem to him that the benefit he brings with his literary works is not so significant, that the path he has embarked on is not entirely correct and that in another place he could be much more useful. The first strong impetus for this turn in Gogol’s mood was given by the first performance of his “The Inspector General.” As you know, this performance made a stunning impression on the audience. It was a sudden thunder on the clear horizon of public life. The Inspector was seen as a libel on society, undermining the authority of civil authorities, undermining the very foundations of the social system. Gogol did not expect this conclusion, and it horrified him. It seemed that Gogol the artist for the first time did not calculate his strength here and produced something that embarrassed Gogol the citizen. “The first work, conceived with the aim of producing a good influence on society,” not only did not achieve its intended goal, but was accompanied by precisely

with the opposite result: “they began to see in comedy,” says Gogol, “a desire to ridicule legalized order of things and government forms, while my intention was only to ridicule arbitrary retreat of some persons from the formal and legal order.” Gogol the citizen could not come to terms with the accusation of civil unreliability, which Gogol the writer discovered. How? - to ridicule not only persons, but also the positions they occupy, to ridicule not only human vulgarity, but also the shortcomings of the social system - such thoughts never even entered his head. That is why, when Belinsky began to reveal the great social significance of his works, Gogol hastens to renounce everything that the great critic attributed to him, which, indeed, was all his merit, but which so much went against his social views. In his opinion, the social system, whatever it may be, has, as a “legalized order,” an unshakable, enduring significance. The source of evil is rooted not in social disorder, but in the corrupt soul of a person who is stagnant in his wickedness. Evil comes from the fact that people are too morally corrupt and do not want to get behind their shortcomings, do not want to improve. His Skvoznik-Dmukhanovskys, Plyushkins, Nozdrevs, Sobakeviches, Korobochkis, etc. seem to him to be simply random phenomena, as having nothing in common with the flow of social life. If they are like that, then they themselves are to blame. It is enough for them to repent and morally improve in order to become good people. This was Gogol’s own view of his types and the meaning of his creations. But from under the inspired pen of a true writer-artist, as the fruit of unconscious creativity, something often pours out that he does not foresee and does not expect. This happened this time too. Social ills, contrary to the author’s wishes, surfaced so clearly in “The Inspector General” that it was impossible not to pay attention to them. Everyone saw them and everyone understood them well, and first of all to you, Emperor Nicholas I, who, after viewing the play, said: “everyone got it, and most of all I myself.” There were cries of indignation against the author and cries of protest against his creations. "Liberal! Revolutionary! Slanderer of Russia! To Siberia it “! - these were the general cries of the indignant public. And all these terrible words rained down on the head of one who did not even understand the full significance of the accusations brought against him, and even more so did not know what caused them on his part. It is therefore not difficult to imagine the despair into which all these attacks plunged Gogol. “Against me,” he complains to Pogodin, “all classes have now resolutely rebelled.”... “Consider the position of the poor author, who meanwhile loves his fatherland and his compatriots very much.” “Gogol the Citizen” was embarrassed and deeply shocked. He hastens to justify himself, referring to the ignorance and irritability of the public, who do not want to understand that if several rogues are brought out in a comedy, this does not mean that all are rogues; that his heroes, the Khlestakovs, etc., are far from being as typical as myopic people imagine, But it was already too late. The comedy did its job: it branded those who deserved it with the seal of vulgarity and contempt. Confused and alarmed, Gogol hurries to retire abroad to rest from his worries and recover from the blow that was dealt to him by his own hand. He goes “to unwind his melancholy” and “ think deeply about your responsibilities as an author“. A very significant and fraught goal: Gogol the moralist collided sharply with Gogol the artist here for the first time, and they did not recognize each other; Not only did they not recognize each other, did not extend their hand to each other for the fraternal pursuit of the same goal, - no! - they for the first time turned somewhat away from each other: Gogol the moralist thought about Gogol the artist and did not fully understand and appreciate but, not appreciating him, looked at him somewhat sideways. From then on, a noticeable turn began in him on the path that led him to “Correspondence with Friends,” “a great turning point,” “a great era of his life.” His previous works begin to seem to him like “a student’s notebook, in which carelessness and laziness are visible on one page, impatience and haste on the other”... He expresses the desire that “such a moth would appear that would suddenly eat all the copies of “The Inspector General”, and with them “Arabesques”, “Evenings” and all other nonsense.” He had the idea of ​​​​combining poetry with teaching in order to bring one benefit with his writings, avoiding the harm that, as it seemed to him, they could bring by carelessly exposing and ridiculing human vulgarity. He is now conceiving a new great work, in which the entire Russian person should be shown, with all his properties, not only negative, but also positive. This thought about the positive qualities of the Russian person was a direct product of the fear that Gogol experienced before the all-destroying power of his satirical laughter after the performance of “The Inspector General.”

In 1842, the first volume of “Dead Souls” appears, where Gogol’s talent still remains true to itself, where Gogol the artist still gains an advantage over Gogol the moralist. But, alas! - the lyrical digressions scattered in abundance throughout this work - were an ominous symptom of the disaster awaiting all of educated Russia, which was soon to occur - a significant sign of the defeat that Gogol the artist would soon suffer at the hands of Gogol - moralist. No one had yet suspected the impending storm, no one had yet sensed the approaching disaster: only Belinsky’s keen eye saw this split in Gogol’s talent, reflected in this creation of his, only his subtle ear overheard the false note that slipped here...

Meanwhile, Gogol himself looks at the first volume as the threshold to a great building, that is, as a preface to that work in which other motives should be heard, other images should pass through. But Belinsky had already prophesied to him that if he followed this road, he would ruin his talent.

Belinsky's prophecy, unfortunately, soon came true. No more than five years have passed since the publication of the first volume of “Dead Souls” and all of reading Russia, instead of the promised second volume of the same creation, sadly unfolded a strange book that bore the unusual title “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.” No one, except Gogol's closest friends, knew what this meant; but everyone understood that Russian literature was losing a great and talented writer, who had enriched it with not only wonderful works, but now presented some vague sermon of well-known, sometimes rather dubious, truths, only stated in some extraordinary, doctoral, arrogant tone. Screams, screams and moans were heard again - this time already screams of reproaches, screams of bewilderment, groans of despair!!! But it was too late: Gogol the moralist dealt the final blow to Gogol the artist, and Gogol the artist died forever. He fell victim to internal division, moral introspection and painful reflection. He died in an impossible struggle against a forcibly imposed unnatural tendency; - died prematurely, in such years when a person’s strength is still in full bloom. Let us not ask fruitless questions about what, under other conditions, Gogol’s mighty talent could have given to Russian literature—what other pearls he would have enriched it with. Let us better express our gratitude to him for what he did... All his life he steadily strove to fulfill his duty as a writer as best as possible, to justify his high calling by his deeds - and with sad doubts about his fulfilled duty, he passed away into eternity. So let us calm his spirit once again by recognizing that he sacredly fulfilled his duty, fulfilled it completely, although not in the way he thought he would do it. After all, it is not because Gogol is great, of course, that he left behind a meager book of commonplace morality - a book, the likes of which were not a few before him, are many now and will continue to appear in the future, but the theme of the great works of art with which he marked the history of Russian literature a new era, made a radical revolution in it and laid the foundation for a new trend - realistic, which continues in it to this day.

Panaev, Literary Memoirs, SPV. 1888 p. 187.

Historical Bulletin, 1901 XII, 977 pp. Engelhardt, Nikolaev censorship.

Ibid., p. 976

Ibid page 378.

Ibid., Wed. page 377.

Ibid., p. 378.

Ibid., p. 384

UDC 1(091)

Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Ser. 17. 2015. Issue. 3

N. I. Bezlepkin

N.V. GOGOL AS PHILOSOPHER

The article examines the philosophical views of N.V. Gogol. Based on the analysis of the literary works of the great Russian writer, his philosophical-anthropological, historiosophical, aesthetic and moral-religious views in their evolution are highlighted. In his philosophical views, N.V. Gogol proceeded from the idea that the transformation of society is led not by changes in its external structure, but by internal changes in a person. Bib-liogr. 14 titles

Key words: historical individualism, aesthetic anthropology, Christian anthropology, historiosophy, aesthetic humanism, personalism, Church, social utopia, Western civilization.

N. V. GOGOL AS A PHILOSOPHER

The article investigates the philosophical views of Nikolai Gogol. Based on the analysis of literary works of the great Russian writer we explore the philosophical and anthropological, historiosophical, aesthetic, moral and religious views of the great Russian writer in their evolution. Gogol in his philosophical views proceeded from the belief according to which society is transformed not by change of its outer structure, but by internal changes in a person. Refs 14.

Keywords: Historic individualism, aesthetic anthropology, Christian anthropology, historical philosophy, aesthetic humanism, personalism, Church, social utopia, Western civilization.

In the works of N.V. Gogol (1809-1852), like most classics of Russian literature, there is an important layer of philosophical reflections aimed at comprehending in artistic form the main existential problems of existence. In the works of the great Russian classic, one can distinguish “two aspects: the first is the literary prose itself, the images and pictures it reveals; the other aspect is worldview, metaphysical, philosophical.” The identification of the world-contemplative, philosophical aspect in the literary heritage of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol in most studies comes down to either a religious-philosophical or an aesthetic analysis of his works. Meanwhile, the work of the great Russian writer should be considered as unified and holistic.

Gogol's philosophical quests were assessed by his contemporaries, for example V. G. Belinsky, as unfinished, not fully comprehended and sometimes contradictory, which, however, does not reduce their significance. Gogol did not have his own philosophical system, comprehensively and deeply thought out, but he was a thinker who managed to rise to deep ideological generalizations. Gogol did not allow himself to be content only with artistic success. His goal, as V.V. Zenkovsky emphasizes, was not “to create the most perfect work of art, but to produce a certain impact on Russian

Bezlepkin Nikolay Ivanovich - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, North-West Open Technical University, Russian Federation, 195027, St. Petersburg, st. Yakornaya, 9 a; [email protected]

Bezlepkin Nikolay I. - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, North-West Open Technical University, 9a, Yakornaya st., St. Petersburg, 195027, Russian Federation; [email protected]

society" . The public reaction to his works again and again forced Gogol to look for ways to correct morals in Russia, forced, as he himself noted, “to create with great deliberation.”

The philosophical aspect of N.V. Gogol’s work is clearly manifested primarily in the writer’s consistent interest in human problems. His philosophical anthropology evolves from “aesthetic anthropology” (V. Zenkovsky) to Christian. The first period of the formation of Gogol’s philosophical worldview was a time of aesthetic romanticism, a period of moral quests that took place under the influence of German romanticism, as well as the writer’s own thoughts about man. The beginning of this period was marked by the release of the poem “Hanz Küchelgarten” (1828), which was a stylization in the spirit of German romanticism, the purpose of which was a philosophical analysis of human aesthetic needs.

Gogol, professing the ideas of aesthetic humanism, proceeded from the utopian idea of ​​​​the possibility of transforming life under the influence of art. In the article “On the Architecture of Modern Times” (1831) he wrote: “Magnificence plunges the common man into a kind of numbness - and this is the only spring that moves the wild man. The extraordinary amazes everyone." The “virgin forces” inherent in man, according to the German romantics, are reinterpreted by the writer as those “primary” forces of the soul, thanks to which “all history works and all events take place.” Whether we are talking about Chertkov from the story “Portrait”, Andrie from “Taras Bulba”, Akaki Akakievich from “The Overcoat” or even Chichikov from “Dead Souls” - in each of them Gogol found “a poetic force living in every soul”, capable move a person to transform his life. The writer saw in the aesthetic responsiveness of the soul a creative force capable of changing both the person himself and his life.

After the release of The Inspector General, Gogol overestimates the role of the “primary” forces of the soul. The writer wanted to teach the public, to arm it with his ideals; it seemed to him that “The Inspector General” “would produce some kind of immediate and decisive effect! Russia will see its sins in the mirror of comedy and all, as one person, will fall to its knees, burst into tears of repentance and instantly be reborn!” . But that did not happen. “The Inspector General,” which was a resounding success, was taken for an ordinary farce and coexisted in the theater repertoire with those vaudevilles and plays that Gogol parodied in his play.

The aesthetic anthropology of the great Russian writer, based on faith in man and the search for beauty, was not only utopian, but also contradictory. On the one hand, Gogol believed in the healing power of love and beauty, on the other hand, he acutely felt the tragedy of love and the ambiguity of beauty in our world. What is the secret of beauty? - Gogol asks in Viya, and in Nevsky Prospekt he answers: beauty is of divine origin, but in our “terrible life” it is perverted by the “hellish spirit.” You cannot accept such a life. If you have to choose between “dream” and “essentiality,” then the artist chooses the dream. The evil beauty of our world, according to the writer, destroys, awakening in the hearts of people a “terrible, destructive” force - love.

We find variations of this theme in “Taras Bulba” and in “Notes of a Madman.”

descended." For Andriy, the call of beauty is stronger than honor, faith, and homeland. From one breath of a beautiful Polish woman, all his moral foundations collapse; Gogol shows that beauty by its very nature is immoral. As Yu. V. Mann notes, from a young age Gogol “was characterized by a keen sense of female beauty - a source of inspiration, violent experiences and at the same time a dangerous temptation and a disastrous threat. ...He was haunted by the feeling of a tragic discrepancy between beauty and moral truth, but at the same time, a painful need arose to overcome this collision. Support must be found in beauty itself, if you put at the service of high religious morality all the power of feminine charm, the abyss of sensuality, heavenly and at the same time completely earthly inspiration.”

The impossibility of transforming life through aesthetic experiences forced Gogol to abandon the exaltation of art and look for ways to subordinate it to higher religious tasks. According to V. Zenkovsky, it is the religious vocation of poetry and art in general that forces the writer to overcome the principle of autonomy of the aesthetic sphere and to establish its connection with the entire integral life of the spirit, that is, the religious sphere. Aesthetic anthropology in Gogol gives way to Christian anthropology, which is characterized by a combination of moralism and aestheticism, based on serving God. Aesthetic experiences combined with intense moral consciousness, according to the Russian classic, are the only ones capable of changing a person, helping him overcome the “disunity of beauty and goodness.”

In the article “Sculpture, Painting and Music,” Gogol emphasizes the impossibility of serving art without understanding the highest goal, understanding why art is given. The author saw the highest goal in serving God. Art is for him “steps to Christianity” - this, in his opinion, is the religious function of art. Literature for Gogol is a kind of religious teaching in which the struggle between good and evil takes place: Satan is bound and ridiculed (“The Night Before Christmas”), demons are put to shame (“Sorochinskaya Fair”), evil spirits are neutralized and vice is punished (“Viy” ). In the deviation from the Gospel covenant of love for one’s neighbor, Gogol saw both the tragedy of history and the anthropological catastrophe, the onset of which is opposed by Orthodox culture, the value meaning of which is shown by Gogol in the story “Old World Landowners” (1832-1835). In this story, Gogol writes: “...according to the strange structure of things, insignificant causes always gave birth to great events and, on the contrary, great enterprises ended in insignificant consequences. Some conqueror gathers all the forces of his state, fights for several years, his commanders become famous, and finally all this ends with the acquisition of a piece of land on which there is no place to sow potatoes; and sometimes, on the contrary, two sausage makers from two cities will fight among themselves over nonsense, and the quarrel will finally engulf the cities, then the towns and villages, and then the whole state.” The writer is ironic about such a story, about great historical events whose purpose is murder. Gogol sees the philosophical meaning of history in the idea of ​​peace, in the triumph of harmony and reconciliation. Reflections on the fundamental differences between the original (“old world”) culture of Russia and the latest European enlightenment of “civilized” St. Petersburg, between the “non-modern” but culturally valuable

Rome and the spiritually empty, bustling Paris in the story “Rome” (1842) lead Gogol to the conclusion that the spiritual degradation of the world can be stopped by love, which fulfills the mission of “retaining culture.”

Gogol believed in the possibility of transforming vulgar and low reality into a sublime world. All the dishonors that the writer so talentedly brought out in his works were associated “with the underdevelopment and undisclosed personality in Russia, with the suppression of the image of man.” As D. Chizhevsky accurately noted, no matter how insignificant the earthly world is, it is, according to Gogol, only “spoiled.” ““Abominations”, “rogues”, “vile”, “bribe takers” - in all of them the writer considers it necessary, first of all, to see the hidden or distorted good. And the main path is love for a person. Maybe someone else was not born a dishonest person at all, maybe one drop of love for him would be enough to return him to the straight path, N.V. Gogol believed.”

Following the traditions of Russian philosophy, the Russian classic saw the main goal in outlining the ways of life, based on the comprehension of human nature. That is why the heroes of the works of the great Russian writer are social. Gogol's Chichikov has the “general formula” of a civilized person. The Chichikovs, notes N.A. Berdyaev, “buy up and resell non-existent wealth, they operate with fictions, not realities, they turn the entire economic life of Russia into fiction.” For the sake of his “overcoat” (Dutch shirts and foreign soap), Chichikov embarks on a scam. However, according to the fair remark of V.V. Nabokov, “by trying to buy dead people in a country where living people were legally bought and pawned, Chichikov hardly sinned seriously from a moral point of view.” Be that as it may, Chichikov is the only character in the poem who does something. Gogol discerns in him the future bourgeois, and he harnessed the Rus-troika to carry Chichikov - there were no others. From the distance of Italy, Gogol looked at his homeland with the gaze of a statesman. “For Russia to move, for “other peoples and states” to really stand aside, it is necessary for the allegorical troika to be controlled by Chichikov - an average, ordinary, petty person.” “Let’s harness the scoundrel,” says Gogol, attaching Chichikov to the bird-three, “but we’ll make sure that a man is born in the scoundrel.” So that he, realizing the baseness of his goal, directs his acumen, intelligence, and will towards the feat of Christian labor and state building.

Russian literature and philosophy have always been characterized by personalism, based on the conviction that without comprehending the essence of personality it is impossible to discuss other issues. That is why the focus of attention was constantly placed not so much on man as a natural being, but on the inexhaustible spiritual experience of the individual, the meaning of individual and collective existence. K. Mochulsky, exploring Gogol’s spiritual path, noted that the core of classical Russian culture is not connected with the image of the “external” person and the idea of ​​a radical transformation of society, as was seen, for example, by V. G. Belinsky, but with the motive of Christian personal improvement.

It is no coincidence that Christian anthropology occupies a significant place in the writer’s work, for Gogol’s spiritual path and his understanding of the meaning of “mental education” (a term first used by the author in 1842) are connected with it.

and became a favorite). Internal spiritual research forced him to some extent reconsider his views on writing. Gogol began to revise his views with himself: moralism, which grew out of increased personal self-awareness, increasingly pushes him towards spiritual self-education. In this case, the starting point is a new assessment by the writer of his inner world, a new self-awareness.

Gogol’s desire to present his new worldview was reflected in the publication entitled “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” (1847), which marked both the completion of the evolution of the writer’s philosophical views and his turn to a historiosophical analysis of the most significant aspects of world civilization and Russian society. According to E.I. Annenkova, this book represents “a kind of special phenomenon in which two leading trends of the time - interest in social issues and the search for the religious and spiritual content of life - appeared. in unity." Completing work on this book, Gogol noted: “I am printing it in the firm conviction that my book is needed and useful for Russia precisely at the present time.” From hidden reflection in his early works, the writer comes to an open sermon, the main issue of which is the problem of the development of Russia.

The book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” which became the fruit of eleven years of reflection by the Russian writer, presented a presentation of a social utopia, the main part of which was the project of a society with a total “Domostroevsky” regulation of all aspects of existence, in which the ideal state was conceived as an earthly likeness of the Heavenly Kingdom, and the ideal monarch is as a preacher of God's ideas. Hence the metaphysical and theological justification for royal power and social hierarchy. The main content of the book can be defined as a search for the future spiritual essence of Russia.

Gogol did not use any “correspondence with friends” in this book; only a very few articles vary individual thoughts that were previously included in actual letters. This is a purely literary work - a series of articles, which (and not all of them) are given only the form of letters, sometimes to real, and sometimes to imaginary addressees. Gogol's book is based on an analysis of the state of fiction, the social status of the landowner, the role of women in the creation and preservation of culture capable of influencing the world, and finally, the educational function of religion as the guardian of the spiritual culture of the people. Gogol revives the biblical tradition of prophetic denunciations and apostolic sermons and already in the first chapters declares his desire to influence society. The writer develops various forms of influence on society: the influence of women in society; the influence of the “governor”, ​​who drives out bribes and injustice; influence of the poet; the influence of “public reading”, from which “those who have never been shaken by the sounds of poetry will be shocked”; influence of playwrights; the influence of the Church on the flock; the influence on a person of “suffering and grief”, by which “it is determined for us to obtain grains of wisdom that cannot be acquired in books.” The program for fighting evil, according to Gogol, “should be the simplest, practical, utilitarian. Art, literature, aesthetics are not autonomous; their existence is justified only by the benefits they bring to humanity.”

“Selected passages from correspondence with friends” most fully express Gogol’s historiosophical views, which he expressed in the early period of his work, while teaching at the Patriotic Institute and St. Petersburg University. These views occupy an important place in his work and are a reflection of the writer’s interest in world history and the place of man in it.

In a lecture given at St. Petersburg University about the Baghdad caliph Al-Mamun, which was attended by A. S. Pushkin and V. A. Zhukovsky, Gogol characterized the caliph as a patron of the sciences, filled with a “thirst for enlightenment,” who saw in the sciences a “true guide” to happiness their subjects. However, the caliph, according to Gogol, contributed to the destruction of his state: “He lost sight of the great truth: that education is drawn from the people themselves, that superficial enlightenment should be borrowed to the extent that it can help its own development, but that the people must develop from their own national elements." Gogol expressed similar thoughts later. In his programmatic article “On Teaching World History” (1835), Gogol wrote that his goal was to educate the hearts of young listeners so that “they would not betray their duty, their faith, their noble honor and their oath - to be faithful to their fatherland and sovereign.” Gogol presents the history of mankind as the history of peoples, while historical individualism still dominates in its coverage. The role of peoples in Gogol is reduced to the role of inert masses who either follow the leaders or are suppressed by the iron will of individuals. Cyrus, Alexander, Columbus, Luther, Louis XIV, Napoleon - these, according to Gogol's scheme, are the milestones of world history.

Gogol's historical individualism stemmed from his philosophical anthropology, according to which man seems to renounce independent, conscious perception of reality, or rather, does not even suspect that this is possible. “Moreover,” notes P. M. Bicilli, “a Gogolian man sees, in the literal sense of the word, what is in front of him, as he is told to see... Without a push from the outside, a Gogolian man is in most cases unable to act.. All Gogol’s people are “dead souls”” (quoted from:).

Gogol's historiosophical views were formed during the period of cultural confrontation between Westerners and Slavophiles, so he showed special interest in the era of the decline of Ancient Rome and the advent of the barbarians to replace it. In the article “On the Movement of Nations at the End of the 5th Century” (1834), and then in the passage “Rome,” Gogol reveals the influence of Greco-Roman culture on the development of other peoples. He writes that this culture was able to recreate the barbarian tribes of Europe, pulling them out of savagery, because “Italy did not die. her irresistible eternal dominion over the whole world is heard, her great genius eternally blows over her, which already at the very beginning tied the fate of Europe in her chest, brought the cross into the dark European forests, captured the porcupine man with a civil hook on the far edge, boiled here for the first time with world trade , cunning politics and the complexity of civic springs, who later ascended with all the brilliance of his mind, crowned his brow with the holy crown of poetry and. arts. which until then had not risen from the bosom of his soul.” Gradually, this cultural movement is drawing all countries into its orbit, including Russia. However, further, with the aggravation of socio-economic and cultural contradictions in Russia,

so in Western Europe, the positive influence of European culture is questioned by Gogol.

Curious in this sense is the image of General Betrishchev, drawn in the second volume of Dead Souls, who believed that as soon as Russian men were dressed in German trousers, immediately “the sciences would rise, trade would rise and a golden age would come in Russia.” Western-oriented Russian intellectuals, according to Gogol, are among those home-grown wise men about whom Kostanzhoglo, another character in the second volume of Dead Souls, ironically remarked that they, “without first recognizing their own, become foolish of others.” It is necessary, Gogol emphasized, that a Russian citizen not only know the affairs of Europe, but above all do not lose sight of Russian principles, otherwise the “commendable greed to know foreign things” will not bring good: “Both before and now I was confident that it was necessary it is very good and very deep to know our Russian nature and that only with the help of this knowledge can we feel what exactly we should take and borrow from Europe, which itself does not say this.”

In the “Petersburg Tales” cycle, Gogol points out the internal devastation of Europe and the growing power of pragmatic philistinism in it, the refusal to search for “treasures in heaven” and the collection of “earthly treasures,” which is fraught with the threat of falling away from God. Most of all, this was expressed in the aesthetic decline of Europe and the birth of vulgarity. Behind the external splendor and improvement of the West, Gogol saw the beginnings of socio-political catastrophes. “In Europe, such turmoil is now brewing everywhere that no human remedy will help when it opens up, and the fears that you now see in Russia will be an insignificant thing.” Criticizing the Western civilization of his time, Gogol believed that only Orthodoxy preserved the full depth of Christianity, preventing humanity from moving away from God.

Gogol’s understanding of Russia’s historical place and the affirmation of its messianic role in the world are based not on external improvements, the international authority of the country or its military power, but on the spiritual foundations of the national character. Gogol's view of Russia is, first of all, the view of a Christian, aware that all material wealth must be subordinated to a higher goal and directed towards it. Comprehension of Russia, he believed, was possible through knowledge of the nature of the Russian national character. Gogol, wherever he could, wrote about Rus', Russian people, Russian land, Russian soul and spirit. His “Taras Bulba,” according to the correct observation of researchers, “turned out to be a pagan Russian epic, which was so lacking in Russian written literature and which produced the main deficiency of Russian literature - strong unreasoning heroes, beautiful, as in the Scandinavian sagas, in all dimensions.” From the heights of the history of Russian literature, Gogol’s “Taras Bulba” is assessed as an ideological, patriotic work of high quality, which has no equal.

According to Gogol, national character is not something given once and for all, immovable. Possessing some eternal, “substantial” features, it is formed and modified under the influence of certain geographical and historical conditions. Contrasting Russia with foreign countries, Gogol noted that Russia is still “melted metal, not cast into its national form,” it still has the opportunity to throw away, push away everything

indecent and to bring into oneself what is no longer possible for other peoples who have received the form and have been tempered in it.

Being influenced by the Slavophiles, Gogol considers Russia a country especially chosen by God's Providence. “Why is it that neither France, nor England, nor Germany are infected with this epidemic and do not prophesy about themselves, but only Russia prophesies? Because she, more than others, hears God’s hand on everything that happens in her and senses the approach of another kingdom: that is why the sounds become biblical among our poets.” Russia came closer to Christ than other countries; The truth of Christ lives unconsciously in the people's soul. The Russian state is Christian, moreover, a “heavenly state”, almost the kingdom of God. “Now each of us must serve not as he would have served in the former Russia, but in another heavenly state, the head of which is Christ Himself” (quoted from:). For Gogol, the concept of Christianity is higher than civilization. He saw the guarantee of Russia's identity and its main spiritual value in Orthodoxy. The Russian messianic idea is expressed in this hyperbolic form, characteristic of Gogol.

In “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends,” Gogol acted as a thinker striving to establish the best structure for the country, the only correct hierarchy of positions, in which everyone fulfills his duty in his place and is more deeply aware of his responsibility, the higher the place. Faith in a person, even if he is in a state of spiritual sleep, notes V. Zenkovsky, “is the principle on which Gogol stood, and, relying on it, he built his plan for a “common cause”, organizing life on Christian principles . It was this pathos of positive construction that determined Gogol’s criticism of modernity and his dreams of how “in every place” one can serve Christ and find the path of life.” All questions of life - everyday, social, state, literary - had a religious and moral meaning for him. Recognizing and accepting the existing order of things, he sought to change society through the transformation of man. What is important here is that Gogol no longer thinks only about the “Russian man,” as the Slavophiles did, in particular, but about man as such. And the writer called his book “a touchstone for recognizing a modern person.”

In Gogol's historiosophy, the fates of Russia, the Church and the autocracy are closely intertwined. His sovereign is the “image of God” on earth, embodying not only duty, but also love. “Only there will the people be completely healed, where the monarch will comprehend his highest meaning - to be the image of Him on earth, Who Himself is love.” Considering the future Russia as a theocratic state, Gogol did not hide his sympathies for the nobility as an educated class. In its “truly Russian core,” Gogol believed, this class is beautiful, it is the guardian of “moral nobility” and requires special attention from the Sovereign. Gogol set two tasks for the nobility: “to perform a truly noble and high service to the Tsar”, taking “unattractive places and positions, disgraced by low commoners,” and to enter into “truly Russian” relations with the peasants, “to look at them like fathers at their children.” ".

Gogol explained the reasons for Peter’s reforms by the need to “awaken” the Russian people, as well as by the fact that “European enlightenment was too mature, the influx of it was too great not to burst in sooner or later.”

from all sides into Russia and without such a leader as Peter was, it would not be possible to create much greater discord in everything than what actually occurred later.” He saw serfdom as a direct consequence of Peter’s reforms and called for thinking in advance so that “liberation would not be worse than slavery.” In the surviving chapters of the second volume of Dead Souls, the landowner Khlobuev says about his peasants: “I would have set them free long ago, but there would be no sense in that.” At the same time, Gogol tirelessly reminded of the sacred responsibilities of landowners towards the peasants. He saw the true abolition of serfdom not in the European proletarianization of the Russian peasantry, but in the transformation of noble estates into monastic ones in spirit, where the task of eternal salvation would take its rightful place.

N.V. Gogol’s historiosophical reflections were of a conservative-religious nature and fell out of the context of his contemporary socio-political situation, which caused a strong reaction to the publication of “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends.” Most of the reproaches concerned two subjects - distortion of Russian reality and slander against the Russian people. A negative reaction to the book followed both from the radical intelligentsia, for example A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky, and from the clergy (in particular, Father Matvey Konstantinovsky, who played a role in the writer’s burning of the second volume, spoke very negatively about the book "Dead Souls") The most serious accusations came from V. G. Belinsky, who in his famous letter wrote: “Even people, apparently of the same spirit as its spirit, abandoned your book,” meaning Slavophiles who were ideologically and personally close to Gogol of that time .

The reaction to Gogol's book showed that Russian society fell apart into two camps, whose positions differed in their attitude to the problem of Russia's historical and religious vocation. Very few of the writer’s contemporaries were able to understand his state of mind. These include, first of all, P. Ya. Chaadaev and A. S. Khomyakov. Thus, Chaadaev, not completely agreeing with Gogol’s assessment of the Russian church and its position in society, in a letter to P. A. Vyazemsky supported the enthusiastic tone of his reasoning about Gogol: “...With some pages weak, and others even sinful, in his book there are pages of amazing beauty, full of boundless truth, pages such that, reading them, you rejoice and are proud that you speak the language in which such things are said.” Khomyakov, having read the book, spoke of Gogol as an independent thinker.

With the release of “Selected Places,” an era began in Russia, called by N. A. Berdyaev “the new Middle Ages,” and the confrontation between two thinkers - Gogol and Belinsky - marked the beginning of the secularization of Russian culture. D. Chizhevsky notes that Gogol’s book did not represent “glimpses of madness” and was by no means a reactionary political step, but the fruit of the influence of patristic literature and Protestant ideas on his work. This influence can be traced in Gogol’s proclamation of the need to “church” all Russian life as a condition for the spiritual revival of Russia.

Following the Slavophiles, Gogol sees in the Church a way of finding oneself. Close to Gogol is the Slavophiles’ understanding of human existence as “a created being illuminated by the Church as a source of light.” "Eat

the reconciler of everything within our land itself, which is not yet visible to everyone, is our Church. It contains everything that is needed for a truly Russian life, in all its relations, from the state to the simple family, the mood for everything, the direction for everything, the legal and right path for everything.” No good transformations in the country are possible without the blessing of the Church: “For me, the idea of ​​​​introducing some kind of innovation into Russia, bypassing our Church, without asking her blessing for it, is crazy. It is absurd even to instill any European ideas into our thoughts until she christens them with the light of Christ.”

The ideal of the churching of all Russian life, put forward by Gogol, is based on his deep conviction in the catholicity of the Church. People are brothers, living for each other, bound by a common guilt before the Lord, mutual responsibility and responsibility. All individualism and selfish isolation are from the devil. In the spiritual realm there is no private property: everything is God’s, all gifts are sent for everyone. Gogol writes with bitterness in “Selected Places” about the absence of such conciliar agreement, about the chaos and discord that reigns around and which Dostoevsky would later call “isolation”: “Now everyone is at odds with each other, and everyone lies and slanderes each other mercilessly . Everyone quarreled: our nobles are like cats and dogs among themselves; merchants are like cats and dogs among themselves; Philistines are like cats and dogs among themselves. Even honest and kind people are at odds with each other; only between the rogues is something resembling friendship and union seen at a time when one of them will be strongly persecuted.”

The main source of such disunity and hostility, Gogol believes, is luxury, which everyone must strive to eradicate: “Drive away this disgusting nasty luxury, this ulcer of Russia, the source of bribes, injustices and abominations that we have. If you manage to do just this one thing, then you will bring more significant benefit than Princess O herself. And this, as you can see for yourself, does not even require any donations, and does not even take time.” At the same time, Gogol calls not to despair and not to be embarrassed by external unrest, but to try to restore order in one’s own soul: “It’s not a bad idea for each of us to look into our own soul. Take a look at yours too. God knows, maybe you will see the same disorder there for which you scold others. “Do not flee on a ship from your land, saving your despised earthly property, but, saving your soul, without leaving the state, each of us must save ourselves in the very heart of the state.” The writer connects his hopes for the salvation of his soul with the nature of the Russian person, who, according to him, knows how to be grateful for every good thing and who, as soon as he notices that another is showing sympathy for him, is almost ready to ask for forgiveness.

The book “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” did not become a spiritual manifesto of its time, although Gogol tried with its help to build a model of Russian development based on the values ​​of Orthodox culture. This book can be accepted or rejected, but its significance cannot be denied. "Selected places." is the fruit of many years of intense moral reflection and great spiritual experience. “In the moral field, Gogol was brilliantly gifted; he was

it is destined to turn all Russian literature abruptly from aesthetics to religion, to shift it from the path of Pushkin to the path of Dostoevsky. All the features that characterize the “great Russian literature”, which has become world literature, were outlined by Gogol: its religious and moral system, its citizenship and public spirit, its militant and practical character, its prophetic pathos and messianism.” N. G. Chernyshevsky emphasized at one time that works of art not only “reproduce life and explain it,” but also have a third meaning - “the meaning of a verdict about the phenomenon of life.” Gogol's works fully represented a verdict on the phenomena of Russian reality and had a prophetic meaning.

Turning to the philosophical aspects of the work of the great Russian writer N.V. Gogol allows us to significantly expand the horizons of understanding the writer’s works and become imbued with his prophetic ideas. Gogol not only pronounced a “sentence on the phenomena of Russian life,” but also managed to show ways of restructuring Russian life on the basis of beauty, love for people, and service to the Fatherland. Gogol’s call to himself to “create with great reflection” may well be perceived by everyone as an indispensable condition for a conscious lifestyle, the ability to reflect on the world around him and himself.

Literature

1. Voropaev V. A. Russian emigration about Gogol // Educational portal “Word”. URL: http:// www.portal-slovo.ru/philology/37129.php (access date: 10/05/2014).

2. Zenkovsky V.V. Russian thinkers and Europe. M.: Republic, 1997. 368 p.

3. Gogol N.V. Complete. collection cit.: in 14 volumes. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1937-1952. T. II. 1937. 762 pp.; T. III. 1938. 726 pp.; T. V. 1949. 508 pp.; T. VIII. 1952. 816 pp.; T. XIII. 1952. 564 p.

4. Mochulsky K.V. Gogol. Soloviev. Dostoevsky. URL: http://www royallib.com/read/k_ mochulskiy/gogol_solovev_dostoevskiy.html 0 (access date: 10/05/2014).

5. Mann Yu. V. Gogol. Book three. Completion of the journey: 1845-1852. M.: Publishing house of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2013. 497 p.

6. Berdyaev N. A. Spirits of the Russian Revolution. URL: http://www.elib.spbstu.ru/dl/327/Theme_9/Sources/Berdajev_duhi.pdf (access date: 10/05/2014).

7. Chizhevsky D.I. Unknown Gogol // Russian philosophers. Late XIX - mid XX century. Anthology / comp. A. Filonova. M.: Book Chamber, 1996. pp. 296-324.

8. Nabokov V.V. Lectures on Russian literature. M.: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 1996. 440 p.

9. Weil P., Genis A. Native speech: Lessons in fine literature. M.: Publishing House CoLibri; ABC-Atticus, 2011. 256 p.

10. Annenkova E.I. Gogol and Russian society. St. Petersburg: Rostock, 2012. 752 p.

11. Kantor V.K. Russian classics, or the Genesis of Russia. M.: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 2005. 768 p.

12. Gogol N.V. Collection. cit.: in 9 volumes. T. 9. M.: Russian Book, 1994. 779 p.

13. Belinsky V. G. Letter to Gogol. M.: Fiction, 1956. 29 p.

14. Chernyshevsky N. G. Aesthetic relations of art to reality. URL: http://www. smalt.karelia.ru/~filolog/lit/ch118.pdf (date of access: 10.10.2014).

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

"TOMSK STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY"

Faculty of Philology

Department of Literature

COURSE WORK

THE THEME OF THE LITTLE MAN IN THE WORK OF N.V. GOGOL

Performed:

Student of the 71st RY group

3rd year FF Guseva T.V.

Job evaluation:

____________________

"___" __________ 20__

Supervisor:

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor

Tatarkina S.V.

___________________

Introduction 3

Chapter 1 The theme of the “little man” in Russian literature of the 19th century 5

Chapter 2“Little Man” in Gogol’s story “The Overcoat” 15

2.1 History of the creation of “Overcoat” 15

2.2 “Little Man” as a social and moral-psychological concept in Gogol’s “The Overcoat” 16

2.3 Critics and contemporaries of Gogol about the story “The Overcoat” 21

Conclusion 22

Bibliography 23

INTRODUCTION

Russian literature, with its humanistic orientation, could not ignore the problems and destinies of the common man. Conventionally, in literary criticism it began to be called the theme of the “little man.” At its origins were Karamzin, Pushkin, Gogol and Dostoevsky, who in their works (“Poor Liza,” “The Station Agent,” “The Overcoat” and “Poor People”) revealed to readers the inner world of the common man, his feelings and experiences.

F.M. Dostoevsky singles out Gogol as the first to reveal to readers the world of the “little man.” Probably because in his story “The Overcoat” Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin is the main character, while the rest of the characters create the background. Dostoevsky writes: “We all came out of Gogol’s “The Overcoat.”

The story “The Overcoat” is one of the best in the work of N.V. Gogol. In it, the writer appears before us as a master of detail, a satirist and a humanist. Narrating the life of a minor official, Gogol was able to create an unforgettable, vivid image of a “little man” with his joys and troubles, difficulties and worries. Hopeless need surrounds Akaki Akakievich, but he does not see the tragedy of his situation, since he is busy with business. Bashmachkin is not burdened by his poverty, because he does not know any other life. And when he has a dream - a new overcoat, he is ready to endure any hardships, just to bring the realization of his plans closer. The author is quite serious when he describes his hero’s delight at realizing his dream: the overcoat is sewn! Bashmachkin is completely happy. But for how long?

The “little man” is not destined to be happy in this unjust world. And only after death is justice done. Bashmachkin’s “soul” finds peace when he regains his lost item.

Gogol in his “Overcoat” showed not only the life of the “little man”, but also his protest against the injustice of life. Even if this “rebellion” is timid, almost fantastic, the hero still stands for his rights, against the foundations of the existing order.

The purpose of this work- explore the theme of the “little man” in Gogol’s work based on Gogol’s story “The Overcoat”.

In accordance with the purpose, the main goals:

1. Consider the theme of the “little man” in the works of Russian classics (Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Chekhov);

2. Analyze Gogol’s work “The Overcoat”, considering the main character Akakiy Akakievich Bashmachkin as a “little man”, unable to resist brute force;

3. Using the material from the story “The Overcoat” by Gogol, explore the image of the “little man” as a school for Russian writers.

The methodological basis of the course work is the research of: Yu.G. Manna, M.B. Khrapchenko, A.I. Revyakin, Anikin, S. Mashinsky, which highlight the theme of the “little man”

CHAPTER 1. THE THEME OF THE LITTLE MAN IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 19TH CENTURY

The work of many Russian writers is imbued with love for the ordinary person and pain for him. The theme of the “little man” in literature arose even before N.V. Gogol.

One of the first to put forward the democratic theme of the “little man” in literature was A.S. Pushkin. In “Belkin’s Tales,” completed in 1830, the writer paints not only pictures of the life of the nobility (“The Young Lady-Peasant”), but also draws the readers’ attention to the fate of the “little man.” This theme was first heard in “The Bronze Horseman” and “The Station Agent” by Pushkin. It is he who makes the first attempt to objectively and truthfully portray the “little man.”

In general, the image of a “little man”: this is not a noble, but a poor man, insulted by people of higher rank, a man driven to despair. This does not mean just a person without ranks and titles, but rather a socio-psychological type, that is, a person who feels powerless in front of life. Sometimes he is capable of protest, the outcome of which is often madness and death.

The hero of the story “The Station Agent” is alien to sentimental suffering; he has his own sorrows associated with the unsettled life. There is a small postal station somewhere, not at the crossroads of passing roads, where the official Samson Vyrin and his daughter Dunya live - the only joy that brightens up the difficult life of the caretaker, full of shouts and curses from passers-by. And suddenly she is taken away secretly from her father to St. Petersburg. The worst thing is that Dunya left with the hussar of her own free will. Having crossed the threshold of a new, rich life, she abandoned her father. Samson Vyrin, having failed to “return the lost sheep,” dies alone, and no one notices his death. About people like him, Pushkin writes at the beginning of the story: “We will, however, be fair, we will try to enter into their position and, perhaps, we will begin to judge them much more leniently.”

The truth of life, sympathy for the “little man”, insulted at every step by bosses higher in rank and position - this is what we feel when reading the story. Pushkin cares about this “little man” who lives in grief and need. The story, which so realistically depicts the “little man,” is imbued with democracy and humanity.

But Pushkin would not have been great if he had not shown life in all its diversity and development. Life is much richer and more inventive than literature, and the writer showed us this. Samson Vyrin's fears were not justified. His daughter did not become unhappy; the fate that awaited her was not the worst. The writer does not look for those to blame. It simply shows an episode from the life of a powerless and poor stationmaster.

The story marked the beginning of the creation in Russian literature of a kind of gallery of images of “little people”.

In 1833, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” appeared, in which a “little man” with a tragic fate expresses a timid protest against the inhuman autocracy.

In this work, the poet tried to solve the problem of the relationship between the individual and the state. Pushkin saw the possibility of achieving agreement, harmony between the individual and the state, he knew that a person could simultaneously recognize himself as part of a great state and a bright individuality, free from oppression. By what principle should the relationship between the individual and the state be built, so that the private and public merge into one whole? Pushkin's poem "The Bronze Horseman" was a unique attempt to answer this question.

The plot of Pushkin's poem is quite traditional. In the exhibition, the author introduces us to Evgeniy, a modest official, a “little man.” Eugene is one of the impoverished nobles, which Pushkin mentions in passing, saying that the hero’s ancestors were listed in the “History of Karamzin”. Evgeny’s life today is very modest: he serves “somewhere,” loves Parasha and dreams of marrying the girl he loves.

In The Bronze Horseman, private life and public life are presented as two closed worlds, each of which has its own laws. Eugene’s world – dreams of the quiet joys of family life. The world of the private individual and the world of the state are not just separated from each other, they are hostile, each of them brings evil and destruction to the other. Thus, Peter lays down his city “in spite of his arrogant neighbor” and destroys what is good and holy for the poor fisherman. Peter, who is trying to subdue and tame the elements, evokes its evil revenge, that is, he becomes the culprit for the collapse of all Eugene’s personal hopes. Evgeny wants to take revenge, his threat (“Too bad for you!”) is ridiculous, but full of desire for rebellion against the “idol.” In response, he receives Peter's evil revenge and madness. Those who rebelled against the state were terribly punished.

According to Pushkin, the relationship between the private and the public should be based on love, and therefore the life of the state and the individual should enrich and complement each other. Pushkin resolves the conflict between the individual and the state, overcoming the one-sidedness of both Evgeniy’s worldview and the view of life on the opposite side to the hero. The culmination of this clash is the rebellion of the “little” man. Pushkin, raising the poor madman to the level of Peter, begins to use sublime vocabulary. At the moment of anger, Eugene is truly terrible, because he dared to threaten the Bronze Horseman himself! However, the rebellion of Eugene, who has gone mad, is a senseless and punishable rebellion. Those who bow to idols become their victims. It is possible that Eugene’s “rebellion” contains a hidden parallel with the fate of the Decembrists. This is confirmed by the ending of The Bronze Horseman.

Analyzing Pushkin's poem, we come to the conclusion that the poet showed himself in it as a true philosopher. “Little” people will rebel against a higher power as long as the state exists. This is the tragedy and contradiction of the eternal struggle between the weak and the strong. Who is to blame: the great state, which has lost interest in the individual, or the “little man”, who has ceased to be interested in the greatness of history and has fallen out of it? The reader's perception of the poem turns out to be extremely contradictory: according to Belinsky, Pushkin substantiated the tragic right of the empire with all its state power to dispose of the life of a private person; in the 20th century, some critics suggested that Pushkin was on Eugene's side; there is also an opinion that the conflict depicted by Pushkin is tragically insoluble. But it is obvious that for the poet himself in “The Bronze Horseman,” according to the formula of the literary critic Yu. Lotman, “the right path is not to move from one camp to another, but to “rise above the cruel age,” preserving humanity, human dignity and respect for the lives of other people."

Pushkin's traditions were continued and developed by Dostoevsky and Chekhov.

At F.M. Dostoevsky's theme of the “little man” is cross-cutting throughout his work. Thus, already the first novel of the outstanding master, “Poor People,” touched on this topic, and it became the main one in his work. In almost every novel by Dostoevsky we are faced with “little people”, “humiliated and insulted”, who are forced to live in a cold and cruel world.

By the way, Dostoevsky’s novel “Poor People” is imbued with the spirit of Gogol’s overcoat. This is a story about the fate of the same “little man”, crushed by grief, despair and social lack of rights. The correspondence of the poor official Makar Devushkin with Varenka, who has lost her parents and is being pursued by a pimp, reveals the deep drama of the lives of these people. Makar and Varenka are ready to endure any hardship for each other. Makar, living in extreme need, helps Varya. And Varya, having learned about Makar’s situation, comes to his aid. But the heroes of the novel are defenseless. Their rebellion is a “revolt on their knees.” Nobody can help them. Varya is taken away to certain death, and Makar is left alone with his grief. The lives of two beautiful people are broken, crippled, shattered by cruel reality.

It is interesting to note that Makar Devushkin reads “The Station Agent” by Pushkin and “The Overcoat” by Gogol. He is sympathetic to Samson Vyrin and hostile to Bashmachkin. Probably because he sees his future in him.

In the novel “Crime and Punishment” the theme of the “little man” is explored with special passion, with special love for these people.

I would like to note that Dostoevsky had a fundamentally new approach to depicting “little people.” These are no longer dumb and downtrodden people, as they were in Gogol. Their soul is complex and contradictory, they are endowed with the consciousness of their “I”. In Dostoevsky, the “little man” himself begins to speak, talk about his life, fate, troubles, he talks about the injustice of the world in which he lives and the same “humiliated and insulted” as he.

In the novel “Crime and Punishment”, the fate of many “little people”, forced to live according to the cruel laws of cold, hostile St. Petersburg, passes before the reader’s eyes. Together with the main character Rodion Raskolnikov, the reader meets the “humiliated and insulted” on the pages of the novel, and experiences their spiritual tragedies with him. Among them are a dishonored girl, who is being hunted by a fat front, and an unfortunate woman who threw herself from a bridge, and Marmeladov, and his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna, and daughter Sonechka. And Raskolnikov himself also belongs to the “little people,” although he tries to elevate himself above the people around him.

Dostoevsky not only depicts the misfortunes of the “little man”, not only evokes pity for the “humiliated and insulted,” but also shows the contradictions of their souls, the combination of good and evil in them. From this point of view, the image of Marmeladov is especially characteristic. The reader, of course, feels sympathy for the poor, exhausted man who has lost everything in life, so he has sunk to the very bottom. But Dostoevsky is not limited to sympathy alone. He shows that Marmeladov's drunkenness not only harmed himself (he is kicked out of work), but also brought a lot of misfortune to his family. Because of him, small children are starving, and the eldest daughter is forced to go out into the streets in order to somehow help the impoverished family. Along with sympathy, Marmeladov also arouses contempt for himself; you involuntarily blame him for the troubles that befell the family.

The figure of his wife Ekaterina Ivanovna is also contradictory. On the one hand, she is trying in every possible way to prevent a final fall, remembering her happy childhood and carefree youth when she danced at the ball. But in fact, she simply takes comfort in her memories, allows her adopted daughter to engage in prostitution and even accepts money from her.

As a result of all the misfortunes, Marmeladov, who has “nowhere to go” in life, becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. His wife dies of consumption, completely exhausted by poverty. They could not bear the pressure of society, soulless St. Petersburg, and did not find the strength to resist the oppression of the surrounding reality.

Sonechka Marmeladova appears completely different to the reader. She is also a “little person”; moreover, nothing could be worse than her fate. But despite this, she finds a way out of the absolute dead end. She was used to living according to the laws of her heart, according to Christian commandments. It is from them that she draws strength. She reminds her that the lives of her brothers and sisters depend on her, so she completely forgets about herself and devotes herself to others. Sonechka becomes a symbol of eternal sacrifice; she has great sympathy for man, compassion for all living things. It is the image of Sonya Marmeladova that is the most obvious exposure of the idea of ​​blood according to Raskolnikov’s conscience. It is no coincidence that, together with the old pawnbroker, Rodion also kills her innocent sister Lizaveta, who is so similar to Sonechka.

Troubles and misfortunes haunt the Raskolnikov family. His sister Dunya is ready to marry a man who is disgusting to her in order to financially help her brother. Raskolnikov himself lives in poverty, he cannot even feed himself, so he is even forced to pawn the ring, a gift from his sister.

The novel contains many descriptions of the destinies of “little people.” Dostoevsky described with deep psychological accuracy the contradictions reigning in their souls, was able to show not only the downtroddenness and humiliation of such people, but also proved that it was among them that there were deeply suffering, strong and contradictory personalities.

Further, in the development of the image of the “little man,” a tendency toward “bifurcation” is emerging. On the one hand, common democrats emerge from among the “little people,” and their children become revolutionaries. On the other hand, the “little man” sinks, turning into a limited bourgeois. We observe this process most clearly in the stories of A.P. Chekhov's "Ionych", "Gooseberry", "Man in a Case".

A.P. Chekhov is a writer of a new era. His stories are realistic and convey to us the author’s disappointment in the social order and satirical laughter at the vulgarity, philistinism, servility, and servility that take place in society. Already in his first stories, he raises the issue of human spiritual degradation. In his works, images of so-called “case” people appear - those who are so limited in their aspirations, in the manifestations of their own “I”, so afraid to cross the boundaries established either by limited people or by themselves, that even a minor change in their usual life leads to sometimes to tragedy.

The character of the story “The Death of an Official” Chervyakov is one of the images of “case” people created by Chekhov. Chervyakov in the theater, captivated by the play, “feels at the height of bliss.” Suddenly he sneezed and - something terrible happens - Chervyakov sprayed the old general’s bald head. Several times the hero apologizes to the general, but he still cannot calm down; it constantly seems to him that the “offended” general is still angry with him. Having brought the poor fellow to an outburst of rage and having listened to an angry rebuke, Chervyakov allegedly gets what he has been striving for so long and persistently. “Coming home automatically, without taking off his uniform, he lay down on the sofa and...died.” Because of fear. “The Case” did not allow Chervyakov to rise above his own fears and overcome the slave psychology. Chekhov tells us that a person like Chervyakov simply could not live further with the consciousness of such a “terrible crime”, which he sees as an accidental act in the theater.

Over time, the “little man,” deprived of his own dignity, “humiliated and insulted,” arouses not only compassion but also condemnation among progressive writers. “You live a boring life, gentlemen,” Chekhov said through his work to the “little man” who had come to terms with his situation. With subtle humor, the writer ridicules the death of Ivan Chervyakov, from whose lips the lackey “Yourness” has never left his lips.

Another Chekhov hero, the Greek teacher Belikov (the story “The Man in a Case”) becomes an obstacle to the social movement; he is frightened by any movement forward: learning to read and write, opening a reading room, helping the poor. He sees “an element of doubt” in everything. He hates his own work, students make him nervous and frighten him. Belikov's life is boring, but it is unlikely that he himself is aware of this fact. This person is afraid of his superiors, but everything new scares him even more. In conditions when the formula was in effect: “If the circular does not allow, then it is not allowed,” he becomes a terrible figure in the city. Chekhov says about Belikov: “Reality irritated, frightened him, kept him in constant anxiety, and, perhaps, in order to justify this timidity of his, his aversion to the present, he always praised the past... For him, only circulars and newspapers were always clear.” articles that prohibited something.” But with all this, Belikov kept the entire city in obedience. His fear “that something might not work out” was transmitted to others. Belikov isolated himself from life; he stubbornly strived to ensure that everything remained as it was. “This man,” said Burkin, “had a constant and irresistible desire to surround himself with a shell, to create a case for himself that would seclude him and protect him from external influences.” Chekhov brings to the reader's attention the moral emptiness of his hero, the absurdity of his behavior and the entire surrounding reality. Chekhov’s work is filled with images of “case” people, whom the author both pities and laughs at at the same time, thereby exposing the vices of the existing world order. There are more important moral questions behind the author's humor. Chekhov makes you think about why a person humiliates himself, turning himself into a “small” person, unnecessary to anyone, becoming spiritually impoverished, but in every person “everything should be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts.”

The theme of “little people” is the most important in Gogol’s St. Petersburg stories. If in “Taras Bulba” the writer embodied images of folk heroes taken from the historical past, then in the stories “Arabesque”, in “The Overcoat”, turning to modern times, he painted the disadvantaged and humiliated, those who belong to the lower social classes. With great artistic truth, Gogol reflected the thoughts, experiences, sorrows and suffering of the “little man”, his unequal position in society. The tragedy of the deprivation of “little” people, the tragedy of their doom to a life filled with worries and disasters, constant humiliations of human dignity comes out especially clearly in the St. Petersburg stories. All this finds its impressive expression in the life story of Poprishchin and Bashmachkin.

If in “Nevsky Prospect” the fate of the “little man” is depicted in comparison with the fate of another, “successful” hero, then in “Notes of a Madman” the internal conflict is revealed in terms of the hero’s attitude towards the aristocratic environment and at the same time in terms of the collision of the cruel truth of life with illusions and false ideas about reality.

Gogol’s “The Overcoat” occupies a special place in the author’s “Petersburg Tales” cycle. The story of an unhappy official overwhelmed by poverty, popular in the 1930s, was embodied by Gogol in a work of art that Herzen called “colossal.” Gogol’s “The Overcoat” became a kind of school for Russian writers. Having shown the humiliation of Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin, his inability to resist brute force, Gogol at the same time, by the behavior of his hero, expressed a protest against injustice and inhumanity. This is a riot on your knees.

CHAPTER 2. THE LITTLE MAN IN N.V.’S STORY GOGOL "OVERCOAT"

2.1 History of the creation of “Overcoat”

The story about the poor official was created by Gogol while working on Dead Souls. Her creative idea did not immediately receive its artistic embodiment.

The original concept of “The Overcoat” dates back to the mid-30s, i.e. by the time of the creation of other St. Petersburg stories, later combined into one cycle. P.V. Annenkov, who visited Gogol before his departure from St. Petersburg, reports: “Once, in Gogol’s presence, a clerical anecdote was told about some poor official, a passionate bird hunter, who, through extraordinary savings and tireless, intense work above his position, accumulated a sum sufficient to purchase a good Lepage gun worth 200 rubles. The first time he set off on his small boat across the Gulf of Finland for loot, putting his precious gun in front of him on the bow, he was, according to his own assurance, in some kind of self-forgetfulness and only came to his senses then, looking at his nose, he did not see his new thing. The gun was pulled into the water by thick reeds through which he was passing somewhere, and all efforts to find it were in vain. The official returned home, went to bed and never got up: he had a fever... Everyone laughed at the anecdote, which was based on a true incident, except Gogol, who listened to him thoughtfully and lowered his head. The anecdote was the first thought of his wonderful story “The Overcoat”.

The experiences of the poor official were familiar to Gogol from the first years of his life in St. Petersburg. On April 2, 1830, he wrote to his mother that, despite his frugality, “still ... was not able to make a new, not only a tailcoat, but even a warm raincoat necessary for the winter,” “and spent the whole winter wearing a summer overcoat "

The beginning of the first edition of the story (1839) was entitled “The Tale of an Official Stealing an Overcoat.” In this edition the hero did not yet have a name. Later he received the name “Akaky,” which means “kindly” in Greek, hinting at his position as a downtrodden official, and the surname Tishkevich (later replaced by Gogol with “Bashmakevich” and then with “Bashmachkin”).

The deepening of the plan and its implementation occurred gradually; Interrupted by other creative interests, work on completing “The Overcoat” continued until 1842.

While working on the story and preparing it for publication, Gogol foresaw censorship difficulties. This forced him to soften, in comparison with the draft edition, certain phrases of Akaki Akakievich’s dying delirium (in particular, the hero’s threat to a significant person was thrown out: “I will not see that you are a general!”). however, these corrections made by the author did not satisfy the censor, who demanded that from the final part of the story the words about misfortune befalling not only ordinary people, but also “kings and rulers of the world”, and about the theft by a ghost of the overcoats of “even the most secret ones” be deleted advisors."

Written at the time of the highest flowering of Gogol’s creative genius, “The Overcoat,” in its intensity of life and in the strength of its craftsmanship, is one of the most perfect and remarkable works of the great artist. Adjacent in its problems to the St. Petersburg stories, “The Overcoat” develops the theme of a humiliated person. This theme sounded acute both in the depiction of the image of Piskarev and in the mournful complaints about the injustice of the fate of the hero of “Notes of a Madman.” But it was in “The Overcoat” that it received its most complete expression.

2.2 “Little Man” as a social and moral-psychological concept in Gogol’s “The Overcoat”

The story “The Overcoat” first appeared in 1842 in the 3rd volume of Gogol’s works. Its theme is the position of the “little man”, and the idea is spiritual suppression, crushing, depersonalization, robbery of the human personality in an antagonistic society, as noted by A.I. Revyakin.

The story “The Overcoat” continues the theme of the “little man” outlined in “The Bronze Horseman” and “The Station Warden” by Pushkin. But in comparison with Pushkin, Gogol strengthens and expands the social resonance of this theme. The motif of isolation and defenselessness of man, which had long worried Gogol, in “The Overcoat” sounds on some kind of highest, poignant note.

For some reason, none of those around him see Bashmachkin as a person, but they only saw the “eternal titular adviser.” “A short official with a bald spot on his forehead,” somewhat reminiscent of a meek child, utters significant words: “Leave me alone, why are you offending me?”

Akaki Akakievich’s mother did not just choose a name for her son - she chose his fate. Although there was nothing to choose: out of nine difficult-to-pronounce names, she doesn’t find a single one suitable, so she has to name her son by her husband Akaki, a name that means “humble” in the Russian calendar - he is “the most humble” because he is Akaki “squared” .

The story of Akaki Akakievich Bashmachkin, the “eternal titular adviser”, is the story of the distortion and death of a person under the power of social circumstances. Official - bureaucratic Petersburg brings the hero to complete stupor. The whole point of his existence is to rewrite ridiculous government papers. He was given nothing else. His life is not enlightened or warmed by anything. As a result, Bashmachkin turns into a writing machine and is deprived of all independence and initiative. For him, changing verbs “from the first person to the third” turns out to be an insoluble task. Spiritual poverty, humility and timidity are expressed in his stuttering, tongue-tied speech. At the same time, even at the bottom of this distorted, trampled soul, Gogol looks for human content. Akaki Akakievich is trying to find aesthetic meaning in the only miserable occupation that was given to him: “There, in this rewriting, he saw some kind of diverse and pleasant world of his own. Pleasure was expressed on his face; He had some favorite letters, which if he got to, he was not himself.” Gogol's hero experiences a kind of "illumination" in the story of the overcoat. The overcoat became an “ideal goal”, warmed him, filled his existence. Starving in order to save money to sew it, he “but nourished himself spiritually, carrying in his thoughts the eternal idea of ​​a future overcoat.” The author’s words sound with sad humor that his hero “somehow became more lively, even stronger in character... Fire sometimes appeared in his eyes, the most daring and courageous thoughts even flashed in his head: shouldn’t he put a marten on his collar?” . The extreme “grounding” of Akaki Akakievich’s dreams expresses the deepest degree of his social disadvantage. But the very ability to experience the ideal remains in him. Humanity is indestructible even in the most severe social humiliation - this is, first of all, the greatest humanism of “The Overcoat”.

As already noted, Gogol strengthens and expands the social resonance of the “little man” theme. Bashmachkin, a copyist, a zealous worker who knew how to be satisfied with his pitiful lot, suffers insults and humiliations from coldly despotic “significant persons” personifying bureaucratic statehood, from young officials mocking him, from street thugs who took off his new overcoat. And Gogol boldly rushed to defend his violated rights and insulted human dignity. Recreating the tragedy of the “little man,” the writer arouses feelings of pity and compassion for him, calls for social humanism, humanity, and reminds Bashmachkin’s colleagues that he is their brother. But the ideological meaning of the story is not limited to this. In it, the author convinces that the wild injustice that reigns in life can cause discontent and protest even from the quietest, humblest unfortunate.

Intimidated, downtrodden, Bashmachkin showed his dissatisfaction with significant persons who rudely belittled and insulted him, only in a state of unconsciousness, in delirium. But Gogol, being on Bashmachkin’s side, defending him, carries out this protest in a fantastic continuation of the story. Justice, trampled in reality, triumphs in the writer’s dreams.

Thus, the theme of man as a victim of the social system was brought by Gogol to its logical conclusion. “A creature disappeared and disappeared, not protected by anyone, not dear to anyone, not interesting to anyone.” However, in his dying delirium, the hero experiences another “insight”, utters “the most terrible words” never heard from him before, following the words “Your Excellency.” The deceased Bashmachkin turns into an avenger and tears off the overcoat from the most “significant person.” Gogol resorts to fantasy, but it is emphatically conventional, it is designed to reveal the protesting, rebellious beginning hidden in the timid and intimidated hero, a representative of the “lower class” of society. The “rebellion” of the ending of “The Overcoat” is somewhat softened by the depiction of the moral correction of a “significant person” after a collision with a dead man.

Gogol's solution to the social conflict in The Overcoat is given with that critical ruthlessness that constitutes the essence of the ideological and emotional pathos of Russian classical realism.

2.3 Critics and contemporaries of Gogol about the story “The Overcoat”

The theme of the “small”, powerless person, the ideas of social humanism and protest, which sounded so loudly in the story “The Overcoat”, made it a landmark work of Russian literature. It became a banner, a program, a kind of manifesto of the natural school, opening a string of works about the humiliated and insulted, unfortunate victims of the autocratic-bureaucratic regime calling for help, and paving the way for consistently democratic literature. This great merit of Gogol was noted by both Belinsky and Chernyshevsky.

The opinions of critics and the author's contemporaries about Gogol's hero differed. Dostoevsky saw in “The Overcoat” “a merciless mockery of man.” Belinsky saw in the figure of Bashmachkin a motive of social denunciation, sympathy for the socially oppressed “little man.” But here is the point of view of Apollon Grigoriev: “In the image of Akaki Akakievich, the poet outlined the line of shallowness of God’s creation to the extent that a thing, and the most insignificant thing, becomes for a person a source of boundless joy and destroying grief.”

And Chernyshevsky called Bashmachkin “a complete idiot.” Just as in “Notes of a Madman” the boundaries of reason and madness are violated, so in “The Overcoat” the line between life and death is erased.

Herzen in his work “The Past and Thoughts” recalls how Count S.G. Stroganov, trustee of the Moscow educational district, addressing journalist E.F. Korshu, said: “What a terrible story by Gogolev, “The Overcoat,” because this ghost on the bridge simply drags the overcoat off each of our shoulders.”

Gogol has compassion for each of the heroes of the story as God’s “shallow” creation. He makes the reader see behind the funny and ordinary behavior of the characters their dehumanization, the oblivion of what so pierced one young man: “I am your brother!” “Significant words” pierced only one young man, who, of course, heard in these words the commanded word about love for one’s neighbor, “many times later in his life he shuddered, seeing how much inhumanity there is in a person, even in that person whose light recognizes as noble and honest...”

The fantastic ending of the story “The Overcoat” is a silent scene. It is not confusion and frustration that Gogol instills in the soul of readers with the end of the story, but, according to literary scholars, he accomplishes it through the art of words “instilling harmony and order into the soul.”

CONCLUSION

The story “The Overcoat” concentrated all the best that is in Gogol’s St. Petersburg cycle. This is a truly great work, rightly perceived as a kind of symbol of the new realistic, Gogolian school in Russian literature. In a certain sense, this is a symbol of all Russian classics of the 19th century. Don’t we immediately think of Bashmachkin from “The Overcoat” when we think about the little man, one of the main characters of this literature?

In “The Overcoat,” we ultimately see not just a “little man,” but a person in general. A lonely, insecure person, without reliable support, in need of sympathy. Therefore, we can neither mercilessly judge the “little man” nor justify him: he evokes both compassion and ridicule at the same time.

In conclusion, I would like to say that a person should not be small. The same Chekhov, showing “case” people, exclaimed in one of his letters to his sister: “My God, how rich Russia is in good people!” The keen eye of the artist, noticing vulgarity, hypocrisy, stupidity, saw something else - the beauty of a good person, like, for example, Doctor Dymov from the story “The Jumper”: a modest doctor with a kind heart and a beautiful soul who lives for the happiness of others. Dymov dies saving a child from illness. So it turns out that this “little man” is not so small.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Afanasyev E.S. About the fiction story by N.V. Gogol’s “The Overcoat” // Literature at school. – 2002. - No. 6. – p. 20 – 24.

2. Bocharov S. Petersburg stories by Gogol // Gogol N.V. Petersburg stories. – M.: Sov. Russia, 1978. – p. 197-207.

3. Gogol N.V. Selected works. – M.: Pravda, 1985. – 672 p.

4. Daniltseva Z.M. Tale by N.V. Gogol’s “The Overcoat” // Literature in

school. – 2004. - No. 4. – p. 36 – 38.

5. Zolotussky I. Gogol. - M.: Young Guard, 1984. – 527 p.

6. Zolotussky I.P. Gogol and Dostoevsky // Literature at school. –

2004. - No. 4. – p. 2 – 6.

7. History of Russian literature of the 19th century. 1800 – 1830s / Under

ed. V.N. Anoshkina, S.M. Petrova. – M.: Education, 1989. –

8. Lebedev Yu.V. Historical and philosophical lesson of Gogol’s “Overcoat” //

Literature at school. – 2002. - No. 6. – p.27 – 3.

9. Lukyanchenko O.A. Russian writers. Bibliographic

dictionary. – Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2007. – p. 102 – 113.

10. Mann Yu.V., Samorodnitskaya E.I. Gogol at school. – M.: VAKO, 2007. – 368 p.

11. Mashinsky S. Gogol’s artistic world. – M.: Education, 1971. – 512 p.

12. Nikiforova S.A. Study of the story by N.V. Gogol’s “The Overcoat” // Literature at school. – 2004. - No. 4. – p. 33 – 36.

13. Nikolaev D. Gogol’s satire. – M.: Fiction, 1984. – 367 p.

14. Nikolaev P. Artistic discoveries of Gogol // Gogol N.V. Selected works. – M.: Pravda, 1985. – p. 3 – 17.

15. Revyakin A.I. History of Russian literature of the 19th century. – M.: Education, 1977. – 559 p.

16. Truntseva T.N. Cross-cutting themes in Russian literature of the 19th century. Theme of the “little man” // Literature at school. – 2010. - No. 2. – p. 30 – 32.

17. 1400 new golden pages // Ed. D.S. Antonov. – M.: House of Slavic Books, 2005. – 1400 p.

18. Khrapchenko M.B. Nikolay Gogol. Literary path, the greatness of the writer. – M.: Fiction, 1980 – 711 p.

19. Chernova T.A. New overcoat of Akaki Akakievich // Literature at school. – 2002. - No. 6. – pp. 24 – 27.

Shuralev A.M. I am your brother (Gogol’s story “The Overcoat”) // Literature at school. – 2007. - No. 6. – p. 18 – 20.

“To be in the world and not have anything to indicate your existence - it seems terrible to me.” N.V. Gogol.

Genius of classical literature

Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol is known to the world as a writer, poet, playwright, publicist and critic. A man of remarkable talent and an amazing master of words, he is famous both in Ukraine, where he was born, and in Russia, to which he eventually moved.

Gogol is especially known for his mystical heritage. His stories, written in a unique Ukrainian language, which is not literary in the full sense of the word, convey the depth and beauty of Ukrainian speech, known throughout the world. Viy gave Gogol his greatest popularity. What other works did Gogol write? We will look at the list of works below. These are sensational stories, often mystical, and stories from the school curriculum, and little-known works of the author.

List of works by the writer

In total, Gogol wrote more than 30 works. He continued to complete some of them, despite publication. Many of his creations had several variations, including Taras Bulba and Viy. Having published the story, Gogol continued to reflect on it, sometimes adding or changing the ending. Often his stories have several endings. So, next we will consider the most famous works of Gogol. The list is in front of you:

1. "Hanz Küchelgarten" (1827-1829, under the pseudonym A. Alov).
2. “Evenings on a farm near Dikanka” (1831), part 1 (“Sorochinskaya Fair”, “Evening on the Eve of Ivan Kupala”, “Drowned Man”, “Missing Letter”). Its second part was published a year later. It included the following stories: “The Night Before Christmas”, “Terrible Revenge”, “Ivan Fedorovich Shponka and His Aunt”, “Enchanted Place”.
3. "Mirgorod" (1835). Its edition was divided into 2 parts. The first part included the stories “Taras Bulba” and “Old World Landowners”. The second part, completed in 1839-1841, included “Viy” and “The Story of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich.”
4. "The Nose" (1841-1842).
5. "Morning of a business man." It was written, like the comedies “Litigation”, “Excerpt” and “Lackey”, in the period from 1832 to 1841.
6. "Portrait" (1842).
7. “Notes of a Madman” and “Nevsky Prospekt” (1834-1835).
8. "The Inspector General" (1835).
9. The play "Marriage" (1841).
10. "Dead Souls" (1835-1841).
11. Comedies "The Players" and "Theatrical Tour after the Presentation of a New Comedy" (1836-1841).
12. "The Overcoat" (1839-1841).
13. "Rome" (1842).

These are published works that Gogol wrote. The works (list by year, more precisely) indicate that the heyday of the writer’s talent occurred in 1835-1841. Now let’s take a little look at reviews of Gogol’s most famous stories.

"Viy" - Gogol's most mystical creation

The story of “Viy” tells about the recently deceased lady, the centurion’s daughter, who, as the whole village knew, was a witch. The centurion, at the request of his beloved daughter, makes the funeral student Khoma Brut read over her. The witch, who died due to Khoma’s fault, dreams of revenge...

Reviews of the work “Viy” are complete praise for the writer and his talent. It is impossible to discuss the list of Nikolai Gogol’s works without mentioning everyone’s favorite “Viy”. Readers note bright characters, original, unique, with their own characters and habits. All of them are typical Ukrainians, cheerful and optimistic people, rude but kind. It is impossible not to appreciate Gogol's subtle irony and humor.

The writer’s unique style and his ability to play on contrasts are also highlighted. During the day, the peasants walk and have fun, Khoma also drinks so as not to think about the horror of the coming night. With the arrival of evening, a gloomy, mystical silence sets in - and Khoma again enters the circle outlined in chalk...

A very short story keeps you in suspense until the last pages. Below are stills from the 1967 film of the same name.

Satirical comedy "The Nose"

“The Nose” is an amazing story, written in such a satirical form that at first it seems fantastically absurd. According to the plot, Platon Kovalev, a public person prone to narcissism, wakes up in the morning without a nose - his place is empty. In a panic, Kovalev begins to look for his lost nose, because without it you won’t even appear in decent society!

Readers easily saw the prototype of Russian (and not only!) society. Gogol's stories, despite the fact that they were written in the 19th century, do not lose their relevance. Gogol, whose list of works can mostly be divided into mysticism and satire, had a very keen sense of modern society, which has not changed at all over the past time. Rank and external polish are still held in high esteem, but no one is interested in the inner content of a person. It is Plato’s nose, with an outer shell, but without internal content, that becomes the prototype of a richly dressed man, intelligently thinking, but soulless.

"Taras Bulba"

"Taras Bulba" is a great creation. When describing Gogol's works, the most famous, the list of which is provided above, one cannot fail to mention this story. The plot centers on two brothers, Andrei and Ostap, as well as their father, Taras Bulba himself, a strong, courageous and extremely principled man.

Readers especially highlight the small details of the story, which the author focused on, which enliven the picture and make those distant times closer and understandable. The writer spent a long time studying the details of everyday life of that era, so that readers could more vividly and vividly imagine the events taking place. In general, Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, whose list of works we are discussing today, always attached special importance to little things.

The charismatic characters also made a lasting impression on readers. Tough, merciless Taras, ready to do anything for the sake of the Motherland, brave and courageous Ostap and romantic, selfless Andrei - they cannot leave readers indifferent. In general, Gogol’s famous works, the list of which we are considering, have an interesting feature - a surprising but harmonious contradiction in the characters’ characters.

"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka"

Another mystical, but at the same time funny and ironic work by Gogol. The blacksmith Vakula is in love with Oksana, who promised to marry him if he gets her slippers like the queen herself. Vakula is in despair... But then, quite by chance, he comes across evil spirits having fun in the village in the company of a witch. It is not surprising that Gogol, whose list of works includes numerous mystical stories, used a witch and a devil in this story.

This story is interesting not only because of the plot, but also because of the colorful characters, each of whom is unique. They, as if alive, appear before the readers, each in their own image. Gogol admires some with slight irony, he admires Vakula, and teaches Oksana to appreciate and love. Like a caring father, he chuckles good-naturedly at his characters, but it all looks so soft that it only evokes a gentle smile.

The character of the Ukrainians, their language, customs and foundations, so clearly described in the story, could only be described in such detail and lovingly by Gogol. Even making fun of the “Moskalyama” looks cute from the lips of the characters in the story. This is because Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, whose list of works we are discussing today, loved his homeland and spoke of it with love.

"Dead Souls"

Sounds mystical, don’t you agree? However, in fact, Gogol did not resort to mysticism in this work and looked much deeper - into human souls. The main character Chichikov seems to be a negative character at first glance, but the more the reader gets to know him, the more positive traits he notices in him. Gogol makes the reader worry about the fate of his hero, despite his unpleasant actions, which already says a lot.

In this work, the writer, as always, is an excellent psychologist and a true genius of words.

Of course, these are not all the works that Gogol wrote. The list of works is incomplete without the continuation of Dead Souls. It was its author who allegedly burned it before his death. Rumor has it that in the next two volumes Chichikov was supposed to improve and become a decent person. Is it so? Unfortunately, now we will never know for sure.